mes by removing bureaucratic roadblocks. so teachers, nurses, firefighters and workers like us can live where we work. while prop e makes it nearly impossible to build more housing join habitat for humanity in rejecting prop e, and supporting prop d to build more affordable housing for everyone. now.

-- thanks so much for joining us tonight, i'll be back tomorrow night with republican congressman adam kinzinger. he is on the january 6th select committee. this will be his first interview following tomorrow's interview. that will be the last one. that is tomorow night at 9:00 eastern, until then you can follow me on facebook, instagram, and twitter tik tok at jake tapper. our coverage continues now with laura coates. laura coates, did you see, i know you are a big fan, did you see the interview with anna delvey aka anna? >> i did, i look forward to anything that is reality tv based. i can think of someone having a disguise. i love the inventing anna, i love the interview because most people can't speak to her, even the shows and series that people have, there are drawings of her. there are -- now, this is actually in the thick of things. it was a great interview. >> thank you so much, i don't know if you picked up, i'm not really sure i'm buying what she is selling. we will see.

>> i think the phrase is, you weren't picking up what was being put down. that was the philly in you. >> we will see, she has the time, she is a chance now to do her thing. let's see, let's see what she does. >> let's see what she does. i think we will get a show out of it. i wouldn't be surprised if maybe there was another angle to pursue, maybe that's the next one, thanks so much. great show is always. good evening everyone, look this is cnn tonight, i'm laura coates. don't worry, alisyn is off tonight, we will see her again soon. we are going to keep the conversation going with our panelists from all across the political spectrum. let me just say, this is a day when you think about all the things that are coming in the new cycle. all the things that we are talking about, we have the january six hearings tomorrow. we have conversations around the midterm elections coming up. we know that after a day full of news, we want to talk about what is happening. we are going to have those conversations here, not just the soundbites but let it breathe a little bit. i want to first play this for you. this happened today and it is a

major story. the conspiracy theorist alex jones was reacting in realtime to a jury that awarded nearly a billion dollars. 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. six adults, nearly a decade ago. >> 7 million, 20 million, 50 million, 80 million, 100 million. you get 1 million, you get 100 million, you get 50 million. do these people think they are actually getting money? >> first of all, how dare you use oprah to have that moment, that is a very sacred moment. the whole, you get a car scene, he is it in that way, it tells you how flippant it is. to these people think they are getting any money. i wonder if he is aware that these people he is talking about are the parents and families, the loved ones of children who were killed in their own school.

just think about that. talk about the ick factor, talk about how it is stomach turning. lessons learned, by the way, we are asking you contribute to today and i want to hear from you in our hashtag cnn sound off about whether you think that that awarding of that damage amount by the jury is going to actually change this trafficking and lies. if that's the real time, if that's what happens next, it's going to be a heck of a week. it turns out the price of lives is nearly a billion dollars. this is the era of misinformation. will it stop the lies? they didn't stop them tonight talking about it and making fun. we also are gonna have a big conversation ahead with the midterms, i don't know if you heard about it, but this big thing, it's coming less than a month away. a big issue today is candidates and their health. let's go to pennsylvania because john fetterman, who is the democratic senate nominee in pennsylvania, he is recovering as you know from a

near fatal stroke that happened in may. he is now using closed captioning technology to help him understand what he is hearing. he says that his speech is getting bigger, better, excuse me. but, the thing is, speaking of big talk, there is a lot of people who are criticizing and have a lot of things to say about how this may all play out. some justified, some not, we will get that take in a moment. but he is hardly the first politician to actually have health problems, right? we are all old and young enough to remember that this is an issue, not just for those running but how about incumbents? i wonder if it really does affect his fitness for office to the voters. i wonder what matters to the voters and what doesn't. look, we are now just a few hours away from what is expected to be the final january 6th committee hearing. that is before the midterms, they didn't say the last one,

