consumer prices, up 6.8% this year. and that is the fastest pace since 1982. that, of course, is back when ronald reagan was first coming into office. just to give you a look at what this means, okay, got a lot of things on the screen. let me just highlight a few. egg prices, up 8%. steak, 25%: used cars, if you can get one, 31%. gas, just over 58%. and today, president biden acknowledging the problem. but saying that he thinks it's the, quote, peak of the crisis. >> it's a real bump in the road. it does affect families. when you walk in the grocery store and you are paying more for whatever you're purchasing, it matters. it matters to people. when you are paying more for gas, although in some states, we have got the price down below 3 bucks a gallon but the point is it's not gone down quickly enough. but i think it will. >> right. now, when it comes to gas, right, i mentioned up 58%, so far this year. it has dropped, though, from its peak. down 2.4% from its november high. so there is a small bit of respite there. but the inflation crisis is way bigger than gas. and for months, the president and his administration have been minimizing the problem. >> my judgment right now is that the recent inflation that we have seen will be temporary. it's not something that's endemic. >> and by the way, talking inflation. the overwhelming consensus, it's going to hop up a little bit and then go back down. >> we do not have fears at this point related to persistent inflation. >> supply bottlenecks have developed. um, that have caused inflation. i believe that they're transitory. >> okay. now, it's a totally different tune, right? because that went on tore months and months and months and after a certain period of time, that starts to sound a little absurd and now they admit that is is a real and lasting problem. >> i'm ready to retire the word transitory. um, i -- i can agree that that hasn't been an apt description of what we are dealing with. >> is it your view, sir, that these price increases still aren't, quote, particularly large or persistent? >> no, that is no longer my view. >> okay. look. they deserve credit for admitting that they made a mistake, that they were wrong. owning up to it. that is important. but the huge question now is what's biden gonna do about it, right? inflation that doesn't go away is a big, big, bad thing for an economy. and his idea right now is to spend money. he says the solution is to pass his build back better spending bill, and put 2 trillion more dollars into the economy. >> if we win, god willing, we get the build back better proposal. economists think it's going to, in fact, diminish the impact on inflation because it's reducing cost for ordinary people. >> all right. i want to put the economic debate aside because obviously there is a big one on that assertion but the american people do seem to have an answer. right now, only 41% of americans al actually support the bill. that is according to a new poll from npr. that is a problem for the president and so is this. two crucial members of the president's own party are still not on board with the build back better after four months of constant debate, four months of passing soon, passing soon, passing soon. and here we are. the president must have those votes to make this bill law, okay? and there is a reason for the hesitancy now. tods, the congressional budget office delivered some news that may make it less likely that senator joe manchin and kyrsten sinema will surpt the bill. they estimated if you extend a series of programs that are in the bill already for the full ten-year life of the bill, the deficit would increase by $3 trillion over the next decade. three trillion dollars. as the bill is currently written, the cbo estimates it would only add $367 billion to the bunlt deficit over a decade. okay? so 3 trillion, versus 367 billion. okay. that is night and day and it is dramatic. and the thing here is that is because as the bill was written, it was written over a ten-year time horizon but to make the math work, they assumed certain programs would only be around for a year. like the child tax credit. that key program lasts only one year in the bill the way they wrote it. so put it in there, it's there for one year and then goes away completely. universal pre-k. funding for childcare. that is set to expire in six years in the bill. i mean, come on. we all know those are intended to be permanent programs and you don't have to, like, just ask me and take my assumption for it. just listen to progressives. elected progressives on capitol hill. they are honest about that. >> we have done this for a year, this child tax credit and earned tax credit, we should do it permanently. >> this would be something we can put into place setting us on a permanent trajectory. it doesn't end there. >> we are going to fight like hell to make sure we make it permanent. >> permanent. permanent. permanent. they are saying it so that's why republicans wanted this new cbo estimate of how much it would add to the deficit if these programs are as democrats made clear, become permanent. this should not a approximate partisan thing, right? all should want to know how much congress actually plans and intends to spend. so what does joe manchin think about this new multitrillion-dollar deficit analysis in well, he wouldn't say but senator lindsey graham did say he spoke to manchin today. >> i talked to him this morning. he was stunned. he was -- i think he felt vindicated in that his concerns were -- were legitimate. he knows -- i mean, it's the worst-kept secret. nobody believes these programs are going to end. >> all right look. we call out lindsey graham all the time. in fact, i have dedicated a lot of time to doing that. he wanted this new cbo estimate. but right there, what he just said, was the truth. after all, you just heard democratic progressive leaders say it themselves. they want this stuff to be permanent, not to go away in aeria. they are not trying to keep it a secret. phil mattingly is tout front at the white house. so, phil, they come