it's friday. it will be a two drink minimum and a cover charge but i would like you to show up. don't go anywhere. now you can watch tucker. ♪ >> tucker: welcome to "tucker carlson tonight." the downfall of hollywood producer harvey weinstein essentially complete tonight. the allegations are far too numerous to ignore. he has been fired from his own company and he is apparently in some kind of rehab facility talking about himself while the nypd investigates criminal charges against him. whatever happens next, you pretty much know what harvey weinstein's wikipedia entry is going to say 20 years from now. but the larger weinstein saga is just beginning. many powerful people knew what harvey weinstein was doing, and not only ignored his crimes but actively took his side against

his many victims. it's a long list, but at the very top of that list is nbc news. nbc had the story months ago. their former anger, ronan farrow, conclusively exposed mos against weinstein by women who say he sexually harassed, groped, even raped them, but the number killed that investigation. nbc news president noah oppenheim said the company had good reason for doing that, but that the company have good reason? chris gallagher is taking very close look at this question and he joins us with an answer. trace? >> tucker, and be seen as has been on the record saying the reason he decided not to run the ronan farrow story on harvey weinstein is because he didn't have enough reporting to go on the air. well, now, a number of outlets including "the daily beast" and "huffington post" are refuting that, saying that farrow began reporting back in january, and by july, he had interviewed at least eight weinstein accusers

and it also secure the coveted new york police audiotape of weinstein admitting he groped a 22-year-old italian model. listen. >> please, i'm sorry. just come on in. >> you're used to that? >> come in. >> den in august, a woman who accused weinstein of raped agreed to an on-camera interview as long as she was in so i do not identified. saying it not only did nbc news and refused to provide a camera crew, they would've tried to stop interview altogether and tried to stop farrow from reporting on the strap together, so farrow paid for the chemical himself. nbc says the opposite, saying, "ronan wanted to keep forging ahead so we didn't want to state in his way, and he took it to "the new yorker" and did a ton more extraordinary work." but as the people inside and outside nbc reportedly claimed

that they slow walk to the story and rented of the corporate chain. not just news president andy lack but all the way up to universal ceo, something news employees call unprecedented. in fact, some told the huff post that weinstein's attorneys tried to kill the story and nbc news appeared to be synonymous. and it should be noted that last week when "the new york times" first broke the story, both cbs and abc ran it during the evening newscast. nbc did not come out saying weinstein was not a nationally recognized figure. the same excuse was used for pulling a weinstein skit from "saturday night live" ." tucker? >> tucker: thanks, trace. let's be clear. nbc is lying. news division head noah oppenheim say they "encouraged farrow to run the story." the opposite is true. saying that he was given resources to report the story

over many, many months. maybe except for a camera crew. oppenheimer says farrow story was "not the story we were looking at what we made our judgment." i get another lie as farrow told rachel maddow, he finished the bulk of his reporting when he went to the "the new yorker." that is why the legacy and accepted his peace in the first place? mack. >> why did you end up running the story for the "the new yorker"? >> you would have to ask nbc and nbc executives about the details. i'm not going to talk about any stray they did or didn't run. >> it saying the story wasn't publishable, that it wasn't ready to go by the time he brought it to them. obviously it was ready to go by the time you got it to "the new yorker." >> i walked into the door at "the new yorker" with an explosively reportable piece that should have been public earlier and immediately, obviously, the new york recognize that, and it is not accurate to say it was not reportable. in fact, there are multiple determinations that it was reportable at nbc.

>> tucker: we bet money that her employer didn't want rachel maddow to do that segment, but she did it anyway. good for her. why did a purported news organization kill a blockbuster news story? presumably we will find out at some point. this is a scandal and the truth has a way of emerging from those in the end. one possible explanation is to be 25. in the addition to being the head of nbc news, is a screenwriter with deep ties to the movie business and the democratic party establishment. could it be that oppenheimer had a business relationship with the company? it is not a far-fetched possibility as all, and yet as of today, oppenheim refused to say. oppenheim ought to resign immediately, and if he doesn't, he ought to be fired immediately by nbc's parent company, comcast. news executives are not allowed to tell lies. they are not allowed to participate and cover ups. the act answer straightforward question straightforwardly. when they don't, you know they are corrupt, and that is exactly

