[ Sound Effects ] Tonight, a clear message is being sent to parents all across this country. If you supply your child with a gun, and that child uses it to shoot up a school for God's sakes, prosecutors will go after you. We saw it once in Michigan with the parents of Ethan Crumbly, both of whom were convicted. It was considered rare then, but not anymore, because tonight, we're now seeing it in a place like Georgia. Officials have now charged the father of the 14-year-old who shot his school and killing classmates and teachers outside of Atlanta just over 24 hours ago. Police say the teen admitted to killing two students and two teachers. The gun he used, well, police say that it was an AR-15-style rifle, and here is the stunning part that leads to the dad's arrest. Police say the father, Colin Gray, gifted -- gifted -- that weapon to his son. He is charged with the following. Four counts of involuntary manslaughter, two counts of second-degree murder, and eight counts of cruelty to children. Mr. Gray, these charges stem from Mr. Gray knowingly allowing his son, Coke, to possess a weapon. Now, the son has been charged with four counts of felony murder, which could mean a life sentence. But the father, as you just heard, has been charged with 14 charges, coming from knowingly allowing his son to possess a weapon. So, I want to break these charges down for you. First, start with the four counts of involuntary manslaughter, one for each of the four victims that were killed. One of the ways to prove this kind of charge is a show that someone was killed while they were doing something illegal -- the shooter, that is, or the person who was responsible for the shooting. Now, the likely illegal act was allowing a minor to own a gun and violation of Georgia law. And you don't have to actually prove that you intended for the person to die, but each count could be as much as 10 years. He also faces two counts of second-degree murder, and those two counts are tied specifically to the two students who were killed. They will have to prove that he caused the death of these two children while engaging in an act that constitutes cruelty to children. Now, in this charge, you also have to prove something called malice, meaning deliberately intending for the person to die. Now, each of those counts could be 30 years, and some murder charges make no mistake, depending on the facts that we learn in this investigation, could mean life. And then, it's the eight counts of cruelty to children. Eight, because there were eight students in all who were also wounded. Now, while there are multiple ways to prove this type of charge, it generally means that you either intentionally or negligently cause a child under the age of 18 cruel or excessive physical or even mental pain. And in some instances, each of those counts could be up to 20 years. Now, it's important to note the suspect's father gifted the weapon just months after authority looked into a 2023 tip about online threats that were linked to his son. Now, law enforcement at the time could not substantiate those, and they ended up closing that investigation. We're also now learning more about the troubled history of the suspect himself. Authorities found writings in his home that referenced past shootings, including Parkland. And his family life appeared to have been anything but stable. His parents went through a bitter separation we're told. They were evicted from at least one home. And relatives say that Gray's father was verbally abusive for years. Now, the facts and the investigation are fluid. In the exact details the prosecutors will use to prove these allegations are unknown. But one thing seems to be clear. Prosecutors are done with just thoughts and prayers. I want to bring in CNN chief law enforcement and intelligence analyst, John Miller. John, thank you so much for being here as we are learning more information. And tonight, the father now in custody, just a day after the shooting. What do we know about how authorities made this decision to charge him? Well, that question was asked at the news briefing where they announced his arrest. And they were very circumspect. But I thank you as a former federal prosecutor and myself with my background would surmise it comes from three key places. Number one, we learned today from the sheriff that the suspect, the 14-year-old boy, began talking when police took him into custody. They advised him of his Miranda rights and kept talking. And they said he's still talking. So you could get from that questions that they had about where weapons were stored, what his access to those weapons were, what his access to ammunition would be came from him. The second thing is the search warrant at the house they conducted, which would have given them a first hand looked about how weapons were stored, where they were stored. There are reportedly additional weapons beyond the one that the suspect used in this case. And third, their interview with the father himself, where they asked those questions. And we get a hint about how secure or not secure those guns were in a piece of audio coming up. You know, before we get to that, I just want to highlight a point you raised. The audience doesn't miss it. This 14-year-old suspect, the shooter, allegedly, although apparently he has said that he has done this, he was Miranda's first. So he