linemen that protect him so well with some custom golf carts complete with their names and jersey numbers. the big toys up front couldn't wake to tate their toys out for a spin in the parking lot at arrowhead stadium. >> i wanted to get them something i enjoy and it's something i think they'll enjoy. got a little nervous as they were going around the parking lot. they do a lot for me all year. i was going to take care of them as well. >> very inventive. normally we see watches. i like the four wheels idea. very happy holidays to them. >> i'll always take a watch as well. but, hey. >> i like that he's a little innovative. >> carolyn manno, thanks for joining us. great to see you. >> happy holidays. >> "smerconish" is up next. why not come out and say it.

i'm michael smerconish in philadelphia. yesterday the supreme court denounced the request. and now the case pending in front of judge tanya chutkan will be argued in front of an appellate court on january 9th and likely then that court ensp banc. this makes it highly unlikely trump will be in court on january 4th. yesterday i acknowledged his motivation, that he's racing the election clock to get trump to trial. the only reason he asked if trump is exempt from prosecution while in office instead of waiting for the normal appellate review is smith fears his prosecution might end with a

trump election victory. but instead of saying so, smith in his filings spoke only in generalities, quote, a writ of certificatary. enter an immediate determination in this court. as to why the rush, here's what smith wrote in seeking expedited review. quote, if an appellate review of the decision below were to proceed in the ordinary process of the court of appeals, the pace of review may not result in a final decision for many months. even if it arrived sooner, it might prevent the court from deciding the case. what it meant was trump could win the election and all cases would be dropped or pardon himself, ending the prosecution forever.

others have since made similar observations. today, "the wall street jo journal," quote, mr. smith didn't offer a good legal reason for the justices to break appellate procedure and jump the d.c. court of appeals. his plea was purely political so he could meet the opening trial date of march 4 and get a conviction of trump before election day in 2024. many of you didn't appreciate when i explained all this last week. the social media was brutal. i was simply trying to detail how smith has boxed himself in. but it did earn aplos. my commentary from last wecht. from one viewer. that would be donald trump who talked about so-called honesty and dangerous moment in the united states. i'm thinking he was trying to get me fired. and in their brief to the supreme court, hoenig said to me anyone would have to agree smith is acting based on the election

calendar. when on thursday smith replied to trump voters if skoe husband, e ignored trump's claim that he's acting with an eye toward the election. instead he vaguely referenced what's in the public's interest and vowed to have the charges promptly resolved. but why not just say the public needs to know if a presidential candidate is a convicted felon before voting. or that because a president cannot be prosecuting while in office, there's a risk that a trump election victory will bring a potential four-year delay during which time memories fade. witnesses could die. or that absent fast resolution, any prosecution of trump is going to run up against a doj rule not allowing conduct perceived as political close in time to election. smith won't say it because trump would then claim confirmation that a prosecution gietded by the election schedule is political. and viewed that way, it might be

political, not necessarily partisan. smith is no doubt concerned that trump is going to win the election and either order doj to stand down or self-pardon. what remains to be seen is whether smith will ever knack knowledge the need for urgency due to the election or will he continue to beat around the bush and risk further delays. the supreme court is about to have more influence on a presidential election than any time since "bush v. gore" in 2000. there's the matter of weather j january 6th were defended. and there's the state of colorado challenge to trump's qualification under section 3 of the 14th amendment and there's this case, smith's challenge of trump's assertion of presidential immunity in the federal case pending before judge chut began scheduled to go on super tuesday.

