to debt g tested. find out what you're dealing with. is it covid or rsv or the flu? that way you can get treated. often times these illnesses get more serious than they need to because people simply don't seek treatment. one final thing to say when we're talking to parents, especially of young children, these viruss are present completely differently. if you notice your child is wheezing, get medical attention immediately. there's an rs sv vaccine. pregnant women can get it during a certain time during their pregnancy to protect their children. >> that's great news. if you find your kid is struggling to breathe, go to the doctor. don't take any chances. alexander, thank you very much. good luck to you out there. that's going to do it for me today. i hope none of you get sick out there. "deadline white house" starts right now.

hey, everyone. it's 4:00 in new york. i'm in for nicole wallace. special counsel jack smith is a prosecutor that stays out of the spotlight. he prefers to speak through his fiings. that's why his laltest brief in the federal election case merits our attention. over the weekend, the justice department responded to trump's claims that he is immune from prosecution. what he did was within the scope of his duties as president of the united states. it's an argument that trump was taking to the courts in order to get the whole election case dismissed. the special counsel is speaking to the court. let's be honest. he's also speaking to any of us who care about the health of our democracy. prosecutors acknowledge the fact we're dealing with an unprecedented situation. for the first time in our nation's history, a grand jury charged a former president of committing crimes while in office to overturn an election

he lost. in response the defendant claims to protect the institution of the presidecy, he must be cloaked with immunity from criminal prosecution unless the house impeached and the senate convicted him for the same conduct. he's wrong. the special counsel also suggests that more than justhe indictment of donald trump and the election is at stake here. the presidency plays a vital role in our constitutional system. so does the principle of accountabili f criminal acts. particularly, those that strike at heart of the democratic process. rather than vindicating our constitutional framework, the defendants sweeping immunity claim threaten to license prosecutes to commit crime to remain in office. if donald trump is not held accountable, prosecutors say the basic principles of our democracy are up for debate. a scheme to thwart the peaceful transfer of power is the check on executive abuses. the president colts to power by

winning ab election. not by subverting the results of the vote. a response from trump's team could come down at any minute now. that's where we start today with former deputy assistant attorney general and former u.s. attorney harry litman, plus lead investigator for the january 6th select committee tim haity is here and with me at the table director of the public policy program at hunter college basil smikle. it seems that trump claiming to be president is a get out of a jail free card for crimes committed while one is in office. what is the special counsel saying? >> the special counsel is saying not everything you do while in office is necessarily part of your official responsibility. the question here, the essential question is was the president's activity before and on january 6th part of his official responsibility as president or as the special counsel maintains, different. political activity, even

criminal conspiracy to thwart the very foundation of democracy. the transfer of power. we heard this argument with the select committee again and again and again. witnesses who would say, this is executive privilege. it's part of my official responsibility. you, congress, can't reach it. and the consistent response that we made is the same response that jack smith is making to the supreme court. that is not everything that you do is connected to your official responsibility. it just can't be that absolutely everything is part of being the president of the united states. there's a zone of official responsibility and then there's a zone beyond that. and that is what the special the counsel is arguing. this is the precise question for the supreme court. >> here's the thing. there's the presidency and then there's democracy. here's part of what jack is arguing. to the extent that concern about chilling president is implicated, the prospect of prosecution for knowingly criminal acts can have a not a chilling effect.

i wonder what you make of this argument. this is about the health of democracy. >> i think tim's point is well taken. not everything you do as president is about carrying out the official act of the presidency. it's clear to so many of us that so much of what donald trump was doing is trying to further his hold on power. i'm on the trusty of the roosevelt presidential library. i remember some months ago, a number of the libraries calm together to talk about the importance of our democracy in this moment in secuing our freedoms. essentially, it says the history of our country and the presidency is speaking to this moment. because everything that goes forward, particularly with jack smith and this prosecution, will dictate what happens after. and i think that's the important moment that we're in. as president of the united states, we, the people, have to determine what was your official

act as president and then what did you do to subvert the process. and make it so that future presidents don't have the same lee way and runway to do the exact same thing. to me, this is all about accountability. >> but what is before us. i want to read a little more from the special counsel's filing. in his view, meaning trump's, a court should treat a crimina conduct as immune from prosecution as long as it takes the form of response with a state offici aut a matter in which there's a federal interest. in meeting with the member of the executive branch, a statement on a merit of public concern. that approach would grant immunity from prosecution to a president who accepts a bribe in exchange for directing a lucrative gerent contract to the payor. a president who instructs the fbi director to plant incriminating evidence on a political enemy. a president who orders the national guard to murder his critics for president who sells secret to a foreign adversary

because in each of these, the president could awe certificate he was simply executing the laws for commuicating with the department of justice or discharging his powers as commander-in-chief or engaging in foreign diplomacy. talk to us about the dangers of the courts here if they were to side with trump, the pandora's box that could then open. >> what's important is what care they took to delineate pandora's box everything that tim says about the argument is right. but it's very interesting and compelling that in addition to that, they took the time to really give a parade of a series of rhetorical flourishes that made clear what the stakes are. not simply the law, but if you count this, you're countenancing everything. you're countenancing any president trying to overturn the law to stay in power, not to

mention the series of base crimes that you have just described in the brief. so i think they really -- it's a sort of high-minded brief in addition to getting down and dirty with the actual poor merits of trump's claim and they are poor, and i expect them to lose. he really the in addition reallien paint the broader picture and what's at stake in a way that i think will be very compelling for the court of appeals. >> harry just referenced the argument, the merits of the argument that team trump is making. it's sort of a logic not that i would try to disentangle people talking a about this point from trump's lurs. they say a president who is acquitted by the senate cannot be prosecuted for the acquitted conduct. help me understand that argument. >> yeah, there's absolutely no basis for this. in any statute. there's a process for holding

presidents accountable and that's called impeachment. that's the only process. again, there's just no authority for that. it comes out of whole cloth. if there's an independent evidence of criminal violations, then as the special counsel says, that should be subject to trial by jury. i want to go back to something harry said that's really important. in supreme court cases, litigants try to narrow the focus. they try to telt the court you can answer this question without necessarily touching these broader issues. you make the justices' job easier if you can make this as narrow as possible. by contrast in this case, both sides are openly admitting the broad ramifications for democracy of their respective arguments. it's a different approach than most litigants take in the supreme court. the team is saying, look, if you allow this case to proceed and presidents are are going to be scared to do anything from here on because they are worried they are going to get criminally

prosecuted after they leave office. the special council is saying this matters a lot because accountability has to stand for something. just as the president needs to execute his correspondents, there has to be a rule of law. both sides are wrapping themselves in the magnitude of this case, which you just don't see that much in supreme court litigation. there's no question this case is serious, but i think both sides are acknowledging the really tremendous impact that it will have on our democracy going forward. >> my instinctive response that is how could you not talk about the stakes here, how could you not broaden out. given that i'm not attorney, if most lit gants come before the supreme court and try to narrow the objective of the case, i wonder from a strategic vantage point that the is special counsel and trump's team are deciding to run in out. >> attorneys want to win. and usually, exactly as tim says, you serve up the narrowest

possible case that will have the fewest ramifications not here because the supreme court, including in what's going to be a very urgent appeal to do it very quickly is meant to register the magnitude, the importance of the question and the need for moving quickly. there's sort of no way around it. it does accept the case, which it likely will, except there's been a little asterisk that's been put into play, but assuming it does, it will not try to play this as a minor little technical matter. it's grand. the same way they it did in united states versus nixon. it's a clash of really important principles and i think for all the reasons jack smith says, the principles on his side of accountability and preventing lawlessness by rogue presidents will prevail. >> i want to go back to this interplay between the impeachment or the interplay that the trump team is trying to create between the impeachment and this legal case.

