was feeling and what everyone was thinking about the situation. and then later on in the week, we practiced drills for exiting the building in case this sort of situation were to present itself. >> reporter: it's just so harrowing to hear. we know this weekend some of the family members are also planning to say their good-byes. there's funerals that are going to be taking place. the president's visit being well received by members of this community. many wondering if they'll ever have a reason why the shooter carried out a heinous attack. >> he was not mentally well. thanks so much. the president here, it's a live picture. he will be speaking in just a few moments. you also see some national officials and lawmakers as well there. nicolle wallace will take this. that's going to do it for me today. "deadline white house" starts right now. ♪♪

hi there, everyone, it's 4:00 in new york. in a few minutes president biden will address the community of lewiston, maine, the community still reeling from a mass shooting just over one week ago. 18 people were killed in that shooting. the victims range in age from 14 years old to 76. the story of what this community has been forced to endure is one that has become all too familiar to all of us. 18 people some of whom were out playing corn hole at the local bar, others were bowling with their families at youth night. new dads, sign language interpreters, honor students, youth bowling coaches. some of the latest victims in america's gun violence crisis epidemic. "the new york times" reports this,that, quote, the vit will most likely also be an opportunity for president biden to repeat his call far ban on assault weapons and tougher gun control and mental health measures that have been blocked

on capitol hill. with me at the table, former top official at the department of justice, andrew weissmann is here. also joining us former congressman from florida, msnbc political analyst, david jolly. we're waiting for the president to be announced any moment here. andrew weissmann, it's a story that all of us have covered together, sometimes unexpectedly. sometimes in the middle of other conversations because it keeps happening. >> i remember dealing with this right after sandy hook. i was at the fbi as the general counsel, and it was vice president biden who was spearheading for the administration all sorts of proposals that were just common sense proposals fully backed by the fbi. >> let's listen to the president. >> senator collins, senator king, and charlene pengree. look, i want to acknowledge

representative jared goldman, and all the people of maine, we've done -- jill and i have done too many of these. jill and i are here on behalf of the american people to grieve with you and to make sure you know that you're not alone. we just visited memorial at the restaurant, and we're here at the bowling alley where we met with the first responders standing behind me. you know, we'll never forget the trauma they experienced. as i said, can't express how much we appreciate what you did. and also, the members from the nurses and docs in the hospital who took care of these folks. i don't know how they do it. we're also meeting with survivors and families of the victims who will never quite be the same. no pain is the same, but we know

what it's like to lose a piece of our soul and the depths of loss is so profound, some of us have been there. 18 precious souls stolen. 13 wounded. children, grandchildren, spouses, siblings, parents, grandparents, bowling coaches, union workers, beloved members of advocates and friends of lewiston's deaf and hard of hearing community. all of them live lives of love and service and sacrifice. we also remember the survivors who will forever carry the memories and the physical, emotional scars of this. they should be embraced. i know you will, i know you do. you know, as we mourn today in maine, this challenge, this tragedy opens painful, painful wounds all across the country.

too many americans have lost loved ones or survived the trauma of gun violence. i know because jill and i have met with them in buffalo, in uvalde, in monterey, park, in sandy hook anyway, too many to count. too many to count, from places that never make the news all across america. it's about bringing people together, different voices and perspectives. for an honest conversation on what's to be a long road to recovery. >> you know, and i've been at this a long time, i know consensus is possible. it's about common sense, reasonable, responsible measures to protect our children, our families, our communities

because regardless of our politics this is about protecting our freedom to go to a bowling alley, a restaurant, a school, a church without being shot and killed. let me close with this, scripture says, the lord is near to the brokenhearted and saves the crushed in spirit, and saves the crushed in spirit. our prayer is that the crushed in spirit survive this more rapidly than otherwise. you know, as we gather here today, we know your hearts are broken because -- but we also know your spirits are strong. the way this community has come together, the way this state has come together has been a marvel to the rest of the country. so god bless those we lost and

those who have been wounded, and may god bless the first responders as well as the nurses. i told the nurses, doc, if there's any angels in heaven, male and female nurses are in heaven. docs let you live. nurses make you want to live, for a guy who spent a lot of time in icu. so thank you, thank you, thank you. now i'd like to invite senator collins to come up and say a few words as well. senator. >> thank you very much, mr. president. >> president joe biden engaged in what has become a ritual in these united states, leader of the free world traveling to a community that nine days ago wasn't in the news, but now is the site of the latest mass shooting in the united states of america. joining our conversation president of the national action network, host of politics nation here on msnbc, the reverend al

sharpton. you see in joe biden, rev, what andrew was talking about, someone who has worked his entire career in public life to do something more than nothing, which is the current policy platform the republican party to make this happen less frequently. your thoughts as he's hit another community dealing with the unthinkable? >> well, again, i think that for the president who probably knows better than any president we've seen in our lifetime how to deal with grieving families, this has become all too often something he's had to do. and the fact that we're looking at another mass shooting and another town, and there has been no action by the congress. this president has called for banning assault weapons.

we can't even get background checks. how many times are we going to make a mockery of family by ignoring a legislative tightening of gun laws in this country because they're being lobbied by the nra. when you contrast what president biden has done around these last mass shootings and what the congress that is dominated now by the republicans will do nothing, you're in our thoughts and prayers, no, we didn't elect you to congress for your thoughts and prayers. we elected you to legislate and to deal with the problems of society, and none is more serious than what we're facing with these gun violence and demonstrated with the mass shootings. we've had more mass shootings this year than we've had days this year. when are we going to see action, and i think the president has been in many ways hindered by a

congress that is more concerned with protecting billionaires with trying to say we won't even pay for what's going on in israel without reducing the irs, they can unite around that, but they can't unite around these people that were killed in maine just a couple of weeks ago by a man that a background check may have stopped him from being able to purchase a gun. >> yeah, i mean, andrew to the rev's point and to pick up on the point you were making before the president started speaking, federal officials have said that the shooter legally bought guns days before the shooting. the fbi's position is that there was nothing on the books to prevent him from legally purchasing weapons, and all these facts are also true, this is from "the new york times" reporting. in may the shooter's ex-wife and the shooter's son warned a sheriff's deputy, they went to law enforcement. they said he's become angry and paranoid. in july, the shooter was committed to a mental health facility for two weeks after, quote, hearing voices and threatening to shoot up a

military base. in august mass shooter was rejected from purchasing a silencer due to spending time in a mental health facility. in september he punched a friend and said he was going to carry out a shooting spree, his words. and in september his family assured army reserves they will work to make sure he doesn't have access to guns. quote, they have a way to secure his weapons, an army reserve sergeant noted in a report. >> so i'm so reminded by president obama being just infuriated by having to do these speeches over and over again, because we are the only so-called first world country where this happens. every other country knows that there are steps to take that will decrease the risk of this happening. there are logical, obviously things to do, and it's not to violate the second amendment. it's not to do something where people who want to hunt

legitimately are going to be affected. what i was sag with vice president biden is he compiled after sandy hook a huge list of possible reforms that would all serve to decrease the risk of this happening, so there are just logical things. you can look at all these countries around the globe that do them, and you can see the data. this is not sort of speculative. you can see they don't have this problem. so if you want to avoid this, and as the rev says, not just have words and thoughts but actual deeds by people in congress, there are obvious things to do. >> david jolly, one thing that's important to always remind, really i should have said this first is that gun safety legislation does not guide the american public. 85% of all americans would like to see background checks. i think the numbers that support red flag laws are around a little lower than that, but high

