man, when it rains, it

really, really pores. the supreme court, they better find themselves a really big umbrella, tonight on laura coates live. ♪ ♪ ♪ so don't call a quite a throwback, but all of a sudden, it feels like y2k, when the new year hits in 11 days from now, the supreme court will be like, in sync, saying, bye-bye to their -- let's just say, the supreme court will be a little bit busy. the nine unelected men and women who set the bench and he has court and all the land, now has a power to decide an election, and i mean, again. let's all ravenous for a second, back in the days of the hanging chats in florida. they did it with bush v. gore, back in 2000. now, they may have the chance to do it all over again or that once in multiple cases involving donald trump. today, trump asked the high

court to sit and think for a bit, before they answer whether he has absolute immunity. that is the jack smith case right here in washington d.c.. jack smith, he wanted a quick answer, why? maybe, he does not want his time wasted. a trial supposed to start in march, and he rather not wait to find out and will actually go to try to make a case against them. whether he is immune from prosecution. trump, on the other hand, apparently, he loves a good weight. why rushed into possibly getting rid of a case against you, pretty ironic, right? his lawyer say that the case is just so important, so quote paramount to public importance, unquote. if justice moves, it must move in a cautious, deliberate manner, not at breakneck speed. i'm not sure it's quite breakneck yet, but that is the image of the question. the court also gets to decide the eligibility question, they weren't coming out of colorado supreme court decision to take

trump off the primary ballot. the supreme court is going to have to decide whether trump engaged in insurrection, or whether the 14th amendment applies to the most powerful office in the country, and those are two really important questions. a few of his points here though first. these things have to be set anyway, the court as you know, tilts conservative. we know about the different wings at the court, et cetera, and three of the justices that you see in that yearbook photo, on the right side of lady liberty seesaw, the conservative side. they were put on that bench by the former president, whose faith they may now have to decide the election, but don't assume anything. my father always told me, laura, you know what happens when you assume. i won't spell it out. but all three of new gorsuch, brett kavanaugh, amy coney barrett, they did hand trump losses in insurrection connected cases. so much for assumptions, but whatever the court decides, it

is going to leave a whole lot of american voters busier. the court does not have the same popularity, shall we say that i had back in 2000. ethics questions, the unraveling of precedent, that had a taboo to do with all of that, right? let's be honest though, either way, the supreme court reputation is going to take a hit, and you can't ignore the obvious, all of these cases are moving their way through the docket, as you at home are getting ready to vote. by the time that they have actually decided, you might have already cast a ballot. after all, the courts term does not end until, what, june? i don't, know maybe it's at the black, ropes maybe they just like to wait until the 11th hour to make a decision, because they often wait till the end of the term, which means that you might not know the whole picture, when you step inside the ballot box, and it means any delay, no matter how small that delay is, it puts donald trump one day closer to simply being able to,

at least four federal cases, make them go away, if he is successful and becoming the president, that's a maybe though. joining me now, conservative lawyer george conway, contributing writer for the atlantic and former trump attorney, tim parlatore. i'm so glad that both of you are here. let's talk for a second, take me a step back, who thought that we would be here again, the supreme court being able to weigh in and decide the fate of a presidential election? i don't want to overstate it though, because they're not actually deciding whether you campbell and what the vote should be but who is on the ballot, whether she's immune, how seriously they take it -- we look at, george, the colorado case, in particular. >> yeah. >> did that court make the right decision and deciding that he can't even be on the ballot? >> i was initially skeptical of mcclain, the argument of section three of the 14th amendment disqualifies trump, not for any legal reason. the federalist society, law

