round out this hour. thanks so much for joining us. i'll be right back here tomorrow from 2:00 to 4:00 p.m. eastern. simone takes up our coverage for "deadline: white house" right now. ♪♪ greetings, everyone. it's 4:00 in the east. i'm in for nicole wallace. as we come on the air, a case that seems all but destined to land before the supreme court. the open question of whether the 14th amendment disqualifies donald trump from being on the ballot, specifically being on the republican primary ballot in the state of colorado, and how this question is decided could have ripple effects that go well beyond just the republican state primary and well beyond colorado. viewers of this show know the bombshell ruling by the colorado supreme court found that quote, donald trump engages in insurrection through his

presidential actions on january 6th, and is disqualifiedro holding office under section iii of theh amendment. importantly eedd was the ticking countdown clock, giving any party, not just donald trump, until january 4th to appeal to the supreme court and saying if anyone asks the supreme court to review this case, then donald trump's name stays on the ballot until the supreme court weighs in. well, no surprise, the disgraced, twice impeached, four times indicted ex-president made a lot of noise after the ruling came out whining and bloviating and promising to, quote, swiftly file an appeal to the supreme court. but then a funny thing happened. while trump and his lawye were working on that swift appeal look who beat him to t proverbial punch, the colorado republican party, who filed their owneal urging the justices to take up the case and d while mr. trump is expected toil his own petition in the coming days, the move by the colorado republican party has a,

quote, practical impact extending a sy entered by the colorado court while the justices consider the matter. in plain english, quote, that means mr. trump will remain on the primary ballot for now. we've seen this movie before, the republican party stepping in to help fight trump's battles. but this chess move by the colorado republican party is yet another toxic reminder of the toxic relationship between the disgraced ex-president and the gop. but if the supreme court does take up this 14th amendment case, as they are expected to do, those nine justices will have not just the fate of donald j trump in their hands, but arguably democracy itself. and it's not just t case that appears to be heading to the supreme court's doorstep. they have already agreed to review the obstruction law that could impact the federal election interference case agnst trump. there's also the open question about trump's gag order and presidentiunity. and don't forget about mark

mullen mark meadows -- not just him but also donald trump. all of that is or could be in play for the supreme court, means that nine supreme court justices, well, they're in for a very trumpy new year. and that is where we start today, with our panel, political and national correspondent betsy woodruff swan, plus former plead investigator for the january 6th committee, tim -- and senior columnist for "the boston globe" kimberly atkins thor. kim, i'm going to start with you. can you walk us through what the practical effects of what this appeal from the colorado republican party, what it does. it keeps trump's name on the ballot, of course. obviously we know that. but until when? and then because they've already appealed, does donald trump even need to appeal? or is -- are we just going to see more bloviating and whining and promises but no paperwork? >> right. so, donald trump's team

absolutely file a writ, asking the supreme court to weigh in. people do that. they can ask them to consider a different question than the colorado republicans do. and that can let the justices decide just what question they're going to answer. so, it still doesn't foreclose that possibility. but importantly, it does, sort of, trigger this keeping of the status quo, which is he is still on the ballot. now, what that could do is take a bit of heat off the supreme court to act quickly if he were still off the ballot. then that could provide some impetus. but because they built in this in the ruling, i think that was something that this colorado supreme court was aware of. the supreme court can do a lot of things. they can do nothing. >> do you think they'll do nothing? >> i don't. but they can also take up questions that don't necessarily get to the 14th amendment problem. for example, was the trial that colorado conducted sufficient? maybe they can rule on more of a technical procedural ground, or they can take on the 14th

amendment question of is he an insurrectionist head on. there are a lot of unknowns still. we have to wait to see how that plays out. >> betsy, i want to turn to you, because when we look at this question of, is he an insurrectionist -- actually, kim, before i go there, i have stuck by the insurrectionist question because theolorado supreme court upheld the finding that donald trump, quote, engaged in insurrection. okay. and if we remember what section iii exactly says of the 14th amendment, it says, quote, no person shall hd any office who, having previou taken an oath to support the conson, engaged in insurrection. engaged is a keyword there. we're going to bold it and underline it. not convicted in a court of law, but engaged in. i'm struck, tim, that the colorado republican party didn't really take issue with whether insurrection.aged in the but what they do say over and over again is that, quote, congress and congress alone enforces section iii of the 14th

amendment. one, is that true? and what do you think they're getting at there, tim? because the engage in insurrection piece, i think, is critical to the entire question on the table. >> yeah. so, the court has both questions of fact and questions of law at stake surrounding this question, right? in order to find that section iii of the 14th amendment applies, they have the factual question of is there evidence that he engaged in insurrection. and b, legally, does that provision apply to the president? heave due process in the factual finding? the republican petition to the sueme court focuses excly o the legal questions, not the factual questions. they don't address the judge's finding, tg,nd the afir mans of this by the colorado supreme court that there is evidence, that the president engaged in insurrection. as kimberly said, the supreme court can do anything it wants. it can take up the factual

question. it can take up the very legal questions or other legal questions that are raised by the republican party. the supreme court typically takes cases where there's a conflict among lower courts. we have that here because other states have not done as colorado has done and kept the president off the ballot. or if there's an important issue of constitutional law, which clearly there is here. the interpretation of this statute. i think kimberly's right. the court is going to take this case. exactly what questions they choose to address and how they come out is a much more difficult thing to predict. >> very difficult to predict. you know, betsy, the lawyers who filed the colorado republican partytion, they cited a quote of sim cases being brght across the country. they're not there are at least 16 other states beyond colorado that currently haveding legal challenges to the former president's eligibility under the 14th amendment.

if you think we're looking at a domino effect across the country, no matter how the supreme court ruled, especially given the fact that they may not weigh in for a while? >> there's no question that the colorado supreme court's ruling has played a significant role in shaping elite legal opinion about this 14th amendment question. they were essentially the first penguins off the iceberg when it came to a judicial body saying that this 14th amendment argument against trump actually has weight, actually deserves to be taken seriously, actually ought to change the way things are operating, as we head into the 2024 election year. prior to the colorado supreme court ruling, i think most legal opinion commentators, particularly folks in the center or who lean, of course, to the right and to the more originalist perspective, had a lot of skepticism, a lot of eye rolling toward the substance of this argument. but the defense of it that the

colorado supreme court made really added a lot of credence. and we see in the days since that ruling came down more conservative legal experts saying, huh, actually these colorado judges have a point. actually there's something here to be taken seriously. and i think the fact that colorado has now taken this step is something that's likely to provide certainly much more legitimacy to these other states, as they head for a significant number of other judicial bodies making this same argument. >> i think the filings and reading them are so important, especially the opinion. i have the colorado gop filing here. i want to read something else from that filing. tim, it says this. quote, unless the colorado supreme court's decision is overturned, any voter w he the power to sue, to disqualify any political candidate in colorado or in any other jurisdiction that follows this lead. will not only distort the 2024 presidential election but will also mire courts and

political controversies over nebulous accusations of insurrection. tim, does that legal argument hold any water? i used to work campaigns for a long time, and it was a regular occurrence that folks would be removed from the ballot via court proceeding. >> yeah. that statement or that prediction is true now. it's possible for any citizen to go to court now and either challenge the result of the election, the president himself and his campaign did that 62 times after the 2020 election completely unsuccessfully, or even thereafter, invoking section iii of the 14th amendment. that status quo is present regardless. the issue is that litigants need to have facts that support that. and while a lot of people could rush to the courthouse to try to disqualify candidates from the ballot, there needs to be evidence of engaged -- that that person engaged in insurrection. and that's what is unique about this case. i don't personally fear that

there will be a rush of litigation because of the facts here are so unique. it's almost unprecedented that you have this degree of factual attempts to prevent transfer of power stoking the insurrection, as we saw on january 6th, with respect to this candidate. so, sure, it's possible that there will be additional lawsuits brought in subsequent years. but all of them will depend upon fact. >> the little thing about facts is that they matter. okay, tim, i have one more legal question for you. i'm not a lawyer. you do the talking points for the lawyers. they also argue in this colorado filing that, quote, the historical significance of this decision cannot be overstated. the colorado supreme court has removed the leading republican candidate from the primary and general llot, fundamentally changing the course of american democracy. and that decision to remove trump from the , quote, violates the colorado republica

