Return to Transcripts main page

Don Lemon Tonight

Roe v. Wade Could Be Overturned; Last Chance Given to DOJ Official; Michigan Shooting Suspect Appeared in Court; Rep. Lucy McBath (D-GA) Was Interviewed About Her Bill in the House; Donald Trump Lied About His COVID Test Result. Aired 10-11p ET

Aired December 01, 2021 - 22:00   ET

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.

[22:00:00]

DON LEMON, CNN HOST (on camera): This is DON LEMON TONIGHT. Thank you for joining us.

We have been watching -- you have been watching the CNN global town hall. Coronavirus, Facts and Fears. And we've got a lot more coming on the Omicron variant now detected in this country.

But this is -- boy, this been a momentous day in Washington. A day when the Supreme Court heard arguments in the case that could roll back the right Americans have had for nearly 50 years.

The court seems ready to green light a Mississippi law that bans abortions after 15 weeks with no exception for rape or incest. It's one of several laws passed in multiple states intended to get the Supreme Court to hear a direct challenge to Roe v. Wade.

The president of the United States, Joe Biden, reaffirming his support for Roe today.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNKNOWN: What is your reaction to the Supreme Court heard the abortion today, that justices signaled that they're on the verge of major changes to abortion laws in the United States. Due to acquiring to horrifying law, what is your reaction to that?

JOE BIDEN, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: I support Roe v. Wade. I think it's the rational position to take. And I continue to support it.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

LEMON (on camera): The majority of Americans agree with President Biden. Sixty percent say Roe should be upheld. According to a recent ABC News-Washington Post poll. Only 27 percent say it should be overturned. But the minority could be on the verge of challenging the rules for the majority.

Everyone has an opinion on this, no matter what angle you're looking at it from, legal, political, personal rights, religion. For nearly half a century, Roe v. Wade has been the law of the land.

Now it could be in jeopardy. And if you ever had any doubt yes, elections do have consequences. This is why so many conservatives hold their noses and they continue to support a disgraced twice impeached one-term former president. Because he got them what they have wanted for decades, a conservative majority court that could overturn Roe v. Wade.

This is why it's important to pay attention to our courts, to pay attention to who the judges are, and who's appointing them. That's how you end up with we are today. Elections matter.

CNN senior legal affairs correspondent Paula Reid has been following this story. She has the latest what happened inside and outside the Supreme Court today.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

PAULA REID, CNN SENIOR LEGAL AFFAIRS CORRESPONDENT (voice over): Today the Supreme Court took up its biggest abortion case in a generation. Hundreds on both sides of the emotional debate gathered outside the high court as the justices inside heard two hours of dramatic arguments concerning a Mississippi law banning abortion after 15 weeks.

The law is a direct challenge to abortion rights established by the landmark Roe v. Wade in 1973 and reaffirmed by Planned Parenthood v. Casey in 1992. Mississippi Solicitor General Scott Stewart took aim at those precedents in his opening.

SCOTT STEWART, MISSISSIPPI SOLICITOR GENERAL: Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood versus Casey haunt our country. They have no basis in the Constitution. They have no home in our history or traditions. They've damaged the Democratic process. They've poisoned the law.

REID: Justice Sotomayor, a consistent supporter of women's rights grilled Stewart.

SONIA SOTOMAYOR, ASSOCIATE JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES: Will this institution survive the stench that this creates in the public perception that the Constitution and its reading are just political acts? I don't see how it is possible.

REID: While Chief Justice John Roberts appeared to be looking for a middle ground to allow states to ban abortion earlier than 23 to 24 weeks when a fetus is considered viable.

JOHN ROBERTS, CHIEF JUSTICE OF THE UNITED STATES: Why would 15 weeks be an inappropriate line? Viability it seems to me doesn't have anything to do with choice, but if it really is an issue about choice, why is 15 weeks not enough time?

REID: Justice Alito seemed to want to go further.

SAMUEL ALITO, ASSOCIATE JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES: The fetus has an interest in having a life, and that doesn't change, does it, from the point before viability to the point after viability?

REID: U.S. Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar, who argued the case on behalf of the federal government warned about the dire consequences of overturning Roe.

