a 877-225-8587 way that is all the time we have left this evening. hope you set your dvr, never miss an episode. we will see you back here tomorrow @thestoryfnc. we will be back here tomorrow night, tucker is up next, we will see you. >> good evening, welcome to "tucker carlson tonight." the subject is russia in pretty much the only thing washington can talk about or respond to at the moment. sessions may strike you as a likely prudent conspirator living in alabama, an awfully long way from moscow in every sense. it doesn't matter. everyone affiliated with the administration is a suspect these days. sessions says as a mentor of ad services committee he talked on two occasions with the russian

ambassador the united states. that said, his total known extent of his contact with the contact. >> on march 2nd i said attorney general sessions should not be in that job and he should resign, three months ago, more than three months ago, so that's my position on him. >> i don't even know why he still attorney general, he lied before congress in order to get confirmed, that the perjury charge, he also lied on his security clearance forms on his russian meetings, those are false official statements. he should have resigned months ago. >> for the good of the country, attorney general sessions should resign. >> tucker: we've been covering the story most nights on the show for the past seven months. over that time we've noticed a theme, almost all the claims you hear about russia are general rather than specific. russia hacked our election, we have that went almost every day. okay, we are open-minded. how exactly did russia hack our election? well, comes the answer, they

just did. all 17 intelligence agency say they did. russia undermined our democracy, okay, but can you be more specific, that's a pretty serious charge and it might be nice to have some details. they can't provide those details, or they won't. if you keep pressing for details, they will attack you personally, as we found out when adam schiff, the ranking democrat on the house intelligence committee accused me of carrying water for prudent when i asked him to back up his claims. character assassination is always easier than making a sensible argument, which brings us back to jeff sessions. those two meetings with the russian ambassador, those have changed the course of recent history, sessions was forced to recuse himself from a major investigation into russa potomac russia and then fend off allegations that he somehow committed treason because of of meetings. since nobody accusing him seems to know or care, we decided to find out ourselves. over the weekend we tracked down an eyewitness to one of those

meetings. it took place at the republican national convention in cleveland the first week of july last summer. if an event called global partners in democracy. it turned out to be at a not very stimulating gathering stage every four years on behalf of scores of foreign diplomats who want to see how american politics worked. sessions gave a speech and as he left the state, about 50, 15 ambassadors walk up and say high to him, among them. the total extent of the meeting. they never broke away from the group to talk privately, they never exchanged for cash or microfilm or secret messages. we know this from the person we talked to who was a few feet away when it happen, but also because that room was filled with more than a hundred other witnesses, that includes agents from american diplomatic security in washington and a number of obama political appointments and the state department. they were all standing around as the meeting took place. it was a total "nothing burger," says the person who has sought, who has never worked for sessions, doesn't even know him. i was shocked by how it has been

distorted. if you are shocked, you haven't been paying attention, this kind of thing is happening all over washington right now, guilt by association, attacked by innuendo, classic witch hunt stuff. if jeff sessions can be denounced as a russian spy, anyone can be. a political commentator who thinks sessions must resign, she joins us tonight. i would think as a progressive, you would believe and hearing evidence before reaching conclusions and due process. he hasn't even testified yet, these meetings amount to nothing and you think you should sign. >> absolutely i think you should resign. let's start on the basis that he should not even be attorney general. the same man that called the naacp and the aclu un-american, the sam man that coretta scott king should not be anywhere near our government at his judgeship was rejected. sessions should definitely resign, he has no business in our government. >> tucker: let me just say, i

think the naacp is a shadow of itself, a joke. >> wendy: tucker! >> tucker: it makes me somebody who disagrees with you on that subject. >> wendy: it make to someone who disagrees with me, but the difference between you and death spasms are not the attorney general. you should have a certain the court when it comes to that -- coke >> tucker: anybody who criticizes the naacp or the aclu should not be allowed to be the attorney general of the united states? >> wendy: i think it should be rejected, as it was for sessions. moreover, -- >> tucker: only people who agree with the political aims, so basically no one who is right of left should be allowed to govern? that kind of is the view of notice. >> wendy: that's not necessarily the view, the view is anyone in our government should welcome all thoughts, all streams of thinking and jeff sessions does not. that's a problem. >> tucker: you're the one who doesn't. he disagrees with you on the subject, so he shouldn't be allowed to hold hyatt government office, that appears to be the case or making, is that a

