the canadian government is bringing in mu measures to help curb the huge trucker inspired protests against the country's covid-19 mandates. today prime minister trudeau said the government is invoking the emergencies act for the first time to help address the impact of the protests. the act can temporarily suspend citizens' rights to free movement or asem bringa assembl. this comes as the ambassador bridge, north america's busiest land border crossing reopened sunday as ontario province announced plans to loosen pandemic restrictions. the news continues, so let's hand it over to laura coatess and "cnn tonight." thanks john berman. happy valentine's day. >> you too. >> i am laura coates and this is "cnn tonight." there's a heavy feeling in the

air. russia has amassed forces on three sides of ukraine with an estimated 130,000 troops, and now according to the pentagon, this could be the week putin strikes. >> i won't get into a specific date. i don't think that would be smart. i would just tell you that it is entirely possible that he could move with little to no warning. >> it's a scary thought, but there's still so much uncertainty, and the u.s. isn't taking any chances. they're now closing our embassy in ukraine's capital of kyiv and temporarily relocating remaining diplomatic personnel to a city now in the western part of the country. the only one, frankly, who knows what vladimir putin's going to do, well, is vladimir putin. and the only one who knows what putin actually wants with ukraine is putin. he staged a televised meeting with his foreign minister lavrov today at, by the way, another awkwardly long table for some

reason, saying russia is still open to diplomacy. and the kremlin now adding tonight, putin is still, quote, willing to negotiate. but one thing we know about comrade vlad, he isn't a peace-making kind of guy. the authoritarian, well, he does what he wants. he wasn't bluffing when he annexed crimea back in 2014. he now wants to send some kind of signal to the world yet again, but the big question here is what in the world is his endgame when it comes to ukraine? and frankly, i know many of you are also wondering out there, what would a war there mean for america here? we're going to get into all of that, answer all those questions tonight. and the u.s. forces, by the way, aren't going in if war breaks out. president biden has already ruled that out. but he is now sending a few more thousand troops to poland to try to help bolster nato's defenses. the nato factor is definitely a big part to all of this tension,

as you well know, because ukraine is not part of the 30-member alliance. but it most certainly wants to be, which is exactly what putin feels so threatened by. see, russia, they see nato's growth across europe and expansion eastward, and they view it -- at least putin does -- as a giant threat. but the question is, even if it is a threat, would he wage an all-out war to try to push the west and democracy and fair and free elections back as well? i want to get the view from the ground in ukraine. cnn senior national correspondent matthew chance joins me live from kyiv. matthew, what are you learning there? >> reporter: laura, thanks very much. well, you know, as you mentioned there, tensions are extremely high right now near ukraine, inside ukraine, more than 100,000 russian troops have gathered near the borders, and that capability of russia to strike at the heart of this

country is building on a daily basis according to u.s. and indeed ukrainian intelligence assessments. in fact, there's no dispute at all when it comes to the capability that vladimir putin, the russian president, has to do whatever he wants. he can invade at a moment's notice. but the real question that isn't answered is does he intend to do that? we know he's got the capability. we don't understand what his intent is. and so there's a lot of speculation about will he invade, or won't he? and as you mentioned, the truth is the way russia operates in the autocracy that is that country, it can be the 11th hour, the 59th minute of the 11th hour, and only then, one man, vladimir putin, can decide whether or not to pull the trigger. so you'd expect in a position like kyiv, which is the ukrainian capital, and which is said by u.s. intelligence

assessments, for instance, to potentially be a target of any russian attack, there would be concern and there would be panic. but i'm not seeing any of it on the streets here. it's been valentine's day, of course, today. i've been seeing the hotel where we're staying at had a big party for young couples with big red heart-shaped balloons. in the daytime, the cafes were full. people were going about their ordinary business. what ordinary ukrainians say is they have been confronting this kind of threat for eight years. they've been fighting russia or russian-backed rebels for that period, and they don't see a significant increase in the risk. that's been backed up, of course, by the ukrainian leadership, who are at odds to some extent with the united states' intelligence assessment. they're saying that the country should not panic. people should remain calm, and that the threat is not as acute as washington is making it. laura. >> it sounds like in some respects, the boy who cried wolf if you're always having the