professors who wrote the article that got this argument going, made a compelling case, very methodical, using exactly the kind of interpretive techniques that scalia would have used. i found it compelling. it's like, it's too good to be true, i thought. i thought that there must be something. there must be something there that can come up. i also think that it would be better, i think, politically. this is my vice, to see him be in at the polls, rather than to see him excluded, but that said, the law is the law, and unless somebody comes up with a counter argument that is coherent, you have to apply the law. what i saw yesterday, and i wrote a piece in the atlantic today, that i recommend to everyone, that i read the the sense, and the the sense, and these are smart judges. they're dissenting, supposed to come up with arguments that really struck at the heart and

majority opinion. they have not been, particularly as a matter of federal law, they have not. >> they really focused in on two main arguments. one was, if it is premature, there is no criminal conviction here for insurrection. the other one seemed to be about the vagueness of the language, but the district court in colorado already said, that if the framers wanted to have the 14th amendment applied to the president, why not put the word president in that particular clause? neither, as you are talking about, seems to have to wait for everyone universally, but what is your take on their case? >> i think they spent a lot of time talking about whether it applies to the president or not, which is not an argument i found to be particularly compelling. the thing i was surprised at is how much time they took to define what insurrection is by using webster's dictionary, as opposed to title 18 of u.s. government. the federal government did pass a statute, insurrection, title

18 u.s. code 23. that is the statute that says if you are convicted of, this you have to serve ten, years in jail, and you're disqualified from holding the office of president. their refusal to address that statute. in fact, at one point, they just address there briefly and set, that does not really apply because it does not say that is the only method, but the reality is, many grand jury sitting here in d.c. have examine the events of that day. they have all declined to bring charges of insurrection. one came close. one brought charges about the related section of 20 3:24, seditious conspiracy. >> we don't know what every grand jury was present it with. i hear your point about -- >> in which the the oj declined. >> it could be the case, but i let you finish. my point is, the grand jury, as we know, our secretive, deliberative, we don't know what they percent, but you're absolutely right, jack smith did not charge it. donald trump is not charged in

an insurrection in washington d.c.. >> exactly, because they came to were seditious conspiracy charges, which at the colorado supreme court went through their webster dictionary analysis and said that sedition is a lower than an instruction. so you do actually have precedent that he has convictions for seditious conspiracy, but you don't have a single charge for insurrection. >> george, how do you see it? one of the big arguments being made is not just the idea of the statue and code and what was not charged. look, voter should be the ones to decide this. how do you take me from the ballot. a comment retort is that often disqualifies the presidency, age, or your born, all of that part of it. how is this different? >> that would have been a good argument, 157 years ago, if you were in congress debating the language to be put into the 14th amendment and section three of the 14th amendment. the fact of the matter is, you're absolutely right, there are a number of qualifications that are applied to people running for public office.

a lot of them is at the age requirement. you have to be 35. that takes away the ability of people to vote for a 30 year old, but that is life. this is a another requirement, don't engage in instruction. it's really not the hard of every choir meant to me. as far as the interpretation of the word insurrection is concerned, at the proper approach is what justice scalia would have done, which is to look at the dictionary, don't look at some other statute that may be written in a different context or different purpose, and instead of looking at how people understood insurrection in the dictionary. this was just plain language. the fact of the matter is, the dissent and a case in the decision last night, with people who are objecting, judges objecting to the decision of colorado, they did not even go there. they did not even challenge the

definition. >> one date. one certainly did, there was the one descent. they did go into an analysis of the statute. look, the fact that congress put this into the u.s. could, words have meaning, and as lawyers, we can't sit here and say, well, just because there is an instruction statute, the federal crime for instruction, we don't have to really pay attention to that, we just had these the dictionary definition instead. no, there are crimes, there are elements. these are things that congress is empowered to put into the u.s. code, and the courts have to follow. they can't just make up their own definition saying, because we don't like this particular candidate, we are going to use a proven sedition and substitute that for an insurrection, because we like using that word. >> final word, george? >> the fact is, they have used

the word insurrection, did not say whatever statute congress uses to prosecute an insurrection. they did not say that it depends on anything congress subsequently did. it's a stand-alone provision, and i asked to be interpreted in more terms of the plane meaning at the language, and the plane meaning at the language is, as justice scalia and others, justice gave follows it to. you look at the dictionary, and you look at the contemporary dictionaries. you look at the plane meaning at the word, and i don't know how you can say that somebody aids and foments and encourages people to overthrow the peaceful transition of power has engaged an insurrection. i don't think how you can get there. >> we got a bit of a preview, george conway, tim parlatore, what might be happening and the supreme court discussions, if they take the case. my big question, was mariame webster around what the framers? how old is the dictionary? do we even know? that's rhetorical, i am kidding.

