Good evening. We begin tonight with breaking news in New York Times is reporting on what it says helped lead to the breaking point, quote, between Fox News and Tucker Carlson. And according to the Times, it had to do with information that came to light in the Dominion case. Here's the headline.
On eve of trial, discovery of Carlson texts set off crisis atop Fox. According to the New York Times, quote, private messages and by Tucker Carlson that had been redacted and legal filings showed him making highly offensive remarks that went beyond the comments of his prime time show. In a moment, the attorney for fired Carlson producer, Abigros Berg, joins me and I'll get his take on this and other developments in two lawsuits against the network. She's alleging sex is in the hostile work environment and accuses the company of coercing her into giving misleading testimony in the Dominion case.
She also says she has 90 recordings from her time at Fox that were never shared in the Dominion case and her attorney said that January 6th special prosecutor now has descriptions of those recordings and they want them. First, I want to talk with the New York Times reporter, Jim Rundberg, who is on the byline of this breaking Tucker Carlson story also with a senior media reporter, Oliver Darcy. So Jim, just to lay out more of your reporting about what allegedly led to the breaking point between Fox and Tucker Carlson. Well, Anderson, what we are reporting is that there was a late break in terms of what Fox's board of directors knew about redacted portions of these Tucker Carlson emails that were going to be at issue at trial.
Some of your viewers might remember that there were a bunch of emails from Tucker Carlson that were pretty controversial, but apparently these redactions were even more concerning to the board and senior leadership that somehow they had escaped notice until this 11th hour and that led Fox to really realize that this is the point where Tucker Carlson is moving into more of a problem, I'll have to say the least, than a asset. Jim, is it clear why the Fox board of directors and senior executives were in the dark about these messages until virtually the Eve, the Dominion trial? Because the lawyers had them. Well, that is surprising to us as well.
So we are continuing to report that out, but it does seem at the very least as if these redactions were considered sort of safely put away. There still seems to be some contention that maybe none of these would have ended up being seen in trial. That's debatable. Dominion's lawyers clearly were planning to bring them up in cross-examination if they got in Tucker on the stand.
Maybe a judge would have stopped that. So there seemed to be a somehow these get to slip by and the board engages at the very last minute. And also what we are reporting is that when the board gets onto this, they consider bringing in an outside firm to conduct an investigation into what was surrounding these very controversial messages between Tucker Carlson and other people within the company. How does this work with you?
In Rupert Murdoch's empire, no one can be bigger than the Fox News brand. I think these messages, even the unredacted messages, indicate that Tucker Carlson clearly thought that he was. I mean, in the messages that were unredacted, just to be clear, he was not shy about expressing significant disdain for Fox brass, Fox leadership. He made some very crude comments in the unredacted messages.
And so I think if there are more messages, perhaps more crude messages in the redacted portions, it became clear I think to Fox leadership, people like Rupert Murdoch, Lachlan Murdoch, who's Dan Scott, that he believed he was bigger than the Fox News brand. And I think that's a caramel sin in Rupert Murdoch's empire. And you've seen them in the past, willing to part ways with some of their biggest personalities, Bill O'Reilly, Glenn Beck, Megyn Kelly, when they believe that they've basically ascended past Fox News, that Fox News needs them more than they need Fox News. And really, I think Rupert Murdoch has proven that that's not necessarily the case.
Fox is what convenes the audience, not these, not these hosts. Jim, according to your reporting, how is the decision to fire Carlson viewed by the Murdochs? Is it clear? How is the decision that they certainly were beyond ready to do it?
And one thing I want to make clear is that by all indications, the Murdochs over time, were souring on their top host. I mean, your show, you've covered it yourself. Tucker Carlson had a certain gift for getting into trouble, dragging the network into trouble. And that seemed to be okay, obviously, for a couple of years.
They stood by him. He was a big ratings driver. He was a profit driver. But once he starts walking them into what appears to be greater potential legal problems, that you mentioned two other lawsuits that are pending.
There was potentially news of a potential third lawsuit coming down the pike. So this just takes the Murdochs into a far different category in terms of dealing with Tucker Carlson. And the controversy clearly becomes not worth it. And all of his girls and comments of them?