ELIZABETH PRELOGAR, UNITED STATES SOLICITOR GENERAL: Nearly half of the states already have or are expected to enact bans on abortion at all stages of pregnancy, many without exceptions for rape or incest.

Women who are unable to travel hundreds of miles to gain access to legal abortion will be required to continue with their pregnancies and give birth with profound effects on their bodies, their health and the course of their lives.

REID: The court's six to three conservative majority appeared poised to uphold the Mississippi law, but it was less clear if there was a majority to end the federal right to abortion. A key vote, Justice Kavanaugh appeared skeptical that the interests of pregnant women and fetuses can both be accommodated.

[22:05:03]

BRETT KAVANAUGH, ASSOCIATE JUSTICE, UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT: The reason this issue is hard is you can't accommodate both interests. You have to pick. That's the fundamental problem.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

REID (on camera): We don't expect an opinion in this case until June, maybe even early July when major rulings are released. Now recently, the justices also heard arguments on a Texas abortion law prohibiting most abortions in that state. The justices have not issued an opinion on that case either. So, we may have to wait until early summer to get answers on this critical issue. Don?

LEMON: All right, thank you so much. Now I want to bring in CNN senior political analyst Nia-Malika Henderson and CNN legal analyst Laura Coates. Good evening to both of you.

Man, this is huge news, and we're waiting to see what happens. It sure sounds like, Laura, that the Supreme Court's conservative majority is prepared to uphold Mississippi's law banning abortions after 15 weeks. The question is will they toss out Roe v. Wade all together?

LAURA COATES, CNN SENIOR LEGAL ANALYST: You know, it's always difficult. We try to retain that glass half full thought process about trying to read the tea leaves. Sometimes the judges ask questions with a guide toward how they'll rule. Other times not so much.

But I think this is a clear indication of how they are leaning already. The question here really is whether they are prepared for the pushback and the fallout of disrupting a 50-year precedent.

Remember, people order their lives, frankly, around Supreme Court precedent. And while it's true there are some instances while Supreme Court precedent has been overturned, I point to of course separate but equal a notion that, of course, was obliterated down the road with good reason.

This is not one of those instances. Nothing fundamentally is changed in terms of the law, in terms of the rationale other than the actual composition of the court. And there are some genuine concerns here about whether they're prepared to say that there is no longer a fundamental right, there is no right to privacy, there is no equal protection considerations and due process and liberty fairness issues here just because what, it's a woman and not a man?

And it really blows out of the water any credible notion for me that when you have these confirmation hearings and Supreme Court justices give the script that essentially says I'm not prepared to talk about an issue that may come under. It's settled law.

That all sounds a lot like, to quote the President of the United States, a bunch of malarkeys if you have every intention to disrupt what your own precedent already says only because there is new people on this court. Nothing else has changed.

LEMON: Yes. And speaking of that idea of precedent, Nia, and what they have said before, this is Brett Kavanaugh, what he had to say during a Senate confirmation hearing. Listen to this.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. DIANNE FEINSTEIN (D-CA): What would you say your position today is on a woman's right to choose?

KAVANAUGH: As a judge --

FEINSTEIN: As a judge.

KAVANAUGH: As a judge, it is an important precedent of the Supreme Court. By it, I mean Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood versus Casey been reaffirmed many times. Casey is precedent on precedent. Which itself is an important factor.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

LEMON (on camera): OK. Now Susan Collins around that time.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. SUSAN COLLINS (R-ME): We talked about whether he considered Roe to be settled law. He said that he agreed with what Justice Roberts said at his nomination hearing in which he said that it was settled law.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

LEMON (on camera): OK, Nia. So, remember, it was really close. She was a deciding vote at least because it was 50-50, right?

NIA-MALIKA HENDERSON, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL REPORTER: Right.

LEMON: Close to that. Yes. So fast forward to today. Kavanaugh presented a list of cases where the Supreme Court overturned long held precedents. What happened to Senator Collins assuring people Kavanaugh thought Roe was settled law?

