that any issues at the border are owned fully by donald trump and the people who enable them. there's a state of the union coming up. frankly, shame on democrats if it's not clear now to voters that we're here serious about governing. we want to get things done. >> what do you make of president biden today blaming trump for the border deal collapse saying he'll remind voters of that every single day until election day? >> we have to. i think democrats are too nice and we stand on false virtues sometimes. people need to know that democrats and president biden on infrastructure, on gun safety, on the chips bill to bring jobs back to america and now on border security, we're the ones that will compromise and work with republicans to get things done. donald trump who called for the economy to crash, and he hopes that that happens, is also now calling for border disorder by encouraging republicans to vote against it. >> congressman swalwell, thank

you. >> erin burnett "out front" starts right now. "out front" next, breaking news. major loss for republicans moments ago. a much behind house vote to move forward with impeaching the homeland security secretary failing. one of the few republicans who voted no to impeach is out front. a federal appeals court puts a knife through trump's main defense. when does the trial move forward? what does it mean the possibility of a conviction? ty cobb will be "out front." a huge legal decision setting a new precedent. the mother of a michigan school shooter found guilty of manslaughter. the student who was shot multiple times by that shooter is my guest tonight. let's go "out front." i'm erin burnett. "out front," a fail and shocking embarrassment to republicans and speaker of the house.

a much behind vote to impeach the homeland security alejandro mayorkas has failed. four republicans joining every democrat to vote down impeachment. the house speaker, mike johnson, who just four years ago had railed against single party impeachments did not have the votes from his own party to pass the articles of impeachment against mayorkas. he thought he did but he didn't. this wasn't his only failure. right after the stunning mayorkas failure, the speaker brought another bill and they failed to pass an aid package for israel. manu raju is "out front" live on capitol hill. manu, these are back-to-back embarrassing losses for the republicans and most certainly for the new speaker. can you tell me about the drama playing out on the house floor? this is not even up until the final moment how pretty much anyone anticipated this might

go. >> reporter: yeah. they had actually expected to be cheering this bill on mayorkas. there was a confidence in the republican leadership that they would get the votes. this was a razor thin majority here. they thought they could muscle this through on the slimmest majorities, but it blew up in their face, in large part because they had miscalculated the absences on the floor. remember, if there are not -- the vote is essentially a majority of people who are present and voting. they expected there to be one democratic absence, congressman al greene of texas. mr. greene showed up to vote. that changed the calculation considerably on the floor because they could only afford to lose two votes. democrats were in full attendance. they could lose three votes if there were one democratic absence and, erin, they lost three republican votes. ultimately there were four republicans who voted no. one of those members, blake moore, voted against it for

procedural reasons. the three other members are ken buck, tom mcclintock and tomorrow gallagher of wisconsin. they all voted against it. where does this go from here, erin? ultimately republicans will have the votes to impeach mayorkas when they are in full attendance themselves. one member, steve scalise, the house majority leader, has been out because of illness and the treatment he's receiving. we expect him to come back in the coming weeks. at that point they will have the votes to go ahead. no doubt about it, they expected this to be successful today and they had seen this effort to move on this israel aid bill collapse over the last several hours as democrats came out opposed to this plan joined by a handful of members on the far right who wanted cuts to that israel aid package. democrats were opposed to it because they wanted it tied to ukraine aid, border security package and taiwan package. this is a big push to move on a stand alone israel aid package.

as we see here, in divisions within the ranks once again making governing this chamber incredibly difficult and this messy republican majority unable to achieve two major agenda items the speaker wanted to clear tonight. >> certainly a stunning failure. we should note trying to pass israel alone. now it is republicans who had said that israel had to be tied in to the border then when that wasn't going to work, they were figuring it out. out front now, congressman ken buck. congressman, look, this is not where your speaker expected this to be. obviously you voted against impeaching secretary mayorkas based on the facts as you saw them. only three of your republican colleagues voted with you, and only two of them in the same way that you did based on the way that you actually saw the story. you stopped this impeachment, congressman. you were able to do that and you did it based on principle and how you saw it. what's your reaction to this stunning vote tonight?

