wealth is breaking ground on your biggest project yet. worth is giving the people who build it a solid foundation. wealth is shutting down the office for mike's retirement party. worth is giving the employee who spent half his life with you, the party of a lifetime. ♪ ♪ wealth is watching your business grow. worth is watching your employees grow with it. ♪ ♪ -- captions by vitac -- www.vitac.com the news continues. let's hand it over to laura coates and "cnn tonight."

>> i'm laura coates and this is "cnn tonight." a short time ago we heard from an emotional and increasingly frustrated president biden. after all it was vice president biden nearly a decade ago who had the distinct responsibility to formulating the government's response to the tragedy at sandy hook. tonight he delivered his first prime time address to the nation on gun violence and the epidemic that has become in america. you may have noticed the 56 candles burning behind him. they're meant to represent shooting victims from all u.s. states and territories. and it came amid cries of "enough." >> after columbine, after sandy hook, after charleston, after orlando, after las vegas, after parkland, nothing has been done. this time, that can't be true. this time, we must actually do something. this isn't about taking away

anyone's rights. it's about protecting children. it's about protecting families. for god sake, how much more carnage are we willing to accept? how many more innocent american lives must be taken before we say, you have in? enough, enough, enough. >> enough. and he didn't hold back chastising republicans for their opposition to new gun control measures. the president did still find a way to call for compromise. after presenting really a laundry list of demands, he anticipated the need for some contingencies. he called on them to at least agree to raise the age minimum you can use to buy an assault weapon to 21. he's channelling what feels like a collective frustration because gun violence doesn't seem to care at all about who you vote for. in fact, think of the children who have been hurt.

they can't vote. and there is no bottom to the grief. and with solutions that still seem to be pending in congress, every day, it holds the potential for even more violence. i mean, yesterday alone a mass shooting at a medical building. last week, 19 children and two teachers slaughtered at their school. supermarkets, churches, subways, movie theaters, concerts. nowhere seems to be safe. and just think about these numbers. at least 233 mass shootings just this year alone. everyone, it's just june. and we now have more shootings than days that we've actually had in the year 2022. more than 18,000 people have been killed by guns since january. that's according to the gun violence archive. and you know here's another stunning figure that might

really rock you to your core even more so. at least 20 mass shootings have occurred since the school terror in uvalde. that was last tuesday. this doesn't have to be inevitable. this doesn't have to be our ongoing normal. and the question really is should this status quo be preserved while we wait for a political stalemate to end? the problem is illustrated at a house judiciary committee on mass shootings that happened today. >> here's a 12-round magazine. this magazine would be banned under this current bill. >> i hope that is not loaded. >> i'm at my house. i can do whatever i want with it. >> accusations are made. republicans are complicit. you are not going to bully your way into stripping americans of fundamental rights. >> this is on your watch. where is the outrage? >> look at the faces.

these are not class graduation pictures. >> this bill is just another democrat attack on the second amendment. >> who are you here for? the kids or the killers? if you're not here for the children, why don't you go to the funeral of a killer? >> it is irresponsible to consider bills while we're still trying to figure out what happened. >> you know, it's that last question that really gives me pause. i'm going to ask of the congrcon congressman matt gaetz of florida this question. what is more you are responsible? that is the word that was used. what is more irresponsible? to wait for congress to be reactive to yet another mass shooting or to be proactive to prevent them in the first place? we may not have all the answers from uvalde, but i just told you the number of mass shootings that have occurred this year alone, alone in the past decade since then-vice president spoke

to the families from sandy hook. frankly that statement from me is reminiscent from what we heard from chief arredondo last night, who said the answers will come when the families quit grieving. should we all wait for legislation to come until people quit dying? of course we need to explore the failures that happened in uvalde. that doesn't preclude of exploring failures of congress to reach common ground on very important issues. families all across this country deserve answers as to why it feels like our leaders are failing time and time again to find common ground to help stop these massacres. after a heated argument and hearing today, the democratic-led judiciary committee -- now, they did ultimately approve the protecting our kids act this evening, which among other things would raise the purchase age of an assault weapon from 18 to 21. it will move on to the full house for a full vote, as you know, but the measure is not

expected to pass. now, remember, the uvalde killer was able to buy two assault rifles on his 18th birthday. and today there were funerals or other services for five more of the 19 children who will never even reach the age of 18. or for that matter, 13. let's discuss now with our chief political correspondent dana bash and doug high, former deputy chief of staff to former majority leader erik canter. when you're hearing about this hearing and seeing this come into fruition today, when you juxtapose that next to what president biden had to say today, dana, does this feel different? the laundry list with the demands, what's possible? >> well, the first of the specifics that the president talked about, renewing the assault weapons ban that he did help pass but it expired. that is not possible.

