first time i connected with kim, she told me that her husband had passed. and that he took care of all of the internet connected devices in the home. i told her, “i'm here to take care of you.” connecting with kim... made me reconnect with my mom. it's very important to keep loved ones close. we know that creating memories with loved ones brings so much joy to your life. a family trip to the team usa training facility. i don't know how to thank you. i'm here to thank you.

so president biden says the quiet part out loud.

what now? tonight on "laura coates live." so it all went down behind closed doors by people who want him to win the most. president joe biden making an admission of sorts, saying, quote, if trump wasn't run, i'm not sure i would be running. we all know he entered the race over what happened in charlottesville, talking about battling for the soul of the nation. it was obvious to everyone then that trump was the catalyst. but tonight's statements are feeling a little different for some reason, maybe because he was in a room full of donors. maybe because his campaign has wanted to focus on health care this week and his desire to have another four years to finish the job he started. and the question people are asking tonight when you already have the polling by the way that shows that people might not be too thrilled with a rematch between the two of them is it a lack of enthusiasm on his part? or is it just recognizing on his

part that trump represents an ongoing threat to our democracy, which he has alluded to a number of times? now in 335 voters are going to let him know. tonight they have done a little bit of damage control since that quote sneaked out. a little while ago he was pressed if he would still be running for president if trump wasn't running for president, to which he said this. >> would you be running for president if trump wasn't running? >> i expect so. but look, he is running, and i have to run. >> okay. well, there might have been some conversations i bet on air force one because people running his campaign, well, how did they respond when they heard what he said, with a big old yikes. that's a quote, apparently. look, we know the president has been looking at this election as a kind of existential battle for

american democracy. it's a message we've heard from him before. >> democracy is at stake. and let there be no question. donald trump and his maga republicans are determined to spread anger, hate and division. they seek power at all costs, are determined to destroy this democracy. i cannot watch that happen, nor can you. this is the united states of america, and the united states congress extreme maga republicans trying to undo virtually every bit of progress we've made. >> well, that was all from this year. how about the argument he made when running back in 2022. is already similar, right? the then candidate signaled to aides that he would be a one-term president. we know that's no longer the case. remember back when a prominent adviser told politico at the time, quote, if biden is elected, see going to be 82 years old in four years and he won't be running for reelection. hope he didn't play the lottery

on that crystal ball. biden himself even said this out loud. there is that campaign again during the campaign in march of 2020. >> look, i view myself as a bridge, not as anything else. there is an entire generation of leaders you saw stand behind me. they are the future of this country. >> well, we've got to that bridge, and he is crossing it all the way into the election of 2024. he did beat donald trump once, but is he the only one who can do it again? >> i think we have enormous opportunities. and i think i just want to finish the job. >> we made a lot of progress so far, but we got to finish the job. >> folks, we have to keep going and finish the job. >> joining me now, cnn anchor and chief political correspondent dana bash. dana, it's so great to see you tonight. man, there is so much happening. i'm so glad to be able to pick your brain in this moment. look, we all know the point that he is making, right. we know what he is trying to

say. but how is that supposed to energize voters when you hear the president of the united states saying you know what? if he weren't in the race, i wouldn't be here. obviously i'm paraphrasing. but what does this mean? >> it means another day, two days, many days of headlines that joe biden and his campaign did not want. they were feeling pretty good about the fact that donald trump gave them a gift in saying that he was going to run on taking obamacare away and other issues like, i don't know, democracy. and this was a gaffe. i mean, it just was. joe biden, ever since -- this is nothing to do with age, laura. i covered him when he was way younger in the senate, and that is classic joe biden. he also does tend to be a lot more candid when he is at these fundraisers. they're private fundraiser, even though they are open to the

press. and, you know, i was thinking about this. you remember when he first ran back in 2020. >> yeah. >> his whole thing was i'm coming out of retirement because of donald trump. i'm coming out of retirement because of charlottesville. >> the battle for the soul of the nation. >> exactly. and the people coming out of the woods with talking about the replacement theory and all of that. so my sense is that he thought he was just kind of building on that. but it certainly didn't come out that way. and that's not me saying that. just basic reporting that i've done even since those words were uttered by the president. there is a lot -- if you can somehow get a sense of cringe through a text message, that's what's happening. and i'm sure you understand what i mean. even more. they're worried. they're worried. >> your interview with congresswoman pramila jayapal, i'm sure you know this, dana, it

