can we at least split it? nope. advanced security that helps protect your devices in and out of the home. i mean, can i have a bite? only from xfinity. nah. unbeatable internet. made to do anything so you can do anything. a member of the january 6th select committee telling cnn they think they've made the criminal case against donald trump. of course, the only person who can actually make that call is attorney general merrick garland

and no one knows exactly what he plans to do, but the committee has been filling in critical gaps of what was happening and perhaps, more notably what was not happening. during those 187 minutes on january 6th when they argue then president donald trump was derelict in his duties. cnn's tom foreman has been going through all of the evidence and all of the testimony. tom, what stands out to you? >> what stands out is how much trump was alone. this hearing laid out new and clearer detailses about how he urged supporters to converge on the capitol and even as it went out of control for hours, he refused to call off the attack. did he know about the violence? witnesses say absolutely it started minutes after he finished speaking. virtually everyone on the staff was aware of it, concerned about it, and one witness after another say the president went to this dining room next to the oval office based on this graphic video exhibit where he

sat all afternoon watching fox news, which was showing the carnage right there next to the oval office. that's where they stood in items of him knowing about it. did he try to stop it? no. indeed, witnesses say even the secret service agents afraid for their own lives were scrambling to try to get the vice president out to safety he wouldn't do anything. listen to some of the traffic between those secret service agents when they were concerned. >> we need to move now. >> copy. >> if we lose any more time, we may have -- we may lose the ability to leave, so we're going to leave, we need to do it now. >> they've gained access to the second floor, and i've got public outside feet from me down here below. >> copy. they are on the second floor moving in now. we may want to consider getting out and leaving now. copy? >> will we encounter the people once we make our way? >> repeat? >> will we encounter any individuals if we make our way

to the [ bleep ]. >> there are six officers between us and the people that are fife to ten feet away from me. >> go down to evaluate. >> go ahead. >> we have a clear shot if we move quickly. we have to -- unknown smoke down stairs by protesters. >> is that route compromised? >> from all indications, these agents with the vice president were seconds away, feet away possibly from being caught. the white house counsel was messaging to the white house saying the mob wants to hang the vice president. and trump's chief of staff responds, he, trump, thinks mike deserves that and trump was tweeting. he was tweeting "mike pence didn't have the courage to do what should have been done." what he wanted done is not to have results certified. mike pence didn't have the legal right to do it but trump kept insisting and then, then witnesses say that intensified the rage at the capitol so much

so that pretty soon, there was a deluge of messages. from members of congress please tell the president to calm people. this isn't the way. from members of the right wing media, the president needs to tell people in the capitol to good home, and on and on it went. even the president's own son sent a message to the chief of staff mark meadows saying he's got to condemn this s-h-i-t a-s-a-p. in short, what it looks like is everyone was saying he had to do something, but witnesses say the president just kept watching tv, trying to call senators to stop certification. and as far as they know, even as people were being attacked, police officers were being beaten, a person being killed and another who died later, not making a single phone call to law enforcement, the military, or homeland security. laura? >> so i mean, it's unbelievable to think how you laid that out so methodically and fully. tom, how long did it take trump to actually reach the point of telling this violent mob to

leave the capitol and to go home? >> well, we know that he tweeted a couple of times early on in this process about not early on but during it about the idea of things being peaceful. he wants everyone to remain peaceful, no violence, which is ironic because it certainly was not peaceful. there was already plenty of violence. we also know that this only happened even this much only happened because we were told by one of the witnesses, staff were pushing him to do something about it. listen to the account of what happened when one staff member talked to another one who had come back to try to convince the president to put out a statement. >> when she got back, she told me that a tweet had been sent out and i told her that i thought the tweet did not go far enough. i thought there needed to be a call to action and he needed to condemn the violence. we were in a room full of people, was people weren't paying attention. so she looked exactly at me and

said in a hushed tone shared with me that the president did not want to include any sort of mention of peace in that tweet, and that it took some convincing on their part, those who were in the room. she said there was a back and forth going over different phrases to find something that he was comfortable with. and it wasn't until ivanka trump suggested the phrase "stay peaceful" that he finally agreed to include it. >> again, this was while police officers were being beaten. it was more than three hours before he issued the video statement telling the rioters very gently to go home, and by then witnesses note the mob was losing steam any way. it had sort of a bandwagon effect. since your going home, let me jump on and say you're going home since you're going there any way. the video out takes we saw of the next day when he issued a statement about the violence, he also revealed bursts of frustration in this where he clearly and openly said he did not want to admit that he lost the election.

