the new stuffed quesadillas. only at el pollo loco here's why you should switch from chrome to duckduckgo. duckduckgo is a browser you download to your mobile and desktop devices. unlike chrome, the duckduckgo browser has privacy built-in. it comes with a private alternative to google search, which doesn■t spy on your searches, and it blocks cookies and creepy ads. and there's no catch. it's free. we make money from ads, but they don't follow you around. join the millions of people taking back their privacy by downloading duckduckgo on mobile and desktop today. ♪ the new summer family meal. starting at $24. only at el pollo loco.

tonight on "360," new and dangerous language from the once and possible future president of the united states. also tonight, new details on a fatal car crash involving the then-girlfriend, now-wife of new jersey senator bob menendez. and a live report from elle reef about how some students and parents are bushing back against the book bans in that state. we begin tonight keeping him honest, by taking a step back, a step back from what seems like a flood of words lately that the former president has said, followed by a flood of stories about those words and subsequent outrage that one side or another has about those stories. before the whole cycle repeats itself and the latest outrage is

forgotten because it's old news by then. his former strategist steve bannon had a phrase for this. he called it flooding the zone with excrement, though he used a different word for excrement. it never gave anyone time to stop, take a breath and take stock of what just happened or what someone just said, so tonight we want to stop for just a moment and give something that the former president said the consideration it deserves, to cut it out, if you will, of the flow or flood of daily utterances. i'm talking about what the former president said, the words he used, during a recent interview with a right-wing outlet talking about migrants coming into america. >> nobody has any idea where these people are coming from. we know they come from prisons. we know they come from mental institutions, insane asylums. we know they're terrorists. nobody has ever seen anything like we're witnessing right now.

it is a very sad thing for our country. it's poisoning the blood of our country. it's so bad, and people are coming in with disease. people are coming in with every possible thing that you can have. >> diseased migrants, quote, poisoning the blood of our country. now, even stripped of any historical context, those words have power of their own, to invoke fear of infection, corruption, invasion from unseen outside forces, and that's no accident. those same words have been used before. [ crowd chanting ] >> the white nationalists and neo-nazi marchers in charlottesville chanting jews will not replace us. blood and soil was a nazi

slogan. americans on the streets in america chanting nazi slogans. they were tapping into the deep and dark vein in what's known today as replacement theory. now, most people watching that would be outraged. the former president said this. >> excuse me, excuse me. you had some very bad people in that group, but you also had people that were very fine people on both sides. >> very fine people among americans that night chanting nazi slogans. the man who murdered worshippers at tree of life synagogue in pittsburgh spent months posting before the mass shooting an online rant after another, calling immigrants invaders. the mass shooter in el paso's final post said he was doing it because of the, quote, hispanic invasion of texas. but notions of outside invaders replacing white americans are

corrupting the blood of the nation, they're not new, and they're hardly just coming from deranged killers. the segregationist senator of mississippi, theodore bilbao wrote about saying, a white america or a mongrel america, you must take your choice. perhaps the strongest parallel to the former president's line, poisoning the blood of the country, comes from the darkest place. in a chapter of "mein kampf," titled "race and people" adolf hitler writes, the original created race died out as a result of contamination of the blood. the poison which has invaded the national body, he links to a, quote, influx of foreign blood. back to today, a trump spokesman called the former president's comment a normal phrase that is used in everyday life. it's certainly used throughout history, and to the extent it actually is used in everyday life, we think it's worth stopping and taking note of it. joining us now is conservative attorney, "washington post"

contributing columnist, george conway. the phrase that he used, it has such clear historical anticedents, even somebody as poorly read is the former president certainly knows where that phrase come from, that idea comes from. he knows the words he's using. >> right. he's not a very intelligent man, but he does have a reptilian form of intellect that really lends itself to this kind of rhetoric, and he is profoundly, profoundly psychopathic in the way that he expresses himself. but if you go back to 2017, like you just did, and 2016 and 2015, the people who first figured out donald trump were the historians, the historians of authoritarianism, the historians of international relations, and the psychologists, and the

