but no one makes a move to neutralize the shooter, though clearly some officers know time of the essence. >> we've got to get in there, he keeps shooting. we've got to get in there. >> and it's clear police know where the gunman is. >> okay, guys, he's armed in the building. it's going to be in the building on the process. >> you can watch the "a.c. 360" special report, what really happened in uvalde sunday, 8:00 p.m. eastern, here on cnn. the news continues. let's hand it over to the great laura kocoates. >> have a wonderful weekend, my friend. thank you, everyone. i'm laura coates. this is cnn tonight. look, we've all been waiting to see what lies might cost, eventually. we know what they might cost a

family, maybe a country, maybe a democracy. the toll, the human misery. but the question for a texas jury today is what it should cost conspiracy theorist alex jones. we now have our answer. nearly $50,. now, recall jones was already ordered to pay more than $4 million this what's called compensatory damages just yesterday. that to the parents of a beautiful 6-year-old child, a little boy killed in the 2012 attack. but today, they added $45.2 million on top of that, awarded him punitive or the punishment side of damages. why? for spewing lies that have caused unthinkable arm to one family of many families, destroyed by the sandy hook massacre. $50 million. and that's just one case. he has two more defamation trials awaiting him, so this is really far from over for the far-right conspiratorial host of

infowars. this has really been a case that centered on lies, and throughout this trial, it felt like so many additional lies kept dpgetting exposed, like those texts that jones said he didn't know where they were, didn't know they existed, all of a sudden surfacing in the inboxes of lawyers from the other side, after his own lawyers accidentally hit "send." was he caught yet again today in even more lies? earlier this week, he was beggy for mercy to a jury, saying this very thing. >> any compensation above $2 million will sink us. >> well, "sink us." now, he argued an award of more than $2 million would put him in financial ruin. and then last night, still trying to paint himself as some kind of a pauper, he said this -- >> $4.2 million.

now, that's more money than my company and i personally have. i don't have all of these millions of dollars they claim i have. hundreds of millions of dollars we don't have. >> that's fascinating. because an economist, who testified at his trial today, well, he begged to differ about what the "we "was in this scenario. he went through methodically all the forensics of jones' finances and estimated to the jury that not only does jones have $4.2 million, he may have a net worth as much as $270 million. so where is all of that money? this exist argued that jones tries to hide his wealth with personal loans and shell companies. >> the way the shell company would apply in this case is an internal oat of affiliates that alex jones set up. alex jones knows where the money is. he knows where that money went and he knows that he's going to

eventually benefit by that money. >> he actually listed nine companies that jones controls. now, look at all of them on the screen there. nine companies. now, this financial expert who was testifying also said that last year, the year that jones was found liable for his default for his very harmful behavior, he started moving $11,000 a day into one of his companies, and then withdrew $62 million, as well. you heard me right. he withdrew $62 million. so, would more than $2 million really put jones in a place of financial ruin, if he actually has $270 million, somehow, according to that witness, stashed in different places? as of today, he's about to be poorer. reaction now from a high-profile attorney who works on defamation cases. ken kertell was an attorney

sarah palin in her libel lawsuit against "the new york times" and hulk hogan for his lawsuit against gawker. last time we spoke, we were talking about the sarah palin case, and here we are with alex jones. i just wonder, when you hear the amounts of money that are being talked about, compensatory damages, $4.1, the idea of now the exdent of that amount, are you thinking one, will this stick, and two, what is the trend that's being set? >> good evening, laura, and thanks for having me back. so these cases generally are what i call outrage cases and the conduct in them is usually very aggressive, offensive-type conduct. and in that respect, juris can -- it happened in hogan, where we got an emotional distress award of $60 million. and our punitive award was only

