any time you settle a case like this. >> yeah, huge question about that and, look, just as a reminder, diddy is wealthy, extremely powerful, still to this day after 30 years in this industry, something like this, i think, probably has already done some damage but i think they were clearly concerned it could do more if it were to continue, laura, i know you have a lot to get to in your show. have a good one. >> have a good one and happy early birth day, abby phillip, everyone. >> thank you. >> she'll be 25. >> thanks. a surprise ruling and a big victory for donald trump, but what happens now? tonight on "laura coates live." remember that phrase, no one is above the law? how about this one, how does it go again, let me get it right, if the president does it, it's not illegal. starting to come back to you now, isn't it? well, today there's a new one for the history books, a colorado judge finding that donald trump incited, really, an insurrection or intentionally engaged in behavior, quote, therefore engaged in insurrection within the meaning of section 3 of the 14th amendment saying he acted with specific intent to disrupt the electoral college certification of president biden's electoral victory through unlawful means, specifically by using unlawful force, and violence. well, we were watching the day it happened, january 6th. >> we fight. we fight like hell, and if you don't fight like hell, you're not going to have a country anymore. >> the judge saying trump did, quote, everything in his power to fuel anger before january 6th. and if, by the way, he were anybody else, he would have been disqualified from office. but because he was the president, that law does not apply. the judge saying the 14th amendment insurrection ban does not apply to presidents because the oath the president takes is not the same as the oath for officers of the united states. that sounds a lot like someone is above something, doesn't it? almost exactly like since the president did it, it's not illegal. i mean, talk about whiplash and if you're confused, you're not the only one around these parts. up to now we heard primarily i think two arguments in the case, in places like in michigan and minnesota they decided to keep trump on the ballot. one argument was it should be up to the voters, not any court, to tell you who is on the ballot. the other argument, since trump had never been charged with insurrection and there had been no legal conclusion he actually engaged in it and there's no reason to take him off the ballot because, of course, due process and that presumption of innocence that we all hold very dearly. well, today it didn't seem to come down to the voters' argument and the judge did say that he did incite something, instead, it came down to what's called a technicality, if you will, if the founding fathers meant for the president to be removed by this mechanism, they would have clearly stated that. instead they mentioned officers of the united states. i want to dig in more here, though, because the section 3 actually says this, who having previously taken an oath as a member of congress or as an officer of the united states or as a member of any state legislature or as an executive or judicial officer of any state, they didn't say the president, you see that? it's almost as if and this is something i've heard a lot recently, there's a two-tiered system of justice. i want to get right to noah bookbinder for citizens for responsibility and ethics, the acronym known as -- >> hello. >> they had a trial on the merits about the underlying facts of an insurrection. are you surprised by tonight's decision that he is going to still be on the ballot according to what the judge say? >> i think the most significant thing in this ruling tonight is this ruling that donald trump did incite an insurrection by a judge who heard days of testimony, thousands of pages of evidence that was submitted, that's, i think, the most significant thing. this ruling about the president not being an officer of the united states, we obviously disagree with that ruling. it will be appealed. that is a legal, strictly legal ruling that the colorado supreme court will have its own chance to evaluate but the thing that wa in this proceeding that already happened was that evidentiary hearing with days of testimony, with reams of evidence and the judge looked at that and found that donald trump incited insurrection within the meaning of the 14th amendment and i think that's the most significant takeaway. >> given that takeaway, you say you will appeal. you know, you've got a pretty thin window, though, because, of course, ballots have printed, i think it's january 5th is the date in colorado so the window is very small of when you can appeal, have that essentially be resolved and then the ballot still printed. is there enough time to get that argument made and maybe resolved? >> there absolutely is enough time and there is a -- there is a legal procedure in place in colorado to resolve these questions quickly understanding ballots need to be printed so it skips intermediate appeal and goes directly to the colorado supreme court. in other cases where people have been challenged as disqualified on ballots, not presidents, usually, but the colorado supreme court has taken them up very quickly. we expect that to happen here so we'll move quickly and i think we've got a lot to be encouraged at in what came out of the ruling today. >> the fact that and i know you pointed out the idea there's obviously an appellate court, their job is not to relitigate the facts but think about the legal arguments being made and the judge seems to have teed up in a way by having a very narrow ruling, it's a long opinion, by the way, but a