out here and say all right. let's assume this bill does what you guys admit you want it to do which is make the stuff become permanent. it is going to add $3 trillion to the deficit, not 300 billion. does the president think given that he is going to get joe manchin and kyrsten sinema on board when they haven't been on board the past four months? >> erin, the president was asked a version of that question earlier today and he was candid. he said i don't have the answer to that and that is not a dodge, that is actually a really good window into a very tenuous moment. for the cornerstone proposal of president biden's domestic agenda. the white house has counterarguments to all thee issues on the cbo report, making clear the president wants to pay for them so that would add some fiscal responsibility to things. on inflation, they believe over the long-term, because the build back better plan is paid for as currently written, and it would expand productivity, that over the long-term, it would take inflationary pressures down to some degree as well. but the problem here that they have faced and i think you have seen them make these arguments over the course the last couple days repeatedly getting out in front of the cpi report. knowing the numbers were going to be extraordinarily high. is that they have been making these arguments now for several months, both publicly but i think more importantly, erin, privately. so senator manchin. senator manchin has met repeatedly, yes, with president biden but also members of his economic team where they walked through the broader macro economic issues at this moment and yet, just this week, senator manchin was still raising very clear concerns about inflation. still, raising very clear concerns about the proposal itself. look. the wild card here as we enter this very critical moment if democrats want to meet the christmas deadline senate majority leader chuck schumer has set is president biden. and i think if you look over the course of the last 10 or 11 months, erin, the president has spent so much time behind the scenes, in private, with senator manchin. and he has made clear to top advisers he believes if anybody is going to get manchin onboard, it is going to be president biden. well now, that moment has come. he says he is going to speak to senator manchin early-next week. that call -- that conversation, hour it occurs, is going to go a very long way to determining whether or not that $1.75 trillion proposal has a future or whether it's more likely headed to a pause, erin. >> yeah. all right. thank you very much, phil. i want to go now to austan goolsbee because he served as chairman of economic counsels under president obama. so, you guys have both been there. dealing with this. so austin, let me start with you. the cbo estimates if you extend the programs in the build back better bill, over the life of the bill, right, so the child tax credit doesn't go away in one year. it exists the next nin years. that the tef deficit goes up by $3 trillion. that is eight times more -- eight times more money that we currently don't have than is estimated under the democrats' analysis of the bill. so democrats are honest, austin. that's the thing. they are on the record, permanent, permanent, permanent. they are being honest about what they want. do you understand why this seems so jarring to some that -- that they want it to be there forever and they pretend it goes away in a year? >> no, they -- you -- you -- you are saying the pretending. the administration outlined that if you are going to make that permanent, it should be paid for. and they outlined here's how we would want to pay for it. so, you -- you can't -- what -- what lindsey graham asked for was a rigged calculation, in which you extend spending but you don't actually pay for it. but that's not what the administration proposed so i don't think it's fair to -- to take that number at face value. >> tyler, what do you think? is it fair to do what they did? >> i think more information is generally better than less information and if indeed the intention is to make a lot of these provisions permanent, it's helpful to have a sense of how much that would cost and if the administration and democrats in congress want to make sure it's fully funded, then -- then some of these marginal senators should -- should know what -- by how much taxes would have to go up, which taxes would have to go up in order to fund those spending provisions. >> right. i mean, because, austin, here is the thing. they got a lot of moderate republic -- democrats, i'm sorry who don't want some of the tax increases that may be required to pay for it, right? so there is -- i'm not saying -- i don't want to use the word dishonest because i think both parties do this all the time. >> it's not. that's why your -- your topper was misleading and the -- anybody who does not want to pay for extensions of those programs and pay for it with higher taxes that the administration outlined can vote against it when it is time to try to extend those programs. the administration did not do what the trump administration did with the tax cut and the bush administration did with its tax cut. which was attempt to make permanent things that they declared to be temporary without paying for them. the administration said they want to pay for that if they are going to extend it. so that is the only fair way to think about it. >> right. what i will say, though, is that when you give things to people, whatsoever those things may be. right, i'm not casting any value on one versus another but a tax cut or earned income tax credit. it's really hard to take them away. that's the reality of it. we all know when these things -- remember the bush tax cuts are supposed to be -- you know, like phased out, right? these things don't happen that way. that's the reality of it. that i think is frustrating, tyler. i mean, it -- it seem that is, you know, you -- we all know in one year, this stuff isn't going to go to zero when it comes to the tax credit. >> yes, it is -- it is difficult to