and that is it for me. -- getting that super bowl run, but dallas cowboys. as you heard him at the, and this, he believes, will be more really puts it into perspective the way he views success, where he is now, especially after spending those years in prison. and obviously a big thanks to sherman for sharing his story with us, and for bonnie c a pp,

our producer in a beautiful way that tells his story. >> it's a powerful story for sure. tune in saturday at 8:00 p.m. eastern for the champions for change one-hour special. and that's it for me. ♪ i just want to lie motionless in a chair! ♪ booking.com, booking.yeah ♪ ♪ thursday night football on prime. it's on. thursday night football returns. as the giants take on the 49ers. stream thursday night football. only on prime.

the power goes out and we still have wifi to do our homework. and that's a good thing? great in my book! who are you? no power? no problem. introducing storm-ready wifi. now you can stay reliably connected through power outages with unlimited cellular data and up to 4 hours of battery back-up to keep you online. only from xfinity. home of the xfinity 10g network.

>> good evening, everyone, i'm laura coates, and welcome to "cnn tonight." breaking news. a former assistant to donald trump says he instructed her to say he knew nothing about boxes, boxes full of classified documents of course stashed at his private club. now his exact words when he learned investigators wanted to talk to one molly michael were reportedly "you don't know anything about the boxes." and this is an assistant who was in a position, i should mention,

to know quite a bit. molly michael worked for the then president right outside of the oval office and continued to work for him after he left the white house. so the big question everyone is asking tonight is what else might she know? plus, the gop at war with itself and impeachment inquiry into president joe biden going full speed ahead as a government shutdown continues to loom. and kevin mccarthy fighting to keep his job in the face of a lot of pressure from the far right of his own party. the question, can kevin mccarthy keep that gavel. and how prince william apparently went incognito in new york's central park today, and apparently new yorkers didn't notice. or maybe they didn't care. we'll tell you all about it tonight. but i want to get with new developments tonight and former trump's classified case. v

joining me now bradley moss and scott bolden. it's pretty interesting to think about the fact, and i've done many a dramatic reading on how i think it may have been said. you don't know anything about the boxes, was it like you know nothing, john snow. i don't know how it went down. bu happarently told this woman that she dsn know anything about the boxes. now, of course, we know the boxes are very problematic. is this a broadcast huge billboard to say obstruct? >> i think what it does is it's a large piece to it. but what's unique about this new witness is it's a direct witness. it's direct contact. there is no hearsay. it's a tavares witness, you have one maybe hearsay, double hearsay. >> i.t. >> that was asked to delet footage. >> exactly. here you have donald trump telling this direct witness, this is not hearsay this. is a party admission because he

knew the documents and he knew the boxes were there, and he was telling her you don't know anything about this. this is after he finds out that she is going to be talking to the feds. i think it's significant because it's not a hard lift to get to donald trump of the tavares piece. >> and it's why the documents case remains the most clean cut and the simplest case of these four different prosecutions. there is no attorney/client privilege issue here. there is no presidential immunity issue here. he can argue declassification until he is blue in the face. it has nothing to do with you obstructed the investigation. >> stop right there. that's an important point about the obstruction and whether you think it's classified north. that gets lost a lot. he constantly says i declassified. so what's the big deal? a kind of all's well that ends well. your point is if you're being told to return it because of a subpoena, you don't get to say you have reasons you want to keep it. >> exactly. that came out in the megyn kelly

interview. you get a subpoena, one, you comply or two, you file a motion to quash it. what you don't do is pretend what he did. which is pretend the boxes aren't there. a mafia don thing, you know nothing about the boxes. >> that was very specific. >> even the christian welker interview with him, she asked him specifically, did you direct anyone to do away with these videos. and he never answered the question. he said these were clean videos. these were nice videos. we turned them over. they weren't doctored. but her original question was did you direct anybody to get rid of these videos or get rid of these tapes? and he never answered the question she asked two different ways. >> which is smart decision on his part. >> the one time give him some credit here, one time. >> let's talk about what's on the actual documents. because she says that sometimes he would hand her notes that he had written on documents, kind of to-do list, kind of honey do