>> well, my reaction is it's going to change tomorrow, as so many things do in congress, but i think the principle is very clear, that mayorkas did not commit a high crime or misdemeanor. mike gallagher was a last-minute switch on this issue and i give him a lot of credit for having the -- really the constitutional knowledge and intestinal fortitude to do the right thing. i'm disappointed that tomorrow it will pass because we are setting new levels -- low levels for these impeachments. we're going to see impeachments of presidents more often, we'll see impeachments of cabinets more often. it is not the way we should be going when we need to solve the difficult problems. >> it will take quite some time to go ahead with impeachment proceedings and everything going with it. manu was laying out steve scalise was not with us. it sounds like from what you're saying, you think that this will

go ahead, that he will go back and do this again? >> tomorrow morning we will have another vote. steve scalise is expected back in town sometime around 11, 11:30. my guess is before noon tomorrow we will have this vote, it will pass. i think it is unfortunate, but that's the plan right now. >> obviously speaker johnson will then get what he wants. the reality is tonight, of course, pretty basic thing for a speaker and those around him, right? he miscalculated who was going to be there and that error led them to bring this now and have a failure, at least for now. then of course the israel vote was a clear fail for tonight and for the future because obviously you need a larger margin there. do you think speaker johnson is capable of leading the gop conference now? >> i do. today he had a two vote, three vote majority. very difficult to get 216, 215 people to agree on anything, and so when we are moving forward i

think he will find a group with a broader response. clearly needs to govern with democrats. in my view, it's always a mistake to impeach a president, cabinet official or anybody else on a party line vote. in the future i think we're going to see more democrat/republican votes. some people think that's healthy. some people think it's unhealthy. that's the way this year will play out. >> so the border bill, which is the heart of all of this, the border, appears dead now in the senate. now last week when you and i spoke, congressman, you said you thought it should be debated on the floor, that it needed that, there is no more important issue. you said those who at the time said it was dead on arrival, that is the speaker of the house who said that, those that shared that opinion were acting prematurely and unfairly. yet here we are. how did this happen? >> it happened because the

senate blew this up, and they have to have a 60 vote requirement over in the senate. they weren't going to get 60 votes. i don't know if they will push this off for a week or two. the important thing is we have a starting place. this bill isn't perfect, but we have to be able to debate something, amend something and make a bill stronger to go forward. the border is unacceptable and nobody on either side can argue that we should continue the status quo. >> republican senator james lankford, principled conservative who stepped up when his party called and negotiated in good faith and bipartisan basis, he worked his tail off on this bill and he did it in good faith, and that is clear. it's getting him now an incredible amount of blowback from republicans, including trump. here's what trump said. >> just to correct the record, i did not endorse senator lankford.

very bad bill for his career, and especially in oklahoma. >> obviously not going to debate the bill, although democrats and republicans who did it said it was the strongest in decades, and it was obviously done in good faith by lankford. of course trump did endorse lankford. what he said is blatantly false. i didn't do it, he did. he issued a statement saying he's giving lankford his, quote, complete and total endorsement. congressman lankford is, quote, strong on the border. just because the facts matter i did want to lay that out for everyone watching. what do you think of how senator lankford is being treated now by some in your party, including the former president? >> jim lankford's a good friend of mine and i am really sad that he has to go through this. he is -- he did step up. everybody knows that immigration is the graveyard where political careers go, and senator lankford stepped up. he did his very best.

you're never going to pass something on a partisan basis through the senate and the house at this point in time. so he tried to do something that would bring people together. as i said, i think it's a starting point. it's not where i would end up with the bill, but it is something and i think when he looks back at his career, he is going to be proud of the fact that he was able to bring people together and get this bill in some form before the senate. >> i appreciate it very much, congressman. thanks for your time. >> thank you. >> tim buck of colorado voting against impeachment and defeating that for tonight. "out front" next, trump responltding after a massive defeat in court calling the rejection of his immunity claim a, quote, nation destroying ruling. former white house attorney ty cobb up next. trump's new strategy in court on thursday. a big day on thursday in front of the supreme court, and it is a major shift as that court will

decide whether trump gets kicked off the colorado ballot. more breaking news. the mother of the michigan school shooter found guilty of-mile-an-hour slaughter, i'm going to speak to a student who was shot by that gunman multiple times, including in the neck, and lived.

