that's all i can say. >> certainly is an unbelievable rescue there. our thanks to liz kreutz for that report. that wraps it up for me, everybody. yasmin vossoughian. i'm wishing you all a great holiday weekend. i'm going to see you back here on monday. christmas day at noon. symone starts right now. symone starts right now. >> good afternoon. i'm charles blown in for symone sanders-townsend. we are digging into newly honored audio -- former president donald trump according to the detroit news, the audio reveals how his pressure campaign on to members of the wayne county board of canvassers to prevent them from certifying the 2020 presidential election results went down. our legal expert digs into the new and significant legal peril this creates for trump. plus, the supreme court sidestepping a decision on whether trump has broad immunity, when it comes to

actions he took as president to challenge the 2020 election results. how this impacts not just the federal election interference case, but also what it could mean for his prosecution and fulton county. and rudy giuliani, too little, too late. the former new york mayor filed for chapter 11 bankruptcy a day after he was ordered to immediately pay 100 and $48 million to ruby freeman and shaye moss, the election workers he vilified. -- see will they ever see a dime of that money? you are watching symone. we have a lot to get to. ♪ ♪ ♪ >> we begin this afternoon with more revelations on former president donald trump's efforts to overturn the results of the 2020 election and crucial new developments on the

efforts to hold him acuntable. the detroit news says it reviewed recordings of then president donald trump pressuring two republican members of the wayne county board of canvassers not to sign the certification of the 2020 presidential election. the outlet says that the recordings were made by an individual president for the conversations but obtained through an intermediary that was not. nbc news has not heard or independently verified the cordgs. it has reached out to spokespeople for former president trump, republican national committee chair woman, ronna mcdaniel, and others involved in the call. this comes as the supreme court yesterday says it would not immediately decide the key issue of whether former president donald trump has broad immunity for actions he took challenging the 2020 presidential election results. while the supreme court's decisions dealt with trump's ill actions after the 2020

election, the colorado state supreme court heard questions about trump's eligibility for election in 2024, and it delivered a historic answer. in a bombshell, 4 to 3 ruling, the court sided that trump is constitutionally barred from being on the 2024 colorado primary ballot under section three of the 14th amendment because he, quote, engaged in insurrection on january 6th, 2021, after swearing an oath as president to support the u.s. constitution. the decision overturns a lower court ruling that affirmed trump engaged in insurrection, but said that the statute did not apply to presidents. here's what colorado's democratic secretary of state, janet griswold, said on the matter. >> trump incited the insurrection and there is no loophole in the constitution.

to hold that there is 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 is wrong. >> the state supreme court justices who agreed trump should be barred from the ballot acknowledged the impact that the ruling, writing in the decision, we do not reach these conclusions lightly. we are mindful of the magnitude and weight of the question now before us. we are likewise mindful of our solemn duty to apply the law without fear or favor and without fear of being swayed by public reaction to the decisions that the law mandates we reach. within 24 hours after the ruling was handed down, public rea came into clearer focus. the justices facedof online threats, according to reports advce democracy nonprofit obtained by news. one post on a fringe website

said, kill judges, bead judges, rock a judge into the. slam dunk a judges baby in the trash had. another user asked, what do you call it seven justices from the colorado supreme court at the bottom of the ocean? a good start. the court stated's decision until january 4th to allow for appeals and the trump campaign has signaled it will take the issue to the supreme court. the january 4th deadline is just one day before the cut off for colorado secretary of state to certify the names and party affiliations of candidates appearing on the march 5th primary ballot. while the case may be limited to colorado's ballot, it has nationwide implications on the legitimacy of american democracy and what is supposed to be a guiding principle of american justice. that no one is above the law. here to discuss the verdict and

