two candidates, two very different events. joe biden is heading the campaign trail with the speech promoting how he's handled the economy and how his administration is investing in america. and former president donald trump, off the trail, back in court for a hearing in his defamation case. one in which he could soon be taken to the witness stand. plus, a busted deal from the border. republicans spending weeks a demanding what slamming the white house for not having one, and then working to negotiate one, ultimately, though, any deal may be dead because of former president trump. the latest from capitol hill. >> and no more empty nest. we're more young adults are living with their parents and putting a pause on starting life on their own. we are going to take a look at the reasons why. i think it might be that it costs less. we're following these

developing stories and many more, all coming in right here to cnn news central. ♪ ♪ ♪ >> hi there, i'm brianna keilar with boris sanchez here in the nation's capital. president biden, about to talk up his record from a key battleground state in the midwest and he's buoyed a new economic report that crushed analysts expectations on how much u.s. production has grown. elsewhere on the campaign trail, former president trump, going scorched earth on his loan rival, for the republican nomination, nikki haley. he's promising to target her donors. >> and once again, the former president is choosing to take his campaign to the courtroom, where he may take the witness stand even today. as a matter of fact, we have breaking news to cnn and paula reid has a details from court. paula, are we anticipating an imminent appearance from donald trump on the witness stand?

>> that could be because of course, there are no cameras in federal court, but we are relying on updates, minute by minute updates, from our colleagues inside the courtroom. so, i'm looking at those right now. trump's lawyer, alina habba, just said that she only has one witness left and that is former president trump. now, it might take a couple minutes before any possible testimony starts. it is unclear what the judge is going to do here, if he's going to try to rehash some of the rules that he's already laid out for the former president, if he could also potentially ask trump to proffer before this goes in front of the jury. but yes, at any moment now, we might see former president trump take the stand. court is just adjourned after a short lunch break. the defense called one other witness and then former president trump would be their last witness. his lawyer is indicating that he is intending to take the stand. >> pretty amazing, paula, because there have been many times where he has said that he would or he just insinuated

that he would take the stand, only to ultimately not go ahead and do that. >> yeah, that's why we are caveating this. we just got an update, i'm going to look down here. i'm going to clarify trump's, of course, not on the sand yet. the judge right now, we're learning from our colleagues, is clarifying with both sides how this is going to go. so, as i said, the judge had previously set out some restrictions for what trump can and cannot testify to hear, right? he can't relitigate what happened in this department store in the 1990s. those allegations of were injury found him liable for sexual abuse, those were litigated at a trial back last spring that trump did not participate in at all. right now, this jury is just considering damages for defamatory statements that trump made in 2019. so, his utility as a witness is pretty narrow and the judge is reminding him of that. they are saying that trump cannot offer any evidence or make any arguments before the jury disputing or attempting to

undermine what the jury found last spring. he could've done that last spring, he opted not to. so, habba, interestingly, she says, she has three questions for trump. so, that is interesting because you would think that he might try to drag this out for a while, potentially get into it with a judge. but alina habba is suggesting that this is going to be pretty narrow. now, if it is, indeed, only three questions that she's going to ask him, the e. jean carroll, the other side, e. jean carroll's lawyers will have the opportunity to cross examine him. so, this could be pretty quick if she, indeed, only has three questions and of course, if your client, during these three questions, can stay within the guidelines laid out by the judge. right now, the jury is not in the room, so the two sides lawyers for e. jean carroll, lawyer for former president trump, and the judge, are just having a discussion about how this is going to go down. the reason they have to have all of these discussions is, of course, the former president has shown a habit when he has taken the witness stand, in recent weeks, of not abiding by

the rules of the court. using the witness stand as an opportunity to hold sort of a campaign event, to rail against cases, to paint himself as a victim of an unfair judicial system, that's absolutely not how anyone else would be allowed to pay, certainly in federal court. his last appearance was of course the state court, but right now, his lawyer alina habba says he, trump, is going to say he stands by his deposition, which is played in court, so that was previously recorded deposition that he gave in this case that he did not make the statements to hurt e. jean carroll and that he had to respond to the accusations and deny them. so, that's what she says. he says he's going to say when you take the stand but of course, we know only former president trump is in control of what he says. >> right, paula, please stand by as you gather the very latest from our team inside the courtroom. we have cnn legal analyst elliott williams here for some perspective. elliott, when you hear that, that alina habba says she has three questions for donald trump, what do you imagine