repeal programs that have been implemented and may have some constituency. and i would add that, okay, if they want to make this permanent, then why are they not voting on the permanency of both the spending and revenue provisions now? i think the reality is they don't have the votes for it and if they don't have the votes for it today, then the question is will they be able to -- will they be able to extend it in the future? and that's why i think it is helpful for the likes of some of these marginal senators to have this information. and if they want to have more information about as i said by how much corporate tax will have to go up or by how much certain individual income tax rates will have to go up in order to finance this, then by all means, ask the cbo to run those numbers. >> i mean, austin, that does seem to be a big part of the problem here because the democrats, right, they -- they technically have the votes, right? if every democrat is on board with this, it passes without a problem. but obviously, i mean, tyler is right about that on a very basic level. they don't think they have the votes, if they extended it. >> you're not -- you're not -- look, erin, i am a huge fan but on this you are not being fair. you are treating future extensions, which it's not clear they can pass, for exactly the reasons you are describing. >> but that's what i am saying. >> if they are in the bill. if they don't have the votes, that's why it's not in the bill. and so, when it comes up that they are going to have to vote on those and to pass extensions of the child tax credit, that is paid for, they would not have the votes today so you can't count that as if it's the cost of the bill because it's not at all clear that they would be able to pass that extension. >> tyler, do you think that's fair? >> well, as i said, if senator manchin is uneasy about the prospects of some of these provisions becoming permanent, then i think it's helpful for him to have a sense of how much it would cost to make them permanent. and it is then going to be up to neither you, nor me, nor austin, to decide whether -- whether we are going to vote for it. it's going to be up to senator manchin. >> well, senator manchin right and senator sinema. that's who this comes down to and whether this is what matters more or -- and i know we didn't even talk about that -- but the whole inflation conversation and whether the bill would actually lower inflation. something i know senator manchin says he cares a lot about as well. thanks, both. i appreciate it. >> great to see you again. and next, a trump-backed republican running for congress among the latest round of people the january 6th committee has subpoenaed. so, why is he on the list? plus, the supreme court says the texas abortion law can stay in place. what does it mean for roe versus wade? and why jeff bezos and richard branson, as of tonight, can call themselves astronauts. i brought in ensure max protein, with thirty grams of protein. those who tried me felt more energy in just two weeks! (sighs wearily) here i'll take that! (excited yell) woo-hoo! ensure max protein. with thirty grams of protein, one gram of sugar, and nutrients to support immune health. ♪ it wasn't me by shaggy ♪ you're never responsible for unauthorized purchases on your discover card. this is your home. this is your family room slash gym. the guest bedroom slash music studio. the daybed slash dog bed. the living room slash yoga shanti slash regional office slash classroom. and this is the basement slash panic room. maybe what your family needs is a vacation home slash vacation home. find yours on the vrbo app. ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ (sha bop sha bop) ♪ ♪ are the stars out tonight? (sha bop sha bop) ♪ ♪ ♪ alexa, play our favorite song again. ok. ♪ i only have eyes for you ♪ [microwave beeps] [ahh] ♪ ♪ ♪ i'm so defensive, i got bongos thumping in my chest ♪ ♪ and something tells me they don't beat for me ♪ ♪ i love romance, but i got eggshells around me ♪ ♪ don't step on 'em, don't step on 'em ♪ ♪ don't step on 'em, don't step on me ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ he'd better not take the ring from me ♪ new tonight. six more subpoenas issued by the house committee investigating january 6th. the targets in this round, individuals believed to be involved in the planning of rallies on january 5th and 6th leading up to the deadly insurrection, including max miller, a current gop congressional candidate who the committee says coordinated the rally planning, directly with former president trump. it's a pretty stunning thing to say. well, paula reid is out front with awl reporting here. so, paula, tell me who else the committee has subpoenaed? and how much the committee thinks these individuals may know? >> well, erin, in this batch of subpoenas, the committee is focused on people involved in planning the rallies that led up to the violent attack on the capitol. and what's so key about this group is that for the first time, the committee is drawing a direct connection between rally organizers and trump. the committee says some of these witnesses appear to have had direct communication with trump about the january 6th rally. something that would obviously be of enormous interest to the committee. now, former-trump aide and current ohio congressional candidate, max miller, allegedly met with the former president in his private dining room on january 4th to discuss the upcoming rally. also in that meeting was robert bobby jr. also subpoenaed today. now, the rest of the people on this list, look, erin, they are not household names. kimberly fletcher, she helped organize the january 5th rally. brian jack, brian lewis obtained the permit for january 6th rally and ed martin who is involved in securing finances for january 6th. but they are all required to turn over documents to the committee on december 23rd with depositions scheduled throughout the beginning of next year. now, miller has said he will accept the subpoena but he is also railed against the investigation, itself. and