thanks again for joining us on "the beat" with ari melber. happy new year. "the reidout" with joy reid

starts now. tonight on "the reidout" -- >> fundamentally a second trump term could mean the end of american democracy as we know it. >> he's literally called for things like doing away with parts of the constitution. wanting to weaponize the doj to enact revenge on his political enemies. we're running out of time in order to try to stop trump from being in the oval office again. >> former trump staffers warn the nation, the threat is real. and democracy is at stake as we enter this presidential election year. michael fanone, one of the heroes of january 6th, joins me tonight. also, two weeks to iowa. and desantis and haley are still treating the front-runner donald trump oh, so gently. as if they don't really want to win. plus, he was paid by the trump campaign to find proof of widespread election fraud in 2020. he found none. and told them so.

they continued to push the big lie anyway. ken block is my guest tonight. good evening, everyone. happy new year. i hope you enjoyed your celebrations. i certainly did. we begin tonight having said good-bye and frankly good riddance to the year of our lord, 2023. which was, to put it mildly, a rough one for the world. horrible for children from ukraine to israel to the congo to gaza. deadly for journalists and not exactly great for democracy. good-bye, 2023, and don't let the door hit you on the way out. we enter 2024, meanwhile, with frankly huge questions that could determine the future of the united states, including fundamental questions about whether we will remain a democracy after this year. the biggest question of all, of course, is whether the president of the united states is once elected totally immune from the laws, including being the one person in the nation who is allowed to attempt a coup, avoid trial, and then run for office

again. donald trump spent new year's eve looking pretty miserable at his mar-a-lago party, being entertained by rapper vanilla ice. if you're not sure who that is, it's not important. there was also a teenage mutant ninja turtle, not super important to anyone who isn't in the cult. but the kind of year trump is going to have legally turns out to be kind of important to the rest of us. trump faces, of course, multiple court dates on 91 counts in three separate criminal cases, plus, a civil fraud trial in new york, and e. jean carroll's defamation suit. but it is the question of his participation in the 2021 insurrection that could determine whether his misery over losing the 2020 election becomes the dictatorship we get stuck in for however long. perhaps trump looked so unhappy because over the holiday, the state of maine through its secretary of state ruled that trump is ineligible to appear on

that state's presidential ballot because of his role in the insurrection that culminated in the violent sacking of the capitol by his supporters on january 6th, 2021. here is the secretary of state. >> i was duty bound to follow maine law, to insure the candidates, all the candidates who appear on the primary ballot, are qualified for the office they seek. the weight of the evidence, all of the evidence, made clear that mr. trump was aware of the tinder laid by a multi-month effort to delegitimize a democratic election, the election of 2020, and then chose to light a match on january 6th. >> and in just the last few hours, trump filed his appeal it that ruling, claiming that it was the product of a process

infected by bias and pervasive lack of due process. his arbitrary capricious, and characterized by abuse of discretion. >> over the same weekend, the state of california ruled to keep trump on the ballot, as a colorado judge had earlier, before she was overturned by the state's supreme court. also over the holidays, special counsel jack smith urged an appeals court to reject trump's efforts to dismiss his federal election interference case on presidential immunity grounds, claiming it would, quote, threaten to undermine democracy. in his 82-page filing, smith and his team wrote separation of powers, principles, constitutional text, history, and precedent all make clear that a former president may be prosecuted for criminal acts he committed while in office. including most critically here, illegal acts to remain in power, despite losing an election. rather than vindicating our constitutional framework, the defendant's sweeping immunity claim threatens to license

presidents to commit crimes to remain in office. the founders did not intend and would never have countenanced such a result. meaning this election year, 2024, will require the supreme court to answer that fundamental question of whether a former president who committed insurrection to try and overturn an election can attempt to return to office through an election, as if nothing happened. and if they can't, can any of the politicians who participated in the insurrection run again? and the court that will decide that foundational question about our democracy includes one member whose wife was part of the coup, and other members who sure do appear to be pure partisans rather than sober triers of fact who call balls and strikes based on the constitution. in other words, basically, america, we've got a problem. joining me now is jeffrey rosen, president and ceo of the national constitution center, and professor of law at george

