>> ed: that's "the story" on this wednesday night, i will see you tomorrow morning for a special edition of the uss new york. we gear up for more than weekend right on "fox & friends bear and martha will be back tomorrow night. until then, tucker is up next. ♪ >> tucker: good evening, and welcome to "tucker carlson tonight." things are moving fast, but think back, if you still can, to ten years, ten years ago. what were democrats saying about abortion at that time? a decade ago? well, they said they believed in roe v. wade, they said abortion is never preferable, but it ought to be legal for the first trimester of pregnancy. they were not, they often told us, pro-abortion, they were pro-choice. a lot of voters, by the way, agreed with them. you might not like it, but according to the polls, that was a mainstream position. that is not where democratic leaders are today. the parties new position is the

more abortion, the better. abortion must be available for any reason at all, up until the moment of birth. an op-ed in "the new york times" this morning put it "pregnancy kills, abortions and save lives." in other words, it's better to abort a pregnancy and to bring it to term. that is their view. how many voters agree with that? almost none. most people find it disgusting. just as most people, according to polls, don't think taxpayers ought to be forced to pay for abortions. democrats running for president don't care what the polls say, therefore it. >> will you commit to abolishing the hyde amendment, which hurts for women and women of color? >> yes. and by the way, aclu, i have a near perfect voting record my entire career appeared to i'm glad you did, but i'm glad you said you would commit to abolishing the hyde amendment. >> it can't stay. >> i will work to overturn the

hyde amendment, which makes it impossible for low income women to get access to reproductive care, including abortion services. >> until we get rid of the hyde amendment once and for all. [cheers and applause] >> tucker: the hyde amendment. for more than 40 years, the hyde amendment has protected people of faith from being forced to pay for what they think is killing. certainly, pete buttigieg would understand that, as a man of go god. buttigieg has been the last few months accentuating his personal holiness pair just the other day he told us that the lord strongly prefers him to mike pence. so what do st. pete of south bend on the question of abortion? he is strongly for a beer at his base station is any at all for any reason at all is unacceptable. >> most americans believe it if you'd be up the woman to be make that choice. pursuing a radical agenda on

social issues, republicans are doing same thing when they have resisted a popular agenda on things like living wages and health care, just one more example of extremism in the modern publican party. >> tucker: so you want fewer abortions? according to holy man pete buttigieg, that makes you crazy, and possibly dangerous, certainly an extremist. notice that buttigieg has no problem at all with senator mazie hirono of hawaii. just yesterday, she bragged about brainwashing middle schoolers who support abortion. watch. >> public school in hawaii, and i told them i was coming to a rally in front of the supreme court, and they said why? i said because we have to fight for abortion rights, and they knew all about it. i asked the girls of that group of eighth graders, how many of you girls think that government should be telling us women when and if we want to have a baby's? not a single one of them raised their hands. [applause]

and the boys who were there, i said, you know, a girl wouldn't be pregnant -- they got it. how many of you boys think that government should be telling girls and women when and if we are going to have babies? and not a single one of them raised their hands. [applause] >> tucker: imagine saying something like that to someone else's kids. senator cory booker could easily imagine it, like mazie hirono, booker has no children of his own, but he is permanently committed to abortion but still committed to it that if elected, cory booker has promised to create something called the white house office of reproductive freedom. the only point of the office would be to ensure that we have enough abortions in this countr country. cory booker believes that abortions are a vital strategic resource, like oil or uranium. it would be interesting to know why cory booker believes that. and most of the democratic

candidates come he refuses to come on the show, so we can't ask him directly. but we would love to know what he makes, for example, of the abortion rate in black america. african-american women are five times as likely to get abortions as white women in the united states. what does cory booker think of that? is it something to celebrate? should we be fighting to get the abortion rate even higher? what about sex-selective abortions? they are common, are they morally? is it right to abort a baby if you know what was going to be gay, or short, or prematurely bald? thanks to a genetic testing, and he abortion under any circumstances that is ever bad or even a little bad, or are they all morally neutral? no matter what the cause or stage of pregnancy? those are the most basic questions about abortion. nobody on the other channel ever asks them. that is a shame. the answers would be fascinating. mollie hemingway is a senior editor at "the federalist," and she joins us tonight.

