a bright note to end the program, cooper roberts, paralyzed in the highland park mass shooting, is heading back to school. he was moved to pediatric icu last week. he is doing daily exercises to regain mobility. he's expected to join his twin brother for half days of school and do outpatient rehab. he's been reignited with the family dog, george. great friends reunited. we wish him the best. sara sidner is next. >> anderson, thank you so much. the big question tonight, what exactly was the fbi looking for when it executed a search warrant at former trump's home? why was it so important? there is still a lot we do not

know. but we are getting more information. here is what cnn is learning from someone familiar with the matter. the search of mar-a-lago came after federal authorities believed trump or his team had not actually returned all of the documents and materials that belonged to the government. you'll remember that they handed over 15 boxes of material earlier this year, but now a lawyer for trump tells "the washington post" that they took 12 more boxes from a basement storage area of trump's home. two other important points from cnn's sources. one, authorities believe the documents at mar-a-lago had national security implications. and two, there is also suspicion that after months of discussions about this, that trump's team wasn't being completely honest with investigators. meanwhile, the justice department isn't saying a thing more than 24 hours after this extraordinary step as trump supporters rallied behind him tonight.

>> we love you, donald! yes, yes, i love you, i love you! i love you! >> you hear the response from those who are his supporters and there the former president is, arriving back at trump tower in manhattan just a few minutes ago. meanwhile, on capitol hill, some in the gop are calling for attorney general merrick garland to resign or be impeached. others, like senate majority leader mitch mcconnell and trump's former vice president mike pence, are calling for greater transparency. pence said on twitter, attorney general garland must give a full accounting to the american people as to why this action is taken and he must do so immediately. >> should garland come forward to explain why the fbi went in to help eliminate any perception that trump is being politically persecuted as he claims?

keep in mind, it wasn't so long ago that the ex-president had a lot of positive things to say about the current attorney general. >> i have to say this, judge garland is highly respected. i have a lot of respect for him. i do. i have a lot of respect for him. >> a lot of respect for garland. that was september of 2020. and now, accusations that the justice system has been weaponized. what changed? well, we sort of know, don't we? and this isn't the only movement from the fbi. republican congressman scott perry says that the bureau seized his cellphone today. it is not clear what prompted that seizure. but perry is closely linked to former doj official jeffrey clark, who wanted to be installed as the acting ag to help overturn the election. perry also communicated with trump's chief of staff, mark meadows, about those efforts. so where might all this lead next? we have two guests with us who

can provide important perspective. peter strzok is a former fbi counterintelligence official who played a central role in both the hillary clinton email and trump russia investigations. he's the author of "compromised: counterintelligence and the threat of donald j. trump." also with us, former trump white house press secretary stephanie grisham, who says she herself saw donald trump mishandle documents. she saw that with her own eyes. peter, let's start with you. what kind of evidence would the fbi need to believe is there in order to take this extraordinary step and go into a former president's home and take out items with of course a search warrant? >> well, first of all, it is extraordinary. this is the first time in the history of the fbi that any fbi agent has gotten a warrant issued by a judge and gone into a former president's residence and searched for information. the standard to get a search

warrant is that is something that a judge, not anybody within the executive branch, a prosecutor and agents have to go to a judge and lay out in an affidavit facts supporting probable cause to believe that there's evidence of a crime at the place to be searched at that moment. so, one, it has to relate to something that is criminal. and two, it can't be something that was there three years ago or a long time ago. there has to be a probable cause to believe it's there right now. what that tells me, particularly when we're hearing sources coming out saying people are concerned about the national security implications of what might have been there, certainly coupled with what we know about prior information about materials that trump eventually turned over from mar-a-lago to the archives, i have a strong suspicion that the material that was recovered recently by the fbi is quite likely classified information. and that's important because of course there are many, there are several federal criminal laws which prohibit unauthorized personnel from maintaining classified information. so my best thought is that the material that the fbi seized

