the first time most americans have probably heard the name james comey. what they didn't know they would be hearing that name a lot as the years pass. >> now when james comey brought the charges against martha stewart, he emphasized, we are charging you for lying to the federal authorities. >> this criminal case is about lying, lying to the fbi, lying to the sec and lying to investors. that is conduct that will not be tolerated, by anyone. >> ultimately a decision is made not to criminal prosecutor prosecute her criminally. >> martha stewart is being prosecuted not because of who she is but because of what she did. >> what a face to see, tune in because this new original series from cnn will premiere

this sunday at 9:00 p.m., only on cnn. thank you so much for joining us tonight on the source, laura coates live starts right now. donald trump's, blink and you might miss it moment on the stand tonight on a bonus hour of laura coates live. three minutes, three whole minutes, or three short minutes, that's along the former president was on the stand today and he still managed to say something that got part of his testimony stricken from the record. and before the jury even got into the room, there was what was described as an agitated trump, he said i never met the woman, i don't know who she is, and he met an agitated judge

who told him to pipe down and trump takes the stand, raises his right hand, swears to give truthful testimony, his attorney asked if he stood by his earlier deposition in the case, 100%, yes, trump replies, then she asked trump, did you deny the allegation because e. jean carroll made the accusation, that's exactly right, yes i did, i consider a false accusation, totally false. the judge cut him off saying, everything you said after yes i did is stricken, why question, because e. jean carroll's accusations have already proven to be proven true in another case. this one is one about him continuing to defame her. her final question to trump, did you ever instruct anyone to hurt her in your statements trump replied, no, i just wanted to defend myself, my

family, and frankly, the presidency. so, did that three minutes on the stand help him or hurt him with the jury, by the way, he will likely be back in court tomorrow. first of all it took longer to argue about what he would talk about and the parameters at trial then actually testifying today, and it was less than five minutes, he was already admonished by the judge, are you surprised that the testimony was stricken? >> i'm not surprised and not only was it five minutes i think a total of 9 words from the president are now part of the record, he said no and went on to a bit of a

monologue, the challenging thing here, i was even talking to my wife about this, juries can't on here the things they hear. the judge might have instructed them to strike anything after the point at which the president had said no, but -- >> it's like saying don't picture a pink elephant. whatever you do. >> and that's kind of what happened in court today. so i'm not surprised, frankly, i'm surprised that it was as constrained as it was. i thought he would have figured out a way to give a speech or his lawyer would have popped off but the judge managed to maintain a fair amount of control. >> first of all him taking to the stand, right? >> a normal defendant would not have testified here. this trial is only about damages. it's already been established

what happened here and judge kaplan was graphic and accurate and if it's okay, i think what he said is important, it's part of why trump was reined in. judge kaplan is experienced. he knows how to handle difficult complex trials and run a tight ship and that's why he spent the time before trump took the stand making clear what are the boundaries and what he had to say, explicitly, to trump and his attorneys was, it's already a fact for this case because it's already been established by an anonymous jury that donald trump penetrated this woman's for china without her consent, forcefully, that is established, he can't fight that. it's been established by a journey -- jury. you know, he said things, on access hollywood that sounded similar. >> when you think about this,

and this was the part that many people who are hearing about it, they get confused about this part. why is it always defamation if you are defending yourself, that's the part that people get hung up on, like wait a second, can you say i didn't do it. why is that enough to be defamatory when he can't do it now. >> here's where it gets confusing. you can say, i did not do it, you cannot take statements that number 1 will harm someone's reputation or number 2, hurt them financially in some way. and so, you're a liar, she's crazy, she's out of her mind, this writer, who purports to be a columnist lies and tells untruths all over the world. he just hurt her reputation as a professional. now, to say there's a clear line between what is a matter of self-defense and what is a

defamatory statement is blurry and judges have struggled with it for years but if you notice why judge kaplan quickly cut the former president off right after no, it was a yes or no question, once he started getting into the specifics, that's when you start dealing with defamation. >> and it's established that he did it. there was a trial, jurors, the evidence -- >> and he had a chance to testify then and he chose not to and now, he wants to probably put on a little bit of a show and the judge was having none of it. but these are serious allegations and there's a difference between just saying, i have a right to a defense, i think i'm innocent and lying about something that happened. hurting a woman and then lying about it. >> they wanted to focus a lot

on that they believe she exaggerated the threats. the idea of the defamation means somebody had an established reputation. it was lessened in the eyes of the community. it was proven false in some way, they are trying to make all of these different connections. the focus on the exaggeration of the threat is where they are going to try to lessen whatever damages may come in. how do you do that successfully? >> they attempted to do it a little bit today by bringing in email suggesting that when she spoke to other people, she minimized the amount of harm that she had suffered or even rot in a mouse from a friend who said well she's kind of crazy herself. i don't believe all the things that she said. that's what you do. as a defendant, what you would say is number 1, this person wasn't as hurt as they said they were, and number 2, the fax art the way this person has said them.