it is this case i've long said which stands the longest possibility of him being tried, but now that scheduling is in doubt. and smith's refusal to level with the public about why he's rushing to the court house, i think, diminishes the credibility of the doj. if the election did not loom large, there's no way smith would be in such a hurry. he ought to say so. i want to know what you think. go to smerconish.com and vote on today's poll question. should jack smith openly acknowledge he wants to try donald trump before the election. joining me now once again is elie honig, cn senior legal analyst, former prosecutor and author of "untouchable condition how to get away with it." i've always been in awe of this. what did you make of them name

checking you in the briefing? >> that was a first. i never expected the supreme court of the united states to take what we say as gospel. who knows what they made of that citation, but i will say this. the side that cited us won the case, so you can draw whatever conclusion you will. >> elie, from jack smith's perspective, is this political or is this now legal as well, the very issue you and i have framed? >> jack smith was already paying the price in terms of f his credibility and plittsicly for his obvious favor to say what's really going on here. now he's paying the price legally in the courts and here's why, michael. jack smith was asking the supreme court to take the case direct from the district court. that's a rare proceeding. it's rarely done. as such, jack smith legally bore the burden of proving two things. one, the case was very important. that part was easy, that part

was uncontested. of course, this case is very important. number two is there's a specific need to expedite, a specific need for speed. and because jack smith remains stubbornly unwilling to say i want to try the case before the election, instead in both of his briefs, he's just left with this sort of mealy mouthed gibberish where he says delay is bad and speed is good, that kind of thing. donald trump seized on that. he has failed. he has failed to give a specific reason why expedition is necessary, and we don't know exactly why he lost. we got a one-line ruling out of the supreme court, but they denied him. >> what does it sound like? how would he explain it if he were to follow the advice you just offered? >> it's tough. jack smith would not be thinking about the election date at all. because to consider the election date violates long-standing doj

policy, written and unwritten, but given the obvious reality that he is thinking about the election date, my advice would be, and he can take this or leave this, admit it. let's just drop the subterfuge and artifice. let's just say what everybody knows you're doing. i think the most palatable way is if he gets elects, he can't be tried. that means we would have this trial put on hold for four years until january of 2029, at which point we would lose witnesses, we would lose evidence. adding a four-year delay, it makes it unpalatable to try the case in 2029. i think given the position jack smith has put himself in, he should acknowledge it and frame it in terms of dj prerogatives. >> okay. my belief is he is guided by a fear that next week in des moines or in new hampshire, a

week thereafter, it's going to be trump standing up and saying, i told you so. he's admitted it. all of these prosecutions are political, and because they don't want trump to have the ability to say that, instead they say nothing. they, the 's exactly what would almost happen. here's the thing. if jack smith is sitting in the prosecutor's office and thinking, boy, i don't want one of the candidates to have a talking point on the trail, i don't want someone to be able to say this thing that i don't like, that's inherently political. that's why jack smith has played himself into a box that he's obviously thinking about the election, but he still will not say that dreaded e word. >> so, elie, game it out for me. january 9, three-judge panel for the court of appeals. no doubt whoever loses asks for enbanc or a full court review. tell us how you think this is going to play out. >> so we're going to have oral

arguments. clearly the d.c. court of appeals wants to move as quick will i as possible. they've picked up on the wink, wink from jack smith. they're not making him say it. i think they'll rule certainly be by the end of january. jack smith's next move will be to seek enbbanc review. then whoever loses will go to the supreme court. here's the thing, if donald trump loses in the court of appeals, and it seems quite clear he will, technically he has 90 days to go to the supreme court to seek certificate ori. they may choose to take all 90 of those days which completely blows out the march 4th trial date we have right now. there are other ways the court of appeals can let the district court sort of start to do their work without trying the case, but this puts jack smith in a

real bind. forget about march. march is in my view off the board. but any time before the summer, at a certain point you get too close to the election to try the case at all. >> elie, you said something really important i don't want glossed over, and that is that jack smith did not get the expedited review he was looking for with the supreme court of the united states, but he's absolutely getting it from the d.c. court of appeals. >> yeah. i think this is a really important point. both judge chutkan and the other judge, they're on board. they're not putting the wood to him. they're not making him say it. the supreme court was not good with the wink wink, i want to try this before the election. that's why they said no. yes, the court of appeals is moving at almost unprecedented lightning speed in giving him an

