it's almost like some

people on capitol hill don't want to solve the immigration crisis. or could it? tonight, amara coates live. let's be clear, there is no border deal yet. senate negotiators, trying to dot the is, cross the t's, to actually have text. there is no clear sign on when they actually get their. that, of course, has not stopped republicans in the house from declaring them not yet final deal dead on arrival. >> we have a responsibility, a duty, to the american people, to insist that the border catastrophe has ended. to try to whitewash that, or to reduce something for political purposes, that it appears that may be, is not going to cut it. that is a nonstarter in the house. >> now, senate republican, john cornyn, says that the gop is debating whether to ditch the

border deal, and move ahead with a separate bill, with money for ukraine, and israel. one senator, democrat jon tester, has had just about enough of the entire thing. yes, i am quoting here, this place is so dysfunctional -- that was a little too natural, i admit that mom, it is not part of my lexicon normally, but i was quoting when someone directly. there has been a back and forth all day on immigration, but tonight, we go in-depth, on the crisis, and of course, the politics behind all. including, the house. tonight, kicking off their attempt to impeach homeland security secretary, elinda mayorkas, over, you guessed it, immigration. we take it behind what is behind all of the drama tonight. joining me now, right here, cnn capitol hill reporter, melanie zanona, and white house correspondent for the new york times, zolan youngs. so glad that both of you are here today. we are just thinking about the rhetoric, what is happening, the lack of text, dotting their

eyes, crossing their t's, but what is there right now? is there anything to, actually, sink ones teeth into? >> there is no bill text yet, and i would say the deal, right now, is on life support. you have senate republicans who are, now, actively discussing whether to walk away from this deal entirely, and just try to put forward a stand-alone, straightforward bill, just for ukraine, and israel. now, they said no decisions have been made, but there are very serious questions, and doubts, about whether this will come to the senate floor. if it does, speed sir -- speaker mike johnson has zero pathway in the house. what you have is senate republicans, who are reluctant to back the steel, because they know that former president, donald trump, is against, it and don't want to vote against it, and have him bash them. you also know, it is going nowhere in the house anyways. that has caused a lot of frustration inside of the gop. listen to kevin kramer, someone closely aligned to donald trump. >> here is what i worry about.

if we do not try to do something when we have the moment to do something, all of those swing voters, in swing states, for whom the border is their number one priority, have every right to look at us and go, you blew your opportunity. >> the other thing is, we heard from republicans, they are starting to change their tune. first, they said, they want border policy changes on the border, in exchange for ukraine aid. now, some are saying, biden already has the power to act, and there is no need for legislation. clearly, they are moving the goalposts. the likelihood of the idea right now, looking very grim. >> you did this in-depth dive, i was talking to you about it in the green room earlier. thinking about it, it was such a deep dive in the new york times. you go into detail about how, really, this is horrible news,

on top of horrible news, for the biden administration. although it has been decades in the making of an immigration crisis, he chose to lead with compassion, be the foil to his predecessor, donald trump, and it has not worked out. it has been exacerbated. republicans, and democrats, are extremely frustrated. >> that's absolutely right. i have covered this issue, going back to the trump administration, and there is, definitely, a difference between the biden who campaigned for president, talking about this issue, talking about moving away from the trump era policies, talking about expanding asylum, restoring compassionate humanity, when it comes to the approach of the border. >> good to campaign. on >> to go to campaign on, but hard to govern on. we have seen that through key points in this administration. almost as soon as coming into office, you can see a record number of children coming from central america, and the president did say, he was not

going, too rapidly, turn away those children at the border, like president trump did. even at that point, you did have to see a white house delay something like the refugee camp in the country. it lets them keep going. you go to a surge of haitian migrants migrants crossing the border, crowded on a bridge, in del rio. we talked to advisers, we talked to officials in the government, and they said that that moment there, was almost a breaking point for them for this administration. >> you mean the border patrol agents who are on horseback, and all of that? >> you'll see it on horseback. that's a moment or talking about. the president did come out, and condemn that action. what officials, current and former, and that we talked to said that there was a lot of attention on those photos, but not as much on the fact that the administration was, still, putting migrants on planes, and sending them back to haiti. that we know, is in turmoil, at this point. now, port-au-prince, almost 75%,

