this is "don lemon tonight." breaking news. a chilling warning from the president of the united states. president joe biden at fundraiser in new york warning about the dangers of vladimir putin's threats to use nuclear weapons as his forces suffer setbacks in ukraine. the president saying for the first time since the cuban missile crisis we have the threat of a nuclear weapon and warning of what he calls the prospect of armageddon. straight to cnn's kaitlan collins with the latest. good evening. these comments from president biden are frightening. what did he say? >> frightening, alarming, blunt. a lot of words to describe these comments that president biden made tonight in a closed door democratic fundraiser in new york. he spoke, frankly, about what he believes is the actual real threat that putin is posing right now when he talks about this threat of nuclear war. we have seen him kind of dangle out there in the speeches he has given lately.

president biden says he believes that's because of how terribly russia is doing on the battlefield. he used the word underperforming, how he believes the setbacks, humiliating and the draft that putin put in place is all factoring into this. it seems to be causing a real sense of concern for president biden tonight who said he believes the world is the closest it has been to the potential nuclear catastrophe since the 1960s. since the cuban missile crisis, of course, we are coming up on the anniversary of that quite soon. president biden said tonight we have not faced the prospect of armageddon since kennedy and the cuban missile crisis. he is talking about putin. a guy we know fairly well, he is not joking when he talks about the potential use of tactical nuclear weapons or biological or chemical weapons because his military is, as you might say, significantly underperforming. he made clear, don, washington is trying to figure out what putin's end game is going to be,

what his exit strategy in ukraine is going to be. that's notable as well because he first raised the prospect of wondering what that is back in may. >> kaitlin, biden's own national security council and state department have been more measured on this issue. how alarming to see the president speaking like this? >> i have asked officials about this. they said he is making clear how seriously they are taking putin's threats. officials made clear to the russian counterparts behind the scenes what the consequences would be if russia decided to do this. but you're right. we have not seen officials at the pentagon or the state department or the national security council go as far as president biden did tonight, invoking armageddon, saying that he believes there is no possible use of a tactical nuclear weapon without it actually getting to armageddon. there has been this idea of what if russia deployed one over the black sea, what if they used a smaller one in a certain area to send a warning shot, basically. the president is making clear tonight he believes if russia

goes that far, the consequences would be catastrophic. he is going further and basically just being more blunt in his language than we have seen other officials. >> i got to ask you, we have discussed this before. the president was had ukraine, made some comments. he was in poland. made some comments in ukraine, the white house walked it back. he made other comments. the white house walked it back. no one is walking back this? not yet. i asked, the president is on his way back to the white house now. i asked if there is any clarify that u.s. officials could add. they have not added anything on the record yet. i to spoke to an official who said that the statement that the press secretary made on tuesday saying they do not believe russia has changed its nuclear posture, that stands. it hasn't changed. clearly president biden is taking this very seriously. he says he doesn't believe president putin is bluffing. because his military is underperforming, he is being backed into a corner.

>> thank you very much. now to fareed zakaria. thank you very much. these comments by biden unscripted at this fundraiser, shows what is at the top of his mind tonight. how serious do you think this threat is? >> i think it's very serious. i think you highlighted the most interesting aspect, which is the officials in the white house, national security council and the state department had been low key about this. partly i think they thought it was a bluff that putin might not do it. partly it was maybe he's thinking about threatening to use a smaller tactical nuclear weapon, which would destroy only a few thousand people or, you know, a part of a city. and i think that probably what happened is that they realized this was normalizing it. so the president said we have to reestablish the norm that has been in place since 1945, that nobody uses nuclear weapons, that that threshold has to be

seen as one that is not to be crossed by any country. and i think he wanted to sort of, you know, lay down that marker. by using words like armageddon he is reminding, i think, us all that it might start with a tactical nuke weapon, but what does the other side do? this is the fear everyone has always had, which is that this can escalate to armageddon. >> let's put the direct cquote up. the president says i don't think there is any such thing as the ability to easily use a tactical nuclear weapon and not end up with armageddon. other biden officials have been more cautious, including the secretary of defense. is this a disconnect? >> it's not a disconnect, but i think they are looking at it much more from the point of view of, look, at a tactical practical level what would happen if he were to use a, you know, a tactical nuclear weapon