that's just not feasible. this is talking to democrats and republicans right now. so, the other thing that he talked about seems to be in the realm of discussion among the bipartisan lawmakers, raising the age to buy these high capacity weapons from 18 to 21. the red flag laws, which would mean that if you see a potential problem, you -- if you're in a position of authority, you can tell a judge. and that can be in the record so that a red flag will be raised if that person tries to buy a gun. and a few other things of that ilk. the question that i have is whether or not the president understandably so upset about this and using the bully pulpit, as presidents have done so many times before him, to try to push congress to do something,

whether that could backfire among the small group, very small group of republicans who are trying to work something out that they feel they can sell back home in their red districts or in their red or purple states. >> so, doug, if the bully pulpit something that's counterproductive to what he's trying to achieve? on the one hand, there is the obvious need to demonstrate the outrage, to use the power. i mean, the notion of it being good to be the king, what's the point. if you're the person who can answer the question and you don't actually use that particular philosophy. but is it counterproductive in being able to get people to have a compromise, particularly when you know this is a politically charged issue. >> i think it can be. obviously when joe biden speaks about loss, he does so from a very personal place and does so with great power and great empathy. i think that registered with most of the people that met with

his remarks today. when he started talking about the policies -- getting in the way of the framework. not even a framework, it's more of a sketch of what a framework might be on some of these issues, including red flag laws, and potentially to gum up the politics of this. if that happens, that means a lot of what he heard today will be rhetoric that we hear from a lot of democrats, not just biden over the coming months. they would much rather talk about this and other issues or any other issue than inflation. and certainly on things like automatic weapons ban, when you look at the polling that's very popular nationally to do so, this is -- these are things that they'll be talking about in the coming months. >> it seems like though, dana, is the idea of the convenience of almost pretextual reason to have an exit ramp. if you're saying, look, the reason i can't go forward now is because the way that biden actually articulated the problem. that's my exit ramp here, so i'm going to be on some way.

if the framing of the discussion seems to be distinct, to underscore the point you raised, the house judiciary committee did vote down party lines to approve a package of gun control. even before president biden spoke today, there was a reason to vote along party lines. does this bode well for voting in the senate, let alone the entire? >> yeah, i think as much as possible it's important to separate out what the house is doing because it is democratic -- democrats lead the house. and they can pass even though it's the narrowest of majorities, they can pass pretty much anything regarding this issue there. it just is. it's the senate which is much more murky as we said on so many issues before. they will need a 60-vote threshold. so, that means 10 republicans, never mind democrats like joe manchin to come along with them. the one thing i will say, and

it's really more of a question raised and certainly talking to republican sources who are involved in negotiations, they are arguing, well, thanks mr. president, privately. that certainly didn't help because we are trying to get something done. and the more you push on the very, very divided and very intransigent gop base, the worse it's going to get. the other very important part of the discussion that we're having here is this is a president who's really upset. he is the guy -- he's the commander in chief. he's in charge. he's in the white house. and this is happening on his watch. and he is angry. and so it's understandable that he would go out and make this speech. it was actually more surprising to me to watch him over the past week try to be quiet and try to temper the expectations because it's obviously counter to what he really believes and wants. he was trying to play kind of

the political game, but clearly the word "enough," he really meant it. >> but yet this seems like -- honestly doug, an easy lift for republicans to say, hey, i'm doing something about this. it's not as if it's only democrats who are being gunned down in violence. it's everyone it seems. and so is there a moment that republicans and democrats might find the common ground at least of saying it just makes sense politically to do what seems to be overwhelmingly popular to at least come to the table and look for compromise. >> well n a limited sense, depending on what comes out of the senate or if anything comes out of the senate, i think that may be true. but the reality is united states senators all represent different states and members of congress all represent different districts. if you're talking vermont versus north carolina versus california versus georgia, all very different political realities in there. you take the congressional districts in there. members of congress and senators accurately reflect believe it or not their voters and who they

