grew a customs to the ones that we are in right now. a bombshell revelations about the presidents behavior. and then the wondering. will this be it. will this be the thing that finally jolts jolts some of tru supporters enough that they change their views of him? will this be the thing that convinces certain people that he is lawless and dangerous and that he has an entire political party and its infrastructure behind him? of course, the answer was generally no. there will never be a bridge too far for donald trump an epiphany moment for the vast majority of his supporters, but for some, at least on an individual level, perhaps there is, and perhaps this is it. for cassidy hutchinson, the young unflappable white house staffer who testified before the january 6th investigation yesterday, the events she

witnessed on and around january 6th last year were the tipping point for her. she described feeling frustrated and disappointed and disgusted with the president's apparent approval of the violence as the capital was being overrun but for the most part, we should probably stop looking for big shifts in public opinion about donald trump in reaction to new information. politically, americans seem pretty set in their opinions about him, but opinions aren't everything. there's actually this interesting pesky little thing called the law. and on that front, there's a noticeable shift happening today in one area. there's a real insignificant shift under way in analysis about whether donald trump might now, as a result of all of this new information, actually be prosecuted for his role in january 6th. people who thought that would never happen today awoke today

thinking it just might and perhaps more likely than not and that shift is happening where it matters, inside the justice department itself. we're going to have some brand new reporting on that in just a couple of moments. but what exactly is it about yesterday's testimony that is making legal experts and political observers think that we might be substantially closer to a trump criminal indictment than we were 48 hours ago. and the answer to that is simple, according to cassidy hutchinson's testimony, on the morning of january 6th, the white house's top lawyer, pat cipollone, was actively worried that donald trump was on his way to commit a crime, or to commit several crimes. >> i saw mr. cipollone right before i walked out that morning, and mr. cipollone said something to the effect of please make sure we don't go to the capitol, cassidy, keep in

touch with me, we're going to get charged with every crime imaginable if we make that movement happen. >> and do you remember which crimes mr. cipollone was concerned with? >> in the days leading up to the 6th, we had conversations about potentially obstructing justice or defrauding the electoral count. >> white house lawyers including pat cipollone were very concerned about what trump was planning to do on january 6th. and for good reason. one thing that became clear from cassidy hutchinson's testimony yesterday is that it was widely known and discussed inside the white house for days before january 6th that trump wanted to personally go to the capital with his supporters and disrupt the certification of joe biden's win. here she was describing white house lawyers trying to change the plan language in trump's speech at his rally on january 6th.

>> there were many discussions the morning of the 6th about the rhetoric of the speech that day. in my conversations with mr. hirschman, he had relayed that he would be forced to include language that had been included at the president's request, which headlines along to the effect of fight for trump, we're going to march to the capitol, i'll be there with you, fight for me, fight for for what we're doing, fight for the movement, things about the vice president at the time, too. both mr. hirschman and the white house counsel's office were urging the speech writers not to include that language for legal concerns and also for the optics of what it could portray the president wanting to do that day. >> now, i'll assume you probably have seen the political speech or two in your time, right, politicians use the word fight

all the time, it's generally understood to be metaphorical, you probably have never watched a politician to fight a political goal and go commit actual physical violence but the lawyers in the white house clearly knew that that is exactly what donald trump was intending to communicate on january 6th, and that's exactly how it would be received by his supporters because again, amongst the people closest to him in the white house, it was no secret that trump wanted to go to the capital and he wanted to stop the electoral count. but if you were still inclined to believe that president trump was just speaking metaphorically when he used those terms, that he did not intend for there to be violence at the capitol january 6th, it was this part of the cassidy hutchinson's testimony that was the most jaw dropping. cassidy hutchinson described the scene backstage at trump's rally on the morning of january 6th

just before trump was to take the stage. look at the crowd here. trump was apparently furious because the space that was set aside for the rally was not full. and we all know how trump hates an unflattering crowd size. ms. hutchison told the investigators that trump's aide had been telling him all morning, the issue was not people were not being let in, it was that lots of people were refusing to enter the rally area, because they were carrying weapons. and to enter the rally space, they had to go through magnetometers, or mags and have their weapons confiscated. many people who had gone into the rally area had already had all kinds of weapons confiscated including pepper spray, knive, brass knuckle, body armor, gas masks and batons. >> in this instance, is wasn't the capacity of our space, it was the knives of the people who didn't want to go through and that's what tony had tried to

