♪ donald trump back in a courtroom, just walking into the courthouse. his mind on the campaign, of course, once again. we'll see if he takes the stand today. plus, an historic trial under way right now that asks the key question, who is responsible for a mass shooting? the mother of a teen shooter is now facing potentially years behind bars if convicted. check your calendar and your liquor cabinet. six days left in dry january. from a medical standpoint, did these days off really help you? more importantly, me? i'm the disembodied voice of john berman, alongnd this is "c news central."

donald trump likes to take his campaign to the courtroom, and he is trying to do that again right now. it's not a question of if he'll try to use today's court appearance to his political advantage, the question is really only will he take the stand in this trial to try to pull that off? he just walked into court moments ago. this is the case where a jury will decide how many in damages, if any, donald trump will pay e. jean carroll for defamation this time. paula reid is with me. we have insight into court. what is happening right now, and what are we expecting? >> no cameras in the courtroom because this is federal court, but our colleagues are inside and giving us minute by minute updates. i want to note, there was a 30-minute delay for court starting. that is pretty unusual. notably, remember on monday, court was delayed for several days because a juror was sick. >> that's right. >> there were two jurors today in the jury box who are socially distancing. we don't have any additional

details on what they might have, but it is notable. it shows there could be, you know, other potential illnesses and concerns about exposure. now, trump just entered the courtroom. what's going to happen first today is the testimony of roberta meyers. she is e. jean carroll's former editor at ="elle." her testimony is significant because the issue at hand here is damages, the impact that trump's statements may or may not have had on e. jean carroll's career and her earning abilities. it'll be interesting to see if this testimony goes the full two hours like it did in the spring, or if they can maybe truncate it a bit. the big question after that is will trump take the stand? we expect that'd be the end of e. jean carroll's testimony, her case, rather, then they'd move on to the trump side. trump is the only person we expect they could put on the stand. his lawyers continue to insist he will take the stand, but, kate, we've seen this before. you get right up to the last

minute. he decides not to. his utility as a witness is pretty limited here because, again, the issue is not what happened in that department store. a jury already found in the spring, in the trial he didn't participate in, i'll note, that he sexually abused her. right now, they're just talking about damages relating to a 2019 statement he made where he denied these allegations. there's not a lot he can offer. but taking the stand provides him yet another opportunity to sort of manufacture courtroom drama, to refuse to follow the rules, as he has repeatedly during the case, and get into it with the judge, then argue to his supporters that he is somehow the victim of an unfair system. when it comes to this case, right, he has some legitimate constitutional litigation in other cases, but this case, it's mostly been him and his lawyers refusing to follow the rules that apply to everybody else and having to manufacture drama. testifying could offer another opportunity for him to do that. kate, look, judge kaplan, he's not going to put up with a lot of this. if trump does this, i don't think his testimony will last

very long. >> it doesn't limit him on what he could say, which we know he has when he leaves court and what he does with that. great to see you, paula. much more to come. paula has insight into what's going on minute by minute in the court. sarah? moments ago, trump's courtroom/campaign collision seeing a brand-new 2024 message from donald trump. inside federal court, he just posted about his upcoming trail plans. cnn's kristen holmes is joining us with more. what are we learning from this, and what are you hearing from those who are running the campaign and putting him back out there? >> reporter: yeah, so he just posted, and i don't want to shock you, but it's not a message of unity. it is an attack on nikki haley, unsurprisingly given we knowyng fact he hasn't dropped out of the race. he called her a nickname which i'm not going to read, saying she totally bombed last night in south carolina, saying why the surprise? she just bombed in iowa and new hampshire. we can stop it there. he goes on to talk about nevada,

