tomorrow at 9 pm weeks may times and talk about the eastern, only here on cnn. state of late night, that is tomorrow at our coverage continues now 9 pm eastern. only here on cnn -- with laura coates, who's like our coverage continues now the reese hoskins of cnn with laura coats who is like the commentary, and alisyn camerota, the bryce harper of rhys hoskins of -- who's like the bryce harper of cnn, not anything about the phillies. cnn! [laughs] now that i >> take me out of the ball game think about a place where, now but, there you go. hi laura, hi alison, how are you >> phillies up seven nothing, doing, take notes of the, top of the sixth, looking good ballgame there you go,, no jinx. there is up >> i mean, who's watching? seven nothing top of the yesterday when we are out six looking, good don't jinx, no jinxes, no jinxes? >> i mean who's watching? right? trick-or-treating, it was rained out practically. so, it's good that it happened tonight. >> i'm just astonished. i've never compared to a sports figure, ever. >> that's big.

oh yeah, that's pretty big. that's pretty cool. >> fantastic, awesome. >> stick with the crackerjack and a pretzel, okay, alisyn? >> that's why go to the games. that's right. >> have a good show. >> thanks jake. >> good evening everyone, i'm laura coates in washington. >> and i'm alisyn camerota in new york. this is it cnn tonight. one week from tonight, they will be counting ballots from states across the country. which is why the heavyweights, from president biden and vice president harris and former presidents obama and trump, and vice president mike pence will all be out on the campaign trail this week. and who will make the biggest difference? >> plus, there are new shocking details tonight about just what happened when the alleged attacker broke into nancy pelosi's home in the middle the night and attacked her husband. and what else he said that he was planning. a newly released court document quotes the defendant telling officers and medics at the scene, i did not really want to hurt him, but this was a suicide mission, unquote.

and going on to name others he planned to target, alisyn, including several prominent state and politicians and the relatives. we're also hearing at this late hour from the capitol police, who apparently first learned of the attack via a live camera feed from the home. more on that, coming up. we've got a lot to talk about tonight, so alisyn is here with me in washington, d. c., before we turn over to new york. cnn political analyst margaret talev, political strategy paul begala and kevin madden, who was a top aide to mitt romney's presidential campaign. glad to have you all here. i want to take a step back for a second if we can. because we know when the heavy hitters come out, it's normally an issue of this is the consequential time. i do not even remember at this point in time, even in the presidential elections, to have so many of the heavyweights coming out across the country in this way. what does this tell you about maybe concerns the democrats might be having about being able to hold on to the majority? >> well they ought to be concerned, but social republicans.

midterm elections, by the way, are always about churn. every single midterm in the last 20 years, is about -- the democrats of the house and the, senate they don't flip either. the odds are historically against them really. this one even more, so because the margins are so thin. so it makes sense to bring out barack obama and joe biden, the republicans bring out trump and pence. but trump probably hurts more then he helps, i'd be scared of has a republican. the interesting thing is not turning the partisans out. it's liz cheney, the former number three republican in the house, endorsed today tim ryan, the moderate conservative democrat in ohio. that's a big deal. by the way, j.c. watts, an old friend of mine, the senior republican congressman, still a republican, endorsed the democrat running for governor's home state of oklahoma. those things, usually this is just about getting your partisans out. but when you have somebody from your other side, and heavy hitters on the other side, like

liz cheney and j.c. watts, that's really interesting to me for the democrats. >> i wonder what it tells about the ability in the event that parties got the bid have to work together on capitol hill and be bipartisan, as you're explaining. i had a conversation with congressman jim jordan on my radio show on sirius xm, and he actually had something to say that i want you to hear about what he thought would be the inability to have bipartisanship. listen to this. >> you know, i'm happy to work with democrats if they are really -- if it comes and i truly believe it would benefit the country. and i say this. and i don't mean this in a -- one my best friends, i use this example all the time, a good friend is dennis kucinich. and he's crazy left. and he thinks i'm one of those no good conservatives. but we are friends. and you can have a real debate. kunicich was an old school liberal who believed in the first amendment. today's left, i don't know how you work with them when today's left says if you don't agree with me we're going to call you racist, and we're gonna try and cancel you. so, how do you work with people

