that's it for us. the news continues. "the source with kaitlan collins" starts now.

and tonight, straight from the source, no immunity. donald trump's claims outright rejected by a federal appeals court in what was a unanimous decision. the judges referring to him as citizen trump, saying that former presidents cannot escape being held accountable for their actions while in office. all eyes are now turning to the supreme court. also, that republican effort to impeach the homeland security secretary over the border just went down in flames, failing spectacularly in the house this evening. it's a major embarrassment for the house speaker, but really for the house gop. also tonight, we are tracking this. for the first time ever the parent of a school shooter has been held responsible for her actions related to her own son's murderous rampage. what it could mean for the future of school shootings in america. i'm kaitlan collins and this is "the source."

the answer, if you're wondering, is no. a president cannot order s.e.a.l. team 6 to assassinate his political opponent with absolute immunity from prosecution in the future. remember that striking hypothetical that was posed just one month ago to trump's attorney by a panel of judges that that attorney then went on and actually tried to defend, even hypothetically? well, today the d.c. circuit court of appeals took a sledgehammer not just to that but to really all of donald trump's immunity claims. the former president, whom the judges referred to in this decision, as citizen trump for the purposes of this case can be criminally tried by the special counsel jack smith for trying to overturn the 2020 election. tonight the trial that was just taken off the calendar last week could potentially be back on that calendar very soon. more on the scheduling and what that looks like in a moment. but right now what we are seeing is trump furiously posting on social media, continuing to float many of the same claims

that were rejected by the court today such as this one saying "without presidential immunity the presidency will lose its power and prestige." contrast that with what is actually in the decision that everyone should read today, saying, "former president trump's stance would collapse our system of separated powers." trump is also arguing tonight that a president of the united states must have full immunity in order to properly function. that's not what the appeals court says, instead really just writing the opposite. saying that, "instead of inhibiting the president's lawful discretionary action, the prospect of federal criminal liability might instead serve as a structural benefit to deter possible abuses of power and criminal behavior." in this ruling the three-judge panel also referred to something that was in the judge's ruling, the federal judge who is overseeing the 2020 case, that's judge chutkan, remember, and what she said. this is from the quote from the ruling today, and i'm quoting,

"every president will face difficult decisions, whether to intentionally commit a federal crime should not be one of them." here tonight to start us off, conservative attorney who has been arguing -- or who has argued, i should note, before in front of the supreme court, which makes this a key voice for tonight, george conway, who also has a new piece out in "the atlantic" calling this an airtight ruling against donald trump. george, it's great to have you here. why do you believe this ruling, as you put it, was masterful? >> it was masterful because it combined so many elements. it combined constitutional text, traditional precedent, history, and just sheer logic. and the parties' own concessions, trump's own concessions. to make just an absolutely cohesive whole, opinion that is just inexorably -- inexorably leads you to the conclusion that he is not immune. and it was just so well done. and it also -- one other aspect of the decision, which makes it even more bulletproof, is the fact that they narrowly focused

on the exact situation in this case. they weighed the potential costs of not having immunity, which is what trump talked about, which is the danger of a floodgate of litigation, of criminal litigation, which they pooh-poohed. and they matched it up against, as they're required to do by immunity case law, they matched it up against the public interest. and the public interest wasn't just the public interest, the enforcement generally of the criminal law, but the public's interest in constitutional democracy and the peaceful transition of power. and when you weigh the two up against each other, there's just no question. >> so the real question here is how does the supreme court read this? because trump's team says they do plan to appeal it. i mean, you say that it doesn't require further review. >> yeah, it doesn't because i don't -- i mean, this opinion is so good and so clear, so comprehensive there's nothing in it that could be possibly

