good evening. in so many ways the stakes for democracy only grew higher and perhaps so too did the cost of defending it because now for the first time in its criminal investigation, the justice department has brought charges of seditious conspiracy in connection with the january 6th attack on the capitol. conspiring in the words of the law to overthrow, put down, or destroy by force the government of the united states. short of treason, the stakes can't get any higher. 11 members of the right-wing group the extremist group, the so-called oath keepers have been charged including their leader, stewart rhodes. the highest profile individual charged so far in connection with january 6th. so-called oath keepers are the ones we saw in tactical gear and combat formation that day. you can see them there. the indictment says that rhodes and the others engaged in a conspiracy to, quote, oppose the lawful transfer of presidential power by force, by preventing, hindering, or delaying by force execution of laws governing the transfer of power. now, according to the prosecutors, the so-called oath keepers stationed themselves around the d.c. area, some near the capitol, with a group waiting at a nearby virginia hotel with a cache of weapons. they also say the plotting did not end with the attacks and that rhodes and others met later to celebrate the day and, quote, discuss next steps. this was by any stretch a big deal, which is we'll discuss with our legal team in a moment, could get much bigger. attorney general garland may have telegraphed it last week with this. >> the actions we have taken thus far will not be our last. the justice department remains committed to holding all january 6th perpetrators at any level accountable under law, whether they were present that day or were otherwise criminally responsible for the assault on our democracy. >> the stakes rose as well in the house select committee's investigation. the committee issuing subpoenas to social media companies saying they provided, quote, inadequate responses to requests for documents and other information over the summer. and of course, there's house republican leader kevin mccarthy last night after we left you, he said no to a committee request to talk to the panel. which now sets the stage, and just think about it, for a newly established house committee to subpoena a member of the house leadership with the possibility of seeking contempt charges against him for not following the very rules of the body that he helps lead. it's the upside down. in his answer to the committee, he accused it of, quote, not conducting a legitimate investigation, which is pretty rich coming from a guy who once said this. >> would you be willing to testify about your conversation with donald trump on january 6th if you were asked by an outside commission? >> sure. next question. >> okay, so by sure, he really meant sure until they actually ask me. here's how he tried to explain it away, saying one thing and doing another. >> the creation of an outside commission from the start, you also opposed the select committee. you also -- >> ask the question, and i'll verify it. >> appreciate it. you said sure you would be willing to testify about your conversation. >> what was the date? >> may of last year. you are now saying you won't agree to voluntarily cooperate. why should the public not conclude that you're trying to hide something here and hide the facts from getting out? >> great question. i hope everything gets corrected at cnn. >> can you answer? >> after january 6th, who was the first person to offer a bipartisan commission to look at that day? was it me? i'll help. the answer is yes. you asked me that question in may. that was two months before nancy pelosi decided for the first time in history by any speaker to deny the minority to even put their individuals on a committee. so when you ask me that question, never did i think a speaker would play such politics. >> really? doesn't exactly answer the question of why he won't simply talk to the committee, but one does wonder if the new sudish charges may alter his thinking. likely answer is no, and which is pretty depressing, but beyond the state of his conscience, far beyond it for the investigation and justice, is this simple notion. here's a guy speaking to the former president as the attack was happening. and in the proceeding days was in touch extensive touch with him and his allies as they worked to use republican lawmakers, including himself, to overturn the election. so he's got a lot to tell the committee potentially, and to the extent he refuses to, he could be accused of being part of the cover-up. the second highest ranking member of the house leadership, a man who to this day is part of the group that is privy to the deepest intelligence matters. a man who is also one of 147 lawmakers to vote to overturn election results. on that note, there's more on the trump allies in seven states who submitted phony electoral vote certificates signed by bogus electors to the national archives falsely declaring that he won there. so as patently absurd as that sounds, remember, this was part of team trump's legal game plan, having vice president pence declare slates of electors invalid, recognize competing slates or simply kicking it all to the supreme court, where the former president thought he would prevail. which may explain why on january 6th the former vice president added very specific language never used or needed before that day to the standard invocation as he read the results state by state. listen. >> after ascertaining that the certificates are regular in form and authentic, the tellers will announce the votes cast by the electors for each state, beginning with alabama. which the parliamentarians advise me is the only certificate of vote from that state and purports to be a return from the state that has annexed to a certificate from an authority of the state purporting to appoint or ascertain