another member i spoke to, representative quigley told me this was an olive branch conversation. this was not the president demanding anything from anyone. this was the president reminding everyone that they are on the same team after a week in which the moderates and the progressives have been deeply divided, deeply entrenched in their positions and no one has been willing to budge. so the president coming toorksd sp today, speaking for a half hour. he offered to take questions but i'm told members in the room deflected. got up and gave him a big applause and some members encouraged him not to take questions in a joking manner because of how long things could go. this was the president trying to bring folks together. i'm told the move was positive. that people were feeling optimistic. but he definitely tried to lay out a few parameters around what members should be expecting, jake. >> lauren fox. jeremy at the white house, what do you know about the white house calculations for sending

president biden to the hill today? it seems like a risky thing unless a deal is imminent, but he came out and it does not sound like a deal is imminent. >> and certainly a big part of the calculation in terms of what they were hoping to accomplish is what lauren is reporting in terms of the president laying out the stakes for a caucus that is very divided at the moment. trillions of dollars apart, in fact. and to paint a bigger picture for these members as they delve deeper into the negotiations. certainly the timing is no mistake. over the course of the last week we've been hearing that there were discussions about the possibility of president biden heading to capitol hill. and today that decision was made for the president to go now. why now? the white house has been a central part of building up a lot of that pressure around the potential for that infrastructure vote last night. when that vote was delayed by the speaker of the house, the white house officials and others on capitol hill said that it did seem to help perhaps crystallize

things for the different parties involved in negotiating this deal. so now it appears with the president's message here talking about the fact that whether it's six minutes, six days or six weeks that something is going to get done appears to be appears to release that pressure valve and allow some space now for those negotiations to happen in more detailed fashion. but certainly, i asked press secretary jen psaki earlier today about why the president was doing this now and ultimately it comes down to the fact that this is crunch time and that they feel that this was the point where the president could perhaps have the most impact on all of these members as they continue with these negotiations. >> so lauren, as those who have been following this story know, the reason the bipartisan infrastructure bill is in trouble is because progressives are using it as leverage to make sure that democrats, more moderate and conservative democrats go along with this larger social safety net spending program. you can't have that if -- you

can't have infrastructure if you don't vote for that, they're saying. so the infrastructure vote is supposed to be today. actually supposed to be monday but it's supposed to be today now. what's pelosi going to do? >> well, i think that's the question coming out of the meeting and some folks that i've been talking to, members coming out of this, said they are still a little unsure about exactly what the plan forward is at this moment. if you ask progressives, they're still feeling very confident that a vote will not happen today. but i think there was still a little bit of confusion about what the next steps are. and jeremy made a good point. this was a little bit about releasing the pressure from this democratic caucus which had a deadline of monday and a deadline of thursday, then they were going to pass it today. i think that part of this meeting was about giving a little bit of space and trying to explain to people that everyone wants the same thing, but in terms of clarity about when a vote is actually scheduled or actually planned, there were still some questions and a little uncertainty coming

out of this meeting, jake. >> lauren fox and jeremy diamond, thanks to both of you for your excellent reporting. let's talk about this with one of the people in the room where it happened. rubin gallego of arizona, a member of the progressive caucus. congressman, what's your understanding about what's going to happen with the infrastructure bill now? is it going to be pulled until both bills are ready and there's an agreement on both of them going forward? >> from our conversation, it's what the president wants to van agreement or framework that would make both sides comfortable. and at this point, the caucus has taken that to heart. we're looking at ways to move the needle in the direction that he asks but we're very happy that we are now -- have at least gotten rid of this artificial timeline that had nothing with the actual passage of this legislation. >> we did hear that something like 3,700, 3,800 employees of the department of transportation

