let's hand it over to sara sidner and "cnn tonight." >> i am sara sidner and this is "cnn tonight." a surprise january 6 hearing is now on the calendar for tomorrow. but the house select committee wasn't even supposed to meet this week. what changed? few details are trickling out. but the panel does say, quote, recently obtained evidence will be presented. and it will receive witness testimony. a lot of intrigue there, especially because we know the committee's been closely poring over new documently footage that surface frd a british filmmaker who had close access to former president donald trump and his family before and after january 6. a lot more on that ahead, along with the brand-new developments tonight on one of the central figures of the election interference attempt who pleaded the fifth to the committee 100 times.

the feds have seized the phone of former trump election attorney john eastman. >> put your arms up for me. >> there is the video there. he is being detained. what it could mean for him and potentially former president trump. that's coming up. but first, to the fury and fear on one side and jubilation on the other still palpable in our nation in this first week since the supreme court overturned the constitutional right to an abortion. its ruling means it is now up to the states to decide whether to allow abortions. protests against the ruling are growing, but so too is the fight by those who want to ban abortion altogether. and to their delight, a cascade of new abortion bans went into place in the hours after the ruling. as of tonight, ten states effe effectively banned abortion. this is truly historic. tonight we're about to illuminate the impact this

four-day-old decision will have. one by one we are seeing more than half the states in america moving swiftly to implement laws to outlaw abortions or restrict them greatly. as the battle plays out, the state of play is changing tonight. a federal judge today lifted a ban of south carolina's heart beat law while utah's trigger law is on hold this evening after a judge granted planned parenthood's request for a restraining order. and we're seeing two dozens states' attorneys general reaffirming their commitment to keeping abortion legal, even expanding access to abortion care. so, with a long-time precedent being overturned, it begs the question, does precedent actually mean anything anymore? >> precedent is important, but sometimes the precedent is outdated or wrong. >> and of course that's

republican senate minority leader mitch mcconnell, who helped reshape this court, which has so far rolled back decades of precedent. let's zoom in now on how the upending of roe versus wade has already upended many lives. andrea -- is an administrator in two states that outlawed abortion, oklahoma and texas. she joins us now. thank you for being here. >> thank you for having me, sara. >> can you describe to me exactly what happened when the news came down and you found out about the supreme court's ruling? what happened in your clinic when that decision came down? >> so, i think it's important to remember that oklahoma and texas have been in a post-roe state since the very restrictive laws have already gone into effect in those states. but the morning of the decision really solidified the future for

your our states and others. in san antonio, texas, we had patients in the clinic with us that we were then forced to tell that we could not provide their services that day. and it was really painful. it was painful for them and it was painful for us to deliver that news as well. >> i know because of hipaa laws you can't tell us who, but can you give us a sense of where these patients were in the process, maybe an age of someone. was there somebody who, for example, was in just before the procedure that was told to leave? what exactly happened to your patients? >> sure. we had called a patient back into a room and had her get ready for her sonogram and had her get dressed and go to the waiting room and get ready to hear the news from the physician who had to make the announcement this morning. we had -- the decision came in

just shortly after 9:00. so, we had a group of maybe 10 or 12 patients that had arrived already. and we're expecting to get services, expecting to receive their pill, expecting to have the surgical procedure done. and, you know, we had to deliver that devastating news that it was not going to be possible that day. >> can i ask you how they reacted when you told these patients that, look, it is no longer viable for us to do this. it would be considered against the law. and you have to leave. >> hysteria, confusion, anger, despair. those were all the emotions in the room. and it -- you know, we all felt it. there were tears from patients. there were tears from staff. it was incredibly difficult. it's something that i don't think the folks behind these

laws understand what it means for someone facing this already incredible difficult decision and now asking them to, you know, flee their home state in order to access health care. >> is that what many of them -- do they tell you what they're going to do next? is there anyone who said, for example, i'm going to change my mind because now that this is against the law here, i'm going to go ahead and have this child? >> there was a little of both but mostly because the idea of having to travel, the idea of finding the means to be able to do that just seems so unrealistic for so many patients. and so the reality of, you know, does this mean that i'm going to have a forced pregnancy? and then you had others that said, you know, despite all odds, they would have to make it out of state, that they had no other choice. they had to get this done. and they would find a way.