has gone absolutely viral, and i want to play a part of it just to jog your memory, as you well know. listen. >> have you talked:00 it since october 7th? >> absolutely. i've condemned what hamas has done. all of the actions, the rape, of course. but i think we have to remember that israel is a democracy. that is why they are a strong ally of ours. and if they do not comply with international humanitarian law, they are bringing themselves to a place that makes it much more difficult strategically for them to be able to build the kinds of allies to keep public opinion with them. >> with respect, i was just asking about the women, and you turned it back to israel. i'm asking you about hamas. >> i already answered your question, dana. i said it's horrific. >> well, now she is having to backtrack, saying tonight, quote, that she unequivocally condemns hamas' use of rape and

sexual violence as an act of war, unquote. what does this say about why now she is saying? was she under pressure to say this? is that's what's happened? >> yes, i mean, in a word, yes. that word that you just used from the statement that she released earlier this evening, unequivocally, that is the word that many of her colleagues, i would say even most of her colleagues were hoping that she would say. and you can kind of tell in the interview, i wasn't sure, i wasn't expecting her answer to say yes to condemn the brutal -- this is what we were talking about, the brutal, barbaric rape, mass rape of women on october 7th, israeli women. and then to sort of turn it back to israel. but i think what it does underscore, laura, is something that i know you've been

reporting on, i've been reporting on. i've been reporting on it since before october 7th, but it has exploded since october 7th which is a growing -- well, the hostility towards israel by progressives who genuinely understandably believe in palestinian rights. that has been going on for a long time. there are some in her own caucus who will not condemn hamas, who will go off on tangents and say that israel is engaging in genocide. she is not one of them. she has very, very clearly condemned hamas, has called it a terror attack, and has also spoken out very forcibly against antisemitism. so as the caucus chair, she has been trying to walk a line. but i think the situation that she is in speaks to the larger

turn that is going on inside the progressive movement about this issue. >> it's such an important topic. we heard obviously senator chuck schumer to that effect just last week on the floor of the senate talking about all that is taking place. well, in diplomacy these day, we know the word "but" is particularly fraught. thank you so much, dana. it's always a pleasure to pick your brain and gain all of your insight. thank you so much. >> thanks, laura. well, now i want to bring in cnn political commentator ashley allison and former republican congressman charlie dent. i'm glad that both of you are here. i first want to play again for a moment what biden had to say. his walking back his comment earlier of look, i probably wouldn't be running if donald trump were not rung. i'm paraphrasing, o there and a little bit of damage control. listen. >> would you be running for president if trump wasn't running? >> i expect. so but look, he is running. and i have to run.

>> okay. so you know we like to analyze and overanalyze words in washington, d.c. and beyond. are people being too critical of what he said and how he said it? or is that the interpretation that many might here that i got to do it. what do you think? >> well, a couple of months ago when he was deciding whether or not he was going to run for reelection, he said that he was going weigh a couple of options and who was rung, meaning donald trump was going to be one of those things he considered. and so i think he just -- he is reiterating it. is it something that needs to be said right now? probably not. it's not the best -- it's not the best thing to say right now, because the reason why people run for president is they think they are the best one for the job. i think joe biden does think he is the best person for the job. right now the democratic party is endorsing him because -- well, some people are running against him. but they aren't really holding a primary for anyone to challenge him. so i'm not surprised he feels i'm running because donald trump

is rung. the first time he ran, he said the same thing. i have to protect the soul of this nation, and we have to stop donald trump. and he thought he was the best person to do it, and guess what? he did it? >> of course running from my home state of minnesota, in slamming the initial comments, he called it downright delusional and then pointed to biden's low approval ratings. when you heard the comments, did you interpret it in the same way? or was it a continuation of look, i'm the person who can actually beat him. because i have. that's why i have to run. >> i thought it was not an elegant comment. if you asked why you're running for president, it's because i have a great agenda, a terrific agenda and lots more to do for the next four years. and by the way, my opponent is a menace to the u.s. constitution. not saying i got to run because he is running. maybe we are overanalyzing it, but he should have an answer as to why he is running for

president better than what he give. i think philips is right to smack him on it. >> he was in a room of people who wanted him to win. at the same token, it is unfair to think he is the only one. you heard from people like senator joe manchin, who is talking about whether he'll run as a third party or otherwise because he doesn't want to take away votes from biden in favor of trump or be that spoiler. congresswoman elizabeth warren, the former congresswoman has talked about her contemplation of what is ahead. and in fact, she talked to anderson cooper earlier tonight and said that she is considering not necessarily a third party run, but that she'll do all that she can to prevent trump from getting that victory. when you look at the landscape of all of this, obviously he is the republican front-runner among those left in the race. everyone is considering donald trump right now, right? >> yeah. i mean, when you look at who is in your party right now running

