the deadly incident that took locke's life. the news continues. let's hand it over to laura coates, and "cnn tonight". >> thank you, john. i am laura coates. this is "cnn tonight." as you know, elections have consequences. i mean we should all know that very well at this point. you hear it all the time. they can have impact on who sits on the highest court in the land, who then can go on, as you know, to make very consequential decisions that will impact our elections, the same that have consequences. that's exactly what just happened with a new controversial supreme court ruling, one that delivers yet another and this time a major blow to the voting rights of minorities in alabama and arguably elsewhere. we're going to take a deep dive into why exactly that is the case tonight and frankly how it could impact the midterm elections that are exactly nine months from today.

scotus has now chosen to restore alabama's gerrymandered gop-drawn congressional map that a lower court already blocked last month, saying that it would hurt black voters. the vote there was 5-4 with chief justice john roberts joining the three liberal justices in dissent. so why does this map matter so much, and why was it even initially blocked is the good question. well, a three-judge u.s. district court ruled that it likely violated section 2 of the voting rights act because the map only includes one district out of seven where black voters will have the majority. yet black voters, well, they make up more than a fourth of alabama's population. so there's an obvious imbalance in just that demographic. so the lower court ordered that a new map with a second, at least, majority black district be drawn, which could have led

to democrats gaining another seat in the house this fall. but that's not happening here now because the conservative majority of the supreme court, well, they froze the ruling. now, why would they do that? well, justices kavanaugh and justice alito are arguing that the lower court's order for a new map, well it came just too close to the 2022 election cycle. too close? how absurd. i mean the idea of not correcting the area and the issue prior to elections? well, liberal justice elena kagan, who argues there's plenty of time, by the way, is reiterating that stance. i mean the primary in alabama, it's not tomorrow or next week or even next month. it's not until late may. she wrote in her dissent, joined by justices breyer and sotomayor, that her court's decision, quote, does a disservice to the district

court, which meticulously applied this court's longstanding voting rights precedent and, most of all, it does a disservice to black alabamans, who under that precedent, have had their electoral power diminished. justice kagan also pointed out that the court shouldn't even be issuing such an order on its so-called shadow doctor, which is this emergency docket that doesn't have the benefit of getting full briefing, of having arguments, and some would argue the transparency needed to understand the nature of the court's decision. so since the merits of this case won't be taken up until now later this year, that means the midterm elections in alabama will be held on maps that could ultimately be ruled illegal after the voting has already been done. and what's the expectation that they'll somehow reverse the

election based on the maps? this isn't just an alabama issue by the way. gerrymandering has been particularly rampant this election cycle in states like texas and north carolina and ohio. you know the doj is actually suing texas over its map, arguing republican lawmakers didn't draw enough majority latino and black districts there, denying minorities' rights to vote on account of their race. and to be fair, what about democrats, you ask? well, yes, they've also drawn themselves some aggressive maps in states like illinois and new york. some are arguing, of course, that that's maybe partisan gerrymandering, and while problematic but often under a different standard because one's political affiliation might be viewed as pretextual for other areas, well, how do you figure out whether you should do any of the type of gerrymandering as

opposed to just an approach to the one person/one vote standard we're supposed to have? but what's happening in alabama is noted as being a kind of racial gerrymandering, and that's unconstitutional under the standards that we know, well, at least for now. you know, only 31 states have finished even redrawing their congressional lines in advance of the midterms. and if you're doing your math, 31 out of 50 is not the whole kit and caboodle that needs to happen to ensure that everything will be on the up and up and on par with how we want it to be by the time people cast a ballot. i mean, due to population change in the 2020 census, of course, this is all taking place, the redrawing of maps to be more in line with the accurate data of the actual populations. and the concern is if a new supreme court ruling could actually green-light other states to try to manipulate the

maps in ways that would put voters of color at a disadvantage. and how often have we seen this happen over the course of even recent history, let alone even prior to and since 1965? so the question, of course, is -- and we'll talk about it -- what's the fix now? what's the fix now that two voting rights bills are dead on arrival in the senate? i want to bring in two experts on this to carry on the conversation. let's turn to rick hassan, professor of law at uc irvine and coed for of the election law journal. he's also the author of the new book "cheep speech: how disinformation poisons our politics," which comes out next month, everyone. also with me, derek johnson, president of the naacp. gentlemen, i'm very glad you're here. can we talk to you about this? i was a voting attorney in the civil rights division of doj, and i can tell you i can't believe here we are finding ourselves time and time again in a world that feels a lot more like 1964 than 2022.

