jon: we will being back here in one hour. jenna: "outnumbered" starts right now. >> this is "outnumbered." i'm andrea tantaros. here with us today harris faulkner democratic strategist and fox news contributor julie roginsky, political commentator spokeswoman for the libre, rachel campos duffy. today's #oneluckyguy hash, the man who making bankers shake in their fewchy loafers, charlie gasparino. >> not in the face, whatever. >> the last time you and i got together on the couch i ended up your back and you were doing push up. >> it was easy. >> i'm surprised you could walk young man. >> thank you for cowling me young. >> i do that with everybody. >> okay. >> let's work out the news,

shaly, charlie? hillary clinton pushing back against claims made in soon to be published book that could derail her presidential campaign. newly announced presidential candidate is set to deliver remarks and present awards at a ceremony in georgetown university. her team draws up a battle plan to discredit the information in "clinton cash," the book that claims the then secretary of state gave favors to countries that donated to her family foundation. they are circulating a three-page strategy memos to its allies saying in part quote these types of books are standard fare in political campaigns now, and this one is clearly part of a coordinated republican strategy. but this is not the first work of partisan fueled fiction about hillary clinton's record. we know it will not be the last. okay, charlie gasparino, is the "new york times" now part of this republican conspiracy? they're the ones that did this

initial story not editorializing charlie talking about how damaging this could be? >> i'm surprised she did not call this a right-wing conspiracy, blast from the past. i'm of two minds r minds. i would be more confident if journalism industry broke the story. this guy is political operative. >> he is gone after republicans too. >> that said, facts are facts. someone on the receiving end of lots of tips from operatives. that is where we get our stories. they do advance research and tell journalists. he is just eliminated the middleman right? instead of this guy going to you or to bret baier or some guy at "new york times," he just put it all in a book and threw it out there. that is the real difference here. i hate to say this, wannabe president clinton facts are

facts his book will being judged on the facts. so far, seems most of it is panning out. >> harris, typically campaigns don't react this way when they feel that something is big nothing burger. the fact that they're putting out this memo and sending their surrogates out in rapid fire tells me they're pretty worried. >> it just looks questionable, when you have her take herself out of the foundation not even a week before the book comes out. so you get an idea they knew this was coming. it is may 5th. it will come out officially for all of us to read. ahead of that "new york times" has a copy and potentially other news media organizations as well. so it is interesting to see them kind of put themselves in go gear. they had to know this was coming. what took them so long? you know what they're screaming in the back room you? used to do that in the campaigns. change the subject! talk about anything else. then boom, populist. "new york times" article campaign casting her as a

populist. talk about that. get as many memos out about that we'll do interviews on that and how she fought for the little man, blah blah, blah. >> watch for them to nitpick immaterial facts. >> you mean after the book comes out? >> i've written a bunch of books. they were journalistic books. one was somewhat political. >> this may very well be. >> they go after little tiny facts to discredit. >> little tiny fact, rachel. these are big facts. >> that is how they will attack it. >> she is trying to say this is nothing. just partisan attacks. however, this author has also gone after republicans. he is an equal opportunity, i would say challenger, as an author. investigative journalist. >> look for them to nitpick the author. if he was a woman i think they would be calling him a bimbo right now. this is a machine that has orchestrated attacks the messengers before. whether they were paula jones or kathleen willey. >> you think he is a

investigative reporter? >> i do. >> come on. >> julie roginsky -- >> just saying -- >> no "new york times," used to employ him. so clearly julie roginsky "the new york times" feels he was good enough for their payroll. they're not exactly part of a right-wing conspiracy. >> no. "the new york times" is excerpting book and doing follow-up research. charlie you don't trust them to do it. they're doing their own due diligence as fox news and bunch of other places. this is what i will say. what i said before. if i were republicans i'm about to give republicans advice. >> listen up, everyone. >> pigs are flying. >> give best advice possibly clan. clintons are immune to scandal. they have tried with the whitewater. they have tried with cattle futures. tried with monica lewinsky. kathleen willey. so on, so forth. still most popular woman in america. her husband is still most popular elected official. if i were republicans go after her on substance. go after her on substance.

