good thursday evening to you. four point $1 million and counting, that is how much the lies and conspiracy theories spread by alex jones about the mass shooting at sandy hook elementary school. you will remember, it killed 20 children and six adults, will not cost him. a number that may grow. i am jim sciutto, internet for anderson. the texas jury has awarded damages was far less than what families had requested, however there's the question of punitive damages, plus the infowars host faces two more trials involving families of those killed and sandy hook. today, and attorney for the parents in the texas case told cnn that they are, quote, thrilled by the jury's decision. remember, jones is the man who claimed repeatedly, including directly to the parents murdered at sandy hook,

that it was all a lie and never happened. let's go to cnn's drew griffin, who has been found a trough in the start. drew, first break down the verdict for us. how exactly did the jury get to the figure of four point $1 million. >> the jury was asked a series of questions. keep in mind, they came in only for the punishment phase or money face. alex jones was fined liable by the fault in this case. one of the cases was for the father of -- he claimed definition. that defamation is what the jury awarded at least for them. that was $110,000. but for both parents, scarlett lewis and neil heslin, the jury said, for the inception of emotional distress, now and then the future, warning them each $2 million. as you say, that is far below the $150 million that

they asked for. jim, i just viewed an obnoxious video by alex jones that he put out on his website, as he begged for money from his viewers calling this a major victory for truth, alluding to the fact that this whole trial was a democratic party run plot against him. he is going to be unfairly treated in tomorrow's punitive damage phase. again, alex jones trying to spin this as a major victory for truth. >> his message has been consistent throughout. listen, i imagine this has never been a lot about the money for neil heslin and scarlett lewis? >> but this is about, particularly for neil heslin, who i've interviewed at length, this is about getting alex jones to shut up about his dead son. getting alex jones who never again say his son, who was shot and killed at sandy hook elementary school, wasn't shot and killed and wasn't even a real person. this

is about taking that stress, that emotional stress off his back and making sure that alex jones and all his followers realized that the sandy hook massacre was not a hoax, was not a false flag, it was a horrific terrible event. >> i've watched the parents speak in that courtroom, and it is beyond imagination what they have been through. drew, do stay with us, i want to bring in cnn legal analyst paul callan and the new york times elizabeth williams, who's in the courtroom today. she is the author of, sandy hook, an american tragedy and the battle for truth. paul, first legal answers to this. ten out of 12 jurors came to this decision. it was not unanimous, interestingly. what do you think of the verdict and dollar figure, given it was so far below what the parents had sought? >> i thought the verdict was a little bit on the

low side, but i am not stunned by it in any way, shape or form. i think, first of all, but people are forgetting is that there were 20 children and six adults, who were murdered on the horrible day in sandy hook. all of them have to be compensated by different verdicts. if the jury was to award enormous amount of money, the hundred $50 million in this particular verdict, what would be left for the other victims? he'd be out of money, and they'd be out of luck. i suspect that the jury is thinking about that and trying to come up with a fair number that could be used as a template going down the road to compensate other victims here. >> it's a smart point there. two parents of the many victims there. elizabeth, you are in the courtroom all week, i wonder, just watching from the outside, my stomach was turning during some of the moments here. describe what it was like today, when the verdict was read? any explanation for why jones was not in the courtroom for that moment? >> jim, jones

has been avoiding the courtroom for almost the entire trial. it was actually an error in scheduling that put him in front of scarlett lewis when she adressed him directly, insisting on speaking with him personally for those 90 minutes earlier this week. but, it was a sedated and quiet day because it was proceeded by so much emotionally powerful testimony, particularly by neil heslin and scarlett lewis. today was quite quiet and almost pensive. i think people did not quite know what to think because you have the hundred 50 million dollar request on the side of the families, and then you had alex jones saying he would only pay a single dollar for each of the eight charges in this case. >> goodness -- paul, there is another face to the trial, that is for punitive damages. explain what the jury looks at for this next step? i imagine

the points you made earlier regarding these damages my apply again, right? that there are other parents eventually to be compensated. >> that thought process would apply, but it is a very different situation than what happened today. today, they were going down the list to try to figure out how to compensate somebody for real damages. like medical bills, expenses and things like that, factor in with compensatory damages. what happens tomorrow is very different. it is about punishment and about sending a message. these are called punitive dmaages and in some places, exemplary damages. it is meant to send a message, not only to him, not only to alex jones for the horrific things that he did, but two other people across the country, who might be peddling false defamatory conspiracies that hurt other people. there is a price to be paid. the jury will tell us with that price is