electors. >> now, credit to politico legal affairs reporter for noticing it just hours after the fact. the part about the parliamentarian advising him about which certificates were or were not legitimate, that was new and novel. and it appears to be how he procedurally avoided having to introduce rival slates of electors. speaking of which, a reporter for phoenix local affiliate managed to talk with one of them, jake hoffman, then he walked away and a second reporter confronted him. watch. >> why in 2020 did you sign a phony declaration asking arizona electors to cast their votes -- their presidential vote for donald trump? >> when program wants to ask a real question, happy to have a conversation with him. >> thank you, sir. >> i'm asking you that question. what authority did you find yourself as an elector? >> an unprecedented times, unprecedented action has occurred. there's no case law, no precedent that exists as to whether or not an election that is currently being litigated in the courts has due standing, which is why we felt it appropriate to provide congress and the vice president with dueling opinions. >> did you have direction from anybody in doing this? was it you yourself doing this or did someone give you advice on the manner in which you could do it? >> so i'm simply -- i was one of the electors. i'm not charge in the electors. >> how did you hear about it? >> you would need to ask the chair that. >> how did you hear about the plan? were you told to be somewhere? >> you would need to ask the party chair. >> you're the person who received the call. you showed up. how did you know to show up? >> you can go ahead and ask the party chair the logistics. >> ask how you got a phone call? >> you're welcome to talk to them. >> you don't know how you arrived at a place. >> i appreciate your question. have a great one. >> wow. that is an elected official. a public servant. whether or not he's legally liable, he certainly seemed concern. he's part of a fraud that worst than criminal, a fraud on voters. a sneak attack on democracy, which is part of a larger scheme and a bigger lie, which now includes alleged sedition and is now being stonewalled by one of the most powerful lawmakers in the land. rising stakes indeed. with more on the charges, we're joined by jessica snyder in washington. let's talk about the indictment and why the justice department chose this very specific charge of seditious conspiracy. >> serious indeed, it carries 20 years max in prison. what's clear from what we're seeing in this robust indictment is the justice department has been working methodically for the past year, even getting some members of the oath keepers to cooperate. and we're seeing that because we're seeing these encrypted messages. and all of it paints this full and really frightening picture of the violence that these 11 defendants were allegedly plotting. it didn't just involve january 6th. this plot extended, according to the doj, through the inauguration. the planning here allegedly started as far back as november. these encrypted messaging apps like signal, one of these members is even accused of taking a reconnaissance trip here to washington before january 6th. they also are accused of stockpiling weapons. the doj says they formed what they called quick reaction force teams in three separate states and then leading up to january 6th, they stashed their weapons in a hotel in virginia, according to doj. so this indictment spelling it out in many, many pages. one part, saying the qrf teams, the quick rapid force teams, were prepared to rapidly transport firearms and other weapons into washington, d.c. in support of operations aimed at using force to stop the lawful transfer of presidential power. and the extent of that violence, it didn't transpire as we know, but that night, anderson, doj says stewart rhodes and others met at a restaurant in virginia to plot out their next steps. in fact, rhodes allegedly bought close to $18,000 worth of firearms and gear, and then told his followers to organize local militias to oppose the biden administration after the inauguration. he wrote this in a signal message, anderson. he said after this, if nothing happens, it's war. civil war 2.0. that on january 20th. so the doj in this indictment carefully detailing what was a wide and long ranging plot to violently overthrow the government leading to these very serious sedition conspiracy charges, anderson, for the first time the doj laying this out. >> what's next for the defendants? >> there are 11 defendants now charged with seditious conspiracy. some of them are actually already facing charges, but they'll now be upgraded. however, the oath keeper founder, stewart rhodes, he was arrested today at his texas house around 1:00. fbi agents out of dallas arrested him. he's scheduled to appear in federal court tomorrow afternoon, but really the big question tonight is stewart rhodes the biggest fish that doj will get, or does he potentially have information about other people, maybe involved in this plot, and could there be more charges down the road for people even higher up? that's the big question. and who knows if stewart rhodes might cooperate. >> jessica, thanks very much. >> now sara sidner. you reported extensively on these so-called oath keepers including mr. rhodes. tell us about him. >> look, he was certain unapologetic after what happened on january 6th. then we went looking at some video and found that he was actually there, he was standing there. you can see him in pictures and video. with other members of the oath keepers. then you see these pictures of a group of oath keepers, nine or ten of them, all together in a row, in a stack, very much how the military might operate there in military garb, many of them, and we see them go in and breach the capitol. some of the members of the oath keepers, three of them, they were the first people to be charged with conspiracy for the january 6th insurrection. stewart