how long these departments keep the footage that is collected in beverly hills. they see they keep it for 13 months, then it is deleted. they have about 50 cameras in the city of beverly hills. they plan to add another 40. there are some 230 cameras throughout california, and some cities are doing away with them because of the controversy trying to map out rules on how departments can use them. >> dana griffin, thank you very much. that is going to do it for me today. "deadline: white house" starts right now. >> i'm ali velshi. the former president continues to moving closer to becoming the

next president. take a look at these headlines. "the atlantic" devoting an entire issue to the subject of a second trump term with the words, "if trump wins." from "the new york times," why a second trump presidency may be more radical than the first. from ""the guardian,"" a second trump term will be far more autocratic than the first, he's telling us. "the washington post," a trump dictatorship is increasingly inevitable. the through line is a warning -- donald trump could transform every institution that comes under the sway of the presidency from the justice department to the federal bureaucracy that makes every government agency tip, to the allianct underpin our foreign pocy. don't assume trump will fall sort of his goals like did so often in his first term. a second-term trump would be different. from "the atlantic, " "i his

first term, corruption and brutality were mitigated by lay v llaziness. in a second term, he woul have more willing enablers in tow and a much more focused agenda against adversaries and impunity for himself. when people wonder what another ump term might hold, their minds underestimate the chaos that would lie ahead." there were signs of pushing throhe election campaign forcing donald trump to address it himself. "the washington post" repor republican polling leader donald trump moved to deflect from the crimin charges he tried to overrnhe 2020 election and to take revenge on his opponents returning to the white house, seeking to warnings that he presents a danger to democracy. his speech on saturday was an effort to turn the table on rising a larms from democrats and some republicans that trump's return to power would

imperil free elections and civil liberties." one of those republicans, former congresswoman liz cheney, her criticism of trump cost her her political career. her work on the committee revealed the depth to which donald trump and his allies worked to overturn the will of the voters. here she is on the "today" show. >> you've said we're sort of sleep walking into dictatorship in the united states. dictatorship. is that what we would have if we reelect donald trump? >> i think it's a very, very real threat and concern. and i don't say any of that lightly. and frankly, it's painful for me as someone who, you know, has spent her whole life in republican politics, who grew up as a republican, to watch what's happening to my party and to watch the extent to which donald trump himself has, you know, basically determined that the only thing that matters is him, his power, his success, and that

is not somebody you can entrust with the power of the presidency. >> that's where we start this hour with the editor in chief of "the atlantic," jeffrey goldberg, the co-founder and executive director at project democracy, ian, and with me at the table, tara palmeri. thanks for being here. jeff, i think you can divide the world into three, our america into three. there's the maga folks who are not subscribing to your magazine. there are republicans, democrats, former republicans, whatever you call it, the people who think that donald trump shouldn't be elected again, many of whom will be watching us right now. then there's the kind of everyone else. and it seems to be that this your edition here is hopefully for that everyone else, who's, you know, playing footsie with lower taxes and less regulation and warning them that what you might get is something entirely different, and you're not guessing at it. you're using donald trump's own words and strateies to make

that determination. >> right. i would disagree with you on one point. i think some of our best readers are probably maga people, but let's put that aside. >> fair enough. >> i think we have some people who vote for trump for this reason or that reason and are committed to that. that's fine. i want them to read this. you're right, there's a small group of people -- we understand about american politics, always a small group of undecideds, people on the fence, who, as you say, think, oh, taxation policies, maybe they're issue-specific people who think the good he'll do outweighs the bad that he'll do. and, yes, that was the -- the point of this issue was -- look, we have a large corps of excellent writers who have been covering different aspects of trump for years now. i asked them a simple question -- based on what you know, what he did, on what he said he will do, what will a second interest rates trump

administration do? the military, abortion politics. but it's more than that. it's about an authoritarian disposition. how does donald trump, who obviously has no respect for the constitution, how does donald trump come back into office and what will he do to undermine the structures and the safety systems that we have built to protect our democracy? so, much of the issue is focused on that. again, as you point out aptly, this stuff isn't secret. he tells us how he feels. it's up to us to listen. so i thought maybe we could put this all together in one place. not that -- you know, it's past thanksgiving, but you still have access to your dispeptic uncle, and maybe someone could hand them this issue and say read this through. it's all fact checked, all

there, all in his own language, and then make your decision. >> that's the hope of all of these discussions. ian, the last time you were on tv, you were with us, you made the point, as jeffrey just did that, whether your biggest issues are immigration or border or climate or taxation or regulation, that's not the issue. the issue of our time is the preservation of democracy. it's not even a uniquely american issue, but it is -- that's the thing you have to vote on regardless of what you want to happen in any of those other areas. >> yeah. we're living through a global recession of democracy where these illiberal authoritarian leaders are coming to power around the world through elections and then dismantling their democratic systems from within. and what we're facing here in the united states, i think, is an imagination problem, and appropriately, in the issue that jeffrey was talking about in "the atlantic" that just came out, david fromme begins his

piece with exactly this point, that we as a nation, and especially key actors in this country, are struggling to imagine what it could look like for our democracy to go away. i will say over the last seven years, i've had numerous conversations with republican elected official where is they view donald trump, and they will tell you this privately, as embarrassing, as corrupt, as incompetent, but they cannot imagine that he could be so dangerous as to dismantle and end the american republican that has existed for the last 246 years. yet, everything we're seeing suggests that's possible. i think "the atlantic" could not get enough praise for the job it's done trying to break through that imagination problem in the last several years. if you look back at what they've written, look what david wrot in march 2017. almost everything he predicted about the direction trump was heading has come to pass.

look at what bart gelman wrote about the crisis that could befall the election in that year. these authors should be correct in the past, and we should take their warnings seriously. >> tara, there are mechanical reasons why this will be different. you're right. donald trump has said all the things he'll do. there's project 2025. but there are ways in which this current trump operation, the world -- trump world as we have it right now, is different from the way things were when he was first president. and that alone will help him to achieve more of his goals if he's re-elected. >> absolutely. when i was covering trump in the first years, it was all about leaks to stop his worst desires. it is not the case anymore. he's got three people at the top, and they are supplicants. they make sure his actions are effectuated. they've done a lot on the campaign trail in terms of just changing the delegate system to work in their favor.

trump is guarded. he's very afraid of even his friends he used to call all the time outside of the white house who would then leak to try to stop things. it's not a gang of rivals anymore. it is trump loyalists, and it will be trump loyalists. they've had all these years to go through the resumes and try to flag anyone who seems like they might in any way defy his orders. we won't get the heads-up when he tries to pull out of nato or tries to round up migrants. that's not the process. journalism, democracy, and -- that's just not going to be a facet because he can do it before we even know. >> jeffery, let me read from this article that you have -- the issue you published in -- one called "loyalists, lap dogs, and cronies. the availab supply of serious qualified people willing to serve in a trump administration has dwindled since 2017.

after all, the so-called adults department fare so wel in their respective room some quit in frustration or disgrace. others were publicly fired by the president. several have spent their post-white house lives fielding congressional subpoenas and getting indicted. even if mainstream republicans did want to work for him again, trump is unlikely to want them. he's made little secret of the fact he felt burned by many in his first cabinet. this time around, he would prioritize obedience over credentials." that's the direction we start to go in. fascism, dictatorship. obedience over credentials. >> right. from his perspective, he made a mistake in his first term, right. he hired the so-called grown-ups -- jim mattis and rex tillerson and jon kelly and so on, right. and as tara notes, they checked his worst impulses, and they figured out how to work around

it and sort of mitigate it. there's no more of that. like, the people around donald trump now are absolute loyalists and they'll be hiring for loyalty above everything else. he doesn't want anybody from the washington establishment. the shame here -- i want to make this point. this is not about conservativism or liberalism or anything. there are plenty of conservatives in washington, in government, who would be able public servants. and i believe, and "the atlantic" believes as a matter of principle, that a healthy democracy has a strong liberal party and a strong conservative party, at least at the very least. this is not about ideology. this is about an authoritarian predisposition. one thing that an authoritarian needs is loyalty above everything else, loyalty above competence, loyalty above

respect for the constitution, respect for law, and respect for norms. and that's what we're talking about now. >> let me continue and keep on pulling that thread. the point you're making is a country of 330 million, there are no shortage of qualified conservatives to work in the administration. but many will not take the risk and go through what tara is talking about, the loyalty tests, and a lot would not be people donald trump in his new world of loyalty and obedience over credentials would want. that's the point. it's a mismatch. it won't happen. not that they're not there. >> right. right. first of all, there are plenty of people who are highly competent who wouldn't do this in a million years. they saw how that process chewed up so mm-mm of their friends and colleagues, right. jon kelly, devoted public servant, marine general, made

the ultimate sacrifice in the son his son was killed in battle as a marine, totally disrespected, man handled by donald trump. but jon kelly kept donald trump from doing some very dangerous things. we've learned in the fullness of time what he did. that's the kind of person donald trump will be looking not to hire, right. and so, even if there is a jon kelly out there who wanted to go in the interest of public service, serving in a second trump term, if there is one, donald trump doesn't want that person. he needs somebody to say "yes" to his worst instincts. >> i want to just carry on with tara, this whole idea of who keeps him in check. to the degree that jeffery says he's got a lot of trump supporters who may read "the atlantic," i don't know that they are in congress at the moment. liz cheney addressed this issue with savannah guthrie on the "today" show. i want to play that, about the members of congress, the

republican members of congress and what they'll do about donald trump. >> the notion that we would be okay i think is naive, because if you look at, for example, the republicans who are in control of congress today, they are collaborate with donald trump. you cannot count on a house of representatives led by somebody like mike johnson to stop this president. you can't count on a senate of josh hollies and mike lees to stop him. >> you're liz cheney. you were previously known as one of the most conservative members of congress. you're the daughter of former vice president dick cheney, and you're saying it would be safer for the country if republicans weren't in control of the house. >> i think what we've seen is you cannot count on this group of republicans to uphold their oath to the constitution. but people need to come together across party lines -- republicans, democrats, independents -- to stand for if constitution. that's why this election is so crucially important. >> liz cheney is probably no less conservative, probably more conservative than she ever was.

