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?

meanwhile the doj investigation is heating up tonight. the lawyer who told then president trump that mike pence could single handedly block certification of the election, spoiler alert, he could not, that lawyer john east man says the fbi seized his phone and got access to his e-mail account. here's the video. >> and it happened the same day the feds raided the home of jeffrey clark the former doj official who pushed trump's false election fraud claim. more to come on all of that. plus chaos and confusion across the country in the wake of the supreme court overturning roe v. wade. more and more states rushing to ban abortion. the latest, south carolina. a federal judge today allowing the state to ban abortions beginning around six weeks. that makes at least ten states with bans or severe

restrictions. another 14 where bans and severe restrictions are certain or likely. so in nearly half the country, nearly half the country, a right that americans have had for 50 years is vanishing. and outrage is growing. over a court that seems to be out of step with the majority of americans. six in ten americans, six in tern, disapprove of the courts decision. so, what happens when million of people in the country no longer have faith in the highest court in the land? that's not good. also, a cnn exclusive tonight. vice president kamala harris in her first interview since the ruling warning clarence thomas and conservatives on the court could take away more rights. like the right to birth control. the right to same sex relationships. the right of gay people, gay couples to get married. >> i definitely believe this is not over. i do. i think he just said the quiet part out loud.

and i think that is why we all must really understand the significance of what just happened. this is profound. and the way that this decision has come down has been so driven i think by the politics of the issue. versus what should be the values that we place on freedom and liberty in our country. >> it is a fascinating interview. we have more on that coming up. plus, dramatic eyewitness accounts from the deadly am track derailment in missouri today. the train on its way from l.a. to chicago, three people killed. at least 50 injured. frightening. a lot going on. i want to begin with the hastily scheduled hearing by the january 6 committee and what it could mean. let's discuss with former fbi

director and white house counsel. good evening to both of you. this is mystery. it is suspenseful. i cannot wait to see what happens. john, for the committee to announce this unexpected hearing it adds to the intrigue. you say this better be a big deal. i agree. why? >> well, i look back at history to see when they last did a surprise hearing like this with a surprise witness. and it was alex butter field during the senate watergate committee hearing and he was a big witness. he set a high bar. i tweeted that and got a really remarkable reaction from thousands of people. including some well informed people. they told me don't worry. it's a big deal. >> okay. thousands of well informed people. all right. we'll see. go ahead. you want to respond to that?

>> well, i might have overspoken on thousands. some well informed people. some particularly well informed people responded. and told me don't worry. >> it's a big deal. andrew mccabe. cnn is learning the committee is concerned about the safety of a potential witness ahead of hearing. that's according to to sources familiar with the panel plans. it's part of the reason the committee is being so secretive about who will appear. give us your read? does that offer any clues? >> it really doesn't, don. it's a kind of a strange thing to say. typically when you have security concerns for a witness, you would probably try to keep that quiet. and you would take some action to ensure or increase security for that witness. like having a witness testify behind a screen so that the rest of the world can't see who they are. or changing the te nor of their voice and mask that in a way.

it's odd they drew attention to the fact somebody is having security concerns. that's not typically the way to do it. it's kind of the fascinating mystery. i agree, they really drawn a lot of attention to this thing now. i hope the informed people are correct that this will be something significant. >> could it be the person people wanted to hang on january 6? >> there a lot of people who have been mentioned in the testimony so far. that person, the former white house counsel pat. clark, eastman. i'm not predicting any of them will be the witness. there are people referred to repeatedly who have decided i'll go down and sit down and tell me own story in front of the committee. there's all kinds of possibilities there. >> you don't want to say who you think it could be? no. >> no chance. >> a resounding no.

