dynasty. if they win this game, they are technically i would say a dynasty. even if they lose and they win a super bowl next year, i would say they are a dynasty. just need to get that third super bowl win over a decade. and tom brady says he is surprised that bill belichick remains unemployed after parting ways with the patriots. brady admitted a bit of a head scratcher. >> i'm surprised the greatest coach ever doesn't have a job. but i'm surprised with a lot of things. when i was a free agent, a lot of teams didn't want me. a lot of things that happen that don't go exactly the way you think they should go. >> and nick saban did get another job. but not in coaching. he will be on espn's gameday next season. so fun it's going to be fun watching

coach with the crew there. it's a shame to not have nick saban in college football. >> you say that, but i'm a big 10 girl. >> andy, thank you very much, and thanks to all of you for joining us. i'm kasie hunt, don't go anyw anywhere. "cnn this morning" starts right now. ♪ good morning, everyone, so glad you're with us. i'm poppy harlow with phil mattingly in new york. it is a huge day, we are hours away from historic oral arguments at the supreme court, and the big question this morning, can colorado keep the former president off the ballot for his role in the january 6th capitol riot. delusional, that's how israeli prime minister benjamin netanyahu describes a hamas proposal for a cease fire and hostage release in gaza. now the u.s. and other nations in the region scrambling for a solution to stop the killing of civi civilians. "cnn this morning" starts right

now. we are just four hours away from the supreme court hearing arguments in one of the most extraordinary cases of our lifetime. can donald trump be disqualified for running from president after the january 6th capitol riot. the trump is urging the high court to overturn colorado's supreme court ruling that found he engaged in an insurrection and removed him from the ballot in their state under the 14th amendment, which bans insurrectionists that holds office. >> there are a couple of key questions you need to keep your eye on. first does the 14th amendment apply to trump and the presidency, designed after the civil war to stop traitorous confederates from taking office. we saw january 6th, a mob of trump supporters attacking capitol police and storm

capitol. we heard what trump said at a rally right before the attack. >> we're going to walk down to the capitol. you'll never take back our country with weakness. you have to show strength, and you have to be strong. we fight like hell. and if you don't fight like hell you're not going to have a country anymore. we're going to try and give our republicans, the weak ones, because the strong ones don't need any of our help, we're going to try and give them the kind of pride and boldness that they need to take back our country. so let's walk down pennsylvania avenue. >> big question also, should it be up to congress to decide who is eligible to run for president. let's bring in katelyn polantz. it's such a huge day, not just for this presidential election but the country going forward.

talk about how much this is a test, particularly for chief justice john roberts. >> it is a test for the entire court because they are looking at a question that we haven't seen before. it's this test of this law passed after the civil war, the 14th amendment, and it is one of those moments where the supreme court is going to be thinking about the office of the presidency and how to define that in the laws. now, one of the things that is happening today is you're going to be hearing very forceful arguments about how much the courts should even be involved here, and how much authority individual states have over their ballots, who is on the ballot, can they remove someone like donald trump under this law. trump's attorneys have been quite clear that what colorado has done saying in their supreme court at the state level that trump should not be on the ballot. maine has done the same. trump's attorneys have written so far in their written arguments to the justices, this one promised to unleash chaos

and bedlam, if other state courts and officials follow colorado's lead and exclude the likely presidential nominee from their ballots. there is going to be this emphasis on what the country wants, what the voters want, that trump's team has said they're going to be pushing before the justices today, and then on the other side, there are voters, lawyers for voters of colorado that are going to be arguing as well as the colorado secretary of state, and in this colorado secretary of state's written arguments, jena griswold, the secretary of state says the facts are unprecedented, but the legal mechanism is routine. this court should affirm and uphold colorado's right to exclude from its presidential ballots ineligible insurrectionists. we are going to be watching what the chief justice says here. he has tried to lead the court in several years in a way that he rebuilds or keeps the trust of americans and how the government functions. he has not wanting the court to

look partisan at times. he has also not wanted him to do anything too hastily. he wants them to be a very careful institution weighing these huge questions, but they're really important questions about donald trump right now, guys, one of those things is a question and this is what i'm looking at specifically today, how many of these justices want to poke into the question of defining the insurrection and defining what donald trump did after the insurrection. are they even going to go there? >> yeah, well, that's a great point. they don't have to go there. thank you, we'll get back to you soon. let's bring in cnn political analyst john avlon, and cnn analyst jennifer rogers. i want to start where she left off. there's been an assumption the supreme court is not going to touch that area. do you think they're going to try and define or try at least to look into how to define insurrection, whether it was one?

