if you don't have plans for the fourth of july, cnn has you covered. cnn will celebrate the 246th anniversary of our nation's independence with our special "the fourth in america" right here on cnn until 1:00 a.m. eastern. in the meantime, that's it for me. thanks for watching. the news continues. so let's hand it over to sara so let's hand it over to sara sidner and "cnn tonight." -- captions by vitac -- www.vitac.com wolf, thank you. good to see you. i am sara sidner and this is "cnn tonight." we're tracking developments relating to testimony from a former trump white house aide. how impactful cassidy hutchinson testimony has been. proof, the ongoing campaign to discredit her by donald trump herself and his allies since he

went under oath to describe what she saw and heard on and around january 6th. now, they've been taking aim at her second hand account, calling it hearsay, when she testified that on insurrection day, an angry donald trump demanded his secret service detail drive him to the capitol and lunged at him. tonight, hutchinson has corroboration on part of her testimony. cnn spoke with two secret service members, including a long-time member. both say they also heard about a confrontation in the presidential suv after the rally, a story they say spread widely around the agency in the weeks and months after january 6th. though neither source heard the part about trump trying to grab the steering wheel or any physical altercation with a security agent. one source did hear from agents that trump indeed demanded to be taking to the capitol, shouting something like, i'm the fing

president, lunging forward in the vehicle, and berating his detail when he didn't get his way. the second source said he heard that directly from the driver of the suv. trump wanted to join rioters at the capitol even though he allegedly knew some who came for his rally were armed. the other concerns development is the new information about who may have been pressuring cassidy hutchinson ahead of her sworn testimony. the january 6 committee showed two messages on tuesday. sources have since told cnn both were directed at hutchinson from people inside trump's circle who could have been trying to intimidate her. one at the bottom of the screen there said, a person let me know you have your deposition tomorrow. he wants to let you know that he's thinking about you. he knows you're loyal and you're going to do the right thing when you go in for your deposition. so, who is that person? according to multiple sources,

an intermediary contacted hutchinson on behalf of her former boss, then-white house chief of staff mark meadows. meadows' spokesperson, however is denying he or anyone in his camp ever tried to intimidate or shape her testimony. all right. that's a lot to go through. let's turn to a former trump insider for her take, alyssa farah griffin. until december 2020, she was the white house communications director under president trump. and alyssa, you were also friends with cassidy hutchinson. thank you for being here. >> thank you, sara, for having me. >> we've talked about this before. you worked directly with former president trump's chief of staff, mark meadows. from your experience with him, would it be uncharacteristic of him to try to do something like this? he's being accused of someone in his camp trying to intimidate a witness in this testimony, that witness, obviously your friend, cassidy hutchinson. >> listen, the mark meadows of maybe half a decade ago when i

first worked for him, this would be unheard of. but the mark meadows that i think began to come out when he was in the west wing and really revealed itself in the final months, it completely tracks with diend of behavior he was engaging in. beyond just obviously the direct things that applied to cassidy, this potential intimidation, he was bringing in some of the worst of the worst conspiracy theorists to give them an audience with the president. he was down playing reports of violence, as her testimony stated, knowing there would be people in harm's way at the capitol. honestly it perfectly tracks with his judgment and his lack of concern that we saw in those final months. >> if indeed -- and it's been denied. but if indeed someone in meadows' orbit or meadows himself or at his behest tried to influence her testimony, would former president trump know about that in your estimation? >> so, that's kind of -- that's an important question. i could see it being either way

to be honest. it's very in line with kind of the history of how trump world operates to really push loyalty and punish those who aren't loyal. i've talked a lot about the disparaging comments and smears on her character that cassidy is facing. i faced them when i spoke out against trump. that's textbook trumpism. i can also see this being meadows on his own. he knew there was one person who could probably reveal his wrong actions more than anyone, and it was cassidy. in recent months, he's been out of the good graces of the former president. so, i think the last thing he wanted was testimony that was going to put him in an even worse spot and put them both in front of even more legal exposure. so, i could see it being either direction unfortunately. >> can i ask you about cassidy? first of all, have you talked to her since her testimony? and has she gotten any more pressure or has anyone from her former boss' world or mr. trump's world reached out to her? >> so, i've talked to her. she's doing very well.