relay to him that morning particular is not the issue on the campaign, we have enough space, they don't want to come in, they have weapons, they don't want confiscated by the secret service. and they're want to march straight to the capital from the mall. >> the president apparently wanted all attendees inside the official rally space and repeatedly said quote, they're not here to hurt me. >> and just to be clear, so he was told again in that conversation, or what he told you in that conversation, that people couldn't come through the mags because they had weapons. >> correct. >> and that people, and his response was to say they can march to the capital from, from the ellipse. >> something to the effect that take the mags away, they're not hurt me, let them in, let my

people in, they can march after the rally is over, they can march from the ellipse, take them away and they can march to the capital. >> donald trump had been talking for days about leading to the capital to stop the count. and white house lawyers had been trying for days to get him not to do that because it could result in the crimes in the words pat cipollone every crime imaginable. they were trying to get him not to say certain things that could incite the crowd to violence and backstage that morning, trump makes clear that he wants his armed supporters allowed into his rally, so they can march on the capital from there. legal experts who spoke to the "new york times" today said that, quote, knowing that his crowd of supporters had the means to be violent when he exhorted them to march to the capital and declared that he wanted to go with them could nudge mr. trump closer to facing

criminal charges. one former justice department official tells the time, quote, what just happened changed my bottom line. i've gone from trump is less than likely to be charged to he is more than likely to be charged. even trump's own attorney general, bill barr, seems to think charges are possible now, from the justice department, that he used to run, telling the "times" quote that the department is looking into all of this and this hearing definitely gave investigate areas lot to chew on. and now we may get to hear evidence straight from the guy inside the white house, who was so worried about the legal implications of trump's actions. this evening, the january 6th investigation has issued a subpoena to trump white house counsel pat cipollone. he did sit for an informal off camera interview with investigators in april, but the committee writes to him tonight, quote, in the weeks since the select committee has continued to obtain evidence about which you are uniquely positioned to

testify. unfortunately, however, you have declined to cooperate with us further. we are left with no choice but to issue you this subpoena. now, as for the justice department, we know it has its own wide-ranging january 6th investigation go under way. issuing a flurry of subpoenas and key figures in the scheme trump and his allies engaged in to try to overturn the 2020 election. we don't know how close that investigation is to donald trump himself but we are learning tonight that yesterday's block buster testimony may have changed the calculus inside the justice department about how strong a case they may actually have against the former president. joining us now is david rowe, the executive editor of the new yorker.com, he's got some new reporting on deliberations inside the justice department, regarding charging donald trump. he's also the author, most

recently of "in deep, the fbi, the cia, and the truth about america's deep state," david, good to see you. thank you for making time to be with us tonight. since the attack on the u.s. capitol, one of the things that's been debated in legal circles, if not doubted outright, is whether or not there's enough evidence for the justice department to actually prosecute donald trump. did cassidy hutchison's testimony yesterday change that? >> i think it did. and the key thing is his mindset. that he knew what he was doing was wrong. it's this issue of can you show corrupt intent. and there's a very difference, you know, between as you said calling on your supporters to fight, versus encouraging an armed mob to assault the united states capitol and then trying to join them and lead nem as the president of the united states. so i talked to multiple former justice department officials and they do think this changes

things. and separately the feeling insise the justice department they have been aggressively investigating this case. there are weekly meetings where attorney general gr garland is updated by the latest investigation as a whole, the sprawling investigation. and including evidence against donald trump. there is no decision on whether that, there is enough evidence but garland is pushing, he signed off on a letter that asked for more on all of the transcripts on the january 6th committee a few weeks ago and as you mentioned there is a flurry of search, of subpoenas being issued, phones were seized, of john eastman, and john clark who was trying to be trump's pro, if you will, big lie attorney general. so there is movement inside the justice department and i'm hearing from former officials this new evidence will change their calculus. but i just want to be frank. no one knows. there's no final decision yet. but this was a big moment

yesterday. >> let's talk about the john eastman phone situation. why is that important? >> it's very unusual to seize a lawyer's phone. you have attorney-client privilege. it's long-held american right. and that should be respected. so that suggests that there is significant evidence. you have to show a judge that there is probable cause that a crime was committed and probable cause that evidence of that crime would be on the phone, so both eastman's phone and clark's phone were seized by federal investigators. and that shows again, judges are saying there is significant evidence here, and it is again to the cyst justice department, that their -- to the credit of the justice department that they're carrying out, seizing these phones. and then they issued subpoenas, i think in at least four states. i know georgia and arizona, trying to get records and evidence from some of these fake electors that the focus of the investigation is well, the scheme to have trump electors

