skeptical, whether it's driverless cars. and elon musk has proven time and again that he's willing to put the criticism aside. >> it had to go through fda approval, which i'm not saying is fullproof. they have their flaws, but every step of the way they'll have to go through regulatory approval, right? >> that's absolutely right. we'll see x, one of twitter's other -- elon musk's other companies, in front of congress this week. its new ceo linda yaccarino will testify. it's a good example of the fact he has to go through regulatory approvals through so many different bodies and agencies. with this it's the fda. with spacex it's the department of transportation and faa. with x it's members of congress. so, every time elon musk has to do something, he has to get through policymakers and his

strange permit will make that tougher, which is why it's impressive they were able to get a lot of these permissions. >> i think you just made me a believer. sarah fisher, i was skeptical of poppy's belief in it, but sarah brought me all the way in. >> this is what i get for sitting next to him for three hours. "cnn this morning" continues right now. all eyes on the white house after three soldiers were killed by a drone strike. >> we will respond. we will strong strongly. >> we know these groups are supported by iran. therefore, they have their fingerprints on this. >> these militant groups are trying to start a war. we're trying to stop a war, not start one. cnn on the front lines recording on ukraine forces holding off russian attacks as munitions dwindle. >> we have to move the entire time hopefully to get out of here, hopefully safely. the super bowl is now set.

there are conspiracy theories that are already floating around. the nfl is looking to give taylor swift more air time ahead of her endorsement of joe biden. >> it's so ridiculous. this whole taylor swift/travis kelce has been fun and the fact it's irking a lot of football fans is beautiful. deal with it. good tuesday morning, i'm phil mattingly, poply harlow in new york. new information about the deadly drone attack that took the lives of three american soldiers in jordan. the enemy drone was following an american drone returning to the base at the same time. that caused confusion on the ground, confusion that delayed a response to the attack. the white house vowing to retaliate. president biden weighing his options and wary of escalating all of this into a full-scale war. officials tell cnn the u.s. response is likely to be more powerful than those previous

retaliatory strikes in iraq and syria. antony blinken issuing this assessment. >> this is an incredibly volatile time in the middle east. i would argue we have not seen a situation as dangerous as the one we're facing now across the region since at least 1973. >> the three fallen soldiers are all from georgia. 46-year-old sergeant william rivers, kennedy sanders and 23-year-old specialist breonna moffett. we want to start from the white hous house. as president biden vows to retaliate, what are the options on the table? considerate the key challenge for president biden and his national security team is just that, trying to work through the options he could pursue to respond to this attack without having this become a greater regional war. the white house has been very

careful in their statements over the course of the past two days in trying to stress that point. one thing national security council spokesperson john kirby went to great lengths to say yesterday in briefing reporters is that the u.s. is not seeking a direct conflict with iran in a military way. now, secretary of state antony blinken yesterday said he anticipates the response could be multi-leveled, could come in stages and be sustained over a period of time. and one thing officials have made clear is they anticipate this response to be more powerful than the retaliatory strikes biden has already taken against these iran-backed militant groups in iraq and syria. so far those types of counterattacks that the u.s. has launched have not deterred them from carrying out any attacks on u.s. and coalition forces. there has been more than 160 of those attacks by those groups since october 7th. one thing that officials have indicated, they have a host of

options on their plate they could pursue. that includes trying to target some of these groups within iraq and syria, also potentially targeting the leadership of these regional militant groups. there's also the possibility for launching some kind of cyberattack on these groups as well. but one thing that officials have suggested is that it's unlikely the u.s. will be striking directly in iran. that's something republican lawmakers up on capitol hill have been pushing president biden to do since this attack on sunday. we anticipate seeing president biden when he detarts the white house in a few hours. we will see whether he answers any reporters' questions as he is working through these options to try to have a forceful response without sparking a greater regional conflict. >> quite a line to walk. what more can you share with us about those three fallen soldiers? >> three american families have their lives completely changed after this attack. there were three individuals, all part of the 718th engineer company. a u.s. army reserve unit based