but before the midterms. sources on 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. they keep talking about what is on the ballot, democracy some say is directly on it as well. there's actually a committee member on that committee telling cnn that some of the new material is quote, pretty surprising. i don't know if that is going to be the mic drop moment that we are looking for, pretty surprising. i want to bring in some smart folks who are as have their own version of the mic drop. this is mia henderson, she is often confused as my doppelganger twin. i'm always honored, we are sitting right next to each other to make sure -- we are different people. there was a time once that under my name it said henderson. i was like -- >> there have been occasions where people on the street have called me laura. >> do they want money? >> also --

david axelrod and scott jennings. [laughs] it really does, gentleman, you know what is being confused for a lot of things? the idea of what the rule of the supreme court is. i know the lawyer and he wants to talk about the supreme court and the law, but really it is a political conversation that is happening all over this country about whether they are apolitical. they haven't done many favors themselves, but there are many moments now when democracy is on the ballot. are they on the ballot in a way? >> certainly the decision, the dobbs decision is on the ballot. it is central to this campaign. that has put the supreme court on the ballot. as you know, they are 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

are conservative justices who are added to the supreme court, if they operate with a consistent philosophy then you can say, this is their interpretation of the constitution. if they are 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 alito being an example of someone who does that from time to time. you invite the kind of criticism that they are getting. >> i'm going to turn to my good friend scott jennings for a second. maybe you don't realize that he has a pet pig. i'm bringing it up. i'm bringing it up because -- >> it is a day potbelly pig? >> he bit me this week, just fyi. he was literally biting the hand that was trying to feed him. >> what is the pig's name so everyone knows? >> harry plopper. >> this is where we are right now in life. the reason i bring up pigs though. there you go.

here's why bring it up, the supreme court actually has a case. that is about pigs. >> it keeps popping up in my twitter feed. >> you know what it's about? >> no. [laughs] >> here is this case. it doesn't affect it, maybe it could. the issue with that case, what's so interesting and why i think it's about politics, why part of this carries on to january 6th is, california has a law that says they will not allow the export or import a pig products. they are 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 lives? it has issues surrounding abortion. you know -- she's surrounding a whole host of issues. do you get to dictate what other states are able to do? climate change, everything else. all these things combined, it is like one of these cases that,

much like other things, is masquerading as one issue. but it's about so much more. >> this idea of states being able to impact each other reminds me of right after the election when you had a number of states essentially trying to dictate other state's election laws. you had a number of attorneys general who filed suit to be -- i think the supreme court decided not to take it up and the idea against it of course was that you can't have one state. there's a lot of interesting federalism issues there. >> the reason i bring it up, the idea of masquerading, it appears to be one thing but people are believed to be another ramifications. it really does tie in my mind to a lot of what is happening with the committee hearings, with conversations about democracy more broadly. the idea of, what is the symbolism at stake. what is happening here, what action of one will have an impact on others. do you see it? >> with the january six committee and what happened on january 6th? listen, i think the fact that

we have had this january six committee hearing, we will have maybe the final one tomorrow. it is so important because so much of american history has been erased, rewritten. not adequately aired. we will see what happens tomorrow, the committee is going to suggest that donald trump planned the whole thing in terms of wanting to overthrow the election that he approved of the violence, like the violence, wanted to go up to the capitol and the secret service of course stopped him. we will see what ends up happening, how the public has received it over the last few months and what they come up with as a closing argument. >> in your mind does the public still care? >> i think that's a really good question. even around trump, there is a superseding scandal since the last time the hearings around the documents. we have moved on.