don't go after her on scandal. it is not going to work. >> why is that? they doesn't could it in the past because of confluence of factors campaign contribution, speech or contribution from foreign government, paid speech by foreign government. those sort of confluences don't often mean anything other than there is a confluence and they speak their way around it. that is what this book is. this book will be like whitewater. >> which went nowhere. which went nowhere. >> this is the difference. this book isn't just about hillary clinton's personal life. this ties directly what you're saying going after her record. this talks about what she was doing when she was secretary of state. it is not just, what were the clintons up to behind closed doors with cattle futures or bill's bedroom. this is an administration, charlie, whose state department let me finish, was bought and paid for perhaps. that is a huge policy -- >> here is news flash. the clintons are sleazy. >> is this breaking news flash. >> that is why this thing in my

view -- >> you think americans don't care about that. >> no. >> talk about the timing. context of this. okay so you put out that the clintons are sleazy -- >> they are. >> like whitewater going away. >> cattle futures was worse. >> this is accused states sponsoring terrorism potentially taking money with horrible human rights records, potentially taking money and there being some quid pro quo with the clintons in their foundation. >> buddhist temples. >> look what is happening in the world right now with regard to terrorism. i would argue the date on calendar makes it very difficult to get beyond this particular category of scandals. >> can i give you answer to that? this is what clintons are likely to say. yes, we took their money. yes they're bunch of sleazy governments. we took money to improve quality of life for women. >> did it improve it? i tell you what i have read -- tell you what i have read, the people who were tasked at state department at the same time money was flowing into the

clinton covers for the foundation were working on keystone pipeline. i don't see any women benefiting from that. >> how much you bet six months we're not talking about this. >> agree with charlie about that. >> what am i betting on? >> dinner at the fish club. >> i will be talking about it to get the dinner. >> can i get in on that one? i agree. >> you worked for bob menendez. administration prosecuting bob menendez for the same thing. >> can i say that. you're absolutely right. we have to go. that is huge issue. administration prosecuting bob menendez. i'm with you on that. >> more on hillary. she is vowing to take on wealthiest americans, according to "new york times." clinton spoke to economists in off the record meeting about a plan to strengthen the middle class. "the times" saying quote mrs. clinton intensely studied a chart showing income inequality at united states. she pointed at top category and said the economy required, a quote, toppling of the wealthiest 1%. but hillary is part of the 1%

herself. her estimated net worth was more than 15 million in 2012. so rachel is this her campaign theme? if you elect me president i will bring myself down!? i will fight myself every step of the way? >> in fact one of her operatives said she was elizabeth warren before elizabeth warren was elizabeth warren. >> sounds like an "snl" skit. >> whole thing does. she kill topple herself. topple her neighbors. in hillary clinton was really serious about dealing with the 1%, she would deal with the 1% in five counties surround washington d.c. richest counties in the country. reason they're rich, because of lobbiest and big government and businesses trying to negotiate rules and regulations around government. that is how you deal with the 1%. she will never do that because she takes money from people. >> i know that face. >> here people behind the scenes are joyous we're talking about this because we're not talking

about the clinton foundation scandal. my goodness, a change of subject. even if they have to defend this in some way she was 1 1/2% whatever to get her out of this better than talk about the other thing. >> a complete ruse. as someone who reports on the 1% the other day her supporters among the 1% telling me right now, they predicted this weeks ago, this is ruse. she will beat them up for a while. that's what they said. they will take it. they will get beat up and quote, unquote go back to normal as one person told me. one of the 1% told me. they're expecting this, class warfare, adopting elizabeth warren sort of rhetoric. they believe they have a friend in the white house this is the liberal 1%, crony capitalists love to pay money for government contracts, they're all over, that is what clinton is all about since the whitewater days. >> you mentioned earlier, you were kidding, when you say news flash the clintons are shady. >> whoa. i said sleazy. not shady. >> okay they're sleeze sir