controlled by gangs. sending some of those asylum seekers there was a breaking point. taking a step back, throughout the biden administration, there has been a push, and a poll, between his advisers. some advocates, or former advocates, who have left the administration. >> in protest, by the way. >> yes, including some who left and protest during that moment, in 2021. then, on the other side, you have people who are more enforcement minded as well. this push and pull his existed throughout the biden administration. how fast to unwind trump era policies, and what to replace them with. to the point where you have a president who came into office, again, pledging compassion, humanity, and expanding asylum programs to one who, just recently, in the last week, echoed language from the former president when he said he was ready to shut down the border. >> when you hear all of that, and you have been covering the hill so thoroughly, you see this given take, this push and pull, this inability to take yes for an answer.

when i say, they go back to having a separate bill for ukraine, and israel, isn't that where you would've started before this frustration happened in the first place? when you hear his description of how much this has been a problem within the administration, is it a wonder that, now, it is leaking outside? >> you are so right to point that out. we should also point out, there were some democrats who were opposed to this emerging senate deal, and the controversies of this proposal. this is the most conservative immigration proposal that has been discussed on capitol hill in, probably, decades. republicans realize that to. at least, privately. they know this, is probably, their last, and best chance, to actually do some of the things that they have campaigned on, and talked about, for so long. yet, they see it slipping away from them right now. if they don't get this done right now, i don't see it getting done at all, at least this congress. >> i always invite the audience into our conversation, i want them to feel as though this is part of our collective platform, and they have been invited to ask him questions from the audience who had been going on my social media to ask you all. here is one of the questions

from the audience. republicans, now, saying that biden does not need legislation, he has executive power, is the question from the viewer who asks, many republican lawmakers say, president biden already has the authority to solve the problem at the border, many democrats say, it must be solved through legislation. what can actually be done? while members of congress squabbling children? >> i think it is important to note, some things that republicans are calling for have been tied up in courts. restoring something like the remain in mexico policy, which forced migrants to wait in mexico. yes, that was executive action, but forced migrants to wait in mexico until their asylum decision was settled, or, rather, asylum case was processed. that's caught up in courts. title 42, which rapidly turned away migrants, was a covid afforded, and in the pandemics over. it's worth noting, for this question, to, yes, republicans are calling for executive action, and i remember, not long ago, republicans were

saying, we need legislative fix. >> about three weeks ago they were saying that. >> as in, yesterday. >> correct. now, on what the administration can do in the meantime, look, there -- this is an intractable issue. there's limited options here. what one thing i would watch out for is, a couple of weeks ago, when border crossings surpassed around 11,000 per day at the southwest border, the administration had a pivotal moment where president biden was on the phone, and we reported on this with the president of lopez obrador. he urged them to send's top officials to mexico. now, some of the things that the united states has done in the past, when confronted with this crisis, yes, there is only limited options you can do at the u.s. mexico border, but i would expect them to continue to push mexico to increase enforcement at the border with mexico, and guatemala. the biden administration has said, they have a more collaborative approach, a more regional approach with some of these countries, to almost stop

migrants before they get to the border. i spent around three months in the region, in our mexico city bureau, and found, that is not always much of a seamless relationship. there are some countries busing migrants. so, i would watch that in terms of what the president can do. working with other nations in the region, deterring migrants from moving forward. >> thank you so much, and thank you to you all for inviting your questions in as well. thank you. tonight, we have been telling you, house republicans are moving that much closer to impeachment. impeaching homeland security secretary, alejandro mayorkas. they claim, he committed high crimes, and misdemeanors. why, for allegedly? mishandling the southern border. even though multiple constitutional experts say, the evidence doesn't reach that high bar. let's bring in cnn contributor, former nixon white house counsel, john dean. john, always good to see you, and i have been, honestly, eager to talk to you about this. every single time i think of the high crime, and misdemeanor

