♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ here's why you should switch fo to duckduckgo on all your devie duckduckgo comes with a built-n engine like google, but it's pi and doesn't spy on your searchs and duckduckgo lets you browse like chrome, but it blocks cooi and creepy ads that follow youa from google and other companie. and there's no catch. it's fre. we make money from ads, but they don't follow you aroud join the millions of people taking back their privacy by downloading duckduckgo on all your devices today.

hello again, welcome. it's time to get together with some smart people to break down the big stories. today we're asking following donald trump's ims pressive win in iowa and his lead in new hampshire, is the republican presidential race sench essentially over? plus a scathing report on the deadly uvalde school shooting leaves us wondering, can we keep our kids safe? and one of madonna's songs time goes by so slowly, and for her fans, that's so true. they are now suing her. our gang is here and ready to go. zit back, relax, and let's talk about it. up first, on the heels of

the presidential race, donald trump is looking to sew up the republican nomination this week in new hampshire. the first in the nation primary, which could be the l to stop the former president. >> i'm thrilled to be back in a great state of new hampshire. >> on tuesday donald trump is looking to become the first republican ever to win contest ed races in both iowa and new hampshire. but that may depend on the strength of nikki haley's momentum in granite state. >> nikki haley is a disaster. >> the majority of americans think having two 80-year-olds running for president is not what they want. >> haley is banking on independents, who can vote in the republican primary. to boost her to a huge upset. >> i promise you that our best days are yet to come. >> while ron desantis is polling in single digits in new hampshire, he's looking to contest weeks from now as his shot to claim the nomination. >> good afternoon. it's great to be with y'all.

>> reporter: but following monday's record breaking win for trump in iowa, we're looking at a rematch. >> i'm looking forward to it again. >> with me today is podcaster kara swisher, president of of the manhattan institute, and national review editor, new york sometimes journalist lust lust garcia. and jonah goldberg. welcome back to all of you. you're all so busy. you were in new hampshire this week. is this race essentially over? >> what is it says, not dead, just mostly dead. if nikki haley pulls out what does not look like rightly right now an actual win, not a really competitive second, not a better showing in iowa, she actually wins in new hampshire, there's

still a scenario you can see where it's not over. if she loses in new hampshire, it's very difficult to see where anybody else can win going forward. there's some desantis people talking about the virgin islands, which is not a conveyer of many decision gdelegates, so this is the last shot. if she truly wins in new hampshire, that changes the dynamic, but that's a big lift right now. >> is there anything that either haley or desantis can do to stop or even slow donald trump's march to the republican presidential normination? >> trip him, i guess. no. the waiting out if something happens with these cases or something like that, that's what they are waiting to hang in. but that's not possible. the timing is completely off. including the cases, which keep getting pushed down the road. so. >> there's been talk that one of the reasons is because he just

figures something happens down the line. it's kind of a death march until that happens. >> that's exactly right. they shouldn't trip him. it's not nice to do to an old person like donald trump, but at the same time, they are hoping to be the top and then maybe get out. if something happens, they would be the first person considered. so staying in does a little longer is probably a good idea. and probably nikki haley is the only one with a chance of doing that. >> if you want to get some sense of how quickly this is devolving into a general election race, both biden and trump have already put out ads this year going after each other. take a look. >> there's something dangerous happening in america. there's an extremist movement who does not share the basic believes in our democracy. >> our vibrant facility offers delightful activities and outings. around the clock professional care.

>> white house senior living, where residents feel like presidents. >> where residents -- they were playing that over and over again this last week in iowa. it was a devastating ad. given the doubts that voters have expressed in the polls that they have about both of these guys, especially independent voters, especially in swing states, is the only way for them assuming that we are going to be on a general election campaign sooner rather than later. is their only strategy to go negative at each other, basically to say you may not like me, but the other guy really sting stinks? >> the short answer is yes. we're in a moods that's pessimistic. there are in number of reasons for that. but it's a pretty clear reason why i don't think anyone is going to be affirmatively rushing to vote for the incumbent. i think when it comes to independent voters, there's not going to be this ground swell of warm enthusiasm for donald

trump. it's going to be about disqualifying the rival candidate. >> do you agree with that the idea that trump isn't going to be able to solve his record, biden suspect going to be able to effectively sell his record, and the way they are going to swing voters is by saying the other guy really is unacceptable? >> that's what they are going to try, but i don't think that's what's going to decide this election if those are the two candidates that we are having to deal with. . on the one hand, republicans are delusional because they think they have swallowed the laid that biden is in senior living in the white house and basically living in a dystopian world filled with cultural marxist. on the other hand, democrat have underetc. estimated the power of donald trump saying we have won against him once. we can ride the biden horse into the sunset, and do it again.

