right? >> right. >> no hikes since july? >> right. >> what did he say when talking about maybe even declining interest rates next year? >> i mean the fed chairman saying depends how the data comes in. couching it like that. when you look at the story of the federal reserve raising interest rates, been on pause, you mentioned, since latter part of the summer. they've been saying, okay. we know borrowing costs are higher. seeing that in the form of mortgage rates at 8%. come down a little. credit card borrowing rates are really high now. goal of getting inflation down. now at 3%, certainly good news. >> stock market very happy about it. brian cheung, thank you very much. that is going to do it for me today. "deadline: white house" starts right now. hi, everyone. it's 4:00 in new york. i'm jen psaki in for nicolle wallace. right now a jury of eight people

in washington, d.c. are dealing with a very important question. trying to decide what price should be paid for telling lies that throwed a violent insurrection. eroing the fabric of america and through no fault of their own became subjects of a conspiracy theory. rudy giuliani's defamation trial sued by ruby freeman and her daughter shaye moss. the judge ruled giuliani defamed freeman and moss, now deciding how much giuliani will pay. started with the expectation he made himself that giuliani would testify on his own behalf. he vow yesterday to "give the whole story" in a bit of a dramatic press conference. once he conceded, the trial went to arguments. when that happened, the lawyer asked the jury to award them $24

million each. gottlieb said giuliani "has no right to offer civil servants up to a mob to win a general election." very true. emotional testimony by ruby freeman yesterday. over the course of 90 minutes freeman recounted how she was hounded by death threats, messages calling for her to be lynched. so bad the fbi told her she was not safe as home. she said yesterday, started by one post by giuliani on december 3, 2020 that claimed to show footage of ruby freeman and her daughter pulling suitcases stuffed with ballots. of course, it showed no such thing. in closing arguments giuliani's attorney acknowledged his client "committed wrongful conduct." explaining that he didn't take the stand, because "we feel like these women have been through enough." if you believe in a explanation after the hell rudy giuliani put these two women through, you

haven't been probably paying attention enough to everything that's happened the last couple years. on tuesday the judge said giuliani defamed freeman and moss once again speaking to reporters outside court, and accused them of changing votes. the very same allegation that led to this case in the first place. his lawyer also said that his client "hasn't exactly helped himself with some of the things that have happened in the last few days." no kidding. referring, of course, to giuliani's behave outside of the courthouse earlier yesterday. it is definitely true unquestionably. what a thing for your own lawyer to admit about you. where we start this hour with nbc news justice reporter ryan reilly outside the courthouse, plus former deputy assistant attorney general and former u.s. attorney harry litman and senior columnist for the "boston globe" and co-host of excellent in sisters podcast. you've been in the courthouse, walk us through, what happened in the court today?

>> reporter: yes. all sort of expecting this big day of rudy giuliani's testimony, because he's been telling us this big day was coming. his lawyer told the jury he was grog to testify and then he told reporters he would testify. the truth would come out. brought back up before the judge. the truth he's spreading a lie. what this case is all about. but he still believes the lows, and that's where the divide comes about between his lawyer and the client himself. rudy giuliani's lawyer i think had trouble controlling what his client was saying this week, obviously. making statements after court each day. that contrasted with what his attorney was trying to say in court. you sort of mentioned there, his lawyer has actually been saying complementary things about the plaintiffs. good people. didn't deserve what happened to them and rudy giuliani did wrong here. basically his lawyer was trying to argue the damage shouldn't be

as high at plaintiffs are seeking trying to make that case to jurors. rudy giuliani is on a different planet thinking he didn't nothing wrong in the first place and the lies are true. an extraordinary event with a former mayor of new york city seems to be lost in conspiracy theories still today. >> rudy giuliani is on an entirely different planet is an evergreen statement could be said many times over the past couple years. harry, rudy saying all, making up all sorts of lies including about ruby and shaye moss. when you surprised? yesterday said he's testify. in his own press conference. were you surprised he didn't end up testifying today, harry? >> the short answer is, no. a lot of defendants bluster and giuliani is the king of blusterers, and then don't take the stand. this was his fourth visit to planet earth, and the contrast wean his public blustering,

which he's still doing to this day, and his basically silence in court where he has nothing to say couldn't be stronger, and i'm sure the jury saw it as well. it's a civil case. so the -- the attorney for moss and freeman were able to say, look, he didn't testify. but you saw who did. and his lawyer has really nothing to go on. when your lawyer is saying, oh, he didn't help himself too much and these women have suffered enough. man, you know you are in a world of hurt, and that's exactly where he is now. >> what a thing for your lawyer to say about you. so, the big question now, harry, is, how much will they have to pay, and how does the jury decide that? how does the jury decide that? obviously we saw michael gottlieb, they're lawyer, ask for a specific amount. what does the jury weigh? >> it's not easy, because normally they would weigh something. would have had giuliani coming in with information about his, say, net worth.

decide whether to punish him but stonewalled that all the way through. some points he made. they have something to go on. an expert who came forward and said here's what it will cost to sort of compensate them for the misery that giuliani has occasioned and saw their own testimony, but it's fairly loose. maybe giuliani hopes that it will be loose enough it will be revisited on appeal, if it's too high. again, if that's your hope, you're in a very sad situation. they have a little bit to go on in terms of expert testimony, testimony from the plaintiffs and basically nothing from giuliani. they pointed to, all they pointed to, his lawyer in closing statements by the plaintiffs. literally all he could point to. >> interesting to see where they kind of limit. i wanted to -- michael gottlieb is a powerful, had a powerful ending today in the courthouse. and while the defense strategy, he said, basically, the defense strategy in this case is no secret. rich, fou people have

valuable repations and ordinary people are irrelevant, replaceable, worthless. mr. giuliani's defense is his reputation, his comfort and goals are more important that those of ruby freeman and shaye moss. that is fiction that ends today. so many watching completely frustrated and horrified by what we've seen here. it's like, yes! exactly. tell us a little about the stakes in this case and the outcome. >> stakes are very important, because it's not just that ruby, shaye moss and ruby freeman are ordinary citizens. they are people who volunteered to give their time to help the administration of the democratic process. there as election workers. these are people we want to encourage to participate in this, but because of the lies that rudy giuliani was telling, their lives have been turned utterly upside-down, and the valuation of the experts that were offered in this case puts that in the tens of millions of

dollars that it would take to restore their reputations. in the beginning, rudy giuliani's attorneys were saying, look. of course, liability was already established, as you pointed out. this is about damages, and that a damage award so high would ruin giuliani. it would be ruinness for him. but we've seen him since double down on it. perhaps opened himself up to more liability. at this point, all his attorneys can do staunch the bleeding say, look, no mas. like, just -- try to understand that he did wrong, and, please show some mercy. so little standing. i expect a very high damages award. >> we will see. ryan, one of the kind of side stories today, a bit. giuliani's defendant false election case was in the courthouse today. harrison floyd facing charges trying to pressure rupee freeman. how could he have been in the

courtroom? does that violate anything? what was that scene and what you may have observed? >> i don't think it actually would violate necessarily anything, unless something down in this case, but it's obviously a public court. he's allowed to come into it, yeah. a sort of bizarre spectacle. a note from the producer. jury had a question. the judge meeting with just before coming back into the courtroom. they want to see powerpoints the plaintiff's attorney put together laying out the damages and how they got to that estimate. it wasn't introduced they won't be able to provide the powerpoints, but the underlying information presented to the jury. taking a close look to see if they believe that estimate is on the target. >> an interesting development we just learned from ryan there. harry, what does that tell you? that they're asking for the powerpoints and kind of 9 justifications sounds like for

