o on all your device duckduckgo comes with a built-n engine like google, but it's pi and doesn't spy on your searchs and duckduckgo lets you browse like chrome, but it blocks cooi and creepy ads that follow youa from google and other companie. and there's no catch. it's fre. we make money from ads, but they don't follow you aroud join the millions of people taking back their privacy by downloading duckduckgo on all your devices today.

well, look at that. the supreme court is right where it did not want to be, smack dab in the middle of the 2024 election with the first votes in just a few days. tonight on "laura coates live". okay, so if we are being honest, drumroll please, the supreme court said yes. they will decide whether donald trump, former president of the united states, one who is trying to become president

again, can be on the ballot after his role in january 6. which ballot? this one concerns colorado, but the supreme court noted the floodgates are about to open. it has already been, and i can't believe either, three years tomorrow since the attack you are seeing on the screen. and while prosecutors have been dragged for taking so long to get the prosecutorial ball rolling, the court not known for lightning speed, now they are wasting no time. the oral arguments are set for february 8. donald trump saying just a little while ago that he hopes the justices he appointed will be, i will use his word, fair. they go out of their way to hurt you, so that they can show that they have been fair. >> a little bit of reverse

psychology, maybe. even before today's announcement the former president was sending a message to the court. listen to one of his lawyers boldly calling out individual justices. >> i think it should be a slam dunk in the supreme court. i have faith in them. you know, people like cavanagh, who the president fought for and helped get into place, he will step up. >> well, that can't be your legal strategy, right? thinking justices owe him something for appointing him. they don't owe you and you don't own them. >> ♪ you don't own me, don't try to change me in any way ♪ >> you knew i would bring a reference, right? it is friday night, people. you know what? we have already seen the justices. they might not be dancing in white suits and a trio, there are nine of them, but they have not always rolled away trump wanted them to.

you know this. in 2022, remember they cleared the way for the irs to release trump's tax returns to a democratic led committee? they also allowed a special master to review about 100 documents marked classified that had been seized from mar-a- lago. coming back to you now? let's not forget in december, 2020, the court throughout the texas lawsuit contesting the 2020 election results in four battleground states, so nothing is a foregone conclusion, not even keeping him off the colorado ballot. let's start now with colorado secretary of state, jenna griswold, who joins us now. secretary, i am so glad you have joined us. we have been following this story for a long time, as of course you have, but now the supreme court is wasting no time taking up this case and it could lead to clarity for not just your state, but for others around the country.

how are you feeling about the fact that the supreme court is saying yes to at least hearing it tonight? >> thanks for having me on, laura. it seems like you are going to have a fun show tonight. my general reaction is that i think it is a good thing the supreme court decided to take this case so quickly. the american people deserve to know whether someone who engaged in insurrection can run for the highest office in this country and also as secretary of state of colorado, we would like to know the answer very quickly. we are a super tuesday state. our presidential primary is off and starting. i certify the candidates today, so the quicker that the supreme court can act, it will just allow us to administer elections in the best way possible. >> but of course the supreme court, whether you like it or not, they are not on your timeline. that is the unfortunate reality

when talking about planning around them, so what would be the biggest hurdle for you? what if they ruled at the end of their term, which is june? what if they waited even a month from now, after you already of course had the printing deadline for your ballot, what then? >> there are a lot of hypotheticals that could come out of the united states supreme court taking this case, but to take a step back, i certified trump to the ballot today because that is what the colorado supreme court ordered in their decision. the colorado supreme court stated trump did engage in insurrection. he is responsible for many of the actions on january 6 and because of his engagement in insurrection, he is disqualified from the colorado ballot. but the court added a caveat that if an appeal was filed, i was to place him on the ballot. you know, donald trump, his name is very likely to be printed on the ballots, just given the timeline.

