Return to Transcripts main page

Don Lemon Tonight

Judge Orders Release Of Redacted Mar-a-Lago Affidavit; Biden Slams 'MAGA Republicans' In Fiery Return To Campaign Trail; Biden's Loan Forgiveness Plan Sparks Heated Debate; Novak Djokovic To Miss U.S. Open Over COVID Vaccine; PA High School Cancels Football Season Amid Hazing Investigation. Aired 11p-12a ET

Aired August 25, 2022 - 23:00   ET




DON LEMON, CNN HOST: The Department of Justice preparing to release a redacted version of the Mar-a-Lago search warrant affidavit in a matter of hours. The affidavit laying out why investigators believe there was probable cause that crimes have been committed. But we don't know yet how much will be redacted and how much will be revealed.

I want to bring in now former deputy FBI Director Andrew McCabe, author of "The Threat: How the FBI Protects America in the Age of Terror and Trump." Also, former federal prosecutor Elliot Williams and former Watergate prosecutor Nick Akerman. Perfect people to have here to talk about this. Thank you, gentlemen. Good evening to you.

Andrew, I'm going to start with you. The redacted search affidavit will be released by noon tomorrow. This is what Judge Bruce Reinhart wrote. He said, I find that the government has met its burden of showing compelling reason/good cause to seal portions of the affidavit because disclosure would reveal, one, the identities of witnesses, law enforcement agents, and uncharged parties, two, the investigation's strategy, direction, scope, sources, and methods, and three, grand jury information protected by federal rule of criminal procedure.

So, Andrew, given all of that, what do you think the DOJ left in for the public to see because that's a lot that they didn't want to show there.

ANDREW MCCABE, CNN SENIOR LAW ENFORCEMENT ANALYST, FORMER DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF FBI: Yeah. So, Don, I think it's pretty clear that the judge respected the three categories of information that the DOJ desperately wants to keep secret. So, what we're likely to see in the affidavit tomorrow are all those facts and pieces of information that we're already aware of.

I think it's -- the DOJ probably left as much of that material in as they possibly could. So, this is basic details about the residents to be searched, the location, the history leading up to the search, those things that we've all been aware of some for some time.

And then, of course, there has additional revelation this week in the form of official government statements that have acknowledged additional facts like the letters from the National Archives to the Trump folks.

So, to the extent that that stuff has been revealed over the last week, I would expect that if that's in the affidavit, it will also be not redacted, so available for us to review, but essentially, I doubt we'll learn very much there.

LEMON: Andrew, no matter what's in there, right, you know, the ex- president is going to try to spin it. He's going to scrutinize whatever is released, try to figure out clues about the investigation. What is potentially the most important for the DOJ to conceal here, the witnesses, the scope, the direction of the investigation?

MCCABE: You know, if you ask an FBI guy, I'm going to tell you that the most important thing to protect are the witnesses' identifications. You do not want to take any chances about having your witnesses identified. You don't want folks to be identified in a way that would chill other people's desire to come in and cooperate and provide information.


So that's the most important thing from the FBI perspective. You know, DOJ folks are also very concerned about grand jury information. That's typically being very careful in protecting information that the grand jury develops, and then the course or direction of the investigation. So, it's all very important for DOJ to keep that stuff very quiet.

LEMON: Elliot, I saw you agreeing with Andrew about protecting the witnesses there. And the judge also says that the Justice Department's proposed redactions were -- quote -- "narrowly tailored in a way to let the government preserve the integrity of its investigation.' Is the judge essentially saying that the DOJ didn't go too far with the redaction?


that he is quite explicit. Look, the standard under the law is that any redactions would have to be narrowly tailored so as to not be so overbroad as to essentially strike the whole document from the public record.

So, picking up on Andrew's point, what they likely did was minimize or eliminate any references to individuals' names, job titles, and so on.

Now, but look, we're already aware of three different crimes that are being investigated by the Justice Department revolving around obstruction of justice and that sort of mishandling of defense information. And the affidavit can lay that all out without identifying people.

You can talk about the crimes, you can talk perhaps about some of the evidence that are uncovered, but again, the more you start getting into and the more the affidavit publicly reveals, the methods or information, you start running into trouble and really running the risk of number one, jeopardizing evidence, but also, number two, jeopardizing the privacy of people who aren't charged with crimes but might be named in this.