they're shady, sketchy no one is surprised. they're rich, not another shocker. do people care about this. >> no. lloyd blankfein at goldman sachs essentially paid hillary clinton for two hours of worth of mumbo-jumbo in conference room, $400,000 doesn't care. he thinks it's a ruse. larry fink, who runs blackrock who put cheryl mills -- >> why do they do it? >> this is the price to pay to get their person back in the white house, the queen of crony capitalism where her husband was the king of crony capitalism. >> back me up on this nobody did more to help wall street than bill clinton on wall street? >> and hurt main street as he was helping it. we don't have enough time to explain it. that is what he did. >> can we all agree this was one hell of a rollout, terrible campaign rollout? think about it. >> buying the state department. it is not good for her. >> we're talking about it.

you know what she is talking about, income inequality. we're talking about it, harris you nailed it. this is the best for the clinton campaign. >> inequality grew under her boss. >> best way to get the democratic primary. >> this friday, 10:00 p.m. eastern, fox news will air special news reporting on the tangled clinton web. anchored by "special report"'s bret baier. fox has exclusive television interview of the book that we've been vehemently debates on couch. plenty of original reporting. you do not want to miss it. the drug enforcement administration chief stepping down following a bombshell report about agents engaging in wild sex parties funded by colombian drug cartels. oh, yeah. one lawmaker is not buying the claim that agents couldn't be fired. plus moms and dad, pay attention. a shocking new survey shedding light onioning girls and pressures that they face, all thanks to sexualized images of

women saturating ads and social media. the lip craze you see with the kardashians, we'll talk about that. after the show, catch more on the couch on the web. outnumbered overtime aka, o-t according to harris faulkner. click the ot tab. tweet us questions and comments. get on the chat now. we'll fire it up for you right after the show. ♪

jack's heart attack didn't come with a warning. today, his doctor has him on a bayer aspirin regimen to help reduce the risk of another one. if you've had a heart attack be sure to talk to your doctor before your begin an aspirin regimen.

>> we're back with "outnumbered" and. michelle leonhart is leaving agency. lawmakers wanted her out after several dea agents had sex parties with prostitutes paid by colombian drug cartels. leonhart said she could not fire the agents because of the maze of civil service protections for government workers but house oversight and government reform committee chairman jason chaffetz doubts that is true. >> i do think the law needs to change so there is more absolute discretion for administrators there but she could have done some other things. a, she could have allowed the inspector general to go in look

deeper. they withheld than a pushed that back. if you're having sex parties funded by drug cartels you can't revoke their security clearance? are you kidding me? nobody bought that. >> sounds crazy to most people. charlie you have friend close to it you know what? maybe that is how it is? >> this is very difficult job for these guys. sometimes they need to blow off steam. >> stop. >> no, you did not. >> i'm only kidding. >> who hasn't been to a sex party by a drug cartel? >> might not see a change anytime soon? >> i don't think so. >> okay. so having you drop the mic on that point, i want to bring up a little thing i like to call journalistic context or the real skinny. >> right. >> timing comes this after miss leonhart, 59 years old parted with the white house of marijuana policy she was against legalizing marijuana around the

country and bending laws to reflect that democrats on the left saying, no, no, put somebody in her place who actually reflects where the country is on marijuana. there is this backstory andrea to the whole thing. >> this woman is getting run out because she doesn't have the same ideology as the administration that put her in the job and she didn't even get to go to one of these sex parties. not really fair for her. >> my goodness. >> does she know what dea agents are doing on the side? why is that her fault. >> if they can't police themselves, harris, how will they policing the drug cartels? if they can't self-regulate as organization and can't have laws changed by a president who by the way change any rules and restrictions with executive pen in two seconds, seen them do it, how are they supposed to fight a drug war? >> you think politics are behind this? andrea said said there are two -- >> bucks stops with her.