may be furloughed because spending that is in the infrastructure bill will not be going out the door. is there going to be some attempt to fund at least these federal employees? >> yeah, there's a conversation about passing a continuing resolution for 30 days. that would alleviate the pressure and give us time to negotiate and come up with a compromise. the compromise right now isn't with the democratic caucus. it's with two particular senators the president actually spoke about that weren't being very clear about what they want in the end. we're going to try as a progressive caucus and caucus in general to show our priorities and try to negotiate in good faith but there's clear frustration coming from the president about the opaqueness and also just like the moving the goal post that's occurring with the senate. >> you just met with progressives after the meeting with president biden. what was the mood in the meeting? what was the message? >> the mood was hopeful. people felt positive about it. they felt the president understood where we were coming

from. we feel that he understands that we're on his side and we're on the side of the everyday american that wants to see a strong recovery to make sure that women and parents can actually have affordable child care, child tax credit and real investments in climate change legislation. usually the things we're very excited about and the president is with us on this. >> president biden, we're told from the reporting we heard just now from lauren fox, is that -- said basically that he would like a $3.5 trillion build back better act on social safety net programs such as medicare expansion, day care and the like, but the two senators you're talking about are not there and he suggested maybe a number more around $2 trillion. could you and your fellow progressives go along with that? >> i didn't hear that specific number that he wanted to hit. i think that's some projection upon congressman cuellar. he said we need a progressive and democratic caucus to build a number around our priorities and

look at that first and see what we can live with and what the american public can succeed with. once we build around the policy, then we can add a number to it. and that's the biggest complaint about the senate. there is no policy numbers. no policy goals. and whenever there is any type of pen put to paper about t policies and budgets it changes quickly. we'll not do that in the house and progressive caucus. we'll focus on policy and the outcomes and how it affects americans and how to build a budget around that. >> so you talked about the two democrats in the senate who need to be convinced who are essentially holding this deal up. one of them is your senator, as i don't need to tell you, kyrsten sinema, who i believe is back in arizona with a family emergency of some situation. have you talked to her? do you have any idea what her issues are other than the increase in corporate tax cuts -- i mean increase in corporate taxes, rather.

>> from what we know and her opposition to corporate tax increases and competition pricing when it comes to prescriptions, but other than that, we haven't. it's not just her. it's unfair to put it or. both senators have been opaque to the point where it's hard for us to understand where we could compromise because the numbers move so much and their positions move so much. i hope they'll change that. we're certainly going to come to this position from an earnest situation and we'll work within the parameters of what the president asked us to do and i hope they'll work in the same manner. >> she happens to be your senator. that's why i asked you about it. and -- >> i know she's my senator. >> i'm sure you are. there's a new effort launched by a progressive super pac that wants you to challenge her in the democratic primary for u.s. senate in arizona in 2024. even a website, runrubenrun collecting money from voters. help ruben launch strong on day

one. make a contribution today. if ruben runs for senate against kyrsten sinema, he'll get the money the day he announces. are you considering that race, yes or no? >> no, this is -- we're dealing first with 2022 and 2021 right now. and the most important race that we have to worry about is a race to make your we get the aid to american families. that's all i care about and manchin. let's just get together, get this done. let's not worry about politics. and if anything else, i have to worry about 2022 first. >> ruben gallego of arizona, thank you. we're following a hearing on the controversial texas abortion law. will a judge block it? plus, more clues about gabby petito's final days as so many wonder, how did police let brian laundrie walk away? we'll talk to two experts ahead. grandparents! we want to put money aside for them, so...change in plans. alright, let's see what we can adjust.

♪ we'd be closer to the twins. change in plans. okay. mom, are you painting again? you could sell these. lemme guess, change in plans? at fidelity, a change in plans is always part of the plan. managing type 2 diabetes? on it. -on it. on it, with jardiance. meet the people who are managing type 2 diabetes and heart risk with jardiance. jardiance is a once-daily pill that can reduce the risk of cardiovascular death for adults who also have known heart disease. so it could help save your life from a heart attack or stroke. jardiance also lowers a1c. and it may help you lose some weight. jardiance can cause serious side effects including dehydration, genital yeast or urinary tract infections, and sudden kidney problems. ketoacidosis is a serious side effect that may be fatal. a rare, but life-threatening bacterial infection in the skin of the perineum could occur. stop taking jardiance and call your doctor right away if you have symptoms of this bacterial infection,

