ressional stock trading. and the only democrat who opposed wasteful “earmarks” that fund politicians' pet projects. katie porter. focused on your challenges - from lowering housing costs to fighting climate change. shake up the senate - with democrat katie porter. i'm katie porter and i approve this message. as we speak, former

president trump is in a courtroom in new york, speaking. no cameras in this courtroom, but as we understand it he is going on a bit of a monologue right now. we are going to have the latest details on that at these closing arguments in his new york civil fraud trial, with four days to go before the iowa caucuses trump foregoing the campaign trial -- trail, i should say, again choosing to transform the legal appearance into a de facto campaign stop, and doing it as we speak. right now that is part of the defense process wrapping up their argument, but the day started with a swatting call at judge arthur engoron's home. judge engoron didn't address the news of that from court today -- paces threats or swatting incidents. >> now to the case itself. judge engoron is already

determined trump committed fraud and is liable. the trial is now going to determine what that will cost him, and potentially his future as a businessman. the new york attorney general speak seeking $370 million in discouragement of profit, she also wants the court to bar trump from doing business in new york, as well as five year bands for his two adult sons. to recap, prosecutors argue that the trump organization inflated real estate values on some signature trump properties, including his a state at mar-a-lago. they allege that this issue wasn't the result of a simple recounting errors, or it's subjective differences in valuations, but they were deliberate effort to defraud a vastly exaggerating the footage of certain properties. trump and his team have denied those claims, and in the meantime as we mentioned trump is now talking in court right now, the judge allowing him to address the court. but remember, just a day ago, the former president agree refused to agree to these

preconditions set by judge engoron. trump has done most of these things just outside the courtroom, literally every time he has appeared at this trial, that was again the case this morning. we are going to find out what the former president is saying in court right now. cameras are not allowed in that room, we are expecting he will address the courtroom from outside once this wraps up later today. as for what the next step looks like, remember there's no jury in this case. no deliberations. after closing arguments, we're gonna hear judge r. and grown resume the case, and then he will rule by a written ruling that he says could come as early as the end of the month. and then of course come the appeals that trump and his team have promised. let's get the latest from inside the courtroom now with cnn's paula reid, she's live outside the courtroom forest. paula, a live bit of a surprise that the judge would allow donald trump to address the court. >> nothing is surprising here, boris, but things certainly taking a term in last few

minutes from yesterday there were negotiations we had learned between the trump team and the judge here about possibly allowing trump to participate in closing arguments. this would be highly unusual. closing arguments are an opportunity for lawyers to summarize their case. the trump team would not agree to some restrictions the judge laid out, by insisting that trump stick to the material and relevant information, and not attack the district attorney or the judge. but things have been business as usual here, -- summarized his argument, other attorneys got up to summarize there's. but then chris kise got up a few minutes ago and asked if former president trump could address the court. he then launched into what our colleagues who are inside described as a monologue. telling the court, quote, the facts are the financial statements are perfect. there are no witnesses against us, the banks got all their money paid back, they were great loans. this was a political witch hunt. that is really how trump and

his lawyers have from this entire case, as a politically motivated and manufactured allegation. now trump says when you say don't go outside of these things, we have a situation where i am an innocent man. they are he's referring to the restrictions that the judge tried to put on any participation he may have. he said quote, i've been persecuted by someone running for office, referring to the district attorney who did promise to investigate trump when she ran for office. he's insisting that i have to go outside these bounds. here he's making -- restrictions the judge wanted to put on him. i want to bring in our colleague kara scannell who is right next to me. carrie was in the court earlier for oral arguments. kara, you called it, you knew that trump couldn't get through the day without participating in some way. is a surprising? >> nothing in this trial has been surprising. -- it changes and it doesn't happen. it doesn't surprise me at all that the judge allowed trump to

speak, because part of the reason he gave initially about why he would allow trump to speak is that he said more on the line in this case than anyone else. since there is no jury the -- as you just laid out trump went beyond the contours of what the judge wanted to be permissible here by talking about a witch hunt, making this a political case and not arguing just the facts in the case. for closing arguments, for the bulk of it, they are mostly delivered by chris kais, his attorney, and he did stick to the facts in the case. he went through the evidence that was presented, saying to the judge that the attorney general office did not present any witnesses who testified that there was fraud here, and that is been a core, consistent theme of the defense, that there was no banker that said they would've done anything differently if they had gotten different financial statements, saying that the a.g. didn't meet their burden and didn't make their case. part of cases -- manufactured claim to serve a political agenda. it is always been press releases in posturing but no proof at all.

