you're reporting a lot of inconsistencies, but overall did this rape even occur? she could be grossly wrong about the facts or making it up or something in between. have you been able to ascertain from your reporting whether she was assaulted? >> that's difficult to tell, of course. her friends believe something happened to her and they believe something awful and traumatic and horrific. and those -- based on the evidence that they have seen, that's what they believe. i've spoken to two people who saw her in the immediate aftermath of the incident and both of them say they absolutely believe something happened, just maybe not exactly what was reported in "rolling stone." >> looking at the facts, one of the things is whether an assault occurred of some sort and the whole idea of putting it in the public domain and how well you do your fact checking. the "rolling stone" is getting barbecued by everybody about its reporting. tell me, what did you determine to be -- when doing your reporting, what did you learn differently from what "rolling stone" reported? >> first it was the fact that the fraternity did not host a party on the night in question? >> could they just be mistaken? or could it be a nonofficial party? >> we've obviously looked into everything we can. we're looking to confirm with fraternity members who were there at that time and we've spoken to several off the record and on the record. we're looking to do as best as we can to confirm that. >> but so far no proof that there was a party there, official or unofficial that night? >> they said there was not a party. >> one of her stories -- well, one of the things she says according to "rolling stone" is one of her assaulters worked as a lifeguard, is that correct? >> that's what she said. >> she worked as a lifeguard as well? >> that's what she said. >> that's what she said. now -- and that's what the "rolling stone" reported, right? >> correct. >> what did your real reporting show? >> we reported that no member of the fraternity was a lifeguard or worked at the aquatic fitness center that entire time of the night in question. >> did you -- have you had a chance to talk to the "rolling stone" and ask why they didn't go back and check these facts out? >> i spoke -- i asked to speak with them. i sent a message to the writer of the "rolling stone" piece indicating that i had not a lot of questions for her. i wanted to talk about her interactions with jackie as well as my own reporting to double check what we learned. i have not had the opportunity to speak with her. >> how hard was it to talk to the fraternity and find out whether or not they had an event that night or a party? >> they released a statement. i have been in touch with a person who was close to the fraternity that told me they were going to release details in regards to that party. it's been very difficult to talk to members of the fraternity. obviously they have been through, you know, the wringer themselves and they're coming to a point where maybe they may speak publicly but i'm not sure. >> your dealings with the "rolling stone" were they embarrassed or chagrinned that they had not done the reporting that you had done, trying to track down these issues in the story? >> i could only do my own reporting. i cannot speak for "rolling stone." >> at no time did they speak to you and say, oh, look, we're sorry or we tried or anything like that? >> not that i'm aware of. >> what's been the reaction of your reporting? >> i think the news of this particular case is intriguing a lot of people. everybody just wants to know the truth of what happened that night and of course we're looking to find out what it is. >> and how many witnesses -- alleged witnesses or people who talked to her shortly after the alleged event did you talk to? >> i've spoken to three people. >> and were the three people, in talking to them, were the events that they relayed similar to each other? >> i've spoken to three people who saw her immediately after that particular event of the alleged attack. they told me a similar story of what they believe happened that night or what they were told happened that night. it is different from what was reported in "rolling stone." >> different in what way? >> the number of people involved, for instance. >> so i think that five versus seven? >> sure. >> but it could be an easy miss tab, right? >> absolutely. they all believe something happened to her that night. something traumatic and something awful. >> and the three people, was there differences in what they told you material or just incidenstanccidental difference? >> i think any fact should be double checked and confirmed. having spoken with these people, we're learning something different than what was already reported. >> taylor, thank you very much, and good reporting. thank you. so first "rolling stone" changes its story and then changing its apology. >> a stunning admission from "rolling stone" magazine which could have implications on rape investigations and journalism. >> "rolling stone" admits it never contacted any of the accused. >> the fraternity has contradicted some of the reporting. >> shabby journalism and it's going viral. >> it was but fair and balanced in its exposeabout gang rape. >> it's an impairment -- embarrassment to "rolling stone." >> it appears to all be falling apart. the most successful woman in radio, laura ingraham, joins us. >> first of all, whoever did that montage did great. >> how has uva handled this? >> look, i think the charges were so explosive and in a university setting where there's such heightened concern now in most cases about date rape, the way women are treated, title ix, i think initially