hear from and who shows up on election day. it's part of why we see -- on any issue, not just one this emotionally -- that when you start with the exit ramps, you look for one quickly. and you always blame the other side regardless of who the other side is. >> thank you dana bash and doug heye. thank you so much. >> thank you. grieving families we are seeing in uvalde. they still have yet to get answers, answers to why police failed to follow their training to confront an active shooter. questions like why the chief at the center of this failure won't give them answers. could there be legal repercussions for law enforcement? should there be repercussions? next. eated a brand new way for you to sell your car whether it's a year old, or a few years old we want to buy your car so go to carvana enter your license plate answer a few questions and our techno wizardry calculates your car's value

and gives you a real offer in seconds when you're ready we'll come to you pay you on the spot and pick up your car that's it so ditch the old way of selling your car and say hello to the new way at carvana ♪ making friends again, billy? i like to keep my emies close. guys, excuse me. i didn'tuite get that. i'm hard of hearing. ♪ oh hey, don't forget about the tense music too. would you say tense? i'd say suspenseful. aren't they the same thing? can we move on guys, please? alexa, turn on the subtitles. and dim the lights. ok, dimming the lights. this is roundup weed and grass killer with sure shot wand. this stuff works. this stuff works in flower beds. this stuff works in tree rings. this stuff works in walkways, driveways, pathways. this stuff works down to the root so weeds don't come back. this stuff works for you, your neighbor, your neighbor's neighbor, her neighbor's neighbor. this stuff works guaranteed, or your money back.

this stuff works without hurting your back. this stuff works without hurting your pride. this stuff works early shifts, late nights, and holiday weekends. this is roundup weed & grass killer with sure shot wand. this stuff works.

♪ it wasn't me by shaggy ♪ you're never responsible for unauthorized purchases on your discover card. why hide your skin if dupixent has your moderate-to-severe eczema, or atopic dermatitis under control? hide my skin? not me. because dupixent targets a root cause of eczema, it helps heal your skin from within, keeping you one step ahead of it. hide my skin? not me. and for kids ages 6 and up that means clearer skin, and noticeably less itch. with dupixent, you can change how their skin looks and feels. and that's the kind of change you notice. 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 show more with less eczema. talk to your child's eczema specialist about dupixent, a breakthrough eczema treatment. hitting the road, not all 5g networks are created equal. t-mobile covers more highway miles with 5g than verizon. t-mobile has more 5g bars in more places than anyone. another reason t-mobile is the leader in 5g. look, the bottom line is we still don't know what information got from uvalde 911 to the school district police

chief in the critical moments officers were told not to enter the classroom. but answers like this about when we'll know, well, they make a bad situation worse. >> whenever this is done, the families quit grieving, then we'll do that obviously. >> so, that's the school district police chief. and now uvalde city council member, pete arredondo. and my next guest has the unique perspective of the situation the chief finds himself in. he represented scott peterson, the former school resource officer who is still awaiting trial over what happened at marjory stoneman douglas high school in parkland florida in 2018. welcome to the show. eager to speak with you today. i'm eager to talk to you because there's a lot of questions that we need answers to. and yet of all the people who have been involved in this incident and the response to

this tragedy, there's only one name we keep hearing. and when i talk about the need to have the answers, i'm not being reductive about the need just to point fingers and blame a person and tie it up with a neat bow. i have the scope of the answers. and here to present somebody who has found himself under a microscope where people have asked for those answers, have wanted to prosecute, tell me about what you think is going on with this chief in the sense of what it would look like to find yourself under the microscope with so many answers still lingering. >> all right. first let me say to the families, i just -- my heart goes out to all of them, and i am so sorry for your loss. i have three children, and i can't imagine what they must be going through. if i'm them and i'm in this predicament, i would demand answers. and i would want those answers quick. but what i've learned through my own involvement with the peterson case is those quick