if the court were to order that he is not a qualified candidate, well, we have scenarios under colorado law similar to that that of played out in the past and we would not count the votes for him if he was a disqualified candidate. >> so that could possibly mean that he would be on the ballot this time. say ballots were cast and votes were cast in favor of donald trump. let's use a hypothetical that the court comes back and says this person was not eligible to be on the ballot in the first place. that means those votes in favor of him would no longer be counted in light of colorado law? >> a similar situation happened actually during the 2020 presidential primary. we are a vote by mail for allstate. we send a ballot to every registered voter and then have weeks of early voting, unprecedented in-person voting access. we want to make sure eligible people can have their voice

heard. during the last presidential primary on the democratic side, two candidates actually dropped out during early voting and we were not able to count the votes cast for those candidates, because they are no longer eligible. they dropped out. they were not candidates anymore. so i think no matter what happens, this will be a great election in colorado. definitely a unique one, because it is not normal to have candidates for president to engage in insurrection and try to run for office again. >> i think the words normal and unique are perhaps the most appropriate, yet misnomer's, thinking about what's going on. we will be following this closely because it is so important and i think having the flowchart and thinking about if then and what the court will ultimately decide, this is a matter of extreme consequence. secretary of state griswold, thank you so much. >> thank you. >> no i want to bring in a

senior correspondent at fox where he covers the supreme court and he is also the author of several books including injustices, the history of comforting the comfortable and inflicting the afflicted. i love it, thank you about the rain in spain and something about a plane. >> she sells sea shells. >> by the seashore. i love this. let me ask you about what's going on. i have a flowchart in my mind. i was fascinated by what she said about some contingencies. first of all he is now on the ballot, but that does not mean this whole thing has been performative, right? >> first of all we are talking about the supreme court of the united states and we are talking about the constitution and the constitution trumps everything. maybe trumpism the word i should use. >> it's appropriate tonight. go ahead. >> if the supreme court decides trump is constitutionally unable to run for president, all of the other procedural

things don't matter. if the constitution steps in, then it overcomes any other concern that might arise. >> they could say i know you have a printing deadline, but we are not on your schedule, so you could maybe change that or reprint a huge cost to the state, but you're not entirely convinced that the supreme court is going to say he is off the ballot, why? >> lots of reasons. broadly speaking there are three ways this could play out. one, the court could say he's off the ballot. he committed in insurrection and the constitution says if you do that, you are out. i don't think that is likely. still there is a 6-3 republican super majority. the court is likely to be cautious about a case of this magnitude and there are real reasons one could disagree with the colorado supreme court decision. >> like what? >> reporter: i think the biggest problem is colorado has a process where you can

challenge a candidate if you don't think they belong on the ballot. it has historically been used for minor things, things like of the school board candidate is running and they don't live in the place where they need to live in order to run for the school board. those are simple cases. it is a truncated process. it doesn't have the discovery and ability to call witnesses and other things you normally think of in a trial and i think it would be perfectly appropriate for the supreme court to say this process is not enough for such a monumental decision. a new constitutional issue, one that requires a great deal of fact-finding. so the court could say we are going to put this off, say, until his criminal trial is resolved and if he is convicted of trying to steal the 2020 election, then they can come back and revisit this question of whether he should be on the ballot. >> i want to play a little game called reality housewives of the supreme court for a second and we will have a confessional about who will be deciding this.

assuming all nine justices are there, you know you have trumps lawyer making a comment about, you know, kavanaugh. paraphrasing here, he will step up. there is this notion being articulated that somehow the justices, you scratched our back getting us here and we will scratch yours. does that offend the court in a way that makes them go, hold on, or is it water off a duck's back? >> it is a stupid thing to say. here's the thing about donald trump. he does not have a good reputation specifically amongst lawyers who might take him on as a client. the phrase i've heard before is he doesn't listen to legal advice and you don't know if he will pay the bills. so good lawyers, like the big supreme court lawyers that you would normally expect to see on a brief involving the former president of the united states, they are not on this case. so without the good lawyers to rely on, he gets this woman who goes on tv and start saying, hey, i think brett kavanaugh

