give your business a head start in 2024 with this great offer. plus, ask how to get up to $1000 prepaid card with qualifying internet. are the people most opposed to donald trump actually aiding his election? i'm michael smerconish in philadelphia. tuesday is the new hampshire primary. the gop race in the granite state thought to be a two person affair. if trump becomes the first nonincumbent republican to win both iowa and new hampshire, he will be the de facto nominee of

his party, but new hampshire could prove more hospitable for haley. is it home to more libertarians and independents. so haley is all in. and so too are many institutional forces which see time running out to stop trump. but are some of those efforts backfiring? mark halperin in his newsletter regularly chronicles this phenomenon which he calls the sad irony of those members of the media and the democratic party who most worry about a trump second term acting in ways that actually make it more likely he will win. here is an example. monday msnbc had the kind of all night extensive coverage of the iowa caucus that we've come to expect of cable outlets. but when it came time for trump to make his acceptance speech, the network didn't air it. instead, rachel maddow said this -- >> at this point in the evening the projected winner of the iowa caucuses has just started giving his victory speech.

we will keep an eye on it as it happens. we'll let you know if there is any news made, if anything noteworthy, something important. the reason i'm saying this is of course there is a reason that we and other news organizations have generally stopped giving an unfiltered live platform to remarks by donald trump. it is not a decision we relish, it is a decision that we regularly revisit. and honestly, it is not an easy decision. >> by the way, cnn did take trump's speech live for about the first ten minutes before getting out. ignoring trump's electoral success is a way of putting a thumb on the scale to his benefit. it also sets a poor precedent. if he wins the republican nomination, will some cover the convention but not his acceptance speech? if he wins the presidency, will there been a blackout on the inauguration?

donald trump's base was watching elsewhere, but veers they have been made aware of the slight and it will now be added to their grievances as they see as seeking to deny voters a chance to elect trump. colorado and maine trying to knock trump off the ballot by asserting that he is an insurrectionist. harvard professor lawrence lessig was my guest here two weeks ago. he is no fan of trump. in fact he calls him astoundingly dangerous. but he also believes that while electing trump would be the worst political decision of the nation since the civil war, excluding him wrongfully by a close vote of the supreme court could well trigger the next civil war. he says we must defeat him politically, not through clever lawyer interpretations of ambiguous constitutional texts. in the eyes of trump's base and perhaps some independents, the

14th amendment challenge only underscores what they already think about the four criminal indictments that trump faces, namely that they are politically motivated. that is why in entrance polls, roughly two-thirds of voters said they will stick with trump even if convicted. and consider that two-thirds of caucusgoers said president biden didn't legitimately win the 2020 election and seven in ten of those supported donald trump. and then there is hunter biden. this week the justice department finally confirmed that they took possession of the laptop. you will remember in the fall of 2020 when some of the contents of the laptop's hard drive made its way to the new york "post." president biden and his supporters argue that it had all the makings of russia disinformation. and social media companies suppressed or blocked access to the "post's" article about it. this past wednesday jim jordan revealed that federal investigators had asked financial institutions to use search terms such as trump and maga when combing over customer data in the aftermath of the

january 6 capitol riot. all of this makes his supporters furious. they see an establishment aligned against trump especially the media and even where they don't read, don't rely on the outlets, they are aware of how they seem to be working in concert to defeat their candidate. the entire january/february issue of the "atlantic" dedicated to warnings about if trump wins. countless editorials similarly predicting the horrors of a second trump firm. "new york times," why a second trump presidency may be more radical than his first. "rolling stone," every awful thing trump has promised to do in a second term. and in the "atlantic", trump wants revenge. all the criticism it preaches to the converted. and it causes maga to close ranks around their candidate even when his statements are outrageous and playing on racist tropes.

consider the way his comments about illegal migrants poisoning the nation shown on a loop. but immigration and the economy were also the biggest issues for iowa caucusgoers with over a third naming each as the most important issue. both reasons why jamie dimon gave trump props this week in davos. >> when people say maga, they are actually looking at people voting for trump and they think that scapegoating them that you are like him. but i don't think that they are voting for trump for family values. be honest. he was kind of right about nato, kind of right about immigration, he grew the economy quite well. he wasn't wrong about some of the critical issues and that is why they are voting for him and i think people should be a little more respectful of our fellow citizens.

