good evening, everyone. i'm alisyn camerota. >> i'm laura coates. this is "cnn tonight." the georgia election just may be a big nail in the coffin of donald trump's political aspirations after his handpic ed candidate, herschel walker, was defeated. has the fever broken as members of his own party are now abandoning him? >> as you know, laura, republicans are in the throes of

a georgia election autopsy. tonight they're reconsidering their opposition to mail-in voting and early voting. maybe those practices are not so bad after all. >> our panel is already giggling. >> i heard that. plus the controversy over a virginia restaurant that canceled a reservation for a conservative christian group that has lobbied against same-sex marriage, lobbied against abortion. we'll tell you what it's all about. former federal broughter jim walden and political commentators s.c. cupp and david urban. the question is has it broken? this was a no good terrible week or month for donald trump. but yesterday with herschel walker's loss, was that it? >> i think you have to parse out republican political electives and then the republican base. i think republicans in office and republican leadership are

wondering how they can win again. and maybe regretting that faustian bargain they made in 2016 to accept all the crap that comes with trump for very short-term gain, let's be clear. but the base i think is all-in on trump still. they're not affected by this kind of stuff. it makes trump more a victim and a loner and, you know, a strongman out on his own. you still hear people like marjorie taylor greene complaining that republicans weren't helpful enough to herschel walker. not that herschel walker was the problem. so yeah, i think you're going to see it on the politico side, not the base. >> david, let's take a look at the things that happened that donald trump was connected to. >> it hasn't been a good week, that's true. >> herschel walker lost, as we know, in georgia. he put out that thing on social media to terminate the

constitution. that has not gone over that well, frankly, david. he had dinner with ye and fuentes that continues to reverberate in not a good way. yesterday the trump organization was found guilty of this 15-year tax scheme, basically. so in other words, he's not winning legally or politically. and his superpower of being a lightning rod on social media backfired. >> yes. >> where do you think we are? >> i think -- remember, i don't know which monty python movie it is, "i'm not dead yet!" bring out the your dead, the guy is not dead yet, that's the joke. i think that's where we are with donald trump. s.c. correctly points out, the chattering class, the political establishment, is saying, look, we're getting clocked in every race. independent voters say, we're breaking against you, we're not voting for republicans, we're afraid of trump. everybody knows it, everybody reads the tea leaves. so the party, the chattering class, we've got to move on.

but the ride or die trump base says, we're with this guy to the end. right? >> mccarthy and mcconnell are the problem, the establishment's the problem, right? >> not trumpy enough. >> we saw last night on a different network there was an anchor saying, where are the other 49 republican senators, why weren't they campaigning for herschel? that's not really the issue, right? it's a different issue. >> there's one thing on the info graphic you showed that had to do with the trump organization. and you know, first of all, we'll talk about this as well on a day when a lot of republicans were told to show up, not engage in early voting, you had this verdict come out. the people going to the polls had that image in their mind. but it's not the trump individuals. alan weisselberg is one person who was named in it. but he pleaded guilty already. he testified kind of favorably about what trump did or did not know. tell me the significance of the idea that the trump organization was what was found. and do you think that there is the ability of most people to

parse that out? >> i break it into two parts. one is the legal part, the other is the political part. from the legal perspective, the company's dead. it's basically going to be a defunct company. he's already started a new company in florida to take its place. and from a political perspective, to david and s.c.'s point, i'm not sure that is going to move the needle. i have a slightly different view, which i think the foundation of the trump legacy is crumbling in front of our eyes and it's going to continue to crumble as more bad news comes out. and the new special counsel for the justice department digs into the case. >> maybe, jim. i can't tell you how many people i've heard for six years, "any minute now, donald trump is going to be held responsible." >> it's coming out! >> it's getting close! >> chicken little. >> here again, the trump organization had a 15-year tax scheme. he is the trump organization. he was at the head of it.

