Skip to main content

tv   Anderson Cooper 360  CNN  June 29, 2022 9:00pm-10:00pm PDT

9:00 pm
good evening. there's breaking news tonight. the house january 6th committee a short time ago issuing a subpoena to pat cipollone. in a moment we'll be joined by zoe lofgren. cipollone, as you know, was a prominent part of cassidy hutchinson's testimony yesterday. he has so far refused to testify.
9:01 pm
so, of course, has former white house chief of staff mark meadows despite having already been subpoenaed and cited for contempt of congress for refusing to appear. he was one of the former president's closest advisor in the runoff to the january 6th insurrection, privy to every major decision before and leading up to that day. according to the testimony of cassidy hutchinson, his top aide, meadows appears to have been at the center of the scheme to overturn the election. the 26-year-old, cassidy hutchinson, was brave enough, patriotic enough, to come forward. 62-year-old mark meadows is not. just a refresher, here's some of what we learned from ms. hutchinson about mr. meadows, some of what the committee presumably would want to ask him if he had the courage or decency to talk. >> i remember leaning against the doorway and saying i had an interesting conversation with rudy, mark. sounds like we're going to the
9:02 pm
capitol. he didn't look up from his phone and said something to the effect of there's a lot going on, cass, but i don't know things might get, real, real bad on january 6th. >> do you know if mr. meadows intended to go to the willard hotel on january 6th? >> i had made it clear to mr. meadows that i didn't believe it was a smart idea for him to go to the hotel that night. >> what was mark's reaction, mr. meadow's reaction to this list of weapons people had in the crowd? >> i remember distinctly mark not looking up from his phone. i remember tony finishing his explanation and it taking a few seconds for mark to say to where i almost said, mark, did you hear him? and then mark chimed in, was
9:03 pm
like, all right, anything else? still looking down at his phone. >> when you finally were able to give mr. meadows the information about the violence at the capitol, what was his reaction? >> he almost had a lack of reaction. i remember pat saying to him something to the effect of the rioters have gotten to the capitol, mark. we need to go down and see the president now. and mark looked up at him and said, he doesn't want to do anything, pat. and pat said something to the effect of -- and very clearly had said this to mark, something to the effect of -- mark, something needs to be done or people are going to die and blood is going to be on your fing hands. >> did white house chief of staff mark meadows ever indicate he was interested in receiving a presidential pardon related to january 6th. >> mr. meadows did seek that pardon, yes, ma'am. >> mr. meadows did seek that pardon. we invited mr. meadows to come on the program and got no reply. we invited his lawyer to come on
9:04 pm
the program and give us a statement and got no reply. same goes for pat cipollone, the pat who is under subpoena to appear before the committee. cipollone is consistently portrayed counseling against every bad act under scrutiny, from mark meadows to the former president, going to the capitol from the inflammatory content in his speech to his refusal to call off the riots. cassidy hutchinson testified cipollone told her if he could not prevent the president from going to the capitol, quote, we're going to get charged with every crime imaginable. the former president certainly wanted to go to the capitol and was furious when told he could not go. both the secret service and former white house staffer tony orr nadeau have since disputed ms. hutchinson's account that the former president grabbed the steering wheel. the agency saying it will need the agents in question to testify under oath. meantime attorneys for cassidy
9:05 pm
hutchinson provided cnn a statement which reads in part, ms. hutchinson stands by all the testimony she provided yesterday under oath to the select committee. as for mark meadows and pat cipollone, nothing yet. remember the former president's so-called election defense fund that he said was set up to, quote, protect election integrity, the one we later learned didn't actually exist but still got people to donate around a quarter billion dollars that instead made its way to a trump fundraising pac. cnn has learned less than a month after the january 6th select committee, the trump pac made a million dollar donation to a group called the conservative partnership institute. and you might be curious to know who a senior partner in that group is. one mark meadows. yesterday, committee vice chair liz cheney detailed two instances of what appeared to be witness tampering through intimidation. if true, perhaps it's not the only way someone is trying to influence who said what during the january 6th committee.
