been talking to the special counsel, and jack smith responds to trump team's efforts to delay the documents trial. also tonight, how conservative republicans managed to attach restrictions on abortion access to a key defense bill, and what that could do to the chances of getting it through congress. later, without being able the say who left a pact of cocaine in the west wing, the secret service still says case closed. why? good evening. jack smith decides to charge the former president for his role in trying to overturn the election, being able to show his intent will be critical. and showing a ten could hinge on whether or not he believed he had won. tonight there is new evidence that smith is thinking along those lines, and is looking for evidence for people who know or heard him indicate he'd lost. jared kushner and hope hicks have both gone before the grand jury, and some of the questions asked was whether the former president was told he lost the election. other members of his inner circle including his white house counsel, acting chief of staff, pence and others, including former communications director alyssa farah griffin. you'll recall she and cassidy hutchinson told the january 6th committee that trump acknowledged losing the election. this latest reporting suggests that jack smith was trying to bolster that notion with more testimony. also breaking, the special counsel's court filing in the documents case, a point by point rebuttal to the defense's case for delaying the trial until after the election. so there is lots to talk about. cnn's kaitlan collins, alyssa farah griffin, and cnn legal analyst elliot williams. so what have you learned, kaitlan, about the members of the inner circle of trump? >> it's notable who is gone, which is obviously jared kushner and hope hicks, probably two of the closest people to donald trump during his time in the white house, and certainly during this time period. we know that they both went and testified before the grand jury, that is hearing the testimony in this, and the investigation into efforts to overturn the election by not just trump, but also his allies. i think it matters because jared kushner was obviously. there i was told back in mid-december of that time period that jared kushner was going with a ivanka trump and urging trump to concede the election. they never bought into the idea that it was stolen. that doesn't mean they spoke up. but going to him privately and urging him to concede. hope hicks is also notable. we know she spoke to the january 6th congressional committee. it's kind of interesting how much of a road map they have paved for a lot of this stuff. but she talked to them about urging trump to remain -- to tell people who came to washington for january 6th to remain peaceful in the days leading up to that day. so they both have kind of offered their perspectives of that to the january 6th committee. we don't fully know what they said to the grand jury that was hearing them when they went last month. we do know one line of questioning is whether trump privately acknowledged he had lost. >> you can't reveal what it was you were asked about or said. what kind of information do you think hope hicks and jared kushner have? >> and i actually met with federal prosecutors prior to the grand jury. but this is an important update, because to kaitlan's point, jared and hope were two of the president's closest advisers and people he was comfortable sharing mind-set, how he was feeling, and would be the kind of people who would check in on him first thing in the morning. but they also were two people who to the best of my knowledge were not people who did something wrong in this period other than maybe not speaking up. so they're not people i would expect to go in and plead the fifth, like some of the other people who testified. europe not going to get out of a lot of rudy giuliani. these two don't have a lot to hide. i think they would do their best to cooperate. and i know very well, the last conversation i had with jared kushner was me imploring him and him agreeing that the former president needed to acknowledge he lost, needed to go around the country, talk about his achievements and how he was running again in 2024. and both of them were trying to get trump to that place. so i would be curious what light they'd be able to shed. >> elliott, if they told the president he truly won the election, what that would that mean for intent? >> that would be quite useful evidence for intent. anderson, there are probably a few different crimes that would hinge on the president's knowledge or belief that he had lost the election. conspiracy to defraud the united states is itself a criminal offense that requires that someone is acting essentially committing an act of fraud on the american people by lying about something like whether they won the election or so on. or conspiracy to obstruct an official or congressional proceeding. these are the kinds of things. and you can't just -- i think people need to know this. you can't just establish that the thing happened. you to establish as prosecutors that the defendant knew or was aware of some fact and still acted sort of in contravention of that, for lack of a better way to put it. so it's very important. it is critical evidence to be able to, or have to establish what a defendant knew. and that could be quite useful evidence for that purpose. >> kaitlan, is there anyone we know that the special counsel would like to talk to that they haven't yet? >> maybe donald trump. they've talked to a lot of people here. i think that's an important thing to kind. jared kushner is obviously headline worthy because of his proximity to donald trump. he is someone who maintained more of a distance since trump left the white house. that is important here. that doesn't mean that trump is going to be charged. we don't know. we still have very much reported this out. they have talked to everyone from jared kushner and hope hicks to rusty bauers in arizona and jocelyn benson in michigan, the republican speaker of the house there and the michigan straight secretary of state. the scope of this is so broad. it's kind of difficult to get a sense of the depth of where these charges could come from, because obviously they're asking about