70s, 80s. there's over 60% support for an assault weapon ban. gun safety legislation has majority support in numbers that very little else does. >> yeah, nicolle, because the american people know time and time again when they see these mass shootings, one simple truth which is that our national gun laws fail us routinely over and over and over. the current laws are inadequate. enforcement of the current laws are inadequate, and very simple laws could prevent many of these shootings. there are few cases would present such a strong reason for a red flag law to intervene and ensure that this person could not have a weapon. the u.s. army recently said, directed that he was not to have a weapon while on duty, but that was the limit of what they could do given his status as a reservist. this is a case where our gun laws have failed us, and that is

certainly on us as voters, but to your point, while 85% of the country largely supports many of these issues, it ultimately rests in the laps of republicans who refuse to respond to it. who stop it, who stop red flag laws. who stop an assault weapons ban. who stop the very common sense measures that could prevent many of these. i also think, though, in these times -- and i've come a long way on this. you and i have had many times during these shootings unfortunately had these conversations. i think the simple measures are also -- they lack ambition. i think we need dramatic ambitious gun control laws in the united states and go for the moon shot and reset the conversation. and for those who want to oppose those moon shot ideas, shame them because at the end of the day, if our laws are failing us and people are dying, that's on the legislators, and there's no reason we shouldn't shine a light on them and shame them for their inaction. >> i'm with you, what does that

mean? >> big stuff, big stuff. look, first we have to crush the culture of guns in the united states, the instant access of guns, the ability of anybody to buy a gun is absolutely foolish. an absolutely foolish thing. i realize the second amendment advocates are going to say jolly's unconstitutional. that's not true, it could take weeks to get a security clearance. before we give somebody the ability to engage in some type of insurrection against the united states to use information of the united states, to hurt a community, to do something, it takes time. why do we say that we get instant access to guns simply because the second amendment says you have a right to a gun. it doesn't say you have a right to a gun an hour from now. it doesn't say you have a right to walk into walmart and buy a gun, buy ammunition. it doesn't say if you're in a psychiatric ward you should have the opportunity to buy a gun. it's foolish. red flag laws, great, let's do it. assault weapons ban, great, let's do it, but i think it should be as hard to get a weapon in the united states as

it is to get a security clearance for an employee of the u.s. government. you can say i don't agree with the second amendment. maybe i don't, i don't care. people are dying and we're doing very little things around the edges and they're still being opposed by the republicans. shame the republicans. go for the moon shot, dramatically change gun culture in the united states. take on the second amendment if that's what it means because guess what, every parent who drops their kids at the schoolhouse door knows that that's the greatest risk they sometimes take and they hand their kids over to the school. they look at the code red signs. they wonder where would my kid go. could my teacher protect them? who cares about some of the finer points of the second amendment. let's test it. let's test the limits. but i'm in the minority, i realize that, but at some point we just got to make a judgment that people's lives are more valuable than the political debate and the positions of the republican party. >> i don't think you're in the minority. i just think people aren't making the argument you are. i think what i would say is one

of the benefits of being around the sun in politics as many times as i have, where we usually end up is in the middle. if the side representing the wishes of the 85% are taking incremental steps because it's what's achievable, the middle between incremental and nothing is not much, and i wish on a whole host of issues, gun safety legislation, access to reproductive health care, voting, i really wish that the side that stands with the majority of all americans, not just democrats but a plurality of americans would take more ambitious moon shots so if we land in the middle, if we still function as a democracy, we land toward progress. i love this conversation. let's continue it. rev, let me give you one more last word on what david jolly is articulating, which i think is in line with how your history as an activist tracks, right? you put out the vision. you speak for people who may not

have a voice in the process, and then you fight -- you fight for progress, but i think what david's articulating is a different starting point, with the side that stands with the 70 and 80 and 85% of all americans in wanting gun safety. >> i think that he is correct, the great movement that has moved -- whether it was civil rights or women's rights, lgbtq rights are people that have the passion to go forward, whether they were in the majority or not, and make alliances with people that were not necessarily their natural allies, and that is when we breakthrough. we need to be publicly embracing across political and racial lines because everybody is a target. we've gotten all kinds of demographics impacted by this, and we've not done anything about it. we need to connect all americans to say we have to stop this

profiteers off of our being targets because that's all it is, they're allowing the gun lobby and others to make expense at our children. when you have children, i have one grandson. when you have children going to school, learning how to evacuate, learning how to duck if there's a shooting and they can learn that as quickly as they can reading, writing, and arithmetic, we are in a cultural crisis, and i agree with david. let's forget the fine print of our arguing constitutional law, the second amendment. we're in a crisis, and we need to start acting like that across all racial and ethnic lines. >> i love what all of you have said today. let's continue to have this conversation. i'm not sure there's much more important than it. rev, thank you very much for adjusting your schedule when the president ran ahead today. thank you very much. andrew and david, stick around. when we come back, we'll turn to legal developments -- and there are a lot to tell you about -- in that civil fraud

trial in manhattan. the judge there, judge engoron has now slapped donald trump's attorneys with a gag order. and yet another angry back and forth has transpired in that courtroom over his clerk. we'll tell you all about it later in the broadcast, whether donald trump can run for president once again is a question that is being debated and maybe decided by courts in several states right now, one of the chief advocates of this push to bar trump from being a presidential candidate rooted solely in the letter of the 14th amendment, that's former judge michael luttig, and he joins us at the table. all those stories and more after "deadline white house" continues after a quick break. don't go anywhere. break. don't go anywhere. like here. and here. not so much here. farxiga reduces the risk of kidney failure which can lead to dialysis. ♪far-xi-ga♪

farxiga can cause serious side effects, including ketoacidosis that may be fatal, dehydration, urinary tract or genital yeast infections, and low blood sugar. a rare, life-threatening bacterial infection in the skin of the perineum could occur. stop taking farxiga and call your doctor right away if you have symptoms of this infection, an allergic reaction, or ketoacidosis. when you have chronic kidney disease, it's time to ask your doctor for farxiga. because there are places you want to be. if you can't afford your medication, astrazeneca may be able to help. ♪far-xi-ga♪ the ball is out and there's a pile-up. -let's go! -get in the pile! ugh, i'll deal with this tomorrow. you won't. it's ripe in here. my eyes are watering. i'm a busy man. look how crusty this is. shameful. ugh, it's just too much. not with this. tide. tide can tackle any pile. that a tackle pun? just clean the pile, ron. okay.

this too. that was easy. when stains and odors pile up, it's got to be tide.

♪ jitterbug! ♪ [ giggles loudly ] ♪ jitterbug! ♪ [ giggles loudly ] ♪ jitterbug! ♪ [ giggles loudly ] ♪ jitterbug! ♪ [ giggles loudly ] [ tapping ] ♪ you put the boom-boom into my heart ♪ intuitive sit-to-start in the all-electric id.4. it's the little things, it's a vw.

turning now to a number of important developments from downtown manhattan, late this afternoon in the midst of a crucial stage in that $250 million civil fraud trial targeting the trump family businesses brought by new york attorney general letitia james. today a fidgety eric trump racked up his testimony. he was combative with the a.g.'s office, more so today than yesterday. we'll tell you more about his raised voice testimony in a second because breaking in just the last hour, the judge in the case has issued an expanded gag order ruling that trump's attorneys can no longer make any public statements in or out of court about communications between the judge. that's judge engoron and his staff. it's an angry crescendo to a tension we told you about as it was brewing yesterday. donald trump's team repeatedly insinuating bias on the part of

the judge's clerk. it happened again today. trump's team making dubious accusations, a manufactured side show in the word of a.g.'s office. during trial today judge engoron had this to say. quote, this allegation is untrue. it's a shame we have descended to this level, he said. adding, quote, i don't want any further comments about my staff. joining us at the table, sue craig of "the new york times," andrew and david are still with us. sue, we'll deal with a gag order and what is clearly an effort at sort of manufacturing a circus, which the trumps are, if nothing else very good at, but let's talk about the legal setbacks. >> well, i think this is proven to be i wouldn't say an effective distraction, but a distraction, and that came on the heels of eric trump's testimony, which i would say was pretty rocky. he was on the trial -- or he was on the stand for about a day and

a half, and he had various defenses that they just sort of went bouncing from one to the other, and everybody in the courtroom was kind of spinning. i actually put a list together. >> let's go through that. the first one was i was busy doing other things. >> pouring concrete. >> i have this mental image of him le with a juice container. what? >> they don't have a lot of new construction. i don't know what that is. he's busy out on properties. he's too important to be worried about -- he specifically said appraisals. so he's too busy doing other things, but then the attorney general very neatly did this, they took the depositions that he gave last year, and they played them in court where he was saying he doesn't know a lot about the appraisal oer issues that are going on at the company that affect thiscase. and then t attorney general came into court this week and just put on the screen email after email after email, the

repetition was very effective in what they did and showed that he was right in the weeds of a number of appraisals that are at the heart of this case. so that was, i thought, really effective. >> wow, which ones did they have? i've heard of the seven. >> seven springs at estate in westchester. there's been a lot of discussion, donald trump bought it in the 1990s. he tried unsuccessfully to make it into a golf course and put housing out there. they've got an easement on that. they just tried to them donate some land in order to get tax breaks from it. that was one of them, and there was another golf course that came up, but it was clear -- there's just a few properties that the attorney's looking at on this, and these were -- you know, and he was saying, no, i didn't have a lot to do with it. the emails really sort of shot that down. that was sort of my take on it. >> yeah. >> and then the second one was we relied on professionals.