reason that they all figured it out is because they came at donald trump from two different angles. one, from the mindset of the inner workings of his mind. the other from what he says and how he commands the affections or desires of people. and that's the authoritarian part. and what we see here is a man with lacking -- completely lacking in morality, lacking in conscience, lacking in remorse, lacking in empathy, completely a man without a soul, and the type of thing that he is -- what he preaches is hatred, and he preaches hatred because this is the way he can save himself and gain power. and right now, he's getting worse. they always get worse, the sociopaths, the psychopaths like a hitler or a putin, they get worse over time as they become more and more desperate, and that's what's happening with donald trump. we're seeing this rhetoric, the

rhetoric about blood poisoning here, the rhetoric about executing the chairman of the joint chiefs, all sorts of rhetoric that basically is designed to foment hatred and violence, because that is what -- that is in his nature, and that is how he plans to wield power and to gain it back. >> it's also -- i mean, you know, we talked about in the newsroom today whether to even mention these comments and bring them up because, you know, this is so normalized now. people don't bat an eye about this stuff anymore. you don't hear members of congress, certainly no republicans, you know, saying anything public about it. even john kelly confirming to jake tapper this week, all the litany of just horrible things the former president has said about wounded veterans or veterans who died, you know,

defending democracy in world war i and not wanting to go to their cemetery, not wanting to have, you know, a disfigured veteran near him in a public event calling, you know, the mccain and former george h.w. bush losers because they were shot down. i mean, it's -- again, there's no outrage. people are -- it just -- and it's easy to just move on to the next thing, and it's -- i don't know. from a coverage standpoint, it's -- this is something i wrestle with. >> yeah. no, it is something that is difficult for the press to wrestle with, difficult for all of us to wrestle with because we're not used to confronting evil in the flesh the way that we have to do that now. i mean, he -- trump -- trump basically -- he represents

all that -- everything you don't want humanity to be. he brings out the worst in people, and that is basically his nature, and that is what we're seeing here today, as he becomes more and more, you know, desperate because his businesses are threatened by litigation in new york, and he's facing 91 counts in four different jurisdictions. i mean, he is going to foment more hatred and more violence, and we -- you know, what psychologists and sociologists call this, i think, is malignant normality. we've gotten so used to his rhetoric, so used to his behavior, that we don't -- we hesitate to call it out, and we don't necessarily see the danger that has crept up on us, but it is profoundly dangerous, because if you look back on history and you ask how it was that 6 million jews were killed in

europe in the early 1940s and you ask how genocides occur, it starts with a man using this kind of rhetoric to move and sway and to encourage hatred among people. >> i was looking -- reading an article in "the atlantic" today. they cite an article in 1873, august 27th, "san francisco chronicle," there was an ad advertising a book. the headline was, the chinese invasion, they are coming. 900,000 strong. in 1873, it was these chinese diseased invaders are coming, and they're going to, you know, take over this country. i want to read the full response from the trump campaign spokesperson. he said, that's a normal phrase that is used in everyday life in books, television, movies, and in news articles. for anyone to think that is racist or xenophobic is living an alternate reality consumed with nonsensical outrage, end quote. >> i don't -- there is no other explanation for it. if he's talking about people

coming in from other countries, and he's talking about blood poisoning, he's talking about race, he's talking about -- he is trying to foment hatred, and that -- that is something that is profoundly dangerous in a pluralistic society, in any society, and that's something we really need to start calling this out more because we're going to see more. one of the advantages, perversely, that trump has had over the last three years is that, you know, he was taken off social media. he was taken off twitter, and he's been giving these rants, these crazy rants, and they're getting much worse on his failing social media site and then on these right-wing news outlets -- not news. but right-wing outlets that nobody -- that only a few people watch, but it only takes a few people to cause horrific tragedies like the one at the synagogue in pittsburgh and so

many others. >> george conway, thank you for being with us tonight. thank you. mr. trump weighed in on the race for the speaker of the house last night, throwing his support behind congressman jim jordan. mr. jordan has been a longtime supporter of the former president, was served a subpoena by the january 6th committee to answer questions about actions around the attack on the capitol. he defied that subpoena. the other, steve scalise, has been working the phones to his republican colleagues trying to convince them that he's the man for the job. just to add to the overall chaos, both men agreed to a debate on monday night and canceled it after blowback from members. it's a fitting end to a chaotic end. melanie zanona is here to sort through it. is it clear how much of an impact the former president's endorsement would mean on the speaker's race? >> well, anderson, i think it really cuts both way. of course, a trump endorsement is going to help jim jordan on the right. and there have been a number of conservatives who have come out and said they are backing jim jordan because of donald trump's

