>> well good evening, everyone. i'm laura coates. and this is cnn tonight. in just the last few hours, we have had a lot of news on really major stories. so, buckle up, we are going to go through all of it tonight. i want to take a minute though to lay out the biggest development we've had tonight. because first on cnn, the former top trump adviser, stephen miller, testifying for apparently several hours today to a federal grand jury in its

criminal investigation of what took place on january 6th. and then there is mark meadows, and then presidents right-hand man, who was literally in the room where it happened, hashtag erin burr, for a whole lot of what inspired. supreme court south carolina ordering meadows to now testify before a grand jury investigating efforts to overturn the 2020 election in georgia. so, two of them then presidents top enablers, and the right and maybe left hand man facing granaries who get to ask them the questions and demands answers, and the verdict is in, with the most significant doj prosecutions related to january 6th, oath keepers leader stewart rhodes and fellow group member kelly megs found guilty of the very serious charge of seditious conspiracy. each of the five oath keepers defense as convicted of one charge. not all got charged everything. carries a maximum 20 year

sentence. so, i want to bring in with us now cnn political commentator david urban, former prosecutor channel, and cnn national correspondent sarah sidner, who has been in this courtroom for what, seven weeks now following this case, sara? i mean, it's been a lot. so, thank god we got you here tonight to talk about it. i am thrilled to have you. you too, gentlemen. but sarah especially on this issue. because this was a very significant. they had a lot riding, they being the og, a lot riding on what was thought to be a very political calculation. they were accused of a witch hunt. how dare you have these serious charges. what's this all about? but what was it like for the prosecution in the room and the kind of general atmosphere of getting at least these convictions? >> they congratulated each other because they realized that this charge -- it's a hard charge to put forward. and it's a rare charge. so, this is not something that i'm sitting at a table with a

bunch of attorneys, i know this, but it's not a charge that you would see regularly. i think the last time this was charged in a trial was in michigan ten years ago. so, this is a really unusual thing to go forward. and it's a concept the really jury needs to understand, get behind, understand all the facets, because there are several facets of it. it's really about, you know, forcibly stopping the peaceful transfer of presidential power in this case. but there was probably -- but thousands of pieces of evidence brought by the prosecution. that included, you know, the words of the defendants themselves. that was a huge part of this case. and if they heard these words, but some people would say, okay, the defense is just saying it's bombastic, it's just top, it shows them blowing off steam or trying to be grandiose. but the jury saw in the case of elmer stewart rhodes the third, and in a case of one's top lieutenants, kelly meggs, that they were guilty of seditious

conspiracy. and so, watching all of this unfold and seeing what the jury went through just in the seven weeks of testimony, it was really heavy, for a lack of a better way to describe it. it was a weight, they felt the weight of it, the whole courtroom felt the weight of it. and the judge in particular made it very clear how this was going to go, as for how we expected the decorum in his courtroom. and he was praised by the defense attorneys, like, praised in a way i haven't heard in a long time, where they really appreciated that even though they had a's that, there is a fight, like, screaming match at one point before the journey came into this trial. and in the end, i think all the people in that court agreed that if you wanted to look at the american justice system and the american way, this was an example that you could hold up. >> that's an important point. especially given the fact when you're talking about who would oversee these trials, given the

atmosphere and the accusations and this being very political in nature, to have the defense team complementing this obama appointee. and i know many justices often cringe when we in the media talk about who appointed who. because you are buying into and leading people to believe that who appointed us is going to take precedence over how we rule. i point that out only to suggest what sarah is talking about, the idea that this is the climate we are in. and there was the complement extended. it's important to, in terms of that gambling calculus -- shan, you've been a federal prosecutor. the idea of a charge like this being brought. and it shows that not every charge stuck with every defendant. some would say that that gives greater credibility to the jury deliberation. that it wasn't just, you know, he did everything, the entire kit and caboodle. when you look at this, what does it say to you about the strength of the case as related to all of the defendants, that only to have that high charge?