holding onto the very lie that launched this insurrection, laura, and i have to say what really emerged most of all again is a picture of somebody who was alone, hand picked people, people who dedicated their careers and lives to him reached the conclusion that he was in the wrong and this had to be stopped but he did not. laura? >> tom, thank you. i want to bring in alex holder, the documentary film maker that testified to the select committee behind closed doors and turned over hours of his footage. his three-part docuseries is "unprecedented" about the 2020 election which is now available on discovery plus, which is owned by cnn's parent company. alex, thank you for being here tonight. i have to ask, when you spoke to trump and the people around him in depth and your team had really a front row seat to the horrific january 6th attack, so given your inside access, i

wonder what surprised you most about the committee's case knowing what you already knew? >> so in someways, i think, it wasn't so surprising because i had actually predicted this was going to happen the day before. i mean, this is a man who really especially when i was watching the committee hearings yesterday can really only be defined as a beknighted bully. this is a man who is sitting there devoid of any moral responsibility where everyone around him is telling him to intervene while people are actually dying and being injured and he's refusing to do anything. and i think what the committee did so well is very difficult to show somebody not doing something because how do you put that all together? and i think they did a very good job of doing that. at the end of the day, this is a man who came to believe in his own lies so much he was devoid of reality, he was an irrational player, even the people closest

to him had to beg him to actually intervene, and it still took him 187 minutes, or whatever it was. >> the only thing i wonder is i wonder if he did believe what he was saying, or he just wanted it to be true there is a distinction between the two. check this out. check out this video this committee presented of what was happening in the crowd after donald trump sent that 2:24 p.m. tweet slamming mike pence about his purported lack of courage. >> stick up for donald trump! mike pence traitor! >> in case you haven't heard yet. >> what happened? >> i've been hearing that mike pence betrayed us. that's the word. mike pence has hurt us. >> i mean, seems like the rioters were really hanging on trump's every word. you heard the same statement

from sarah matthews who testified relating back to what she saw on the campaign trail and different rallies when he was president of the united states. is that also what you saw is the footage of the magnetism and the draw of trump to the supporters? >> absolutely. it was like a religious convention in someways. these people were so hell bent on this idea that they could intervene in this ceremonial process and they would do whatever he said because they really genuinely believed in this insanity that he had in fact won and that the only way of being able to prove he had won was that they had to intervene in this process or at least hope that mike pence were to come through as he says and stop this ceremonial count of the electoral college votes. i mean, it was absolutely incredible. i mean, the fervor and the passion you see in these people's conviction. because at the end of the day, this wasn't a candidate saying this. this wasn't a random person. this is the incumbent president of the united states of america who had spent the last six or

seven weeks and obviously before during the last six or seven weeks just maintaining this position again and again and again that he had in fact won and that president biden did not, and that this was now his election had been stolen. it was absolutely remarkable and these people believed it and they were cramming up the steps. in fact, in the series we see the horrific death of one of trump's own supporters who tragically dies because of the crushing of all the people trying to get into the capitol. i mean, absolutely shocking and really like a war zone. >> and speaking of the idea of not -- the loss of life. i'm so glad you continue to reiterate there were -- there was loss of life more than one person whose life was taken and claimed throughout that day and also in the days after including police officers and including civilians. we also saw some outtakes from this speech that trump recorded just one day after the insurrection on january 7th

where he was still clinging to some of the things that he was articulating even before that. here is a small part of it. >> but this election is now over. congress certified the results. i don't want to say the election is over. i just want to say, congress has certified the results without saying the election is over, okay? >> but congress is certifying -- now congress -- >> yeah, right. >> now congress -- >> i didn't say over. let me see. >> i mean, who thought that over was a four-letter word that a dirty one at that. i know it's the o-v-e-r but the idea of him not wanting to say it. to admit it. did you see something similar when you were interviewing, when you had your footage, when you doing your documentary series about the election cycle? was he as refused -- defiant about trying to admit that the election was over? >> absolutely. in fact, just two really interesting points from that that i noticed. one is his own daughter sounds scared of him, which i found