party's first amendment rights to place a political candidate on the primary and general election ballots. tim, i did not have a first amendment argument on my bingo card here, but is there a first amendment argument to be made? >> that's a new one. it is not something that was litigated at the court below. this is now brought not by the candidate that's being excluded, but by the republican party that's arguing their free association rights are violated by this finding. they cite the presidential nature of this and its long-term impact. that's true. but what's precedential and what's so unusual here, again, are the facts. it's not the presence of this lawsuit. it's the fact that we had an attack on the united states capitol stoked by the rhetoric of and actions of days and weeks and months of a now-candidate for office. that's what's unprecedented. so, to say that the case is groundbreaking, sure. but it's the facts themselves. we keep coming back to this -- that are so precedential here

and unusual. >> you know, tim, i went through this at the top of the show. but this is just one of several legal cases that the supreme court will potentially weigh in on and there are some concerns that the 2024 election would end up being decided by the supreme court, if not directly, like in bush v. gore, indirectly by a number of different rulings that could undermine or chip away or hinder any effort to keep trump from getting back into the white house, if in fact he ends up being the republican nominee. are those credible fears, or do you think that is hype bole? >> i think it depending on the case. i think in this case, the supreme court could find if he is an insurrectionist, he is unable to hold office constitutionally. i think many americans would see the supreme court as deciding this, as opposed to leaving him on the ballot and letting the voters decide. i think with the criminal cases,

they operate outside the political sphere. >> what's jack smith's case? >> that's what i mean, jack smith's case, the case in georgia. those are criminal cases that are alleging that he committed a crime. those operate outside of the operation of an election. they could change the public's mind, for sure. but to say that people can't -- candidates can't be tried criminally if the evidence supports it would really be antidemocratic in a different way. it would go against our very constitution. i think one is inadvertent. one is tangential. but the 14th amendment challenge takes that on head-on and could put the supreme court in a position of taking off a leading republican candidate for president. >> this court has -- it's shocked people before. i don't know if it is willing to go that far. i mean, betsy, we haven't talked about the ethical questions that are swirling around the supreme court. and if you look at the latest pew center research polling,

confidence in the court as well as confidence in government across the board is at an all-time low. how hard do you think it's going to be to get a majority of americans to accept the supreme court's decision, whether we're talking about this 14th amendment case or any of these other trump-related cases that the court is likely to take up? >> it's such a good question. and it's a very difficult moment for the court because the country is so polarized and because, you know, not to sound a defeatist tone, but no matter where the court comes down, a substantial portion of the american electorate is going to think it was doing something illegitimate and horrible. is that proportionate of the electorate going to be in the majority or not remains to be seen. what i think has been clear for years and years now is that these questions are front of mind for chief justice john roberts. one of his, sort of, career focus projects has been shoring up the legitimacy of the court, trying to strengthen public

opinion in the institution, trying to defend the institution against all sorts of attacks and criticisms that it's faced. and what this polling indicates is that at least when it comes to public opinion, to the public's view of the court, that it's not working, that thus far roberts has not been able to successfully complete that project. and when questions, such as these issues related to trump's election, related to the 2024 election, when those questions come up, for roberts, he's going to view it, in part, of course, through this lens of, how do we weigh in on these must-address political questions without making people even more concerned that the court, as a body, has become a political institution? and that's just a tough spot. >> it's a tough spot, but it is in fact the facts. thank you so much for spending some time with us. tim, you're going to stay close

because we will bring you back in the next hour. and kim, you are sticking around because when we come back special counsel jack smith says he wants to stop donald trump from fuelling conspiracy theories at trial. so, what did donald trump do when he heard the news? say all the things he and his lawyers are not supposed to say to a jury. plus abortion rights won big all across the country this year. but women across america are dealing with cruel abortion bans and restrictions. we'll talk about a case that is galvanizing activists all over the country. and republican presidential candidate nikki haley is in cleanup mode today, after she failed to mention that the civil war was about slavery. yes, that really happened. all those stories and more when "deadline: white house" continues after a quick break. don't go anywhere.

you're probably not easily persuaded to switch mobile providers for your business. but what if we told you it's possible that comcast business mobile can save you up to 75% a year on your wireless bill versus the big three carriers? did we peak your interest? you can get two unlimited lines for just $30 each a month. there are no term contracts or line activation fees. and you can bring your own device. oh, and all on the most reliable 5g mobile network nationwide. wireless that works for you. it's not just possible, it's happening.

at this point, we are all familiar with this move from the donald trump playbook. say whatever you want no matter how wrong it is, and just write it off as free speech. after special counsel jack smith asked judge tanya chutkan to prohibit the ex-president from bringing, quote, irrelevant disinformation into his election interference trial and rejected attempts to, quote, inject politics into the proceeding, donald trump is sounding the alarm, claiming the motion infringes on his right to free speech, while spewing the same nonsense only that jack smith is talking about. currently trump is trying to get the entire case thrown out because he thinks no one has any power over anything he did in office. the point remains, you do not have an unrestricted license to

say whatever you want in a courtroom when you're under criminal indictment, even if you have your own false definition of free speech. joining us now is senior visiting research fellow at columbia university -- anderson jones. kim is also back. can we just talk about free speech because donald trump can, in fact, say whatever he wants outside the courtroom. but donald trump does not have a right to just put irrelevant or false content before a jury. >> that's right. the rules governing the control of the content of our speech are very different inside the courtroom than they are outside the courtroom. outside the courtroom, the first amendment gives us broad control over both the viewpoints that we want to take on particular issues and the particular issues we want to talk about, the subjects, the topics. inside the courtroom, though, content control is expected by the judge. it's part of the judge's primary job under the rule of law to

observe the rules of evidence and to make sure that what goes before the jury is the kind of content that the federal rules of evidence envision. the federal rules of evidence say that the evidence that goes before the jury has to be relevant. it has to be something that is properly provable to this jury on these sorts of facts that are specific to the particular charges that are brought in the particular case. and the federal rules of evidence also say that evidence is excludable if it's unduly prejudicial or if it will cause confusion or if it's misleading. the first amendment does not give you a right to introduce irrelevant evidence or to give speeches on the stand that are related to that irrelevant evidence, even if you feel really strongly about the topic and even if you want very badly to share that message.

the recent motions that were made by jack smith are all centered on these rules of evidence. he argues that the sorts of things that trump wants to share are not relevant to the particular case or are unduly prejudicial or both. there will be some significant fights between the parties about the application of those federal rules of evidence. but they really shouldn't reside in first amendment territory. the constitution doesn't give us a free speech right to turn a criminal trial into a place for delivering speeches on any topic of our choosing. it limits us to what's relevant to the jury. >> so, then, how do you think judge chutkan will rule on jack smith's request? i mean, hearing everything you said, i would think she would grant it. but stranger things have happened. >> right. well, i think there are going to be some really nuanced arguments between the parties on the specifics of the relevance and the specifics of the prejudice that might be caused by certain

pieces of the evidence. the problem here is that the fight isn't going to be happening in a first amendment space in the way that trump has been characterizing to the public, but rather is going to be happening in a more specific space, questioning the very particular pieces of evidence that he and the prosecutors want to admit. and considering them based on the relevancy that they have to the actual charges that the jury is considering and not to the broader political dynamics that this particular defendant might want to introduce. >> okay, there is a reason why the judge can decide the content of speech inside a courtroom. and i'm thankful that that's the case. can you talk about the kinds of lies we've seen from donald trump and specifically what you think jack smith is trying to protect the jury from? there is a laundry list, if you

will, of examples to give. >> yeah. exactly, simone. look, in order for something to be admissible in a courtroom, it has to be both true -- right, there has to be evidence -- that it's accurate, and it has to be relevant. it has to bear upon some contested issue in this case. what the special counsel has done is he's taken a lot the president has said to others and said, a, they're factually false, and, b, they're not relevant in this case. things like he ordered 10,000 troops to be there on jack smith and nancy pelosi turned that down. completely bogus, no evidence whatsoever. that there are undercover government informants who are stoking violence at the capitol. absolutely false. baseless. just like the lies about the election. there are so many lies the former president has put forth that is factually inaccurate.