washington university law school. he's the author of the forthcoming book, the pursuit of happiness, how chasical writers on virtue defined america. and mary mccord, former acting assistant attorney general for national security, msnbc legal analyst, and cohost of the msnbc podcast, prosecuting donald trump. thank you both for being here. i normally would do ladies first, and happy new year to both of you, but i'm going to actually do this in reverse and start with you, jeffrey rosen, and get your level of confidence that the supreme court of the united states cannot rule that a president is immune from prosecution and that the founders somehow divined every member of congress, every member of the united states senate, and house, to be officers of the united states but not the president. >> so on the first question, i am pretty confident that the founders did not expect the

president to be a king. and the idea that the supreme court would induce sweeping immunity for all presidential acts is not convincing, and therefore, i think jack smith will get a good result on that case. the second case is much harder, and the question of what the supreme court will do involves a series of questions. first, what's an insurrection? second, is the part of the 14th amendment that bars people who commit an insurrection from holding office self-executing? third, is this a political question the court should avoid? basically, it's going to force the originalist justices to confront the tension between the fact the text seems to disqualify president trump and then pragmatic considerations like them not wanting 50 states to reach different decisions for their own ballots. it's going to be the most

momentous case since bush v. gore and it will have huge implications for the election and there's no easy way for the supreme court to duck it. >> the thing is, mary y have no comment. i don't have a lot of confidence, mr. rosen has much more confidence than i do that there is any originalist thinking. to me, it's a political question of what outcome they prefer to have associated with themselves. what is your level of confidence? >> on the immunity question, i think there is a chance that's if the d.c. circuit rules in a comprehensive ruling that there is no absolute immunity for a former president, for crimes committed while in office, that the supreme court might just deny cert? >> that means? just don't take it at all? >> don't take it at all. they already denied jack smith's request that they take it and just leapfrog over the d.c. circuit. in part, i don't think that's because they didn't think it was important. i think it was because the d.c. circuit had already accelerated

its briefing. we already almost were fully briefed. argument is next monday, you know, it's going to move so fast, and in some ways i think the supreme court thought, let's see what they have to say. it also gives them an out. if they think the circuit rules correctly, they did this in trump v. thompson, the case about whether the house select committee could get the presidential records that the former president claimed executive privilege for. the d.c. circuit ruled that no, president trump, former president trump, you can claim executive privilege but we weigh that against various tests, and here it doesn't prevail. and the supreme court denied cert in that case. they did not take that case up. i think there's a chance it could stay out of the supreme court. if it goes to the supreme court, i think jack smith by far has the better of the arguments and he's supported by very substantial former republican administration officials going back five administrations, as well as other conservative

lawyers who are arguing, making additional arguments such as the fact that it would violate the executive vesting clause of the constitution to provide criminal immunity for a former president who when president committed crimes in order to remain in office after his four-year term that the constitution vests in the president for four years and only four years, unless re-elected, that it would directly violate that. it's a powerful, powerful brief, and also makes arguments that if he can commit crimes like that, to stay in office, he could use the military to stay in office, right? which would violate criminal offenses and certainly could not have ever been what the founders anticipated. so i am optimistic on immunity. on the 14th amendment section 3 disqualification for having engaged in insurrection, it's interesting because right now, president trump, former president trump still has not

sought a supreme court review of the colorado supreme court's decision. the colorado gop has sought review, but only on three issues. the office officer issue, does the 14th amendment section 3 apply on its own or do you have to have implementing legislation by congress? and are we the republican party, where our first amendment rights violated by our rights to associate together by not being able to put our candidate on the ballot? they have not questioned the ruling that president trump engaged in an insurrection. >> no one has. first, let's do two things. let me put up the4th amendment, section 3. no person shall h any office civil or military under united states who having previously taken an oath as an officer to support the constitution of the united states shall have engaged in insurecor rebellion against the same or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. so far, i have not noted, jeffrey, any court disputing