Carlson has been seen by tabloids in Florida. And he said he told the Daily Mail that he's enjoying retirement kind of joking about that. But he hasn't commented in a really substantive way. I think it's also nowhere to understand that without Carlson in the 8 PM hour over at Fox News, the ratings over there are really collapsing.
Last night in the key advertiser supported or quavaded at 25 to 54 demo, they saw the worst ratings since pre 9 11. That's a really staggering drop over at Fox News. The hour before it actually rated higher than the 8 PM hour, which is something of an anomaly over at Fox. Something that certainly never happened when Tucker Carlson was in that hour.
And so I think as we're watching this, it's really interesting to see the ramifications of having at Fox and also at the smaller right wing channel Newsmax, which is seeing its ratings surge. And this is of course what led to the initial Dominion debacle because Fox executives saw this other competitor rising. And that's when they started to make some of these decisions that led to being sued ultimately by the Minions. How does Carlson's, I mean, how could his text factor into the separate pending defamation suit by Smart Matt against Fox?
I mean, can more information come to light through those proceedings? Well, yeah, Tucker Carlson is not a huge part of that case. I'll note he wasn't a huge part of the Dominion case. In fact, when it came to the Famatory statements, his show was one of 20 examples.
But the problem was that these texts were so hot and controversial that already, and as Oliver said, like some of the unredacted texts were already getting them into trouble. So he was helping set for the lawyers at Dominion, helping them show an atmosphere in which people doubted some of these conspiracies. Tucker Carlson talked about doubting these conspiracies. And so pretty unvarnished terms.
He spoke about Sidney Powell, a lawyer who was driving the conspiracies about Dominion voting this idea that they're machines, this false idea that they were switching, the machines are switching Trump votes to Biden votes. So he sets an atmosphere. He's not a major part of that case, but that goes back to the liability idea here. Don't mean that necessarily in a legal sense, but in a reputational sense that Tucker's making so much noise around these suits that he otherwise didn't have to be a major part of.
Yeah, Jim Renberg, I really appreciate Oliver Dorsey as well as we mentioned. Two lawsuits against Fox, fired at Carlson producer Abby Grossberg, is alleging sexism, a hostile work environment accused the company of coercing her into giving misleading testimony in the Dominion case. She also says she has 90 audio recordings that she made while working at Fox, that she says Dominion didn't get. And now her attorney says that January 6, prosecutor, has descriptions of those recordings and they want them.
Joining now is her attorney, Jerry Philip Potos. How does this new reporting by the New York Times track with what your client is alleging? Well, I mean, the fish rots from the head up, head down rather. So it's very clear to me that the, let's just call them salty electronic exchanges that were part of, then became under redacted in the Dominion case are very characteristic of the type of atmosphere that Mr.
Carlson fomented and countenance in his news group. And form a great part of Abby's case in the Southern District. I'll just say also in terms of the three cases, the Dominion Smartmatic and Abby's case, I think Abby's civil conspiracy case is kind of the connective sinew between the two cases in terms of what happened and how the discovery process was really abused. And it seems that the attorneys were playing hide the ball instead of following the rules.
In today's Wall Street Journal, sources of the Wall Street Journal say that Fox News attorneys at one point actually convinced the court to redact an instance in which Carlson allegedly had called a Fox News executive misogynistic slur, begins with the letter C. Carlson, reportedly, when the Wall Street Journal sources was not happy about that, wanted the world to know he said what he thought of that executive. That seems to strengthen a lot of things that your client has been saying about what it was like in that environment. Yeah, I mean, one of the, Abby made a lot of complaints about the environment there when she got there.
She was shocked. I mean, the first day she was there, I think she was told the story about how she was welcomed by pictures, large pictures of then speaker Pelosi in a bathing suit because she was on the beach and they were all over the place in the mocking kind of way and she actually had to take one off of her computer to sit down and work. But she, so she complained a few times and one of the executives, I think it was of Mr. Fox, no pun intended, said to her, well, you know, this is, we're just following Tucker's lead.
This is, this is the vibe. It seems like he set the tone for they all the, you know, on a show like that, he can decide who works there and who doesn't. And so they all sort of pattern themselves after him. Yeah.