what nbc news is. for more on the broader media efforts to protect harvey weinstein the middle of all this, we are joined by a reporter with "the hill" newspaper. so the red flag for me -- and these are very, located stories and we don't all the answers. but we do know that nbc news, open noah oppenheim and noah oppenheim's agent are refusing to answer questions. asking if they had any relationship with harvey weinstein or his company. they won't answer that question. what is the possible range of explanations for refusing to answer a simple question like that? >> that is what bothers me about that, tucker, that the head of a news organization is refusing to answer questions. he should go to, not the nbc news, obviously, don't keep it in-house, but find some other publication, somebody don't compete with. sit down and answer questions. it's exactly what you would ask a journalist with nbc news to do. you can break this down 100 different ways. two ways that stick out to me, and trace brought up in his

peace. 7.5 hours after the story broke on thursday, the nbc nightly news, which is watched by 8 million people, did not cover it. that's the new site. the entertainment side coming of seth meyers and jimmy fallon, didn't do any on harvey weinstein for five nights. then you have "saturday night live," as trace mentioned, there were jokes on weinstein, and then suddenly they didn't appear on air. those four entities decided that it wasn't a story or the code red came down from somewhere and said, were not going to texas and thus they absently had to because it was blown wide open. that was point number one. two, we talked about this many months ago. the "access hollywood" tape. nbc property, "access hollywood." and it just happened that this tape walked out the door, that they knew about for months, maybe longer, by the way, the content of it, ended up in a "washington post" reporter's mailbox two nights before the second presidential debate. by all intents and purposes, that should've ended the

election except the candidate was trump and his full foolproof to this sort of stuff, and obviously, he won. you look at those two simple explanations, right? those scenarios. when compared, tucker, what we sow this week from nbc news and particularly yesterday where they had a bombshell report, that said the president wanted to include -- or increase, excuse me, our nuclear arsenal temple. and they had that in quotes, right? and then president trump disputes that, but then secretary mattis says it is absolutely false. what was that story based on? unnamed sources. we don't know where those horses came from. would be some of his fathers, brothers, former roommate, we don't know. that was good enough to get to air. but ronan farrow, who had tapes, quit videotapes with actual accusers, that's not good enough for us. we don't want to get in your way. we don't want to get in your way? go take it to "the new yorker." tackle all that and ask yourself, who do you believe?

>> tucker: it's remarkable. i don't think in my life i have ever taken the side of a politician over a new numeric news organization. it pains me to do that. i think there lyra's and debasing their own currency. the not the only media organization to be cast into this. but amazon, jeff bezos, seems to been sucked into the spyros mcallen. do understand that? >> i read that on the way over here on the daily mail, you have a whole bunch of tweets from rose mccown, who was a big actress in the 90s, accusing bezos, the amazon owner, also by the way, the owner of "the washington post," killing a series that she wanted to get on the air, and said also that she was raped as well. he read a couple of tweets and it's hard to piece it together, but now what you're seeing here, tucker, this story has definitive breaks. it is almost now -- it is a week

old and it's going to get going and going because more journalists like "the huffington post," like thee daily basis, like cnn, and more journalists are going to be exposed for protecting weinstein and then news organizations. i think nbc was betting on, well, it's the era of trump and this thing is going to pull over because the new cycle move so fast, and it is not going away. people are not going to let this go. some people it's a very high places, have a feeling, are going to be exposed to this far more than harvey weinstein. >> tucker: the revealing part was watching the entire ruling class mobilized behind him to defend him and the indefensible. really interesting moment. joe, thank you. speak up thank you. spoon for more developments in the story, which is moving quickly, we are joined by a senior editor. thank you for coming on tonight. >> thank you, tucker, for having me, as always. >> tucker: first things first, where is harvey weinstein? >> it. he is now going to a rehab center in arizona, but where