from the peanut gallery. no speculation. okay, so the committee has publicly pressured the former white house counsel as you said to publicly testify and documented footage that included interviews with trump and his family. whatever we'll see tomorrow, do you think it's time sensitive. they want to get it out as soon as possible? or are they up against a clock somehow? i don't know. >> it seems time sensitive to me. to squeeze this shoe horn this hearing in on the week before the holiday weekend. it's really bizarre. most of the congress is probably home for the weekend at this point. i think time sensitive could also be the committee realizes they have a lot of attention with the hearing last thursday about the pressure that the administration put on doj. that kind of created some positive momentum for the hearings in general. and it's i would suspect there's time pressure for them to

basically finish off the story. if this witness or evidence has something to do with that narrative, they would want to get it in quickly and in front of the people before they forget two weeks goes by before they remember what happened last week. my guess is that it has something to do with the testimony we heard on thursday. again that's a guess. >> john dean, if the committee is dealing with a reluctant witness, could that be part of this getting that person on or before he or she backs out? >> that could very well be the answer. they want to quickly get the person in, they agreed to do it and they want to get them there. >> i thought you said no speculation. no speculation. >> well. >> go on. >> as you might have noticed we contributors do a lot of speculating. just across the board. andrew has a good point i think it is probably connected to the last set of hearings. and they want to tidy that up

and if that would point towards pat cipilone who has a moral obligation to appear and maybe coming in. he fits the criteria. >> yeah. it's interesting, i'll say this. unless it's a name a sort of household name. if he comes in most of the american people will be like who is that? we're all paying attention and say pat cipollone to the media folks and wow that's interesting. to the average american, they don't know pat cipollone from the guy in the deli. they have no idea. >> i think that's absolutely right. that's probably true for the hearings generally. right? the hearings are, you know, it's a compelling story, it's captivating. to those people who have been following this narrative since january 6. 2021. so there's a whole big part of the country that just is not that interested in learning

about this or rehashing it or want to purposely avoid it because it's not a pleasant memory for them. i think, no matter who they put on tomorrow, there's going to be a lot of disappointment out there in terms of people saying ho hum what difference does it make. some will be saying that for different reasons. >> it's monday. i'm slow. by wednesday i'm good. monday, you know, i should have said they won't know from adam. we're learning the fbi seized trump election attorney john eastman's phone last week about six federal agents approached him as he was exiting a restaurant. and they got access to e-mail accounts. he's calling if improper. how significant is this, also would he give them access to any security communications that he may have had? >> he very well might. and let's remember that, in this day in age of incrypted

communication on applications like what's app or signal. the only way you can get the content of communications between people that use the platforms is to get your hands on one of the hand sets the telephones. that's the only place it gets decrypted. it's important. the significance is clear. first of all, took place on the same day as the jeffrey clark search warrant which typically when you are doing a big case and from multiple search warrants you try to do them the same day. one warrant doesn't tip the other one off. to serve a search warrant for the telephone of the president's former lawyer is a very big deal under any circumstances and one that would have the absolute highest level of the department of justice involved in that decision making. finally, this one is a little bit strange. because according to the east man east allegations you have fbi agents executing a search warrant on behalf of the department of justice inspector general. that is very odd.

i'm not familiar with -- i have not seen that before in my career. there's no question that this warrant is connected to an ig case because the documents used are inspector general documents and the file number that they have on the document is not consistent with an fbi case file number. so, it's strange to me that the bureau would have been involved in executing the warrant. it's also a little bit questionable as to why the department of justice inspector general would be investigating a man john eastman who never worked for the department of justice. all very interesting questions hopefully we get to the bottom of. >> more mystery. now i really want to know. i'm not kidding. do you want to respond? i want to play a sound bite. >> i would add that i think because he's inspector general is doing it, it looks like it's jeffrey clark who is a an

employee of the department. and he obviously was dealing with eastman. that ties them together. that's why the fbi probably got the double assignment. >> john, this is what we heard from eastman from the live in tape testimony last week. >> what did doctor eastman want you to do? >> that we would, in fact, vote, take a vote, to overthrow or i shouldn't say overthrow. that we would decertify the electors. >> what did the president say when he called you? >> essentially he turned the call over to mr. eastman who then proceeded to talk about the importance of the rnc helping the campaign gather these electors. >> do you think he'll ultimately be charged with a crime? >> i don't know.