I mean, it was a real kind of, you know, brofest, you know, kind of what I did a lot of cases in the 90s, you know, remember the boom, boom rooms and thought those went away, but apparently they didn't. And what's just shocking to me is that that there is, Fox has had so many warnings and so many lawsuits that it's settled and alleging sex discrimination, gender discrimination. I mean, it's your point. Carlson replace bill, Riley.
Exactly. And I'm not going to learn the lessons of the person you replaced. Your claim made these 90 audio recordings. I want to play one of Senator Ted Cruz's from January 2nd, 2021.
Cruz floated the idea of a kind of a special commission to look at voter fraud claim. This was, this was not on air. This was a credit card talking to Maria Bartiromo, but not in a pre interview, a pre interview. Let's listen.
I think that the country deserves to have a credible assessment of these planes and what the evidence shows. The mechanisms to try to force that is denying certification on the 6th. Who's deciding who is an underwriting? It would be $1,000 of that permission and what they find.
And if they found a couple evidence of fraud that undermines confidence in the electoral result, then they did a state they would report on that. And as we mentioned, Jack Smith has been in touch with you about these recordings. Where does all that stand? So it's the special counsel's office, the special counsel's office.
And we've surrendered detailed descriptions of all of the audio recordings we have pursuant to the Otter app. They were approximately 90. And frankly, we're not through all of them getting us listening to them. It was a tremendous amount of volume.
But we're hopeful that we'll be able to work out a targeted subpoena and whatever recordings they want. We're happy to give them. Thank you, sir. Up next, House Speaker Kevin McCarthy gets a victory in a close vote.
He got House Republicans to agree to raise the debt ceiling for the measure. He's obviously expected to die when he goes to the Senate. More than what happened in the next. And I'll talk to the public and Congresswoman Nancy Mase, who backed McCarthy's bill, here why she just earlier today, she said she was going to vote no, but she changed it to a yes.
And that's why the Walt Disney Corporation is now suing Florida Governor Ron DeSantis. Early this evening, House Speaker Kevin McCarthy got the votes he needed by a very thin margin. McCarthy and his fellow House Republicans have passed a plan to raise the nation's 31.4 trillion debt limit by $1.5 trillion in exchange for spending cuts on rallying parts of President Biden's agenda. The vote was 217 to 215 with four Republicans voting against it.
The maximum allowed defections in the narrowly divided chamber. Here are the votes who voted no, Matt Gates, Ken Buck, anti-bigs and Tim Perchit. Getting to this moment was obviously important for McCarthy, for him to get the speaker's gavel that took his stork 15 ballots over five days back in January. Today he showed he can unite most of his fellow Republicans and get what he wants done, though his bill is really going nowhere.
The Democratic controls Senate and White House won't back McCarthy's plan. Here's what President Biden said this afternoon. Happy to meet with McCarthy but not on whether or not the debt limit gets extended, that's not negotiable. But negotiations on some level between both parties will be necessary to avoid potential financial disaster without a deal experts predict the United States could default on its status early as June.
Joining South Carolina Republican Congresswoman Nancy Mase, who switched a vote for me, no to a yes, say, Congresswoman, great to have you on. You were a holdout. You were a holdout on this bill ahead of some key changes in meeting with Speaker McCarthy and his team. How did they get you to a yes?
Well, my job when I came to Washington is to get things done and we did that today. I'm grateful for the time that Speaker McCarthy gave to us to talk about balancing the budget in the future and committing to working with us on a balanced budget amendment, for example. And you know too, Anderson, that I'm very passionate about other issues and we talk about those other issues like women's issues and I'm very passionate about, I'm also passionate about gun violence in this country and getting a commitment and talking to him about a path forward and how we can work together on some of the issues that South Carolina cares about and quite frankly, most folks across the country. And I'm here to work and work hard and sometimes that means negotiating in order to move forward and that's what we did today.