i think the negative talk about maga will hurt joe biden's campaign. >> he makes the point if there is not more respect, it could hurt biden just as it did hillary clinton when she said half of donald trump's supporters belong in a basket of deplorables. this week on my radio program a caller seemed to embody exactly what jamie dimon was discussing. >> we can't possibly have trump run again. i would never vote for him. and i must have said it five times preceding the iowa caucuses. and then the next day you hear that they didn't carry his speech and i go maybe i will vote for him. just if nothing else just to stick it in rachel's face going you're not going to decide what i'm going to do. >> here is the bottom line. donald trump doesn't need to motivate his base. his opponents are doing that for him. which brings me to today's poll

question. here is what i'm asking. are the people most opposed to donald trump actually aiding his election? joining me now to discuss is charles whitaker, dean of the school of journalism at northwestern university. dean, thank you so much for being here. how should the media cover the former president who is now the leading republican candidate? >> good morning. how are you. i think that we should cover him as we've covered every other candidate. i get the hesitation that many media outlets have when you have this unreliable narrater, to put it charitably, whose rhetoric is inflammatory and threatens to shred the fabric of the democracy, you are reluctant to give that individual the platform. but he is the presumptive standard bearer of the republican party and we have an obligation to cover that party and those views.

we have an obligation to preserve what is happening for posterity. and we can't abdicate that responsibility just because we find an individual or their views odious. >> so let me take the side of those media outlets and other institutional forces. they would say wait a minute, he is an existential threat to democracy, how could we not constantly remind our audiences of that fact. >> i'm not saying they shouldn't remind their audiences of that fact. i think placing his rhetoric in context, examining it, putting it under a microscope is exactly what we want to do. but shutting it out, saying it doesn't exist, pretending that those views are so horrible that we can't air them, i think really does -- it really is abdication of our responsibility to show both the viewers who agree with the -- msnbc viewers who agree as well as the trump voters what is going on.

we need to preserve that. >> and dean whitaker, as i said in my opening commentary, if you carry it to its logical conclusion, if he should win the nomination, here comes the convention, how do you cover it? are you covering it monday, tuesday, wednesday but not the night that he makes an acceptance speech? and if you wins the presidency, now inauguration day, now what. >> right. correct. and as you said, that is just fueling the antipathy of the individuals in his base who think that these institutions are against him and by proxy against them as well. we have to figure out a way to cover this. again, to examine it, to place it under a microscope, to help people place trump and his views in context. but we can't put our head in the sand and pretend it doesn't exist or say that it is too awful for us to air. >> do you think that some of the

difficulty that the media is having in coming to terms with how to handle trump is born of a belief that in 2016 he was given too much free air time and the mindset is one of, well, we don't want to do that again, so now it is as if they are going completely in the opposite direction. >> correct. pendulum has swung in exactly the opposite direction. i think media outlets in 2016 were fascinated by trump. they didn't think that he was a serious candidate. they didn't think that there was anyway possible that he would win. and so he was covered as a curiosity, not as someone who ultimately would ascend to the highest office in the land. now they feel they have learned that mistake and they are pulling back, but they are pulling back too much. again, he is as i said the presumptive standard bearer of the republican party. he has to be covered as you would cover any other serious candidate for this office.

>> dean whitaker, thank you so much, sir, appreciate your time. >> thank you. i want to know what you think. go to smerconish.com, answer today's poll question. are the people most opposed to donald trump actually aiding his election? what are your thoughts? i'll read some responses through the course of the program. catherine, what do we have from live chat? i respect your opinion, but why would an msnbc audience be interested in what trump regurgitates. how is that convention or inauguration remotely equal to a speech caucus vote of 14%. so by that logic, hate to single them out, but how can you justify saying we're going to interrupt all of our normal programming, we'll bring in all the usual suspects, we'll have the election wall, we'll bring in, you know, the vote return as

