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.

tonight on laura coates live. news today has been stunning. the republican national committee was considering, i mean seriously considering a resolution that would declare donald trump the presumptive nominee. and just like that, after we have only heard from, remember, it has only been two states. we do have 50. and territories of course. so in essence, that would mean that iowa, new hampshire, would get to decide who is the nominee. leaving everybody else, even those who wanted to vote, totally out of luck. until the whole thing blew up in their faces. trump ally david bosse withdrawing the resolution tonight. a source tells cnn the trump campaign had initially backed

the idea. and the former president himself was, well, on board. not surprisingly. then all of a sudden he changed his tune when the backlash began. posting on social media tonight they should quote do it old fashioned way and finish the process off at the ballot box. all caps of course. even captain obvious would have written that. of course you follow the old fashioned rule. it's call a democracy. but who am i? the haley camp less than enthusiastic about the whole thing because she is still running. quote, who cares what the rnc says? going on is just the rnc chairwoman mcdaniel organized a debate in south carolina. let's go to cnn reporter henry at the magical wall. look, you know the rnc was poised to declare trump the presumptive nominee. this would really be unprecedented of course at this point in the race.

right? >> it would be unheard of, laura. no other word around it. the competitive gop primary ends when there is a presumptive nominee. march 4 is the earliest. the earliest on record in the modern primary era. keep in mind laura, at that point, we had already run through supertuesday and most of the delegates. other dates more recently, 2012, april 25, 2016 when of course trump clinched back in that particular cycle, it was may 3rd. so laura, the idea that we would have a presumptive nominee in january is frankly off the maps and not anything i would have ever heard of. at least before this year. >> by the way, only a tiny fraction of voters have been able to. iowa, and new hampshire. not exactly the other 48 states represented. can you put that into perspective on the relative number of people who have actually participated so far? and what would be ignored if

they declared that now? >> you said it. gop contests taken place so far, there is a lot of gray on this map. you mixed the 48 other states and the district of columbia. how about other territories who haven't had their contest? don't forget about guam. i never do. republican delegates so far, only 62 have been allocated. just 62. the vast majority still up for grabs. 2,367. i'm not a math major, but 2,367 seems a lot larger than a number of 62 allocated so far. >> i mean, can you imagine if it was the actual general election? we have results from two states. we're good. we're going to declare a presumptive victor and by the way, there is somebody else

still in the race. nikki haley. who says what about the remainder? does it surprise you, harry, that trump thought that many in the gop establishment would actually support this decision? >> no. trump likes to sell himself as an anti-establishment candidate. but the fact of the matter is if you look at major gop endorsements. look at this. donald trump has 121. at this point in the 2016 cycle he had zero. nikki haley has three. trump may like to sell himself as the anti-establishment but at this point, the establishment loves him. >> love the way you pronounced love. thank you so much. >> thank you. now i want to bring in people i love. republican rita shaw and doug high. at first trump was on board, but backtracked when he got the backlash. the fact this was even on the

table, was it a miscalculation? >> i think it was a miscalculation if it leaked and it leaked because the dispatch was able to report this. if it hadn't leaked and gone to the winter meeting, it probably would have passed. and what this would have been, a huge change the rule of 11. the rule of neutrality. a rule of such neutrality. you would think this would surprise a lot of people. the rnc cannot support mike johnson in his reelection for congress. if he has anybody running against him. say some crack pot who thinks the aliens are coming back and bringing elvis with them. the republican party and the state chair file a rule 11 letter. that is true of senate candidates, house candidates. certainly true of the presidency as well. and it would allow the rnc to have joint fund raising campaigns with the trump campaign. the trump campaign needs that.