. tonight a major loss for trump. a federal appeals court ruling

unanimously that the former president is not immune from prosecution for alleged crimes he committed in office to overturn the 2020 election. this is a crucial ruling. it strikes down the entire heart of trump's defense in the department of justice's january 6th case. trump, for his part, is slamming the, quote, nation-destroying ruling warning that it will cause grave harm to america and the presidency. it is a monumental decision because it could have huge legal and political implications. we'll talk about how this could affect the entire time line now that this ruling came down whether he could be convicted before election day. i want to bring in former trump white house attorney ty cobb. ty, you signed that amicus brief in the circuit. that is the way the three-judge panel ruled unanimously saying that trump does not have immunity. i know you've had a chance to

read through it. what stands out the most to you? >> i think what stands out the most to me is how comprehensive and exhaustive the opinion is with regard to american history and evolution of constitutional law back to marbry versus madison. i said i didn't think people should be overly concerned about a three-week delay. if we got into this week there should be concern about the delay. 28 days in an opinion of this magnitude and gravity, you know, i wish it had been sooner but at the same time i can see now why it was not. this is an epic opinion. this is an opinion, if it's the last word on these issues, as it may be depending on what the supreme court does, will be studied in law schools for the next 120 years, along with other key constitutional opinions such as marbry versus madison.

i think the un panimity of thiss a very, very important fact. it will -- well, i think it already has negated the likelihood of unblocked review of the full court by the d.c. circuit and i think it will give the supreme court some pause, both because it gets these issues right and it doesn't -- you know, while it's compelling, historic, monumental, it doesn't sweep too broadly. they only decided the few issues that they needed to decide, that they resolved the jurisdictional issue wisely in light of the constitutional issues posed by the double jeopardy clause and impeachment which while not explicit constitutional brands of immunity as suggested are

required still clearly satisfy the important nature of why they had to resolve it. they also, you know, limited it to this indictment, this president, these circumstances. you know, they didn't speak for future presidents, they didn't speak for future possible indictments, they focused solely on this and it's clear this judgment is limited. >> so i know -- and that's interesting. the supreme court may not even take it up. what about the argument, i mentioned it briefly introducing you, but that trump made itself today saying that the decision would, quote, terribly injure the presidency and the united states itself. all future presidents would be targets for political retribution? what's your response to such sweeping terminology? >> well, i do believe that if trump is elected that president biden could be in danger of retribution, but i don't believe there's a legal basis for it. i don't think it would go very

far. the 44 presidents that preceded president trump did not waste a second, i think, debating whether they should commit an intentional criminal act so i don't really buy that argument. history doesn't suggest that it's true. trump also claimed that the supreme court took away his immunity. that was immunity that is nowhere promised to anybody and nobody since nixon has believed that presidents are above criminal process. so i think everything he said today is rhetoric, red meat, and none of it's true. >> all right. ty cobb, thank you very much. as always, we appreciate it. >> my pleasure. thank you, erin. ryan goodman is here, co editor and the author of what happens if trump is sentenced to prison. ryan, listening to ty talking about the argument here that was

given by the new jersey today, the three judges, your team looked at the potential time line now that we have this ruling. here it comes on this tuesday in february. what does this mean in terms of whether trump's case itself, that this particular trial on january 6th concludes before election day? >> there's a very good likelihood it will. the court sets this up in motion saying by monday, february 12th, trump has to petition the supreme court. they force his hand. then the court gets to decide whether they want to take serve or hear the case. they'll make that by february 29th. at that point you have two different tracks. track one, the court decides not to take the case. they deny serve. >> saying it's not worth it. >> it's a solid decision. landmark decision. narrow, defined. it is a unanimous decision so we leave it be.