here is what one of trump's attorneys said during the second impeachment trial. take a listen. >> for the first time in history, congress has asserted the right to try and punish a former president who is a private citizen. nowhere in the constitution is the power implied. congress has no authority, no right and no business holding a trial of citizen trump let alone a trial to deprive him of some fundamental civil rights. >> again, not an attorney this feels like one of the logic games that made my brain explode. trump argued he can't be impeached because he's no longer president now he's arguing because he wasn't convicted by the senate, he can't be prosecuted now. am i getting that right? >> you're getting his argument right. it's important to note he munty on one hand. then this is technical a double jeopardy claim and everybody understands it's a stone cold

loser. if you're convicted, all you can be is thrown out that's the limit of the penalty. but you can also be tried criminally. that says nothing about what happens if you're acquitted. and indeed, it says nothing about what happens if you're not tied in the first place. so really not just smith, but conservative judges and former officials make complete garbage of that argument. that is really going nowhere. >> let's talk about republicans' complicity in all of this. i'm thinking about mitch mcconnell saying, i didn't vote to impeach because i think it should be handled by the justice dl system. twou we find ourselves saying they didn't impeach him, so it shouldn't be hnd ha theed by the justice system is. >> first of all, you have mitch mcconnell and many republican leaders thing to wash their hands of this guy at some point. trying to find a way to kick him

out of our view so we don't have to deal with him. but he is going to constantly badger the senate and the senate leadership and republicans in the house as well saying, look, in a way i see his argument as a shot across the bow. for all of the intention around trying to hold me accountable, you were gutless and did nothing. therefore, if you did nothing to take care of this in the house and in the senate, then why should i be be held accountable in the courts as a nonthe president, as a free person. that chilling effect you asked about is really in the congress and in the house and senate because the question is, will he get elected, will they talk about what they should do as members of the senate that has a reach outside of that. nor anyone no longer in office.

because if you have one standard in congress and another standard of being elected official and being held accountable within the government and the another one in the courts, how much will congress's reach extend outside of that. because they can make a vote to say if we do this here, he will be convicted on the outside. it's a tough argument. it's a losing argument. that's a shot across the bow. come ask get me whether you're in court or congress. >> it feels like an ultimate game of hot potato. it will be handled but someone who is not me. it turns out this question of whether a president can be tried for something he was impeached and acquitted for, it is something people have been looking into. in 200 its office of legal counsel issued a men ran dumb saying whether a president maybe tried for the same offenses for which he was impeached by the hoe and acquitted by the

senate. the argument that such prosecutions rub afoul of the constitution has some force, according to the memo, which was repaired by randolph moss. we find this interpretation of the impeachment judgment clause ultimately uconvincing. could this be what the fact many what the judges decide? >> no. the opinions don't have the force of law. they are a bunch of smart lawyers at the department of justice who are tasked with answering questions that are between the lines. all the memo says while that has appeal, it's not persuasive. they don't find that a president cannot be prosecuted if he's a acquitted in an impeachment proceeding. even if it had made that conclusion, it's the opinion of a couple of people in the office of legal counsel, really smart people who do a lot of interpretation, but there's no record in front of them. there's no facts that would bear

upon that decision. so i don't frankly think that olc opinions are that persuasive. they are swasive in terms of threshold decision making, but i don't necessarily think they have any bearing upon what the justices of the supreme court equally smart now with a record in font of them will do with that question. >> let's get back to this question of timing. we are one week away from oral arguments. that seems virtually impossible. what are you looking for during those oral arguments? >> it is virtually impossible, but here it is in front of us. you know what else is impossible? they issue an president bush like a week after. and i think they are going to do that. they are already writing. the thing i will be looking for is how they try to cabin trump from drawing it out with to the full court and 90 days to the

supreme court, i think they will grant a stay that is expires in a matter of say one to two weeks. and that will force his hand. same thing as colorado has done, where he technical i lu has to respond within a couple days. so i'll be looking for the stay, i referred to this, let me put it in the water. there's a new argument in there that says the court of appeals doesn't have jurisdiction in the first place, which would end everything. i'll be looking to see how interested they are just this morning they instructed the parties to address it. so that's the second thing i will be looking for when the argument first starts. >> put a pin in that. when we come back, the holidays are decidedly over for the many lawyers on donald trump's expansive legal team. we'll look at the ex-president's bez busy schedule coming into focus in 2024 just as the political calendar kicks off as well. plus three former white house aids in the last administration sounding the

alarm on a second trump presidency. pledging to do something they have never done before. later in the show, hear how a congressman is calling out krutices who say the efforts in colorado and maine to block trump from the ballot are undemocratic. all those stories and much more, when we continue after this. osi, when we continue after this. -toe plaque psoriasis... for the chance at clear or almost clear skin. it's like the feeling of finding that outfit psoriasis tried to hide from you. or finding your swimsuit is ready for primetime. dad! once-daily sotyktu is proven to get more people clearer skin than the leading pill. don't take if you're allergic to sotyktu; serious reactions can occur. sotyktu can lower your ability to fight infections including tb. serious infections, cancers including lymphoma, muscle problems, and changes in certain labs have occurred. tell your doctor if you have an infection, liver or kidney problems, high triglycerides, or had a vaccine or plan to. sotyktu is a tyk2 inhibitor. tyk2 is part of the jak family. it's not known if sotyktu has the same risks

as jak inhibitors. find what plaque psoriasis has been hiding. ask your dermatologist about sotyktu for clearer skin. so clearly you. sotyktu. 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. i think he's having a midlife crisis join the mi'm not.of people taking back their privacy you got us t-mobile home internet lite. after a week of streaming they knocked us down... ...to dial up speeds. like from the 90s. great times. all i can do say is that my life is pre-- i like watching the puddles gather rain. -hey, your mom and i procreated to that song. oh, ew! i think you've said enough. why don't we just switch to xfinity like everyone else? then you would know what year it was. i know what year it is.

the holidays are over and the new year is ticking off like a rocket. especially for the disgraced ex-president, who is facing a legal obstacl crse in the coming weeks and months. as we mentioned at the top of the show, with could get trump's

rely in the immunity case any minute. there's new reporting that donald trump is expected to appeal the 14th amendment ruling from colorado and maine sometime today. oral argues begin in thement immunity case in one week, 48 hours after that closing arguments begin in the civil fraud trial. and then 24 hours later, the second defamation trial. that is just the next two weeks. we talked about this harrowing high-stakes legal calendar before, but now it's go time. we are back with harry, tim and bah basil. we have to get a bigger wall. we have all these courts firing on all cylinders. all roads point to donald trump. have we ever seen a defendant face something like this? >> i never have. he's on the shore of looking at the tsunami coming in. it's not just all roads point to

him, but all roads point to deadly damage to either terrible financial damage in the financial trials are literally a loss of liberty. so one after the other and as you say, these are just the next two weeks. we'll go on and on. and interwoven withment campaign activity. all of them are potentially ruinous. certainly together they are potentially ruinous. i think it's unprecedented. >> a two-part question for you. first, just from a logistic standpoint. how does trump's legal team juggle a case load with a client, who is also as difficult as trump. we have already seen with some of these cases testifying to one thing and one case that's damaged him. so question two, is there just one of these cases this you're going to be watching this closely that you think poses the greatest risk to trump?