>> not anymore. >> if this happened on her watches this should have gone. >> how did she know there were sex parties in colombia? >> same people tend to blame barack obama for everything over little thing in the federal government. >> every little thing? >> people blame him for this. her agents are out there having sex parties with people. >> how many are. >> i don't care for what happened. they're not blaming her for what happened. they're blaming her for her reaction. like when trey gowdy interviewed her, she said she couldn't fire them. he said what the hell can you do to them. >> harris you brought up best point. i have to give you credit. this is why you're an emmy-award-winning journalist. >> oh, stop. >> her ideology on the administration drug policy. this is opportunity for them to get rid of her toss her out and put someone sees more eye-to-eye. >> they're getting pressure to do that. >> instead of firing agents. >> instead of firing agents. >> you can't fire the agents?

>> can give them more than two-day suspension? >> take away their clearance and they can't -- >> i find it absurd a couple bad apples having sex with hookers and smoking pot -- >> i think a lot lot of them do it. will only get worse because none are held accountable. >> we'll watch to see how who they put in her place. how they feel about the marijuana policy. >> she is political appointee. serves at the discretion of the president. they can get rid of her anytime they want. >> moving on. what is a u.s. destroyer doing in the arabian sea? we thought we knew. the pentagon said it is to prevent iran from arming rebels in yemen of the state department says nope, that is not why. deja vu all over again as we get mixed messaging from the administration. a big fight over raises. i love raisins. going all the way to the u.s. supreme court. what it could mean for business and government regulation.

stay close. ♪ so when my husband started getting better dental checkups than me i decided to go pro... with crest pro-health advanced. my mouth is getting healthier. my teeth are getting stronger. this crest toothpaste is superior in five areas. great checkup.

♪ building aircraft,

the likes of which the world has never seen. this is what we do. ♪ that's the value of performance. northrop grumman.

♪ >> welcome back to "outnumbered." some more mixed messages from the obama administration. this time over why the aircraft carrier uss theodore roosevelt is shadowing an iranian convoy near yemen. that convoy is suspected carrying rebels to -- weapons to rebels. they said the warship to fly manned reconnaissance of seven to nine iranian ships. then state department acting spokeswoman marie harf said this. >> i want to be very clear just so no one has the wrong impression, that they are not there to intercept iranian ships to do issues like that. that the purpose of moving them is only to insure the shipping

lanes are remain open and safe. i think there was some misreporting an confusion on this i want to be very clear. i know they spoke to it too but the purpose is not to do anything in terms of those iranian ships. >> today marie harf former boss jen psaki at the white house was asked about the remarks. her answer didn't provide much clarification. >> we always have contingency plans. that is what the united states does. we have the best military in the world but we also don't get ahead of predicting or laying out what we may or may not do. we're watching this closely. we're monitoring this closely. we have a range of abilities but we're not going to predict what will happen. >> well, so, you know, i guess this is a mixed message but we're at a delicate point andrea with negotiations with iran right now. at the same time we have to keep the strait open. at the same time we have leader not so tacitly supporting our allies saudi arabia and yemen is embroiled in pretty much a proxy war over there now.

so it's a mess. so can you really blame the state department and white house for not having a clearer message on this when dealing with some balls up in the air? >> this is not the first time they have been sing off different song sheets and i do think it is a bit of a problem. if we're going to send ships over to observe iranians delivering weapons, then what are we doing? are we essentially being es courts for the iranians? i think we've emboldened them, allowing to do nuclear research we emboldened them in the middle east and arguably create ad arms war, arms race in the middle east. that is really embarrassing. the administration should have a better answer. >> charlie, off that point, let me ask you this question, what is the alternative? what is the alternative, we fire on iranian ships delivering support to their allies? >> i think alternative is to have a policy. journalism said watch out for the word, this. we are monitoring this. we are doing this and there is no support of what this is, we don't know what this is.

