. that's it for us. have a great weekend. the news continues. "the source" with kaitlan collins starts now. and tonight straight from "the source" donald trump weighing in after president biden is facing no charges in his classified documents investigation. the former president claiming that he cooperated with the feds, which he didn't, also alleging that biden did not, which he did. the white house is blasting the report as politically motivated and certainly a political headache. meanwhile, a potential trump raining mate tells me she would not have done what mike pence did on january 6th, you know, abiding by that thing called the constitution. the apparent new republican

litmus test to the second in line to the presidency. also tonight israel's prime minister wants its military to have plans to evacuate rafah where over a million palestinians are sheltering as the white house is warning military action there would be a, quote, disaster. i'm kaitlan collins and this is "the source." when the history books are written about the 2024 presidential election there will be a lot to say about just the last 24 hours alone. americans now love to wonder if the current president is competent and if the former president, his now likely opponent, is a criminal. with that as the backdrop here, donald trump is wasting no time jumping all over president biden after he was not charged for his handling of classified documents that were found in his delaware home. the white house, meanwhile, is training its fire at the special counsel who cleared biden of those charges but also branded

him as an old man who has frequent trouble with his memory. >> the comments that were made by that prosecutor gratuitous, inaccurate, and inappropriate. clearly politically motivated. >> with the inevitable conclusion isn't that the facts and the evidence don't support any charges, you're left to wonder why this report spends time making gratuitous and inappropriate criticisms of the president. >> politically, of course, and what the white house knows this is a matter that could be an albatross around the president's neck for the next nine months. donald trump certainly isn't going to let it go and neither are his republican allies. listen to what he said tonight at an nra event in pennsylvania playing both fast and loose with the facts. >> no charges against crooked joe despite the fact he

willfully retained -- willfully retained in the ultra-classified national security documents. i cooperate would the very unfriendly and hostile feds. biden fought them all the way. i didn't. i even gave the doj and the fbi lunch at mar-a-lago. you know they say i didn't behave. i gave them lunch. if he's not going to be charged, that's up to them. but then i should not be charged. >> there's a lot to unpack there, but perhaps i will start tonight with a quote from the special counsel, robert hur, and his report noting the distinction between the trump and the biden documents cases, that he says quite the opposite of what you just heard there. he writes, quote, after being given multiple chances to return classified documents and avoid prosecution, mr. trump allegedly did the opposite. he not only refused to return the documents for many months, but he also obstructed justice. in contrast, mr. biden turned in classified documents to the national archives and the

department of justice consented to the search of multiple locations, sat for a voluntary interview, and in other ways cooperated with that investigation. i'm joined tonight by democratic congressman dan goldman who was a federal prosecutor in the southern district of new york and the lead counsel for house managers in the first trump impeachment and the second. thanks for being here. you saw the distinction twee laid out in the two cases. president biden does he bear the responsibility for having these classified documents and for sharing this material, disclosing it as well? >> well, look, i think he acknowledged he does bear responsibility if it. he's taken responsibility for it. he immediately turned it over. he fully cooperated. it was clear he never intended to keep those documents, which he acknowledges were packed in boxes by his staff. so the -- the juxtaposition between the two cases could not be any greater.

and, you know, it makes me wonder watching that clip from tonight of donald trump where he just outright lies about what happened in his case and what's in the special counsel case. and it's remarkable to me that everybody is making such a big deal out of this throw away comment about president biden's memory when donald trump makes a habit of outright lying day after day after day. why are we not talking about this pathological liar instead of focusing on what was an editorializing by a prosecutor that has no merit to the case at hand? >> i think we definitely talk about both certainly on this show. and i want to talk about the memory stuff in a moment. but on the case itself here, the investigation, you worked at sdny. so did elie honing, your former colleague. he said last night he thought it was a close call whether or not to charge biden. is that how you read the report? >> not at all. i think there's a significant

