post on x writing in part, i have not met, flown with, visited or had any contact whatsoever with epstein. adding, your reckless words put my family in danger. keep it up and we'll debate the facts further in court. >> that's a very strange allegation. that's going to do it for me today. "deadline white house" starts right now. it's 4:00 in washington, d.c. lawyers for the disgraced four-times indicted ex-president have taken one final step before an appeals court hears arguments on a fundamental and existential question for our democracy. can presidents be tried for things they did while in office. team trump is filed a brief in support of their push to toss out the federal election interference case citing the doctrine of presidential immunity. it is chalked full of claims that are likely to hear next week and on the campaign trail

as donald trump makes a third bid for the white house and is the the first votes are to be cast in iowa in just under two weeks. trump's lawyers say the 234-year unbroken tradition of not prosecuting the presidents for official acts, despite calls to do so from across the political spectrum, provides powerl evidence. no president prior toth donald trump tried to disrupt the peaceful transfer of power. had his attorneys point to the likelihood of mushrooming prosecutions. and future cycles. the ex-the president snlt prolsing retribution. his al lies aren't the ones plotting to end the independence of the justice department. the most audacious argument, one yesterday. on this program donald trump cannot be tri a criminal court for role in the january 6th insurrectn because heas acquitted by the senate during his second impeachment the "new york times" reports

both legal perts have disdegreed with that position. not least because the federal charges he's facing are not analogous to those he face during his pooemt. that's where we start today with national investigative reporter carol len i guess. plus lead investigator tim haity and at the table former acting assistant attorney general for national security at the department of justice mary mccord. tim, let me start with you. what do you make of the arguments trump's lawyers are making here? >> they are making the same argument again and again and again. they are the same arguments that mark med doses made in georgia. they are the same arguments that witnesses made when faced with select committee subpoenas, which is everything that happened was connected to the official business of the white house. and that's just not accurate. again, not everything a the president does, not everything a

white house chief of staff does is part and parcel of their official responsibility. there's a clear line between what's official. the conduct of foreign policy or domestic affairs, the things clearly within the range of a president's official responsibility and things that are outside of that range and that's the question before the supreme court. what is alleged of the president's official responsibility. there's really nothing in this pleading, which is just a reply to jack smith's pleading filed earlier this week that sheds light on that question beyond what we have heard already. >> to tim's point about the fact we have heard this before. one of the people we have heard it from is donald trump on the trail. that is not an accident. >> can you say the question one more time? >> i was saying that of the people we have heard these arguments from before, is donald trump himself. we have heard it on the trail

from donald trump. him trying to make this argument against presidential immunity. >> that's right. it's an important sort of drum beat for him to keep hitting because saying he's being persecuted and he's the victim of a politically tainted prosecution, which is alleged in this new pleading. that he is a victim is incredibly valuable to him as he campaigns and tells his supporters that democrats in control of the department of justice, democrats in control of the white house are trying to block him from becoming their next the president and trying to block their wishes. that is probably one of the most important points that donald trump will make over and over again on the campaign trail with quite a lot of success in the polls, as we have seen ever since he was actually charged with crimes in the effort to

block the peaceful transfer of power. the first time a the president has ever tried to do that, ever since he was charged, his poll numbers have been inching upward fairly steadily. >> if you are jack smith's team, how do you pair for these arguments? >> he rebutted them in the filing. he put in with the court on saturday, which is that the founders could never have imagined that a the president would be um mun from committing crimes that were directed at overwriting the will of the people and staying in office when you're not elected. the jack smith points to the text of the constitution, which doesn't include presidential immunity. he points to history, which dumpbt include ever an instance in a criminal case of there being presidential immunity. he points to the structure of our system of separation of powers and how it really would defy that. we also see some important

briefs filed in support of jack smith's position in this case. one by a number of former republican high-level administration officials and judges from five different administrations, raising the executive vesting clause argument, which is that it would violate the executive vesting clause, whiches vests the power of the presidency in one person for four years and four years only unless reelected and to allow a president to escape criminal liability when they commit crimes that would keep them in power past their four years, when they haven't been elected, would drektly that provision. and another similar brief from another brief of lawyers makes similar arguments. so there's going to be a lot before the d.c. dirt sit sur kit court of appeal, including another brief that shouldn't be appealed until the end of trial.

so there's a lot here for the court to chew on, but jack smith has stuck with the same argument he's been making all along. >> do you think if you're team trump that this is about delay, or do you believe you have a the shot of getting this tossed. >> i think there's three things. he is hoping that eventually if he loses in the d.c. circuit and can get the supreme court to accept this case, he's hoping that he will pull enough justices to say there should be presidential immunity and will agree what he was doing was within the scope of his official act. he wants that because then the case is over. it is done. that's for all the marbles. but in the meantime, he want want thes to delay. as you know, the trial proceedings have been stayed. the judge hasn't officially moved the march 4th date, but nothing is happening now other than jack smith filing things going unresponded to. jack smith did ask in his brief in the d.c. circuit that whatever the d.c. circuit does,

it issue its mandate within five days of its ruling. and what a mandate is basically a directive saying this case is now going back to the lower court. that means the loser, whoever it is, if it they want to seek it, they need to be able to move before that mandate issues. otherwise the stay will lift because once it goes back to the lower court, the stay would lift. if donald trump loses, let's assume the d.c. circuit rules there's no such immunity, he will want that stay in place. so it will constrict the time unless they get more time. which they might. it would restrict the amount of time he has to sit on things and further delay them. >> to the extent that delay is part of the strategy here and not just from the legal team, but from trump's political team, how confident are they in that strategy? >> i think they are trying to appear bullish, but privately

are not so sure this is going to work. it's really hard to with a square jaw and a straight face claim that the former president's acquittal in an impeachment is anything akin to the charges that jack smith has brought. that's one of those claims that you all have talked about very carefully and considerably, but i would just say that it must be very difficult in that legal circle for people to believe that that spaghetti on the wall is going to work. it's true, i have to say, that one of the strongest things in donald trump's favor, and which his lawyers have privately discussed, is the notion that this is untested law. we have never seen a former president charged with a crime. yet, as you have said very well, we have never seen a president try to hold on to power and refuse to accept the free and

fair election results. we also haven't seen a president be the ring leader as tim hait yes's investigative committee laid out. we have never seen the president be a ring leader for all this marry netting of individuals, trying different ways, different legal strategies to toss free and fair election results into chaos, into question, into suspicion, to try to, first, threaten his own department of justice if they didn't say there was fraud where there was none, next, to get states to block the election results and also call those into question. and finally, the hail mary pass, to pressure and bully a vice president into refusing to certify those elections in the pro forma january 6th certification. >> let's talk about the supreme court. court watchers are loathed to make predictions about how this

will all play out. given that the case law is so thin here, to what extent do you think the justices are relying and watching what the appeals courts do? >> it's one appeals court here. the d.c. circuit. most cases don't get to the supreme court until an issue is percolated among multiple sur kits, but this is not that kind of a case. i actually think there's a not insubstantial chance if the d.c. circuit rules and makes a thorough ruling and has using the strictest tests possible, that the supreme court might deny to take this case. i realize it's important. it's an issue of first i want ill presentation. it's never been decided before. but that also happened back in trump v. thompson. this was the case. tim know it is well. this is where the house select committee sought presidential records. donald trump came in and sued bennie thompson saying as a former president, i have the right to assert executive

privilege and prevent those records from being turned over to the house select committee. that was litigated. he lost there. it was litigated at the d.c. sur kit. they said we will apply every test possible, i mean the test that they need to apply, he loses under every test. the supreme court did not take that case. think said under every test he loses, we're not taking it. and that very night, the night that they issued their ruling, the documents started flowing to the house select committee. so i think if there's a thorough ruling, and the supreme court feels comfortable with it, i don't think they particular want to rule on this case. it's also highly possible they will. there's a not insignificant chance. tim, i want to turn to news out of the fulton county election case. you have trump's former white house chief of staff asking a federal appeals court to