the attorney general is seeking to strip them according to the papers of everything. no one from the marketplace showed up and said there was a problem. again, that's the core of this argument here, that they didn't have the witnesses testifying. the judges already ruled in this case that -- that the value of some of these properties were inflated, that the value of trump's trip like some parchment in manhattan was inflated. he's already made these determinations, and even a ruling last month he said that some of the witnesses that trump's team put on were just not credible. he's already laid down the contours of what he thinks of this evidence in the case, and of course everyone gets their shot today to try to convince him a bit more. we also heard from alina habba, one of the attorneys representing trump and some of the co-defendants in this case. she made a point of saying that there was no fraud, and she and kise focused a lot on michael cohen, who -- testified that he was told him directly by trump to boost the values of these properties

along with alan weiss, the former cfo. this investigation started when michael cohen testified before congress in 2019. the attorney generals office has been clear about that, so they were focusing on his credibility because during his testimony initially he said trump directed him, and then he walked back and said it wasn't a directive, that it was known as an inference that trump gives. trump's sons are also on trial here, eric trump is in the courtroom today along with the trump advisor boris epstein, he was sitting beside him. their attorneys also had a quick shot of the end, and they also said there was no evidence against their clients. >> the legal proceeding very much a political event. they started their argument that this is a political motivated case, and then trump argued at the end this is the same thing. boris we're gonna -- address the cameras after that monologue. >> as we understand it, he will give a public statement at about 2:30 pm, so at some point once this wraps up he's going to head down to a trump

property near wall street to make those remarks again. at 2:30 will of course bring them to you, as they happen. >> certainly we will be awaiting much more ahead, a lot of interesting stuff already happening there as we heard from kara, she was in the courtroom. i want to bring in cnn senior political analyst -- cnn legal analyst carrie cordero, we see this, carry the. trump, even when he was facing legal liability, he sees political opportunity. he certainly took it in that monologue he gave in court. what do you think of what he said and what you've heard, so far today? >> it is interesting that the judge did apparently allow him to have some statement. his attorney gave the actual closing argument which was quite lengthy, but then he did -- he was able to say something in his own defense. what's always interesting about this case is that the legal judgment on liability, because of course this is a civil case, has already been made by the judge. this is all about the penalties, and a lot of the arguments that the former president's lawyer

seem to be making including in their closing arguments goes to the merits of whether or not there was fraud, which is already a done deal. this is about the consequences, this is about the penalties, and so the former president being able to have a opportunity to say something is obviously in his interest politically, which is about all he can get out of this at this point. >> one of the things that strikes me about that, in this regard, gloria, is a contrast from what we saw last night during the debate between ron desantis and nikki haley. they were both talking about how these legal issues were distraction, how voters shouldn't be concerned with these things. trump doesn't seem to think that. he's leaning into this all the way, and it doesn't seem to be hurting him in the least. >> totally. he commandeered the microphone in court. and essentially he gave a political speech, not only attacking letitia james, but also attacking the judge. and he said according to one transcript that you can't listen for more than one minute, and he said i did nothing wrong,

going on and on. i'm sure we'll hear more of this today. but it is quite stunning that his attorney was asked to control his client by the judge, and clearly he couldn't, and didn't, and didn't want to. this was a move that they had choreographed unplanned, even though they didn't get explosive position to do it. no matter what the judge said, donald trump did exactly what he wanted to do. >> asking forgiveness -- >> well, not really. >> asking for formation adverse, being denied, not really answering that, and then maybe just dealing with it a little later. >> and it is a risk for the court to have him speak publicly, and this particular judge has had to deal with the fact that the former president has made statements about the judge, has made statements about court personnel, and so there has been an underlying security issue as it relates, and was as was reported at the top of the hour there was a

