>> tonight on three 60, breaking news in both special counsel probes. we now know who in the presidents inner circle has been talking to special counsel. and jack smith response to trump team's efforts to delay the documents trial. also tonight, how conservative republicans managed to attach

restrictions on abortion access, to a key defense bill. what that can do to the chances of getting it through congress. later, without being able to say who left a pack of cocaine in the west wing. the secret service still says case closed. the question is why. good evening and special counsel jack smith decides to charge the former president for his role in trying to overturn the election. being able to show his intent will be critical. and showing intense could hinge on whether or not he really believed he had one. tonight, new evidence that smith is thinking along those lines, and is looking for evidence from people who would know, or might have heard him indicate that he had known he had loss. sources tell cnn that jared kushner, and former top aide, hope hicks, have both gone before the grand jury. and some questions asked whether the former president was told he had lost the election. this adds to the picture given by testimony from other members

of his inner circle. including his white house counsel, his acting chief of staff, former vice president pence, and others including communications director. you will recall both xi and cassidy hutchinson told the house generous six committee, that trump acknowledged you losing the election, the latest reporting showing that he's trying to bolster that notion with more testimony. also breaking, the special counsel's court filing later today in the documents case, point by point rebuttal to the defenses case for delaying the trial until after the election. lots of talk about, with cnn's kaitlan collins. the aforementioned griffin, and cnn political commentator, and senior analyst, elliott williams. what do you think kaitlan about the numbers of the inner circle? >> it's notable who has gone. which is obviously jared kushner aunt hope hicks. possibly two of the closest people to donald trump during his time in the white house. and certainly during this time period. we know they both went and testified before the grand jury. hearing the testimony in this testimony to overturn the election but not just trump at his allies. i think it matters because jared kushner was obviously there. i was told back in mid december of that time period that jared kushner was going with ivanka trump.

and urging trump to conceding the election. they never bought into the idea that it was stolen. that doesn't mean that they spoke up going to him privately and urging him to concede. hope hicks is also notable. we know that she spoke to the january 6th congressional committee. it's interesting how much of a roadmap they have paved for a lot of the south. but she talked to them about urging trump to tell people who came to washington for january 6th to remain peaceful. in the days leading up to that day. they both have kind of offer their perspectives of that to the january 6th committee. we don't fully know what they said to the grand jury that was hearing them when they went last month. we do know one line of questioning was whether or not trump had privately acknowledge that he had lost. >> obviously you have talked to the grand jury but we obviously cannot reveal or you can't reveal what it was that you are asked about or said, what kind of information do you think that hope hicks and jared kushner have? >> i actually met with federal prosecutors to the chan jury. so obviously to cadence point, they were two of the closest

advisers, and people that he was closer to sharing. mindset that he was feeling, and people who will check in on him first day in the morning. but they were also to people who to the best of my knowledge, were not people who did something wrong in this period. other than maybe not speaking up. so there are not people that would go in and plead the fifth like some of the people who had testified. they are not gonna get a lot of rudy giuliani. these two don't have a lot to hide. i think they would do their best to cooperate. and i know very well, i mean the last conversation that i had with jared kushner, was me imploring him in him agreeing that the president, the former president needed to acknowledge that he lost. go around the country, talk about his achievements, and how he was running again in 2024. and both of them were trying to get trump to that play. so i would be curious what they might shed. >> and if hope hicks told the special counsel that trump truly believe that he won the election. what would that mean for intent? >> that would be quite useful

evidence for intent. and i understand, there are probably a few different crimes that would hinge on the presidents knowledge or belief that he had lost the election. conspiracy to defraud the united states, is itself a criminal offense which requires that someone is essentially committing an act of fraud and the american people. by lying about something like, whether they won the election and so on. or conspiracy to obstruct a official or congressional procedure. these are the kind of things. and people need to know this, you can't just establish that the thing happened. you have to establish as prosecutors that the defendant knew, or was aware, of some fact and still acted in contravention of that. for a lack of a better way to put it. so it is very important, it is critical evidence to be able to have to establish what the defendant knew, and that will be quite useful evidence for that purpose. >> caitlin, is there anyone who knew, the special counsel would

like to talk to? >> donald trump. i think a lot of people here. that's an important thing to keep in mind. jared kushner it's headline where they. because of his proximity to trump. he is someone that has maintained a distance since trump left the white house. but that is important here. this does not mean that trump is going to be charged. we do not know. we still have very much reported this out. but they have talked to everyone from jared kushner and hope hicks, to rusty bowers in arizona, and joscelyn benson in michigan. republican speaker of the house there, and the michigan secretary of state. the scope of this is so broad. it's kind of difficult to give or sense the depth of where the charges can come from. because obviously they are asking about trump's mindset. but we also know that they are asking a lot of questions about sydney powell, and john eastman, and kenneth cheeseborough. and rudy giuliani, and the attorneys. that's one question of what they want to know, trump's mindset, but also the efforts and the efforts coming from those who are around him to tell him what to do. >> alyssa, you had joint -- told the jury six committee