rhodes, though, was never seen going into the capitol, but about 24 days after the insurrection happened, we heard from him. and we heard exactly what he thought about what was going on with this new administration, the joe biden administration. and he was encouraging people to basically carry arms and try a revolution against this particular administration. i want to let you hear from him, just a couple weeks after the insurrection happened, he was on a right-wing forum online. >> you got to declare this regime to be illegitimate, declare it everything comes out of king biden's mouth as illegitimate and null and void from inception because he's not a legitimate president. they have plans for us that they know we'll rebel against, and they're afraid because there are 365 million of us. we outnumber them vastly, and we're armed, well armed. they have a problem. >> he's talking about being well armed, talking about the big lie. he's pushing that, encouraging people to stand up against it. and so that is the mentality from his own words you're hearing and now you're seeing some of the conversations. and just as jessica had pointed out in this indictment, there were conversations going on that makes it seem very much like there was a plan, and that the oath keepers were part of the plan to storm the capitol. and use violence, anderson. >> stay with us. i want to bring in national security analyst and former assistant secretary for homeland security, juliette kayyem, and also jeffrey toobin. how significant are these indictments. justice department is very clear it is alleging, these people had a variety of weapons, tactical gear and a so-call quick reaction force. not sure how quick these folks are, but what's your reaction to all this? >> well, my reaction is the justice department is far from finished here. and what happens when you indict a large group of people with very serious crimes in federal court is you put tremendous pressure on them to flip. now, it is already true, as jessica i believe noted, that several members of the oath keepers have fled already. >> wait a minute. they're oath keepers. how can they flip? >> because they are trying to save their own skin. it's like members of the mafia take an oath and the oath goes out the window when they're in trouble. >> sort of oath keepers. >> that's right, sort of oath keepers. and you know, what you see, i mean, one paragraph in the indictment that really jumped out at me was paragraph 70. this was one of the signal messages from rhodes to his leadership group. and he says, there are many, many others from other groups who will be watching and waiting on the outside in case of worse case scenarios. that just shows that the justice department is interested in identifying everyone involved here. who were these other groups? did they really exist? and of course, the big question is, was there leadership from an even higher authority? anyone associated with the president. were they aware of, involved with, supportive of this conspiracy? or were the oath keepers just sort of a silo on their own? the pressure for these people to cooperate has just gone up a lot because of the magnitude of these charges. >> juliette, how do you see these indictments? >> legally, i agree with jeff, and that paragraph he cites suggested they were all waiting for some trigger to move in with their weapons. remember, as sara said, this is a frightening indictment. there's lots of weapons around the capitol ready to be moved in. that trigger never happened. so we don't know why they're not moving forward. but the overall legal indictment, i also, as i have been for a year with you, view it through the lens of counterterrorism. for me, i read this and it's a sort of a good news story. in a sense that organizations that would use violence for, to undermine our democracy, terrorists, they are domestic terrorists, and their leader or the person they view as their leader, donald trump, are now not just disbanded. they can't grow. and that is one of the most important factors in undermining or abolishing a terror movement. you make sure that they can't recruit or raise money. and the background of this indictment is, of course, how the heck are they raising this much money? so that's going to be another part of this legal piece. but if they can't raise money, they can't organize, they're turning against each other, they are a very unappealing movement, not just this group, the oath keepers, but the movement overall that would utilize violence to support donald trump. now, we can debate what words you want to use, and people feel uncomfortable using the word terrorist. donald trump is leading a domestic terrorism movement to promote violence, to undermine our vote. and until we start calling it that, we will not be able to minimize the radicalization that he brought forth over the last couple years. >> sara, we know from your past reporting that these so-called oath keepers were at president trump's inauguration in 2016. they expressed solidarity with his nationalistic views. they're in line with the big lie, as we heard from their alleged leader there. is it clear to you what sort of access leaders of this group actually had to the white house or, you know, the mishmash of the president's allies? >> well, we know that they have long said that they are the guards, if you will, for vips. and they were there in washington on january 6th doing some of that. we saw some of them with people like stone, who was there, roger stone. we know that they have some access to those who are very close to donald trump. that was part of their mandate, that they were there trying to protect vips as a part of the stop the steal rally. just how close, we don't know. but we know that they were -- there are pictures of them with roger stone outside of his hotel, for example, on january 6th. and so that has always been a through line. they said we're there for protection. they also made comments during