harvey really is right now is in a crapload of trouble. if that nypd, scotland yard, and possibly, the l.a.p.d. looking into possibly opening investigations into criminal charges. >> tucker: i don't think you understand, dominic, harvey weinstein is the victim here. what do know about the rose mcgowan allegations today? >> here is books going on with this. we just had breaking news on this. this sexual harassment, obviously, big problem in hollywood, and it is now affecting amazon as well. they had just put the head of their tv division, right price, on leave for allegations of what has come out of sexual harassment that happened in 2015 with a top producer. that producer went public today. price is now out or at least shifted aside temporarily. as for this rose mccowan situation, a, let's give full points to rose. she was one of the first people talking about the harvey weinstein situation when no one was listening to her in hollywood. essentially what she is saying

is, she had a project and develop with amazon which asked them and told them about the incident with weinstein and asked weinstein to not be, and i quote her "bailed out. to effectively, it seems, killed her project. she is now calling fouled. >> tucker: have they responded? has bezos' office or amazon or "the washington post," has there been any kind of response to her allegations? >> it not on this matter, tucker, at least not as far as i can tell having come on with the air with you right now. again, like the weinstein case, this is something for every hour we are seeing something more. let's go back to one thing very clearly. less than a week after "the new york times" unveiled the story, less than two days after "the new yorker" published their story, they are now 32 women, including ashley judd, rose mccowan, gwyneth paltrow, and many more who are saying that they were sexually harassed by harvey weinstein. including in that, three of them revealed in "the new yorker," three of them are talking about rape which is why the nypd and perhaps the l.a.p.d. might start

looking this once again. >> tucker: it is hard to believe, if true, that something this past could have continued for this long without a huge number of people knowing about about it. it just doesn't make any sense. dominic, thank you for coming on. that was a great description of what the latest is. thanks. >> thank you, tucker. >> tucker: with all of the allegations against harvey weinstein, and they are mounting by the hour, one of the -- what are the legal consequences? will put that question to judge jeanine pirro, a longtime prosecutor specializing crimes. plus, the police can get their story straight about what happened in las vegas. to put it mildly, the press aren't asking any questions about why not. up next, we'll talk to a police expert about how this case got so bungled and what might have actually happened that tragic sunday in las vegas. stay tuned. [vo] quickbooks introduces rodney.

he has a new business teaching lessons. rodney wanted to know how his business was doing... ...so he got quickbooks. it organizes all his accounts, so he can see his bottom line. ahhh...that's a profit. know where you stand instantly. visit quickbooks-dot-com.

witness katy perry. witness katy perry become a legal witness. witness katy perry and left shark. or a card shark. grandma? witness katy perry work. witness katy perry firework.

witness katy perry swish. witness katy perry... aaaaaaw look at that dog! katy perry: with music videos and behind the scenes footage, xfinity lets you witness all things me. >> tucker: we've got breaking and unexpectedness in the harvey weinstein case. going to bring back dominic patten for the business applications of the scandal. what have you heard? >> we just published, tucker, at the time you and i were talking, my colleague, mike fleming junior, published a star with some of her other great reporter saying that the weinstein company itself, as harvey is looking down the valley's potential charges and allegations, the weinstein company itself, top hollywood agencies are now refusing to allow the talent to work with them, and looks like some financiers might be talking about pulling out money. in fact, the creator of "hamilton" has said he wants his film, he wants them to walk away from it.

that's big news, because now you're seeing what's happening with harvey personally, you're now seeing a company that might be on the brink. you can see all of this at deadline.com. >> tucker: dominic, thanks for that update. appreciate it. apart from the scandal, there is a very real legal element to the harvey weinstein saga. according to at least one news source, the fbi is reportedly investigating him right now, as is the new york city police department. we are joined now by judge jeanine pirro. before she was a judge, she was a very well-known prosecutor specializing in sex crimes. judge, where it is harvey weinstein stand legally right now? >> [laughs] in a lot of trouble, tucker. look, i heard the tape that the nypd, the special victims unit, put together. make no mistake, that tape would have been sufficient to