i know, i know. >> i take you so seriously, laura. >> take me seriously, not literally. >> don't go there. >> george conway, mr. parlatore, because so much. >> always fun. >> what is the supreme court likely to do? let's continue our talk now with their mueller, and election law scholar, professor of law at the university of notre dame. derek, thank you for joining us. we're talking about the supreme court, what they really have ahead of them. they have a conservative majority. we know that. what is your prediction on how these justices might roll on this colorado issue, whether trump can be on it, on the ballot or not. is it unanimous? is it split? what are your thoughts? >> there are so many ways for the court to go. that is one of the issues in the case. there are so many issues to address what is an insurrection? what does it mean to engage on it? does the first amendment pack some of the speech?

this congress have to step in? my guess is that the supreme court is trying to dispatch the cases as quickly as possible and maybe as unanimously as possible. if they can find consensus for a unanimous procurement that will result -- which probably means that trump appears on the ballot, they reverse colorado, i think that will be the inclination, but there is a chance that the slandering of the court with so many issues, that people want to move in different directions, and they're unable to hold. >> tell me, it's impossible for the audience with all of the different issues, you have immunity, eligibility, obviously, there is a particular order for which the court will consider cases, a process by which they are receiving and deciding whether to review these cases, but is there a chance that language that is used inside an opinion dealing with the actual different issuer question at the court, could they maybe try to resolve this in short order

and tried to consolidate i think odds on that are. low these are momentous cases in the, past involving richard nixon, or bill clinton. and claims of presidential immunity -- and this sort of ballot access they want to trust this quickly. there are voters that are quickly going to polls, in a matter of. days and then starting to vote. and, then i think they're gonna have to be forced to separate these issues and really draw up this process through june and as painful as that might be for a political matter. but i think there's just so many issues. >> and by the, way not even just judicially or electorally. administratively. i, mean these ballots have to get printed. you can't go to fedex geckos, or staples, wherever your printing stuff out. and do it in the night. it is a very long time for the estate to figure out who is on the ballot. and trying to change it is a very big issue. but, i wonder politically, what

are the implications for trump 's reelection campaign of all of these things? i mean, he is a front-runner, and by a landslide. so far. but we're still ways away. what do you see as the implications for his reelection or the campaign? >> yes, i'm watching the polling in the next week or two to see what happens. on the one hand, you might have voters embolden to saying this is another instance of the court coming after trump. and they're inclined to support him on the board. at the same, time it's a very different kind of issue in colorado they're saying you're ineligible. i think there's a risk that voters are on the country. not just in colorado, looking at this country and say am i voting for an ineligible candidate? am i voting my vote away? at should i be voting for nikki haley, ron desantis or someone else? i think it's an open question, because we've never had a situation like this with the front runner facing being thrown off the ballot. and i think that we will see in the polls, the very near future however it stacked. >> that's a really important point, because you already have people thinking about, quote unquote, spoiler candidates.

in ways that if i give my vote to somebody who might not ultimately prevail was a very low probability in doing so. in eligibility factors in people thinking, is it just a wasted vote? that might be the next frontier. professor derrick mueller, thank you so much. >> no, thanks for having me. >> well, president biden, well, he is now weighing in on the position in colorado. i knew he would. he said it's clear that trump is an insurrectionist. but there still a big question. how will the voters see it?

