please call or go online to helpdav.org right now. your support says thank you to our nation's disabled american veterans you know what's interesting these days? bitcoin. look for bitwise, my friends. larry: so happy holy, merry christmas, happy new year to everybody. and this is the greatest country in the history of history. i'm kudlow, is and we will go right to the my pal, liz macdonald. elizabeth: yes, we love america. merry new year and happy christmas to you. [laughter] it's good to see you. okay, breaking news, stay right there, don't move. coming in to the show right now, former deputy assistant attorney general is tom due can prix.

tom, it's good to see you again. there's now a growing push to remove former president trump from the state ballots in michigan, california and maine. there are 13 states total trying to do this after colorado's high court removed trump from its state ballot. legally, tom, this is a very unserious, unconstitutional push. a closer aide of the 14th amendment, they don't have the right to do that by fiat. what do you think? >> liz, i think the united states supreme court is going to get involved very quickly, and i am very confident that they are going to reverse the decision of the colorado supreme court. keep in mind when the colorado court decided this case, it did so in the wake of many other state supreme courts that had previously rejected this theory. awe cross the board every court that looked at this said, no, no, no, no until the colorado supreme court finally said yes which is prompting some other states to say, hey, let's dust this theory off and and take a look at it.

elizabeth: here's the thing, and this is why this whole thing is moot, it's wrong -- it's unconstitutional. even though you've got analysts at a places like msnbc getting really emotional saying people die for things like this in the civil war, they're off the wall. they're totally wrong. this case, this stuff has got no standing, tom. let me explain. the 14th amendment, tom, the exact same amendment these groups are using to kick off trump under the insurrection clause, trump was never charged with insurrection are. but they're using section three. when you look at section five, section five of the 4th amendment, tom -- 14th amendment, it says that congress and congress alone under the constitution has the power and the sole authority to decide whether to remove if trump. only congress can pass legislation to enforce section three that talks about insurrection are. again, trump was never charged with insurrection. he's being kicked out by fiat by a court without being charged. this whole thing is off the wall and wrong, tom. with. >> well, liz, i think you should

have been a constitutional lawyer, because you are reading the text of the amendments which is exactly what counts should be doing. and, look, you're right. the 14th amendment doesn't say that this is the process that you go through in order to disqualify someone from the ballot. and i think that's where this ruling is going to be legally vulnerable. i think there's an excellent chance that the united states supreme court says, look, no question this is an important amendment, it was enacted at a very significant time in our nation's history, but this simply isn't the way that you go about enforcing it, allowing this one court in colorado -- as you point out -- in the absence of a trial or a conviction for insurrection to make a decision on its own and disqualify someone which prevents colorado voters from voting for the candidate of their choice. elizabeth: tom, this is banana republic stuff. this is incompetent. what they are doing is wrong. it's unconstitutional. they're not reading the 14th amendment. again, section five, section five, section five says it's up to the congress to decide whether to pass legislation to

remove a candidate like trump. if he's end gauged in ins rex. -- engaged in insurrection. he was never charged or convicted of that. you're going to see the california lieutenant governor, they're -- a lot of people on networks, they're way over their skis. so are politicians. the lieutenant governor of california, she's pressuring the california secretary of state, you've got to disqualify trump. watch this. >> when the supreme court of colorado determines in an examination of the facts that donald trump is an insurrectionist and, therefore, is disqualified from being on the ballot, certainly here in california we have to look at that information and make the same determination here. elizabeth: you know what? if california votersers should remove her. this, i mean, i can't tell you hower estating and wrong this is and how what they're doing is buffaloing and bullying the entire country and other states to do this, to remove trump, is twisting and bending the constitution beyond recognition if. it's against the constitution, section five says you can't do it. i mean, now you have got george

soros groups backing these moves. the california lieutenant above there, tom, she reported arely is backed by george soros. this outfit called crew in d.c. is helping to bring these suits to remove trump, but nobody's fully reading the 14th amendment. >> well, i think a big problem here, liz, is that we have politicians jumping in and kind of jumping on the bandwagon in the wake of the colorado supreme court decision. i think what it creates is the perception in so many parts of america that this process has become so politicized, that judges aren't really applying the law fairly, they're not reading the plain text of the constitution as they should. but they're basically trying to rule in a a way that achieves whatever political outcome they deem best. and i think that's a real concern here. and i think it's exacerbated when you do see politicians like this jumping in and saying, hey, this is a pretty good legal theory. let's see if we can achieve in the courtroom what we've been unable to achieve at the polls and the ballot box. elizabeth: yeah. watch this, tom. let's get your reaction to what