>> known as mar-a-lago. to your larger point, the thing that i was said about donald trump, scott i disagree on some things. democracy relies on a common sense that there are rules and laws and norms and institutions that we all can rely on. we should all believe in them and support and strengthen, challenge when they are wrong or challenge when they are flawed. that is so fundamental to democracy. the thing about january six was, it reflected the fact that we have seen again and again with trump. that he doesn't believe in rule and laws and norms and institutions. he is someone who has ripped them down to suit his own purposes. i get your connection to the court because if people lose faith in all the institutions of our democracy, we are in a bad place. it also relies on the people

who we entrust those positions to act in good faith and have their own high regard for those institutions. he did not and we paid big price for that. >> listen, i think a lot of members of his party, i think there was a moment there when people felt like maybe republicans would do the right thing, maybe they would impeach him a second time and hold him accountable for his complicity in what happened on january 6th. they decided, not only not to hold him accountable, many republicans believed the big lie, they are propagating the big lie, running in different states to advance some of these conspiracy theories around voting. >> tomorrow, we are going to hear more and have new things. we're gonna pick this up as a quick break. we're gonna see some of who those people have been intrusted with, others who might be called, who might be a part of it. we are gonna pick it back up, there's a lot more to say about this. the broader notion of where things are right now. if the general six committee is anything, it's a conversation

about the republicans. we are going to talk about it in just a moment. >> 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 us, nick ackerman as well.

we are thinking about all these issues, talking about it more broadly, taking a step back. the committee hearing is happening tomorrow, and they have had a couple of months off, as we all know. whether they're working or not we know they were working, here is a screenshot of the people that we have actually spoken with since the last time we heard from this committee several months ago. remember they rescheduled the hearing before a hurricane ian. what sticks out on my mind because it sticks out on the screen is ginni thomas. she is the weight of a sitting supreme court justice who just so happens, david, to have the case they decide the mar-a-lago documents. i just find that pretty stunning, when you look at the improving ratings of the supreme court in broad terms, their approval ratings, gentlemen, is the lowest they've been since they began

tracking 40%, since 2000. nick, is 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? >> of course not. the idea that 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. >> and still believes that -- >> 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 that? or is the argument that she is an independent person, she is a spouse, that should not be held on his account. >> look, she is not on the supreme court. clarence thomas is on the supreme court. there's never been one whisper of impropriety on behalf of clarence thomas. there has been a decades-long attempt to smear clarence

thomas and to degrade him over time. this is a continuation of that. in regards to the approval ratings at the supreme court. they're not supposed to be reading polls. they're supposed to be reading the constitution and laws and make the decisions therein. you don't 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. the idea that they can't function unless they are waking up every day and checking a poll -- that's mob justice, that's mob rule! >> i don't think they are like teenagers checking their twitter feed. when i talk about the idea of the approval rating for the supreme court, and i agree, they are not supposed to be ruling to somebody like me. it's not like sally fields getting a award. the idea is whether or not you can operate if the premise a precedent means it's only as good as you want to follow it.

it's only as much as i want to respect the supreme court. if people look at it and say, forget about it, that will not bode well for the confidence in the supreme court. >> that's what joe biden. as >> that's what the supreme court does. >> what does joe biden do? >> that is what joe biden frequently -- just this week, he was calling them a political panel, as opposed -- >> advocacy -- >> he is driving this national conversation that would lead people to believe that these folks are more partisan then judicial. that is wrong. it is wrong. it is whining from a political -- >> it is absolutely not true, because look at roe v. wade. these people that were appointed by donald trump or 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 that they put in, they also put them in the most unusual circumstances. amy conen barrett went in a few days before the election. the other position with kavanaugh was held off until

the election was over. a whole year, a bomb it was not able to appoint somebody. all of that -- it's not so much the polls that scott is talking about, it's really the court and its moral authority. 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 want to raise two points. 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 this, stems from the fact that president obama appointed merrick garland to the supreme court. he was never even allowed a hearing. he was never given an opportunity to appear before the senate because the senate mcconnell how that the nomination for the better part of a year. president trump nominates amy coney barrett, and she goes to the speed sign in a matter of weeks, she is on the supreme

