in business, it's never just another day. it's the big sale, or the big presentation. the day where everything goes right. or the one where nothing does. with comcast business you get the network that can deliver gig speeds to the most businesses and advanced cybersecurity to protect every device on it— all backed by a dedicated team, 24/7. every day in business is a big day. we'll keep you ready for what's next. comcast business powering possibilities.

so here's our breaking news. the trump justice department seized records from apple for data from the accounts of democrats on the house intel committee, including congressman adam schiff and eric swalwell. as prosecutors investigated

leaks of classified information. i spoke with congressman swalwell just a few minutes ago. >> i was notifnotified, don, bye that they did seize my records. it's wrong. this is what they do. they smear and they try and clear. we've seen this through the justice department by donald trump, whether it was the reason he was impeached for trying to go after vice president biden at the time or just other efforts, you know, through the mueller investigation. and i support chairman schiff's call for an inspector general report into not only this conduct but other conduct that was corrupt by donald trump and those who worked for him. also tonight, a big development on capitol hill. a bipartisan group of ten senators announcing they have reached an agreement on an infrastructure deal. the white house wants to take a look at it. and president joe biden meets with key allies at the g7 meeting ahead of his crucial summit next week with russian president vladimir putin.

so there's a lot to get to. but i want to get to this bombshell breaking news with our two senior legal analysts, laura coates, elie honig, both former federal prosecutors. good evening. boy, oh, boy, here we go. elie, this is what cnn is learning, that the fbi sought metadata on more than 100 accounts, one request for data in 2018. the doj went after democratic lawmakers, their aides, their family members, and you say this is a massive abuse of power. put it into context, please. >> it really is, don. it's just a staggering abuse of prosecutorial powers. when you work at the justice department as laura did, as i did, you are given enormous power, enormous discretion. and the depths that doj sunk to here are really not just disgraceful but alarming. i mean doj used its prosecutorial investigative subpoena power to pull private phone records, we learned a few

weeks ago of members of the media, and now we're learning of perceived political enemies of the opposite party of the president. bill barr enabled this. bill barr brought doj to its lowest point in many, many years and it's a black mark, and it's a shame for doj. >> laura, these investigations started under jeff sessions and when investigators hit a dead end, no evidence of leaks, they talked about closing the inquiry. but bill barr revived the investigation. why do that if there is no evidence? >> well, it's ironic here that the person who was appointed by a man who said there was witch hunts against him then tried to initiate them against others and go on fishing expeditions with the hopes of having some result to, i guess, confirm the suspicions of a paranoid person. why this is so egregious, of course, is when the department of justice walks into rapport with judges across this country. there is a great deal of

deference that's extended to a federal prosecutor. why? because they believe that there is honor and integrity. what it sounds like that the department of justice became suddenly department and justice, llp. they're not intended to be the private contracting attorneys for one particular person. they're supposed to think about the long-term implications of what it's like to go into a court and ask a judge to not only get these records, to have the subpoena, but then have a gag order and do the opposite of transparency. of course this reminds you of when you have kids, you tell them to go clean their room, and you go in and see a clean area. and you open a closet and everything is falling out. i suspect this is going to be the very tip of the iceberg. we have no idea what else is going to be uncovered. but if this is the start within the first six months at this point, elie honig, i hope with your new book that's coming out, you have time for one more chapter on what's happened to the department of justice. >> you may have to revise and update that book before it even -- because this is really

stunning. let's talk more about this because the doj secured a gag order on apple, which was renewed three times. so lawmakers didn't know that they were even being investigated. would this have been a judge or a grand jury because at this point, our understanding is that they went to a grand jury subpoena. >> yeah. so, don, there's a couple steps that would have had to have been complied with here. first of all, it would have had to have been approved within the highest levels of the justice department. they have their policies on the books, but those policies are only as good as the people who are enforcing them. otherwise, they're just as valuable as the paper they're written on. so the highest levels of doj would have had to approve not only the subpoena but then going to a judge and saying, judge, we need a gag order, meaning we need a court order telling apple and the other provider, you can't tell anybody about this. you can't tell adam schiff about this. you can't tell eric swalwell about this until a certain time in the future. and what that does is it makes this a completely one-sided