that, donald trump engaged in insurrection. even the colorado court that said he could stay on the ballot said he did do insurrection. i want to put up the number of states where the ballot challenges are happening. this matters. if we have a country where the one person who is allowed to do a coup is the president of the united states, i feel like that's a big problem for us being a democracy. it means no president, to mary's point, would ever have to leave, and in all of these states, if trump cannot be on the ballot, he cannot get to 270 without a lot of -- without this. so is this now the supreme court deciding in some ways whether we get to stay a democracy? >> well, it's a hugely important case, as you say, there were two courts, new hampshire and michigan, which refused to kick him off the ballot, for different reasons, but they said that individual state officials shouldn't decide whether or not he committed insurrection because you need enabling

legislation from congress before that decision can be made. the u.s. supreme court may also ask whether the procedures for deciding he engaged in insurrection were adequate. in colorado, there was a trial. in maine, the secretary of state decided on her own based on the january 6th report. so there's so many ways the supreme court could try to avoid this or not kick him off the ballot in some states but not others. but there's no easy way to avoid the question and in the end they're going to have to interpret the constitution. >> jamie raskin i think made a really strong argument, which is that if trump was, you know, 28 or 26 or couldn't be president because of the age limit, that is automatic. the secretary of state would make that decision because constitutionally, he couldn't be on it, but the constitution is very clear if you engage insurrection, you cannot run for office or hold office. there's a watchdog group called

american oversight which has filed anamicks brief saying the appeals court can't take the case at all. it argues supreme court precedent from 1989 prohibits a criminal defendant from immediately appeang an order nying immunity unless the claimed immunity is based on a constituon guarantee there will not be a trial. trump's claims of immunity rest on no such explicit guarantee. given trump has not been convicted or sentenced, his appeal is premature. he can't appeal it yet. is that a strong argument? >> i think that argument has legs, but has never been decided in the context of presidential immunity. and in civil cases, the supreme court has said there is limited immunity for a president when, in fact it's complete immunity, but limited to situations where the president was acting in the context of their official act. >> in his official capacity. >> so in fact, even mr. trump in

his -- in his arguments in the court of appeals, argues doesn't argue for more the than that. he saidntitled to immunity. i couldn't murder somebody because it isn't part of my official acts. i think there is good case law, the supreme court has indicated that constitutional arguments that you're not -- that you shouldn't have to be put to the burden of trial, they need to have grounded in the explicit text of the constitution of a statute, but they did that in the context of a case that was not an immunity case. it remains to be seen what the supreme court will say about presidential immunity. >> then the factor of do we trust them to make a decision? the both of you are doing a great job of explaining the law, but i hope that's hue they're going to do it and not based on what they prefer. we'll see. thank you both very much. god bless up everyone. >> up next on "the reidout," if it seemed like a no-brainer that

trump's insurrection would hurt his chances of ever being elected to anything ever again, think again. not only is he dominating the preprimary polling, but a growing number of his supporters are believing his biggest and most dangerous lies. "the reidout" continues after this.

when i was diagnosed with h-i-v, i didn't know who i would be. but here i am... being me. keep being you... and ask your healthcare provider about the number one prescribed h-i-v treatment, biktarvy. biktarvy is a complete, one-pill, once-a-day treatment used for h-i-v in many people whether you're 18 or 80. with one small pill, biktarvy fights h-i-v to help you get to undetectable—and stay there whether you're just starting or replacing your current treatment. research shows that taking h-i-v treatment as prescribed and getting to and staying undetectable prevents transmitting h-i-v through sex. serious side effects can occur, including kidney problems and kidney failure. rare, life-threatening side effects include a buildup of lactic acid and liver problems. do not take biktarvy if you take dofetilide or rifampin. tell your healthcare provider about all the medicines and supplements you take, if you are pregnant or breastfeeding, or if you have kidney or liver problems, including hepatitis. if you have hepatitis b do not stop taking biktarvy without talking to your healthcare provider.