standard, overtimeally in this instance, it has been questioned as to whether it needs it. republicans can claim high crimes, and misdemeanors, put democrats, and others, are arguing that this is a policy dispute, not a high crime misdemeanor. how do you see it? >> laura, there is no defined term for high crimes, and misdemeanors. gerald ford, when he was minority leader before becoming vice president, famously, or infamously, said that a high crime, or a misdemeanor, is whatever the house of representatives votes it is. that is very true. in a very practical sense. there is no standard. it was considered, before, to be a criminal activity. that was the lower, and the norm. however, that has been abandoned, certainly by the current republican thinking. >> we are looking right now what we have this conversation and see inside of the committee room where they are debating this very issue.

we will see how all of this unfolds. the expectation is a resolution, maybe, in the wee hours of the morning. what else is new with congress. no cabinet member, john, has actually been impeached since, what, the granted ministration? that's 150 years ago, i would add. have we lost this sense that impeachment was, absolutely, a last resort? my children, they are nine, and 11, and are well versed in impeachment at this point in time, after having at least two former presidents, and now this. are we long past the time of the means of last resort? >> we, well, cabinet officers have, long, been immune from this kind of politics, and performative politics we are overseeing by the current republicans. this is reaching far beyond the boundaries of what is the norm. is it possible? is it permissible? is it legal? yes. is it acceptable? is it good policy, or good process? no.

this is taking advantage of it, and a very important tool of democracy, and using this as a tactic, and that will weaken democracy, ultimately. . it's kind of shameful what we're seeing here, laura. it is what we have today. in the instance it is warranted, here you remember the word performative. the senate is likely to never reach that two thirds majority to convict mayorkas, so is the performative aspect of this part of the political process to either raise awareness or serve as a notice to other governing bodies? >> i think in this instance it is pure harassment of a cabinet secretary. [laughter] sadly. but what they are doing is, yes, they are all focused on the

issue of what we should do at the border. they are not willing to have a legitimate discussion where they will commit to doing something that is actually useful. so, this is a substitute. they say, they can go home and say, oh, we impeached the secretary of homeland security for not enforcing policy, which they won't really give him the strength or the man power to enforce in an effective way now that the president has said he is ready to go. so, that has not been resolved yet, but this is one of the substitutes they can slide in there as sort of a pretend that they have taken some action for their constituency. i am hopeful that their opponents will run on this, and say this is just pure show, this is just theater, this isn't accomplishing anything. >> i can imagine the retort is pot calling kettle black, even if it is not warranted, john dean, and you and i both know that. thank you so much. we are continuing to watch what

is happening inside that room, and we will bring you the very latest when we have. it john dean, thank you as always. >> thanks, laura. >> a bipartisan effort? note, that is not an oxymoron, but a bipartisan effort, and issue voters really care about, so, why can't congress get a border bill done? that is next.

this place is so god dam dysfunctional, unquote, see mom? i was quoting someone, again. those are the words of democratic senator john chester laying bare the growing acrimony over the state of affairs on, where else? capitol hill. will they be able to actually solve the border crisis? let's talk about it now with cnn political commentator ashley allison, who served as the national coalition's director for the biden harris 2020 campaign, and also former

republican congressman from pennsylvania charlie dent. okay, charlie, you have been hearing about the bipartisan effort, the role of donald trump and all of this, senator, to the speaker mike johnson saying it was laughable, or whatever his phrase was, that they would stop because of trump. but why can't this get done? >> well, because a wing of the house republican gop is trying to insist on a policy outcome. they don't want ukraine funding. so, many of them said, both the house and the senate, that we need a border fix in order to justify a vote for ukraine funding. now they are saying they don't want to the border fix, even though senator james lankford has negotiated right of senator policy that many republicans would like. so, this is a very cynical ploy to simply pull up the deal to benefit donald trump who is stirring the pot, here. he doesn't want a deal. he thinks it helps biden. in the end, it is probably going to get republicans because now they will also own some of this border dysfunction

