either way, scan to save big.

the case that can change the course of the election. nine justices are ironing their robes, as we speak. tonight on laura coates live. and just a few short hours from now, the supreme court of the united states will hear arguments in a historic effort to ban former president trump on the ballot for his alleged role in the january six insurrection. we'll be able to listen i tomorrow morning. let me make it easy for you to follow their conversation tomorrow. you've been hearing a lot about the 14th amendment. it's not the center of the case before the supreme court tomorrow. now, it has five sections. of the five, you may only know section one, the one about due process, attention to laws, that one. that is not what we are talking about tonight. it's the other white me,

section three. that's what's so important. the so-called insurrectionists clause. at its core, it says, you can't hold office if you engaged in insurrection. if it were that easy, i would not have to explain, it would i? the supreme court would not have to bother taking it up. there are a couple of hours you have to pay attention to. they are so crucial, and they are the words that bring us here today, bring us through the court tomorrow, and that court will dissect these words. we are trying to understand whether the insurrection is band of section three, and does it apply to donald trump? the first four to consider is the officer. the first question, is the president and officer at the united states? you may think you know the answer, but the court as to mull over that one. that is one of three questions that will talk about tonight. and the second question, is section three self executing? that's lawyer speak for kent a plaintiffs to remove someone from a ballot without someone

from congress specifically saying that they can, which brings me to another word, the third important word, one we talked about a lot, insurrection. we all saw what happened on january six. we watched of been live. we saw the images. we are still reeling from in d.c. here today. the third and final question is. this can former president trump be disqualified from the ballot for having engaged in allegedly an insurrection. he's never been criminally charged with insurrection, in the criminal product of an impeachment, it failed to convict him. there was the speech on january six, the right at the capitol, calling out his own vice president and vowing, to, quote, fight like. to speed up the supreme court answered that question -- >> it's time that somebody did something about it, and mike pence, i hope that you will stand up for the good of our constitution, and for our

country, and if you're not, i am going to be very disappointed in new, a tell you right now. something is wrong here, something's really wrong, get him out, and we fight. we fight like, and if you don't fight like, you're not going to have a country anymore. >> joining me now, cnn opinion contributor and former house counsel, sophia nelson, is here. and gina robinson, a former federal prosecutor, is joining us here now. i am glad that you're both here. supreme court arguments are a little bit tricky, right? on one hand, they might have some pre-conspirators, on the other hand, they like to hear you had to say in the oral argument. one of the big questions will be, whether the language of that particular amendment includes the president of the united states. when you look at this, what do you think? >> it does, unequivocal-y. and to the justices, our regional textualists, just re-detects

and then go over to article two, google it, and that describes, who the president's and sets up the executive branch. it brexit down. i think you had the ridden in tandem, and i think it's clear that he is the chief executive officer of the united states. >> it is one of the problems though. you have been saying this so much, especially in the work that you've done, but they have had earlier versions of the 14th amendment that had the president of the united states in the language of section three. they did not end up in the final version. the supreme court can look to see whether or not that makes a difference. is there an intent -- for the president to be on it? i wonder if they will look at that and say, the failure to name him specifically in that section, where we named him and other places like the impeachment clause, is that enough to say, i don't care what you think as the officer of the ignited say? it's >> like i say, it's the legislative history of the amendment, suggested that it wanted to include the

president, even though it's not mentioned. i want to say, this jefferson was a president of the confederacy. they had the debates around the emmitt, there was talk that he could possibly become president of the united states, or that there was a hypothetical that he could. i guarantee you, the framers of this amendment, they will be thinking about whether he could be elected, even though he had been disgraced and become president of the united states. it is directed not just that him but all the others who were part of the competitors confederacy. going back to the original textualists, we have to look at what the day intend when an amendment was passed, and to freeze frame like a football game. you have to play that video back, and the intent is not just two -- in a government to include the president of the united states. >> i will freeze frame and not that the two of the match very well. >> we do. >> i was not going to say

