the news continues. "the source" with kaitlan "the source" with kaitlan collins starts now.

-- captions by vitac -- www.vitac.com and tonight, straight from "the source," breaking news as trump's longtime moneyman, adam weisselberg, is now in talks to plead guilty again, this time for allegedly lying on the twns stand at trump's civil fraud trial. in another landmark trial we've watched today, the mother of ethan crumbly took the stand in her own defense. and a mea culpa from the pentagon, as lloyd austin faced reporters for the first time since his secretive hospital stay, apologizing for not telling the president, saying, quote, i did not handle this right. i'm kaitlan collins, and this is "the source." tonight, the man who spent decades helping run donald trump's family business, allen weisselberg, could be on the verge of pleading guilty for the

second time. this time to a perjury charge, we are told. the 76-year-old was the chief financial officer of the trump organization for decades. he went to jail at rite gers for about 100 days last year. that was for his role in running a 15-year tax fraud scheme at the trump organization. now tonight there is new reporting from "the new york times" and confirmed by cnn that weisselberg is in talks to potentially plead guilty to a purge si charge, this time related to trump's civil fraud trial, where he, allen weisselberg, would have to admit he lied on the stand during his own testimony. the timing is key, as we are learning more about this new reporting, because right now we're waiting on the judge in this case to decide what the penalty is, essentially how much donald trump ohs. reminder, the attorney general in the closing arguments asked for north of $370 million and is a ruling that could threaten trump's entire real estate

empire. i'm joined by the senior editor at "forbes." it was his reporting that exposed weisselberg's alleged lies under oath on the stand. dan, when you look at this did and we don't know, i should note, which statement it is that could go for this perjury charge, if he does plead guilty here. you noted there are emails and notes from him that are believed to be center of this. what did you pick up on, and what do you believe he lied about as he was trying to distance himself from trump's financial statements? >> yes, and remember the trial was about trump lying about his net worth. and one of the key examples of that is that trump was claiming that his pent house was 30,000 square feet when in fact it was 10,996 square feet. allen weisselberg was on the stand, trying to explain that he really had nothing to do with this. and as he was making that claim, it was obvious to me that he was

lying. i went back through our notes and could track years of conversations that he had had with our reporters, where he was really focused on the penthouse, where he was trying to claim that it was 30,000 square feet or even 33,000 square feet, i think at one point donald trump had it. and he was trying to claim that it was wildly overvalued. so, this is clear documented stuff that you can say, you know, he's claiming one number, the documents show another number. and he was lying. >> you know, you noted in that story that you had documents that prosecutors didn't. did you hear from their office after that? >> so, their office did go back and look through documents with the trump organization to try to do an additional, sort of, forensic look. and they put some paperwork in the docket about that. they did not come after us or anything. but everything that we have is

out there. you know, we've released tapes of trump lying about the size of his penthouse. we've put out the notes of weisselberg's conversations over the years. all of this stuff has all been laid out and is very clear. >> it's a remarkable piece of journalism. dan alexander, thank you for that. >> for more on this breaking story, we have former federal prosecutor elie honig here as well. elie, you heard what dan said. this was a groundbreaking article that pretty flatly stated they believed allen weisselberg had lied. all of this is coming as judge engron has not decided yet. he said by tend of january. that was yesterday. wasn't definitive. could that play a role in why we're not hearing from him. >> absolutely. if i'm in judge engoron's place here, i slam on the brakes and say i'm not going to rule until i know the specifics of this. i think it's likely the judge

discredited adam weisselberg's testimony anyway because it was contradicted. you have to know this as a judge. if you're going to issue a ruling and it turns out weissalal berg lied, that's going to hurt the trump organization when it comes time for the verdict. >> how could it bode for donald trump himself? >> it's a problem for donald trump because he's going to be on the receiving end of this verdict. there's an important point in the recording that weisselberg's deal does not necessarily involve allen weisselberg cooperating against donald trump. that doesn't surprise me. this guy is not in position to cooperate. i've cooperated with really bad guys. but the problem is, when you have an inveterate liar, multiple times convicted, you can't ask a jury to believe him. >> allen weisselberg fiercely loyal to donald trump, i should note. i think one thing we forget about is he got a $2 million severance package that required