let me begin with you, rick, here on this point because i want you to help people understand. people have heard the news. they've heard about what gerrymandering is and the alabama map. help us to contextualize why this is so significant that this is even being looked at on a shadow docket, for example? what do you say, rick? >> well, you know, the first thing to note is back in 2013, the supreme court killed a key part of the voting rights act called section 5 that would have required alabama to go to the department of justice and show that their map wouldn't make minority voters worse off. that's gone, but we were told in that case, shelby county versus holder, that don't worry, there's section 2 of the voting rights act, a part of the voting rights act that was amended in 1982 that gives minority voters the same opportunity as other voters to participate in the political process and to elect representatives of their choice. what chief justice roberts said in his opinion yesterday, in his partial dissent, was if you apply the existing standards, alabama's got to get that second

district. so he dissented from the idea that we're going to put this on hold now, but he agreed with the other five conservatives, let's rethink this whole thing. that's the most ominous thing. the court may fundamentally rework what section 2 of the voting rights act means and really weaken it so that it doesn't really protect minority voters anymore, and you're right to think it's a return back to the period before the voting rights act in 1982 was amended. >> derek, i want you to weigh in here because it's so important to think about just that dynamic of why the voting rights act of 1965 was even put into place, let alone the gutting of section 5 and the rendering anemic, frankly, of section 2, even being able to challenge laws on the back end. you have here a supreme court that's saying, look, we are not going to really deal with this issue. it's too close in time. we'll deal with it later, after whatever takes place already

transpires. what do you say about the idea of having that delay and not realizing the necessity to weigh in prior to that map going into effect, derek? >> i think it's disingenuous of the supreme court to take that posture. in effect, they're saying, we're going to turn a blind eye to voter suppression in alabama, particularly against african american voters. it's well documented that alabama has a long history of seeking to suppress the black vote and in many ways try and eliminate the ability of african americans in that state to elect candidates of their choice. in this situation, the supreme court is simply turning a blind eye. we must pass voting rights protections in the senate. the senate must do their job. we're going to continue to see this repeat itself over and over if, in fact, members of the senate don't develop courage and stand up and protect our constitution and protect the

right to vote. >> on that notion, you mentioned the idea of almost this notion of a post-racial world that was alluded to prior when section 5 was gutted and the idea of turning a blind eye. well, rick, republicans would argue -- and let's play devil's advocate here in this position -- that, look, we should have race-blind mapping here. you know, you shouldn't be taking into consideration the race. certainly there's racial bloc voting, of course, as derrick talked about, the idea of having enough concentration of power to elect a candidate of your choice, not having that voting strength diluted and never being guaranteed to vote for the winner but having the opportunity to do so. what do you say to the argument that says, if you don't want race to infect our voting and election systems, then why would you draw a majority black district in the first place? >> yeah, that's a great question. but i would put it this way. you mentioned racially polarized voting.

light talk about what that means. it means that the white majority in alabama, if given the chance to vote, will consistently defeat the choice of african american voters in alabama. so if you just had voting at large where everybody could vote for every congressional candidate, you'd have an all-while delegation. we're almost there, but you'd have that in the legislature too. what congress did in 1982, when it amended section 2 of the voting rights act, was say, look, we want to assure that when minority voters are concentrated in a particular area and they're large enough that they could have a candidate of their choice represent them, they should have that same opportunity. i would love for us to live in a race-blind society where alabama voters were not choosing their candidates on the basis of race, but that's not the reality today. and the reality today is if we want to assure minority representation and if the supreme court's going to follow what congress said, it's got to create -- continue to create these districts in order to assure that minority voters get a fair share of representation in a place like alabama.

