tv CNN Tonight CNN February 14, 2022 6:00pm-7:00pm PST
covid-19 man tates. prime minister trudeau said the government is invoking the emergency act. the act temporarily suspends the citizens' free right to assembly, and will block funding for the protest. this comes as the ambassador bridge, north america's busiest land opening sunday. the news continues. let's hand it over to laura coates and cnn tonight. >> happy valentine's day. >> you too. i am laura coates, and this is "cnn tonight." there's a heavy feeling in the air. russia has amassed forces on three sides of ukraine, with an estimated 130,000 troops. and now, according to the pentagon, this could be the week putin strikes. >> i won't get into a specific date. i don't think that would be smart. i would just tell you that it is
entirely possible that he could move with little to no warning. >> it's a scary thought. but there's still so much uncertainty. and the u.s. isn't taking any chancesment they're now closing our embassy in ukraine's capital of kyiv and relocating dipl diplomatic personnel to a city in the western part of the country. the only one frankly who knows what vladimir putin is going to do is, well, vladimir putin. and the only one who knows what putin actually wants the ukraine is putin. he staged a televised meeting with his foreign minister lavrov today, by the way, another awkwardly long table for some reason, saying russia is still open to diplomacy. and the kremlin now adding tonight putin is still, quote, willing to negotiate. one thing we know about conrad vlad, he isn't a peacemaking kind of guy. the authoritarian, well, he does what he wants.
he wasn't bluffing when he an exed crimea back in 2014. he now wants to send some kind of signal to the world yet again. but the big question here is what in the world is his end game when it comes to ukraine. frankly, i know many of you are also wondering out there, what would a war there mean for america here? we're going to get into all of that, answer all those questions tonight. ask approximate the u.s. forces, by the way, aren't going in if war breaks out. president biden has already ruled that out. but he is now sending a few more thousand troops to poland to try to help bolster nato's defenses. the nay at the factor is definitely a big part to all of this tension, as you well know, because ukraine is not part of the 30-member alliance. but it most certainly wants to be. which is exactly what putin feels so tlhreatened by. see, russia, they see nato's growth across europe and expansion eastward, and they view it -- at least putin
does -- as a giant threat. but the question is, even if it is a threat, would he wage an all-out war to try to push the west and, well, democracy in fair and free elections back as well. i want to get the view from the ground in ukraine, cnn's national correspondent matthew chance joins me live from kyiv. matthew, what are you learning there? >> thanks very much. you know, as you mentioned, the tensions are extremely high right now near ukraine, inside ukraine more than 100,000 russian troops have gathered near the borders. and that capability of russia to strike at the heart of this country is building on a daily basis, according to u.s. and, indeed, ukrainian intelligence assessments. in fact, there's no dispute at all when it comes to the capability that vladimir putin, the russian president, has to do whatever he wants. he can invade at a moment's
notice. but the real question that isn't answered is, does he intend to do that? we know he's got the capability. we don't understand what his intent is. and so there's a lot of speculation about, you know, will he invade or won't he. and as you mentioned, the truth is, the way russia operates and the autocracy that is that country, it could be the 11th hour, the 59th minute of the 11th hour, and only then one man, vladimir putin, could decide whether or not to pull the trigger. so, you'd expect, wouldn't you, that in a city like kyiv, which is the ukrainian capital, and which is said, by u.s. intelligence assessments, for instance, to potentially be a target of any russian attack, there would be concern and there would be panic. but we're not seeing any of it on the streets here. it's been valentine's day, of course, today. and i've been seeing the hotel we're staying at had a big party for couples with big red,
heart-shaped balloons. in the cafes, full. people were going about their business. what ordinary ukrainians say is they've been confronting this kind of threat for eight years. they've been fighting russia or russian-backed rebels for eight years, and they don't see a significant increase in risk. that's been backed up by the ukrainian leadership, who are at odds to some extent with the united states assessment. they're saying the threat is not as acute as washington is making out. laura. >> it sounds like in some respects the boy who cried wolf if you already have the presence there. on the other hand, how do you not panic when you have 100,000 troops outside your boarder and the uncertainty of vladimir putin. the anxiety of this whole thing is clear when you see how