those questions are going to be that would help him in this case? >> that's the thing and that will help him in the case is the very important one, because so much of what the president has done in this matter as tried to attack the underlying sexual assault allegations and the proven by a jury, and so on. this is really just about damages, so perhaps she could ask about, do you understand what this individual's financial standing is? do you believe she's been harmed, in any way, financially? did you defame her in any way, and maybe get him to say yes or no. but short of the monty python, what is your name, what is your quest, what's your favorite color? i don't know what the three questions could be. >> and in terms of an actual legal practice of these questions which, i think you would expect in another case. we have seen alina habba eliciting reactions from the judge, not always in good faith. i think we say. so, with that in mind, what do you think we may be seeing?

>> absolutely. judge kaplan has run a very tight ship, as far as courts go, compared to some of the other ones we've watched on television playing out. the judge really is not going to suffer through parties carrying on with funny business and trying to get nasty comments out in front of the jury, so on. so, i think the judge would cut it off. that's why, it's not very common for a judge to be this prescriptive before a witness takes the sand about, these are the things you're allowed to ask about, these are the things i will not allow, and we will see, you know, how closely he sticks to that. >> as paul alluded to, donald trump is the only person who knows what's going to come out of donald trump's mouth, right? so if he goes there with the judge, you are saying the judge is not going to tolerate nonsense. what is the response then look like? what are the potential consequences? >> they may remove him from the fans. you don't have to allow this individual to testify and he's violated rules of the court. now, i think people say whoa, -- contempt or find him. i know you'd have to be really bad to find a witness for holding a contempt of court, but you just kick him off and

say -- >> could kicking him off held an appeal? >> no because the defendant would have violated the rules of the court. now, if it were a criminal case and a defendant really said that this is necessary for me to be able to zealously advocate on my behalf and the judge didn't allow it, then of course, you have a much better chance of an appeal. but here in a civil case, where the guy doesn't have to be in the court in the first place, doesn't have to begin a right to testify, he's being given a favor by this judge. now the judge, it's not really going to -- the case. >> let's bring in our kristen holmes, we've been tracking this. he doesn't, kristen, have to be in court, but he has relished being in court. we've seen him have a back and forth with judge kaplan here, where essentially, judge kaplan said, you know, i don't want to kind of have to kick you out of these proceedings and i think donald trump had something to the effect of oh, i would love that. right? so, that gives you an idea of how this might all go down. >> right and i do want to say that at the risk of obviously

having to later put my foot in my mouth, he's going up there and testifying. he has been briefed by his attorneys on what exactly he can and can't say, where the line is. remember, this is at the end of the day going to be about damages and money, which is something that donald trump cares deeply about. and he's going to focus on not crossing any of those lines. the same way that he has been once he was fined $10,000 for breaking a gag order. he had actually started going all the way up to the line, but not quite crossing it. i cannot imagine that his attorneys have not given him an explicit rundown of what exactly he can and cannot say. again, i might be putting my foot in my mouth later, but knowing that they are letting him do this, remember, this is not the first time donald trump said that he wanted to testify. not even the first time in e. jean carroll's civil case that he said that he wanted to testify. just ultimately be convinced by his attorneys that he should not be doing so, that this was a mistake, that he at some point could cross the line and make things worse. however, the fact that he's

actually doing this today, to me, says that there is been an extensive amount of preparation. the other part of this that's very interesting to me about this case is the language that alina habba used, saying that he's going to say he needed to respond to these claims. that's actually something i have heard from sources that melania trump told donald trump about this case, in particular. that he needed to defend his name, that he needed to stand up for himself and respond to these claims. not necessarily in the way that he did, but that she had told him that in the past, and that he's told others that he wants to defend his name. he wants to testify. again, it is surprising to me that his attorneys are actually letting him do this, as paula said, as you reiterated, donald trump is the only one who knows what donald trump is going to say. and there is so much risk putting him up on the stand because of that. however, they have clearly come to some conclusion that he needs to be up there, in order to, you know, have this case ended here. but it's fascinating to me that this is actually happening now.