presence there. on the other hand, how do you not panic? how do you avoid feeling it's alarmist when you have 100,000 troops outside your border and the uncertainty of a vladimir putin. matthew chance in ukraine, thank you so much. the anxiety over this entire thing in ukraine is clear when you see how senators from both parties reacted just this afternoon to a briefing from jake sullivan, the national security adviser. listen. >> this is a very dangerous situation. the concern is very high. the only good news is that diplomatic exchange continues. >> the forces the russians have massed, they could launch at any point. >> i want to bring in susan glasser and former congressman mike rogers, who was house intel chair when russia invaded crimea. i'm glad you're both here because i want to try to unpack a little more here. i'm going to begin with you, susan. on the one hand, you hear jake sullivan. you hear john kirby. you hear everyone talking about it could happen at any moment. there is a feeling of imminence

and urgency. then you have reporting on the ground about the average ukrainian, who is saying, well, it's been eight years of this, and not really batting an eye. can both be true in terms of the impact of what's being felt on the ground there, susan? >> well, look, i think you're right to point this out, laura, that at a certain point, you know, there is a moment of reckoning coming sooner or later. >> right. >> the intelligence assessment suggests that the putin buildup on the border is reaching maximum capacity, more than 130,000 troops. there's reporting to suggest that many of those have actually left their bases and moved to forward attack positions along the border of ukraine. there's three sides on which it's vulnerable to russian attack, including from belarus, that would really be even only a few hours away from kyiv and the capital. so, you know, i think the military threat is real. i think ukrainian officials do not dispute that. you know, senior administration

official here in washington assured me today that we are, in fact, on the same page with ukraine, that this is mostly about president zelensky not wanting to induce panic for understandable reasons among his population. he's now declared wednesday a day of national unity in ukraine. they're going to be hanging the flag and singing the national anthem and, you know, recruiting in a very urgent level additional essentially national guard to help defend the country. but what we don't know is whether putin has decided finally on the go/no go position. this is not an idle threat. someone said to me, if it was any other leader in the world, you don't just idly assemble an invasion force of 100,000 and not intend to use it. >> of course not. make, you were in office. you were a congressman and you were a member of a very important committee thinking about these very issues back in 2014. and i wonder from your standpoint, i mean, yes, putin

is known in many respects diplomatically -- i'm being nice here -- as a provocateur. but it's not as if he hasn't backed up a threat in the past. when you're looking and comparing then to now, are you seeing similarities? when you hear members of congress being briefed, what are they being told, do you suppose, and is it much like what you remember, you think, back from 2014? >> well, i don't think this is like 2014 for a couple of reasons. one, the crimea event was more of an opportunity. he didn't have that same massive buildup that you see happening today. it was an opportunity that he took advantage of. he had troops in the region. they moved in. they assessed at the time -- they being the russians -- that they thought this was going to be a quick move. remember in crimea, he had already established separatist forces. these were clearly proxy forces for the russians. well, he's done the same thing in eastern ukraine. he actually holds two regions that are calling themselves separatist regions in eastern

ukraine. lots of ethnic russians east of the neper river, which would put them clearly in the sphere of those three attack prongs that you see. so to me this is very, very different. i think what people are talking about today, they're trying to assess what this means. he's moving these artillery pieces and his missile forces forward, and those missile forces are highly lethal and will be destructive in a way that you didn't see in crimea. you really didn't even see in his invasion of the country of georgia. this will be different, and if he decides to go over, it will be that shock and awe that you hear about often in a very big way. he is not going to go timidly across that border if he decides to do it. the key is he's getting a lot he wants right now by being on the border doing these exercises. >> susan, what is he getting? the question for many people is