which she's not competing in. the point of this is he is still very angry that she hasn't dropped out. there are several reasons why. one, they want to move on to the general election. they don't want to be spending time in places like south carolina and nevada. they don't want to be spending money in those areas. they want to be building out their teams in places like michigan, arizona, georgia. she's now standing in the way there. >> the other part of this, something else he posted which i thought was interesting, is that he pushed back on this idea, essentially threatening people, that if they gave any money to nikki haley or contributed to her in any way, they'd be blackballed from maga world. now, this is a tactic that we have seen donald trump and his team use before, but there's something very different about telling people that if they work for florida governor ron desantis, they can't then work for trump, versus talking about actual money. there are people within the campaign, the people who actually pay those campaign bills, who would like to see some of those bill dollar donors come in. in fact, south carolina senator, tim scott, said as muchessentia

after south carolina, they hope the big dollar donors will go in. instead, the money shifted to nikki haley. after south carolina, they're hoping it'll come to them. but the larger issue, as donald trump fixate d squarely on hail snmz. >> threats, retribution, nasty language, we're used to it, but it is stark when you see him attacking nikki haley this way, who is still in the race at this point. thank you so much, kristen holmes, for all your reporting and for the new information. john? paula reid is back with us. also, former assistant watergate prosecutor nick ackerman. paula, you're following the play by play of this. we're a few minutes in since we last heard from you. updates? >> this is federal court, so there are no cameras in the courtroom. we are relying on our colleagues who are inside, giving us minute by minute updates. a few notable things. one is there was a 30-minute delay to the start of this case today. that's notable because this is federal court. usually, it starts on time.

trump only sat down at the defense table a few minutes ago. there were questions, where is he? is he preparing for mpossible testimony? also, two jurors are socially distancing, right, very 2020, in the jury box. earlier this week on monday, court was adjourned because one of the jurors was sick. we don't know what that individual had. today, two jurors socially distancing. a judge didn't say anything beyond that. now, e. jean carroll's lawyers getting under way with their first witness of the day, roberta meyers, carroll's editor at "elle." she'll be speaking to potential damages, impact that trump's statements had on e. jean carroll's career. she was a witness in the spring. in the spring, her testimony took an hour and a half, two hours. we'll see if it takes that long today. the big question then is the trump defense case. will he or won't he? >> all right. on that point, first, yes or no,

and then why. do you believe donald trump will testify, yes or no? >> no. >> do you believe donald trump will testify, yes or no? >> yes. >> nick, do you want to -- >> i always want to play. >> do you think? >> yes, i do. >> nick, you say no. >> there is no upside to him testifying. he can only testify to, one, real damage ls, which he has no knowledge of. maliciousness, which goes to punitive damages which he'd be insane to testify to because the plaintiff would be able to take him through every single statement he made about e. jean carroll for the last few years, including statements that were made yesterday. there is no upside to it. all it's going to do is add tens of millions of dollars to a judgment that's going to be large to begin with. so there really is no point to it. plus, i think this judge, judge kaplan, is going to make donald

trump, if he wants to testify, give a proffer beforehand to understand what it is he could even say, which i don't think there is anything, which make keep him off the stand, period. >> counterpoint? >> well, nick's analysis is exactly correct. the problem is, trump is not following regular legal analysis. the upside for him is he gets to either rail on his regular points, which is he is trying to deny things, even though he can't deny his liability here, or also helpful to him is the judge puts him back in his place, doesn't let him talk about the things he wants to, and he uses that in his campaign and public relations campaign. legally, it makes no sense for him, but that's not where the strategy is. >> batting cleanup, paula reid? >> i completely agree. the reason i think he'll take the stand is not because it makes any legal sense whatsoever, it is because it is an opportunity to spar with the

judge. one thing we saw with voters were coming out of the primary in new hampshire is people are buying the argument that he is a martyr, the victim of an unfair system. they're not following whether or not he followed the rules. it was, oh, he was deprived of his opportunity to tell his side of the story. he didn't show up for the trial in the spring when they were actually talking about sexual abuse. it is being a loud martyr, for him politically, even if legally it makes no sense. i don't think he is worried about the damages. he is trying to regain the white house, and he truly believes that this is an opportunity to once again frame himself as a victim. i think he'll take it but it'll be brief. i don't think the judge will allow it to go on. >> shan wu, to that point, the suggestion from team paula here is saying that the testimony may