for the nominee, chris christie, he said he is running because we have to stop donald trump. >> right. >> well, some of the people who also say that aren't even in the race anymore because they didn't do so well, like asa hutchinson, and other folks that are still here, they haven't condemned trump as much as they perhaps should the. but people are thinking of donald trump. people do presume he is going to be the republican nominee. i will say i still think that there could be a primary caucus surprise like what happens a lot of times and it duds get drug out until tuesday, or super tuesday. i do think people are looking at donald trump. all eyes are on is this going to be a trump-biden rematch. >> i want to ask you, i former congresswoman liz cheney is contemplating that third party run under a traditional republican value. she is being very clear about a disconnect between what trump espouses and making a new party, not necessarily a third party, but a new party of sorts that would go back to maybe your

father's republican. it would be your own republican frankly. would you support that? >> i think liz cheney is right to talk about an independent movement. some might call it a third party movement that could aright center left the center right. i think the center of the country has been largely ignored in this country. the extremes are being catered to by the parties. and so i think liz is right. and no labels is setting her up nicely, actually. no labels is trying to secure ballot access in all 50 states for some type of a fusion ticket. and i think elizabeth cheney might fit the bill for that whether republican or democrat. we could talk. it could be a larry hogan or a chris sununu. who knows? i'm not sure who the democrat might be, but i think there would be plenty who would be willing to jump into this because i think a lot of people in the center of the country want to be able to vote for

somebody other than donald trump. i didn't vote for him in '16 or '20. we want to be able to vote for somebody. biden, two-thirds of the country thinks one candidate joe biden is too old, and the other donald trump is too crazy. what part of the message aren't the parties hearing? >> what's the saying? jokers to the left, here i am stuck in the middle with you. who knows. thank you so much. look, the director of the fbi says he is blinking red warning lights every single place he turns. next, we'll talk about what is scaring the director of the fbi, and also he says the threats are greater than ever before.

we're working around the clock to identify and disrupt potential attacks by those inspired by hamas' horrific terrorist attacks in israel. i've never seen a time where all

the threats, or so many of the threats were so elevated, all at the same time. >> would you say there is multiple blinking red lights out there? >> i see blinking lights everywhere i turn. >> fbi director christopher wray waving a huge red flag about the threats of attacks on the homeland, saying that threats to the u.s. have reached unprecedented levels since october 7th. let's talk about now with donnell harvin, intelligence for the district of columbia and former associate white house counsel to former president george w. bush, handing intelligence matters. i don't feel very comfortable having the fbi director having unprecedented or novel moments that he's never seen before. not a ring endorsement of our collective safety. why is this happening now, particularly post october 7th here in the united states? >> you know, he is clearly

harkening back to george tenet, who actually testified to the 9/11 commission about the system blinking red. and so he's really honing in on two types of threats. the first an international threat from foreign terrorist organizations, or ftos that have sworn attacks against the u.s. and are trying to inspire people within the u.s., which is the second one, the domestic threat coming from people who are inspired by the events that are going on in israel, hamas' mis and disinformation. when you look at the threat picture, it's rare you have from overseas as well as from the homeland simultaneously. >> if he is seeing blinking lights everywhere, sadly they're not agents everywhere, nor the workforce power to handle everything. that might be a national security huge threat. >> i mean, darnell is exactly

right. there are threats from the outside. the world is essentially on fire. we have a war in the heart of europe. threats from china and the like. and on december 31st, we're about to lose our most critical collection tool, section 702 of the foreign surveillance act. if congress doesn't act in the next three weeks, we're going lose our best ability to collect on these very terrorists, these very foreign threats. that's going to be a disaster. if the system is blinking red and this tool goes away, red is even close to color we're going to face with potential threats. >> how is the tool being used right now? >> so what we do, under section 702, we collect against foreign intelligence targets overseas. it can't be used against americans, only against overseas threats and only non-americans located overseas. >> what about social media? is that developed in that conversation? >> open source isn't the use for this. you can collect open source on the internet. anybody can go out there and read it. this is for the emails, the phone calls of terrorists, spies, foreign government

officials and the like. >> well, speaking of social media, of course, a lot of the information that is coming in that can either radicalize people or further divide people, and foster a lot of the disinformation and outright lies with an eye towards propaganda is happening online. when you look at that, and see how it is flourishing, how public sentiment is based on it in so many ways, what concerns you? >> you know, the world is upside down. i woke up two weeks ago and i saw that bin laden was right and bin laden letters were trending. i didn't know what world i was in. when you can radicalize normal american, especially our youth, to take to the streets. you have american youth dressing up like a terrorist, waving the hamas flags in the streets of our cities on the campuses, you have a problem. it all stems from the internet. it's unregulated. it penetrates, it's mis and disinformation.