a jury has already found that this thing happen, now all that needs to be sorted out is, how much was her reputation harmed. >> real quick we have two cases in new york where it's not a matter of whether it's bound to happen, now, it's how much is going to cost you. this is a trend for trump. >> it'll keep adding and he is still out there doing it. and he's leaving the courthouse saying this is not america. when judges and juries make a decision and you ignore them, you will get indicted again. you will get sued again. >> and every word he says now can still be used in this trial, which is not done yet, so the judge can, if he gets a press conference tomorrow, the judge can call him in and impeach him, contradict his statements. stop talking, just don't talk. >> we will take that advice right now.

we will stop talking. now let's discuss calls for the dismissal of district attorney fani willis in the georgia case as codefendants in georgia pointed to alleged misconduct between willis and her leave processor -- prosecutor. michael, good to see you. this has been quite the distraction from the underlying facts in these cases. in fulton county today, cnn has exclusive reporting that fani willis and the lead prosecutor nathan wade and others in the office are expected to receive subpoenas for a february 15th hearing on the allegations of an alleged affair, financial misconduct, what might that hearing reveal? >> i'm glad to be with you, and you're right, it's just a mess, and this is a huge distraction to the case. you know, my guess is the judge who has run a good courtroom and has kept things moving

along, i give him kudos for that. i think he will take control of the situation. he does not want to get into a real housewife situation where this is just the laces detail spread around the courtroom that have nothing to do with the case. it wouldn't surprise me for him to say look, i want you to state which of allegations have merit and which ones you deny. and that may narrow the issues that come out with witnesses but as it stands right now, there will be witnesses subpoenaed in, i'm sure there will be testimony about trips taken and money spent, and all of those things that are raised in the motion, which i think frankly, again, distract the case and probably could be put to bed fairly quickly if the district attorney and mr. wade, if there's any truth and we don't know that, but if there's any truth to the motion, they could probably put this to bed quickly by simply stepping back

from this particular case. >> trump is joining the motion to not only have them step away but have the georgia election case itself dismissed over the allegations of misconduct that willis and wade are emerging and they've been disqualified but what i keep thinking about, you read the case law in georgia, think about the ethics and you've got the hint of impropriety, but because it doesn't go to the core as we now know, the core set of facts, alleged in this wide- ranging complaints, should they have to step down? what is the practical effect of this distraction? >> i think there's no chance that this is the deathblow to the case. i will say that. this case will not be dismissed because of allegations and frankly at the same time, i don't know that even the personal allegations have much merit anyway. that may be something for another venue. it has nothing to do with this

case. what matters is whether or not there may have been some money and some benefit receives for instance, money that was paid out to a prosecutor who was keeping the case going and the prosecutor may have received a benefit, that will be the hook at the end of the day. it's not going to be about the other allegations. so, you know, that is the problem that she's facing and as a prosecutor, what she wants to do is have a case that has clean optics because you want people, even the detractors of the case, to be able to have confidence of what happens and not have to second-guess every decision that you make but essentially now, if these allegations are true, they have given them the stones to throw at this case. so you will have people say well it's politically motivated, it was done to enable their relationship or you know, to help send some money to somebody she had a relationship with. they have given them the tools to attack. so, to keep the case protected,

to recognize your duty as a prosecutor even though i do not think it rises exactly to the black letter law textbook definition of a conflict for a prosecutor. i also think it has the appearance of impropriety, so the prosecutors have a duty to make sure that doesn't get in the way of the pursuit of justice in a courtroom, and that's what the judge will have to deal with. you know, this is not the first time we've had an incident like this. we have the issue where the judge said you are out of this and the optics are awful. what those optics were, they were bad, these are probably indescribable. >> you know, those who are defendants have and will continue to seize on this and hoping that the appearance of impropriety will be translated to undermining the case but focusing on the underlying allegations, contained in the indictment as part of the team

that has brought it, i will be most interested to see what impact it has on the case and again, she is an elected official. perhaps the voters will make their own determination if they do think it is an insurmountable hurdle. but we will see. i think you called it a housewives moment, i didn't know you were a fan. we will talk off-line about particular franchises. >> great to see you, laura. now the question, does donald does donald trump think that he is still the president? i paused for effect but i'm asking because he seems to be trying to kill the immigration deal in the senate like he has a pen that will sign legislation still. we will talk about that next.

