>> tv wars. >> when people start to write articles about what might be wrong with the "today" show, you know where you should point oh the finger, point it at me. that was then. this is now. as morning king matt lauer become the new bryant gumbel. and will history repeat itself in late night with fallon versus leno? i'll talk to the author of that new magazine piece. and the shocking tweet from the brother of trayvon martin's killer. both making a gesture we can't show here. but tonight my exclusive with robert zimmerman, coming here to explain himself, face-to-face. did anyone think it would come to this. the white house closed to the american people for 18 days and counting. why do school children of families have to pay the price

for washington dysfunction? plus 17 going on $30 million. the high school senior who sold his company to yahoo!. what's next for the whiz kid? what's your next great idea? >> i was thinking about this. piers morgan live. we start with breaking news. a massive landslide in washington state, a would-be island north of the seattle has destroyed a home. and one of the homes, richard and jude barker, a retired banker. live 500 feet south of the landslide and join me now on the phone. welcome to both of you. richard barker, if you can tell me, we're looking at a scene taken a few hours ago. but it shows how perilous your position is right now in terms of the house to the landslide. you must be feeling scared about this, aren't you?

>> a little nervous, yes. >> tell me where you were when the landslide happened and what did you feel? >> go ahead, jude. >> we were asleep. we didn't feel anything. we weren't aware of it until the fireman came to our door to tell us about it, at about 5:30. >> and you both sound in remarkably good spirits. if this happened to me, i would be absolutely terrified. how are you managing to stay so calm, richard? >> what good does it do to be terrified, i guess. >> do you know any of the other homeowners whose houses have been affected, jude? >> yes, we do. >> are they all showing the same kind of stiff upper lip spirit that you are? >> one of them at least was that we talked to, because he's the one that came around after the firemen to tell us if they were having to check all of the water lines. >> and have you been warned at all that this could happen again in the next few days?

in other words, could your house literally disappear, do you think? what are the experts telling you? >> right now, not much. we've been told that they're checking it out. and if we need to evacuate, they will try to give us as much warning as they can. >> are you going to stay in there? i mean, i wouldn't take the risk, but you sound very plucky to me. are you going to stay there, richard? >> oh, yeah. this is home. and, you know, we -- we're going to stay here until we need to move. >> well, i completely admire your courage. it's a remarkable scene. and i suppose this is a question i don't really want to ask, but i will anyway. your value of your property must have absolutely plummeted, as well, as well as your land. >> our property is extremely valuable because of the view we have. >> well the view you used to have, richard. >> incredible view. but we laughed this morning and said, okay, it just went down

$100,000. >> well, it's got a very unique view now. remember, you can sell it on the unique view of nothing. which is what you now have. but listen, i appreciate you both joining me. i love your spirit. it's a true american fortitude in a time of crisis. and i wish you all the very best with it. thank you very much. >> thank you. >> it's great to talk to you. >> and to you. now i want to turn to the emotional interview you saw right here two nights ago, grieving mother, devastated of the death of her 13-month-old son, shot in the stroller, in broad daylight. sherry west told me two teenagers approached her, demanded money and shot and wounded her before killing her son. and then she told me this. >> i just -- i just hope, you know, that the shooter dies. i mean, i had to watch my baby die. and i want him to die. a life for a life. >> today, those teenagers, 17 and 15, were indicted for murder, since they're both juveniles, won't face the death

penalty. robert zimmerman jr. is here to explain this a shocking tweet he sent out a lot of people are calling racist, calling demarcus elkins, the 17-year-old, with trayvon martin. zimmerman, a picture speaks 1,000 words. any questions, unquote. robert zimmerman jr. joins me now exclusively. robert, i've spoken to you a number of times in the last year. i've read all the tweets you sent carefully. and there's no doubt they were incendiary. and i want to draw in particular attention to two of them. one is what you said here, alleged fb picks -- antonio santiago's alleged killer and trayvon martin, #uncanny. second one says, liberal media should ask if what these two black teens did to a woman and a