>> derrick, i'll give you the last word on this because you with the work that you do at the naacp, you recognize the reality and the impact of race in frankly every facet of our systems in america. when you think about this, are you concerned about the blueprint effect of something like this now that other jurisdictions may say, hey, the supreme court's not going to weigh in. it's too close to an election. maybe we should turn out and crank out the remaining less than 20 maps that need to be done to eliminate competitive seats. is that a concern? >> it's a huge concern, particularly for the southern states. redistricting is no longer done by hand with an adding machine. you can produce maps, multiple maps within a matter of hours. the gis systems are so advanced, it doesn't take a long time. in fact, the supreme court could have said, you know, the primary is coming up. we're going to tell you, alabama, to produce alternative maps in the next two weeks. alabama could have produced

multiple maps that would have both met the criteria to ensure african americans will have an opportunity to elect candidates of their choice, comply with section 2, and to protect our democracy. but they chose to use a false argument to say it's too close to elections when, in fact, it's not too close to elections. finally, states like alabama have always participated in racial bloc votings. african americans will vote for white candidates, but white voters are rarely in that state willing to vote for african american candidates. i believe obama, when he ran in 2008, he only got about 11% of the white vote, the least amount of white support of any state in the country. so that tells you the mind-set of alabamians in the white community as it relates to black candidates. this supreme court ruling could, in fact, accelerate more vote

sup suppressive maps. >> the reality of technology, it's not like you have to have lewis and clarke out there by hand drawing as cartographers. you have the idea of being able to have this technical innovation, but it does speak to this issue you both point out about this idea, this fallacy, i mean does it sound a lot like, i'm sorry, the will of the people or decisions are on a timeline that reminds you of what senator mitch mcconnell did as it related to being too close to an election as it related to a supreme court nominee. past is prologue yet again. rick hasen, derrick johnson, thank you for your time. i appreciate it. >> thank you. >> the gerrymandering fight isn't the only battle for control here. you can imagine there are a lot of different brawls, so to speak, happening, and the big lie is a fight that is still tearing the country apart. up next, where things stand for former president trump from the

january 6th committee to accusations of destroying documents to boxes stashed at mar-a-lago to taping documents back together? that's in a moment. at fidelity, your dedicated advisor will help you create a comprehensive wealth plan for your full financial picture. with the right balance of risk and reward. so you can enjoy more of...this. this is the planning effect.

certified turbocharger, suspension and fuel injection. translation: certified goosebumps.

certified from headlamp to tailpipe. that's certified head turns. and it's all backed by our unlimited mileage warranty. that means unlimited peace of mind. mercedes-benz certified pre-owned. translation: the mercedes of your dreams is closer than you think. what can i du with less asthma? with dupixent, i can du more....beginners' yoga. namaste...

...surprise parties. aww, you guys. dupixent helps prevent asthma attacks... ...for 3!... ...so i can du more of the things i love. dupixent is not for sudden breathing problems. it's an add-on-treatment for specific types of moderate-to-severe asthma that can improve lung function for better breathing in as little as two weeks. and can reduce, or even eliminate, oral steroids. and here's something important. dupixent can cause serious allergic reactions, including anaphylaxis. get help right away if you have rash, shortness of breath, chest pain, tingling or numbness in your limbs. tell your doctor if you have a parasitic infection, and don't change or stop your asthma treatments, including steroids, without talking to your doctor. are you ready to du more with less asthma? just ask your asthma specialist about dupixent.

there are new questions tonight over whether former president trump violated the presidential records act, not just because of his known habit of ripping up documents but there are new revelations first reported by "the washington post" that the national archives had to retrieve 15 boxes' worth, 15 boxes of white house records from his mar-a-lago resort just last month. now, trump's advisers say that the boxes are full of personal mementos like trump's so-called love letters from north korea's kim jong-un. but under that law, that's for the national archive to review, and it should have been handed over at the end of trump's

tenure, which i remind people is over a year ago. now, we don't actually know if any of these records are damaged, and as we've reported, trump staffers had to regularly tape his shredded documents back together, which every time i think about that, the actual taping of documents back together, you think you're watching some sort of a comedy special or some spoof on what happens actually in the white house, and you ask the question, shouldn't trump have known better? after all, he did, if you remember, he went after speaker nancy pelosi for, well, this moment. remember this? ripping up his state of the union speech. >> i thought it was a terrible thing when she ripped up the speech. first of all, it's an official document. you're not allowed. it's illegal what she did. she broke the law. >> broke the law. well, interesting point, and that might not have aged very well, but also who could forget all the diatribes against what hillary clinton was alleged to have done as well?