legal experts are saying and the former attorney general under trump. watch this. >> i think it is out of bounds. the court said that they were in uncharted territory, but they then sailed off the constitutional map. and i think it's a critical challenge for john roberts who once said that in moments like this test of a chief justice is to try to eke out a unanimous decision. that would go a long way for this country, if these justices can show that as divided as we are sometimes, that we're still joined by a sort of common covenant of faith as a democratic, free nation if. and what colorado did was wrong, was wrong legally, but it was wrong in terms of our values. >> it's absurd. it is like watching a bad high school musical. it is a cringe-inducing moment for -- [inaudible] >> i think if they take it up, they're going to slap it down very quickly, and i hope they do take it up quickly and slap it down because otherwise he could be left off the ballot in this

primary. elizabeth: final word, tom. what do you think? >> i think the former attorney general is right that the supreme court has no choice but to get involved at this point. you've got a situation where lower courts across this country have now disaagreed on this issue. it's obviously a supremely important issue, certainly one worthy of the supreme court jumping in, and i'm confident they're going to get in before too long. liz, it wouldn't surprise me if we see some of the more liberal justices agreeing that in this case the colorado supreme court went too far. elizabeth: yeah, they can't do it. section five, beginnings of the 14th amendment -- again, of the 14th amendment, gives congress the power. not state courts a9 all. and for people going on msnbc saying people in the civil war died from this, are they reading the 14th amendment, tom? is anybody at a, like, cnn or the other networks, are they reading the 14th amendment? if because it says you can't do it, tom. >> i wish more people would read the text of the constitution and the 14th amendment, because that's what it comes town to. it's what the text of our constitution says.

elizabeth: great. tom dupree, thank you so much. merry christmas to you. >> thank you. merry christmas. elizabeth: joining us now, jason chaffetz, liz peek. i know you guys were listening to that that one. that was pretty fiery. let's get your reaction to pollster frank limits. he says what the colorado court is doing will backfire. watch this. >> the more that he is prosecuted, the more that he is condemned, the higher his numbers go as peopleally around him. -- rally around him. and i would say to the judges as i said to the justice department, you're actually make it more likely that a donald trump is elected next november by how you are pursuing this. elizabeth: what do you think, jason? >> i think that's, i think frank luntz is absolutely right. people will rally around the president in this situation is. and i think the other candidates that are trying to,king you know,ing win in iowa in the next 25 days and then in new hampshire, all the oxygen in the room's being sucked out and

talked about donald trump and how he's being picked on unfairly, and he truly is being picked on unfairly. elizabeth: yeah. you know, what jason just said, liz, you know, we were just talking the in the first segment. the 14th amendment, section five saysst it's up to congress, not the courts to decide on a candidate. and congress has the power to -- it's the through the economy. voters' polls are showing they're scrutinizing biden's record on inflation, crime, border collapse, geopolitical chaos. so that's the issue. >> yeah. i mean, obviously, liz, people should have a chance to vote for their preferred candidate. i think the best comment there was this just reflects so badly on our courts now. i mean, this is the part of our government that we with rely on to kind of walk a narrow line and to kind of keep everything else from being pretty -- pretty if sized. so i think -- politicized.

i think this is very upsetting and discouraging, and i really hope -- it would be great to see the supreme court come through with a unanimous read that this is totally out of bounds and unconstitutional for the very reason that you're talking about. elizabeth: yeah. is so what liz just said. i mean, we're not really seeing great analysis of what's going on, what the constitution says, jasoning. i mean, with what these counts are doing. and, you know, the other thing too is liz is saying it's about the economy. we saw third quarter gdp revised lower to 4.9, that's a good sounding number, 4.9%, but the atlanta fed is saying 2.7% in current fourth quarter gdp growth. so we have a sort of stagnating economy, jason. leading economic indicators fell for the 20th state month in a row. so, you know -- straight month in a row. there's a lot for this white house to contending with, but i'm sure it loves this diversion diversionary -- diversionary