and, again, none of those facts bear upon the president's state of mind, his attempt to disrupt, interfere with, impede an official proceeding, right? the issues in a criminal trial are limited. they're limited by law. and you can't just throw out things that are prejudicial, baseless, and not relevant and hope that they somehow influence a juror. this happens in every criminal case, an effort into advance to define what is and isn't both established as a matter of evidence and relevant. that's the exercise that judge chutkan is going through now. >> about the jury, i mean, donald trump is a defendant with a very huge megaphone, often times a bull horn that sometimes seeps racism, if we're being honest. he's the front runner for the republican nomination. he has a huge following across social media. do you think comments like these are tainting the jury pool,

regardless of where he said them? it's not just about -- if he says something on truth social, for example, lots of people that follow him see it. but also the media apparatus often times they cover it. they repeat it. it's being repeated incessantly on other news networks. it affects everyone everywhere. >> right. i think both sets of concerns exist here. you worry about the inadmissible evidence getting to the jury in the courtroom itself, which is the focus of this current filing from jack smith. but you also worry about the inadmissible evidence making its way to potential jurors outside of the courtroom. in that space, there's significantly more protection on the free speech front because it isn't controlled within the courtroom. it's free speech out in the broader world. the judge, for sure, will be taking really careful steps within the courtroom, once the jury is impanelled and in the

process of selecting the jury, to try to curb that kind of influence, to make sure that people are being selected for the jury who don't have pre-existing views on it, and also to explain to the jurors which elements of the crime are relevant, what evidence is at stake here, and what isn't at stake. we can expect the judge will be giving a lot of instructions along the way and explaining in, sort of, the same way that jack smith's materials have done, to try to describe -- to try to parse that which is relevant from that which isn't. another, sort of, good example here, one of the things that jack smith has pointed out is that trump seems to have a desire to make arguments to this jury about the ineffectiveness of law enforcement on the capitol on january 6th during the riot. and jack smith has explained in the filing that this isn't

relevant to the charges that are -- have been brought against donald trump, that it's the equivalent of suggesting in your bank robbery trial that the bank didn't have a good security guard. the description of what's relevant and what isn't relevant is going to be important in the lead-up to this trial. but it's also going to be very important in the midst of the trial. explanations are going to be given to these jurors to describe what the task is that they have at hand and asking them to separate that from other things that they are hearing, both inside and outside the courtroom. >> we talk about the trial, but this motion won't be decided until donald trump's claims of immunity are settled. and there's an appeals court that is scheduled to hear those arguments but not until early january. tim, last question to you. do you expect that this trial begins in march, as scheduled, or are we getting pushed back?

>> it's getting more and more tenuous. d.c. circuit is going to take it up right away. i think they hear arguments in the case a week from next, a week from monday. that's about as fast as they can move. even if they issue a prompt response, it then goes back potentially to the supreme court. potentially they could expedite it too. every time there's a procedural hurdle that goes before march 4th, it makes that date a little bit less reliable. judge chutkan and jack smith want very much for that case to start on march 4th or as soon thereafter as possible. it's the defendant in the case who consistently wants to put it off as long as possible. i think it's going to happen in the spring, whether it's march 4th or march 15th or april 4th. everyone seems to appreciate the urgency of resolution of these issues, of getting this case to trial. and that, simone, finally goes back to your earlier question about legitimacy. i think a trial verdict, tested

by vigorous advocacy, cross-examination, and a fair process, has the potential to have more legitimacy in the eyes of the public than anything that the supreme court does or anything that our select committee did. these are regular people who are drawn from the voter roles in washington, d.c. who are going to make a decision based on evidence vigorously challenged. -- in a way a lot of the other expeditions of the same fact have yet to do. >> i and i know a lot of legal folks agree with you, which is why people are looking for these trials to start prior to november 2024. right now, anderson jones, kim, thank you both for spending time with us and your great insights. we appreciate it. after the break, folks, abortion rights activists are rallying around an ohio resident facing a felony charge after she miscarried and had to go to the hospital. the story of brittany watts is next. tts is next just always thought, “dog food is dog food”

i didn't really piece together that dogs eat food. as soon as we brought the farmer's dog in, her skin was better, she was more active. if i can invest in her health and be proactive, i think it's worth it. visit betterforthem.com ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ cargurus. shop. buy. sell. online. narrator: time is running out to give a year-end gift like no other, a gift that can help st. jude children's research hospital save lives. woman: cancer doesn't care how old you are, and it's devastatingly scary. if you're donating to st. jude, you're supporting finding a cure, because the fight never stops. narrator: every gift counts, and whatever you can give will make a difference for children like gideon. make your donation today to help st. jude save l. while i am a paid actor,

and this is not a real company, there is no way to fake how upwork can help your business. upwork is half the cost of our old recruiter and they have top-tier talent and everything from pr to project management because this is how we work now. ugh, i'll deal with this tomorrow. you won't. it's ripe in here. my eyes are watering. look how crusty this is. ugh, it's just too much. not with this. good advice. when stains and odors pile up, it's got to be tide.

the power goes out and we still have wifi to do our homework. and that's a good thing? great in my book! who are you? no power? no problem.

introducing storm-ready wifi. now you can stay reliably connected through power outages with unlimited cellular data and up to 4 hours of battery back-up to keep you online. only from xfinity. home of the xfinity 10g network. hot off the presses, our decision desk has just made a call in ohio on issue 1, and we project that it will pass. >> i don't know if someone needs to hear this in the republican party. abortion is a big problem for you. abortion rights were the driving issue in elections up and down tuesday's ballots. >> i am so happy i don't know what to do with myself because the majority still rules!

>> it has been a year and a half since the supreme court stripped away the constitutional right to an abortion. and the story of abortion rights politically since then has been one of furious backlash. you saw it in that clip earlier. there were huge victories for abortion rights up and down the ballot, as women across the country rose up with one voice and said, we will not go back. but at that very same time, we got a very painful look at what it means to live under one of these bans, as women came forward to share incredibly just painful stories of being denied the health care that they needed if it was an abortion. >> that law forced me to carry a baby for months that was never going to live and easily could have killed me. >> they couldn't touch me until i was crashing and that we should wait in the parking lot until i was about to die. >> i knew that what happened to me is happening to people all across the country, not just in

texas, all over the country. so many people are being hurt by similar restrictive bans. >> the women in those clips are heroes for telling their stories and making their voices heard because every day is bringing news of another harrowing tragedy. make no mistake, these tragedies, they are the result of these cruel abortion restrictions. in ohio, brittany watts is facing a felony charge after miscarrying a pregnancy that her doctors told her would not survive. brittany watts was turned in by her own medical provider, her nurse. joining us now -- and with me here at the table, o'neal professor of constitutional law on global health policy at gorge town law school, michelle goodwin. these stories literally turn my

stomach. what are your reflections after the first year of just post-roe? >> you know, there's been a lot of discussion on the so-called dobbs effect -- we can unpack that today. for real life americans, it has been devastating. we have 21 states with abortion bans and some sort of restrictions. we have women like you just showed on camera, who are suffering, who are being left to die before their practitioners can make decisions because of the climate of fear that is created in this country. at the same time, you have voters making it very clear where they stand. but republican extremists completely unable to meet the moment. absolute abject failure. and this is really important as we go into 2024 and we think about where the big, big fights are going to be. we have to really clearly define who the villains are here, and democrats need to be really clear about what they're going to do to fix it.

>> what they're doing to fix it is key. i want to zero in on brittany watts' case. it is harrowing what happened. "the washington post" is reporting this. i'm going to quote them. eight hours doctors and officials determined the ethics of inding labor for a woman who had been diagnosed with premature rupture of membranes that had no detectable amniotic fluid and advanced cervical dilation. one doctor was blunt about the urgency. my recommendation, instead of waiting until mom is on death's door before proceeding with treatment, is to deliver this baby by inducing, the doctor wrote. seven hours later, watts still had not been induced. can you just talk about the horrors of what brittney watts is suffering? and to be clear, there are many other brittany watts across the country. she is the one we know of that is facing a felony charge for

miscarrying in a toilet. >> what we have to understand is that this is also not new for black women. it's important to understand that her case has not really gotten the attention it deserves, which is also not unusual. in the 1980s and '90s, black women were the canaries in the coal mine, literally being dragged out of hospitals in shackles and chains after giving birth because they were snitched on by their doctors and nurses, lured into hospitals under the pretext they would get prenatal care. but their confidential medical information turned over to law enforcement. so, what we're seeing that was old is now new again in this post-dobbs moment. and i want to pause to really think about what's happened to her and other women across the country, how frightening it is to wait eight hours in a hospital, not getting the care