consider his request to move his case to federal court. again. he's asking the same court that rejected his request a few weeks ago, except now he's asking all 12 judges on the court to consider it instead of just the three judge panel. your sense of what they are trying to do here. >> yeah, it is not a surprise that mark meadows is going to pull every possible lever at his disposal to try to get the trial judge's ruling reversed and to get this case moved to federal court. but kiptly, the trial judge in atlanta, the 11th circuit, generally conservative, have said much like the argument that we're talking about with respect to presidential immunity, it's a similar argument, which everything i'm charged with in the reck tiering case in georgia was part of my official responsibility as white house chief of staff. therefore, the adjudication of

these allegations ought to be in federal court judges have said, no, these acts are outside of the scope of your official responsibiliies as white house chief of staff. this involves election, which is a classic state function. under our constitutional system, elections are run by state governments. and atempts to persuade state officials to intervene in those processes are not within the job description of the white house chief of staff. so mark meadows is making a similar argument that president trump's lawyers are making in washington and courts have pretty consistently said there's a zone outside of your official responsibility that is fair game for a state court proceeding or for jack smith to charge in federal court. >> so carol, for audience members who might have thought this was over and removed this portion of trump knowledge from their brains, very understandably, remind us why meadows is so hell bent moved to

federal court. it's about immunity. it's also about a potential jury pool. >> that's right. he'll have the former chief of staff will have a less democrat-heavy region, essentially, if he's being heard in a federal case rather than in fulton county. and there is the other matter, let's be clear, if you don't mind me reminding people about this, that in the case that jack smith brought, the unindicted coconspirators, the allies that are described as having helped donald trump in the crimes of trying to block the peaceful transfer of power, obstructing a proceeding, trying to promote fraud on the american people about the election being stolen when it was not, mark meadows is not one of those individuals. in the federal case, he has, i would not call it immunity, but

he has no current exposure. and yet in fulton county, he is square in the middle of her sights. being able to move to federal court it advances his chances to say either i have a better jury pool and/or a better chance of arguing immunity because i have this other federal case where i've been ab amazing cooperator rather than a charged unindicted coconspirator. >> there's also another detail that i found really interesting, which is that meadows beefd up the legal team. he added veteran trial lawyer paul clement. worth noting he has refused to represent trump in the past. i wonder if you read that at all as a distancing of med does from trump. >> i don't know how much of a distaning it is, but i do see where someone like paul might come in on a case like this. the 11th circuit panel actually

ruled on two bases. one was that this federal officer immunity removal statute that mark meadows is relying on, it ruled it doesn't apply to former officers. only to current officers. no court has ever held that before. it's something they think even the department of justice before has asserted that former federal officer cans remove. so that's one legal argument that paul might have felt confidentable taking up or trying to take up to the full court, and potential thely on to the supreme court. the other is the issue of whether what mark meadows was doing fell within his official acts. that's a more dubious argument for mark meadows, but i could see somebody like paul thinking this principle of not what do you get immunity, but just can you remove it for purposes of litigating your immunity. it should be liberally construed and that's a legal principle worth fighting for.

part of it he may think i have distanced myself from trump. mark meadows has different arguments that are stronger, arguments he would say these are things that i think apparently paul feels comfortable trying to take on up to the court. >> the fact that we're continuing to talk about this a little like ground hogs day. thank you for spending some time with us. when we come back, as legislative sessions got underway across the country today, there were multiple bomb threats called into state capitols. we'll look at what is behind this pattern. plus a court in texas ruling er doctors don't have to perform life-saving abortions. taking away another right for women across this country. and later with the january 6th anniversary approaching, president biden will again remind the voting public that the ex-president remains a consistent threat against democracy. all those stories and more when we continue after this. do not go anywhere. o anywhere

ofe market from wherever you are. e*trade from morgan stanley power e*trade's easy-to-use tools make complex trading less complicated. custom scans help you find new trading opportunities, while an earnings tool helps you plan your trades and stay on top of the market. e*trade from morgan stanley the will states that mr. marbles will receive everything he needs in perpetuity thanks to autoship from chewy. i always loved that old man. and he gets the summer house.

what? shop and get a $30 egift card through january 14th. at chewy. new projects means new project managers. you need to hire. i need indeed. indeed you do. when you sponsor a job, you immediately get your shortlist of quality candidates, whose resumes on indeed match your job criteria. visit indeed.com/hire and get started today. the power goes out and we still have wifi whose resumes on indeed match your job criteria. to do our homework. and that's a good thing? great in my book! who are you? no power? no problem. introducing storm-ready wifi. now you can stay reliably connected through power outages with unlimited cellular data and up to 4 hours of battery back-up to keep you online. only from xfinity. home of the xfinity 10g network. 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.

an unsettling pattern, a series of bomb threats against state capitals across this country forcing mass evacuations, lockdowns and delayed legislative sessions. officials are investigating incidents at capitol complexes in georgia, kentucky, mississippi, michigan and montana after each received threseemingly within hours of each other. no evidence of explosive has been found it's an alarming trend that they received their own bomb threat this morning. and allin the wake of dire

warnings by federal officials, but a massive surge in threats against public servants at every level of government. joining our conversation is former counterintelligence peter struck, tim and mary are both back as well. there turned out to be no immediate threat at state capitals, but talk about the warning this serve ises in addition to everything else that led to this moment. >> sure, so this is an indication of what we're going to see more of as time moves towards the election. people need to understand regardless of anything turned up that local, state, and federal law enforcement have to take this seriously. so that means fbi agents in minneapolis and detroit and louisville and jackson and new haven and atlanta all have to stop away what they are doing because there aren't enough to cover all the threats that are out there. they have to stop what they are doing is and look into these threats if only to identify the

fact there is not a viable threat there. what's frustrating is if you ask the two candidates for the president of the united states in 2024, are you willing to tell your supporters that violence is unaccept isable, one of them would rapidly and absolutely say, yes, without question. you should renounce all threats. my worry if donald trump is asked that question, he would be unable to answer in the same way. and that's stunning to me. it's shocking. unfortunate i will, that's what we're heading into with this presidential election cycle. >> i like that he brings up this question of capacity. the fact that resources that should be focused on threats get diverted. the fact that you're talking about a presidential candidate who can't condemn this view lens was advocating for it. i would also argue there's the fact it's intended to have a chilling effect. let's look at who they went to. they went to the secretary of state in kentucky. it's supposed to make the work of governance even harder.

>> that's right. and it's part of this trend that we have seen of threats against government officials, but this can be dangerous in whole new ways. when you have to have an evacuation, when you have to have a law enforcement response, there's also the possibility, and this has happened in other events, where someone could get killed because law enforcement are responding to something that could be a threat. there could be a shooting that happens accidentally. it could be blue on blue, it could be someone at the capitol that thinks they need to defend themselves. we see this in other circumstances too. that's why this technique is also often used to s.w.a.t. fractionally, both parties it's happened. sometimes then when law enforcement shows up at the house, really bad things can happen. they come tearing in. we have also seen white supremacist groups training for this, swatting synagogues during

service saying there's a bomb that's been planted in the synagogue. knowing that means law enforcement is going to descend upon that synagogue during the service, disrupt the service, throw people into panic. in each one of these situations, it's intended to chill and intimidate. whether it's election officials like secretaries of state, state legislators, congressional legislate tors or human beings in america practicing their faith. this is an alarming and growing illegal type of conduct that really presents a threat of actual violence. >> it is alarming and yet we all saw it coming. merrick garland talked about the growing threats against public servants last fall. i want to play it and talk about it on the other side. >> we have had an astounding number of threats against public servants in the last several years. i think that when we are public servants in the justice

department and in election workers and airline crews, when they are singled out, this can lead to threats of violence and actual violence. when you have the example of an attack on an fbi office by somebody incensed by political rhetoric. this does happen. we must not allow that to happen in this country. >> i have to imagine as a lead investigator this makes you want to pull your hair out. the fact that part of what you try to warn was that this was not the end, this was not in the rear view. this was very much on the horizon. the fact that it's happening in so many states, so many different levels of government, i would ask how we got here, but we know how we got here. we know who and what is the nex sis of this political violence.

