Return to Transcripts main page

The Source with Kaitlan Collins

Trump Testifies For Three Minutes In Civil Defamation Trial; Trump Ally Withdraws Resolution That Would Have Made Trump Presumptive Republican Nominee; Frenzy Over Stanley Tumblers Leads To Chaos At Stores, Job Firings, Arrests And Criminal Charges. Aired 9-10p ET

Aired January 25, 2024 - 21:00   ET



ANDERSON COOPER, CNN HOST: And in 2007, her 2-year-old son, Jakobi Ra was killed in a hit-and-run.

What's incredible about Mama Shu is that she has turned her loss into love and, as she says, her grief into glory. She's dedicated her life to transforming a rundown street in Highland Park, Michigan, into a vibrant community called the Avalon village. She was one of CNN's Top 10 Heroes of 2023.

You'll find the episode, and others, on grief and loss, on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, or wherever you listen to podcasts. Thanks so much. I hope you -- hope you enjoy it.

The news continues. THE SOURCE WITH KAITLAN COLLINS starts now.


Donald Trump takes the stand, again, breaking the court rules, again, and scolded -- being scolded by the judge, to keep quiet, yet again. His testimony over, in just three minutes.

Also tonight, that was fast, after a Trump ally proposed declaring him the presumptive nominee, just two states into the Republican primary. He just withdrew that plan, after there was major backlash.

Also tonight, in the U.S., an unprecedented trial is underway, for the mother of a teenage school shooter. Will the parents be responsible, for their son's deadly rampage?

I am Kaitlan Collins. And this is THE SOURCE.

Donald Trump has said a lot of things, about the author, E. Jean Carroll, in the court of public opinion. Has already gotten into legal trouble for it.

Today, he said it for the first time in front of a jury. And after roughly three minutes, on the stand, it was over. That's how long it took for Trump to testify in his own defense, today, with many restrictions, I should note, at the defamation trial brought by E. Jean Carroll.

Trump was not allowed to say that he didn't sexually abuse her, or that she lied about it. That was already decided.

But here's the exchange that did happen, in court.

His attorney, Alina Habba, asked, "Did you deny the allegation because Ms. Carroll made an accusation?"

Trump's answer? "Yes I did. She said something that I considered a false accusation -- totally false."

That's when Judge Kaplan quickly cut him off, and told the court to strike everything that Trump said, after the word, "Yes." That's because a different jury has already found that Trump did sexually abuse Carroll.

Trump was also scolded, by the judge, today, before he even got on the stand, telling him to keep his voice down. He was overheard by reporters, in the room, while the jury was not there, saying things like, quote, I never met the woman.

Now, the defense has rested, and the jury is set to hear closing arguments, tomorrow, we could get a verdict very soon. And we are told Trump is planning to be there.

I'm joined, tonight, first off, by an attorney, who previously was part of Trump's legal team, on several matters. Jim Trusty is back here, on THE SOURCE.

Jim, thanks for being here.

Donald Trump going on the stand for, for just about three minutes, do you think that hurt or helped him, ultimately here?

JIM TRUSTY, FORMER COUNSEL FOR DONALD TRUMP, FORMER FEDERAL PROSECUTOR, PARTNER, IFRAH LAW: Yes, I mean, look, for the trial, probably no real noticeable effect. The bottom line is, you got to remember, it's a damages trial, not a liability trial. So, we're really kind of getting far afield from assessing his credibility.

He got that comment out, about not doing it, which theoretically, a jury will disregard, because they were instructed to. But at the end of the day, I don't think it's going to be a major factor.

I think they're probably more interested in some of the other testimony that was brought out, like the prompt complaint witness, who basically a friend of E. Jean Carroll, who had some pretty negative things to say, about Ms. Carroll's love of attention, love of the limelight. That's the kind of stuff that could have more of a denting effect, in the amount of the award.

And I think that President Trump's testimony, the only way it really turns south, is if they get resentful of the notion that he's still fighting on liability, which -- and Judge Kaplan's in a position to kind of underscore that.

And they heard the deposition testimony, which included those denials. So that's about the only thing they -- that could turn south. But I don't think it's going to be a major factor. They're going to do what they're going to do. They're pretty hard to predict, when it comes to damage awards. But we're way past liability. It's not the fight anymore, at this point.

COLLINS: So essentially, what you're saying is that, with him saying, I didn't do it, it's a false accusation? It could go south in the sense that that's not what they're deciding here that that's why it would not play in his favor?

TRUSTY: Yes. I mean, because, again, even as it happened today, the judge apparently instructed them, you are not determining liability. That's already been determined that he sexually assaulted this woman.

And so, you can see it's a little bit of a -- of kind of a judicially- fueled resentment that could kick in, where they say we're trying to figure out damages, and he still wants to fight that last verdict. I don't think it's going to happen here. I don't think it was a heavy dose of it, today. But that's the risk of kind of fighting the liability, when you're at the damages stage.