oral argument basically 2 1/2 weeks from now. >> okay. finally, you've inspired today's poll question. stick with me. i'll going to put it on the screen @smerconish.com right now. yes, he wants to do it before the election. what do we have? >> joe says i'm not a trump fan, but make no mistake about it. as soon as we let the supreme court desight, that will be the end of democracy because it will not stop. the point is trump being criticized as undemocratic, trying to overturn the election, et cetera, et cetera, is playing the card saying, look how undemocratic this is. very, very political. it's the issue of the election, i think. >> yeah, but i think -- and this is a problem for jack smith.

if his position is, well, we're worried about what donald trump might do if he retakes office, then na that makes jack smith's position an anathema. you're going to worry about who's going to win the election, what do the voters know, do they know if he's going to be convicted before hand? to the extent that jack smith is thinking about any of that, he's way out of bounds, way beyond his prosecutorial boundaries. >> thank you for your expert analysis. really appreciate it. up ahead, my next guest's provoc tissue take on trump is those who support him find him to be, are you ready, a pragmatic, unpredictable kind of moderate. i'll ask him to defend his case. please sign up for the smerconish.com "daily news" letter for which jack sketched

this cartoon this week. .

extreme rhetoric seem to have no standing on his republican voters. trump said migrants are poisoning the blood of america. language like that fuels the narrative that trump is an authoritarian. but might he actually be more moderate than dictatorial? that's the provocative thesis of my next guest who made that claim in a "new york times" essay. he says despite the rhetoric, trump's actual record is that of a pragmatist, and as to the inflammatory quotes, there's evidence they actually are boosting trump's standing. a "des moines register" poll just showed how when the register read a list of incendiary remarks, you'll find 42% of likely republican iowa

caucusgoers say that makes them more likely to vote for trump. he talks about migration and mass deportations. 50% say that makes them more likely to support him. as for the claim the, quote, radical left thugs who live like vermin in the united states need to be rooted out, 28% say they doesn't matter. that smits writes during his presidency, mr. trump's often intemperate and irradical behavior depended on entitlement and policy and trade. he rejected the most unpopular ideas of both political parties. issue by issue, schvitz tries to

delineate. by way of exam hello he writes this. though he championing the overturning of are roe versus wade he has broken with a portion of opponents a plaintiff desantis signed flo's ban on abortionings after six weeks, trump called the move a terrible mistake. by criticizing the most late-term abortions he's managed to reflect the muddled views held by much of the electoral. joining me now is the founder and editor of the online magazine "compact." cnn viewers have steam coming out of their ears right now and they're saying, are you joking? we're talking about a guy who sought to overturn an election result. that's the conduct of an authoritarian, not of a moderate. so you say what? >> thanks for having me on. it's important for me to look as

most do not at trump's rhetoric but at his record on immigration. his rhetoric is inflammatory and seems to be getting more so. you know, recent polling has shown that voters have more trust in trump's record on immigration than on biden's, so one way to understand, you know, how can people be abiding by this rhetoric, which sounds so crazy. they may be looking at images of the border and say rhetoric that's a little wild, i can overlook that. you mentioned the poll results from iowa. one risk is some republicans said some of these statements were more likely to vote for trump. the vorality of independents mae them less likely to vote. the political surveillance may change as we move from the

primary to the general. >> by the way, we do have up on the screen "the des moines register" poll that goes through the eight statements. on the left in the darkest of color are those who say, yeah, i agree with him. isn't the take away from "the des moines register" poll, matthew, that it's not as if his core electorate secretly hopes for the moderation. no, they want the guy who stood in new hampshire and said migrants are poisoning the blood of america. it's the opposite of what you advance in your piece, isn't it? >> i think i can push back ooh bit on that michael. thanks for the question. at the same time a plurality of likely callucusgoers say it mad them less likely to support