and i think we're going to see a lot of both of those scenarios. these bans do not stop abortion. women will still seek access. we're just making it incredibly difficult for women to make important health care decisions. >> how do you respond to those who are very happy and have been fighting for decades to stop abortions from happening in this country and who truly believe that they are saving lives? >> i would ask them to think of the lives of pregnant women. think of the woman with a fetal anomaly that finds out at 18, 19, 20 weeks and can't get an abortion in her home state. think about the minor who was raped and can't get an abortion in her home state. these are lives too. these are lives that are going to be greatly impacted by these

bans. and we have to remember, you know, abortion is health care. it's safe. it's easy. and it should be accessible to everyone, despite their geographical location. >> are most people accessing pills that cause abortions or coming in to the clinic to have you do it in a different way? what is happening when it comes to those two options? >> so, in texas, you know, 299 days ago, september 1, 2021, when s.b. 8 first went into law, which basically restricted abortion past six weeks, you know, the majority of patients began choosing pills, medication abortion, which is so simple. it's easy and safe. you know, the first pill is taken in the clinic, and the next set of pills are taken safely at home. and the abortion continues at

home and in the privacy of their own home. and this is, you know, a very reliable option. and then other patients would choose the surgical procedure. so, a little bit of both. but we definitely lsaw an increase since after s.b. 8 passed. >> do you worry about what's going to happen going forward? there are a lot of folks who would like to see this criminalized, would like to see providers like you criminalized for performing abortions. will you stopper forming abortions? i know you're not doing it in the state right now. what will you do? >> so, you know, we are hoping that we can have some legal resolution of what's happening right now in texas. we were supposed to have 30 days from when roe was decided with the trigger ban. but the attorney general stepped in and said that pre-roe law could be enforced immediately, causing criminal penalty, which

is why we stopped immediately. we should have been able to continue under our texas trigger ban. so, we're hoping to have some relief and maybe be able to get back to providing abortions for a short period. of course that's not the long term because, you know, eventually we will not be able to in texas. so, you know, providers, i think, around all of these restrictive states are considering what's next. do we move to a friendly state and help provide access to more women seeking? >> all right. thank you so much. when we return, the next front in the post-roe battle. you'll hear from an activist on the other side of this fight trying to ban abortion rights completely. plus a physician who provides abortion on her biggest concerns for women who won't be able to get access to safe abortions after this ruling. that's ahead.

she's feeling the power of listerine. he's feeling it. yep, them too. it's an invigorating rush... ...zapping millions of germs in seconds. for that one-of-a-kind whoa... ...which leaves you feeling... ahhhhhhh listerine. feel the whoa! only two things are forever: love and liberty mutual customizing your car insurance, so you only pay for what you need. if anyone objects to this marriage... (emu squawks) kevin, no! not today. only pay for what you need. ♪ liberty. liberty. liberty. liberty. ♪

it's started. somewhere between a cuddle and a struggle, it's...the side hug. tween milestones like this may start at age 9. hpv vaccination - a type of cancer prevention against certain hpv-related cancers, can start then too. for most, hpv clears on its own. but for others, it can cause certain cancers later in life. you're welcome! now, as the "dad cab", it's my cue to help protect them. embrace this phase. help protect them in the next. ask their doctor about hpv vaccination today. meltin', breadin', bakin', shreddin'. slicin', dicin', spicin', ricin'. if you're swissing it, then you're missing it. fryin', flyin', savorin', favorin'. over rotini. inside a panini. egging, maining, siding, plain-ing. debunk the inglorious. one shape's victorious. kraft singles. square it.