common side effects were diarrhea, nausea, and headache. no matter where life takes you, biktarvy can go with you. talk to your healthcare provider today. we're traveling all across america talking to people about their hearts. - how's the heart? - good. - you sure? - i think so. how do you know? let me show you something. put two fingers right on those pads. look at that. that's your heart. that is pretty awesome. with kardiamobile, you can take a medical grade ekg in just 30 seconds from anywhere. kardiamobile is proven to detect atrial fibrillation, one of the leading causes of stroke. for a limited time, kardiamobile is available for just $74. hurry, these prices won't last. get kardiamobile today at kardia.com or amazon.

in order for small businesses to thrive, hurry, these prices won't last. they need to be smart, efficient, savvy. making the most of every opportunity. that's why comcast business is introducing the small business bonus. for a limited time you can get up to $1000 prepaid card with qualifying internet. yup, $1000. so switch to business internet from the company with the largest fastest reliable network. give your business a head start in 2024 with this great offer. plus, ask how to get up to $1000 prepaid card with qualifying internet.

. it was not an insurrection. these are people that were there to attend a rally, and then they were there to protest. now it devolved and it devolved

into a riot. there they were peaceful. they were orderly and meek. these were not insurrectionists. they were sight seers. >> why am i the only person on the stage at least who can say that january 6th now does look like it was an inside job? >> certain republicans and members of the conservative media have gone overboard this year in downplaying the insurrection and trump's role in it. so it's no surprise that now a significant number of americans do not even think it was his fault. a new poll from "the washington post" and the university of maryland found that only 53% of americans and just 14% of republicans, 1-4, think trump bears a great deal or a good deal of responsibility for january 6th. those numbers are down significantly from the last time the poll was conducted in 2021. joining me now is michael fanone, former d.c. metro police officer who was badly injured by the insurrectionist mob on

january 6th, 2021. michael fanone, it is great to finally have you on the show. it's been a long time coming. thank you so much for taking the time. i just want to get your reaction to hearing that is what americans now think. they agree with tucker carlson that the people who were attacking you were peaceful, ordinary, meek. >> yeah, i mean, listen, it pisses me off to no end, but i also understand. you know, when you have people like, you know, presidential candidates, republican presidential candidates, governors, members of congress, elected leaders, people that hold positions of authority in this country telling their constituents lies and bs like you just heard, you know, then that's going to be the end result. people are not going to know the truth about january 6th, the reality of that day, the experience that so many police

officers like myself had, battling with these violent insurrectionists at the capitol. >> let me let you listen to some young voters. these are voters at something called america fest, which is turning point usa, which is that right-wing organization. they held something called america fest. this is what young voters said about the insurrection. >> yes, i think january 6th might have been an inside job. if you watch some of the footage there are several people with microphones in their ears who look like feds and they're trying to get riots started. >> i don't think it was an insurrection. there wasn't much violence. >> i do believe it was an inside job because the capitol security should be some of the best security in the country, and these people got in with ease. >> i mean, the capitol security should be some of the best security in the country. you were not a capitol police officer, you were called in because they were being overwhelmed. where do you think this idea comes from that this was somehow done by the feds?

you were there. and i think it's pretty clear to you that this was done by civilians or in some cases people who were actual law enforcement or military, but -- >> those idiots that you just played are just repeating the lies that they have heard, you know, their masters within the republican party echo for the past three years. >> and do you think as somebody who, you know, you're in the world, you're not a pundit, you talk about your own personal experience. and you experienced these people first hand. do you think this is a belief system that is changeable or do you think that this is now going to be dogma in part of our country, that people just won't believe the experience you had happened? >> i used to. i used to think that, you know, by educating people about my experience, about the

experiences of law enforcement on january 6th, that i could somehow convince people that regardless of their political affiliation, that january 6th was an attack on our democracy, and at the very least, an attack on police officers who, you know, were just doing their job that day. you know, the same job that everyone asks them to do all across this country on a daily basis. but you know, now we've gotten to a point where there's really only two people, two kinds of people in this country. there's people that support maga, whether it's actively or passively, and enable people like donald trump to continue to peddle the lies and inspire violence all throughout this country, and then there's those who oppose maga and that are going to fight like myself to

prevent donald trump and his sycophants from holding office in this country. >> what will it say about us as a country if donald trump becomes president again after supporting and fomenting an insurrection? >> i think that it says we have given up on democracy in this country. that, you know, the outcome, the ends essentially justify the means and that the rule of law is meaningless in america. >> what has been the reaction of your fellow law enforcement in general? do you get -- what you're saying, is that what fellow law enforcement in general are saying to you about your speaking out about the insurrection and about trump? >> i mean, i have always said, law enforcement is a microcosm of our society. there is still a great deal of law enforcement officers, especially outside of the d.c.

