several initials and several signatures on it from the queen of soul. and it was the right decision by the jury. i'm surprised that i got this far. they mediated, and there is no references in the media, at least reports that i read, of witnesses to either one of these documents. now, you can have a holographic will under michigan law, that's what we have here. but it's a shame that the family members want couldn't work it out a mediation. but to, and most importantly, that she and her advisers did not to estate planning, like so many celebrities we know. >> we keep hearing celebrities, just don't do it. because when they were alive, their advisers and them simply didn't work it out. whether you make $100,000 a year or a thousand dollars a year or millions a year, you got to do your estate planning. put your assets in a trust or create a will, secure it, right, make sure it's legal, and your lawyer or your accountant, or even someone in your family that

you trust is going to be the executor is going to be the one who has the will. so there are no disputes. >> you do hate to have a family grappling with the grief on top of the legacy having to be figured out. a really important point you raise. even if you're not the multimillion-dollar estate of the queen of soul, the impact is important nonetheless. >> absolutely. >> great to your expertise. thank you so much. >> thank you for having me. scott bolden, everyone. cnn tonight starts right now with john berman. >> tonight joe biden is going to bed out supper. the pence team asked the judge to pencil in a trial date some time around never, and white nationalists are racist. see, tommy tuberville? really not that hard to say. tomorrow we could learn what these two top prosecutors were doing at a federal courthouse in washington, d.c. it is the courthouse where the grand jury has been hearing testimony in the special

counsel's investigation into donald trump's actions surrounding january 6th. it has been a busy courthouse, which has heard from a long list of witnesses you can see right there on the screen, including mike pence and rudy giuliani. now seeing activity at the courthouse is not unusual. seeing these two top lawyers from special counsel jack smith's team there is. and it has led to speculation that maybe they are inching closer to a charging decision. tonight you're going get the insider's guide of what to look for how to figure out if new indictments are coming. of course, there already have been indictments in the other half of the special counsel's world, the mar-a-lago documents case. and now trump's team has told a federal judge when they think the trial should happen. later they say, much later. and if they get their way, maybe never. quote, there is simply no question that any trl of this action during the pendantsy of a

federal election will affect the election and more importantly the ability of the defendants to get a fair trial. pendanca, by the way, means it is coming. the election is coming. news you can use. trump is asking to wait until after the election. so too is his aide, or body man, as he is called sometimes, walt nauta. they write mr. nauta's job requires him to accompany mr. trump during most campaign trips around the country. requires? he needs to be there? as we sometimes ask our kids when they say they need ice cream, is that a need or a want? the judge will decide. now finally,he lawyers argue, there is no ongoing threat to national security, nor any concern regarding continued criminal activity. a federal judge will have to decide if that is true about a guy who, after all, is being charged for the way he handled secrets. now whether you agree with the filing or not, all of this is likely good lawyering.

a trial delayed is a trial that could die, as in never happen if trump wins. first, though, to the action we saw today and what it might mean for tomorrow. joining us with his legal decoder ring, cnn senior legal analyst elie honig. all right. these two top lawyers from special counsel jack smith's team were spotted a the courthouse where the grand jury has been working. our eagle-eyed journalists who were there, they say these two lawyers are not usually there. why might the top people be there now? >> so it's a good catch by reporters. this all requires by the way a blanket disclaimer. we're talking about grand jury. we don't know what's happening behind closed doors. let me give you a couple reasons why we could be seeing these two senior lawyers. one they could have divided up the lawyer, that certain lawyers are handling certain witnesses. and typically your more sensitive difficult witnesses would be handled by your more senior attorneys. the other possibility is when

you get to the on the other hand r end of a presentation as a prosecutor and you're ready to ask the grand jury an indictment you have to present to them the draft. you read them the charges and then instruct them on the lie. it's really important if that you get that just right. if you skip an element, that charge is going to get thrown out way down the line. so bosses may get involved at this point as well. >> it's normally the top people who are there to present the indictment? >> especially in a high-stakes case. >> by the way, the special counsel is not the person who would be there. it would be the top lawyers in his office. >> and that's normal too. you would never see the u.s. attorney, the boss of each office, they wouldn't go in on a big case. but you have a unit supervisor type person. >> elie, we saw indictments obviously in the mar-a-lago documents case, and there were some signals before it came that it might happen. what are those signals? what should we look for that might point to a charging decision? >> so the first thing you want to ask, does it look like they've talked to everyone relevant? i think in this case --