HENDERSON: Listen, I think she was much more gullible than, for instance, Dianne Feinstein who said listen, she's had many people come before Congress who wanted to get on the Supreme Court and said, you know, they believed in the principle of stare decisis and the president takes precedent and not overturning precedent, and she's seen those same judges go and overturn precedent.

So, she was much more skeptical of what Kavanaugh was saying and you had of course there with Collins believing what Kavanaugh said. Listen, I think what is most important here is what did Donald Trump say in 2016?

He was going to appoint justices to the Supreme Court that would overturn Roe v. Wade. It's why many Republicans supported him in 2016 and continue to support him. So, guess what? He appointed three justices there to fulfill his campaign promise.

And it certainly looks like if you listen to some of the questioning today, if you look at the background of the Trump justices, it certainly looks like they are prepared not only to affirm the Mississippi law banning abortion beyond 15 weeks, but also overturn Roe versus Wade.

[22:10:07]

This is what they are there to do. It's been a long, long, decades' long 50-year battle for conservatives and Republicans. And so now they have the opportunity to make good on this fight.

LEMON: I want to put up this map, Laura. If the court was to reverse Roe v. Wade, 26 states are certain, are likely to ban abortion almost immediately. So, take Louisiana as an example. The nearest clinic for three and five women would be in Illinois. And for the rest of the women, it would be Kansas or North Carolina. It is a drastic shift. Who is going to have the most impact here?

COATES: People who are not able to travel in order to make medical decisions or act on informed medical decisions. People who do not have the resources to do it. It will fall disparately on women of color and people of color in general who are more likely to fall in that category.

This is not to suggest -- and I want to be very clear. Whenever I heard this argument be made that abortion restriction will overwhelmingly impact women of color and black women, it's not to suggest nor should anyone suggest that only black women or women of color are having abortions.

This is a very universalized experience for women. But it's oftentimes talked about as if it only impacts. But it does have a disparate impact because of socio-economic factors here.

LEMON: Resources. COATES: But remember, one of the issues here that is so important to

think about are the reasons the Supreme Court justices are even thinking about possibly overturning Roe v. Wade.

Take Justice Amy Coney Barrett who said, well, I don't understand, I'm paraphrasing here, I don't understand. Don't the safe haven laws get to the issues that you want to address? Safe haven laws being you can hand your newborn into a safe space, that penalty of having abandoned your child if you terminate your parental rights.

Isn't that the same thing as terminating one's pregnancy because there is a different burden at stake here? It's a fundamental misconception of what is being talked about.

The idea that you're going to say as long as you can terminate parental rights and put your child up for adoption, that is the same thing as being able to have the choice and agency to terminate one's pregnancy is so flawed.

So is Justice Kavanaugh's thought here, Don, where he suggests the Supreme Court just ought to be neutral. Well, I want a Supreme Court that's neutral, said no one ever. The whole role of the judicial nine is to be able to be decisive and make decisions where the lower courts particularly have conflict.

And in Mississippi, there has been no conflict. Courts have said, the lower courts have said it's unconstitutional. So, by virtue of even taking this case, Don, you already see the leanings.

LEMON: Yes. And perhaps you're right about people of color, women of color. It's a resource issue. Maybe it should be women of color and poor people of -- poor women of every different ethnicity.

COATES: It affects women.

LEMON: Yes. I do --

COATES: It affects women.

HENDERSON: Yes.

LEMON: That (Inaudible) thinking about. It affects women, and women ought the have the same rights as men. No one is curtailing the use of vasectomies. No one is talking about what men are able to do. So just to put it in the language of how it will only impact one race or another, it impacts the gender. That is women.

LEMON: Yes. Nia, I'll give you the last word here.

HENDERSON: No, I think that's right. And if you look at the reasons a lot of women get abortions, they're economic reasons. Some of these women already have kids. So, they know about the burdens of parenting.

A lot of these women are unmarried as well, and this is across all socio-economic and racial lines as well. You had one of the people fighting to overturn Roe v. Wade said, well, listen, society is set up now where, you know, states help people, help women with child care and they get leave.

Well, they don't get paid leave, right? If you work at the Winn Dixie in Mississippi and you become pregnant and you need to take time off because of your health during that pregnancy or when you have the baby, your employer is very unlikely to give you paid leave to take care of that child.

