thanks so much for joining us tonight. i'll be back tomorrow night with republican congressman adam kinzinger. he's on the january 6th select committee. this will be his first interview following tomorrow's hearing, which we're told will be the last one before the mid-term elections. our coverage continues right now with laura coates. laura coates, did you see -- i know you're a big ana fan. did you see the interview? >> oh, i did. i look forward to anything

reality tv based. i love the inventing ana. i love the interview because you know most people can't speak to her. even the shows and series people have, there are drawings of her, there's drawings from her in jail. now this is actually right in the thick of things. it was a great interview. >> thank you so much. i don't think if you picked it up i'm not really sure i'm buying what you're selling. but we'll see. >> i think the phrase is you weren't picking up what was being put down. >> we'll see. she has a chance now to do her thing. let's see what she does. >> let's see what she does and i think we'll probably get a show out of it. i wouldn't be surprised maybe there was another angle to pursue. maybe that's the next one. thanks so much. great show as always. good evening, everyone. look, this is "cnn tonight." i'm laura coates. allison is off tonight. we'll see her again soon. we are going to keep our conversation going with panels across the political spectrum. this is a day you think about

all the things coming in the news cycle, all the things we're talking about. we've got the january 6th hearings tomorrow. we've got conversations around the mid-term elections coming up. we know after a day full of news we want to talk about what's happened. we're going to have those conversations here not just the sound bites but let it breathe a little bit, and i want to first play this for you because this happened today amid a major story the conspiracy theorist alex jones he was reacting in realtime to a jury that awarded nearly a billion dollars, and yes you heard the letter "b." a billion dollars to sandy hook families and a first responder for his lies about the massacre that killed 20 children, 6 adults nearly a decade ago. >> 7 million, 20 million, 50 million, 80 million, 100 million. you get 100 million, you get 50 million. are these people actually getting any money? >> first of all how dare you use

oprah to have that money. to have it used in that way and tells you again how flippant it is. do these people think they're getting any money? i wonder if he's aware these people he's talking about are the parents and families of loved ones of children who were killed in their own school. i mean just think about that. talk about the ick factor, talk about how it's stomach turning. i want to hear from you in our hashtag cnn sound off whether you think that warning of that damage amount by the jury is actually going to change this traffic in lies. if that's the realtime, if that's what happens next it's going to be a heck of a week. it turns out the price of lies, though, is nearly a billion dollars, but this is the era of misinformation. so will it stop the lies? it didn't stop him tonight from

talking about it and making fun. a big conversation ahead. the mid-terms i don't know if you've heard about it but it's a big thing coming less than a month away, and a big issue today is candidates and their health. and let's go to pennsylvania because john fetterman who's the democratic senate nominee in pennsylvania, he's recovering as you know from a near fatal stroke that happened in may. and he's now using closed caption technology to help him understand what he is hearing. and he says that his speech is getting bigger -- better, excuse me. but the thing is speaking of big talk there's a lot of people who are criticizing and have a lot of things to say about how this all may play out. some justified, some not. well-get that take in a moment. but he's probably the first politician to have health problems, right? we're all old and young enough to remember this is an issue not

just for those running but incumbents. i wonder how it affects his fitness for office to the voters? and i wonder what matters to the voters and what doesn't. look, we're now just a few hours away from what is expected to be the final january 6th committee hearing before the mid-terms. they didn't say the last one but before the mid-terms. a source telling cnn they're going to have some never before seen videos and some testimony not just about what happened at the capitol that day but about the very clear and present danger to democracy even now. i mean they keep talking about what's on the ballot. democracy, some say is directly on it as well. it's actually a committee member on that same committee telling cnn that some of the new material is, quote, pretty surprising. i don't know if that's going to be the mike drop moment people are looking for as pretty surprising, but i want to bring in some smart folks who always have their own version of the mike drop.

this is nia malika henderson. we're sitting next to each other to make sure. >> we are different people. >> there was a time once it said under my face nia malika henderson. >> and there's been occasions people i meet on the street have called me laura, so there you go. >> also confused for laura coates is david axelrod and scott jennings. you know what's being confused for a lot of things maybe the idea of what the role of the supreme court is. and i know the lawyer in me wants to talk about the supreme court and the law, but really it's a political conversation that's happening all over this country about whether they are apolitical. i mean they haven't done many favors themselves, but there are many moments now when democracy's on the ballot are they on the ballot in a way? >> well, certainly the decision -- the dobbs decision is on the ballot.