fight. it doesn't allow adam schiff or eric swalwell to contest the subpoenas. by the time we're learning about this in june of 2021, donald trump is long gone. bill barr is long gone. that doesn't mean they're out of harm's way. congress has a job to do here. congress needs to subpoena these people and bring them in and get answers from them. >> so apple had to comply, elie, because of the court order? >> yes. correct. >> and another question. so the executive branch was trying to investigate the legislative branch, multiple members of congress, and now we need to know a lot more. >> look, there's a couple entities here. doj has an inspector general. that inspector general needs to do an investigation, and congress needs to do an investigation as i'm sure laura is familiar with. they need to get answers here as well. >> go ahead, laura. >> i was going to say

absolutely. remember, just to give it full circle here, remember this prior administration was so vehemently opposed to the notion of privacy interests being implicated that were not factually predicated, they believed, of course that was intruding on the privacy rights of individual american citizens in this country. and now we've got the department of justice, we think it's very much projecting what they were complaining about in other contexts now happening. this is also a part of the attack on the free press because, remember, they're trying to identify in part the sources to figure out who the leaks were. it doesn't appear to be right now that it was because they thought there was some violation of the law, but instead that there was a violation of being able to disclose information they did not want to get out. we're also waiting to find that information out of course. but here thinking about the idea of we're only learning now that it concluded back in may. we have no idea how many different iterations of the

investigation took place, what else might come out. the investigation is crucial for transparency, but again you're also talking about what will attorney general merrick garland do now? he has largely inherited all of these dilemmas. but what he does moving forward will be the clear distinction between what happened under barr and trump and what will happen to the department of justice under garland and under the administration of president biden. >> well, this makes -- this is interesting, elie, considering what has transpired this week and your feeling on how merrick garland has conducted himself by actually going into court and allowing the lawsuit for e. jean carroll, or at least defending the former president against that lawsuit. but you think it's going to be interesting to see how merrick garland responds to this particular information. >> yeah, it's going to be so important to see that. merrick garland has not impressed me or, i think, you this week. i think he has shown a passivity in correcting some of the abuses

under bill barr. but this one, he needs to get this right. look, to his credit, to the administration's credit, they took steps on the subpoenaing of media and reporters' records. they need to do the same thing. the administration, doj needs to take a direct stand that we will not intrude on the privacy rights of members of congress unless there is a grave and imminent national emergency. merrick garland needs to step up and handle this one appropriately. >> laura, do you think that will happen? do you think we'll see merrick garland act on this? >> i think he must, and the reason i think it will happen, and part of the reason is a lot of this would be consistent with what he has been criticized this week, the idea of having an eye towards the long-term implications of the institution of the department of justice and about the accountability or the protection for public officials generally. a lot of what we saw in terms of his decision to continue on in the defense of -- against the defamation case of e. jean carroll, it seems that the

reason he chose to do so was they wanted to ensure as long as someone was acting within the scope of their employment as a public official, they would be protected against suits or any sort of allegations such as this. well, that would be consistent now with trying to ensure the protection of, say, an adam schiff or an eric swalwell, or our own colleague, barbara starr, people doing things within the realm of duties. so if they're not going to protect those people against these privacy violations or against other acts against them, that would be inconsistent. you'd have to answer to that. >> thank you both. make sure you buy elie's new book out today, "hatchet man." you look for it in stores or wherever you buy books. i want to bring in now congressman raja krishnamoorthi.

congressman, thank you. i appreciate you joining us. the scope of what trump's justice department was trying to do is astounding. in addition to chairman schiff, congressman swalwell told me just last hour that his records were seized. do you know how many other members got their data seized? >> i don't. what we do know is that apparently bill barr, i guess, reinstituted his investigation of house committee members, democrats mind you, after he came into office in 2019, i believe. >> so can you clarify something for us? clarify if the committee knows if more than two members had data seized, or was it just congressman schiff and swalwell? >> i don't know, and i have not heard any more information. at this point we need a full investigation. it's got to be transparent. obviously there's going to be a -- there has to be a doj inspector general investigation at the least, and it should have started right away if it hasn't