what happens next is executive vice president and chief counsel of citizens for responsibility and ethics in washington, which filed a case on behalf of six republican and independent colorado voters, donald k sherman. donald, we will get to the colorado case in a moment. first, i want to get your reaction to what the supreme court did when they sidestepped the question of trump's immunity. talk to me about what that means in terms of your case and all efforts to hold trump accountable. >> well, thanks for having me on and, you know, at this stage, i'm not sure that it means too much for our case. obviously, there seems to be some gridlock at the supreme court -- with respect to very important cases regarding former president trump and his illegal conduct threatening to undermine our democracy. i believe that the d.c. circuit

will handle the immunity issue fairly quickly and either it will be resolved there or the supreme court will take it up. i think the court is quite cognizant of the number of issues that are either on its plate now or coming to it, relatively soon. and i think we hope that they are prepared to move expeditiously, both to hear, former president trump's eventual appeal of our case, as well as the other cases that are going to be before them. >> the ruling in the colorado case came after lower court disputed whether section three applies to presidents. how equipped is our constitution and justice system to holding figures like trump accountable for trying to undo election results of a fair election? well, i think what we've seen is that section three of the 14th amendment is built for this. it is built for the moment that,

unfortunate moment, that we find ourselves in, where 150 plus years after the first insurrection against our constitution and civil war, we have a president of the united states who, despite losing a free and fair election, undemocratically sought to undermine that election and have it overturned through violent and intimidation, lies, like we saw in pressure, like we saw in detroit, and fulton county, attacking black and brown voters. the reconstruction amendment, more specifically designed to ensure that the -- slavery was eviscerated, but also to ensure that future insurrections didn't happen. and so, section three of the 14th amendment was designed within that historical context. it is specifically built for this moment. the real question is whether we are, whether courts and citizens are prepared to enforce the constitution, even though the question isn't is maybe a bit complicated and the states stakes maybe a bit high.

>> what's your response to critics who say, removing trump from the ballot is, itself, anti-democratic? >> well, i'm always skeptical of trump's talking points, particularly on democracy issues. but i would say a couple of things. one, we have a constitution that lays out clear qualifications for office. not everybody can run for president, right? you can't be 25 and run for president, you can't, you have to be a natural born citizen to run for president. barack obama is pretty popular in certain corners of america. he's also barred from running for president under the 22nd amendment. the 14th amendment is no different than any other part of the constitution. it just has not had to have been used in this provision hasn't had to have been used for a while because, fortunately, we haven't had insurrections against the constitution on a regular basis. but donald trump has put us in this position and if we don't hold him accountable, you know, if he loses the election, you

run the risk of another insurrection. if he wins the election, we run the risk of a president who has seen people say, well, we're going to give him a pass on complying with the constitution that had significant impact on how he would govern as president and whether he would try and stay in office. if donald trump isn't held accountable for section, for violating section three of the 14th amendment, why would we expect him to abide by the 22nd amendment, which would bar him from running for a third term? >> let's say that you prevail. are you concerned that even with trump gone from the ballot, other republican candidates will keep legitimizing his election lies? >> absolutely. i mean, you know, i think again, the big lie is not just about donald trump. he was the inciter of the insurrection and used the big lie to undermine democracy, attack and disenfranchise millions of americans, predicated on a lie that targeted black and brown

communities, like detroit. in particular. but obviously, lots of other of his acolytes have adopted those same arguments and, you know, seeing him prepare to carry the flag. it is one reason why, in this moment, we have to stand up for the rule of law. we have to sign up for the constitution because if we don't, it's not just about donald trump and his abuses, but there are more people waiting in the wings to abuse the constitution and to disenfranchise americans, based on this big lie and based on threats of intimidation, like we are seeing. >> many other plaintiffs you represent in this case are republicans. what made you make the republican sign on to this case? >> you know, we wouldn't be here without the six brave republican and independent voters who stepped forward. it was from a sense of duty. you know, one of our clients is a woman named norman anderson, who's a republican, former majority leader in the colorado state house and state senate.

