Trump Attacks Justices Who Ruled Against His Tariffs

Tonight on 360, the Supreme Court rules the president's tariffs are illegal. His response, a just signed 10% tariff on every country on Earth. We'll look at how that squares with the law. Also tonight, as the search continued today at the longtime former home of the former Prince Andrew, British lawmakers are considering legislation to remove him from the royal line of succession. And later, Eric Dain's last words for his daughters, released after his death from ALS. ALS. Fight, girls, and hold your head high. His message of love in the face of the illness that took his life yesterday. Good evening. Thanks for joining us. We begin tonight with breaking news in President Trump's battle with the Supreme Court over tariffs. Late tonight, he signed a 10% tariff on every country on Earth. And we'll have more on that in a moment. But first, disgrace, ashamed, and fools. Just a few of the broadsides launched by the president at the highest court in the all in reaction to the opinion released today. In a 6-3 ruling, three conservative justices, including two that were appointed by President Trump, Neil Gorsuch and Amy Coney Barrett, sided with the liberal minority. The Supreme Court's ruling on tariffs is deeply disappointing, and I'm ashamed of certain members of the court, absolutely ashamed for not having the courage to do what's right for our country. The Democrats on the court are thrilled, but they will automatically vote no. They're an automatic no. They also are a, frankly, disgrace to our nation, those justices. They're just being fools and lapdogs for the rhinos and the radical left Democrats, and not that they should have anything at all to do with it. They're very unpatriotic and disloyal to our Constitution. disloyal to our Constitution, he said, and he expanded on that notion. It's my opinion that the court has been swayed by foreign interests. I think that foreign interests are represented by people that I believe have undue influence. They have a lot of influence over the Supreme Court, whether it's through fear or respect or friendships. Well, keep it am honest. It's one thing to disagree with a ruling that doesn't go your way. plenty of presidents have throughout American history. It's quite another to accuse justices of the Supreme Court of the United States, a co-equal branch of government, of being disloyal to the Constitution and influenced by foreign interests. Surely the president has evidence to back up such a startling claim. You mentioned multiple times foreign influence over the Supreme Court. Do you have evidence of that? And if not, will you investigate that? You're going to find that. Well, we'll be waiting. We'll see. The issues over this ruling now facing the White House continue to unfold. What is to happen to the $134 billion already collected and now illegal tariffs? Beyond the companies that shouldered the costs and now want a refund, at least one Democratic governor is making the case that his constituents are owed something too. J.B. Pritzker of Illinois sent this letter, an invoice to the White House today, demanding more than $8.6 billion for the people of Illinois. The letter read in part, Your tariff taxes wrecked havoc on farmers, enraged our allies, and sent grocery prices through the roof. Speaking of those allies, perhaps much more concerning to the president, he's just lost a major point of leverage he had been trying to use to bend other countries, both friend and foe, to his will. Canada has been ripping us off for years on tariffs for lumber and for dairy products. 250%. They'll be met with the exact same tariff unless they drop it. If you took away tariffs, we could end up being a third world country. European Union is paying our country because of tariffs $950 billion. And China is paying us a tremendous tariff. We're commending war because of these tariffs. Americans would have to fight in some of these wars. They said tariff is my favorite word in the whole dictionary. They said what about family? What about God? What about wife, children? I said, all right, it's my fifth favorite word. For now, the president posted this on social media tonight, making official his threat to use another lever of his power to impose a 10% tariff on all countries. The authority Trump is now using to enact his global tariffs has never been used for that purpose, and it's unclear if it'll stand up in court if it's challenged. What is clear, however, at least according to recent polling, is that tariffs are not popular with the majority of Americans. In two polls taken in late January, 56 percent of people said tariffs generally hurt the U.S. economy versus less than a third in both polls that believe tariffs help. We begin tonight with CNN chief White House correspondent, the anchor of The Source, Caitlin Collins. What's been the reaction to this decision behind the scenes in the West Wing? Is anyone second-guessing the way the president went after the justices today? I don't think any of them are surprised by it, Anderson, because basically he had been complaining privately for the last couple of weeks, asking people where this decision was and why it was taking so long for the justices to come up with it. And so when it came down this morning, I was immediately texting