will rule in favor of us, because he is corrupt. >> she did clarify to suggest that it is because they follow the law, but the intimation was there that you will do something for us. >> reporter: yeah, we don't say that kind of thing. brett kavanaugh is a conservative guy. he was vetted by the trump white house, because they thought he would normally do this sort of stuff that the trump white house wants a justice to do, but that doesn't mean that he's not a human being. it doesn't mean that he doesn't care about professional representation. if there are any law students listening to this interview, my advice to all of them is never say that thing about a judge you are appearing in front of. >> by the way, we are talking about the colorado case, but they have other things like the immunity discussion, whether a president will have absolute immunity. there are other things to wrestle with and they know if they talk about one state there are already things going on in other states right now that the court wants to resolve. but this doesn't get on the right foot, to suggest that

anything other than the law, which might turn out in trumps favor in this instance, would be the guiding post. >> judges certainly say that. now in practice, in any case, especially hard cases, and this is a hard case. the reason why this case is difficult is because the particular provision of the constitution, section 3 of the 14th amendment, deals with what happens if an official who formerly was in very high office then engages in an insurrection against the united states. we are very fortunate as a country that that has not happened very much, so there is no case law on it. the problem with cases where there is not a lot of case law is that judges often really can decide those cases however they want, because there isn't any authority telling them they have to decide it one way or the other. >> what could go wrong with reverse engineering a solution of something so constant uncial?

ian millhiser, thank you so much. >> reporter: thank you. up next, the gloves are off. sacrificing our democracy to put himself in power. is it a winning message? also, the latest round of jeffrey epstein documents. i have the perfect guest to talk about a-listers believing badly -- behaving badly who don't want their name on the list. remember the hollywood madam, heidi fleiss? she is up.

you know what they say, with great power comes great responsibility. the supreme court has great power and now it has the great responsibility of deciding if donald trump decides -- belongs on the ballot. it will shape american democracy and today president biden left no doubt that he thinks how america decides in november will determine if democracy lives or dies. >> democracy is on the ballot. your freedom is on the ballot. it is the first national election since the january 6 insurrection placed a dagger at the throat of democracy, since that moment.

we all know who donald trump is. >> well, donald trump is responding tonight, insisting that he is not the threat, joe biden is. >> that is why crooked joe is staging this pathetic, fear mongering campaign event in pennsylvania today. did you see him? he was stuttering through the whole thing. he was going, he is a threat to democracy. they have weaponized government. he's saying i am a threat to democracy. he is a threat to democracy. wow. >> joining me now, a democratic strategist and michael singleton, a republican strategist. have to ask first of all if you thought the days of going below the belt, is it presidential role model behavior, ladies and gentlemen, exhibit a, what you've just seen. paul, you called the speech today from biden, biden at his best. why? >> first he needs to thank

donald trump for setting the bar so low. they say biden is feeble. you saw the president mocking his speech impediment, his youthful speech impediment which we did not see an action today. he was powerful and forceful. by the way, he was really effective. he took it right to mr. trump and you saw definitely hurt trump, that is why he was responding like that. >> effective, but did it resonate? >> look, one of the lines the president stated, our campaign is about the future. if i was advising the former president i would say, let's look at the present as an indicator. let's look at the state of economics under the biden administration. are we better after the past four years? let's look at the border. hundreds of thousands where we have no clue where they come from. let's look at cities impacted. new york for example spending $8 million a day to house these people. a budget shortfall. let's also look at some of the

money we are sending to foreign countries. we have no idea how much money we will send and when we are going to stop, yet we see more and more americans who are homeless. we've seen the number of americans in poverty increase by 4.7% compared to 2010. we've seen household income decrease. >> i didn't hear any of this from trump. >> that should be, laura, if i were advising him, the republican message. >> he should listen, but he won't. >> why? >> because he is a social path. >> i thought the best line president biden had today is donald trump's campaign is about him, not america, not you. that points the way. too many democrats think trump is a criminal or a fraud and those things are all being litigated in the warts. what i think biden is going toward is, he is for himself. i'm for you. he cares about his grievances. his lies about the election.