for any witnesses who were thinking about not complying, reminder next week the house will proceed with criminal contempt proceedings against former white house chief of staff mark meadows who suddenly stopped cooperating with the committee. >> all right. thank you very much, paula. and to get more on this, i want to go to democratic congressman adam schiff. he is a member of the january 6th select committee. the chair of the house intel committee and the author of the new book "midnight in washington how we almost lost our democracy and still could." all right. well, chairman, i really appreciate your time. so let me start with the reporting here. paula saying this is the first time that the committee that we know of it has drawn a direct connection between rally organizers and the former-president trump, himself. is this a clean, direct line? um, how -- you know, ultimately how important do you think this connection will be? >> well, that's one of the things we really want to find out with these witnesses. they are reported to have -- some of them -- met with the president two days before that violent attack on the capitol. to discuss the rally. what was going do take place and who was going to speak. and one central issue for the committee is, um, what anticipation did they have that there would be a march on the capitol in the white house? what role did they play in planning any of this? what understanding did they have about who was going to be participating? and the presence of white nationalist groups, the propensity for violence. um, was this the last-ditch strategy now that their litigation had failed? so these are the questions that we want to get answers to and these witnesses may very well help us along that path. >> so i know your committee is planning to vote on monday to hold the former chief of staff, marks meadows, in contempt for refusing to cooperate, after of course he initially indicated he would cooperate and in fact did to some extent, right? he turned over, what is it, 6,000 pages of documents to your committee. you know, notes, texts, e-mails, things like that. so here is what he said about the contempt vote today. >> nothing i've done would rise to criminal contempt but i obviously are going to have to throw my -- on the mercies and graces of the court. >> absolutely. >> he says nothing rises to the level of criminal contempt. your response? >> well, show up and honor your lawful duty -- to the level of criminal contempt. if he believed he had a privilege to assert, he could have shown up. he could have said with respect to this question, here's why i believe it's privileged. of course, he didn't do any of that. and it would have been very difficult for him given that he provided all these documents which he acknowledges are not privileged. he wrote about these events in his book, which he will have to acknowledge is not privileged. so it's very difficult for him to come in and make that argument with a straight face. so, he just decided nope, rule of law didn't apply to him but he is going to find out otherwise. >> well i mean, important to emphasize he handed over the documents. didn't claim privilege, and now is claiming privilege on talking about the very documents he handed over. and to your point in the book, there is plenty of things that he said that, you know, if you were trying to have a -- of privilege, you would say, all the details he gave, for example, about the president and covid. um, but let me ask you about this because this is a question i have had since the beginning, chairman, which is the national archives today, says they are working with meadows to go through all the records that he has. um, that he, you know, may or may not have turned over. so, when you talk about, what is it, 6,000 pages of documents that you have, do you have any idea whether that shines a light on 1% of what's out there? 90% of what's out there? how much he cherry picked what he gave you? do you know any of that? >> i don't know. but i think it's very interesting that this -- this meadows did this complete about face. >> yeah. >> now, why did he do that? well, what he says through his lawyer is that the reason he had an about face was that the committee wanted his phone records. um, now, why would that change his willingness to cooperate unless he felt perhaps those phone records might contradict what he is -- what he was preparing to say? or show context. and -- and so, look. this is a surmise. it may have been nothing more than the former president being upset with him for cooperating or writing things he didn't like in the book. but regardless, he doesn't -- say i'm not coming. >> yeah, no, and again it just -- it flies in the face of you can't provide information, not claim privilege, and then turn around and say you are claiming privilege over the information you already provided. there is one thing we do know you got from meadows, chairman schiff, and that is a january 5th e-mail from 2021 that had a -- was about a 38-page powerpoint. and the powerpoint's titled election fraud foreign interference, and options for 6th of january. do you have that full, um, powerpoint? is there anything you could share about it? >> you know, unfortunately, i'm not authorized by the committee yet to share information about that beyond what we did in the letter. the real purpose of including in the letter is to show mr. meadows' counsel and mr. meadows that he has disclosed documents that are very, obviously pertinent to january 6th. indeed, they're in the title of the documents. so, that's the purpose of our making that disclosure. we may disclose more about that in the future. i'm certain ultimately that we will. but one of the reasons we wanted meadows to come in is to talk about that document. what he knew about it, what was the origin, what was the white house role in it? very important questions for us and the public. >> chairman schiff, one final quick question for you. i know steve bannon's not going to have his contempt hearing until july 18th and who knows how long this meadows