narrow ruling to suggest it's because he was the president and the language of section 3 goss not con-- does n contemplate a president. do you think the colorado supreme court on appeal or maybe even the supreme court of the united states or other courts might look at these issues over time will buy that? that it is narrow enough to exclude -- to keep him on the ballot? >> you know, i think it's been instructive that really top legal scholars across the political spectrum tonight, judge j. michael luttig came out very strongly -- >> he was the one that talked about and wrote the different things and came out in the hearing, yes. >> he came out today and said that while he agreed with the factual parts of the judge's decision, he feels very strongly that the president is an officer of the united states and that that part of the judge's decision was incorrectly ruled. a leading conservative law professor, who has studied it in great depth reached the same conclusion so we think there's a lot of weight of opinion on the other side of this one and a real shot to see that go the other way, particularly given that ruling supported in so much fact that donald trump did incite an insurrection. >> so based on that, i mean, this is colorado. already been some litigation in places like minnesota and michigan, they did not have a trial. procedural issues kept them from resolving it fully. will you bring litigation in other states? there are 50 of them. >> the first thing that we are focused on doing is getting a win in colorado and that's going to be the next step. we think we got a large part of the way there today with, you know, the 102-page opinion, many, many pages really, you know, of zeroing in on why donald trump did incite insurrection, why things like the first amendment don't get him out of that and we're going to be very focused on getting to that next point of having him excluded from the ballot in colorado and then, you know, we'll take it from there. >> by the way, why did you choose colorado? >> we chose colorado because it had a statutory system in place, it had laws that said voters can go to court to challenge a candidate who is not qualified, and you can get into court quickly and if the court finds someone not qualified, the secretary of state has to remove them from the ballot so it's got that preocedure. it's a relatively early state in the primary systems. you can get in early and had fantastic republican and unaffiliated plaintiffs who were wilk to bring the case and make clear this is not a partisan, political issue. this is about people would care about the constitution trying to protect our republic. >> a method to the litigation madness. nice to talk to you. thanks, noah. donald trump's attorney was on cnn giving a preview of how they'll argue likely on appeal. listen to what they said. >> we'll argue to the colorado supreme court a lot of the same arguments we made before, which is, you know, the textural and historical analysis of the 14'd amendment especially considering the fact that the way our constitution is set up, the way the republic is set up people get to choose who will be their president. we shouldn't have courts striking people from the ballot. we'll also fully take on the court's erroneous argument that president trump engaged in an insurrection. we think that's flat out wrong, certainly contrary to the evidence. it was a little unusual for her to spend a lot of time talking about that. >> so, what exactly happens now? will that work? i have the guest for that question, let's get right to marcus chill dress, former january 6th committee investigative counsel and rebecca legrand, a constitutional lawyer and defense attorney. i got to ask you, first of all, you've already heard, marcus and from noah as well, the january 6th committee report and the information that was gleaned and really shown to the country and the world was relied on a lot by this judge criticized by trump's counsel because he took a lot of issue with what was presented in the hearings. were you surprised it was relied on to the extent it was? >> no, i wasn't at all. we trusted our process. we trusted that we went where the facts took us and you heard arguments about bias from our committee and maybe the qualifications of our committee but there were no assertions contrary to our actual findings of insurrection that former president trump incited this insurrection. and you saw the judge actually discuss that in her opinion of the reliability of our investigation, how methodical we were with that and i think that the fact -- it was a great confirmation of the work that we did here today and i was happy to see that she confirmed it. >> i mean, you almost had it confirmed while you -- you explicit had it confirmed right after mitch mcconnell after the presentation of that evidence and listen to what he had to say. he was aware and confirmed it then, listen. >> the house accused the former president of, quote, incitement. that is a specific term from the criminal law. there's no question, none, that president trump is practically and morally responsible for provoking the events of the day. we have a criminal justice system in this country. we have civil litigation, and former presidents are not immung from being accountable by either one. >> and yet, rebecca, the holding tonight was, well, because he was the president, he's not accountable under that letter of the law. that was the -- >> i share marcus' view this was a careful, detailed opinion that confirmed a lot of things that folks have been arguing about and addressed directly a lot of arguments in a context where there was due process, where there was a chance to cross-examine witnesses and trump could put on