loving this pay bump in our allowance. wonder where mom and dad got the extra money? maybe they won the lottery? maybe they inherited a fortune? maybe buried treasure? maybe it fell off a truck? maybe they heard that xfinity customers can save hundreds when they buy one unlimted line and get one free. now i can buy that electric scooter! i'm starting a private-equity fund that specializes in midcap. you do you. visit xfinitymobile.com today. that does it for me. be sure to catch my show weekends at 8:00 a.m. eastern right here on msnbc. "the reidout" with joy reid is up next. ♪♪ tonight on "the reidout" --

>> trump incited the insurrection and there's no loophole in the constitution. to hold that there's a loophole for the president in the constitution would basically say donald trump is above the law when he engages in rebellion and insurrection. i think that's wrong. >> colorado secretary of state jenna griswald on trump's disqualification from her state's ballot. and now a compromised supreme court shaped by trump will decide his fate on that and his claim of presidential immunity in the election interference case. and predictable response from trump's maga allies, let the people decide, they say. after all of them tried to overturn the will of the voters last time. plus, trump's obsession with pure blood, which is now part of his increasingly fascist stump speech. but we begin tonight with the consequences of insurrection.

because lately it doesn't seem like there have been many for politicians who participated in them. but there absolutely have been some. let's start with coy griffin, a person you probably don't know. griffin was the co-founder of cowboys for trump and was elected as a commissioner of otaro county, new mexico. prior to his election, griffin was an election denying, false lie spreading maga republican. he was so committed to the lie that he was convicted in federal court last year of a misdemeanor for entering the u.s. capitol grounds on january 6th, 2021 without going inside. griffin was sentenced to 14 days in jail and given credit for time served. citizens for responsibility and ethics in washington, aka crew, sued to remove him from office on behalf of new mexico residents. on the grounds that his participation in the january 6th insurrection made him ineligible to hold office under section 3 of the post civil war 14th

amendment to the constitution. a judge agreed. booting him from his position as commissioner and barring him from holding any public office. coy griffin is the only successful case to be brought under section 3 since 1869. the other modern cases that have been filed, but failed, were against marjorie taylor greene and ousted north carolina republican congressman madison hawthorne. all to say that there has been precedent for these kinds of cases, just not for a president of the united states. and we will find out very soon if the u.s. supreme court agrees with the colorado supreme court that donald trump is ineligible for office, just like coy griffin, because he, too, engaged in insurrection by inciting the riot on january 6th that griffin and more than 1,000 others got swept up in. and that he did so as a sworn officer of the united states. the colorado court's decision

was clear and unambiguous. a point president biden made yesterday. >> trump an insurrectionist, sir? >> well, i think it's self evident. we saw it. whether the 14th amendment applies, we'll let the court make that decision. he certainly supported an insurrection. no question about it. none. zero. and he seems to be doubling down on about everything. >> it will be up to the u.s. supreme court to decide. however, which means that trump's political future rests on john roberts' court with its 6-3 conservative supermajority, three nominated by trump and five of whom were picked, promoted and assisted by conservative judicial leonard leo. it's this court, a court whose members have lied to the senate and the american public by claiming to respect precedent, which they then dismissed and invented arbitrary legal standards to suit their political ideology, that court

will now get to determine if article 3 of the 14th amendment is explicitly clear when it says no person shall hold any office, civil or military, under the united states, who having previously taken an oath as an officer of the united states to support the constitution and the united states shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. the debate will most likely center on whether those who drafted the 14th amendment believed the president and vice president were covered by that language. so these justices just might like to hear what politicians said in response to the lack of specificity on the president and vice president. here is representative john bingham's account of what happened when they brought that up. quote, let me call the senator's attention to the words, or hold any office, civil or military, under the united states. practically speaking, what the authors of section 3 were saying