that you need while you are bleeding, while you are being told that your life is at risk, that you could experience sepsis. she went, not once, to a hospital but at least twice being told the same thing. and not unlike other women, she miscarried in a toilet. but then what happened? police ransacked her home and her bathroom, destroying the toilet, looking for stool, blood, fetal remains. i mean, that sounds so graphic, and i hate to be so graphic. but that's what these times deserve. >> but that is what is happening. and i do think it is very important that we are actually and factual about what many women and families across this country are facing. and as we underscore brittany watts, this is the name we know. but there are many more brittany watts across the country. how concerned should other women be about facing charges? >> oh, they should be absolutely on guard about this. let's be clear, in louisiana, in south carolina, there are

lawmakers that have proposed the death penalty in abortion cases. the tapestry that has been woven by antiabortion lawmakers is something that is horrific, it is chilling, and it is broad, and it is deep. this is not something that is narrow nor is it something that is thin. and given the hypersurveillance of black and brown women anyway and given the backdrop of the hyper-policing of black people anyway, we should go into 2024 being vigilant and aware about the risks that involve be pregnant in the united states. >> fatima, i mean, the cruelties that we've seen, women being forced to frankly beg for care in antiabortion states, has been met with outrage. and the question i have, is this outrage beginning to work to convince legislators to add exception? just very -- like, rape, incest,

life of the mother? >> i just want to be clear about this, that these cruel laws have demonstrated both that they are causing harm to the people who are pregnant but also that these so-called exceptions, they don't actually work, right? you saw that in the example in texas of kate cox, where there was theoretically some sort of exception for life. and still, the state attorney general tried to prevent her from seeking abortion care. you're going to see again and again extreme politicians trying to pass laws that are responsive. but these exceptions are no exceptions at all if they mean that someone who actually needs abortion care can't get it. so, it is already the case in this country that, for people who have been sexually assaulted, who have been raped,

that they have trouble working through our existing system. it is not going to be made better when you put a rape exception on an abortion ban. it is not okay for someone to wait for hours and hours until someone says they are sick enough to get the care that they need. they are not interested in protecting the lives and futures and health of pregnant people in this country. and i just think we have to be clear about that. and elected officials and politicians who are running in 2024, they should be up front about it too, that they are not concerned about our health and well being either. >> where does the antiabortion movement go from here? three of y'all are on this program. so, what is the strategy going into 2024? >> i think when i think about the 2024 election, i think the american public has been demanding and expecting that the

people who win in 2025 will do everything they can to restore the right to abortion in this country, that it must be a day one priority for 2025. and there's no more, sort of, messing around about it. and you may see the fight on the other side with republicans trying to pretend like there's some middle ground. there's no middle ground when you have a brittany or you have a kate or many other women in this country. >> fatima cox graves, michelle goodwin, mimi -- thank you all for having this conversation. i appreciate you. coming up for us here, secretary of state antony blinken is headed to the middle east, as the israeli government warns that the war could expand. we'll have a live report from the region.

♪ the winter play was really coming together. ♪ until... disaster struck. ♪

tensions... were high. ♪ luckily, replacement costumes were shipped with fedex. which means mr. harvey... could picture the perfect night. ♪ we're delivering more happy for the holidays. ♪

a second american hostage in gaza has been declared dead. judy weinstein, a second american hostage in gaza has been declared dead. judy weinstein, a 70-year-old woman was fatally injured in the october 7th attack. her husband was confirmed killed last week. the two were in a kibbutz that was struck by hamas. fears that the coverage applicant is escalating with potentially devastating consequences for the people of gaza are not going unnoticed by the biden administration. two israeli officials tell nbc

news that u.s. secretary of state antony blinken will travel to israel at the beginning of january. it will be his fifth visit there since the october 7th attack. let's bring in jay gray out in tel aviv. jay, can you just talk to us about what blinken and the biden administration is hoping to accomplish in this visit next month, and do you have any reaction from the families of the hostages today? >> reporter: yeah, i think the hostages will be a key talking point on the fifth visit of the secretary of state. i think he will continue to press israel to find a way to resume negotiations with hamas and perhaps pause the fighting so we can see another release of some hostages. that's something heavy's been focused on every visit and will be quick to talk about the idea of scaling back the way the war is going on the ground there, trying to be more specific and targeting more specific areas

and individuals instead of what we've seen over the last couple of months where we've seen just massive air strikes and tank attacks that have left a number of civilians dead, as well, and as for the families of the hostages, over the last couple of weeks they've become even more vocal, frustrated with the way things are going, frustrated that there have been no talks as far as negotiating a way home and they say time is running out. >> nbc's jay gray, thank you so much for joining us. after the break, folks, we take a turn because she almost lost her seat in 2022 so she's packing up and moving to make sure she stays in congress. hi, my name's steve. i lost 138 pounds on golo and i kept it off.

so with other diets, you just feel like you're muscling your way through it. the reason why i like golo is plain and simple, it was easy. i didn't have to grit my teeth and do a diet. golo's a lifestyle change and you make the change and it stays off. golo's changed my life in so many ways. i sleep better, i eat better. took my shirt off for the first time in 25 years. it's golo. it's all golo. it's smarter, it's better, it will change your life forever.

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

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

all the people, including you. so call now or go online to my aclu.org to become a guardian of liberty. congresswoman lauren boebert appears so desperate to remain in congress she's packing her things and moving to what she believes is an easier district to win re-election. i'm not kidding. the republican congresswoman announced she would move from colorado's third district to the state's more conservative-leaning 4th district. it is a seat currently held by representative ken buck, who is retiring at the end of 2024. now, it is very common for members of congress to switch congressional districts as a result of redistricting or new congressional maps, but that is not the case with ms. boebert, oh, no, you see she was so

politically toxic she severely underperformed in the midterms winning a seat which donald trump won by over eight points by just over 500 votes. we'll see if the voters of the 4th district will buy what boebert is selling. hmm. coming up in the next hour of "deadline: white house," nikki haley pitches herself as the sober and serious republican candidate, the adult in the room but somehow she couldn't get herself to say the simple fact that the civil war was about slavery. nikki haley in hot water over failing to state the truth. that's right after a quick break.

millions of children are fighting to survive due to inequality, conflict, poverty and the climate crisis. save the children® is working alongside communities to provide a better life for children. and there's a way you can help. please call or go online to give just $10 a month. only $0.33 a day. we urgently need 1000 new monthly donors in the next 30 days to help the children we support around the world. you can help provide food, medicine, care and protection, plus so much more that a child needs by calling right now and giving just $10 a month. all we need are 1000 monthly donors in the next 30 days. please call or go online now with your monthly gift of just $10. thanks to generous government grants every dollar you give can have

up to ten times the impact. and when you call with your credit card, we will send you this save the children® tote bag as a thank you for your support. your small monthly donation of just $10 could be the reason a child in crisis survives. please call or go online to hungerstopsnow.org to help save lives today.

of course, the civil war was about slavery. we know that. that's unquestioned, always the case, we know the civil war was about slavery, but it was also more than that. it was about the freedoms of every individual. it was about the role of

government. for 80 years america had the decision and the moral question of whether slavery was a good thing and whether government, economically, culturally, any other reasons had a role to play in that. >> hi again, everyone. it's 5:00 in washington, d.c. i'm in for nicolle wallace. cleanup on aisle 12. nikki haley doing damage control today over an exchange she had at a town has last night where she was asked a question that even grade school kids know the answer to, an answer she knows as well but in typical fashion, you know by those in the republican party to whitewash american history she chose to feed red meat to her base when asked what was the cause of the civil war, she left out the word

slavery and sent a clear signal showing us who she is and the rest of the republican are. just take a look at the full exchange. >> what was the cause of the united states civil war? >> well, don't come with an easy question. i mean, i think the cause of the civil war was basically how government was going to run. the freedoms and what people could and couldn't do. what do you think the cause of the civil war was? i'm sorry? >> i'm not running for president. i wanted to see -- >> that's a good thing. >> what you thought was the cause of the civil war. >> i think it always comes down to the role of government and what the rights of the people are and we -- i will always stand by the fact that i think government was intended to secure the rights and freedoms of the people. it was never meant to be all things to all people. government doesn't need to tell

you how to live your life. they don't need to tell you what you can and can't do. they need to make sure that you have freedom. we need to have capitalism. we need to have economic freedom and do all things so that individuals have the liberties so that they can have freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom to do or be anything they want to do. >> thank you and in the year 2023 it's astonishing to me that you answered that question without mentioning the word slavery. >> what do you want me to say about slavery. >> no comment. you've answered my question. thank you. >> next question. >> well, as you heard at the top, nikki haley eventually did acknowledge that slavery was the cause of the civil war, not just government, and she did it over 12 hours later, mind you. she also blamed the questioner suggesting the person was a democratic plant. this is just a stunning state of