baby is the reason people think blacks might be risky. >> right. >> now, the first one i thought was very controversial. the second one i found blatantly honest. i thought was bordering on outright racism. >> right. >> it seemed to me what you were saying was this is why young blacks are risky. in other words, that is why my brother george did what he did to trayvon martin. >> yeah, certainly that's one way to read it. and that seems to be the way a lot of people have interpreted it. and i don't think twitter is the place to make points about what you recall a year ago. because the recollections that i have or that we have as a family specifically are very different than what can be portrayed in 140 characters. now, i realize those were controversial and offensive, and i did publicly apologize for them. i don't think it was the right thing to do that way. one -- the point about the pictures. it was a larger point on the media and their honesty in portraying the person who encountered my brother february 26th.

we've been led to believe that it's a junior high school aged person because of the pictures, the way he's portrayed. >> 17. >> we'll never interview trayvon martin. >> he's 17. a young 17-year-old boy. >> well -- >> who had gone from his father's house to buy some skittles from a store. >> okay. so now we're back to the skittles from the store. >> no, but the reason why i want to take you back to that, when you say -- what these two black teens do to a woman and baby, they shot the baby in the head is the allegation they have been charged with. >> right. >> a more gruesome crime would be hard to imagine. you are likening this to trayvon martin, who was unarmed. he didn't even have a gun on him. >> let me get back to the first tweet. what i'm saying is -- and, again, i understand it's controversial and i apologize for it and i'm sincere about that. i shouldn't have done it this way. and i don't disagree he was 17. i understand that. what i'm saying is, yeah, he was 17. and he did chose to portray

himself by his own hand in a certain way. and at this time last year -- >> well, a 17-year-old kid puts a picture of himself gesticulating in a slightly rude manner on facebook. that doesn't make him a killer. >> no, that's not what i insinuated. >> you're likening him to someone who has been charged with shooting a baby in the head, dead in a stroller. >> those are -- >> those are unbelievable analogy to make. >> those are your words. >> they're not my words. they're your words. alleged fb pictures, 13-month-old antonio santiago's alleged killer and trayvon martin. uncanny. why is it uncanny other than they're two young black boys. >> i'm going to try again. and unfortunately all you're seeing in that is color. and i'm going to try to redirect you to the point -- >> two young black boys. >> they're also 17. >> you go on to say liberal media should ask if what these two black teens did a woman and baby is the reason people think blacks might be risky. i'm trying -- >> i am address that. let's try to stay on topic, because i really haven't had a chance to respond.

>> explain what you mean -- >> i'm trying to. >> i will allow you to. >> what i'm saying is, both of these people were 17 years old. and before trayvon martin was a household name and before the other was a household name, they had an identity. and i'm not saying because you flick off a camera that says anything about you other than that is the way you choose to portray yourself. at this time last year the daily caller released trayvon martin's social media records, and we got to know a better picture of who trayvon martin was. those pictures were surrounded in some kind of cloak of secrecy, and they're not portrayed in the media. the pictures you'll see -- i don't know if you'll see them today, but the pictures you see generally. -- >> but with respect -- i don't think that matters a damn. trayvon martin, a 17-year-old kid, did a stupid picture on his facebook. >> i don't think it matters either. >> i'm sure if i studied all of their pictures, some would be flicking the bird. it's meaningless.

it's a draw with respect any kind of analogy between that and a 17-year-old, purely the same age, a young, black, 17-year-old teenager, who is accused of shooting a baby dead in a stroller with a gun. >> right. >> trayvon martin was unarmed. >> i understand that's what you're going to continue -- >> there's not an analogy without people saying you're a racist. >> i learned you can't make that analogy because it's a visual analogy and you can't explain. it was the wrong thing to do and i've been clear about that. but the analogy is, these are two people who chose to represent themselves in this way. one was accused of killing a baby. and whatever is in his social media makes the rounds immediately. and the next 48 hours, these things are very public and very well-known. and this is the self representation of this young man. is the way he's represented in public. however, the other person, who almost killed my brother, had he disarmed him -- my brother had every indication to believe he would have killed him -- his social media is off limits. the media is not supposed to