answers are also the least accurate. the only answers that you can rely upon are ones that come after an extensive and thorough investigation. that has not been done. so, we're all yelling, we want answers. we demand answers. and any time a police chief or anybody says, we will get you those answers, let us do a thorough investigation, that's not good enough. there seems to be this war on cops where there's the good guys and the bad guys and regardless of what the investigation may show, we need a villain right away. we want to pick up our pitch forks, and we have a war on first responders. and i'm here to say that that's truly unfair to the dedicated men and women who get up every morning and leave their families not knowing if they're going to return to their households and they go out there and fight for us and put their lives on the line. they deserve a thorough investigation first. if they've done anything wrong, that's fine. they can be condemned for it at some point and maybe even jailed for it. but let's just wait. >> well, here's the obvious

retort to that notion. i do echo the sentiment that there are so many brave men and women in law enforcement who are fighting to make sure, just as they would like to return home this evening, that others who are relying on them will be able to return home in the evening. and what we see here is this balancing test that you talk about the need for the delay and a thorough investigation against the notion we have closed universe of facts in terms of what the families are even asking for. even the bite-sized pieces of what was behind the decision in real time not to enter the classroom. there is a thorough investigation about the overall, you know, maybe systemic issues or other factors. but why not have the answers to the questions of why did you decide not to go in? that's a limited set of facts. it doesn't disrupt the notion of respecting law enforcement. >> yeah, i disagree with you. that takes a lot of time. in other words, i've learn frd my case with scott peterson,

before i took his case, i was one of the many men who condemned him. he's a coward? the coward of broward? i'm not even going to meet with the guy. then i did a thorough investigation. i saw transcripts. i saw what he was saying in real time, asking fellow officers, where's the shooter. i'm hearing him order a code red. i'm hearing him order officers to watch their back, evidencing that he thought maybe there was a sniper. it was completely different than what we were led to believe. so, sometimes it looks black and white and it looks like we can condemn an officer. and that's so unfair to the officer, like scott peterson, who for 32 years was a decorated officer and did everything he could before, during, and after the shooting to help protect and save lives. >> you know, it's interesting because what you are describing as condemnation for many would ask and say it's a question. i mean, there is the idea -- and i agree with you. believe me, as a former prosecutor, i know the value and the beauty of the presumption of

innocence and the burden that must be met. at the same token, the condemnation does not equate to asking questions like, can we have the information. i know it will take some time to get the full scope of it. but you must see that there has been some stonewalling and tight-lipped responses that is not really deserving of the families. and i'm just wondering how long do you think quick ought to be. there's piecemeal and there's stonewalling. where should we be right now eight days in? >> let me just say that anyone who's stonewalling should not be. they need to be sensitive to these families and the public at large who demandens as. we do want answers. but there's a difference between stonewalling and saying to people, we must do a detailed and thorough investigation. how about speaking to each of the officers? do you know that in my case, scott peterson, they didn't go through and ask him step by step, what were you thinking? why didn't you go into the

building? to this day they've never done that. they did some quick examination about him being a witness on the crew's case but not to ask him why didn't you go in. if they did, they would realize he's innocent and being sacrificed. let's wait and speak to the officers and look at everything. and then if there are things that need to be done, need to be corrected, officers that need to face criminal charges, we'll get to that. but not the risk of judgment. >> i respect your position and your client in particular, but we can both agree that our level of patience and time line will be different than the families that are grieving today. thank you so much for being here. i appreciate it. >> thank you, laura. i truly appreciate it. thank you. >> thank you. and you know, we are mourning with these families, as funerals continued in uvalde, including the funeral of el ha

na torrez. she was ten years old when she was murdered in her school nine days ago. the families are grieving the immeasurable loss. there was one member of her family that could not be there to say good-bye to his little girl, her own father. it wasn't because he didn't want to be there. that father, ellie torrez, is incarcerated in kentucky, serving time in a prison for a non-violent drug offense. he learned of her murder. he requested a temporary release to be able to attend his own daughter's funeral, not her birthday party, not a recital, her funeral. and his request was denied. a state rep weighed in, pushing the likes of governor beshear and even president biden to intervene. still, it was denied. but they did offer him a chance to watch it streaming online. kim kardashian, increasingly known for using her platform to raise awareness of criminal justice reform, even asked the federal bureau of prisons directly, saying that every

