♪ ♪ ♪ the news continues so let's hand it over to laura coates and "cnn tonight." >> i'm laura coates, and this is "cnn tonight." amid all of the confusion, all of the uncertainty about whether russia will really invade ukraine, i guess perhaps it's fitting that president biden had announced to america today that we are prepared for anything, quote, no matter what. so what exactly does that mean? does that mean prepared to be proactive? reactive? and what would be a russian war with ukraine actually cost the united states? and what would it cost russia in the end as well?

now, the president of the united states, he tried to manage expectations today, almost like a lawyer talking to their client about what to expect in laying the groundwork, and telling the american people we would not be caught flat footed. but the president of the united states is well aware there are televisions also in russia, and it seems he hopes that vladimir putin was one of those television viewers. >> the united states is prepared no matter what happens. we are ready with diplomacy. we are ready to respond decisively to a russian attack on ukraine, which is still very much a possibility. the united states and nato are not a threat to russia. ukraine is not threatening russia. to the citizens of russia, you are not our enemy, and i do not believe you want a bloody, destructive war against ukraine. if russia attacks ukraine, it will be met with overwhelming overwhelming international

condemnation. the united states and our allies and partners will respond decisively. the west is united and galvanized. >> you have to wonder if that entire speech, if it was played at all, particularly the part about the president of the united states reaching out and talking to the people of russia, comparing perhaps what they would want to their president, vladimir putin, and what he wants, it seems. but president biden listed a series of consequences for russia if putin does go through with any threatened invasion, like much tougher sanctions and back in 2014 and undermining russia's ability to compete economically at all. remember that major new russian/german gas pipeline, nord stream 2? well, that would be gone too. all of this talk of the sanctions and possibilities, this in spite of russia's talking now of pulling back its forces from the ukrainian border. it seems president biden isn't in, however, a trust but verify

kind of mood. he's not totally buying any of it. nato secretary-general, well, isn't either or, by the way, ukraine's foreign minister for that matter, who says his country has a rule. quote, we don't believe what we hear. we believe what we see. and so what we're still seeing frankly is russia moving forces around, amassing more than 150,000 troops, circling ukraine, and of course now belarus. and biden says the u.s. hasn't actually verified whether russian military units are really, in fact, returning to their home bases after their drills as has been claimed by putin and the like. and though putin may say he doesn't want war -- >> translator: do we want it or not? of course not. that's exactly why we put four proposals on oi negotiating process which should result on

an agreement. >> of course not, he says. of course not. he doesn't want war. he says he wants to negotiate. but if past is prologue, frankly many are now wondering if diplomacy is possible here or is it an exercise in futility? well, for now it seems president biden, he still hopes that this can, in fact, be resolved diplomatically. biden says, quote, we should give diplomacy every chance to succeed. but he also warns the u.s. will defend every inch of nato territory with the full force of american power if russia messes with the alliance. now, ukraine, of course, we know isn't actually nato territory. so the u.s. won't put boots on the ground there, but the reality is the boots of thousands of our troops are no longer on american soil. they might not be in ukraine, but they are being deployed to the neighboring countries of ukraine to then bolster nato. and even though ukraine is not a

nato member that's part of the entire crux of the issue, it hasn't actually stopped the u.s. and some of our allies from giving ukraine the equipment and the training it might need to defend itself, albeit on a smaller scale. so the question really is with all this happening, what is next? what are we to expect? how do we as americans evaluate this? was this new warning from biden effective? will it mean that putin can be walked back from the brink of war? are we really at that stage right now? i want to go to cnn's sam kiley live in car kev, ukraine. he's actually close to the border with russia as we speak. sam, thank you for being here. what are you seeing out there right now? this is kind of a back and forth of will they, won't they. what are you learning? >> reporter: well, it's very stressful obviously for the people of ukraine. i'm just 50 miles from bielagrad, which is a russian city where the equivalent number of forces that have been

assembled that are the same side as the british army on the russian side. in the last 2 1/2 days, they've received additional helicopter gunships. similar number of gunships, about 60-plus gunships and transport helicopters have also been now spotted by satellite imagery in crimea. so it looks like they are getting much closer to the point at which they might actually trigger a d-day, an invasion day, a day for some kind of military action on the russian side. that said, the ukrainians today, later on today -- it's about 3:00 in the morning now -- are going to be celebrating what they're calling unity day in a slightly ironic attempt to lampoon briefings that have come out of america suggesting that today might be a day that the russians choose to invade. but the ukrainians are trying to keep a lid on national panic effectively. that was slightly shaken in the last few hours by a distributed denial of service attack on a