the election saying they were going to go to polling places. they are almost always armed, wearing often sort of army garb or police type of garb, and protect trump voters. there were a fear they would be standing there and having people come vote and people would be intimidating seeing their weapons. i want to talk about something juliette pointed out, how are they raising many? people had to pay dues. that was part of it. good you have enough people paying dues to this national organization, the oath keepers. then they can continue to operate. one more thing that i think a lot of people were taken back by, that didn't know about this group. they heavily try to recruit current and former military members, current and former law enforcement, and members of law enforcement, current and former intelligence members. they will go after anyone who is in those positions, which means they have the training. some of those people were former military, former law enforcement. some of them were current law enforcement. they have the training, tactical training to go forward with something like storming the capitol. >> sara sidner, juliette kayyem, jeff toobin. >> congressman jamie raskin joins us. >> and the supreme court striking down president biden's vaccine mandate for big businesses. that and more in a very busy thursday. ng with mom. she always said, “food is love.” so when she moved in with us, a new kitchen became part of our financial plan. ♪ i want to make the most of every meal we have together. ♪ at northwestern mutual, our version of financial planning helps you live your dreams today. find a northwestern mutual advisor at nm.com you're a one-man stitchwork master. but your staffing plan needs to go up a size. you need to hire. i need indeed. indeed you do. indeed instant match instantly delivers quality candidates matching your job description. visit indeed.com/hire are you taking a statin drug to reduce cholesterol? it can also deplete your coq10 levels. i recommend considering qunol coq10 along with your statin medication. the brand i trust is qunol. why does walgreens offer prescription copays as low as zero dollars? ♪ ♪ so you won't have a medicare in the world. ♪ ♪ plus, 90-day refills and same day delivery. larry? that's even less to medicare about. fill your medicare prescriptions with walgreens and save. ♪ ♪ better skin from your body wash? try olay body wash with skincare super ingredient collagen! olay body wash hydrates to improve skin 3x better, from dry and dull to firm and radiant. with olay body, i feel fearless in my skin. my daughter has type 2 diabetes and lately i've seen this change in her. once-weekly trulicity is proven to help lower a1c. it lowers blood sugar from the first dose. and you could lose up to ten pounds. trulicity is for type 2 diabetes. it isn't for people with type 1 diabetes. it's not approved for use in children. don't take trulicity if you're allergic to it, you or your family have medullary thyroid cancer, or have multiple endocrine neoplasia syndrome type 2. stop trulicity and call your doctor right away if you have an allergic reaction, a lump or swelling in your neck, severe stomach pain, changes in vision, or diabetic retinopathy. serious side effects may include pancreatitis. taking trulicity with sulfonylurea or insulin raises low blood sugar risk. side effects include nausea, vomiting, and diarrhea, which can lead to dehydration and may worsen kidney problems. ask your doctor about once-weekly trulicity. i'm greg, i'm 68 years old. i do motivational speaking in addition to the substitute teaching. i honestly feel that that's my calling-- to give back to younger people. i think most adults will start realizing that they don't recall things as quickly as they used to or they don't remember things as vividly as they once did. i've been taking prevagen for about three years now. people say to me periodically, "man, you've got a memory like an elephant." it's really, really helped me tremendously. prevagen. healthier brain. better life. let me tell you... you want to be successful? you gotta hustle. you gotta go the extra mile. make a name for yourself. have a firm grip. always dress for success. and you gotta show 'em who's boss. thanks for coming in. we'll get back to you. hustle, sure, but for what matters. when you do, it leads to amazing. welcome to the next level. the all-new lexus nx. ♪ ♪ it wasn't me by shaggy ♪ you're never responsible for unauthorized purchases on your discover card. whether it's 11 people charged with seditious conspiracy in connection with the capital insurrection, or the committee subpoenaed social media companies, it's been quite a day. joining us is jamie raskin, author of "unthinkable, trauma, truth, and the trials of american democracy." thanks so much for being with us. i want to get your reaction, first of all, to the seditious conspiracy charges. jeff toobin saying it's about to determine if these so-called oath keepers were acting alone or had help from people either in the white house or the acolytes around the former president. do you agree with that, and how does that track with the work your committee is doing? >> well, it seemed perfectly obvious to me, anderson, for many months now that within what i call that second ring of the action on january 6th, there were people who had been planning, coordinating, and organizing to come to smash our windows, to break down our doors, to break in, and to go and interrupt the proceeding of the joint session of congress counting electoral college votes. and they obviously were armed in lots of different ways. they were well funded. i hope that this arrest and this prosecution will shut up our colleagues saying if there was a conspiracy, how come there were no conspiracy charges, if it was seditious, why are there no sedition charges. >> the subpoenas your committee issued to social media companies including meta, which is the parent company of facebook. they have