assistant lists. but then she would turn over the documents and they appear to be classified. they had classified markings on them. now it doesn't appear that any of that is actually contained in the indictments against trump as we know it. but you can see building a case in fact around the idea, well, maybe he is particularly careless with documents. maybe he knows he has them and does as much as scribbling and then here. a little bit of scrap paper. is that how you build it? >> we saw a lot of this reporting leading up to the indictment on the docs case, all these witnesses on how he handled documents in the white house and how he was handling documents when he left the white house. and throughout the history of it, it is what we expect to see in this testimony at the trial, assuming we get to one is that he was always reckless. he did whatever he wanted. there were no rules. this is a man for whom there has never been rules and now he is being held accountable. >> what is scary for donald trump, what else does jack smith

have. >> yeah. >> is this witness who was his assistant, is she the only witness, the only assistant that has this information and can directly testify against him and put him in obstruction of these documentand obstruction of justice. >> aeally important point. i want to read to you at the spokesperson for trumpas said and has raised cce about the fact that we even know about this information saying these illegal leaks are coming from sources which totally lack proper context and relevant information. the department of justice should investigate the criminal leaking instead of purposing their baseless witch hunts. of course, this was likely to be the response. and guess who will be in front of members of congress tomorrow on this issue. we haven't had a lot of leaks so to speak on these issues. doj has been accused of being a kind of sieve. but we haven't heard a lot here from outside what they say in their indictments. are you surprised we even know this? >> no, this is witnesses talking. these are lawyer whose were in the room talking and leaking.

there is no indication this is coming from the government. think of how much we learned when that indictment came out, when the superseding indictment came 'oumuamua out, things that had never made to it the media. that's who is leaking this, not the government. >> trump's own people may be leaking. >> exactly. >> when you're threatened with jail or prosecution, you're going to talk to the government to save yourself, and leaking documents, or leaking communications while i never endorsed that, it happens in every major criminal case. >> important point, gentlemen. thank you so much, brad moss, scott bolden. thank you. i want to bring in former white house press secretary sarah matthews. sarah, good to see you tonight. i'm wondering what you would make of all this. first, you actually know molly michael. and i'm wondering from your perspective just how much exposure did she really have to the inner works of the former president's office. and we all know, of course, she was outside the oval office. but did that mean he really did rely on her? >> yes. as you mentioned, my time at the white house overlapped with

molly michaels when she was there, she began working for trump in 2018 as one of his executive assistants. and she did sit right outside the oval office in an area that we called outer oval. and there were a couple of desks right there. but she was definitely a gatekeeper for trump. so anyone walking in, trying to get facetime with the president who wasn't on his schedule, she would stop them occasionally and not let them in. of course, there were certain very senior level folks at the white house who were able to walk right in and see the president. but she was not only just a gatekeeper for him, he relied on her for a lot of things. and she was at his beck and call. so whenever he would need anything or he wanted to dial someone up and get them on the phone, it was molly who is responsible for doing that. and so this is someone he knew very well who would have had a lot of facetime with the president. and they can't simply dismiss her as someone that he would not be aware of, or who wouldn't be

in the know. because she was quite literally outside the most important office in the world, someone who the president knew by name. and i think that makes her a very credible witness. >> i remember we're all old enough, remember when the former president would say someone that's a coffee boy, someone he would be dismissive of. oh, they may have been inside the white house at some point in time. this witness seems pretty cric not only the rank of her position, but her proximy at least to power. well also have a former aide and anni t worker, yuscil tavares, and he is cooperating. does it make it easier now that these two individuals have spoken out, or at least not to criticize him outwardly in the press, but at least cooperating and discussing with the prosecution. >> i do think that we're going to see more people come forward. whether it's with this classified documents case or any of the other indictments that