constitutional position you have? >> wendy: the position i have is that he lied on the form that made in the attorney general. >> tucker: he lied because he was asked did you come in the congress, by the senator from minnesota, did you and your capacity as a surrogate mate with the russians, and his position is no, in my capacity as a senator from alabama, i met with kislyak. >> wendy: the form says you have to be honest and you have to be completely forthcoming with information. >> tucker: how much do you know about this? that meeting was on his public schedule. >> wendy: albert the third meeting we are hearing about that he has not made mention of? to be what they are denying it took place. do you have evidence it took place? >> wendy: to have evidence it didn't take place. >> tucker: no eyewitnesses, his staff says it didn't take place. >> wendy: the former director

of the federal bureau of investigation, it came up because we all know leaks are synonymous with washington, d.c., even if it's a closed session. >> tucker: he says where did it take place, and when? >> wendy: they said that the third meeting happened, comey did not provide details, he did not provide details. i was not there, so i don't know if he did. >> tucker: he should resign because why? do? ducey -- i don't want to be mean to you -- >> wendy: it you're not being mean. >> tucker: before you destroy someone's life and force him out of his job, when you want some evidence before you do that? >> wendy: of the way jeff sessions was calling for hillary clinton -- for us to ban her, he was destroying her character as well. >> tucker: therefore he deserves that now? >> wendy: what i'm arguing exactly is that he was dishonest on his horn. what i'm honoring is that he has no place being an attorney general to begin with. absolutely not. what i'm arguing exactly is that this is another tile in the

mosaic of dishonesty that is the trump administration and we have to look at it in totality. that is a problem. >> tucker: you don't like the administration, anybody who works there should resign because they are -- this is the point i meeting, i think he's worth defending as a man because i think he's an honorable man and i happen to agree with a lot of his ideas. >> wendy: he's honorable? he called a black attorney at -- he denies he said that. >> wendy: if i deny something does that make it's not true? >> tucker: you up to be required to prove something before you punish someone for something, using the standards you are outlining her, but we held a criminal trial, there would be a lot of injustice. you don't punish someone without proving they did something wrong, and you can't. >> wendy: the president has made a lot of assassination of character on people, but we have not said to him not only do you have to apologize, you have to be held accountable. did he not say that president obama wiretapped might >> tucker: we are arguing

different things are, are not here to defend the twitter feed, i'm merely saying that the attorney general of the united states shouldn't be forced out of office and left you can prove he did something wrong. in the case of the third meeting with the russians -- >> wendy: as if to wasn't enough. >> tucker: coming down off a riser is greeted greeted by a foreign ambassador. we too using that's what he did? do you know the extent of this meeting? >> tucker: i was interviewing somebody this weekend was standing right next to them, he just happened to be there and i take his word for it. a ton of other people in the room, like 100 of them. shouldn't we have a higher standard before we try to destroy people or no? >> wendy: i don't think she is being destroyed. >> tucker: how would you feel, you teach at johns hopkins, i've heard that wendy -- i don't know any details, but she may have met with some representative of a foreign government i dislike and i will go go to her employr and say she needs to be fired right now. how would you feel about that?

>> wendy: i would feel okay because i know at the end of the day -- >> tucker: [laughs] >> wendy: i can go before the world and say actually i did not we will see tomorrow that jeff sessions is not going to do that, instead he's going to say i will enact executive privilege on this and i will not answer these questions. that's what we will see. we will see him play the blame game as they are light on this form because i didn't know that i should put on the form. >> tucker: the blame game. i do think there is a higher principle here, thanks for joining us. >> wendy: thank you. >> tucker: by now former "cbs evening news" host dan rather should know better than to push dubious political news angles for political gain, he lost his job doing that several years ago. nevertheless, last friday he went on another cable channel to compare the events of last fall's election to the war against japan somehow. speak with the russians pulled off what i call a psychological pearl harbor, a surprise attack