what is the endgame for vladimir putin? obviously we can speculate as too what that would be. but for the average person looking at it, maybe people are wondering why ukraine in particular? what will you get out of this? if mike is correct, which i believe he is, the idea of using the sort of lethal force, the discussions about the air bombing, et cetera, at the end, wouldn't you have to then rebuild the very area you're trying to capture under tremendous debt? what's the endgame here for vladimir putin, just the flex? >> you're right to ask this question, and to be very skeptical because, of course, it is madness to invade another country in the 21st century and death and destruction would not just rain down on ukraine but of course on russian soldiers. there would be great unhappiness if the coffins started coming home. vladimir putin would then have to spend huge amounts of money potentially to maintain any territory that he held. the united states has promised to, you know, help to support the resistance inside ukraine were it to come under russian

occupation. so, you know, it's a mess. we can tell him that the experience of iraq and others suggests that imperial ambitions like this do not work out well in the modern era. so on the one hand, it seems madness that putin would even be conceiving of it. but, remember, for putin, this is almost an emotional issue as well. i recommend to everyone to look at this essay right there on his website that he wrote last summer, essentially making the argument that ukraine shouldn't even be an independent country, that arguably it should still be part of mother russia. he's relitigating the collapse of the soviet union, the collapse even before that of the russian empire. and in that sense, it's an emotional issue. it's a legacy issue for putin, who has already been in power for more than 20 years. he's 69 now. this is -- it's not something -- it's often mischaracterized, i think, as just a matter of nato, not nato. that's not really --

>> well, it's very personal to somebody who wants to take over and be powerful. the idea of not having the power in hand is obviously very offensive to him. mike, let me get the last word from you here. the idea of how you think president biden, the commander in chief, is handling all of this right now? we know it's not a part of nato. it's not just about nato membership or not. how do you think the biden administration is dealing with this. what do you think the biden administration is doing about this? good job or bad? >> you know, mediocre at best, and i don't say that lightly. diplomacy is really the only option you have at this point. but one of the things i think they swung and missed, and they did this the last go-around in ukraine when so many of their national security people were there, is the ukrainians were saying, let us fight against this high-tech weaponry that we know the russians are massing on our border, and it's been trickling in. if you wanted to send a message that putin is going to pay a

very heavy price other than this nonconventional kind of rebellion-type fighting that he's going to see coming up, which will happen by the way, they need weapons to fight back against their missile brigades, against this really long-rage artillery. they needed more sophisticated weapons. they've been asking for them. they haven't quite been getting them. my argument is if you want to tell putin that this is going to be really costly to you, we're going to give the ukrainians everything that they need to fight against your technical army that's amassing on that border, and the administration just hasn't done it. here's a couple things he's going to factor it unfortunately. when they took swift, which was the access to international money change, you know, banking system, when te took that off the table for sanctions, that was a huge relief to putin. and so he knows that there won't be direct military action. he knows that the swift won't be a part of it if he invades. all of these things, you know, he's going through his calculus.

i think i can sustain sanctions. he's already amassed some $600 billion in reserves. he's re-engaged his chinese trading and natural resource sales. so he's looking at this like, okay, you guys are dwindling -- you keep telling me what you won't do, and it allows me to figure out what i will do. that's what i worry about. i would have changed that early on three months ago if i were the biden administration. >> it's more than worrisome. the idea of calling bluff with all the stakes that are part of it obviously. you just described the perfect scenario for leverage, which is concerning for everyone. susan glasser, mike rogers, thank you so much. i appreciate it. >> thanks, laura. there's a major development in the trial of sarah palin versus "the new york times." so why would a judge now say that he's going to dismiss the former vice presidential nominee's defamation suit, and why is he still allowing the jury to deliberate if he's going to dismiss it anyway? this is quite a twist in the case we'll take apart next.

allergies don't have to be scary. spraying flonase daily stops your body from overreacting to allergens all season long. psst! psst! flonase all good.

ancestry's helped me really understand my family's immigration experience. ♪ i've been able to explore and learn a tremendous amount about how chinese americans have experienced civil rights and immigrant rights and what life must have been like for them. and as i pass it on to my daughter, it's an important part of understanding who we are. ♪ (music)

♪ i think to myself ♪ ♪ what a wonderful world ♪ psoriasis really messes with you. try. hope. fail. no one should suffer like that. i started cosentyx®. five years clear. real people with psoriasis look and feel better with cosentyx. don't use if you're allergic to cosentyx. before starting get checked for tuberculosis. an increased risk of infection, some serious and a lowered ability to fight them may occur. tell your doctor about an infection or symptoms or if you had a vaccine or plan to. tell your doctor if your crohn's disease symptoms develop or worsen. serious allergic reaction may occur. best move i've ever made. ask your dermatologist about cosentyx®. [sound of helicopter blades] ugh... they found me.