The changes that were made to the bill in the past 24 hours, was there something particular that was most instrumental in getting it passed? Not in the language of the bill itself, but talking and getting a commitment from him to work with us on a balanced budget amendment separately in the future. And in fact, we sent some minutes of language tonight for them for their consideration, but working with us on something that I feel very strongly about because look, we are in this position today with $31 trillion in debt because both sides have been spending like drunken sailors. You had under President Trump's administration, he had $8 trillion to the debt.
So far under President Biden, he's added $4 trillion to the debt. That's $12 trillion over the last six years. And we've got to get serious about how we're going to move forward, how we're going to tackle spending, how we're going to try to balance things out. I have a bill that would balance the budget in five years, too aggressive for the majority of Congress.
But can we do it in 20? I would take 20 years. But we've got to have conversations, make tough decisions. I'm disappointed to hear the president won't sit down and talk to McCarthy about negotiating further on this deal, but both sides need to come together and work together.
That's what the American people are asking us to do today. Which means both sides make compromises, which is often now a dirty word in Washington. I mean, it compromises with the Senate, with the White House in order to make sure the United States, are you willing to go along with that, making some sort of compromises? I've been willing to work with anyone who's willing to work with me.
And if you look at history, back in 1994, Republicans had the majority. We had Democrat president. They put a plan together to balance the budget in 10 years. They did it sooner.
They did it in four in 1998 under President Bill Clinton. They got a surplus and they balanced the budget. They did it again in 2010 and 11, where we had a Democrat president, a Republican majority with cut cap in balance. It can be done, but that means that both sides have to come to the table.
We can't dig our heels in. And although compromise may be a dirty word in Washington, that's what the American people want us to be doing. They want us to work together to deliver results for the country. Do you think Speaker McCarthy would have the same support within the GOP caucus?
If he has to give up some of the cuts that just passed the House? Well, it's hard to say, but again, we've got to move something forward. We've got to be responsible about how we're going to spend. If you look at some of the plans that are out there and ideas, we cannot have $31 trillion of debt 10 years from now.
We have to figure this out and we have to figure it out together because you have a Republican controlled House, a Democrat controlled Senate. So digging her heels in and saying, no, no, we're not going to work together. Doesn't sound good for majority of Americans. They want us to work together.
This is the first step in doing that. I hope that Biden will take up McCarthy on his deal and offer to come to the table and negotiate talk to us. We're willing to talk to you. Thanks so much for your time.
Thank you. I'm going to finish down the Senate. Democrats, the White House are saying the House Republican plan is down on arrival. What happens now?
Well, it is down on arrival. What happens now is there has to be some kind of middle ground like you were just talking about with the Congresswoman. Yes, it is true that the president says I will not negotiate on the debt ceiling. It will have to be raised period end of story.
It is also true that he's been in Washington a very long time and he knows that there are ways to get to yes for both sides, but you have to do it in a way that both the Democrats and Republicans feel like they're getting a win. One example is Senator Amy Klobuchar told me on Sunday on State of the Union. Maybe the Democrats and Republicans can negotiate on the budget, wink, wink, nod, nod, and then everybody could feel comfortable on raising the debt limit. So there are lots of ways kind of only in Washington where you can potentially get to yes, but it's going to require, particularly in the House, it's going to require a significant number of Democrats and Republicans to get this done.
And I mean, obviously, the same question. What about Speaker McCarthy and his caucus? Can he, does he have enough support enough power to get that done? No, he doesn't, which is why he's going to need or there will need to be, whether or not he throws his hands up and says I'm not going to be involved in this and maybe the president Mitch McConnell, the Republican leader in the Senate will start to negotiate this just like they did all those years ago.
And that way, Kevin McCarthy will have sort of a way out of it, politically. But the answer is he will not be able to, it will be very difficult to see him giving on very much, if anything, which is what will need to happen in order to get this done and still have enough people, just Republicans to pass it. It's just, it's hard to see which is why it's got to be bipartisan. I mean, does any party right now have the upper hand or it just seems like something's out of give.
They've got somebody's got to be willing to compromise. It's a really good framing of the question. No, nobody has the upper hand. Until this moment, the White House thought that they had the upper hand, the Democrats thought that they did because they kept saying, well, come to the table, Republicans, let us know what you want to cut.