on the battlefield in ukraine? it wouldn't be used against the united states. the ukrainians wouldn't stop fighting. we wouldn't stop supporting them. so how to think about that. i think what biden is doing is pulling back and saying, look, the norm of no use of nuclear weapons is incredibly important. it's fundamental norm that orders the global system right now. and he is putting in a sense, he is upping the ante. what he is doing youimplicitly saying to putin, if you use a tactical nuclear weapon we may have to respond. in other words, this can get -- this is always the danger of nuclear weapons, that what keeps the peace with nuclear weapons is what people call mutually assured destruction. you don't use them on me to destroy my society because i have enough that i can use them on and destroy you. so it would be a mutual suicide. and he wants to remind people

that this is that dangerous and that's why don't take the first step. >> this is a way then of giving, i would imagine, giving putin anan off-ramp. we talked about it with matthew chance and me. we saw the beginning of the war. we reported on the beginning of the war. what is the off-ramp? is there an off-ramp? do you see one for putin at this point? >> i think there are many off-ramps. i don't think we should be overly worried about that in this sense. putin can, you know, the ukrainians have not driven every russian soldier out of ukraine. they are still fighting very fiercely. the russians may well hold on to a certain part of donbas, maybe parts of crimea. putin can claim he has secured and supported the ukrainian-speaking people he wanted to there. remember, he controls the media landscape 100% in russia.

so he will be able to parlay some kind of negotiated kdefeat into a victory or a stalemate or something like that. i think right now we should just focus on helping the ukrainians win these battles because the pressure he is feeling, it means that he is also going to have to start to live with the reality he is not going to get his cake. he is not going to get ukraine. and we want him to get comfortable with that. and there are plenty of off-ramps, plenty of negotiations. he has said, which is one of the reasons one wonders if he is bluffing, he said he is open to negotiations. of course, on his own terms. >> what does that mean? >> right. so i think the most important thing to do here is worry less about giving putin an off-ramp and just making sure he still foles the pressure. >> no doubt he heard about this,

right? how do you think this is going to impact his calculus in this? >> it's very difficult to tell. i think that was meant to be a kind of warning shot. i am not sure any of us really knows whether he would use something like this. my own sense is he is going to wait for this 300,000 troops to move into ukraine. remember, they just have been mobilized. they are going to start putting them into battalions. i think he still thinks that the russian army can hold its positions if not roll back. remember, it's ten times larger than the ukrainian army. what the ukrainians have done, it's a miracle. so i think he will first try to use those 300,000 troops. if that doesn't work, we then do, i think -- but his back is not quite at the wall with right now. he is flush with money. unfortunately, price of oil is high. and the oil embargo hasn't really worked. but at the end of the day he

needs to win on the battlefield and that's where we can help the ukrainians the most. >> since we have been speaking you have been saying, listen, this is how biden -- you said a warning shot. i don't want to misquote you. if you use a nuclear tactical weapon we will have to respond. so what happens if russia does use or putin uses a nuclear tactical weapon? how do you think the u.s. should respond then? >> i think the most sensible thing it do, and i think this is what my understanding is, is being thought about, is that the united states should not respond to a nuclear weapon by putin, even if it's a small tactical nuclear weapon, with a nuclear strike. if the russians behave irresponsibly and break that norm, the united states should not follow suit. but the u.s. with nato can bring enormous firepower to bear, and at that point nato should enter the struggle because that to me would be a trigger. nato and the u.s. could probably

within a few weeks destroy every russian armored column in the whole of ukraine. in other words, the essentially destroy all russian troop formations. the ukrainians would then have essentially won the war. they would walk in, reoccupy their territories. general petraeus talked about sinking every ship in the back sea. this is quite doable for the american military. they own the skies. they know how to do this thing. this is like gulf war one. and i think something like that would be both a sufficient deterrent, and i know something like this has been communicated to the russians. i don't know the specifics, but some kind of major response. and at that point putin would have to think about -- because all putin is thinking about is his own power, how do i stay in power. and to have an utterly humiliating, crushing military defeat where your entire army is