already. and then probably there are going to be calls for an investigation on the part of congress, perhaps in classified setting. the second thing that has to happen is people have to be held accountable, especially for violation of potential laws that were broken. and then third, we have to prevent this from happening again. we have to put guardrails so nothing like this can happen again. >> can you put into context how you feel about the egregiousness of this particular incident? >> this is unprecedented. outside of corruption cases involving certain members of the congress in the past or specific cases, i think a few years ago there was a senate staffer who was convicted of leaking certain important national security secrets. i have not heard of anything like this, and i think this goes

to show that we knew that trump was politicizing the doj. but now we know that he was weaponizin g jury process have allowed for this type of investigation of a co-equal branch of government? and the second question is does the doj have too much discretion to prosecute? this has long been a question for many, and i think this one shows you the extent to which they can go and, in the process, abuse their power. >> you said, you know, that the justice department -- the nature of this investigation and what they were allowed to get.

they were able to get these gag orders in their investigations into reporters and members of congress. how were they able to get such restrictive orders like that? >> honestly, i don't know. i don't understand -- i mean one of the questions that has crossed my mind is with regard to apple, how they were able to institute these gag orders with regard to the investigation of members of congress and how long that timeline has elapsed before these members would be informed of the investigation. it's just completely egregious and, you know, i think a lot of people have explaining to do, including at least four members of the doj who are still there today, working for merrick garland, don. they worked for bill barr and pursued this investigation. they have a lot of explaining to do, including this gentleman,

mr. ben event -- venuto who was brought in to basically investigate house democrats on the intelligence committee. >> thank you, congressman. i appreciate your time. we've got a lot more to come on our breaking news. the trump doj took the extraordinary step of seizing records from apple, targeting democrats on the house intel committee.

did you know that every single flush flings odors onto your soft surfaces? then they get release back into the air, so you smell them later. ew right? that's why febreze created small spaces. press firmly and watch it get to work. unlike the leading cone, small spaces continuously eliminates odors in the air and on surfaces. so they don't come back for 45 days. just imagine what it can do with other odors.

. .

start your day with secret. secret stops sweat 3x more than ordinary antiperspirants. the new provitamin b5 formula is gentle on skin. with secret, outlast anything! no sweat. secret.

so we are back now with our breaking news, and it is huge. the trump doj subpoenaed apple for data from the accounts of democrats on the house intel committee, including congressman adam schiff and eric swalwell. i want you to listen to then-president trump. this is in february of 2020. this is where he accuses congressman schiff of leaking information about russia's efforts to interfere in the 2020 election. here it is. >> and frankly i think it's disgraceful, and i think it was leaked from the intelligence committee, house version. and i think that they leaked it. i think probably schiff leaked it but some people within that -- schiff leaked it in my opinion. and he shouldn't be leaking things like that. they ought to stop the leaking from intelligence committee, and if they don't stop it, i can't

imagine that people are not going to go after them and find out what's happening. >> i want to bring in now cnn's senior political analyst john avlon and cnn political commentator amanda carpenter. there you go. he just said it, right, john? yeah. >> not complicated. he just said it out loud as he often did. and we just see that this is an administration that was corrupt to its core because people folded on basic democratic no norms. >> listen, have you ever seen anything like this? that's out of bounds. i've been asking people to put this into perspective, john. how does this rank? how do you categorize this? what is this? >> this makes nixon look like minor league ball. people need to understand this. part of what donald trump does,

part of what all leaders of his style try to do, is normalize behavior that is fundamentally abnormal. remember when he -- when he was asked whether putin was a killer, and he said, no, everyone's a killer. it's the normalization of extreme behavior. and there's this attitude some people might hear this news and say, well, other administrations have gone after political opponents with open-ended fishing expeditions through the department of justice. not like this. not to this extent. when he talked about journalists being enemies of the people. when he talked about demonizing democrats in congress who were doing their jobs to investigate him, he followed through with his administration through fear. it means we need to strengthen the guardrails ever our democracy fast because the assumption is too many people

made is you'd have people of character at the top. that is not always the case. >> we knew he wasn't a person of character when he ran. i mean -- >> yeah, but the founders -- the checks and balances the founder put in place didn't hold this time. not sufficient. we got through this, but we've got to strengthen these guardrails fast. >> amanda, you look very calm, but i know you. look, let me put this into context for everyone. this is coming after we learned that the trump doj was going after reporters at cnn, at "the new york times," "the washington post." it seems like a full-on assault against trump's political enemies played out completely in the dark. >> yeah. i mean they can say it was about leaks. i think any reasonable person knows that adam schiff was clearly one of donald trump's political targets. and here's what i think happened.