it's central to this campaign, so that has put the supreme court on the ballot. but as you know they're considering all kinds of issues in realtime that have profound impacts or will have profound impacts on the country. and, yes, i think that if there's conservative justices who were added to the supreme court, if they operate with a consistent philosophy, then you can say, well, this is their interpretation of the constitution. if they're inconsistent in order to achieve political goals, then they open themselves up to criticism. and if they are out there saying things that seem overtly political, justice aleto being an example of someone who does that from time to time, you invite the kind of criticism they're getting. >> i'm going to turn to my good friend scott jennings for a second because maybe you don't realize he has a pet pig. it's true, right? i'm bringing it up -- >> is it a potbelly pig? >> it's a julian made pig.

he bit me, by the way. he was literally biting the hand trying to feed him. >> what's the pig's name again so everyone knows? this is where we are right now. here's why i bring it up, the supreme court actually has a case that's about pigs. >> it keeps popping up in my twitter feed. >> do you know what it's about? >> no. >> here's the case. it could. i'm going to talk about it a second, but the issue with that case why it's so interesting and why i think it's about politics and part of it has to do with january 6th, so california has a law that says they will not allow export or import of pig products. they're not humanely raised pigs. the supreme court is looking at this issue to figure out can california dictate how other

states are treating and also conducting their own laws. it has ramifications, though, with issues surrounding abortion -- immediately issues surrounding transgender, issues surrounding a whole host of issues of, wait, do you get to dictate what other states are able to do, climate change, everything else, all these things combined it's like one of these cases like much like other things is masquerading as one issue but so much more. >> this idea of states being able to impact each other reminds me when you had states essentially trying to dictate other states election laws. you had a number of attorneys general that filed suit i guess in opposition to pennsylvania's election laws, and i think the supreme court decided not to take it up. and the idea against it, of course, you can't have one state -- there's a lot of interesting federalism issues there i would say. >> the reason i bring it up in the idea of masquerading, it appears to be one thing but

appears to be another ramifications, it really does tie in my mind to what's happening in the committee hearings, democracy more broadly. the idea what is the symbolism at stake? what's happening here and what action of one will have an impact on others? do you see it? >> with the january 6th committee and what happened on january 6th, listen, i think the fact we've had this january 6th committee hearings, we'll have maybe the final one tomorrow so important because so much of american history has often been erased, sort of rewritten and not adequately aired. so we'll see what happens tomorrow. the committee is going to try to suggest basically that donald trump planned the whole thing in terms of wanting to overthrow their election and he approved of the violence, liked the violence, wanted to go to the capitol and the secret service of course stopped him. so we'll see what ends up happening, how the public has received it over the last few months and what they come up

with as a sort of closing argument. >> in your mind does the public still care? >> well, i think that's a really good question. even around trump there's a superseding scandal since the last time the committee had its hearings around the documents, and so we've moved on. >> known as mar-a-lago. >> known as mar-a-lago. but to your -- to your larger point the thing i've always said about donald trump. scott and i disagree on some things, but democracy relies on a common sort of sense that there are rules and laws and norms and institutions that we all can rely on and that we all should believe in and that we should support and strengthen, challenge when they're wrong or challenge when they're flawed. but that's so fundamental to democracy. the thing about january 6th it reflected the fact we've seen again and again with trump, that he doesn't believe in rules and laws and norms and institutions. and he is someone who has ripped

them down to suit his own purposes. and it goes back -- i get your connection to the court because if people lose faith in all the institutions of our democracy, we are in -- we are in a bad place. but it also relies on the people who we entrust in those positions to act in good faith and have their own high regard for those institutions. so he did not and we paid a big price for that. >> and, listen, i think a lot of members of his party, i think there's a moment there people felt like maybe republicans would do the right thing, maybe they would impeach him a second time and really hold him accountable for his complicity in what happened in january 6th. but they decided not only not to hold him accountable, many republicans believe the big lie or propagating the big lie now are running in different states to sort of advance some of his conspiracy theories around voting. >> well, you know tomorrow we're