attacked. and i don't see how even the supreme court could write -- i don't see how any judge, any court anywhere including the supreme court could write a better opinion that more accurately states what the law is and it should be. and as a result i don't think it's worth the court's time to deal with it at this point. if trump is convicted, which i think he will be, they can actually review this after his conviction. and meanwhile, the supreme court already has its hands full. on thursday it's going to hear the argument in the disqualification case from colorado, where the court held, the court in colorado held that trump couldn't be on the ballot because he was an insurrectionist. >> yeah. we don't know what they're going to do. but let's say that the supreme court does take it up. given all the arguments that trump's attorney made were totally eviscerated by this court today, is there a new legal argument that they could make to the supreme court here? >> no. because they threw everything up

in the air and every single argument was methodically and systematically dismantled by this court. there is nothing left. the court addressed even all the bad arguments that trump probably shouldn't have made to this court. and there's just nothing. there's just nothing left for the supreme court to clean up. and i think, you know, if i'm sitting on the supreme court, i'm thinking we don't need this, this is fine. this is a case that can go into the judicial law books, into the case books in law schools for the next 100 years. it's that good. >> you write that this reminded you of the supreme court decision forcing nixon to hand over the watergate tapes. how come? >> because it was sort of the same thing. i mean, nixon was looking for any kind of air, any kind of weakness in the opinion, and he was sitting -- he was up early in the morning in san clemente and al haig, his chief of staff, general haig, called him up to

tell him the supreme court had just handed down the decision, and he asked, well, is there any air in it? nixon asked. and haig said, no, nothing. tight, tight as a drum. and this case, this opinion is even tighter than the supreme court's opinion in united states against nixon. and i just don't see how trump can get this thing overturned. he might be able to delay a little. but i think the supreme court's going to see right through that. and there's a good chance it may not even take this case. and if that's the case, then this case, this immunity appeal could be over within a couple of weeks and we could have a trial as early as late may or early june. >> yeah. it's a remarkable development. george conway, fascinating piece in "the atlantic." thank you for starting us off tonight. >> thank you. >> and i'm joined now by an attorney who used to represent former president donald trump, tim parlatore. welcome back to "the source." are you surprised that trump lost here? >> no. it's not surprising what the result is. i was a little bit surprised

that they ruled it on the merits. i kind of thought that they may go for jurisdiction and just say this is premature, come back to us after the case is over. which would have then really removed the ability to even go to the supreme court right now. so it did surprise me that they went to the merits. but not what the bottom line was. >> i mean, they spent a lot of this ruling on the jurisdiction, if anyone's reading that. but on the merits itself, i mean, trump is responding to this today by saying the presidency is going to lose power and prestige when the court says it's actually an important check on the presidency if they're not immune. he says a president must have full immunity to properly function. they say that's not supported by history or logic, that he was just carrying out his official acts. they say what's alleged is not an official act, that it was instead they say if true an unprecedented assault on the structure of our government. if it does go to the supreme court, let me ask you what i asked george conway, which is

what argument does his legal team have left? >> you know, the big thing that i thought that this decision was kind of missing was a more detailed discussion of what the left and right limits would be of immunity. i think that it kind of gave a little bit short shrift to the idea of when you're out of office that it doesn't -- doesn't apply anymore. so i think that the supreme court could clarify those points. and one thing to understand is the supreme court doesn't just take cases to overturn them. there was a case several years ago in the clinton administration that the circuit decided an issue of privilege and the supreme court decided not to take it but justice ginsburg gave a very strong dissent where she said issues like this that affect, you know, the privileges and immunities related to the presidency is something that should be coming from the supreme court, not just

from the circuit. so even if the supreme court were to take it and affirm it entirely it is something because it affects the president that there is a belief that it should come from the supreme court, not just the circuit. >> do you believe that? do you think it should go to the supreme court after reading this opinion, or this ruling today? >> you know, i do see a value in the supreme court weighing in and potentially clarifying what type of conduct would or wouldn't be under the immunity. i don't think that it's going to affect the outcome. i don't think it's going to change, you know, what's going to happen in this trial. i think that the supreme court would have to make that decision really based on the law and the precedent whereas a lot of people want to make the decision based on the schedule of getting the trial done before the election. >> but you're saying you do think the case will ultimately go to trial even if it does go