by failing to do anything. >> but on that point, when you think about that, the blame, will the blame be the failure to accomplish, or the coddling of a candidate? which is the blame? >> well, i think a lot of this has to do with donald trump. donald trump wants to blow up this deal because he sees joe biden benefiting politically. i think that is a miscalculation. biden's job definitely being higher harmed by the border chaos, but republicans are failing to act while there is a crisis going on right now, and i think nikki haley is already attacking donald trump over this. so, i think it is a mistake. but the bigger issue then becomes what happens if there is a failure in ukraine, if putin prevails? well, republicans -- will republicans on that? does biden own the botched withdrawal from afghanistan? this is the problem that the gop faces. it is a very cynical ploy. a lot of republicans in both the house and the senate want to fund ukraine, and if they can't do the border, the

speaker is going to be under tremendous pressure from some of his own members to bring up the ukrainian funding vote. he is going to have to do it, i think. i don't know how you can do nothing. >> and separately, which bringing you back to square one before the discussions around attaching and lumping it in with border security, if that is right back where you started from, what does that mean for the democrats? obviously, republicans could be blamed for a lot of this, but democrats don't escape the wrath of voters say, congress is dysfunctional. >> look, i think we all can start with the beginning point, which is that we need to do something because there is a problem with our border right now and we need a broader approach to immigration reform. the question is, what do democrats do is, it is not a popular answer, but in ten months there are elections. this wing of the republican party that you are talking about, it is up to republicans to get them out because they

are dysfunctional, and they are preventing any type of governing from happening. democrats should go hard at some of these districts, particularly districts -- some of them are super red and will never flip, but the majority in the house is so slim that if democrats play their cards right, they might be able to take the house back. now, the senate is a whole other thing. the math is a lot harder, but when you have people -- this is a split government. we have the democrats having the white house and the senate, but republicans have to take some responsibility, and they are not trying to -- the overwhelming majority are not trying to find a solution. the final thing i will say on this is, republicans often say that joe biden is so radical. he is so to the left. charlie just pointed out, this is a pretty conservative bill. it is not like the progressive wing of the democratic party are running laps of victory, but he is realizing he only has so many levers right now he can pull because it is a split government. democrats are working for

solutions, and some republicans are as well, but will they remain hostage to the folks in the republican party who just don't want solutions at this point? >> will they? >> well, right now it is really up to the speaker. we will see if the senate passes this bill. i hope they do. if they pass this bill and they sent it to the house, the speaker has to make a choice to do nothing on the border mayhem and not to fund ukraine. i think the consequences of doing nothing would be terrible for the gop, both on a geopolitical level with ukraine and certainly as it relates to the border. so, i think they are under -- i think the speaker will be under tremendous pressure to act. he does not have a functional majority in the house to begin with, it is razor that. even if he had a few more votes, he still can't govern. he can't pass an appropriations bill. >> can i make a comment on that? so, we were on capitol hill when the last speaker was going, right? we spent some time together. [laughter] so, he does this deal, is he the ex cabinet mccarthy? >> no, i think republicans would be crazy to vacate the

chair given the political dynamics, but there is a good chance they could lose the house majority anyway. why would they do that? walk up to the eve of the elections? i think he will be safe, but that doesn't mean his right-wing is happy with him if he goes in the minority next session. they might not keep them. >> while i have you here, i got to know about this, cori bush, congressman cori bush has an investigation by the doj, and there are alleging that she hired her now husband as security and of course, you can have bona fide purchases if it is a fair market value. that would be the crux of the investigation, as i understand it. but when you look at this and are seeing not only this investigation, whether it is fruitful or not, menendez being indicted, you have got jamal bowman having the issue with the fire alarm pulling, centers and what is going on. how have you've been looking at your former colleagues as a whole, in terms of how people are viewing the berry institution? i mean, everything points to