tomorrow. i am suspecting that it will be a lot larger than this price. >> that is what i will ask briefly there. do they have a band that they have to operate in for punitive damages? >> they can award and a number they think is an appropriate number. i would tell you, when a public court looks at this types of cases, a lot of times, they look at what is the multiple of the compensatory damages. for instance, if it was a 10 million dollar compensatory verdict, maybe only 40 million or four times that, five times that, would be upheld as a punitive verdict. in texas, that four times roe has been used in a lot of cases. >> interesting guidelines. drew, yesterday, jones for the courtroom that any decision in excess of $2 million would, quote, sink in for wars. this new reporting, and you have been covering it for sometime, is that true? >> no, he makes anywhere from 55 to upwards of $70 million a year. i don't know how he

spends and erratically spends that money, but there is a significant income flow going into the operation, which sells, basically, these kind of nutritional supplements and manhood enhancements on his show. he was though, tonight, i was just watching this disgusting post he put up, begging his audience, saying that we are broke, we are going to broke, if you want to keep us on air, buy a t-shirt, buy some --, buy something. in other, words using this verdict as a sales pitch to try to keep him on air, because he says he is brooke. he is going out to prove that he's broke in bankruptcy court to order to get where that. we will have to wait and see, jim. >> a reminder, this information is big business. this is of cells, sadly. elizabeth, you are also in the courtroom earlier today. that is one the turning for the families but but their intention to cooperate with the

january six committee and law enforcement regarding that revelation in the courtroom yesterday, that the entire contents of jones's phone had been shared with prosecutors. what will happen in particular regarding that, and how did the judge handle it? >> so today, mark bankston, who's the attorney for the families in this case, he asked the judge for permission to release the contents of alex jones phone to the january six committee and law enforcement, should they request it. she still is considering his ask. he expects more news on that tomorrow, but he has every intention of delivering those content to the proper authorities, he says. >> yeah, yeah, his ex-wife interested as well. drew, jones facing a similar trial and connecticut. mark bankston, the lawyer for neil heslin and scarlett lewis, it's not contacted them there about medical records. how does that play into this? >> these are part of the records that were, quote unquote, inadvertently

passed on to him. they included medical records of some of the folks in connecticut that should have never been passed. now, in connecticut, the lawyer who passed them on apparently could be in some kind of trouble. we will have to see how all this shakes up. there is a lot of attorneys here pointing fingers in a lot of different ways. i am not quite sure what to make of it, as being bluster or real damage, but, certainly, a big mistake was made by alex jones attorney by releasing those phone records and not getting them back immediately. >> yeah, questions of perjury now raised in the courtroom. drew griffin, paul callan and elizabeth williams, as well, thanks so much to all of you. please be sure to catch drew's special report, megaphone for conspiracy, the alex jones story. that is tomorrow night at 11 pm eastern time on cnn. next for us tonight, exclusive new reporting on talks now

underway between lawyers for former president trump and the justice department, about the doj's january six criminal probe. later, another cnn exclusive, house select committee vice chair liz cheney, her thoughts on potential criminal charges against him. her and her father dick cheney now calling the former president a coward. because with miro, they could problem solve together, and find the answer that was right under their nose. or... his nose. (energetically) you guys are crushing it! see how the 8 grams of healthy protein in land o' frost premium meat gives you energy and keeps you full? let's get those buns toastin' bread. cheese. 10 more. go! ♪ i'm getting shredded! ♪ make the smart choice. land o'frost premium meat.

[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. this is koli. my foster fail (laughs). when i first started fostering koli i had been giving him kibble. it never looked or felt like real food. but with the farmer's dog you can see the pieces of turkey. it smells like actual food. i saw a difference almost overnight.

healthy poops, healthy dog, right? as he's aged, he's still quite energetic and youthful. i really attribute that to diet. you know, he's my buddy. my job is to keep my buddy safe and happy. ♪ get started at longlivedogs.com republicans in congress call them "entitlements." a "ponzi scheme." the women and men i served with in combat, we earned our benefits. just like people earned their social security and medicare benefits. but republicans in congress have a plan to end so-called "entitlements" in just five years. social security, medicare, even veterans benefits. go online and read the republican plan for yourself. joe biden is fighting to protect social security, medicare and veterans benefits. call joe biden and tell him to keep fighting for our benefits. (jackie) i've made progress with my mental health. so when i started having unintentional body movements called tardive dyskinesia... i ignored them. but when the twitching and jerking in my face and hands affected my day to day... i finally had to say, 'it's not ok.'