all things considered. she went into this knowing her life was going to change overnight. but of course the magnitude of that doesn't really hit you until afterward. and she walked into it knowing she was going to be smeared, she was going to be defamed. but i think she has a strong support system around her. there are so many people who are so proud of what she did and who are ready to support her. she's not told me anything about any outreach from trump world. i would be shocked if they would do it. she's got a really strong team of attorneys around her as well as just supportive people who believe in what she's doing. >> can she, by any chance, did she say anything to you about the potential of other people coming forward? or have you heard anyone say to you, you know what, after hearing from her and the way she presented evidence in this case, it's time for us to come forward. >> well, right. so, cassidy herself i think is lying low. she really wants to let her testimony stand because the initial aftermath -- of course there were these discrepancies.

and even as the days have played out, as your reporting showed, there's been more corroboration of everything she said. i stand by what she said, she stands by it, the committee does. and i think it's only a matter of time that will come out to show she was telling the god's honest truth. to your question, i do think it's very likely more witnesses will come forward. i don't have special knowledge of it, but anecdotally, i've had even mid level and more junior level people come to me and say if i can help, i don't know if i know something, it's not a bombshell like cassidy. but people i thought were squarely in trump world who said, no, this woman did something brave, they exposed what we feared was happening, and they want to be on the right side of the history. it's a testimony to how much her testimony is breaking through with people honestly. >> we talked about this last week. you said that perhaps the january 6th committee had almost opened a trap because they did not go to the secured service and tell them what they knew or what they knew she might testify

to. now you've got these sources that have come to cnn and others from the secret service saying that they too had heard part of the story about donald trump being very angry and trying to go to where the rioters were to the capitol, knowing that some of the people may have been armed. what might this mean for the secret service because they have denied this saying they're going to let their agents testify, denied what hutchinson's account in front of this committee was. what does this mean for tony ornato, the agent she said she heard this from, and the other agents who now are saying they also heard this? >> so, to be clear, i hold the united states secret service in the highest regard. and having myself been a spokesperson at one point for the department of defense, i understand how these agencies probably respond almost in mass on behalf of the agency, on behalf of u.s. secret service. they had to come out and say something. i worry that they're going to look back, as they get more

information, and realizing tony ornato who, yes, is a secret service agent but was a political appointee and acting as a political actor when he was in the trump white house may have put them in a bad situation. and i think some of -- there's been obviously the reporting that's come out of people hearing rumors of this at the time. i even since have heard from journalists at the time who were chasing the story but just didn't get quite enough to corroborate it. so, i think it's a tough position for them to be in. but i think the committee has been meticulous to this point. they do everything deliberately. honestly, as a former congressional staffer, i've never seen a committee work so methodically. so, i don't think they would put up piece of hearsay in a 90-minute testimony if there wasn't a broader purpose to it. it's speculation on my part, but i do think they realize it was an important story and this would pressure somebody who's otherwise been largely uncooperative. and members have come out and said tony ornato was not

forthright. this is going to pressure him once again to come under oath and answer tough questions. >> thank you, alyssa farah griffin. now to our panel, the pressure on witnesses like cassidy hutchinson come with the context of committee member zoe lofgren saying this. >> as you know, in a prior hearing, we talked about the hundreds of millions of dollars that the former president raised. some of that money is being used to pay for lawyers, for witnesses. and it's not clear that that arrangement is one that is without coercion potential for some of those witnesses. >> let's discuss the legal and political implications with michelle cottle from the "new york times," doug heye, and former deputy assistant attorney general elliott williams. thank you all for being here.

michelle, i'm going to start with you. we'll get to the legal stuff anymore. just what you just heard zoe lofgren say about money being used to help pay for the lawyers for those who are being contacted to testify in front of the january 6 committee. is it something that looks bad but is legal, or is there something really wrong here with that? >> i'm not going to address the legal issue. but i think in terms of how bad it looks, it's completely sketchy. i mean, you're investigating the soprano crime family and find out the witnesses coming before you are having their legal bills paid by people close to the soprano crime family. i think that's a real problem. so, i can't imagine that this is a good situation for them. >> i want to ask you the same question because you'll look at this from the legal perspective. >> yeah. funny. you know, look, at the end of the day, there's nothing wrong on its face with paying someone else's legal fees. think about the gofundmes you see when people have a legal defense fund.