there's certainly some appearances of criminal activity here. what he was doing. i debated john eastman once when he was running for attorney general of california. they needed a quick sub to debate. i found his legal thinking at that time strange and unusual. we debated citizens united. and i just wouldn't be surprised if he had no hesitation crossing the line and will find himself in a deep deep trouble. >> thank you, john. thank you, andrew. dun dun dun. we'll know tomorrow at 1:00. it's fascinating, it hasn't leaked. this is washington d.c. are you surprised it hasn't leaked? >> yes. always surprised. totally. >> the night is young. sort of. >> that's right. coming up a cnn exclusive. vice president kamala harris in

her first interview since the overturn of the roe v. wade. and what's shocking and what it means for democracy. >> the court actually took a constitutional right that has been recognized for half a century. and took it from the women of america. that's shocking. with multimatic shocks, ruggeded 33-inch tires, and front and rear electronic locking differenentials. dude, this is awesome... but we should get back to work. ♪ ♪ this good? perfect. if you're gonna work remote... work remote. find new workspaces. find new roads. chevrolet.

hi. we're zerowater. and we believe everyone deserves the purest tasting water. that's why we strive for zero. you see, to some it means nothing. but to us, it means everything. here, take a look. this meter showing triple zeros means our five-stage filter did its job, and that virtually all dissolved solids or tds have been removed. and all that's left is the purest tasting water. let's compare. a two-stage brita filter stops here. but our five-stage filter doesn't quit. zerowater. we strive for zero.

the vice president kamala harris saying tonight that when she was in the senate she never believed supreme court justices neil gorsuch and kavanaugh during the confirmation hearings when they testified roe v. wade was settled law. last week they voted to overturn it. in 2018 she grilled kavanaugh about whether the government has the ability to regulate men's bodies. >> can you think of any laws that give government the power to make decisions about the male body? >> i'm happy that answer more specific question. >> male vs. female. >> there are medical procedures.

>> that the government has the power to make a decision about a man's body? >> i thought you were asking about medical procedures unique to men. >> i'll repeat the question. can you think of any laws that give the government the power to make decisions about the male body? >> i'm not aware -- thinking of any right now. >> interesting. right? considering what just happened. harris said she was shocked when the high court overturned roe on friday. she sat down for an interview. >> mad dam vice president thank you so much. for having me here. you were on a plane when the supreme court overturned roe v. wade. >> i was. >> as the highest ranking woman ever elected in u.s. history, what was going through your mind at that moment? >> well, so i was on air force 2

heading to aurora, illinois to talk about maternal health. we were with lauren underwood with the chair of judiciary. we were headed there to unveil a plan of based on the work we have been doing to ensure that women receive the kind of support they need during and post pregnancy. and we thought that the decision would come down sometime soon. not at that moment. i was shocked and, it's one thing when you know something will happen and it's another thing when it actually happens. i just actually turned to cnn and i couldn't believe it. i couldn't believe it. they actually did it. and here's what they did, the court actually took a constitutional right that has been recognized for half a century. they took it from the women of america.

that's shocking. when you think about it. in term of what that means in term of democratic principles and in terms of the ideals upon which we were founded and liberty and freedom. i thought about it as a parent, we have two children in their 20s. a son and a daughter. i thought about it as a god parent of teenagers. i thought of it as an aunt of preschool children. >> a woman yourself. >> a woman myself. the daughter of a woman. and a granddaughter of a woman. and my husband and i are actually talking about it. we have a 23-year-old and my mother-in-law is in her 80s. our daughter will not know the rights for the amount of time that my mother-in-law knew the rights. which is the right that should be well settled.

that a woman should have to make decisions about her own body. when we think about it, everyone has something at risk on this. first of all, if you are a parent of sons, do think about what this means for the life of your son. and what that will mean in terms of the choices he will have. do think about it in the context of the fact that they wrote this decision including concurring opinions. that suggest that other rights such as the freedom to make decisions about when you are going to start a family. the freedom and the right to make decisions about contraception. iuds, what this will mean in terms of infertilization. >> saying the court should reconsider other cases. of precedent. to protect same sex marriage,

contraception, intimacy and more. do you think that the supreme court is on a path to reverse those as well? >> i definitely believe this is not over. i do. i think he just said the quiet part out loud. and i think that is why we all must really understand the significance of what just happened. this is profound. and the way that this decision has come down has been so driven i think by the politics of the issue. versus what should be the values that we place on on freedom and libber it i in the country. right? the right to privacy. let's think of this in the context of the laws that are being passed in states, in 13 states by my count, they will not allow a woman to have access

