i'm daniel lurie and i've spent my career fighting poverty, helping people right here in san francisco. i'm also a father raising two kids in the city. deeply concerned that city hall is allowing crime and lawlessness to spread. now we can do something about it by voting yes on prop e. a common sense solution that ensures we use community safety cameras to catch repeat offenders and hold them accountable. vote yes on e. so, you've got the power of xfinity at home. now take it outside with xfinity mobile. like speed? it's the fastest mobile service around... and right now, you can get a free line of our most popular unlimited plan.

all on the most reliable 5g network nationwide. ditch the other guys and you'll save hundreds. get a free line of unlimited intro for 1 year when you buy one unlimited line. and for a limited time, get the new samsung galaxy s24 on us. >> tonight on three 60, a federal appeals court deals with former president a major blow, saying he must stand trial for january 6th and that no former president has immunity for crimes committed in office. also tonight, in a primetime exclusive interview, what former presidential candidate chris christie makes of the ruling

and why he's not endorsing anyone this primary season. and later, the jury's verdict on a school shooter's mom and the unprecedented charges against her in this crime. we will hear from the parent of two with his victims. thanks for joining. us in addition to all of that is breaking news on the capitol as republicans try to do something which hasn't been done since 1876, impeach a cabinet secretary. their effort and their failure for now just ahead. but first the other breaking story out of washington. today's court ruling, one which, if it stands, will be taught in history classes and law schools for generations to come. a three judge panel from the d.c. district of federal appeals court rejecting donald trump's appeal in the general six election subversion case. the unanimous decision laying waste to his claim of absolute immunity for crimes he may have committed while in office, especially crimes to help him stay there. unless, that, is he had already been impeached by congress first. which sounds outlandish now, but it was chilling to hear during oral arguments last

month when judge florence pan confronted a trump attorney with the implications. >> could a president who ordered s.e.a.l. team six to assassinate a political rival who was not impeached? would he be subject to criminal prosecution? >> if he were impeached in convicted first -- >> so your answer is no? >> and judge pans answer to that, along with her two colleagues, was yan'an nurse and unequivocal. quoting from their unsigned opinion, this would mean as for the president or congress could not legislate the executive could not prosecute, in the judiciary could not review. we cannot accept that the office of the presidency places its former occupants above the law for all-time thereafter. the court also put the former president on an accelerated timeline, giving him until monday to file an emergency stay with the supreme court, after which the clock would start running again on his trial before judge tanya chutkan. jennings is harvard law school professor laurence tribe,

constitutional scholars supreme court litigator and author most recently of two and a presidency, the power of impeachment. so professor tribe, can you put it into further perspective, the importance, the magnitude of this ruling? >> anderson, i think today's ruling was historic, to put it mildly. it's the first time an appellate court has had occasion to consider the rather extravagant claim that being president puts you above the law, enables you to commit crimes, at least when they are within the outer perimeter of your office but actually, in trump's case, he was making even more remarkable claim that he could commit crimes regardless of whether he was doing it in his official capacity. all of those arguments that he made, to put himself above the law, were dismembered, piece by

piece, methodically, in this historic opinion, which, as you've indicated, is likely to be studied by law students for generations, especially because there's very little reason for the u.s. supreme court to weigh in. >> why do you say that? >> well, the argument is airtight. it's bulletproof. it is not in conflict with the decision of any other circuit. and it establishes a principle, based on widely agreed upon ideas about the separation of powers and the proposition that crimes committed by anyone -- deprive the voters of the ability to replace you with someone else. those crimes must result ian trial and either an acquittal or

a conviction. they cannot simply go into the ash can of history. and there is nothing the supreme court of the united states after that, if they were a gap in the reasoning of this opinion, if it left important issues unanswered, if it was ambiguous, if it was over the top in some way, if it didn't take seriously all of trump's arguments, then maybe there would be reason for the supreme court to weigh in. now the only reason to weigh in would be delay, and everyone knows that in this case justice delayed could well be justice denied. >> the ruling also said, and i'm quoting, it would be a striking paradox for the president, alone invested with the duty -- were the sole officer capable of -- those laws with impunity. if the supreme court you don't think has any grounds to take up the appeal, and there's this accelerator deadline for him to

