Return to Transcripts main page

Don Lemon Tonight

January 6th Conducts Urgent Hearing Tomorrow; States Now Starts Banning Abortion; V.P. Harris Warns Of More Move By The SCOTUS; FBI Seized John Eastman's Phone; Train Accident Killed Three In Missouri. Aired 10-11p ET

Aired June 27, 2022 - 22:00   ET




SARA SIDNER, CNN NATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Thanks for sticking with me. I'll be back Wednesday night. DON LEMON TONIGHT starts right now. Hey, don.

DON LEMON, CNN HOST: I can't wait to see you on Wednesday, Sara Sidner. Have a good one.


And we're going to talk about mystery. There's a mystery, a surprise that nobody saw coming, really, a surprise and a mystery. The January 6th committee rushing to add another hearing tomorrow afternoon. It's going to begin at one o'clock, but refusing to say who is testifying. A source telling CNN the committee is concerned about the security of a potential witness. What does all this mean?

They're adding another person, right, they just decided to do it and they concerned about security? And they say they have recently obtained evidence, so what does the committee know now that they didn't know before?

Meanwhile, the DOJ's investigation is heating up tonight. The lawyer who told the then President Trump that Mike Pence could single- handedly block certification of the election, spoiler alert, he could not. That lawyer, John Eastman said the FBI seized his phone and got access to his e-mail account. Here is the video.


UNKNOWN: Sir, would you put those hands up for me.

UNKNOWN: There's been --

UNKNOWN: Put your hands up.


LEMON: And it happened the same day the feds raided the home of Jeffrey Clark, the former DOJ official who pushed Trump's false election brought fraud claims. More to come on all of that.

Plus, chaos and confusion all across this country in the wake of the Supreme Court overturning Roe v. Wade, more and more states rushing to ban abortion. The latest, South Carolina, a federal judge today allowing the state to ban abortions beginning around six weeks and that makes at least 10 states would ban or severe restrictions, another 14 where bans or severe restrictions are certainly -- certain or likely, I should say, so nearly half this country, nearly half this country, a right that Americans have had for almost 50 years, is vanishing.

And outrage is growing over a court that seems to be out of step with the majority of Americans. Six in ten Americans, six in ten disapprove of the court's decision. So, what happens when millions of people in this country no longer have faith in the highest court in the land? That's not good.

Also, a CNN exclusive tonight. The Vice President Kamala Harris in her first interview since the Roe ruling, warning Clarence Thomas and conservatives on the court could also take away more rights, like the right to birth control. The right to same sex relationships, the right of gay people, gay couples, to get married.


KAMALA HARRIS, VICE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: I definitely believe this is not over. I do. I think he just said the quiet part out loud. I think that is why we all must really understand the significance of what's just happened. This is profound. And the way that this decision has come down, has been so driven, I think, by the politics of the issue. First is what's should be the values that we place on freedom and liberty in our country?


LEMON: It is a fascinating interview. And we have more on that coming up. Plus, dramatic eyewitness accounts from the deadly Amtrak derailment in Missouri today, the train on its way from L.A. to Chicago. Three people killed. At least 50 injured.


UNKNOWN: Are you all right?

UNKNOWN: Yes, sir.


LEMON: Frightening. A lot going on. But I want to begin with the hastily scheduled hearing by the January 6th committee and what it could mean. Let's discuss with the former FBI director, deputy director Andrew McCabe and the Nixon White House counsel, John dean.

Good evening to both of you. As I said, this is a mystery. It's certainly a sensible. I cannot wait to see what happens. John, for the committee to suddenly announce this unexpected hearing, it adds to the intrigue. You say this had better be a big deal. I agree. Why?

JOHN DEAN, CNN CONTRIBUTOR: Well, I look back at history to see when I last did a surprise hearing like this with a surprise witness. And it was Alex Butterfield during the Senate Watergate committee hearing. And he was a big witness. He set a high bar. So, I tweeted that, and I got a really remarkable reaction from thousands of people, including some well-informed people that told me, don't worry. It's a big deal.


LEMON: OK. Thousands of well-informed people? We'll see. All right.

DEAN: Well, --

LEMON: We'll see. Go ahead, do would you like to respond to that, John?

DEAN: Well, I might have over spoken on thousands. Some well-informed people, some particularly well-informed people responded and told me, don't worry.

