frames the upcoming race as larger than a battle between two candidates with put different platforms and one that is really more representative of a larger existential battle over the state of our democracy. with the biden campaign, in that memo, using trump's remark that he beat a dictator on day one. as proof of the threat they say he poses to our democracy take a listen to what congressman clyburn had to say on that point earlier today. >> i had to move leave very starkly, that this democracy is at risk. just as it was in the civil war. we were in peril then, will overcome it now. this is a contest of ideology moving forward. this country remains a democracy or will be allied allowed into an autocracy as some people seem to be heading. i do feel that this contest

next year is a much, much bigger contest than one between two people. >> the biden campaign outlined that memo, outlining democrats as protecting individual rights and abortion, well donald trump, on the other hand, is running a campaign on camp on revenge and repetition. at the expense of american freedoms, that's an argument we're trim in 2020. they're doing the same in 2024 midterms. they're optimistic at that message will be ou to keep joe biden in the white house come november 2024. >> okay, nnamdi egwuonwu, but think, you we appreciate. that in moments, the words of the supreme court justice that might have helped colorado justify booting donald trump off the primary ballot. ♪ ♪ ♪ at the top of the, are very good day to all from msnbc world headquarters in new york. welcome to alex witt reports. we begin with the supreme court

dealing illegal blow to the special counsel investigating donald trump's role in january 6th. the justices rejecting jack smith's request for an early decision on whether trump is immune from facing prosecution. let's go to nbc's erin gilchrist at the white house for us. erin, what does this mean for the timeline of the case? >> alex, this could slow things down at least a little bit. the trump team had argued that the former presidents actions around the 2020 election were a function of his job as president of the united states, and therefore, he had presidential immunity from any prosecution here. the special prosecutor here in washington, d.c., looking into the election interference case said that this is a question that is fundamental to the presidency. in understanding what immunity exists for a president from any federal prosecution while he is in office. so, the special prosecutor tried to go around the appeals court, go straight to the supreme court but this question. to get an answer. the decision we got, that one sentence decision we got from

the supreme court yesterday was simply, no. it would not take the request to take up that issue ahead of the appeals court. so, this question is one that will be addressed by the d.c. circuit court of appeals before it can go to the supreme court. we talked one of our legal analysts about what exactly this means, and what this means for the pace at which this case will move. i want you to hear his response. >> this may be a case where the d.c. court of appeals gets to this appeal in breakneck speed. and then from there, the appeals to the supreme court, if needed, happens again in breakneck speed. we may be talking about a matter of weeks. and not months. and for that ordinary really, years. this is arguably the most important criminal law issue in american history. >> we know that the appeals court here in d.c. is saying it will hear the case on january 9th. hear argument in the case then. and then we'll see how quickly we get a decision from that court, it's likely that

whichever way this court decides, there could be an appeal that would go then to the supreme court. we could see the decision from that body fairly quickly as well, alex. certainly, not the response that the team from jack smith the special prosecutor's office was hoping for. >> indeed, okay, aaron gilchrist, thank you so much from the white house. in the meantime, new questions about whether former president donald trump pressured to republican canvassers in michigan not to certify the 2024 presidential election results. according to the detroit news, trump pressured the two republican canvassers on a phone call. former president reportedly told him they would, quote, looked terrible by certifying the results in wayne county. that's what detroit sits. nbc's capitol hill correspondent julie tsirkin is joining us right now. julie, another welcome to you. team trump has responded to this. what are we hearing? >> they sure have. they are not denying what was said in the recording that the detroit news is reporting. nbc news has not verified the reporting ourselves. it's important to point out, the trump team is not disputing that these calls had happened,

had information that the detroit news had reported out of the calls. it did occur. they are, however, continuing to say that the 2020 election was stolen. it was rigged, which we buy, now of course, know that was not the case. in michigan, they did, the republican-led legislator themselves have said that that did not happen in michigan. nonetheless, the former president's campaign team now putting out a statement saying that it is biden and the democrats that allegedly tied the leak of this reporting, something we also again do not know. he did, however talk to the michigan secretary of state about this, i want to hear what she had to say to you. >> there is lots of speculation about that, obviously, the fact that it comes out right after the colorado supreme court ruling on the 14th amendment question. it is questionable, in notable. i don't know the source of the recording. i don't know why they might have waited until now, what the agenda is. those are questions we also need to be asking as this