as we elect the tell it's, she's been a republican longer than most of her lawyers have been alive. but i think all of them, to a person, including another client who voted for trump in 2020. horrified on january 6th to see donald trump betrayed his oath and realized that if people of goodwill don't stand up for the constitution, then we may not have won, going forward. >> donald sherman, thank you so much for joining me today. i really appreciate it. coming up next, the supreme court kicks the can again. this time, refusing to fast-track a decision over whether donald trump is immune from prosecution in jack smith's election interference case. so, why wait? plus, rudy hits rock bottom. he just declared bankruptcy after a judge ordered him to immediately pay nearly 100 and $50 million to two former georgia election workers he viciously defamed. so, will they ever see that money? i've got msnbc legal analyst

danny cevallos standing by to answer all those questions. swer all those questions marlo thomas: my father founded saint jude children's research swer all those questions 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. >> is donald trump immune from [music playing]

prosecution in the special counsel's 2020 election interference since interference case? -- supreme court will not be taking on this question anytime soon. in a friday order, that was exactly one sentence-long, the court denied a request from special counsel jack smith to fast-track that question. it will first have to go through the u.s. court of appeals in washington, with arguments starting on january 9th. and while that is pretty soon, it will still be an extra step that jack smith had hoped to avoid and almost certainly means that trump's march 4th trial date will have to be pushed back. i want to bring in msnbc legal analyst and criminal defense attorney, danny cevallos. so danny, the big question for me with all of this is, they know they're going to get this question eventually. why not take it now? do they just believe in

processes that much? >> here's how, if you're jack smith. you know you are winning because everyone has described this as a blow to the jacks mitt prosecution team. it's not that much of a blow. what it really is is the issue of immunity just isn't being decided right away. they've already won on the issue. the government has already won at the district court. they may win at the court of appeals and then they may ultimately win at the supreme court. so, i'd hardly call this a devastating blow. except for one major fact. and it's the fact that nobody put in there moving papers, but here's if they were being honest, this is what the defense would've written in their moving papers. hey, supreme court, don't hear this case now because all we really need is delay. if we delay this case, we win. and this is never really happened before in the history of any other criminal defendant because no other criminal defendant, federal or state, was ever likely to win the presidency or have a good chance to win the presidency, whatever the case may be. and then on the day he's

inaugurated, make the federal case go away. now, either by appointing an attorney general who will dismiss it or try to pardon it himself. , but either way, the late winds for the defense. it's amazing when you step back and think about it how hard they fought to have the supreme court declined to take this case. the defense, because they could've won an immunity. what if they had one? in their view, they don't even want to risk waiting on the immunity issue. it's far more important to them to delay the case then possibly win on immunity. when you think about it that way, you realize how critically important it is for the trump team to delay. delay's victory and everyone knows it. they're just not talking about it in court. >> so, how much of a delay are we talking about? >> i've been asked that almost every time. me and every other legal analysts get asked that every time because it is a critical question and i'm going to tell you something maybe the others won't. the reality is, we can't possibly know because the only thing we have to compared to our my own cases, most of which nobody's ever heard of involving defendants that nobody's ever heard of. and in that case, you can say all, an appeal to the circuit

court. that will take two years, maybe a year. maybe eight months. but these are the most important criminal law issues, not just of a generation, maybe in american history. so, the courts know they have to get on this. they have to burn the midnight oil, they have to stay past 5:00,. this is a priority. they're going to work harder than they ever have before, so the timelines are all going to get compressed. but they still have to have papers come in, they have to have responses, they have to brief it, and then whatever court makes a decision has to write the most perfect, the best brief of their life because it will be scrutinized for decades, maybe centuries to come, if we last that long as a republic. >> i would love to be writing that, by the way. it is likely that trump will use this same immunity defense in the georgia case. what impact does this have on that and how much might this also delay that case? >> it could have a very significant impact because if