parent deserved the right to say their last good-bye. but none of the appeals for his release, and a temporary one at that, made a difference, at least not in time for his daughter's funeral. a girl whose family says she was loving and compassionate with a smile that could light up your soul, they say. but her own father's request for compassion was denied. and what is undeniable is that at the intersection of grief and politics, compassion, it seems, is at times nowhere to be found. but we still must look for the answers, the ones that the families deserve. perpetual mass shootings is where we find ourselves today, burying little girls and little boys, mothers and fathers who begin their day in the places where they ought to feel and be safe and ending their days terrorized, whose legacy and impact, frankly, we'll never had

be able to capture in a sound bite if we had 100 hours to describe what they meant to their loved ones. but we do have 100 senators and 435 representatives. so, what will they do? and will whatever they decide be enough and in time? d bath, we fit your style, w with hundrs of design options. when a norormal day is anything but normal, we f fit your schedule, with our unique tub over tub process, installed in as little as a day. when high quality is the only quality that matters, we fit your standards, with a lifetime guarantee. bath fitter. it just fits. visit bathfitter.com to book your free consultation.

the unknown is not empty. it's a storm that crashes, and consumes, replacing thought with worry. but one thing can calm uncertainty. an answer. uncovered through exploration, teamwork, and innovation. an answer that leads to even more answers. mayo clinic.

you know where to go. i've lived in san francisco for 20 years. i'm raising my kids here. this city is now less safe for all of us. chesa boudin is failing to hold repeat offenders accountable. he prosecuted zero fentanyl drug dealing cases, even though nearly 500 people have died of overdoses. i'm voting yes on h to recall chesa boudin now. we can't wait one more day when people are dying

on our streets.

the president tonight called for repeal of the law that protects gun manufacturers from prosecution. that comes as the new lawsuit illustrates just how high the bar is for holding gun makers accountable. and that case is actually being litigated in new york, where in april, ten people were shot on a brooklyn subway. ilene stewer was one of those ten people. she was on her way to work when a bullet fractured part of her spine. she's now suing glock, the company that made the alleged shooter's weapon. her attorney, sanford rubenstein, joins me now. sanford, welcome to the show. i'm glad you're here. first, how is your client doing? many people have been reeling from the perpetual state of mass shootings. at times it's hard to even have all of the coverage on what has happened to those who have been the vick testimony es.

she has a spinal issue? >> she had a bullet that went through her abdomen m causing her to have a colostmy bag. also the psychological damage. this should not be happening in this city, in this state, in this country. >> and you're pointing to glock as the gun manufacturer as a way to get some semblance of justice for your client. tell me why you're pursuing this lawsuit. >> we allege that through their marketing practices, glock has contributing to maintaining a public nuisance in endangering the public health and safety in new york, which violates the law enacted for the very purpose of creating a pathway where there is a danger to public health and safety for victims to recover from gun manufacturers. the initial statute, which was

passed by the legislature when the last bill was passed by governor cuomo, was recently declared constitutional by a federal court judge in albany. and that's being appealed. and that appeal will be very important because if his decision is sustained and we believe this lawsuit can go forward in federal court, there's an avenue for victims to get compensation for their pain and suffering. >> this is almost -- i don't want to call it a test case in the sense that it's something that should be dismissive of. but the idea this is one of the first instances to test this law. i wonder for people who are listening, it seems to many it might be a tangential relationship between the marketing and what takes place and what took place in a brooklyn subway. you have the shooter who was engaged in this horrific behavior. then you've got the idea of marketing practices. bridge the gap for me in terms of what claims you're making to show that there's a correlation that led to your client's injury.

>> it can go directly to the lawsuit. you see that we allege the marketing that they engaged in, which emphasized firearm characteristics such as their high capacity and ease of concealment, purposely supplying more firearms than the legitimate market can bear to induce sales in the secondary market, not training dealers to avoid sales, and refusing to terminate contracts -- traced to crime scenes. there's a book written about glock, america's gun, which outlines some of these marketing practices. and we look forward to deposing those who are high executives at glock to find out exactly what was going on in this company. how did the movies get the glock to put it in? how did the rappers get the glock to rap about the glock? we are looking forward to those depositions.