>> the first question is multiple teams. don't assume there's one master plan or one brain trust of coordination. i have a sense that there are different groups of lawyer who is are focused on each of these matters. there's some overlap. but he has hired, understandably, specialists that will argue that the 14th amendment matter who will defend the criminal charges and lawyer who is are civil litigants in the cases in new york city. the one point that's interesting about timing is that i think the department of justice for a long time was very reluctant to do anything that might be seen as political. the attorney general of the united states got that job in part because he was confirmable and seen as almost apolitical. they kind of resisted really looking at the political aspects of january 6th to preprevent the transfer of power. it wasn't until the select

committee that this was a criminal conspiracy that they finally took the steps to do that investigation, which have now accelerated and as a resulted in this investigation. ironically, their desire to avoid politics in the beginning of attorney general's garland's time in that position has resulted in a late to the party prosecution, which means that it does impact what the political call dart impactly the opposite effect of what an attorney general would want. water under the bridge, they are aggressively moving now even if they got a late start. it's weird they're desire to avoid politics is bringing these cases right in the middle of an ongoing primary election campaign. >> i think you can call it weird. you can also call it frustrating for a lot of people saying there was no way it was ever going to be perceived as apolitical by trump supporters.

he was a always going to make the argument it was political. i want you to talk about that. i also want want you to talk about the fact that you have two cases, trump is only showing up to one of them. that's kind of a tell. the fact he keeps saying i wasn't on the campaign trail. nobody needed him at the civil fraud trial. but that he seems to perceive one as a greater risk than the other. >> it's interesting. if you would take both of them, they create this extraordinary narrative that someone running against him could use. you're a sexual abuser, b, you're not who you say you are, all the money and stature that you have, you don't. all those things normally would be grounds for someone to either walk away from that call pin or lose that campaign. but he clearly is going through these cases and others as this aggrieved, look at how people are coming after me. but it is also clear that he with the carroll case, if he

doesn't want to be in the room, maybe he doesn't that fing pointing. he's afraid to go up against e. jean carroll. i think very clearly that in wanting to be president in the case with attorney general tish james, it actually tells me, and i could be wrong, it tells me about his regard for black women in power. and his need to sort of subjugate him and her because he feels he has some wiggle room versus what he has in the carroll case. and if i think about all the ways in which he's talked about the african-americans that are involved in all of these cases, it fits, to me, a broader pattern. but if i take all of these cases, again, it suggests to me that there's every bit of a

narrative that's there for someone to go after him, but he clearly does not care and clearly has not worked against him in the ways that it would a typical candidate. >> you also need someone brave enough to go after him, which we have seen a dearth of people who have the appetite for that. let's talk carroll. this i t second defamation case she brought. she won the first case handedly. trumps was a no show. late last week, trump's lawyers indicated he may testify this time around. i wonder what you make of that? >> i make exactly zero of any kind of claim that he may testify. in a criminal case, i would make less than that because i would say it's no way. it could be possible in a civil case. i certainly wouldn't until he raises his right hand and maybe then i wouldn't say it's ashushed. to basil's point, another way to cut the different cases here is by the judges. the judge in this case, in the civil trial, i might add the

judge there, and that goes to the racial overtons or undertones that basil is talking about. they are tough judges for him compared to some of the others. they are ones when he shows up in court and he needs to for the criminal cases, he can expect to get his ears boxed if he acts up as maybe his campaign strategy to do. one final point. the wild card here, which maybe the first criminal trial for good or bad is the bragg new york case involving stormy daniels. then it will be a war of words as this is a sexual misbehavior case or an attempt to influence the campaign and of a moment at least with some of his other more deeds. >> i'm going to giveout last question. hope you spent your holidays enjoying eggnog or being with your family, doing what normal people do. because donald trump spent the

holidays rage posting. the latest installment was new year's day aimed at the former vice chair liz cheney. i'm not going to read what had to say, but i want to read from her response. seems like someone is starting 2024 hang ri. donald trump, you and your lawyers have had the january 6th committee terribles plus the grand jury information and much more months. lying about the evidence in all caps won't change the facts. a public trial will show it all. your response? >> there's been this narrative that the former president and others have put forth that there was something hidden or destroyed or not disclosed from the materials. again, completely baseless, no piece of evidence was in any way hidden, destroyed, the video tapes that is the base of that argument, they were not air kooifed, are just records of the

transcripts, which are all not only archived, but made public. it was very important to the select committee that we showed our work. that to rebut an argument that we took things out of context, you can look at the entirety of the transcribed interview and judge for yourself. so cheney is doing what everyone is going to do. what litigants are going to do in these cases is point to facts. facts matter. facts decide cases. facts still matter in this country. and a posting on truth social that is false or misleading is not going to stand up in a court of law when facts ultimately are adjudicated. he will have a chance in court to challenge all those facts. that's what the american system provides for everyone from a shoplift tore the former president of the united states, and that's why the in my view, you asked what is the most significant of these cases. to me, it's the criminal cases

because the crucible of cross-examination confrontation has ab opportunity to have more legitimacy when the same facts are found in that process, and maybe that changes people's minds in a way that a civil trial or congressional committee or reporting or other accounting of those same facts do not. >> here's to hoping. thank you both for sending time with us. basil is sticking with me. coming up, three former white house aids warning of the danger he poses to democracy. we're going to show you that, next. (pensive music) (broom sweeping) - [narrator] one in five children worldwide are faced with the reality of living without food. no family dinners, no special treats, no full bellies. all around the world, parents are struggling to feed their children. toddlers are suffering from acute malnutrition, which stunts their growth.

kids are forced to drop out of school so they can help support their families. covid, conflict, inflation and climate have ignited the worst famine in our lifetime. and we're fed up. fed up with the fact that hunger robs children of their childhood. fed up with the lack of progress. fed up with the injustice. help us brighten the lives of children all over the world by visiting getfedupnow.org. for as little as $10 a month, you can join save the children as we support children and families in desperate need of our help. now is the time to get fed up and give back. when you join the cause, your $10 monthly donation can help communities in need of life-saving treatments and nutrients, prevent children from dropping out of school. support our work with communities and governments to help children go from short-term surviving to long-term thriving. and now thanks to special government grants,

every dollar you give before december 31st can multiply up to 10 times the impact. that means more food, water, medicine and help for kids around the world. you'll also receive a free tote bag to share your support for children in need. childhood without food is unimaginable. get fed up. call us now or visit getfedupnow.org today.

s. it's apparent for the american people it's going to take a sweeping coalition. not one united by politics for policy. but by an unshakable loyalty to one thing. the truth. among the assembled, those officials forcibly shaken by the horrors of january 6th. now having been driven off earth for daring to be honest a about that day, some of them are seeking to ensure everyone understands exactly what the second term could mean. >> a second trump term could mean the end of american democracy. i don't say that lightly. >> his rhetoric has gotten increasingly erratic. he's called for doing away with parts of the constitution,

wanting to weaponize the doj to enact revenge on his political enemies. >> our singular focus needs to be on making sure he's not elected the president again next november. >> even if that means electing a democrat? >> i look at these options and i'm upset with them. but at the end of the day, i trust one person with our government and democracy than i do the other. i've never voted for a democrat in my life. but i think in this next election, i would put poicy aside and choose democracy. >> joining us now is writer at large for the bull work and political analyst tim miller. basil is back with us. tim, i have a million questions. do you think that group is a group of persuasive messengers? and the fact that you have them saying, yeah, i might think about voting for a democrat. how do you make that argument to a broader swath of the lek toirt? >> i do think it's persuasive to

the types of voters we're trying to get to. they are much better messengers than folks that don't ever sport donald trump before. you have to move people along. and creaing mission structure for them to change their vote and so the other thing that stands out, i think it's very brave but unfortunate that these three relatively speaking younger women who are are the ones that are leading this cause, when we had all of these grown men around donald trump who all know better. who are using a lot more wee sill words about the choice coming up in 2024. and so i think i give a lot of credit to them. i hope that their bravery, their willingness to put their neck out and to take the insults that will come from this, take the harassment that can come from

this will hopefully create some momentum for some other folks to come behind them. that's what's really going to be needed is more people to shake some of the remaining college educated republicans out of their stooperer and let them realize that donald trump is not the right approach. i think this is a good start and we're going to need more of them, but in short for 2020, it's having these kinds of messengers. you had really voters against trump. they were much more effective than some of the reefing the republican voters. >> i want to say wee sill words would be a great title for your book. and part of the reason i think it is important to have these mess jers out there is because there clearly is an evolution in memory, a short-term memory. the farther we get from what happened on january 6th, there's a new "shington post" poll. only 18% of republicans say the

republicans say the rioters were mostly violent. that's down from 26%% in 2021. i think this is another question, how do you deep the memory of the truth of what happened here alive. >> i'm going to be slightly contrarian. i agree with everything that tim has said in how these former trump loyalists should be out there and can do a lot to sort of bring people back to the fold to normalcy and politics. but honestly, i don't want it to be writing a book and going on a book tour. think need to be active engaged and mobilize and willing to mobilize people in this country to vote differently, to act differently, to legislate differently if we're going to excise trumpism out of our democracy. it's not just an election.