it was time to talk to my doctor about austedo. she said that austedo helps reduce td movements in adults... while i continue with most of my mental health medications. (vo) austedo can cause depression, suicidal thoughts, or actions in patients with huntington's disease. pay close attention to and call your doctor if you become depressed, have sudden changes in mood, behaviors, feelings, or have suicidal thoughts. common side effects include inflammation of the nose and throat, insomnia and sleepiness. don't take austedo if you have liver problems, are taking reserpine, tetrabenazine, or valbenazine. austedo may cause irregular or fast heartbeat, restlessness, movements mimicking parkinson's disease, fever, stiff muscles, problems thinking, and sweating. (jackie) talk to your doctor about austedo...it's time to treat td. td is not ok. visit askforaustedo.com.

exclusive new reporting tonight on the justice department january 6th criminal investigation. here's the latest indication that their probe is now focused on the highest echelon members of the former administration, up to, and including, the former president himself. in short, cnn has learned that his legal team is now speaking directly with doj officials a bit later in the program. another cnn exclusive, january six committee vice chair, liz cheney, updates us on the progress she and her colleagues are making. also on whether she thinks the former president ought to face criminal charges now if the evidence supports it. first, though, cnn reporting, our kara scannell

joins us with this on what trump's lawyers in the justice department are speaking about so kara, tell us exactly what we know about these conversations and the topic of those conversations with the doj. >> jim, sources tell our team that the justice department attorneys investigating january 6th in trump's legal team are having talks now that revolve around the issue of executive privilege. that is, whether the former president can shield certain communications that he had while president from federal prosecutors. now, this has become a significant issue in this investigation and it's very significant that these conversations are happening already. it shows that the justice department is very focused on the west wing and the activities and conversations that people have had with the former president. they have already subpoenaed for testimony before the grand jury to aid the former vice president, mike pence, and they've subpoenaed for testimony before the grand jury trump's former white house counsel, pat cipollone, and his

deputy, patrick philbin. so, this is a significant development what we are learning from our reporting to, is we've reached out to the trump spokes person, and they give us this indication that they are intending to dig in on this issue. here's what he told us. how can any future president ever have private conversations with his attorneys, counselors, and other senior advisers if any such advisors force either during or after the presidency, in front of an un-select committee or other an entity, and be forced to reveal those privilege confidential discussions? now, we've reported that the justice department is preparing to take this battle into court. and our sources say that they are confident that they will win. >> i understand you are also -- new details about the president, the former president himself, and his views on all this. what's he focused on when he's been speaking with his attorneys? >> well jim, sources tell us that trump has out meetings with his attorneys, they've warned him that they think there could be indictments in this investigation. and they've discussed with him but certain

defense strategies of his could be. now, in some of these briefings, we understand that trump has been very skeptical, has grilled his attorneys of whether he would actually face criminal charges. and has given the impression that he does not think that he would now, other sources tell us that he's had conversations with his inner circle and those people believe that he is more concerned about this than he's lead on. his attorneys have also advised him that he should cut off communications with certain people that are under scrutiny, weathers from the house select committee investigating january six, or potentially by the federal prosecutors. one of them, his former chief of staff, mark meadows. now, sources tell us that trump has defied that advice, that he's still in contact with meadows, though that relationship is not quite what it used to be. jim? >> let me ask you there, are using his attorneys are telling him the former president that they believe some people, including him, could be indicted, or just some people? >> that they believe that there are potential for criminal charges in this investigation. now, whether and how close to trump that becomes is still something

that remains to be seen. this is still an early stage of the investigation. but it has accelerated quickly. >> terrace canal, thanks so much for your reporting. joining us to break it down, and cnn contributor, and former nixon white house counsel, john dean. also cnn senior law enforcement analyst and former fbi deputy director, -- mccabe. first you, and, when you hear that, by the, way when you look at the trump lawyers or spokesman rather statement there saying, you know, seems to be claiming, as they have for sometime, it quite expensive interpretation of executive privilege. how significant do you think these conversations are between the doj and his lawyers? is it them reiterating their position on executive privilege? are the kind of exploring to see wet liability they may face? >> well jim, i think it's very significant. i think it's significant because what they are doing is digging in now, early, and aggressively, to, in essence, pick this fight over presidential privilege. so let's remember that the issue of presidential privilege matters greatly to the president, not just later, when there may be asking for his interview, or something along those lines, he wants to be