so does the rnc. would allow the rnc to serve as an anti-nikki haley propaganda arm and digital and data arm would be a huge deal. and that was the miscalculation that they could do this in secret. >> just thinking about what that would entail. the secrecy of it. the fact it would disenfranchise voters. new hampshire and iowa are just two of the 50. the idea that would be the deciding factor. as you saw from harry how early this would be in the process, what about the idea for voters who see this and say what about us? >> reporter: i find it really rich. the crowd that loved to scream election interference at anything over the past four years is now trying to interfere in an election. when there is one of their own who actually stands on pretty good footing despite the iowa and new hampshire results and i and have heard the most

reductive arguments come from ronna mcdaniel's mouth. that is shameful for her. it is not the place a party chair needs to be in and there need to be a reckoning. there need to be republicans saying you are stepping so far out of line, you are making this party a smaller and smaller tent. there are americans so frustrated with joe biden that they are willing to look at the republican party. give it an honest shake after the trump era. there are people who could not stand trump willing to say will this party make my life better? i have heard those arguments from nikki haley. and yet, you have the entire gop apparatus ready to act in the interest of the mafia boss. that is what trump has tried to behave as and the adults in the room got involved and he finally has a solid operation with bush people. it's very scary. and they i'm sure said put this kind of statement out. >> nikki haley was fund raising on this already. >> sure, she has done well. but the reality is, trump 2.0 has a more professional staff. but all things about donald trump we know requires a word

he used in a statement. devotion. all things must be hailed to caesar. if you come up with an idea, donald, we have a good idea. you know he will like it. it may not be the best idea of all time. and the vetting then in this case happened publicly. part of the irony here is the rnc needs help. the trump campaign needs help with fund raising. if this had gone through, it would mean that ronna mcdaniel's job would be in jeopardy. she would be shown the door by donald trump or layered over and basically sent to the role as the guy with the stapler in office space. you can have an office in basement. so, this wouldn't have been a good idea for anybody. includes the trump campaign because of the arguments of democracy and fairness and the swamp. >> the next morning if nikki haley jumps out of the race, if she decides not to or is not successful, they then could do that. they could call him the presumptive nominee. >> sure. at that point, you have, if you

have anybody running, right, anybody on any ballot, you still have to remain objective. that is why there is the political reality. the mathematical one. two numbers don't compute there. but the rules of the rnc to be neutral. it is why we have a congressional committee and a senatorial committee that don't have to be neutral. the rnc, the rule 11 neutrality is sacresanct. emotions are running high in the trial of the school shooter. her son ethan crumbley pleaded guilty to killing four students and injuring seven others. today the prosecution alleges she didn't pull the trigger but she is responsible. we will break down the arguments next.

the trial of the mother of michigan school shooter ethan crumbley getting underway today. jennifer crumbley, along with her husband james faces four charges of involuntary manslaughter for the alleged role they played in their son's shooting rampage. they are standing trial separately. both have pled not guilty to their respective charges. and if they are convicted, they face 15 years in prison. to break down the argument that were in court today, i have my own prosecutor and defense attorney here with me tonight. cnn legal analyst joey jackson. along with civil rights attorney and legal commenter ariva martin. ariva will be prosecutor and joey, the defense. i want to ask how you really feel once the masks come off.

ariva, begin be the prosecution. so what is the opening statement you would make for us in this case as to why jennifer crumbley ought to be prosecuted for the crime carried out by her son? > here is what i would say, laura, if i was the prosecutor in this case. i would say that the evidence in this case will show ethan crumbley's mother, jennifer crumbley, didn't pull the trigger but is as responsible for the death of those four innocent s students in that michigan high school as her son is. it wilill show t that even thou typipically a paparent is not h reresponsible fofor the intenti actions of their childreren, there e are exceptioions to thi rule. inin this case, the evidence is so overwhelming and so heieinou that this is that exception. the evidence will show that this defendant ignored flashing red lights, and waving gigigant red flags.