tactic. >> the democrats are upside down on all these issues. so here the republicans look like the adults in the room. they're talking about principle. and, yeah, the power is in the people. it's not in some court with four guys in black robes. it's with the people of the united states of america. and for colorado to exclude them, even a write-in vote isn't allowed to happen colorado. i think that's just infuriating. a lot of independents, a lot of people who are prone to actually vote one way or the other, they don't necessarily affiliate with a party, think they're going to look at donald trump and say why are the democrats continuing to exclude people from the ballot? elizabeth: yeah. what jason just said, liz. 911 is charges, multiple criminal indictments against the former president when we've got this -- it looks like the voters rig e nearing all that because we have new fox business polls. iowa republicans see the economy as a top issue when choosing a candidate. look at that. it's immigration and the border second, foreign policy is coming

up, social issues, populist issues are down on the list. i mean, it's again and again, liz, you've talked the about this, it's what people are feeling at their kitchen table. 17.4% compounded, all all-in inflation under this biden white house. >> yeah. i mean, to jasoning's point, people are going to vote on things that matter to them, and biden has flunked the test on all three of those major issues. oh, my gosh. immigration request, foreign policy, we were not at war under president trump. now we have two different wars going on, and i would lead or tie those exactly back to biden's very inept policies. obviously, inflation's a big problem. liz, there's, really there's not much this president has done right, and the border is a disaster and an embarrassment. i don't know how that gets better between now and november. i doubt that it does. elizabeth: yeah. jason, what are they going to do the about the border? today the white house had no answers, zero, on what the president's going to do to

increase border security when with the stroke of his executive pen he could reverse the policies that he enacted that undid and unwound trump's border policies. but he's not doing that. >> yeah. to your point, this is a choice that joe biden and kamala harris made. i mean, the border czar hasn't been down to the border in more than two years. we're seeing all-time record high numbers, and this gets reflected, i think, in the inner cities. this is the problem politically for the president, for president biden. all these people, they need housing. when you see those masses of people, where are they going to sleep? that's going to drive up the cost of rent and other housing. they need food, shelter, they want education, they've got to have health care, and there are now millions of people who have come here illegally, can and they're going to largely end up in these democratic cities. and i think there's going to be an uprising of citizens there who are looking at homeless veterans and others and police services and everything else, and they're going to say why is this happening? it's happening because joe biden chose for it to happen. elizabeth: yeah. that's going to hit the

president's voter base, liz. even "slate" magazine which is pretty much the left has said biden's polls are heading to the basement. he is louising ground -- losing ground every month, liz. he was in the 40s, now if he's trending toward the low 30s in multiple polls including quinnipiac, you're talking gallup. you see it in, you know, the monmouth poll. he's trending down, liz. it look like it's going off the rails here. >> well, and it's not just the general trend, it's every single voting bloc that democrats rely on. young voters have turned hair backs on joe biden -- their backs on joe biden. black voters, hispanic voters. hispanics are now pretty much evenly divided between donald trump and joe biden, and joe biden thinks he's winning them over by inviting in millions of people. that isn't true. those people tend to go to hispanic- can spanish-speaking neighborhoods. they create havoc in those neighborhoods. so jason's point, they don't

want their rents pushed up and more crime on the streets. i mean, it's really ap a unconscionable thing, and it's not working for joe biden, that's for sure. elizabeth: and our taxes are going to have to go up to pay for it. so, i mean, the taxpayers are the good guys here, not this president. jason chaffetz, liz peek, thank you so much. tonight, congresswoman cat cam a act, former congressional investigativeer sam dewey and tudor dixon. this new report, house republicans have the votes to hold hunter biden in contempt of congress. but will they act? plus, this news coming in, the house impeachment inquiry into president biden is zeroing in on bribery allegations. and and this major development, this could be a possible game-changer. the supreme court has been asked by reagan's attorney general, ed meese, and constitutional scholars to knock out, get rid of special counsel jack smith's office because it's up constitutional. unconstitutional. congress never approved it.

that could stop the federal prosecution of former president trump. plus, we have retired lieutenant colonel daniel davis. the u.s. is weighing a stronger possible military response to houthi attacks shutting down red sea shipping. that could ignite historic inflation again. it's next on "the evening edit." ♪ ♪ they're waiting for you. hey, do you have a second? they're all expecting more. more efficiency. more benefits. more growth. when you realize you can give your people everything, and more. thank you very much. [applause] ask, "now what?" here's what. you go with prudential to protect, empower and grow. with everything you need to deliver, you guessed it... more. one more thing... who's your rock? learn more at prudential.com

hi, i'll have the avocado toast... minus the avocado. so, toast? yeah. everything is so expensive these days. hey, chevy gets it. that's why they're keeping prices down to earth. like on the most affordable ev in america. ♪ a super strong and capable chevy truck. ♪ and a high-tech chevy suv. ♪ why is chevy making affordable vehicles, connected by onstar? so together we can do more.