out of georgia, including sergeant william rivers, 46 years oldings specialist kennedy sanders, 24, and specialist bronna moffett, 23 years old. the mother of kennedy sanders spoke with cnn and said she has a call scheduled with the biden administration. we have yet to hear if president biden has placed phone calls to the families of lost loved ones. it would be another moment for the president to step into the role of consoler-in-chief. kennedy sanders' mother told cnn she wants her daughter to be remembered for her service, her sacrifice and the way she lived her life to the fullest. >> we will remember all of them. faux for your reporting from the white house. joining us to discuss, democratic congressman, former navy helicopter and member of the house armed services committee. we appreciate your time this morning. as we look forward, and we know the administration is weighing options right now for a response, what would you like to see based on the options we know are on the table?

>> well, i would really like to see the administration use the tools to ensure that we can add some calm to the region. we do that by gathering our allies. make no mistake, it is the desire of these organizations backed by iran to escalate the situation. and any de-stabilization of the region is bad for the united states. we've already seen the red sea largely shut down by the houthis. that impacts global shipping, that impacts our ability to make our supply chains more resilient. we are working incredibly hard to ensure that we have a calmer, better situation in the region. >> i think the complicating thing to try to understand at this point is the houthis have continued their attacks despite u.s. and coalition strikes over the course of the last several weeks. there have now been more than 160 strikes from proxies in iran and iraq. what can change that dynamic from a force perspective for the president to consider?

>> it's really a delicate, delicate situation. as you heard from secretary blinken, it is probably -- there is more unrest in the region than any time since the early '70s. so, the president has to calculate how much force is necessary right now to push back to deter further aggression. and i think as you heard from the white house, you are going to see an increased response here because, as you've pointed out with over 160 attacks on u.s. service members across the region, we've got to do more to deter that aggression, while at the same time working hard to ensure we are not going into a full-scale war with iran. look, as a nation that's just come out of 20 years war, as a veteran of the global war on terrorism, i can attest to the fact that the last thing we need right here is to enter into another long-term war in the region. >> i'm glad you mentioned that. in these moments there are always members of congress who want to escalate to another war, who say attack iran directly.

lindsey graham is often one of them, john cornyn was saying yesterday as well, john cotton and john bolton saying this. take a listen. >> if you want to establish deterrence, you don't just hit the proxies that are carrying out the attack. you carry out retaliation against the command and control authorities in iran and some of their facilities. to be clear, i don't think it should be proportionate. it should be disproportionate. the cost to them of attacking our forces is so high they won't do it again. >> again, the context, is john bolton has long advocated for more aggressive posture, more offensive posture, when it comes to iran. given what we've seen over the last several months, why is that wrong this time around? >> so, iran has done, quite frankly, has done a lot of work to fund terrorist groups/cells

aross the region, hezbollah, houthis, and we're seeing the results of that work. a lot of these groups are not in direct contact but, nevertheless, attempting to destabilize the region, want to draw the united states into this conflict. and i think we have to be very careful here. you know, sure, it feels good. it feels macho to say we are going to destroy our enemies. but at this time, what the united states often does best is not simply go and have talked, but, rather, gathered our allies, bring a force to bear of world opinion, of our allies and back down those who would create this instability. and i think we've seen some signs that iran does not want to get into this full-scale war. make no mistake, the united states is ready for it. we can certainly assert our power and might throughout the region of any attackers. what we are trying to do here is to prevent a full-scale war, trying to deter this aggression.