so, it's pretty unprecedented among a number of unprecedented questions, is donald trump eligible to even be on the ballot in 2024? the supreme court will likely have to weigh in on whether his

actions on january six, and those that led up to it disqualify him under the 14th amendment. and, today, president biden is saying this. >> well, there's a 14th amendment with the court to make that decision. but it certainly supported an insurrection. there's no question about it. none. zero. and he seems to be doubling down about it on everything. >> we are joined now to discuss the author, scott moreau. he's written bestsellers that you might know like -- wealth told the lawyers in the word. also, burden of proof and his latest, suspect. he's also had a full career as a prosecutor. i'm so glad to have your voice on tonight. scott, how are you doing? >> i am doing fine lawyer. thank you for having me. >> well, i'm glad you're here. well, you heard president biden talk about. it he's been pretty careful, recently, about when he weighs in on trump and when he doesn't. but we have a sitting president agreeing that his predecessor

and the one who's running against, really, was involved in an insurrection. you can't overstate how significant that is. >> while we all know the events of january six 2021, we're pretty meek. and, you know when somebody is trying to stop the congress from rectifying the election, i don't know what else to call it but an insurrection. so under the capital by force, it definitely is the definition. so i'm not surprised to hear what president biden had to say. and i probably would agree with it. >> you, know the colorado supreme court seems to have a similar viewpoint. a district court in colorado had a similar one as well except they varied into different directions. the trial court said, yes, it was an insurrection. he engaged in a. but he's on the ballot. the supreme court of colorado said, yes he engaged in an insurrection, and he can't be on the ballot. what do you make of that choice? >> well, the district choice in

colorado thought because the president is not named in that part of the 14th amendment that the president wasn't included. and there are some serious constitutional scholars who think the same thing. the colorado supreme court pointed out that the language that is there, and the office under the united states has been interpreted many times as including the presidency. >> when you look at, this the real question somebody people, have that playing out in the courts right now, congress comes to mind. could they have done anything in the aftermath of january six that, frankly, could ever solved before we even got here? >> well, you know the hindsight's always 2020 laura. and at the time, i was writing to friends and mine who served in congress, and, going whoa why don't to use this provision

of the 14th amendment? and i never got a really good answer. but the democrats, obviously, had the votes for them to pass the bill saying that trump engaged in an insurrection. and he was disqualified. whether they would've gotten it through the senate, whether they could've overcome an on a republican filibuster, i don't know. it really depends what mitch mcconnell would have allowed. but the insurrection -- the impeachment ended up being doomed by the fact that trump was no longer the president. so, you know, as i said, hindsight 2020. but the democrats probably went down the wrong road. and could've tried to pass legislation. and then, indeed, it's going to be one of the arguments as to whether the 14th amendment is self executing or has to be enabled by some legislation under -- >> you know, another big question, and forget just hindsight. reading the tea, leaves in terms of the supreme court.

we already know that the 2020 election, because the decisions have been made have cast a pretty big cloud over the legitimacy for some. i, mean a lot of people understand that it was not rigged. it was very. freedom biden is the duly elected president. but there are many who don't believe that to be the case. and, there are questions now, with the supreme court has anything to do about signing eligibility, immunity that it might cast additional doubts over the legitimacy. because they are putting their thumb on the scale. how do you see it? >> i think what your talking about is probably going to come to pass, and namely the cord being very reluctant to decide who can and can't be a candidate for the president of the united states. the only thing about it is that it has some intentions with the other issue that you've been talking about today, whether trump's immunity claims's

claims that everything he did was while he was president. so he can't be prosecuted. those claims gain something because of the colorado case. if the courts going to say, you know, we want the people to decide, not us. then they have to give the people all the facts. and that means certainly, whether or not donald trump is a felon. and you know, speeding the decision on the immunity, and allowing the trump trial to take place means that the american voters will get an answer to that question. is he a felon? and in time. we will know the answer. either trump will be convicted. or, he'll be acquitted. and, he can go on a campaign without that shadow over him. but i think the logic for the supreme court says let's get to the immunity issue, and allow that trial to take place.