jason.

i don't want you to move. i'm gonna miss you so much. you realize we'll have internet waiting for us at the new place, right? oh, we know. we just like making a scene. transferring your services has never been easier. get connected on the day of your move with the xfinity app. can i sleep over at your new place? can katie sleep over tonight? sure, honey! this generation is so dramatic! move with the xfinity 10g network.

hi, i'm jason and i've lost 202 pounds on golo. so the first time i ever seen a golo advertisement, i said, "yeah, whatever. there's no way this works like this." and threw it to the side. a couple weeks later, i seen it again after getting not so pleasant news from my physician. i was 424 pounds, and my doctor was recommending weight loss surgery. to avoid the surgery, i had to make a change. so i decided to go with golo and it's changed my life. when i first started golo and taking release, my cravings, they went away. and i was so surprised. you feel that your body is working and functioning the way it should be and you feel energized. golo has improved my life in so many ways. i'm able to stand and actually make dinner. i'm able to clean my house. i'm able to do just simple tasks that a lot of people call simple, but when you're extremely heavy they're not so simple. golo is real and when you take release and follow the plan, it works.

elizabeth: okay, this news coming in, critics are saying the biden white house is embarrassed by growing houthi attacks on commercial ships in the red sea, but apparently the u.s. is weighing a stronger military response to these attacks. houthi attacks have been freezing up a major tradeout when they do this. -- route. it will reignite historic inflation. hillary vaughn live at the white house with the latest. >> reporter: good evening, liz. well, the biden administration's patience is running out with the houthi rebels that have been terrorizing commercial ships in the red sea. military strikes against the rebels are not off the table, but they haven't happened yet. >> it's very important to understand that the houthis aren't attacking just one country, they're really attacking the international community. they are attacking the economic well-being and prosperity of nations around the world. so, in effect, they've really

become bandits along the international highway that is the red sea. >> reporter: attacks have been ramping up and causing international shipping delays as a ships are being forced to take an up planned detour around africa because they can't go through the suez ca. that ikea is warning there will be delays, some products might be unavailable, and abercrombie & fitch, according to bloomberg, is ditching the ships and going airborne, flying cargo to avoid the red sea entirely. senate republicans say the white house scolding the houthis will not work. >> a sternly-worded statement is not going to scare the houthis or to deter them from these attacks. shooting down their helicopters when they approach ships is going to deter them. if we took down all the houthis' capabilities to launch these attacks against ships and naval vessels in the red sea, then they would not be so stupid as to try to retaliate and, frankly, they wouldn't be able to retaliate anymore. >> reporter: and, liz, about 30% of global commercial traffic

goes through the red sea, so this houthi aggression could have major implications on gas prices and global trade overall. liz? elizabeth: wow. hillary vaughn, always terrific journalism from the one and onlyhill erie vaughn. thank you so much. merry christmas to you. let's welcome back retired lieutenant colonel davis with the group defense priorities, and he is the host of the daniel davis deep dive show. colonel, it's good to have you back on. what's your reaction to that report? >> yeah, it is a tough situation. this is, i think, a little bit bigger deal than some people are recognizing because of the implications it has throughout the region and our economy. the problem is unlike what senator cotton said, it's not a simple matter of just taking out a helicopter and some launch sites because, number one, those things are hard or to find as the saudis find out after years of trying overwhelming firepower to get rid of the houthis' capabilities, and they never succeeded completely. the houthis are threatening

today that they would directly attack american interests if we take out their launch sites, attack them. whether they mean that or whether they don't, they don't know, but we can't -- it'll be tough to risk doing that because that could expand the war and have a number of other consequences. yet you can't do nothing. you can't just allow them to interdict shipping like that, and right now what we're doing with these ships is protecting and shooting town the drones and missiles when they come. but, liz, some of those interceptor missiles are in the multimillion dollars, and some of the drones are like a thousand bucks a pop, we can't do that the long term. elizabeth: so what's the answer hen? we don't want anybody injured, you know, by these houthi attacks. and if also a reports out of china and the far east indicate the cost of shipping cargo from china and to europe and to the u.s. from asia will double. i mean, we've got more companies abandoning the red sea trade route. they're getting rerouted. >> right. elizabeth: so what's the answer? >> right.