is that the language was clear and congress didn't intend for this section to spare the president and the vice president. now to be fair, we can't say what the supreme court will do, but what i can tell you is that they are deeply unpopular and facing the most profound legitimacy crisis in modern history. and it probably has to do with all the lavish gifts and trips and their fervor for implementing right-wing republican dogma. and then there was justice clarence thomas. a man who has told clerks he wants to make liberal's lives miserable. his wife virginia thomas is ancon servetive activist who colluded extensively with white house chief of staff mark meadows about overturning joe biden's victory over trump. now, in case you forgot, mrs. thomas sent meadows 29 text messages which she militantly and relentlessly demanded that the election results be invalidated because it was a, quote, obvious fraud. she demanded that meadows release the kraken and save us

from the left taking america down. her husband will be one of the justices weighing trump's political future. clarence thomas already participated in two cases related to the 2020 election and its aftermath, despite his wife's direct involvement in the so-called stop the steal efforts. one of those cases had to do with trump's white house records being turned over to the house committee investigating the january 6th insurrection. only one justice disagreed. clarence thomas. the colorado case isn't the only one that they will have to deal with. the court is also currently entertaining the possibility of taking on trump's claim that he has absolute presidential immunity and cannot be prosecuted for committing crimes. you know, crimes like insurrection. late this afternoon, his lawyers told the supreme court that they shouldn't take up the case just yet. but rather, they should wait until the appeals court rules first. joining me now is congressman jamie raskin of maryland who was

a member of the house january 6th select committee. i'm going to skip for a moment, congressman raskin, because i have limited time with you and i want to use it all up, the part about donald trump trying to once again delay the supreme court seeing -- hearing a very important case because he wants to slow it down by letting the sort of court get it first. but i want to go right to the question of whether or not the framers intended the president to be covered by section 3. i want to show you a picture. this is donald trump taking the oath of office and you, sir, also taking the oath of office. here is what the president read. i tnk that picture will come up in a cond. when he took his oath of office, donald trump recited the following. i do solemnly swear or affirm that i will faithfully excompute the office of president othe united states. and will to the best of my ability preserve, protect a defend the constitution of the united states. here is what you and other members of congress said. i do solemnly swear or affirm that i willport and defend theonitution of the united states against all enemies, foreign and domestic. that i will bear tru faith and

allegiance to the same. i take this obligation freely without the any mental reservation or purpose of evasion. benny thompson led the january 6th committee pointed out that that language was adjusted after the civil war to account for the fact that there had been insurrectionists in their midst. in your mind, in your view as a constitutional scholar and a congressman, did you and donald trump both become officers of the united states? >> well, of course. and the colorado supreme court was very clear that both of these oaths of office are oaths to support the constitution of the united states. and that's the only common sensical interpretation. and you know, i believe that the colorado court did a terrific job of refuting this bizarre claim that section 3 of the 14th amendment applies to every officer in america except for

the most important officer in america, the president of the united states. and they demonstrate that the word office or officer is applied to the president or the presidency 25 different times in the constitution. so, i don't think that that poses any serious obstacle to the finding that donald trump's conduct was covered by section 3 of the 14th amendment and that -- that the provision itself applies to him as the president of the united states. >> is it your assumption -- we can't get into the heads although samuel alito thinks he can. you can't get into the heads of people who wrote parts of constitution. would it be pragmatic and sort of obvious take to say that they didn't specifically name the president because the president, you know, had been assassinated by the insurrectionists and i guess they didn't have the sort

of creativity to imagine that a president would be the one to be the insurrectionist. >> well, it obviously didn't leap to find for them with abraham lincoln as the central figure in rejecting and resisting the insurrection and the succession against the union. they had in mind the paradigm case of the president defending the union against all of the successionists and insurrectionists. in any event, as the colorado court points out, the language is comprehensive and exhaustive and the president has always been treated both as an officer of the constitution and an officer under the united states. i don't think that this matter needs to detain us much longer. i mean, i think that those people who want to defend trump against the very clear textual meaning of the constitution and against the very clear original

purposes of it are going to have to gravitate around some other idea. more likely they will say that congress needs to act, that this is a so-called political question that belongs in the legislative branch. but i just don't think that dog is going to hunt about how the president is not covered by section 3 of the 14th amendment. if you go back and look at the legislative history it's very interesting because the radical republicans who are the ones who added this to the constitution, started off with saying, anybody who participated in the confederacy insurrection should be disenfranchised forever. then when it got to the senate, they nar road down. that's far too broad. it shouldn't be anybody who participated in an insurrection. anybody who swore an oath before and violated the oath and shouldn't be disenfranchisement. it shouldn't be about voting. it should be about holding office again. but you can see how donald trump's case is right in the

