lot as the u.s. passed.. >> now whehen comey brouought te chargeges againsnst martha s st, he emphasisized we are charging you for lying to the federal authorities. >> this criminal case is about lying, about lying to the fbi, lying to the s.e.c., and lying to investors. that is conduct that will not be tolerated by anyone. >> so o ultimatelyly a decisiois made n not to prososecute her criminally for insider trading, and only charged with the obstruction of justice and false statements. >> martha stewart is being prosecuted not because of who she is, but because of what she did. >> what a face to see. be sure to tune in, because of this new original series from cnn, the many lives of martha stewart will premiere this sunday at nine pm only on cnn. i'm kaitlan collins, thank you so much for joining us tonight here on the source.

laura coates live starts right now. donald trump -- you might just miss moment on the stand, tonight on a bonus hour of laura coates live. no maybe three short minutes, that is how long the former president was on the stand today in the e. jean carroll defamation trial. he still managed, still manages to say something that caught part of his testimony stricken from the record. now before the jury even got into the room, there was a will describe us agitated trump. there was a lawyer, said i never met the, woman i did not know who the woman, isn't ever met this woman, unquote. the agitated judge -- pump it down. then, trump takes the, stand resists's right-hand, swears to get truthful testimony, his attorney asks if he stood by

his earlier deposition in the case, 100% yes trump applies. not as trump did to deny the allegation because moscow made an accusation? that is exactly, right, decided i considered a false iq laced in, totally false trump replies. the judge then cast him off saying everything you said after yes i did, you is durkin. what you might ask? well, because each in carles accusations have already been proven to be true, in yet another case. now this one we are talking about today is one of him continuing to defame her. back to the testimony, how does this final question to, trump did you ever instruct anyone to hurt the mascara in your statements? trump reply, 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 get back in court tomorrow. so after all of, it will have three minutes here on this particular, show a want to bring in cnn legal analyst former federal prosecutor elliott williams as well as white-collar federal criminal offense tourney rebecca legrand. i'm so glad both of you are here. it would take longer to argue about what he would talk about parameters, and how they are testifying today, and of course it was less than five minutes. he was already admonished by the judge, are you surprised there was testimony stricken? >> i am not surprised -- in total of nine words or whatever, they are now part of the record, they said no comment and went on into a bit of a monologue and the challenging thing jury's can't even hear the things they hear. the judge might have instructed him to stop anything after a point the which the president

said no but, telling, right now do not picture a pink elephant. are you can see right, now whatever, you do not pink elephant. >> literally, that is kind of what happened. so, i'm not surprised. now frankly i am surprised that it was as constrained as it was. i would've thought he would've figured out a way to give a speech, or his lawyer would have a bit. but the judge managed to meet in a fair amount of control. >> were you surprised by that? first of all him taking to the stand, he may have his burst that he would use this today, and many are, go when what he wanted to talk about the sexual assault, that was the time to talk about what he did or did not do. >> correct, so i think a normal defendant would not have testified here. this trial is only about -- it has already been established what i've been here. and judge kaplan was graphic today, and if it is okay, i think what he's that is important. it is part of what trump was arraigned, and the judge is extremely experienced, been on the bench for 30, years he

knows how to handle difficult complex trials and run a tight ship. that is why he spent that 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, he is already in fact for this case. has already been established by any anonymous jury that donald trump penetrated this woman's gianna without her consent forcefully. that is established. he cannot fight that. he has been established by a jury. i think in response to, that some reporter said trump made a -- face, but you know, he said things on access hollywood that sounded similar. >> when you think about, this i think this is the part that many people who are hearing about it, they get confused about this part. why is it always a defamation if you are defending yourself? that is the part people get hung upon, and say why can't he

just say i did not do it? i did not know her? why is that enough to be defamatory -- >> here is where it gets confusing, you can say i did not do it you cannot make statements that will harm someone's reputation or number two heard them financially in some way. >> i did not, do it as a, layer that is the -- >> sure, you are a liar, your, crazy she is fabricating facts this writer who purports to be a columnist and heard her position as a professional so that is where defamation kicks in now to say there is a clear line between what is a matter of self-defense and what is a personal defense and a defamatory statement is a blue one and they have struggled with it for years. if you noticed what judge kaplan quickly cut the president off after the word no,