endorsement of him. i talked to troy nells, a congressman from texas. and he said he's backing jim jordan because he doesn't want to go against donald trump's wishes. but this endorsement is going to do nothing to win over the moderates in the party, who are going to be a key constituency in this race. some of them are still deeply skeptical of jim jordan. this trump endorsement is probably only going to remind them of just how closely jim jordan is tied to the maga wing of the party. jim jordan is arguing his conservative credentials can be an asset because he can help choral the more far right elements of the party that forced kevin mccarthy out earlier this week. >> as far as agreeing to a debate of jordan and scalise, why was it canceled? >> a lot of whiplash in the gop today. this all started when fox news reached out to the candidates about doing this televised, sort of, interview from the capitol on monday. both scalise and jordan agreed. but almost instantly after the event was announced this morning, they started receiving blowback from within the party.

i was also hearing from members, particularly moderates, those moderates we talked were that are going to be important, saying they thought this was a horrible idea, that it was going to be a circus, and that they shouldn't be broadcasting these sensitive discussions when really they need to get behind closed doors and talk it out amongst themselves. so, i think the blowback just really goes to show how emotions are running high inside the republican party, and how they really want to get it right. they do not want to have the same embarrassment or dysfunction on public display we saw this week or even january when it took kevin mccarthy to go 15 rounds to get the gavel. >> thanks very much. a busy week next week. coming up next, the former president's day in court, the decision he was seeking in his new york fraud case, a decision which helps him and the one he wasn't seeking, which lets the trial continue. later, new revelations and a new inquiry into the fatal car

crash who is now with senator bob menendez.

this afternoon, former president trump failed at getting a new york appeals court judge to stop his $250 million civil fraud trial. but he did get one win. the judge temporarily halted the process of breaking up his businesses. i want to get perspective from cnn legal analyst karen agnifilo and jennifer rodgers and kara scannell. kara, bring us up to date on what happened in the appeals court ruling. >> this was about a 15-minute

hearing, and the judge off the bat said he wasn't going to stop the trial, which is now in its fifth day. but he did agree to put a halt to the canceling of the business certificates of the businesses. that's what the court in the lower court did. this judge in this hearing said, you know, it wasn't even clear if that would apply to a person's private home, so he was putting that on pause to allow trump to appeal the lower court decision. where the judge said that trump and his eldest sons and executives at the company had committed and engaged in persistent fraud for decades by inflating the values of properties, including mar-a-lago, in order to get better terms on insurance rates and loans. >> in your opinion, did both sides get a little something? >> trump certainly got what he wanted or half of what he wanted. >> he didn't get the trial being stopped. >> he got the cancellations reversed or put on pause, but the attorney general actually didn't object to that. she had said, we agree that, you know, it's going to take time, right, for a receiver to

evaluate the properties, dispose of the properties. we don't object to putting that on hold until the trial is over and you can move forward. so, she just said, you know, you shouldn't be able to run the court. we should negotiate something. it wasn't that she didn't want it. he did get that small victory, i guess, but the attorney general didn't seem to mind. >> do you think the trial's initial ruling, ordering the cancellation of the former president's business certificates, was a little too much too soon? how complicated a process would it actually be? >> i don't know that it was too much too soon. i think it needs to be more granularly thought out about which businesses, which certificates, which licenses, what would it apply to. so i do think it just needs to be sorted out a little bit more, and it'll be interesting to see what comes out during this trial and what other evidence and what the attorney general can prove regarding many of these properties. i think that will inform the record about what will happen to which properties.

