>> that's all the time i have for today, i'm julián castro in four alicia menendez. -- for now, i handed over to paola ramos. hey, paola. >> hey, secretary castro. what an honor to share a screen with you. -- in the screen. have a good night. >> you as well. d ni>> good evening, everyone, d welcome to "ayman". breaking tonight, jack smith

asks a d.c. appeals court to -- federal interference case. this has made becomes the second state to remove the ex president from the 2024 ballot. plus, the do nothing congress. i look back on the chaotic year in the republican-controlled house. democratic congressman greg landsman joins me to discuss. and, running scared. far-right congresswoman lauren boebert switches districts after a are now former democratic opponent adam frisch is here. i am paola ramos, in for ayman mohyeldin. let's get started. ♪ ♪ ♪ we begin this hour with major developments in donald trump's 2024 ballot saga. on thursday, and historic move, made secretary of state removes the former president from the states presidential primary ballot under the constitution's insurrection cause. democratic secretary of state bellows now becomes the first

election official to ta ts action unilaterally. in a 30 page decision, bellows explained that she did not come to this conclusion lightly, writing, quote, i am mindful that no secretary of state has ever deprived a presidential candidate of ballot access based on section three of the 14th amendment. i am also mindful, however, that no presidential candidate has ever before engaged in insurrection. bellows issued her ruling after remaining residents, including a bipartisan group of former lawmakers, challenge trump's sition on the ballot. now, we should note, bellows has paused that decision, pending a potential appeal in state court, which, of course trump's team said they intend to file. also on thursday, california secretary of state chose to include trump's name on the list of candidates certified to run in the states presidential primary, despite a call for her not to do so from the state lieutenant governor. those decisions out of california and maine come just one day after the michigan supreme court rejected an

effort to remove the former esent from its states presidential primary ballot. in a brief order, issued wednesday, the court said it declined to hear a case arguing that trump should be removed from the states ballot because it is, quote, not persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this court. now, also on wednesday, the colorado republican party asked the supreme court to overturn their state courts ruling to keep trump off the republican primary ballot. now, of course, you will remember that, last week, colorado became the first state to declare trump ineligible to run for president under the constitution's insurrection clause. in their filing, lawyers for the colorado republican party wrote, quote, the drastic effects of the colorado supreme court's decision on the 2024 primary election necessitates this courts immediate review. as of tonight, the supreme court has yet to respond. in the meantime, under the terms of colorado courts ruling, trump's name will remain on the

ballot for the states republican primary, which is set for march 5th. but what do we make of all of these decisions? how do we make sense of all of this? here is what we do know. these decisions add even more urgency to calls for the nation's highest court to intervene. right now, we are seeing different states take very different approaches to trump's 2024 run. it is a patchwork that exists only because the supreme court of the united states has never ruled on section three of the 14th amendment. these decisions will only continue to pop up across the country until there is final and decisive guidance from the country's top bench. and that needs to happen. it needs to happen quickly. remember, in just a matter of weeks, the first -- of the 2024 election are set to be cast in the iowa caucuses. what does that mean? it means the supreme court has a duty to voters in this country to step in and clarify the answer to this question. can an ex president, who engaged in insurrection remain on the ballot? that is the question. that's where we start tonight. let's bring in our panel,

carole lamb, msnbc legal analyst, and michelle goldberg, columnist for the new york times. carol, i'm going to start with you. main just became the second state to remove trump from the ballot. but if you take a step back, how does means decision process differ from -- colorado? what is the difference there? >> so, one of the things that folks need to keep in mind, paola, is that there are very different rules. state by state, they are all different from each other. and so, when you say that some states have voted -- decided to leave trump on the ballot and others have not, it is not always because somehow found that he did not commit insurrection, or some found that he didn't. it's because the state rules are all different. and largely, a lot of these decisions are being made on procedural grounds, not on what we call substantive grounds. and no decision has been made