it was a yes or no question, when he started getting into specifics of i did, it i did not do it, i did not believe, her she's lying, that is where you start getting into the realm of defamation. >> and here, it is established, he did it. there was a trial, there were jurist, the evidence was -- iran now wants to hubert -- but these are very serious allegations and there's a difference between saying i have a right to a defense and of they wanted to focus a lot on a nemours of what you said it was fast in some way they are trying to make all these different connections the focus

on exaggeration and left in whatever damages and how do you do that successfully? >> they attempted to do it today by bringing him a suggesting that when she spoke to other people she minimize the amount of harm she had suffered, or but in hemus and her friend who said she is gritty herself, i did not believe -- that is what you do. many sensible attorney as a defendant what you would do is say that what this person wasn't as part as much as they thought they were or number two that the facts aren't as this person has related -- >> or once held to high esteem in the first place. >> and again in the point several times, here a jury has already found that this thing happened. now needs to be sorted out is, how much was the reputation harmed, and how much did she suffer a financial period. >> we quickly have two cases in

new york where if not a mother of, whether it is bound to have happened now it is how much it is going to cost you. >> it is going to keep happening. he is to other doing. it he is invited the next right now. and you, know he is in the courthouse saying this is, not america well it is the america, i know it is the courts i know. when judges injuries make decisions, and then you ignore, them you are going to get indicted again. you are going to get sued again. >> in a point, every word he says now can still be used in this trial which is still not done yet. so if he gives the press conference, tomorrow the judge can call right in, and can impeach, him contradicting statements based on things he said. stop talking. just do not talk. >> we will take that advice right, now thank, you we will stop talking. now as the -- dismissal of fani willis in the 2020 election subversion case against trump, that's codefendants in georgia point to alleged misconduct between willis and her lead prosecutor.

let's bring in cnn legal analyst u.s. attorney for the middle district of georgia michael moore. michael, good to see you. this has been quite the distraction from the underlying facts in these cases and what the trial calendar may look like. in fulton county today cnn has exclusive reporting that fani willis and lead prosecutor nathan wade and others in office are expected to receive subpoenas for february 15th hearing on any allegations of an alleged affair of financial misconduct. what might that hearing reveal? >> well, i'm glad to be with you. you are right. it is just a mess right now. this is a huge distraction to the case. my guess is that the judge who has won in that courtroom, and kept things moving along, so i think you will probably take control of the situation and he does not want to get into real housewives a situation where this is just salacious details spread around the courtroom

that has nothing to do with the case and it would be surprising for him to say look i want you to stay in your places and all of the motion that which ones are true and which wants may narrow the issues and witnesses but as it stands right now there will be witnesses the peanut in and 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 distract from the case and probably can be put to bed fairly quickly if the district attorney and mr. weighed have any truth and we don't know that i don't know that but if there is an issue through the motion and can be put to bed pretty quickly by stepping back from this particular case. >> well trump is joining this mission to not only have them step away but actually have the georgia election case itself dismissed over the allegations of misconduct that will list and -- are emerging have disqualified.

but when i keep thinking about, this you read the case, line and you read about the, ethics and the impropriety and all the things going on, because it doesn't go to the court as we now know the course that affects alleged in this wide-ranging complaint, should the half to step down? what is the practical effect of this distraction? >> well, i think there is no chance that it is the death blow to the case. i will say that. this case will not be dismissed because these allegations. frankly, at the same, time i do not know that even the personal allegations have much merit anyways. at this point that might be something for another place or venue, it has nothing to do in this case. what matters is whether or not there may have been some money and benefit received for instance, money pit out prosecutor, and settled in the district attorney when that

prosecutor may have received some benefit from it. that is going to be the hook at the end of the day. it is not going to be about the other allegations in their. so you know, that is the problem that she is facing. as a prosecutor, what she wants to do is have a case that has clean optics. you want people, even the detractors of the, case to be able to have confidence in what have been enough second-guess every decision you make. essentially, now if these allegations are true, they have given them the stones to throw at this case. you are going to have people say it is politically motivated, it was done to enable the relationship and help send some money off sunday she had a relationship with they have given the tools to attack so and keep the case protected to recognize the duties as a prosecutor even though i do not think it rises exactly to the definition of a conflict for a prosecutor. i also think it has the