we see it. and then when you reach that critical moment of the evening, like, well, we can't take this. i mean, i think robert respectfully by that logic then don't cover even the iowa caucus. but how can you be a cable outlet and adopt that position. and by the way, it is just part of a larger narrative that he is weaving all to his benefit. all to his benefit in saying look, they are all against me and they don't want you to have the opportunity to cast a ballot for me if you so incline. he is benefiting from it. still to come, the judge overseeing the trump georgia election subversion case has set a february 15 hearing to consider the motion to disqualify fani willis due to allegations of an improper relationship with her special prosecutor who has been paid more than $650,000 in fees. could the situation put the whole case in jeopardy. plus no labels has gotten a slot on the ballot in 14 states and says it is considering 13

candidates for an independent presidential ticket. they wrote to the doj and said please investigate what it claims are intimidation tactics trying to prevent them from presenting alternative to voters. and the smerconish newsletter is free. i thought this from rob rogers summed up the whole week. take a good look.

the allegations about fulton county district attorney fani willis having a relationship with her special prosecutor upend her election interference case against former president trump, or is the furor more about racism as willis alleges. the judge in atlanta scheduled a hearing for february 15 on a

motion to have willis and nathan wade thrown off the case. mike roman who was indicted in the fake electors role, he says that willis is in a romantic relationship with wade who she hired to manage the case for which he has been paid more than $600,000 despite never previously having tried a felony criminal case in georgia. the judge ordered willis to file a written response by february 2 and to appear at the february 15 hearing which will be televised. sunday willis made her first public remarks about the allegations. >> they going to be made the when i call them out on this nonsense. first thing they say, oh, she going to play the race card now. but isn't it them who is playing the race card when they only question women ?

isn't it them praying the race card when they constantly say i need somebody else to tell me how do the job i've been doing almost 30 years. >> and willis' attorney said the subpoena for her to testify should be dismissed because wade's soon to be ex-wife jocelyn wade has conspired to use the civil discovery process to annoy and embarrass willis. recent revelation correspond to bank statements filed in the wade divorce case, he paid for at least two plane trips with willis while the investigation was under way. in a recent column in the journal constitution, fani willis, what are you thinking, political columnist quotes an official saying this could derail the trump case if it is true. patricia murphy is joining me now.

how significant the revelation that nathan wade paid for fani willis' travel? >> i think it is an important piece. it is not the smoking gun. but it is something that i think will be part of all of the information that we start to learn about the nature of fani willis' relationship with nathan wade. but more importantly, whether the hiring of nathan wade and the role he's played in this investigation is something he would have played had he not been involved with fani willis. and there is no evidence to confirm the exact nature of their relationship and the vacuum of no information coming from fani willis' office i think has created a much larger problem in the state than would have been had we known immediately what exactly happened and when. >> it is a bad look. i get it. we still don't know the real details of the relationship. but it is a bad look if in fact they are having a relationship

and she hired him and there are questions as to his qualifications for the role for which he has been ascribed. but as a lawyer, and thinking about continuing legal education requirements, we have requirements where we have to sit in class and talk about ethical issues, this is like a hypothetical from one of those. on one hand i hear some saying hey, wait a minute, nathan wade if he is doing a decent job and he's getting paid, he can use his proceeds, his money do whatever the hell he wants to do. on the other hand, if he is using the proceeds and spending them in part on her, does she now have skin in the game relative to his prosecution. that is the issue as i see it. what thoughts do you have? >> yeah, i think that is exactly right. and it is also important to know that democrats here in the state in particular are saying this has nothing to do with the underlying issue of what donald trump and his co-defendants did following the 2020 elections. but once this was filed in court

and the attorney bringing these accusations is somebody who really does have an excellent reputation in cobb county circles. so this is not like it is coming from a trump attorney throwing anything against the wall. this is seen as serious. and they also made specific allegations that nathan wade may not have been properly hired and therefore may not have been legally sworn in as a special prosecutor. now, that starts to be a problem when you talk about the role that the special prosecutor played. also are there any violations of the state bar of ethics here. that will all come out in that court hearing. so we're not there yet. but it has really upended the momentum that wade and willis and their entire prosecution team had going into this. this had felt like a very buttoned up case, they got all the indictments that they were seeking from the special grand jury. a lot of that had to do with nathan wade's work.