blow up. how does it play out with judge kaplan? >> i think he may be forced to make a proffer to the judge, so the judge is satisfied this will at least have some relevance to what they're trying to determine. the proffer is not worth it because he'll blow through whatever the proffer was and do whatever he wants. if the judge really constrains him, he has a number of ways to constrain him. he can interrupt him. he can tell the lawyers to try to control him. he could offer to even sanction him if he continues that, or he can stop him from testifying. there's ways for the judge to control trump, and i think the way it plays out is trump just wants as much time as he can in the limelight there to be doing his thing, to be railing against the judge. >> nick? >> i think the judge has already got the marshals lined up. if this guy steps one iota out of line, he is going to be taken out by the marshals. >> then who wins, paula reid? >> former president donald trump. >> it's a political event and

because he is there for just this reason. nick ackerman, shan wu, paula reid, thank you, all, very much. moments ago, peter navarro arrived in a federal court in washington. he will soon be sentenced for defying a congressional subpoena in the january 6th investigation. cnn's kaitlin posis watching th for us. what is he facing? >> reporter: possible jail time. they want peter navarro to be sentenced to six months in jail and fined $200,000. that's what they asked for steve bannon, the other person convicted of criminal contempt of congress for not showing up for testimony, not turning over documents in the house select committee's january 6th probe. with navarro, the justice department is asking for six months in jail and hoping he gets jail time, because they say he was completely defiant of this inquiry by congress.

whenever congress subpoenaed him, he was never interested in negotiating with them to potentially show up for testimony. he never turned over a single document. at the same time, he was out there publicly writing a book about the 2020 election, talking about it. on navarro's side, he has a couple different claims he's arguing to the judge right now. one, that there was executive privilege. he believed donald trump did not want him to show up or turn over documents, and so that's why he didn't. he should have some sort of protection there. he also claimed that he did take some sort of responsibility. he'd never do something like this again. we'll see how far that goes over at the federal district court in washington today. this is a pretty significant sentencing in that this is a situation that played out like steve bannon's, where congress just didn't get anything out of somebody that really wanted to contest the election , was a political player for trump after the 2020 election, but different

in that navarro was serving in the white house as a senior adviser. he is likely to appeal whatever jail sentence or not he receives today. bannon is on hold. bannon got four months ultimately and is appealing, as well. there's a lot of legal questions around this, but we're watching what the judge does here. it is very difficult for congress to enforce their subpoenas and see some sort of fallout for when somebody doesn't show up. >> we've seen that over and over again, kaitlin polantz, thank you very much. the sentencing hearing is under way. we'll bring updates as they come. opening statements just wrapped up in a potentially unprecedented trial in michigan. we are learning that the mother in this case of the convicted school shooter may take the stand in her own defense. all of that is ahead. also, outside stepping in. how former president trump is standing in the way of

bipartisan border legislation. and for those who kicked off the new year with a dry january, what are the pros and cons of ditching drinks for a month? we'll have that, too.

we just heard moments ago from the attorney of the mother of the michigan school shooter, that she will testify in her own defense. jennifer crumbley and her husband are the first parents to be prosecuted for their child's actions in a mass shooting. they're being tried separately. in his opening statement, the prosecutor says they will show evidence jennifer ignored warning signs.