donald trump said -- he always said he wanted a roy cohn. people thought it would be michael cohen. it was bill barr. it was bill barr, okay? i mean this is a trumpian pattern. this is what he does. he calls for investigations to manufacture dirt on his political enemies to smear them. it's what birtherism was about. it's what the ukraine investigation was about. it's what these ongoing fraudits in arizona are about. and if the maga republicans get their way, we'll be coming to a swing state near you. bill barr is a bad figure in this administration. i mean his first act as attorney general was to mischaracterize the findings of the mueller report. he fully defended the clearing of the protesters in lafayette square, and he helped stoke these mail-in conspiracies last fall and even on the way out the door with his resignation letter, he promised donald trump that your election integrity concerns would be fully addressed. i mean he is a very bad actor,

and i do hope -- you know, i understand that the doj under merrick garland is reluctant to get into politics. but there does need to be a house cleaning, and it can be done in a dignified way because what happened here was clearly, clearly not on the up and up. >> let me ask you this, amanda. the central -- what i really want to know is how much more can people take? how much more will they continue to support because the conversation that chris and i were having at the top of the 10:00 show. chris said they wanted a change agent. i disagree with him. i'll give him that. that's his perspective, and people may have believed that. but is this the change that they wanted, someone who breaks the rules, someone who investigates their political enemies, someone who -- i believe it was exploiting the worst of human nature, not a change agent. so how much more will people

take? >> i listened to that conversation you and chris had, and it was interesting. i don't think a lot of people voted for this in 2016 when they voted for trump. they had no idea that could have been coming. but what has morphed among the hardcore republican base that decides primaries, that does get out the vote, that does the fund-raising, is political vengeance. that's what all these voting restrictions are about. it is vengeance for the 2020 election because they cannot admit, because donald trump could never admit he lost the election. so it's just doubling down and constant grievance and retribution. that's animating a lot of the far-right republican politics right now. >> so chairman schiff, john, wants an investigation. how do you think joe biden's doj should proceed here because they've been pretty pragmatic so far, you know, not seeking retribution, really haven't gone

hard against the former president and the former administration. so how do you think they should proceed here? >> by the book. enforce the law. look, what the biden administration is doing, what merrick garland's justice department is doing is actually what needs to be done, which is depoliticizing the justice department. it never should have been politicized in the first place. it clearly was. but at the same time, there needs to be accountability for this behavior because that's the only way many people learn their lesson. so the laws need to be enforced. the guilty need to be prosecuted. and we need to strengthen the guardrails of our democracy fundamentally. a democratic crook is just as bad as a republican crook. they also have to go back and investigate everything that occurred before because this is just the tip of the iceberg. >> real quick before you guys go, more to come, you think, john? >> yes. >> amanda? >> yeah, always. not just on this front but probably many more fronts. and with other major departments.

>> thank you both. i appreciate it. >> thanks. less than two weeks to new york's mayoral primary, and tonight's final debate starting off with whether one candidate even -- one of the candidates even lives in the city.

tony here from creditrepair.com, taking to the streets to talk about credit. what's a good credit score? go. 600. maybe, if you're trying to pay thousands extra in interest rates. can your credit score impact your job? ooh, i know this one: no. oh no. is credit repair expensive? isn't having bad credit expensive? my man. cut the confusion, get started with a free credit evaluation at creditrepair.com.

oh man... let's get you to this moment. is that it? yep, that's it. of relief... [joyfully laughs] protection... i just got vaccinated- i just got vaccinated! noah just got vaccinated... hope... so that we can get to all the other moments. let's get you to the exhale you didn't know you were waiting for. let's get it... together. so we can be together. let's get to immunity. now's your moment to get vaccinated.