LEMON: OK. It's a big deal. Andrew McCabe, CNN is learning that the January 6th committee is concerned about the safety of a potential hidden witness ahead of tomorrow's hearing, and that is according to sources familiar with the panel's plans. I mean, it's part of the reason why the committee is being so secretive about who will appear. Give us your read on that. Does that offer any clues here?

ANDREW MCCABE, CNN SENIOR LAW ENFORCEMENT ANALYST: You know, it really doesn't, Don. It's kind of a strange thing to say, typically when you have security concerns for a witness, you would probably try to keep that quiet and then you would take some action to ensure or to increase the security for that witness. Like having a witness testify behind a screen, so that the rest of the world can actually see who they are by changing the tenor of their voice, so you could, you know, mask that in some way.

It's a little bit odd that they drew attention, to the fact that somebody is having security concerns, that's not typically the way you would do it. But, you know, it's kind of a fascinating mystery. I agree with John. They've really drawn a lot of attention to this thing now. So, I hope those informed people are correct. So, it could be something significant.

LEMON: Or could it be the person that some people wanted to hang on January 6th?

MCCABE: There are a lot of people who have been mentioned conspicuously in the testimony so far. That person, the former White House counselor Pat Cipollone, Jeffrey Clark, John Eastman, there's many people and I'm not predicting that any of them will be our witness tomorrow, but there are a lot of people who have been referred to repeatedly, who maybe have decided hey, I'm going to go down and sit down and tell my own story in front of the committee. So, there's all kinds of possibilities there.

LEMON: So I guess you guys don't want to say who you think it could be, right? You don't want to go and do that.

MCCABE: Not a chance.

LEMON: No. And a resounding no --


DEAN: No speculation.

LEMON: -- from the peanut gallery. No speculation. OK, so listen, Andrew. The committee has publicly pressured the former White House counsel, Pat Cipollone, as you said, to publicly testify. There's also documentary footage that they recently obtained that included interview with Trump and his family. Whatever we'll see tomorrow, do you think it's time sensitive? Do you think that they want to get it out as soon as possible? Are they up against the clock somehow? I don't -- I don't know.

MCCABE: It definitely seems time sensitive to me, Don. I mean, to squeeze this, you know, shoehorn this hearing in on the week before the holiday weekend, it's really bizarre. Most of the, you know, most of Congress is probably home for the weekend at this point.

I think, though, time sensitive could also be, the committee realizes they got a lot of attention with that hearing last Thursday about the pressure that the administration put on DOJ. That kind of created some positive momentum for these hearings in general. And I would suspect there's time pressure for them to basically finish off that story.

If this witness or evidence has something to do with that narrative, they would want to get it in quickly and in front of people before they forget, you know, two weeks goes by before they remember what happened last week. So, my guess is that it has something to do with the testimony we heard on Thursday, but again it's just a guess.

LEMON: John Dean, if the committee is dealing with a reluctant witness could that be part of this getting that person on or before he or she backs out?

DEAN: That could very well be the answer, Don, that they want to quickly get that person in. They've agreed to do it, then they want to get them there.


LEMON: I thought you said no speculation, John. We said no speculation, we're speculating, but go on.

DEAN: As you might have noticed we contributors do a lot of speculating just across the board. But Andrew has got a good point, that I think it is probably connected to the last set of hearings, and they want to tidy that up. And if that -- that would point towards Pat Cipollone, who I think has a moral obligation to appear, and he may well be the one that's coming in. He kind of fits the criteria.

LEMON: Yes. You know, it's interesting, I'll just say this. Unless it's a name a sort of household name, so to speak, if Pat Cipollone comes in, most of the American people are going to be like, who is that? I mean we're all paying attention, you say Pat Cipollone to the media folks, so the people who pay attention will go, wow, that's interesting. To the average American, they don't know, you know, Pat Cipollone from the guy in the deli. I mean, they have no idea. Do you understand what I'm saying, Andrew?

MCCABE: Yes, I think that's absolutely right, and I think that's probably true for the hearings generally. Right? The hearings are, you know, it's a compelling story, it's captivating to those people who have been following this narrative since January 6th, 2021.


So, there's a whole big part of the country that just is not that interested in learning about this, or rehashing it, or they want to purposely avoid it because it's not a pleasant memory for them. So, I think, you know, no matter who they put on tomorrow, there's going to be a lot of disappointment out there in terms of people saying ho-hum, what difference does it make.