Well, they did that today. The Democrats won't agree to most of those cuts, but at least they put their line in the sand, they put their marker down, which is a very important thing when you look forward in negotiations. That's what you need to do in order to actually start negotiations and earn it. But time is running out.
We're talking about June. It's the end of April. How big of a test do you think was this for Speaker McCarthy, just navigating the different factions of his conference to get the votes you needed today? It was a really big test.
I'm going to talk to a couple of Republicans tonight before coming on with you, some of whom are not huge. Kevin McCarthy fans who said that they felt not only heard, which is actually what Nancy May said publicly after she changed her vote, and she said that to you just tonight, but also that he, Kevin McCarthy and his top allies, top lieutenants, like Congressman Emmer, who's the whip, they didn't negotiate this in a way that allowed them to, members of the conference to feel heard. That's the same kind of language that we heard during the Speaker's race, when it took so long. And the Republican members just want to say that they had conversations with the leadership and the leadership knows where they're coming from.
That's where they are today. Again, when we get to the tougher questions of what really will be saved and what won't be and what they really will agree to when it comes to the law of the land, it's probably going to be a very different dynamic. Donna, thanks. Appreciate it.
Tonight on that scene in prime time from California Governor El Shorzinger is going to talk to Hannah about anti-Semitism and hate. Here's a preview. And I was born with a father that was a Nazi. Think about that.
You used the story of your father to try to reach people who are getting sucked into. And then you were talking about groups that propagate hate. Talk about making that connection. My father was, and so many other millions of men were sucked into a hate system through lies and de-seats.
And so we have seen where that leads. I said, I've seen it firsthand how broken those men's, what this man were. The kind of address that is that happened, how many millions of people had to die and then they ended up losers. You know, the Confederacy losers, they say all of this just doesn't work.
I mean, let's just go and get along and love is more powerful than hate. Hannah's interview with Shorzinger is coming up at the top of the hour on CNN prime time. It's a little bit more than half an hour from now. Still ahead for us, writer E.
Jean Carroll took the witness stand today in her suit against Donald Trump and described under oath what she said started as a quote, funny New York scene and ended with rape, according to her in a department store dressing room. That's next, on 360. The writer E. Jean Carroll took to the stand today in her battery and defamation lawsuit against former president Donald Trump saying quote, I'm here because Donald Trump raped me.
And when I wrote about it, he said it didn't happen. He said it didn't happen. The alleged incident took place in 1996 in the dressing room in the New York City Department of the former president has repeatedly denied the allegations in the civil lawsuit. And today the judge admonished the former president's attorneys over recent social media posts about the case.
Caris Canellis outside the court. What did I miss Carl say on this and today? Well, I understand she testified for several hours under oath and she told the jury in graphic detail about this alleged assault. She said that this began on a spring night in 1996.
She went to Burghoff Goodman's to do some shopping. She left and as she was leaving, she said she ran into Donald Trump. He noticed her and said, Hey, you're that advice, columnist. She said she replied, Hey, you're that real estate tycoon.
And he asked her to help him find a gift. She said they looked at handbags, hats, and then they made their way up to the six floor of the department's door into the lingerie department. She said they were joking over a piece of lingerie about whether he should try it on or if she should try it on. But then she said that's when things turned violent.
She said that Trump brought her into the dressing room. He shoved her against the wall. She banged her head. She said that he closed the door and then he pulled down his tights and he raped her.
Now, Carol said after that, she contacted two friends. Those two friends are expected to testify for her as part of this case. She said that one of them told her she shouldn't go public with this because Trump would quote bury her. And Carol said that she did suffer harm from this.
She said she's not able to have a romantic relationship because in her mind flirting led to this terrible event. Now, she also said that when Donald Trump came out publicly and denied the attack saying that she did it to do sales of her book, she said she also suffered then as well, saying she was fired from her job as an advice columnist at L. She said she received hate mail and that she has not recovered from that. She was fighting back tears at one point when her lawyer asked her, do you regret this?
And she said a hundred times that she did. But she said being able to tell her story in a court of law meant everything to her so she was happy about that Anderson. And what did the judge warn the former president's attorneys about? Well, the former president had issued, you know, posted on his social media platform, True Social About the Case.