basically steal multiple states electoral votes before jan ri6th. so again, much more aggressive moves by the justice department. >> let go back to the committee. when we talked to members of the committee, some of them said it is important to outline the guardrails that didn't exist so they can determine what legislation can exist in the future or how we clarify things but there are some members of the committee, including the vice chair liz cheney who maintained from the outset that trump and his allies knowingly and intentionally broke the law and that there are crimes to be had here. the department of justice needs to weigh that. because the committee, even if liz cheney is right, can't do anything about that. only the justice department can say that there seems to be enough evidence for us to actually charge either donald trump or rudy giuliani, or one of the people in that circle. where are we on that front? >> i think the committee has

done a tremendous job of educating the public, and win this politically and weaken donald trump politically and i think there are republicans that are convinced that bill barr, you know, dismissing this idea that the election was stolen, and another aide, bill stepien, saying the same thing, and i think there are republicans who think of trump running again and i, they hear his accounts from republicans, including cassidy hutchison and there is a fatigue that this person is going to, i think in the tend will be the justice department, and again today i heard from a former official who is very much a centrist and a defender of bill barr, he thought that the cassidy hutchison evidence brought a criminal charge for obstruction of an official proceeding. that would be stopping the electoral counteract. the legal standard is was there an official proceeding and the answer is yes, obviously,

counting of electors votes and again, corrupt intent that was shown by trump's actions and what he knew. he knew there was an armed crowd. he urged them to storm the capitol. and he tried to join them. so it is a big moment. >> and obstruction of an official proceeding is the thing that liz cheney is hanging her hat on, that is the thing she says is the most important charge here and it is important to note that under the law, in that particular case, the intent is secondary, to the sbul instruction of the hearing if that actually took place. . david, thank you very much. good to see you as always. the executive editor of the new yorker.com. thank you for your reporting. >> thank you. today the former trump chief of staff mark meadows denied the allegation that he sought a pardon for his role in january 6th. whether he asked for a pardon or not, my question is how much legal exposure does the former chief of staff have now? we'll discuss that on the other side. chief of staff have now? we'll discuss that on the other side

♪ ♪ how's he still playin'? aspercreme arthritis. full prescription-strength. reduces inflammation. don't touch my piano. kick pain in the aspercreme.

since the attack on the u.s. capital on january 6th we've been hearing a lot about donald trump's failure to stop the violence that day. and although that 187 minutes of inaction will forever be marked in the history of this country, there's also the matter of other white house officials who, having the power to do something as an attempted coup was under way, decided to do nothing. and i'm thinking about this guy. trump's white house chief of staff, mark meadows. according to cassidy hutchinson's testimony, meadows remained glue, remained glue to his phone during the attack on the capital, despite being told by security officials of trump supporters being armed on their way to congress. >> talking to mark that morning, mark was sitting on his couch, on his phone, which was something typical and i got into informing him how many people we

have on the mags right now, these are the weapons that we're going to have, possibly more, i just don't recall. and i remembered distinctly mark not looking up from his phone, i remembered telling him, this explanation, and it taking a few seconds to say quote, mark, did you hear me, and then mark chimed in, anything else, still looking down at his phone. >> anything else? hutchinson told the committee as the attack on the united states capitol progressed, mark meadows was informed about rioters sbet entering the capitol calling for vice president mike pence to be hanged. yesterday we learned that mark meadows was apparently okay with the president's assessment.

>> i remember pat saying something to the effect of mark, we need to do something more, they're literally calling for the vice president's -- and mark had responded something to the effect of you heard pat, he thinks he deserves it, he doesn't think they're doing anything wrong. >> doesn't think they're doing anything wrong. hutchinson told the committee, that the night before, meadows wanted to attend a meeting at the will ard hotel in dc set up by rudy giuliani and others to spearhead the election, all of these are big revelations that came out of yesterday's meeting, they may not seem big because of everything that we know that was going on and that's the nature of the story, these are huge things. the big question, is how much legal exposure does trump's chief of staff have, this man was the chief of staff to the