ketoacidosis, or an allergic reaction, and don't take it if you're on dialysis or have severe kidney problems. taking jardiance with a sulfonylurea or insulin may cause low blood sugar. lower a1c and lower risk of a fatal heart attack? yep, they're on it with jardiance. ask your doctor about jardiance. when you're looking for answers, it's good to have help. because the right information, at the right time, may make all the difference. at humana, we know that's especially true when you're looking for a medicare supplement insurance plan. that's why we're offering "seven things every medicare supplement should have." it's yours, free! just for calling the number on your screen. and when you call, a knowledgeable licensed agent-producer can answer any questions you have, and help you choose the plan that's right for you. the call is free, and there's no obligation. you see, medicare covers only about 80% of your part b medical expenses. the rest is up to you. that's why so many people purchase medicare supplement insurance

plans, like those offered by humana. they're designed to help you save money, and pay some of the costs medicare doesn't. depending on the medicare supplement plan you select, you could have no deductibles or copayments for doctor visits, hospital stays, emergency care and more! you can keep the doctors you have now, ones you know and trust, with no referrals needed. plus, you can get medical care anywhere in the country, even when you're traveling. with humana, you get a competitive monthly premium and personalized service from a healthcare partner working to make healthcare simpler and easier for you. you can choose from a wide range of standardized plans. each one is designed to work seamlessly with medicare, and help save you money. so, how do you find the plan that's right for you? one that fits your needs and your budget? call humana now at the number on your screen for this free guide! it's just one of the ways that humana is making healthcare simpler. and when you call, a knowledgeable, licensed

agent-producer can answer any questions you have and help you choose the plan that's right for you. the call is free, and there's no obligation. you know medicare won't cover all your medical costs, so call now. and see why a medicare supplement plan from a company like humana just might be the answer. - stand up if you are first generation college student. (crowd cheering) stand up if you're a mother. if you are actively deployed, a veteran, or you're in a military family, please stand. the world in which we live equally distributes talent, but it doesn't equally distribute opportunity, and paths are not always the same. - i'm so proud of you dad. - [man] i will tell you this, southern new hampshire university can change the whole trajectory of your life. (uplifting music)

in our politics lead, we are standing by for a federal judge's decision on whether to temporarily block that controversial texas six-week abortion ban. the law signed last month allows anyone in the country to report an alleged violation, which essentially means something like vigilante abortion bounty hunters reporting someone who even just helps a woman in texas get an abortion after six weeks of pregnancy. often a woman, of course, does not even know she's pregnant by then. a federal judge questioned how texas would enforce the law asking, quote if the state is so confident in the constitutionality of the limitations on women's access to abortion y did they go to great lengths to create this unusual cause of action rather than doing it directly? let's bring in katie watson who is an attorney and associate

professor of obstetrics and gynecology. professor watson, it's an interesting question. if you want to ban abortion, why create these vigilante squads? what do you make of that question? >> well, the answer is because it is unconstitutional to ban abortion before viability, which is at approximately 24 weeks. and i believe in eight other states that have passed six-week ba bans, the federal courts have enjoined those laws because they're so obviously unconstitutional. so texas tried to do an end run with this ridiculous procedural enforcement to try to avoid constitutional review. in the doj lawsuit, that's exactly the point they honed in on. >> we had you on "the lead" right after the texas law went into effect. it puts up a wall of sorts between a pregnant woman and people they might seek advice from, such as a pastor, a