the president is working hard. he has options on the table to increase the force that we use. we will likely do that, as we'll see in the coming weeks and we will hopefully see less aggression. i also think we aren't doing this in a vacuum. we are doing this combined with our attempts right now to have a pause in the fighting between the israelis and hamas so that we can get hostages freed and so that we can have a better outcome in that war right now. >> are you concerned when you see -- from the complete other side of the political spectrum, the protests you see not just interpret the president, the vice president, other members of congress, that the political repercussions of this moment in the middle east are very problematic for democrats going into november? >> you know, this is where i think some of us differ on what our job is here as public servants. my job is to serve the american people. my job is to make sure that i do

everything in my power to get a good outcome for this county and the people i serve. as much as i work hard to get re-elected and i hope to do so. i hope the people in my district, once again, elect me to serve them, i'd be honored, but my job is not to get re-elected. my job is to ensure the best outcomes for the united states of america. >> i want to ask you about the border legislation that could be coming to the house at some point. we're still waiting to see what the senate comes up with. there has been a snap rejection of the legislation from the republicans' base, seemingly on what the leader of the republican party, donald trump, has asked them to do. given how far, i think, democrats have moved in those negotiations in the senate, based on what you know up to this point, is that legislation you would be willing to support if it comes over to the house? >> well, certainly, bipartisan negotiation out of the senate is something i would take a very hard look at. there is a good chance i would

be interested in moving forward with that. i'd have to see that legislation, but i think to the point i was just making, this is the exact opposite of what i was talking about. this is what i would call the tail wagging the dog. people engaging in partisan politics to win an election versus attempting to address the issues the united states has. you know, here you have a republican party in the house that has for years said we need border legislation. i agree. i wanted a comprehensive solution on immigration for many, many years. however, now that the solution is actually at hand, you see the person who is the likely nominee for president from that party saying, no, don't do it because it's better for me if i have it as a campaign issue. and suddenly, all of the -- they have backed away from it. the hypocrisy and shamelessness has constantly been a frustration to me. nevertheless, i and many like-minded people in the senate

and hopefully the house will continue to work to address the issues at the border and to make sure we have a more secure border. >> and the same day homeland security committee will move forward on impeaching the homeland security secretary mayorkas. we'll see what happens to that legislation. congresswoman, we appreciate your time as always. thank you. >> thank you. retired conservative federal judge in a brief to the supreme court urging the high court to disqualify donald trump from office. we'll discuss why next. and what do taylor swift, joe biden, travis kelce and pfizer have in common? they're all part of a far-right bogus conspiracy theory. the latest driving the internet wild. we'll try to explain.

a retired very well known conservative federal judge is urging the supreme court to disqualify donald trump from office. judge michael wrote a friend of the court brief and it makes a

distinction between trump's efforts to hold onto power after the 2020 election and the south carolina secession, which led to the civil war. he argues unlike the secession of south carolina, trump tried to promote the newly elected governor. >> he says trump incited and engaged in armed ban of the united states and mandates that require power to newly elected president. in doing so, mr. trump disquauled himself under constitution. justices are set to hear oral arguments on february 8th. >> let's bring in the writer, very serious newsletter, host of podcast, john barrow, and former senior investigative counsel for select committee, williams.

thanks, guys, look at your role on the select committee, i wonder what to make of the argument in this brief because it's a big deal to say this is essentially worse or more detrimental, potentially, to the united states than the secession we saw, because it's about the whole country. >> i think it's a powerful brief but i think it's based on both fact and law. i think the judge was a critical witness for us in providing the committee with historical context of what we were looking at with the acts of the former president. i think what he's done here, frankly, by him and dean tribe starting this argument here, section 3 of the 14th amendment at its core. saying the former president by breaking his oath of office and engaging in insurrection has disqualified himself from holding any future federal office. i think that's a strong argument. what's more interesting is he's

appealing to conservative principles. >> that was interesting. he says, this is how you need to read it. >> i think that's what's going to be powerful here. eat looking at the powerful bench, conservative decades and saying this is how they read the constitution. if you stick true to conservative principles you'll arrive at the conclusion the former president is not eligible to be president again. the only way he could become eligible is by two-thirds of congress removing the disqualification. without that, the former president cannot hold office and should not be on the ballot. >> what's your read, not just on what ludig is saying but as this plays out. february 8th is a very big day. what's your sense on how this stands? >> ludig has been a big voice on conservative positions, you'll

seen others take the position that, in fact, the former president is disqualified. if you're going into the supreme court with a 6-3 majority you need arguments that might pick off at least two conservative justices for that argument. i think in terms of making a textualist approach, if you're looking for a justice to pick up an old document and say this gives power we haven't had -- that we haven't had to discuss before but it is in there, that seems like an argument for judge gorsich, and he will look at powers that undermine the way the state of oklahoma that drive other conservative justices crazy. the case about discrimination against -- >> gay rights. >> -- on gay rights. his opinion said that civil rights law has always prohibited or for decades prohibited discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. it seems like an argument that could be made for him.