really interesting. she was quite sort of more subservient than you would expect, especially if you're a daughter. in fact, when i asked him a question during the interview in the white house about sort of the way i phrased it was if the election were to potentially go, even though it had gone towards president biden, he just could not conceptualize the idea at that point, when his own attorney general a few days earlier said there was no evidence whatever so to support any of his claims, he still could not bring himself to accept that the election was over. he was furious. and you can see that play out. what is also interesting is you really get an insight into who he is as a character in those fleeting moments when you see those outtakes and the same in the series, as you see him moving the glass of water around for a minute and a half or referring to the tone of his -- the color how he looks on camera. these are the moments you really get an insight what actually is

important to him -- >> let's play that. i want people to see what you're talking about. i want that to be visual, this idea of what you're talking about. let's play it. >> i don't think you want to have the water in the picture, right? you can take it off. yeah. put it over there, nick. >> the table, as well? >> yeah, might as well take the table. look good. very good, thank you. you know what you can do, nick? >> sir? >> put the table back because it's missing something. put the table back and put the water on the table without the thing on top of it. okay. how does that look? go ahead. take it out. yeah. all right.

right? let's go. >> i wonder why did you choose to release this particular clip? what was the motivation? what are you hoping people will see? >> i mean, i think there is a different -- there is a few ways of looking at that clip but for me, it sort of completely personifies the person he is as a character, because above all else, he is a showman. he is the incumbent president of the united states of america spending a minute and a half moving around a glass of water in the midst of this turmoil that he had created. and i think that's what's important to him, how it looks, but more than just the superficial things. he is literally micromanaging a glass of water to make it be exactly center in the middle of a table. i thought it was extraordinary. others think he has attention to detail and it was a very important thing to do. i'm open to all interpretations. for me, the way that he comes across in those candid moments

is really the way that you get an insight into who he is as a character, that above all else he's a showman and it's all about the brand and trump. everything else comes second. democracy, elections, january 6th. that's all much later. for him, it's just how does he look, you know, is he asserting enough control and power? the image, the brand, he's a showman. >> i mean, listening to you and all i can think of is perception is king and along with that idea of just last night hearing testimony i think from mark milley suggesting that mark meadows said look, we have to change the narrative that mike pence was running the show. it's got to come from as you articulate the showman. really fascinating. thank you so much. >> thank you. it's a pleasure. seven former top officials of the u.s. military are accusing trump of dereliction of duty as the capitol was attacked on january 6th.

writing in a powerful essay he in "the new york times" that he not only failed to restore order, but even encouraged the rioters, endangering lives and america's democracy. retired navy admiral steve abbott joins me next. liberty mus your car insurance, so you only pay for what you need. [ sfx: submarine rising out of water ] minions are bitin' today. ♪ liberty. liberty. liberty. liberty. ♪ minions: the rise of gru, only in theaters. ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ "shake your thang" by salt n pepa [zoom call] ...pivot...

work bye. vacation hi! book with priceline. 'cause when you save more, you can “no way!” more. no wayyyy. no waaayyy! no way! [phone ringing] hm. no way! no way! priceline. every trip is a big deal. why do nearly one million businesses choose stamps.com to mail and ship? no more trips to the post office no more paying full price for postage and great rates from usps and ups mail letters ship packages

anytime anywhere for less a lot less get our special tv offer a 4-week trial plus postage and a digital scale go to stamps.com/tv and never go to the post office again in the next minute... ...thousands of life's doors will suddenly swing wide open. 250 couples will need to make room for a nursery. (laughing) 143 people... yes! ...will get their dream job offer. nine retirees will decide to move closer to the grandkids.

52 people will go... yes! ...all in. this family will become... ...a dog family. and this family will get two bathrooms. an athlete will find out he's been traded... really? ...again. sweet! a bingo player will win a speedboat. bingo! i'm moving to the lake! and finally, one vacationer will say... yeah, woo, i'm going to live here! but as the euphoria subsides, the realization hits. i got to sell the house! ♪ or skip the hassles and sell directly to opendoor. close in a matter of days. oh, wow. yes! oh! bingo! long story short, be open to stepping through life's doors and we'll handle the house. ♪

the january 6th hearings how laying bare how when the seat of american democracy was under attack, the then commander in chief did nothing. how amid pleas from staffers and political allies, he refused to call off the mob. and this week, seven retired generals and a opinion essay in "the new york times." one of the authors joins me now. retired u.s. navy admiral steve abbott. admiral, thank you for joining the program this evening.

i read your piece. it's very, very compelling. what the former president was doing and was not doing was so striking in january 6th's, the committee's hearing last night. i want to listen for a moment to what they found when it came to any kind of request for assistance that day, from the military or frankly any top law enforcement. >> so are you aware of any phone call by the president of the united states to the secretary of defense that day? >> not that i'm aware of, no. >> are you aware of any phone call by the president of the united states to the attorney general of the united states that day? >> no. >> are you aware of any phone call by the president of the united states to the head of homeland security that day? >> i'm not aware of that, no. >> did you speak to the president. >> no. >> for the -- >> no. >> did you ever hear the president ask for a law enforcement response?