bullseye prohibition of the section 3 of the 14th amendment. he is in the worst case scenario who swore an oath to the constitution, was supposed to uphold it but trade the oath and proved himself essentially untrustworthy and therefore unfitting for office. and that's why this is called the disqualification clause. and this is a very straight forward interpretation of it. i think that when this case goes up to the supreme court, it is going to just be a master exam on whether or not the textualists and the originalists really believe in their own rhetoric because the text is perfectly clear and the original purposes of section 3 of the 14th amendment are overwhelmingly obvious here. >> yeah. they can -- as michael beschloss said, they can be the court that nixon is not above the law or the court that decided the 2000 election. it's truly up to them. but congressman jamie raskin, always a pleasure to be able to speak with you.

thank you so much for your time. >> my pleasure. >> thank you. let's bring in noah bookminder, president of crew, citizens for responsibility and ethics in washington. and elle, justice correspondent for the nation. thank you all for being here. i do want to start with you. congratulations on a very important legal victory. it is not the first however for your organization. we did mention the founder of cowboys for trump who was also removed from office under these measures. and we know that prior to -- after the civil war, 14 united states senators, i have a list right in front of me, were expelled from the united states senate based on this. can you anticipate now that there have been two courts that found that donald trump did commit insurrection, colorado supreme court and the district court, can you envision how the supreme court could wriggle out of removing him from the ballot? >> well, look, i think it's really important that these two courts found that. and not just in a casual way. they found it after days of

witness testimony, thousands of pages of documents, hours of video testimony, rigorous argument from all sides. so, this was a real process. it was -- it was consideration of a great deal of evidence. and that was the basis for these -- i think in many ways irrefutable findings that donald trump engaged in insurrection and this was an insurrection. congressman raskin is right that the supreme court is -- if it goes to the supreme court, will see if donald trump appeals, as he says he's going to. we'll see if the supreme court takes it. but they're more likely to kind of move around the edges and think about these questions of who's empowered to make these decisions than to disturb those actual i think really hard and fast, well-supported findings about donald trump engaging in insurrection. we don't think there's really a

solid basis of those more procedural ground either, but i suspect that would be more likely where the argument would be. >> elle, i wanted to have you on tonight, too, because i view the supreme court conservatives as politicians. who are seeking conservative republican outcomes, not so much textual, you know, adherence to the constitution. they just find what they want to find in there. so why don't you use your imagination and tell us what might they be able to come up with to try to wriggle out of two court findings that donald trump is an insurrectionist. >> yeah. so my issue here is that i think that you're framing it as will the supreme court agree with colorado. i think the bigger question is will the supreme court agree with themselves? will the supreme court apply their own conservative ideology, you and jamie raskin and noah brilliantly explained how by a strict textualist or originalist understanding, this is a slam dunk. i would like to bring up by a

strict state's rights understanding, which is what the conservatives seem to always like to go on about when it comes to denying black people the right to vote, and gerrymandering away black voting power. they also want to go on about state's rights. well, here colorado is executing its state's rights -- >> yep. >> to decide who should be on their own ballot. and the colorado supreme court decision literally quotes neil gorsuch from when he was a judge on the 10th circuit, this is a case that noah found on cruw, big ups to them, where neil gorsuch says that, of course, colorado has the right to exclude people from the ballot who do not meet the qualifications for president. so who was that guy? that's kind of important. the guy is named abdul kareem hassan. he was a naturalized citizen. but the constitution says that only natural-born citizens are eligible to run for president. and neil gorsuch took a strict, literalist reading of that. decided that hassan was not

