>> we appreciate you. thank you. >> thank you. cor"cnn this morning" contis now. >> number 60, resolution 863. resolution impeaching alejandro mayorkas. >> yea 214, nay 216. the resolution is not adopted. >> you want to fix the border or do you want to keep the border a mess in order to help donald trump? >> this is where we are. good morning. so glad you are joining us. a day of dysfunction for republicans. they failed to impeach the homeland security secretary alejandro mayorkas and appeared to kill the border deal they negotiated. the party leader might resign. what is next on capitol hill? hamas responding to the proposal for a cease-fire in gaza. what it wants in exchange for releasing the hostages and why israel is rejecting it, at least

on its face. donald trump faces a second historic case hours after an appeals court rejects his claim of immunity. his new legal strategy as the supreme court prepares to take up the ballot battle tomorrow. this hour of "cnn this morning" is now. this morning, republicans are reeling after a day of embarrassing defeats and dysfunction in a stunning loss. they failed to impeach homeland security secretary mayorkas after three republicans voted with democrats. watch. >> on this vote, the yea 214, nay 216. the resolution is not adopted. hours from now the senate

will vote on a bipartisan border security deal. mitch mcconnell admitting defeat after pressure from donald trump. on top of that, house republicans also yesterday failed to pass their own standalone package for israel. also, the rnc, we learned she's going to step down in the middle of an election year. donald trump seeks to replace her. in nevada, the gop primary happened last night. nikki haley lost by more than 30 points. the winner was none of these candidates. trump's name was not on the ballot. let's start off with lauren fox. this impeachment fox, it's an embarrassment. it's stunning on a whip count level. how did it happen? >> i think that's the question that republicans are asking themselves this morning. this was really sort of a last-minute moment where democrats had a one up on

republicans. essentially, republicans had had a vote right before this mayorkas impeachment vote to check where the numbers were, double-check where the numbers with. they believed there was one democratic absence. then, the mayorkas impeachment vote begins. toward the end, you have al green, a democrat, who is wheeled into the house chamber to vote. this person did not vote in the previous vote series. then all of a sudden appears. that set off a problem for republicans because they already had three of their members voting against these articles of impeachment against mayorkas. it was, in part, an opportunity for democrats to embarrass republicans. but in part, it was a problem where they just didn't have their numbers right. this is such a historic moment. to go into a vote with margins this tight and to not have everything locked down is obviously an embarrassment. republicans are saying that once steve scalise is back in

washington, they will hold this vote again and it will pass. that is certainly going to be the case. but the reality is, it's still an embarrassment in this current situation. it's an embarrassment because you had so many republicans who had been working toward this for so long. it's not ideal to have three members of your own party voting against it in first place. then to not get it across the finish line, that's another problem entirely. >> it's a remarkable ability to fail at things that aren't going to go anywhere anyway. they are doing them for messaging and know they candidate pass and they still don't pull it off. i don't care about the whip count on the immigration package in the senate. it's procedural. what i care about is, what happens next? there's $60 billion for ukraine aid outstanding, $14 billion for israel aid, indo-pacific aid, the border. is there a plan b here? >> there is. you will start to see it today. they will hold this procedural vote on the border supplemental

package. it will fail because republicans are not going to be backing it, despite the fact that they originally pushed for the border package. then there will be another procedural vote on just that aid for ukraine, israel and the indo-pacific. that bill we expect could advance. you had mcconnell yesterday signaling that despite the fact that the border deal was falling apart, he still wanted to see -- a lot of republicans wanted to see that critical aid for ukraine and israel move forward. i think the next question though is, where does this go in the house? even if the senate gets it out of their chamber, you then have yet another question for speaker mike johnson. is he going to put a standalone aid bill on the floor of his chamber knowing that there are a number of conservative members who in his conference are not voting for this, and might threaten his job over putting it on the floor? >> thank you, lauren, very much. joining us now, jared

moskowitz of florida. you were there. being in the room yesterday for all of this, what was it like? republicans say they're going to bring this again. do you think this ends up with what they wanted, the impeachment of the homeland security secretary? >> good morning. thanks for having me. this continues the chaos of the 118th congress, which so far for its historical purposes has expelled a member and removed a speaker of the house, which hadn't been tried in over 100 years and had never been accomplished. this vote, they are trying to remove a cabinet secretary, which hasn't happened in 150 years. in fact, failed. they should always believe that democrats are going to have all of their members. this considered that they thought we were down one so they could get it passed, that's amateur hour. they should always believe that every democrat is going to be in the room, and they should plan for those con continue again says. they didn't. now, it's an embarrassment.