>> they spoke to a lot of people. >> it's hard to speak to someone they haven't spoken to from mike pence, rudy giuliani, on down the line. but that's sort of necessary, but not necessarily sufficient. one indicator is remember before the mar-a-lago indictment, i think it was three days before, we saw that there was this meeting where prosecutors will say to defense lawyer, last chance. you can come in, try to convince us. trump's lawyers went in on a monday and the indictment happened on a thursday. we've not heard reporting that that has happened yet as to this january 6th case with respect to donald trump or anybody. you don't have to give that meeting as a prosecutor. but typically, you would in a case like this. and we know they did the first time. >> you don't have to give the meeting. you don't always have to tell people about the meeting. >> right. >> we don't know where that information came from. but last time we learned it happened. sometimes it's a secret. >> last time we saw trump's lawyers walking into the building. it could be let's keep this under wraps. let's do it on the phone, do it by zoom, at some third person's office where katelyn polantz

isn't going to see us walk in. >> there is potentially more people that could be charged here than just trump and nauta. maybe there is more. maybe there are more meetings to take place. >> potentially dozens of people here could be in jeopardy legally both in doj and in fulton county. so we tend to focus very heavily on donald trump. but let's remember, there are a lot of other people who did essentially the same thing or some subset of what donald trump did. yes, it could be anyone. >> if they charge, there could be more than one person charged. i want to ask about another legal development that happened today that has a lot of importance about what happened going gforward. this happened with the second e. jean carroll defamation lawsuit that has not gone to trial just yet. the current justice department has decided it's no longer going to assert that donald trump had immunity, a type of immunity for his actions in this case. i hope i described that the right way. explain to me exactly that

means. >> so you got it. there are two e. jean carroll lawsuits. the one that already has been tried which resulted in the verdict mostly for e. jean carroll $5 million, that related to statements donald trump made after he left the presidency, because we don't have these complicated immunity issues. the one that is still pending relates to statements he made while he was president. the question is if doj determines that those statements were made in the course of the official duties of being president, then doj will represent you and they will get the case thrown out on basis of immunity. donald trump's doj under bill barr initially made the controversial decision, yes, donald trump's comments about e. jean carroll were part of his job as president. and then the more surprising part is when merrick garland took in for the biden administration, he agreed. he said yes, that was part of our official job. but now doj has reversed that and said given some of the evidence that came out in the first trial, and begin some of trump's subsequent statements, they have reversed themselves. not in the course of his duties.

well won't represent him and he is not going to get rid of the case on immunity. >> the justice department would say that about a past president, say it is protected because of the office of the presidency, not necessarily the specifics what happened? >> yeah, merrick garland, i think doj was being they now admitted overprotective of the institution itself. >> elie honig, great to see you. keep the decoder ring safe. >> always calling on it. i want to move to this filing from the trump legal team to delay the trial in the mar-a-lago case. i want to bring former trump white house lawyer jim schultz into the discussion. jim, great to see you. i said this is likely good lawyering to ask for a delay in this trial until after the election, kind of like a slam-dunk for any lawyer. why is this something any lawyer would push for? >> look, they're going to ask for a delay, particularly in this case because of all of the things that are coming up, right there.

is an opportunity if this thing gets delayed, there is an opportunity for let's say donald trump becomes president, right there. is opportunity there for donald trump. let's say he's been a candidate for office, gets through the primary, becomes a candidate for office. another opportunity for delay there if he becomes president, there is this whole issue of pardon. he has talked about self-pardons in the past. so of course they're going to try to delay, delay, delay here. not only for that, but just to continue to this down the line. because remember, a trial may just throughout this time frame, you know, may just tie him up for his campaign so there is a political reason there as well. >> i mean, if you have a 50% chance of winning the presidency, even just a 40% chance of winning the presidency, and if you win, you can pardon yourself, it seems like a good thing to go for, to delay the case until you might win the presidency, even if you only have that chance. to that end, judge aileen cannon, the federal judge here, a trump appointee, this is a big

