to cha-cha?! ♪ yeah, yeah ♪ let's get started. bill, where's your mask? i really tried sleeping with it, everybody. but i'm done struggling. now i sleep with inspi. inspire? inspire is a sleep apnea treatment that works inside my body with just the click of this tton. a button? inside my body with just the clickno mask? tton. no hose? just sleep. yeah but you need the hose, you need the air, you need the whoooooosh... inspire. sleep apnea innovation. learn more, and view important safety information at inspiresleep.com

one role of a lifetime... one sore throat. but she had enough. she took mucinex instasoothe sore throat lozenges. show your sore throat who's boss.

mucinex instasoothe. works in seconds, lasts for hours. as we approach the one-year anniversary of the invasion of ukraine, russia continues to strike. today in kharkiv, one person was wounded when an administrative building was struck by a russian missile. two people in the kherson region were killed by a russian shelling. and in the russian occupied city of mariupol, ukrainian strikes targeted russian bases. >> in other parts of the country, security measures are being stepped up ahead of tomorrow's anniversary. schools are holding classes

online, and many are being encouraged to work from home. meanwhile, nato says it has seen signs that china is considering and may be planning to send arms to russia. cnn's chief international anchor christiane amanpour is in kyiv. it's interesting listening to us talk about this buildup to this anniversary because every day is a war there really for ukrainians. and every day they're trying to go about their lives. still, they are dodging bullets. they are dodging missiles. they don't have electricity in large parts of the country. i'm just curious to get your response now to the news, however, that china could possible be helping russia with lethal aid. how are ukrainians responding to that? >> reporter: well, they are very, very concerned, obviously. i, over the weekend, spoke to the ukrainian foreign minister about those worries that surfaced during the munich security conference. they don't want to condemn china outright, because they want to deal with china as well, in terms of hoping that china can

put some pressure on russia to stop this and to get out of ukraine. so, they're hoping that china will do what it says and keep its neutral role and be an honest broker. it's not at all clear that that is what is afoot. i spoke to victoria newland, the undersecretary of state for political affairs. they're concerned that perhaps private chinese companies are already sending some sort of aid to various frontline groups. they have not yet seen any direct evidence of state approved help, lethal aid, to russia. but they want to make sure that doesn't happen. she also said that this is something -- this war is something that simply never had to happen. this is her take on what it is to be one year into this war now. >> this is just all so unnecessary and evil, you know? this is all about one man's

fantasy of conquest, vladimir putin's decision that ukraine ought to be his rather than a sovereign, free country. and the suffering in ukraine is unbelievable, as you illustrated there. but they are standing tall, and they are standing strong because they are fighting for their land and for their future. >> and of course she was referencing the hundreds of thousands on both sides who have been killed and wounded, a grinding war of attrition, as they say, a real meat grinder out in the east. and kyiv, of course, on high alert, as these days pass. and actually this country enters a second year of war. speed, for them, is of the essence, they say, while requesting even more and more timely weapons to defend themselves from their nato friends. >> that's where i want to actually pick up with this question. i remember in the early days,

christiane, we would speak with ukrainian officials and elected officials there who would say, don't forget us. as this goes on into weeks and months, do not forget what is happening here. we obviously have not. but how do they balance the gratitude of receiving what they have from the world but also the frustration of, this is what we need to win, from their perspective, and not getting that? >> reporter: well, look, first and foremost, it appears that this coalition is united and there's no sense that there could be any fracturing at any time in the future that we can see at the moment. new sets of sanctions are going to be announced, we were told, tomorrow. there's a u.n. resolution happening to mark this anniversary and to, again, call on russia to pull out of this territory. but, you're absolutely right about the level of speed they need for these weapons and the