>> we do generally. there's no question that rhetoric matters. rhetoric about a deep state or a system that is stacked against people is take seriously and has consequence etc. we have to be careful about these specific threats to state capitols. we don't know anything yet about who is responsible, what the motivation was, there are a lot of people in the world who for whatever reason are angry at government. so i just think with respect to these state capitols, it's early to tell. that said, therest no question as the attorney general put forth in that hearing, we are seeing in this country a very disturbing rise in threats against attacks on people for doing their job. every time the select committee for which i serve met, they were brought to these meetings by capitol police officers. every single one of the nine members of the select committee had a security detail because of threats they received for participating in investigative fact gathering process. it's an inevitable fact of life.

you look at ruby freeman and these election works that raise their hand for public service. the fact that so many of them are personally targeted is really, really discouraging. it reflects what i think is the fundamental divide in this country. that's distrusted institutions versus people that believe and support government, that believe and support media science, higher education. there's a fundamental breach between the system generally works for their benefit. people that really don't. people that are cynical about the system. unfsht fortunately that is taking the forl not just of an opinion, but actionable the threats in violence. that's really discouraging. >> i take a note of caution to heart. it's echoed in georgia and lxs official with the office posted this on social media. do not jump to conclusions as to who is responsible. there will be chaos agents sewing discord for 2024.

they want the to increase tensions. don't let them. your thoughts? >> that's right. so is tim. there are any number of actors, whether they are domestic actors. i'm certain that russian intelligence and others in iran and elsewhere are trying to understand how they can maximize the discord in the united states. two points. that doesn't mean that law enforcement doesn't have to respond. so that does tax the system. it's putting stress on a group of people that already have too much to do on their plate. the other thing we're seeing that both tim and mary spoke to, there are large number of people who are residing from state boards of education, from local boards of education, walking away in arizona and nevada. they have seen this environment and they simply don't think it's worth the personal price to the family. so this is not only something that's impacting the ability of

law enforcement across the board to do its job. this is attacking and unloading the very voting infrastructure state to state to state at the most critical time. one of the most important presidential elections of our lifetime, we have people who are walking away from thing to work and participate in that process. >> peter struck, tim, mary, thank you all so much for starting us off. up next, a court in texas dealing a significant blow to abortion rights advocates and their push to secure legal access to millions of women as cross the state. we'll tell you what's being done about that, next. 'll tell you we about that, next i found a cheaper price on my meds with singlecare.

did you say singlecare? i use singlecare. are we talking singlecare? i saved 40 bucks with singlecare. -that's cool. - yeah. i have all my customers check the singlecare price first. good job. whenever my customers ask me if there's a cheaper price on their meds. i always tell them about singlecare. you just search your prescription, find the best price and show your coupon, in the app, to the pharmacist. i found a cheaper price with singlecare! i know. download the singlecare app free today.

here's why you should switch fo to duckduckgo on all your devie

duckduckgo comes with a built-n engine like google, but it's pi and doesn't spy on your searchs and duckduckgo lets you browse like chrome, but it blocks cooi and creepy ads that follow youa from google and other companie. and there's no catch. it's fre. we make money from ads, but they don't follow you aroud join the millions of people taking back their privacy by downloading duckduckgo on all your devices today. i think i changed my mind about these glasses. join the millions of people taki yeah, it happens.acy that's why visionworks gives you 100 days to change your mind. it's simple. anything else i can help you with? like what? visionworks. see the difference.

the state of of texas is saying we don't care about women's lives. we don't care about family or pregnant people. all we care about is forced birth. >>s that was the attorney for kate cox, the woman denied a medical abortion by the highest court on the cruelty women are subjected to by being pregnant in texas. late yesterday the fifth circuit court of appeals ruled texas can ban emergency abortions saying a federal law requiring hospitals to provide stabilizing care in medical emergencies does not apply to abortions. the opinion one judge writing, the question before the court is whether the law mandates physicians to provide abortions when it's the necessary stabilizing treatment for an emergency medical condition. it does not. this case seems guaranteed to end up before the supreme court.

last year idaho asked the supreme court to hear its challenge to the same law. if the court overturns the law, it could imperil emergency health care in antiabortion state ace cross the country. joining me at the table is professor of constitutional law and global health policy at georgetown university michelle goodwin is here. plus president of the national women's law center fatina graves. what does this mean for women in texas? >> it's a travesty. this is truly the new jane crowe where women have to fight for their lives in the state or else the leave the state if they want to save their lives during dangerous pregnancies, miscarriages, et cetera. this is a threat to broader principles of medicine because if it doesn't apply to a woman who is in critical condition ands an abortion to save her life, what does it mean for any other condition where the law is supposed to apply?

>> republicans used to understand, at least exceptions as a political matter. the fact that you have two states fighting to deny even care in the cases of those exceptions, it gives you a sense of how far out there they have gone. >> the way they have been thinking about these cruel efforts is they are saying we don't care whether you live or die. the reason that you have this in the first place is to ensure that no one is turned away when they need life-saving care. and that's true no matter who you are or where you live. this is not a new idea. there aren't exceptions to it. there isn't some exception just because you're pregnant or because you have extreme politicians in your state. we have entered a new era here. >> especially because for the longest time, reproductive rights advocates have made the argument that abortion is health care. and i think there were some to whom that seemed esoteric. we're now living with that reality.

more americans are living with that reality. i think about the fact that the husband said we understood there were restrictions in place. we didn't understand that they could potentially protect us and once you have a neighbor who goes through this, it becomes more real. >> that's right. we see this across the country. we see people coming forward in kentucky and other places where they have said, i was antiabortion, but i didn't raelsz when my life was threatened, i couldn't get the treatment. but here's what we know even from the supreme court. in 2016 in a case where the supreme court struck down two texas antiabortion laws, the supreme court acknowledged that a woman was 14 more times likely to die in the united states but carrying a pregnancy to term than by having an abortion. that's our starting point. is and this is the knowledge that the judge on the fifth circuit already have. so it really is like a death penalty.

that's not an extreme way of framing it. this is exactly what we're seeing. >> you want to read more from the opinion. the judge writing, the law does not mandate any specific type of medical treatment let alone abortion. especially when the law was equal stabilization obligations. that phrasing seems very dangerous. >> it's specific. it wasn't an accident. so their end goal here is to ensure that people who are pregnant have fewer rights than a fetus. so that's why they are using the word equality here. i just want -- i know you look surprised, but i want to be clear here. that isn't a new goal. that is why they are coming after contraception. it's why they have long standing efforts to ensure that people can't get the care that they need. >> it's been a strategy. this strategy of encapsulating constitutional rights and embryos and fetuses has been an antiabortion strategy for some

time. and at a time it just seemed absolutely absurd. who would say that a group of cells or an embryo or a fetus has the same constitutional right as a woman does. but that's been part of the agenda here. >> there's another story we have been following. i believe it fits into this framework. an ohio grand jury considering whether the case the woman charged over her miscarriage should go to trial. it's a move not just to punish women for abortions, but to punish them for pregnancy loss. >> for pregnancy outcomes generally. that is an absolutely predictable outcome at the time we are in in the dobbs decision. we are going to see people criminalized, punished for having miscarriages, for seeking abortion care they should be able to get in their community. we're going to see doctors, other health care providers punished similarly or too afraid to provide the life-saving care.

>> or pressure on them to snitch on their patients who come who need life-saving care and to turn over private, confidential patient information to police and prosecutors. it's something that we have seen before targeting black and brown women during the late 1980s and 1990s. we actually saw women being dragged out of hospitals in shackles, being chained to beds during delivery because they revealed confidential patient information about the various struggles they were having during their pregnancies, but were seeking prenatal care. part of the story of ms. watts is a medical provider essentially snitching on her. but it's important to note that twice she went to a hospital seeking care. she was told this is a non-viable pregnancy. she had a miscarriage. which happens in about 25% of pregnancies. now she's being criminally punished.