senators from both parties this afternoon to a briefing from jake sullivan, the national security adviser. listen. >> this is a very dangerous situation. >> the certain is very high. the only good news is that diplomatic exchange continues. >> the forces the russians have massed, they could launch at any point. >> i want to bring in susan glasser and former congressman mike rogers, who was house intel chair when russia invaded crimea. i'm glad you're both here because i want to try to unpack a bit more. let me begin with you, susan. on the one hand, you hear jake sullivan, you hear john kirby, you hear everyone talking about it could happen at any moment. there's a feeling of immense and urgency. and you have the reporting on the ground about the average ukrainian who said, it's been eight years of this and not really batting an eye. can both be true in terms of the impact of what's being felt on the ground there, susan? >> look, i think you're right to point this out, laura, that at a
certain point there is a moment of reckoning coming sooner or later. and the intelligence assessment suggests that the putin buildup on the border is reaching maximum capacity, more than 130,000 troops. there's reporting to suggest that many of those have actually left their bases and moved to forward attack positions. along the border of ukraine, there are three sides on which it's vulnerable to russian attack. that would be only a few hours away from kyiv and the capital. so, i think the military threat is real. i think ukrainian officials do not dispute that. you know, senior administration officials here in washington assured me today that we are, in fact, on the same page with ukraine, that this is mostly about president zelenski not wanting to induce panic, for understandable reasons, among his population. he's now declared wednesday a day of national unity in
ukraine. they're going to be hanging the flag skand singing the national anthem and recruiting at an urgent level additional not guilty to defend the country. but what we don't know is whether putin has decided. this is not an idle threat. if someone said to me, you know, if it was any other leader in the world, you don't just idly assemble an invasion force of 100,000 and not intend to use it. >> of course not. mike, that's the question. you were in office. you were a congressman, and you were a member of a very important committee thinking about these issues back in 2014. i wonder, from your standpoint, yes, putin is known in many respects diplomatically -- i'm being nice here -- as a provocateur. but it's not as if he hasn't backed up a threat in the past. when you compare then to now, are you seeing similarities? what is congress being told, do you suppose, and is it much like
what you remember, you think, back from 2014? >> well, i don't think this is like 2014 for a couple of reasons. one, the crimea event was more of an opportunity. he didn't have the same massive buildup that you see happening today. it was an opportunity that he took advantage of. he had troops in the region. they moved in. they assessed at the time -- they being the russians -- that they thought this was going to be a quick move. remember in crimea, he had already established separatist forces. these were clearly proxy forces for the russians. well, he's done the same thing in eastern ukraine. he actually holds two regions that are calling themselves separatist regions in eastern ukraine. lots of ethnic russians east of the river, which would put them clearly in the sphere of those three attack prongs that you see. so, this, to me, is very, very different. what i think people are talking about today and what they're getting today. and if you have -- they're trying to assess what this means -- is he's moving these
artillery pieces and his missile forces forward. and those missile forces are highly lethal and will be destructive in a way that you didn't see in crimea. you really didn't even see in his invasion of georgia, the country of georgia. this will be different. and if he decides to go over, it will be that shock and awe that you hear about often in a very big way. he is not going to go timidly across that border if he decides to do it. key is, will he decide -- he's getting a lot of what he wants on the border right now just doing these exercises. >> what is he getting? the question for many people is, what is the end game for vladimir putin? obviously we can all speculate, but to the average person looking at it, maybe people are wondering, why ukraine in particular? what will you get out of this? and if mike is correct, which i believe he is, the idea of using the lethal force, the discussions about the air bombs, et cetera, at the end wouldn't
you have to rebuild the very area you're trying to capture. what's the end game for vladimir putin? just the flex? >> well, you're right to ask this question. and to be very skeptical because of course it is madness to invade another country in the 21st century. and the death and destruction would not just rain down on ukraine but of course on russian soldiers. there would be great unhappiness if the coffins started coming home. vladimir putin would then have to spend huge amounts of money potentially to maintain any territory he held. united states has promised to, you know, help to support the resistance inside ukraine, were it to come under russian occupation. so, you know, it's a mess. we can tell him that experience of iraq and others suggests that imperial ambitions like this do not work out well in the modern era. so, p on the one hand, it seems madness that putin would even be conceiving of it. but, remember, for putin, this