people. One of them just responded, yikes, the moment that he found out that the Supreme Court had ruled against the president's tariffs. That speaks to really the sentiment that we've been hearing from people internally all day because they knew how angry the president would be. And obviously, we all saw that play out a few hours later when he came out to the press briefing, that hastily arranged press briefing where he himself was lashing out at the justices, calling them unpatriotic, calling them lapdogs, saying they should be ashamed of themselves coming out there. Obviously, you can imagine what he's saying that publicly, what he is saying behind closed doors. And so he was in the middle of this meeting with governors this morning at the White House. The press had actually just got in for a couple of moments. They left and he was speaking to them when someone brought him a piece of paper telling him that he had basically lost this decision. And he caught a disgrace and then immediately left the room, kind of spent the morning on the phone, Anderson, though I should note, you know, the president's talking about what he's going to do next. This is something people have been preparing him for, a potential loss at the Supreme Court, telling him they have other options to implement these tariffs. It's not going to look the same as what has been playing out over the last almost a year now. But they were basically trying to assuage him and say, if you do lose, there will be other options. But clearly it did not dissipate his anger at all today. And I mean, the State of the Union is next Tuesday. Typically, the justices are in attendance, like in the front row. Is are they going to I guess they'll be there and he'll be there. So it'll be interesting to see what he does. Well, I remember last year when he addressed Congress, it wasn't an official State of the Union. He gave Justice Chief Justice John Roberts, patted him on the shoulder, thanked him. I don't think you should expect to see that on Tuesday night. I think it's going to be quite awkward because the president is going to talk about this. His whole pitch, basically, Tuesday night, I've been told beyond talking about his accomplishments, is going to be on the economy. And this is a huge cornerstone of his entire philosophy. I mean, tariffs is something that he talks about nonstop and has always believed in. And so to see not just the tariffs shot down, but this is a check on his power at a moment when there are very few checks on his power, certainly in his view, has caused a shift for him, obviously. And so it is going to be awkward on Tuesday night. We'll see which of them show up. He said today that he was they were barely still invited. But obviously, we'll see what that moment is like. We've seen presidents before criticize Supreme Court decisions, by the way, and State of the Union addresses. President Obama did it as well, but not to the point where the president was calling them unpatriotic, disloyal and saying they should be ashamed of themselves and an embarrassment to their families. And so this has created quite a moment, even though this is a Supreme Court, he said that he's ruled in his favor on a lot of things before. Yeah, without a doubt. Caitlin, thanks very much. We'll see you at the top of the hour for The Source. I want to bring in CNN's senior political and global affairs commentator, Rahm Emanuel. He previously served as chief of staff in the Obama White House, as well as U.S. Ambassador to Japan under President Biden. Also joining us, retired federal judge Johnny Jones III and CNN chief legal affairs correspondent Paul Reed. Judge Jones, let me just start with you. What are your thoughts on how President Trump reacted attacking the six justices? I think he's really debasing his office, Anderson, and good evening to you and to my colleagues on the panel. This is really unfortunate, you know, and I've talked a long time about threats against judges, federal and state judges. In the last fiscal year, there were 564 threats, real threats, as recorded by the Marshal Service against judges. you could get somebody ginned up by the president's unfortunate rhetoric. And I want to say one more thing. You know, I don't think people remember this anymore, but the president had a sister, Mary Ann Trump-Barry, who was a very distinguished federal judge. I knew her. She's passed away now. She was in the Third Circuit Court of Appeals, which was the circuit in which I served as a district judge in Pennsylvania. She was a good judge, a very responsible judge. She must be spinning like a top, although I don't think she'd be particularly surprised by this. He knows better than that judges with whom you disagree are traitors or somehow disloyal to the Constitution. Or even I heard him say that they're easily swayed, which is a really remarkably dumb statement to make. Yeah. Ram, I mean, President Trump's tariffs have been a cornerstone of a second term, not just his economic policy, his foreign policy as well. How big a moment do you think this is? I think it's a circuit breaker of an event. One just for what you just said, because it's a part of foreign policy, part of economic. In three days, Tuesday, but three working days, he's about to give a State of the Union that's really going into the