able to use presidential privilege to stop the testimony of other witnesses who have been subpoenaed in front of the grand jury, or to lay out some guidelines that the prosecutors might agree to adhere to, to avoid certain lines of questioning. so they are being very forward leaning, very aggressive, in trying to raise this issue. now, i think it's got to be indicative of the fact that the president is very concerned about protecting conversations he knows he had with many of these people. let's be clear, he doesn't care about preserving the sanctity of future presidents ability to confer with their advisers donald trump cares only about donald trump. and if his folks are digging in now to try to shield these conversations, it's because they know they

will be very damaging to him. >> john, this promises to be, i imagine, quite a lengthy legal fight over how far the executive privilege sands. but i thought that this was settled in the controversy you were involved in, the nixon impeachment, and the supreme court decided then that executive privilege does not extend to potential criminal behavior here. why are we facing this question again? >> what's happened recently, i think, it gave the trump people some encouragements that they might have privilege. in a case called trump versus thompson, where trump tried to see the national archives to get them to stop releasing all the papers they, indeed, have released to the january 6th committee. in the course of that decision, which was basically, they refused to take it on appeal at the supreme court, although kavanaugh noted that he thought there was a privilege of a former president. and he hinted that he might go that way, and

obviously, if he went that way, he would probably -- the very conservative majority of the court with him. so i think that's what they are trying to get to, get something they can get up before the supreme court. the law is really settled in the district of columbia on these issues, though. it'll be a real reach to get that to the supreme court. >> interesting you note that kavanaugh's comments that they are even more conservative, as you, know andy mccabe, justices, by some measures, on that court. would that extend even to criminal behavior though, right? weather is former president or current president, is there an exception for potential criminal behavior or might the court decide, you know what? those conversations are off limits. >> it's always possible that they could decide that, but, you know, the trump team has a much higher bar to get

over now that we are talking about shielding conversations in the context of a criminal investigation, a grand jury investigation. it's very different than in the context of a congressional subpoena, congressional subpoenas aren't -- sort of difference. congressional subpoenas are intrinsically part of the political process, which brings a different angle to this that justices might consider differently. we are out of those words right now. we are in the straight-up criminal process run by doj, in front of a grand jury, and that process is given enormous deference by the courts, and i think that's what led to this settled state of the law nbc that john just referred to. >> john, sources are telling cnn that trump's legal team has warned him, as you mentioned a little bit earlier, that indictments are possible. i want to play what former attorney general, eric holder, just told siriusxm about potential indictments in his view. have a listen. >> my guess is that by the end of

this process, you are going to see indictments involving high-level people in the white house, you are going to see indictments against people outside the white house who were advising them with regard to the attempt to steal the election, and i think hopefully, you are probably going to see the former president of the united states indicted as well. >> quite a position to take out. john, do you agree? >> i think it's a very solid position and highly potential. i think he's right on. he has a very high level view of it. but i think just as an observer of this process myself, you know, we've never seen conduct like this in the white house this is way beyond watergate and the watergate special prosecutors were prepared to prosecute richard nixon on much lesser charges. so, i'm not surprised that mr. holder has taken a position. >> john dean, andy mccabe, thanks for joining us tonight. coming up next for us tonight, a conversation with the vice chair of the january 6th select committee, republican, liz cheney, her

thoughts on whether the former president should face criminal prosecution if the evidence supports it. and her concerns about the missing text messages from the secret service, dhs, and the pentagon and the videotape boost that she's now getting from her dad. plus an extra boost of support for your immunity, brain, and hair, skin & nails. new one a day multi+.

♪ this... is the planning effect. this is how it feels to know you have a wealth plan that covers everything that's important to you. this is what it's like to have a dedicated fidelity advisor looking at your full financial picture. making sure you have the right balance of risk and reward. and helping you plan for future generations. this is "the planning effect" from fidelity.

heyyy! (steins breaking) your cousin. ♪ from boston. ♪ it means, “ok-to-beer-fest”. another sam octoberfest? nein. make it ten! i like this guy. (cheers) with xfinity internet, you get advanced security that helps protect you at home and on the go. you feel so safe, it's as if... i don't know... evander holyfield has your back. i wouldn't click on that.