him not to cooperate with any law enforcement. >> i don't think that's enforceable to say you won't cooperate with law enforcement. it certainly undermines what prosecutors are trying to do. i guess that can mean a subpoena for trial or anything. that's a shocking detail to put into a severance agreement, in addition to the amount. clearly trump and his people are trying to keep weisselberg in the fold here because they're worried about him flipping. >> i should note, he has not agreed to this yet. he's just in talks to do so. it could fall apart. elie hoenig, thank you -- elie witness. >> i would be a witness if i saw something. >> you would be a great witness on the stand. i do want to turn to conservative attorney and one of donald trump's fiercest critics, anyone who watches "the source" would know. george conway is here. george, if this does come to fruition for allen weisselberg, the theme would be here in both guilty pleas, that he was lying on donald trump's behalf, would it not? >> yes. and it's not surprising because that's what donald trump does to

people. we've seen numerous circumstances where trump has gotten people to lie or obstruct justice or perform illegal acts to protect him, even sometimes when he hasn't even asked them to do it. they understand what he wants them to do. you see all these people who were indicted, including his own chief of staff at the white house in georgia. we've seen michael cohen. we've seen weisselberg previously. we -- it's just donald trump is just a cloud of deception. and he is -- he creates a culture of lying and deception and illegality wherever he goes. and if you are associated with him, you have to be very, very careful. you're taking a risk. i mean, there are lawyers who are losing their license, threatening -- being threatened with losing their licenses for defending him. and it just -- it never, ever stops with him. he asks, he expects people to do illegal things for him. >> here's what i'm confused by,

which is allen weisselberg was in jail for 100 day in rikers just a year ago. he testified on the stand after that. there were emails and documents to back up or to contradict what he was saying, why would he lie? >> it's just beyond me. i think that -- i -- he's doing it because he wants to protect his boss or he doesn't want his boss to get mad at him. he doesn't want retribution from his boss. i mean, it's -- these are -- you know, the people who work for donald trump are, kind of, like abused family members in some ways. they shudder at the thought of displeasing him. they're afraid of retaliation. and they instinctively end up doing the wrong thing because that's what donald trump expects them to do. >> the district attorney in manhattan, alvin bragg, may be the only person to bring a case against trump this year. we don't know what's going to

happen with the other indictments. but we know that trump's team is focused on slowing them down. could something like this strengthen his hand, bragg's hand, going into that trial? >> i think indirectly. i mean, this does not directly impact the charges that are involved in the case that d.a. bragg has brought. that's the falsification of documents relating to the hush money that donald trump paid through michael cohen to stormy daniels, the porn star. so, this doesn't directly relate to that. but i think it's a very, very important warning to any witness who's called to testify in that case on either side that they better not lie because if they lie, you know, they could end up like weisselberg, at rikers or someplace unpleasant like that. >> it's a remarkable development in this story. george conway, thank you for that. elie, we don't know what's going to happen with this and whether or not he's taking it. but big picture, how do you see

it? >> i think george makes a good point there. i think that this actually will tie trump's hands a bit at the manhattan d.a.'s trial. >> why? >> because if they were planning on calling allen weisselberg to say, for example, donald trump nothing to do with the way these hush money payments were logged. it was me, the cfo, and michael cohen, the star witness, he can't do that now. he's neutralize. . >> it could deny trump a helpful witness. >> absolutely. you're not calling him as a prosecutor. the guy's going to have at least one conviction and probably two for perjury if he takes this plea. but it also means he can't come in as some sort of surprise witness to try to tank the case in trump's favor. >> it's remarkable. we'll see what happens here elie honig. and to everyone here tonight, thank you for joining us on that breaking news. ahead, we also witnessed historic testimony of a different kind today. the mother of the michigan school shooter, ethan crumbly. she took the stand in her own defense. prosecutors trying to hold her accountable for her son's

murders. also tonight we have a one-on-one interview with united auto workers shawn fain. he spent the day with president biden and has some keywords about what his union's endorsement could mean and what any other unions considering backing trump, what it could mean for them.