>> no. >> well, your "times" piece was written before last night's hearing. i wonder, admiral, i know we're having a little difficulty with your camera. what do you think now after seeing and heard that not a call was made, ever? i think we're having a little problem still hearing admiral, as well and i really want to hear his answer given this really thought-provoking piece. let's take a quick break. we'll regroup, get the admiral back on. we want to hear from the admiral about his insight on this piece. we'll be back in just a moment. what if you could change your surroundings with the touch of a finger?

now you can. biometric id... inside the innovative, new c-class. i know there's conflicting information about dupuytren's contracture. i thought i couldn't get treatment yet? well, people may think that their contracture has to be severe to be treated, but it doesn't. if you can't lay your hand flat on the table, talk to a hand specialist. but what if i don't want surgery? well, then you should find a hand specialist

certified to offer nonsurgical treatments. what's the next step? visit findahandspecialist.com today to get started.

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. 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. we're still working to bring back on admiral. we really want to hear his insight this evening and as we work on that, there is more news out there including from

california where their governor gavin newsom is signing a new gun safety bill today. it allows to sue makers and sellers of assault weapons which are illegal in the state of california. and the new law is actually modeled after a texas law, which allows citizens to sue doctors and other medical professionals who provide abortion services. for more on this, i want to bring in cnn legal analyst areva martin, and cnn political commentator david swerdlick. happy evening to you. glad to see you both here. i'll begin with you, david. because many democrats have been calling for a stronger response to the gop assault on rights like abortion and newsom is fighting fire with fire. we heard about the idea will this be used in other capacities? you and have i talked about this over time as well. these ideas of this bounty laws as they are often described, they were controversial then, they're controversial now.

is this a political move, a policy move? is it prudent? what are your thoughts? >> laura, i think it's a little bit of everything. i think it's a policy move. it's a democratic rallying cry. it's a finger in the eye to a couple other large sun belt state governors in this case, governor abbott in texas and it's maybe the sort of undeclared start of a 2024 presidential campaign if democrats decide to bring someone like governor newsom off the bench. you and areva are the legal eagles. i will just say here that i definitely think and governor newsom has said this that this law will be challenged on the grounds that guns generally are legal, even though some are banned like ghost guns and 50 calls, and in certain situations, ar-15s in california. and that people have a second

amendment right to own firearms. but the premise of this lie is, look, if the supreme court can allow people to use these bounties to sue people over abortion -- providing abortion care in texas, why can't we use to it sue manufacturers of ghost guns in california. and the law has a provision in it that says if the supreme court strikes one down, we can strike the other down and in that way, governor newsom is making a legal and policy point and also saying to democrats, look, i'm not just going to stand around. i'm going to fight back. >> areva, i'll extend his analogy about legal eagles. you are the legal eagle here. in fact, i respect you so much. what is good for the goose, bring another bird here, what is good for the goose is good for the gander. the idea here that this was almost anticipated. this was almost called immediately out when we saw the texas law about the bounty. why wouldn't other so-called blue states do this? in fact, i want to read through something, because the aclu put out a statement on the law. and here is some of what they said, areva.

they said this legal frame work is unsound and invalid, no matter what activity it is directed at because it eviscerates government because it destroys an individual's ability to petition a court to block the state from violating a legal right. i'm wondering from your perspective is that right to you and will these so-called bounty laws, will this undermine maybe fatally the power of the judiciary to intervene and weigh in. >> let me start first of all with you said newsom basically stated -- it wasn't basically stated, he was emphatic when the supreme court refused to strike down that texas bounty law, that law which allows individuals to sue individuals that aid and abet those who assist someone with getting an abortion after the six-week ban in the state of texas. newsom was very clear. he invited his democratic state