i think what's going to decide this election is turnout. it's going to be issues like immigration. it's going to be issues like abortion. and it's going to be these are two historically unpopular candidates, and i just do not see that this is going to be a about enthusiasm or even fear. it's going to be who will actually show up at the polls and what do they care about. i don't think it's they care about boiden or donald trump. >> that's totally right. you touched on something that drives me crazy. the explanation from the biden people is they have this playbook. they have done it before. they did beat trump. lost. trump lost. but at the same time, that campaign in the middle of covid allowed biden to have a l legitimate excuse to run basement or front porch campaign where he wasn't out there. they cant run the same came a p campaign they ran in 2020.

so if they are going to fall back on this i beat him before, i can do it again, past performance is not predictive. >> they should still say that. by the way, how reassuring is trump inside a courtroom yelling at a judge. crazy man yelling at a judge. so neither of them has a good place to run this. he's going fob had those courtrooms. >> let me ask you, which do you think is a bigger liability for voters right now? biden's age or trump's character? >> if they can make trump seem old, that will zero out the age thing. he sort of wanders. if he does more of that, i think people are so ageist in this country. probably age. it should be this fguy is in court. >> again, this race will be decided. i don't entirely agree on this, i think it's going to be decided by a small slice of voters and relatively few swing states, and

to the degree that they have to pick between how old biden seems, locks, talks, and the fact that trump has all of these legal problems, which do you think is a bigger pressing more decisive issue? >> my gut is it's going to be biden's age, not because trump's character issues aren't real. it's because those are baked in. you have endless amounts of court cases surrounding him. and i think the age issue intersect ises with another important one, which is a perception of strength or w weakness. biden is perceived as weak. that's reenforced by the larger geopolitical environment. that's going to be hard to overcome. >> you guys have really made me the excited a about this election. >> it's hope. >> donald trump's supreme court picks are already playing a central role in our next story. a case i they heard this week about fish could affect everything from medications you take to whether you have to

remove your shoes at the airport. then you don't hear this every day. liberals asking conservatives for help to stem a growing crisis in america's big city. and later do some dad jokes go too we'll discuss why the feds aren't laughing at what you're reading behind the wheel.

after overturning roe v. wade, the supreme court is now considering whether to rollback another major legal precedent. a decision that could determine the federal government's power over our everyday lives, from the drugs we to the food we eat. it all starts with one little

fish. >> these are taking on the government over a regulation to pay observers to ensure they don't overfish. something costs up to $700 a day. >> that monitor will make more than myself or my crew. >> this week the supreme court heard arguments that range far beyond it. the case opens the door for conservative justices to reel in their own big catch. overturning a 40-year precedent, which lets federal agencies create regulations to make up for ambiguous laws passed by congress. >> chevron mandates judicial bias and encourages overreach. >> reporter: an argument some justices seemed to agree with. >> the government always wins. chevron is exploited against the individual and in favor of the government. >> reporter: but liberals on the court are skeptical. >> my concern is that if we take away something like had chevron,

the court will then suddenly become a policymaker. judges should know what they don't know. >> why do conservatives generally hate federal agents? >> we don't like big overreaching governments, but i don't think this is the right frame for all this. do you want me to make a prediction, they are going to overrule chevron. second of all, one of the ironies, one of the ironies of this is that chevron, which was in some ways the brain child of scalia and this related thing was the brain child of justice thomas. conservative justices have realized they made a mistake in setting the regime. the question isn't as the justices was saying about whether courts should be the decider. congress outsourced its responsibility and rules so vaguely that empowers unelected bureaucrats. our constitutional system, the