. for the first time since the murders of four students at oxford high school in 2021, the deadliest school shooting, i should note, in michigan's history, we just heard directly from the mother of their killer at a historic manslaughter trial that is underway right now. this is 45-year-old jennifer crumbley. she took the stand today in her own defense. it's a first of its kind case. it could set a precedent for whether parents can be found criminally culpable for their children's crimes. ethan crumbley was 15 at the time of the attack. he was sentenced last year to life in prison without parole. the prosecution is arguing that his mother and father, james crumbley, who will be tried soon as well, are also responsible for the murders that happened that day. jennifer crumbley is accused of gross negligence, including failing to get her son the

mental health treatment she needed, despite warning signs, warning signs she claims she didn't see. that includes disturbing texts that were sent by her son, journal entries, including one where ethan crumbley had written, i have zero help for my mental problems and it's causing me to shoot up the school. another chilling one that said, i want help, but my parents won't listen to me. prosecutors offered evidence, which they argue shows that she did know about what her son planned to do. this is what she said when she was being questioned, i should note, by her own attorney. >> are you a failure as a parent? >> i don't think i'm a failure as a parent. but at that time, i guess i didn't see -- i felt bad that ethan was sad at those things, and i guess i just -- i don't know. i felt like i failed somewhere. >> so do you have reason to know your son was a danger to anyone

else? >> no. as a parent, you spend your whole life trying to protect your child from other dangers. you never -- you never would think you have to protect your child from hurting somebody else. >> not a failure and no signs of danger, she insists. listen to her answer when she was asked, though, does she wish that she had done anything differently. >> no, i don't. i mean, of course i look back after this all happened and i've asked myself if i would have done anything differently, and i wouldn't have. >> a remarkable moment only on day one of her on the stand. joining me here tonight, criminal defense attorney and former prosecutor, mark o'mara. i'm so glad to have both of your legal minds on this. as you listen to jenner in

crumbley, as attorneys were talking about her parenting and that day, do you think it helped her case, from what you heard? >> i don't think that statement where she said she would have done anything differently helped her at all. she spent most of the time on the witness stand today trying to explain why the jurors shouldn't believe the literal interpretation of those text messages, those very damning text messages, particularly as it relates to the text messages about her son seeing people in their home or perhaps hallucinating. she tried to give this story that, you know, they played some game in the house about ghosts and that this was all a part of a larger prank. i think it's going to be very difficult for the jurors to accept that this mother, who, according to the prosecutors, spent more time interested with horses or spending more time on her horses than she did with her child. obviously bad parenting isn't a crime. but when you look at the warning

signs that were there, the flashing warning signs and the lack of response from this parent, i think jurors are going to have to grapple with her testimony. and they may determine that she didn't do everything she could to prevent these horrific murders from happening. >> mark, to pick up on that, i mean, where is the line of bad parenting and negligence? >> so, we're about to find out with the verdict in this case. we know it's on a spectrum, right? if you didn't spend all the time in homework and your child is not getting as, is that bad parenting? if you're not doing everything for football, bad parenting? no. but when signs of danger show up, mental health concerns are there, ignorance some of these things she had to be aware of, even some of that which came out in the evidence which support the idea she knew or should have known better, at some point it starts leaning towards the end of the spectrum that the state

has to get this jury to. that is that willful blindness, the true lack of caring about what was going on. and i think she helped herself a bit with that in this case. the first hour spent humanizing her and the relationship with her son. that was all great. but the defense -- i don't think they did a great enough job for her to acknowledge what she did wrong. and i will tell you, in my opinion, the answer to that question should have been, i would have done anything different knowing now what the result was, rather than this, sort of, defense of herself, i did everything i think i should have done. >> and aretha, the other thing she did say was she kept going back to her husband, seeming to pin blame on him. they're having separate trials. you know, at one moment, she was asked about just the gun itself. who handled the gun itself? and this is what she told the court. >> who is responsible for storing the gun? >> my husband is. >> okay.

explain why you say he's responsible for that role. >> i just didn't feel comfortable being in charge of that. it was more his thing. that's why i let him handle that. >> do you think that's a strategy, areva? >> no. i think that's a very damning response. and picking up on what mark said, this mother wants you to believe that everybody but her is responsible. it's the husband's fault. it's the school's fault. and if you're not comfortable with guns, as a parent, why are guns in your home? you can't advocate your responsibility as a mother to the father. she had an equal responsibility to make sure that her son did not have access to a gun. and some of her testimony throughout the day was she didn't know where the gun was. she didn't know where the lock to the cable was. she talked about it being in a beer stein, maybe in the kitchen. she wasn't sure. and i know jurors are sitting there thinking, you have a 15-year-old that bought a gun that you and your husband bought a gun for for christmas.