president of the united states, and enough legal exposure for him to ask for a presidential pardon? that was another detail that came oust hearing and the only one thus far that meadows has explicitly denied. joining us now to discuss it is the former united states attorney and co-host of the sisters podcast joyce vance. good evening. good to see you. thank you for being with us. one of the most jaw-dropping moments of cassidy hushen hutchen's testimony and that is saying something, the day before, january 5th, the day before the insurrection, mark meadows wanted to attend a meeting in the so-called war room at the willard hotel that giuliani and others were scheming, where they were scheming to overturn the election results. nothing seems unusual these days, because this thing is so weird, but that is something, that is the chief of staff of the president of the united

states, going to the willard hotel, to talk to these, this clown car of insurrectionists about overturning the election. how serious a matter is that? >> i'm fascinated by they don't tail. i think it's very serious. and here's why. we don't know a whole lot about the thinking that is going on insise the justice department. they're not tipping their hand. but we do know that the d.o.j. believes there was a seditious conspiracy being planned by the members of the oath keepers and another by members of the proud boys, we know because the d.o.j. has indicted those conspiracies and they confirmed it was an effort to use violence to overthrow the government. well, we know that there were plenty of oath keepers and proud boys in communication with these folks at the willard war room. and we know now from cassidy hutchinson's testimony, that mark meadows wasn't really surprised as the proud boys and the oath keepers and the crowd

and the mob proceeded toward the capitol on january 6th and overran it. it was substantial but if meadows gets tagged up with this group at the willard war room, which he now has been, he will have to explain why he was trying to get involved there, if it was not, if he was not a participant, and this really should come together in a very interesting and not at all good way for mark meadows. it highlights, i think, this difference, in what we're seeing, we're seeing the committee focus on donald trump, and what was going on in his orbit, and that is why we're seeing these pieces of information. we know that d.o.j. is meticulous about going up the ladder from the bottom of it and build criminal cases, is the oath keepers and proud boys level, they haven't made it into the willard war room explicitly yet and we now have an additional target that could be in d.o.j.'s sights. >> for a moment, these are two

separate things, the war room, the lawyer, the crone yifs donald trump were looking of a legal war on the results of the election and there was this violent yins recollectionist side, where we've seen these charges of seditious conspiracy. >> seditious conspiracy. >> i was going to say -- this is where they tie together. what we heard from cassidy hutchinson is that days before january 6th, mark meadows understood that there may be some violence involved here, meadows apparently shared that information with donald trump and yet they both seem relatively unperturbed by the potential violence at the capitol. what is that? is that willful blindness? is that a connection between the idea that we know something violent might happen and meanwhile we're trying these legal attempts to overturn the election and the two may dove tail nicely. what do you make of that as a

prosecutor? >> well, it could be a lot of things and i don't want to overstate it, i think it's important to appreciate that when we look at pieces of evidence, there can be more than one explanation. and something prosecutors have to do is consider exculpatory views on this evidence, that means the view of the evidence that would tend to not incriminate someone. but if you were thinking through this and looking to see how the evidence could fit together, you might view this, this lack of an effort to shut down a violent insurrection as circumstantial evidence, that the people who did that, donald trump and mark meadows, that they knew about the insurrection because they intended for it to happen. that is quite a leap. that is clearly an investigatory path that has to be pursued because until you burn that one out and find some evidence that suggests that that is not the case, i think you're exactly right to say that we're at this

point where we're seeing these two thread, the obstruction of congress thread, that had to interfere with the certification of the vote and perhaps the violence, perhaps they do come together, we've always thought perhaps that was the case. there is a big difference between perhaps and beyond a reasonable doubt. >> and with a matter this important, we actually have to make sure no stone is left unturned. joyce thanks as always. great to see you. former u.s. attorney joyce vance. in just a minute, we will be joined by a member of the january 6th committee who w.h.o. appears to be making news tonight about potential witness tampering. congresswoman zoe lofgren joins us after the break. tampering. congresswoman zoe lofgren joins us after the break

i'm jonathan lawson here to tell you about life insurance through the colonial penn program. if you're age 50 to 85, and looking to buy life insurance on a fixed budget, remember the three ps. what are the three ps? the three ps of life insurance on a fixed budget are price, price, and price. a price you can afford, a price that can't increase, and a price that fits your budget. i'm 54, what's my price? you can get coverage for $9.95 a month. i'm 65 and take medications. what's my price? also $9.95 a month. i just turned 80, what's my price? $9.95 a month for you too. if you're age 50 to 85, call now about the #1 most popular whole life insurance plan available through the colonial penn program.

