distracted over the last week with the fbi surge in the results of what was found at mar-a-lago. we have started to forget that there are these other very significant possibly more significant investigations that continue to rumble on. today's news for giuliani is just the latest in a series of really worrying signs for him. this is an indication that he is clearly being considered for an indictment. i think it will have a huge impact on how he testifies or which question, if any he actually answers in front that grand jury. >> as you would surmise, he is responding, -- >> when you start turning around lawyers, they defend their clients, we are starting to live in a fascist state. >> [laughs] >> that is not much of a defense! >> he served as trump attorney during the 2020 election, you expect that he will vote the fifth amendment, or, is you can argue attorney-client privilege

as so many have done? >> yeah, i think you will invoke any privilege he has to think of. realistically, now he has been told he's a target, he should. it would be foolish not to -- they'll try attorney-client privilege which i think is dubious because it does not apply to conversations that aren't -- he will take the fifth if he has to, look, it is his right to do so. and as you said, there are investigations swirling around. there came this moment lace last week when we were so deep in mar-a-lago discussions, which remains important, but at one point on thursday night. oh yeah, this january 6th also. i mean, let's not forget, how long ago does it seem that we were doing the january 6th hearings? it seems like a lifetime ago. but that stuff has not gone away. that will come back in georgia. that will come back with doj. that will come back with congress. >> it's nuts, let's talk of the department. the probable cause, right? but they are saying about the affidavit. it's a secret, right? they say, they are trying to

keep the affidavit secret. this is their response, a disclosure of the structure of the affidavit supporting providence would, by contrast, cause significant any reputable damage to this ongoing criminal investigation. so bottom line, they are not done. what stands out in this response to you that they are saying, we don't want this in public. >> a couple of things, so this, as he was considering, as merrick garland was sitting in his office at the doj, considering whether or not to push for the unsealing of the warrant and, of course, the property receipt. this is exactly the kind of a slippery slope he did not want to end up on. now, here he is on it, trying to argue his, as strongly as he can, to stop the madness of unsealing documents associated with the search warrant, at the end of the day, he is absolutely right. the details in that warrant could have a deleterious effect on the sources that could be identified for having cooperated with investigators. they could expose facts that would undermine the integrity of the investigation going forward. and that is what they are most concerned about. >> he's exactly right, this is mark rowan trying to hold the

line. they had documents that he unsealed last week, those were a total of six pages. those documents that you turn over to the defendant anyways. they are out there in the world. this affidavit is a whole different ball game. it is against everything we were taught as prosecutor and investigator that you would never wanted out there. first and foremost, to protect your investigation. i think they were saying, at least in trump world, to unseal it, what was already in the former president and his attorneys possessions. right? >> so no, oh yes, stop that was -- this is a whole other show, right, donald trump is not how this document. the only prosecutors and the judges. yes. >> when it comes to responding, you know, to the mar-a-lago search, trump and his allies, they are flooding the zone with all kinds of excuses than all complete nonsense, accusing the fbi of planting evidence. we have heard allies say that he had a standing order to declassified documents that he took to the residents. are any of these theatrical going to penetrate the doj's investigation? or are they all about the doj

sticking to the facts here. >> he is flooding the zone with a variety of defenses, because none of them are working. i mean that is really what it comes down to. i don't think at the end of the day, we were talking with us before the show. i don't really think that the declassification argument is gonna work for him. first, because the charges that they are obviously considering and the execution of the search, warned of them require classified documents to support them. so that sort of takes it off the table right there. and there is, at this point, not a single piece of evidence that indicates that he actually took these steps to declassify the documents that he now claims he did. if he had such evidence, there is no reason he wouldn't have already provided it to the department to cut this thing off at the path. he clearly didn't do that. >> so the defense is making no sense, i agree with andy. but let's keep in mind, there is gonna be a charge. prosecutors bear the burden of proven beyond a reasonable doubt, they have to prove knowledge, essentially, that trump knew those boxes were, there had some sense of what was in them. and intensive, intend to do whatever the specific law prohibits. whether it is compromise national security, or keep