the debate over abortion has been inflamed once again. a new battle is brewing after the supreme court decision on friday overturning roe v. wade. protesters on both sides of the debate are reenergizing and promising to go to the polls this year. we talked to people very much involved in this new battle. one a physician who performs abortions and other reproductive care. the other, one of the young new activists working to ban abortions outright. [ crowd chanting ] >> reporter: all over america, the signs are clear. after 49 years, the battle overabortion rights has been reenergized because the supreme court ruled there is no longer a constitutional right to abortion. >> we know that banning abortion doesn't take away the need for abortion. so, people are still going to do whatever it takes to get that

care. >> mira shaw is a physician and activist who provides abortions and other health care at a planned parenthood clinic. >> i have cared for the protesters, and i treat them the exact same way i would treat any patient. >> are you saying that a protester has had an abortion? >> absolutely. i have seen that in my career. i have provided abortion care to a protester outside one of our health centers. >> reporter: lila rose is fighting to ban abortion rights completely. her group, live action, is at the forefront of a new generation of women who believe abortion is not only wrong, but criminal. >> we were thrilled learning that roe v. wade had been overturned. >> do you think abortion should be criminalized, in other words, doctors and people who help

people have abortions should be criminalized. >> abortion is homicide and it should be treated as such. >> so, you're saying women should not have a choice of abortion. >> homicide should not be celebrated and tax funded in our communities period. >> reporter: dr. shaw fears that is where the next round of this fight may be headed. at least ten states have effectively banned abortion since friday's ruling, although two bans are already being challenged in court. another five states are expected to announce trigger laws, limiting abortions in the coming days and weeks. soon abortion could be illegal or extremely limited in more than half of america. at least nine states looking to ban abortion have no exception for rape or incest. >> if a woman is raped or she's impregnated by a relative, why should that woman have to go through with the pregnancy and bring that baby into this world. >> rape is horrific, but the solution to sexual violence, if there's a pregnancy that has

resulted, abortion is not going to take away the trauma that that woman or girl endured. another act of violence is not going to stop the circle of violence. >> reporter: texas has already passed a law that criminalizes abortion provider. >> after s.b. 8 was passed in tex in september 2021, we saw patients from texas come to us for abortion care. and we anticipate that influx of patients is going to increase. >> she's 7 weeks. >> 7 weeks, 4 days. >> any medical problems? >> no. >> reporter: dr. shaw argues all bans do is traumatize women, especially the poor and medically underserved, as these clinics can be their only access to any health care at all. shaw and rose do agree on one thing. >> i mean, our country has devastatingly poor maternal mortality rates, especially among black women. >> i'm sure you're aware there's a high rate of ma terrell

mortality and morbidity among people of color. >> shaw says abortion is one of the many opgss she gives. >> z aa physician, i know that abortion care is health care. >> abortion is not health care and helping women lower mortality rates. >> why should woman not have agency over her body? >> well, of course a woman should have agency over her own body. what we're contesting is in a pregnancy, there's two bodies. >> reporter: and so enters yet another dispute. is a fetus a person who should enjoy the same human rights? here are the words of one of the five justices who overturned roe versus wade during his confirmation hearings. >> a fetus is not a person. >> reporter: no matter what science says, dr. shaw says history has shown, legal or not, women will get abortions. the question is will they be safe or potentially deadly? >> so, people are still going to do whatever it takes to get that care. whether that means they're going to travel to other states or

seek pills online. >> there are so many looming questions on both sides of the debate. i'm going to bring in a team of braet minds to explore the possibilities and look at why democrats didn't make roe the law of the land when they had the opportunity, coming up next. >> tech: need to get your windshield fixed? safelite makes it easy. >> tech vo: you can schedule in just a few clicks. and wel come to you with a replacement you can trust. >> man: looks great. >> tech: tt's service on your time. schedule now. >> singers: ♪ safelite repair, safelite replace. ♪

♪ ♪ aleve x. its revolutionary rollerball design delivers fast, powerful, long-lasting pain relief. aleve it, and see what's possible. you might have heard of carvana and that we sell cars online. we believe buying a car should be something that gets you hyped up. and that your new car ought to come with newfound happiness and zero surprises. and all of us will stop at nothing to drive you happy. we'll drive you happy at carvana.