to reproductive health and to abortion if she is the victim of rape or incest. so let me tell you something, as a former prosecutor who specialized in crimes of violence against women and girls in particular child sexual assault and rape, the idea that after a woman has endured such violence to her body, she would not have the freedom and authority to decide whether she wanted to continue with the pregnancy that is a result of an act of violence is absolutely unthinkable. >> so, because you are now the vice president of the united states, part of an administration that is pledging to fight back to find ways to protect women's rights to abortion. i want to ask you some of the things that are kind of out there that some of the former

female senators, senate colleagues are asking the administration to do. will the administration actively challenge state laws that make it a crime for someone to help a woman travel to another state for abortion? >> so the president rightly last week when the decision came down indicated that we will do everything within our power as an administration through the executive branch to ensure women have access to the medication they need. and which has been by the way fda approved. and they will have freedom of travel and that travel should be unrestricted. >> you'll do that through the court if need be. >> i'm sure that our department of justice is going to do that based on every statement that the attorney general has made. >> can the administration expand abortion access or abortion services on federal land? meaning, provide the access on

federal land that might be in and around states that ban abortion? >> i think that what is most important right now is that we ensure that the restrictions the states are trying to put up that would prohibit a woman from exercising what we still maintain is her right. that we do everything we can to empower women to not only seek but receive the care. where it is available. >> is federal land one of the options? >> it's not right now what we're discussing. i will say that when i think about what is happening in terms of the states, we have to also recognize that we are 130 odd days away from an election. which is going to include senate races, right, part of the issue here is the court is acted now congress needs to act. if you count the votes, don't appear to have the votes in the senate. there's an election happening. in 130 days. for example thinking of a senate

race in georgia or north carolina. there's the senate race coming up in a couple weeks in colorado. and we need to change the balance and have pro-choice legislators who have the power to make decisions about whether this constitutional right will be in law. we saw codified. put it in law so there will be no am biguity about it. >> what can this democratic administration do right now? with any executive power that the president has. can the administration actually increase access to medication abortion? >> i think we're clear that to the extent we can, we will. there's no question about that. again, it is fda approved and if it is prescribed, if that the woman should be able to have access to it. unfettered. >> what about the idea of financial resources.

some form of voucher for travel. child care services. other forms of support for people for women seeking abortions in states where it's not legal. but they don't have the means to go elsewhere? >> you are asking a very important point. making a very important point. what are the details going to go into and ensuring that women have the ability to actually travel without impairment. we know that on this issue, women who have access to resources will probably be far less impacted by the decision than women who don't have resources. this is something that we're looking at. because we know for example in term of how this will actually impact real people, over half of women who receive abortions in america are moms. that means that if they're going to have to travel, they have to find day care and pay for it. they will if they are working, which most are, they're going to

have to have time from work. if they don't have paid leave they have to figure out how to afford it. they may have to put up money for a train or bus or plane. and a hotel. we want to make sure there doesn't result extreme disparities based on who can receive care based on how much money they got. >> very good interview. it was a great reporting there. you also asked vice president harris about january 6 and the former vice president mike pence. what did she say to you? >> well, the question that everybody in washington who is looking at these hearings the biden justice department is going to at all seek criminal charges against the former president donald trump. i asked about that. >> the former vice president mike pence, has your opinion of

him changed? >> well, i think that he did his job. that day. and i commend him for that. clearly, it was under extraordinary circumstances that he should not have had to face. and i commend him for having the courage to do his job. >> so there you heard something that you don't hear very often. which is somebody like the vice president who sat for a debate with and against mike pence and has not exactly been -- they're very much politically opposed. on this issue, of january 6 and specifically the role he played in following his constitutional role on january 6. she said she commends him. i mentioned the january 6 prosecution the potential

prosecution of donald trump. what she said was as a former prosecutor, she doesn't want to comment on another prosecutors potential case. >> which was the correct answer. dana bash, informative, thank you for much. i appreciate it. >> thanks. democrats looking for ways to protect abortion rights across the u.s. and preparing for ruling that could come on other rights like gay marriage. do they have any good options? that's the question. also ahead a am track train flips on its side after hitting a truck. three people killed. we'll have the latest, next. r i, 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. ♪

>> the day you get your clearchoice dental implants makes every day... a "let's dig in" day... >> mm. >> ...a "chow down" day... a "take a big bite" day... a "perfectly delicious" day... >> mm. [ chuckles ] >> ...a "love my new teeth" day. because your clearchoice day is the day everything is back on the menu. a clearchoice day changes every day. schedule a free consultation. [lazer beam and sizzling sounds] ♪

♪ baby got back by sir mix-a-lot ♪ unlimited cashback match... only from discover. 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. this is xfinity rewards. our way of showing our appreciation. with rewards of all shapes and sizes.