branch of government that is the most democratic a has the most power. if congress wants to require monitors on these boats t could write a law saying so. this was an invented thing that should not have deference just simply because we think experts should be in charge of everything. >> but congress can't pass anything. they can't even keep the government funded. theed in they are going to write a law for one federal agency and say by the way, when it gets to herring, here's what you have to do. somebody is going to have to decide how these general laws and all the different ways in which they change especially over time are going to be applied. >> have you sat in a committee hearing. a lot of these lawmakers don't know anything about a lot of things. so i think it's not practical. and secondly, i think more worrying for me is that this is an old battle. but the real problem i think is what we're seeing on the right is the idea of destroying the

federal government idea of the destruction of the administrative state coming from steve bannon and migrated to the heart of republican policy in so far as there is republican policy. i interviewed the head of the heritage the foundation, which is a story conservative think tank and their entire those at the moment is basically when a republican gets into government, they want to get rid of entire agencies. whether it be the department of education, whether it be gutting the fbi. so this isn't just business as usual. >> you're a small business owner. i run businesses out of the back of my house. and it is really you don't know where you from. there's a medium where they should come up with something. congress is never going to do

all the things. but it is congress's electable official who is are making these laws. and so feem get naturally frustrated. that's why it works for the right to do this. because even i'm like why do i have to hang it here. what do i have to do? >> but let me bring you in. we're talking about very important issues that affect everybody's everyday life like the drugs or the safety of airplanes that you fly on and these things keep changing. here's the justice. >> congress can hardly see a week in the future. does the congress want this court to decide those questions, policy-leading questions? >> and that's why i take exception with you. ultimately, it comes down to either the agencies are going to

set the policy and under the shef lon deference, the courts have to defer and say if the agency says it it's so, or if you decide that some regulation is onerous, you can go to court and fight it. who do you want deciding these issues, the federal agencies, which at least have expertise in these areas, or a judge? >> i really do think that it is fundamentally about congress's responsibility. this had is a place where conservatives made a crucial mistake. remember newt gingrich, way back in the republican revolution, ha what he did was he hollowed out congress. he basically said we're going to cut congressional staffs to the bone. we're going to dismantle offices of technology assess the that gave congress some of those tools so they could make these substantiative decisions. what conservatives are getting wrong, i believe, is that congress should be making those laws. they should be scrutinizing these regulations that have

enormous effects, but to do that, you actually need resources in congress. so i actually firmly agree with jonah. if you're lamenting the state of congress right now, the issue is that we elect certain kinds of people and they punt certain kinds of things buzz they can. if you have a world where it's punted back to the courts, guess what, you're going to have lawmakers recognize that rave responsibility they have they are going to step up. they are going to have to change. >> tech is a perfect example. do you know how many tech laws have been passed in the last 25 years? zero buzz they punt everything. now it's all in the courts. >> because they can. >> i mentioned this before. one of the problems is that because of this other form of deference, you can now have with a new president, the administrative agencies can change the regulations to fit the agenda of the president. so when you have -- it's not like the experts have decide d

this is the best way to do it. they are responding to political incentives. there are a the lot of liberals who will be upset if they keep deference on and donald trump becomes president and people want to staff all these agencies are going to do status industrial policy covering things like fda's coverage of abortion pills from krul cultural right wing position. congress you can vote out people who make these laws if they are made by congress. if they are made by bureaucrats every four years could change on a dime. you don't get certainty. >> if jonah is right and if, in effect, it's going -- the agencies have control and then you get a conservative, let's say you get trump in and this would be trump on bound, you can see a lot of these regulations change. >> you can see a lot of these regulations change. it would backfire. but my point about this is the underpinning of all this is the idea that you have these

unelected bureaucrats, people with expertise, who are supposed to implement these things because they understand it and they are not nonpartisan. if you have a trump come in and weaponize things, he's going to undermine many things about the way things have worked in this country. >> some would say when biden comes in, he puts his people in and they weaponize it. somebody's option is getting gored. it's a really fascinating subject. i'm not sure i agree that the chevron deference will be entirely limb natd. now to an issue every parent worries about. whether their kids are safe in school. following this week's report of the uvalde school shooting, we're looking for possible solutions including arming t teachers. is that the way to go? we'll ask the group. to duckduckgo on all your devie

duckduckgo comes with a built-n engine like google, but it's pi and doesn't spy on your searchs and duckduckgo lets you browse like chrome, but it blocks cooi and creepy ads that follow youa from google and other companie. and there's no catch. it's fre. we make money from ads, but they don't follow you aroud join the millions of people taking back their privacy by downloading duckduckgo on all your devices today.