prosecute harvey weinstein, and the excuse that the tape was insufficient to prove a crime -- the tape that there was no intention on, or that there is no intention on the tape, the same argument that jim cole meet used with. the intent is the secret, silent operation of your mind, and in this particular tape, the intent is shown by harvey wants to make weinstein's own words. he says, oh, i'm sorry, oh, i won't do it again. she specifically says on the tape, "but you touched my breast." breast." he says, "i'm sorry, come in, i won't do it again." she was wired, she went to the police immediately. they see her on surveillance cameras running out, very upset, acting just like a young woman who had been groped would act. this is a predator. he is a serial predator. he has prayed on vulnerable

young women, and he dangles the carrot of fame and fortune and the ability to be in movies, and he has gotten away with it. there was a question as to whether or not cyrus vance, the d.a. who injected this tape by the nypd has taken money from harvey weinstein, and i'm not suggesting that they are necessarily connected, but here is the bottom line. an ada worth his or her salt would have gone forward with a jury because this isn't just a he said, she said. this is a she said, he said, and then he said exactly what she said on the tape. >> tucker: we know that cyrus vance, the prosecutor he referred to, did take apparently $10,000 from the in-house democratic party lawyer, worked for the clintons and work for harvey weinstein, was representing weinstein in this matter. wouldn't that be improper for a prosecutor to take money from a

lawyer who is casey had just dropped? i don't understand how that is allowed. >> unless you can show a nexus, tucker, look, david boies represents all sorts of people, and that would be hard to show a nexus between that case and that contribution and harvey weinstein. but you don't even need to go that far, tucker. you've got a case here, and any prosecutor worth his or her salt would have gone forward with that case. >> tucker: so why didn't they? >> the nypd didn't do their job. this is a stellar job wiring up a victim who, by all accounts, was impeccable in catching him in this case. >> tucker: it sure seems like it was not their fault. i don't know how much tighter they could have made the case. advocates back to the central question. you never want to think prosecutors are corrupt because that is the deeper kind of

corruption, but why when cy vance have gone forward with this? >> i can't get into cy vance's mind, i don't know what he was thinking. but it's just as people say. when you got a case with a high profile defendant, the prosecutors very often say to themselves, is this going to be worth it? is she credible? this guy is going to bring in all of the big guns, all the money. but the truth is on the tape, tucker. there is nothing to argue here. turn on the tape, that the jury listen to it and send them into the deliberation room to deliberate. >> tucker: you think of all the cases that don't have ethical forward. really quickly, what is harvey weinstein stand now? daily mail reports they are looking into him. do you think he is in legal jeopardy now? >> do i think? i know he is in legal jeopardy now. this guy is a serial predator. he is a recidivist. based upon the simple stuff that we've been reading in the media, he has been doing it over and

over. he has admitted he has been doing it over and over, and he claimed that, gee, i'm sorry, i'm going to get help, nobody cares, harvey, if you could help. we are not social service workers. we are law enforcement. we are d.a.s. the article not just a system. it is time for you to fess up, although he already has fessed up in many different ways. it is time for justice, period. >> tucker: i don't know how going a thousand dollar night facility to talk about yourself with a therapist is exculpatory in any way, but they keep pointing to it. george jeanine, former prosecutor jeanine pirro, thanks for joining us tonight. >> thank you, tucker. >> tucker: harvey weinstein of the only sexual predator in hollywood. there is the understatement of the year. up next, a singer-songwriter would tell us about the harassment she faced during her years in the industry. years in the industry. there was an old woman who lived in a shoe. she had so many children she had to buy lots of groceries. while she was shopping for organic fruits and veggies, burglars broke into her shoe.

they stole her kids' mountain bikes and tablets along with her new juice press. luckily the geico insurance agency had helped her with homeowners insurance. she got full replacement on the stolen goods and started a mountain bike juice delivery service. call geico and see how affordable homeowners insurance can be.

>> tucker: well, harvey weinstein is in deep trouble tonight, as we noted, but his personal downfall by itself will do nothing to fix what is apparently a pretty toxic culture and the broader entertainment industry. we have a singer and songwriter, has been for a while, a sexual sexual -- she says sexual harassment and even rape are deeply ingrained in that world, the entertainment world. thank you for coming on. >> hi, tucker. >> tucker: i think anybody who is covering this story has gotten the text from people in l.a. saying this is nothing. you have been in that world. how common is this?