she's not changed her ideology on a single thing except for the fact that donald trump is dangerous for this country. >> she's probably more conservative than donald trump, let's be honest. >> correct. >> she's not wrong. there will be no checks and balances. the supreme court is in his favor, so if he wants to put in executive orders with legal challenges, he'll probably be able to get around that, and he won't have the check and balance of congress if it's republican-led, which most likely will happen in the senate, unclear in the house. we'll see. but all of those members are putting their ambitions above all else because, if they defy trump, which they privately do -- i'm a reporter, i hear it all the time, oh, god, he puts us in the worst position, we don't agree with this, what's going to happen, the chaos -- but at the end, they're afraid to defy him because he can sick a challenger on them. it only takes 30% or 40% in any district. >> you saw it with liz cheney.

>> she was destroyed. there was no saving her in wyoming. and she has one of the biggest -- highest names of anyone. he has total control. if you defy him in the congress, he can destroy you. and he has people that will do it. he has a dedicated team that works the ground game to make sure you will not win re-election. so, he's not going to have any checks and balances. plus, he'll have his loyalists around him. if anything, you just look at this campaign, there are really no leaks out of the campaign of dysfunction, infighting, back biting. you're reading more about leaks out of ron desantis' campaign. he's professionalized it. >> liz cheney is going to be on rachel maddow's show tonight, 9:00 eastern, and then tomorrow, liz cheney will be here on this program for a special one-on-one interview in studio, your friend and mine, nicolle wallace, back

for one day only tomorrow interviewing liz cheney. coming up, a hail mary from donald trump's legal team this afternoon in that $250 million civil fraud lawsuit in new york, a desperate effort to avoid that gag order. our nbc news colleague lisa ruben was right there in the hearing. we'll talk to her. then there's rudy giuliani, the subject today of his own legal humiliation. a jury trial starts next week that will determine how much money he has to pay a pair of georgia election workers, ruby freeman and shea moss. how a judge described giuliani's latestmaneuvering, calling it nonsense. and tim alberta on the trump-inspired go for evangelicals.

my daddy's a cowboy, i'm a cowboy and i'm raising a cowgirl. and discovering that my family come from farmers for generations. this life is in our blood. give the gift of family heritage with ancestry.

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 to keep you online. only from xfinity. home of the xfinity 10g network.

we're back with jeffrey goldberg, ian and tara. jeffrey, let me ask you about what does success look like? when you do what you did in "the atlantic," curating something like this, what does its look like for you to succeed? does it look like somebody who is a subscriber to your magazine, passes it to their intractable, you know, relative or friend? what are you hoping happens? >> i mean, like anyone in our business, i'm hoping that we

have produced fair, honest, fact-checked, smart analysis of reality. and we hope, like anyone else, that, when they do that, that people are affected by it. that's all we can do. we're not in politics, right. this is an unusual position for us and a lot of journalists these days, because as i said before, if this was an ordinary conservative running against an ordinary liberal or moderate, that's up to the voters, up to the country. what we're just surprised by, and we've been surprised, obviously, going on eight years now, is that the country is so susceptible to anti-democratic authoritarian-minded

demagoguery, right? i feel very comfortable after analyzing what's gone on the last eight years to say that the man is a demagogue. he doesn't have respect for democracy or the norms of democracy or for the constitution, and so we feel a sense of urgency to make sure that at least everyone knows. you know, it's interesting. you, i'm sure, experience this too. whether you influence people based on the quality of your work or reporting, i don't know how to judge that. what i tell our staff, what i've told our writers, is we want to be able to look at this period and say we did whatever we could do to save the american idea. we think that america is a great and noble experiment. we believe that it is possible to make this a more perfect union. and one way to not make it a more perfect union is to bring in someone as president who has no respect for the founding ideals of the country.

so, if we can just communicate that, i think it's success. >> just because you don't have a likely chance of success doesn't mean you don't try. >> a valid point. ian, there are people who are reminding us a lot that this is not a donald trump thing. this is a global phenomenon. this illiberal thing that's going around the world, donald trump has tapped into it very well, he's uniquely good at it, and he has his own kwishs about it that make it extremely dangerous in the united states. but carry on that discussion. the point is, it's not just donald trump. liz cheney is talking about all the supporters in congress and all over the place. there is an illiberalism going on around the world right now. >> and there's a model for what we're talking about today. so, one of donald trump's favorite politicians around the world is viktor orban. he was the prime minister of hungary from 1998 and he

governed in a reasonably conservative, fairly normal way. he lost his run for re-election. he blamed fraud. and then he spent his years out of power building what he called a central political force field around himself of loyalists and policies and procedures that would allow him, in his own words, to keep himself or his allies in power for 15 to 20 years. he returned to power in 2010 and has not relinquished it since. it was not autocrat 1.0 in hungary that fell to democracy. it was 2.0. and donald trump is following that pattern here. i want to go back to something we were all talking about before the break, tara and jeffrey rr correct. there were a lot of bureaucrats in the first trump administration who did run interference and prevent some pretty bad things from happening. but at the same time, some of those same people and some others also enabled some abuses that were unlike anything we have seen in the modern history of this country, the stuff that

is in the new issue of "the atlantic" warning about what trump would do in a second term, some of it already happened. he fired almost the entire top leadership of the fbi in order to block an investigation to himself. he then this created some way in which both jim commey and andrew mccabe got audited by the irs, a coincidence that's statistically impossible. miitarized forces on the streets of the united states, that happened in his first term. lafayette, portland, and finally what happened on january 6th. the attempt to overturn an election, including by rousing a violent mob to storm the capitol. it's not that the future is scary. it's what he already did and the chains would be off even more the second time. >> tara, viktor orban's idea of a centralized political force field is reporting about a questionnaire, if you want to be

part of this trump project 2025, this new trump world. let me read you some of the stuff they found was on this questionnaire. name one person past or present w.h.o. has most influenced the development of your political philosophy. these are questions being asked of people worng for trump world. name a book that influenced your potical philosophy. an alumnus of the trump white house told us both documents are designed to test the sincerity of someone's maga credentials and determine when you got red pilled or became a true believer. they want to see that you're listening to tucker and not pointing to the reagan revolution or any george w. bush stuff, the person said. the litmus tests are there already. >> basically, if you don't answer trump, you will probably be wielded out. it's absolutely happening. think about how it was in 2016. they didn't think they were

actually going to win the election. chris christie, who's not exactly, you know, the model of trump maga land, was going out there, trying to find people to work for him. right now, they of just had years and lots of money and think tanks working on weeding out and finding people who are not, you know, independent thinkers, who are just going to execute exactly what he wants. they are just that. and there is the question of what is the cabinet going to look like? some of the characters on capitol hill, will matt gaetz be in the cabinet, marjorie taylor green? these are the loyal soldiers they're going through. but think about the people that will be at the top of these agencies. then everyone else might be gutted out if they're able to effectuate their other scheduled -- i think it's called schedule f, gutsing the federal government. it will be a very different

world. >> you see the coke foundation, they're redirecting their money from ron desantis to nikki haley. nikki haley is now barely 30 points behind donald trump. if chris christie drops out, maybe she'll be 27 points behind donald trump or whatever the case is. it's not really closing in on him, but there are conservatives in this country who think there is a different option. i don't know, what do you make of that? is that sensible? does that solve the problem? if you get rid of donald trump, you still have all this trumpy stuff going on. what happens then? >> you know, my focus and the focus of this issue is on the particular threat of trump. nikki haley strikes me in many ways -- and i'm speaking analytically, not as a supporter or detractor -- strikes me analytically as a mainstream conservative republican. i do believe that it's foolish to declare trump's victory

preordained, right. i mean, anything can happen in politics. and before barack obama was a credible candidate for the democratic nomination, he wasn't a credible candidate for the nomination, right. we see this throughout history. there are people who emerge. nikki haley is very good at what she does on the trail, and in ordinary times, you know, she'd be obviously a front-runner or the front-runner. so, i'm not in the camp that says that trump has this locked down because i do believe that there are a lot of people, even in maga world, who would, if they saw the opportunity to get behind someone else -- certainly congress is foiled with people like this -- if they could get behind nikki haley and not be punished for it and not lose their seats because trump maintains so much power over their lives, if they could do it