legislators to send a bill to his desk that was based after that texas law but had to do with gun safety. and senator bob hirshberg in the state of california did just that. he sponsored this law. it made its way to gavin newsom's desk and he signed it. then he went into texas with this big ad, trolling the state of texas saying look, if you can protect women's lives by banning abortion, we're going to protect the lives of citizens by preventing individuals from selling and transferring assault weapons and ghost guns in the state of california. now, he knows, gavin newsom is smart, they expect and anticipate they want a constitutional challenge to happen with respect to this bill they want to see this bill make its way -- the challenge of this bill make its way to the supreme court. and in some ways, gavin newsom is trolling the supreme court, because what he's saying to the supreme court is if you were willing to allow this flawed

legal reasoning to let this abortion law stand in the state of texas, then you must act consistently and allow this law to stand in california. and if you don't, shame on you and i will call you out for the hypocrites that you are. so a lot of politics going on, laura, as well as some legal i'll call shenanigans by governors like newsom. >> the reason i kind of chuckle at the idea of consistency, ar areva, and we'll chuckle in harmony, if that's a thing, the idea of the supreme court on the very case overturning roe v. wade, the dobbs decision trying to compartmentalize and it's inconsistent, and saying hey, this fundamental rule will apply here and is the base logic, but not anything else that comes from the same thing. i wonder the idea of trolling the supreme court on a matter of consistency might be an exercise in futility. we will see. david, the law also comes as states are dealing with other politically sensitive issues

like contraception, who knew that would be politically sensitive after the griswald decision, but apparently it is, after voting rights. could these types of laws fuel political battles? most likely they will, right? >> yeah, and just to areva's point about governor newsom and the california legislature wanting to have a challenge at the supreme court so if the supreme court isn't consistent in its application of constitutional principles, they can say shame on you. that shame on you, if you twist the wording around a little bit becomes a campaign rallying cry. it becomes an issue that obviously governor newsom can run on and other democrats if they follow his lead can run on. governor newsom has some quite wide open runway right now. he won his runoff -- excuse me, his recall challenge last year. he's going to coast to reelection in the regular election this year. he's got that band width to be able to say look, i'm going to

be the fighter the democrats need. he's got the sort of obama-like exterior, the tall trim perfect family guy out front and he's taken on a little bit of that elizabeth warren, i'm going to fight, i have a plan here mode and maybe that's a formula that will work for him individually and maybe some other democrats will sort of imitate it as we get into the midterms and into the 2024 election cycle. >> it is important -- areva, i'd love you to weigh in on this as well. remember, that bounty law out of texas, it was a case the supreme court looked at, but they allowed it to go into effect any way, even though they had the dobbs decision pending. now we have the dobbs decision now here, which overturns roe v. wade. but they actually returned to it the state level i believe to flush out the constitutionality at the state level of that particular provision. so it didn't go back up to the

supreme court to be fully exhausted. i wonder now if it will be part of the supreme court sort of consideration of these things but as the name notion as you respond to that, this is a theme. leave it to the states, almost like bring it back to the states, go back to the states, a patch work is going to befected here and really, if it's always a patch work, is it legally the united states of america under one law? >> well, that's a great question, laura. let's be clear, it's not leave it to the states when it came to that new york gun safety law that was passed by the state of new york. we saw the supreme court expand its authority and its role and strike down new york's ability to control who could open carry a gun. so we see some inconsistency in laws as they relate to blue states versus red states so on the abortion question, yes, send it back to the states and let states have a patch work of laws to make it difficult and very confusing for women, particularly women to know what they can do and whether they can

travel outside of a state where abortion is banned to go into a state where it's legal and have an abortion without that state trying to reach a cross state lines and hold it criminally responsible. but when it comes to something like the second amendment, which we know is important to conservatives, which we know is important to this court, the court relied on some really tenuous legal arguments to strike down that new york law. so i don't think we can read much into this court, laura, other than they're conservative and every opportunity they get to rule in a way that is consistent with conservative ideology and conservative politics, they are going to do that, even around contraceptives, gay marriages, and potentially interracial marriages. that's not off the table either. we should be really clear what clarence thomas said in that concurring opinion opens the door for challenges and i think, laura, he was inviting conservative. >> oh, yeah -- oh, no. sorry.