you may not have walked into that store, but as the parent, you are equally responsible. >> and it just all comes down to not just what happened before that day, mark, but also that day in the meeting with the school counselor that happened, the morning of the shooting, where she was contradicting the prosecution and how they framed this, which is that essentially she just, kind of, down played it more than the emphasis they put on it. how does a jury see that, that there is a meeting with the parents, with a school counselor over concerns of a drawing from the 15-year-old at that time? >> no question half of those jurors are parents. they know you have to be aware in looking for those nuances of how your child is doing. when she walks into a meeting and is shown that type of evidence, that type of information, the idea that she wouldn't have done anything other than take care of the child is, sort of, unbelievable. the idea that she had to go back

to work or she down played it or i know she's depressed or it was just him acting out. right now the jury is going to go back in that room and say, is she a grossly negligent parent? and i think most of what she was doing today, lack of acceptance of responsibility is, sort of, feeding into the prosecution case. and we're going to hear about that in closing argument. and we're really going to hear about it in her cross-examination tomorrow. >> and that starts tomorrow. we'll obviously be watching it closely. i know you two as well. thank you both for joining tonight. >> thanks, kaitlan. up next, president biden returned to a state that was critical to his 2020 win, but he is now facing backlash from michigan's arab american voters, as he's courting big labor unions. we'll be joined by the head of the united auto workers, who has endorsed him and was with him right there today. shawn fain is next.

in order for small businesses to thrive, they need to be smart, efficient, savvy. making the most of every opportunity. that's why comcast business is introducing the small business bonus. for a limited time you can get up to $1000 prepaid card with qualifying internet. yup, $1000. so switch to business internet from the company with the largest fastest reliable network. give your business a head start in 2024

with this great offer. plus, ask how to get up to $1000 prepaid card with qualifying internet. president biden addressing the surging violence against palestinians in the west bank with a new executive order that he issued today, imposing sanctions on four israeli

settlers accused of assaulting palestinian civilians who live there. for years, palestinian west bank residents have faced violence from the israeli settlers, but it's hit record levels since the october 7th hamas terror attack. this order today comes as president biden was on his way to michigan, home, i should note, to the nation's largest concentration of muslim americans, many of whom are furious, threatening to withhold their support in november. jeff zeleny joins me now. jeff, you've been in michigan, where biden was today, meeting with autoworkers,, i should note, but you've been talking to workers. what did they say about the president's visit? >> the president's visit was a bit of safe harbor, surrounding himself with people who are already supporters. the concern here for some

democrats and supporters is what is he trying to do to win over those who are concerned and not supporters now. it's what the president did not do today, was try and neutralize any of the anger and real distrust and discontent in the arab american community here, which is so significant to his coalition that he won with. but we spent time talking to a variety of voters, including someone who worked for president biden last time. he was a field organizer in his campaign. now he's campaigning against president biden. >> they're telling us that as arab americans, as muslim americans, as minority communities who are not supporting biden that we are the reason we're not going to get another four years of donald trump. the reality is joe biden is the reason we're going to get another four years of donald trump. >> there's nothing joe biden or the administration could do at this point to change your mind? >> there's nothing. it's 30,000 lives too late. >> and we do know that white house officials in the coming weeks are expected to come and meet here with some arab

american and muslim leaders here in deer born, michigan. but that did not happen today with the president. he zioned that executive order. the first step, i'm told, in trying to neutralize some of this anger. but kaitlan, the geography of this visit today, so interesting. the president chose to go just north of detroit. of course that is the home of the reagan democrats, where so many working class voters became republicans. now they are trump voters here as well. so, the president stayed there in much safer terrain. of course between now and november he'll have to campaign in other places, perhaps in hostile ones as well. kaitlan? >> key votes he will need. jeff zeleny on the ground in michigan. joining me now is the united auto workers president, shawn fain. it's great to have you here, mr. feain. you said you believe a majority of your members would not end up voting for president biden in november. what does that breakdown actually look like, and what are you hearing from these members?