it's hard enough waking up every day and continuing to walk out on these streets and see a cop that you know was standing there while our babies was murdered and bleeding out. >> that is the reality facing family of those killed during the 2022 school shooting in if uvalde, texas. an open wound that got even more raw this week after the justice department released a report. and failures in how police responded to the massacre. the report concluded some of the 21 killed, 19 children, 2 teachers, would have survived if police confronted the shooter immediately. we want to focus on the bigger issue. how to keep our kids safe in school. take a look at this. since 2018, there have been 185 school shootings resulting in injuries or death. can we keep our kids safe in school? >> not in this america.

i think uvalde shows that. it's a devastating day when the report came out and you see the families in agony. and i think that when you have a country that's a wash in guns, it doesn't matter how hard we make it, it doesn't matter if we give clear backpacks and have school resource officers and on and on. the fact is that we can't in this america right now. >> i've got grandchildren who are less than 10, and they go through active shooter drills the way we used to as kids go through fire drills. do you agree that there are no effective solutions? >> i cringe at using the phrase, but there's no cure all. there's no here's wasn't thing we can do to fix this problem. we have 50 million kids in k-12

in america. statistically, most kids on any given day are safe. that doesn't matter. this thing shocks our conscious so much, and it should. i don't like nikki haley's answer from the last debate where she said we need to make our schools like airports. first of all, that would grind the country to a halt. no one leaves an airport saying that was great. at the same time, there are obviously some low-hanging fruit about fixing things, fixing procedureses a as this report makes very clear the police had an operational plan as if the kids were being held hostage, not being murdered. >> but the shooter was already in there. >> but they should have gone in. i agree entirely there are things you can do to minimize the problem. they have to do with the way we cover these kinds of stories that create copy cats. but it's an entractable problem. >> the reason is there's too many guns. >> but that's not a solvable problem right now either. >> it's not a solvable problem,

but there's only one reason. we become very numb to it. another school shooting. and there's too many guns. that's really pretty much it. >> don't think it's the entire thing at all. >> there are other market democracies that have similar level of ownership. the thing that's scary about this is there's an almost viralty to this. there's a copy cat element to it. and one really big thing we need to do is effectively prosecute gun crimes. i think it's a legitimate to say if you're not storing firearms properly in your home, there should be legal consequences for you thinking about the parents of kids who are disturbed. red flag laws, identifying people of your mental illness and that the guns are taken away. >> let me ask you about another question. should teachers in at least 30 states around the country, at least some teachers are allowed to bear arm. is that an answer? >> it's entirely reasonable for

teachers to raise their hand and volunteer for training in how to use firearms responsibly and evidentively. that's legitimate. this is a diverse country. >> the answer to guns is more guns with teachers and you don't know? >> this is a complicated issue. >> it is reasonable for citizens to raise their hands and say, i'm going to undertake the kind of training to be someone who is a responsible person, who is able to. >> why do you think guns in classrooms? >> we're not in a movie. there are kids in the way. there's one mistake and a te teacher shoots a kid, it's incomprehensible. >> i agree with you it shouldn't be a free for all. >> i have actually interviewed teachers who have trained in utah to carry guns after utah vl day day. it is a complicated issue. there are some nuance here, which is this. teachers do not feel safe in this country.

they are afraid. they look at uvalde and say who is going to protect us? we are there with a potentially disturbed child who might have a gun. and what are we going to do to protect ourselves? and the other side of this is that they also know that they are putting a gun inside a classroom might mean that they harm the wrong child. and having a teacher point a weapon at a student, what message does that send to the other students? it's a complicated issue. >> i want to bring up one other issue. that is parents. in michigan james and jennifer are the first parents charged in a mass school shooting after buying their son a gun he used to kill four students and injury seven others. let me ask you. should parents be held responsible in these cases? >> i think these cases it's too blanket. there has to be a threshold about this kind of thing. but those parents should be held