to the supreme court. >> i believe that the supreme court is not going to overturn it and find the blanket immunity that the former president is asking for. >> okay. i just wanted to make sure that's what you were saying. you know trump well. you worked for him. you represented him. there's kind of like a special class for all the attorneys who worked for donald trump. i think just based on covering them for so long. i wonder how you think he read this today, the fact that he lost, that they rejected his arguments, that they referred to him as citizen trump. i mean, how would you predict he's responding to this tonight? >> i mean, i think that he's probably taking it more personally, particularly the parts about citizen trump. i think that he's probably more concentrating on that. but you know, ultimately one would hope that his lawyers -- and he has some very good lawyers on this particular issue to try to refocus it on just the legal aspects, have john sauer

go this is the standard, this is what we need to focus on than the personal. >> tim parlatore, good to have you. thanks for joining us tonight. >> thank you. >> so the question is what is the next move here? because trump's team only has a few days to respond to this. joining me now, two expert legal minds and former federal prosecutors, shan wu and elliot williams. trump's team has been boxed out of the delay tactics here in the sense of appealing and appealing and appealing because what the court ruled, which is just as important as the substance in here, is that he only has until next monday to file that emergency request with the supreme court. they do plan to do that. but essentially, what would the other options for recourse be? >> right. there really aren't that many. a party who loses in a federal court of appeal can typically take a case to the whole appeals

court or the supreme court. now, as you noted, kaitlan, in their order today they made very clear that pretty much on monday this goes back to the trial court unless the supreme court steps in. so we would anticipate that the former president would appeal this up to the supreme court. in some way they're going to end up getting the case. whether they decide to take it on or rule on it is an open question. but you know, it's not going to trial on monday. but that's the next step. >> shan, how do you see it in the sense of judge chutkan just took this case off of the court calendar. could we soon see it added back on, do you think? >> we could. i mean, she'd have to first reconvene it and get a sense of where things stand in terms of the preparations. i agree with elliot they're a little boxed in now because of the way the d.c. circuit set some conditions. if they do go to the en banc that it would kind of recommence the trial. although i have to say from trump's team's point of view i don't think they really care

that much about it. they're happy with start stop, start stop, as long as there's more stopping than starting. so i think the name of the game for them is still to delay it as much as possible. so i wouldn't necessarily be surprised if they also tried to go en banc. >> well, elliot -- or shan, can you just clarify exactly what that would mean? so someone who didn't go to law school is watching and you're -- the options here are to file this emergency request to the supreme court or they can go back and instead of just the three judges on this appeals court they could ask all i believe 11 that it is here. >> right. they could ask the entire circuit to review it. the circuit may decide not to do that. but if they do that, the d.c. circuit, the panel that made the ruling said, if you go that route rather than just going to the supreme court, we're going to start the clock ticking again on the trial case. and if they go to the supreme court, the panel that issued the ruling says we'll hold off on restarting the pace until we hear from the supreme court first. >> elliot, it's important to note who made up these three

judges because oftentimes when there's a ruling that the trump team doesn't like they go after the judges. there is a conservative judge on this court, judge henderson, who has ruled in trump's favor on things previously. everyone was watching her very closely. i think the question is if it goes to the supreme court how are they going to look at an opinion -- or a ruling that is written the way that this one was tonight? >> well, again, they are -- to use the latin lawyer term, sui generis. their own thing, the supreme court. i don't think they're obligated on what came before. it was called a per curium decision. it was not signed with any one judge. they wrote with one voice which means one person writing. they were very clear in making this a unanimous forceful opinion. i think that was a signal to the other judges on the d.c. circuit, saying we're all in agreement here, anybody else

speak now if you have a problem with this. i do think it was assigned to the supreme court that these three judges were unanimous on it and i would think that many or a majority of the d.c. circuit is in agreement as well. >> and you just heard tim parlatore, a trump attorney, saying he thinks it would be very unlikely the supreme court would overturn this. elliot williams, shan wu, great to have both of you here tonight. we have a lot more as we are digging into this incredibly important immunity ruling. we're going to speak to trump's former national security adviser, john bolton. he's here in studio. but first tonight, you've got to see it to believe what happened on the hill. it was a spectacular fail. house republicans who are in the majority called a vote but were unable to follow through on what they've been promising to do for weeks if not months, impeach homeland security secretary alejandro mayorkas. there were three republican holdouts. we'll tell you all the drama ahead.