documents out of the hands of investigators and the obstruction charge. so that is an affirmative application that falls and prosecutors, and you have to do more than just say, just offense to make no sense. you have to make your case. >> that's, right professor who knows all about this, they work for the person ministration on declassifying documents. exactly how you do it, and we are gonna get a one-on-one primer on, oh yeah, what's actually means and if there are lies being told, including about the former president, thank you gentlemen, appreciate it. want to bring out brooks -- alito democrat who's a member of the house intelligence committee. thank you representative for joining, us appreciate, it thank you. so first of all, the doj wanted to keep the updated safe care. they were saying their investigation is ongoing, and they say the investigation implicates highly classified materials. does that contradict trump's claim that he had a standing order to declassify anything that he took home with him? >> no, and look, first of all, one of the reasons i am most concerned about this information getting out, we have got people shooting at fbi

buildings. if witnesses have some sense that they be in this kind of peril, either existing witnesses or fewer witnesses. this investigation is in big trouble. again, the president throwing out everything he possibly can. you and i have talked, i have been part of, as the intelligence committee, two investigations that led to the impeachment of the president. i don't want to anything that can impair with it this time. the president has never been held accountable for his actions. this has to be that time. >> but listen, there have been many presidents before who have all complied, who have all followed the rules. they've all followed protocol. why is this president different. why is he blaming everyone else for his mistake? why is he saying that people are after him because of what he made mistake. he took the documents. he did something wrong, the documents are gone. the department of justice wants them back, the national archives wants them back. they should be in a sealed environment. so what gives here? >> yeah, i mean, look, it's generating operating procedure

for this president. again, he has never been held accountable. this is the presidential records act. i would say to those giving the president the benefit of the doubt, those who have always defended him. you are putting members of the intelligence community at risk. sources and methods, and those that help them keep us safe. who in their right mind, knowing that the president could do this, would want to help the united states with vital, very sensitive information, if they thought that some president would nearly keep it at mar-a-lago. maybe the greatest sieve of potential intelligence, you know, on screen foreign visitors there on a routine basis. all of this card by, what, a padlock, the whims of a former president? it is extraordinarily scary right now. >> then there is this bipartisan request. a top democrat and top

republican on the senate intelligence committee, senator warner and marco rubio. requesting more information on what documents were taken from mar-a-lago. so others want to damage assessment. you sit on the house intelligence committee, should members of congress be brief on any of this? >> there is a reason why not every member of congress is on the intelligence committee. first, they are pretty small. but second, it is a higher standard. we are protecting information, what is the magic language that can be exceptionally, cause exceptionally grave damage to the national security. other members who want certain classified information have to come to this committee and have a vote to get it approved. and we don't always approve it. so, you know, look, it's obvious that you can't trust

every member in the political nature of this to not reveal highly sensitive information. i think we will get briefed. i don't know if it will be in the details. i think it might be as to the threat risk of what was involved with this material. and what risk their is to the united states as a result. you know, we will see, but i do believe it should be bipartisan. i do believe it should be bicameral. i do believe we have certain members who will use and exploited and reveal it and put peoples lives at risk. >> yeah, you keep talking about people's lives at risk, because you have drawn a parallel between the president investigating violence against congress on january 6th to what we are seeing now with the attacks on the fbi. can you speak more on that? >> you know, i was in the room where it happened. i suppose i could take it personally knowing that i watched, on that morning, the president say, you know, thousands of people on our democracy, on our capitol police.

and all members of congress. when i heard was them saying, lynch pence. and then they came within feet of number two, three, four, succession. in a real violent coup. the president incited a violent insurrection. he is doing this sort of thing again. he is the most dangerous man in the united states. this is a very dangerous time. only this president could somehow be an ex president and create this kind of risk and this kind of constitutional turmoil. >> thank you representative, i appreciate your time, stay well. >> thank you. >> with the doj saying tonight about the mar-a-lago search, it may be giving us clues to what else is going on in the investigation, excuses from trump world just keep rolling in. >> there is always an evolving explanation, but that evolving explanation is always a lie. in importance of the fact that don trump knew what he was doing.

♪ icy hot pro. ♪ ice works fast... to freeze your pain and your doubt. ♪ heat makes it last. so you'll never sit this one out. icy hot pro with 2 max-strength pain relievers. this is the sound of better breathing. fasenra is an add-on treatment for asthma driven by eosinophils. it helps prevent asthma attacks, improve breathing, and lower use of oral steroids. fasenra is not a rescue medication or for other eosinophilic conditions. fasenra may cause allergic reactions. get help right away if you have swelling of your face, mouth and tongue, or trouble breathing. don't stop your asthma treatments unless your doctor tells you to. tell your doctor if you have a parasitic infection or your asthma worsens. headache and sore throat may occur. ask your doctor about fasenra.

listen, i'm done settling. because this is my secret. i put it on once, no more touch ups! secret had ph balancing minerals; and it helps eliminate odor, instead of just masking it. so pull it in close. secret works.