>> so, sanford, it sounds like you are extends beyond the immediate injury of your client and talking more about the gun manufacturer as a whole over many years. the book you cite was back i think 2008. this was actually a law in 2021. so, it's going to be a discovery you're anticipating or hoping for to bridge that gap. we're going to stick with it and see what happens. thank you so much. >> thank you. and cnn has reached out to glock incorporated for comment, and frankly, we have not heard back. but we'll follow this story anyway. a different but also important legal question tonight. what happens to the me too movement after johnny depp's $15 million award in the defamation suit against his ex-wife amber heard? justice is supposed to be blind, we're told. but are the bright lights of fame seeping through thanks to public and social media's power? we'll talk about it next.

hybrid work is here. it's there. it's everywhere. but for someone to be able to work from here, there has to be someone here making sure everythi is safe. secure. consistent. so log in from here. or here. assured that someone is here ready to fix anything. anytime. anywhere. even here. that's because nobody... and i mean nobody... makes hybrid work, work better.

people with plaque psoriasis, are rethinking the choices they make. like the shot they take. the memories they create. or the spin they initiate. otezla. it's a choice you can make. otezla is not a cream. it's a pill that treats plaque psoriasis differently. with otezla, you can achieve clearer skin. don't use if you're allergic to otezla. otezla can cause serious allergic reactions. it may cause severe diarrhea, nausea, or vomiting. otezla is associated with an increased risk of depression. tell your doctor if you have a history of depression or suicidal thoughts or if these feelings develop. some people taking otezla reported weight loss. your doctor should monitor your weight and may stop treatment. upper respiratory tract infection and headache may occur. tell your doctor about your medicines and if you're pregnant or planning to be. otezla. show more of you.

for state controller, only yiu will save taxpayers money. wait, who, me? me? no, not you. yvonne yiu. yvonne yiu. not me. good choice. for 25 years, yiu worked as an executive at top financial firms. managed hundreds of audits. as mayor, she saved taxpayers over $55 million. finding waste. saving money. because... yiu is for you. yiu is for you. exactly.

yvonne yiu. democrat for controller. the choice for attorney general is clear. democrat rob bonta has a passion for justice and standing up for our rights. bonta is laser focused on protecting the right to vote and defending obamacare. but what's republican eric early's passion? early wants to bring trump-style investigations on election fraud to california, and early says he'll end obamacare and guard against the growing socialist communist threat. eric early. too extreme, too conservative so, johnny depp and amber heard both won damages and were ordered to pay damages in their respective lawsuits against one another. but in the court of public

opinion, it seems that depp is the clear victor. the actor says the jury, quote, gave me my life back, unquote. well, amber heard says the decision is a quote, setback for women. multiple newspaper op-ed columns say the case marked the death of the me too movement as well. but will it really have lasting cultural impact for non-celebrities, or is it just the hot topic of the moment? i'm thrilled to have you on, otty. good to see you. i wonder about that last aspect of it, the notion that they're saying that the me too movement based on this may actually be dead. what's your take in the court of public opinion? >> first thing i want to say, there have been so many obits for the me too movement over the last couple of years with each and every celebrity case, celebrity outing. there is a round of hand wringing about whether or not this is effective or not. i can say as someone who has

followed this a long time, one of the things that me too activists and me too activism did is recenter the media ecosystem and the media narrative in a story like this. so, in the past, as an accuser, you really didn't have much recourse if you weren't going through legal channels, which we know have a lot of biases when it comes to dealing with people who are victims of abuse. but all of a sudden, for a few years there, people could raise allegations through the news with journalists who are far more interested in corroborating and investigating sometimes cases, in the case of harvey weinstein, things that were considered common knowledge, were all of a sudden fair game to talk about in a way they weren't before. but secondly the use of first person narrative. fundamentally the case everyone just watched between depp and heard was not their divorce proceeding. it was not any kind of criminal proceeding. we were watching a defamation