what could have been a huge deal may now be up in smoke. today, donald trump weighing in on a bipartisan and deal that senators have been working on for months. think about what i said, he's weighing in, they worked on it for months. the former president calling the deal meaningless yet many senate republicans are not quite jumping on board with the

former president. >> i think the border is an important issue for donald trump, and the fact that he would communicate to republican senators and congresspeople that he doesn't want us to solve the border problem because he wants to blame biden for it, it's really appalling. >> don't even look at where we are politically right now. this issue has not passed congress because it's hard. it's emotional, every side jumps up. >> i think it would be tragic. i hope no one is trying to take this away for campaign purposes. >> moments ago and aid to senior house gop leader steve scalise telling counterparts the border deal is dead on arrival in the house. ladies, i'm happy to have you both here. i like in an alternate universe

because donald trump does not have the gop nomination, maybe he will be presumptive, who knows? but he's not the president of the united states. he's not a current rnc nominee, how is he having so much of an impact on current negotiations? >> he is on the path toward the nomination, and he has had a resurgence inside the gop and that's having a real time impact on capitol hill. it's not the first time that senators have worked behind the scenes on a delicate issue for months only to have trump come and blow it all up because a lot of members are scared of crossing them, and that's the truth on capitol hill. they are worried about being seen as undermining trump, he has reached out to them personally and said i to campaign on this issue in november and i don't want joe biden to have a victory on this issue where he is vulnerable. so that's driving a lot of the

discussion on capitol hill right now. >> you mean, the idea that he would simply try to undermine it because i need to campaign on this issue, i mean, i can see the emperor would have on no close at that point, is it not obvious? >> it's troubling, and i've been covering this issue since the obama administration. i've always heard murmurs of this fear that perhaps democrats and republicans are holding onto the status quo because they think they have more to gain from the current reality and from actually fixing the situation, but you know, donald trump has basically come out and said it now and we are talking about an issue that affects human lives, an issue that has brought in family separation, you know, you're talking about life and death situations for a lot of people when you are looking at the question of asylum and on the other side, you are talking about american cities that are overwhelmed and clearly a system that is broken. and so, to come out and boldly

say, that we can't make a deal on this issue because the democrats only want it for political reasons. i think that has some center and moderate republicans concerned to tell voters straight up that they are not interested and donald trump really isn't interested in fixing this issue, but, donald trump has won out on these issues before and he may very well again. >> he is encouraging the national guard right now. last i checked, that was the actual president's decision as commander in chief and here we are, maybe too many cooks in the kitchen. >> deploying the national guard is on donald trump's list of policies that he wants to put in place right away if he wins in 2024, opening up tent camps that were taken thousands of people, unfettered, and unprecedented numbers of deportations. these are all things that he

has made very clear, that he has planned, if he is to win the election. so we shouldn't have any qualm about it at this point. was a different situation in 2016, he campaigned on bold ideas, having controversial ideas on immigration but a lot of the time we talked about those ideas, as probably things that women come to fruition, now we know for sure that he will pursue them. >> is this an indication, it's been four decades since the last immigration reform, they were close, it's gone, is this washington, d.c., yet again, not taking yes for an answer. >> right, immigration is something that has long eluded washington, they've been trying to get a deal on immigration for years but what is interesting, we were talking before the show, we actually don't know what's in it. a lot of the republicans including donald trump don't know what's in it. but based on our conversations with sources, what they are looking at is fairly narrow, and the way they have offered big concessions, they are willing to restrict asylum

laws, there willing to rein in his parole authorities, and these are things that democrats have been reluctant to give in on but it shows just how much desire there is on the left to get a deal. republicans, though, the donald trump factor can't be overstated in fact, one republican senator said this proposal would have had almost unanimous republican support, if it weren't for donald trump. again, just really underscoring how this already complicated issue just got more complicated. >> i can't believe it. i mean all that we talk about the border and immigration, and a bipartisan effort, to think this could be the result, it's just stunning. thank you both for being here. up next, breaking news out of alabama, after the execution of a man using an untested method. we will be back in a moment.