Now, if we're focusing a great deal on the former president but there could be any number of other individuals who are also being investigated and they as of right now are charged with crimes and are entitled to a presumption of innocence, that's something the Justice Department takes very, very seriously because if you jeopardize that, you can end up tainting the whole case and not getting charged of any crime at all.

LEMON: Got it. So, Nick, tomorrow is the deadline for Trump's team to refine their legal arguments for a special master to oversee and review -- the review of evidence, I should say, gathered at Mar-a- Lago.

His initial request included a lot of griping and claims the DOJ is, you know, looking to hurt him politically in 2024. It seemed more political than a legal argument or illegally sound argument. What changes would you expect to see?

NICK AKERMAN, FORMER ASSISTANT SPECIAL WATERGATE PROSECUTOR: Well, I think what's going to happen is -- the judge has really held their feet to the fire and has asked them to come in, first explained why this is before her as opposed to before Judge Reinhart, who is the judge that has been handling this matter with respect to the probable cause and now with respect to the motion by the news agencies.

She's going to hold their feet the fire on what possible justification there can be for appointing a special master, when the only thing they've said in these papers really is executive privilege, which obviously doesn't apply here. Trump has already lost that battle before the Supreme Court.

And it may all go back to Judge Reinhart. That is where it may end. And to tell you the truth, the big story here is Judge Reinhart, who in approximately a week has taken the bull by the horns, basically handled this case, came down with a 15-page opinion that explained to the public what is going on here, the balancing between the public's right to know and the government's right to protect its witnesses, protect its investigation, and the integrity of that investigation, and then come down to the conclusion that what he wanted was the least onerous method here at least to try and get the government to release some of that information to the public.

So, what we have here is a judge who is showing that just the opposite of what the Trump people are saying, is that this is not a witch hunt, this is not politically-motivated, it's being handled by the book and it's being done the right way.

And that is really the major story covering all of this, is that Judge Reinhart has really put this before the public as something that is serious, and that he is properly exercising his right as a judge --

LEMON: So, Nick.

AKERMAN: -- to ensure that the rights are being protected here.

LEMON: I love your clarity and enthusiasm. So then, why the hell, why on earth would team Trump want this released if everything you're saying is true?


It seems like that's the last thing that they would want.

AKERMAN: Of course, they don't want this released. In fact, the last information that's in there is the better for them --

LEMON: Got it.

AKERMAN: -- because they'll take little tidbits and try and spin some kind of a story around it. What I'm really interested in seeing is how many pages this affidavit is, that's what we're going to learn tomorrow, and then kind of compare that to other affidavits I've been in the past for other search warrants because I'll bet you this one is really long.

LEMON: Hmm, Elliot, okay, we have to move on. I want to talk about some other stuff that we're learning, these new details as to why Trump started resisting calls to turn documents to the National Archives.

He got some advice from conservative legal activist Tom Fitton after 15 boxes have been retrieved from Mar-a-Lago. Fitton told him not to give them anything else. Apparently, it became an obsession of Trump, that he felt the boxes belonged to him. Is bad legal advice any excuse here?

WILLIAMS: Well, number one, it's not legal advice as far as I can tell. It's advice from an individual who may have a law degree, but it's not his attorney. So, people -- this is the problem --

LEMON: It is bad advice, period, right?

WILLIAMS: It's also when you're conflating political advice and legal advice.

LEMON: Yeah.

WILLIAMS: And this is not a privileged conversation with his attorney about how he ought to proceed lawfully. It's a body of his telling him that it is sort of bad -- it would be a bad practice to release this information.

And look, many of the documents at issue, assuming they are what we believe they are, something of information that is publicly available, merely being in possession of them in the manner that they have been held, is itself a crime or could be a crime.

So, the mere idea that someone else, some advisor was telling him that he ought to hold on to the them, it's not going to be a defense should he ever be charged with a crime.

LEMON: Andrew McCabe, one of the items taken to Mar-a-Lago was letters with the North Korean leader, Kim Jong-un. At one point during negotiations, an Archives official instructed Trump's team to FedEx the letters reportedly. I mean, besides how crazy this all sounds, it's really hard to believe that. And this is solely about, you know, mementos the Trump wanted to keep. Would the FBI have ever conducted their search?

MCCABE: You know, there were so many off-ramps, potential off-ramps here, Don. As I see the fact that we know so far, there were so many opportunities for Trump and his advisers to deflate this entire thing, to cut off the investigation in the past, and just to send that stuff back.