that the president had told the president. do you think that then president trump knew had lost? >> yes, in the coming days he knew that he had lost. he said it in a number of ways, kelly conway said on the view. she had talked to him and he had knowledge he had lost the race. general milley went on the record that they were talking about second term plans. things that we're going to be a biden problem. two very senior advisers, he knew he had lost. whether he was making the arrangements, are having a peaceful transition of partner, that's out of the question. but there's no doubt at least for a period. >> do you remember when he said that? do you remember when he said, that he may have lost this? >> yeah, i would've been probably a week after the race even call for president biden. and, i don't know. like, anyone can spend their whole life trend understand donald trump's mind and motives. >> i'm not sure anyone really knows. [laughter] i >> don't know if he -- he may have convinced himself now that he won, they may have been something to happen later. but i know, with certainty,

that in that period he thought that he knew that he had lost the election. >> and -- we also saw today there's filings from jack smith, pushing back on the former presidents arguments to indefinitely delay his classified documents trial. who has the strong argument, do you? think >> that i think you're both [laughter] right. they both have a little bit -- of now look, the justice department doesn't really address the point in their response, that classified documents case is simply take a long time to trial. and, the fact that they are pushing for a december trial date, it is quite ambitious. for lack of a better way to put it. that's a very aggressive trial timeline, for any criminal case in the federal system, let alone one that involves a former president of the united states. and -- now, a lot of the former presidents arguments in their brief are quite silly. the idea that, number one, as a candidate for office, he can't sit for trial. well, he'll still be donald trump, whether he's a candidate for office or not. he's one of the most famous

people on the planet. so the idea that you couldn't find a fair jury, simply because it's donald trump, who's running for president, is nonsense. the idea that it's a more complicated case than any other, is also sort of silly. it's a relatively straightforward classified documents case. it just happens to have a famous defendant. and, the justice department really unpacks a lot of those arguments quite well, and really dismisses a lot of the points that trump makes. the simple fact, and i think the hardest thing for the justice department to overcome, here is the fact that it is classified documents, you are going to have to litigate how you get them into court. and that's going to take several months, and may take longer than this december. >> i want to bring in tim parlatore, a former member of the former presidents legal team, the founder of parlatore law group. mr. parlatore, i appreciate you joining us. the special counsel pointed out in his filing today that only two of the lawyers who've appeared on behalf of former president trump and walt nauta, have submitted the forms required for obtaining security

curricular -- to deal with -- are they just trying to run out the clock, or, is that reasonable that only two of them have actually applied for it so? far or is that intent to delay the trial? >> well, what we are talking about there is an electronic submission of an spf 86. now, i've done them before, it is a very long thing, where you really have to give all of your dresses, all of your prior work experience, and basically any thing that the government may want to look into to see if you have a requisite character the act -- it can take a little while, i mean, it's taken me a week to fill it out. but, i don't think that is necessarily the only short pull in the tenth. what i was kind of surprise that with these motions is, that they telegraphed right from the beginning, that they

want to push this out indefinitely. now, that to me was odd. >> well, why i, mean, it is kind of surprising. because, essentially, they are saying it's not just that we want the state. it's, we don't even want you to decide when there should be a date. >> right, see, in federal criminal cases, the judge will set a date, and everybody knows that it's a fake date. because, they have to set the date based on the 70-day clock. and then the parties can consent to pushing it out, but also, that clock slow stops or any number of reasons. anytime you file a motion, that clock stops. so, to at this stage kind of ask for the judge, hey, just throw away the clock, is weird. because, a federal case of this magnitude will take a couple of years, generally. even if it's not about donald trump, even if it's not a politically sensitive case, it will take a couple of years. but, it will get pushed out in increment's. you know, you will push out three years, in three months increments, throughout multiple different scheduling orders. and then, every time you file emotion, now here they're gonna file undoubtedly is a motion to -- that's the stop the clock. well, that's all being

litigated. they're gonna file a motion to contour to the search warrant, that will stop the clock again. and, then once you start to get into late next year, then they can start talking about their schedule. but, the thing is, all of the grounds that they are talking about with, it takes longer because of classified documents, a judge prefers to see that after you actually have some track record. instead of saying, we think it's going to take a long time, if you wait a few months and say, hey judge, this thing is taking a long time. this is why we need more time, that's where the judge has a much easier way of saying, yes, i agree, let's push it out. >> on the idea though, that only two of the attorneys have applied for security clearances, for these documents. i mean, i would think this is probably a pretty big case for most of the attorneys working on the thing. so, if they wanted to move along quickly, i would think they would jump on those security clearances pretty fast, no? i mean, it seems like. >> oh sure >> you're trying to