was talking in spite of having been given the warnings that he could be silent. And oftentimes if you say you want a lawyer and you invoke that, they have to stop talking to you. If you reengage in some way, then they're able to use some of your statements at that point in time. But he kept talking even after being Miranda. So that's a really important point that you've raised. I want to play that audio that you referenced, though, from that interview with Law Enforcement back in 2023 after the tips of the online threats. Here's what Gray's father told investigators. You have weapons in the house? I mean, are they accessible to him? They are. I mean, there's nothing loaded, but they are down. We actually-- we do a lot of shooting. We do a lot of deer hunting. He shot his first deer this year. They did, okay. You know, so like, I'm pretty much in shock, to be honest with you. Well, I'm a little pissed off to be even really honest with you. In fact, if that is what was said. But then, John, just months later, he gifted his son the weapon that was ultimately apparently used in the shooting. And it brings to mind the case of the Michigan school shooter, Ethan Crumbly. Remember, his parents sent us a 10 to 15 years in prison after being convicted of manslaughter. And again, the idea of the provision of a weapon, part of that trial as well, what are the parallels that you're seeing here? You know, the parallels are striking. I mean, number one, the Crumbly's had a child who they understood was in some kind of crisis and some kind of despair. And yet, they gifted him this weapon. In this case, this weapon was a gift to this boy between when he was 13 and 14 years old. He was also a kid who had been through the difficulties in that household, the contentious divorce, the screaming and yelling that relatives said went on around that. And he was a kid who relative, say, was crying for help. So the parallels are going to circle back to what a reasonable parent have understood that giving him a firearm was probably a dangerous thing to do at a dangerous time. I mean, just a very poignant notion. I mean, the idea of this collision course, that children can be on different people. On the one hand, children going to school, trying to, you know, learn and be a part of the community. And then the collision course of somebody else with the issues that we've raised and to see what happened and the result, unbelievable. And we're learning today that, from the sheriff, that Wednesday, John, Wednesday was only grazed second day in that school. I mean, it raises all sorts of questions, including how would he have developed the kind of plan or dare I say hatred against his fellow students, his teachers, we barely knew. - You know, that struck me too, Laura. And I spoke to Mary Ellen O'Toole among others. And she is a former FBI profiler, but also the FBI agent who wrote the definitive early products on school shooters and what makes them tick and what makes them kill. And she said, you know, this is a matter of the adolescent brain. This is a 14 year old, it's not an 18 year old. And those people can be very impulsive. We all know that if we have teenagers. They can plan something that they wanna do and wanna do in a hurry without planning the back end or considering the results very much and go right to the action itself. And the other part of that answer was, you know, these were not personal attacks against personal victims because of things they necessarily said or did. They barely knew each other in two days. But these were victims of opportunity. This was his way to possibly strike out at all the kids and all the schools that he had felt either ostracized by, shut out by or hateful towards. - Well, we will learn a lot more and he may be 14, but two, the two students he killed, also 14 years old with their whole lives ahead of them, including the teachers, as well, John, as we learn more about this. Thank you so much. We'll continue to rely on you. - Thanks, Laura. - My next guest is someone who has experience in litigation against the parents of a school shooter. His name is Clint McGuire and he actually represented the families of one of the deadliest school shootings in US history. The 2018 attack on Santa Fe High School in Texas. Remember a 17 year old suspect killed 10 people, eight students and two teachers. And the attack, it is deeply personal for Clint because his two children were at the school. Now, they, thank God, were safe. He took it upon himself to become an attorney for the victims and they ended up suing the parents of that suspect. In civil court, Clint argued the parents did not secure the family's guns, nor did they get their son proper mental health treatment. Now, a jury ultimately decided the case, the civil matter, that the parents were not responsible. But the suspect and an online story that sold him ammunition, they were found liable. The families were awarded $330 million, but they likely never collect. And the accused gunman has been charged with capital murder, but Ben was found incompetent to stand trial. Clint McGuire joins me now. Clint, thank you for being here. And I really wanna lean in on your experience of having tried a case involving the parents of a shooter and get your reaction first to the arrest of the father in this Georgia case. I mean, these were charges very, very