swatting incident apparently against this particular judge. this swatting issue as it pertains to judges, court personnel, election officials, this is something that is pervading not just this case but all of the legal cases that are wrapped up into the campaign. >> it's also part of the trump persona, which is that nobody can make the case better than donald trump. his attorneys can't do it, nobody can do it. so he felt the need to stand up and put a bow on it, and be the one to sort to have the final word. it is very characteristic of donald trump to say i know more than my lawyers, i can do a better job than my lawyers, i'm going to address this judge directly, and don't tell me what to do. i'm sure his attorneys, as paul reed has earlier, probably didn't think this is a great idea. but he did it anyway. >> he has a political goal here, and certainly his supporters, they want to hear from him. not from his lawyers.

he is correct about that. he's not going to give up that opportunity. let's go back to paula reid who is at the courthouse, and paula, obviously there are many cases involving donald trump. this one, though, in particular really gets to the heart of who donald trump purports to be, which is a shrewd businessman. and fraud. he's committed fraud, the judges said. it's really just an issue here of how extreme it is. and that's the question. there is also the attorney general trying to stop him from being able to do business in new york. the threat, in a way, to his identity if that's the case, what do you think so far about their interaction that you're seeing with the judge about whether that is really a possibility? >> this case is so personal to former president trump, because as you said this speaks to the identity that he's put forward four decades as a very successful and savvy commercial real estate mogul.

so the idea here that they're accusing him of misrepresenting his net worth and all this evidence that is been put forward about why he was doing that, all speaking to ego as opposed to actually demonstrating this net worth, that really attacks his personal brand. it's one of the reasons we've seen him show up so many times during the -- of this case, because as you noted it's not just how many hundreds of millions of dollars they could have to pay out in the civil case, it's also the possibility is on the line that they may not be able to do business here in the state of new york. a caveat that even if that is put forth as one of the penalties here, they would likely result in years and years of appeals. but this is incredibly personal. there's no jail time on the line here, this is not a criminal case like the ones he's facing at a different courthouse here in manhattan, and in florida, and of course in washington d.c.. this is a civil case, but it gets to the heart of who he is purported to be from almost his entire life. >> yes, the financial exile in

a way on the line here. paula reid, thank you so much. gloria borger, and carrie cordillera -- still one day after a surprise visit on capitol hill, hunter biden is in california now set to appear in federal court on charges of tax evasion. we're going to take you there live. >> plus house speaker mike johnson facing a hard right revolt over the spending deal with senate democrats. i would be once again barreling towards a government shutdown? we're going to speak to a government -- supports a shut down unless they're major changes to water policy. >> and -- bill belichick parting ways with the patriots, and nick saban retiring from alabama. what comes next for these two legends of the game? we have that coming up, on cnn news central.

here in just a few hours, hunter biden is expected to return to the courtroom on tax evasion charges. the president son is facing nine counts of what prosecutors say was a four-year scheme to avoid paying more than 1 million dollars and taxes. >> yesterday, hunter biden briefly sat in on a house committee hearing that was starting proceedings to hold him in contempt of congress. today, we heard from first lady, jill biden, for the first time since her son appearance yesterday. >> i think what they are doing to hunter's cruel. i am really proud of how hunter has rebuilt his life after addiction i love my son it has, it has hurt my grandchildren >> let's go live outside the courtroom to evan perez. evan, we don't expect some of the drama we saw yesterday on capitol hill to pop up in l.a.. >> no, we don't.

i don't think judges will really stand for the little bit that you see play out in that political process, and and wash into. what we expect is that hunter biden will appear in this courtroom. he will plead not guilty. he is facing those nine counts, including those felonies for a evading taxes. prosecutors say that he made millions of dollars from working with businesses in ukraine. as well as angina. he used a lot of that money to fund an extravagant lifestyle. everything from exotic cars to exotic dancers. that is what he has been spending money on, and not paying taxes on time. hunter biden has since repaid taxes, and one of the arguments he and his lawyers are making is that he wouldn't be facing these charges if it wasn't for republicans putting pressure on the --

hunter biden was within minutes, minutes of stealing a plea agreement which would have washed away these charges. he would have pleaded guilty to two misdemeanors, and a gun he purchased at a time that was prohibited. now he is facing two sets of charges. one in delaware for that gun. the other, nine counts for tax evasion and filing false tax returns. we expect him here in the next couple of hours. a lot less drama than we saw play out on capitol hill. >>, evan thank you so much for that report from los angeles. >> it is a new year but some of the problems for house republicans are largely the same. many looming threats of a government shutdown, plenty of infighting. we will talk to a republican lawmaker about all of this and just a moment.