appeal, what sort of timing, and how soon, what happens next? >> what happens next is that the former president rushes to get his motion for a stay, accompanied by a petition for a review by the supreme court into the court a week from today. the supreme court then proceeds to deny review, probably within a week or, at most, two or three weeks. if it were to grant review, that would slow things down, but not necessarily so much is to prevent a trial before the election. but it will slow things down enough to create a real risk that this case would never come to trial. because if trump assumes office in january of 2025, the first thing he's going to do is get

rid of the federal criminal prosecutions against him. >> who on the supreme court decides whether or not to do a review? >> the supreme court will make their decision quite quickly. but this, as i say, is no reason to grant review. most of the experts agree with me that the odds are better than 50/50 that the supreme court will just let the remarkably careful, thorough, respectful decision of this unanimous three judge panel, let it be the last word. there's no reason for it to review. if it were, as i said, to decide to review the case, it could put it on and exhilarated track. either way, we are going to get an eventual decision in this case. unless the supreme court basically disgracefully just lets it drag out.

and you know there are other people who thought the three judge district, or this three judge court of appeals, was acting unfairly by letting it drag out just for this month. but i must say, even though i was one of those who was impatient to get the result, it seems to me that it would have been almost humanly impossible to write as careful, thorough, decisive, and bulletproof an opinion as this court did in less than a month. it seems to me deter a marketable job. and i imagine it having done it as well if it had rushed through judgment. >> the former president said, in reaction to the ruling, without immunity the presidency would lose its power and would be consumed by the other branches of government. that make any sense to you? >> it doesn't make any sense to me, and it made no sense to this three judge court. but again, they dealt with it respectfully. they said is that where the

case, then we would expect prior presidents to have run amok and committed all kinds of crimes. but because they assumed they were not immune, they were more restrained than this president. former presidents assumed that they could be prosecuted. gerald ford certainly assumed that nixon could be prosecuted. that's why he gave him a pardon. same thing in the case of other presidencies. what this court did was basically say that donald trump is announcing that if he becomes president again he wants the freedom to commit any crimes that advance his own interests, undeterred by the prospect that he is just citizen trump when he leaves office. he is basically announcing, is this court described it, announcing an intention, not just to be a dictator, but to be a criminal in chief. that's not a very appealing

position to be taking. >> lawrence tribe, i appreciate your time. thank you. now with more reporting on the reaction we have the anchor of the source of the top of the hour. the former president maybe fundraising off of this. what do you think? >> expected this decision. they don't think was gonna go in their favor, considering how the day went when the judges were. you constructing every argument, which didn't go well. a lot of them said the way he handled, that saying hypothetically yeah, that could happen unless he was impeached and then convicted by the senate, it didn't go well. what surprised him was how he got boxed in by the time it because that's almost as important as the substance of this ruling from the three judges, including democrat and republican employees appointees. they say trump's team has until next monday to respond to the supreme court and file that emergency request to pause this decision. if they don't take that, we could see this case start back

up again. but they are basically saying you only have a few days. they are eliminating this tactic the trump and his team have been using all this time to delay, delay, delay, make these appeals. they don't even know if they'll win, just making them. >> so they seem confident that the supreme court would take up the case on appeal? >> it's interesting because i have been trying to a lot of people in his orbit about this. lawyers, non lawyers, previous lawyers. they seem confident that the supreme court before it came out today would take it up. it seems to have been a shift since this has come out. a question now being raised of whether or not it is, as trump, said they are going to be such a sound ruling. >> he says it's bulletproof. >> they look at, it george conway saying it's airtight but they look at it and say maybe that's what we would write or we wouldn't disagree with that. i think the big question for trump's team tonight, they will definitely appeal this by monday. it's not clear when, exactly, but they have until monday. what argument do they make for the supreme court?

because if you read there, there's a 57-page ruling, the eviscerate every ruling that his attorney made in front of the federal appeals court. >> cnn's new reporting that the former president is not gonna go to the supreme court to hear arguments on thursday. >> i don't think that's totally surprising. the supreme court is a different magnitude for him to go and be there than it was even for the e. jean carroll defamation trial or the civil trial here trended. i think it's also a calculation of how that benefits him and which attorneys he's listening to and how he's also balancing the judgment. he's not thrilled after the 83.3 million-dollar verdict. i think it's a question of what the legal maneuvering is here. the sense was, they weren't really expecting him to show up on thursday. >> kaitlan collins, thank you so much. we'll see you at the top of the hour. and next, a former u.s. attorney , chris christie joins us next. and also making sense, if

that's possible, and breaking news of the capitol, house republicans fresh from killing the very same tough legislation they themselves demanded, trying tonight and failing to impeach the biden official in charge of the border.