distinction, and i love elie, but there's a significant distinction you have to draw between documents that have classified markings on them and president biden's notes taken from classified documents, that he would either use for a memo where, he gets the presidential daily briefing, he can take them back and forth to his home. there are different rules for the vice president than there are for someone like me who gets access to classified information but only in a skiff. and so on their face, those notes would not have markings, and it would not necessarily be obvious that they contained classified information. and so there's no evidence here that he was intentionally holding on or had any intent to disclose this information, you know, beyond the -- the immediate realm that he held. and that is a significant distinction between -- >> but there were some documents that had -- they were marked classified. he noted that when he was he was

speaking to the ghost writer. and it does say some of them are related to human sources, which is the most sensitive intelligence. you talked about it when trump was reported talking about a document, you talked about concern of putting the men and women of the intelligence community in danger. >> absolutely. and that is a very significant concern. again, were those human resources, was that classified information in the notes that he took in that memo in 2009, eight years before he left the office? no one is defending the fact he took classified information. and frankly, we've had conversations on the oversight committee about strengthening the law around presidential, vice presidential access to classified information because we now have president trump who had -- who took documents, mike pence, president biden. the critical difference between trump and pence and biden is that trump went to such great

length to conceal the documents -- >> even from his own attorney. >> and obstructed justice. why would you do that unless you had some sort of intent to do something wrong with them? and so that's why these cases really break apart and why this wasn't a close call for biden and why donald trump was charged. >> you mentioned the memory references. you said it was a singular incident in here. i mean, i understand a lot of mostly the entire white house thinks it was gratuitous, they think it was critical. it's not really a one off because there were moments, and we've covered donald trump's moments as well when he calls nancy pelosi, nikki haley and exchanges them. but biden this week twice has referenced dead european leaders when he was talking about ones who are very much still alive. i wonder does that give pule to the fire voters are already concerned about his age? >> look, i think one of the things you do have to recognize about president biden's age is

the flip side of this coin is he has a tremendous amount of wisdom and experience. and he dealt with -- and he had many interactionwise the former french president and he mistook the former french prime minister with the current one, same thing with germany. the reality is and i experienced this first-hand when he called me on october 7th and i was in israel the day before this interview with the special counsel. his understanding and mastery of a complicated geopolitical situation in the hours after the original attack and as he described to me the different messages that he was sending to the different players was remarkable and demonstrated his experience and his wisdom which we've seen in how he's dealt with ukraine, in how he's managed to keep this conflict in the middle east focused on gaza. so, you know, does he have a memory lapse occasionally? it's quite possible. i think a lot of people do.

mike johnson mistook israel and iran last sunday on "meet the press." but is it -- is it also true in five hours of his interview he recounted very specific conversations from many, many years ago -- >> should the white house release the transcript or the doj release the transcript of that interview so everyone can read for themselves how that conversation went? >> i think it would be helpful, i do. i think at this point it's something that we would all like to see because from my conversations with the white house, there were some very detailed recollections that he had that were not included in the special counsel report. so why are you just picking and choosing these -- these specific examples when there are many other examples that would demonstrate the opposite? and someone who judges credibility of witnesses all the time, i would not have emphasized the fact you might have been off as you were describing a particular event

and trying to recall whether it was 2009, 2013. i don't view that as such a big deal, and i'd be shocked if he truly did not remember the date his son died. >> do you think the transcript will show otherwise? >> i don't know. but -- the transcript may be accurate but what you have to understand is the context means everything. and so it might -- who knows what was going on before, what they were talking about before, where his mind was. were they talking about something that he had to readjust to 20 years later? all of those things have an impact, and i've debriefed many, many witnesses. and sometimes it takes some time especially when you're vice president and year after year after year your schedule is effectively the same. your years will blend together. >> congressman dan goldman, great to have you here on set. a shiver may have gone down every democrat's spine yesterday when this report was released and that's because for some, certainly those who worked on hillary clinton's campaign, it had echoes of 2016.