and i think if you talk to a lot of voters, the concern is not just about donald trump. it's about what happens if he loses. and i think that's really the question for all of us. is our democracy, are our institutions actually able to withstand his loss, not just his victory. i don't think that question is really being answered. so what i want in terms of trying to find a path to flip that 18%, it's that if you are really about this business and you're about trying to change minds, that you go full force into that. liz cheney has been a great model. there needs to be more people like that. sglu don't know if you're looking forward to being contrarian, we were violently agreeing because it's actually our friend tim who makes the argument that people nood need to have an involved campaign. we're coming back. up next, with days to go before the first vote is cast, the two

trailing candidates say they will offer a pardon to donald trump should he be convicted of one of his 91 felony counts we'll look at the politics, just ahead. lony counts we'll look at the politics, just ahead. we all know that words have power. they set things in motion and make us happy or sad. but there's one word that stands out, because when people say it, lives are changed. it's not a big word. it's itsy bitsy. it's only three little letters. but when you say it, the life of a kid like me can be changed. so what is this special word?

it may surprise you. it's yes, yes, yes, yes to becoming a monthly supporter of shriners hospitals for children®. that's right! your monthly support allows the doctors and nurses at shriners hospitals for children® to give the most amazing care anywhere and change the lives of kids like me and me and me. because people like you have said yes. now i can play football and i can play catch and i can walk. so what do you say? will you say yes? right now? it's so easy. all you have to do is pick up the phone or go to loveshriners.org right now and say yes. when you say yes to giving just $19 a month, only $0.63 a day. we'll send you this adorable love to the rescue® blanket as a reminder of all the kids you're helping every day. my life is filled with possibility because of the monthly support of people

just like you who called the number on your screen and said yes. yes, yes, yes. your yes is making a difference in my life and the lives of so many other kids like me. thank you. thank you. thank you. thank you. thank you for giving. please call or go online now. if operators are busy, call again or go to loveshriners.org to say yes right away.

- [female narrator] five billion people lack access to safe surgery. thousands of children are suffering and dying from treatable causes. for 40 years, mercy ships has deployed floating hospitals to provide the free surgeries these children need. join us. together, we can give children the hope and healing they never thought possible. it's a mission powered by love, made possible by you. give today. i would pardon trump if he's found guilty. a leader needs to think about what's in the best interest of the country. what's in the best interest of the country is not to have an 80-year-old man sit issing in jail that continues to duh

provide our country. what's in the best interest of the country would be to pardon him so that we can move on as a country and no longer talk about him. >> we have to move on as a country. >> 13 days until the iowa caucus and donald trump's two main challengers making it clear they would pardon the ex-president should he be convicted of his many federal felony charges. but a new "washington post" poll show it is might be an effective campaign pledge showing that among republicans believed that trump was responsible for the january 6th capitol riot has dropped from 27% in 2021 down to 14% today. a president can par pardon someone for federal crimes, not state crimes. so nikki haley and is ron desantis's campaign pledges would bail trump out of 44 out of 91 criminal indictments that

he could be convicted of. leaving him on his own if he were convicted of the other 47 charges he faces in new york and georgia. we are back with tim and basil. let's look at a poll out of iowa. donald trump at 52%. ron desantis at 18%. nikki haley at 16%. help me understand the calculous here. >> i have a political observation and then the merits of their comments. these people are living in a fantasy world. the whole rational behind their argument for pardoning was nikki haley said we want to not have to think about this person anymore. and then ron desantis said the country needs to move on. we need to move on from this person. what world are they living in donald trump is annihilating them in the primaries. the voters that they are trying to reach don't the to not think about donald trump.

they don't want to move on from him. that maybe would be an appealing message. if it was "morning joe" ask he was saying i need donald trump to accept accountability and to be repurr cushion, but maybe it's the best thing to move on once there's been repercussions and accountability. i would probably disagree with that, but i would be open to hearing ta. that's no what they are saying. they are saying you want to live in a fantasy world where a all my problems go away. and donald trump just disappears. there's no accountability. there's no repercussions. and the party moves to me. we all live happily ever after. i'm sorry. i tonight know about you, but not everybody got a pony. you don't get what you want in imaginary world. there has to be accountability for actions. these candidates don't seem to be ready to live in the reality that is the republican party today. >> there's the reality of the republican party and there's also the fact that you have them moving farther and farther away

from what actually hpd on january 6th. just the way in which that then shapes the way that voters think about our democracy. >> from that regard, given what they have said, nikki haley's omission is consistent. if we don't say it, it didn't happen. that's clearly what she want tofs happen. they are so afraid of the maga voters that they are running for office, but to beat donald trump in a primary, but essentially running surrogates of donald trump. i adopt know what world that is. where you can't even be independent of the person because they are spending so much time being his then run? essentially just drop out the race and let donald trump take the nomination. but that's where this republican party is. it cannot just move itself and twist itself, comport itself to do the right thing and say, because i don't think he should be pardoned, to say that's a

tricky situation, we shouldn't be thinking about pardoning a president who committed these kinds of crimes and where is the accountability in our country? that's really -- to tim's point, even if joe biden were to approach this subject, i think it would be problematic for him and for a lot of democratic voters down the road, but i would take it from him, more than i would take it from people who are only talking about it because they know that that's where the republican party is, and that there is no risk in losing them by saying it. >> 60 seconds left. i want to ask you, you have nikki haley asking donald trump come to the debates, please be part of the debate, is the idea that he would come and all of a sudden they would get brave in front of him and take him to task once he was in the room? >> i think that maybe she's -- there is the carly fiorina had one moment in 2016, she went at trump and maybe nikki haley thinks this could be the magic

elixir, she wouldn't totally go after him in the way we find satisfying, but she could pick one or two areas and demonstrate a little bit of strength. i think that's what the calculus is. at this point, again, it is not in touch with reality. donald trump is not considering going to the debates and why would he given the state of the primary. >> thank you both so much for spending some time with us. we're going to take a quick break and then we'll be right back. going to take a quick break and then we'll be right back

there has been a major development in the israel-hamas war.

with hamas confirming the commander of the military wing in the west bank was killed in a drone strik lt night in the suburb of beirut, claiming israel for the attack. he was a key figure who had helped repair the group's relationship with iran. while not confirming israeli authorization of the strike, adviser to prime minister netanyahu mark r told msnbc earlier today the strike was, quote, a surgical hit on hamas. this comes as israel postpones a full israeli cabinet meeting meant to discuss plans for a post hamas gaza. i'll keep you updated as we learn more. up next for us, breaking in just the last few minutes, trump responding to that ruling in maine that keeps him off the ballot as the pressure mounts on the supreme court to act. that breaking news in just a moment. act that breaking news in just a moment and move toward relief after the first dose... with injections every two months. stelara® may increase your risk of infections, some serious, and cancer.

before treatment, get tested for tb. tell your doctor if you have an infection, flu-like symptoms, sores, new skin growths, have had cancer, or if you need a vaccine. pres, a rare, potentially fatal brain condition, may be possible. some serious allergic reactions and lung inflammation can occur. feel unstoppable. ask your doctor how lasting remission can start with stelara®. janssen can help you explore cost support options. want the power of 5 serum benefits in 1? olay super serum activates on skin to hydrate, smooth, visibly firm, brighten, and improve texture. it's my best skin yet. olay

we are a country of laws. and our oath that we swear is to support the constitution of the united states and the laws of our country. and so as we engage in this process, what is important is the meaning of the constitution, the facts before us, and that interpretation and there can be no other consideration. >> it is 5:00 in new york. i'm in for nicolle wallace. the maine secretary of state made the decisn last week that trump was disqualified from running for office again. she was clear, this was what the nstitution said. trump appealed that decision to the state superior court, saying

that, quote, the secretary's ruling was the product of a process infected by bias and pervasive lack of due process. characterized by abuse of discretion. they say it should be up to the voters to decide if trump is worthy of a second term in office. to that point, former constitutional law professor congressman jamie raskin says the rulings in maine and in colorado are not undemocratic at all. in fact, quite the opposite. >> we have a number of disqualifications in the constitution for serving as president. for example, age. i mean, you know, i got a colleague who is a great young politician, maxwell frost, 26, he can't run for president. would he say that's undemocratic? well, that's the rules of the constitution. if you don't like the rules of the constitution, change the constitution. if you think about it, of all