[ cheers ] are we actually going? yes!! and once in a lifetime moments. two tickets to nascar! yes! find rewards like these and so many more in the xfinity app. millions have made the switch from the big three to xfinity mobile. that means millions are saving hundreds a year on their wireless bill. and all of those millions are on the nation's most reliable 5g network, with the carrier rated #1 in customer satisfaction. that's a whole lot of happy campers out there. and it's never too late to join them. get unlimited data with 5g included for just $30 a line per month when you get 4 lines. switch to xfinity mobile today.

back with more on the cnn exclusive interview with the vice president and what america's new reality will look like with abortion bans going into effect in states all across the country. here to discuss cnn chief legal analyst, mr. jeffrey toobin. what can democrats do. what do they have when it comes to scotus overall on abortion specifically. a lot of options throwing out that the white house doesn't support like expanding the court or opening clinics on federal land. >> one of the things politicians never like to admit is they are powerless. and democrats are pretty powerless when it comes to the supreme court and even the whole federal system. now i'm not 100% powerless. but this is really now a state matter. and there are going to be fights

in states and the states that are going to have the biggest fights are those where control of the state government is really contested. states like wisconsin where you have a democratic governor and a republican legislature. same thing in michigan. virginia has a republican governor. but the states that are all republican, i just think they are -- all in the process of banning or limiting abortion so that it's effectively banned. i doept think there's a lot the federal government can do about it. >> the time to talk about options shouldn't have they been trying to codify? >> they could have. and it's interesting both sides are now talking about codifying abortion law. mike pence is saying if i'm elected president we're going to pass a law in congress outlawing abortion in the whole country. biden and harris are saying, elect democrats and we'll pass a federal law legalizing abortion in the whole country.

the fact is, it's an unsettled question legally whether the federal government even has jurisdiction over that matter. but, you need full control to even try to pass a law like that and neither have that at this point. >> i agree and disagree with the former -- i'm with her on sentiment. he said the quiet part out loud. it wasn't quiet. >> clarence thomas. >> they're coming after other things. i don't think it was quiet. he's saying it because he means it. i think she's right because he said that they should start looking at same sex relationships and marriage and contraception. do you think she's -- >> i think, i don't know quiet or loud. one of the things i learned studying clarence thomas for a long time, i have been covering the court for basically his entire tenure. since 1991. he says he what means. he's candid and honest.

he is the one who led the charge to say that the second amendment pr protects individuals to have weapons. he has talked about how roe should be overturned since the casey decision in 1992. when she says that those three decisions should be overturned, i think he means it. i don't know that he has five votes at this point. i think the three cases he talked about, contraception, same sex marriage and what was the third, i'm blanking. >> consensual sexual activity. i think the one that is in greatest danger is same sex marriage. because with the invitation from the supreme court, i think there will be at least one state that says you know what, we're going to outlaw it again. we never agreed to it. it was forced by us on the supreme court. we're outlawing it again and create a test case.

there might be five votes for overruling it. and thomas said he's already one of them. if you look at the three trump appointees and look at alito. you can get to five quickly on that. >> why doesn't he feel the same about interracial marriage? >> well, let's not be coy about that. everybody knows he's married to a white woman. and so some people think he's not talking about loving vs. virginia. the interracial case. in his defense, that case was also about privacy. like the abortion cases. but it also had a racial dimension which makes it a somewhat different due process case. >> still didn't mention it. >> i know. i'm trying to be fair here. >> loving was a couple years before roe. >> it was a conspicuous absence. you can articulate a reason why it's different. >> let's talk about a new cbs news poll finds that 59% of

americans do not approve of the court move to overturn roe and support for the court already a historic low before this. what is this hyper partisan decisions? what do they mean for the court legitimacy. >> i covered sandraday o connor. she was also concerned about not having the court too far out of step with public opinion. she's very open and candid about that. this group of conservatives is very different. to be honest, it's interesting, it's not -- i don't think is has that big an impact. so what? so people don't approve. >> i agree. >> i don't -- it's people say well, it's going to hurt the court legitimacy. the decisions are still their digs decisions and the law. they have the last word. unless the it gets to be some overwhelming rejection, i don't think it really has much significance the poll.