["only wanna be with you" by hootie & the blowfish] discover is accepted at 99% of places in the u.s. ["only wanna be with you" by hootie & the blowfish]

as a business owner, your bottom line is always top of mind. so start saving by switching to the mobile service designed for small business: comcast business mobile. flexible data plans mean you can get unlimited data or pay by the gig. all on the most reliable 5g network with no line activation fees or term contracts... saving you up to $500 a year. and it's only available to comcast business internet customers. so boost your bottom line by switching today. comcast business. powering possibilities.

the warning from some physicians and abortion providers is this, banning abortions does not eliminate the need for one. it only eliminates safe abortions and the ability to seek them without fear of criminal prosecution. consider just how many women have had an abortion in the united states. and this number, by the way, surprised me. according to the latest data from 2020, institute estimates more than 930,000 women legally got the procedure. that number on the rise again

after a long-term decline in the 1980s. it fell about half. joining me now to discuss, van jones, jennifer rogers, and perry sheffield. thank you all for joining me again tonight. let's talk about this. we've just heard from two people. we heard from a provider of abortions and other health care and a young woman who is at the forefront of the push to stop abortions completely in this country. one of the things she said i thought was stark is, look, in her estimation, this is homicide and eventually people should be charged with homicide. going forward, states are talking about keeping women from being able to, for example, go to another state because that could be criminalized. what's the future look like? we'll start with you legally. >> it looks like chaos, sara, complete chaos. you have 50 states, about half of which are going to restrict abortion altogether. some will have an absolute ban,

no exceptions for life of the mother, no exceptions for health of the mother, no exceptions for rape, no exceptions for incest. they'll want to reach out beyond the borders of their own state to get women who travel, want to criminalize even the youtuber driver who takes you to a clinic. the question is what will the courts do when these are inevitably brought into litigation. while all that is happening over the next months and years, people don't know what they're allowed to do, what they're not allowed to do. it's going to be complete, complete chaos as a legal matter. >> i can tell you having talked to some of the providers and the doctors, they have said there is a lot of confusion out there. carrie, i've heard from lila rose, who has made her point, that abortion is homicide and homicide should be prosecuted like everything else. do you follow that same thought

process? should women be crim lieds for having an abortion? >> i love lila rose. i think what she's done with her work and just saving the lives of millions of unborn. bless her, first of all. in terms of punishment, i think the punishment should be geared toward the providers. 930,000 abortions. that is not safe, legal, and rare. the keyword. democrats failed. they fail. they failed. that's why it's such a shock to the system. they failed to make abortion rare. that is why this is a human rights crisis. this is two bodies at stake. yes, a woman has right to autonomy of her body. but immediately at conception there is the exact dna for a completely separate human being, completely separate body. that's the issue at stake. that the person is imbued with human rights.

that is what we need to be protecting. the fact we will have different laws on the books, i think that we talked about whether a federal law on either side -- i know earlier on this network that kamala harris and others were talking about getting a democrat to pass a federal ban on abortion. i'm not sure it would be legal on either side because of the constitution. i think what we would have to have is an amendment to the constitution and i don't think we have the votes, as the vice president said. >> do you think, though, that women should be criminalized? i think your answer was, no. the providers, you said, yes, but women seeking abortions, no, correct? >> i think that the providers should face the strictest penalties. i think women and men should be held accountable. the men who aid and abet and not responsible -- it was seven men who decided roe v. wade. roe v. wade allows for the sexual recklessness of men. it allows them not to be held responsible in the same way we

require child support. i think we should have a requirement for when they impregnant a woman. if you look at the reasons why women get abortions, many of them say because they feel abandoned by their men. i think this is an important cultural moment where we're going to reset the conversation, where we're going to say, men, you need to be part of this. we're not going to allow seven men in robes to dictate something that is a lower case d democrat process. and that's the beauty of what's happening with this ruling, it was an honest conversation about life and whether abortion is legal, safe, and rare in this country. right now, it's not. >> the fire bombing and things have happened on both sides of this argument. we know abortion clinics have also been attacked over the years. i do want to bring something up that you said. you said that this is not rare. but the numbers have gone down according to the cdc by half since 1980. so, there are viewer abortions