yesterday is likely to be classified information. it's quite possibly highly sensitive, highly, highly classified information. and what i'm curious about right now is a couple of things that you pointed out. one, there seems to be the suspicion that people knew that trump and his attorneys were not being forthcoming. how is it that they knew that? did they see something when they were there meeting at mar-a-lago? was there somebody on the inside at mar-a-lago who told them there were things that trump and his attorneys were denying? does the archives have some sort of list or someone in the intelligence community have a list of things they know weren't turned in? these are questions that the doj knows that right now, the fbi knows that right now, and we're just looking from the outside, trying to make a best guess on what that might be. >> you talked about something being highly sensitive and potentially a breach of, you know, intelligence. why, when the fbi investigators were there talking to donald trump's attorneys, as we have

learned, would they leave it there for weeks before they went back in? what would have prompted them to say, you know what, we're going to walk away from in and we'll be back weeks later? >> you know, that's a huge question, because none of this should come as a surprise, the fact that there was federal interest in this material. going back to last year, middle of the last year is when the national archives first reached out, according to media reporting, to mar-a-lago, to the former president's attorneys and others, and said, hey, we think there's material here that you may have and in fact that produced early this year that first batch i think of 15 or so boxes which, according to what they told congress, contained highly classified information. and from there we see this sort of slow dance where they believed this classified information is there, they engaged with the executive branch to do a classification review, it appears they determined there is in fact classified material there because the executive branch issues a subpoena to the archives to get that material in the april time frame of this

year. and so then in june, we have cnn breaking this reporting that a group of prosecutors and investigators go down to mar-a-lago and they're having a discussion in early june where they see this room in the basement. and what's in there concerns them so much that five days later they send a letter saying, secure that room. according to that recording, a padlock is put on the door. so none of this is a surprise. if you're trump and you want to destroy it, you've had over a year to do it. doj has to, of course, move very cautiously in part because you are dealing with the former president of the united states. he hasn't at this moment destroyed it, so it stands to reason it may stay there and you can secure it and then it's absolutely important, and what we've heard attorney general garland say time and time again, is that we absolutely as a nation, absolutely doj has to get it right. so when you're dealing with somebody at the level of the president, former president, who has never been subject to a

search warrant before in the history of our nation, that i think accounts for some of the deliberate pace that you see from the department of justice in this instance. >> stephanie, i want to go to you now, because you have lived in former president trump's orbit. you have seen things we cannot see. can you give me an example of something you have seen happen that concerned you when it came to the president at the time and potentially sensitive documents? >> well, i mean, there were many public instances that i can talk about. i don't want to go into some things just because i don't want to, you know, talk about a lot of national security issues. but there are many public things that he did while we were in office that, you know, it was reported upon, and it happened over and over. one would be obviously when former prime minister abe came to mar-a-lago, which is the irony of that, and kim jong-un in north korea was testing

missiles. president trump and prime minister abe were at dinner in the middle of mar-a-lago with a bunch of members, and all of a sudden they're getting briefed at the table, members are taking photos, there's sensitive information being shown to both prime minister abe and former president trump, and members are taking pictures and putting that on social media. that's the first one. another one that i was present for was a trip to the border and the former president started talking to the press pool who had assembled about some of the technology advances and some of the new gadgets, i'll use that word, that we had at the border. somebody had to actually step in and say, mr. president, you shouldn't be talking about those items. and finally, another one that i was actually present for was when the former president did the announcement about killing al baghdadi and the raid there. he, as he usually did, went off-script and talked about some highly classified information and some tactically sensitive things that had a lot of our

military leaders worried and upset. those are some public things that he did. i've talked about this before, i sat behind him in a plane one time where he had a bunch of documents he was going through, and i was bored, none of us could have phones on that particular flight, so i was just watching him. he was going through a big pile of documents. some things he would tear up, some things he would throw away, some things he would tear up and put in his pocket, some things he would fold up and put in his pocket. at the time i didn't know what those things were, i didn't know if it was classified. but i do recall wondering about his filing system, like what made him tear something up and throw it on the floor versus put it in his jacket. those were some things i've seen. we didn't have a real culture of compliance, i would say, at our white house. we were certainly given trainings every year, but when you saw somebody at the very top level who was the president of the united states doing a lot of what he was doing, i think a lot of people, not all, i want to be clear about that, felt that those kind of rules didn't apply.