Nobody wants to be mired in an investigation like this, but yet, here we are because of the torturous way that these failed negotiations took place.

Let's face it, even, you know, we joke about the infamous love letters from Kim Jong-un to Trump, those are at the heart of the most clearly classified material. Communications from a foreign government to the United States are always considered highly sensitive and classified materials.

So, this is not just, you know, goofing around love letters, this is actually serious stuff. These are elements of our nation's history. It is the property of the citizens of this country. It is not the property of Donald Trump. They are doing the right in trying to get it back.

LEMON: Elliott, why are you laughing at love letter? I see you.


WILLIAMS: Is that a question or just a comment?

LEMON: It's a question that I don't really want the answer to. Thank you all.

WILLIAMS: I support the provision of love letters no matter who they are or where they're from. The problem is that some letters ought to be property of the National Archives and record administration.

LEMON: Thank you, all. Thank you, Nick. Thank you, Andrew. Thank you, Elliot.

MCCABE: Thank you.

LEMON: Good night. President Joe Biden playing political hardball tonight in his return to the campaign trail with the midterms on the horizon, blasting what he calls MAGA Republicans. Is it a fair game?


JOE BIDEN, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: Trump and the extreme MAGA Republicans have made their choice to go backwards, full of anger, violence, hate and division.





LEMON: You know, it's not long, we are just 75 days away from the 2022 midterms and the gloves are coming off. Personal attacks littering the Pennsylvania Senate race. Governor Ron DeSantis calling Dr. Fauci a little elf.

And tonight, President Joe Biden pulling no punches, blasting MAGA Republicans, that's what he says, MAGA Republicans, in his return to the campaign trail. Watch!


BIDEN: Those of you who love this country, Democrats, independents, mainstream Republicans, we must be stronger, more determined, and more committed to saving America. The MAGA Republicans are destroying America.


LEMON: So, let's discuss now. CNN political commentators Scott Jennings and Maria Cardona both join me. Good evening to both of you.


LEMON: Both of you guys should be in New York, but I'll give you a pass.

CARDONA: We'd love to, next time.

LEMON: So, Scott, that wasn't all the president said. In a private fundraiser earlier, he said -- quote -- "What we are seeing now is either the beginning or the death knell of an extreme MAGA philosophy."


"It is not just Trump, it's the entire philosophy that underpins the -- I'm going to say something: It's like semi-fascism.'

He's calling out the extremes in your party, which has become a lot of the party. Is that fair game or too far?

SCOTT JENNINGS, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR, FORMER SPECIAL ASSISTANT TO PRESIDNET TO PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH: Well, look, I expect Joe Biden to attack Donald Trump. What I hear in that comment is him essentially attacking anyone who votes Republican as a fascist and arguing that if you don't vote Democrat, then you're a fascist. I find that rhetoric to be incredibly divisive. LEMON: Scott, hold on, hold on, I'm going to give you time, but he said, for those of who you love the country, and he said, Republicans --

CARDONA: That's right, mainstream Republicans.

LEMON: -- he made a distinction between Republicans and extreme Republicans. I can play the soundbite for you again.

JENNINGS: I understand, but 70 -- look, in 2020, 74 million people voted for the Republican candidate for president. Most of those people, today, still consider themselves to be Republicans of some kind. And I don't think those Republicans think it is Joe Biden's job to sort them out.

When you go to the ballot in November, you know, you're not going to have several candidates, you know, regular Republican, MAGA Republican, it's going to be a Republican candidate for Senate and a Democratic candidate for Senate.

Joe Biden is saying, if you want to vote for the Republican candidate for Senate, then what I hear in that is him a lot like what Hillary Clinton used to say, if you're going to vote for Republican or support Donald Trump, you're deplorable.

I think you're going to get a negative reaction from a lot of Republicans out there who maybe they don't love Donald Trump anymore but they certainly don't want to be called fascist.

LEMON: Okay. What if they are exhibiting fascist behavior, though? Is that --

JENNINGS: I mean, what would you call the behavior of saying, if we don't -- that we can only have one party, like democracy --

LEMON: We're talking about -- hang on, you're talking about candidates who believe in a lie, an election lie. You're talking about candidates who call people names. You're talking about Ron DeSantis who is calling Anthony Fauci an elf. You're talking about a former president who called people sons of bitches and shithole countries and -- I mean, who has called Democrats and Republicans a lot of names. He has even called Mitch McConnell in recent days names.

