from texas is on the way. that move has been called by his critics a stunt. he says it's giving relief to small texas towns that have been buckling under the burden of a record influx of migrants. if they're coming to his state, perhaps they should be going to the president's home state of delaware, for example and to washington d.c. we know that several buses have already gone. as i said, another one is on the way. peter doocy is live at the white hughes on "the story" and bill melugin standing by at the border at eagle pass, texas. we begin with peter. hi, peter. >> good afternoon. there's at least 11 democratic senators saying publicly that if the white house is going to get rid of the title 42 rule that let's them expel migrants from the southern border and blame covid-19, then they need to have something good lined up behind it. and the latest one of these democrats is the senator in charge of helping other democratic senators hold the senate in november. michigan's gary peters. he tells the hill newspaper this: unless we have a well-thought out plan, it should be re-visited and delayed. i share concerns of some of my colleagues. the white house has not taken any responsibility for the mystery that lies on this rules change. they're blaming republicans for the confusion to tie border reform to recent covid funding. >> if we want to adjust immigration, let's have a conversation about that. let's not holding covid funding hostage because we have to hurt the american people. >> even as mask mandates lift, this white house is trying to pass more covid measures. >> they campaigned on an open border. they're keeping a campaign promise. >> president biden has still never visited the southern border in his life. martha? >> peter doocy at the white house. thanks very much, peter. we'll go live to the border where we find bill melugin. he is in eagle pass, texas. hi, bill. >> hi, martha. good afternoon to you. unfortunately we learned a short time ago that the bodies of two drowning victims were pulled out of the rio grande here a short time ago. migrants have continued to cross here pretty much all morning long. meantime, take a look at this video. we just shot this. this could be the final days of title 42. we see the bulls pull up, migrants get out and expelled back to mexico. they walk be a into mexico. the title 42 has been used 109,000 times alone last month. take a look what is happening underneath the bridge as illegal crossings continue. this video shot here in eagle pass. we saw groups of migrants running down to the mexican side of the riverbanks. several groups were trying to get away from mexican authorities. in a few moments, they get into the wall and start crossing. they're all crossing, families, kids. and this sector has been incredibly busy. more than 2,300 illegal crossings. this happens day in and day out here in eagle pass. that's part of the reason why there's mass releases happening they're so overcrowded with their facilities. also shot in eagle pass, texas yesterday, we witnessed more than 500 migrants being released from federal custody to a single ngo here in the city. these were mostly all single adults. we watched bus after bus after bus dropping the migrants off. the ngo were taking them and putting them in vans. now they're free to travel elsewhere. take a look at this last photo. this is a 3-year-old girl left completely abandoned in border patrol's el paso sector. back out here live. that is not an isolated incident. more than 14,000 unaccompanied children found last month at the border alone. back to you. >> martha: terrifying for those kids. thanks bill. we bring in texas governor greg abbott and arizona greg doocy. thanks for joining me this afternoon. governor abbott, if i may start with you. inside the interview with sean hannity, everybody has watched this d.c. program and the seventh bus is on its way to washington d.c. you suggested that you could send buses to delaware. are you going to follow-through with that? >> absolutely. there will be an eighth bus along the way later on today. we'll continue the bussing process every day for the reason that i think you mentioned earlier on. that is the biden administration has been dumping off of these migrants by the hundreds in local communities that do not have the ability to take care ordeal with these migrants that are being dropped off. as opposed to them being there in these small communities or the small communities having to spend money dealing with it, we decided to bus them to washington d.c. if biden won't come to the border, we're sending the border to biden and his administration so they can begin to grapple with the challenges we're dealing with. we'll be looking for other locations like delaware, biden's home state to make sure that people in delaware are going to see what the people in texas are having to grapple with. >> martha: you know, i don't know why any state should be off the list of lists that migrants can be sent. >> it's discriminatory not to include all states in this program that we've been watching play out. staying with you for a second on this. your authority has been challenged on this. jen psaki has challenged it from the podium and others