second largest economy as it struggles to find a work force for the future. this isn't just about the work force. when you have so many older people and fewer younger people to take care of them, it raises all of these other questions about health care and housing. phil, we're in shenzhen, this is china's silicon valley. people here are having children but real estate here is very high. it's really difficult to balance all of these forces. >> yeah, it's a fascinating story and the cascading effects of it are so important. marc stewart, thank you. and "cnn this morning" continues right now. i refuse to believe that the premise of when they formed our country was based on the fact that it was a racist country. >> it shows a stunning lack of leadership on this issue. >> no one can be different in a party where you cannot split from the figure head of the

party. >> the former president tells the supreme court to keep him on the ballot warning, quote, there will be chaos and bedlam if it doesn't. >> if they don't have immunity, no president is going to act. >> that rhetoric can match violence at his beck and call. >> fani willis is fighting back against allegations of an affair with her lead prosecutor. >> there's a conflict of interest. the two are profiting. >> some will never see a black man as qualified. >> reporter: the u.s. justice department calls law enforcement's response to the massacre in uvalde, texas, a failure. >> acknowledgment at the pain and the grief that these families have been suffering. >> i hope that the failures today do right by the victims and survivors of robb elementary. good friday morning, everyone, i'm phil mattingly, with poppy harlow in new york.

it's just four days until the new hampshire primary, and donald trump, nikki haley, ron desantis, all blitzing the granite state today. the looming reality is that trump could slam the door shut on this race, the entire primary race on tuesday with a big performance. just minutes from now, nikki haley is kicking off a very busy day of six campaign stops. her schedule capturing the sense of urgency as she makes the case. she's the only one standing in trump's way. >> during her town hall on cnn last night, haley tempered expectations and ditched any talk of a win in new hampshire. instead, she told our jake tapper, her goal is to finish strong. >> governor sununu is predicting a win in new hampshire, and also saying a strong second place finish would be in his words great. would a strong second place finish be great for you. >> what i want to do is be strong. we're not going to know what strong looks like until the numbers come in. >> donald trump relentlessly focusing his attacks, trying to

undercut the message of electability among republicans and in a head-to-head match up with president biden. >> she's not going to make it. she has no chance. she's not go way. maga is not going to be with her. we're leading everywhere now, and she's not. she has one obsolete poll that's about two months old where she was leading biden. well, those days are gone. she's not leading biden anymore. >> cnn's eva mckend starts us off. it is a huge day on the trail in new hampshire, just a couple of days out. what do we expect as we head into this final sprint? >> well, nikki haley is really trying to capture every voter she can in the granite state. what we saw last night from her, phil, is her telegraphing this new approach where she ties trump and biden together as being part of the past as she argues she offers a new generation of leadership that america needs. >> nikki haley barn storming new hampshire with just days to go

before primary. >> look, i mean, we want to do better than we did in iowa. that's my personal goal. >> reporter: and haley spoke to a statement she made earlier this week during an interview where she said america has never been a racist country. >> america is not perfect. we have our stains. >> reporter: she said as a child she experienced racism. but also maintains she refuses to believe the premise america was ever a racist country. >> i was a brown girl that grew up in a small rural town. we had plenty of racism that we had to deal with. but my parents never said we lived in a racist country. >> reporter: haley wants voters to consider what a rematch between former president trump and president biden will mean for the country. >> do we really want to have two 80-year-olds running for president. we need people who love america, and realize if your time is gone, move out of the way. >> i think cognitively, i'm

better than i was 20 years ago. >> trump hitting back at haley, calling his former u.n. ambassador weak. >> she would not be able to handle that position. she would not be able to handle the onslaught. with all of that being said, within the republican party, i want to bring unity. >> reporter: trump has sharpened his attacks, resorts to calling her by her first name, nimarata, an attack meant to be a racist dog whistle against his rival. >> i know president trump well. that's what he does when he feels threatened, that's what he does when he feels insecure. >> reporter: on thursday, trump's lawyers filed a brief to the supreme court uji urging thm to reverse colorado's decision to remove him from the ballot. trump is claiming biden is the real threat to democracy in response to biden arguing the same thing about him. >> well, we put on three great justices and you have some other great justices up there. and they're not going to take the vote away from the people. now, biden is a threat to