with respect to whether he committed insurrection or not. now, that is not the case in maine. in maine, the secretary of state followed very closely the rules that her state has with respect to whether somebody qualifies to be on a ballot or not, and they're very strict rules there about the secretary of state is empowered to make that decision about whether a candidate meets the qualifications to be on the primary ballot. it requires a notice and a hearing, the right to submit evidence, to cross examine witnesses and it requires that the secretary of state make a decision within, i think, just five days. and she followed all of those rules. in colorado, it is different. it goes through the court system. and the district court they are decided that, under the constitution, the reading of the court was that the president, or a candidate for the office of president, did not qualify as an officer of the united states subject to the insurrection ban. the colorado supreme court

thought differently, and did, by a 4 to 3 vote only, say that trump cannot be on the ballot. so, these are two very different legislative schemes that were being followed. and probably both will have to be taken up by the supreme court. >> i think, of course, michelle goldberg, there's a lot of uncertainty, and of course republicans have very different opinions on what is happening. but i want you to hear what governor chris christie had to say, who is, of course, running against donald trump. but take a listen. >> it makes him a martyr. he is very good at playing poorer me, poor me. he is always complaining. the poor billionaire from new york who is spending everybody else's money to pay his legal fees. for me. but when stuff like this happens, this should be decided by the voters of the united states. it should not be decided by courts. >> this should be decided by the voters of the united states. what do you make of that, michelle? >> i think that chris christie is right in that this is probably a boon to donald trump,

as much as anything else, in part because it's extremely unlikely that any of this is going to stand. it's very hard for me to believe that from the legal experts i have read. it seems unlikely that supreme court is going to rule in favor of colorado or maine. and so, it seems likely that donald trump is going to get back on the ballot, and that the strategy, while i think, legally, it seemed sowed -- i don't think there's any question that donald trump is, in fact, an insurrectionist, and i'm obviously not a 14th amendment scholar -- but it seems like, somebody who tried to summon them up, to try to overturn the last election would qualify under the plain meaning of the language of that amendment. but the politics of it, again, because it's unlikely to actually do what some people are really hoping that it does, i think that the jurists in colorado, the secretary of state in maine -- they are not supposed to be

making political considerations. and i don't think they are. i think they are following their interpretation of the letter of the law. but politically, as much as it might fill us with horror and dread that donald trump is almost certainly going to be the republican nominee again, and that we are going -- this country is going to have to summon whatever is left of its passion for democracy to fight off yet a third trump presidential campaign, i don't think that there are going to be any legal shortcuts here. >> right. that's kind of the risk as well, right? that all of these legal matters are becoming extremely politicized, which, of course, we are all that looking at the supreme court. we are all looking at them to give us some fordham form of resolution, and help us make sense of all of this. in your opinion, carol lam, does this speed or even force the supreme court to take on this issue, with perhaps a little bit more urgency? and, if so, when do you think,

carol lam, that we can expect any formal decision from them? >> so, it is very interesting. because i think michelle is right. politically, this is a very different question from what is the correct thing to do legally. legally, the constitution has to be interpreted. and that is what the supreme court does. the supreme court interprets the constitution. and there has been so little, if anything, written about how this 14th amendment, section three, is to be interpreted. really, it's a civil war statute. and it had to do with the confederacy, and confederate officers, and whether they could run for office. so, we are going back, now, 150 years. and the supreme court -- really, we don't know how they are going to go about this. they could look at it and they could say, well, the language on the face of the 14th amendment is clear. and, if it's clear, we don't go back into looking at the history of how this amendment

came into being. or they could say, it is really not clear. and now we have to look at what the founders were thinking, or what the amendment rioters were thinking when they passed the amendment. and that, as we have seen in the past, can go down quite a rabbit hole. so, for now, it does look like, because of the stays, that were granted by both the secretary of state and the colorado supreme court -- they stayed their decision, meaning it has no effect until the supreme court has the option of ruling on it. donald trump's name probably will, then, appear on the ballots. and that gives the supreme court a little bit more time to make its decision. >> michelle, i hate to ask you this question, but i keep thinking about it. how much does it matter what the supreme court says at the end? and i'm asking this, because, at the end, what is also unprecedented is trumpism. it's this idea that trumpism, at the end, is a movement that believes it is above the law, no matter what. and so, now that you have, perhaps, a little bit of time to reflect on last year that we