the amount they're asking for? what does that tell you about the status in the courtroom? >> that they're being conscientious in filling in the gaps giuliani left them. that's all that they have to go on, and they want to see. is this rational? they're not just galloping ahead. is think any tloimt what we give? trying to take what they have, it's sort of a half a hand and do the best with it. a quick point on ryan. if giuliani had nothing here we can can expect something similar in the fulton county criminal trial. he really is sort of defenseless at this point, and he's very different in his public persona from what he has to say, which is next to nothing in court. >> so, harry, let me ask you just about harrison floyd as well. i just asked ryan about. he was there today as ryan said. a courtroom, he can be present there. many people could be. what do you make of his decision to show up there? >> well, you know, you would

think normally it would have been coordinated with giuliani's folks but he is a particularly bizarre figure. right? the guy who said, yeah, put me in jail a few days. that's okay. the only one actually been in carserated, then violated conditions. just an oddball, and i think it's hard, with just that fact, to draw any conclusion at all. >> so let me come back to you. talking a little about the bigger picture here. as you mentioned, ruby freeman and shaye moss are just two of the many people who serve as election workers, who served to keep our democracy functioning, the subject of threats and intimidation. their journey is not done here. because they will, of course, be likely witnesses in the fulton county case. >> yes. >> which is very clear, of course, for good reason. what do you think this will do? what are you worried this will do? this case? even though they're victorious here and see what money and damages they're awarded, but

what will it do to democracy and to people, to the efforts to kind of recruit more people to serve as election workers? >> i think their testimony will be very crucial. not just the fulton county case. mentioned in jack smith's prosecution as well. a core part of this. it's not just about the fact that he was, donald trump was trying to deny the results of an election. it's greater than that. it has an impact on the ongoing administration of justice. i think that's something both fani willis and jack smith will make clear. i can't imagine what ms. moss and ms. freeman have been going through, but the fact they have been willing to testify, willing to speak their truth about the importance of this is so important. i am grateful for them, but i do hope that they continue to take solace and have protection, because of what has, the incoming has been for them. that's precisely why we're here

today and what this jury today is weighweighing. >> that justice still is served and the journey, through the wringer. >> harry, it's no secret rudy giuliani isn't exactly rolling in dough right now. so the question i have been wondering is, there's been a lot of money asked for. for good reason in terms damages. what happens if he can't pay the money? what's the process? >> that the "the" question i think i'm starting to realize is pertinent to rudy giuliani. he has to declare bankruptcy. probably after they run their appeals and he doesn't, hardly has money to pay a lawyer for appeals, for appearances, anyway, they file a separate motion to execute on the verdict and he just stonewalls and eventually says i don't have two dimes to rub together, and if he truly doesn't, they are out of luck. that really may be where we are going with rudy giuliani.

it's hard to make any other sense of all of the things he's done, including repeatedly refusing to give any of his financial information in discovery in this trial as he was ordered to do. >> in terms of the carrying out of justice or justice winning out, i should say. fox news paid $287.5 million for broadcasting lies. giuliani will pay, we'll see how much asked to pay, how much he's able to pay. obviously the big line has a price. a good thing. where do you think, harry, go to you on this first, this falls? how do these lawsuits kind of impact fighting the big lie? is it an effective deterrent? are we seeing evidence of that? >> i think it is and i agree with kim here. could be blood from a stone principle with giuliani but i think people pay attention, and i think there's a kind of personal sense, even a criminal

case, exacting retribution for society. carroll with donald trump, these two very human and victimized workers with rudy giuliani, when the justice system comes through on their behalf, i do think it strikes a broader blow that everybody takes some encouragement from. >> i, of course, undervalued fox news' money they had to pay. $787, of course, not $287. i saved them money by accident. >> for fox news, right. >> saved them some money. ryan, before we let you all go, what else are you waiting for or looking for from the courthouse today? >> you know, as we, this enters a new stage, talking rudy giuliani's money. a thing that came out in court recently he has a new media deal. right? no one's hiring rudy giuliani obviously for his sharp legal mind these days. wouldn't be able to, anyway

because of various start is of a lawyer. a media personality at this point. interesting to figure out if they end up getting a significant damage here whether or not they're getting a chunk of that and whether or not ultimately might benefit from giuliani being a continued media personality. a bizarre situation we're in where obviously rudy's sort of at the tail end of his career here and isn't, doesn't have many financial resources available for these plaintiffs to access. >> a long way he's come since 20-plus years ago. thank you all for spending some time with us this afternoon. when we come back, from the gop playbook of rules for me not for thee, the lawmaker leading the charge to investigate president biden has similar business ties he's calling impeachable. talk about that and the party vote with congresswoman slatkin yes. former house speaker paul ryan.

harsh words for the ex-president party front-runner out, same time defending the few gop that lost their careers for speaking out. we'll show thaw. you that. and trump and unindicted co-spiriters tried really, really hard to conceal. all of that when "deadline: white house" continues. don't go anywhere. what did you get us? [ chuckling ] with the click of a pen, you can a new volkswagen at the sign, then drive event. sign today and you're off in a new volkswagen during the sign, then drive event.

with the freestyle libre 2 system 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.

hey, grab more delectables. ask your doctor about the you know, that lickable cat treat? de-lick-able delectables? yes, just hurry. hmm. it must be delicious. delectables lickable treat.

that first time you take a step back. i made that. with your very own online store. i sold that. and you can manage it all in one place. i built this. and it was easy, with a partner that puts you first. godaddy. the biden family had 20 shell companies that the sole purpose, it appears, for those shell companies to launder money through six different banks and the banks called it money laundering in the is a

suspicious activity reports. >> $24 million the bidens have taken in. run him through a series of llcs even the boonk said served no purposes. we call that a shell company. a company that doesn't pru good, service, has any assets or anything like that and then laundered money down to the biden family members. >> well, as it turns out that might be your classic case of projection. congressman james comber, the guy you just saw there, chairman of the house oversight committee for months accused hunter biden and other biden family members involved in "shady business" he calls it is under scrutiny for having his own shell company. functions in a similar way as the company used by bidens. new insights to comer's deal open comes after opening an impeachment inquiry into

president biden. along party lines all 221 republicans voting yes. despite the vote republicans have yet to show any evidence, not a shred, ofs in conduct from their investigation. chuck grassley leading the investigation into hunter biden on the senate side had to say about it. >> i'm going to just follow the facts where they are, and the facts haven't taken me to that point where i can say that the president's guilty of anything. >> joining me now at the table, democratic congresswoman elissa slotkin of michigan, member of the house armed services committee as well as a candidate for the u.s. senate. congresswoman, thank you for joining me. i just have to start with congressman comer. busy saying a lot, but seemed -- definitely ringleader in this circus, but what do you make of the recent reporting? a little hypocrisy there? >> look, first of all sloppy, right? going to be attacking someone and then you find that you

yourself are doing the same thing, like -- clean your story up here, but i think it's part and parcel a bigger, the bigger story, which is this is meant to distract. meant to talk about biden and legal issues instead of trump and legal issues and the republicans are saying that. you have people like senator grassley saying i'm not seeing the facts. then others like trenknell get donald trump back, baby. the reason we're doing this. we need to believe them when they say that and just sad to see every one of my republican colleagues vote in support of that impeachment inquiry. it's just, again, deeply disappointing. >> some of these tactics reminds me, you spend so much time in the national security space. i spent time in it. that typical putinesque, muddy the waters. everybody's corrupt. all of this is bad, to kind of make it a little better. for them. for the corrupt one. you mention, it's been months, years, that ever since biden was elected that some of these, some

republicans, not all, marjorie taylor greene an early originator, calling for impeachment. as you noted republican voted for it in a straight party line vote. why now? >> i think it's, again, part of a bigger story going on in our country, which is there are a lot of people on the republican side of the aisle who know that this is nothing. who know that like grassley there's no facts there. they know this is all part of playing field to donald trump. scared of not being re-elected. it's not rocket science. it's a sad story. because it's an american story. not just they're the other side i don't care what they do. as an american i believe in two strong, healthy parties that push and pull and make policy and law better, and that's just not what we have. we have an other side of the aisle doing anything to get re-elected. putting themselves before the mission. >> yeah. a good way to say it. house democratic leader who keim

hakeem jeffries had this to say. >> extreme maga republicans in the house ordered by an organized crime boss to twice impeached former president of the united states, who has been we've seen a living, breathing, one-person crime wave, he basically ordered the extreme maga republicans to launch this illegitimate impeachment inquiry as a political hit on president joe biden to try to undermine president biden's ability to be re-elected. >> that's very consistent with what you were saying. i think, while it's politics. we can all say that. i want to ask more about the dangerous precedent here. there have been times there have been legitimate impeachment inq inquiries. >> my third impeachment inquiry i've voted on in my five-plus years in congress. i think what is really scary, are we just now in a cycle one party impeaches the other party when they're unhappy. the standard -- >> for always.