friend, even a doctor. is that essentially what's at issue here, private citizens cut off from basic rights because of this fear of penalty against them that could be invoked in a way by almost anyone? >> well, yes, i think the most important block is of the physicians doing the abortions. what's so important to understand is it bans abortion after approximately six weeks. and let's be clear. when we call this a six-week ban, that's because doctors count pregnancy from the beginning of the last period. you get pregnant in about the middle of the month. in reality it's a four-week ban. so it's telling doctors, you can't do abortions after this. and if you do, private citizens can sue you and win at minimum $10,000. if they win you pay their legal fees but they don't pay your legal fees. the reason texas structured it that way because if it was state enforcement like every other law, it would just be struck down as unconstitutional

immediately. and what attorney general garland has done is a simple and elegant suit that says this is a clear violation of the supremacy clause. states don't get to make up new rules that contravene the u.s. constitution or federal law. texas tried to get cute and the federal government is not going to stand for it. >> the judge also asked texas attorneys who would an injunction go to if a texas state official cannot even be sued here, then what? the texas attorney general's office wasn't able to answer the question. you think that's a key question in this case? >> it's a key question and a red herring at the same time. what judge pittman has to do, i'd be shocked if the doj didn't give their injunction. their suit was outstanding. but it's -- he has to write a delicately crafted order that orders the state of texas to do the things that would block

private citizens from suing, such as closing its courts to their suits. and that was one of texas' arguments that the parties that the judge would be trying to enjoin are not part of the case. private citizens. so it's a little procedural knot but i think the doj's argument is this is a straight-up supremacy clause issue and you can't fall prey to the procedural smoke and mirrors. so he has to craft an order carefully. >> professor katie watson, thank you. in the politics lead, rare public opinions from supreme court justice who have been guarded. it's also the tone of these remarks that are so extraordinary. the most recent was just yesterday from justice samuel alito taking on those who accuse the court of being sneaky and sinister with late-night decisions. jessica schneider has the very public ways that five justices are now voicing their frustrations. >> reporter: the start of the new supreme court term is

monday. but the justices have been unusually outspoken in the weeks leading up to their return to the bench. 5 of the 9 justices have made public appearances speaking out about the divisions deepening behind the scenes. >> the court was thought to be the least dangerous branch and we may have become the most dangerous. >> reporter: the danger in his mind is that the media and public portray the court as political. clarence thomas is the senior most justice on the court. he spoke to students at the university of notre dame, insisting he's driven by the law, not his own opinion. >> they think you're anti-abortion or something, personally. they think that's the way you always will come out. they think you're for this or for that. they think you become like a politician. and i think that's a problem. >> reporter: the supreme court ignited a firestorm last month when it allowed a restrictive texas abortion law essentially banning the procedure after six weeks, to take effect. the 5-4 decision came down in

the middle of the night without a hearing causing critics to slam the action as part of the court's so-called shadow docket. a new gallup poll conducted right after shows a plummeting approval rate of 40%. the lowest in 20 years. the liberal justices lashed out with stinging dissents when the decision came down. some have spoken out since then. off camera and on. justice sotomayor was blunt about what she thinks lies ahead. there's going to be a lot of disappointment in the law. a huge amount. look at me. look at my dissents. justice stephen breyer who had been pushed by progressives to retire last summer minced no words on the texas decision in an interview with cnn. >> i thought they were wrong. >> reporter: the conservative justices have been pushing back. the newest justice amy coney barrett appeared at an aerks vent with mitch mcconnell and declared my goal is to convince you this court is not comprised of partisan hacks. justice alito was more forceful

in a speech yfresterday, blasti the media for the more conservative leaning court as a cabal. alito calling that criticism very misleading. now all of the competing comments come right before the start of what is likely to be an explosive supreme court term. in early november, the justices will hear a case involving a new york gun law and then december 1st, that's the case on the mississippi law that restricts abortion at 15 weeks, a case, of course, that is leaving people wondering, will the court ultimately overrule roe v. wade. cnn obtained more body cam video footage from the altercation between gabby petito and her fiance. we'll talk about this troubling exchange and more. >> where did he hit you? don't worry, just be honest. >> grabbed me like this.

he can , she'll revisit her plan with fidelity. and with a scenario that makes it a possibility, she'll enjoy her dream right now. that's the planning effect, from fidelity.