we have breaking news, alabama has put to death kevin smith, he's the first death row inmate known to die by nitrogen

gas. it's a new method of execution in the country. one that experts say is veiled in secrecy and could lead to excessive pain or even torture. he was sentenced to death for a murder for hire plot in 1988. he appeared conscious for several minutes and shook on a gurney during the execution. according to one reporter who read notes compiled by the witnesses who attended the execution. isabelle rosales is here with more. tell us what happened tonight with the execution? >> reporter: laura, this is the first new method of execution since 1982, that's when lethal injection was first introduced. according to witnesses, kenneth smith's last words were in part, quote, tonight, alabama causes humanity to take a step

backward. after the execution there's also a press conference with witnesses including media observers and they said smith appeared to be conscious for several minutes, for about two minutes, he shook against his mask and the gurney, and then, there were several minutes of him deeply breathing before his breathing slowed down. also, at the press conference, the corrections commissioner, john hamm, he was asked about the shaking, keeping in mind that the court documents argue that he would be unconscious in seconds and dead within minutes, here's what he had to say. >> it appeared that he was holding his breath as long as he could and then there's also information out there, he struggled against his restraints a little bit but there was an voluntary movement so, that was all expected. so

nothing was out of the ordinary of what we expected. >> you said it was involuntary? >> yes. >> reporter: we were the first media to speak with his spiritual advisor, jeff, he said that he was right next to smith and he described it as absolute torture, saying that smith was conscious for several minutes, struggling against the gurney. he says that his face turned colors and it was not painless as state officials claimed it would be. >> thank you so much for your reporting. next i will talk to an expert who says the state of alabama doesn't have the competency to carry out an execution using a new method. he's brian stevenson with the equal justice initiative.

you may know adam schiff's work to protect the rule of law, or to build affordable housing, or write california's patients bill of rights.

but i know adam through the big brother program. we've been brothers since i was seven. he stood by my side as i graduated from yale and i stood by his side when he married eve, the love of his life. i'm a little biased, but take it from adam's little brother. he'll make us all proud as california senator. i'm adam schiff and i approve this message.

alabama death row inmate kenneth smith was just executed using nitrogen gas, the first time this has been done in the united states. he was convicted of murder for the 1988 killer of elizabeth senna, a few years later, the conviction was overturned on a procedural issue. it wasn't until 1996 when smith was re-tried and convicted with the recommendation of life in prison. a judge overruled the recommendation and sentenced him to death. but it wasn't until 2022 that the state even attempted to carry out the execution, that attempt failed. a year later, and alabama court ruled execution by nitrogen gas would now be acceptable. there were two last-minute

appeals, his lawyers argued a second attempt at execution this time by nitrogen gas, might run afoul of the constitution's prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment. both of those appeals were denied. the last such denial happening earlier tonight or the liberal justices saying that they would have caused the execution. joining me now brian stevenson, the founder and executive director of the equal justice initiative, thank you for being with us this evening. i look to your insight and mind on moments like this, to think about the weight of this moment, and you worked closely with the attorney representing kevin smith. what is your reaction to what has happened tonight? >> i think it's tragic and regrettable. you know, we had warned that the state would not be able to carry out this execution in the way that they were predicting, and i'm very concerned about the witness reports that indicate that mr. smith may have suffered terribly,

writhing in pain, struggling, breathing heavily, showing signs of distress that witnesses are reporting is not consistent with an execution method that meets the requirements for avoiding cruel and unusual punishment. even without that, i don't believe that the state of alabama should have been permitted to attempt a second execution. you have to remember 14 months ago, kenneth smith was told that he was going to die on a certain day at a certain time. he was then strapped to a gurney for four hours, waiting for them to kill him, and they began stabbing him with this needle trying to find a vein at one point they put him in a stress position, lifted him vertically so his arms were spread out like someone on the cross and they were jabbing the needle into his neck. they finally stopped the execution when the warrant expire, that was horrific, and