and get away with it, they would. it's not preordained. the polls are the polls. trump's poll over this party is something in a perverse way to admire. it's quite astonishing. if you're betting, you don't bet on nikki haley, but you do they is a it doesn't -- the future is not -- the future is not determined yet. >> your job wasn't to determine what the polls say. it's to determine what happened if donald trump becomes president again. a job well done. thank you. jeffery goldberg, ian, thanks to you. tara is sticking around. up next, trump's legal team in court this afternoon hoping to appeal again the gag order barring the ex-president from speaking about the judge and his clerk just days before trump's own testimony a week from today. today, it's possible to go from struggle to cholesterol success with leqvio. with a statin, leqvio is proven to lower bad cholesterol by 50%

and keep it low with 2 doses a year. common side effects were injection site reaction, joint pain, and chest cold. ask your doctor about twice-yearly leqvio. lower. longer. leqvio® i've spent centuries evolving with the world. that's the nature of being the economy. observing investors choose assets to balance risk and reward. with one element securing portfolios, time after time. gold. agile and liquid. a proven protector. an ever-evolving enabler of bold decisions. an asset more relevant than ever before. gold. your strategic advantage.

what happened? well, when you opened up the chewy box, you went a bit... ...bonkers. that's one word for it. i guess i blacked out. this is the best squeaky toy ever. probably shouldn't. but we did get you a few more gifts. honey. ooh, there's more. chewy's prices were so great. you don't need to explain yourself, linda. keep on saving. pet's aren't just pets. they're more. well, i hope i got a leaf blower this year. you got a turtleneck. unwrap the excitement with deals up to 40% off at chewy.

breaking news this afternoon. today, a gag order remains in place against donald trump after just last hour the ex-president's lead attorney in the $250 million civil fraud case appeared in new york's appellate court. that attorne sought ergency permission to appeal the decision that reinstated the gag order to the state's highest court. last week an appeals court reinstated the gag order which has been paused since mid-november.

currently, trump and his attorneys cannot make comments about the judge in this caser any members of his staff. in a court filing today, trump attorneys write, ithout expedited review, petitioners will continue to suffer irreparable injury daily as they are silenced on matters implicating the appearance of bias and impropriety on the bench during a trial of immense stakes." joining us outside the courthouse, lisa ruben. tara is back with us. make sense of what just happened for us. >> reporter: today, trump's lawyers came here to the courthouse behind me. this is the first department of the appellate division, the first level of appellate level in the court, and they were seeking to be heard by wednesday on this gag order so that trump can testify this coming monday. he'll be on the sand again, we have been told, on december 11th. he wants to be able to testify

free from the restrictions of that gag order. the gag order that you mentioned doesn't apply to the judge at all but to his personnel. as you know, the primary focus of trump's ire is the judge's principal law clerk, who he has accused of being a partisan hack and whispering in the judge's ear to cast the trial as one of severe partisan bias against donald trump. they walked into the clerk's office this afternoon. they met a woman named lauren, as in bacall, holmes as in sherlock, as she told the press assembled. she's a court attorney who told trump's attorney your motion wasn't framed in the right way, and in any event, we can't get you heard by wednesday. that means the bottom line is that trump will not get relief on this gag order by the time he's supposed to be on the stand. our viewers might wonder, then, what would be the harm of pausing the trial? in order to get that to happen?

they would have to get judge eng ron to that, and chris said that will never happen. the expectation is you have each witness ready after the last one fi finishes. if donald trump is their last witness, they can't fore stall that to issue a further determination on their bid to appeal the gag order. >> here's the thing. for those of us who don't follow it as closely as you do, these gag orders seem to be about disparaging things that donald trump and his team might say about witnesses, court staff, people involved in the case, portland jurors. why is the trump arguing that this is somehow material to donald trump's testimony or what he can say on the stand? why is judge's clerk relevant to

the outcome of this case? >> reporter: the judge's principal law clerk has been a candidate for office in new york. the judge himself is an elected official, an elected supreme court judge here in new york. their argument is that her involvement and partisan politics in new york necessarily makes her a biased actor. and that, coupled with the fact that she sits next to the judge on his bench and has been repeatedly seen either talking to him and undetectable whispers, passing notings, they've accused her of rolling her eyes at them, yelling at them, speaking at them in ways they characterize as disrespectful. that they say makes her biased. team trump would say they're entitled to make a record prior to the appeal and basically memorialize what they see as these biases while the trial is going on.

i'm not sure why it is that during the course of this trial he needs to be able to say that. it would seem to me they've already preserved their objection to that on appeal. they can continue to do that once the appeal starts. but to them, they are characterizing this as a matter of poor political speech. the politics of this i think says everything. this is a core political speech act according to them, and he has a right to defend himself against her political bias for what this is about, appealing to their base and being able to blame what they she eve is is the likely outcome of this trial on someone else, chiefly the judge's principal law clerk. >> this idea of speech is one that comes up in every piece of litigation that donald trump is involved in. the beginning of the indictment, the jack smith indictment, is clear on the fact this isn't a question of freedom of speech, first amendment, donald trump has a right to say whatever he wants to do. but it is important in the way

he portrays this to his followers that this is both a witch-hunt and an imposition on his freedom of expression and things he wants to say. so, this almost feels as political as it does legal. >> it's absolutely political, and he is at war. this is wartime. before he was running for president, when he had roy cohn and his pit bull lawyer, they still did this. they tried to find a reason to, you know, blame the prosecutors and say that they had some sort of axe to grind, you know, trump is the victim. frankly, they're getting after in this case fraud, the idea he's not a real businessman, not what he's worth, he defrauded people. his ethos is about being a billionaire. >> this gets under his skin. this really seems to bother him that the emperor has no clothes. >> exactly. this is what he was for his entire life until he became

president in his 70s. this is getting at him. he is the victim, the biggest victim of all, and he needs to show that. if there's a political tilt -- and there's also that intimidation. that is another facet of his entire legal history. roy cohn, a master of political intimidation. if these people have political ambitions, trump wants to point it out and make it something that this is the biden justice department coming am me, and they'll come after you next. that has long been his message and what he'll continue to push no matter what. >> lisa rubin, thank you, as well, because i would not know how to interpret these headlines without you. even when you're not on tv with me, i'll tell everybody the secret, i know how to find you and you always give me the information i actually need. i'm grateful. lisa rubin outside the courthouse. when we come back, u.s. funding for ukraine could run dry if congress doesn't approve additional emergency aid. we'll look at the likely fight

ahead and the risk it poses to ukraine and its fight for democracy if we don't do anything about it. if you're looking for a medicare supplement insurance plan that's smart now... i'm 65. and really smart later i'm 70-ish. consider an aarp medicare supplement insurance plan from unitedhealthcare. with this type of plan, you'll know upfront about how much your care costs. which makes planning your financial future easier. so call unitedhealthcare today to learn more about the only plans of their kind with the aarp name. and set yourself and your future self up with an aarp medicare supplement plan from unitedhealthcare. as americans,

there's one thing we can all agree on. the promise of our constitution and the hope that liberty and justice is for all people. but here's the truth. attacks on our constitutional rights, yours and mine are greater than they've ever been. the right for all to vote. reproductive rights. the rights of immigrant families. the right to equal justice for black, brown and lgbtq+ folks. the time to act to protect our rights is now. that's why i'm hoping you'll join me today in supporting the american civil liberties union. it's easy to make a difference. just call or go online now and become an aclu guardian of liberty. all it takes is just $19 a month. only $0.63 a day. your monthly support will make you part of the movement to protect the rights of all people, including the fundamental right to vote. states are passing laws that would suppress the right to vote. we are going backwards.

but the aclu can't do this important work without the support of people like you. you can help ensure liberty and justice for all and make sure that every vote is counted. so please call the aclu now or go to my aclu.org and join us. when you use your credit card, you'll receive this special we the people t-shirt and much more. to show you're a part of the movement to protect the rights guaranteed to all of us by the us constitution. we protect everyone's rights, the freedom of religion, the freedom of expression, racial justice, lgbtq rights, the rights of the disabled. we are here for everyone. it is more important than ever to take a stand. so please join us today. because we the people means all the people, including you. so call now or go online to my aclu.org to become a guardian of liberty.