hey, thanks! we got a muffin for ed! all right! you don't need those calories. 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. days after supporters of the

former president exacted their latest parole of revenge on one of the ten house republicans who voted to impeach trump, all eyes now turn to the biggest target, congresswoman liz cheney. the vice chair of the january six committee faces wyoming primary voters in 12 days. she's facing an uphill fight. today, her campaign released a new ad featuring her father, dick cheney, the former vice president who represented wyoming congress return years. in it, he lashes out at the former president. >> he tried to steal the last election. with his lies and balance the keepers of power, after voters rejected him. he is a coward, a real man would not lie to his supporters. he lost this election, and he lost a big. i know it, he knows it and deep down, i think most republicans know it. >> in an exclusive interview with cnn, congresswoman liz cheney sat down with our chief national affairs analyst, casey hunt, in wyoming. they discussed

cheney's role of the january six committee investigating trump, including his attempts to overturn the election but also whether the justice department should not prosecute him criminally for his actions? >> do you think that the biden justice department is gonna stop him from becoming president again? >> i think that the justice department will follow the facts and evidence. i think that they clearly seen significant activity in terms of the individuals that they now have testifying in front of a grand jury in d. c.. i think they are taking their obligations seriously. i think we have certainly seen in our hearings, when you had a former attorney general, former white house counsel, former acting attorney general, former deputy attorney general, when you have individuals who served donald trump, were nominated by him and served at the highest levels, who have testified in front of the committee and made clear, for example, as the

cippellone, that president trump did not want people to leave the capitol. no, mr. cipollone made that point, trying to protect executive privilege, but i don't think anybody had any doubt about what he was saying. i think that the justice department is, from what i can tell from the outside, committed to following the facts and the evidence, and they're taking it seriously. >> some have expressed concern that prosecuting former president trump would turn him into a martyr and potentially add to his political strength with a base that follows him pretty rapidly. do you share that concern? we have any concern that a prosecution would strengthen donald trump's political hand? >> i don't think that it's appropriate to think about it that way because the question for us is, are we a nation of laws? are we a country where no one is above the law? and what do the facts

and evidence show? certainly, i have been very clear, i think he's very guilty of the most serious dereliction of duty in the presidents history. you had a federal judge in california say that it is more likely than not that he and john eastman committed two crimes. i think that we will continue to follow facts. i think the department of justice will do that, but then to make decisions about prosecution, understanding what it means if the facts and evidence are there and decide not to prosecute. how do we don't call ourselves a nation of laws? i think that is a very serious, serious balancing. >> it sounds like you think that the evidence is there and that if they don't follow that evidence, that is a dereliction of duty on their part. >> the committee has been very thorough in laying out much of what we know. there is much more that we have not yet

shared in hearings. we anticipate we will share in the fall. we will also make decisions about criminal referrals. ultimately, this isn't that the prosecution is up to the justice department. i would anticipate that the committee would have an opinion that. >> cnn is reporting that the pentagon texts from january six are missing. this is at the department of homeland security and secret service seem to have lost text. you think there was malicious intent by the pentagon deletion of texts that day? >> i don't know that is the case. i have seen evidence of malicious intent. i do think that it is concerning that you have text messages apparently, this is based on the news reporting, text messages apparently, so with the senior officials, people like kash patel, apparently, not available. as the committee, we will get to the bottom of that. we have been working with

secret service in the situation has been reported, were text messages are not available or were erased off of phones. but we received hundreds of thousands of documents on the secret service. and a significant information from them that the committee is going through and will use in our investigation and as we conduct interviews of additional secret service agents. >> how much would you say you have learned that were unexpected? you obviously have a lot more information than the general public does in your head about what happened that day, but when he started these hearings earlier this year, did you have any idea how much you know about this one? >> it's been more information and more sophisticated and broader reaching effort than i understood coming into it. i think all of us in the

committee have had that same reaction, which is that there is so much more that was happening in multiple, different areas, whether it was the pressure on state officials or the pressure on the justice department, or the attempt to corrupt the vice president himself. i think the volume of information has been more than i expected and, certainly, obviously, we came into this very concerned. the information itself has not lessened my concern, at all. >> are you in contact with the former vice president mike pence as you learn new information? >> no, we had discussions with this council, obviously about his interactions with the committee but not with him personally. >> what is your assessment of how he is handling running for president? he's out there posing as a president, but like