trump. so, you know, what could explain that difference, i don't know. it's pure speculation. but we do see that on the underlying issues that voters are more likely to trust trump than biden. but on the issue of defending the democracy, voters are more likely to trust biden than trump. i'm not sure, but i think some of that may reflect voters trying to comment on the underlying issue. >> matthew, the essay in "the times" was jarring to many f o its readers. this approxopinion, which was provocative, was essential to "the times." how many times will apologists for donald trump disinjen usually tell us they'll take him seri seriously, not literally? mr. schmitz -- the only

president in our history who mounted a coups to overturn an election, he lost, and exaggerates his reputation for author tan therr -- authoritari. >> you spoke about the legal prosecution of trump, and i think that underlying those is the political judgment. there's a conviction among many people, i think, including many viewers of the show, recognize that trump is different from others, that he's a threat to democracy. the suggestion of my essay is that he may be less of a threat than thought and i ground that argument less on, you know, trump's own intentions, which i can't really look into than the views of median voters who

support him. so the fact that trump is getting 40% plus of hispanic voters, that he's getting 20% of plus voters, haver high numbers, suggested to me that trump's appeal for the voters who can deliver the race to him doesn't have to do with white supremasu, doesn't have to do with dictatorship, but has to do with his moderate take on entitlements. >> matthew, i think that's legit. it's got to be something else. maybe it's the record of the incumbent. thank you. it was provocative. and i appreciate you wrote it and were willing to come and discuss it. >> thank you, michael. social media reaction. let's see what has come insofar. i think my blood pressure went up on this one. there's nothing remotely moderate about trump. mo, i think a different approach

fo for my guest to say would have fwn to say what a shame he has posed such peril to democracy, what a shame on that issue, which you can't overlook, right, because none of the rest of this matters if we don't honor the rule of law. that would be my starting point. and then i would say, but, if you actually look at the issues, even on immigration, is there that much daylight between biden and trump? especially now? with the record crossings? i think it makes some very legitimate points that in many respects he's studio 54 donald, the old trump who had bill and hillary at his wedding than the guy you've come to know through the rhetoric. complicated subject, which i wish we had more time. i want to remind you. go to smerconish.com.

the poll question, should jack smith try donald trump before the elections? yes. say it. every year i strive to bring you opinions from both sides o f the aisles and an insightn't lesson on how we live live. a look back from the january 6th shah min to the great admiral william mcgraven. please be sure to sign up for my "daily news" letter while you'll there. i love this. this is two-time pulitzer prize winner steve breen. nice work, steve.

i'm a little anxious, i'm a little excited.

i'm gonna be emotional, she's gonna be emotional, but it's gonna be so worth it. i love that i can give back to one of our customers. i hope you enjoy these amazing gifts. oh my goodness. oh, you guys. i know you like wrestling, so we got you some vip tickets. you have made an impact. so have you. for you guys to be out here doing something like this, it restores a lot of faith in humanity. of the air. we have something really cool, really special to air next saturday. i'll tell you about that in a

moment. i want to thank you for watching in 2023. in a couple of months we'll celebrate our 10th anniversary on cnn. no small feat in this industry. we really appreciate your loyal viewing. of course, we could not do it without great guests. each week we strive for great content regardless of political affiliation. here's a look from the shah min toed a merit mcraven. matt gaetz came on this program to share his side of the story. >> how much did you see of him coming at you? >> well, mike rogers and i have w worked together for six years on intense issues. it's not the first time we frustrated one another or worked together. as a matter of fact, it was not a remarkably youunique incident.

there are times we do get into heated arguments. the different is this time it was caught on camera. >> a little trivia, years before he was my cnn guest he was a radio caller to my sirius xm program using the alias matt from florida, true story. i broke bread with admiral mcraven when he came on the to discuss his book "the wisdom of the bull frog: leadership simple but not easy." >> remember first and foremost and navy s.e.a.l.s, we are navy frogmen from our world war ii frogmen roots, so when you're the senior frog man, you are the bull frog. >> do you get anything more than bragging rights? i imagine you never have to buy a beer for yourself if everyone know yos u ooher the frogman.