qualified to be president and decided that therefore colorado could exclude him from the ballots. this is the same case. this is exactly the same case that trump is now facing. and so the real question is not will the supreme court follow the law, but the question is will the supreme court follow their own ideology and logic. >> yeah. >> your question -- and that's really where the ball game is. >> indeed. and -- this is john roberts in 2010, noah, and this was a case called free enterprise fund versus public company accounting oversight. and this was the citation here is the people do not vote for the officers of the united states. the case was rather regarding whether the president has the authority to fire officer of the united states. could donald trump, you know, fire the attorney general. and that sort of thing. and in this ruling john roberts seemed to say that the president is an officer of the united states. so, if he and to elle's point

neil gorsuch have seemed to find in the past that the president is an officer. that doesn't seem a door to go back through. is there some other way. i think politically they want trump gone, but i can't think of any other way to get out of it. >> well, look, i think that you're right. that the law seems very clear on this officer of the united states point. in fact, donald trump himself in one of his other cases, in the past year, argued that the president is an officer of the united states. so, you know, they're sort of trying to have it all different ways. i guess as i look at the supreme court, i want to think that this is the supreme court that has actually taken a pretty tough line on abuses of power by donald trump, has affirmed congressional oversight of donald trump. it's also a supreme court that, you know, as you talked about, at least in some cases has taken a textualist and originalist approach. i think that's an approach that

in this case really favors holding donald trump accountable under this provision that seemed to be put in place for exactly this set of facts. so, i think there are a lot of reasons to think that whatever you may think about the supreme court, that they'll give us a fair hearing if it gets up there and, you know, we'll see where they end up. >> we shall see. i'll note for news that audience should have that judge barrel howell ruled that shaye moss and ruby freeman can immediately seek -- their $148 million judgment from rudy giuliani. giuliani's failure to satisfy even more modest monetary awards entered earlier in h case provides good cause to believe he will conceal his assets during the 30-day period contemplated by the rule in question. we'll talk more about that tomorrow. but for now, i want to thank noah and elle, thank you both for your time. up next on "the reidout," republicans suddenly rediscover their love for democracy after trump is struck from the ballot in colorado with calls of let the people decide ringing from

the rafters. just make up your minds, people. "the reidout" continues after this. r minds, people. "the reidout" continues after this i was a bit nervous at first but then i figured it's just walking, right? [dog barks] oh. no it's just a bunny! calm down taco. sit duchess. stop! sesame no no. archie! walter don't, no, ahhhh. ahhhhh! you're lucky you're so cute. only pay for what you need. ♪liberty. liberty. liberty. liberty.♪

i was born ten weeks early without my left arm. with my polio, i have tough days and my pain just pops out, out of nowhere. there's nothing to be afraid of because all the doctors are all so nice. when somebody sees these commercials there'll be a phone number on a screen and all they have to do is call and make a donation to help kids like me. thanks to a generous donor, every dollar you give can help twice as many kids like me and have double the impact. when you join with us, we'll send you one of these adorable blankets as a thank you and reminder of all the abilities you are helping make possible. merry christmas! please call the number on your screen and give just $19 a month, only $0.63 a day or whatever you can to help kids like us this christmas. and when you do, your gift will have two times the impact.

i do not believe donald trump should be prevented from being president of the united states by a court. i think he should be prevented from being president of the united states by the voters of this country. >> in the united states of america is built on one principle, we the people select

the leaders of the country, select the president of the united states. >> we need voters to make these decisions. we don't need judges. so i want to see this in the hands of voters. >> in response to the colorado supreme court decision, kicking trump off the 2024 ballot, republicans are lashing out with several arguing that the decision should be made by the courts, it should be made by the people. but wait a second, isn't this the same party, three years ago, screamed the election was rigged and stolen and used the courts to overturn the votes of the people. that didn't work, trump supporters stormed the capitol in a violent insurrection all because they didn't get their way. it only matters when it's their people making the decisions. joining me now, tara set meyer, senior adviser to lincoln project and mara gay, msnbc political analyst. tara, my friend and sister,