at aetna, we take a total, connected approach to your health and wellness to help you age actively. with medicare advantage plans designed for the whole you. we offer monthly plan premiums starting at $0. hospital, medical and prescription drug coverage, in one simple plan. plus dental, vision and hearing. aetna medicare advantage plans medicare annual enrollment ends december 7th. call today to learn more or visit us online at aetnamedicare.com/tv2

new body cam video shows what gabby petito told police about a dispute she just had with her fiance. this was weeks before she was killed and her fiance brian laundrie disappeared. take a look. >> he just grabbed you? >> yeah. >> did he hit you, though? it's okay if you're saying you hit him and i understand if he hit you but we want to know the truth if he actually hit you because, you know -- >> yeah, but i hit him first. >> where did he hit you? >> he grabbed my face like this.

he didn't hit me in the face. >> did he slap your face? >> like he grabbed me with his hand and that's why it was -- i definitely have a cut right here. i can feel it. >> that was on august 12th. that was after a witness in moab, utah, reported seeing the couple in a fight. officers did not file charges that day. the couple did, however, take the advice of police and separate for the night. laundrie stayed in a hotel we're told. petito took the van. let's bring in a crimmial defense attorney and candice delong host of "killer psyche" which just launched an episode dedicated to this case. candice, what's your reaction to this new police body cam footage. does it tell you anything about the couple and notably the fiance who is still missing to this day? >> it doesn't tell me anything

new. i don't see it as adding anything to what we saw, i guess, in the last week. she appears to me she's not hysterical, but she's acting as many female victims of domestic abuse do act. they are afraid to tell the police sxexactly what happened. and on the other hand, we've seen brian in this tape be very cool, calm and collected. and telling the truth, well, she gets wound up. i have to get away from her. and, you know, she's crazy. eye roll, wink, wink. and sadly, we all know what happened. >> mark, you famously represented the parents of casey anthony. the orlando-area mother at the center of the missing caylee anthony saga. when you look at brian laundrie's parents. on august 24th his mother made a camping reservation for

september 1st, 2nd, 3rd. on august 31st she canceled that reservation. the next day laundrie returned to his parents' family home without his fiance gabby. two days later, the mother makes another camping reservation for three people to start on labor day, september 6th. not to mention they reported their son missing three days after he had left the house. do you find this behavior by brian laundrie's parents suspicious, odd? >> i find it consistent with parents who know that their son is okay. they're not acting like parents who would be really concerned about their child being missing. i terminated my representation of casey anthony's parents when they wanted me to do bidding because i thought she was quite guilty and that was not my task. and i believe that she did not act like a parent whose child had been found dead. and i believe that these parents are similarly acting like parents who are not overly

concerned that their child is really missing or is no longer with us. >> interesting. >> candice, as a former fbi profiler, what questions would you have for brian laundrie's parents, if you got to sit down with them right now? >> if i could only ask them one question, it would be, why haven't you spoken with gabby's parents? gabby was living in their home with their son for many months. and she didn't come back. and the -- his parents won't even talk to her parents. i can only ask myself, jake, why not? one would think, as one parent to another, especially now we have one child dead and one child missing, they would want to help each other. but that's not happening, is it? >> no, it's not. mark, going back to the august 12th incident, neither petito

nor the fiance were charged with assault or anything. there's a federal warrant out for brian laundrie's arrest, accusing him of illegally using someone else's debit card on august 30th and on september 1st. that was around the time that brian laundrie showed up at his parents' home without gabby petito, without the fiance that had lived with him at his parents' house. should they have named him a suspect in gabby's homicide by now? >> there's been a lot of errors that appear to be -- have occurred already. when you grab somebody like that, it may not be a hit but it's a battery. and the police there should have taken further action against him. and as far as brian laundrie's parents staying silent, they are potentially facing criminal liability. if the fbi questioned them and they ended up not telling the truth then there's an offense there. aiding, abetting, being an accessory, all of those are