or legally a legal defend fund. that's okay. when you start putting conditions on the money you're giving somebody or conditioning the advice you're giving them, then of course that is a problem. it runs into ethical laws, and it could be witness tampering to. so, like, on its face, it's fine. but it can carry some other bad stuff depending on what's behind the money. >> but couldn't somebody not have the words said to them -- >> oh, yeah. >> -- and still feel that pressure that if they're being paid for by the folks that are in and around trump's world that if they say the wrong thing, then they're on their own. >> yeah, sara, you don't even need to say that much. it doesn't need to be that explicit. here's $50,000. you're on the team right? i think that starts getting into ethical trouble frankly with the bar or even with the law. it could be criminal. >> okay. doug, where is the republican party that used to get really upset about any appearance of impropriety. i mean, law and order, worried about moral decay.

what do you make of this? is this technically a problem for them? >> politically it may not be a problem. they look to have a big political year, certainly in the house of representatives, potentially the senate. obviously the republican party has morphed over the last couple of years and by and large we can't elect this guy. overwhelmingly every guy who was running for president in 2016 said this guy is terrible until they stopped doing that. and as that happened the republican party changed. one thing i take issue with is this is exactly the mark meadows i met in 2013 and dealt with in 2014. this is the mark meadows that everyone who worked in house leadership knew. john bainer has personal stories about mark meadows where he won't say it's mark meadows, but it's clearly mark meadows. this shouldn't surprise anybody this is where a lot of this is being pointed now. >> do you think from the mark meadows you know, he would be capable of doing something like trying to intimidate a witness.

>> without question. john bainer talks about an unnamed member of congress that literally got on his knees in the speaker's office and said, i beg you to forgive me. that's mark meadows. it's a good book. >> clearly. i better go pick it up. doug, i want to talk to you about limits. you said that you were proud to take part in the brooks brothers riot, right? that was -- that was a while ago, 20-some-odd years ago. i'm right there with you. bush supporters entered a government building in miami to stop the vote count back in 2000. everybody remembers 2000, the hanging chads and so on and so forth. where does the line get drawn? we're looking at video from back there -- back in the old days in 2000. where is the line drawn between that and what happened in january 6? do you draw a line? >> very clearly. you know, in 2000 -- and some of my democratic friends will disagree with me on this. but we were on the 19th floor of the steven clark center in miami

and we were chanting, count every vote. and a colleague of mine pulled a sign that said voter fraud with a 1-800 number and we chanted, call now, call now. there's a real difference between that and then what we saw not just on january 6 but in the run-up to the election. if i lose, therefore, it's going to be stolen. i have lost, it was stolen. and what donald trump has done -- and others have too. we've seen this in other elections as well. but the president of the united states has more power. we call it the bully pulpit. it's much more than that. and it's what we broadcast to the world. has really weakened what we believe and everybody now believes in both party in the efficacy of our elections. and that's a real problem moving forward in america and throughout the world. >> and it wasn't just the 2020 election. he started making those claims as early as 2016. >> iowa caucuses. >> right. the only way i would lose this election is if there's fraud. so, there's a throughline that went all the way through.

>> ted cruz stoele the iowa caucus from donald trump according to donald trump. >> it didn't matter what happens, the idea is he set it up that if he loses, it's been stolen. that was said many, many, many times and reporters had asked him, if you win, was it stolen. obviously if you think of it one way, is it the other? i want to ask you about meadows because of what we just heard. is there a possibility -- i mean, what happens next? if you are looking at this case from the doj's eyes, what happens next when you start hearing this kind of language? >> sure. witness tampering, it's corruptly persuading someone with the intent to, i think, prevent, hinder, or influence their testimony. like i said, sara, it just doesn't need to be that much. you don't need to put the severed head of the horse in somebody's bed. you just need to intend to get them to say something else. and this is -- you could least charge this here. it's getting there. and it's not a baseless case on its face. >> one of the things mark meadows needs to think about is if this gets tracked back to

him, donald trump is going to cut him loose in a heart beat. he does not care. he will throw him under the bus as quickly as he has thrown everybody under his bus. >> all right. thank you michelle cottle. and doug and elliott will be back with us in just a bit. it's been a week since the supreme court overturned roe. and the battle is already raging in the courts on a state by state basis. we'll look into what's happening now and what president biden is doing on his end to try and counter the supreme court's decision. that's next.