>> i think it says the charging decisions were carefully made. and that the jury looked at it very carefully. they parse that out, which is exactly what you want them to do. i think the notes that they sent out acts skiing for clarification on these seditious conspiracy charges in a case that's a tougher charge for them to grasp. and i don't know this necessarily is that heart of a charge to always prove in theory. but it is certainly very rare, thankfully. [laughter] >> we don't want conspiracy cases like this. it's not a good thing in our countries. >> exactly, and for that reason, i think doj is not used to bringing that kind of charge. and they really had to put a lot of effort into how they would present it. the fact that all of them -- i think all of them got convicted for obstruction of the official proceedings. >> that's right. >> that indicates it's a little easier for the jury to get. >> david, on that point, we're just thinking about the grander scheme of things, even aside for this criminal prosecution, you've got in different cases, the georgia investigation, mark

meadows being told, no, you're going to have to answer questions but. he's a south carolina resident, that's why the south carolina supreme court is involved in this. you have stephen miller testify in a grand jury proceeding. it's all around that same core nucleus of facts. the idea of what led up to and what happened on january 6th. politically in your mind, what message does this send? is there a ripple effect? or is this really compartmentalize? because, look, you've got a good knighted committee coming up for january 6th. so what, there was a conviction. politically, they're untouchable. what do you say? >> listen, i think the judicial part of it and the politics need to be separated it. or should be separated, really. these gentlemen, who broke the law, right, they're going to be held accountable. just like the folks who actually violated the sanctuary of congress, they'll be charged criminal trespass and other things. the criminal part of it, just like in a peach man, there is a political aspect of all of this, right. i don't think at the end of the day that the president, this is my own opinion, shan and the

rest of lawyers in america will opine on this as well, -- but >> shan and the wrestlers in america, they're one group. >> no conspiracy charge against people like this, conspiracy you bring a lot of stuff in and you say charge, you really want to charge -- through the kitchen sink at, i say is easier to prove and trying to get the president off the hook for this. the president, that's a much more tenuous charge. and i think will be much more difficult to make. at the end of the day, you know, i personally do not see how merrick garland's end up going to bring the charge and it will stick against the president united states. maybe he does. i think the obstruction in georgia case, there's other cases, i think, that are probably more likely to result in an indictment on this january 6th stuff. at least on the part of the president. >> there is a special counsel. so, merrick garland innocents has removed himself at least one degree is separation, maybe too, by having special counsel for this very purpose now that trump has declared. but i do want to, i, mean you

speak to the larger point. although of course you have been following this trial, sara, of these particular defendants, you know full well that the immediate knee-jerk reaction for everyone is what will this mean for trump? what are trump? what about trump? and although this conspiracy relates to these specific defendants and the guilt assigned them does not translate everywhere, that is on the tip of everyone's tongue in the question being asked. did you get a sense through the trial that he was a main focus of the prosecution in a similar way as he is for the january six committee? or was it really compartmentalized? >> donald trump was not part of the trial, and the sense that the prosecutors were very careful and being very direct as to who was on trial, what they were on trial for, why they were on trial. and there were so many pieces of evidence that, yes, of course donald trump's name came up over and over again. because his name came out of the mouth of the defendants in

text messages and signal messages and secret recordings. stewart rhodes in particular, and i think one of the things that sets him apart is first of all he is the founder and creator of this militia group known as the oath keepers. which he, which he founded in 2009, not long after president obama took office. so, he was a focus because he was the one who taught the most. and said the most violent and outrageous things. he was talking days after, it was determined joe biden won this election against all trump, talking about civil war. you know, get your mind body and soul ready. so, there are a lot of words he used, a lot of tax messages and single messages that he used to help to convict him. they are using the defendants own words against him. and then, to a lot of people surprise, three of these defendants took the stand in their own defense. and he was the first one. and so, he was emotional, which

i think surprised a lot of people. he choked up several times. the jury did not buy it. the jury didn't buy it. they heard what he said, they listen to him, they listen to his defense. he is a former lawyer. he was disbarred, but he was a yale trained lawyer. and he got up there and said i don't think this was constitutional. i don't think biden or trump won. they did not buy it. and i think that's important to say that the doj really went after each and every person with the evidence they had on each and every person. this was not actually about donald trump. >> and laura, just let me say really quickly. i think that's a big distinction between this in the january 6th hearings, right. this, you have discreet actions, criminal actions what you can prove, right, and really make it stick, and not bring up the specter of trump, trump, trump did this, trump did that, really hang it on the people who did the crimes, right. that's why i think you and find these criminal trespass cases, other people try for doing what they did on january 6th. >> look, we've got 35 days left of this lame duck session

before the new congress is sworn in. maybe there will be a report that tells us what we need to know about january 6th? >> there will be a report we can actually read and thumb through, maybe even by like the mueller report. bring it out there, everyone. we've got a lot of news to get to tonight, so stick around. it frankly brings americans together, we don't have a lot of that. i guess what, today, ladies and gentlemen, i give you the victorious team usa. they are celebrating their victory over iran today in the world cup. [crowd chanting] [screaming] (chuckle) ...you should check out inspire. no mask. no hose. just sleep. (beeping)) learn more and view importrtant safety information at inspiresleep.com.