anything. freeze frame, replay that, thank you very much. we have all seen the spectacle of a president taking of. it's called the inauguration. we know it's a critical moment, but especially taking the oath, and trump sent his oath is to preserve, protect and defend the constitution, rather than supportive, as the argument he is making. the counter argument is that defense and support our synonymous in many respects, we all understand that. i wonder how the conservative members of the court are going to parse through that distinction, like, hold on, maybe the old did not apply in the same eye? >> i think you, not you, lawyer laura, but trump's attorneys. i actually suspect that they will be anonymous in this. i know people think that's insane army, but this is a serious question that they had to get right. they will spend a lot of time deciding how the supplies, and you start parsing out the oath to the constitution when you become president, i think

that's a ridiculous argument. they made the same, those words are synonymous. >> are the recent so-called breached then, because there's no leg to stand on, or because the supreme court is either going to say, you know what, even though you have not been criminally charged and convicted for engaging in an insurrection, that's enough to disqualify you from the ballot, are they going to go that far? >> no, they're not. 1869, justice chase, he issued an opinion that said, under the cement, section three, it has to be enforced by congress, and that is the only real opinion that addresses the 14th amendment, so i think that the supreme court, if i am going into predictions, i think the supreme court is going to find a way to rule for trump, and i think it is going to be that it has to be executed or forced by congress, but i want to add one thing that has not come up in the arguments a lot, the word

hold. it says, you can't hold office. it does not mean you can't be elected, so you could elect some crazy person in a state, or elect someone who is crazy to be president of the in that, estates but then you have to get over the holdover, and that is where congress comes in. >> i agree. >> and they can say, you know what, you're disqualified, but will get two thirds of the vote, but i think that hold is important, i bet you the supreme court is going to latch onto that, and have a very narrow interpretation of this case. >> that makes it interesting. at the issue is whether they can hold office and that congress can remove that disability, as they say. that makes the running mate, if he is the nominee, and data secure the actual election, very important, doesn't? out >> there's nmr important thing that we're not talking about. hit me if i'm wrong. >> i won't hit anyone i invite

to be on the show, i watched it on the. >> what i am saying is that you've got to deal with this issue the colorado as a sovereign state as decided, they did a fact finding. they are the fact finders, that he engaged in insurrection, they took him off the ball. the supreme court acid deal with whether or not they will override a sovereign state in their election processes. this is a tenth emmitt issue to. it's not as clean as we like it to be, with the questions that we are answering. i think there is a real balance between federalism and state rights, and who will have the superior ground here. i think congress, you said, it probably goes to what congress has to do here. i think they have a difficult decision ahead, and i think they had to be united in whatever way to come out on. >> what about the issue when it comes down to, i think you're right, this is based on a state supreme court, making this assessment in a state district court, having a fact finding mission and bench trial, but i also wonder about the engage in insurrection. again, he has not been charged in the insurrection, even the

one out of washington, d.c., led by jack smith, has four counts, none of which include insurrection. the fact that that is part of it, the fact that he engagement is direction, are they going to relied on the colorado funding to make that conclusion, if they get there? >> they don't find. >> that's the point, that's their job. >> the supreme court tomorrow, we're predicting, they are going to stay away from finding instruction or not finding. they don't need to get that. i think that there are many other avenues to seek the supreme court to find that narrow avenue to rule for trump. i think they will rule for trump in the end, and i do think it is the self executing issue. i got to say, congress has this card or else -- >> checks and balances? >> absolutely, you don't want 50 little insurrection charles going out in the united states at the same time. we have to have some method to all this madness, and they are going to find the most narrow

way, that congress has to set some guidelines. >> you may be right about that, the idea that this is not an isolated attempt in colorado are other states that are considering it, and our supreme court is well aware that the problem of patchwork, when it comes to issues like this, even if they want to keep their hands clean. when we come back, so colorful i think. take a look at this, everyone. people are already lining up outside the supreme court tonight open to get a seat for tomorrow's role oral argument. there is jake topper, i am kidding. how do americans feel about the efforts to keep dollars from off the ball, we'll break it down with matt depaul next.