than there were in the 1980s. i do want to talk to you, van, about something carrie said. she said democrats basically haven't done their due diligence. and there is a question. democrats have had 49 years to codify this and put it into law. why didn't they do it when they had a chance when they were in the power? and i'm not just talking about now. i'm talking about in the years leading up. >> well, i mean, because it was a constitutional right recognized by the supreme court. right now there's a right for marriage equality. the supreme court could take that away tomorrow and you can say why didn't we put it into the law. right now it is the law. it's hard to pass a law to give people the right they already have. that's part of the problem. the other thing is, look, you're going to get what you are asking for and you may not like it in that a year from now there are going to be rapists who have women who have been forced to

have their children. those rapists are then going to say, i have a right to see that child. there are child molesters who are going to be saying, i have a right to see the child created by my molestation. you're going to get what you want, but i don't think you're going to like it as much as you think. you're going to have people -- it's no longer going to be theoretical. this is going to be a living nightmare for millions of american families. there are people right now, young women, who are packing their bags to get ready to go to college right now who we know statistically are going to be raped. and your answer to them is, enjoy your pregnancy. that is despicable. it is wrong. and it is not going to stand in this country. you're going to get what you want. i don't think you're going to like it very much. >> excuse me, van -- >> is he right -- >> please show me -- give me the name of a judge who would allow visitation custody in this situation. i can't think a judge who would say -- no, no, no, there's a difference between allowing a

child. i'm talking about preventing an abortion. that's all i'm talking about. did i say anything about visitation? >> you have to eat the whole hamburger here. >> no, sir. no, sir. >> he talked about rape and incest. lila rose, who we just talked to said that there should not be an exception. and there are several states -- i think there are nine states that do not allow exception for abortion for rape and incest. do you agree with that? >> re >> i agree with that. >> why? >> because it's a human life. whether a human life is conceived in violence or love it is still an act of violence to commit murder of an innocent child. i don't think any judge in their right mind would agree with that, van. you're using a talking point -- >> it's not a talking point. i'm listening to you. i'm taking your talking points to the logical conclusion. >> no, i'm saying a rapist -- any male who impregnates a woman should not aid and abet the abortion. >> i don't mean that being rude here. it's already the law that if i

impregnate a woman and she has the child, that i'm responsible for that child. and you have a lot of dads right now who are considered deadbeat dads because they're not doing that. the law is on the side of the women in that situation. so, don't position yourself as somebody who's somehow fixing a problem here. men who impregnate women are responsible. but this is something very, very different. by the way, we're now talking about the loss of legitimacy of the supreme court because you have a chief justice, who probably agrees with you more than me, who said, can we at least move in an orderly manner that respects precedent and does the minimum we can do to uphold the law? and you now have five judges who went the other way. what does this mean? it used to be we could at least believe that we had referees on this fight. now you've got red robes and blue robes. so, the legitimacy of the supreme court is now in danger. you're going to wind up in a situation honestly where once you get what you want and you

have these catastrophes pa happening, we have no place to go. the supreme court is no longer respected. the congress is no longer respected. the president saying he's not dually elected a bomb has been thrown in the middle of the country, and you're not going to like this. >> i want to talk to you about this idea of legitimacy and this idea of people are saying, can we stop now saying that this is a completely apolitical body. are they correct in saying that? >> yeah, i'm afraid they are. it used to be that by going with the notions of you judicial restraints, following their precedent, taking incremental steps, deciding the matter of those exactly in front of the court, that's how they had integrity, how they had credibility.