COLLINS: Yes. Because he's not saying, oh, well, this happened. We remember this two different ways. He's just saying, it flat out didn't happen.


But I kind of wonder when you talk about his testimony in and of itself, as short as it was, if you were representing him, still here, would you have put him on the stand?

TRUSTY: I don't know. I mean, look, thankfully, I wasn't a part of anything in New York. I was handling stuff for J6 and for Mar-a-Lago primarily. But it's a tough call. You'd have to really know the whole trial, and the whole discovery, to have a sense.

But keep in mind, in a civil case, like this, his deposition is evidence. And so, I think there was a lot of stuff, from his deposition, that which he embraced today, that you could already argue, whatever you want to argue from.

So, it was a little bit of window-dressing to a case that was already kind of out there, for the jury to consider. Again, I just don't think it's a big tipping point, most likely for the jury, when it comes to damages. It would have made a difference, if you're talking about liability, but not for damages.

COLLINS: Yes. There was part of that deposition that I want to -- just because it's been so long, I think since people have heard it. I just want to remind everyone what part of that deposition was, what he said that he did say he stood by today.


UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: It's true with stars that they can grab women by the pussy? DONALD TRUMP, 45TH U.S. PRESIDENT: Well that's what -- if you look

over the last million years, I guess that's been largely true. Not always, but largely true. Unfortunately, or fortunately.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: And you consider yourself to be a star?

TRUMP: I think you can say that, yes.


COLLINS: How does a jury, in this situation, when they are deciding this, how does that impact that kind of testimony? How does that impact the outcome, do you think?

TRUSTY: Yes, I mean, you can't be too precise or scientific about it. But it could certainly have an impact.

They could certainly take attitude. They can also take finances. The other side was emphasizing that he had made comments about being incredibly rich, being a real estate tycoon. So, everybody's pulling out pieces of the deposition that kind of serves their purpose.

And again, you may have people on the jury that are completely unfazed by that little snippet of testimony.

But yes, that's the -- the broad danger of being a high-level political figure, and having a lot of civil litigation, is you're going to get deposed over and over. And all it takes is that what is, is moment for Bill Clinton, for instance, or what is sex, and then moments like that, that become, essentially memes, in our culture, today.

So, yes, the big lesson there is civil litigation is never the friend of a politician, because you're going to be put to the -- you're going to be grilled for hours, and there's a likelihood--


TRUSTY: --even in a more temperate personality that you'll say something that bites you.

COLLINS: Jim, you know, you said, you're thankful that you are -- or grateful, whatever was the word that you used, that you weren't part of the New York stuff. But I kind of wonder what you made of what we've seen play out, over this pretty chaotic trial.

I mean, there were several moments where Alina Habba, who is representing Trump here, was sitting, instead of standing, when addressing the judge. She and the judge argued back and forth a lot. There was a moment, where the judge, said it was Evidence 101, when she had trouble entering evidence into the case.

I mean, do you think Trump was well-served, by the legal team, that was in the courtroom with him?

TRUSTY: Yes, you know me enough, by now, Kaitlan, to know I'm not going to give you an answer on that. I mean, I just don't think it's right, for anyone, who've represented a client, to then go on and make comments about the current performance or replacement attorneys.

What I will say is this. When there's chaos in a courtroom, where a judge is obviously, taking offense, to the conduct, and having kind of a heavy hand, and reining in questioning, and instructing the jury, it may not be reversible error. I'm not saying that. But it's not a good look for the system.

And so, whether the attorney is being picked on, or the attorney is being disrespectful, all those things that make it chaotic, as you said, or make it more of a circus, are really bad for the -- for our system of justice in general, so.


TRUSTY: No matter who it is, whose goose is getting cooked, I'm not a fan of watching that kind of thing play out.

COLLINS: I'm going to read between the lines and decide that, that that was an answer by not answering.

But I am curious about something else that we are waiting any minute to get a ruling on, which is the argument that Trump is making in Washington, in front of an appeals court that his attorney there, argued recently, which was on presidential immunity. He's been making this claim that he has presidential immunity, to ward off the cases that you were a part of.

What do you think that ruling's going to be?

TRUSTY: Well, I think the ruling in D.C. is likely to be bad.

I wasn't -- I was in the courthouse that day. I wasn't actually in that room. I did talk to a couple of friends that have listened to, or actually saw the argument, as it took place. It's what we call it a hot bench. The bench was pretty hostile, firing towards Trump's attorney, in terms of their notion of full immunity.

But I think when it gets to the Supreme Court, and that day will come, I think they could take a more nuanced approach, which is not to say that the king can do no wrong, not to say that you can never do something that violates a crime, while you're in office, but to say that it kind of tracks executive privilege.


In other words, if you're doing something within the core function, of being the president, you'll have immunity.