have gone through, what is the supreme court's potential decision mean in the face of this unprecedented movement of trumpism? >> again, if i thought that there was a possibility that the supreme court was going to sanction this interpretation of the 14th amendment and allow states like colorado and maine to keep trump off their primary ballots, you could assume that if they did that other states will probably follow suit. not all of them. i mean, california is not going to go in this direction. but some of their states probably would. and it could potentially have an impact in their primary. it would be a hugely important event if the supreme court ruled in favor of these two -- i just don't think they are going to. and i think that the history of trumpism over the last -- i can't believe it has been -- almost nine years now. but the history of this thing is that people keep looking for legal solutions to this

political crisis. and the only things that have ever stopped trump and trumpism, if you look at the people who ran with his blessing in various senate, governor and house races -- the only answer to this, as frightening and tentative as it might be, is politics. >> jack smith is, of course, one of those people, carol, that is looking at how to stop -- the evolution of trumpism, at least in the face of the law. today, as you know, carol, special counsel jack smith has urged an appeals court to reject trump's immunity defense in the federal election interference case. he was several examples to make his argument. he included separation of powers principles, constitutional tests, history and precedent itself. so, carol, how do you see the court ruling on this issue? >> yeah. you know, one of the interesting things will be whether this actually ever gets to the supreme court. and by that i mean, jack smith,

recall, try to get the supreme court to take this issue up in the first instance without it going to the appellate court first. the supreme court said no. the supreme court said, we are going to let the appellate court here at first. so, this is the brief that jack smith has filed in the d.c. court of appeal. and he has made all of his arguments about how trump's claim to absolute immunity, anything he did in the office while president, he is immune from prosecution for, and jack smith has pushed back against that as expected. but what i think the supreme court may be thinking is, we are going to let the appellate court consider the issue first. and they have set a very expedited briefing and argument schedule for this. they're going to hear this argument in mid january. and if the supreme court, or the majority of the supreme court fundamentally agrees with whatever the d.c. circuit says, they may just decide not to take the case in the supreme court, and just let the district of columbia appeals

court opinion stand. and that way, the supreme court will not have to actually render the ultimate decision on this case. they can just declined to take the case up. and then they can leave for another day, deciding this particular issue, as to the scope of presidential immunity. but i do think that jack smith has the better argument. because he has raised a number of potential scenarios that would be very problematic if a president could do anything he wanted with respect to trying to stay in office, and could not be prosecuted for those things. and that was determined to be within the scope of this presidential duties. i think that would be a very problematic position for the supreme court, or even the d.c. circuit, to agree with. >> carol lam and michelle goldberg, thank you so much, thank you for helping us wrestle with this question. can an ex president to engage an insurrection remain on the ballot? thank you for watching getting

us through all. this next, i will talk to congressman greg landsman, about how the gop led house passed the fewest laws in the past -- decade, but the most dysfunction.

>> it was a historic year for congressional republicans. hear me out. this term, the gop-controlled house held more votes and enacted fewer laws than any other congress in the last decade. in 2023, only 27 of the houses total 724 votes resulted in

actual legislation. that's not to say they did nothing. actually, the history-making continues. it took them three tries. but house lawmakers voted to expel republican george santos, making him the first person to be kicked out without first being convicted of federal crimes or supporting the confederacy. and then, of course, there is the matter of kevin mccarthy, who required 15 rounds -- remember that? -- a voting, just to secure the speaker's gavel back in january, only to become, again, the first speaker in history to be ousted from the job. what followed was even more chaotic, as republican after republican tossed their hat into the ring to replace mccarthy, only to fail over and over again until the party, desperate and humiliated, settled on backbencher mike johnson. and of cose, capping off one year with very little legislation to show for it inevitably makes for a very long to do list as the next year begins. just to start, a funding solution to keep the government open, and a supplementary appropriations bill to provide