of course in that election one topic dominated the campaigns of both donald trump and hillary clinton. >> a growing firestorm over her e-mails. >> her private e-mails. >> 3,000 more pages of e-mails from hillary clinton's personal account. >> her private e-mail server scandal. >> she deleted the e-mails. >> the american people are sick and tired of hearing about your damn e-mails. >> then on june 5, then-fbi director james comey walked in front of the cameras and said this. >> there is evidence that they were extremely careless in their handling of very sensitive highly classified information. >> and this. there is evidence of potential violations of the statutes regarding the handling of classified information. >> in the months that followed 8 out of the 9 straight gallop polls found the one word

americans heard the most about hillary clinton then was e-mail. yet in the resulting media coverage there was very little mention of this part. >> no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case. >> fast forward to where we are now. as polls do show that 76% of americans already say president biden's age is a problem. it's a reality republicans are often happy to bring up. >> he's too old. >> joe biden is too old. >> everyone's saying he's too old. >> that's where special counsel hur and his report comes into the picture with the report from congress and i'm quoting now he's an elderly man with a poor memory and mr. biden's memory appeared to have significant limitations. the political reality remains even the very first line of the report which states we conclude no criminal charges are warranted in this matter does

risk being overlooked, proof of how many of the reminder gave some democrats heart palitations. listen to the words of a senior advisor to hillary clinton telling "the new york times" the first text i got this morning was were you thoroughly triggered last night sphit's a moment in time my next guest knows just as well as anybody. here tonight is the former director of the fbi who had a front row seat in 2016, andrew mccabe. thank you so much for being here. i mean did you have comey flashbacks as you were reading through hur's report yesterday? >> yeah, i did. there's some nauseating similarities to that situation from july 5, 2016, and to what we saw in the report yesterday. >> can you just talk through the differences here? because there is a difference in the sense what jim comey was obligated to do and what robert hur here was obligated to do in the sense that he's a special counsel. he had to issue a report here.

he did not have an option. maybe he didn't have to put the mentions of biden's memory in there, but he did actually have to issue a report here. >> sure, so that's exactly right. so the regulations that govern the conduct and the appointment of special counsels require that at the end of the investigation, the special counsel must submit a report to the attorney general, and it's got to explain what he found and why he's pursuing or declining charges. to be clear raubt robert hur's report checks those boxes. it in great detail lays out what he found and of course why he's not pursuing charges. the difference tw the situation with jim comey, jim was not a special counsel. he was not under any sort of obligation, certainly not under an obligation to make a public statement about what we thought of the investigation we had conducted into the e-mails. jim felt that it was important and necessary for the public to

understand, for us to be transparent about what we found and what we thought about the case because the case had been so public since its inception. the public knew about the investigation before we even got it from the inspector general of the intelligence community. so there was so much anticipation that jim felt that there was no one in a better position than us. we'd done the investigation, we should go out and tell the public what our conclusion was. i think that is -- those are questionable decisions. i think where we step far over the line and made a mistake was in jim's rhetoric clearly criticizing hillary clinton but of course not recommending that she be charged. the use of those terms was very likely a violation of doj policy which says you don't say bad things about someone you say you're not going to charge. >> you think what comey did that day, you think he was wrong?

>> i do. i do. and that's not an easy thing for me to conclude because i worked very closely with jim. i was on that team. i reviewed his remarks before he made them. but in retrospect i think i should have worked harder to convince him not to use those terms and possibly not to make a statement at all. nevertheless, it is what it is merchandise jim made the decision to go forward in the way he did. and i think that the effect of that statement -- he used to say how great of an effect it had on the election. there's no question it was not positive for -- for secretary clinton. and then of course the entire thing was accelerated with the decision in november to announce that we would reopen the case, which is totally separate matter but had massive consequences, i'm afraid. >> when you read in this special counsel's report those comments -- not just the one, there were multiple about biden's memory, did it stand out to you as going against or

around what the protocol would be for a report like this? >> yeah, kaitlan, it really does. it really felt like it was another instance of a very high profile investigator who was coming out with a conclusion that he likely knew would not be accepted or embraced by many people and kind of attempting to even out the scales. in other words, to play to the sort of -- to the sort of -- the segment of the audience that was going to be frustrated by the fact that he concluded not to pursue charges. that's what it felt like to me. that's my opinion. i have a lot of concerns with some of the things -- the way that he talked about the evidence in the report, the way that kind of the headline from the report isn't supported when you get down into the meat of the analysis of things like the sufficiency of the evidence, i