that would only get to four, assuming you can get three liberal justices along. in the colorado supreme court was only a 4-3 decision. >> where does roberts go on this? >> where do you think roberts goes on this? >> roberts, we think of him as the institutional person here. i think he's going to be thinking, how is a court perceived after a decision like this? frankly, i would guess roberts goes with the former president. i would be surprised here if roberts allows a world that the court is perceived at lease as being -- >> political. >> political. >> the thing he doesn't want it to be. >> i think that's what the judge is imploring the court to do, is not look at, you know, the politics of the moment, to look at the text, look at the constitution, and do what the law requires, not what the politics of the moment require. >> can we play the sound of judge sotomayor. listen. >> change happens because people

care about moving the arc of the universe towards justice. and it can take time, and it can take frustration. i live in frustration. and as you heard, every loss truly traumatizes me, in my stomach and in my heart. but i have to get up the next morning and keep on fighting. >> josh, what do you think the intent is behind that message? >> i'm not sure there is a strategic intent behind it. i mean, it seems like a description of what her day is like. i find it a little bit surprising, given what justice sotomayor describes of the stakes before the united states supreme court she's not retired. she's been on the court for 15 years. it's possible the democrats will lose control of the senate in the next election and who knows how long it could be before

there's the next opportunity for a democratic president to make a new appointment into the seat she sits in. justice scalia stuck around through the 2006 election, did not make it to 2017. he had mitch mcconnell running interference for him. but it can be more than a decade before there's another opportunity for a democratic appointment with a democratic senate. it seems like it would be the right time strategically for her to step down in favor of someone younger if she's concerned about the political balance on the court. >> interesting point. >> is that a thing? >> not what i've heard -- >> i understand. >> i think it's strange there hasn't been chatter about it. we've already been through this with justice ginsburg. >> she was a lot older. she had a lot of health issues. >> justice sotomayor has diabetes. scalia was older in -- >> that was a surprise. >> a decade is a long time. i'm not saying i think justice sotomayor is on death's door, by

any means. it's important, given it's a lifetime appointment, to take a very long time horizon view on this. democrats are at a structural disadvantage in the u.s. senate. i would not assume that, you know, within the next four or six years we'll have another occasion where there's a democratic president, democratic senate. >> interesting point. i think people will talk about it now. >> we're going to commercial. >> thank you, guys, very much. secretary of state antony blinken laying out the global implications if the u.s. fails to provide aid to ukraine. >> cnn seeing the real life impact of the lack of aid on the front lines in ukraine. we'll take you live to kyiv with the latest on that war. >> we were getting ready to film here, and all of a sudden we heard what appeared to be outgoing artillery and then shell -- 100 meters, got ya.

welcome back. secretary state antony blinken is urging congress to approve more aid for ukraine. blinken met with the head of nato in washington yesterday and warned of emboldening vladimir putin and sending a, quote,

strong and wrong message to other u.s. adversariadversaries >> to continue to ensure ukraines knows success, it is vital congress pass the supplemental budget request the president has put before it. without it, simply put, everything ukraine's achieved and that we've help them achieve will be in jeopardy. >> and nato secretary-general stolen berg reiterated that message and noted a russian victory in ukraine could embolden iran and north korea. the realitying on the front line are stark and real. fred pleitgen is with us. i have seen what you have seen on the ground, and this war has want gotten much attention, particularly since the war between israel and hamas has started, but it is very stark, the reality on the ground. >> reporter: you're right, it's very stark and intense still. one of the things we witnessed