there were a couple of republicans that believe in the constitution and the fact you have to have a high crime and misdemeanor. they may not like secretary mayorkas. they think he might have been doing a bad job. that's not a rationale for impeachment. former president trump hated half of his cabinet secretaries. rex tillerson was dumb as rocks. jeff sessions he hated. know one was talking about impeaching them because the president didn't like them or congress didn't like them or the american people didn't like them. this continues the chaos. >> some of the republicans you are talking about are folks like mike gallagher, who wrote about why he voted against this impeachment in "the wall street journal" this morning. impeachment would not only fail to resolve the crisis but would set a dangerous precedent used against future republican administrations. i wonder what you thought when you saw his vote yesterday and when you read that.

>> that's exactly right. we are continuing to break the place. it just devolves every single day. a new norm falls. yes, it's going to be repeated. we see this in washington. democrats got rid of the filibuster on federal judges. republicans got rid of it on supreme court judges. democrats censure a member. republicans censure three members. they are going to impeach mayorkas. you can guarantee there will be two or three cabinet secretaries impeached. no one will want to be a cabinet secretary if this idea is you can be impeached because the opposite party doesn't like you or thinks you are doing a bad job. that doesn't rise to the level of impeachment that is enumerated in the constitution. i think those three republicans got it right. >> let me ask you more broadly about the border crisis. you told jake tapper that republicans, quote, have been highlighting the border for a long time. you went on to say, we, democrats were late. you are one of 14 democrats who

voted for a republican resolution that denounced biden's open door policies. how much blame do you think democrats right now deserve for this crisis? >> well, look, that resolution doesn't mean anything. i was voting for it because i was trying to show my colleagues across the aisle that i'm serious about trying to secure the border. >> what do you mean -- hold on, congressman. this is the resolution. administration's open border policies and urging president biden to end the open border policy. you are saying it doesn't mean anything. did you agree with that? >> no. what i'm saying is it's not a bill. it is not like it becomes a law. it's a resolution. it's a messaging tool. republicans were using it as a messaging tool, which is what all they have done this 118th congress. i wanted to say, listen, i agree that we need to secure our border. there are democrats that agree that we should secure our

border. there are democrats who think that there is a crisis at the border. at the end of the day, what i was saying to jake tapper is, both things are true. the american people understand this and know this. republicans have been yelling about the border. democrats were slow to respond. now that we are at the table and the most conservative border bill comes forward out of the senate -- in fact, republicans said we're not going to do ukraine or israel if we don't secure or border. so we said, okay, put it all together. this is what they wanted. this is their border bill. the most conservative border bill comes forward in a generation and all of a sudden they are like, my god, we can't actually fix this situation, because donald trump needs a crisis at the border for his campaign. that is also true now that they are walking away from fixing the border. this gin this up and now they show the mamerican people they are not serious about fixing it.

they want the crisis to continue so they can use it in next election. >> i hear you. there are a number of republican senators who were for this. also, the fact that it is president biden who put forth combining them in his supplemental. let me talk about the standalone israel aid package that the house has put forth. president biden said he would veto it. the way the white house explains that is basically saying, look, we put something forward, bipartisanly negotiated. we want it tied together. the white house says this is another cynical political maneuver. you voted for it. i wonder what you make of the president's veto threat. >> well, look, the president has to do what he feels is right. i serve in the house. i have to do what i feel is right. based on the fact that this is the least productive congress in 30 years, the most chaotic congress in 30 years, i can't plan for this beautiful bill

that might come to the house. i have to vote on what's in front of me. so what's in front of me is an israel aid package. i support ukraine. i support securing or border. i support doing humanitarian aid for the palestinians in gaza. i support the big bill that the president is pushing. i hope we eventually get there. with everything dying and right now my colleagues across the aisle showing the world that they don't want to stand with ukraine and giving putin a win by struggling to pass this ukraine aid, i don't want to send a message to the other part of the world in the middle east that we are walking away from israel while the united states right now is fighting iranian proxies in the region because they are killing american citizens. that's why i supported the bill for israel. israel is in the middle negotiating getting 100 plus hostages back in exchange for a prolonged cease-fire. we need to stand by our number one ally in the middle east. that's why i voted for it.