9:06 pm
ryan nobles joins us now with more on the subpoena. what do we know about this? >> reporter: it seems pretty clear that the committee no longer wants to wait around for pat cipollone to voluntarily comply with their investigation and learn more about what he knew about the time leading up to and on january 6th. they make it clear in their letter to cipollone that they're willing to talk to him about ways of deal being privileged claims that he may have. and there's no doubt some privilege claims, because he was a member of the white house counsel's office, he was the chief counsel in that office and somebody that was advising the president and the office of the presidency on a number of legal matters. but it's clear that the committee believes his testimony outweighs any of those concerns. and that certainly came through in the testimony from cassidy hutchinson because cipollone's name came up time and time again as someone that was strongly advising the president and his top aides not to make and take some serious action that could put them in legal jeopardy and could potentially be dangerous, the most obvious example, of course, going to the capitol on january 6th.
9:07 pm
so, cipollone has long fought to be a key player in all of this, someone that was at the nexus of a lot of these decisions that were made in the trump administration and within the campaign and the time between the election and january 6th. and that's why the committee believes it is vital that they talk to him. >> cipollone had an informal interview with committee back in april. is it clear whether it was under oath, whether the committee could disclose that publicly, regardless of whether he complies with a subpoena? >> none of that is clear, frankly, anderson. the committee has not made it clear as to what kind of conversation they had with cipollone. we're led to believe it was more informal, that he provided more background information that either corroborated or rolled back some of the testimony that they'd already heard. and we also know that testimony happened -- if you could even call it testimony -- that conversation is probably a
9:08 pm
better way to frame it -- happened months ago, long after they received a lot more information from a lot of different witnesses, including the multiple interviews they conducted with cassidy hutchinson. that's why the committee believes it's necessary for cipollone not to hide behind anything anymore, that he needs to come in front of them under oath and testify to what he knows about this period of time because they believe that he is one of the most important players in all of this conversation. >> ryan nobles, appreciate it. >> joining us now committee member and california congresswoman zoe lofgren. do you have any indication that mr. cipollone would comply with this subpoena, or do you think it's likely he'll fight in court? >> well, i hope that he does comply. we recognize that there could be some communication between him and the president that is legitimately privileged. and we're willing to work through those. but clearly if you look at ms. hutchinson's testimony
9:09 pm
yesterday, there are quite a few things that he could tell the committee that would not be subject to privilege. and i think it's important. i think he wants to make sure that the institution of the office of counsel is protected. and i understand that. and i actually even respect that. but we can work through those issues. i think it's very important that he come in and answer the committee's questions. and i hope that he does. >> were you planning to subpoena him anyway? or is this a direct result of ms. hutchinson's testimony yesterday? >> well, i can't go into that. but obviously we've been in discussion with him and his counsel for quite some time. he did have an informal discussion with our investigators, but we really have a need to move past that. and i hope that he will respond. >> what do you think of ms. hutchinson's -- i mean, is there something you would see as her most important revelation yesterday? >> well, there was a lot. but the thing that struck me probably more than anything else was when she overheard the
9:10 pm
president instructing that they should take the fing mags away, that the people with weapons weren't going to hurt him, and that they could march, by the way, with those weapons to the capitol from the ellipse. wow. i mean, that was a shock. >> the fact that, according to her, that the president knew that people in the crowd were armed, especially because later on he said how, you know, they came with love and how he loved them. they were special people. >> right. >> the fact that he knew they were armed and he was still encouraging them to march on the capitol and claiming that he was going to go with them, what does that say to you? is that evidence of a crime? >> well, you know, i think it's very disturbing. he -- here was a crowd full of people. you know, some were unarmed, clearly.
9:11 pm
but there was a group of people who were armed with assault weapons. he knew it. and he wanted them to march on the capitol. he encouraged them to do it. not only did he tell them to go fight, but he also said he was going to be with them. now, as it turned out, that didn't occur, although clearly he very much wanted to go to the capitol himself. >> the secret service said today in a statement that the committee didn't ask secret service witnesses to respond to ms. hutchinson's testimony prior to yesterday's hearing. given that the committee knew what she was going to say, was it a mistake not to ask the secret service about it before she said it publicly? >> well, she was under oath.
9:12 pm
and you know, all she did was recount a report that was given to her. she wasn't in the car. and she told us under oath that mr. ornato relayed the story to her. if the secret service wants to come in under oath and say that they didn't tell her that or what they told her wasn't true, that's fine. but it misses the main point, which is no one's denying that the president wanted to go up to the capitol where these -- this armed mob was attacking the congress and trying to overturn the election. that is -- that is the main point, shocking as the story about the limousine lurch was. the real legal import was that he wanted to go up there, and nobody is disputing that. >> previously had mr. engel or any other member of the detail testified before the committee, and had they been asked specifically about what happened on that morning? >> well, i don't have a photographic memory from the reading the transcripts.
