tonight on three 60, trump's latest excuse, it wasn't a, crime just bravado. and they weren't secret documents, just building plants. legendary reporters -- joining me live. also, vladimir putin moves to look at control as questions

swirl about what really happened with this weekend's rebellion. author and columnist thomas friedman joins us. plus, e. jean carroll now defended just -- the former president already found liable for abusing and defaming her, countersues, claiming she defamed him. it, evening when we left you last night the former president had just floated a new explanation for the tape of him two summers ago. apparently sharing a classified plan for attacking iran which already -- people not authorized to see it. and that explanation now is i was just bsing people. he didn't say bs, he said it was bravado, a fancier word. same bs. before reading you his latest excuse, here is actual words. july 2021 showing off the documents. >> there is a secret. look at this. these are the pages. this was done by the military, and given to me. i think we can probably, i

don't know, we'll have to see, yeah. we'll have to try to -- >> declassify it? >> yeah. >> as president i could've declassified it. now i can't. you know, but this is still -- >> it sounds pretty clear, doesn't it? these are the papers he says. this, he says, it's secret information. i could've declassified it. this is still a secret, but last night speaking to nbc news, he said that he wasn't really showing his guest anything secret at all. this is what he said last night. quote, i would say it was bravado if you want to know the truth. it was bravado. i was talking and just holding up papers and talking about them. but i had no documents. i didn't have any documents. as for his use of the word planes during a fox interview earlier yesterday, he said quote, did i use the word plans? what i am referring to is magazines, newspapers, plants of buildings. i had plans of buildings you know. building plants. i had plans of a golf course. so, to believe the former president, he was citing a classified document to bolster his argument about iran while pointing to plans for the -- or something. if that were true, why did he say these are the papers, which certainly suggest the people with him were in a position to

see the papers in question? also, one of the people had every reason to pay close attention. a ghost writer and a publisher working on the memoir as a former chief of staff mark meadows, who wrote this apparently about the moment in mark meadows's book. quote, the president recalls a page report typed up by mark milley himself. it contained the generals on plan to attack iran, deploy massive numbers of troops. something he urged president trump to do more than once during his presidency. if the former president had just been oddly waving a stack of papers around, why would the ghost writer specify that it was a four-page report? or was the ghost writer also just laying, full of bravado himself? last night on the program, former fbi deputy director said it was pretty sure that the special counsel would've already spoken to the people in the room. it's hard not to imagine he asked them what they were shown and whether he had classified markings. joining us is eric holder, who served as attorney general during the a bomb of distraction. i appreciate you being with us. when you heard this former -- i remember --

i thought as a former prosecutor, this is about as good evidence as you're likely to get. and i thought about it. you know, i think the tape itself is a very significant. you're going to need a little something more than that. you'll need somebody to knock down the so-called bravado defense. a witness who can say that they actually saw what the president, former president had in his hands. some kind of video, maybe a surveillance tape. or some kind of document control, so you know that that's exactly what he had in his hands. but here's the deal. the fact that it was included in the indictment, that was returned in florida, is an indication i think that the justice department is confident

that it's going to be able to produce that in fact those documents that he had in his hands were in fact what he said they were. some kind of classified plan about attacking iran. >> in terms of the special counsel's investigation related to the 2020 election, we reported last night rudy giuliani met with federal prosecutors in recent weeks, and we know that -- was said to meet with federal investigators today. does that suggest to you were jacks mitt may be headed and when? >> i'm not sure about when, but i think it certainly indicates that jack smith is doing and appropriately expensive look at what actually happens on january the 6th. who was involved in planning for january the 6th. i know jack smith a little bit, and he is not the kind of guy who's going to leave any stone unturned. my guess is what he's doing now is overturning some stones. you're also talking about people relatively close to the president at this point. and in the normal course of a public corruption investigation, you talk to those people who are closest to the subject, closest to the target. when you get towards the end of an investigation.