if they bring it back under rules -- this was under suspension. it would have passed the house because it wouldn't have needed two-thirds. >> thank you. we will get to breaking news you are referencing. appreciate your time. the breaking details on the israel/hamas war. antony blinken meets with netanyahu. what's in the hamas cease-fire proposal? why israel is already saying no. christiane amanpour joins us to talk about all of it next.

new this morning, a

counterproposal from hamas about a potential hostage deal. they are proposing a full withdrawal from gaza, a humanitarian effort and freedom of movement throughout early in exchange for hostages held in gaza. an israel official says there's no way tel aviv will agree to that. >> the news broke just as antony blinken was meeting with netanyahu. the prime minister's office described it as long and in-depth. with us to discuss this and more are christiane amanpour. is there a chance parts of it live? >> it's hard to tell. the news was breaking for us, but obviously, the parties have had these proposals and papers for at least 24 hours. it seems in -- if you talk about big picture, what hamas' counterproposal is an end to the

war. israel's proposal suggested a temporary pause to get hostages back, obviously with the release of palestinian prisoners, and to allow more humanitarian aid into gaza. it looks right now as if these two places are quite far apart. as you said, an israeli official told cnn that this will not fly. remember, of course, that the coalition of benjamin netanyahu, that he depends on for staying in office, does not want an end to this war before the maximalist goals are achieved, if they can be achieved. those are the complete defeat of hamas and the removal of hamas from gaza and also the total release and rescue of all the hostages. most people do not believe that those two goals can happen at the same time. they are in actual opposition to each other. you cannot get the hostages back by force. it hasn't happened yet. the only time the last hostages

were released was during a negotiated truce and a pause. that's when they got hostages back and they swapped with palestinian prisoners. these are the outstanding issues. maybe, maybe some of the proposals might happen if anybody is prepared to allow parts of any kind of negotiation to succeed instead of the broad picture. clearly, clearly, gaza needs a huge amount of humanitarian aid. clearly, the israeli people put releasing their hostages and their family members front and center of what is going on. they want that to happen. they want, it appears from public support inside israel, before an end to the war. in other words, they want that as the top priority. >> that's my biggest question. are we at a tipping point where the political considerations,

the coalition considerations that the prime minister has had to take into account -- the reality if he wants to stay in power -- will give way to international pressure, the pressure from one of the few key central allies they have left behind the scenes in the u.s., is that the -- is that the only thing that will open the door to a new deal? >> it's really interesting because what we are hearing from reporting inside israel, whether it's from western organizations or israeli organizations, is that there may be a tipping point in netanyahu's grip on the coalition. as you have seen over the last several weeks, there's been open t fragmentation within the war cabinet, the so-called emergency cabinet. a former nmilitary chief saying elections need to happen. netanyahu needs to tell people the truth. he meant that the truth is you can't get the hostages out if

you are also carrying out this massive counteroffensive. the two will not happen simultaneously. the idea as we are told by israeli officials that only maximum pressure on hamas will get the hostages released has not been -- that hasn't actually happened. it is only negotiations that have released at least 100 or more back at the end of november. if there is an election, which clearly netanyahu is resisting, then he is likely to lose according to internal reports because of the rock bottom ratings he has. he doesn't want that to happen. he wants to stay in power. you have heard increasingly prominent israeli writers and journalists saying that netanyahu's life-long political aim of not having a palestinian state is something the israeli people are going to have to understand will not bring them peace. there needs to be a negotiated solution that gives rights to