witnesses and did. all the due process you want and after listening to many days of testimony, reviewing the relevant portions of the january 6th report, this judge found this was an insurrection. this was an insurrection, and donald trump was responsible for it and those are powerful findings. however, the judge also looked at the text of section 3 of the 14th amendment which obvious was written a long time ago and is inartfully drafted for these purposes, as we might say so she's struggling with this language designed for the civil war where lots of elected representatives had rebelled and were trying -- trying to figure out what to do with them. abraham lincoln didn't so the people drafting that weren't thinking go what just happened here. that's what makes it a hard question so the judge i think carefully analyzed the language. she ended up going with an argument that had been out there, that had been made -- i heard it mainly by former u.s. attorney michael mukasey who made pretty much the exact argument. there are strong counterarguments, as well, including, but that's where she landed. >> marcus, i ask on that point, we're talking about the validation of having this finding. but we can't look at it in a vacuum, can we? he has criminal matters happening including one involving january 6th. >> right. >> right here in washington, d.c. under judge chutkan. just to name one, right? the election subversion cases, as well including what's happening in fulton county. could what happened today in colorado have an impact on those? >> i mean speaking of the parallel proceedings it was pointed out in closing arguments but former president trump argued for removal in the new york case, the new york bank records case and part of that argument for removal he is an officer of the united states. but now in this he's saying -- >> bingo. >> and this was brought up by noah's team but wasn't persuasive for the court. on appeal i would hammer that home. you're making contrary arguments depending on the jurisdiction so while it may not be expressly stated in the 14th amendment they're not being consistent with their arguments, at least to the court. >> you can't have your cake and eat it too. we'll see what happens there. thank you, both of you so much. marcus childress, rebecca legrand. donald trump is on the ballot, so what does another candidate have to say about that? i'll ask one, jill stiein is hee next. my next guest has launched an unexpected bid for the white house, two-time green party presidential nominee, jill stein, is seeking the party's nomination in 2024. calling the current political system, broken. she joins me for tonight's candidate interview, jill stein, thank you so much for being here this evening. we've got a lot to discuss tonight. i'm eager to get your opinion on so many things but i do want to get your reaction to this colorado 14th amendment ruling. the judge saying that donald trump, quote, engaged in an insurrection, but will stay on the colorado ballot. do you agree with that? >> you know, i am not a legal expert and especially not in this area. this is the third case, as i understand it, to be decided in favor of allowing the voters basically to either accept or reject donald trump on the ballot. that sounds reasonable to me. i tend to err on the side of allowing voters to make decisions, but, again, you know, this is not my area of expertise at all. >> on that point that was one of the big arguments raised. the question came down to whose decision should it be and we'll see what happens maybe other places but now to your bid for the white house because you've done this twice before. once in 2012, also 2016. you never cracked 2 million votes, didn't receive a single electoral vote. why do you think the third time will end up differently? >> well, i think you can ask the voters why it is that they are clamoring for more choices, you know, when you don't have exposure, when you're not covered by the media, when there are all sorts of hoops, expensive hoops you have to jump through as a grassroots campaign in order to even get on the ballot, there are all kinds of reasons why independents and third parties have a very steep uphill climb. but, you know, the voters are clamoring for more choices and i would say, you know, who is anybody to tell the voters that they don't deserve choices, this is really fundamental to our democracy, to our rights as voters and to the integrity of our elections is to have those choices. >> you know, there has been a lot of criticism about a two-party system for that very reason, frankly, and that when somebody who is not a part of the democrats or republican party, they get a lot of criticism, they're accused of being a spoiler vote, in fact, you yourself was accused of that as well, accused of haves taken away votes from hillary clinton in places like michigan and pennsylvania and wisconsin where trump's victory margin was smaller than your total votes. when you hear this complaint, based on what you've just said about who has the nerve essentially to tell the american voters who they can and cannot have as choices do you think the criticism has been fair about your entrance into the races? >> i think the criticism reflects a certain kind of arrogance that the establishment party's own your vote. they don't own your vote. they have to earn your vote and, you know, the studies and statistics are very clear that people who voted green almost, you know -- almost two-thirds would not have come out to vote at all had there not been a green or someone with a green agenda been on the ballot, so it's completely invalid to suggest that those votes belonged to hillary clinton and i think it reflects a kind of arrogance of the