like that? >> margaret, i think you chuckled a little bit, the idea of a bipartisan shift comment from jim jordan, a congressman. but what you make of that sentiment? because there's a chance in congress that people have to work together, but the plan is it might be impossible? >> the two cases we were just talking about, republicans willing to cross party lines, a republican who lost her primary and is running on a mission to make sure trump never gets elected again. and a former republican, you know, leader in congress. so, i think, jim jordan -- i was laughing, because the idea that dennis kucinich is jim jordan's best friend is absurd. >> [laughs] >> by the way, i don't remember any jim jordan dennis kunicich bills being introduced together. >> i'm seeing two different things, we are seeing several democrats who are going to be coming out to boost turnout. and on the republican side you're seeing every republican who wants to be a player in the 2024 primary to come out at the

last muscling it a piece of victory. so, it's asymmetric. it's both about turnout. but there are about turning out different parts of the base. glenn youngkin has the ability to turn out more center, slightly right republicans. whereas ted cruz or mike pence might have a different audience. but barack obama is not running for president again, you know. so i think there are two different plays here. the trump factor is definitely interesting. donald trump can obviously turn out components of the base. >> right. >> but you know where donald trump is not campaigning in the final days of the campaign as far as i know? the state of georgia. >> what do you make of that? >> well, i think that a race down there that previously was all about getting out the suburbs, donald trump i think has to know. and i think anybody was trying to win down there knows that donald trump is toxic in the suburbs. so i think that race, all those counties around atlanta, that's what to make or break that race. donald trump is not helping in that race. >> turnout versus turn off,

obama in my party, i would take him anywhere. the moderates, he turns out. liberals, he's great. mr. trump? i'm telling you, he turns off more suburban republicans then he turns on. but if you are six days out, and you have not gotten the maga lunatics, you are not getting them. >> so i think that applies to, you know, these last minute campaigning by big names overall. do they really make a big difference? do they really drive the amount of turnout that you need? i think if you're at this point in the race and you have not made the case on your own, there is very little chance that barack obama is going to be able to come in in the last week and do it for you. >> i will tell you what, congressman jordan, one of the points he is raising, he really highlights, as we're going to talk about later in the show as well, just how prominent the idea of wokeism, so to speak, and trying to use these statements, these lightning rods to have a supplemental message sent, plays time and time and time again. alisyn, when you think about where we are right now, and we are six days away. frankly, a week from tomorrow

is when we will really know a lot more, right? >> maybe. >> the day after the election, maybe thursday, maybe tgif, who knows? all we know is is a week or so away. we could chase, it is not a good way to think about it? >> yes, yes, but i would say everybody is gonna have to settle in and get comfortable. because it's possible it is going to take a long time for the final results to come in. but laura, we are listening with rapt attention to your panel. so, let's bring in our folks here. we have cnn political commentator s. e. cupp, lz granderson, ope for the los angeles time, and cnn political analyst john avlon. great to have you here tonight. so, let's talk about somebody who's doing something very interesting, congresswoman liz cheney is doing something she's never done before, and she is campaigning with a democrat. so, she's with elissa slotkin in michigan. here is how congresswoman cheney explains what she is doing there. >> this is, by the way, the first time i have ever campaigned for a democrat.

and if we want to ensure the survival of our republic, we have to walk away from politics as usual. we have to walk away. we have to stand up, every one of us, and say we are going to do what is right for this country. we are going to look beyond partisan politics. if the people in our party are not doing the job we need, to do then we need to vote for the people in the other party because we are americans above all else. >> interesting, right, se? >> it is remarkable. you know, i've been covering politics for a long time. i know liz cheney. she's one of the most conservative people i've ever met. she's to the right of me on many issues. and here she is endorsing a democrat for the first time. now, it should go without saying, i know, elissa as well, she's a republican's democrat. she comes from the department of defense, very moderate. >> i was wondering that, because a lot of election deniers out there. obviously, liz cheney wants to campaign against the election deniers.

but she's chosen a partisan block to funnel her energy into. >> ryan, she'll give him attention too. i also get that as well. so, this is actually a fairly natural combination, liz cheney and elissa slotkin. but the point liz is making is not that she is embracing probably most of slotkin's principles or policies. she will not. she is saying what matters more is keeping democracy safe. because you can come together or figure out policy disagreements. you cannot unbreak democracy. and so, shoring that up first with people like elissa slotkin or tim ryan or some other democrats she could in the last few days come behind is more important to her. >> let's also play what she said about congressman tim ryan today when she was asked if she would, if she lived in ohio, would she vote for him, he's a democrat. >> so who do you prefer in this race? >> i would not vote for j. d.