democracy. >> reporter: biden, for his part, is looking to the general election, campaigning in north carolina. >> hello, raleigh. >> reporter: the president is facing a primary challenge in new hampshire even though he is not on the ballot. his supporters are hoping biden can win the primary as a write-in candidate. representative dean phillips who is running a lesser known operation against biden is campaigning in new hampshire and picked up a key endorsement from former democratic candidate, andrew yang. in new hampshire, haley is expected to benefit from a more moderate republican primary electorate, but trump, he returns to the state today for an event in concord, and he's really hoping to have a decisive victory in new hampshire to continue to dull the momentum of his rivals. phil, poppy. >> eva, thank you very much for the reporting. joining us at the table this morning, editor and chief of the

national review, rich lowry, and cnn contributor, kari champion, so glad you guys are both here. i want you both to weigh in on the answers that nikki haley keeps giving on civil war, and on racism in this country. there's a difference in saying america is not a racist country now, and never was a racist country now. she also talked about her own personal experience with racism. phil laid out wonderfully last hour how it was -- you saw it. >> yeah. >> how it was built into the founding documents. 3/5 clause, you know, the founding fathers being slave owners, presidents being slave owners. why is this such a difficult question for her to answer. >> it's not a difficult question. it's disappointing, and it's difficult to hear her refer to herself as a brown girl. when you tell children this is a racist country, they feel inferior, this brown girl likes

to sa i grew up well aware that the country was racist, things we don't teach in school right now, i had to learn on my own through my parents. and for me, that helped me, it helped me understand where we are. when she does this, this erasing of history, that's what it sounds like to me, it's so disrespectful to my ancestors, it's disrespectful to the people who helped build the country for her to say it didn't happen or she doesn't want to believe it happened. what if in fact, she does become president. let's fast forward. what if she does become president and she says this is where she fwgoes and touts thiss not a racist country. someone is going to believe that. and all of this history we have, the complicated history with the beautiful country we love goes away for a percentage of people who look just like me who say, well, that's not fair. that's just not true. you can't change history.

and it's so disappointing. i don't know if sthooeshe's tryt along with people. she's trying to win people over in the middle. she's being disrespectful to an entire group. >> there's an implied fundamentally, it was never fundamentally a racist country. are you going to judge the founding by 21st century standards or 18th century standards. the founding generation did not invent racism, they did not invent slavery, which were p persistent throughout all human history, and the great advantage and benefit of the founding is they advanced ideals that eventually eroded the legal racist regime in the country. a great tool for martin luther king and others. she's not saying we're perfect: she said she experienced racism herself, but the idea, she said last night, used the term self-loathing. i think a lot of people who the history is complicated, that's absolutely right, but want to erase the complication on the

other end, it was all about racism. that's what this country has been about. that's false and a lie. >> i mean, i think you make an interesting point, and this is why i have been a little stuck on how this keeps becoming a little bit of an issue for her. you can acknowledge what happened in the past and not undercut either the founding fathers, the ideals of the country, the continuous evolution trying to become a more perfect union. yet people seem to get stuck on it. >> she said last night, we have overcome things, obviously. no one really denies that. so she got in the space, the slavery thing was a flat out gaffe. there's no way to explain how she couldn't have a decent answer to that, but i think for a well intentioned person, it's clear what she means, what she's saying now. >> intentions don't work for me. you know what i mean. it's just insulting quite frankly.

you cannot run to be the president of the united states of america and not acknowledge the history clearly, plainly, and concretely. two things could be true. the precepts, you can't create your own way of describing this. >> precepts like all men are created equal is racist. they made a combination -- >> all men were not created equal, and you know that. >> no all men are created equal. >> that's not true. the constitution literally, and you laid this out perfectly, phil, earlier, the constitution was clear there was a 3/5 clause that people were not free. the idea, sure, i love this idea, but they weren't referring to my ancestor. >> has done more to define american history than the racism. and look, they assume, they are wrong, that slavery would go