♪ over the last 100 years, lincoln's witnessed a good bit of history. even made some themselves. makes you wonder... what will they do for an encore? ♪

>> well, the u.s. men's national team advancing to the world cup knockout stage. the team coming out on top with a one to nothing win in a tough game against iran today. team usa is christian pulisic scoring the winning goal but not without suffering an abdominal lately. learning later he's suffering from appellate contusion. it didn't look now at their rowdy welcome home and a return to their hotel tonight. now, the u.s. will go on to face the netherlands this

saturday at 10 am eastern. so be sure to tune in for that. i want to bring in now cnn sports analyst christine brennan. also cnn's tom foreman, don riddell, cnn host of world sport, and contributing contributor carrie champion. what a lineup to talk about. i'm sure you were all watching. i don't know what snacks you had of the time we'll talk about that a different segment. i have to say watching all these things happening, i mean, this was a win or go home game right now. and it was an important moment that has been more than just about the match itself, christine. thinking about where things stand. because people were tuning in in large part because of what was happening back in the -- but countries about the removal of that islamic regime emblem in the flag. this was a very significant moment internationally, don't you think? >> oh, without a doubt. and keep in mind, the u.s. men's national soccer team, laura, is the team that actually willingly gave up

prize money so the women, the u.s. women's national team, obviously, incredibly success putting, could actually have equal pay. >> explain more about what that title ix means. they're going to split it now? >> the 13 million that is now guaranteed because of the u.s. men moving into the round of 16, it is split 6.5 million for the man, 6.5 million for the women. that is extraordinary. no other nation is doing that. these are title ix males who are not -- there were rallies like their dad and grandfather's. and they have a much different outlook. not only about women's equality in terms of pay, but these are the same men who've been talking about standing with the iranian protesters. obviously the emblem issue with u.s. soccer. u.s. soccer in the men's national team i think have really distinguish themselves, obviously on the field of play as we see today, but i think even more so in terms of our culture and the stands they have taken and will continue to take as the tournament goes on. >> you know, tom, on that very point about the idea of where things are and just that title ix notion that christine has raised. that is just really significant

to think about what that really means. and what a moment that means for the world to see and be aware of, given the domestic situation back an hour on. >> absolutely, these games are often symbolic of a geopolitical situation. in this case, where one of the fundamental questions in are on, what rights will women have? what rights do they have and that regime to play against a team that as christine points out was standing up for some of those very principles? it's a very important moment. now what it means ultimately inside iran, do not really know. we'll find out what happened with that team when they head back there. but i do want to point out when that winning goal was scored, i also suffered an abdominal injury. but it was a dreary dramatic and thrilling moment here. thrilling here in very many ways. >> by the way, carey, there are people in iran who are celebrating the victory for the u.s.. and there is this very poignant moment, you can actually see

this moment where there is celebrating in response to the united states being the victor in this particular match. but there is also a moment, carrie, that really sticks out to me. and you have spoken about this so eloquently in the past. and i wonder if it struck you as well, just how significant broadly speaking the national anthem or a decision not to say it but -- or the decision to be punished for refusal to abide by it has played a role. just look at the screen. over the course of history, from what happened in 1968 in mexico city to what happened on the field with colin kaepernick, to what's happening in the nba and the wnba, i should mention, to even the iranians choosing not to, initially, saying the national anthem as a not what we've been talking about today. they were later obviously told that there might be some threats to their family and their safety and security, which is very telling. but when you think about the significance of that, and this world stage, what goes through your mind? >> well, you know, first and