people knew they didn't give overly broad pronouncements about what should be the law. and that's how the court had credibility for so many years. they have now completely jumped the rails. in the case -- the case of justice concurrence as you mentioned. he said no one had to overrule roe versus wade. mississippi proposed a 15-week ban. we should say, okay, that's constitutional. we don't need to overturn roe versus wade. that's how they lose credibility. there's an ak m's razor, right? it's the simplest explanation is probably the right explanation. when you look at the case and they're legally indefensible, grasping at straws, not following precedent, what's the most logical conclusion, the simplest explanation, that this is a results driven ideological decision. and that's how they got to where they are. they have the numbers now. they're going to do what they

want to do, and we're do seeing it in abortion, guns, religion, first amendment, administrative law next week or tomorrow, and it's just off the rails. >> carrie, i'll give you the last word. >> the right to abortion in the constitution, no. the court recognized that. the casey case tried to do what you said. it said, let's have this be the final word and let the states work it out gradually, and it never happened. we never got clarity. so, what happened was it ripped the band aid off and said we have clarity. this is clarity. there is no constitutional right. not to mention there were 26 states i want to point out that signed on and asked do bs. >> i will point out that for 49 years each of these justices have reaffirmed and reaffirmed and reaffirmed -- the supreme court has reaffirmed it. that is one of the issues that a lot of people are concerned about, this reaffirmation.

now that has all changed in 2022. all right. we're just learning about security concerns tonight about a witness to tomorrow's last minute january 6 investigation. that discussion is coming up next. new patients without insurance - everyday. plus, patients get 20% off their treatment plan. we're on your corner and in your cornrner every step of the e way. because your anyththing is our everything. aspen dental. anything to make you smile. book today at aspendental.com, walk in, or call 1-800-aspendental.

ugh-stipated... feeling weighed down by a backedup gut" miralax is different. it works naturally with the water in your body to unblock your gut. ...free your gut. and your mood will follow. (burke) a new car loses about ten percent of its value the minute you drive off the lot. or more. that's why farmers new car replacement pays to replace it with a new one of the same make and model. get a whole lot of something with farmers policy perks. ♪ we are farmers. bum-pa-dum, bum-bum-bum-bum ♪ ♪ my name is austin james. as a musician living with diabetes, fingersticks can be a real challenge. that's why i use the freestyle libre 2 system. with a painless, one-second scan i know my glucose numbers without fingersticks. now i'm managing my diabetes better and i've lowered my a1c from 8.2 to 6.7. take the mystery out of managing your diabetes

and lower your a1c. now you know. try it for free at freestylelibre.us

so, this just happened minutes ago. i'm learning about it with you. we learned why the january 6th

select committee is being so secretive about tomorrow's witness list. a source familiar with the plan tells cnn the committee is concerned about the security of a potential witness and is taking new precautions. that news is coming, as john eastman, trump's former election attorney says the fbi seized his phone. this is video of that moment. we are back with our panel, van jones, jennifer rogers, and carrie sheffield. thank you for sticking around with me. van, we hear from the committee -- this is all of a sudden. they weren't supposed to do this for a while. people were off. they had left. >> right. >> but they are now going to do this new hearing tomorrow and that they've got -- assuming they've got big. i mean, would they make this announcement now if they didn't? >> it's got to be something very, very good and it's got to be the name of somebody who's a big name or somebody who is really in fear of their life. this is a very, very big deal.

eastman is saying they shouldn't have grabbed his phone. what eastman has to understand is he's an attorney, which means you can help your client if they commit a crime. you can't help your client commit a crime. and that's the danger i think he finds himself in. i think the fbi thinks he was trying to help his client commit a crime, so that's a big part of this. >> that's a big difference. we have heard from eastman, who went on fox and said they didn't give him all the information. this was, you know, illegally done. when the fbi goes about doing something like this, could he be right? >> i mean, anything's possible. but, listen, the fbi gets a search warrant from a judge. they have to show probable cause that that phone contains evidence of a federal crime, and it still contains evidence of a federal crime, not that it did back in late 2021 or late 2020 but that it does today. that can be evaluated.