remember this? >> after her private server was revealed last march, her staff deleted all the emails and wiped it clean. people who have nothing to hide don't bleach. nobody's ever heard of it. don't bleach their emails or destroy evidence to keep it from being publicly archived as required under federal law. >> now, that's interesting, and it begs the question of what could this mean for the former president now. i want to bring in mary mccord, who was the acting head of the justice department's national security division during the obama administration. it's great to see you, mary mccord, especially on a night like that. let me begin by asking this. part of what trump said was the idea of one bleaching or trying to shield evidence of wrongdoing in some respects. one could argue -- and certainly he will argue that he wasn't trying to shield wrongdoing or

even evidence in a criminal sense. he was taking personal mementos. is that enough to sort of go around the requirements of the presidential records act? >> well, i think as you indicated in your opening, laura, it's really up to the archivist to determine what is a presidential record and what is a personal record. so the assumption essentially is that what you receive or create at the white house during your term as president will be reviewed by the archivist, and those that are personal records will be released to you, and those that are presidential records are actually the property of the united states, of the archivist, not your own personal property. so we don't know yet what is in those 15 boxes. the archivist will be reviewing those. there may be things in there that are personal records. there probably are many things in there that are presidential records. the fact that they're sending some back that even some of his own attorneys believe are presidential records.

there may be some things that are responsive to the house select committee's request for documents. >> i suspect the lawyers wouldn't have handed back snow globes, right, as part of what they're handing into the national archives. part of methinks to myself -- the idea of are you to suggest that every single piece of paper that the president of the united states over the course of four years touches, draft speeches and the like, a post-it note, maybe a conversation that's handed out, a printout of any kind, that that something that is always retained like it's a library of congress document, or is there some discretion on the part of the president of the united states to determine what is significant enough to even be included in a potential archive? >> the act is quite broad, and, you know, really any -- it's not just documents. it does include works of art and things like that, that are

received or produced in the course of the president carrying out his functions. that could be his constitutional functions, also his ceremonial functions. those are all presidential records. so there can be things like personal diaries about personal things that aren't related to the president's constitutional responsibilities or ceremonial responsibilities that would be personal records and there are some exceptions for things that sort of have no value. but that should be for the archivist to determine, and part of the reason that the law is so broad is because it really is important for historical purposes and for accountability purposes to have the record of really what took place in the white house, you know, involving the president of the united states and those who act on his behalf, in his carrying out his duties under the constitution and his other responsibilities as president. >> you mentioned the accountability factor. i want to have the connective

tissue here because obviously at the january 6th committee, the reason the national archives are handing documents over is in part because of that request of the committee. you also have what's happening in fulton county and discussions around the big lie and the anatomy of the big lie as it may have led to january 6th. are these documents and things that you anticipate each of these different entities looking at and viewing with an eye towards accountability or understanding the role that these documents may have played in what happened on january 6th or even the big lie? >> so, you know, i think it sounds like the archivist has been dealing with the president's lawyers for some time now, many months, maybe even before the house select committee resolution, you know, even started the committee's investigation. so i think they were doing it originally just because they realized 15 boxes of presidential records had gone to mar-a-lago and should not have gone there. now, of course, it's certainly

possible that there are documents or other materials in those boxes that, again, are part of what is relevant and what is requested by the house select committee. it could be other documents that would be eventually of use and requested or subpoenaed by the fulton county prosecutor or other governmental entities in the course of their statutorily or otherwise authorized investigations. i think to go back to your very first question about sort of violating the presidential records act, i think one of the things that the archivist will be doing, of course, when they go through these materials is see if there are things responsive to the house select committee's request. and then i think it will be up to investigators to determine is there anything -- just assuming for a minute, and we don't know, and i don't want to really speculate. but if there were a lot of responsive documents relevant either to the attack on the capitol or the efforts to overturn the results of the

election or to pressure secretary of state raffensperger in georgia or anything like that, i think, you know, if there are those types of records, investigators will want to look into this question of were they willfully concealed by taking them to mar-a-lago. then you would get into questions about whether there were vielolations in that willf concealing, but we're far away from that at this point. >> it seems to always come back to intent, which is obviously the hurdle that needs to be proven in so many respects. mary mccord, thank you so much. >> thank you for having me, laura. important new information tonight after the police killing of another black man in minneapolis. this time, it happened as a result of a no-knock warrant. reporter omar jimenez is closely following the case and updates us. that's next.