slow walk something, trying to slow walk at every step of the way, is it the way to go about it. >> well, the government has to initiate those by giving them a length, you know not everybody could just log in and create an account. so, one question i have is, how many of these, what they call a quid, saf 86 applications, has the government even sent? out >> and the fact that jack smith is complaining about it. the fact that jack smith is complaining about it, in court documents, would seem to indicate that they are probably sent out those links, if he's saying only two people have responded. >> you would think. but, they would say maybe that they sent out links to several different associates, only two of them responded. it's unclear whether they may have only sent them out to mr. blanche and mr. -- and, they were the only ones who have responded, i don't know. >> i was talking to chris christie last, who is obviously an opponent of the former president, who's also a former u.s. attorney. he was saying that between now

and december could be enough time for everybody to prepare for the trial. do you agree with that, and if not, what is unreasonable about a december timeline? >> i think it's unreasonable, based on the specific issues involved in this case. because, it is going to be significant pretrial motion practice. undoubtedly, they are going to be filing motions related to discovery, related to dismissal, related to the search warrant. and, i have tried federal cases very very quickly, we are december would very easily be a good timeline. but those are cases where there were no search warrants, and there were no other issues were we essentially just waved emotions entirely, and said let's get straight to a jury trial. so, i don't really see that being a viable in this particular case, based on the facts that are in it. >> i wonder if some of the other folks in the panels, had some questions, ali. >> yeah, so i too, have done spf 86 this, or have done from my government career. and i agree with your point. they are voluminous, and you've

got to pull every piece of information. but, my question for you, as someone who's represented the former presidents. and you didn't quite answer this with anderson. do you think this was just a delivered delay tactic? it certainly should be a priority, foreign attorney to get briefed up, and get ready, and fill out their background checks in order to be able to zealously represent their client. and, i guess it's really a sincere question. do you think they really might just be trying to delay this and push this out, rather than, oh it's a hard docking to fill, and it takes time. i mean, i just don't think that's that convincing, if that's the argument they're making. >> i think that the bigger indicator is the fact that they filed a motion, asking for the trial to be just continued without any date whatsoever. that's the bigger. >> that's the red flag for? you >> what the strategy, is yes. >> -- and, i mean the truth is, if the two attorneys who filled it out are the two that are actually going to be reviewing those documents, then that's fine. i mean, back with the old team, jim trusty and i, we both have

security clearances. and, the amount of classified documents we are talking about here are not so voluminous that you have to have a huge team of associates, and ten different people to look at them. having two people look at them, i don't see the s f 86 issue as being the primary indicator of. >> yeah, i think what i'd say though is, it's the kind of thing for which you don't really have a ton of recourse, either if you're the government, or if you're the court. if they are just dragging their feet on basic things like filing their documents, those are the little things that in attorney can do to try to gum up or slow down a proceeding. and it seems, this is just speculation, it seems that would just be the kind of thing we would see much more of over the course of the proceeding. >> yes, something to watch for, certainly. >> well i mean, a judge can certainly impose a deadline on it. a judge can say, you've got to get this thing done by friday. >> and a tim. >> i've seen that. done >> and as you would know, and elliott and myself. is the government also expedite security clearances. so, if the attorneys were willing to fill out the sfa tee six process pretty quickly.

i mean, the fbi oversees a large part of that, of course, the department of justice. but, kind of to the point earlier. do you think that there is an argument to be made, that there is a vital public interest in getting that on the road, by december, by the end of the year. so can be adjudicated ahead of the election. >> you know, you can look at it both ways on. that ultimately, the constitutional right to a speedy trial is a right that belongs to the defendant, not to the government. the defendant shall have a right to a speedy trial. and, one thing that i noticed, in the government's filings, was that they said that they low already turned over, in that first group of discovery, all of the 3500 material, which

is the witness interviews and the grand jury transcripts. which is something that's very unusual. usually, the government tries to hide that until the very last minute, they won't let you see it before motions. you get really just a couple of days before jury selection. so, the fact that they turn that over within the first batch, which is a radical departure from how the u.s. attorney's office usually handles that. that is certainly an indicator to the defense, that jack smith is trying to rush this to trial as quickly as possible. that kind of removes any discovery issues, like that. so, i can see, from that indicator, that jack smith is certainly trying to push this forward. >> kaitlan? >> but ultimately, is this in the public specimen trust? when you have a politically sensitive case like this, it goes both ways. >> well i think, some would argue tim. it >> depends on what the verdict is, i guess. >> i think someone argue that voters should know that, before they go and cast their ballots. i think if you are looking at this though, and there are

complaints for just about one thing, whether it's the time to get the security clearances, or asking for this indefinite trial date. but, they are also making this argument, trump's team is, that they can't get a fair jury before the 2024 election. i mean, do you really believe that? >> you know, i don't think that this motion is the best time to raise that. that's something that they would have to get a lot more evidence of to properly brief, under the appropriate rules. and, as you guys said earlier, this is donald trump. whether he's a candidate, or a post-candidate, it is a very difficult and divisive subject. and so, i think that they are going to have massive difficulties picking a jury in this. they should get a pool, that's much larger than normal, and they are going to lose most of them right off the bat. but, i think that that's kind of premature to be raising, at this stage, it's it's a little bit too premature. >> we should also point out, that's one of the things that jack smith said in the documents case. essentially that, yes, there will be a special handling of different procedures.