away. they weren't going to mention it in the constitution, and hope eventually progress would erode it, and the immediate aftermath of the revolution, racial relations got better. the north, you had many mission statutes in the north. there was backsliding in the south in the 19th century, and we have a terrible civil war. >> we have to agree to disagree, my experience is very different. all i was saying, what nikki needs to do is be honest. the slavery question was a gaffe. she wasn't asked if this country was racist. she was asked, i believe by the anchor, are there racist people in your party, and she is like this is not a racist country. no one even asked her. >> the question was -- i don't have the contact quote but what brian was asking her is this a racist party. are you part of a racist party. >> she said this is not a racist country. no one asked her that. i'm curious as to why -- >> maybe she believes that. >> i have a hard time understanding why someone would

not acknowledge the two truths. she could believe that. >> this is not a fundamentally racist country. why did immigrants come here and thrive, why did asian immigrants thrive. >> we are not created equal. >> you deny that people are equal. >> physically, sure. we can walk and we can move and say and we can do. but the world in which i live in is not going to be the same world you live in. the way i experience america. >> we're all equal, you deny that. >> that's not what i'm talking about. >> you said repeatedly, we're not -- >> there's nuance here. if you would allow me to finish, i can tell you. the truth is my experience is going to be different as your experience, as a black woman in this country, i haven't been created equal, treated equal, in many instances. >> she said the same thing. >> one second, nikki can believe what she wants, but she can't turn around and say that's what we're going to do for our children. if i say this is a racist country, my children will grow

up feeling inferior, that's not true. >> people shouldn't be defined by that and you can overcome it. that seems to be an uplifting message. >> it seems like a message of e rayerrasure to me. >> the fact that this became a central issue, it's certainly a discussion worth having. thanks, guys. >> appreciate you. >> chaos and bedlam, that's the warning the legal team is writing to the court, writing he should be on the colorado ballot. >> the judge in donald trump's election subversion case in georgia is now going to consider a motion that would disqualify the fulton county district attorney who brought the case, fani willis, from her own case. what she's saying about the decision ahead.

welcome back this morning, a

chilling warning from donald trump's legal team in a filing thursday, they laid out their argument that the colorado supreme court got it wrong by ruling to take him off the ballot there. trump's lawyers now asking the u.s. supreme court to rule in their favor or risk chaos and bedlam. >> speaking of chaos, that's what trump is warning will happen if he isn't granted presidential immunity. he was asked about his closing arguments to new hampshire voters on fox news last night. here's how he answered. >> the united states, and i'm not talking about myself, i'm talking about any president, has to have immunity because if you take immunity away from the president, so important, you will have a president that's not going to be able to do anything because when he leaves office, the opposing party president, if it's the opposing party, will indict the president for doing something that should have been good, like obama dropped missiles and they ended up hitting a school or an apartment housing, a lot of people were killed. well, if that's the case, he's going to end up being indicted

when he leaves office. he meant well, the missile went in the wrong direction. and other things, look at biden, what would happen to biden. he's killed our country with his policies, the border is a disaster, everything he does is a disaster. what he did in afghanistan is the most embarrassing moment in the history of our country. giving them $85 billion worth of equipment, killing our soldiers, wounding horribly our soldiers, and leaving people behind. well, when he leaves office f he doesn't have immunity, now, i think it's horrible what he did, but he probably, i don't know, it's hard to believe, but he probably meant well. it's hard to believe that he meant well, the man is incompetent. you have to leave immunity with a president. if a president is afraid to act because they're worried about being indicted when they leave office, a president of the united states has to have immunity. and the supreme court is going to be ruling on that. if they don't have immunity, no president is going to act. you're going to have guys that

just sit in office and are afraid to do anything. >> it was an interesting spin on a closing campaign message that was requested. joining us now to go over the legal arguments, elie honig, i want to start there. and not the full 90 seconds because it would take a while to dissect all of that. the idea of absolute immunity, what the former.is saying on a legal basis. >> the president has the kernel of a right principle, the problem is execution. we have immunity in civil cases. we don't know about criminal cases. but the problem is it doesn't apply to anything that a president does. it has to apply to something within the scope of the job. he gave the examples of obama or biden ordering a military strike or border policy, those are obviously within the scope of what you do as president. you would have civil immunity, maybe criminal immunity. the thing donald trump is charged with, the question is are they inside or outside the scope. the prosecutors say they are outside the scope.

