>> good evening everyone. i'm alisyn camerota. >> and i'm laura coates, and this is cnn tonight. and look, the georgia election might just be a big nail in the coffin of donald trump's political aspirations, either's handpicked candidate, herschel walker, was defeated by democratic senator raphael warnock. the question is have 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 are reconsidering their opposition to mail-in voting and early voting.

maybe those practices are not so bad after all. >> our panel is already giggling. >> they are, i hear 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 will tell you what it is all about. we've got a lot to talk about tonight, with former federal prosecutor jim wallet, and political contours s. e. cupp and david urban. the question really when you think about it, alisyn, this has it broken? this was a no good terrible week or month for donald trump. but yesterday, with herschel walker's loss, i mean, was that it? >> i think you have to parse out republican political electives. and in the republican base. i think republicans in office and republican leadership are wondering how they can win again, and maybe regarding that faustian bargain they made back in 2016 to accept all the crap that comes with trump, for a very short term gain, let's be clear. but the base i think is all in on trump still. they are not affected by this kind of stuff. it makes trump more of a victim and a loner and a, you know, strongman out on his own. you still hear people like marjorie taylor greene complaining that republicans were not helpful enough to herschel walker. not that herschel walker was the problem. so, yeah, i think you're going to see it on the political

side. not the base. and that is we're going to need to see the change for real votes to change. >> david, let's take a look at the things that happened that donald trump is connected to. >> it has not been a good week. i'm sure there's a good graph coming up. >> his handpicked candidate, 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 that dinner with kanye and nick fuentes, which continues to reverberate in a bad way and yesterday the trump organization found guilty of this 15-year tax scheme, basically. in other words, he is not winning legally, or politically. and his superpower of being a lightning rod on social media backfired. where do you think we are? >> remember the monty python movie with not dead yet, bring out your dead, and the guys like not dead yet. that's kind of the joke, where we are with donald trump as s. e. quickly point out, the chattering class, the political establishment is sitting back saying, look, we are getting clocked at every race. independent voters are coming

out and say we are breaking against you. we are not voting for republicans. we are afraid of trump. everyone knows it, everybody read the tea leaves. the party, the chattering class, says we have to move on. but the ride or die trump base says we are with this guy till the end. so -- >> and mccarthy amicalola the problems. the establishment is the problem. >> we saw last night on a different network, there is an anchor saying where the other 49, you know, republican senators? why were they not campaigning for herschel? but that is not really the issue, folks. it's a different issue. >> there's one thing on the infographic you showed though, and i 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 and say, early voting, you had this verdict come out, right, people going to the polls had that image in their mind. but it is not the trump individuals. i mean, allen weisselberg is one person who is named in it. but he pleaded guilty already. he testified, kind of favorably, about what trump or did not know. tell me the significance of the trump organization being found. and you think there is the ability of him, of most people, to parse that out? >> i break it into two parts, one is the legal part and the other is the political part. from the legal perspective, the company is dead. it is basically going to be a defunct company he has already started a new company in florida to take its place. and from a political perspective, to david and s. e.'s point, i don't think that will move the needle. i have a slightly different view, which is i think the foundation of the trump legacy

is crumbling in front of our eyes. and it is going to continue to crumble as more bad news comes out. and special counsel for the justice department really digs into the case. >> maybe, jim, but i can't begin to tell you how many people i've heard for six years be like any minute now, donald trump will be held responsible. >> getting indicted, coming out. >> it's getting close, but there still continues to be an investigation. and here again, the trump organization had a 15 year tax scheme. he is the trump organization. he was at the head of it. nothing happened there without going through donald trump. but he is not held accountable, once again. >> so, i take your, point alisyn. but what i would say is there's