quickly. What does it tell you about the evidence that they may have against him? - Well, I think the evidence is strong. The fact that it appears based on what we're hearing thus far, that the father actually gifted an AR-15 to a son for Christmas, who's 13 or 14 years old, is very strong evidence. I can't see any circumstance where any reasonable or prudent parent would do such a thing. - And again, the idea of a minor, having it, owning it and being illegal for a minor to purchase these weapons as well. And Georgia has its own set of laws. But in this case, in the case you brought in Texas, actually, there was a dispute over where that suspect got the guns. When you look at the comparisons here and knowing that there's the gifting, is that enough for you, would it have been enough for you to cross the finish line in terms of a responsible and liable verdict there? - It would have made our case much easier. What the parents in the Santa Fe High School shooting case argued was that they had locked their guns in a container in a gun cabinet in their living room, one in their garage, and then they hid the keys. And what we argued in the case was that the 17-year-old shooter obtained the keys because they left them in an easily locatable place on top of the actual gun cabinet itself. And we asserted that that was negligence on their part. The difficult thing that we had to overcome is under Texas law and many other states laws. You're required to prove that parents who don't safely store their guns could foresee that this act or some substantially similar act would occur. What would have made the case easier is if we could have demonstrated that the parents had actually given the gun to their son or to their child. In this case, the parents at our trial claimed that their child stole the guns from that. - So that was a civil matter. So there's a different burden of proof or standard. You're talking about preponderance of evidence more likely than not, and the criminal context as we're seeing in a place like Georgia, you've got the beyond reasonable doubt. And in either a civil or criminal case, it is not an easy task to hold parents accountable for school shootings. In the Ethan Crumbly case in Michigan, a lot of evidence, there was text messages indicated for that jury, the culpability, and the prosecutor of that case, Karen McDonald, has had this to say to Anderson Cooper tonight. Listen. - My reaction is rage because, you know, the prosecution of the crumblies was never ever meant to be a floodgate of charges against parents because it was such an egregious set of facts. And so I think I share the emotions of the entire country that even after that well publicized case, we're still here. - We are still here. And I wonder from your perspective, how important will it be for prosecutors now based on the lessons of the crumbly trial, your own civil case as well, to show what Gray's father knew and when he knew it. - It's critically important. And one of the things that we've learned beginning back on April 20th of 1999 in Columbine is that we can no longer stick our head in the sand and not believe that this type of thing can happen. It has happened and unfortunately, it is gonna continue to happen because legislators are doing absolutely nothing. It's prosecutors like you just showed and lawyers such as myself that are getting out there and trying to make a difference because the first line of defense in these cases needs to be at home. By the time I heard earlier, there was a reference to schools or solve targets. Well, the problem with hardening the target and we need to do everything that we can, but the problem with focusing on the target is we're reacting and not being proactive. And so what we should do is look at the first line of defense and that is parents should be responsible when they have children. Gun owners should be responsible and I'm a gun owner myself. We should be responsible and make sure that those who shouldn't have guns, whether they're mentally ill or whether they're not old enough to possess them, should not get them. Because if they do and they go and do something like this, you can not only have civil responsibility, but you can also be held criminally liable. - Clint McGuire, very important points you're raising. Thank you so much. - Thank you. - Authorities speaking tonight of the heartbreak within the community in Winder, Georgia after yesterday's mass shooting, saying on top of the deaths of four people, the physical injuries of eight others, there's also the mental injuries that the community is now reeling from. - We call them teachers, but I call them heroes. We met with them today. Emotions are very high obviously, but we told them that we love them. We love our teachers and what they do. And we're very happy at the fact that they stood in the gap between the evil to protect their children. And we want to include them in the lives that were saved as well yesterday. - Well, those heroes, they include math teacher and football coach, Richard Aspenwall, who students have described him as quote, "Really sweet and a good guy." And math teacher Kristina Iremi, one of her students remembering her as a quote, really nice teacher who liked to tell corny jokes. A friend of the family telling CNN that she had a belated birthday celebration with her students before the shooting