So, this is -- you know, there is a real fundamental misunderstanding I think of the ways women go about their child bearing decisions and sort of the dilemmas they face when it comes to abortion.

LEMON: Nia, Laura, thank you so much. I appreciate it.

HENDERSON: Thanks, Don.

LEMON: There is news tonight from the January 6 committee, moving to hold a former DOJ official in contempt while giving him one last chance to cooperate. But if he wants to plead the fifth, he'll have to do it in person, over and over.

[22:15:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

LEMON (on camera): So, we have some breaking news right now. The January 6 select committee voting tonight to hold former Justice Department official Jeffrey Clark in criminal contempt for defying his subpoena.

But the committee is also giving Clark one last chance to cooperate on Saturday in light of a new letter he sent stating that he intends to claim fifth amendment protect. The committee reportedly now plans to wait to hold a full House vote on contempt -- on the contempt report until after the weekend.

So, joining me now CNN's legal analyst Elliot Williams. Elliott, thanks for joining us. I appreciate it.

So, it looks like Jeffrey Clark will be held in contempt. But first he is going to meet with the committee again where he plans to take the fifth. What does this -- what does that all mean for this investigation?

ELLIOT WILLIAMS, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: Well, a few things. One, he may not actually be held in contempt. Because if he comes in on Saturday and actually provides information, they don't need to go through with the contempt vote. What this does is it puts contempt over his head and gives a greater incentive for him to testify.

Now what happens on Saturday? They really put him in a tough spot here, Don. Because what he can either do is assert the fifth amendment, that's his right to remain silent, which he certainly has with respect to every single question they ask him.

And they ought to go through and ask him an entire litany of questions. Or provide them information. So, either way they come out on top. And this was sort of a pretty effective power move on the committee's part.

LEMON: So, we know officials who worked with Clark at the DOJ like Jeffrey Rosen have already been talking to the committee. So, what do you think they're after here?

WILLIAMS: Look, even basic information. If you look at the transcript of his deposition in the committee report, he wouldn't even answer questions on the record about public statements he made to the press.

[22:20:03]

So even basic things that he's already said publicly he won't even say to the committee. So, number one, just what's your name and who did you work for and what did you do, get that information out there. But number two, what were policies and practices within the Justice Department at the time.

Number two, what was the extent of your communication with either the president or other White House staff. Number three, what was your personal involvement in sending the letters to the state of Georgia, trying to get them involved and so on.

So, there is plenty of information. And again, if they just walk through it and make him in effect admit that he thinks he might have committed a crime, which is what a fifth amendment assertion at least implies, that that's very good for the committee.

LEMON: You sound like an attorney there, Elliot.

WILLIAMS: Should I -- OK. Should I use smaller words --

(CROSSTALK)

LEMON: No, no, no. I'm just saying the way that you -- what you said would question. No, no, no. That's fine. You're saying attorneys are smart? Kidding.

WILLIAMS: Well, you know.

LEMON: So, listen.

WILLIAMS: No, but I think -- but I think they know what they're doing. I think a lot of people and I'm serious about that, Don.

LEMON: Yes.

WILLIAMS: I think a lot of people will see giving him a second chance to come in --

LEMON: Yes.

WILLIAMS: -- as a sign of weakness or putting it off. That's actually quite wise because if he doesn't behave, that gives them even more to put into their report and even more to give to the Justice Department.

LEMON: But you're right. It was a pretty smart tactic, I think -- WILLIAMS: Yes.

LEMON: -- to actually get him in. Because -- it was good strategy.

WILLIAMS: Yes.

LEMON: Look, every time I see Liz Cheney, I say look, she is a woman on an island by herself. And the strength just to stand up to do the right thing in this environment I think is just incredible and to be admired. Check out what the vice chair Liz Cheney said about the former president. This was tonight. Here it is.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REP. LIZ CHENEY (R-WY): President Trump continues to make the same false claims about a stolen election with which he has misled millions of Americans. These are the same claims he knows provoked violence in the past.

Any communications Mr. Trump has with this committee will be under oath. And if he persists in lying then, he will be accountable under the laws of this great nation and subject to criminal penalties for every false word he speaks.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

LEMON (on camera): OK. Mr. Attorney, what do you think she is getting at with that?