there is a supreme court decision deciding for, example, because they might not go this way. but if they do decide that the president is immune for all acts taken in his official capacity and the second issue is whether or not what he was doing was as a campaigner or as the president. here is what we know about presidential immunity and we've known it basically since the nixon area. we know it exists and beyond that, we don't know a whole lot more. we proved it a little bit during the clinton era, but now here we stand and we don't know the answer to the question of, if you're sitting in the white house and you are the president, are you basically immune for everything you do? even something that is way out there and probably not within your presidential duties. that question really is largely unanswered. it's been answered in part, for example, by the district court judge in this case. but it ultimately has to be decided by the supreme court and we will have to wait a little longer than jack smith wanted to. but by no means does that mean that jack smith has been dealt a blow. >> i just want to understand.

if it was ruled to be immune, would that be equally of love packable on the federal and state, or with the state have a separate avenue for prosecution? >> yes, it would be equally applicable because the defense would be a constitutional defense, just as, for example, the fifth amendment applies to your privilege against self incrimination. the fourth amendment applies your privilege, your ability to be secured, your papers and effects, and it's a reason why the police can't just come into your home without a warrant. all of those requirements of the constitution filter through to state prosecutions all the time. so, the issue, a very important constitutional issue of whether or not a president is immune from all his conduct while in office will, of course, apply to a defense. a federal constitutional defense in a state court proceeding. >> so, i also want to go to the, we have, like, a minute left here. i want to jump to the rudy issue. he's been ordered to pay these

two election workers almost 100 and $50 million immediately, but he says that he has, like, $500 million in liabilities because of all the election things. let's just assume he does have some money, he just didn't have that much money, who determines the order of which creditors, debtors, punishments he has to pay first? and then who gets left out in the cold? because they are too far down the list. >> it's called the bankruptcy code. the bankruptcy code is a very complex list of what creditors, as they get up in line to try and satisfy whatever their judgments or their debts are that they are owed. everyone gets in and everybody gets a different priority. generally speaking, the unsecured creditors are out of luck. that might be like a credit card companies,. secured creditors are -- what about people of civil judgments? well, those may be dischargeable, but there is an exception under the bankruptcy code for what's called willful and malicious conduct, and defamation, this actually was litigated in the alex jones

case. so, we have some case law in this and it's recent. so, willful and malicious conduct maybe not dischargeable. in other words, you may not be able to avoid that just through bankruptcy. so, that that may survive, but it's up to the plaintiffs here. they've got to make a showing that would what rudy did was willful and malicious. but now that's the legal answer to the bankruptcy code answer. the practical answer is, a lot of these creditors, including these plaintiffs, are not likely to see their money. they're certainly not likely to see 100 and $46 million. instead, they're likely to see a whole lot less, if there is anything left, of the rudy giuliani empire. by all reports, there just isn't that much. the bankruptcy filing, you've got to make it look like things are much more dire, maybe, than they are. but the bottom line is, rudy giuliani, very few people on earth say maybe elon musk and a few others, have 146 million in liquid to pay a judgment. >> danny cevallos, thank you, sir. i could talk to you all day. >> my pleasure, as always. >> coming up next, joe biden

flexes his presidential powers in a big way, issuing new pardons for many marijuana offenses, changing lives in the process. will this help the president's sagging popularity and will governors take his advice and do the same for people convicted of similar state charges? my political panel joins me next with some answers. next with some answers next with some answers which is why downy does more to make clothes softer, fresher, and better. downy. breathe life into your laundry. the subway series is taking your favorite to the next level! like the #20. the elite chicken and bacon ranch. built with rotisserie-style chicken and double cheese. i love what i'm seeing here. that's some well-coached chicken. you done, peyton? the subway series just keeps gettin' better. >> president joe biden with a