the palestinians and rights to the israelis and ends this. increasingly, a major israeli writer, his latest article is that that's the only way to end this cycle of violence. >> moving to russia and vladimir putin. tucker carlson has interviewed vladimir putin. he made an inaccurate claim that no other western journalist has bothered to try to interview vladimir putin. what do people need to know ahead of this interview being released? >> well, you know, of course that is so ridiculous that even vladimir putin's press spokesman, very powerful man in the kremlin, said it wasn't true. he knows all of us have been knocking down his door to try to get such an interview. he said, maybe carlson didn't know that. that's the sort of nonsense that

carlson is trying to justify this interview. let me just read for you what some russian journalists have said. if i can find that. i will look for it. basically, a prominent journalist, has been very angry at this notion that only carlson can interview putin. she said, unbelievable, i'm like hundreds of russian journalists who have had to go to exile to report about the war against ukraine. the alternative was to go to jail. she adds an expletive against tucker's position. what's important to know is tucker carlson suggests the american people, the rest of the west don't understand putin, don't understand the russian military action, the war, the invasion. that's clearly untrue. if you saw polls in the united states and around the world, even at the u.n., everybody understood that this was an illegal invasion of a democratic

and sovereign state. the polls were very, very much -- these are people, not journalists -- for the defense of ukraine and the values it's upholding for all of us. that is a fact. obviously, the longer it goes, the more difficult it is to keep up that support, particularly as you have been reporting, the unbelievable shenanigans going on in the u.s. congress that simply will not send support to a country that is trying to fight not just for its values but for all of our security. i think that tucker carlson, as you know, has said over the years many, many things that are very supportive of vladimir putin, even after the annexing of of crimea. suggesting putin was never a threat. called zelenskyy a dictator. worse than -- as bad as lenin.

for the kremlin it makes sense. it's a friendly voice. we will keep trying our best to actually commit journalism. >> you will never stop trying. thank you for all that this morning. a historic verdict in the trial of the mother of a school shooter. the jury convicts jennifer crumbley for her role in the mass murder committed by her son. how this could influence other mass shooting cases ahead.

things have gotten better recently, but too many businesses like mine are still getting broken into. it's time our police officers have access to 21st century tools to prevent and solve more crimes. allow public safety cameras that other bay area police departments have to discourage crime, catch criminals, and increase prosecutions. prop e is a smart step

our city can take right now to keep san francisco moving in the right direction. please join me in voting yes on prop e. we find the defendant guilty of involuntary manslaughter. >> it was a historic first

inside a michigan courtroom that could have legal ramifications across the country. her son is serving life in prison without parole for the shooting at oxford high school in november of 2021. prosecutors argued jennifer was grossly negligent in giving a gun to ethan and failing to get him proper mental health treatment despite warning signs. joining us this morning is the michigan attorney general. we appreciate your time this morning. when you heard the verdict, when you saw how this ended up play gs playing out, were you surprised? >> no, i wasn't at all. i think the jury got it right. >> what do you think this means? the reason i ask that -- you know this well. there isn't precedent for this. this is a landmark case in terms of what it means going forward. what is your read of what it

means going forward? how do you view what this has changed in the law? >> well, first of all, i don't know that it changed anything significantly. in michigan, on february 13th, due to a change in the legislature, and perhaps in response to this horrific set of circumstances, we now are going to have a law that mandates that parents and guardians have to safely secure and store firearms. it happens to be the exact same penalty as this involuntary manslaughter. in this case, you have to remember there's a very extreme set of circumstances here. you know? the parents -- it was proven during the course of this case or at least i will limit this to jennifer crumbley, since her husband hasn't gone to trial. she knew that her son had mental health problems. she purchased -- her and her husband purchased her son --

their 15-year-old son a deadly weapon. they failed to store it and to keep it safe and secure. they knew the day of the shooting that at school he had been called into the principal's office for having drawn these very grotesque and concerning and disturbing pictures of a gun being fired, blood everywhere, the thoughts won't stop, showing murdered corpses. they didn't take even the most ordinary, simplest measures to ensure that he didn't have a gun on him at that time. they didn't take him home from school. they dnidn't try to get him mental health treatment at that point. then after the shooting, they fled the area and they went into hiding. that's an incredibly extreme set of circumstances that we are unlikely to see again. i wouldn't extrapolate anything from this case to other cases,

