tv CNN Tonight CNN February 10, 2022 6:00pm-7:00pm PST
6:00 pm
we want to finish the broadcast where we began and congratulate, again, anderson and benjamin and now big brother wyatt and welcome sebastian luke cooper to the life. what a bright light and the best way to say good-bye. the news continues, to let's hand it over to laura coates and hand it over to laura coates and cnn tonight. -- captions by vitac -- www.vitac.com >>hey john. my husband said i can't look at any more babies, he's done he says. oh, my gosh, so cute. congratulations, anderson. now, go to bed, john. i know you're tired. you work so hard. thank you. everyone, i am laura coates, and this is cnn tonight. and people who have nothing to hide don't destroy evidence that must be archived under the law. says who? donald trump. >> people who have nothing to hide don't smash phones with hammers, don't bleach their emails or destroy evidence to
6:01 pm
keep it from being publicly archived as required under federal law. >> hm, remember all those cries of crooked hillary or lock her up and throw away the key? well, you remember. >> crooked hillary. hillary was a criminal. she deleted her emails. people go to jail for that. [ crowd chanting, lock her up] >> her emails, which put america's entire national security at risk. so, crooked hillary -- wait. crooked -- you should lock her up. i'll tell you. >> doesn't age well, does it? you know, his relentless attacks actually worked though, right? that infamous private server controversy may very well have cost hillary clinton the presidency.
6:02 pm
now, look in no way would i ever endeavor to excuse any mishandling of government information, particularly if it's classified materials, and especially if your secretary of state. but let's talk about what actually happened in reaction to those allegations. the fbi did open a criminal investigation, and the justice department closed it without bringing any charges against clinton or anyone else within the scope of that investigation. there were no findings of any intentional violation of law in that case. and let's not forget, there were hearings and hearings launched by house republicans in congress over those emails. so, if consistency is what you should go for and having sort of the knowledge of what happens in one instance must happen in another, you'd expect those same republicans who led the charge for investigations then to be vocal now. but they seem to be awfully quiet now about all we're learning about trump's handling
6:03 pm
of government information. maybe amnesia selectively. how quickly some people forget or maybe want the electorate to forget. will there now be "lock him up" chants? of course they wouldn't be warranted. we don't actually know if trump broke any laws or violated the presidential records act by taking more than a dozen boxes of federal documents with him when he left office, some of which, by the way, could contain top secret classified material, according to a new report from the "washington post" tonight. obviously the president is able to de clos identify things. the sources saying some of those boxes actually contained material clearly marked as classified. and we do know the national archives has asked the justice department to investigate just how those documents and boxes made their way to mar-a-lago. something tells me they're not asking whether it was the postal
6:04 pm
service or fedex but why they're actually there instead of where they're supposed to be. and we also know that trump had a bad habit of ripping up documents while he was in the white house. archive staff actually had to tape some documents back together that were then handed over to the january 6th committee. and by the way, republicans have been noticeably quiet about that. but you know who hasn't been quiet about that? hillary clinton. she's trolling trump now about it on twitter, posting a resounding, mmmhmm. and now there is this new reporting that trump also had had a habit of apparently flushing papers down the toilet at the white house, this according to cnn analyst and "new york times" reporter maggie haberman who are has an upcoming book on trump called "confidence man." according to her, staff and white house residents would find the toilet clogged in donald
6:05 pm
trump's bathroom with wads of clumped up paper that wasn't toilet paper, by the way. so much clogging in the pipes, apparently, that an engineer would have to come and fix it. i wonder if that partially explains his odd obsession with toilets. i remember all those rants about not having enough water pressure to flush everything down. do you? >> we're looking very strongly at sinks and showers and other elements, bathrooms. people are flushing toilets 10 times, 15 times as opposed to once. i won't talk about the fact that people have to flush their toilet 15 times. >> i have to tell you, that kind of makes you listen to that in a whole new light, doesn't it? i mean, you thought it was odd then, 15 times and not one to talk about it. i want you to know, he calls this another fake story. he calls it, quote,
6:06 pm