trump's mind-set. but we also know they're asking a lot of questions about sidney powell and john eastman and kenneth chesebro, rudy giuliani, and the attorneys. so i think that's one question of what they want to know about what trump's mind-set, but also the efforts and the efforts coming from those who are around him to tell him what to do. >> alyssa, you had told the january 6th committee that the former president had said something like can you believe i lost to that f'ing guy. do you believe that then president trump knew he had lost? >> yeah, he absolutely knew in the days after the election was called for joe biden that he lost. he said it to a number of aides. kellyanne conway said it on the view that she talked to him and he acknowledged that he had lost the race. general milley talks about he said on the record that they were talking about second-term plans, that were things that were going to be a biden problem. to very senior advisers, he knew he had lost. whether he was making arrangements and planning for peaceful transition of power, that's a different question. but there is no doubt for a period. >> do you remember when he said that, can you believe i lost to this f'ing guy? >> it would have been probably within a week after the race being called for president biden. and i don't know. anyone can spend their whole life trying to understand donald trump's mind and motives. >> i'm not sure anyone really wants to. >> really wants to. i'm not sure if -- >> we've spent a lot of time doing that already. >> he may have convinced himself now that he won. that may have been something that happened later. but i know with certainty in that period that he knew he had lost the election. >> elliott, we also saw today this filing from jack smith pushing back on the former president's arguments to indefinitely delay his classified documents trial. who has the stronger argument, do you think? >> stop you both. i think they both have a little bit of wiggle room there. now look, the justice department doesn't really address the point in their response that classified documents cases simply take a long time to get to trial. and the fact that they are pushing for a december trial date is quite ambitious, for lack of a better way to put it. that's a very aggressive trial timeline. for any case in the federal system, let alone one that involves the former president of the united states, or classified documents, pardon. a lot of the former president's arguments in their brief are quite silly. the idea that number one, as a candidate for office, he can't sit for trial. well, he'll still be donald trump whether he is a candidate for office or not. he is one of the most famous people on the planet. the idea that you couldn't find a fair jury seriously because it's donald trump who is running for president is nonsense. the idea that it's a more complicated case than any other is also sort of silly. it's a relatively straight forward classified documents case. it just happens to have a famous defendant. and the justice department really unpacks a lot of those arguments quite well and really sort of dismisses a lot of the points that trump makes. the simple fact, and i think the hardest thing for the justice department to overcome here is the fact that it is classified documents. your going to have to litigate how you get them into court, and that's going to take several months and may take longer than this december. >> i want to bring in tim parlatore, a member of the former president's legal team and the founder of parlatore law group. mr. parlatore, i appreciate you joining us. the only two of the lawyers who have appeared on behalf of trump and walt nauta have submitted the forms for obtaining security clearance to deal with the classified documents at the center of the case. are they just trying to run out the clock, or is that reasonable that only two would have actually applied for it so far? is that an attempt to delay the trial? >> well, what we're talking about there is ant electronic submission of an fs-86. i've done them before. it is a very long thing where you really have to give all of your addresses, all of your prior work experience and basically anything, anything that the government may want to look into see if you have the requisite character to access classified documents. it can take a little while. it's taken me a week to fill it out. but i don't think that that is necessarily the only short pole in the tent. what i was kind of surprised at with these motions is that they telegraphed right from the beginning that they want to push this out indefinitely. that to me was odd. >> why? it is kind of surprising because essentially they're saying it's not just we want this date. it's we don't even want you to decide when there should be a date. >> right. see, in federal criminal cases, the judge will set a date, and everybody knows that it's a fake date, because they have the set the data based on the ayclk. and then the parties can consent to pushing it out. but also, that clock stops for any number of reasons. any time you file a motion, that stops the clock. so to at this stage kind of ask for the judge to hey, just throw away the clock is weird because a federal case of this magnitude will take a couple years generally, even if it's not donald trump. even if it's not a politically sensitive case. it will take a couple of years. but it will get pushed out in increments. you'll push it out two years in three-month increments throughout multiple different scheduling orders. and every time you file a motion. here they're going to file undoubtedly a motion to dismiss. that's going to stop the clock while that's all being litigated. they're going to file a motion to convert the search warrant that will stop the clock again. and once you start to get into late next year, then they can start talking about their schedule. but the thing is all of the grounds that they're talking about with it takes longer because of classified documents, a judge prefers to see that after you actually have some track record. instead of saying we think it's going the take a long time, if you wait a few months and say hey, judge, this thing is taking a long time. this is why we need more time, that's where the judge has a much