it penetrates deep into the social media networks. it's almost impossible to bring these people back from the brink. what we don't know is if anyone is going to act on it. that's key. that's key to the fiez za as far as people may be communicating with foreign terrorist organization. we saw that in the mid 2010s with icy communicating actively with u.s. persons here on our oil as well as looking at what people were doing on social media and see if they're radicalizing to violence. >> i know you report that tom cruise moby about deciding whether you have actually committed the crime and can they act on your thought that you might do something. we don't want that to happen in the country, obviously. but this idea of what might happen is the real conundrum to law enforcement, when you you've have all the threats that are posed, if some are existing, and figuring which to identify, and thinking at some point is there a deeper conversation about surveilling american citizens as a result? >> that's exactly right.

look, on this point about what's happening online, a lot of this is happening on tiktok. a chinese owned and operated platform. it's no coincidence this kind of radicalization, that all these americans kids started getting into happen on a chinese-built platform. the algorithm encouraged that. on the question of surveying americans, that's exactly right. this section actually protects americans overseas against being surveilled by the government. if you want to surveil an american anywhere in the world you have to get a court and get a court order, whether that's a judge on the fiez za court, or you have to go to a federal judge and get a judge like you would in a criminal proceeding. the only thing it can be used for is locating foreigners overseas. it's true you might get three communications of americans. that's exactly when you want to know, when these terrorists are talking to americans. that's when you want to know.

then if you want to collect on them you have the get a court order. >> sounds like the volumes of possibilities might be right for a system to perhaps be abused or be the best our the course. thank you for both you have coming here tonight. i appreciate it. donnell and jimmel. up next, the horrifying moment of a deadly house explosion just outside of washington, d.c. you've probably seen in this video. we're learning new details about gunfire from the man barricaded inside as police were e executi a searchch warrant..

while there was a tragic end to a police standoff monday night when suddenly this. this stunning video shows a home exploding into flames when officers were trying to execute a search warrant. the suspect, 56-year-old james yoo was barricaded inside his home when the blast occurred and is presumed dead. if you have a lot of questions, and you've certainly seen this

footage so, do we. joining me now, cnn law enforcement and chief analyst john miller. i saw this. really, i'm not going to spoil it for people there, but is a similar movie scene about this very thing happening, but it was all booby-trapped and all these things happening. the magnitude of this explosion in real life, not hollywood, is shocking. so what caused it? and do we know if that was intentional? >> well, it's still under investigation, and that's being carried out by the arlington county police department, the atf, and the fbi. but atf arson experts have been going through that house. they're taking chemical tests. but here is the operating theory, laura. james hyoo brought police there because he had fired about 50 projectiles, probably flares in the direction of neighbors' homes. when police got there, they say they were fired on again. so they backed out, and they

came back with a bearcat. that's that armored vehicle you see approaching the house just before it explodes. and they were talking on the loudspeaker, asking him to come out, unarmed, and they were going to take him into custody. that's when the house explodes. what they think happened before they did their arrest warrant and tried to get him out, they cut off the gas line to the house. but by then they believe yoo had filled the house with natural gas by opening all the gas lines inside in the kitchen so that it was permeated. then they believe he may have fired an additional flare inside to cause that spontaneous combustion. but i've seen a lot of gas explosions. i've talked to people on the scene. they think there is something else here, perhaps additional propane tanks or some kind of accelerant, because they said after the gas explosion, the amount of fire, the fact that the flames kept on going signals

to them that he had somehow, as you suggested, rigged the house, booby-trapped it with something more than just the gas. >> so, john, who is this guy? what do we know about him? is he known to federal authorities? >> he is. it's really interesting, laura, because he is totally unknown to the people on this block. the man at 844 burlington street in arlington was never seen by neighbors. they didn't even really know if somebody really lived there. but federal authorities to the court system to the attorneys, he was a prolific filer of lawsuits with can outlandish claims and paranoid delusions. paranoia seemed to be the driver here. he felt that the neighbors were spying on him. the neighbor's suspicion were spying on him, that his ideas and business had been stolen, that people were following him, that the fbi has mikes in his house. it was deep.