foremost, athletes have always been at the front lines of these issues, especially when the implications are global. what i find arguably the most heartwarming is that what we have been asking, i think not necessarily asking, but what we require of certain athletes is to make really tough decisions. they were told before they went to the world cup, don't do anything, no protests, pay attention we don't want any problems. you will get a yellow card you decide to speak out or speak out against something. and that really is an unfair position to put them out in so many instances. so for that iranian team to see no, i'm not going to sing the national anthem, that was a very bold choice. i think arguably what we witnessed yesterday and today, and i'm going to refer to captain tyler adams. his response towards the iranian reporter, i don't know if you guys saw this, his response was so eloquent and so

respectful and so in terms of sobering and disarming, you had to want to root for the americans. he understood that those other players on the other side in a ron or in a very tough position. he understands there is this very venomous attitude toward america based on something the players themselves had nothing to do with. talk about that islamic emblem-ing removing their flag. and he was able to endure everyone, including the people in iran on his side. so, when these athletes decide to take the stand, they really are risking a lot. some people are obviously risking iranian family and friends. here at home, you have people going against you, perhaps not necessarily being praised as you want to. and so, when they make these bold gestures, these gestures that say i am with you, i see you, and i understand it is not right, and i'll do whatever i can in whatever way i can, you have to honor that. there are a lot of problems that are happening in the dark. and this is one of those highlighted moments.

and i'm glad we're able to deal with it. >> i really am glad to see that and think about that. and don, how can i not go to you about this very point as well? can you just speak to the significance, for the die hard true football fans, we will call them, to those who just love ted lasso? i mean, the significance of what we're talking about here, the idea that the united states, not to be dismissive of their extraordinary talent, but in the overall landscape, we are known for our women to be the best in the world, thinking about it. and to have the significant moment, tell me about the significance and what this is like for the united states to be in this position now. >> it's a wonderful position for this american team to be in, laura. the excitement was that this young team, one of the youngest teams in the tournament, would be ready to go for the next world cup in four years time, which the united states is co-hosting with mexico and canada. but they all ready seem to have

exceeded expectations with their performances. there are now into the next round where they're going to play the netherlands on saturday. that is going to be a really, really tough game. but if they can get through that, this is the kind of tournament where anything could happen. and these guys are just getting going. but i do want to speak a little bit about covering this event here in qatar, the buildup to it. it's unlike anything i've experienced before. the political kind of backdrop and side roster to what we've discussed but. to go to a game where you might expect both sides of supporters to have a central animosity between them. it was nothing like that. but with the iranian supporters, you had the fans here who one of the iranian team to win because they were pro regime. you had the iranian supporters here who really didn't know what they one of their team to accomplish. they really couldn't work out if it was better if they won or if they lost. i spoke to an iranian fan

before the game. he wouldn't give me his last name. it is brave enough to give me his first name. but he said i've come here to this world cup, and i want to see them lose. i don't want to see them go any further. i know how the government exploits the team and uses them for political ends. . and i don't want any more of this. and the footage that we've seen coming out of iran in the last few hours is absolutely extraordinary. and it really speaks to the sense of betrayal that these people have felt that they are now openly in the streets celebrating the demise of their team. i saw one clip where an american flag was even be waved out a car window. these are people who are taught to chant death to america while they are in primary school. and now, here they are celebrating the united states victory, celebrating the demise of their team do. and their players have been through such a rollercoaster. we saw the emotion of them at the end. i cannot even imagine what is going through their mind. they are disappointed as athletes to be out of the world

cup. but everything they've experience over the last week and a half, i, mean it's just something we cannot imagine. american athletes, as you say, we would like them to take a stand, we'd like them to speak out on human rights and civil rights. but what these guys and iran are going through is just a whole other world, i think. >> don, i'm so glad you brought that perspective. escapism that people seek out when it comes to sports is really a luxury, and one that we can't necessarily always adhere to in times like this. and you know, there's these great op-eds out right now about whether it's have to still in because it promotes the conversation around what's happening in iran but. and now that they're out well that conversation and? this one has to end temporarily, but we'll be looking ahead to saturday to watching this match from the u.s. men's team against netherlands. thank you all. hope you get some rest enjoyment out there, don. and everyone else, thank you for being a part of it tonight. it was really exciting to see this happen. thank you. while, from the politics of

sports to what's actually happening here on capitol hill, a critical vote in the senate passing a bill to protect same-sex marriage. and it is expected to pass in the house next week. but what happens if the supreme court overturns that 2015 overfilled decision? well, jim, obergefell himself says he's not celebrating today. and i'll explain why, next. but ♪ ♪ ♪ get decision tech from fidelity. [ cellphone vibrates ] you'llll get proactive alerts for market events before thehey happen... and insights on every buy and sell decision. with zero-commission online u.s. stock and etf trades. for smarter trading decisions, get decision tech from fidelity.