decimated. the ukrainians reunite their entire country within a few weeks, that's pretty bad for him. so i think that's a smart way to think about deterring him. >> thank you. i appreciate you coming in. >> wit may be the last time, unless you have me tomorrow. i do want to say you have done an amazing job, a terrific show as a viewer, i just loved it. i can't wait to see you in the other -- on the other side of the day. >> are you going to wake up? >> i am not making any promises. if i do, i will be watching in my pajamas, not on the show. >> thank you, fareed. i appreciate you watching. thank you so much. doj officials demanding the former president return any classified documents he still has after months of effort from the national archives and the fbi's search of mar-a-lago. what is he trying to hide? (sofoft clattering)

(soft thud)

oh, wow. but we got to sell our houses. well, almost perfect. don't worry. just sell directly to opendoor. close in a matter of days. get your free offer at opendoor.com

new tonight, a source telling cnn the doj demanding in recent weeks the former president return any classified documents he still has making clear they don't believe he has returned everything he took when he left the white house. did you catch that?

in recent weeks. so after 18 months of efforts by the federal government after the fbi's search of mar-a-lago the doj believes he still hasn't turned over everything he was supposed to. the big question is, in all of this is, what is he trying to hide? cnn's senior legal analyst laura coats. after all this back and forth between the federal government and trump's team to get everything back, even after the fbi's search at mar-a-lago, the doj still doesn't think that they have got everything. i mean, this keeps growing. >> i mean, isn't it stunning to think about? the big question of course is why does the former president think he is entitled to retain the classified documents? why is he fighting so hard to ensure that he retain it? there is no question why the doj doesn't trust him. they have been able to recover documents. we don't have full daylight into

all the transparency here, they have a trove of couples marked classified, marked top secret and other things. the fact that at this point. 18 months in, there is an ongoing dialogue about trying to get documents even when the courts have been involved, the supreme court has been alerted, a special master has been assigned, to think that he would feel to so entitled to, a, have them, or not to be able to have the level of trust and credibility with the doj when he is a former head executive branch of government to say trust me is really quite stunning. >> would the justice department demand trump returning any outstanding classified documents if they didn't know he had them? >> you know, on the one hand, yes. to make sure. dot the i's, cross the t's. if you don't believe somebody has been truthful with you, the demand could be out there to preserve your ability to make the argument in a courtroom later on. you never asked me.

we don't know what i had because you never said anything to me. this preserves that argumentability. on the other hand, there is probably some inkling based on experience with the former president and his counsel not to believe everything the there is the idea of, you know, you can trust, believe your own eyes and trust what you see or trust but verify. that's the phrase i think that comes to mind with the doj when it comes to somebody who has retained documents, has fought this hard and still believes in some respects that classified documents and potentially privileged documents believe -- should be in the same realm to be reviewed by a special master. >> listen, remember according to the seven inventory list at mar-a-lago were 48 empty folders with classified banners. is that the major clue they hadn't gotten everything or do they have other evidence or testimony perhaps? >> it could be, right?

there is a lot made about the folders. his camp likely to say they are empty because we had random manila folders. who among us doesn't have cabinets of random manila folders? a virtual junk drawer. i don't buy that. i think a document like that, there is essentially a chain of custody. there is somebody to bring those documents. they are contained in the folders. the person is supposed to return them to the person who brought them to you so on and a so forth to ensure that documents are not the virtual junk drawer and proverbial manila folder in somebody's filing cabinet. on the other hand, this could be an indication they believe there are things unaccounted for and the empty folders themselves suggest that there are documents that have yet to be traced. i go back to this notion though. it's not just what the former president retains. none of us have really seen him carrying these files? you don't see him with the briefcases or file box where he is moving himself. so the chain of custody, every