you cannot be covered for outside of scope because that would lead to coin of phrase, bedlam. >> how is this going to play out. this is an appellate court that could decide any day? >> d.c. circuit court of appeals. next stop will be if trump loses he'll try to get @to the supreme court. >> you mentioned chaos and bedlam. can you walk us through the filing in that case? >> 50 pages, we're going to tick through in a couple of minutes. this is the 14th amendment case trying to get him restored to the ballot in colorado. trump's team makes five legal arguments. first, they argument the president does not count as an officer of the united states. you may think how could that possibly be. if you look at the 14th amendment, it lists offices, senator, elector of president, not the president, the other side will say, it hsays hold an office on to the united states. there's textual arguments on that. argument two that trump makes is there was no insurrection, i did not engage in insurrection.

that's really a factual question. trump says i have not been charged criminally with insurrection. that goes a certain distance but doesn't answer it. he has not been charged by jack smith with the insurrection. the supreme court is not going to touch that. the third argument trump makes, and this one we have talked about before. he argues it's not up to the states. colorado doesn't get to decide whether to disqualify me. maine doesn't get to decide, it's up to congress, and to that end they cite section 5 of the 14th amendment, which says the congress shall have the power to enforce by legislation the provisions of this article. so the question is it up to congress. that's what trump says or can the states decide, that's what colorado says. okay. those are the top three, but there's two other sort of new ones that i found really interesting. there is one argument trump says that the 14th amendment says you cannot hold office. but i can still run for office. i thought what the heck is the difference, right, if you can't hold office, how can you run?

but here's the catch, the 14th amendment actually says that congress by a 2/3 vote can essentially undisqualify somebody. so what trump's argument is well, i can run, there's a scenario where i run and win and congress undisqualifies me in which case i can take office. i ran that by a friend of mine who's a law professor, who wants trump off the ballot. what's your answer to that. i don't know. we'll see when the other side files their brief. and then the final argument that trump makes is something called the electors clause, which says if it is up to the states, the constitution stays it's actually up to the state legislatures, and trump says this came from the courts, the colorado supreme court, therefore even if it's up to the states, they did it wrong, so there you go. 50 pages, five arguments, two n minutes. >> and i feel like the law professor's response is everything. >> i don't know. >> which i feel like is the moment we're in right now. >> i'm not criticizing it, i think it's great.

it underscores that we're in uncharted territory. elie honig, thank you. >> >houthis have fired at a droe ship for the third time this week. and a blistering report on the police response to the uvalde school massacacre. assosociate attotorney general vinita g gupta joinining us nex.

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.

i think the report concludes that had the law enforcement followed generally accepted practices in an active shooter situation and gone right after the shooter to stop him, lives would have been saved and people would have survived. >> that was attorney general merrick garland, not mincing words after the release of a scathing report on the uvalde school massacre that left 19 students and two teachers dead back in 2022. the 575-page justice department report confirms what we've long known, it should have been stopped sooner. instead, it took 77 minutes for officers to stop one of the deadliest school shootings in history. the justice department report details a series of critical failures in leadership, decision making, tactics, policy and training, including, quote, the single most critical failure was treating the situation as a barricaded standoff, not an active shooter case. the report says law enforcement

also failed to secure the crime scene, failed to establish standard operating procedures, and failed to adequately communicate with the families. joining us now, associate attorney general vinita gupta, the third highest ranking official at the justice department and oversees its police reform efforts. i appreciate your time this morning. i want to start with there's a lot i want to get to in the report but how this actually came to be, my understanding, is the back story of how the justice department got involved, how you specifically got involved. actually, i think underscores a community trying to figure out a path forward after this horror. can you explain how the justice department in a state like texas, which is not very friendly with this administration's justice department, got involved here? >> sure. it was over memorial day weekend, just the nation, in fact, the world was reeling after the events that had taken place in uvalde on may 24th. but i received a call from the then mayor of uvalde basically

asking the justice department if we could conduct an independent accounting of what had happened that day. there was a lot of finger pointing going on. there was a lot of misinf misinformation. the families were not only reeling from the horrific events that day but also from the kind of mixed up information feeling that people were advancing their own agendas in what information they were providing to families, even from officials. and so the then mayor asked the justice department to do that. we ended up just days later opening our critical incident review into this. >> you make a great point about there was so much information flying around that was conflicting, some of it was wrong, some of it seemed to be outright false hoods. in the process of putting together this report, the most extensive i think you could imagine, what did you learn or what surprised you that you didn't think was possible before starting? >> you know, honestly, the entire process just led to this