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 [ marcia ] my dental health was not good. i had periodontal disease, and i just didn't feel well. but then i found clearchoice. [ forde ] replacing marcia's teeth with dental implants at clearchoice was going to afford her that permanent solution. [ marcia ] clearchoice dental implants gave me the ability to take on the world. i feel so much better, and i think that that is the key. i'm stuck! is that the new iphone? yup, i just got the new iphone 14 with its amazing camera at t-mobile.

wow! at t-mobile, get four iphone 14's on us and four new lines for $25 bucks a line.

>> while, the senate tonight passing the respect for marriage act 61 to 36.

the bill protects same-sex an interracial marriage. all the members of the democratic caucus voting yes, along with 12 republicans. the house will take it up next week. and once it passes, which it is expected to do, it goes to president biden's desk for his signature. now, people are celebrating the bipartisan nature of all of this. and, yes we should absolutely cheer that because bipartisan victories, while, they are pretty rare these days. but when you unpack the respect for marriage act, there was actually a lot more to it. let me explain. you remember of course back in june, roe v. wade was overturned by the conservative majority on the supreme court. while many people wondered, including myself, whether marriage rights would be next and immediately turn to congress to try to do something about it. what was that? while, to codify the protections that such rights would not be at the mercy of a supreme court or any court for that reason. to ensure that those rights were legislatively guaranteed. so, is what president biden

will sign in line with the supreme court's landmark 2015 obergefell decision? what does it codify what was said there? not exactly. so, the new law would assure full benefits for marriage, regardless of a couple's sex or race or ethnicity or national origin. federal government will be required to recognize marriages that were valid in a state when performed. but notice the nuance and what i just said. it had to be valid in the state before the feds are required to recognize it. the state, therefore, still hold a pretty powerful card in its ability to find what exactly is a so-called valid marriage. now, this new law will not require states to issue a marriage license that's contrary to state law. and -- religions won't be required to perform same-sex marriages. so, why did the states retain such power? well, there's a word, it's called federalism. the concept that says when it comes to power, congress has to

stay in its lane. and the rest of the road, well, it belongs to the states. now, if the supreme court were to overturn obergefell, which legalize same sex marriage, a state could pass a law to ban same sex marriage. but that state would be required to recognize a same-sex marriage from a another state. there is a big exception in terms of what the fed would have to recognize, and that is polygamy. uncle sam will not be require to protect polygamist marriages. because the federal government will defer to a state's definition of marriage, well, the law won't offer all the protection that the overfilled decision offers as of right now. but remember there, in obergefell, states must allow and recognize same-sex marriages under the due process and equal protection clauses of the 14th amendment. qatar find something into federal law does not mean you codify it at the state level. that is what you call federalism by design. despite the fact that congress

does not hold all of the cards though, they certainly did play their hand in this matter. a lot of political games had to be played, and successfully, to get where we are today. the question is, given that hand, let's see if the voters at the state level let the cards they been dealt when it comes to codifying these rights. i want to bring in jim obergefell, who is the plaintive in the 2015 obergefell versus hodges decision. jim, i'm glad to see you. welcome to the program. how are you? >> thanks laura, i'm happy to be here. i wish it was for better reasons. but thanks for having me. >> you know, it's interesting, because someone look at this, jim, and think it's counterintuitive. should people be celebrate the codification of this decision? and at first glance, it sounds like when congress says we are going to codify and make sure we've got same-sex marriage on the books, but that's exactly what it's done. but you don't think that it does. and i've explained of course the reasons why.