easier way of saying yes, i agree. let's push it out. >> on the idea that only two of the attorneys have applied for security cleearances for these documents, i would think this is probably a pretty big case for most of the attorneys working on this thing. so if they wanted to move along quickly, i think they would jump on those security clearances pretty fast, no? >> oh, sure. >> if you're trying to slow-walk something, trying to slow-walk it every step of the way is the way to go about it. >> well, the government has to initiate those by giving them a link. not anybody can log in and create an account for themselves. so one question i have is how many of these what they call the equip sf-86 applications has the government even sent out. whether it's associated -- >> the fact that jack smith is complaining about it in court documents would seem to indicate they had probably sent out those links if he is saying only two people responded. >> you would think. but they would say maybe that they sent out links to several different associates. only two of them responded. it's unclear whether they may have only sent it out to mr. blanche and mr. kise and they were the only ones who responded. i don't know. >> i was speaking to chris christie last night, obviously an opponent of the former president. he was saying between now and december could be enough time for everyone to prepare for the trial. do you agree with that? and if not, what is unreasonable about a december timeline? >> i think it's unreasonable based on the specific issues involved in this case, because there is going to be significant pretrial motion practice. undoubtedly, they're going to be filing motions related to discovery, related to dismissal, related to the search warrant. and i have tried federal cases very, very quickly where december would very easily be a good timeline. those were cases where there were no search warrants, and there were no other issues where we essentially waived motions entirely and said let's go straight to a jury trial. so i don't really see that being as viable in this particular case based on the facts that are in it. >> i want some of the other folks on the panel i know have some questions. elliot? >> i too have done fs-86s throughout my government career. i agree with your point. they are voluminous, and you have to pull every piece of information. but my question for you as someone who has represented the former president, and you didn't quite answer this with anderson, do you think this is just a deliberate delay tactic? it certainly should be a priori briefed up and get ready and fill out their background checks in order to zealously represent their client. it's really a sincere question. do you think they really might just be trying to delay this and push this out rather than it's a hard document to fill out and takes time. i just don't think it's that convincing if that's the argument they're making. >> i think that the bigger indicator is the fact that they filed a motion asking for the trial to be discontinued without any date whatsoever. that's the bigger -- >> that's the red flag for you. >> what the strategy is. >> alyssa? >> i mean, the truth, if the two attorneys who filled it out are the two that are actually going to be reviewing those documents, then that's fine. back with the old team, jim trusty and i, we both have security clearances, and the amount of classified documents we're talking about here are not so voluminous that you have to have a huge team of associates, ten different people to look at them. having two people look at them, i don't see the sf-86 issue as being the primary indicator of delay. >> sure. i think what i'd say, though, it's the kind of thing for which you don't really have a ton of recourse either if you're the government or the court. if they're just dragging their feet on basic things like filing their documents, those are the little things that an attorney can do to try to gum up or slow down a proceeding. it seems, this is just speculation, it seems that's the kind of thing we'd see much more of over the course of the proceeding. >> one thing to watch for. alyssa? >> a judge can pose a deadline. the judge can say you've got the get this done by friday. i've seen that done. >> as you would know and elliot and myself, the government can also expedite security clearances. so if the attorneys were willing to fill out the sf-86 process pretty quickly, the fbi oversees a large part of that. of course the department of justice. but kind of to the department earlier, do you think there is an argument to be made that there is a vital public interest in getting this on the road by december by the end of the year so it can be adjudicated ahead of the election? >> you know, you could look at it both ways on that. ultimately, the constitutional right to a speedy trial is a right that belongs to the defendant, not to the government. the defendant shall have a right to a speedy trial. one thing that i noticed in the government's filings was that they said that they've already turned over in that first group of discovery all of the 3500 material, which is the witness interviews and the grand jury transcripts, which is something that's very unusual. usually the government tries to hide that until the very last minute. they won't let you see it before motions. you get really just a couple of days before jury selection. so the fact that they turned that over within the first batch, which is a radical departure from how the u.s. attorneys office has usually handled that. that is certainly an indicator to the defense that jack smith is trying to rush this to trial as quickly as possible by removing any discovery issues like that. so i can see from that indicator that jack smith is certainly trying to push this forward. >> kaitlan? >> but ultimately, is it in the public's best interest when you have a politically sensitive case like this? it goes both ways. >> well, i think some would argue, tim -- >> it depends on what the verdict is i guess. >> i think some would argue that voters should know that before they go and cast their ballots. i think if you're looking at this, though, and their complaints were about one thing, whether it's time to get the security clearances or asking for this