>> elliott, i want to get your reaction to an exchange or actually, we're just getting the rebate now live of the exchange in court. so, judge kaplan at one point tells alina habba, we are going to do it my way. how about says, he's going to stand by his deposition, talking about trump, that he had to respond to accusations and deny them. caplan asks, that's 100%? she says, i'm not testifying for my client. the judge then asked the legal team for e. jean carroll their opinion, to hear their side. roberta kaplan says, quote, just now, mr. trump, senator, -- he's going to say he never did it. so, i mean, this is a real risk the defense is taking. >> it really is and -- i assume that the sexual assault that the jury is reading out. it really is -- is it a risk, though? that's the thing. if this were a sensible world in which people adhere to the rules of court, followed, and

behave along, of course this would be a real risk. the upside here to the former president is thumbing his nose at a system that he believes is fundamentally illegitimate and that his supporters believe is out to persecute him. as a legal matter, it's disastrous. this isn't completely a legal matter and i think, you know, it's tragic that these things are so blurred together right now, but that's where we are with this particular defendant. >> so, paula reid, if we take former president trump at his word, if that's what he said, according to what e. jean carroll's lawyer heard there, you know, if that's what he wants to say, how does it play out if he does go ahead and make that case that we know he would like to make? >> right, i'm actually going to pivot some breaking news that we have right now. were getting minute by minute updates from our colleagues inside the court, so instead of trying to predict what could happen, let's talk about exactly what we know right now is happening. so right now, alina habba and the judge, they're going back

and forth. this is getting a little bit heated because the judge, obviously, anticipating that former president trump could take the stand and go outside the boundaries of what he's allowed to talk about in this case. he's trying to get alina habba to really specify and lay out exactly what is going to happen here. she says she's only going to ask him three questions. he's only going to speak to three issues and the judge said, look, he's going to be bound by what you are saying. you're laying out a plan and he needs to follow it. now, trump is apparently reporting to our colleagues, getting a little more agitated as this goes on. there is no jury in the courtroom right now. alina habba says she wants to ask trump these three questions. first of all, she will ask him to, quote, confirm that he stands by all the testimony of his deposition and that he made the statements in response to e. jean carroll's accusations. now, those are, of course, her accusations that she was in a department store by former president trump in the 90s. now, a jury consider those allegations and found him liable for sexual abuse of e.

jean carroll, defamation, and ordered her $5 million in damages. here, they're only talking about this, jury is only considering damages related to a statement that trump made in 2019. now, he says she will also ask trump if he ever, that he never instructed to hurt miss carroll in his statement. apparently, he will say that he did not intend to hurt her. now, the judge and habba, they've had a lot of tense interactions during the course of this trial and that is playing out here. we are getting these live updates, they're jumping a little bit. but the, so, trump actually interrupted his own lawyer, alina habba. this is not normal for federal court, to say, i've never met the woman, i don't know who the women's. i've never met this woman. trump was then admonished by the judge who said, i'm sorry, mr. trump, you're interrupting these proceedings. by talking loudly while your attorney is permitted to talk. so, when you're in a federal court, you only get to speak when you're recognized by the judge and right now, alina

habba is talking with a judge about how she expects the testimony of her client to go down. trump is disrupting that, which is, again, highly unusual. but along the lines of the -- scene of former president trump during these proceedings. the rules that would apply to any of us inside a federal courtroom, he does not appear to be willing to abide by. this is creating a little bit of tension between him and the judge. we're continuing to get these updates, let me tell you what's going on. so, the judge and alina habba are continuing to debate this specific question she's going to ask her client. the judge said, miss habba, i will decide what he, trump, has a right to do. that's my job, not yours. now, judge kaplan said, there will not be an open-ended question. he then clarified, if you were to ask an open-ended question, there's likely to be an objection and it's likely going to be sub st.. so, he's telling alina habba, you can't ask your client open-ended questions. the reason he's likely doing that is because he's trying to prevent former president trump from going outside of the