categorically untrue. says it's, quote, made up for p publicity, for a, quote, mostly fictitious book, the book he agreed to be interviewed for. he had no obligation to return any records to the national archives, which we'll talk about in just a moment. but he also said he worked collaboratively to do so nonetheless. and meanwhile, there's also the mystery of the gaps in white house phone logs on january 6th, gaps as to what transpired that day, records the house select committee have obtained apparently don't contain entries of phone calls between the former president and lawmakers, the same calls that have been widely reported in the press. now, look, perhaps that's for a benign reason. it could be because trump sometimes used his aide's phones or maybe his own personal phones. we actually don't know yet. but it is something this january
6:07 pm
6 committee is trying to get to the bottom of, and with good reason. the question is, did trump violate the presidential records act with all those boxes that found their way to mar-a-lago? i mean, especially if they were top secret documents in there, according to "the washington post"? and if so, could there actually be criminal consequences to this? let's turn to two experts on this, norm eisen, a former white house ethics czar, who was once responsible, by the way, for enforcing rules about records. and also cnn presidential historian, tim naftali, former director of the nixon presidential library. what an embarrassment of riches to have you both on today. norm, i'm going to begin with you. i'm trying to figure out this process of how these documents are supposed to be preserved. i mean, is it every document that a president touches? or does he have some discretion as being, as we have called them, the leader of the free world, to decide what gets
6:08 pm
handed over? >> laura, thanks for having me. he's the leader of the free world, but he's not the leader of free shredding. every scrap of paper has to be preserved. that was -- when i met with incoming president obama and incoming vice president joe biden, that was what i explained to them about the law. and that's why we know that white house staff would sometimes run around trying to piece together the scraps that were torn. obviously we now learned that some things were beyond redemption. we know why that extremely strong water pressure was needed, laura, to flush away the evidence. so, there's a saying in washington. often the cover-up is worse than the crime. and we need to see where it goes. but it looks awfully suspicious. >> it does. i often can't sometimes believe the things we actually have to
6:09 pm
report and the fact that the truth is stranger than fiction. but then again we're talking to a man now, tim naftali, you know full well that the so-called plumbers of the world had a role in nixon's own experience when it comes to evaluating what he did and did not do. i wonder from your perspective, give us a little bit of the history. until nixon, the idea of presidents being able to take their documents, their mementoes, whatever their records were, that was pretty standard practice at that point. >> it was, yes. i think donald trump has certainly given the new meaning to the term white house plumbers. in the nixon case, the plumbers were supposed to prevent leaks. in trump's case, they were supposed to help get rid of documents, i suppose. our -- once again, this is a presidential norm. our first president, george washington, decided that his
6:10 pm
records belonged to him. and so from george washington until richard nixon, presidents owned their documents. they could sell them. they could destroy them. presidential families often sold presidential documents after a term had ended. so, there was really no control over presidential records. that changes because of watergate, because of plumbers, nixon's plumbers. and as a result of watergate, richard nixon's papers were seized. it was like a crime scene. everything was seized, including the famous tapes. after the nixon experience, congress decided to act and decided to renegotiate the relationship between presidential records and presidents. now, remember, all of our three branches are coequal. it wasn't -- if congress was able to seize nixon's documents because nixon had been such a bad actor. he, by the way, would later sue and got some of them back.
6:11 pm
>> but on that point -- on that point, tim, congress realized, of course, the transparency notion, the idea of wanted the american people to be able to see documents and also the idea of potential criminality here. i appreciate the history because it gives us the context we need on this as to why the norm was changed. and let me go back to norm, the norm in this conversation, other than the norms that are often broken here. but let me ask you. first of all, it's one thing to have it changed. but we're talking about some things reportedly as top secret documents. yeah, sure, the president of the united states, as you know, can declassify whatever the president wants. it's sort of the prerogative it's good to be the king in that respect, even though we don't have one. but now he's the former president. what does it mean when there might be top secret or classified documents contained in the possession of even a former president? is the same prerogative still available? >> it's not good, laura.