♪ ♪ nice suits, you guys blend right in. the world needs you back. i'm retired greg, you know this. people have their money just sitting around doing nothing... that's bad, they shouldn't do that. they're getting crushed by inflation. well, i feel for them. they're taking financial advice from memes. [baby spits out milk] i'll get my onesies®. ♪ “baby one more time” by britney spears ♪ good to have you back, old friend. yeah, eyes on the road, benny. welcome to a new chapter in investing. [ding] e*trade now from morgan stanley.

. well, something happened unexpectedly today in sarah palin's defamation lawsuit against "the new york times." the jury, mind you, the jury has not yet come back with a verdict. but guess what? that might not matter because the u.s. district judge said that he's going to throw it out -- the verdict, that is. the case in fact. and the judge says that palin's attorney failed to prove that "the times" actually acted with what's called actual malice or knowledge that it published false information. but he will wait officially to dismiss the case until after the jury returns with a verdict. so what does all of this mean? let's talk about it with constitutional and first amendment attorney floyd abrams. mr. abrams, so good to see you here tonight, on this issue in particular. what do you make of a judge throwing out this case? did you think that sarah palin

had actually even met her burden of proving not just that it was false, but that they did it with actual malice? what do you make of it? >> well, i think the ordinary way to do it -- i know the ordinary way to do it is to let the jury have its say first. and if the judge disagrees with it, if a judge thinks that what the jury has done doesn't take account of the first amendment-affected instruction that he gave them, he can set it aside. what the judge has said is that he wants to give the appellate court -- everyone knows this case is going to be appealed. >> of course. >> so he has said he wants to give the appeals court a chance to hear what the jury thought and what he thought. it's really not the ordinary way to do it. >> it's not, and here's the interesting part. the idea of sort of the timing he could very well have come to the conclusion after they returned a verdict.

they could have found "the new york times" not liable, and then it would have been he needs to say nothing. they could have found in favor of sarah palin and he could have weighed in then. does the timing of the judge's statements here, does it provide fodder to help sarah palin on pale now, to suggest, well, hey, he wasn't even going to wait, he made up his mind already? >> i don't think it hurts what he believes the right result is in that sense. i think the practical problem here is that we may be watched by members of the jury, this broadcast or other broadcasts or the like might already have told members of the jury what the judge thinks the right result is. and so the effect of that could be that the jury could be said to be unduly and thus unfairly led by the court, and the jury

verdict therefore discarded, treated as if it were unduly influenced, unfairly influenced, all of which, you know, confuses things. >> yeah. >> and makes it -- puts us in a position where what could go up to the court of appeals, then, is only judge rakoff's decision. >> floyd, let me ask you a question. is the decision the right one, though? the judge has come to a conclusion about not being able to meet the burden. as you know, it's not enough for sarah palin to show that what was said was false. it was false. they have corrected the actual editorial as well. there's someone who has testified to say it was false. they corrected it later on. but the idea here that it was false was not enough. they had to actually prove malice, and she's a public figure, which is why there's a higher burden here. do you think she had any opportunity to have tried to prove that, and if so, what

would she have had to have shown? >> well, she had every opportunity to try to prove it's. she called witnesses. she interrogated through her lawyers the "new york times" executives, former editor who was in charge of this. so the evidence is in. she's had her fair shot at demonstrating what you rightly called actual malice, but what the supreme court has later explained means, you know, really publishing something you know is false or that you have serious doubts about its truth or falsity, not malice in the way you and i would use the word. so the judge has decided for himself and there's nothing wrong with him coming to that conclusion. the judge has decided for himself the case is over. they simply have not submitted enough evidence to meet this