It's when you go off, and do something that's really not related to your duties? You go and you push a CNN reporter to the curb and beat them, any of that kind of stuff that's clearly outside of being a president? That is where the immunity line might be drawn.

So, I think it'd be a real interesting question, maybe a very close question, for the Supreme Court. But I think from what I've heard, about the D.C. treatment of the argument, and from what I've seen, in practicing in D.C., I think it's uphill with the panel.

COLLINS: Yes. We'll see what they decide. I don't know that I like your hypothetical. But we'll leave it there. Jim Trusty, as always, thank you.

TRUSTY: It wasn't you.

COLLINS: Thank you for joining us.

TRUSTY: All righty. Good to see you. See you.

COLLINS: And with me here, to break down the rest of what happened in court, today, former federal prosecutor, Kristy Greenberg, who has been in and out of the courtroom, as all of this has been going on.

Do you think, with Trump's testimony, as what Jim Trusty, who represented Trump was arguing there, did both sides kind of get what they wanted out of this today?

KRISTY GREENBERG, FORMER FEDERAL PROSECUTOR, FORMER SDNY CRIMINAL DIVISION DEPUTY CHIEF: I don't think that Donald Trump's testimony really moved the needle, one way or another, really, with respect to damages.

I mean, he made really three points. As you said, he stated that he 100 percent stands behind his deposition, he was defending himself against E. Jean Carroll's accusations, and that he did not instruct anyone to hurt her. That doesn't really go towards compensating Ms. Carroll, for any damage to her reputation.

As to punitive damages, it is relevant. I mean, he at no point expressed any remorse or acceptance of responsibility. He's still denying that he engaged in any of this conduct. And juries do take that into account, with punitive damages, if they need to -- if they accept already that he did these things, but he's not showing remorse? That tends to up the punitive damages.

He also didn't denounce any of those tweets that were sent. They're pretty vile, the evidence that's come in, of people saying that Ms. Carroll should be raped, that she should be killed. Not only did he not denounce it, he also didn't say that he disclaimed any influence that his statements had nothing to do with. And he just said he didn't instruct anybody to hurt her.

So, if you're looking at what he didn't say, those are things that could also, affect--


GREENBERG: --damages and raise them.

COLLINS: How soon do you think we could get a verdict?

GREENBERG: Tomorrow. COLLINS: You think tomorrow?

GREENBERG: It's Friday. This jury is headed -- there were masks in the courtroom. There have been some COVID scares. I think the closing arguments will happen in the morning. They will be instructed. They will take the afternoon, possibly even into the evening, to deliberate. But I do think you will get a verdict today, because they're only looking at damages.

In the first trial, I think they were -- it was maybe about three hours, and they were looking at liability and damages.

COLLINS: This is, yes, just the damages.

GREENBERG: Just the damages.

COLLINS: And they're asking, obviously, for millions here. We'll see how big that sum is.

The other legal news that's happening today, in the Georgia case, this is the case where Trump's a defendant, Rudy Giuliani is a defendant. There are dozens of people there.

Trump's team has now joined this legal filing, with another one of the co-defendants, who was working for Trump's campaign, basically arguing that the District Attorney, Fani Willis here, they used -- they said that she injected quote, racial animus, into the case, because she came out following the allegations that she is in a romantic relationship, with her lead prosecutor. And she implied that those accusations were only being made because of race. She said that in a church, not in a court filing.

Could they be successful with this filing? What's your sense?

GREENBERG: So, as a prosecutor, you're really limited to what is being said in court, what is being said in your filings, what is being put forth in your charging instruments. And you're really not supposed to deviate, from the evidence and arguments you're making in court, in public statements. So, this seems to be quite a deviation.

She hasn't responded to the motion that was filed in court yet. Her response is due on February 2nd.

So, these were just statements that were made outside of the court process. And those are typically statements you want to stay away from. There are professional rules of conduct that govern what you can and cannot say. And this seems to be far afield from that.

And they're also pretty inflammatory statements. I mean, the reason that people are looking into her relationship, with this individual, is because the allegation is she was in a relationship with him. And so, to say that--

COLLINS: Which she hasn't denied.

GREENBERG: Which she has not denied. So, look, I look forward to her response, in a court filing, as she should.


Kristy Greenberg, we'll wait to see you, because there is that court hearing, we know, next month. We'll see what happens there. Thank you so much.

GREENBERG: Thank you.

COLLINS: And we may be seeing you, tomorrow, depending on what happens with the verdict there.


COLLINS: Also, another legal development. This is one that everyone's been paying close attention to, in Washington. It is not Donald Trump. But it is certainly related.

Because apparently the price of defying a congressional subpoena is four months in prison. That's what Peter Navarro found out today. He of course, was Donald Trump's top trade adviser, inside the White House.


The 74-year-old was sentenced, today, to four months in prison, and he was ordered to pay a nearly $10,000 fine, for defying a congressional subpoena, from the January 6 congressional committee.