the top five candidates for new york's democratic mayoral primary taking to the stage tonight in the final debate before early voting starts. less than two weeks to election day, they're battling it out. here's cnn's alexandra field. >> reporter: in the home stretch of the democratic primary for mayor, eric adams again under fire over his home address. >> i live in brooklyn. >> reporter: his rivals piling on following questions raised earlier this week over whether adams lived in the basement apartment of a brooklyn townhouse he owns or with his partner in new jersey. >> the only time i go to new jersey is by accident. >> is this a where's waldo

moment? >> we've been on dozens of forums together and i've never seen that basement apartment in my life, and i think the other candidates would agree. but we have seen the new jersey background. >> reporter: adams turning the attack back on andrew yang for leaving the city and heading to his hudson valley home during the pandemic. >> i live in brooklyn. >> reporter: but as mayor, yang pledging he won't leave the city during his first term. >> new yorkers are going to be sick of me. they'll be like, yang, go away because i'm going to be here all the time, just trying to solve problems and get our city working again for us and our families. >> reporter: all of the candidates onstage saying they'd work toward a more effective relationship with governor andrew cuomo. when asked about the notoriously icy one between cuomo and current mayor bill de blasio. >> we all saw how the toxic relationship between the governor and the mayor hurt us during the hide of the pandemic. >> having served in the senior cabinet of city hall, i've actually done this. >> i can work with anyone who's

going to help us deliver for the people of new york. >> reporter: that prompting city controller scott stringer to come back with this pointed attack. >> i just want to, i guess, say to andrew, your approach is naive. this is not how albany works. it is not enough to say we're all going to be friends, kumbaya. we need a mayor with experience. >> the state needs the city, scott. the city needs the state. >> this is de blasio 2.0. >> de blasio is the opposite of what i just described. >> reporter: katherine garcia largely staying away from the fray, arguing she's the one who can clean up the city. >> i'm the person who can deliver on impossible problems. >> reporter: while yang took another swipe at adams questioning his tough on crime stance. >> you're concerned about crime. i used to be a cop 20 years ago. i should be mayor. but the fact is when eric talked to some audiences, he said the cops love him. then to other audiences, the cops can't stand him. >> no one on this stage can tell you that they have put their life on the line to save new

yorkers. no one else can do that. i can say that. >> reporter: each of the candidates also asked about a key issue in the race, the rise in violence in the city and the future of policing. >> will you take the guns away from the nypd? >> i am not prepared to make that decision in a debate. >> reporter: civil rights attorney maya wiley appearing to solidify her place progressive candidate onstage, the only one who didn't commit to keeping police armed. alexandra field, cnn, new york. >> thank you, alex. i appreciate that. i want to bring in now cnn political commentator errol lewis. thanks for joining. overall, what is the state of this wacky race after tonight's debate? >> well, the state of the race is more or less as it was, don, meaning you've got a bunch of candidates who have a lot of experience in government. you have andrew yang, who has never served in government. and they're each appealing to different constituencies, and they're trying to stitch together some kind of a coalition to take them over the top. we're coming down to the closing

hours before early voting starts, and i think, look, the real problem for most of the candidates other than eric adams is that crime and public safety are the number one issue for new york voters. we've polled this at spectrum news, and it came back very solidly in favor of putting more cops on the streets and in the subways and dealing with public safety. the fact that eric adams was a cop for 22 years really works very heavily in his favor, and the other candidates are trying to figure out a way to sort of take some of the shine off of that or knock him off that pedestal or, you know, bring up sort of non-issues about where he spends his evenings. it's really been a tough go for the rest of the candidates. >> yeah, that was, i think, the first question, one of the first questions. they went right at him about whether he lives in the city or not. does that resonate? does that stick with voters or no? >> no. listen, everybody in the city has some kind of a crazy arrangement, right, if you ask

enough of your friends. here's what we do know for sure. there's been a lot of good reporting on this. the fact is that eric adams owns several apartments. he has one in new jersey. he has a couple in brooklyn. he has the ability to go from one place to another. he spent a lot of the pandemic actually sleeping in his office, brought in the cameras. i interviewed him from there and made a big show of sort of being on call and being on duty as if he was a cop again back at the precinct, being on duty 24 hours a day. and so, again, you know, all of this stuff was known for weeks if not months. for the candidates to bring it up and try and make a big issue of it in the final days before voting starts is, again, a sign that he's been pretty consistently ahead in the polls. he has a connection to an issue