the forms of disqualification we have, the one that disqualifies people for engaging in insurrection is the most democratic because it is the one where people choose themselves to be disqualified. in terms of your age, or where you were born, that's not up to you. but donald trump is in that tiny number of people who essentially disqualified themselves. >> different states interpreted section three in different ways. he seen a patchwork build across the country with differrulings, putting more and more pressure on the supreme court to ultimately decide ump's eligibility. in the ongoing quest to interpret section three, abc news has taken a look into what the authorize of the amendment truly meant, by looking at their own words. they viewed transcripts of the sete floor debate in and section three was being passed. the clause was originally written after the civil war bar those from the confederacy from voting. senator jacob howardf michigan wanted to expandt and stop former confederates from serving

senator peter van winkle, west virginia, argued that this should look beyond the civil war. quote, this is to go into our constitution and to stand to govern future insurrection as well as the present. and i should like to have that point definitely understood. so now, in this new year, in this presidential year, where the stakes for our democracy are at a critical inflection point, we wait to hear what the supreme court of the united states will decide. and that is where we start this hour with former u.s. attorney author of the forge coming back "attack from within," co-host of the sisters in law podcast barbara mcquaid. princeton university professor and distinguished political scholar, eddie glod. and columnist for the boston globe, kimberly atkins store. i want to talk timing. last week we saw an appeal by the colorado republican party, which put into effect the stay

that the state supreme court had laid out. trump just appealed the maine ruling a few minutes ago. talk about what happens next and what are those next deadlines that we're watching out for? >> well, the supreme court is going to have to review this petition and decide whether they want to take the case up. they could decline to take it up and say, you know, states, you're on your own. i think that's highly unlikely. i think they will take it up and i think they have to take it up quickly. the -- we're going to see the iowa caucuses as soon as january 15th. one of the things that they can do is to issue an administrative stay to sort of preserve the status quo and allow trump to stay on these ballots until they sort it out. but i think time is of the essence here and i think they need to decide it at least within the next month or so. >> well, to youroint about time being of the essence, in the last hour, colorado secretary of state responded to the republican party's appeal, saying she too believes the court should act quickly and here's what she wrote, as the

above calendar demonstrates, expedited resolution of this case will ensure the colorado voters cast ballots in the presidential primary election, knowing whether trump is qualified to serve as president. providing the certainty is important both for the candidates and colorado's republican primary and most importantly for the millions of republican and unaffiliated voters in colorado who will be casting ballots in that election. the urgency, it is palpable, barb. >> i think she's right. she makes the argument in colorado, they are a super tuesday state. she said her deadline drop dead is something like february 12th. in the iowa caucuses, they're going to go cast their votes on january 15th and people could be disinclined to vote for donald trump. in donald trump's defense, if they think he might not be a viable candidate, and so to protect his interests, the court really needs to decide this very quickly. >> and here is the thing, there are the legal arguments going to

be made in court and there is also the discourse that is happening in the court of public opinion. i want you to speak to the point that congressman raskin made that section 3 of the 14th amendment addresses the only type of disqualification where the individual actually has control, rather than seeing this as undemocratic, seeing it as particularly democratic. >> yeah. i mean, he's absolutely right. the constitution contains a lot of limitations on who can hold office, including the presidency. the age being the one we think of that is easiest. people don't quibble with that. there are all kinds of procedures about primary election and that's why i think that the challenges that are happening right now may not end in quite the bang as whatever comes with respect to the general election. in every state you have different procedures by which candidates are chosen to be on the primary ticket. sometimes through elections, sometimes through the choice of

the parties, sometimes it is through a manner that is done by election officials. it is different in every state. so i think the likelihood that the supreme court comes in and makes a definitive ruling about the 14th amendment on the -- at the primary stage just given all of the procedural hurdles they would have to jump over first and the fact that as barb said, time is ticking, the primaries start this month, that that's going to be really unlikely. and it gives the supreme court an out too, sometimes if it is a political party to choose the candidates, we can stay out of it. when it comes to the general election, they can't. i think we'll get a decision by the summer with respect to this, but thinking that that's going to happen in the next couple of weeks i think is really unlikely. >> time is ticking and as much as we're looking forward, i do like this exercise of looking the intent of the 14th rstand amendment. abc looked at the senate debate that went wn it was being

considered following the civil abc writing, my favorite part, but originalists might take note of what senator peteran winkle said as he sought to have the threshold for congressional amnesty lowered to aple majority than two-irds. and there was thisine at the top, van winklsaid, this is to go into our constitution and to stand to govern future insurrection as well as the present. i should like to have that point definitely understood. talk about the significance of the amnesty as well as the senators at the time having what i would argue was the clairvoyance to look ahead, to think ahead to future insurrections. >> i think it is really important, it is a really important piece to give us some historical context. there is the piece of legislation that was passed or the amendment that was passed in the house and then what the senate did and i think it is important to contextualize it

within the context of the ongoing violence of the civil war. of course, the 14th amendment is ratified of 1868, there is still in very significant ways rebellion happening in the south among those confederates or former confederates, however we want to describe them. for the senator to look forward is to understand there are those forces that may in fact, right, turn their backs, betray their oaths and that would be disqualifying. it seems to me that goes beyond just simply those participants in the civil war. it goes to those folks who are -- who ought to live up to the oath of their office. but i want to say this, our failure to hold folk accountable, our failure to hold the confederates or former confederates accountable had tangible material consequences. it had tangible material consequences in how the south was governored, tangible material consequences for the lives of those former slaves. it matters.

it is so ironic that the 14th amendment in all of its complexity has been such a contentious issue since it was ratified and here we are in 2024 still grapping with it. >> that's part of why it is so at it was at that the senators were grapping with at the time. there was a single reference to the fact that the president and vice predent were not explicitly med in howard's s officers of the united stat. ate officials had been ress and itemized in the text. why did you admit to exclude them asked a senator. let me call the senator's attention to the words or hold any office civil or military under the united states he said ending the discussion on that point. does that answer the question of if the president is included, barb? >> i think so. i think one of the things that the court will be looking at is we have a lot of textualists on

the court. what they look to is common public understanding at the time the language was adopted. so here at the conclusion of the civil war and so looking to this language will help them ascertain what was meant, what was the common public understanding at the time when they talked about an officer of the united states. or when they talked about insurrection or engaging in and aid and comfort to. all of this information will be very valuable, i think, in terms of interpreting it. it seems clear that what they were trying to do is protect the government of the united states from people who had betrayed our country by joining the confederacy. it would be silly to prevent people from becoming senators or representatives and allow them to have the highest office in the land of president of the united states. >> kim, i appreciate the three of you being willing to come on this nerdy historical journey with me. i will fast-forward us to modern day. you've given me your take on where you think the supreme court goes with this. in the interim, what we're seeing is a sort of patchwork,

where different states are coming to different conclusions. and that in the interim poses challenges of its own. >> it does. it is very problematic. i will start off by saying that every state has always had their own methods of running primaries right down to the iowa caucus, which you can make the argument that isn't democratic at all. it is a bunch of people getting together and making decisions that carry an outsized amount of weight. so, the -- there are states in which joe biden is not on the primary ballot. these are the kind of quirks that happen in every election season, every time, but people don't pay as close attention to them. that's why i think it is less likely that in the primary context is when the supreme court makes this decision. but i think come general election time, when election officials need to print those ballots and there needs to be a clear choice not just for electoral purposes, logistically, but for the american people to have faith in

democracy. that's really when the deadline is, that's where, you know, the ground meets the rubber, so to speak. i don't see at this point, if it were only one state, only colorado, there might be a procedural way for the supreme court to kind of get out of deciding this kind of issue. but the supreme court doesn't like deciding big constitutional issues if they can avoid it. now there are two states, the general election is coming, i am with barb, i believe the supreme court is going to have to wrangle with these very, very technical issues looking back to the intent of the drafters of the 14th amendment and decide once and for all what the limits of that are. i think it is important for us on programs like this and in our work to make clear to the american people this is part of the procedure, this, too, is how democracy works. this isn't somebody railroading a system in maine, this is a secretary of state following the law as she sees it. voters lodged a complaint, she made a decision and then sent it to the courts. that's exactly what is supposed to be happening.