["only wanna be with you" by hootie & the blowfish] discover is accepted at 99% of places in the u.s. ["only wanna be with you" by hootie & the blowfish]

the justice department tonight opposing the release of the affidavit that led to the mar-a-lago search, arguing that making public would cause irreparable harm to the criminal investigation. saying in their statement, and i quote, lotion of the government's affidavit the stage would also likely chill future cooperation by witnesses whose assistance may be sought as this investigation progresses. as well as in other

high-profile investigations. joining me now to discuss, cnn legal analyst and former federal prosecutor elliott williams. and professor richard airman, he is the director of the sector for the study of force and diplomacy at temple university. and a former assistant director -- under george w. bush. i'm so glad to have both of you on, good evening, you first elliott. looking into possible criminal handling of documents and obstruction of choices, violations of the espionage act. it's today's doj statement give us more clues? >> no, i don't think so. because the affidavit did you really would not ever to make that public. for big reason, it's safety for potential witnesses, for fbi agents and officers. for judges and anyone else along those lines. they identified in that affidavit. and their safety gets jeopardized, number one. number two, you run the risk of jeopardizing the evidence that you are gathering. you know, as people become aware of what is being investigated, there becomes a

risk that maybe someone throws something away or flashes evidence in the toilet boil as we have seen. already. so for all those reasons, it probably is a good idea to keep the affidavit under wraps for now. and i think they gave us a bit of a roadmap last week on what they were looking at in terms of change right now. >> professor, let's talk about the espionage act. it doesn't necessarily apply to spying. but how serious is it that is mentioned in the war? >> it is quite serious. it indicates that there is at least a suspicion that the president has is in possession of highly classified top secret documents that could endanger the security of the united states. so the fact that that would be used in this case as opposed to just indicating that he is violating, for example, the presidential records act. which is illegal, but doesn't rise to the same level. that is, of course, quite

serious. >> professor, i would like to turn now to these claims. all these claims and excuses coming out of trump world. his legal team saying that he had a standing order to declassify anything brought to mar-a-lago. all of these others excuses that he is making. what is your response to these? >> well, that, standing order one, on its face, quite frankly it's ridiculous. these are not his documents. he is not entitled under any circumstances to take these documents to mar-a-lago. so to have a standing order to declassify them? it is essentially telling whomever is going to transport them that he is ordering them to break the law. and not to say that he couldn't have said that, it's doubtful. but in any event, he could not

have offered, have issued that type of standing order. because he could not take the documents legally to mar-a-lago. >> can you please explain exactly how presidents declassification power is supposed to work? >> well first of all, it is unusual. the president only declassified documents and exceptional circumstances. generally, that is done at the agency level. and it is done through the collaboration of all of those agencies who have what is known as an equity in the document. in other news, interest in. it is an exceptional circumstances, the president does have the authority. but the president is not, on the assumption is, they say this is not written down code. but the president would of course consult those agencies, whether it be the military or the cia or in the case of nuclear weapons, but department of energy. what are the security issues at stake?

he would not just wave a wand and say i am going to declassify it. once it is done, it is marked, and of course those agencies are informed. it is a very formal process. a rigorous process. which is only natural or logical that it would be. so to have this type of, -- -- what are the security issues at stake? he would not just wave a wand and say i am going to declassify it. once it is done, it is marked, and of course those agencies are informed. it is a very formal process. a rigorous process. which is only natural or logical that it would be. so to have this type of, let's say, standing order, let's say. to just say that i'm gonna do, i'm gonna declassify this without informing the agencies that are directly affected by

the declassification, again, it's on its face, you know, potentially a ridiculous type of claim. >> ludicrous. so the bottom line is he was not to transport protect these documents, he was not to be in possession of these documents at mar-a-lago. and of story. full stop. >> that is correct. and you added a footnote, if they were there, there is a protocol for transporting the documents. for housing the documents. once they are there. who can see them. there is a whole laundry list of security measures that are in place to prevent exactly this type of thing from possibly happening. >> so elliott, on sunday, trump claimed that the fbi took some material protected by executive privilege in the search. but haven't we seen that the