>> it sounds like the president himself didn't think those rules applied, from what you are describing. peter and stephanie, we're just scratching the surface here, we want you to stick around because we have a lot more to ask you about your experiences and also about what is an extraordinary time in the history of america and the presidency. we'll be right back. ♪ 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+. if you used shipgo this whole thing wouldn't be a thing. yeah, dad! i don't want to deal with this. oh, you brought your luggage to the airport. that's adorable. with shipgo shipping your luggage before you fly you'll never have to wait around here again. like ever. that can't be comfortable though. shipgo.com the smart, fast, easy way to travel.

♪ ♪ [allergy monster attacks] allergies don't have to be scary. flonase sensimist stops your body from overreacting to allergens with a non-drowsy, ultra-lightweight mist. psst. psst. flonase. all good! thanks for hanging with us. we're back with peter strzok and stephanie grisham. peter, i want you to listen to what the ranking member of the house intelligence community says about this investigation as compared to the hillary clinton email investigation. >> they are two different things. hillary clinton, while she was secretary of state, had

classified material about her, classified communications traveling through her computer server in her house, putting her at risk for any counterintelligence or any others hacking into her materials. in this instance we don't really know this information is classified, the archivist saying something was labeled classified doesn't mean it is. we have to look at the substance what have the president has, these aren't ongoing communications of the president of the united states. the president, unlike hillary clinton, has the ability to declassify these materials. >> two points were made there. i would like you to respond to both of them. let's start with the one at the end, he says the president has the ability to declassify. does he have the ability to declassify materials after they've been taken from his home? >> he certainly doesn't have ability to declassify once he's no longer the president. presidents do not have what you would formally think of as a security clearance. by virtue of the position of the presidency, they can classify and declassify at will.

the trump administration encountered some troubles in that regard because trump would tweet statements that he was going to declassify something, only to have doj and the white house try and walk that back and say, it was never written down that it was declassified so therefore it was just his bluster. there is a little bit of an argument that trump saying something is declassified may or may not carry the day. so i don't know that it follows that the material at mar-a-lago -- i assume and presume it is classified. certainly the material, the initial batch of material that the national archives had, they said it was so classified they couldn't even tell congress, they couldn't even provide them a table of contents because that's how sensitive the material is. so i significantly doubt that -- what are we up to now, 27, 30 boxes of material that trump deliberately went through and declassified all of that. i don't give that much weight. as to his first point, yes, hillary clinton was investigated.

but it took the fbi over a year to get from the initial allegations to a full understanding what have the material was, whether or not it was classified, why that happened, and whether there was any criminal culpability here. we're a day removed from this search. the fbi at this point is probably still working with a filter team just to make sure that no privileged communications are inadvertently given to the investigators. it's going to take some time. congress will play games, they do it on both sides, that's the nature of their political business. what is different this time in my mind, during the hillary clinton investigation you did not have members of the democratic party trying -- and their supporters trying to do the sort of enraging the mob sort of statements that we saw out of a lot of right wing pundits and political figures. it wasn't just a protest that we're going to call merrick garland to congress. he was talking about another civil war, he was talking about

taking up violence. that's the sort of dangerous rhetoric, we've seen it on january 6th, but that isn't the sort of rhetoric we've seen before from political figures. >> stephanie, i know you've left sort of the trump world in some ways, but what do you make what have is being said, the things that have been published on some of the right wing rhetoric and publications out there, "this is war," we've seen that one multiple times. what do you make of this? and nothing happens in a vacuum. as much as this is a legal issue for the president, it's also been turned very much into a talking point, a way to fund raise, and a political issue. what are you seeing? >> absolutely. you're right on all points. i'll start with the rhetoric. you know, i think some of it was to be expected, especially from some of the very far right leaning social media sights, websites, et cetera. what has concerned me is the fact that, you know, the