his legal problems. his sweetheart deals with china and other foreign companies. his tax cuts for billionaires. the people who voted for donald trump are good people. they have been taken by a con man. that is a better argument for democrats other than saying if you vote for trump you are evil. >> can you google horns log old? google it for me. >> to that point, people do want to know what you are going to do to solve the problems of today for tomorrow and i think that is a risk that the former president falls into by talking so much about the past. i remember brian kemp, the governor of georgia, stated several months ago if the party is still litigating 2020, that person is likely not going to win the state of georgia. i would urge the former president to listen to him, who won georgia by large numbers. >> biden is also talking about

january 6. is that the exception to talking about the past? remember kellyanne conway made the statement about democrats waking up and hoping every day is january 7. i do wonder about reception for that, but you did hear from other candidates including, interestingly enough, who seemed to agree with what you said about trump and how he has for himself and not you. nikki haley is one. desantis is another. nikki haley is still playing cleanup tonight, guys. cleanup on aisle three is still happening and frankly i am stunned she is still trying to clean this up, the civil war comment. why? >> because she wants the vote of white nationalists if she is the nominee. she is not a stupid person. she knows what caused the civil war. why did she say that? in february, 2016, jake tapper interviewed donald trump. donald trump had just been endorsed by david duke, the former clan leader.

and he said, do you disavow david duke? he could not do it. he asked him three times. i want to be careful about the fallacy of composition. all of the racists are for trump, but not all trump supporters are racist. most of them are really good people. i think governor haley has made a mistake, but i think she is looking to those -- >> let's say we validate the premise of the argument. those people are never going to vote for nikki haley. nikki haley is not going to become the republican nominee, so why attempt to placate people who are not interested in voting for you anyway? they don't like you anyway. perhaps you forgot there is some melanin in her skin as well and maybe someone should remind her. i actually like nikki haley, but we need to not play politics with history. again, if you can't trust a political leader to be aware or tell the truth about the past, how in the world can voters

expect you to make sound decisions in the present to impact the future? they can't. >> you are not getting a christmas card. thank you both so much. we have breaking news. an alaska airlines flight made an emergency landing tonight. a passenger telling cnn, get this, a window blew out in flight. an actual window. the plane was headed from portland, oregon, to ontario, california. pete, we are looking at an image of a window gone from an airplane. what is happening? >> reporter: all you can say is wow, laura. this is more than a window. this is part of the fuselage and the 26th row. on this 737 max 9. incredible that no one was seated in the window seat that is typically a spot on the 737 max 9 that

could have an emergency exit if the plane is configured for a certain seating capacity. what is apparent from flightaware and passengers is that this flight got up to about 16,000 feet, so only halfway to the cruising altitude of 33,000 feet. a few minutes into the flight, only seven minutes into the flight, this issue apparently happened and the crew after leaving portland, oregon, they were bound for ontario in southern california. made an emergency returned back to portland. an emergency dissent and got the airplane under control and made a successful emergency landing. you have to put yourself in the perspective of the passengers going through this terrifying moment. the oxygen masks came down and it sounds like there were even some clothes pulled off of passengers. at least that is the conjecture online, although that is still

unconfirmed. so this was a really harrowing and incredible scene. after we have seen all of these issues with the 737 max, not to mention the 346 deaths and two crashes in 2014 and 2019. issues abroad. manufacturer defects. you have to think, what is going through the mind of boeing executives right now with this breaking story? the good news is, the flight crew did everything they were trained to do and got this plane on the ground without any issue. nobody hurt on board. 171 passengers and six members of the crew. >> thanked god and we swear this is not cnn promoting our sunday story about soli and what happened 15 years ago. it's unbelievable to think this happened on a plane. this reminds me of a twilight zone episode. thank god no one was hurt.