MCCABE: Some of them are saying that for different reasons.

LEMON: Yes. I mean, I should have, it's Monday, I'm little (Inaudible). By Wednesday, I'm good. Monday, you know, I should have said they don't know him from Adam is what, is they're saying. So, we're learning that the FBI seized the Trump election attorney John Eastman's phone last week.

About six federal agents approached him as he was exiting a restaurant. And they got access to his e-mail account. Eastman is calling it improper. How significant is this? You know, also, would it give them, you know, give them access to any security communications that he might have had? I'll ask Andrew, and then I'll get John on it.

MCCABE: He very well might. And you know, let's remember that in this day and age of encrypted communications on applications like WhatsApp or Cignal, the only way that you can get the content of communications between people that use those platforms is to get your hands on one of the handsets, the telephones. That's the only place it gets decrypted.

So, it is important. The significance is clear. You, first of all, it took place on the same day as the Jeffrey Clark search warrant, which typically, when you are doing a big case and you have multiple search warrants, you try to do them on the same day. So, one warrant doesn't tip the other one off.

To serve a search warrant for the telephone of the president's -- the former president's lawyer is a very big deal under any circumstances. And one that would definitely have the absolute highest levels of the Department of Justice involved in that decision-making.

And finally, this one is a little bit strange, because according to the Eastman's allegations, you have FBI agents executing a search warrant on the behalf of the Department of Justice inspector general. That is very odd. I am not familiar with -- I've not seen that before in my career.

There is no question that this warrant is connected to an I.G. case because the documents used are inspector general documents, and the file number that they have on that document is not consistent with an FBI case file number. So, it's strange to me that the bureau would've been involved in executing the warrant. It's also a little bit questionable as to why the Department of Justice inspector general would be investigating a man, John Eastman, who never worked for the Department of Justice, all very interesting questions that hopefully we can get to the bottom of.

LEMON: Wow, even more mystery. Now I really want to know. I'm not kidding! John, you want to respond to that? Because before I want to play the soundbite for you. Do you want to respond to what he said?

DEAN: I would just add that I think because the inspector general is doing it, it looks like it's Jeffrey Clark, who is a -- he was an employee of the department, and he was obviously dealing with Eastman. So that ties them together, and that's why the FBI probably got the double assignment.

LEMON: John, this is something we heard from Eastman from the live and taped testimony last week.


REP. ADAM SCHIFF (D-CA): And what did Dr. Eastman want you to do?

RUSTY BOWERS, ARIZONA HOUSE SPEAKER: That we would, in fact, vote, take a vote to overthrow -- or I shouldn't say overthrow that we would decertify the electors.

UNKNOWN: What did the president say when he called you?

RONNA MCDANIEL, CHAIR, Republican NATIONAL COMMITTEE: Essentially, he turned the call over to Mr. Eastman, who then proceeded to talk about the importance of the RNC helping the campaign gather these contingent electors.


LEMON: Do you think ultimately be charged with a crime, John?

DEAN: Well, I don't know, but there's certainly some appearances of criminal activity here of what he was doing. I've debated John Eastman once when he was running for attorney general of California. They needed a quick sub debate. I found his legal thinking at that time strange and unusual. We debated Citizens United. I just wouldn't be as surprised if he had no hesitation crossing the line, and he's going to find himself in a deep, deep trouble.

LEMON: Thank you, John. Thank you, Andrew. We'll know tomorrow at 1 o'clock. You know it's fascinating? It hasn't leaked. This is Washington, D.C. Are you guys surprised it hasn't leaked? MCCABE: Yes.

DEAN: Yes.

MCCABE: Always surprised leak. Yes, totally.

LEMON: The night is still young. Sort of.

MCCABE: That's right.

LEMON: All right Thank you. Coming up, a CNN exclusive. Vice President Kamala Harris in her first interview since the Supreme Court overturned Roe. What she says is shocking about the ruling, and what it means for our democracy.



HARRIS: The court actually took a constitutional right that has been recognized for half a century, and took it from the women of America. That's shocking.



LEMON: The Vice President Kamala Harris saying tonight that when she was in the Senate, she never believes Supreme Court Justices Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh, during their confirmation hearings when they testified that Roe v. Wade was settled law. Last week, they voted to overturn.