a stark warning today from the white house that unless congress approves additional funds, u.s. support to ukraine year.run out by the end of the in a letter to congressional leaders, the director of the office of management and budget writes, "without congressional action by the end of the year, we will run out ofesources to

procure m weapons and equipment for ukraine and to provide equipment from u.s. military stocks there is no magical pot of funding available to meet this moment. cutting off the flow of u.s. weapons and equipment will kneecap ukraine on the battlefield, not only putting at risk the gains ukraine has made but increasingly the likelihood of russian military victories." senate majority leader chuck schumer has indicated he may bring an emergency aid package with funding for ukraine along with israel and taiwan to the floor this week. but speaker mike johnson and his republican allies are not interested in passing emergency funding without major concessions from democrats on the u.s. southern border. joining us now is retired u.s. army lieutenant colonel alexander vinman, a former director for european affairs at the national security council. colonel, thank you for being with us. it is indicative of the issue, because of the news cycle over the last two months, you and i have not spoken as frequently as

we typically did about ukraine. so, we've got a lot of things going on. there's always fatigue that comes with these things. there are always other priorities. we have a dysfunctional house. we have a war in israel that's taken a great deal of the attention that was otherwise going to ukraine. all of this comes together with ukraine officials saying we're in potential real existential trouble now. >> i think that's very true. i think we need a reframe away from optimistic scenarios, how much territory ukraine can gain to the reality of avoiding a catastrophic outcome in which russia regains the initiative and is on the march seizing more ukrainian territory. that is. picture for 2024. that is the picture for 2024 even if ukraine gets the funding the white house has asked for. the $60 billion will potentially poster ukraine in the best shape to withstand the russian

onslaugtd through 2024. both russian and ukrainian forces have taken punishing losses. but the russian forces are 3 1/2 times the size. the funding that the white house is requesting is just to kind of match the russian output, let alone the reality of not having that funding. that is a recipe for disaster. this is a vote of -- blocking this appropriation is a vote against u.s. security that supp ukraine war is strong. i know this is domestic politics that mike johnson's talking about. but in the end if the ukrainians don't get the arms that they need they could lose, as you say, territory. they could lose the war. does this politics just end at some point and the republicans will do the right thing? >> so in a normal administration you would think there's a game of brinksmanship, that republicans would try to claw as much out of the biden

administration in terms of southern border security. but that's not the kind of world we live in. i think the fact is that there is a burn the house down scenario in which we have already kind of marched in that direction when we didn't pass supplemental funding for ukraine and we let -- we fired a house speaker in the process. we're already down this road of burning down the house. i think we are in a real scenario where ukraine doesn't get additional funding. and that does elicit panic in the white house. from my contacts, it is clear that there is no plan b. there should be a plan b. there are things that we can do. we could actually dip into stores and not replenish what we give to the ukrainians. part of the funding is basically taking the things that we hand off from the old systems to ukraine and then spending more money to replace them. we could continue to hand stuff off to ukraine and take a little bit of risk in our security. but that's not a part of the plan b that the administration is looking for.

so in fact we are in a scenario where ukraine doesn't get additional resources, doesn't get additional budgetary support and it's on its own, and that's a recipe for disaster. 2024 is going to be very, very complex already. russia is hoping what it's got, it's gained some ground, without additional funding could be disastrous. >> lieutenant colonel vindman, people have asked me whether we in the media have taken our eyes off of ukraine, and i will remind them that you have never taken your eyes off of ukraine. thank you for all you are doing and making sure we remain focused on this very, very important conflict. retired united states army lieutenant colonel alexander vindman. thanks for joining us. we'll be right back. back. [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. she found it. the feeling of finding the psoriasis treatment she's been looking for. sotyktu is the first-of-its-kind, once-daily pill for moderate-to-severe plaque psoriasis... for the chance at clear or almost clear skin. it's like the feeling of finding that outfit psoriasis tried to hide from you. or finding your swimsuit is ready for primetime. dad!

once-daily sotyktu is proven to get more people clearer skin than the leading pill. don't take if you're allergic to sotyktu; serious reactions can occur. sotyktu can lower your ability to fight infections including tb. serious infections, cancers including lymphoma, muscle problems, and changes in certain labs have occurred. tell your doctor if you have an infection, liver or kidney problems, high triglycerides, or had a vaccine or plan to. sotyktu is a tyk2 inhibitor. tyk2 is part of the jak family. it's not known if sotyktu has the same risks as jak inhibitors. find what plaque psoriasis has been hiding. ask your dermatologist about sotyktu for clearer skin. so clearly you. sotyktu. okay everyone, our mission is to provide complete, balanced nutrition for strength and energy. yay - woo hoo! ensure, with 27 vitamins and minerals, nutrients for immune health. and ensure complete with 30 grams of protein. (♪♪) hi, my name is damion clark. if you have both medicare and medicaid, i have some really encouraging news that you'll definitely want to hear. depending on the

plans available in your area, you may be eligible to get extra benefits with a humana medicare advantage dual-eligible special needs plan. all of these plans include a healthy options allowance, a monthly allowance to help pay for eligible groceries, utilities, rent, and over-the-counter items. the healthy options allowance is loaded onto a prepaid card each month. and whatever you don't spend, carries over from each month. other benefits on these plans include free rides to and from your medical appointments. and our large networks of doctors, hospitals and pharmacies. so, call the number on your screen now and ask about a humana medicare advantage dual-eligible special needs plan. humana. a more human way to healthcare. kate is going big and going home for the holidays. that's the plan. at michaels she got everything to make cookies that were anything but cutter.

turn ideas into i-did-its. ♪ (holiday music) ♪ 's in video from outside an israeli jewish falafel shop in philadelphia last night called goldie. protesters calling for ceasefire in the middle east blocked traffic and chanted "goldie, goldie, you can't hide. we charge you with genocide." goldie is one of the several restaurants owned by the famed philadelphia chef michael solomonov, who has long been an advocate of peace and understanding globally and especially through his food. a local jewish business owner with no ties to or influence over the policies of the government of israel. in fact, when i arrived in israel to cover the current war on october the 8th one of the first messages on my phone when i landed was from michael asking how he could be of service to me

in my assignment. pennsylvania governor josh shapiro posted this to social media. "tonight in philly we saw a blatant act of antisemitism, not a peaceful protest. a restaurant was targeted and mobbed because its owner is jewish and israeli. this hate and bigotry is reminiscent of a dark time in history." we'll continue to monitor this and other instances of hate for you. we'll be right back. and when we -- l be right back. and when we -- hi! need new glasses? get more from your benefits at visionworks. how can you see me squinting? i can't! i'm just telling everyone! ...hey! use your vision benefits before they expire. visionworks. see the difference. ♪i'm hearing different ways for me to screen for colon cancer.♪ ♪it's time to use my voice,♪ ♪i've got a choice, more than one answer.♪ ♪i sat down with my doc.♪

we had a talk. ♪knew just what to say.♪ ♪i asked for cologuard and did it my way.♪ cologuard is a one-of-a kind way to screen for colon cancer that's effective and non-invasive. it's for people 45 plus at average risk, not high risk. false positive and negative results may occur. ask your provider for cologuard. ♪i did it my way!♪ this is a clustomer. it happens when marketers group all their customers together. mailchimp uses real-time behavior data so you can personalize email for every customer. turn clustomers into customers, with intuit mailchimp.

your shipping manager left to “find themself.” leaving you lost. you need to hire. i need indeed. indeed you do. indeed instant match instantly delivers quality candidates matching your job description. visit indeed.com/hire

are you convinced that you will be convicted of something in all of this? >> he's going to be convicted this spring in washington. on the january 6th stuff.

and the thing that convinced me was mark meadows getting a deal. listen, i was around the white house during that period of time. mark meadows was velcroed to donald trump's hip. he was with him every minute of the day. he knows everything that was discussed. >> hi again, everyone. it's 5:00 in new york. i'm ali velshi in for nicolle wallace with the first of trump's four criminal indictments, the election subversion case, headed to trial in just a few months donald trump has tried everything he can to shut that case down. on friday night the judge in that case, judge tanya chutkan, took a hammer to trump's attempts to dismiss the case. first off on trump's claim of presidential immunity chutkan wrote, "whatever immunities a sitting president may enjoy, the united states has only one chief executive at a time and that position does not confer a lifelong get out of jail free pass. defendant's four-year service as commander in chief did not bestow upon him the divine right of kings to evade the criminal accountability that governs his

fellow citizens." an historic moment for the rule of law as the "washington post" notes. a former president has never been charged with a crime before, so chutkan was the first federal judge confronted with the question of whether trump had any immunity from criminal rather than civil liability, end quote. judge chutkan also roundly objected to trump's double jeopardy claim, where he argued that he could not be prosecuted for the crime since he had been acquitted of it by congress, citing the impeachment judgment clause of the constitution. to that chutkan wrote, "the defendant's interpretation of the clause collapses under the application of common sense." in addition to being scathing, judge chutkan's rejections are significant because of what they mean for timing. trump's attorneys are now expected to appeal the ruling, a move that could potentially delay the scheduled trial start date of march the 4th. constitutional scholar laurence tribe spoke to the "post" and

did not seem concerned about the trial's timing. he said that chutkan's ruling, quote, shattered the last hope of the former president for avoiding the fate of running for the presidency a a conct felon, a position in which much of his current support in the polls is bound to dissolve, end quote. that's where we start this hour with former top official at the department of justice andrew weissmann, former acting attorney -- assistant attorney general for national security at the u.s. department of justice mary mccord, and former congressman from florida, msnbc political analyst david jolly. good afternoon to all three of you. thank you for being with us. mary, let's start with you. judge chutkan's ruling, 48 pages long, relatively easy read. people tend to avoid these legal rulings because they're legalese, but she was very, very direct. she drew on the constitution. she drew on precedent. she wanted to make it very clear that there's not a whole lot of room for movement here. you're asking for a few things and they're not valid.