thing draws out? if you don't get to hear from them in full, do you have enough information from everybody you've already heard from to -- to get to the bottom laine? >> we still have a lot more to investigate so i don't want to say we know all that we need to know at this point. it's still, i think, fairly early in the investigation. but by the same token, we have talked to over 300 people. we are trying to come at this various different angles when we run into a roadblock with one witness, we try to find another witness who can testify as to the same subject matter if that's possible. sometimes, that won't be possible. we may not know what is going through mark meadows' head unless he comes in and tells us but we will do the very best we can and i am confident at the end of the day, we will be able to tell a very full story to the american people of what happened and legislate in a way that protects the country going forward. >> all right. well, chairman schiff, i really appreciate your time. and i do just want to -- the republican secretary of state of georgia was on the show last night and he commented on the professionalism of all members of the committee. democrat and republican and he felt it was very much nonpartisan. thanks so much. i appreciate your time. >> thank you. and next, the supreme court says the controversial abortion law in texas can stand. so, what does it mean for the future of roev. wade? and a shocking moment in the trial of a police officer who says she confused her taser with a gun. >> no, that's not happening. fi. a plan with tax-smart investing strategies designed to help you keep more of what you earn. this is the planning effect. we're carvana, the company who invented car vending machines and buying a car 100% online. now we've created a brand-new way for you to sell your car. whether it's a year old or a few years old. we wanna buy your car. so go to carvana and enter your license plate answer a few questions. and our techno wizardry calculates your car's value and gives you a real offer in seconds. when you're ready, we'll come to you, pay you on the spot and pick up your car, that's it. so ditch the old way of selling your car, and say hello to the new way at carvana. healthy habits come in all sizes. like little walks. and, getting screened for colon cancer. that's big because when caught in early stages, it's more treatable. hey, cologuard! hi. i'm noninvasive and i detect altered dna in your stool to find 92% of colon cancers, even in early stages. early stages! yep, it's for people 45 plus at average risk for colon cancer, not high risk. false positive and negative results may occur. ask your provider if cologuard is right for you. count me in! me too! healthier is on-demand covid testing to help you return safely. even if it's still... a little awkward. how've you been? -i'm so good! ♪ this is what healthier looks like. ♪ - san francisco can have criminal justice reform and public safety. but district attorney chesa boudin is failing on both. - the safety of san francisco is dependent upon chesa being recalled as soon as possible. - i didn't support the newsom recall but this is different. - chesa takes a very radical perspective and approach to criminal justice reform, which is having a negative impact on communities of color. - i never in a million years thought that my son, let alone any six-year-old, would be gunned down in the streets of san francisco and not get any justice. - chesa's failure has resulted in increase in crime against asian americans. - the da's office is in complete turmoil at this point. - for chesa boudin to intervene in so many cases is both bad management and dangerous for the city of san francisco. - we are for criminal justice reform. chesa's not it. recall chesa boudin now. tonight, president biden saying he's quote very concerned after the supreme court refused to block a texas abortion law that bans the procedure after six weeks. now, the justices also ruled that abortion providers can challenge the law by suing certain state officials in federal court. but the overall impact is this. it's going to be harder for texas abortion providers to re-open. all this litigation goes on and on. and it comes in the context of the supreme court considering the constitutionality of a mississippi law that could completely undo roe versus wade as we know it. out front now, laurence tribe, constitutional law professor at harvard law school. and professor tribe, i appreciate your time. so obviously, this is a -- this was a process ruling, right, as opposed to a ruling on the overall constitutionality of roe versus wade. but process matters and abortion rights advocates are very clear that this is going to make it, you know, they obviously can't re-open these clinics while this goes on and on and on in the courts. how consequential of a ruling is this? >> well, i think it's quite consequential in the sense that it's a disastrous loss for abortion rights and for the rule of law in america. and for honesty and candor. i mean, if you read the supreme court's opinion, it's carefully written by justice gorsuch to create a fig leaf of partial victory for abortion providers because he goes out of his way to say that after all, when the case goes back to the district court in texas, that court will be free to rule in favor of the abortion providers, against those state officials who threatened to take their medical licenses away if they lose lawsuits to the bounty hunters. but it doesn't do any good to have a licensed provider procedure if you have had to shut your doors because you are threatened with crushing liability. it's -- it's really a phony move on the part of the supreme court because it's not these licenses that matter. it's the ability to sustain liability that could run into the millions of dollars. and so, the supreme court is basically said abortions can be shut down in the state of texas while the court is considering just how thoroughly to gut roe versus wade. it -- it's quite a shell game and it's not one that puts the court in a very