blood in the water. and i think you are starting to see the results of that. you are starting to see bolton come out and say i will challenge trump. i think you are going to see -- >> i will fight a behind the gym. >> i will knife fight him. >> i think you will see more people coming out of splitting away from trump because it's just the dominoes are falling. and i think they will continue to fall. >> just exhaustion. >> to jim's point, a primary in 2016 looked completely different and then a primary will look like in 2024. >> but why? >> people will be afraid to punch back in the nose. people don't know in the

primary, republican primary 2016, donald trump was not brand-new on the scene. he was completely new, no one had done what he has done on the stage. we've seen that. it hasn't changed. people know how to respond. the first time he insults somebody and somebody comes back with trumpty-dumpty, what's gonna happen? >> what's his point about the base? it's longer than novelty perhaps. but i don't think people know when they're pointing back that the base is supposed to like this? >> if you're jumping in the race, you're saying i'm going to run, if you're chris christie, mike pence, mike pompeo, you're getting in the deep end of the pool, you are punching or you will drown. >> i am not sure any of those three are going to take him down. because, again, the base is so rabidly loyal. and listen, we did not 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 did not care about the constitution. it was clear based on all of the things he said about muslim bans and wanted to close the internet. >> well, he has confirmed it for you. >> he said it. >> in black and white. >> a lot he knew that he was not going to be able to do, is that he should not do, that he was terrible on. and all of the republicans ended up lining up behind him. i do not know, despite everything we know now, if that calculus is completely changed. >> one more thing from this week that 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 more impaired? >> just to be fair, they were there for a fund-raiser, right. it was at mar-a-lago for a fund-raiser for, you know, child trafficking and he probably took lots of pictures that night. >> you're not helping, you're not helping. >> listen, i'm just giving an explanation of what happened. i wasn't there. i would venture a guess, just like nick fuentes, there are people, however. >> is that some of you want to have a new picture? that was the lesson from the dinner. >> he's very generous. trump likes anyone who likes him. and it's very possibly had no idea who these people are. that's what the problem. the problem is when he is told who these people are. whether there is the white supremacist that showed up at charlottesville, of some of these neo-nazis, the proud boys, he does not take that opportunity to disavow them wholeheartedly. >> this is a mike flynn charity, mike flynn was down there helping raise -- >> another great guy. >> i'm just saying, this is why

he was there. for mike flynn, raising money for child trafficking. >> chao trafficking, you know that they think that it is, that hillary clinton is behind it. >> you are using a generic term that anyone could get behind. but that is not exactly how they frame this. >> the pizzagate part is a little wacky. >> but i think it is important to think about all that we're talking about, there is a level of exhaustion, right. there is a level of all of these different investigations. it's difficult to and then run as the law and order president, right, under the law and order party, if you've got these things -- talk about a lot of the water, there are people who are swimming around this saying these are things that will fatally undermined that particular talking point. do you think these are going to land in some meaningful way? if there is not some quick indictments? it has 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. >> you don't think so? >> i don't think so. what i do think people are going to care about is if there is a indictment. and i believe there will be one, if there is an indictment of donald trump. and i think you have already seen trump 2. 0 coming out of people like desantis. this is rite aid back to georgia. i think people are going to get sick of this. i think people are getting sick of it on the left and on the right, that there is so much hyperpartisanship, and no

compromise. i think that is going to resonate. >> i would say ron desantis is a compromise candidate. >> six years later, i think you're right, still. right friends, stick around. as we mentioned u ret u ret ave the house like this... but they'll happily hold down the fort while you're gone. -smiles! -and let's be honest, they'll never understand this whole situation... but they do get this. thank goodness. great prices. happy pets. chewy. i see an amazing place. feels like a dream. a place of many wonders - and full of life. i open my eyes: earth is our pandora. at adp, we understand business today looks nothing like it did yesterday. while it's more unpredictable, its possibilities are endless.

from paying your people from anywhere to supporting your talent everywhere, we use data driven insights to design hr solutions and services to help businesses of all size work smarter today. so, they can have more success tomorrow. ♪ one thing leads to another ♪ welcome to my digestive system. it's pretty calm in here with align probiotic. you see... your gut has good and bad bacteria. and when you get off balance, you may feel it. the bloating, the gas - but align helps me trust my gut again. plus, its recommended by doctors nearly 2x more than any other probiotic brand. just one a day naturally helps promote a balanced gut. and soothe occasional bloating gas and discomfort. align probiotic. welcome to an align gut.