going to hear more and new testimony, new things. we're going to pick this up after a quick break. here's the thing. we're going to see some of those people entrusted in the government, cabinet members and others might be called and part of it, we're going to pick it back up. there's a lot more to say about this and just the broader notion of where things are right now. i mean if the january 6th committee is about anything it's about a conversation about the republic if you can keep it. we're going to talk about it in just a moment. ant future of lincoln. ♪ ♪ it's what sanctuary coululd look like... feel like... sound like... even smell like. more on that soon. ♪ ♪ the best part? the prequel is pretty sweet too. ♪ ♪

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. >> 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. ♪

we're back with our panel and joining is nick acerman as well. and, you know, we're thinking about all these issues and we're talking more broadly, taking a step back. you know, the committee hearing is happening tomorrow, and they have had a couple months off as we know. whether, they were working or not we know they were working. here's actually a screenshot of the people who have actually -- they've spoken with since the last time we heard from this committee several months ago. and remember they rescheduled this hearing because of hurricane ian. what sticks out in my mind on this list and this screen is ginni thomas. she is the wife of a sitting supreme court justice who just so happens, david, to have the case to decide about these in

some respect the mar-a-lago documents. and i just find that pretty stunning when you look at the approval ratings of this supreme court in broad terms. their approval rating, gentlemen, is the lowest that it's been since they began tracking. 40% since 2000. nick, does that not stun you a little bit to think that she is one of the people -- and it doesn't bode well for confidence in the supreme court, does it? >> no, of course not. i mean the idea she was actually involved in talking to legislators in key states trying to get them to switch the vote to donald trump -- >> and still believes the election was stolen. >> you're right, and still believes that which is really amazing. >> but your point is a good one, which is should justice thomas be ruling on any issue related to this case or any cases involving donald trump given -- given that. or is the argument that she's an

independent person, she's his spouse, that shouldn't be held on his account? >> look, she's not on the supreme court. clarence thomas is on the supreme court. there's never been one whisper of impropriety on the part of clarence thomas. there's been a decades long attempt to smear clarence thomas and to degrade him over time and this is a continuation of that. regarding the approval ratings of supreme court they're not supposed to be reading polls. they're supposed to be reading the constitution and the laws and making decisions therein. you do not want this branch of government worried about its approval rating. you want them only worried about the law and doing the job that they were put on that court to do and the idea that they can't function unless they're waking up every day and checking a poll, that's maybe justice. that's mob rule. >> i don't think they're checking their twitter feed. they're not supposed to be -- it's not sally fields getting an

award. the idea is whether or not you can operate. if the premise of precedent means it's only as good as people want to follow it, only as much i want to respect the supreme court. if people look and say forget about it, that's not going to bode well for the confidence in this supreme court. >> well, that's what joe biden does. >> what does joe biden do? >> joe biden frequently ignores and just this week was sort of calling them -- what'd he call them a political panel oz opposed to -- hae is driving ths national conversation to lead folks to believe these folks are more partisan than judicial. and that is wrong. >> absolutely not true. because look at roe v. wade. the people appointed by donald trump were put on for one reason and one reason only. there was a litmus test. were they going to overrule roe v. wade? when you start looking at these

justices they put in, they also put them in the most unusual circumstances. amy cohen barrett went in for like just a few days before the election. the other position, kavanaugh was held off until the election was over. i mean a whole year obama was not able to appoint somebody. i mean all of that leads -- it's not so much the polls that scott's talking about. it's really the court and its moral authority. and once you start getting away from acting like a court and start basically giving what people perceive as political pronouncements, that's when you get into trouble. >> i don't want to -- i want to raise two points and i don't want to be too provocative with my friend here. part of the cynicism and part of the polarization and part of the sense of all of this stems from the fact president obama appointed merrick garland to the supreme court. he was never even allowed a hearing. he was never even given an

opportunity to appear before the senate because senator mcconnell held up the nomination for the better part of a year. president trump nominates amy cohen barrett and she goes through the speed lane and in a matter of weeks she's on the supreme court. that makes people cynical. when justices appear before the senate and say roe v. wade is settled law, now they didn't say doug jones was on my podcast, theax files podcast this weekend. he said i think people heard what they wanted to hear. just because it was settled law didn't mean they weren't going to overturn it, but the implication is it's settled law. when you're there to just rule on the law and this is not a political process, then don't act in political ways. >> you only think it's political because it didn't come out the way you wanted. >> no, that's not true. >> the court is not static.