issues. they're getting good advice because their attorney is representing them, and that is, you can't catch a fish if its mouth is closed and for them to be quiet. >> thank you to both of you. appreciate it. you can hear more from candice in her podcast called "killer psyche." candice delong. thanks to both of you. could this change how the u.s. fights covid. a brand-new pill could soon be available. stay with us. ♪ ♪ ♪ (music quieter) ♪ (phone clicks) ♪ ♪

breaking news in our health lead. supreme court justice sonia sotomayor denied a request from those who asked the court to block the vaccine mandate for all public school employees. the deadline for those teachers to get vaccinated was 5:00 p.m. eastern today, just 36 1/2 minutes ago. california will become the first state noondate all eligible k through 12 students get vaccinated against covid.

dr. reiner joins me now. what is your reaction to the new mandate for all eligible k through 12 kids in california? >> i hope that's the start of every state adopting that. every child going to school anywhere in the united states has to be vaccinated for about ten different diseases. so every parent who sends their children to school is accustomed to vaccinating their kids. so what's different about this disease. why would we not vaccinate our children once -- in particular, once the vaccine is available widely for younger children. i think it should be mandated across the country, and i expect it will be. it may take a little while but i expect every state will eventually adopt a covid vaccine mandate. >> so i'm vaccinated. my 14-year-old is vaccinated. my son, as you know, is about to turn 12. he's going to get vaccinated. let me play devil's advocate. one of the arguments is, well,

this vaccine is just so new and there's other vaccines, polio, measles, mumps, rubella, et cetera, they were -- it was a much longer process. >> every vaccine is new once it's first introduced. if you look at photographs from the 1950s, what you see, americans lining up down the street as far as the eye can see to be vaccinated for polio. this country has a long history of embracing innovation. unfortunately this vaccine has been politicized. it's incredibly effective. it will prevent kids from getting sick. kids are being infected at 200,000 children per week. how amazing once we can vaccinate and keep kids out of the hospital. we need to take time to educate parents. the problem is the folks that are going to be most resistant to vaccinating their kids are

people who are themselves unvaccinated. so it's going to be a difficult barrier to break, but i think we can do it. >> you've expressed empathy for teachers in the past. we've just passed the 5:00 deadline for new york city teachers to get vaccinated or find a new job. do you agree with that mandate, and do you think these mandates are working? >> mandates are clearly working. let's look at the united airlines example. united instituted a vaccine mandate, strict vaccine mandate and, as of yesterday, 99 .5% of united's employees chose to get vaccinated rather than be terminated. so i think when faced with a loss of your job, most people will make the decision to get vaccinated. as for teachers, this spring, i strongly advocated to treat teachers as essential personnel. >> and have them get early vaxes. >> and have them be prioritized. but the reverse is just as true.

if you entrust your child, particularly now where a lot of kids can't yet be vaccinated, you entrust your child's safety to that teacher and part of that responsibility is making sure that the teacher has done what they can do to protect the child from illness and now that includes being covid vaccinated. every teacher should be vaccinated or face the loss of their job. >> i want to ask you about the new drug from merck. merck says they have a new antiviral medication that will cut the risk of hospitalization and death in half for mild to moderate cases of covid. help us understand what this drug does and why it is so effective. we should point out, this doesn't prevent you from getting covid. this is a treatment if you get covid. >> so this drug is a nucelacide analogue. it prevents the virus, which is an rna virus from replicating. it creates basically an error in its genetic code preventing it

from replicating. it's an active antiviral drug. what's exciting about it is that it appears to be super effective. so in this pivotal trial that was just announced, the drug reduced hospitalizations by 50%, but also intriguingly and importantly in this relatively small study, no one who got the drug died. 8 people who got placebo died. no person who got active drug died. and in contrast to the monoclonal antibodies which are also used to reduce the severity of disease, keep people out of the hospital, shorten the duration of illness, this is an oral pill. >> as opposed to through an i.v. >> right. merck is manufacturing the drug at risk so that once it's proved it will be immediately available. the united states government has in advance purchased 1.7 million courses of the drug so i expect -- i'm not sure i'd call it a game changer, but it's