and they also got four plea agreements. so it felt like it was moving along quickly and successfully for the prosecution. this has really upended that momentum and has caused an immense amount of anxiety here in the state. >> quick final thought. from a distance to me the big takeaway in the context of 2024 is delay, delay, delay. because we keep wondering is donald trump going to face any criminal prosecution before the election. this is going to take a little while to sort itself out. is that fair? >> i think that's right. it has already taken a little while. we're looking at potentially a month delay for a process that fani willis was looking to started even potentially an august trial date before the election. and has this delayed that to the point that now it will bleed into after the election. again, we don't know. but it is a significant problem in this case that was moving along pretty swiftly and something that we're just not

there yet to know what kind of jeopardy it is causing for the underlying issue. >> thank you, patricia murphy. we appreciate you. >> thank you. more social media reaction now from the world of x. these allegations do not diminish trump's guilt one iota. allegations against trump are not fruit of the poisonous tree. they stand on their own. i agree with you that this doesn't have anything to do with the factual predicate for which he has been charged. it does raise the question though of what would happen if the lawyers seeking her dismissal got their way, would a new prosecution team pick up the mantle and prosecute trump in the same way. and as i laid it out for patricia murphy, on one hand you say it is all kind of salacious, it is getting a lot of headlines, but on the ethical

issue at stake, whose business is it. if nathan wade is doing a decent job and getting paid a fair wage, we'll question how he spends the money he's earned? on the other hand some would say if she's the beneficiary of what he is getting paid now does she have some type of a compromised interest in the ongoing nature of that prosecution. that is the issue. again, i should be getting cle legal credits even for framing it for you. up ahead, in its quest to mount a viable independent presidential ticket, no labels has gained access in 14 states including several key battlegrounds worth 123 electoral college votes. but they claim they are being illegally thwarted by those who fear they will only help elect donald trump. do they have legitimate beef. and i want to remind you, go to smerconish.com and answer the poll question. are the people most opposed to donald trump actually aiding his election?

while there, sign up for my free and worthy daily newsletter. you will also get exclusive content from political cartoonists like steve breem. look at what he sketched this week.

is there an organized plot afoot to thwart an effort to get a third party ticket on the 2024 presidential ballot? this week leaders of no labels, a group that has been organizing a potential independent ticket, asked the doj to investigate "an alleged unlawful conspiracy to subvert american's voting rights, intimidate potential candidates and shut down the organization's effort to secure ballot access." one thing to oppose candidates running. they say it is another to use intimidation tactics. and it cites several incidents

like this electronic billboard accusing the no labels ceo and her husband of being proponents of maga hate. last week no labels said there are 13 possible candidates being considered for the two slots without naming any. politico reported that this week when no labels founding chair and former senator joe lieberman said they would be open to nikki haley being a candidate, haley's camp immediately said she wasn't interested. no labels has gained access in 14 states including some key battlegrounds. it is active in several more states and this fight is just heating up as gallup found 43% of americans now consider themselves independent making them the largest political bloc in the nation. joining me now is ryan clancy, chief strategist.

i read the letter you folks sent to doj, but tell my audience what is the most egregious interference that you are alleging? >> two biggest things are the intimidation against no labels supporters and potential candidates. some of our opponents are on the record saying they want to destroy the reputations of people who support no labels, say they want to find any skeletons in the closet of any candidates who want to affiliate with us. and look, i understand politics is hard ball. we appreciate that and embrace the first amendment, but you can't do this kind of stuff. you can't intimidate people from participating in the democratic process. >> i read it, i was a bit nonplussed by it, because to me it was the rough and tumble. i mean, if everybody beefed to doj about the sort of things that are in your letter, i think everybody would be complaining. i'm not condoning any of the behavior. >> but remember, michael, we're not a political campaign.