trump is facing, look, i think in the case of the i.t. worker, he was potentially criminally liable. and so he struck a deal with investigators, which was very smart for him to do. and i would hope that the folks around walt nauta are advising him to do the same. but as we've seen, trump is funding his legal defense, so that doesn't seem likely. but someone like molly michael are particularly interesting to me because she does not seem like she was vulnerable to any criminal charges, but when trump told her, look, you know nothing about these boxes, amid the fbi probe, she felt very uncomfortable and ended up resigning from her position, because she obviously felt like he was trying to push her toward potentially engaging in criminal activity, and she felt uncomfortable by that. i wonder if other people -- >> did you speak to her about that, sarah? you say she resigned as a result of that. what is your basis for believing

that? >> that is just based on the timing of when she resigned. and in "the new york times" reporting, they indicated that there was a connection there. >> so when you look at this and think about the resignation, she obviously no longer works there for the president. mind you, this is somebody who followed him after he left the white house, which means post january 6th and a whole lot of other occurrences, trump, as you know, he is known for going after anyone who comes out against him. now, again, i have to distinguish coming out against him in a vocal manner on a television program or otherwise or writing op-eds and books, besides that, but somebody who has spoken in a way who is even unflattering towards him, or depicts him in a negative light, he has been known to come out against that person. do you expect him to do that with this person? >> i do think that we've seen this pattern play out before. i've been on the receiving end of it. i testified against donald trump

in front of the january 6th committee to talk about his lack of action that day, and i was told that i was a liar and had the whole trump squad and their allies come after me. and they did the same with cassidy hutchinson during her testimony before the january 6th committee. but it is going to be very difficult for them to try to paint molly michael in the same light, given that this is someone who followed donald trump all the way down to mar-a-lago in his life post presidency. she -- i think that she has nothing to lose and is telling the truth here, and is trying to do the right thing by cooperating with investigators. but i think it's not going toby long before we see that trump and his folks come after her and try to, you know, make her into a liar, which obviously i don't think she is. it seems like she is a very credible witness in this case. >> sarah matthews, a very important point. the credibility is really the

whole ball game when it comes to seeing how the jury might view the testimony and view all of this in context. not somebody we traditionally thought was the enemy of the former president. so we'll see how this all goes. sarah, thank you for joining us. i appreciate it. >> thank you. also, coming up, everyone, hunter biden. well, he says he plans to plead not guilty to federal gun charges. and there is new testimony, by the way, that is casting a lot of doubt on the claims from a whistle-blower who alleges there was political interference in the investigation of hunter biden's taxes. all of that, and just what it means for the president, next. unlike some others, it supports 7 brain health indicators, including mental alertness from one serving. to help keep me sharp. try new neuriva ultra. think bigger.

hi, i'm jason. i've lost 228 pounds on golo. so when my doctor told me i needed weight loss surgery, 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.

only the new sleep number smart beds let you both sleep at your ideal level of comfort. yourumber setting. and now, all of our new next gen smart beds have temperature benefits. save $400 on the new sleep number c4 smart bed. now only $1,499. sleep next level. shop now only at sleep number well, tonight hunter biden says he is going the plead not guilty to three felony gun charges. now it comes as the gop-led house committee is preparing to amp up their own investigations into hunter biden and of course his father, the president of the united states. and there is new testimony from

the fbi and also irs officials that are casting doubt on key claims from the irs whistle-blower who alleges there was some political interference in the federal investigation of hunter biden's taxes. joining me now is tristan leavitt. he is an attorney for irs whistle-blower gary shapley. thank you so much for being here tonight. this is continuing to be a very big story, and i'm glad to have your insight in particular. you've obviously heard, tristan, that there are new witnesses throughout that are now rebutting two of the key contentions made by your client about david weiss, that he said he was, quote, not the deciding person, and that he was denied a request for special counsel status. what's your response to these different recollections? >> first off, to be clear, out of those new interviewees, the only one who took notes was special agent shapley's immediate supervisor.