yesterday. She baked a cake, she brought them pizza. The friend says that she was dedicated to her students, loving them as if they were her own children. Well, joining me now is Nikolai Klempez. He was good friends with Kristina Iremi and he joins us now. Nikolai, thank you so much for being with us. I am so sorry for your loss. You just heard authorities calling Kristina a hero and the way that the students and her friends have described her as loving and caring. Nikolai, how would you describe her? - Yes, I couldn't agree more. I think Kristina is a hero for our community. She was a role model and she basically goes into the history as a great person, great teacher and very good educator that was daring for her students. And eventually, you know, caring so much that she gave her life in front of them and probably trying to protect them and to save them from this tragedy. - I mean, it's unspeakable what has happened and hearing the students tell CNN that she prioritized instilling confidence in them. Can you tell me how she viewed her job as a teacher? - She took her job very seriously because she worked very hard to get her degree and to do what she actually dreams to do. And that's what her goal when she came here in states to be a great teacher and to be like I said, a whole educator of the child, take the child the way they are and meet them, and meet their needs. - I understand how incredibly active she was in the Romanian community. And I do wonder more broadly, you mentioned her as a volunteer, how was your community taking this loss and what will you miss most about your friend? - Well, I will tell you, this was a very long day. Also, it was very long day yesterday. So our community is in shock, of course. And we are coping with all the news and everything that happened. We're trying to, you know, to find resources and to rely on our faith and our community to go through it. We are going to miss, we are the Miss Cristina's energies, her smile, her dedication, her love for children. She was also a dancer, she was an instructor in dancing. She liked to dance in traditional Romanian dancing. So we are going to miss her a lot. - Nikolai, very important words. And I thank you so much for sharing your thoughts, your memories of Cristina with all of us. And we are just so sorry for the loss of her life and the greater community as well. Thank you. - Thank you, I appreciate your. - Up next, quote, "The court is not concerned "with the electoral schedule. "The judge at the center of Trump's January 6 case "has prosecutors could release "never before seeing evidence against Trump "before the November election." And who will win that election? Well, the man who has predicted nine of the last 10 elections will give us his pick for Trump versus Harris. That's all ahead. - They say opposites attract. That's why the sleep number smart bed is the best bed for couples. You can each choose what's right for you whenever you like. You like a bed that feels firm, but they want soft, sleep number does that. You want to sleep cooler while they like to feel warm, sleep number does that too. You have to feel it to believe it. Find the bed that's for both of you, only at a sleep number store. Nine out of 10 couples say that they sleep better on a sleep number smart bed. Only sleep number smart bed lets you choose your ideal comfort and support, your sleep number setting. Sleep number smart beds automatically respond and adjust to your movements so that you sleep comfortably all night long. Beat the summer heat. Temperature balancing, bedding, like true temp bedding, is designed to move heat and humidity away. So you sleep just right. Can't agree on temperature? The sleep number climate 360 smart bed lets you adjust up to 30 degrees cooler or warmer on either side. So you can be polar opposites in the same bed, sleep better together. JD PowerRank's sleep number number one in customer satisfaction with mattresses purchased in store. And now sleep number smart bed starting at $999. Price is higher in Alaska and Hawaii. For JDPower 2023 award information, visit jdpower.com/awards only at a sleep number store or sleepnumber.com. Now you've all heard, of course, of the October surprise, right? But could we be in store for a September stunner? We're earlier today, Judge Tanya Chekken set a schedule in the federal election subversion case against Donald Trump that could allow prosecutors to release never before seen evidence such as grand jury transcripts, maybe, all before the November election. Chekken set a September 26 deadline for an initial filing from prosecutors and an October 29 deadline for the final round of briefs on the matter. She has not scheduled additional hearings or even a trial date at this time. Now that updated schedule, largely sides of what special counsel Jack Smith proposed at a DC hearing today. Now Trump's defense team has sought to delay the public release of evidence in this matter until after the November election. Now Chekken, she seemed unamused, saying this court is not concerned with the electoral schedule. With us now, Tiffany R. Wright, former law clerk for Justice Sonia Sotomayor, and she did a legal commentator and former Trump attorney, Tim Parlatory. Good to see you both. Here we are, the first hearing in this case before her in 11 months. Time has really flown. But what