and away from the core issues, and to distractions of all the individual issues. >> well, this is always a bad look when there are members of congress under indictment or federal investigation. it is a terrible look, and in the case of cori bush, i don't know if she used federal funds or not, but you really can't use federal funds to pay members of your immediate family. not only did she use federal funds, but if she used campaign funds, well, members of congress have always paid members up their family to run. >> she says she didn't. >> so, i don't know. but it is a terrible look. i was chair of the ethics committee when the public sees members of congress indicted, they get back to the whole culture of corruption issue, and we have of course george santos most recently, others. both sides of the aisle. so, it is a -- on everybody's houses and helps explain why both parties are standing in the eye of the public area right now. >> really, quick what is your reaction? >> well, again, i don't know the details of all of this, and i think with the investigation needs is to play out. what i don't like is the response that a congressman

made, calling her husband a thug, saying it basically sheet was quiet, she wouldn't need so much security. that kind of language is inappropriate. it is not one that people who hold a title of congressman should have, but also not something that human beings should be saying to another human being. i think that many people in our elected offices who have a little more integrity with their words and that. >> mostly on capitol hill, surprise, surprise. who could've imagined the day? actually, charlie, thank you both so much. now, to the question of how do you beat donald trump in court? there are a number of prosecutors and litigants asking that very question. i have someone who did. we will explain his take, next.

in san francisco, two people a day are dying from fentanyl. this is a national crisis that demands new strategies. prop f requires single adults receiving cash assistance to enroll in treatment if they use drugs. i know what it's like to lose family to drug addiction. it's too late for some families. but our city needs to do what's necessary to save lives. please vote yes on prop f. some pretty major legal

decisions are hanging in the balance for the former president donald trump. questions like, is he immune from prosecution? we'll keep bird from primary ballots for being and insurrectionist, although he has not been charged as one? is his new york building empire or career over, and will he have to pay perhaps hundreds of millions of dollars? when all of that very soon, presumably, but in the meantime, prosecutors involved in all those cases take note of mike next guests. he is the lawyer who prosecuted the fraud case against trump university and one. tristan snell is here, and he is the author of the brand-new book, taking down trump 12 roles for prosecuting donald trump by someone who did it successfully. well, prosecutors across the land are now leaning and officially to wonder about this very notion, and i gotta start with this. you actually won eight major

fraud settlement, $25 million, i think, against him. we note that e. jean carroll, $83.3 million plus, i am not besting u.n. anyway, but i do wonder how you viewed that trial? >> i thought that they handled it very well, and of course this is really piggybacking off of the trial from earlier from last year. things were decided in that and were carried over to this next one, and then trump and his lawyer did not make matters better for themself by continuing to try to re-litigate the findings from an earlier trial. all it did was make them look terrible and lacking any kind of contrition in front of this new jury, and they threw a huge punitive judgment at him. >> tell me about his conduct in these courtrooms? you must have been watching and comparing your own experience. what did you make based on your experience suing him? >> you know, we never got to actually have him come to court with us on the other side of it, so we never got presented by

the lovely prospect of having him storm off and a half. that must have looked really good in front of the jury, to. >> why didn't you get there? >> we never got through that point because we never went to trial, so it settled right before trial, and he had not shown up for any of the other proceedings running up to trial. it was just going up against his lawyers. now, that was -- there some similarities between that situation and what you see now to date with habba, but trump really made his situation a lot worse going to court. every time he steps inside the courtroom, he makes the situation worse. >> i asked viewers at the time, their take on questions, and i ask questions of my guests, and i have one for you as well. somebody on instagram following me at laura coates says, which upcoming court decision motion, appeal, or verdict involving donald trump will have the most impact on his behavior? what do you think? >> well, i would actually go and say that that would be the january 6th criminal case which we have kind of forgotten is

coming. we are thinking about scotus and the d.c. circus and all that stuff. they are going to rule, and probably that will result in him seeing he is not immune, trump is not immune. and we will actually have china on this. we were trying to have it as early as march 4th, five weeks from now. i think we might be talking about it happening a few weeks after that, but i think we are talking a delay of weeks, not months. so if i am going to answer that question, it will be, i think we are going to get a guilty verdict on at least one count in that d.c. case, and nothing like criminal imprisonment to change someone's behavior. >> well, right now he has been very quiet with 83 point $3 million of a verdict. we have not heard much from him, which is in stark process -- contrast to him in the past. i wonder if this is a monetary incentive as well. you have also written about this in your book, where we might think about teflon don, you think about stonewalling, instead. why do you think? >> i think the stonewalling is definitely part of his playbook which i go through a lot in my book, and then, how do you overcome his playbook.