that was devastating to the confidence of our whole system of election, our whole system of government. one of the great psychological warfare victories. >> tucker: is it time for world war iii? because remember, russia hacked our democracy, charles krauthammer is a writer and it columnist. charles, when you look at russia hacking our democracy, does pearl harbor come to mind? >> charles: i think that's a deranged analogy. >> tucker: [laughs] >> charles: one of the worst scandals since teapot dome. watergate is insignificant compared to it. i am not a trump apologist. >> tucker: i can vouch for that. >> charles: i love the word lordy. i will adopt it for my own. so far it starts with the charge the russians have interfered in our elections and the comey hearing, people got all incredibly sanctimonious. comey said it's not a republican

issue, it's not a democrat, it's an american issue, a threat to our democracy. yes, they leaked some documents we think. the idea that they actually tampered with the system, the russians have been doing this just about every election and every country that we know. it's just a little more obvious this time. imagine that this had happened in 2012 and it was but romney, the man who said russia is our biggest enemy, it was at the receiving end of russia hacking and that the accusation was they reelected barack obama, do you think the democrats on that committee would be over this attack on american democracy? this is purest hypocrisy, but let's ignore that and see you want to investigate that, that's not what the democrats are interested in. if the collusion argument, that is sort of the sidebar -- supposedly the sidebar, there's no evidence up until now and

they've been looking since july, a from collusion in this affair. on the second count, there's no evidence. now they are going after the defective stuff, what prompted afterwards, people know they will not get him on collusion, not on the evidence that we have. the head of the fbi tells him three times you want to target and you are in our eyes innocent of this. now it will be on obstruction, whereas a professional alan dershowitz said, how can the president be obstructing justice when he has the constitutional authority to dismiss the case or to order its dimensional instantly? if he's allowed, i say it's improper, he shouldn't have done it, but the evidence of obstruction of justice when he has the authority to dismiss it completely -- >> tucker: it's insane. the one thing that comey's

testimony that struck me was there's probably a lot of regions he would have needed to recuse himself, i can't tell you what they are. >> charles: that's innuendo. >> tucker: it is the lowest form of character assassination. then it turns out according to the leaks in this meeting he didn't have the goods, he had no idea that he may have met with them a third time at some undisclosed place, it was only designed to hurt jeff sessions. the fbi director shouldn't act that way. >> charles: i think trump had a really bad day on the day of the comey testimony. i think comey had a really bad day as well. the idea that he was sort of slanted by the democrats will sort of shocking and revolting. a guy who admitted to being cowardly in the face of obstructionist from loretta lynch to being cowardly when he was supposedly being improperly influenced by the president, by not going to the authorities if he thought there was obstruction going on. instead putting it in a memo, sticking it in a box and holding it as protection.

these are not very honorable things to do. i thought he came out diminished as well. we are now on like the third branch of this attempt to bring down trump, the collusion, which is not there, the obstruction which is not there, so now they will go after sessions, on what? what is the charge? it's not even clear, that he liked borscht shoulders with someone whose job it is to meet senators, thanks for joining us. >> charles: thanks for my pleasure. >> tucker: are u.s. at progressive, a new production of julius caesar in new york will let you live out your fantasy and at least one person at cnn thinks that great. the campus left -- the lawmakers have decided they will protect the first amendment, we will talk to somebody who says efforts to preserve free speech are wrong, next what if we pull customer insights from the data in real time?

wait, our data center and our clouds can't connect? michael, can we get this data to...? look at me...look at me... look at me... you used to be the "yes" guy. what happened to that guy? legacy technology can handcuff any company. but "yes" is here. so, you're saying we can cut delivery time? yeah. with help from hpe, we can finally work the way we want to. with the right mix of hybrid it, everything computes.

>> it is hard and there's a level of viciousness that i was not expecting, i was not expecting the intensity of this experience. but this isn't supposed to be easy. my father and this administration intends to be transformative, and we want to do big, bold things. we are looking to change the status quo. i didn't expect it to be easy. >> tucker: ivanka trump discussing the political climate since the election. they viciousness does seem to be

increasing. a new york production of the shakespeare play julius caesar seeks a model based on president trump. spoiler, he does get stabbed to death halfway through the play, as he has for hundreds of years. they tweeted this, if you are in new york, go see julius caesar free in central park, brilliantly interpreted for the trump era, a master press, he laughed, he cried. fantasies of the violent death seem to be a running theme at cnn these days. just two weeks ago, kathy griffin, a cnn host at the time, fantasized about beheading president trump. what is going on over there? joe writes on the media for the hill, he joins us tonight. is it wrong to connect the dots and see that this is a theme no now? >> it's absolutely a theme. time warner owns cnn, kathy griffin situation just two weeks ago, they are forced to let her go 24 hours later.