that we know the voters care about. and they've got to try and find a way to either disquali him or change the subject. >> i'm glad you said that, and i'm glad you pointed out about crime because, you know, i had eric adams on last night, and i said new yorkers want someone who is tough on crime right now. you hear from people, what do you mean by that? we don't want people who are tough on crime. overall crime is down. if you live in the city, you know what's up, right? so on the other side, you have maya wiley, who says that new yorkers want fewer cops but refusing to answer if she'd take guns away from police. she's the only one who wouldn't give an answer. she's got a lot of big endorsements from the progressive wing of the party like congresswoman alexandria ocasio-cortez. but do you think her take on crime is what most new yorkers want? >> well, no. i mean our polling shows that that is not at all what most new yorkers want. in fact, it's very unusual to see this in a poll.

something close to three-quarters of the people that we polled said that they want a specific policy, which is, you know, more cops. now, it's debatable whether that's the right way to go. there are a certain number of problems that involve people who have mental illness or people who just happen to be homeless, and a person with a gun is not necessarily the right way to deal with those particular challenges. but people are clear. they want a solution. they want their government to do something for them. they want to make this problem go away. and, you know, you can give a 20-minute explanation about how more social workers and different violence interrupters and, you know, increasing the general wage level so that people have more money and there will be less desperation, you know, how you can sort of deal with the underlying causes of crime. but right now people just want to be able to get to and from work. i mean, listen, i woke up this morning, and one of our headlines in our news was that someone was murdered across the street from where i have to go and broadcast every night. that's not a good feeling.

and, you know, i know -- you know, i got a whole self of books behind me, don, about underlying causes of crime. but the reality is you want your family, you want your co-workers and your neighbors to be safe, and that is, in the end, very much what this race for mayor has turned into. >> yeah, i agree. listen, i know people who have lived here for decades. i have friends who have been attacked or mugged on the streets. has never happened to them except for within the last year, and that's real. thank you. i appreciate it, errol. >> you got it. thanks. an arkansas woman suing after a traffic stop ended in her car flipping over, and she's a pregnant woman. that's next. ou can kiss wrinkles goodbye! neutrogena®

so it's another day. yeah- that's what most people think. but in business it's never just another day. every day is the day. there's the day your store has its biggest sale.

the day you have a make or break presentation. and the day your team operates from across the country. but there's also the day you never see coming- the day when nothing goes right. see- that's the thing. you never know what the day might bring. so whether you do business on wall street or main street you have to be ready. with the power of the network that can deliver gig speeds to the most businesses. the freedom to control that network from anywhere. and advanced cybersecurity to help protect every device on it. all backed by a dedicated team 24/7. every day in business is a big day. we'll keep you ready for what's next. comcast business powering possibilities.

senator lindsey graham, one of the republicans negotiating a bill on policing reforms, saying, talks with the democrats have gotten off track, after saying he was optimistic just a few days ago. but one of his democratic counterparts, cory booker, pushing back, saying both sides are working out their differences. that as we are learning an arkansas woman is suing a state trooper for allegedly causing her car to flip during a traffic stop when she was pregnant. the incident caught on dash cam video. cnn's amara walker has more. >> reporter: a traffic stop in arkansas turning dangerous in minutes. the driver, janice harper, was allegedly speeding in a 70-mile-per-hour zone on highway 67 in pull ascii county, when state trooper rodney dunn activated his emergency lights. you can see from his dash cam video harper turning on her blinkers, slowing down, and then moving into the right travel lane. then dunn appears to bump her

suv, causing her to lose control. harper's car flipped over. you could hear the distress in harper's voice telling the trooper she's pregnant. >> i'm pregnant. >> well, ma'am, you've got to pull over -- >> i had my flashers on. >> reporter: last month, harper, who was two months pregnant at the time of the wreck, sued the arkansas state trooper, his supervisor, and the director of the arkansas state police, c calling dunn's p.i.t. maneuver created a substantial risk of physical injury to her. there were no exits or shoulder for harper to safely exit the highway before defendant dunn negligently executed a p.i.t. maneuver on plaintiff's vehicle two minutes and seven seconds after defendant dunn initiated his overhead lights. >> why didn't you stop?