component of the story unfold. >> alex, this isn't the first phone call we've heard the former president make in the days and weeks in the months after the 2020 election trying to pressure state election officials to not certify the election results. in favor of president joe biden. he won michigan by 154,000 votes. we also heard about a phone call from the georgia secretary of state, brad raffensperger. and two election workers, the former president tried to pressure to keep them from certifying the election results, accusing them also of miss counting votes. that dominion lawsuit, those voting machines that the former president and his team alleged did not work properly. of course, by now, we know all of that did not happen. it is stunning that, again, we are hearing new recordings come out in more states. and we could see how that would impact jack special counsel jack smith's case here in washington. >> you make a good point, the timing of this is very curious. thank you, julie tsirkin, for

that. joining me now is kristy greenberg, former federal prosecutor and former deputy chief of the -- division at southern district of new york. and charles coleman, former brooklyn prosecutor and msnbc very festive legal analyst. anyway, welcome to you both. all right, santa, give me a sense of your initial reaction to this decision by the supreme court. does it make sense to make this play out in the appeals court before the justices weigh in? >> alex, this is good news for donald trump in the immediate sense. i don't think it's going to change much in the long term. i think this is the appropriate thing for the supreme court to have done. at the end of the day, we have a procedure. the procedure is that the court of appeals makes a decision, and then those decisions, if they are peeled, go to the supreme court. the circumvent that process, even under the current circumstances, would be to set a precedent that i don't necessarily know the supreme court is interested in upholding. i think this is the right way to do it. hopefully, the court of appeals case, they'll be looking at, that they make a decision, and

then, at whatever point it will go to the supreme court, the supreme court can then accelerate their decision-making process. but to jump the line and essentially skip the court of appeals would be a bad precedent to set. i think it was the right thing for the this court to do. >> picking up on the word accelerate there. this now really is a race against the clock. you have jack smith's d.c. election interference case against donald trump. that is set to go to trial on march 4th. all that litigation in the trial remains on hold until this presidential immunity issue is decided. how could friday's court decision impact that timeline? >> so, the march 4th trial date is almost certainly not going to hold. it would be very unlikely for that to stick while the appeals process goes forward. i think you'll see the d.c. court of appeals move very quickly, the oral argument is on january 9th. i expect a decision from the d.c. court of appeals within weeks, probably, i would think they could get this done by the end of january. i think they'll move with great

speed. and then the real question is going to be, how quickly does the supreme court take this up? the default rules allow donald trump 90 days to petition for the supreme court to review this. but, there is the opportunity for the supreme court to say, no, we're gonna take this up immediately. will they do that? i think they will. i think they also understand that they don't, by not moving quickly, that this is going to affect the timing here. you know, they don't want to put their stamp on it that way. i think they do want to take this up quickly. if they do that, then the question is, how quickly will they move? if you s v nixon is any indication in that case, where the supreme court heard it an issue of similar importance to presidential immunity questions. , they're the briefing was about a month and a half. and then from the time of oral argument, there is a decision from the supreme court 16 days

later. so, i think if that is any guide, we could be looking at a decision, sometime in the spring. that would then allow for the trial to continue, for the district court proceedings to continue to trial. and set us up for a trial sometime in the summer. again, that's if both the appellate court in the supreme court move with speed. and i do believe they will. it's just this is a matter of such imperative public importance, i don't see how they can just sit on their hands. >> here's something i want you to answer, charles, if it could happen. let's say the appellate court rules in jacks mitt's favor. could he then make an appeal, or would it be a different name to that particular move, to the supreme court saying, i want this to be firmly decided? in other words, do another run around like he tried to do this time with donald trump circumventing the appeals court. could he do that? in other words, expedia this

thing by saying supreme court take this up now? >> technically, at that, point he couldn't. the supreme court wouldn't have standing, the reason would have standing is because the question would be moot. it doesn't become a live question until donald trump is essentially appealing. that for jack smith, if he were to win in the d.c. court of appeals, to try and then take it further to the supreme court to get a final answer would be sort of inappropriate in my mind. it wouldn't give the supreme court jurisdiction just yet over the question. it doesn't become a question that's right up until donald trump is essentially appealing it in trying to go the other way. so, he is, at that point, as she was saying, beholden to drop them from timeline, in terms of when he decides to petition in front of the united states supreme court. >> explain, charles, how any decision, whether donald trump has brought immunity from actions he took as president, how they could impact all the cases against him? >> significantly. i think that when you're talking about jack smith's cases and on the federal level,

they're gonna give him a significant amount of cover. not necessarily with every single charge that he's been indicted on. but with a number of them. and when you're connecting what he did well president to the most notion of immunity, that's why it's fighting for it so hard. this is basically swinging for the fences in terms of an argument. for donald trump. with respect to the fani willis, with respect to letitia james, with respect to alvin bragg, some of those things are not necessarily going to fall in line. several actions may -- have something else to do and funny will sit at the state level. certainly, when you talking about jack smith, you're talking about these federal offenses, and this indictment, those are gonna be almost all but done away with if, for whatever reason, the supreme court were to decide that donald trump hadimmunity. because of his actions connecting to his responsibilities as president. >> so, interestingly, the demoatppoint justices on the colorado supreme court ted the decision by conservativesupreme court justice gorsuch. when he was a federal judge in