>> i think that's right. it really reads like she has like -- it emphasized to the world her commitment to rule of law and democracy and why presidents and former presidents have to be committed to the rule of law as well. and i think in terms of the read and what she based this on, she first looks at text of the constitution, says there is no immunity explicit in the text of the constitution for a president. contrast that, for example, to the speech or debate clause, which does provide immunity to members of congress for legislative activity. so nothing in the text. she looks at the structure of our constitutional system and says far different from civil liability, where the pressure of potential vexatious litigation once you're no longer president in a civil context, for money damages and things like that, whereas that might accord a president, a former president some liability for acts taken

within the outer perimeter of their official duties as president, that doesn't apply to criminal cases because we -- there shouldn't be a question for a president should i commit a crime or not commit a crime. you just don't commit crimes. so structurally we don't need to provide this protection. and historically it's always been assumed that presidents could face criminal responsibility. she looked back to watergate, when post-watergate president ford pardoned president nixon for all crimes that he may have committed and president nixon, former president nixon accepted that pardon. so her opinion is very well grounded in law and also just really is filled with quotable moments looking at our history and looking at the importance of the rule of law. >> andrew weissmann, your thoughts. you've had a couple days to digest it. >> well, i totally agree with my podcast co-host, mary mccord. and what i would say is if you step back and think about what

judges are doing, whether it is judge chutkan, whether it's the former chief judge beryl howell, who gave a speech last week about the importance of facts and fact finding and not being a conspiracy theorist and the importance of facts in courtroom proceedings, whether you look at judge engoron and the appellate court in new york upholding the gag order on former president trump, you see courts really stepping up in a way that they really have to if we are going to be a nation of laws and where somebody because of their prior position in government is not accorded any more or less weight than anybody else in the court system. obviously, they're going to be under attack from donald trump and his allies, but it's really heartening to see all of these

judges abiding by their oaths of office in these decisions that have come down in the last week or so. >> david, one of the things -- mary's right. it's full of quotable stuff. judge chutkan's ruling. i think she knows this is without precedent and people are going to be referring to it and people will refer to it subsequently in legal settings and otherwise. but she quotes from 1947 opinion from the former supreme court justice frankfurter in which he says, "if one m can be allowed to determine for himself what is law, every man can. that means first chaos, then tyranny." which seems to be kind of the point for donald trump. he seemed to have been otherwise missing the point that he does think he's that man who can decide what the law is. >> yeah, ali. ultimately, that's the underlying danger of donald trump, someone who sees himself as above the law and in this case has made that argument

explicit. it's kind of the ultimate nixonian defense, that if i did it i can't be held liable. i am nowhere near the attorney that mary and andrew are, but i would say this. this is one of those arguments in cases that interweaves perfectly with donald trump's political interest as well, and it's because of this. we always know that donald trump likes to use time and delay on his side in any legal matter. in this case this could require a ruling of the d.c. circuit and the supreme court itself, and it continues to push donald trump further toward the nomination. and that's where his political interests align as well because right now everything's working for him despite the jeopardy he faces. he's going to win the republican nomination. he's polling with or ahead of joe biden. and so the current court posture, legal posture is working for donald trump. he doesn't want to go to trial and disrupt his political fortunes. and in this case the legal argument works just as well. what happens if donald trump secures enough delegates by

early march but the convention's not till august. you could see him making the case that hey, i am the de facto nominee now, so are there different rules that apply? what if he can push it to august, where he secures the nomination? now do the courts say maybe we do have to let him run? this is where the court's posture, and i defer to mary and andrew, they have an opportunity to move quickly in this matter, but his legal exposure in this one case, this nixonian argument, lines up perfectly with donald trump's political interest in this moment as well. >> so you've hit on a few things we should examine with mary and andrew. mary, let's talk about georgia. in fulton county steve sadow, trump's lawyer, had this discussion with the judge scott mcafee. mcafee has not issued a ruling on this but it's got to do with timing. sadow says as this thing gets closer to the nomination and donald trump may be the presumptive republican nominee, that i be as early as march, super tuesday, sadow says, "can you imagine anything more an act

of election interference than a presidential candidate who has to interfere with his campaigning to appear in a court?" so then mcafee the judge says, all right, if this doesn't go to trial before the election and donald trump becomes the president, can he be tried then? the lawyer says he doesn't think so. so then mcafee says, so basically the first time that donald trump could be tried under donald trump's lawyer's supposition if he were to become the republican nominee and become president is january 20th, 2029. >> yeah. that's exactly the argument. i mean, you completely summarized it. don't try me now, don't try me then, don't try me ever really. and in terms of sort of the constitution, though, i think there is a pretty serious question about whether a sitting president could be subject to state prosecution. i think that's not been answered but there are a lot of arguments were separations of power and

other arguments would apply there. but that's a completely separate argument. that's sort of a temporary immunity while someone is president. that's completely separate from this notion that because donald trump while under investigation decided to announce his candidacy for president that everything needs to halt months and months and months before that so that he couldn't -- you know, so that any prosecution doesn't interfere with his election campaign. and so that's something that he's in part brought on himself. he's the one who is alleged to have committed these crimes. a grand jury in multiple cases, federal and state, have found probable cause to believe that he committed these crimes. these cases are moving apace. the fact that he is continuing to be a candidate really should not impact these cases. it is not election interference. it is actually just the application of the rule of law in the united states according to our procedures and our

processes and to give everyone equal treatment under the law. >> andrew, let's talk about the timing on this thing. you heard from chris christie. you heard from laurence tribe. they're not concerned that this will go on too long. but there is some discussion that there are various potentially valid roads for delay in the federal -- in the jack smith case. and that march may not be a start date for them. i think august is the start date that fani willis is looking at. but that might be a little bit earlier. tell me about the timing and what your evaluation is of those who say donald trump's going to trial maybe as early as spring. >>'s in the way i look at it. there is a march 4th trial date. judge chutkan is clearly sticking to that date. she has said that loud and clear. so up to her, that is the day it's starting. in fact, she's starting jury selection, that process is beginning in january. so that is moving ahead. however, the presidential

immunity argument that was decided on friday that mary outlined, that is definitely going to be appealed. the former president has two weeks -- i believe about two weeks from the date of the decision to file that appeal. i'm sure the government's going to ask for an expedited review. i don't think the d.c. circuit is going to be the issue because of the decision it issued on friday as well. so i think it won't be presidential immunity in some fashion that's going to deter or delay that trial. but everyone needs to keep their eye on the supreme court because regardless of what the district of columbia's circuit court does, that's the court of appeals, donald trump will try to go to the supreme court. that's the ball of wax. everything is about whether the supreme court will grant a stay of that march 4th trial date. and that's what i'm looking at. i agree with chris christie for

different reasons that if that trial goes the proof is overwhelming and that donald trump really has an uphill battle if the trial goes. but think that the date is one that is really going to be in the hands of the supreme court. if they take the issue of presidential immunity and don't act on it quickly. it is imperative that they act quickly. there's an old aphorism in the law which is justice delayed is justice denied. it was said in the civil rights context. it is really true in this context. >> david jolly, let's talk about the politics of this whole thing because there are hon some people who say for those of us relying on the justice system and the courts to fix this in a timely manner so that donald trump doesn't become the president of the united states again we may actually need to rely more on the political process. although i don't -- i look around me and i don't know where that political process is. liz cheney speaking to the "today" show earlier today, she'll be speaking to rachel tonight, she'll be speaking to nicolle right here on this show

tomorrow night, she's making the case that there should be a political solution to this but there isn't one or there hasn't been one so far. >> yeah. it's a great insight, ali. look, i think for people who are relying on the courts to prevent donald trump from running for president or even getting elected you can't rely on the courts to do that. again, any conviction would also include an appeal. sentencing would not happen before the election next november. and so the courts are not going to prevent donald trump from standing for re-election. what will happen, though, is the court's judgment should be able to inform voters as they decide who will become president. does it matter to the american voter that donald trump has been convicted? republicans might tell you yes, it does because that was a wrong that we want to make right by re-electing donald trump. but i think what we learned in '18 and '20 and '22, the whole ethos of trumpism, of suggesting that i'm above the law, i'm above the institutions, that other people have to subscribe to but i don't, to put that

under a magnifying glass just before the election, i think it makes the political question very clear for the american voter next november. donald trump simply cannot be the person to carry forward american ideals on the world stage. >> for whom, though, david? in the last hour we were talking about that remarkable "atlantic" issue that's been put out about all the things that will happen if donald trump gets elected. and the way we know what will happen if donald trump gets elected again is because he told us. he tells us all the time what's going to happen. so who is left to be convinced of the reality of which you speak? the fact is the courts are causing donald trump and his people to say out loud a bunch of things about how he feels he has certain rights that he doesn't have according to the constitution or the laws of this country or the various states. who's moved by that in your opinion? >> yeah. look, in raw math, ali, you're talking about 4% to 6% of the country probably. but it's the 4 to 6% that swung