>> i don't think so. they have given such a broad to the party about what they can argue. i think they're going to try to avoid it. i think they'll focus on the two purely legal issues, whether president is an officer, and the issue of whether it's self-executing or not. whether the states can do their own thing. 50 states, 50 standards, 50 procedures or whether they have to wait for congress. >> i would be remiss not to go to john avlon with a question about self-execution. it's like your middle name. talk to us about this. >> look, since the spring of 2021, i have been talking about the importance and the validity and relevance of 14th amendment section 3. it was put in place after the civil war, and applied forward, not just retrospectively, specifically in the senate ratification debate at the time it was clear that the president was included in the statute, debate between senators in which

this was clarified as an officer, any officer. the other thing is that, you know, the language is not engaging in an insurrection. the language notably is give aid or comfort to, much broader. and the institution says what it says, it's in the constitution. ignoring it a la carte is a huge mistake, if you believe in an originalalist, and contextualist, the 50 state chaos is a separate thing. listen to a federal society legal experts who said this should apply to donald trump. >> section 5 says congress enforces. >> congress also impeached trump the first time, the house, the majority vote in both house, under insurrection was in that contra category. >> i think it's a little bit of both. you know, and i want to thank john for actually doing the history work for me today so i don't have to lay it out. >> i can dig some history work,

i look that. >> history is good. we love history. i think there are a couple of things to address, one, i think i agree with john that i think congress has already given several standards and indications that this was an act of insurrection, and/or, that trump participated in it. they have pretty much given an out as to say whether or not he was the ring leader or just a participant. so under those grounds this can go forward. they have said that the states can bring this forward and decide whether or not, and i think this is what the court has to take up, and this is what the court will be deciding. but i also want to, i think, bring up this idea that the court is this really impartial ground right now. that it's this idea or the idea that the court can, you know, put forward these ideas. when we actually actively have someone in the court whose wife participated in the insurrection. and so i do think this idea, and i'm talking about justice clarence thomas, and i think the idea that the court, you know,

they rise above, they're going to weigh in and give these impartial, either opinions or dissents or whatever have you, is actually at complete odds with what is the current tenor of the court. the court has become very political. so we're not just jumping into these questions of, you know, constitutionality of the law and things like that, the court is actively taking on political questions, and larger political questions and wading into the debate in ways that are going to, you know, i think ripple across. we have to address them, right. they're going to keep coming up. there are these issues around trump are going to continue to find themselves in front of the supreme court. what's also true is the supreme court is going to continue to muddle the water between what is legal, constitutional, and what is political. >> with that as the context, this moment for the court, and this is a day and age where the combination of churn and velocity of news cycles is easy to gloss over what's happening

right now. what does this mean for this court in this moment in the country? >> well, all eyes are on the court of course, and this is a matter of first impression. we have never had this question before, and i think john roberts wants to do his best to make this as unanimous an opinion as possible. i don't know if he can get there. i actually agree with john that on the legal and technical merits of this intellectually, colorado should win. the court is going to consider practical considerations as well. i think he might try to pull kagan. he's going to try to make it so it's a strong statement from as much of the court as he can muster, try not to be partisan and be fairly constitutional. >> i would just say take the win. she agrees with you, wrap it up, walk off. >> can i just counter that with what the supreme court said, it was a long time ago, but in