>> jennifer, why would the former president's legal team be asking for a stay after the trial had already been going on? >> yeah, that's a good question. they asked for it to be pushed back beforehand too, and they lost that. i think they're trying for a second bite at the apple. but, you know, once it gets going, it's really hard to stop it. we don't have a jury in this case, but there are witnesses who are being made available. you know, everybody's there, kind of, ready to roll. so, the notion that an appellate court is going to step in five days in and stop it, i think there was no harm asking was the theory. >> what happened at the fraud trial today? >> there was some testimony about eric trump and his involvement. he's one of the defendants in the case. >> we've seen him always in the background when the former president is speaking, as he has been much from the last several days from the courthouse. >> right. he's attended the first three days but he wasn't there today when his name came up. it was the controller of the trump organization on the stand. he's the guy that put the values

on these properties. he was describing how involving the family's compound in new york, seven springs, that he had spoken to eric trump. the government showed a spreadsheet that said, call with eric trump on this date. he said he discussed with him how to value that property, and what he said was they had come up with the evaluation for this compound based in part on the development of seven mansions for the property, but, in fact, those mansions had never been built. he said he had done that at the direction of -- eric trump, and a similar situation involving one of the golf courses in westchester county. it's the first time we've heard testimony about eric trump's involvement in the preparation of the financial statements and values. and on tuesday the court will resume and the chief financial officer allen weisselberg will be on the stand. >> and ivanka trump is not part of this, right? >> the appeals court had dismissed her from the case saying that the statute of limitations had run about her involvement in this case. she is expected to be called as a witness by the state and

testify because she had involvement in the old post office building, the big hotel they built in d.c., and her involvement with specific banks. that's going to get to the piece of the case about how the banks received these allegedly falsified statements. >> should the former president's son be worried about what came out in court today? >> i think so. i think it was sort of interesting because this is the third witness to testify, and this is one of the defendants. don't forget the controller, mr. mcconney, is a defendant on trial here. and the attorney general actually called one of the defendants in her case in chief as one of the beginning witnesses, and so i think he's testifying that this is -- he relied on this information that he got from eric trump and others. we'll see how the rest of the testimony goes, but i think that there's things that came out today that would be concerning to eric trump. if i were his lawyer, i would be concerned about some of the things that came out. additionally, for example, they talked about how one of the

things that they put -- this is what donald trump always says -- is that there's a brand value to many of the properties. you know, the trump brand, but interestingly, there was a disclaimer on these financial statements saying, by the way, we didn't rely on or factor in any brand value. so, once again, just complete -- just saying one thing and doing the opposite, and that's coming out loud and clear during this trial. >> yeah. karen and jennifer and kara scannell, thank you, as well. coming up, breaking news on the new scrutiny in a fatal car crash involving the wife of senator bob menendez. she killed a man in 2018 but was never charged. now the new jersey attorney general has opened a new inquiry into it according to "the new york times." that's next.

is it possible my network could take my business to the next level? it is with comcast business. powering all your devices with gig-speed wifi. and you get fast downloads and uploads. pick it up! pick it up! oh we got this! because it's powered by the next generation 10g network. more speed for your business? it's not just possible. it's happening. get started for $59.99 a month for 12 months. plus, ask how to get an $800 prepaid card with a qualifying internet bundle. comcast business, powering possibilities.

there's breaking news tonight in the fatal car crash involving the then-girlfriend, now-wife of embattled new jersey senator bob menendez. back in 2018, nadine arslanian is her last name struck and killed a pedestrian who according to a police report had been jaywalking. newly released dash cam video by

police questioning her after the crash, take a look at this. >> i didn't do anything wrong, you know? >> no, no. i understand. before you go, i just want to confirm that you do not want to give me your phone, correct? >> yes. >> and that was your statement that you were driving this way, the guy came this way. >> he jumped on my windshield. >> the senator's girlfriend was never tested for drugs or alcohol because police say they didn't have probable cause according to "the new york times." according to the police report, officers concluded she was not at fault. now "the new york times" reports that the new jersey attorney general has opened an inquiry into the fatal crash. here with me is john miller, cnn's chief law enforcement and intelligence analyst. so, does this make sense to you? why would they look into it now when nothing -- seems like the police didn't do much investigation then. >> a lot of questions are being raised, and the way it works in new jersey, in most places in the united states, prosecutors

are elected officials. in new jersey, prosecutors are appointed by the governor, and they answer to the attorney general. so, when questions are raised about what a prosecutor's office may have done or not done, whether something was covered up or handled correctly, or whether it was all done by the book, the attorney general is coming in to do this review. >> so here's what i'd like to know, did police know she was the girlfriend of senator menendez either on the scene or later on? why didn't they breathalyze her? i mean, is that true they didn't have probable cause? i would think that would be standard if you've just killed somebody with your vehicle, and does this seem questionable to you? >> so, by new jersey law enforcement standards, not questionable in that manner because unless they can articulate reasonable suspicion that someone may be intoxicated, they can't compel a breathalyzer or a drug test or drawing blood from a hospital. >> she did say the man jumped on her windshield. i don't know -- that seems an