get over here kids. time for today's lesson. wow. -whoa. what are those? these are humans. they rely on something called the internet to survive. huh, powers out. [ gasp ] are they gonna to die? worse, they are gonna get bored. [ gasp ] wait look! they figured out a way to keep the internet on. yeah! -nature finds a way. [ grunt ] stay connected when the power goes out, with storm ready wifi from xfinity. and see migration in theaters now.

a short time ago, some hard-line house republicans warned the new speaker they will vote to shut down the government if they don't get the changes to immigration policies they are looking for. speaker mike johnson was dealt a blow yesterday when a band of conservatives voted down an unrelated rule that paralyzed the house. the vote was and protest of johnson spending agreement with democrats that was announced earlier in the week. keep in mind, there are just eight days left to get a plan

together to avoid a partial government shutdown. we are joined now by a house republican who is calling for a shutdown unless there are major changes to border security and to spending. congressman, timber chase, of tennessee, joins us now. congressman, good to see you. some of your colleagues met with speaker johnson earlier today to talk about spending proposal after the meeting, some of those and the rooms that they thought that johnson mic back out of this deal with chuck schumer. he is apparently downplaying that as a possibility. what is your read on the status of things coming out of that meeting? >> my reading is pretty much what much of america's, we have a problem at our southern border. 8 million people have been coming across the border, that have been admitted by the white house, there -- are children have been missing, and god knows what awful life they are leading now. the sex trade and what have you. we are spending between 150 and close to 400 billion dollars in

upkeep for these folks. this is just an ongoing thing that we can't keep going down this route. and i, you either give us a border, or we're not going to give you a budget. that is an overwhelming message. what came out of that meeting is that i think the speaker's, he is, he is throwing into the deep and, literally, this thing, he is trying to do the best he can. i think i as conservatives, we have to give him this support that he needs. i don't think our country can withstand much more of this. >> on the question of support for speaker johnson, you were one of a small group of people who voted to oust the former speaker, kevin mccarthy, over a deal that was very similar to what johnson has struck with schumer. there are members of your congress who are leaving the door open to potentially revisiting that now with speaker johnson. what is your message to those folks? >> well, it is a good message. again, we are 34 trillion

dollars and debts. we take five trillion every year, we spend seven trillion. i don't care what matthew use, that doesn't work. we have got to get some control over this thing, it's out of control. we're heading towards total anarchy. we are rapidly approaching -- >> sir, how is that going to convince some of the members in your conference? like chip roy of texas who is threatening to kick speaker johnson out? >> well, i was one of the eight prior to it, and chip was not. i don't know what is in his heart. it is a reality. we have to look at it. if speaker johnson doesn't deliver on the conservative credentials that he promised us, i suspect we will be looking for a new speaker. that is always an option. that was a rule that was put in place many years ago. it has been voted on. it has been approved by this congress. that is an option. if we don't like our boss, and we don't like the person that

is in charge, we have the ability to remove them. >> if that moves forward, if there is a potential shutdown, don't you think that will hurt republicans going into an election year? >> i think we better stop worrying about political expediency. we have to start worrying about our country. it's these folks that are more worried about their portfolios than the people in this country that have gotten us into this mess. we want to blame the left, and congress, and i want to blame that noise that's coming in over. sounds like someone struggling back there. the reality is for us that we have got our national chamber of commerce to blame for this thing. they want the cheap slate labor in our country, they don't care how we get it. again, they're the ones that when you see the president rolling and, they say, who is out there on the tarmac? i guarantee it will not be me or you. it will be the boys and girls that right those acute shacks. they don't give a rip about this country. they, when the country is doing