Now, Carol's lawyers brought this to the judge's attention this morning. Before the jury entered the courtroom and the judge said, you know, look, your client here needs to be careful. He may or may not have violated or exposed himself to potential liability. You know, the question here is what is Trump posting?
Could this be something that he could be considered as jury tampering or witness tampering in this case? Because this is an anonymous jury. The judge doesn't want he won't. He doesn't know the identity of the jurors.
He said that the attorneys can't know the identity of the jurors. And part of that is because of Trump's rhetoric, the statements that he has previously made in some other cases that have been, you know, concerning to judges. So, you know, he's tried to keep this under wraps and then, you know, Eric Trump, Donald Trump, son posted something on Twitter this afternoon. And while the judge said that Eric Trump is not before him, he did remind Trump's attorneys yet again that, you know, these are concerns.
There are statutes out there and that someone on the scene should be mindful of this and weren't their client. You know, Trump's attorney Joe Tackapino was caught a little bit on his heels. He was unaware of these tweets. He said he would talk to his client.
He said he did talk to his client after the first week, but he would follow up again with the Anderson. All right, Carol Skinnell. Appreciate it. Here with me now from a federal prosecutor in the Atlanta, Jennifer Rogers.
Ms. Carol's testimony today, was that the most crucial testimony in this likely to occur in this trial? It definitely is, but we have to see how the cross goes. So it's both the direct and the cross, but sure, it's all the marbles are with Jean Carol and her testimony for sure.
If the jury does not believe what she says, then the case is over. Right, exactly. Does it hurt the former president's chances of prevailing the fact that he's not physically there in court? It's hard to say, you know, what the jurors think about in their minds is they're making this decision.
I think it probably does. I mean, everyone else is sitting there through all of this. They might be wondering, you know, why is he not giving this the time of day? But as a more technical matter, he also can't tell his side of the story this way.
I mean, he cannot put in his own deposition testimony. Eaching Carol's lawyers can put in Trump's testimony, but he can't do it. So he's going to kind of have to get his denial of this whole thing out through the cross examination and the jury arguments, whereas if he were there and testified, he could flat out deny it. I didn't do this.
It wasn't me. Does the judge admonishing the former person's attorneys about social media posts? Does that really matter? I mean, I understand why he does it, but are there actual ramifications of that?
There could be. I mean, Judge Kaplan could hold him in contempt and there's criminal contempt and civil contempt. I mean, he could wind up with fines because of this. He could even potentially go to jail with a criminal contempt.
So the judge isn't there yet, but now having made very clear what his order is and putting Trump on notice that if he steps over again, there may be consequences, we could see a criminal contempt if he continues to post. Tomorrow would happen to what he's watching for that. That's the cross. I'm watching for the cross.
So the issue is how well does she stand up to what I think will be very aggressive questioning from Joe Tokopina? It's not a great look for a lawyer to aggressively go after a victim of sexual assault, but I think that's his only play here, so we'll have to see how she stands up in the face of that aggression. And for Roger's appreciate it. Thank you.
Up next, the High States- partially in Florida Governor Ron DeSantis is heading to court. He's going to say suing DeSantis, a legend, the company is the victim of, quote, targeted campaign of government retaliation, their words. Syner Data discreet analyst, Gary Antone tells us why this fight could have big ramifications for DeSantis eventual campaign ahead. The fight between Florida Governor and potential presidential candidate Ron DeSantis and and disney escalated in a big way today the company file suit in federal court against him alleging a quote targeted campaign of government retaliation dissenters who's criticized by other public presidential contenders over his broadside against his knee defended his actions they saying they're actually good for business that actually helped a lot of CEOs around the country to go to their board they could say look we don't want to be the next disney we've got to stay out of the stuff and we've got to focus on the task at hand but i do think that the incentives over the last ten years have been for them to basically been the need of the woke mob and try to advance uh...