>> i want to ask you about yesterday's supreme court ruling that rejected the so-called independent state legislator theory. last night i talked to michael -- who was the person who convinced then president pence to not go along with trump's efforts to overturn the election. he said that he thought the court's decision is the most significant case for america's democracy since our founding almost 250 years ago. do you agree with him? is it that big? >> it was certainly a huge victory for our democracy. the court had to consider what really is a fringe theory. this notion of the independent state legislature theory, which would have said in essence that state legislatures operate independently of review by state court. totally inconsistent with our notion of checks and balances, it's going to have an impact in making sure that the election in 2024 will have the state legislatures appropriately circumscribed. with a decision going the other way, i'd be very concerned that the state legislatures may -- use the power that they were given by a bad supreme court

decision to potentially overturn the will of the voters in a particular state. that's not going to be able to happen now. >> we're obviously waiting for the supreme court to release its much anticipated decision on the fate of affirmative action in college admissions. given the makeup of the court, what do you expect them to rule and what kind of an impact do you think this is going to have? >> i don't know how they are going to rule. i can tell you what i fear is that they will somehow overturn a vast number of cases that have found a way in which to say that affirmative action is appropriate. you know, you can't use quotas, race can be a factor, it can't be a soul determinants. and the concern that i have is that it will balkanize. in some ways, make it more difficult for our institutions, certainly of higher education, potentially business down the road, to have the kind of diversity that i think this nation is blessed with. the kind of diversity that makes this nation unique in the

world, and makes us stronger. more competitive around the world. and so, i am worried that that's where the supreme court might actually go. my hope is that they will follow precedent, there have been a number of cases that have looked at this issue of affirmative action. a number of republican appointed justices who have said that it is appropriate, past their certain restrictions. my hope would be that the court would keep that line of thought going. >> attorney general holder, i appreciate your time tonight. thank you. >> thank you. >> more on the documents case and what appears to be a smoking gun tape from two people who certainly no smoking gun tapes. bob woodward and carl bernstein. bob, you've interviewed the former president a lot. we've discussed tapes of him. what stands out to you about this latest recording? >> well, it really shows that donald trump is an alarming, dangerous threat to national security. in the book peril that i did

with robert costa, we recount to national security council meetings, where trump, not general milley or the defense department, are agitating for a possible attack on iran. and, he is pushing its and general milley, the chairman of the joint chiefs, the number one military man in the country, is telling trump, you don't want a war. if you start a war, you are going to get into a conflict that you can't get out of. you see, you see him in this reporting that we did from these meetings, from notes that it is the general who was saying no, no, no. and trump would say well, in one of the meetings the iranians have enough to make too nuclear bombs, and he's worried about that and thinking that maybe they should consider an attack. and these contingency plans are the most sensitive documents in the government. because, what they do is they outline in a crisis how we

might attack a ran, what the casualties would be, how many ships would be some, how long it might take, and that's something you can't treat casually as trump has. and, i read this and connected some of the dots. i've never seen anyone in government, let alone a president, handle a situation like this so irresponsibly. >> yeah. carl, i want to read you something that a gary graff, a historian wrote. speaking as a watergate

historian, there is nowhere on thousands of hours of nixon tapes where nixon makes any comment as clear as clearly illegal and as clearly self aware as this trump tape. >> absolutely. right. there has never been a president of the united states that we know of that in such a reckless irresponsible way has waived the essential battle plan against our most dangerous enemies. and to a bunch of sycophants, showing it around the room, bragging about it, and at the same time the total disregard this president has shown throughout his years in the oval office, for the national security of the united states

while being focused on his own personal needs. forget the united states of america. we have never seen a moment in the oval office like this, not with nixon, not with any other president. >> bob, former president trump is heard saying things like this is secret information and as president i could have declassified it, but now i can't. if you were writing a play about this, you wouldn't even say those lines because they are so on the dot of exactly what somebody should not be saying. i am wondering, reading it in the indictment is one thing but actually hearing his own voice on the recording, how impactful do you think that is? >> look. it is a cold criminal case. there's no question about that. but i think we have to go to the next level in this. what does this mean in the real world? and, you look through this indictment and the other documents that involve human sources, some of the crown jewels that the sources that the cia has, and the idea that

you would be cavalier about this and that meeting that's on tape, he is kind of joking about it. and if there's something to not joke about, this is it. and, look. i've spent 50 years reporting on national security. and i've never seen anything like this from anyone, where you would actually kind of -- oh, this is something that milley and the defense department and possibly be showing it around, what does it show? it shows he does not understand the obligations of the presidency.