since when do they want to leave it to the people? donald trump is a birther. barack obama couldn't be allowed to be on the ballot because i need to see his long-term birth certificate. right? then he said that the 2020 election wasn't real. so therefore they should just throw the elections out and have congress decide who the president was. i could go on and on and on. since when do they want the people to decide elections? >> well, based on trump's latest rhetoric, it's only white people they care about, what they vote and who they say. so they're okay. you know what this is about here is their calf tear yal constitutionalists. they pick and choose when they decide -- when they want to support democracy or want to support the constitution. when it fits their needs and their political expediency. it's so transparent that it's almost laughable, but it's not. this is deadly serious stuff here. and the idea now that they're going to be sanctimonious and lecture about, oh, we have to respect the vote of the people

and how dare the courts is just -- the level of hypocrisy is hard to quantify. but i think we need to continue to call it out. there is so much evidence of them taking both sides of this. they're so duplicitous that we have to continue to point it out. and force these republicans into a corner to say and decide, okay, so you're not okay with democracy when, you know, when -- trump claims there was election fraud but you're okay with democracy when, you know, the court is looking at the facts and says, yeah, the guy -- he engaged in insurrection and disqualified from the ballot in our legal opinion. we can't let them get away with the double speak because that's what they do. they try to flood the zone with this double speak b.s. and confuse people and then people go, oh, yeah, of course let the voters decide. yeah, but what about all the other stuff that you guys did where you didn't give a damn what the voters thought. >> exactly. donald trump wanted ted cruz thrown off the ballot. throw him off the ballot. literally went to court 60 times

to overturn the results of the people's vote. and lost and went to court to try to overturn the votes of the people. let me play some republican reactions, additional reactions to colorado. >> seeing what happened in colorado tonight, laura, makes me think -- expect we believe in democracy in texas, maybe we should take joe biden off the ballot in texas for allowing 8 million people to cross the border since he's been president. >> i think the democrats wake up every morning, emily, and look at the calendar, the date never changes. get in their electric vehicle and go get an abortion. >> mara, i'll let you respond. because the thing is that this is now just in the same play book of now we're going to say retaliatory things and take joe biden off the ballot. it's so inconsistent and so incoherent but somehow it works for their base. >> you know, the thing that's most disspiriting to me about the overall republican reaction

is that this should be for them a lifeline. you say that you don't like trumpism, you prefer something else but you just want, you know, fewer taxes? here is your opportunity to show some patriotism and some courage. take that lifeline and coalesce around democracy. and instead, their cowardice runs so deep, in fact that they can't even do that. they can't even call out the idea of having somebody who incited an insurrection on the ballot because they're so afraid of donald trump and his voters. that is really disgraceful and it really is concerning because there's been a lot of discussion about the need for republicans to really retake their party, you know, moderate republicans, anti-trump republicans. but when you see this unfold, you wonder if they have it in them. and you wonder what it will take

to defeat trumpism and who will be able to do it. and i just -- i also have to say that, you know, we talk a lot about freedom in this country. freedom is wonderful, but freedom comes with responsibility. and so there are other guardrails as well. in addition to not inciting an insurrection against the government, you also have to be a certain age to run for president. you have to be born in the united states to run for president. so this isn't just some free for all where, again, as you said, you can pick and choose the rules. you know, we live in a society of many laws. and any average citizen would be expected to follow all of them. but yet the president of the united states is not? makes no sense. >> well, i mean, the thing is tara, they had a chance. it's true. behind the scenes half of these people despise donald trump, want him gone as mara points out. yet when they have the chance to impeach him, they were too scared to do that. when they had the chance to pick somebody in the primary other than that, they are too scared to do that. they want somebody to take them

up in a spaceship because they don't want to touch him. now this is a chance for the courts to take care of this and they're still screaming. they want to defund colorado and any state that takes him off the ballot. >> you know, it's -- you're right. and i tweeted this the other day. we wouldn't even be here now if a handful of republicans had the testicular fortitude to remove him from the senate in 2021 when he was impeached for trying to overturn a free and fair election which was obvious to everyone it was an attempted coup. they refused to do it. every single lifeline, exit ramp off the trump highway they have not taken it. not only have they not taken it, gunned it to the floor and kept going. it's insanity. you look at this and go, what is wrong with these people. but power is very intoxicating. i have said this before. and i think that this power, this thirst for power and this desire for relevance has gotten so out of control that it is now an existential threat to the entire country.