In 2018, she grilled Brett Kavanaugh about whether the government has the ability to regulate men's bodies?


HARRIS: Can you think of any laws that give government the power to make decisions about the male body?


HARRIS: Male versus female?

KAVANAUGH: There are already medical procedures.

HARRIS: That the government has the power to make a decision about a man's body?

KAVANAUGH: I thought you were asking about medical procedures that are unique to man.

[22:20:01] HARRIS: No, I will repeat the question. Can you think of any laws that gives the government the power to make decisions about the male body?

KAVANAUGH: I'm not -- I'm not thinking of any right now, Senator.


LEMON: OK, interesting, considering what just happened. Harris said she was shocked when the high court overturned Roe on Friday. She sat down with CNN's Dana Bash for an exclusive interview.


DANA BASH, CNN CHIEF POLITICAL CORRESPONDENT: Madam Vice President, thank you so much for having me here. You were on a plane when the Supreme Court overturned --


BASH: -- Roe versus Wade. As the highest-ranking woman --


BASH: -- ever elected in U.S. history. What was going through your mind at that moment?

HARRIS: Well, so I was on Air Force Two, heading to Aurora, Illinois to talk about maternal health. We were with Lauren Underwood, with the chair of judiciary, Dick Durbin, Senate judiciary. We were headed there to unveil a plan based on the work we've been doing to ensure that women receive the kind of support they need during and post pregnancy.

And you know, we thought that the decision would come down sometime soon, but not at that moment. And I was shocked. You know, it's one thing when you know that something is going to happen. It's another thing when it actually happens. I just actually turned to CNN. And I couldn't believe it. I could not believe it because they actually did it.

And here's what they did. The court actually took a constitutional right that has been recognized for half a century, and took it from the women of America. That's shocking. When you think about it, in terms of what that means in terms of Democratic principles, in terms of the ideals upon which we were founded about liberty and freedom.

You know, I thought about it as a parent. We have two children who are in their 20s, a son and a daughter. I thought about it as a godparent, of teenagers. I thought of it as an aunt of preschool children.

BASH: And a woman yourself?

HARRIS: And a woman myself and the daughter of a woman, and a granddaughter of a woman, and you know, my husband and I are talking about it. We have a 23-year-old and my mother-in-law in her 80s. Our daughter will not know the rights for the amount of time that my mother-in-law knew these rights, which is the right that should be well settled that a woman should have to make decisions about her own body.

And when we think about it, everyone has something at risk on this. First of all, if you are a parent of sons, do think about what this means for the life of your son? And what that will mean in terms of the choices he will have? Do you think about it in the context of the fact that they wrote this decision including a concurring opinion that suggests that other rights such as the freedom to make decisions about when you are going to start a family? The freedom and the right to make decisions about contraception, IUDs. What this is going to mean in terms of invitro fertilization.

BASH: Let me ask you about that, because Justice Thomas, this is what you're referring to, --

HARRIS: Right.

BASH: -- did write a concurring opinion saying the court should reconsider other cases of precedent to protect same-sex marriage, contraception, intimacy, --

HARRIS: Right.

BASH: -- and more. Do you think that the Supreme Court is on a path to reverse those as well?

HARRIS: I definitely believe this is not over. I do. I think he just said the quiet part out loud. And I think that is why we all must really understand the significance of what just happened. This is profound. And the way that this decision has come down has been so driven, I think, by the politics of the issue, versus what should be the values that we place on, on freedom and liberty in our country, right, the right to privacy?

Let's think of this in the context of the laws that are being passed and states. Dana, in 13 states, by my count, they will not allow a woman to have access to reproductive health into an abortion if she is the victim of rape or incest.


So let me tell you something, as a former prosecutor who specialized in crimes of violence against women and girls, in particular, child sexual assault and rape, the idea that after a woman has endured such violence to her body that she would not have the freedom and authority to decide. Whether she wanted to continue with the pregnancy that is a result of an act of violence is absolutely unthinkable.

BASH: So, because you are now the Vice President of the United States, part of --


BASH: -- an administration that is pledging to fight back to find ways to protect women's rights to abortion, I want to ask you some of the things that are kind of out there that some of your former female senators, senate colleagues --


BASH: -- are asking the administration to do. Will the administration actively challenge state laws that make them it a crime for someone to help a woman travel to another state for an abortion.