>> i think the hard part is when you're the bullfrog, you have to buy all the beers. >> if he'd ever allow himself to be drafted into a presidential campaign, i'm quitting all my jobs and working for him if he would have me. robert f. ken d i jr. jumped into the presidential race this year after several pollers said they did not want to see a trump versus biden rematch. >> you embrace that label fringe, and if not, what does that mean to you? >> i'm not running to bring attention to a particular cause. i'm running because i believe i eemg going to win or i believe i have a good enough chance of winning to endure all the hardships that a campaign imposes on me and my family, and i can tell you this, michael, because i know you're a big fan of my wife's. but if she did not think -- if i had not convinced her i could win this race, i would not be in it because she's the ultimate boss.

>> okay. funny thing. i think because of good staff work, he knows i love "curb your enthusiasm." it's my ring tone on my phone. and i love his wife shifrmt so rfk jr. is sure to work her in every interview we do together and i get a kick out of it. dr. ezekiel manual, one of the man yell boys, he said when he hits 75 he'll stop any medical intervention. listen to whoo he said this year at the age of 65. >> as you draw closer to 75, is the emanmanuel plan discussing ? >> i have discussed this with my partner. as i think i've said before, if i'm vigorous of still being active, making major

contributions into my 80s, you know, then i'lo reconsider. >> zeke has been my guest many times but we never met in person until this year, last spring, we lunched together on the penn campus. i remember this. he ate healthy and he rode his bike. i did neither, but i enjoyed his company. jacob chansley on the other hand stormed the capitol on january 6th. he filed papers to join the eighth congressional district. let's agree on this maybe. you should have never been in the building to begin with. >> okay, well, there's a lot of people in congress shah probably shouldn't be in there. >> this is not sounding so repen tent. i think you are genuine in your remorse and heartfelt. my question is are you

remorseful? because now i'm kind of questioning whether you're remorseful. >> with all due respect, i don't care if you're questioning whether or not i'm remorseful. i have reflected on many occasions. i should not have broken the law >> i was willing to give him an airing. maybe i should. have. he served his time, paid his debt to society. also the judge said he found him repen tent. i did not. suicide, substance abuse, and a lack of romantic partners, some of the reasons why young men appear to be in crisis today. thankfully scott galloway gave us the tools to address these problems. talk about solutions. >> more freshmen seats so we have more young in terms of a great opportunity our universities offer. more third spaces to people can meechlt national service so

people can meet other people from economic backgrounds, sexual org yenations and different romantic partners. people like you and me getting involved in young men's lives, a single failure. when a young man no longer has a male role model. in sum and where i'd leave it, if we want better men, we need to be better men. >> professor g. is the total package. he's funny, he's bright, he's balded, he's bearded, and i admire his courage for speaking out. why are young men looking for ai relationships? are all of these judge men able to be fast cilitated? >> it learns what you like, what

you like, doan like, pictures you like, doanet like. and while not all meades are met, that is the next step is actual physical girlfriends, ai ones for that matter. so the next step or next frontier is one that can meet all of your needs. as you said, it's enabling this entire generation of young men to continue in this loan hiness epidemic. >> ai girlfriends, i say society's greatest problem, not much shared experience. like how bill maher says it. we've got to mingle. it's time to mingling. lastly a man bought a lifetime of flights. today he has flown more than 23 million miles. more than anybody else on the planet. i asked him about any celebrity sightings he's had. give me one quick celebrity enco

encounter. >> bill murray. i think my brother does a better bill murray than he does. >> bill says get him on phone. bill called, my brother didn't answer. left a two-minute answer that was just so beautiful. >> i remember after i interviewed tom stucer, i thought, that's a guy i wouldn't mind sitting next to on a long flight. those are memories from a couple hundred of segments this year. i want to do take a moment and thank the cnn team who toiled behind the scenes every week making ron burgundy look good. from the left, editorial producer corey na lam. associate producer amelia burns. executive producer, yes, there she is, katherine brew sew. everyone says where's katherine, who is she? my radio sidekick tv and