that's the system that we have. it can be confusing, but it is important for us to explain it, so that voters don't lose faith in what is happening, particularly around this very, very important election. >> okay, so that is the system as kimberly so beautifully lays out for us a there is the political reality that you couple with that legal reality. last month, don't know if you remember this, right after the colorado decision, david frum had this piece and wrote the colorado court invited the u.s. system away from disaster back to normal politics. the interesting thing is that it does not seem that republicans want that off ramp. >> no. and actually the piece also presumed the republican party is a normal political party. i would disagree with that assumption. i think it is really important for us to understand historical

parallel. we're talking about the 14th amendment, but we have to understand that within the context, not only of this war, reconstruction, but redemption, the end of reconstruction, the violence that follows, and that violence that followed had everything to do with our failure to hold people to account. and people board the brunt of that. so here we are in a moment, where the constitution i think is clear, though the court has to make its decision, its determination. if donald trump was an insurrectionist, he should not be allowed or able to run for office. and if he's disqualified, that isn't undemocratic, that's perfectly consistent with our system, and when we have failed to do that, we have found ourselves fundamentally compromised as a democracy. when we fail to do it, at 1876, prior to that moment, and after that moment we have had to live with the system in which a whole of entire population of our society was deemed second class citizens.

we have to understand what it means to hold folk to account and what it means to actually defend democracy in the face of those who threaten it. >> help me, kim, if you would, square your analysis of how these legal systems work with the reality of the stakes that eddie just laid out and the magnitude of the decisions that a variety of judges are being asked to make in the face of pretty thin case law. they don't have a lot to work with here. just how you then make those decisions if as you said you don't want to be faced with them in the first place. >> yeah. they're inextricably intertwined. you really can't separate, you can't just do these legal analyses in a vacuum, right? and that's my point about explaining them to the people so that they understand. you don't just have the political realities, you don't have the political motivations. but you have people actively feeding disinformation into the public, you know, the discourse,

into the marketplace in order to obfuscate and kick up dirt and hide the ball as to what actually is going on. but, what that also does is cause us to lose even more faith in our institutions, and even more faith, worst of all, in democracy itself, that it is something that can actually be achieved. if you want to preserve that, it is important that smart people like the people that you have on your show are explaining that to the american people. yes, there is a process, and this is not antidemocratic. but there is also a political element that is trying to seek and hold power any way possible and that in itself is quite antidemocratic and how to tell the difference between the two. it is crucial that we talk abo both aspects. >> so, rb, as i heed that call to make surehat all of this is well explained, i want to read a little piece from the ruling last week by maine secretary of state in which she writes, 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. let's focus on that word, engaged, because that, barb, is what section three says, it does not say convicted of an insurrection. >> yes. and i think that's such an important point. this is an excellent opinion by the way. it is 34 pages long and i urge everybody to look at it, it is available on her website. what she talks about there is the distinction between being convicted of the criminal offense of insurrection, and what the 14th amendment says, which is simply to engage in insurrection or provide aid and comfort to those who do. there is no requirement that a person be convicted of that crime. it is a finding by a preponderance of the evidence, which she uses there, based largely on the transcript from the january 6th select committee in the house that made certain findings. and so she talks about the things that donald trump did to

stir up the crowd, but maybe even more importantly, the things he didn't do in the 187 minutes when he as president had the power to stop the chaos that was occurring at the capitol and instead chose to do nothing. so it is on that basis that she made her finding that he engaged in insurrection or at the very least aided those who did. >> i appreciate the call to go over that. what a world where just a few -- more than 30 pages seems look a light and easy read compared to the legal documents that we have all gotten accustomed to reading in this day and age. barbara mcquade, thank you for starting us off. when we return, a dangerous illegal threat against maine's top election officials, it is part of a wave of violent political threats with experts warning of much worse to come. that's ahead. plus, russia's brutal assault against ukraine a large scale missile attack launched against the capital city kyiv and a swift retaliation against ukraine against russian targets.

now nearly 400 passengers miraculously escaped from this burning plane, which burst into flames after a collision on a tokyo runway. "deadline: white house" continues after a quick break. don't go anywhere. house" continues after a quick break. don't go anywhere.

getting sick and tired of cold and flu products that don't work? biovanta is the only number one physician-recommended product chosen over all others, including tylenol, mucinex, zicam, and nyquil / dayquil. the combat symptoms and boosts immunity. biovanta really works. 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. a lot of these people won't come forward, even if privately they'll acknowledge that trump is unfit or will privately acknowledge that the 2020 election wasn't stolen. it is because they know that they will face death threats, that their families will face death threats. >> i'll say this, with donald trump, what scares me as much as him and his retribution is the

almost cult-like following he has over his most diehard supporters. >> our singular focus needs to be if he is the nominee on making sure that he is not elected the president again next november. >> three of his former allies in the white house employees warned about donald trump and the retribution he made the central theme of his re-election campaign. we continue to witness deadly serious examples of harassment and threats against anyone who tries to hold him accountable. just over the weekend, in maine, the state's top election official found herself the target of a swatting call, illegal false report about a break-in at her home, just one day after her own ruling that trump is ineligible under the constitution to appear on her state's primary ballot. secretary of state bellows, a democrat and latest target of trump's name calling was not home at the time. the false report was designed to scare her and others into silence. joining our conversation, former fbi counterintelligence agent

peter strzok, eddie and kim are back as well. this is pretty upsetting stuff. your reaction to the swatting call. >> well, it certainly is upsetting. i think the big takeaway is that this is now pretty well established pattern of behavior with the former president and his express, his displeasure with things that go against his way. so whether it is the maine official saying he should be kept off the ballot, you can look then at colorado and the fbi announcing a couple of weeks ago that they were investigating threats of violence to the judicial officials who had found that trump should not be on the ballot f you look to arizona, a man who was arrested for making threats against fbi agents, who in some of his online postings is clearly a trump supporter, time and time again we see not violence which may come, but violence that is here now. and the purpose is exactly you got donald trump creating a permission structure, where he is talking about being the

retribution for his followers. we are talk s about where he talks about the only thing standing between the authorities and people coming after him. he is not tamping down in any of this activity. he's not speaking out against the swatting or threats of violence. he's doing the opposite. we're in the middle of what i fear is an ongoing trend which is simply going to get worse as we approach the november elections. >> talk to me about that permission structure that he's created, the danger of it. >> well, i mean, we have to be clear that violence has been a part of the american political process since the beginning. and historical parallel to this moment actually is the first segment -- our first segment. we think about reconstruction, we think about radical reconstruction, what is its underbelly was in fact extraordinary violence, directed at black folk who are trying to get to the polls, directed at republicans who were trying to expand the notion of democracy itself. this violence is part of what we

might describe and i'm following here the historian richard slotkin here, a second redemption. a second lost cause. and this is what we see. we're in the middle of a political battle that is in effect an existential battle over the nature of the country. and some of these folk believe that in order to save the country they have to destroy american democracy. and this is what we're seeing at the root here, and we have seen it over and over again as peter said. not something to come, it is something that is here, and we have historical precedent to account for it. >> to the point i wanted to read to you a little bit of what the secretary of state said in a statement, quote, we should be able to disagree on important issues without threats and without violence. it is not just about what is happening in maine, it is not just about what is happening in colorado. it is about the fundamental question that is on the ballot this year about what we want,

our american democracy to look like. >> that's absolutely true. and the backdrop, the history that eddie has laid down is the -- is perfect to understand the moment that we're in right now, with donald trump, where we have actually seen him, you know, people say don't take him seriously or literally, i forget which one it is, i take him both. we have seen him say stand by to violence militia members and they did so. we have seen him wait for more than an hour as an insurrection was being carried out, waiting silently in the white house watching it happen. we have seen him call for violence at his own rallies. he has never been afraid to call for violence, to call for other people to be violent on his behalf to get what he wants. i take him very much at his word and i do have a fear that this kind of violence will continue as long as nobody is standing up to donald trump and holding him