decision for her. if she decides to delay the trial until after the election, there is a significant chance the trial never happens. how do you think she will approach this? >> so, look, i think to a certain extent, she got a ton of criticism on one of her rulings in the documents case earlier. and we all know about that. we all heard about that. that's going to definitely be in the back of her mind as she's considering this piece of it. now there was this issue of the campaign and the fact that walt nauta needs to be with him on the campaign, the fact there is an upcoming election, but there is also issues relating to the lawyers being involved in their own cases. i think those are ones she is likely to grant. i don't think the long-term extension that they're asking for, but i think she is going to be very careful and very hard-pressed given the criticism she had the last time to extend this thing out beyond the election. i just don't see it happening. >> if you were one of the other

candidates running against donald trump in the republican primary, which outcome would you want? would you want this delayed until after the election? or would you want the trial to happen? >> look, bottom line, this is out of their control. this lies right at the feet of the judge in this case. now how it impacts them politically depends, right. if he comes out of this and, you know, he doesn't get convicted and he comes out much stronger, then they'll say, well, we might have wanted to wait. if he loses the case, well, then, of course they're going to have -- if he loses the case, then perhaps he is out of the race. who knows. but, you know, i think it's a crapshoot one way or the other. i think they're largely, a lot of them, except for governor christie, are going to remain silent on the issue. >> and walt nauta, by the way, does he really need to be on the campaign trail? is walt nauta the type of guy you could replace if you had to? >> well, look, they're going to

make arguments that that's his way of making a living, and he needs to be on the campaign trail for his own benefit. but we'll see how the judge handles that as well. that will all shake out as part of the -- do they really want to extend this thing out beyond the -- does the judge really want to extend this thing out beyond the election or not? and like i said, i think you're going to see the lawyers tied up on other cases are some of the little wins you might see. that's a huge win for the former president if they extend it out that war. >> all right, jim schultz, now we know what to look for. thank you so much. >> thank you. so president biden did not attend the nato head of state dinner, saying it was to prepare for a big speech tomorrow. some people say this points to the limitations of his age. so what is the best way politically for president biden to handle this? the age question. a, deny it. b, ignore it. c, joke about it.

d, feats of strength, like going to the beach shirtless. me on. comfort has free hot breakfast for the whole fam. they have waffles! and splendid pools. cannonball! book direct at choicehotels.com.

i need it cool at night. you trying to ice me out of the bed? baby, only on game nights. you know you are retired right? am i? ya! the queen sleep number 360 c2 smart bed is now only $899. shop now only at sleep number.

tonight, new data that shows your next president could be chosen by oscar the grouch. >> who is kicking my can? >> not literally oscar the grouch, because puppets don't have the franchise, but people like oscar, haters of a sort, political haters at least. ♪ i love trash ♪ >> according to the latest cnn poll, more americans viewed neither joe biden nor donald trump favorably. more people viewed them unfavorably than those who held favorable views of either man. in other words, i don't like them is beating i like either of them. i don't like them has a plurality. political misanthropes are your

power block. how comfortable are you with ebenezer scrooge being a plurality? >> ba humbug! >>, no not literally scrooge because he is british and dead, but people like scrooge. analysts call this group double haters. they matter a lot, not just because there are more of them, but they can be decisive. in 2016, double haters, who didn't like either trump or hillary clinton, and that was a favored donald trump, a big part of his win. double haters. the french existentialist said hell is other people. it's like sartre is the swing vote. not literally because he is french and dead. according to the last quinnipiac poll, biden is currently winning the double hater vote. so what does that mean? joining us now in the spirit of

hatred is cnn's senior data reporter harry enten and mike mckenen, a former adviser to john mccain and executive producer of "the circus." gentlemen, thank you. just to make you hate me, i want to put the questions in the form of multiple choice. what do the double humphrey hater, people who say they hate biden and hate trump actually want? a, more options in the two major parties? b, a third party option? c, just to get something off their chest. in other words, they're just complainers, or d, don't know or can't say? >> i played this gym last night. and i find this multiple choice thing to be somewhat difficult. i prefer essays, longest says and like to fill bust area little bit. look, i think a lot of them like to complain. i think that's a part of it. but i will note there is nobody else, right? if you look at all the other candidates that have any sort of name recognition who have any real shot of winning either of the two major party nominations,