touch that, because they don't want you to know who trayvon martin was. the trayvon martin my brother defended himself from is not the trayvon martin you portray on your show. >> this is the trayvon martin your brother has told you -- >> no this is the trayvon martin who has a social media account and puts photographs out -- >> of him flicking the bird? >> i said photographs. there is a 2.0 at that people don't want to address. >> let me read you this, this is a statement of marco mara, the attorney for your brother. zimmerman case started the conversation about race in america. we must talk about race in a way that brings us together, not in a way that drives us apart. robert zimmerman's jr. recent comments about race only drive us apart. robert doesn't speak for the defense. he doesn't speak for george. they're clearly very angry. >> yes, they are very angry. and i don't disclose -- >> you know why they're angry? >> absolutely. and i understand why. >> let melee bare what people are saying. they are saying that when you,

as george zimmerman's brother, tweet that liberal media should look at what these black teens did to a woman and a baby allegedly -- >> allegedly. >> this is what you tweeted -- you didn't say allegedly in the tweet. you just said what they did. >> because the liberal -- no, no, no. because the liberal media was doing it last year to my brother, piers. >> let me read exactly what you tweeted. you didn't say allegedly. >> no, i'm saying right now. >> but there is an irony in you presuming the guilt. >> i'm clarifying the time line, because there was presumed guilt of my brother at this time and to this day by members of congress referred to as a murderer, and he is not convicted of any crime. >> well, he killed -- he killed trayvon martin. >> the allegation standard did not apply to george zimmerman march 26th of 2012. >> let me finish what i was about to say. you didn't say allegedly. so you have presumed the guilt of these two teens. >> the liberal media did not say allegedly, piers. go ahead. >> liberal media should ask if what these two black teens did to a woman and baby -- an

assumption of guilt there, no allegedly, is the reason people think blacks might be risky. this is why marco mara is so enraged by this. because it reveals to some, to many, i've seen the twitter reaction to this. it reveals a possible mind-set amongst the zimmerman family that young, black teenagers are risk -- because they're young black teenagers, which many say is exactly the reason your brother george shot and killed trayvon martin. and if he hadn't profiled trayvon martin as a young black -- >> i wasn't referring to them -- >> that he might be alive. and that's why what you tweeted is so sensational and why the defense for your brother have issued such a strong statement. >> correct. and correct to do so. because if i were an attorney and something like that landed in my lap to where it has evolved to which has made a racist tweet -- i made a tweet about here are two images about

two individuals, one accused of a crime, one who in our minds would have gotten away with a crime, had my brother not saved his life. the social media accounts of trayvon martin, the way he chose to portray himself, before he was a household name, are irrelevant. things about trayvon martin like marijuana pipes, allegedly, things we know now in evidence have come out. are irrelevant. it's irrelevant. if marijuana is found in his system, it's irrelevant. it's dismissed by an attorney, and it's not talked about ever again. and the images that are played again and again and again in the media are dated images. and you know how they're quoted, cited, presented, the context that's given. getty or a.p. whereas the images of george have dates. this is a mug shot from this time, this is a myspace page from that year. now this de'marquise, is he presumed guilty? >> you said guilty. >> no. >> you did. let me -- you seem to be -- >> no, i seem to be -- it's 140

characters. >> you presumed their guilt. >> i did not presume their guilt. >> liberal media should ask if what these two black teens did to a woman and baby is the reason people think blacks might be risky. the presumption of guilt, the very thing you have repeatedly on this show in the last year railed against about what people have done to your brother. >> and that's the key thing. that's the key thing about last year. the risky doesn't come from me. the risky comes from the people saying we are all trayvon and seen as risky. you know what the liberal media was asking last year, how does it make you feel george zimmerman is on the streets with a weapon. do you feel safe knowing the likes of a george zimmerman is still out? no, because he's a baby killer. no, because he's a child murderer, he's a racist. you can keep interrupting me, but these are fair questions. those were fair questions that