we have outside account accountants, outside lawyers. i'm busy, busy, busy doing things. >> pouring concrete. >> i rely on these guys. you start to think that through and we've had accountants and lawyers and everybody come into the courtroom saying we just relied on the information that the trumps gave us. that was their second defense. and then the third one is, well, none of this even matters because there's nothing to see here because the financials are not only perfect, they under value our father's assets, they're actually worth even more. >> they're bigger, they're better, nothing to see here. >> how did that go? >> i didn't think it -- my head was spinning at times. you're just trying to think, they were throwing all of this stuff out. >> one of the problems as we were talking about before we came on was eric started by saying i don't even know we had

financials. okay, i do know financials because of course we had financials but i don't know anything about them to later saying but the financials are perfect to, no, the financial's undervalued. that's one of the reasons that you had to keep a chart of the defenses because they're so -- it's like i didn't do it, but if i did do it, this was my mental state. it was just so inconsistent. so i really don't think he helped himself. >> and if i did do it, they were perfect anyway. >> can you commit -- i mean, this is a civil proceeding. nobody faces jail time. donald trump has already been hauled onto the stage. he violates the gag order. he could snatch some jail tile from the jaws of the civil procedure. if you perjure yourself in a civil proceeding, can you be charged? >> yes, you can. you obviously need to be able to prove it beyond a reasonable doubt. so it's very different than the civil standard. the judge is deciding, which is

just a preponderance, it's 50% and a hair, that's a much lower standard. it is worth remembering that this whole case started with the manhattan district attorney identifies looking at financial fraud as a criminal investigation. one of the things that i used to do was look for false statements, look for perjury because you usually don't have to lie if there's no underlying problem. so none of this is going to be particularly helpful to the trumps with the manhattan district attorney's office still looking. that case is not closed according to d.a. bragg. it is possible. it is possible to have just a stand-alone perjury count. i think for the moment the main issue is that in terms of this civil case, i agree with suzanne, at least the last couple of days have not been good for the trump family. >> david jolly, let me bring you in on this. there's something so on brand, right, about where it devolved. it devolved into a gag order

extending to the trump team's attorney, but of course it did, right? when you're losing on the law and you've already been found liable for fraud, which is where this started. this started with the trump family, eric and don and ivanka, i guess she's not a defendant. eric and don and donald trump being liable for fraud, you don't have -- you know, glourt playing to win anymore, but i wonder what you make of the spectacle they've made of themselves. >> yeah, i'm so glad that sue was able to kind of articulate the different defenses because it perfectly represents kind of every trump legal proceeding, every accusation against the former president regardless of jurisdiction or forum, and it's this. there are always two contradictory arguments that they make. first is the smartest person in the room argument that, well, regulators don't know what they're talking about. banks don't know. prosecutors don't know, the attorney general doesn't know. we're the smartest people in the

room, why would you question us. then they go to the dumbest person in the room, which is, oh, i didn't know anything that was going on. i have nothing to do with this. i have no idea what you're talking about. ultimately -- this is the fascinating thing, when it really gets down to it, when they feel that they are really in trouble, either facing criminal culpability or civil liability, it often comes down to the dumbest person in the room defense. i had no idea what i was doing. it was a fascinating trajectory. then they inject something critical, which is intimidation and harassment, and whether it is using kind of the cultural movement they've created to come down with intimidation and harassment that leads to a gag order, and whether it is something that leads to the violence like january 6th. that also is kind of the final thematic which creates the danger around much of these proceedings. again, if we didn't have the proceedings, we'd probably end up in a more dangerous space. >> let me turn to the gag order.

this is -- the gag order was amended, i understand it, to add chris kise, the trump side's lawyer. let me read from some of it. this is -- this is how it starts. on october 3rd, the defendant donald trump posted to his social media account an untrue, disparaging and personally identifying post about my principal law clerk. i imposed a very limited gag order forbidding all parties from posting, emailing or speaking publicly about any members of my staff emphasizing that personal attacks on members of my support staff are unacceptable, inappropriate, and i will not tall rate them. failure to abide by this directive will result in serious sanctions. upon learning trump failed to remove the post from one of his campaign websites for 17 days, i imposed a fine of $5,000 against donald trump. on october 25th, after conducting a brief hearing, i concluded that donald trump had

intentionally violated my gag order by stating to a gaggle of reporters outside the courtroom the following statement in reference to my principle law clerk. quote, this judge is a very partisan judge with a person who's very partisan sitting alongside him, perhaps more partisan than he is. i fined him an additional $10,000. i imposed the gag order upon the parties operating under the assumption that such a gag order would be unnecessary upon the attorneys who are officers of the court. fast forward to where we are today. over the past week, defendants principal attorney, namely christopher kise, clifford robert, and eli na hava have made on the record repeated inappropriate remarks about my principal law clerk falsely accusing her of bias against them and improperly influening the ongoing bench trial. defendants attorneys have made long spehes alleging it is improper for a judge to consult with a law clerk and that the passing of notes from a judge to a law clerk or vice versa

constitutes an improper appearance of impropriety in this case. the arguments have no basis, and here's the punch line. a judge may consult with court personnel whose function is to aid the judge. he concludes by saying as i have made clear the judge in this case, the gag order does not apply to me. i will not tolerate under any circumstances remarks about my court staff. the threat of and actual violence resulting from heated political rhetoric is well documented. my chambers have been inundated with threatenin. it's far and away outweighed by the need to protect them. so the judge laying out something we all know, i think some of us are numb to it, right, that we live with this elevated threat of violence, that fani willis was doxed in her personal information and that of her entire family is hosted on a website owned by

russians. oh, well, hope for the best. i mean, that is the climate in which we live. i'm not saying we don't care. i'm saying we have grown accustomed to this. >> this is the climate donald trump creates. >> correct. and we just live in it. this judge is saying not on my watch. >> not on my watch, and he's a judge and he can do what he did today, and hopefully it will curb some of what's happened. but i mean, it's just been incredible to watch in the courtroom day-to-day just the -- he didn't mention all the complaints, there's been complaints that his clerk is rolling her eyes and her hand gestures. it's been daily and the judge has just said enough. but it does, it credits a climate that's very difficult for his staff, for, you know, i think reporters around the country, for anybody who touches this sort of stuff, it creates -- it gives people a license to do things that we just -- otherwise you can't even imagine in a world. my biggest fear as a reporter

used to be i would get paper cuts and now i'm dealing with a lot of awful hate speech, you know, almost daily because of this. and i think that people are given a license of people like the judges to stand up and say enough is enough. >> and reporters because they don't want to become part of the story don't talk about the climate in which they do their jobs. i read this because i think this becomes part of the history of the times in which we live. >> it speaks so poorly for the legal profession as the lawyers sitting at this table seeing lawyers cave to this. i remember clerking for a judge who kept on saying, you know, you're retained by your client. they don't own you. you still have an obligation to the court and to the profession. and you know, whether it's filing a motion about ivanka can't appear because of child care issues.