election. And the problem for him is he is underwater on the economy. People don't trust that he's focused on the economy. And as you noted earlier, tariffs themselves are extremely unpopular. I've seen it as two-thirds unpopular, slightly higher than the numbers you said. And so he's going to be fighting for something when he's on his own 10-yard line rather than on the 50-yard line, and fighting for something that people don't want to see anymore. And he's going to show a level of passion which is going to be disconcerting to the American public. And so I think, and then also, remember not only the State of the Union, one month from now he's sitting down with Xi from China, one of the biggest meetings he's going to have all year on the international stage, and he's just been stripped of a tool. So there's going to be multiple levels. This is literally took the floorboards from underneath them and there nothing below them as a safety net politically And he can say whatever he wants this tariff we going to have these other conditions It is not the same otherwise they would have done that And I think this is more than just a decision against him It is really the undermining of the economy, and it's going to force him to do something on a particular topic that the public does not support him on, and he's going to fight for something they don't want. Paula, what are the implications, do you think, of the decision for presidential power going forward? Obviously, President Trump has three years left in office. Yeah, and historically, he's been very aggressive in using his executive authority, or however he defines his presidential power. And that's what makes this significant. Even though this ruling is actually pretty narrow and specific what it covers, it is a reminder to him that there's a separation of powers and there are checks on him. Now, that is certainly not what he wanted to hear. But so far, the Supreme Court has largely gone along with his expansive view of his own authority. Sometimes his own lawyers have even told me they were surprised at how far they would let him go. So this is a check on him, a reminder that you can't just seize some power that was delegated to Congress to make it easier for you to implement tariffs. And Anderson, he needs to brace himself for another likely decision this Supreme Court season on birthright citizenship. In a couple weeks, his Solicitor General will be back before those justices arguing that Trump has the power through executive action to end birthright citizenship. Even sources I've spoken with inside the administration believe, yeah, that's probably going too far. So it is possible, maybe even likely, that the justices once again will check his power in a couple months. Well, and Judge Jones, I mean, you talked about the kind of, you know, how it damages the court. The accusation by the president of the United States or the suggestion by, you know, by the president of the United States that sitting justices are subjected to foreign influence is pretty incredible, especially from an administration which has folks who have business dealings in a lot of foreign countries ongoing and are reaping billions of dollars from them? Well, it's a made up charge when you don't agree with the decision. And I have to say, Anderson, this is an eloquently written opinion. This was really well done. You know, I envy the, from the perspective of a former judge, the writing was crisp and good by the chief justice. You know, he pivoted his opinion on the two words that the government attempted to use as its rationale, which is basically regulation of importation, and said that, you know, written large, that means that the administration could levy tariffs on any country at any time, for any length of time, in any amount, forever and ever. And he said those words can't bear the weight of that. And so in his typical fashion, Justice Roberts dispatched this without using excessive verbiage. And I think that the court agree or disagree with the various opinions, worked very hard on this. But these allegations, you know, it's throw it against the wall and see if it sticks. I really think we owe better as, you know, he's a co-equal member of the three branches of government. And this rhetoric is very, very unfortunate. And again, we're going to get somebody hurt if he doesn't stop. Rum, were you surprised by the foreign influence idea? Oh, look, no, I wasn't because I think we're all talking about the court. I actually think he has it about Amy Comaguard and Neil Gorsuch, two people that he appointed. He didn't say them by name. He expected loyalty from them and obedience from them, and they showed that they're an independent branch and et cetera. I think it's more than just how he feels about the court. It's how he feels about two people he appointed that he is very particularly upset. So I think it's, while he's not happy with the court, not happy with the majority opinion, not happy that it's 6-3, Those two, I think, particularly are a burr under his saddle. Because everything is transactional. I don't think that would be breaking news even on CNN. Yes, I think he thinks everything is a CNN. I think everything he thinks is transactional. And he expects, and I get back to this. You and I have talked about this, Anderson. He is not governing. He