they also own hbo and belmar just ten days ago on that program interviewing a republican senator said that he was a house and wanted and he had to apologize. hbo didn't suspend him, there was no threat of boycott. hbo featured a severed head on "game of thrones" of president bush. when you quote to raise is mine. cnn releases a statement that he's not an employee of the network even though he hosted the show. a week later they were forced to fire the employee and he's gone. time warner has an opportunity to say that we don't agree with any production that assassinates any president, trump, obama, bush, it doesn't matter, instead they appear to be sticking by, like "the new york times" ," who also sponsors it in central park. they have in common, a harvard study about two weeks ago shows

that cnn is number one in terms of negative coverage of drum, 93% negative. "new york times" is number three. 87% negative. it shows me they not only disagree with the president in terms of ideology and policy, there's an actual vitriol and hatred there that leads to them sponsoring events like a julius caesar and donald trump getting stabbed to death. >> tucker: another cable channel, the land trotsky channel, pretty openly left, i think they're pretty straightforward about who they are. speaking for myself, i'm not bothered by it because i don't feel misled. but if you have a channel that is always lecturing you about the pharmacy of news, and then they are pushing in on cloaked political agenda, there's something grating about that, if ever thought about just being who they are? >> cnn continues to exist that they are a nonpartisan network, that foxes over here and msnbc is over here and they are here to get in the middle. the numbers just don't work out that way. if you remember a couple years ago, there was a clown in

missouri that wore a mask of president obama, 2013 i think, and cnn it was all over this story, a lot of media it was all over it to the point where not only does the clown get fired, and this clown wore masks of reagan and bush and clinton in previous years, but he was banned for life from the missouri state fair because of the media coverage and it was so horrible that a clown wore a mask of a president when he's worn masks of other presidents before. it's crazy. >> tucker: i do remember eight years of getting a lot of lectures about impeding the dignity of the office and belittling the guy and even if you -- i'm happy to treat the president with respect, he's the president, but whatever happened to that standard, it seemed to have change? >> joe: it has, even in the late nights as well. if stephen colbert just a couple of weeks ago making a sexual joke about putin and from. bill is very straightforward about who he is, i respect that, i think he makes a lot of good

points. he basically described ivanka trump performing an act on her father. the bar just keeps getting lower and lower, i think kathy griffin probably saw what those guys are doing and said i can hold up a beheaded head of drum because everybody is getting away with these and nobody really seems to be objecting to it. that's where we are now, the bar is so low and one more final point, time warner and at&t are trying to complete a merger that is nowhere near done and the president did say on the campaign trail that he may try to block that, it matters like certainly don't help. >> tucker: you just sort of wonder what's going to happen what all this was over when trump is gone and there's a new president, is anybody going to watch that channel, can anyone believe them again? joe, thank you. >> joe: thanks for having me. >> tucker: evergreen college in olympia, washington, has become so unworldly for some professors are simply fleeing the campus. next we will talk to professor brett weinstein whose defiance in the face of the mob started it all. plus, a high school football coach was fired after praying

silently with his pla

>> tucker: time now for campus craziness. in that category, no school comes class close to matching evergreen college in washington state. student activists sought to kick old white people off campus for an entire day, brett weinstein

was a biology of professor there, a self-described progressive, he was harassed by a mob howling for his job. instead of sitting for their carl icahn with of professors have called for him to leave, calling -- demanding he be investigated. he has re-relocated the family for their safety and he joins us now and we are grateful he has. >> brett: thanks for inviting me back. >> tucker: you are no longer on the campus of evergreen, why? >> brett: at the has never acknowledged the danger that they put us in and therefore i have no way of knowing whether it's safe for me to return. there are assurances that it is safe don't mean anything, not that they have offered them. they were not that they've offered them. it seems to me, you and i have talked before, i doubt we share the same politics at all, but it seems a pretty cut and dry case in the sense of free expression. you had a point of view and your