have said that border enforcement has been a federal responsibility. how are you dealing with that? are these people volunteering to get on these buses to go to washington and potentially delaware? >> so what jen psaki has said is valid. border security has always been a federal responsibility until the biden administration. the biden administration has abandoned this responsibility to secure the border, even more dangerous the biden administration has abandoned responsibility for national security because martha, as you know, there's been almost two dozen people during the term of the biden administration that were known as being on the terror watch list apprehended coming across the border. biden is making our country less secure. so what we're announcing today, which is the american governor's border strike force, this is an indictment on the biden administration and its failure to do its fundamental job of national security and securing our border. >> martha: but you didn't answer my question. are they volunteering to go to washington d.c. or being put on the buses against their will? >> oh, so, martha, here's what happens. these are -- i'm going to tell you exactly how it works. these are people that have been processed by the border patrol. they've been given notice to appear or disappear and they can go anywhere in the united states they want. so once they've been processed, we give them a ride to washington d.c. >> martha: okay. governor doocy, thanks for joining us from arizona. i want to learn more about this 26 republican governors who have gotten together to form a border strike force. again, is this filling a void and what is it going to look like specifically? >> today we're announcing the american governor's border strike force, this is a majority of america's governors stepping up to do what the biden administration refuses to do. martha, i think the real story here is the crisis that is happening in our border and the way the federal government is derelict in its duty. it's not supporting the men and women that are in law enforcement at the city level, the state level or the county level in addition to our fine men and women that are border agents and part of customs and border patrol. lifting title 42 is a mistake. dhs's own numbers say that would be 18,000 people a day streaming over the border. that is 6.5 million in a year. we can't get joe biden to the border, border czar, kamala harris, will not come to the border. and secretary mayorkas is nonresponsive. we're working with intelligence and infusion centers at the state level to go after the drug cartels toston this dangerous poison of fentanyl from streaming over our border. the number 1 cause of death for youths is fentanyl in southern arizona. that is on the biden administration. governors need to act and step up and do what they refuse to do. >> martha: we've had the largest influx really historic influx of people coming across the border and 100,000 people dying annually from fentanyl. you know that experience in your own -- on your own, governor. it's interesting a senator from new hampshire, democratic senator, posted this ad. here's what she's saying at the border, by the way. >> pushing the administration to develop a really strong strategic plan for how we will secure our border when title 42 is lifted. >> martha: you've seen a lot of democrat senators down there at the border, governor abbott? >> they are. listen, republicans, democrats, americans agree and overwhelming majority. what the biden administration is doing is wrong in general on border security and in particular with regard to lifting the title 42 expulsions. the biden administration and democrats will pay a heavy price at the polls in november. if they don't change gears extremely quickly. americans are tired of illegal immigrants flooding in, tired of the fentanyl and all of these challenges. people will be voting to put people in office who will secure our border like what president biden is not doing. >> martha: governor abbott, thanks very much governor ducey, thanks. and the border patrol agents accused of whipping migrants. that process has finished and they were not charged with wrong doing. it would be nice of those that blamed them of wrongdoing would admit that was a mischaracterization of what we saw at the border. my thanks to both governors for joining us this afternoon. now we go to the pentagon where john kirby is taking questions as the pentagon watches the ramp up of the war between ukraine from russia. watch this. >> we're having positions about long-term posture. would be foolish for us not to given the security environment in europe has changed. in terms of detailed negotiations with other countries about where that foot print might be rotational versus permanent or what the size might be, we're not there yet. >> are they approaching the topic at all? >> i won't get into more detail in these conversations than what we're putting out in the read-outs. i don't want to leave you with the notion that that -- that deep negotiations and discussions about footprint is a pro dominant part of these discussions. does it come up sometimes when he's talking, depends on the nation and their willingness