the evidence will show she knew her son had a very clear mental health issue. he complained to her repeaeated ababout hallucininating. feeleling isolateded. feeling alalone. hearining voices and h having visions ofof usising violence againsnst others. itit will show despitete knowin all of this, this s defendant t heher own selfisish desisires o the needs of her son. she would not take him to a medical facility. to a doctor or hospital. but found time in her schedule to have an affair outside of her marriage and care for her horses. and if she had provided her son with t the kind of time and cac that she provideded those anima and the time she dedicated to that extramarital affairir, tho four students in that t high school would be alivive today. take a listen to what the prosecution said in that courtroom today to establish

those red flags. >> this drawing. this work sheet sent to her. 9:30 in the morning. she was sent this by her son's school counselor when he requested a immediate meeting with herment he requested that meeting because this drawing, those words, suggest weapon and injury, you will learn these kind of meetings when they occur with parents can last an hour or longer. this one was abruptly ended by jennifer crumbley after just over 11 minutes. you will learn after the meeting when they left, they didn't embrace him. you will learn their home is just down the road from the oxford high school. they didn't stop by the house to look for the gun. >> this is an important point that ariva has made. and that thought really shows people a little more. prosecution, thank you so much. joey,ly turn now to the defense's opening statement. you have the presumption of

innocence. why shouldn't jennifer crumbley face prosecution for her son's crimes? >> we cannot be a society that predicates guilt upon simple blame or predicates guilt upon vengeance. this case is not about horses or affairs. it is about a tragedy that occurred that should not have. but we do know that potentially it could have been prevented but to blame the mother for this when she did not have knowledge of what her child was doing is wrong and is bridge too far. we are not here to assess perfect parenthood. we are here to assess accountability. and in looking at the issue of accountability, parents have challenging jobs. life is a challenge in and of itself. does a parent know everything their child is doing? should a parent be accountable for every mental health malady they do not know the extent and severity of? it takes a village. and to blame the mother for her not knowing or having the

understanding as to the extent of her child's injuries is not within the realm of the criminal justice system. take a listen to what the defense had to say with respect to that issue in the opening statement. >> she will tell you when she saw the materials in this case, she learned that her son had not been her son for months. that he had been manipulating her. that he had been hiding things from her. that he had been sending text messages, learning text messages to other people. >> we are at the very beginning of this trial. both of you have put on the mask and played the role of either prosecution or defense. illuminating some of the arguments we are going to hear. and of course, there will likely be testimony for the defendant in this case. she is asking for her son to

testify. let's both of you take on the mask. i want to get your insight from all of your vast experience beginning with you on this. crumbley's parents are being tried separately. what does that signal to you when you first heard that? will that be a pointing of the fingers? hoping the benefit of the doubt is given to one not the other? >> yeah, you have seen this. that is what is happening here. i think the defense is takeing the posture that the father is to blame. as much as he purchased the weapon, got the gun, and that was not within the knowledge of the mom. you will hear the mother in addition to that jennifer blame the school for failing to alert her. but what it comes down to very briefly, one is foreseeability. i think the jury could conclude, could conclude that the answer is yes. are you on notice?

there are serious maladies here and should you not as a parent have been aware of them and have addressed them, it is important. and then have you acted reasonably under those circumstances. and if the answer to that is no, then the issue of accountability could very well, laura, lie with the mother jennifer and she could be in significant problems in this case. >> the jury is comprised of men, women, parents. you have to imagine when she takes the stand, it will be very significant and trying to build out that case. what is going to strike you in this case? >> i will be looking at how the jury responds to the issue of the gift of a gun. i think that is going to strike at the heart of so many jurors. i think a lot of parents will be sitting there thinknking oh god. i don't want to be held accountable for everything my children do. but when they hear this mother

has information about her son's emotional state and contradictions about what that evidence is, it is clear she knew her son was going through something very significant. and to take a 15-year-old kid going through something like that into a gun store, buy him a gun and go to a shooting range where you shoot the gun with him, post on social media bragging about taking him to the shooting range, i think that is going to be very compelling evidence in favor of the prosecution. >> we will see the trial is getting understood way. we will continue to follow this story. it is very important. it is the first time we are seeing parents be held to account potentially for the actions of a mass shooter. in a school setting in particular. joey jackson, ariva martin, thank you both. coming up next, our series we are doing here, exonerating. i will speak to a grandmother

who spent nearly 18 years in prison for a crime shehe did no cocommit. heher emotionanal story nenext.