he's said he has long since shredded those notes, but his con comment was you covered it all. he acknowledged if he thought he was lying or misleading he definitely would have corrected that with his supervisor. from the substance, there are two key points i think are important. the first is all of the others acknowledged they are not familiar with the testimony that attorney general merrick garland gave before the senate appropriations committee five months before this meeting in question. in that hearing, garland was grilled by senator haggerty about whether biden appointees would be approvals in hunter biden's case. they put the negotiations in the hands of a trump appointee. schlafly was very aware of decision. and why it was a year ago and not particularly significant to them because cases have been declined in d.c. and california throughout. that's why this stood out to him more than others. the second key point i'll just

add is regardless of the specific wording, all of the attendees was spent discussing whether the dc in california attorneys would let weiss bring charges in their district, and he couldn't, weiss would have to follow another process seeking special authority, which is exactly what he has done and speaking special counsel status. >> for the nonlawyers it's the idea of contemporaneous notes i want to revisit for a moment. it's what you use in some respects to decide who has credibility or not, what amount to weight to give to someone's statements. we believe with its written down in closer to the event less of an opportunity to try to insert lies or falsehoods or misrecollect something. i understand that point. but the other aspect of the recollections, weiss himself twice spoke or wrote to congress, require to being elevated to special counsel, and his recollection of course was that he did have a authority. he was not undermined or

hamstringed. how does that factor in to the recollection of your client, among others, to suggest that he was somehow not accurate? >> i think it's important to understand there are two different phases of the investigation we'll call it. so the underlying investigation weiss has never spoken about. that's where special agent shapley and zeigler said they were blocked from taking investigative steps. a lot had to with assistant attorney leslie wolf. weiss has never spoken about that. you can't ask questions about the big guy, all of those. weiss has written about this prosecutorial phase where he was trying to bring charges in other districts. and i think it's important to recognize that he himself has acknowledged in his letter, he actually wrote three to congress, two to chairman jim jordan and one to ranking member lindsey graham on judiciary, and he told lindsey graham he had in fact had discussions with the department about special charging authority months before this meeting.

gary schlafly is an assistant. he was an acting special assistant in charge. he would have no reason to know that from the u.s. attorney with whom he had very little contact, unless it was actually discussed at that meeting. so people can argue that he took away a different understanding that they discussed that authority, and not that he had been asked for it. but again, all of the attendees questioned have agreed the facts are clear that the d.c. attorney declined to bring charges. that threw up a roadblock for weiss. and then the meeting was to discuss whether the california u.s. attorney for the central district would allow bringing charges. and if he didn't, weiss would have to go to the attorney general and seek this special authority. >> sitting here today during this conversation, guess what? david weiss is now special counsel. he has that authority. we have at least now three indicted charges against hunter biden. but let me read for you a second portion from the hunter biden lawsuit. and that is, of course, not naming your client or the whistle-blowers in this actual suit against the irs, a very important point to note.

but here is what it says. i'm quoting. these agents punitive whistle-blower status cannot and does not shield them from their wrongful conduct in making unauthorized public disclosures that are not permitted by the whistle-blower process. in fact, a whistle-blower, they write, is supposed to uncover government misconduct, not the details of that employee's opinion about the alleged wrongdoing of a private person. i'm curious as to what your response is, given that they're not actually named in the suit, but clearly, they are part of the substance of the argument against the irs. >> yeah. so there is two parts of the whistle-blower protection. i was appointed by president biden to the systems protection board which protects whistle-blowers like those in the irs, and those protections apply across the government. what made this case unique is these whistle-blowers had special confidential taxpayer information. and that is governed by a more specific law than the whistle-blower protection act i dealt with on the protection

board. that taxpayer protection statute written by congress gives congress the authority to receive that information. and if it chooses to release it, like it did with president trump's tax returns less than a year ago. so the whistle-blowers here did not share this information in any way outside of that confidential process with congress. once congress made the decision to release it, that's public information. so they have spoken about that since then, just like any private citizen could. >> an important point to raise. and of course it wasn't from my understanding of the facts of this case so far. you, of course, far more well versed in it according to your client. it wasn't as if congress had not asked for the information. but a whistle-blower could often be a confusing notion how much protection is guaranteed, what can be said, and to what extent. but again, they're not named in the suit. tristan leavitt, thank you so much for your thoughts and insight tonight. i want to bring in cnn legal analyst and former u.s. attorney michael moore. michael, good to see you this