to host u.s. forces, sure, it does. it's not -- they're not dying deep into that and looking into the map and deciding where we're going to put troops and how long we're going to stay. >> so many units that were deployed have been extended. is the conversation now about extending those further and maybe rotating in a new group of troops and would that be more from active duty or calling up the national guard to fill -- >> i have no plans to fill up reservists or national guard. >> i don't have any decisions in terms of extensions or redeployments. it's something that the secretary routinely visits with general walters. there's been some decision to not terminate deployments in the case of the 82nd, in the case of harry s. truman. but you know, if and when we have overt decision making to speak to, we'll do that. there's been no change in that rotational footprint right now. barb? >> an official this morning talked about the notion that the department did not see anything eminent, that was the official's words, in terms of russia's nuclear weapons. could you clarify more what this official was talking about? in other words, do you still have any concerns about putin's threats about nuclear weapons or is it off the table in your mind and the department's mind as the secretary continuing to get briefed on the status of russia's nuclear weapons, how much of the focus if he continues to get briefings on the situation. >> the secretary is routinely kept abreast of threats in the nuclear realm and that is in with the strategic commander. it is something that we monitor virtually every day, particularly in light of the escalatory rhetoric that mr. putin voiced at the early days of this war. i would just tell you without getting into too much classified information, that again, we monitor this every day. we have seen no reason to change our strategic deterrent posture. we'll remain comfortable that we have the ability if required to defend the homeland, our allies and our partners with the current strategic deterrent posture in place. it's not something that we ever take for granted, even before mr. putin decided to invade ukraine. that is something that we're constantly monitoring. >> the secretary is monitoring of the russia situation has perhaps -- i don't know -- stepped up, increased since the invasion with putin's rhetoric? >> clearly we took note of what mr. putin said in the early days of this invasion. it's important to add that there hasn't been a lot more of that rhetoric following that initial salvo in the early days. but yes, look, in light of what is going on in ukraine, and certainly in light of the early rhetoric, we are actively monitoring every single day. even today the sec remains comfortable that we have an appropriate deterrent posture in place and no need to make changes. >> now to a different question. you said you have a training plan for the artillery and that you were beginning to execute it. so can we conclude for that? >> no, you cannot. we'll be making progress in short order. >> two questions please. on the unmanned coastal defense weapons that are being sent over, we're not getting into any security details. are there mechanisms to prevent them if they're captured by the russians being able to reverse engineer them? that's my first question. >> i don't know how i can answer that question. we're going to give these capabilities to the ukrainians to help them defend their coasts. that's our focus, that's our attention right now. i'm not going to talk about a hypothetical capture by the russians and what that would do and what that would mean. >> okay. might be something that happens in a wartime -- >> i know. we can hypothesize all day things about haven't happened and might happen. i don't want to think that's a good use of our time. >> my second question. in the inventory that we're sending over, how many systems like the horowitzers are close enough to train on and how many tanks -- our tanks are not even near what they could do. would you say most of the stuff we send over can be used without training? >> yeah. that's been the case now, $3 billion worth of material and assistance, the vast, vast majority has required no additional training by ukrainians. let's just take a look here. right? we did a little bit of training on the switchblade. that's not a uav that they know how to use or difficult to use. we're going to get training for a small number of ukrainians on the howitzers because they don't use that caliber and they don't have in their stocks american howitzers. artillery pieces are not all that radically different from one another and we don't think it's going to take long for them to go through the training on that. we're looking at the degree to familiarize them with these portable radar systems that we're going to flow over. we don't have all of that nailed down yet. we're looking at that. we also don't think that will require a lot of time. and we have already done some training with the ukrainians that were here in the states before that got the switchblade training that got training on these coastal defense systems. so they are ready to receive those. we're doing the best we can to focus on a, the kinds of