>> that's right. it's absolutely prominent. that's the problem. the reason it was kept secret for so long is because it was normal. in the entertainment industry, it's very, very common for higher upper-level execs to pray on young artists. that is the biggest shock and that, people in the entertainment industry are not shocked at this. >> tucker: when you went into it, did you know that? >> i had heard many stories. i'll tell you, i was, you know, a good girl from california. i hadn't heard a lot of stories, enough stories to warn me from it, but when i went in -- first i became disillusioned with the whole hollywood trap. i said, is this really how it is? why am i trying to be an artist if ongoing to get is people trying to touch me and hurt me and take for me, and i realized i have to stay in this industry to make it. so it became sort of a battle, a day-to-day battle, and i learned very quickly, within a couple of

months, with this industry is about. >> tucker: be specific, what is it like for a young woman your business? what are young women likely to encounter? >> tucker, for instance, i was propositioned by a great agency in burbank, california. it was only my first couple of months being in los angeles. i sent in bikini pictures. bikini photos are very common in this industry, you know, just to see what your body looks like. nothing lewd. one of the agent said, we want to see you. the main guy, the ceo of the agency, would like to see you. we love what you look like. so was ushered into a meeting with the owner with , the main . i was very, very excited. i was all of probably 19 years old. and he closed the door and said, we love what you look like, and if you make me feel good, i can make you rich and famous. you give me something, i'll give you something. what do you say? and i was actually disgusted and i turned around.

i was embarrassed. i looked down at the carpet. i said, i'm so sorry, this is not for me. no thank you. and i backed out of there as fast as i could. but unfortunately, i was probably one of many girls had propositioned and it was very straightforward. >> tucker: he was that direct about it? there was no mistaking his meaning at all. >> no. that was the worst thing. it was not something sort of slide. it wasn't even a wink-wink. it was, here's the deal. you do this for me and i will make it worth your while. it was straight strata prostitd that is how hollywood is from these days. we are going to see a lot of these stories come out even more because the tower of hollywood, this hollywood swamp, is starting to crumble. if weinstein is getting, you know, pulled to the surface, all of these other smaller players are going to start to be -- >> tucker: i believe you, of course i do, never the same thing from others, but the part i don't understand is why nobody said anything.

that is so over-the-top. why is this the first time we're hearing this? >> honestly, it's not really the first time you're hearing it. >> tucker: i guess that's true. >> a lot of people tried to say things. it's just -- it's so overlooked and it's oh, oh, you know, she's just unhappy because she didn't get cast for the role. she is jealous. she wanted the role, so she's going to make up stories. it's buried by the actual establishment of hollywood. it's not just one evil guy. it's not just that one moment, that one perpetrator pig, it is everyone around him that is perpetrating the story and not letting other people speak. also, they get paid off. what is a cool $100,000 to keep your mouth shut. so what if you give up your life and your career? >> tucker: you kind of wonder where the feminists have been in all that. a fair question. joy, thanks for talking to us. >> not talking. thanks, tucker, appreciate it. >> tucker: chief of staff john kelly made his first public

appearance at the press briefing today, he used it to deny her parsers and discourse to make discord between himself and the president. >> offered to you that, although i read it all the time pretty consistently, i'm not quitting today. [laughter] i don't believe -- and i just talked to the president -- i don't believe i'm being fired today. my perspective, with respect to deborah in the room, when i come to work in the morning and read about things that i allegedly said are things that mr. trump allegedly said or people who are going to be fired or whatever, and it's just not true. that's my frustration. and i mean no disrespect to y'all. the iron hand to the staff? >> you don't see it? >> with a smile on my face. the cameras always catch me when i'm thinking hard, and it looks like i'm frustrated and mad.

i don't know all the names, so you. >> do his tweets make your job more difficult, general kelly? >> no, no. spoon tweets to make it hard at all, says general kelly. he's a tough soldier. well, up next, the las vegas story. we still can get to the bottom of it or close or even settle on the basic facts of what happened. meanwhile, the media seems focused on the entirely wrong questions. up next, we'll talk to law enforcement experts about why we still don't know anything. plus, we'll talk to the head of mark zuckerberg's lobbying group which is trying to get into the immigration policies for all the information in the world. do they have too much power