very heavy burden. the supreme court phrased it you need clear and convincing evidence, and so the judge is saying first to himself, they haven't come through with that sort of evidence. this verdict, even if it is for sarah palin, cannot stand. and all that makes a lot of sense. the problem is now we're in a new procedural situation. >> right. >> we're waiting for a jury to come back. the jury, as i said, might have heard what the judge thought, which, you know, could lead an appellate court to say, well, look, we're not going to take account of the jury verdict at all. so what we've got in front of us is what will then be an opinion of the judge. it would be a real loss not to have a jury verdict sort of totally untainted. >> that's true, and it goes back

to every law student can tell you what everyone says. the number one course is civil procedure whether you like it or not. it all comes down to process, floyd, in the end every single time. just given what she was unable to prove, floyd, i wonder if her success definition was the idea of taking "the new york times" to court. they haven't had a trial in this instance in 50 years now. now she's got them in court having to apologize. they've taken a real blow in many respects, but you're right. this is waiting for appeal. it's begging for an appeal. we'll see what happens once we've got a verdict. floyd abrams, thank you so much. i appreciate it. >> sure. look, that's not the only big trial that's happening today. i mean these other two are very, very big, and we're watching them tonight because even with murder convictions in the deaths of george floyd and ahmaud arbery, the legal battles are far from over. what makes these newer cases so

important? i'll explain next.

we have to be able to repair the enamel on a daily basis. with pronamel repair toothpaste, we can help actively repair enamel in its weakened state. it's innovative. my go to toothpaste is going to be pronamel repair. >> woman: what's my safelite story? i see inspiration right through my glass. so when my windshield cracked, i chose safelite. they replaced the glass and recalibrated my safety system. that's service i can trust. >> singers: ♪ safelite repair, safelite replace. ♪

switching wireless carriers is easy with xfinity. just lean on our helpful switch squad to help you save with xfinity mobile. they can help break up with your current carrier for you and transfer your info to your new phone. giving you a fast and easy experience that can save you hundreds a year on your wireless bill. visit your nearest xfinity store and see how the switch squad can help you switch and save. switch to xfinity mobile and get connected to the most reliable 5g network. talk with our helpful switch squad at your local xfinity store today. are you a christian author with a book that you're ready to share with the world? get published now,

call for your free publisher kit today! the men involved in the murders of george floyd and ahmaud arbery have a lot more they have to answer for, and it's coming in the form of two federal trials that are under way right now. while derek chauvin already pleaded guilty for violating floyd's civil rights, this moment now focuses on the three other officers who were on the scene. the two who helped keep floyd down and the other who had a form of crowd control while he faced the crowd. all of them, prosecutors say, all of them deprived floyd of his right to medical care and his right to life, the same right that prosecutors argue was denied to ahmaud arbery on the basis of his race. now, this moment puts our legal

system to the test, really. how will it deal with people who have a wanton disregard for human life, particularly black lives, it seems? i want to bring in elie honig, a former federal and state prosecutor to help put all of this into perspective. elie, it's so good to see you and have this conversation with you in particular because a lot of people don't necessarily realize. they're wondering, hold on. first of all, in the case of the three officers who were charged in depriving george floyd's civil rights, why was that not part of the state murder trial? why are they separate and beginning with a federal trial? what's the answer? >> yeah. so it's a good question, and it's a procedural decision. these three officers are facing both federal and state charges, but they're starting now with the federal case. and i think strategically it's smart to do that because in some respects, the theory in the federal case is broader than in the state case. in the state case, they're charged as accomplices, meaning essentially they helped derek

chauvin kill george floyd. but in the federal case, they're charged under this really expansive theory that their liability is because they failed to help. they failed to intervene. they failed to render aid. in some ways, laura, that's actually a broader theory of liability and no conviction's ever easy, but an easier basis for prosecutors to get a conviction. >> speaking of the ease of prosecution and conviction here, one of the things that's going to throw a bit of a wrench in the prosecution's plan is the idea that at least one of these officers, we remember from the state homicide trial, was said to have essentially said, should we move him in some way? that prone position that was such a part of the last trial for derek chauvin now about what role he played. and of course these officers were less, you know, senior. they were, you know, of lower rank than derek chauvin. how is that all going to factor in here in terms of the way the prosecution goes through its case? >> laura, as you know, when you have multiple defendants in this case -- and we have three -- what sometimes happens is the defendants will say, okay, who's