capabilities that we know they need and they say they want and are using. b, secondary to that, to try to get them systems that they don't need a lot of startup time for, that they can put in the field almost immediately. and short of that, where we can't meet one or two to provide some level of familiarization and/or training as required. as i said many times, we know time is not our friend. the clock is the enemy. we want to make sure we get things to them quickly and effectively. if there's a training component, that it can be as short as possible so that they are not distracted by the fight they're in in terms of training and education. >> in ukraine, everyone's attention is about the situation in mariupol and about ukrainian military and possibly civilians. could you share your understanding of the situation there and secondly -- >> in mariupol? >> the strategy of the russians there. >> in mariupol? >> yes, sir. >> look, you know, i'm careful not to detail battlefield tactics here because we're not on the ground. our visibility is somewhat limited. our assessment is that mariupol still remains contested, that the russians have not taken it. the ukrainians are still fighting for it. there's been a lot of devastation in mariupol caused by the air strikes and the artillery strikes that the russians continue to rain down on the city. the ukrainians want to keep mariupol for good reason. it's their city. they're fighting bravely for it. i'm not going to speculate how long longer it will hold out and we're not willing to accept what some critics say is the inevitability of it falling. they didn't take kyiv either. the ukrainians continue to fight over mariupol. why the russians want it? again, i'm not inside the strategist's heads there in moscow. if you look at geography, you can see the importance of mariupol to what russians themselves have said is a goal. which is a land bridge to crimea from the donbas down to crimea as well as the ability to close off, to pinch off ukrainian forces in the donbas. they said they're going to focus on the donbas. this is an area that they've been fighting over for eight years and the russians said they're going to prioritize that. if that is your geographic goal, there's a logic that follows, mariupol could be part of that because it's at the southern part of ukraine. >> just before we came in here, the wires were moving to stories that the president had just told reporters that he was going to be sending more artillery. i want to give you a chance to tell us more about that. i also want to ask you why is this being done in slices? if you knew when you did the 18 howitzers that wasn't going to be enough, why wait another week if, as you say, time is working against you? >> because time is working against us, dave. so first of all, a couple things. one, everything we're sending is a result of conversations that we're having with the ukrainians literally in real time about what they need and what we can provide. and we do the best we can with each package. now the need has changed. the war has changed. the russians have prioritized the donbas area and that's a different level of fighting. last wednesday is when the president announced $800 million to include 18 howitzers. we never said at the time, david and not saying today and you heard the president himself today, that that is the end all, be all sum total of everything we're going to do. we've acknowledged that fighting in the donbas will require an effort for both sides on long range fires, which means for both sides artillery. we noticed the russians have moved in artillery support in the donbas. it follows that the ukrainians would want support. i don't have any future packages or shipments to speak to. you know i'm not going to get ahead of it. as i answered to tara, it's certainly within the realm of possible that the ukrainians will want additional artillery systems and additional artillery rounds and we will have those conversations with them and we will -- if that is the need, we'll do everything we can to meet it. >> so last week, ukrainians told the united states that we only need 18 howitzers, 40,000 rounds. >> no. they said they needed artillery support. just like in every other package, we take a look at what capabilities they're asking for, what do we have immediately in the inventory to get there quickly and what we came up in this package was 18 howitzers and 40,000 records. that doesn't mean a sum total. to your question about why we're slicing this. i find that interesting. let's say we followed the alternative logic and at the beginning of the invasion we said here's everything. everything in the shoe box. let's just send it over there. what if everything in the shoe box doesn't fit the fight they're in and what's going on at the time. you also have to taylor your packages at what they can absorb on their end. they understand. they have absorption issues, too, to deal with. so you tonight want to flow everything you got, the whole kitchen sink in there and have no where to put them, know where to store them, nowhere to move them too and nowhere to put them in the fight. so you have to do this smartly that means doing it in chunks and faces based