because that very unusual fact pattern. >> i've been trying to think through. fur a prosecutor, are you looking retroactively at cases now and seeing if there are possibilities here? you think they shouldn't do that? >> i'm not saying they shouldn't do that. i'm saying that i think you are unlikely to find a fact pattern that's as extreme as this. talking about what we should be doing, i'm so glad that in michigan we're going to have new laws that hopefully there would be strict liability here. the parents simply failed to secure this weapon from their minor son. i think if the lesson we learn is that all parents should be doing that, we won't find ourself in this situation again. >> i want to ask you about the new hampshire robocalls. you have worked on these issues. this is a robocall that sounded like joe biden that was trying to suppress voting ahead of that

primary. how big is this threat over the course of the next ten months? >> it's extraordinary. it's immeasurable. i think we have to crack down on these types of illegal robocalls as quickly as possible. i prosecuted, from the 2020 election, a case of illegal robocalls that were meant to deter voters. that case is on appeal and is ongoing. it was successful in many other cases. this is more dangerous though. of course, it purports to come from the candidate himself. we have to do everything we can to ensure that there are significant penalties for anyone who uses technology to try to deter people from voting this way. >> it's certainly something everybody has to be keeping an eye on. thank you very much for your time. >> thanks for having me. tomorrow, donald trump's lawyers go before the supreme court to keep him on the ballot after losing his presidential

immunity claim. we have new reporting on trump's legal strategy before the historic hearing. antony blinken is meeting with israel's president as negotiations continue for a possible cease-fire. we will continue monitoring these talks all day.

this ad? typical. politicians... "he's bad. i'm good." blah, blah. let's shake things up. with katie porter. porter refuses corporate pac money. and leads the fight to ban congressional stock trading. katie porter. taking on big banks to make housing more affordable. and drug company ceos to stop their price gouging. most politicians just fight each other. while katie porter fights for you. for senate - democrat katie porter. i'm katie porter and i approve this message. growing up, my parents wanted me to become

a doctor or an engineer. those are good careers! but i chose a different path. first, as mayor and then in the legislature. i enshrined abortion rights in our california constitution. in the face of trump, i strengthened hate crime laws and lowered the costs for the middle class. now i'm running to bring the fight to congress. you were always stubborn. and on that note, i'm evan low, and i approve this message. you have to leave immunity with a president. if a president is afraid to act because they are worried are being indicted w ed when they l office, a president has to have immunity. >> his immunity argument rejected by a federal court of appeals. the three-judge panel ruling unanimously that trump can be

prosecuted in the federal case alleging he plotted to overturn the election. they have until monday to file a appeal. >> the supreme court will now hear the case on january 6th. trump's lawyers will be there. trump will not be there. after treating court appearances like campaign stops, trump realizes how, quote, serious this case is. let's bring in caitlyn polance. what youmore have you learned at trump's plans? >> he is not going to be there. he has shown up unusually for someone in his position where his lawyers are arguing legal issues, to an appeals court hearing on a different case recently, but he is not going to be at the supreme court tomorrow. that's because in a lot of ways, he has bigger fish to fry. there are bigger legal risks out

there for him in the future, including related to his criminal case that could very likely be before the supreme court. there's not a lot of up side for him being a force in the room that could be disruptive or pull focus from what the justices of the supreme court are there to do tomorrow, ask the legal questions about having someone eligible for the ballot in various states and state's power to remove someone from the ballot, and also it's the nevada caucuses on thursday. he does plan to travel to nevada. it is still going to be a very significant legal argument before the supreme court tomorrow. >> can you explain the power behind the appeals court decision on trump's immunity, what it brings to the table now? >> yeah. this was the decision yesterday from the d.c. circuit court of appeals. three judges writing in unison 57 thoroughly saying the president is not above the law.