restrictions that he's set out, in terms of what he can say. now, this is arguably, this whole -- very predictable. we've seen this with alina habba and with former president trump throughout these proceedings, having tense exchanges with the judge about the rules of these proceedings. unless anyone be confused, when you're inside a federal court, it's that judges courtroom. and they decide the rules. so, all this pushback, this debate, highly unusual and not something really anyone else would do, but we will wait to see if they can come to an agreement about the contours of trump taking the stand. that is point, he does intend to take the sand and the judge just trying to keep the situation under control. >> elliott, what do you think about that? >> it's not uncommon for courts to set the parameters for what can be said. as a general matter, in trial, particularly in criminal trials, but in any trial, relevant evidence or information can come in. relevant meaning evidence that proves or disproves the central

fact at trial. now, the central facts here are, should he be held accountable, in terms of the damages that he will have to pay? not any of these questions about the legitimacy of this sexual assault that happened years back. you can't make the president not say those words and this is part of the problem here. the court can set these rules but if you wishes to keep blurting out, you can't, like a little kid, put your hand over his mouth or something like that. at a certain point, the judge simply has to say, i will not allow this testimony. now, the judge will likely have to document the reasons why he's not allowing the witness to testify. it simply, the witness -- >> does he do that in front of the jury? >> no because i think i believe -- >> how does that work? what does the jury see in a situation like that, if that's how it plays out? >> the jury sees everybody came into the court, miss habba probably stood up and said, i would like to call a witness. the judge likely sent the jury out as having all this -- >> the jury is heading back in, we've heard that. >> they're not going to fight about this in front of the jury.

>> no, i understand that, but trump is being sworn in, as we speak. we've just learned. as he testifies, if he goes outside the lines, what does the jury see? >> okay, objection, attorneys please approach. attorneys would approach, the attorney -- sound machine on to sort of see so the jurors can hear, they probably bigger about it. now, the former president might keep spouting off. but it would probably be a private argument at the bench, outside of the ears of the jury. but again, you can't control this man. >> that's right, it's entirely possible that the jury is watching and the trump show gets turned off and they just never see it. >> yes, exactly. >> they will notice. that >> they will, but they will notice it, but again, as long as, based on the information we have right now, as long as the individuals in the court -- >> we're about to find out. >> yeah, is there a point, elliott, when the judge might determine that the jury has been tainted by what they have potentially heard? >> possibly. however, the judge can say, he can always get what's called it

-- instruction to the jury saying, what you witnessed is not evidence that this trial, please disregard everything that you've heard. now, maybe the jurors might send a note back saying, oh god, i'm so ruined, i've seen everything here. i don't know what i can do. but being picked for a jury, even at the beginning, you say, i can follow your directions, your honor. i think if they can commit to that, then. >> elliott and paul, a piece and by. we understand that donald trump is now being questioned by his attorneys. we are going to take a quick break, we will be right back and you're not going to want to miss this testimony. stay with us here on cnn. .

this is cnn breaking news. >> that was one of the most eventful commercial breaks ever because in the last few minutes, former president trump took the stand, has gotten, has left the stand. the day of court has adjourned. i want to get the paula reid now, so she can take us through everything that has transpired here. >> well, just as quickly as he took the stand, former president trump is not off the stand. court is adjourned for the day. here is what happened. former president took the stand,

he was sworn in, and his lawyer started out with one of the three questions that she said that she would ask him. she first asked him, do you view these allegations, these allegations made by e. jean carroll about being in a department store in the 1990s, as false? he said, quote, yes, i did. she said something that i considered a false accusation, totally false. now, it's interesting. even though he stuck to the question that she asked, the judge cut him off and the judge said, everything that he said after u.s., i did, is stricken from the record. so, it's clear the judge was going to keep this as disciplined as possible. then he was asked if the statements that he made denying this were meant to hurt e. jean carroll. trump said, no. i just wanted to defend myself, my family, and frankly, the presidency. now, e. jean carroll's lawyers, according to our colleagues who are in the courtroom giving us these updates, ask him a few brief questions, but then he was off the sand and the defense has rested, and the jury has been able to go home for the day.