>> 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 if the parties rejection of mail in early voting hurt them at the ballot box. we're back with jim walden, s. e. cupp, and david urban. david, for all of the skepticism of early voting and mail-in voting, how much do you think that ruined republicans chances? >> it ruled our chances at all these elections. democrats are very smart, right, how they play this game. so, they get the ballots, they can cure an absentee ballot that is not filled out correctly. and then when you get the ballots and you know who's voted, who hasn't voted, you turn them out. it's great operation. democrats have to get this out. and republicans are so far behind. we are going to be playing catch-up for a long time. just now, you see newt and some others saying, even sean hannity saying, maybe we should not be doing this. >> today. , i mean, it's a little late. >> in 2020 in 2016, all of this is happening in pennsylvania and other states. we should be doing it. and the former president say no, don't do it, it's bad, absentee bad, not doing it. so we talk to our team out of play on a level field.

>> i want to play that sound clip to. because many were saying that very notion. in the operation, you recall, the idea of voting, being able to cure absentee ballots, et cetera. but here, listen to what is happening on fox with this very issue, from ronnie mcdaniel to kellyanne conway and beyond, listen. >> what we do need is our voters need to vote early. i have said this over and over again, there were many in 2020 saying don't vote by mail, don't vote early. and we have to stop that. >> if you wait just until election day, it is almost that you are running a race where you are starting 30 yards behind. you do not 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. and we put that away. >> we need to compete not just for votes, but for ballots. we need to compete for ballots. if we do not bank ballots early, we will keep losing. >> we didn't. >> but we didn't do it in 2020, because everyone said don't vote early, because that's not

correct. >> well, a lot of people did. very top of the ruling party, you did. >> they will not name who. it's absurd. >> it's absurd. it's like ted williams have been cryogenically friends of the last ten years. they forgot the guy the top of the ticket suddenly gave you an aneurysm, and told you not to do something. but everyone could see what actually helped. and now they are like, it was just invented. we should try this to. no kidding. >> and let's just remind people, remember when trump said this very thing about how it invites fraud? it was not just that it -- he thought it was a sure thing that if he did early voting or vote by mail, it would lead to this. >> voting by mail is wrought with fraud. and abuse, and people do not get their ballots. when you do all mail-in voting ballots, you are asking for fraud. people steal them out of mailboxes. people print them, and then they signed them, and they give them in. >> i think it's gonna 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 dollars all over the united

states and it's going to come out. you won't know the election results for weeks and months, maybe years. >> get rid of this mail-in voting. >> and ultimately, we need same day voting, with only paper ballots! [crowd cheering] same day voting. >> and no, you are not imagining it. it was 2020 all the way through 2022 that you heard these comments. >> yeah, maybe we should use tablets, right, stone tablets. people are thinking -- sick of this hypocrisy. i don't understand why other republicans are calling it out. >> by the, way he absentee voted. him and his family used mail-in voting. i'm just throwing that out there. jim, 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 fly, people will buy it. and then you can blame that

conduct. and they want to limit the rules. they're trying to limit democratic voting. their gerrymandering is another example of all these games that are being played and. frankly, the thing that is most disappointing is that we cannot fix this nationally. and that's because the constitution does not let us. but the constitution is not perfect. if there was one set of rules that everyone had to follow, nobody could play these kinds of games anymore. that is the part that i think -- >> what you mean the constitution is not last? what are you honing in on as to why there is that -- ? >> that's why the argument was in the supreme court today. case today. state legislatures can pick up how state elections occur within their states. but if everyone had one set of rules, everyone had the same plate, then there would not be a level playing field, and no one could to cry the process being eroded. >> we would have to wait for a week to find out what's going on arizona. >> we wouldn't have to, right. >> what donald trump is doing