evening. thanks for joining. as you heard from the conversation, i was just having with counsel for one of the whistle-blowers, we know that hunter biden is going to plead not guilty to the gun charges. perhaps not a big surprise that he is not going plead guilty to those things. but what is his best argument when you look at what is before him in this pleading and in the idea of what's already happened, particularly in light of the fact that there has already been an implosion of the earlier charges that were thought to even be brought against him. what's his best strategy here? >> well, i'm glad to be with you. i do think he has some avenues he could pursue. he's coming on a case that's been now charged by the special counsel dealing with whether or not his gun application was correct. there has been a fifth circuit court of appeals opinion about that very issue that i think will wind its way up the supreme court. and that is whether or not at the time he made the application he was actually under the

influence of something, and whether or not that's a constitutional bar to him owning a gun. that at some point in his life, at some prior date he may have had some drug problem. whether or not that's going to be a constitutionally sound position that would have prevented him from having a firearm. i think probably they're anxious to move this issue forward and get the appellate issue on to the court. and one way to do that, obviously, to go ahead and enter a not guilty plea and move forward. file your motions, challenge the charging document. and at that point, escort to make a ruling on it. that's one thing. the other thing of course dealing with the -- >> excuse me, i will say one point, the way he is going to do this, request to do it remotely. not unheard of to it in that way. but your second point. go ahead. >> well, the implosion of the plea deal and the agreement. they were operating under an agreement. and there is typically from a

federal prosecutor's point of view, you want the make sure you stand by the agreements that you make. so there was an arrangement in place. that's going to become another factor. i'm sure we're going to hear mr. biden's counsel raise that at some point. and that there was a breach now by the government, even though mr. hunter biden was operating under the terms of the agreement as set out. so that's not finished. on the issue of the remote appearance, federal judges can do most anything they want. and we saw during covid people began to appear remotely from safety issues and otherwise and court efficiency reasons that they were allowed to use video court appearances. so there is nothing new here. he has a unique position because he is protected by secret service. and to bring him to court across the country requires an expenditure not only of effort, but the time of those agents and need to secure the courthouse and all those things that go along with protectee. certainly reasonable for the judge to do. >> as you know, a lot of people who are leaning into the legal

aspects of all this, everyone has become an armchair lawyer, this function, including not guilty can be something of a very quick nature. it's not a long motion practice, or the length of the trial. it's a very routine process to happen. and they're also saying, they're not asking for any special treatment. what do you make of the contradicting parts of the irs whistle-blower's claims that there was some political interference in the investigation of hunter biden's taxes, and of course others who were saying i don't recall this the same way, and i might add, three times david wise contacted congress before being to special counsel to say i had the power i wanted to have. you can quibble with whether he meant that having been elevated to special counsel. do you put a lot of stock in the fact that there were contradictions? >> you know, it looks to me like this whistle-blower is being now a pawn maybe of some republicans in congress who want to make something out of a case by attacking the process as opposed

to the facts of the case. when i look at it, what i hear, or you have sort of high quality caliber witnesses who are now contradicting testimony from the whistle-blower. and the problem for the whistle-blower and his credibility in that instance you have multiple witnesses saying this is not what happened. you have david weiss saying this is not what happened. those things begin to chip away of the committee's case. on the other hand, i heard your interview earlier, the contemporaneous notes, lawyers like the have a witness who's made contemporaneous notes because it's something you argue, look, at the time these are the most current and reflective recollections that can presented to you. there is no possibility those were changed. so we have a witness now that has those notes. again, when you have multiple witnesses, and now i think we're three, four, five witnesses saying, that's not what was said. that you can certainly --

nothing unusual by having things maybe understood differently by different people to a meeting. but when multiple people begin to say it, you can think about your kids, you may have one child who said i did because i thought i could. others said no, we clearly heard we could not, probably going to go on the side of the four. >> that was strangely specific. how many kids do you have, michael moore? >> two kids. but i don't think either one would listen to me about eating the cookie. >> two kids, a lot of cookies, but no cookies left. michael moore, thank you. tomorrow when merrick garland begins to testify, i bet he'll be asked a few questions about all of this. don't you think? cookies or not? michael, thank you so much. >> glad to be with you. look, we are now what, 11 days, 11 days to go until a government shutdown. and chaos among house republicans seems to be worse than ever. so can speaker mccarthy actually reach a deal?