my moderate to severe plaque psoriasis... the tightness, stinging... the pain. emerge tremfyant®. with tremfya®, most people saw 90% clearer skin at 16 weeks. the majority of people saw 90% clearer skin even at 5 years. serious allergic reactions may occur. tremfya® may increase your risk of infections and lower your ability to fight them. tell your doctor if you have an infection or symptoms or if you had a vaccine or plan to. emerge tremfyant®. with tremfya®... ask your doctor about tremfya® today.

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.

one week since the overturning of roe versus wade, at least ten states have banned or severely restricted abortion, and many more are moving to follow suit. but the map you see here is continuously shifting as advocates wage their own battles

in courts. legal challenges are underway in at least 11 states right now, temporary injunctions to block abortion laws are in place in four states, utah, kentucky, louisiana, and exthe tex. a florida judge is expected to sign a state-wide injunction next week. president biden in the meantime has vowed to protect abortion access in the use of abortion pills but acknowledged the rest is up to congress. >> congress is going to have to act to codify roe into federal law. as i said yesterday, the filibuster should not stand in the way of us being able to do that. but right now we don't have the votes in the senate to change the filibuster. this is not over. it's not over. >> joining me now is nancy northup, the president and ceo of the center for reproductive rights, one of the advocacy groups fighting these state bans. you were also a part of that supreme court case that was decided against.

nancy, you recently wrote an op-ed calling on president biden to declare a public health emergency for abortion immediately. why did you do that? and what are you expecting that to do if he were to do so? >> yes, well, in the weeks since roe versus wade was overturned, we've seen states move quickly, as you said, to ban abortion, to put these trigger laws into effect. and as you said, we filed 11 lawsuits. there have been injunctions in various states. but the consequences are swift and severe, as in state after state after state people losing the right to make this decision. and so the biden administration has the power to declare a public health emergency. and what that would allow is for the administration to ensure that the fda's approved medication abortion, which the agency said can be used for telemedicine so that you could be in texas and have a

telehealth visit perhaps with a doctor in new york and then have pills mailed to you at your home. you would never have to leave your house. that would be an important countermeasure to this public health emergency because the consequences, the health consequences of denial of access to abortion are well known because of complications from pregnancy and delivery and unsafe abortion. so, it's really, really critical. and to be able to get medication abortion to people in states where abortion is banned would be a very, very important counter response. >> but the president hasn't done that. why do you think that is? obviously there could be some legal ramifications, couldn't there be? >> well, i think that the administration is still considering all of its options to be able to bring into effect what the president has said, which is that access to fda approved drugs, meaning medication abortion, should be

as available as possible and states shouldn't be able to block it. so, i think the administration is still thinking about what are all the possible ways to do it. and the one that i just talked about with the public health emergency is one of the ways available to the administration. >> i've got to ask you about this. the supreme court has left it up to the states to decide the legalities of abortion. isn't what is happening exactly what the supreme court intended? and if so, i mean, what you're doing to fight this, do you think it's kind of a moot point? they have made their point. do the states get to decide? >> well, the states still need to comply with their own state laws and constitutions. so, the lawsuits that we have filed along with colleague organizations have been under state constitutions. and everyone in the united states of course has two levels of protection, the federal constitution, which unfortunately the supreme court just said doesn't protect abortion rights as a personal