the arguments before the supreme court tomorrow could

set us on the path to making election history. how do voters feel about the effort to disqualify donald trump from office? let's go to cnn senior data reporter harry anthony is at the magic wall. i will bring it to law -- life for me. harry, good to see you. the big question -- what happens if the supreme court agrees with the colorado top court and takes trump off of that state primary ballot? how would that impact his path to nomination? >> look, the deal, laura, here, is very clear. colorado is not going to make too much of an impact. either in the primary, or if you look forward, to the general election. because in the primary, donald trump is going to almost certainly delegate -- accumulate delegates necessary for nomination. and a general election, a state like colorado teen leans democratic. but there was also the move by the secretary of state to remove donald trump from the main ballot, and i won't note that could potentially have more ramifications comes the general election. even though colorado leans democratic in the general election, maine actually

allocates an electoral vote through the winner of each congressional district, and maine's second district republican come the fall. so, colorado, no, but maine, potentially, could be a very interesting case comes the general election cycle. >> well, there is also an illinois circle court and a judge looking for the major 14th amendment lawsuit to block trump from the ballot there in illinois. how many cases remain unresolved right now? if you look at all the accumulation of, it could maybe make a measurable difference, could it not? >> yes, it definitely could. if we look, there have been a lot of cases, right? litigation to remove trump from the ballot has been filed in 35 states. it is pending in 16 states still, so still pending and a lot of states. if you look at those states where we have pending but acacia, look at this. pending litigation to remove trump from the ballot in states he lost by less than five points are won in 2020. we have a salute, we have eight states, we have red states like texas, a lot of electoral

votes, there. really red states like west virginia. there are some swing states in there to, like wisconsin, biden barely won that back in 2020, or north carolina, a state that biden barely lost back in 2020. arizona as well, a state that biden barely won back in 2020. so, the fact is, there is pending litigation in many states that could make a difference come the fall, if in fact some of these lawsuits actually do succeed. >> that is why this supreme court argument to me is so interesting. they are not just taking this case to hear exclusively about colorado, although that is the focus, but this will have implications to other states that might be thinking about it two in the long term. the question to me also is, how do americans feel about keeping trump off the ballot? do they support this proposition? >> yes, you know, if keeping trump off the ballot. look, here. support colorado and maine's decision to keep trump off the ballot? look at this even split we have, here. not really much of a surprise and our 50/50 nation. 49% of americans actually to

support it compared to 46% who oppose it. very, very tight. just looking forward to the supreme court generally speaking, trust the supreme court to make the right decisions on legal cases related to the 2024 election. look at here, laura. 42%, just 42% have a great deal or moderate amount of confidence in the supreme court. the vast majority of americans really don't have that much trust in the supreme court. 58% have just some or not at all to make the right decision. >> that ain't good. you have to wonder if that changed recently or has been brewing for a long time. something tells me it is a lot more recent than it has been and the distant past. harry enten as always, thank you for the numbers. i appreciate it so much. >> appreciate you, laura. >> be sure to illicit life as the u.s. supreme court hears the case to remove former president donald trump from the ballot. our coverage begins tomorrow at nine a.m. east. next, a variation on a theme of capitol hill. talk about all of the, what was the word, chaos.

got a lot of lawmakers checked off. will the meltdown hurt republicans? i have a panel here to talk to me in a moment about all of it. look at this beautiful panel. we will be right back.

you can make money the hard way as a bullfighter or a human cannonball... or save money the easy way, with xfinity mobile. existing customers can get a free line of our most popular unlimited plan for a year! not only will you save hundreds but you'll also be joining millions who have connected to america's most reliable 5g network. sure is a lot safer than becoming a stuntman for money. get a free line of unlimited intro for a year when you buy one unlimited line. plus, get the new samsung galaxy s24 on us. 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. there might be one word for what we are seeing on capitol hill, today. that word? drumroll, please. chaos. >> we have got to sit down together, figure out how we will solve problems. the american people sent us here to do that. >> partisanship one. the senate has failed arizona.