they too are under water. so they may want more choices. but who are the choices may be, right? is it some special person up in the clouds, someone who can come down like in a hologram and be fantastic? that person doesn't exist. but i will say if you look back through history and you look at elections in the early going both candidates were under water, there is a higher probability of a third party candidate perhaps catching fire. and of course by catching fire, maybe getting 5% of the vote. >> what do they want, mark mckinnon? >> i'd say d, all of the above, john. all the things you listed. but the biggest problem for both of these candidates is that more than 75%, i think the number is actually 86% of american voters think both of these candidates are too old to be president. that's a big problem for both of them. the irony is in 2020, joe biden may have been the only democrat could beat biden, but because of

his age four years later, he is the only democrat could lose to trump. so it's a real quandary for both candidates because voters don't like the dog food. neither one of them like the options. and they're looking for a different choice. >> you know, we're going to get to the age thing in a second. mark, if haters are your target audience, voters who hate everybody, you've done campaigns before. how do you try to appeal to them? or do you try to make them hate the other guy more? >> well, generally, it's a matter of trying to demonize the other guy because the fact is -- the problem for biden is age is not something he can really do anything about. a huge percent of americans have concerns about his mental or physical capabilities. and how do you improve that when you are only getting older? there is nothing you can do about that to fix it. and you sure as hell can't be skipping out on dinners and

taking the luanne platter at the 5:00 early dinner and skipping out. that just reinforces what people's perceptions are of your problems. you've got to reinforce that you've got some bigger -- if you're going to run at 80, then you sure as hell got to go to dinner, at least. >> if we can do this in the control room, let me skip ahead. i actually have something i want to bring up about joe biden and this dinner, this nato meeting, he skipped the head of state dinner. to be fair, the white house says he has a very big day tomorrow and he wants to deal with the speech and get ready for that. so my multichoice question to you obviously that skipping the dinner brings up questions about his age, what is the best way for joe biden to deal with questions about his age? is it, a, deny it. b, ignore it. c, joke about it. or d, what i like to call feats of strength, like he mysteriously ended up on the beach in rehoboth shirtless. and he looked pretty good for an 80-year-old guy. so what is the best way for him to deal with it, marc?

>> i think it's got to be d. you have to show people that despite the fact that you're old, that you are mentally equipped, physically capable, that you can stay up late. listen, you're running the free world's most important job in the universe. and in order to do that, you've got to show that you're at least able to stay up late for god's sake. listen, you have to be harrison ford, right? you have to show that you can still do it, and that 80 is the new 60 or 80 is the new 50. >> we're not watching matlock tonight. we're told he is getting ready for the speech tomorrow at nato. finally, i want to end with this. obviously senator tommy tuberville has gone on this bizarre twisting odyssey since kaitlan collins talked to him last night. he now does say that white nationalists are racist. but it took him a long time to get there. listen to this. >> if people think that a white nationalist is a racist, i agree with that. i agree -- >> a white nationalist is someone who believes that the

white race is superior to other races. >> well, that's some people's opinion. and i don't think -- >> that's not opinion. >> pardon? >> what's your opinion? >> my opinion of a white nationalist, if someone wants to call him white nationalist is an american. if that white nationalist is a racist, i'm totally against anything they want to do. >> all right. harry enten, to that end, multiple choice here. white nationalism is, a, racist, b, racist, c, racist, d, all of the above. >> d, all of the above. i can only hope that the senior senator from alabama is stupid, because the fact is the other alternative is very, very bad. . >> harry enten, mark mckinnon, great to see both of you. thank you so much for being with us tonight. so an ex-manson family member was released from prison today, despite being part of a grisly stabbing murder. you will hear her describe the stabbing and hear from her attorney, next.

i knew i had to make a change. golo's helped me transition to a healthier, sustainable lifestyle. i'm so surprised just how crazy my metabolism has fired up. i have a trust in golo 'cause i know it works. golo isn't like every other program out there, and i'm living proof of it. (announcer) change your life at golo.com. that's golo.com.

it was one of the most notorious and gruesome crimewaves in american history, and many look at it as the

unofficial end of the peace and love 1960s. the manson family's killing spree in august of 1969 at the direction of charles mansion himself, a murderous rampage born of twisted inspiration they claim by the beatles song helter-skelter, which manson claimed predicted a race war. fife people, including pregnant actress sharon tate murdered at the home of her husband, movie director roman polanski. the next night leno labianca and his wife rosemary were murdered in their los angeles home. 19-year-old leslie mccrae dowless was c-- leslie van houts convicted. she was denied release over and over again until now. van houten was released on parole from a california prison today, and her lawyer, nancy tatro joins me now. counselor, very nice to see you. this has been five decades in the making for your client. how, what is she doing tonight?