high drama on the house floor tonight, where there's rarely a vote where we don't actually know what the outcome is going to be beforehand. but house speaker mike johnson learned that the hard way tonight and led to a stunning defeat for house republicans. their swing at a historic impeachment of the secretary of

the department of homeland security failed. despite house speaker johnson just expressed confidence earlier today that republicans did have the votes to do so and despite months of investigations by the gop, a handful of house republicans voted against the impeachment, sinking it for today at least. we do believe they'll revisit it in the future. one of them was mike gallagher of wisconsin who said afterward that impeachment will set a dangerous new precedent that will be weaponized against future republican administrations. all of this is coming as republican members also lined up to kill their own immigration bill today, one that they spent months demanding and also hammering out behind closed doors over in the senate. cnn's melanie zanona is on capitol hill where all the action is. melanie, i mean, i can't even really imagine what it was like to be on the hill in this moment. but i imagine there were people who were caught off guard when there was one lawmaker who showed up, a democrat that they were not -- the republicans clearly were not expecting who

was in scrubs tonight? >> hospital scrubs and no shoes as he's being wheeled on to the house floor. it was quite a scene. republicans were very surprised by this. now, this vote was always going to be close. we knew heading into it was going to be a nail biter. but had al green remained absent, this impeachment vote would have prevailed. so republicans are really saying now that they need to keep pushing forward with this vote. they are planning to bring it back up again next week. they are confident that when steve scalise, who's been battling cancer, he's been receiving cancer treatment, when he returns that they are going to have the votes to impeach him. but no doubt this was an embarrassing defeat on the house floor and really it was a huge gamble by speaker mike johnson to put this resolution on the floor knowing that they didn't necessarily have the votes and not knowing the whip count. i talked to some lawmakers after the vote. steve womack, he's a long-time lawmaker, he said it's been hard to sit there and watch all of this play out. so just a lot of frustrations inside the gop right now and a

lot of questions about their ability to govern, kaitlan. >> many of those. melanie zanona, thank you. and luckily to ask some of those questions we are joined tonight by republican congressman tim burchett, who voted for the impeachment i should note tonight. congressman, why put -- why did leadership put this bill on the floor if it didn't have the votes to pass? >> well, there could be a lot of reasons. republicans generally don't use the carrot or the stick like the democrats have done in the past. you've seen on the floor where votes have been dragged out and they circle them in leadership and whisper in their ear and tell them things that they maybe are not too comfortable hearing. but we don't do that. we allow for the free thinking -- >> actually, congressman -- >> and frankly i just -- >> congressman, i want to hear your answer, and i like to let people talk when they're a guest on this show. but i do have to say there were reports that people were going up to congressman mike gallagher after he had voted against impeachment. >> oh, sure. i'm sure there were. but it wasn't any orchestrated thing.

it was different people. i asked somebody, i asked matt gaetz or one of them, i said where is gallagher, and they said we don't know. so i don't know where he was. but obviously folks are allowed to do that. and they do that. and you know, if they -- whatever way they use to -- or tried to convince him obviously wasn't very successful. but obviously, the speaker knows that these folks will go home and they do know the lack of popularity that they have, this vote will have with the base. i suspect we'll be coming back next week and you'll probably see a different outcome. >> what about what congressman gallagher said, though, in his statement, that this is setting -- you all are setting a precedent that this will happen when republicans are in the white house? >> well, it's already happened when the republicans were in the white house. the democrats impeached trump twice -- >> but not a member of the cabinet.