people asked. they were presumed fair that people asked a year ago about george. they're not fair today. to ask. correct? the liberal media, msnbc, is not walking up and down that street asking families if they're going to go walking their babies. and if perhaps if what these two teenagers did, which they didn't give my brother the benefit of the perhaps -- and people including members of congress to this day still don't, if perhaps what they did is why they allege they are saying themselves a year ago, hey, we're risky, and that's why george profiled us. and what i've been saying is, no, that's absolutely not the case. >> the trouble is, robert -- i've got to end it there. the trouble is, that isn't what you tweeted. what you tweeted is the presumption of guilt for these two black teens. >> what i tweeted is an indictment of the liberal media -- had the -- >> maybe we should ask if what they did. >> right. because the liberal media did a presumption of guilt on george zimmerman, starting february 26th, 2012, to this day.

and you know how they do it -- >> are you going to carry an tweeting? >> they indict him with photographs of trayvon martin that don't accurately portray the person that george encountered february 26th. he didn't encounter someone skiing. that. >> someone is not dead. >> correct. >> we should portray him ethically. >> he will have his case later this year and i imagine your tweets are going to be used by trayvon martin's -- >> i wouldn't go that far. who knows? i don't make assumptions like that. >> i would if i were them. do you accept what you did was not helpful to george? >> of course i did. i did something controversial. i'm a human being. i'm being upfront about what i did, i made a mistake. and this is a high-profile case and it's unfortunately may not have helped george. that's why i'm here tonight to explain. and that's why i accepted this invitation. >> robert, thank you for coming in. >> thanks, piers. when can he come back, winners and losers, matt lauer, jimmy fallon, jay leno, who will come out on top?

so nbc says we've got to put an end to this because it's the "today" show. so now they come up with these crazy stories about the other end of their programming day, "the tonight show" so all of that conversation comes up to get people's mind off the matt lauer stuff. now, if i'm on to something, blink twice. >> david letterman trying to get brian williams to talk about the morning show wars, and boy are they heating up. it's all about matt lauer's future. a lot to get to tonight. with me now is joe hagan, an expensive profile on the story, and howie kurtz. welcome, gentlemen.

this is a juicy bone for the media to gnaw on. really morning and late-night now. nbc has been so often in the last few years in the grip of this. how is it all going to wash up? if you were a betting man, where are we going to be in a year's time on the "today" show and "the tonight show?" >> as far as the "today" show, i would say that matt lauer will still be in that chair. nbc paying him a lot of money. nbc chief executive steve burke got on the phone with me to say what a good job matt lauer is doing. now, did nbc handle the oust of ann curry well? no, it was an absolute debacle, which is why he tried to slow it down. jay leno, i should probably look into being on some more comedy clubs, because he may have some time on his hands. >> do you think he'll be out in a year's time? >> i don't think it makes any sense to take a guy number one in the time slot, even though the tv critics, the new york wise guys think he's not hip and he's not cool, we went through this with conan.

but it does seem -- haven't seen a single denial from nbc saying the idea that he will be replaced at the end of 2014 when his contract expires by jimmy fallon. nobody is knocking it down. that looks like it will happen. >> joe, you did a terrific piece on the matt lauer scandal being billed into media circles. >> you didn't tell anybody -- >> let's look at two front pages. one is a hollywood reporter, almost exactly a year ago when matt signed this $25 million deal to continue "the "today" show" and there he is as the hottest guy in the business. cut forward a year. a picture from the same set, hollywood reporter had, and that tells the story. not a good morning. hard to think of anyone who hasn't been involved in a tiger woods scandal or anything of that nature whose brand has been so apparently damaged in such a short space of time over somebody leaving the show that most experts agreed probably wasn't working on the show.