but that the courts are well equipped to do this, even if it does require a little bit of extra work. tim parlatore, appreciate you being. on -- kaitlan collins, as well. as you can see of course, caitlin, the sources at the top of the next hour. next for us tonight, more on the breaking news, and how so much of the upcoming documents trial is in the hands of judge aileen cannon, a troubled pointy, as you probably know, who's already been overruled once in this matter. a former member of the federal bench joins us about the judge. later, more breaking news, house republicans add restrictions on abortion access to a must pass defense bill, where it leaves legislation, where that leads military, ahead tonight. new pronamel active shield actively shields the ename to defend against erosion and cavities. i think that this product is a gamechanger for my patients- it really works. my mental health was much better, but i struggled with uncontrollable movements

called td, tardive dyskinesia. td can be caused by some mental health meds. and it's unlikely to improve without treatment. i felt like my movements were in the spotlight. ingrezza is a prescription medicine to treat adults with td movements. ingrezza is different. it's the simple, once-daily treatment proven to reduce td that's #1 prescribed. people taking ingrezza can stay on their current dose of most mental health meds. ingrezza 80 mg is proven to reduce td movements in 7 out of 10 people. don't take ingrezza if you're allergic to any of its ingredients. ingrezza may cause serious side effects, including sleepiness. don't drive, operate heavy machinery, or do other dangerous activities until you know how ingrezza affects you. other serious side effects include potential heart rhythm problems and abnormal movements. it's nice people focus more on me. ask your doctor about #1 prescribed, once-daily ingrezza. learn how you could pay as little as zero dollars at ingrezza.com ♪ ingrezza ♪

>> tonight on 360, breaking news in both special returning to the breaking news in special counsel jack smith's court filings today, regarding defense claims that the former president would simply be too busy campaigning or prepare for other court cases to stand trial in the classified documents matter. it's now up to judge aileen cannon. and for more on her track record so far from cnn's jessica schneider. >> my sincere thanks to the president for his nomination. >> judge cannon owes her nomination to the federal bench, to donald trump. and, now she's front and center in the former presidents legal fight, siding with trump's team to grant a special master to review the documents used for mar-a-lago, and decide what should be kept off limits from federal investigators. a decision, which is now being

appealed, and has been criticized. >> it's really a very, pro plaintiff, pro trump rulings in all respect. >> not only by political pundits, but also three judges on the 11th circuit court of appeals. two of them, trump appointees, who describe cannons michelin ruling, pausing the doj's review of documents marked classified, untenable. the 11th circuit ultimately allowed the doj to continue its probe into the handling of classified material, while the special master reviewed thousands of other documents. judge cannon, also ruled that trump did not have to officially declare in court, whether fbi agents planted items at mar-a-lago, something trump and his allies have repeatedly said in public. the special master had requested trump prove his claims, but can and stepped in,

and stopped it. judge cannon has not responded to cnn's request for comment on her decisions. but when asked in 2020 during her confirmation, if she had any discussions about loyalty to president trump, she unequivocally wrote, no. >> do you think she has any bias towards trump? >> i don't think she has any, bias at all. >> jason mandela worked with can well both practice at gibson done, a decade ago. >> we never talked about politics, or judicial philosophy, because it was relevant to what we were doing. i still don't know anything about her politics today. >> so she wasn't overtly political? >> no. >> aileen cannon was working as a federal prosecutor at the u. s. attorney's office in fort pierce, florida, when senator marco rubio's office first reached out about a possible nomination to the federal bench in june, 2019. senator rubio gave cnn this statement. >> judge cannon is a great judge who, i'm very proud to have enthusiastically

supported. the attacks against her are just the latest example of hypocrisy from leftist's, and their media enablers, who believe the only time it is acceptable to attack a judge, is if that judge rules against what they want. rubio isn't the only florida republican cannon is linked to. she met with council for republican senator rick scott, just before she was nominated. >> my thanks to my home state senator. >> and records show she donated to about $100 to -- ronda sanders in 2018. but she told senators, her judicial philosophies would be to follow the text and philosophy of the constitution. and, she shared her personal story, to stress or affects respect for the rule of law. talking about how her mother fled communist cuba. >> and the age of seven, -- fleeing the repressive castro rasheem, in terms of fleet of freedom. thank you for teaching me about -- and the importance of the rule of law for generations to come. >> jessica schneider, cnn, washington. >> joining us now is former federal judge nancy gertner, who is currently a senior lecturer at harvard dot school. so judge gardner, who has a better argument for when the