>> barack racine moving quickly, scott drove, how novel to think about that. very aspect of. it i know i have to go but i cannot let you go without asking you about this great pc up in the atlantic. so we're talking a lot about, trump but you are talking a lot about what was going on with joe biden. it was with vanity fair. and the headlines, why joe biden, 81, needs to hand over the keys and now! i mean forget talking about trump. you don't think that biden should be in the ballot. >> i don't -- i think that the both major party candidates are too old to be running for president. and, i say this as somebody who's going to be 75 on my next birthday. and i don't think we have to push 80 year old people off the cliff. but being the president of the united states is a uniquely arduous job. and one where you make a deal with the people that you're going to be able to carry on

for all four years. because it's a calamity, and the democracy one of president's either -- either dies or becomes unable to function. and when people get into their 80s, the odds begin to mount that one of those things is going to happen. and, you know, we are ignoring reality. we're playing the emperor's new clothes to pretend that either of these matters are going to be in vulnerable to the effects of age that we see so often. and the people we love. that were close to. neither one of them should be on the ballot for that reason. ignoring any matters of policy. >> well, you know what, every time that i see that scottsboro has ridden something. i encourage him to read it in full. and the vanity fair piece is no exception. thank you so much for joining me tonight. >> laura, thanks. always good to be with you. i appreciate it. >> thank you. >> well, look, trump has repeatedly tried to discredit the eligibility of his rivals

from barack obama to ted cruz. remember that? but now, that it's's own being questioned well, the irony comes in pretty thick. we'll talk about it, nexext.

♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪

the former president, he never met agreeance that he didn't like. trying to be exploited. he explains, how he can save this tonight. with so the last time with democrats rock the ballot was an 1860, and they would not allow a man with abraham lincoln to be as much as mentioned enslaved states. -- taking a number two pencil, and erasing his name from the ballot. they're a little ironic, because remember, trump made his political bones to qualify other people from being the president. here's a little crash course. trump won one we're going to collect. he started with a notorious and not a grain of truth to a claim that barack obama was not born in the united states.

>> why doesn't he show his birth certificate? i really believe there is a birth certificate. why? look she's smiling. why doesn't he show his birth certificate? >> we don't seem convinced that he has. one >> not convinced that he has won. >> he said, quote, they cannot believe what they are. finding >> but what happened to it? well it's none of your business right now. >> the country saw what happened when donald trump found out. >> president barack obama was born in the united states, period. >> period. so, what didn't work once, he tried again. but this, time with ted cruz. and it was the exact same thing. >> he was born in canada, but he actually had a canadian passport along with u.s. passport. until recently. until the last couple of years.

the problem is that if the democrats bring a lawsuit, the lawsuit could take years to resolve and how do you have a candidate where there's something over the head of the party that individual? >> that didn't age well. it also didn't work. i don't really matter that it didn't work, but as donald trump did win the primary. when it comes to, trump and maybe to his voters, they aren't reason to skyway. they appeared to be selling points. i want to bring in former gop congressman, joe walsh, and former obama senior director mayor hawk. so glad to see both of you here. and tonight, we look at. it it is a bit rich, right? wait a second you mean now people can't talk about disqualification? he really kind of made his political bombs off it. >> oh, projection. he is so good at that. and in fact, the state article talked about how he had copies of hitler speeches by his desk, and you should read, them there according to his ex-wife. and in that same article, we find out that he was a big