everybody freaked out. fraternity brothers were trembling a little bit on camera and the university pledged to get to the bottom of things. but i think in the end, and you know this from all your experience in the court, truth matters, right? we don't know really what the truth was. it's always hard in these cases where there's a lot of booze. there's a lot of people hopped up after exams or before exams and they're all out having fun. i think some bad stuff does happen at these fraternities. but what happened that night and this type of reporting, i just think you can't not identify anyone, not have yourself identified and then go to "rolling stone" who i'm sorry has an agenda here. "rolling stone" wanted this story to be true. i think they wanted the outcome of -- this is fraternity culture. they're subjecting women to violence. it's an all-male frat house mentality. it's "animal house" all over again, shut it down. if i had to say it, i would imagine they would prefer that all fraternities be shut down in the united states. now, did that affect the way they reported this story? it seems like a really lot of bad decisions were made in the reporting of this story. >> it's such a serious problem of rape that when you have someone do a really rotten job on reporting, it diminishes the real efforts to prevent these problems. >> look at the cosby issue all these years later. it's a horrific crime. it's also horrific to be accused of a crime falsely without any ability to defend yourself. >> the jury is out on cosby, though. >> right. i'm just saying -- i'm trying to look at it objectively. literally if anyone did this to my daughter, the fraternity membership would be the least of the problems they had. so i'm not trying to make this big case for the fraternity. but objective truth should matter. and these so-called journalists at "rolling stone," i mean i know a lot of people are writing this writer is a great writer. how do you publish something without having spoken to any of the fraternity brothers in question? >> it would have been so -- it would have been so easy. >> it's ajend genda driven. if conservatives had gone down the road that they had gone down on an issue that was important to them, demonizing an entire organization falsely, i think they would be all over them. >> i think it's one of the worst things you can do to serious matters is make a spectacle of it because now people are likely to think any allegations -- >> i don't think so. see, i've heard that. i don't think so. i think people take this seriously, but i think we have to give women a sense that we are going to protect you. if you're victimized, we want you to speak up as contemporaneously as possible. >> it's one thing about uva shutting down the entire greek system -- >> ridiculous. total overreach. >> if someone commits an armed robbery five blocks from here -- >> the people who want to ban football and the people who want to ban fraternities, i bet that circle goes like this. as we said, emily clark insisting that jackie's story is not a hoax, a lie or a scheme but will that help "rolling stone" fight any potential lawsuits? joining us our legal panel, katie fang and ted williams. ted, uva or "rolling stone" face trouble here? >> greta, they could be but it's highly unlikely they're going to face a lawsuit in this case, may mainly as we know in defamation cases truth is a defense. however, even though we can show they acted negligently, meaning "rolling stone" here possibly, the question i reckless and that is the threshold that they may not be able to meet. >> plus we still haven't -- this is shoddy journalism, but we don't know if it's wrong journalism. that's the other problem is there's a difference between shoddy, not checking your facts, and having it right but doing it in such a poor way. >> jackie may very well have been telling the truth in the material situation here. >> katie, there's a big difference between journalism and the law, isn't there? to be a journalist, you just say i'm a journalist. in law, we go to school, we take courses and evidence, we even take tests about this stuff. "rolling stone" and journalists just say we're journalists and can just put it out. >> yeah, it's really unfortunate because even if you're, quote unquote, a journalist, don't you have to have some integrity when you write something? at the end of the day whether jackie is telling the truth or not is left to be seen. but does jackie herself have a cause of action against "rolling stone" for the printed retraction insin waiting that she wasn't telling the truth? she may be able to go after "rolling stone" for their negligence. >> katie, i mean i don't want to do to "rolling stone" like uva did to the entire greek system. when we're talking about "rolling stone" we're really talking about the writer and her editors. anybody who is on the chain of command. there are probably a lot of really good reporters that are contributing reporters who aren't this but that's another problem too, ted, is they have now poisoned -- they have poisoned the well a little bit. >> they have. and the sad commentary is, as you said earlier in your series, rape is something that is taken -- should be taken, especially on college campus, very seriously. but when you have the inconsistencies here -- and greta, the big problem we have with this whole story is that "rolling stone" is putting out bits and pieces and we really don't know what are the real actual inconsistencies if any. >> and now we have the stigma, katie, where this woman comes forward apparently -- quite a time afterwards and now you've got the problem some women will fear sort of the "rolling