favorable light. >> so, you have a new op-ed, professor, in "the washington post." and you make the case for expanding the number of justices on the supreme court. and -- and it's important in light of what we saw today because you argue that the rulings from the conservative majority on the court are destroying american democracy. so, i want to ask you something about what we've seen these more conservative justices do over the past year, right? former-president trump appointed two of them. brett kavanaugh and amy coney barrett. over the past year, those two justices would not hear a challenge to pennsylvania's 2020 presidential election. they shot down a republican-led challenge to the affordable care act. they have not lived up to democrats' pessimistic expectations. but in that same timeframe over the past year, dozens of cases decided. the obama-appointed justice sonia sotomayor rarely found a compromise with conservatives. what do you say to that they come in and they have actually not just towed the party line on conservatism? >> i am not suggesting that they always toe the party line. when you have a completely frivolous attack on the affordable care act, i wouldn't expect any justice of any party who doesn't want to look like a clown to uphold that attack. what they are doing, however, is systematically dismantling the safeguards of democracy. decisions that undo critical parts of the voting rights act. decisions that refuse to get in the way of republican gerrymandering. decisions that refuse to deal with dark money in politics. these are not just wrong decisions. they are decisions that put the court on a continuous path to undoing fundamental human rights and the fundamental presuppositions of a genuinely democratic society. and it's a one-way ratchet. in the past, there have been pendulum swings, right and left, on the court. but these decisions taken together and now the impending decisions that will, for all practical purposes, take equal power away from women, power over their bodies. these decisions move in the direction of systematically dismantling the prerequisites of a free society. and we won't be able to turn back. the court has already been packed by justices that are moving in that direction. i believe it needs to be unpacked by the addition of several justices. that's the only clear thing that can be done at this point to prevent what really looks like an irreversible disaster. it's not perfect. but i do not think that the majesty of the supreme court is a justification for letting things continue moving in this truly dangerous and anti-democratic direction. >> professor tribe, thanks so much. i always appreciate your time. >> thank you, erin. and next, new video played in court showing just how concerned other officers were after veteran officer kim potter shot and kill ed a man. and homicide records smashed in cities across the united states. >> we are setting this type of a record that we want to be in the news for. hey google. ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ (chloe) wireless family plans save you money, but then you have to deal with family. (aunt 1) chloe... (aunt 2) still single, dear? (chloe) so i got visible. team up with friends and get unlimited data for as low as $25 a month. no family needed. (dad vo) is the turkey done yet?! (mom vo) here's your turkey! (chloe) turkey's done. [fire alarm blares] (grandpa) answer the phone. (chloe) that's the fire alarm, grandpa. (vo) visible. switch and get up to $200, plus our best ear buds, on us. with directv stream i can get live tv and on demand anywhere. look, serena williams... matrix... serena... matrix... serena... matrix... ♪ ♪ ♪ get your tv together with the best of live and on demand. introducing directv stream. earn about covid-19, the more questions we have. the biggest question now, what's next? what will covid bring in six months, a year? if you're feeling anxious about the future, you're not alone. calhope offers free covid-19 emotional support. call 833-317-4673, or live chat at calhope.org today. tonight, prosecutors introducing new body camera footage in the trial of former police officer kim potter who is charged with manslaughter in the death of daunte wright. in that video, you hear an officer try to console potter after the shooting. claiming that wright was quote trying to take off with him in the car. a warning that some of the video you will see in this piece is disturbing. adrienne broaddus is out front. >> reporter: it's first time we are seeing a different view of daunte wright's deadly encounter with police. >> i shot him. oh, my god. >> reporter: new police body camera video shows wright initially cooperating with officers. >> you are under arrest, daunte. >> reporter: sergeant michael johnson then enters wright's car from the passenger side. testifying he struggled with wright for the gear shift. >> so he appears to have been trying to move the shift knob. >> yes after the shot was fired and the car crashed down the road, johnson tried to reassure officer kim potter who had pulled the trigger. >> kim, that guy was trying to take off with me in the car. >> reporter: next, video shows potter distraught. >> no, that's not happening, kim. i have given you my gun. okay? i am just going to hold on to yours. >> reporter: the weapon swap johnson says was to preserve evidence. he later removed the rounds from the gun. fearing potter may harm herself. >> did daunte wright, at any time, show any sign of stopping, giving up, saying okay i'm done? >> no. >> reporter: but it was the potential harm wright could have done that the defense narrowed in on. >> if he had taken off with you in that car, what would have happened to you? >> probably dragged. >> arguing potter was protecting johnson. >> dragged and what? >> injured. >> seriously injured? maybe even dead, right? >> yes. >> reporter: the state pushed back trying to show potter's actions were reckless. the lynchpin of a manslaughter conviction. >> could officer potter, in using a firearm, have shot you? >> possible. >> reporter: the