liberty. but they also got every state, which has a constitution. and some of those state constitutions have already been held to protect abortion rights. and some were asking for the court to find that in their state constitution. and we also have other claims in some of the cases like louisiana where they have not one, not two, but three trigger laws. it's vague which one is even in place. so, there are other legal and good grounds for challenging these laws. and the fact that the supreme court said, you know, that roe versus wade was overturned doesn't mean the rule of law was over in every single state. >> this is, though, what conservatives for a very long time had been fighting for. and they were overjoyed to see the court overturn roe. and you mentioned the states like kansas that have abortion rights as part of their constitution. but other states don't have those laws necessarily. what makes you think that your lawsuits have a chance in reversing any of this in states

that are going forward trying to ban or severely restrict abortion? >> well, let me start with the fact that, i mean, our immediate concern is to be able to keep clinics open and abortion providers to be able to provide the services to the people in their communities for as long as possible. so, you know, states can't move with expedition without making sure they're complying with their own laws. and it's really important. i mean, in lose uisiana, aborti services are not being able to be provided. and that makes a huge difference for the person sitting in the waiting room, has made the decision. it's a huge change in their life. it's important that we're able to keep clinics open as long as possible. and in some states where we're challenging under the state constitutions, they may well prevail in the long term of keeping abortion access in those

states. >> nancy northup, thank you. it's not the roe decision widening america's divide. the new make-up of this supreme court is handing down all kinds of rulings, reshaping american life as we know it. we'll dig deeper into that and what else could be coming from the court next. ♪ i it wasn't me by shaggy ♪ you're never responsible for unauthorized purchases on your discover card. (man) [whispering] what's going on? (burke) it's a farmers policy perk. get farmers and you could save money by doing nothing.

just be claim-free on your home insurance for three years. (man) that's really something. (burke) get a whole lot of something with farmers policy perks. (dad) bravo! (mom) that's our son! (burke) we should. ♪ we are farmers. bum-pa-dum, bum-bum-bum-bum ♪ [ kimberly ] before clearchoice, my dental health was so bad i would be in a lot of pain. i was unable to eat. it was very hard. kimberly came to clearchoice with a bunch of missing teeth, struggling with pain, with dental disease. clearchoice dental implants solved her dental issues.

[ kimberly ] i feel so much better. i feel energized to go outside and play with my daughter. i can ate anything. like, i don't have to worry. clearchoice changed my life.

the impact of this term for the supreme court will be felt for decades. they may be legal decisions, but those decisions place the court also smack dab in the middle of america's culture wars. as some in this nation cry out about excessive force and the number of young black men killed by police, twice the high court ruled in favor of police officers limiting the circumstances in which excessive force claims can be brought against police. the deadly smuggling incident in san antonio, texas, this weekend reminds us all of horrible price some will pay for a chance to call america home. the court allowed president biden to end former president trump's remain in mexico policy, but it limited legal options for those who are here and made it harder to hold border patrol officers accountable in some cases. citizens of puerto rico were denied equal access to protection in terms of disability benefits, while native americans saw the court weaken their tribal rights while also stripping them of double

jeopardy protections. ba basic tenets like habeas corpus and miranda was watered down. in the midst of global crises like a pandemic and global warming, the court stripped power from the very agency designed to protect us. the federal vaccine mandate was struck down and the epa lost the ability to regulate power plant emissions. the court weakened the separation of church and state. the court solidified the neighbor versus neighbor nature of our politics by upholding texas' abortion bounty system. the court wiped out 100 years of established gun regulations and the 49 year precedent for the constitutional right to an abortion. but all of this may be a precursor for what's to come. with me to discuss are bakari

sellers. welcome back. welcome back from last night. >> thank you. >> doug, i'll start with you. when we look at the next term, there are a lot of things coming down the pike that a lot of people are concerned about, voting rights, lgbtq discrimination. these things are all on the docket for the court to look at in the next term in october. if you look at scotus and what they did already, how far will they go do you think? >> i don't think we know yet. what republicans have talked about on the issue of abortion, they've been very clear on. they've been very clear and consistent for years. >> for decades. >> this is what they've always talked about doing. that's why judging what the politics are i think is slightly difficult. going that step further on something like gay marriage may be easy for the court to do, may be hard to do. if you're talking about clarence thomas, what you think of the lubbing decision where he has a personal stake in that. >> a lot of people noticed he didn't mention that one. >> exactly.