area, and inside, unfortunately, the d.c. area that support donald trump. maybe not so much because of his actions on january 6th, but because they support the message and they support the ideology behind the maga movement. they believe that because donald trump says he supports law enforcement, that donald trump does in fact support law enforcement. >> i think the evidence is fairly clear from your experience that he does not. michael fanone, please come back. thank you very much. we really appreciate it. we know this anniversary is coming up very soon, this week and a few days. thank you for spending some time with us. >> yes, ma'am. thank you for having me. >> thank you. and still ahead, nikki haley and ron desantis vow to pardon trump if he's convicted of trying to incite an insurrection, upping the stakes two weeks from the iowa

caucuses. that and more when we come back. which penetrates deep to target the source of pain with nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory medicine directly at the source. voltaren, the joy of movement. hi, i'm kim, directly at the source. and i lost 67 pounds on golo. when i was diagnosed with breast cancer, food became my comfort. i didn't think i looked pretty anymore, so i let myself go. i've seen the golo commercials for a while. what stuck out to me most

was there was no celebrity endorser. the testimonials were from real people. what cancer took from me, golo gave back. - "best thing i've ever done."

that's what freddie told me. - it was the best thing i've ever done, and- - really? - yes, without a doubt! - i don't have any anxiety about money anymore. - great people. different people, that's for sure, and all of them had different reasons for getting a reverse mortgage, but you know what, they all felt the same about two things: they all loved their home, and they all wanted to stay in that home. and they all wanted to stay in that home. - [announcer] if you're 62 or older and own your home,

you could access your equity to improve your lifestyle. a reverse mortgage loan eliminates your monthly mortgage payments and puts tax-free cash in your pocket. call the number on your screen. - why don't you call aag... and find out what a reverse mortgage can mean for you? - [announcer] call right now to receive your free no-obligation info kit. call the number on your screen.

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. we are two weeks from the iowa republican caucuses. they will be the first test of donald trump's continued hold on republican voters. and the lead-up to a likely rematch of the 2020 election that will determine the future of american democracy. and while americans don't agree on many things, as the

associated press shows, recent polls show most americans do not want a biden/trump rematch, but they're probably going to get one since there's effectively no democratic primary, and the state party is lining up behind him, and donald trump is still the front-runner among republicans and any attempt by this rivals to sell themselves as reasonable alternative or going further down the tubes. case in pointerse last week, when former south carolina governor nikki haley refused to name slavery as the cause of the civil war, a war launched by the secession of south carolina over slavery. haley capped off the holiday week with her clearest answer yet about how she would use her pardon power if she became president, with ron desantis following suit. >> i would pardon trump. a leader needs to think about what's in the best interests of the country. what's in the best interest of the country is not to have an 80-year-old man sitting in jail

that continues to divide our country. >> i have already said that long ago. i think we have to move on as a country, and it's like florida, nixon, the divisions are just not in the country's interest. >> joining me now is jelani cobb, dean of the columbia journalism school and staff writer for the new yorker, and david jolly, msnbc political analyst and former republican congressman who is no longer affiliated with that party. thank you both for being here. so much to talk about, about nicky haley. i want to start with the pardon piece of it, though, david, because you know, the current president, joe biden, is an 80-year-old man, and donald trump's probably would be attorney general says he's going to prosecute him and throw him in prison. i wonder if nikki haley believes that applied to joe biden or you can't throw one specific 80-year-old man in prison. >> the hypocrisy is remarkable.