evidence do you anticipate that we would actually see? Because to provide grand jury testimony really runs counter to the secrecy of it. And of course, it's not a trial. - I obviously don't think we're going to see grand jury testimony. I think that Jack Smith, though, will understand that this is probably his last chance to speak to the public, not that that's something that prosecutors are typically concerned with. But I've always thought that the most important thing is not that we have a verdict before the election, but that the public have some idea of what the actual evidence is outside of the four corners of the indictment. So I don't think we'll get grand jury testimony. I think that we will get some insight, though, into what exactly is behind the four counts in the indictment. - It's really important to think about, Tim, that the reason we're even here is because they're trying to essentially give the parameters on what is immunized and what would not be. The Supreme Court earlier talking about an official act, a constitutional duty or an act, cannot be prosecuted for the president of the United States or former president. So trying to figure out what if his actions were outside of that constitutional duty which were not, that's why we're here. Does the order of how it'll be presented matter to you as a defense attorney? If the prosecution would go first, essentially, to say, your honor, here's what we got. Decide this first. - It is kind of flipping the script because ordinarily, you know, the defense makes the motion, prosecution responds, defense gets the last word. And that was really the argument during the hearing was who's gonna go first, but who also gets to go last? And so the judge ultimately sided with Jack Smith is letting them go first. And, you know, really what they're proposing is that they want to try to defend their indictment by trying to put out, you know, before the defense tries to tear it apart, they could put out their filing to try and say, "Why everything is okay?" It's very different from how things would normally be done. Obviously, I do understand why they ask for things that way. It gives them more of an advantage. They get two briefs instead of one. And ultimately, all of the briefs, you know, get put out before the election given this particular schedule. - There is an irony, you know, on the one hand, the Trump defense team has been saying, this is a weaponized system. You should never take into account the politics of this. This is all about political, you know, manipulation, et cetera. And then they're saying, "But your Honor, consider the politics here." And of course, the elections. So she's obviously hip to that particular aspect, but there's the issue of Mike Pence's testimony potentially. Before in the first indictment, it was all about him as the vice president. Now it's about him as the president of the Senate. Why is that so important? - It's important because the Supreme Court said that they believe that the communications between the president and the vice president are immune, or at least presumptively immune, right? So what Jack Smith did is he went back, he took a scalpel to the original indictment and got very particular. So now it's about the vice president, not in his capacity as the vice president, because that would be an executive communication that could be presumptively immune. It's about his actions as a legislator, the president of the Senate, which would take it outside of that realm of presumptively immune things for which the president might have some immunity. - Really important to make that distinction. Thank you, Tiffany. And on the idea of what they're arguing the defense, Tim, is that, look, if any of the grand jurors heard testimony that would have been in line with what Tiffany just described, executive communications as a vice president, that means the whole thing has to be thrown out. Is that gonna be convincing enough for this judge? - Well, so what they're gonna say is that the grand jury proceedings were tainted by that type of material. And so yes, I do think that that's the kind of thing where a judge would say to Jack Smith, go back and do it again. It's not gonna cause the case to go away, but it is something that he could represent and just bring a second superseding indictment. It is interesting, this whole idea of shifting him from being the vice president to the president of the Senate, because during the grand jury phase of this, they were taking the exact opposite position when Mike Pence was trying to invoke privileges and immunities based on him being president of the Senate. And so there, Jack Smith was arguing, oh no, no, no, he's there as the vice president. And so I do think that this kind of shift will then raise all sorts of other litigation. So ultimately, it's a mess. - She didn't say this is gonna get appealed no matter what. They're very aware of it's going back. And of course, there was a part of an opinion written by Justice Clarence Thomas that entered into the equation about even making arguments about whether Jack Smith should even be where he is. She again did not seem amused by this, but then there's the other case in Manhattan. Tomorrow's Friday, we're told that Judge Mershaun is saying that he will decide tomorrow whether to delay sentencing in that Hashemian conviction 34 accounts. What