defense had to step in, again. >> the objection is sustained. >> when you use deadly force, you have to consider surroundings. >> yes. >> and when you -- >> reporter: and again. >> i'm sorry. >> reporter: and court was adjourned early here in minneapolis due to the weather. sergeant johnson, who was potter's supervisor at the time of the shooting, was one of three people who testified today. and, erin, he told members of the jury he believes potter was justified in using deadly force, underscoring the law here in minnesota. erin? >> all right, thank you very much, adrienne. outfront now, paul martin, criminal defense attorney and former prosecutor. so, you hair adrienne's report there and she is showing that former officer or that officer's testimony. saying that potter was covered by state statute in what she chose to do to use her gun, which obviously she is saying she didn't intend to use her gun but that she would have been justified in doing so because he could have died if he was dragged by mr. wright's car. and body cam footage, you know, shows daunte wright's hand clearly on the -- the shift gear, right? he was intending to -- to drive. so, how significant was this witness and this point? >> well, what johnson thinks and his opinion is really not relevant to the case. what is really relevant to the case is the mindset of the defendant in this case, and what she believed was transpiring. she never testified oh or any of the reports indicate she was acting as far as justification. you got to remember, you can't take the defense attorney playbook. i am going to take a little joichkz and a little bit of mistake. >> right because she is not trying to say she was justified in shooting. her whole point is i didn't intend to shoot. >> therefore, you can't use justification as a defense in this case. and so, it is a little bit just throwing it on the wall and see what sticks. >> it is a really significant thing to say, though, right? because it's not technically at all what she has been saying. so the same officer says he took potter's gun away because he was worried that she would -- would try to kill herself after this happened. on his body cam footage, you hear potter say quote let me kill myself. you actually hear that. let me just play that, paul. >> i am going to take this but give you mine. okay? >> let me kill myself. >> no, no, that's not happening, kim. >> so, what are they trying to show there? because he takes the gun, but then gives her a different gun? i'm -- >> well, i'm not sure what officer johnson was trying to do. you but i think the prosecution is trying to show what her mindset was. she understood that she made a very big error. she made a major mistake to the point of negligence and they are just trying to say that she even believed at the time how critical a decision she made and how wrong it was. and so, that's why they are bringing this testimony in. >> all right. fascinating case to watch this unfold. thank you so much, paul. >> thank you. next, what explains homicide records not seen in 20 years in many places in america? a surge in violent crimes across the country. >> we have seen really a spike in gun violence. just a proliferation of illegally owned weapons on the street. and if you are an actor or a business tycoon and if paid to go to the edge of space, you are actually now something else. you're technically an astronaut. this is your home. this is your family room slash gym. the guest bedroom slash music studio. the daybed slash dog bed. the living room slash yoga shanti slash regional office slash classroom. and this is the basement slash panic room. maybe what your family needs is a vacation home slash vacation home. find yours on the vrbo app. ♪ who's on it with jardiance? we're 25 million prescriptions strong. we're managing type 2 diabetes... ...and heart risk. we're working up a sweat before coffee. and saying, “no thanks...” ...to a boston cream. jardiance is a once-daily pill that can reduce the risk of cardiovascular death for adults who also have known heart disease. so, it could help save your life from a heart attack or stroke. and jardiance lowers a1c. jardiance can cause serious side effects including... ...dehydration, genital yeast or urinary tract infections, and sudden kidney problems. ketoacidosis is a serious side effect that may be fatal. a rare, but life-threatening bacterial infection in the skin of the perineum could occur. stop taking jardiance and call your doctor right away... ...if you have symptoms of this bacterial infection, ...ketoacidosis, or an allergic reaction, ...and don't take it if you're on dialysis. taking jardiance with a sulfonylurea or insulin may cause low blood sugar. lower a1c and lower risk of a fatal heart attack? we're on it. we're on it. with jardiance. ask your doctor about jardiance. ♪ limu emu... & doug ♪ ♪ superpowers from a spider bite? i could use some help showing the world how liberty mutual customizes their car insurance so they only pay for what they need. (gasps) ♪ did it work? only pay for what you need ♪ liberty. liberty. liberty. liberty. ♪ spider-man no way home in theaters december 17th and tonight's inside look, city smashing homicide records this year. philadelphia reporting more than 500 murders with five weeks to go, obliterating a record set in the 1990s. why? ryan young is out front. >> reporter: across the country, police departments, cities, towns, and communities are dealing with an alarming increase in the number of homicides. from portland -- >> everybody has their head on a swivel. >> reporter: to birmingham. now, to austin. >> and this certainly is not the right reason, not something we're setting this type of a record that we want to be in the news for. >> reporter: where the fast-growing city has shattered its yearly record for homicides making 2021 the city's deadliest year on record. a cnn analysis of more than 40 of the most populous cities in the u.s. shows nine that have already set homicide records before year's end. indianapolis has surpassed their 2020 total of 215. philadelphia, with 524 homicides to date. and albuquerque, new mexico, with 103. and austin, texas -- >> what is tea like to see the numbers of homicides that you guys are experiencing right now? >> you know, it's just real -- >> reporter: erin, this is the weekend. so basically, what happens is every weekend, police departments are scrambling to deal with all the issues they have to across this country. and what we know is they will have extra patrols out there. but what they are seeing is gun violence that is exploding to such a point they have to be extra vigilant, especially during these tough times. erin? >> all right thank you very much. and next, it's official. actor william shatner is going to get those astronaut wings. ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ experience the power of sanctuary at the lincoln wish list event. for people living with h-i-v, keep being you. and ask your doctor about biktarvy. biktarvy is a complete, one-pill, once-a-day treatment used for h-i-v in certain adults. it's not a cure, but with one small pill, biktarvy fights h-i-v to help you get to and stay undetectable. that's when the amount of virus is so low it cannot be measured by a lab test. research shows people who take h-i-v treatment every day and get to and stay undetectable can no longer transmit h-i-v through sex. 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. do not take biktarvy if you take dofetilide or rifampin. tell your doctor about all the medicines and supplements you take, if you are pregnant or breastfeeding, or if you have kidney or liver problems, including hepatitis. if you have hepatitis b, do not stop taking biktarvy without talking to your doctor. common side effects were diarrhea, nausea, and headache. if you're living with hiv, keep loving who you are. and ask your doctor if biktarvy is right for you. it's the most joyous time of the year. especially at t-mobile! let's go to dianne. i got the awesome new iphone 13 pro and airpods, and t-mobile is paying for them both! and this is for new and existing customers. upgrade to the iphone 13 pro and airpods both on us. only at t-mobile. small businesses like yours make gift-giving possible. now, comcast business has an exclusive gift for you. introducing the gift of savings sale. for a limited time, ask how to get a great deal for your business. and get up to a $500 prepaid card with select bundles when you switch to the network that can deliver gig speeds to the most businesses. or get started with internet and voice for $64.99 per month with a 2-year price guarantee. give your business the gift of savings today. comcast business. powering possibilities. all right. well, you may have noticed we had a technical problem with ryan young's piece. it was amazing recovery by ryan young but he was talking about the spiking homicide rate and it jut cut out right in the middle of it and it's important that you seel the whole thing. so we fixed it and i am going to share it with you now in full. >> reporter: across the country, police departments, cities, towns, and communities are dealing with an alarming increase in the number of homicides from portland. >> everybody has their head own a swivel. >> reporter: to birmingham. >> let's go right over to the street. >> reporter: now, to austin. >> and this certainly is not the right reason -- not something when we're setting this type of a record, that we want to be in the news for. >> reporter: where the fast-growing city has shattered its yearly record for homicides making 2021 the city's deadliest year on record. a cnn analysis of more than 40 of the most populous cities in the u.s. shows nine that have already set homicide records before year's end. indianapolis has surpassed their 2020 total of 2015. philadelphia with 524 homicides to date. and albuquerque, new mexico, with 103. in austin, texas -- >> what is tit like to see the numbers of homicides that you guys are experiencing right now? >> you know, it's just really disappointing quite honestly. >> reporter: austin police chief says there is no one reason for these record-high numbers but he has noticed a disturbing trend. >> we have seen really a spike in gun violence. so just a proliferation of illegally owned weapons on the street. >> reporter: nationwide, more homicides are being committed using guns than ever. shootings have increased nearly in all major u.s. cities that track that data. there have been 80 homicides in austin so far this year according to the police department. double last year's total and the city's homicide rate has ticked up to 8.5%. putting it on par with numbers not seen consistently since the '80s but it's not guns alone. police chiefs, activists, and experts say covid-19 is still a contributing factor. >> so you have something of a perfect storm where the people who are at the highest risk for violence are being pressed more than ever. >> reporter: experts recommend looking into community-based approaches to reducing violent crime. >> police need to be at the table, and police are part of the solution. but they are not the whole solution. you need community-based organizations and law enforcement agencies working together. >> reporter: act viivists agree >> maybe, if we were sending other types of resources other than police into ow communities, we would being having different outcomes. >> reporter: leading to not just violent but deadly consequences. >> guns are more accessible across our country, across our community, and across our state in particular. >> reporter: austin pd is working to turn the tide using its real-time crime center and new office of violence prevention. >> we can watch exactly what is going on. >> reporter: other cities are also looking into violence reduction strategies to combat violent crime. >> we have a problem that is much deeper than baltimore city. >> reporter: in baltimore, the mayor there says they have taken 2,000 guns off the streets this year but the city's homicide rate has remained city in recent years. mayor scott says it's something many mayors around the country ar