it has an affordable rate starting at $9.95 a month. no medical exam, no health questions. your acceptance is guaranteed. and this plan has a guaranteed lifetime rate lock so your rate can never go up for any reason. so call now for free information and you'll also get this free beneficiary planner. and it's yours free just for calling. so call now for free information. what if i sleep hot? ...or cold? no problem. the sleep number 360 smart bed is temperature balancing, so you both stay comfortable and can help you get almost 30 minutes more restful sleep per night. the queen sleep number 360 c2 smart bed is only $899. plus, free home delivery when you add a base. ends monday.

every search you make, every click you take, every move you make, every step you take, i'll be watching you. the internet doesn't have to be duckduckgo is a free all in one privacy app with a built in search engine, web browser, one click data clearing and more stop companies like google from watching you,

by downloading the app today. duckduckgo: privacy, simplified. as an american, i was disgusted. it was unpatriotic. it was unamerican. we were watching the capitol building get defaced over a lie. >> before cassidy hutchinson showed up to testify publicly and long before we started seeing her face in videos presented by the investigation, hutchinson was a trusted 20-something white house aide. both physically and figurative ty close to the center of the white house, being indispensable to chief of staff mark meadows. hutchinson had previously interned for house minority whip steve scalise and ted cruz

before landing in the trump white house. according to the "washington post," many former trump advisers were stunned to see hutchinson testify. . as a fiercely loyal aide to meadows, some believed she would defend him no matter what. for others, she was quite literally the last person that former trump advisers expected to see testifying against their former boss in this investigation. one former white house official told the "post" quote, she was totally enthusiastic about trump and working in that white house, end quote. so the fact that cassidy hutchenson decided to testify publicly before the committee is in itself notable. and the fact that she did so despite being warned not to do so by trump allies, is also interesting. according to punch bowl news, at least one of the two potential witnesses tampering, potential witness tampering messages by investigators yesterday was sent to hutchinson and because those

close to trump couldn't dissuade her from providing her damning account what she saw in the white house, people in trump world are now attempting to cast doubt over her testimony. specifically her recollection of what another white house aide told her about the former president lunging at a secret service agent in an attempt to take the steering wheel and head to the capitol on january the 6th. today hutchinson's lawyers tell msnbc that she stands by her account but whether or not trump did throw a fit over not being driven to the capitol is actually largely beside the point compared to her testimony that donald trump desperately wanted to march and lead a mob that he knew was armed to the capitol. joining us now, is the california congresswoman and member of the january 6th investigation zoe lofgren, congresswoman, thank you for being with us, this evening, and cassidy hutchinson tonight is standing by her testimony, as

sources who were close to tony ornato and the secret service claim that ornato and bobby engel, the secret service agent who trump allegedly lunged at would testify under oath that what hutchinson testified about did not happen. what do you make of those claims and the effort to cast doubt on cassidy hutchinson's testimony. >> well, her testimony, under oath, wasn't about what happened, because she wasn't there, it was that mr. ornato told her that, and that mr. engel was present and didn't deny it. so we'll see if they want to come in under oath, and deny that, fine, the real point is no one is denying that the former president wanted to go to the capitol, and lead this armed mob. and be there while they attacked the capitol. that's the point. and it's, no one can deny it. i mean that she actually heard

the president himself talk about removing the effing mags, and that the armed supporters were not going to hurt him, that they can march from the ellipse to the capitol, is stunning and the most important revelation really i think of all of the things she testified to. >> one of the punch bowl news reported today, that hutchinson was one of the witnesses who was sent a message described by vice chair of the committee liz cheney, as potential witness tampering. now, on that issue, you said something tonight in another tv interview that i want to ask you about. you said, quote, in a prior hearing, we talked about the hundreds of millions of dollars that the former president raised, some of that money is being used to pay for lawyers for witnesses and it's not clear that that arrangement is one that is without coercion, potential for some of those

witnesses. i want to ask you to elaborate on that. what do you mean by that? >> well, i mean we know that large amounts of money have been spent out of the fund that was amassed by the former president, and is being used to pay for lawyers, to various witnesses, and the potential for coercion in that case is pretty obvious. i'm not going to comment on which witness those threatening messages were sent to, but obviously, if you read them, there's an intent to dissuade a witness from testifying honestly. so this is a concern. and i just want people who would try and interfere with a witness, who would coerce them, or threaten them, to know that that's not legal. and we do not intend to just sit by and watch that happen.