it changes. people go on, people go off. and today it's a conservative court. it hasn't always been. >> you know something that precedent stood for 50 years, roe v. wade. that means something. that has become part of the fabric of our understanding of the law on this issue. settled law means something. it's not just a phrase. it means something. so there's societal implications to these decisions, and i think that's what people. in the 1930s -- i'm not saying you were there. you're a student of history but you remember the '30s, the court in the '30s that basically rejected all the elements of the new deal until 1938 when president roosevelt and then one of the justices changed his position. and part of it was that there was clear national consensus on some of these issues. so, yes, you know, should

justices be sensitive to the environment around them and the era in which they're ruling? yes, i think the answer is yes. and if you don't i think you also invite the kinds of numbers that we see. >> well, even worse now. the way the system is setup now -- this is for both parties. the incentive is to appoint the youngest possible person you can for political reasons to keep them in there for as long as you can as opposed to going after people that, you know, have stature, that are something other than circuit court judges. >> you want term limits. >> well, that's one thing i want. but earl warren, for example. no one is thinking about appointing a governor to the supreme court. arthur goldberg who was somebody who was a seasoned labor lawyer who -- i mean, the pillars of the bar are not being considered for appointments to the supreme court, and that is a problem on both sides. >> well, you know what i want to

take it to different side, the third wall. i want to hear from social media as well. everyone can stick around. but i want to hear from what you have to say, what is your take, what's your opinion of the supreme court right now. use the hashtag cnn sound off. and anything on your mind tonight within reason. i was just using it as a moment here. everyone, we'll be back in a moment. your shipping manager left to “find themself.” leaving you lost. you need to hire. i need indeed. indeed you do. indeed instant match instantly delivers qlity candidates

matching your job description. visit indeed.com/hire in two seconds, eric will realize they're gonna need more space... gotta sell the house. oh...open houses. or, skip the hassles and sell with confidence to opendoor. wow. request a cash offer at opendoor.com richard's been conditioned to finish his entire plate, his entire life, even when he's full. really? that's just a bit of psychology richard learned from noom weight. sign up now at noom.com. ♪ ♪ luxury exemplified. innovation electrified. with apple music seamlessly integrated. the all-new, all-electric eqs suv from mercedes-benz.

with angi, you can connect with and see ratings and reviews. and when you book and pay throug you're covered by our happiness check out angi.com today. angi... and done. vicks vapostick. strong soothing... vapors. help comfort your loved ones. for chest, neck, and back. it goes on clear. no mess. just soothing comfort. try vicks vapostick. 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 talk to anyone in san francisco and they'll tell you now is not the time to make our city even more expensive by raising taxes. san francisco has one of the largest city budgets in america. yet when it comes to homelessness and public safety, we're not getting results. what we really need are better policies, more accountability, and safer neighborhoods. vote no on propositions m and o. the last thing we need are higher taxes, especially right now.

now is not the time to raise taxes in san francisco. vote no on m and o. convicted con-artist ana sorken is out of prison and speaking to jake tapper from house arrest. >> i feel like i'm getting a second chance to fix my

mistakes, yeah, and i'm so glad they agreed to release me even if it's house arrest. >> house arrest and you have this ankle monitor here. is that annoying? >> no, i'm getting used to it. they tighten it up a little bit. >> are you allowed to leave the apartment at all? >> no. >> not at all? >> well, i'm supposed to check in with my criminal parole, with my i.c.e. officers, but otherwise no. >> do you have any idea how long you're going to be in-house arrest? >> not yet. they're figuring it out now. >> i'm joined by someone who knows a thing or two about house arrest, michael cohen. he's out with a brand new book. it's called "revenge how donald trump weaponized the department of justice against his critics." and also part of the podcast mea culpa. when you think about house arrest people often wonder what that experience was like for you at a time when everyone was