>> right. become as standard thing. the standard of high crimes and misdemeanser is a serious stand. i think it cheapens it. it cheapens values of the country to throw that around. and i, i just -- again, you feel more sadness than anything else. in the meantime, i think we are really getting to the point of 2024, on the edge of it here. there's a very real possibility that donald trump could be re-elected and i think that you're going to see the temperature go up and more shnan ganns like this putting the country secondary to what donald trump wants. >> yeah. you mentioned, which is such an important point. all of this distracts from important work that needs to happen. i did want to ask you about ukraine. president zelenskyy was here earlier this week making a strong pitch. last week. sorry. it's all running together. making a strong pitch for funding. it really doesn't look good right now. i don't know what your assessment is.

you've also worked in this area a long time. why is it so important that they get additional funding, and what is your assessment on the likelihood at this point? >> sure. look, putin's having a party. a four-hour press conference and talked how happy he was we were fighting over the assistance. all he wants to do and has to do is wait. let us fight. let us argue amongst ourselves and frankly wait for a potential donald trump presidency, because donald trump, this isn't a political statement. clear he will hand eastern ukraine on a platter to vladimir putin. pull off all the sanctions. reverse all the punishment we've tried to put on putin. so putin is like, sitting, waiting in the caper sea to sort ourselves out. think about beyond russia. what the taiwanese and china are thinking. adversaries and allies? a major test whether the united states still believes in defending democracy. putin said in his press

conference i abhor western-style democracy. so you're not going to stop with ukraine. this isn't this man's mission. again, hear what they're telling us and decide if we want to be nation that's a leader, defends democracies or okay with autocratic rulers ruling over the next state. i don't want to live in a world like that. i get heckled in michigan. people don't want to give money to ukraine on both the right and left. the story is, putin's waiting to see if trump wins again. meantime, we need ukrainians to hold the line. got to hold what they have. after the 2024 election i mope jb wins we're in a new phase. hold the next nine months and need aid to do that. >> before i let you go, i wanted to ask you about putin's wild and crazy press conference doing annually but skillskipped last .

interesting. >> he didn't do it last year. most people felt it was because things weren't going well and he didn't want to have to answer for that. i think this year things still aren't going great but a message to the russian people and say he's in control. everything looks great. i wouldn't believe a whole lot of what goes on in that press conference but i think he was feeling celebratory because of what's going on here. a great moment for him. and i think that we have, again, decisions to make in the next couple of months about whether we're going to support democracy or we're okay with the world where countries invade each other and take each other over. >> congresswoman, thank you for coming in. pretty generous to call it a press conference given it's pre-cooked media. a conversation for another day. words from a former gop house speaker to donald trump. we'll show it to you coming up next. next.

hi, i'm michael, i've lost 62 pounds on golo and i have kept it off. most of the weight that i gained was strictly in my belly which is a sign of insulin resistance. but since golo, that weight has completely gone away, as you can tell. thanks to golo and release, i've got my life and my health back.

it's a remark phenomenon, hue milting for them. exhilarating for us. anyone familiar with the trump era. the metamorphosis by some but not all outgoing republicans. when they no longer need votes to say in office. all of a sudden they see the light! unshackled. speaking their reminds about the disgraced ex-president. while former house speaker paul ryan never seemed all-in on the donald trump experience. far from it. now starting to see what true freeman expression can do to a

republican. listen to what he said in a filmed conversation in a global consultant firm he serves as chair. >> how will people regard people like liz cheney and adam kinzinger and people of their ilk? maybe just the two of them. >> friends of mine. trump's not a conservative. he's a authoritarian narnarciss. called him out for that. a populist authoritarian nas narcissist. whatever makes him popular feel good at any given moment and he doesn't feel in classical liberal conservative firms but in an awe authoritarianian way and able to get a big chunk of the republican base to follow him because he's the kosher warrior. i think adam and liz stepped out of the flow and called it out, and -- you know, paid for it.

paid for it with their careers. >> pretty candid assessment from former house speaker paul ryan. joining our conversation former chief of staff department of homeland security in the trump administration and host of wistal blower's cod affidavit, and former chief spokesman, friend at the doj and former senior advisor to attorney general garland anthony coley. start with you. you spoke out on donald trump while still part of the administration. i want to hear -- this is, those are powerful candid words from paul ryan but been a couple of years. what do you think of him saying, calling him now an authoritarian narcissist? >> well, jen, i mean, it's frustrating, of course, because all of us want people who say those things that are republicans to have said them sooner. i'm guilty of that, too. even look when i spoke out thought it could have been sooner. make that case for any of these

peel. good to see paul ryan doing it now. having worked with him in 2015 and 2016 during donald trump's rise, this is how paul ryan viewed donald trump back then. you know? nothing changed, and that should tell you a lot of things. first, about the complicity and silence within my former party, but also about what we are going into. you know that at the top end, jen which is that this is a foreseeable civic catastrophe. one thing clear. the united states is not germany in the 1920s. but america in the 2020s does bear a striking number of resemblances including the fak there were contemporaries around the 20th century's most infamous dictator adolf hitler that are striking. you know, people around that time period warned it was going to be dark. he wanted to implement tyranny. the whole range of foreseeable policy. what was important was hitler's

world made obvious what he wanted to do. we're experiencing that with donald trump. contemporaries call him out his own words dictate what he'll do and working towards ta zombie-walking catastrophe. hoping more paul ryan's come out to avert this. >> and a lot screaming i want to be authoritarian dictator and people are still zombie walking. a great term. one of the things liz cheney has been pointing out that, out with a new op-ed in the "wall street journal" today saying, "have we forgotten how a depraved donal trump sat and watch t praved insurrection? show his character january 6th the same dangerous man today and if mr. trump fea he might face future prosecution you can bet he won't voluntarily leave

office. our nation can endure bad policies for four or eight years, oe the constitution unravels, the republic fails and just as many throughout history. framers understood this. we should, too, the risk is far too great to elect donald trump ever again." i'm obsessed with damage he can do within government without necessarily break use the levers of government? >> the possibilities are almost limitless i spent nearly two years asking people. i wrote it in the book "blowback." to try to paint that picture and und what he would actually do by talking to all of my former colleagues in different agencies under trump.