is the likely outcome of his decision on that schedule? - I think it's likely that he does delay it until after the election. I'm not sure how that works out for President Trump, whether that's better for him or worse for him. Because I think at least right now, he can say there's the threat that I will be the president of the United States. And so he might get some leniency for that, whereas after the election, if he loses it, goes away. I just think this is another instance of a lot is writing on this election for President Trump. - And it's a state, it's a state case. It's not one that's federal, that makes a difference. - It does because the president has no control over it. He has no pardon authority. He has no control over the DA's office. And I do think that that's absolutely accurate, what Tiffany just said. If he's sentenced before the election, and I know Judge Marchin, I'll try a case in front of him, I don't think he's gonna wanna put him in because he's not gonna wanna be seen as interfering in the election by putting him into Rikers Island before the election, by delaying it, then I think that increases the likelihood of jail time if he is not the winner of the election. And I do think the likelihood of him delaying it is very high because the District Attorney is not opposing the application. - It's an important point, whether it's the election or if he were to be successful in inauguration, it's gonna factor in until the question of, will he really go to jail? Is still looming very large. Thank you both for being here so much, Tiffany and Tim. Well, they call him the Nostradamus of presidential elections. So who does Alan Lickman think will actually win in November? He's gonna tell us after this. (dramatic music) - 60 days until election day and the first batch of absentee ballots were scheduled to be mailed out as early as tomorrow. My next guest, known as the Nostradamus of US elections for correctly predicting nine of the last 10 presidential races using his own 13 keys to the White House. Criteria candidate must win in order to achieve victory. Well, he now says that he's ready to call the race. American University history professor, Alan Lickman joins me now. Professor, all right, here it is. Who will win the next president of the United States? - According to the keys to the White House, which have been right for 40 years, we are going to have a precedent-breaking victory. Kamala Harris, president of the United States. Now, I'm looking at the true keys, the false keys, and you have some TBDs on the screen as well. Under your criteria, Harris obtains eight keys, the minimum, by the way, to win, according to you. But can any of these keys potentially flip before election? I mean, you've got social unrest. If that breaks out, have you ever changed your prediction? - I have never changed my prediction once I've made a final call. The notion of an October surprise is a myth. All my predictions have been before the October surprise, and they have all held. Social unrest doesn't suddenly emerge. It takes a long time for it to be enough social unrest to turn the key, which requires massive, sustained, social unrest. With a maximum of five keys down and likely four, Harris is well short of what's needed to predict our defeat and give Donald Trump the White House again. - Your method is unconventional. I mean, you've got yet battleground states and those polls show a much tighter race than what you're describing, and even the bulwarks, John, at the last, calls your approach, I'm quoting here, "Nothing more than parlor tricks and folk ways, the political equivalent of wearing garlic to protect yourself from vampires." So he's not pointing any punches. What do you say to that, and how are you so sure? - Sour grapes. Whenever you're unconventional and I go against the pundits and the pollsters, as I did when I called Donald Trump in 2016, you are gonna get those sour grapes critics. You cannot predict nine of 10, and I would say 10 of 10, 'cause I think I was right about 2000 because based on the intention of voters, alcohol should have won that election. Going away, as I proved in my report to the US Commission on Civil Rights, but you can't, with parlor tricks, pick nine out of 10 or 10 out of 10 winners plus. My system is based on the structure of how American presidential elections really work, not on ephemeral polls or off the top of the head punditry. They work as votes up or down on the strength and performance of the White House Party, and that's what the keys gauge. And retrospectively, the keys go all the way back to 1860, the election of Abe Lincoln, when we had no automobiles, no planes, no polls. Ribbon didn't vote, no radio, no television. So they have endured through enormous changes in our society, our demography, our politics, our economy. Let those critics show what their track record is on prediction, otherwise I think they should be quiet. - Well, there you have it. Alan Lickman, I know the Harris Walls campaign must be thrilled. Thank you so much. - My pleasure. - Well, got a group of political experts here, and do they have sour grapes or not? I don't know. Do you think Alan will get this election right? Do they think so? Stay tuned. - On set with, from HGTV and Max, takes you behind the scenes of the most iconic on-screen worlds with the people who made them