he is running for that office again, and whether you like him or don't like him, people ought to look at the question, what does this mean about our national security? >> there's also the whole problem with the republican party. i spent two weeks -- >> i was going to ask you, that's my question. it's not just the sick offense in the room who are laughing about this. others aren't necessarily laughing, but they're blowing it off and saying it's a weaponization. >> i just spent two weeks talking to people close to mitch mcconnell and trying to find as many people as i could who had an idea of what mitch mcconnell is going to do in this campaign. and they say to me, he is not going to condemn donald trump at all. he is going to keep his silence.

how? the republican leader, can keep his silence about this kind of conduct in one fell swoop, mcconnell has the power to say this man is unqualified to be president of the united states. i'm a proud republican, we have to elect and nominate someone else. this should disqualify trump from the presidency in the eyes of people of every party. -- >> but i mean, is that a realistic way of thinking? does mitch mcconnell -- mitch mcconnell can say that, but that doesn't follow mitch mcconnell. >> how about leadership? how about some leadership in the republican party, the likes of which moved richard nixon out of office. barry goldwater, the 1964 nominee of his party, to be president of the united states led a delegation of republican leaders to the oval office. and sat across from richard nixon who asked him, how many votes do i have, senator goldwater, if there is going to be an impeachment trial? and goldwater turned to him and said mister president, you might have half a dozen, and you're not gonna have mine. let's see mitch mcconnell do that. >> bob, do you imagine mitch mcconnell ever doing that? that's just not the way that politics works anymore, is it? >> bob, do you think that's the

way? is that a realistic idea? >> i think you lost his audio. >> it just seems -- i get what you're saying. there's a really historic precedent, but if you look at the leaders today? >> there is historic precedent on january 8th when mcconnell and the speaker, mr. mccarthy, got up and said that donald trump is responsible for what happened on january 6th. and then they backtracked, shut their mouths because their craven. and we have to have a leadership. more leadership. political leadership that goes beyond party. on top of which, there is no reason that republican leaders can't say this is not who we are. we cannot have another criminal

president of the united states. we cannot have the first seditious president of the united states, who is donald trump. >> i'm wondering, separate from this, the january 6th component the special counsel's investigation. do you think the former president's going to face a federal indictment on that? >> i don't have a crystal ball, but everything that we know about what the special prosecutor jack smith is doing is preparatory to a likely indictment. once again, the evidence is out there from trump's own mouth. his criminal words on january 6th would appear to be as open and shut of a case as the mar-a-lago documents case. this is a real criminal president. >> i appreciate it. bob woodward as well, coming up next, a live report from russia where vladimir putin made a big public appearance that comes amid reporting from the new york times that a top russian -- had advance knowledge of a rebellion that played out over the weekend. thomas freeman also joins me on what might come next for vladimir putin. also tonight, e. jean carroll now forced to defend herself in court with the former president. we will be right back.

p

new developments tonight in the wake of the rebellion in russia. vladimir putin made a high-profile visit to that country's dagestan region, where he met with dagestan's president. days since prigozhin sent his mercenaries marching toward moscow. questions about the entire episode still far outweigh

answers, including one raised by new york times reporting that a senior russian general had advance knowledge of the plot. joining us now from moscow, cnn's matthew chance. so matthew, the new york times reporting that this russian general knew of precautions plans, what do we know about that and about him? >> general sir -- is his name. known as general armageddon, because he's got a ferocious reputation on the battlefield. he was the person responsible for overseeing russia's brutal campaign of bombing against civilians and rebels in syria. and for a brief time, he was brought in to be the ukrainian commander. earlier this year or last year. about overseeing the conflict there as well. he's got this ferocious reputation. in terms of the reports and the new york times that he was aware of yevgeny prigozhin's uprising, well, we don't have any confirmation of that. certainly the kremlin have been asked about that and they set on their conference call today that it's just speculation and rumor. so they're not particularly

commenting on it either. but, certainly, this figure is a trusted, or has been a trusted military member of the staff who the kremlin depends on quite heavily. >> and how now is vladimir putin framing this rebellion, know that several days have passed? what is their portrayal of it from him? >> it's interesting, because he's kind of portraying this uprising against him as a challenge that was overcome by the people of the country, and by the military. they sided with him and not with the rebels, with the wagner rebels. and so they're trying to cast it as this sort of event that is promoting national unity. and we're seeing these images here of vladimir putin in