i think it's really hard to tell. obviously democrats are going to say this is what the republicans on the court are going to do and define it as extreme as often as they can. that's also a great base motivator for them, but i don't think they know fully yet. >> elliott, what do you think? from what we've seen already, the court's been very clear and they've erased a lot of precedent here. >> the supreme court has shifted to the right over the last couple of years. there is no question about that fact. i think we need to step back. and everyone focuses on the six conservative appointees on the supreme court. when the federal courts across the country have shifted to the right just by way of a quick history lesson. at the end of president obama's term, there were 105 judicial vacancies, right? president trump came in and said barack obama left me all these -- well, it was because mitch mcconnell and senate republicans didn't confirm judges for the most part for barack obama's entire final last two years. that had a huge impact on shifting the courts to where they are today. it's been an animating principle

for voters on the right for the last 40 years ultimately ending and culminating in the overturning of roe v. wade. shifting the courts to the right has been successfully led by senator mcconnell, republicans have done. >> and this is how republicans want it. there are a large group of american who is like what they are seeing. bakari, democrats for decades have known that republicans are working toward this aim, particularly with roe versus wade. have they been doing enough? democrats could have codified this into law? have they been doing enough? >> many people think about the 44th president of the united states and barack obama but he only had the majority for 72 days before the passing of senator kennedy. that's just a footnote. the fact is democrats have not done enough. whether or not it was ram emanuel who pretty much said f the courts. we have other things to do. that's to use rahm emanuel

language. the fact rbg should have retired when barack obama was president of the united states, my liberal friends get mad at me. or roe v. wade, was organizing to replace alito whose mission in life was to overturn roe v. wade or mcconnell and his blocking. all you have to do is look at the concurring opinion of justice thomas. they're coming after privacy rights. they're coming after substantive due process. and everything -- every line that you can draw from that. i will tell you that i didn't make any a's in law school. you know what they call someone who finishes last in law school class? >> counselor! >> a lawyer. i ain't a lawyer scholar, but i can read an opinion and tell you what i see next. what you can see next is gay

marriage. what you can see next is laws that come through due process, ivf, same sex marriage, and things people don't want to talk about, brown versus board of education, et cetera. >> dissents are written to disagree with the majority opinion. but they're also written for history. and they're written for future courts that might take those issues up and might pull the court in that direction. so, i think clarence thomas was aiming for the fences there with the hope that he might get a future even more aggressive supreme court. >> since republicans have gotten what they wanted for many, many, many decades but they have been working towards that and working towards it and they finally got what they wanted. and you cannot blame them. this is what they wanted and they're celebrating this. what should democrats do? >> first of all the president of the united states has to organize. and i'm not sure what he's doing. i can tell you what he ain't doing, right?

and the fact that we knew this was coming for 30 days and this white house did nothing is one of the more depressing things for a democrat in this country. we have kyrsten sinema, for example -- and i hope she's watching tonight because her cowardice is one of the reasons we're set back in this country. the fact she is so hypocritical that she will come out and say i will not eliminate the filibuster to codify the rights of women, reproductive rights of women, but will send me an email, a fundraising email talking about how she's a reproductive right champion. this is the type of stuff that makes sure the democrats stay in minorities. this is what's going to burn us in 2022. it's the talking out of both sides of our neck. it's the lack of fortitude. it's the lack of courage. and republicans, to their credit, had a 40-year vision, a 50-year vision. democrats can't get a 7-day vision. >> let me ask you a quick question. this is a yes or no. will these issues bring democrats to the polls in 2020 and 2024?

>> yes. >> republicans? >> some republicans, maybe more democrats. >> she said yes or no? >> oh, my gosh. >> there are other issues. >> you are correct, there are other issues. there are other issues. the economy is always a big one. it always has been a big one. we'll talk about that in a bit. thanks to the three of you. i appreciate it. >> i didn't get an answer. >> elliott is the lead guy. he doesn't want to get into politics. >> obi wan kenobi, i don't do politics. >> smart, smart. now to our next story. american basketball star brittney griner appears in a russian courtroom after months in custody. the u.s. calls her detention wrongful. today's developments near moscow and the fight to bring brittney home. that's coming up next. what do you mean? these straps are mind-blowing! they collect hundreds of data points like hrv and rem sleep, so you know all you need fofor recovery. and you are?e?

i'm an investor...in invesco qqq,q, a fund that gives me access to... nasdaq 100 innovations like... wearable training optimization tech. uh, how long are you... i'm done. i'm okay.