classified documents trial should start? the -- >> well, as between one side asking for an indefinite postponement, and the other asking for a date certain. it seems to me it's clear that she has to set the date, the judge has to set a date. that's the date by which, there will be a trial, in the day by which all the motions have to be filed. i am a little surprised, as your previous guests were, asking for an indefinite postponement of a trial, he is really a transparent attempt to simply kick the can down the road, after the election. i mean, it's explicit, in what they said. and, i can't imagine any judge, allowing it, under any set of circumstances. >> so, what do you expect her to do? >> well, i've been wrong before. but, i expect her to set a date certain. in other words, you pick a date. the date could be the date that the government wants, for example. but that's only sort of a presumptive date. if there are more delays and getting classification issues addressed, then it would be

kicked a little bit later. and if the motions take more time, it could be kicked a little bit later. there is a requirement of -- when there are many exceptions to that. if it's going to take time to select a jury, then shull pick a time. but what she doesn't, do and what no judge would, do is to say i'm just going to put this off. i'm just going to give you, whatever. that's unlikely. i'm actually surprised that they even asked for that. it's, it's pretty in one sense, the last thing you want is for this judge to agree. because, that would be a transparent, or moment of bias, in favor of president trump, ex president trump. >> and if the justice department doesn't like the date that the judge said, can they appeal to a higher court, or is that the date? >> well, if she sets a date, it's an unlikely appeal. it's a kind of administrative decision that the judge makes in that case, that is not subject to appeal. if she says indefinite, even though that's well within her

rights to dissent, to administer the trial. that would be so extraordinary, that i would imagine the government would appeal. i don't know what the court of appeals will do. typically, these things are not within the -- of a court of appeals. let me say, the other thing is that this also reflects, if there are indictments coming out of january 6th, one which is a far more complicated case. one could well imagine what that motion and practice would look. like that's a whole different issue, and it suggests that jack smith were listen to this broadcast, that he should be bringing those charges as soon as possible. >> nancy gardner, i appreciate your time, thank you. >> up next, more breaking news. the latest from capitol hill, where key legislation to fund the military could be not be in jeopardy, after house conservatives move to block abortion access. details on that, and what

democrats are going to do about that, coming. up ♪ pets are raw. raw curiosity. raw love. raw energy. no dog ever thought, “what if someone sees me like this?” no cat ever asked permission before taking up residence on your keyboard. raw is all pets are, and raw is all they need. raw attention. raw affection. and raw food. like what we make here at stella & chewy's.

but there is more breaking news tonight. in a bill that involves critical to fans spending to ensure americas troops have the training equipment resources to they need. it's called the national defense authorization act. it usually goes through no problem, but that's in doubt tonight. because, house conservatives have pushed the house to support an amendment that would ban the pentagon from covering travel expenses for service members, who go out of state for abortions. the vote was 221 to 213, mostly along party lines. democrats say it could threaten

the bill's final passage. cnn's melanie zanona joins us now from capitol hill. where do things stand right now? >> well anderson, the bill is imperil. and that is because, as you mentioned in the previous vote series, the house adopted a number of controversial amendments, that seriously jeopardize the bills chances for passage. because, democrats have said they're not gonna vote for the final. bill those amendments include a amendment that would ban the pentagon from being able to cover travel costs for those seeking out of state abortions. and also, an amendment that would ban the pentagon from covering certain medical

services, or transgender troops. so, what that means is that all democrats or at least most democrats, are now going to vote against what has been a historically, a bipartisan bill on capitol hill. and, it's unclear whether speaker kevin mccarthy even has enough republican support to get this thing over the finish line. and, that's because some hard-line conservatives are throwing to vote against the measure, despite the fact they got their desired amendment votes. so, it is really going to be a big test of kevin mccarthy's speakership tomorrow, when they vote on final passage. >> separately, not entirely

unrelated, senator tommy tuberville spoke with defense secretary lloyd austin today, about his hold on military nominations over this very issue. how did that go? >> well, still no signs of budging from senator tuberville. as a reminder, he wants the pentagon to either rollback that travel abortion policy, or for the senate to hold its own vote on the issue. he did connect by phone, as you mentioned, with secretary austin earlier today. tuberville's office has found that call as cordial and productive, and they agreed to continue speaking next week. and, a defense official said the call was brief, but that the secretary reiterated, at this blockade is continuing to harm military readiness. meanwhile, president biden also weighed in earlier today, but tuberville remains unmoved. take a listen. >> he's jeopardizing u.s. security. i expect the republican party

to stand up, stand up. and do something about. this >> he said, that the republicans need to put pressure on you to. >> authority told you, that's not gonna happen. i'm doing it for not for the republican party, i'm doing it for republicans and democrats, and citizens of this country. look, this is a national security issue, it's a readiness issue. and, we shouldn't kid ourselves. i think that any member of the senate armed services committee knows that. >> and, some of tuberville's republican colleagues have tried to work behind the scenes with the senator, to discuss potential alternatives, potential off-ramps. but so far, to no avail. anderson. >> all right, perspective now from massachusetts, democratic congressman seth moulton. he's retired marine, who served for combat tours in iraq, and serves on the house armed services committee. we spoke to him just before. here >> congressman moulton, i appreciate you being. here now the house has passed this amendment banning the pentagon for covering travel costs travel state abortions, will you vote in favor of the national defense authorization act? >> no i will not. anderson, i'm a proud marine combat veteran. i look forward to voting for the ndaa, the defense bill every single year. and, i cannot support this legislation. >> can you explabeca marine >> can yh importance marine like this.>> yeah, that i support t, because i support the troops. but, this bill does not support our troops. one out of five service members in united states is a woman. about 40% of those don't have full access to the health care that they need. and now, these republicans are on the house, are saying you can't even travel to get the health care that you need in an emergency. i mean, this is making women into second class citizens. it is taking us back 50 years. it's making women into political pawns. so that republicans can advance their extremist agenda. >> i heard some republicans, members of the house today saying well, women service members can pay for it on their own dime. >> do we honestly think that