fingerprint that ought to have been on these documents or these files is game to be questioned as to why they were not able to be going back. why they were able to be retained. i think that's on the horizon of the next inquiry here. >> you know, laura, with the justice department tied up in these legal battles with trump's attornies, could we see this -- this is what i have been wondering for a while -- another search and where would they look? would they search a different trump property? you saw the boxes off of the airplane and all that. what do you think? >> you know, he does have more than one property. and, therefore, if there is a chance that there are other areas where documents could be, normally seven warrants say things like, you know, paraphrasing the language here in laymen's terms, this might be where we're going to find something. we are likely to find something in this area. you don't have to have precise to say in this particular filing cabinet marked this particular

row, but the general area it's supposed to be in. if that includes more broadly properties. and we have recovered and understand stood from reporting bit of a feud for the different lawyers for trump. some saying things like i can't say that we have actually -- i don't know that to be the case. others saying have a more come ba come /* bat i have tone. for that notion of some sort of a feud, maybe there is something more on the horizon to suggest that there are other places where documents could be found. i don't want to get ahead of myself and speculate to that extent, but it is probable when you are talking about past as prologue, don. if there is a fundamental mistrust based on the behavior of the person i'm asking for information from, then it's fair game for me to question where else it could be. again, i mean, i'm an ''80s baby. i will say you are an' 80s baby. the idea that we are dealing

with paper still, actual just paper documents, belies the fact that we are an electronic world. the fact that there might be areas or things in other spaces not documented in the tangible way, i think that is common sense to think this that might also be a part of the searches. >> yeah. i'm a '90s baby. i don't know about you. >> there you go. i didn't want to make you younger than me, don lemon. >> thank you, laura. appreciate it. i'll see you soon. more damning reports, adamant denials. will herschel walker be able to outlast the scandals? we'll discuss next. they were the first to be verified by usp... ...an independent organization that sets strict quality and purity standards. nature made. the number one phpharmacist recommended vitamin and supplement brand. welcome to allstate where anyone who bundles their home and auto insurance saves. isn't that right phil?

sorry, i'm a littlbusy. what in the world are you doing? m in the metaverse, bundling my home anduto insurance. why don't you just do that in the real world? um, because now i can bundle in space. watch this. i still don't get it. save up to 25% when you bundle home and auto with allstate. click or call for a quote today. this is how tosin lost 33 lbs on noom weight. i'm tosin. noom gave her a psychological approach to weight loss. noom has taught me how you think about food has such a huge impact on your relationship with it. (chuckle) sign up for noom weight and lose weight for the long haul. >> tech: at safelite, we take care of vehicles with the latest technology. we can replace your windshield ...and recalibrate your safety system. >> customer: and they recycled my old glass. >> tech: don't wait. schedule today. >> singers: ♪ safelite repair, safelite replace. ♪

♪ music: “everywhere” by fleetwood mac ♪ you ready? ♪ ♪ ♪ can you hear me calling ♪ ♪ out your name? ♪ ♪ you know that i've falling ♪ ♪ and i don't know what to say ♪ ♪ oh, i ♪ dude ♪ i want to be with you everywhere. ♪ from bolt to blazer, equinox to silverado, chevy evs are for everyone, everywhere.

so many people are overweight now and asking themselves, "why can't i lose weight?" for most, the reason is insulin resistance,

and they don't even know they have it. conventional starvation diets don't address insulin resistance. that's why they don't work. now, there's golo. golo helps with insulin resistance, getting rid of sugar cravings, helps control stress and emotional eating, and losing weight. go to golo.com and see how golo can change your life. that's g-o-l-o.com.

herschel walker, georgia's gop nominee for the senate, continuing to deny a report that he paid for a woman's abortion in 2009. the denials after more reporting from "the daily beast" last night that the anonymous woman was the mother of one of walker's four children. walker fielding questions about it on the campaign trail today. >> have you reached out to any of the mothers of your children? >> no. >> reporter: why not? >> why do i need to? >> reporter: well because according to the article the woman who says that you paid for her to have an abortion is also the mother of one of your children. it seems like that's an easy -- >> because of the article, i had more kids. that's why i didn't reach out to anyone. when i said no, i said it's not correct. that's a lie. this here, the abortion thing, is false. it's a lie. and that's what i said.