>> well, she is in -- she was released to parole this morning, as everyone knows, and she is in a transitional -- it's a transitional living facility, and she'll be there for a year. and she will be on parole for three years. right now i think she's just relaxing. the location of the transitional living facility is confidential. but she said that she's just trying to used to the idea that she is no longer in prison after all these decades, and just acclimate to her new life outside of prison. >> you know, what do you say to those people who look at the headlines from this that read something along the lines of manson family killer, member of the manson family, part of murder sprees released, and some of those people are outraged. what do you say to that? >> well, she was initially tried and convicted along with charles manson and the others, beth nights of the murders were tried

together. she was convicted. she was sentenced to the death penalty. however, her conviction was reversed. the california court of appeal found ineffective assistance of counsel. so that judgment and conviction was reversed. she was tried a second time, and it was a hung jury. she was tried a third time, and the subsequent trials were without manson and the others, just her alone, and she received an indeterminate life sentence. and that that means is that she, according to due process, has -- she has to have a reasonable chance at achieving parole. and it's not easy to get parole grants in california. it's taken her five decades. but i understand why people, certainly the victims, or the family members of the victims feel emotional about this and want retribution. but that's not the law. the law says she has the right to achieve parole if she meets the standard. and the standard is that she no

longer poses a danger to society, to the public. and she met that standard by working for five decades. she was in therapy for 40 years. she took what is called rehabilitative programing courses in prison which focus on insight. they focus on responsibility. they focus on remorse. and she has. she has achieved that to the satisfaction of the parole board. so therefore, because she meets the standard of parole, she is no longer dangerous. due process requires that she be released on parole. >> you mentioned her role in those two nights and what she was convicted of. it is something she has spoken about, frankly, including on cnn some years ago. let me play a little bit of that. >> sure. >> i went in and said we weren't able to kill her. and tex went in the bedroom, and

patton went into the living room, and i went and i stood in the hallway. and then tex turned me around and he handed me a knife, and he said do something. and so i went in, and mrs. labianca was lying on the floor, and i stabbed her. >> where? >> in the lower back, around 16 times. >> so how do you prove that you've changed from that person? >> that -- that's a good question. we are not proving that she was innocent. she has to and has accepted full responsibility for the crime. and since then, she has, as i said, she's gone through courses to confront what she did to take responsibility for what she did. she's had -- in order to gain parole in california, not only do you have to go through this rehabilitative programing, you also have to go through psych evaluations, which are very rigorous. she's had 40 years of psych

evaluations saying she is not a danger to society. also what has to be factored into it, she was 19 years old when she fell under the influence of charles manson. and law has subsequently, social science has subsequently learned that your brain does not mature until you're 26. 10 because of that, the immature brain operates under what we call the hallmark features of youth, such as impulsivity, inability to appreciate consequence, falling, falling under the influence of dominant peers, those sorts of things. so that has to be factored into it too. it also assumes that someone as young as her has a greater chance of rehabilitation. and she, through this course work, through her many, many therapy sessions, through her five -- no, actually, she appeared before the board 21 times before the board finally

granted her parole in 2016. and she's had five subsequent grants of parole since then. so there is as the california court of appeal found when it reversed or vacated the governor's fourth reversal, there is not a modicum of evidence in her record that shows that she today is a current risk of danger to society. there just isn't. >> well, it is a true moment in history. we appreciate you being with us tonight, counselor. thank you very much. >> thank you very much. fbi director christopher wray probably has a case of the sunday scaries tonight, even though it's only tuesday, because in just a few hours, he testifies in front of a lot of republicans who don't want him to have his job at all. preaction at tomorrow's hearing that hasn't happened yet. that's next.