establishment parties to presume that voters owe them their votes and i think that's part of what people are rebelling against now in clamoring for other choices. it's a record high 63% of voters now who are saying that the two-party system has failed them and, you know, to look at the reality of people's lives now, you know, there's a lot to that where you have 60%, over 60% living paycheck to paycheck, one in four are food insecure. you have 40% of renters who are severely economic li stressed. half of young people are saying they are hopeless about the future and the fact they feel betrayed by their government on critical issues including the climate collapse, which is acce accelerating. but those are all reflections of the fact that people are hungry for more choices and want a debate when you have challengers on the ballot and i think, you know -- >> i hear you. >> sorry, go ahead. >> i was going to ask you, but, you know, one of the things you did leave out which is going to be very top of mind for many voters right now, in addition to everything you listed has been the israel/hamas war and a lot of voters leaning in, you have been an outspoken critic of israel's ground operation in gaza, when you comb through your x account, you have been condemning of the administration and the american response and also what's going on in israel. do you condemn the actions, as well, of the actions of hamas? >> i condemn all violence against civilians, yes, absolutely. at the same time, you know, i think one has to recognize that what we're seeing from the netanyahu regime now is in a league of its own and it's really -- it's horrific to witness. you know, you have over 2 million people who are denied food, water, and electricity being bombed for the past month, half of the housing has been destroyed in gaza. people have had to move to just pack up and walk to safety and they're being bombed as they do. you're seeing the targeting of hospitals and health care centers and refugee centers and press offices, as well as the press themselves. i mean, it's absolutely horrendous, and we are seeing, you know, israel now kind of being considered a pariah state so it's not just that this is terrible for palestinians, this is also terrible for israel and we're seeing countries who have repaired the relations with israel. you know, including jordan, one of the few arab countries who re-established relations, who have now basically broken them off and re-called their answers. >> i hear you. this is part of -- >> go ahead. >> part of the reason i'd love to have you back on and talk about what you would do since you warrant to be the president of the united states, what you would do differently to try to stop what's happening. dr. jill stein, we'll have to have that conversation another day. thank you so much. >> sounds great. good to be with you. coming up, cnn's presentation of hbo's "overtime" with bill maher. well, now let's turn it over to our friends at hbo. every friday after "real time with bill maher," bill and his guests answer viewer questions about topics in the national conversation. here is "over time with bill maher." [ applause ] all right, hi there, cnn. we're here with award winning donna brazile and adam kinzinger. okay, here are the questions. [ applause ] any guesses on the next candidate to drop out of the republican presidential primary? >> desantis. >> yeah. >> i think it's desantis. he's collapsing. i think he's next. >> what happened there? he was doing so well as a florida governor. he was -- everyone -- i advised him publicly, i said, don't run. first of all, no one will take it from trump. you're 44. you could do this for the next -- biden, next 40 years. [ laughter ] >> you know, his problem was he was trying to be donald trump. his play was donald trump's going to fall out, you know, with the case or whatever and i would be there to inherit that. it was a bad play because donald trump's not going anywhere and he has no personality. he's literal li one of the most boring guys i've ever worked that and i mean that with a straight face. terribly boring. >> i think north dakota governor will drop out. >> i didn't know he was still in it. >> they're not in the debate. >> and then i also believe that chris christie has to prove himself and vivek needs to shut the hell up and go home. i'm tired of him. [ applause ] >> we all hate vivek. >> okay. it's vivek. >> vivek. >> vivek? >> whatever. would you say that about other dark >> i'm donna. it is vie connect. ramona okumura vivek ramaswamy? >> vivek needs to go home. >> i . >> i just feel there's a little racism there when they don't know his name. >> vivek, vivek. >> i know we don't like him but just say his name right. >> you're the first one i've ever heard say that. >> maybe it's -- i heard him do a rap and he said it rhymes with cake. this is what the cnn audience needs to know. >> are you surprised that the republican chair of the house ethics committee is now pushing for george santos to be expelled from congress? there's another one of your -- >> yeah, no, i'm not surprised. >> did you work with him, george santos. >> no, thank god. [ laughter ] he came after me. >> he came after you. >> but the -- so they're down to whatever it is, three or four-vote majority. the republican majority is doing nothing else the rest of the year, they'll have to deal with keeping the government open. please god they can get ukraine aid. ukraine, israel, et cetera. they won't do much else. you're at a point where a four or three-vote majority is pointless and he's become a huge anchor. i think even this crosses a red line for them and i think they'll vote to expel him. >> he is ang embarrassment to the institution itself. when i