very different interpretations that ukraine has versus its allies in the mantra that the allies say, we will be with ukraine for as long as it takes. because president zelenskyy said most recently that, you know, that's wonderful and they're grateful for it. but they want to see this war wrapped up within this year. while western partners, the nato alliance, are saying they see, perhaps, a much longer war unfolding and that they have to be in for the long haul. there are problems with the production of ammunition on this side. and we hear also now from the frontline militia group, the wagner group, on their side as well. but that needs to be ramped up. but what is clear is that from president biden on down, from members of the congress, bipartisan, bicameral, there is huge support, including, of course, in europe and in this alliance that is formed over the last year. >> well, this war has been underway, and many people

believe it started last year. it started nine years ago in 2014. so, when you hear the russians say that they will not end any time soon, it just gives you a sense of what the ukrainians are going through. obviously it's been exacerbated in this past year, but they do need that continued support from the west, especially the united states. you've done incredible work there on the ground, christiane amanpour, as always, telling the stories not just on the front lines but also the impact on civilians. thank you so much. and "cnn this morning's" kaitlan collins just sat down with defense secretary lloyd austin. she asked him about the reports china may be considering sending lethal support for russia. listen. >> we've not seen china provide any material assistance to russia at this point. we've -- we have not taken that off the table for sure. i've engaged my counterpart

early on and told him that this would be a very bad mistake if china were to do this. it would complicate things. >> watch kaitlan's entire interview with the defense secretary tomorrow on "cnn this morning," but also watch "cnn tonight." fareed zakaria will hold a cnn town hall "russia's invasion of ukraine: one year later." that's at 9:00 p.m. eastern. minutes from now, alex murdaugh will return to the stand, testifying in his own defense after telling the jury directly that he did not shoot his wife or his son. we're live outside the courthouse. plus the latest move by the special counsel looking into january 6th gets even closer to donald trump's inner circle. this time he wants to hear from ivanka trump and jared kushner. ? our dell technologies advisors can provide you with the toolsls and expertise you need to bring out the innovatator

in you. she's feeling the power of l listerine. he's feeling it. yep, them too. it's an invigorating rush... ...zapping millions of germs in seconds. for that onef-a-kind whoa... ...which leaves you feelg... ahhhhhhh woo! hey you. i am loving this silversneakers® boxing css. thank you aetna. yeah? well, i'm loving that zero dollar monthly plan premium. thank you, aetna. ah-ha. smartest move we ever made. well, it sure is. and by the way did you finally make that appointment with your dentist? i sure did. gotta keep this million dollar smile. if you're turning 65, call 1-888-65-aetna to learn about the benefits you may want. and let's make healthier happen together. we all have a purpose in life - a “why.” no matter your purpose, at pnc private bank we will work with you every step of the way to help you achieve it. so let us focus on the how. just tell us - what's your why?

this man needs updated covid protection. so does she. yup, these guys too. because covid is still out there, and so are you. and if your last vaccine was before september 2022, you're out there with fading protection. but an updated vaccine restores your protection. so you can keep doing you. get an updated covid vaccine and stay out there, safely.

people remember ads with a catchy song. so to help you remember that liberty mutual customizes your home insurance, here's a little number you'll never forget. ♪ customize and save. ♪ only pay for what you need. ♪ liberty. liberty. liberty. liberty. ♪ diabetes can serve up a lot of questions, like, "what is your glucose?" and "can you have more carbs?" before you decide... with the freestyle libre 2 system know your glucose level and where it's headed. no fingersticks needed. manage your diabetes with more confidence. and lower your a1c. the number one doctor prescribed cgm. freestyle libre 2. try it for free at freestylelibre.us

special counsel subpoenas for ivanka trump and jared kushner. according to "the new york times," jack smith will summon donald trump's daughter and her husband to a grand jury probing team's efforts to overturn the 2020 election. >> these are two people obviously who had official roles in the white house, could offer some important insight. >> absolutely, victor. these two people obviously are very close to the former president. certainly ivanka was very involved in the discussions on january 6th. she was in the oval office, as there were efforts to try to get the crowd to leave the capitol. and obviously she was also