you can't go to court, which is beyond frivolous, whether it is much worse. there shouldn't have to be an order that tells lawyers, guess what, don't attack a judge's law clerk. whether it's john eastman where there was a preliminary finding today in the disbarment proceedings in connection with his role on january 6th. it is not great to see the people in the legal profession not living up to their obligation to the bar, which is to act on honorably and within the bounds of the law. you can zealously represent a client without going to these lengths. >> yeah, i mean, and it's parallel to what sue said. this is the climate donald trump created. >> absolutely. >> this is the culture he's created among people who cruise to represent him. i have to sneak in a break. after that i'm going to bring david jolly in on all of this who i know has a lot to say. we're also going to buck up for our next, more intense, more

accelerated, more volatile, more dangerous phase of this. the ex-president's going to take the stand next week in the civil fraud trial. we'll deal with that next. fraud. we'll deal with that next. ♪ tourists tourists that turn into scientists. tourists photographing thousands of miles of remote coral reefs. that can be analyzed by ai in real time. ♪ so researchers can identify which areas are at risk. and help life underwater flourish. ♪ at humana, we believe your healthcare should evolve with you, and part of that evolution means choosing the right medicare plan for you. humana can help. with original medicare you're covered for hospital stays and doctor office visits, but you'll have to pay a deductible for each. a medicare supplement plan pays for some or all of your original medicare

deductibles, but they may have higher monthly premiums and no prescription drug coverage. humana medicare advantage prescription drug plans include medical coverage, plus prescription drug coverage. and coverage for dental, vision, and hearing, all wrapped up into one convenient plan. plus, there's a cap on your out-of-pocket costs! humana has large networks of doctors, hospitals and specialists across 49 states. so, call or go online today and get your free decision guide. humana - a more human way to healthcare. inez, let me ask you, you're using head and shoulders, right? only when i see flakes. then i switch back to my regular shampoo. you should use it every wash, otherwise the flakes will come back. tiny troy: he's right, you know. is that tiny troy? the ingredients in head and shoulders keep the microbes that cause flakes at bay. microbes, really? they're always on your scalp... little rascals... but good news, there's no itchiness,

dryness or flakes down here! i love tiny troy. and his tiny gorgeous hair. he's the best. - make every wash count! - little help please.

2019 statement of financial condition contained false and misleading statements of valuation. is that correct? >> same answer. >> you knew at the time it was finalized that the year 2019 statement of financial condition

contained false and misleading statements is that correct? >> same answer. >> in preparing the 2019 statement of financial condition, mr. weisselberg and mr. mcconney worked at your direction and followed your instructions to inflate asset valuations on the statement of financial condition by employing false and misleading assumptions, is that correct? >> same answer. >> others in the accounting department worked with mr. weisselberg and mr. mcconney to follow your instructions and inflate asset valuation on the statement of financial condition, is that correct? >> same answer. >> low energy jeb's calling, he wants his insult back. that was donald trump's low energy deposition in the new york a.g.'s fraud case in august of last year. trump did that, pleaded the fifth, that's what the same answer was, more than 400 times. we're back with sue, andrew and david. david jolly, to everything that we've been discussing add trump on the stand, angry, liable for

fraud. >> that's right, and first, you know what jumps out in that deposition is the former president's raw cowardice, this is somebody who's happy to hide behind his account on truth social or a republican rally to talk about this any way he wants to, about the valuation of mar-a-lago or different assets. he's willing to have the conversation with republican voters, but under oath he will not because he's a coward. that then leads to what type of testimony do we see from the former president next week because this is one of those moments that he hates more than any other. and i think it ties into the gag orders and the intimidation that we have seen from the former president, from his children, from now his lawyers. the telling thing about the intimidation that leads to the gag orders is this. the only thing they are trying to achieve is vengeance because they know they are not going to affect the judge's discretion or decisions. they're not going to affect the clerk's behavior. they are seeking vengeance and then they are seeking to

undermine the integrity of the judicial branch, and that is where the danger comes in. donald trump with his back against the wall, who is seeking to be elected president so he can administer his own self-absolution however he can get that, that is the danger. that then leads to this cultural movement he is trying to lead to overtake what is otherwise the discretion and the jurisdiction of the judicial branch. >> i mean, david jolly, i guess the uncomfortable part of that is that in his information silo, he may succeed, right? he may convince his voters the only reason he's been found guilty of fraud is because of his manufactured smears against this judge's clerk. how do you remedy that with the reality that everyone that provided evidence that led to that decision was a trump insider. >> that's right. so i think there's two worlds to evaluate this, one in which he is not elected president again

and one in which he is. the world in which he is not elected president. he's a private citizen who is now subject to the findings of a civil court or to a criminal court. i think what we have to prepare for them is the cultural violence associated with that. in a world in which he becomes president, i think he will test the limits of the constitution, break right through them, and try to absolve himself through any federal jurisdiction matters that he has. the question becomes how does he manipulate some of the state decisions that had been made about him? because that really requires using political allies to really break the judicial branch in the states. that leads us to a place that is very dangerous. look, he might be president again, and i think we have to prepare for that moment, but i think for those who see a concern in that development, it's a reason to work harder and harder to make sure that day doesn't come. >> well, and i mean, it's so interesting because for conservatives to go along with him adding the business and

finance worlds to his autocratic whims, you know, we're both old enough to remember when republicans would have recoiled at that. it is another element of his candidacy for the presidency. in 2024 we have to reckon with. sue, i want to come back to you and give you the last word. as we sort of round out this week, i think they did worse as witnesses on the legal front than some people expected, right? and i wonder what you think that means is possible next week. >> it's going to be interesting because donald trump is taking a stand on monday, and i think we're going to see a lot of the defenses that i laid out earlier, but i think there's two other things and i think, one, i think maybe won't resonate with the judge because the case has already been decided but may resonate larger. i think one of the things that will come back, i want to harken back to michael cohen's testimony. when he got up, there was a moment where he was questioned

and it became evident he'd given testimony in front of congress, so there was some debate about was there a contradiction there, and he said i wasn't explicitly ordered by donald trump to, you know, puff up the numbers on the financial statement. it was implicit. and at that point in the courtroom, you know, it was like an a ha moment for donald trump and his lawyer. they put their hands up like, you know, wow, the case is over. >> they filed for summary judgment. >> he called it a perry mason moment outside the court, and they asked that the case be thrown out, at which point the judge said there's an entire courtroom of evidence here and we're going to move along. that was kind of their moment and i think we're going to hear some of there's no evidence that he explicitly told anybody. he doesn't email. there's not been any feeling -- michael cohen's testimony is really just a building block in all of this. i wouldn't want to put outsized emphasis on it because there's so much evidence, but that is one thing i think that they're going to seize on. and then the other thing that i think he's going to bring up,

which i do think it resonates with some people is where are the victims? you know, you don't need them in this case, but all the loans were performing, the banks got paid. they might, you know, there's a strong argument they probably should have gotten paid more had he not had -- there would have been higher interest rates because, you know, if he actually submitted -- >> he lied about the value. >> he lied about the value of his assets. he's harped on that before, there are no victims here. he paid the banks back. everybody should just move along. i think we're going hear that in addition to i relied on professional advice. there's nothing to see here, all my assets are worth a lot. i think he thinks, you know, mar-a-lago is worth hundreds of millions of dollars. >> because there's a potential buyer. that's not actually how we land on appraisals. we're going to hear some of that sort of bluster on monday as well, and appraisals are an art, not a science. we're going to hear the gamut of

that. >> will he argue that his apartment really is three times larger than a measuring stick would suggest? >> i just think everybody's going to be coming to watch the show on monday to find out if he does. >> that's amazing. i'm so glad you are on this beat. so glad for us. sue craig, david jolly, thank you both so much for really everything you've said this hour. andrew sticks around a little bit longer. >> coming up for us, the growing legal woes of the key architect of the trump coup plot. that is next. undry could be worth as much as $300? really? and your clothes just keep getting more damaged the more times you wash them. downy protects fibers, doing more than detergent alone. see? this one looks brand new. saves me money? i'm starting to like downy. downy saves loads. (♪ music ♪) sathe walking tree i'm stais said to changeny. its entire location in pursuit of sunlight (♪ ♪) where could reinvention take your business? accenture. let there be change.

when moderate to severe ulcerative colitis takes you off course. put it in check with rinvoq, a once-daily pill. when i wanted to see results fast, rinvoq delivered rapid symptom relief and helped leave bathroom urgency behind. check. when uc tried to slow me down... i got lasting, steroid-free remission with rinvoq. check. and when uc caused damage rinvoq came through by visibly repairing my colon lining. check. rapid symptom relief... lasting steroid-free remission... ...and the chance to visibly repair the colon lining. check, check, and check. rinvoq can lower your ability to fight infections, including tb. serious infections and blood clots, some fatal; cancers, including lymphoma and skin cancer; death, heart attack, stroke, and tears in the stomach or intestines occurred. people 50 and older with at least 1 heart disease risk factor have higher risks. don't take if allergic to rinvoq as serious reactions can occur. tell your doctor if you are or may become pregnant. put uc in check and keep it there with rinvoq. ask your gastroenterologist about rinvoq and learn how abbvie can help you save.