looked at that list of things he spent campaign money on, i mean all the years i run campaign i never thought i could just take a little drive-by to sephora or get a little -- [ applause ] a little botox and a little -- [ laughter ] >> he's the only campaign finance scandal that didn't even try to launder the money through something else. he literally just took it, put in his own bank account and got an only fans. >> only fans. >> trump wears a lot of makeup but i assume -- well, he does. >> he does. >> he's always under two pounds of bronzer. but i assume -- >> that's the natural glow of somebody who is already hot. he's going to hell. [ applause ] >> okay. adam, as a republican you stood up to extremists in your party. what advice do you have for democrats who are trying to combat the far left? >> this is the best thing because i -- there was a guy, a californian, dana rohrabacher that was like the only -- >> i remember. >> and people -- i'd take him on in the foreign affairs committee and they would say he's one person probably being paid by the fsb, whatever. well, that crazy ends up like overtaking the party. the crazy of -- nobody imagined donald trump in 2014, you've got to kill extremism in the cradle or it takes over, because if you look at your coalition and say we need this -- we need the pro-hamas faction or we need the anti-russia faction or pro-russia faction, they end up calling the shots because if everybody in this room has a grenade, right, we're all equally powerful, if somebody is willing to pull the pin, then they're the most powerful. extremists are. pull the pin with them. you've got to be willing to fight back. >> did you ever hear that tape of paul ryan, kevin mccarthy and steve scalise talking about rohrabacher and trump? >> yeah, yeah. >> okay, if people don't remember this, this is -- the fact that this doesn't get more play, i mean, this is years ago but this is on tape and one of them says, i think there's two people on putin's payroll. >> yep. >> one of them is rohrabacher and one of them is trump and the other two don't go, oh, my god. let's do something about it. they say, this 125is in the family, right? >> yep, yep. [ laughter ] >> hell. eternity, that's where you go. >> went better in rehearsal but still good. no, but it is -- that is kind of amazing. >> yeah, yeah. >> you know, any form of extremism must be denounced. we must condemn those who are marching saying that what hamas did on that horrific day was right, we should immediately -- >> of course. >> -- call for hamas to release the hostages. [ applause ] >> well, we are. we're calling for it. >> no, but we have to demand that. you see people marching -- >> what do you mean demand. why do you think israel is attacking? >> people who are protesting, they're protesting and they're saying, leave hamas alone and i'm like, no, hamas started this. >> it's a cancer. >> it's a cancer. >> they did a poll of the people who live in the area from the river to the sea, in other words, israeli arabs, they don't want to live under hamas. >> nope. >> 77% of them said, no thanks. we're living in israel. it's way better than living under a terrorist group. why don't you teach that at college? [ applause ] okay, what do you think of prominent democrats like david axelrod calling for biden to, quote, get out or get going? did he say that, get out or get going? >> i believe in the tweet or two in some stuff, look, people think joe biden is perhaps too old. they are right. >> perhaps? [ laughter ] >> don't spill the water. something might come out of it. everyone ages differently. >> i agree. >> and, you know, so betty white lived to be 99. mick jagger is still twisting his ass. [ laughter ] >> i've been the one making that case year after year against ageism. it's a case-by-case basis. for that argument to have teeth you also have to be the person that can go yeah, but this is the case. and i've said it before, do i think joe biden can do the job? absolutely. i don't think he can win the job. and that's what i care about. he's going to lose, because the people think he's too old and perception is reality, i'm sorry. >> he's been counted out so many times, i can't -- i just lost track but look how many elections since 2020 that he's won? last week he was counted out and democrats won -- he was counted out a year ago in the midterm. do not count out joe biden. that's all i'm saying. >> but on the subject of people getting older and they have to adjust, some tragic news this week, snoop dogg said he's quitting pot. >> yeah, i saw that. >> i know. >> what happened? >> i mean, that is -- i remember him sitting right here and me telling him about 10, 12 years ago, snoop, i love you and you know we're both pot brothers but you smoke too much pot. >> okay. yeah, because he's always on instagram smoking pot. >> right. >> he doesn't even open up his instagram until he's smoking pot. >> the funniest thing about his statement was i didn't know if he was serious because at the end he said i'm giving up the smoke, please respect my privacy in this time and i was like -- really? [ laughter ] i was like, did somebody die? >> my prediction, my prediction is it'll go the way it went when my friend woody harrelson said, a number of times, he's going to give up pot and then it was always, welcome home, son. all right, thank you very much. we'll see you next week. [ applause ] >> well, you can watch "realtime with bill maher" on friday nights on hbo at 10:00 p.m. and watch "overtime" friday nights at 11:30. we'll be right back. elon musk is losing more and more advertisers on x after his anti-semitic posts including cnn's parent company, warner brothers discovery. and this kind of anti-semitism is becoming all too