the truth is there's not an easy is, obvious answer to go after because everything you do carries risk. doing nothing carries risk. attacking the houthis carries risk, and you just don't know what you're going to get into. now, the houthis are saying all of this is because of the war going on between hamas and israel and if israel stops this war or once it's concluded, they would also stop shooting the missiles in there -- elizabeth: they may not stop though. >> they may not, that's true. so the issue is if you say we're going to have to start taking them out, that is a course of action you can take, and it may cut it down, but we may end up with more problems on the other side of of that. it is impossible to know. elizabeth: shipping rates are already up about 7700% from november to -- 70% from november to december. these high prices will be passed along to consumers. hillary vaughn was just saying that. >> right. no, i agree, it's a big deal. elizabeth: we've been struggling, americans have been struggling with record high inflation. it has been trending down, but

compounds it's up 7.3%, 17.4% under this white house. you could see supply shortages, longer delivery delays. so why did president biden remove the houthis as a terror organization from the u.s. terror watch list? should the president put hem back on the list in they're backed by iran. >> yeah. yeah, i mean, that may be a course of action. they may be something that we could threaten them with to say is, hey, this is going to cost can you more than what you're getting out of it because there's a lot of things that come with that designation. now, at the time he did it, we were trying to work with saudi arabia to lower tensions over there, and that was fine then. now it's a new set of conditions, and that might not be a bad course of action to go first before we get into kinetic action. elizabeth: interesting stuff, colonel. let's move to this story, what's going on in the gaza strip with the war against hamas and the terrorist es there. we've got more on the story that we've been reporting on starting last week and the week before. we're -- colonel, we're seeing more if more people in gaza is,

the people of gaza are publicly and openly slamming and criticizing hamas terrorists. the gazan if -- are blaming hamas. hamas just rejected israel's offer of a 7-day truce in exchain for host ams, but more and more people are speaking out against hamas. what does that tell you about what the far heft has been saying about -- far left has been saying about israel's war with hamas? if what does it tell you about the campus protests, anti-israel protests, when you see the people of gaza now standing up and saying, hamas, you're wrong, you've got to go? >> well or, yeah. we also, though, have to look very carefully what they're actually saying. they are starting to blame hamas more because they've brought this horrific rain of death town on them, but they're also still blaming israel for launching those bombs. and so the hatred is really growing a lot for them to -- against israel. so it's not helping in that

regard. what they're looking for is to find a different political entity or a different set of leaders within the palestinian grouping, the people that live from the, so that they can try to negotiate some kind of settlement. and that's actually, frankly, something that the israelis could take advantage of by saying, look, you guys have to find somebody other than hamas to lead you, and if you can turn against them and then we can offer a you some incentives to actually end this war, that's something that they should pursue as opposed to just with, you know, ignoring all that and blowing up everything. that's just going to build up more trouble for them in the future. elizabeth: colonel davis, thank you so much. merry christmas to you. thanks for joining us. >> thanks, liz. same to you. elizabeth: okay. "the hill" is reporting that the house impeachment inquiry zeroing in on bribery allegations swirling around president biden and hunter biden. and we've got former congressional investigator sam dewey is here. this major, new fight, a potential game-changer, reagan's former u.s. attorney ed meese

and constitutional scholars filed an amicus brief saying the supreme court must get rid of special counsel jack smith 's office, it's seriously unconstitutional. congress never approved it. now could this stop the federal prosecutions of former president trump? if all this on "the evening edit" next. >> i mean, i drove in to washington a few weeks ago for a court case. one of the many. i should get to know it very well. i can't get a fair trial in washington. the whole thing is ridiculous. ♪ he hits his mark —center stage—and is crushed by a baby grand piano. you're replacing me? customize and save with liberty bibberty. he doesn't even have a mustache. only pay for what you need. ♪ liberty. liberty. liberty. liberty. ♪

hi, i'm ben and i've lost 60 pounds on golo. (guitar music) i've struggled with weight my whole life. i'm sure you're like me and you've tried diet after diet. if you want to stop the insanity, try golo.