accountable in any way for fomenting that. there is no reason to believe that this will stop. >> well, let's talk about some of the voices, of course, we wish there were more who are standing up, who are trying to hold him accountable. this is some more sound of jonathan carl's conversation with three former trump white house employees about his campaign of retribution. take a listen. >> are you worried that you will face that retribution if he comes back in? >> it is a very real concern. i've met with former cabinet secretaries very recently who are also on this potential theoretical list and they're worried about it. he can put in diehard loyalists who can weaponize every level of government, it is almost too scary to fully wrap your head around what it could look like. >> there is a duality in the threat, right? there is both the threat of what we saw in maine where you can

have a rogue actor decide to take violence upon a single person. there is also the threat articulated by donald trump himself that should he achieve a second term in office, he plans to use the power of the federal government to go after people who have been critical of them. there is the threat we talk about that we hear from members of congress, i was worried about voting for impeachment because of the safety of my family, because of my own safety, there is also the potential forthcoming threat of a donald trump who actually understands how the federal government works, leveraging the power of the government against his own detractors. >> that's absolutely right. and equally part of that is they're not going to be the same guardrails the next time around that there were in the last administration. whatever you may think of pat cipollone, the former white house counsel, john kelly, the former chief of staff, the fact of the matter is we know through their testimony and other sworn statements time and again they stopped donald trump from his

worst illegal impulses. make no mistake about it, those adult voices in the room are not going to be present. bill barr, i'm the last person to say anything positive about the former attorney general, the reality is, he stopped donald trump from some of the excesses of the post 2020 election. but the other thing is, and you know i appreciate some of those former lower ranking officials speaking out, but i would really like to hear rather than having them as a translator saying what former cabinet official said, let's hear from the former cabinet officials directly. where are their voices? where are their voices in the public debate? again, i appreciate that they're there talking and being interviewed by jonathan carl, but i want to hear from the principles, the ones who dealt with donald trump on a day in and day out basis, if they have these concerns, now is the time to voice those concerns to the american people, rather than having them, you know, through intermediaries or folks in the media. >> right, to that point, eddie,

those who were -- who had power, who were most proximate to power, they have the most to answer for and they're by and large the people we also heard from the least. it is pretty telling that you had people who, yes, did have knowledge, were able to share, but the people who arguably did not have the most to gain from a trump presidency, they are not the ones that we have heard from. >> absolutely. and, you know, we're running deficits in courage. we need to hear from general kelly, loudly. we need to hear from reince priebus, folks who are around him. we understand that trump's success is not because of his so-called diabolical genius. we want to exceptionalize donald trump and not understand there is an ecosystem around him and that ecosystem is threatening to

choke the life out of american democracy. and if we don't understand that for what it is, we then become complicit in the danger. we become complicit in the threat it seems to me. >> and to your point, when we have an expert on authoritarian, dictatorship, they say part of the strong man's objective is to make it seem he is exceptional when there is an entire power structure that is supporting him. kim, just to come back to the question, we're getting close to iowa and this is what we're watching out of maine, actual threats resulting in the intent of violence when you look at iowa, when you look at the dates that follow, when you look at the busy legal calendar, what is it that we are in store for here? >> it is going to be a bumpy ride moving forward. and i hope that our law

enforcement officials are keeping a close eye on it to try to thwart any violence that can come around that. but i don't think that donald trump is going to stop his rhetoric or change in any way. it is going to take as both pete and eddie pointed out very accurately leaders standing up, that includes people who are opposing him in thisprimary. only one is interested in doing that. leaders to stand up and speak the truth about what donald trump, who he is and what he's trying to do and what the results of another trump administration will be without any of the guardrails, without even bill barr, without any of the guardrails that existed in the first one and what a danger that is for every american. >> pete strock, eddie glod, kim atkins store, thank you for spending time with us. a new phase in the war in ukraine. russia stepping up its aerial assault with a brutal attack on

kyiv, prompting retaliatory strikes inside russia by ukraine. where things go from here. that's next. ukraine. where things go from here. that's next. sorry about the vase. shop and get a $30 egift card through january 14th, at chewy. love you. have a good day, behave yourself. like she goes to work at three in the afternoon and sometimes gets off at midnight. she works a lot, a whole lot. we don't get to eat in the early morning. we just wait till we get to the school. so, yeah. right now here in america, millions of kids like victoria and andre live with hunger, and the need to help them has never been greater. when you join your friends, neighbors and me to support no kid hungry, you'll help hungry kids get the food they need. if we want to take care of our children, then we have to feed them. your gift of just $0.63 a day, only $19 a month at helpnokidhungry.org right now

will help provide healthy meals and hope. we want our children to grow and thrive and to just not have to worry and face themselves with the struggles that we endure. nobody wants that for their children. like if these programs didn't exist me and aj, we wouldn't probably get lunch at all. please call or go online right now with your gift of just $19 a month. and when you use your credit card, you'll receive this limited edition t-shirt to show you're part of the team that's helping feed kids and change lives. if you're coming in hungry, there's no way you can listen to me teach, do this activity, work with this group. so starting their day with breakfast and ending their day with this big, beautiful snack is pretty incredible. whether kids are learning at school or at home, your support will ensure they get the healthy meals they need to thrive. because when you help feed kids, you feed their hopes, their dreams, and futures. kids need you now more than ever.

so please call this number right now to join me in helping hungry kids or go online to helpnokidhungry.org and help feed hungry kids today.

ukraine faced heavy attacks from russia early tuesday. the two largest cities kyiv and kharkiv were hit by russian missiles and drones a day after russian president vladimir putin vowed to intensify such attacks in the new year. the strikes killed at least five people and injured more than 110 others. that's according to president

zelenskyy's office. it follows what the u.s. called the largest air assault by moscow since the war started. this latest escalation comes as ukraine faces the very real prospect of a slowdown in aid, what could be the last aid package from the united states unless congress acts. joining us now, former u.s. ambassador to russia, now an msnbc international affairs analyst, michael mcfall. good to see you. how important, given these developments, is more aid from the united states? >> absolutely important. critically important. i would have said that in october. i said it in november, i said it in december. remember congress has been discussing this aid package since october. and i hope these horrific sites that you just showed, these terrorist attacks on ukrainian civilians will convince members of congress that they can't keep postponing the assistance. it is critical. time is of the essence. and i understand there are other issues. i understand why some members of

congress want to tie assistance to ukraine to border security issues. i'm not an expert on that. but i don't understand why we can't do both at the same time, or sequence these things because if we don't take this action now, more ukrainians are going to die in the coming weeks. >> so the strikes today, they followed an attack over the weekend, which prompted what i think you could describe as rare public comments from putin, where he vowed to intensify attacks on ukraine. your sense of his mindset right now? >> number one, he thinks time is on his side. he withstood the counteroffensive, didn't make any progress on his own counteroffensive, but he held ground in 2023. he's watching what is going on in our country. and he sees that there is a possibility that we will give up on ukrainians and, of course, he's waiting for our presidential election. so he thinks that if he can just sustain his effort now, his chances of winning, of taking

the territory that he's already occupied, of making the ukrainians capitulate, time is on his side to achieve those objectives. >> so given that context, i'm sure you saw the reporting last week, putin may be interested in a cease-fire. i wonder your thinking on that, generally, and if the attacks over the weekend show that that is not in fact the case. >> i read that report closely. putin quietly signals, when has putin quietly signaled anything? there were no sources cited. i don't know who the people were. i don't know if they're think tankers in moscow or washington. and don't -- you don't need to guess what putin thinks. he says it very bluntly. he said literally, just two weeks ago, i am trying to achieve the exact same objectives that i started this war with. and he spelled it out. he said denazification, that's a code word for overthrowing the