>> well, you're right. it's been one of the most incredible arcs that we've seen in tv. i think part of it is the view people had of him before and after was such a wide one. the viewers made a judgment on him that was profound when ann curry left. and -- >> was it fair, though? >> i think it was -- it doesn't really matter if it was fair. the viewers were the judge. they are the judge of who has the highest ratings and they have to believe that what they're seeing on the screen, that these people are nice people, they're a family. i believe that, and at the moment they don't believe it, they don't believe it. and i don't think it helped that behind the scenes there were things that were upsetting and, you know, back-stabbing going on. and ann curry probably didn't help them repair that image, because she was genuinely hurt by what happened. >> it was very unfair, piers. i'm not saying matt lauer is blameless. and everybody knows ann curry wasn't his choice of co host and didn't have any chemistry on the air.

but the way he has been made the fall guy, including many in the media who seem to have turned on lauer -- >> very nice guy. in my experience, very kind to me, with no reason to be. take a little clip now from an interview he did on this show where we talk about the blame game. >> i take responsibility for it. when people start to write articles about what might be wrong with the "today" show, you know where you should point the finger, point it at me, because i've been there the longest and it's my responsibility. i truly feel that way and that's why i stick around. because i think there's more i can do. i can do it better. i still learn something every single day. and so, you know, i want the responsibility of trying to make it better and trying to get us into a better place. >> that was may of last year. now, joe, here's the problem. as a viewer, i love the "today" show. i actually co anchored the fourth hour with hoda once and really enjoyed it. >> are you available?

>> if money is right, everyone is available. resolutely committed here. we'll come to the cnn link in a moment. as a viewer, i can't help but look at it now and think that they've got a real problem. no one seems comfortable. matt seems to me like he's feeling the heat. and why wouldn't he be? getting so much of it. you look at savannah, feeling it too. the show is under so much scrutiny and tension. natalie doesn't seem happy. nobody seems happy. you click over to gma and you see a bunch of happy, smiley people having a party. that seems to me to be the problem they've got. how do you fix it? >> well, i think they have to get over this period of media attention. there's a book forthcoming, "top of the morning," reporter for the "new york times," they are waiting for that to land. >> which could make things worse because brian has been all over this, the "new york times" and on matt lauer's case. >> they weren't able to get out ahead of their own story months ago. this happened, and they hunkered down and hoped it would go away.

>> bad management? >> i think bad management -- change of management. they had -- everybody left. the president of the news division was phasing out. the producer of the show was phasing out. there was chaos there, frankly. >> the rumor today was that my colleague, anderson cooper, had been phoned up by an nbc executive -- this has not been denied and apparently anderson has told his own staff today at cnn, the call was made. he denied to me that matt lauer had called him to say "what are you doing" which seemed preposterous anyway. but anderson also told his staff he's not interested in going to the "today" show. what do you make of that? to be ringing people up of anderson's caliber and basically saying are you up for matt lauer's job? what does that tell you? >> one reason it gave me pause, i was able to report a couple weeks ago on the daily beast matt lauer had offered to step aside. told his bosses if he was hurting the "today" show he would move on. but i think -- i believe the "today" show is committed to lauer. and, you know, the fact that

anderson was called and it was a conversation, a lot of people who don't understand how this business works, maybe they're bringing him next week. you're always talking to talent in this business about when somebody's contract is coming up, would you, could you. and look, anderson cooper has been a main stay for cnn but also "60 minutes" a syndicated show for two seasons. he's somebody who might want to cultivate for the future. >> and i like anderson's office, so personally, selfishly speaking, quite happy if he goes over there. >> and we should add, look what happened with the transition with ann curry. they want to get out ahead of it -- as far in advance as possible. >> well, it's a fast-running story. lord knows where it ends up. but keeps us on the job, doesn't it, chaps? joe, howie, thank you both very much. next, 18 days and counting. what would it take to get the white house tours back up and running, and why should you have to pay the price for dc's dysfunction? that's after the break.

a video from congressman darrell issa blaming president obama for cancelling tours, now shut down for 18 days, the president says because of budget cuts and it's not his fault. we'll see about that. we'll bring in my all-star panel. welcome to you all. let me start with you, ben ferguson. i manage you're foaming at the mouth about this. so i find it completely baffling, i must say. it costs $74,000 a week to let these white house tours go on. 11,000 americans, mainly americans, go through the doors and see the home, that basically belongs to the american people. what do you make of this? >> yeah.