$25, because at that time, gawker's represented net wort was thing $150 or whatever and the law would have bankrupted them. you can't -- most states will have a law that say that puntives cannot be used to bankrupt a company, which is why there's the discussion of net worth. the numbers don't offend me. whether they hold up becomes a by-product of texas law, where they're trying it. and that usually is going to be somewhat well-established state law on the relationship that pun ties bear towards the compee penpe compensatory award. but there are exceptions to that. the numbers do not offend me. they hear the numbers thrown around by net worth analyst of a forensic accountant, they hear hundreds of millions, and this is the province we give the jury to punish for conduct. >> on that notion, though -- on

that notion, i want to dig into that, because you're calling it the outrage cases. and i think it absolutely, it sparks outrage to think about the level of defamation, which of course, he was found to be liable for, but also the duration, the extent of it. i know that his attorney wanted him to calculate it from the idea that it was like $14,000 an hour for every single hour he talked about it, to the tune of about $250,000. they far exceeded that notion. you have an opinion about the idea of how these outrage cases continue to be in the headlines and and perhaps setting a difficult precedent in the future. what's your thought? >> i wouldn't call the precedent difficult. i think what we're seeing, we're in august right now. we have seen three high-profile national-level speech privacy cases. hogan was a privacy case, as you

correctly stated, but with a speech defense. these other ones, today, they characterize this as a defamation case. when i looked at the default judgment, the default was on an intentional infliction of emotional distress claim. i don't know that i would call the trend difficult or disturbing. i think what ki would call it i the by-product of this technology we have, where information is traveling at speeds we never anticipated before. and being disseminated so broadly, that we haven't accounted for it in the law. and juries have taken that and accounted for it. >> literally accounted for it. but for many, this case is even broader. obviously, it's about the tragedy of what happened in sandy hook and it relates to the parents of this little boy and the personal lawsuit that's involved here. but broadly, people are talking about this case in the context

of how one punishes disinformation, lies. how they punish and hold accountable when it's time to pay the piper. we've seen really that train has left the station in so many respects about people feeling emboldened to continue to say things, to make them turn a dollar on what they're doing and saying to their advantage. whether it's political or otherwise, when you look at it from that context wi, do you se reason why this was the tipping point? >> i've thought about it a lot, and i had a perspective on this case that was outside of the vacuum of this case, right? if you remember, we talked about deb heard and my constant refrain was, this isn't a speech case. i went back and looked at it and i still don't know that the speech was actionable. this case to me felt more like an intentional infliction case, which was the default. what in some respects, i don't get into metrics when i argue these, trying to, this many false statements, this many offensive comments times this amount.

you get a sense that there's an anger and a rage, and i think, i'll use two examples in hogan. people identified with the idea that privacy rights, being a threat in an internet age. in other words, the idea that by participating on these platforms, we somehow were being construed as giving up our privacy is not going to work. and they were outraged at the idea that they couldn't use social media and things like that to visit with friends, whatever, without getting this argument from a gawker that we were using the first amendment to publish speech and whatever, right? and i think that resonated. in a case like this, you're seeing a pushback to the idea that this new type of journalism that basic, you can do it on a grand scale, like in info wars, but you can do it with a computer, an internet connection, and an attitude. and we just haven't -- we haven't developed jurisprudence. we haven't developed laws that are meant to compensate beyond these common law claims.

and so when i say outrage, i think it's people saying, wait a minute, do we want to be in this society, right? we want to punish this. we want to make it, no, we don't like this, before the next question becomes, when is it entertainment? when is it journalist, and when are we going to do something about section 230 to get this under control, because you have to apply this. you can't just say, you know, extreme right-wing conduct is going create this, but, does the analysis become any different if it's extreme left-wing conduct. >> and i'm going to turn that to our panel. i think that's a really important point to think about. the idea, is this really a left/right issue or a right/wrong issue when it comes, the idea of the law catching up, as you have said, to what actually happens. ken turkel, thank you so much. >> laura, thanks. nice talking to you again. >> for me too. and for more on the political and legal aspects of this case, i want to bring in abby finken hour, eliot williams, and alice

stewart. and we just got new audio from scarlett lewis, the mother of jesse lewis, about what she was thinking as she was testifying. listen. >> you know, when i got up on the witness stand and looked at alex, i thought -- you know, i had been so nervous, i think that obvious, before i faced alex. but once i looked into his eyes, i realized, that's what jesse did to the shooter who came into his first grade classroom after just having murdered his principal and guidance counselor and he stood up to him, adam lanza, and saved d nine of his classmates' lives and i hope i did that incredible courage justice when i was able to confront alex jones, who was also a bully, and i hope that that inspires other people to do the same in their own lives. we all have the capacity for the