number of websites, including the minister of defense and a couple of banks here. these have not been directly attributed to russia, but obviously the finger of suspicion points there. very deep concerns that russia ultimately, if it does decide to attack, will use as part of its weaponry cyber warfare. this latest attack did not look like cyber warfare, more like an information operation, kind of messing with people's heads if you like. but at the same time, there isn't a real sense of the level of concern that's being expressed by biden, for example, and the international community here on the ground in big cities like car conkharkiv. >> it may be odd for a lot of people, the idea of this imbalance, sam. on the one hand of president biden -- i don't want to call him an alarmist, but certainly sounding an alarm for people to be cautious. and what we're hearing on the

ground in ukraine, we're all wondering here, is it a matter of this is really imminent, or it's a matter of the ukrainian president trying to balance and have cooler heads maybe prevail on the ground. nice reporting, sam. thank you so much. even as we try right now to sort out where things stand on the ground in ukraine, in the u.s. senate, you've now got these dueling responses, these packages from republicans and democrats over what sanctions russia should actually face if it does invade into ukraine. i've got democratic senator tm kaine. thank you for being here and welcome to you. >> laura, great to be with you. thank you. >> thank you. senator, to that notion, there is some confusion frankly from the american people. we're hearing about the idea of this day trying to -- in ukraine, trying to put a lid on any alarmist notions.

you've got the president of the united states having a briefing today on what's going on. from the americans' perspective, what is going on, senator is there really an imminent threat as it's being obviously relayed to us, or is there something more happening in the background? >> well, laura, i will say the facts are fairly stafrd straightforward, and i think both the united states and our allies agree about what russia is doing on the border with ukraine. where there is some significant difference, especially between america and our european allies is a prediction about what vladimir putin intends to do. so, again, russia is marshaling an unprecedented force on the ukrainian border and carrying out exercises in belarus, which is geographically very proximate to kyiv rather than eastern ukraine, that's all happening. i would say the u.s. intel community's assessment is that

putin is likely to do a significant land invasion of ukraine, but i have -- i have noticed very carefully in the last few weeks in conversation with european allies, the eu and others, they acknowledge the facts, but they are not yet as comfortable with the prediction about what putin might do. in fact, in the nine years that i've been in the senate, this is probably the farthest apart that the u.s. and our european allies have been about predicting what might happen. the good news is -- >> excuse me. i don't want to cut you off there, but on that point, it does strike you -- it should strike everyone as a bit odd that there is really a distinction, for example, between how seriously washington is taking this issue and how seriously they're taking it in kyiv. and the question for so many people obviously when you're not talking about a nato member, we are not talking about obviously joining at this juncture, that strikes a chord with the american people.

and then to see frankly in the senate as we're learning that there is the distance not only from european allies, but in terms of what republicans and democrats are thinking pro-pecktively about sanctions. why is there that disconnect there as well in your neck of the woods? >> well, let me complete what i was going to say. it's -- it's not that surprising that people might have different opinions about what vladimir putin would do. we're not vladimir putin, and we're not mind readers. the good news is that the united states and our european allies are very unified on what we would do if he were to invade the sovereignty of ukraine. so you can't predict what vladimir putin is going to do with near certainty. the guy's holed up mostly in sochi. he has yes-men around him and not interlocutors that you can get the window into his thinking. so predicting what he'll do is a rough science at best. but the good news is the united states and our european allies

are very unified about the degree of consequences that would immediately flow from any invasion of ukraine. >> but, senator, on that point, as i asked earlier, on that point, there might be accord with the european allies, but democrats and republicans are not in alliance in terms of what those sanctions could be. a lot of this does seem, although it's hard to predict and read the tea leaves of vladimir putin, some of this behavior is predictable because we have seen it before. why has it taken so long for the senate to act or try to figure out a way of sanctions, and why are you far apart, having separate notions about how to sanction the possibility of the invasion? >> well, again, i'm going to go back to the difference between democrats and republicans on this is whether you should impose sanctions in advance or -- that would be the republican position -- or whether you should just announce what sanctions would be imposed

if there's an invasion. the extent and the consequence and the magnitude of sanctions, there really isn't any significant difference between democrats and republicans. there is some difference on timing. that is an important difference. but i think the fact that we all stand for ukraine, against russian aggression in ukraine, and a willingness to impose significant consequences if there's to be an invasion of ukrainian sovereignty, and not only are we together on that in congress, we're together with our european allies. we can't predict vladimir putin, and we have a difference of opinion about the timing of when sanctions should be imposed. i strongly agree with the democratic position on this. don't impose sanctions in advance. only impose sanctions if there's bad behavior. that's where we are right now. >> senator tim kaine, thank you for helping to explain and clarify. this is a point of extraordinary concern for the american people. i appreciate it. >> indeed. you bet.