talking around the issue, donald trump was still very much the news all the time. his narrative was out there. yours was not as much in the same way. what was that like for you? >> house arrest is quite difficult. you know, depending upon the weather, it's a beautiful day you want to go out for a walk, you can't. you know. >> better than prison. >> yes, for sure because you get to be with your family, but it's difficult. like in prison you have to make sure that you time manage yourself. very, very important. and during my house arrest my home confinement, which is what they call it, i actually wrote the book. >> in this book what i find so interesting about it is when you talk about donald trump weaponizing the department of justice against his critics. you know, the january 6th committee in some respects is about weaponizing democracy the thought is against those who sought and dared to say he didn't win and trying to make sure people were aware and illuminated the fact he did not

win the election. when you're watching these committee hearings and you're watching them try to tie together donald trump to the different actors, to the different statements even in the d.c. court, the oath keepers, what's going through your mind? are you thinking teflon dawn? >> no, i'm actually thinking back to the mueller investigation. the mueller report should have been turned over to the justice department. they should have brought an indictment back then and put an end to all of this. it would not be necessary for the country to be going through it again. they spoke to what a thousand people. there's tens of thousands of hours of information of testimony, of documents that they have in their possession. the problem that we have going right now is that every single day captain chaos throws something new out there, and the media starts chasing it. i talk about this in the book. the media chases the story and

everybody throws their hands up and say, oh, he's guilty, he's guilty, we have to get him on this, we have to get him on this. why? why? we already know how many illegal acts that the man has committed? so if you can't get him on this one because it's potentially more difficult let's go the al capone theory. you can't get him for murder, extortion, racketeering. i'm talking about al capone, not trump. let's get him for tax evasion. it's a no-brainer. just do something to get him out of the game. >> i hear you on the no-brainer, but obviously, you know, we're both attorneys. the idea how you make your burden and how you prove that, because what year saying is exactly what many will say including his supporters, okay throw him against the wall and have a kind of fishing expedition -- i don't think that's what's happening, but have a fishing expedition and something will stick. doesn't that fuel the narrative

everyone is out to get him and there's no credibility? >> it does, but i'm saying instead of going after stuff he throws against the wall because every day he goes something new. january 6th, let's go to mar-a-lago documents, let's go to everything else the guy does. let's stop and let's not concentrate on all of that. let's just go for the low hanging fruit because the guy will fight you tooth and nail on everything. let's not forget in order for the district attorney and the a.g. to get their documents what did they end up having to do? they had to bring a lawsuit, and of course he lost, trump, and he lost the appeal and tried to take it to the supreme court. and all he does is delay, delay. and the country can't afford to allow donald to delay. >> i found that really interesting in the book in particular because you actually -- you fear for your safety if trump is elected

again. tell me why. >> well, it's not just me. i fear for the safety of many people. he has an enemies list that's probably a mile long. you for all you know because you've spoken negatively about him, you could be on that list as well. he doesn't care about anyone. their safety -- >> but what's the consequence of that list? >> the consequence, if in fact he becomes president again -- you've heard me say this a million times. i don't believe he's even running, but what about the trump 2.0, someone that's indebted to trump? then what happens? every single person is in jeopardy. and donald doesn't care. he's -- i'm not the one that's saying it. he said it. he can shoot someone on fifth avenue and get away with it. he's not joking. donald trump has no sense of humor. he's not joking. he really believes that he can do anything that he wants. he believes that he's the king, not the president of the united states. he believed he was king and that he can do anything based on executive privilege. >> when you talk about weaponizing the department of

justice is the equivalent of above the law. using the executive branch. he's not the president any longer but does that mean -- >> well, tell that to the folks at mar-a-lago who are calling him mr. trump. >> is that what happens still? >> yes. >> but they think he still is. >> many of them. >> i wonder what utyou make of the mar-a-lago case more broadly. you spend a great deal of time down there. you would understand the ins and outs of what's going on. is there any conceivable way you think there would have been classified documents in that area, in that estate and he was unaware? >> no. first of all we know and we saw photos of the pallets of boxes of documents. and they've already stated donald told them which documents to take. that's been reported obviously not by me but by the press. assuming that's true and they spoke to the individual and i