6:12 pm
the -- you know, there's questions about who else might have handled them, whether he went through the proper procedures to declassify them, whether any procedures were followed at all. i think in terms of the president's criminal liability -- and you know this well, as a former prosecutor -- because of his classification authority, the case for prosecuting him possibly as the january 6 committee looks at criminal referrals. doj and inspectors general are looking at this. the case on the classified documents has some complexities because of the declassification authority. it is also a crime to destroy government documents. seldom prosecuted. but, laura, the most important question here i think is, was the president destroying, shredding, flushing, taking away documents because they incriminated him?
6:13 pm
that gets us into something that is investigated and prosecuted all the time, obstruction. and, you know -- >> and also on that point, though -- on that point -- you're right, norm. on that point -- i want to give you the last word, tim. on that point, on destruction, i can't help but draw the similarity between 18 and a half minutes gone and nixon tapes here. are we going to expect the rosemary lean and stretch conversation here as to how there may have been gaps? >> the big difference here is whereas in the case of nixon, the shredding was done by his lieutenants and the 18.5 minutes. in trump's case, it was him. that's what's different. the systemic destruction. we've been hearing about this for years. the systemic destruction came from the top, which means the president himself had nothing
6:14 pm
but contempt for the idea of recordkeeping, which means he had nothing but contempt for accountability. that's why we keep records. we don't keep records to allow people like me to write books. that's good. we keep records so the public knows what their presidents did and the presidents feel a little bit of restraint because they know they'll be judged in the court of history if they abuse power. >> and yet you both wrote excellent books. so nice to hear from you both. thank you. >> thank you, laura. tonight cnn is obtaining bob saget's autopsy report. we'll dig into what it says about the actor's tragic death from blunt head force trauma, next. the iphone 13 pro with 5g.g. that's the onene with the amazing camera? yep! every business deserves it... like one's that re-o-opened! hi, we have an appointment. and every new business that just opened! like aromatherapy rugs! i'll take one in blue please! it's not complicated.
6:15 pm
at&t is giving new and existing business customers our best deals on every iphone. ♪ ♪ looking to get back in your type 2 diabetes zone? once-weekly ozempic® can help. ♪ oh, oh, oh, ozempic®! ♪ ♪ oh, oh, oh ♪ ozempic® is proven to lower a1c. most pple who took ozempic® reached an a1c under 7 and maintain it. and you may lose weight. adults lost on average up to 12 pounds. in adults also with known heart disease, ozempic® lowers the risk of major cardiovascular events such as heart attack, stroke, or death. ozempic® helped me get back in my type 2 diabetes zone. ozempic® isn't for people with type 1 diabetes. don't share needles or pens, or reuse needles. don't take ozempic® if you or your family ever had medullary thyroid cancer, or have multiple endocrine neoplasia syndrome type 2, or if allergic to it. stop ozempic® and get medical help right away if you get a lump or swelling in your neck, severe stomach pain, or an allergic reaction. serious side effects may include pancreatitis.
6:16 pm
tell your provider about vision problems or changes. taking ozempic® with a sulfonylurea or insulin may increase low blood sugar risk. side effects like nausea, vomiting, and diarrhea may lead to dehydration, which may worsen kidney problems. looking to get back in your type 2 diabetes zone? ask your health care provider today about once-weekly ozempic®. ♪ oh, oh, oh, ozempic®! ♪ you may pay as little as $25 for a 3-month prescription.