♪ i have type 2 diabetes, but i manage it well. ♪ ♪ jardiance ♪ ♪ it's a little pill with a big story to tell. ♪ ♪ i take once-daily jardiance, ♪ ♪ at each day's staaart. ♪ ♪ as time went on it was easy to seee. ♪ ♪ i'm lowering my a1c. ♪ jardiance works 24/7 in your body to flush out some sugar! and for adults with type 2 diabetes and known heart disease, jardiance can lower the risk of cardiovascular death, too. jardiance may cause serious side effects including ketoacidosis that may be fatal, dehydration, that can lead to sudden worsening of kidney function, and genital yeast or urinary tract infections. a rare, life-threatening bacterial infection in the skin of the perineum could occur. stop taking jardiance and call your doctor right away if you have symptoms of this infection, ketoacidosis, or an allergic reaction, and don't take it if you're on dialysis. taking jardiance with a sulfonylurea or insulin may cause low blood sugar. ♪ jardiance is really swell, ♪ ♪ the little pill with a big story to tell. ♪

as andrew mentioned earlier, one of the chief architects of the ex president's coup plot was dealt a major blow. john eastman could be on the brink of losing his law license after a judge found he breached professional ethics in his efforts to overturn the 2020 election. it comes after 32 days of testimony from witnesses. eastman took the stand for more than a dozen hours. california state bar officials will present evidence to justify their call to strip eastman of the ability to practice law. this isn't even close to the end of eastman's legal challenges.

he's facing criminal charges in georgia alongside the ex president. andrew, this feels like sort of the least serious consequence, but to someone like eastman whose platform is one of trump's political -- is rooted in being a lawyer and it could be impactful. >> the way i look at it is it's not a significant criminal sanction. yes, it could affect his livelihood in the same way jenna ellis faced it, rudy giuliani faced it. this is the bar association taking action with respect to people who have violated their duty as lawyers, which we were just talking about. i think it's important and significant within my profession that there is this kind of action taken.

i think the bigger way to look at it, if we go outside of that, is to think of this is what was going was a trial about the january 6th coup attempt. we were not focusing on it in a way we will be on march 4th with respect to donald trump, but that's what was being focussed on. what the preliminary finding was -- he gets the chance to contest and make arguments and appeal. what was focussed on was that there was no basis, there was no good faith basis for what he was arguing. there was no fraud. there was no analysis he was doing that supported the claims of fraud that he was making. all of that got litigated. >> and all the evidence on the other side, 60 cases you lose in court. >> absolutely. in many ways this was in the legal realm a microcosm of what

we'll see play out in a much broader way, more spectacular way and many more aspects to it with respect to donald trump. >> it was an evidentiary proceeding? >> absolutely. john eastman had the right to cross-examine like a trial. all he had to show was he had a valid good faith basis. >> and he didn't. >> it's a really low standard. >> that's amazing. andrew, we love having you here. thank you very much. i know we all feel that way. much more ahead for us including a case with potentially major consequences for all of us. it's to determine whether donald trump is barred from being president for inciting an insurrection. we'll have that in the next hour. "deadline whitehouse" after a very short break.

don't go anywhere. short break don't go anywhere. office visits, but you'll have to pay a deductible for each. a medicare supplement plan pays for some or all of your original medicare deductibles, but they may have higher monthly premiums and no prescription drug coverage. humana medicare advantage prescription drug plans include medical coverage, plus prescription drug coverage. and coverage for dental, vision, and hearing, all wrapped up into one convenient plan. plus, there's a cap on your out-of-pocket costs! humana has large networks of doctors, hospitals and specialists across 49 states. so, call or go online today and get your free decision guide. humana - a more human way to healthcare.

the first time you connected your godaddy website and your store was also the first time you realized... well, we can do anything. cheesecake cookies? the chookie! manage all your sales from one place with a partner that always puts you first. (we did it) start today at godaddy.com

♪♪ what if anything does the historical record tell us about whether section three was limited to the events of the civil war or not? >> it was not limited to the events of the civil war. we know that because first the language was general. it referred to insurrection or rebellion. there were senators in the debate that made clear they thought it should apply to any future insurrection that might occur. >> hi, again. it's 5:00 in new york. questions about insurrection and january 6th and the law are

being litigated. determining whether inciting the capitol insurrection disqualifies donald trump from ever running for off again. at issue wheth the ex president vd section three 14th amendment which reads, no person shall be a senator or representative in cong or elector of president and vice president or hold any office having previously taken an oath to support the constitution of the united states. shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same. or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. legal challenges based on this theory have been mounted in many states as the 2024 presidential primaries inch closer. we saw a hearing in colorado where a judge heard testimony from constitutional experts like the clip we just played you. they also heard from capitol police officers, members of congress and former trump

administration officials. the judge said she'll make a decision by thanksgiving. state supreme court justices in minnesota heard arguments over donald trump's eligibility. they were skeptical that states have the authority to take trump off the ballot. we saw the former president sue joslin benson. she's the secretary of state of michigan where another 14th amendment challenge has been filed. that asked secretary benson from keeping trump's name off the ballot. for judge michael luddig it's clear. it w written by the atlantic, the president's actions place him squarely in the ineligible

clause. the most pressing question facing our democracy is whether we'll abide by the 14th amendment disqualification clause. >> if there's one thing that i can tell the country today, it would be that the effort to overturn the 2020 presidential election was not and is not politics. this is, as we now know from the indictments of the former president by the department of justice and jack smith, these were grave crimes against the united states of america. perhaps almost as grave as would have been treason. >> he's back. that's where we start the hour with former federal judge

michael luttig. we'll get to you pairing up in a minute. i want to start with your thoughts on what's happening this week in courtrooms around the country. that seems to have been put in motion for the argument you were making publicly this summer. >> thank you, nicolle, for having me with you this afternoon. it's a pleasure. the proceedings and hearings going on across the country this week, next week and the weeks that follow are going to address literally the most pressing constitutional issue of our times. that is whether under the constitution of the united states of america is donald trump disqualified from holding the office of the presidency again as a result and as a

consequence of his efforts to overturn the 2020 presidential election. the question under the constitution -- we're talking about the 14th amendment, section three, as you read, is whether or not the former president engaged in an insurrection or rebellion against the united states constitution. the question is not whether he engaged in an insurrection or rebellion against the united states of america or the authority of the united states of america. that's the issue that's at stake. that's the issue that will eventually have to be decided by the supreme court of the united states. >> do you see any one of these cases as being the one that gets

to the supreme court? >> well, professor tribe and i followed and monitored the various state and federal court proceedings that are under way in several of the states. there will be any number of others in the weeks and months ahead. it's technical law that terms which would be the better or the best of the cases, but i'm satisfied that colorado is one of those states whose case, when it eventually makes it to the supreme court of the united states, would be what we lawyers call a perfect case for the supreme court to grant and to decide the question. >> let me ask you to help me navigate some of the things that

get thrown around by skeptics. people conflate the criminal process with the constitutional questions that i think you're raising. can you clarify the differences? >> yes. it is not necessary in order for the former president to be disqualified or for any other person who comes within the ambient of section three to be disqualified, that he or she have been convicted of an insurrection or rebellion. nor is it necessary that the congress of the united states have found that the former president or any other person have engaged in an insurrection or rebellion against the constitution of the united states. that's what we call in

constitutional law the self-executing character, if you will, of section three. it does not require a congressional finding and it does not require criminal conviction. those are matters that are completely separate from the eligibility for disqualification under section three. another matter that i want to address today before we leave is this, i think that instinctively americans who think about the disqualification clause think that it is anti-democratic and that is that the american people should decide whether the former president becomes the president of the united states again.