you, he's not criticizing former president trump. >> well i would say is that vice president pence was a hero on january 6th, and that is very clear that there was tremendous pressure from a number of different places on him, and he did his duty. he did not succumb to the pressure. if he had succumb to the pressure, things would have been very different. so, i think that we owe him gratitude for how he conducted himself and for his refusal to do with donald trump wanted him to do, which would have been illegal and unconstitutional. >> you think he wouldve been an ally in a fight to keep trump out of office? >> let me just leave it where i did. i think his actions on january six are ones

for which the nation should be careful. >> there has been a lot of speculation about how the committee is or is not making an impact with the american people, especially when it comes to this question of whether donald trump becomes the republican nominee and eventually, potentially the president of the united states again. do you think the committee's work is moving the needle politically? >> i don't, again, think about it that way. i think about it -- i think it is important that the committee's work not be viewed through a political lens, and that is not how i think about that. i think about it in terms of whether or not we are reaching people, who understand how serious the threat was and continues to be. i think in that regard, we have done a job that i am proud of. >> you think that there are not people out there in the country that share these concerns that you have and many people who are at the capitol that day have. are there enough americans out there to move the needle? >> i

think that the vast majority of americans understand how important it is that we have peaceful transitions of power. at the heart of who we are as americans and the heart of our republic is a peaceful transition of power. no matter what your party affiliation is, you have to have a president who will guarantee that. donald trump did not. i do think that, as more and more facts become known, people are paying attention, and understanding how serious there is. >> casey hunt joins me now. kc, 12 days, cheney faces a tough primary challenge. i wonder how she feels about her chances then. what did she say? >> jim, we talked about that at some length. she did tell me that

she intends to win her primary. you are seeing her campaign there, but i think that they are aware that they are facing an extraordinarily uphill battle. when i talk to sources both close to the cheney camp but also elsewhere and wyoming, it seems pretty clear that she is on the way to losing that campaign. part of it is that she has been hamstrung and campaigning for security reasons in some cases, because she faced so many death threats around january six. the reality is she is in a much different place in the base of the party. that rabid base that supports the former president is very active in wyoming. it is really unlikely, i think at this point that she will be able to overcome that. >> what would a loss, if it were to happen mean for the work on the january six committee? of course, it put a time limit on air, right? should be out of office but next year. would there be more time to focus on that? did she discuss? that >> i think the working assumption is that the whole committee has the same deadline because in the event that republicans take back control of the house of

representatives, which has seemed likely, then the committees openly likely to be dissolved by incoming speaker kevin mccarthy or another republican leader. i think for cheney, the challenge is going to be maintaining the megaphone that she wants to have. she has said repeatedly, and she said in another portion of our interview that her mission is to keep donald trump from getting back into the oval office. obviously, losing a political race, she loses a platform. that will be a blow to that mission. i don't think it will mean that she is going to take a step back from that. i do think that there are a lot of options on the table. she clearly has not made up her mind about whatever political future is. i would not be surprised if you saw a presidential run from liz cheney at some point in the future, especially if donald trump is back in the fray. >> casey hunt, thank you so much. >> thanks jim, good to see you. >> coming up next, now that a russian judge a sentence wnba star brittney griner to nine years in prison, keep in mind for less than a gram of cannabis oil, the question is, what will it take to get her

home? i speak to the cia's former top russia hand about a potential prisoner swap and how it might come about? the step up. prep up. to help keep you free from the risk of hiv. descovy for prep, the smallest prep pill available, is a once-daily prescription medicine that helps lower the chances of getting hiv through sex. it's not for everyone. descovy for prep has not been studied in people assigned female at birth. talk to your doctor to find out if it's right for you. descovy is another way to prep. descovy does not prevent other sexually transmitted infections, so it's important to use safer sex practices and get tested regularly. you must be hiv-negative to take descovy for prep. so, you need to get tested for hiv immediately before and at least every 3 months while taking it. if you think you were exposed to hiv or have flu-like symptoms, tell your doctor right away. they may check to confirm you are still hiv-negative. 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. the most common side effect was diarrhea. tell your doctor about all the medicines and supplements you take, or if you have kidney or liver problems, including hepatitis. if you have hepatitis b, do not stop taking descovy without talking to your doctor. ask your doctor if descovy for prep is right for you. get help paying for descovy for prep. learn more at descovy.com. ♪ ♪ the thing that's different about a vrbo vacation home. you always have the whole place to yourself. no stranger at the dinner table making things awkward. or in another room taking up space. it's just you and your people. because why would you ever share your vacation home with someone you wouldn't share your vacation with. ♪ ♪

when pain says, “it's time to go home” “i say, “not yet”. ♪ ♪ aleve. who do you take it for?