aid to ukraine and israel. joining me now to discuss all of this is democratic congressman greg landsman of ohio. sir, thank you so much for joining me tonight. let's start with the most obvious question. how do you explain this incredibly unproductive year of house republicans, the house under republican leadership this year? how do you explain that? >> thanks for having me. it's frustrating. i am a new member. i was just elected. and, like most of us, i think, certainly in the terms of the folks who won in 2022, we are and still are very eager to govern. most members want to govern. and there is a lot at stake. we have got to pass a budget. you've got border issues. we're trying to prevent two global wars, one in eastern europe and the other one in the middle east. and the far, far right --

so, marjorie taylor greene, lauren boebert, matt gaetz -- those folks have taken the gavel, for the most part, and really run the show. they put all kinds of ridiculous things on the floor for a vote. because that's what the speaker will allow. every time the speaker, whether was mccarthy or johnson, puts a bipartisan bill on the floor, it passes with an overwhelming majority. but that is rare, because those folks on the far, far right don't want him to do that. and they kicked kevin out of that seat when he did that too many times. and they're threatening to do it again to mike johnson. mike johnson is one of them. so, it is a very unfortunate and problematic situation, in large part because there is so

much at stake. >> you say, sir, that mike johnson is one of them. but you also recently said that mike johnson has a second chance to try and govern. you said that. do you actually believe that he is willing to do that? i guess, also, the question is, what incentive do they have at this point? >> well, it's a great question. he does have a second chance. we are coming into a new year. and we have to pass a budget. he has got to make a decision. is he going to blow up the economy by shutting down the government? by cutting off critical investments to families? is he going to punt on border security. is he going to punt on helping ukraine and israel? and part of those two things, the biggest part, he's avoiding

two global wars. if we let putin win in ukraine, we are going to be pulled into a global war in eastern europe. if things escalate beyond what is happening now in the middle east, we are going to get pulled into a global war in the middle east. and so, he has got to make a decision. does he stand with the country? and even if that means his job? or is he going to continue to placate the far, far right? >> you mentioned global wars. and that leads me to ask you, do you think that senate democrats should be compromising on the border and border security over ukraine? do you think that compromises necessary? and i ask you this because i think there are some folks within the democratic base that perhaps voted for president biden particularly on the promise that he would not make such compromises. so, i wonder how you think senate democrats should be acting right now. >> yeah. they are negotiating, or at least we're negotiating last

week, and had been four weeks. unfortunately, the speaker was not involved, would not participate in those negotiations. several house members have joined those negotiations. there has to be a resolution, a fix to what is happening on the southern border. there is just an enormous amount of awfulness that is happening to families. and some of it -- some of these folks have been moved into various cities throughout the country. i was in chicago the other day, and saw all these family sleeping on the floor in o'hare. it's a huge, huge problem. and yes, democrats, republicans have to be working on this. and i guarantee -- and based on my one year, with all of these folks -- if you put a bipartisan solution in front of us, we will vote on it. and the speaker knows that.

he just has to decide whether or not he is going to participate in those negotiations, and give us a bill we can pass. >> it's a really good point. i want to switch gears for a second. i want to talk about the gop strategy when it comes to the biden impeachment inquiry. my colleague, paul waldman, he recently wrote a column for msnbc.com. he said, and i'm quoting, it would be an overstatement to say that if republicans impeach biden, it will guarantee his reelection. so, of course, paul is essentially saying that such a move would completely supercharged the democratic voter base. do you agree with that? >> yeah, i do. voters are very engaged. it's impossible to imagine folks being more frustrated and more concerned with what their elected officials are doing. they expect us to do our jobs.