courage that jesse showed. and sometimes it does take courage to show love, but we do all that capacity. >> that's just amazing. to think about the idea of standing up to a bully and thinking how to see it through what her son last saw before the tragedy. i want to turn to our panel now. it's really heavy to think about. and it's really difficult to even conceptualize, as we see the mass shootings and school shootings in particular. we can't look at this in a vacuum, at all. nor can we look at the idea of disinformation and lies and profiteering off of that in a vacuum. what is happening in the outrage that our guest spoke about is even broader than what happened in newtown, connecticut, right? >> you know, laura, this past semester, i was a fellow at georgetown at the institute of politics and i used to tell the students every single week, there is this blurry line between fake news and reality. and this idea that the guy

posting craziness and lies on facebook or infowars is actually a real news source. the most beautiful line today in the closing argument is speech is free, but lies, you pay for. and you ought to pay for lies. and hopefully what happened today will be a deterrent to these liars and conspiracy peddlers on the internet who are spewing this stuff and people are buying it. >> that's an important point that the attorney made for these parents, which was, we have the freedom of speech. we can speak and that's the great thing about this country. but when you spread lies and misinformation, there's punishment for that. and what we're seeing now, this is the first, i think, a very important step in monetizing misinformation. when you put out misinformation and lies, there are monetary consequences for this. and alex jones is finding out very abruptly that this is what the consequences are for his actions. and ken made an interesting point about the difference between the vast difference between the compensatory damage and the punitive damage.

and he says, he's not upset by this. the punitive damages today were much greater than what was handed down yesterday. but when we know that alex jones has a worthy of $270 million, i'm not upset by a $50 million punishment. >> and to your point, laura, i don't think this is about right or left. it is about right and wrong. and you can have your opinions, but you aren't entitled to your own facts, and to go then terrorize and take advantage of people and grift off of lies and misinformation. and that, again, i think, why this is so monumental. and i think there should be a lot of folks around the country paying attention to what is happening here and making sure that they understand the difference as well. >> what shocks me, too, you all touched on this point. i remember beginning my career as a media lawyer, and sort of vetting comments that have been made and thinking to myself about how you have media networks and et cetera who are talking about the first amendment. and we know how people misuse that.

everyone, your mother is telling you to shut up has not violated the first amendment. it's now happening. i would know. but people like alex jones or people who are saying, i'm a journalist, because i said something and people responded to it, that's enough. and i want the protections of the media, without any of the requirements of journalistic integrity. that's also a lesson here, right? that people can think about, what are the consequences. but will this actually put the fear of the judicial gods in people? >> you know, i don't think so, because when we think about the first amendment and talk about the first amendment, set aside the fact that it was written however many hundred years ago, the law as it developed was for newspapers and print and television and not being able to click a button and post lies around the world. and ken said this in his comments before, it's just a different world in terms of the ability to disseminate information. how is that going to affect how people proceed on the internet? i don't know. but look, $50 million is a lot

of money. >> and when he put out this misinformation and wrong information about the these shootings, and lies, this young child, he not only was shot by this person, he stood up and protected his friends and was a hero in this swrituation. and for alex jones to dismiss it, it is really frustrating. what you two know in the court, in law, if you're found guilty of something and you show some semblance of remorse, there's a slight bit of leniency when it comes to sentencing or damages. he's shown no remorse, no regret, no even idea that he wanted to pull back on this information. what he's done is he has taken this as an opportunity to sell products and make even more money on this. i tortured myself to go to infowars tonight to see what kind of stuff they have on there. and they are talking about how

this is harmful to him and how this is kind of a witch hunt against him and going against him for speaking out. and they are making money off of this, selling these snake oil products on that site. i'm just surprised there are people that are still buying into this nonsense. >> on that point, alice, it's a really good point about how you're moptizing it. but also, for anyone who says that this is just about a kind of censorship and trying to attack someone who's in the right wing, he has spewed a great many conspiracy theories over the course of his career. this is the straw that didn't just break the camel's back, this is where the law and the rubber met the road. it's not about silencing him entirely. it's about, when you violated a law or violated a notion of intentional infliction of emotional distress, that's why he got dinged. no one's telling him to stop every other time. on that note, everyone, stick around, i'll get more into this and good news on this friday, jobs, jobs, like, you get a job and you get a job, oprah-style jobs. i've always wanted to do that.