great, they will wave the flag. the reality is, the deep state israel. it's both parties. they don't see black or white, they see the color green. they will wreck this country to get it. they do not care. they'll still have it. they will be in great shape. their money will be overseas somewhere, in offshore accounts, and they will survive. the rest of us will not. they really don't care. to me, the fight is much bigger than the republicans or the democrats, because, in the history of this world, i doubt that there will be a footnote. i tell you, this great country, if we let it fall, we will be at fault for it. mainly for our own greed. >> congressman, i will put a pin on your reference to cheap slave labor. i'm not sure if that was a reference to immigration, but i want to move on to something else, we could pick that up some other time. the drama unfolded in the oversight committee, you were on hand for hunter biden during a hearing, leaving after a few minutes. seemingly showing that he is

not afraid of answering lawmakers questions. chairman james comer, back in october, offer to let hunter tusk if i publicly with the transcript to be, or rather, he let him testify publicly months ago. now he wants him to testify publicly. why not answer questions in front of the world? >> i don't have a problem with that, boris. i don't. i am not a lawyer. this is a procedure they have told me has been done in the past. the reason they knew that is if somebody is innocent, if your name is mentioned there, it does not need to be, it's not part, it doesn't have anything to do with it but you pour casually mentioned, or maybe some confidential bank records, those are the kind of things they filter through. they don't do in public. that is the reason why. really, i don't give a rip. he's been there, he has been condemned. he knows he is. yesterday was a show for both sides. you and i both know it. we don't have these things, in the x, or twitter, or facebook,

any of the others, that would have been a big deal. it was because it is instant gratification from both sides of the aisle. you and i know it, it's a game we play, it's unfortunate. >> congressman, one last question. given that so much of our question is focused on your description of greed and the way the corruption can influence politics, former president donald trump acknowledged last night during a town hall that his business may roughly eight billion dollars from foreign business dealings. one of them a bank in china that has allegedly helped north korea with sanctions. is that a program? >> if that's the truth, no, it's not, boris, i don't endorse that kind of thing. that's not the lead i run-in. no. of course it's not. i would like to get all the details. i did not see it. unlike the rest of congress, i do not watch the news, left or right. i just love it. i would have to see that, what he was talking about, and what

reference. to me, that is disturbing. >> congressman, we have to leave the question there. despite what a lot of people say, there is work and congress. drilling, apparently. >> they need to be careful, it might wake people up out here. >> appreciate the time, sir. thank you. >> thank, you boris. >> so israel, right now, is at the international court of justice, accused of showing genocidal intent towards palestinians in gaza. israel calls the claims false and baseless. coming up, what that could mean for the war against hamas.

not just any whiteboard... ...katie porter's whiteboard is one way she's: [news anchor] ...often seen grilling top executives of banks, big pharma, even top administration officials. katie porter. never taken corporate pac money - never will. leading the fight to ban congressional stock trading. and the only democrat who opposed wasteful “earmarks” that fund politicians' pet projects. katie porter. focused on your challenges - from lowering housing costs to fighting climate change. shake up the senate - with democrat katie porter. i'm katie porter and i approve this message. a high stakes court case is

playing out overseas. the international court of justice at the hague, the legal arm of the u.n., is hearing arguments about whether israel has committed acts of genocide against palestinian civilians. during a hearing today, south africa is making its case that israel's intentions are to distort not only hamas, but the palestinian population inside gaza as it continues its war there. israel will be responding tomorrow, and pushing back before the court. they will be a rebuttal of press availability. here are comments from both countries. >> israel's genocidal intent is rooted in the belief that in fact, the enemy is not just the military wing of hamas. or, indeed, hamas general. it is embedded in the fabric of palestinian life in gaza. >> today, we will witness one of the -- compounded by the serious

claims. south africa, which is functioning as the legal arm of this organization, distorted the reality and gaza following the october 7th massacre. completely ignored the fact that hamas terrorists infiltrated israel, murdered, executed, massacred,, and abducted the israeli citizens. >> more than 23,000 people have been killed in gaza since the war began, according to the ministry of health in gaza, which is controlled by hamas, but whose numbers are used by international organizations that say that they largely reflect the reality and the death toll, even if there are some inaccuracies and the numbers. israel is set to respond in front of the world court tomorrow. joining us now, we have law professor at rutgers university, also the author of law and morality and war. professor, thank you so much