9:13 pm
it's been a while now since i read his transcript or mr. engel's. but we didn't have all the information we have now. those interviews took place quite some time ago. so, we may need to tag up with them. >> but wouldn't they have testified -- i mean, i assume you would have asked them about what happened on january 6, given they were -- >> let me just say that what ms. hutchinson, i thought, gave compelling testimony under oath. we fully expected that loyalists to the president would try and undercut her, belittle her, try and disparage her. and i think that is ongoing. but, you know, we'll put people under oath and see what they say then. >> so, you want those two, tony ornato and engel, to testify before the committee.
9:14 pm
>> i think he went under oath and stands by her testimony, which by the way is what she was told. if there's a dispute, we can put other people under oath. but the main point is this. no one is disputing that the then-president wanted to go to the capitol to be with the rioters. that's a pretty distinct fact. >> to be with rioters he knew were armed, which is just, again, extraordinary. and according to ms. hutchinson, he had said, you know, they're not going to be violent against me, which is even just a naive, odd, bizarre comment, just a stupid comment to make. who knows what armed people are going to do. the messages shown by vice chair cheney at the end of yesterday's hearing seemed to open the door to potential witness tampering. is the committee in possession of more messages along those lines? has that evidence been shared with the justice department? >> let's just say, we're
9:15 pm
concerned. as you know, 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. so, let's just say this. it's a concern. and anyone who is trying to dissuade or tamper a witness should be on notice that that's a crime. and we are perfectly prepared to provide any evidence we have to the proper authorities. >> congresswoman lofgren, appreciate it your time, thank you. >> thank you. >> joining us now former cnn fbi
9:16 pm
analyst andrew mccabe. andrew, your reaction to the committee's subpoena of pat cipollone. you think it's likely he would actually comply? >> i think it's highly unlikely that he'll comply. he should comply. there is plenty of conversations that we now know that mr. cipollone had with many people in and around the white house that did not include the president of the united states, and therefore would presumably not be privileged. he clearly has relevant, important evidence to provide to the committee. i think he should sit down and be interviewed under oath. but i would also assume that he is probably very focused on preserving the -- you know, not becoming the white house counsel who testified against his president. and that's going to be a tough obstacle for him to overcome.
9:17 pm
>> do government attorneys have any sort of ethical obligation to cooperation with an investigation, whether it be congressional or criminal? and maybe you can help explain the difference between a white house counsel and the personal attorney for the president. >> sure. normally, a government attorney, if they are requested to comply with a congressional investigation would be in a position of trying to comply with that. but white house counsel is a very unique position. so, the white house counsel gives advice to the president in his capacity as president. he is there to preserve the office of the institution of the presidency in part. and so that's completely different than someone who might be a personal lawyer to the individual who serves as president if they have separate legal exposure and need an outside lawyer. so, he was president trump's lawyer. he was not donald trump's lawyer. and so he does have a responsibility to preserve the institution of that white house counsel's office. sometimes an individual wants to receive a subpoena because then
9:18 pm
they can testify or provide information in a way that makes it appear that they are being compelled to do so and they are responding to lawful process. it seems more likely -- i think i agree with andy that in this case it's more likely that he will try to protect the prerogatives of that position and litigate it, in which case i don't understand why the committee waited this long to issue the subpoena. >> yeah, andrew, why do you think they did? is it just a coincidence they did it the day after cassidy hutchinson's testimony? >> you know, i think cassidy hutchinson's testimony made it perfectly obvious how relevant and important cipollone's testimony would be. so, you know, subpoenaing -- the fact they haven't subpoenaed him before this, i think -- you know, i totally agree with carrie -- is an oversight on their part. but it was unavoidable now, unavoidable today in the wake of yesterday's testimony.