the republican party has abdicated their responsibility to be the beacons of, you know, constitutionality and freedom and democracy, like the old republicans used to be. and instead, they have become a pro-ill liberal popularism that makes excuses for donald trump and disparages our democratic guardrails. we cannot stay silent on this. that's what next year will be all about. >> good news for the state of colorado, vivek ramaswamy threatened to take his name off the ballot if donald trump is not on there. you're welcome, colorado. please stay with me because we need to talk about trump's increasingly hateful, anti-immigrant and frankly nazi sounding rhetoric and we'll do that when we come back. that when we come back try new robitussin lozenges with real medicine and find your voice. you know? we really need to work on your people skills.

(man) mm, hey, honey. and find your voice. looks like my to-do list grew. "paint the bathroom, give baxter a bath, get life insurance," hm. i have a few minutes. i can do that now. oh, that fast? remember that colonial penn ad? i called and i got information. they sent the simple form i need to apply. all i do is fill it out and send it back. well, that sounds too easy! (man) give a little information, check a few boxes, sign my name, done. they don't ask about your health? (man) no health questions. -physical exam? -don't need one. it's colonial penn guaranteed acceptance whole life insurance. if you're between the ages of 50 and 85, your acceptance is guaranteed in most states, even if you're not in the best health. options start at $9.95 a month,

35 cents a day. once insured, your rate will never increase. a lifetime rate lock guarantees it. keep in mind, this is lifetime protection. as long as you pay your premiums, it's yours to keep. call for more information and the simple form you need to apply today. there's no obligation, and you'll receive a free beneficiary planner just for calling.

it is language that is meant to divide us. it is language that i think people have rightly found similar to the language of hitler. and i think it's just critically important that we remind each other, including our children, that the true measure of the strength of a leader is based not on who they beat down but who they lift up. >> vice president kamala harris speaking to my colleague lawrence o'donnell about donald trump's anti-immigrant, blood purity rhetoric in new hampshire

last weekend. but hours after she made those remarks, trump doubled down on the hitlery comments, this time in iowa. >> and it's true. they're destroying the blood of our country. that's what they're doing. they're destroying our country. they don't like it when i said that. and i never read -- oh, hitler said that in a much different way. no, they're coming from all over the world. people all over the world. we have no idea. they could be healthy. they could be very unhealthy. they could bring in disease that's going to catch on in our country. but they do bring in crime. >> adolph hitler's fascist man fes tor and frankly it doesn't matter if trump didn't read it. this man ever read anything. what matters is he is echoing hitler's rhetoric whether he's literally plagiarizing it or channelling it naturally because that's who he is. by the way, his late ex-wife i vanna trump once said he kept a

book about adolph hitler by his bedside. mara, your thoughts on this because he is at this point saying, well, hitler said it but in a doesn't way and then saying it again. >> you know, i think that there's going to be so many opportunities to get pithy about the political consequences of this speech, but i just want to take a moment to call out how immoral and dangerous and hateful they are, that speech, that speech is, excuse me. and the reason is not just because it's fascist and i think unfortunately too few americans really understand what that really could mean, even a democracy. but because it dehumanizes others. that is what makes it dangerous. it suggests that immigrants are not as human or as deserving of human rights and dignity as others.

that is language that today he is using to apply to immigrants but tomorrow could be used to apply to any other minority in the country or elsewhere. that is what makes this language so dangerous. it's one of those moments where i grew up actually with the grandchildren of holocaust survivors. i had holocaust survivors come to my kindergarten classroom, roll up their sleeves and show the tattoos they received in concentration camps. and you kind of think to yourself, how after we lost 6 million jews were killed in the 20th century because of a fascist movement. in this very country, in the united states, fascism was -- had a strangle hold on democracy across the south. for black americans in the form of white supremacy. and yet we're still sitting here unable to recognize fascism for the threat it is and that really

depresses me. and i just also have to say that it's clear that fascism maintains some deep appeal among a large number of people. or donald trump wouldn't be using it. i think we have to look that in the face, understand it. it's very uncomfortable. you know, all of us sit here and that doesn't appeal to us, but it does appeal to some people. so we need to understand how to fight those horrible ideas with moral ones. and i don't think that's a fight that we should shy from. >> i totally agree. and the media has to call it -- i think it's important to use the word, fascism. and tara, it also appeals to other republican. tommy tubervillle said those comments about immigrants being -- specifically immigrants from asia and africa making the country's blood impure. which is literally what hitler said. it is ruining the white purity.