thanks for coming on. before you came on, i looked at the polling on abortion, and it is pretty much where it has been most of my life, wages, probably a slight majority in favor of the rough framework of roe v. wade. nobody is for abortion in the eighth month. elective abortion. nobody is for-selective abortio abortion. nobody is for a lot of the stuff, most people aren't for public funding to hardwire the candidate so far off where republicans are? >> it's a difficult situation for democrats were running for e beholden to an abortion lobby. it requires them to have increasingly extreme positions. so you are seeing this, as you pointed out, ten years ago you might hear something like "abortion should be safe, legal, and rare." now the approved positions democrats have to take it they want to have a good chance of winning a primary is that abortion can take place anytime, anywhere, and that taxpayers should fund it. a radical shift from what we have seen, and far outside the

mainstream of american thought. it is not far outside the mainstream of the media's thinking. the media increasingly control our discourse, and of course they have been overwhelmingly supportive of abortion, going back decades. david shaw at the "los angeles times" did a study of this in 1990 showing that something like 80% to 90% of people in the media supported abortion, and that is far outside of what the average american thinks on these issues. but our newsrooms do not seem to care about matching american opinion, or even reflecting it honestly. you see the same euphemisms that democrats use as they are running for office are the euphemisms used by the media. we say reproductive rights or whether women can decide about whether to have children. that is because we don't want to talk about what we are actually discussing here, which is whether or not it should be legal to end a human life after it has begun, two months later, four months later, nine months later. now you are even seeing certain wings in the democratic party saying that even if a child survives abortion, she should be allowed to be left to die and

not receive any protection. this is a radical shift in opinion. >> tucker: yeah, i mean, nobody is for that. even people who describe themselves as pro-choice would acknowledge there is something sad about abortion. it is killing, obviously, everyone knows that. that is not really up for debate. can democrats running for office admit that? that there is something sad, uncomfortable, depressing, maybe even wrong about abortion? >> again, it is a difficult situation for them to be in because they are not allowed to have that position, given how much support comes to them from planned parenthood, other fairly radical abortion rights groups. what's that about that as there are a lot of democrats who are pro-life, a lot of people -- joe biden himself used to be pro-life. do not have a voice in that party, not go for the party, but also not good for the general human rights because of protecting life and protecting women and making sure women with children are not treated as if they should be ending the lives of their children are not

getting the support they need. it is important there be a caucus and both parties for this important, most important civil rights issue of our time. >> tucker: well, of course. if you value childbearing, you devalue women, by definition definition. all very amazing how quickly this is going on here mollie hemingway, thank you very much for that perspective. appreciate it. alison howard centofante director of strategic communications at live-action, and a prohibition rally in washington, carrying a sign that refer to the fact the reverend jesse jackson was conceived through rape. she soon got attacked for that. >> you're wrong. you are the wrong gender to be wrong. all right, pro-life barbie, walk the [bleep] away. >> he's alive. >> [bleep]. it's my [bleep] choice.

>> she should have had the choice to kill him? >> [bleep] you. >> tucker: allison santa alisod centofante joins us tonight. the reaction change to your? >> absolutely. there's an increased aggression from pro-abortion people. that was her than 5 minutes of being at this rally. my sign did talk about reverend jesse jackson being conceived in rape. i did want to present that. look, he was conceived in rape. would we tell him he shouldn't be here right now? no. we value our lives. the other side of the sign says "love them both." there are some pro-abortion women who came over had nice things to say about that. and my shirt said "women's rights begin in the womb, because they do. i've had a couple of interesting conversations and interactions that you just shared. >> tucker: it's interesting, why the emotion? why this, among all of the

issues -- and a lot of people say it is a life or death issue, and of course it is, but there are others. health care, among them, where people don't get this upset. why does the pro-choice side feel is outrage? what is it about? >> right, well, this is unlike any other procedure. planned parenthood and others say abortion is just like removing a tooth, just like removing a tumor. people don't yell at each other over appendicitis removal, right? be one good point. >> there is a life on the line here, that is why it is a motion on both sides. but the pro-life movement to saying, look, there is a life there that is -- we welcome you. these poor women, we want her to come get healing, and not be so angry. instead, she has to double down. the sad part is, she was probably lied to about her options, lied to about so-called need for this. she thinks abortion is empowering for women. it's not. that is what live-action is educating on, and we are not training people their ambassadors program to get involved, to share a message.