>> right. >> and that means getting to work and protecting this economy, getting wages up, costs down. a whole host of things that they need us to tackle. and for the republican majority to say, hey, we are going to focus on impeachment when zero, zero of my voters have said to me, hey, this is a priority. it is going to be very problematic for them. it is also just bad for the country to be pulled into this absurd impeachment inquiry when we have a budget to pass. we have got to deal with the border. and we have got to be there for our friends in europe, and eastern europe, and in the middle east. the stakes, as i said, couldn't be higher. >> that's right. the stakes could not be higher. congressman greg landsman, thank you so much for joining me tonight. i really appreciate it. next --

one adam frisch is here. he was narrowly defeated by congresswoman lauren boebert in 2022. now, she's abandoned her district. that's next. next. care how old you a re, 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 lives. it's time. yes, the time has come for a fresh approach to dog food. everyday, more dog people are deciding it's time to quit the kibble and feed their dogs fresh food from the farmer's dog. made by vets and delivered right to your door precisely portioned for your dog's needs. it's an idea whose time has come. ♪♪

he hits his mark —center stage—and is crushed by a baby grand piano. you're replacing me? customize and save with liberty bibberty. he doesn't even have a mustache. only pay for what you need. ♪ liberty. liberty. liberty. liberty. ♪ >> far-right congresswoman

lauren boebert says she's going run in a more conservative colorado district in an apparent attempt to boost her chances of holding on to a house seat. in a statement, boebert said, quote, it's the right move for me personally, and it's the right decision for those who support our conservative movement. boebert's switch comes after she faced major backlash when security footage of her behavior at a performance of beetle juice was leaked earlier this year. you may remember, he got kicked out for singing, vaping, and other disruptive behavior including, yes, groping her date. she was also facing a strong primary challenger, jeff heard, backed by former governor -- owens.

-- democrat adam frisch. she narrowly defeated him in last year's midterms, winning by just 546 votes. as the federal election commission records state as of september 30th, frisch we already outracing boebert by more than $5 million. all sides seem to point to boebert's overarching strategy. if you can't win, just go to another district. joining me now to discuss is adam frisch himself, running for congress in colorado's third district. adam, thank you so much for joining me. i want to start with exactly what went through your head as you heard the news coming out of boebert's campaign. >> happy new year to you and the voters out there. and the viewers as well. i got a call before it hit the wires from someone on our campaign staff and i said, i just got the craziest message. not only was representative boebert packing up her bags in this district, and not going to be running, but she was actually going to carpetbag her way 400 miles through --

districts to the eastern plains of colorado. i'm not sure the last time that's ever happened, or if it's ever happened, a sitting congress person has packed up their bags to -- challenger -- we've been receiving -- from all of the country about it. and so, shocked, surprised. i chuckled to myself a little bit. but again, goal number one in -- this journey two years ago was to make sure lauren boebert was gone from southern and western colorado. so, we are giving ourselves a lot of credit, and a lot of hard work. -- now, we are going to work on getting someone to focus on rural, western and southern colorado in congress and take the job seriously. >> before digging into your district and exactly the makeup of that district, what do you make of this move in terms of what it says about the maga strategy going into 2024? do you think it's reflective of a larger problem that the maga party is facing right now? >> i'm not sure.

i spent zero time thinking about the national elections, whether it's county commissioners or presidential election. i'm not focused on this team red team blue conversation. i am laser focused on ranchers and farmers and businesses in the communities of western and southern colorado. i will say, nothing i would rather say about cd4 going down the road is that -- embarrassing and unproductive congress person is a carpetbag -ing unproductive congress person. for that matter -- but i just want to laser focus on cd3. again, we are happy and thrilled that she is gone from this part of the state. but, again, the goal has always been to make sure that there is a -- representative looking after western and southern colorado, focused on those needs, and not getting sucked into a lot of national conversations going on across the country. >> i have to say, something he said surprise me. he said you are not even thinking about national politics. you are not thinking about the

national presidential election. and that surprises me because, i wonder that a lot of candidates, democratic candidates, are thinking about this question, which may be, how much do i approximate myself to president biden? right? simply given his poll numbers, given the lack of approval among a lot of young people, in terms of his approach in gaza, and i have to imagine that is something you must be thinking about. how do you sort of figure out those parameters around how much and how close you align yourself with the president? >> you know, whatever the president is doing we're not doing or -- and the polls going up and down -- again, from day one, this is two years ago. and who knows what the -- i'm not focused on it. there are four things that we have done so. what we were supposed to lose by 40,000 votes last time. and we lost by 550. we were completely blown off by the republican party, the democratic party and -- with respect to the donor base. and it was just a matter of