pete muntean, thank you. keep us posted. >> reporter: any time. there is a new batch of epstein documents that is out and when i heard about it, one name came to mind. heidi fleiss. yes, the hollywood madam that ran a high-class prostitution ring thahat caterered to w weal clclients. guess whwhat? ? she is here, n next. to duckduckgo on all your devie

duckduckgo comes with a built-n engine like google, but it's pi and doesn't spy on your searchs and duckduckgo lets you browse like chrome, but it blocks cooi and creepy ads that follow youa from google and other companie. and there's no catch. it's fre. we make money from ads, but they don't follow you aroud join the millions of people taking back their privacy by downloading duckduckgo on all your devices today. the power goes out and we still have wifi join the millions of people takto do our homework.acy and that's a good thing? great in my book! who are you? no power? no problem. introducing storm-ready wifi. now you can stay reliably connected through power outages with unlimited cellular data and up to 4 hours of battery back-up to keep you online. only from xfinity. home of the xfinity 10g network.

tonight, there is a new round of jeffrey epstein documents offering yet another look into his dark history of sexual abuse. the disgraced movie mogul, harvey weinstein, appearing in a 2005 handwritten note that was left for epstein. i want to bring in someone who has been sifting through all of these unsealed documents and i do mean all of them. it is so good to see you this evening. your eyes must be burning, but before we get to the latest developments, take a step back with me. how did we even get here? >> reporter: this story begins 20 years ago, laura. that is when the initial allegations began in florida and there was an investigation

by palm beach detectives into allegations he was having sexual relations with minors. one of the detectives who gave deposition testimony in this case, he said he interviewed 30 girls were recruited to give epstein massages and massages turned sexual. that is the allegation that kind of started this whole thing. the local office in florida had brought charges against epstein in 2006 for solicitation of prostitution. at the same time there was a federal investigation. that ended up getting resolved with the nonprosecution agreement, essentially giving epstein immunity as well as for female co-conspirators. in exchange he agreed to plead guilty to state charges, so he served a brief time in state jail. one of those women, girls at the time, was allegedly assaulted by epstein was virginia giuffre and she's the one who brought the defamation lawsuit against ghislaine

maxwell, epstein's former girlfriend, and was recruited for helping him recruit girls for sex trafficking. so she brings the deposition lawsuit against maxwell and that had been going through the normal process. there are subpoenas, there is testimony. that is where things were heading. a number of accusers brought private lawsuits, often known as jane does. the miami herald wrote a story, an investigative series, where they revealed this nonprosecution agreement, which had been private. it had been hidden. that prompted the u.s. attorney's office in manhattan to open an investigation against epstein. they then brought federal charges against him for sex trafficking minors. he dies by suicide in jail while awaiting trial. one year later, maxwell is charged as a co-conspirator and is later convicted, but it is after she is charged that the judge overseeing the defamation

lawsuit decide she is going to begin unsealing documents and it has been a slow rollout since 2020 or so and we are getting kind of this final, big bulk of documents that are being unsealed over the past several days and this will continue into next week, too. >> this blows your mind. 20 years ago this began. all of the twists and turns and different steps to even get where we are now, before people were even publicly aware of who he was in this category. it's unbelievable. and we are now on the third batch of documents. what are you learning? are there any newly revealed epstein associates? >> reporter: there were some other names that came out, some from hollywood. harvey weinstein, as you mentioned. his name came up today because there were copies of one of these old, spiral notebook bound phone messaging books found in epstein's home in florida and there was a handwritten note from 2005 that says harvey weinstein had called. now, virginia giuffre's lawyer

wrote a book and in that book he says that harvey weinstein and epstein were friends and had a falling out after weinstein became too aggressive with one of epstein's favorites. you know, weinstein of course was not charged with anything in this case, but he was convicted in both new york and l.a. for unrelated sex crimes and he is serving a prison sentence for that. another name that came up is david copperfield. he allegedly attended a dinner at epstein's house and a woman who work for epstein had given sworn testimony where she said she was talking to copperfield and she said he questioned me if i was aware that girls were getting paid to find other girls and one of giuffre's lawyers asked another woman, a separate woman, had asked her if she was aware of copperfield getting tickets for epstein to bring young girls to the show and meet him backstage, but that woman had