odd thing to have happened. could it be possible he was hit and held onto her windshield. >> if you see the video, he goes up in the air and lands on the windshield. and when she stops, he flies off the car and bounces in the streets a couple of times before he stops. we had three specific questions for the bergen county prosecutor, which is, did she call 911 after the accident? did she use the phone to call anybody else, and did the bergen county prosecutor's office subpoena those records? why is this important, because if you look at the video of the car accident, the car sits there stock still for a full minute after he's been hit, and he's laying in the street. >> she doesn't get out? >> she doesn't get out. actually, she doesn't get out at all, anderson, until the police arrive. so, what's going on in that minute? we actually did learn from a law enforcement source today that

she does, in fact, call 911, and she says in the 911 call, i am told exactly what she said in the video, which is, i was driving and a man jumped on top of my windshield. so, there's that. the more burning question is, that's four minutes after she strikes him. that's three minutes after she sits still and then moving the car up 100 feet. did she call anyone else, and that's why that third question. did they subpoena the phone records, because what you want to know there is, was she texting while she was driving? could she have been distracted? was she on the phone or reading an email or answering an email? i meaning, you want to know all that because it's a factor in a fatal accident, and the bergen county prosecutor's office, which the police department gave us all the records they had the first day, and the last line in those records are, the bergen county office accident investigation is going to subpoena those records. we asked all those questions yesterday. we got back an email that gave a description of their accident investigation unit and said,

make a records request. at that moment, while they were telling us, make a records request, the attorney general's office was in there gathering up those very same records. so, it seems like a stall tactic. >> interesting, john miller, thanks so much. more on this coming up no doubt. coming up, as a candidate, president biden vowed there will, quote, not be another foot of border wall constructed on his watch. so, why has a border wall been approved? that's next.

the migrant situation is putting pressure on the white house. one thing then-candidate joe biden vowed to never do, build more border walls. fast forward to this week, and a notice posted to the federal registry announcing just that, more walls to be built in the rio grande valley. president biden defended the move, saying me had no choice. >> the money was appropriated for the border wall. i tried to get them to reappropriate, redirect that money. they didn't. they wouldn't, and in the meantime, there's nothing under the law. i can't stop that. >> do you believe the border wall works? >> no. >> so, why then did his administration say it will waive

26 laws to get it done? senior white house correspondent kayla tausche joins me now. so, the white house seems to be claiming they had to spend this money on the border barriers. is that the truth? do they have to spend money? >> yes and no. it's a little bit more nuanced than that. anderson, on the one hand, under the impoundment control act of 1974, a nixon era law, the white house can't simply choose not to spend that money because of policy differences, which is what they say they would have been doing in this particular case. on the other hand, there could have been ways to slow-walk the construction of that new border wall, or there's also the question of whether the administration should have pushed during the two years the democrats controlled the house, the senate, and the white house to rescind some of that funding, and the white house hasn't had an answer for that particular question. >> the white house talked about the border issue in the appropriations request, right? >> they did, and secretary mayorkas personally signed off

on that filing that was published in the federal register on wednesday evening, and in it he cited an acute and immediate need at the southern border to construct physical barriers and roads in the vicinity of the border of the united states in order to prevent unlawful entries into the united states in the project areas, and he goes on to say, i have determined that it is necessary that i exercise that authority. so, mayorkas personally signing off on this request to waive those 26 federal laws, to essentially expedite that construction, even though he and the administration remain adamant this week there is no new border policy. anderson? >> all right. kayla tausche, thanks. with me, cnn senior data reporter, harry enten. what does the polling say on what kind of action voters would like to see when it comes to the southern border? >> they want to see increased security at the southern border. that's a fact. and very rarely do you see the