still not turned over key documents or responded to specific requests for information according to your committee's letter. how far do you go to get the information if they don't cooperate? >> well, look, donald trump recruited tens of thousands of his followers to come to washington for a wild protest. and the social media were used basically as the organizing and recruitment channel for doing this. there were whistleblowers within all of the major social media saying a nightmare is about to transpire on january 6th. we want to know exactly what these social media entities did, if anything, to prevent it or did they simply take the posture that it wasn't their problem and so we're going to get to the bottom of it. remember, our committee is interested in getting at the causes behind these events and what exactly took place and what america needs to do to fortify our institutions against such a nightmare taking place again in the future. so it's not all about, you know, people being focused on prosecution. that's not what accountability means exclusively. yes, there's individual accountability, but there's also social and political accountability, and that relates also to the modes of communication that were used to create the insurrection, the coup, and the demonstration that turned into a riot. >> i want to talk about your really moving new book, "unthinkable." you write so lovingly and movingly about your son, tommy, who died by suicide. you describe yourself as a radical optimist in the book, but you also say you're bracing for the worst in 2024. you don't rule out street violence and electoral college violence. how does that scenario leave room for radical optimism? >> well, i'm fundamentally optimistic about the history of american democracy, that we have always moved towards being a more perfect union. there has been backsliding, there's been reaction, there's been resistance, but in the big picture, we move forward. if you look at our constitution, at the 17 amendments we have adopted since the bill of rights, the vast majority of them have been pro-democracy, suffrage expanding, and equality deepening amendments. so history is moving in the right direction. and i also think, and this is going to sound partisan, but in partisan terms, look, hillary beat trump by more than 3 million votes, joe biden beat him by more than 7.5 million votes, and the young people are increasingly on our side. the gop is a shrinking minority party, which is why they're hanging on to every anti-democratic lever of power they've got. the gerrymandering of congressional and state legislative districts, the filibuster, the packing of courts. all of these things are covering up for the fact that the vast majority of the people reject what they have to offer. so we're in a titanic struggle here because it's a race between the vast majority of the american people who want democracy to keep going forward and then a party that has positioned itself outside of the constitutional order which is attacking our elections, which is passing voter suppression statutes and which is trying to deny majority rule in the country. >> congressman jamie raskin, i appreciate your time. the new book is "unthinkable, trauma, truth, and the trials of american democracy." thank you so much. appreciate it. >> thank you. there's lot more ahead, including more breaking news and a major blow to the biden white house. the supreme court blocking the vaccine or testing rule for large businesses but keeping another vaccine mandate in place for other workers. what the president is saying about it next. puffs bring soo. a nose in need deserves puffs indeed. america's #1 lotion tissue. (burke) this is why you want farmers claim forgiveness... [echoing] claim forgiveness-ness, your home premium won't go up just because of this. (woman) wow, that's something. (burke) you get a whole lot of something with farmers policy perks. [echoing] get a quote today. ♪ we are farmers. bum-pa-dum, bum-bum-bum-bum ♪ ♪"don't ya leave" by squeak e clean♪ [doorbell] ♪ [doorbell] ♪ [doorbell] all the delivery. no delivery fees. dashpass. ♪ this... is the planning effect. this is how it feels to know you have a wealth plan that covers everything that's important to you. this is what it's like to have a dedicated fidelity advisor looking at your full financial picture. making sure you have the right balance of risk and reward. and helping you plan for future generations. this is "the planning effect" from fidelity. how not to be a hero: because that's the last thing they need you to be. you don't have to save the day. you just have to navigate the world so that a foster child isn't doing it solo. you just have to stand up for a kid who isn't fluent in bureaucracy, or maybe not in their own emotions. so show up, however you can, for the foster kids who need it most— at helpfosterchildren.com and there you have it. woah. for the foster kids who need it most— wireless on the most reliable network nationwide. wow. big deal. we get unlimited for just 30 bucks. sweet, but mine has 5g included. relax people. my wireless is crushing it. that's because you all have xfinity mobile with your internet. it's wireless so good, it keeps one-upping itself. take the savings challenge at xfinitymobile.com/mysavings or visit an xfinity store to learn how our switch squad makes it easy to switch and save hundreds. there's more breaking news, the supreme court has blocked president biden's vaccine or testing requirement for millions of americans who work for businesses with more than 100 employee. the decision is a blow to the white house with a record number of americans infected with covid, largely due to the rapidly spreading omicron variant. in a separate case, the justices are allowing a vaccine mandate to go into effect for certain health care workers who work for companies who get federal money. kaitlan collins joins us from the white house. what has the reaction been to the supreme court