diving 45,000 miles and also -- with my son who took his junior year of high school off and -- road trip. and just -- as many people as possible. i've been home three or four days a month for a year and a half. and we are independent. we are hardworking. we are authentic insincere. and those four characteristics are why we are doing so well in a district that has surprised a lot of people. but again, so many people, whether i'm meeting democrats, independents or republicans, are frustrated with both parties. and it really laser focused on focusing on what our district needs, whether it's colorado water, colorado energy, and the colorado job base is really important going forward for the future of our country and our district. >> are you doing anything different this time around? you are right. you were very close to winning but the reality also is that the last time a democrat when there was in 2008, i believe. so, what are you doing different this time around? >> the district has a history,

over 40 years, of moderate democrats and moderate republicans. and obviously, the current representative, who is literally probably packing her bags right now as she starts to move down the road, is just not part of that conversation. and our district wants people -- 240 yard lines and that's just not where that representative is. as far as doing different, not really. my views remain the, same whether i am speaking in front of some of our counties that are 80% democratic, and i tell people the exact same conversations, stories, values, views, policy positions if i am talking to some of our counties that have 80% republicans. i am going everywhere. and again, i am going to be on the road 25 days a month, and just driving around in a red ford pickup truck, listening, learning and confirming how much of those counties that we have in the country that are producing energy, producing agriculture, producing beef and ranging products just feel left out of that conversation from a

lot of the urban, big city conversations that are taking place down in denver and these other big cities -- and i'm just laser focused on cd3. and not to be a broken record, but this is what i truly believe. regardless of whether we get another extremist in personality or in policies or we get more traditional republican, if you will, it does not change our strategy. it does not change my work ethic. it does not change my independence. >> and really quickly, sir, i'm running out of time -- but i have to ask you this, how does colorado's supreme court ruling affect the constituents in your district? i'm wondering how that is playing out right now. >> i don't hear about. it people are concerned about the cost of living. they are concerned about making sure there is a strong domestic energy industry. they are not overly focused on what goes on down there. personally, i believe that the voter should be deciding who should be on the ballot, and not the courts. >> okay. adam frisch, thank you so much for joining me. i really, really appreciate it. >> happy new year to you. >> thank, you sir. next, new disturbing video

out of gaza faces highlights the uncertainty children there are facing. are facing (vo) that's right! plans start at $25 per line guaranteed for 3 years. only on verizon. liberty mutual customized my car insurance and i saved hundreds. with the money i saved, i started a dog walking business. oh. [dog barks] no it's just a bunny! only pay for what you need. ♪liberty. liberty. liberty. liberty.♪ >> these really military

temporarily ed fighting in rafah, southern gaza, earlier today for what they called humanitarian purpos. this comes after a warning from the u.n. that the scale and intensity of israel's ground operations is hindering the delivery of aid to the more than 2 million civilians in need. meanwhile, unicef has said that the region is by far the most dangerous place in the world to be a child. according to the government media office in gaza, at least 8500 children have been killed since october 7th. and for those who have managed to survive, day to day life over there is uncertain. it's dangerous. it's harrowing. i want to show you video that began circulating on social media on christmas eve. here, what you see on your screen is what appears to be two children stripped to their underwear and rounded up by israeli soldiers at the --

stadium in gaza city. nbc news does not know exactly when this video was taken. in a statement, the idf says that an individual suspected of involvement in terrorist activity are being detained and questioned, and those who are not found to be participating in this activity are then released. but amid the scenes and the utter destruction throughout gaza, adults are still working to create some sense of normalcy for the children, like this displaced teacher, who is volunteering to teach children english language classes. joining me now to discuss is steve -- founder of the palestine children's relief and. steve, thank you so much for joining me. i really appreciate it. i want to start directly by asking you what you are hearing on the ground from team members, and families that are there. i'm asking you because i know that at least six of the palestinians who have been brought to the united states -- have -- i want to start there. >> thank you, what we are