per percentage you're seeing in the polls right now. nearly 80% of voters want that increase of security at the border. more than that, i'm always interested in issues in which a majority of democrats and a majority of republicans agree, and this is one of those issues. now, obviously republicans want security more at the border than democrats do, but still 60% of democrats wanting more security at the border. this is an issue in which i think president biden is feeling a lot of political pressure because of polling exactly like that. >> i get they're responding to polling doing this, or they feel there's a real need for it. i don't know why the administration wouldn't just explain that or support it. they seem to be having it both ways. which party has the advantage on dealing with immigration? >> yeah, sometimes in politics it's difficult to figure out why folks don't say what they should say from a political point of view, but i will note, which party has the edge on immigration? it's the republican party. they have a nearly 20-point edge on immigration. this is vastly different than

the 2020 campaign, when it was actually the democratic party that had the edge on immigration. in fact, according to the nbc poll, what we see is that more voters today favor the republican party on immigration than at any point in nbc news polling history. so, this is an issue that is working for republicans right now, and i think that's part of the reason why we're sort of seeing a lot of democrats recognizing this polling and saying, hey, maybe we should, sort of, switch up our messaging on immigration. >> i think i know the answer to this, but what do the numbers show about americans' concern about immigration? >> i like when you set me up so easily for questions like this, right? look, back in 2020, immigration was not an issue that was on anyone's radar, right? we were all talking about the covid-19 pandemic. perhaps we were talking about opening up the economy. back then just 1% of americans said that immigration was the top problem. it was simply not an issue that donald trump could run on. jump toward today, it's now the third highest ranked in terms of issues americans say is most important at 13%.

that's also nearly double from where we were, basically from where we were, about double where we were during the 2020 midterm campaign. it's an issue republicans and specifically donald trump is going to like to run on in this campaign and the fact is, a lot of americans are coming around to the republican view on immigration. so, it's something democrats are right to worry about. >> harry, thank you. coming up next, how some students and parents are trying to fight book banning efforts at school board meetings in florida. earlier this year,

elle reeve reported on the group, which calls themselves moms for liberty, which has been leading the charge on getting books banned from shelves of schools or libraries. according to pen america, book bans in schools increased 30% last school year, and more than 40% of all book bans happened in florida school districts. in may, elle spoke with the

leader of moms for liberty in el paso county, colorado, about what was motivating her push to take books off the shelves. >> to me it sounds like you're saying there's some kind of high-level coordinated effort to make more children trans and gay. >> yeah. >> well, who's directing that? >> teachers unions and our president and a lot of funding sources, and teachers unions are also heavily backing the curriculum that we're bringing into schools. >> why would they want more kids to be gay and trans? >> because it breaks down the family unit, which breaks down traditional conservative values. it breaks down a lot of things in this country. it changes the way that people think. it changes the way that people handle politics. >> so, tonight, another in-depth look from elle, what some students' parents are doing to stop books from disappearing from school bookshelves. >> here we go. on page 25, it starts. i swear, the relationship is

based on those [ bleep ] and grabbed his penis with her hands and started moving it. >> page 59. he had a dirty picture of a woman attempting sexual intercourse with a shetland d pony. >> reporter: this is a school board county in florida, where people are reading racy parts of books out of context in an attempt to get them banned from school libraries. >> yeah, adults that are talking about this actually don't understand their children. >> i have a sticker on my phone that says, if you ban a book, i add it to my summer reads list. >> reporter: some targets books are considered classics. >> if a room full of adults cannot hear pornography or sexually explicit content or whatever's challenged, then it should not be in the hands of minor children in schools. >> so, the group lobbied for a state law that if someone reads a passage from a book out loud at a school board meeting, and the board stops them because it's offensive, the book can be immediately removed.

the law went into effect in july. it turned spectacle into policy. >> you want to get shut down.. you want to read the worst of the worst of the books we gave you. that way you will guarantee to get shut down. >> we don't often hear from the people actually affected by this, students. some teenagers are telling school boards their side. >> i have learned a lot more about the world around me through books than my own eyes. by removing books that a small group of people take issue with, i may not have been able to do that. >> i've always loved reading. although there might be something in a book that some people don't want there to be, the books ultimately have a message. they should stay in the libraries. >> it is disgusting for a grown man to high-five people and get excited to read crude passages knowing that children are attending or watching from home. >> i wanted to tell the school board that i believe more dire matters should be discussed in a school district meeting. >> and why -- >> reporter: and some parents are furious about moms for