on what their needs are in the moment. it would be irresponsible for us not to do it that way. >> two questions. a european official said this morning that they could be up to 20,000 foreign fighters and employees fighting for russia in ukraine. is this a number that you find plausible? >> i have not seen that number. we know that russians have tried to recruit foreign fighters out of syria. and the wagner group we know also has been interested in pulling people from elsewhere like from north africa. the russians said they were going to recruit 16,000 syrians. we don't know if they achieved that goal or how close they got to it and how many foreign fighters. we don't have a good count. >> martha: you said earlier that the ukrainians have now more fighter aircraft than they had two weeks ago. >> more operable fighter aircraft than they had two weeks ago. >> so can you give us an idea that they received more, an idea of how many, dozens? >> i would say without getting into what other nations are providing that they have received additional platforms and parts to be able to increase their fleet size. their after craft fleet size. leaf it at that. platforms and parts. platform is an airplane. they have received additional aircraft and air craft parts to help them get more aircraft in the air. >> i want to follow up on u.s. security aid to ukraine. you said the total is like $3 billion now. the expectation is that congress would replenish the funds. can you say where that is, like how much has been reimbursed so far and how much you're still looking to get back and like do you have any specific time line -- >> i don't unfortunately. not today. i'll try to take the question for you and get back to you. >> i want to follow up on a couple of earlier questions. david asked you about comments the president made earlier today about more artillery going to ukraine. if you can provide details about that. >> i thought i did. >> did you? i thought my answer was comprehensive. no? >> really? >> i thought you didn't. >> you didn't think i did either? >> provide details? >> yes. >> on the next package? >> yeah. >> i told you i'm not going to do that. i specifically said i'm not going to get ahead of future announcements. look, we're constantly looking at what we can do to help the ukrainians. i don't have any additional announcements to make today on any further draw down packages. i certainly would not rule out the possibility of your additional draw down package authorities being granted to the dod to pull from our inventories. i certainly wouldn't, as i said to tara, if the ukrainians desire more artillery support, we're going to do what we can to flow additional artillery support. i'm not going to get ahead of decisions that haven't been announced. i'd leave it at that. >> can you clarify when you talk about additional platforms or parts -- were they provided by the united states? >> martha: okay. we're watching john kirby at the pentagon. i would also mention as you see the johnny depp trial is about to resume. they're in a break right now. i'll take you back there when that gets underway. my next guest recently back from ukraine where he gave drones and medical kits to the front line forces. we'll see what is going and where and why these are the weapons that are now recommended in the luhansk region where this fight will be focused. the 18 howitzers, 40,000 rounds of ammunition for them. your thoughts on what is being provided and whether or not it's the right package. >> let's talk about these weapons and military aid coming in from the administration. it's so important and glad it's finally trickling in. to be honest, it's very important that they move faster. it's not moving fast enough. get it in and make sure it gets to the front lines. admiral kirby is a great american. after being on the ground in ukraine and seeing this first hand, i have a major problem with this recent comments that insinuate the u.s. government have no idea where these we pops are going once they arrive in country. it's absurd. they should be tracking this and -- the problem is the u.s. government lacks proper boots on the ground. they ask our guys to help get wounded americans out because they refuse to do it themselves. and with these smaller anti-tank, airty aircraft systems being brought, in it's assumed by the administration that they're getting to the right place. they have the capability to do this quietly without triggering more hostility from russia directed to the u.s. i'm telling you from personal experience, the further east you travel towards the donbas where the heavy fighting is, the less weapons used by ukrainian forces that are scraping everything together. these systems are so vital to the soldiers on the ground that even if one is not getting to the right destination is a detriment to the ukrainian people. they know which troops are suffering the casualties, where these are needed the most. if there's not, there's special ops guys working with the soldiers, providing medical aid and can figure out ways to get these things tracked and make sure the items are moving to the front lines to make sure they're accountand implemented. the most important thing is the military