WILLIAMS: Yes. I am so glad you used that second clip there, that under oath one. Because what she says immediately before that is that the president is offering to debate members of this committee. And she says that is nonsense.

This is not some serious playground taunts thing. This is a standing committee of Congress. And if you wish to have words with any of us, you can come in and do it under oath and then be prosecuted for perjury or contempt of Congress if you choose not to apply.

So, you know, it again, it's putting him -- putting him in a tough position -- well, not in a tough position. But either come in and testify and be held in contempt or prosecuted or Lord knows what. So, but it's serious, but it's serious though.

And like you said, she's on an island and alone among her party, which is the great tragedy of what should have been a fully bipartisan process.

LEMON: And to the saga of Mark Meadows, what do you -- what about him? Do you think they're going to get any valuable information from him?

WILLIAMS: I don't know, because, look, you know, 6,000 e-mails, which is what he is said to have provided. Six thousand e-mails can also be re Cohen, re Cohen, re Cohen.

LEMON: I don't know if I have written 6,000 e-mails in my entire --

(CROSSTALK)

WILLIAMS: right. Not, but it might be forwards of e-mails.

LEMON: -- since the e-mails been around.

WILLIAMS: It might be forwards of e-mails or things. So, we don't know what he is actually providing. And the devil is really in the details, Don, when it comes to exactly how much information and what both he and the committee think privilege is with respect to the president and so on.

So, yes, and I've seen this happen countless times. Both at the Justice Department and in Congress where you think someone is coming in to testify. You think you have an agreement, and that first question comes out of the lawyer's mouth and it all falls apart. So, cautiously optimistic that they're going to get information out of him, but it's just not clear.

LEMON: Thank you, Elliot.

WILLIAMS: Thank you, Donald.

LEMON: I'm not Donald, by the way.

WILLIAMS: Boy.

LEMON: It's just Don. By the way, the internet has my middle name wrong.

WILLIAMS: Well, I know. I was going to --

(CROSSTALK)

LEMON: I've been wanting to correct that.

WILLIAMS: I was going to go with the full internet name.

LEMON: My middle name is not Carlton.

WILLIAMS: Donald Carlton --

LEMON: No. Never has been.

WILLIAMS: Lemon.

LEMON: Yes. All right. Thank you.

WILLIAMS: Got you. Thanks, Don.

LEMON: It's not Donald either, just Don. Thank you. I'll see you soon.

Outrage tonight over a report that then president tested positive for coronavirus three days before his first debate against Joe Biden. Did he put Biden's life in danger?

[22:25:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

LEMON (on camera): So, bombshell new details tonight on when the then president tested positive for COVID. In excerpts of a new book first obtained by The Guardian, former White House chief of staff Mark Meadows writes his former boss -- and I quote here, tested positive, I don't know, a quote here. But this is what he says, tested positive for COVID on September 26, 2020.

That is three days before his first debate with Joe Biden, and almost a week before he publicly acknowledged it. September 26th was also the day of a White House event for then Supreme Court nominee Amy Coney Barrett that turned out to be a super spreader event. Remember that? At least 12 attendees later tested positive.

Meadows says later that day, the White House doctor called to say Trump tested positive on a first COVID test. Former president denying the report tonight.

[22:30:02]

So, joining me now to discuss CNN medical analyst Dr. Jonathan Reiner. So here we go, doc. Man, man, man. Look, this revelation in the book, what do you think of it? Because he worked for the president. This is the president's guy. He was at the debate with Joe Biden. They weren't -- he wasn't wearing a mask. He looked out of it. I mean, he -- was he -- did he put the nominee and now president Biden's life in danger?

JONATHAN REINER, CNN MEDICAL ANALYST: He put so many people's lives in danger. You know, Don, just when you think that we couldn't stuff anymore disgraceful behavior into the scrapbook of that administration, now we learn that the White House knew the president of the United States was infected with the coronavirus three days before the debate with Joe Biden.