asserted her fifth amendment and refuse to answer questions. copperfield's team has not gotten back to us all week. >> kara, this is a dense thing. whenever a book is published to turn to the back and see if your name is mentioned and it looks like this list will be one of those things as well and the allegations, although you mentioned, many of whom you just named have not been charged or accused of any wrongdoing. no one wants to be in this orbit. kara scannell, thank you so much. so who exactly is on that list? you know what i keep thinking about this week when i think about names being revealed or wanting people to reveal names? heidi fleiss. remember her? the so-called hollywood madam that ran a prosecution ring that catered to tinseltown's rich and famous. she served almost 20 months in federal prison and remember she had that little black book that everyone wanted her to reveal names from. she said she did not, but clients were hoping that their

names were written in invisible ink and she is going to join us, right after this.

tonight, a new round of jeffrey epstein documents offers another look into his

dark history of sexual abuse. we have the perfect person to talk about this whole thing. heidi fleiss, the so-called hollywood madam who ran a high- class prostitution ring that catered to tinseltown's rich and famous. heidi fleiss joins me now. heidi, i can see you over there. how are you doing? thank you for joining tonight. i have to tell you, i have been thinking about all of the news surrounding your case, when everyone wanted to know who was in your black book. you would not reveal, but i want to know what you think about this fascination with jeffrey epstein's web of associates. >> i never rebuild it. >> you didn't, you never revealed it. i remember someone asking you about it and you said it is not your style. because of that, do you think these names should be made public? >> what? >> do you think the names surrounding jeffrey epstein should be made public?

>> when people -- can you hear me? >> yes i can. heidi, can you hear me? >> i can hear you. >> okay, do you think the names should be made public from jeffrey epstein? this is a cliffhanger, because i really want to know what her answer is, but i don't think she can hear us. can you hear us, heidi? >> i can't hear you. >> i don't know why kate -- why she can't hear us. we have to take a break. i want to know if she thinks the namemes should be relelease we wilill come rigight b back a quick k breaeak. wewe will workrk it out.t. to duckduckgo on all your devie

duckduckgo comes with a built-n engine like google, but it's pi and doesn't spy on your searchs and duckduckgo lets you browse like chrome, but it blocks cooi and creepy ads that follow youa from google and other companie. and there's no catch. it's fre. we make money from ads, but they don't follow you aroud join the millions of people taking back their privacy by downloading duckduckgo on all your devices today.

all right, we got her back, because i really wanted to hear what she had to say. we have her on the phone, here to talk about the epstein documents. heidi fleiss and she wanted me to add the convicted hollywood madam, because she is the real deal, not an imposter. heidi fleiss, thank you for joining. first of all i remember a time when everyone wanted you to reveal who was in your black book. i wonder what you think about the concern and the questions about who is in the epstein public sphere. what do you think?

should their names be made public? >> the epstein case is totally different. >> it is. >> even if the people had nothing to do with the sex trafficking or whatever, they are still already labeled no matter what. >> is that fair? >> what's that? >> is that fair? >> you can't avoid it. that is how the public is. some things you can't avoid. it just goes hand in hand. most of the people i dealt with, they would see right through epstein. i dealt with real rich people. real powerful, the most powerful family in america, the largest petroleum producer in the world. they are not going to fall for someone like epstein. he was a con man. a fraud. there is a lot of, you know, rich and famous people want to hang out with rich people because they want things for

free. >> of course cnn has not confirmed the families referenced right now, but i take your larger point about being close to perceived power. when you look at, and obviously it goes without saying, the convictions and the allegations surrounding jeffrey epstein and of course, his associate, ghislaine maxwell. distinct from the case surrounding you. including the fact that minors are involved in the epstein matter instead. >> yeah, i was not sex trafficking children. >> i know. >> i think everyone can agree it is reprehensible and a violation of basic human rights. disgusting. i dealt with adults making adult decisions. >> so what happens when the identity of these clients or the people around epstein -- you mentioned it is unavoidable