9:19 pm
probably a pretty significant tactical error on their part because, as carrie points out, he'll very easily be able to potentially be able to dodge appearing by litigating the issue and essentially timing out the committee. >> hey, carrie, we are just literally right now getting new reporting that pat cipollone will probably agree to a transcribed interview with the january 6th committee limited to specific topics to avoid a privilege issue. what do you make of that? >> so, that's very interesting. that would align with the one possibility i mentioned, which is that he would have had a preference to receive a subpoena and be compelled and then be in the position of saying, i am going to respond to this important congressional investigation, and then they can be in a position of negotiating the terms. so, for example, what you just described, they'll probably engage with the committee and maybe they can come to some agreement where he testifies under oath. they'll determine whether it will be recorded versus a
9:20 pm
transcript, which has a different dynamic for him. we've seen how the committee has used video testimony very effectively. but maybe he would prefer not to do that and have written testimony. at this point, given the timing, i do think it's in the committee's interest to get him on record for as much as they can in whatever way that they can as opposed to going down the path of litigating it. >> it's an interesting idea you mentioned, carrie, the idea that he doesn't want to -- might not want to be on video if part of his thinking, which, you know, he's, i guess, in private practice now and probably needs work from republican, you know, from trump world, wants to leave that open. not having him on camera saying things which are critical to the president might be more palpable for him. >> yeah, so, serving as white house counsel is really a high point of one's legal practice. and then there is a post-service
9:21 pm
life that involves legal practice. and so every aspect of this, if he is going to comply in some way and provide testimony under oath, is going to try to manage every aspect of that to preserve his professional reputation and integrity. >> and as i said, we literally just found this out. are you surprised? >> i'm not surprised, anderson. i think it's -- you know, with yesterday's testimony, the expectation on cipollone, the pressure to step forward and say what he knows is absolutely intense right now. and, look, he can still come in and negotiate the most favorable terms, as carrie has laid out, that he possibly can, to avoid being captured on video, to avoid his testimony being used in a very visceral and clear way in a later hearing. i'm sure those are all things he would like to avoid. he can still come in and any individual question claim
9:22 pm
presidential privilege and refuse to answer those questions. and those issues can be litigated later. but really he has no ground to stand on legitimately to say, no, i won't come in and answer any questions whatsoever about matters that i discuss with people who are not the president of the united states. it just would be an untenable position i think for him. so, i'm not surprised by this development. it remains to be seen what we'll actually get out of it. >> appreciate it. thank you. next more on the question of whether cassidy hutchinson's testimony was some kind of tipping point. later republican senator ron johnson, the one who faked a cellphone call to try to dodge questions about his alleged involvement with the january 6th phony elector scheme, tonight how it's affecting his re-election campaign.
9:23 pm
9:24 pm
9:25 pm
9:26 pm
talking tonight about the fallout and potential future fallout from cassidy hutchinson's testimony yesterday before the house select
9:27 pm
committee, which includes a subpoena going out for former white house counsel pat cipollone. now according to a source familiar with his thinking, he will likely agree to a transcribed interview. other fallout includes people loyal to the former president now having second thoughts. listen to what mick mulvaney told jake tapper today. >> if you take what cassidy hutchinson said at face value, then donald trump knew that the protesters had weapons and encouraged them to go to the capitol anyway. that was stunning to me. >> and not just to him. perspective from the "new york times" foreign affairs columnist, tom freedman, author of countless books, why we need a green revolution and why it can renew america. been a bit more than 24 hours since cassidy hutchinson testified. does it feel like a tipping point to you politically or legally? what do you make of your testimony? >> you know, anderson, i can't speak to the legal tipping point.