aid, the medicine, the technology that is vital to the effort is getting to the front lines of this war where soldiers need it the most. >> brett, i heard you talking act the fact that you wentsed 89 soldiers putting equipment and weaponry in to the backs of their passenger vehicles, the car that they drive in order to get them where they need to go, which i think is a pretty stunning image when americans are familiar with what it looks like when we are directly involved in a war and how things get moved around. but you obviously also understand, it's a rock and a hard place. the americans -- the government doesn't want to be on the ground, doesn't want soldiers on the ground there. it's a commitment made by the president. you think there's a past allowing people like you and others to be that conduit in people don't want to see their weapons being wasted. >> there's a path. plenty of people have the ability to do it. the u.s. can use people that know what they're doing, special ops guys that are already in there. innocent civilians are dying every day. it's heart breaking. we have proof that russian forces have committing humanitarian war crimes. these are areas where a lot of refugees that we've been moving out are coming from. they've seen the worst of the war because they escape there from areas east. the humanitarian corridors areing up that ukrainians are fighting through. we're pulling them out on buses. we have networks set up that people can start using. you wouldn't believe the devastation in these cities. they built torture chambers in kherson. they're dead bodies in the streets, some executed. i send you a video of a playground shot up by russians. they have killed so many innocent women and children. they're blocking humanitarian aid and starving people. the cruelty and inhumanity of the russian forces is nothing like i've ever experienced at war. i've gone against isis and al-quaida. nothing i have ever earns intoed. mariupol, i see this talk of this humanitarian corridor opening up. i caution others, this is not true from what my people tell me on the ground. russians are killing or kidnapping humanitarian aid workers trying to rescue. they sealed it off. we used to have a small way to get refugees out of there. now this method is blocked off. the battle of mariupol and the donbas continues. this is the largest battle that europe has ever seen in 80 years. you have small groups of ukrainian fighters month texting the gates of europe. they're holding the line for the rest of the world. it's them versus basically the entire russian army and the russians are levelling these areas. levelling it with artillery, tank fire. bombarding the cities constantly. they want to destroy what is left. 30% of the entire infrastructure in ukraine right now that is completely damaged. 90% of the infrastructure in mariupol is gone. you have 100,000 civilians that remain. 20,000 people have died. it's a total mess. it's only getting worse. >> martha: you just have this horrific feeling based on everything that you're saying and what we know in our gut is true based on the first hand accounts as you give them to us, brett, that this is going to be so -- the atrocities that we'll understand later make us question the handling of this. so brett, thank you. thank you very much. we'll be in touch. we appreciate it. >> martha: thank you, martha. >> martha: so any minute now, another situation that we're keeping one eye on here as johnny depp has been testifying today. he will be back on the stand in this legal face-off with ex-wife amber heard and we'll take you there live. he is suing her for $50 million after she wrote a newspaper column calling herself a public figure representing domestic abuse. he denies abusing her. he says she attacked him. brian claypool is here. first, to david spunt live from the courthouse in fairfax, virginia. interesting day there, david. >> very interesting day. only going to get more interesting today and tomorrow. the reason this is in fairfax, virginia is because amber heard wrote that op-ed that is published here in fairfax, virginia. johnny depp took the stand at 2:00 p.m. court goes until 5:00 p.m. he's being questioned with what some may call favorable questions by his team. took will be the to you questions, the cross examination from ex-wife amber heard's attorneys. we have the live look of the actor, johnny depp, sitting down right now. he was not named that that open set. he says that op-ed cost him his future roles in films. here he was a short time ago. >> her accusationsed that sort of permeated the industry and then made its way through media and social media, became quit a global -- let's say "fact" if you will. >> martha: martha, the judge has set aside six weeks for this trial. we're told at some point amber heard will also testify. back to you. >> martha: something. very riveting earlier today. thanks very much, david spunt. everybody has watched johnny depp movies throughout the course of our lives. the actor is now back on the stand defending himself. this is his attorney asking questions to draw out his side of the story. let's watch. >> to my kids taking them to school, picking them up from school, if they were