it was cars, right? well, you get a job and you get a job and you get a job. more than expected job growth, completely blowing away economists' predictions. should he be getting more credit, especially if it's a very big week of victories? we'll debate it, next. and my oprah impersonation. ♪ it wasn't me by shaggy ♪ you're never responsible for unauthorized purchases on your scover card.

the unknown is not empty. it's a storm that crashes, and consumes, replacing thought with worry. but one thing can calm uncertainty. an answer. uncovered through exploration, teamwork, and innovation. an answer that leads to even more answers. mayo clinic. you know where to go. hybrid work is here. it's there. it's everywhere. but for someone to be able to work from here, there has to be someone here making sure everything is safe. secure. consistent. so log in from 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. this is john. he hasn't worked this hard to only get this far with his cholesterol. taken with a statin, leqvio can lower bad cholesterol and keep it low with two doses a year. side effects were injection site reaction,

joint pain, urinary tract infection, diarrhea, chest cold, pain in legs or arms, and shortness of breath. with leqvio, lowering cholesterol becomes just one more thing life throws your way. ask your doctor about leqvio. lower. longer. leqvio. ♪ choosing miracle-ear was a great decision. like when i decided to host family movie nights. miracle-ear made it easy. i just booked an appointment and a certified hearing care professional evaluated my hearing loss and helped me find the right device calibrated to my unique hearing needs. now i enjoy every moment. the quiet ones and the loud ones. make a sound decision. call 1-800 miracle now, and book your free hearing evaluation. ♪ got my hair got my head ♪ introducing new one a day multi+. a complete multivitamin plus an extra boost of support for your immunity, brain, and hair, skin & nails. new one a day multi+.

well, what a week for president biden. we'll start with today, and of course, what's going on, it's been an incredible time in the jobs reports, as well, and the numbers. the u.s. economy adding over half a million jobs just last month, which more than doubled expectations. the world's most-wanted terrorist, killed in a cia drone strike that biden authorized. the democrats' climate and tax bill back on track after senator sinema gave the green light. and gas prices down for more than 50 straight days. this is called a string of wins

for the president, who had been battling very low poll numbers. let's talk about it now with abby finkenhauer, eric enton is with us and abby stewart. abby, do you think this will change the trajectory or thoughts about democrats maybe being able to maintain the majority? >> look, i think this week in part particular, when you saw what happened in kansas, the turnout, people paying attention, the hope that we saw again and to see the jobs numbers come out. also to say this, you know, president biden has gotten more done, definitely more than our last president and more than most other presidents have at this point in time in his tenure. i mean, something that we keep losing sight of, too, and i don't think it gets talked about enough, how incredible it was that he got infrastructure done when he did. i think that's also a piece of why we have the economy hanging

on the way that it is. and now not just hanging on, but doing well and soaring and seeing the job numbers where they're at, the unemployment being the lowest it's been in # ooh years. he deserves credit for that, his administration deserves credit for that. and i think it's something that we need to continue to push forward here and see what happens next. >> and yet, i wonder, harry, do the poll numbers reflect that credit that she thinks is due? >> it depends which polls you look at. i can always give you a poll that tells you that you want to hear. >> give us that one, or the other one. >> look, the president is still unpopular. perhaps he has gotten a little bit of a bounce over the last few weeks. he was at like 37%. now he's at like 39%. i guess 39 is better than 37, right? but the one thing we have certainly seen over the past few months is that congressional democrats have seen their poll numbers improve.

we've seen on the generic plat, you know, a few months ago, the republicans were up by three points. now that generic ballot is even. and to be honest with you, i'm much more you'd to the fact of seeing a congressional ballot come and meet the president's approval rating. but instead, it's going the other way, where instead of the congressional ballot becoming worse for democrats, it's becoming better. i think it depends which polling metric you look at? . >> i applaud abby's optimism. it's been a good day for the biden administration, a pretty good week with regard to some successes, but this comes on the heels of what we had last week. we have historic inflation, we have the second quarter of gdp at a rise, which is by textbook recession. we have good gas prices -- but we also have to see, what are the feds going to do with these jobs numbers. how is that going to impact what they do, in terms of interest rates.