that's an understandable concern, but it's not correct for this reason -- it's the constitution itself that tells us that disqualification is not anti-democratic, rather it's the conduct that gives rise to disqualification under section three that the constitution says is anti-democratic. >> your point is it's the same as being 12. if you're 12 you can't be president either because you don't meet the age requirement. you're just saying it's letter of the constitution that renders the conduct a disqualifying factor. >> that's correct. a president of the united states must be 35 years of age, must be a naturalized citizen of the united states. those are qualifications for holding the office of the

president. the qualification that he or she not have engaged in an insurrection or rebellion against the constitution of the united states is a qualification just like the others. >> just like age. i think it gets put in this trauma bucket, right, the country's so traumatized by trump. they're afraid of using this document, this precious document, that don't know as intimately as you do. it feels too easy. how could there be a document that perfect that says if you've engaged in insurrection you can't be president? i wonder if we're thinking about it wrong. is it as plain as if you're 12 or 13 years, you can't be president? >> it is. nicolle, this is not yours or my constitution. it's the constitution of the american people. in that sense, the american

people through the framers of the constitution, both the original constitution, but also the 14th amendment which was ratified in 1868, those people were our representatives, if you will, the american people's representatives. it's they who determined in section three that an individual who's engaged in an insurrection or rebellion having previously taken an oath to support the constitution of the united states and thereafter engaged in an insurrectional rebellion against the constitution of the united states should be disqualified from holding high public office thereafter. >> i want to ask you one more question about a story we covered this week in jon karl's new book.

he talked about steve bannon talking about the trump-davidians. what's the threat as you see it today? >> as i said before to you, nicolle, the former president and his allies were a clear and present danger to american democracy. a year later i was asked by michael schmidt of the "new york times" and i said one year after january 6th that the former president and his allies were an even graver danger to american democracy than they were a year prior. most recently i've said now, two

and a half years sense, that the former president is a clear and present danger to american democracy today. >> wow. neil, let's stay here. we'll wind our way back to the law. the times are so harrowing, but so sustained. it is voices like both of yours that cut through. i wonder your thoughts on the fact that we have to have these conversations at all about donald trump. >> and the fact we're having this conversation with judge luttig talking about donald trump. that's an anti-matter explosion. judge luttig is a national hero and right now donald trump is in court in five different jurisdictions as an

insurrectionist. it's so impressive to hear judge luttig and hear him talk about what the constitution means. it connects to the whole question of the 14th amendment. the judge refers to the concern about it maybe being anti-democratic. the way i look at it is there's some red lines in the constitution that say, look, you're not allowed to hold office if you do these things. you mentioned being 12. the one that's clearest is the natural born citizen requirement. arnold schwarzenegger can't be president even if 99% of americans wanted it because that's a red line in the constitution and in 1868 was put in this leather red line you can't be an insurrectionist, they said, if the congress votes to remove the disqualification and say you paid your penance, then you can run. there's a democratic process the way there isn't for the natural

born citizenship clause. the judge makes a compelling case for why the 14th amendment section three should be it. to hear donald trump talk about it -- by the way, donald trump hasn't appeared in any of these courtrooms. that's who's not testimony. if it were me accused of being an insurrectionist, i would be there to clear my name. this guy is afraid to be in court. instead he sends kash patel to be his witness, which can't be a good sign for him. the 14th amendment section three is about this, it's about someone who provided aid and comfort to insurrectionists, been an insurrectionist and the voters are saying this is a red line, you can't do it. >> will you testify in any of these state cases? >> i would not expect to, nicolle. as you know, i have the greatest respect for neil.

as he was speaking there, it reminded me to say this, if i had the opportunity. the former president's lawyers are not arguing their case under section three. they are arguing that the former president did not engage in an insurrection or rebellion against the united states of america. that is a difficult case. >> what's the difference? >> that's what i want to say today. focus on the distinction. section three disqualifies someone who has engaged in an insurrection or rebellion against the constitution of the united states. now, that case can be made, as i've said publicly, by proving

that donald trump had a plan and that he attempted to overturn the 2020 presidential election and remain in power in direct contradiction and violation of what's known as the executive vesting clause. it's a clause in the constitution that describes the term of the president of the united states being four years. that clause says by terms that the president will serve a four-year term and a four-year term only unless he is elected or re-elected to the office of president. when donald trump tried to overturn the 2020 presidential election that he lost fair and

square to then candidate and now president joe biden, he violated the executive vesting clause of the constitution. that is what i have said is the quintessential, quintessential, insurrection or rebellion against the constitution of the united states. >> so the refusal to leave office, the refusal to concede and the refusal to carry out the tradition of a peaceful transfer of power is the damage -- is the violation of the constitution? >> it is the rebellion against the constitution of the united states. back to what the former president's lawyers are arguing, they don't want to argue that. they want to argue instead that the former president didn't engage in an insurrection

against the united states. they want to argue he was not responsible for the riot on the united states capitol. >> they're going to use semantics and say how did he know -- >> exactly. >> you're saying that's not what section three of the 14th amendment says? >> exactly. i've not followed closely these two cases, but i followed them a little bit. to the extent i know that's what they're arguing, i know that's not the issue. i've been concerned over this past week frankly that by the various courts' reactions to that argument, mainly it's not been clear from the courts' questions that the two courts that i'm talking about now in colorado and in minnesota, have

focussed just yet on the actual issue. >> you're saying they're taking the bait on the questions about violence. you're saying the evidence -- frankly the evidence exists in emails where eastman circulates the document and trump is for it. >> that's right, although i wouldn't have worded it the way you did. >> say many people including our very esteemed guest here. neil, are you as confident as judge luttig that this ends up before the u.s. supreme court? >> i think it does. i think that's the only thing we can predict with certainty. i don't think minnesota or colorado will have the last word on this either way. i think the hard thing for the supreme court is not really the law. i think the judge makes an absolutely compelling case on the law. the hard question is the precedent that would be set if

you allow one state or some voters in one state to remove someone from the ballot. that's what the constitution requires, but i think it will give them pause. some people are saying, look, if they do it to trump, then other conservative states will do it to biden or some future democratic nominee. my view on that is the republicans are probably going to do that anyway because that party has so lost its constitutional bearings that they'll weaponize anything. you have to worry that anything short of that case might be weaponized in some other instance. >> nicolle, if i may, this will not be the ultimate issue, that is, the contemplation of the constitution is that the processes that are under way right now across the several

states will roll themselves up, whether those processes are in state court or federal court, eventually to the supreme court. the supreme court will decide whether the former president is disqualified under section three of the 14th amendment. that will be a uniform rule for the united states of america. it will not be the case -- it will not be the case that the former president is on some ballots and not on others. i can assure the american people of that. >> would you argue this case before the supreme court if asked? >> i hope no one asks me to argue it. >> that wasn't a no. >> i'm not an advocate, but i know very well someone who is one of the greatest advocates before the supreme court and it happens to be neil.

i would recommend that neil argue it, as he did the most important case since our founding for american democracy, moore versus harper. >> if asked, would you argue this case, neil? >> heck yeah. with the judge at my side. >> i think i just made some news. judge, thank you for being here. thank you for talking about these things. thank you for explaining them to nonlawyers. i prepare by pulling out and googling sections of the constitution i haven't read since school. thank you for making me do that. it's important. >> thank you, nicolle. it's an honor to be here. >> it's an honor to have you here and the two of you together. my heart is full of hope we'll figure this out. thank you for that. when we return, as if single handedly holding up hundreds of military promotions and damaging

national security was not adequate, maga republican senator tommy tuberville is belittling the marine commandant who is recovering from a heart attack. we'll have that next. secretary of state antony blinken telling prime minister benjamin netanyahu to do more to protect palestinian civilians, including taking pauses so aid can flow in to those who need it most. it's a message that seems to have been rebuffed by netanyahu. we'll have a live report from the region. "deadline whitehouse" continues after a quick break. continues after a quick break. business. [city ambience sounds] [car screech] [car door slam] [camera shutter sfx] introducing ned's plaque psoriasis. [camera shutter sfx] he thinks his flaky, red patches are all people see.