there's not an immunity that protects someone serving in that office if they choose to break the law. the things that donald trump was doing after the 2020 election to disrupt voters' selection of the president, the things he is accused of, those are things that the justice department can choose to charge as crimes and that the court system can address. that was a very powerful decision from the three judges. now, potentially, up to the supreme court. trump is very likely to appeal there. >> we will watch. thank you very much. with us to discuss kristy greenberg and joan biskupic. how strong is the wording about whether a president has immunity for crimes? >> it was very strong. these three judges -- i think it was really distinctive that all -- they were unanimous. these are judges who cross the

ideological spectrum. one was appointed by govereorge. bush. they agreed to reject every ground that former president trump asserted about why he should have immunity. they took it apart. he will be like any ordinary citizen and have defenses when he stands trial. he cannot claim immunity. they relied heavily on precedents that are in this area of the law. as we know, the supreme court has never taken on the direct question of whether a former president would have absolute immunity from criminal prosecution. there are other cases that inform this decision. the judges were close to that. it was forceful in another way, poppy and phil. not only did it dissect the legal arguments, but it really took a strong hand toward trump saying, you know, if the

accusations against a former president are true, it would amount to an unprecedented assault on the structure of government. one last thing, they brushed aside the claim that this would open up future presidents to being prosecuted after they leave office. they said, it's never happened before. and it probably will never happen again. there are so many checks on the process. this is a unique situation to donald trump and they rejected every one of his arguments. >> the unanimous nature of it, the actual language and i think the firm nature of that language throughout the course of the opinion, trump has until monday to appeal. is this something the supreme court will take? we assume that it was going to be -- end up at the supreme court. they don't have to take this. >> they don't. on monday, he has -- he needs five votes to basically stay

this appeals decision. otherwise, it goes back to judge chutkan. four votes on the supreme court to hear it. will he get four, five votes? unclear. this was such a strong opinion. it was unanimous. i'm not sure what the issue is that they are going to really take up here. that said, the supreme court likes to have the last word on issues that deal with presidential immunity. this is a case of first impression. it's never been dealt with before. so they may want to have the last word here. >> let's move to tomorrow, joan. you will be part our special coverage, obviously, from the supreme court where the american people are going to hear in real time the argument over the 14th amendment. explain to people what is going to play out in the courtroom and what's at stake. >> sure. i'm so glad you mentioned our special coverage tomorrow. i think it will be really exciting. i will be there in the

courtroom. as opposed to the ruling we got yesterday that really evoked what happened at the capitol on january 6th and trump's alleged assault on democracy, arguments tomorrow could be centered on the text of a particular provision, section 3 of the 14th amendment, that bars anyone from holding future office who had taken an oath to uphold the constitution and was, quote, an officer of the united states who then engaged in an insurrection. that's a provision -- post civil war provision aimed at former confederate leaders to stop them from holding future office. it has never really been interpreted in modern times. obviously, not by the supreme court. we have had lower court judges look at this. the colorado supreme court indeed said it would cover donald trump. i think what you will hear is just a lot of parsing of

language. what constitutes an officer of the united states? trump's team says that he would not qualify -- he would not be in the list of officers there because the presidency is treated different as a term in the constitution. it could end up sounding technical. i can tell you that the lawyers for the colorado voters who are bringing this challenge will try as much as they can to keep the justices focused on the insurrection itself. they will try to talk a lot about january 6th. will the justice s? we will see. >> lawyers parsing language. breaking news. for people who aren't familiar with these types of arguments before the supreme court, if you are listening, what are you listening to? what is critical? >> i think that they will be looking to the text of the constitution. they are going to look at the history to inform what the text means. at least as to that question about whether or not donald

trump under section 3 of the 14th is aamendment was an offic there are arguments on both sides. you have a lower court that the presidency isn't listed. if it's not listed, they must have meant to exclude it. in a prior draft it was in there and taken out. that must have been intentional. you have the colorado supreme court on the other side saying, well, in many other ways office was always considered to be office of the presidency and common sense tells you that's what it should be. you are going to have a lot of the parsing, not only of the text but of the history. i don't think the supreme court justices are going to wade into the political waters too much of whether or not donald trump engaged in insurrection, both the colorado supreme court and lower court found he did. if anything, i think they will quibble more with the process that was afforded or not afforded to him. >> a big day. thanks, guys. appreciate it. he has been a senator. he has been a knicks legend. bill bradley knows about

bridging divides. >> he will join us next in studio with a revealing look at a new document about his life and what he thinks about the state of politics today.