HARRIS: So, the president rightly last week, when the decision came down, indicated quite unambiguous -- unambiguously, that we will do everything within our power as an administration through the executive branch to ensure that women have access to the medication they need, which has been, by the way, FDA approved, and that they will have freedom of travel and that that travel should be unrestricted.

BASH: And you are going to do that through the courts if need be?

HARRIS: I'm sure that our Department of Justice is going to do that based on every statement that the attorney general has made.

BASH: Can the administration expand abortion access or abortion services on federal land, meaning provide the access on federal land that might be in and around states that ban abortion?

HARRIS: I think that what is most important right now is that we ensure that the restrictions of the states are trying to put up, that would prohibit a woman from exercising what we still maintain is her right, that we do everything we can to empower women to not only seek but to receive the care where it is available.

BASH: Is the federal land one of those options?

HARRIS: I mean, it's not right now what we are discussing. But I will say that when I think about what is happening in terms of the states, we have to also recognize, Dana, that we are 130 odd days away from an election, which is going to include Senate races, right? Part of the issue here is that the court is acting, Congress needs to act.

But we, if you count the votes, don't appear to have the votes in the Senate. Well, there's an election happening in 130 odd days. I'm thinking, for example, thinking of the Senate race in Georgia or North Carolina. There's the Senate race coming up just in a couple of weeks in Colorado. And we need to change the balance and have pro-choice legislators who have the power to make decisions about whether this constitutional right will be in law, right? We say codify. Put it in law so that there will be no ambiguity about it.

BASH: And I want to ask you about that in one second.


BASH: Just a couple more questions, because what I'm hearing and you probably are too, is what can this Democratic administration do right now with any executive power that the president has?


BASH: Can the administration actually increase access to medication abortion?

HARRIS: I think we are pretty clear that to the extent that we can, we will. There's no question about that. Because again, it is FDA approved. And if it is prescribed, that a woman should be able to have access to it, unfettered.

BASH: And what about the idea of financial resources? Some form of voucher for travel, childcare services, other forms of support for people --


BASH: -- for women seeking abortions in states where it's not legal, --

HARRIS: Right.

BASH: -- but they just don't have the means to go elsewhere?

HARRIS: I think you are asking a very important point, making a very important point, which is what are the details that are going to go into ensuring that women have the ability to actually travel without impairment. And we know that on this issue, women who have access to the resources will probably be far less impacted by this decision than women who don't have resources.

So, this is something that we are looking at, because we know, for example, in terms of how this is actually impact real people, over half of women who receive abortions in America are moms. That means, that if they're going to have to travel, they've got to find daycare and pay for it. It means that they will, if they are working, which most are, they're going to have to have time from work. And if they don't have paid leave, they are going to figure out how to afford it.


I mean, that they may have to put up money for a train, or a bus, or a plane, much less a hotel. And so, we want to make sure that that does not result in any disparities or any disparities based on who can receive care based on how much money they've got.


LEMON: Very good interview. CNN's Dana Bash joins me now. Dana, thank you. As I said, that's a great reporting there. You also asked Vice President Harris about January 6th and former Vice President Mike Pence. What did she say to you?

BASH: Well, the question that everybody in Washington who is looking at these hearings (AUDIO GAP) the Biden Justice Department is going to, it all seek criminal charges against former the president Donald Trump. I asked about that.


BASH: The former Vice President, Mike Pence, has your opinion of him changed?

HARRIS: Well, I think that he did his job that day. And I commend him for that. Because clearly, it was under extraordinary circumstances that he should not have had to face, and I commend him for having the courage to do his job.


BASH: So, there you heard something that you don't hear very often, which is somebody like the vice president, who sat for a debate with and against Mike Pence and has not exactly been, you know, they're very much politically diametrically opposed.


BASH: But on this issue, Don, of January 6th, and specifically the role that he played in following his constitutional role on January 6th, she said that she commends him. I mentioned the January 6th prosecution, potential prosecution of Donald Trump, what she said was, as a former prosecutor she does not want to comment on another prosecutor's potential case.

LEMON: Which was the correct answer. Dana Bash, substantive --

BASH: Yes.

LEMON: -- informative, thank you very much. I appreciate it. Thanks.

BASH: Thanks, Don.