that is how you change hearts and minds, you step into the fray. that is what i did yesterday, just showing up with a sign to start a conversation. but we need to have it. we can't just yell at each other, and the pro-life movement is going to remain peaceful and loving and nonviolent, until we see this through to the end. >> tucker: you think the other side will remain peaceful? it doesn't look that way. >> no, i mean, you saw representative a couple weeks ago attacked pro-life side walk counselors, went up to philadelphia to say knock it off, resign, stop bullying us. this increased hostility is concerning, but look, violence begets violence. abortion is a violent act. it is members a child in the womb, it hurts the woman physically, emotionally, and so we need to stop the violence. mollie did a great job talking about this being a human rights issue here the question i had yesterday for this woman in the presidential candidate, bernie sanders, ab, shar, will you draw a line anywhere? when do you acknowledge human

life? so far, they haven't answered that. i hope they will soon be right but most americans do not support abortion through all my months like they do. they understand, may be heartbeat, maybe pain capable at 20 weeks, but not like this. we're going to continue educating so that momentum continues. >> tucker: they don't want to have a conversation that include specifics, because they are horrifying when you get specific. allison, thank you very much. >> thanks for having me. >> tucker: the creepy porn lawyer was obviously exploiting stormy daniels from day one. now he is charged with that, criminally. we will bring you the latest. ♪ ♪

most of us don't know how much data we use... ...but we all know we're paying too much for it. enter xfinity mobile. america's best lte with the most wifi hotspots. combined for the first time. when you're near an xfinity hotspot, you're connected to wifi, saving on data. when you're not, you pay for data one gig at a time. use a little, pay a little. use a lot, just switch to unlimited. get $250 back when you buy a new samsung galaxy. call, visit or click today.

♪ >> tucker: well, for a lot of calendar year 2018, the creepy porn lawyer was a bona fide star on cable news. cnn had him on so often, he brought a covered disk to the company picnic it over at msnbc, familiarity that enchantment. they were starting to worship the guy. >> he is a beast. he keeps popping donald trump and all of his folks in the mouth. he may be the favorite of the republican democratic party democratic party. >> enough already, michael, i've seen you everywhere. what do you have left to say? i was wrong, brother appeared to be one sincere question: how dumb would you have to be to find the creepy porn lawyer impressive? he was such a transparent fraud, such a total con, in and only for himself there no question about that ever. we told him so directly the night he came to visit us on a

show. watch. >> tucker: you profited from stormy daniels, don tens of millions of dollars of free media on the basis of your relationship with her, and she is working in strip clubs. you are explaining her, and you know that i did want you paying her some of what you are making? >> sir, this is absurd. >> tucker: but answer my question, why are you rach and your client is working in ziti strip clubs. i know you haven't paid your taxes there like so many lawyers, you are taking advantage of her, and you pose as a feminist hero because you are saying less and the other channels let you get away with it. but you're an exploiter of the woman, and you should be ashamed of it. >> tucker: we hate to brag, almost never do, but tonight we are going to make a rare exception. we were right about him. today, the creepy porn lawyer was indicted on a new set of criminal charges but they are saying he defrauded, yes, stormy daniels pair turns out he was not a feminist hero. according to the indictment, he used it to forge her signature and used her book advance on

hotels, restaurants, and things like that. all the while, stormy daniels worked in strip clubs to pay her bills. creepy porn lawyer lived with purity on misfortune. is anybody outside of cable news surprised by this? a friend of ours, joins us tonight. i know you are not surprised by this. the whole prime time line up on a bunch of other channels must have their jaws open, they wanted him to be president. >> yeah, they were very excited about him. he ran through the details very welcome, especially looking back at that interview on what you said and have been saying. oh, no, it wasn't exploding her. it turns out, right, that he was forging her name to divert funds that were coming to her for her book deal and putting them in his account. and he says come in his defense, he was tweeting today, basically, i was owed that because i was the lawyer. then why did you have to forge her name? and why, then, did you tell her,