the stonewalling and the delays and the character assassination, the counterattacks, that is all part of his playbook there, and you have got to be able to overcome that. e. jean carroll and her legal team led by roberta kaplan did a massive job been able to handle all that. it didn't pay any attention to, that they just kept pursuing their case. i think it is james and new york, the new york a.g. has also done a great job of that, not paying any attention to the counterattacks and the clown show that shows up with a lot of these cases. that is really a lot of the key to beating him, is you can't let him make it about something else. you need to focus on core facts, your law, argued a case in front of the court, just keep pushing, don't give up, don't get distracted, and you see what the outcomes are that we are not getting. they are following the playbook that the a.g.'s office originally came up with in the trump university case, and you now see the results. >> tell me about d.a. fani willis, because obviously there is a distraction happening and georgia.

will trump capitalize on her being the story? >> i believe personally that there is a very good chance that trump is part of all of that. i don't believe it is just one of the other defendants happened to come up with this idea that they would just go after that and be the ex-wife, or soon-to-be ex-wife of this one gentlemen suddenly decided to make it an issue. it very much looks like the trump playbook in action to come up with some sort of sideshow thing that can hopefully divert everyone's attention. so, i think the key there is for willis, is not to bring it up as all, just don't say anything about it, keep pushing ahead. the best response she could make would be to flip another witness because she has done a very good job of that. that would be the best counter move, to be, i am just continuing on with my case, your move. >> wow, well, that is checkmate or not, is anyone's guess. really interesting, with a great book. the book again is, taking down trump: 12 rules for prosecuting donald trump by someone who did it successfully.

his name? tristan snell. thank you so much. there are also big developments in the trial of the mother of the michigan school shooter, ethan crumbley, including newly-released video of her in the back of a police car after the shooting. i will tell you about the dramatic day in court, next. >> he has never done anything wrong. this is [bleep] up. i will never see him again.

another day of shocking

testimony in the involuntary manslaughter trial for jennifer crumbley. newly-released police video shows her in the moments after her son, ethan, carried out his deadly shooting at oxford high school in michigan, telling police, quote, we are not that people. we also got to see photos from inside the crumbley home, and you can see two bullet riddled gun range targets hanging on ethan crumbleys bedroom wall, and a poll of spent shell casings on his bedside table. inside the parents bedroom, a gun safe that held to firearms, the password to that gun safety? the default code, zero, zero, zero. we also heard costs money from the former team up students at that oxford high school. he spoke of the meeting that he had with ethan crumbley's parents on the day of the shooting. that meeting was over concerns raised from this drawing that included a picture of a gun and the words, the thoughts won't stop. help me. the dean explained that he

returned ethan crumbley's backpack to him without searching it because there was no reason to suspect any wrongdoing, according to the testimony. the bag contained the weapon used in the shooting. let's talk about it now with cnn legal analyst and x defense journey extraordinary, joey jackson. joey, i have been thinking about this trial, the testimony that came in today, i thought of you. the dean also had this to say today on the stand. listen. >> did jennifer crumbley effort tell you she had given her son a nine millimeter handgun just days before the strike was created? >> she did not, no. with >> that have been important to you? >> absolutely, yes. >> would that have completed the full picture? >> it would have, and it would have completely changed the process that we followed. >> how do you think the jury will see all of that? >> laura, nice to be with you. this cuts in both ways. and the first instance, a jury