component of hitler's big lie. the idea that if you repeat something often enough, people will start to believe. it and that's so much of what the donald trump book is about. it's just, get it out there. throw it against. spaghetti gets the wall. see what sticks. repeated, repeated, repeated. and people start to believe. so they believe the grievances. they believe that he is a victim despite the fact that he has been a criminal before he even got to office. >> trump, obviously, he's been talking about the hitler comparisons are not correct and we have not independently confirmed the story, i would say that. however, your point is well taken. yes. >> he's a bad person. he's such a hypocrite. but his playbook, laura, is that he's the victim. he is the most persecuted human being to have ever lived. and this colorado ruling is just, it plays into that. it is such a political gift for him. >> it was the wrong decision for him to do? >> as, and it is going to play

into this narrative, that everybody and their mother is trying to keep him off the ballot. and that is going to help him beyond justice crazy base. i believe. >> nayyera haq do you think the same thing? i mean obviously it's gonna be used, we heard the abraham lincoln can person sketch, right? but when you look at, it is this, if your strategist, is this what you want in terms of getting an advantage from biden? or, nikki haley, anyone else. >> colorado's abuse state, right? it's not like what happens in colorado, is going to change the direction of electoral college, and who gets the presidency. this is also a republican primary ballot measure, right? so republican party, being what it is, and trump running it these days, he could figure out something in some other way to manipulate the system, at scenes done so far. so it doesn't necessarily get anything in terms of changing the capitalists of where democrats need to get votes. it does muddy the waters. nobody, especially the folks

who litigated bush v. gore, claimed former white house chief of staff or biden was one of. them nobody wants to see another election for the supreme court. and democrats, want as clean an election as possible. and, throwing the courts when it comes into who's on the ballot, what votes count and won't does make that a little harder to do. >> we're talking about colorado. but let's go to another c state. california, we heard from the lieutenant governor, there you could see, let's play for a second for people to know what we're talking about. it's not maybe going to stay in california. let's listen to this. >> we have never had a former president indicted or anything. but donald trump has been indicted four times on 91 felony counts. this is a highly unusual situation. and for the courts, and the court in colorado to make a determination that he needs the threshold as an insurrectionist,

we absolutely have to consider that in determining whether or not he's qualified to be on the ballot in california. >> that's pretty important. are you considering exploring it? california, obviously, to which was the glue to the threat. but if one state does, it and another, and another, it becomes maybe the blueprint. >> yes, and if the supreme court affirms the colorado ruling, you're going to have, and the floodgates are going to open -- look, donald trump, to me, is an insurrectionist. i think he participated. and committed insurrection. but when i? i'm just a former congresswoman. we need the supreme court and i don't want laura, just a state supreme court or to inflict decisions, telling me what insurrection is. we -- there were multiple opportunities for senators to actually remove trump. and this was the problem with this case --

but it feels like such a last straw to hold somebody accountable who has managed to escape the rule of law and justice this far. >> but look at that beautiful agreement right there. oh my goodness. >> did we all start braiding each other's hair? that was wonderful. okay, well -- and on that note, all we are bad to have you nayyera haq, joe. i'm so glad that you're here. >> what are we doing? >> a kumbaya. a surge in southern border, and the governor trying to take matters into his own hands. but many people are crying foul over greg abbott's latest moves. what is the el paso mayor think about all of this? well i'm gonna ask him. with my guest,t, next.t.

tonight, as the battle immigration is playing out across the whole country the nation is grappling with the surge of migrants. thousands of migrants in eagle pass texas half unlawfully across the border daily over the last week. and the migrant crossing is getting worse by the day. the volume of the illegal

crossing, now as texas has gotten so bad. the government had to close roe rolled -- railway crossings in the area. and the next, guess is the mayor of el paso oscar. mayor, thank you so much for being with. thus everyone is watching very closely the crossing i understand at the border are higher than ever. and we're talking record setting numbers. tell, me what is it like there right now where you are? >> right now we're getting above 1500 a day and last year we were a bit higher than. that but the numbers had really slowed down after thanksgiving and the numbers continue to increase. and, in the last week every day we're about 1500 a day. >> how is it sustainable for your community? what are you doing to address that or even absorb the people.