vance. [applause] >> so if you were a buckeye state voter, you'd be voting for tim ryan? >> i would. >> what i find, so interesting is she had to say i could sit it out. i'm not gonna vote for the republicans, so i would not vote. so that's what a lot of hard-line party loyalists say. but she said she would vote for the democrat. >> yes, because it's very smart. if she is still thinking about running for president. remember, when she was in the january 6th committee. and if you listen to a lot of sort of middle of the road democrats, they were like, oh, my god, she sounds amazing, i would vote for her. >> [laughs] >> and it's a legit thing, because a lot of them -- >> they need to be reminded of how conservative she is. and they will not. >> they need to stand behind. and then they got behind. so, if you saw that, you begin by doing things like that. aligning yourself with both democrats. because if you are still think, about it you're going to be allies on this side of the

aisle to say no, she's not one of the crazies. and this is one ways you do. it i don't think they're doing that does that reason. >> i'm skeptical of that. >> but that is a really smart strategy. >> the first time i've ever said this back to you, i think you're being too cynical. i think it's not like you. i think liz cheney is being generally motivated by desire to put country over party, and saying the only issue that ultimately matters is democracy. but as s. e. pointed out, slotkin is someone she shares a lot of with in national security. tim ryan is one of the best communicators right now on the democratic side. >> yes. >> and there's a lot of populist issues that can resonate with voters who might have voted for donald trump. i think there's a lot of overlap there too. but she's actually making a principled point about this election. and we need to see more people going across party lines. >> but does this help slotkin respond? >> my only question is, does she -- running for president. does she have a party? >> sort of. >> does she have a party?

>> she does not right now. >> so, she's an independent. >> but i keep having to remind democrats -- i keep having to remind democrats who admire liz cheney for all the right reasons that she is -- she abandoned trump because he was not conservative enough. >> yes, yes. >> that's how to the right she is. and while she's making the right stand now, this would be a terrible way, i think, to win back voters that have left her because they thought she was a traitor. she is not getting tim ryan voters. i like tim ryan a lot. she's not getting his voters in two years, four years, six years. she's not getting elissa slotkin voters. she can only get very far right voters and they have to have amnesia about what they did to trump in the party. >> hold on, to my question, does it help the democrats that she is -- >> how? >> districts, like elissa slotkin's district, which went for donald trump, 53% vote. it helps create --

it's a third-party ballot issue. you're more likely to believe this person is not the far-left wacko the republic try to paint him as. if someone conservative as liz cheney, who has put her career on the line to defend democracy saying, you know what, i would vote for this person because we care about the country and care about democracy and we agree on a couple issues. and that matters more. >> i think it gives the republicans permission to go ahead and vote for a elissa slotkin or tim ryan. >> why did have to be either or and not an and? why can't both be true? why can she be legitimately defending democracy will also being cognizant of how this will benefit her if she decides to continue on in politics? >> she can, be by that so many moves out. first of -- all >> as an independent, she's a brilliant. women were getting on the ballot third in 50 states as an independent candidate is incredibly difficult. it's just a lot of moves out. she has burned her bridges with republicans right now. and she is too conservative on policies for a typical democrat. look, i'm all in favor of third parties and independent candidates running, all day long. but that is so many moves out, that this would be a bank shot that she thinks it's smart to get elected president by endorsing slotkin.

>> either she's brilliant, or she's not. >> hold that thought for a moment. laura, this is part of the chess game. and we're all analyzing it here. >> we are. think about it, the one distinction which would come up, of course, no matter how much support there might be for say congressman liz cheney. i mean, today is november 1st. and i think they were calling that roevember at one point. this is not what these senate candidate in north carolina had to say i. was speaking with her earlier on her stance in codified roe v. wade. that will be a litmus test going forward. listen to this. >> congressman ted budd is leading the charge, and aligned himself with the most extreme faction of the party on an absolute ban on abortion without exceptions for rape, incest, or risk to the mother. anytime abortion rights are on the line, i'll be fighting for north carolina in this country. and i will be fighting hard to make sure roe v. wade becomes the law of the land. >> this is somebody who is the