stroke of a pin on friday instantly change the trajectory of untold numbers of lives. the president issued additional pardons for individuals convicted on federal charges of simple marijuana possession, including on federal lands. building on a proclamation he issued last year for thousands of people convicted of press possession under federal law. the white house emasized the overwhelming racial disparities of marijuana arrests and disproportionately targeted people of color. according to fbi data, more than 208,000 people were arrested for marijuana possessions in 2022, alone. but the vast majority of those arrested are on state charges, which are ineligible for federal pardons and the president urge governors across the country to follow his lead. it's vital to remember that the effects of arrests and incarcerations are never limited to the individual behind bars. they sentence entire families

and poison the prosperity of entire communities, most egregiously, for communities of color. joining me now to discuss the impact of this proclamation, susan del percio is a republican strategist and msnbc political analyst, and alicia krause is a democratic strategist and former obama campaign advisor. welcome to you both. micha, is it immediately clear how many people will be affected by these additional pardons. but can you speak to us about the potential impact on the broadest level? >> so, this is huge and as someone who used to work in criminal justice reform, many of the cases that came across my desk, the individuals that i was advocating for, where people who have been arrested and literally lost their lives due to simple marijuana charges. we are talking some people who had been in jails and in prisons as early as 15 years old on and up into the 30s and 40s. even though biden's move only affects those with federal charges, i think that it sends

a message to the states, acknowledging that now, over 20 plus states have legalized marijuana and more are up and coming to do the same thing. it matters that we reduce the sentencing, especially because those of what you have been burdened the most are black and brown people. the black community specifically. the overwhelming majority of those in jails and prisons across this country on marijuana charges are black people. we are looking at numbers upwards of 75, 80%, in many cases. that matters. this is a criminal justice issue, this is a civil rights issue, and i think that for a president, for a very long time, talked about marijuana as a gateway drug, this is a huge move forward in understanding not only the inhibition inefficiencies that have been in a system that have created such disparities amongst sentencing, but also that we are light years ahead of what we thought marijuana was 30, 40, 50 years ago. today, everyone, every state is looking towards ways to not only make money off of marijuana use, but also to

ensure that many individuals who before have been sentenced for marijuana possession are finding ways to alleviate those sentences. i think the federal government can lead the way there. >> susan, let's follow up on that because as a mishit just pointed out, attitudes towards marijuana have relax on both sides of the miles over the years. now you have the spectacle of some states legalizing recreational marijuana and other years states, people are going to prison for. do you think governors across the political spectrum will heed biden's call to pardon state convictions of simple possession charges? >> they probably will in states like new york, california. but then i think you see someone like ron desantis who would never do it. it is such a good point that ameshia makes for joe biden, who is someone, and it is a generational thing about thinking of marijuana as a gateway drug. it is not considered that any longer. so, again, it was a big breakthrough for joe biden and i think it sends the right

message. let's face it, most of the pardons we see at the state level are in fact on small marijuana cases. so, i think it's a good move and it works politically well. >> moving to the colorado supreme court decision to barr donald trump from the primary ballot, ameshia, even if trump is off the ballot, how concerned should we be about the embrace of his anti-democratic mindset on the right? >> i think, honestly, that's the biggest part of this. as you can recall, probably, in 2016, donald trump lost the primary in colorado to ted cruz. so, it wasn't that he was extremely competitive, even when he was on the ballot. i think that the bigger issue that we have here is that those on the right, many of which who have said that they would like to see another candidate. if donald trump happens to be the nominee, which it looks like, by all pull indications that he will be, those individuals will vote in set with donald trump. these are the same people who don't seem to have a problem with his dictator commentary,

who don't seem to have a problem with him echoing some of the same phrases that we've heard from hitler. and from some of the early slave holders, in terms of blood here. specifically race mixing and -- we know where that came from. i think that that is the bigger problem, that in american democracy cannot stand if we have those types of views that are accepted by a large segment of the american population. the republican party needs to look inward. >> susan, speaking of the republican party, what could this decision mean for the enthusiasm of trump's base? >> it will be very high, but charles, it would be very high, no matter what. i know a lot of people are saying, and i think it's a knee-jerk reaction to say oh, this was good for donald trump, but a really rally his base. his base is rallied and in the long run, especially the general election, i think it helps joe biden because he's going to use democracy as a center of his campaign. he desperately needs to