>> do you think that the court is -- i want to get the exact thing that people are telling me. they say that scotus is now firmly in the hands of white christian supremacists. religious based bigotry prevails. that's the sentiment. >> that's not the way i like to talk about the court. i do think the court is in the hands of extremely conservative republicans. who have a very specific agenda on lots of different issues. including limiting the regulatory powers of the government about climate change. that's a decision that is due on wednesday that is maybe as earth shaking in its importance as dobs is. keep an eye on it. west virginia the west virginia case. so they want to limit the regulatory power. next year, they are going to hear the affirmative action case out of harvard. close to a lock they are going

to outlaw affirmative action in the country. they are lowering the barriers between church and state. obviously they overturned roe v. wade. this is their agenda. i don't use like that, the agenda -- >> extremely conservative. is it fringe? >> i think -- mitch mcconnell made sure that these justices got confirmed. i think it illustrates the republican party of 2022 is incredibly different from the republican party of the 90s. 1992 the decision that upheld roe, the casey decision. five to four all five justices in the majority were republican. now, none. >> thank you. >> that's the difference. we have to talk about this as a deadly derailment in missouri. this happened after a passenger train collided with a truck. the latest on that, next.

you love rich, delicious ice cream. but your stomach doesn't. that disagreement ends rigight now. lactaid ice cream is the creamy, real ice cream you love that will never mess with your stomach. lactaid ice cream.

if you don't stain your deck, it's like the previous owner is still hanging around. previous owner: "laughs" so today let's stain, with behr, the #1 rated stain. get behr exterior stains at an everyday low price. exclusively at the home depot.

that could affect all of us. everyone drivers, we are in a car. three people are dead, 50 injured following an amtrak train derailment in missouri. that train carrying around 243 passengers. it derailed when it hit a dump truck at an uncontrolled railroad crossing. they are launching a go team to investigate. mary is here, she is a former inspector general at the department of transportation and a cnn offiation analyst. mary, thank you for joining us. i wish it was under better circumstances, of course. what is this ntsb team going to be looking for when they get to the scene? >> well, the ntsb team is going to be aided, first and foremost,

by the black box on the train. it has forward looking equipment. they will be pulling the camera. it will have the train speed, when the wrisl whistles and hor was sounded, there are regulations how far before the crossing the audible signals have to be sounded. speed of the train. when the opening near and train control personnel applied the brakes. that gives them an idea when they saw the obstruction on the track. so because of that black box they will have an awful lot of information to start with. and of course they will also gather information about the track, the track conditions, which railroad owns that particular section of track, and information about the signage. apparently, it was the standard cross hatch, cross sort of sign, not any lights or gates or arms. but they will have all that in advance and then, of course, once they get there, the hard work starts of looking at the

train, the controls, measuring everything and also the situation of the actual roadway going over the tracks. so they have a lot to do. >> this accident occurred at an uncontrolled, as you said, crossing meaning there are no lights, no mechanized arms. what about what -- tell us what's that tell us about what happened here? anything? >> well, it's hard to judge at this point. but you know every year about 250 people are killed at crossings because of this. this is a far fewer number than, say, 20 years ago. 20 years ago it averaged about 750 a year. but every year well over 1,000 accidents happen like this where someone travels over the road and intersects with the train. it's difficult to tell at this point whether the vehicle was stuck on the track, whether it was a situation where it couldn't move out fast enough. or did not hear or see the train

and sadly some accidents are because people try to beat the train. the federal rail administration, the department of transportation has had a great public campaign to educate people never, never try to do that. of course, we don't know if that happened here. it would help if there were cameras at railroad crossings like at intersections in, you know, cities and all over the country looking for speeders. you could do that as well. but there are not. so they will have to judge what occurred at that crossing based on the conditions and if there were any eyewitnesses or ear witnesses. >> all right. mary, thank you. i appreciate your time. >> thank you. big developments in the january 6th investigation. the fbi seizing the phone of the former trump election attorney john eastman. in a surprise anounls. the committee will hold another hearing tomorrow. we will talk about that. that is next.