there, he was just hedging his bets. >> he needed a bogeyman. >> listen, i honestly think, look, donald trump is why these people, probably the last guy in his block to get at atm, probably still wrote paychecks. got to wait until the bank opens, don't trust the atm. you know what i'm talking. out these kind of people, your parents, right. i'm not going to get an atm card, i don't trust the banking system. i'm going to write a check. i don't mean a rich image, i mean didn't get a card. and there are still a lot of people in america who do not believe -- they believe 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. >> yet, not just because it all trump. there is a lot. there's a whole sub current of the population. >> listen, there's no shock he is 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 was money up to candidates that he wants to win. i mean, he is self sabotaging, except it's the whole party. and you just realizing now. >> to the thread that jim started, if we did have a

national system that's transparent quick, i think will be less skepticism, people would believe in the system more. there will be more willingness to accept absentee ballots. >> isn't the systems fault that a lot of republicans also believe in qanon and pizzagate? >> that's a separate question. i'm talk about voting here. >> it's not, they believe it, because he keeps saying it. >> they all believe, it that election denialism was on the ballot, to a certain degree. and you heard, and lost, in many cases. and you did hear herschel walker yesterday, which was a good moment, and he talks about having faith in the system nonetheless. this is a handpicked endorsed candidate based on a theory of election denialism. >> uphold the constitution. >> right, what was your thought? >> my point is this. it's all tied together, right. the skepticism, the money in politics, the gerrymandering in

the broken system, all impacts quality candidates. because quality candidates do not 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 have to make. >> tell it supreme court. we will talk about that later. as you said, this is the crux of the argument that they heard today. and we do not know what is going to happen. but it could change the way our electoral system works based upon how they decide to vote. >> at the end of the day, right, of people are willing to believe the lie without any evidence, nine justices will not be able to change -- >> should we check out the supermarket, see the tabloid, world weekly news, alien lives? people believe all kinds of stuff. >> i subscribe, i love it. seriously, reservation was canceled everyone. and a restaurant refusing to serve a conservative christian organization. is that their right, or are they in the legal or maybe moral wrong? we will ask, next.

as a business owner, your bottom line is always top of mind.

so start saving by switching to the mobile service designed for small business: comcast business mobile. flexible data plans mean you can get unlimited data or pay by the gig. all on the most reliable 5g network. with no line activation fees or term contracts. saving you up to 60% a year. and it's only available to comcast business internet customers. so boost your bottom line by switching today. comcast business. powering possibilities. millions have made the switch from the big three to the best kept secret in wireless: xfinity mobile that means millions are saving hundreds a year with the fastest mobile service. and now, introducing, the best price for two lines of unlimited. just $30 per line there are millions of happy campers out there. and this is the perfect time to join them... save hundreds a year over t-mobile, verizon, and at&t with xfinity mobile, and for a limited time get $400 off a new eligible 5g phone. switch today.

>> the american ideals of religious freedom and freedom from discrimination getting tangled up and some pretty high-profile cases recently. just this week, i talked a plaintive 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 first amendment rights? now, the washington post is reporting that a restaurant in richmond, virginia, canceled a booking that was made by conservative christian organization. the restaurant saying in a statement, quote, recently we refused service to a group that had booked an event with us after the owners found out it

was a group of donors to a political organization that seeks to deprive women and lgbtq people of their basic human rights in virginia. we have always refuse service to anyone for making our staff uncomfortable and unsafe, and this is the driving force behind our decision. >> so, the conservative group, the family foundation, post a response on their website, entitled we have been canceled, again. they ask, have you ever been denied a meal because of your beliefs? let's discuss this. back with us we have jim walden, david urban, and s. e. cupp. are these things the inverse of each other? a web designer who doesn't want to make a website for gay couples because it violates her beliefs, is that the same as restaurant waitstaff who don't want to serve a question grew because they violate the waitstaff believes? >> 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? >> 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 a legal. again, i'm not a legal scholar