what would happen in a second term? biggest concerns on the national security side. i think americans still don't understand the full extent of the president's powers and things donald trump could do bubble wrapped in legalese damaging to the republic. one of those i've noted, something in the white house called the doomsday book. for the first time dhs gave authorization for me to mention this publicly and the fact there are concerns that that book, supposed to be used to protect the country in instances of armed foreign invasion or rebellion, it's the president's most extraordinary powers could be picked up by trump and used for domestic political purposes. invoke powers we've never heard a president of the united states invoke potentially to shut down companies, turn off the internet. deploy the u.s. military on u.s. soil. we don't know, because the things that are in there, the emergency powers of the president aren't widely known to the american people. so that's a big worry for people like me and others about what he could do, but that weaponization

of the government could extent across the inner agency to places we haven't seen it before. the department of education, the department of veterans affairs, ways to wield power and budgets to help allies and hurt enemies. to be clear, those aren't just elet's. his enemies include people a who live in blue states. i remember him not wanting to deliver emergency aid to blue states because he didn't like them and they didn't like him. >> the "doomsday book" we don't want in donald trump's hands, safe to say. interesting is mike pence to me. because he has testified, he said the right things at times. he's not said the right things in public. hasn't been out there as much in my view as he should be. >> right. >> i spoke with liz cheney about this earlier and want to play a clip and then talk to you about it on the other side. >> do you wish the former vice president was more outspoken publicly? >> certainly. i think there are a lot of people in our party who, we need

everybody basically on the field. we need everybody explaining the danger of the former president, and i think, you know, that includes former vice president. >> so the reason this is an important question, i mean, you have an overlapping, a lot of experience in communications and spend years in a seen your role at the department of justice. he knows a lot. there for a lot. right? >> exactly right. >> but at the same time, we haven't seen a lot from him publicly. could see him, of course, on the list reportedly of people who would testify in the fulton county case. makes sen. on camera. how important is that for people to see him testifying to what he saw and experienced? >> exactly the right question. big picture? donald trump is trying to win this case, this fro case's the state case no matter what, no matter how. the problem government's evidence is overwhelming against him including information,

learned this week from filing in this january 6th election interference case, it includes information even from a cell phone using in the final weeks of his presidency. but the other thing that makes this case so overwhelming for the justice department and that it includes evidence from people like mike pence who, who worked for him, voted for him. supported him, wanted him to win, and so he's got, got such an uphill battle, but we have seen from what donald trump is trying to do. he knows that on the trial court level it's going to be extraordinarily hard for him to win. what he's trying to do we've heard this. you talked about it on your show, delay as much as he can on the one hand, but also trying to use what happened outside the courtroom in the court of public opinion to influence what happens inside the courtroom, and that is why this gag order is, and in all of these cases, are so important.

it only takes one witness, particularly in the federal case and the case in georgia, only takes one witness, one witness, to say, not guilty. go ahead. >> and teed this up well. talking about the gag order. andrew weissmann joins us after the break. miles taylor thank you for spending time. think about the doomsday book or have nightmares about it. appreciate your candor. up next trump takes another legal loss. tell you about what one, after this. t one, after this.

(pensive music) (footsteps crunching) (pensive music) (birds tweeting) (pensive music) (broom sweeping) - [narrator] one in five children worldwide are faced with the reality of living without food. no family dinners, no special treats, no full bellies. all around the world, parents are struggling to feed their children. toddlers are suffering from acute malnutrition, which stunts their growth. kids are forced to drop out of school

so they can help support their families. covid, conflict, inflation and climate have ignited the worst famine in our lifetime. and we're fed up. fed up with the fact that hunger robs children of their childhood. fed up with the lack of progress. fed up with the injustice. help us brighten the lives of children all over the world by visiting getfedupnow.org. for as little as $10 a month, you can join save the children as we support children and families in desperate need of our help. now is the time to get fed up and give back. when you join the cause, your $10 monthly donation can help communities in need of life-saving treatments and nutrients, prevent children from dropping out of school. support our work with communities and governments to help children go from short-term surviving to long-term thriving. and now thanks to special government grants, every dollar you give before december 31st

can multiply up to 10 times the impact. that means more food, water, medicine and help for kids around the world. you'll also receive a free tote bag to share your support for children in need. childhood without food is unimaginable. get fed up. call us now or visit getfedupnow.org today.

a new york paems court today reject add bid by donald trump to kroever turn his gag order in the new york civil fraud trial. the limited order put in place by judge arthur engoron october 3rd after posting derogatory comments about his law clerk on social media. in the rulin today the four-judge panel wrote here the gravity's potential harm is small given that the gag order is narrow, limited to prohibiting solely statements regarding the court's staff. joining our conversation, former top official at department of justice, everybody's favorite lawyer, andrew weissmann. anthony is also back. andrew, how many times can trump lose here? trying to keep track what's happening with the gag order? >> on the merits this is a loss. although i will say the court did say that procedurally he

basically went down the wrong route. here he tried to actually just sue the judge in what's called an article 78, sort of an arcane process in new york and it's not meritorious and should have done it with your appeal. can't be brought just suing the judge and pointeds out how limited the gag order is. it's almost unbelievable, because you can't find a lot of precedent for something like this, because who in their right mind thinks, oh, you know what i want to do? attack the staff of the court. it's just, it just isn't done. so usually the case law is about, more about real speech. so the kind of thing that we have seen in the d.c. criminal case, where he also lost. >> anthony, do you think the d.c. circuit court's decision to

uphold trump's blooder federal gag order played into the panel's decision here? >> i think it could have. let me make one additional point before i get back to the question, if we have time. it's important to note that trump has already violated this gag order twice. if i have one criticism of anything, the judge has done, it's that, in each of those two prior violations, the fining were too low. $5,000 -- >> should have been more money? >> absolutely. how are you going to send a signal, a strong signal, that you mean business by only a $5,000, a $10,000 violation. so judge engoron is getting it right on the substance. the appellate courts are holding it up. i think he should have substanc. the appellate courts are holding it up but he could have imposed a much higher fine here. >> and anthony and andrew are both sticking around. coming up next, one of the prosecutors seeking to hold a twice impeached president

accountable. fulton county d.a. fani willis, wide ranging interviews, she had a lot to say, this time on her next move and the republicans trying to shut her down. we'll bring you that next. only on verizon. hey everybody, w. kamau bell here. they say that america is the land of the free. but right now, people in the u.s. are seeing their freedoms taken away at an alarming rate. freedoms some of us take for granted. the right to vote. equal access to health care. book banning and other forms of censorship that threaten our right to learn and here's something truly shocking. right now in our country, hundreds of thousands of people are incarcerated simply because they couldn't afford bail. that's not free and it's not fair. but there is hope for change. it lives in people like you and in a great organization called the american civil liberties union. so please join me and other concerned americans in defending our civil liberties

by joining the aclu as a guardian of liberty today. all it takes is just $19 a month. only $0.63 a day. when you're surrounded by oppressive laws. you can't just sit back and be oppressed. you get up and fight. and all of us at the aclu are fighting for you. whether it's criminal justice reform or protecting the lgbtq plus rights, abortion rights or voting rights. the aclu is in the courts fighting for your rights, and mine and i, for one, sleep better at night knowing they're working every day in all 50 states to protect our freedoms. but these freedoms are at risk. we have to fight for them tirelessly. and with your help, we will continue to do so so please go to myaclu.org and join the fight for just $19 a month. use your credit card and get this special we the people t-shirt, aclu magazine and more to show you're helping ensure justice for all. as an individual, donating to the aclu is one of the most powerful things

you can do to fight for justice. but the aclu can't do it alone. they need your support now to continue defending our democracy and the freedoms we hold dear. so please join us. call or go online to myaclu.org today. thank you.

but i took an oath, i made a commitment to the citizens in my community, and i'm going to do my job. >> if you are a member of a gang and you're committing a crime in my community, i am going to make sure that you are held

responsible to the full extent of the law. that i took an oath, and that the oath requires that i follow the law. that if someone broke the law in fulton county, georgia that i have a duty to prosecute. that's exactly what i plan to do. i make decisions in this office, based on the facts and the law. the law is completely nonpartisan, that's how decisions are made in every case. we follow the same process. we look at the facts, we look at the law and we bring charges. >> that is a pretty admirable behavior you saw there, first up, the responsibility, resolution to devotion to the rule of law, an oath, she says, and an unshakeable belief in basic truth. that a person should answer for his crimes, period. of course, they should, and she keeps repeating that. even before fani willis indicted donald trump and 18 others in relation to election interference. the fulton county district attorney made it abundantly

clear time and time again. that should not preclude them from facing justice. this next part should sound familiar that months after the indictment and more to trial, the message to the general public hasn't wavered an inch. the d.a. says, quote, with the associated press, if a prosecutor finds they violated the law they have an ethical duty to bring charges. so this is a silly notion that because your case should stop. it faces a big test tomorrow, attorneys for trump's former chief of staff mark meadows will push to move the case before a federal court before a three-judge panel and the circuit court of appeals. when we come back, we're still learning what happened in the days and weeks after the january 6 insurrection. congressman jamie raskin will be

here after this quick break.