have all kinds of questions why in several places he says that president biden willfully retained national defense information and then goes onto say after page 200 that the evidence -- there's insufficient evidence to support that conclusion and that's why he wasn't pursuing charges. there's a lot of inconsistencies in the report that i think are ultimately damaging to the -- to the subject. >> yeah. he said at one point that if you were trying to really keep documents you wouldn't necessarily put them in a box in your garage next to all kind of traps and things you were throwing out. >> thanks, kaitlan. up next we're going to talk about trump's iron grip on the gop as republicans are rushing to outdo one another on embracing his election lies including new reporting tonight about the person who could become the new chair of the republican national committee. also tonight we're getting a warning from the white house about israel, what it seems

tuesday be planning a military operation in rafah where over a million civilians are sheltering right now. what the prime minister there has asked his military to do.

tonight there is new audio that was uncoved by cnn's k-file

team showing how the fan donald trump is hoping will be the next leader of the republican national committee has repeated the very same election lies that trump himself has told many times. >> regardless of how these lawsuits come out around the country with the presidential race, we do know that there was massive fraud that took place. we know that it took place in places like milwaukee and detroit and philadelphia. >> nope. no, it didn't. there is none of that. but that was the voice of michael watly, who i should note is the current chair of the north carolina republican party. he could soon be at the helm of the rnc as our reporting last week that ronna mcdaniel is expected to step down from that role after the south carolina primary. the the former president's 2020 election denialism also appears to have become a new litmus test in his potential choice for vice president. take for example congresswoman elise stefanik and senator j.d.

vance, two people our sources say are under consideration to be vp potentially. had you been vice president on january 6, 2021, what would you have done? >> i stood up for the constitution. >> what would you do if you were vice president? >> i would not have done what mike pence did. i do not think that was the right approach. >> i would have told the states like pennsylvania, georgia and so many others we need have multiple slates of electors. that is the legitimate way to deal with an election a lot of folks including me had in 2020. i think that's what we should have done. >> it was a legitimate election. there were no problems. everyone has said that. but underneath those answers, it is a clear political calculation that those two lawmakers are making. i should note the vice president only has a ceremonial role when it comes to counting the electoral votes, something we noted to the congresswoman. come this election when vice

president harris is in that position would you pay if she rejected the votes if donald trump wins? >> listen, we need to make sure the election is constitutionally legal. >> it was legal. >> joining me tonight former special assistant to president bush scott jennings. and ashley allison. scott, you were a lifelong republican. as i noted you worked for bush, you also had been a senior advisor to mitch mcconnell. is this the new litmus test to be the republican vice president? >> well, it's certainly a performative moment for people because obviously donald trump didn't end on very good terms with his last vice president over this very issue. so i'm not surprised to hear them saying that. the reality is what else can you do? the idea you would require all the states to send multiple slates of electors, why don't we just do at the outset and save our lfbls a lot of time and let the congress fight it out? it should be noted the congress

has since changed the law and passed the electoral count reform act. i think people have forgotten, but this has all been clarified the vice president has no role in rejecting or doing anything in this other than the ceremonial duties of presiding. fortunately, in the future there should not we any question what this person or can't do. it's performative. they're checking the box. >> i can't get out of my head hearing congressman stefanik arguing the idea of not doing what pence did, which is his job there, though. the idea these republicans and how on fire they would be if vice president harris tried to take that tactic. >> yeah, i've really been thinking over the last three years why individuals continue to push the big lie that donald trump did not lose the election and that this election was false. and the three things i can come up with is that, one, they actually believe it. and so they are pushing something that is untrue.