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.

american wnba star brittney griner will be back in a russian courtroom on thursday after her trial began today near moscow. she stands accused of bringing less than a gram of cannabis oil into the country. she's been held since february. u.s. diplomatic officials were in court today watching some of the proceedings. griner faces up to ten years in prison if convicted there. in a tweet, u.s. secretary of

state antony blinken wrote, we, and i personally, have no higher priority than bringing her and other wrongfully detained americans home. so, what is the biden administration prepared to do to make that happen? let's discuss with steve hall. he's a former cia chief of russia operations and a cnn national security analyst. thank you for being here, steve. >> good to be here. >> all right. let's talk first about russia. their system is different than our system when it comes to the justice system. in russia, what is the likelihood that a trial, any trial, not just griner's trial, results in an acquittal? >> well, i think you have to start with the fact there really is no judicial system in russia. what you have is a well-developed theater of some sort of idea that maybe there is rule of law in russia. this is of course not the case. you'll see things that many of us in the west and especially in the united states recognize. you'll see judges.

you'll see courtrooms. you'll see lawyers. but all of that is drama. there is no legal system to speak of that is truly functional in any western sense. so, acquittals, how many there are, how many there aren't, it doesn't matter. the kremlin is the one who decides, certainly on these high profile cases like the griner case. >> when you talk about how these courts work, we heard from a member of the embassy was in there watching this. and obviously they're trying to observe to see if there is any potential fairness and anything they can do and use. and at one point when a witness came forward against brittney griner, they were told to leave. that would never happen in our court system. it's an example of what you say that this is more theater than it is an actual judicial process. what at this point do you think bri brittney griner's best options are right now? >> it's really unfortunate that she doesn't really have any good options right now. she is now under the wraps of the russian government, the

russian system. and the only thing that really she can hope for is that what vladimir putin wants out of this which is an exchange of prisoners. really what's happening to brittney griner, she's been kidnapped and she's being held now in exchange for something that putin wants, whether or not it's high profile russians that are held here in the united states. many people spoke about viktor bout. he's just an arms trafficker, a horrible person who's in jail for 25 years here in the united states. it could be that's what putin wants, a prisoner swap, or some other high level prisoner. that is really her only hope, aside from a ten-year prison sentence. >> we should be clear the biden administration and many administrations are usually reluctant to create that incentive to say, okay, if you get one of ours, we're going to get you one of yours. and the person you just mentioned, victor bout, he's known as the merchant of death. brittney griner is a wnba star

player who allegedly is accused of having a tiny bit of cannabis oil. these are very different people. what is the danger to this case and just in general to relationships if they do carry out prisoner swap, which they have done before? >> yeah, this is the part that is really -- you know, it's just really difficult for really any administration in the united states because it's so gauing. so, they have somebody -- they have a u.s. citizen and of course the u.s. government's first and foremost interest is looking after u.s. citizens abroad. that's the primary responsibility of consular sections around the world. that's why you saw the court appearance you mentioned earlier. but the problem is that, yeah, you're going to incentivize more of this not just by russia. north korea is another perfect example, these rogue states who know that all they have to do is nab one american, whether it's a business person, a tourist, or a professional, like griner, and then they can bargain for

whatever it is they want for. so, that puts the administration in a really difficult position, especially when the families begin to put pressure on public figures and say, look, you've got to do something to get this american, my daughter, my wife, whatever out of a russian jail. it's a really difficult position for any administration to be in. >> steve hall, thank you so much. we did hear from cherelle, her wife yesterday, who did just that. and she and the family will be putting more pressure. they want brittney home. i appreciate your time, steve. >> sure. all right. this country, it's fourth of july weekend. fun, right? but be ready. traveling this holiday weekend is promising some serious headaches. we'll look at what's leading the airlines to cancel so many flights as a rush of travellers like we haven't seen in more than two years are expected to crowd into airports. that story coming up next.