but do you think it should have gone further? and are you celebrating this senate victory for now? >> no, i am not celebrating, laura. i will say i'm happy that at least something has been done, something that we will have to fall back on should the supreme court overturned obergefell in the future. but this act, i find it curious that is called the respect for marriage act, because this act does not respect lgbtq+ communities, our marriages, our relationships, or our families. and the fact that this act would allow states to once again deny marriage licenses to same sex couples, where is the respect in that? and i have really just continually come back to this, laura, how on earth does my marriage to john, or any same-sex marriage, harm any other person or any other

marriage in this country? it does not. so, yes, i am happy that there's at least something that will be codified should obergefell be overturned. i'm happy to have this, as opposed to having everything being taken away. but this is not respect for marriage. this would take us back to a time where we are once again second-class citizens who are given something that is not marriage, is not respected and protected, and offered equally to every person in this country. that's my issue with the respect for marriage act. >> now, to clarify, at one point the law would ensure, and i don't want to take away from any of the points that you've raised, but just to clarify for the audience, if a state were to ban same sex marriage in their own respective state, the law would require them to respect a marriage that is same sex that is valid in a different state to honor the sort of notion. but your point is well taken about the breadth of protection

not being universal. and i understand there's also this moment from senator cynthia loomis, who is out of wyoming, a republican, and listen to what she had to say today to explain her vote in favor. remember, it was unanimous for democrats in the senate, and 12 republican senators. here was her explanation as to why, jim. >> for the sake of our nation today and its survival, we do well by taking this step. not embracing or validating each other's devoutly held views, but by the simple act of tolerating them. and that, madam president, explains my vote. >> you know, you have to cringe on the idea of the tolerance aspect. i suspect that is your view as well. >> absolutely. and to your point earlier, laura, the fact that there

could be people in 30 some states across the nation who are unable to get a marriage license and get married in the state they call home, that is not equal, that is not respect. now, to this point about tolerance, you are right. i have to laugh at that. because this bill, this act that had religious freedom, so-called religious freedom amendments attached to it, this is not about respecting or tolerating anyone else's religious beliefs. this is about one specific group of people who will believe their interpretation of their religion is more important than any other, more important than human beings in the public sphere. that is not tolerance. religious freedom means that people have the ability, the right, the practice their religion of choice, their faith in their home, and in their house of worship.

it does not mean using their religion to persecute others who do not share that same fate structure. so, this is not about tolerance. this is about kowtowing the people who want preference for their religion, their interpretation of their particular religion, in the fall of sphere. and that is not religious freedom. >> jim obergefell, thank you so much for your insight tonight. it was appreciated. >> thanks, laura. >> david urban is. back and join me is political commentator hillary rosen and cnn's court reporter area on devote. ariana, let me pick up exactly where jim left off and this notion of religious freedom. this does not mirror the obergefell decision. it is not precise by any stretch of the imagination. but because of federalism, because of what they've accomplished in the court, can you just explain a little bit about why you think the religious liberty aspect of it was top of mind? >> right, well, in 2015 when

the court issued obergefell, nobody would have thought that this bill was necessary, right. justice kennedy issued that sweeping decision, clearing the way for gay marriage nationwide. no one would have thought that this was necessary. and as you said, because of roe v. wade, you know, justice alito in that opinion said, look, this is, this opinion on dobbs is just about abortion. it is not about anything else. but then justice clarence thomas in that concurring opinion, he was not on that same page. remember he said that in future cases we should consider all of this courts due process presidents including griswold, lawrence, and obergefell. and remember that the liberals, they picked up on that right away. and said look, clarence thomas is not on the same page as alito. they started raising these alarms. and that's how we got to today, right. so, you talk a little bit about the religious liberty. we do see some exceptions here

for religious liberty. and that is what is important at the supreme court right now, because they care about that issue, they cared about it last term into big cases. and we have another case that will be argued next week all about somebody who designs websites to celebrate marriages but does not want to design such a website for same sex couples. they think that they should be accepted. and that's before the supreme court. and the supreme court is probably going to rule in favor of that person. >> i mean, it is the layering of all of this. everything needs to lead to the next thing. hillary, what's your action? you are listening to the interview with. jim did you have a reaction to a satisfaction? >> jim is an old friend of mine and i respect what he says. but the forum we are in right now is a political forum. the legislative form is a form of compromise by its nature. and this bill was a compromise. we would not be here if it were