is trying to rule. And he does not want to deal with the Congress. That is what that opinion says. And he dismisses them. That's why he doesn't want to do another piece of legislation. has been the most ineffective Congress. So he is at every level. And again, I get back to this. This State of the Union was supposed to be projecting forward about the economy and what he's going to do. He has been stripped of that. The emperor wears no clothes. And when you look at his speech the other night in Georgia, he says, I solved affordability. Well, that too would be breaking news to the American people who are barely making it to the end of the month on their paycheck with rising prices. And every part, and remember not only that, You've had a couple other data points. The economy is basically treading water. They're not creating jobs. Consumer confidence is a decade-long low here. You just came out also with imports are surging, and manufacturing jobs are actually declining over his 13 months. Loss, loss, loss, loss. I think this State of the Union is going to be very complicated. It was already complicated, and I don't think it's going to achieve the objective the Republicans want going into the election with some wind at their back. if anything, it's 75 miles right into their face. Yeah. And Paul, I mean, you heard the Illinois Governor Britsker sending Trump, you know, an invoice for more than $8 billion. The CEO of Learning Resources after this decision came out, which is a plaintiff in the case, they said about the Trump administration, quote, it's our money. They took it unlawfully. They have to return it. What do we know about the process of getting the U.S. companies who paid these tariffs their money back. Is there how does that work? Look, the only thing we know, Anderson, is there will be many lawyers, accountants retained to try to help folks get their money back. The Supreme Court even said in its opinion, it blew Justice Kavanaugh in his dissent. He said, look, we decide the law. It's not up to them to lay out a logistical plan for you to undo what you've done. So I think what we should expect is this will be litigated. The president has said he's going to issue tariffs through other means that will also be litigated. So like so often is the case in a Trump administration, there will be a lot of work for lawyers. Yeah. Rahm Emanuel. Yeah, go ahead quick. I mentioned about Xi's trip. Every person sitting in right now, foreign government is analyzing and saying, we don't have to play this role. We don't have to do these investments. So there's a domestic cost to this on the economy. That's going to be what their election is about. And internationally, the president lost a major tool in the toolbox. And the fact is they never should have built an economic or national security based on this tool. Yeah. Rahm Emanuel, Judd Jones, Paul Reit, thanks so much. Up next, who UK police are now talking to as part of their investigation to the former Prince Andrew and the latest on the search of his former home. Also later, incredible footage from Southern California of surfers and swimmers who often have no idea they're surprisingly close to great white sharks. Researchers are looking at it, trying to figure out why. They're getting so close and not attacking. We'll be right back. When we first started doing this, we told the lifeguards, if we see a shark within 100 feet of a person, we will call you so you can pull the people out of the water. By the end of the week, they told us to stop calling because it was happening every 10 minutes. Hey, I'm Anderson Cooper. On my podcast, All There Is, we explore grief and loss in all its complexities. You'll hear deeply moving and honest discussions with people who have faced and are living with life-altering losses. On stage was always this place that, for all my life, that was safe for me. Something broke in me when that happened. My guest is Eric Church. He's had an incredible career in music. Eric is 48 now, with a long list of hits under his belt. But Eric also knows loss. After Vegas happened, those bullets shattered that safety. talking grief building community that's what the podcast is all about this is all there is listen and follow wherever you get your podcasts one day after former prince andrew stunning arrest and release from custody uk police are searching the home he moved out of just weeks ago also british lawmakers are considering legislation that would strip him from the line of royal succession all while the king's brother is still under investigation on suspicion of misconduct in public office as authorities continue to investigate his past relationship with Jeffrey Epstein. More now from CNN's Max Foster in London. Your brother, sir. Your majesty, how are you feeling after your brother's arrest? Keep calm and carry on. Britain's wartime motto, seemingly what King Charles is going with as his brother Andrew's legal woes unfold. Charles promises full support for the investigation, saying the law must take its course. We're now learning that London police are now contacting former Prince Andrew's personal protection officers. They're also assessing US DOJ documents, suggesting that London airports were being used to facilitate human trafficking. But as searches continued at one of Andrew's former