dagestan, in the south of russia. getting a heroes reception, a rock star reception really, from all of these people that have been gathered there to meet him. and it's an extraordinary scene, because -- at least because for the past couple of years, because of the pandemic, the covid pandemic, volodymyr hasn't been in close contact with people in this way. you remember the big long table that he sat at with various officials and world leaders. he moved from that from these up close seeds of people taking selfies and trying to touch him. it's quite extraordinary. and it's so very reminiscent of the scenes we saw at the weekend, with people cheering wagner and sharing yevgeny prigozhin. i think that scene of russians cheering those rebels really cut the quick in the kremlin. >> yeah, and people wanting to pose for selfies with yevgeny prigozhin in their last video. and we saw him driving out of russia. you want to talk with people in moscow about how secure they felt after this rebellion. i know a lot of people didn't

want to talk to you. those you were able to talk to, what did they say? >> yeah. people are very reluctant to kind of voice their views on camera, for understandable reasons. a lot of people don't want to get engaged in politics here, because it's a very risky business. and so i think that the impression i got from people is that a lot of people are very relieved, for instance that this military uprising it didn't go anywhere, it didn't lead to a large amount of bloodshed. although there was some bloodshed. but there is a concern as well, which is what is putin going to do in order to shore up his authority? is he going to crack down even more on people he perceives as a threat against him? and also, concerns as well about what this means for the general stability of the country. are there going to be more attempts to violently overthrow the government? >> i appreciate matthew, thank

you. one of the lingering questions about vladimir putin's hold on power is whether he is still strong enough to thwart a takeover, and if not, what would happen next? that's a topic tom friedman addresses in his latest new york times column, what happens to putin now? in it he writes, in the near term if putin is ousted, we could will end up with someone worse. tom friedman joins me now, he's the author of a number of bestselling books. so tom, i don't even know where to begin with what happened this weekend. there are so many kind of unanswered questions that we still don't know. i mean, does this make sense to you, what we do? no i don't understand what yevgeny prigozhin was thinking about what awaited him in moscow, unless he thought that he had some sort of inside deal with somebody there who he thought might back him. >> well anderson, i think you hit on really the right issue. between friday, when they set out from their base, until saturday word he turned around, they traveled 400 miles, that wagner group. during that travel, they shot

down six russian air force planes, including one highly sophisticated command and control plane. so, what we can take from that i think, is that some faction of the russian military was clearly supporting him. what happened after that, we have to keep peeling this onion every day. because, he may have felt he lost that faction. putin may have turned somebody around. he clearly felt his life and prigozhin's life and the life of his men might be in danger. and so he took the plea bargain offered by the president of belarus. but i think the central point is there was a faction in the russian military that had to be a very high level that was supporting this a mutiny. and for putin, that has to be very disturbing. >> you wrote in the times, referring to putin. you said if he wins, the russian people lose, but if he loses and his successes

disorder, the whole world loses. so where does that leave russia and the world? are you more scared of putin staying in power or losing power? >> well anderson, i'm old enough, about to turn 70, to have been on secretary of state james baker's plane during the late 80s and early 90s, when the soviet union collapsed. and if you remember the fear that the outside world had about criminality and nuclear weapons, they have some 5000 warheads spilling out of the soviet union. and that was a huge focus that disorder would actually replace the soviet union. and, there was a period of a disorder, and i think when you look at those pictures of russians treating putin like a rock star, i think it does reflect -- it could all be contrived. but my sense is russians deeply remember that period of disorder. and putin's main source of popularity is that he brought order to russia and maintained

order. and i would not underestimate that. i think he has a lot of authentic support for that. and if you were replaced, one of three things could happen. you could get someone better, but there is no apparent gorbachev or yeltsin-like figure waiting in the wings, because putin wipe them all up. you could get someone worse. imagine if prigozhin today had taken the kremlin, and was in charge of the nuclear weapons? or you get fractions and disorder in a country with 5000 to nuclear weapons, spanning 11 time zones. >> you also write that putin has long ruled with two instruments. fear and money. does the prolonged war, the military setbacks, the russian military, has it weakened his aura of invincibility? that was part of his appeal, was that he was the grand strategist. he was the master, the chess master. >> yeah. chess master. you know, he always said or his supporters always said, you americans play checkers. but putin placed chest. actually, it turns out putin was playing russian roulette