two, they don't believe it but they were willing to cheat to win an election. or three, particularly what wattly is saying who is the north carolina republican party chair and potentially the next national republican party chair, that he speaks of urban centers that have voters of color or people of color who showed up in record number to elect someone who's not donald trump. so there's this effort to potentially disenfranchise those voters. regardless of any of the three reasons why they would be saying it, it's problematic, and it's anti-democratic, and it's why it's so troubling donald trump continues to be the front leader. but i'm not just going to give these folks a pass. and i appreciate scott saying it's performative. these folks are leaders or supposed to be leaders. i expect more than performance. i expect substance and them to do the right thing. for stefanik in that interview the other night when they continued today ask her and she

flat out said never should have done it, she that'll thinks that the what should have happened on january 6th or that's what she would do if she was vice president. that is extremely troubling and voters should pay attention to that. >> scott, do you think it's disqualifying? >> well, it won't be disqualifying to the person who makes the decision, and that's donald trump. ultimately, look, as i said, and i've said many times on and after january 6th i think what happened that day was shameful. there's no world in which the vice president of the united states should be able to unilaterally change the outcome of an election. it's ridiculous. and i think the reforms put in place have made that clear moving forward. do you think donald trump is going to pick somebody who he hears on fefbl oh, i totally disagree -- of course not. so the performative aspect here is what matters, and they're doing what they think they had to do to be in the mix here. >> yeah, clearly an audition. scott jennings, ashley allison, thank you both for joining on a

friday night. up next here on "the source" prime minister netanyahu asking the israeli military to plan for the evacuation of rafah. why the implications of that would be so big. we'll talk about that with former defense secretary mark esper in a moment and whether that is even possible.

is it possible to count on my internet like my customers count on me? it is with comcast business. keeping you up and running with 99.9% network reliability. and security that helps outsmart threats to your data. moaire dida twoo? your data, too. there's even round-the- clock customer support. so you can be there for your customers. hey billy, how you doin? with comcast business, reliability isn't just possible. thanks. it's happening. get started for $49.99 a month. plus, ask how to get up to a $1000 prepaid card with a qualifying internet package.

don't wait, call and switch today! . tonight israel is planning

what it says would be a new offensive into the southern gaza city of rafah. it's the corner of the enclave that israeli forces have told palestinian civilians to go for several months now. the israeli prime minister, benjamin netanyahu, says the military is drawing up plans to evacuate those civilians, but right now israel has offered no clear answers on where they would go or how that would even be facilitated. what we do know is we have these satellite images over rafah that really speak for themselves. it's a city that once housed roughly 280 people. it's now a center for the displaced would more than a million people crammed in there all living in makeshift tents. joining me tonight is the former defense secretary, mark sesper who served in the trump administration. great to have you. we rely on you so much, so great to have you officially on the

team. on this decision and this plan by netanyahu it's roughly 1.3 million people sheltering. if you're the idf how realistic is it this order you got from the prime minister? >> kaitlan, it's great to be with you tonight. look, you're talking about moving 1.3 million people, and a clear time line isn't given. would this be days, weeks? you have to figure where do you move them to because egypt has said they do not want them there, and of course rafah is right up against the israeli-egyptian border. it's a sealed border. and so i don't know where you push them to. you push them back up north, but you have to provide for food and sanitation and some type of housing along the way, so it seems unrelist, but i understand on one hand what they want to do. thoipt to move people out so they can isolate the build up area and move in and go after hamas. netanyahu has stated there are up to four hamas tie in positions holding out and i

assume there's probably more below ground as well. they're in this fix right now how do you do that while limiting civilian casualties. >> and the white house has said what a disaster it would be if they do try to carry this out. president biden last night was asked during that press conference that was mainly focused on the special counselal's report but he did make a really important comment about israel's war and how it's being conducted. this is what he told reporters. >> the conduct of the response in the gaza strip has been over the top. >> it may not sound incredibly blunt, but it's probably the sharpest criticism we've heard from biden how israel has been on this. i wonder if it makes a

difference to prime minister netanyahu. >> it doesn't appear to make a difference, but it should. first, the president's words are imprecise. what does that mean over the top? i think we all know there's too many civilian casualties. is he saying they're breaking international laws, being indiscriminate. there are things we should try to do to assist the israeli. are there u.s. military planners over there helping them, looking over their shoulders as they plan strikes, operations to make sure it's consistent with the laws of war, or that limits collateral damage, something we take special care for? maybe there are other things they can try? maybe they should suspend air strikes and make this a ground based attack and focus. i think we need more clarity there. on the other hand, i think part of the problem is netanyahu is not clear about what he intends to accomplish here. he keeps talking about defeating hamas, which is not going to be possible. it's an ideology. you're never going to kill every last fighter. if he would define more what he wants to do, for example, take