tonight, we want to introduce a new series we are doing for you here on laura coates. exonerate. we will tell you the stories of the many people who have been wrongly convicted of crimes and have spent decades in some cases in prison. people like rosa jimenez who spent nearly 18 years in prison for a crime she did not commit. thank to the innocence project, she is now free. so, what exactly happened in

this case? well, back in 2003, rosa was a young mother living in austin, texas. she was babysitting 21 month old ryan gutierrez. something she regularly did for children that were in her community. when bryan began choking. and later died. now when paramedics arrived, they found a wad of paper towels in his throat. rosa jimenez, a pregnant mother of a two-year-old with no criminal record was ultimately charged with murder. she was sentenced to 99 years in prison. but that's not all. when she was behind bars, awaiting her trial, she gave birth to her son. while shackled and given on five hours with him before he was taken away. for the next 18 years, rosa would not be allowed to touch her children. here's the thing. there was no expert testimony during her trial. and frankly, once experts heard the details of the case, they

were shocked. by 2020, more than five judges, more than five judges had determined the child's death was most likely an accident. she was released on bond in 2021 just in time to attend her daughter's wedding. it took two more years for her to be exonerated. and that same day, while she was fighting to clear her name, she game a grandmother. joining me now, rosa jimenez and her attorney vanessa potkin who is also the director of special litigation at the innocence project. so happy to see you. rosa, just in reading your story, just in hearing about it, it is truly stunning but let me begin with this beautiful notion that on the day you were exonerated, you also became a grandmother. tell me about the moments when you not only found out your name would be cleared but your daughter had just gone into

labor. oh, you are crying sweetheart. tell me why. what's on your mind? what where you feeling right now? >> you brought back all these memories of having my child in prison. and the joy of having my grand baby when i got exonerated. so i got emotional. >> well i can understand that. it is difficult not to be emotional hearing about it. when you heard me describe even a portion of what more than a decade in prison was like, can you believe that you are on the other side of this? >> it was hard for me to believe i was going to get out. when i went to prison, i didn't speak english at all. i didn't understand what was going on around me in the

moment. i knew i was going to jail. i knew i was pregnant. i knew an accident had happened. but, i really didn't comprehend, my mind couldn't wrap everything around. it was very difficult, very hard for me to even wrap my mind around it. they told me they were going to take my kids. my daughter, they took her to cps. it was really hardiments it was super hard. finally, when i started understanding english, a little bit inside prison, i have my son. i had faith i was going to go home. but then after so many years, judges telling them hey, she is

innocent. nothing happened. did you start losing faith? and wondering is this going to be my life until the day i die? and you start questioning, wondering. and sometimes even questioning your own faith. you know? so when finally vanessa told me hey, you want to get out? and i remember, she was like, you are free. and i was like i don't believe it until they open those doors. any moment they can come. when i finally got out, i went to a place that they have for me. i couldn't sleep for a couple of days. i was in my mind, it was like if i fell asleep, i'm going to go back.

going to wake up in that place. it happened three days in a row. finally i was like i need to go to sleep. now, i have my grand baby. we are trying to reconnect. >> i understand while you were in prison, you weren't able, though you could see your children at times, you weren't able to actually touch them. is that right? >> that's right. because of the nature of the crime. >> has that been difficult in trying to reconnect with them at this point in your life? >> oh yes.