otezla is the #1 prescribed pill to treat plaque psoriasis. [ned?] it can help you get clearer skin and reduce itching and flaking. with no routine blood tests required. doctors have been prescribing it for nearly a decade. otezla is also approved to treat psoriatic arthritis. don't use otezla if you're allergic to it. serious allergic reactions can happen. otezla may cause severe diarrhea, nausea, or vomiting. some people taking otezla had depression, suicidal thoughts, or weight loss. upper respiratory tract infection and headache may occur. [crowd gasp] ♪♪ with clearer skin, movie night is a groovy night. [ting] ♪♪ live in the moment. ask your doctor about otezla.

nice footwork. live in the moment. man, you're lucky, watching live sports never used to be this easy. now you can stream all your games like it's nothing. yes! [ cheers ] yeah! woho! running up and down that field looks tough. it's a pitch. get way more into what you're into when you stream on the xfinity 10g network.

breaking news to tell you about. an appeals court has issued a temporary stay of the gag ordered on donald trump by federal judge tanya chudkin. >> i see social media, twitter, whatever it's called, going wild thinking this is a big thing. this is not a big thing.

it's an administrative stay. this is not trump winning. all the court is saying we need time to evaluate what we need to do here. while we're reading the papers, we're freezing the status quo, freezing everything in place. not giving the gag order legal effect for this moment. the court says, quote, this should not be construed in any way as a ruling on the merits of trump's motion to relieve the gag order. the court set oral argument for november 20th. it's possible we have to wait until then before the gag order is fully lifted -- gag order is put back in place. i suspect on november 20th that gag order is going back into effect because the number one witness for why donald trump's motion should fail is a guy named donald trump. everything he's done, whenever

it is lifted, generates evidence for why you need the gag order. >> filings that have been made on the part of special counsel jack smith's office enumerate the attacks, the smears, rusty bauers is mentioned and the result and the testimony is that actual threats against their lives, threats of violence and harassment have ensued. in the case of the judge, the case has been made of someone who threatened her life and planned to kill her based on the indictment of that individual. do you have any concerns about what happens in the 17 days between today and the hearing? >> i do. on the other hand trump to the extent he does calculate and think these things through has a choice to make. he can get all his intimidations and attacks in now under the

wire before november 20th. that will generate more evidence for the gag order. or he can be restrained and respectful of the court and its processes to win the gag order motion instead. an administrative stay is not surprising. this is a cautious court of appeals, but it's a fair court of appeals. they'll get to the right results. it might take a few more days. >> do we know anything about the three judges on the court of appeals that will hear the appeal? >> i know them all extremely well. it's not clear they'll hear the

november 20th appeal. they did order the administrative stay today. these are three judges appointed by democratic presidents, to the extent that matters. they're three incredibly smart, well-respected, careful judges. if i ever had a case representing anyone, if i had those three judges, i would feel confident. >> neil, we feel confident when we get breaking news and you're here to make sense of it, for your comments now and the last block, thank you very much. when we come back what republican senator tommy tuberville is saying about the marine commandant who suffered a heart attack while working two jobs due to tuberville's blocking promotions in the military.

(husband) it was a lot... ♪ mhmmm ♪ (vo) this holiday turn any iphone, in any condition, into a new iphone 15 pro with titanium, apple tv 4k, and six months of apple one. all three on us. it's holiday everyday with verizon. at humana, we believe your healthcare should evolve with you, and part of that evolution means choosing the right medicare plan for you. humana can help. with original medicare you're covered for hospital stays and doctor office visits, but you'll have to pay a deductible for each. a medicare supplement plan pays for some or all of your original medicare deductibles, but they may have higher monthly premiums and no prescription drug coverage. humana medicare advantage prescription drug plans include medical coverage, plus prescription drug coverage. and coverage for dental, vision, and hearing, all wrapped up into one convenient plan. plus, there's a cap on your out-of-pocket costs!

humana has large networks of doctors, hospitals and specialists across 49 states. so, call or go online today and get your free decision guide. humana - a more human way to healthcare.

was doing two jobs. >> he's probably got 2,000 people that work for him. as somebody said, he's working 18 hours a day. jack reed blamed me for his heart attack. give me a break. this guy is going to work 18 hours a day no matter what. i did it for years. you got to get the job down. we're not going down that road. >> let's not move past i did

that for years. ostensibly, no disrespect to the sport, as a football coach. that was republican senator tommy tuberville, a man who has never served in the military, much less at the highest levels, claiming the stresses of doing two jobs in the military for 20 hours a day are no different than the job he, quote, did for years, which was the job of a football coach. it's a shocking thing to think, let alone say out loud, particularly since tuberville's hold on military promotions over the pentagon's abortion health care policies is what caused commandant eric smith to hold multiple positions, which he was doing without complaining, until he suffered a heart attack.

now tuberville's republican colleagues have had it with him. yesterday the sate confirmed three nominees. defense secretary lloyd austin said he was pleased the senate confirmed t three officers, but we have more than 370 qualified leaders who have seen their nominations stalled. as we face these challenges, the fighting forces must be at full strength. joining me now host of the independent americans podcast paul reikopf is back. >> hi. we can do a podcast called stupid tommy tuberville. he's extreme. i think he's the most extreme

member of the senate because of how he's pushing his culture war on the military. i've been a football coach. i'm still a football coach. i've been a soldier. the two aren't close. to compare the two doubles down on the insulting nature of what he's doing. i have 8-year-olds who know more about leadership than tommy tuberville. what's happening now is a sign of positivity. we've been talking about who is going to do something about this. tommy tuberville might be the one thing uniting democrats and republicans. lindsey graham is now even looking good compared to tommy tuberville. they're uniting around one thing. maybe that's the silver lining in this we can see republicans and democrats work together. >> i say why -- i see people saying why doesn't the military speak up?

who speaks up for the country? >> i think lloyd austin is and he's very smart. seven former secretaries of defense spoke out. admiral mike mullen who is one of the finest leaders of our time. the former chairman of the joint chiefs has spoken out. the key is moderate republicans who are veterans. all those persons who served in uniform. tuberville is feeling the pressure. he's surrounded by the media, surrounded by his colleagues. they have to keep the pressure on him. we have two aircraft carriers off the coast in the middle east. we have american drones operating over gaza. we have marines at the embassy in israel. we have marines on the ground and they don't have a commandant. they don't have a commandant because he had a heart attack. this man wants to compare being a football coach to being a commandant in the military.

it's stupidity and vintage tommy tuberville. >> just because republicans are now in agreement, some of them, it's still not solved. he still controls this. they don't have a pathway to confirming all the appointees. how does that break? >> with strategy. a lot of folks have been whining on cable news and talking about changing the rules. schumer is talking about that. this is about national security. if we have to change the rules to respond to extremism in the military, we do it. this is a failure of imagination, a failure of strategy. it's on schumer, mcconnell, on the president to find a strategy. he's doing more to damage or national security than anybody else out there with the exception of trump. hamas loves this. putin loves this. this guy is so out of extreme

and out of touch. he wants to drag us back to the 1800s. >> our enemies love this. you're going to stick around. we'll head to the middle east where antony blinken is taking the biden administration's message to israel leaders, telling them, we've got your back, but you have to take steps to secure palestinian civilians in gaza. we'll have a live report next.

when my doctor gave me breztri for my copd things changed for me. breztri gave me better breathing, symptom improvement, and reduced flare-ups. breztri won't replace a rescue inhaler for sudden breathing problems. it is not for asthma. tell your doctor if you have a heart condition or high blood pressure before taking it. don't take breztri more than prescribed. breztri may increase your risk of thrush, pneumonia, and osteoporosis. call your doctor if worsened breathing, chest pain, mouth or tongue swelling, problems urinating, vision changes, or eye pain occur. ask your doctor about breztri. known as a loving parent. vision changes, or eye pain occur. known for lessons that matter. known for lessons that matter. known for being a free spirit. no one wants to be known for cancer, but a treatment can be.