according to the criminal indictment from the southern district, why did you tell her that the publisher was used to pay? he's lying to her, he's lying to everyone to divert the money. his defense is i was owed it. that's just one small thing. when you look at the whole thing, with nike, he extorted nike, waiting until the earnings period. this is all alleged, and according to what the southern district and feds are saying, he waited until nike's earnings. max, when they would be most vulnerable, and he said you have done wrong, and i am going to have a press conference if you don't hire me right now to audit your company for $20 million, and i will be your internal counsel to audit your company. or the caveat was you can just give me $22 million, and i will be quiet and go away. this is all in the paperwork that came out today that we read, and he is tweeting back in his defense, i will be exonerated, i was old this money, all of these different cases. all told, he could go to jail

for 404 years, and in my book, it's really not enough for everything that he did. he also had bank fraud, wire fraud, filed for bankruptcy, light in that proceeding -- all alleged, again, alleged. but this is a lot piling on in california, in new york, all over the place. it kind of hits on two themes that our viewers love here. number one is hypocrisy. and that is what you really put out there when you have the interview with him, where he is standing there, holier-than-thou, filled with sanctimony, saying this person broke the law. this person is immoral. i'm standing up for what is right, and the law, this answer that. and here, according to these officials, and these law enforcement officers, he is one of the biggest criminals and predators out there, according to what they are saying. the other thing when i think is really interesting, that your viewers love, is the irony. because you've got to think that he was doing this for a long time, and there are many clients he's accused of defrauding.

he spent the money on ferraris, a private plane, they say. he was living the lifestyle, and defrauding people who are being paid for legitimate things. but he didn't get caught until he went all over television. until he was drunk on his own sayings. he had people like stephanie rule over at msnbc celebrating him, right? until he had -- >> tucker: but where it is judgment? it was so obvious. i actually feel sorry for him at this stage. there is clearly something wrong with him. i don't want to speculate, but there's clearly something wrong -- there has always been something wrong with the guy bared any person who spent 2 minutes with him we know that, and yet somehow they didn't know that? these purveyors of facts. speak with you know why, because they were doing the work that they wanted done. he didn't go after brett kavanaugh, he had stormy daniels to go after the president, he was doing the

bidding of what the other networks wanted, so they look past it there to be one doing the work of the democratic party. >> had he not gotten drunk on his own fame, he might have gotten away with it. >> tucker: it is almost like a scooby-doo espresso it, "if it weren't for your kids and your dog!" melissa francis, great to see you. >> great to see you, too. >> tucker: democrats are in the middle of a not very well covered but absolutely real civil war. it's not about policy or fixing the country's problems, it is about impeachment. will they or won't they? they can't decide. that's next. ♪

>> tucker: well, for years the democrats promised their voters that a thorough investigation would uncover a plot by donald trump to sell this country to vladimir putin and russia! well, it didn't happen, they didn't find out. instead of moving out or maybe working with trump to help the

country improve, they have adopted a new. the president committed a cover-up! >> nobody is a love the law, including the president of the united states. we believe the president of the united states is engaged in a cover-up. >> she keeps coming back to the things like accountability and that there is a cover-up. those are the two essential issues, let's keep following where the evidence leads us. >> it is starting to look more like a cover-up. she doesn't let anybody come and testify before congress. innocent people don't act like the president. >> tucker: what exactly did the president cover-up? nobody knows paired what should we do about it? democrats can't agree on that, either. nancy pelosi is struggling to keep control of democrats in the house, but more radical elements of her party are saying impeachment is the only option pit who will win. former dnc communication director joins us tonight but thanks a lot for coming on. show the president be impeached?