case, right? this was about speech, one of the most potent tools of modern day activism and potent tools for the me too movement. >> and yet very little, frankly, was discussed in terms of the legal flowchart in looking at a defamation case. really their entire live as peered to have been on trial. and frankly social media was here for all of it. there was so many commentary, so many memes, featured on "snl." even monica lewinsky with the case in "vanity fair" calling it courtroom porn and saying we are all guilty of indulging in it. >> it is incredible how the media ecosystem has changed just since 2016, right? people are talking about this being one of the first tiktok celebrity trials, which is significant. i'm sure there will be questions raised about how that jury was able to stay truly isolated from any information about this case for six weeks, given, you know, how much of the media zone was

flooded with independent social media campaigns. and fundamentally, something has not changed, which is that for a while it seemed as though the me too movement had undermined the idea of the perfect victim, that somebody had to be unassailable in so many ways in order for them to be credible against the accused, right? it sort of spread that burden out a little bit. that's what i think fundamentally, the believe women mantra or slogan was about. it's saying that the person who is on trial is the accused, not the accuser. and it's interesting that at the end of heard's op-ed, the one that's in question here, she talks about the idea of taking on all of the sort of abuse, you know in the social media space and in the public. and in the end, that remained, right? in the end, she still took on a great deal of reputational damage in making these claims.

and i think that goes against something we've been told by a lot of people, which is that accusers are seeking fame and that this is, like, such a great position to be in. it's not. there's no winning. no one's covered in glory. and i think that it was a very sort of ugly, stretched out process that fundamentally damaged them both but certainly didn't give her what she was looking for. >> well, the notion of believe women as the reflexive action in the me too movement seems to be challenged in this notion. the question will be, will that truly be the case for women who don't have name recognition like an amber heard or a johnny depp? and will this be about backlash, resisting the me too movement, or really about finding the truth? audi korish, so nice to talk to you. what an asset to have you at cnn. >> thank you for having me. the king of electric cars is

pulling the plug on workers who work remotely all the time. elon musk warning employers if they don't put in 40 hours a week at the office, they don't work for him anymore. the question is now will corporate america follow his lead. we've got cara swisher telling us how that could clash with his twitter takeover bid, next. morey miles with 5g than verizon. t-t-mobile has more 5g bars in more places than anyoyone. another r reason t-mobile is the leader in 5g. if you have type 2 diabetes or high blood pressure you're a target for chronic kidney disease. you can alreadhave it and not know it. if you have chronic kidney disease your kidney health could dependn what you do today. ♪far-xi-ga♪ farxiga is a pill that works in the kidneys to help slow the progression of chronic kidney disease. farxiga can cause serious side effects including dehydration, urinary tract or genital yeast infections in women and men, and low blood sugar.

ketoacidosis is a serious side effect that may lead to death. a rare, life-threatening bacterial infection in the skin of the perineum could occur. stop taking farxiga and call your doctor right away if you have symptoms of this bacterial infection, an allergic reaction, or ketoacidosis. and don't take it if you are on dialysis. take aim at chronic kidney disease by talking to your doctor and asking about farxiga. if you can't afford your medication, astrazeneca may be able to help. ♪far-xi-ga♪ for babies born at this hospital

in east africa, the first moments of life are their most fragile. many don't make it through their first 60 seconds. baby teresa was born with fluids blocking her breathing. without the use of this simple suction tool, births like teresa's could be fatal. around the world, 1 million babies don't survive their first day. save the children is on the ground helping save babies and mothers. but we need your help. please call or go online now and join save the children as a monthly donor. for only $10 a month, just $0.33 a day you can help fragile babies survive. your monthly donations will help ensure that children like teresa get the lifesaving nutrition, medicine, care and protection they need.

so please call or go online to give to givetosave.org today with your gift of $10 a month, just $0.33 a day. and when you use your credit card, you'll receive this special save the children tote bag to show your joining thousands of other caring people who are changing children's lives. because of donations like yours, baby teresa is now safe at home, but thousands of other children are at risk. all it takes to make a life saving difference is just $10 a month. so please call or go online to givetosave.org today. and thanks to a special government grants that are available now, every dollar you give can multiply up to ten times the impact. save the children staff are on the ground doing all they can to save precious babies and their moms. but they can't do it without the support of caring people like you. so please call or go online to givetosave.org to help save lives.