the state. gorsuch then ruled a naturalized citizen should be kept off the presidential ballot because he didn't meet constitutional requirements, charles. is it possible the colorado justices were kind of angling for approval from the conservative justices in their 213 page decision? can the supreme court act on this case without seeming partisan? >> well, i think what you just said, the last part is what really is of relevance to why they decided to, quote gorsuch in their decision. they basically knew that, look, we are a panel of democratic left-leaning judges, everyone's gonna know that. so, in order to make sure that this does not seem like a political decision, we cannot stress the point enough that this is not a political decision that we are making. and an opinion that we are writing on party lines. they did say gorsuch to say, look, even conservative justice has felt this way. this is an example of that. i think more so than anything, this was just a nod to letting

people know, we are being as nonpartisan and our judgment as possible. i expect that the supreme court is going to try and maintain that as well. despite the super majority that conservatives currently hold on this scotus. >> let's move on to the new detroit news, they have audio of donald trump, republican national committee chairwoman, ro, pressuring to michigan canvassers not to certify th20 election. iwant to remind viewers, and d.c. as not independently heard this call. trump already faces criminal charges for similar actions, christy. mcdaniel has avoided any legal culpability. how much further trouble could get both or either of them into? >> well, this may be, if it is not already known to jack smith, and it was not one of the calls that is detailed in the indictment like the call to the secretary of state in georgia was, this was not mentioned in the indictment. so, it's possible that jack smith doesn't know about. but, you know, again, he's done

a detail of mastication, one would expect he likely does. in the event he does not, this is an early christmas gift for jack smith and his team. because it is showing, again, donald trump is charged in d.c. with a conspiracy. we the objective of that conspiracy was to change the outcome so that he could stay in office and he could stop the count to certify joe biden as president of the united states. this is another example, a very clear example, of donald trump seeking to do just that. to further the objective of the conspiracy. to obstruct the proceedings in congress. to deny people vote. this is just yet another strong piece of evidence. and it's recorded. so you're not just relying on witness testimony, it sounds like the witnesses, at least initially when question about this, had maybe given a different story. now there is a recording. you can't get away from donald trump's own words that he said trying to pressure these

individuals not to certify the count. as for miss mcdaniel, it seems as though the same thing, based on the reporting, that she was telling them don't certify the count. we're gonna get you lawyers. that is getting involved. she is giving them direction here. it certainly makes her have criminal exposure as well. she, i assume she already has a federal defense attorney, but if she doesn't, she may want to give a nickel. >> okay, kristy greenberg, thank you for that. our festive friend, charles coleman, thank you so much. happy holidays to you both. a trump impeachment manager reacts to all of this, next. plus whether donald trump should be taken off more state primary ballots. also, new reaction to what the u.s. didn't do at the united nations yesterday. it was a surprise. we're back in 60 seconds. in 60 seconds e pill a day. choose acid prevention. choose nexium.

all right. 60 seconds to draw the perfect gift. what's it gonna be? a bottle of don julio, 1942, delivered. tragic word of the first known delivered with drizly. gifting without the guessing. drizly. death of an israeli american hostage in gaza. this as the united nations passed a resolution calling for immediate aid to be delivered

there. the measure coming under international criticism for leaving out the call for a full cease-fire. nbc's jay gray is in tel aviv, israel, for us. jay, first of all, what can tell us about the hostages death? and then about the aid to be sent to gaza. >> yeah, just tragic news, as you talk about, alex. 73-year-old -- father of four, grandfather of seven. he was shot on october 7th during the initial raid in the terror attack. still not clear whether he died during that attack or once inside of gaza. we know that his body was taken by the hostages to gaza, along with his wife, who is still believed to be in captivity. that's really ramping up the intense pressure to bring all of the hostages home. >> we've learned an american hostage won't be coming home. his family says -- an israeli american was shot during the october 7th attacks. exactly when he died is unclear,

his wife judy remains in captivity. that tragic news announced as negotiations for the release of the hostages have apparently stalled. >> the humanitarian resolution for us calls for urgent steps. >> after a week of delays, the u.n. security council, with the u.s. and russia abstaining, passed a resolution calling for creating the conditions for a sustainable cessation of hostilities. not a full cease-fire. and an increasing humanitarian aid to gaza. aide like this. these are the first pictures of trucks passing through the newly opened kerem shalom border crossing between israel and gaza. about 80 trucks a day move through kerem shalom, stopping here for inspections. and then all of the food, water, and medicine moves across the border and into gaza. the colonel, an israeli military telling us, -- >> in terms of food. the reserves in gaza strip are sufficient for the near term. there is no food shortage in