Outside of court, he has continued to insist that his conviction was just political. But inside the courtroom, the judge did not take well to that.

The judge, Amit Mehta, said and told Navarro what I'm quoting now. "I guess what bothers me ultimately" here is that "after a year and a half plus... you still want to suggest... that this is a political prosecution." The judge continued, quote, "You are not a victim. You are not the object of... political prosecution. These are the circumstances of your own making."

I should note, Navarro quickly appealed this sentence. He is now the second Trump aide, to find himself in this situation. Steve Bannon got the same sentence. That was in October 2022, for the same charges. He has not gone to prison yet. He is still having his appeals work its way through the courts. We'll continue to follow that.

Up next here, also, only two states have actually voted. But the National Republican Party was already discussing declaring Trump the presumptive nominee today.

In addition to that, on Capitol Hill, Republicans are furious, as Trump is trying to sink a major immigration deal that they've been working on, for years. We'll get reaction from one Republican senator.



COLLINS: Some breaking news, tonight, as an ally of Donald Trump's is now withdrawing a proposal, to make the former President the presumptive Republican nominee, before he has even gotten enough delegates, to be the Republican nominee.

It's a withdrawal that came just hours after Trump distanced himself from the effort. This all was happening today. It was a resolution that would have basically handed the nomination to Trump, even though just Iowa and New Hampshire have voted so far, and that Nikki Haley is very much still in this race tonight.

A source tells me that Trump was on board, with this resolution initially, that his campaign had signed off on it. But then, there was backlash, within the party, when it became public.

Trump now says that for the sake of party unity, he believes that the Republican National Committee should not move forward with the draft resolution.

Here to talk about all of the bizarreness, is former Deputy Assistant to President Biden and Communication Director for Vice President Harris, Jamal Simmons; and also the esteemed conservative columnist, S.E. Cupp.


COLLINS: S.E., I mean, technically, in the RNC rules, you're supposed to have 1,215 delegates to be the nominee.

CUPP: That's a technicality.

COLLINS: I think he's got 32, right now.

CUPP: Right. So, it's over, right?

No. I mean, this is so Trumpy. They're very scared of Nikki Haley. For all the bluster and the machismo, they are scared that she's weakening him, by staying in this longer. And so, they literally are trying to figure out how to rig it. I mean, that's what that would be.

It would be rigging it, not allowing the full democratic prep -- democratic process to happen, and calling this race before, by my math, 48 other states have yet to weigh in. It's insane.

But this is how the people, around Trump, operate and think, like how can we -- how can we rig it for him? It's crazy, from someone who talks constantly about election interference.

COLLINS: I mean, his campaign had signed off on it, I was told.

CUPP: Of course it did.


Listen, they are those, who believe Donald Trump is a bully. And like many bullies, he is, you know, he's got some fear. He's got some insecurities--

CUPP: Insecurities.

SIMMONS: --that might be working on -- working underneath this drive.

And so, this smells of an insecure thing, right? We've got to stop Nikki Haley before she does something that exposes the real Donald Trump.

Listen, I think this is something that we're going to -- they're going to regret they did this, because they will remember, people will remember, in the party, that he's tried to shut this down. And there are Nikki Haley voters that he's going to have to bring back. And he is not helping himself, get those voters, back into his column.

COLLINS: Well, it also just reminds me of when the RNC, they didn't put out a party platform, in 2020, because it was just Trump, essentially. They were saying that they were just keeping the same platform.

CUPP: Right. Well he didn't care about a platform because he doesn't care about issues. And they knew that by promising a platform, he would run afoul of it, constantly. The party, and even the party apparatus, has changed so much, because of Trump. I mean, I was--

COLLINS: Is it permanently changed?

CUPP: Well, this is the sort of existential crisis. Back in 2012, when I was working on the Republican autopsy? And then 2015, when we saw Trump come and sort of light it on fire? We were concerned.

People like me thought, wow, the party is going to be tainted by him, for a very long time. It's why we didn't vote for him, because we knew that he would remake the party in his image.

How much longer that taint will last is really, I mean, I think it's going to be a generation, before the Republican Party comes back to resemble, what it used to be, founded around ideas and principles, all of which Trump has completely turned on their head. And by the way, managed to get people like Mike Pence, a deficit hawk, to suddenly stop caring about like the debt and the deficit.

SIMMONS: Well, that's something, as you were talking, I was thinking about, there are no principles. There are no policies.

I think that's the reason why you can't have a platform, because it's not just that the President of the United States wants to do something different than what the majority of the party wants. Who knows what the President of the United States is going to want to do tomorrow?

CUPP: Yes. SIMMONS: I used to watch the Trump administration, and I would think as a communications person, I don't know how you do comms for this President.

CUPP: Yes.

COLLINS: I think the comms people--

SIMMONS: You can't plan.