♪♪ mr. cheeseborough wrote that when the joint session of congress got to arizona in the al bettical list of states the vice president should not count the biden votes, quote, because there are two slates of votes. his justification was that a group of trump supporters in arizona and other swing states decide to proclaim themselves the true electors for the state, creating two sets of electorele. the official electors selected by the state and a group of fake elects. hi again, everyone, i'm jen

psaki in for nicolle wallace. and one of the architects of this illegal plan kenneth cheeseborough has been facing the consequences. in october, he pleaded guilty in the fulton county racketeering case. while he wasn't charged by the special counsel, he's part of jack smith's case against the ex-president. and he's been identified as co-conspirator number 5 in the indictment. and we recently learned that he's cooperating with the over dozen fake elects there. now, nbc news can confirm after speaking with the attorney for cheeseborough, when cheeseborough had a meeting with prosecutors last week he told them about a significant interoffice meeting between trump and december of 2020. cnn which obtained audio of the prosecutor's reports that before a group of supportive lawyers

entered the oval office for a photo-op for then president donald trump in december 2020 they were given a clear instruction according to one attendee. don't get ums hopes up about overturning the election. one attorney towed the line. and he bluntly told the president it was over in that state but whe the conversation shifted to arizona attorne kenneth cheeseborough deviated from the plan. he told trump he could still win and the alternate electors assembled in arizona gave six other states the opening to continue to contest the election in congress certified the results in 2021. trump, rather than coming to terms with loss, latched on to cheeseborough's optimism, no surprise there. cheeseborough would then come to michigan prosecutors tha concern then followed. >> there was a subsequent email, ail a week later, where

troupis said that it's extremely important that reince priebus n't learn what happened at the meeting and i don't actually know, but it was probably related to what i told the president about the real deadline and about arizona and so there was something very sensitive about what happened at that meeting that had to be kept quiet. joining us now democratic congressman jamie raskin of maryland ranking house member of the oversight committee and the former member of the january 6 select committee. few people know these cases as well as you do. i want to start and ask you what you make of that oval office meeting in december 2020? >> well, that strikes me as a decisive clue as to how then president trump started to zero in on january 6th as the key date. what cheeseborough was basically

saying there was, well, you can go the legal route and try to get courts to overturn the results in wisconsin, pennsylvania or arizona, but if those doors closed, remember, 60 federal and state courts rejected all of those electoral votes with fraud and corruption. >> right. >> while there's still a chance of getting something happened on january 6th which had been viewed as a ceremonial moment where congress met under the 12th amendment and simply validated and received the electoral college votes which were settled but what he was saying you could counter electors to counter it. and in the certificate of

ascertainment. and with that role, throwing his hands up and saying, oh, i just can't decide. let's kick this to the house for a contingent election or maybe getting the vice president to declare that trump was president. >> which trump glommed on to, we know well. and there was also in that testimony about reince priebus not wanting to know what happened in that conversation. what do you make of that? >> well, some of them evinced that as that unfolded and didn't want to be known as being part of this plan. remember, all effort documents that the official electors present to the governor and the governor presents to the archives and to the speaker of the house, these are authenticated, certified stamped documents. and so, they can creating phony documents to try to undermine and supplant the real process.

>> you spoke with him as part of the january 6 investigation, right? >> who -- >> ken cheeseborough. >> personally, i did not. >> but the committee did. do you believe he's clearly trying to get himself out of deeper hot water here by cooperating? >> yes. >> do you feel he's faced enough consequences or will, for his role in this? >> well, i'm waiting for more facts to come out, but i get the feeling about mr. cheeseborough who i did serve on law review with, so i know him a little bit. >> it's a very small world. >> i should say, i get the sense he would like it to be said that he was just spinning out some academic hypothetical theories. and there were others who took the ball and ran with it. and, therefore, he should be insulated from the actual legal consequences. he was basically saying, well, if you wanted to rob a bank, here's the way you would do it. and here's how you would claim legality from essentially fraudulent process.

but he anticipated that he was in enough legal danger of himself, that he decided he was going to spill his guts and tell exactly what happened, presumably, in order for consideration from the court. >> it's an interesting thing to watch. it's become a very interesting player. i guess has been. i did want to ask you about jack smith's decision to request the supreme court to weigh in on trump's presidential immunity claim and the election interference. what do you make of that and the time line of everything? >> it's an awesome and necessary decision because donald trump i clock in all of his litigation. and thisis an essential case. and he didn't want to wait for this to go all the way up through the d.c. circuit, a panel en banc to get to the supreme court. he had the authority to ask the supreme court to intervene, which is something that happened during the series of events in watergate as well.

to deal with what are very easy legal questions. i mean, you know when donald trump says he has immunity for whatever he does as a former president, you mean he can actually go out and shoot someone on fifth avenue and he can't be prosecuted? he could rape people as we know he might have president election to do. and and the documents, it's absurd. the other argument, of course, is double jeopardy which is even more laughable. the idea that because you go through impeachment and senate trial, it could be double jeopardy to try you for things that -- you know, interact with, your overlap with charges that were brought before. the constitution itself, in article 1, section 7, clause 3 i think it is specifically refutes that. it says that if you go -- if you're being impeached, that extends only to removal from

office and disqualification from office. but prosecution and trial at law will lie nonetheless later on. so it's an explicit reputation of that argument. i mean, that's a one-paragraph dismissal of that argument. >> very few people can cite clauses of the constitution. i think it's important for me to remind viewers. there was a lot of news from the supreme court this week that could impact, of course, the timing of the january 6 case. a case, the investigation that had you know a great deal about and worked a great deal on. are you worried about the timing of this and the outcome slipping too late to have an impact on the election? >> you know, there's really no more important case in the country than these cases that relate to the crimes, the frauds, the electoral sabotage, the attempt to deny voting rights of the people than the ones that face donald trump. i mean, it's hard to think of

it, and there should be a premium on getting these cases heard. and obviously, he's got the presumption of innocence. but he doesn't have a presumption of being able to delay everything as long as he wants. and if in fact he's convinced in this instance, he's got the evidence to rebut a prosecutorial case, then he should do it. but these cases need to be heard. and no phony arguments about double gemdy or prosecutorial immunity should be allowed to stand in the way of us getting a definitive leap of judgment about what he did. you know, what's interesting is so many of the people who were very troubled, according to their own account by this conduct, were saying, well, i'm not quite sure, yeah, there's a 57 to 43 vote in the senate to convict. that's a majority, didn't get to two-thirds for conviction, but

we'll let the court sort it out. now is the moment when courts are going to sort it out. >> this is the moment. >> there's 91 federal and state charges against him, felony counts all over the country. and it's time for him to face the music. >> now, i know i have to just not let you go before asking you about impeachment. because i know you have some strong views on this. >> yes. >> comer was caught in a little hypocritical moment, that's a diplomatic way of saying it. >> yeah. >> what do you make of this republican party line vote? that, to me, feels maybe disheartening, but not surprising? >> what's amazing, you got an overwhelming number in the caucus who voted against impeaching donald trump for inciting a violent insurrection against our own house, against the congress, against the vice president. we saw it, there were 150 police officers who were bloodied and wounded and hospitalized from their violent attack in an

attempt to overthrow the election and seize the presidency. they voted no. now, they want to go ahead and launch an impeachment inquiry against joe biden for a crime unknown. nobody can identify what the allege offense is. i said yesterday on the floor that they call murder mysteries who done its, because you start with the murder and try to figure out who did it -- this is a what is it. nobody even knows what the crime is for months, they can't identify. is it about ukraine. is it about an auto loan? you know, nobody can identify with any precision what they're talking about. it tells me that the same forces who wanted to unconstitutional and unlawfully prevent biden from taking office after he won the election by more than 7 million votes, 306 to 232 in the electoral college are again unconstitutionally, illegitimately trying to bar him from completing his term. also donald trump can say, well, i might have four prosecution --