gaza. >> the images of children waiting hours for a bowl of soup to feed their family, in the words of those on the ground. tell a much different story. [speaking in a global language] >> this 12-year-old tele-'s, when we were home, we were eating meat and rice. today, we didn't eat anything. the u.n. calls the hunger crisis in gaza catastrophic. more than 500,000 classified as starving. and struggling to find drinkable water. with the war zone now on the brink of famine. and just for some perspective, on a good day right now, about 200 trucks carrying aid travel into gaza. before the war, as many as 500 each day would bring food and much-needed supplies to the region. alex? >> okay, jay gray, thank you very much. stay dry, it looks like a rainstorm. joining me now, pennsylvania congressman madeleine dean.

now -- of the house judiciary and foreign affairs committee. good friend to us. friend. six house democrats with national security backgrounds wrote pres this week. theyote speak out against israel handling of the war with hamas. as a member of the foreign affas committee, as someone who is just there in israel on december 5th with a congressional delegation, give me a sense of where you stand on this philosophically, politically, as well as what your eyes and ears are gonna tell you from what you saw? >> good to be with you. this christmas holiday season. on december 5th, you're right, i was on a codel with seven members of the house and two members of the senate. and we were in tel aviv for a series of meetings. we met with hostage families, we met with our ambassador. the speaker. we also met with the prime minister, netanyahu. as well as the minister of defense. i've called for weeks and weeks and weeks ago a humanitarian pause to get all of the

hostages out. we saw we had the seven-day pause getting a good number out. it is unacceptable, to me, the level of damage devastation of what's going on in gaza. the prime minister himself said to us in our meeting. and it was echoed by the minister of defense, that because of their superior military and intelligence capabilities they have the ability to micro-target. i plead with him to micro-target. first the pause. but let's take a look at what's going on there. 2000 pound donbas. 1000 pound dunbar ms.. that is not precision. that is not targeting. as the prime minister alleged they could do. we need to have a cessation righnow, a humanitarian pause. for three reasons. to get every hostage home. to get much needed humanitarian aid in, completely. and as thoroughly as possible. but also, for an assessment of where this war stands.

how many hamas have been killed? how many innocent civilians? i can't get out of my mind the barbaric attack that happened to israel. we saw graphic footage. i also mentioned to the prime minister at that visit. the brutal-ism of what we're seeing in gaza and this time of christmas, to see the faces of the children, the children who are under the rubble. they have to stop prosecution of this war in such an untarnished way. >> are you able to speak with candor, if i ask you the question, what benjamin netanyahu's response was when you said to please use the precision bombs and stop using the dawn bombs? and the overwhelming military superiority when they need to be specifically targeting hamas? >> what i said to him in a pleasant exchange, he had just shown us a 25 minute video of

the barbaric attack of october the 7th. which actually takes your breath away. they're images i'll never forget. but then i said to him, when it was my turn to speak, i said, mister prime minister, you recognize that as you showed us these videos the world will watch the other videos of gaza. and then children is absolutely unacceptable. the level of innocent loss of life is unacceptable. he tried to say to me, but there's a difference, there's a difference, i said one difference is that it appears that hamas took joy in the killing. i certainly hope you take no joy in the killing. and then i took home to the president in the administration what the prime minister had said. that he has the ability to be more precise. we just don't see that, it doesn't make any sense. you say on one hand we can be precise. and we see the devastation in gaza with perhaps 20,000 civilians dead. we don't know how many hamas.

>> okay, let's move on to stateside. donald trump will not appear on the colorado primary bell after the bombshell decision from the state supreme court that sites that provision in the 14th amendment of the constitution barring anyone from running for election if they've taken part in insurrection. you served as an impeachment manager investigating trump's actions on and around january 6th. what's your reaction to this? >> you know, i think, alex, we're in such a time of stress test of our constitution. this ruling is a part of that. that stress test to our democracy. i heard jim clyburn, my colleague in leader, a friend of mine. speak to that we are at a stress test of our democracy. nothing less. i have read parts, i have not gone through the entire opinion. i will say, i believe the colorado opinion is right. it holds two things.