heavily toward democrats in '18, elected joe biden and prevented the red wave in '22. that is a group of voters we weren't sure would be there in 2022 but they were. we knew they'd be there in '18. we didn't know whether they'd show up in '20 and '22. and it's those voters who say trumpism is a little too much. i think the challenge in the moment is we have learned many americans are okay with the erosion of democracy if they feel like they are on the winning side of it. if their political loyalty to donald trump or republicans benefits them, they're okay with the erosion of democracy. but that number is less than 50%. at least it has been in past elections. >> you bring up a point that's valid all across the world. lots of people are okay with the erosion of democracy as long as they're on the right side of it. all of you, please stick around. i want to continue this important discussion. when we return, more legal losses for team trump. this time it's his one-time lawyer, former new york city mayor, america's mayor, rudy giuliani. sharply rebuked by a judge for a

claim that the judge called simply nonsense. we'll explain after the break. plus an in-depth look at how many of this country's christian evangelicals are increasingly embracing right-wing extremism. in his new book the journalist tim alberta asks tough questions of devout christians and why they could be -- why they could be enthralled by someone with donald trump's proclivities. he'll join us on set later in the hour. also, u.s. warships in the middle east firing back after a growing number of attacks by iran-backed militants in yemen. how the pentagon is working to neutralize the threat and not get pulled into a wider war. "deadline: white house" continues after a quick break. don't go anywhere. k break. don't go anywhere. ok, someone just did laundry... no, i add downy light so the freshness really lasts. yeah, most scented stuff gives me a headache, but this is just right. and i don't like anything. but i like this. get a light scent that lasts with no heavy perfumes or dyes. ( ♪ ♪ ) ian will find the true meaning of the holiday sweater.

i will? because he went to michaels and got everything he needed to make a one of a kind crewneck you could never get off the rack. turn ideas into i-did-its. ♪ (holiday music) ♪ i'm sarah escherich, i'm the life enrichment director at independence village, the senior living community in waukee, iowa. everybody here really, really make you feel like family and that they love you. our goal with tiktok was to enrich the lives of our residents and just to be able to show people what senior living can be like. i think i am a tiktok grandma. my kids think i am. i mean, we're the ones that are being entertained. time goes faster when you're having fun.

you're probably not easily persuaded to switch i m mobile providerses that for your business.ed. but what if we told you it's possible that comcast business mobile can save you up to 75% a year on your wireless bill versus the big three carriers? it's true. plus when you buy your first line of mobile, you get a second line free. there are no term contracts or line activation fees.

and you can bring your own device. oh, and all on the most reliable 5g mobile network nationwide. wireless that works for you. it's not just possible, it's happening.

another scathing ruling for rudy giuliani one week before his trial over harassment and death threats caused by his election lies. late yesterday a federal jud ruled a jury will in fact determine what giuliani owes former georgia election workers ruby freeman and shaye moss, whom giuliani was already found liable of defaming and of intentional infliction of emotional distress as well as of civil conspiracy. it was a rejection of what judge beryl howell called giuliani's, quote, significantly tardy request for a bench trial. partly because of giuliani's delay tactics and what judge howell previously called giuliani's purposeful, quote, shirking of his discovery obligations, end quote, one of his latest arguments to dodge a jury that howell called simply nonsense. we're back with andrew, mary and david.

andrew, tell me what all that legal talk means. >> what it means is one week from today shaye moss, ruby freeman have a trial on damages in connection with what rudy giuliani has been found liable for in defaming them. that trial has been scheduled for quite some time, and belatedly, past the due date for making motions, rudy giuliani said, oh, wait, i want this case to not be heard by a jury, i'd like the judge to decide it. and so this very technical issue came up about whether in this circumstance you're entitled to a jury trial or not. and what beryl howell did in addition to pointing out just how many ways that rudy giuliani has violated discovery, has had to be sanctioned and now violated the rules with respect to just when you're supposed to file motions, it said you know,

one, this is incredibly untimely. like you should have filed this on time. it can be denied for that reason. and second, i don't really have to reach the issue of writing on a clean slate whether you'd be entitled to have this heard by the judge and not by a jury because i'm entitled as the judge to say i would like a jury to just advise me and to let them make a decision and i can always decide whether i'm going to follow it or not. so she rightly, i think, was pretty scathing about somebody who has flouted basically every rule in this case, and she's adamant that she is going to have this trial and that these two plaintiffs are going to have their day in court and a jury will decide what the damages are including punitive damages with respect to the former mayor of the city of new york. >> mary, what's the difference? as andrew said, this is to determine damages.

his culpability has been determined in this particular case. why does it matter that it's a jury trial versus a bench? >> well, certainly the plaintiffs here requested a jury trial at the outset, and that's always a prerogative of a plaintiff. as judge howell says in her opinion, now that there's been a default judgment on liability and all we're arguing about is the amount of damages, that that constitutional right to a jury trial might not still exist. but as andrew said, in her own inherent authority as a judge she can go ahead and have this be a jury trial. and what i think it means as a practical matter is we're going to be talking about a jury of, you know, the citizens of the district of columbia listening to what happened -- i mean, shaye moss and ruby freeman have through their attorneys prepared a case for the jury, and that's one reason that the judge thought they'd be prejudiced if they didn't get a chance to present that case. and those are the people who

will decide not only what is the proper amount of compensatory damages to compensate them for injuries they've suffered, that can be things like having to get extra security at their homes, things like the mental and emotional toll that being the subject of all of these threats of violence has taken on them, but also that a jury will decide the amount of punitive damages if any. and punitive damage are exactly what the name says. they are punishment damages. and i think the judge here in this case feels like this is a decision, this kind of -- these kind of damages, particularly punitive damages, that should be rendered by a jury. and i think for the plaintiffs that means there's going to be a number of their peers looking at mr. giuliani's conduct and putting a number on it, a price tag on it. now, i don't -- it's a little bit surprising to me that rudy giuliani would even move to have a judge trial because i think he probably feels like this judge is somebody who's already got

some animosity toward him based on what's happened so far. i mean, i don't mean animosity like unfair animosity, but somebody he's lost in front of. but he clearly did a little bit of an assessment thought hmm, i might be better off with her deciding the number than a jury. >> david jolly, earlier in the show we were talking about what the world looks like under donald trump, right? if he gets elected again. and again, we don't actually have to -- "the atlantic's" done a nice job of digging into it but we don't actually have to do so much digging into it because he tells us all the time. but this would be a chapter. right? if someone were to say what would it look like? what rudy giuliani did to these two women is amazing from a political perspective. of the georgia indictment it's some of the most interesting reading. i mean, he victimized people in pursuit of a political lie. and that is a world that we might be looking at if justice is not served on people who think this is okay to do.

>> that's a great point. i mean, this paints a real picture of actionable fraud by the former mayor, which was part and parcel to the january 6th conspiracy. and so you know, when you see a charge, when particularly a non-lawyer sees a charge of an attempt to defraud the american people over the election, what does that really mean? i kind of get it, i don't. this was an attempt to disparage two people, to say they cheated, they hid ballots, they tried to steal ballots, and i know they did and so we're going to report them. and people understand that. this is actionable fraud. and i think what is fascinating with this, the flip side of what this means in the trump era is for everything the trump team including giuliani has done to try to denigrate the courts tear down the institutions, this is the institution firing back. and yes, it's civil and it's not criminal, but it's similar to what we're seeing in trump's new york fraud case. this is rudy giuliani having said i don't have to worry about this, i'm not going to worry about it, i'm not going to attend the filing deadlines, i

don't have to deal with any of this. and the court saying oh, mayor, yes, you do. stick around and find out what's about to happen. this should give people some reassurance that donald trump's cases will also be held to a similar account. >> andrew weissmann, though it is a civil trial, it has importance well beyond whatever the damages end up being. i want to just play a little of what ruby freeman said to congress on june 21st, 2022. >> i've lost my name and i've lost my reputation. i've lost my sense of security. all because a group of people starting with number 45 and his ally rudy giuliani decided to scapegoat me and my daughter, shaye, to push their own lies about how the presidential election was stolen. >> andrew, the bigger part of the story is that these are the

people upon whom our free and fair elections are built. people like ruby freeman and shaye. they were intimidated. they were actually threatened. and all across this country we hear stories about people like them. it wasn't rudy giuliani doing it, but they are threatened and they are leaving the process. if we want robust democracy we need the players in that democracy, the people who volunteer their time or work for very little money to administer elections to feel safe in the process. >> absolutely. that's true of election workers. it's true of judicial officers. it's true of prosecutors. it's true of journalists. all of the people who could stand in the way of unchecked, unfettered power. two quick points it is worth making sure people understand that the attacks on shaye moss and ruby freeman were not just veiled but they were so racist

in the way that they were targeted by rudy giuliani, and i suspect we're going to hear a lot more about that next week when the trial is undertaken. the second point i'd quickly like to make is it's important to remember why rudy giuliani was found liable and sanctioned twice by beryl howell, and that is he did not turn over discovery. in a civil case both sides have to turn over relevant documents to each other. and it is plain from judge howell's decision that rudy giuliani is hiding something because he just -- the reason he has been in contempt of court and has been repeatedly sanctioned is he has not turned over discovery as to what happened and the documents that he has, and that is why he is now in this position where liability is found against him and the jury is going to be told that their presumption that they

have to impose on him and in favor of the plaintiffs in this case because of his contemptuous conduct. >> thank you to all three of you. i appreciate your time. andrew weissmann, mary mccord and david jolly. thanks for being with us this afternoon. and in their latest episode, by the way, of the podcast "prosecuting donald trump," msnbc legal analysts andrew weissmann and mary mccord break down what the former president's thanksgiving rant could mean as judges in new york and d.c. decide whether to reinstate his gag orders. scan the qr code on your screen to listen now. all right. ahead for us, journalist tim alberta will join us here at the table. his new book is called "the kingdom the power and the glory," and it examines a critical question, why so many evangelical christians in this country seemingly reject the tenets of their faith to embrace someone like donald trump. tim alberta will try to make sense of that after a short break. sense of that after a short break. know your glucose level and where it's headed without fingersticks.