defeat? >> anderson, they're pretty disappointed. they were bracing for this based on how the oral arguments had gone. it didn't seem likely this was going to stand muster, but this is a massive blow to the white house and they're not saying otherwise because this is the biggest step president biden had taken to get more people vaccinated. it was not one he made lightly. he had initially been opposed to any vaccine mandate. they spent muths crafting this rule so it could withstand legal challenges. as we saw today, it did not. and the white house hasn't really said what the next step is here, if they're going to try to pursue a narrower mandate. that seems pretty unlikely. at this point. so we're really now, businesses are kind of on their own to make a decision of whether or not they're going to impose a mandate like this, and of course, we know that is something that has been fraught with controversy, so it's kind of up to businesses now. >> the court did allow for another vaccine mandate. >> yeah, this is one that has to do with health care workers. and the court was more favorable to it because it has to do with them getting government money, so them regulating it requiring vaccines seemed like something the court was more likely to lean in favor of when they had those oral arguments. that was the decision they made today. any entity and health care workers that work for somewhere that gets medicare and medicaid funding. while the white house is touting this as good news that came out of the decision today, it affects far fewer millions of people than the other mandate does. about 2 million people we believe that will be affected by this. of course, this decision to strike down the other vaccine mandate probably couldn't come at a worse time for the administration because they're dealing with the surge in omicron cases, they're trying to ramp up testing and give ow free masks potentially starting next week, so it's a big blow for the white house in their efforts to get more people vaccinated. >> yeah, kaitlan collins, appreciate it. thank you. >> joining us is kathleen sebelius who served as secretary of health and human services in the obama administration. i'm wondering what your takeaway was from the ruling? >> well, i don't think there's any question that the supreme court ruling that osha, the occupational safety agency under the department of labor could not issue the rule that they did is not only disappointing but pretty scary. osha has workplace safety as their mission. and they issued what they called temporary orders given the rare circumstances of real danger presented by an unvaccinated person approximate to a vaccinated person in a workplace, and people back to work in close conditions. they left open the door as was suggested that a narrower ruling about certain workplaces and certain could be authorized, but it's very disappointing that the government and the president can't take the steps that we know are very effective to keep workers safe in workplaces. on the other hand, i'm pleased that the supreme court majority said it is absolutely appropriate to withdraw medicare and medicaid money from any health care provider who do not comply with the vaccine mandate. keeping people safe and healthy. >> are there next steps for the administration? what's should be the next steps for the administration in your opinion? >> well, i would hope that maybe they can recraft the worker order very quickly and look at everything from meat packing plants to manufacturing lines to various work sites where the court alluded to the fact that the proximity of workers side by side, crowded conditions, whatever, could withstand. at the same time, private employers can step up and do this tomorrow. they can put in place their own workplace safety rules and many have. and anderson, i think we have to keep reminding the american public, this is about frankly republicans who are determined to frankly keep this covid virus alive and well, have fought the two basic principles we know work well. vaccines and masks. and republican attorney general after republican attorney general has gone after these rules and regs. and they criticize the president constantly for not getting a handle on it, yet they fight the very public health rules we know keep people safe and secure. so he's in a bit of a catch-22, but i think thank heavens he's willing to use all of the possible leverage in the arsenal. this one was struck down. it could go right back with a new narrower version and call on the private sector employers to step up and do the right thing. >> i appreciate it. >> moments ago, senators joe manchin and kyrsten sinema ended a meeting on voting rights with president biden. we have details ahead. plus, the epic fallout from prince andrew's sexual assault lawsuit. what action buckingham palace took against him today. (birds chirping) ♪ (upbeat music) ♪ (phone beep) ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ (music quieter) ♪ (phone clicks) ♪ ♪ - that moment you walk in the office and people are wearing the same gear, you feel a sense of connectedness and belonging right away. and our shirts from custom ink help bring us together. - [narrator] custom ink has hundreds of products to help you feel connected. upload your logo or start your design today at customink.com it's been nearly two years since the pandemic started. our students and teachers tried their best, but as a parent, i can tell you that nearly 18 months of remote learning was really hard. i'm so angry that instead of helping our kids get back in the classroom, the school board focused on renaming schools schools that weren't even open . please recall all three school board members now. for the sake of our kids, we can't wait one more day, never mind a whole year for a fresh start. this is elodia. she's a recording artist. 