Democrats looking for ways to protect abortion rights across the U.S. and preparing for rulings that could come on other rights like gay marriage. But do they have any good options? That's the question.

Also ahead, an Amtrak train flips on its side after slamming into a truck. At least three people killed. We'll have the latest, next.



LEMON: Back now with more on our CNN exclusive interview with Vice President Kamala Harris, and what America -- what America's new reality will look like with abortion bans going into effect in states all across this country.

Here to discuss CNN's chief legal analyst, Mr. Jeffrey Toobin. Jeffrey, good to see you. So, Jeffrey, we're hearing a lot, you know, well, you know, what can Democrats do all of this stuff. What do Democrats have when it comes to SCOTUS overall on abortions, specifically? Because a lot of options people are throwing out there that the White House doesn't support. Like expanding the court or opening clinics on federal lands. JEFFREY TOOBIN, CNN CHIEF LEGAL ANALYST: You know, one of the things

politicians never like to admit is that they are powerless. And Democrats are pretty powerless when it comes to the Supreme Court and even the whole federal system.

Now, I'm not 100 percent powerless, but this is really now a state matter. And you know, there are going to be fights in the states, and the states that are going to have the biggest fights are those where control of the state government is really contested. States like Wisconsin, where you have a Democratic governor and a Republican-led legislature.

Same thing in Michigan, Virginia has a Republican governor. But the states that are all Republican, I just think they're on the process of banning or limiting abortions so that it's effectively banned. And I don't think there's a lot that the federal government can do about it.

LEMON: The time to talk about actions -- shouldn't they have been trying to codify?

TOOBIN: They could have. And you know, it's interesting, both sides are now talking about codifying abortion law. Mike Pence is saying, if I'm elected president, we're going to pass a law in Congress outlawing abortion in the whole country. Biden and Harris are saying, you know, elect Democrats and will pass a federal law legalizing abortion in the whole country.

The fact is, it's an unsettled question legally whether the federal government even has jurisdiction over that matter. But you know, you need -- you need full control to even try to pass a law like that, and neither Democrats or Republicans have that at this point.

LEMON: Listen, I agree and disagree with the former -- I'm with her on sentiment, when she said he said the quiet part out loud. I just don't think it was that quiet. I don't think he --


TOOBIN: You're talking about Clarence Thomas.

LEMON: Talking about Clarence Thomas --


LEMON: -- when he's saying they're going to come to other things like contraception, I don't think it was quiet. I think he is saying it because he means it. That's the only part I disagree with her on. I think she's right. Because he said that they should start looking at same-sex relationships, same sex marriage and contraception. Do you think she's right?

TOOBIN: I think -- I don't know quiet or loud, but I think, you know, one of the things I've learned studying Clarence Thomas for a long time. I mean, you know, I've been covering the court for basically his entire tenure on the court, since 1991. And he says what he means.


TOOBIN: He's candid, he's honest, he is the one who led the charge to say that the second amendment protects individuals to have, you know, weapons.


He has talked about how Roe should be overturned since the Casey decision in 1992, and when he says that those three decisions should be overturned, I think he means it. Now, I don't know that he has five votes at this point. I think the three cases he talked about, you know, contraception, same sex marriage, and -- what was the third one? I'm blanking.

LEMON: He said same-sex relationships, same sex marriage.

TOOBIN: And consensual sexual relate -- activity.


TOOBIN: I think the one that is in greatest danger is same-sex marriage. Because with the invitation from the Supreme Court, I think there will be at least one state that says, you know it, we're going outlaw it again. We never agreed to it, it was forced on us by the Supreme Court, we're going to outlaw it again and create a test case.

There might be five case -- five votes for overruling Obergefell. And so, and you know, Thomas has said, he's already one of them, and if you look at the three Trump appointees, if you look at Samuel Alito, you could get to five pretty quickly on that.

LEMON: Why doesn't he feel the same about interracial marriage?

TOOBIN: Well, you know, look, let's not be quite about that. Everybody knows he's involved -- he's married -- he's married to a white woman and so some people think, he's not talking about Loving versus Virginia, which is the interracial case. In his defense, that case was also about privacy, like the abortion cases. But it also had a racial dimension, which makes it a somewhat different substantive due process case.

LEMON: So, he didn't mention it.