chief justice of the north carolina supreme court. this notion of roevember and what is going to get people out to vote and dustings the chains from the slotkin's and others is gonna be this issue of roevember, they think. >> well, they need to keep reminding voters of that. because, you know, the momentum, the roementum has passed. so i can see what she's doing there, which is reminding all the voters there. >> roemind them, wow, wow. we're on a roll. >> the dad joke. >> wow. more of this, laura, when we come back. >> i am loving all of the dad jokes that are happening on your panel for some reason. wonderful, beautiful, highlight of my night. but you know what's coming up ahead, everyone. i've got to tell. you alisyn, it's pretty stunning what we're hearing now. revelations about the brutal attack on nancy pelosi's husband. i mean, why the alleged attacker said he was on a suicide mission.

and the other people that he was also targeting. plus, tonight, the capitol police first learned of the attack at pelosi's home about ten minutes after through a live camera feet from their house. we are going to talk about it. to talk about it.

at fidelity, your dedicated advisor will work with you on a comprehensive wealth plan across your full financial picture.

a plan with tax-smart investing strategies designed to help you keep more of what you earn. this is the planning effect.

shocking new details about what happened during the brutal attack on paul pelosi. newly released court documents said the crime involved great violence and great bodily harm. it also details pelosi's struggle with his attacker, billing that he was left unconscious for about three minutes. >> yeah, this was worse than we knew, laura. the alleged attacker, david depape, appeared in san francisco court today. we did not know these details. it sounds like a bigger struggle and that he was more grievously hurt than we thought. so, let's get to some answers. joining us now is cnn chief medical correspondent dr. sanjay gupta and chief law

enforcement intelligence analysis john miller. john, i want to start with you. because we had a lot more information today about the attack and what police saw and how it went down. this is from this new court filing. this is the motion to detain depape. it says that basically when police entered, the two men were struggling with the hammer. but mr. pelosi could not maintain his grip on the hammer. a second later, the defendant wrenched the hammer away from mr. pelosi, immediately stepped back, and lunged at mr. pelosi, striking mr. pelosi in the head at full force with the hammer, which knocked mr. pelosi unconscious. the officers rushing into the house, tackled the defendant, and disarmed him. mr. pelosi remained unresponsive for about three minutes, waking up in a pool of his own blood. we did not know how bad that was. >> well, it's -- it was said early on that he was knocked out cold. because there were questions about, well, why did we not have his full account earlier? and they said because he was unconscious. and then, you know, in intensive care. but the detention memorandum is

just filled with details that fill in all the blanks of some of the things we've been asking the past few days, which is he is asleep in bed, and he is literally woken up. this is according to the affidavit, by mr. depape, who says are you paul pelosi? >> right, standing over his bed. >> right, and he says, where is nancy? she's not here. when she coming back? she's in washington, it will be a few days. and then he says i'm going to tie you up. and pelosi's account was i was still groggy. i had just been awoken. and you can imagine in that lifestyle, where there's always security people around you and people coming and going, that perhaps somebody who was on the wrong shift could not find nancy pelosi. but when the guy says i'm going to tie you up, he realizes, okay, this is not the detail. he tries to get to the elevator, he's blocked. he goes to the bathroom, because his phone is in there, but it's on charge, and he calls 9-1-1.

the suspect, depape is standing three feet away from him, and he's having this conversation where he's trying to bridge the gap between being specific enough with the operator there is a man who's come to seen my wife, it's nancy pelosi, i don't know him, and he said who is he? and the man answers my name is david. and he said you don't know him? and david says, no, we're friends. and he's got zip ties in one hand, a hammer in the other hand, takes him downstairs. he realizes the police are going to be there, and that this is going to end differently than he planned. and when the police knock on the door, he still got mr. pelosi by the arm. but he opens the door with his left hand. steps back, and then tries to grab the top of the hammer while he's holding the bottom. the rest you just read to us. >> it's more frightening than we thought. and i guess the reason we said, sanjay, the reason they did not expect it is because in the very first statement from speaker pelosi's office, it said mr. pelosi is taken to the hospital who's receiving excellent medical care, he's expected a full recovery. that made it seem as though it was more minor than a skull fracture and being unconscious for three minutes.