it affirms with the lower court said, which is that donald trump acted in an insurrection. he participated, he supported in an insurrection. that is now true in both courts in colorado and certainly we showed that case when we prosecuted in the second impeachment of donald trump. following january 6th. he participated in an insurrection. then what the court found, he should be disqualified from holding office because he swore north prior to that. this is a test of what is a really breaking the glass part of our constitution. it was passed after the civil war, a country terribly divided. they wanted to be sure that somebody who wanted to further divide or tear down our constitution in our democracy would be disqualified from holding office. it's a stress test of our constitution, i think it's a beautifully written opinion. the court says the majority,

says they don't come to this decision lightly. i'm certain it will go up further. but all of this, whether you're talking about what's going on in two wars around the world, this is a time of incredible stress on our democracy. and it is up to us, those who govern, and our civic minded people, to make sure we li up to our constitution. >> as we lk colorado, you know it is the first ccsful attempt to remove trump on the ballot, unless it does get overturned by the supreme court. the e still several pending across the country. most of these efforts have been struck. down they've been rejected. sometimes withdrawn. when you think back to january 6th, you are fearfully hiding in the capital as the rioters were breaking into the building. is it hard to wrap your head around why so many states are hesitant even consider evoking the 14th amendment? >> in some ways, i understand. because it's never been done before for a presidential

candidate never been done before. but could you imagine the absurdity, i think, of the lower courts ruling that said, yes, trump participated in an insurrection. but this clause doesn't apply to presidents. it's an absurdity. you don't have to be a lawyer to say, on its face, how is it that a president who participates and states insurrection should be able to get away with it and run for office again. so, i'm not surprised because it is so novel and so serious a remedy. but i think it is the correct remedy. what is the point of this amendment to our constitution? if not to say who is qualified and who is not. we certainly except we have to be 35 to run. to serve. we accept you have to be born in the united states. so, if you are someone who participated in trying to overturn our government in order to stay in power, that's disqualifying. >> okay, pennsylvania

congresswoman, madeleine dean, thank you for joining us. happy holidays. >> very christmas eve, thank you. >> thank you. the good news bad news scenario about the weather now two days before christmas. ♪ on your period, sudden gushes happen. say goodbye gush fears! thanks to always ultra thins... with rapiddry technology... that absorbs two times faster. hellooo clean and comfortable. always. fear no gush. hi! need new glasses? get more from your helbenefits at visionworks.le. how can you see me squinting? i can't! i'm just telling everyone! ...hey! use your visiobenefits before they expire.

visionworks. see the difference. the race to get home for the

holidays is on. while things to be soon des moines pretty well so far today for parts of the country this might be the klan before the storm. what? ugly weather could cause headaches for travelers over the next six days. you're looking at orlando and i'm -- michelle grossman is tracking the winter weather for us. sounds like some folks are in for a white christmas? >> some are, yeah, hi there, alex. a lot are in for a wet christmas. some are in for a white christmas. even some a warmer than normal christmas. we could have it. all as we look at radar right now, we're seeing a few things we have a smaller system off to the northeast. the great lakes, that bring some showers, also bring some higher elevation snow. back to the west, we have a

system in the southwest, that same system that but all the rain in california. kind of joining forces with a storm to the northwest. we're bringing some snow to parts the rockies. that will be the case over today, tomorrow, and also some really heavy rainfall throughout that south central states, you're gonna get some lightning strikes throughout new mexico. west texas, that could be the theme throughout the afternoon. could see some hail th se of the storms. as we zoom in a little closer, notice the brightercolors. red is, oranges, yellows. that's where we're seeing the heaviest downpours. some of this heavy rain could be to flash flooding, that could be just a minute. let's talk about the winter weather first, we do have winter alerts throughout the intermountain west. inou central states, central plains as well. we could see nearly a foot of snow in the highest elevation. we will see a white christmas for some, wel see a wet christmas, awe go through the next three days, we look today throughout portions of the south central states. tomorrow on christmas eve. the gulf coast states. christmas day looks like the southeast will see some rain falling. in we see those darker blue cloud colors, that's the

greatest chance of seeing flash flood. that's really dangerous as you're out in about last minute shopping. we need to get places, just be careful as you head out. especially with the snow falling in some spots, it's icy on the roadways. we're seeing that rain falling heavy at times. we're also seeing those storms. as far as the rainfall totals, we're looking a lot as we head to the plains to the south central states. alex, as we go through the next couple of days we're looking at a huge blockbuster storm, we're looking at enough pains as we go through the next couple of days. >> just want to say, i have not been drinking i said the clam before the storm. i meant calm. drinking not drinking yet, i might need to. thank you very much. >> it was reaction you could've predicted after donald trump got kicked off colorado's primary ballot. what can be done about it, next. apple watch - all on them! ♪ (mom) please forgive him. (carolers) ♪ it's all good - just a little awkward. ♪ (soloist) think we'll wrap this up. (vo) it's your last chance to turn any iphone in any condition into a new

iphone 15 pro with titanium and ipad and apple watch se - all on us. that's up to $1700 in value. only on verizon. there's something going around the gordon home. good thing gertrude found delsym. now what's going around is 12-hour cough relief. and the giggles. the family that takes delsym together, feels better together.