9:28 pm
feels politically that i felt over the last several months that more and more what i'm going to call principled republicans, moderate republicans, were saying to each other, you know, i really hope donald trump doesn't run. he really shouldn't run. it would not be good if he runs. and i think if there's been a tipping point, it's that a lot more of them have listened to this testimony, especially the fact that the president allegedly encouraged armed protesters to take the capitol, even wanted to lead them at one point, and are now concluding he must not run. the dilemma for them -- i don't have any sympathy for this dilemma -- is that they want to retain trump's base without trump. and it's called the ron desantis solution. but it's going to be very difficult because trump will not go quietly into this good night. >> you write in your latest column, which is about israel, that ms. hutchinson essentially forced americans to ask
9:29 pm
themselves what kind of country they want to have, what kind of leaders they want to have, what sort of soul is at the core of america. do you think the committee is closer to answering those questions? >> reporter: just want to say one thing before i answer that question, anderson. this is a woman in her mid 20s. the bravery of this woman compared to the cowardice of people like representative mccarthy from california, mitch mcconnell. this is a young woman in her mid-20s basically taking on the past president, going before the congress. my hat is off to her. >> at 26, she has a strength that mark meadows at 62 does not. >> she has more fiber and spine in her pinky than the entire republican leadership. and i think we shouldn't lose sight of that. my hat is off to her, as it is, again, to liz cheney. i think the question is not who
9:30 pm
donald trump is, anderson. we know who donald trump is. if you haven't gotten it by now, you're never going to get it. he's a bad person. he's a dishonest person. and he was -- he's been a terrible figure in american politics. he has brought out the worst in us. we know who he is. the question is, who are we? who are we as a country? because what these hearings are telling us through the voices of principled republicans, they're telling us what happened that day. a president-led inspired and violent insurrection in the capitol. that is the truth. but the truth is of no value if we cannot act on the truth. that's really the question before the country. now, we know this is the truth. even doubters about this committee know this is the truth. but are we go polarized as a people that we can't act on that truth? and if we are, that's a very, very bad sign for the future. >> if we are so polarizing,
9:31 pm
can't act on the truth, then it raises a lot of questions about, i mean, where we go from here, how we can do anything. i mean, if law and order in the -- i mean, it's ironic that the party, the republican party was always the party, supposedly, of law and order. if, you know -- if the president's above the law, that -- that's chaos. >> i mean, what happened to us? to me, you know, when you talk about sort of the hard core republican supporters, remember a woman in illinois, mary miller, member of congress, defeated another member of congress in her primary running against his support for the january 6th committee. that was happening on the very day this testimony was happening. i mean, that's perverse. think how perverse that is. think of the things you have to deny in order to pursue that logic. and so i felt for a long time, anderson, that, you know, a lot of these people, they're really focused on trump.
9:32 pm
they actually hate the people who hate trump. and trump is just the club they use to beat them over the head which is why virtually nothing can change their behavior. people are already saying, is this the one? is this the straw -- there is no straw that can break the camel's back. here's what can happen, though, and here's must happen. principled republicans, the people who saved the last election, the secretaries of state, the election counters, moderate republicans have to make clear they will not go with trump. if he is the nominee, they will not vote for him. and they will risk the republican party losing if that is the case. if they aren't ready to take that sacrifice for the country, if they aren't ready to do an ounce of what cassidy hutchinson did yesterday or what liz cheney is doing every day, then we're lost. we're lost. it means that the truth is never going to set us free. >> tom freedman, thank you, appreciate it. coming up, cnn's manu raju chases down senator ron johnson for a second time in as many
9:33 pm
weeks. the vulnerable incumbent has played hard to get, even pretending to be on the phone to avoid discussing revelations about the january 6th investigations. what his constituents are saying next. 's right, yeah. and then enjoy immediate success, even though you'll never forget your old phone. ever. it's a great trade. life-changing. get a free samsung galaxy s22 with any galaxy trade-in. any year. any condition. only at at&t. ["only wanna be with you" by hootie & the blowfish] discover is accepted at 99% of places in the u.s. ["only wanna be with you" by hootie & the blowfish] your shipping manager left to “find themself.” leaving you lost. you need to hire. i need indeed. indeed you do. indeed instant match instantly delivers quality candidates
9:34 pm
matching your job description. visit [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]
9:35 pm
hm. no way! no way! priceline. every trip is a big deal. as a business owner, your bottom line is always top of mind. so start saving by switching to the mobile service designed for small business: comcast business mobile. flexible data plans mean you can get unlimited data or pay by the gig. all on the most reliable 5g network with no line activation fees or term contracts... saving you up to $500 a year. and it's only available to comcast business internet customers. so boost your bottom line by switching today. comcast business. powering possibilities. wanna help kids get their homework done? well, an internet connection's a good start. but kids also need computers. and sometimes the hardest thing about homework is finding a place to do it.
9:36 pm
so why not hook community centers up with wifi? for kids like us, and all the amazing things we're gonna learn. through projectup, comcast is committing $1 billion so millions more students can continue to get the tools they need to build a future of unlimited possibilities. wisconsin senator ron johnson was already one of the selection cycle's most vulnerable incumbents and that was before the january 6th committee disclosed how he was involved in the election scheme. he tried to deal with a fake phone call when met with reporters last week. >> senator johnson, how much did you know about what your chief of staff was doing with the
9:37 pm
ultimate slates of electors? >> i'm on the phone. >> no you're not. i can see your phone. i can see your screen. does your chief of staff still work for you, senator? >> can you explain what happened there? why was your chief of staff even offering this to the vice president? >> we've issued a statement. >> cnn's manu raju, who politely waited until after he was off the fake phone call, was recently in wisconsin trailing johnson again, seeing whether democrats could overcome their own obstacles to defeat their own incumbents. take a look. >> reporter: ron johnson, under fire again, after the january 6 committee revealed his office's offer to pass off fake electors to vice president mike pence. this week in milwaukee, refusing to answer cnn's questions.