elon musk said what's happening to him feels like a looney toons episode. he's at the center of so much controversy, it's much to make the tasmanian devil, dizzy. did i just date myself with that? he has denied sexual misconduct allegations and now he's making waves at tesla telling his remote office workers to come back to the physical office for 40 hours or week or resign. his complaining the pandemic tricked people in thinking they

don't need to work hard. today, even musk complained about his own work tweeting, i never wanted to be ceo. just wanted to work on product, technology. running companies hurts my heart. i'm glad you're here. some people are thinking maybe elon musk said maybe the quiet part out loud that other employers are thinking. the idea this whole remote work is not working for maybe the culture of the employers. what do you make of it? >> well, i don't think he's -- other people have done this. david soleman at goldman. a lot of people are talking about this. they are facing backlash from people who don't want to do it. apple has a fantastic headquarters in silicon valley and been facing some struggle getting a will the of people back there. elon just decided like several

people that you're coming to work or you're not coming, essentially. i'm a little tired of elon pontificating on every subject known to man. i have a feeling we will get his chocolate chip cookie recipe next. he'll be mad at someone else's recipe. if it's his company and that's the way he wants to run it, people can decide if they want to work for the company. i think this case i think he's been reasonable in saying the factory workers have to come in. to create great product, you need be in the same place. people can walk with their fai and work with companies that let you stay home. it's a legitimate thing to say about how he wants to conduct his workplace. people are going to object but don't work for elon musk then.

>> how you have missed the chance to say how you like them cookies is yjust beyond me. this is a moment you've got to say it. it's a take it or leave it philosophy. that's when you own the company. he's got a new company he may be taking the over and i'm wondering what those company members are thinking about given he talk about factory workers. those who are in union in germany are getting push back in yeah, you might be the man but we're the workers. >> yeah, that's true. there's a lot of worker unrest in a lot of tech companies. starbucks, apple. they are trying to unionize in stores. amazon is facing that. again, i feel like thanksgiving is the ceo. this is the rules he wants to make. he will face backlash and deal with it and get workers or he won't. he's not saying something that's totally off on a different field than other people. a will the ploefrs feel you need

to be together to do creative work and probably the totally remote work force is not going to work for a lot of people. some of it makes sense. in this way i kind of agree in doing something like tesla requires presence probably and cannot be done remotely. you can't build culture. you can wantkants can't be crea. it's not out to have mainstream. >> the lawyer in me asks about the notion of lawsuit and exp exposure. there are legitimate reasons many people have to not be in the physical work space. he's no stranger as a company owner, there's no stranger to the idea of lawsuits and litigation about work culture, about the demand, about the take it or leave it approach. does that open it up to more of this? >> i think he got in more trouble when we didn't have the

vaccines when he was demanding people to be at work. in this case, i don't think you can see for not being at work. i think he did say, and he did note that if you have exception, it's impossible for you not to work remotely, i will review them and decide on this. he didn't say everybody. i don't know if there's going to be a hold of like right not to go to work as a worker. i think that's going to be debated but this idea that workers have all the power is not true especially as we're moving into a recession nar period and retraction in jobs. the power dynamic is changing all the time and it's changed during the pandemic. people do save a lot of time not commuting and things like that. they like it. a lot of workplaces will say we need you back in here. i think it will be more of a hybrid for most people. if that's what he wants, don't work for him if that's what you don't want. i think that's his message.

>> either way, no cookies for you if you don't come in. thank you so much. we'll be right back. >> thank you so much.

the unknown is not empty. it's a storm that crashes, and consumes, replacing thought with worry. but one thing can calm uncertainty. an answer. uncovered through exploration, teamwork, and innovation. an answer that leads to even more answers. mayo clinic. you know where to go.

thanks for watching. i'll be back tomorrow night. don lemon starts now. >> i have to be hopeful about they're finally may be some action on, i think you have to be careful about what you call it. people don't like to be controlled. maybe gun limits. like you have a speed limit. i think what is happening in the country and the rapid succession of all after these shootings and the young people dying, i think that there will be some movement. i'm hopeful. i have to be hopeful. i've been through this before. you've been through it before. i thought something would happen after sandy hook but now fingers, crossed and lets play this time there's a difference. >> i