is almost an emotional issue for him as well. i recommend to everyone to look at the essay right there on his website that he wrote last summer essentially making the argument that ukraine shouldn't even be an independent country, that arguably it should still be part of mother russia. he's relitigating the collapse of the soviet union, the collapse even before that of the russian empire. in that sensuous e, it's an emol issue. it's a legacy issue for putin, who's been in power for more than 20 years. he's 69 now. this is often mischaracterized, i think, of just a matter of nato, not nato. that's not really the right issue. >> it's very personal to somebody who wants to take over and be powerful, the idea of not having the power in hand is obviously very offensive to him and one that's emotional. it's a great point. i'm going to get the last word from you, mike, in how you think president biden, the commander in chief, is handling all this right now. it's not just about nato
membership or not. how do you think the biden administration is dealing with this less than six months after the afghanistan withdrawal, we're talking about having a presence somewhere else again. what do you think the biden administration is doing about this? good job or bad? >> you know, mediocre best, and i don't say that lightly. diplomacy is really the only option you have at this point. but one of the things i think they swung and missed -- and they did this the last go around in ukraine, by the way, when so many of their national security people were there -- is that the ukrainians were saying, let us fight against this high-tech weaponry that we know the russians are amassing on our border, and it's been trickling in. if you wanted to send a message that putin is going to pay a very heavy price other than this non-conventional rebellion-type fighting that he's going to see coming up, which will happen, by the way, they needed a weapon to fight back against their missile brigades. they needed against this long range artillery, they needed more sophisticated weapons.
they've been asking for them, and they haven't quite been getting them. my argument is if you want to tell putin this is going to be really costly to you. we're going to give the ukrainians everything they need to fight against your technical army that's amassing on that border. and the administration just hadn't done it. here's a couple things he's going to factor in unfortunately. when they took swift, which was the access to international money change banking system, when they took that off the table for sanctions, that was a huge relief to putin. so, he knows there won't be direct military action. he knows the swift won't be a part of it if he invades. all of these things, you know, he's going through his calculus. i think i can sustain sanctions. he's already amassed some $600 billion in reserves. he's reengaged his chinese trading and natural resource sales. so, he's looking at this like, okay, you guys are dwindling -- you keep telling me what you won't do. and then you -- it allows me to
figure out what i will do. that's what i worry about. i would have changed that early on three months ago if i were the biden administration. >> it's more than worrisome with all the parts of it obviously. you just described the perfect scenario for leverage, which is concerning for everyone. susan glasser, mike rogers, thank you so much. i appreciate it. >> thanks, laura. there's a major development in the trial of say rah palin versus "the new york times." why would a judge say he's going to dismiss the former vice presidential nominee's defamation suit? and why is he still allowing the jury to deliberate if he's going to dismiss it anyway? this is quite a twist in the case we'll take apart next.
as a struggling actor, i need all the breaks that i can get. at liberty butchumal- cut. liberty biberty- cut. we'll dub it. liberty mutual customizes your car insurance so you only pay for what you need. only pay for what you need. ♪ liberty. liberty. liberty. liberty. ♪ ♪ feel stuck with credit card debt? move to sofi
and how important it is to know who you are and to know where you came from. doesn't that look like your papa? that's your great grandfather. it's like opening a whole 'nother world that we did not know existed. you finally have a face to a name. we're discovering together... it's been an amazing gift. well, something happened unexpectedly today in sarah palin's defamation lawsuit against "the new york times." now, the jury, mind you, the
jury has not yet come back with a verdict. but guess what? that might not matter because the u.s. district judge said that he's going to throw it out, the verdict, that is. the case, in fact. and the judge said palin's attorney failed to prove t times failed to act with malice to public false information. but he will wait officially to dismiss the case until after the jury returns with a verdict. what does all this mean? let's talk with first amendment attorney floyd abrams. mr. abrams, so good to see you here tonight, on this issue in particular. i have to ask you, what do you make of a judge throwing out this case? did you think that sarah palin had actually even met her burden of proving not just that it was false but that they did it with actual malice? what do you make of it? >> well, i think the ordinary way to do it -- i know the ordinary way to do it is to let the jury have its say first.