glad to be with you. >> thank you, senator. we'll continue to watch developments in ukraine. but up ahead, one of the former police officers who stood by as george floyd was murdered, he took the witness stand today. did his training play a role in his decision not to intervene? and what could that mean for his fate? and by the way, those of the other two remaining officers who he is on trial with? our police and legal specialists join me next. there they are. alka-seltzer plus. ♪ oh, what a relief it is ♪ so fast! also try for cough, mucus & congestion. ♪ i see trees of green ♪ ♪ red roses too ♪ ♪ i see them bloom for me and you ♪ (music) ♪ so i think to myself ♪

♪ oh what a wonderful world ♪

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. ♪ ♪ it's electric... made extraordinary. ingenuity... in motion. it listens, learns, adapts and anticipates your every need. with intelligence... that feels anything but artificial. the eqs from mercedes-benz. it's the car electric has been waiting for. out here, you're more than just a landowner. you're a gardener.

a landscaper. a hunter. because you didn't settle for ordinary. same goes for your equipment. versatile, powerful, durable kubota equipment. more goes into it. so you get more out of it. [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.

so the first of three former minneapolis police officers are on trial for violating george floyd's civil rights took the stand today. tou thao was the officer who stood on crowd control duty while floyd was being killed under derek chauvin's knee. thao said that as he kept his eyes on the people on the street, he relied on his fellow officers to monitor floyd's condition, claiming that because they weren't performing cpr, that he believed that floyd was

fine even though he was present when floyd stopped talking and the surrounding crowd was pleading for officers to check floyd's pulse. joining me now to discuss is criminal defense lawyer joey jackson and former police commissioner charles ramsey. what a night to have you all here, and what a pleasure as well, gentlemen. let me start with you, joey jackson, on this because, look, the american people watched the derek chauvin trial with bated breath frankly. there was one person on the stand, one person on trial. now we've got three defendants. you have handled so many different cases, let alone co-defendant cases. what's different here about the strategy when you've got three co-defendants who really have different roles they played in the overall act? >> yeah. laura, great question. good to be with you. it's very difficult, i think, when there are co-defendants, the reason being is because i think you have extra prosecutors who are in the jury room. the defense is trying to get their client not convicted.

by doing that, they're placing blame on other people. and i think the testimony today of this particular defendant, tou thao, was damning and quite frankly terrible not to mince words. if the essence of what hi to sum it up with, laura, was it wasn't my job. really? sir, there was a crowd there, and they kept yelling he needed medical attention. weren't you interacting with the crowd? didn't you see and hear what they were pleading for you to do? didn't you look back? didn't you make observations, which he admitted to, laura, on the stand. weren't you standing next to george floyd for six of those 9:30 minutes? didn't you hear him stop talking, saying i can't breathe? i think it will come back to haunt him. i think it was a move that the defense needed to make by putting him there, but he did himself no favors in my estimation. >> chief ramsey, that point that

joey is raising, the idea each officer obviously having a different role. he of course thinks he was playing crowd control, and it wasn't his job to paraphrase what he was talking about. what would the jobs have been? you have three officers on the scene. you know full well it's more officers than that, sometimes less. what do you think the training was or should be in terms of what the responsibilities are of other officers on the scene? >> well, the primary responsibility of all the officers is the protection of life and the safety of the person being arrested, period. that's all four of them had that responsibility, and they failed in that responsibility. the officer who testified today claims that, you know, his training eight years ago or nine years ago, certain tactics or techniques were used. that's really not even relevant. every year, in-service training is conducted for police officers.

it's what's currently being taught that really matters. the law changes. policing changes. tactics, all those things change. so he may have learned something nine years ago. what did he learn in 2019, 2020, when he went through in-service training? and i'm certain that having someone's knee on a neck for 9:30 was not part of the training. lastly, just one more point. he's saying the other three officers had it under control. two of those officers were rookies. that alone if you're a veteran officer would make you turn around to see what's going on because chauvin was there with two very inexperienced people. that alone would make you pay full attention. >> and yet one of the officers who was a rookie was an officer with the last name lane. i want to show this to the audience. here was one of those officers who was asking the question about whether to move mr. george floyd's body in some way. here's this moment.