ready to style in just one step? introducing new tresemme one step stylers. five professional benefits. one simple step. totally effortless. styling has never been easier. tresemme. do it with style. ♪"don't ya leave" by squeak e clean♪ [doorbell] ♪ [doorbell] ♪ [doorbell] all the delivery. no delivery fees. dashpass.

aahhh let's get you lovebirds flying! book with priceline and you save more... so you can “ahhhh” more. - ahhh... - ahhhh... - ahhhhh!!!!!!! - ahhhhh!!!!!!! ahhhhh! ahhhhh! aaaaah... i'll see you at the hotel. priceline. every trip is a big deal.

so tonight we know who the

minneapolis police s.w.a.t. team went looking for when they shot and killed a black man in his own home who had committed no crime. the answer hits close to home for the family of amir locke one week after his death. but they say it shouldn't take the focus off their loss, one they call the result of a dangerous technique that they say must be banned. cnn's omar jimenez is in minneapolis with the new revelations and a warning. you'll see police body cam video in this story that is disturbing. >> reporter: they were looking in the right apartment, but they found the wrong person when amir locke was shot and killed by police. they were looking for his cousin, 17-year-old makai speed, who was charged tuesday in the murder of a man named otis elder in nearby st. paul about a month earlier, court documents show. they also show investigators tracked the allegedly stolen car

they say was used as a getaway vehicle to a minneapolis apartment complex. the police departments had search warrants that authorized the search of three apartments at the bolero flats. in one of them was locke asleep on the couch. as he appeared to wake up, he's seen with a gun, and police shoot. locke was killed. his name wasn't listed on the search warrant, police and his attorneys say. >> everyone from top to bottom has blamed the decision not to actually implement a ban on no-knock warrants. the decisions of the minneapolis police officials and officers involved in continuing to seek no-knock warrants. >> reporter: in 2020, minneapolis police were executing roughly 139 no-knock wa warrants per year. in november of that year, the city updated its no-knock policy saying police officers will be required to announce their.

mayor jacob fry was criticized as giving the impression he completely banned the practice. >> there's certainly more and more people as outside groups began weighing in, language began more casual, including my own, which did not reflect the necessary precision or nuance, and i own that. my language and what we were saying in certainly longer form honored the spirit of this policy change, but there were instances when it did not. >> reporter: recently frye moved the city to a temporary moratorium though they're still allowed in situations with imminent risk and approval of the chief, but locke's family wants a permanent ban, and their attorneys say that's the only thing that's going to solve this. >> what do you feel needs to be implemented to prevent this from happening ever again? >> we need a flat-out moratorium

and ban on no-knock warrants in real life when exigent circumstances arise, the law already provides for that. this concept of a no-knock warrant under even emergency situations still seems ridiculous. >> reporter: the no-knock policy also has some gun advocacy groups concerned, including the minnesota gun owners caucus, especially as locke's family and attorneys say, he was in legal possession of his gun. shortly after the shooting, the caucus called his death completely avoidable, and mr. locke did what many of us might do in the same confusing circumstances. he reached for a legal means of self-defense while i sought to understand what was happening. protests are now calling for the familiar chants of justice in the twin cities for more than just a prosecution of an officer, but a change in policy. now, mayor frey has said they're currently looking into their no-knock policy, potentially to