everything he says about it, nothing happened there without going through donald trump, but he's not held accountable once again. >> i take your point, but i'd say there's blood in the water. i think you're starting to see the results of that. you're starting to see bolton come out and say, i'll challenge trump. i think you're going to see -- >> fight him behind the gym! >> right, knife fight him. i think you're going to see more people coming out and splintering away from trump because it's just the dominos are falling. and i think they're going to continue to fall. >> plus exhaustion. >> to jim's point, a primary in 2016 looked completely different than a primary would look like in 2024. >> but why? >> people won't be afraid to punch him back in the nose. people didn't know -- i think during the republican prime patient, 2016, donald trump was brand-new on the scene. he was completely -- tennno one done what he'd done on a debate scene. things of that changed. the first time he insults somebody and somebody comes pack

with "president trumpdy dumpty." >> i don't know. >> it's perhaps no longer novelty, but i'm not sure people know they're purging back -- it's more, i'm going to punch, will the base like this? >> if you're going to run, chris christie, mike pence, mike pompeo, getting in the deep end of the pool, you're punching or be drowned. >> i'm not sure any of those are going to take him down. because again, the base is so -- is so rabidly loyal. and listen, we didn't know, to laura's point, the novelty of how trump would run, but we knew lots about him. i remember writing countless times in 2015 about how he didn't care about the constitution, it was clear based on all the things he said about muslim bans, wanting to close the internet. >> well, he's confirmed it for you. >> he said it. right. >> black and white. >> there's a lot we knew. that he was never going to be able to do, that he shouldn't do, we knew he was terrible. and all the republicans ended up

lining up behind him. i don't know, despite everything we know now, if that calculus has completely changed. >> one more thing from this week i want to point out. yesterday he met with a qanon follower. >> of course. >> and she also believes in pizzagate. >> complete that trifecta. >> they took a picture together. is it possible that his judgment is getting even more impaired? >> just to be fair, they were there for a fund-raiser. it was at mar-a-lago for a fund-raiser for child trafficking. and he took probably lots of pictures that night. >> i don't think you're helping. >> i'm just saying. i'm just giving an explanation of what may have happened. i wasn't there. >> he doesn't know who she is? >> i would venture to guess, just like nick fuentes, donald trump had no -- there are people, however, there are people that should be -- >> you ought to know who's in your pictures, that's the lesson from the dinner. >> he's very generous. trump likes anyone who likes him and it's very possible he doesn't know who these people are, that's not the problem. the problem when is he's told

who these people are. the white supremacists in charlottesville, the neo-nazis, the proud boys, he doesn't take that opportunity to disavow them wholeheartedly. >> michael flynn was there helping him raise money -- against child trafficking -- >> when they talk about child trafficking, you know they think it's hillary clinton and pizzagate. >> you're using a generic term that anybody could get behind but that's not how exactly how frame this. >> i think it's important to talk about, there's a level of exhaustion. right? there is a level of all these different investigations, it's difficult to then run as the law and order president. right? under the law and order party. if you've got these things -- you talk about blood in the water. i mean, there are people who are swimming around this saying, these are things that will fatally undermine that particular talking point. do you think that these are going to land in some meaningful

way? if there's not some quick indictments? it's been a long time. >> so no one outside of new york is going to care about the new york attorney general case on the trump organization. but i think -- >> you don't think so? >> i don't think so. but what i do think people are going to care about is if there is an indictment, and i believe there will be one. if there's an indictment of donald trump. i think you've already seen trump 2.0 coming out in people like desantis. i tie it back to georgia. people are starting to get sick of this. i think people are getting sick of it on the left and right. there's so much hyperpartisanism and no compromise. i think that's going to resonate. >> i wouldn't look to ron desantis -- >> six years later, i think you're right. i think you're right. >> still right. all right, stick around. as mentioned, that georgia election autopsy is under way. so we'll look at all the things the republicans are rethinking the republicans are rethinking today.r.

and wiwith their insurance, it was no cost to them. >> woman: really? >> tech: that's service the way you need it. >> singers: ♪ safelitite repai, safelite replace. ♪ suffering from sinus congestion, especially at night? try vicks sinex for instant relief that lasts up to 12 hours. vicks sinex targets congestion at the source, relieving nasal congestion and sinus pressure by reducing swelling in the sines. try vicks sinex.