conclusion of an unimaginable failure of law enforcement, of leadership. it was a failure of leadership during the 77 minutes, you know. it is just hard to fathom what those children in those classrooms and the teachers were dealing with hearing law enforcement outside, making calls to 911 and yet having nobody kind of breach the classroom to save them until, you know, 77 minutes later at a point in which, you know, many of their classmates were dead, and what they saw, i don't think they will ever be able to deal with fully. and so to see that unimaginable failure, then, continue on, even past the time that the shooter was killed by law enforcement, you know, the crime scene contamination, the fact that families weren't told, you know, for hours in some cases, whether their child was alive or dead. they were spanned out all over the city to the hospital, to the

high school, to the civic center. at one point, families were told that a school bus of survivors, there was one more bus that would come. that bus never came. there was no bus. and so when you think, and there's so many details like that that we uncovered in speaking to families about what they experienced, so the trauma and the pain wasn't just in what happened in the school itself but it continued on for hours and, in fact, days later. and, you know, our point in doing this report, phil, has been both to make sure that we can actually learn lessons here, that law enforcement can learn what happened in uvalde to make sure something like this never happens ever again. >> to that point, this is 577 pages of a case study of everything that you should not do to some degree, from a multijurisdictional perspective. how do you ensure that something like this doesn't happen again given the number of entities,

state, local, otherwise that were involved here? >> yeah, look, i think the first step of accountability, any basis for accountability has to be truth and transparency, and that's what we've tried to do in a report that's over 600 pages. and the goal of it, of course, was first and foremost, to honor the survivors and victims and to make sure that they could have a definitive accounting that they could trust. it means something to those families to have the justice department validate their pain and experiences. they have been feeling like everyone's just forgotten them, that the country has moved on, that the world has moved on, and so yesterday in the kind of coverage that their stories are getting, i think, really is meaningful. but beyond that, the reason why, you know, i originally reached out to the international association of chiefs of police, and we gathered a group of subject matter experts. these were law enforcement chiefs that themselves had ably led their communities through horrific mass violence events to help be our experts and to help

inform the field. we have over 270 recommendations from everything from active shooter protocols to the ways in which victim notification and communication should be appropriately conducted and the like. and our hope is every local official is going to read every page of this report but also that chiefs around the country are going to because unfortunately we are living in an age where there are just too many acts of gun violence and n mass violence, and every community needs to be prepared. >> associate attorney general vinita gupta, this is a case study for everything that went wrong, but hopefully a road map forward and accountability, most importantly, for these families. i appreciate your time this morning. thank you. >> thank you very much. >> and they are point about these families feeling ignored and like they didn't have the answers they deserve is a really important one. phil, great interview. congress meantime has passed another stopgap spending bill to keep us up and running until

march but there has been no progress on the deal for the border, why donald trump could be the reason it may fail, next.

this morning, there is a deal, a short-term deal, a short-term spending bill is heading to the president's desk after congress voted at the 11th hour to pass another stopgap bill to fund the government until march. republicans divided over the top line numbers, increasing pressure on the newly appointed house speaker mike johnson, and this comes as senate negotiators are working on a bipartisan border deal, and includes funding for israel and ukraine. >> there's a critical new obstacle there.

donald trump, you may have heard of him, his opposition to the border deal could actually kill it in the house. >> there are some folks without question that don't want to get any solution to a problem because they think that might help the other side. >> we're joined now by cnn's lauren fox. big high five, funded the government for another couple of weeks, big moment for our friends on capitol hill. to that point, though, i haven't seen a bipartisan senate group get this close in a very long time. at least what it sounds like what your reporting says they're at. if trump opposes this deal outright, how unlikely does it make it to move forward in the house? >> yeah, i mean, if trump comes out against this deal and he is certainly signaling that unless the house of representatives gets exactly what they passed last spring, he believes that republicans should oppose it. if he does that, it makes it virtually impossible. it was always going to be a very difficult lift in the house because there were so many republicans, conservative hard liners in particular who are now