involved in so many conversations, as she testified -- she gave some testimony to the january 6th committee. she talked about, you know, the former president's efforts to overturn the election. she was witness to a lot of those conversations leading up to january 6, of course. so, those are the things that you can expect the special counsel and his investigators want to hear from ivanka. of course she also was involved in sitting for hours with a documentary film team. again, some of those things are likely to come up in this testimony. >> and today an appeals court is considering whether doj prosecutors can access congressman scott perry's phone. he claims he's protected by the constitution. so, tell us where this is headed. >> well, you know, he -- his lawyers today in the appeals court hearing, they took a very broad view of what he is entitled to, constitutional protections under the speech or debate clause. they say that everything he was doing in those days and weeks

leading up to january 6th had to do with his legislative activities, both on, you know, what he was going to end up doing with regard to some of the election results on january 6th but also additional legislation that he was -- he said he was involved in. the justice department takes the opposite view. they say that, you know, obviously the clause can't mean that the prosecutors can't look at anything in his phone. this is now a fight that we are expecting the appeals court is going to have to rule on. we may end up having to go all the way up to the supreme court. obviously this is something that the special counsel, jack smith, they want to get access to the things that are on scott perry's phone because it might be key evidence as part of this investigation. and also might involve other members of congress, of course, who were involved in those efforts by the former president to overturn the election. bianna? >> one thing it will do is definitely prolong this investigation, as well.

with us now is harry lipman. harry, great to see you. were you surprised by these subpoenas by jack smith for ivanka trump and jared kushner? >> i wouldn't say that because pence and meadows, which he's done in the last week. they're really aggressive. often when this is -- especially ivanka trump. a daughter of a target would be treated with kid gloves. i don't know if jack smith has kid gloves in his closet. and he is just insisting, you come in and talk to the grand jury. she did give some testimony to the january 6th committee, but it was tentative, a lot of i don't recalls. and as evan was just mentioning, she's got a lot of oinformation. and she was, in fact, as you remember, the person everyone was coming to, please make him stop on january 6th itself, not to mention the weeks before. so, she's got some good evidence to provide. he's saying, you've got to provide it. no special treatment. and this probably is the sort of thing that makes steam come out

of the ears of the former president, who has previously called it kind of the crossing of a red line. but, you know, jack smith says, too bad. everybody's testimony is -- you know, has to come before the grand jury. >> which is interesting because the former president did not try to invoke executive privilege when it came to the january 6th committee specifically for his daughter and son-in-la they went and testified. we talked about that. does he have any credible argument here? we know he's going to try to invoke it related to former vice president pence. >> i mean the t answer -- oh. well, vice president pence, he will make an executive privilege arnts, he's made them before, as have others, and by now the d.c. courts have made quick work of it. and i think it will as well. remember, benpence has taken another tack. he's going to take a pretty farfetched argument under the speech and debate clause under

the president of the senate. i don't think that flies, but that's going to take longer to work through the courts because it's a newer quen. in terms of trump as to either pence or ivanka and jared, if he tries to claim executive privilege, i think that's a quick trip up and down the d.c. courts, and they'll shortly be raising their right hands. >> how do you think this issue, and appears to be battle now, over the cell phone of scott perry will land? >> perry ought to lose this. it's established law that only legislative acts -- and remember, he's the guy who's calling up trump to make the merit with jeff clark and help this sort of push in the doj. all of this seems very far afield, not to mention possibly criminal. the problem is that at least in the oral argument today, two of the judges -- actually the two trump appointees -- steve perry very interested in the contours of it. does every informal conversation with a third party not count

under the speech and debate clause -- >> i have to interrupt. we've got to go back to south carolina, as the direct examination continues of alex murdaugh. >> and what was the meeting about? >> jenny came up to me and asked me -- previously, anna griswold had come to me and asked me about the check in the farris case. and genie was coming to me saying she was following up on that. if she didn't, she wouldn't be doing her job. and asked me some questions. >> let me ask you -- >> which i understood. >> -- briefly, the farris fee, what originally happened to it? the pnped portion of the farris? >> you mean originally? >> yes, sir. did it come to you directly?