he has motions he can make. this will all be in court. no attorney client privilege information in there. and apparently they're doing a two-step process where they did a seizure warrant to get the phone and a separate warrant to search the phone. lots of opportunity frs him to challenge this warrant and make sure it's all on the up and up. i'm sure he will avail himself of all his possible motions. he's already started filing them. so, the courts will sort it out. but it's very, very hard to overcome this determination of probable cause. a judge can review it, but i doesn't take a lot to show probable cause. the likelihood is he will not get his phone back. we may get a privilege review that pulls some of that back like we saw in the michael cohen search warrant. but i think they're going to be able to go through that phone and see what is not legitimately privileged and use that information. >> we're talking about texts, emails, voice mails, all of the things that might be in that

phone. carrie, what do you make of the hearing so far? and given that this new information has come forward, who this might be, as each segment of this goes forward, it's closer and closer to donald trump. >> yeah, i mean, i know i speak for many people. we did want to actually get to the bottom of what happened with january 6. we wanted a thorough, bipartisan, fair process that allowed for cross-examination of the witnesses. we have not gotten that. and your colleague dana bash has been very good about asking why aren't there other witnesses providing the other perspective. it's a fair question that she asks. unfort n95ly what this prose is has become is a one sided carnival barking to come after donald trump. unfortunately it's not about getting to the rulgt of what happened. for example, we don't know what happened with nancy pelosi -- >> we heard from republicans who stood up from their state -- secretaries of state who stood up and said, i was pressured.

i was, you know, coerced or tried -- president trump tried to push me to a certain decision to find 11,000 votes. there are republicans that have spoken and there are republicans on this committee. so, how could this be anything but an honest look at what happened on january 6th? i mean, do you believe that there was an insurrection on january 6th, that there was an attack on the capitol? >> absolutely it was an attack on the capitol, and people who committed this crime need to be prosecuted and punished to the full extent of the law. absolutely. no doubt about that. but i think the security lapse and the security failure -- so, that -- you know, in 2020 i was a reporter covering the white house when president trump was in office. and there were times there were rioter there is. i felt physically unsafe going there. there is video of rand paul who was there. he felt physically unsafe. >> that's very different. >> no, it's not. let me finish. >> that's thousands of people break into the capitol itself. >> the difference was the

response president trump called in the national guard to protect the grounds and approved thousands of troops to protect the grounds. and we still don't know why nancy pelosi and mayor bowser refused that help. >> that doesn't excuse those who went in. >> absolutely it doesn't. i'm talking about the destruction of the capitol, the destruction of the federal policy -- >> i've got to rap this up. we are coming back. van jones, jennifer rogers, and carrie sheffield. i thank you all for being here. tense moments at some of the protests after the roe ruling. is violence becoming the default in political discourse? we just talked about some of it. that's coming up next.

moderate to severe eczema still disrupts my skin. despite treatment it disrupts my skin with itch. it disrupts my skin with rash. but now, i can disrupt eczema with rinvoq. rinvoq is not a steroid, topical, or injection. it's one pill, once a day, that's effective without topical steroids. many taking rinvoq saw clear or almost-clear skin

while some saw up to 100% clear skin. plus, they felt fast itch relief some as early as 1 week. that's rinvoq relief. rinvoq can lower your ability to fight infections, including tb. serious infections and blood clots, some fatal, cancers including lymphoma and skin cancer, death, heart attack, stroke, and tears in the stomach or intestines occurred. people 50 and older with at least one heart disease risk factor have higher risks. don't take if allergic to rinvoq, as serious reactions can occur. tell your doctor if you are or may become pregnant. disrupt the itch and rash of eczema. talk to your eczema specialist about rinvoq. learn how abbvie can help you save.

roe reversal fuelling passion, anger over the decision showing no signs of cooling. in arizona, friday's protest outside a state capital ended in a cloud of tear gas. police made the call after the protesters started pounding on the glass doors of the state senate building. nobody got into the building but there was damage done to public memorials across the street. while there was zero arrests there the nature of the political protests in the country seems to have shifted.