your heart is the beat of life. if you have heart failure, entrust your heart to entresto. entresto helps improve your heart's ability to pump blood to the body. don't take entresto if pregnant; it can cause harm or death to an unborn baby. don't take entresto with an ace inhibitor or aliskiren, or if you've had angioedema with an ace or arb. the most serious side effects are angioedema, low blood pressure, kidney problems, or high blood potassium. ask your doctor about entresto.

as you know, senator raphael warnock won the runoff election in georgia against donald trump's handpicked candidate, herschel walker. now many republicans are starting to wonder whether the party's rejection of may have

while in and early voting hurt them at the ballot box. we're back with jim wald dep, s.c. cupp, and david irvin. david, for all the skepticism of early voting and mail-in voting, how much do you think that that ruined republicans' chances? >> it's ruined our chances in all these elections. democrats are very smart. how they play this game. they get the ballots, they can cure a ballot that's not filled out correctly, you know who's voted, hasn't voted, you turn them out. republicans are so far behind, we're going to be playing catch-up for a long time. just now you see newt and some others, sean hannity, saying, maybe we should be doing this. >> today. it's a little late. >> hello. in 2020, 2016, before -- you know, all this is happening in pennsylvania, other states. we should have been doing it. the former president was saying, no, don't do it, it's bad. we talked our team out of playing on a level field. >> i want to play that sound,

too. remember people were saying that very notion, and the idea -- the operation you call, many would just call voting, the idea of being able to cure absentee ballots. listen to what was happening on fox on this issue, rana mcdaniel to kellyanne conway and beyond. >> what we do need is our voters need to vote early. many in 2020 saying, don't vote by mail, don't vote early. we have to stop that. >> if you wait just to election day, it's almost -- you're running a race where you're starting 30 yards behind. you don't know if you have enough time to catch. the last race we just won, we won by less than 600 votes. it is that close. you want to bank as many votes as you can. republicans in the past, we had an advantage because we would vote early. we would vote by mail. we put that away. >> we need to not just compete for votes, for ballots. if we don't bank ballots early, we're going to keep -- >> we didn't.

>> we didn't do it in 2020 because everyone said, don't vote early. >> not everyone. >> well. a lot of people did at the top of the republican party. you didn't. >> they won't name him, it's absurd. i'm sorry. >> go ahead. >> it's absurd. it's like these guys, ted williams frozen for the past four years, like they forgot, yeah, the guy at the top of the ticket suddenly gave you an aneurysm and told you not to do something that everyone could see would actually help. and now they're like, it was just invented, we should try this too. no kidding. no kidding. >> and let's just remind people, remember when trump said this very thing, how it invites fraud? it wasn't that -- he thought it was a sure thing that if you did early voting or vote by mail, it would lead to this. >> voting by mail is wrought with fraud and abuse, and people don't get their ballots. when you do all mail-in voting ballots, you're asking for

fraud. people steal them out of mailboxes. people print them and then they sign them and they give them in. i think it's going to be the greatest fraud ever. i think it's going to be a rigged election. they think they're going to send hundreds of millions of ballots all over the united states and it's going to come out? you won't know the election result for weeks, months, maybe years. get rid of this mail-in voting. and ultimately, we need same-day voting with only paper ballots. same-day voting. >> no, imagine, it was 2020 through 2022 that you heard these comments. >> maybe we should just use tablets, stone tablets. people are sick of this hypocrisy. i don't understand why other republicans aren't calling it out. >> by the way, he absentee voted. >> i know, i saw that. >> wanted to point that out, he and his family used mail-in voting, just throwing that out there. why do you think he was so passionate about that?

because he thought he was losing at that point? why was he railing against it so much? >> because there is this perception that if you just lie, people will buy it. and then you can blame that conduct. and they wanted to limit the rules. they're trying to limit democratic voting. gerrymandering is another example of all of these games that are getting played. frankly, the thing that's the most disappointing is that we can't fix this nationally. and that's because the constitution doesn't let us. but the constitution's not perfect. if there was one set of rules that everyone had to follow, nobody could play these kinds of games anymore. that's the part that -- >> what do you mean, the constitution does not let us? what are you honing in on as to why there is this hurdle? >> this was the argue in the supreme court, the case right now. the supreme court said state legislatures can pick how federal elections occur within their states. if everyone had one set of rules, if everyone got the same play, there would be a level playing field and no one could decry the process being broken.