indefinite trial date. but they're also making this argument, trump's team is that they can't get a fair jury before the 2024 election. do you really believe that? >> you know, i don't think that this motion is the best time to raise that. that's something that they would really have to get a lot more evidence of to properly brief under the appropriate rules. and as you guys said earlier, this is donald trump. whether he is a candidate or a post candidate, it is a very difficult divisive subject. so i think that they are going to have massive difficulties picking a jury in this. they should get a pool that's much larger than normal, and you're going to lose most of them right off the bat. but i think that's kind of premature to be raising at this stage -- it's a little bit too premature. >> we should also point out it's one of the things that jack smith said in documents today, essentially, yes, there will be special handling, different procedures, but the courts are well equipped to do this, even if it does require a little bit of extra work. tim parlatore, appreciate you being on, elliot williams, alyssa farah griffin, kaitlan collins as well. next for us tonight, more on the breaking news and how much of is in the hands of judge aileen cannon, who has already been overruled once in this matter. a former member of the federal bench joins us about the judge. later, more breaking news. house republicans add restrictions on abortion access to a must pass defense bill. where it leaves the legislation, where that leaves the military, ahead, tonight. okay. i'll work on that. save $1200 on n our most populr sleep number 360 smart bed. plus, save up to an additional $500 when you add seselect adjustable bases. i see irritated gums and weak enamel. sensodyne sensitivity gum & enamel relieves sensitivity, helps restore gum health, and rehardens enamel. i'm a big advocate of recommending things that i know work. [music playing] subject 1: cancer is a long journey. it's overwhelming, but you just have to put your mind to it and fight. subject 2: it doesn't feel good because you can't play outside with other children. subject 3: as a parent, it is your job to protect your family. but here is something that i cannot do. i cannot fix this. i don't know if my daughter is going to be able to walk. i don't know if she's going to make it till tomorrow. [music playing] interviewer: you can join the battle to save lives by supporting st. jude children's research hospital. families never receive a bill from st. jude for treatment, travel, housing, or food so they can focus on helping their child live. subject 4: childhood cancer, there's no escaping it. but st. jude is doing the work, continually researching towards cures, giving more than just my child a chance at life. interviewer: please, call or go online right now and become a st. jude partner in hope for only $19 a month. subject 5: those donations really matter because we're not going to give up. and when you see other people not giving up on your child, it makes all the difference in the world. interviewer: when you call or go online with your credit or debit card right now, we'll send you this st. jude t-shirt. you can wear to show your support to help st. jude save the lives of these children. subject 6: st. jude is hope. even today after losing a child, it's still about the hope of tomorrow, because. childhood cancer has to end. interviewer: please, call or go online right now. [music playing] ♪ tourists tourists that turn into scientists. tourist taking photos that are analyzed by ai. so researchers can help life underwater flourish. ♪ returning to the breaking news on special counsel jack smith's court filing today, the defense claims the former president will simply be too busy campaigning or preparing for other cases. it's now up to judge aileen cannon. more on her track record from cnn's jessica schneider. >> my sincere thanks to the president for the honor of this nomination. >> reporter: judge cannon owes her nomination to the federal bench to donald trump. and now she is front and center in the former president's legal fight, fighting with trump's team to cite appoint a special master to decide what should be kept offlimits from federal investigators, a decision which is now being appealed and has been criticized. >> it's really a very pro plaintiff, pro-trump ruling in all respects. >> reporter: not only by political pundits, but also three judges on the 11th court of appeals, two of them trump appointees who described cannon's initial ruling pausing doj's review of documents marked classified untenable. the 11th circuit ultimately allowed the doj to continue its probe into the handling of classified material while the special master reviewed thousands of other documents. judge cannon also ruled that trump did not have to officially declare in court whether fbi agents planted items at mar-a-lago, something trump and his al plies have repeatedly said in public. the special master had requested trump prove hiss claims, but cannon stepped in and stopped it. judge cannon has not responded to cnn's request for comment on her decisions, but when asked in 2020 during her confirmation if she had any discussions about royalty to president trump, she unequivocally wrote no. do you think she has any bias toward trump? >> i don't think she has any bias at all. >> reporter: jason mendra worked with cannon a decade ago. >> we never talked about politics or judicial philosophy because it wasn't relevant to what we were doing. i still don't know anything about her politics today. >> reporter: she wasn't overtly political? >> no. >> reporter: aileen cannon was working as a federal prosecutor at the u.s. attorney's office in fort pierce, florida when senator marco rubio's office first reached out about a possible nomination to the federal bench in june 2019. senator rubio gave cnn this statement. judge cannon is a great judge who i'm very proud to have enthusiastically supported. the attacks against her are just the latest example of hypocrisy from leftists and their media enablers who believe the only time it is acceptable to attack a judge is if that judge rules against what they want. rubio isn't the only florida republican cannon is linked to. she met with counsel for