>> should we get his legs up? >> leave him. >> roll him on his side? okay. i just worry about the delirium or whatever. >> okay. i suppose. >> okay. i suppose. in that moment, joey jackson, look, i'm going to give you the assignment in this moment of picking one of these defendants as your client. is that the one, the one who's saying, she we turn him over? she would do more here? is that the one you think has the strongest defense? >> yeah, i really do, laura. i think that certainly the -- you know, the other officers -- he's one of them -- was a rookie officer and is going to say he didn't know better, et cetera. but he attempted, right, made an effort. it wasn't enough. he wasn't aggressive enough. he could have done significantly more. we know he's not charged with the issue as it relates to failing to intervene because propers saw what he said. he is charged with failing to

render medical aid. we'll see what occurs. but all of them should have been on ma mantra, not should we turn him around. let's turn him around. the preservation of life, what you're trained to do, the fact that you must intervene, the fact you can't have someone laying face down because it represents a danger. the fact that this should not have occurred, and you allowed it to. you don't just devfer to the senior officer. so i think lane has the best chance. the question for the jury as it relates to him, laura, is going to be did he do enough in suggesting that, hey, you know what? maybe we turn him over now. >> and, mr. ramsey, if i can, we're out of time here, but i know probably what you're thinking on this issue about the idea of trying to incentivize some way for a subordinate to feel comfortable with speaking out of turn, so to speak, and making sure that they are rewarded in some respects, not antagonized down the line for doing what joey jackson just said, right?

>> yeah. the culture has to shift where if an officer, regardless of how long they've been on the job -- if they take action like that, they are supported. and that's important, and that's with their peers. that's with sergeants, lieutenants, police chiefs, on down the line. everyone has to play a role in that so that people feel comfortable stepping up and stepping forward when it's the right thing to do. >> thank you, charles ramsey, joey jackson. we'll keep everyone posted on what's happening and who else might take the stand. i appreciate it, gentlemen. >> thank you, laura. you know, now on to the growing legal troubles for donald trump. the ex-president's longtime accountant just cut ties with him, and that could actually open up a whole new set of problems from a legal perspective because his accounting firm is calling trump's financial statements unreliable. we're going to dig in to what this could actually mean for trump with someone who led the prosecution against trump university. that's next.

your record label is taking off. but so is your sound engineer. you need to hire. i need indeed. indeed you do.

indeed instant match instantly delivers quality candidates matching your job description. visit indeed.com/hire >> 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. ♪

look, as a prosecutor, testimony is good. but evidence, well, that's much better. the new york attorney general may now have at least 525,000 pieces of evidence on the trump organization. a letter from trump's longtime accounting firm was released by the a.g., and that number at the bottom is what's called a bates number. it's the way you keep track of the documents you have on file page by page. and these were marked 525,838 and 839. 525,000 documents? more than that? now, if you need help and a reminder keeping all of the trump investigations straight, this is the one about his company's bookkeeping. so, frankly, it's never a good sign when you your accounting firm, you know, the bookkeeping aspect, when they bail or when they put the dates in writing.

even if you set aside the investigation, look, from a business standpoint, none of this helps when you're reportedly more than a billion dollars in the hole. now, my next guest, he knows the office and what it means to dig into donald trump's records. tristan snell was lead prosecutor in the trump university case while at the new york attorney general's office, and he joins us now. tristan snell, nice to see you. how are you doing? >> great. thank you. how are you? >> i'm good. you know, i'm really interested first in the volume of all of these documents here, the number of pages here. but what does it say to you when you hear this notion of, say, the maze ars accounting firm saying, you know what? no good. we're done here. your documents are not reliable. what does that signal to you? >> they're running for the exits. you know, they -- they carried water for the trump organization for decades, including in this matter. you know, remember, they