what we're doing is akin to voter registration. i want you to imagine if there was a group out there registering disenfranchised voters and there was an organized group that was intimidating the donors and political candidates affiliated with that, there would be outrage. we're doing the exact same thing. ballot access is complementary to voting rights. if you think about it, we're a democracy not just because we can vote. we're a democracy because we also have open access to the ballot. russia, iran, they vote but they are not really democracies because authorities decide who can and cannot be on the ballot. >> page one of the "new york times" today, voters gloomy over prospect of a rematch. it says republicans view biden as so politically and physically weak that they think his party

will replace him. democrats can't fathom trump would win another nomination, he is facing 91 felony charges. the picture is not getting better for biden and trump. it is not as if in a month or two people will wake up and say hooray, we have biden and trump. so we already know how the american people look at this choice. so what are you waiting for? >> well, we always said we'd wait until march because we have we'll focus on that. and look, things can change. it is possible two months from now it is not trump/biden. i wouldn't say it isn't likely, but one of the things we've said all along is that we're only going to do this if we think there is absolutely a path. and a trump/biden contest is a situation where at least today we do think that there is probably a path. >> but is there a path for a

third party ticket to actually win 270 electoral votes? you are now on the ballot in 14 states. but how do you actually win 270 especially if it goes to the house of representatives and each state delegation gets one vote and there are no independents in the house of representatives? >> look, michael, we'll put up a ticket that we think can win outright 270. and we think that is possible. you look at the polling we've done and we'll have some other polling coming out soon, we think that there are a lot of states, texas, florida, others where a unity ticket is viable. we understand why people are skeptical given the history of independents. on the other hand, you cited the data, highest number of self-identified independents in the country of voters looking at two historically unpopular major party nominees. i mean, the thing to think about, why wouldn't there be an opening for an independent. >> ryan clancy, thank you. appreciate your being here.

>> thanks for having me. more social media reaction from the world of x. there is a big picture case for development of a third party not while there is an existential threat to democracy, rule of law, it wouldn't start at the presidential level. and would need to be transparent about donors. that is just ego. look, everybody i talk to, and maybe it is the orbit in which i exist, people are like yeah, we need choice, a third party. but oh, no, not this year. and then i say wait a minute, given the data and the opinion of america, if not this year, then let's stop talking about it, okay? don't come back to me in 2028 and say we need a third party alternative. if the point of that social media is to start in smaller steps and say let's get some independents in the congress, in the senate, in the house, then i'm all for that. i mean, my god, if you had a

handful, if you had three or four legitimate independents in the united states senate, the whole balance of power would be in their hands and that would be a good thing. still to come, nikki haley needs to win tuesday to stop the trump train. how is that going? especially in the wake of the endorsement of trump by tim scott. and don't forget, cannot wait to see the result of this, vote on the poll question. are people most opposed to donald trump actually aiding his election?

tuesday's new hampshire gop primary pretty much do or die for nikki haley. the granite state's unusually

high number of independents and its law allowing those independents to vote in either primary gives her more of a chance. but friday her fellow south carolinian tim scott endorsed donald trump. haley had been trying to get scott's endorsement herself. her polling in most of the subsequent states shows her road to be a rocky one unless new hampshire can change the narrative. joining me to discuss is new hampshire republican strategist dave carney. he was the political director for president george h.w. bush. dave, let me put my first question in terms that papa bush would have appreciated, who's got the big mo? >> trump. >> how come? >> it is a good lesson for every political person. the big mo comment from ambassador bush in '80. this is not a one time event. the primaries go on for months.

and as you said, if you don't deliver, you are dead. desantis last summer, going to win iowa. didn't come close. in new hampshire, haley campaign said they would win new hampshire. now they are talking about last night a strong second place. of course only two people running in new hampshire right now. trump said he was going to win iowa and he did. record historic numbers. he comes in with the wind at his back. he will win new hampshire. haley campaign did something about three or four weeks ago, they were running an excellent campaign in new hampshire and then they stopped doing, you know, real traditional campaigning. she would stand there and take questions from everybody. and talk to any microphone in the room and work really hard. and they sort of are trying to