if that's the case, we're on a short track. goes back to the trial court. june 1st is a very good start date to anticipate and then the trial wraps up by secptember 1s. the longer time frame is the court does hear the case but they won't decide against trump in all likelihood. he doesn't have a strong case. in that time line, late july, july 30th start date. october 30th verdict. and that's conservative. it could be a week before october 30th but bumping right up against it. >> october 30th is the week before the election. all right. so you've looked at this closely as well. if trump is kochb vikted, right, and as ryan's laying out these scenarios, if that verdict is, indeed, announced before election day, you get a verdict. there's an appeals process. what does the appeals process look at that point? and how long does that take? >> so there would be a couple of months of a sentencing process immediately following the conviction.

then there would be an appeal. in the ordinary course an appeal from a proceeding like this after a verdict you would expect maybe two to three years. in this particular case i would hope that if we get to that point that, you know, the appellate court and supreme court would be expediting their review. obviously there would be an intense public interest in having appellate courts review that verdict for any potential defects or legal sufficiency. that's the ordinary course, two, three years for the appellate chain of review. i would hope, again, if that's where this ends up that would move more quickly. >> move more quickly. interestingly, ryan, you would get a verdict on the day before halloween theoretically or sooner. you could get a verdict as late as that. never mind the appeals process, you wouldn't get necessarily sentenced obviously. >> right. >> that's a whole process, too. you would simply get guilty or innocent verdict from the jury. >> that's right. the american public would know what a unanimous jury finds and

what they're finding him guilty of if they find him guilty because then we can already calculate what the likely conviction is. >> sentencing ranges, et cetera. ankush, you identify minimum security prison in florida that could likely be where trump would go if he's convicted. in pensacola, eight hours away from mar-a-lago. you spent some time looking at this. it's a nice place for a prison. tennis, volleyball, sunbathing, gazebo and you've got to do a job, landscaping, working in the kitchen. no cell phone. no internet access. limitations. how did you land on this facility? >> so it is the only federal prison camp that -- it's the closest federal prison camp to mar-a-lago. they're the lowest prison system and the bureau of prisons has a preference for placing people,

if possible, close to the residence where they will be released to, which is mar-a-lago in this case. so pensacola happens to be the closest federal prison camp to mar-a-lago. and so whether or not it's actually -- you know, if we end up there, again, that particular camp, the general complexion of sort of day-to-day life is not that different. >> ryan, it's fascinating though. obviously we're a long way away from it, but i think today it comes real, certainly to the former president, in a way it may not have before, that this is where this could go. it is going to go forward. there is going to be a trial, at least unless some shocking things come from the supreme court. another option though, you know, if this does happen, home confinement? >> that's right. home confinement for a conviction on these charges would be unusual. generally the courts have said we're going to treat trump as any other citizen, like citizen trump, a former president can't

be above the law. even the conservative court and the 11th circuit, all judges said the same thing when it comes to the classified documents case. does he get treated by everybody else when he serves time in a minimum security prison or home confinement at mar-a-lago. he's somewhat different. there's a greater security risk with him. maybe home confinement is a better situation. >> thank you both very much. all of this real after all of this time and discussion tonight in a way that it has not yet been. next, more breaking news. exclusive reporting tonight coming in to cnn on a new legal strategy from trump and where the former president will be when the supreme court hears arguments this week, this week on whether he gets kicked off the ballot in colorado. plus, the mother of the michigan school shooter found guilty of manslaughter. this is a precedent-setting decision that has huge implications. i'm going to speak with the student who was shot that day in

the cheek, neck and lung.

i'm daniel lurie and i've spent my career fighting poverty, helping people right here in san francisco. i'm also a father raising two kids in the city. deeply concerned that city hall is allowing crime and lawlessness to spread. now we can do something about it

by voting yes on prop e. a common sense solution that ensures we use community safety cameras to catch repeat offenders and hold them accountable. vote yes on e. breaking news, a precedent setting verdict with huge