well, i think the president's duty and job is to run the country for the people. run america's house for the people, and keep it open for the american people. and the core of it is we're supposed to have access to our leaders. that's why we don't have royalty or a king here. but what he's done is, he's done the complete off opposite of that and said i'm going make the sequester as painful as possible for americans who would actually like to maybe the lifetime for a kid is to go to the white house and see the white house. and the president is obviously, and his staff have obviously said let's make this as painful and political as we possibly can to hurt people. meanwhile, his own kids are on spring break, their third vacation of the year, hawaii first, aspen, colorado second. and now they're in the bahamas. so they're not being affected by this. it's incredibly selfish. but also i think it's really childish by the president of the united states of america to do this. >> okay. abby huntsman, there was a time

last year when your family could have been at the white house. you were running your father for the presidency. has he got a point, ben ferguson? i find myself in the unusual position of nodding through most of what he just said. >> well, i don't think it's fair to point fingers, necessarily, at the obama girls. i am sure i probably would have taken a vacation once or twice the year my dad was president. >> three a month? >> we have to look at the bigger picture here. how much are we spending on travel, how much on security in look at vice president biden, one night in paris, nearly $600,000? you have to say, this is crazy. how much are we spending on all of this? and at the same time, not allowing white house tours. so i think the bigger the entourage you have and the more you're spending on travel, the less -- i guess the more out of touch our elected officials are with the american people. it's exactly why we need these white house tours. i agree with ben, though, it's these white house tours that keep the american people in touch with their elected officials. >> it's the american people's house. it's their property.

they pay for this. it's not barack obama's personal home. marjorie clifton, it seems to me that -- it looks like the president's chucking toys out here, punishing ordinary americans from seeing this great house, wonderful home of the president, for the sake of, what, 74 grand a week. it's a pointless point-scoring exercise, isn't it? >> well, you know, pretty harsh words about him being mean to children. but we think we have to look at what the sequestration is about. it was about cutting noncritical activities by the federal government. and look, every time any president is in office, there is a lot of scrutiny on both sides of the aisle about what's critical and not critical. and while i like to think peeking at the first lady's china pattern is a critical activity to a lot of people, truly visiting the white house is the ambiance and what it's about. but they did keep the capitol hours open. and if you look at civic activity, what engages people, what provides transparency, this is an opportunity where you see

how congress works and you can see things live and in person. when you go to visit the white house, nobody is there. >> but hang on, hang on. >> here's the thing. >> let me say something. i have actually got a solution here. >> what's that? >> the solution is this. american people would i'm sure be quite happy to pay $5 each to see the white house. why stop the -- >> absolutely. >> here's the thing. we already pay for it. >> $5 throughout the period of the sequester. problem over! >> here's the issue. we've already paid for the white house! and his staff and the vacations and everything there. it is something that we're paying for. the fact that we even have to mention adding another $5 in there is the insanity of this whole entire issue. we're the united states of america. we're not poor. and this president has had no problem spending money. $6 trillion he has added to debt. we can afford the white house being open. >> are you telling me george bush never took vacation?

>> i'm saying the president of the united states of america, george bush -- ma'am, ma'am. president george w. bush never closed down the white house to use as a political way to score points with the american people. that's wrong. >> you're getting way off topic. i think we need to get back to the bigger picture here. and where are we spending where it actually makes sense? i mean, we're talking about these huge entourages. >> what's going to happen is that the real threat of the sequester has yet to kick in. in a month's time when the tsa will walk out and suddenly no one can fly in america, there's going to be a lot of real anger on the ground. what i don't like about this, it's so petty. and the point you made about george bush, he's absolutely right. george bush had far more holiday than barack obama has ever had. including his family. so ben ferguson, when it comes to the holiday part, you lose. but if you stick to the white house -- >> here's what i'm saying. my point is this. if -- hold on, listen to me carefully. because this is my point. if we are really in such bad issues with our debt that we're

stopping white house tours, then i think the president of the united states of america should look at his own travel budget, if it really is that bad. and the point is, it's not that bad. he is doing it on purpose. and he can still go on vacations and so with biden at a half a million dollars a night in paris, because we do have the money. this is not about us not having the money. it's about them wanting to hurt people, and that's a problem. >> okay, okay. listen, we're going to leave it there. we're going to take a short break, calm down and come back -- let's get all excited about doma. which may be disappearing. wouldn't that be a tragedy for america? if that ridiculous act disappeared. we'll come back after break and discuss that. not in my house! ha ha ha! ha ha ha! no no no! not today! ha ha ha! ha ha ha! jimmy how happy are folks who save hundreds of dollars switching to geico?