>> reporter: and it appears harper acted in accordance with the arkansas -- to indicate they are seeking a safe place to stop and pull over to the right side of the road. arkansas state police declined to comment on the case to cnn because of the pending lawsuit. harper's lawyers tell cnn that she was injured during that encounter last summer and had to seek medical treatment for it. but she did deliver a healthy baby this past february. now, according to the lawsuit, she is seeking at least $100,000 in damages. and, don, cnn did reach out to trooper dunn, and we are still waiting to hear back. >> i want to bring in now captain ron johnson, who is with the missouri state highway patrol. captain, good evening to you.

harper is calling the trooper's actions reckless and negligent. he said that she was fleeing. what do you see in that video? >> well, i definitely don't see fleeing. we don't see much shoulder for her to pull over, and actually her trying to find a safer place was actually making it safer not only for her, but it appears for the officer also. >> yeah. i don't understand that at all. i mean whenever, you know, if there's an occasion where i am pulled over, i try to go to a safer place. i don't like pulling over on the side of a highway. i'll try to go to an exit. i think many people do that. that's not so unusual, is it? >> it's not. i think we've instructed citizens to find a safe place for themselves. as we note throughout our country, traffic stops create the biggest risk for officers. so it's good for both sides when we can find a safe place. it looks like she was slowing down. she had her flashers on. there's nothing there that would

say that she was trying to elude or flee. >> so walk me through what exactly this p.i.t. maneuver is. you know, short for precision immobilization technique. how is it supposed to be used? >> well, it should be used to spin out a vehicle. we really saw it come into play in california. they were having a lot of high-speed pursuits, and they were using it there to make a vehicle spin out. and you have to do it in a safe manner. you should be in a safe location. this is not to cause crashes. it's to stop the behavior. >> according to a "washington post" investigation, at least 30 people have died and hundreds more injured since 2016 from police using this maneuver. we don't know the total number of people killed, though. police departments aren't really required to keep track. should police even be using the p.i.t. maneuver at this point? >> well, we've seen it used in some effective ways, but it has to be used in proper training.

but we've seen it used in ways that weren't proper. i think when it's used in a proper way, there are circumstances that it provides safety to the public. but, you know, we see it used throughout the country, and we have to make sure that the training is correct before we begin to use that kind of maneuver. >> captain johnson, thank you. i appreciate your expertise and your time. thank you so much. >> thank you. >> we'll be right back. no, he's not in his room. ♪ dad, why didn't you answer your phone? your mother loved this park. ♪ she did.

not touching is still touching protection. adding lysol laundry sanitizer kills 99.9% of bacteria. detergent alone, can't. lysol. what it takes to protect.

our new scented oils give you our best smelling scents. now crafted with more natural ingredients and infused with essential oils that are 100% natural. give us one plug and connect to nature.

i want to make sure you know a new season of my podcast, silence is not an option, is out right now. we're digging deep into the realities of being black and brown in america. in this episode, i'm talking to cnn's abby phillip about the teenager who refused to give up her seat on a bus nine months before rosa parks did. listen. >> why wasn't it claudette? >> i think it was potentially a lot of things. i think the nature of her arrest is part of it. i think her age was a big part of it as well. i think her class was part of it. she was, you know, a poor young woman. you know, she even mentioned to me the tone of her skin. she was a darker-skinned black woman. >> you can find it anywhere you listen to podcasts. and thanks for watching, everyone. our coverage continues. kin was .

my psoriatic arthritis, made my joints stiff, swollen... painful. emerge tremfyant™. with tremfya®, adults with moderate to severe plaque psoriasis... ...can uncover clearer skin and improve symptoms at 16 weeks. tremfya® is the only medication of its kind also approved for adults with active psoriatic arthritis. serious allergic reactions may occur. tremfya® may increase your risk of infections and lower your ability to fight them. tell your doctor if you have an infection or symptoms or if you had a vaccine or plan to. tremfya®. emerge tremfyant™. janssen can help you explore cost support options.

america will be the arsenal of vaccines. u.s. president joe biden delivered a message to the world. he spoke after meeting prime minister boris johnson. ahead on the g7 summit, both will attend in england a few hours from now. i'm bianca nobilo in cornwall, england. >> and i'm kim brunhuber at the cnn world headquarters in atlanta. welcome to all of you watching here, in canada and around the