hearing from the ground is pretty much what you are outlining. and in some of your reports -- which is that there are no safe spots in gaza. the complete catastrophe on a humanitarian level in the health sector and every aspect of life in gaza has deteriorated to the point where we have seen hunger, widespread hunger. we are seeing widespread hunger among all segments of palestinian society. the lack of medication has resulted in amputations and other medical care being provided without anesthesia. children are getting communicable diseases on a wide scale far beyond what we've ever seen before in the gaza strip. over 8000 children have been killed, as you mentioned earlier. that is 1%, nearly 1% of the entire population of children in gaza being killed since october 7th. that doesn't take into the consideration the thousands of children missing under rubble. it does not take into consideration the thousands of children who are dying and suffering from diseases, or injuries, or medical conditions which they otherwise would get medical care had not the health system completely collapsed as a result of this

ongoing violence. the situation in general in gaza is completely beyond the scope of any kind of proper understanding from a civilized point of view. there is no food. children are suffering from food. children are suffering from the lack of medical care. there is no education going on. and let's keep in mind that there is truckloads of food, there is truckloads of medication right a mile across the border in egypt waiting to enter gaza. they are being prevented from entering gaza. and therefore, this is not just a crisis, it is a man-made crisis. and to allow children to suffer and to die of starvation in some cases -- and i know this is documented -- when there is food readily available just across the border is unconscionable. >> steve sosebee, let's turn back to the video we just showed on the screen a couple of minutes ago of what appears to be two children being stripped to their underwear and rounded up by the idf. i know that israeli officials told cnn that they have found explosive vests modified for

children to wear as they are going house to house. but what do you make of this video as you were watching? it >> we have known for -- their have been plenty of children who have been detained and who are in israeli prisons and who have been in israel israeli prisons even without trial, for many years. this is not a new thing. and those children in gaza, who are being arrested and being detained, and being rounded up by the military, this is not a new thing, as i've just said. this is something that has been going on for years. now it's been in front of the international media and it's starting to be seen on a more wide scale. but it's something that most palestinians will tell you has been going on for generations. and hopefully, in the case of these innocent children, this stops. because these are innocent kids who don't have any due process of law. they are not being protected by any international agencies. and they are being treated by military soldiers and by the occupation army as combatants, when, in fact, they are just children.

>> and as you say, this is -- but what does accountability look like right now? i know this, obviously -- >> what does? what >> what does accountability look like? in the face of images like that, in the face of knowing from different humanitarian organizations that, as you said, this is not a new thing, what does accountability look like? >> accountability looks like the fact that international all has to be upheld. that, if you are going to arrest people and detained people for a significant significant amount of time, they have to face charges. you cannot hold them without charge. this administrative detention, which is commonly practiced in israel, has imprisoned children for months and even years without charge, without having lawyers. without having any actual charges being brought against them. might be facing a judge into -- the accountability question has to be, what is the international community going to do about it? when are we going to step forward and say this is not acceptable by international

line by international standards? it should not be tolerated. and all parties in the region need to be held by the same basic moral and legal standards. >> steve sosebee, as we head into the new year, and we've been talking about this extensively, the world has seen the images. but i want you to directly address our viewers and help them understand what exactly the situation is on the ground right now. >> the situation on the ground is that there is no safe place, that people are huddled in their homes every night fearing death. that their children are going without food. 90% of the population in gaza goes one day without a meal. and that over 50% of the population is suffering severe potential starvation. that tens of thousands of children now are suffering significant injuries, and permanent disability. as i mentioned, nearly 10,000 children have been killed. kids with the most basic medical needs are not having those needs met, because the health system has collapsed.