>> she's not being charged under an antiabortion statute. >> the history of punishing people goes back centuies. but one of the strategies of the antiabortion movement has been to find legs wherever they can in terms of pursing pregnant people, pregnant women. this provides the opportunity to just remember the case in the state of texas. a woman had a brain aneurysm. she was pronounced brain dead. the state of texas made her at 14 weeks pregnant gestate while dead herself, gestate a fetus for 62 days while her husband and parents appealed to say why is she tethered to these machines. she shouldn't be, but texas passed a law that allowed for such a thing. >> it reminds me of the way in which we saw the two movements very much overlap.

if this does end up before the supreme court, your thoughts? >> i know what should happen if the supreme court is functioning as it should. but so i think it's important for us to remind ourselves that if the supreme court is functioning as it should, it should understand that federal preemption laws should make these rulings nonstatus these are not new ideas that you have to provide emergency life-saving medical care. if the supreme court is acting as a court should, that is what should happen. >> if legislative records mean anything, part of it was the principle that pregnant women shouldn't have to suffer during pregnancy. part of this is a labor act, and women were being dubbed the medical care they deserve,

having this law in the first place. so it's really ironic that the fifth circuit didn't take note of that. >> no one better to walk us through all of this. thank you. up next, how voters in iowa are getting ready and how they are feeling about the donald trump as the other republicans in the race continue to campaign like he's not even there. jawn vaughn hillyard joins us, next. t even there jawn vaughn hillyard joins us, next >> woman: what's my safelite story? i see inspiration right through my glass. so when my windshield cracked, i chose safelite. they replaced the glass and recalibrated my safety system. that's service i can trust. >> singers: ♪ safelite repair, safelite replace. ♪ you founded your kayak company because you love the ocean- not spreadsheets. you need to hire. i need indeed. indeed you do. indeed instant match instantly delivers quality candidates matching your job description. visit indeed.com/hire

my little family is me, aria, and jade. just the three of us girls. i never thought twice about feeding her kibble. but about two years ago, i realized she was overweight. she was always out of breath. that's when i decided to introduce the farmer's dog to her diet. it's just so fresh that she literally gets bubbles in her mouth. now she's a lot more active, she's able to join us on our adventures. and we're all able to do things as a family. ♪ get started at betterforthem.com

just a dozen days until the iowa caucus and it's crunch time for the republican presidential hopefuls looking to topple former president trump. despite 91 felony charges, polling shows donald trump has a firm grip on the contest in iowa. those trailing candidates on your screen are trying to play catch up with a flurry of the events across the state in the lead up to the january 15th contest. one final debate is scheduled before the caucus with ron desantis, nikki haley and donald trump having qualified. ron desantis and haley is have called on trump to appear on stage with them in the only form of attack they are comfortable throwing at the front runner. joining the conversation is vaughn hillyard in waukee, iowa. what are you hearing? >> reporter: let me put it this way. aer year ago i stood in davenport outside a donald trump event and it didn't feel much different. it was still cold then and it's just as cold now. and really the polling numbers

aren't any different hereto. it feels like i have been covering the campaign for the last year. it was the matter of jockeying for fourth, third, second place. right now there's a reality on the ground that nikki haley and ron desantis, they do not have this type of energy around their candidaies here in iowa that you feel like palpable excitement and potential of knocking off donald trump. this is my third election cycle. i was there covering bernie sanders when you could feel the hundreds to thousands of people that were coming out for his events when he came really close to beating hillary clinton in the state. iowans, when he was packing diners across the state of iowa, that's not this. so for donald trump, i think it's indicative you don't see much of him out horror now because frankly he feels good about his standing. >> here's chris christie from this morning talking about the two main challengers haley and desantis. and where this race is regarding trump's challengers. take a listen.

>> given the fact that donald trump is not going to do a town hall on fox news, i don't know who is going to be watching nikki and ron in that debate. i hope some people are. because i think they will get a real sense of the fact that the two of them are living in an alternate universe. they will will debate each other as if the contest is between the two of them. and my guess is that neither one of them will spend five minutes bringing up donald trump because they are both playing for 2028 or a vice presidential nomination from donald trump. >> i are talking to voters, the sense they have of haley, of desantis and for that matter chris christie. >> reporter: you know, chris christie is playing a game of offense here in this primary. he's made it very clear the approach he's taken and when you see where he is in the state of iowa, he's polling at 1%. so, new hampshire, you know, that 10% will maybe take him somewhere as, you know, at one point he'll be able to reflect on his career and know he did

what he could to try to take down donald trump from being president again. but, when you're looking at a strategic angle, ron desantis and nikki haley, they're not changing the way they're approaching donald trump. and it reminds me of eight years ago, i'm going to go back to ted cruz, i feel like we have done this before, ted cruz didn't launch his air assault on donald trump until the day he dropped out, on may 3rd, the morning of the indiana primary, when he went on a tirade calling donald trump a moral and serial philander. at that point it was too late. with 13 days until iowa, they had, you know, ten months to do it and i guess we have 13 days to see if they change their approach. >> i have less than a minute left. i want you to tell me about the exchange you had with desantis this morning. >> reporter: yeah, i asked ron desantis as he was leaving his event here whether he would stand next to donald trump come the republican national

convention in july in the situation that donald trump is found guilty on any of these felony charges and wins the nomination at the same time because, you know, we're talking about nikki haley and ron desantis' approach toward donald trump. there is a reality either donald trump could be kicked off the ballot or head to the convention here this summer with a criminal conviction next to his name. and there could be a situation in which there is a real serious conversation at the republican national convention of releasing the delegates and turning to trump alternative and those are going to be tough questions that ron desantis and nikki haley may very well face if they come up with a loss during the actual political primary and caucus process. >> vaughn hillyard, when you were in the southwest, i remind you to wear your sunscreen out there. i hope you have a hat and a scarf. >> all of the above. >> all of the above. a quick break from us. we'll be right back. ll of the a.

a quick break from us. we'll be right back.

to a child, this is what conflict looks like. children in ukraine are caught in the crossfire of war, forced to flee their homes. a steady stream of refugees has been coming across all day. it's basically cold. lacking clean water and sanitation. exposed to injury, hunger. exhausted and shell shocked from what they've been through. every dollar you give can help bring a meal, a blanket, or simply hope to a child living in conflict. please call or go online to givenowtosave.org today with your gift of $10 a month, that's just $0.33 a day. we cannot forget the children in places like syria, born in refugee camps, playing in refugee camps,

thinking of the camps as home. please call or go online to givenowtosave.org today with your gift of $10 a month. your gift can help children like ara in afghanistan, where nearly 20 years of conflict have forced the people into extreme poverty. weakened and unable to hold herself up, ara was brought to a save the children's center, where she was diagnosed and treated for severe malnutrition. every dollar helps. please call or go online to givenowtosave.org today with your gift of $10 a month. just $0.33 a day. and thanks to special government grants that are available now, every dollar you give can multiply up to ten times the impact. and when you use your credit card, you'll receive this special save the children tote bag to show you won't forget the children who are living their lives in conflict. every war is a war against children. please give now.

the department of justice is seeking a six month sentence for ray epps, the january 6th defendant at the center of a far right conspiracy theory, falsely accused by everyone from fox news to members of congress of being an undercover fbi agent participating in the riot. he pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor charge back in september. in a sentencing memo last night, prosecutors argued pps is a unique case due to his cooperation, attempts to de-escalate o 6th and

remors for his part, epps sent a letter to the court writing he, quote, learned not to put my trust in politicians, fox news, some other social media outlets, only to have them betray me and other american citizens with election lies. up next, how president joe biden plans to go on the offense against donald trump as he puts his re-election campaign into focus, much more news straight ahead. do not go anywhere. h more news t ahead. do not go anywhere

dry skin is sensitive skin, too. and it's natural. treat it that way. aveeno® daily moisture with prebiotic oat is proven to moisturize dry skin all day. you'll love our formula for face, too. aveeno® life, diabetes, there's no slowing down. each day is a unique blend of people to see and things to do. that's why you choose glucerna to help manage blood sugar response. uniquely designed with carbsteady. glucerna. bring on the day.