>> i think the house should definitely move forward on impeachment proceedings because the mueller report and showed he did the a kind of obstruction of justice that you started laid out in the articles of impeachment for richard nixon for now, as we see what he is doing to keep congress from carrying out his investigation, forcing even private citizens who no longer work for the government to not be able to come in and testify, it just shows exactly what it set on article three of the articles of impeachment against richard nixon. >> tucker: okay, okay, so why isn't the speaker of the house, the much venerated nancy pelosi, why isn't -- of it so obvious, why isn't she behind this? >> i think she is working with her caucus to bring them together and work, not just on things like what you need to do on impeachment, which i think some of the investigations are going to help with that, especially, as i just said, the investigation that are now calling on subpoenas of former administration officials, donald trump stepping in and not letting them. that is an example of an impeachable offense.

she is trying to bring everyone on the same page, moving forward in a constructive way. but tucker, i think -- >> tucker: she's not for impeachment, she said that beard you think they made a mistake. whatever you think of her, she is a very sophisticated person, who has been in washington for an awfully long time. >> an incredible operator, terrific job with her caucus. >> tucker: hold on, she doesn't want to impeachment. okay, but she slowly walked it because she knows it will hurt the democratic party. do you disagree with that? >> i do disagree. they're comparing this to what happened in the '90s with bill clinton. at that time, you had that republicans invest getting socks the cat over the letters he was getting from people around the country, tucker. that is why the american people -- >> tucker: actually, no that's not -- >> the deutsche bank situation, they will just yesterday, in fact, congress does have oversight, does have the right

to investigate. i think all of these things will continue to show the pattern of obstruction of justice, of behavior that is just not consistent with the oath the president took, is important. because at the end of the day, the republican party is a party of the rule of law, and if we screwed it, if we flaunt it, if we treat it like it doesn't s well be a third world country at this point, tucker. >> tucker: then we will have sanctuary cities, where people ignore federal immigration law. that would be crazy. >> did we should definitely protect our democracy, absolute. >> tucker: i've heard that for three years from people who have zero interest in democracy at all. we spent the whole time, the last two years trying to undo an election result because they hate democracy so much. a lot of things you say about trump, but don't pass opposition to trump as a defense of democracy. it's not. >> in 2018, democrats won the house of representatives, in part because this country

recognizes that sometimes divided government is better. you have a government that keeps checks and balances. if you're going to have control of the house of representatives and not conduct and carry out your constitutional duty of oversight and holding president trump accountable, when you see example an example of him obstruction -- >> tucker: [laughs] we just had to end a half years of russian investigation entered >> you undermine the democracy. on the mueller report shows -- >> tucker: all right, all right. i'm not going to get mad about it. i do think you're going to do whatever the candidate is to a loss if you impeach, but you obviously disagree. >> i remember 2010, when so many democrats trying shied away fre affordable care act because republicans criticize them on it. republicans are going to criticize over impeachment whether you do it or not, you might as well live up to what the forefathers put in the constitution for you to do in congress, have oversight over the executive branch. >> tucker: luis, good luck

with that. >> thanks, tucker. good to see you come too. >> tucker: thanks to nancy pelosi, the phrase "cover-up" has dominated cable news today. watch. >> nancy pelosi describes president trump as being engaged in a cover-up. >> one of the things that she said is the trump administration is engaged in a cover-up. >> she said president trump is engaged in a cover-up. >> comments pelosi has made this morning that the president has engaged in a cover-up. >> she accused the president of engaging in a cover-up. >> the president complaining to the speaker of the house that she he participated in a cover-up. >> that phrase from nancy pelosi really set him off. >> tucker: over at msnbc, one anchor accuse the president of a cover-up! for refusing to publicize his private life. >> when you talk about it, i don't do coverups, also the fact that he has been refusing to let his current and former aides testified.

refusing to turn over documents that have been demanded, including the tax returns. also refusing to grant an interview to robert mueller. >> tucker: joe concha watches an awful lot of television, writes about media for "the hill," and he joins us tonight. joe, is it my imagination, or did once again the speaker of the house deliver the talking point that everyone on caper cae news eagerly took up and repeated? >> i think you're seeing a pattern here, tucker. back in january, the term "manufactured crisis" was used to talk about what was going on at the u.s. southern border, and then you heard over and over, dozens upon dozens of times, not just from one network, but different networks, different anchors or pendants or guests using that same exact term to the word. manufactured crisis. sure enough, even "the new york times" admits, it's no longer a manufactured crisis at the border, that the real thing. a story for another time. and then we have the other