6:18 pm
real cowboys get customized car insurance with liberty mutual, so we only pay for what we need. -hey tex, -wooo. can someone else get a turn? yeah, hang on, i'm about to break my own record. only pay for what you need. ♪ liberty. liberty. liberty. liberty. ♪ we have new details in the circumstances surrounding the death of 65-year-old actor bob saget in a florida hotel room just last month. the autopsy report released
6:19 pm
today revealing that saget had covid-19 at the time of his death. but he died, however, as a result of blunt head trauma. the report saying, quote, it is the most probable that the decedent suffered an unwitnessed fall backwards and struck the posterior aspect of his head. the manner of death is accident. joining me now to discuss, dr. priya banerjee, one of the top forensic experts in the country. thank you for joining me. the prosecutor within sees a report like this, and my mind begins to churn. from your perspective, you don't look at this as being something suspicious, even though we see things like blunt force injuries. is that right? >> yes, i mean, i read the whole report, not just the final diagnosis. and when you put it all together, i think it is most consistent with some sort of accidental whether it be fall or
6:20 pm
impact, you know, that led to his death, sadly. >> now, what makes you -- you read the report. walk us through your approach of doing it. you see the head injuries. you learn about the pooling of the blood. we hear about the different languages described. when you're looking at this evaluating, obviously you did not do this as your medical examiner forensic reporter. when you are reviewing it, what are you looking for to determine that it was an accident? >> true. you know, i have to sort of -- you know, i don't have the investigative report given to me. that's what the original medical examiner would have. taking it all into consideration, you know, first i started looking at the outside of the body. and i'm just going to point to my head sort of at the back of my head where my fingers are. basically the mid back of the skull and the scalp. that's where he had what's called an abrasion, which is if anyone skins their knee, that's what an abrasion is, where the skin basically, top layers of it are brushed off from some sort
6:21 pm
of trauma. and in this case, a blunt trauma. so, that's where the impact was. and then there's bleeding underneath it and skull fractures and deeper injuries to the brain. you know, i think of more nefarious issues, i would think that there would be lacerations and multiple hits related to it, you know, not just a single impact. i think when i looked at it, i could say, okay, this is all consistent with one event. >> and to be clear, obviously, you know, we don't have all the information. you were talking from your perspective and your experience, which i do very much appreciate. but one of the things i think shocked people is this idea of the injuries. there were fractures -- plural, fractures -- and what was apparent in the orbital area, around the eye area there. when i look at this and say to myself, i'm not a doctor, obviously, but if somebody is hit in the back of their head, why would their exhibit some indicia of injury to the front of the face? is that leading people to think
6:22 pm
maybe somebody was hurt in the front as well? or is it just the impact would resound in that way? >> and that's exactly a great question. you have to understand the underlying mechanisms. and if i could just explain it as simply as possible, he fell to the back of his head where i'm pointing. that's a lot of force, okay? fell or had an impact, whatever it may be, if there was a lot of force generated, it, you know, rubbed away the surface of the skin. but that force now goes through the skull. it radiates around, and the brain is also within a thick box, which is a hard box, the skull. now the impact goes from the back to the front. so, you think about sort of like an egg shell in a way, there's thinner parts of the skull that crack, which are toward the front, and the brain is pushed from the back to the front and then pushed back again. and so that movement is injuring
6:23 pm
the brain, causing bleeding in and around it, as well as the force when it radiates from back to front. that's where you're getting those orbital skull fractures. now, when there's bleeding especially over the eyes, what you're getting is that blood sort of seeps down, and it looks like someone can have a black eye, like they were punched in the face. but that's not what we know -- it's consistent with bleeding from the inside tracking down. >> it just -- it's shocking to think about, just obviously how fragile life is and the idea this can come from one impact, just how fragile the brain is. thank you, doctor, for all your expertise. i can't help but think about what his children and family and loved ones are thinking. we're talking about it in awe clinical way but not out of disrespect. we want to understand what happened and understand the loss of life. thank you so much. i appreciate it. >> thank you for having me. there are new developments tonight in the trial of sarah palin versus, well, "the new
6:24 pm
york times." palin took to the stand today in the suit against the paper for defamation and she reportedly shouted, objection. she did it. we're going weigh in on the arguments on both sides next. imagine getting $150,000 dollars... for one year of epic adventures... in a new dge hellcat... anyou don't even have to quit your day job. you just need to sho you've got real driv are you our new chief donut maker?iv
6:25 pm
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.