TOOBIN: I know. I'm trying to be fair here, Don. You know, I'm --


LEMON: And Loving was just a couple of years before Roe. I mean, I'm just saying --

TOOBIN: It was. No, it was, look, it was a conspicuous absence, --


TOOBIN: -- but you could articulate a reason why it's different. LEMON: Let's talk about this. This is a new CBS/YouGov poll finds

that 69 percent of Americans do not approve of the court's move to overturn Roe, and support for the court is already at historic low before this. What does this, sort of hyper partisan decisions, what do they mean for the court's legitimacy?

TOOBIN: You know, one justice I covered a lot was Sandra Day O'Connor. And she was always very concerned about never having the court too far out of step with public opinion. She was very open and candid about that. This group of conservatives is very different. And to be honest, you know, it's interesting, it's -- but it's not -- I don't think it has big an impact.

LEMON: You don't?

TOOBIN: So, what? So, people don't approve.

LEMON: I agree. I agree.

TOOBIN: You know, I mean? You know, I just don't -- it's -- people say, well, it's going to hurt the court's legitimacy. Their decisions are still their decisions. And they still --


LEMON: And it's still a law.

TOOBIN: And they still have the last word.


TOOBIN: So, you know, unless it gets to be some overwhelming rejection, I don't think this really, it has much significance, those polling, that polling.

LEMON: Do you think that the court is -- I want to get the exact thing that people are telling me. They say that the SCOTUS is now firmly in the hands of white, Christian supremacists. Religion-based bigotry prevails. That is the sentiment. What do you think of that?

TOOBIN: You know, that's not the kind -- that's not the way I like to talk about the court. I do think the court is in the hands of extremely conservative Republicans who have a very specific agenda on lots of different issues, including limiting the regulatory powers of the government about climate change.

That's a decision that's due on Wednesday that is maybe as earthshaking in its importance as Dobbs is. I mean, keep an eye on this. West Virginia -- the West Virginia case. So, you know, they want to limit the regulatory power. Next year, they are going hear the affirmative action case out of Harvard.

Close to a lock that they're going outlaw affirmative action in this country. They are lowering the barriers between church and state. Obviously, they overturned Roe versus Wade. This is their agenda. You know, I don't use epithets like that. But you know, the agenda is very clear.

LEMON: You said extremely conservative. Is it French? Or do --

TOOBIN: You know, I think, you know, Mitch McConnell made sure that these justices got confirmed. I think it illustrates that the Republican Party of 2022 is incredibly different from the Republican Party of the 90s. In 1992, the decision that upheld Roe, the Casey decision, five to four, all five justices in the majority were Republican.

LEMON: Republicans.

TOOBIN: Now, none.

LEMON: Now look where we are. Thank you, Jeffrey.

TOOBIN: That's the difference. I appreciate it, buddy.

LEMON: We have to talk this -- talk about this. This is a deadly derailment in Missouri. This happened after a passenger train collided with a truck, the latest on that next.



LEMON: This is a disturbing story that could affect all of us. Everyone drives, we're in a car, you know, trains and that thing. Three people are dead. At least 50 are injured following an Amtrak train derailment in Missouri and that train carrying around 243 passengers. The derail would have hit a dump truck at an uncontrolled railroad crossing. The NTSB announcing that they are launching a go team to investigate.

Let's discuss now. Mary Schiavo is here. She is the former inspector general at the Department of Transportation and a CNN aviation analyst. Mary, thank you for joining us. Good to see you. I wish it was under better circumstances, of course. What is this NTSB team going to be looking for when they get to the scene?

MARY SCHIAVO, CNN AVIATION ANALYST: Well, the NTSB team is going to be aided first and foremost by the black box on the train. The black box on the train has forward-looking equipment. They'll be pulling the camera, and it'll have the train speed when the whistles and the horn was sounded.


There are regulations on how far before the crossing that the audible signals have to be sounded. Speed of the train, when the engineer and train control personal applied the brakes that would give them an idea of when they saw the obstruction on the track.

So, because of that black box they're going to have an awful lot of information to start with, and of course they will also have gathered information about the track, the tracking conditions, which railroad owns that particular section of track, and information about the signing.

Apparently, it was just the standard cross hatch, cross box sort of sign and not in the lights or gates or arms, but they will have all that in advance. And then of course once they get there the hard work starts of looking at the train, the controls and measuring everything and also the situation of the actual roadway going over the track. So, they're got a lot to do.