real. - And the production designer. - Director of photography. - Custom designer. - Set decorator. - Find out how these spaces that live rent-free in our minds came to be. And provide the perfect backdrop for our favorite TV shows, like Friends. - Oh my gosh, oh my gosh. - True detective. - Time is a flat circle. - And more. Listen to On Set With on Max or wherever you get your podcasts. - In a sprint to November, fundraising is going gangbusters. A source telling CNN tonight that Harris more than doubled Trump's $130 million fundraising haul in the month of August. That would be at least $260 million for the Harris Wall's campaign. I wanna bring a national political correspondent for Politico, Meredith McGraw, former deputy communications director for Donald Trump's 2016 campaign, Brian Lanza, and CNN political commentator Karen Finney. Glad to have you all here today. First of all, this fundraising. And of course, you saw the prediction from Professor Lickman. What did you make of this? It's set of Harris victory. I think I know your response, but I wanna hear it. - Yeah, listen, I appreciate him. He's trying to put some type of political science behind it, but to me, it just feels like the roulette table. Black or red, you know, when it's the final two candidates, it's how hard is it to really choose? And he's been right, you know, apparently 10 times out of 10 times or nine out of 10 times. I don't know, I don't buy it. You know, we'll see. I mean, pulling is pulling human nature's human nature. It's hard to sort of make a prediction in two months out has been my experience. - I mean, there has been a lot of tumult, so we say, and a lot of back and forth over this summer. - What else changed me? - I mean, there's something about things happening, but this fundraising, if effort, Karen, I mean, Harris more than doubling $130 million in just August alone, it seems. When you look at this, I mean, what kind of advantage might that give a campaign in these last 60 days? - It's critical. I mean, think about the fact that they were able to announce earlier this week, that they were giving money to the campaign committees for down ballot races, governor's races, state legislative races, the House, the Senate, all of which are important, if you win the White House and you don't have Congress, it can really, obviously, stalls your agenda. So the fact that they have enough resources to comfortably give those dollars, I've heard that there will be more going out, also to support some of the outside, you know, the groups that they work in collaboration with to mobilize Latino voters, African-American voters. They have a very solid ground game. And in all seriousness, she does not have to use any money towards legal bills. That makes a difference. That means every dollar you are raising, you can be thinking about how much am I putting on into TV, how much am I putting on into digital? How much am I putting that into ground game or mail? All the things that we know you need to do, particularly for her, this is important, given the short timeframe to make sure voters are getting the information that they need. You want the voters who need to hear certain messages, hearing those messages and the channels where they're going to be looking for that information in the way that they are going to be most interested to hear it. And of course, that's the battleground states and also throughout to give that road to 278, can't just focus all that effort in one or six different states. Mary, there were remarks that were made to the Economic Club of New York by Donald Trump. He was talking about tariffs. He wanted to cut capital gains taxes. He wanted to impose tariffs on, I think, imports. But then he was asked about what he would do to make childcare more affordable. Listen to what he said. - Childcare is childcare. It's something you have to have it in. But those numbers are small, relative to the kind of economic numbers that I'm talking about, including growth. But growth also headed up by what the plan is that I just told you about. We're gonna be taking in trillions of dollars and as much as childcare is talked about as being expensive, it's relatively speaking, not very expensive compared to the kind of numbers we'll be taking. - I've had two children in childcare. It is not just relatively expensive. It is expensive. What did he mean by that? Did you get a sense of how he intends to make childcare more affordable? Well, Donald Trump said that childcare is important, but his answer really gave zero specifics on how exactly he would address it. And a big part of his speech today at the Economic Club was talking about tariffs. Trump has been a big fan of tariffs. His team says that it will spur domestic production, but there's a lot of criticism from economists who say this would actually fall on consumers. And he was trying to say, it seems like in this answer that these tariffs, the money that's raised from it, could somehow go towards offsetting the cost of childcare, but the woman who asked that question said she was disappointed in his answer because it was so meandering and there wasn't a real clear answer to what she wanted. - But you got to have that answer, Brian. I know she was like this. - He needs to work on that answer. I mean, it's not the first time he's heard that question. We've dealt with that