>> yes, it surprised me as well. there is a couple of reasons. obviously, this was a significant blow to the head. now, when somebody strikes you with a hammer, you could kill somebody, or you might cause a skull fracture, something like that, which sounds like he had. what is sort of interesting is the doctors, as you read, even before he went to the operating room, they were already saying he's expected to make a full recovery. now they have more data at this point. they've probably done scans of the brain, trying to determine was there bleeding on top of the brain or within the brain, and sounds like, thankfully, there was not. so, this blow to the head, which sounds like from that report a full force, like, really wound up. you measure all sorts of things, the amount of force, the width of the actual hammer, which side of the hammer, all these things you want to know from a trauma perspective. but whatever it was, it certainly at least stunned him enough, caused bleeding, obviously, but stunned him enough where it sounds like they had difficulty rousing him for at least a few minutes.

unconscious or not, that's a little difficult to tell sometimes in these situations. but it obviously caused a significant injury. but then he was able to wake up, answer questions, ultimately, and things like that. scans done because they were worried, but not so concerned that they are not telling the family already he is going to make a full recovery. >> but why is it still in the intensive care unit? >> that's a good question. sometimes it's based on medical reasons, plus other. meaning, icus are one of the most secure places in the hospital. you don't get as many people going in and out, you know, if you are trying to put security around it. so, a lot of times, even if somebody is sort of maybe ready to go to a general care floor, where they would otherwise go to a general care floor, they might even to the icu longer. he is 82 years old. i do not know what his other health is like, but there may be other things they're monitoring. he had anesthesia, he had this wound to his head, had an operation on the skull, i think he had something done to his arms as well, his right arm, at least, so, all these things may keep him there a bit longer.

but again, the fact that the doctors said they expected him to make a full recovery, right away they said that, doctors are usually pretty conservative in this regard. if anything, you want to make sure all your i's are dotted and t's are crossed before you say something. they were confident enough that as bad as this was, that he was going to do okay. >> okay, that makes sense. sanjay, john, thank you for this latest information. again, laura, it's just every day we get more information about this. and even gets scarier. the details get scarier, if you imagine being woken up in that situation. >> i mean, all i keep coming down to, an 82-year-old man hit with a hammer to the head? just think about the backdrop of this, the motivation, not that there's any ever justification, but this is tied to political grievance, this is tied to what the dhs bulletin warned about months ago at this point. the idea that people feel somehow entitled to resort to violence, because they have a problem with what happens on the legislative floor. the idea thinking about this is so unbelievable.

we're a few days away from the midterm elections, but that date is arbitrary for all intents and purposes at this time. it's about the reasons and what people stand for and what they're willing to do, it's really unbelievable. >> yeah, and it's really unsettling. as we talked about, when you dehumanize the other side, that they deserve this. so, obviously, we pray for peaceful days between now and the midterms. meanwhile, the former president's attorneys are in talks with the january 6th committee. so, what are the chances that donald trump ends up testifying under oath? we have that, next. woman tc: my a1c stayed here, it needed to be here. doctor tc: ruby's a1c is down with rybelsus®. man tc: my a1c wasn't at goal, now i'm down with rybelsus®.

son tc: mom's a1c is down with rybelsus®. song: a1c down with rybelsus® anncr vo: in a clinical study, once-daily rybelsus® significantly lowered a1c better than the leading branded pill. anncr vo: rybelsus® isn't for people with type 1 diabetes. anncr vo: don't take rybelsus® if you or your family ever had medullary thyroid cancer, or have multiple endocrine neoplasia syndrome type 2, or if allergic to it. anncr vo: stop rybelsus® and get medical help right away if you get a lump or swelling in your neck, severe stomach pain, or an allergic reaction. anncr vo: serious side effects may include pancreatitis. gallbladder problems may occur. tell your provider about vision problems or changes. anncr vo: taking rybelsus® with a sulfonylurea or insulin increases low blood sugar risk. anncr vo: side effects like nausea, vomiting, and diarrhea may lead to dehydration, which may worsen kidney problems. mom tc: need to get your a1c down? song: a1c down with rybelsus® anncr vo: ask your healthcare provider about rybelsus® today. ♪ giorgio, look! the peanut butter box is here. ralph, that's the chewy pharmacy box with our flea and tick meds. it's not peanut butter.

♪ the peanut butter box is here ♪ i'm out. pet prescriptions delivered to your door. chewy.