manage your diabetes with more confidence and lower your a1c. it's covered by medicare for those who qualify. ask your doctor about the freestyle libre 2 system. when i was diagnosed with h-i-v, i didn't know who i would be. but here i am... being me. keep being you... and ask your healthcare provider about the number one prescribed h-i-v treatment, biktarvy. biktarvy is a complete, one-pill, once-a-day treatment used for h-i-v in many people whether you're 18 or 80. with one small pill, biktarvy fights h-i-v to help you get to undetectable—and stay there whether you're just starting or replacing your current treatment. research shows that taking h-i-v treatment as prescribed and getting to and staying undetectable prevents transmitting h-i-v through sex. serious side effects can occur, including kidney problems and kidney failure. rare, life-threatening side effects include a buildup of lactic acid and liver problems. do not take biktarvy if you take dofetilide or rifampin. tell your healthcare provider about all the medicines and supplements you take, if you are pregnant or breastfeeding, or if you have kidney or liver problems, including hepatitis. if you have hepatitis b do not stop taking biktarvy

without talking to your healthcare provider. common side effects were diarrhea, nausea, and headache. no matter where life takes you, biktarvy can go with you. talk to your healthcare provider today. what causes a curve down there? who can treat this? stop typing, and start talking. it could be a medical condition called peyronie's disease, or pd. you're not alone, there is hope. find a specialized urologist who can diagnose and treat pd. visit makeapdplan.com today.

christianity is under tremendous siege. we are getting less and less and less powerful in terms of a religion and in terms of a force. if i'm there, you're going to have plenty of power. you don't need anybody else. you're going to have somebody representing you very, very well. remember that. >> you have to wonder if the use of "we" there was ironic. that was donald trump courting the evangelical vote during the 2016 election. and it worked. the man who had been married three times, who had an affair with a porn star, who owned

casinos and promoted gambling was credibly accused of sexual assault by at least 25 women and bragged about it on tape was embraced first begrudgingly and then pretty enthusiastically by christian evangelicals. it's a phenomenon that the journalist tim alberta explores in his new book "the kingdom, the power and the glory: american evangelicals in an age of extremism." alberta writes this, quote, a relationship that was once nakedly transactional, christians trading their support sans enthusiasm in return for specific policies, had morphed into something else entirely. trump was no longer the lesse of two evils, a grin and bear it alternative to four years of president hillary clinton and three pro-choice supreme court justices. polling showed that born-aga christian conservatives, once the president's softest backers, were now his most unflinching advocates. why? well, with the answer perhaps joining us now staff writer for "the atlantic" and author of the new book "the kingdom, the power

and the glory: american evangelicals in the age of extremism." tim alberta. tim, great to have you here. thank you so much. great reporting. thanks to your colleagues at "the atlantic" for the great edition that they've just put out. you end that -- we end that passage with why. because everybody gets the transactional part. everybody gets the hold your nose, vote for trump, he'll get supreme court justices, he'll get roe overturned, and he'll do things that are in keeping with our goals. >> yeah. >> but then what happened? what changed? >> yeah. well, listen, i think this is the million-dollar question for a lot of folks. and the simplest explanation i can give, you heard donald trump give voice to it in that opening clip. when he says that christianity is under siege in this country and i will give you power if you vote for me. it's difficult to appreciate if you did not grow up steeped in the evangelical tradition, this idea that has been percolating for decades inside the church, particularly inside the white evangelical church, that

christianity will sooner or later be in the crosshairs in america, that the church will be persecuted, that christians will be sort of banished from public life. and really over the last five to six years between covid-19, between obviously trump's election and then re-election in january 6th, what we've seen is almost an apocalyptic sense take hold within the church where it was once yes, we're giving you our votes in exchange for these policies, it's now become this thing where a lot of christians truly do believe that it's no longer r versus d, red versus blue, republican versus democrat, this is good versus evil, that this is a spiritual war and that trump despite not sharing any of their core values or reading their same book or praying their same prayers that he is their protector, he is almost their mercenary who can keep them safe from the outside world. >> and he's used -- he started to in his speeches in the last six months or so use that kind

of language. now, some of us who study this will say that that's the language of autocrats and dictators and authoritarians. but some of it's evangelical. some of it's literal savior-type language, which if you're a savior i suppose you can use. but how does he convince people that whatever you think your -- the threat that faces you is i am somehow the avenger, the protector? >> you know, you're right. in diagnosing where this language really comes from. and i think some of the genius if you want to call it that of trump's approach to these particular voters is sort of marrying the authoritarian with the messianic. >> yes. >> and merging the two together. and effectively saying listen, as many christians believe that this country has a divine conception, that it is a uniquely blessed country, that to some degree almost this country is in covenant with god, and so what trump has really effectively persuaded these

folks to believe is that an attack on america is an attack on god. and more specifically i would even say that an attack on christian america, an attack on the idyllic judeo-christian america of their youth, the america that they believe is meant to be, that is meant to endure, that any attack on that is actually an attack on god himself. so when you begin to think that way, you begin to process everyday partisan political disputes through that process, through that lens of existential good versus evil, these stakes that are so high when i would just emphasize this, that if you are a follower of jesus christ you are taught to believe that the battle is already won, that there is nothing that could happen on this earth to jeopardize the kingdom of heaven to which you are ultimately called to be a citizen. so this national idolatry that has infected the evangelical church is a grave danger to not just our pluralistic society but

to the church itself. >> so let me ask you this. because in fundamentalist countries, in religious environments secularism is always thought of as the abiding threat. right? the absence of the book, the absence of religious law. what's the threat that people feel is coming to judeo-christian america? is it secularism? is it immigration? is it the other -- what is the thing that donald trump is in theory protecting you from? >> yeah, well, look, i think you have to view the external threat but then also the internal threat, and that's where the last several years have been very revealing. first the external threat is sort of the same as it was 50 years ago when jerry falwell sr. was building out his moral majority and you saw the televangelist crusades and a lot of this talk around you know, the schools being corrupted and indoctrinating children. obviously, all that's old is new again. that is the same rhetoric we hear today. you hear about the government coming for the churches, which by the way during covid-19 when blue state governors were

issuing shutdown orders, that was like a prophecy being fulfilled for a lot of these folks saying see, we told you, we've been telling you for decades this was happening. i also think, though, we have to appreciate the internal threat or the perceived internal threat. and what i mean by that is you might ask the question why is it that when donald trump rips mike pence in front of an audience of thousands of evangelical christians that they're going wild cheering trump and jeering, booing mike pence? i thought these were mike pence's people. the internal threat now, and you hear this from evangelical figureheads around the country who are happening into this, this grievance and this fear, it's that people like mike pence are no longer sufficiently tough. they're not militant enough. they're not willing to fight for christianity in the way that trump is willing to fight for christianity, so that internal threat that is now the subject of so much ridicule and mocking and scorn from some of those movement figures, it is basically rooted in this idea that if pastors are unwilling to

turn their pulpits into like fox news soapbox then they are not willing to really fight to defend their faith. and again, that divide inside the church has fractured congregations all across the country. and it's not showing any sign of letting up. >> mike pence, the guy who gave voters, evangelical voters the cover to vote for donald trump, never made it past 3%. i want to read from your book about trump being turned into a christ-like figure. a "new york times"/siena poll of the republican primary said 76% of white evangelicals believed trump had not committed any serious crime. according to a marist survey 81% of evangelicals had a favorable impression of trump. the exhaustion votersed expressed in the beginning of the year had vanished. the greater trump's criminal difficulties the greater his support from evangelical christians. i want to ask you about this because we're talking a lot about donald trump's legal woes, which he describes in two ways. to the non-religious groups he talks about it as an imposition

on his first amendment rights. he was just talking about how he lost the election. but to others it's a persecution. sometimes he uses the term witch hunt. but to others he really uses the term "i'm the most persecuted person in america." is he appealing to this crowd? >> absolutely. and when you think about donald trump using that language, when you think about the 91 indictments. right? people need to understand that trump is not succeeding in retaining his support among evangelicals in spite of the 91 indictments. he's succeeding because of that. this plays directly into the persecution complex that we've been talking about throughout this conversation. i think it's really important to recognize that donald trump was actually losing a lot of his support among those evangelical voters in the aftermath of the 2020 election. and as soon as alvin bragg delivered that first indictment we've watched it. it's just correlation causation. the numbers have gone right back up. and trump has even gone beyond the persecution language. it's martyrdom language.