common. not just on social platforms but across right wing media. here's oliver darcy with more. >> reporter: anti-semitic rhetoric is finding a home in right wing media since the onslaught of the israel/hamas war a handful of hosts have spread tropes to their followers. one of the main charges, the disgraceful notion that a spike in anti-semitism is merely jewish people getting a taste of their own medicine after supposedly supporting anti-white sentiment. a conspiracy theories that's been denounced by the anti-defamation league. take elon musk who has supported a host of right-wing conspiracy theories. he replied to a user, publicly endorsing that notion writing this week, you have said the actual truth. it's not just limited to musk. right-wing media figures tucker carlson, candace owens and charlie kirk peddled this idea. >> it is true some of the largest financiers of anti-white causes have been jewish americans. >> reporter: kirk floated the theory that benjamin netanyahu knew about the october 7th terror attack but chose to do nothing. >> i'm not willing to say -- to go so far as saying netanyahu knew or there was intelligence there but questions need to be asked, was there a stand down order? was there a stand down order? six hours, i don't believe it. >> reporter: meanwhile, carlson and owens have criticized harvard donors for supporting anti-white racism framing them for hypocrites. >> wait a second. if the biggest donors at, say, harvard, have decided we're going to shut it down now, where were you the last ten years for white genocide. then i found myself hating those people. >> where were you as we have endured all -- >> you were paying for it, actually. you were paying for it. >> you were paying for it. >> you were calling my children immoral for their skin color. you paid for that. so why shouldn't i be mad at you? i don't understand. >> reporter: some have pushed back against the anti-semitic rhetoric spread by their peers. ben shapiro ripped candace as disgraceful. >> that's disgraceful. i think she's been absolutely disgraceful. i think her faux sophistication on these issues last beenry take louse. >> owens appeared to fire back suggesting shapiro opted for wealth over virtue quoting a bible verse saying you cannot serve both god and money. the rhetoric comes as anti-semitic attacks are surging across the u.s. and around the world. jonathan greenblatt, the head of the adl spoke out against it responding to musk, he said, at a time when anti-semitism is exploding in america and surging around the world, it is indisputably dangerous to use one's influence to promote anti-semitic theories, oliver darcy, cnn, new york. >> oliver, thank you so much. now, from fights in congress to the chart-topping christmas hit by nfl stars, the upside down week that was next. what a week. it ended with a legal victory for trump. might have been shocking if not for the evidence, receipts, purchases labeled for -- thousands spent at the luxury store hermes and did i mention only fans? speaking of cringe, did you see this? >> mr. president, after today would you still refer to president xi as a dictator, air term you used earlier this year. >> look, he is. he is a dictator in the sense that he is a guy who runs the country that is communist country. >> that came at a press conference after president biden's meeting with china's president, look, i mean, managing diplomacy is no easy task, we can all agree on that. you work through months of delicate meetings and secretary of state blinken's, well, his wince becomes pretty understandable. it might be hard to keep a straight face and the wild and upside down times that we find ourselves living in these days, i mean, how could you not raise an eyebrow when fights are on the brink of breaking out in congress? >> want to run your mouth? we can finish it here. >> okay, that's fine. perfect. >> want to do it now? >> i'd love to do it right now. >> stand your butt up then. >> you stand your butt up. >> is that your -- >> no, no, sit down. >> it was the president back, oh, oh, what is a happening now? it was happening then and while the risk is getting tackled in the senate has never seemed higher, who would have thought actual football stars would be topping music charts with a christmas jingle. ♪ thank god it's our last ♪ >> travis and jason kelce, a timeless track for the ages perhaps and while we're on the music of train as bill maher let us know, no more, well, smoke for snoop dogg. he's giving up apparently smoking marijuana. yep, although keyword, smoking. these are the times we now live in. you have to ask yourselves what is going to come next? who knows what will happen next and we didn't even talk about the elbow to the kidneys of a member of congress. i'll be here to help you try to make sense of all of it. maybe the snoop is anyone's guess. i guess they say tgif, you've been through quite a week. thank you all for watching. our coverage continues. c'mon, we're right there. c'mon baby. it's the only we need. go, go, go, go! ah! touchdown baby! -touchdown! are your neighbors watching the same game? yeah, my 5g home internet delays the game a bit. but you get used to it. try these. they're noise cancelling earmuffs. i stole them from an airport. it's always something with you, man. great! solid! -greek salad? exactly! don't delay the game with verizon or t-mobile 5g home internet. catch it on the xfinity 10g network. good evening, earlier tonight our cnn crew witnessed the most intense shelling in days. we'll get a live update in a moment. israel's 12 news is reporting on what it says can a copy of a police report that shows the number of people killed at the nova music festival is much higher than previously believed.