sitting president gets to weigh in on executive privilege? >> yeah, look, just to echo some of the points that have been made here, don, there is a process around all of. this number, one for asserting executive privilege over documents. that would bring in the sitting president. number two, for claiming attorney-client privilege. you know, presidents have powers. we should be clear that presidents can be classified documents. presidents do possess executive and attorney-client privilege, depending on the circumstance. that is okay. there are certain things that presidents can do that none of us can. like issue pardons. or nominate people. but we build processes around this to avoid this specific problem from happening. you know, we tried in american history having tyrants or kings

that were unchecked in their power. and it didn't work well! the first time. we tried to create government to put checks and sort of rain in presidents. so this is almost like a perfect test case of what happens when the president sort of abuse is power that he actually does have. but is applying incorrect and inaccurate way. >> professor, thank you very much. elliott, thank you as. well i learned a lot. this is when i was talking about at the top of the show, talking about our critical democracy siri. one-on-one on where this goes and what is important here. thank you for helping out. let's talk about monkeypox, monkeypox cases are on the rise. should we have been better prepared? especially after going through covid? i will ask white house official hailing the monthly rip-off -- that's next. gies 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.

as a business owner, your bottom line is always top of mind. so start saving by switching to the mobile service designed for small business: comcast business mobile.

flexible data plans mean you can get unlimited data or pay by the gig. all on the most reliable 5g network with no line activation fees or term contracts... saving you up to $500 a year. and it's only available to comcast business internet customers. so boost your bottom line by switching today. comcast business. powering possibilities.

monkeypox cases showing no signs of slowing. the cdc now says there is 11,000 injured and 90 cases here in the u.s.. the first case was reported back in mid may. so joining me now is cnn exclusive as a matter of fact, white house national monkeypox response deputy core nadir dimitri daskalakis. thank you doctor for joining me, i really appreciate it. >> thank you so much for having me. >> doctor, back in july, we saw 40 to 50 cases reported each day. now we are seeing hundreds and even thousands reported every day. does this data show that the administration is behind the ball on battling this virus? >> i think it shows that the virus really has really been characterized by loss of twists and turns. i think this is not a monkeypox outbreak that like any that has been seen before in the world.

so i think what we are seeing is really a lot of work to catch up from the perspective of making sure that we are on top of testing. on top of vaccines and also on top of treatments. so i think that it has been a lot of pivots. i think we expect the monkeypox outbreak to do one thing and then when we learned that it was doing something else, we have to pivot. then we had some real limits and challenges in terms of what we had accessible for vaccines. that has really turned around with a lot of work and lots of domains. including getting more vaccine produced. but also extending the vaccine that we have by getting -- five doses. >> okay, okay, so listen then. your words, you're saying, you haven't seen a monkeypox outbreak like this in the world, ever. so the question is, why don't the administration act sooner than? you say you have to pivot, i'm wondering how. because the first cases reported in the u.s., that was way back in may.

you are just names ahead of the response at the beginning of this month, doctor. i have actually been engaged in the response since before the first case, when i was at the cdc working on this response. working in my division of hiv prevention, i was able to engage really early on. what i mean by monkeypox outbreak is a lot different than what one expects is that really the thought was that you started monkeypox outbreaks and you really focus on vaccinating people, people's contacts. when it became clear that that wasn't feasible, because not everyone knew their contacts were, we have to pivot. really switch our strategy to think about extending how we use vaccines in a different way. so then as that unfolded and cases increased, we have to pivot again. really identify ways to increase vaccine access when there were real limits on production. so i think really, it's been a story about a very unprecedented outbreak. and challenges with a lot of changes. so i think we are at this point right now where the

epidemiology is telling us that the population that is being affected, gay, bisexual, other men who have sex with men, it's telling us that we need to use vaccine in a way that really addresses not only on tax but in a more broadway. i think from the perspective of testing we have seen a really significant increase in access to dr. daskalakis testing. so i think that we really moved urgently. and i think this sort of level of coordination that we are bringing here, myself in bob fenton is really designed to accelerate and make this response very efficient. >> okay, so listen, -- i happen to be a game and myself. there is a lot of frustration with the administration and the rollout. people are upset, it's hard for people to get, you, no appointments. to get their vaccine. you have to go online. it is not available and you make an appointment and then it's not there. i was lucky enough to get my vaccine today after my doctor really, you know, pursuing and helping need to pursue. it but not everyone is as lucky. there have been a lot of problems with this rollout and accessibility, why, and how are you planning to make things