properties on Friday, experts warning the investigation into the former prince could be slow. Looking for offences relating to any potential misconduct in public office. So documents, emails, electronic messages, those sort of materials, which obviously these days can be held on like flash drives and USBs. So it would be a very slow and methodical search. Now released from custody, police haven't said what led to Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor's arrest on suspicion of misconduct in public office. But it came after a tranche of documents relating to convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein were made public by the US Department of Justice. Some of the emails released appear to allegedly show Andrew sending confidential UK government trade material to the late Epstein. Whilst the appearance of someone's name in the files is not evidence of wrongdoing, Thames Valley Police previously said it was assessing whether Andrew shared confidential material with Epstein during his time as a UK trade envoy from 2001 to 2011. The former prince hasn't responded to the newest allegations, but he has consistently denied any wrongdoing related to Epstein, even claiming he terminated his friendship with a convicted sex offender back in 2010. Still, the sheer complexity and publicity around the case, also why some experts believe it may take some time for police to finish their investigation There not a great deal of sympathy but the police have a duty of care to everybody they arrest They want to make sure that he receives all the support Whilst the authorities go through due process, the UK government is now coming under more pressure to act. And that's because Andrew, despite being stripped of his titles, is still eighth in line to the throne. According to a poll released on Friday, 82% of Britons want him removed from the line of succession. So far, the government seems to be keen to see the investigation play out. But with mounting calls from lawmakers and the public, that resolve may be tested in the weeks to come. Max, we mentioned the British lawmakers are considering bringing legislation that would remove Prince Andrew, former Prince Andrew, from the line of succession. Is it clear when that could happen and what the process entails? There's been a debate about this because he's eighth in line to the throne. This latest case has really amped up the pressure. The government has always pushed back on it because, just wait for this, Anson, the huge amount of parliamentary time it would take when they have other priorities. So they'd have to introduce a bill to Parliament, have to go through 10 stages in Parliament, and then they would have to pass it. It doesn't stop there. That same bill would have to go to 14 other parliaments around the world where the king is head of state. Everywhere from Canada to Australia, Jamaica, Tuvalu. So it would, you know, a law times 10 just for Prince Andrew, former Prince Andrew, who probably isn't going to become king anymore. But it just shows how the very idea of Andrew getting anywhere near the throne is so toxic in this country right now. That's incredible. Max Foster, thank you. Up next tonight, breaking news in the potential U.S. strike in Iran as the military buildup continues. Another American aircraft carrier spotted entering the region earlier today. And later, as first responders continue the recovery effort from that deadly California avalanche, we are learning more about those who died, including six friends, wives and moms who shared a love for the outdoors. Breaking news tonight is the U.S. amasses military assets in the Middle East. The world's largest aircraft carrier was spotted entering the Mediterranean Sea earlier today. It's the USS Gerald R. Ford. You see it there right on your screen. Well, President Trump gave a 10 to 15 day time frame for Iran to make a nuclear deal. Today, when asked by a reporter if he's considering a more limited military strike to pressure them into a deal, here's how he answered. I guess I can say I am considering. Who is that person? Are you considering a military strike? Yes. Well, the map gives you an idea of just the sheer volume, the amount of U.S. forces in the region. It includes fighter jets, refueling tankers, nearly a dozen U.S. Navy ships, including another aircraft carrier, the USS Lincoln. It is the largest buildup in the Middle East in 22 years. We reported yesterday that Mr. Trump is still weighing his options for military action, ranging from more limited targeted strikes to sustained operations that could last weeks. I'm joined now by Democratic Congresswoman Maggie Goodlander of New Hampshire. She's a member of the Armed Services Committee and is a former intelligence officer in the Naval Reserve. Congresswoman, thanks for being here. How do you interpret the president's latest comments that are on the massive U.S. military buildup in the Middle East? Where do you see things headed? Well, thanks so much for having me, Anderson. You know, today of all days, the president should be mindful of what the Constitution says about his powers and about the powers of Congress. The Supreme Court reminded him today that he does not have boundless power to tax the American people and small businesses. He does not have boundless power to wage