right to have that ought to be sacrosanct and i wonder how many of your colleagues or others in academia have supported you and that? >> brett: i received tremendous support outside of the college and received quite a bit of support within the college, but publicly only one of the professor has forward to say he supports my position. >> tucker: what is your position, if you could sum it up for us. >> bret: the issue is complicated, let me start by simply pointing out that the protest of my class occurred because i sent an email to the staff and faculty email list protesting what we call day of absence. in this case the day of absence was being reversed by the organizing committee and white people are asked to leave the campus, it was not that we were forced to leave, but we were asked to leave and it was made very clear that leaving was an

active ally ship with people of color and therefore not leaving if you are white meant that you were not an ally. >> tucker: and you refused to leave? >> bret: i did refused to leave and i sent a letter, i think it was very carefully stated, but it said that there was tremendous difference between a population absent thing themselves from a shared space and a population deciding to absent other people from that same space. on a college campus people should be equally free to be on campus irrespective of their skin color. >> tucker: exactly, amen, i thought that was sort of a basic precept of american life. do you plan to go back to evergreen? >> bret: i certainly have duties to finish this year and i have no alternative employment, so my expectation is that i will have to go back. that said, it's not exactly clear how i can go back to a campus or the administration and the faculty have invested so heavily in demonizing me.

at first they demonized me as a racist and it became clear that that was not resonating with people, they shifted their critique and in fact have blamed my last appearance on your program for everything that has occurred at evergreen sense. i don't know how i can go back and teach, given that i have been portrayed as the reason that evergreen is in crisis. >> tucker: it's grotesque. for the record, of course, all of this happen before you came on our show. we ask you one because we thought unfolding. i really hope in a who wants a professor or principal will call you right after this appearance tonight. thanks for coming on. >> bret: thanks very much. >> tucker: evergreen is just the most recent and most obviously egregious case of the left trying to enforce absolute ideological conformity on campus. some lawmakers are taking permanent steps to protect the first amendment. in ten states bills have been passed to protect freedom of speech on campus, to punish

students who attempt to suppress the right of others to speak freely. seems relatively noncontroversial. if scott ross opposes these law laws, and he joins us. i don't know if you saw the interview we just did but it was with a self described progressive on the campus of evergreen who has been physically threatened because he has a different view. this kind of things happening on a bunch of campuses and i would think that since the liberals would be upset about it and trying to fix it, but they are not. why? >> scott: first of all, thank you for having me. there is nobody who should defend violence or threats or disorderly conduct, but i don't think the bill that we are seeing, particularly in the state of wisconsin, meets any of those thresholds. what's happening as we have a coordinated effort to suppress free speech on university of wisconsin campuses to intimidate students, faculty, and administrators from discussing critically important issues facing the debate. >> tucker: who writes her

talking points? do you live in this country, do what was happening on college campuses? lots of campuses where people stand up and say i disagree and they're shouted and people threaten them, that's a real thing, that's not a creation of the show for fox news or the right, that's totally real, why aren't you upset about it? >> scott: what i think is this this, we have in the legislation here in the state of wisconsin, a potential solution that is infinitely worse than the electric problem. you have the hand of government coming and trying to intimidate people from speaking out on campus. our college campuses have multiple jurisdictions of law enforcement. here in wisconsin able capitol police, city police, campus police. if somebody crosses a line into disorderly conduct, they can be prosecuted and detained by trained law enforcement officials. this bill is not that. this bill is providing task of >> tucker: what's motive? okay. they can't have them now. i know that people try to dismiss this is something that

demagogues are getting right-wingers exercise, but that is demonstrably not true, we do this every week. it's totally real. people who can't speak on campus because they have a diversion view from the majority and i thought the whole point of being liberal was to defend people like that, or have you been when this is going on? what have you done? >> scot: tucker, i have stood with conservatives and republicans and fighting for free speech rights here in the state of wisconsin. that is a certainty. what i would say is this, regarding this particular piece of legislation, i can only speak for wisconsin, were not one single conservative speaker who was come on campus has been prevented from being prevented from delivering their marks in full. once you create that chilling environment where people are afraid to speak out, that's where you don't have the opportunity to listen to each other. >> tucker: it's almost like you're kidding. do you have kids in school, i got four of them. you talk to any of them or their friends or anybody who was in college and they say i don't want to give my opinion because