(snorting) if you struggle with cpap... (groan) (growling) (chuckle) ...you should check out inspire. no mask. no hose. just sleep. (beeping) learn more and view important safety information at inspiresleep.com.

all, right we got big news

tonight from the january six committee. liz cheney says there in discussion with the former president about is -- and his legal team, about maybe getting him to testify under oath. congressman laying out what the committee will be looking for. >> he's done, potentially over multiple days, significant questions based on the evidence we've developed. and as i said, what we know already about the extent to which he was personally and directly involved in every aspect of this effort. >> will he or won't he? joining me now, political analyst from cnn margaret talev, commentator paul begala, and legal analysis elliott williams. we could do the vegas odds here for a second, right? the idea of him testifying under oath, people will say, of course he won't. but i wonder, will he try to grand stand? will he try to have the opportunity if it were live?

what do you think? >> when you say the word testify, you mean at a hearing at 9:00 pm under the lights, no. i'm dead serious, because i did this for a long time, working for the justice department. what you might find is a transcribed interview or a conversation in private with the committee, which is still an appearance before the committee. he is not testifying in a live hearing. his lawyers could never allow it. and it is just not going to happen. >> i think the opposite. i think he'd be much more likely to want to do -- you said 9:00, under the lights, and you know what, that sounds like -- that's not what the committee wants. the committee wants him to actually answer questions under oath in a serious format that cannot turn into a runaway grandstanding event. and i think that is what is going to happen. >> there's just far bigger legal risk to him to the big, bombastic live public appearance. if they have the behind closed doors where they limit the number of staff, number people in the room, which is the kind of stuff you negotiate before congress. yeah, it's probably safer for him.

if he's got any lawyer worth any salt whatsoever, they are advising him against a bigger -- >> a lawyer's only as good as you listen to him, and that's not the tradition we've seen. >> that's the problem. i think trump has had some good lawyers and some bad lawyers. but he's always done the wrong thing, okay. he is the muhammad ali of lying. he is the g. o. a. t.. the washington post fact checker, glenn kessler, counted 30,573 lies. so the question, elliott, to me is not is it behind closed doors? it is he under oath? it's so, no way, there is no way that man should testify. he's done it before, he had to admit under oath in the deposition, tim o'brien, the journalist, was being sued by trump, he admitted under oath that yes, he lied 30 different times. he said was this a lie? yeah, it was. he had 30,000 to defend now. >> paul, here's the thing. follow that thread for a second. what was the consequence of that, right?

so, the idea of a deterrent is your best bet. but if there is no consequences here, then what? >> so, maybe there is a little bit of chest being played by the committee. here because number, one you put him under oath, testify than, lies that's perjury. if he does not agree to testify, okay, that's contempt of congress. and you can still prosecute him for that, too. so, either way, perhaps it could end in criminal charge for him. now, look, we all kind of know that contempt of congress, that's a misdemeanor and a big deal. whatever. but at the end of day, he get charged. he could get charged if he does not show up and -- >> 400 times as the attorney general, which they force him to show up, which i don't think they will, they subpoena him, it will run out the clock for us. so, it's trump respiration, he cannot help himself. he inhales air, he exhales lies. and there's no way he's going to stop him. so, they should never allow, his lawyer should never allowed to testify. >> margaret, this is obviously not a prosecutorial body. they have to refer to doj, a lot is riding on whether or not they have this committee. it's gonna be a good night, if

this committee, by the time the new congress sits in, doj will not be denied. it'll be the attorney general. so, that's. there but what will be the politics about that? you've got congressman liz cheney, as you pointed out, she will not in congress any longer. she won't have the power to do anything besides speak about these issues. how do you see this playing out? >> i think politics aside, yes, i just said that, the committee is dedicated to doing a fulsome investigation of what happened and providing a fulsome report. that if they are going to do a criminal referral, let's say recommendation, to the justice department, or just for the sake of their final report, which becomes a piece of history, they have to do this. this is a matter of checking the box. they have to have given the president, not just the former president, not just the opportunity and the invitation, but to try to, you know, put the heat on him to come and show up and do everything he saying under oath. are they going to do a knock down drag out fight to make that happen? i do not think they need to. but they do need to do the step