>> you know, first of all, thanks for having me, kaitlan. and, you know, look, i'm very confid confident an overwhelming majority of our members will vote for president biden in the upcoming election, especially just given the stark contrast. the one thing we've done throughout my presidency is we deal with facts. and with our contract campaign, the big three, with that fight, with the strikes, we put the facts out there. when you look at the facts in this presidential election, with the two leading candidates, you couldn't have a more stark contrast. i mean, you have president biden who are has a lifetime of serving others and standing with workers and with the working class, and you have president trump, who has a lifetime of serving himself and standing against everything the working class is for. he serves the billionaire class. so, it's a -- you know, when you look at the track record of the two and the body of work they've done, particularly with auto in particular, it's a simple decision for us on where we

think we should go. >> so, you think it's the reverse. you think a majority will vote for president biden, not for trump, if he's the nominee? >> yeah. oh, yes. no. by far. >> okay. >> majority will vote for president biden. actually, when i was interviewing the other day, when i'm going back and forth, it was a misstatement. >> okay. that's great. i'm glad we got you to clarify that because i do think that's really important. you're talking to these workers all the time. you were in michigan with president biden today. one thing i noticed obviously is a former white house reporter, the white house and the campaign kept the specific details of where president biden was going in michigan private. as you know, he's been encountering a lot of protests when he is on the road over his stance in the israel-hamas war. you've called for a ceasefire. did you and president biden talk about that today? what did you say to him? >> we've spoken to the white house and talked about our position and that we feel there needs to be a lot more work done

there. and, you know, look the uaw has always stood for peace, and we've called for a ceasefire. we're going to keep pushing. and, you know, i believe that they'll do the right thing. and, you know, i believe michigan will deliver for president biden. you know, we can't afford to go backwards. a trump presidency would be a disaster. >> by "right thing," do you mean call for a ceasefire? >> well, i mean, yes, obviously more action needs to be -- needs to happen there. so, what's happening over there is just wrong. this is about humanity. and, you know, innocent people are being killed. women, children. and it's senseless. and there's no excuse for it. >> you mentioned former president trump, and he has not been happy since you endorsed president biden. he's been blasting you and criticizing you. he just met with teamsters,

which is one of the biggest unions that represents truck drivers, pilots, others. the question is, who will sean o'brien, from teamsters, endorse. and as he's weighing that, i wonder what it would say to you if he does endorse trump and what it would say for the labor movement overall. >> i -- i am not going to try to answer for sean o'brien. but i would 100% bet that -- i can't see any way a union would endorse donald trump for president. the man stands against everything that working class people stand for, the organized labor stands for. you know, look, they chose to entertain visiting with candidates, and it's a path they chose. i saw no point in it because i look at the track record of donald trump. i mean, his two favorite words are "you're fired." he's the boss. he represents the billionaire class. that's his base. so, when you look at the two

candidates on our end, joe biden has a history of betting on the american worker, stand being the american worker, just as he did in our strike this year. when donald trump was president, gm was on strike for 40 days. donald trump was awol. he never said a word, never did a thing. when it came to saving communities, donald trump didn't do a thing to help lords town assembly when that factory closed in ohio. we took one plant that was going to close. now we have two plants that are going to be built there. and on top of that, we saved the community. the contrast couldn't be any more different between these two. when it comes to organized labor, i can't fathom anybody would stand for donald trump. >> trump, i remember when he told people to keep their homes, not to sell them. shawn fain -- >> don't tell your houses. >> it's great to have you here and thank you for joining us on "the source." >> oh, thank you. up next, the latest from the 2024 campaign trail.

tonight, nikki haley is going after former president donald trump, tying his legal troubles to his campaign cash. a lot of it, $50 million, to be exact, according to records from the ftc has not actually been spent on campaigning at all. >> get ready to spend more campaign dollars on legal fees because those court cases have just started.