1964, reynold versus simms, the right to vote freely for a candidate of its choice is the essence of a democratic society, and restrictions strike at the heart of representative government. >> there are restrictions, people need to be 35, and can't have given aid or comfort to an insurrectionist. >> so this will work. >> it's in the constitution. ignoring it for convenience is a fundamental mistake. you should stay with cnn all morning because you'll be able to listen live as attorneys on both sides argue this before the nation's highest court. our special coverage begins 9:00 a.m. eastern today. the u.s. drone strike in iraq takes out a hezbollah leader responsible for the attacks on american troops, that's next. and a search right now for five marines missing after their helicopter went down in california in the middle of the forest. why are these crashes becoming more common? welcome back th

the biden administration tells cnn an official there that the strikes against iran-backed militants are not over. it comes after a u.s. drone strike in baghdad killed the kataib hezbollah commander,

believed to be behind the attacks in the region. the u.s. blamed the group for the attack that killed three u.s. service members and wounded dozens more. they confirmed the death in a statement, it calls us to remain steadfast in the jihadist approach. let's go to natasha bertrand. what do we know about the strike itself and the commander that was killed. >> this is a response that president biden authorized last week in order to retaliate for the attack in jordan that killed three americans that has u.s. had pinned on these groups, these iran-backed militant groups inside iraq, under the umbrella of the islamic resistance, and among them, kataib hezbollah, and one of the commanders is who was targeted in this strike of a very precise strike on a vehicle, carrying the commander as well as one other individual, according to i iraqi police. it is not clear at this moment

who that other person in the vehicle was, but central command did say there were no civilians that were killed in this strike, and we are told that it was a drone strike. you can see from the video there it was a very precise strike on this single vehicle, and it does not appear that there was any other damage here. kataib hezbollah had said last week that they were going to cease their attacks on u.s. and coalition forces in the region in response to pressure from the united states and from pressure from the iraqi government to stop these attacks so that the u.s. would not retaliate. clearly that did not work and the biden administration tells us this is not the last of the mertds mertd methods that the u.s. is going to employ. >> the government has been furious with past u.s. strikes within their country. there's an agreement they want re relitigated at this point, u.s. forces in the country. what are they saying about this? >> well, they are not happy, phil, and they released a

statement just last night saying the strike was quote, a new aggression by the united states and added that the move acted to quote undermine all understandings between iraq and the u.s. they went on to reiterate hair long standing position that the strikes by the u.s. inside iraq are quote, a violation of iraqi sovereignty. the u.s. and iraqis are discussing right now the future of the american troop presence in iraq. there have been very loud calls in light of these strikes by the iraqi government for the u.s. to withdraw completely. >> natasha, thank you so much for the reporting at the pentagon. secretary of state antony blinken continuing his trip in the middle east. earlier today he met with israel's war cabinet minister and opposition leader in tel aviv. blinken seems optimistic about a hostage deal between israel and hamas, despite these comments from prime minister benjamin netanyahu. >> translator: we haven't committed to anything. we haven't committed to any of the crazy demands of hamas, the number of terrorists with blood

on their hands. there is not a commitment. there has to be a negotiation. it's a process and at the moment from what i see from hamas, it's not happening. >> we also see space in what came back to pursue negotiations, to see if we can get to an agreement. >> joining us now from jerusalem, an official negotiator, gershon baskin. we appreciate you sharing your expertise. those sound like two very different statements. is there somewhere in the middle of the two statements where you see a possible path forward? >> netanyahu pretty much closed the door on negotiations, but there's a little crack, and i think that secretary blinken was relating to the little crack in the door. we know that the deputy traveled from do ha to cairo today to continue talks with the egyptian intelligence on a possible deal. if there is a possibility of separating phase one of the

three phases that was proposed originally in paris and then picked up by hamas to separate to enable the release of civilian hostages in exchange for a reasonable number of palestinian prisoners, not with those with blood on their hands as the israelis call them, there could be a deal that would engage also with a 45-day cease fire, which i think everyone needs right now. everyone needs a cooling off, an opportunity to re-think the future plans. both the israeli army is experiencing fatigue as well as the civilian population in gaza, which is devastated. there is a small opening. it's not a very big one, and we have to hope that the negotiators are smart enough to find the ways of pressuring the two parties, the israelis and hamas into an agreement. >> how much at all should netanyahu's political future be factored into what he is willing to agree to here, because the questions of responsibility that lays at least in part on him, he