>> a bill -- i think he was doing the same thing governor newsom was doing. with respect to california lawmakers. clarence thomas was telling those conservative lawmakers in those red states to send him a contraception lawsuit or case and send him a gay marriage case so that he can do what he did in dobbs. >> i got to say, i don't know what either of you are talking about. there has never been double speak in washington d.c. everyone here says exactly what they mean. it's always consistent. i don't know what you guys are trying to pull here about washington d.c., i hope you see my sarcasm through these pink lips today. thank you so much. >> something in the water in california. >> something up in the water. but in the water in new york, it makes good pizza and bagels. i don't know what is happening here. we'll move on. that's fine. >> thanks, laura. >> nice to see you both. have a good evening. quick break. we are going to get admiral back. i definitely want to hear his insight as to this really compelling and thought provoking piece in the "new york times"

talking about the dereliction of duty, which is normally a military concept and will a civilian commander in chief be held to the same standard? you'll hear his insight in just a moment. rn the music up. [ music: praise you ] the all-new mercedes-amg sl. the star is reborn.

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. ♪ in the next second, fourteen families will decide... that's it. we're getting a bigger house! finally. but we got to sell this place. before we buy the next place. and then, in the meantime. so, how long are you staying? emily no! ooh a little cramped. i am cpap man. that is not a toy! or skip the in-laws. sell and buy your house with confidence with opendoor. move when you're ready. that's it. indeed. when life's doors open, we'll handle the house.

these folks don't have time to go to the post office they use stamps.com all the services of the post office only cheaper get a 4-week trial plus postage and a digital scale go to stamps.com/tv and never go to the post office again.

back now with retired u.s. admiral, excuse me, admiral

steve abbot, one of seven retired generals and admirals blasting the former president for dereliction of duty in "the new york times." thought provoking piece. i'm glad you're here. i really want to get into it. dereliction of duty is one thing but what the committee seemed to paint was a man who was almost by his inaction wanting them to be perhaps successful by not providing help and guidance. what do you make given this piece was written before the actual hearing, what do you make of the way this actually went down? >> i can tell you the hearing certainly reinforced the opinion of the group of us that had got together and witness what occurred after the november election and concerned that it was going to have a serious effect on civil military relations. and just watching the hearings reinforced those views. we felt strongly that the

committee established two things. we thought one is that there was a conspiracy underway that would overturn the will of the voters if it were successful, and that extent of that conspiracy is really not clear yet. and the second thing is establishing that president was der licht, as you said, in his duties for failing to call off the rioters. and as you established in the earlier piece, he certainly knew what was occurring and we believe he knew what his duty was. and it was the call off the mob that he had sent to the capitol. and so as you pointed out very clearly, he did nothing for three hours and in fact gave encouragement to them, and he

could have stopped them. >> admiral, i want everyone to read your piece because it's so thought provoking not only about dereliction of duty, but what you think the military ought to be considering to safeguard against this very thing from happening again. it's available in "the new york times." thank you so much. and with the overturning of roe v. wade, many states are putting strict anti-abortion laws in place. but what if i told you some of the founders of this country believed abortion ought to be a private matter? we'll talk about it next. little things like getting a real offer in two minutes really make roger happy. so does carvana's customer advocate caitlin picking up his car at promptly 10am. hi, are you roger? berglund. with the honda accord? yes i am. it's right over there. will i be getting? and he loves that caitlin pays him on the spot. yep, rog. it's the little things that drive you happy. we'll drive you happy at carvana.

time. it's life's most precious commodity, especially when you have metastatic breast cancer. when your time is threatened, it's hard to invest in your future. until now. kisqali is helping women live longer than ever before when taken with an aromatase inhibitor or fulvestrant... in hr+, her2- metastatic breast cancer. kisqali is a pill that's proven to delay disease progression. kisqali can cause lung problems, or an abnormal heartbeat, which can lead to death. it can cause serious skin reactions, liver problems, and low white blood cell counts that may result in severe infections. tell your doctor right away if you have new or worsening symptoms, including breathing problems, cough, chest pain... a change in your heartbeat, dizziness, yellowing of the skin or eyes, dark urine, tiredness, loss of appetite, abdomen pain, bleeding, bruising, fever, chills, or other symptoms of an infection, a severe or worsening rash, are or plan to become pregnant, or breastfeeding. avoid grapefruit during treatment. your future is ahead of you, so it's time to make the most of it with kisqali. because when you invest in yourself, everyone gets the best of you.