responsible. >> where would you draw the line as to where parent responsibility should be? >> the facts in that case were they bought the gun for the kid. they had warnings about his behavioral problems. they laughed them off. they were utterly negligent. i'm not saying they should be charged with first-degree murder, but they should have some legal culpability for their grotesque irresponsibility and cavalier attitude about their kid who they knew had problems. >> do you have a problem? >> not in that case. but most parents, no. most poornts are not responsible is. >> i agree with that. >> in that case, that was astonishing. they didn't check the backpack. >> gun owners aren't responsible. there's been a blockage of responsible gun ownership. we have the technology now to have a gun only shoot for someone who has a particular thumbprint or fingerprint. there's all this technology that could help this. and yet, there is absolutely no

appetite, specifically on the right, to have anything meaningful. here. >> i say there's a lot of appetite for prosecuting gun crimes more seriously. there's a huge problem. we need to take it seriously. >> we're going to talk about a different safety issue now and one that's a lot lighter. although the feds aren't la laughing about some funny highway signs. also madonna fans express thelss by taking her to court for a bad habit. our gang gives its yes or no on the on both. and maybe they will vote too. that's next.

time to get our ye or nay on some stories we think are interest ing.

first, putting the brakes on dad jokes posted on highway safety signs. around thanksgiving you may have seen this. you are not a turkey, don't drive basted. or getting right to the point, buckle up, windshields hurt. but now the federal highway administration is getting the last laugh telling states to slow down on funny signs because they distract drivers. they are giving them two years to clean up their act. are you a ye or nay on dad joke highway signs? >> i'm auate. the mere fact of changing the message helps keep people from tuning them out, which is what they normally do if they see the same thing. >> but the countered argument to that, this is what the federal highway administration is saying, it's distracting. >> i think it's distracting. and i think there is many studies to support that. and i think america has a

terrible problem with deaths on the road. and if these messages aren't doing what they are meant to do, which is to save lives and they are distracting drivers, then i'm a nay. very, very firm. >> let's huddle up for this next one. california lawmakers proposing a ban on youth tackle football. they say it puts kids at greater risk of brain injury while the other side argues it should be up to parents, not the state, to decide if their kids can play. governor newsom said this week he'd veto a ban and side with parents. who should make the call on kids under 12 playing tackle football? >> only gavin newsom. no, i agree completely. i didn't let my kids play tackle football. they played touch football because i paid attention to the statistics. they should have the statistics out there for parents to understand, which i think the football enindustry doesn't lik you to see. parents should decide this. and that's why i decide d againt

it. >> and your kids abided by what you said? >> they did. they are nice boys. they played basketball. >> i had a son who played tackle football. i told him not to. i begged him. he broke his arms five times. now he says, how dare you let me play tackle football. i swear this is a true story. >> my boys pay attention to their mom. >> my son is did not pay attention to his dad. >> i'm also a ye on this one. but there's another angle. governor newsom seems to be trying to carve out a different political identity. someone who is not just the usual progressive, but someone who is trying to mix it up and introducie a libertarian streak. >> you want to talk about nex one. this is no cause for celebration. madonna fans are irate over the material girl showing up more than two hours late to a series of concerts in brooklyn. so they are now suing the pop

icon claiming the delay caused them significant inconvenience when her shows didn't end until 1:00 in the morning. we all know how you feel about taylor swift. but how would you feel about a madonna concert that was supposed to start at 8:30 and didn't start until 10:30 and didn't end until 1:00 in the morning. >> i'm going monday. i'm showing up at 10:00. >> what if she starts on time? >> then i will miss her. come on. it's madonna. >> have you ever been to a madonna convert? >> no, i would be inclined to sue if she showed up. >> what would you do if you got dra drug to it and she's notorious for this and it went on two hours? >> i would leave. this is the market decide on this. if you have a reputation for constant lu being late and not showing up for two hours, it's not like that's a secret. let the fans price that into whether or not they want to go.