affairs we're all living through. a candidate running for the president. the united states of america who used to be the governor of south carolina where the first shot in the civil war was fired at fort sumter does not want to admit the truth about america's history in the civil war. well, that is where we start this hour with princeton university professor and distinguished political scholar eddie glaude plus the host of "the fast politics podcast," molly john fast and back with me at the table is senior opinion columnist for "the boston globe" and co-host of a podcast kimberly adkins-storr. the words from the questioner, governor haley's answer was actually astonishing that she did not mention the word slavery one time. i've seen a lot of cleanup in

campaigns, presidential campaigns. i've been a part of a lot of cleanup in presidential campaigns as i think everyone knows but what i saw today was i think equally astounding and i think made a little bit more of a mess. what was your take on nikki haley's redo, if you will. >> yeah, well, listen, nikki haley tried to dog whistle but the problem is we heard it and got caught. >> it was loud. >> that is what happened and says a lot about nikki haley who not only is the former governor of south carolina, she was the one who led the calls to remove a confederate statue from the state capital after the race-based shooting in a black church. at that moment she was able to show some leadership but now that she's a candidate in this gop, it is more important to her to try to dog whistle on race for fear that she may turn off some of the voters. that says a lot about nikki haley and certainly says a lot about where the republican party stands right now and more importantly, it shows how little she may understand voters.

listen, i've talked to republicans in places like new hampshire. they do not deny that racism was a part of the civil war. it was the key, what slavery was a key driving force of that. it wasn't states' rights. it was states' rights to have enslaved people and so this may not play out the way she thinks it does and just shows how she underestimates the people of the united states while trying to cater to the gop she's trying to lead. >> you know, i did not have a question about the origins of the civil war undoing nikki haley's rocket to second place in the polls a couple weeks before iowa, yet, here we are. molly, if we look back at her history, as kim just note this isn't the first time she said something like this. the hill reports that as she ran for gerr in 2010 that an interview with the now defunct activist group, palmetto patriots, she described the war

between two disparate sides fighting for change and said the confederate flag was not something that is racist. so, one could argue we shouldn't have been surprised but we've also heard a lot from nikki haley since then. what's your take? >> i mean, look, moral clarity, right, we need moral clarity from our leaders. we need people to say things like this is an obvious answer. the obvious answer is slavery. it is wrong, just like with the college presidents. it's okay to say moral things, you know what i mean? there's so much with nikki haley of her trying to have it both ways, appeal to that very base section of the gop base that believes in the things republicans always pretended not to believe in, right, the stuff that is the third rail of american politics, the stuff that is so deplorable, and she wants those voters and so she refuses to take the moral, you know, the moral right moment and

say what is righteous which is that obviously was slavery, obviously slavery is wrong, obviously the confederates are the bad guys. this is not rocket science but we have a republican party not operating on earth one so they cannot say she's moral things they need to be saying in order for us to have a moral democracy, a multiracial moral democracy which should be the goal. >> you know, when i worked for president biden, he used to always say that america is always in search of a more perfect union and throughout history we have taken steps to become a more perfect union and that fight still wages on, and when you think about it, nikki haim was the governor of south carolina when the 2015 shooting happened at emanuel ame church when a racist young man walked into a church and gunned down members of a church including the pastor during bible study so that led to the taking down of

the confederate flag from the south carolina statehouse after many, many, many calls for it and this is what she said at the time. i want to play this for folks. >> in south carolina we honor tradition. we honor history, we honor heritage. but there's a place for that flag and that flag needs to be in a museum where we will continue to make sure that people can honor it appropriately. but the statehouse, that's an area that belongs to everyone, and no one should ever drive by the statehouse and feel pain. no one should ever drive by the statehouse and feel like they don't belong. i think this is a hopeful day for south carolina. >> eddie, obviously nikki haley knows better. where does this quest for a more perfect union leave us when the current state of the republican party is that candidates are afraid to say the civil war was about slavery? >> well, i think we have to confront, you know, the reality that always haunts this fragile experiment in democracy, and that is that some people,

simone, believe the claims she put forward. what we heard out of nikki haley's mouth was not just simply a kind of political pan diring. kim was right to call it a dog whistle. molly was right to say she failed on the moral test but she mimicked, you know, the lost cause and what it tried to do as it tried to redeem the south minimized slavery and accented states' rights and so what you get is this rewriting of american history right after reconstruction, right, as the efforts of the civil war collapses you see people writing the story of the nation in such a way that in some ways absolves the south of its moral crimes in some ways and so what nikki haley is doing, even in her redo, even in her cleanup on aisle 12, she invoked a basic narrative strategy of the lost

cause, simone, and so how do we address this quest for a more perfect union? tell the truth about some of us actually holding the view that this country ought to be and must remain ironically coming out of the mouth of nikki haley a white nation in the vain of europe. >> confederate statues that were erected by the daughters of the confederacy for the thing eddie is talking about, so, kim, a lot of the republican party presidential candidates actually jumped on this. ron desantis being one of them taking this as an opportunity to take a swipe at nikki haley. he said it's not that difficult to identify and acknowledge the role slavery played in the civil war, but don't forget that this is what desantis said about slavery just a few months ago when he basically said it was good for skills and jobs.

i'll play this for folks. >> can i get a clarification on one thing in the policy. it says instruction includes how slaved developed skills which in some instances could be applied for their personal benefit. >> you should talk to them about it. i didn't do it. i wasn't involved in it but i think what they're doing is i think that they're probably going to show some of the folks that eventually parlayed, you know, being a blacksmith into doing things later in life. but the reality is all of that is rooted in whatever is factual, they listed everything out and if you have any questions about it, just ask the department of education, you can talk about those folks, but i mean these were scholars who put that together, it was not anything that was done politically. >> my biggest issue with his answer at the time and still is is that i think the governor neglected to know, frankly, that enslaved people did have jobs

and skills prior to being stolen from their country. this, though, kim, speaks to the larger need for figures to downplay the issue of race and our racial history in this country and i always say that black history is american history. what are the implications of this as we go into another political year that is going to be heavily watched. we're in a political year, a legal year and in a polarizing year and going to be talking about race. >> it is polarizing. i think it stands -- i mean, not to mention that ron desantis is somebody who is actively pushing policies that prevent the truth. talking about truth as molly mentioned, being taught in our schools, being taught to our children, and pitting it as some sort of indoctrination attack when literally it's out of the playbook of propagandists to keep people uninformed so they vote the way you want them to, that's literally what he is

doing in realtime and speaks for the need for moral leadership that we can encourage trust in one another to not demonize one another to pit them as their enhi as if you can only get your kind of america if we denigrate these other people who want the same thing as us. it's such -- you know, i wrote a column saying i watched "it's a wonderful life" and how it wasn't just the threat of potter that brought that community together, it was their trust in one another but seems like actively that candidates, all of the candidates we've talked about today are trying to divide just to get what's theirs, just to win the next election and what is being affected is americans' trust in one another which you can't have a democracy without that. but winning the next election, any way possible, regardless of who you damage or hurt seems to be the only goal for them. >> molly, it seems to be the only goal but i just feel like all of these republican candidates and even people who are not candidates and who are already in positions are appealing to the most extreme

fringe of their base. that is a small subset of the larger republican party apparatus and not to mention the larger electorate. low group. >> yeah, no, this is trumpism, right? trump started this. he said we don't have to lie. we can just say the basist things and get these voters, low turnout voters the people who we've never been able to say the real -- i mean, you think about mitt romney versus trump. mitt romney would never have said the kind of base rhetoric, the kind of really disgusting, profoundly amoral stuff trump says, so i do think that nikki haley thinks that if she wants to win this primary, she needs to appeal to those people. now, we both know that a really good republican candidate could win without saying terrible base, amoral, racist things, but republicans have decided this is sort of the easy way to do it. now, evidence has shown that

republicans did not win in '23. they did not win in '22. they did not win in '20 but they seem to be going along for the ride and it's so disheartening to see because i really did think of nikki haley as being a last -- less deplorable than ron desantis who was targeting gay children, lgbt and i thought of her as being a little bit better, but this answer shows that she really is on that same just base moral plane that the other republican candidates are. >> yes, or she's doing what she feels like she needs to do to survive which is even more harrowing, because -- >> worse. >> worse, because on the other end of this -- these candidates, you've got donald trump who is quoting hitler and, again, eddie, we are just a couple weeks away from the iowa caucuses and a couple weeks away