and if the judge disagrees with it, if a judge thinks that what the jury has done doesn't account of the first amendment affected instruction that he gave them, he can set it aside. what the judge has said is that he wants to give the appellate court -- everyone knows this case is going to be appealed. >> of course. >> he wants to give the appeals court a chance to hear what the jury thought and what he thought. >> but on that -- >> that's not an ordinary way to do it. >> it's not. here's the interesting thing, the idea of the timing of it. he could have come to the same conclusion after the verdict. they could have found "the new york times" not liable and he needs to say nothing. he could have sided in favor of sarah palin and he could have decided then. does it help sarah palin on
appeal now? it suggests he wasn't even going to wait. he made up his mind already. >> i don't think it hurts what he believes the right result is in that sense. i think -- i think the practical problem here is that we may be watching, the members of the jury, that this broadcast or other broadcasts of the like, might already have told the members of the jury what he thinks the right result is. so, the effect of that could be that the jury could be said to be unduly and thus unfairly led by the court. and the jury verdict, therefore, discarded, treated as if it were unduly influenced, unfairly influenced, all of which confuses things --
>> yeah. >> -- and makes it -- puts us in a position where what could go up to the court of appeals then is only the judge's decision. >> but floyd, let me ask you a question -- excuse me. >> yeah, go on. >> isn't the decision the right one though? the judge has come to a conclusion about not being able to meet the burden. as you know, it's not enough for sarah palin to show what was said was false. it was false. >> right. >> they have corrected the actual editorial as well. there's someone who's testified to say it was false. they've corrected it later on. but the idea here that it was false was not enough. they had to actually prove malice. and she's a public figure, which is why there's a higher burden here. do you think she had any opportunity to have tried to prove that? and if so, what would she have had to have shown? >> well, she had every opportunity to try to prove it. she called witnesses. she interrogated through her lawyers, "the new york times" executives, former editor who
was in charge of this. so, the evidence is in. she's had her fair shot at demonstrating what you rightly called actual malice, but what the supreme court has later explained means, you know, really publishing something you know is false or that you have serious doubts about its truth or falsity, not malice in a way you and i would use the word. so, the judge has decided for himself, and there's nothing wrong with him coming to that conclusion. the judge has decided for himself. the case is over. they simply have not submitted enough evidence to meet this very heavy burden. i mean, the supreme court phrased it, you need clear and convincing evidence. and so the judge is saying, first to himself, they haven't come through with that sort of evidence. this verdict, even if it is for
sarah palin, cannot stand. and all that makes a lot of sense. but the problem is now we're on a new procedural situation -- >> right. >> we're waiting for a jury to come back. the jury, as i said, might have heard what the judge thought, which, you know, could lead an appellate court to say, look, we're not going to take account of a jury verdict at all. so, what we've got in front of us is -- well, them being an opinion -- >> you know -- >> -- of the judge. it would be a real loss not to have a jury verdict sort of totally untainted. >> that's true. and it goes back to every law student can tell you what everyone says. the number one course is civil procedure. whether you like it or not, all comes down to process, floyd, in the end, every single time. but you know what? i wonder, just given what she was unable to prove, floyd --
and i'm glad you stopped by today. you know what? i wonder if her success definition was the idea of taking "the new york times" to court. having a trial going to -- a trial on this instance in 50 years. now she's got them in court having to apologize. they've taken a real blow in many respects. but you're right, this is waiting for appeal. it's begging for an appeal. we'll see what happens once we've got a verdict. floyd abrams, thank you so much. i appreciate it. >> sure. look, that's not the only big trial that's happening today. i mean, these other two are very, very big, and we're watching them tonight. even with murder convictions in the death of george floyd and ahmaud arbery, the legal battles are far from over. what makes these newer cases so important? i'll explain next.
allergies don't have to be scary. spraying flonase daily stops your body from ovreacting to allergens all season long. psst! psst! flonase all od. andrea: this is the hardest thing we will probably ever have to go through. st. jude has given us transportation, treatment. to know that we don't have bills, they take every other stress off of your shoulders.