>> also not recognizing that your fan base has aged. >> i will not allow you to say that about kara. up next, a growing crisis in america that's making for some strange political bedfellow a which have gone under the radar.

this election is a choice between results or just rhetoric. californians deserve a senator who is going to deliver for them every day and not just talk a good game. adam schiff. he held a dangerous president accountable. he also helped lower drug costs, bring good jobs back home, and build affordable housing. now he's running for the senate. our economy, our democracy, our planet. this is why we fight.

i'm adam schiff, and i approve this message. now to a story that's gone under the radar. the homeless crisis in america and some strange political alliances. ies as cross the country, homeless camps like this have become part of the

landscape in playgrounds and along city streets. and clearing them out a growing frustration for government officials. >> i think we can all agree that we need to do more to clean up encampments in the state of california. >> he's not alone. in fact, he's supporting another liberal state of oregon in its appeal to the conservative-leaning supreme court asking the justices to give cities the power to clear homeless camps on government property. the courts will hear those arguments in april. so should cities be able to clear out homeless camps on public property? >> nobody likes to have homeless camps. it is a growing problem in this country. it is absolutely horrific in the conditions in some of these camps. that said, the problem that i have with this is it's not actually tackling the root c causes of homelessness.

they are saying let's move the homeless people somewhere else the and have them be somebody else's problem. they are not actually lock ing t creating more housing or more affordable housing or try to place them in places that are more beneficial. >> that's not true. >> i think it's disingenuous. >> they have tried all kinds of different things. and the thing that worked to begin with is to clear the streets and make them livable so people could have their live there is. i'm with newsom on this one. it changes the tenor of a city if you have homeless camps everywhere. and i have interviewed lots of people trying to fix this. and every one of them says they get sued in their ability to do anything. >> the issue that the supreme court is going to hear is that the liberal sur kit court out west has ruled that if you clear out a homeless camp and there aren't places for the homeless to go, enough shelter beds, it

is, quote, crucial and unusual punishment. what do you think the the supreme court should do here? >> the question is not whether or not these camps should be cleared out. the question is whether or not local authorities have the authority to clear out places that they should be cleared out. there's a real trade off. and that doesn't mean that you should not provide other se services or figure out stuff, but you look at places like portland, oregon. the tax bases of these places are just being decimated because they can't even get homeless people out of playgrounds and business districts. you can't have a functioning city if you have no ability to deal with these problems at all. and so this is say ing the loca authorities should have the deference to do what they think is best for their own commu

communities. >> you can write in all your comments. the panel is back with our hot takes of what will be news before it's in the news, that's next. to duckduckgo on all your devie

duckduckgo comes with a built-n engine like google, but it's pi and doesn't spy on your searchs and duckduckgo lets you browse like chrome, but it blocks cooi and creepy ads that follow youa from google and other companie. and there's no catch. it's fre. we make money from ads, but they don't follow you aroud join the millions of people taking back their privacy by downloading duckduckgo on all your devices today.

welcome back. it's time for our panel's special takes ones what's happening. our predictions of what we should be looking out for. so hit me with your best shot. >> we just had the world economic forum. this big global gathering of corporate gran decents. and one really striking take a

with from it is that corporate america is getting less woke. you have major statements from ceos. saying, wait a minute, let's recognize there are a lot of conservative consumers and voters we need to respect. they say a big change in tone because they thought companies need to appeal to younger customers and need to move left. >> as i understand it, the world economic forum is on your mind too. >> it is it's funny you mentioned that. s i was reading a different set of reports. i find its if nating because the masters of the universe, they get there and are supposed to talk to each other to decide what is going to happen in the world. all the reporting saw that everyone feels sure no one knows what the hell is going on.

all these people that we are entrusting our economic fortuneses to are very, very confused about what's happening. that made me laugh because even though we have never been to davos, we are like the people there. we really don't know. >> jonah, you're looking overseas, but not at davos. >> tths international edition of best shot. this week the head of the eus and belgium, they basically had said europe needs to make peace with the fact that the possibility the that trump can et get elected means that europe is going to be alone. it can't count on trump to honor nato commitments and there's a real movement afoo for the first time in awhile of a unified independent military strategy. >> separate from nato. >> kara? >> in my review, rich people licking each other up and down.

>> speaking of rich people, dean phillips in new hampshire, i don't know what is happening. >> he's a congressman running against biden. >> he's up in new hampshire being backed by very wealthy people, including elon musk and sam altman. he has gotten a lot of money this week from bill alaskaman. i'm not sure what he's doing up there. i don't understand why a congressman, when there's so many amazing possible candidates in the democratic party, is doing this. it's only for recognition and to pal around with his rich friends. >> supposedly he's also saying there ought to be a choice. >> his ice cream is fantastic. >> i learn so much from you. thank you all for being here. thank you for spending part of your day with us. we'll see you right back here next week.