implications. jennifer crumbley has been found guilty of four counts of manslaughter. a jury determining that she is responsible for the murders her son committed. jur saying crumbley had a duty under state law to prevent her son who was 15 at the time from killing four students. whitney wild is "out front." >> we find the defendant guilty of involuntary manslaughter. >> reporter: 45-year-old jennifer crumbley found guilty becoming the first parent in u.s. history to be found criminally responsible for committing a mass shooting. already found guilty for killing four students and wounding seven other people in 2021 when he was 15. >> it was a long time coming but it's definitely a step towards accountability like we had been talking about. it's kind of been our goal the whole time. >> reporter: over the nine-day

trial prosecutors argued crumbley ignored signs her son was a threat and failed to lock up a firearm and ammunition he used to kill his classmates. prosecutors pointed out hours before the rampage crumbley's school administrators and the shooter had a meeting over this violent drawing on this math worksheet. crumbley didn't pull her son on classes despite being told he needed help and never told school administrators she had given her son a gun and ammunition. >> you didn't tell them? >> i didn't think it was relevant, no. >> prosecutors argued crumbley could have prevented the killings but did nothing. >> she walked out of that school when just the smallest, smallest of things could have saved hannah and tate and madison and justin, and not only did she not do it, she doesn't even regret it. >> defense attorneys argued crumbley didn't know about her son's deteriorating mental health and had no way to prevent

the shooting. >> of course, i look back after all of this happened and i asked myself if i would have done anything differently, and i wouldn't be have. >> did the crumbley's son was a skilled manipulator and they didn't realize it. >> reporter: prosecutors grilled crumbley on the warning signs they said she ignored including a phrase her son wrote in the drawing found by his teacher in the morning. >> what about the thoughts won't stop, help me. does that ring out to you? >> yes, that was concerning to me. >> reporter: the jury foreperson described the evidence that sealed the guilty verdict. >> the thing that sealed it home was she was at home with the gun. >> you cannot take your interest over your child especially when it comes to mental health and addressing, you know, concerns. >> reporter: erin, jennifer crumbley faces a maximum of 15 years in prison.

her husband is charged with four counts of involuntary manslaughter. >> whitney, thank you very much. there in michigan tonight. i want to bring in now sandra arthur cunningham and her daughter phoebe arthur. phoebe is one of seven survivors. you were, as everyone understands, you were the first person shot that day and you sustained horrific injuries, your neck, lung, ribs, on a ventilator and in critical condition immediately after surgery. thank god you are here and you are doing so much better. sandra, i want to ask you though as a parent, this is an incredible and historic judgment that we have just seen. you have been tirelessly demanding accountability for what happened on that horrific day. do you feel that that happened today? >> absolutely. thank you, erin. we are definitely so thankful and so grateful to the prosecution for all of their

hard work, all of their determination, the courage to bring forth this case. we're thankful for the jury that really took this decision seriously, that really did their due diligence in court taking notes. i mean, this is the best turnout we could have expected. >> phoebe, how do you feel? >> i definitely feel like this is a very large step in a positive direction. i think that knowing that parents of kids that are mishandling weapons should definitely be held accountable for what they've done, their negligence and their part in the crime. >> phoebe, you are incredibly brave and very few can imagine what you have had to go through. i know your road to where you are now sitting there with your mom has been long and hard. you were in critical care. you were on a ventilator. can you tell me more about how you're doing right now?

>> i am doing a lot better now. i am as close to perfect as i probably will get so i guess i'm relatively completely healed, though i have more long-lasting or lingering i guess effects. my left arm is still significantly weak. very -- throughout my arm. exercising or really just increasing heart rate so that can be like if i'm nervous, it can cause a little bit of pain. so there is definitely a few lingering effects, but i'm doing a lot better now. >> thank god for that. but it's important for people to understand this is something that not only has transformed your life but will be something you will deal with forever.