for being with us. what did you think about south africa's argument today? >> i think south africa made a very powerful argument at the international court of justice following the prior case, las tablas cases like -- versus myanmar. it should find that south africa's claims are possible, there is a direct link between south africa's claims and the measures that it is seeking. that those measures are urgently needed to prevent a rubble harm to palestinian civilians. i also think south africa made a powerful moral arguments that the court should follow the law establish my prior cases without fear or favor, even though this is a very controversial case with high stakes in the court is likely to face criticism, even condemnation should they rule in south africa's favor. >> we'll talk of those measures and just a moment. i do want to talk about what israel is saying, which is this

is hypocritical. to hold them to a standard that the court does not apply to hamas, because they are not a state actor. what's more, south africa, we heard it in that soundbite, is affectedly operating as a legal arm of hamas. what do you think of that? >> it is very disappointing, frankly, to hear that kind of language from the israeli delegation. south africa is trying to prevent the large scale loss of loss. whether it is genocide or not, this is a humanitarian crisis of horrific proportions. south africa is trying to stop. to suggest that it is somehow acting as a legal arm of hamas is really just not appropriate. south africa actually addresses this criticism in its arguments. it explained that because the international court of justice only has jurisdiction over state, it cannot adjudicate hamas's responsibility under international law. there is another body that can.

that is the international criminal court. south africa has referred to the situation in palestine to the international criminal court, giving the prosecutor the power to investigate hamas as well as the israeli defense forces. technically, the court had that jurisdiction already, both south africa has supported the international criminal court in investigating individual criminal responsibility by hamas as well as members of the israeli defense forces. i think this particular charge of hypocrisy is miss directed and not founded in fact. >> you mentioned the measure, or measures that south africa is seeking here. south africa is claiming that israel is committing genocide against palestinians in gaza. something that obviously would take years to adjudicate. what they are also asking for is what is akin to a temporary restraining order against israel. something that would have more immediate impact. do you think that it would

prevail, if so, what does that mean and the long term? >> i think that south africa will prevail in part, some of the measures they are asking for our very straightforward. israel will not destroy evidence. it will allow fact finding missions to enter gaza, to uncover the facts and find out what is really going on on the ground. south africa is also asking the court to order israel to allow and facilitate humanitarian relief. something that israel is already obligated to do under international humanitarian law. now, south africa's big ask is that the court direct israel to immediately suspend its military operations in gaza. this is a big request. there is a precedent for it. that is what the court ordered russia to do. to suspend its military operations in ukraine. i do think that you will hear israel tomorrow argue that a similar order would not be appropriate in this case. my own view is that the court

will stake out a middle position. that it will order israel to negotiate and good faith, in good faith, to achieve a bilateral cease-fire with hamas, conditional on hamas. it will also stop rocket fire into this. it will in doing so align itself with the u.n. general assembly. which will have a majority -- calling for a cease-fire. that is what the court ultimately will order. not quite what south africa is asking for, but something that could potentially allow humanitarian crisis to be averted. south africa argued powerfully, there is no way to prevent the humanitarian crisis from escalating or descending into famine and disease without a cease-fire. i think the court will find a way to achieve that, even though strictly speaking it does not have jurisdiction over hamas. it cannot order hamas to do

anything. i think they can find a way to craft an order that can achieve a cease fire despite that jurisdictional limitation. >> so much riding on this. idle hawk, great to have you. thank you so much. we will be right back.

we all have heroes in our lives. and for a kid like me, who's had 13 operations. and can now walk. you might think, that i'd say my hero is my doctor or nurse. or even my physical therapist, and they are. but there's someone else, who's a hero to me and 1.5 million other kids and counting. you may be surprised, but my hero is you. is people just like you, who give every month. to shriners hospitals for children. and because of heroes like you.