>> yes. >> he has said basically, look, they've got to take me out first in order to get to you. and that language, i mean, we just can't stress this enough, it's dangerous. it's dangerous and it's so incredibly damaging to -- ultimately to the witness of jesus christ because when you talk about, well, what is an evangelical christian? there is a verb in there. it is to evangelize. and we as christians can't do that when those who don't know him, they hear the word evangelical and they just run for the hills because they think that we are hypocrites and opportunists and that we only wield our faith as a weapon to win the culture war. >> you say we. your father was an evangelical preacher. >> he was. >> you grew up in an environment -- is this foreign to you? >> no. so any dad was an evangelical minister. i was raised literally physically inside the church. my mother was on the staff of our church as well. and i have been walking with jesus my entire life.

i think the difference here, the divergence if you will, is as i've grown older and particularly in the last decade the disillusionment with institutional christianity has just become too much for me. and for a really long time to be totally candid about it i just -- i didn't want to say anything about this. i didn't want to speak out about it. it's really uncomfortable to criticize your own tribe. it just got to a point where as i saw in my own family, as i saw it in my own faith community something was deeply wrong here. and again, i think even for those watching who are not themselves believers but who are deeply invested in this idea of a pluralistic society we have to have these conversations around what has happened in the church. and i know that there are -- for all the doom and gloom here i just want to be clear, there are millions and millions of christians just like me, regardless of who they vote for, regardless of where they land on different cultural issues, they want to reclaim their faith tradition from this sort of radical fringe that has overrun it. >> you are a journalist for the

times. tim, thank you very much for being with us. tim alberta is a staff writer for "the atlantic." he's the author of a great new book called "the kingdom, the power and the glory: american evangelicals in the age of extremism." the book is out tomorrow. when we return, a u.s. warship shooting down drones after a sustained aattack in the red sea. the growing menace by iran-backed militants and what the pentagon is doing about it, after a short break. my dry eye's made me a burning, stinging, 5-times-a-day,... ...makeup smearing drops user.

i want another option that's not another drop. tyrvaya. it's not another drop. it's the first and only nasal spray for dry eye. tyrvaya treats the signs and symptoms of dry eye disease fast by helping your body produce its own real tears. common side effects include sneezing, cough, and throat and nose irritation. relying only on drops? not me. my own real tears are my relief. ask your eye doctor about tyrvaya. are you silently suffering from bladder or bowel leaks? i understand. for years i struggled with both... then an expert physician told me about axonics therapy. i tried it, and it changed my life. i want that for you too! visit findrealrelief.com to get started. let axonics help you find an expert physician to see if axonics therapy is right for you. results and experiences may vary. don't let leaks hold you back. ♪

♪ ♪ we're building a better postal service. for more on-time deliveries. and easier, affordable ways to ship. so you can deliver even more holiday joy. the united states postal service. delivering for america. the pentagon says a u.s.

navy destroyer shot down three drones in the r s on sunday, including one from iranian-backed houthi rebels that was headed in its direction. the warship, the uss carney, was responding to distress calls and attacks on multiple commercial vessels in the red sea. and it comes am fears of a wider conflict since the israel-hamas war began, and then escalating targeting of the u.s. military in the middle east. what you can see heretens of thousands of u.s. troops are stationed across the region. and here, the dozens of drones and rocket attacks conducted by iranian-backed militias since october 17th, against bases in iraq and syria, hosting thousands of u.s. troops. i want to bring in nbc news national security correspondent courtney kube at the pentagon. courtney, i've been wanting to have this conversation with you for a long time because since

day one of the october 7th attacks, stuff like this has been happening. some of it has been quieter, some of it has been more lethal. and then yesterday, i was looking at the timeline of the attacks that had happened in the red sea. and i was totally fascinated by this thing. what exactly is happening both their, and more broadly in the middle east that is not israel and gaza? >> reporter: you are absolutely right that this uptick. look, there is activity in the region, right? but when we talk about the houthis, they have conducted attacks in the past, even in recent months. but it is really picked up in the last several weeks specifically since october 7th, just as you said, ali. and yesterday was the most notable yet of attacks by they're houthis, and that was because it was a sustained day -long attack against commercial shipping in the red sea. at least three commercial ships were attacked by houthi anti ship ballistic missiles. now, in each case, the u.s. as carney, which is the u.s. navy

warship that was in the region on patrol at the time, it responded to the ships distress calls. and as the carney was in the process of responding and in one case it was on station with the damaged ship, the carney then became a target, potential target of some iranian attack drones. now, it's really important to point out here, defense officials, u.s. military officials, at this point, they still don't have any indication that the carney, that it was actually targeted by these drones. and in fact, they had seemed to just sort of be in an area where the drones were coming near, heading towards. but as a matter of self-defense, the u.s. navy ships still shooting all three of those drones down. again, saying that it was inherent self-defense even though they did not have an indication that they were targeted by these drones. all of that is to say, it's a pretty dramatic uptick in activity by the houthis, attacking these commercial vessels. but it is also them carrying out a threat that they made several weeks ago, saying that they want to go after commercial ships, specifically

ones with ties to israel. and yesterday, these attacks, these three commercial ships, there were about 14 nations that were involved, when we are talking about who's flags on the ship, the cruise on board, the national institutes on the cruise, any businesses associated with the cargo on board. so, this is a wide spectrum of nations that were impacted here. also important to point out, none of the ships even hit by these ballistic missiles sustained any major damage or casualties, ali. >> courtney, iran has made pretty clear despite anything that's going on, they're not apparently looking for a wider regional war. the u.s. is not looking for a war with iran. that's a whole different thing. what's going on? is everybody, these things are just happening, and we just go on from day to day, and there are little skirmishes? or does this feel like an escalation to you? >> reporter: we have been asking that question every single day, is there any indication iran wants an escalation, a conflict directly with the u.s. and there was? and we continue to get the answer, no. the u.s. has no indications of that. so, there is a fascinating

dynamic going on here. after october 7th, we started seeing these iranian-backed militias increase their activity. there was the houthis. there is hezbollah in iraq and syria, and other militia groups there backed, trained, funded by iran. there is lebanese hezbollah of course and lebanon. but when the cease-fire started and sustained, was sustained for several days, most of those groups really quieted down, specifically the ones in iraq and syria. we did not see attacks against bases there. the houthis continued, though. and officials here keep asking the questions, why were the houthis not listening to iran? are they not being directly directed by iran here? there is some sense that yes, they are trained, funded, equipped by iran. but in some cases, these attacks also are more opportunistic. they want to have more attention in the region. and look at what they're getting right now. the houthis have been carrying out some smaller attacks in recent months, but they were not getting attention. now, we have been talking about it all day today. so that aim has been satisfied here.

also important to point out, though, that the u.s. military is not ruling out some potential responses here. we just haven't seen anything like that happened, yet ali. >> we will stay to close on that. courtney, thank you for your excellent reporting. nbc's courtney kube at the pentagon. quick break for us and we'll be right back. ht back. so now, do you have a driver's license? oh. what did you get us? with the click of a pen, you can a new volkswagen at the sign, then drive event. hurry in to lease a new 2023 all-electric id.4 for zero down, zero deposit, zero first month's payment, and zero due at signing. limited inventory available. so i didn't think i needed swiffer, until, i saw how easily it picked up my hair every time i dried it! only takes a minute. look at that! the heavy duty cloths are extra thick, for amazing trap & lock. even for his hair. wow. and for dust, i love my heavy duty duster. the fluffy fibers trap dust on contact, up high and all around

without having to lift a thing. i'm so hooked. you'll love swiffer. or your money back! (carolers) ♪ iphone 15 pro, your husband deserves it! ♪ (mom) carolers? to tell me you want a new iphone?. a better plan is verizon. (dad) no way they'd take this wreck. (carolers) ♪ yes, they will, in any condition. ♪ ♪ get iphone 15 pro and ipad and apple watch - all on them! ♪ (mom) please forgive him. (carolers) ♪ it's all good - just a little awkward. ♪ (soloist) think we'll wrap this up. (vo) for a limited time, turn any iphone in any condition into a new iphone 15 pro with titanium and ipad and apple watch se - all on us. that's up to $1700 in value. only on verizon. the first time you made a sale online with godaddy was also the first time you heard of a town named dinosaur, colorado. we just got an order from dinosaur, colorado. start an easy to build, powerful website for free with a partner that always puts you first. start for free at godaddy.com thank you for spending part

of your monday with us. we are grateful. a reminder, tomorrow, nicolle we'll be back for one day only. and a very special in studio interview with liz cheney. you don't want to miss that. "the beat" with ari melber begins right now. hey, ari. >> hey, ali. thank you so much. welcome to "the beat". i am ari melber. donald trump is facing setbacks in two cases.