republican senator rick scott just before she was nominated. >> my sincere thanks go to my home state senators. >> reporter: and records show she donated $100 to ron desantis in 2018. but she told senators her judicial philosophy would be to follow the text and the history of the constitution, and she shared her personal story to stress her respect for the rule of law, talking about how her mother fled communist cuba. >> at the age of 7, had to flee the repressive castro regime in search of freedom. thank you for teaching me about -- this country and for and the importance of securing the rule of law for generations to come. >> reporter: jessica schneider, cnn, washington. >> joining us now is former federal judge nancy gertner who is currently a senior lecturer at harvard law school. former president trump's lawyers or the special counsel's office? >> well, as between one side asking for an indefinite postponement, and the other asking for a date certain, it seems to me it's clear that she has to set a date. the judge has to set a date. that's the date by which there will be a trial and the date by which all motions have to be filed. i am a little surprised, as your previous guests were, asking for an indefinite postponement of a trial is really a transparent attempt to simply kick the can down the road after the election. i mean, it couldn't be -- it's implicit. it's explicit in what they said. and i can't imagine any judge allowing it under any set of circumstances. >> so what do you expect her to do? >> well, i've been wrong before, but, i mean, i expect her to set a date certain. in other words, you pick a date. it could be the date that the government wants, for example. but that's only sort of a presumptive date. if there are more delays in getting classification issues addressed, then it would be kicked a little later. and if the motions take more time, it could be kicked a little bit later. there is a requirement -- many exceptions to that. if it's going to take time to select a jury, then she'll take the time. what she doesn't do, and no judge would do is to say i'm just going to put this off. i'm just going to give you whatever. that's unlikely. and i'm actually surprised that they even asked for that. it's -- in one sense, the last thing you want is for this judge to agree, because that would be a transparent moment of bias in favor of president trump, ex-president trump. >> and if the justice department doesn't like the date that the judge has set, can they appeal to a higher court, or is that the date? >> well, if she sets a date, it's an unlikely appeal. it's kind of administrative decision that a judge makes in a case that is not subject to appeal. if she says indefinite, even though that's well within her rights to set, you know, to administer the trial, that would be so extraordinary that i would imagine the government would appeal. i don't know whether the court of appeals would do. typically, these things are not within the ken of a court of appeals. let me say the other thing is that this also reflects is if there are indictments coming out of january 6th, one which is a far more complicated case, one can well imagine what that motion practice would look like. >> yeah. >> that's a whole different issue. that suggests that if jack smith were listening to this broadcast, that he should be bringing those charges as soon as possible. . >> nancy gertner, i appreciate your time. thank you. up next, more breaking news. the latest from capitol hill where key legislation to fund the military could now be in jeopardy after house conservatives move to block abortion access for service members. details on that, and what democrats are bound to do about it, coming up. ( sfx: engine revving ) ok, dad, next take more speed. more speed. the best performance is high performance. find it at theexus golden opportunity sales event. ( ♪ ) - this is jabra enhance select. it's more than just a hearing aid. it's a smart hearing solution that makes hearing aids more convenient and less expensive. with jabra enhance select's premium package, better hearing doesn't have to start in a doctor's office. it starts with our free online hearing test. you can fine tune your settings with your remote audiology team. with jabra enhance select you can get the same advanced hearing aid technology and professional care you expect from a clinic at a fraction of the cost. try it risk free for 100 days. visit jabraenhance.com. is it possible to protect my business from cyber threats? it is, with comcast business. helping every connected device stay protected. yours. your employees'. even... susan? hers, too. safe. secure. and powered by the next generation 10g network. with comcast business, advanced security isn't just possible. it's happening. get started wih fast spees and advanced security for $49.99a month for 12 monts plus ask how to get up to a $750 prepaid card with qualifying internet. there is more breaking news tonight on a bill that involves critical defense spending to ensure america's troops have the equipment and resources they need. it's called the national resource authorization act. it usually goes through without a problem. that's in doubt tonight. conservatives have pushed republicans to force an amendment that would ban the pentagon to ban travel expenses for service members who go out of the state for abortions. the vote was 221 to 213. mostly along party lines. joining us now from capitol hill, where do things stand right now? >> anderson, the bill is in peril. and that is because as you mentioned in the previous vote series, the house adopted a number of controversial amendments that seriously jeopardize the bill's chances for passage because democrats said they're not going to vote for the final bill. the amendment include an amendment that would ban the pentagon from being able to trave cover travel costs and an amendment to ban the pentagon from covering medical services for certain transgender troops. that what means is most of democrats are now going to vote against what has been a historically bipartisan bill on capitol hill. and it's unclear whether speaker kevin mccarthy even has enough republican support to get this thing over the finish line. that's because some hard-line conservatives are