republican party, leadership especially in the republican party, we're talking about electeds and candidates, have jumped on the bandwagon, the fbi is bad, it can happen to anyone if it can happen to him. it's scary, it feels like january 6th all over again. part of our justice system, the institution of laws, yes, it can happen to anyone, if you are potentially doing something wrong than i believe somebody is going to come to your home and look for wrongdoing. the talking points, i expected that from being in trump world and living in it and participating in a lot of that. i see they're starting now with the newest talking point of potentially the fbi planting evidence there. i actually wondered yesterday if that's what they were going to do. and i thought, stephanie, you're being so paranoid, stop. so that's been disheartening to see, but also very, very expected. i do want to say from a pr perspective, and it is hard because this is a legal issue, this is a legal issue, but as

you suggested, they're fundraising off of it and using the same talking points. i hope when the information comes out, that it will be translatable to the american people. if it's something about our sources and methods, meaning it could put american lives at risk, i hope that the doj and anybody else involved will be smart about making it translatable to the american people so they really understand what a detriment to our country it could be. this can't be just, it was a memento or a letter. if that's the case, they've handed this president another term, i believe. >> peter, there is always going to be a lot of talk about this, the fbi has under scrutiny. you yourself, under scrutiny. there are people on the left and the right, people across the board who have a trust issue, a trust deficit with the fbi. should the fbi have handled this somewhat differently or at least come out and done some kind of press conference to give people

an idea of what it is they got or are looking for? >> not at this point, i don't think so. i mean, look, i think there absolutely is a trust issue between the american people and not justify the fbi but across government. that's the result of four years of trump attacking the professionalism of the government when it didn't suit his goals. i think the way you respond to that is exactly what attorney general garland and the fbi are doing. they're going out, they're doing a professional job. i do think there is a role at some point for either the fbi or the department of justice to make some sort of statement about what they found, because again, they know full well the impact of what they're doing when they execute a search warrant at the residence of a former president. i have to hope and i do believe it isn't just for the soccer ball that putin gave to trump in helsinki or some gift from the

saudi government. do i believe there is highly classified information there that they recovered and i think there is a way for doj or fbi to give some indication of what was seized without touching on whether or not somebody is culpable about it, without talking about the progress of the criminal investigation, but essentially to dampen these -- this mistrust, to take away, frankly, this gift of fundraising that's been given to trump but that does serve to sort of reassure people that this was a legitimate action, it is an action that every american taxpayer would want the fbi and doj to do, regardless of the party, regardless of the position of the person, like stephanie said, this is an indication that nobody is above the law. and i do take heart in that, this demonstrates that. i do think we'll see that information. it may take a little bit of time, months perhaps, but i think we'll see some information ultimately about what we've seen. >> as stephanie said, the longer it takes, the longer there will be talking points out there. i think a lot of people are

wondering why we're not hearing something sooner. peter strzok and stephanie grisham, thank you for joining us. gop senator lindsey graham says he spoke to trump twice today and the likelihood of donald trump running for president again may have just increased. >> the one thing i can tell as you that i believed he was going to run before. i'm stronger in my belief now. >> is that going to help or hurt republicans if donald trump did announce another bid for the white house? we'll dig in more on the political fallout, coming up next.

new astepro allergy. no allergy spray is faster. with the speed of astepro, almost nothing can slow you down. because astepro starts working in 30 minutes, while other allergy sprays take hours. and astepro is the first and only 24-hour steroid free allergy spray. now without a prescription. astepro and 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.

in order for small businesses to thrive, they need to be smart. efficient. agile. and that's never been more important than it is right now. so for a limited time, comcast business is introducing small business savings. call now to get powerful internet for just 39 dollars a month.

with no contract. and a money back guarantee. all on the largest, fastest reliable network. from the company that powers more businesses than anyone else. call and start saving today. comcast business. powering possibilities.