>> more breaking news tonight. a stunning defeat rows republicans who failed in their attempt to impeach homeland security secretary alejandro mayorkas, a deeply politicized process the white house just called an unconstitutional impeachments stunt. even the conservative wall street journal opinion editors called bad precedent. the vote not only failed, 214 to turn 16, some republican said it was unwise and ordered mike johnson to put the bill on the floor without knowing the vote count on their side. quoting republican ralph norman, they're good on the other side of knowing that is that hard. the number of votes republicans increased by one vote in the last moment when democrat al green, thought to be absent and recovering from surgery, was wheeled onto the floor. sources say he wasn't even wearing shoes. republicans joined the no vote. a fourth join the no side to allow them to bring up the vote again. and more about that in a moment. this was the scene of the final vote. >> on this vote, the yays are

214 the nays are 216. the resolution is not adopted. ms. [applause] >> jamie raskin, a no vote, joins us now. he led the case against the former president during his second impeachment. congressman, thanks for being with. this can you walk us through what happened on the house floor tonight? >> well, the republicans are just not good at counting their votes. on our side we guide access to a great vote counter, nancy pelosi, and i think hakeem jeffries and catherine clark, who's in charge of, that have been doing a great job of knowing where everybody is and who's going to be there. i imagine they made provisions for our queen to get to the floor, despite his condition. but the republicans suffered three significant defections. one ways can block, who has been increasingly constitutionalist in his thinking and much more willing to take a walk on the gop now he has announced his

departure from congress. congressman gallagher, and mick lyn talk, of a band of. then they just didn't have the vote. i saw marjorie taylor greene out and she was vowing to bring it up again in committee. it's been recommitted and she said they're not done with it yet. but it's a laughing stock impeachment. it's just a madcap excursion for them to go and try to impeach a cabinet secretary. at the very moment when that cabinet secretary is working with the senate to produce the compromise on immigration and the border that the republicans claim they want. >> the timing of it is interesting. what do you make of the republicans arguments against the senate border bill? again, it's conservative senators, langford, in the east as well. it gives the republicans a lot that they have been saying they want for a very long time. >> yeah, they're just not

taking yes for an answer. you had langford out there saying he could not for the life of him understand why the republicans would walk away from the best deal that they could get from their perspective . mcconnell was for it. there were dozens of republican speaking. four wall street journal editorialized for it. but remember, donald trump needs something to run. on abortion is gone as america has been proven to be a pro- choice country, thanks to the people of kansas and ohio and all over the country, anytime they have put up one of their theocratic antiabortion bills, it is gone down. the next one to go down will be florida. i think the florida voters will write a right to choice under the constitution. and anyway, that's gone for them. immigration is all they have left. trump thinks he knows how to demagogue that. he has basically thrown himself in the doorway to say under no circumstances will his followers let an immigration go through, no

matter how pleasing it is to the members. and so there is also vladimir putin hanging around in the background, eager to sink the 60 billion dollars in aid in strategic assistance to the people of ukraine, fighting off putin's filthy imperialist invasion. so you've got putin in his ear, trump knows he wants to run on immigration, and at this point the gop is the mega party, trump's party, and they just want to blow everything up. it's a party of chaos and insurrection. >> how does anything change at the border, though, if you have the former president talking about it has to be a perfect deal. there's no such thing is a perfect deal. everything has to be a compromise, even though there are many in politics who believe compromise is a dirty word? >> he doesn't want a solution. he wants a scapegoat. he thinks that he knows how to

run against mexicans and run against immigrants and, other than himself, of course. and it's the kind of campaign he wants to run. it really is in the gutter. and the shocking thing is how much he has dragged the whole republican party down. we're talking about abraham lincoln's party, and anti slavery pro union pro freedom pro reason party. and it has been turned into an authoritarian cult of personality obsessed with conspiracy theory and disinformation. and it's playing out every day in congress. it's an embarrassment. everyone's calling them the do nothing congress, and that's on the good days, when they try to do something like today, it's impeaching a cabinet official for doing his job. >> thank you very much, congressman raskin. >> you bet. >> coming up next, my conversation about chris christie about today's appeals court and his thoughts on that

on criminal course in the campaign he bowed out of.