stone" stigma, the noise, the publicity and it's a very private moment of a very public crime. >> yeah, it's two years after the fact. there's a reason behind why she didn't come forward. again, we are not sure if her story is true or false. at the end of the day you cannot discount the fact that she waited to come forward. she may have a rationale behind doing so but there's a stigma associated with affiliating yourself with a journal or a magazine with "rolling stone" and putting your story out there. she put her story out there and everyone in the world knows what happened to her. >> rape is a horrible crime and being falsely accused of rape is a horrible crime too. it certainly doesn't help if the media isn't trying to at least track down the facts and compare and contrast and try to figure out what's right and what's not. anyway, katie and ted, thank you both. well, it's no secret. people in the media have bias. sure, they claim to be pure and free of bias but we all know better. it can poison work and that's bad. really bad. our next guest is warning about the dangers of narrative journalism. what does he mean by that? jim gar gerity joins us. >> this is a media drum beat constantly talking about a very simple black and white story line. there's a hero, there's a villain, there's a victim. and you get this beat into your head story after story and there's not much consideration consideration of any alternate interpretation of events. i think the events of "rolling stone" and in ferguson. >> people on our air say it's wrong michael brown had his arms up. 16 people apparently testified in the grand jury that he did. so it goes both ways. people are so loose with the facts. it goes both ways. at least it's incumbent for journalists to try to get it right. try to investigate. challenge what's out there. >> to those reporters who are constantly in this drum beat, a very simple story of a mean bad white cop and this gentle giant at the wrong place at the wrong time. >> no, he wasn't a gentle giant. that is so true. >> they downplayed that part. >> but he didn't deserve to die for that crime. >> see, juries can't tune out part of the story. they can't stop paying attention when it gets boring or if they do they get in trouble. they get all the facts. >> they get all the facts that the prosecutor presents. >> in this case it was enough to get them to decide we don't think a crime was committed here. you can agree with that or not agree with that. clearly that came to the community as a stunning shock. it was unthinkable the grand jury would not indict and that's how you furious, angry reaction. >> you know, i support the grand jury decision because i've been around the block long enough. even when they were decided against me. i will say the eric garner is different. that's the one case where the whole event is caught on videotape. michael brown, we don't have all the pieces that the grand jury did. the eric garner is a unique case because we actually saw it. >> i think that's precisely the point. people feel very differently when they see it themselves. both these cases go back to trayvon martin. >> unfortunately the media takes sides and doesn't look at the facts. >> and i think it creates this expectation that will never be met. george zimmerman is this terrible guy. if the jury didn't get him, eventually the department of justice will. >> nice talking to you, jim. right now a large group of protesters outside the barclay center in brooklyn, new york. they are protesting against last week's grand jury decision not to indict a police officer in the eric garner choke hold case and are taking their protest to brooklyn. that's because that's where prince william and kate are heading tonight. they're going to attend a game between the brooklyn nets and the cleveland cavaliers. let's turn the corner. right now u.s. embassies and military bases overseas are on high alert. we'll tell you why. that's next. plus breaking news tonight. a fiery inferno as a private jet crashes into a house on the outskirts of washington, d.c. six people confirmed dead. the ntsb is combing through the debris. a report from the scene coming up. and an update on the marinin you owned your car for four years. you named it brad. you loved brad. and then you totaled him. you two had been through everything together. two boyfriends. three jobs. you're like "nothing can replace brad!" then liberty mutual calls. and you break into your happy dance. if you sign up for better car replacement, we'll pay for a car that's a model year newer with 15,000 fewer miles than your old one. see car insurance in a whole new light. liberty mutual insurance. we're for an opens you internet for all.sing. we're for creating more innovation and competition. we're for net neutrality protection. now, here's some news you may find even more surprising. we're comcast. the only isp legally bound by full net neutrality rules. a fight in washington tonight over tomorrow's release of the senate intelligence report on the alleged torture of cia prisoners. tonight some insist the release of the report will lead to violence against u.s. embassies and western personnel in the middle east. katherine joins us tonight. what is this report? >> this report is about 6,000 pages long, though all the public will be able to see is a declassified executive summary that's about 500 pages and it was finished in the summer but there's a lengthy negotiation between the cia and the senate committee over the redakzs. and what we expect is this will finally be released tomorrow. >> so who's objecting? does president obama want it out or not out? >> the administration wants it out but they're