the most sympathetic? who can we most likely put up on the stand with the least risk? and the one -- >> it's not derek chauvin in this case, right? >> no. >> we know it's not him. >> absolutely not. know derek chauvin here. no, he would be the worst one to put on the stand for sure. the one they're going to put on is this thomas lane, who was in his fourth day on the job and he was the one to say, shouldn't we roll him on his side or something to that effect. i think what the defendants are going to do is offer up thomas lane as their sort of spokesperson. >> let's get to the arbery matter as well. of course we know there was a plea. they were on the cusp of having a federal plea agreement that would have at least 30 years in prison at a federal level. that was tanked by the judge. the family was not at all in favor of a federal plea, going to federal prison. they wanted a full trial. but this is one that is based on racial animus here. this is a difficult case for even the most seasoned of prosecutors to be able to prove racial intent.

is this going to be a very difficult case, you think, here? >> it is going to be a difficult case, laura, and it's going to be a very different case from what we saw the first time because in the first trial of these three defendants, the issue of race was sort of there and in the background, but the prosecution in that case down in georgia made a tactical decision to de-emphasize race. the prosecutor barely mentioned race, if at all. here race is going to be front and center, and that's because of the law. these defendants are charged with federal hate crimes, meaning they attacked, they killed ahmaud arbery because of their racial animus, and the prosecutors have said they have evidence that these defendants used racial epithets in the past. so the defendants are going to have to walk a very fine line here. they have to concede that they used those racial epithets, and they're going to have to somehow argue, well, maybe they used racial terms. maybe they are racist, but that's not why they killed this young black man. that's a tricky sell. >> that's what the prosecutor came on to say. it's not about hate. it's about racial animus, trying

to distinguish that notion of walking that line. you don't have to hate, but i don't know how people are going to decipher the two. if you have racial animus to hunt and kill someone, i think hatred is sort of a foregone conclusion perhaps in many respects there. but, elie, you and i talked about this case when it first came out, the idea of i wonder what was behind the motive of the state prosecutors not to bring up race. maybe because they knew this was on the horizon and didn't want to do anything to compromise it down the road. elie honig, thank you so much. >> thanks, laura. let's turn to a much different conversation right now. although maybe there's a similar elephant in the room when it comes to race. history was made at the super bowl halftime show, and hip-hop finally got a voice on the most watched stage on the planet. so how effectively did stars like snoop dogg and dr. dre and mary j. blige and eminem, to name just a few, balance the music and, well, the symbolic messaging? we'll postgame with bomani jones

next. a roadmap...for free? that's the planning effect from fidelity. new projects means new project managers. you need to hire. i need indeed. indeed you do. when you sponsor a job, you immediately get your shortlist of quality candidates, whose resumes on indeed match your job criteria. visit indeed.com/hire and get started today.

[upbeat acoustic music throughout]

[upbeat acoustic music throughout] plain aspirin could be hurting your stomach. vazalore 325 liquid-filled aspirin capsule is clinically shown in a 7 day study to cause fewer ulcers than immediate release aspirin. vazalore. the first liquid-filled aspirin capsules...amazing!

so for the first time, hip-hop took center stage at the super bowl halftime show. dr. dre, snoop dogg, kendrick lamar, mary j. blige, and a couple of other surprises. 50 cent, well, he literally dropped in, recreating a scene from his very first music video 20 years ago. i can't believe that was 20 years ago by the way. but one of the most talked about moments is this one. eminem taking a knee, seemingly referencing former nfl quarterback colin kaepernick's stance against racism and police violence. bomani jones joins me now. he's the host of the right time with bomani jones podcast. speaking of the title of your podcast, you've been waiting a long time. you actually tweeted about this. you've been campaigning for a decade to see this performance. was it everything you hoped it would be? >> oh, yeah.