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

oh, ew! i think you've said enough. why don't we just switch to xfinity like everyone else? then you would know what year it was. i know what year it is. >> returning to the d.c. appeals court ruling, we spoke with candidate chris christie, he's also a newly published author. in his new book, just out today, is what would reagan do? life lessons from the last great president. i spoke to him just before airtime. >> first of all the reaction to the federal appeals port court is the. jim

>> i think it's a very tight concise decision. i don't think there's any grounds for appeal. i don't know why the supreme court would want to take it. and i think it's what's going to lead to is a trial later this spring in washakie ten. >> do you think the trial will take place before the election? >> absolutely. >> even if there's no grounds for an appeal -- >> until monday to do it. usually it's 90 days, they say if you don't, we're gonna listen to stay. so he's gonna have some decisions to make. i'm sure he's gonna try to appeal to the supreme court. >> i think it's a very tight narrow ruling. and i don't think the supreme court would be looking to take it up on a 30 decision that in fact, i think, is the correct

decision. >> so you have question that the politics will have won't have an interest? >> i think other politics people don't think about is the small p politics of this. they're already have to be involved this coming week in hearing the ballot access argument. i don't think they want to take to election-related cases. i think chief justice roberts as been clear about that over time and in his public speeches, in the aftermath of bush versus gore he was trying to keep the court out of that those type of x disputes. >> do you think any of the presidents trials will be adjudicated before the republican convention? >> i think at least the january six trial could be. i think it could start in may. basically what the trial judges said is, she'll give them a day for every day that the case has been stayed to prep. if the supreme short court makes a decision to say whether to take the case or not, and assume

they don't take it by the end of this month, which i think is likely, then that's two months. and two months on to the march 4th date, may 4th, the trials probably 68-week trial. i think it will be done, and my guess is that he'll be convicted felon when he gets on the stage to accept the republican nomination for president. >> you put so much time and money into new hampshire, why did you drop out what you did? >> i didn't see a path to beating donald trump. that was my goal all along. and by the time we got about two weeks out, we had been polling fairly regularly. and we just didn't see ourselves within striking distance of him. and because of that, i didn't want to continue on in what was going to be a really difficult challenge to defeat him. and so my view was that it was the right time to do it. i had always told my supporters that if i didn't see a path to winning i wasn't going to go on some vanity exercise. >> was it also to help nikki

haley or some alternative? >> no. because i didn't think it would. in fact he didn't. >> would it have helped if you had doors time? >> i don't know. i don't know how much endorsements really matter, quite frankly. but that was not why i made that decision. >> you are still not willing to endorse her? >> no. >> why? >> because she's not running against donald trump. i think that the people who support me in this enterprise expect if the voters support someone they will be as aggressive and honest and direct about donald trump being unfit for the presidency. during the time i was in the race in new hampshire with governor haley, she wouldn't even say that she wouldn't except the vice presidency from him. so that hardly seemed like someone that would be a natural fit for me. >> what about the idea of a third party run? >> look -- >> you haven't said no to this. >> no, what i think, if anybody

is going to pursue that, they would have to be convinced that there was a path to 270 electoral votes. that's all. i just got out of this race three weeks ago so i haven't begun to think about anything else except taking a vacation with my wife. >> where to go? >> we went to the keys. >> okay. >> so your new book, what would reagan do? what would reagan think of republican party today? >> he'd be appalled. he'd be appalled at the cowardice of people not standing up for something so obviously wrong. >> would reagan even win a primary? >> ronald reagan running, the ronald reagan that i knew and voted for in 1980, wouldn't recognize how do even run in the primary we had. i can't imagine that ronald reagan would've raised his hand at the first debate as six of the eight people dead and say i would support donald trump even if he were convicted felon. i