court. that makes people cynical. when justices appear before the senate and say roe v. wade is settled law, they did no t say doug jones was on my podcast, the axe file podcasts. he said, i think people heard what they wanted to hear. just because they said it was settled law, did not mean that they will not overturn it. but the implication was certainly that it was settled law, so we should not overturn it. those kinds of things make people cynical. when you say that they are there to just rule on the law, and this is not a political process, then don't act in a political way. >> but you only think it's political because it did not come out the way you want it. >> that's not true. >> the court is not static. it changes, people come on, people go off. today, it's a conservative court. and it has not always been. >> you know something? that precedent stood for 50 years, roe v. wade, and that means something. that has become part of the fabric of our understanding of

the law on this issue. settled law mean something, it's not just a freeze, it means something. there are societal implications to these decisions, and i think that is what people -- [inaudible] 1930's i'm not saying you were there! you're a student of history but you remember the 30s and before the 30s that basically rejected all the elements of the new deal until 1938, when president roosevelt sent to court packing, and then one of the justices changed his position. part of it was that there was clear national consensus on some of these issues. yes, should justices be sensitive to the environment around them and the era in which they are ruling? the answer is, yes, and if you don't, i think you also invite the kinds of things -- the kinds of numbers that we see. >> even worse though, the way the system is set up now, the incentive, from both parties,

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 have stature, that are something other than circuit court judges. >> you want term limits? >> that's one thing i want. but earl warren, for example, nobody is thinking about appointing a governor to the supreme court. arthur goldberg, who is somebody that was a seasoned labor lawyer -- the pillars of the bar are not being considered for appointment to the supreme court, and that is a problem on both sides. >> you know what, i want to take it to a different side, bring it to the third walk, to social media, as well. -- i want to hear from what you have to say. what is your take? what is your opinion of the supreme court right now? use the hashtag cnn sound off and anything else on your mind tonight. within reason and if it's about

sally field, i do love you and that award except to speech. i was just using it as a moment here. everyone, we will be back in a moment. [bacon sizzles] ♪ [electronic music plays] ♪ [bacon sizzles] ♪ [electronic music plays] ♪ woo! announcer: type 2 diabetes? discover the power of 3 in the ozempic® tri-zone. in my ozempic® tri-zone, i lowered my a1c, cv risk, and lost some weight. announcer: ozempic® provides powerful a1c reduction. in studies, the majority of people reached an a1c under 7 and maintained it. ozempic® lowers the risk of major cardiovascular events such as stroke, heart attack, or death in adults also with known heart disease. and you may lose weight. adults lost up to 14 pounds. ozempic® isn't for people with type 1 diabetes. don't share needles or pens, or reuse needles. don't take ozempic® if you or your family ever had medullary thyroid cancer, or have multiple endocrine neoplasia syndrome type 2,

or if allergic to it. stop ozempic® and get medical help right away if you get a lump or swelling in your neck, severe stomach pain, or an allergic reaction. serious side effects may include pancreatitis. gallbladder problems may occur. tell your provider about vision problems or changes. taking ozempic® with a sulfonylurea or insulin may increase low blood sugar risk. side effects like nausea, vomiting, and diarrhea may lead to dehydration, which may worsen kidney problems. join the millions already taking ozempic®. ask your health care provider about the ozempic® tri-zone. announcer: you may pay as little as $25 for a 3-month prescription.

convicted con artist anna sorokin 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. i'm so happy that i agreed even if it's just house arrest. >> you have this ankle monitor here, is that annoying? >> no, i'm getting used to it. they tighten it up a little bit, it's not dangling. >> are you allowed to leave the apartment at all? >> no. >> not at all?