i said anything happened with my ex-wife, what krchristian was talking about, i don't know. >> cnn has not been able to independently verify the allegations. joining me alice and natasha. good evening. he goes on in that when he is asked about what -- he is blaming it on the democrats, but these are people in your family. this isn't political. this is your son. he doesn't answer that. he says i love my son. he doesn't answer that. his son is very conservative, is not a democrat and members of his family and not exactly democrats who are saying that he is lying about this. so cnn reached out to him and he put out a statement saying that he is not backing down. but there are calls for a more trumpian response to this. is he capable of pulling that off? >> that's a good question, don,

because i think the big difference between this and the "access hollywood" tape, which it's being compared to, a lot of republicans are saying he is a celebrity like donald trump, that means he may be able to overcome what would normally take down a regular mortal who is not a celebrity politician, but herschel walker, a heisman trophy winner, star in georgia, and maybe like trump these things slides off him. the big difference between when that "access hollywood" tape dropped in the 2016 election and now is that you didn't hear anything from ivanka trump, melania trump, the ex-wives. the family as pretty silent and stood behind him. in this case you have got his son pretty -- i think the son to a lot of the republicans that i have spoke to worked for him or near him, in support of him, this is an "x" factor we couldn't plan for because there is a narrative out there that herschel walker can't keep track of his kids, he is a hipypocrit.

his son who isn't a liberal, who doesn't -- >>is his son is to the right to him. >> his son makes shirts that say canceled. this is a kid that is not defying his father because of political reasons. he feels it's a moral reason. i think that's really hard for republicans to wrap their heads around. you need the family behind you. >> one the challenges to your point is can he do this like trump was able to do this. taking a page out of the trump playbook in his response, which is to deny, deflect and tee mean the accusers here. and the question is will that work for him? i think trumpism only works for trump. even though herschel walker is a star, i am a georgia bulldog, i think he is a great football player, not everyone can pull that off. and from a crisis communications standpoint having worked on many campaigns, the best way to respond to something like this is have a short concise and accurate response. say that. say it once, twice, and pivot.

go back to the issues that the voters of georgia are concerned with. so this does not continue to pop up. but the more he does interviews, it seems it peels back another layer and another layer and another layer and we are still talking about this as opposed to him getting back on message, which i think could help him. >> did you have any idea? because if you played the length of that, that was probably only two minutes that he took questions and kept saying, no, no, no, and when they ask him specifics he would say we are going to win this seat, playing to the crowd of supporters there, or i love my son, which was not an answer to any of this. it was a word salad. did you understand anything? did he convince you of anything? >> it felt familiar. i do agree it's a similar approach. it's a similar strategy to deflect, to deny, and even dismiss this even matters. but i look at it a little bit differently and that's because at "the grio" we serve african american readers and voters and ach of a voters saw him as a

body anyways, as somebody selected just because he was black and could go against warnock, right? so they didn't really believe that he was a quality candidate. they didn't necessarily believe in his character or his ability to explain himself in these very difficult situations. so i think that there were low expectations to begin with. and i think some voters are just saying this is just a hit job, or really one paid for abortion, if he is going to go there and uphold this policy that stops all of three abortions, i will compromise my values that i say i believe in because this man will get the job done. it's about power and party. >> okay. to so let's be honest here. when you talk about quality candidates, from early on, even the lieutenant governor was on last night of georgia who said knew from the beginning echoing some of what you are saying tonight. he lied about law enforcement. he lied about, you know, the college that he graduated from.