appearance of impropriety. so prosecutors have a duty to make sure that does not get in the way of the pursuit of justice in the courtroom, and that unfortunately as what happened and the judge will have to deal with. this is not the first time we have had events like this. we had the issue with -- thrown back some period of time back earlier and said you are out of this the optics here are awful. well those optics were bad, these right now are probably indescribable. 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 has on the cage she's an elected official perhaps the voters will make their own determination if they do in fact think that it is insurmountable, heart we shall see michael moore, he called it

a housewife moment i don't know you are a fan. we will talk off line about that. who knew? all your favorites i'm sure, we will talk later. >> good to see you. now the question does donald trump think he's actually still the president? i should pause there for a fact, you know it's an actual question. i'm asking because he seems to be trying to kill that immigration deal in the senate, as if he has a plan that could ultimately sigign legislatation. still we w will talk a about tht next.

so what could've been a huge deal, may now be up in smoke. today donald trump weighing in on a bipartisan immigration deal that senators have been working on for months. think about what i just said there. he is weighing in, they worked on it for months. but the president calling the deal, meaningless. many incumbents are not quite jumping on board with the former president. >> i think the borden is a very important issue for donald trump, the fact that he would communicate to republican senators and congress people, that he doesn't want us to solve the border problem because he wants to blame biden for it. it is really appalling. >> don't even look at where we

are politically right now, this issue for their 30 years -- it is hard. it is emotional, every side jumps out but we're gonna take that action to actually make things better. >> i think would be tragic, i hope no one is trying to take this away for campaign purposes just moments ago it aide to house gop leader telling counterparts that the border deal is dead on arrival in the house. joining me now cnn's reporter nani zanona, the atlantic, i'm happy to have you both here. am i an alternate universe? 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 is not a current rnc nominee. how is he having so much of an impact on current negotiations? well >> he is on the path towards the nomination, and he has a resurgence inside the gop, that is have a realtime impact

on capitol hill. this is a very familiar dynamic, it's not the first time that senators of work behind the scenes a very delicate issue, for months only to have trump come and blow it all up. because of a lot of members are scared of crossing him, that is just the truth on capitol hill. they are worried now about seeing as undermine trump, he is reached out to them personally and said, i want to compete on this issue in november, i don't want joe biden to have a victory on this issue, where he is politically vulnerable. that is 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? that, i could see the emperor would have no close eyes on that point. is that not obvious? >> that is really troubling, i've been covering this since the obama administration, of always heard rumors of this fear that perhaps democrats and republicans are holding on to the status quo because they think they have more to gain

from the current reality than from actually fixing the situation. donald trump is basically come out and said it now. we are talking about an issue that affects human lives, an issue that has brought in family separations. you are talking about life and death situations for a lot of people, when you're looking at the question of asylum. on the other side you are talking but american cities that are overwhelmed, and clearly a system that's broken. to come out and baldly say, we can't make a deal on this issue because the democrats only won it for political reasons. i think that has some center and moderate republicans concerned, to just tell voters straight up, that they're really not interested. donald trump isn't interested in fixing this issue that he talks about as much as he does. but, donald trump has one out on these issues before. he may very well again. >> he is talking about an encouraging deploying the national guard right now.

last i checked that was the actual presidents discussion decision, as commander-in-chief. and yet here we are, too many cooks in the kitchen? what do you know about the deployment. >> deploying the national guard is on donald trump's policy that he wants to put in right away if he wins the election 24, will putting up ten camp so taken thousands of people unfettered arrests and unprecedented numbers of deportations. these are all things that he's made very explicitly clear, that he is planned if he's to win the election. we shouldn't have any question or qualms about it at this point. it was a different situation in 2016, donald trump campaign on bold ideas, having a controversial ideas on immigration. but a lot of the time we talked about those ideas as probably things that one actually come to fruition. now we know for sure, that he will pursue them. >> melanie, is this an indication, it's been for decades since there was last

immigration reform, there were a close, it is gone. is this washington d.c. yet again not taking yes for an answer. there's been concessions made. >> immigration is something that's long washington, that been trying to get a deal on immigration for many years. what's interesting about these talks now, 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 isn't it. it's kind of ironic that they're out -- the summer conversation was sources, what they're looking at is fairly narrow here. the way they have offered big concessions, they are willing to restrict asylum law. willing to reign in the president parole is ortiz, these are things that democrats on the left have been really reluctant given on. 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 here. in fact, one republican senator was talking commission on anonymity to my colleague lauren fox said, this proposal would've had almost unanimous

republican support if it weren't for donald trump. just really underscoring hero of this already complicated issue got even more complicated in with donald trump. >> i can't believe it. it's just so, all that we talked about at the border and reform in immigration, and the bipartisan effort. to think that this could be the result, it's just stunning. thank you both for being here, melanie and kaitlin. thank you both so much. up next breaking news out of alabama. after the execution of a man using an untested method. we will be back in a momenent.