>> we wouldn't have to wait a week to find out what's going on in arizona. >> back to what donald trump was doing, he was hedging his bets. >> he needed a bogeyman. >> i honestly think -- look, donald trump is one of these people, probably last guy on his block to get an atm, probably still wrote paper checks, "wait for the bank to open, i don't trust the atm," you know what i mean? you know what i'm talking about. your parents -- i'm not going to get an atm card, i don't trust the banking system, i'll going to write a check. i don't mean richie rich, i mean an atm card. there are lots of people in america that don't believe -- they believe that the voting system is rigged, they can't trust it, somehow the votes are being shipped to mars. >> they believe it because he said it. >> not just because of donald trump. there's a whole subcurrent of the population -- >> there's no shock he's not a political mastermind, okay? no surprise. he doesn't have this all worked out. he doesn't always pick great

candidates, he doesn't give any of his money to candidates he wants to win. he's self-sabotaging except it's the whole party. they're just realizing it now. >> if we do $have a national system that was transparent and quick, right? i think would be less skepticism, people would believe in the system, accept absentee ballots -- >> is it the system's fault that republicans believe in qanon and pizzagate? >> i'm talking about voting here -- >> he keeps saying it. >> election denialism was on the ballot to a certain degree. >> and lost. >> and lost in many instances. you heard herschel walker yesterday, i think was a good moment, he talks about having faith in the system nonetheless. this is a hand-picked, endorsed candidate based on a theory of election denialism -- >> union holding the constitution, right. >> and my point is it's all tied together. right? this skepticism, the money in politics, the gerrymandering, and the broken system all

impacts quality candidates. quality candidates don't want to run in this kind of political blood sport game. so you get terrible candidates like herschel walker who had no business being on the ballot at all. and that's the choice that people had to make. >> tell it to the supreme court. we'll talk about that later. as you said, this is what the crux of the argument they heard today, and we don't know what's going to happen. it could change the way our electoral system works based upon how they decide. >> at the end of the day, right, i mean, if we'll are willing to believe the lie without any evidence, nine justices won't be able to change just that. >> "elvis' baby." "aliens live." people believe a lot of weird stuff. reservations canceled, a restaurant refusing to serve a conservative christian organization. is that their right? or are they in the legal or maybe moral wrong? we'll ask next.

starting with your digestitive syst. metamucil's plant-based fiber forms a gel to trap and remove the waste that weighs you down, helps lower cholesterol and promotes healthy blood sugar levels. while its collagen peptides help support your joint structures. so, start feeling lighter and more energetic by taking metamucil every day. [♪] metamucil's psyllium fiber also comes in easy-to-take capsules. take a picture. 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 14s on us. and 4 new lines for $25 bucks a line. stuff. n refunds can help your business get a payroll tax refund,

even if you got ppp and it only takes eight minutes to qualify. i went on their website, uploaded everything, and i was blown away by what they could do. getrefunds.com has helped businesses get over a billion dollars and we can help your business too. qualify your business for a big refund in eight minutes. go to getrefunds.com to get started. powered by innovation refunds.

the american ideals of religious freedom and freedom from discrimination getting tangled up in high-profile cases recently. i talked to a plaintiff in a case before the supreme court that poses the question, does a graphic designer have the right to refuse to create websites celebrating same-sex weddings based on her religious beliefs and her professed first amendment rights? now "the washington post" is reporting that a restaurant in richmond, virginia, canceled a booking that was made by a conservative christian