suspect they probably did, but he knew everything. nothing left the white house unless donald said so. nothing was put into mar-a-lago unless donald said so. nothing ever occurred whether it was the trump organization or in the white house without donald trump's explicit direction with his knowledge. >> you know, we do have some new reporting out thinking about there are some key pieces about the mar-a-lago documents, the surveillance camera, the footage that's there. everything is not connected in the reporting fully through the sense we don't know exactly what the doj is doing with the information, but the idea you're talking about who's pulling the strings and who would have given directives is really interesting to think about here. this book, though, revenge, how donald trump weaponized the justice department against his critics, it is a hell of a raed. >> look, one of the things that upset me the most right after the plea lanny davis went on every station with his powerpoint presentation for

example talking about the tax evasion case and showing as a lawyer not one single element of tax evasion applied to me. not one. i don't have overseas bank accounts like manafort. i never had an overseas nominee, overseas business. there were no fake invoices, transfers, nothing. every single dollar was sitting at the capital one bank that was located at the base of the building i lived in. i gave every single bank statement that showed a deposit. they gave me 48 hours to plead guilty to a multitude of charges or they were filing an 80-page indictment that was going to include my wife, and i would never allow that to happen. so i said, okay. >> don't give away any of your book. it's called "revenge." michael cohen, nice to see you. >> good to see you as well. look, it's one of the most watched races heading into the mid-terms and democratic senate

candidate john fetterman was answering a lot of questions about his health. we're going to go there next. i ththink we're good. okay. let's go. mom, do you know where some wrapping paper... need to wrap something for grandma. uh, yeah. ready? yeah. this is the plan to finally connect with our family's heritage. grandma! start your plan today with a northwestern mutual financial advisor and spend your life living. ♪ someone who cares about other people and gives of themselves to help others who can'always help themselves. whose had 13 operationsand and can now walk, you might think that i'd say my hero is my doctor or nurse, or even my physical therapist. and they are. but there's someone else who's a hero to me. and 1.5 million other kids and counting. it's someone who gives up themselves so that others will get the help they need.

who is it? well, you may be surprised, but my hero is you. you, you, you. you. you. you. is people just like you, who give every month to shriners hospitals for children that make this specialized care so many kids need possible. when you call this special number with your monthly gift, you're making a difference in the lives of thousands of kids every day. that sounds like a hero to me. and because of heroes like you, i can do things now that were impossible before. i can ride my bike. i can play basketball. yeah! and i can walk! all this is made possible because of heroes like you who go online to loveshriners.org right now and say yes with your monthly support. when you do, we'll send you this adorable love to the rescue blanket as a thank you, and a reminder of all the kids whose hero you are each and every month.

thank you, your support has changed our lives. thank you. thank you. gracias. thank you for being my hero. please call now. if operators are busy, please call again, or go to loveshriners.org right away. the world could use some more heroes, and your call will make a difference. thank you for being our hero! prop 27 sends 90% of profits from online sports betting

to out-of-state corporations in places like new york and boston. no wonder it's so popular... out there. yeah! i can't believe those idiots are going to fall for this. 90%! hey mark, did you know california is sending us all their money? suckers. -those idiots! [ laughter ] imagine that, a whole state made up of suckers. vote no on 27. it's a terrible deal for california. we win. you lose. 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.

well, look, the mid-terms are less than a month away and one of the most watched races is in pennsylvania where democratic senate nominee john fetterman is battling republican dr. mehmet oz. fetterman's health has hung over much of the race after he suffered a near fatal stroke back in may. and the oz campaign has been trying to raise questions about his fitness for office. back with me nia malika henderson, davidxalred and scott jennings. what does your gut tell you about how this is playing? why are you smiling like that, scott? >> you said the oz campaign was trying -- i mean the way fetterman's campaign handled this from the beginning has raised questions about his fitness for office. they're not truthful. he's barely been on the campaign trail. when he has been out there it's