they will return tomorrow to hear closing arguments, get jury instructions, and the judge expects that they will begin deliberating by lunchtime. i just want to say, while a lot of intelligent legal binds, are debating -- will he take the stand? won't he take the sand? the one thing that everyone seem to agree on was that if you got on the stand, he likely would not be able to stick with the program and stay within the guidelines that the judge had set out. but it appears, again, just based on these realtime updates we're getting from our colleagues inside the court, that alia habba and trump did stick within the judges rules. she appeared only ask him the question she said she would and his answers appeared to stick within the boundaries of what he's allowed to say. so, that might be the real news today. >> elliott, your reaction to hearing all of this? >> again, it's important to think about what the point of this proceeding was. and it's not to relitigate the sexual assault that happened in the bergdorf, goodman bathroom or, pardon me, but the jury found to have happened in the departments or bathroom years

ago. it's simply to insist the question of damages. now, any questions that any attorney puts on have to be relevant to that point. if the witness is going to start waiting in the other areas, the judge has every right to cut him off and it's not because of the charged nature of the charges your or this individual, the simple fact is that not what the case is about. and all the parties have agreed to stipulate to the facts that were proven or at least established by a jury before. i think that's where this fell apart here and i don't think anyone should be surprised. >> we also have with us defense attorney misty marris, who's appeared before judge kaplan multiple times. misty, hearing this very brief maybe a minute and 32nd testimony from donald trump, what's your reaction to this? >> yeah, well look, he was staying within the parameters set by judge kaplan and i think judge kaplan, and again, i've been in this quarter many, many times. he keeps a tight courtroom, the rules are very strict. he knows how to manage the

attorneys, the witnesses, and he's well known on that front. so, the answers, you know, where within the parameters. the questions were very, very limited. you know, i predicted that donald trump would not take the stand because of those limitations, but i do agree, the relevancy of the testimony and its actual impact ultimately on this damages only case, i think, is quite minimal. you know, we didn't see the fiery exchanges that we might have anticipated when trump took the stand because caplan really keeps that courtroom under control. >> yeah, no, he certainly does. i don't know, i wonder what you think a jury picks up from these moments. >> the only possible relevant aspect is relating to what could be potential punitive damages because remember, the determination that these statements were false and defamatory, that has already

been addressed. i would think the jury might be confused, especially given the opening statements that make it very clear what their role is and what the assessment is. and it's one if any damages were incurred by e. jean carroll, because of these defamatory statements. one thing i think the defense can point out in closing is that the question of, when you made these statements, did you believe that they were false? then donald trump says yes, i did believe that they were false. i think they will try and wrap that up into an argument against what's called punitive -- punishment damages and that's how i see it coming into play from the defense perspective. but overall, i don't think the testimony itself is too impactful on the actual issues at hand. >> so misty, what are you anticipating from closing arguments tomorrow? >> i think there's going to be, on the plaintiffs side, we're going to see all of those. we saw some terrible emails, we saw some threats to e. jean

carroll's life, and we're going to see all of that being laid out and applied to the law. there are different categories of damages. some of that will relate to loss of business opportunities, some of that will relate to emotional distress. some of that will relate to those punitive damages that we spoke about. we're going to see the plaintiffs go through and talk about why the -- should be millions and millions of dollars and justify that using the evidence that was set forth in the trial. the defense perspective is going to do the exact opposite and talk about how, point to evidence about the undercutting e jean carroll's damages claims and especially attacking the prospect of punitive damages being assessed in the case. >> let's go now to q kara scannell. there are at the courthouse for more, as we are getting, really, this minute by minute, kara, of what happened, as a former president took the stand. what can you tell us?