sending mixed messages. on friday the secretary of state, john kerry, appealed to dianne feinstein to consider the timing of the release because what he sees as the backlash against u.s. interest overseas. i would add that the state department and the defense department have issued warnings to personnel overseas that there could be violence as a result. >> what's the authority to keep -- when you say redacted, the things of national security has been marked out. so what's the justification by anyone in the cia to keep it under wraps? >> the issue of the redactions has -- the senate proposed using pseudonyms for the different officers but the cia argued if you looked at the names and could see some patterns you could work out who these individuals were. this became such a contentious issue that the current cia director, i understand, threatened to resign unless it was resolved to his satisfaction. i think for the listeners, the bottom line is that this is said to be by democrats the definitive report on the cia program. a program they say never produced useful information and a program they say the cia misled the administration, which is roundly refuted by those who were in the agency. >> well, they could do better redactions maybe. catherine, thank you. joining us, steven dnow -- >> obviously there are concerns about american operatives overseas and relationships with some of our allies, but the bigger thing, i think, is domestically, politically, we know basically what happened. the united states waterboarded three prisoners in the global war on terror and the public knows this. they have digested this information. they have processed this information. and the kicker to the story, of course, is the president put a stop to it when he took office in january, 2009. >> so what's the fuss? one other part is anyone who supposedly had torture enhanced interrogation, whatever code word we're using for it, has been released, the only people who don't know about this are some americans who might be watching tonight. >> well, that might be so. but there's concern here about whether or not the administration, as catherine pointed out, actually was ambivalent about the release of it or the timing of it, the contents of it. senator dianne feinstein, who is about to give up her chairmanship when the democrats lose the majority of control in the senate of the intelligence committee is not known as a partisan person who plays political games. but this is being released because the democrats are about to lose power and if republicans were in charge of the chairmanship of that committee it would not be released ever. so it is seen as a last-minute push by democrats to put their stamp on it. it is obviously seen by our defense department and our secretary of state as potentially dangerous overseas. obviously there's never -- really if you're arguing that this has to be out, there probably is never a good time. >> steven, if the cia is upset with the level of redactions that you can piece it together and figure out who it might be, why don't they just do a better job at redacting and then that solves the problem. do a better job, give the american people instead of 500 pages, give them 400. >> i imagine if you were to take all the time in the world, you could eventually come to an agreement on that. this report has become so much more than just the activity of the cia. remember at some point you had chairman feinstein going on the senate floor accusing the cia of snooping on the senate computers. >> didn't that happen? >> well, they apologized for activity. >> it wasn't a false accusation, the cia was snooping -- that's bad. >> that's the step it had taken -- >> that's against the law actually. that's domestic spying. >> there's an investigation going on into that. that's the significance this report has taken on and how much the cia is worried about it. i'm a reporter. i want to see something the cia is that worried about. >> i think we're about to enter a long and fruitless debate about all of this. >> with us? i hope that's not what you're referring to. >> we've already seen dick cheney come out and say, no, they were authorized. there will be this long debate on whether we actually got any actionable intelligence from these extreme techniques. >> you know what ends the debate? when the truth is laid on the table so we can stop imagining what everybody is thinking or accusing. you know, that would be very helpful, minus the redactions. >> but the truth is basically known here. >> but you know what, i don't trust when someone says basically known. i want to see it myself. i don't want to be a "rolling stone" magazine on this and accept what everybody tells me. i'd like to see it myself. >> i agree with that, except that are we ever really going to be convinced that we actually got actionable intelligence out of this? >> no, we're not going to be convinced but we'll be a lot farther ahead if we could more information to fact check, assuming it's not inconsistent with national security. >> but if the policies are no longer in place, it doesn't even matter at this point. >> unless they can tell me otherwise, i think transparency is important. if there's a good national security reason, i'm all for it. up next, brace yourselves. tomorrow jonathan gruber, the obamacare architect who called all americans stupid will have to answer questions under oath to house republicans. who's the stupid one? all of us or the guy who has to answer questions posed b b b b b here's a question for you: if every driver in the u.s. kept their car's tires properly inflated, how many gallons of fuel could america save each year? up to 2 billion gallons? 