war. And if the president has clear military objectives in Iran, if there is an imminent threat to the United States or our allies, the president should come to Congress. He should make his case. He should get our authorization before he takes action. It was just a few months ago that the president took unilateral, unauthorized military action in Iran. And he told the American people in the world that it was a resounding success, that he had totally obliterated Iran's nuclear sites, key nuclear sites. So it's as I sit here now, Anderson, it's hard for me to understand what the president's objectives are here. and it's an important day for him to remember that under the Constitution, Congress has the power to declare war and he needs our authorization to take action. Do you have any sense of what the, I mean, if there is to be a military action, whether he consults Congress or not, what the objective would be? Because, I mean, he had told protesters who were being killed in the streets, being hunted down in hospitals, in prison, tortured, killed, to, you know, to keep protesting, to take over government buildings if they could, that help is on the way. So that seems to indicate some sort of regime change objective. But doing that from the air is obviously, I'm not sure how feasible that actually is. So is it to, if it's not regime change, is it to pressure the regime to, you know, sign it, make a nuclear deal? You know, Anderson, I don't know what the president's objectives are because he has not been clear with the Congress or with the American people about what his objectives are. Look, I believe that we have in the Iranian regime and the supreme leader a brutal and determined enemy of the United States. I believe there is strong bipartisan support in the Congress to supporting action to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon. I believe there is strong bipartisan support to making sure that our country and our allies are safe. But the president has not been clear. And we've seen in this year alone already unilateral, large-scale military attacks that led to regime change in Venezuela. Well, how's that going? What happened there? He replaced one thug with another. this is not what the American people need right now. The people I represent, the people of New Hampshire, are feeling a whole lot of pain right now. The pain of a genuine affordability crisis that this president calls a con job and a hoax. This is not a time to be playing around with some of the most consequential tools and some of the most consequential decisions that a president could make. The president needs to be clear about his objectives and needs to follow the Constitution, and he should remember that today of all days. Congresswoman Maggie Goodlander, thank you very much. I appreciate it. Up next, what we have learned about a group of backcountry skiers, many of them moms, killed this week in California's deadliest avalanche in recorded history as teams try to recover their bodies. Also, the powerful message left by actor Eric Dane for his daughters. He died of ALS at the age of 53. Let's have I got news for your ears. The podcast. I am your host, Michael Ian Black. I have nothing to hide. I've been exonerated, totally exonerated on Epstein. Yeah. The exonerated thing. Like, it's the word he learned. I don't think he even knows what it means. Come on. He knows what exonerated means. He's been on trial enough times. He's been exonerated a number of times. To me, it's the 1980s ran for president and won. Right. Why isn't the music more interesting? YMCA. Mm-hmm. Gloria. Mm-hmm. I'm going to say that Gloria blew his mind. Michael Crawford receiving the Presidential Medal of Freedom. That means it. Have I Got News for Your Ears releases new episodes every Wednesday. Don't miss an episode. Follow us wherever you get your podcasts. Efforts to recover the bodies of eight backcountry skiers and locate one still unaccounted for continued today in the Sierra Nevadas after a deadly avalanche on Tuesday. While the weather has improved, avalanche conditions remain dangerous. We're also learning more about the victims from their families. The group were close friends who planned this trip long ago. They were all experienced backcountry skiers. They carried avalanche safety equipment with them. Stephanie Elam has more. More than three days after the country's deadliest avalanche in 45 years, we're now learning more about some of those nine victims who lost their lives on Castle Peak. Among them is the spouse of a member of the Tahoe Nordic Search and Rescue Team, which is involved in the search and recovery efforts, the Placer County Sheriff's Office said. Also on this trip were eight friends, six of the victims, all mothers and wives, who were experienced backcountry skiers, shared a bond of their love for the outdoors, their families say. They are sisters Liz Claybaugh and Caroline Sakar, Carrie Atkin, Danielle Keatley, Kate Morse, and Kate Vitt, whose neighbors in Mill Valley, California, are reeling. A friendly person devoted to her kids. I'd see them, she'd walk them to school in the morning. She was just out there with her kids and getting them hustled off to school and after school activities. And she was really, she just seemed like a super friendly, great mom. A joint statement