liberty's tactics. >> i am the proud founder of mike for liberty, which mike for mike for liberty, which mike for liberty says your parental rights do not trump mine. >> i'm the proud parent of two beautiful interracial queens, and i'm sick of this nonsense. i'm sick of a local fringe group speaking for my children. they're not the majority. they're bullies. they could have said hey, principal so and so, i want you to look at this book. they chose not to do that. they chose to bring the theater here and for the circus to happen here. >> this book contains sexual activity, sexual nudity, profanity, alternative sexualities, hate, abortion. >> if you look at the statue of david, they're zooming in on david's groin area. one specific part. what they need to do is take a step back when they're reading these passages. they're missing the amazing, amazing work of art. >> reporter: they created

florida freedom to read to push back against groups, including moms for liberty. they've revealed internal school board confusion over the removal law. >> anne frank's diary, they were successful in removing this graphic adaptation. according to them, this is sexually explicit. nudity. >> these marble statues? >> yep. "the bluest eye" has been taken out without a review in many other counties across florida. we see it high on the list of the most banned book in the country. and it's one of those things where they're talking about sexual assault and they make it sound as if toni morrison intended to arouse the audience with those words. and that was absolutely not the intent of this work. >> the diary of anne frank is the story of a jewish teen hiding from nazis during the holocaust. the bluest eye is about a young black girl who's told she's ugly so often she wishes she had blue eyes. books like these help teach

students how to think about difficult subjects through characters they can relate to. >> when you hear about the bans on books that have, like, queer themes and gay and trans people, it's a little hurtful. not for the crazy people to say we should ban books because of that, but just for that to be the issue that people are, like, that's the stumbling block. that's why we're even having to have these conversations, i think that's frustrating. and that extends to race as well. >> have you ever read a book about racism and felt bad for being white? >> yeah, obviously, but black people and brown people, whoever, whatever kind of racism is being talked about, they feel bad too. when we were learning about slavery, it's, like, everyone feels really bad talking about this stuff because it's horrible stuff that's happened to people. trying to make it so everyone's happy when they're reading and feel good about themselves is really stupid because it's denying a broader range of emotions and experiences and understanding. >> are you curious at all what the students think about whether these books should be in libraries.

>> if they're 17 or younger, no. it's their parents' decision. >> some told us moms for liberty has created a climate of fear from students to teachers to those who run for office in florida. >> it's sad when my daughter comes home and says, dad, we learned about another religion today, is that okay? we learned about this in history. i have to tell my daughters, it's okay. your teachers aren't getting in trouble. >> teachers are scared because if they lose their certification here, they can't teach in florida. they can't teach anywhere in the nation. >> do you think it limits the number of people who might speak out against these book removals? the threat if they do so they might be called a pedophile? >> yes. absolutely. even i have a friend who's sitting on a curriculum review committee, texted me and said she's scared to go to the review committee because they're going show up to protest. >> this is what happens when no one runs and everyone is asleep. i'm wide awake or woke, the bad word of the

day, so we have to vote them out. >> elle reeve joins us now. what was that school board like? >> it has the feel of a professional wrestling match, where everybody knows what's going to happen but they want to watch it anyway. the moms for liberty know they're going to read sex scenes. the people who post them know they're going to read sex scenes. the school board knows they're going to be read sex scenes. but for moms for liberty to have the book pulls from the shelves, the school board has to say these words are inappropriate for the crowd that came to hear them. >> it's fascinating. and they haven't actually really read these books often. no, i asked the mother we talked to had she read "slaughter house 5." that's about the horrors of war. but what was read in the meeting was tiny little sentences or phrases about sexuality. >> appreciate it. we'll be right back.

a quick programming note, tune in this sunday night for "the whole story," running of the bulls in spain, a dangerous competition. david suits up in a red garb and scarf and tries it himself. take a look. >> it's a bit terrifying

because you're starting to think, all right, i'm committed. i'm on, and i'm going to stay on. as we gather as a group, we, kind of find our positioning. it's crazy to think that you're standing your ground after first the bells, and then that rocket goes off. and you're holding your ground. and i'm listening to dennis' command. [ crowd chanting ] >> yikes. you might have seen david there fall in the crowd by the bull. his effort did not go as planned. you see what happened when you