when moderate to severe ulcerative colitis persists... put it in check with rinvoq, a once-daily pill. when uc got unpredictable,... i got rapid symptom relief with rinvoq. check.

when uc held me back... i got lasting, steroid-free remission with rinvoq. check. and when uc got the upper hand... rinvoq helped visibly repair the colon lining. check. rapid symptom relief. lasting, steroid-free remission. and a chance to visibly repair the colon lining. check. check. and check. 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 1 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. put uc in check and keep it there, with rinvoq. ask your gastroenterologist about rinvoq. and learn how abbvie could help you save.

it takes a village to support society and businesses have a responsibility to support that village. ♪ ♪ i am peter akwaboah, chief operating officer for technology, operations and firm resilience. when you think about diversity, the employee network group is fundamental to any organization to provide a community and a belonging environment for the employees. they provide an avenue to support employees and ultimately it leads to retention of the best and brightest. the employee network represents the community at large, and it provides a good feedback loop

to senior management to make the appropriate decisions, which ultimately contributes towards the bottom line. if you're thinking about growing your business, if you're thinking about driving the business forward, inclusion is a strong part of this. i am peter akwaboah and we are morgan stanley. more americans are expected to fly this holiday weekend than we have seen since the start of the pandemic. but are the airlines ready for the rush? delays and cancellations just might be in your future. natasha chen is at los angeles

international airport tonight. nationwide just give me a sense how things are looking right now. >> reporter: well, sara, nationwide there have been about 570 flight cancellations today. more than 6,800 delays. here at lax it's been pretty smooth, but we have seen some more serious problems from the new york area airports, for example la guardia and new york each more than 40% of their departures were delayed today. and why we're seeing these delays and cancellations is because of a number of factors all happening at once. first we've got some potential severe weather this weekend in pretty much every region except the west coast. and then you have this surge of demand from travelers, and you might have mentioned that this is really the most number of travelers expected since the pandemic began. tsa last sunday screened the most number of u.s. passengers in airports since 2020.

i've been saying that same phrase through a number of holiday weekends for a cup of airports which goes to show that demand keeps building, but the staffing on the airlines side has met up with that. so a lot of staffing shortages, high demand and weather this weekend. >> you know, a lot of people get frustrated, anybody would and myself included because delays are a problem, the cancellations are a madness, but airlines received $54 billion in federal assistance during covid's peak to avoid involuntary layoffs. they now have fewer employees than before the pandemic especially pilots who are fed up because they say they're tired. i mean what is happening on that front? >> reporter: we heard from the chair of the l.a. pilots association today, and he gave an example of american airlines. he said that use some of those funds to incentivize early retirement when all the planes were grounded in the beginning of the pandemic, and he felt that there wasn't en

enough foresight in keeping pilots current. and now there's training backlog now. in the meantime a lot of airlines say to travelers, please, be patient, they're doing everything they can to make things smooth this weekend, sara. >> all right, natasha chen, thank you. and thanks for watching. the cnn special report, trumping democracy, an american coup is next. ere, there has to be someone here making sure eveverything is saf. securere. consistent. so log in fromom 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.

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.

♪ limu emu ♪ and doug. [power-drill noises] alright, limu, give me a socket wrench, pliers, and a phone open to libertymutual.com they customize your car insurance, so you only pay for what you need... and you could even save $652 when you switch. ok, i need a crowbar. and a blowtorch. [teddy bear squeaks] [doug sighs] limu, call a mechanic. only pay for what you need. ♪ liberty. liberty. liberty. liberty. ♪

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. there's a reason comcast business powers more businesses than any other provider. actually, there's a few... comcast business offers the fastest, reliable network...

the protection of securityedge™ and the most reliable 5g network. want me to keep going? i can... whether your small business is starting or growing, you need comcast business. technology solutions that put you ahead. get a great offer on internet and security, now with more speed and more bandwidth. plus find out how to get up to a $650 prepaid card with a qualifying bundle. >> announcer: the following is a cnn special report. the violence at the capitol on january 6, 2021, was just the most visible part of donald trump's attempt to hold onto power. tonight we talk to those who witnessed the whole plot unfurl an