>> let's explore that a little bit. are you worried that the backlash, that cassidy hutchinson is now facing, by her former colleagues and supporters of the former president, that that may influence other witnesses and make them hesitant to come forward and when you say we're not going to allow that to happen, what you can actually offer? >> all i'm saying is that certainly, ms. hutchinson, although she's young, is pretty wise, she knew, and we knew, that when she testified, trump loyalists would try to undercut her testimony, attack her, belittle her and try and discount her testimony under oath. and in fact, that's what is happening right now. but as to witness intimidation, that's a crime. and individuals who are trying to protect the president are committing a crime. we intend to take the evidence that we get of that, and not

just sit on it. people ought to be aware that committing the crime, witness tampering, is a serious matter and it is not going to be ignored. >> as a lawyer, you know a lot about crimes and i guess there are people involved in the january 6th who may have been involved, may not have known about things, pat cipollone was a lawyer, is a lawyer, and a lot of information about him came out in yesterday's hearing. you have spoken to him on the committee at some point. but at this point, you are asking in fact, this evening you have issued a subpoena, you want more information from him under oath. tell me about that. >> well, pretty clearly, if you watch the hearing yesterday, with ms. hutchinson, he was relaying information to people other than the president, and we need to talk to him about it. there have been some informal discussions but not the full discussion that we need. we respect that there are some

elements of the advice he gave directly to the president, that may be subject to privilege. so you know, respecting that will work, we'll work through those issue, and clearly, some of what he said in here did not fall into that category, and we need to talk to him. and we hope he comes in promptly. >> congresswoman, thank you for your time tonight. we appreciate it. california congresswoman and member of the january 6th investigation, zoe lofgren. stay with us. lofgren. stay with us

do you have a life insurance policy you no longer need? now you can sell your policy - even a term policy - for an immediate cash payment. we thought we had planned carefully for our retirement. but we quickly realized we needed a way to supplement our income. if you have $100,000 or more of life insurance, you may qualify to sell your policy. don't cancel or let your policy lapse without finding out what it's worth. visit coventrydirect.com to find out if your policy qualifies. or call the number on your screen. coventry direct, redefining insurance.

. when people talk about the ripple effect of the supreme court decision on abortion, this is what they were talking about. last night, one of the largest hospital systems in kansas city, missouri, announced that it would no longer be providing emergency contraception in light of the supreme court knocking down roe v. wade. missouri's one of the states where abortion is now against the law, and so this one hospital system said that given the vague language in the law, it would be stopping the administration of the morning after pill in every one of their hospitals in the state just in case. the thing about this though is that emergency contraception is not abortion. it is conception. it's in the name. contraception. you cannot terminate a pregnancy that does not exist and would think that a major medical institution would know this. this hospital system by the way

has since reversed its decision and will once again be administering emergency contraception and had swift determination of lumping plan b into abortion services and other health care broirs called the move dangerous and it is. and it is the might nare scenario that reap can controlled lawmakers will use the end of roe as an excuse to ban access to contraception as well this. one hospital's decision to briefly cave to those expectations signals that we could be approaching that very nightmare sooner than we anticipated. but in the early days of this crisis, and that's where we are, all focus remains trained right now on expanding the number of people who can access legal abortions, now that it is no longer a guaranteed constitutional right in america. let's take for example north dakota. north dakota has had just one abortion clinic for more than 20

years now. it is in fargo, north dakota, the red river women's clinic. north dakota is one of those states that had a trigger law already in place to ban abortion once roe v. wade was struck down. that trigger law will go into effect on july 28th. and so for now, that lone abortion clinic north dakota will keep the lights on until it is forced by law, on july 28th, to shut everything down. because at this point, at least for the foreseeable future, trying to expand abortion access in the state that is hostile to abortion is basically a nonstarter. you would quite literally have to somehow move heaven and earth to make the impossible possible. but it seems like the red river women's clinic is going to try, at least as far as the earth part of the equation is concerned. that lone north dakota clinic is incredibly close to the border with neighboring minnesota. it is literally just a ten-minute walk across the river.