>> what happened when the identity comes to light? >> they are going to be tainted and there is no way around it. and i think it is funny in a way. >> is it? why? >> i mean, because, i'm sure it is not for them. but it is kind of like that's what you get for thinking this guy was so cool when no one looked deeper into anything about him. why did he get that new york apartment for free? how did he get his money? why does he have these young girls around? no one looked any deeper. they just thought it was cool he was a big philanthropist. snow games one looked deeper into anything. they will get labeled as part of the whole thing. >> let me ask you, heidi, there is one name, one label that is

now on an associate of jeffrey epstein. convicted felon. and now prisoner. i'm talking about maxwell. a former girlfriend >> she wanted the money. that's what happens. when you want the money. >> what does it say to you because one of the often comments that i often here is the irony, although she has been convicted of disgusting behavior you have talked about. that it is ironic to some people. that it's a woman right now who is serving time that a man has not been held criminally liable and to account for what took place and the allegations against epstein. does that strike you in any

way? >> no. because look, anyone who is involved, it doesn't matter if you are male or female. if you are trafficking kids, you are trafficking kids. if it comes out there is another man that was having sex with kids, who is the other man having sex with the kids? so 13 and 14-year-olds, cruising schools and stuff like that. who's the other person? >> it certainly reiterates how disturbing the allegations are and trafficking, people really look into sex trafficking and what this means. and what it looks like. across the country by the way. it happens here in the united states and abroad. it really is so disturbing. i read something you told the hollywood reporter and it always struck me. i want to bring it to your attention again. in 2019, it was about the me too movement. and you talked about wanting no part of some kind of what you

called a redemption narrative. what did you mean? >> well i don't owe anyone an excuse for what i did. adults making adult decisions. there was no trafficking involved. and i don't blame them. why do you want to go out and meet a loser for? you know? who wants to go out and meet a loser? would you prefer to meet someone successful with their act together? and whatnot. and, i don't exactly know what i was referring to in that comment though. but what i ran is completely different. i mean, who are the other people that were trafficked to? it sounds like he was the only person they were trafficked to. >> that's the big question. that's really the issue and many people are leaning in for

all the documents for who might have been on that orbit. it is fascinating to talk to you in particular. just in your viewpoints in all these years. heidi, thank you for joining us. i'm glad we were able to talk. though i couldn't see you. i certainly heard all you have to say. thank you so much. >> okay. have a good night. abuse? control? murder? and now, maybe for the first time, freedom. gypsy rose blanchard was told she was sick, had leukemia. told to use a wheelchair, but none of that was real. she said her mother conned doctors and everyone tricking them into thinking her daughter was deeply ill. gypsy eventually told herself that there was only one way out. she convinced her then boyfriend to murder her mother. >> my mother controlled everything i did. i was forced to use a wheelchair.

she started telling people i had cancer. but none of it was true. i started to feel like it was either her or me. >> well, she is now out of prison after pleading guilty to second degree murder in 2016. she is also the subject of the new lifetime documentary, the prison confessions of gypsy rose. cnn's elizabeth sat down with her for a fascinating new interview. >> if your mother were here today, what would you tell her, gypsy? >> i would say i understand. i see her in the way that she was not an evil woman. she was not a monster. she was just a sick woman. and she would have needed a lot of mental health care. i see her for who she was. >> fascinating for a lot of reasons. thank you all for watching. our coverage continues.

get over here kids. time for today's lesson. wow. -whoa. what are those? these are humans. they rely on something called the internet to survive. huh, powers out. [ gasp ] are they gonna to die? worse, they are gonna get bored. [ gasp ] wait look! they figured out a way to keep the internet on.

yeah! -nature finds a way. [ grunt ] stay connected when the power goes out, with storm ready wifi from xfinity. and see migration in theaters now. tonight on 360, breaking news, the supreme court takes the case that could knock donald trump off one state ballot and possibly redefine parts of the constitution. >>es