a local general for the latest on bringing our steve kontorno from steve just for a second what more do we know about the substance of the suit anderson in this lawsuit is the essentially accuses governor santa's of engaging in a year-long campaign to punch the company over its opposition to what critics have called the don't say gay law and they said that this is a violation of their first amendment rights let me read you a little bit from the law suits i think it lays out exactly their side of why they think we got to this point they say quote disney regrets that it has come to this but having exhausted efforts to seek a resolution the company is left with no choice but the file this lawsuit to protect its cast members guests and local development partners from a relentless campaign to weaponize government power against disney in retaliation for expressing a political viewpoint unpopular with certain state officials now this lawsuit goes on over seventy seven pages to lay out multiple examples of the stance is another for republicans suggesting even boasting in that they took this action directly because of what disney said and how they spoke up and now disney is asking a judge to undo the punishments they have received and give them back their special governing powers in central florida is a significant the timing of the suit yeah this lawsuit was filed just moments after the board that oversees disney's special district voted to nullify agreements that disney had reached with the district and if you remember this is an agreement that disney reached at the eleventh hour right before uh... the santis was about to pot take a power grab install a bunch of his appointees on the board without his new board came in discovered these agreements existed and today voted to nullify them that prompted disney to take this action today and file a lawsuit in federal court and what about the federal judge who's been assigned to the case was that that he judge mark walker now this is a judge who actually grew up just down the road from uh... disney in winter park and he is an aba obama pointed judge he was the c the judge that the sand that the santis and disney will now argue their cases before and what you can probably expect to be a protracted legal fight that will ultimately settle who is the victory here since you can't or appreciate it thank you or see you did report every instance here how is the disney battle playing out with the public in the cross country yes so we have some really fresh pulling data on this and i think we can break it down really easily right among republicans by about a two-to-one margin they side with governor disantus but if you look at all voters nationally by about a two-to-one margin they disagree with governor disantus so this is basically what we've been seeing a lot of the polling with regards to ronda santis and disney which is it's clearly a plate for the base and the republican base does like what he's doing but among all voters generally speaking they don't like what he's doing with a very conservative republicans right so look at the end seems to be trying to appeal to them certainly on the abortion issue yet this is this seems to be part of a playbook right at ronda santis is running he is trying to appeal to the far right of the republican party now why is he doing that because if you look we have a quick at university poll from at the end of last month and we can break it down by ideology how the republican primaries doing among very conservatives Donald trump has about a 30 point advantage among all other voters it's basically even the santis and trump so what the santis is trying to do here is going to Donald trump's base and basically take it away or cut away at the edge that don't pass because that's the reason he's ahead what i will point out though Anderson is that if you go back to republican primaries all the way back since 1996 but it's actually the choice of moderates the mod the candidate who wins moderates tends to win the nomination the only example where that was not true was george w bush in 2000 so what ronda santis is doing makes sense when you look at the polling data to some degree but at the end of the day he may sacrifice a court in the middle of the republican electorate and how has just been doing nationally over the last couple weeks yeah so this to me is again the sort of two-fall right okay you're gonna appeal to the GOP base but what happens among the general electorate well a month ago in ipso's is polling data what we saw was that Biden was barely leading to santis while having a clearly over Donald trump right this is running a little bit better in the general election against by the end of the trump was running but now flip forward to this month what happened what trump is basically pulling at the same level versus by the five point by lead is holding but if you look what you see is by the sleeve over the sandals has grown by seven points from just two points to nine points so it seems to me that this play that ronda santis is making for the very conservative part of the republican party may be something that works for them but of course even if you win the primary you still do in a general election and ronda santis may be putting that in jeopardy if he does win the primary but the point is even if he wins the primary that doesn't work and also the fact is ronda santis is way down the republican primary at this point so he was doing it doesn't seem like it's working basically anywhere what he's doing alright it's an appreciate it thank you a man hunts is underway please continue their search for a group of mississippi inmates on the run authorities now saying one of the inmates has been spotted outside the state of the latest on manhunt tonight a manhunt is underway for the inmates that escape from a mississippi jail before scapies were reported missing around midnight sunday after routine headcount followed next