>> woman: why did we choose safelite? uniquely designed with carbsteady. 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. ♪ 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. at this moment, we must

decide what kind of nation are we going to be? are we going to be a nation that accepts political violence as a norm? are we going to be a nation where we allow partisan election officials to overturn the legally expressed will of the people? are we going to be a nation that lives not by the light of the truth, but in the shadow of lies? we cannot allow ourselves to be that kind of nation. the way forward is to recognize the truth, and to live by it. >> hey again, everyone. it is 5:00 in new york. aim alicia menendez in for nicole wallace. president joe biden delivered a forceful and moving address that called on our nation's better angels. he talked about recognizing the lies and selfishness that had got us to that point. now, as this saturday marks the

third anniversary of the attack, president biden is ready to yet again recognize that hugely consequential moment, this time with the next presidential race just on the horizon. "the new york times" reports even before a single vote is cast in the republin party's nominating race, mr. biden and his team are treating former presidt donald trump as their de facto opponent in the general election. they're seeking to frame the contest not as a traditional referendum on the incumbent president and his governance of the nation, but as an existential battle to save the country from a dangerous opponent. on the anniversary of the 6th, biden will speak at valley forge, pennsylvania. the nation's first president, washington voluntarily resigned after two terms, beginning the peaceful transfer of power between american presidents. the process which trump attempted to halt almost 250 years later. the political and legal environments in which biden will make these remarks quite different from the day of the insurrection even different from when he made

that speech two years ago. as bill crystal tell us at the bulwark, the threat from the er psident is greater than it wasthe pitol was stormed. they write, those who stood up to him are now gone. the republicans who broke with trump have been marginalized or turned to singing his praises. if he were to return to the white house, he woule sycophants around him none of these so-called adu the room, who, however ineffectuall tried in his first term to check his worst impulses. the pro insurrectionists joined by antiinsurrectionists are in control of the republican party. just moments ago, trump asked the united states supreme court to ensure he stays on primary

ballots nationwide. that is according to a report just breaking in "the washington post." we'll have more on that in a moment. but that is where we start with the host of the podcast, jason johnson and professor of politics and journalism at morgan state university, the jason johnson is here. plus, host of the podcast fast politics and special correspondent for vanity fair molly john fast, former top state department official during the obama administration rick stangle and editor at large for the bulwark, charlie sykes. your colleagues at the bulwark wrote that piece, i would call it chilling. talk about why we're closer to constitutional failure today than we were, let's say, three years ago. >> well, because donald trump has been radicalized and radicalized the republican party. he has managed to revise the history of what happened on january 6th and any lingering hope that the republican party would serve as a guardrail or a check on his ambitions, i think

it has been destroyed. i think those hopes have evaporated. a trump 2.0 administration would be far more aggressive, would not have the kinds of adults in the room who restrain donald trump. and donald trump has made it absolutely clear. there is no subtlety or ambiguity about what he would do once he got the levers of power, that the second trump administration would be about retribution, would be about revenge, would be about tearing down many of the constitutional norms that turned out to be far more fragile than i'm afraid that we had been complacent about. mply a statement of the nk, is reality that we f in 2024. >> rick, i want to reach the last lines of the bulwark piece. they write, january 6th it turns out was a rehearsal for the true upheaval, the far deeper insurrection that trump now intends to lead if re-elected. january 6th was prologue. the election of 2024 will be the decisive drama on the main

stage. and its outcome very much in doubt. accountability, i think you could argue still in process, where does that leave us this then? >> at an scary point, at an inflection point. i think charlie is right. we all hope january 6th was a period, not a comma, that it was an end point rather than the beginning of something, but it turns out it is the beginning of something. this idea that democracy is on the ballot in 2024 is absolutely true. and that's what president biden is talking about. i think there are a lot of voters that will vote for democracy, that don't want to vote for an authoritarian leader and authoritarian system. there are also unfortunately authoritarian voters as social scientists used to call them, people who want a strong man, people who in some recent polls showed they want a leader who will violate the rules to get s done.

that is the issue ahead of us and it couldn't be more important. >> is e thing, biden's campaign manager recently said on a press call our message is clear and simple, we are running a campaign like the fate of our democracy depends on it because it does. i take rick's point that there are voters who are going to show up and vote for democracy. there are also voters who are going to show up and vote for authoritarianism. i think part of the challenge is that does not constitution the totality of the electorate. because, yes, democracy is on the line, you look at polling, it is not necessarily top of mind for persuadable voters. >> everybody on this panel, you included right now, has heard this is the most important election of your lifetime for the last four elections. right? that's what we have all heard. and that motivates people who already care about elections. but as you mentioned, there is a good 12 to 15% of people out

there that that doesn't motivate them. it is not that they like the idea of an impending dictatorship, but that's not going to motivate them the same way as student loans will, the same way as foreign policy will, the same way as inflation will, the same way as gas prices will, the same way that they may be frustrated about shutdowns and lockdowns that happened under covid. so, there has to be a message for that middle of the road group of people. i think joe biden has one. i think he can talk about policy successes. i think he can talk about the economy, but i think to the degree that we get caught up in this conversation about saving democracy only, there are a lot of americans, a lot of americans who don't think democracy has worked very well for them, for both good and bad reasons. and so if that's your main thing, saving a system that i feel is a voter has never really worked for me, you're going to miss out on those people. got to give them something more tangible to be excited about to vote about in 2024 and have to pass legislation so they can actually vote as opposed to sitting back and hoping they can make their own bricks with straw as opposed to being able to go

out and vote as easily as possible. >> one of the structural issues is the fact that defending democracy, defending the rule of law, that used to be a bipartisan effort. the fact you now have republicans turning their back on america's foundations in the name of one man, the threat to democracy, the threat to the peaceful transfer of power, how did that become just something that the democratic party cared about? >> yeah. i have to say, it is really scary in my mind how much the republican party has made authoritarianism a sort of litmus test. it used to be are you loyal to trump? now it is are you loyal to this kind of pro dictator-like rhetoric and you'll hear trump supporters say, yes, he wants to be a dictator for a day, isn't that funny, maybe we need a dictator for the day. and i think that's really scary. and i don't know, i was talking to an academic who studies authoritarianism today at

harvard and he said he's actually more worried about america than he is about some of the other countries because we have only one party that continues to believe in democracy. and we have a second party. look, if nikki haley had been the nominee, perhaps it would be different, but would desantis and with vivek, you have three candidates there and trump, all of whom embrace this authoritarianism in a really scary way. so, it turns out that trumpism has -- these republicans have turned a blind eye and they have let trumpism grow and it has grown into this authoritarian nightmare and i do think biden is right. luckily for biden this worked very well in the midterms too, voters really did respond to this, so i think he has a precedent for this. but, yeah, it is really scary, the do you want to have elections election. >> right. rick, trump has turned his campaign into a fight for retribution. he has praised authoritarians, he has quoted hitler.

as alarming as all of that is, what is more alarming is how many americans are not repelled by it, but rather drawn to it. what will this election, what will it reveal about who we are as a nation? we keep saying this is not who we are. what if voters tell us otherwise? >> yeah, i don't like to talk about the alternative because i don't want to put it in anyone's head. but what we have seen in america and around the world is this weaponization of grievance, that people feel that somehow the government not only is not working for them, it is working against them, and trump is empowering those people to kind of reject the system. and, you know, one of the things i thought for a long time and having been in government is that government doesn't do a very good job of explaining what government does. and we also kind of, you know, gave people too much credit, like, we said it could be whatever you wanted to be, well, you can't be whatever you want to be. so people feel a grievance about that. and trump is weaponizing that

grievance to vote against the system that is actually done more for more people than any system in history. >> charlie, you know, i'm not sure if you remember this, there was this alarming point that was made during trump's second impeachment. take a listen and we'll talk on the other side. >> it doesn't take a prosecutor to understand that president trump was not showing remorse. he was showing defiance. he was telling us that he would do this again. i'm not afraid of donald trump running again in four years. i'm afraid he's going to run again and lose. because he can do this again. >> charlie, speak to that point that ted lu makes in that clip. >> well, it is a very important point because i think people need to understand that donald trump is never going to graciously concede defeat if he loses in 2024. this is the point that i think bill crcristal was making.