>> yes. >> should it have come to you directly? >> no. >> did -- when she asked you about the -- where the fee was, what did you tell her? >> i can't remember exactly what i told her. the conversation got interrupted very quickly. but i told genie that the funds were in chris wilson's account and nothing to worry about. i wasn't -- i didn't know where the mixup came from. >> what was your level of concern about ms. seccen jer's inquiry to you on june 7th? >> there was some level of concern because she's asking me about money that i took that i wasn't supposed to have. so, certainly i had some level of concern. but it wasn't -- it wasn't a very big concern.

as you heard testimony earlier, at some point, anna griswold had sent chris wilson an email, something to the effect of ellic thinks he has more expenses or something like that, seeking financial documents from chris wilson. i wasn't copied on that. but when chris wilson got that, chris wilson called me up, and he's like, you know, what is this all about? >> [ inaudible question ] >> pardon? >> i objection. >> response? >> your honor, i'm not asking for what chris wilson said. i'll move on. i accept the objection. were you concerned about chris wilson opening his trust account records to your law firm? >> no. i was not concerned about that

at all. >> and why were you not concerned? >> i knew that one of the people that chris wilson -- as you heard, chris wilson and i were very close. we talked every day. i did work with him all the time. and, i mean, he was one of the people closest to me in the whole world. i knew everything about him. and i knew he was going through -- one of his partners -- and he and his partner had split up. a partner and an associate had moved to a firm in charleston. the partner was going through a divorce. and the wife of the partner was trying to get chris wilson's trust documents in that case to find out money her husband got. didn't have anything to do with chris and i or anything. it totally had to do with -- but i knew that chris wilson was not going to send any financial

documents to my law firm at least at that time and at least not any time soon. so, while i'm sure it registered with me that i've got to deal with this, at that particular time, it wasn't anything that was a big deal. >> was there an immediate urgency to the situation on june 7th? >> no. >> and i believe ms. -- testified about your conversation with her. you learned your dad was going back in the hospital. >> that's correct. there was a text -- i can't remember if that text came from my brother, randy, or my brother, john, but they were the ones that were taking my dad back to the hospital that day. and whichever one was with him -- i believe it was john was with him at the hospital. but i know randy was with him at some treatment. it's in those documents. bottom line is we got a text saying -- we knew my dad was really sick.

he had cancer, and he couldn't breathe. and there was a big issue about whether his inability to breathe was coming from an obstruction caused by the cancer, which was the worse case scenario. and that's what it ended up being ultimately, and that's what he died from. but this particular text was saying, okay, we're putting him back in the hospital. the doctor thinks it's pneumonia, which was, you know, pneumonia is never a good thing. but when compared to cancer, at that time, pneumonia, that was a good thing to learn that. >> on the 7th, the information you had, do you believe at that time that the alternative. i'm not going to say it was good, but it was better than -- it was better than the alternative and what we

previously thought it was. it didn't stay good very long, but it definitely was better. >> do you know whether or not you said your dad's condition was terminal on the 7th? do you remember whether you said that or not? >> no. i wouldn't have said that at that time. when i -- you know, as soon as the thing comes through my dad's going into the hospital, jeannie and i -- as you heard, she stopped the meeting. we stopped it. it lasted a couple minutes. now, my dad is going into the hospital and the very next day we've learned that he's terminal and i'm -- i'm just sure that a year -- the amount of time that's gone by jeannie assumed she was terminal -- he was terminal. >> speculation, your honor. >> objection is overruled.

>> mr. murdaugh, on june 7th did you believe that your financial house of cards was about to crumble? >> on june the 7th? >> yes, sir. >> absolutely not. >> had you had -- i think there's documented evidence, the state introduced it. had you reached out to russell and the state bank about extending a line of credit? >> i had reached out to him. i can't remember the date of that text. it was fairly recently i reached out to russell. >> on june 7th did you have equity in the mozel property, you and maggie had equity in the property? >> sure. i mean, mozel was fully in maggie's name.