listen. >> despite her knowledge of his growing social isolation, despite the fact that it's illegal for a 15-year-old to walk into a gun store and walk out with a handgun by himself, this gun was gifted. >> jennifer and james crumbley are both charged with involuntary manslaughter after their son shot and killed four students at oxford high school in 2021. cnn's jean cassarez has been following this story throughout. this is potentially a legal precedent setting case, is it not? >> absolutely. it truly is. we want to tell you that the first witness is just about to take the stand, molly darnell. this is one of -- she was an educator at the school, but she was shooting victim. defense fought to not have the victims on the stand because this is emotional testimony, and she was at her job. she didn't pull the trigger, her son did it. but this is a homicide case. they are charged with causing

the deaths of those four students. she, molly, who will take the stand, is one of the victims. you know, the defense really had another slant to this, that jennifer crumbley was the best mother she could be. she'd take her son to soccer practice, to basketball practice. she'd take him to the doctor's when it was needed. she never had any idea -- i want you to listen to shannon smith, the defense attorney, in her opening statement. >> she did not have it on her radar in any way that there was any mental disturbance, that her son would ever take a gun into a school, that her son would ever shoot people. the evidence at trial is going to show you that jennifer crumbley did the best she could as a mother to a child who grew up into a teenager and had no

way to know what was going to happen. >> defense also said in their opening statement that the prosecution is going to give little tidbits, and they are going to give a bigger picture to give context, that you can't judge them on just one small thing. you have to look at everything that was going around at the same time. so this is a case where the devil is going to be in the details. you have to listen to the small points. that's going to tell the story. but it is up to these jurors, who are parents, many of them are, to determine whether, beyond a reasonable doubt, they, the parents, committed this involuntary manslaughter homicide because of their gross negligence. >> it is such an interesting case. and because we've also seen the text messages, the public has seen those, and i'm sure the jury will, too, where the mother, not knowing it was her son who committed the shooting, say, "ethan, don't do it." but her attorney is saying she could have had no idea that he was going to bring the gun to school. >> that state of mind right there is one of those little

details that's going to be very important. because they had just gotten him the gun that weekend. >> right, right. >> then it happened at his school. what was the state of mind? prosecutors will use that. >> they'll go for it. thank you so much, jean casarez, for covering this story. it is fascinating and, obviously, tragic. the president is hitting the road today to talk about the economy, and the latest read on the economy just out this morning. it shocked some analysts. biden's top economic aide is joining us. hopes are dwindling on capitol hill over the long-evasive, much-debated, quietly-negotiated talks over immigration and border security. deep divisions among senate republicans. we have details.

so a huge development that might spell the end for hope of a bipartisan deal on the border. mitch mcconnell who, days ago, had been pushing hard for a deal, saying it was republicans' best chance for tougher immigration laws and that it was crucial to secure aid for ukraine now is suggesting it'll not happen. the reason is because of that guy, donald trump. cnn's manu raju is on capitol hill this morning with this big statement by mitch mcconnell, manu. >> reporter: yeah, no question about it. republicans are still trying to

figure out what that means in the months ahead. mcconnell has been pushing hard to get this deal done because republicans have insisted, there must be a deal on immigration and the border fuirst before thy agree to more funding for ukraine at a critical time in the war against russia. but because trump has come out publicly and privately, lobbying against any sort of immigration deal that is not, quote, exactly what republicans have demanded, there are fears on capitol hill that that could scuttle the process entirely, derail this national security package, and that is the message that republicans are grappling with this morning, including one senator, mitt o'rromney, who sa he believes donald trump is urging members to kill this because he wants to campaign on the issue of immigration. >> do you think this is what he wants, the issue, donald trump? this is why he is doing in? >> i think the border is a very important issue for donald trump. the fact that he would

communicate to republican senators and congresspeople that he doesn't want us to solve the border problem because he wants to blame biden for it is really appalling. but the reality is, we have a crisis at the border. the american people are suffering as a result of what's happening at the border. someone running for president ought to try to get, you know, the problem solved as opposed to saying, hey, save that problem. don't solve it. let me take credit for solving it later. >> reporter: that is the cold, hard reality on capitol hill. getting any deal through on an issue as complex as immigration would be complicated to begin with. then when you have the party's likely standardb bearer saying, don't cut a deal on immigration, it'll convince many republicans to say it is not time to cut a deal. let's wait on this issue. all the major issues that go along with it, funding for ukraine, funding for israel, funding for taiwan, all tied