just outright opposed to any more funding for ukraine aid, and remember, when we're talking about this border supplemental package, it comes with more than $60 billion for ukraine, money for taiwan, as well as money for israel. so those are all elements of this package, and if you have some republicans who are opposed to one element, other republicans who are opposed to other elements, it makes it very difficult to get across the finish line. i will note, however, it's been really interesting to watch some of the key senate republican voices who have been encouraging their colleagues that this is the best opportunity that they may ever have, and these aren't just republicans like mitt romney, that you saw in the intro there. it's also republicans like thom tillis. here's what he told me yesterday. >> anybody who stands against this needs to own 3 to 5 million more people coming across the border over the next 12 months. that should weigh heavily on people's minds. when the bill is released and

everyone, particularly conservatives and president trump sees the tools that will be available to a president trump should he win the election. to lose this opportunity to get it passed into law, i think is malpractice. >> and republicans are already making it clear that this is probably the best deal that they're ever going to get with democrats. the democrats have moved significantly in their direction. and that's coming from mitch mcconnell, from john thune, this john cornyn. these are not republicans who typically just cross the aisle with democrats day-to-day. so i think this is very much a signal that house republican leadership and senate republican leadership are once again divided. >> malpractice. quite a word from him on this topic. lauren, thanks for the great reporting. as the biden administration pushes for an eventual palestinian state, israeli prime minister benjamin netanyahu is not budging. >> translator: the prime minister of israel should have the ability to say no even to our greatest friends when he has

to. >> so what's's the impmpact of statemement? nextxt..

i think he's having a midlife crisis i'm not. you got us t-mobile home internet lite. after a week of streaming they knocked us down... ...to dial up speeds. like from the 90s. great times. all i can do say is that my life is pre--

i like watching the puddles gather rain. -hey, your mom and i procreated to that song. oh, ew! i think you've said enough. why don't we just switch to xfinity like everyone else? then you would know what year it was. i know what year it is. houthi terrorists have fired missiles at another u.s.-owned commercial ship. it was at least the third u.s. ship that that group has targeted this week. president biden says u.s. strikes against iran-backed houthis in yemen will continue even though he did concede that they have not worked to deter them yet. >> that comes as israeli prime minister benjamin netanyahu is outright rejecting the idea of an eventual palestinian state saying, quote, the state of israel must control security from the jordan river to the

sea. >> national security council spokesperson john kirby responded to netanyahu's comments, insisting that the palestinian state is still a goal for the biden administration, and told reporters on air force one, quote, we are not going to stop working toward that goal. with us, cnn political and national analyst, david sanger, nice to have you in person. >> great to be here. >> it seems like further evidence of the growing divide between netanyahu and the biden administration. because netanyahu is saying, you know, even our friends we can say no to, and the biden administration has been clear from day one, two-state solution. >> you know, what's stunning about this is that the prime minister has been nothing if not consistent. but at every single step of the wa way he has gone out of his way we are not going to be dictated to by the united states about how we're going to go about this, and the next breath, they say, where's the $14 billion that you promised to help us in the war. and this is going to raise the

really central question for president biden, which is he's been extraordinarily clear about his goals, he's been very supportive of getting the money to israel, which obviously they need to continue against hamas. what they won't say is whether the money is conditioned. and, you know, all aid from the united states is conditioned. we condition our aid to ukraine, and say they can't fire into russia. right? we condition our aid to all kinds of countries and where the rubber is going to hit the road here is the administration certain enough on the two-state solution that they're going to say this has to be a condition. you've got to work toward this. >> the leverage that this administration has in this moment with the bilateral relationship given what israel's in the midst of right now would seem to be enormous. >> that's right. >> and yet at every step of the way, at least publicly, i don't know what jake sullivan is talking about with his counter

part behind the scenes, you probably do. at least publicly, every step of the way, prime minister netanyahu is operating as if he has all the leverage in this relationship. >> that's right. and i think it's interesting, the president and the prime minister were talking very regularly after october 7th every couple of days. at least from what the white house has publicly told us, they haven't spoken to each other in about three weeks. i find that to be pretty interesting. >> explain why. >> because every one of those conversations, phil, has been a really bad conversation, and, you know, at some point you see this just break out in public as you saw it again. so what has the u.s. said? the u.s. has said the palestinians cannot be forced out of gaza. and you've heard some ministries but not all say, yes, they can. >> and netanyahu hasn't corrected them, that's key too. >> that's right, that's absolutely right, poppy. you've heard the u.s. say that

the israelis can't go govern gaza, and you've heard the prime minister said we're going to have to for security purposes. and now you've heard this on the two-state solution. >> let's turn over to what is a regional conflict. you have been very clear in saying it, it's not will this be now it's how broad will it be. listen to president biden yesterday on whether working? >> well, when you say working, are they stopping the houthis? no. are they going to continue? yes. >> are they emboldening the houthis? >> there's one theory which the houthis themselves are promoting that this is exactly what the houthis want. here they are, a terror group that we barely heard of, i mean, people who follow this have known them, but most americans haven't thought much about the houthis and how they moved from basically tribe to operating entity within yemen.