think ronald reagan would've taken donald trump on directly. >> in the book you said many republicans abandoned their common sense and jumped into a shabby cult, ignoring, facts promoting conspiracy theories, and pledging allegiance to a blustering loser who can't remotely be called a conservative and who cares solely about himself. it's about as far as you can get from ronald reagan. >> i like that. that's pretty good. >> and yet this is the party you want to head. >> look, when i want to do is change it. listen, anderson, if you took those words and you went to any number of leaders of our party privately and asked them if they agreed, the problem is they don't want to do the hard work that is necessary to lead and change the party. it means if you don't raise your hand at the debate and milwaukee will get booed. you've got to be willing to do that. >> when you look at the border battle, dead on arrival, the

senate bill on the border, does that make sense to you? >> it doesn't make sense to me. it certainly wouldn't make sense to rid. and what reagan would do if there was part of it he didn't like you would get in there negotiated try to make it better. and ultimately would agree on a compromise that it didn't give him 100 percent of what he wanted it would give him a lot of what he wanted and he would move the ball down the field. >> the former president, president trump, has talked about, in this is not a perfect bill only a perfect bill is acceptable. there's really no such thing as a perfect bill. >> not in my experience of being, governor for eight years when i presided, but we got a lot of great things done during that time. reagan working with tip o'neill. saves social security. megan working with chip o'neil to cut taxes. megan working with chip o'neil to rebuild the military. so those things can be done if you want to. but it's hard work. and sometimes you have to make people unhappy. my view of our race and why this book is relevant, even more now, is that ronald reagan

was a guy who lost at times standing on these principles. but he was willing to stand up against ford if he thought fortin move too far to the left. he was willing to stand up against the bridge society when he thought they were too far to the right. and what i tried to do in this race was to stand up for the truth. that was not extraordinarily popular with some members of my party. but it doesn't mean you stop trying. >> do you have any doubt that trump is pulling the strings on members of the house to reject the border bill? >> none at all. he said it publicly. so i have no doubt about that. and let's and he's doing it through his core political reasons because he would rather continue to have people pour across the border and in danger or country because he thinks it will help him politically against president biden. >> governor christie, thank you. coming up next, mama an oxford michigan school shooter is found guilty of involuntary

manslaughter. the father of two victims here the reaction to the verdict could set a precedent nationwide. enough to properly

the gun they bought for their son just four days before the shooting. the jury forewoman agreed saying, quote, really hammered it home that the mother was, quote, the last adult with a gun. the prosecution also creamed crumbley cared more about her horses and an extramarital affair than getting help for her son's mental health issues. her husband expected to go on trial for the same charges next month. jamie, steve st. juliana, and bike mariana, steve is the father of the youngest victim, on the school's basketball team, and back is the father of tate near, known as an honor student and standout athlete. steve, i'm wondering what your reaction is to the verdict. >> a combination of surprise and relief. well >> the surprise, you don't need

the jury would find her guilty? >> yeah. as of this morning, i had my doubts. not because of the job that the prosecution did. i think they did a phenomenal job. it was more just a matter of the human factor of dealing with the jury not really being able to read them and have a feel for what they were gonna come back with. >> but do you feel that on the stand she was not believable? >> no. i don't think she was believable. i don't think anything that she said matched with the evidence of her actions. >> block, how about you? >> ah yeah i feel the exact same way that she feels. the

people spoke. to me that was important. that's our sister network. that's how our system is supposed to work. so that, i felt really good about that. >> do you want additional people held accountable? >> absolutely. the school. there was a whole systemic failure here. and when i think of november 30th, i've always thought about it, there were four legs of failure. the shooter, the parents, our community, and our school. so i look at all four of those, were able to hold the system which is what i call our government, is holding the people accountable so they have the shooter accountable, they held the mother accountable, they're going to hold the

father accountable, and the only thing left is the school. and the people aren't allowed to hold the system accountable, so the school is being held accountable. >> what do you want people to know about tate? he sounds like a remarkable person. he was a wrestler. >> yeah. he was a wrestler. a football player. but more importantly, he was a great kid. he happened to be a good athlete. god gave him some unbelievable tools. but he was just a very fun kid. he always wanted to have fun. it was a big time risk taker. >> it is an honor student as well. >> yes, he was an honor student. he was my little wing man. well he wasn't little. >> your big wing man. >> yeah. he was my wing man for hunting and fishing. yeah, he was just an unbelievable kid. he loved to take risks and try