shameful. >> it is more than disappointing, it's dangerous. extremely dangerous, what we are doing today. this has to be reversed. the people should demand it. >> it is shameful and embarrassing to see maga radicalism take hold here, in the senate. >> the senate's long awaited, carefully negotiated, and the big word here, bipartisan, bipartisan border bill, is dead. eight foreign aid package tied to the bill was collateral damage in all of this. republican senator josh hawley, yes, that josh kollie, put it this way. quote, it has been a total disaster. why would voters look at what goes on over here, the circus, and say, yeah, we want more of this. let's talk about what the voters might want to former communications director for vice president kamala harris ashley etienne, and cnn political -- senior political commentator scott jennings, also contributor for cnn sofia nelson is back with us and political analyst for cnn coleman hugh. c is the author of the brand-

new book, the end of race politics, arguments for a color blind america. i know, the cover is red. i love it. anyway, scott, are you feeling pretty good tonight? this is kind of a trick question, a bit rhetorical. are you feeling pretty good tonight about what republicans are getting done on the hill? >> well, i don't know. it is not over yet. i will put a glass half full spin on it. sometimes bills don't pass, it is not the first time it has happened and won't be the last. we are still negotiating over the foreign aid package. the plan b option, which got 50 votes today, so only needs a couple more to get over the 60- foot hurdle. they are negotiating over how to get that done. if that gets done, that will be a step in the right direction for several player -- priorities that a lot of republicans have. what is going to be left undone is the border and immigration piece, which continues to be left unturned year after year after year, and i think for the american people, it is true. this has become a major problem. it has become a major issue, and has become a major crisis under a democratic administration and for the

years, it has claimed the border is secure, and all of a sudden is realizing, the election is coming, so now the border is not secure. we want to blame someone else. >> is that really what it is though, actually? when you look at it, is it really that they delayed it's a long just way too right now for republicans to implode in their own voting? >> no, i think the problem is just exacerbated and gotten worse over time. i have traveled all over the country and you can see migrants all over the country. we have had democratic governors and mayors leaning on the president to take action. so, i think it got to a sort of boiling point in the president had to do something about it, but it gets back to this issue that you said earlier, which is that republicans don't want to take yes for an answer. what i saw from biden's he did classic clinton triangulation. he gave the republicans everything that they wanted. it was like a conservative wish list, but he put them in a position to tell him now, and they have done it. now, it creates an opportunity for him to really put this at their doorstep, the failure of the border, the open border on

republicans. the question is, whether or not he can effectively do that alone. he is not yet proving that he can disseminate, promote gait and effective message that penetrates the key audiences. thanks, scott, for agreeing on that one. so, the pressure is on him to make the case, but i think he is well positioned to do that. >> is he? you know, laura, i think the senator here in senator lankford's speech, every american should listen to that speech he gave today. it was disturbing. he said before they even looked at the bill he was told, if you do this, you will get destroyed, we will destroy you. the real big story here isn't that they didn't get anything done, it is that donald trump killed it and told them not to do it, and they fell in line. that to me is the real story here of what is happening, and i think that is where we are for the rest of the year until the election. >> so, what does that mean that if you are somebody who is hoping to negotiate? we saw what happened to speaker mccarthy when he endeavored to cross the aisle and he knows longer has a gavel nor's in congress. now you have lankford who is a republican, one of the most

conservative in the caucus, by the way, and has been completely villainized for what has happened so far. who wants to negotiate? who wants this job? >> they said they were going to destroy him, listen to what the man said. it is no personal, and i think that that is what we are missing in all of this. there is a personal element which takes us away from bipartisanship and getting things done. it is just an ugly place right now to be in the congress. >> i think this is why congress have such low approval ratings, right now. i think both parties have egg on their face and this situation. republicans for rejecting what was a pretty sensible and tough bill on the border that would have gone a long way towards curbing this emergency, and democrats, frankly, for the second donald trump was out of office, biden wanted to signal he was not going to be like trump on the border and he took his foot off the pedal, right? that is what allowed this crisis to build up to begin with. that was an example of partisanship, to. so in my view, it is partisanship on both sides. this is the reason we can't get

things done. it makes perfect sense for the american people to be upset with congress right now. >> my grandma said, this is why we can't have nice things. there is plastic on the couch. let me ask you this, is -- president biden said this at a fund-raiser in new york. he said, republicans have to decide who they serve. are they here to solve problems or chest weaponize them? this question of who do you serve sounds like it might be trump. >> well, the question for him is, who does he serve? i mean, he is the one that is struggling on this issue, right now. 70, 80% of the american people believe this is a crisis, believe it is a top issue, and they believe he has failed on this. and so, what has he been doing for the last three years? this became urgent to him only when it became obvious boat anchor on his reelection campaign. it didn't matter to him when he promised to get free health care to illegal immigrants during his campaign, it didn't matter to him on day one when he reversed all of donald trump's policies. if he had an ounce of humility