♪♪

alex! mateo, hey how's business? great. you know that loan has really worked wonders. that's what u.s. bank is for. and you're growing in california? -yup, socal, norcal... -monterey? -all day. -a branch in ventura? that's for sure-ah. atms in fresno? fres-yes. encinitas? yes, indeed-us. anaheim? big time. more guacamole? i'm on a roll-ay. how about you? i'm just visiting. u.s. bank. ranked #1 in customer satisfaction with retail banking in california by j.d. power. welcome back to "cnn

tonight" or very nearly tomorrow, as i like to call it. fbi director christopher wray might be wishing tomorrow never comes, or at a minimum, if it does come, that he can get a sick note from his doctor. in a few hours wray has been invited to an open hearing before the house judiciary committee, which might feel like being invited to crawl through a vat of broken glass. the committee is led by elected republicans, many of whom don't seem to like wray very much. >> would you fire christopher wray? >> day one. >> no, i would not keep chris wray as director of the fbi. there would be a new one on day one. i think that's very important. >> how dare christopher wray have the audacity to hide this information for his boss joe biden. this is purely protecting crimes. he is hiding crimes. the president of the united states committed when he was vice president. >> we all know that the fbi is plagued by political bias. you see it almost daily.

every one of us ought to have confidence in the fbi solving crimes, not interfering in elections and interfering in investigations. >> so who wouldn't want to spend some quality time with people who feel that way about you? it is worth noting that wray was actually nominated by a republican president, one who many republicans do seem to like, mainly donald j. trump. more broadly, the fbi and justice department seem to have become targets because republicans say they have been politicized. and among other things, did not take the hunter biden investigation seriously enough. though here too it is worth noting that the republican appointed u.s. attorney overseeing that case is refuting a couple of claims that republicans have been pushing. he says he did not ask to be named as a special counsel and was never refused authority to bring charges anywhere in the country. those reflations unlikely to change the tenor of the hearing in a few hours, which is likely to include a fair amount of loud

sounds. so there is a lot of noise, but what is the reality? what's behind all the shouting? that question to my friend, cnn senior justice correspondent evan perez. >> republicans believe the presidenfbi has been politicized. that it is against conservatives. for you and me who have been dealing with the fbi over the years, certainly knowing a lot of people who work at the fbi, this is far from a left-wing commie organization that is being portrayed by republicans on capitol hill. but that's the reality of where we are right now is that republicans believe that certainly in the last couple of years the fbi has been helping or prodding social media companies to censor the views of conservatives, for instance. and they spent a lot of time investigating that they believe that the fbi has been certainly

biased against donald trump and against republicans in general. that is far from the reality that of course the fbi responds to. and they say that obviously these investigations that they've been doing, especially of donald trump and certainly of january 6th are not about conservatism, about people who break the law. that's what they have been going after. and as far as the criticism of their work with social media companies to try to get down some of the disinformation, that i say it has nothing to do with conservative views. they say they were just simply telling these social media companies here are some potential violations of your own terms of service. that's what they say they are going to go after, the fbi director during his testimony. >> so what can we expect based on your reporting? what can we expect from fbi director wray tomorrow? >> well, he is going to try to

focus on the work that the fbi is doing beyond the big headline investigations. of course donald trump and the things related to january 6th. the fbi does hundreds and thousands of investigations. a lot of it having to do with things like trying to get fentanyl off the streets of america, trying to investigate the efforts of the chinese to try to steal american technology, things that matter to they believe the, the fbi believes to everybody around the country. not having to do with the political side of things. you're going hear a lot from chris wray trying to focus the attention on all of the other work that the fbi does that has nothing to do with politics. >> they're going to come at him swinging fists, and he is going to focus on the other stuff? >> that's exactly what he is trying to do. >> evan, i also want to ask you about david weiss, who is the u.s. attorney who was in charge of the hunter biden investigation.