unable to do it or even if we were there, we would drive with them to take the kids to school. and over the years, obviously, your children -- my children have taken quite a shine to them and they have become like another set of parents in a way. >> how long has travis been with you? >> travis, i believe a little less than that, i believe. i couldn't really speculate. a little less. maybe 13 years. i don't know. >> now, you mentioned that you had to bring on additional security after "pirates of the caribbean." how has the fame associated with that franchise affected your personal relationships? >> again, i would never complain about the repercussions, let's say, or -- yeah, the repercussions of the that film. but of course, as i said, there are sacrifices that one has to make, sacrifices that you're not nearly ready for. just simply when you check in to a -- go to a town or you go on a press tour or something and you're staying in a hotel, people stay in hotels all the time. i stay, i stay in a hotel. we've found that it's just a lot easier if i stay put in a hotel and not -- kind of -- again, especially if it's with the kids or something, i don't want them -- i've never wanted them to see me as a novelty. i just wanted to be dad, you know. now they're well aware of a lot. they're well-aware of pretty much everything. but no, you know, you -- when you recognize wherever you go, the basic truth is it's pretty simple. people are generally kind and curious. and if you -- if they have grown up with you in their living room from a television series or various films that they have seen, there's nothing menacing about being recognized. sometimes people can get -- go -- get weird and but -- we've found that it's just -- it's better all around if i stay in my hotel room and don't go out to too many restaurants or anything because it generally cause as by the way of a hub-bub. you go out to eat, someone calls the paparazzi and then there's 30 guys out there. can it be a little overwhelming. it's not something that -- i said it before. it's not something that -- it's not something that i've gotten used to and something that i hope i never get used to. because i don't think of myself in those terms. i used to be -- i used to be johnny. if that makes sense. i used to be johnny. then my name full name -- it's -- it's uncomfortable to say my own name. when i say it, i hear the commodity, the product. so i just went from johnny to johnny depp. and then that name -- with that name, some i'm miblg -- image was cult investigated. i never wanted to be the poster boy. never wanted to be the -- i was it in built with that kind of hubris. i don't have that kind of confidence. i can do virtually anything playing a character. i can become the character in my work. and that character may be able to -- may be able to spit out 100 words a minute. >> mr. depp, other than acting, what other things have you done for the general public? >> i've been a musician. i locked myself in the room at the age of 12, listening to records, moving the needle back. learning that piece and learning again. so so much so to -- i mean, that i -- i don't remember -- i have no memory going through puberty. i was just playing the guitar. i was just obsessed with my guitar. >> any other artistic pursuits? i've always drawn sips i was very small, very little. always enjoyed drawing. began to paint. so started learning about painting and trying to -- i suppose different ways of expressing one's self. different ways to release the things that are living in your head, whether they be beautiful memories, whether they be horrific memories, whether they be -- i need to create. it's a need. it's a -- of course, i want to create as well, but i actually need to create because i need to summon whatever it is that i need to summon to -- whether that's within a film or a painting or a guitar note. all of those things should come from a place of -- an organic place of truth. because if they don't, well, then you're just lying. every bit of truth, the person doesn't have to say anything on film. what is important is what is behind the eyes. if they do say something, what is important is not necessarily the words that they say. it's very easy to say i love you. but what brings it in to the realm of truth is what is underneath it. what is not being said. the subtext, if you will. any artistic or creative venture, any film, anything that i do, that's where i'm coming from. that's my approach. >> mr. depp, you mentioned word. i think the jury has already seen some words that you've written in text messages. >> yes. >> can you please tell the jury a little bit about how you write? >> certainly. when i was young, when i was about 12 years old, my older brother, danny, walked in to my room and ripped the peter frampton record all of my record player, threw it across the room and said, you got to stop listening to this stuff. he put this record on. and it started. i never heard anything like it. it was called "astro weeks" by van morrison. so i'm a kid, 12 years old. my brother turned me on to van morrison. then he turned me on to sound tracks like "last tango in paris", turned to me on to bucks by ginsberg, philip