really maybe the beginning of having active drug to prescribe to a person and keep them home, prevent them from getting sick. >> dr. jonathan reiner, thank you. he's been dubbed europe's last dictator. cnn sat down with the president of belarus. how did he respond on the questions about widespread rights abuses under his watch? that's next. gold. your strategic advantage. this isn't just a walk up the stairs. when you have an irregular heartbeat, it's more. it's dignity. the freedom to go where you want, knowing your doctor can watch over your heart. ♪

♪ (music) ♪ staying on top of your game takes a plan. that's why at aetna, we take a total connected approach to your health and wellness. with medicare advantage plans designed to surround you with the care you need every day. aetna medicare advantage plans

in our world lead, alexander lukashenko has been called europe's last dictator. he runs belarus, one of the eastern european republics that started going its own way after

the soviet union broke up. for belarus, lukashenko's way has been the only way. he's supposedly freely elect bud the election was so corrupted it provoked huge protests in the capital minsk. protests that lukashenko's forces brutally put down. now in a cnn exclusive, our senior international correspondent matthew chance sat down with lukashenko for an enlightening and frankly bizarre interview. >> reporter: this is what the brutal crackdown in belarus looks like. opposition activists detained, then beaten by police. after disputed elections last year, the mass protests that followed were crushed. human rights groups called it a catastrophe. widespread reports of torture, even killings in police custody. now cnn is confronting the man

responsible, dubbed europe's last dictator. >> reporter: would you take this opportunity now to apologize to the people of belarus for the human rights abuses that they've suffered at your hands? >> translator: no, i would not like to take this opportunity. i don't think this is even a relevant question. in principle, i have nothing to apologize for. >> you say you have nothing to apologize for, but human rights watch says multiple detainees have reported broken bones, broken teeth, brain injuries, skin wounds, electrical burns. analysts international speaks of detention centers becoming torture chambers where protesters were forced to lie in the dirt, stripped naked while police kicked and beat them with truncheons. you don't think that's worth apologizing for? >> translator: you know, we don't have a single detention center, as you say, like

guantanamo or those bases that the united states and your country created in eastern europe. as regards to our own detention centers, they are no worse than in britain or the united states. i suggest you discuss concrete facts and not the views or statements some of dubious human rights organizations. >> i don't think human rights watch and amnesty international are dubious. they're internationally recognized standards in human rights activists. and they all got testimony of former detainees in your prison camps, in your prison detention centers, both men and women, who have spoken of sexual violence against them, including rape and threats of rape. are you saying that that is just made up, that it's fake? >> translator: everything that you just said is fake and fantasy. >> reporter: for the past 27 years, lukashenko, the former farm boss, has ruled belarus

with an iron fist as its first and only president. he's known as a maverick that makes controversial remarks on issues like covid-19. which he famously dismissed as a western psychosis that could be battled with vodka and soreness. he told cnn those remarks were just a joke. but only after he'd become infected himself and more than 4,000 belarusians have died, according to official figures. but no one's laughing on the streets of the capital of minsk, where people are reluctant to speak out. what do you think about lukashenko? are you happy with your president? >> it's a very interesting question. i can't tell you the truth. >> lukashenko? >> reporter: it's understood here that openly criticizing the regime can have life-changing consequences. you think it's a free country?