from new hampshire. the voters will start voting. i think a lot of people today are asking how did we get here as a country but have we not been here for awhile and perhaps we need to start talking about how we get out. >> i think, you know, i've always asked myself the question, when will america grow up? and at the heart of the question is this sense that our refusal to deal with our actual past and present and to traffic instead in myth and illusion in order to affirm our inherent goodness keeps us from actually releasing ourselves into a different way of being as a country, to see ourselves as a fully grown multiracial, multiethnic, multicultural democracy. instead, we find ourselves tinkering around the edges and so here we are in this moment where grievance and fear and hatred kind of animate our

politics, and you have self-interested persons, some of whom believe it and some of whom are just cynical in pursuit of power exploiting that gumbo and it places us on a knife's edge and what's at the heart of those grievance voters, those low turnout voters, folks motivated by fear really quickly is this sense of existential threat. they feel like they're losing the country, and whenever we found ourselves in this moment in this kind of moment, all hell breaks loose in america. our history reveals it. mark twain wasn't -- mark twain was right. history doesn't repeat itself but it damn sure rhymes. >> history is unbroken continuity as one of my mentors told me and i think it's true. lucky for all of us y'all aren't going anywhere. when we return we still have to talk about one presidential candidate who's actually not afraid to take on donald trump. call it out, chris christie out today with a pointed new ad

calling out trump's lies and the danger he'd pose if he returns to the white house. we'll show it to you after the break. plus, why president biden may not be in as a tough spot politically as a lot of people might think. and later, is defamation law enough to hold trump and his lawyers accountable when spreading the big lie posed by a reporter in the courtroom throughout rudy giuliani's trial. he'll join us later in the hour. "deadline: white house" continues after a very quick break. don't go anywhere.

loving this pay bump in our allowance. wonder where mom and dad got the extra money? maybe they won the lottery? maybe they inherited a fortune? maybe buried treasure? maybe it fell off a truck? maybe they heard that xfinity customers can save hundreds when they buy one unlimted line and get one free. now i can buy that electric scooter! i'm starting a private-equity fund that specializes in midcap. you do you. visit xfinitymobile.com today. here's why you should switch fo to duckduckgo on all your devie duckduckgo comes with a built-n engine like google, but it's pi

and doesn't spy on your searchs and duckduckgo lets you browse like chrome, but it blocks cooi and creepy ads that follow youa from google and other companie. and there's no catch. it's fre. we make money from ads, but they don't follow you aroud join the millions of people taking back their privacy by downloading duckduckgo on all your devices today. if at all possible i want you to put your opinions of

chris christie both the man and his policy positions over to the side for a minute. and i want you to just recognize the role that he is playing in the republican primary, because it is a very important one, and it's one that i hope history remembers. those of us here on earth so often wish one of donald trump's fellow republicans would speak honest and just the truth that the rest of us see so clearly, that the man is dangerous and that he is unworthy of a second term in office. well, folks, chris christie's campaign is at least in part based on that conviction. here's his brand-new seven-figure ad buy directed right at new hampshire voters. >> some people say i should drop out of this race. really? i'm the only one saying donald trump is a liar. he pits americans against each other. his christmas message to anyone who disagrees with him, rot in hell. he calls the rite on capitol he'll burn america to the ground to help himself. every republican leader says that in private.

i'm the only one saying it in public. what kind of president do we want? a liar or someone who's got the guts to tell the truth. new hampshire, it's up to you. i'm chris christie, and you bet i approve this message. >> at least someone is saying what the rest of us are thinking. highlighting the threat that donald trump poses because, look, another four years in office, it would not be like the last. it would be worse, absent traditional guardrails by design, i mean, this is just on another level. listen to what members of donald trump's potential cabinet have already told us. >> during my three-week reign of terror as acting attorney general before i get chased out of town with my trump pardon, i will rain hell on washington, d.c. we talked about this but i have five lists ready to go and they're growing, list number one, we'll fire, we're going to fire a lot of people and the executive branch of the deep state. we're going to indict joe biden

and hunter biden and james biden and every other sleazeball biden and recommend a lot of pardons. every january 6th defendant is going to get a pardon. >> we will go out and find the conspirators not just in government but in the media, yes, we'll come after the people in the media who lied about american citizens and helped president biden rig presidential elections. we're going to come after you. >> joining us is former chief of staff of the department of homeland security in the trump administration and host of "the whistle-blower's podcast," miles taylor. eddie, molly and kim are all back. miles, thank you for joining us. you, first of all, you sounded the alarm from inside the trump administration and wrote the anonymous article in "the new york times" and then you went on to write a book, anonymous. can you explain how a second trump term would differ from the first, because for people who have not worked in a white house

or in a senior member of administration, i think that they believe that there is some magical federal government white house dust that just keeps terrible things from happening, but it is mostly about the people who the president is matters and the people around the president matters. >> symone, you've nailed it. people in the united states government are policy, and it took donald trump a little while to realize that and the first two years of his presidency, he started to come to the conclusion that there were a lot more people like me in that administration, people who were worried about the president, what he was doing and tried to block him from doing things that were illegal or unconstitutional and so in the back half of his presidency as we all witnessed he systemically tried to fire and sideline any of those people who displayed even the most remote conscience and replace them with people who would say yes and in the process the oval office became an echo chamber

and that's what you can expect in a second donald trump term is he's learned that lesson that the people are the policy and to put ones that are absolutely and completely loyal, more so to him than the constitution in top jobs and, symone, when people hesitate when they hear that and say, look, the system of government is designed to stop those bad people from getting in and there's checks and balances, no, don't believe that, because the checks and balances won't prevent him from doing what he wants to do. if you said, well, the snas has to approve his cabinet secretaries, donald trump doesn't care. he learned at the end of his last administration he could put people in those jobs illegally without senate advice and consent without consequences. his secretary of homeland security at the end of the administration for the last 18 months was in the job illegally according to a federal court and guess what, there were no consequences so he will put the most extreme people in those jobs and thumb his nose at the courts if they tell him he can't. that's what we're up against. it's not just donald trump becoming president, it's all of

his acolytes leading the entirety of the federal government. >> i would like to note senior white house staff are not senate confirmed. those are just people who are appointed. miles, then let's talk about how important it is for other republicans to criticize donald trump like chris christie has consistently done. do you think it makes a difference? because there's an argument that, oh, the maga base doesn't hear it but should people say it anyway? >> well, symone, like you, i'm sure like a lot of people, i wish chris christie had come forward sooner. i wish he had been in the trenches with us in 2020 when a lot of us came public against donald trump and turned against him from his administration, but put all that aside, i agree with what you said at the top of the segment, it's important that chris christie does this. why? because when a republican who is in the mainstream of the party gives air cover against donald trump, it can affect voting outcomes. now, it's not going to flip a lot of maga voters but there are

independent voters and center right conservatives just looking for an excuse this time to stay away from trump and chris christie is giving them that excuse and that air cover but the thing i worry about is that lane, that anti-trump lane can't be very crowded. in fact, there's only room for probably one anti-trump candidate in this field and so depending on what happens in iowa and new hampshire chris christie has to make quick decisions but at the end of the day i would say republicans in those states need to believe him. the man was with donald trump. he was in the room. he saw what i saw and saw the dangers of a second trump term. that is why it is so important for him to be out there on the campaign trail. >> molly, you know, i would argue -- let me pose this question because trumpism has mutated the republican party into this modern-day republican party apparatus. to what degree has it mutated, and is it too far gone to the point that no matter what

happens to donald trump in 2024, is this the modern-day republican party for the foreseeable future? >> i was thinking about the idea that the heritage foundation has gotten very involved this this second trump term, right? think about the heritage foundation, the people we think of as the bedrock of this republican party have a plan for if trump gets back in office, which involves firing much of the federal government and setting about on a sort of more autocratic, even more autocratic so i do think you're right. i think that republicans have decided that trumpism is a great opportunity to get what they want and they're not so worried about the autocratic impulses of trump and i would say this, in my mind, this, you know, i don't know that if trump gets re-elected it will be four years. i always think of this as do you want more elections election.