9:38 pm
>> senator, do you have time for a question? senator johnson, do you have time for questions, please? >> reporter: johnson, facing re-election has been out of work before. twice democrats thought he'd lose the wisconsin senate race. >> aren't you just tired of all the anger and division? god, i am. >> reporter: but with abortions now banned in wisconsin, democrats hope voters take their fury to the polls. >> we've got to beat ron johnson, and i'm the only campaign that can do that. my campaign is the only campaign beating ron johnson with independent voters. >> i am a 72-county candidate. >> our campaign is the real wisconsin campaign. >> reporter: more than a third of democratic voters undecided ahead of the august 9th primary. the supreme court reverting wisconsin back to an 1849 law that bans abortions with no exceptions for rape or incest.
9:39 pm
>> i think it eliminates whatever advantage republicans have. >> reporter: the wisconsin state treasury faults her party for not codifying roe. >> i have been frustrated that my own party has not prioritized this and not gotten this done. >> if she was forced to carry to term, that would have created all sorts of additional mental and physical health issues for her. i wouldn't be here today. >> reporter: doctors fear they could still be at risk of being prosecuted in the future. >> we're afraid. we just don't know what the law means. >> reporter: none of the leading democrats back restrictions on abortions. >> should there be any restrictions at all, including late in a pregnancy?
9:40 pm
>> so, i think that women should have the right to make their own health care decisions. >> reporter: johnson has said little about how the law would impact his state, but said of the supreme court -- >> i think it was appropriate decision. >> reporter: instead campaigning on inflation while attacking president biden's policies. >> that's the burden of joe biden's inflation tax on wisconsin families. >> reporter: some democrats aren't even saying if the unpopular biden should run again. >> you think he should run for a second term? >> the president needs to do what's best for him. >> do you think that joe biden should run for president again? >> i am focused on this race right now. we've still got to get past november 2022. >> manu raju joins us now. is it clear how much senator johnson's connection to those fake electors might impact his chances of re-election. >> it's unclear at the moment because the polls are showing incredible tight race. if any of those four democratic candidates emerge from a primary, according to a poll, it will be within a margin of error race for any of them. expect this to go down to the wire. tens of millions of dollars being spent.
9:41 pm
the democratic candidates themselves acknowledge while they believe these controversies will drive up johnson's negatives, this will be determined again by the economy, by inflation and how voters are feeling about the performance of the president at this time. but that doesn't mean they're softening their rhetoric. it has been incredibly sharp against johnson. alex lasry, the candidate of the milwaukee bucks who's running told me it was treacherous and seditious what ron johnson did. and two of those candidates said that johnson should resign his senate seat. just ahead a live report from san antonio and breaking news on the dozens of migrants found dead in that semi truck. new details on charges in the case is next.
9:42 pm
step up. prep up. to help keep you free from the risk of hiv. descovy for prep, the smallest prep pill available, is a once-daily prescription medicine that helps lower the chances of getting hiv through sex. it's not for everyone. descovy for prep has not been studied in people assigned female at birth. talk to your doctor to find out if it's right for you. descovy is another way to prep. descovy does not prevent other sexually transmitted infections, so it's important to use safer sex practices and get tested regularly. you must be hiv-negative to take descovy for prep. so, you need to get tested for hiv immediately before and at least every 3 months while taking it. if you think you were exposed to hiv or have flu-like symptoms, tell your doctor right away. they may check to confirm you are still hiv-negative. serious side effects can occur, including kidney problems and kidney failure. rare, life-threatening side effects include a buildup of lactic acid and liver problems. the most common side effect was diarrhea.
9:43 pm
tell your doctor about all the medicines and supplements you take, or if you have kidney or liver problems, including hepatitis. if you have hepatitis b, do not stop taking descovy without talking to your doctor. ask your doctor if descovy for prep is right for you. get help paying for descovy for prep. learn more at lemons, lemons, lemons. the world is so full of lemons. when you become an expedia member, you can instantly start saving on your travels. so you can go and see all those lemons, for less. there's a reason comcast business powers more businesses than any other provider. actually, there's a few... comcast business offers the fastest, reliable network... the protection of securityedge™ and the most reliable 5g network. want me to keep going? i can...