>> i'm supposed to check in with my criminal parole and my ice officers, but otherwise, no. >> do you have any idea how long you're gonna be in house arrest? >> no, not yet, we are figuring it out now. >> i'm joined by someone who knows a thing or two about house arrest. former trump attorney michael cohen, he is out with a brand-new book, it is called revenge. how donald trump weaponized that united states department of justice against his critics. he's also the host of the podcast -- maya copa. michael, i'm glad you are here. when you look at that, you think about house arrest, people often wonder what that was like for you at a time when everyone was talking around the issue, donald trump was still very much there, his narrative was out. they're yours was not as much in the same way. what was that like for you? >> house arrest is quite

difficult. depending upon the weather, it is a beautiful day, you want to go out for a walk, you can't. >> it's better than prison? >> yes, for sure. you get to be with your family, but it is still difficult. like in prison, you have to make sure that you time manage yourself. it is very, very important. 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, the january six committee in some respects is about weaponizing democracy. the thought is about those who didn't win. that we are aware and have illuminated the fact that he did not win the election and trying to tie together dog trump to the different

statements, even in the d. c. courts. what is going on in your mind? are you thinking? >> no, i'm ecstatic impacted the mueller investigation, and i am drawing t comparison to the two of them. the mueller report should have been turned over to the justice department. they should have brought the 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, 1,000 people? there are tens of thousands of hours of information of testimony of documents that they have in their position. the problem that we have going right now is that every single day, captain chaos throws something new out there. -- i talk about this in the book. the media chases the story, and everyone throws their hands up, he's guilty, he's guilty, we have to get him on this. why? why?. we already know how many illegal acts that the man has committed. if you can't get him on this one because it's potentially more difficult. let's go on the al

capone theory. we're 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, we're both attorneys, the idea of thinking about how you approve that, because what you are saying is exactly the talking point that many of us are saying, including himself which is, just throw anything against the wall and have a kind of -- but have a fishing expedition and something will stick. doesn't that just feel the narrative that everyone is out to get him and there is no credibility? >> it does, but that is not what i am saying. what i am saying is instead of going after everything he is going against the wall because everything he does is something new. january six, mar-a-lago documents, everything else that the guy does -- let's stop and not concentrate on all of that. let's 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 ag to get the documents, what did they end up having to do? they need to bring a lawsuit. of course, he lost to trump, so they appealed, and he lost the appeal, and they tried to take it to the supreme court. oh he does his delay, delay, delay, and the country cannot afford to allow donald to continue to delay, because his goal is to weaponize the justice department as he did before, as he did with me. >> speaking of you know, i found that interesting in the book, in particular, because you fear for your safety if trump is elected again. tell me why. >> it's not just me, i prefer fear for the safety of many people. he has an enemies list that is probably a mile long. you have spoken negatively about him. you could be on that list as well. he does not care about anyone. >> what is the consequence of that list?

>> the consequence? if in fact he becomes president again -- you have heard me say this 1 million times. i don't even think he is running. but what about trump 2.0 someone indebted to trump, then what happens? every single person is in jeopardy, and donald does not care. i am not the one saying, 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 is not joking. he really believes that he can do anything that he wants. he believes that he is the king, not the president of the united states. he believes he was king and that he could do anything based on executive privilege. >> you talk about weaponizing the department of justice is the equivalent of above the law, right? the idea of using the executive branch under the umbrella of the presidency, he's not the president any longer -- but does that mean -- >> tell that to the folks at >>

tell that to the folks at mar-a-lago -- he legitimately believes -- >> is that what happened so? they call the president at mar-a-lago? >> it happens -- >> -- >> many of them. >> i wonder what you make of the mar-a-lago case more broadly. you spent a great amount of time down there. you understand the instant outs of what is going on. is there any way that you think that would have been classified documents in that area, in the estate, and he was unaware? >> no, first of all, we know and saw photos of the pallets of boxes of documents, and they have already stated that donald told them which boxes to take, and that has already been reported. not obviously by me but by the press. assuming, of course, that is true, and they spoke to the individual, and i suspect that 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 rather it was the trump organization or in the white house without donald trump's explicit direction with his knowledge. >> we do have some new