the outcome was expected, the sentence, extreme. a moscow area court today found wnba star, brittney griner, guilty of drug smuggling. the judge sentenced her to nine years in a penal colony, all for what's griner told the court was an honest mistake. she was arrested at the airport in moscow with less than a gram, less than a gram of cannabis oil. the sentencing comes after cnn reporting of a proposed prisoner swap for griner and another american held by russia, paul whelan. >> we urge the russians, again, to seriously consider that proposal. to act on it, and let's get these two americans home, where they belong. >> separately today, federal officials are about to get their hands on alexander vinocur, a russian national facing money laundering charges here. he's being extradited from greece after a long battle with russia over him.

perspective now from someone who knows how these things tend to work in russia, steve hall, former chief of russia operations at the cia. steve, good to have you. we've seen these trials before in russia, they have judges, they have terms, they have various guidelines for sentencings, et cetera. but we also know that the kremlin influences these things very directly at times. so when americans watch this trial, how should they view this outcome? >> you know, it's not even really influenced, jim. this is entirely controlled. it's a state managed, you know, production, really. even the defense attorneys which, you know, people have been saying oh, they were upset that they didn't get what they wanted. -- everybody has a role that the kremlin gives them and they know precisely how far they can go and precisely how far they can't go. in the case of the defense attorneys, it's just trying to convince people like you and be in the west and hey, they have legitimate justice system in russia, which they do not. >> you see, listen, russia have it has a history of creating hostages, foreigners

held there, and also crushing dissidents, certainly if you look at the case of navalny and others. is this and should we see this through the prism of the broader u.s. russia relationship at this point? including the war in ukraine, is russia using this as leverage to punish the u.s. over that conflict? >> absolutely. that's really what this is all about. this is the farthest thing from, you know, whether it's griner had any cannabis on her or, you know, that is all irrelevant to putin, who, by the way, has a chip on his shoulder really since the end of the soviet union. so of course, now he's upset because of ukraine and because of how it's not going particularly well for them. largely because of western, you know, western arms. you have to remember that it wasn't that long ago that russian athletes were banned from the olympics because of drug abuse. that was state sponsored. so all of these things come together for putin, who has a very strong sense of vengeance, and is basically saying to himself, i'm going to extract the highest price that i possibly can for griner and

whelan, and others. >> now even in the midst of this trough, if you want to call it, that crisis against russia relations, we do have a prisoner swap earlier this year. how likely is it that in exchange can come together now? as you, know the americans already offered viktor bout, a convicted arms smuggler, the russians tried to, that, by the, wait for griner and paul whelan, the russians that hey, how about this convicted murderer murderer held by germany as well? is it just about finding the right exorbitant price at this point? >> i think now is the time, jim, when real negotiations are going to start. i think it's going to be a very much behind the scenes. of course, part of that calculation is always, how much can get -- whether it's on the american side or whether it's on the russian side, publicly? but overall, i'm cautiously optimistic that a deal will be reached, simply because this is how vladimir putin and the kremlin play the game. they want to extract the highest price to get with they want, whether it's another person, whether it's a guy like viktor bout or others who are

loyal to the kremlin, or whether it's just also a bit of emotional satisfaction, frankly, of vengeance for all his, as they see them, dishonourable things that have been torn to russia. >> not so much a legal process. more a case of extortion. steve hall, always good to have you on. >> thanks, jim. >> coming, up federal charges filed against for current and former louisville, kentucky police officers involved in that fatal raid at breonna taylor's apartment. the allegations from the doj, coming up. your record label is taking off.

but so is your sound engineer. you need to hire. i need indeed. indeed you do. indeed instant match instantly delivers quality candidates matching your job description. visit indeed.com/hire announcer: type 2 diabetes? discover the power of 3 in the ozempic® tri-zone. in my ozempic® tri-zone, i lowered my a1c, cv risk, and lost some weight. announcer: ozempic® provides powerful a1c reduction. in studies, the majority of people reached an a1c under 7 and maintained it. ozempic® lowers the risk of major cardiovascular events such as stroke, heart attack, or death in adults also with known heart disease. and you may lose weight. adults lost up to 14 pounds. ozempic® isn't for people with type 1 diabetes. don't share needles or pens, or reuse needles. don't take ozempic® if you or your family ever had medullary thyroid cancer, or have multiple endocrine neoplasia syndrome type 2, or if allergic to it. stop ozempic® and get medical help right away if you get a lump or swelling

in your neck, severe stomach pain, or an allergic reaction. serious side effects may include pancreatitis. gallbladder problems may occur. tell your provider about vision problems or changes. taking ozempic® with a sulfonylurea or insulin may increase low blood sugar risk. side effects like nausea, vomiting, and diarrhea may lead to dehydration, which may worsen kidney problems. join the millions already taking ozempic®. ask your health care provider about the ozempic® tri-zone. announcer: you may pay as little as $25 for a 3-month prescription.