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 are not going to serve them. especially since they have not shown up yet. you cannot 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 is also this false notion of security that you are safe from ideas if you cannot see them. >> i asked the question of the plaintiff in this case in the supreme court the other day, talking about this very issue. -- concerned about people using her as an example. and saying, listen, it's my own private business. it is going to lead to a kind of a slippery slope. >> i talk on the graphic designer? >> let's listen. >> what is the line that say, distinguishes you from the artist, on the auspices of saying they're an artist, say the same thing? do you have those concerns? >> while, i can only speak to myself. and i have made it clear, i work with everyone. i have clients who identify as lgbtq. and what i'm seeking is the

court step in to protect everyone's right to speak freely. >> the court has already determine these tests. every free speech case determines what it's speech or conduct. the law is well established determined that, it's a message being communicated? is it in a medium that we are used to seeing, that we know, words, text, graphics? that is speech. if you're talking about some macaroni and cheese dish, that is not speech. and that's an easy call for the court to make. >> on that point, all macaroni and cheese aside, and thinking about it, her statement is that speech, right. >> i cannot 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 is no law that says 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 of what the supreme court might look at, ultimately, as analogous?

>> i do think they are at least morally equivalent. and i think it's very difficult for people to get their minds around and get behind these kinds of very technical legal distinctions. we are lawyers, so we are used to making the. but most people are not. i agree with s. e. completely. this is bad conduct, regardless who does it. we live in a society where we are supposed to be aligned at some level. we have to be able to deal with one another. >> hold on, let's go back 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 are 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, and i don't believe in that. this is what happens.

>> i understand. i see what's happening. 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 should not be forced to. you should always find the example that so odious you should not be forced to, right, legally. >> i agree with you, i'm a lawyer if a nazi came in and what needs represent him, i would not represent him. but as a general matter, when people say i'm not going to serve categories, you make the distinction, while, is a speech, is a conduct, is a commercial speech? it is a very difficult line for people to draw an interest dissipates. >> it deeply was not conduct. they had not shown up yet. >> their conduct was saying, there to be clear, that the -- they were lobbying before. >> and what a president to set that you have to investigate that everything that evidence come to your restaurant has done before to make sure you are morally okay with it. >> hold on, s. e., did she make that point about donald trump? everyone who has to come before him has to be vetted in some way, it's a responsible thing to do. so, in a sense, is that something similar? >> wait, what? >> the point is, is if the idea is that it is odd to be forced to have to vet and understand who is coming before you, so you can be morally equipped to

deal with what you believe, -- >> you are not voting for these people. >> no, i agree with that premise. but the point is if you are talking about the recruitment of people that it is odd to require somebody that if they are in your presence, they must be vetted. we're talking about say, donald trump, who is a citizen, everyday person, right, at mar-a-lago when this happened. compared to someone at a private organization, private restaurant, why can they not make the same sort of? >> i'll be honest, i am missing in the connection between donald trump, the former president, and knowing what he's doing, and customers coming into a restaurant. they've been essentially blacklisted, something i thought we put back in the -- >> i will be clear. if the crux of the issue is you ought to have control over the people that come into a private

establishment, and have the right to exclude who you would like, and one of the criteria for exclusion is based on what you agree with morally or find reprehensible, and the idea of expectation of say, as an example, donald trump being required to in his own private institutions, private restaurant, private club, having to have those sorts of criteria -- >> are you talk about nick fuentes? are you listening to what i'm saying? i didn't say that at all, i have no idea what you're talking about. if you talk about, well, okay, of course. if i were the former president, i would vet every single person that was in my presence. that is not him. we know that. he did not do that at the white house. everyone got an audience they liked him. but, i mean, to say that you should vet every customer that is coming into your business so that you feel like you are morally okay with everything

they have done in their private life, you cannot possibly think that that is a good bar to set. >> i do not think it is the bar. i don't think it's the bar. the point is if we are talking to your point, the moral equivalence, the expectation of being able to have the right to exclude or invite based on the criteria you set in your private establishment, does that not require to a certai n extent that people can be proactive about vetting? i'm not agreeing with what they've done or disagreeing. i'm just saying if you are 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, right?