>> yeah, brianna. he was on the stand for maybe five minutes in total and before he testified, the judge spent about ten minutes going back and forth with the attorneys over what he would permit the questions to be. it was during that moment before the jury -- donald trump spoke more than he even did on the stand and he said audibly, out loud, i never met the woman, i do not know who this woman is, i was not at the trial, i don't know who this woman is. the judge told him to keep his voices down. once they worked out exactly the questions that his attorney would be allowed to ask him, just three, they called the jury in, trump went up on the sand, stood at the site, raised his hand and said, he's -- the truth, whole truth, and nothing but the truth, and then sat down to give his testimony. now, his lawyer had asked him just very quickly went through and asked him, the jury has seen your deposition in this case. that was played earlier today. asked him if he stood by that testimony. he said, 100%, yes.

he was also then asked, did you make this denial in response to the accusation brought by carroll? he said, yes i did. considered a false accusation that judge cut him off at that point and told the jury, everything after yes, i did, was stricken from the record. then trump's lawyer asked him, did you instruct anyone to hurt carroll? trump said no, i just wanted to defend myself, my family, and the office of the presidency. the judge struck everything from that answer, other than, no. so, saying that no, he ever instructed anyone to hurt carroll. then carols lawyer was beginning cross-examination. she tried to ask trump to questions relating to the previous trial, but the judge sustained the objections on that saying it was not within the scope of the questioning. so, carroll's lawyer really only asked one question and that was whether he attended the first trial. trump said he did, then trump's attorney had a second chance at this. she asked him about that trial saying, did you have counsel at

the last trial? he said, i did have counsel. she wanted to ask him if he followed the advice of his counsel. we remember at that trial, trump never intended a day. he didn't testify and the judge wouldn't let trump answer that. so, very brief appearance on the stand, trump really just getting in that he responded, that he agreed with the depositions testimony -- they heard him say that he thought she was mentally ill and a whack job for making these allegations that he denied the allegations. but the judge would not let him testify to that -- he wouldn't let him carry on in what we've seen in other courtrooms, where he begins making these side comments about, you know, a witch hunt or making political statements or campaigning. the judge very tightly controlled that and the former president mostly abide by that. he tried to get a few other ancillary things in, but he was not able to go give a political speech from the witness stand. he just answered these very specific questions that he made these denials in response to the accusation, that he never

instructed anyone to harm carroll, and that he was just trying to defend himself. so, very limited, from what we've seen in other cases. very tightly controlled. when trump was leaving the courtroom, he was overheard by reporters saying, this is not america, this is not america. none of that was before the jury, so now the defense is also rested their case. the judge is going over some questions between the lawyers about what they will instruct the jury, but he told the jury to come back tomorrow morning, 9:30, for closing arguments. rihanna? >> all right, kara scannell, thank you. >> really fascinating detail there and a number of things stick out. one of them, trump saying on the stand, i was not at that trial. elliott, that was by choice that, he didn't participate in that first trial. >> and again, why that's the case in civil trials a defendant does not have to be present,. it's a different proceeding than criminal trial, where a defendant necessarily would. but again, people may not know that. the jury may not know that,

they may not be aware of it. and frankly, the jury's probably been directed -- on account of their not knowing that much about the case. what i found interesting in all of this is that we talked a lot about the questioning of trump, but not the cross-examination. and cross has to be limited to what came up on the direct examination. the problem is, when everything that the witis being struck, you don't really have much that robbie kaplan was allowed to question him about. she could just ask him these yes or no questions, but even they got cut off because of the scalpel job that had to be done on everything, number one, that was asked of the former president and number two, that he was allowed to say in response. this was a little bit of jets from all the parties that really -- a couple on the record, just three or forwards most of which is struck that nobody else can talk about. >> an extraordinary afternoon in court. closing arguments tomorrow in this civil trial here. but the former president taking the stand for just a matter of

a few minutes and not saying much, due to the limitations of judge kaplan really running a tight ship in that courtroom. we are going to take a quick break, we will be back in just a moment.

your stories need to be told. at contra costa college, you can become a leader in journalism and help shape world views with hands-on experience at the advocate, contra costa college's award-winning, student-run news publication. learn to use digital media to tell stories and gain the research skills needed to uncover truths while exploring careers in media. so what are you waiting for? the world needs you. start your career in journalism today at contracosta.edu

senate minority leader mitch mcconnell's push to lock in a bipartisan immigration and -- aid bill is in serious jeopardy and at least one republican senator, blaming former president trump, claiming that he's openly encouraging gop decision-makers to tank any agreement.