If you're exhibiting that sort of behavior, what do you expect to be called?

JENNINGS: So, look, there's going to be two parties on the ballot this November, and what Joe Biden is saying is, this country cannot be a democracy, this country will be a fascist country if democrats don't win every single office.

I'm sorry, Don, that is just simply not what the average Republican voter believes. It is not going to resonate. He's out here begging for Republican votes and calling them fascists at the same time? It's ludicrous.

LEMON: Okay. Go ahead, Maria.

CARDONA: That's not -- that's clearly not what he said, Don, and maybe you should play the soundbite again.

LEMON: Let me ask you, though, Biden is a unifier. I mean, that is what he has said. He has been careful. That's what he ran on, right?

CARDONA: Uh-hmm.

LEMON: So, he has been careful about that, but, I mean, you know, if he is not, these sort of MAGA or semi-fascist words could become the next deplorable moment, or do you not agree with that?

CARDONA: No, I don't because Biden said himself in the soundbite that you played at the beginning of the segment, he is differentiating and he said, mainstream Republicans, independents, Democrats, we have to band together to protect our country from extreme MAGA Republicans.

And clearly, what he's saying, Don, is that there is a slew of leaders out there. We saw them all in the primaries. Way too many of them. More than 74 have been elected or won their primaries and might be elected to office in November.

And they will be, these Republicans, will be in positions of power. And most of them, all of them do not believe that Joe Biden is the legitimate president of the United States and have said that they would do things to overturn the election, both the one in 2020 as well as --

LEMON: I understand. Listen --

CARDONA: That is fascism.

LEMON: These are the people who are calling Joe Biden names and, you know --

CARDONA: uh-hmm.

LEMON: I think it's like F-you brand, whatever they say about him.


LEMON: But listen, with Democrats gaining momentum going into the midterms, you're not at all uneasy with this language and that it may actually hurt Democrats when they have this momentum going. Should the president be more careful about this language?

CARDONA: Well, I think what he can do is continue to delineate between the extreme agenda of these Republicans and the contrast with the Democrats. And that is where he can really make a difference. And focus on all of the accomplishments that, I believe, have led to the momentum that you're talking about.

But when you do have a poll that just came out where you have the biggest issue that Republicans -- that the country, including mainstream Republicans are concerned about, independents and Democrats mostly, is the threat to our democracy, then I do think he is in a safe space to delineate those leaders who follow blindly Donald Trump and his big election lies, who can potentially be in positions of power to make decisions to overturn free and fair elections.


That is a huge threat to our democracy, Don, and I think he is absolutely in a safe space to delineate that kind of MAGA ultra- extreme agenda versus what Democrats want to do, which is count everyone's vote, let everyone come to the ballot box and have their voices heard.

LEMON: All right. Thank you. Scott, I see that you disagree, but I'm out of time. Thank you so much.


CARDONA: Thanks, Don.

LEMON: I appreciate it. I'll see you, guys, soon.

It is too much, it's not enough, everyone is arguing over Biden student debt plans. But are we ignoring the real issue at hand? Why and how the hell did college get so expensive in the first place? We're going to delve into that, next.




LEMON: So, the president's student loan relief plan sparking some heated debate. Some critics arguing it's not fair, while others argue it doesn't go far enough. It could change the lives of millions of younger Americans, really, younger Americans who are saddled with student debt. But the question on many minds is this: Why is it costing so much in the first place?

So, joining me now to discuss this is senior correspondent for "Time," Charlotte -- for "Time" magazine, I should say, or just "Time," is Charlotte Alter, the author of "The Ones We've Been Waiting For: How a New Generation of Leaders Will Transform America.'

Charlotte, I'm so happy you're here. It is -- this is a very important conversation. I was on a morning show this morning and I said, the big question is, why does it cost so much?

In your book, you write about this disconnect between younger and older Americans on the severity of the student debt crisis and how much college has changed in the last few decades. Why has it gotten so bad?

CHARLOTTE ALTER, AUTHOR, SENIOR CORRESPONDENT FOR TIME MAGAZINE: Well, there's been a confluence of factors, but the major one, to summarize it, is that more and more students over the last 20 and 30 years have been flooding into a system that's been getting less and less state funding.

So, between the early 1980s and the 2010s, states cut university funding by 60%, 70% in some states. And meanwhile, over that same period of time, college became something that became a prerequisite for participating in the global economy.