and can he then keep his job? that's next. love can get a little messy... good thing there's resolve. love the love. resolve the mess. bother the bugs. not your family. ahh! zevo is made with essential oils which attack bugs' biological systems. it wipes cleanly, plus is safe for use around people and pets. gotcha! zevo. people-friendly. bug-deadly.

ah, these bills are crazy. she has no idea she's sitting on a goldmine. well she doesn't know that if she owns a life insurance policy of $100,000 or more she can sell all or part of it to coventry for cash. even a term policy. even a term policy? even a term policy! find out if you're sitting on a goldmine. call coventry direct today at the number on your screen, or visit coventrydirect.com.

well, tonight house speaker kevin mccarthy, the man you see speaking right there, well, he is desperately trying to wrangle his unruly republican majority as the clock is ticking towards a government shutdown. but of course the battles inside the house gop are putting his entire speakership in jeopardy, as house republicans struggle to even pass a spending bill. >> this is not conservative republicanism. this is stupidity. the idea that we're going to shut the government down when we don't control the senate, we don't control the white house, it's a clown show. >> i offered to help, but ultimately, it's a decision of a leader. if leaders want to lead or not. >> i don't know whether we'll have the votes or not, because i've got a lot of conservative friends who like to beat their chest and thump around and go oh, this isn't pure enough. >> let's talk about it now with senior political correspondent terra palmieri, and charlie dent along with cnn legal commentator

ashley allison. ashley is also the former national coalitions director for the biden-harris 2020 campaign. glad to have you all here. let me begin with you, congressman dent. you have seen your fair share of infighting in problems surrounding this annual discussion about a government shutdown. is mccarthy really in as much trouble as he seems to be? >> well, everybody enjoys these circular firing squads from time to time. well, i think he does have a very big problem. there is a simple way out. he cuts a deal with hakeem jef jeffries, gets the votes, passes a relatively clean bill to the senate. that would be easy. >> wait, that's a way out of the speakership? >> it's the way to get out of the jam in the funding. he is going to have some of the folks make a motion to vacate the chair. and i think speaker mccarthy hurt himself by opening up the impeachment inquiry. so he would need democrats to help him on that as well. but whatever goodwill he had with the democrats has probably gone away because of the

impeachment inquiry. so i think he has put himself in a bit of a box. but like i said, this is -- i know how this is going to end. the senate is going to send a bill to the house that will fund the government, provide the disaster relief in ukraine money, and they're going tell the house, you know what? we'll see you later. you guys can take this up, or you can shut the government down. that's going to happen. >> you spoke, tara, to former newt gingrich. well, he is still newt gingrich. the former newt gingrich. he still is him, about this correlation between the impeachment inquiry of course and what's happening right now. what did he say? >> he doesn't think it's actually intersecting in any way. he doesn't think it was sort of a carrot that kevin mccarthy threw to the house freedom caucus that he could pass the spending bill. but i think anyone can see that they were hungry for impeachment, the house freedom caucus members and kevin mccarthy miscalculated by thinking okay, if we launch this impeachment inquiry, this will make them happy and they'll let me pass this spending bill that i need to pass. they might not like everything

in it, but they'll let me get it through, and i can get past one more day that i won't have to deal with a motion to vacate. he was wrong. he gave them what they wanted and burned any good will he would have had with democrats. and they would ostensibly be the one to save him if there is a motion to vacate. perhaps if there wasn't so much bad blood, he can ask hakeem jeffries can you find five members who are maybe in red districts that could perhaps just vote present? i don't see hakeem jeffries doing him any favors anymore. they're literally going after the president of the united states two days before the government runs out of money? the first hearing is two days before the government runs out of money? i think there is no good will right now. it would be a pretty big feat to convince him to save his speakership. also, what does it get the democrats? for them, they just get to sit by, eat some popcorn, watch kevin mccarthy get killed, watch him go through possibly 15 more