cnn chief congressional correspondent manu raju is up on capitol hill covering this story for us. manu, a border deal, that is what the gop has been demanding here. how close were lawmakers before trump really threw a wrench into the works here? >> yeah, they're very close, but this was a small group of senators who've been negotiating for several months now, trying to get a deal. they think they are there, they think they are on the cusp of a deal but it's not going to go far as many republicans in the, the right republican conference one, particularly people in line with former president donald trump. trump himself has said that any compromise with democrats that does not go, it's not, quote, a perfect deal is not sufficient. he said that republicans should reject this plan if it doesn't include, quote, everything that they want. but they're not going to get everything. they have to negotiate with senate democrats, have to negotiate with the white house, and this is so essential because in addition to dealing with the surge of migrants at

the southern border with mexico, republicans have demanded action on the border in order to greenlight aid to ukraine as well as aid to israel. so, so much riding on these negotiations, at this key moment. now, even as trump has made clear, he does not want a bipartisan deal and there are grim prospects of getting this past. the senators are trying to negotiate this deal tell me that they still plan to press ahead, trying to see if they can get any sort of agreement to try to move ahead. >> do you think that this blunted, though, you're momentum in trying to get a deal? >> we will find out the answer to that the next 24 to 48 hours. i hope we don't live in a world today in which one person inside the republican party has so much power that they can stop a bipartisan bill to try to give the president additional power at the border,

to make more sense of our immigration policies. >> how much has he effect of these negotiations by saying, republicans should not accept anything less than a perfect deal? >> i will get. that we don't doubt that he wants a perfect deal, so do i on it, but we've got to be able to figure out and do something right now big to get as much done as we can possibly get done. i have a democrat senate that hasn't want to deal with this, has refused even had hearings on these issues for the last three years, as the whole country watches the chaos. >> now, after last night, when l to his colleagues that the republicans are in a quandary over this issue because of trump's position, just moments ago, he did address this again in closed-door meetings. we're told that he indicated that he's behind the republican senate with james lankford's efforts to try to get a deal. so, mcconnell is still supportive of this effort going forward. but can they get there with all the politics in play? it remains highly uncertain at this moment. >> all right, manu raju live for us on the hill, thank you

for that. still ahead, a new survey showing a lot of parents are financially supporting their adult children well into their 30s. we are looking at some of the reasons why.

there is an eye-opening new study revealing that many american parents are still helping to support their adult children. sometimes well into their late twenties and early 30s. >> yes and a few researchers saying the big way that parents do this is with food, housing, either free or at a discount. joining us now michelle terri, she writes the nationally syndicated personal finance column, the color of money for the washington post. and also with us is kyla, writer, video creator,

broadcaster, and author of the book, in this economy, how money and markets really work. all right michelle, do you first. most parents, i think they expect to pay for their children until they become adults, but we're talking a full 59% of parents who say they financially help an adult child in the past year. tell us what we are seeing. >> so, what we are seeing is the financial pressure on the young adults. many come out of college, they go to college with debt. we know in many areas where they want to live, big cities, the rent is amazingly high. sometimes impressively so. and then we've got a health care system that costs allot of money to have medical insurance. and so, what these young adults are finding is, hey, i want to launch, but i need some more time before i can get out of the nest. >> kayla, i'm curious about that sort of protracted adolescence. you say that adult life has been delayed.

help us understand why. >> yeah, i mean, i think there is a sheer lack of -- their cars really selling $420,000. we're in the middle of a housing crisis. upward mobility in most careers is not as accessible as it used to be, and so, it's just very difficult to get your foot on the first run of the ladder for a lot of people. >> the other thing, kyla, that we should note here is it's not like parents are really mad about this. they're not unhappy, right? 45% say the living arrangement is actually been positive for the relationship with their child, but i wonder if there are concerns that this could have an impact on the finances of parents who may, i mean look, they may also be on the hook for shouldering expenses of their own aging parents. >> yeah, i mean, i think that, you know we use a live communal style a long time go, so it's sort of making sense that you have kids living with their parents. i think that the kids are financially well off, most of