organization. the restaurant saying in a statement, "recently we refused service to a group that had booked an event with us after the owners of metzger found out it was a group of donors to a political organization that seeks to deprive women and lgbtq+ persons of their basic human rights in virginia. we have always refused service to anyone for making our staff uncomfortable or unsafe, and this was the driving force behind our decision." >> so the conservative group, family foundation, posted a response on their website entitled, we've been canceled again. they ask, have you ever been denied a meal because of your beliefs? let's discuss this. jim walden, s.e. cupp, david irvin. these the inverse of each other? a web designer who doesn't want to make a website for gay couples because it violates her religious beliefs, is this the same as restaurant waitstaff who doesn't want to serve a christian group because they

violate the waitstaff's beliefs? >> i'm not a legal scholar, but i think the master cake -- masterpiece cupcake case before the supreme court makes it clear, those are not analogous things. but i think -- >> why not? >> well, for a number of reasons. because it is illegal to discriminate against someone based on their faith, based on their race, based on their creed. it's not maybe -- again, i'm not a legal scholar -- illegal to decide someone cannot come into your private business, cannot come into your private establishment. i don't know, it's a bad idea. it's a bad idea from the right or the left to tell people that based on their political beliefs, they are not welcome, you're not going to serve them. especially since they hadn't shown up yet. you can't say that your waitstaff felt unsafe based on the idea of them. based on the fact that they might come and you are just

uncomfortable by their very presence. i think that sets a terrible precedent. you can have your political feelings about everyone. but it's also this false notion of security that you are safe from ideas if you can't see them. that's not true either. >> i asked the question of the plaintiff in this case, the supreme court, the other day, talking about this issue. was she concerned about people using her as an example and saying, listen, i have -- it's my own private business, i'm going to go -- it's going to lead to a slippery slope. >> talking about the graphic designer? >> here's what she had to say. >> what is the line that distinguishes, say, you from the artist that somebody could, under the auspices of saying there's an artiste, do the same thing? do you have those concerns? >> well, i can only speak to myself. and i've made it clear, i work with everyone. i have clients who identify as lgbt. and what i'm seeking is that the court step in to protect

everyone's right to speak freely. the court has already determined these tests. every freech speech case determines -- the law is the message being communicated in a medium we're used to seeing, words, text, graphics? that's speech. if we're talking about some macaroni and cheese dish, that's not speech, that's an easy call for the court to make. >> on that point, macaroni and cheese aside -- in thinking about it, her statement is that speech. i can't be compelled by a state to create speech in the form of my art and my web design. in the instance of a private restaurant that says, look, no shoes, no shirt, no service. your beliefs, what you're doing politically, there's no law that says that i have to protect that as a classification. so get out of here. is there a violation, you think, in the law that would be part what was the supreme court might look at ultimately ass analogou?

>> i think they are morally equivalent. i think it's difficult for people to get their minds around these technical legal distinctions. lawyers are used to making them, most people aren't. i agree with s.e. completely this just bad conduct regardless who does it. we live in a society where we're supposed to all be aligned at some level. we've got fob able to deal with one -- >> let's go pack to the web designer. if you don't believe in gay marriage, you think it violates your religion, you think it violates the bible. why should you have to make a website for a gay couple's wedding? >> because i believe that if you're in business, you should serve everyone equally. that's my personal belief. you can draw distinctions and say, well, i don't believe in this, i don't believe in that. this is what happens. >> i understand. i see what you're talking about. but you can always find an example. if a nazi comes in and wants you to do a swastika, you don't want to do it and you shouldn't be

forced to. you can always find an example that's so odious, shouldn't be forced to legally. >> i agree with you. i'm a lawyer. if a nazi came in and wanted me to represent him, i wouldn't want to represent him. what i'm saying, as a general matter, when people start saying, i'm not going to serve categories, and we make the distinction, is it speech? is it conduct? is it commercial speech? it's a very difficult line for people to draw. and it just disappoints -- >> it wasn't conduct, they hadn't shown up yet. >> their conduct, to be clear, the conduct they're talking about is -- >> lobbying. >> they're lobbying against lgbtq -- >> what a precedent that you have to investigate everything everyone who's coming to your restaurant has done to make sure you're morally okay with it. >> didn't you just make that point about donald trump, that everyone who comes before him has to be vetted, it's the responsible thing to do? is that similar in the -- >> wait, what? >> the point is, if the idea is, it is i to be forced to vet and understand who's coming before