can evaluate this and say, this is the school misplacing responsibility. this is the dean. the dean had a recent to know and see there was a photo, a gun in the photo, blood in the photo. sir, you had an opportunity to stop this. you saw and noticed that photograph, didn't you? you had the ability to see that bag. you have the ability to rummage through that back. this is the photo, here. you said on the stand that you learned -- if you want about a gun it would have changed the equation. did you ask that question? should you have asked that question? could you have asked that question? and so, on the one hand, it is the school deflecting blame and saying, paid, we didn't know. on the other hand, you have the school, you are the dean, and you should know. these are going to be the arguments. and laura, as we see the photo there, with respect to the bullets and the house and everything else that we are looking at, this also cuts both ways. and in terms of the photo we were looking at just before with the bullets and the pictures, the reality is that

we are a big second amendment country. people have a bridge to bear arms, not 15 year olds, but the reality is that people use weapons. if you have something in your home which reflects bullet casings or the fact that you went to the shooting range and shot up different things, so what? the reality is that people do that. is that indicative of a person who is going to go to a school and is it foreseeable that just because you shoot with your family as a hobby equal to that? these are things that certainly are fair game to argue. the prosecution will argue it for its purposes, the defense will say it was our right to do that, and she just had no idea that her son was capable of this, and that is what you are seeing. >> when i hear you, i think about foreseeability, who had a duty to act and search, and what was knowable at the time. this is going to be the crux of the entire argument, and again, she is being tried separately from her husband, that dean is

not on trial, and i sense a moment of pointing fingers in different directions, to use the term deflection in this instance. we have seen a little bit behind the scenes as to whether or not she was on notice, that she could expect this behavior. jennifer crumbley's former boss testified, discussing these texts with her on the day of the shooting. joey, here is what crumbley said. quote, i need my job. please don't judge me for what my son did. what do you think about that text making its way into evidence in terms of how the jury might see this? obviously, they are going to be scrutinizing everything that happened that day, her demeanor, her words, now her texts, and her concern about her livelihood. >> without question, first to get to your issues before which you summed up perfectly. foreseeability is at issue. to what extent did you have a gun that a child has is it

reasonable foreseeable that a child would do this? you could argue it is. to the issue of notice, weren't you on notice if your since maladies and did you do enough? you were. but did the school do enough? then, you get to the issues of the text that you just showed. that will cut both ways, also. on the one hand, the jury could say, how selfish of you. you are thinking about your jobh carnage at the school for precious lives of children are lost and you are worried about your job, really? how dare you. on the other hand, people know and understand that self preservation is important. people need jobs to survive, to live, to support themselves, and should not be judged, right, by what their children do. so, again, like all evidence, it will be evaluated and spawned and one plea if you are the prosecutor and another way if you are the defense. >> joey jackson, seeing both sides of the issue. the jury is going to have to weigh all of this. thank you so much.

we will keep on this story, it is that important. thank you, joey jackson. >> always. >> up next, remembering broadway icon chena rivera. ♪ ♪ ♪

♪ ♪ ♪ i can't help it, i am singing with her. she painted the town every

imaginable color. tonight, broadway is mourning the loss of one of its most iconic and pioneering actresses, the great chita rivera. her publicist tell cnn that rivera died in new york following a brief illness. she was 91 years old. her career spanned decades as a singer, as a dancer, and as an actress, and frankly, as a start. she was the original anita and the 1957 broadway musical, westside story. she starred in 18 broadway shows and won her first tony's award in 1984 for the rank. she won a second tony award in 1990 34 kiss of the spider woman. ♪ ♪ ♪ rivera became so legendary that she amassed heaps of award during her life. it would take me all day to

talk about it. in 2002, she became the first hispanic woman to receive the prestigious kennedy center's honor. former president obama awarded her the presidential medal of freedom in 2009. and in 2018, she got a special tony award for lifetime achievement. now, along with rivera's rise to stardom in new york city, she also for it's a part four other latino artists as a proud puerto rican. she entertained generations for more than 60 years. i chita rivera, what a life. ♪ ♪ ♪

in san francisco, two people a day are dying from fentanyl. this is a national crisis that demands new strategies. prop f requires single adults receiving cash assistance to enroll in treatment if they use drugs. i know what it's like to lose family to drug addiction. it's too late for some families.

but our city needs to do what's necessary to save lives. please vote yes on prop f.