the question on a lot of people's mind, is donald trump more likely to run for president after all this? he's privately telling republicans he has made up his mind on 2024. let us get some perspective because we need it, from john af avlon and s.e. cup, and mark sanford. s.e., is the gop concerned, after seeing potentially classified information taken out of donald trump's home that was supposed to be handed over. >> potentially crimes. >> potentially crimes. why is the party that says they're the party of law and order not concerned about this?

or are they? >> i think on the one hand the gop and trump love this because in their sort of corrupted minds, this vindicates a lot of what he had been saying about the deep state that hasn't charged him with anything yet, the deep state like the fbi director he appointed, the deep state, a conspiracy theory he probably invented, for moments like this, right? to prepare his fans to distrust moments like this. but on the other hand, this is bad. this is bad for trump. this is bad for republicans. and i don't understand this argument that maybe the fbi just handed trump the nomination or another term. i don't get that. if this animates you in trump's favor, you were already a trump voter, a reliable one. you weren't more animated for trump now than you were five minutes ago. so i don't get it.

i think it's bad for trump. i think it's bad for republicans, even though they're happy to focus on it and gin up their base. >> all right. john, the dems are being criticized for hypocrisy. they use this whole thing about how they defended hillary clinton when it came to her emails. i want to quickly just go to, we have sort of a little mash-up of some things being said about hillary and her emails, which is being brought up by republicans. >> as you know, the fbi has reopened its criminal investigation into hillary clinton. folks, she shouldn't be allowed to run. >> hillary clinton is disqualified from being the president of the united states. because she stored classified and sensitive information on her

email server because she thinks she's above the law. >> i want somebody outside the clinton network looking through these emails. >> all right. those are republicans. democrats stood by her for the most part. so what do you make of what you just heard there from republicans who are saying, hey, what about hillary? now, this is 2016, right, but it's being brought up again, they're going after this former president, why didn't they raid her place, why didn't they look for her emails, why didn't they raid anything in her home? >> first of all, there was an investigation into hillary clinton's emails, she was ultimately exonerated. the state department did their own investigation. this was the genesis of the "lock her up" appeals, something very much outside the realm of typical campaign politics at the time, that we're going to arrest our political opponents. that is very different from the rule of law about if somebody breaks the law. part of i think what's got

people's head spinning is this seems like al capone and tax evasion. breaking the presidential records act seems to most folks like something that isn't a reason to conduct a raid. we're living at a time when election lies are a litmus test for many republican primaries. so i'm not surprised to hear that epic contortion, because it's all through the prism of partisan politics. >> everything you just said is right. i think what's gross, though, is when hillary, who mishandled classified information, goes out and tries to fund raise off it with snarky t-shirts and hats. this is serious s-h-i-t, okay? >> the children can hear you spell. >> sugar, honey, iced tea. >> i have a serious problem with

hypocrisy, i call it out for republicans and democrats, i hate it, and i don't like fundraising on it on either side. >> you make an important point, especially with the parallelism of fundraising. we need to apply consistent standards in politics. >> good luck with that. the truth is i went online to see what was going on and you could buy a myriad of things from both parties, but especially the republican party, and people who are on the right were selling things left, right, and center, saying things like "this is war." this is violent rhetoric that is being sold to make a lot of money and a lot of money will be made. can i ask you what you think this is going to mean as we head into the midterms? >> i mean, i think it's a wash on tonight's elections, when you're this close out from an election cycle, i don't think the last couple of hours,

anything matters that much. but what i would say is it continues to harden the political lines that already have a no man's land in between them. and that's the problem with american politics these days, which is, to your point, i mean, if you're a solid trump voter, none of this changes anything for you as a solid trump voter. and likewise, if you're a solid trump hater, nothing changes. so you've got these hardened lines. the question is where do we go as a republic next? i think you're peggibegging the point, at some point the straw breaks the camel's back. at some point it accrues to trump's benefit and the trump wing of the republican party. in the long run -- >> what is it? is there a second insurrection? i think the question that needs to be asked at this point is, is there something that would break the camel's back, so to speak, when it comes to his supporters. we just heard people screaming