smoother? >> yeah, so first, thank you for getting vaccinated, that is amazing. it's great. it really shows that it is important. and talking about it is really important to some folks, i know that the vaccination is an important part of a multi domain strategy to try to prevent monkeypox. so i think, really, again, a lot of effort has gone and really increase vaccine access. access is really the key issue that we have had in the rollout. so i think not having enough supply to match the demand. i think things have changed with the new emergency use operation for the vaccine that came out of the fda. it allows us to use one vile for five doses. which means that access is gonna be a lot easier. i think it's fair to be frustrated, since it was so hard to get an appointment, i think we are actually in a different phase of this out -- vaccine if instability is gonna become a lot more -- >> doctor, i have to ask, you the manufacturer has some skepticism about the five doses, right? it is not so sure about that.

why are you sure that this is the right way to administer this when the actual manufacturer is saying, i don't know if i would be doing that. >>, while the fda reviewed the data thoroughly. you know, i think that when you think about the manufacturer and their comments, they focused on safety. what is interesting is that there is an experience that happened in germany many years ago. over 7000 people were given the vaccine. in that study, it was very safe. in terms of effectiveness, we know that the geno's facts seen does fat create immune responses and people, even if they have weakened immune system one given to the subcutaneous route. the newer study that we looked at, that actually demonstrated that the internal route, the route where you give the vaccine in between layers of skin, is equivalent to subcutaneous. so really, given those levels of data, i think that we are

confident that this intervention will allow us to extend the vaccine, get more doses, more vaccines in peoples arms. and that it is not going to actually sacrifice any effectiveness, nor safety. >> so the vaccine actually ability essentially still limited to men who sex with men, as you said earlier. to a more partners in the last two weeks. does the cdc plan on expanding eligibility anytime soon? >> right now, given the really intense focus of monkeypox among gay, bisexual, others menu of sex with men. i think we reported recently at the cdc that about 99% of cases in the u.s. have been among gay and bisexual men who have met six -- the public health strategy that is appropriate is to really focus vaccination on the community that is overrepresented in the outbreak. you know, i think we look very closely at epidemiology. at this point, given what the epidemiology is telling us, it is right to really focus the vaccination effort on the folks who are experiencing the infections. >> i have to ask you about the -- before i let you go. i wouldn't do my job if i didn't do that, i'm wondering

if there is something that needs to be done with the stigma. i wasn't quite sure that i wanted to even say that i got the vaccine, because people think that you are promiscuous, you are having multiple sex partners. that's not the case. i mean, i am in a committed relationship. but i think people should, regardless of, you, know whatever kind of relationship they are in or not in, that they should get the vaccine. what are you doing to reduce the stigma, because it is not, men who have sex with men maybe overrepresented, but they are not the only people who can get monkeypox or actually spread monkeypox. >> so i will say that really the effort and public health messaging has, for this outbreak, really been focused on, from the onset, with intentionality, making sure that we didn't generate stigma. so we have been working hiv public health for many years and, you know, specifically working with lgbtq ai plus unity. having that intentionality and learning from the history of

other infections that didn't go the right way like hiv, from the perspective of generating stigma. it became clear that the right strategy is to really provide clear messaging and guidance to people that made sense. handles really across the board the right sort of information based on the data and the knowledge that we had. and then, really focus on communicating through trusted messengers to people that the lgbtq i plus community listened to. to make sure that we get the word out, you know, i think that's really the strategy. it is really the focus on how the virus is transmitted. and being intentional to not associate the virus with one identity. i mean, at the end of the day, monkeypox is a piece of dna wrapped in fat. it is a virus. and it doesn't know the difference between someone's gender or so their sexuality, so it's our job in public health and government to make sure that is how we approach the work. while still making sure that the populations who are at risk and need to know about monkeypox are aware. >> dr. daskalakis, think you very much, i got through this whole thing without mispronouncing your name. i appreciate it. [laughs] >> thank you for having me.