as we said and you reported on, he came out and said that certain things that were being said about him were simply not true. he is now the focus of a new attack from former president donald trump. what's being said here? >> well, you know, david weiss, of course, is now in the next couple of weeks is going to sign officially this deal with hunter biden. and republicans believe that it's a sweetheart deal. that because he is going to plead guilty to misdemeanors. donald trump, on truth social, his social media platform said this. he said weiss is a coward, a smaller version of bill barr, who never had the courage to do what everyone knows should have been done. he gave out a traffic ticket instead of a death sentence. he goes on, again, on his platform saying the collusion and corruption is beyond description. two tiers of justice, of course referring to the fact that obviously the justice department has been a lot more harsh in its

investigations of donald trump than on hunter biden, at least according to donald trump. here is the thing. the republicans i think are going to spend a lot more time focusing on this investigation. what they have so far come up with has been a lot less than they were expecting or what they were promising. david weiss says this has not been politicized, and he is a trump appointee, after all. so we'll see, john, where this goes in the coming weeks. but you can expect that republicans are going to bring david weiss to testify on capitol hill to answer some more of these questions. >> evan perez, thank you for that. and thank you for the preaction to the events you'll see on capitol hill in just a few hours. great to see you. >> you too. thanks. the mega millions drawing just happened. a multizillion dollar jackpot up for grabs. there are serious reasons why you don't want to win. we have a lawyer to explain why. . comfort has free hot breakfast for the whole fam.

they have waffles! and splendid pools. cannonball! book direct at choicehotels.com.

he snores like an angry rhino. you've never heard an angry rhino. baby i hear one every night... every night.

okay. i'll work on that. save $1200 on our most popular sleep number 360 smart bed. plus, save up to an additional $500 when you add select adjustable bases. i have always wanted to say this. tonight's mega million numbers are 10, 17, 33, 51, 64, and the mega ball number is 5. $500 million jackpot tonight. now we don't know if there is a winner yet, but i hope for your sake, none of you won. i'm being mostly sincere, because did you know there is an entire legal ouvre mess in dealing with theottery? one website says winning the jackpot is a dream come true for the lucky ones. however, what should be a positive experience is often turned into a negative one when spouses or coworkers are

involved. serious disputes arise and threaten the winner's future. who wants their future threatened? joining me now is a lottery attorney and cpa counselor. great to see you. what's the biggest mistake people make when it comes to the lottery? >> well, good evening, and thank you for having me. i would say the biggest mistake is really going forward with claiming the ticket without putting a plan in place. i think by that type of planning, we're talking about anonymity. all these issues where you hear about people going through money or claims against them, it's all based on whether or not they claimed it anonymously. and so i go out of my way for the clients to make sure that we take the precautions to keep that circle as small as possible and to allow for anonymity. because i think that's really the key. >> congratulations on winning the jackpot. now you get to be no one.

that's a problem for people who win and what happens after. there are some problems that take place prior to the actual drawing. i get most of my legal information from the hit show "friends," now streaming on max. here is a clip from that. >> you know what? that's it. i want my share of the ticket. >> yeah, i want my tickets too. >> and i'm buying the knicks, and steffi graf. >> then i want mine too. and if i win, i'm going to put it all into a very low-yield bond. >> you guys, we got to keep all the tickets together. >> no, no. we should divide them up, and i should get extra because we used my card to buy them. >> so what problems come from these lottery pools or joining with your friends, or even god forbid, your wife? >> well, there is always issues whenever you have lottery pools. and i always tell people with pools, there is always a deep end. and with deep ends, there is

danger. so you have to make sure that you get all your documentation in place if you're going to have a pool. again, i'm not a fan of pools. i think that there is always someone left out. that person will always be the person that says hey, i should have been included. i played seven times in a row and i got left out one time. someone should have put the money in for me. so it ruins a lot of friendships. i dent like office pools. people still do them. but even with groups, small groups you have to be careful. again, have a plan in place. have something in writing. but basically, even with a spouse, that's the only person someone should tell if they have a winning ticket. just that spouse and make a copy of the ticket and put it in a safe place. do not sign the back of the ticket, because it makes my job easier as an attorney to keep the anonymous relationship there. >> a public service announcement. great to see you. thank you so much for helping us understand this phenomenon.

>> you're welcome. >> so i promised i would read threads live on tv. so here we go. chris w. 122 after making fun of me writes, what is your least favorite thing about working at cnn? least favorite? having to say goodbye. but alas, i must, the less for tonight. but i will be back tomorrow and all week. what could possibly go wrong? thanks for watching? our coverage continues.

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.

- [announcer] do you have an invention idea but don't know what to do next? call invent help today. they can help you get started with your idea. call now 800-710-0020. hello and a warm welcome to our viewers joining us in the united states and around the

worl