COLLINS: --from the Trump administration would agree.

CUPP: Right.

SIMMONS: Oh, yes.

COLLINS: OK. So Nikki Haley is still in this race.

CUPP: Yes.

COLLINS: Her campaign just says, and this is the campaign, we haven't verified this. But they said that she's raised $2.6 million in 48 hours.

CUPP: Just online.

COLLINS: She has some big donors dropping out. But I mean, how can she sustain it, if she's getting--

CUPP: Yes. Listen.

COLLINS: --that.

CUPP: Just to push back on that. Andy Sabin was a Tim Scott donor. When he quit Tim Scott, he gave Nikki Haley $6,600. That's it. That's not a big donor. In fact, they returned it, because he was more of a pain than he was worth as a supporter.

COLLINS: That true?

CUPP: They've raised -- just talk--

COLLINS: They returned the money?


CUPP: Just talk to the campaign. They returned his money. They said it's more of a pain than it's worth. So, he's running around acting like he's a big part of their fundraising machine, $6,600. They don't need it.

They're doing really well, fundraising. That $2 million you just cited was just online. And they outraised Trump. Their Super PAC outraised Trump in the last half of 2023.

So, listen, they feel good. They know the map. They know the math. They understand all of that. But they know that every single time, they're chipping away at this idea that the party has coalesced around Trump? That's not true, when 40-plus percent is voting for someone else, in both of the opening states. That's simply not true. They know that.


SIMMONS: They just got to stay afloat. If I'm Nikki Haley?

CUPP: Yes.

SIMMONS: Stay afloat as long as possible, because like the lottery, you got to be in it to win it. And one day something might happen, and you got to be the person there, to take the -- take advantage of.

CUPP: The last man standing, as it were.

COLLINS: Or woman.

SIMMONS: Or woman.

CUPP: There you go.

COLLINS: Reading my mind.


COLLINS: Jamal Simmons, S.E. Cupp, great to have you both here. Thank you.

Also today, a trial that we are tracking very closely. Her son had carried out the deadliest school shooting, in Michigan's history. Now, Ethan Crumbley's mother, she is on trial, for the killings, in a first-of-its-kind case. More on what she said, ahead.



COLLINS: In a Michigan courtroom, today, we watched a first-of-its- kind case get underway, in a trial that is unlike anything, this country has ever seen before.

The mother, of a convicted school shooter, is on trial, you see her here, after her son, Ethan Crumbley, opened fire, at Oxford High School, in 2021, killing four students.

His parents are now being tried separately, for involuntary manslaughter. Prosecutors argued that they were grossly negligent with Crumbley's mother aware of his mental health issues, and his father buying the then 15-year-old, a gun, four days before that shooting.

In opening statements, today, Jennifer Crumbley's attorney previewed what her client is expected to say, when she takes the stand.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) SHANNON SMITH, ATTORNEY FOR JENNIFER CRUMBLEY: She did not have it on her radar in any way that there was any mental disturbance that her son would ever take a gun into a school, that her son would ever shoot people.


COLLINS: Prosecutors, also in that room, argued that Crumbley is feigning ignorance.


MARC KEAST, ASSISTANT OAKLAND COUNTY PROSECUTOR: Despite her knowledge of his deteriorating mental crisis, despite her knowledge of his growing social isolation, despite the fact that it's illegal for a 15- year-old to walk into a gun store, and walk out with a handgun by himself, this gun was gifted.


COLLINS: I want to bring in Joey Jackson, CNN's Legal Analyst, and criminal defense attorney.

Joey, I mean, just how unusual is this case that we are watching?

JOEY JACKSON, CNN LEGAL ANALYST, CRIMINAL DEFENSE ATTORNEY, FOUNDER, JOEY JACKSON LAW: Yes. It's unusual to the extent that parents generally are not prosecuted, for what their children do.

But I think this prosecutor, Kaitlan said, I'm mad as heck, and I'm not going to take it anymore. We have to deter, really, the stream of guns, the use of guns. Really, our parents are overlooking what their children are doing. And if they're negligent? And as you noted at the beginning, if they are grossly negligent, which is the suggestion here, right? That's the accusation. Then should there be accountability? And so, I think this prosecutor is pushing the envelope.

There have been motions made, to say that you can't do this, right? This is not on the parents. It's on the child. The appellate court clearly said that we disagree. So, it's going to be left to a jury to make the determination, as to whether or not the parents, being tried one at a time, are responsible, for their son's behavior. It's an open question.

COLLINS: We've only heard the opening arguments. But how strong do you think the prosecutor's case is?

JACKSON: So, I think that they have a very good case.

So, let's parse what really is at issue here, right? So, the first issue really is going to be about the foreseeability of this. If you act in such a careless way, would it not be foreseeable that your child, having access to a weapon, right, may go out, and do something like this? Then when you get past the foreseeability question, and these are all jury questions, based upon the evidence, you get to the issue of were the parents on notice, of the proclivities of this child, the mental health maladies, what he was doing? Could he really, at one day, and one time, engage in something like this?