women service members, or any service members are making enough to be paying for their own health care, or even the extensive travel that it might take to get to a state that does not allow the south shore services, to a state that does. i mean, way up in massachusetts, we're having a lot of influx of people from states far away, who can't get basic health care. but, massachusetts is pretty far from many of the bases that have these prohibitions. >> there's also the concern about allowing women service members time off, after having an abortion, if they have, in order to recover. >> i mean again, as a male in the military, if i was injured, if i had a medical procedure, i would get time to recover. but we are saying, women, you don't count. that's what this bill says, and that's why sadly, so many of us are going to vote against. >> republicans in the past is that the democrats are pushing a social agenda, in places like the military. does this seem to you now that's what republicans are doing? here >> of course, and they are taking us backwards, anderson. you know, this wasn't a problem

last year, the year before, the year before that. in fact, for over 60 years, this is been a bipartisan bill. strong majorities of republicans and democrats have voted to support our troops. but that's the problem, this bill fundamentally doesn't support our troops. and, that's why i'm voting against it. >> so what happens to the funding? i mean what happens? >> well, what's going to happen with this bill, is if republicans managed to somehow get it out of the house, with very few, if any democratic votes. i'm it's a totally partisan bill, it still has to go to the senate. and then be reconciled with the senate. bill so, for those of us who are pointed to the conference committee, as i expect to be, we will fight very hard to remove this provision. and we don't expect it to be supported in the senate. but, it is such an insult, it's such an insult to every woman, who's risking her life for the country tonight, to have this even get all the house of

representatives. >> i want to ask you also about summer tuberville's hold on military nominations, which as you know is because of his opposition to pentagon policy on travel for, travel to states to get an abortion. you heard president biden today, he called the senators hold you responsible. he said it was jeopardizing u. s. security. is it that? serious >> i would say it's more serious than that. one of the most brilliant things that we help the ukrainians do in the early stages of the war, that set the russians back so much, is target their generals. take out their generals, so that inexperienced deputies had to take over. and, that's part of why russian forces were in such disarray. but, our generals aren't being

taken up by the russians, or the chinese. they are being taken out by the united states senator. a senator who thinks that his political agenda is more important than the health care of every woman who puts on the uniform. and by the way, a senator who has never served the country himself. >> the senator is clearly, not budging at this point. is there an appetite among republicans do you think, to stand up to him on? this senator mcconnell has said something, but not a lot of others have. >> i mean, there's just not much courage amongst republicans on capitol hill period right now. so many of them know, that he is wrong. and behind the scenes, decry what he is doing. and yet, they are not willing to go out in public.

and, just say what i am saying. i mean, just how dangerous this is for a national security. i'm a marine veteran, we've had a comment on for over 164 years, all of the time. this is the first time in over 160 years, that we haven't had a commandant. i mean, it's just criminal, it's dangerous for our national security. it's an insult to every woman who puts on the uniform, and it sends a message to russia and china, that we are more interested in political squabbles back home then standing up for the freedom, the values that our troops fight for every day. >> he says, nobody is called him. i know, defense secretary austin spoke to senator tuberville today. what can make this change? because he has the power to keep this on hold? >> well i mean, what we need is republicans to stand up to him. and to tell him, how dangerous this truly is. and i'm certainly encouraging my republican friends behind the scenes to do. that >> congressman bolton, thank you. >> thank you anderson. >> next tonight, more on the apparent assassination of a former russian sub commander, in a string of top russian ground commanders, senior generals, who have now been killed, fired, recently disappeared. and later, why dangerous. scout is protected by simparica trio, and he's in it to win it. simparica trio is the first and only chew with triple protection. oh, fleas and ticks ♪ intestinal worms... wow heartworm disease,

no problem with simarica trio. this drug class has been associated with neurologic adverse reactions including seizures. use with caution in dogs with a history of these disorders. for winning protection. go with simparica trio. sleepovers just aren't what they used to be. a house full of screens? basically no hiccups? you guys have no idea how good you've got it. how old are you? like, 80? back in my day, it was scary stories and flashlights. we don't get scared.