he's got two in march and they go out for the rest of the year. it is unconscionable to me that a candidate would spend $50 million in legal fees. it explains why he's not doing many rallies. he doesn't have the money to do it. >> here tonight, republican strategist and pollster kristen anderson. also joining me, democratic strategist and adviser to the biden 2020 campaign, alons i can't johnson. i wonder what you make of this new tactic from haley going after trump in his court cases, but doing it so by arguing about how he's using fund-raiser dollars on his legal fees? >> i imagine that that comment she made about the fact that, well, she's not doing rallies because he's spending all his money on legal fees has got to get under his skin. he is somebody who is known for always trying to say, i'm the richest guy around. i'm the one that's got all the resources. and she's trying to continue to prosecute this case around electability. unfortunately for haley, this

has not really worked in the republican primary so far. donald trump continues to win the majority of voters, including in her home state of south carolina. and so while i think personally she's right, that donald trump is a risky proposition in a general election, in part because of his legal peril, republican voters have been a little bit more immune to that argument thus far. >> i'm glad you brought up what she keeps saying, this electability argument, which is her essentially arguing she could beat biden and donald trump can't. when you look at new cnn polling that came out just today, it shows a lead for haley if she was the republican nominee. new matchup, she beat biden 52-39. but trump is 49-45, obviously a lot closer. why is that an argument that isn't necessarily resonating with voters? >> well, it's because of this voting base, the maga republican voting base. there's this cult of personality. they love donald trump. they believe what he says. and it's interesting, as we were

talking about the money piece, he's using his campaign funds that is overwhelmingly raised by these small dollar donors that she's constantly talking to and saying, i'm fighting for you. so, nikki haley is trying to break all of that apart and tell them the truth about who this man is and that she is using them. but she can't seem to break through because they hear his rhetoric. they believe it, right? there's going to be studies and studies after this, after the republican party hopefully dumps donald trump. but until then, it's -- voters who continue to say that they want donald trump. and they don't like when people, whether democrats or republicans, go against him. >> well, the other numbers, kristen, that i was looking at is how much money nikki haley has. obviously that is the life blood of any campaign. most people who drop out of races, it's because they run out of money. but what we saw from yesterday's report is that she still has $14.6 million available to her. i mean, what does that say to you about even if the polling

numbers aren't there, the financial numbers are. how much longer does she stay in, do you believe? >> certainly. look, even though she is not winning a majority of republican voters in iowa, in new hampshire, unlikely in south carolina, she's still pulling in arguably four in ten republicans. by staying in the race, even though i think the odds she becomes the republican nominee are almost zero, she's allowing that 40 or so percent of the party that does not want donald trump to keep having a voice, to keep making their voice heard, and to make a statement, hey, republican party, you need us just as much as anything else. >> we'll have to leave it there. kristen solstice anderson. great to have you on "the source." coming up also there's an apology today from the defense secretary. many questions still remain, though, about what lloyd austin did not say. we'll tell you what he did right after this.

with american forces under attack in the middle east, the defense secretary, lloyd austin,

held his first news conference since being secretly hospitalized from prostate cancer and complications from it a month ago. also apologized to reporters in the room today for keeping the country and the commander in chief in the dark about his condition for days. >> i want to be crystal clear, we did not handle this right, and i did not handle this right. i should have told the president about my cancer diagnosis. i should have also told my team and the american public. and i take full responsibility. >> austin said that he acted out of a desire for privacy, that he was shaken by his diagnosis. i should note, there were questions today he did not answer, one of those was whether his top deputy, the one who was in charge of the pentagon while he was under anesthesia, knew about it. >> i think in terms of what she knew and didn't know, i think we

should probably let that come out of the review. >> i'm joined tonight by someone who has held that same job, former defense secretary under former president trump, mark esper. and secretary esper, it is great to have you because you know what it's like to be at that lectern. i wonder if you're satisfied with what you heard from secretary austin today. >> well, good evening, kaitlan. first of all, he did the right thing by coming out and acknowledging that he had made some errors in judgment on how it was handled. and he took full responsibility for it, which is what we would expect him to do. that was good to see that. however there were and remain a lot of unanswered questions, questions that he was asked today, tough ones by some members of the press that he didn't fully answer. and there are more to follow. you know, the chairman of the house armed services committee, righ mike rogers, has issued an

inquiry a couple of weeks ago. and he has promised to invite secretary austin to come to the hill to testify. this isn't going away any time soon. and i think in front of the committee, a lot or some of those questions raised by the press, those threads will be pulled pretty long by members of congress. >> what kind of questions are those? a lot of this controversy had to deal with the fact that so many people didn't know that he was even in the hospital. >> yeah. i think it begins with, you know, some would argue he had three opportunities to notify the president and his staff and he didn't. the first was the diagnosis. the second was going in for the procedure. and then the third was the rushing to the intensive care unit in early january. so, that's number one. i think number two, then, will be, you know, what authorities were transferred? who knew they were transferred? and were they told of his condition? because when authorities are transferred, it matters whether or not, you know, the person, the secretary of defense is in