It was something that millions of students who never considered themselves to be college material suddenly college was something that was for everybody. And so, you had more and more students with less and less funding and kids are picking up the tab.

LEMON: You know what was the most expensive thing when I went to college? The books. It was so expensive to buy books. I mean, it wasn't -- it was cheaper than it is now. I can't say that it was that cheap, that inexpensive, but not what college costs now.

This is a new article for "Time." In that new article for "Time," you point out how the critics of Biden's move like minority leaders Mitch McConnell and Kevin McCarthy, they went to college for several times less than what their same schools cost today adjusted for inflation. Do people just sort of not understand, misunderstand this, is this deliberately or accidentally?

ALTER: Well, I do think that there is an idea that a lot of people have, particularly older people in our country is run by older people right now, there is a misconception that it's very easy to work your way through school, that I did it and so should everybody else.

But back in, you know, the mid-20th century when the government was flooding higher education with great funding, these schools were far less expensive. So, it was possible to work your way through school.

There is a stat in my book that in 1987, a student could work her way through the University of Kansas with a part-time minimum wage job and still have money left over for books and food. And today, she would be $40,000 short if she worked that same job at that same school.

So, the numbers just don't add up anymore. And when you see these headlines about younger generations not starting families, not getting married, not buying homes, ultimately, in many cases, student debt is the reason why many of those younger people are delaying those life events.

LEMON: Look, I'm talking about the American dream here, right? Because one of the biggest criticisms of the American dream is that you'll be able to go to college, it will be affordable, and then you can have the American dream, you can own a home, you can buy a car, you can be able to feed your family and all of that.

But there has been some criticism of this -- the biggest criticism of this relief plan is that it does nothing to bring down the cost of the current and future college -- for future -- current and future college students, I should say. Are there things that can be done to help all around here?

ALTER: I think there are, and I think that that's a really valid concern. And, you know, of all the criticisms of this plan, the criticism that it doesn't actually change the broader affordability crisis is, I think, the most valid critique.

LEMON: Right.

ALTER: There's a lot that can be done. There can be more funding for state universities, there can be more funding for community colleges, but ultimately, I think what everybody needs to understand is that many of the people who currently run our country went to college at a time when the government considered that it was its responsibility to pay for school.


And now, people think that it's the student's responsibility to pay for school. And that's where you get this backlash to the idea of student debt forgiveness because people think, oh, you know, it's your responsibility, you should pull yourself up by your boot straps just like I did.

LEMON: Someone should actually try to do that.

ALTER: Exactly.

LEMON: Try to actually pull yourself up.

ALTER: Exactly, right. But ignoring the reality that many of the people who did pull themselves up by their boot straps actually had enormous government subsidies.

LEMON: Yeah. And by saying that, you should pay for yourself or whatever, it's not my responsibility, that sort of the concern. I'm not saying one, but that's the criticism.

But there are things that I pay for as a citizen that I don't have -- I don't get to use them. Right? I don't get to use public schools. I don't have kids. You know I mean? And I don't mind paying for those things in my taxes. And so, people who don't go to college or haven't gone to college are saying that this is going to somehow burden them because they don't have used for college. You understand my point?

ALTER: Exactly. I mean, look at the PPP loans that were forgiven.

LEMON: Yeah.

ALTER: Not everybody got one of those loans and yet there's not the same backlash to those loans being forgiven either.

LEMON: Thank you. Good to see you.

ALTER: Thanks so much for having me.

LEMON: Yeah. We'll have you back. I really enjoyed it. I really enjoyed having you on.

So, one of tennis's biggest stars won't be at the U.S. Open at the Open. The U.S. won't let Novak Djokovic into the country to play because he is not vaccinated. Guess who's here. Patrick McEnroe weighs in, next.




LEMON: Tennis superstar Novak Djokovic is set to miss the U.S. Open. The 21-time grand slam champion announcing his absence on Twitter this morning, writer -- quote -- "Sadly, I will not be able to travel to New York this time for the U.S. Open. The reason, his COVID vaccination status.

Djokovic remains unvaccinated. According to current U.S. rules, any non-U.S. citizen must be fully vaccinated in order to receive a visa and enter the country. Well, this marks a second grand slam this year that Djokovic will miss because of his vaccination or not being vaccinated status.

So, joining me now, Patrick McEnroe, the former professional tennis player and host of "The Holding Court" podcast.