and that's why this case matters so much, sandra. and now the shooter's father, he's set to go to trial on march 5th because they were doing two separate trials, one for the mother, obviously now convicted, and one for the father. are you hoping for a similar verdict there? >> absolutely, yes. absolutely. i can't see how anything less could happen or come out from that, but definitely don't want to -- yes. i also theep there is justice served in that case as well. >> sandra, this -- this verdict could change a lot because it changes who could be held responsible in these mass shootings, you know, in these horrific cases that happen in this country, that shouldn't happen but do. we all too often hear how a gun was obtained or a parent maybe not being aware, not paying attention, or obviously in this case it was unbelievable what we

heard day after day in that courtroom. do you think that this ruling changes how parents will react, how parents will handle things going forward? >> well, i mean, we definitely hope so. we definitely hope that this shows that -- i mean, the scope of accountability has expanded. that it's not just on the shooter, though he did this horrendous act, it is on the parents. it is on the school. it is on, you know, everyone to take accountability and to be responsible for these children that -- simple things that they missed. you know, his mental health. his everything. i mean -- yeah. i'm sorry. >> no, that's okay. phoebe, i just wanted to ask you as you talk about being as much back to normal as you may ever be, how are things now for you as a student, as a young person?

have -- have youle changed? >> i -- yes. i've certainly changed. it's caused a little bit of everything in my life to change. at school it's changed everything. i don't like being there very much. it's a very uncomfortable environment for me, for many reasons. physically looking around i obviously was there. that's my crime scene at my school, and that's very uncomfortable. and along with that, there's social impacts. it's hard being a victim and it's also hard being with people who want to talk to them. not a lot of people know exactly what and when to talk to me. so often their choice to fall back on is not to. so i've been almost isolated from this event in certain ways while other areas of my life

have stood out immensely. so it's definitely been challenging to handle all of the different impacts of it and manage that. >> do you wish i guess so people understand, that they would say something to you, that they would acknowledge it and give you a chance as opposed to -- because they're awkward not mentioning it at all? >> yeah. i definitely -- i'm a very social person. i have handled this whole situation with humor. i'm very lighthearted. i like to be positive, so i would love it if my peers would just show me any sort of support by saying anything rather than saying nothing at all. >> well, i hope they hear you now. thank you so much for the courage and bravery in speaking, phoebe. i can only imagine. thank you for having that grace and, sandra, thank you very much for being here and of course being here with phoebe. thank you very much. >> thank you.

>> thank you. next, we do have some breaking news. we are learning exclusively about a major shift in trump's legal strategy as the supreme court is about to decide whether he's being kicked off the ballot. that is this week. plus, king charles seen in public for the first time after revealing he has cancer. we're learning new details about prince harry's visit today with his estranged father.

this ad? typical. politicians... "he's bad. i'm good." blah, blah. let's shake things up. with katie porter. porter refuses corporate pac money. and leads the fight to ban congressional stock trading. katie porter. taking on big banks to make housing more affordable. and drug company ceos to stop their price gouging. most politicians just fight each other. while katie porter fights for you. for senate - democrat katie porter. i'm katie porter and i approve this message.

breaking news just in to cnn and it signals major change in legal strategy for donald trump. cnn can exclusively report donald trump will not be at the supreme court over whether trump should be kicked off the colorado ballot. it's based on the 14th amendment. kristin holmes is "out front." this is a very different strategy than we've just seen. what more are you learning? >> reporter: well, erin. that's right. we've seen trump turn these courtroom appearances into campaign events, an opportunity to cry election interference, talk about political persecution. just the idea that he's not showing up on thursday or isn't expected to is a marked change.

it's an implication how carefully he and his team is handling this in the court that is the highest in the land. we're told by sources donald trump knows how high the stakes are. there's really no up side to him attending the argument. i was told by one source close to the inner circle that there were some people who thought that his antics in the courtroom, storming out were not helpful in the case, in the e. jean carroll case, new york fraud case. now his advisers say it's purely logistical. nevada caucuses are thursday night. he'll be out there and giving a victory speech because he is expected to win there, but logistically speaking, it is three hours behind. he has a private plane. the arguments are in the morning. there is some question and it's not outside the realm of the possibility he could make both. another senior adviser saying

it's not a hard decision to make. political is more important now. it is our job. it is our focus to make him the republican nominee. >> so how confident is trump that the justices are going to decide on the 14th amendment in his favor? >> reporter: well, erin, it depends if you are talking about trump directly or his team? they do feel fairly confident. they think they have solid legal ground, much more so than some of the other legal issues he's facing. donald trump himself however has expressed concern that the justices won't want to side with him because they don't want to give the impression that they are biased in some way. obviously no indication that that would happen, but this is something he has expressed privately. >> kristin, thank you very much with those breaking details this hour. thank you. and coming up tonight on cnn, the former republican presidential candidate chris christie will be with anderson and that is coming up at 8:00. meantime, next here prince

harry at his father's side one day after his father announced his cancer diagnosis. and the boeing jet with the door plug may have left the factory without the bolts to hold the door in place. that is stunning. how did it happen?