and that is the problem. if you listen to that one woman said second one saki, used the word this five times explaining something we don't know what she is talk about. the problem begins with the fact that the obama administration, listen, i'm not against having some relations with iran. i'm not necessarily against a deal with the iranians under ce-tain circumstances but if you don't have overriding policy, if we don't know how we're dealing with them if the american people have no context to understand what this is, you got to be really -- >> harris, there is a school of thought. constantly have the doctrines makes you a little inflexible addressing certain situations. maybe what you said, charlie, there is really no doctrine. is this a bad thing because that allows you to -- >> i know what this sounds like journalistic point of view and cover state department and pentagon give you different

definitions on ships. u.s. ships in on important oil strait in the world. it wasn't by accident okay, that those messages don't match up. you got the message houthi rebels. are you saying this morning. houthi regular bells is calling for complete end to saudi-led airstrikes. this whole thing looks like ships waiting out for his guys in the sea. he says, that he will then, take part in a peace talk agreement after this. so i don't care what the messaging is, those guys got the message. clearly one of them was very strong. i would say the uss theodore roosevelt showing up at the back door, that is pretty strong. because of state department because of deal over nukes white house backs off hey we happen to be there. really? >> that is an interesting point because you also have saudi arabia which is certainly no angel in the region but they

are our ally, can he have to curry favor to some extent, variety of reasons one of which not the least is oil. we have to balance i were ran and nuclear deal. i'm not surprised by the mixed messaging because two or three audiences they're relaying messaging to. >> goes back to what is the obama foreign policy doctrine and what does this look like overseas. starts with marie harf, i'm sorry, doesn't evoke any kind of authority or, i mean i'm sorry feel like i'm watching an "snl" skit every time she sup there. >> oh boy. >> we don't know what is going on. we have to think about what does this look like abroad in terrible time? >> the only message you care about the rebels on the ground, they're getting a clear one america is coming. a california farmer taking his fight to keep his crop all the way to the nation's highest court. for decades raisin farmers turned over a large portion of their crop to the department of agriculture. they do it every year without compensation. one farm is fighting back saying

it is unconstitutional seizure of their property. shannon bream live right outside of the u.s. supreme court. shannon? >> the arguments just wrapped up. it stems back to a 1949 creation of the raisin administrative committee. it's a real thing. falls under the department of agriculture. they say they're about stablizing market prices. they do that in part forcing producers of raisins to turn over a chunk of their crops every single year taking them out of the stream of commerce. the government eventually sells raisins after the market settles an use the money to fund the commission. if there is anything left over give money back to the raisin farmers. guess what? there is a lot of years not money given back to the farms r farmers. the justs are looking at is this a taking under the fifth amendment which the government says they have to give you compensation back if they take your property. the government says, listen, by putting your raisins into the stream of commerce where the

government regulates what you do. this is part of how it all works. i talked to the farmer at center of this fight he has been fighting for years. he decide ad few years ago he wasn't going along to turn over his crops. he is facing millions in fines an penalties. here is what he told me why ever average american should care about his case. >> i would be worried serious about that. because if the government can come into your house and say, well you don't need this and you don't need that and we need this for society, and you're going to give it up and don't pay you for it, that is what every citizen should be worried about. >> reporter: most of the justices seemed pretty skeptical. justice alito brought up example if the government needs a good idea why can't it tell cell phone companies every fifth phone you produce give it away to someone who can't afford it? we'll have decision by end of june. >> that cell phone question is an excellent one. thank you for teeing this up. rachel.