on the ground in eastern ukraine where there are some battlefields inside some of the forests in that area. that's a totally different war zone than a lot of the things we've seen on the ground here. it's a lot of direct assaults, a lot of tank assaults, and certainly really tough battles as well. but there, like in so many other places, the biggest issue for the ukrainians is a lack of ammunition that is getting worse by the day. here's what we witnessed. all out warfare in unforgiving terrain. forest battles in eastern ukraine mean facing a near constant russian onslaught. vladimir putin's army trying to break through ukrainian defenses. he is one of those holding them up. the situation is very active and very tense, he says, because the enemy has much more equipment and manpower. basically every day they try to storm the positions. a dead russian soldier and destroyed tank show just how

close the russians have come. it's a fight for survival and against the elements. the trenched, cold, wet and soggy, the only heat coming from candles the soldiers cower around, gathering strength to face overwhelming russian firepower. they shoot direct fire, planes are flying, basically they have it all, he says. but probably the worst are tanks, when they fire, you don't hear it. you hear an airplane when it comes over, but the tank, you're in god's hands. artillery fire another threat here as we found out when we came under fire trying to make it to the area. this is unfortunately something when we work here in the east of country, happens all too often. we were getting ready to film here and all of a sudden we heard what appeared to be outgoing artillery but then a shell came in.

100 meters, got ya. we're trying to make our way out of here as safe as possible. that means we have to keep distance between our cars and we also, of course, have to keep moving the entire time to make sure we can get out of here, hopefully safely. we believe a russian drone spotted us and directed the artillery fire. but two can play that game. a ukrainian drone pilot, targeting russian infantry and also armored assault formations, including main battle tanks. he says ammo shortages mean he has to be extremely precise. it's no secret we're starved of artillery shells, he says. we try to work as efficiently and accurately, he says, trying to hit the enemy firepower. trying to fight back any way they can on one of the toughest battlefields of this war. certainly is a really tough battlefield out there, poppy. one of the things the soldiers on the ground told us, this is

really important, they say by and large they are still able to hold the line. they say within a couple of days they managed to destroy around 40 russian tanks and armored vehicles on that battlefield alone. this despite the fact they're taking constant artillery fire and a lot of bombs dropped from planes as well, poppy. >> fred, thank you very much for the reporting. our next guest just published a piece in "the atlantic" of the desire consequences for ukraine right now, writing, a deeper, broader shock wave will be the growing realization that united states is not just unreliable ally, a silly ally. right now the actions of just a few congressional republicans could help stop a series of bad decisions from morphing into a serious one. this is their chance to make america serious again. do they have the courage to take it? joining us is anne applebaum, staff writer at "the atlantic." it's a powerful piece but the first line struck me most.

you say, as i write this, i'm in warsaw. warsaw is two of the highest profile speeches for biden. in both speeches he said the u.s. support would be there as long as it takes. that's very much in question. >> absolutely. in the warsaw speeches he was very, very eloquent. he said we're here for the duration and we're here as the leadership of an international alliance. and there are a lot of members of that alliance who believed him. sweden and finland have joined nato because they wanted to be part of that alliance. germany, poland, the baltic states, countries all across europe have contributed weapons, they contributed intelligence, they've contributed money. actually, europe has given more money than the u.s. has to this war. it's been the u.s. that has led the -- has led the struggle and has really symbolized and vocalized the need to push back against russia and to push back really against the encroachment of auto racy into europe and against russia's role in the

broader world. if the u.s. were to step back now because of a fight inside congress that outsiders can't understand and were to say, oh, sorry, because we have an issue about laws to do at the border and some republicans don't want to change the laws because they're worried about how that will play in an election year, this will disappoint millions of people. >> you write also in the piece, many different bad choices led to this moment. and you obviously get into what this would do to embolden, obviously, china and our adversaries, but what was also striking to me is when you said, basically, if we don't re-up funding, we will tell europeans we're untrustworthy. what are the long-term consequences of that? >> it won't just be felt in europe, they'll be felt in asia, anywhere where there are people counting on u.s. support. people will look at the u.s. and say, right, the u.s. isn't going