their willingness, their pronouncement that they will prejudge this case and prejudge the ultimate outcome for donald trump. ron desantis, he has this thing with migrants at the border, that border agents should be able to prejudge what's in the backpack and use deadly force against migrants. donald trump has prejudged to say i'm going to let the old man out of jail, no problem. curious to say to nikki haley and ron desantis, what about hunter biden? very decisive. that would be a very divisive conviction. i'm sure they would feel so empathetic for the divide in the country on that issue as well. i joke, but what it shows is a complete lack of leadership and also shows why there has not really been a republican primary to speak of because there is no daylight, not just on confronting donald trump on criminality, but going along with it. when you bring in race and other policy matters, zero contrast between haley, desantis, can

trump. >> and you are our historian of record here, so i want to give this one to you. i want to remind folks, i know we did my wonderful fill-in last week did this on the show, but i want to replay once again what nikki haley had to say about the civil war. keep in mind, she was the governor of south carolina. >> what was the cause of the united states civil war? >> well, don't come with an easy question. i think the cause of the civil war was basically how government was going to run. the freedoms and what people could and couldn't do. what do you think the cause of the civil war was? >> thank you. in the year 2023, it's astonishing to me that you answer that question without using the word slavery. >> what do you want me to say about slavery? >> you answered my question. thank you. >> next question.

>> what is that performance? this woman was governor of the state where the civil war began because they ceded over slavery? >> the interesting thing about this is that in fact that person did ask an easy question. it was a very straightforward question, and should there be any doubt, you would simply have to look at the articles of secession drafted by the south carolina legislature in which they state explicitly that they're leaving the union in order to protect the institution of slavery. it's not, you know, for all of the complexity and kind of pseudovague, opaque kinds of rhetoric that she used. it is a very straightforward -- the people living at the time were clear about why they were doing what they did. now, the other part of this is that the calculation that's being made is whether you can actually say that in front of an

electorate that actually does not believe the kind of a la carte reality version of this where people believe whatever they want, whatever makes them feel good is what they believe. you can't say that to that electorate, and not pay a consequence for it. i think the calculation is political, certainly not historical. >> and by the way, nikki haley was a big supporter of the confederate flag right up until the moment she had to sideline the legislation some democrats passed taking it down because of the massacre in charleston. you know, ron desantis played along with that, david. he said, he called what her answer incomprehensible word salad and said haley had problems with basic american history. you know, ron desantis when he was a high school history teacher taught slavery exactly the way nikki haley said it. he was known for having minimized the role of slavery in the civil war. and he passed a law in which

they're teaching in florida that slavery was good for blacks because it gave them job skills. it's not like it's just her. he thinks he can own her. he believes the same thing or at least he says he does. >> joy, it is so unsettling to watch nikki haley in that exchange and see her additional exchanges where there's also a but, but, but, or a caveat. i'm a contemporary of nikki haley's in age, also a child of the south. and i know the experience, getting exposed, almost indoctrinated at times that the argument the civil war was about states' rights. but eventually, as you mature and as your brain matures and your heart and soul mature, you realize what a bad faith argument is that you have been exposed to. yes, it was about a state's rights. a state's right to engage and permit human slavery. and ultimately, you reconcile that and realize the civil war was about slavery. i think what is so unsettling to see nikki haley at 51 years old

asking to be president of the united states, still trying to equivocate and tend to both the constituencies of that debate. there is no both side-imp about this. it is about slavery. i think on drawing a contrast with donald trump, the one thing we probably didn't expect is they would go down this road of offending the electorate on issues of race just like donald trump did. that's where there's no daylight now. >> again, i want to pivot to another thing. there's anotherhing happening. there is this sort of open war on black progress, black history, claudine gay, the president of harvard university, at least up until she resigned, is now the latest casualty of that. christopher roofo, who is out there touting and high fiving and claiming the scalp of claudine gay, telegraphed this is what they were going to do. they were going to associate these dei professors of colleges

with blm and decolonization and hamas in the public mind and get rid of them. he's now claiming victory. he telegraphed that this was the campaign. why are these elite colleges capitulating to it and essentially making it so uncomfortable for these women leaders that they have to step down to be replaced by white men? that is the goal of christopher ruffo and his gang. >> we saw the same thing with critical race theory, where again, he telegraphed and said he was going to associate that term with every negative connotation that people could imagine. irrespective of what the term actually represented, a very specific and particular body of legal scholarship around the efficaciousness of civil rights litigation. very highly particularly kinds of scholarly inquiry. but by the time he was done, it was kind of cold war,