that's historic. >> well, the president is -- ranked above the cabinet, i would state. i just think this is just the way we're going to be in for quite some time until calmer heads prevail, ma'am. because folks are aggravated. and honestly, the uni party runs this thing. it's not the democrats or republicans. we ought to be ashamed of ourselves of the crazy spending taken in. 5 trillion. spending 7 trillion every year and -- >> but aren't republicans -- can i ask about republicans specifically? because what we saw today just alone, the effort to impeach the homeland security secretary that you all have been trying to do for months failed. republicans lined up to sink the bill that republicans have been negotiating for four months on immigration. and the stand-alone bill to send aid to israel tonight also failed in the house. i mean, doesn't that add to the perception that you guys can't govern? >> well, i mean, sure, it does

at cnn. but the american public understands that that deal in the senate was cut behind the scenes. it had nothing to do with republicans or democrats. let's look at the reality of what's going on with immigration -- >> republicans have said you guys can't govern. chip roy. he was just here last night. he's not -- he doesn't work at cnn. he is a member -- a colleague of yours -- >> and chip's very frustrated. but you asked me about the senate bill and i'm trying to explain that to you. that was done behind closed doors. you have our national chambers of commerce who have stopped any meaningful immigration reform because they like somebody being on their roof and if they fall off that has no real legal recourse. they're afraid they're going to be reported to immigration and will be transferred out of the country. so they have that great fear. this is about cheap and free labor, ma'am, and has nothing to do with the poor people in central america -- >> there were other efforts included in that as well.

>> ma'am -- >> there were others included in that as well. i'm talking about what happened with israel as well. this effort that y'all have been pursuing on the dhs secretary. congressman tim burchett, that's all of our time tonight, though. thank you for joining us. and for reaction to that i want to bring in democratic congressman veronica escobar. congresswoman, i wonder just can you kind of explain what the scene was on the house floor tonight when it became clear republicans did not have the vote to follow through on this impeachment? >> hi, kaitlan. thanks so much for having me on. you know, we knew all day that it was up in the air. i mean, that republicans that had concerns, aired those concerns in their meeting, in the republican conference meeting this morning. there was talk all day about the fact that republicans may not have the votes for this sham and very political impeachment. and yet the house speaker decided to bring it to the floor

anyway, believing that he and marjorie taylor greene could bully their colleagues into submission. and thankfully, the three who voted against this impeachment held firm to their principles even when others in the party who didn't agree with this strategy folded. these three held to their principles. and as a result it was a spectacular failure on the part of the speaker of the house, on the part of the house gop, and i hope the american people see over and over and over again that the republican party is unwilling to govern. they are uninterested in addressing our great challenges head on. and they are far more interested in political performance. >> i do think it's important to note, though, that this is expected to be a short-lived victory for democrats because as melanie was noting just other republicans including steve scalise, a member of house

leadership, once they show up, would be able to vote for it. i mean, so this will eventually happen. and he will -- he is expected to be impeached. >> that is very possible. they could bring it back, and they could have the votes. the bottom line, though, is that what they are doing is part of their political circus. secretary mayorkas is a dedicated public servant. he is the most accessible member of the cabinet, of any cabinet that i've ever worked with. and i represent a border community. so i am on the phone with him frequently. and the truth is house republicans and frankly now we see senate rends do not want a solution, not for immigration reform, not for border reform, pretty much not for anything. and they will do everything in their power to distract from their dysfunction and to keep americans on a treadmill of rage so that they can keep getting