k. dick. hemmingway, the whole thing. so i became very interested in the vocabulary and the unique voices of these writers. then i started reading people like tom robins and hunter s. thompson and ended up becoming very close friends with hunter thompson for the last 10, 12 years of his life. hunter's writing, of course, because of the amount i spent -- of time i spent with him, it has influenced my writing greatly. hunter was known for inventing a thing called gonzo journalism. it's the author putting himself in a situation as opposed to writing it from the author's point of view. he writing it with him in it. and there are great embellishments, great sort of ways that he would twist things and express his feelings. so he became a huge hero, of course, to me. a great friend. in my texts and in my e-mails, sometimes just even in my writing, you do -- you take -- you take the subject and you try to express it in your own vernacular. in that -- for example, with the text messages that i apologize that everyone has had to experience, i am ashamed of some of the references made. i'm embarrassed that at the time the heat of the moment, the heat of the pain that i was feeling went to dark places. there is no -- if you're writing, there's no set place that you have to stay in. you can travel. and sometimes pain can be -- has to be dealt with with humor. and sometimes dark, very dark humor. i grew up watching monty python, you know, so yes, it can tend to get into dark humor. it can tend to get -- words are used that -- for emphasis and words are used to express what you're feeling at the time. and it's just like growing up. you learn from those mistakes. you learn from those things. and you move forward. you know? >> martha: okay. fascinating, strange, interesting. let's bring in attorney brian claypool. watching all of this with us. so brian, i get my first question to you is this working? because it's clearly an effort to show johnny depp as a wounded child, a sensitive adult. someone who allows himself to write things that are dark and embarrassing. my guess is that we'll hear from amber heard's attorney is that his dark. your thoughts. is this working so far for him? >> nice to see you again. thanks for having me back. yeah, i think depp's lawyer is doing a good job. what she's doing, by the way, martha -- there's two phases to a civil case. first there's liability and then there's damages. what depp has to prove here is that amber heard maliciously made false comment, abusing her to cause him. her lawyer is not starting with the liability phase. she's starting with the harm. think about it. the damage. she wants the jury to get to know johnny from a child and what he went through, to justify these texts and what he's going through in a restaurant when he tries to go out. he's talking and monty python and van morrison to bond, connect with the injury, to talk about how this is affecting his life before the lawyers ever get in to did you harm amber heard, whatever the photographs. what about your therapist saying that she was harmed? it's an interesting strategy. i do think it's working to a certain extent to create that bonding between depp and the injury. >> martha: so i'm also watching a double -- a split screen here. you can see amber heard there very composed. expressionless, really. occasionally she's written down a couple of things. she doesn't seem to be affected by this. looks like she's heard most of it before. >> great point. remember what depp has to prove in this case. it's a daunting task, martha. this is not easy for depp. can't win this case because he's a cool guy and the jury likes his movies. he has the prove that amber heard maliciously made these comments. why? because depp is a public figure. it's not enough just to show that amber carelessly made these comments. he's got to show that she made these stories up and she's basically lying to the public. if this was an average person going against depp, depp might have the upper hand. hear you have a square equal footing. heard is an acc stress and celebrity and she's there looking him in the face every day. that does neutralize things. >> martha: so every member of this injury is watching him tell this story. at one point he said i have never struck a woman ever. did you find him to be credible in that moment. that's the fest for them. is he credible when he says that. >> yeah, the jury is going to have to decide. he sounds credible, martha. at the end of the day, it's not what he says. it's going to be the photographs, the text messages, the testimony from the therapist. you have evidence that will possibly disprove depp's testimony. >> martha: fascinating. we'll see. brain, great to have you. great to get your thoughts on this high profile trial that's going on. thanks, brian. that's "the story" for today, april 19. we'll see you back here tomorrow. neil is next. >> neil: we knew this moment is coming. it has arrived. the land war is on in eastern name. we're told 2/3s of all russian soldiers in the country concentrating on the east and trying to finish the job in what someone call vladimir putin 2.0, a second chance to turn and what for him at least has been a disastrous war. welcome, everybody.