motivate his base and others who may not come, they're not voting for donald trump, but they're not coming out. then there's also another says -- this is going to be very important for and that's republicans and independents that supported joe biden in 2020. biden needs those votes and right now, a lot of them are either not coming out or seriously considering other candidate because they're not biden fans. >> that's -- despite a slew of negative recent polls from the biden campaign, a report from the new york times citing people in biden's orbit saying that their campaign isn't looking to change strategy. ameshia, is this the campaign simply playing the long game or are they out of step with potential voters? >> i definitely think that the campaign is playing the long game. in terms of the strategy, kneeling down the economic value of what this administration has done to make lives easier for people across america, when we talk about

lowering the cost of prescription drugs and we talk about the infrastructure plan that's going to bring hundreds of thousands of jobs across the country, when we talk about his seismic investments in hbcu's. this person has done a lot. he's always in motion. i think that one of the changes that he will make, which has always been a part of the campaign strategy, but hasn't necessarily been as vocalized, is making sure that those younger voters, make sure the black voters, in particular, the bedrock of his candidacy, are going to show up and come out. because i do think that he's paying attention to the voices that are in the field, who are saying they want to see more from this president, we need to see him do something for our community. those voices, we are seeing him push his -- in states. we are seeing his campaign really ratchet up -- young voters and black voters, that coalition, out again. but i don't think that he's corn strategy. he's working on gotv turnout months ahead of the actual election. >> susan del percio and ameshia crossed, thank you both. coming up, 2023 was a year marked by intense divisions and

the united states. from abortion rights to vote bans, to what teachers can and cannot teach kids in schools, it often felt like america was at war with itself. up next, a look back at this very difficult, emotional, and divisive a year. and divisive a year.

>> in 2023, it often felt like america was at war with itself. there were battles over reproductive rights, over what to teach our children in schools, over what free speech means on college campuses. and be seen uses tremaine lee looks back at a year where our divisions got even deeper. >> in 2023, america seemed to be at war with itself. with battle lines drawn over hired fought legal games, long protected by precedent, now facing a fresh round of conservative attacks.

court challenges, extinct level restrictions. >> [crowd chanting] >> 36 states have introduced 137 bills to restrict teaching on race, gender, and history, according to a pan america report. >> on the front lines, public school classrooms. libraries. >> organizations like the american library association are tracking more book bans than ever and many of them are aimed at books with the lgbtq+ themes. >> school bookshelves. >> amanda gorman says she was gutted to learn that a florida school had restricted some of its youngest students from reading the poem that she famously recited at president biden's inauguration. >> from a fight over whose history is taught and how -- [crowd chanting] >> floridians rallying against governor ron desantis saw woke act and his rejection of an advanced placement african american studies class. >> we want education, not indoctrination. >> there's no way to teach history without having the emotional aspect of it included. >> to a history making a

decision by the nation's highest court effectively banning race based college admissions -- >> a sharply divided court scrapping decades of precedent. >> igniting frenzied debate over whether america's pledge to make good to its promises, equality for all, has been fully extended to its most marginalized citizens. >> justice jackson writing, with let them eat cake obliviousness, the majority pulls the records and announces color blindness for all by legal fiat. >> just off campus, a clash between pro israel students and a pro palestinian group. >> as war raged in the middle east, college campuses in america became battlegrounds as well, where the boundaries between the free speech and hate speech became trench lines. >> so, the answer is, yes, that calling for the genocide of jews violates harvard code of conduct, correct. >> it depends on the context. >> it does not depend on the context. the answer is yes and this is why you should resign. >> university professors were