re-elected. >> republicans obviously, as you noted, they sank their own immigration bill. there's a lot of frustration in the senate. house republicans are happy about it, as you heard congressman tim burchett, he does not support it there. that is obviously on republicans. but on the border itself president biden is the president. we've even seen democrats acknowledging it's a crisis at the border. so what should president biden and what should democrats do here? >> well, i have a bipartisan comprehensive immigration reform bill called the dignity act of 2023. it addresses the border and beyond. it addresses everything that has gone without congressional action or legislation for over 30 years. and the fact of the matter is, kaitlan, that president biden and secretary mayorkas at every turn get stymied by republicans. republicans keep complaining that secretary mayorkas isn't doing everything he can. these are the same folks who

withhold funding to the department of homeland security. the senate democrat, senator chris murphy, for four months worked with one of the most conservative members in the senate. and in fact, senator murphy has gotten beaten up by some democrats who say he gave republicans way too much. but that's still not enough for republicans because they don't want a solution. so if republicans are interested in finally addressing this chronic issue that our country has faced, they should join the bipartisan coalition that is on the house dignity act of 2023 and get this done. it is congress's job. it's on us. the reason that we are in a state of crisis is because of the crisis of leadership in congress. >> congresswoman veronica escobar, we look forward to talking to you about this issue going ahead. thank you for your time tonight. >> thank you. meanwhile, donald trump

fund-raising off his immunity loss from today, from the federal appeals court. but there are political implications to today's ruling as well. we'll speak to john bolton right after a quick break.

xfinity rewards presents: '1st and 10gs.'

xfinity is giving away ten grand to a new lucky winner for every first and ten during the big game. enter daily through february 9th for a chance to win 10gs. with the ultimate speed, power, and reliability the xfinity 10g network is made for streaming live sports. because it's only live once. join xfinity rewards on the xfinity app or go to xfinity1stand10gs.com for your chance to win. tonight former president trump fund-raising off of his latest loss in court and repeating things tonight that are similar to his collection of

greatest hits. >> a president of the has to have immunity. >> you have to have guaranteed immunity for a president. otherwise a president's not going to be able to function. >> harry truman would not have done -- harry truman would not have done hiroshima, nagasaki. >> if a president of the united states does not have immunity, he'll be totally ineffective. he won't be able to do anything. >> the question now is do we continue to hear these arguments after three federal judges essentially smashed them into pieces? here tonight, john bolton, the former trump national security adviser who was also the former head of the doj's civil division under president ronald reagan. so perfect to talk about this. what did you make of the ruling today? >> well, i thought the result was correct for the case they had. but unlike some people i don't think the opinion itself was that great. i think it was confused and muddy in its analysis of where the immunity applied and didn't

apply. i think the cleanest way to have written this opinion was to say nothing that was alleged in the indictment that trump did were official actions. they were the actions of a candidate for office. the indictment starts off saying he was trying to contest the election. that veered into criminality. by definition, no official act of the president can be something that gets him involved in criminal activity. this was private behavior, not public behavior. >> so you don't think they were clear enough on that. because there was one part where they said he claims these are official actions but what's alleged here, inserting yourself into the electoral count process has nothing to do with the presidency. they made that part career. >> that's correct. that's why i say that part of the reasoning of the court is confused. and it could afford some justices on the supreme court an interest in taking the case not to change the result but to change and fix the reasoning

correctly so that future cases involving presidents or senior executive branch officials are not confused by the reasoning that the district -- >> do you think it goes to the supreme court? >> well, i don't know. i think it's -- there are a lot of ways the court could split this. they could, for example, allow the mandate of the court of appeals to issue, allow the district court to proceed in the interest of judicial efficiency and yet consider and grant cert yorari on the larger issue. or another jurisdictional issue. this one i think the court of appeals could have gotten wrong, where they said they did have jurisdiction to take an interlocutory appeal. an amicus broph, not jack smith, not donald trump but an amicus brief argued that the immunity issue should come after trial. >> right. but even trump and jack smith's team said let's decide that now. so that was the jurisdiction. i think the big takeaway when people look at this is does it mean this trial happens soon? >> well, another way the court,