we don't think the state's should subject someone in that condition to a second execution without something radically different happening, and they just change the amount of time they had to carry out the execution. that was the thrust of it. now we see, that continued tonight with a process that there are a host of questions surrounding. >> you know some would look at this issue and their initial reaction might be, this is somebody convicted of murder. somebody who has been sentenced to death, and the idea of cruel and unusual, seems inconsistent of an objection when the death penalty is obviously on the table. when you look at the eighth amendment, and the prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment, is there a bright line rule of some kind to which we can look to determine how a

court can judge the manner of execution to rise to the occasion or are we in uncharted territory? >> the question is whether someone deserves to die for the crime they committed, the question is, do we deserve to kill, and in our society, we don't torture people who torture, that's because we believe that the integrity of the law means that we have to do better than the worst offenders in our society. and so, it's not enough to say this person committed a violent crime and i don't think we have a system that is consistently and fairly and reliably carrying out the death penalty, and that's what creates the questions, and in mr. smith's case, the jury that heard the evidence and convicted him returned a verdict of life. it's only alabama that mr. smith could face the education that the elected judge

overruled life and sentenced him to death, there's not another state in the country where he would have been facing execution. so if we care about the jury's perspective on what should happen, he would have never been in this situation, and i think the eighth amendment questions are important because the integrity of the death penalty, for every 9 people we've executed, we've identified one innocent person on death row who is innocent. it would not be accepted by food safety administration's or airline safety, we wouldn't tolerate that common era but we continue to tolerate that with the death penalty. is disproportionately applied to poor people and people of color, so that raises the bar we start asking questions about, is this punishment meeting cruel and unusual punishment, and i think subjecting someone to a process that extends over 14 months and began on november 22, 2022, and doesn't end until january

25th, 2024 with a lot of anguish and torture, i think that's unacceptable, and i think we can and we should do better in this country. before going to have a death penalty, we can't do what we did to kenneth smith. >> given all that you have raised, why do you think the supreme court opted not to stay the execution or look more closely at a method that involves you said, a judge overturning the will of the jury, that has not been tried before but it wasn't true transparency into what would be the physiological effect on not only him but others in the room. why pass it? >> i think we are struggling in the courts. i'll be honest. i think you have a lot of judges who believe that finality is more important than fairness. and they don't want to intervene in these cases, even when there is dramatic evidence of a constitutional violation or innocence, and other judges who believe nothing is more important than the integrity of

the law. and i want to note, that they were federal judges and all of the appeals filed by mr. smith who said this execution should not proceed and the 11th circuit, a few hours before, the justice said she would grant a stay, mr. smith's case was stayed in 2022 by two federal courts, this current us supreme court seems to be really prioritizing allowing states to have their way, to have access to these executions but there has to be a limit or we are going to see a continuing downgrade of the quality and standards and i think the fairness that people in america are expecting. >> you have to wonder if this is the beginning of the end or the end of the beginning or is there a lot more to discuss, he said tonight, in alabama,

humanity took a step backwards. we will see if those words continue to resonate. thank you for joining me. well, he was one of 10 americans released from venezuelan detention and a prisoner swap, now he's speaking out exclusively for the first time here. he is next .

it's the stuff of nightmares, but for american citizen savoy wright it was a reality, detained for no apparent reason, he said he

was kidnapped, held for ransom and confined to a tiny venezuelan prison cell for nearly 2 months. he worried for his safety, sharing his cell with a two for others. last month he became one of 10 americans released from detention in a prisoner swap. he is right here to tell his story for the very first time exclusively to cnn. savoy, thank you for being here and welcome home. i have the pleasure of speaking to your mother and sister who were fighting for your return and it must be over joining to see them and be home. but tell me a little about how you even got to that experience. you were detained, you didn't know why, but you knew you were in trouble. >> i want to say thanks for having me. it's been a journey. essentially, for start with kidnapping, it was an interesting situation where i was led to a certain area

it started with shock, and i just kind of went along, to kind of see what the process would be. and it ended up getting worse and worse and worse, until i became a political hostage who was being -- in a huge sanctions deal. internationally. >> i mean, once they realized you were american, that changed a lot didn't it? >> yeah -- what does that mean to you? >> but it could mean severe danger, but it could also mean vital signs, or an opportunity for leverage and trade. but it really roared got out i was american, and i was in venezuela, it wasn't the best opportunity. >> some would look at the state department and their different categories of different places, venezuela obviously a high risk area. you traveled there nonetheless, but one could have anticipated this happening. did you realize the, the extent and danger you may have been, and even going? >> yes actually, i've been