1 of 10 million people that n comcast has connected to affordable internet in the last 10 years. and this is emmanuel, a future recording artist, and one of the millions of students we're connecting throughout the next 10. through projectup, comcast is committing $1 billion so millions more students, past... and present, can continue to get the tools they need to build a future of unlimited possibilities. we have more breaking news tonight. democratic senators joe manchin and kyrsten sinema met with president biden tonight at the white house to discuss voting rights. this comes after both senators rejected the president's push to change filibuster rules in an effort to pass the voting legislation. this afternoon, president biden met with democrats on capitol hill saying he's hopeful they can get this done, but he admitted he's not sure. just before the president arrived on the hill, senator sinema made her case, saying she's not backing down on her position to uphold the filibuster. >> i will not support separate actions that worsen the underlying disease of division infecting our country. the debate over the senate's 60-vote threshold shines a light on our broader challenges. when one party need only negotiate with itself, policy will inextricably be pushed from the middle towards the extremes. >> just before air time, i spoke with democratic senator jon tester from montana. >> senator, thanks very much for joining us. in your opinion, is a voting rights bill dead? >> well, i think we'll see. i think there's an opportunity this weekend to have a good honest debate on both the voting rights bills that will be in front of us, and hopefully it will change some minds and hopefully it won't be dead. it's pretty important if we're going to have a functioning democracy that we allow people to have access to the polls. >> whose vote do you think could possibly be changed? >> well, look, i think that first of all, we need all 50 in the senate, but to be honest with you, i think there's a possibility we could get some republicans if we make the case for it. but i think we need to focus on those 50 democrats to start out with. >> i want to play a part of senator sinema's speech where she appears to put some of the blame on democratic leadership. i want to play that for our viewers. >> i wish there had been a more serious effort on the part of democratic party leaders to sit down with the other party and genuinely discuss how to reforge common ground on these issues. >> do you believe there was any compromise that could have been achieved with the republicans, either on senate rules having to do with the filibuster or on voting rights? >> so on the voting rights piece, anderson, i think all you have to do is look back when we wanted to debate the john lewis act, voting rights act, and i think there was one republican we got, and that was it. i think there has been plenty of efforts made by plenty of people in our caucus to talk about how we can get on the voting rights bill. and to be honest with you, i don't know what more could be done. there's obviously a red line drawn on voting rights in the republican caucus. and they do not want to deal with the potential voter suppression that's going to be happening out there. i just think that hopefully this debate will change some minds and we can get it done. there's been plenty of democrats that have reached out to republicans and talked about voting rights. there's been some on the filibuster also. both of them have led to dead ends. >> senator manchin today said there have been no new negotiations on build back better. is there a path forward to get the democrats' legislative agenda passed, and do you think the party, i mean, let alone the results of not getting things passed, but politically, the party will pay a price in the midterms? >> look, i think there are components of build back better we can get across the finish line. i think there's been focus on the voting rights act right now. i don't know how much focus is on build back better, but i can tell you i believe we can get critical mass on build back better. it will have to be changed some. but in the end, i think we can get a win there. i think that, you know, there's other important work we have to do other than voting rights and build back better, like the appropriations bill to defend the government and the defense department and ag department, all those kind of things. there's other bills out there, too, with our veterans, making sure we're taking care of them, and the list goes on and on and on. but in the end, i think that we do have to have a record of accomplishment. we have to talk about that record of accomplishment. one of the mistakes we made this last year on the rescue plan and the bipartisan infrastructure package, which were huge wins, huge pieces of legislation that were passed in one year, we really didn't talk about it much. i think that it's important we tell people what we're doing so that they understand it, when things start happening for the better and reducing costs for businesses and helping employment increase and reducing costs for working families, people know who did that. i'm not sure they know that because we haven't spent a lot of time talking about it. >> senator tester, always appreciate talking to you. thank you. >> thank you. >> up next, the action taken by buckingham palace against prince andrew as he faces possible trial here in the u.s. due to sexual abuse lawsuit. she always said, “food is love.” so when she moved in with us, a new kitchen became part of our financial plan. ♪ i want to make the most of every meal we have together. ♪ at northwestern mutual, our version of financial planning helps you live your dreams today. find a northwestern mutual advisor at nm.com one of my favorite supplements is qunol turmeric. turmeric helps with healthy joints and inflammation support. unlike regular turmeric supplements qunol's superior absorption helps me get the full benefits of turmeric. the brand i trust is qunol. 