this is what trump believes. but it's also what other republicans believe, too. >> unfortunately yes. mara is right. we look at iowa, the recent polling that came out of iowa and the commentary when people were asked about his dictator remarks and things that he said. oh, my mom was like a dictator. i don't have any problem with that. good. jd vance went out there and tried to rationalize trump's comments to say, no, no, no, he didn't mean blood poisoning immigrants. no, immigrants are poisoning the blood because of fentanyl trafficking. stop this. this is absurd. but it's very scary because there are millions of people who are continuing to make excuses because they don't want to face the fact that they're okay with some of this stuff. >> you're right. >> they're all right. it's too hard to look inward. there's something to be said about that. i said this for a while that as a country, we really need to reflect on that. i mean, my great grandparents came from germany in the 1920s to escape the nazi germive.

they were german jews. i didn't know this until my grandfather was in his 80s. my great grandparents came there. my father's side came from guatemala to escape the revolution there. so, you know, are people like this that have these immigrant heritages, many of us in this country, millions, poisoning the blood? is my biracial existence poisoning the blood of this country? >> according to trump, yes. >> exactly. and according to the republican party, apparently they're okay with that kind of rhetoric. that dehumanization leads to what we saw in el paso, the mass shootings in areas where you saw these manifestos where they're racially motivated. this is the type of stuff right here that i think as a country we will grapple with but there are more of us than there are of them. and that's why this election next year is so, so, so important. everyone has to be involved. apathy cannot rule the day. at all. >> yeah, indeed.

indeed. tara set meyer, mara gay, thank you both very much. well said. coming up, hunger, homelessness and disease run ram pent in gaza as israel continues its relentless assaults. the latest on the talks ending the assault when we come back. eg the assault when we come back.

vo: illegal immigrants rush our border in record numbers. more get away than are detained. leaders of “sanctuary cities” spend billions on migrants - creating a magnet for more illegal immigration and fueling the crisis. all while americans struggle to pay for food and housing. and what is the biden administration doing? closing more immigration detention facilities. tell your member of congress: biden's closing of immigration facilities makes this crisis even worse.

i'm sholeh, and i lost 75 pounds with golo. i went from a size 20 to a size 6. before golo, nothing seemed to work. i was exercising for over an hour every day. it was really discouraging. but golo's so easy, the weight just falls off.

♪♪ the humanitarian crisis in gaza is becoming more dire by the day. an estimated 20,000 are dead, according to hamas' government media office in gaza.

with the israeli military saying it struck 300 targets other the past day. according to the u.n., more than 90% of the estimated 2 million palestinians in gaza are displaced an starving. israel pitching another humanitarian pause in fighting but putting the ball in hamas' court. hamas said they won't release more hostages until the war ends. remarks today, blinken called the suffering in gaza gut wrenching but put the blame for the crisis squarely on hamas, suggests it was both israel's obligation to minimize civilian deaths. as he spoke, the u.n. security delayed for the third at the requestof the united es. the u.s. has vetoed previous drafts, demanding humanitarian cease-fire. but nbc news reports that the latest sticking point is that resolutions call for a u.n. mechanism to exclusively

monitor the humanitarian relief process, which now rests largely under israeli control. we asked for representatives from the state department to join us tonight, as we have done throughout our coverage of this crisis. but yet again, tonight, the state department did not make anyone available. thankfully, however, joining me now is josh paul, a former state department official. he resigned his position over continued u.s. military assistance to israel as it bombarded gaza. josh paul, thank you so much for being here. >> thank you very much. >> what do you make of the continual stall of a u.n. resolution, that it's not clear israel would obey. there have been others. >> i think it's a catastrophe. it's actually several catastrophes, first of all, for the people of gaza. since america first vetoed a last cease-fire resolution earlier this month, 2000 palestinians have been killed by israel. that is all taxpayer dollars at work. you know, as you noted, 90% of gazans currently don't have