happier than dikembe mutumbo blocking a shot. get happy. get geico. fifteen minutes could save you fifteen percent or more.

♪

your finances can't manage themselves, but that doesn't mean they won't try. bring all your finances together with the help of the one person who can, a certified financial planner professional. cfp -- let's make a plan. my all-star panel. so i want to play an extraordinary bit of television history. this is bill o'reilly, the king -- self-appointed king of cable news, saying this. >> the compelling argument is on the side of homosexuals. that's where the compelling argument is. we're americans. we just want to be treated like everybody else. that is a compelling argument. and to deny that, you've got to have a very strong argument on the other side. >> and the argument on the other side -- >> hasn't been able to do

anything but thump the bible. i support civil unions, i always have. all right? the gay marriage thing -- i don't feel that strongly about it one way or the other. >> the states -- >> i think the states should do it. >> ben ferguson, will you always remember where you were when bill o'reilly publicly supported gay rights in this extraordinary manner? >> you know, there's a lot of people like myself that support civil unions. and i think the interesting part about this argument is, there are so many people now that are on the pro gay marriage side that have been brilliantly making this argument that if you're against them, you're automatically a bigot, you're a homophobe, you are some sort of civil -- anti civil rights human being. and i think there's a lot of conservatives like myself that are in favor of civil unions. >> ben, are you married? >> but also are very clear. let me finish this real quick. let me finish this real quick.

there are a lot of conservatives like myself that are very clear on one issue. marriage has been defined between one man and one woman. and once you redefine it, where do you stop redefining it? because we all know the supreme court looked at this today. if we redefine it now, when the next group of people want to redefine it, then what does marriage become? and that's the reason why i'm in favor of civil unions. i'm not in favor of redefining marriage outside of one man and one woman. >> but then -- >> wait, wait. >> you're married, why not just get a civil union then? >> because i believe that marriage -- and the sanctity of marriage, and what it represents, was important for me and for what i believe in. and the history of marriage. there's also a religious background around marriage. and i'm not going to shy away from that. but, again, there are a lot of people that get married. and there's 43 states that have decided this. and even a liberal state like

california, for example, they voted to define marriage between one man and one woman. i'm not in the minority, but a lot of us have been -- >> ben, ben, actually, you are in the minority, because the latest polls show that over 50% of americans now support same-sex marriage. you are, whether you like it or not, in an increasing and very rapidly moving minority. >> and i think -- >> and piers, i would say this -- >> okay, ben -- your point first. >> if somebody calls you as a pollster and asks you a question about gay marriage, you do not want to be a bigot or offend somebody over the phone. but when people walk into a voting booth and they can vote their conscience, including california -- they overwhelmingly have supported, in 43 states, marriage being defined between one man and one woman. and that's the truth. >> let me bring in marjorie. >> ben brings up an important thing, i want to uphold history.

unfortunately, what will happen, you'll be on the wrong side of history. because there is -- what a lot of people are talking about the inevitability of this. and i was on capitol hill yesterday walking in front of the supreme court, and i have to tell you, if you just look at the audience standing out there, there are so few people that are there fighting this. there's actually so many people who are in support of, you know -- the idea of marriage being redefined. and if you look at even the religious groups that have come out in support, and you look at who is talking about this, and it's bill o'reilly, case in point. even the pentagon came out and made rights for same-sex marriages. and right now the onus is i think on congress and it's also on the supreme court in terms of definition. but either way, it's either by the state or federal. >> final word with abby. could you imagine a situation in 2016 where the republican candidate who takes on whoever the democratic candidate is, would be anti same-sex marriage? >> absolutely. we've seen this issue evolve very quickly over the past ten years. marjorie mentioned the public support for it.