you so you can be morally equipped to deal with what you believe -- >> you're not voting for these people. >> no, i agree with that premise. but the point is, if you're talking about the requirement on people that it's odd to require somebody that, if they're in your presence, they must be vetted. talking about, say, donald trump. who is a citizen, everyday person, who was at mar-a-lago, compared to somebody at a private organization, a private restaurant. why can't they make the same -- >> i'll be honest, i completely am missing the connection between donald trump, the former president, and wanting to make sure you know what he's doing, and customers coming into a restaurant. >> i'll be even clearer, then -- >> essentially blacklisted, something i thought we put back -- >> i'll be clearer. if the crux of the issue is you ought to have control over the people who come into a private establishment and have the right to exclude who you'd like, and one of the criteria for exclusion is based on what you agree with morally or find reprehensible, then the idea of the expectation of say, as an

example, a donald trump being required to, in his own private institution, private restaurant, private club, having to have those sorts of criteria -- >> are you talking about nick fuentes? >> are you listening to what i'm saying? >> you didn't say that at all, i have no idea what you're talking about. if you're talking about -- yes, of course. if i were the former president, i would vet every single person that was in my presence. that's not him. we know that. he didn't do that at the white house. everyone got an audience if they liked him. but, i mean, to say that you should vet every customer that's coming into your business so that you feel like you are morally okay with everything they've done in their private life? you can't possibly think that that's a good bar to set. >> i don't think it's the bar. the point is, if we're talking about, to your point, the moral equivalence of the expectation of being able to have the right to exclude or invite based on the criteria you set within your private establishment, doesn't

that require to a certain extent that people can be proactive about vetting? i'm not agreeing with what they've done or disagreeing. i'm just saying, if we're saying societally that people ought to have the right and autonomy to do so, where does that line get drawn? >> two things real quickly. the first point is, why would you want to patronize someone who hates you? so i don't understand. if you're a gay couple, why would you want to go to a designer who doesn't want to design for gay couples? >> they didn't know that. >> so in the future, i think this will all vet -- work itself out in terms of people who are known, they just won't be going there. >> i don't know if you can just leave it the up to the market like you're saying. >> the second part is, to answer -- go to where laura's talking about, pull on the thread jim was talking about, if i walk into a restaurant, is someone going to type me up on open secrets, see who i donated to? he donated to this charity, i don't like that charity -- it's nutty. you don't have a right to not be

offended in life. that's not -- there's no constitutional right not to be offended. but -- >> one thing we'd be remiss to ignore, these are companies. creatures of the state. right? they're chartered in the state. they get tax breaks from the state. they pay less taxes, generally, than individuals. if you are essentially a creature of the state, maybe we should have clear rules that say, you can ban people because they're bad in your establishment, because they break the law, because they cause violence. but you can't ban people otherwise. >> from showing up. >> some states do that. >> wouldn't that be a good law? >> virginia, ironically, is not a state that actually has that notion that you cannot ban someone based on or have to protect the political. sarah huckabee sanders in a virginia establishment, she was asked to leave. you have other figures. it prompted, remember, the whole issue with maxine waters. it prompted the discussions about what you can do to draw the line. >> and that's terrible.

i mean, legal or illegal, it's almost beside the point. if we ar decent society, that behavior is terrible. shouting people out of restaurants is terrible. >> the bathroom. >> kirstjen nielsen. it happened to more than one person. you can disagree with trump and his policies, you can disagree with republicans. but shouting people out of establishments, you know, unleashing a mob on people, making people feel actually unsafe. as opposed to servers who said they felt unsafe when they hadn't even come yet. >> yeah. >> i think it's terrible precedent. >> i only chase people out of a restaurant if they stiff me out of a tip. >> who would do that? >> thank you. >> that's justified. buckingham palace bracing because harry and meghan are about to drop their controversial documentary. what's in there? we'll talk about it.

to a child, this is what confct looks like. chilen in ukraine are caught in the 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.

we're just a few hours away from getting a closer look into the private life of prince harry and meghan, volume one of the couple's six-part docuseries "harry and meghan" set to hit netflix tonight, 3:00 a.m. eastern. volume two released on thursday. >> we're not going to bed tonight. >> no, we're watching, all-nighter. >> in the latest trailer the couple offer their side of the story of what life was like for them within the royal family, saying only they knew the full truth. listen. >> there's leaking but there's also planting stories. >> there was a war against meghan to suit other people's agendas. >> it's about hatred. it's about race. >> it's a dirty game. the pain and suffering of women marrying into this institution, this feeding frenzy.