donald trump not only has shown no remorse, he's saying, right, i'm going to do it again and the republican party is saying we're okay with this. i agreed with everything that has been said on the panel. could i make one cautionary note here? watch for this flex, that donald trump, you know, is a very effective populist demagogue and understands that he can use the language of democracy to undermine democracy. and one of the things i've been talking to a lot of voters in my home state of wisconsin, a swing state, and a lot of people say, we're not for authoritarianism, we're for democracy, we believe the lie about the election, and if in fact donald trump is kicked off these ballots because he's an insurrectionist, we think that that is antidemocratic. i disagree with all of that. but i have to say that one of the things that donald trump has done has been to co-opt the language of his opponents, to

project what he is doing. do not be surprised if donald trump counters this by wrapping himself in the mantle of the defender of democracy, even as he is pledging and planning to undermine democracy. that, by the way, would be very familiar to scholars of authoritarianism, so don't be surprised to hear donald trump and his team claiming that they are the genuine champions of democracy. so this is something that we ought to keep in mind. >> when you heard charlie say that he wanted to offer a note of caution, i'm not sure if you sat up a little straighter in your chair as i did as he are aarticulated that potential flex, we have seen donald trump do that verbal jujitsu, where he takes an argument that has been hurled against him and hurl it back. i want to talk about that in the context of the president delivering this speech saturday at valley forge, after that on monday he'll be speaking at charleston at the emanuel ame church where a white supremacist

killed nine people in 2015. the campaign says the point is to signify his fight against political violence against white supremacy. is there a way for him to get out in front of the argument that donald trump is going to make? if he presupposes that donald trump is going to weaponize this concept of democracy, is there a way to beat him to it? >> yes the way you beat him to it is to have a completely different conversation. here's the thing. donald trump isn't persuading anybody anymore. i keep reminding people of this. he lost by, like, 3 million against hillary clinton, lost by 7 million against joe biden, not like the guy is that popular. he's not. he never won the popular vote. people can't stand him. the only reason he appears to be powerful is because people in positions of power let him talk. and let him drive the narrative. if i'm joe biden, i'm the president, i won this. i beat you. i'll beat you again.

let me talk about all the great things i've done. i wouldn't worry about getting ahead of whatever lie donald trump comes up with next. i would want to get ahead of what are the ever narratives are that exist within the people, people who are upset, people who say joe biden is too old, people who say he hasn't done enough, get ahead of those concerns because if joe biden satisfies those people, donald trump will continue talking to the same little coffee class he's always talked to and lose again. because it is not that many people. but joe biden has to galvanize the people who have already benefitted from his presidency. if he can't do that, yeah, trump will be in office and we'll all be in trouble. >> my understanding, molly, having listened to the biden campaign talk about their intent, talk about the stakes of the election is that there is sort of a duality to what they understand they need to do. they need to go after this, start off the new year focusing on the stakes, on dark days of american history, on a brighter future that's ahead. he also has to do the more perfunctory thing of touting the accomplishments of his

administration. it doesn't, to me, seem to be either/or, both/and. >> yeah. i mean, look, this is a very high stakes election. we want him to do everything they can. and i think really good example is inflation. inflation is a humongous problem since the pandemic, it has really -- in the uk, it is cataclysmic. here it is the lowest and it -- of any of these fairly industrialized nations and it is going down or if you look at gas prices. these are economic -- these are easy economic accomplishments, or even the inflation reduction act bringing chip manufacturing back. these are accomplishments that are easy and important and biden needs to sell them. remember, you'll see, republican congress people taking credit for bills that they voted against, right, factories being opened in their districts despite the fact they voted against it. so, look, one of the dichotomies

here is that you have a lot of republicans in this party staying on truths and they're being treated in a more of a sort of two sidesish way, the mainstream media tends to. and so that is a real structural disadvantage for democrats. at least for the democrats like the biden administration that really are sort of held by the truth. remember, trump always would say, you know, these incredible lies and people got used to it. you would never -- it is hard to say trump was saying something untrue because it was so usual. and so he has really lowered the bar for himself in a certain way. and so you do see that biden ends up being way more scrutinized than trump because of this. i do think it is a structural disadvantage for the biden administration, but i agree there is a lot to brag about economically and i hope that they'll be able to effectively do it. >> all right, as nicolle would say, lucky for us, no one is going anywhere. when we return, nbc news can now

confirm that donald trump has appealed the colorado ruling, kicking him off the ballot to the united states supreme court. and asking the court to keep him on primary ballots nationwide. this as the effort to bar candidates under the constitution's insurrectionist clause is spreading. that's next. marc elias tells us what he's watching for. growing tensions in the middle east one day after a top hamas leader was killed in a targeted strike in beirut, explosions rocking tehran, leaving nearly 100 dead and sewing fears that the israel-hamas war could widen beyond gaza's borders. en beyond gaza's borders.

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

all we need are 1000 monthly donors in the next 30 days. please call or go online now with your monthly gift of just $10. thanks to generous government grants every dollar you give can have up to ten times the impact. and when you call with your credit card, we will send you this save the children® tote bag as a thank you for your support. your small monthly donation of just $10 could be the reason a child in crisis survives. please call or go online to hungerstopsnow.org to help save lives today. 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. 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.

breaking news just in past few minutes, donald trump has asked the supreme court to overturn a ruling in colorado to ensure he can appear on the ballot there and across the country. it was expected that trump would take this case to the supreme court that sets the stage for a huge legal battle that could shape the 2024 election. under the colorado decision, the ex-president's name will remain on the primary ballot there until the supreme court decides to take action. the justices are expected to take up the case. as "the washington post" notes, quote, colorado case is just one of several novel and significant questions before the u.s. supreme court to have the potential to dramatically impact next year's presidential election. they add, without a ruling from the nation's high court, some states could allow trump on the ballot, while others bar him

from it. joining us now our very own jordan rubin, former manhattan prosecutor, and marc elias is with us, our panel is as well. marc, you had a chance to look at the trump filing. what stood out to you? >> first of all, just on "the washington post" quote you put up, i think it is important that we not buy into the idea that this is novel. if by novel they mean it doesn't come up that often that a president of the united states incites a violent mob to insurrection, yes, in that sense it is novel, but section three of the 14th amendment is in the u.s. constitution and it is every bit as valid as every other bit of the constitution. i had a chance to read the brief. what is striking about it is how weak it is on the question of whether he in fact did engage in insurrection. the brief buries that question, that very central question of whether or not he is an

insurrectionist to page 27 of a 35-page filing. it leads with a whole bunch of arguments about whether the courts are the right forum to resolve these questions, whether congress should have to resolve these questions, whether it is too early to resolve these questions, whether we should wait until after the general election to resolve the questions. a lot of procedural off ramps he's trying to offer the court. and then he takes on the question of whether section three is applicable to the president. did he take the right oath? is he an officer? and by the time you get to the question of whether he is an insurrectionist, it is very deep in the brief, it is only two pages, and much of that is spent on trying to say, well, but he didn't do the thing that people did in the civil war.

so, it is not clear that his legal team feels like he's going to get the warmest reception, even by this conservative court on the merits of whether he's an insurrectionist, but rather they're trying to provide other off ramps, which i think as a -- in one sense is a smart strategy given the facts, i do think, though, at another it does portray weakness. it is not -- for a guy who portrays strength, this is a brief of someone who is clearly on his heels, who is portraying weakness in the legal posture he is in, vis-a-vis the question of whether or not he engaged in insurrection. >> so, jordan, i want your broad read of this, i want you to weigh in on this question that marc elias put before us, to front load with procedural off ramps, seeming to leave trump's team actually a stronger argument than this question of whether or not he is in fact an insurrectionist. >> right. so i think it makes complete sense that he doesn't focus as

much on whether he's an insurrectionist. in addition to the fact he doesn't have a strong argument for why he isn't. i think all those procedural arguments and whether section three even applies to the president are really going to be where the money is at in his favor at the supreme court. at least as compared to that factual question of whether he's an insurrectionist, because the supreme court isn't going to want to delve down into the muck of a question like that. they're going to want to be looking at these broader legal questions like does section three apply to trump? it makes a lot of sense froms a strategic standpoint if you're trump, whether it projects strength or not from a public aspect is up for debate as marc rightly notes. but it makes perfect sense from a legal perspective that he's focusing more on the broader legal questions. so i think that's what we would expect to see and that's what we're going to see the supreme court grapple with if it does take up the case. >> okay, let's talk about that if, marc. the court, it isn't obligated to pick this up. your sense is that they probably