i don't understand. if you are a gay couple, why would you go to designer who does not want to design for gay couples. >> you know that, they didn't know that. >> but i'm saying in the future, this will kind of work itself out, right, in terms of people who will know, they just won't be going there. >> let the marketplace solve it? >> yes, let the market solve. it will work. second place, and go to where laura's talk about, the threat that jim was talking about, if i walk into a restaurant, is someone going to type up my open secrets and see who i donated to? people are not going to serve him tonight, right. or he donated this charity. i don't like that charity. it is just not a, two s. e.'s point. you don't have a right not to be offended in life. you don't have a constitutional right to not be offended. >> there's one thing that we would be remiss not to ignore. these are companies. they are creatures of the state, right. they are charter 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 are banned in your establishment because they break the law, because they cause violence. but you cannot ban people who otherwise. when that be a good law? >> d. c. is not a state. they don't do that. virginia, ironically, is not a state that actually has that notion that you cannot ban someone based on or move to have to protect the political. remember, sarah huckabee sanders, virginia establishment, when she was asked to leave. you have other figures. it actually prompted, remember the whole issue with maxine waters? and it prompted these questions about what you can do to draw the line.

>> and that is terrible. i mean, legal or illegal, it's almost beside the point. if we are a decent society, that behavior is terrible. showing people out of restaurants is terrible. 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 they were unsafe, when they hadn't even come yet. >> it's a terrible question. i only chased people out of restaurant if they stiff me on a tip. >> who would do that? >> that's justify. >> meanwhile, buckingham palace bracing themselves because harry and meghan are about to drop the controversial documentary. what is in there, we'll talk about it.

i'm lindsey vonn, and ever since i retired from skiing, i've had trouble falling asleep and staying asleep. you know, insomnia. before i found quviviq, an fda-approved insomnia medication for adults. you would not believe the things i used to think about when i couldn't sleep. hey, linds. i need you to sign this business contract. all 114 pages. lindsey, lindsey!! hey, lindsey! it's workout time. hey, big man, we're in the middle of something here. yeah, it's called physical fitness. just a couple dozen more questions, lindsey. don't forget to pack your phone charger for tomorrow morning's flight. it's plugged in right over there. insomnia can impact both my days and my nights. that's why i take quviviq nightly.

quviviq can help you fall asleep faster and stay asleep longer, and more sleep at night may mean feeling less tired during the day. quviviq works differently than medication you may have taken in the past. quviviq is thought to target one of the biological causes of insomnia. overactive wake signals. do not take quviviq if you have narcolepsy. don't drink alcohol while taking quviviq or drive or operate heavy machinery until you feel fully alert. quviviq may cause temporary inability to move or talk or hallucinations while falling asleep or waking up. quviviq may cause sleepiness during the day. quviviq may lead to doing activities while not fully awake that you don't remember the next day, like walking, driving and making or eating food. worsening depression including suicidal thoughts may occur. the most common side effects are headaches and sleepiness. it's quviviq. ask your doctor if it's right for you.