>> i do not think that is hyperbole for molly to say that because the former president, the ex-president didn't want to leave office. he was literally devises ways to stay. it was insane to say the least. we talked earlier about and nikki haley's comments about the civil war and her inability to say that slavery was the caution, but donald trump's comments, i mean, it's nothing compared to what he has been saying. the associated press actually identified a pattern of trump and i'm wondering if you can spot the pattern. >> well, just so you understand i don't know anything about david duke, okay. i don't know anything about what you're even talking about with white supremacy or white supremacists so i don't know. >> i don't know who the proud boys are. you'll have to give me a definition. i don't know who they are. >> i know nothing about qanon. >> i just told you. >> i know very little -- you told me but what you tell me doesn't make it fact, i hate so

say that. i know nothing about it. i do know they are very much againsthilia and fight it very hard. >> first of all, i know nothing about hitler. i'm not a student of hitler. i never read his works. they say that he said something about blood. he didn't say it the way i said either, by the way, it's a very different kind of statement. >> i don't know. i don't know him. i don't know. i know nothing. >> yeah, so there's this idea that some republicans believe, don't take donald trump literally, you know. he's saying things, it's a lot of this for show. don't take him literally. despite all of his, you know, claims that he doesn't know anything, every single one of those topics we have seen him in realtime speak very clearly, not be unclear. we saw that after charlottesville. we saw that after january 6th, during january 6th when he praised the people who attacked

the capitol. we saw it before he was elected when he talked about a complete and total shutdown of muslims coming into the country and everything he has said he tried to implement in office or did implement while in office. so this whole idea that we shouldn't take him seriously or literally, he has disproven that. he thinks he being too cute with these answers but if you actually watch him, everything he does and says, everything he posts on that social media account of his, he is telling you exactly what he is going to do and the point that miles and the others are making is absolutely true. it's not just going to be one trump. it's going to be an administration of trumps and that is why what you're saying about chris christie is so important, because not calling him out on that, even when you are a political opponent in a primary against him and failing to do that, that's disqualifying. that's absolutely disqualifying. that's precisely the message that chris christie ought to be saying, not just against trump

but everyone else in that race who isn't speaking that truth. >> eddie, what about democrats, because -- and i think i'm almost out of time here but i think a lot of democrats out there may feel that, ah, donald trump said what again, did what again? they're always hearing about something new, nasty and terrible that he said. but how important is it for democrats to continue to speak this truth as well and is there a way for them to capitalize on it? coming up to a general election where it is likely to be donald trump versus joe biden. >> yeah, democrats have to be careful around trump fatigue but also have to understand the existential nature of what trump represents to the country. what christie models is the way you deal with a bully, bust him in the mouth. you have to tell the truth. donald trump is a pathological liar. donald trump is a threat to our democracy. we cannot treat him or those who support him as just regular

political actors. we have to address them for who they are and if we fail to do that in my view, symone, we become complicit in normalizing this nonsense. we have to treat it for what it is, we have to respond to it in kind and i think that passion, that sense of disdain for what this position represents needs to be felt every time we speak about this candidate and the folks who support it. >> i cannot agree more. everyone is sticking with us. when we return we'll keep chatting. it may go against conventional wisdom, folks, but president joe biden may be in a lot better shape politically than most people think and definitely than most of the newspapers want to write about. that conversation straight ahead. to duckduckgo on all your devie

duckduckgo comes with a built-n engine like google, but it's pi and doesn't spy on your searchs and duckduckgo lets you browse like chrome, but it blocks cooi and creepy ads that follow youa from google and other companie. and there's no catch. it's fre. we make money from ads, but they don't follow you aroud

join the millions of people taking back their privacy by downloading duckduckgo on all your devices today. amid the doom and gloom predictions about joe biden's re-election chances in 2024, one msc columnist makes a very convincing case for why alys and anxious observers shouldn't count him out just yet. quote, first, president joe biden has kept his central promise in the 2020 election, that he would lead the nation to the other side of covid successfully. the pandemic has receded, our economic recovery has been better than any other g7 nation. wage growth, new business formation and primege labor participation rates, they're at all-time historically elevated levels.

prices fell, yes, fell last month. second, the strength the president's record is only matched by the strength of his party. i don't think it is widely understood how strong the democratic party is right now. finally, while democrats keep winning, conventional wisdom continues to overly discount trump's baggage and maga's repeated failures. descidt that republicans are onhe cusp of nominating trump again who this time is in an even more degraded and dangerous version of maga than he was in 2020. i am optimistic that joe biden and the democrats will once again beat donald trump and hopefully this time send maga into the dust bin of history where it longs. back with miles, molly, eddie and kim. eddie, what do you think, all of those things are facts. why do you think it's so hard for the president to get credit for his accomplishments? >> well, we have an information ecosystem that is so fragmented that people aren't getting certain kinds of information.

you know, it's not a facts-based political environment, it seems at times. i'm one of those folks who -- i'm wringing the hell out of my hands and it's centered around that second issue, right, those victories of democrats have been principally because of young voter turnout, the base turning out black voters voting at historic levels and we're seeing that there's some real interesting questions around those areas and so i appreciated the piece, but i'm still grinding my teeth at night if that makes sense. >> eddie is an anxious observer, kim. the author of that is simon rosenberg and he adds this in the piece, democrats will be able to argue that no one is more resle for overturning roe v. wadehan trump, that his mishandling of classified documents is to blame for the most serious security breach in american history in concert with russian president vladir putin he will end the global liberal order that brought america and the world unprecedented

prosperity and peace. that he supports more dead kids in schools, and the end of american democracy for all time. i think there are a lot more anxious hand-wringing folks out there like eddie, kim, but i think what simon writes is true. all of those things are factual. by more dead kids he's talking about the fact that guns are the number one killer of our kids in schools. what do you think democrats have -- what are your sources telling you that they are strategizing about going into 2024 and how they'll talk to some key constituencies, because to be frank, for young people and i would even argue for a number of black and latino voters, scaring them about donald trump is not going to be enough. >> right, so i think a couple things are at play causing the hand-wringing. one is we keep applying conventional wisdom to very, very unconventional times and

the results don't seem to make sense. secondly we keep taking polls about popularity or favorability which measure absolutely nothing. unfavorable people have been since the beginning of our nation elected to office. look at donald trump in 2016, right? so let's stop acting like this unfavorability means unelectability. let's stop pretending 2024 is a referendum on joe biden. it isn't. it is not. if you keep thinking about this and this factor that i saw a lot on the campaign trail in 2020, voters will say, i like this candidate. but i don't think other people like this candidate. i think other people are nervous about this candidate because she's a woman or because they're this or that and won't support the candidate out of fear. i think if we keep -- this is a self-fulfilling prophecy is everybody is worried about joe biden's age or this, that and the other, that will foment more

fear and send them looking for an alternative that has run out. democrats need to focus on what has happened, not about the fear, this is not a referendum. this is a choice. you can either have donald trump that can lead to the end of our democracy as we know it or you can have someone who has been governing very well, point blank, period, that's the choice. that's what november is about. >> the president likes to say don't compare me to the almighty. compare me to the alternative. okay, miles, the almighty versus the alternative talking about the alternative is donald trump to joe biden. where are republicans at play here, because we just talked about the need for more folks to stand up and speak truth. like chris christie. what happens when the primary is over and it's a general election, we talk about what democrats need to do but what about some of these republicans that say they don't want donald trump? >> well, look, that's exactly where, symone, i think the piece is off is in that scenario, data is not going to do it.