elizabeth: joining us now, former congressional investigator sam dewey. we've got news coming in, breaking news. sam, let's get your reaction to house judiciary chairman jim jordan and congressman andy biggs sending a letter to special counsel jack smith warning they will subpoena jack smith if he stonewalls their investigation of into jack smith's, quote, unprecedented

and politically-motivated prosecution of former president trump in the 2020 case. you know, the house had already impeached trump over this, the senate didn't follow through. what do you think of this subpoena threat here? >> i think it's a real threat, and i think they're asking legitimate if questions. there have been a lot of questions about why is jack smith moveing so quickly, why is he charging so many controversial theories, why does he have so many people that have a long are partisan democratic history on his staff when ostensibly he's supposed to be the neutral department of justice? and you'd think he'd have a mixture of people. he doesn't. it's all one side. elizabeth: this story too, ronald reagan's attorney general, ed meese, and top constitutional a scholars, filed an am -- amicus brief that may get rid of special counsel squawk smith 's office because it's unconstitutional. this filing looks like a strong one. it says congress never if

appointed jack smith. the constitution says the special counsel office must be established by law by congress alone. congress didn't do that. congress never passed a law establishing the office of special come in the doj for jack smith. so the biden doj circumvented the constitution and gave jack smith the power of u.s. attorney? >> that's e the argument, that they, that this is unconstitutional because there was never any appointment. this is moorly a regulatory action -- mirror -- mirror a regulatory action. this issue gets raised every time there's a special counsel i. hasn't really been resolved by the supreme court, but it's the type of question that given the profile of the case one would hope is resolved by the supreme court perhaps now because there should be a definitive answer. elizabeth: sam, so this means that politicized justice department underneath a president can just, you know, appoint a special counsel to go after their rival. that seems outside of the powers of congress. that a seems -- it's

contravening what the founders, the founding fathers meant when they wrote the constitution. and, you know, they're also acting that jack smith's appointment violates the appointments clause of the constitution because the level of smith's power required by law that he be appointed by the president and go through the senate confirmation process. he didn't go through that. instead, biden's doj ad hoc and on the fly gave him the same power as u.s. attorneys. again, no presidential appointment, no senate confirmation. >> yeah, that's right. it was, he was picked, called back from the hague, put in place and put in place a partisan team. there's also anoth interesting historical aspect that i think people have missed here. in the past when you appointed a special counsel, you appointed someone from the opposite party. when archibald cox was a appointed special counsel and -- they were the top democratic constitutional lawyers a

appointed to investigate the republican president, richard a nixon, by republican attorney generals. so that's another odd historical quirk here. elizabeth: is so they're just blowing through norms in the constitution to get what they want. i mean, it's bending and twisting how this country was set up. so if the supreme court agrees with this amicus brief and says, yeah, we've got to knock out smith's office, it's unconstitutional a, what would that do to the federal cases against trump? there's a classified docs case and the 2020 case. >> what i would think would happen is there'd be a process of sorting out where exactly where we are, and it would end up with it going back to the line attorneys in the the president of justice that were prosecuting -- the department of justice that were prosecuting the case originally, and then you'd have the obvious question of are the political appointees involved in the case, are they directing the prosecution of the president? if why are so many controversial theories being pursued by the

office for the first time, and why is there this massive haste to resolve the case? elizabeth: okay. so we're going to stay on these stories. you know, sam dewey, thank you so much. we appreciate you. thank you for helping us out with the news here. it's good to see you. okay, this story coming up, there are major new problems for harvard's president claudine gay. first, it was her disastrous testimony not forcefully deannouncing campus protest calls for jewish genocide. now house lawmakers probing the harvard president over allegations of plagiarism. plus, biden bribery allegations taking center stage the in the house impeachment inquiry, reportedly gearing up to subpoena more biden family records: and congress looks like reportedly has the votes to hold hunter biden in contempt. all of this next on "the evening edit." we want to check in first with dagen and sean to hear what's coming up on "the bottom line." sean: we have janet yellen

saying that bidenomics, the economy, it's all rocking around the christmas teem, things are excellent. the american people, they think different. dagen: senator roger mar hall is coming up. we talk about the invasion at our southern border, but how about on the farm? if as foreign individuals and companies are snapping up farmland across this nation. and joe borelli, new york city councilman, on one op-ed that says joe biden's drama-free white house is america's most underappreciated gift. hour. ♪ ♪ finish - when did doing business become more about culture wars and less about well, business? some companies today bring politics into the boardroom,

then into our living rooms. that's why i use spotlight reports from 1792 exchange. here, i can search more than 2,000 companies, to see if they care more about divisive social issues than about running a sound business. isn't it time we got back to the business of business? learn the risk to your company or family at 1792exchange.com. nexium 24hr prevents heartburn acid before it begins. get all-day and all-night heartburn acid prevention with just one pill a day. choose acid prevention. choose nexium.

the power goes out, and we still have wifi to do our homework. and that's a good thing? great in my book.