>> well, we are just a few hours away from getting a closer look into the private life of prince harry and meghan, volume one of the couples six part docuseries, harry and meghan, it said to hit netflix basically tonight at 3 am eastern. then a volume two of

the series, which would be the remaining three episodes will be released on thursday. >> we are not going to bed tonight. >> no we are not. we are pulling in all nighter. >> 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 is leaking -- >> there was a war against meghan to suit other peoples agendas. >> it is about hatred, it is about race. >> it is a 30-game. >> the suffering of women marrying into this institution. >> i realized, they are 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. >> well, we are about to know the full truth, i guess. joining us now, one executive editor back with us. i can tell that david wants to talk about this all night long. all night long. >> i promise you that i will be the one human being not staying up until 3 am. i will not watch this, i will not -- >> -- >> these people, this couple, they said that we are out of the royal family, we want to live a private life, we don't want to be involved in the spotlight, and this is everything that they said that they are trying to run from and hide from. it is so vague, it is so bs. meghan markle didn't know who he was when they went on a date, give me a break. >> it was a blind date matchup, though. >> i just find it like a complete joke. and they want to hide, go hard, go stay at your house in hollywood hills and be rich and have dinner with your

friends, but don't cry me a river about their tough life. >> let me ask you this, it is almost a lecturing to say, run and hide and don't be a human being and live any longer. but they are trying to share their story because frankly, it has been written for them. >> they have to own the narrative. and i don't know that they ever said that they wanted to have a private life, i don't think that they ever imagined in a trillion years that life would ever be private. but i do believe that they wanted respect, and they wanted to be able to, again, tell the story the way that they see it happen. and you know, part of what i am imagining is going to come, first of all, beyond the tea, and yes i will be up, it is that these are two relatively young people who are setting out in life in this impossibly unique way. there is absolutely no one else under the sun who understands their specific experience. and yet, they are human beings, and all they have

been saying the entire time is can you respect our humanity? and with regard to meghan, you know, i think that the clip said it all. it is about race. it is about race. >> and she was targeted, especially for that reason, as opposed to the women who were marrying into the institution. that was really the clear picture. >> yes. >> but do you think she was targeted, i mean, she was clearly targeted by the paparazzi, but isn't it possible, is it possible that two things are true, the royal family in their stiff way felt like they were welcoming, and she felt marginalized, isn't it possible that they are both true? >> absolutely. but isn't it possible that there is even more nuanced than that, that they were welcoming, and yet also somehow subversively doing things against her? >> but why? how would that

serve them? i wouldn't serve the royal family to ruin their beloved harry's wife? why? >> i am looking for the book as well, but you know, i don't think that it is as simple as just protecting harry's wife, or loving harry's wife. i think that there is 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 is happening that is beyond just harry's welfare. so could they conspire against meghan markle, black meghan markle? >> i mean, that obviously with her feeling. >> you don't think that this i s

possible? >> i am not a royal watcher -- >> neither am i, quite frankly. >> but i tend to agree with alison. i don't know anything about this couple, i don't know, they are at peace, their narrative, they get to do it all, but i just think that the whole, you know, we want to be -- again, this is my interpretation, the i want to be private people, they left the monarchy. >> when did they say they wanted to be private people? >> that is why i think that they left. >> well, didn't want to be harassed by the monarchy, go to australia, go to the united states, go somewhere and live their life. but if you were harassed why would you come out with a book that says you are poking the monarchy, you're doing everything that you don't want to be harassed by? >> well, there are a few institutions on this planet that i am less interested in than the royals. that is all right. as americans, we fought for that, we won that right. but 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 because i thought well, i am going to learn something new. and did i! i think we all learned a little something new about that

experience. and i was so grateful that she talked about mental health, that was incredibly courageous, and it meant a lot to me, and it helped a lot of other people, as well. i was proud of her. and i felt bad for her. i am not sure that the second go at it with all of this exposure, and fanfare, after this amount of time -- i don't think that they want to be private but they do want to get past the monarchy, or do they? >> i seem to want to keep trafficking in this -- >> he spoke about the full truth. you know, people, a lot of famous people in my celebrity covered years, it is rare that folks in the public eye like that get to the full truth. that is freeing. >> but whose truth? >> his, all that matters, there's. >> look, the monarchy has had four or 500, 600, 700 years to tell their truth. give meghan and harry they're six hours. >> wasn't that the point? first of all, i will admit it, i don't care, i do watch the royal weddings, i make fresh scones, i don't care. i was watching it the way that i would watch reality shows, sure. and you know, i know that there is the truth, the truth, and then what actually it is. so if the oprah interview as one truth, and the monarch story is another, then maybe it will give me the rest of the