>> three house republicans who voted to impeach trump have lost their primaries, and with wyoming's primary tomorrow, will list cheney be next? did i tell you i bought our car from carvana? yeah, ma. it was so easy! i found the perfect car,

under budget too! and i get seven days to love it or my money back... i love it! i thought online meant no one to help me, but susan from carvana had all the answers. she didn't try to upsell me. not once, because they're not salespeople! what are you...? guess who just checked in on me? mom... susan from carvana! [laughs] we'll drive you happy at carvana. ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ all-electric with room for up to seven. it's the suv electric has been waiting for.

the all-new eqb from mercedes-benz. ♪ ♪ alright, limu, give me a socket wrench, pliers, and a phone open to libertymutual.com they customize your car insurance, so you only pay for what you need... and a blowtorch. only pay for what you need. ♪ liberty. liberty. liberty. liberty. ♪

another big day tomorrow. primary day!

this time, it's alaska and wyoming. voters are heading to the poll, i want to bring in our senior political analyst mr. ron brownstein. while we're having a primary an election like every other week it is crazy. >> they are. >> good evening. let's start in wyoming. liz cheney is facing trump backed candidate harriet hageman. a lot of people are predicting that this will be the end for cheney in congress. what do you expect? >> look, all in likelihood is that you will lose the primary but it will hardly be the end of her political career, as she is saying. this is a state where donald trump won 70% of the vote in 2020. it was highest total everywhere in the country. hageman is a former trump critic who supported ted cruz in 2016 but has reinvented herself as a kind of acolyte of his election align. and she's likely to join the list of republican primary challengers backed by trump or ousting republican to go did for his impeachment. as you noted, only two of the ten are likely to be on the ballot in november.

and it is another marker, along with the success of the election the nicer in state like arizona, wisconsin, michigan and pennsylvania and kansas that his whole on the republican party remains dominant. >> just because cheney is taking a stand against donald trump's election lies, it doesn't mean that she is a democrat. she is a republican through and through. who voted in line with trump on nearly everything. if she doesn't win a republican primary, what does that say about the gop? >> well, i mean the gop is moving away from the kind of an ideological party to being one that is much more, i think, being recreated in the image of a strongman political party that we have seen overseas with stony, italy or erdogan and turkey. basically, a party that exists as an extension of the will of the strong men leader. and you, know what we are watching, i think one of the most striking and revealing things that off the entire episode of the search warrant at mar-a-lago it's both that trump feels even more unconstrained by the norms of laws and custom that women arbitrary exercise. he's willing to take these

documents. and we have seen, i think very clearly, over these last few days that a congressional majority, a republican congressional majority would be even less willing to constrain or hold into account when he was in office the first time. that is the dynamic that no rolls the party. and i think that is the dynamic that cheney has sent every indication that she intends to be fighting against a long after whatever happens tomorrow. so, let's go to alaska now. >> at least, let's talk about alaska. there's a special general election tomorrow there where we may see -- we will see the return of southern daylight. she is going to be facing author, republican nick, let's pronounce this right, becky? >> begich. >> all right. >> you, know it's going to be awhile before we know what happened in alaska because it's kind of a double helix of complication and they have a top four primary system and then they have ranked voting on top of that. so if nobody gets to 50% what they do is they reallocate the

vote, the second choices and we will put down -- >> i want to mention there's another candidate here there's also the former democrat credit mary peltola. >> right. >> this is her first political run since 2009, she is being backed by trump. so my question is, do you see her making a comeback? i know this whole rank choice here is an issue but do you see for making a comeback? >> i think that the rank choice makes it really hard to predict you know they all give future predictions of the u.s.. and obviously it was a factor in the race again in new york city it's one of the places that are doing it. i would not be surprised either way. i mean, the special, election you know what they're having the special election tomorrow, they're also having the primary for the general election. for the full two-year term. this is only to fill the term through the end of this congress. so it's not even see-able if the results can be different for the special than the