for a two-hour procedure or is in the intensive care grurnt th unit for three days. in the case of secretary of defense hicks, arguably it would have prompted her to come immediately back to washington, d.c. to be at the pentagon, where you have all the resources available to you, you have the full staff available as well. so, to me, those are some of the principle questions that are out there. the other one that was asked today that he addressed pretty straightforwardedly was did he order anybody on his staff not to tell the white house, the president, et cetera. he said no, he never gave any orders along those lines. >> the other thing he was asked about, naturally part of why there was so much -- so many headlines about this is given what's going on in the middle east. and right now the president said the other day that he had decided how to respond after u.s. forces were killed by that deadly drone attack in jordan. and today austin said this of the iranian proxies. he said, quote, they have a lot of capability. i have a lot more. he didn't telegraph what the

white house is going to do. but i wonder what you think the window for a response looks like here, given, you know, now we're at thursday night, these attacks happened on sunday. >> yes. first of all, on the first part, you're right. i mean, the united states forces were engaged in active combat operations. so, it raises that question as well once again about the chain of command. did it remain unbroken during his absence. and those will be the key questions i think that the house and others will get to. keep in mind, there's an internal inquiry ongoing as well at the pentagon. on the broader issue, he took a number of questions today about this as well, is the response to the killing of american soldiers on sunday in jordan. very tragic, of course. look, i'm surprised it hasn't happened sooner. it tells me that maybe the pentagon is maneuvering forces in place to either conduct or sustain offensive operations. having been in that position, i know that's what i had to do and

had done. and so i think once those things are in place, the commanders are briefed, maybe there's some coordination with allies. then i think the campaign, if you will, will begin. and i think what they're talking about in terms of multitier, they're talking about striking, i assume, the proxy groups responsible and the number one designee right now seems to be kataeb, hezbollah. but also iranian facilities and iranian personnel, which i've been arguing for the last four or five days. you have to hit them. you have to have a tough response. we can see already through the media, through senior iranian officials, that they're already backing off a little bit. they're saying they don't want war. they're changing their strategy. they've gone to actually a commander, a quds force commander went to meet with leaders of kataib hezbollah, told them to back off. they subsequently made a statement they were going to do the same. there's a lot going on there. it's good to see that it looks like we are having a deterrent effect so far.

the proof will be in the pudding, the scale, scope, and impact of the attacks, these strikes. and then we'll go from there and see whether we can sustain the deterrents. >> thank you very much for joining tonight. back with more news in just a moment.

so, you've got the power of xfinity at home. now take it outside with xfinity mobile. like speed? it's the fastest mobile service around... and right now, you can get a free line of our most popular unlimited plan. all on the most reliable 5g network nationwide.

ditch the other guys and you'll save hundreds. get a free line of unlimited intro for 1 year when you buy one unlimited line. and for a limited time, get the new samsung galaxy s24 on us.

tonight, republicans are demanding punishments that can't happen for words that a member of congress didn't actually say. i'm talking about democratic congresswoman ilhan omar, who recently addressed supporters in minneapolis. she was speaking somali. the topic was a controversial court deal that would give a break away region of northern somalia access to the street. an ambassador from that break away region posted her comments online. the translation claimed she said this, the u.s. government will only do what somalian in the u.s. tell them to do. they will what we want and nothing else. they must follow our orders, and that is how we will safeguard the interests of somalia.

cnn translated her speech. she said, the united states government would do what we tell them to do. we need to have confidence as somali people. we live in this country. this is the country we pay taxes in. this is a country where a girl was born from you all who is sitting in congress. republicans have shared the first version and have all but ignored the second one, the accurate one. florida governor ron desantis is demanding that omar be kicked out of congress, lose her american citizenship, and be deported. tom emmer calling for an ethics investigation into the comments. and congresswoman marjorie taylor greene introduced a resolution today calling for omar to be censured. >> representative omar has revealed herself to be a foreign agent acting on behalf of a foreign government. >> there is no evidence that congresswoman omar has done anything of the sort, and you can't deport a u.s. citizen,