we see especially the young generation, the millennials, 18-29. 81% now support gay marriage. more than 50% of the country now supports gay marriage. that's just where we're at. >> can you imagine a republican candidate who didn't support same-sex marriage in 2016? >> it would be -- i don't think they could actually win a general election. is my answer to that. and so i would say to ben -- >> ben, i'm going to leave you with the words "i disagree" and we'll bring you back another time to continue disagreeing almost everybody we put you on with. but we'll leave it there for now. thank you, ben, thank you marjorie, thank you, abby. i like this panel. this works for me. beauties and the beast. next, the team genius who made $30 million selling his company to yahoo!. wait until you hear what his next big idea is. #%tia[ ♪ i am stuck on band-aid brand ♪

♪ 'cause germs don't stick on me ♪ [ female announcer ] band-aid brand has quiltvent technology with air channels to let boo boos breathe. [ giggles ] [ female announcer ] quiltvent technology, only from band-aid brand. use with neosporin first aid antibiotic. [ babies crying ] surprise -- your house was built on an ancient burial ground. [ ghosts moaning ] surprise -- your car needs a new transmission. [ coyote howls ] how about no more surprises? now you can get all the online trading tools you need without any surprise fees. ♪ it's not rocket science. it's just common sense. from td ameritrade.

[ laughing ] ...is the crackle of the campfire. it can be a million years old... cool. ...or a few weeks young. ♪ [ laughs ] away beckons from orion's belt. away...is a place that's closer than you think. find your away. for a dealer and the rv that's right for you, visit gorving.com.

he's a 17-year-old genius. just sold his company to yahoo for tens of millions of dollars. not bad. someone still in high school. nick joins me now. what can you say? now you're a 30 million dollar kid. i know you can't talk about the specific figures. this must feel surreal, doesn't it? >> it's been an amazing journey for the past two years. i can't wait to continue it at yahoo. >> you bought a new sweater.

>> yeah. not this one, but yeah. >> you had been playing around with a few programs. tell me about the moment you thought of sumly. it basically aggregates news stories down to 400 words, in a way kids can understand it. when did you have the idea? >> it was when two years ago, when i was 15. i was reviewing for history exams in the u.k., i was using google and there's all this information. i thought, if you could get a summary of the content it would help you decide what you want to read. you can take any long form content and automatically summarize it into paragraphs. >> it's amazing. at the age of 15, a hong kong billionaire invested $300,000 into that. he was followed by ashton kutcher, yoko ono, steven fry and so on.

all investing in a kid. what was it about you, do you think, that they liked? >> i think it came down to the idea -- it's like the big play of the idea. a lot of younger -- as you said, the younger generation, consuming content on the mobile phone. this technology has the power to change the way people consume content. they back the idea. yes, because i'm young, i think it helped it. >> what do you think yahoo will do with your idea? are you hopeful it's going to be bigger? >> i'm enthusiastic by the opportunity. there's so much opportunity on the mobile platform. and sum race technology will be integrated at yahoo. >> a lot of complaining in san francisco, what are they doing giving a 17-year-old kid all this money? reaction? >> from my perspective, i think we have robust ip we've been

developing for the last two years. this is with stanford research institute. one of the people coming over in the acquisition, he's a professor in his late 50s who wrote the original book on summarization in the '90s. we have serious technology and big plans for it. >> do you think you could do a new campaign because he's worth it? >> no, i don't. >> really? >> how do you think she's feeling about you being worth $30 million? >> i don't think that comes into it. >> british entrepreneur who is kicking butt. it is great to see. it's a great app, my kids love it's a great app, my kids love it, well done. you may be muddling through allergies. try zyrtec® liquid gels. nothing starts working faster than zyrtec® at relieving your allergy symptoms for 24 hours. zyrtec®. love the air.

tomorrow, reverend franklin graham on issues that matters to all americans. it will all be on the table tomorrow. that's it for us tonight. now, the king of nighttime,