basically said, we're not going to cough up a lot of these documents. you know, we don't -- we're going to basically step into the shoes of the trump organization and say that donald trump has some sort of privilege that lets him not have these documents be produced. it went all the way to the supreme court. they started off in this case really standing shoulder to shoulder with the trump organization. that is very much no longer true. >> and, you know, that's such a pivotal and critical moment here because you're talking about ten years' worth of information no longer being reliable. of course when we're talking about his lawyers, you hear something that's not reliable, they're talking about where the fact finder might hold credible. in this case it speaks to essentially the blame game here because you've got an accounting firm who receives the documents from the organization, and they base their own reporting based on that. so if it's not reliable, what they're giving is not reliable. but how about what's happening right now in terms of how the

trump organization is even looking at this and taking it? they have a statement about this very finding, and they say, while we are disappointed that mazars has chosen to part ways, this february 9th, 2022 letter confirms that after conducting a subsequent review of all prior statements of financial condition, m arbitration zar's work was performed in ac aaccordance with all publicable accounting standards and principles and that such statements of financial condition do not contain any material discrepancies. i can hear you sort of cackling a little bit. what does that say to new does this say, you know what? they quit. it's about reliability. the a.g.'s office, that's all obsolete now. you don't think the same thing, do you? >> here's the thing. if you just get to slap a sentence on something that says, oh, don't worry.

we didn't really look into these. you know, we didn't audit these. but, you know, somehow everything in there is -- and then they're trying to say that everything in there doesn't contain any material discrepancies, just one building, 40 wall street. it's one of the iconic buildings of the financial district. trump has owned it for a while. at one point they had a 3,300% discrepancy between the value that was stated to tax authorities and the value that was stated to deutsche bank and other lenders. 3,300%. that's not a mistake. that's not a rounding error. that's not a miscalculation when you're doing microsoft excel. if that's not material, nothing is material. >> it's a good point to raise because it goes back to the substance and nature of the investigation itself, right? the idea of overvaluing, devaluation, all with an eye towards travoiding tax liabilit.

the trial of sarah palin, speaking of new york, the trial of sarah palin versus "the new york times," well that's now over. but guess what? her fight may not be done. will she appeal now that both a judge and now a jury have rejected her defamation case? and what would her chances be if she does appeal? that's coming up. we can help actively repair enamel in its weakened state. it's innovative. my go to toothpaste is going to be pronamel repair.

(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. i earn 3% cash back at drugstores with chase freedom unlimited. so i got cards for birthdays, holidays, graduations, i'm covered for everything. which reminds me, thank you for driving me to the drugstore. earn big time with chase freedom unlimited with no annual fee. how do you cashback? chase. make more of what's yours.

well, the verdict is in. "the new york times" did not defame former alaska governor and vice presidential nominee sarah palin. the unanimous decision came from nine jurors who began deliberating on friday afternoon. the decision, however, was given that yesterday district judge rakoff ruled that palin's attorneys didn't prove actual malice, the standard that you

have to knowingly print something false or act in a way disregarding what the truth was. and he would dismiss the case, he said, after the jury made its mind up. now, palin will now be awarded $0 in damages after now losing this case, and she says she's still hoping to appeal. >> will you be appealing, sarah? governor palin, will you be appealing? >> i hope so. >> i hope so, she says. i hope so. well, an appeal could, of course, put "new york times" versus sullivan, the 1964 u.s. supreme court decision that established the so-called actual malice standard right square in the hot seat, resulting in larger implications for media and public figures and will be required to be able to prove a case of defamation. let's discuss now with cnn chief legal analyst jeffrey toobin. jeffrey, good to see you here today. i got to ask you first of all, what was your reaction? were you expecting there to be this -- not just a dismissal prompted by the judge but the

idea of her not having met her burden? was that surprising to you? >> no, it wasn't. i mean "the times" made a mistake. they admitted it right upfront. they acknowledged it as soon as it was brought to their attention. and the next morning, they corrected it. this is what responsible people and responsible journalists do. they do make mistakes, but then they correct them, and the libel laws are not designed to punish journalists who act that way. so i think the judge was right. the jury was right. this was embarrassing for "the times," but it was not something that the libel laws, at least as they're currently constructed, is designed to address. >> just so we're clear, the idea of mistake, i know you're very intentional with the language you're using. if somebody had printed something that was false and they did it with a disregard for the truth, they did it knowingly with actual malice, that you