look, the mere idea, if you were around while they were hot, like the very idea that they would be in a place to be treated honestly with such an iconic status is almost bananas except if you remember that time, you realize how broadly accepted that music was in spite of the discussion of the controversial nature. by the time you get to the end of the decade, dr. dre is selling 7 million records. you think about the super bowl halftime, that's a place where you see paul mccartney and the rolling stones, and you saw dr. dre in los angeles basically taking the biggest victory lap that none of us could have imagined at end of the 1980s and early '90s. >> some of the lyrics, he had this line where he says still not lovin' the police. that's a line back then that was so controversial. now it's evergreen. it's part of an overall conversation right now. what did you make of the ways in which frankly there was different tones happening? there was kendrick lamar's tone. there was a lyric dropped. you had eminem, the only white performer, who took a knee. you had dr. dre paying homage on

the keyboard to tupac shakur at one point. what did you make of the different symbolic speech that was happening that night? >> well, i don't know if it was nearly as much symbolic as much as demonstrating varying levels of privilege. the dude that had the least money is the one that had to bleep out his police reference. >> that's kendrick? >> yeah. the one that had the most money got his through. then the rich white man, if he wants to take a knee, what was they going to do? send a security guard out there to tackle him in the process of doing it? there was fundamentally nothing to do to stop this element of what went on there. i thought it was interesting eminem decided to do that, and i think the nfl made the right play, even if they weren't going along with it. but -- >> wait. did they know, bomani? you think they actually knew it advance, or he just did it and they weren't going to make a statement? in the past, he has been actually outspoken about supporting colin kaepernick. they were actually not knowing about it or that he cleared it in advance? what's your thought? >> i don't think that he was

clearing anything. i think he was like, hey, let me tell you about this thing i'm going to do. we'd really like it if you didn't do that. see you guys later. then it winds up happening. one thing dr. dre ain't ever been about is making any sort of statement. i think it would have been a bad look for him if he had come out there and bleeped out the line about the police because it's actually like that ain't the real line about the police that he and his police had offered over the course of time. but who was going to stop him at that point? either this is going to be it, or i'm not going to do the performance, and it was going to get through. >> of course this is on the backdrop with the brian flores lawsuit, and by the way, on the backdrop of another issue we've talked about in the past, about the disproportionality between the number of black players and players of color and those among the coaching ranks and of course ownership. does this move a needle forward for you, or was this just to be compartmentalized in the grand scheme of things for entertainment, and the nfl has a whole other thing they have to worry about and a really

important one? >> oh, yeah, that was just a concert. they had just reached the point where people were feeling like the halftime show had gotten a little lame, so they'd decided to bring in some cooler people. that doesn't really have anything to do with anything else that's going on, i don't think. part of it for me is i don't think the nfl cares that much about whether or not the public at large thinks it's a racist institution. if they didn't, it wouldn't have gotten to the point where people are talking about it so much. they wanted to put on a halftime show. they went ahead and did that. what they do want to do is stay out of cold urt, and nothing th do at the halftime time show -- >> for the record, i'm not the one that called it lame. i'm going to leave it alone. >> i just want you to point out i didn't say no names. >> i was thinking about the most recent ones. all i'm saying because i'm a fan of j.lo and shakira. i love them too. bomani jones, thank you so much. i prosecutappreciate it.

he did not for the record call anyone out. this is laura coates. >> it just took a turn for me that got a little risky. >> no risk. risk averse here. thank you so much. four years ago today, 14 students and 3 staff members were murdered at marjory stoneman douglas high school in parkland, florida. it's been four years since that day, and yet promises to help curb gun violence from some of our leaders since then, well, they've been just that, promises. so what happened to action? i think congress, well, it's time you could use yet another reminder, and i'll bring you one next.

stuff. we love stuff. and there's some really great stuff out there. but i doubt that any of us will look back on our lives and think, "i wish i'd bought an even thinner tv, found a lighter light beer, or had an even smarter smartphone." do you think any of us will look back on our lives and regret the things we didn't buy? or the places we didn't go? ♪ i'd go the whole wide world ♪ ♪ i'd go the whole wide world ♪

migraine attacks? qulipta™ can help prevent migraine attacks. it can't prevent triggers, like stress or changes in weather. you can't prevent what's going on outside, that's why qulipta™ helps what's going on inside. qulipta™ is a pill. gets right to work to prevent migraine attacks and keeps them away over time. qulipta™ blocks cgrp a protein believed to be a cause of migraine attacks. qulipta is a preventive treatment for episodic migraine. most common side effects are nausea, constipation, and tiredness. learn how abbvie can help you save on qulipta. (music)