not for this kind of radical right supreme court that is seems somewhat determined to unwind everything. and we would not be here, actually, if we don't have a democratic senate and a democratic house. like, this would not happen next year. the house would not do this next year. and that's why i worry about more decisions coming out of the court and winding civil rights that people have depended on, that they live on, and not having a congress that can codify the stuff. look, it's not critical -- critical things have happened today. if you're not already married, you don't have to worry about your marriage being an rolled. that's an important thing for families. and i'm gay, i'm not married, but it matters. you don't want your marriage on mount. do any other thing is yes, he's right. you don't have to go to nevada if you want to get married in your same-sex couple. and that is a pain. and it is not fair. and it is discriminatory. but once you get back to your home in wyoming, wyoming is required to recognize your

marriage under this new law. so, it does make some practical things safe for same sex couples. and i think that is something that we have to be happy about, considering the alternative, which would be what happened in the dobbs decision, the abortion decision, which has thrown everything into disarray in the reproductive health space and women's right. knocking us back 50 years. >> i hear you, and the idea -- you of scribe a low bar of probability universally, and the social spectrum, but in politics, where these the compromises that were necessary for those 12 republicans to sign on? >> so, listen, i think, as hillary point out, this is washington, d.c.. jim obviously doesn't work here. nothing gets done is town, right. for smith to pass, it's really amazing. it's taken a lot of effort on a lot of peoples parts to get where we are today. i was one of the republicans that signed on to a letter urging the senate to pass this bill but. it is important for a variety of reasons.

jim articulated, hillary knows, and i've articulate. so, you know, it is. we had 47 republicans in the house vote for this. we had 12 republicans, a wide range of folks from really liberal folks to very conservative people. but whatever cynthia lummis did or did not do, she still voted yes for us. it's a big deal. if really conservative people vote for this. and i think it's a big victory. you know, it may not be the whole of what everybody wanted and what jim wanted and others, but i think it's a very positive step forward. it should be celebrated as what the art in the possible can get done in this town, and so what can happen when people try to get things accomplished. >> the fact that bipartisanship is the pinnacle -- >> but -- >> we face this in the house, and in the congress next year, after the supreme court, we are going to -- >> something else -- >> it's going to pass the senate, it's going to pick up past the house. we are going to pick up some

more folks. -- when we do something good in washington, people should celebrate. >> there you go. >> i will bring out the balloon. had i known you were coming, i would have baked a cake. up next, he got a racist letter after putting up an inflatable black santa on his front lawn. so, what did chris kennedy do? what anyone would do. went to santa camp and became a black santa himself. i will tell that story next. when they got a chip. they drove to safelite for a same-day repaiair. and with their insurance, it was no cost to them. >> womanan: really? >> tech: that's service the way you need it. >> singers: ♪ safelite repair, safelite replace. ♪ as someone living with type 2 diabetes, i want to keep it real and talk about some risks. with type 2 diabetes you have up to 4 times greater risk of stroke, heart tack, or death. ev at your a1c goal, you're still at risk ...which if ignored could bring you here... ...may put you in onof those... ...or even worse. too much? that's the point. get real about your risks and do something about it.

talk to your health care provider about ways to lower your risk of stroke, heart attack, or death. learn more at getrealaboutdiabetes.com

my father didn't know his dad. she knew that i always want to know more about my family history. with ancestry i dug and dug until i found some information. i was able to find out more than just a name. and then you add it to the tree. i found ship manifests. birth certificate. wow. look at your dad. i love it so much to know where my father work,

where he grew up? it's like you discover a new family member. it's the greatest gift. now on sale at ancestry.

>> christmas is a special holiday for a lot of us, and especially for kris kennedy, a married father in north little rock, arkansas. two years ago, he put an inflatable black santa on his front lawn. his little girl, his daughter, could see that he looks just like her. unfortunately, someone sent him

a racist letter, demanding he take that inflatable down, insisting that santa claus is white. now, determined not to be intimidated, he put up a second black santa, decided he needed to do even more to make sure that children of color felt included. >> this is the type of people that i live around. all of a sudden, we've got a problem with black santa. >> you always see santa as being white. >> yes, i thought there was a variety of santa that came in every different state. >> so, kris kennedy enrolled in santa clara to become a professionally trained santa claus. and now, he is black signed up for his entire community. his story is part of a documentary on santa camp that is streaming on hbo max, cnn's sister network. and chris kennedy joins me now live. chris, it's so nice to see you. look at the beard. it's already there. i'm already feeling jolly. i'm on hopefully the nice list.