is able to address after this ends, so when this ends, he has to face those consequences, no? >> next friday i'm sure the prolong of the war is the strategy to face his day of reckoning in front of the israeli people. once there is a calm or end to the war, there will be the establishment of a national commission of inquiry headed by a supreme court judge in israel, and there will be calls from the israeli public to go to elections. netanyahu has lost more than 50% of his base, according to all public opinion polls in israel, he stands no chance of coming back to government, and quite frankly, he will go down in history as the worst leader of the jewish people in the history of the jewish people for the deaf devastation that took place on october 7th and everything that led to it. >> gershon, on the subject of public sentiment. there was a striking moment yesterday where former hostages held a press conference calling

out the prime minister. listen to this. >> translator: and don't talk to me about morality and that we can't give them more terrorists because you know what, it doesn't. [ bleep ] matter. there are 135 human beings still breathing who are in horror, and this is not moral. so please save those who are alive. because we won't be able to bring back the dead. >> translator: i'm very afraid and very concerned that if you continue with this line of destroying hamas, there won't be any hostages left to release. >> you have spoken often over the last several months when you've been on about the importance of public sentiment, how public sentiment can drive political action, drive hostage negotiations further along. is what we saw yesterday an example of that? >> it was a very compelling press conference. it was very side. i don't think anyone could watch it with a dry eye, and yet they haven't managed, i think, to

bring along enough public support for their demands to make an agreement with hamas that would leave hamas in control of the gaza strip. netanyahu's argument that we must defeat hamas, we must kill their leaders is seemingly more compelling to the majority of israelis at this point. without taking into consideration that the killing of the hamas leadership will end up with the killing of many hostages and probably not bringing the hostages home. in my mind, netanyahu's words last night were essentially telling the israeli public that we have decided to sacrifice the hostages in favor of the war effort. and there isn't a mass call out on netanyahu to change his direction, which is very sad, and i think very much against the ethos of this country which has been that we don't leave anyone behind. >> gershon baskin, we appreciate your time and expertise. thank you. up next, how president biden trying to switch from defense to offense after republicans tanked

a bipartisan border deal. and republican party dysfunction raising doubts about the political future of mitch mcconnell and mike johnson.

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.

every day between now and november, the american people are going to know that the only reason the border is not secure is donald trump and his maga republican friends. it's time for republicans in the congress to show a little courage, to show a little spine, to make it clear to the american people that you work for them, not for anyone else. >> a bit of a new campaign message from the president there, making it clear he will remind americans, probably a lot, that donald trump and republicans killed bipartisan legislation that would have strengthened border security. biden echoed that message to democratic donors yesterday during his campaign stop here in new york city after republicans blocked a bipartisan bill that they had been pushing to address the border crisis. and cnn senior political analyst and anchor john avlon. lankford, an aerkrchitecture of this, along with murkowski and

mitt romney. the whole speech was remarkable. let's listen to this part of what james lankford said. >> i had a popular commentator four weeks ago that i talked to that told me, flat out, before they knew any of the contents of the bill, any of the contents, nothing was out at that point that told me flat out, if you try to move a bill that solves the border crisis during this presidential year, i will do whatever i can to destroy you. because i do not want you to solve this during the presidential election. >> lee, this is where we are. this is really where we are, and it is remarkable having people on the floor sitting there admitting, one, that a former president has his hand in the political actions and policy actions of the american people, and not just has a little bit of a hand or just has, like, you know, opinions, very strong opinions and the party is

falling in line and with the former president, he has no business interrupting there. the other thing is they would openly admit to this. i think it actually provides a rather large opening for democrats including, i think, a coalition of progressive and liberal democrats to push for the kind of policy even risky policy on immigration without any fear of real blow back. because they can just simply go, and they have snapped it, pulled it, and said, do you see what we see here. this is playing with our future. this is playing with everything for political risk. and i think this is, you know, having trump in there right now is a massive, massive mistake. >> well, you know, lankford's speech was extraordinary on several levels. what he's saying is that right now our politics are punishing people who try to solve problems. that was a conversation about a media figure, presumably somebody in the right wing media system. and the language he used was i will do everything in my power