>> woman: what's my safelite story? i see inspiration right through my glass. so when my windshield cracked, i chose safelite. they replaced the glass and recalibrated my safety system. that's service i can trust. >> singers: ♪ safelite repair, safelite replace. ♪ [zoom call] ...pivot... work bye. vacation hi! book with priceline. 'cause when you save more, you can “no way!” more. no wayyyy. no waaayyy! no way! [phone ringing] hm. no way! no way! priceline. every trip is a big deal.
well, the men involved in the murders of george floyd and ahmaud arbery have a lot more they have to answer for. and it's coming in the form of two federal trials that are underway right now. now, while derek chauvin already pleaded guilty for violating floyd's civil rights, this moment now focuses on the three other officers who were on the scene, two of whom you see right there. the two who helped keep floyd down, and the other who had a form of crowd control, while he faced the crowd. now, all of them, prosecutors say, all of them deprived floyd of his right to medical care, and his right to life, the same right that prosecutors argue was denied to ahmaud arbery on the basis of his race. this moment puts our legal system to the test really. how will it deal with people who have a wanton disregard for human life, particularly black lives, it seems? i want to bring in ellie hoenig
to help put all this into perspective. it's so good to see you and have this conversation with you in particular because a lot of people don't necessarily realize. people are wondering, first of all, in the case of the three officers who were charged in depriving george floyd's civil rights, why was that not part of the state murder trial? why are they starting beginning with the federal trial? what's the answer? >> yeah, so it's a good question, and it's a procedural decision. these three officers are facing both federal and state charges, but they're starting now with the federal case. and i think strategically it's smart to do that because in some respects, the theory in the federal case is broader than in the state case. in the state case they're charged as accomplices, meaning essentially they helped derek chauvin kill george floyd. in the federal case they're charged under this really expansive theory is the liability is they falled to help, they failed to intervene.
in some ways that's a broader thaer theory of liability. no conviction is ever easy, but an easier basis for prosecutors to get a conviction. >> one of the things that's going to throw a bit of a wrench into the prosecution's plan frankly is at least one of the officers we remember from the state homicide trial was said to have said, should we move him in some way? the prone position that was such a big part of the trial of derek chauvin now about the role he played. of course these officers were less senior. they were lower rank than derek chauvin. how is that going to factor in here in terms of the way the prosecution goes to this case? >> laura, as you know when you have multiple defendants in this case -- and we have three -- what sometimes happens is the defendants will say, okay, who's the most sympathetic? who can we put up on the stand with the least risk. >> it's not derek chauvin. it's not derek chauvin in this
case. >> no, absolutely not. no derek chauvin here. he would be the worst one to put on the stand for sure. the one they're going to put on is thomas lane who was in his first day of the job, and he's the one who said, shouldn't we roll him on his side. i think the defendants are going to offer up thomas lane as their spokesperson. >> let's goet to the arbery cas as well. they were on the cusp of having a federal plea agreement that would have had at least 30 years in prison on a federal level. that was tanked by the judge. the family was not in favor of a federal plea, going to federal prison if they wanted a full trial. this is one that is based on racial animus here. this is a difficult case for even the most seasoned prosecutor to be able to prove racial intent. is this going to be a very difficult case you think here? >> it is going to be a difficult case, laura. and it's going to be a different case than we saw the first time. in the first trial, the issue of
race was sort of there and in the background. but the prosecution in that case in georgia made a tactical decision to de-emphasize race. the prosecutor barely mentioned race, if at all. here race is going to be front and center. that's because of the law. these defendants are charged with federal hate crimes, meaning they attacked, they killed ahmaud arbery because of their racial animus. and the prosecutors have said they have evidence that these defendants used racial epithets in the past. so, the defendants are going to have to walk a very fine line here. they have to concede they used those racial epithets. and they're going to have to argue maybe they used racial terms. maybe they are racist, but that's not why they killed this young, black man. that's a tricky sell. >> it's not about hate. it's about racial animus, trying to distinguish the notion of walking the line. you don't have to hate, but i don't know how we're going to decipher the two. if you have racial animus to hunt and kill someone, i think hatred is a foregone conclusion
in many respects. ellie, you and i talked about the case when it came out, the idea of i wonder what was behind the motive of the state prosecutors not to bring up race. maybe because they knew that was on the horizon and didn't want to do anything to compromise it down the road. thank you so much. >> thanks, laura. let's turn to a much different conversation right now, although maybe there's a similar elephant in the room when it comes to race. history was made at the super bowl halftime show, and hip hop finally got a voice on the most-watched stage on the planet. so, how effectively did stars like snoop dogg and dr. dre and mary j. blige and eminem, to name just a few, balance the music and, well, the symbolic messaging? we'll post game with annie jones next. we have to be able to repair the enamel on a daily basis.