the time. it seems at least according to the statistics. they're just delaying these big life events, so i think it's just parents are willing to step in and help out. and if that's what it takes, that's what it takes. >> so michelle, is this a sign that the economy is sort of allowing this to happen? because people have more choice, as kyla kind of outlined there, and they can decide that they don't have to work at a job that they're perhaps unhappy with? they prioritize work from home, for example. they decide, you know what? i want to fingerpainted live in a van down by the river. >> we i don't know if they finger paint, but listen, this is really about the reality of our economy and multigenerational housing, i'm a huge advocate for it. i'm going to be completely transparent, all three of my 20 something year olds are living with my husband and i in our home. by choice. they don't have any soon loan debt, we don't have debt for

them, but they're doing it so that they can save for their future. so, we talk about late if they are not out the house, what kind of life are they going to have? they have 30 or 40 years left to be independent. if you can afford it, and it is you being happy about it, it is the best way to launch. i have a child who is almost 30. she is saving to buy your next r savg up for a down payment for a home. we know the stress that teachers are under. they are not being paid a whole lot of money. she is at home staying 80% of her salary. when they go, they are going to be gone. they are not coming back. that is the reality of where we are here. there is nothing wrong with that if it works for everybody. >> if they have a down payment on a home, that is really something to show.

thank you so much. we really appreciate it. we appreciate the conversation. >> you are welcome. >> happy six days left in dry january, if you are celebrating slightly damp january for some people. surviving. january is what it sounds like. giving up alcohol for the month. >> what is the medical consensus on whether alcohol is good or bad for you? we have heard that a glass of wine a day can help you with antioxidants. we have whispers and benefits of alcohol. this is a perception that has changed a lot over the years. >> it really has. i will cut to the chase. this medical establishment is basically saying that no amount of alcohol is good for your health. that's where things land.

not necessarily what you want to hear. it's interesting if you chart this overtime. i love the discussion about whether alcohol might be good for you or not. it started around 100 years ago. it was around prohibition. if you look at this particular rep, they looked at what was the average mortality in the country. that's the horizontal line when you come across the middle of that graph. no drinks at all, you are about average in mortality. look at what happens when you had 2.5 drinks. it you were below average mortality. that study from 100 years ago was really what wants to the conventional wisdom from alcohol for a long time. a little bit of alcohol can be good for your health. around the 1980s or so, they were seeing associations between alcohol and detrimental things. certain cancers, for example. 30 years ago in the early 90s,

there was a lot of interest in what people called the french paradox. there was his idea that the french people could eat hi, fatty foods. they did not exercise so much. they seem to have lower mortality. could it be red wine? they have a lot of interests. in the last decade or so, the conclusion is that no amount of alcohol is good for your health. that's where they have lived at this point. i will say that it is interesting. i dug this up for you guys last night. look after prohibition until now. the attitudes toward alcohol in this country, it has stayed relatively the same. about two thirds of the country say that they will drink. some say that they will drink more than others. this is different from alcohol. it is interesting to me that roughly 90 years or so now, that hasn't changed much. that is where we have landed as a country. >> dry january, this idea of quitting drinking for a month,

are there health benefits to that? >> i think there really are. one of the studies that jumped out at me, gives me a family history of heart disease. something i think about a lot. one drink a day, can increase your systolic blood pressure. that is the top number of blood pressure. even if you don't have hypertension, men and women alike, one drink a day can increase your blood pressure. a lot of people don't realize that. the good news is that not drinking can bring that blood pressure down. other benefits as well, happen quickly when you stop drinking. your liver is where your alcohol is metabolized. your liver enzymes start to improve pretty quickly. i tracked sleep. i know that if i have had a drink in the evening, my sleep will be thrown off. a lot of people track that probably realize the same thing. your diet changes when you stop drinking. they typically find that from some of these large studies.

better routines and habits. not exercising as much. eating unhealthy foods. that seems to improve as well. just by going several days without drinking. going one month without drinking really beneficial. obviously, the met official -- medical actions are saying that no alcohol is good for good health. >> this is not a thing. thank you so much. thank you for taking us through all of that. all of us are going through dry january. going into soggy february. >> thanks. >> we are ejecting. >> i am not. i was a slightly damp january. i was not part of this club. a wild day in court in the defamation trial.

former president donald trump, taking the stand. we are live outside court, next.