who are you? no power? no problem. introducing storm-ready wifi. now you can stay reliably connected through power outages with unlimited cellular data and up to 4 hours of battery back-up. plus, now through december 31st, eligible xfinity rewards members can get 25% off a storm ready wifi device.

goli, taste your goals. elizabeth: we're excited to have back on the show former gop michigan gubernatorial candidate tudor dixon. it's good to see you. tudor, we have this new development. the house education committee widened an existing probe, it expanded this probe into anti-semitic campus protests at harvard. now it's, they're probing basically allegations of plagiarism against harvard or president claudine gay. when you heard this news, what was your reaction? >> well, i think that we are seeing now that we have a university president who has likely broken what would be

rules on her own campus. now, remember, this is a president who was unable to tell you whether or not genocide was against the code of conduct. so perhaps she doesn't understand that plain rich is also against -- plagiarism is also against the code of conduct. but i think it's interesting to see the community that is rallying around this and saying, it's okay, look the other way on plagiarism, which they would never say to their own students. i think it's a really interesting development, and it's an interesting development for elite universities across the nation. elizabeth: sow so, yeah, what you're saying is what represent virginia foxx, she's the chairman of house education, he pointed that out in her letter to harvard, that double standard. that harvard punishes its students who plagiarize but not its president. i mean, lawmakers found out that harvard pub ifished something -- punish ed something like 70 # out of 1100 cases of -- 1100 cases of -- 100 cases of recent plagiarism. but there are reports of over 40 allegations of plagiarism

against claudine gay. >> right. but i've seen critics that are coming out in her defense and saying, well, even though these students were punished in some way, they weren't expelled completely. -- expelled completely. wait a minute, this is a totally different situation. this woman is the president of the united states who is holding these students to this standard. for them to be held to that standard, the person who is the president of the university should have long before been held to that standard, and now we're being told, well, she'll rewrite them and then they won't be ladies and gentlemennized. wait, did all of these students get that chance? instead of being punished were they told, you know what? if just rewrite it and turn it back in. there are standards for a reason. she has broken the standards time and time again. i'm glad that harvard has shown us this is the decision making they're going to choose to make because that allows those of us with young children who are looking at universities to say harvard won't be the university i'll e send my children to. elizabeth: you know, so the thing is too we're seeing, you know, college consultants,

they're saying that more and more high school graduates are saying, no, no, we don't want to go to harvard. i mean, that's an amazing turn around from just a year ago when people thought, you know with, this ivy league degree from harvard was the gold standard. now the high school students are saying we don't want it. it looks like these scandals are really hitting, you know, the blue chip tree that ard very -- harvard is selling. >> they really are. i mean, my own kids are -- i have one in high school, and she's talking about, well, how do i find a values-based university that has students that believe in the same values that i believe in? and i think that's what a parents need to start thinking about. we think so strongly about a it for k-12 when we're still in our kids' lives, but now it's important to say, well, wait a minute, when they leave the house and they're influenced for four years by another university or and professors, i want them to go to a place that holds the same things near and dear that i do. and that's where i think not only students, but i think

parents as a well are saying, well, if you're going to two to a university, we want to steer you toward a university that has a values-based curriculum. elizabeth: yeah, but, you know, due tudor, what you're saying, harvard seems to be dumbing down this values-based curriculum. now they're recasting and rebranding plagiarism, calling it duplicative language. you know what i mean? they're busting through norms and standards that america has existed on for generations. >> of course. but i don't think that my of -- any of us are being played by this. i don't think most people are going, oh, gosh, this is duplicative language. that's not ladies and gentlemen rum. i think most adults are saying, wow, how are ridiculous that harvard has gone to this low, to this level. who cares about the name harvard anymore? i just want my child to be educated, and college, let's face it, it's part education, and it's part how you learn to live on your own. i want my child to go someplace that teaches good values. and if that's not harvard, i

mean, good grief, we're hearing that the cream of the cop is now trying to tunnel down plagiarism? well, let's find universities that are going to teach our kids right and wrong. that's pretty simple. elizabeth: got it. tudor dixon, come back soon is. good to see you again, you're terrific. joining us now, congresswoman cat cam rack -- kat cammack. it's good to see you again. okay, this news coming in, "the messenger" is reporting republicans do have the votes to hold hunter biden in contempt of congress for defying a congressional subpoena for his testimony in the house impeachment inquiry. is that true? do republicans have the votes? if. >> well, good to see you, liz. and just to piggyback off of that segment that you just had, i welcome anyone who values academic excellence to apply to the university florida right here in gainesville, florida, ranked number one -- [audio difficulty] elizabeth: we love that plug. go ahead. >> thank you. go, gators.