- [female narrator] they line up by the thousands. each one with a story that breaks your heart. like ravette... every step, brought her pain. their only hope: mercy ships. the largest floating civilian hospital in the world. bringing free surgeries to people who have no other hope. $19 a month will help provide urgently needed surgery for so many still suffering. so don't wait, call the number on your screen. some concerns over the safety or donate at mercyships.org.

of the colorado supreme court justices whose ruling barr is donald trump from the states republican primary ballot. social media this week flooded with violent rhetoric against the seven justices who ruled on that case. and what has become, sadly, a predictable and dangerous pattern from trump supporters. whenever trump, is hit with a legal setback. joining me now, former homeland security and counterterrorism adviser to vice president m pence, olivia troye. welcome, my friend. nbc news exclusively obtained a report, it identified this rrt of threats against those judges, some of them posting their email addresses, phone numbers, office addresses, the ke. here is what one post on a

fringe website said. kill judges, behead judges, round kick a judge into the concrete. slam dunk a judges baby into the trash can. look, being the target of online threats from trump supporters is something you, unfortunately no from personal experience. so, i'm curious your reaction to this. what do you think can stop this abhorrent behavior. >> yeah, well, first, happy holidays, alex. what a terrible topic to be discussing during the holidays. can you imagine what these judges families must be feeling right now, the fear. what they're facing. only doing their jobs. i think that what is so concerning here. this rhetoric, well some of it maybe just keyboard warriors posting these things, and reflecting their anger, a lot of the times, these threats get acted upon. that's why we should take them seriously. i think we're gonna continue to see more of it. i was reminded reading these articles back in february 2017, i remember working on the

travel ban in the trump administration, and there was a republican appointed judge who is one of the first to receive death threats when he ruled a temporary restraining order on the travel ban, early on in the trump administration, and trump took to social media. that was one of the first times that trump had directed his anger at a court ruling against him. and we saw the ramifications of what that led to. in these past couple of years, this has only gotten worse against people who really are just doing -- carrying out the rule of law. doing their jobs. >> doing their jobs. after that ruling, a lawyer for trump, jesse bernal, accused a colorado justices of using their powers to pursue a political agenda, and said if trump is reelected, his justice department could prosecute them. and other judges have ruled against him. first of all, is that a direct threat to the rule of law? and also, to a democracy? into what extent is trump the one fomenting these threats

with his own posts on social media? >> well, that's the issue. it's not even just only trump. it's many who are enabling him in supporting him in this. and actually not calling him out. i saw what ali stefanik was posting about -- she was doubling down and actually supporting some of trump's narratives. that's irresponsible leadership by someone who's an elected leader in congress right now. but jesse bernal, when he's talking about, is certainly dangerous toward democracy. he's undermining the judicial process he's also, by the way, contributing to the narrative that they will use the courts against those that stand against them. it's interesting, because they talked a lot about the weaponization of the court system against trump. and then they also talk about their plans to use -- and go after, exactly,actl that to go after these people. >> yeah. you heard trump say several times, in fact, this week, immigrants a poisoning the blood of our country.

g stone reports trump, in response to criticism that he's echoing not see rhetoric has said, it's a great line. and he's gonna keep saying it. in fact, he's promising to turn up the volume of his extreme messaging. olivia, what your understanding of why he spouts this rhetoric? is it because he wants the media to cover it? we're doing it. because he wants to see if he can get away with? because he, obviously, believes it? is it all of the above? >> i think it's a combination of all of the above. he enjoys the attention of it. i think he likes fanning the fires of his base. he knows it will get his followers energized. look, i don't see it and fading anytime soon. we saw it back in campaigning in 2015 when he called mexicans rapists and criminals. this is been a long-standing pattern for the things that he says. this rhetoric, and these statements actually lead to real world consequences. right, alex? they lead to domestic terrorism incidents.

they lead to things like mass shootings. we saw that in the tree of life synagogue, where the shooter espoused antisemitic nativism posts. we saw it in el paso with the walmart shooting, where the person believed in hispanic invasion of texas. poisoning the blood, i mean, that is directly feeding into those incidents. never mind the buffalo shooting in 2022, where that person was also expressing some white supremacist narratives. so, i think all of these narratives combine and are intertwined. they all lead to dangerous incidents. he knows exactly what he's doing. but when you look at a leader like that, it's just unfortunate and just so disgusting that he doesn't care. that he's a leader of the republican party, he's one of the largest platforms, and he knows that his rhetoric is dangerous he's been told that, he's really been briefed on it about it during his tenure in the oval office by national security officials. he knows what leads to in the consequences. but i think this is part of who he is. it's part of his brand.