crisis, which was the constitutional crisis, and that was two weeks ago when bill barr come after testified in front of the senate, decided not to do so with the house when they change the rules around, as far as staffers being able to question him, which had never happened in congress before, and he said this is going to be a circus, said no thanks pay that became a constitutional crisis. pelosi said that, as well. sure enough, at the media research center -- i get there conservative, but the numbers are usually accurate beer between may 8th and may 12, abc, cbs, nbc, cnn, and msnbc, that exact term, constitutional crisis, was uttered 386 times, i'm not very good at math, but i'm sure that's more 0 times, if you average it out, per network. so, yeah, he goes out one mouth, it comes out another mouth, and now here we are with cover-up, and that will be the next constitutional crisis in terms of terms we see over and over again, and echo chamber.

>> tucker: we are entering campaign season. there is a presidential campaign in progress already. at some point, these are campaign finance violations. are television networks donating to presidential campaigns, to a party, and not declaring it. >> that would be very interesting to see that case be made, perhaps. it just seems to be that people are taking their cues from one party in this business, and not the other, particularly from pelosi. and look, i wanted to hear some reporters yell at her the way trump is yelled at. what cover-up are you specifically talking about? who is involved in this cover-up? 's bob mueller involved in this cover-up? because he has been reluctant to testify to this point. so is he also part of the cover-up that now includes, i believe, bill barr, don mcgahn, cato kaelin, the white house chef, who else is involved in this conspiracy of people who otherwise probably don't like the president that much, but are willing to put their careers on the line to cover up for him? it's quite comical, on some

level, actually. >> tucker: it is kind of amazing. i hope we get to the bottom of it but i'm sure there is russian somewhere. joe, thank you. >> good to see you. >> tucker: kamala harris says if she is elected president, her administration will find companies unless they pay men and women exactly the same wage. and yet her own campaign phase men more than women. irony alert. it details ahead. ♪ many people living with diabetes

monitor their blood glucose every day. which means they have to stop. and stick their fingers. repeatedly. today, life-changing technology from abbott makes it possible to track glucose levels. without drawing a drop of blood, again and again. the most personal technology, is technology with the power to change your life. life. to the fullest.

♪ >> tucker: senator kamala harris is running for president on the wall capitalism platform. the harris administration, she says, won't simply support equal pay for women and men, they will compile it.

every big company will be forced to file paperwork proving men with men are paid the same amount. the differences in pay are on differences in seniority, they will be find a lot. there is just one problem with harris' idea -- even she can follow it. according to the washington predeacon, both harris senate office and presidential campaign pay men more than women, and they have for quite some time. huh. marjorie clifton joins us tonight or thanks coming on. this is one of the irresistible irony stories. it seems to me that if you are proposing finding other people for committing what you say is a crime, you shouldn't be committing yourself. yet she is. >> one of the problems come in the article, the reporter states that he doesn't know the jobs that men versus women are holding pair the challenge we've got is we actually can't comparo apples beer the policies she is pushing have to do with equal pay for equal work. not that we just pay women more

because they are women. we paid them the exact same job in a man, the same amount as a . that is the premise. >> tucker: right, except the problem is she has been lying about with the pay gap is, because when you adjust for education, time spent on the job, and job description, that gap disappears, as you know. so she is arguing on the campaign trail, apples to oranges, and then when busted herself, she is hiding behind that same excuse? it doesn't really -- >> the reporter is the one acknowledging he didn't have data about what men versus women were doing, the hours they were working. the data he has is based on the number of men to women, a 95% -- women pay $0.95 to the dollar of a man peered working on campaigns, you know this, there are no more men at senior leve. i was giving you credit for being young, but no, right now,

gaps with women in senior roles peered campaign managers, and a lot of the democratic candidates have been looking for women to run their campaigns, and there just aren't as many qualified. >> tucker: wait a second, wait a second. no, kamala harris, this is her office, not just our campaign, but her office and her campaign, going back at least a year, two six month. max. she can find in a country of the under 35 million people, she can find women qualified enough to occupy senior positions in her office and her campaign? >> that's not what i said. we don't know because the reporter himself did not know what the profile of the workers in her office -- >> tucker: okay, but you are willing -- what will be an explanation that doesn't make kamala harris look like a craven hypocrite? >> the upper ranks in her office, she may have two more men than she has one woman at a senior level, and that women that are working in her