people are living and sharing seven -- 700 800 people are sharing one single toilet. they are living in tents. we have no security whatsoever to feel that they are safe, anywhere, any night. and families are being destroyed. homes are being destroyed, as you all see. over 60% of the homes in gaza have been destroyed. and there is no end in sight. and the fact that this has been going on for nearly three months, and that the international community -- and all of us are aware of exactly what is happening, we've seen it every single day. and we have not been able to put a stop to it. in fact, it just continues. and on average, over 100 children are killed every single day in the gaza strip. only one over 100 children are killed every day in the gaza strip. -- and nothing has changed. this is beyond comprehension. as we go into 2024, that this can continue to happen. >> steve, thank you so much for what you do. thank you so much for reminding us to not be naming the face of these images. i really appreciate you coming

tonight. >> -- >> still to come, how republicans failure on abortion rights is backfiring as we head into another election year. year

he hits his mark —center stage—and is crusbaby grand piano. you're replacing me? customize and save with liberty bibberty. he doesn't even have a mustache. only pay for what you need. ♪ liberty. liberty. liberty. liberty. ♪ with the freestyle libre 2 system know your glucose level and where it's headed without fingersticks. manage your diabetes with more confidence and lower your a1c. it's covered by medicare for those who qualify. ask your doctor about the freestyle libre 2 system.

from pep in their step to shine in their coats, when people switch their dog's food to the farmer's dog, the effects can seem like magic. but there's no magic involved. (dog bark) it's just smarter, healthier pet food. it's amazing what real food can do. >> 2023 marked the first full

year of life in post roe america. and despite an embarrassing performancin from republicans in the 2022 midterm elections, in large part because of their extreme stance on abortion, it appes e party did not learn its sson.

in april, florida governor gop presidential candidate ron desantis signed a six-week abortion ban into law in the dead of night. and desantis did dpite the fact that florida supreme court is currently considering whether the states 15-week ban is even constitutional. also in april, idaho ma history, becoming the first state to pass a so-called abortion travel ban since the fall of roe. travel for some seeking -- that same month, trump appointed antiabortion judge in -- halted the food and drug administrationroval for one of two drug medications news used in medication abortion, lahe groundwork for ssle nationwide n. then, in maine, north carolina republicans stl ck there already restrictive 12-week abortion -- pro-choice democrats who switched parties mid session and gave the gop a veto proof majority over the states democratic governor. due to this avalanche of extreme legislation, the

republican party once again found itself on defense going into election day. even in deep red and purplewh ie votes, the results were resounding. republicans in the antiabortion movement in general lost decisively at the ballot box in 2023. in ohio, for instance, voters overwhelmingly opted to enshrine the ro an abortion in the states constitution. in virginia, dem swept the general assembly, turning the house of delegates blue and preserving the overall majority in the state senate. with democrats in control, republican governor glenn youngkin won't be able to pass is promised 15-week abortion ban in the final two years of his term. and in kentucky, democrat andy beshear won another term as governor in an election defined by his support for abortion rights. now, these results should not have surprised republicans. they are not shocking. a recent survey found that nearly 75% of voters believe that the gop has gone too far on abortion restrictions this

year. and yes, that includes 51% who voted for donald trump in 2020. and with the presential election and another major supreme court case on the horizon, 2024 promises to be, at least if not more consequential for the future of reproductive rights in the united states. the nation's highest court has already agreed to weigh an appeal from the biden administration on the ruling of texas over the availability of medication abortion. and ballot measures involving the procedure are poised to pop up in 13 states next year. and that includes several swing states. so, as we head into 2024, it is clear that democrats have the momentum in the sport of the american people. but the question is, will republicans learn from their mistakes? are they listening? are they seeing what is happening? or are they destined to repeat history again? now, the second hour of "ayman" begins after a quick break. a quick break only pay for what you need. ♪liberty. liberty. liberty. liberty.♪

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.

(dad) it's our phone bill... we pay for things that we don't need. (mom) that's a bit dramatic. (dad) we must tighten our belts! (mom) a better plan to save is verizon! (vo) that's right! plans start at $25 per line guaranteed for 3 years. only on verizon.