he lied about a whole lot of things before. things that are provably false and still they stuck behind him for -- this has been over a year that they have been doing this. >> right. and this is the residual effect of donald trump. we suffered under donald trump in the runoff election with per c due and leftler -- >> >> so the question is why? >> the question is donald trump has sway over the republican base in georgia. the base of the republican party in georgia. the problem is that does not translate to a general election. and we should have learned that in the last time we had the special election. unfortunately, we are doing this again. there were good quality candidates running in the primary that i think would have been a much better gop primary candidate, a more moderate candidate and -- >> but now -- go on. >> here is the thing -- >> i wonder if he needed trump's

endorsements because he is so famous and popular in georgia. >> certainly elevated his profile and gave him a little bit more gravitas with the base. the problem is he has not been able to appeal to the independent voters. and here is the thing. many republican voters are going to say, you know, this is a lot of baggage, an awful lot of baggage, but he is better than the alternative when it comes to policy. >> i get all that. i'm being honest here. when the man speaks, i had no idea. i speak to a lot of people and try to understand and read between the lines. i don't know what he is talking about. i am like, what the hell is he talking about? it makes no sense. most of the time. >> it's confusing. insulting to the intelligence of african american voters who are like, wow, you picked this guy who is just up there saying anything because you think -- just because he is black i am going to vote for him. >> he is saying nonsense. >> saying anything and nothing at the same time.

>> there you go. >> and it's a risky bet, don. and everyone on this panel because he is betting on the fact this woman is anonymous right now, right? so as long as she stays anonymous he can cast doubt on her story. you may be enticing her and challenging her to come forward. >> she said that. she said to the "daily beast" i am not going to get run over again and again. i'm paraphrasing here. and guess what? christian walker said pretty much the same thing, is that, you know, you keep doing this to my mom and me over and over and over again and i'm tired of it. i want to play this. hugh hewitt asked him about the allegations earlier in the day. watch this. >> if that happened, i would have said nothing to be ashamed of there. you know, people have done that. but i know nothing about it. >> okay. again to my point, what is he saying here? he said later walker said that he was talking about something

different. but what do you think he was saying? was he implying there is nothing to be shamed about having an abortion? which one should voters believe here? >> he said a little bit of everything. back to my point of the way you handle something like this is you have a short, concise and accurate answer and say that over and over and over. >> that was my first question to tara. can he pull that off? >> time will tell. >> and the -- >> exactly. >> and he said he was going to sue "the daily beast" and they have yet to do that. all that will do is open up a lot of questions in discovery. as we know, sometimes the cover-up that is more than crime which is why a lot of republicans are saying just come forward. he should have just come forward and used this as part of his redemption story. i am a different person now than i was then instead of flat out die flying it because he may fall flat on his face with another round of stories if she comes forward or there is more evidence or they end up, you

know, having a lawsuit and it falls apart. >> alice, quick answer if you will because you have contacts within the republican circles. what are they saying? i know they are pouring a lot of money into that. it doesn't mean that he can or will win. they want him to wrin. does he -- is he -- is it winnable for him at this point? >> you know, the numbers are tight. raphael warnock is ahead right now. but clearly the republicans need to raise $500,000 since this started. lindsey graham -- >> that doesn't translate to a win. do you know the internal polling? what is the internal polling and the internal scuttlebutt? >> there is about, warnock has a four point advantage at this point, within the margin of error, and they are looking at that from the margin of error standpoint and their main goal is to make sure what is happening, what the goal here is not to shame and cast out

dispersions on christians and have them stay home and vote because of all of this about abortion. that's the big fear. >> don't you think warnock is doing that without republicans? he is doing that himself. that's all him. i don't know what he is saying. he is saying a lot. what is it? talking a lot and saying nothing. i forget what it is. thank you. >> thanks, don. talking loud and saying nothing. that's what it is. a big day in the oath keepers trial on seditious conspiracy charges. the founder was allegedly in touch with a secret service agent in the final weeks of the campaign. we'll be right back. (chuckle) ...you should check out inspire. no masask. no hose. just sleep. (beeping) learn more and view important safety informatition at inspiresleep.com. ♪ ♪

for a trtment for moderate-to-severe eczema. binqo — fda approved. 100% steroid free. not an injection, cibinqo is a once-daily pill for adults who didn't respond to previous treatments. and cibinqo helps provide clearer skin and less itch. cibinqo can lower your ability to fight infections, including tb. before and during treatment, your doctor should check for infections and do blood tests. tell your doctor if you've had hepatitis b or c, have flu-like symptoms, or are prone to infections. do not take with medicines that prevent blood clots. serious, sometimes fatal infections, lymphoma, lung, skin and other cancers, serious heart-related events, and blood clots can happen. people 50 and older with heart disease risk factors have an increased risk of serious heart-related events or death with jak inhibitors. this is the moment. but we've only just begun. speak with your doctor about cibinqo today. an innovation from pfizer.