we live in a time when our basic love of politics is broken. in growing numbers, people lost faith in the political process and on whether it can help their threatened economic circumstance. the political debate has settled into two familiar ruts. >> that's a speech that sounds like it could happen today. that was former new jersey senator bill bradley, lamenting the state of u.s. politics in 1995, 30 years after leaving the senate, bradley is sharing his life story, in a new documentary, aimed at bringing

people together, around shared humanity. the details bradley's journey from a childhood basketball star in missouri, to three-term senator, in candidate for nomination for president. rolling along, an american story, is owned by max. joining us now is nba hall of famer, former new jersey senator, bill bradley. senator, thanks for being here. the creation of this and how you got it to this point is fascinating to me. can you briefly walk through how you went from one man show idea, to now an hbo max documentary. >> one reason i did it, looking at a divided country, i wanted to have healing. i wanted to promote healing. and by being candidate about myself, i thought that i would have credibility with people. they can tell my stories and all the stories would be the american story. i had this idea to do it as -- i didn't have the idea, actually. i had -- i gave my papers to

princeton. and had it in reception for all the people who participated in the history project. one of the guys that happened to be a broadway producer, 72 plays, manny azenberg -- i told stories about each 1 of the 40 people that showed up. manny said that, sounds a little like hal holbrook doing mark twain. you should work something out. the next year, i wrote it and took it to 20 cities to workshop it around the country. and then, covid hit. and allowed me to go deeper. and come out of covid, i was not going to go around to 20 cities and do this in theaters. i rented a theater in new york for four nights, five cameras. and the result is rolling along, the film. >> you had some help on this, from a fairlent knicks fan.

the thread together on your time with the knicks. on issues of division, and the teams you were on, kind of defined the ability to get over and through that. talk about those. >> i learned about the america that they saw and experienced. for example, dick barnett told me after the tennessee state team won, the college national championship, the team flew back to nashville to protest segregated restaurants and had the discipline not to respond when people spit on him.

the rookie from mississippi, that said he would always vote. and one of the stars of the team, late to a practice in detroit one day. and was fined by the coach. you're fined when you're late. and five minutes into the practice, he was in a fight. and willis stepped in to break it up. and uncle tom, only later did i discover, that he was in a foul mood, came in the big stop by the michigan state police on the drive down. spread eagle on the hood of the car as the backseats for searched. the stories that i heard and the camaraderie. >> you served in the senate with president biden. he talks how you talk, in terms how people are supposed to get along and be pragmatic.

he oversees a country that's anything but. >> president biden has an admiral record. he has achieved quite a lot. dealing with prescription drugs. he had to get these done in the first two years to run on them in four years. he's done that. >> the documentary is rolling along. it's fascinating. i appreciate you coming in. heard a lot about bill bradley. i appreciate it. thanks so much. >> see you on hbo max. >> you can watch "rolling along" on max. >> thanks for being here with us. cnn news central is next.

two leading candidates for senate. two very different visions for california. steve garvey, the leading republican, is too conservative for california. he voted for trump twice and supported republicans for years, including far right conservatives. adam schiff, the leading democrat, defended democracy against trump and the insurrectionists. he helped build affordable housing, lower drug costs, and bring good jobs back home. the choice is clear. i'm adam schiff, and i approve this message. this ad? typical. politicians... "he's bad. i'm good." blah, blah. let's shake things up. with katie porter. porter refuses corporate pac money.

and leads the fight to ban congressional stock trading. katie porter. taking on big banks to make housing more affordable. and drug company ceos to stop their price gouging. most politicians just fight each other. while katie porter fights for you. for senate - democrat katie porter. i'm katie porter and i approve this message. ten minutes of humiliation that will live in house lore. those word saying republicans suffered back-to-back stunning failures. the question now, are they just getting started? who will today bring? this morning, nikki haley's team shrugging off embarrassment in nevada. where is the campaign that lost none of the candidates g