i am encouraged by the numbers we're seeing today, but i still see the fact that we're in a recession. and that's not turning around and the policies that they are putting in place are not helping. this manchin/schumer proposal that sinema has signed off on, the inflation recovery act, that is a tax and spend policy that is the last thing we need when we're in an inflationary period. and when we get down to november, and if this process -- this is not going to be a win/win for people across this country. >> look, we know it's going to be a win for people across this country. and everyday americans, when you've got big pharma coming out, wanting to spend millions of dollars, trying to stop people from voting for it. it is a win for the american people. and it is a win for folks struggling to pay for their precipita prescription drugs, choosing between kbrgroceries and being e to pay for the life-saving medication that they need. that is up to democrats to be able to go out and talk about what they did and make sure it gets in front of people.

this is huge, actually seeing these wins, whether it is on gun violence perform, whether it's on prescription drugs, whether it's infrastructure. again, i think one of the biggest reasons we are going to continue to see a bounce here is because there is real investment that's going to continue to be made across these communities, all across this country. >> i would just call the economy confusing. i try to put together these forms la to rye to predict how the midterms are going to go. you tell me the last election, which unemployment is the low it's been since 1969, while inflation is highest it's been since the early 1980s. and i think that the american people are trying to figure it out for themselves, and they're getting mixed signals. you were saying, last week we were talking about high inflation, real disposable income dropping from a year ago. and this week, we're talking about record-low unemployment rate. it's just confusing. >> think about it, in politics, they say, the person talking about the past is losing. except, that seems to be the trend right now in one party. we'll talk more about this in a moment. everyone, stick around. because ahead, a big development in the ongoing fight to bring

basketball star and human being and american citizen, britney greiner home from russia, where she was just sentenced to nine years following a politically charged trial. a potential breakthrough, could that be next? we'll talk about it. so you only pay for what you need. contestants ready? go! only pay for what yoyou need. jingle: liberty. libertyty. liberty. liberty.

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.

all right. so russia is now ready to talk

prisoner swaps, according to its foreign minister. this comes just a day after brittney griner was convicted in a russian court of drug smuggling and sentenced to nine and a half years in a penal colony. the u.s. is hoping to get griner and another american, paul whelan, out of russia by swapping them for convicted russian arms trafficker, viktor bout, also known as the merchant of death. so why does russia want bout back so badly? and what exactly will happen to griner while negotiations are playing out? former cia chief of russian operations, steve hall, joins me now. steve, you know, my first question when i think about this entire scenario, a day after hearing the sentence is, what is a penal colony, exactly, compared to what we'rein iexpecg or thinking of in an american prison. there's a lot of discussion about what it might be like for brittney griner in particular to be in a russian jail, prison, let alone a penal colony. what will this look like?

>> yeah, laura, the penal colonies and the entire incarceration system in russia extremely dangerous, to all human life. it's most comparable to the gulag. you know, sort of like gulag-lite. and i think any russian who survives that type of incarceration is fortunate, but an american, you know, who doesn't have the language skills necessarily, who doesn't understand the system as well, and certainly because they're an american, not a good time to be incarcerated in russia, it's not going to be good. i don't know how many people, you know, have died from tuberculosis, for example, other com communicable diseases in these prisons. it's downright horrible. >> and i have some sound from trevor reid, who was released earlier this year, he had this to say about why this particular person, brittney griner, why this might be all the more harsh. >> anyone who is in a forced labor camp in russia is

obviously, you know, facing serious threats to their health because of malnutrition, you know, there's little-to-no medical attention there whatsoever, tuberculosis runs rampant in russian prisons, you know, there's diseases that they have there in russia, which are largely extinct in the united states now. >> well, her race and the fact that she is openly a lesbian be added to the problems she faces there? >> yeah, you know, it's -- she -- brittney griner is, i think, for vladimir putin, sort of a combination symbolically, almost, if you will, of all the things that he hates about the united states. so first of all, she's an american, and because of ukraine and because of a whole lot of other things, vladimir putin just doesn't like americans. she's african-american. putin is a racist, there's a tremendously large racism problem inside of russia. so that's an issue. openly gay.