access on a daily basis to food. the u.n. today an ounce that the world food programme had provided 2200 meals yesterday to gaza. that is nowhere near enough. so, it is of course humanitarian catastrophe. it's also a foreign policy catastrophe. president biden has pitched the global credibility of america to the moral credibility of benjamin netanyahu. and that is just a disaster for us around the world. >> i think a door for. i think of rwanda. i think of previous cases in which the united states would have, helplessly, watched people die by the hundreds of thousands. congo, the democratic republic of congo. but in this case, unlike those cases, this feels like this is us doing it. the human misery has been funded by u.s. taxpayers. yet, it doesn't seem that u.s. public opinion has any impact. >> well, that's right. i think those public opinion, it's important to note, it has shifted a lot on this issue. and i think it's in a different place than the american political establishment is on this. but at the end of that day, this isn't like somalia or

rwanda or soon because this is our bombs, our weapons that we continue to flow. you know, there has been a change of tone in the administration. and we saw that yesterday at u.n. where deputy u.s. ambassador wood spoke about the need for israel to change its language on dehumanizing palestinians. but how do you talk about that, and at the same time, hold back or prevent a vote on a cease-fire? you know, actions speak louder than words. and our actions have not changed since day one of this conflict. >> the rhetoric inside israel, we read some of the things, the comments by the prime minister, and other comments about nuking gaza, flattening it, take it over. you've seen the settlement movement both ramped up its acquistion both in the west bank and gaza. i wanna put this up. this is a post by the israel state agency. gets translated from hebrew. it says, wake up, a beach house is not a dream. they talk about how they started working on that reclamation of the area in a place called -- a settlement,

removal of ways, expulsion of invaders. in the forthcoming future, the hostages will return to home safely. our soldiers will combat in gaza. we will start rebuilding throughout this area. now, nbc news it confirmed that this is an accurate post. the agency, a marketing representative for them, claimed it was a joke and said it was simply meant to boost the mood. but that is sort of indicative of the kind of thing that we are hearing from the israeli government. what do you make of it? >> i don't know if it's a joke. i don't know if there is an israeli policy in place at this point to reinstall settlements in gaza. i recall my time in jerusalem and in the west bank in 2008, 2009, we are at that point is what was in the process of bulldozing the historic palestinian cemetery in jerusalem to build a museum of tolerance. it is just, you know, unthinkable. and i think we have to be very concerned, not only about the present moment, but really what is at the start of this humanitarian crisis. once the bombs stopped dropping,

there will still be millions without houses, without food, without infrastructure. and so, i think this is a crisis that is going to continue for a long time. and it is well past the time for the united states to change its approach here. >> can the united states stop the mass expulsion from gaza? people would be hungry, they'll be starving. they may be pushed into egypt. >> they may decide that that is the only option. i think that is something that someone in israel would welcome. and indeed, maybe intending to think about that. you know, the united states does have a role there. we are the ones supplying arms that israel is using. we are the ones providing that diplomatic cover that has enabled israel to get away time and time again, including, you know, blocking approaches to the international criminal court, blocking accountability. if we were to start changing that, if we were to allow movements for accountability to shift, hold out the real possibility of prison for those who commit war crimes. perhaps, things will change. >> one could hope. josh paul, thank you so much.

really appreciate your time. coming up, i've got a big announcement in store, when we come back. come back. at bombas we make the comfiest socks, underwear, and t-shirts that feel good and most of all do good. because when you purchase one, we donate one to those in need. visit bombas.com and get 20% off your first purchase. bombas. give the good. okay, you do not want to

miss tomorrow night show. you know enough to book who on the week? tomorrow, a panel of friends of the show, and throwing me as well, we'll be announcing our choices for who won their. and, yes, somebody did when they hear. plus, he would have a very special guest, really big. we would have the