to come and help me. maybe i better hedge, maybe i shouldn't join the u.s. boycott of iran, maybe i should get closer to china or to russia, maybe i shouldn't cooperate with the u.s. in economics and in other areas. you know, people will start looking for different allies. the u.s.-led coalition, which is political and military but also economic, will start to crumble. >> was there anything that this administration could have done to prevent this moment? i understand it's gotten wrapped up into an immigration debate, which is never a good thing for an outcome-based effort, but it's also something where the senate republican leader is, by far, the most supportive of any of the republicans on the hill on this. the republicans across the bored on the hill, majorities in both chambers that would support this, and yet they're in this quandary right now. >> i mean, you could start with the u.s. having gotten aid to ukraine faster last year. we might be in a -- we might be in a different place right now.

you could say the biden administration should have come to an agreement about the border faster. maybe that's all true. really the original mistake was a small group of radical republicans who, for whatever reasons, don't want to help ukraine, blocking the ukraine aid last summer and preventing it from going through as it should have done normally back in august and september. and, you know, ultimately that group is going to have to explain why, as you've just seen ukrainians are running out of ammunition, you know, what will happen if ukraine has to pull back, what will be the fate of people in captured territory. i mean, that group of people is going to be responsible for an enormous amount of blood and damage. >> anne, one thing that is striking is it's not just that group of republican lawmakers you're talking about. by just a small margin, though, the majority of americans now don't, in our latest polling, support more funding for

ukraine. it's close to 50-50, but it has certainly changed from when the war began. is there a more effective pitch the biden administration could be giving to those people represented by those lawmakers as to why? >> first of all, the polling i've seen still shows slid support for ukraine. i did look at some in the last few days. yes, i think the message is, ukraine can win, russia can lose and we can help make it happen. we don't have to send americans to fight there. we have a lot of allies who want to help us. we are not the only group supporting -- we're not the only country supporting ukraine. we have many friends who are doing so, too. with one -- you know, with a concerted effort and with the energy and the stamina to last for the long term, we can win this war. >> anne applebaum, i encourage everyone to read the piece. we're glad you're with us.

thank you. alex murdaugh denied a new trial in south carolina. the details behind how the judge decided that. never before seen evidence coming to light in the trial of the michigan high school shooter's mother. how the new footage plays into jennifer crumbably's defense. that's next.

has ruled the disgraced attorney and convicted murderer alex murdaugh will not get a new trial. his team alleged the court clerk tampered with the jury with a book deal. the judge dismissed that saying the clerk may have made foolish comments but not enough for a

new trial. murdaugh pleaded guilty to millions in fraud and money laundering. never before seen evidence has emerged in the trial of jennifer crumbley. her son, ethan, is serving life in prison without parole for killing four students in a michigan high school. the footage shows jennifer and her husband seeing their son at the police station after the massacre. >> jen ifjennifer is facing chaf manslaughter. jean no parent has been held responsible for murder their child has carried out before. >> let me set this up. when the mass shooting happened at oxford high school, james crumbley got a text on his phone, emergency alert, active shooter. so, he went to where the parents were supposed to go in the parking lot of a supermarket and decided, i better go home and see if that gun is there. he goes home, the gun is gone. it's missing. he calls up and he turns in his son to law enforcement

authorities, he calls the sheriff's department. shortly after that, the parents, james and jennifer, were asked to go to the sheriff's department. they're there for a while and i think we have that video, with the investigators. you can hear them talking, it's hard to understand, but jennifer says, he's never done anything bad before. and then james starts talking about the math sheet, remember, he was put on the math sheet, put bullets, blood everywhere, my life is useless, that morning. she she says, i think we need a attorney. and so that's when it stopped. i think it was because he was implicating his son with that drawing. then it comes to the point where they're going to go in to see their son, who is handcuffed to a chair. let's listen. >> why? why? >> i love you. i love you. i love you.