>> i realized, they're never going to protect you. >> i was terrified. i didn't want history to repeat itself. no one knows the full truth. we know the full truth. >> oh, we're about to know the full truth, i guess. joining us now, "one world" executive editor karen mayo. s.e. cupp and david irvin are back with us. david wants to talk about this all night long. >> on the edge of his seat through the entire thriller. >> i will be the one human being not staying up to watch this. i will not pay one lick of attention. these people, this couple, said we are out of the royal family, we want to live a private life we can don't want to be involved in the spotlight. and they're just -- this is everything that they said they're trying to run from and hide from. it's so fake. it's so b.s. meghan markle, i didn't know who

he was when we went on a break, give me a break. >> it was a blind date matchup. >> it's all so -- >> oh, am i telling you too much already? >> i find it, like -- just a complete joke. they want to hide go hide. go stay at your house in the hollywood hills, be rich, have dinner with your friends. don't cry me a river about their tough life. >> i'm guessing he didn't care. >> i have to say, it's almost a luxury to say, run and hide, not be a human being and live any longer. they're trying to share their story because frankly, it's been written for them -- >> they have to own the narrative. and i don't know that they ever said they wanted to have a private life. i don't think they ever imagined in a trillion years that life would ever be private. but i do believe that they wanted a modicum of respect and they wanted to be able to, again, tell the story the way they see it happened. part what was i'm imagining is going to come, first of all, beyond the tea, and yes, i will

be up. just that you know, these are two relatively young people who are setting out in life in this impossibly unique way. there's absolutely no one else under the sun who understands their specific experience. and yet they're human beings. and all they've been saying the entire time is, can you respect our humanity? and with regard to meghan, you know, i think that the clip says it all. it's about race. it's about race. >> and she was talking for that reason, as opposed to the women who are marrying into the institution. >> yes. >> that was really the clear pic picture. >> yes. >> do you think she was targeted -- clearly targeted by the paparazzi. isn't it possible -- is it possible that two things are true? the royal family in their stiff upper lip way felt that they were welcoming, thought they were welcoming, and she felt marginalized? isn't it possible they're both true? >> absolutely. but isn't it possible that there's even more nuance that they were welcoming and yet also

somehow subverseively doing things against her? >> why in how would that serve them? how would it serve the royal family to ruin their beloved harry's wife? why? >> oh, i -- >> just on the one point, may not be -- >> i'm looking for the book too. but you know, i don't think that it's as simple as just protecting harry's wife or loving harry's wife. i think there's an institution at play. and an institution involves hundreds and hundreds of years of history and a lot of power and a lot of decision-making that's happening that's beyond just harry's welfare. so could they conspire against meghan markle? black meghan markle? >> i mean, that's -- obviously that was her feeling. >> you don't think this is a remote possibility? >> that's fine, i mean, look -- i'm not a royal watcher. >> neither am i, quite frankly. >> i mean, i tend to agree with alison. i don't know anything about this

couple. you know. i don't begrudge them their peace, their narrative, they get to do it all. i just think the whole -- like the we want to be -- again, this is my interpretation. >> it is. >> if they want to be private people, they left the -- >> when did they say they want to be private people? they didn't want to be harassed by the monarchy. >> then go and go to australia, go to the united states, go someplace and live your life. >> they are. >> they're not. why would you come out with a book -- you're poking the monarchy, doing everything you don't want to be around. >> there are few institutions on this planet i am less interested in than the royals, and that is all right. as americans we fought for that, we won that right. but i -- and i have no interest in protecting the royals and their legacy, which is in need of an examination. but i did watch all three hours of the oprah sit-down with meghan markle and harry. >> exactly. >> because i thought, i'm going to learn something new. and did i. i think we all learned a little