out their senior leadership and destroy their means of attacking israel which would mean even getting into the tunnels, that gives you more specificity and seems more realistic objectives to achieve. look, there's a lot of imprecision here. i think the israelis continue to need to work to do better. clearly they have the right to self-defense. we can't forget what happened october 7th and what hamas has pledged to do time and time again. >> it's a balancing act. secretary esper, great to have you here tonight. thank you. >> thanks, kaitlan. up next here on "the source" there are new concerns when it comes to the trump classified documents case, the one he said he'd bine coordinating with earlier and he did. this is coming from special counsel jack smith, though, and he's worried about threats to witnesses in that case. we'll tell you about his concern right after a quick break.

tonight the special counsel, jack smith, is fighting to protect the identity of witnesses in donald trump's classified documents case. we learned this from a new court filing where smith details the gravity of keeping their identities secret from the former president and his allies. saying, quote, witnesses, agents, and judicial officers in this very case have been harassed and inintimidated and the further outing of additional

witnesses will pose a similarly intolerable risk of turning their lives upside down. here with me tonight is cnn's legal analyst and former federal prosecutor jennifer rogers. can we just talk about what jack smith is trying to do there? because he's been having this battle since mid-january, but he's making very clear his concern tonight. >> now he's trying to get judge cannon to change her mind because she already ruled that these documents disclose the identities of all these prospective witnesses that were turned over in discovery to the defense as they must be. the defense then attaches them to motions in front of the judge and says they've attached them to motions, now these documents have to be disclosed. so he's asking for a motion for reconsideration now and saying obviously what you said the harm to these witnesses is manifested, they've been threatened, et cetera, and but also she used the wrong legal standards. this is the correct legal standard, and look at the harm here in this very case people have already been threaten asked lives have been turned upside

down. >> one person it prompted a separate federal investigation into that. >> yeah, i mean we've seen what's happened in countless other cases, right, civil matters. anytime the former president targets someone and starts talking about them and how they wronged them, these people have their lives harmed. and so it's not just about the notion of physical harm to people and problems with their lives, it's also about the integrity of the case. when witnesses see when they're being threatened, when they see other people being threatened, it makes them much less likely to stand to go do their duty and testify. >> what could these threats look like in the case of i'm thinking of other instances where witnesses have had i had an attorney being paid for by donald trump or his allies, i was influenced by that attorney then to only reveal certain information. and then, you know, in the case of this one when the superseding indictment was added, there was a new codefendant because he essentially didn't tell the full truth and then got a different attorney. >> yeah, so there's all sorts of

things that could be happening. but one thing unique to the situation is this notion of not contacting people yourself or having other people contact them but instead just speaking publicly about people and saying, oh, these people should really do the right thing, they shouldn't be lying about me, they should be saying such and such. and knowing that that will then impact those witnesses indirectly. >> jennifer rogers, we'll be watching closely to see what, of course, the judge here decides. thank you for breaking it all down for us. up next we are going to vegas, baby. where sin city is swiftly getting set for the super bowl. see what i did there? we'll taylor our next conversation with a former nfl star.

we are now just days away from super bowl lviii this sunday in las vegas. the reigning champs, the kansas city chiefs, are taking on the san francisco 49ers. for the 49ers it's a revenge game of sorts following their loss to the chiefs in the super bowl four years ago. and of course a win for kansas city would really cement them as

the nfl new. here to talk about this is nfl star himself and wide receiver who i should note also played in a super bowl. perfect experience to join us here tonight. i just wonder what you're going to be watching for the most in this game. >> one of the things, kaitlan, that i'm going to be watching for is really how the chiefs handle the pressure from the 49ers. can the 49ers get pressure on patrick mahomes? because if he's allowed to sit back there and go through all his reads and make the plays he does with his legs and extending plays, it's going to be a long day for the 49ers. but i think the 49ers on their end, they're going have to make sure they stick to the run, run the ball and get the play-action passes going to give brock purdy a little more confidence. it's a big game for everyone but especially him being so young and all this attention that's