i love you, i love you, i love you. >> i don't know if you can see there, james is sobbing. jennifer, obviously, is -- is emotional in her own way. they didn't lie at all with anything that i can see that they said to law enforcement in that sheriff's department. so, i think that that goes toward the defense. this is prosecution evidence, though. >> do we have any sense jennifer changed her mind now, allowing 2,000 pages of facebook messages between her and her husband to be used in court. why? >> this could change the course of this trial. i watched her in court yesterday. she was in charge of this. she made this decision. there's over 2,000 pages of

facebook messenger between she and her husband. a lot of it was redacted. we don't know what was redacted but i can tell you when some rulings were. the judge ruled nothing could come in with alcohol use, marijuana use or infidelity. she may be opening the door to all of that. she wants it all out there. when she takes the stand, she will respond to all of it. she said that yesterday in court, she wanted it unredacted. >> interesting term. keep us posted. the latest conspiracy theories making the rounds, taylor swift and the nfl linking up to get joe biden re-elected. pfizer is in there, too. we'll break down all the claims next.

the taylor swift super bowl isn't making everyone happy. right wing dinguses like vivek ramaswamy claiming this is a conspiracy, suggesting the super bowl will be rigged for the chiefs to set the stage for taylor swift's biden endorsement. that's whack jack. >> thank you for that. if you go to the dark corners of the internet, you can find off-the-wall conspiracy theories. >> they are all conspireing to get president biden re-elected this fall. this isn't just rattling on your

uncle's facebook page. it's being amplified by fox news. >> now there's an online plea circulating begging people to become niners fans. just so it doesn't raise travis kelce's star power. >> this administration is locked dead set on harnessing that. >> why alienate your fans, the swifties? they come across from every political ideology. why put yourself in one area? >> don't believe everything taylor swift says. we are begging you. >> joining us now to discuss is oliver darcy. it's horrifying but hilarious that they are trying to get people to support the san francisco team in alignment with nancy pelosi. can you explain what is going on here? >> it's hard to explain. it's so absurd. the idea is that the nfl is in

cahoots with taylor swift and rigging the super bowl for taylor swift to endorse joe biden, to wield her star power against donald trump. of course, this is absurd. it sounds absurd to the people in reality. we shouldn't dismiss it. there are a lot of people, not so insignificant amount of people, who end up believing these ideas. remember the qanon conspiracy which was equally as absurd if not more. people ended up believing that because they are locked in this media universe which feeds them information that supports it. for people in the fox news universe and in other parts of the web, they are being told quite literally there's a psychological operation happening in this country in plain sight involving taylor swift to rig the 2024 election. sounds absurd, but we shouldn't dismiss it because people view these ideas as attractive.

>> all is lost if roger goodell has to field a serious question on this. >> the thing about this is that it might be attractive to a few million people, a sliver of the country. you wonder how politically advantageous it is to go to war with taylor swift. she has a huge legion of fans, an army of supporters who far outweigh the crazies who end up believing this stuff. it might be lucrative for some people in right wing media to feed their base this stuff. i'm not sure if you are donald trump you want to pit your campaign against the most powerful pop star. >> not a national election given her social media following. i thought taylor swift was ruining the chiefs and travis kelce, the pfizer connection, explain that. >> he participated in a pfizer

campaign. now there's this idea that not only is taylor swift controlled by shadow forces, he is part of the campaign for covid shots, so the idea is not only taylor swift is under the control of the sinister forces in the shadows, but also kelce is wielded by them to get people to do the smart thing and get a covid vaccine. of course, covid vaccines are not popular in the right wing media space. you have all these conspiracy theories converging now to really sell this to a portion of americans. >> do you sit in your office with a string board where you are like, pharma company, swift, kelce, try to connects it all together? >> i don't. a lot of people in the universe do. this weird conspiracy theory with all -- if you go down the

rabbit hole, it's very strange. >> that's an understatement. we appreciate you trying to explain it. i don't envy you trying to figure it out. this is an actual thing. appreciate it. new details about how the attack min jordan killed three u.s. service members. the delicate balancing act of president biden, that's next.