"i love you" over and over and over again to the president as we are facing this -- ostensibly this very unusual time in history. >> what has to be remembered is, he's going to pitch it as, i don't know what's in the boxes, none of us do, but he will pitch it as, it's some post-it notes with scribbles on them. then on the opposite side you'll get a different version. again, nobody's listening to reason. we'll play this out, see how it unfolds. >> let's get the information out. trump could release some information. i think it's incumbent on the doj or fbi to put some information out there. let's have a degree of transparency consistent with impartial justice. that's what we're missing right now. we need more sober voices, less people playing -- rushing to the ramparts to try to politicize this because this is something that's beyond politics, this should be equal under law. >> that's the test, and there is a vacuum right now. stick around with us, we've got new reporting. congressman jim banks who is

with a dozen other gop lawmakers at bedminster, says the group encouraged trump to run sooner than later. he also described trump as upbeat and not fazed at all by the fbi search, coming up next. get decision tech from fidelity. [ cellphone vibratates ] you'll get proactive alertss for market events before they happen... and insights on every buy and sell decision. with zero-commission online u.s. stock and etf trades. for smarter trading decisions, get decision tech from fidelity.

only two things are forever: love and liberty mutual customizing your car insurance, so you only pay for what you need. if anyone objects to this marriage... (emu squawks) kevin, no! not today. only pay for what you need. ♪ liberty. liberty. liberty. liberty. ♪ why woolite? because its specially formulated to protect your clothing from damage in the wash. like fading, stretching and pilling. woolite has a first of its kind formula that keeps today's fabrics looking like new. woolite damage and darks defense.

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. large out-of-state corporations have set their sights on california. they've written prop 27, to allow online sports betting. they tell us it will fund programs for the homeless. but read prop 27's fine print. 90% of profits go to out-of-state corporations, leaving almost nothing for the homeless. no real jobs are created here. but the promise between our state and our sovereign tribes would be broken forever. these out-of-state corporations don't care about california. but we do. stand with us. right wing social media users are seizing on the fbi

search of marb-a-lago and the rhetoric is alarming. "lock and load," said one user on a forum dedicated to the former president. while another called for the attorney general to be assassinated. it's not just the unknown fringe promoting civil war, incitement to violence, and anti-government fervor. one podcaster told 1 million followers "today is war." it's one of dozens of tweets from influential figures. marjorie taylor greene tweeted "defund the fbi." ron desantis says we're in a banana republic. john avlon, s.e. cupp, and mark sanford are still with me. these are the same people, we should mention why you're laughing, that were going after

democrats for being accused of saying defund the police. now, because the favor is turned on their person. >> defund law enforcement all day long if it's consistent with your political agenda. >> but is there a real concern we should be worried about, having seen what happened in the lead-up to january 6th. >> yes. yes. of course we should. look, you want to make sure the tail isn't wagging the dog in terms of folks on the donald trump, you know, posting crazy stuff. the real issue is elected representatives. you might recall when bush 41 resigned from the nra when they called the fbi jack booted thugs. we're a million miles away from that. and i don't expect, you know, the right wing hyperpartisan ecosystem will unfortunately be fanning the flames, but i do hold elected senators,

governors, members of congress, they should be held to a higher standard than fanning the flames of violence in the name of political games. >> i think there are three slices at the apple. you have the political provocateurs, they're going to say whatever they're going to say. you have elected officials who these days are frankly in survival mode. at the time a couple of us spoke out earlier against trump, me and amash in the house, that was political extinction. the real folks out there, i was dealing today with a guy whose alternator had gone bad, that was what he was focused on. there are a lot of folks for whom this is just noise, period. is this frightening rhetoric, yes. but i don't think we should get all ginned up about all the camps throwing it around.