with pronamel repair toothpaste, we can help actively repair enamel iits weakened state. it's innovative. my go to toothste is going tbe pronamel repair. (vo) what makes my heart beat? having everything i want in the place i love. jamaica. heartbeat of the world. let's go! did i tell you i bought our car from carvana?
yeah, ma. it was so easy! i found the perfect car, under budget too! and i get seven days to love it or my money back... i love it! i thought online meant no one to help me, but susan from carvana had all the answers. she didn't try to upsell me. not once, because they're not salespeople! what are you...? guess who just checked in on me? mom... susan from carvana! [laughs] we'll drive you happy at carvana. [sound of helicopter blades] ugh... they found me. ♪ ♪ nice suits, you guys blend right in. the world needs you back. i'm retired greg, you know this. people have their money just sitting around doing nothing... that's bad, they shouldn't do that. they're getting crushed by inflation. well, i feel for them. they're taking financial advice from memes. [baby spits out milk] i'll get my onesies®. ♪ “baby one more time” by britney spears ♪ good to have you back, old friend. yeah, eyes on the road, benny. welcome to a new chapter in investing. [ding] e*trade now from morgan stanley.
so, for the first time, hip hop took center stage at the super bowl halftime show. dr. dre, snoop dogg, kendrick lamar, mary j. blige, and a couple other surprises. 50 cent, well, he literally dropped in, recreating a scene from his first music video 20 years ago. i can't believe that was 20 years ago, by the way. one of the most talked about moments is this one, eminem taking a knee, seemingly referencing former nfl quarterback colin kaepernick's stance against racism and police violence. speaking of the title of your podcast, they manny, you've been waiting a long time. you've been campaigning for a decade to see this performance. was it everything you hoped it would be? >> yeah, i mean, look, the mere idea -- if you were around when they were hot, the very idea they would be treated with such an iconic status is almost
bananas. except if you remember that time, you remember how broadly accepted the music was. by the time you get to the end of the decade, dr. dre is selling 10 million records. you think about the super bowl halftime, that's when you see paul mccartney and the rolling stones. and you saw dr. dre taking the biggest victory lap none of us could imagine at the end of the 1980s and early '90s. >> he had the line, still not loving police. that's a line so controversial. now it's evergreen. it's part of an overall conversation right now. what did you make of, frankly, the way there were different tones happening. there was a lyric dropped. you had eminem, the only white performer, who took a knee. you had dr. dre paying only image to tupac shakur at one point. what did you make of the symbolic speech happening.