>> but we understand about the immigration process broken. and that we have to treat everybody with dignity and respect. when they do come in part. but they're not coming to el paso. there are coming to the united states. that's important that we help to get to the destination and work with them and that's the things that we're very proud of that we make sure that people are not out on the street, they go to bed, they have a warm meal. and we make sure that they get to their destinations but, at the end of the day everything you see today everything we've been working with is a band-aid. and then no community, no country, really can withstand continue to withstand the broken immigration process that we look at today. it's not a process that broke yesterday. it's been on for quite a while. and you're right, we were talking about it a little while ago. congress has to really at the -- he has to be fixed. and it doesn't have to just be fixed. here it has to be fixed in the country where it originates.

that's something that's going to be really important. and we've been working with all our partners for us to stay with the federal government, and we've been getting the proper funding, and it's not in the back of the local tax. but, again less than 1% of the people who crossed the border stay now paso and they are here to go to the united states to make their life a better life to be able to work. until we help them to be able to find, work and it's going to continue a big crisis for our country. >> using el paso as sort of a stopover into the rest of the united states, it's a very important point to think about. and where everyone ends up going. but we use the word dignity, earlier, mayor. and it sticks in my mind because we heard the former president using pretty extreme rhetoric in recent days. -- talking about the poisoning, the blood of our country, those

who come here are inter immigrants and that is very disturbing for so many to hear. and, then try to instill the rest of the world that we believe in a dignified migration problem -- >> absolutely, and it's about time that we stop the extreme employment and. remarks and start focusing on fixing the process. fixing the broken immigration program. and, you, know we can talk about. it and we can make remarks that really are not going to fix. it, but we need to fix a broken process. we need to stop with the mandate on. and and the border should not open. but, yet we continue to see record numbers. so, you know it is time, the change that we're doing today and move forward and working with the other countries to be able to fix it. they gave local law enforcement, the power to arrest and also to stage the event and then to. abort has that been something that you think will be

effective in your community? or does it present challenges, in terms of how law enforcement will have that amount of power? >> you know, we're talking about us before, and the law picks up the city like el paso >> we need to make sure our number one priority, is the safety of the community and we need to work on that. but for us to be able to racially profiled, we wouldn't do. it and that's something that we will not do talking to the police chief. talking to the chair. for gonna make sure that our community is safe and not racially profile and make sure that we continue to work in a way that we're not gonna be able to do the immigration and we're not going to enforce immigration laws so we can't do that. >> mayor, oscar louis. you're on the frontline. thank you for sharing what it's like. . >> i thank you, i'm very proud of our community. because we treat people the way

that we've been treated. >> i hope that's contagious mayor. thank you so much. thank you. a group of americans arriving tonight from venezuela as part of a prisoner swap. including one that we talked about on this very show. what led the biden administration to make a deal with venezuela strongman? that's next.

tonight, there is a major development. that we've been following very closely. tonight, some more right. an american wrongfully held since october arrived back in

the united states after being released from detention. he is one of ten americans freed from the delta and biden administration in venezuela. two weeks ago, his family told me that wright was mistreated while in detention. here is what he said when he landed in texas. >> free at last. free at last. thank god oh my, deep three at last. i don't know if i would ever make it. out, and it is really scary to be in a place where you're used to having freedom and you're locked into a cell. sometimes with four other people. very tiny cell. >> now, as part of the deal to free the detainees, the u.s. agreed to release a key eye, a venezuelan strongman. nicholas monroe venezuela agreed to move towards the democratic elections. thank you so much for watching. our coverage continues.

loving this pay bump in our allowance. wonder where mom and dad got the extra money? maybe they won the lottery? maybe they inherited a fortune? maybe buried treasure? maybe it fell off a truck? maybe they heard that xfinity customers can save hundreds when they buy one unlimted line and get one free. now i can buy that electric scooter! i'm starting a private-equity fund that specializes in midcap. you do you. visit xfinitymobile.com today.