>> okay. >> so, but, yes, there was equity in mozel. looking at the documents that had been used, there was $1,800,000 and there was timber value. i don't know what the timber value was. if you set $100,000 an acre -- i doubt it was that high. if it was 500, it would be another $800,000. there was several million dollars of equity in that mozel property. >> did you have equity in the beach house? >> yes. >> around june 7th how much equity did you have in the beach

house? >> if i remember the records correctly, it was about $250,000 owed on that house and whatever the value was at the time. i think -- i think there's a contract for just under $1 million. so 700 and something thousand dollars. >> did maggie's death make it more difficult to obtain financing immediately after the murder, around june 7th, 8th? >> maggie's -- yes. >> how so? >> because the entire mozel property was 100% in maggie's name. the beach property was 50% in maggie's name.

i was only a half owner. so with maggie, all i had to do was get her to sign the documents, which she always did. i mean, she didn't question finances. so, i mean, she signed the papers. when maggie wasn't here, there was estate issues. i couldn't sign the papers like i would normally get a loan. so, i couldn't. >> okay. on -- was there a hearing scheduled in the boating lawsuit where you were a defendant set for that week? >> yes. >> do you remember what day it was scheduled for? >> well, i mean, i heard the testimony and i knew -- i'm sure

i knew at the time it was june the 10th, thursday, june 10th. >> what was your level of concern about that hearing coming up on june the 10th? >> about that hearing? >> yes, sir. >> my level of concern about that hearing was about the venue motion that was coming up, w which -- >> what do you mean by venue? >> the venue motion is -- venue is where a civil lawsuit is pending and so there's laws and rules that govern where you can bring a case. there's laws and rules that govern how certain parties, a defendant or plaintiff, can go about trying to move it from one place to another. so in this case the plaintiffs,

the beach family, filed suit in hampton county. parkers was trying to move venue to buford county. i wanted the case to stay in hampton county. really that was my only thought about -- i wasn't doing the legal work on those. i was a party in that case. i wasn't -- danny henderson was primarily representing me personally, john tiller and amy bauer and donald cook were representing me personally. those were the guys doing the legal work. i wasn't actually doing that work, but what i was concerned about was the venue motion. i had already done what i had to do for the financial motion.

danny henderson was on me about getting him a financial statement because -- >> let's stop. there was a motion to compel and seek a lot of financial records from you, is that correct? >> absolutely. >> and were you concerned that your house, financial house, was going to be opened up for the world as a result of that hearing? >> no. i've been a plaintiff's lawyer like mr. tinsley that sat here. we do the same exact thing. the guys in my law firm are some of the best lawyers i've ever known and definitely some of the best lawyers in the state, handling some of the biggest cases that have ever gone on in this state. in my 27 years of practicing, plaintiffs always are trying to look and get financial documents

of corporate defendants, of -- those type things. in my 27 years i've never been able to get a judge to order anything more than a net worth statement prior to getting into a phase at trial. early on in the case i am not aware of -- i personally have never -- despite trying repeatedly -- have never been able to get a judge to order the kind of information that mark tinsley was seek. >> were you working on a document for that upcoming hearing? >> yes. >> what was that? >> a financial statement. a financial statement lists your assets and liabilities. >> had you reached out to jeannie later the day on the 7th to get your current balance of your retirement account? >> i don't remember doing that,

but that would be something i would do because i know i had to have that for that financial statement. the document i prepared was what mark ball talked about that he found later in my office. it was handwritten, ready to be typed up by -- because of the charges against paul, i was so -- i kept everything very close in the civil case. it was danny and his office that was doing it. i had that document prepared, handwritten in the neatest handwriting i could make because a secretary other than mine or a parallel other than mine was going to put that information into the final document. that's the document mark ball

talked about he found on my desk. that's what was going to be, if necessary, used thursday. >> jury's heard about testimony