mccarthyite level hysteria. they're running the same playbook, now we have individuals being attached to it, and for the record, when we saw elise stefanik, representative stefanik tweet she would always deliver in the aftermath of the resignation, i was like, was that something youcome pained on? was that what your district wanted? we voted for you in order to dispatch the president of harvard university. >> apparently. >> pure cultural warfare in the guise of intellectual inquiry and ethical concern. >> yeah, and there's no intellectual inquiry about it. they're trying to take out women and people of color to give it to the people they prefer, the guys who used to have it in the '50s. thank you. coming up, i'll be joined by voter fraud investigator ken block, hired by trump to look into his claims of fraud in the 2020 election. his new book lays out his

findings and described his fruitless attempts to try to get trump to accept them as fact. we'll be right back. ht back.

- this is jabra enhance select. it's more than just a hearing aid. it's a smart hearing solution that makes hearing aids more convenient and less expensive. with jabra enhance select's premium package, better hearing doesn't have to start in a doctor's office. it starts with our free online hearing test. you can fine tune your settings with your remote audiology team. with jabra enhance select you can get the same advanced hearing aid technology and professional care you expect from a clinic at a fraction of the cost. try at risk free for 100 days. visit jabraenhance.com.

. to this very day, donald trump continues to lie about the fact that he lost the 2020 election fair and square. he repeats a slew of fabricated claims and lies even though he's been told by his attorney general, his campaign director, his daughter, his son-in-law, his white house counsel, the courts, and a raft of other people that there was no

widespread fraud. in fact, his campaign paid not one but two companies to investigate the claims, but both came back to him with the same results. there is no evidence to support your claims. those two companies, berkeley and simm patical software systems were paid roughly a million dollars to investigate the baseless claims repeated by trump and his associates like rudy giuliani, some o whom are now his codefendants. ken block, owner of simpatic told "the washington post" in april, no substantive voter fraud was uncovered in my investigations looking for it, nor was i able to substantiate any cla of voter fraud. he sent his findings to the trump campaign on a rolling basis. today in a new opinion piece for usa today, block reiterated trump's claims are a lie and if voter fraud had impacted the 2020 election, it would have already been proven. joining me now is ken block, owner of simpatico software

systems and author of disproven, my unbiased search for voter fraud from the trump campaign. the data that shows why he lost and how we can improve our election systems, which comes out in march. thank you so much for being here. let me start with this. when you started looking at these voter fraud allegations, did you believe they could be true? >> i went into my work for the trump campaign with an open mind. i know what they wanted me to find and what i told them before we started everything was that i would do my best, but whatever the data showed is what the data would show. and as i worked my way through the data looking for fraud on my own, it was clear >> rudy giuliani has been sued for defamation, successfully, by two election poll workers who he defamed, claiming they committed voter fraud.

and he still is insisting, even after that, that he was correct about that. did you find anything that happened in georgia that would indicate fraud by election officials at all? >> no, but to be clear, my task, and my area of expertise, is looking at voter data. the claims of voter fraud that i was asked to evaluate were claims that were made based on someone's interpretation of data. what rudy giuliani brought forward in terms of his allegations against ruby freeman, for example, other than the fact that they were straight-up lies, as he admitted, there was no data behind his allegations. it was an interpretation of the video. i had nothing to do with that. >> what was the reaction when you would repeat on a rolling basis, there's no fraud here, no fraud in arizona, no fraud in michigan, as you would tell them that, what was the campaign's reaction? >> as the first couple of

claims they asked me to look at, the question was, can you tell me if this is right? help us understand? by the end, every claim i was given was prefaced with, tell me why this one is wrong. >> okay. so washington post did something similar. they look to the voter fraud things that were happening in republican states, texas, florida, ohio, virginia, arkansas, georgirand a period in which tens ofuring millions of votes were cast. 76% of those defendants whose race or ethnicity could be identified for black or hispanic, while white people constituted 24% of those prosecuted for something like errors and mistakes and voters. did the trump campaign seem interested in precincts were lots of black and brown people lived? >> my work was on a statewide basis. i didn't drill down into specific precincts are counties.