office -- that's enough explanation right there. if you have two senior men -- >> tucker: but why wouldn't -- >> that's already going to offset the balance. >> tucker: if you are going to take shots at other people for not empowering women, why are you doing it -- i'm serious. of course it is, she is lecturing the rest of us about female empowerment, important to vote for her because she was a woman, she has said that repeatedly, but not even in her office. i can't take you seriously unless she gets -- >> you're not going to vote for her anyway, tucker. >> tucker: oh, my gosh. >> what i would just say that is important about all of this, it does negate the whole equal pay conversation if you don't look at it equally, in terms of education, and the job that you are upholding. that is what she is trying to address. that is what the entire debate is about. i tell you, women's also have the same biases that men's have come in the same bias that men have, that is why you see a lot of blind hiring. people covering up the name of

the candidate when they are hiring to make sure they hiring a qualified person and not letting their own personal bias -- >> tucker: can i ask you a super quick, sincere question? answer it however you want. having been in the workforce for a while, on average, who do you think treats female employees better, more decently, with greater kindness: male bosses are female bosses? >> i have seen it equally. i have seen women who have treated other women badly, men who treated women badly. i've been very fortunate to see it pretty equitable in terms of fat. but i think the greater need, the workplace is trying to address, how do you teach women to negotiate. how do you teach women and train men to be able to work with women in a way that is comfortable? the reality is we are operating a workforce billed by men pair that is just history, tucker. so a lot of these kinds of policies are trying to advance -- >> tucker: we've been working on this for 50 years.

all right, they are telling me i got to stop. >> my mother couldn't own a bank account or have a credit card. we've got to move these things along. >> tucker: not in this country, i'm afraid. i was here in '75 -- >> you've got daughters. all right, thanks so much. >> tucker: for years, espn lectured here is about politics and then were shocked when million stopped watching the channel paired have they were at lower learned their lesson? will take a look. these are the musical my reputation was trashed online,

i felt completely helpless.

my entire career and business were in jeopardy. i called reputation defender. they were able to restore my good name. if you're under attack, i recommend calling reputation defender. and consider joining their groundbreaking campaign to give every american the right to remove old, inaccurate search results by going to righttobeforgotten.org. if you have search results that are wrong or unfair, call reputation defender at 1-877-866-8555.

♪ >> tucker: for decades, espn was one of the most powerful brands in the united states, but it has been in decline for some years now. espn has lost millions of subscribers, revenue has fallen sharply. the network had to lay off more than 100 employees. network executives appeared confused, but sports fans knew part of the reason, espn had been unbearably political. propaganda coming a lot of time, not a sports channel.

in 2017, commenter jemele hill tweeted "donald trump is a white supremacist who hasn't largely surrounded himself with other white supremacist." talking heads on sports show was bashed trump and anyone who didn't share their disdain if they appeared here's one example appeared >> we must respect the office. tiger, is that is what you are saying? if that is what you are saying, it is a stupid comment. >> i think it was classless. i don't give a damn, talking about white house employees on furlough because of issues with the democrats. >> tucker: finally, the company seems aware that politics may be part of the reason for its decline. bombarding viewers with left-wing polemics is not the reason people tune into a sports channel. in a new "los angeles times" profile, the president of espn, he steered them away from

divisive political topics and back to sports. while that work? jason whitlock is a host on fox sports one, better known as fs1 on cable or satellite, and he joins us tonight. jason, thanks for coming on. >> thank you, tucker. >> tucker: it sounds like the new guy understands most people tuning in to a sports network don't want politics. >> i think jim pitaro is doing the right thing. i think they have figured out that too many of their employees were addicted to social media and twitter, and they lease their comments on air and over social media to be cleaving to twitter, rather than to sports fans. and so, the quickest, easiest way to build up your social media traction is to attack the president. that is why so many of their commenters got into the habit of attacking the president, because it was good for social media