or good faith, he would go to the american people and say, i messed up, shouldn't have reversed those, one executive, i shouldn't have done that, i am going to reverse my actions and fire my homeland security secretary for being a failure and now, i am ready to negotiate. that would be an ounce of good faith where there is not, right now. >> it is at odds though. i am the one to blame, and now i will find the person who executed my policy. that is kind of the issue about the impeachment up mayorkas and part, and that felt as well, by the way. another thing that failed this week but when speaker johnson tried to do. but did you see it that way? obviously, this has been an issue for a number of years. frankly, for other administrations, to. but why do you think -- to that point of what is taking himself one, how do you respond to that in terms of why? >> why? >> why there was not sooner action to scott's point. >> well, the president came into office and implored congress to pass bills to address this issue. the position of the president has always been that way really address this issue in a

comprehensive way is for congress to take action, right? the republicans have campaigned on the border consistently, spending millions upon millions of dollars in ads, bashing the president for an open border, yet here we are at a point where they have an opportunity to take a bill that they wrote, they drafted, to solve this particular problem. i think everyone is playing politics, but the one thing is that -- i have worked for a speaker before, and if we can just go back, at the person who has the most egg on their face is speaker johnson at this point. why would you bring a bill to the floor that you don't have enough that's for? but here is the other thing, this problem will only get worse. it will create a bigger opportunity for the president as we go into the summer. we have seen border crossings only increase as the weather changes and gets warmer. this will become a problem for johnson that he has put himself in a box, and i am not really sure how he will get out of it. >> well, the math wasn't mathing, and when that is a problem, you have to -- but coleman, i talk about your book

at the very beginning and want to get into it. it really is fascinating, it really is. you talk about the end of race politics in your book, and in some respects, people talk about immigration issues as a proxy for a larger conversation on race and beyond. it has been released, but how do you hope to change the conversation about race and politics? >> yeah, so, this word color blind has become a dirty word for many people and actually it is good we are talking about this today because we have gotten deep into the 14th amendment today and i have a whole section on the 14th amendment in my book. the first proponent of the 14th amendment, wendell philips, president of the american anti slavery society, was the first american public figure to use the word color blind. in his proposing the 14th amendment. and what he meant by it was that the state should have no business recognizing or discriminating in any direction when it comes to its citizens. this is where i trace the history of the idea of color

blindness to, not to conservatives or two reactionary's, but through the most radical anti slavery activists of the 18 60s. from there, it is a through light through the civil rights movement where you can go back and read martin luther king's great book, why we can't wait, where he says, yes, we have to address the legacy of slavery, yes, we have to address racial inequality, and the best way to do that is not with policy that discriminates on the basis of race, but rather with -- that attacks poverty and will disproportionately benefit black americans nowadays, he would also include hispanic americans. we shared, especially democrats and people on the left, rediscover the wisdom of the color blind approach to addressing poverty, addressing the legacy of slavery, and so forth. >> what a great book. can't wait to read it until everyone does as well. coleman, thank you. thank you to everyone here on the panel as well. i do give drinks to other people besides just scott at the table, i just want to --

>> non alcoholic, right? >> we don't have the budget to hand out much, now. you can look at the bag, you can hold the mic, you can put the bug back. there is also a big spike in crime and oakland, leading some companies to warrant their employees not to even leave the building for lunch, i am serious. some people are afraid to go outside. so, what is behind the surge? we will explore it, next.

once bustling city, now facing a surge of violence. crime in oakland, california was up in several categories last year, even as crime fell and other major cities.