we'll see after this interview, if you keep me on this. but i have to ask, you you set out based on what happened in your community, and this letter that you received, before we get into that. just tell me why it was important to you to even have this inflatable santa, and for your daughter to see a black santa claus? >> while, for me, it's one of those things of i did not grow up seeing it. there was not very inclusive christmas decorations and things of that nature growing up. so, i wanted to make sure that she got to grow up and see it. so my wife and i searched you around to find all sorts of decorations that represent us as a family and sure that she is a part of the world overall. >> that is a beautiful sentiment. and a lesson that all parents are hoping their children will feel. and you know, i might undignified the letter, i really am interested in what

you did about it. because i had never heard of a santa cap. and the fact that there is, one and you went there, and you shared your experience as to why you are there. you are the only black santa at the santa camp. and i'm just wondering, when you talk to the different people who were participants in it, and you talk about it, what was the reaction of the greater community of those who were equally invested in becoming the role model of santa claus in their communities? >> while, the interesting thing is the frantic community is very welcoming, and really does want diversity in santa's. they want all kids to be happy and be seen and be represented. people were upset not only that there wasn't a letter, they were upset -- give me a thumbs down, but they're also upset that somebody would not truly know the full story of christmas or

even saint nicholas, who was turkish, and know that he had brown skin. and if you follow the actual history of santa claus, he was originally brown and coca-cola in their ads just happened to use a white actor. and that's what we know today. but overall, the santa community actually is very welcoming of all scientists. >> well, that is important to think about. and the idea of jolly saint nick, as they say, and to see you and that particular role. you are going to be in a christmas parade in little rock, the city of maumelle, as well. a lot of people see you, let people catch this important story, chris, watching santa camp, it is streaming on our sister network hbo max. thank you for being here and sharing that spirit with us today. we'll be right back. >> as italy, thank you for having me. to a child, this is what conflict looks like. children in ukraine are caught

in thehe crossfire of war, forced to flee their homes. a steady stream of refugees has been coming across all day. it's basically cold. lacking clean water and sanitation. exposed to injury, hunger. exhausted and shell shocked from what they've been through. every dollar you give can help bring a meal, a blanket, or simply hope to a child living in conflict. please call or go online to givenowtosave.org today with your gift of $10 a month, that's just $0.33 a day. we cannot forget the children in places like syria, born in refugee camps, playing in refugee camps, thinking of the camps as home. please call or go online to givenowtosave.org today. with your gift of $10 a month, your gift can help children like ara in afghanistan,

where nearly 20 years of conflict have forced the people into extreme poverty weakened and unable to hold herself up, ara was brought to a save the children's center, where she was diagnosed and treated for severe malnutrition. every dollar helps. please call or go online to givenowtosave.org today. with your gift of $10 a month, just $0.33 a day. and thanks to special government grants that are available now, every dollar you give can multiply up to ten times the impact. and when you use your credit card, you'll receive this special save the children tote bag to show you won't forget the children who are living their lives in conflict. every war is a war against children. please give now. blendjet■s black friday sale is on now. save up to 25% on the number one gift this holiday season. blendjet 2 porble blender gives you ice-crushing, big blender power on-t-go.

throw in yr favorite ingredients and blend up a delicious smoothie anytime, anywhere. blendjet 2 even cleans itself. just add water, a drop of soap, and blend. recharge quickly with any usb port. order now from blendjet.com and get our best deal ever!

>> in the season of giving, we

want to show you how you can help our 2022 top ten cnn heroes continue their important work and have your donations matched dollar for dollar. here is anderson. >> i'm anderson cooper. each of this year's top ten cnn heroes proves that one person really can make a difference. and again, this year we are making it easy for you to support their brave work. just go to cnnheroes.com and click donate two -- to make a direct contribution. -- you will receive an email confirming your donation, which is tax deductible in the united states. no matter the amount, you can make a big difference in helping our heroes continue their life-changing work. and right now, to january 3rd, your donations will be matched dollar for dollar up to a total of $50,000 for each of this years honorees. cnn is proud to offer you this simple way to --

and celebrate all these every day people who are changing the world. you can donate from your laptop, your tablet or your phone. just go to cnnheroes.com. >> your donation and then the amount will help them help others, thanks. >> and all of our top ten cnn heroes will be honored at cnn heroes and all our tribute, hosted by anderson cooper, with special guest co-host kelly ripley, live, sunday, december 11th. we will be r right back.