threatening to vote against the measure, despite the fact they got their desired amendment vote. it is really going to be a big test of kevin mccarthy's speakership tomorrow when they vote on final passage. >> simply, not entirely unrelated, senator tommy tuberville spoke with lloyd austin today about his hold on military nominations over this very issue. how did that go? >> still no signs of budging from senator tuberville. as a reminder, he wants the pentagon to either roll back that travel abortion policy, or for the senate to hold its own vote on the issue. he did connect by phone, as you mentioned with secretary austin earlier today. tuberville's office described that call and cordial and productive, and they agreed to continue speaking next week. and a defense official said the call was brief, but the secretary reiterated this blockade is continuing to harm military readiness. meanwhile, president biden also weighed in earlier today, but tuberville remains unmoved. take a listen. >> he is jeopardizing u.s. security is what he is doing. i expect the republican party to stand up, stand up and do something about it. >> he said that the way this ends is republicans need to put pressure on you to relent. >> that's not going to happen. i'm doing it for not for the republican party. i'm doing it for republicans and democrats and citizens of this country. >> this is a national security issue. it's a readiness issue. and we shouldn't kid ourselves. i think any member of the senate armed services committee knows that. >> and some of tuberville's republican colleagues can try to work behind the scenes with the senator to discuss potential alternatives, potential offramps, but so far to no avail. anderson? >> from massachusetts, seth moulton. he is a retired marine who served four combat tours in iraq and serves on the house armed services committee. we spoke just before air. congressman moulton, i appreciate you being here. now that the house has passed this amendment banning the pentagon from covering travel costs for out of state abortions will you vote in favor of the defense authorization act? >> no, he will not. i'm a proud marine combat veteran. i look forward to voting for the defense bill every single year. and i cannot support this legislation. >> can you explain your reasoning? because obviously as a marine vet, you know the importance of having a bill like this. >> yeah, usually explain that i support the defense bill because i support the troops. but this bill does not support our troops. one out of five service members in the united states is a woman. about 40% of those don't have full access to the health care that they need. and now these republicans are in the house are saying you can't even travel to get the health care that you need in an emergency. i mean, this is making women into second class citizens. it's taking us back 50 years. it's making women into political pawns so that republicans can advance their extremest agenda. >> i heard some republican members of the house today saying women service members can pay for it on their own dime. >> do we honestly think that women service members or any service members are making enough to be paying for their own health care, or even the extensive travel expenses that it might take to get from a state that does not allow these health care services to a state that does? i mean, way up in massachusetts, we're getting a lot of influx from people from states far away who can't get basic health care. but massachusetts is pretty far from many of the bases that have these prohibitions. >> there is also the concern about allowing women service members time off after having an abortion, if they have, in order to recover. >> i mean, again, as a male in the military, if i was injured, if i had a medical procedure, i would get time to recover. but we're saying women, you don't count. that's what this bill says. and that's why, sadly, so many of us are going to vote against it. >> republicans in the past have said democrats are pushing a social agenda. does that seem now that's what republicans are doing here? >> of course. and they're taking us backwards. this wasn't a problem last year, the year before, the year before that. in fact, for over 60 years, this has been a bipartisan bill. strong majorities of republicans and democrats have voted to support our troops. but that's the problem is this bill fundamentally doesn't support our troops. and that's why i'm voting against it. >> so what happens to the funding? what happens? >> well, what's going to happen with this bill is if republicans manage to somehow get it out of the house with very few with any democratic votes, a totally partisan bill, it still has to go to the senate and be reconciled with the senate bill. so those of us who are appointed to the conference committee, as i expect to be, will fight very hard to remove this provision. and we don't expect it to be supported in the senate. but it is such an insult. it's such an insult to every woman who is risking her life for the country tonight to have this even get out of the house of representatives. >> i want to ask you also about senator tuberville's hold on military nominations, which as you know is because of his opposition to pentagon policy on travel for paying for travel to states to get an abortion. we heard president biden today call the senator's hold irresponsible. he said it was jeopardizing u.s. security. it that serious? >> i would say it's more serious than that. one of the most brilliant things that we help the ukrainians do in the early stages of the war, that set the russians back so much is target their generals, take out their generals so that inexperienced deputy had to take over. and that's part of why russian forces were in such disarray. but our generals aren't being taken out by the russians or the chinese. they're being taken out by a united states senator, a far who thinks his political agenda is more important than the health care of every woman who puts on the uniform. and by the way, a senator who has never served the country himself. . >> the senator is clearly not budging at this point. is there an appetite among republicans you think to stand up to him on this? senator mcconnell has said something, but not a lot of others