LEMON: This accident occurred, Mary, at an uncontrolled, as you said this crossing, meaning that there were no lights. You mentioned there were no mechanized arms. So, what about what -- tell us about what's that, tell us what happened here. Anything?

SCHIAVO: Well, you know, it's hard to judge at this point, but you know, every year about 250 people are killed at crossings because of this. This is far fewer number than there were say 20 years ago. Twenty years ago, it averaged about 7-50 a year. Every year, well over 1,000 accidents happen like this where someone travels over the road and intersects with the train.

So, it's difficult to tell at this point whether the vehicle was stuck on the track or whether it was situation where it couldn't move out fast enough or did not hear or see the train and sadly some accidents are because people tried to beat the train.

The Federal Rail Administration the Department of Transportation has that a great public campaign to educate people. Never ever try to do that. Of course, we don't know if that happened here. It would help of course if there were cameras at railroad crossings like there are intersections in, you know, cities and all over the country looking for speeders that you could do that as well. But there are not. So, they will have to judge what occurred at the crossing based on the conditions and if there were any eyewitnesses or ear witnesses.

LEMON: Mary, thank you. I appreciate your time. Thanks so much.

SCHIAVO: Thank you.

LEMON: Big developments in the January 6th investigation. The FBI seizing the phone of the former Trump election attorney, John Eastman, and a surprise announcement that the committee will hold another hearing tomorrow. We're going to talk about all of that. That is next.



LEMON: The January 6th committee is scheduling a surprise hearing for tomorrow to present what it calls recently obtained evidence. Originally the committee said it's hearings would resume in mid-July. We're also learning that the FBI has seized the phone of Trump election attorney John Eastman, a central figure in the effort to overturn the results of the 2020 election.

I want to bring in now CNN congressional correspondent Ryan Nobles. Ryan, good evening, sir to you in Washington. The seizure of Eastman's phone, that's a really big development. It

happened the same day that federal agents raided the home of Jeffrey Clark. What do you know? What's going on here?

RYAN NOBLES, CNN CONGRESSIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Yes, it is -- it is very significant, Don. Because it shows that the Department of Justice investigation into the efforts to overturn the election results as how it relates to January 6th is expanding. We know that John Eastman was a central figure in all of this. Primarily through the work of the January 6th select committee, that he was the principal architect of this plan that was based on a pretty flimsy legal theory that the Vice President Mike Pence had the ability to stand in the way the election results.

According to Eastman, we're getting all this information from his side of things. He was out to dinner with his wife and a friend. He was approached by several FBI agents. They searched him. They found his phone. They opened his phone using facial recognition software. And then they had access to all that material.

He is complaining about it. He believes that this was an illegal seizure in search of him. He's trying to prevent disinformation from being used in any future investigations. At this point the Department of Justice is not commenting on exactly where they're hoping to learn from Eastman.

LEMON: It sounds like a law-and-order episode, Ryan. What sense of urgency are you seeing regarding this newly-obtained evidence of the select committee? Because I mean, this announcement of an additional hearing is very unexpected, and we are learning about a security concern for a witness?

NOBLES: Yes, there's a lot of intrigue around exactly what the committee plans to do tomorrow at 1 o'clock Eastern. And there's a lot of intrigue in part because they had said that they were ready to take a break. That they will -- had received a lot of information as a result of the hearings that had already conducted so far, that they wanted a process that information. And they want going to come back in the middle of July with another round of hearings.

But then sometime this afternoon they announced that they had come into possessions of some new information, some very potentially explosive witness testimony, and that they wanted to get a hearing on the books as soon as possible and schedule one for tomorrow at 1 o'clock.

And what's important about this, Don, is that these members are all out of town. They have left for a long July 4th recess. Now many of them are scrambling to get back into town in preparation for this. So that shows you the urgency of this potential hearing and why it's important.

And you're right, they are very concerned about the security around at least one of the witnesses that will appear tomorrow. That's part of the reason that they have held all this information in such secrecy. We are also told that there have been changes to the hearing room tomorrow, people that were normally able to sit in certain places are not going to be able to have that same luxury.

So, there is a lot on the line with this hearing tomorrow and the expectations are very high. And at this point, the committee is doing nothing to downplay those expectations.


LEMON: Come on, Ryan, I know you know something. Tell us, who is it?

NOBLES: We have an idea of who it may be, Don.