the red river. after which the clinic is named. and so the red river women's clinic says it is going to quite literally pick up the entire operation, and move it across the river and plop the whole thing down in minnesota. it's the kind of idea that sounds so hear-brained on paper but it has the potential to work. the owner and operator of the red river women's clinic. tammy, i was about to say it is good to see you again, it is not good to see you again, every time you and i talk it is because there is bad news but around that bad news, you and your colleagues have devoted your time and lives and careers to women's reproductive health and women's reproductive health care and tell us how this move over into minnesota is going to work. >> thanks, ali. so last fall, when the fda came

out in texas, there was a special session planned in north dakota, and it was meant to help spend down federal covid dollars but some legislators in north dakota wanted to copy cat, and we were fearful they would use that special session to do that and we started to look for space and we weren't finding what we needed. there weren't very many ideal spaces for us, kept looking, kept looking, and then the leak came out in may and it really accelerated our process. so we've been able to secure a location. and we plan to, you know, like you said, provide abortion in north dakota, as long as we legally can, and then we will provide in morehead, minnesota. >> is there, one of the things we've been hearing about in addition to what we were just talking about in kansas city, the ripple effects of the ban on

abortion, is these fears that there's going to be a handmaid's tale type hunting down of abortion providers. are you worried about the people who are employed by you, or work with your organization, in north dakota, who will be chased down by the law, because providing abortion is going to be illegal in north dakota? so even though it is happening in minnesota, is there any liability for you and your staff? >> there's never zero risk. there's certainly a low risk and we discussed that with our attorneys. you know, it would take a prosecutor who feels like they want to come back after us, and we actually had a patient today who on her paperwork wrote i'm fearful for prosecution of myself. so not only are our staff confused and scared maybe, but patients are expressing those fears as well. >> in our lifetime, we are once

again hearing women who are fearful of their own prosecution for seeking an abortion. tammy, thanks very much and i don't mean it's not good to see you, i'm grateful that people like you are out here doing this and i wish we could talk about something else sometime. maybe one day we will. >> i hope so. thanks. >> the red river women's clinic relocated to mississippi. one thing to keep your eye on coming up next. to missi ippi. one thing to keep your eye on coming up next.

i'm jonathan lawson here to tell you about life insurance through the colonial penn program. if you're age 50 to 85, and looking to buy life insurance on a fixed budget, remember the three ps. what are the three ps? the three ps of life insurance on a fixed budget are price, price, and price. a price you can afford, a price that can't increase, and a price that fits your budget. i'm 54, what's my price? you can get coverage for $9.95 a month. i'm 65 and take medications.

what's my price? also $9.95 a month. i just turned 80, what's my price? $9.95 a month for you too. if you're age 50 to 85, call now about the #1 most popular whole life insurance plan available through the colonial penn program. it has an affordable rate starting at $9.95 a month. no medical exam, no health questions. your acceptance is guaranteed. and this plan has a guaranteed lifetime rate lock so your rate can never go up for any reason. so call now for free information and you'll also get this free beneficiary planner. and it's yours free just for calling. so call now for free information.

millions have made the switch from the big three to xfinity mobile. that means millions are saving hundreds a year on their wireless bill. and all of those millions are on the nation's most reliable 5g network, with the carrier rated #1 in customer satisfaction. that's a whole lot of happy campers out there. and it's never too late to join them. get unlimited data with 5g included for just $30 a line per month when you get 4 lines. switch to xfinity mobile today.

today, justice stephen briar announced that tomorrow is the last day on the supreme court, he announced his departure in a letter to president biden today, concluding nearly 28 years of service on the nation's highest court. at noon eastern tomorrow, breyr will depart and have the successor ketanji brown jackson,

and the first african american woman to sit on the court. her elevation to the highest court will mark the first time that four women have sat on the court at the same time. tomorrow's ceremony at noon eastern will be live-streamed on the supreme court website. that does it for us tonight. we will see you again tomorrow. "way too early" with jonathan lemire is up next. s up next. trump white house counsel pat cipollone subpoenaed. after declining repeated requests from the january 6th committee nor an on the record interview, he is now being compelled to testify under oath. president biden meeting with allies right now on the heels of nato with a direct threat and issuing a warning about china. we'll have a live report ahead of the news conference with the president a little later this morning. and breaking news overnight, as israel's parliament dissolves, paving the way for a fifth election in less than four years.