to destroy you because i don't want this solved in a presidential year. every word of that is worth looking at in a deep way. i will do everything in my power to destroy you, the politics of personal destruction through partisan media, trying to intimidate members of congress from doing their jobs, and the second piece is, i don't want this problem solved in a presidential year, the height of cynicism, and that's the ecosystem these folks are living in and leading in, and lankford has the courage of his convictions to speak out and solve problems, and so many others are ranked cowards. >> the evolution of things we can't do in a presidential year has grown extraordinarily since 2016. obviously the supreme court justice, merrick garland now the attorney general, not the supreme court justice. you may not know who james lankford is, no offense to james

lankford, that's the point. he is a fiscal conservative. he is conservative on social issues. he is popular within the republican conference. he is not some squish, he's not some rhino. he's not some guy donald trump attacks. donald trump endorsed him in the last election. people need to understand who this individual is, and he's not a maverick, not a traditional deal maker. he's a guy who just does his job. the fact that he put himself on a limb like this, won more concessions than any republican in an immigration negotiation since i have been alive, and is now faced with this. this is the hunting for heretics, when politics starts looking a lot like a cult. now the firing offense is doing your job. now the firing offense is trying to reach out and reason with people on the other side of the aisle to solve an urgent problem, and one you said the "wall street journal" editorial, donald trump couldn't get this deal. >> a bill worth passing, they wrote. >> it's also about, i think, a strategy of chaos, right, which

is that as the republican party sorts through this, i don't know if we're calling it a cult of personality, identity crisis, the takeover of donald trump. there's also this -- it's playing out on this national stage, and one of the things that is very consistent is that the vastrategy of chaos may cos something politically larger in the grand scheme of things. for many of these republicans, they actually pay nothing. there is no fee, at least right now. >> it's at opposite of anything resembling the word conservative. the worse it gets, the better it gets politically. >> let's also talk about biden now. what we heard, what we played is the beginning of the next argument for him versus trump that he'll make, how can he most effectively capitalize on this, john? >> by saying it over and over and over again. the messaging, the repetition, because it's a fact. right? if you're concerned about the

boarder and you want a bipartisan solution, this was your best deal and the far right and donald trump don't want a solution. >> how do you argue against the republican talking point from some who didn't support the bill who say you could do this stuff right now, you don't need this. >> that's not true. if the border could have been completely shut down, donald trump would have done it unilaterally. sometimes we need to confront lies with facts. you need to make a case rooted with reality. and say if you support bipartisan solutions that solve urgent problems, donald trump and his wing of the republican party are not your guide. in fact, they're trying to stop solutions. >> and one thing we also know for the democratic side of thing and for independents and people that biden is trying to loop in, you know, they actually will hold congress accountable. so they place blame squarely on the actors who are acting in bad faith. congress's numbers are in the trash, and i think biden, if

authentihe can harness that, which it appears he's able to, that's important for the coalition he needs to win. >> look at the factins, too, wh nancy pelosi was speaker they got 300 pieces of legislation done. over 300 pieces. thatst a is a record you can r, if you talk about it. >> to be fair, they almost impeached a cabinet official. >> not quite. >> just about there. >> you can vote with no shoes on apparently. >> know your whip count. >> thank you very much, you would be a great whip. just saying. cathaotic scene near philadelphia, two law enforcement officers shot, a house set on fire, six family members unaccounted for, we'll take you there live. our climate has passed a critical warning limit for the first time. we're going to explain what that means, next.