4 billion? 6 billion? the answer is... up to 4 billion gallons. by keeping your tires properly inflated, you can increase your car's fuel economy and reduce its co2 emissions. take the energy quiz -- round 2. energy lives here. get ready, house republicans are gearing up to grill, maybe even barbecue the obamacare architect who called americans stupid. that's you too, right? that's me, that's all of us. you remember jonathan grubar, right? >> it's a terrible policy. the only way we could take it on was first by mislabeling it, calling the attacks on insurance plans rather than attacks on people. >> what we did in that room was talk about how could we make this work? obama is like, well, look, i can't just do this. it's not going to happen politically. ted kennedy and -- >> they figure a way to rip off the feds. >> it's a very clever exploitation of the lack of economic understanding of the american voters. >> transparency is a huge political advantage. basically called the stupidity of the american voter or whatever, but basically that was really, really critical to get the thing to pass. >> tomorrow jonathan gruber goes before the house committee. a.b., it just doesn't get more fascinating than this one, i don't think. >> i know, it's interesting. in the years between 2012 and now, he had a lot of fun talking about this behind closed doors. >> and got a lot of money. >> he must have. and now he's been in trouble with the contract he had with the state of vermont and a recent e-mail turned up where he said he gave one interview apologizing for it but since then he's been laying low because he doesn't want to fan the flames of the haters, so it's really interesting what his interpretation of the damage is. it will be interesting to see if he actually doubles down and makes it worse. >> steven? >> i can't wait to see if he's at honest in tomorrow's hearing as he was in those -- you know, i don't think he said anything that those who followed the issue didn't already know. you knew that they gamed the budget rules. you knew that they jammed this through. >> but he's an insider, that's the difference. >> this is so bad politically for the obama administration that they're requesting that the head of the center for medicare and medicaid services not be on the same panel with him just to literally put physical distance between him and the obama administration. >> byron, why is he showing up? or is he going to show up? >> he's been a very talkative guy in the past. >> this would be a real good time to stop. >> remember, he's put his foot in his mouth on two separate subjects. one is the american people are too stupid to know we raised their taxes. the other is what he said about exchanges, which is the subject of this big lawsuit going to the supreme court. they're going to have to ask him about both of those. i think on the one hand, the americans are stupid part will just -- is basically just going to be a political argument. they're going to beat him up over it but they will be asking, you know, what other people in the administration shared your opinion about this. did you discuss these ruses with other lawmakers, people in the administration. but then the other thing is about the exchanges. did you really intend that if a state didn't form an exchange and it couldn't -- its residents -- >> i wouldn't ask that because he's locked in. i'd show the video and say is that you? yeah, that's me. i wouldn't give him a chance to back out of it. you know, kathleen sebelius and leader pelosi act like they don't know him. so i'd start grilling him on how well do you know them? do they say hi, jonathan. >> $400,000 for his role in constructing this program. i'm a little upset he and kathleen sebelius didn't have more meeting time actually. >> it's incredible, isn't it? >> i can't wait. >> if this were up against the packer game tonight, this would be a really tough call for me. a really tough call. you know, maybe he'll do a great job. i just can't imagine how with those videos. >> whatever he says ends up landing either the program or himself in more trouble. >> he's going to be a humble guy. he's not going to be the guy you saw. >> how do you humble yourself out of that? i didn't mean they were stupid, they're just not as smart as i am? >> you say yes, sir, no, sir, and thank you for the question. >> i wouldn't show up. who advised him to do that? anyway, panel, thank you. we'll all be watching tomorrow. a private jet crashes into a house in a washington, d.c., suburb. six people confirmed dead. for the latest, alexandra lehman is live at the scene in gaithersburg. alexandra. >> reporter: we have confirmation that six people died as a result of this tragic plane crash. we understand three of them were on board the plane. the other three, take a look, were living inside this home. you can see just how badly damaged it is after some fire and explosions that witnesses described. now, we do have some photos of the family that lived in this home. such a tragic, tragic story. we understand the mother, marie, was one of the three people who died along with her 1 1/2-month-old infant and her 3-year-old son. now, we understand that the father and 5-year-old daughter both survived. investigators believe they were not home when this crash happened. now, we also have some video of the horrific aftermath after this plane crash landed in the middle of this residential neighborhood here in gaithersburg, maryland. and what we know is that the plane was coming in for a landing here at montgomery county air park around 10:45 this morning when there was trouble. witnesses who saw the plane describe it as flying erratically from side to