story. because frankly, when i watched it, it was confirming what i thought her experience would be. and in an institution like a monarchy, it really was. >> this will certainly be interesting and i look forward to watching it, we will all have this conversation again. >> let's hope not. let's hope not. >> i don't care, i watch it with you david. >> no chance. >> will they, or won't they? that is a question, big players and the january 6th committee will talk about whether they will refer crimes to the doj. we will tell you what they are saying and what it really means, next. next. next. next. next. next. next. 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 sinuses. try vicks sinex.

this holiday season save big on all the gifts you need

for the gifts that keep on giving. because while they have no idea what's going on here... -hi. -...a little something of their own will get them in the spirit. they don't know why you'd ever leave the house like this... but they'll happily hold down the fort while you're gone. -smiles! -and let's be honest, they'll never understand this whole situation... but they do get this. thank goodness. great prices. happy pets. chewy. i know there's conflicting information about dupuytren's contracture. i thought i couldn't get treatment yet? well, people may think that their contracture has to be severe to be treated, but it doesn't. if you can't lay your hand flat on the table, talk to a hand specialist. but what if i don't want surgery? well, then you should find a hand specialist certified to offer nonsurgical treatments. what's the next step? visit findahandspecialist.com today to get started.

>> january 6th committee chairman, benny thompson, says that 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 that congress, when it sees evidence of criminality, particularly affecting the constitution of congress has responsibility. here there was an attack on congress, so to me, that goes right to the heart of our responsibilities, and so we are doing that, and we are going to be announcing our decision with our report very soon. and i think that there is also a high degree of consensus among our members. >> okay, laura, explain how this works. if on the 21st, they vote yes for a criminal referral, who does it go to, what is the next step? >> it depends on who it is. because if it is about donald trump, then you have a special counsel that was already put in place with the doj, because we know that people are going to say wait a second, he is a candidate, you are in charge, president biden, of the executive branch, it includes doj. the council will decide about not merrick garland. >> if it was donald trump, however, if it was a trump adjacent, or not related -- >> definitely they are certainly different. >> like people who defied subpoenas. >> that is a different scenario. but in terms of, i think trump specifically, which is a specific council appointed to oversee all of those things, it ranks differently to the

american public about the idea of prosecuting a political rival for that talking point. having said that,, though december 21st is virtually the in congress to be able to see this report. we are all waiting to see what it actually says, and the feeling of the gaps, like i have not heard from ginni thomas. we have not heard what she had to say. we have not heard about what kellyanne conway tested to, or others. there is going to be a lot more there. i am curious how they will plan to present it in some way, right? so it has all been televised videos, and televised hearings, but now it will be this -- >> hundreds on hundreds of-page report. >> not against the whole docuseries on meghan and harry, i will tell you that. but still. we have 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. we will look at the extremist right at home and abroad after this.

you definitely know. when he wants your attention, he makes it clear. when he wants to be left alone, he makes it obvious. but if your cat has oa pain, also known as osteoarthritis pain, he may be saying “ow” in different ways. it's a long-lasting condition that makes it painful for your cat to move like they once did, like when walking or climbing. red flags are everywhere. but cats are really good at hiding their pain, so you just need to know what to look for. visit catredflags.com to learn about the signs of oa pain

and how your vet can help. one prilosec otc each morning blocks heartburn all day and all night. prilosec otc reduces excess acid for 24 hours, blocking heartburn before it starts. one pill a day. 24 hours. zero heartburn.