tonight, we are seeing king charles for the first time since revealing his cancer diagnosis. you see him here along with the queen. this is as they left london. the king will recover. he has started cancer treatment. prince harry is in london, just arriving. flying in overnight to be with his father. the visit was brief. they spent less than an hour together. as of now, no plans for the brothers to meet, as of now. >> reporter: rushing to his father's side after a troubling cancer diagnosis. prince harry arrived in the uk alone.

just one day after the news sent shockwaves throughout the country. harry flew to london and drove to the residence where he stayed for less than an hour. the arrival without his wife or their children comes amid a family feud that has played out publically. one that saw the couple step down from their royal duties in 2020, following damning accusations of racism and ill treatment. only last year, harry's book detailed episodes of a troubled family life. accusing then queen camila of leaking stories to the british press and saying his brother and sister-in-law never really accepted his wife due to racial stereotypes. now harry's back in the uk for the first time since the king's coronation last year. this diagnosis raising speculation of a royal reconciliation after years of

estrangement. >> he has to come back to see his father. it's the right thing to do. >> the family feud is silly in my opinion. make up and hopefully this brings them together. >> reporter: perhaps a chance to heal what was once a strong bond. not only between father and son but between brothers. >> this is a major event for the royal family. like any family, a cancer diagnosis comes as a shock. people want to rally around. the priority has to be supporting their father. we would like to see relations after a difficult period in their relationship as brothers. >> reporter: we have been told there are no plans for the brothers to meet officially. but in the event 75-year-old king charles undergoes surgery, or becomes debilitated, both william and harry, first and fifth in line to the thrown, might need to step up as counselors of state. with this diagnosis comes

uncertainty. not just for the family, but also for the monarchy. with a slimmed down royal family, an image of unity will be crucial for the health and the future of the crown. just as it happened when the family gathered to say good-bye to the matriarch, queen elizabeth, in september of 2022. prince harry's return however long, a renewed proof that the end of the day, regardless of the turmoil, family always comes first. despite the drama that has played out over the years so publically, there are signs that both men are putting their differences aside. we understand that king charles and his son harry have kept communications open. that's an indication, i think, that they are rebuilding that relationship. that is important now, clearly more than ever. >> thank you so much. appreciate that. next, a troubling discovery. investigators are revealing the boeing jet with the blownout door plug, it wasn't in

maintenance and they forgot to put screws on, it may have been they made it in the factory without the bolts.

so, you've got the power of xfinity at home. now take it outside with xfinity mobile. like speed? it's the fastest mobile service around... and right now, you can get a free line of our most popular unlimited plan. all on the most reliable 5g network nationwide. ditch the other guys and you'll save hundreds. get a free line of unlimited intro for 1 year when you buy one unlimited line. and for a limited time, get the new samsung galaxy s24 on us. things have gotten better recently, but too many businesses like mine are still getting broken into. it's time our police officers have access to 21st century tools to prevent and solve more crimes. allow public safety cameras that other bay area police departments have to discourage crime, catch criminals, and increase prosecutions. prop e is a smart step our city can take right now to keep san francisco moving in the right direction.

please join me in voting yes on prop e. tonight, a disturbing discovery. the four bolts that should have secured that door plug that flew off during the alaska airline flight were remove and not put back. if you look at this picture sent in text messages between two boeing employees during work on the aircraft, these three circles show where they were missing. the location of the fourth bolt, that's covered by insulation in picture. it comes as patience for boeing is running thin. emirates faced a $52 billion order. they said this is th