>> the question is, who is better at deciding how raisins should be produced or how many should be produced? should be a bunch of centralized bureaucrats and special interests in washington or should be millions of consumers and farmers who produce the raisins? i think you look at even the telecom industry that used to be very heavily regulated, it is much better now and there is a lot more options and prices when you get the government out of these things and leave it to the people. >> charlie, i want to go back to the question shannon just brought up though, are they picking on little guy with farmers? they're not making hand over fifths but telecom communications people are making hand over fifth? >> agriculture is regulated much different way than telecom which is heavily regulated for different reasons. agriculture is a public good. i want to say this, i want to agree with the f agree with the farmer? >> just, i'm not a lawyer. i share drinks with judge napolitano a lot. discuss constitutional law. i know takings cases are

difficult. i will say one other thing the farmer i have seen the case in a past does not have constitutional right to grow raisins. >> why? >> i'm saying he does not have the constitutional right to basically grow one single crop. if that crop is heavily regulated for a reason the government might win this i'm not a lawyer but i have seen this sort of scenario play out in other contexts where the government wins. >> so we've seen this already with the supreme court though. >> right. >> milk, beef, other industries have complained that you know what? you're spending our profits on ads like remember the heard it through the grapevine ad? that hit raisins as well they wanted to take portion of what government deemed profits to pay for commercials to get us all to eat more raisins. should they have to pay for that if they're not being fairly compensated. >> did they challenge that. >> no the supreme court said, no we'll stick. >> when? >> this was 2005.

>> this is same competition of the court. >> dates back to onerous and oppressive regulatory framework started with the new deal. i've been reading about this they're basically getting him because you can't be a producer and hand lettering. that is what he is. he is growing grapes and drying and packaging selling grapes. what is the government doing as charlie points out? they come in to say we're regulating you as form of price controls. but they slapped him with a $700,000 fine, which goes to your point harris. this is little guy. he is just trading to make it. i think he has a case. it is scary. >> say one quick thing, farmers get paid by federal government all the time to grow crops, not grow crops. they're complaining about government intrusion stop taking subsidies. >> advocates that the horn family deserves several hundred $100,000 in compensation. they set aside 30% of the crop in 2003 and 2004. that is when the fight started.

we'll watch this one closely. it is in the courts today. as it makes news we'll bring it to you. meanwhile let's go to hollywood, shall we? another actor is talking andrea. be still your heart. he is admitting that he forced producers to censor a documentary show about his family history. why he says he wan embarrassed another example of hollywood's special treatment or hypocrisy. it doesn't say that in the prompter but we'll talk. ♪

♪ introducing the new can-am spyder f3. with a cruising riding position and the most advanced vehicle stability system in the industry... you'll ride with a feeling of complete freedom and confidence. visit your can-am spyder dealer and test drive one today. the new spyder f3. riding has evolved. the ready to ride sales event is on now. get a three year extended warranty and save up to two thousand dollars ♪ ♪

♪ ♪ [ male announcer ] meet jill. she thought she'd feel better after seeing her doctor. and she might have if not for kari, the identity thief who stole jill's social security number to open credit cards ruining jill's credit and her dream of retirement. every year, millions of people just like you experience how a little personal information in the wrong hands could wreak havoc on your life. this is identity theft and once every 2 seconds someone becomes a victim. lifelock offers comprehensive identity theft protection. the patented lifelock identity alert

system lets you know about threats to your identity by text, phone, or e-mail. and lifelock even offers bank account takeover alerts and alerts for your investment and retirement accounts. lifelock's comprehensive identity theft protection helps guard your social security number, your money, your credit, even the equity in your home. and lifelock's certified resolution agents are there to help restore your identity if you become a victim of identity fraud. they know what to do. and that's not all. lifelock stands behind their protection with the power of their $1 million service guarantee. you have so much to protect and nothing to lose when you call lifelock right now and try 60 days of identity theft protection risk free. 60 days risk free. use promo code onguard. order now and get this document shredder to keep sensitive documents out of the wrong hands. a $29 value free. ♪

or go to lifelock.com/onguard to try 60 days of lifelock identity theft protection risk free. and get a document shredder free. ♪ and help protect your identity your money, and your credit. ♪ s ♪ >> oscar winner ben affleck is admitting that he asked producers of the pbs documentary showing, finding your roots to edit out the discovery one of his ancestors owned slaves. now the issue first came up after wikileaks published an email obtained from last year's sony hack. affleck says in a facebook post, quote i didn't want any television show about my family to include a guy who owned slaves. i was embarrassed.