general. you would think that in a trumpian party, sarah palin, who was kind of trump before trump in terms of her leveraging of cultural resentment of the most white voters being easy about how the way the country is changing. you would think should be in a very good position. but the alaska republican party is an unusual beast. i have a governor who is not fully trumpify. do you have rackowski who is going to be on the ballot, tomorrow. trump is supporting a primary challenger against her. but again, we're going to have to wait a while to see how it plays out. and it's likely that she and the trump challenger make it to november. when you've got a top four single party jungle primary system and then a rank choice voting on top of that, there are a lot of permutations that could unfold and allow these election to play out. >> gosh. 2009. >> yes, exactly. >> yeah, but do you remember that? remember that -- i could see russia from my house? lipstick on a pig? oh boy, here we go again. >> well, actually i was the

first one who said i'm back to be back in the real america. really the first one to identify the kind of white, non urban, christian america as quote the real america. and everything else is something as impostor or a perversion of what america was meant to be, which is has become the fuel in the trump movement more than any other single factor. >> listen, i'm not on judging anything that happens in russia, it just took me back to a whole different time. >> thank you, appreciate it. she's a republican who spouse ran against liz cheney in 2016, but now susan and her husband are supporting cheney and she said there is still hope the congresswoman will come out on top.

i had been giving koli kibble. it never looked like real food. with the farmer's dog you can see the pieces of turkey. it smells like actual food. as he's aged, he's still quite energetic and youthful. i really attribute that to diet. get started at longlivedogs.com

which side are you on? americans who believe liberty and justice are for all, or traitors inciting violence against our country and trying to take away our freedoms? which side are you on? people who work for a living and care for our families, or the trump republicans

who block everything our families need? this november, it's time to show which side you're on. vote for democrats. ff pac is responsible for the content of this ad.

all eyes will be on the wyoming preimary tomorrow. liz cheney facing off against trump backed candidate, candidate herman. who has supported the former presidents election lies i want to bring in now, someone who is very active in wyoming. republican politics. and who, despite her own husband running against cheney in the past now joins. are joining me now, writer political strategist, susan,

thank you for joining. i really appreciate it. >> thank you don. >> the wyoming republican party voted to no longer recognize cheney as a republican, your own husband ran against her in the past and why do you still support her? >> well, you know it's interesting the path that we have walked with liz cheney has been a bit curious. in 2016, you're, right my husband tim ran against her for congress. at that, point obviously, she was our adversary. things change quickly in politics. and frankly, her meteoric rise as a freshman congresswoman was important to us. in the short time that she has been, there she has really gotten a lot of things done for us here in wyoming. you know we have one congresswoman. so the fact that her rise was so quick and her voice was so powerful, so immediate, that's important as a voter so yes we -- it was not too difficult for us

or for myself to become a supporter. >> you, know you say that voters of wyoming see cheney as a traitor for voting to impeach trump. but i just want you to listen into some of what she had to say about him in his election lie. >> there's a real tragedy that's occurring and the tragedy is that there are politicians in this country beginning with donald trump who have lied to the american people. we are nowembracing a cult of personality. i won't be part of that, and i will always stand for my oath and stand for the truth. >> republicans cannot both be loyal to donald trump and loyal to the constitution. >> i say this to my republican colleagues who are defending

the indefensible. it will come a day where donald trump is gone. your dishonor will remain. >> it is principle you cannot deny that. but isn't it also the case that calling out trump supporters so often and publicly has put her in this position? how do you think she feels about it? >> well i think that she feels exactly what she says she does. you know, as this has been noted, with mildly reporting, wyoming overwhelmingly twice voted in favor of donald trump. so, it is enough for this republican party or many of those in the party just the suggestion or any kind of movement against trump is enough. notwithstanding the reality of of january six, the impeachment vote. it's enough to speak against trump. which really has been the deathknell for listing here. >> yes, mrs.--, thank you so much for joining us. best of luck to you.

and thank you for watching everyone. our coverage continues. [ cellphone vibrates ] you'll get proactive alerts 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. ♪ ♪ it's electric... made extraordinary. ingenuity... in motion. it listens, learns, adapts and anticipates your every need. with intelligence... that feels anything but artificial.

the eqs from mercedes-benz. it's the car electric has been waiting for. ["only wanna be with you" by hootie & the blowfish] discover is accepted at 99% of places in the u.s. ["only wanna be with you" by hootie & the blowfish]

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.

hello. welcome to viewers joining us here, in the united states, and all around the world. you are watching "cnn newsroom." just ahead, donald trump's legal woes are mounting. some of his closest allies, being called to testify in election probes. the department of justice, reasserting the seriousness of the classified documents seized by the fbi in its