four, you know, indictments across me across the country, 91 criminal charges and two impeachments, but this guy is being brought up on impeachment, too. so, we're even. that's the whole point of this. >> it's a sad moment in history. thank you for making the constitution sound so exciting to all of us and always being a defender of democracy. it's a pleasure to see you congressman raskin. >> it's great to see you. let's bring in some of our panel, from department of justice, andrew weissmann and editor-at-large for the bulwark, charlie sykes and former adviser to the attorney general anthony coley. andrew, we have to go back to the chesebro story, how can the information be helpful to special counsel jack smith? how does that work? >> i'm really glad you asked,

the thing that i think people are jumping too quickly to embrace is the idea that he may be fully cooperating. i do think that there's reason to believe that he is cooperating down in that in other words, he's giving information about what he knows about electors in the states. when i say down, it's because he would have been a sort of central cog. and this scheme was being orchestrated from washington into the various states. and i do think he's talking about what will he knows there. and the difference between fake electors and contingent electors. contingent electors would be legal. that is electors who thought that they would sign up, if and only if, the state courts said that trump had won. and otherwise, they would be more worth than the paper they're printed on. but it's unclear to me, and i

think there's reason to believe he's not cooperating towards donald trump, indeed in the reporting where they do have clips of some of his information that he's given to at least michigan, it appears. and maybe other states, that's unclear that he really told the former president exactly what would be legal and illegal. and that these electors were actually fake electors. they were going to be used no matter what. in other words, they weren't just contingent in case the state courts ruled in donald trump's favor. they were always planning on being used, no matter what. that would make them fake electors. and there's reason, i think, if you listen to the clips that he actually was saying that he was telling the former president that these were just contingent electors. so he could be sort of an advice of counsel witness for donald

trump as opposed to jack smith. so, i do think people should take a deep breath or whether or not he's cooperating here. and finally, just to your question about, you know, is he really taking responsibility in terms of what's happened to him. remember, when he pled in georgia, that case will really go away. because he's doing no jail time. and under the sort of first offender act, if he doesn't commit a crime, that case gets expunged. so it's hard to say he's really held accountable for what you and congressman raskin were talking about which is really the linchpin of stealing the election. >> andrew weissmann, always bringing it back down to planet earth. appreciate that. so, anthony, i mean, when it comes down to it, overall, this meeting, trump was told time and time again which will we've heard before, but this is additional reporting that he lost the election.

>> right. >> repeatedly by a number of people. how does that play in when investigators are looking at state of mind? >> right. it's front and center. what's important to note here, jen, there are right ways and wrong ways to contest the justice system. the court system is the right way. trump lost and he had his u.s. attorney general look into it. and they came back with no examples of fraud sufficient enough to change the outcome of the election, but he still dug in, and was not going to -- he was like a dog without a bone. you know, this is -- this is the truth. even though it wasn't. now, i want to go back to your kenneth chesebro point, the point that andrew weissmann made, he needs to face jail time. >> chesebro? >> chesebro, he needs to face jail time. and one thing that is disheartening and i'm not a

legal scholar like andrew weiss weissmann, he was able to keep his law license when he was a central player in an effort to overthrow our democracy. no, this man should not be allowed to practice law. >> that is such a crazy part of this. charlie, one of the things that stuck out to me, and i'm sure many of us, trump was basically looking for someone to validate the big lie. to give him license, right? talk to us how the ex-president, and he still pushed the lies. many people were telling him he lost the election because he was looking for an enabler, what does that tell us about trump? >> well, it tells us what you already know. this is just one piece of the puzzle. what i found interesting, jim troupis from wisconsin goes into the white house and tells donald trump he lost wisconsin. and kenneth chesebro comes up

with ways that they lost election fraud. i defer to andrew here. what is clear to me, clearly, donald trump seized on this fraud lent scheme to overturn the election. and then acted on it between that meeting and january 2nd. and one of the tells is that reince priebus who, of course, was former chief of staff to donald trump but also former chairman to the wisconsin republican party. he hears about this conversation, apparently was so alarmed what went on in that meeting. he told me, don't tell anybody, we cannot let this news get out, because he thought something dangerous and potentially illegal, i'm assuming, happened in the oval office involving the president of the united states. so, the fact that a legalist like reince priebus do that clearly knew what the election was, for example, with the fake electors in wisconsin is basically sending up flares saying we have to keep this a

complete secret, don't talk about it, i think suggests that perhaps this is significant. and there was a real consciousness that something had happened in that meeting with donald trump present. >> andrew, i'm just going to quickly punt that to you. charlie raised you, and i want to know what you think. what do you think the significance of that, reince priebus not wanting anybody to know about it? >> yeah, just to be clear, there's no clear that many people looked at this scheme and said no way, no how. what has been public before this is that there were lawyers on the trump campaign who quit, who said i'm not going to be part of this. they saw that the scheme here was not to contingent electors, but to have fake electors. that they were always going to use them in the way that they did. which was to try and get congress to go along with counting the votes of the fake electors, not the real ones.

and -- so, i think there's no question about it. i think that charlie's right that reince priebus may fall into that category of people who were alarmed by this and was saying keep it quiet, precisely, because he realized how volatile this was. but that doesn't mean that ken chesebro was not continuing to foment this in terms of, you know what, there's a legal way forward. and then donald trump saying, great, there's a legal way forward, even though it might be a 1% chance, that's what i'm going to do. so, i think you can have both ideas in your head at the same time, that there are people who are buying into this. and there are people who were alarmed by it. >> no one is going anywhere. we're going t a quick break. and when i return, a fundamental question about american justice that special counsel jack smith wants the supreme court to answer. whether anyone, and specifically the twice-impeached ex-president is above the law. what we can expect after a short

break. plus, the republican reproductive rights and how far americans are with votes as they continue to push more bans across the country. and later, my interview with the families of some held hostage by hamas. what they're saying about the government's way to free the hostages. don't go anywhere. we planned well for retirement, but i wish we had more cash. you think those two have any idea? that they can sell their life insurance policy for cash? so they're basically sitting on a goldmine? i don't think they have a clue. that's crazy! well, not everyone knows coventry's helped thousands of people sell their policies for cash. even term policies. i can't believe they're just sitting up there! sitting on all this cash. if you own a life insurance policy of $100,000 or more, you can sell all or part of it to coventry.

even a term policy. for cash, or a combination of cash and coverage, with no future premiums. someone needs to tell them, that they're sitting on a goldmine, and you have no idea! hey, guys! you're sitting on a goldmine! come on, guys! do you hear that? i don't hear anything anymore. find out if you're sitting on a goldmine. call coventry direct today at the number on your screen, or visit coventrydirect.com. i'm adding downy unstopables to my wash. now i'll be smelling fresh all day long. [sniff] still fresh. ♪♪ get 6x longer-lasting freshness, plus odor protection. try for under $5!

when people come, they say they've tried lots of diets, nothing's worked plus odor protection. or they've lost the same 10, 20, 50 pounds over and over again. they need a real solution. i've always fought with 5-10 pounds all the time. eating all these different things and nothing's ever working. i've done the diets, all the diets. before golo, i was barely eating but the weight wasn't going anywhere. the secret to losing weight and keeping it off is managing insulin and glucose. golo takes a systematic approach to eating that focuses on optimizing insulin levels. we tackle the cause of weight gain, not just the symptom. when you have good metabolic health, weight loss is easy. i always thought it would be so difficult to lose weight, but with golo, it wasn't. the weight just fell off.