LEMON: Whew! How are you, sir?

MCENROE: I'm good. Good to see you. Yeah.

LEMON: How long has this been going on? It's surprising that this is still an issue for -- that has been going on for what is -- this long into the pandemic. He was able to play in the French Open, I believe --

MCENROE: In Wimbledon.

LEMON: In Wimbledon.

MCENROE: Which he won.

LEMON: After France relaxed their requirements. Do you think U.S. tennis should have, like, sought an exemption for him to play?

MCENROE: No, I do not. I don't think U.S. tennis should have done that at all. I do believe that -- I am no political expert, Don, obviously, but I do believe that the U.S. government will probably, likely go in the same direction that many of these European companies have gone, which is that, if you're unvaccinated, I'm suspecting you tell me the timeframe. Is it four weeks? Is it six weeks? Is it eight weeks from now? I expect that to change.

It used to be, when I came back from the French Open in the end of May, I got to the airport, showed my vaccination card, and they said, oh, you need a test. Oh, I need a test? Okay. I went to the pharmacy right there at the airport. Got a COVID test. Then, things changed a couple weeks later. Now, you can come back into the country without having a test.

So, I believe it will change. This is bad timing. Djokovic was hoping that he'd get a reprieve. But the U.S. Tennis Association, which runs the U.S. Open, they didn't want to get caught up in what happened to the Australians, when the Australian Tennis Federation got in between the state government and the federal government in Australia, and that was a major political firestorm.

LEMON: That became a thing.

MCENROE: That became a thing, and the USTA did not want that to become a thing.

LEMON: You know, he has talked a lot about that, we learned about that with the Australian incident, about what he puts into his body.

MCENROE: Uh-hmm.

LEMON: Do you think that it's the wrong message that he's sending about vaccination safety? Do you think that public figures, including athletes, stars of all kind, do you think that they have more of a responsibility when it comes to what message they're sending to the public?

MCENROE: I think they have a larger platform. I think, personally, my opinion is we all have a responsibility to do that, to take the vaccine. But when you look at the response -- to me, what's so interesting about this, Don, is not he's a professional tennis player. He shouldn't be treated differently than anyone else who wants to come into the country, whether you're a prominent celebrity, athlete, artists, whatever you are.

But what is so interesting to me is the reaction from people, because you have so many people saying, get the vaccination, just get it, get over it. Why don't you take the vaccination? Stay home, we don't need to come in the country.

Then you have the other side. He has become a martyr for many people that are for whatever reason do not want to take the vaccine or want to stand up for their own rights and what they put in their body.

He has always taken a lot of pride in how he takes care of his body and what he puts into it.


People say, this guy is one of the fittest guys on the planet. How can he give anyone COVID? Well, he could. And the fact that he is one of the fittest men on the planet, to me, is irrelevant. So is Rafael Nadal. So is Serena Williams.

LEMON: Right.

MCENROE: They are all elite athletes, too. And guess what, every single one of them took the vaccine.

LEMON: Well, I am going to talk about that in a second, but listen, he has a right if he doesn't want to put it in his body.

MCENROE: Correct.

LEMON: But then you can't do what everybody else does who is vaccinated.

MCENROE: Correct.

LEMON: Listen, if I want to drive, I have to have a driver's license.

MCENROE: Exactly.

LEMON: If I don't want to get a driver's license, then what? I don't drive.

MCENROE: And you have to put your seatbelt on.

LEMON: Right. And when you get in the car, you have to put seatbelt on. If you don't, then you get ticketed, on and on, you lose your license. But you mentioned Rafael Nadal. He is right behind Rafael Nadal for the most grand-slam title. What does it say that he is willing to forego potentially being the most decorated player to hold on to this anti-vax movement?

MCENROE: I think you have to admire him for that, Don. I think that's a great point because he is sticking by his principles whether you agree with them or not. He is willing to take this to the extreme which is he's not able to play in the Australian Open this year. They boot him out of the country with the brouhaha that went down there this year.

He knew coming in to what the situation -- he wasn't allowed to play in the tournaments in Canada. Canada is still not letting major league baseball players from other teams come into their country, similar rules that we have in the United States. So, he knew what he was getting into. He is there right with Rafael Nadal chasing this all- time record. By the way, Serena has got 23.

LEMON: Yeah.

MCENROE: She got a couple more.

LEMON: Is Serena going to be there?