with a loaded pistol all by himself. that's what he's done. he's a dangerous fool, we all know. he launched a big war on the basis of a big lie. but unfortunately, we're all to some degree riding on the good ship putin. because of a country as big as russia breaks up, it will be felt everywhere. that's why i've argued from the beginning, anderson, that this is the real world war i. the thing we called world war one, 1914, 1918, that wasn't a world war. half the world was colonized. this is the first war in a flat wired world. and everyone can follow it on their smartphone, and everyone will be impacted on it. economically or strategically. >> tom friedman, i appreciate it. as always, thank you.

>> thank. you >> coming, up a new developments in another of the many legal issues -- he's no countersuing e. jean carroll who won a civil trial earlier this year after a federal jury found that he sexually abused her in a department store in the 1990s. details ahead.

the former president is now countersuing writer e. jean carroll for defamation, months after a federal jury found he sexually abused her in a department store to dressing room in the mid 1990s, and later defamed her. she was awarded $5 million in damages. his suit insist that she defamed him during a cnn interview the day after her court victory. and it comes ahead of a defamation suit by carroll against the former president, scheduled for trial early next year. -- joins us now with details. so, what did she say in the cnn interview that he says is defamatory? >> so this was the interview she gave on cnn this morning, the day after the jury had awarded her $5 million, and found that he sexually abused her and defamed her when he denied her claims of rape, and said he didn't know her and that he had never met her. so, she appeared on cnn this morning, and that's the basis for this. take a listen to what she said.

>> -- great view. what about that moment? >> we can explain the legal -- >> and i want you to. but i just wonder, eugene, what went through your head when you heard that? >> well, i just immediately said in my own head, oh yes you did. oh yes you did. see, that's my response. >> oh yes he did is the part that he says is defamatory. later in the interview, she also talked about how she saw trump's attorney joe tacopina, they had shaken hands and said kind of after the jury verdict, and that she said to him he did it, you know he did it. so it's those phrases that they're saying was interest and defamatory towards trump. >> and how is e. jean carroll responding? >> her lawyers are saying this is another attempt by the former president to not take accountability for anything. part of their statement they

write that donald trump again argues contrary to both logic and fact that he was exonerated by a jury that found that he sexually abused e. jean carroll. so they're saying this is just another effort to try to prolong his -- $5 million, and just prolong this whole process. >> it is a little bit confusing, because she had a trial, the jury found that he had sexually abused her in that department store, and had to famed her in comments he made later on about it, and awarded her about $5 million. but she has another defamation trial coming up against the former president as well. >> right. that's the first trial that she initially brought in 2019. she had written her book, trump had then been asked about it while he was president by reporters, saying that this woman said that you had raped her. that's when he made those first statements. that has been tied up because he was the president at the time he made those statements. it's now gone through an appeals process, it's back to this judge to weigh in and ultimately decide. but he has tentatively sent

this january trial date, and they're working towards that goal. that other trial was brought under a new new york law that allowed people a look back period, and then also for statements that he made after he was outside of the office of the presidency, which is why they didn't have the same legal issues around him. >> i appreciate it, thanks so much. from jessica roth, a former federal prosecutor who is now professor in new york. so just get, given that a jury already found in favor of miss carroll, what sort of legal standing does the former president have to bring the suit? >> well, he has asserted this as a counter claim to the amended complaint that she has filed in that other lawsuit that karen mentioned. she added new claims, alleging that he further defamed her when he participated in the cnn town hall, and in other forums continued to deny that he had sexually assaulted her and assailed her character. so, when she filed that amended complaint, he had to file an answer to those new allegations. and it also gave him the opportunity to assert any counterclaims. and that's what he did. now, given that a jury credited her testimony that he sexually

assaulted her in that bergdorf goodman dressing room, there is very little league way for him to argue that she said something false about that attack. so, what the counterclaim asserts is that it's really trying to split hairs between what the jury found he did, affirmatively, that he actually sexually assaulted her and penetrated her essentially with his fingers, but not his genitals, and her saying, continuing to assert on cnn after the verdict that he had raped her. that is the very fine needle that his lawyers are asserting as the basis for this counterclaim of defamation. i don't see it having any merit, i don't see the judge is going to have much patience for it at all, but this may be an attempt to sort of muddy the issues. perhaps delay the trial, appeal to a political base, and perhaps sort of confuse the issues when and if these new allegations actually go to trial. >> is it also possible and negotiation attempt? basically countersue and then work out something between the attorneys to make both lawsuits go away? >> theory often a counterclaim can provide sort of leverage for settlement discussions. in this particular case, it's very hard to imagine that there