i have people come up to me all the time and ask me, "does it really work?" and all i have to say is, "here i am. it works." my advice for everyone is to go with golo. it will release your fat and it will release you. the question of whether no man is above the law including the president will now be put to the test by the nation's highest court. a special counsel jack smith turned up the pressure this week when he asked the supreme court to rule on trump's claim of

presidential immunity and rule quickly. the court has ordered trump's lawyers to respond to smith's qwest by next week, a signal suggesting that the court, too, understands its urgency. smith's case is currently paused waiting for an appeals court ruling on immunity. smith wants to maintain the scheduled start d of march 4th coming up in a few months so when people head to the polls in november they have all of the facts before them. complicates matters, of course, the january case would be taken up and ultimate ruling might not come until june when the court reports out cases. all while one of the justices is married to a woman who we know played an active role in the attempt to overturn the 2020 election. ginni thomas urged and to we're

back with andrew weiss mann, charlie sykes and anthony coley. andrew, i'm going to start with you. this seems urgent, right? we're seeing jack smith in supreme court, and we're seeing a timely urgency which feels good but what you do expect to happen next week? >> well, one of the things to add to the urgency is, it's important for the viewers to understand that picking a jury in this case is going to take time. so, here's two things to consider, sort of two data points. rudy giuliani, we're waiting for a civil jury to come back momentarily, that jury could be picked in one morning by chief judge, former chief judge howell. but in a case like the trump case, judge chutkan understood how hard it would be to pick a fair and impartial jury. and has essentially set aside

almost two months to go through that jury selection process with questionnaires and extensive vetting. why do i raise that? it's because whenever the supreme court rules if they take it, or the court of appeals, you have to then build in additional time to get a jury impanelled. and that process cannot be started now because of the automatic stay. so that is -- that is one of the reasons that, you know, we're all very focused on the clock, because there's that additional time period that judge chutkan and the parties are going to need. what do i expect here? i do think that the d.c. circuit has given all indications that it is going to move at lightning speed. the case, going up on appeal to the first appellate level is going to be fully briefed by january 2nd. so, there's going to be a busy time for the trump team and the jack smith team over the holidays. and the new year. and so they could rule quite quickly. and then the supreme court could

step in. or, obviously, the supreme court could forego all of that and just say, you know what, we're just going to take it immediately. but it does appear that this is going to proceed quite quickly. but, again, i want everyone to be aware of that time delay that's needed after any decision is reached. >> that's all interesting, we did just learn, also, i should tell you all, we're not going to hear more on the giuliani case today. they did go home. i did want to -- we all want to feel urgency, we all want this to happen now. you and i, anthony, were just talking about something during the break that made me feel a little hope so i want to ask you about it, in fani willis's interview in the atlanta journal constitution, she did open the door or raised the possibility she might be open to that trial earlier for the summer. we obviously want to see the federal election case happen on march 2nd.

why is that giving you a dose of hope? >> right. so even if the case sticks with august 4th, what makes this case so significant is that cameras are allowed in the courtroom. think about the timing of this, we're talking early august and july, donald trump will likely get the presidential nomination, the republican nomination for president. just two or three weeks later, the entire world, including networks and radio stations, throughout the country, will potentially be listening to live court proceedings of donald trump's voice and his effort to overthrow american democracy. and if i'm donald trump's political team, that makes me nervous about -- >> even if it's august, you're saying? >> absolutely. >> that's the optics of it. >> absolutely. >> it's right when people are tuning in. >> right. >> so, charlie, i want to go back to you, we all know, it's very clear that trump's focus

here, the focus of his team is delay, delay, delay, delay is the whole bumper sticker, alleen canon, i don't know if we have high hopes that this is going to happen on time. we have the supreme court surrounding the federal election case. we just talked about georgia. walk us through, if trump is back in the white house, what happens if these are all pushed and there's not outcomes in after the election? >> donald trump hopes they go away. he fires the prosecutors. and he may pardon himself. there's a constitutional question about all of that. donald trump understands that this best chance to avoid conviction, stay out of jail, is to return to the white house. he will use the full power of his presidency and the control of the justice department to wipe this away. now, whether he's going to be successful, i would leave to experts like andrew. you know, this timetable is

crucial. it's crucial that we move ahead, this january 6th case in front of judge chutkan is the big one. and the motion in front of the supreme court, you know, you cannot overstate the significance. imagine if the court would agree, i don't think they will, would agree with donald trump's argument that he should be absolutely immune for any criminal prosecution for any action that he took while he was president. if they were to adopt that position, we would wake up the next morning with a very different country withvy are different constitutional balance. the question is whether or not the court will rule quickly. but also whether or not they will reaffirm in ringing tones agency the court did in united states versus nixon that the president is not above the law and that the president does need to be held accountable. so, i think the stakes could opt not to be any higher, you know, both before the election, but also for the constitution balance. >> it's important stakes-setting

there for charlie sykes, hope from anthony coley, wisdom from andrew weissmann, thank you for spending time with me. the wake-up calls republicans don't appear to be hearing. why the case of kate cox should have the gop very, very worried.

your record label is taking off. but so is your sound engineer. 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

by now, you've likely heard about the story of kate cox, the woman who was forced to beg a judge in texas for a medically urgent abortion when she was 20

weeks' pregnant. in order to protect her health, her life and her ability to have children in the future. and she's continuing with a waking nightmare. the response so far from too many republicans have been complete silence. even the senators from her own state or worse. >> do you agree with attorney general paxton's actions and what he did? >> just call our press office. >> i actually haven't received an answer. so is there anything you'd like to say right now on this? >> call our press office. >> these things get a lot of attention, i understand, there's a lot of situations where we have opportunity to realize human potential. >> this is exactly why i said you have to show compassion and humanize the situation. >> then we get into the creepiness of desantis' human potential comment but i do want to address nikki haley's comments since she has been trying to position herself on a moderate on the gop field.

while she acknowledged the importance of showing compassion, nowhere, nowhere in haley's statement did she state what concrete solution she would put forward if elected president. to keep a woman in kate cox's position, by the way, there are those and he's financially able to do so which many women cannot. and the problem is not going away. a new analysis out by the kaiser family foundation found that texas isn't an aberration. 19 out of 20 had exceptions written in a way that doctors fear of being prosecuted for providing care, just like kate cox's doctor was. or as her lawyer put it, quote, the court isn't taking responsibility. the medical board isn't taking responsibility. and in the meantime, doctors are more afraid than ever. and real patients' lives hang in the balance. joining me now at the table, president and ceo of reproductive freedom for all, and the president and ceo of the national women's law center.

guys, i'm so happy to be here with you today. we played the responses and some of nikki haley's. my view, a lot of people are hiding behind this. we have exceptions to the law which clearly kate cox's case is throwing into the picture for americans the reality here. what do you make of the republicans response here and how they're trying to manage this? >> well, i'm a texan, and seeing ted cruz nonanswer answer doesn't shock me a bit. it's par for the course. he can't answer the question, the policies that he and his extremists both at the state and federal level are so horrific, he can't defend it. i was with a bunch of state legislators before i came here and we were talking about virginia and the 15-week ban.