and this is not isolated to any one party. >> my next guest see the reality in arizona. talk show host and clint hickman, vice chair of the board of supervisors who stood up to pressure from former president trump to interfere with the 2020 election. all right, gentlemen, thank you for being here. >> thanks for having us. >> let's talk about this issue of things going off the rails if you will. what do you think has changed? >> here we are my party. angry people on my side of the aisle and should be furious. there are protests and violent protests in and threats against supreme court justices. go back six months when it was there was over 100 people from my side of the aisle outside his house. making threat of arrests and scaring his wife and children and neighbors. if both sides don't agree that there is extremism on both sides and don't all shout is down, this is going to happen for a

long time. until both sides say it has to stop, whether it's our side of the aisle or the other side. >> i want to address that. we're looking at the video outside of the house. where people did show up and we're seeing this more and more. protesters whether you are on the left ore right, are showing up at people's home. whether it's a supreme court justice, as happened recently. or it is a politician that you disagree with. in this case, weren't they people who were republican that showed up at your house? >> yeah, i'll take that one. yeah, it was on a sunday night, some people were upset with the board certifying the vote and 2020. they showed up and the good thing is i had a little bit of a drop on it. some people called me and gave me a couple hours to prepare. because of that i was able to have a couple sheriffs there to greet them. as they came down my street. and also had a little time to

warn my neighbors. and this is the part that i'm really concerned with especially with the justices. you have people coming into residential areas. those supreme court justices were appointed to a position. i ran for this position. the neighbors, my neighbors, their neighbors never would have considered people walking down the street and screaming horrible things. they're there to live and grow their families. it has to stop. >> mike, when you speak to your listeners and i know they are very passionate, what do they tell you fuels their anger and what might push them to cross that line? >> i don't get -- i haven't talked to many people talking about that anger other than they feel like the election was stolen and the only way to get the point across is to be violent. there was a protester i was watching tv before i came here, and there was a protester they were talking about not being able to get into our state

capital. because fencing is now erected around it and someone was upset. the protester says if this is the only way to get our point across this is what we're going to do. that's a horrible way to think. none of us should condone it. >> you have felt that pressure from the most powerful man on the planet. you refused to take former president trump's calls because he was trying to have an influence on the 2020 election. what was that like and how have people responded to you? >> i didn't take the call. i'm still incredibly happy i didn't take the call. if i would have taken the call, who knows where that would have gone. i know for a fact it would have gone one place. i would have probably been in washington d.c. testifying right alon alongside speaker of the house. we were dealing with the same pressures from the same people. and i couldn't -- his testimony would have been my testimony. at that time. >> can i ask one last question, do you both agree that if leadership politicians in the

view of all people who are supposed to be leaders are using language like enemy, like evil when they are talking about specific people or talking about a group of people, that that is helping to fuel this push towards very high anger and potential violence? >> i agree 100%. i would extend that to people like you and i in the media business. whether they are journalists or talk radio opinion people. i agree. anybody that has a loud voice like that if they're doing that, they're perpetuating the anger. >> i don't like to use the military terms or threat of violence and calling people straight out evil. i have always been braulgt up to the point the republicans are a team and the democrats are a team. and our teams will contest and hopefully win their elections and push this country forward. i do not like the use of any type of -- that say other people

are evil for trying to get their point across. it's not right. >> gentlemen, thank you for coming on. i appreciate your time. we will be right back. >> thanks. how i customized this scarf? check out this b backpack i made for marco. only pay for what you needed. ♪liberty. liberty. liberty. liberty.♪

thanks for sticking with me. i'll be back wednesday night. don lemon tonight starts right now. >> can't wait to see you wednesday. this is don lemon tonight. we'll talk about mystery. there's a mystery. a surprise that nobody saw coming, really. a surprise and a mystery. the january 6 committee rushing to add another hearing tomorrow afternoon. it's going to begin at 1:00. refusing to say who's testifying. a source saying the committee is concerned about security of a potential witness. what does all this mean? they're adding another person, right, they just decided to do it. they're concerned about security? hmm. they say they have recently obtained evidence. so what's the committee know now that they didn't know before