is really going to be much room for a negotiated settlement here, given that the jury already found that he sexually abused miss carroll. and so, as miss carroll's lawyers have said in response, with respect to these new claims that they have filed, really, there's a very little in dispute other than damages at this point with respect to his ongoing statements denying that he assaulted her, and denigrating her character. so the real issue if any a trial on her additional claims, would be to what extent has she further been damaged by these additional statements. so, i think that this is really more about playing to public opinion than anything else. >> just brought, i appreciate it. coming up, president biden breaks his silent about a text message -- sent to a chinese businessman. what the president said today and what an irs whistleblowers saying about his son. next.

ge. and is 2x more absorbent so you can use less. bounty, the quicker picker upper. so, you've got the power of xfinity at home. now take it outside with xfinity mobile. like speed? it's the fastest mobile service around. with the best price for two lines of unlimited. only $30 bucks a line per month.

that's hundreds in savings a year when you wave bye to the other guys. save hundreds a year on your wireless bill over t-mobile, at&t and verizon. and right now, get up to $1000 off select samsung phones. switch today. is it possible to protect my business from cyber threats? it is, with comcast business. helping every connected device stay protected. yours. your employees'. even... susan? hers, too. safe. secure. and powered by the next generation 10g network. with comcast business, advanced security isn't just possible. it's happening. get started wih fast spees and advanced security for $49.99a month for 12 monts plus ask how to get up to a $750 prepaid card with qualifying internet. >> responding to reporters

questions today, president biden denied the -- son hunter allegedly texted a chinese business partner 2017 claiming he was sitting with his dad. republicans in the house oversight accountability committee released the messages last, week days after the president son agreed to a plea deal on misdemeanor charges for failing to pay taxes on time, and that they would also result in a felony gun charge, certain steps were taken. the committee also released transcripts of their interviews with an irs turned whistleblower, who once oversaw the investigation of hunter biden. he testified about the text messages, and now that whistleblower is saying more in an interview with cbs news, with all these developments here is cnn's -- schneider. >> if this was any other, person they likely would have already served their sentence. >> gary is talking about hunter biden, the 14 year irs veteran who once oversaw the investigation into his, taxes is now claiming he was blocked from pursuing leads connected to the president. >> there were certain investigative steps that we

weren't allowed to take, that could have led us to president biden. >> and you want to take them? >> we needed to take them. >> and you are not allowed? >> that is correct. >> president biden was questioned wednesday on the white house, lawn about whether he was involved or aware of a text hunter allegedly sent to a chinese business partner in 2017. >> how involved were you and your son's chinese -- text message? were you involved? were you? >> no. >> he told lawmakers that hunter biden tried to use his father as leverage to pressure a chinese company into paying him, i'm sitting here with my, father and we would like to understand why the commitment made has not been fulfilled. -- testifying the hunters techs continued, i will make certain that between the man sitting next to, me and every person he, knows and my billet-y to forever hold, acreage that you will regret not following my direction.

>> but the president insisted he knew nothing about these messages. u.s. attorney david weiss was appointed by donald trump and his overseeing the investigation into hunter biden dating back to 2018, last week, hunter reached a deal with prosecutors. he agreed to plead guilty for failure to file his 2017 and 2018 taxes, and he also admitted to a firearm charge, that waste agreed not to prosecute in exchange for hunter entering a two-year pretrial diversion program. >> i can say, this i'm cooperating completely. >> if you judge signs off on the deal, hunter will not serve jail, time but he now, claims he was blocked from bringing more robust charges, it is a claim attorney general merrick garland denied at a press conference friday. >> he was given complete authority to make all decisions on his own, >> he says his contemporary in a snowstorm in october meeting last year show differently, where he says, he documented remarks from the u.s. attorney. he stated, he is not the

deciding person on whether charges are filed. >> i documented exactly what, happen and it doesn't seem to match what the attorney general, where the u.s. attorney are saying today. it was just shocking to me. >> attorney general merrick garland says he would support u.s. attorney weiss testifying about these claims, a political interference from the whistleblower. and house speaker kevin mccarthy's, saying they want ways to come in as soon as july 6th. in the meantime, our team has obtained a letter from wise to house judiciary jim jordan, where he is insisting he had ultimate authority over the hunter biden probe. anderson? >> just go schneider, thank you very much. coming, up and major health scare forcing madonna that put her in the icu this weekend. what happened, and her current condition just ahead.