corrected it wouldn't actually solve the problem if you printed it in the first instance in this way. but the idea of saying it's a mistake, which they said on the stand, was that it was not something that they did with actual malice. but you've said that it was a mistake to actually take this to trial. this is one of the first times "the new york times" has been on trial in a case like this in, what, 50 years, it seems. why was that the error for them to take this to a trial? >> well, i think a lot of the evidence came out in pretrial proceedings, and judge rakoff actually dismissed the case. but he was overruled by the court of appeals who said that sarah palin was entitled to her day in court, that she was entitled to try to prove the case. and i thought the kocourt of appeals was wrong. this was not a case that should have gone to trial, but it did go to trial, and it had the right result, as least as far as i'm concerned. you know, the risk here is that an appeals court or the supreme

court takes the opportunity in this case to try to rewrite libel laws. and some conservatives, including clarence thomas and neil gorsuch, have said they do want to rewrite the laws to make it easier for people to sue journalists. >> no, no. jeffrey, you got it all wrong. the supreme court never wants to go back on their precedent. they don't re-evaluate and reassess precedent, jeffrey. what could you possibly be referring to? this is a shocking concept. i hope you can see the obvious sarcasm on my face in this. but you are right to think about how they are trying to reassess this very notion. if they were to look at and re-evaluate the libel laws, is it because in the 24/7 news cycle, it's just too hard for a public figure to prove malice? >> no. you know, i don't -- this is a case where the law isn't broken as far as i'm concerned. you know, i think the fact is

most journalists should not be sued for what they do. i think the whole idea behind the 1964 case that you referred to, "new york times" against sullivan, was that, you know, you have to give journalists some freedom even to make mistakes as long as they don't do it intentionally or recklessly because if you start imposing liability on journalists for every mistake that they make, they're going to be run out of business by plaintiffs. that's what was happening to "the new york times" in 1964 in a case in alabama. they were on the brink of being bankrupted by cases like this because they had a hostile judiciary in atlanta during the civil rights era. that could happen again if the courts relax the standards on libel. you know, everybody likes to beat up on the press, and i know we make a lot of mistakes, and it's frustrating.

but if you create a situation where journalists can be sued right and left, journalism is going to disappear, and that would be unfortunate for all of us, i think. >> in that same vein, though, that's why this case is kind of the thorn in the side, not from a journalist's perspective, but in many respects, if the goal is or the thought here is undermining and chipping away from the credibility of the press, sarah palin was successful in getting "the new york times" to admit to a mistake. you've seen the attacks on the press. you've seen the way in which, from fake news not just with the network, for other people, was there a victory in that even went to trial and having that day in court because you can imagine the talking point now going forward about, well, what other mistakes may have been made? >> but, remember, in fairness to "the new york times," they recognized their error as soon as it was pointed out to them. >> right. >> and they corrected it the next day.

so there didn't need to be a lawsuit to force them to acknowledge their error. that's why i think this was a mistake to allow this lawsuit to proceed. yes, it's true "the new york times" ultimately prevailed. but, remember, bringing this case to trial cost millions of dollars, which "the new york times" and its insurance company can afford. but, you know, when you start suing community newspapers or small journalistic outlets that can't afford this kind of defense, that's when you're going to have lawsuits running -- running journalists out of business. i mean it's what happened to the gawker website. you had a powerful police officer who could finance a lawsuit that drove gawker out of business. if you start relaxing the standards on libel cases, that can happen more and more, and i just don't think society would be well served by that. >> i tell you, they used the same attorneys from the gawker case representing sarah palin.

>> right. >> so i guess it comes full circle in a different direction. jeffrey toobin, thank you so much. >> all righty, counselor. listen, last night on the fourth anniversary of the parkland school massacre, we shined light on the inaction by our leaders who had promised to do more to curb gun violence in america. now today for the very first time, a gun manufacturer is being held liable for a united states mass shooting, but not because of congress, but because of the hard work of families of victims killed in the sandy hook shooting. so will this serve as a giant wake-up call for the gun industry? we'll talk about it next. across your full financial picture. a plan with tax-smart investing strategies designed to help you keep more of what you earn. this is the planning effect.