zelenskyy regime. demilitarization. subjugation of ukraine. and, remember, already on paper, he has annexed five territories of ukraine. they're already, buy a russian map, they're part of the russian federation. but he doesn't control those territories physically on the ground. i see no reason he will stop to try to achieve those objectives until he's no longer able to and right now tragically has the military means to keep fighting. >> in light of that context, let me read you some of what "new york times" editorial board member wrote about that reporting on a cease-fire. quote, if mr. putin turns out t be serious, ukraine should not pass up an opportunity to end the bloodshed. recovered territory is not the only measure of victory in this war. regaining territory is the wrong way to imagine the best outcome. true victory for ukraine is to rise from the hell of the war as a strong independent prosperous and secure state, furthermorely

firmly planted in the. we your thoughts. >> two things, all the focus is onenskyy should do. why isn't he saying what putin should do? why are we putting pressure on putin to negotiate? why aren't we setting tones to get putin to change his behavior? putin started this war. he's the one that can end the war. secondly, with regards to land for peace, the essence of that article, it is okay for people to have that opinion, just turns out that 85% of ukrainians disagree with that opinion. and ukraine is a democracy. it is not a dictatorship. so the idea that zelenskyy can just take that deal and ukraine will go along with them, that's incorrect. they weren't. i was in ukraine in september. and i heard many, many ukrainians echo exactly this. they have suffered so much, they have given up so much. they are not ready to trade land for peace. in part, by the way, because they don't believe it will lead

to long-term peace. they did that in 2014. they gave up crimea. it led to peace for a while. didn't lead to permanent peace. so, if it were true and it could happen, maybe it should be considered, but until i see evidence that putin wants a deal, it seems like these are all just creative ideas from the west that have nothing to do with what putin is thinking back in the kremlin. >> ambassador michael mcfall, thank you for your time. whether we return, nearly 400 people on board a japan airlines jet managed to escape as the plane landed in tokyo engulfed in flames. that story after a short break. d in flames. that story after a short break testing them and...fermenting. fermenting? yeah, like kombucha or yogurt and we formulate everything so, your body can really truly absorb the natural goodness that's what we do so you can do you new chapter. wellness well done

what can i put down as your profession? thief! actress. she means actress. thief! [silence] dice dreams, attack your friends and steal their coins. play now.

so... i know you and george were struggling attack your friends and steal their coins. with the possibility of having to move. how's that going? we found a way to make bathing safer with a kohler walk-in bath. a kohler walk-in bath provides a secure, spa-like bathing experience in the comfort of your own home. a kohler walk-in bath has one of the lowest step-ins of any walk-in bath for easy entry and exit. it features textured surfaces, convenient handrails for more stability, and a wide door for easier mobility. kohler® walk-in baths include two hydrotherapies— whirlpool jets and our patented bubblemassage™ to help soothe sore muscles in your feet, legs, and back. a kohler-certified installer will install everything quickly and conveniently in as little as a day. they made us feel completely comfortable in our home. and, yes, it's affordable. i wish we would have looked into it sooner. think i might look into one myself.

stay in the home and life you've built for years to come. call... to receive 50% off installation your kohler walk-in bath. and take advantage of our no payments until 2025 financing. >> woman: why did we choose safelite? we were loading our suv when... crack! safelite came right to us, and we could see exactly when they'd arrive with a replacement we could trust. that's service the way we want it. >> singers: ♪ safelite repair, safelite replace. ♪

a horrifying sight in japan this morning and a miraculous story of survival from nearly 400 passengers who escaped this incredible scene. passenger plane operated by japanese airlines engulfed in flames after a collision officiales say on the runway with a coast guard aircraft. sadly, five crew members were killed. the pilot of that mission, which was to deliver earthquake relief to japan's west coast, survived. rescue crews rushed to the tarmake, 7 -- saving every single one of the 379 passengers and crew. officials say despite the dramatic footage that would suggest otherwise. black smoke consuming the entire side of the plane and around the wing as it taxied on the runway.

inside the plane, a passenger told swedish media the entire cabin was filled with smoke within a few minutes. we threw ourselves down on the floor, when the emergency doors were opened, we threw ourselves at them. joining our conversation msnbc aviation analyst, a former investigator for the national transportation safety board. thank you so much for being with us. your reaction to these images, how did all these people get out? >> good to be with you. it is a testament to the safety, redundancy and aviation, commercial aviation. the fact that airplanes now are built with fire retardant materials, they have to undergo significant certification to provide the time for passengers to evacuate without succumbing to smoke inhalation. so, while it is a miracle, it is a designed miracle. >> the airlines says an

investigation is ongoing, but the plane, quote, started normal landing procedure before there was impact. the airport was the busiest airport in the asia pacific region last year. how does something like this happen? just help us understand. and then i understand your point about redundancy is the fact that once it happened, there was a protocol in place, but the initial incident, how did you make sure it doesn't happen again? >> well, the japanese independent transportation safety board will find out. they're going to initiate an investigation. they will interview air traffic controllers. they'll talk to the surviving crew members. and they'll find out exactly why this coast guard twin why this d twin turboprop small plane was on the runway at the time the larger air bus a-350 was cleared to land on it. was it a combination of errors between the air traffic

controllers? was it a lack of proper training or surveillance equipment? we don't know yet. you can be sure that japan is going to get to the bottom of that. >> you listed a number of challenges. it could have been about communication. it could have been about the plane itself. tell me about how an investigation like this unfolds. the additional questions they might ask and how quickly once you have an understanding of what it was that happened here, you can begin implementing changes. >> you can be sure the investigation has already begun. they've locked down the recorded radar and voice transcriptions. they've identified who, which air traffic control,were working at haneda at the tower. was there one controlling the air bus and another controlling the coast guard airplane? they will want to establish interviews with those controllers as well as the

flight crew. they will conduct routine drug testing of the flight crew. that's probably during right now as well as air traffic controllers. they will begin to interview witnesses and look at recorded radar data and start to put the pieces to the puzzle together. it will be a pain-staking process. you can be sure there will be a final report with findings and recommendations in it that could pertain only to the japanese air traffic control system or perhaps internationally. there could be lessons for all of us. >> thank you for your expertise and spending some time with us. we'll take a quick break and back with breaking news after this. r this

hi, i'm kevin, and i've lost 152 pounds on golo. i had just left a checkup with my doctor, and i'd weighed in at 345 pounds. my doctor prescribed a weight loss drug, but as soon as i stopped taking the drug,

i gained all the weight back and then some. that's when i decided to give golo a try. taking the release supplement, i noticed a change within the first week, and each month the weight just kept coming off. with golo, you can keep the weight off. i think i'm ready for this. heck, yeah! with e*trade you're ready for anything. marriage. kids. college. kids moving back in after college. (applause) here's to getting financially ready for anything. and here's to being single and ready to mingle. who's ready to cha-cha?

hello. new jersey and united states senator rob menendez facing a new superseding indictment from his doj prosecution. the prosecutors there at the justice department now allege menendez received gifts not only for allegedly helping the government have egypt but also for helping a developer fred davies get a multimillion-dollar investment from a company with ties to a government of qatar. prosecutors say menendez introduced that same individual davies to a member of the qatari royal family. senator menendez has pled not guilty to all previous allegations in the original indictment. the developer cited in this indictment has also been charged

and has also pled not guilty to those underlying allegations. this is a brand new superseding indictment. we'll have more on the story in the next hour. "the beat" begins after this next break. is next break

i have a surprise for you i have a surprise for you! what! ok let's say it at the same time. ok 3...2..1... - i booked a surprise hotel in south beach! - i booked a rustic cabin in vermont! free cancellation on most stays - oh that's nice - that's good too... booking.com, booking dot... yeah. when you walk up to the counter at the pharmacy and you have a new prescription, you don't know what it's going to cost. that's why i always recommend you check the singlecare app before you go to the counter. i found the cheaper price with singlecare! yes, you did. see. give it a try. go to singecare.com or download the free app today.

♪ ♪ see. give it a try. ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪

welcome to the first edition of "the beat" in this new year. we know people all around the world have been ringing in 2024 there on sunday night. we hope you had a great time. and some rest as well over the holidays. we can show you right here, look at this in fulfill this is what you're seeing right now at this very hour in the