Now we know who the super spreader actually was at the Amy Coney Barrett announcement when seven people, including the first lady, including Chris Christie, including two United States senators got infected. This is really an astonishing admission of reckless behavior. On so many parts.

First of all, Mr. Meadows sort of laughs this off as well, Trump will be Trump. But Mr. Meadows is complicit in this. This was a reportable health event. When you test positive for the coronavirus, it gets sent to the county. And what should be going on is contact tracing.

And when the White House physician identified the President of the United States as being positive for COVID, everything should have stopped. He should have gone into isolation. It should have -- and then they should have started tracing all the contacts the president was likely to have had from the time they think he was likely infected. But yet they hid this. That was an incredible dereliction of duty on

the part of the White House physician. And if the president had ordered him to keep this quiet, that was an unlawful order, and he should -- he should have refuse to -- refused to obey that or just simply resign.

The president endangered the people at that event. He endangered the people at a gold star family event the next day. He endangered his Secret Service entourage, the people that fly him on Air Force One, and he endangered vice president -- then Vice President Biden at the debate. An astonishing, dishonest, reckless, reckless disregard for human life.

LEMON: Look, it's awful. I'm not surprised, though. Donald Trump lied. I mean, he tells more lies than he tells the truth. You know that old thing, how do you know one is lying, his mouth is moving.

REINER: Right, his mouth is moving.

LEMON: But when it comes to something like, this even -- because they're saying they thought it was false positive. Whatever. Whatever. If you come back and say that, B.S., whatever you thought. Even if it's a false positive, you still don't continue to act as if it's not. You should be quarantining. You should be taking precautions. You should be wearing masks.

REINER: Yes.

LEMON: Social distancing around people. You should be telling people, look, I don't know if it's -- I don't know if it's a false positive or not. I'm going to with precaution to, you know, and deference to the other person, to Joe Biden on the stage and for all of the other people that I have to be with, I'm just going sit tight. Maybe we can reschedule the debate.

Whatever it is that you have to do. Or you know, whatever it is. The Rose Garden event. I mean, it's just, it's unbelievable. And Meadows is now claiming that Trump first tested positive with an old model kit, then he tested negative with an antigen test. I mean, --

(CROSSTALK)

REINER: Now the --

LEMON: Go on.

REINER: The president tested positive almost certainly with a PCR test, the most reliable test. And then they tried to verify it with the less reliable antigen test. And if they differed, you would always do a tiebreaker with the most reliable test which would be another PCR test.

You know, the night that you basically broke the news that the president was positive five days later, we all waited for a result that was sent to Bethesda, which was a PCR test, a confirmer to test was another PCR test. The White House knew that the president was positive.

And when you think -- and remember, he wasn't retested before the debate because they knew he would be positive. And that president was not going to -- was not going to cancel that debate. It didn't matter who he hurt.

LEMON: Wow. Awful. There are no words. Thank you, doctor. I appreciate it.

[22:35:00]

REINER: Have a good night.

LEMON: You, too. Can you believe that? Seriously. Think about that. And he was the president. Sad.

The suspect in the Michigan high school shooting appearing in court for the first time, and he is facing two dozen charges, including terrorism and first-degree murder.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

LEMON (on camera): The 15-year-old suspect in the killing of four students in a school shooting in Michigan making his first appearance in court today. Prosecutors deciding to try him as an adult with charges ranging from terrorism to first-degree murder.

Here is CNN's Alexandra Field.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNKNOWN: I will enter a plea of not guilty on his behalf.

ALEXANDRA FIELD, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice over): The accused school shooter 15-year-old Ethan Crumbley now charged as an adult, appearing virtually at his arraignment along with his parents and attorneys.

[22:40:01]

KAREN MCDONALD, OAKLAND COUNTY PROSECUTOR: This was not just an impulsive act. It was absolutely premeditated.

FIELD: The suspected gunman facing four counts of first-degree murder, a slew of weapons and assault charges, and a charge of terrorism after a five-minute shooting attack in the halls of Oxford high school.

MCDONALD: What about all the children who ran screaming, hiding under desks. What about all the children at home right now who can't eat and can't sleep and can't imagine a world where they could ever set back -- foot back in that school? Those are victims too, and so are their families and so is the community. And the charge of terrorism reflects that.