why hide your skin if dupixent has your moderate-to-severe eczema or atopic dermatitis under control? hide my skin? not me. by hitting eczema where it counts, dupixent helps heal your skin from within keeping you one step ahead of eczema. hide my skin? not me. and that means long-lasting clearer skin... and fast itch relief for adults. with dupixent, you can show more skin with less eczema. hide my skin? not me. don't use if you're allergic to dupixent. serious allergic reactions can occur that can be severe. tell your doctor about new or worsening eye problems such as eye pain or vision changes,

including blurred vision, joint aches and pain, or a parasitic infection. don't change or stop asthma medicines without talking to your doctor. when you help heal your skin from within, you can change how your skin looks and feels. and that's the kind of change you notice. talk to your eczema specialist about dupixent, a breakthrough eczema treatment. it's time for the ultimate sleep number event on the sleep number 360 smart bed. what if i sleep hot? ...or cold? no problem, the sleep number 360 smart bed is temperature balancing so you both sleep just right. and it senses your movements and automatically adjusts to keep you both effortlessly comfortable. so, you can really promise better sleep? yes! you'll know exactly how well you slept, night after night. we take care of the science. all you have to do is sleep. and now, during the ultimate sleep number event, save 50% on the sleep number 360 limited edition smart bed. plus, 0% interest for 24 months on all smart beds. only for a limited time [zoom call] ...pivot... work bye. vacation hi! book with priceline. 'cause when you save more, you can “no way!” more. no wayyyy. no waaayyy! no way! [phone ringing]

hm. no way! no way! priceline. every trip is a big deal. tonight a small semblance of justice for the families who lost their loved ones in the sandy hook school shooting, announcing today an historic $73 million settlement in their lawsuit against the now bankrupt gun manufacturer remington and its four insurers.

remington manufactured the bushmaster ar-15 style rifle that was used to kill 26 people -- 6 adults and 20 children in newtown, connecticut. this settlement marks the first time a gun manufacturer is being held liable in some way for a mass shooting. it's a remarkable feat, frankly, when you consider the more than 267 mass shootings in america since 1969 and the more two million lives lost. george w. bush claimed at the time of a legal gun shield that it would further stem frivolous lawsuits. little did he know a shooter

would tear apart over two dozen families apart and they would have to arest lie on a novel accountability to gain some kind of resolve. it came down to how they marketed the product by using a connecticut law that protects consumers from deceptive marketing practices. so what was that practice here? well, they went after remington by taking issue with how they marketed these combat weapons to civilians, using militaristic and hyper slogans marketed to men like the one who carried out the attack at sandy hook. >> the meaning of protecting the gun industry is not bulletproof. we hope they realize they have skin in the game. this was never about damages in the sense of compensation. it was damages in the sense of forcing change. >> it was always about the damage, however. it took more than seven years for the families who brought

this suit to see even this kind of victory, even saying the word victory given what was at stake and what they have lost feels stomach-turning. and the amount of time spent was not just negotiating for the sake of negotiation, it seems there was a deeper, more strategic approach. these plaintiffs wanted the internal corporate documents that just might be the key to prevention and dare i say accountability by going after the insurance companies and ultimately the bottom line of the companies as a way to enforce the change the attorney spoke of. but let's be clear. no sum of money no matter how large could ever compensate for the lives lost and the pain these families bear every single day. >> i will never forget walking into the funeral home and seeing her in her casket. we had an open casket funeral and her friends worked tirelessly to make sure we

didn't see the remnants of what happened to her. what she went through was brutal. the medical examiner could not be certain if she was shot nine or 11 times due to ricochets and reentry wounds. every single day we miss her. who rachel would be. >> true justice would be our 15-year-old healthy and standing next to us right now. but benny will never be 15. he will be 6 forever because he is gone forever. >> gone forever but never forgotten. this should be yet another wake-up call for congress, because it shouldn't have taken this long for the families to get here. frankly, it shouldn't have taken these families to have to carry this particular torch. you know, we keep hearing in the wake of these tragedies from both sides about the need for action.

well, on an issue like school safety, on an issue like preventing mass shootings, we should all be on the same side. theirs. we'll be right back. 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.

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. (music) ♪ i think to myself ♪ ♪ what a wonderful world ♪

there are some days that nothing can prepare you for. but being ready— it's about how you react. so when new challenges come up, you find a new way forward. when you meet other people facing what you faced, you start a business dedicated to helping them. and after you've achieved all that,

you take on what's next. thank you so much for watching. i'll be back tomorrow night. "don lemon tonight" starts tonight with the great don lemon. >> laura. >> hello. >> what do you think -- do you think that we have -- i don't know if things are changing because we've had so much turmoil over this issue, but with the gun manufacturer giving, or at least having to give, being ordered to give that amount of money to the victims, do you think this is a turning point in some way? >> i think it really can be, particularly from the insurance perspective, right? there are so many analogies in my mind to big tobacco in the