side, making some odd turns just before this crash happened. and after the plane came down, we understand that it damaged a total of three homes. it broke apart the wing and tail and fuselage, all went flying into these homes causing quite a bit of damage. the most extensive to the one home that we have out here live was the most damage and, again, that's where the three people who died were. the other three, again, inside that plane. now, montgomery county fire and rescue service, they were the first here on the scene after this crash happened. they have had hundreds of firefighters out here since then and also a few hours ago the ntsb arrived on scene. they held a press conference earlier this evening. what they told us is that they have recovered a black box that they sent back to headquarters in washington, d.c. they will be taking a look at that as they try to figure out exactly what happened, but it could be some time before we have any of those answers. greta. >> alexandra, thank you. this a fox news alert. right now a large group of protesters are gathering outside the barclays center in brooklyn, new york. they are protesting against last week's grand jury decision not to indict a police officer in the eric garner chokehold case. tonight the protesters are in brooklyn because that's where prince william and kate are heading soon. the royals are scheduled to attend an nba game at the barclays center. some ticket holders are having trouble to get inside. we'll take you back to brooklyn, as needed. and straight ahead, i don't know what is worse, the chief architect of obamacare calling all americans stupid or being sued by nuns. the little sisters of the poor. president obama has all those daughter: do you and mom still have money with that broker? dad: yeah, 20 something years now. thinking about what you want to do with your money? daughter: looking at options. what do you guys pay in fees? dad: i don't know exactly. daughter: if you're not happy do they have to pay you back? dad: it doesn't really work that way. daughter: you sure? vo: are you asking enough questions about the way your wealth is managed? wealth management at charles schwab. today a group of nuns, the little sisters of the poor, are taking president obama to court. it's about the obamacare contraception mandate. joining us, lawyer for little sisters of the poor. nice to see you, daniel. >> greta, good to see you too. >> as i understand it, this case -- we saw it a little bit in the supreme court because the supreme court issued an injunction in favor of the nuns but that still left the case alive down below in the tenth circuit, right? or the 11th? which circuit? >> the tenth circuit, that's right. the supreme court protected the little sisters from being forced by the federal government to violate their faith and paying millions of dollars in fines. at the 11th hour last year. but they have only been protected temporarily so we have to wait until the end of this case and that's why we were before the tenth circuit court of appeals today to protect the little sisters from those fines coming back. >> in my worst they give, they take care of them because of their faith. so they can't violate their faith. that's what the federal government is telling them they have to do just to continue the service they have been doing 175 years. federal courts nationwide have been saying no. >> the supreme court in a related case or similar case, hobby lobby said they don't have to provide contraception that they believe would be abortion. is that a case that you -- is that a case is one that you heavily relied on in your argument? >> oh, absolutely, because not only did the supreme court reach the right decision in the hobby lobby case, which is the beckett case also handled that case at the supreme court, but before it was at the supreme court, it was at the tenth circuit court of appeals. and the tenth circuit got to exactly the right result. they said, listen, the government doesn't get to tell you what your religious beliefs are, they don't get to make them up and they don't get to tell you which religious beliefs count and which ones don't. they reached the right conclusion to protect the religious family that was at issue in that case. >> go ahead. >> no, go ahead. >> no, i'll let you go. >> the issue has really been sharpened now because we're talking about the little sisters of the poor. and if the government, the federal government can say to the little sisters of the poor, we get to redefine your beliefs and tell you what beliefs are okay and what aren't, they can do that to any of us. so anyone who cares about religious liberty should care about this case. >> i don't know how the supreme court or the tenth circuit is going to rule, but certainly it seems like hobby lobby is one that tips in your favor but i'm taking the last word on that, daniel. thank you, and we'll be watching. thank you. >> thank you. and straight ahead, some college students slamming their professor. test test test ♪ ♪ we put all the apps you love inside a car designed to connect you to a world of possibilities. the connected car by volvo. innovating for you. give the gift of volvo this season and we'll give you your first month's payment on us. we're for an opens you internet for all.sing. we're for creating more innovation and competition. we're for net neutrality protection. now, here's some news you may find even more surprising. we're comcast. the only isp legally bound by full net neutrality rules. they are blasting their professor. kayla joins us with more. nice to see you. tell me, what's the problem and where is this happening? >> metro state university in