>> the folks who don't say anything or are silent, we got here because four, five, six years of no one in leadership or cable news or anyone with influence over the president or maga did anything to tamp the rhetoric down, did anything to ring the alarm and say this is bad and it should stop. trump loved the violent rhetoric, he leaned into it. he promised lawyers, if you ever got in trouble for going after his opponents. and he watched with joy as people, armed, marched to the capitol. he said mike pence probably deserved it when they chanted "hang mike pence." he's here for it. and no one checked him on it. so i'm not surprised we're here. i'm not surprised we'll be here for probably another insurrection. he locved the first one. and without anyone saying enough, in a position of power, enough, it's just going to get worse. >> what's happened to the gop? in your mind, when you are looking at it from 35,000 feet,

what has happened to this party? >> uh, it's gotten hijacked. i mean, what you have are a lot of people for whom government wasn't working, and they've been beaten down by life and by a variety of different factors. and there's always a strongman that comes along in the history of man who offers an immediate cure. and he was that guy. the question now is, what do we do about it. so i think this underscores how political this moment is. this is not a legal proceeding. i think the justice department in some form or fashion, given the amount of distress that's out there, needs to say something so that the void is not simply filled by trump and others. >> right now it's being filled with that. so what do they do, john? because right now, none of us know exactly what are in those documents, and they're going to be reticent to go there right away. so now what? >> it's been a day. >> it's been a day. >> the problem is, social media

and politics are on totally different timelines than the pace of justice. that gap can be exploited. what's more significant, you see members of the republican study committee circling around trump tonight, basking in the attention of this, and encouraging him. this is the victimhood that is sort of part and parcel of trump's -- he's alternately the aggressor and the victim, this is an idea that goes back to some of the bad old days a century and a half ago. here is the real question. will republicans who know that donald trump running would be terrible for their party in the midterms, will they stand up, will the people thinking about running for president stand up and say, you know what, i have questions and doubts and concerns about this, no, i am not all in on trump 2024? because the goal is to freeze the field. the question now will be, post the first insurrection, will there be republicans in positions of influence who have

the spine to stand up and speak clearly and say no, we're not doing the sequel? >> so far we have not seen that. not yet. there's a "no." thank you, john avlon, mark sanford, and s.e. cupp. thank you so much for going through all that. coming up, we're going to change topics and it is something that has been a long time coming but it is amazing. she doesn't like the word "retirement" but serena williams tells the world she is nearing the end of her career in the sup sport that she has helped redefine. pam schreiber helps me look at the incredible legacy, that's next. browse for cars that fit your budget, then customize your downpayment and monthly payment. and these aren't mamade up numbers, it's what you'll really pay, right down to the penny. wheather you're shopping or just looking, it only takes a few seconds and it won't affect your credit score.

finally, a totally different way to finance your ride only from carvana. ♪ (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 ♪ i love all types of dancing... salsa, and even belly dancing! i am a triathlete. i've always been into health, and wellness, and fitness... i tried everything

with diet and exercise, and nothing worked. there was just kinda this stubborn area on my stomach. but coolsculpting worked for me! coolsculpting targets, freezes and eliminates treated fat for good. no needles, no incisions. discuss coolsculpting with your provider. some common side effects include temporary numbness, discomfort and swelling. you've come this far... coolsculpting takes you further. visit coolsculpting.com woman tc: my a1c stayed here, it needed to be here. doctor tc: ruby's a1c is down with rybelsus®. man tc: my a1c wasn't at goal, now i'm down with rybelsus®. son tc: mom's a1c is down with rybelsus®. song: a1c down with rybelsus® anncr vo: in a clinical study, once-daily rybelsus® significantly lowered a1c better than the leading branded pill. anncr vo: rybelsus® isn't for people with type 1 diabetes. anncr vo: 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. anncr vo: 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. anncr vo: serious side effects may include pancreatitis.

gallbladder problems may occur. tell your provider about vision problems or changes. anncr vo: taking rybelsus® with a sulfonylurea or insulin increases low blood sugar risk. anncr vo: side effects like nausea, vomiting, and diarrhea may lead to dehydration, which may worsen kidney problems. mom tc: need to get your a1c down? song: a1c down with rybelsus® anncr vo: ask your healthcare provider about rybelsus® today. i'm a performing artist. so a healthy diet is one of the most important things. i also feel the same way about my dog. we got her the farmer's dog sent in the mail. it was all fresh. i want my dog to have a healthy and long life.