6:26 pm
please help us get every bottle back. (burke) this is why you want farmers claim forgiveness... [echoing] claim forgiveness-ness, your home premium won't go up just because of this. (woman) wow, that's something. (burke) you get a whole lot of something with farmers policy perks. [echoing] get a quote today. ♪ we are farmers. bum-pa-dum, bum-bum-bum-bum ♪
6:28 pm
so, sarah palin took the stand today for the second day in a row in her defamation case against "the new york times." palin telling the jury that she believes "the new york times" acted with malicious intent, causing her emotional damage. and saying, quote, it's hard to lay your head on a pillow and have a restful night when you know that lies are told about you, a specific lie that was not going to be fixed. that causes some stress anyone would feel. back with us is ted boutrous, a constitutional law and media attorney, who has previously
6:29 pm
represented cnn in legal matters. ted, i'm glad you're back because i have a lot of questions here. first of all, this idea of her testimony, you know, part of the standard here is the actual malice, which is why she probably mentioned that notion, which is a higher degree because she's a public figure. and so you think because you're thrust into the limelight you should take a couple hits on the chin. did she have a compelling case for herself about how malice was actually established here? >> she did not make a -- have a compelling case at all, laura. she bears a heavy burden under the first amendment to prove actual malice. it was a very, very weak presentation. very palin-esque, weird use of words, tried to be folksy, evasive, made a number of false statements herself from the stand. it did not work. >> and in terms of evasive, was she actually asked about, well, how did this actually impact?
6:30 pm
that's part of the burden for the act to prove. you can't say theoretically this might have happened. you have to be concrete about how it actually did, right? >> exactly. you just zeroed in on one of the biggest gaps in her case. she could not point to a single specific conversation with anybody, her family members, her close friends, where they said, we saw that article, it's terrible or she called them and said this article is terrible. she couldn't point to anyone who shunned her or thought differently about her. she couldn't point to any financial harm or lost opportunities. it was a glaring, glaring gap in her case. and she was very general and evasive. and it was clear she was just trying to, you know, tap dance around the fact that she had no harm and no evidence. >> now, early in my career, as you know, i did defamation cases. so, i don't want to let the media off the hook here in this respect because there are instances where there is actual malice, right? but it's a very hard sort of burden to be able to breach here.
6:31 pm
but if it hadn't been corrected as quickly by "the new york times," right, if it hasn't been corrected, if it hadn't been corrected in that piece, would there have been a more substantial case she could have made here? >> it would have helped her slightly. but the fact there was no correction doesn't really help on actual malice as long as the proof shows that the journalist and the news organization at the time of publication did not believe that the information was false and published it anyway or recklessly ignore their own knowledge to show that it was false. but the correction, again, just amplified the fact that "the new york times," including james bennet, the editor who testified, were acting in good faith. they made a mistake. it famously people talk about journalism is the first rough draft of history. and the supreme court has built into this first amendment the notion that there has to be breathing space for the occasional good faith mistake. that's what happened here. and i think that's what the
6:32 pm
evidence showed over and over again. >> even at the time the supreme court made the statement about breathing space, i'm not sure anyone could have contemplated the 24/7 news psych and the different iterations of journalism and breakneck pace we are at. but we have the standards to comply with it. it's interesting to think about the way she's framing this. she says she may appeal to the supreme court to test "the new york times" if she is unsuccessful here. is it likely to be changed in some significant way do you think? >> i don't think so. i think there could be some refinement. i think the media landscape has changed. and you're right. there is a balance. people do have the right to protect their reputation. but the supreme court, i don't think, is going to overturn "new york times" versus sullivan. it's the cornerstone of our first amendment, jurisprudence, it's important to democracy. i think it's a long shot. but that's what's going on here. she's trying to get the courts to change the rules.
6:33 pm
others are too. that would be bad for our democracy, bad for everyone who wants to have a free and open debate in our society. >> ted boutrous, you are a very, very smart man. but i also look at the supreme court and say they've been inclined to test precedent very recently. i hope you're right about the cornerstones being maintained. ted boutrous, thank you so much. a appreciate it. thanks laura. now to the ongoing standoff at the border with canada. protesters have been blocking one of north america's biggest commercial gateways for days now. it's causing all kinds of disruptions. we have the mayor of windsor, ontario, a bridge away from detroit, the motor city. what are the options to diffuse the situation and how is the problem going to get fixed before it gets worse? that's next.
6:34 pm
♪ life can be a lot to handle. ♪ this gic moment ♪ but heinz knows there's plenty. ♪ so different and so new ♪ ♪ was like any other... ♪ 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. (music) who said you have to starve yourself to lose weight? who said you can't do dinner? who said only this is good? and this is bad? i'm doing it my way. meet plenity. an fda -cleared clinically proven weight management aid for adults with a bmi of 25-40
6:35 pm
when combined with diet and exercise. plenity is not a drug - it's made from naturally derived building blocks and helps you feel fuller and eat less. it is a prescription only treatment and is not for pregnant women or people allergic to its ingredients. talk to your doctor or visit myplenity.com to learn more. (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.