♪ ♪

♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ we are breaking news, alabama

has put to death, cameron smith. first death row inmate known to die by nitrogen gas. it's a wholly new method of execution in this country. one that some experts have said is veiled in secrecy and could lead to excessive pain, or even torture. he was sentenced to death for more for hire plot in 1988. he appeared conscious for several minutes, shook on a gurney during the execution. according to one reporter who read notes compiled by almedia witnesses who attended the execution. cnn's isabel resolve this is an alabama with more. isabelle thank you for joining us. tell us what happened tonight, with the execution? >> laura this is the first new method of execution since 1982. that's when lethal injection was first introduced. according to witnesses, kenneth last words were in part quote,

tonight alabama causes humanity to take a step backwards. after the execution there's also a press conference with witnesses including media observers, and they said that smith appeared to be conscious for several minutes for about two minutes, he shook against his mask and the gurney. there were several minutes of him deeply breathing, before his briefing then slow down. also at that press conference, with alabama department of corrections john him, he was asked about that shaking, especially keeping in mind that a court documents the statement argued 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. there was some involuntary movement. that was all expected, and it was the side effects we've seen in research. nothing was out of the ordinary from what we were expecting. do >> you think was involuntary? >> yes. often >> we were the first media outlet to speak with the spiritual adviser smith, reverend jeff hood. who described it he, was in the execution chamber right next to smith you described it as quote, absolute torture. saying that smith was conscious for several minutes struggling against the gurney of the mosque we heard from other media observers, gasping. his face turned colors and it was not painless as state officials claimed it would be. >> isabelle 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 execution using a new method.

he is brian stevenson from the equal juststice under r sheet o.

♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ alabama death row inmate

kenneth smith was just executed using nitrogen gas. the first time this is ever been done in the united states. he was convicted of murder for the 1988 killing of elizabeth senate, just a few years later in 1992 the conviction was overturned on a procedural issue. it wasn't until 96 96 when he was retried and convicted with a recommendation of life in prison. a judge overruled the recommendation and sentenced and to death. it wasn't until 2022 that the state even attempted to carry out the execution. that attempt failed. just a year later, an alabama court ruled execution by nitrogen gas would now be acceptable. there were two last minute appeals to the supreme court, his lawyers are getting a second attempt when of execution this time by nitrogen gas my run afoul of the constitution prohibition of cruel and unusual punishment. both of those appeals were

denied. the last such denial happening earlier tonight with the liberal justices saying they would have paused the execution. joining me now, brian stephenson the founder executive director of the equal justice initiative, thank you for being with us and look to your insight and moments like this to think about the weight of this moment, you worked closely with the attorney representing candace smith, what is your reaction to what is happened tonight? >> i think it's really tragic and regrettable law. we had warned that the state would not be able to carry out this execution in the way that they were predicting. i'm very concerned about the witness reports that indicate, that mr. smith may have suffered terribly. arriving in team, struggling, breathing heavily. showing signs of distress that

witnesses are reporting is not consistent with a 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 been a permitted to attempt a second execution, we have to remember that 14 months ago kevin 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 they began stabbing him with the needles trying to find a vein, at one time they put him in a stress position lifted and vertically so his arms were spread out, and they were jabbing the needle into his neck. they finally stopped the execution when the warrant expired. that was traumatizing, that was horrific. we don't think that the state should subjects someone in that condition to a second education without something radically different happening, and that didn't happen in alabama.