together in this massive package, including this new border policy that they hoped to get out of the senate as soon as this week. then try to get it over to the house where the politics are even more complicated over there, given the republican-led house and the alliance of the gop leaders there with trump, it all spells potential doom for this almost must-pass package, potentially punting this into the next year as republicans and democrats, john, try to figure out what's next. >> manu, i want to focus on mitch mcconnell for a second and how big of a change this is in such a short period of time. yes, he was pushing this because he really wants the money for ukraine, but mcconnell has also made clear that this deal on immigration is the best deal republicans could get, you know, in a generation. it's more of what they've been asking for in a long time. just a few days ago, he was saying this. now, he is saying, eh, forget it. >> reporter: exactly. yeah, he is bowing to the political reality here. in fact, behind closed doors yesterday, we're told he, in fact, read a quote out loud from

donald trump in 2018 talking about the issues they're negotiating in this process. a trio of senators are trying to cut a deal on immigration. republicans believe they've gotten a lot. mcconnell was trying to make the point that trump tried to get these things when he was in office and couldn't do it because of democratic opposition. democrats have moved, he says, toward the republican position on this issue, and they say this is the opportunity to get this deal at this key moment, particularly as joe biden recognizes his own vulnerability on immigration. but the politics so complicated here, and the fear among trump and his allies, that cutting a deal could give joe biden something to campaign on, clearly driving the negotiations, clearly driving the political reality and the legislative outlook here on this major issue, john. >> we'll find out if there are even negotiations anymore after what mcconnell said and where trump stands at this point. we'll have to see what happens next. manu raju, thank you very much. keep us posted. i know you're looking for

senators walking by to get more information. if you do grab one, let us know. thanks, manu. sara? >> thanks, john. up next, the international red cross sounding the alarm in war-torn gaza. what they say needs to happen to preserve life-saving medical treatment for millions of people.

today, president biden hitting the road, specifically in the midwest, to tout the economy under his watch. a push to try and convince

voters that recent good economic data is good for them. that they should feel it. treasury secretary janet yellen also hitting the road, set to give remarks in chicago. this all happens as we have the very latest read on the economy just this morning. the commerce department reporting gdp in the final months of 2023 came in strong. it's the broadest read of the state of the u.s. economy, and it is showing the economy grew at a shockingly good rate. joining us now to talk more about this is the director of the national economic council, president biden's top economic aide. thank you so much for coming in. i saw it described as the economy is growing at a shocking pace in the fourth quarter. now that we rounded out the economic data from 2023, can you give the one-liner of how you describe the economy in 2023? >> yeah. the economy grew by over 3%.

inflation settled down to 2% over the course of 2023, at the time when the economy created 2.7 million jobs a year ago. it would have been hard to find any forecaster who would have said the economy would be this strong with inflation this low just a year out. that, i would say, is exactly what president biden believe d, and it is good news for families. >> consumer sentiment just saw the biggest two-month increase since 1991 according to the latest university of michigan survey. take that and weigh that against this. some of the voters that i met in new hampshire this week, i'm going to play you a sound bite from one man i met, explaining why he's voting for donald trump. >> he's going to fix the economy. the economy is brutal right now. we're getting killed with

groceries, fuel bills. everything is just, like, unbelievable. >> is the most important issue in this election the economy? >> economy and economy and economy. >> lael, you say this economy shows it is good for american families. why aren't americans, some americans, saying they feel that? >> well, as you noted earlier, americans are feeling it. we saw a 30% bump in consumer sentiment in the last two months. consumer confidence is also moved higher. as you noted, americans are really acting in a way that shows confidence in the u.s. economy. consumer spending has been very resilient. we've seen 16 million small businesses created over the last three years. what better sign of hope and confidence is it than starting a

small business? you know, if you look at wages, they are up after adjusting for inflation. they are -- wealth is up after adjusting for inflation. and prices have come down over the past year. gas is now down below $3 in most of the country and around $2.50 in many parts of the country. you know, we've also seen a gallon of milk coming down. there are a whole variety of reasons for americans to feel good. but there are still areas, like health care costs which are unaffordable, and we are going to keep working to bring prescription drug prices down. >> yeah, it's kind of bridging that gap of the data you see, data you saw and put out, and how people feel. i mean, in exit polls in new hampshire, among all vote rs tht showed up to the polls, 7 in 10 describe the state of the economy as not so good or poor. and how you talk about the economy, everyone does, is an important thing.