will, no? >> yeah. i think they're going to take this case. they should take this case, i agree. rarely do i agree with donald trump and his lawyers, but this is a case of profound national importance. now, mind you, there is some tension between them saying you need to take this case up and it is a profound national importance and by the way, the court really shouldn't be deciding this case at all. i understand that you can make that argument, but, you know, i don't want people to think when i say that he is not portraying strength that is purely in the political arena. i argued and won four cases before the u.s. supreme court. and, you know, part of what you're trying to do in these arguments is, of course, you want to offer every opportunity for the court to rule in your favor. so i completely understand why you would offer the procedural off ramps. but i do think that as you're counting votes, as he's trying to count to five, which is, you know, what you need in the u.s. supreme court to reverse a lower court, i'm surprised that he would not come in with a

stronger posture on the insurrection question to stiffen the resolve of maybe some of those swing, more moderate, not that there are moderates on the supreme court, but more persuadable justices. i don't think there is any question that justice alito will -- justice thomas will be with him, no matter what. but if i were his legal team, i would want to give justices kavanaugh and coney barrett a stronger sense that you feel that you are indignant, that you are being dragged into court on this. so, you know, i think that it is a good point that you want to give those off ramps, but i'm not sure that this was the strongest brief that his team could have filed. >> here is the thing, we're talking about colorado, but there are unresolved challenges to trump's candidacy in 17 states. i believe that's the most recent number. could the supreme court issue a ruling that then impacts all of

those cases? >> go ahead. >> sorry, jordan. go ahead. >> oh, no, i don't want to interrupt marc, but i think, yes, if they're going to take a case that is just going to affect something like colorado, for example, there is no point to them getting involved because then there is not going to be a national standard, just going to be other states knocking at their door again or trump knocking at their door again if he gets knocked off another ballot. so really the u.s. supreme court needs to do its job and issue a nationwide resolution, one way or the other, so we're not dealing with this every day. especially ahead of the general election. now we're still in the primary. there is maybe ways that the court could wriggle out of it if it didn't want to get involved yet. at some point, before the general election, we're going to need a nationwide answer to this question from the supreme court. >> marc elias, to this question about what looks strong politically, what looks strong legally, you had a trump lawyer

on fox this afternoon and she acknowledged trump is concerned about the supreme court ruling against him, just given the gymnastics they do. what do you make of that? >> i think they should be very nervous. unlike what rudy giuliani or some other lawyer for donald trump can say in a parking lot, in a courtroom, it is a whole other kettle of fish. if the supreme court comes out against them, game, set, match, he's disqualified and will never be able to be president of the united states again. so, should be concerned from that standpoint. the second is he should be concerned that we talked about this once before. he should be concerned because if you are a textualist or originalist, in plain english means you take the text as it is, and you apply it without modern context, without the practical impact of what it would mean in 2023, think about how the supreme court has interpreted, for example, gun -- the second amendment, you know, without regard to modern considerations, if that's your

frame of reference, then donald trump is in a lot of trouble. if you take the words of section 3 of the 14th amendment as they are, what you have is that he is, if he is found to be an insurrectionist, is barred from running for president. what you have in colorado is a trial court who had a hearing and had each side present evidence who found that he is -- that he did engage in insurrection. and as jordan knows, that is subject to a very deferential standard. the supreme court is bound by the trial court's determination unless they find it to be clearly erroneous. it is not clearly erroneous. i happen to think it is correct. i happen to think you think it is correct, i think jordan thinks it is a correct. even if it is a close question, they're bound by what the trial court found after that evidentiary hearing. i think he should be very worried about this. >> marc elias, jordan rubin, thank you for reading this so quickly, for jumping on with us

and sharing your expertise. our panel will return on this breaking news. donald trump asking the supreme court to ensure that he can stay on primary ballots across the country. going to squeeze in a quick break and we're back after this. . going to squeeze in a quick break and we're back after this. you didn't live this strong, this long to get put on the shelf like a porcelain doll. if you have postmenopausal osteoporosis and are at high risk for fracture, you can build new bone with evenity®. ask your doctor if you can do more than just slowing down bone loss with evenity®. want stronger bones? then build new bone; evenity® can help in just 12 months.

evenity® is proven to reduce spine fracture risk by 73%. evenity® can increase risk of heart attack, stroke, or death from a cardiovascular problem. do not take evenity® if you have low blood calcium, or are allergic to it. serious allergic reactions and low blood calcium have occurred. tell your doctor about jaw bone problems, as they have been reported with evenity®. or about pain in your hip, groin, or thigh, as unusual thigh bone fractures have occurred. don't let a break put you on a shelf. talk to your doctor about building new bone with evenity®! ah, these bills are crazy. she has no idea she's sitting on a goldmine. well she doesn't know that if she owns a life insurance policy of $100,000 or more she can sell all or part of it to coventry for cash. even a term policy. even a term policy? even a term policy! find out if you're sitting on a goldmine. call coventry direct today at the number on your screen, or

visit coventrydirect.com. 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 return with the breaking news, donald trump asking the united states supreme court to reverse the colorado ruling barring him from that state's ballot and ensuring he can stay on primary ballots nationwide. we are back with jason, molly,

rick and charlie. charlie, this is not surprising. what does surprise me is the nature of the argument that they are making as marc elias just laid out for us, the fact that they front loaded this with procedural off ramps. they didn't really get to this question of whether or not donald trump did in fact participate in an insurrection. >> no, look, i have not had a chance to read this and i'm not a lawyer, but inevitably this was going to end up in the u.s. supreme court. and i'm very sympathetic to the argument. i am skeptical of how it is going to play out. donald trump was the architect of an attempt to violently overturn a free and fair election. if that is not insurrection, i don't know what is. i do think it comes under this amendment. however, i think the chances of the u.s. supreme court removing him from the ballot disqualifying him, i think that is a very, very small one. and i think the people ought to keep their expectations somewhat

in check. so what the court might want is to find some technical way of avoiding making a major ruling, that the last thing that john roberts wants to do is have the u.s. supreme court weigh in on something that is there radioactive. so, perhaps by going for a more technical argument, they're giving the court a way to dodge actually doing this, but i think there is very little prospect that this supreme court is going to remove donald trump from the ballot. >> rick, you can always tell when my friend marc elias either had his wheaties for the day or gotten really jazzed by a court filing as he did there where he came out hot talking about the fact that "the washington post" had characterized this as an unusual, this question of the 14th amendment. in reality, we come back to these questions about eligibility over and over again for candidates. i think charlie is right to point out there is going to be a

lot of consternation around this question. and, yet, the ball is moving down the field. >> yes. i mean, the -- i would have talked to marc's point about originalism, if you look at the 14th amendment, section 3 from an originalist perspective, you say, sure, they're talking about confederate generals, they're talking about confederate soldiers who took up arms against the republic. but if you look at the 14th amendment as a whole, the 14th amendment, which was the post civil war amendment, is incredibly important and it is famously for incorporating the bill of rights into the federal constitution. basically the first time the court said the bill of rights applies to the states. so i think the court has to look at this in the macro context that this is an important amendment and it is something that they can't just do some technical qualification, that it is not -- donald trump is not eligible because he's not an officer in the way that other

people were, like members of congress. so, i'm hoping they'll take a more fulsome approach to it. >> i want, if you're willing, molly and jason, to zoom out here, because these efforts to bar insurrectionists from 2024 election ballots, it is spreading beyond just donald trump, pennsylvania congressman scott perry now facing a lawsuit, seeking to keep his name off the primary ballot, citing the insurrection clause of the 14th amendment, the lawsuit filed by a pennsylvania activist argues that perry's actions around january 6th, trying to use the doj to help the ex-president show his involvement in the insurrection, should disqualify him from running for office. congressman perry has not been charged with a crime, but he is the only member of congress whose cell phone was seized by the fbi. last month, a judge ordered perry to turn over thousans of texts and emails to fbi agents.