there before. so i had a visa in venezuela. i speak spanish, i've been to pretty much all latin countries, in latin america except for bolivia. and -- then. so i'm very familiar with the culture, with the. venezuela, the people. and i was looking at business opportunities. and so for me, it felt like yeah there's risk, there's rough everywhere. there's risk in the united states to, but i didn't realize the extent of the risk, i was an american citizen. >> i mean, visa or not, you ended up in a prison. >> correct. >> and what happened to you there could have cost your life. there were moments you thought you would in fact knock it out. what was your experience like inside of a venezuelan prison? >> yeah well, i was actually moved around to four different places. >> really? >> so i had four different experiences. and in each of those, it was the absolute worst, and then i saw a pattern, it would eventually get better. so whether through prayer, or

calling on certain arc angels, god, reading the new testament was one of the only things that was available for me to read. you and -- religious material. sometimes a lot of coffee to stay up at night. >> why were you so intent on staying up? were you afraid of being harmed. >> there are some places -- was it even worse it when you are american in that prison? >> you could say that, you could say was worse, and in some places it was was better. -- >> you are very tall, obviously you appear to be the same height. we are not, i am five foot three you are what eight feet tall? but you are like six or seven, how tall are? you >> 6:11. >> okay, well even more so. i am trying to picture an average person, being able to have the facilities and the space, even if you are the only person in the cell. you shared it with up to four people, and with your height and physical appearance, how did that impact you? >> some of the holding cells

where i was, there was up to ten people or more, so it was actually more than four. beds, you kind of make it work, you sleep diagonally. but you just, it's really about survival. so there is a word in spanish -- which is like to stand. so you're essentially, you stand enough, because they always say you need to adapt, you need to make this your normal. and i'm like, this isn't normal. i'm going to survive, i'm going to get through these times, and then i'm going to get out. and then of course you have these moments where you break and you to say, how did i get here? am i ever going to make it out? and you're looking at that wall, you haven't been outside for 30 days. haven't seen the sun, fresh air, little things that we take for granted. >> you certainly -- those who tell you a different points, to exploit financially the dire straits that you found yourself in. at some point, were you aware that the state department was going to try to help and you had been designated as wrongfully held? what was that process like of having that revealed to you? >> it was never revealed to me.

>> really? >> i didn't even know i was a hostage until the end. so originally, it was a money grab, kidnapping. i was being detained, investigated, to make sure that i wasn't a spy. there's a concern for espionage that's big in venezuela, especially for foreigners from the united states. once i was clear as not being a spy, i was still declared as a spy, and i was moved to a political prison. and at that point, some of the americans were actually able to let me know hey, we are going to let you know what's going on. by the way, we are being held hostage in a huge sanctions deal, as leverage. in my heart dropped, and it was just the worst thing to -- >> all over again. >> some of them have been there for up to two years. >> really? and you finally found yourself able to get on that plane, to be able to return. you are still grappling with a lot of the trauma of the time you were there. i can't imagine the psychological effects, the emotional turmoil that you had to grapple with. but what is your statement that you want to make? what do you want people to know

about what has happened to you, to stop it from happening to them? >> well one, and the most difficult times, i was never alone. my spiritual family was there, my spiritual sport. you want to call it god, universe, angels. when i really needed it, i called them, and they were there. so if people know, you are never alone. number two, -- . this is an issue that's happening all over the world, and i was in the office for the -- office when the hostage affairs helped to rescue us. and they rescued from all over the world, right. latin america, asia, the middle east. you name it, there is people that have been rescued, and actually who are wrongfully detained, some even who were murdered in different places and brought back. so this is a real issue that's happening everywhere, people are kidnapped and trafficked from the u.s. as well. so, my mentors who actually helped to bring us home were special in my case, and -- what you mentioned about spring

break coming up. for all the families who sent their kids on spring break, just think about it. 50% of the countries have elections this year, this is a very delicate time. so, if your kids are working hard during school, just think about it twice, is really worth it to send them in some places where they can be put at risk? >> savoie right, welcome home. >> thank you. >> it was so nice to see you. we have a lot more to talk about today. unbelievable to think about what he has endured. we've got another hour of laura coates live coming up. we will learn more about this rnc plan that would have made trump the presumptive nominee. that's coming up.

bold. daring. expressive. contra costa college allows me to be whoever and whatever i want to be, providing the stage, the canvas, the tools to use my voice and write my story. find your passion and create your future