the work that i did particularly was looking for deceased voters, duplicate voters, and we were taking as much of a national look at that as we could. the claims that came to me that others brought were also more or less statewide claims as opposed to anything that was dealing with, especially down at the precinct level, no. there was nothing like that. >> and so you didn't find claims of millions in millions of dead people voting? millions of people voted using other peoples names, that kind of thing? >> yeah, we didn't find any, there was no data that i was able to uncover that showed enough voter fraud that could have altered any election result in any state that we had. to the campaigns credit, as we worked our way through this, the lawyers i reported to were interested in the truth of the matter. they accepted what i told them. they brought my information to mark meadows, and they told

mark meadows, who was trump's chief of staff at the time, that no fraud was determined, that the campaign could find. and then wheeler that mark meadows took that information and brought it to the oval office. so my work found its way all the way into the oval office. they knew the campaign through my efforts was unable to not only find fraud on its own but all the other claims of fraud we were asked to look at were most definitely falls. >> very interesting to know. as mark meadows now faces a trial for maybe not acting on the information you gave him. ken block, thank you very much, and best of luck for the book. we'll be right back. we trying vapes to quit smoking might feel like progress,

but with 3x more nicotine than a pack of cigarettes - vapes increase cravings - trapping you in an endless craving loop. nicorette reduces cravings until they're gone for good. 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. ♪

hi, i'm michael, i've lost 62 pounds on golo onand i have kept it off.d. most of the weight that i gained was strictly in my belly which is a sign of insulin resistance. but since golo, that weight has completely gone away, as you can tell. thanks to golo and release, i've got my life and my health back.

when people come, they say they've tried lots of diets, nothing's worked or they've lost the same 10, 20, 50 pounds over and over again. they need a real solution. i've always fought with 5-10 pounds all the time. eating all these different things and nothing's ever working. i've done the diets, all the diets. before golo, i was barely eating but the weight wasn't going anywhere. the secret to losing weight and keeping it off is managing insulin and glucose. golo takes a systematic approach to eating that focuses on optimizing insulin levels.

we tackle the cause of weight gain, not just the symptom. when you have good metabolic health, weight loss is easy. i always thought it would be so difficult to lose weight, but with golo, it wasn't. the weight just fell off. i have people come up to me all the time and ask me, "does it really work?" and all i have to say is, "here i am. it works." my advice for everyone is to go with golo. it will release your fat and it will release you. >> on friday, south africa launched a case at the names accusing israel of genocide against palestinians. asking the court to ask israel to haul them on biden's killed 22,000 people, heavily

including women and children. today these really government said it would contest south africa's genocide accusations, calling the filing, quote, unobstructed blood libel. move by south africa is the first such challenge made at the court over the current war. it's also fire from the first time south africa has sided with the palestinian cause. for decades south african leaders have likened the plight of palestinians to that of south africa's black majority during the apartheid area from 1948 to 1991. a period when israel supported the white south african apartheid regime. south africa's ruling african national congress, the party of south africa's best known freedom fighter and first post apartheid president, nelson mandela, as deep ties to the palestinian liberation organization. after medelez release from prison in 1990, he was a vocal supporter of the plo and its leader, yasser arafat. mandela also declared palestine was the greatest moral issue of our time. his support for the palestinian cause is perhaps more relevant

today than ever before as his country, ten years after his death, accuses israel of genocide. south africa's filing also comes as israel's national security minister and israeli finance minister have said the quiet part out loud, expressing support for evicting palestinians all mass from e gaza strip. he said the war presents an opportunity to concentrate on encouraging migration of the residents of gander gaza. well he said it would make way for israelis who could, quote, make the desert bloom. the state department has called the statements inflammatory responsible. what should be noted, the mass transfer of populations from their homeland is not just irresponsible top, it could be considered ethnic cleansing under international law, and doing so by creating unlivable conditions that essentially force mass immigration could be considered