been charitably, very rough. and he's far too labeeral on issues like crime for the state of pennsylvania. they've run a campaign about nothing and run a campaign about a candidate i'm not surprised it is a tied race. and this thing coming up on october 25th, this debate is pivotal. >> what do you think? >> i think scott has a strong point of view. look, i think -- it was interesting. i watched him on nbc last night, and it was interesting to me first that he did the interview. and he said something in the interview that i found really powerful, which was i thought -- and he had trouble saying the word empathetic, but he said i thought i had empathy, but now my empathy is a lot deeper because i have an even stronger sense for people who struggle, for people who have obstacles. i actually think that's pretty powerful, but scott's right this debate is going to be important. and one of the reasons i think

he did the interview was to explain in advance why he was using closed captioning. he can't process auditory communication well, yet they say he will get over that. but he can't right now, and that's pretty inconvenient in a campaign. >> what do you think? >> listen, democrats have been worried about his health, about how he would appear in public at this debate. i think in some ways some of their fears were a little eased by the nbc interview that he had. i think his progress is a little bit better than some democrats thought it would be. but, listen, it's going to be a tight race. you can see that it's tightening. partly it's tightening because they're running ads in pennsylvania about crime and his record there. they're also trying to figure out whether or not black voters are going to show up for him, and oz is trying to compete for black voters particularly in philadelphia. so this is going to be a tight, tight race. >> you know the reason the

debate is important is two fold. yes, he has to show he can hack it. the second is he's going to have to confront the crime issue. he was general of the parole board. they're attacking him for that. and there are counter attacks -- there are responses and counter attacks, and the question is can he manage that in this debate? it's going to be very important and i think people are going to be watching. he does have the lead -- we should opponent out the people of the state, there is a personal relationship with fetterman. they don't have that with oz because he's not from pennsylvania, which is -- >> part of the issue. we're going to talk more after a quick break. everyone stay with me. we're going to be right back. a lot of ideas. so when she wants a a plan based on what matters most, she turns to fidelity. at fidelity, anyone can create a free plan. a plan that can change as your priorities do. and nina's free plan? it leaves her free to focus on what's important right now.

that's the planning effect. from fidelity. >> 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:on't wait. schedule today. >> singers: ♪ safelite repair,♪ in three seconds, this couple will share a perfect moment. is that? oh wow! but we got to sell our houses! well, almost perfect. don't worry. sell with confidence to opendoor. yes! -done. request a cash offer at opendoor.com

(vo) you can be well-dressed. (man) wahoooo! (vo) you can be well-groomed. or even well-spoken. (man) ooooooo. (vo) but there's just something about being well-adventured. (man) wahoooooo! (vo) adventure on a deeper level. discover more in the subaru forester wilderness. love. it's what makes subaru, subaru. subaru is the national park foundation's largest corporate donor. when you really need to sleep. you reach for the really good stuff. zzzquil ultra helps you sleep better and longer when you need it most. its non-habit forming and powered by the makers of nyquil.

back with me, david axelrod and scott jennings, what happened during the break is what really happened in the green room conversations. which is, what is the real conversation people have. you know, we're talking about this interview, we're talking about what it might mean to

motor voters. there's been a really visceral reaction to what's been happening with the journalists. you pointed out that she asked a question and made a statement. made a statement about the word was understanding. can you tell us what was said. >> listen, as a journalist, you don't want to become a part of the story. but this journalist has become part of the story. as part of the interview in talking to lester holt, she made a comment which was in small talk before the interview without captioning, it wasn't clear, john fetterman, was understanding our conversation. and with that lots of other journalists who had interviewed fetterman unleashed on her and essentially made it seem like she was making -- >> and every single one of them interviewed them as she did, with closed captioning. she just said what he has explained which is he has problems with auditory processing as a result of the stroke it improves proving but it's nowhere needs to be, that's why uses this closed captioning which he said was totally appropriate. >> she wasn't making an

argument about whether he was fifth mentally for office. -- >> but it was understanding that people are taking away from. >> let's have his own words, because he said something about that, he talks about why he used captioning. here has his own words. >> i use captioning, so, that's that's the major challenge. and every now and then, i miss a word. every now and then. sometimes on maybe much to work together. but as long as i have captioning, i'm able to understand exactly what's being asked. >> you have a problem with this, scott, because you think -- you think that this does not bode well for a candidate? >> i don't know yet. this is so unusual. to do an interview like this is one thing, to do a debate, which i guess he's going to use this captioning system at as the debate is a totally different thing, which i don't have any excess experience with that. i don't have that and how it's gonna go. i think they have constantly undersold this guy's health issues.