the very thought left a bad taste in my mouth. pbs releasing a statement saying pbs and wnet are conducting internal review led by our perspective programing teams about the circumstances surrounding the "finding roots" episode. they are denying that the because of ben affleck's request that it was taken out. if they find out that is why it was dropped in that case it was unacceptable. yesterday we talked about leo dicaprio are being outed because of sony hacking. this is the latest email scandal. ben affleck says i was embarrassed by this i wanted it edited out of this piece. is he right. >> he missed a huge opportunity. so your family has owned slaves. what have you done in diversity and making a difference in the country and around the world. talk about how that is generational part of your history makes a difference you

deal with people. what a missed opportunity there. i will say this, he put it out there he lobbied those shows producers the same way he lobbies directors in movies. movies in fact, gathering are very different vehicles. i have an issue with the producers that wouldn't fight harder for that material because it is supposed to be, sort of like an arm of journalism if you will. because it is based on fact. for him to have enough clout power, money, i don't know what the heck he took to the table to get a producer to do something for him, that is very different relationship than what you would have with a director. i have a lot of questions for people. >> this is real liberal hypocrisy. this is known as the public broadcasting network right? public money goes into this. for years conservatives say these guys taylor their programs to very specific liberal agenda. guess what, one of those hollywood liberals complains, let's be honest here this is something way in his past. not like we're talking his parents. he could have talked about it in

way, context, would have just fine. that statement would have been great if he said that on air. that should have been part of the program. this just shows that the corporation for public broadcasting whatever they call pbs is not about the public it is about the left-wing of this country. protecting themselves. >> can you blame them rachel? i will play devil's advocate a little bit. can you blame him this is embarrassing, humiliating i don't want this tied to me because often people tie, even though ben affleck had nothing to do with it, they can tie it to iim? in a way i read this i felt a little shim think for him. i understand why he did it. >> i had same reaction harris had. not just a missed opportunity for audience, as a parent with several kids, what a missed opportunity for his kids. the truth sets us free. this is how far our family progressed. he has some other, says his mother is big progressive human rights person. i mean he could have, he could show his family by the way who

doesn't have people in their family that they're embarrassed of? we all have that. >> absolutely. >> that is a topic for another day, believe me, people's family dangerous trend sweeping social media to get the pouty lip look, yes the trout pout of reality star kiley jenner. impact of trends like this and sex you'll'sized images of have onioning girls and moms and dads. you don't want to miss this. >> what did i do? i look like a fish. my god.

>> more "outnumbered" in just a moment. first let's go to my friend jon scott with what is coming up in the second hour of happening now. jon: hey harris. big news out of the pentagon. admiral john kirby will retire from the military and move from duties at the pentagon and replace jen psaki to become state department spokesman. kirby was the pentagon spokesman. we're keeping close eye on the fox extreme weather center.

we're also watching stocks. the dow is up over 50 points right now but there has been a lot of volatility as u.s. company profits take a hit on the strong u.s. dollar. lauren simonetti with an update for us. talks about rising prices at chipolte. that stock is down 6%. we'll have it for you. "happening now," harris. >> interesting, thank you, jon. jon: thank you. >> more proof that sexualized images of women in ads in social media lead to problems in young girls. new survey shows girls between 11 and 13 are more likely to worry, lack confidence or feel nervous than they were five years ago because they feel pressured to look and act a certain way. case in point a dangerous new trend encouraging girls to perform a beauty trick to look like reality star kylie jenner. the kylie jenner challenge is get your lips stuck on a shot glass to purposely swell your lips. the harm, besides bruising and