FIELD: Video from inside the high school 40 miles north of Detroit shows the shooter armed with a semiautomatic handgun firing at victims at close range, according to the Oakland County sheriff, aiming towards their heads and chests, but appearing to shoot at random.

MICHAEL BOUCHARD, SHERIFF, OAKLAND COUNTY, MICHIGAN: We can't wrap our head around the incredible cold-blooded murder of kids.

FIELD: Seventeen-year-old Justin Shilling succumbing today to his injuries. Sixteen-year-old Tate Myre, 14-year-old Hana St. Juliana, and 17-year-old Madisyn Baldwin also killed in the shooting spree. And seven others injured while investigators say the suspect fired off some 30 rounds. Three are still in the hospital tonight.

Two videos recovered from the suspect's cell phone show him talking about shooting and killing students at Oxford high school the night before the attack, according to investigators.

The Oakland County sheriff's office says no law enforcement agency was aware of threats prior to the shooting. But tonight, there are new questions about the suspect's so-called concerning behavior at school the day before and the morning of the attack.

BOUCHARD: In fact, the parents were brought in the morning of the shooting and had a face-to-face meeting with the school. The content of that meeting obviously is part of the investigation, but we did not learn of that meeting nor of the content of that meeting until after the shooting.

FIELD: A search of the 15-year-old's family home has turned up some of his writings in a journal found in a backpack describes his desire to shoot up the school according to authorities. While investigators say they're still combing through a mountain of digital evidence and social media posts, including possible clues about how much experience the suspect had with weapons.

ZANDER CUMBEY, JUNIOR, OXFORD HIGH SCHOOL: I heard screams come from the hallway, and the first gunshot happened.

UNKNOWN: Drop your backpacks!

FIELD: New video from inside the school showing the chaos and panic.

UNKNOWN: He said bro, red flags.

FIELD: And this moment when a knock on a classroom had students fearing that a person the sheriff now says was the first responder on the scene might have been the shooter himself outside their classroom door.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

LEMON (on camera): Alexandra field joins me now. Alexandra, good evening to you. Prosecutors are even considering bringing charges against the parents. What can you tell us?

FIELD: Yes, a decision has not been reached yet. It could come soon. Certainly, it's something that the prosecutor has alluded to, talking about the responsibilities of gun ownership, gun storage, protecting access to guns. Officials said earlier that the weapon used in the shooting had been

bought just a few days before the attack by the suspect's father. So, we are still standing by to see if there could be further charges. Don?

LEMON: Alexandra Field, thank you so much. I appreciate that.

New calls on Capitol Hill for this country to do something about guns in the wake of another tragic school shooting that left four students dead. I want you to listen to this impassioned speech from Democratic Congresswoman Lucy McBath.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REP. LUCY MCBATH (D-GA): Do you, this body, have the courage to do what is right to save our children and to protect our families? And if not, do you really truly have the courage to look away?

(END VIDEO CLIP)

LEMON (on camera): Tragically, she lost her own son to gun violence. And Congressman -- Congresswoman, excuse me, Lucy McBath joins me now. Congresswoman, thank you so much. I appreciate you joining.

Listen, I know this is for you probably brings a lot of the emotions back. Sadly, you know this pain better than anyone. You just marked nine years since you lost your son. What are the families of Michigan feeling tonight, Congresswoman?

MCBATH: Well, Don, I know I am just absolutely devastated, as you could tell by my remarks on the floor, on the House today. And time and time again, we go through this. You know, children are trembling in terror in the corners of their classrooms and parents are scared, you know, that they're going to send their children to school and their children are never going to come home.

[22:44:59]

And it's on days like yesterday that we hear the stories of teenagers that are texting, you know, their parents from behind the desks, saying things like mom, if I don't come home, I love you, and thank you for everything that you've done for me.

You know, parents begging their children to barricade themselves behind the school doors to hide in classrooms. And to please just to be quiet. Don't say a word. Don't cry out loud. Don't make a sound.

And now we have more mothers and more fathers who had to bury their babies. Families that will be burying their children. And the children who have survived have had to live with the trauma, they will live with this trauma, you know, the trauma of stepping over a friend, you know, who's dying there on the floor, bleeding to death.