they are doing now. >> if they're serious about really getting him to appear, they probably should have done this six or seven months ago. look, it's november 1st today. there are three months until the new congress is sworn in. if they want to go down the contempt road, give them a couple opportunities to show up, have his lawyers blow them off, and then file a contempt proceeding after that, charge him with a crime. >> i remember, of course, the concessions that were made for ginni thomas, the wife of clarence thomas, justice thomas, there is no audio, no videotape, i have those are the concessions you give -- if those were the concessions that were done by lawyers, in that instance, what is going to happen here? that it's wrong. president trump never once delayed providing documents or anything -- >> i know. >> the entire mar-a-lago scenarios just something very different ton hese issues. but alisyn, when you think about it, the odds here, one person saying no way, the other person saying of course he will, really only trump knows what he is prepared to do, which is really the name of the game for

him. >> he may not know at this point, either. sometimes he may make a snap decision. but far be it for me to disagree with elliott. but steve bannon is going to jail for four months. that's kind of a big deal for contempt of congress. i mean, i know that we tend to think, oh, no big deal. i don't know, four months out of your life in jail seems like that may be held over somebody 's head. >> yeah. >> also the calling of the bluff, right. part of it, one of the things he's often said, the former president, the idea of wanting to talk and they denied the opportunity during the impeachments to really have a trial like experience and testify and testify and all these discussions. now, here's your chance. i wonder if he will take it? >> we shall see. all right, meanwhile, players suspended, police investigating criminal charges not out of the question after this fight between university of michigan and michigan state's football teams. we have an update.

i love san francisco, but i'm working overtime to stay here. now is not the time to raise taxes. i'm voting no on propositions m and o, because the cost of everything is going up. san francisco collects more tax revenue than nearly any city in america. but our streets are dirty and public safety is not getting better. i'm working hard to live within my budget. the city should too. join me in voting no on m and o. now is not the time to raise taxes in san francisco. vote no on m and o.

tonight, four more michigan state football players have now been suspended, bringing the total now to eight. as police investigate the ugly off the field fight that happened after the game this weekend. the fight was caught on camera, just after the michigan wolverines beat the michigan state spartans. now, an angle obtained by espn showing what appears to be a player swinging his helmet. officials from michigan state called this behavior, quote, unacceptable. joining me now former nfl wide receiver danté stallworth, cnn sports analyst chrisine brennan, and cnn senior political analyst kirsten powers. you know, you see this, and here we are in the backdrop talking about violence and intersection of politics and the idea of hoping for civility. and you would think that sports might be the one reprieve.

obviously, that is not the case. and you're seeing violence among college students. mind you, this is after the game. i wonder what you make of what you've seen here. >> it's terrible, especially when you see another player swinging his helmet at a helmetless player, a defenseless player. football is a violent sport. it just is. and it's a violent sport. but that is supposed to be left on the field. but i will say that there has to be some kind of thing where they have to change these players walking in the tunnel at the same time. now, you would expect them not to behave this way. 99% of the time, it does not happen. but in cases like this where it does happen, you would like to minimize any type of situation that can arise out of players losing their head and acting out like this. >> is it pollyannaish for some people to say, oh, this is

wrong, you should not need to conform to the entire stadium, or the entry and the eagerness on that very note. but you point out this is the reality, what does that say about what is happening behind the scene? >> where we are in sports today, because your point is well taken, laura. the idea that sports on the field of play you can shake hands. women and men learning lessons. that is really having a sports, in a lot of places. that is not what happened here. i grew up going to games at michigan stadium, watched incredible emotion. you are play of the game, college pro, you know what it was like. and you just cannot have that happen. obviously, these guys are suspended. there is punishment, the right things are happening now but all the wrong things happened to get us to this point. >> you are seeing this and on a larger scale, taking a step back, kirsten, the idea of just how much sports is under the microscope for a variety of things. we're talking about way things are happening in the nba for example. you've got an nba player, kyrie

irving, being vilified in some respects for retweeting and having the presumption of antisemitism. you've got players responding. you've got people on the court having these issues talking about it. we are seeing more and more under the microscope. i just want to play for a second, because there was this moment where charles barkley is speaking about what happened on this issue of kyrie irving. listen to this, and i want you to respond. >> i think the nba dropped the ball in one way. i think he should've been suspended. i think adam should have suspended him. first of all, adam's jewish. you cannot take my $40 million and insult my religion. i cannot believe that we are not talking about that. we are talking about this idiot. and when you say, if i say, hey, i am agreeing with this movement, this book, this whatever, i am agreeing with it. i am not going to put -- first of, all you know i don't do any social media. but when you are somebody as great at basketball like him,