9:44 pm
whether your small business is starting or growing, you need comcast business. technology solutions that put you ahead. get a great offer on internet and security, now with more speed and more bandwidth. plus find out how to get up to a $650 prepaid card with a qualifying bundle.
9:45 pm
some breaking news to report on the tragedy in texas, dozens of migrants found dead in the back of a semi-truck in san antonio. a short time ago authorities provided an update on the investigation to find those responsible. omar jiminez joins us now from san antonio with more details. you're getting new information on more charges. what do you know? >> reporter: yeah, anderson, these charges were just announced by the justice department against four individuals tied to this incident. for starters, the driver, who's been charged with smuggling illegals resulting in death. the homeland security agents say they used surveillance video of this truck crossing through an immigration check point and matched that person when they found him hiding in the brush when authorities first got to the scene.
9:46 pm
another man was charged with conspiracy to smuggle illegals, resulting in death. he was seen allegedly communicating with this driver through some form of communication. and two others were charged with illegal possession of a weapon for someone illegally in the u.s. they traced the license plates of trucks to homes in this nearby area, all part of what dhs is describing as the deadliest human smuggling incident in u.s. history. just before 6:00 p.m. on monday, authorities received a tip about an abandoned tractor-trailer on an empty country road on the outskirts of san antonio. the doors of the truck were partially open, and when authorities arrived, they found it stacked with bodies. >> the floor of the trailer, there was -- it was -- it was just completely covered in bodies, completely covered in bodies.
9:47 pm
and there were -- there were at least ten-plus bodies outside the trailer because when -- when we arrived, when ems arrived, we were trying to find people who were still alive. so, we had to move bodies out of the trailer onto the ground. >> reporter: 48 people were found dead inside that truck. more bodies were found outside the truck as well. >> i have so many bodies here. >> reporter: so far there are 53 victims from this incident, 40 men and 13 women. some may be under 18 years old. but there are also survivors, 12 adults and four children were recovered and taken to local hospitals. they suffered heat stroke and exhaustion. >> patients that we saw were hot to the touch. >> reporter: san antonio reached 100 degrees fahrenheit on the day the tractor-trailer was found. it had no air-conditioning or
9:48 pm
any sign of drinking water. experts familiar with this kind of truck say temperatures could reach up to 130 degrees when the doors are shut. its unclear when or where the victims boarded the truck or how long they suffered in the heat before they were found. >> they were still in there awaiting help when we arrived. being too weak to get out and help themselves. >> reporter: this is the road where the semitruck was found. one local called it -- [speaking foreign language] -- or the mouth of the wolf, partly because of how pitch-black it gets here at night. you can see there aren't any street lights. it also runs parallel to the interstate that starts at the u.s./mexico border, one commonly used by smugglers. most of the victims identified so far are from mexico, some from honduras and guatemala. authorities say they were part of a smuggling operation from
9:49 pm
mexico to the united states. the truck passed through a check point north of laredo on monday. now of the dozens found dead, the justice department says 22 of them were mexican nationals, 7 of them from guatemala, two from honduras, and 17 of them they were able to determine were at least not u.s. citizens, as the long and prolonged i.d. process continues. where i'm standing now is where they were all found on monday now at this point. it's turned into a makeshift memorial where people have filled in throughout the day coming to pay their respects, pray, leave signs of course to remember this incredible tragedy, anderson. >> yeah, it is just sickening to imagine. omar jiminez, i appreciate it. thank you. up next, meet a couple who wanted to expand their family. they were expecting a baby boy. but the fetus had severe abnormality. the mother's life was at risk. they had to go out-of-state to
9:50 pm
get an abortion. they are worried other mothers may not be able to get to a state to have the same care.