several businesses have even had to close up shop. here is cnn's veronica miracle. >> reporter: chaotic scenes from oakland, california, a city now notorious for its violent crime. the -- corridor one at the worst parts of the city, once a thriving road with chain stores and local businesses, it is now an area many avoid. so, customers are scared and not a stain to eat? >> exactly. they call for us -- and ordered the food to go. >> reporter: one year since opening this restaurant, this woman's business has been broken into twice, her customers targeted countless times. >> for my customers, they broke the windows of the car, took everything. >> reporter: for let's forest down the street from this racing came, square employees tell us they do drive-through service only. this cage here is where employees park their cars, and there are signs everywhere telling people to eat and leave. just around the corner, the

well-known burger chain in and out will be closing this location, not from lack of business, but because customers and associates are regularly victimized by car break-ins, property damage, theft and armed robberies. and 2023, oakland police recorded increases and burglaries, robberies, and auto thefts by 23, 38, and 45% compared to the year prior. in the last week, several companies across oakland have all announced safety concerns. kaiser permanente told its workers in a leaked memo obtained by ktvu not to leave the building port lunch or hold meetings downtown. >> it creates this avalanche of people afraid to go out, which actually creates and makes it even a worse problem. >> reporter: sherrie godinez is a third generation oakland are. what is it like seeing restaurant after restaurant closed on this block? >> it is very heartbreaking. >> reporter: godinez represents hundreds of businesses as the executive director of a business collective.

more than half of the businesses recently surveyed said they were closing or leaving oakland. >> to see oakland transition from such a driving community to starting to look like a ghost town is devastating. >> reporter: godinez's organization and other business districts want city leaders to make policy changes that would allow oakland police to operate more effectively. she says businesses like this home decor store, burglarized just a few weeks ago, experienced repeated break-ins. groups of people organized and strategic, often captured on citywide cameras, hit several businesses at a time. crime, she says, is changing the local economy. >> first friday is a launch path to get started. >> reporter: she believes it is part of the reason the oakland forced fridays treat for, put on to showcase businesses, has been temporarily shut down for the first time in ten years. the >> it makes you emotional just thinking about it. >> i don't want to see it go away. >> reporter: the city is taking action. oakland mayor, qingdao, who has

been in office just when your, already facing a vehicle from dissatisfied voters, but her office increase the number of police across the city, including the handgun burger corridor. that area saw a 23% reduction in auto burglaries in 2023 compared to the year before. the oakland police say they are working alongside community members and law enforcement partners at all levels to resources strategically to combat criminal activity. nigel johns is a restaurant tour who emigrated to the u.s. from jamaica. one of his restaurants, kingston 11, was ransacked last fall. it is around that fall, he says, he started working with other business owners to find solutions and bring them to city leaders. so, you have achieved your american dream and oakland. you want others to be able to do the same? >> yes. there are folks who can't go anywhere and need to make the city thrive, and i am one of those folks. not that i can't go anywhere, but i don't want to. i am 100% committed to oakland being a place where people can

thrive and achieve their dreams. >> reporter: veronica miracle, cnn, oakland, california. >> veronica miracle, thank you so much for that. up next, sentenced to more than two decades in prison, held responsible for someone else's crimes. now, the story of cannabis sniff is meaning made into a movie and is a story that is very personal to me. back in a moment.

abuse and justice and finally, freedom. campus smith was only 23 years

old when she was sentenced to more than two decades and prison. the air was 1994, and the war on drugs was as rampant as it was racist. can't bose boyfriend at the time, peter hull, was a drug dealer. can vote witness from a legal stuff go down, but she would not commit his crimes. she had no history of violence, not even a single prior offense. still, can you belong -- believe none of that mattered. why? because of mandatory and imam sentencing guidelines. after kemba's boyfriend was murdered, she was held accountable for his actions. she was 24 years old and sentenced to 24 years. for someone else's crimes. unfortunately, with the help of the naacp legal defense fund, she was released in 2000 after six years in prison. now, her remarkable life story is a movie, premiering february 22nd on b.e.t. plus. here is an exclusive clip. >> what is going on?