saying they, quote, have many unanswered questions about the professionally guided two-night backcountry hut trip, noting that the group trusted their professional guides. California's Workplace Safety Agency has launched an investigation into the company that led the tour, Blackbird Mountain Guides. The Nevada County Sheriff's Office tells CNN it is also looking into any possible criminal negligence. Blackbird says its four guides on the trip were highly trained and certified instructors with the American Institute for Avalanche Research and Education. Six people, five clients and one guide, were rescued off the mountain about 11 hours later. The bodies of the skiers killed remain on the mountain. Hazardous weather conditions in the rough, rugged and vertical terrain have hampered recovery efforts. Eight bodies have been located in the midst of the football field-sized slide. One person is still missing, but presumed dead. And Anderson, now that the snow has stopped, first responders will have to take care not to trigger a new avalanche, while they also contend with bitterly cold temperatures as they take on this recovery mission, which officials say will stretch into the weekend. Anderson. We learned after signing off last night the sad news that actor Eric Dane died earlier in the day in Los Angeles after a brave battle against ALS commonly known as Lou Gehrig disease In his celebrated career, which spanned more than 30 years, Mr. Dane appeared in scores of films and television shows, everything from Saved by the Bell to Marley and Me to Euphoria, and so much more in between. It was his storian role, however, as the dashing Dr. Mark Sloan on the ABC primetime hit Grey's Anatomy, a wildly popular medical drama focused on the professional and romantic lives of staffers at a fictional Seattle hospital that rocketed Eric Dane to superstardom and cemented his character's nickname McSteamy in pop culture history. Who's the blonde? I don't know. I may be a dad, but I am a single dad. Excuse me. Okay. Now I recognize you. Must, uh, suck to work on Valentine's Day. I don't believe we've met. Ah! What'd you do to your hair? I changed it. I colored it. I just... Wait. You thought I was someone else. You didn't know it was me and you were hitting on me? No, no. I pretty much thought you were some blonde. You are pathetic. and hypocritical and slutty. And you are no blonde. You can't pull that off. Blondes are either badass or fun. And you're, you're a brunette. Eric Dane was by any measure a performer of great humor and charm. The camera certainly loved him and so did his millions of fans. But we remember him tonight, not simply for his stardom, but for his abiding love and devotion to his family and the incredible strength and wisdom he displayed even in the last days of his illness. An affliction so unspeakably cruel that it robs people of their ability to move, their ability to talk, and ultimately their ability to breathe. Tonight I want to play you a portion of a final message Mr. Dane recorded for his daughters, Billy in Georgia, and wanted to be shared with the world after he had died. Billy in Georgia, these words are for you. I tried. I stumbled sometimes, but I tried. Overall, we had a blast, didn't we? I remember all the times we spent at the beach. The two of you, me and Mom, in Malibu, Santa Monica. Santa Monica, Hawaii, Mexico. I see you now playing in the ocean for hours, my water babies. Those days, pun intended, were heaven. I hope I've demonstrated that you can face anything. You can face the end of your days. You can face hell with dignity. Fight, girls, and hold your heads high. Billy and Georgia, you are my heart. You are my everything. Good night. I love you. Those are my last words. You can face hell with dignity. Eric Dane certainly did that. In addition to his daughters, Billy in Georgia, he's also survived by their mother, his wife, actress Rebecca Gayhart. They all have our deepest condolences. Eric Dane was 53 years old. We'll be right back. Sharks in the freezing waters off Antarctica are not supposed to be a thing. That's long been the thinking, but take a look. For the first time, one has been caught on camera in Antarctica's deep, near-freezing waters. Researchers just released this video of a sleeper shark spotted last month. They say it's estimated to be up to 13 feet in length. Now, off the coast of Southern California, it's not surprising to find sharks. But researchers using drones have noticed some surprising behavior. They've spotted sharks on the move very close to unsuspecting swimmers and surfers. Evidence that if you've spent any time in the ocean, you've probably had a close encounter with a shark and not even known it. Here's CNN's Nick Watt. There are great white sharks just off Los Angeles, in Santa Monica Bay, and all along this coast. Just 70 yards off the shore here, people in the water, oblivious that this apex predator is right next to him. I swam in this bay this morning. Recently, I came face to face with a great white. So I was right about here, nearing the end of my swim, turned to breathe and saw the fin just coming straight at me. Yet, here I am, talking to you. I kind of gave it to my fate, and then at the last second, the fin dipped the shark swam underneath me and away. So we actually have video footage