6:38 pm
canadians trying to feed their families and american workers trying to earn a paycheck are the ones feeling the impact of scenes like these. for four days now, traffic on the ambassador bridge has been disrupted. now, that bridge connects detroit and windsor and is the busiest international crossing in north america. that's in addition to the almost two-week-long siege of the capital city's downtown core and a blocking between manitoba and north dakota. it's not accurate to call what's happening in places like windsor simply a trucker protest. as cnn reporters on the scene tell us, there are many more non-truckers that are there than are actually truckers. closing those bridges actually cut canadians off from food. the u.s. exports $21 billion in food to canada every single year. and meanwhile, american auto makers are sending home some
6:39 pm
workers because their plants are now cut off from the part they actually need to keep the assembly lines moving. one economic group estimates lost wages from michigan auto workers just this week alone, mind you, could top $51 million. and this might actually spread. i mean, the dhs is now preparing for a similar scene here in washington, d.c. next month. and they also issued a warning about similar plans to try to disrupt traffic even around the super bowl in l.a. windsor mayor drew dill kins is seeing the impact firsthand, and he joins us right now. mayor, thank you for being here today. you know, i've got to say, for many people looking at this, this idea of calling it a protest involving just truckers or thinking they know precisely why everyone is protesting is actually not true, right? it's very amorphous. you called it sort of a leaderless group. is that right? >> it is a leaderless group. in many ways it reminds me of the occupy wall street movement
6:40 pm
where no one was quite clear what the ultimate goal was or the end game was of this group. so, that is in some ways what we have playing out on the streets here. and in addition i would describe some of the protesters to be more like the ones you would find at a regular g7 or g20 meeting, where they're just angry at government. and some are, you know, just willing to -- as they say, willing to die for the cause. and that's problematic when you're on the ground trying to deal with this in a policing r osensible type way. >> if someone is willing to die for a cause, it makes you think they might be violent in the actual event. have you tried to take more policing action to try to disperse people from this area? are we there yet? >> police did a really good job trying to negotiate with protesters. but there's no one leader and no one common theme. you can make an agreement with one person and easily have that overturned by a group that is, you know, just a few cars away. it's been difficult for police to do that. there have been incidents of
6:41 pm
violence where protesters have grabbed tire irons and surrounded police and they've had to disengage. so, there are -- it's just -- it's an illegal blockade. it is a protest that, you know, we support the hallmark of our respective democracies. it's all about understanding and being able to listen to people and communicate, express oneself. that's okay. what's not okay here is blocking the busiest international commercial corridor between the united states and canada that every single day carrying $400 million worth of goods back and forth between our respective countries. >> and you say the idea of the international crossing in particular and we're balancing the notions of people having right to to protest in a peaceful way that's not disruptive, perhaps, as well. you mentioned the idea if the end game is not clear, if there's not the coordination, how does this end then? you're in a very precarious position knowing that it hurts your community. it's hurting frankly north america as well. so, how does it end? what does it take to get it to
6:42 pm
stop? do you have any idea of where to go next? >> well, hopefully it ends peacefully. that's the ultimate goal from all sides, to make sure that we are dealing with folks in a fair and reasonable way and this ends peacefully. no one wants to see anyone get injured or harmed. but at the end of the day, if they won't leave peacefully, there will have to be action that is taken to help move these people out. if that involves bringing in tow trucks, bringing in additional police support from across ontario and across canada, so be it. they're already starting to arrive here, and we're going to have police support to be prepared for any eventuality. >> what kind of support are you getting nationwide about this issue? obviously north america includes america. are you getting coordination on this side of the border as well? is there coordination among other areas? obviously a lot of americans may look at this and mistakenly think it's a canadian problem, but really it's a north american issue at this point in time. what kind of coordination is