>> i don't know if it was nearly as much symbolic as demonstrating the records. the one with the least money had had to bleep out his records. the one with the most money got his threw. the rich white man, what are they going to do, tackle him like there was fundamentally nothing you can do to stop this element of what went on there. i thought it was interesting that eminem decided to do that. and i think the nfl made the right play, even if they weren't going along with it, acting like they were peeved by it. but the thing about -- >> did they know t? was it cleared or he just did it? in the past he has been actually outspoken about supporting colin kaepernick. they were not knowing about it or he cleared it in advance? what's your thought? >> i don't think he was clearing anything. he was like, let me tell you this thing we're going to do. we don't want you to do that. see you guys later, and it winds
up happening. one thing dr. dre has never been about is making a statement. i think it would have been a bad look for him if he would have come out and bleeped tout line about the police because that's not the real line. but who was going to stop him at that point. if he wanted to put my foot down, either this is it or i'm not doing the performance. >> of course this is on the backdrop of the brian flores lawsuit and the brian flores lawsuit on the back of another lawsuit about the disproportionality of black players and ownership. does this move the needle forward for you or was this just to become partment liezed for entertainment and the nfl has a whole nother thing they have to worry about. >> that was jaust a concert. they reached a point people felt
like the halftime show was getting kind of lame. that doesn't have anything to do with anything that's going on i don't think. and part of it for me and i don't think the nfl cares whether or not the public thinks it's a racist institution. if it did, it wouldn't have gotten to the point people were talking about it so much. what they do want to do is stay out of court. and nothing about that halftime show is going to keep them out of a courtroom when it comes to brian flores. >> for the record, j.lo and shah ki rah, i'm not the one that called it lame. i'm not with you on that one. >> i just want you to point out that i didn't say no names. >> you did not. i was thinking about the most recent ones. all i'm saying because i'm a fan of j.lo and shakir rah, i love them too. thank you so much. he did not, for the record, call anyone out. this is laura coates saying it. >> i guess i'll thank you now. it just took a turn for me, got
a little risky. >> no, no risk. risk averted. 14 years ago today we had 14 students murdered at marjory stoneman douglas high school in parkland, florida. it's been four years since that day. and yet promises to help curb gun violence from some of our leaders since then, well, they've been just that, promises. so, what happened to action? i think congress, well, it's time you could use yet another reminder. and i'll bring you one, next. p prevent migraine attacks. it can't prevent triggers, like your next period or stress. you can't preventt what's going on outside, that's why qulipta™ helps s what's going on insid. qulipta™ is a pill. gets right to work to prevent migraine attacks and keeps them away over time. qulipta™ blocks cgrp a protein believed to be a cause of migraine attacks. qulipta is a preventive treatment for episodic migraine. most common side effects are nausea, constipation, and tiredness. learn how abbvie can help you save on qulipta.
and it's easy to get a quote at libertymutual.com so you only pay for what you need. isn't that right limu? limu? sorry, oneec. douglows a whistle. [a vulture squawks.] oh boy. only pay for what you need. ♪liberty, liberty, liberty, liberty♪ we need to reduce plastic waste in the environment. that's why at america's beverage companies, our bottles are made to be remade. not all plastic is the same. we're carefully designing our bottles to be 100% recyclable, including the caps. they're collected and separated from other plastics, so they can be turned back into material that we use to make new bottles. that completes the circle and reduces plastic waste. please help us get every bottle back.
woman: i have moderate to severe plaque psoriasis. now, there's skyrizi. ♪ things are getting clearer ♪ ♪ yeah i feel free ♪ ♪ to bare my skin, yeah that's all me. ♪ ♪ nothing and me go hand in hand ♪ ♪ nothing on my skin that's my new plan. ♪ ♪ nothing is everything. ♪ woman: keep your skin clearer with skyrizi. most who achieved 90% clearer skin at 4 months had lasting clearance through 1 year. in another study, most people had 90% clearer skin at 3 years. and skyrizi is 4 doses a year, after 2 starter doses. ♪ it's my moment so i just gotta say ♪ ♪ nothing is everything. ♪ skyrizi may increase your risk of infections and lower your ability to fight them. before treatment, your doctor should check you for infections and tuberculosis. tell your doctor if you have an infection or symptoms, such as fevers, sweats, chills, muscle aches, or coughs or if you plan to or recently received a vaccine. ♪ nothing is everything. ♪ woman: talk to your dermatologist about skyrizi. learn how abbvie could help you save.
each of them was giggling as they climbed up the bus stairs. as parents, we stood there talking amongst ourselves as they drove away. four years ago today parents in parkland, florida, wished their children a happy valentine's day. then the phone calls came. the sirens, the breaking news budgets, the screams, the reunifications, the silence, the coffins. every day in america parents say goodbye to their children, and on the one hand we saw for granted that they will be safe inside of a school in a classroom. on the other hand, we know all too well there's simply no guarantee. i remember holding my three-week-old son while i watched the news that 26 people, including 20 children, had been killed at sandy hook elementary school.