the 14th amendment, that is part of the question around the 14th amendment, was it a matter of time before congressman perry faced this? >> yeah. i think, look, we have to step back here for a minute and realize that trump continues to get away with and also i will add the broader white republican men continue to get away with things that the rest of us would not. and we see this again and again. the reason we're here is because senators, republican senators refused to convict him. they thought it was too much trouble, they didn't want to deal with the death threats, they thought he wouldn't run again, they were, like, let's just be done with this guy. and by kicking the can down the road, we see that now we're stuck with donald trump again. and we're stuck with people who have been involved in the insurrection. if you look at that 14th amendment section 3, you see that it was meant to stop this kind of insurgence, right? this kind of antidemocratic

uprising of the kind that we saw with donald trump. so, yes, that's what it's for. i think it is really important that we stop changing the rules for trump because it might hurt his feelings or upset his supporters. that's how we got here. and look, i think that marc has a good point about textualism. this supreme court is obsessed with textualism, let them have it. this is the text, and the text says this. >> when you look at the effort against perry, do you think this could then open the floodgates for efforts to keep other members of congress off the ballot? >> yes, it should. every single person who voted against trying to impeach donald trump is basically somebody who was aiding and providing comfort to january 6th. this is -- you ask this to look at this from a thousand miles away. this is the biggest concern. the fact that we have to have this mad scramble for all these individual states and all these individual activists to organize themselves, to put themselves in danger, to stop this man who

tried to violently take over the country, i'm sick and tired of people saying, well, we have guardrails, we don't have guardrails. if we had guardrails this would be done already. our guardrails are made of spaghettios and silly string. the fact that he could be on the ballot in so many places and he gets to go to a supreme court, where a third of that court are people that trump put in, and then you have other people who we know are absolutely compromised by the same donors that give to donald trump, this is a joke. and i mention this example before, the fact that you had an insurrection by bolsonaro in brazil, he had an insurrection on january 8th of 2023 and by july of 2023, the brazilian supreme court was, like, yeah, this guy can't run again for ten years. we had three years of this. we're coming up on a three-year anniversary of a terrorist attack and we're fumbling around with individual states what font trump can use when he runs for office again after he declares he wants to be a dictator. this is a massive failure. if there is one thing that a federal government should be talking about on a regular basis, it is how this is

dangerous and should be much more active and organized at stopping this. they shouldn't be on the hands of individual states. they should be the number one priority our federal government. i don't feel that they have been passionate enough or serious enough about solving this problem. >> thank you for ruling with me through this breaking news. i'm going to shift gears and head to the middle east. increasingly embroiled in violence beyond the israel-hamas war, a live report from the region right after our short break. e report from the region right after our short break.

oh booking.com, ♪ i'm going to somewhere, anywhere. ♪ ♪ a beach house, a treehouse, ♪ ♪ honestly i don't care ♪ find the perfect vacation rental for you booking.com, booking. yeah.

hi, my name is damion clark. if you have both medicare and medicaid, i have some really encouraging news that you'll definitely want to hear. depending on the plans available in your area, you may be eligible to get extra benefits with a humana medicare advantage dual-eligible special needs plan. all of these plans include a healthy options allowance, a monthly allowance to help pay for eligible groceries, utilities, rent, and over-the-counter items. the healthy options allowance is loaded onto a prepaid card each month.

and whatever you don't spend, carries over from each month. other benefits on these plans include free rides to and from your medical appointments. and our large networks of doctors, hospitals and pharmacies. so, call the number on your screen now and ask about a humana medicare advantage dual-eligible special needs plan. humana. a more human way to healthcare. okay everyone, our mission is to provide complete, balanced nutrition for strength and energy. yay - woo hoo! ensure, with 27 vitamins and minerals, nutrients for immune health. and ensure complete with 30 grams of protein. (♪♪)

extraordinary developments today in the middle east, further stoking global fears that israel and hamas' war now entering month three could extend beyond gaza. in iran, nearly 100 people are dead, including children, at least 140 injured, according to state media after two explosions ripped through crowds gathered for the fourth anniversary of iraneneral qassem soleimani's death. some iranian officials are quick to call the explosions terrorist attacks, no one claimed responsibility. u.s. officials say they don't believe israel was behind the attacks. comes less than 24 hours after a strike inside a hezbollah stronghold in beirut that killed hamas' second in command, the most senior leader of hamas to be killed since the october 7th attacks in israel. u.s. officials say israel is

behind the assassination and nbc news learned from a u.s. officials that israel notified washington about the attack as it was already under way. though israel has not claimed responsibility, but says it is, quote, prepared for any scenario as the focus turns to an expected response. joining us now, nbc news foreign correspondent josh lederman for us in tel aviv. josh, devastating attack in iran, what do we know? >> reporter: we know the death toll has just been revised down from 95. it had been a little over 100. but, according to iranian semiofficial state media, there had been some names that had been double counted. as you mentioned, iran's government is saying this was terrorism. they're pointing the finger at the united states and at israel. israelis have not commented while the u.s. says it absolutely was not them. but we should point out that security officials who have looked at what has happened today in iran say that these types of explosions killing dozens of people in a very

public fashion is not consistent with the way israel traditionally carries out these types of strikes overseas. they say it is more consistent with the types of attacks we often see from extremist groups in the region, such as various offshoots of isis. we don't know who was behind this. this is ratcheting up tensions and raising fears that the entire region is at risk of spiraling into a much broader conflict. >> and to that point, talk about the assassination of this top hamas leader just yesterday, who he talk about this top hamas leader yesterday and what they were told as it was already underway. >> he was the number two political leader in hamas. he was a founder of the group's militant wing. very much linked with iran and a key intermediary between hamas and its supporters in tehran. this assassination came

according to state media from an israeli strike. now the u.s. officials and a person briefed on the operation confirmed to nbc, it was an israeli strike. that they notified the united states about only as this operation was already underway. that person tells me this is just the start of an offensive effort by the israelis to try to rout out and kill hamas leaders wherever they are in the world. not just the gaza strip and the west bank. that person says we can expect to see more assassinations as they try to eliminate the hamas leadership. >> i have less than a minute left. a speculative connection between these attacks. what are you watching for as this unfolds? >> reporter: the big question is what is the retaliation going to look like? iran? the houthis? hezbollah? others are promising punishment to israel. we are seeing a lot of

cross-border fire today. israel has been bracing for more retaliation. the question is will that kind of retaliation really come and will this lead to that second front in a war between israel and hezbollah in lebanon that israel has been fearing for many weeks now? >> for us in tel aviv, josh, thank you for your reporting. take a quick break. we'll be right back. and is crushed by a baby grand piano. are you replacing me? with this guy? customize and save with liberty bibberty. he doesn't even have a mustache! oh, look! a bibu. [limu emu squawks.] only pay for what you need. ♪ liberty. liberty. liberty. liberty. ♪

finally for us today, 2024

is bringing national elections to unprecedented 60 countries this year. 4 billion people, half the planet. with it comes a test to democracy worldwide. according to one washington think tank freedom house, global freedom declined for the 17th consecutive year in 2023. from increasing threats to the threats to journalists. elections everywhere from the united states to india to the e.u. parliament. mainly a rise in politics and completely shifting the dynamics. she received the nobel peace prize put it starkly. we're electing ill liberal leaders democratically who will know whether democracy lives or dies by the end of 2024. that is where our eyes will be pointed this coming year. another break for us. we'll be right back. 'll be righ.

do you like that bone? i got a great price on it. did you see my tail when that chewy box showed up? oh, i saw it. my tail goes bonkers for treats at great prices. sorry about the vase. shop and get a $30 egift card through january 14th, at chewy. ♪ (upbeat music) ♪ ( ♪♪ ) with the push of a button, constant contact's ai tools help you know what to say, even when you don't. hi! constant contact. helping the small stand tall. what is cirkul? cirkul is the fuel you need to take flight. cirkul is the energy that gets you to the next level. cirkul is what you hope for when life tosses lemons your way. cirkul, available at walmart and hi, i'm kevin, and i've lost 152 pounds on golo. (uplifting music) my biggest concern when i started golo was food. i'm a big guy and, shockingly, i like to eat. i was worried it was gonna be like other diets

that were bland and restrictive. but with golo, my meals are great, and i'm no longer hungry like i was before. i'm so pleased i gave golo a shot. don't wait, go to golo.com.

thank you as always for spending part of your wednesday with us. we are so grateful. "the beat" withari melber starts right now. >> welcome to "the beat." we're joining you in this week as the rockefeller christmas tree is still up. i told you we would count that. we have reports on trump's immunity claims. plus, accountable for gun lobbyists. that story from the trial of wayne lapierre is coming up. our top story is this 2024 campaign that is here whether you like it or not. indeed, last night we had the reports from iowa where the caucus is now just 12 days away. can you believe that? tonight right now we begin with how the biden white house