6:43 pm
there? >> i've had conversation with the governor of michigan's office. i've had conversations with the mayor of detroit. everyone i've spoken with is willing to provide whatever assistance we need. from a u.s. perspective, we appreciate all that is happening and all that is being offered. right now the situation is under control. tomorrow we go to court at noon to seek an injunction to help the police, you know, have documentation in their back pocket that they can present to this group of protesters and say, time to move on. and if they're unwilling to move on, we will bring in the tow trucks and the equipment to move the vehicles out of the way to reopen this border crossing because it is too essential to both of our national economies and the livelihood of this border crossing puts a lot of bread on the table for families on both sides of the border. >> i echo your sentiment and hope that this will be peaceful. but, you know, if people are talking about their convictions and they're already engaged in behavior that's so disruptive,
6:44 pm
how much confidence can you put in the piece of paper thaert th cops will be able to go. you mentioned the tow trucks. how are tow trucks navigating this blockade in some way? i'm look at logistically here, what can you do to change things if they don't want to leave and don't want to respect coming from the government, a piece of paper? >> yeah, i get that this injunction would be a single piece of paper, but it gives police more weight in the actions they are prepared to take. and they will do what is operationally required to move people out. you can't have anarchy take over the community. you can't have anarchy shut down the busiest border crossing between our two nations. there has to be a resolve here. and to the extent possible, we want it to end peacefully. no one wants anyone to get hurt. but at the end of the day we're prepared to go in and move folks out if that's what's required to open the border crossing. >> you've got quite a job ahead
6:45 pm
of you. thank you for taking the time and i wish you the best of luck to resolve it. it's in our all collective interest, so thank you. >> thank you very much. >> look, talking about log jams, i mean, senators have finally struck a deal to reauthorize the sliens against women act. after three year of negotiations, by the way. angelina jolie got emotional advocating for it. and i'll tell you what is the most unconscionable thing about that delay next. what can i du with less asthma? with dupixent i can du more...
6:46 pm
yardwork... long walks... that's how you du more, with dupixent, which helps prevent asthma attacks. 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.
6:48 pm
6:49 pm
and it's temperature balancing so you both sleep just right. and now, save 50% on the sleep number 360 limited edition smart bed. plus, 0% interest for 24 months. only for a limited time. so we had talked about a headline you may have missed this week. there was a deal reached on capitol hill to renew the violence against women act, and it came with the help of star power, too. activist and actress angelina jolie made several trips to washington this month just to
6:50 pm
push this legislation. it was notable not just because her daughter shared in her advocacy, but how emotional she got when she shamed congress for its silence. >> the reason so many people struggle to leave abusive situations is that they've been made to feel worthless. when there is silence from a congress too busy to renew the violence against women act for a decade, it reinforces that sense of worthlessness. you think, i guess my abuser is right. i guess i'm not worth very much. most of all i want to acknowledge the children who are terrified and suffering at this moment and the many people for whom this legislation comes too late. the women who have suffered through this system with little or no support, who still carry the pain and trauma of their abuse, the young adults who have survived abuse and emerged
6:51 pm
stronger not because of the child protective system but despite it, and the women and children who have died who could have been saved. >> let me take a step back for a moment, because there is actually more to this headline that should bother all of us. it's frankly unbelievable that we even need to have a violence against women act, but we do. it's also unbelievable that vth violence against women act was allowed to expire in 2019, but it did. even in a political climate such as this, frankly, it's unbelievable that it took more than three years to negotiate a way to renew, let alone strengthen, that act, but it did. what is absolutely unconscionable is it came down to the nra. and why?