but, yes, to your question, we will have the votes. it was a stunning display of ignorance in hunter biden's so-called press conference where he defied a subpoena, decided that he was going to have -- you can't even call it a press conference because you take questions during a press conference. and he deny do that. he -- didn't do that. he made a statement, made some motional plea talking about how much he los his father and then the got in an escalade and drove away. that's not a press conference. and so deifying congress, which is essentially defying the will of the people, he is absolutely in contempt. i believe we have the votes despite the fact that we have a slim margin. elizabeth: you know, sol wisenberg, he's a former deputy independent counsel who investigated the clinton administration, he said if congress is going to be taken seriously, they must hold hunter biden in contempt. you can't just refuse to show up. you can show up and claim the fifth, but you can't just simply not show up.

and wisen burg added i'm aware of no legal defend that hunter biden has to ignoring a congressional subpoena. what do you think? >> i think 100% correct. and that is the biggest frustration that i hear when i'm back home, across this country. americans are sick and tired of all talk, no action. they're sick and tired of zero consequences. so this vote to put hunter biden in contempt, i think it's a no-brainer. but also we have to think about how this administration has operated. they believe that the american people are subjects, not citizens and, therefore, that we don't -- we're not entitled to the transparency and accountability of those in the white house. look no further than the fact that we have hunter biden defying a congressional subpoena. the white house refuses to put hunter biden on any manifest because we just don't need to know. not to mention that they have put pressure on the doj to give sweetheart deals for his tax and

gun charges. the list goes on and on. we could go to james biden, his brother. there seems to be no end. but we know there's a double set of standards when it comes to the biden administration, and they do not believe in transparency, they don't believe in accountability. and that's saying something considering we all lived through the obama administration. elizabeth: congressman, "the hill" magazine is reporting that the house impeachment inquiry is focusing on bribery allegations swirling around president joe biden and hunter biden. this relates to that fbi informant, a veteran fbi informant who told the fbi that the owner of ukraine's burisma energy company, that he bragged about paying both president biden and hunter biden $10 is million in bribes. we don't have the backup evidence for that. you know, burisma had hired hunter to sit on its board for nearly a million bucks a year. its owner was involved in a corruption probe. so is the house impeach. inquiry zeroing in on bribery allegations?

>> it is. you know, there's a couple of different reasons why there are three different congressional committees involved; ways and mean,s oversight and judiciary. and it's because the bribery is extensive, and it requires tax documents, it requires us digging into the doj, and it requires that basic oversight responsibility that we have. listen, alexander hamilton was exceptionally clear in federalist 65 that impeach impeachment inquiries and impeachment itself was also to go after that public trust that had been broken, to go after the misuse of public funds. this is a clear cut case where we have seen the fbi 1023 form, that fbi tip that showed that there was something going on. why was hunter biden on the board at a million dollars a year salary when he had zero experience in the energy industry? maybe it's because he had connections and could peddle influence in our nation's capitol. and and now, of course, we see the white house is hot to trot on aid to ukraine in the

hundreds of billions of dollars. it just seems hyper-convenient that in the midsts of everything or that's gone on with burisma, the fbi, the doj, the irs whistleblowers, everything is coming forward, we have the tax documents. now with this inquiry we have the official authority to go after the national archives for all the e-mails. it's all adding up. elizabeth: got it. >> this will be an irrefutable -- of mistrust, misuse and bribery. elizabeth: got it. congresswoman cammack, merry christmas to you. stay right there, we have must have more to come on "the evening edit." ♪ ♪ they're waiting for you

[applause] ask, "now what?" here's what. you go with prudential to protect, empower and grow. with everything you need to deliver, you guessed it... more. one more thing... who's your rock? learn more at prudential.com (inspirational music) - [narrator] wounded warrior project helps post-9/11 veterans realize what's possible. with generous community support.

- aaron, how you doing buddy? - [narrator] we bring warriors together and empower them to become stronger inside and out. - it's possible to begin healing - to get the help you need. - to find peace. - [narrator] and as each warrior's needs evolve, so do we. because these last 20 years are just the beginning.

elizabeth: be sure to tune in tomorrow night. biwe'll be covering the breaking news out of dc for you. i'm elizabeth macdonald thank you for watching the "evening edit," merry christmas, happy hanukkah and happy holidays to you. dagen: thank you, pinky. >> tha