my daughter lives with me here. and we hardly talk to each other. but it is like we are two strangers. i left when she was one year old. and i come home, and she is 19 years old. you know. she don't know me. and the time, she went to visit me probably six times in 18 years. they couldn't afford phone calls. can you imagine having, you know, living with her here has been difficult. very difficult. >> how about with your son? >> we were living together for like a year when i got out. when i came home, i wanted everything back. everything that they took from me, i wanted back. and it is a big mistake.

you know. i wish like, i hope that they have some type of class inside that they can tell you, take it slow. it was a big mistake bringing my son in my home. not knowing him at all. it was a disaster. we don't know each other. like i had him in prison, you know. never, he don't have no memory of me whatsoever. so it's like bring a stranger to your home. and hoping that they will acknowledge you as their mother and calling you mom. and, to this day, that hasn't happened. you know. they don't call me mom. that's hard. they call me rosa. so it is like two strangers. yes. and i have tried so much, you

know. i got married and i tried to make a reach with them. i'm living here with my wife. in her home for my daughter. you know. because she wants us to have a connection, to reconnect. to have a relationship. but it's like, i don't know. they are not open for it. or sometimes i feel like they don't want to betray the people that raised them. >> so many questions are going off in my head. so many red flags. even begins with the fact that she did not speak english before going into prison. my immediate question is the representation, how is she aware through police interrogations, through the court process, how was she aware of what was happening?

have you gotten back to look at that point in time to determine how this could have happened? >> it is unfathomable. during the interrogation, she was questioned by the officer who was spanish speaking. basically at the time, rosa had a one-year-old daughter she was breast-feeding. and basically, you know, said, you know, if you tell me what i want to hear, then you can see your daughter. and really just, you know, try to get an admission from rosa which never came because this is something that she couldn't do. imagine how difficult it is for somebody who speaks the language. it is a foreign process. relying on your council.

unfortunately, you know, rosa's lawyer didn't fulfill his basic duties. so, the only expert he consulted with just didn't have the relevant training or experience to weigh in. in rosa's case, the paramedics who responded the scene of the choking had never seen anything like this nor had the emergency room doctors who treated the whiled when he first came in. so they jumped to the conclusion this was so unusual. atypical that it must have been intentional. just becausesomething is atypical doesn't mean it is intentional. we submitted the medical evidence. several of the nation's children's hospitals. all of them independently reviewed the evidence and came

to the unanimous conclusion that this was a tragic accident. and no murder had occurred. >> i can't believe this was the experience for 18 years. i have a daughter and a son. and imagining where you are in your bonding. where you are in developing thatup to have this happen. at that moment. and to know mother to mother that another child had lost their life. this must have just been so overwhelming for you. in everyday sense. and now i understand you are fighting a different battle. this battle is now one for your health and your life in a different way. that is happening and what is

the road ahead? >> right now, i'm doing dialysis. in treatment three times a day. four hours each treatment when i go in. when i got out from frizz, they diagnosed me. that my kidneys were not functioning properly. and they told me i would need a kidney eventually. so i will move to new york to find a kidney. but, so far, there is is no luck. we are hoping someone will be touched to help me live my life. i'm here struggling to leave. if i don't go to a treatment. i can actually die. because my blood had to be filtered constantly. so, i pray that somebody will

be able to help us. not just me. >> go ahead rosa, please, finish what you were saying. >> i was robbed of being with my children. both of them. and now i have the opportunity to be a grandma, i want to be there for my grandchildren. you know. i'm only 41 years old. and my grand babies are just barely five months old. and i pray that i can see her going to her wedding. her graduation. i want to experience the things i didn't get to do with my kids because i was robbed of that experience. >> can you tell me, rosa,

vanessa, how people can help? >> rosa has been evaluated for a kidney transplant. the hospital is ready to do the transplant. and all we need at this point is a living donor. somebody willing to donate a kidney. if people are interested and could go to the website, kidneyforrosa.com, they could learn more about the living donor process. and really that is what we are looking for right now. somebody willing to be a donor. now she is in the fight for her life. and we are looking for partners to make sure that she can fulfill all of those things she just talked about. >> rosa, you and i are about the same age. and i just can't believe the parallel tracks. but for the race of god as they

say, go i and so many others, to not have injustice inflicted upon them as it was for you. i'm so sorry we met this way. but i'm so happy to know that you have been exonerated and you have a chance. because it is all frankly anyone of us have ever asked for in life. thank you for joining us. i appreciate it. rosa, i'll be thinking about you. >> thank you. we'll be right back. >> thank you so much.