vladimir putin has said that he finds openly gay people disgusting, and she's a professional athlete. you have to remember that not too many years ago, the russians were -- the russian national team was banned from competition from the olympics, the largest athletic stage. so, you know, he has an american athlete who he's accusing of using marijuana, when his own teams were expelled from the olympics because of drug use. it all comes together in brittney griner, and that's not going to make it any easier for her, at all. >> it's also the conversation about not only her, but paul whelan, and viktor bout. and this is -- many people have talked about, the former president spoke about over the weekend, the idea of what is perceived as the imbalance here in terms of the crimes that viktor bout has been convicted of here in the states, and that which brittney griner has now been convicted of and paul whelan. tell me about viktor bout and the idea of, why would it be that this is the person that russia wants so badly. if they want him so padly, why

are they slow to negotiate and get this done? >> so, first of all, it's important to realize that there is absolutely no moral equivalency between a guy like viktor bout and either brittney griner or paul whelan. paul whelan was set up in a fake intelligence operation. he was not involved in that intelligence operation. you know, griner, we don't exactly know, because you can never know what the evidence is against people in russia, because there's no rule of law. viktor bout, on the other hand, was convicted of trying to kill american citizens, he's a well-known arms dealer. but the things about the russia, why they don't have rule of law, they have these formalities. one of the things they're very big on is something known as reciprocity. if we have two americans in a russian jail and we're saying, here's viktor bout, a much worse guy, they're going to say, viktor bout and who else, so we can get two plus two. one of the reasons they're so concerned about viktor bout, in my assessment, he probably has

ties to the gru, the russian military intelligence. he went to several schools to learn languages that basically sort of feed into the gru. his activities indicate that he's had contacts. the russians are very big about trying to make sure that russians who have assisted their intelligence services or are members of their intelligence services are taken care of. so if you're in jail, the russians want you to know, as a russian spy, don't worry, we're going to get you out. it might take some time, but we're going to get you out. they're sending a message by trying to get viktor bout out that others are going to be gone after. >> steve hall, thank you so much for tkt context. now to a rule, expected soon on whether police can continue using, get this, keyword swearc warrants, that means using your online searches against you in a court of law. the growing controversy is up next. it was so easy. i found the perfect car

under budget too! and i get seven n days to love t or my money y back... i love it! [laughs] we'll drive you happy at carvana. want an engaging website to boost your business? you're just a click away from five star fiverr talent. hundreds of freelancer skills like web design. head to fiverr.com today and get something started. this is remington. he's a member of the family, for sure. we always fed him kibble it just seemed like the thing to do. but he was getting picky, and we started noticing some allergy symptoms. we heard about the farmer's dog and it was a complete transformation. his allergies were going away and he just had amazing energy. it's a no-brainer that remi should have the best nutritious and delicious food possible.

i'm investing in my dog's health and happiness. ♪ get started at longlivedogs.com the day of the heart attack, i was scared. i didn't know what to do. seeing my daughter have a heart attack, it shook me. aspirin helps reduce the chance of another heart attack by 31%. be sure to talk to your doctor before you begin an aspirin regimen.

non-gaming tribes have been left in the dust. wealthy tribes with big casinos make billions, while small tribes struggle in poverty. prop 27 is a game changer. 27 taxes and regulates online sports betting to fund permanent solution to homelessness. while helping every tribe in california. so who's attacking prop 27? wealthy casino tribes who want all the money for themselves support small tribes, address homelessness. vote yes on 27.