the fbi has arrested four former and current louisville kentucky police officers. they are now facing civil rights charges, as well as other counts this, in connection with the 2020 fatal shooting of breonna taylor. the 26-year-old black woman was killed in the botched police raid in her apartment. the case, you may remember, sparked nationwide protests. joining us now with details, cnn's josh campbell. josh, first tell us what these charges and hail exactly. >> well, this is significant, jim these are the first federal charges in the killing of breonna taylor back in march of

2020. and when the justice department alleges is that two of these officers falsified the affidavit that was used to get the search warrant that officers wanted to go to her home, as part of a drug trafficking investigation. a third officer is charged with conspiracy in that incident. i spent a career in law enforcement -- numerous warrants. i think most people will be surprised to learn the power that officers have. they go before a judge. the judge doesn't check every single fact, but relies on their integrity, as they swear in oath. here, the justice department says that they violated that oath and actually falsified the records that were used. the attorney general and other department officials spoke about that earlier today. >> the affidavit falsely claimed that officers had verified that the target of the alleged drug trafficking often operation that received packages at miss taylor's address. in fact, the defendants jeans and -- knew that was not true. >> that false affidavit set in motion events that led to miss

taylor's death, when other lmpd officers executed that warrant. >> now, a fourth officer is also charged with allegedly using excessive use of force on the date of that rate. authorities say that he fired into a window at taylor's home, that was covered by blinds and curtains. ten rounds, of course, that violates all the tenets of law enforcement. you have to know what it is that your shooting at what is around your target? you are responsible for every round. here, authorities allege that this officer use excessive use of force and just firing into that room without knowing what was behind it, jim. >> what's interesting about this as well is that some of the officers, not just accused of lying to obtain a warrant, but conspiracy after the fact to cover it up. tell us the details. >> yeah, this is so striking. again, authorities are not just saying they lied to get the weren't. they are also saying that after this botched 2020 raid, two of the officers actually met in a garage, discussing how they are going to get their stories together, to try to evade investigators allegedly. and

again, it's just so stunning that these officers that are trusted with enforcing the law, it's alleged that they not only did this actually cover-up after the fact, but then lied to investigators as well. of course, we reach out to their attorneys for comment, but significant charges here by the justice department. >> yeah, -- learned before and after the fact. josh campbell, thanks so much. and we will be right back. ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ "shake your thang" by salt n pepa it's hard to believe mint's new family plan is just $15 a month per person. so, i've asked my wife and plan member, to back me up. you're not my wife. no, i just stand in for her on set during the boring stuff. the boring stuff? are you kidding, i'm announcing a family plan where just two lines gets everyone the $15 price. i'm literally revolutionizing the category!

yeah, she owes me huge for this one. can you please let her know i'm upset? really? no. don't tell her i said that. do you want some more? wait till you see me on the downhill. see you at home. enjoy advanced safety at the lexus golden opportunity sales event.

♪ (customer) save yourself?! money with farmers. (burke) that's not wrong. when you bundle your home and auto policies with farmers, you save yourself up to twenty percent. (customer) that's something. (burke) get a whole lot of something with farmers. kinda creepy. ♪ we are farmers. bum-pa-dum, bum-bum-bum-bum ♪ the news is not going anywhere.

let's hand it over to my good friend laura coats and cnn tonight. laura? >> nice seeing you, jim, 12 hours apart, 9 am, it is wonderful odds to see you. thank you so much, i am laura coats, and this is cnn tonight. no conspiracy theories here, just the hard truth. alex jones has to pay up. these families, of course can never ever be made whole for what they lost, but with compensatory damages, the jury and efforts to try. he now has the pay the parents of the sandy hook school victims more than 4 million dollars for the cruel and widespread and relentless lies that added to their heartache over a tenured period. now, of course, this falls way shorter than the hundred 50 million that they asked for in compensatory damages, saught by little jesse lewis's parents. a number of their attorney said that it came from a number of peop