the farmer's dog helps that out. see the benefits of fresh food at betterforthem.com she didn't just changed the game of tennis. she changed the world. the g.o.a.t.. greatest of all time. sabrina williams is hanging up her racket soon. she told bloggers enough in our glaad today, quote, i am here to tell you that i am evolving away from tennis. towards other things that are important for me. a few years ago i quietly started serena ventures. a venture capital firm.

soon after that i started a family. i want to grow that family. here to discuss her impact on and off the court, the espn tennis panel pam schroeder. peng, thank you so much for being here. let's talk about what she said. i gasped when i saw this because she has made such a huge mark, not just in sports, but for women and particularly women of color. in business as well. and on social issues. can you give me a sense of how big this is and why you think, judging from her statement, she has the side to start walking away from tennis. >> i think there is a lot of reason why. her age, should be 41 next month. she hasn't won a major since 2017. jobs he had maternity leave. she has made it an amazing effort to try and time her court to 24. she's got the four major finals after having olympia her first

child. i think she realizes that if she wants to have and expand her family the time is really now. it is really hard to do both and know that frustrates her, she spoke about so eloquently in her essay. but it is not fair on one had that female athletes who really need to call it quits when you're at this age. where is the man, like tom brady, or roger federer. they can continue to play. but there are some things we can control and there other things we can't. but what she could control, on the tennis court, started in 1999, when she won her first of 23 majors. at 17. winning the serena slam twice, that's holding all four major titles in the same time twice. the rivalry she had with her sister, four olympic gold medals, i could go on it on. that is why, sarah, as you referred to her and i think all of us agree, the g.o.a.t.. >> you have had some experiences. can you give me a sense of who this woman is? because we see her on the court as we see her in the public sphere. but who is she?

>> well spun issues is the word evolve. because i actually think that is really appropriate when you think about serena from when she won her first major at 17, through all of the ups and downs of being away from the sport of times. because of injury or loss of interest. and i think she has a great curiosity. variously competitive. obviously an immense talent. so when you combine everything, the desire, the mental strength, the willingness to be on the biggest stages, had to perform at the highest level. like she has done for 24 years. it is truly remarkable. and to think that she started this venture capital fund that is going to help female companies especially get started. her impact really in life as she says is just starting. you don't need to say goodbye to tennis. it is a lifetime sport. she can play with their family for a long long time. >> she can play as long as she wants, really.

just maybe not in this kind of an intense arena. i do want to quickly mention that she was very open with the fact that she had some serious complications when she had her first child. and she brought that to the floor talking about black women in particular. and maternal health. she has done a lot of other things just to play a sport, which is incredible, which he has done and that's fair as well. >> absolutely. advocating for women in the workplace, no matter your color, but especially as you mention, sara, and advocate for black women and black working women. to have better access to, whether it is childcare, but there is able to have the fair play in the workplace, despite having kids. so, to me, she has done it all. she will continue to do it all. just not at the wta tour or at the major tennis level. let's all look forward to the u.s. open, because, raise the roof at arthur ashe stadium. where her sister, venus -- >> we will.

we will raise the roof. pam schroeder, thank you so much. >> thank you.

♪ 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'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.

thank you for sticking with.

me i will be back tomorrow night. laura coats is sitting in for don lemon tonight. that trial begins right now. hey laura. >> hey sarah sign. thanks so much. great show as always. this is don lemon tonight. i am laura coats, sitting in for don. look, we are learning many more details about the fbi's unprecedented search for documents at former president, donald trump, mar-a-lago home. tonight, a source telling cnn that authorities did not believe that trump and his aides had returned all the documents and other materials to be taken to mar-a-lago when trump left office. now the documents, as you well know, are the property of the united states government. they don't belong to trump. some 15 boxes of material who previously returned to the national archive. apparently investigators had some concerns about whether there were any additional materials. including, perhaps, classified documents with potential national security implic