i can do things now that were impossible before. and i can walk. all of this is made possible because of heroes like you. who go online to loveshriners.org right now. when you do, we'll send you this adorable love to the rescue blanket as a thank you. and a reminder of all the kids whose hero you are. each and every month. please call or go to loveshriners.org right away. two major announcements. bill belichick's parting ways with the new england patriots after 24 seasons and a record

super bowl titles. belichick, who is well known for his on emotional, stoic news conferences, actually got a emotional when saying goodbye to the patriots. >> so many memories of the fans. the standoffs. the praise. the sundays. whatever the situations are. the letters of support. i will always be a patriot. i look forward to coming back here. at this time, you know, we are going to move on. >> end of the world of college football, nick saban retiring after nearly 30 seasons on the sidelines. most of them with the university of alabama where he won six of seven national championships. let's discuss this now is sports analyst and the host of the right time with la monica podcast. lonnie jones himself, what do you think of this? what you heard just then from bill belichick.

>> well, i don't think it was terribly surprising that bill belichick, that he got fired. i think they dress this up nicely. i think this man got fired. given his performance this year, the last couple of years, if a player had a performance with bill belichick, he would've fired him in a heartbeat. it doesn't matter if he was them man on the pictures with that hat on, he would have fired him. i think it's just fine. i had nothing a motion about seen belichick go. he was successful for a long time. when he stopped being successful, he moved on. nick saban, i had been kind of expecting this for a year or so. i don't think many people did, but i think coaches of his generation, at his level of accomplishment are looking around at the current landscape of college football and saying to themselves, why am i doing this? this is more stressful than it used to be. i've got all my money and accomplishments, there has got to be a better way to live. >> he had complained about image and likeness been a

factor in the ability to recruit players to alabama, which he did for 20 years. there is a really interesting symmetry and both of them moving on at this moment. both of them were in trickle in their careers to each other. but, it may not be over for belichick, he is just 15 wins shy of beating this record. do you think he will try? >> i am sure that he will try, but i'm not sure who it is that will turn over the front office to bill belichick. this will probably be what he wants, but probably why he doesn't have a job right now because of the job he did running the office, getting the coach fired. i want to see what happens. i don't think tom landry got put out to pasture in 1989, and his thought was i will never coach again. he didn't. i don't know how hard he tried. i don't know how interested someone is in hiring a coach at that age at that time. we'll see what happens with him. i'm not as convinced as other people are that there is a landing place for him.

>> how do you think this will change things for alabama? how do you think, with saban gone, things will be? >> oh this will be great for those of us who are not fans of alabama. saban has been so successful. i want to say, by my count, finished in the top 10:16 straight seasons. alabama, that is not viewed as well, way to go, exceed our expectations. that as good as the way things are supposed to be. if someone comes into alabama and does what is considered to be a good job, which is win ten games every ten years, when a national championship, that is not what those people are here for. that is a crazy house. those of us who are old enough to remember nick saban, they know about bill curry been fired after starting ten and oh. then losing to the national champion. then basically been fired after having a brick thrown through his window. this is a different kind of place. you will find out what the high

standard is in a college football. you thought it was alabama, see what happens to whoever gets those job next. he got the most difficult job in american sports. >> never fill a great man's shoes. that is a bit of wisdom. really quick, is saving the greatest college coach of all-time? >> i think it is hard to argue against it, given the circumstances under which he won. in alabama, he inherited. if anyone can win in alabama, very few can withstand that job for as long as he did. add to the fact that the football program that currently exists is a byproduct of nick saban, and it does not resemble the program that nick saban inherited in the year 2000. this was a program that lsu's investigation into poplars and the state was support they would never reach the potential. the class of 2001 that he brought in, that changed everything at that place. when you think of what will he has into turning this into the joker not that it is, you would make the argument that he is the greatest college football

coach. >> that makes it a very sad last 24 hours or so. for our colleague, kaitlan collins, all ladi jones, you were welcome back any time. thank you so much for joining us. >> thank you. >> we are waiting right now to hear from former president trump. he is a ten day in court today with his closing arguments in the civil fraud trial. 300 and $70 million at stake. political implications as the iowa caucuses are just four days away. stay with us. this is cnn, news central.