votes to stay as speaker or some random gets this there, someone even more right wing. it's another disaster. and then they'd have to reopen the government. and who, by the way, is going to call the vote to open the government? so many problems that they can just enjoy. >> of course, ashley, you think hakeem jeffries and all democrats will have tremendous goodwill towards speaker mccarthy. i'm kidding. what do you think? >> i think kevorkian kev bin mccarthy backed himself with the deals to become speaker. he wouldn't be in the situation if he didn't allow them to hold him hostage. now he is really reaping what he is sowing. and it is going to backfire on him in the short-term and potentially long-term when we look at whether he'll remain speaker. but most importantly, i think it will ultimately backfire on the american people when the

government shuts down. what does that mean? people can't get their social security checks. people start to struggle. i remember working in the government, fearing a government shutdown under boehner, the second go-around, and really being nervous. these are public servants, a lot of them. and when they are considered nonessential and don't have to go to work, they don't get paid either. i don't think hakeem jeffries needs to bail mccarthy out. i think if he does make a deal with him, he would be doing it for the american people. >> you even heard mitch mcconnell earlier today talking about how it does not benefit republicans when it happens. there has been four true shutdowns in the past where you had the government closed for more than one business day. but i think the point that tara made on the timing of this ashley and charlie, this is likely to happen two days, and obviously we're looking at the lead they had comparing mccarthy to gingrich to boehner. look how long it was. and look at the majority lead that you actually had. 33 for boehner. 25 fer gingrich.

only 9 for mccarthy. and that might be dwindling, people on leave and otherwise. that's a significant aspect of it. the priorities in terms of the good will of the american people and the electorate, if you set up two days before the government is supposed to shut down, ah-ha, i'm going to prioritize an impeachment inquiry that we don't have a clear notion right now what the misdemeanor is. to point back to speaker gingrich, listen to what he had to say about what mccarthy would need to have here. >> mccarthy has to have the smoking gun, maybe one term. he needs to have about ten smoking guns, because "the new york times" and "the washington post" and the professional democrats will simply reject one or two or three. but there is a place number. it takes about a year and a half for nixon to have the leave office. and by the time he has to leave office, 46 officials are convicted during watergate. >> what is your reaction to that, charlie?

>> well, look, this whole situation with the impeachment, you have to separate the impeachment from the government funding issue. the side that makes the policy demand during the funding issue is the one that is going to be blamed for the shutdown. if i don't get x, i'm going to shut down the government. you'll be blamed for that. that's where we are. this impeachment inquiry just further complicates things because as has been said about the democrats are now less likely to play ball with the republicans in the house. and so this whole situation, seen it so many times. the senate, the house republicans are isolated right now. senate republicans and senate democrats are on the same page. they're going to pass a funding bill, and they're going to do that. they're going send it to the house with a big vote. and then mccarthy has to make a decision. if he brings it up as a senate sends it over, he is going to have this rear guard action. they're going to come after him. if he doesn't bring it up, the

government shuts down. >> i think that's latin for damned if you do, damned if you don't. tara, charlie, ashley, thank you all of you, i appreciate your time. also, everyone, you've probably been following this story, of course, about the comedian russell brand, that he is facing multiple allegations of rape and sexual assault. now he's being blocked from making money on youtube to be specific. and that's far from the only fallout.