jpmorgan's jamie dimon had some advice for democrats specifically for the coming year, in part about how they talk about the economy in an election year. let's play this. >> i wish the democrats would think a little more carefully when they talk about maga. when people say maga, they're actually looking at people voting for trump, and they think -- they're basically scapegoating them, that you are like him. i don't think they're voting for trump because of family values. just take a step back, be honest. he was kind of right about nato, about immigration. he grew the economy quite well. >> china virus? >> tax reform worked. this negative talk about maga is going to hurt biden's election campaign. >> well, that warning from jamie dimon, what do you say to that? >> so, look, i travel with the president. i was with him in allentown, pennsylvania. i was with him.

i have seen his interactions with uaw workers. he is very focused on americans and where they are, their economic reality. he sat with small business owners, juan and lauren vargas in allentown, and they talked about how important all of his policies are for giving them the wherewithal to start a small business and how that small business was lifting the entire community they lived in, revitalizing main street. yes we saw the same thing with uaw workers seeing record wage increases, much greater retirement security. so americans are seeing a broad-based recovery, and that's because the president thinks about americans from the perspective of sitting around kitchen table, paying their bills, and looking at their prospects. >> we'll continue to see how americans feel, how they talk

about the economy throughout this now heading into 2024. lael brainard, thank you for coming in. >> thank you. >> sara? gaza hospitals are in crisis amid the israel-hamas war. the red cross saying concrete action is needed right now to preserve life-saving medical services in gaza. it warns there are only two referral hospitals left functioning in all of gaza that can provide advanced surgeries and have large bed capacities. a warning, what you are about to see is very disturbing. but it is important to see what is happening there. one of the hospitals facing dire conditions is in ckhan yunis. they've run out of anesthesia and painkillers, and they've been forced to dig graves on hospital grounds. i'm joined by the spokesperson for the palestine red crescent society who is also right now in

the west bank. we spoke in november. back then, you were having trouble hearing from your colleagues. communications were down. they didn't have enough food and water. can you give us an update on what is happening inside gaza with those trying to bring in help and aid right now? >> the situation remains to be worsening and worsening. we're getting into the fourth month of this continuous war which has been badly impacted. every single palestinian in the gaza strip. this means now 90% of the palestinians have been internally displaced, and all of them are lacking food, water, as well as essential supplies. it's getting colder, and the weather is really cold. on top to have that, thousands of palestinians are just in the streets. they don't even have a shelter or tents since almost half of the population now are in south

of gaza in rafah. it is a huge struggle for every palestinian to have only one meal a day. we're literally talking about people are starving. on top of that, infectious diseases are really spreading very fast among the displaced people. they are completely overcrowded in shelters, lacking hygiene, lacking a very basic humanitarian needs, and those thousands of people will be losing their lives. it's not from the bombardments that it'll be from. starvation and these infectious diseases. >> i want to ask you about how people are coping with this and how the red crescent is getting in. are you still able to go in and come out of gaza? how is that working in order to try to get some more aid to

people? as we look at some of these pictures from rafa jah, for example, where people have their blankets on the ground, that's where they're having to live because they can't go back to their homes because there are bombardments near their homes. >> so, basically, the palestine red crescent is the leading medical service provider in the occupied palestinian territory. since the beginning of the escalation, we have been evacuating the wounded people due to the continuous bombardments in gaza. also, we're responsible to receiving the humanitarian aid through rafah crossing border. we still receive this aid from our borders, the egyptian red cross, and every day from rafah crossing. however, we still only get very small amounts of the drugs, which are not enough at all. we're facing challenges regarding the number of aid trucks that are allowed to get into gaza. up to this moment, what has been