i will be penalized. anybody who's not in a very specific narrow band of progressive thought, is hurt. are you not aware of this? >> scot: i think that threatening anybody with violence or intimidating them is a terrible thing that should be prosecuted. when i don't like is the government, big government coming in and writing laws to tell people they can and cannot speak on campuses. >> tucker: this is silly. this is already government. what you think uc berkeley is? what you think madison is? these are government schools and the government is doing literally nothing to protect the rights of the minority. again, this ought to be something that you are waking up mad about every day. where are liberals, are there any left? >> scot: the university of wisconsin is protecting free speech rights, every speaker who has come to the university of wisconsin campus, even provocateurs who have things to say that i would definitely disagree with, they've been able to been able to deliver all the remarks. >> tucker: you believe that the student in the poly sigh

class for donald trump and expect that his grade would not be effective, look at me right in the face and say no problem. >> scot: absolutely, that's ridiculous. >> tucker: -- >> scot: they originally one of republican attorney general to be -- he flat out refused and i had to take them off the bill. >> tucker: i don't care what your republican attorney general thinks this is for -- i don't care! i don't care if some republicans disagree with me, that means nothing to me. where are the elected officials saying we are taking an absolutist position on the first amendment, you should not have your rights abridged as enumerated in the bill of rights, the first is the right to say what you think is true. where the politician standing up for that, i don't see any on the left, do you? >> scot: i would have to disagree with you strongly on that, because by allowing people to have that expression, the government isn't getting in the way of free speech. once the government comes in and

tells you or i what we can and cannot say, that's where we crossed the line into oppressing the first amendment. >> tucker: that's happening right now! i mean, that's happening, if milo can't give a speech at uc berkeley, a government school, then the government is complicit in his first amendment rights being taken away, no? >> scot: i would agree that you've given me a handful of examples that have happened around the nation. >> tucker: my viewers are very familiar with them because we talk about all the time because we are not a liberal show, we believe in the first amendment. >> scot: i can't speak to that, i can tell you what goes on in the state of wisconsin, we are allowed to speak on campuses, the republicans want to stop that and the attorney general opposes the idea. the author of the bill himself, one of the republican state representatives, was on public radio, was asked about the constitutionality and he said he agreed that there were constitutional problems with this particular --

>> tucker: right. >> scot: we do hope some of the republicans will join us. >> tucker: thanks for joining us. meanwhile, a football coach was fired for preying on the field, conducting a moment of silence. very, very dangerous, speaking of the first amendment. he suing

>> tucker: a former high school football coach has moved from the locker room toy program. he says he was wrongly fired for his religious practices. 2007-2015, joe kennedy of bremerton high school hold a voluntary moment of silence at midfield after games. after eight years of doing this without any incident, the school ordered him to stop, he defied that order, he was fired. now he is suing for his job back, saying he's been unconstitutionally punished for his religious views. joe kennedy and his attorney mike join us now. it seems to me legally and maybe morally, the operative question

is was this voluntary, did you require anyone on your team to participate in this moment of silence? >> joe: absolutely not. telling a kid that they have to be out there is just as wrong as telling them that they cannot be out there. >> tucker: why did the school order you to stop? >> joe: they just didn't like the public display. i was alone on the 50 by myself when i ended up getting fired. >> tucker: they can do on the 50-yard line? >> joe: it was because of the prayer that i was alone that actually got me fired. >> tucker: was there a victim in this, did someone complain, and what was the complaint exactly? >> joe: it really came from a complement at the beginning. there was no complaint, no one filing complaints against me or the football team. >> tucker: so what is your legal argument here? on behalf of your client. >> the first liberty institute

represents coach kennedy and our argument is the school district is violating his constitutional rights. the policy is that any employee of that school does anything that is visibly religious, so if somebody in the public can see you do it and it's religious, they say they can fire you for it. that would strip tens of millions of americans of their most basic constitutional right to religious liberty. >> tucker: i'm a little confused as to how we are defining religious. tell me if i'm wrong, this wasn't a prayer, it was a moment of silence? >> joe: it originally started out by myself on the 50 and it was a moment of silence and it evolved over the years, but at the end when the school gave me the directive it was just myself playing on the 50. >> tucker: or you praying out loud or through a megaphone or anything? >> joe: no, sir, it was a silent prayer by myself on the 50-yard line. >> tucker: you got fired for closing arise in silence? >> joe: for about 15-30