have. >> i mean, there is not much courage amongst republicans on capitol hill period, right now. so many of them know he is wrong and behind the scenes decry what he is doing, yet they're not willing to go out in public and just say what i am saying. just how dangerous this is for our national security. i'm a marine veteran. we've had a commandant for over 164 years all the time. this is first time in over 160 years that we haven't had a commandant. it's just criminal. it's dangerous for our national security. it's an insult to every woman who puts on the uniform, and it sends a message to russia and to china that we are more interested in political squabbles back home than standing up for the freedom and values that our troops fight for every day. >> he says nobody has called him. i know the defense secretary austin spoke to senator tuberville today. what can make this change? because he has the power to keep this on hold. >> well, what we need is republicans to stand up to him. and to tell him how dangerous this truly is. and i'm certainly encouraging my republican friends behind the scenes to do that. >> congressman moulton, thank you. >> thank you, anderson. next tonight, more on the apparent assassination of a former russian subcommander and the string of top russian ground commanders, senior generals who have now been killed, fired or simply disappeared. and later, why the week-long manhunt for an escaped killer just got that much more dangerous. ♪ pets are raw. raw curiosity. raw love. raw energy. no dog ever thought, “what someone sees me like this?” no cat ever asked permission before taking up residence on youkeyboard. raw is all pets are, and raw is all they need. raw attention. raw affection. and raw food. like what we make here at stella & chewy's. ♪♪ alex! mateo, hey how's business? great. you know that loan has really worked wonders. that's what u.s. bank is for. and you're growing in california? -yup, socal, norcal... -monterey? -all day. -a branch in ventura? that's for sure-ah. atms in fresno? fres-yes. encinitas? yes, indeed-us. anaheim? big time. more guacamole? i'm on a roll-ay. how about you? i'm just visiting. u.s. bank. ranked #1 in customer satisfaction with retail banking in california by j.d. power. when asked in helsinki today about ukraine's path to nato membership and how it might affect vladimir putin's willingness to keep fighting, president biden said, quote, putin has already lost the war. russia is facing significant challenges as it tries to hold ukrainian territory they grabbed in the invasion. the most visible being a string of fired, killed or missing generals and war lords. sergei surovikin, not seen since last month. one russian lawmaker saying he is, quote, resting. yevgeny prigozhin has also not been seen since the rebel union. another general was killed in ukrainian missile strike. and now, of course, there is the former sub commander gunned down after possibly being tracked on his running app. for more on what we know and what remains a mystery, here is nick paton walsh. >> reporter: as russia paraded thursday, the surrender of heavy weapons from the failed wagner rebellion to the regular army, effectively russia disarming itself, fresh criticisms of the war's disaster were coming from inside the top brass against itself. echoing the same complaints made by the perhaps vanished and vanquished wagner chief yevgeny prigozhin. a bombshell audio message from a top commander in the south. the latest tear in the fabric of putin's command. >> translator: i in the name of you, in the name of all our fallen combat friends had no right to lie. therefore i outlined all the problems today in the army. the lack of counter battery in combat, of artillery reconnaissance stations and the mass deaths and injuries of our brothers from enemy artillery. i also raised a number of other problems and expressed it all at the highest level, frankly and extremely harshly. our senior commander hit us from the rear, treacherously and vially capitating the army at the most difficult and intense moment. >> reporter: he likely met this man, defense minister sergei shoigu who ordered popov sacked shortly after he expressed dissent. shoigu was doing his usual tour of factory as kremlin sources insisted the audio was private, meant for soldiers' ears only. as if that somehow made it okay. another surreal type of disaster management on display thursday as russia tried to show control after the assassination of another top commander while out jogging deep inside russia. here his alleged assassin russia's claims he is the killer and confessed. hard to verify, showed how he reportedly carried out the killing. in the gilded servitude of putin's russia, none of this, the hitman in russian parks or the commanders fired for decrying frontline incompetence is ever meant to happen. but still, it is. daily and faster perhaps than he can process or adapt. >> the southern front has seen some telephone heaviest fighting since the it began. is russia used to experiencing this kind of upheaval in its upper ranks? >> you wouldn't want this kind of upheaval when you weren't facing the brunt of ukraine's counteroffensive. that's exactly what's happening right now. and this dismissal of popov occurred it seems after the death of another key commander in the south, lieutenant general oleg tsokov killed it seems by a missile on the coastline of the south as well before they elected decision to remove popov from his post. extraordinary in the southern front line matched it's fair to say by clearly the recriminations floating around putin's inner circle, particularly amongst the russian top brass after that failed armed rebellion by the wagner mercenary group, the fallout which we're still seeing. utterly startling at the best of times. critically lethal for russia's bid to defend itself at this acute moment in the war. >> appreciate it. thank you. coming up, the secret service says case closed on the packet of cocaine found in the white house. the question is why and what police found in the search for an escaped pennsylvania inmate. you thought that other tv provider was good enough. now what?... you'll talk? you call this “watching sports,"” do you? ♪ you u deserve better. so much in life is a compromise. directv