so here's a question. you ever wonder who might have access to what someone or you are googling? pay attention to this? a new case out of colorado that tests the limits of the law when it comes to the reach of technology. we're talking about what's called key word search warrant. it's where a police officer can get a warrant for a company like

google to hand over everyone who searched for a certain key word. now, the new post hch roe era, whub fear is it can include people who banned abortion, who searched for an out of state provider. the theoretical isn't that far from reality. the detectives in denver got one one of these key word warrants, forcing everyone to turn over everyone who searched for a certain address. a family of five died in that fire, which turned out to be arson. my next guest is challenging the constitutionality of the warrant that was used in that denver case. michael price, thanks for joining me this evening. you know, this is for many people, michael, a bit stunning to think about the prospect of a keyword search warrant. and yet we often think about it in the backdrop of violent crimes and shootings and those that have sort of manifestos, how they're searching things. and so it seems to cut both

ways. you represent a client who's challenging the idea of being able to have these warrants. why? >> thanks for having me, laura. these warrants are not like regular search warrants. they're the exact opposite way, the way that normal search warrants work. usually investigators have a suspect, they develop probable cause, they go to a court and they get a warrant to say, search that person's house. here, what you have is police saying that they would like to do the digital equivalent of searching everybody's house. and figure out who the suspect is later. that's not the way that warrants work. it's not the way that the fourth amendment works. in fact, it's the digital equivalent of a general warrant. the very thing that the

constitution was zdesigned to protect against. >> is this, though, to think about how it's being used, you know, obviously, technology and the way in which you can solve or investigate crimes has been expanded by the very notion of how people may be committing crimes, allegedly. in this notion, isn't it the equivalent of almost looking and working backwards and then still having to have information to substantiate their claims. you can't just quick somebody, necessarily on the idea of a general warrant. but why not permit the authorities the opportunity to narrow down their suspects using technology? >> so, these are called reverse warrants for a reason. it's -- instead of developing a suspect and making a case, it's saying, hey, google, tell us who did the crime? can you please search through billions of people's search history to give us a lead.

every time one of these warrants are executed, it searches not just one person or people in one state, but everybody who has done a google search, whether you're logged in or not. it's a massive digital drag net. and the implications for privacy are broad and deep. >> i understand that. and of course, i think there are concerns that many people have, michael, about that, a notion of that digital dragnet. however. they are sort of triangulating other factors, right? it's not as if you can meet a burden of proof. but is the idea of having to do even more than that. you ask google for the information, you have this warrant, and you have to narrow down my other factors and cross reference, does that push it closer in your mind to not violating the fourth amendment, which is against unreasonable searches and seizures? that triangulation? >> so in our legal context,

probable cause has to be tied to an individual. it's not enough to just say a crime occurred, so let me just go searching, and i'll tell you who i think did it afterwards. it might be an effective way of solving a crime, but it's not a constitutional way of solving a crime. and the idea that there doesn't need to be a suspect ahead of time, that the police can just go on a massive fishing expedition to see if anybody pops up is really antithetical to our entire system of justice. ion, the issue here is that the police had no probable cause, they had no idea who committed the crime until they went to google. >> there will be a really interesting case. people are sticking by and thinking about what's happening here, because it does have really broad-reaching implications, obviously from post-roe to the case you're talking about as well, and what

it means to generate a lead or the methodical practice of investigating. michael price, thank you so much. >> thank you. phil mickelson and other pro golfers are suing the pga over their suspensions for being a part of the saudi-backed liv series. are they being unlawfully punish or not, next. moderate to severe eczema still disrupts my skin. despite treatment it disrupts my skin with itch. it disrupts my skin with ras i can disrupt eczema with rinvoq. rinvoq is not a steroid, topical, or injection. it's one pill, once a day, that's effective without topical steroids. many taking rinvoq saw clear or almost-clear skin while some saw up to 100% clear skin. plus, they felt fast itch relief some as early as 2 days. that's rinvoq relief.

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

my a1c stayed here, it needed to be here. ruby's a1c is down with rybelsus®. my a1c wasn't at goal, now i'm down with rybelsus®. mom's a1c is down with rybelsus®. (♪ ♪) in a clinical study, once-daily rybelsus® significantly lowered a1c better than a leading branded pill. rybelsus® isn't for people with type 1 diabetes. don't take rybelsus® if you or your family ever had medullary thyroid cancer, or have multiple endocrine neoplasia syndrome type 2,

or if allergic to it. stop rybelsus® 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. tell your provider about vision problems or changes. taking rybelsus® with a sulfonylurea or insulin increases low blood sugar risk. side effects like nausea, vomiting, and diarrhea may lead to dehydration, which may worsen kidney problems. need to get your a1c down? (♪ ♪) ask your healthcare provider about rybelsus® today. 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.