it was a lesson passengers on board this ryanair flight flying over belarus in made learned the hard way. it made an emergency landing in minsk after local air traffic control told the pilot there was a bomb threat. once on the ground, belarusian police arrested a dissident onboard, along with his girlfriend, before allowing the aircraft to depart. do you continue to insist that there was a genuine bomb threat or do you now admit that the whole incident was manufactured by you and your security forces in order to capture a critic that you wanted in jail? >> translator: matthew, i am not going to admit to anything in front of you. i am not under investigation. so please choose your words carefully. but if this had been a premeditated operation planned by our security services, you would be flattering me. because for security services to

carry such an international operation without a single law or obstruction, that would have cost a lot. so this is your fantasy. >> reporter: but it's not just me that doesn't believe your story. most airlines in the world have stopped flying here. isn't it true that you will do anything, even violate international laws in the skies, in order to get the people you want, to get your critics into custody. that's the truth, isn't it? >> if you are afraid to fly over our territory, i can personally guarantee your safety. but if i or the law enforcement authorities see any threat to the belarusian state, we will force any plan to land, be it from the united kingdom or the united states. >> reporter: there's growing evidence of international norms being violated on the ground, as well. european officials accusing belarus of using migrants as a weapon, encouraging them to cross its borders with the eu. an act of revenge, they say, for sanctions and support for

dissi dissi dissidents. >> translator: do you take me for a madman? only weak people take me for revenge. >> reporter: it is weakness that lukashenko's critics say is pushing him ever closer to another strongman next door. vladimir putin of russia has provided hundreds of millions of dol dollars. >> this talk of closer immigration, closer economic political as well as military ties. isn't that the real price for vladimir putin's support, that this country of belarus will be slowly absorbed into russia. isn't that what you've agreed to pay? >> translator: to say that belarus would become part of the united states, britain, or russia, is an absolute fallacy.

putin and i are intelligent enough to create a union of two independent states that would be stronger together than separate. sovereignty is not for sale. >> reporter: but it's unclear if belarus under lukashenko has much of a choice. already, russia is stepping up joint military drills and adding to its permanent presence in the country, fueling concerns that with belarus, russia is gaining a new western outpost. >> well, jake, this was the first major interview lukashenko has given since those disputed elections last year. since then, his country has lurched into further isolation, it's been hit by tough u.s. and european union sanctions, but as we saw tonight, europe's last dictator is prepared to do anything he can to cling on to power. jake? >> an excellent and gutsy interview by matthew chance. thank you so much. appreciate that. coming up, do you know this man? the celebrity that was able to sneak under the radar, next.

♪ limu emu & doug ♪ got a couple of bogeys on your six, limu. they need customized car insurance from liberty mutual so they only pay for what they need. what do you say we see what this bird can do? woooooooooooooo... we are not getting you a helicopter. looks like we're walking, kid. only pay for what you need. ♪ liberty. liberty. liberty. liberty. ♪

tonight, i'll be eating a buffalo chicken panini with extra hot sauce. tonight, i'll be eating salmon sushi with a japanese jiggly cheesecake. (doorbell rings) jolly good. fire. (horse neighing) elton: nas? yeah? spare a pound? what? you know, bones, shillings, lolly? lolly? bangers and mash? i'm... i'm sorry? i don't have any money. you don't look broke. elton: my rocket is skint!

. please allow me to introduce the man in this photo. he's a man of wealth and taste. in our pop culture lead, mick jagger walks into a bar and no one notices. yes, that's the rolling stone's front man sneaking under the radar in a baseball cap, just waiting on a friend, apparently. not looking if he was looking for some satisfaction or someone to give him shelter or a honky tonk woman. but he stopped by charlotte's thirsty beaver saloon to grab a beer. i guess proving sometimes you

can get what you want. be sure to tune into "state of the union" sunday. dana bash will speak to dick durbin and pramila jayapal. tweet the show with "the lead" cnn. our coverage continues now with one mr. wolf blitzer right next door in "the situation room." see you monday. >> announcer: this is cnn breaking news. >> welcome to our viewers here in the united states and around the world. i'm wolf blitzer in "the situation room." we're following breaking news. tonight, president biden is vowing that democrats will overcome their deep divisions and salvage his embattled domestic agenda, apparently abandoning the urgent timeline created by the house speaker nancy pelosi. the president wrapped up a critical meeting on capitol hill, just a little while ago. he declared, and i'm quoting him