oh, really? mom can see your search history. that's what i thought. introducing the next generation 10g network. only from xfinity. bold. daring. expressive. contra costa college allows me to be whoever and whatever i want to be, providing the stage, the canvas, the tools to use my voice and write my story. find your passion and create your future at contra costa college. start today at contracosta.edu announce in helsinki today nato's path to membership, how

it might affect vladimir putin's membership defeat fighting. president biden said putin has quote, already lost the war. whether that assessment russia is facing the significant challenges. most of his, well recent ring of fire, missing generals and war lords. general sergei survey, can not seen in public since the wagner rebellion, last month. one russian lawmaker saying he is quote, resting. general ivan pop, off fired. wagner leader is any prigozhin also not seen since the rebellion. another general was killed, ukrainian missile strike. and now of course there is the former sub, commander gunned down after possibly being tracked on his running app. for more on what we, know and what remains a mystery. here's cnn's. as russia paraded thursday, to surrender of heavy weapons from the failed wagner rebellion, to the regular army, effectively russia disarming itself, france criticisms of the worst disaster were coming from

inside the top brass, against itself. >> echoing the same complaints made by the perhaps vanished and vanquished wagner chief, yevgeny prigozhin, a bombshell audio message from a top commander in the south, the latest terror in the fabric of putin's command. >> but i in the name of you in the name of all of our fallen combat fans, have no right to lie. therefore, i outlined all of the problems today, in the army. the lack of counter battery in combat, of artillery reconnaissance stations, and the mass deaths and injuries of our brothers from entry artillery. i also raised a number of other problems, and express it all at the highest level, frankly, and extremely harshly. our senior commander hit us from the rear, treacherously and violate decapitating the

army at the most difficult intense moment. >> he likely met this man, defense minister say sergei showing you. who like -- sugar was doing his usual tour a factory thursday, as kremlin sources insisted the audio was private, meant for soldiers years only. as if that somehow made it okay. another surreal type of disaster, management on display thursday. as russia's trying to show control after the assassination of another top commander, while out jogging, deep inside russia. here, his alleged assassin, rush's claims he is the killer and confessed, hard to verify, how he should reportedly carried out the killing. in the gilded servitude of putin's russia, none of this, the hitman in russian parks, or the commanders, fired for decrying frontline incompetence is ever meant to happen. but still, it is daily, and faster perhaps, that he can process or adapt. i'm >> nick the southern front has seen some of the heaviest fighting since ukraine began, as counteroffensive. it is the worst place for russia to be experiencing? this, people in senior ranks?

>> frankly, you wouldn't want this kind of turmoil, when you weren't currently facing the brunt of ukraine's counteroffensive. that's exactly what it's happening right now. this dismissal of pop of, occurred after the death of another key commander in the south. lieutenant general, on the coastline, before the elected decision to rim or papa for his post it isn't. extraordinary turmoil, matched, i think it's fair to say, but the dissemination, particularly amongst the russian top brass, after that failed arm rebellion by, the wagner mercenary group. the fallout from, which we are still seeing, utterly startling, frankly at the best of times. potentially critically lethal for russia's pen to defend itself, at this particular moment in the war. >> nick law, appreciated, thank you. coming up secret service as clay's closed on the pack of cocaine found in the white house. question is, why? and what police are found in the escape pennsylvania inmate.

♪ pets are raw. raw curiosity. raw love. raw energy. no dog ever thought, “what if someone sees me like this?” no cat ever asked permission before taking up residence on your keyboard. raw is all pets are, and raw is all they need. raw attention. raw affection. and raw food. like what we make here at stella & chewy's. [clicking] when occasional heartburn won't let you sleep. [clicking] get fast relief with new tums+ heartburn + sleep support. love food back and fall asleep faster. ♪tum, tum tum tum, tums♪ the minute you drive off the lot. or more. that's why farmers new car replacement pays to replace it with a new one of the same make and model.

get a whole lot of something with farmers policy perks. ♪ farmers mnemonic ♪ directv has two ways to get the tv you love: satellite or internet and that show you pretend not to love. look, if you want to watch people eat bugs in the woods,

that's your thing, baby. switch today for a $200 reward card.

the investigation to how a small bag of cocaine ended up in the white house, has concluded. secret service saying it's unable to identify a suspect, due to lack of physical evidence. not only, that they are not able to determine the day the cocaine was brought inside the west wing. in addition to the cocaine, secret service spokesman also said, quote, small amounts of marijuana were found in the white house on two occasions, last year. no arrests were made in those cases either. jeremy diamond joins us live from the white house, so what is the secret service explanation for not being able to find a suspect?