and he saw it get elected according to what he probably thinks was affective in previous elections i think he'll continue to see him doubled down on it. >> one word reaction, stunning. okay, my friend, olivia troye, thank you so much. you might say donald trump got the call from question from some of the legal decisions against him this week might they turn out to be a gift at the polls. we've got some answers, next. , next marlo thomas: my father founded saint jude children's research hospital because he believed no child should die in the dawn of life. in 1984, a patient named stacy arrived, and it began her family's touching story

that is still going on today. vicki: childhood cancer, it's just hard. stacey passed on christmas day of 1986. there is no pain like losing a child, but saint jude gave us more years to love on her each day. marlo thomas: you can join the battle to save lives. for just $19 a month, you'll help us continue the lifesaving research and treatment these kids need now and in the future. jessica: i remember as a child, walking the halls of saint jude, and watching my sister fight for her life. we never imagined that we would come back. and then my son charlie was diagnosed with ewing's sarcoma. vicki: i'm thinking, we already had a catastrophic disease in our family. not my grandson too. marlo thomas: st. jude has helped push the overall childhood cancer survival rate from 20% when it opened to 80% today.

join with your credit or debit card for only $19 a month, and we'll send you this saint jude t-shirt that you can proudly wear to show your support. jessica: for anybody that would give, the money is going towards research, and you are the reason my child is here today. charlie: i was declared-- this will be two years cancer free. but there's thousands and thousands of kids who need help. saint jude, how many lives they do save is just so many. marlo thomas: charlie's progress warms my heart, but memories of little angels like stacy are why we need your help. please become a saint jude partner in hope right now. [music playing] is trump an insurrectionist,

sir? >> i think it's self evident. we saw one of the 14th amendment applies to the court will make that decision. it certainly an insurrection. no question about it. none. zero. and he seems to be doubling down on it. anyway -- >> president biden there denouncing donald trump as an insurrectionist. after the colorado supreme court kicked trump off that states primary ballot. it is the first state to

successfully disqualify trump under the 14th amendment, which bars anyone who took part in insurrection from running for office. right now, more than a dozen other states are pursuing similar efforts to bore trump from their ballots, joining me now, adrian elrod. democratic strategist and former senior aide on the biden harris campaign. it's good to have you back on the show. >> great to be back, alex. >> glad to have you. political insiders from both sides of the aisle, as you know, they're saying colorado's decision hints trump a political gift. it will only help him in the primary. do you agree, adrian, with that? >> well, you know, alex, we'll see what the voters do in the primary. the bottom line is this, i think you've got to put politics aside and look at the facts. the 14th amendment makes it very clear, that if you are involved in any way in the insurrection of the united states government, there are consequences. it and there are reasons why states, the colorado, and as you mentioned upwards of a least a dozen other states are looking at this. because breaking the law is

breaking the law. donald trump supported the insurrection. he fueled the insurrection and when you do that, as a prior president of the united states, there are consequences. i think, in a case like this, you've got to put politics aside. you've got a look at the facts. these states are doing the right thing in terms of making sure that they are sending signs to ensure that this never happens again. and that no sitting president, regardless of political party, will play any sort of role in an insurrection going foard. >> so, i'm curious about this, there's new op-ed in politico, and it calls out the no labels grp for pushing a third party candidates sang that it could win in 2024 calling it a force. that will ultimately help trump get reelected. you think that's the actual goal of this no labels movement? given all the potential third party candidates, who do these candidates end up helping more? >> well, certainly, alex, it depends on who the candidate is. the bottom line is, yes. you've covered multiple presidential elections. 2016 was very close.

2020 was very close. third party candidates have a huge impact on the outcome of the election. and what no labels is doing here is could potentially cause great harm to our democracy. anything to give president trump a boost in this election cycle means that democracy is at stake. he is certainly made it very clear that he intends to govern if he's reelected. the president as a dictator. and by the, way i don't think he's going to be erected president. but we don't need to give him any sort of extra boost in this general election. any third party candidate, more than likely, again, depending on who it is, could very well take votes away from president biden and president trump. i think groups like third way, there's a whole coalition of outside organizations both democrats and republicans, that are coming together to really try to squash the efforts of no labels and draw tension to the fact that, you know, voting for a third party is throwing your

vote away. this election should be between whoever the republican nominee is, which is likely gonna be donald trump, and president biden, who's obviously gonna be the democratic nomine any third-party challenge could certainly up and president biden's chances of reelection. >> so, there is a new biden campaign memo. it's been released outlining its strategy to focus on warning voters about the threat that donald trump poses to democracy. this comes amid the campaign sharing this photo on x. it compares trump's rhetoric to hitler's. there is a time not too long ago -- when the president shadowy from discussing his predecessor. what do you make of this pivot in strategy, adrian? >> well, alex, we're getting into campaign season. that's what i make of this. and as you know, elections are about choices. there are about contrast. and i think president biden is doing the right thing by using his bully pulpit to make clear that if you're voting for president trump, here is what you're gonna get. president trump has, without a