they just changed the amount of time they had to carry out the execution that was the thrust of the argument, you've already been tortured in a way that is unacceptable in our society, and now we see that that continue tonight with a process there are a host of questions surrounding. >> some would look at this issue, and their official my reaction might be, this is somebody convicted of murder. somebody who has been sentenced to death, the idea of cruel and unusual seems and 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 non-usual punishment, is their bright line rule of some kind to which we can look to determine how a court could judge the manner of execution to rise to that level, or are we in truly with this new method, uncharted territory? >> i've always believed that

the question of the death penalty isn't whether someone deserves to die for the german they committed, the threshold question is do we deserve to kill? our society we don't rate people we, don't torture people who torture, because we believe the integrity of the law means that we have to do better than the worst offenders in our society. and so it is not enough to say this person committed a violent crime, i don't think we have a system that is consistently in fairly him reliably carried out the death penalty in a way, that's what creates the eighth amendment questions. mr. smith case, the jury that heard the evidence that convicted him, returned a verdict of life. it's only in alabama that he can face execution the elected judge overrode the jury's verdict for life and cents him to death. in another there's not another state in the country would be facing execution, if we care about the jury's perspective what should've happened. he would've never been in the situation.

i think the eighth amendment questions are important because the integrity of the death penalty, for every nine people be executed, we've identified one innocent person it's, a shocking rate of air. it would not be accepted by food safety administrations, or airline safety. we wouldn't tolerate that kind of air. we continue to tolerate in the death penalty. it is a punishment that is disproportionately applied to people of color, and the poor. that raises the bar when we start asking questions about is this punishment meeting our eighth amendment, that is unusual or cruel. i've subjecting someone to an execution project that extends over 14 months, where it begins on november 22nd 2022, and doesn't end until january 25th a 20 2023 with a lot of anguish and a lot of torture, i think that is unacceptable i think we can and we should do better in this country, and we're gonna have a death penalty. we can't do what we did to

chemist mid. >> given all that you've raised, why do you think the supreme court opted not to stay the execution or look more closely at a method that involved, a judge overturning the will of the jury, that has not been tried before weather where there wasn't true transparency in what would be the physiological effect on him but others in the room. black hasn't? but >> i think we're really struggling in the courts. i will be honest. we have a lot of people in this country who believe financial tea is more important affairs. they do want to interview in this case. even when there's dramatic evidence of innocence or constitutional violation. there's other judges that believe that there is nothing more important than the integrity of the law and our commitment to fairness, doing what our call institution requires. i just want to know there are federal judges than all of the infield followed by mr. smith who said this is execution

should not proceed. the 11th circuit a few hours before, justice jail prior said i really, mr. smith's case execution was stayed in 2022, by two federal courts the current u.s. supreme court seems to be really prioritizing allowing states to have their way, they have access to the execution but there has to be a living, we're gonna see it continuing downgrade in the quality in the standards i think the fairness that people are expecting >> you have to wonder if this is beginning of the end, or the end of the beginning or the down road there's a lot more to discuss. he said in the last last words, tonight in alabama humanity took a step backwards. we will see if those words continue to resonate. thank you so much for joining me. >> he was one of ten americans released from venezuelan this

tension and prisoner swap. now he's speaking out exclusively for the first time here, savoie wright is my guest next. the

it is the stuff of nightmares quite frankly, for american citizens savoi 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 two months. wells family fought for his release he worried for his

safety, sharing his cell with up to four others. last month he became one of ten americans released from venezuelan detention in a prisoner swap. savoi wright is here now to tell a story for the very first time, exclusively to cnn. what savoi, thank you for being here. welcome home i had the pleasure of speaking to your mother and sister who were fighting for your return, it must be overjoyed to see them and be home. tell me a little bit about how you even got to that experience, you are detained, you didn't know why, but you knew that you are in trouble. >> thank you for having me. it's been quite a journey. essentially, it was kidnapping, it was an interesting situation i was led to a certain area, it was either you want to go to jail or go home? it wasn't that type of thing. you want to be a witness or go to jail? that's what they told me. it started with shock, i just

kind of went along to see what the process would be, and it ended up getting worse and worse. until i became a a political hostage that was being treated, in a huge sanctions deal internationally. >> once they realized you are american, that changed a lot in it? >> they said you are a premium, yes. >> what does that mean to you? >> it could mean severe danger, but it can also mean how dollar signs or an opportunity for leverage and trading. it really, the word got out i was america and i was venezuela, it was an opportunity. >> the state department came from different places, venezuelan is a high-risk area in new travel there nonetheless but one cannot anticipated this happening. did you realize the extent of danger you may have been in even going? >> yes i had been there before, i had a visa in venezuela.