never is. now get out of here — the game's on. call 1-800-directv for a $200 reward card. get directv with or without a satellite. may lead to severe vision loss and if you're taking a multi-vitamin alone, you may be missing a critical piece... preservision. preservision areds 2 contains the only clinically proven nutrient formula recommended by the national eye institute to help reduce the risk of moderate to advanced amd progression. preservision is backed by 20 years of clinical studies. so ask your doctor about adding preservision and fill in a missing piece of your plan. like i did with preservision. now with ocusorb better absorbing nutrients. my sport propels me forwar. contra costa college saw potential in me that i didn't know i had. focus. determination. drive. contra costa college helped me blaze the trail. now i'm a comet, and there's no stopping me. come on, this is your shot. take it. join the team at contra costa college. start today at contracosta.edu the investigation into how a small bag of cocaine ended up in the white house has concluded. the secret service saying that it's unable to identify a suspect due to a lack of physical evidence. not only that, they aren't able to determine, they say, the day that the cocaine was brought inside the west wing. in addition to the cocaine, a secret service spokesman also says that, quote, small amounts of marijuana were found at the white house on two occasions last year. no arrests were made in those cases either. jeremy diamond joins us from the white house. what is the secret service explanation for not being able to find a suspect? >> reporter: anderson, they conducted an investigation that lasted over ten days. they combed through hundreds of potential visitors to the white house using logs and surveillance footage. ultimately they were not able to identify a suspect. that's partly because looking at the baggy of cocaine they found, they were unable to pull dna evidence from it. there was insufficient dna on that baggy. they were unable to pull fingerprints. the crux is the fact that the surveillance cameras -- apparently there was a blind spot exactly where this baggy was found. that's at the cubbies where visitors are asked to place their phones before going on the tour. apparently a camera was not trained on those cubbies. ultimately the secret service wasn't able to identify a suspect. they weren't even able to identify exactly when this baggy was actually placed there. so, they had a pool of hundreds of people over the last few days before this baggy was actually found. so, the response on capitol hill, anderson, the secret service briefed lawmakers on the house oversight committee today. and republican lawmakers, of course, were incensed about this. they said that the secret service should have gotten to the bottom of this. they said in one of the most surveilled buildings in the world, they find it hard to believe that they weren't able to figure this out. the white house, for their part, they've been briefed by the secret service on this investigation, and they say they're reviewing the findings. now to pennsylvania where police today looking for an escaped inmate have shared a photo of a suspected camp site and supplies investigators believe were used by him. they described the missing inmate as, quote, a self-taught survivalist with military training. autho authorities are reiterating he now has a firearm. brian todd joins us from pennsylvania. where does the investigation stand tonight? >> reporter: that photograph you mentioned is an important new clue we just got today in this investigation. the photograph showing a bag, a dark colored tarp that they say were partially hidden underneath a log. here's what lieutenant colonel george linens told us about the content of the bag and where this all was found. >> this particular bag was wrapped in a dark-colored tarp and partially concealed under a log. this has been found in the general area of the city of warren, outside of the city in a wooded area, but not far. it contained clothing, some food, and some other materials that someone might need if they were trying to exist in the woods. >> a weapon? >> not in this particular bag. >> reporter: lieutenant colonel bivens said that he's putting that out because he knows a lot of hikers and bikers are going to be out this weekend. he wants people to look for stashes like that one. bivens had a message for this fugitive, michael burham, quote, you need to surrender. don't do anything that gets anyone else hurt. don't get yourself hurt. we are going to capture you, end quote. anderson, he is expressing more confidence than he ever has that this fugitive is going to be caught. if you drink diet soda, you'll want to watch this next st story. we'll be right back. (woman) what would the ideal weight loss program look like? no hunger, no cravings, no isolation, more energy, lasting results, and easy. is that possible? it is with golo. these people changed eir lives with golo without starvation dieting. whether you have 100 pounds to lose or want to shed those final 20, try golo for 60 days and never diet again. (uplifting music) this is how tosin lost 33 pounds on noom weight. i'm tosin. noom gave her a psychological approach to weight loss. noom has taught me how you think about food has such a... huge impact on your relationship with it. visit noom.com and start your trial today. some potentially -- and i emphasize potentially -- worrying news for diet soda drinkers. the world health organization has determined that aspartame should be put in the, quote, possibly carcinogenic to humans categories. aspartame is in many products from sugar free gum to diet sodas. the label does not mean that diet soda causes cancer. in fact, based on the w.h.o.'s guidelines, someone weighing 181 pounds could safely drink 133 cans of diet soda a day and stay within the recommended limits for aspartame. "the source" with kaitlan "the source" with kaitlan collins starts now. -- captions by vitac -- www.vitac.com tonight, straight from the source, jack smith piercing donald trump's inner circle, his family. jared kushner has now testified before the grand jury in the january 6th investigation as well as hope hicks, the former white house communications director and tru