And then, you get to the question of reasonableness of the parents, for really not acting appropriately in safeguarding a weapon, much less gifting it and putting it in his hands.

And so, I think the jury has a lot of thinking to do, about whether the time has come, to find parents responsible, for children's behavior, when something as horrible as this occurs.


And there was such powerful testimony that we heard today. I mean, one of -- it's from the survivors of this. One of them was a teacher, at this school. And she actually spoke, in court, today. This is what she said.


MOLLY DARNELL, TEACHER SHOT DURING RAMPAGE: I locked eyes. He didn't hesitate.


DARNELL: My -- my left shoulder moves back a bit and I feel a burn, like hot water had stung me.

I texted my husband, I love you, active shooter. And then, I started feeling blood dripping down my arm.


JACKSON: Listen, jurors are emotional. People are emotional.

And when you have testimony, like this? And you have an instance, where a kid could have gotten assistance and aid, parents should have known what the child was doing, it represents a danger to a school, a community, four children are dead, six others injured, a teacher injured as well, making it seven? I think that that falls on the jury, in a deeply-rooted way.

And so, the issue will now be, will the parents be held accountable? They'll have a lot to consider. But there's compelling evidence, Kaitlan, to suggest that. They really could be. But that's really going to be a determination they make.

COLLINS: We don't know yet. But if they're found guilty, how big of a precedent is that?


JACKSON: I think it's an amazing precedent, because I think what you're going to see, Kaitlan, is you're going to see prosecutors, from other jurisdictions, not Michigan, in every state of the country, go after parents, like this. And that's a really big deal.

COLLINS: Joey Jackson, as always, thank you.

JACKSON: Pleasure. Thanks.

COLLINS: We'll keep watching all this very closely.

Up next, tonight, the former President is trying to sink a bipartisan border agreement. The question, tonight is, are Republicans in the Senate going to follow his demands? We'll ask a key Republican senator, right after a quick break.


COLLINS: Senior Republican senators are furious, tonight, as Donald Trump is now trying to sink an effort that some of them have been working on, for decades, trying to achieve what has not been achieved, since Ronald Reagan was in office. And that is passing legislation, on the border.

They may have to deal -- they may have a deal at hand, I should note, with Democrats. It's negotiations have been going on since October. Here we are at the end of January. And the White House is prepared to make concessions.


But despite that, Senator Mitch McConnell laid out the new reality, to his conference, in his own way that Trump wants to use this issue, during the campaign, to go after President Biden, more apparently than he wants Congress to try and solve it.


SEN. MITT ROMNEY (R-UT): I think the border is a very important issue for Donald Trump. And the fact that he would communicate to Republican senators and congresspeople that he doesn't want us to solve the border problem, because he wants to blame Biden for it is, is really appalling.

SEN. TODD YOUNG (R-IN): Anything that interrupts that negotiation, I think, would be tragic.

SEN. LINDSEY GRAHAM (R-SC): I don't think making the border better changes the 2024 outcome. Presidentially, I think is what we're expected to do.


COLLINS: And I'm joined tonight by Republican senator, Mike Rounds, of South Dakota, who has been working to get a bipartisan immigration deal done, for years.

So Senator, thank you for being here. If this deal doesn't happen, who will you hold responsible?

SEN. MIKE ROUNDS (R-SD): Well, in this particular case, I think we're going to do our best, to get it done. We'll try to assign any blame or success, later on.

To begin with, right now, we don't have text yet. So, there's a lot of unknowns that people are concerned with.

We do know that we've got a couple of pieces that when they all get put together could be a good deal for our country. That's what we're focusing on. We would take care of some of the needs that for defensive capabilities in Ukraine, also, the issues with Israel, some additional protections that we need in the Indo-Pacific region.

And the part that most of us, as Republicans, have really focused on, which is doing our best to do everything we can, to secure the southern border. When we go home, it's the one thing that we always hear about is, is why can't you guys do something, to fix the problem, at the southern border?


ROUNDS: And I think this might be one of those opportunities.

COLLINS: Yes. We've seen how high it ranks, when you talk to voters, especially Republican voters, about their biggest concerns.

But Senator, I guess, my question on that, though, is how does this move forward?

Because the former President is urging your colleagues, to kill this. Not because he doesn't necessarily think it's not good legislation. We've heard Republicans say that it is. But because he, we are told, wants to use the border, as a campaign issue, against President Biden.

I mean, is that OK with you?

ROUNDS: Well, first of all, he's going to be able to use the border, as a campaign issue, regardless, because, to be very honest, most of us think that the Biden administration has done a terrible job at the border. It's really unsecured. And I think even his own administration is admitting that right now that they can't run from that.