MCENROE: Serena is going to be there on Monday night. She will play her first match. That is going to be emotional.

LEMON: She could get 24.

MCENROE: We can always dream. We can always dream. It's unlikely that she will get 24, but it's going to be an amazing send off for her.

LEMON: It could mark her last tournament, right? MCENROE: I think it is going to be her last tournament.

LEMON: Oh, my God.

MCENROE: There is going to be a lot of emotions and major tributes well deserved to Serena, the greatest of all time.

LEMON: Speaking of the greatest, Patrick McEnroe.

MCENROE: Yeah, thanks for having me.

LEMON: Good to see you.

MCENROE: Honor to be here with you. Thank you very much.

LEMON: So, no more Friday night lights for school in Pennsylvania after a hazing scandal cancels an entire football season. That's next!




LEMON: One Pennsylvania high school won't be scoring big on the field this year. Middletown Area High School canceling its entire upcoming football season after reports of hazing by members of the school's football team. Two other nearby high schools are also investigating allegations of hazing.

So, joining me now, the former NFL wide receiver, Donte Stallworth. Donte, thanks for joining. Good evening to you, sir. This happened, according to the superintendent's letter, that cellphone video taken of the players, it shows a group of students restraining two of their teammates and using a muscle therapy gun and another piece of athletic equipment to poke the buttock areas of the students who were on the ground.

Now, it is important to note, Donte, that the superintendent is not implying rape or sexual result. Your reaction to this happening in a high school?

DONTE STALLWORTH, FORMER NFL WIDE RECEIVER: I think, initially, my initial reactions were that hazing is somewhat of a tradition in football. And at the same time, the customary protocol for hazing has usually been players -- the younger players grabbing the older players pads at the practice or getting in front of the team to sing some embarrassing song or some embarrassing Christmas carol in front of the team, things like that.

LEMON: Wedgies?

STALLWORTH: Yeah, yeah, you know, kind of, you know, childish little things but nothing significant as to this. And I think the thing that also struck out to me was that unusually, the superintendent did not suspend the entire football season until he got a word and wind of more videos and more of what I guess he called collusion of other players and possibly even some staff members, the older guys, the staff on the football team that may or may not have been involved or maybe ignored some of the things that were happening.

So, it's really sad for those kids who weren't involved. I saw that they were talking about giving opportunities and seeking opportunities for the cheerleaders and the band members, obviously, who weren't involved at all. But I hope they also try to seek some transfers for the kids who want to -- the football players who had nothing to do with this hazing because it is terrible.

Some of these kids are probably relying on their football season to get scholarships. Some just want to have their senior seasons and they won't have that. So, it's really just sad and tragic all around that this is happening, but the superintendent is making a statement with this.

LEMON: Do you think this incident goes beyond just, you know, there's hazing and there's hazing, if you know what I mean. Do you think this one -- do you think it was called for? Do you think that the punishment fits the crime for this particular incident?

STALLWORTH: Well, I think the fact that, you know, they're not really detailing what happened but outside of --

LEMON: It must be pretty bad, though, if they're doing --

STALLWORTH: I'm assuming that. I'm assuming that. They got the video, so that's what I'm assuming.

LEMON: So, the team coached resigned, but we haven't heard from him as of yet.


LEMON: We also haven't heard from the parents or the teachers, only from the superintendent who has vowed to address the problem. What does that say about how the community is dealing with this, Donte?

STALLWORTH: I think it is interesting because, you know, usually, at least local papers I've looked at, I haven't seen anything yet, but usually, you would have some parents speaking out or even have some kids speaking out, but I haven't seen any of that.

I don't know if there is something of a gag order maybe on some of the members of the football team or even some of the staff, but there hasn't really been anything other than what we've heard from the superintendent.


So, I'm really curious to know what the players would say and what some of the parents have to say about this because the superintendent noted in his letter that this will affect some of the students and some of the families as well. He understands or he understands that this is going well beyond just not being able to play a football game. This is affecting families as well.

So, I'm really interested to hear more. I just don't know how much to say really outside of what the superintendent has said. And I really love to hear more from the parents and from some of the students at the school.

LEMON: You don't know what you don't know. So, yeah. Nice bowtie tonight, by the way.


LEMON: Thank you, Donte. I appreciate it.

STALLWORTH: Thanks, Don.

LEMON: And thank you for watching, everyone. Our coverage continues.