keytruda is known to treat cancer, fda-approved for 16 types of cancer. one of those cancers is advanced nonsquamous, non-small cell lung cancer, where keytruda is approved to be used with certain chemotherapies as your first treatment if you do not have an abnormal "egfr" or "alk" gene. keytruda can cause your immune system to attack healthy parts of your body during or after treatment. this may be severe and lead to death. see your doctor right away if you have cough, shortness of breath, chest pain, diarrhea, severe stomach pain, severe nausea or vomiting, headache, light sensitivity, eye problems, irregular heartbeat, extreme tiredness, constipation, dizziness or fainting, changes in appetite, thirst, or urine, confusion, memory problems, muscle pain or weakness, fever, rash, itching, or flushing. there may be other side effects. tell your doctor about all your medical conditions, including immune system problems, if you've had or plan to have an organ or stem cell transplant, received chest radiation or have a nervous system problem. depending on the type of cancer, keytruda may be used alone or in combination with other treatments,

and is also being studied in hundreds of clinical trials, exploring ways to treat even more types of cancer. it's tru. keytruda from merck. see all the types of cancer keytruda is known for at keytruda.com and ask your doctor if keytruda could be right for you.

we provided israel advice that only the best of friends can offer on how to minimize civilian deaths while achieving its objectives of finding hamas terrorist and their infrastructure of violence. we're absolutely focussed on getting hostages back and getting them back to their families safely and we believe, among other things, a humanitarian pause could help that effort. >> that was some of what u.s. secretary of state antony blinken said he shared -- he described the best of friends, the allies, the israel leaders. the secretary of state standing in solidarity with israel, but how they do that matters, resolve the conflict. he said he discussed the u.s.

push for humanitarian pause as a way blinken argues to protect escalation and to get the flow of aid into gaza and to protect the other foreign nationals bearing the brunt of the war. netanyahu vowed to press ahead with israel's military offensive ruling out a cease-fire with hamas that doesn't include the return of the hostages. joining us is ellison barber at the border. what has today brought for you? >> reporter: it was interesting to hear prime minister netanyahu speak to israeli citizens after meeting with antony blinken. it was a very quick -- he said, i appreciate the visit and went into saying what israel does not plan to do, which was almost everything the secretary of

state said israel should be considering. he said they will not consider a temporary cease-fire unless all israeli hostages are freed. he said they're proceeding with full force and won't be allowing fuel into gaza and will not support funds going into the gaza strip. in a lot of ways it seems the two of them are very far apart publicly. what we've seen tonight on the ground is constant, heavy caliber artillery inside northern gaza here and there. big pockets of flashes in the horizon. not the steady movement we saw around this time last night or a couple hours after. israel's defense forces said they encircle gaza city. netanyahu said they plan to move forward. that's what they're doing on the ground. there was an incident inside gaza where ambulances were targeted. one near the gates of a

hospital, another on a road in western gaza and that was described as a strike on a convoy of ambulances that were taking injured patients towards the rafah border crossing. that's the description from the palestinian red crescent. they say the convoy was targeted by an israeli air strike. the idf acknowledged they carried out a strike on an ambulance, but saying a hamas militant was using the ambulance to store weapons and/or operate out of it. they described that as a mode of working that hamas is using. they claim they'll team that wa conference about 30 minutes before that convoy left the hospital to head towards the rafah border crossing where the director for gaza's ministry of health said this convoy of ambulances was going to be leaving with people and also laid out the routes it planned to take. we're waiting to see if there is

more information that comes from israel, but that's another thing that we are monitoring right now that happened inside of gaza and has raised a lot of eyebrows amongst nonprofit groups, including the international red cross and palestinian red crescent, saying ambulances are never supposed to be targeted but israel says they have other evidence they plan to release later on. >> "new york times" diplomatic correspondent michael crowley. the u.s. secretary of state blinken has i think probably spent almost as much time abroad as stateside since the twist attack on october 7th. to allison's reporting, this seems like the farthest apart the public statements have been so far since the terror attack commenced. your thoughts on that today? >> yeah, he really has been leading the u.s. diplomatic frts in a very intensive way, nicole. and you know, this actually just

as a side note, somebody who travels with him a lot, his trips are very organized. he doesn't improvise. the schedule doesn't change much. reporters often say how some of his predecessors, like john kerry, were much more improvisational, hop on the plane and zoom off. he doesn't do a lot of that. since this october 7th attack, he's done two unplanned trips to the region, improvising his stops, full court press. but as we're seeing today, there are limits to what he can do diplomatically. you know, it was i think a rebuke, a little bit of an embarrassment, honestly, for the american secretary of state to go to israel with a pretty clear ask, and then as soon as he departs, have the prime minister come out and essentially say, you know, thanks for telling us what you think but we're not going to do it, we're not interested in that. and it shows that there's a real challenge here, and i think somewhat of a growing rift on the conduct of this war. not somewhat.

clearly a rift on the conduct of this war between the biden administration and benjamin netanyahu. and it's hard to see how that gets better before it gets worse. >> michael crowley, i want to ask you about something that your paper, your colleagues, reported today. this is in today's "new york times." he aircraft are mg-9 reapers first spott on saturday on flight radar 24. a publicly accessible flight acking website. though pentagon officials said the aircraft have been active in the area since the days after the october 7th surprise attack on israel by hamas. while israel frequently conducts reconnaissance flights over gaza, u.s. defense officials said it was believed to be the first time that u.s. drones have flown missions over gaza." this is just some fascinating reporting, i think, as it remains probably unclear to most americans exactly how we help an al lie in this situation. this is one great piece of

reporting by your colleagues about reconnaissance flights above gaza, looking for hostages. what else do we know? >> that's right, nicole. so we are getting a little more detail. we've also reported that some u.s. special forces commandos are in israel. now, that is not -- what i just mentioned, not about supporting the military operation, but again, remember that among these i believe 200-plus hostages that hamas is believed to be holding, you have a number of americans. so kind of lost in somewhat -- lost in all the chaos here, and the broader combat and conflict, is the fact that there are american citizens being held hostage by hamas. and the biden administration has sent over some assets to try to be at least in a position to assist if there's some opportunity to get the hostages out. it's incredibly difficult situation. the intelligence is very limited. it's not clear that people know

where they are. these drones are part of it. one question is more broadly, is the u.s. supplying israel with intelligence to help inform its targeting and its military operation more generally? i think that's not entirely clear. what we do know right now is the american military is at least providing some sort of indirect support right now in trying to figure out where these hostages are and how they might be rescued. if you have americans who might be rescuable, the question is would any american forces participate in an operation like that? very risky, could severely complicate the situation. but those are some of the issues being debated at the white house and state department right now. >> an extraordinary moment, right? i think michael puts it perfectly, lost in the chaos. so lost in the chaos. sometimes our attention on the innocent civilians, the 1,400 slaughtered brutally on october 7th, the innocent civilians in harm's way inside gaza right now.

michael does an important thing in reminding us that one of the reasons the military is involved is because there are americans among the 238 hostages who remain inside gaza? >> i think this is one of the most underreported parts of this and complicated and precarious. maybe ten american hostages being held by hamas rate now. i'm not surprised there are american drones overhead. we've got american intelligence assets. it's probably one of the top priorities for the president and the secretary of defense is getting those american hostages. >> and the part we'll hear the least about? >> we don't know who they are, we don't see it reported in the news, and that may be security-driven, keep this confidential. the bigger picture is israel has a right and obligation to defend itself. the question is how do they do it? kill bad guys without making more? after 9/11, we had the whole world behind it, then we invaded iraq and we blew it. that's our caution to israel. what you do, how you do it, how

the world sees it. i think that's what biden and blinken are saying behind the scenes right now. >> i think biden was saying on his historic trip, what you just articulated. i think that's part of the connection he's able to make and the credibility he makes. thank you for spending time with us. we'll be right back. the right medicare plan for you. humana can help. with original medicare you're covered for hospital stays and doctor office visits, but you'll have to pay a deductible for each. a medicare supplement plan pays for some or all of your original medicare deductibles, but they may have higher monthly premiums and no prescription drug coverage. humana medicare advantage prescription drug plans include medical coverage, plus prescription drug coverage. and coverage for dental, vision, and hearing, all wrapped up into one convenient plan. plus, there's a cap on

your out-of-pocket costs! humana has large networks of doctors, hospitals and specialists across 49 states. so, call or go online today and get your free decision guide. humana - a more human way to healthcare.

thank you so much for letting us into your homes for another week of shows, we're so grateful. "the beat" with melissa murray in for ari starts right now. welcome to "the beat." melissa murray in for ari melber. it's been a rough