take it further. it's also what state investigators are looking at to determine whether proper policy and procedure was followed here by minneapolis police. the policy at the time was that officers must announce themselves before entry unless there is an imminent risk. what that imminent risk was or wasn't determined by supervisors is what's being looked at along with whether these officers properly announced themselves before crossing the threshold into this apartment. laura. >> omar jimenez, excellent reporting as always. thank you. we're going to take this revised debate -- revived debate on no-knock warrants to two people with very valuable perspectives that i really want you to hear. one of them was mentioned in omar's report. he's the vice president of the gun owners caucus in minnesota that's calling for an independent investigation of this tragedy. we also have former philly police commissioner charles ramsey, on whether police officers can, well, effectively

do their jobs without no-knock warrants in play. a lot to consider, up next. ♪ life can be a lot to handle. ♪ this magic moment ♪ but heinz knows there's plenty of magic in all that chaos. ♪ so different and so new ♪ ♪ was like any other... ♪

- i'm norm. - i'm szasz. [norm] and we live in columbia, missouri. we do consulting, but we also write. [szasz] we take care of ourselves constantly; it's important. we walk three to five times a week, a couple miles at a time. - we've both been taking prevagen for a little more than 11 years now. after about 30 days of taking it, we noticed clarity that we didn't notice before. - it's still helping me. i still notice a difference. prevagen. healthier brain. better life. (vo) jamaica. (woman) best decision ever. (vo) feel the sand between your toes, and the gentle waves of the sea on your skin.

feel the warm jamaican breeze lift your spirits and nourish your soul. escape to exactly what makes your heart beat. you will love every moment. jamaica. heartbeat of the world. let's go.

the police shooting death of amir locke has one gun rights organization weighing in. no, it's not the nra. the minnesota gun owners caucus released this statement. the tragic circumstances of mr. locke's death were completely avoidable. it's yet another example where a no-knock warrant has resulted in the death of an innocent person. joining me now is rob doar, the vice president of that very organization, and charles ramsey, former philadelphia police commissioner. i'm glad to have you both. you offer such different perspectives, and i think it's valuable to have both of them. i want to begin with you, rob, because i'm from minnesota, and one of the things that has always bothered me in terms of

the obvious tragedies, but it's also the silence from organizations that claim to speak on behalf of lawful gun owners. i remember when philando castile was killed back in 2016. another lawful gun owner. your organization released a statement even in support of the idea about lawful gun ownership then. but i wonder initially why do you think there is the silence from other organizations that proclaim similar viewpoints about second amendment rights, but this is the category where silence results? >> yeah. i think it's difficult for organizations to take a bold stance, especially if it's something that may cause division among their membership. i can't speak for other organizations, but i think our -- we've built a culture around our organization, our members, and our supporters expect us to do the right thing and to always speak on behalf of lawful gun ownership and in defense of the second amendment. >> you know, to be fair, i'm

talking about the nra, and they claim they didn't really a statement in defense of philando castile because they say the presence of marijuana in his car and in his system. that's what they've reportedly said about this issue whether it's indeed true or not. so do you support a ban on no-knock warrants? it seems quite clear you've been advocating it was completely avoidable. do you support a ban on no-knock warrants? >> i think we need to take a hard look on in. the city of st. paul right next door has managed to do their job for the last five years without using a single no-knock warrant. they face the same dangers, the same population types, the same crimes, yet they don't use any. and minneapolis used between 100 and 200 a year. at the end of the day, if we have to choose between having no-knock warrants eliminated or having law-abiding, innocent citizens kill sod that police can recover evidence in the execution of a search warrant,

we'll err on the side of the citizen and just suggest that no no-knock warrants should be used any more. >> we bring you in, chief ramsey, because you have extraordinary experience in this field, and i expect you have a particular take because certainly some could be dismissive of the notion of banning no-knock warrants as naive in how things actually happen in terms of the execution of warrants. but i wonder if that assessment of naivety is actually one that is not accurate? do you think that officers could really do their jobs and not have no-knock warrants as a viable option? what do you think? >> well, i don't think there should be an outright ban, but i do think there needs to be a very high bar set. and those kinds of warrants ought to be approved by the court beforehand. so i haven't always been a police chief. i spent a lot of time working in narcotics back when i was in the chicago police department, and i participated in the execution of hundreds of search warrants, and