and what's happening? they say please strike us. it raises our role in the region. and the other thing it does is it portrays them as standing up against the americans. what you just heard the president say was, we're striking them for deterrence and it's not working. maybe over time, it will. but the saudis tried this for a good number of years and it didn't work for them. >> you're looking now at mass protests in yemen. which gets to the point, there's a domestic element here. the houthis aren't great at governing in the midst of an ongoing civil war and this helps bolster their cause and case. before i let you go, end game here. it feels like we're going to be perpetually in this moment where you're right on the edge of a very significant escalation of a broader regional conflict. is there an outcome that administration officials you're talking to are looking at in the

near term? >> at this point, they just love to dial it back. i have been doing this for a little while, and i don't remember a period of time where we have had so many different conflicts breaking out, including now, iran and pakistan, remind everybody, pakistan has nuclear weapons and pretty weak civilian control. and after the taiwan election, we're seeing the chinese begin to do more exercises around the taiwan strait. we're seeing a lot of north korean supply to the russians and iranian supply to the russians. so you're getting an intermingling of these conflicts. >> david sanger, always appreciate it. just four days until the new hampshire primary. we're live with a preview of the big weekend ahead for the candi candidates. and a big weekend in the state of michigan. the detroit lions first playoff game in 30 years against the rams last sunday. they won it.

people in motown pretty excited. that enthusiasm translating into big business for the city of detroit. the group visit detroit is estimating last sunday's playoff game generated some $20 million in receive new, that includes what fans spend at restaurants, parking, and hotels. the city can expect at least one more big pay day. lions play the bucs at ford field on sunday. baback in a a minute.

the judge in donald trump's election subversion case in georgia will consider a motion to disqualify fulton county d.a. fani willis. she's facing allegations of an improper relationship with the spec prosecutor she hired. do we have any sense of what impact this could have on a very significant case from the district attorney? >> there's going to be a hearing here. there is at least one person that's a codefendant of donald trump who is asking both the district -- for the district attorney and the top prosecutor here, nathan wade, involved in this divorce proceeding, one of the parties there, to get tosses off this case. at the very least, it's a distraction and it's something that can cut into the credibility of these prosecutors who have this case in fulton county against donald trump and all of these others. there is going to be this proceeding or hearing on february 15th to talk about the

attorney ethics here. is there some sort of issue? attorney ethics is a serious business, especially for judges in high profile cases like this. so they're going to talk about this, and then at the same time, there's this messy divorce proceeding that continues on. >> doesn't this boil down to did you, fani willis, hire a prosecutor on this investigation, pay him north of $650,000 of taxpayer money, who you were having an alleged -- this is what they're alleging -- relationship with. that's the ethic questions at the center of this. she's been subpoenaed, d.a. fanny wells, she in this divorce proceeding. >> that's the other piece of this. she's been subpoenaed to give a deposition next week in this divorce proceeding, and she's already responding in that saying, i should not be subpoenaed. please, quash this subpoena. and there's no reason. i have no facts to discuss here. what is the reason that in this

divorce, that both of these two married people agreed to have a divorce two years ago, why would i need to present any facts? what she wrote in a court filing is fani willis, her subpoena is being sought in an attempt to harass and damage her professional relationship. it's obstructing and interfering with an ongoing criminal prosecution. also in the court filing from willis' office, trying to get rid of this deposition in this divorce proceeding, she essentially accuses the soon to be ex-wife of her top prosecutor, nathan wade, of conspiring with people in the election interference case. are they working together? she's raising that question there. on the other side, jocelyn wade is saying through her lawyers and a statement that we received at cnn that this is a personal matter and fani willis is using a public platform here. take that, what you will. >> thank you very much. >> cnn this mornin