- they slept on me for 15 years. the things i saw, the things i collected. i gained 30 pounds in dust, pollen, dander. they had two kids, two cats, and a ferret. all that time, they could have protected me, and themselves, with the number one selling allerease mattress protector. it would've been soft, comfortable, and blocked 99.9% of dust, dirt, and allergens. allerease, protect your mattress for a clean, healthy night's sleep. (zipping zipper) ooh, queen likes.

well, youtube is temporarily preventing comedian russell brand from making money from his videos. that of course is following allegations from four women who say that brand sexually assaulted them on separate occasions between 2006 and 2013. now one of the women said that she was 16 and brand 31 at the time of the alleged assault in london. listen. >> russell engaged in the

behaviors of a groomer, looking back on it. i didn't even know what that was then or what that looked like. he would try to drive a wedge between me and my parents, taught me to lie to them. i was at my dad's house, and it was 11:00 at night. russell was texting me. please come over, i need to see you. i'm really upset. i need to see you. >> cnn cannot independently confirm these allegations. the comedian preemptively denied the accusations in a video that he posted on friday. >> these allegations pertain to the time i was work manage the mainstream, when i was in the newspapers all the time, when i was in the movies. as i've written about extensively in my books, i was very, very promiscuous. during that time of prom mist exe

promiscuity were always consensual. i'm being open now. >> youtube says it paused monetization of his channel. the bbc says it will remove some of his online content that includes brand. joining me the host of the "boston globe" today. thank you so much for being here tonight. you've been following this, as i have. brand tried to get ahead of this by publicly denying the allegations before they were even known and came out to the public. but now the youtube and bbc are taking action. are they right to do so given that these are still at this point allegations? >> well, thank you for having me, laura. and absolutely they are right for doing this. and let's start first with words, right. laura, you and i are in the words business. we speak for a living. we have conversations, we report. and what i really want to do is stop using the word allegation, and let's use the word report. which sounds stronger?

four women allege russell brand on sexual assault and rape or four allege. what russell brand conveniently didn't do on his monologue on his social channels was back in 2007, in the same time frame when these sexual assaults are being reported to have happened, he on his show the russell brand show advised a 15-year-old who was turning 16 to have a sexually themed birthday party. and we can say all of that is just jokes. but i don't joke like that, and i don't really hang out with people who joke like that. there is too much smoke around here for us to not start getting singed and burned from the heat of russell crowe. and that really is the issue for me. we know that sexual assault doesn't get reported nearly enough as it should. and here you have four different women in a span of 2006 to 2013,

seven years reporting that russell brand sexually assaulted them and raped or -- and raped them, or raped some of them. and we know that could be the tip of the iceberg. so yes, absolutely. prevent this man from making money until it gets adjudicated in a court. and if he is found innocent, as we saw with johnny depp, when disney decided not to have johnny depp in movies, if youtube doesn't want to have russell brand making money, sure. let's do that until we know what the truth is. >> it is interesting to think about. as a former prosecutor, the idea of the word choice, report versus allegations. and obviously the presumption of innocence in a court of law markedly different than the court of public opinion, as people have talked about it a great deal. and there is that monetizing aspect of it, the notion of what is required in order to stay on a particular platform. it's obviously not a guarantee. we'll be following this, of course, and always welcome to have downinsight as always.

thank you so much. this is a story with legs, absolutely. i appreciate it. >> all right. you a good night. >> you too. major appearance today in central park. the thing is, no one noticed. how prince william managed to go incognito at one of nosh's biggest landmarks, next. temperature benefits. save $400 on the new sleep number c4 smart bed. now only $1,499. sleep next level. shop now only at sleep number

feeling sluggish or weighed down? could be a sign you're not getting enough daily fiber. metamucil capsules can help. psyllium fiber gels to trap and remove the waste that weighs you down. promoting digestive health, for a better you. metamucil capsules an easy way to get more daily fiber.

of high profile visitors for the

u.n. general assembly this week. but one high profile visitor managed to stay just under the radar. it's the future king of england, prince william to you and me. and he is in town for the earth prize shot summit. and he went for a run in central park this morning, and apparently nobody noticed that there was a royal in their midst. >> did you go running in central park this morning? >> i did, yes. i decided to join the hoards of new yorkers doing their morning routine as they run around central park. >> hmm. so if a prince runs in the park and nobody notices, did it really happen? or was it just new york city, everyone? thanks for watching. our coverage continues. hello and a warm welcome to our viewers in the united states and all around the