play prevent defense. it is just not going to work in new hampshire. doesn't work in politics generally unless you are the frontrunner. >> there was a temptation of some when chris christie got out to say i think he had 12% of the vote, i guess you could just slide that into nikki haley's column because a christie person is not going to vote for donald trump. but that is not the way it works in real life, right? >> right. and i think a lot of people doing simple math at the diner with a paper napkin thought that. i thought that. i thought 90% of christie's people would go to haley and she could get close, single digits maybe. but christie trashed her on the way out the door. interestingly some of the christie loyalists who were with him in '16 uncharacteristically were really harsh on haley after

he got out. so only 65% of his people, you know, said that they would go to haley. and some of them are going to trump, which how is that even possible. so it is not abc and everything follows each other. there is humans involved, so a lot of human interactions that are very hard to predict. >> let me run a quick clip from last night. tim scott endorsing donald trump. roll it. >> that is why i came to the very warm state of new hampshire to endorse the next president of these united states! president donald trump! >> what is the significance if any of that endorsement in new hampshire?

>> just shows that the president is going to win. he will crush in nevada, their complicated corrupt new system. they will win south carolina. and win every other contest throughout the country. and that momentum back to your first question, that there are people who like to be with a winner. why would you go with a guy who is in third place, has no shot, he is not going to win anywhere including his home state or the person who is in second place who is not going anywhere and not going to win their home state? so you see people, they want to be able to say i was with trump. everyone wants to be with a winner. >> thank you, dave carney. nice to have you here. >> you bet, michael. thank you. still to come, more of your best and worst social media comments and upcoming, results of today's poll question at

smerconish.com. are the people most opposed to donald trump actually aiding his election? when you are there voting, sign up for the free and worthy daily newsletter. check out the sketch for the smerconish newsletter this week.

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. okay. there's the result so far. 25,795 having voted. are the people most opposed to trump aiding his election? wow, i must say, i'm surprised. i thought it would be the reverse of that.

the yes votes have it at 54%. a little message in there for all the institutional forces watching. according to this audience, a pretty significant sample size. you're helping him. social media reaction. what do we have? from the world of x. you have blurred the lines and misrepresented rachel's comments. can i stop right there? how could i have misrepresented rachel's comments when i played what she said? they're not ignoring the acceptance speech. yes, they are ignoring the acceptance speech. they will report any news he makes after the fact. and rayray. is that the same standard for the convention? like republican -- put that back on me. i'm kind of finished with that response. so now the republican national convention and it's mill mill and the acceptance speech is traditionally, is it wednesday or thursday? i've been to so many and i'm confused. you will carry it all week long and then dip out of the

acceptance speech and say we'll tell you if any news is made here? and now it's the inauguration. for the inauguration, she win, it's like trump will put hit hand on the bible. hey, if he says anything that we find significant and newsworthy, then we'll bring it to you. and by the way, we're a news outlet? that's ridiculous. what's next? you're amplifying the message of the far right by covering this topic. now i shouldn't even discuss it. i should bury my head in the sand like everybody else. why aren't you discussing the danger to democracy? we've done it. i'm not in the closet apologist. i wear all my opinions on my sleeve. like with me, you don't have to wonder what's the agenda? i'm telling you the agenda. the agenda is to just analyze and parse what everybody else is missing. which is that the way in which donald trump is being treated and covered is to trump's advantage. one more, if i've got time for

it. it that i do. censorship of trump helps him. congratulations, michael, you finally, you finally got something right. all right. i'll accept the faint praise. sorry to catch a cold. okay. let's do it. what have we got? you want a third party? let them build a real party beginning with local elections to show up once every four years only means they wanted to skew the election. larry fox, i like your idea. i would like, i would like a third party alternative to be something in every election. and maybe, we'll see what happens this year. when i look at that headline but how gloomy voters are about the prospects that seems to be coming to fruition, to me it says, the moon and the stars align. this is the year that something really could happen. if it's not this cycle, then you have the answer. the only way to bring about more choice is to do it on a local

basis. to approach congressional races and senatorial races. there's an effort out there. they call it the fulcrum project. it stands for the proposition that if you had three or four legitimate independents in the united states senate, they would sort of quell all the forces on the far left and the far right. they would get to call all the shots. more to come next week. thanks for watching. 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. i think he's having a midlife crisis join the mi'm not.of people taking back their privacy 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.