of a shark approaching a swimmer and getting to within three feet of that person right behind them. They say this bay is a great white nursery. The juveniles tend to be a little feisty sometimes. They'll get really close and then they see something big and then they get really scared and go. There are bigger ones here too. Down in Santa Monica, the last two times I went down there, I've seen at least a 15 footer. Why are they not eating me and my friends? That's what the scientists are trying to figure out. This is one of our automated buoys that is listening for tag sharks with an acoustic receiver underneath. We're quite close to shore. Yeah. But you're expecting to get some hits here? Oh, absolutely. In fact, they'll be literally 100 feet off the beach. So Carlos Gauna just texted me. He's spotted a great white. I'm coming down to meet him. Right here. Oh, ho, ho, ho, ho, ho. Yeah. Oh, my God. And how far offshore is this? This is about, I would say, 70 yards, maybe. And we've got a bunch of people on the beach. Yeah, yeah. And you don't need to warn them. No. Look at all these people. That's, I know. They have no idea what you're looking at right now. No idea. The thing you see is eye. Yeah. The scientists are also using drones. Now, when we first started doing this, we told the lifeguards, if we see a shark within 100 feet of a person, we will call you so you can pull the people out of the water. By the end of the week, they told us to stop calling because it was happening every 10 minutes. I don't really think they're interested in biting into humans. It would be quite a disappointment if one bit into me. You are slightly skinny. Yeah, yeah. Even our fattest person isn't even close to what a northern elephant seal has packed in it in terms of its blubber layer. This shark is super curious. So it's not this just sort of mindless eating machine charging at everything? Definitely not. Definitely. More inquisitive, calculated. Oh, look at that. Oh, oh, oh. Chris Lowe puts his students in the water, swimming, surfing, paddling, records the sounds they make. If you play them at normal levels, sharks ignore it. Sharks that are around people all the time may actually learn to identify us not as food and not as a threat. As shark populations come back and more people are in the water doing the things that you're doing, the per capita bite rate has been going down. And that, to me, as a biologist, clearly indicates that we're not on the menu. Accidents happen, but we're not on the menu. There's a rumor that you can ask women shark anyway. I wish that was true, Nick. I do think about sharks. You do? I do. I think I'm afraid of seeing one. I now know what that's like. And? Since I saw that shark, I now have zero fear. And I didn't really understand that. But it's kind of demystified. And I saw a shark and it didn't eat me. That was probably happening over and over again before, and you just didn't know it. Yeah. Apparently they're here all the time. They could be circling us right now. I'm fine with that. Me too. Anderson, one more reason why we're relatively safe here in Southern California. These waters, nutrient-rich, so there are plenty of seals for the sharks to eat rather than eating us. And also, this is key. Weather is nice here year-round, so because we use these beaches year-round, the seals, who don't like us, they hang out elsewhere. And the biggest, hungriest Great Whites follow them. You know, just six confirmed unprovoked shark attacks off L.A. in the past 100 years. I'll take those odds. Anderson? Quick programming note for tomorrow night. Two of Hollywood's most dynamic actors, Timothee Chalamet and Matthew McConaughey, meet for a candid discussion in a special CNN and Variety town hall event. Take a look. How do you think the film industry will change with the rise of new technologies such as A.I.? What steps do you think will be taken to ensure that artificial intelligence doesn't replace creatives, but is rather used as a helpful tool? Wow, that's a great question. Yeah. Can we kick that off? So, first off, it's coming. It's already here. Don't deny it. Don't just creative world. It's not enough. it may be for you but it's not going to be enough to sit on the sidelines and make the moral plea the moral plea that no this is wrong it's not gonna last there's too much money to be made and there's it's too productive it's it's tear all right so i say get get get your own your own yourself voice likeness etc trade market whatever you got to do so you did that yeah get own own yourself So when it comes, not if it comes, no one can steal you. But they're going to have to come to you to go, can I? Or they're going to be in breach and you'll have the chance to be your own agency and go, yeah, for this amount or no. Okay? It's coming. The special CNN and Variety Town Hall event with Timothy Chalamet and Matthew McConaughey premieres Saturday, 7 p.m. Eastern Pacific on CNN and on the CNN app. That's it for us. The news continues. The Source with Caitlin Collins starts now. President Trump's first State of the Union address of his second term. With the midterm elections only months away, can Trump put his party on a path to victory? Join CNN for in-depth coverage and analysis. The State of the Union, February 24th at 8 on CNN. Or watch on the CNN app.