the supreme court could approach this is by saying we agree immunity should be decided after trial but you should present facts at trial that prove that this is not official action, jack smith. that's your burden, to show the president wasn't carrying out official duties. because there are circumstances where something the president does is mixed, in part it is official but in part it's private behavior too. for example, in an obstruction of justice scheme, which would be illegal, perhaps the president grants somebody a pardon. now, the case law is basically a president's pardon power is unrestrained. that's a complicated issue. that's not what we have here. this was all unofficial conduct. but that's not what the court of appeals' opinion gets into. >> cnn is reporting tonight that on thursday that's when his legal team's going before the supreme court. a separate issue. but that's on the 14th amendment. whether he can be on the ballot in all 50 states, since some have tried to remove him and some have removed him. he's not going to go. what do you make of his decision

that he's shown up to other court cases but he's not going to go to that one? >> i think in this case he's worried that he's outnumbered 9-1. it's not just some district judge somewhere, some state court judge in new york. this is the supreme court. this is the third branch of government sitting in front of him, three of whose members he appointed. and i think he thinks maybe a little overawed by that. i think he's chickening out. >> how does he view the supreme court? i mean, you worked for him. >> i don't think he understands the supreme court much better than he understands most of the rest of the constitution. and i think those who think that his appointees will just do what he wants and are afraid of that, i don't think they know really the kinds of justices he appointed. i think he's going to be disappointed in them. >> ambassador john bolton, it's always -- it's great to have you. nice to have you here in person. >> glad to be here. >> thank you very much. also we have another historic verdict separate from politics today. the mother of the school shooter ethan crumbley found guilty on all counts. what we're hearing from the jury forewoman tonight.

two leading candidates for senate. two very different visions for california. steve garvey, the leading republican, is too conservative for california. he voted for trump twice and supported republicans for years, including far right conservatives. adam schiff, the leading democrat, defended democracy against trump and the insurrectionists. he helped build affordable housing, lower drug costs, and bring good jobs back home. the choice is clear. i'm adam schiff, and i approve this message.

this ad? typical. politicians... "he's bad. i'm good." blah, blah. let's shake things up. with katie porter. porter refuses corporate pac money. and leads the fight to ban congressional stock trading. katie porter. taking on big banks to make housing more affordable. and drug company ceos to stop their price gouging. most politicians just fight each other. while katie porter fights for you. for senate - democrat katie porter. i'm katie porter and i approve this message. in michigan a jury handing down an unprecedented decision today, finding that jennifer crumbley, the mother of the school shooter ethan crumbley, is guilty of four counts of involuntary manslaughter. one count for each student that her son killed at oxford high

school in 2021. she is now the first parent of a school shooter to be directly held responsible for their killings. prosecutors argued that she and her husband were culpable because they had given their son a gun even though they knew he was struggling with mental health and had contemplated violence in the past. listen to what the jury forewoman told cnn about what convinced the jury of her guilt. >> the thing that really hammered it home is that she was the last adult with the gun. >> i want to bring in joey jackson, cnn's legal analyst and criminal defense attorney, who's been all over this. were you surprised by the verdict today? >> so i was. and let me say this. there was certainly ample evidence to convict. the question for me is would the jury actually do so. right? evaluating those three issues, foreseeability, was it foreseeable that ethan crumbley would engage in that behavior. their son, as a result of having this gun there. was she on notice of his mental health maladies and did she act reasonably?

and since obviously ethan crumbley did it, convicted, pled guilty, serving life without parole, would the jury now impute that to her. and so i was thinking would they do that. and so to the extent that they did do it, kaitlan, game changer not only in michigan but throughout the country. >> yeah. it has major implications here. but most immediately her husband was a big factor of her defense, essentially kind of putting a lot of it or you will of it really on him. he still has to stand trial. what does his legal team take from this? do they do anything differently? >> i think you're very concerned if you're his legal team. remember, one of the real bases of her defense was it was on him. what was on him? he was the person who purchased the gun. he was the one who stored the gun. he was the one who was really into the gun issue and hiding the gun. so if you're blaming him and the jury concludes while you say guns were not my thing, she testified, and they convict you, certainly -- not that she didn't blame the school too, she did, but i think to the extent he was the person really dealing with the gun, i think he could be in