9:51 pm
9:52 pm
9:53 pm
with the reversal of roe v. wade abortion is now banned or severely restricted in 11 states there you so in dark orange. 13 other states in light orange are where severe restrictions are at least likely. and at least two states are in limbo due to legal fights. the rest currently have no restrictions. that includes nebraska, where the woman you're about to meet faced issues getting an abortion last year after she learned her unborn child had severe birth
9:54 pm
defects. she travelled to colorado to get the procedure, and she warned the option to travel could be more difficult. here's her report. >> reporter: stephanie and her husband, dave, always wanted a big family, a sibling for their daughter, harper. >> hi. >> reporter: so when they found out stephanie was pregnant with a boy last summer, they were overjoyed. >> this is a very wanted child. we planned for this baby. >> reporter: but 12 weeks into the pregnancy, an ultrasound revealed an infall seal, a birth defect where the fetus' internal organs were growing outside the body. this photo shows a defeated stephanie the day she received the tragic news. >> what would have mean for quality of life for the baby? >> there would have been none. he would not have been able to survive or come home. >> reporter: stephanie was also told her own life could be in jeopardy. at 19 weeks she and her husband made the painful choice to terminate the pregnancy.
9:55 pm
>> an abortion was the choice i had to make to save my life. i couldn't carry this baby to term and have my husband have to bury both of us. it just wasn't an option. abortion was. >> reporter: their home state of nebraska allowed abortions up to 22 weeks, but they couldn't find the clinic to schedule the procedure in time. they settled on the boulder abortion clinic in colorado. dr. warren heard has been providing abortions for nearly half a century. he's 84 years old and remembers the days before roe v. wade. >> thousands of women died every year from unsafe, illegal abortions. i think one of the consequences of this decision is that women will die as they did before roe v. wade. >> reporter: in colorado, abortion is legal at all stages of pregnancy. even before the supreme court's ruling last week, colorado's family planning clinics were struggling to cope with a surge of out of state patients. >> this is an abortion intensive
9:56 pm
care unit. we get patients from all over the country who can't be seen at other clinics. >> reporter: how do you see that impacting the surge of patients coming to colorado? >> it's more than we can ensure. it takes a long time to expand the services. you have to find the people who will do this and risk their lives to do it. >> reporter: as one of the few people in the country who performs legal abortions later in pregnancy, dr. herns says he's seen his patient load increase more than 50% from aa year ago and says he's worried too many women won't get the care they need. >> one of the things that's critical to understand is that safe abortion is an essential component of women's health care in the 21st century. and that's the way it should be. and no woman's life and health should be at the mercy of the next election or a zip code. >> what's your message to people who say, you know, abortion bans and especially late term abortion bans are, you know, it's about protecting that child's life? >> i would love somebody who
9:57 pm
says that they were trying to protect my child to look me in the eye and say that he deserved to come into a world where he would have to fight for every breath he took and be hooked up to drugs for his brief existence. how is that pro-life? how is putting my life in danger pro-life? >> reporter: harper still asks about oliver james, the name they picked out for her would-be brother. >> i had to tell her that the baby was too sick and that the baby wasn't going to come home with us and that she wasn't going get to meet her little brother. >> his ashes, hand, and footprints inshrined on the living room shelf. >> we very much want another child, but what if this happens again? i was so excited at the idea of
9:58 pm
a positive pregnancy test, and now it scares me. it scares me because i might not be able to get an abortion this time. >> reporter: although colorado guarantees the right to an abortion, the procedure is now illegal in many of the surrounding states. we've seen an influx of folks coming in from out-of-state to get an abortion, which is straining clinics here. it's increasing wait time. planned parent hood tells me there's a minimum two week wait right now as providers struggle to cope with the surge. >> thank you. we'll be right back. trade in a , any year any condition. oh i get it. so you can take your old phone, that you've had for 12 years and loved every minute of, and trade it in for something new that suits your life now? that's right, yeah. and then enjoy immediate success, even though you'll never forget your old phone. ever. it's a great trade. life-changing. get a free samsung galaxy s22 with any galaxy trade-in.
9:59 pm
any year. any condition. only at at&t. ♪ so i climbed into the cab, and then i settled down inside ♪ ♪ i've been everywhere, man ♪ ♪ i've been everywhere, man ♪ ♪ of travel i've had my share, man ♪ ♪ i've been everywhere ♪ ♪
10:00 pm
ugh-stipated... feeling weighed down by a backedup gut" miralax is different. it works naturally with the water in your body to unblock your gut. your gut. and your mood will follow. i recommend nature made vitamins because i trust their quality. they were the first to be verified by usp... independent organization that sets strict quality and purity standards. nature made. the number one pharmacist recommended vitamin and supplement brand. new projects means new project managers. you need to hire. i need indeed. indeed you do. when you sponsor a job, you immediately get your shortlist of quality candidates, whose resumes on indeed match your job criteria. visit and get started today.