been put on him. it'll be interesting. it's always going to be a great game the super bowl, and i'm excited for this one for sure. ? >> on patrick mahomes, he's been in this conversation before with one of your former teammates and someone who won the super bowl seven times, tom brady. he's only 28 years old, i should remind everyone. where does that put him in contention when it comes to the discussions about the greatest quarterbacks we've ever seen in the nfl? >> you definitely have to put him in there. he is the -- he will be the youngest player at the age of 28 to start four games at quarterback. and with him winning two super bowls already, you know, he's in there with the likes of, you know, guys that have -- that have already been in the hall of fame, so i think his legacy is at a very young age already seeing himself as a hall of famer. when you're talking about some of the greats, he's already

mentioned the fact he wants to catch tom brady seven super bowl. he's 28 years old, the chiefs are playing really well. they've got a good mix of talent, young talent and old veteran leadership on that team. they have a chance to win a lot more, but he's definitely already in that conversation and he deserves all the praise that he gets. >> all right, so this game's happening in vegas. i'm coming after the show is over tonight, the last time i was in las vegas was last march. that was when i came to see taylor swift play in concert when she was kicking off her heiress tour. obviously people are hoping and expecting she'll be there on sunday as well. are you a swiftie? >> you know what, i appreciate her music. i haven't, like, bought any albums but she's got some pretty cool songs, i must admit. she is obviously beloved by a lot of people.

a long time uh-uh go at the country music awards, very down-to-earth and humble person. i personally i've been enjoying, you know, all this talk about her being at the games and everything. i think it's pretty cool. she's bringing a new audience to the game of the nfl, and, you know, the nfl game is growing it seems like every single year. and she's brought a big audience with her star power to the nfl, a lot of young girls have been watching the games, and i remember seeing this video, this instagram video of this mother asking her 3 or 4-year-old daughter asking her who's her favorite player on the chiefs and she says taylor swift. so i thought that was pretty cool. i know a lot of people are annoyed about it, but get a life, it's fine. she's all right. >> get a life, i love that. see what happens on sunday. thanks for joining us here tonight. also coming up here on cnn, a private plane crash into a busy florida interstate not far from the airport. major questions about what went wrong. we'll give you the latest right after a quick break.

so, you've got the power of xfinity at home. now take it outside with xfinity mobile. like speed? it's the fastest mobile service around... and right now, you can get a free line of our most popular unlimited plan. all on the most reliable 5g network nationwide. ditch the other guys and you'll save hundreds. get a free line of unlimited intro for 1 year when you buy one unlimited line. and for a limited time, get the new samsung galaxy s24 on us. look at this new video out of naples, florida, tonight.

a private plane actually crashed on interstate 75 there. quickly engulfed in flames as you can see here. it was really just a few miles from the airport when this plane went down. it hit a vehicle on the highway. what we are hearing from officials tonight is that two people who were onboard were killed. three others survived. no update on their conditions just yet. but an air-traffic control audio from just before the crash the pilot said they had lost both engines. the pilot's last recorded words on that audio were cleared to land, we're not going to make the runway. i should note the faa and ntsb now investigating this. we'll keep you updated. before you go, of course, as we just mentioned talking about the super bowl. super bowl champion michael orr's name. you might remember him from the hit movie "the blind side." there's a whole lot more to his story. and there's a new cnn doc that takes a look at it. >> controversy surrounding hit

movie "the blind side." >> michael orr blind-sided he said by his family at the center of the blockbuster. >> alleging they pushed the false narrative they adopted him. >> michael really didn't like the movie from the very beginning. it followed him everywhere while he was in the nfl. >> he felt like someone was making money from this movie and it wasn't him. >> they said they never intended to adopt michael. as they say in the south they've got some explaining to do. >> it seemed to be all love, and a lot was offered. >> he was portrayed as unable without the help of the family to have made his way in the world. >> the movie is great. it allows us to go out and talk about the michael orrp offense the world. >> i know what a