i speak spanish, i've been to pretty much all latin countries in latin america except for bolivia, suriname and glenannan, i'm very familiar with the culture. with the terrain in venezuela. the people. i was looking at business opportunities for me it felt like, yes there is risk, there's risk everywhere. there's risk in the united states as well, i didn't realize the extent of the risk. i was an american citizen abroad. >> these are not, you ended up in a prison. what happened to you there could've cost your life? there are moments you thought you would not get out? >> what was your experience like inside of the venezuelan prison? >> i was moved around to four different places? i have four different experiences. each of those it was the absolute worst, and then i saw a pattern that it would eventually get better. whether through prayer, calling on certain arc angels, god,

reading the new testament. there was only thing available to meet mary. you don't have privilege to read material. sometimes a lot of coffee to stay up nights. >> why were you so intent of staying up? were you afraid of being harmed? >> there was some places it wasn't safe. >> inside the prisons? >> even worse because you are an american in that prison? >> you could say that. you could say it was worse in some places it was better. >> you are very tall, you are sitting down you appear to be the same height on television, i'm five foot three, you are what a fetal? i can't imagine. you are 67? >> i am 6:11. >> even more so, i'm trying to picture in an average person being able to have the facilities and the space even if you were the only person in the end, you shared up to four people, and with your height in physical appearance, how did that impact you? >> some of the holding cells where i were there was up to ten people or more, there was

more than four, beds you make it work. it's really about survival, there is a word in spanish, -- , which is to stand. you withstand enough, you need to adapt, this is your normal now. i'm gonna survive, i'm gonna get through these times. and i'm going to get out. and of course of the moments where you break, you say how did i get here. am i ever going to make it out? when you looking at the wall and you have been outside for 30 days. haven't seen the sun, fresh air's. little things we take for granted. >> those who held a different point seem 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? you had been designated wrongfully held? what was the process like of having that reveal to you? >> it was never revealed to me. i didn't even know i was hostage until the end.

it was originally moneygram, kidnapping, i was being detained investigates to make sure i wasn't a spy. there is a concern for espionage begin venezuela specially for foreigners from the united states. once that was cleared is not being a spy, i would still move to a political prison. at that point, some of the americans were able to let me know we're gonna let you know what's going on by the way, we are being held hostage in a huge sanctions deal as leverage. my heart dropped. it was the worst night where. >> all over again. >> after two years. >> you finally found yourself able to get on the plane, to be able to return. you are still grappling with a lot of the trauma of the time you are there. i can imagine the psychological effects, the emotional terminal. but what is your statement you want to make? what do you want people to know about what is happened to you, to stop it to happening to them?

>> one, in the most difficult times i was never alone. my spiritual family was there, my special support. i want to call it god, universe, angels. when i really need it, i call them them and they were there. you are never. number two, prevention. this is an issue that's happening all over the world. i was in the office for, for the hostage affairs that help to rescue us. they rescue people from all over. latin america, asia, the middle east, you name it. there is people that have been rescued, and who are wrongfully detained. some even who were murdered in different places, and brought back. this is a real issue happening everywhere. people are kidnapped a traffic from the u.s. as well. my mentors who actually help to bring us home, who are special in my case, they said mention about spring breaks coming up, for all families who send their

kids on speak right, think about it. 50% of the countries are have elections this year, this is a very delicate time. the kids are working hard their school, but think about it twice is it really worth it? to send them to some places where they could be put at risk. >> savoie right, welcome home. thank you so much so nice to see you. >> we have a lot more to talk about today, it's unbelievable if you think about what he's endured. we have another hour of laura coates live coming up, we'll learn about the rnc plan that would've made trump the presumptive nominee. that is coming up. ♪ ♪ ♪

not just any whiteboard... ...katie porter's whiteboard is one way she's: [news anchor] ...often seen grilling top executives of banks, big pharma, even top administration officials. katie porter. never taken corporate pac money - never will. leading the fight to ban congressional stock trading. and the only democrat who opposed wasteful “earmarks” that fund politicians' pet projects. katie porter. focused on your challenges - from lowering housing costs to fighting climate change. shake up the senate - with democrat katie porter. i'm katie porter and i approve this message.