seconds. >> tucker: that sounds incredibly dangerous, or a lot of people hurt by that, by your prayer? >> joe: from the reaction of the school, yes, everybody got her from that, but not because of what i did. >> tucker: unbelievable. what are you asking for exactly? >> it most basically we are acting for coach kennedy to be reinstated so we can start coaching his players again, but with his constitutional rights intact. something that is so basic that members of congress and even president trump have publicly announced their support for coach kennedy and what he has done, and people don't just have to take my word, although legal documents are available on our website at thefirst liberty.org. a lot of your questions are answered by the school district themselves, who even conceded, no complaints, nobody was never forced to participate, and they

thought what he was a good thing, they just don't want anybody to be able to see it. >> tucker: is grotesque. you see all the teacher showing up to work drunk protected by their own unit and you get canned. thanks for joining, i appreciate it. >> joe: i appreciate it. thanks for having us. >> tucker: will show you a new jersey high school that censored all student support for the presidential candidate of their

>> tucker: time now for top that, you know the story. too much weirdness, not enough time, so we brought together an expert panel to find the stranger story of the day. where join tonight by jillian,

formally of the national security council, she approved all the council she sat on and catherine, managing editor of the famous d.c. welcome to you both. blow my mind. >> a new jersey high school is under fire for photo shopping at their student's pictures, but it's not what you think, take a look. >> somebody just didn't like our president and wanted to not have them in the yearbook and this is where i think that with everything that's going on in today's country and stuff, this is where it's got to end. you can call anyone names, you can say whatever you want, but censoring someone's freedom of speech and freedom of expression is where we got to stop the stuff happening. it's insane. >> so he had a trump logo photoshopped out of his sweater vest. he wasn't the only one, another student at a trump logo photoshopped out of his t-shirt. another student had her trauma quote completely just not put in there. whether you like the guy or not, i think this is an unnecessary

form of censorship and i don't think -- i think it's a little ridiculous. >> tucker: its attack on reality. they changed it like it never happened, so be it. >> you can't teach your kids to run away from opposing political views, they are high school students. >> tucker: kids in my mind, but i get your point. can you top that you might >> oh, yeah, i can top that. it's been a couple weeks as we talked about katy perry. >> tucker: at least. >> for those of you that might be confused by who she is, she's not just not justin bieber, she's one of the top-selling number one artists of all time, famous for songs like i kissed a girl and i liked it, you're so gay, waking up in vegas and on and on. in order to celebrate and promote her forthcoming newest

strange album she locked herself in a rental house over the weekend and live streamed the whole weekend on youtube. we learned that she has decided to apologize to americans for all the cultural appropriation she has undertaken over the course of her career. she feels terrible about it. >> tucker: what does that mean? >> it means to her she apologizes for things like wearing a geisha outfit to an award show, wearing her hair in cornrows and one of her music videos, eating watermelon and one of her other music videos, stuff that has really been weighing on her mind. if you are confused about what this all means and why she feels bad about it, you're not alone, she's a little confused. she also said during the live stream i have made several mistakes over the course of my career, i won't ever understand some of those things because of whom i am, i will never understand but i can educate myself and that's what i'm trying to do. >> tucker: you win because i still don't know who she is.

you came in a close second, thank you. what is that?

>> the mirror of l.a. all but threatened the government, if something goes wrong i fear a tinderbox the mayor said he recently explained, if the trumpet administration dares to deport illegal aliens he said "people will try to keep that person from being taken, l.a. riots 25 years ago, warning of a replay if immigration laws, you should know he never said a discouraging word about the potential writers, he did not remind people about their duty to follow the law, behave peacefully, no mention of any of that, instead he used threats to make his point pete.

he may run for president someday, let's hope that if this country ever become so crazy, he is taken seriously.s s s s s s " we will see you tomorrow night. ♪ >> jesse: hello everybody, i am just really waters, it is 9:00 in new york city, and this is "the five." ♪ >> jesse: on the heels of that despicable beheading stand by kathy griffin, yet another is brewing tonight. a mock assassination of president trump. tonight was opening night of the new york public theaters production of caesar. the title character bears a not-so-subtle resemblance to