good, real food is simple. it looks like food, it smells like food, it's what dogs are supposed to be eating. ♪ ♪ on your period, sudden gushes happen. say goodbye gush fears! thanks to always ultra thins...

with rapiddry technology... that absorbs two times faster. hellooo clean and comfortable. always. fear no gush. julian's about to learn that free food is a personal eating trigger. no, it isn't. (sigh) yes, it is. and that's just a bit of psychology julian learned from noom weight. sign up now at noom.com. (♪) this electric feels different... because it's powered by the most potent source of energy there is ... you. this is the lexus variety of electrification ... inspired by, created for and powered by you.

♪

at least some of her upcoming world tour after health costs of her rushed to the hospital this weekend. the longtime manager shared a post on instagram this afternoon, saying in, part, quote on saturday june 24th, madonna developed a serious bacterial infection which led to a several day stay in the icu. her health is improving,

however she is still under medical care in a full recovery is expected. joined now by dr. leana wen, former health torque mission and public professor at george washington university. also the author of lifelines, doctor's journey in the fight for public health. in the fight for public. what could cause a bacterial infection so severe a patient we need to be in the icu? >> well, that is the key question, what is the source of this infection? so, if somebody is coming into the emergency department, and they are responsive as it sounds like madonna was when she showed up, and they are six elected of a bacterial infection, you first want to stabilize the individual. you would first want to make sure that they are breathing and supported, if they have low pressure from subs, this a infection, you want to support the blood pressure, but also a broad spectrum and -- cover a whole range of organisms in case they are what is causing the infection. then, you start looking for the source the source could be the source of skin infection, tissue in faction that's most of the rest of the body, could originate from the kidneys, from the lungs, pneumonia, it could be pennside us or

gallbladder infection or something so there are all kinds of infections that could then spread to the bloodstream, and unfortunately lead to this level of illness. >> and how common are bacterial infections? >> very common. individuals get bacterial infections all the time. the key is to identify early, to get it treated, and so if for example someone has a skin infection, you would want to get antibiotics on board very quickly before it becomes something that spreads to the bloodstream. if somebody has appendicitis, identify, that they may need to have surgery. but, before the appendix burst, and then you have a problem. >> what is recovery like? >> it really depends. it depends on the health of the individual prior to the infection. somebody who is generally healthy will recover faster compared to somebody with underlying medical conditions. it could also be worsened by the infection. it would also depend on the source of the infection, and what needed to be done. the somebody just need antibiotics, or do they need a

surgical procedure? then, it depends on how quickly they respond to treatment. in this case, it sounds like madonna responded quite quickly. so a full recovery is certainly impossible, although that recovery might take in order of weeks to months. >> and how do people know they have a bacterial infection as opposed to something else more benign? >> yes, this is one where it is best to seek medical attention as soon as possible. because, you just do not necessarily know. so if you see something like pain, swelling, redness on an arm, a leg, a part of your body, it could be an infection. if you are experiencing shortness of breath, chest pain, it could be pneumonia. if you are having new abdominal pain, nausea, vomiting, you might be concerned about gallbladder issues, appendix issues, bowel issues, best to get it checked out. if it turns out to be an infection, you want to diagnose that as soon as possible instead of waiting for it to spread.

i know this myself, i'm just getting over pneumonia myself. last week i had severe shortness of breath and chest pain, i ended up being hospitalized for pneumonia. that is a stark reminder to me of how quickly people can become sick, even generally healthy people. how important it is for us to listen to our bodies, and really get treatment as soon as you think something unusual is happening. >> definitely, i'm so glad you are out of the hospital. >> thank you. >> up, next wreckage from the titan submersible is being brought up from the sea, updates on the investigation next.