included a whirlwind of events involving stolen cars murder and a police shootout just hours ago the hines county sheriff tweeted that one of the inmates was spotted at a texas convenience store on sunday the truck investigator believes he stole believes he stole was also recovered in texas this comes after a body was found inside a burned home where police got to a standoff with person believe to be one of the escapees the same inmate is also suspected of shooting killing a pastor before stealing his truck the day after they escaped joining out seen a chief law enforcement intelligence analyst johnular is the form deputy commissioner intelligence again to the camera terrorism with the new art police department without obviously giving away anything you should what kind of tactics authorities likely using to try to find the escapee and how does that is a modern-day manhunt work so a modern-day manhunt has some of the old qualities of one that would go back to the wild west and a lot that has to do with technology but this is enormously complicated because it's not a manhunt you've got five perpetrators in different directions we have seen escapes where groups of escape and stay together that actually makes it easier but you have five is for it's for you have one you know instance where there was a shooting between deputies and you know there's a burned body in the house that are trying to identify that's possibly one identification pending but also the burn body may be one of the it's the impossible we haven't gotten that ID from the sheriff yet so they left that as an open question but what you're doing is you've got the county sheriff you've got the Alabama Bureau of Investigation you've got the US Marshals this is what the US Marshals lives for they are probably the most proficient man hunters in the US government and they'll be looking with the jail authorities on who were on their visitor lists let's go over their phone calls do we still have those tapes is there a coded thing that we missed about where to meet or a pickup or something that is part of this escape that sounded innocuous at the time where's mom who are their friends who have they been arrested within the past in other words you try to figure out for for for different individuals what is their support system on the outside for hiding for money for refuge for cars and block each one of them and the danger is obviously already clear I mean not only is there this one body found but there was a pastor killed who apparently had pulled over I guess it helps one of them who seemed to be on a motorcycle thinking was a stranded right pedestrian and what you're seeing is a level of desperation that almost doesn't fit the crimes they were in for you know some of these guys were in for a grand theft auto larceny you know they don't appear to be the master violent criminals you know for what they were in jail for this time but what you are seeing is at least in a couple of these cases a level of desperation that you'll see in escape cases which is I'm not going back to jail at any cost now that I'm out so the manhunt piece is obviously danger to the public we've seen that already with the killing of the pastor also a danger to police we see a police officer wounded in a shooting where they thought they had one of them cornered today so they're gonna be very mindful of that but it's really about surrounding their world and reducing each individual's world to a very small box how much planning do you think went into this well I would say a lot but one of these prisoners has escaped that jail more than once in the past so you probably had the equivalent of a subject matter expert into that facility's vulnerabilities and you had a facility that was down at least 40 deputies which put them at a disadvantage for things like the regularity of headcount and the ability to observe suspicious behavior and and so on I appreciate it thank you thanks coming up the dramatic rescue of a toddler who wandered onto train tracks and special honor for the New York rail workers who got into staging two MTA employees are being held as heroes after saving a toddler who wandered onto the Metro North train tracks just outside New York City where's the emergency emergency let's go 737 Hudson say we got a top three on the track so he just heard an engineer on a train moving 70 miles an hour spotted the boy first slammed on the brakes before he radioed others a conductor on a train heading the opposite direction saw the child jumped out of his his car and grabbed him brought him onto the train the boy who has autism is nonverbal he was an injured thankfully he only had a splinter in his hand his mother called his rescue a quote miracle for God the empty a president honor the conductor engineer and three other employees of accommodations and ceremony held yesterday that's it for us and who's continuously in a prime time with Michael's McConner starts now this is C&M meteorologist Derek Van Damm thrilled to introduce the new CNN weather app be prepared for anything with comprehensive coverage from real experts like me download the CNN weather app on iOS today hey I'm Anderson Cooper on my podcast all there is we explore grief and loss in all its complexities as Ken Burns said on an earlier podcast the half-life of grief is endless Mariska Hargate knows that very well Jane Mansfield was killed in a car crash in 1967 Mariska was in the car with her after decades spent coming to terms with her past and wanting to learn more about the mother she doesn't remember Mariska has made a remarkable documentary called my mom Jane our vulnerability is our greatest strength and our greatest connector and so in telling the story I don't feel vulnerable I feel free we all have a story and you've never know what somebody else carries talking grief building community that's what the podcast is all about this is all there is listen and follow wherever you get your podcast