people are going to listen to what you say. >> i mean, this is the idea that he tweeted and shared antisemitic content on social media. that's a controversy about what he has done. but his point, the idea of the platform, and responsibility of the platform, you take this very seriously, in your book, talk about political grace and the idea that what happens, the toxicity of social media, we are not talk about sports, we are talking about what's happening on the sidelines, and it's consequential. >> i think the reason that they are under a microscope is because they are heroes for the most part in our culture, right. athletes are heroes in our culture, children look up to them, grown people look up to them, and so, when you have that kind of responsibility you really -- look, i don't care who you are, you should not be tweeting out antisemitic things. but if you are somebody in a position like that, where people are looking up to you as a role model and as a hero, then you have an even higher standard. i think what we see a lot of sports -- i'm not a big sports person, i

don't fall a lot of sports. but it is pretty clear to me that there has been a lack of accountability, because they're heroes, and because there's a lot of excuses that have been made for athletes along the way. and i think we have gotten to a point in culture where people are starting to say, you know, we are not going to make so many excuses for you anymore. we are on hold you to higher standards. >> should he be held to higher standards, donté, as an athlete? >> i think they should hold themselves to higher standards. i think when we put people on the pedestal, and something of this nature happens, it is kind of reminds us that they are human as well. and that is obviously not an endorsement of what he did or what he said. but i think as well, holding ourselves to a higher standard, that means that when you are doing your research, you are not looking at somebody else's youtube video and concern that research. you actually have to read books. you need to learn from professors and people who have dedicated their lives to understanding certain philosophies and things that -- i think where he was trying to get across, but obviously it did not come off that way. and anyone who has seen the video knows that that video is filled with antisemitic tropes

and things that are in the conspiracy world of jewish people and how they control the planet and all this other craziness. >> alisyn, imagine, that the onus being on people be responsible information they disseminate. >> how high of a standard was it to ask him not to tweet antisemitic things? i'm not sure that's actually a high standard. and i agree with donté, of course you have to know what you're putting out there in the world. you just have to. you have to be responsible for that. >> will see, he works in politics to. >> okay, meanwhile, president biden is hitting the campaign trail. so we will tell you his midterm message for the country, next. at fidelity, your dedicated advisor will help you create a comprehensive wealth plan for your full financial picture. with the right balance of risk and reward. so you can enjoy more of...this. this is the planning effect.

vo: the next time you fill up the tank, remember why it costs so much. because the biggest oil companies decided they need to profit even more. they make record profits... even as americans struggle to pay the bills. call it price gouging. call it greed. call it enough already. with president biden's landmark bill, we are producing more clean energy than ever before. energy that's made in america energy that costs less for families. energy ... that will power our future.

president biden out on the trail in florida today. his midterm message is that democracy is on the ballot. >> their extremism is not limited to social programs and the economy. they are coming after your right to vote, don't get to count the vote, for real. you've got 350 or so election deniers on the ballot on the republican ticket. this is really deadly earnest, man. democracy is on the ballot this year, along with your right to choose. >> laura, there really are two distinct messages at least. you hear from the republicans that it's about inflation, it's about the economy, it's about what you put on your kitchen table. and then you hear from president biden that, yeah, those things are important, but not as important as democracy. without democracy, everything else is up for grabs.

those are the choices for the voters right now. >> you know, it's true. and there's a part that he mentioned, which is the idea that it is not just the right to vote, it's the right to have that vote counted. and you think about, that's what election denialism has really been about. the idea that fear is not for many people whether you will not have access to the ballot, although that was originally part of the discussions happening. it's now about the idea will it be counted? and will somebody actually support the results? that is the key to all of this. we will see what happens. >> and who will be doing the counting. >> democracy is in the counting. everyone, weigh in on what we've been talking about tonight. tweet us at @alisyncamerota and @thelauracoates using the hashtag #cnnsoundoff. we'll be right back.

chocolate. vanilla. strawberry. but this isn't ice cream. this is big tobacco. and their candy flavors are served with a strong dose of nicotine. because big tobacco knows four out of five kids who use tobacco started with a flavored product. and once they're hooked, they can be addicted for life. it's time to put the brakes on big tobacco's candy-flavored trick and protect california kids. vote yes on proposition 31. >> so tonight we begin