naomi: every year the wildfires, the smoke seems to get worse. jessica: there is actual particles on every single surface. dr. cooke: california has the worst air pollution in the country. the top 2 causes are vehicles and wildfires. prop 30 helps clean our air. it will reduce the tailpipe emissions that poison our air kevin: and helps prevent the wildfires that create toxic smoke that's why calfire firefighters,

the american lung association, and the coalition for clean air support prop 30. naomi: i'm voting yes on 30. developments in the oath keepers trial. members facing charges including seditious conspiracy. one former member testifying

oath keepers leader stewart rhodes was in touch with a secret service agent in the lead-up to the 2020 presidential election. cnn national correspondent sara sidner, covering the trial. and darrell johnson, a former senior domestic terrorist analyst at the department of homeland security. this former oath keeper testifying the oath keepers leader was in touch with the secret service in 2020. tell us more about this, please. >> former oath keeper john zimmerman testified he believed oath keeper founder stewart rhodes was actually in touch with a secret service agent to ask about what weapons they could bring or be allowed to bring near a rally in fayetteville, north carolina, in the lead up the to the 2020 election. we contacted the secret service because this was a revelation that was testified to in court, and they responded by saying that they couldn't confirm there was actual contact in that instance, but said they often

have contact with protest groups. so that begs the question. if they had regular contact with the oath keepers and other extremist groups and protest groups, why didn't they look into any signs or even the warnings that groups like the anti-defamation league or the southern poverty law center had been putting out in the lead up to january 6th about groups, including the oath keepers, don. >> darrell, what strikes you about this? is it surprising? >> well, i've got a little bit of a mixed feeling. the oath keepers is a far-right anti-government extremist group. that we all know. they have a sole purpose of recruiting current and former military as well as law enforcement. so on one hand i can understand the secret service is just processing a normal call that comes in, trying to answer questions. on the other hand, we need to be smarter with who we are dealing with on the phone because these extremist groups could use that

contact, exploit it, this person, if they gave them information, could actually be an insider threat. so we really don't know the extent of this relationship. but it does give you pause for concern. >> sara, the judge also ruled that the jury can't see a death list of georgia election officials in this trial. what is this about? >> there was a handwritten note that was found during the search of defendant thomas caldwell's home in virginia when he was arrested in january 2021. he was one of the first associates of the oath keepers to be arrested and so what you saw there is this handwritten note that was titled "death list" and it had ruby freeman and her daughter andrea moss. both of whom we saw testify in front of the january 6th committee. they are georgia election officials who said that they had been dealing with such terrible harassment, they were afraid for

themselves. and so the fallout from some of this is really, really harsh. regular people trying to do their jobs. but they were pulled into this sort of voter fraud conspiracy theory and they were just working as election officials. now, the jury is not going to see this death list note because the judge ruled that it was too prejudicial and not really relevant to the case at hand. >> darrell, we are also watching what is happening with the proud boys. today jeremy, a top lieutenant to leader enrique terrio, pleaded guilty to seditious conspiracy and he is cooperating with the justice department investigation. is this significant? >> yeah, both these cases are very significant. these are actually the probably the toughest charges that have been brought to bear so far on these insurrectionists from january 6th as well as some of the events that happened, you

know, early thundershower than that when we had the upheavals and the, you know, discord in the country back in 2020. so both of these cases are very important and the justice department is bringing these charges against them that are very serious. you can get up to 20 years in prison for seditious here in the united states. >> darrell, sara, thank you both. appreciate it. a big update to the story we brought you last night about a former texas state trooper under investigation for her role during the eovaldi mast kerr.