producer chloe. there's also or atlanta team headed by director david mar marshall. i thank you all. still to come, don't forget to vote on today's poll question at smerconish.com. should jack smith openly acknowledge he wants to try donald trump before the election? by the way, jack oman, guess this. he sketched this without a caption for my news subscribers. what do you think the caption should be on that jack oman cartoon?

i promise, i put no thought into this until the last 60 seconds. i've got trump saying you're my greatest gift and then i have biden saying -- i'm going to voice this carefully because i know kids are watching. how fitting he would play that role. you follow? all right. that's the best i could do in like 60 seconds. social media reaction. i love that car toon. i love that car toon. there are my notes. should trump acknowledge he might be delaying because the clock is running out? i feel your question this morning was really not centrist and considering both sides. of course, that's what he's doing. he's not the one going to the courthouse and trying to rush it to the supreme court of the united states. i said for all the reasons i offered earlier with elie honig here i think he should just acknowledge it and say the american people need to know, are they about to vote for a convicted voter?

one more. should smerconish reveal he's a closet trump supporter? why? because i cited him in the show? i'm the one who's the most critical but doing it in a way that's presenting both sides. you've got all sides on that, but it's a provocative discussion. still to come, the final poll. smerconish.com is where you need to go. if you subscribe to daily newsletter, it's free. you get cartoons exclusively like this one from rob rogers. nicely d done, rob..

(♪♪) (♪♪) (♪♪) get exclusive offers on select new volvo models. contact your volvo retailer to learn more.

okay, so there's the results so far. wow, pretty decisive. 22,614 votes cast. should jack smith acknowledge he wants to try trump before the election. 72% agree saying yeah, just think this is the reason why we are rushing to get this case revolved. it's going back to the supreme court any way. they decided they weren't going to make this judgment now on whether this issue has to be resolved so it goes back to the three judge panel then back to the court. the court's going to have more of an impact on this presidential election, i think, since bush v. gore in 2000. the only thing any of us know for certain is that we have no idea what's coming in 2024. now for something a little different. a look ahead to next week's special edition of this program.

back in 2006, after i has been appearing regularly on cnn usually as a legal guest, the network told me they liked my work but didn't know what to do with me. i think the net work was surprised when i pitched my idea. hosting a weekly book club. we filmed with me at home in philadelphia. that show never made it to air but today, 17 years later, a holiday gift, at least for me, i decided i would speak with five authors of books that made an impact on me this year. david brooks has been an opinion columnist for 20 years. his latest exploring the most important skill for people to possess. greg wrote the coddling of the american mind and with cancel culture wars tearing apart campuses all across the country, he's back with the canceling of american mind.

sheila johnson was the nation's first female black billionaire. she faced hardships and robert rubin was the former secretary of the treasury co-chair of goldman sachs. his latest is about what he's learned on how to make the best decisions in an uncertain world. and perhaps in complete contrast, robert is a ted talk phenom. he's a professor of biology and neuroology at stanford. he argues in his latest book we don't have any power to decide anything. that there's no such thing as free will. i hope you'll join me next saturday at 9:00 a.m. eastern for the one time airing of the smerconish book club. between now and then, have a very merry christmas and happy holidays. >> hey, merry christmas. happy new year from the smerconish team in new york. i'm catherine, executive producer of the show and this is

our team. >> i'm david, producer. >> kerin, editorial producer. >> i'm jorge. writer producer. >> ameila, associate producer. >> happy new year! >> hi, everyone. i work here on michael's show on cnn in new york. and i just wanted to wish you all a merry christmas and happy holidays and all the things. i hope you have a fabulous new year. thanks for watching the show.

hello again and welcome chit's