and how democrats have messaged. and republicans are trying to shift the message but they're not actually willing to change policy. what americans want to see is not just compassionate messaging for nikki haley, they want to understand that their legislators are listening to them and responding to the fact that they know bans are terrible. the majority of americans hate bans. and they're beginning to understand thanks to heroes like kate cox that exceptions are designed to fail and exceptions don't work. >> this is such an important point when i was in the white house, naacp is not a problem. kate cox, what a brave woman, first of all, but she's far from the only one. and onee things that stuck out to me, since the center for reproductive rights filed its first patient-led case in march,

kate cox's attorney said in her email and voice mail have been flood with messages from other women. the case with kate, she had two cesarean sections and her doctors are saying you might not be able to have kids, right? this is something that other women experience. how many more kate coxs are out there, what are people not tracking with the expansive impact of this story? >> unfortunately, kate's situation is familiar to a lot of women. the truth is pregnancy can be difficult and you hope it goes the right way. but that has not been the experience. we've had cases where patients are in the same situation, we wonder how long they have to wait, are they sick enough to get an abortion. is their future fertility at

stake, are they about to get sepsis? these are questions that doctors are analyzing in realtime. and the reason these exceptions don't work is because it's all about a risk analysis that has nothing to do with your health, your life, your future. and the reason that people are so frustrated right now is that they see right through it. they know that these abortion bans are banning their ability to determine their lives and their futures. no exception makes a difference. >> it's been so strict, you don't often think of it as women of child bearing age. there are people thinking about their grandchildren, their children. this is why there's so much anger about this issue. we were talking in the break about the marist poll, 25% believe there should be no national restrictions on abortion at all. talk to me about what you think about that poll and what that tells you. >> i mean, i think, you know, the poll's really interesting. it tells us some things. i think -- i have a question

about what states are asking this. >> sure. >> the most important poll to me is an election. and we've seen election after election after election consistency with voters repudiating abortion bans. we also saw that in the poll there is discomfort with a national abortion ban, right? >> uh-huh. >> and you know from your past life, that there's broad support for roe as law of the land. so this gives us an incredible opportunity going into 2024, to not only frame abortion bans as something that folks just do not want at the state level. but also talk about what proactive solutions democrats could deliver when they are empowered to really be reproductive freedom champions. >> before i let you go, i want to ask you, i think it's important to emphasize the so-called republican compromises on abortion. the cutoffs that have been floated out there. they would not have helped kate

cox. >> they would not help kate cox, and most people around the country who find themselves in need of care and people see right through it. that's why you have that poll. they don't trust republicans to make this decision. >> they understand. this is such an important conversation, thank you for elevating it did day after day, guys, thank you for spending time with us. ahead, part of my conversation with families of the hostages held by hamas, and what they think of the biden administration's efforts to win freedom for their loved ones.

my active psoriatic arthritis can make me feel like i'm losing my rhythm. with skyrizi to treat my skin and joints, i'm getting into my groove. ♪(uplifting music)♪ along with significantly clearer skin... skyrizi helps me move with less joint pain, stiffness, swelling, and fatigue. and is just 4 doses a year, after 2 starter doses. skyrizi attaches to and reduces a source of excess inflammation that can lead to skin and joint symptoms. with skyrizi 90% clearer skin and less joint pain are possible. serious allergic reactions and an increased risk of infections or a lower ability to fight them may occur. tell your doctor if you have an infection or symptoms, had a vaccine, or plan to. thanks to skyrizi, there's nothing like clearer skin and better movement... and that means everything.

♪nothing is everything♪ now's the time to ask your doctor about skyrizi. learn how abbvie could help you save. this is a hot flash. this is a hot flash.

but this is a not flash. ♪ got a good feeling ♪ there's big news for women going through menopause. veozah - a prescription treatment for moderate to severe vasomotor symptoms - the medical name for hot flashes and night sweats. with hormone-free veozah, you can have fewer hot flashes, and more not flashes. veozah is proven to reduce the number and severity of hot flashes, day and night. for some women, it can start working in as early as one week. don't use veozah if you have cirrhosis, severe kidney problems, kidney failure, or take cyp1a2 inhibitors. increased liver blood test values may occur. your doctor will check them before and during treatment. most common side effects include stomach pain, diarrhea, difficulty sleeping, back pain, and hot flashes. ♪ i got a good feeling ♪ ask your doctor about hormone-free veozah and enjoy more not flashes.

president joe biden met privately yesterday with family members of the eight americans believed to be among the more than 100 hostages still held by hamas for more than two months now. after their meeting, the families expressed confidence in biden who said he promised to continue doing, quote, everything possible to secure their release. today, i had the chance to sit down and talk with a group of those family members about their loved ones, the urgency of bringing them home and why they say they're, quote, stuck in october 7th. here's some of our conversations. >> there's a lot of pressure on israel and probably good reason to supply humanitarian support to gaza and to ease a little bit the pain of the people there. where is the humanitarian support to our kids? who is visiting them? who is making sure they're fed? they're getting water, they're getting air?

who is giving them medicine if they need it? taking care of their wounds? >> we're talking still about 137 people, right? elderly people, still children there, women, men. >> who need to have access? >> yes. where is the world on that? this is where it started. >> how come the red cross is not getting visitation rights, it's part of their agreement with hamas. how come the hamas is not letting red cross come in just to see how the kids are doing? how the elderly are doing. give us a sign of life. >> we are stuck in october 7th. almost 70 days without knowing where they are, how they're doing, are they wounded. what's going on. how can you let it go on like

this. >> and we'll be thinking about that conversation a lot over the next couple of days. we'll have much more of that this weekend, we hope you join us sunday at noon. joining us a top official during the obama administration, my former colleague, msnbc political analyst rick stengel. so, rick, you have been through and i've been through many circumstances, not exactly like this, where families are just wanting more information about their loved ones. and wanting, as they said, their loved ones have access to groups to check on their well-being as they should. talk to us about that process and the difficult reality that groups like the red cross and others are jen, as you know, the government goes into hyperdrive when it comes to these hostage situations.

people are literally working around the clock in the white house and the state department. but this is a particularly trying one. hamas is a terrorist group, they are nothe agreements, it's not just the horrific things that hop happened on october seven but we have no idea how the hostages are being treated but stories talk about being abused, not getting treatment, that was one of the agreements and your good conversation with the family members that the red cross was meant to be able to visit the hostages and they haven't been able to. >> they are very frustrated with the red cross, you can hear that, there's more of that in my conversation coming up on sunday. jake sullivan is over in israel now, part of his agenda is of course talking about the hostages. there are a lot of parties involved in that, qatar, the egyptians, what happens from here? >> yes, i think people need to know, as you know that the biden administration is doing everything they can to make sure that israel abides by humanitarian law, that there is

a diminishment of deaths of civilians. there are negotiations still going on with the qatari's. one of the ideas that biden has been wedded to, is if he shows support for israel and then ben, then benjamin netanyahu and the israelis will respond to what he's trying to get them to do. over the weekend, when biden said he wanted to make sure that the palestinian authority would be able to govern in post- gaza, benjamin netanyahu said, no, i mean, so it's really tough, as you know. >> you are absolutely right. very difficult circumstances. and i will be thinking about those families. thank you for spending time with us this afternoon. a quick break for us and we will be right back.

(vo) wells fargo has donated $525 million dollars... (girl) hey mom! is this one really mine? (mom) honey, like i said... you get your own room. (vo) ...to support housing affordability solutions for families across america. when a bank does what it says, more people can find a place to call their own.

doing gets it done. wells fargo. the bank of doing. before we go, we've got good news for you or maybe more likely a family member, if you've been dying to have their very own memento from one of the disgraced twice and preached ex-presidents, the one that brought us this infamous mug shot from his indictment, and you happen to have $4653 lying around, you are in luck because donald trump is now offering to send scraps of that suit, the one you saw in the photo if you buy 47 of his nft digital trading cards that go for $99 a pop. and if that seems like a steep price, fear not, there are

other goodies included in this package. like a dinner with the former president at mar-a-lago, a signed poster, a commemorative hoodie, a presidential pen", exclusive treasures, who knows what those are? always this businessman, i'm sure this won't be your last chance to snag a priceless item. it's commemorating all of trump's legal woes. we are grateful that you spent part of your thursday with us. the beat with ari melber starts right after a quick rake. don't go anywhere. go anywhere.

hi, i'm darlene and i lost 40 pounds with golo in just eight months. golo has really taught me how to eat better and feel better. as long as you eat the right food groups in the right amounts,

that's all it is. it's so simple and it works. golo was the smartest thing i ever did. you're probably not easily persuaded to switch mobile providers for your business. 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?

did we peak your interest? you can get two unlimited lines for just $30 each a month. 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.