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 indeed.com/hire and get started today. today buckingham palace announced prince andrew has been stripped of his military titles and charities, a day after a judge in the u.s. ruled a sexual abuse lawsuit against him could move forward. bucking ham palace in a statement saying he's defending that as a private citizen. cnn's max foster joins us now. put this in perspective, how significant is this, especially as the queen prepares to celebrate 70 years on the throne. >> it was meant to be about that jubilee celebration, looking back but also looking forward. there was a real risk that it would be overshadowed by the salacious details of the trial in new york. this thousand-year-old institution did what it always does in these situations. it goes into survival mode. if you think of it, anderson, as a family firm, what they've effectively done is sack prince andrew, taken away all his military titles, his patronages, all the things he needs to carry out his royal role. also his title as his royal highness, all of that is gone. this is an attempt to separate the monarchy, the institution, from prince andrew and what's going on in new york. many people say it's quite late. others say it's early, because prince andrew hasn't been found guilty of anything here. but a clear separation. i'm told it follows family discussions. you can see charles and william are very central to those discussions. >> how does he pay for legal -- does he have money? i don't know, their finances are so archaic, it's hard to understand. how does he make a living? >> well, he does have sort of a military pension, very small. he has got family money. he does rely, frankly, on the queen's income. that's not taxpayer income, but she has a private income as well. this is where it gets complicated as well. we were talking about yesterday about possible settlement, how would he pay for that. the queen would be expected to contribute if he doesn't have the money. and that would involve her in the process as well. so, all very difficult. so he does rely on her, he is beholden to her. she's the boss, not just his mother. >> max foster, appreciate it. thanks so much. we'll be right back. the lexus rx, built for a modern families. get $1,500 lease cash toward a 2022 rx 350. ♪ narrator: on a faraway beach, the generation called "our greatest" saved the world from tyranny. in an office we know as "oval," a new-generation president faced down an imminent threat of nuclear war. on a bridge in selma, alabama, the preacher of his time marched us straight to passing voting rights for every american. at a gate in west berlin, a late-generation american president demanded an enemy superpower tear down a wall and liberate a continent. american generations answering the call of their time with american ideals. freedom. liberty. justice. for today's generation of leaders, the call has come again to protect our freedom to vote, to fortify our democracy by passing the freedom to vote act and the john lewis voting rights act because america - john lewis: we are not going back, we are going forward. people everywhere living with type 2 diabetes are waking up to what's possible... with rybelsus®. the majority of people taking rybelsus® lowered their blood sugar and reached an a1c of less than 7. rybelsus® isn't for people with type 1 diabetes. don't take rybelsus® if you or your family ever had medullary thyroid cancer or have multiple endocrine neoplasia syndrome type 2, or if allergic to it. stop rybelsus® and get medical help right away if you get a lump or swelling in your neck, severe stomach pain, or an allergic reaction. serious side effects may include pancreatitis. tell your provider about vision problems or changes. taking rybelsus® with a sulfonylurea or insulin increases low blood sugar risk. side effects like nausea, vomiting, and diarrhea may lead to dehydration, which may worsen kidney problems. wake up to the possibility of lower a1c with rybelsus®. you may pay as little as $10 for up to a 3-month prescription. ask your healthcare provider about rybelsus® today. this is the planning effect. if you ask suzie about the future, she'll say she's got goals. and since she's got goals, she might need help reaching them, and so she'll get some help from fidelity, and at fidelity, someone will help her create a plan for all her goals, which means suzie will be feeling so good about that plan, she can just enjoy right now. that's the planning effect, from fidelity. a reminder, don't miss "full circle," our digital news show that gives us a chance to cover in-depth topics. watch it at cnn.com/fullcircle or our cnn app. that's it for us. the news continues. i want to hand it over to laura coates and "cnn tonight." >> thank you so much, anderson, nice to see you as always. i'm laura coates. welcome to "cnn tonight." i'm not going to mince words. this is a very big day. i can't underscore that enough. i want to take a step back and unpack, in a way we haven't before, exactly what happened today and the significance of it, because one year to the day of former president trump's second impeachment based on, you recall, his alleged role in inciting the insurrection on january 6th, the one that attacked the very citadel of our democracy because, you see, he didn't want to admit that he had lost the race, which he did, remember, ever since then and since merrick garland was sworn in as the attorney general of the united states, we know that he has been ridiculed for his pacing in the january 6th investigation. you've heard it, you may have said so yourself. he's not moving fast enough, he's contemplative to the point of paralysis, he's going to let them all off the hook just so the department of justice is not still somehow perceived as political as it was under the prior administration. and even though his doj, as you know, has charged more than 700 people connected to the attack, and that's just so far, look, he's been well aware of the frustrations out there