>> i mean, deep to say the least. and the idea that there were no -- obviously believed to have been killed in that explosion, but the officer i think was an attached duplex. none of that was harmed significantly? there was not other loss of life? it's really unbelievable. i bet this story is going to peel away additional players, john. >> it's a miracle that more people weren't injured. >> now it's a mystery, and we'll be on it. john miller, thank you so much. >> thanks, laura. there are now more questions in jackson, mississippi, after another man was found to be buried by authorities without his family's knowledge. next. you bring a lot back

to civilian life. leadership skills. technical ability.

and a drive to serve in new ways. syracuse university's d'aniello institute for veterans and military families has empowered more than 200,000 veterans to serve their communities and their careers. from professional certifications, to job training, to help navigating programs and services, we give veterans access to support from anywhere in the world.

a second jackson, mississippi man buried by authorities without his family's knowledge. a family now searching for answers. mario moore was killed in jackson by an unknown assailant in february. he was buried in a popper's field. the reports to reach his next of kin, his brother was not working and no one claimed his remains. his family did not find out that mario had even died until october 9th, only learning about it through a local news investigation that uncovered how the local police never shared the names of over 20 homicide victims with the public. now this all comes shortly after news we learned about a man named dexter wade who was hit and killed by an offduty police officer and also buried without his family's knowledge.

but even now families are saying they're not getting any answers. i want to bring in mario moore's mother, mary glenn and his sister mercedes as well as their attorney, ben crump. thank you all for being here this evening. it is so devastating to hear this news. mary, can i please begin with you, his mother. i am so sorry to hear what happened to your son. can you just tell us how you felt when you found out just in october that not only he had passed away, but that he was buried some eight months after he was first found? >> i feel so hurt, confused, because there was answers, questions that i had no answers about. they tell me, somebody said this, they said that.

but nobody is telling me answers. all that i know that my son has been buried in a pauper's grave. >> mercedes, just hearing your mother describe what has happened to your brother and the feelings behind it, i mean, he was somebody who was continually on the move, we understand. he had struggled with some substance abuse. but what was your relationship like with him? why was there so much time between knowing where he was and then this devastating revelations? >> we feel there was so much time because that's mario's norm. that's what he normally does. we were raised in a very strict, christian home. because he did struggle with some things, he was more so ashamed, and he knew if he came around, we would tell him, you

know, what you're doing is kn not what you should be doing. he kept his distance for that reason. holidays, he always came around. he always came to my mom's house. so to us, he wasn't missing. to us, he was basically being mario. he was keeping his distance because of the things he struggled with. but we knew holiday time mario is coming. we knew we were going to see him. it's very heartbreaking to know what happened to my brother, not only that he has been buried, but my mother hasn't even gotten any answers. >> i mean, what you described has been the experience of so many families who are struggling with something very similar, except for what you are specifically going through, mary, and that is many had the chance to either say goodbye or to at least know where their

loved ones' remains are for a proper burial. do you know where your son's remains are right now? >> i have been told that he's in pauper's field, buried. >> but ben, i want to bring you in here, benjamin crump, there are so many questions and concerns and unanswered questions for this family, knowing that he is in this field, the exact location, not particularly known as well, not known for months where he is. by the way, when asked for comment, and i do want to read this by cnn, the jackson police department and the coroner's office send cnn copies of their reports. the jackson's mayor's office declined to comment. what are you asking for from authorities?

because many people have this question. what should have happened here and why wasn't it done correctly? >> well, laura, as miss mary, his mother told me and attorney sweet earlier, the first -- came that the news media said your son is buried behind the jail. they said that he didn't have any identification. then the next day, no, he has identification. that's how we knew that he was who he was. so it begs the question, laura coates, why ca notify these black families when they put them in a bag and drop them in the ground? we are seeking the department of justice to open up an investigation to identify every

672 of those human beings that have been buried behind that jail. we are now represent five of the families, and we're going to try the get their remains dug up and give his mother, just like we did with dexter wade's mother a proper funeral and burial. circum >> miss mary, mercedes, benjamin crump, thank you all for being here. i'm so sorry this is what you're grappling with tonight. i'm very sorry for your r loss. ththank you soso much. > thank youou. >> we'll be righght back.

well, a marvel movie star on trial, accused of violently assaulting his ex-girlfriend. actor jonathan majors plays a villain in marvel universe. >> i saw the chaos spreading.