You know, we've got to put ourselves in the shoes of these parents and the shoes of those who have, you know, gotten the news that every parent in this country dreads to get. The parents who have gasped for air in their desperation when they simply cannot breathe over the news of these kinds of tragedies that their children are suffering by.

You know, I know that pain. And far too many parents across this country now know the very same pain. You know, we've got to have the courage to do what's right as a body in Congress. We have to have the courage. We've got save our children. We've got protect our families, because I know this pain of burying a child, and no parent should ever have to go through that pain.

LEMON: I want to -- I want to talk about what you plan to do about it after this with the Federal Extreme Risk Protection Order Act. If you will just stick with me, I want to take a quick break, and we'll come back and we'll talk about solutions that you are offering. We'll be right back with the congresswoman.

[22:50:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

LEMON (on camera): I'm back now with Congresswoman Lucy McBath. So, Congresswoman, let's talk about your bill, the Federal Extreme Risk Protection Order Act, also known as a red flag law. Ready for a vote in the House. You say it would help prevent many school and mass shootings. Many schools and mass shootings, I should say. Do you think this tragedy in Michigan will push Congress to act? Hopefully it will, but what do you think?

MCBATH: Well, I believe it will. I introduced this legislation it's been marked up by the judiciary committee and it's actually passed out of the judiciary committee. And (Inaudible) to give loved ones along with law enforcement that ability to ensure that when an individual poses a threat possibly to themselves or others, they appear to be in crisis.

That these are tools that those loved ones can use with law enforcement that actually go to the court, that can petition the judge to possibly have those guns confiscated from that individual until it's deemed that they're no longer a threat to themselves or to others.

And we know that this red flag -- the red flag laws work. We know that they work to prevent school and mass shootings, shootings where many of the perpetrators actually displayed clear indicators of their dangerous behaviors before the attack.

It can also be used to protect loved ones from suicide, ensuring those who are thinking of harming themselves do not actually have access to a firearm. There is bipartisan support for this legislation. It was originally introduced by Senators Lindsey Graham and Richard Blumenthal in the Senate.

So, we know the legislation is really something that is going to truly make a difference, it's already doing so in other states around the country.

LEMON: Interesting. Let's see if, you know, if it's still bipartisan, if there is still bipartisan support for it because you know, Congresswoman, the reality is Republicans could very likely take control of the Senate and House and come 2022 and they are not going to go for any gun legislation.

I mean, it's been shown, I know you said this has bipartisan support but so far, you know, it's still being introduced and nothing has happened. Is the window closing to do something, do you think?

MCBATH: Well, Don, I'll tell you this, all of my life I have been working to bring people together. I remember watching my father when I was a small child in the kitchen of our home in the 1960s. He was Illinois president of the NAACP and together they were all working together in our kitchen, in our house preparing for the marches and the rallies to really make a difference for communities all over the state of Illinois.

And ever since I was little, I was with my parents fighting right alongside them for what is right and for what is just. I was taught to organize and to bring people along -- alongside me to fight for others, to fight for the least of these.

Because if you're fighting to protect people, the journey is going to be long, absolutely. But you're going to make a difference. And that's the opportunity that we have in front of us right now. It's every parent's worst nightmare, their worst fear of losing their child and keeping our kids safe has never been a partisan issue.

[22:55:04]

It never has been, and I know that all the work that is being done by myself and my colleagues and all the gun violence prevention organizations and leaders and volunteers, it is going to happen. It will happen because it's the right thing to do.

LEMON: Congresswoman, I appreciate you joining us. You take care. Thank you.

MCBATH: You, too. Thank you.

LEMON: The Omicron variant now confirmed to be in the United States. We're going to tell you what you need to know.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

LEMON (on camera): Scientists said it was inevitable and now the first confirmed case of the Omicron variant has turned up in California in a person who recently traveled to South Africa.

[22:59:58]

Historic oral arguments in the Supreme Court on a Mississippi law banning abortion after 15 weeks. The case is a direct challenge to Roe v. Wade and abortion rights in the U.S. are at stake tonight.