reporting thinking about some key pieces about the mar-a-lago document, the surveillance camera, all the footage there, everything is not connected to the court fully in defense so we don't know exactly what the doj is doing with the information, but the idea of -- who is pulling the strings and who is given directives is really interesting to think about here. this book, revenge, how donald trump weaponized the department of justice against his critics, it is a hell of a read. >> look, one of the things that really upset me the most is right after the plea, lonnie davis was on every television station with his power point presentation, for example, talking about the tax evasion case and showing, as a lawyer, not one single element of tax invasion applied to me, not one. i don't have overseas banks accounts like manafort. i never had an overseas nominee, overseas business, there was no overseas anything. there were no fake invoices or wire

transfers, nothing. everything was sitting in capital one bank located in the basement of what i lived in. and in fact, i give to my account, the cpa, every single bank statement -- it was an error. it should've been a taxi mission, but they give me 48 hours to plead guilty to a multitude of charges, or they were filing an 80 page indictment that would include my wife. i would never allow that to happen, so i said to them, okay -- >> don't give away any more of your book. it's called revenge, you have to read the book next, here the rest of the story. i want to hear more about it. michael cohen, thank you so much, good to see. you >> have to see you as well. >> it's one of the most watched races heading into the bitterness. democratic senator candidate john fetterman was answering a lot of questions about his health. we will go to that next. over 5 million people have fallen in love

with a portable blender. blendjet 2 gives you ice-crushing, big blender power on-the-go. so you can throw in your favorite ingredients and blend up a delicious smoothie anytime, anywhere. blendjet 2 even cleans itself. just add water, a drop of soap, recharge quickly with any usb port. ready to fall in love? order yours now on blendjet.com savings is the name of the game for us when we shop. i thought we were playing charades?

so, we use rakuten to get cha-ching. while we're gaming? go. ♪ ♪ we get cash back at over 3,500 stores. cha-ching! health and beauty, clothes, electronics... no, no. office supplies? uh huh! shoes, home and garden... travel! on all of that and more. [buzzer] so, even when we're losing game night, we're winning. gulliver's travels. so close. 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

look, the midterms are less than a month away.

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. the us campaign has been trying to raise questions about his fitness for office. back with me, amanda malika henderson, david axelrod and scott jennings. what does your gut tell you about how this is playing? why are you smiling like that, scott? i did not even ask -- >> you said the oz campaign is trying -- the way fetterman's campaign handle this from the beginning has raised questions about his fitness for office. he's not truthful. he's barely been on the campaign trail. when he has been out there, it has been really rough, and that is on top of the fact that this man's entire personal narrative is fabricated, and he's far too liberal on issues like crime in the state of pennsylvania. they ran a campaign about nothing, and they ran a campaign without a candidate. i am not surprised that it is a

tied race. this debate coming up on october 25th, because you have to prove whether he's up to this or not. >> what do you think? >> i think scott has a strong point of view. [laughs] it was interesting, i watched him on nbc last night. it was interesting to me 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 i thought i had empathy, but no, 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 is pretty powerful. scott's right, this debate will be important. one of the reasons he did the interview was to explain in advance why he was using close captioning. he can't process auditory

communication well, yet they say he will get over the, but he can't right now. 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 east by the nbc interview he had. i think his progress is a little bit better than some democrats thought it would be. listen, it will be a tight race. you can see that is tightening. it is partly tightening because they are running ads in pennsylvania about crime and his record there. they are also trying to figure out whether or not black voters will show up for him. oz is trying to compete for black voters, particularly in philadelphia. this will be a tight, tight race. >> the reason that the debate is important is to folded. yes, he has to show that he can hack it, the second is he will have to confront the crime issue.

he was chairman of the parole board, they are attacking him for the. and there are counter attacks, responses and counterattacks and the question is can he manage that in this debate? it will be very important. i think people will be watching. he does have the lead, we should point out, people of the state, there is a personal relationship with fetterman. they don't have that with oz because he is not from pennsylvania, which is part of the problem. >> we will talk more after a quick break. stay with me, everyone, we will be right back. to exercise more, to be more social, to just relax. and eating healthy every single meal? if only it was this easy for us.