phil mickelson and ten other golfers who played for live golf are now suing the pga saying the association is trying to protect its monopoly on professional golf by unfairly controlling its players. the golfers want to play in the fedex cup playoff starting next week, but the pga suspended them from playing in the controversial live series funded by saudi arabia. i'm joined by christine brennen. glad to have you back on this story, because, look, next week the tournament is supposed to start. they're saying, pga, this isn't what you think about in terms of the live golf tournament. it's about you wanting to be in control. how do you see it? >> i think, laura, that we are

watching golf spontaneously combust, men's golf. literally a civil war is going on, and this is a sport that could implode in on itself. this stayed country club sport of men's golf and women's golf, too, for that matter mostly old white guys and rich white guys, whatever, they are now at war. and it is -- it's absolutely fascinating for golf fans i think it's infuriating and confusing. and it may well affect the fan interest in the sport. tiger woods is certainly on the way out and tv ratings have gone down without tiger. phil mickelson as you of course referred to is part of this lawsuit. he's 52 years old and is playing some of his worst golf ever. and golf is really at a cross roads and really in trouble as they fight it out. obviously the issue of course these athletes independent contractors, do they have the right to move around and play wherever they want? we'll find out in a court and

what a judge says eventually, but in the meantime the collateral damage for this revered game is really something to behold. >> that's a fascinating thought because i remember and you and i have talked about this in the past when politics and football intersected or politics and basketball intersected. there were ideas can't we have anything in sports as true escapism and why do it, this, though, puts cold-water on the idea of, no, no, you're not going to be able to escape that controversy of the intersection, saudi arabia, the fist bumps seen around the world, the idea you can still play in the pga, i mean that's part of this. the idea for some fans possibly and the players wanting to escape politics. >> oh, totally. this is bringing everything home, all the dirty laundry. as you said, laura, everything that sports fans don't want to deal with, and especially golf

fans. these are often well-to-do people. they want their sunday afternoon to watch tiger win the masters or tiger play in the masters and now the real world has crashed in. it's fascinating. phil mickelson and these other live golfers, saudi blood money, mbs, the killing of jamal khashoggi, all of this is in play here. they left to play the pga tour and thou now they've come back to play the pga tour and it's wrangled their partners still on the pga tour saying what are you doing, you left and now you want to come back, how dare you do that. so it is extraordinary to see what we would consider as a stay calm game, the country club sport of ladies and gentleman in complete civil war with these athletes really at each other's throats. >> well, they say the grass is always greener but so then is

greed. actually i just made that up. you can quote me some time. take a note. that's a good one, everyone. christine brennen, have a good one. we'll see you soon. coming up, a $45 million judgment against alex jones. will it stop the lies that built him an empire? right back. buying a car from vroom is so easy, all you need is a phone and a finger. just go to vroom.com, scroll through thousands of cars. then, tap to buy. that's it. no sales speak, no wasted time. go to vroom.com and pick your favorite.

this... is the planning effect. this is how it feels to have a dedicated fidelity advisor looking at your full financial picture. this is what it's like to have a comprehensive wealth plan with tax-smart investing strategies designed to help you keep more of what you earn. and set aside more for things like healthcare, or whatever comes down the road. this is "the planning effect" from fidelity. hybrid work is here. it's there. it's everywhere. but for someone to be able to work from here, there has to be someone here making sure everything is safe. secure. consistent. so log in from 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.

♪ got my hair got my head ♪ introducing new one a day multi+. a complete multivitamin plus an extra boost of support for your immunity, brain, and hair, skin & nails. new one a day multi+. ♪ it wasn't me by shaggy ♪ you're never responsible for unauthorized purchases on your discover card.

hey, welcome back, everyone. don lemon is off this evening, but i'm still wearing like lemon yellow for you in his absence. i am laura coates and this is "cnn tonight." conspiracy theorist alex jones has been ordered to pay even more to the parents of a 6-year-old little boy who was killed in the 2012 massacre at sandy hook elementary school. $45.2 million more in punitive damages on top of the more than