(vo) with fargo, the new virtual assistant from wells fargo. you can pick up the tab, even when you forget your wallet. (kaz) i got this. (ben) fargo, send kaz $145 dollars with zelle®. (kaz) smooth. (vo) do you fargo? you can, with wells fargo. (vo) with fargo, the new virtual assistant from wells fargo.

you can pick up the tab, even when you forget your wallet. (kaz) i got this. (ben) fargo, send kaz $145 dollars with zelle®. (kaz) smooth. (vo) do you fargo? you can, with wells fargo. the mysterious deaths of three kansas city chiefs fans puzzling investigators. they were known to have gone to a friend's house earlier this month. they were found dead a couple of days later outside the house. police have not said how the men died and are waiting for toxicology results. here is cnn's whitney wilde. >> reporter: more than two weeks after 38-year-old ricky johnson, 37-year-old david hairington, and 36-year-old clayton mcgini were found dead in the back of a kansas city home, there are few details and

frustration is growing. adriana juarez who shares a child with ricky johnson says too many questions remain about how long it took to find the three friends. accocording to cnn affililiate knbc, the three visited a frieiend's home e and rented a house in northwest kansas city after the chiefs beat the chargers. two days later a worried fiance who hadn't heard from her loved one looked for him at the home. according to police, when there was no answer at the door, she broke into the basement of the residence and found a dead body on the back porch. when police arrived, they discovered two more bodies in the backyard. cnn is not naming the friend because he hasn't been accused of a crime or charged in the deaths. his attorney john. >> in the early morning hours, around 2:00 a.m., he believes, he got sleepy. he said i'm going to crash on the couch. and he said good-bye to his bodies and he thought they left

out the front door. >> reporter: kansas cicity poli are waititing for auautopsies t dedetermine hohow the men diede at thihis point, policice considerered this a a death h investigatation. nonot homicidede. notingng it is still the case that no foul play was observed or suspected. johnson's niece said they want answers and some sense of closure. >> i never thought it would get as much as tension as it has. i'm hoping that with the attention that it is getting, that it will get us closer to getting answers. >> reporter: it can take a month or more to get toxicology reports and autopsy reports back, but every moment the families wait is simply gut wrenching. laura? >> whitney wild, thank you so much. we'll be right back.

before we go tonight, be sure to check out the new cnn original series, the many lives of martha stewart. it traces her explosive rise to success, staggering fall from grace, momenentous comebeback, esestablishmenent as a true american icon. here's a preview. >> martha was about finesse. excellence, and perfection. >> there is no m media persononality. businesswoman, celebrity chef like her. she was like an origiginal influencer. >> the magazines, and television shows. >> our standards are higher because of martha. >> she is everywhere. martha stewart living. >> her career starts to take off like a rocket.

>> martha is continually underestimated by male executives. you would read about it in the press criticizing her. she wants attention and power. she just doesn't want to stop. >> martha stewart is among those under investigation for suspected insider trading. >> martha stewart is being prosecuted notot because of who she is, but because of what she did. >> she fell fast and hard. >> today is a a shameful day. > to cocomeback was beginnin bebefore she left. she loves to be clever. loves to surprise and defy. >> if you had asked me would there still be interest in martha stewart 20 years from now, i would have said absolutely not. >> the many lives of martha stewart. sunday at 9:00 on cnn. kiking chaharles, wednesday 10:0:00 on cnn. .

♪ ♪ ♪ ♪

♪ ♪