tested before congress and the nation. >> university of pennsylvania president elizabeth mcgill resigned over the weekend. >> the embattled president of harvard is saying, at least for now. >> outrage tonight in nashville. a reaction to republican-led efforts to expel three democratic lawmakers from the state legislature. >> the fury spread to the floors of americas state houses, were civil rights, like free speech, would be hip checked. with the ouster of rising political stars accused of breaking quorum while fighting for gun reform. >> do you feel this is a dangerous precedent? >> that's a very dangerous precedent for the nation of other states will follow. >> the conservatives clamped down would not just tighten its grip on those who represent the progressive body politic, but those whose bodies and how their presented have, themselves, become political. >> tennessee will become the first state to implement a law restricting drug preferences in public or any where a child might see them, at least 14 other states have similar bills in progress. >> mounting restrictions on

women's access to reproductive health care. >> they're forcing me to continue the pregnancy, the pain and suffering. i think it is cruel. >> as long as i am governor of the great state of texas, texas will always protect the unborn. >> but this war over america's political ideals, where people power is flexed in the streets, and at the polls, where in the courts, ground is lost and ground is gained. >> the lgbtq community winds a court battle. a u.s. district judge in tennessee, leaving the states adult entertainment act, a law that would criminalize some drag performances and unconstitutional restriction. >> as the high court today reaffirmed the key part of the voting rights act aimed at preventing race discrimination. >> people standing up, shouting back, marching, voting. >> abortion access is the law of the land in ohio. >> fighting for freedom, for

power, for respect. >> no justice, no peace. >> former tennessee lawmaker, justin jones, back to the state house just days after his expulsion. >> this is what justice looks like. this is what democracy looks like. >> that was trymaine lee reporting. and a quick note, i want to tell you about some special content from the msnbc team. msnbc anchors, including simone, have picked their top political moments of 2023. you can find it all at msnbc .com slash 2023. coming up next, you might know i'll be short as an icon of r&b. but today, he singing a different tune, about closing the health gap in communities of color. why he's teaming up with another al, the great reverend al sharpton, and what they are asking congress to do in the new year. congress to do in the new year new year and it works on contact.

clean freak, just freak, wipe, done. >> today, we are shining a all right, sheila, are you throwing a dress like a dad party, a birthday brunch, or a vow renewal for your dogs? yes! the right drinks delivered for any party. drizly.

spotlight on an important health issue, especially for communities of color. the health equity and transplantation coalition's movement spearheaded by the reverend al sharpton and the iconic r&b singer, elie shore. they have teamed up to pressure congress to reverse a decision by medicare that cut off access to noninvasive blood test to catch signs of organ rejection in patients after they've had

organ transplants, which disproportionately affects black and brown people. simone sat down with reverend al sharpton and i'll be sure, who received a lifesaving liver transplant last year. here's that conversation. >> this is such an important issue. i mean, you receive an organ transplant. can you just explain how important this test is, post operation? >> first of all, thank you for having reverend sharpton and i. i am the walking billboard for transplant, you know? people see me and they say, hey, you don't look like what you've been through, but it's a serious issue. and it has been quite a journey back to health and wellness. so, i wanted to dive deep in, headfirst, and really tackle this -- she said, you know what? let's create this coalition and bring along the most powerful voice in bringing unity and bringing equity. of course, that is dr.

sharpton. finding out what the logistics were, related to a decision that was made in the dark to stop medicare coverage, medicaid, for the blood testing that is so significant to our lives. the most important thing for transplant patients is going into rejection. and so, i wake up every day being concerned about that. now, mind you, there were thousands and thousands of patients who are affected by this medicare, the coverage that is not being taken with the blood testing to basically know if you're going into rejection in time, because when you go into rejection, something is that you have, you know, it happens immediately, then you're sick, and it's almost impossible to recover from. >> you know, this is, at the core of this, this is absolutely, yes, an equity issue. you talk about people that are on medicare and medicaid, rev, these are the people that need it most, you know? if you're not on medicare and medicaid, you could probably afford to pay for the post op