his campaign, in my opinion, outright lied about it when you first had it. he was off the campaign trail. they won't release his medical records now. he clearly is having issues. that was okay in that clip. you've seen any of the clips of him trying to give speeches? it's really, really rough. and i think this reporter made a really clear commentary about her observation in interviewing him. and what clip crazy is the number of other journalists and people on the left who have dog piled her today. there is a national ap story about her tonight, and the criticism that she's receiving, it's not right. she did her job and she made a fair observation. and it reminds me of what happened in 2020, when anyone who criticized joe biden about any confused story or weird thing he said. you know, he has a stuttering problem. it's the same thing. you can't just wipe it away. this guy has to answer some questions because it happened. and also, because the way his campaign, i think, has been dishonest about it here before. >> is it the same thing? >> no. i don't think it's the same

thing. because the guy had a stroke. i just disagree with you, i think they weren't as forthcoming as they should've been before the primary. but he had a stroke, he's recovering. and, you know, the test will be -- >> this debate. >> this debate. and then we'll see. he'll be there, his opponent will be there. he'll be answering questions. he'll be answering charges, presumably, he'll be making some. and we'll see how he functions in that environment. the fact that it's adaptive for him his particular disability, which may be transient, to me, there's nothing wrong with that. and actually like i said at the beginning, there's something compelling about someone who's gone through a struggle you know, standing in the united states senate and speaking to the issues of the day. so, we'll see. >> we will see. we've actually heard what you all think. i want to see what the audience has to say about this. thank you for listening in.

tweet me your thoughts at the laura coats we're gonna get you in the conversation, get your take as well. use the hashtag cnn sound off. next, nearly a billion bucks with a b. that's what alex jones was actually awarded by the jurors in the sandy hook case involving sandy hook families, eight of them in one first responder. we'll take you there, next.

your record label is taking off. but so is your sound engineer. you need to hire. i need indeed. indeed you do. indeed instant match instantly delivers quality candidates matching your job description. visit indeed.com/hire for your most brilliant smile, crest has you covered. “nice smile, brad.” “nice!” “thanks?” crest 3d white. 100% more stain removal.

crest. the #1 toothpaste brand in america.

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. cotton candy. pink lemonade. bubble gum. when tobacco companies sell candy flavored products, they know exactly what they're doing because four out of five kids who use tobacco start with a flavored product. and once they're hooked, they can be addicted for life. this election: we can stop big tobacco's dirty trick. voting yes on prop 31 will end the sale of candy flavored tobacco products. saving kids from nicotine addiction.

vote yes on 31. my blood pressure is borderline. garlique healthy blood pressure formula helps maintain healthy blood pressure with a custom blend of ingredients. i'm taking charge, with garlique. the amount was nearly one billion dollars, that's how much a jury says that alex jones needs to pay. to eight families of the sandy hook massacre and a first responder. they sued the right-wing conspiracy theorist for lies that he told about the horrific 2012 school shooting. the one that killed 20 little children. and six adults nearly ten years ago. but jones, well, he's now

mocking -- now maybe thinks it's funny, claiming, there ain't no money. let's talk about it now with maria campo, kirsten powers and david urban. i gotta tell you, the mere mention of his name and what has happened at sandy hook, you get the most visceral reaction from people collectively. because it's just so disturbing, and yet, listen to this for a moment. here's what he said after that jury awarded came down. it wasn't like he took it seriously. listen to this. >> 57 million, 20 million, 50 million, 80 million, 100 million. you get 1 million. you get 100 million. you get 50 million. do these people actually think they're getting any money? i can keep him in court for years, i can appeal the stuff, we can stand up against this travesty against the billions of dollars they want. >> so, who is that they? it sounds like he was on trial, but he's trying to appeal to the us against the families? you're shaking your head. >> look, the guys mendacious