>> i don't know. >> okay. >> could you at least tell us what you are looking for? >> peter hall, also known as -- >> well, he certainly isn't and addressed said tour, that's for sure. >> do you know his whereabouts? >> no, sir, we do not. >> that's my baby. >> people often ask me why i became a prosecutor. well, the reason is here, and her name is kemba smith. the director of that smith, kelly collie, and i am so thrilled to have both of you here today. i tell you this before. in 1994, it was that emerge magazine that said kemba's nightmare. my mother gave it to us three daughters in her household and said, i need you to read this and understand what could be in

life. it is always -- has always stuck with me. it changed my trajectory. and for so many other young women, now a new generation of people will earn your story. what does this feel like, kemba? >> it feels surreal. it is actually -- i have to let go of my own feelings, because not everyone would want to put all of their past decisions that weren't the best and being in a in abusive relationship during college, but it feels good to be here, thank you. it is bigger than just me, like you said. i actually -- actually, one of the characters and my film, michelle west, she actually has a clemency petition and, but she was sentenced to life sentences plus 50 years, and she still is sitting in federal prison. once i was released and once all this galvanizing and momentum with my story and it took the president of the united states to release me, i

had a sense of survival skills because so much was john fortney, but i knew there were other women who were in similar situations that deserve a second chance. so, i continue to be a human face for those i left behind. >> useful battle with some of that guilty to this day. >> of course i do. she is still there and there is so many other people fighting, and with my movie, there will be a social impact campaign that is launched along with it. some of the things that we would like to do, what we would like the federal government to do and states across the country, is look at second look legislation, governors to exercise their power of clemency to give other people second chances. >> this has been your big priority, as well. you have been making the film because -- you can't take it lightly. when you hear a 24 year old, 24 years, for crime that she didn't commit, to think about being in college. you think about the end young and dumb like we all have been, and maybe it will be again. to think about the relatability

and the consequences -- you really brought out the multi dimensional 80 of all the people who are portrayed in a real life story and brought on film. >> yes, and that is important. as a storyteller, at least from my perspective, my background is in anthropology from howard university, and what i was taught there is that we are all not one note. i find that in movies and storytelling oftentimes, you have this one note villain and then this one note he wrote. that is not life, that is not what we go through. when we are able to tell stories such as kemba's, we have to be, one, conscientious and careful because it is a bioptic, and these are real people who have family and kids who are still living today that we need to make sure we are not causing trauma to them as well. but if we are showing the truth and showing the layers of the individual, even if they didn't make good decisions, there is still a human being, there.

no one wakes up and says, mommy, i want to be a drug dealer one day. there are circumstances in which people live in that cause those decisions. heaven forbid we ever have to make decisions like that, but we can't release it and say that we would never do that. not until you are placed in that circumstance. as a storyteller and filmmaker, i think it is our responsibility to take that care in every single person, character, whoever you are depicting on screen. >> you said it so profound, and yet, so many people do sit in judgment. i have been a prosecutor. i never endeavored to be a judge. i was hoping to be a conduit and a voice for people. there are those who sit in judgment and think i would never. that is her, that is him, that is what they do. they think they are better than the circumstances they are

around, and i just wonder, you have had a lifetime since that 24-year-old girl inside a few. when you look back now, do you judge her? >> i don't judge her because i understand that she was a young, naive, impressionable college student. i made some choices that weren't the best. what i do look at is the fact that i was a survivor, and i was indicted by federal government that didn't take into consideration the fact that i was being abused and a domestic violence aspect. i feel as if that is something -- mitigating circumstances that the prosecutor should have taken into consideration. i do accept responsibility for the choices that weren't made, that is why i am so transparent in telling my story, because i do want to prevent the prisoner to school pipeline, and from young people to go down that same path -- not to go down

that same path. also, it has been my mission to highlight the prosecutorial misconduct that happened, or i turned myself in seven months pregnant and the prosecutors said that he would grant me a bond to give birth to my son, and also promised that if i pled guilty, i would only get 24 months. heat reneged on that promise as well. it is really important for me to let people know what happened and how easy it is to get caught up. >> i am proud of you, kemba, proud of you, kemba kelly, and proud of this movie because i think the story needs to be told. and frankly, our stories, while not a monolith, is far more expensive than people give us credit for. i am really glad this is coming to light, and it is one that will always be near endure to my heart. thank you so much. >> thank you, laura. >> thank you. >> thank you all for watching, our coverage continues.

i think he's having a midlife crisis i'm not. you got us t-mobile home internet lite. after a week of streaming they knocked us down... ...to dial up speeds. like from the 90s. great times. all i can do say is that my life is pre--