♪ there's nothing more important than your health. so if you're on medicare or will be soon, you may want more than parts a and b here's why. medicare only covers about 80% of your part b medical expenses.

the rest is up to you. you might want to consider an aarp medicare supplement insurance plan, insured by unitedhealthcare insurance company. like any medicare supplement insurance plan, these help pick up some of what medicare doesn't pay. and, these plans let you choose any doctor or hospital that accepts medicare patients. you could stay with the doctor or specialist you trust... or go with someone new. you're not stuck in a network... because there aren't any. so don't wait. call now to request your free decision guide and find the aarp medicare supplement plan that works for you. there's a range to choose from, depending on your needs and your budget. rates are competitive. and they're the only plans of their kind endorsed by aarp. like any of these types of plans,

they let you apply whenever you want. there's no enrollment window... no waiting to apply. so call now. remember, medicare supplement plans help cover some of what medicare doesn't pay. you'll be able to choose any doctor or hospital that accepts medicare patients. whether you're on medicare now or turning 65 soon, it's a good time to get your ducks in a row. duck: quack! call to request your free decision guide now. because the time to think about tomorrow is today.

>> tucker: it has been nearly two weeks since the horrifying shootings in las vegas, and unbelievably, nobody seems able to answer even the most basic questions about what actually happened. police initially told us that stephen paddock shot a hotel

security guard in the hallway outside his room after he had finished murdering more than 50 people on the plaza below. then authorities change that timeline. what actually happened, investigators explained, was that a 9:59 that night, paddock shot guard jesus campos in the leg after firing about 200 rifle rounds through the hotel room door. then paddock waited another 6 minutes, for some reason, before opening fire on the crowd. once that rampage ended, it was another hour before police entered and found paddock dead. that was the explanation as of a few hours ago. it didn't make sense, but they were going with it. now there is a new account. in a statement just this afternoon, the company that owns the hotel were paddock was staying says it has concluded that police are all wrong about what happened. actually, the hotel says, armed security officers rushed to stephen's stephen paddock's room "immediately" after the shootings began. how did he respond when they get there? why was paddock able to continue shooting? we still don't know the answer

to those questions. but that's just the beginning of what we don't know. media outlets, for example, competently reported that paddock made a living as a professional video poker player. that is technically possible. we check today with somebody in vegas. but it is a little like an and culture pointed out in a video today , like someone made a video -- so what was going on with stephen paddock? his motive, still unknown. 64-year-old accountants don't typically spend months planning mass murder for no reason. there was a "no" reason. no one can even guess. another question that coulter raised, how can it possibly take eight days to figure out when the shooter checked into the hotel? why was paddock wearing gloves if he was about to commit suicide? have any other solitary masters of her head? to this question, we had this. how could someone possibly have broken into, burgled paddock's home in reno in one of the middle of the biggest

investigations in the state customer closed on guarding the house? are investigators that incompetent? maybe they are. either way, institutional credibility is dying here. when the authorities get this wrong, people stop believing them. so nobody should be surprised when conspiracy theories rushed in to fill the void of credible information from officials. joining us know his former secret service agent gambon gino dan, i want to talk to you because i know you are a ridiculously logical thinker. what could possibly account for the radical changes in something as simple as a timeline of the crime. you just heard it again today. >> i want to be very precise here, and i appreciate the compliment, because this case is troubling, tucker. when i can both agree. everything you said is absolutely true. there are a lot of open questions. here is what i think is going on. i think there is an information gap between the hotel and law enforcement, and i think incentives here are not the