>> well anderson, they conducted an investigation that lasted over ten days, they comb through hundreds of potential visitors to the white house, using visitor logs and surveillance footage and ultimately they were not able to identify a suspect that's partly because. looking at the baggy of cocaine that they found, they were unable to pull any dna evidence from. it there's a inefficient dna on the baggy. they are unable to pull fingerprints. really the crux of this. the fact that the surveillance cameras, apparently there was a blind spot exactly where this cocaine was found. in these cubbies that are right at the entrance of the west wing where visitors to the west wing are asked to place their phones, before going on these tours. apparently, a camera was not directly trained on the cubbies. so ultimately, secret service was not only able to identify a suspect, they were not even able to, according to a source i spoke with. identify exactly when this baggy was actually place there. they had a pool of hundreds of people over the last few days before this bag he was actually found. response on capitol hill, anderson, secret service briefed lawmakers on the house oversight committee today, republican lawmakers of course were incensed about this. they said secret service should got to the bottom of this, they say one of the most surveilled

buildings in the. world they find it hard to believe they were not able to figure this out. anderson the white house, for their part, they've been briefed by the secret service on the investigation. they say they're reviewing the findings, anderson. >> thank you very, much now to pennsylvania were police today are looking for an escaped inmate, shared a photo of the suspected campsite, supplies investigators believe were used by him, they describe the scene, made as a quote self taught survivalist with military reserve training. authorities are also reiterating the belief he now has a firearm, joining us for more in pennsylvania, where is the investigation standing tonight? >> well anderson, that photograph that you mentioned is an important new clue we just got today. in this investigation, photograph provided to us by investigators. showing a bag, dark colored tarp, they say was partially hidden under a log. here is what lieutenant colonel of the pennsylvania police, talking to us about the contents of the bag, and where this all was found. >> this particular bag, wrapped in a dark colored tarp. partially concealed, under a

log. this has been found in the general area of the city of warren. outside of the city, in a wooded area. not far. it contained clothing some food, and some other materials that someone might need. if they were trying to exist in the woods. >> a weapon? >> not in this particular bag. >> lieutenant colonel been said he's putting that out because he knows a lot of hikers are going to be out this weekend. he wants people to look for starters like, that when also vince had a message for the fugitive michael burnham, saying quote, you need to surrender. do not do anything that gets anyone hurt. do not get yourself hurt. we are going to capture you, and quote. anderson, he is expecting more confidence than he ever has that this fugitive is going to be caught. >> thanks, if you drink diet soda, you'll want to watch the next story, as the world health court organization has potentially concerning health up to about an artificial sweetener found. >> there is no good in the

world, without a visit to. a lover. who sings love to you. centrum silver is now clinically shown to support cognitive health in older adults. it's one more step towards taking charge of your health. so every day, you can say, ♪ youuu did it! ♪ with centrum silver. if you struggle. and struggle. and struggle with cpap. you should check out inspire. no mask. no hose. just sleep. learn more and view important safety information at inspiresleep.com trying vapes to quit smoking might feel like progress, but with 3x more nicotine than a pack of cigarettes -

vapes increase cravings - trapping you in an endless craving loop. nicorette reduces cravings until they're gone for good. listen up, you dogs with allergic itch! today's talking lesson is just one word: apoquel. ap--o--quel. ♪ you can't teach your itchy dog to talk... ...so, talk to your vet about apoquel. apoquel is for the control of allergic itch in dogs. do not use apoquel in dogs with serious infections. apoquel may increase the chances of developing serious infections... ...and may cause existing parasitic skin infections or pre-existing cancers to worsen. new neoplasias have been observed. i'm glad we speak the same language. ask your vet for apoquel. every day, more dog people are deciding it's time for a fresh approach to pet food. developed with vets. made from real meat and veggies. portioned for your dog. and delivered right to your door. it's smarter, healthier pet food. known as a loving parent. known for lessons that matter. known for lessons that matter.

known for being a free spirit. no one wants to be known for cancer, but a treatment can be. keytruda is known to treat cancer, fda-approved for 16 types of cancer. one of those cancers is advanced nonsquamous, non-small cell lung cancer, where keytruda is approved to be used with certain chemotherapies as your first treatment if you do not have an abnormal "egfr" or "alk" gene. keytruda can cause your immune system to attack healthy parts of your body during or after treatment. this may be severe and lead to death. see your doctor right away if you have cough, shortness of breath, chest pain, diarrhea, severe stomach pain, severe nausea or vomiting, headache, light sensitivity, eye problems, irregular heartbeat, extreme tiredness, constipation, dizziness or fainting, changes in appetite, thirst, or urine, confusion, memory problems, muscle pain or weakness, fever, rash, itching, or flushing. there may be other side effects. tell your doctor about all your medical conditions, including immune system problems, if you've had or plan to have an organ

or stem cell transplant, received chest radiation or have a nervous system problem. depending on the type of cancer, keytruda may be used alone or in combination with other treatments, and is also being studied in hundreds of clinical trials, exploring ways to treat even more types of cancer. it's tru. keytruda from merck. see all the types of cancer keytruda is known for at keytruda.com and ask your doctor if keytruda could be right for you. when you're ready to go but static and wrinkles are like, nooooo! try bounce, it's the sheet. less static. less wrinkles. more softness. more freshness. bounce. it's the sheet. some potentially, and i emphasize potentially, worrying news for diet soda drinkers, for the first time of the world health organization is determining, the popular artificial sweetener aspartame should be put in what it describes as the quote, possibly carcinogenic to humans category. aspart