COLLINS: We're hearing from the Republicans, who are working on this, that that it is one of the best opportunities, they say. These are conservative Republican senators, at a deal in decades.

But I mean, just moments ago, Trump posted on Truth Social, essentially arguing that you shouldn't take the deal. And that even if it pushes the country to closing up for a while, that it's worth not taking this deal. I mean, he's saying it needs to be perfect.

What do you -- how do you respond to that?

ROUNDS: Well the former President has always prided himself in being a negotiator. Sounds to me like the opening lines of negotiations. Look, I think he wants the same things--

COLLINS: He's saying don't make it.

ROUNDS: Well I think you always start at that. And a number of us have said, for quite a while that unless this deal does exactly what we believe we need to do, we're not going to take it.

But we also know that the border is open. It's not good public policy to leave it open. And we want to do what's right for the country. And look, negotiating it, sometimes, you take a real hard line, when you start out. We get that.

COLLINS: So you're not worried that Trump is going to sink this bill?

ROUNDS: Well, naturally, it would be -- it would feel better to all of us, if everybody on the outside would simply say, look, we all recognize the need to fix it, in order to move forward, to get the border secure.

But look, there's different ways of getting that done. Sometimes people think that in making the art of the deal, you start out with a real, real hard line, and then you can always negotiate back. For us, we're past that point in the Senate. We are trying to get to the bottom line that we can.

And then remember, we still got to get it to the House. And what the House is going to look at is, is this actually something that is worthwhile, not just to push this administration in, to secure the border, but are these good tools for the next administration as well?

COLLINS: If this bill doesn't get passed, if it does fail, as Trump is urging people to do, what does that mean for Ukraine? Does that -- does that hand Putin a win, in your view?

ROUNDS: Well, it depends. Look, we've got to do Ukraine.

But we also know that we've got to do the southern border, because that's the demand of the folks, back home. I think most of us are going to stick with what the folks back home want to see done. And that is fix our own border, as we're starting to talk about providing additional foreign aid.

A lot of Americans understand the need to stop Putin. They understand that Ukraine is at a critical spot, and that we've got to be able to provide them additional resources. Otherwise, Putin wins.


If Putin wins, it means then that the rest of the world is at risk, and we end up at some point, in a real bloody contest, with this bully. We'd better -- we'd be better off to stop him in his tracks. But we've still got to respect the demands of our own citizens, back home, to fix this border, and to secure this border.


ROUNDS: And look, here's the other piece of this that I think sometimes we don't talk about.


ROUNDS: We know that Democrats have a reason to work with us, right now. And they're going to give a lot more now than they ever will, if the administration is changed, which we all hope they will change.

If that happens, there is no reason in the world why any Democrat would ever support any law changes that would assist a Republican administration. There's simply nothing in it that they would have that they want from us.


ROUNDS: And so, this is one of those opportunities, in divided government, where we get everything we can, to protect that southern border. So, we've got to keep trying.

COLLINS: Yes. That doesn't seem to be a message that is breaking through with the former President. We'll see if that changes.

Senator Mike Rounds, thank you for your time.

ROUNDS: Thank you.

COLLINS: And just in to CNN, tonight, moments ago, we learned that the Alabama inmate that we told you about, last night, has now been put to death, using nitrogen gas. This is the first time ever that this execution method has been used, in the United States.

Kenneth Smith was sentenced to death, for his role, in a 1988 murder for hire. Alabama governor, Kay Ivey, said in a statement that she prays Elizabeth Sennett's family can now receive closure.

We'll be right back, in just a moment.



COLLINS: The Stanley cup is the most prized possession, on the internet, right now. And no, I am not talking about the hockey trophy that many of you may be confused for. This is the tumbler, these vacuum-insulated cups that come with a straw, and with a handle.

Right now, Target employees are even reportedly being fired, for taking the first dibs, on the ones that are in, for sale in their stores, as shoppers are lining up outside, sometimes even camping out, overnight, so they can snag one, once the store opens.

A California woman, in recent days, was even arrested, after she stole a car trunk full of 65 Stanley cups.

So, what is behind this craze? Is it really worth it? Luckily, we have CNN's Harry Enten, here, to break it down, even though, disclaimer, he doesn't own a Stanley cup. HARRY ENTEN, CNN SENIOR DATA REPORTER: No.

COLLINS: Luckily, we have.

ENTEN: I can't find a Stanley cup. They're all sold out all over the place.

COLLINS: I mean, what -- what's the -- why are people obsessed with them?

ENTEN: I mean, first off, look at the size of this. Look how much water or coffee you could keep in this thing. This thing is huge, has a wonderful handle. And it fits in the car seat very nicely. Also, this straw?

COLLINS: I'm sure whoevers that is, is going to love that--

ENTEN: It's--

COLLINS: --you tasted the printing (ph).

ENTEN: They'll wash it off. We got dishwashers around here.