same. and i don't mean that to call out anyone. i'm not calling out. everybody wants to get to the bottom of it. i get that. but obviously there is legal liability on the hotel's end and the timeline has to be absolutely precise. now, the law-enforcement idea, this is just to get on the sequence of events, not necessarily the timeline by second. the difference between a five minute response time and a seven response time, for the sequence of events may not be as impactful, but for a legal lawsuit, it may make a big difference. from a law enforcement perspective, tucker, that is the only good guess, but i agree with you. this case makes almost no sense. >> tucker: one of the main reasons that people want to move to america in the first place is the belief that our law enforcement is competent, our legal system is on the level, we have real justice in this country, unlike most of the world. and when authorities believe in a way that is just, they have no idea what they are doing or they are not telling the whole truth, behaving and kind of a third

world way, it really kind of shakes your faith, if you see what i mean. >> yeah, and i think the problem here is, with this 24-hour news cycle and social media, this is different. let's be honest. 30 years ago, walter cronkite or tom brokaw didn't mention it, it didn't happen. now it's a different world. of multiple news channels on 24 hours. people want to consume news. they are looking for a narrative and a story, and right now, this story makes no sense. i'll add another open question to you. they did some kind of a brain autopsy and found no significant evidence of any brain trauma which, every time you look for an explanation for this case -- radicalization, brain trauma, a history of sociopathic behavior, the books slammed shut on you. it just doesn't make sense. and that is by law enforcement has to be super careful about getting this right because people are going to fill in the narratives themselves. >> tucker: and they haven't been super careful about getting it right, clearly, by their own

admission. they changed the basic elements of the timeline. when was jesus campos shot? the change that dramatically. are there other -- look, i never have conspiracy theories on tv, i think it is wrong and irresponsible. but i'm starting to think there is an entirely separate cap explanation the facts we have now, anyway you stack it, doesnt add up to something that i recognize as sensible. >> yeah, no, they don't. the part that puzzles me the most is why the attacker killed himself when clearly the capacity -- believe me, i'm glad the attack ended when it did. but the question is not clear as to why he ended it, given this new, revised timeline, and clearly he was prepared for a more elongated, extended attack. again, thankfully it stopped. but it just doesn't make sense.

reasonable people can ask reasonable questions about that. >> tucker: who is running this question? is that the feds? still clark county. >> i would think the local bureau office probably has jurisdiction, but is seeking pretty significant input from the locals. i just say that because in one of the press conferences, the las vegas sheriff clearly indicated that the fbi was the primary custodian of the evidence, which says to me that they are going to make it a federal jurisdiction case. >> tucker: dan bongino, thank you for that. i appreciate it. >> yes, sir. thank you for having me. >> tucker: now they are going to the immigration plan. up next, we'll talk to the head of a group backed by top tech leaders that is pushing for a path to citizenship for doctoral recipients are more than 10 million other people. why are they d

>> tucker: in silicon valley already trying to control what you see and think. they've got your data. google fires distancing employees. facebook alters its algorithms to limit what it calls fake news. now silicon valley is targeting the administration's immigration agenda. ceo of facebook, mark zuckerberg has a lobbying group, along with a bunch of other companies, it's called fwd.us. it wants amnesty for people here illegally, and to substantially increase our intake of foreign labor. the president joins us. thanks for coming on. >> thanks for having me. >> tucker: it seems like the tech companies have maybe more power than other institutions in the history of the world since they control virtually everything that we have. shouldn't that make us a little

uncomfortable if we are trying to control something as important as immigration legislation? >> i don't think anybody is looking to control stuff. what we are focused on today is what to do about the daca population, what to do by dreamers. nearly 800,000 young people came to this country at the average age of six. they've been here for 20 years. the question is, are we going to try to, as a nation, deport as many people as possible, absolutely the wrong approach, republicans and democrats the my can come together. >> tucker: i mean, let's be totally real. this is what it's always been, which is a push by business to get cheaper labor to increase margins, to make people on the businesses even richer, so why are we pretending it's like a human rights quest when really it is just an age-old search for cheaper workers? >> i think it is the right thing to do for the country and for the economy and workers too. i think the question here is -- >> tucker: good for which workers?