new things and have a blast. he had unbelievable zest for life. >> and steve, what do you want people to know about -- ? >> hannah was just a caring person. she tried, we try everything, i mean, she got interested in jewelry so she started making her own rings. >> that's cool. >> she was just jump from one thing to another. she had a very sarcastic personality. but she was the first person to notice when you are feeling down or you are sick. yeah, she was just a brake light . >> buck, i know when you're vynck a victim impact statement, you talked about the idea of forgiveness. can you talk about that a little bit? is that possible?

>> it's a great question. i don't feel like it is possible but i feel like through this whole thing as families or the prisoners. we are the ones that are living this life now that you could never imagine. you just could never imagine it. and it's eating our family alive. it's eating me alive. i actually read a couple of books on resilience. one of them was putting the focus on, forgiveness. so we don't have so much anger. i'm so angry and so mad right now. so i am my ownway toward f so i'm not so bitter. >> not an easy thing to do. >> it's tougher than you could

ever imagine. because all we did to send our with send our kid to school. >> steve, do you feel the same way? >> yes. basically. it's constant. it's with you all the time. you know, you realize the fact that you have to keep moving forward , and that's where i keep my focus, just moving forward, one day in a time and helping my family do the same in their own individual journeys. >> there's been a lot of focus on this shooter and the parents trials. we feel like there needs to be more focus on the other failure, which was of the school. >> isn't any legal remedy for that? is there an avenue?

>> well, we filed civil suits civil school is hiding behind unconstitutional inflation called governmental immunity so we're not allowed to ask questions. -- they don't acknowledge that anything, wrong there hasn't been a single case of the supplementary -- within the school. >> and steve, i appreciate talking, to thank you. >> thank, you cooper. >> thank you. >> footnote, we reached out to the school district to respond to the comments from steve and -- to get a response we will continue to follow the story. coming up, just how firm is the former presidents lead in south carolina? to find our john king spent time with -- as part of us all over the map series. that is next.

re. do you need any help?

yeah. i was just wondering do what nosh means.p? [blowing whistle] natural. organic, specialty, healthy. yay. nosh everything marked nosh means natural, organic. specialty and healthy. that way, you can eat healthy while sticking to a budget. ♪ grocery outlet bargain market ♪ ummm, no!

today's appeals court ruled on rejected former presidents claim of absolute immunity is unlikely to found the double digit, lead poster chesky enjoys with uncannily in the south carolina primary which just two weeks from saturday. i talk to republican voters, that what you find is brayden side those numbers i electorate still coming to grips with their decision and direction of their party. that is what our john king did force ongoing serious for three- sixty all over the map that tracks the presidential campaign through the eyes of experience of voters in the battleground states. jon joins me now. nikki haley was a very popular governor of south carolina, why doesn't she have more support there? >> think about what has changed, she was lost on the ballot a decade ago, 2014 as when she won her second term. since then, donald trump on the 2016 primary, the 2016 general, election than in 2020 election in south carolina, so our last in from our, charles anderson,

they, like her but they love him. >> the south carolina shoreline spectacular. island treats ice cream shop, a popular stop in pawleys island. >> once group. that is good. -- cast in her for a one karz go to buy the place, giving pennsylvania behind. >> god brought me here. i tell everybody, he brought me here. >> she served her first scoop back in 2016. nikki haley it was governor the then. she was impressed. >> yes a very good governor. >> then and now, donald trump is her vote for president. >> i totally believe that god had assigned him to this position. that is my true belief. >> a sign him to be president of the united states? >> yes. and he will be president again. >> what happened in 2020? >> that was a mess.

that was some illegal, improper cheating happening. >> no judge in any state or federal judge found any evidence. >> i think so many people hate trump that -- >> even judges appointed by trump? even trump supreme court? three of his justices? >> i just know that there was a whole lot -- >> if it's god's plan for trump to be president, why not let that happen? >> because right now the -- okay, what happened is i believe trump is coming again. >> trump is messed no matter what sentiment is easy to find in south carolina, a big reason his heavily favored haley's home state. >> he is even more ready now. >> mark sanford us out of politics, because he has a very different take on trump. sanford was the republican governor before, haley and who won his old house seat back in