6:52 pm
because they o'mpposed a loopho known as the boyfriend loophole. who is it? it ensured that anyone convicted, not accused but convicted, convicted of misdemeanor domestic violence would not be allowed to own or possess a gun. in the last few years, senators had been trying to expand that prohibition to not just married partners but to those who live together or those who share a child, but also those who are dating partners or stalkers and others covered by a protection order. but the nra didn't like it. they opposed the limitation on gun ownership in general, even in spite of the obvious truth, and it made women and children more vulnerable to violence, more vulnerable to abuse and more likely to be killed by their abuser who would now have the means to kill. i saw this so many times as a prosecutor looking at domestic
6:53 pm
violence, and the first thing we would ask, of course, is not to have a gun allowed to be in the possession. you would think in examining it, you wonder who should have been more powerful in these negotiations, women and children who have every right to be protected from violence, or a gun lobbying organization like the nra? we talk a good game in this country about how we want a government to be of the people and by the people and for the people. but times like this remind us that it is increasingly becoming a government of the lobbyists, by the special interests. and, frankly, for the love of money. even when it means violence against women persists, i guess just as long as you don't upset the apple cart of the nra, apparently their little ladies can take a seat. maybe altruism isn't your thing.
6:54 pm
maybe you only see the bottom line. well, how about this? the air force was just forced to pay $32 million to survivors and families of those killed in the 2017 mass shooting at the first baptist church in sutherland springs. on monday a federal judge found the military was mostly at fault, forced to report the shooting convictions to the fbi, which could have prevented him from purchasing the semiautomatic rifle that he used in that mass shooting. do you realize he fired more than 450 rounds into that church? he killed 26 people, including a pregnant woman. how did the nra respond? they doubled down on the myth that the only way to stop a bad guy with a gun is with a good guy with a gun. when, really, the bad guy with the gun shouldn't have had it in the first place.
6:55 pm
it's a loophole, though, nonetheless supported by the nra. but what won't be nra support? well, lawful gun owners like maybe amir locke or fernando steele killed police officers in my home state of minnesota. apparently those aren't the kinds of causes they prioritize. lawfully carrying a gun and alerting the police of its presence when the car you aren't driving in is pulled over? i'm not sure this is the right case for us in the nra. a man sleeping under a blanket jolted awake by a no-knock warrant being executed, even when it wasn't even intended for him? i'm not sure we have the time or maybe the resources. a convicted stalker who wants to carry a gun for the next time he violates a restraining order? ding, ding, ding, ding. now, that's in line with our mission statement. and the fact that congress' mission was thwarted for three years because of it? my, that is quite a statement,
6:56 pm
america. i rest my case. - common percy! - yeah let's go! on a trip. book with priceline. you save more, so you can “woooo” more. - wooo. - wooo. wooooo!!!!! woohooooo!!!! w-o-o-o-o-o... yeah, feel the savings. priceline. every trip is a big deal. woman: i have moderate to severe plaque psoriasis. now, there's skyrizi. ♪ things are getting clearer ♪ ♪ yeah i feel free ♪ ♪ to bare my skin, yeah that's all me. ♪ ♪ nothing and me go hand in hand ♪ ♪ nothing on my skin that's my new plan. ♪
6:57 pm
♪ nothing is everything. ♪ woman: keep your skin clearer with skyrizi. most who achieved 90% clearer skin at 4 months had lasting clearance through 1 year. in another study, most people had 90% clearer skin at 3 years. and skyrizi is 4 doses a year, after 2 starter doses. ♪ it's my moment so i just gotta say ♪ ♪ nothing is everything. ♪ skyrizi may increase your risk of infections and lower your ability to fight them. before treatment, your doctor should check you for infections and tuberculosis. tell your doctor if you have an infection or symptoms, such as fevers, sweats, chills, muscle aches, or coughs or if you plan to or recently received a vaccine. ♪ nothing is everything. ♪ woman: talk to your dermatologist about skyrizi. learn how abbvie could help you save.
6:58 pm
6:59 pm
yep, it's go time on the most reliable network. you get unlimited for just $30 bucks. nice! but mine has 5g included. yep, even these guys get it. and the icing on the cake? saving up to $400 bucks? exactly! xfinity mobile. it's wireless that does it all and saves a lot. get the new samsung galaxy s22 series on xfinity mobile. and right now, save big with up to $750 off a new samsung device. switch today.
7:00 pm
well, that's it for us tonight. i'll be back tomorrow. "don lemon tonight" with don lemon starts right now. >> so how do you lock up this one? plug your toilet? >> you can't help but step right in it. i challenge you to how much you'll have to step right in it and go down the drain. >> how does that thing go, throw your troubles down the drain
288 Views
Uploaded by TV Archive on