very rarely did we go the no-knock route. it was knock and announce. so when i heard the number of 139 in minneapolis, i thought that was very high in terms of the number of no-knock warrants. but there are some high-risk warrants where perhaps no-knock would be the best approach in trying to execute the warrant safely and be able to apprehend the individual without that person being harmed either. so an outright ban would be something that i would not be in favor of, but i do think there has to be some very tight restrictions placed on it? >> if you watch the footage here, and i'm sure you've both seen it. when you look at it, does it appear to you that what you saw was police following the appropriate protocol for even an available no-knock warrant? and if not, do you think if they had followed the protocol precisely, that there is just unfortunately the callous view of collateral damage being the result? i hate to even phrase it that

way because a human life was lost. but in terms of thinking about the ways in which -- about bans and how they would be applied, is even a proper protocol-following officer at risk for having the same result? >> well, i watched the execution of the warrant a couple times. they used a key to get in. they probably had a landlord or someone give them a key once they showed the warrant. the individual, mr. locke, was asleep, and we all know when you're asleep and you wake up suddenly, you really don't know what's going on necessarily. he was armed. he did have a gun. what i saw in the video, i didn't see anything that violated training or anything like that. this is unfortunate. it is a tragedy. there's absolutely no question about it. i wish it had never happened, and i'm sure everybody wishes that it never happened. but i didn't see any direct violation, not based on what i could see. we don't have all the angles from all of the different body cameras, especially the individual that actually fired

the shot, to see the position of mr. locke at the time with the gun in his hand, to know whether or not the threat was immediate or not. but not seeing that, it's very difficult to judge. but that will all be part of the investigation, and my understanding, the state a.g. is going to be involved in the investigation. >> rob doar, i do note the idea of being consistent and the idea of what you stand for in terms of second amendment and having it apply to instances like this i think will go a long way to evaluating no-knock warrants. thank you for your time, both of you. >> thank you. >> thank you. we'll turn to a first amendment fight in just a moment. i'm talking about sarah palin and her defamation lawsuit against "the new york times." how the legal case could have some of palin's own supporters hoping she doesn't win. i'll tell you why next.

we need to reduce plastic waste in the environment. that's why at america's beverage companies, our bottles are made to be remade. not all plastic is the same. we're carefully designing our bottles to be 100% recyclable, including the caps. they're collected and separated from other plastics, so they can be turned back into material that we use to make new bottles. that completes the circle and reduces plastic waste. please help us get every bottle back. ♪"don't ya leave" by squeak e clean♪ [doorbell] ♪ [doorbell]

♪ [doorbell] all the delivery. no delivery fees. dashpass. what can i du with less asthma? with dupixent, i can du more....beginners' yoga. namaste... ...surprise parties. aww, you guys. dupixent helps prevent asthma attacks... ...for 3!... ...so i can du more of the things i love. dupixent is not for sudden breathing problems. it's an add-on-treatment for specific types of moderate-to-severe asthma that can improve lung function for better breathing in as little as two weeks. and can reduce, or even eliminate, oral steroids. and here's something important. dupixent can cause serious allergic reactions, including anaphylaxis. get help right away if you have rash, shortness of breath, chest pain, tingling or numbness in your limbs. tell your doctor if you have a parasitic infection, and don't change or stop your asthma treatments,

including steroids, without talking to your doctor. are you ready to du more with less asthma? just ask your asthma specialist about dupixent.

[ coughing and sneezing ] cold season is back. bounce back fast with alka seltzer plus. with 25% more concentrated power. alka-seltzer plus. ♪ oh, what a relief it is ♪ so fast! also try for cough, mucus & congestion. unlimited coffee? for an entire month? just $8.99? and the first month is free. join panera's unlimited sip club just $8.99 a month. panera. the familiar made fantastic.

there's new testimony in the defamation trial of sarah palin versus "the new york times," the times's formal editorial page editor today taking partial blame for the 2017 editorial at issue that falsely linked her political action committee to the 2011 shooting of congresswoman gabby giffords. quote, this is my fault. right, i wrote those sentences and i'm not looking to shift the blame to anyone else so i just want to say that, but yeah, i mean, this is why we send playback to writers because they're the ones who reported the story. constitutional law and media attorney theodore butrose joins me i know. and full disclosure, mr. boutros has represented cnn on legal matters before. good to see you. if particular, i wonder, first of all, this is the first libel case against the times to go to trial in, what, 20 years? usually it's resolved before a jury.