2013, but sanford lost a republican primary in 2018 because he criticized trump spending, and sometimes this tone. >> i would say well i'm for trump in this area, but i'm against in these different areas. -- are you for or against him? >> he nods in agreement when it really criticizes trump for all the, chaos and all the deficit spending. yet, he expects a big trump win here. >> that which is traditionally warranted in gop politics, isn't so much working these days. i've seen this, erosion you have as, well you go from tea party, sort of pro-movement to tea party to trump, it is metastasized in a regressive form, what started out as a lot of well meaning americans saying, look, we have to do something about politicians doing what they said they were going to do into something much more strident. it is their religion. i don't know how else to explain it. >> it is just two hours in

length from the, coast and billy pearce here for 70 years except for a stint in the navy is another piece of the trump comeback puzzle. >> the four years he was, president how is your life? >> better, definitely better. we did not have high inflation, we did not have high interest rates. >> not an election denier, not a fan of the toxic tone. >> get off of, to that kind of stuff -- >> his 2016 and 2020 votes for trump track is 1992 vote for -- >> i want it in on career politician that would do and when it like a company, run this place like a, government like a ceo. >> he calls himself likely trump in the primary, the border is this top issue. >> shut it down. >> and that he trusts trump more than hailie. his going into fix the things that need him to fix. i have no problem, to be honest with you i have no problem with -- and minding the other. when you come, in a new say -- >> like many voters drawn to trump back in 2016, frank thomas wanted to send

washington a message. >> it was like all right, this is -- >> now his voting for haley, to send his children a message. >> i don't think there's any sort of crazy conspiracy between the nfl and taylor swift, everything else just showing up for a biden coordination. >> two and, thomas hopes -- after his teenage daughter gets home from the stables. >> how do i look at my daughter who is a huge taylor swift fan, and this guy's attacking taylor swift just because she is going to support another candidate. and other things like that. so having those conversations it does matter and it does matter who you support. >> charleston is rich with revolutionary and civil war history, and is grabbed and more educated, unless trump than most of the state. >> there's quite a bit of talk about trump, even here. >> that is a bizarre, and thomas, as for those like him who want south carolina to somehow give haley a win, and give the republican race eight

new beginning. >> john king -- now can you walk us through the polls in south carolina? what kind of scenario haley would need to actually pull this off? >> it looks bleak for governor and bassett are nearly at the moment. remember, trump won, and he won two. if you want south carolina, a lot of people think this one is over. you mentioned the polls, the most recent polls show trump ahead by about 25 points. what really has to do is change the electorate. there's no voter registration in south carolina. democrats, independents, anyone can vote if you are a registered voter in the primary. the problem for her is -- it has to be a conservative electorate. what do i mean by that? this is the washington post, a poll taken just a bit more than a week ago. forgive me for turning my back. 57% of those who say they are likely to vote in the south carolina republican primary, 57% of them say joe biden was elected because of fraud. that is simply not true. simply not true, but it is what they believe. nearly six and ten of the people who say they will vote in two weeks, sage or biden shouldn't be president.

guess what, 85% of those back to trump over haley. so if it is almost 65% of the electorate, and more than eight and ten back trump, you see a huge advantage he has and what used to be as you noted earlier, her first state. she needs to change the composition of the electorate, kept more moderate, more democrats, more independents to vote. right, now she is not doing that. then iowa, 55% of the voters there identify themselves as white evangelicals. in new hampshire, only 19%. remember that is -- south carolina looks a lot like i, what 54% of the voters say they are likely to vote describe i'm selves as well if enchiladas, look what happens. trump gets nearly 70% of the vote, anderson, to -- so she has two weeks, much has to completely change the composition of the electorate. canada's in past years there will do that, i would do, this genre can set it back against george w. bush, it hasn't happened in the past. remember, she last run a decade ago as i said. in 2016, trump won all but, to all but two.

back in 2016 when he was brand- new, when he was, lieutenant who won all but two of the 46 counties. this state is even more trump. now, he did good back then. >> john, king thank you very, much we will be right back.