three years ago i held my kindergartner's hand as she was proudly showing me around her classroom, her desk where her crayons would be, and i had to try to collect myself when i saw her seat was directly in front of the classroom door. and the first thought that came to mind is if a shooter found their way into her school, my daughter would be directly in his path. now, these are the thoughts of parents today, and not just because of sandy hook, but because of columbine, virginia tech, parkland, oxford, and the more than 850 incidents of gunfire on school grounds over just the past decade that have killed at least 281 people and injured hundreds more. this rise in gun violence isn't imaginary. it's not media hype. the reality is back in the '70s
mass shootings took eight lives a year on average. that average has now shot up to 51 from 2010 to 2019 according to a nonprofit funded by the doj. so while we adults mark our time according to some five-year plan, our children often think in groups of four, four years of high school, four years of college. and i suppose there was some renewed sense of hope when president biden asked for the opportunity to lead for the next four years when he said things like this on the campaign trail. >> we're now work on making sure that we provide the children ability to avoid being shot in schools. what does that say about our soul? i'm so tired of people talking about your prayers.
damn it, we have to protect these kids. >> if you elect me your president, not only am i going to get if assault weapons ban back and a limitation on clips, i want to say to our friends if gun manufacturers, i'm coming for you. >> and yet today a parkland father climbed a crane above the white house unfurling a large banner with an image of his son's face to try to get an audience with that president. and it's not just the president, by the way. far too many parents and students have had to grace the halls of our congress hoping to get legislation passed to keep our children safe, to protect them and still it's not enough. because instead of kissing their children good night, they are getting more promises on gun reform. inaction in congress and lip service from the nra about a civilized society. why should it be on your kids, the victims of such tragedies to
push for meaningful solutions? >> frankly, if i could say one thing to the president, it's that we need you to go out and act right now before the next parkland happens because there are things that you can do right now to help prevent it that you have not done. we need you to make good on your promises because kids are dying. >> i'll tell you, i tucked my children into bed tonight, and i got to giggle with my daughter when we made sentences out of candy conversation hearts. i got to watch my son pretend to get sick as he read the love notes from his fan club in his class. and two parents, my husband and i, we still got to hear themselves and ourselves being called mommy and daddy. but tonight, i want to honor those who didn't, honor you for your fight, for your children,
for what today means to you, that you will no longer just be extended thoughts and prayers, but action, prevention, change, and love. we'll be right back. for your full financial picture. withth the right balance of risk and reward. so you can enjoy more of...t.this. this is the planning effect. (music)
who said you have to starve yourself to lose weight? who said you can't do dinner? who said only this is good? and this is bad? i'm doing it my way. meet plenity. an fda -cleared clinically proven weight management aid for adults with a bmi of 25-40 when combined with diet and exercise. plenity is not a drug - it's made from naturally derived building blocks and helps you feel fuller and eat less. it is a prescription only treatment and is not for pregnant women or people allergic to its ingredients. talk to your doctor or visit myplenity.com to learn more. zuriel: st. jude gave us hope. stephanie: all you've got to do is take care of your child, focus on her healing, give her a life. that for mother means a lot. and-- and thank you to st. jude. (vo) what makes my heart beat? having everything i want in the place i love. jamaica. heartbeat of the world. let's go! plain aspirin could be hurting your stomach.
vazalore 325 liquid-filled aspirin capsule is clinically shown in a 7 day study to cause fewer ulcers than immediate release aspirin. vazalore. the first liquid-filled aspirin capsules...amazing! imagine getting $150,000 dollars... for one year of epic adventures... in a new dodge hellcat... and you don't even have to quit your day job. you just need to show you've got real drive. are you our new chief donut maker?
thanks for watching. i'll be back tomorrow night. "don lemon tonight" with don lemon starts right now. >> okay, so how much did you eat yesterday, last night? >> why would you call me out for this? i may have had the nachos and the ribs and hot dogs. are you asking for a friend? >> because i'm surprised i'm not flying today as many wings as i ate last night. it was so, so, so bad. >> wait,