data about biden's economy or covid going away, that's not going to help. what's going to help is the right kind of storytelling and the storytelling that people need to hear is about stability versus instability. voters care about stability, their jobs, their lives, their government. america's role in the world and i think it's very compelling and alarming to those centrist republicans when they think about a second donald trump term and all of the instability that could bring into their lives. that's what democrats need to be leaning into. now, i'm a little bit of a pessimist right now. i'm worried about biden's chances but the place where joe biden could get an edge is if there's a conviction of donald trump and we see that in the poll numbers is those polls that show trump is leading joe biden that lead vanishes when you ask those individuals what they would do if trump was convicted, and that's when a number of center right voters and independents who helped joe biden win in 2020 end up going

back to his camp and away from donald trump. but there's a lot of wild cards between now and next november, but that's one of them that could help joe biden is a donald trump conviction and it could scare some of those republicans away from voting for the ex-president again. >> well, there's a lot of appeals courts between donald trump and a courtroom, it feels like right now and a conviction. molly, all of this to me, it's giving me deja vu because i worked joe biden's campaign. i was an adviser in 2020 and i remember all the doomsdespres dictions then and i'm like, wait for south carolina, i remember the doomsdespres dictions before democrats overperformed in 2022. i was on the ground in wisconsin and i'm like, y'all have obviously talked to no real people, is something else at play here? >> yes, and i think we're giving polls way too much credit. i'm not even talking about 2023 or 2022 or 2020, i'm talking

about 2015, when i was told that hillary clinton was going to be president. "the new york times" told me there was a 90% chance that hillary clinton was going to be president. i think why put way too much stock in polls. i think that the polling mechanisms do not work. look, there are some high-quality surveys that you can listen to but calling a thousand people on a landline or even calling a thousand people on a cell phone is not giving us the kind of results that are really matching up to reality. so i actually think that this whole thing and look at the people -- i would also add republicans have flooded the zone with junk polls like rasmusen where they try to game the averages so it looks better for trump then you have no labels who are trying to make biden look like a less good candidate so they can raise money for their, quote, unquote unity ticket so i just want to say there are a lot of people who want you to think that joe

biden is in trouble, and i think a lot of them do not have good motives. even trump world they want biden to look bad so they can try to dispute the election results. so i think that it's worth ignoring the polls, you know, talking to people on the ground is really the best way to get a sense of what's going on and even focus groups, because at least you're seeing real people who you know who are actually, you know, having ideas and answers. >> i agree. i do want y'all to look at the nbc news polls, though. we do try. eddie glaude, molly junk fast, kimberly atkins stohr and miles, thanks for joining us. peddlers of the big lie have been ordered to pay big bucks for their lies but is that enough and will it stop them? that's ahead. idiopathic infantile scoliosis. i've had 17 surgeries.

i was born missing my lower right foot. i was born ten weeks early without my left arm. i have osteogenesis imperfecta. i've broken over 70 bones in my lifetime. with my polio i have tough days and my pain just pops out out of nowhere. there's nothing to be afraid of because all the doctors are all so nice. most people think, oh, it's the medical side of things at shriners hospital. but for me, it's the confidence that i've gotten. when somebody sees these commercials. there'll be a phone number on a screen and all they have to do is call and make a donation to help kids like me. thanks to a generous donor, every dollar you give can help twice as many kids like me and have double the impact. when you join with us, we'll send you one of these adorable blankets as a thank you and reminder of all the abilities you are helping make possible. we have so much to celebrate this time of year. thanks to a generous donor your gift will go twice as far and help more

kids like me. you are the best you because shriners has given you the confidence that you need. it's just really cool knowing that you're part of something bigger than yourself. shriners has given so much to us and we have a mission, and we have a goal that we want to help more kids. from all of us at shriners hospitals for children® merry christmas. merry christmas!! please call the number on your screen and give just $19 a month only $0.63 a day, or whatever you can to help kids like us this christmas. and when you do, your gift will have two times the impact.

narrator: time is running out to give a year-end gift like no other, a gift that can help st. jude children's research hospital save lives. ava: it is my first time having cancer, and it's the very worst. woman: you just have to give. you have to give someone that hope. because of st. jude, she has a chance at life. narrator: every gift counts, and whatever you can give will make a difference for children like ava. make your donation today to help st. jude save lives.

what is cirkul? cirkul is the fuel you need to take flight. cirkul is the energy that gets you to the next level. cirkul is what you hope for when life tosses lemons your way. cirkul, available at walmart and drinkcirkul.com. do you still believe that what you said about these two women in the wake of the 2020 election is truthful? do you still believe -- >> i have no doubt that my comments were made, and they were supportable and are supportable today. >> that was just one of the appalling public statements and lies, frankly, made by rudy giuliani about two former georgia election workers, even after he was ordered to pay them nearly $150 million, and it brings up an important conversation about these defamation lawsuits. how they can often swerve as a

deterrent or sometimes not in a world where people like rudy giulianihink that it's worth it to take the risk, file for bankruptcy and do it over and over again. was in the courtroom for his trsked this in "the new york times." quote, in a hyper partisan era when the incentives to tell lies about your political opponents can seemingly outweigh the risks, is defamation law still up to the task, and if admitted liars like giuliani can avoid paying up what does accountability even look like now? joining us at the table author of that piece, propublica investigative reporter andy krul. is defamation law up to the task? >> it was in this case. in this case a jury of rudy giuliani's peers came back and issued a judgment. a judgment that staggered not only mr. giuliani and the

lawyers, the lawyers for the two election workers, ruby freeman and shaye moss, even the judge honestly looked shocked to see this number and so in this case, i think both rudy giuliani's going to have to pay some amount of money and not an insignificant amount to these two women who were defamed by him, who had their lives turned upside down by him but also it sends a message, a dollar figure that large that there could be accountability, there could be repercussions for these lies so at least in this case, it seems like the system works but this case has also tested the system in ways that do raise these uncomfortable questions looking to the future. >> you also "witing's on the wall" -- write that it can take many forms like right-wing outlets may be less inclined to repeat the lies for fear of a lawsuit or give giuliani air time after being found to knowingly have made false statements. do you think this could be a

deterrent for the rest of trump world but also these trump imitators, right? people who want to meet trump but who see how he and his allies have essentially gotten away with so much and say this might work for us. >> i don't think we can underestimate the degree to which this case with mr. giuliani as america's mayor frankly -- >> some people have another opinion. >> some people will see this. this rippled across the country. anyone who is paying attention to media in whatever part of the fragmented media landscape they're in saw this judgment and understands that there are people out there, there are "people (the tv show!)" there are reporters, there are advocates who are now bringing these cases or the journalists doing the watchdog work to unearth the truth and puts people on watch. now, the question is, are you deterred if you're kind of a small ball person who is trying to make your name in trump world

and don't have a lot to lose but maybe you have a lot to gain by defaming someone, maybe, that's how polarized we've become but if you're talking about the bold-faced names with money, influence at the top, i think they see this case, they see what rudy giuliani has gone through and i can't imagine even they would want to go through this years' long process of accountability giuliani has. >> you were in the courtroom for all four days of the trial. can you talk about the fact he's continued to double, triple down, i don't know, quadruple down on lies about ruby freeman and shaye moss but also saying he didn't get a fair trial? does that hold any water here? >> no. it doesn't hold any water at all. the legal system in this kind of case works when both parties are actually cooperating, they're responding to motions, they are fulfilling discovery requests.

giuliani at every step of the way defied the efforts of ruby freeman and shaye moss' lawyers to get information, to have a fair day in court. to have a fair crack at justice and so the judge eventually said, look, you have misbehaved so much, you've defied so many of my order, i'm ruling you defamed these women with actual malice and that we're just going to decide damages in this trial. we're going to decide how much you owe. that is how the system works. that is the system working. mr. giuliani can say that he didn't get his fair shake but he's a lawyer, former u.s. prosecutor, he knows better. >> he knows better. andy croll, thanks for spending time with us and so much good journalism coming out of propublica. a quick break and we'll be right back. arthritis or psoriasis. serious allergic reactions, severe skin reactions that look like eczema, and an increased risk of infections, some fatal, have occurred. tell your doctor if you have an infection or symptoms, had a vaccine or plan to

or if ibd symptoms develop or worsen. i move so much better because of cosentyx. ask your rheumatologist about cosentyx. (tony hawk) skating for over 45 years has taken a toll on my body. i take qunol turmeric because it helps with healthy joints and inflammation support. why qunol? it has superior absorption compared to regular turmeric. qunol. the brand i trust.

i'm a little anxious, i'm a little excited. i'm gonna be emotional, she's gonna be emotional, but it's gonna be so worth it. i love that i can give back to one of our customers. i hope you enjoy these amazing gifts. oh my goodness. oh, you guys. i know you like wrestling, so we got you some vip tickets. you have made an impact.

so have you. for you guys to be out here doing something like this, it restores a lot of faith in humanity. thank you for spending this thursday afternoon were us. we are grateful. you can catch my show every weekend at 4:00 p.m. eastern right here on msnbc and new original episodes on mondays on peacock and starting in january, you can catch me on saturday and sunday mornings, 8:00 a.m. eastern on our new show "the weekend." "the beat with ari melber" starts right now. welcome to "the beat." i'm ari melber joining us this thursday, december 28th and the georgia d.a. is pushing to put trump on trial in august of next year, 2024. willis is planning to go forward with that trial regardless of e