so i took control. and i will burn them out of time for what they've done to me. >> that's what monsters do. >> that's what conquerors do. >> but tonight, majors is accused in real life of assaulting hiss ex-girlfriend grace jabari last march in new york. he has pleaded not guilty to aggravated harassment and assault charges, and defense attorneys say jabari was in fact the aggressor, that she physically attacked majors. i want to dig in now with segun oduolowu, host of "boston globe" today. nice to see you again, my friend segun. there was alleged testimony from the victim today that the fight started when she saw a text message pop up on majors' phone that said "wish i was kissing you." apparently it wasn't from her. he then pried her fingers off

the phone, twisted her hand and struck her head. his attorneys deny that entirely, saying she flew into a jealous rage, clawing and slapping his face. so we have these two competing narratives. how does public perception play into a high profile case like this one? >> well, laura, you're absolutely right. thank you, first, for having me. this is a tale of two narratives. honestly, it's playing like the theater of the absurd. i honestly find it comical, which is sad, because violence was involved somehow, right? either he was the victim or she was the victim, but the -- >> why comical? >> played audio of him claiming -- well, because the prosecution played audio of him being in a rant, claiming that he is a great man, and he wants this english white woman to act liquor reta scott king or michelle obama. he is showing up to the court

dressed like an extra from judah and the black messiah, like he is in the black panthers as he is holding a bible. and all of the testimony that we've heard thus far is immaterial until we hear the driver. because in a he said/she said story, he had his narrative. the defense is laying it out saying she really wasn't injured. she was the aggressor. she went out later to party. they've got video on still footage of her at a bar. she is claiming that she didn't feel the pain right away. then, you know, we've got the text message on the phone that she took from him, that he tried to wrestle back. all of this is so ludicrous, you would think it's the script of a movie, except that this man, who is 34, and this young woman who is 30, he could really not only lose his career, he could lose his freedom. so, yes, it's the theater of the absurd. but when you start looking at

the elements, it's comical in that it's ridiculous, right. until we hear the driver and what actually happened, until we hear what actually happened from the driver, what are we supposed to believe? are we supposed to believe this man, who they've got on tape, or are we supposed to believe this woman, who we've got video footage of? where do we go? you're the lauwyer laura. >> i prosecuted a number of domestic violence allegations through the course of my career. i have to tell you, the she said-he said or the he said-he said and she said-she said cases certainly come down to that idea. the objective third party person who is witnessing it, and we're trying to talk than in a court of law. you rightly point out, segun, that a lot of this because of the high profile nature of the accused is talked about in the court of public opinion. in fact, a lot of cases like that for this reason are settled

outside of court. i mean, the fact that he is willing to fight this, of course, he does have the presumption of innocence, and the prosecution has to prove their case, full stop. but you say the fact that he is willing to publicly fight this shows that he is determined to such an extent that it might raise doubts in the court of public opinion as to his guilt at all. that enough? when he fights it? >> it should raise doubts in the court of public opinion. it must raise doubts. because what we normally see, to your point, is this gets settled outside of the public eye. but this man has already lost millions of dollars from movies that he has either been cut from or aren't going to run, ads that have dropped him. he is fighting for his livelihood. and not being in prison for a year, that he is willing to

fight and show up at least says to me that he believes that his side of the story. what i caution everyone is let it be adjudicated in court. let us hear from the driver, at least a hopefully impartial third party, because we're never going to get the complete truth from ms. jabari or from jonathan majors. they have their own reasons to tell their sides of the story. in the court of public opinion, we want -- justice is ephemeral. we don't really know what justice looks like in a trial like this. what we want is accountability. if she is telling the truth, then he should be punished. but if she is lying, then let her be held accountable as well, and hopefully, the driver can shed some light to it. because the court of public opinion, if you're an advertisers, you've been cutting his salary, you've been cutting his checks. if you believe her side or you just want to distance yourself from what looks bad from a man who is so much bigger than this woman, right. the court of public opinion at

least where the money lies has been believing her side of the story. we shall see when the driver testifies if it holds up. >> we will see all of that. of course, the due process that is supposed to extend in the courtroom and the presumption of evidence and the prosecutorial burden very different than when there are business decisions being made, particularly in the era of me too. i don't know if anyone is convinced that just because you fight it means you're innocent. we'll see ultimately how this is going to pan out and whether there were statements made closer in time even without a driver or anyone else that might show her credibility one way or the other. segun, we'll be watching. and thank you all for watching tonight as welsh and all o of o convnversations.s. our coveverage is gogoing to contininue.

show her c credibilityty one wa