this morning, there is an urgent search underway for at least six family members after a shooting and a house fire near philadelphia. police were responding to reports of an 11-year-old girl shot inside the home. when they arrived, someone shot two officers and then the home was set on fire. cnn's danny freeman is there. danny, what's the latest from law enforcement right now? >> reporter: well, phil, right now police are still on scene in this area of east landstown where the fire and shooting occurred. right now, they have the hard job of not only trying to account for the six to eight missing people, including children who are suspected to have lived at that residence on the street behind me, but also figure out what happened here and what led to the super chaotic scene yesterday afternoon. this call came in just before 4:00 yesterday. police got the original call that an 11-year-old had been shot. officers from two separate police departments in the area responded, and almost immediately started taking fire

from someone inside that house. two officers were shot. and in fact, other officers from yet a third police department in the area had to come and drag them away to safety. thankfully the two officers are going to be okay. after that, the house was then set on fire, according to delaware county officials by someone who was inside of that house, and that's when we started to see these just stunning photos of this house up in flames, and then police officers also trying to breach the house and secure the location at the same time before firefighters were able to come in and actually put out the fire. well, after a little over an hour, about two hours, firefighters were able to start to knock down that fire. the delaware county district attorney says that the hard work only then started to begin again because they're now searching for six to eight people, take a listen to what he had to say. >> law enforcement is locking down the crime scene, we're going to be able to get inside and begin what might be a gruesome process of trying to find out who was in the house

and what happened, to the best of our ability. >> reporter: so, again, phil, that work continues to figure out exactly what happened on the street behind me, find out what happened to the six to eight people currently missing. a hard day for the community in east lansdowne in philadelphia. >> pictures are stunning, you're on the ground, thank you. the search is underway for five marines after their helicopter crashed and found in rugged california terrain, we have that ahead. and big pharma will testify why drugs in america are most expensive in the world. how are they going to explain that? stay tuned.

i got a call from the marine corps captain and aviation safety officer saying they lost signal for one of their aircrafts in the pine valley area. military cargo helicopters. >> that was audio released overnight the moment they lost a signal from a military helicopter that crashed in the forest. the search is urgent for the five marines on board, flying from a base near las vegas to one in san diego. the helicopter was found in southern california's pine valley on wednesday. the cal fire captain talked about the really tough conditions for rescuers.

>> we have limited access to the area. it's muddy, steep terrain, it's snowing out, so any of our vehicles that are going out there have a chance of getting stuck. >> around the time o. ff the flight, winds gusting to 20 miles per hour. the ch-53e is a heavy lift helicopter that can carry 15 tons of cargo. it's been in crashes, two of those fatal. four marines were killed in a routine training mission in california. and 2016, and 2014, 25 marines survived a crash from what was considered a miracle at sea. >> let's talk about this with cedric leighton, a cnn military analyst. these are also choppers, as i understand it, have been in use since 1981, right, so they have a lot of experience with them,

tweaking them, making them safer, more effective. what are your questions this morning? >> good morning, poppy, the one thing i would look at is weather the main factor. pretty clear from the cal fire spokesperson who was just talked to, it was pretty clear that weather is a huge deal at the moment in terms of the search and rescue effort. the problem you're going to run into, of course, the difference in telling whether just weather was a factor, whether there was a mechanical issue or other issues potentially. was the type of cargo on board not balanced properly. those kinds of things could all be players in this, but this is the kind of aircraft that has seen quite a few incidents since its introduction into military service, as you said, in 1981, poppy. but the key thing here is that they had a pretty good safety record after some major incidents in the 1980s and 1990s, but then things started to take up again fairly

recently. >> colonel, the search process here, you said it could take a while. it's going to be complicated. why? >> the main thing is the terrain right now, phil, that you're looking at. this is a remote area in southern california, and one of the key factors whenever there's a crash is often, you know, not to be too graphic, but there are debris that are scattered all over the area. it's going to be tough sometimes to find key missing pieces. they are going to be searching for things like black boxes, and you know, other artifacts in essence from the crash site. so that's going to be, depending on the nature of impact, going to be one of the difficult things, but the main issue really is access, and that's going to be tough, and of course. really the first priority is to find the marines that are currently missing in this crash. >> when you look at all of this combined, and the fact that, yes, weather may have been in play, but you would think that