you know liberty mutual customizes your car insurance, so you only pay for what you need? like how i customized this scarf? check out this backpack i made for marco. only pay for what you need. ♪liberty. liberty. liberty. liberty.♪ for people living with h-i-v, keep being you. and ask your doctor about biktarvy. biktarvy is a complete, one-pill,

once-a-day treatment used for h-i-v in certain adults. it's not a cure, but with one small pill, biktarvy fights h-i-v to help you get to and stay undetectable. that's when the amount of virus is so low it cannot be measured by a lab test. research shows people who take h-i-v treatment every day and get to and stay undetectable can no longer transmit h-i-v through sex. serious side effects can occur, including kidney problems and kidney failure. rare, life-threatening side effects include a buildup of lactic acid and liver problems. do not take biktarvy if you take dofetilide or rifampin. tell your doctor about all the medicines and supplements you take, if you are pregnant or breastfeeding, or if you have kidney or liver problems, including hepatitis. if you have hepatitis b, do not stop taking biktarvy without talking to your doctor. common side effects were diarrhea, nausea, and headache. if you're living with hiv, keep loving who you are. and ask your doctor if biktarvy is right for you. if you have type 2 diabetes or high blood pressure you're a target for chronic kidney disease. you can already have it and not know it.

if you have chronic kidney disease your kidney health could depend on 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♪

scheduling a surprise hearing for tomorrow to present what it calls recently obtained evidence. originally they said the hearings would resume mid-july. the fbi has seized the phone of trump election attorney john eastman, a central figure in the effort to overturn the results of the 2020 election. now cnn congressional correspondent ryan nobles. ryan, good evening, sir, to you in washington. the seizure eastman's phone, that's a big development. it happened the same day that federal agents raided the home of jeffery clark. what's going on here? >> it is very significant, don, because it shows that the department of justice investigation into the efforts to overturn the election results and how it relates to january 6th is expanding. we know that john eastman was a central figure, primarily through the work of the january 6th select committee that he was the principle architect of this plan that was based on a pretty

flimsy legal theory that the vice president had the ability to stand in the way of the election results. and according to eastman, we are getting this information from his side of things, he was out to dinner with his wife and a friend, approached by several fbi agents, they searched him, found his phone, they opened his phone using fair and impartial recognition software and then this access to that material. he is complying about it. he kpleefs this was an illegal seizure of him. he is trying to prevent this information from being used in any future investigation. at this point the department of justice isn't commenting what they are hoping learn from eastman. >> sounds like a law and order episode. what sense of urgency are you seeing? this announcement of an additional hearing is very unexpected and we are learning about a security concern for a witness. >> yeah. there is a lot of intrigue around what the committee plans to do tomorrow at 1:00 eastern. there is a lot of intrigue in

part because they had said they were ready to take a break, that they were -- had received a lot of information as a result of the hearings that they had conducted so far, they wanted to process the information and they were going to come back the mid of july with more hearings. sometime this afternoon announced they had come in possession of new information, some very explosive witness testimony and they wanted to get a hearing on the books as soon as possible and scheduled one for tomorrow at 1:00. what's important about this, don, is that these members are all out of town. they had left for a long july 4th recess. now many of them are scurrying to get back into town in preparation for this. so that shows you the urgency of this potential hearing and why it's important. you're right. they are very concerned about the security around at lest one of the witnesses that will appear tomorrow that's part of the reason that they have held all this information in such secrecy. we are also told that there has been changes to the hearing room tomorrow. people that were able to sit in

certain places won't be able to have that luxury. there is a lot on the line with this hearing tomorrow and the expectations are very high. at this point the committee is doing nothing to downplay those expectations. >> come on, i know you know something. who is it? >> we have an idea of who it may be. we are not ready to report it quite yet. >> you're serious? you do have an idea. >> there is some reporting that cnn is not ready to confirm as of yet. but, you know, suffice to say that we know that the committee has had conversations with individuals who had a very close working relationship with high-level members of the administration, that their testimony is already proven to be a very important part of the committee's investigation and that some of these individuals we have already seen through part of their video depositions. so there is the distinct possibility that it could be someone in that realm. again we are still