>> good for everybody. >> tucker: how is it good for everybody to be willing to import a lot more people going to work for this. >> and about bringing in people who aren't here in the future, going to raise wages for people. but if we talk but the dreamer population, the question is, do you think it is better to allow people to earn citizenship or do we think it is going to be better to try to deport -- >> tucker: there lots of intermediate steps. one of them would be, if you're sincere, i think you would agree, we should end chain migration. there is no reason that someone that comes here illegally, granted citizenship, it should be allowed to bring an average of six from a foreign country here. >> tucker, i think it is important to understand. there are 780,000 people, and they are at risk of deportation. there are a lot of things we need to fix. you and i may not agree. i do think we should have a pathway to citizenship. >> tucker: but that's the dishonest part. when you state is under 800,000, you are not including their relatives, who would be eligible to come here if they

became citizens. so you are actually dramatically underselling the reality of this program. >> i'm not. i think it was pretty clear on that, i think there are a lot of things wrong with immigration. in ten or 15 years, do i think we should have second-class citizens? i don't. but i hope the 10 or 15 years from now we have fixed a lot of aspects, whether it's doing a better job having a legal immigration system for today's economy, but the question is, is, is actually going to get together -- >> tucker: people are always selling me the kind of ice cream policy -- it's awesome for everybody. but if you import millions and millions and millions of low-wage workers, low-skill, low-education workers as we have in the past 50 years, as no one hurt by that? is there no american worker who sees his wages remain stagnant or even decline because of that? or is supply and demand not an account here. >> that's a great point. >> tucker: is no one heard?

speak with the national academy of sciences is very clear. 91% of americans actually see their wages increased by immigration here. >> tucker: wait a second, 91% of americans haven't seen their wages increase. >> other things have happened -- >> tucker: that hasn't happened. so how -- i mean, as a factual matter, huge swells of the middle class have seen their wages remain stagnant or declined. i'm not planning immigration, but you can't say we know that low-wage immigration has a -- >> i'm glad to hear you're not blaming immigration for that because that is backed by the economic >> tucker: you didn't answer my question, which is, is nobody hurt? there is always a downside to everything. everybody lies about it in d.c. oh, it's all good. >> who do you think would be hurt by not deporting it hundred thousand people? >> tucker: wages matter. how much do you wake at the end of the week? can you send your kids to summer camp? are you worried about medical care? now i see liberals working on

behalf of big business to make certain big businesses are moret workers' wages, and i'm thinking, what happened to the liberals who used to care about wages, do you know where they are? >> again, i think it is important to keep in mind, there are a lot of things that happened with the economy. the question is, what's the impact on immigration. nine in ten americans have seen, there's a lot of things going on. immigration has had a positive impact. >> tucker: as someone who deals with that every day, that's factually untrue. nine in ten americans haven't seen their wages rise. >> obviously, immigration is not the only factor. >> tucker: i'm not saying it is. >> is that good for the economy? >> tucker: if you are selling a health care bill, gun control, nobody ever tells the truth in d.c., what is the downside? if you lit 5 million new people come here, who is hurt? who sees the downside for this? >> i think the question is, who

is going to be heard by -- >> tucker: [laughs] never going to answer. >> you can say that, but -- -- >> tucker: anyone get hurt at all? >> i don't understand the question here. the question is, are you going to deport a hundred thousand people, and the answer is, that would hurt a lot of people.

♪ >> tucker: like sand through in our class, another hour is done. if you like tonight, we help you dead. tomorrow, unbelievable. our investigation into nbc news killing that investigation of harvey weinstein. how and why nbc did that? we've got a reporter who has a timeline of what actually happened and who is responsible. until then, every night at 8:00 p.m. the show that is a sworn enemy

of lying, pomposity, smugness, and groupthink. dvr if you haven't. and above all, stay tuned for "hannity" in new york. >> sean: thanks, tucker, as always. roy price, amazons entertainment chief is taking a leave of absence following a sexual harassment claim. this comes as the mass of harvey weinstein scandal is expanding. more and more women continue to come forward, hollywood producer and major democratic donor of serious misconduct. it's exposing so many things. hollywood's history of enabling this kind of despicable conduct and also, we have proof that it weinstein's behavior towards women was not a secret in hollywood. yet people did not come forward and stop it all from happening. what's worse, we have evidence -- the liberal mainstream media, the champion of women's rights, they are now exposed in this firestorm after