age-related macular degeneration may lead to severe vision loss. and if you're taking a multivitamin alone, you may be missing a critical piece. preservision. preservision areds 2 contains the only clinically proven nutrient formula recommended by the national eye institute to help reduce the risk of moderate to advanced amd progression. "preservision is backed by 20 years of clinical studies" "and its from the eye experts at bausch and lomb" so, ask your doctor about adding preservision. and fill in a missing piece of your plan. like i did with preservision"

if you're turning 65 soon or over 65 and planning to retire... now's the time to learn more about an aarp medicare supplement insurance plan from unitedhealthcare and get help protecting yourself from the out-of-pocket costs medicare doesn't pay. because the time to prepare is before you go on medicare. don't wait. get started today. call unitedhealthcare for your free decision guide.

legal fights playing out in more than a dozen states as the supreme court overturned roe v. wade last month. justice aleto's premise that the constitution can protect the right to abortion only if it is quote, deeply rooted in our history and traditions, end quote. but tonight cynthia turner is calling that into question. she is a history professor at george mason university, and she joins us now. cynthia, i'm so glad you're here because as you know he wrote the idea in his opinion. the inescapable opinion is if abortion is not deeply rooted in a nation's history. this is a case from 1792 that you point to that might show how wrong that is. tell me about it. >> okay, well a, a while back i

wrote a book that revolved around scandal involving the termination of a pregnancy in an unwed woman in a very prominent virginia family. at the time i was really unclear about whether it was a purposeful abortion or it was a miscarriage. i was more interested in the scandal. but i was approached by an ob/gyn, dr. sarah pojy who had read my back and with her medical knowledge she absolutely convinced me that what happened was a purposeful abortion. and in the current context of 2022 the interesting part about that story is really that there were all of these very prominent virginia men, founding fathers, involved in this case. >> like thomas jefferson. >> thomas jefferson, john marshall, patrick henry. and not one of them thought that this abortion was a matter to be adjudicated in the courts, to be

discussed in public or to be in any way, you know, punished. >> it's fascinating because we often hear about, well, the founding fathers wanted and thinking about constitutional interpretation. we actually don't have a hypothetical. we know what people like thomas jefferson and the like actually thought. it was a private matter. it wasn't a matter for public discourse. and so if that's the case is the aleto opinion fundamentally flawed? >> well, as an opinion based in history, yes, indeed it is. because in the founding era there were no laws against abortion. the historical survey that the opinion uses to justify the idea that abortion was not quote-unquote, you know, deeply rooted in the american past is a single case from the colony, not even state of maryland, in the 1650s.

and then just sort of catapult ahead to the late 19th century, a century after the founding fathers were actually dead and gone to talk about state laws that were passed in that very different time period. so, i mean, i suppose that there are perhaps moral or religious arguments that you can make against abortion, but the historical argument simply, you know, it's not factual. >> got to read your book. thank you, professor. nice speaking with you today. i appreciate it. and speaking of history and of course what's happening now, the russian invasion continues to upset lives in ukraine. in fact, a third of the population has had to either flee their homes, and nearly six million people have left the country. we're featuring this week's cnn hero who's doing all she can to help. here's theresa gray. >> what we were expecting to see was large groups of people housed in tent cities, and

actually they are housing these refugees in individual dorm rooms. they've got food. they've got shelter, but the trauma is the same. >> they've lost almost everything. >> this is filled with women, children, and elderly. there is a flu outbreak currently that obviously affects the children. we also have pre-existing conditions. it isn't just about fixing a broken arm or giving you medicine, it's making that human connection. sometimes you need to hold their hand and walk them down a hallway and listen to them. we try to meet the needs of whatever presents to us. >> smile, everybody. >> human suffering has no borders. people are people and love is love. >> theresa is back in romania helping once again. to see her full story go to cnnheroes.com, and while you're there nominate someone you know to be a cnn hero. thanks for watching. our coverage continues.

[ "back to life" by soul ii soul ] what if you could change your surroundings with the touch of a finger? now you can. biometric id... inside the innovative, new c-class. in two seconds, a vacationer will say... yeah, i'm going to live here. only to realize... what if i can't sell my place? ♪ don't worry. sell it directly to opendoor and we'll help you buy your next one. aah. when life's doors open, we'll handle the house.

live from cnn world headquarters in atlanta, welcome to all you watching us here in the united states, canada, around around the world. i'm kim brunhuber. ahead on cnn newsroom, turkey helps broker a del to secure critical grain supplies for the world. we're live in istanbul with the latest. former trump aide steve bannon found guilty of contempt of congress. he says if he guess to jail, so be it. and wildfires burn across parts of europe amid the deadly heatwave around the world. we'll have details in a live report from rome and the cnn