here we are in a full blown trial. what makes this case so different? >> these cases do, laura, usually get dismissed, based on first amendment grounds. i think it's been, maybe even 50 years since "the new york times" has gone to trial. and so it really is unusual. there are a couple twists and turns in this case but you are absolutely right that mr. bennett was a very good witness today, very contrite, very straightforward. they made a mistake. and the first amendment protects that. it only imposes liability where a public figure sues where there's actual malice and there's no way ms. palin is going to prove that. >> on that notion of actual malice, of course, it makes you assume that the person has a higher standing than, say, the average person. if you're a public figure, there has to be actual malice shown because the assumption is you have thrust yourself into the public limelight. therefore you don't have the same benefits of the everyday person. in terms of the malice standard, though, might this case present an opportunity for this to be revisited. we've got supreme court justices

who've wanted to reassess that standard in the past, is this the vehicle now? >> sarah palin is arguing that the "new york times" versus sullivan, the famous case that established the actual malice principle should be overturned, other parties are making the same argument, it's a very dangerous time for freedom of the press and for the american people who want to get information about powerful figures like sarah palin, and others, with justices, at least two, saying they'd be willing to reconsider it. that's in play in this case and in other cases. it's very dangerous for journalists across the ideological spectrum. >> now, of course it means it's a higher standard, but ted, let me ask you this, it's dangerous for journalists but it's also dangerous for those who are the subject of their actual reporting, right, is there something that can be done for those who say, look, maybe the bar is high, but maybe it's too high? i am wronged as a person, and why should journalists have sort of a free pass, what do you say to that? >> well, the actual malice

standard and the first amendment doesn't just protect journalists, it protects everyone and the supreme court and the "new york times" versus sullivan case in 1964 said, in a democracy, we want open, costed, caustic, vehement, sometimes nasty debate to flourish to be a check on the government, to be a check on public figures. the new yorktimes standard doesn't borrow all libel suits. so a private person can bring a libel case and doesn't have to prove actual malice. a public figure like ms. palin, if she could prove if the "new york times" intentionally made a false statement, if she can't prove it here, they corrected it quickly. it's extremely important to our democracy and it's going to be interesting to see how it plays out. i think ms. palin is going to lose. >> we'll soon see. ted boutros, thank you so much. good hearing from you. we'll be right back. ♪

your plain aspirin could be hurting your stomach. vazalore is the first liquid-filled aspirin capsule clinically shown to cause fewer ulcers than plain aspirin. try vazalore. aspirin made amazing! as a struggling actor, i need all the breaks that i can get. at liberty butchemel... cut. liberty mu... line? cut. liberty mutual customizes your car insurance so you only pay for what you need.

cut. liberty m... am i allowed to riff? what if i come out of the water? liberty biberty... cut. we'll dub it. liberty mutual customizes your car insurance so you only pay for what you need. only pay for what you need. ♪ liberty. liberty. liberty. liberty. ♪

yep, it's go time with wireless on the most reliable network. ok, that jump was crazy! but what's crazier? you get unlimited for just 30 bucks. nice! but mine has 5g included. wait! 5g included? yup, even these guys get it. nice ride, by the way. and the icing on the cake? saving up to 400 bucks? exactly. wait, shouldn't you be navigating? xfinity mobile. it's wireless that does it all and saves a lot. like a lot, a lot.

thanks for watching, i'll be back tomorrow night. "don lemon tonight" starts right now. so tomorrow i understand here in new york we won't have to do that as we walk around businesses. >> really? >> yes. that's what the announcement is supposed to be. no masks indoors. >> how you feel about that? >> i have mixed feelings. i think that it's -- it's not the same in every single place, right, in every single city, in every single town, you have to look at the numbers, and look at where, you know, the variants are and what have you, and the cases. but i think it's good, you know, for -- if everyone is vaxed, if you are -- if you, you know, vax and boosted, i think you should be able to do it and you don't have a high case rate, i think why not? but i think -- >> i've got to tell you -- >> if it goes back up, we may be back to masks.