allowed to be into gaza doesn't even scratch the surface. it doesn't meet 10% of the needs. that's why most of the people are still angry, because they don't get anything. this is normal because the aid trucks from both crossings, which was only during the past few weeks and from rafah exceeds 170 aid trucks daily. before the escalation, every day, there was getting into gaza 500 aid trucks. now, wrooee're talking about an emergency situation. this is the fourth month. 90% of the people are displaced. they need relief items, tents. there is a new, urgent need that needs to be fulfilled. on top of that, the health situation is collapsing. most hospitals went out of service. we need more medical supplies and medicines since, up to this moment, over 63,000 palestinians have been injured.

basically, we need more medical supplies, as well. now, in khan yunis, we feel extremely worried regarding our teams who have been trapped at the hospital for the fourth day. since yesterday, there was a complete curfew imposed, and bombardments never stop in the surrounding area of the hospital which has also surrthousands of palestinians taking shelter inside our hospital and the red crescent headquarters. >> nebal farsakh, thank you for the update from the palestinian red crescent society for those in gaza. difficult situation for those there and the aid workers. thank you for your time. we are waiting to hear from the u.s. supreme court with hours to go until what would be an historic execution.

will they step in to stop a method that's never been used before? happy six days left

january if you are celebrating or surviving as the case may be. for those who observe dry january, it means what it sounds like. it is giving up alcohol for the month. with us now, cnn chief medical correspondent dr. sanjay gup pagupta. do i need a drink? how has the advice changed from ten years ago? >> i don't know if you personally need a drink. the advice if you talk to most major medical societies, and you'll not want to hear this, is no amount of alcohol is good for your health. before i explain that, let me tell you, if you go back and look over the last 100 years, the advice has changed considerably. take a look at this graph here, john. you'll find this interesting.

this is from 100 years ago in 1920. this is what really launched this idea of a little bit of alcohol can be beneficial. this is what's called the j-curve. i don't know how well you can see that. basically, it shows between, you know, one drink to about 2 1/2 drinks, mortality is actually lower. it is below the baseline of mortality. suggesting that a little bit of alcohol can be helpful. that was the conventional wisdom for a long time, john, really until the 1980s, where you started to see studies for the first time coming out and saying, hey, look, there seems to be an association between alcohol and things like cancer and stroke. it got confusing again a few years later because of something known as the french paradox, john. the idea that the french are eating saturated fats, smoking, not exercising much, and their morality is still low. why? well, they said maybe red wine is the sort of reason why. but over the last ten years, to your question, john, the

evidence has really started to accumulate, that there's all these associations with other types of cancers. now, where you hear most of the medical community landing on this is no amount of alcohol is good for your health. let me show you something else i dug up for you. go back 100 years, just after prohibition, how have american attitudes toward alcohol changed or not changed? sort of interesting. that's the line there, john. it's about the same. it hasn't changed that much, which is really interesting. about one-third of americans totally abstain. two-thirds will drink some. some more than others. but that is sort of the same. dry january, let me answer that part of the question here, i find this really interesting. if you stop drinking for a little bit of time, it does seem to have significant benefits. i worry about heart disease myself, having a dip in alcohol consumption can lower blood pressure. also, all the things you see on the screen. liver enzymes go down.

sleep and your diet improves. and the bad habits start to improve, as well, john. >> huh, sounds like the type of thing that may be worth trying even for just a month. >> yeah. just keep you healthy, john. that's what i'm here for. >> you're looking out for me, sanjay gupta, thank you so much. one big question today is will donald trump take the stand in his civil defamation trial? we're standing by. new updates coming from the courtroooom in low r wer manhat. we'l'll bring ththose to youou this.