denver, colorado, colorado's second largest undergraduate university has professor, professor angeletti that is having his students cite the pledge of allegiance. it's a little amended. >> a little or a lot. >> a completely different pledge of allegiance, having to pledge to a racist, homophobic, in the name of jesus that hates communists, a very strong political statement this professor has, completely contrary to the university's values. >> is this sort of a teaching tool or is he pushing it on them? there's a big difference? >> in talking with the professor, he said two things, he said it was an ice breaker, a silly little poem, something you would expect bart simpson to read. second he also says he's using the pledge of allegiance to teach an alternative perspective on patriotism. he makes it clear he's biased and he sees america as a racist, repressive country. he's trying to give students that history which i think is absolutely not the case. he completely ignores what makes america great. get tax one of the things i found interesting is he said america doesn't have tolerance for diversity of thought. think about that for a second. this is a country that embraces naturally everybody from ann coulter to al sharpton. we, of course, do. >> i take thit is not mandatory class. you have students that want to take it, or they can choose around it. >> not mandatory. it's an elective students can have in their undergraduate studies. what we're seeing, this is a trend that we're seeing all across the country. we're concerned about what students are being taught. so covering this sort of taught, this was brought to us by a student whistle-blower. >> caleb, nice to talk to you, nice to see you. let's go off the record for a minute. december 7, 1941, the day of infamy, japan struck pearl harbor, more than 2,400 americans were killed. now 73 years later, a new generation, ours, is doing something actually disgraceful. i read about an internal report from the national park service, another way to say they don't want you to know about it. here is what the report says. the pearl harbor memorial is in dekarks not being maintained. for example, peeling paint in the museum, horribly embarrassing. there's so much more, including details about accumulated bird droppings, bird poop or bird -- you know the other word. i can't believe my generation would allow that, the accumulation of bird droppings on this memorial. i actually can't believe it. how can we possibly be that disrespectful to those who died at pearl harbor, those 2,400 americans died so the rest of us can be free. is that really the best we can do for their sacrifice, let it get stained with bird droppings and an internal report. i think it's just awful. don't tell me we don't have the money. there's plenty spent on government waste around here. why st /* wi is it so hard to do the right thing. new protests across the nation. you're loooooooooooo here's a question for you: when electricity is generated with natural gas instead of today's most used source, how much are co2 emissions reduced? up to 30%? 45%? 60%? the answer is... up to 60% less. and that's a big reason why the u.s. is a world leader in reducing co2 emissions. take the energy quiz -- round 2. energy lives here. ♪ ah, ♪ h it. ♪ push it. ♪ p...push it real good! ♪ ♪ ow! ♪ oooh baby baby...baby baby. if you're salt-n-pepa, you tell people to push it. ♪ push it real good. it's what you do. ♪ ah. push it. if you want to save fifteen percent or more on car insurance, you switch to geico. it's what you do. ♪ ah. push it. i'm pushing. i'm pushing it real good! this is a fox news alert. the protests growing outside an nba game in brooklyn, new york. more protesters joining the crowd outside the barclays center. that's where william and kate are heading. patrick manning joins us. tell me what you are seeing there. >> reporter: just before tip-off, around 7:00 or so and there was a die-in when we first got here. around 200 protesters, got silent, got on the ground, laid this for about ten minutes or sore. as that was ending, the protests started to grow. it made it difficult for ticket holders to get into the venue. several hundred other protests joined from i assume a neighboring location. right now they're yelling "shut it down." i haven't noticed any arrests. but people are certainly very passionate here on the fifth night of protests here in new york city. >> patrick, i take it you've seen no sign of prince william. i assume they somehow get in this facility not through that crowd. >> that is certainly what i hear from a colleague of mine. they're actually going to be entering the venue at half-time, but underneath the venue. they certainly won't be facing these crowds. but they will be here the second half of the game. >> so far love but not violence, is that right? >> reporter: i had talked with the nypd, but i haven't seen any arrests. >> patrick, thank you. and thanks for being with us. we'll see you tomorrow night at 7:00 p.m. eastern. if you watch live, use your dvr and follow me on twitter at the brand new handle@greta. up next, the tonight on "red eye." >> coming up on "red eye" a dude who can paint elaborate pictures with his tongue. is it super creepy or super sexy? we report. he blows your mind. plus, did the president praise tom shillue for his first little commercial work and more? >> people said tom is hollywood's every man, but tom isn't just known for his characters. he is known for his character. >> and finally, did the president immediately regret praising tom shillue for his versatile commercial work? >> that was a one-time thing. that was a fluke. >> none of these stories on "red eye" tonight.