♪ hey, sorry i missed your game. it's okay. you see that? that's when i realized it's time to finally

do the thing we've been talking about for years. so we're making plans for right now. ♪ careful. ♪ you know, opera isn't so bad. do you like it? start your plan today with a northwestern mutual financial advisor and spend your life living. ♪

back with me, nia-malika anderson, david axelrod and scott jennings. what happened during the break is what happens in green room conversations. which is what is the real conversation people are having? we're talking about this interview, what it would mean for voters, but there has been a real visceral reaction to what is happening with the journalists. you pointed out that she asked a question and made a statement, made a statement about, can you tell us what he said? >> as a journalist, you never want to become part of the

story, but this journalist, dasha burns, has become part of the story, as part of the interview talking to lester holt, she made a comment which was in small talk before the interview without captioning, it was not clear he, john fetterman, was understanding our conversation. and with that, lots of other journalists who have interviewed fetterman unleashed on her and essentially made it seem like -- >> every single one interviewed him like she did with close captioning. she just said what he had explained, which is that he has problems with auditory processing as a result of the stroke. it's improving but not where it needs to be and that is why he uses this close captioning, which he said was totally appropriate. >> she was not making an argument about whether he was fit for office, it was turned into that. >> but it was the understanding that people are taking it at. he says something about the. he talks about why he used captioning. here in his own words. >> i use captioning, that's the

major challenge. every now and then, i will miss a word, every now and then. sometimes, i will mush two words together, but as long as i have captioning, i am able to understand exactly what is being asked. >> you have a problem with this, scott, because 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, but to do a debate -- i guess he will use the captioning system at the debate, which is a totally different thing. i don't know how it will go. i think that they have constantly undersold this guy health issues. his campaign, in my opinion, outright lied about it when it first happened. he was off the campaign trail. they won't release his medical records. he is clearly having issues. that was okay in the clip. if you have seen any clips of him trying to give speeches, it's really, really rough. i think this reporter made a

very clear commentary about her observation of interviewing him, and what is 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 is receiving. it's not right. she did her job and made a fair observation. it reminds me of what happened in 2020, when anyone would criticize joe biden about any confused story or weird thing he said, oh, 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 of the way that his campaign has been dishonest about it before. >> is it the same thing? >> no, i don't think it's the same as the biden thing because the guy had a stroke. i don't disagree with you. i think they were not as forthcoming as they should have been before the primary, but he had a stroke, he is recovering, and the test will be this debate.

then we will see. he will be there, his opponent will be there, he will be answering questions, he will be answering charges, presumably making some. we will see how he functions in that environment. the fact that it's adopted for his particular disability, which may be transient, to me, there's nothing wrong with the. like i said at the beginning, there is something compelling about someone who has gone through a struggle standing in the united states senate and speaking to the issues of the day. so, we will see. >> we will see, and we actually heard what you all think. i want to see what the audience has to say about this.

tweet me your thoughts @thelauracoates. we'll get you into the conversation and get your take as well. use the hashtag cnn sound off. next, nearly a billion bucks, will there be, that's what alex jones was actually awarded by the jurors and the sandy hook case involving sandy hook families, eight of them, and one first responder. we will take you there next. . test

test. >>

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.

. > . 1 billion dollars that's what the jury said alex joe bidens needs to pay to eight families of the sandy hook massacre and a front, they sued the rye wing conspiracy theorist he lied about horrific 2012 school shooting the one that killed 20 children and six adults nearly 10 years ago, but jones, well, he's not mucking the verdict, maybe thinks it's funny claiming there ain't no money, talk about it now with maria, chris powers and david urban, i got to tell you the mirror mention of his name and