♪ i think to myself ♪ ♪ what a wonderful world ♪ 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. so today i wished my children a happy valentine's day as we scrambled through our morning routine. backpacks were packed. lunch notes were written. more than a dozen kids at the bus stop excitedly showing each

other their valentine's day shoeboxes they made to hold their valentine's treats. each of them was giggling as they climbed up the bus stairs, and as parents, we stood their waving at them, talking amongst ourselves as they drove away. four years ago today, parents in parkland, florida, wished their children a happy valentine's day. then the phone calls came, the sirens, the breaking news bulletins, the screams, the reunifications, the silence, the coffins. every day in america, parents say good-bye to their children, and on the one hand, we take for granted that they will be safe inside of a school, in a classroom. on the other hand, we know all too well that there's simply no guarantee. i remember holding my 3-week-old son while i watched the news that 26 people, including 20

children, had been killed at sandy hook elementary school. three years ago, i held my kindergartner's hand as she was proudly showing me around her classroom, her desk, where her crayons would be. and i had to try to collect myself when i saw that her seat was directly in front of the classroom door. and the first thought that came to mind is if a shooter found their way into her school, my daughter would be directly in his path. now, these are the thoughts of parents today, and not just because of sandy hook but because of columbine, virginia tech, parkland, oxford, and the more than 850 incidents of gunfire on school grounds over just the past decade that have killed at least 281 people and injured hundreds more.

this rise in gun violence isn't imaginary. it's not media hype. the reality is back in the '70s, mass shootings took eight lives a year on average. that average has now shot up to 51 from 2010 to 2019. that's according to a nonprofit funded by the doj. so while we adults mark our time according to some five-year plan, our children often think in groups of four. four years of high school. four years of college. and i suppose there was some renewed sense of hope when president biden asked for the opportunity to lead for the next four years when he said things like this on the campaign trail. >> we're now working on making sure that we provide children the ability to avoid being shot in school. what does that say about our

soul? i'm so tired of people talking about your prayers. damn it, we have to protect these kids. >> if you elect me your president, not only am i going to get the assault weapons ban back and limitation on clips, i want to say for our friends, the gun manufacturers, i'm coming for you. >> and yet today, a parkland father climbed a crane above the white house, unfurling a large banner with an image of his son's face to try to get an audience with that president. and it's not just the president by the way. far too many parents and students have had to grace the halls of our congress hoping to get legislation passed to keep our children safe, to protect them and still it's not enough because instead of kissing their children good night, they are getting more promises on gun ref reform, inaction in congress, and lip service from the nra

about a civilized society. why should it be on our kids, the victims of such tragedies, to push for meaningful solutions? >> frankly, if i could say one thing to the president, it's that we need you to go out and act right now before the next parkland happens because there are things that you can do right now to help prevent it that you have not done. we need you to make good on your promises because kids are dying. >> now, i'm going to tell you i tucked my children into bed tonight, and i got to giggle with my daughter when we made sentences out of candy conversation hearts. i got to watch my son pretend to get sick as he read the love notes from his fan club and his class. and two parents, my husband and i, we still got to hear themselves and ourselves being called mommy and daddy. but tonight i want to honor

those who didn't, honor you for your fight, for your children, for what today means to you, that you will no longer just be extended thoughts and prayers but action, prevention, change, and love. we'll be right back. 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.

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. ♪

thanks for watching. i'll be back tomorrow night. don lemon tonight with don lemon starts right now. >> okay. so how much did you eat yesterday -- last night? >> why would you call me out? i may have had the nachos and the hot dogs and the ribs and everything else. what do you mean? that's a hypothetical. are you asking for a friend? >> because i'm surprised i'm not flying today as many wings as i ate last night. it was so, so, s