question back to even in 2016, childcare. It was a major component of the 2016 campaign and part of his administration, he clearly needs to work on that answer. But I would point out when you know, he's having this economic speech, talking about what he's going to do to improve the economy, talk about what he's going to do to bring inflation down. Singing handily, the best thing he can do to help with childcare is drive down the cost of everything, whether it's, please let me finish, whether it's childcare, which is driven up. - I'm just breathing. - He's used to the interruption. Sorry. - I understand that can be offensive. - You can breathe. - I'm used to everybody interrupting. But it's what he can do is by driving down these costs on everyday products, by dealing with inflation, that's ultimately going to drive down the cost of childcare. I think that's what he was trying to say. He clearly didn't articulate it. He needs to work on it. But I think we can all agree, if we deal with inflation, that will drive down the cost of childcare. But there's other components he needs to do as he did in 2016 and 2017. - Before you breathe, hold on. - Sorry, I'm ready. - I don't want to play for you for a second, because speaking of Anja, I know you'll have a response to this. Senator J.D. Vance also spoke about the idea of childcare. And one of the things he said was, have grandma and grandpa help a little bit more? Look at some of the social media posts and responses to this. I mean, the one tweet says, "You are aware that many grandparents "can't afford to retire. "What episode of Leave It to Beaver are you living in?" Another one said, "Need healthcare? "Call in the grandparent, problem solved. "My parents, when I said texts on a Friday, "meme of Obi-Wan, Kenobi, of course, the text." It's a trick, send no reply. This can't be the reaction. - Well, it was the reaction. - Yeah, and Trump. - Well, and the other part of what he also said was that, oh, maybe we need to be looking at some of the regulations about the people who are providing the childcare. Go and sell that to parents. Maybe, certainly you probably don't need a master's degree, but I don't think parents are gonna buy the idea that you want someone with lower qualifications taking care of your children. And to Brian's credit, they need a better answer. Here's the other reason, though. It's part of the modern post-COVID economy. So much of what Donald Trump talks about is not only devoid from reality, it is devoid from the reality of the American economy now. Even people who do stay home need childcare. We learned that in dramatic ways during COVID when we saw kids walking through Zoom calls. So it's not just a care economy issue. It is actually an economic issue where you have some families where one person's working just to pay for childcare. So yeah, they've got to show they're more in touch with how people are living now. - I would say all policymakers have to do something with respect to childcare. I mean, when my parents, when I was growing up, my mom stayed at home. My dad had the full-time job. My mom stayed at home. She was able to raise us being involved. That doesn't exist for the vast majority of families anymore. Here in D.C., we're lucky enough to make a decent living. I still needed to get childcare, and it's expensive. And let me tell you something. The most important thing about childcare is finding that right person, that when you leave the house, you don't have to stress. The vast majority of people can't find qualified people for childcare. We've had unfortunate luck over the years where we've had bad childcare and we've had great childcare. And it's a huge burden when you don't have good childcare. And it's even bigger burden when you can't afford it. And these are real stresses to families that we need to resolve. And it's not just the Republican Party. It's all parties need to figure out how to drive down the costs that didn't exist, that the high cost of everything that didn't exist 40 years ago. - Meredith, we're talking a lot of it. I mean, we hear about the term economy, and I think people mostly think about things like terror, so thinking about our global economy beyond, most Americans thinking about their personal budget and pocketbooks. And yes, I still say pocketbook, as opposed to purse, and a pocketbook. And I'm wondering, Meredith, when you think about how both campaigns are addressing the personal economy versus the more global and federal reserve aspects of it, how do you bridge the gap? - Well, I think what voters want to hear is these candidates coming to them and being personable, and understanding where they're coming at, and understanding the stresses that Americans are facing every day. And while we've seen improvements in the economy, when people are going to the grocery store, they're still feeling the stress when they're in the checkout line, their budgets are crunched. And so when they hear candidates talk about, Trump talking about tariffs or, you know, Harris talking about her tax plan or whatever, they really need to bring it home and remember that for these people, they want to understand how this is going to help them when they're at the checkout line. - That's the fundamental question, everyone. Thank you so much. And hey, thank you all for watching. Anderson Cooper 360 is next. (upbeat music)