brand, and i think that bob iger and james pitaro i figured out, your social media brand it doesn't our television ratings,, or the perception of our television network, and the satisfaction of sports fans. and they told their employees to cut it out. i think it is smart. >> tucker: yeah, twitter doesn't actually generate revenue for its users. most people seem to have forgotten. so you think that espn's move toward politics was driven by its on-air talent, and not by the executives? >> oh, absolutely, by the on-air talent. the executives in some way, too, i will just tell you: social media had everyone fooled. if your twitter following was off, that meant, oh, my god, you are resonating with sports fans. and what they have figured out, no, you are resonating with political people. hard, left-wing people, and that elevates your twitter following.

it does not sports fans. >> tucker: that is such an obvious point. i still think to this day, you are the only person i have heard make that point. why did it take, i don't know, a decade, for them to figure that out? >> listen, because executives operate at a level, 30,000 feet in the air, and agents, you've got to remember, all of these media people, journalists use to not be represented by agents. i'm not, but most of them are now. they are represented by agents. agents like to go in and argue with executives and tv networks, look how well my employee is doing, look at her twitter following, ig following. my god, you must pay them more. espn, they used to have those conversations, and used to pay people based off their social media following. it took them years to figure out, that is a whole different group, a whole different audience, then sports fans.

>> tucker: that is the smartest explanation i have heard for a very confusing phenomenon. jason whitlock, thank you very much for that. good to see you. ♪ >> tucker: big news tonight, finally, after many decades, the pentagon has officially confirmed what has long been obvious: they are, in fact, and have long been, in fact, investigating ufo sightings. in a statement given to "the new york post," the apartment or defense that it continue to look into reports of "unidentified aerial phenomenon." what might the pentagon find during his investigations? to find out more, we dispatch fox's brett larson to find out more. >> is an annual gathering within out of of this world origin. >> everybody says they seen something. i'm waiting for my close-up. >> this is the pine bush

new york ufo fare, which brings people from far and wide to share costumes, ufo-themed snacks, and stories of sighting sightings. it's not just good for a conspiracy theorist, it's for business. >> you must be destroyed. >> he's not the only one who is happy to share a sighting story. in fact, there were dozens of folks happy to stop and talk to us about the unusual things they've seen in the night skies. >> i'm a believer that we came from space. what's so funny as i coordinate this and i am the town skeptic, but that makes it interesting conversation. but i never say that i don't believe. just that i haven't seen it yet. >> i plead the fifth. >> and this guy, travis walton, allegedly abducted by a ufo back in 1975 while he was a forestry worker in arizona. he disappeared for five days, and even inspired the 1993 film "fire in the sky."

we asked walton if he has seen anything since. many have. >> that was february 19th, 2014. a giant black triangle came over, stopped right over the top of us, rotated 90 degrees, and shot off toward the ocean. it was quite amazing because i didn't believe anything that big could actually fly. >> as for why he feels we are hearing more about ufo sightings, it's not a coincidence. >> i think it is more acceptable for people to report it. i kind of slips of act sightings are really accidental. i think they are trying to get us, that is part of what i am doing here, trying to make us ready. the reason it is not open contact is because we are not ready. >> despite shutting down the advanced aerospace threat identification program five years ago, the department of

defense isn't turning a blind eye to the skies. good news for the many folks at the ufo festival in pine bush, at another step forward to finding out that the truth is out there. tucker? >> tucker: thanks a lot, brett brett. we are out of time tonight. back tomorrow, they show that is the sworn enemy of lien, pomposity, smugness, and groupthink. sean hannity right here. >> sean: tucker, good to see you. welcome to "hannity." a ton of breaking news. in the course of the next hour you will hear from congressman devin nunes, breaking news. congressman mark not most, he will break news. senator lindsey graham will break news. lara trump will join us, sara carter, much more. before all of that, we begin with breaking news from "the hill"'s john solomon, investigative reporter. hours ago he made a very important legal filing in his very own name demanding the release of records surrounding the carter page vice application and the three subsequent renewals. solomon is now on a mission to

determine how an american citizen was