in the next second, 14 families will decide... that's it, we're getting a bigger house! finally. but we gotta sell this place. before we buy the next place. and then in the meantime... so how long are you staying? emily, no! oh, a little cramped. i am cpap man! that is not a toy! or, skip the in-laws. sell and buy your house with confidence, with opendoor. move when you're ready. that's it. indeed. get your free offer at opendoor.com in my book, saving while shopping is a no-brainer. so, i use rakuten to get cash back while i'm book clubbing. cha-ching! with rakuten, i get cash back at over 3,500 stores. so, how does that work?

well, stores pay rakuten to send them shoppers. then, rakuten shares that money with us, in a check or paypal payment. it's free and easy. shhhhh! i think you're missing the plot. and i think you're missing the cash back. [ding] cha-ching.

we're carvana we created a brand new way for you to sell your car go to carvana answer a few questions and our techno wizardry calculates your car's value and gives you a real offer in seconds we'll come to you

pay you on the spot then pick up your car that's it at carvana the major update was story cnn is reporting exclusively on. today the volley texas cool district terminating the employment of newly hired school officer officer, elizondo, who responded to the masker back in may.

incoming after cnn's report last night that alejandro is one of the officers under investigation for her actions on the mass shooting when the officers waited 77 minutes before taking out the gunman. 90 children and to the teachers were killed. elizondo was heard on police body cam ridge saying the following when asked if to her son was inside the school. >> if my son had been in there i would not have been outside, i promise you that. >> after leaving her job as a state trooper, alexander was hired as an officer at an elementary school were children who survived the massacre are now stand. parents recognized elizondo there were outraged. alarming comments from joe biden about the threat of nuclear armageddon. what he said, next. we can replace your windshield ...and recalibrate your safety system. >> cusustomer: and they recycld my old glass. >> tech: don't't wait. schedule today.

>> singers: ♪ safelite repair,, safelite replace. ♪

>> happening tonight president

biden stunning warning tonight about the danger of vladimir putin using a nuclear weapon as his forces suffer setbacks in ukraine. . at a fund-raiser here in new york, this is what he said. he said, for the first time since the cuban missile crisis, we have the threat of a nuclear weapon, if, in fact, things continue down the path they are going. i want to bring in senior white house correspondent phil mattingly, mark hertling, global affairs analyst susan glasser, and max boot, senior fellow on the council. could have all of you. on philonise, to with you, because these comments are starving from the president. >> they were startling and jarring. that's what cartilage people off-guard. when he made the remarks in these fund-raiser. it's not on camera. he tends to be more camera. but the administration has been very calm and collected when

they discuss this. they don't appreciate the saber wet rattling. they warned against it. but they make clearly have not seen signs that we are moving closer to a nuclear element. that hasn't changed. i've talked to officials tonight, they say there has been no sign that putin is moving towards nuclear weapons, no new signal over the last 24 hours that he has decided to use nuclear weapons, and the u.s. has not changed its posture when it comes to nuclear weapons. that's an important note here. when the president was getting at that is something that u.s. officials have tried to grapple with since putin's speech last friday, where he, once again, in detailed terms, the potential for nuclear war. i want to read one thing the president said, because i think he gets. this said i don't think there's any such thing is the ability to easily use tactical nuclear weapons and not end up with an armageddon. the president has work through this analytically. and this is being thrown out as a half measure that president putin could take. you tactical nuclear weapons.

moscow directly behind the scenes, officials say what they would do if that were to occur. the presidents point here is, there is no half measure. anytime any move in this direction with set up an exculpatory ladder that would not end, leading to armageddon. it's a warning. a belong to one. but a very clear warning about the stakes and the dangers. here >> i want to bring you in, general, because, as phil said, i don't think there is anything is the ability to easily use a tactical nuclear weapon and not end up with armageddon. are we right to qualify this as startling? is this terrifying to hear, but is it a real possibility as well? >> it certainly is, don. a lot of people have been concerned about this since the beginning. let me tell you, the last time i observed a russian exercise in moscow, outside of moscow, they had a tendency, inner exercises, their training events, to always and their training events with a nuclear