But the bottom line is it's just really convenient, really big and has the straw. So, it makes it just really easy to enjoy a beverage or two. Of course, I prefer mine in a 12-ounce variety. Not this 40- ounce.

COLLINS: It sounds like you're selling it, like we've turned into QVC or something.

ENTEN: You know what? It's CNN applecart (ph).

COLLINS: OK. But you know what I loved about this? And I don't own one of these, I should note. I just I drink out of plastic, which is terrible.

But this woman posted a video online of her car had caught on fire. And the Stanley cup survived. And not only did the cup survive. There was still ice inside of it. When she shook it, and checked on the beverage, that was still in there.

ENTEN: I mean, these things are very, very steady. I should note though, that I've never tried to light a beverage or a beverage holder on fire. So, I can't necessarily confirm the scientific validity of that experiment. But the fact is I think it just adds to the lore.

The other thing I'll also note is they come in all these different colors. And I think there's something to that, right? We like colorful things going on. So, it just has a lot of different things going for it.

COLLINS: OK. But you know what I'm amazed by this is what -- they retail for what? Like 40, 50 bucks?

ENTEN: It depends. Yes, $50 on average. But they really can go in a particular wish (ph).

COLLINS: But if you buy one that is sought after, I mean, the retail value, the resale value is through the roof.

ENTEN: Yes, it's through the roof. We found there was one eBay auction, where it was selling at about $375 for one of these. I'm not sure I would pay.

COLLINS: $375?

ENTEN: Yes. I'm not sure I would pay $375 for one of these.

But when you get wrapped up in a craze, it's not necessarily surprising. And you mentioned that woman, who stole, what was it, 65 of them? That was a value of $2,500. So, we're just looking at these ridiculous price points, for all these different things, all for a drink.

Again, I like this thermos. I think it's pretty cool. I'm just not quite sure it's worth $375.

COLLINS: Would you put your hot chocolate in there, which is what you drink over coffee?

ENTEN: I would -- no, I drink a hot cocoa, and I mix it with a little bit, what is it, a mocha, you know? So, you have a little shot of espresso in my hot cocoa. Sure, I would drink it, whatever delivers the beverage, the hottest and the freshest.

COLLINS: You put coffee in your hot chocolate?

ENTEN: Sure. A little bit of a pep in the step. How else do you think I have this energy so high, at this particular hour?

COLLINS: I don't know. It's a great question.

I mean, how does this compare to other crazes that we've seen?

ENTEN: Yes. I would just say this reminds me of Tulip Mania back in the 17th Century. The idea this is all speculation that these things are so high. This might just be another Beanie Baby phase or maybe perhaps a Furby for some folks.

COLLINS: For the -- for the -- for the millennials.

ENTEN: For the millennials.

COLLINS: Did you have a Furby?

ENTEN: Sure. But I was more into Beanie Babies. My mother had to shop ridiculous hours, to find those things.

COLLINS: Harry Enten, thanks.

ENTEN: Thank you.

COLLINS: Enjoy your hot cocoa with espresso.

Up next, she is a lifestyle guru, also a convicted felon and, yes, a swimsuit model, and at age 81. It is a fascinating new look at "THE MANY LIVES OF MARTHA STEWART."



COLLINS: For decades, Martha Stewart has made her mark, on American culture, through her special brand of domestic perfection.

Now, the new CNN Original Series, "THE MANY LIVES OF MARTHA STEWART" traces her explosive rise to success, her staggering fall from grace, her momentous comeback, and her establishment, as an icon, here in the U.S. Take a look.


JAMES B. COMEY, FORMER DIRECTOR OF THE FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION: We're here this afternoon, to announce the filing of criminal charges, by this office, and civil charges by the SEC, against Martha Stewart, and Peter Bacanovic.

JEFFREY TOOBIN, AMERICAN LAWYER AND AUTHOR: The Martha Stewart case was the first time most Americans had probably heard the name, James Comey. But what they didn't know is they'd be hearing that name a lot, as the years passed.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Now, when Comey brought the charges, against Martha Stewart, he emphasized, we're charging you for lying to the federal authorities.

B. COMEY: This criminal case is about lying. Lying to the FBI, lying to the SEC and lying to investors. That is conduct that will not be tolerated by anyone.


UNIDENTIFIED MALE: So ultimately, a decision is made not to prosecute her criminally, for insider trading, and only charge her with the obstruction of justice and false statements.

B. COMEY: Martha Stewart is being prosecuted not because of who she is, but because of what she did.


COLLINS: What a face to see. Be sure to tune in, because this new Original Series from CNN, "THE MANY LIVES OF MARTHA STEWART" will premiere this Sunday, at 9 PM, only on CNN.

I'm Kaitlan Collins. Thank you so much, for joining us, tonight, here on THE SOURCE.

"LAURA COATES LIVE" starts right now.