doubt been intentionally using language that hitler has used. because he's making it very clear, this is how he intends to govern. he intends to govern as a dictator. he intends to govern against many, many ethnic groups, in many, frankly against women as well. the campaign is really moving into the full swing of where you're drawing a contrast between yourself and your opponent. i think you're gonna see what the campaign focuses more on using donald trump's words against him. look, alex, there was a time where you did not invoke the term hitler. you did not invoke his name on a presidential campaign. but we're also living in different times where a candidate is actually using hitler terminology to try to rile up and excite his base. so, the biden campaign has been very smart by lifting up donald trump's words and making it very clear, this is the sort of dangerous person that he will be, yet again if he's reelected

president. >> i got to tell you, i had one word reaction before to an interview like this. it was stunning. i'm gonna use it -- less statement particular. adrian elrod, good to see you, my friend. we'll see you again soon. coming up next, the people who are taking a sad situation it making it better. what's happening right now in chicago, next. t. one pill a day, 24 hours, zero heartburn. - hi, i'm steve. - i'm lea. and we live in north pole, alaska. - as i got older, my hearing was not so good so i got hearing aids. my vision was not as good as it used to be, got a change in prescription. but the thing missing was my memory. i saw a prevagen commercial and i thought, "that makes sense." - i observed the changes in steve's memory and i thought i should try that too. - after taking prevage, i just didn't have to work so hard to remember things. prevagen. at stores everywhere without a prescription. (inspirational music)

- [narrator] wounded warrior project helps post-9/11 veterans realize what's possible. with generous community support. - aaron, how you doing buddy? - [narrator] we bring warriors together and empower them to become stronger inside and out. - it's possible to begin healing - to get the help you need. - to find peace. - [narrator] and as each warrior's needs evolve, so do we. because these last 20 years are just the beginning. new today, president biden --

- [narrator] and as each warrior's needs evolve, so do we. executed of state antony blinken and secretary of

homeland security alejandro mayorkas to mexico next week, in an effort to address the surge of migrants crossing the southern border. customs and border protection reports undocumented migrant encounters reached a record high of 47,000 over four days between monday and thursday this week. and in protest, of biden's immigration policies amid the surge, texas governor greg abbott, without warning flew over 100 asylum seekers on a chartered flight from texas to chicago on tuesday. nbc's shaquille brewster is joining us now in chicago, volunteers are helping support the growing number of migrants in the city. shaq, how challenging are these increasing numbers from abbott's stunt? what are volunteers they're doing today? >> good afternoon to you, alex. look, we continue to hear that it is incredibly challenging, you hear city leaders saying the system is overwhelmed. that there are beyond capacity. that's why you have groups doing events like the ones that you see here right now. this group, is going through sorting through all the donations that they've been receiving from city residents.

everything from genes to jackets to sweaters, toy trees. and they're going through and putting them in kits for migrants when they arrived. i want you to listen to what a couple of officials told me about this work that they're doing this christmas weekend. >> this is about life. this is about a new life, in a new city, in a new country. so, for us, it's about welcoming, with hope, with opportunity, and the storied christmas, the story of asylum seekers finding refuge in the birth of a child. so, here we are, helping asylum seekers. >> what are going through before you sort it and put it in the kit? >> we want to make sure that it's wearable. we want to make sure it doesn't have any holes. the knees are missing. >> you want good quality stuff? >> correct, yes. we always say, gently used or new. >> they emphasize that this is about welcoming folks here. one thing i just got or some notes that they end up putting in those kits for migrants getting off buses we learned this week now getting off planes. they say that they've distributed some 70,000 items

since their work has begun you can hear city leaders talk about the rush. the crush on the resources for housing for supplies for food, for medical support. for migrants and you're seeing what volunteers, these nonprofit groups, faith-based nonprofit, what they're doing to help fill that gap when there's so can i much need, alex? tell you, shaq, thank you. i'm giving you a big prayer of thanks for bringing us some good news and seeing how we can help others. it's a good way to end this hour. i appreciate that and you, my friend. that does it for me on this edition of alex witt reports. i will see you at one pm eastern tomorrow. yasmin vossoughian continues our coverage. good to see, you i'm yasmin vossoughian. refusal to act, the supreme court takes on just one wind to deny a special counsel request to resolve a key argument from donald trump in the election interference case. potentially throwing the