test, right? pay out of pocket for it. this issue has sparked bipartisan concern on capitol hill and washington, d.c.. not just democrats, it's democrats and republicans. you were recently on the hill advocating for this and many other issues. i joke, is there an issue rev sharpton is not involved in? he's just, he is the most powerful voice on this. so, what progress have you made? what are people saying? >> i think first of all, when i'll be, who have known throughout his career and everybody, he's been a big fan. when he got sick and had to get a transplant, and i was keeping up to date, he was in the hospital, his mother and others, and rachel nord linger, who you know, who we talk back and forth, she's a media mogul now. she would say to me that his transplant thing is serious. so, when he got out and he started studying what they were doing to transplant victims or

patients who became victimized, as you -- he came to me and rachel and said, we need to get somebody out here on this. who do you think we should get out here? i said, me. because this is wrong and first of all, it's because of government gave into a private way of dealing with this, who just decides, well, blood tests, we're not going to do that anymore. it's not like they have time to correct it. if you are rejected, if the transplant is rejected, you almost immediately fall in -- how can we allow the government to do this? so, they called me a couple weeks later, you know, rachel makes things happen that shouldn't happen, couldn't happen. >> she's a magician, as i like to say. >> that's right. she called me on the phone and said, newt gingrich wants to work with you because he has a relative that had a transplant. so, this transcends just race and class. this is about people having the right to say, my medicaid

should be able to cover me. one it was already doing that. but they brought this up, the -- that stopped that. well, we cannot allow that to happen. >> so, what do you hope, i guess, the outcome of this effort a win would be for the testing to go back on the -- >> restart, absolutely. it's going to reverse the decision. they have that opportunity to meet with vice chair of the commission of my caucus, yvette clarke, and senator kirsten gillibrand. most of the congressional leaders. as rev. said, the most significant part of that, you see, i'm not there for the politics. i'm not there for the next election. i'm strictly there to see lives of transplant patients, and me being the walking billboard of this severity of all that transpired in -- i don't like to use the word coma so i will say i was updating myself there. >> there we go. >> yes, ma'am. so, we're really looking forward to taking, you know,

our senior adviser and just the powerful voice of what reverend sharpton represents around the globe to bring attention to this. what he does with, you know, police brutality cases. when you ask prevent sharpton if people try to scrutinize and say, you're doing this for attention. reverend sharpton comes and says, absolutely. you know, i need to shed light on this and that is the brilliance of reverend sharpton. so, i'm elated that he's decided to work with us. it's the health, equity, and transportation coalition. and i am the executive chairman. blessed to be the executive chair. >> and because i'm on symone's show, she has a culture that i just want you to know, between you and i, nobody else knows this. i think i will be in rachel's -- rachel and i'll be our dating. >> are they? i was wondering how she got -- i was like, wait -- sir. >> i figured i would get some tea since i was coming up. >> my cup is full. reverend sharpton, i'll be sure, i appreciate you both.

rev, you know we love you, but i'll be, i just want to reiterate what i'll be just said about you because yes, you understand, you -- the power of the media and you use it to raise and elevate issues that otherwise people wouldn't be talking about, such as this one right here. >> well, you know, i have had some things that i'm proud of in life. one of them is my little sister. she's fabulous. i mean, what she's done in activism and television is unprecedented. >> and i am a fan of the show as, well i watch you religiously and, you know, as i'm going through this physical therapy and this journey back to health and wellness, your boy has been a bright light on what television has come to be. >> well, thank you. >> we appreciate. you >> thank you both. >> many thanks to reverend sharpton and i'll be sure. and thank you for watching symone on this saturday. i'm charles -- in for simone sanders townsend. politicsnation with reverend al sharpton starts right after this break. sharpton starts right afte this break

this break and save with liberty bibberty. he doesn't even have a mustache. only pay for what you need. ♪ liberty. liberty. liberty. liberty. ♪

oh... stuffed up again? so congested! you need sinex saline from vicks. just sinex, breathe, ahhhh! what is — wow! sinex. breathe. ahhhhhh!