something like this, since it's been around and in use for so long would have factored that in. i guess i don't know, are there rules about taking off into certain weather that may have been at play here? >> well, it seems like the weather was different along the flight path, you know, because it started off at creech air force base north of las vegas, nevada, and then went in transit on its way to miramar, the marine corps air station near san diego. there clearly are some local issues in terms of the atmospheric river that's been affecting california, and that very fact may make it difficult for air crews to compensate for the winds you're experiencing, in something like an atmospheric river. it could be they had no experience with this. of course that's something that the accident investigation is going to have to look at. that could be a major factor in this crash. >> colonel, while we have you,

we'll continue to keep an eye on the process underway. our colleague reported new strikes targeting two houthi anti-ship cruise missiles, kind of the next step from a very dynamic strike process over the course of the last several weeks. my question actually is less about these strikes and more about longer term, how sustainable is this tempo in terms of the weapons systems that the u.s. has, in terms of the ammunition the u.s. has. can we do this for eternity? >> well, i wouldn't say for eternity, phil, but we have experience with some long-term operations in the middle east before we went into iraq in 2003, we had, you know, about a little more than a decade or so of experience trying to contain saddam hussein, and we had two operations. one was called operation southern watch. the other one operation northern watch, and their basic idea was to cover iraq in the southern part, and the northern part to make sure that saddam hussein didn't violate the agreement

that he had made with us after desert storm in the early 1990s. so that is, you know, one thing that we can do. we can sustain some of these operations. i don't think we'll go as far as we did back in those days, but we do have the capability to sustain this kind of effort for some time. >> colonel leighton, thank you. >> you bet you. we are getting closer to one of the most extraordinary and consequential supreme court cases of our time. the implications for the presidential election are enormous. turning the corner a little bit, what does travis kelce have to say about the bets on him and his love, taylor swift, at the super bowl. that's next.

xfinity rewards presents: '1st and 10gs.' xfinity is giving away ten grand to a new lucky winner for every first and ten during the big game. enter daily through february 9th for a chance to win 10gs. with the ultimate speed, power, and reliability the xfinity 10g network is made for streaming live sports. because it's only live once. join xfinity rewards on the xfinity app or go to xfinity1stand10gs.com for your chance to win.

just three days to go to super bowl lviii in las vegas. the chiefs trying to win their third super bowl in five years. andy scholes joins us now. there has been a lot of talk this week about if the chiefs are becoming the villains of the nfl. >> that is so mean. he is a 9ers fan, obviously. >> i don't think they're the villains, i just think they're going to lose. what's up with that? >> we went through this with tom brady and the patriots. you win a lot, always in the big game, people start rooting against you. for the chiefs, that's the case with them these days. mahomes and the team are playing in their fourth super bowl the past five seasons. mahomes trying to become the

fifth quarterback ever to win three super bowls. he says he's fine being the bad guy if it means he's on top. >> i like winning. if you win a lot and that causes you to be a villain, i'm okay with it. at the end of the day, i'm going to enjoy playing the game and try to win as much as possible. >> travis kelce and taylor swift, the most popular couple in nfl history. including whether or not he will propose on the field afterwards, the u.s. sports book, prop bets like these are forbidden, but not in other places around the world like canada. and kelce proposing on the field after the game, it pays 10-1. you can place bets on what color top will swift be wearing at kickoff, red is the heavy favorite for that. and yesterday kelce was asked about what he thought about all the different wagers that are out there. >> these bets are crazy. being worldwide is way different than just being famous in kansas city. everybody is having fun with it.

it's not like you guys are up here teeing off on me left and right, you know, everybody's having a good time with it, so how could i be upset about it. >> kelce, guys, just having fun with. i'll tell you what, i give it a less than 1% chance that kelce would propose to taylor swift on the field after winning the super bowl. i just don't ever see that happening. >> you were saying there's a chance. >> less than 1%. >> andy scholes, appreciate it, buddy. "cnn this morning" continues now. the supreme court takes up the question of keeping the former president aoff the ballo. >> there are a lot of arguments at play, everything is on the table. >> one of the few mechanisms the constitution has to make sure our democracy remains viable. >> the republican party and infighting after back-to-back humiliating defeats on capitol hill. >> the bill put together is a bipartisan effort. welcome to the united states senate. that's wha