leaving damage on the lips. jenner responding in a tweet, to encourage young girls like me, be yourself and not be afraid to experiment with your look. >> oh, my god. >> this girl absolutely penetrated pop culture. she has 21 million followers. she has a line of clothes. what is the message she send something to young kids? why are girls so attached to social media and new trend altering their look to compete with these kinds of images? >> i will go on my kardashian high horse which i go on periodically. >> really. >> i have a thing about the card dab shuns they are a manufactured entity, not manufactured just from a pr perspective. manufactured from a physical perspective. these poor girls think they wake up to look like kylie jenner. ladies tell you something, that is a lot of plastic surgery her mother let her have before she was 18 years old. i have no evidence to back that up. it is fairly obvious.

>> kiley claims she has not -- >> come on. >> i'm excited between kim kardashian and now kylie i'm in. lips big and real. >> all the truth. >> i've arrived. >> you're on trend. >> you've always been in. >> oh, please. i had to wait for it to come into style, andrea. used to be girl competed with cool girls in the class. they're competing with celebrity. >> you can do permanent damage. people think it is temporary experiment. they have bruising that could be permanent. how is this hot? >> like duck face. breaks blood vessels around lines on your lips. like when somebody smokes get the little lines. and those don't ever get fixed. what it does on the inside is what matters. >> parents not monitoring twitterverse for these kids. >> that is very interesting. >> i wouldn't let my kids follow

these weirdoes. >> that's right. reminds me of jaime never certain it before. >> wanda. >> lawmakers getting along you know like real people, we'll tell you the reason behind the celebratory kiss between these political odd couples. ♪ were just as simple? thanks to angie's list now it is. start shopping online... ...from a list of top rated providers. visit angieslist.com today. 73% of americans try... ...to cook healthy meals. yet up to 90% fall short in getting key nutrients from food alone. let's do more... ...add one a day 50+. complete with key nutrients we may need. plus it supports physical energy with b vitamins. one a day 50+ ... ... ... ...

... ...

♪ >> house leaders from each political party like you rarely see getting along. here is house speaker john boehner giving nancy pelosi a smooch. and wow. it is hailed as a bipartisan achievement. what? the bill or kiss? if republicans and democrats can get along why is partisan ship so hard. >> what did these two ever do? >> this came out of medicare. >> should this give us hope they will get along? >> no i am going to be the buzz

kill. these guys don't socialize. o'neill and reagan used to socialize. and the problem now, they spend so much money in fundraisers -- >> that is all bull -- >> i would never curse like that. >> you think they hate each other? >> i know they don't like. >> it is like a judas kiss? >> they did it before? >> and wait a minute. rachel has a husband in congress and she might know about this. >> i think the kiss is going to anger a lot of conservatives. he has a lot of conservative mad at him. they don't connect with each other and part of it is the congressman starting in the mid90s and started to live in district. i belong to a bipartisan congressional club. and i don't go to meetings and

before when people lived in districts. >> that means living in the home state. >> and if you go to these bipartisan women's groups you are friends with the woman. and let's take our spouses out to dinner and people have relationships. and this president did little to build relationships and that is part of it. >> if boehner is honest he would have given them a kiss of death and say i always anyhow it was you, nancy. >> wow, we'll turn off your net flicks. >> he has the testostrown. >> is it creepy. the first kiss was awkward and creepy. >> there was no tongue involved. >> and the last one is leaning in. >> oh, my goodness. >> they appear to be getting

along in that photo. >> that is a kardashian list. >> and stay tuned for fox outnumbered on the web. and we'll be back with the tv version of us tomorrow "happening now" starts right now. >> and fox news alert. new allegations from the white house. house speaker john boehner accuses the administration and hillary clinton of not cooperating with a select house committee investigation. >> that has as the former secretary of state refuses to hand over the e-mails that happen in her time of state department. >> we have a terrible recruiting problem. >> young men busted on u.s. soil charged with trying to join isis overseas. how do we stop would- be terrorist from becoming radicalized here at home. >> it took folks time. >> and a mom