significant legal peril. >> school shootings happen. so often in america. it obviously will inevitably happen again, unfortunately. what are the implications of this for something going forward? >> so number one, i think it's a big deterrent. right? i think you're going to see parents really be heads up about this stuff. this was a case involving negligence. were you negligent? were you careful enough as a parent to really assess your child. is there any issue? and really give a gun to your child in this situation. you might see less as a result of that because i think parents will be more on guard and more vigilant. goodness forbid this does happen. i think parents are going to have to be on the lookout because there's going to be accountability. that's what this verdict spoke to, kaitlan. >> yeah. and now a precedent. joey jackson, great to have you as always. thank you so much. >> thank you. >> we also have breaking news that we are following at "the source" tonight about the chairwoman of the republican national committee. donald trump has been pushing for her to step aside.

our braebbreaking news right af quick break.

we have some breaking news for you tonight as the chairwoman of the republican national committee, ronna mcdaniel, has now offered to

step down from her post following the south carolina primary. talks are slated for the end of this month. sources are telling, me and my colleagues told cnn, that she told trump's about those plans. and doing so allowed for president when it comes to the next leader of the rnc. as i should know the person is elected by the body of the rnc, not just insult by a former president. let's get some insight from someone who knows a sport than anyone. former communications director for the national committee, doug. i wonder what you make of this breaking news? that ronna mcdaniel is expecting to be stepping down soon? >> how many times in a sitcom, kayleigh, has we seen that someone say you can't fire me because i quit! essentially that's what she's doing her. donald trump and his team have made it very clear for not just weeks now, but for months that when they were going to be able to take down the reins of the committee. her time was going to be limited. i think it is a smart, reactive, or proactive move by the chairwoman. and we'll see what

comes next. it looks right now that michael whatley from the general counsel, someone i've been a long time from north carolina, he's the head of the party there . as we know, nothing is official for donald trump until the decision is definitely made. and even after then, there is still a lot of shoveling to be done. >> what do you make of the move overall given what where you are just saying. clearly trump was happy with her in recent days, saying that there could be changes in the rnc before this came out before this meeting a trump mar-a-lago in the coming days. but clearly she is someone who was loyal to trump. paying a lot of his legal fees when he was president. at one point, he was irritated by her relation to senator, mitt romney. i mean, what do you make of how this has come full circle? or however you would call it? >> it's a lesson that we see so often with donald trump. is that he bring somebody on, and then very quickly, or over a space of time, he is unhappy with them for whatever reason.

he brought the former rnc chairman as chief of staff, that lasted about six months. sean spicer did the same thing. and we learned this lesson over and over again with donald trump. donald trump does not give points, he only takes them away one at a time. and anyone who goes to work for donald trump knows that at some point, their luck could run out. and the loyalty certainly cut as well. >> yes, and i should note and rnc smokes person said tonight that there are no changes, currently to announce doug had. with us on this breaking news. >> thank you. >> and get your bread solo cup, joining, us because we are remembering the country music legend, and my personal hero as a child. timothy eaton!

♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ we live it with some heartbreaking news tonight, as one of the biggest stars to ever come out of nashville, toby keith, has died. following his battle with stomach cancer.

he was 62 years old. he was a larger than life country star. he rose to fame in 1993 with his debut single, should have been a cowboy, which has played 3 million times on the radio, making it the most played country song of the 90s. he went on to have 42 top ten hits on billboard's country music chart after that, which he said surprised him, including red solo cup, one of my solo favorites, how do you like me now? ♪ ♪ ♪ he was a staple for so many, including may growing up. i always ask my parents to play his song on the radio when we were in the car, even when my siblings want to listen to whatever was popular in pop music at that time. tonight, country music fans and stars alike, and