something new about that experience for her. and i was so grateful that she talked about mental health. >> yes. >> that was incredibly courageous. it meant a lot to me. and i hope a lot of the other people too. and so i was proud of her. and i felt bad for her. i'm not sure that a second go at it, with all this exposure and fanfare, after this amount of time, i don't think they want to be private, but they do want to get past the monarchy, or do they? >> first of all -- >> i seem to want to keep trafficking in -- >> truth, full truth. there are a lot of people in my celebrity coverage years, and it's rare that folks in the public eye like that get to the full truth. that's freeing. >> whose truth? >> his. >> they're not going to tell their truth. >> hey, look. the monarchy's had 400, 500, 700 years to tell their truth.

give meghan and mary their six hours. >> wasn't that the plan? first of all, i will admit it, and i don't care -- i do watch all that. i watch the royal weddings. i made fresh scones. >> you are not alone. >> i don't care. i am watching it the way i watch reality shows. >> sure. >> i know that there is the truth, the truth, and then what actually it is. and so if the oprah interview is one truth and the monarchy's story is another, maybe this will give me the rest of the story. because frankly, when i watch it, i -- it was confirming what i thought her experience would be. >> absolutely. >> in an institution like the monarchy. >> yeah. >> it really was. >> this will certainly be interesting. i look forward to watching it too. then we'll all have this conversation. >> we'll circle back. >> let's hope not, let's hope not. >> tea and crumpets. >> let's hope not. >> i'll watch it with you, david irvin. >> no chance. >> will they or won't they? big players on the january 6th committee are talking about whether they'll refer crimes to the doj. we'll talk about what they're saying and what it really means, next.

january 6th committee chairman, benny thompson, says they hope to release their final report and vote publicly on criminal referrals on december 21st. committee member adam schiff telling anderson cooper this tonight. >> i think the congress, when it sees evidence of criminality, afflicted affecting the institution of congress, has responsibility. given the attack on congress, to me, that goes right to the heart of our responsibilities. and so, we are weighing that. we're gonna be balancing our decision with a report very soon. i think there's also a high degree of consensus about our members. >> okay, laura, explain how this works. if on the 21st, they vote yes for criminal referral, who does it go to? what's the next step? >> it depends on who it is. if it's about donald trump, you have a special counsel that was

already put in place at the doj. because they know people are going to say, wait a second, he is a candidate. you are in charge, president biden, of the executive branch. which includes doj. >> hold on. the special counsel will decide about donald trump, not merrick garland you're saying? >> -- however, if it's trump adjacent or not related -- >> there are certainly people who divide subpoenas and make it criminal referrals. >> that's a different scenario. i think in terms of trump specifically, which is a special counsel appointed to oversee all those things, that brings different to the american public about prosecuting an american rival. having said that, first of all, december 21st is virtually the 11th hour in congress to be able to see this report. we're all waiting to see what it actually says. the feeling of the gaps, i haven't heard from ginni thomas. we haven't heard what she had to say. we haven't heard kellyanne conway testified to or others. there's gonna be a lot more there. i'm curious how they will plan to presented in some way.

up to these dates, it's all been tele-finds videos and televised actual hearings. >> hundreds of hundreds of pages in this report. >> not as long as the docuseries on harry and meghan. >> great point. >> still, we've got a coup attempt abroad, conspiracy theorists and white supremacists hanging around with trump. antisemitism and hate so much on the rise, the white house is actually holding a summit. look at the extremist threat at home and abroad after this. home and abroad after this. it wicks gushes 90% faster and absorbs even more. for up to 100% leak-free and odor-free comfort. this is triple protection frfrom always.

♪ ♪ this... is a glimpse into the no-too-distant future of lincoln. ♪ ♪ it's what sanctuary could look like... feel like... sound like... even smell like. more on that soon. ♪ ♪ the best part? the prequel is pretty sweet too. ♪ ♪