stories are real. why not give it a try? ♪♪ good to be with you. i'm katy tur. can donald trump run for office?

it is not a simple question, and anyone who argues it is isn't thinking hard enough about what is in front of the supreme court. late last summer, a bunch of legal scholars, including some prominent conservatives said, wait, don't print the ballots for the 2024 primary season too soon because the candidates might not all be qualified. specifically the front runner for the gop nomination, donald trump. trump, these scholars argue, violated the 14th amendment, section 3, which says if you engage in insurrection or give aid or comfort to those who have, you cannot hold elected office in this country. essentially you can't swear an oath to the constitution after you tried to overturn that same constitution. looking at what donald trump did on january 6th, the scholars argue it is not even close. trump absolutely violated amendment 14, section 3, and that the secretaries of state across the country are

duty-bound to bar him from the ballot. if not them, then voters or perhaps another candidate should sue, and that is exactly what happened in colorado where a group of republican and unaffiliated voters argue trump was not qualified, and they won in the state's supreme court. now, the issue is in front of the country's supreme court where the nine justices are being asked by both colorado and just now donald trump to weigh the constitution against the rights of voters. trump argues that taking him off the ballot would be the very definition of anti-democratic. and some legal scholars say trump may have a point. rick hassan, an election law expert, and director of the safeguarding democracy, says trump's argument is a strong legal document, it does raise serious and difficult questions, including whether this is, one, a free speech issue, or two, one

that should really be resolved by congress. so what will the supreme court do? and when will they decide if they'll do anything at all? they haven't yet agreed to hear the case, and every day they delay gets us closer to voting. iowa is in eleven days, new hampshire is in 19 days, and then it's nevada, south carolina, and super tuesday's one, two and three. 2024 is coming at us fast, and time is of the essence. joining us now, nbc news correspondent, garrett haake. the big news today is that donald trump himself has appealed this to the supreme court, and it came rather quickly for his team which is used to delaying. what are they arguing? >> they make broadly two arguments, that it should be up to voters to determine who their candidates for the presidency of the united states is that donald trump meets the technical requirements laid out in the

constitution and that it be inappropriate in this case for the state supreme court or they would probably argue a state election official like what we saw in maine to make that determination for them. separately, they make technical arguments about the text of the 14th amendment, and whether it applies to donald trump here. first they argue that there was no insurrection. we could debate that point to the end of time, but they also argue that certainly he was not charged with insurrection, he has not been convicted of insurrection, and goes further to argue that donald trump as president doesn't count as what's called an officer of the united states. that's the language of the 14th amendment that goes on to list other positions but doesn't mention the presidency. those are technical, legal questions that it may be up to the supreme court to answer, and if they decide to take up this case, try to address just those technical questions or the broader questions about who really should get to pick who's on their ballot, and how our democracy should function when it comes to elections. >> should you be allowed to say, vote for jefferson davis in this scenario, and that's one that's

going to be in front of the supreme court in theory, obviously. let me ask about the schedule for the primary ballots themselves, and the printing. what's the time line when it comes to the primary schedule? >> well, it's important to remember that the colorado supreme court stayed its own decision meaning that donald trp's name stays on the colorado ballot unless and until the supreme court acts, basically in agreement with the colorado supreme court. the deadline is supposed to be the 5th. that's tomorrow. they start sending out ballots later in the month, and ballots can be sent to colorado voters in mid-february. colorado conducts its elections entirely by mail. there are early deadlines. i think it's reasonable to assume that donald trump's name is going to be on these ballots, at least when they get printed, probably when they get sent out. i don't think it's reasonable to expect the supreme court to take this up and act on the case in the incredibly condensed time line. >> the state deadline to certify the ballot, january 20th.

to military and overseas ballots. february 12th, first day ballots can be sent to other colorado voters. that's coming up very very fast, and the printing does take some time. garrett haake, thank you very much. joining us now, msnbc legal analyst, lisa rubin, so you watched the court. what is your expectation of when and if they will take this up? >> katy, i think they will take this up, and the decision by maine secretary of state, sheena bellos to disqualify trump for her state ballot, increases the likelihood that john roberts and his colleagues will make a decision with respect to his cert petition from donald trump. the question is when, however, and that's one that the court and only the court can decide. you noted at the outset that the decision is stayed right now. which means donald trump will appear on the colorado ballot unless and until there is a decision from the united states supreme court either upholding

the colorado supreme court or vacating that decision in some way, you know, either way, right now, donald trump is on the ballot, and therefore, the united states supreme court may not feel itself in any hurry. they also may make a determination that it is premature and not right when someone is just running in a primary to invoke section 3 of the 14th amendment. indeed, that's one of the arguments that team trump makes in their brief to the court, and that's a convenient off ramp for the supreme court, particularly a supreme court that might not want to deal with the facts of whether or not former president trump has engaged in or participated in an insurrection. >> that leads me to a lot of questions. one, i'll ask you this, if it gets to the general election and the supreme court is weighing this, would they feel more comfortable in the general election saying that the republican candidate is not qualified? that seems to be even higher stakes. >> it is higher stakes but at the same time, at that point

when we're talking about a general election, that person is much closer to quote, unquote, holding the office, which is language that's used in section 3 of the 14th amendment. the question of whether or not a primary is when a state can trigger the 14th amendment is a grounds on which at least one state supreme court has taken a pass at this, saying it's premature at this point. it's just a primary. the primary process is one that has to be controlled in that state, in that case it was minnesota. the party controls the primaries, not the state apparatus, and therefore to the extent that this is a question of law, this court is going to determine, the minnesota supreme court said we're not going to deal with this now, we can deal with it later, however. >> does it get more pressing for the supreme court if other states start getting involved. we have maine. others could try to declare donald trump unqualified as well. the secretaries of state could do it alone. it could go through the courts system. if there are more, does the supreme court feel more pressure, and does that hasten

their decision? >> i think it does, and just the possibility that there could be more, i think, hastens their decision. the instant there were two instead of one, the likelihood of the court taking the case increased exponentially, and it was already quite high. that having been said, i don't believe that this supreme court will rule in a way that requires donald trump to be disqualified across all 50 states ballots. nor do i believe they will uphold the colorado supreme court in a way that allows other states to make their own patch work of decisions. the worst case scenario here is that the supreme court would uphold colorado, and yet say that the colorado district court's factual findings were its to make but certainly not binding on any other secretary of state or state court. and that could set off, katy, a pattern of chaos, the likes of which we still have not seen in

the electoral landscape that characterizes our country. >> we're going to have noah bookbinder from crew on to explain what they're arguing. but the colorado court said donald trump engaged in insurrection, that's why he's off the ballot. crew argued it's clear he engaged in insurrection, could the supreme court say we're not so sure he's a part of this. we're not sure we can call this insurrection? >> i don't know that the supreme court would take it on an up or down, we don't know if this is insurrection or not. again, their job here is to review the findings of the colorado district court as reviewed by the colorado supreme court, and my guess is that they will hue very closely to that review role as opposed to making independent findings of their own. my guess is that they will try and skirt the question of whether president trump engaged in an insurrection or not and instead try to find an off ramp for themselves that is just on the question of law. i will tell you that finding one

of those off ramps may be hard for the reasons that judges and legal scholars have found. my guess is among the technical legal arguments that one could make, including those in the trump brief, the supreme court will avail itself of at least one of those. >> got it. lisa rubin, thank you very much. joining us as promised, presidents of citizens for responsibility and ethics in washington, noaa bookbinder, representing the voters seek to go disqualify donald trump in colorado. good to see you. it's been a minute. let me ask you whether you think this is a complicated issue for the supreme court. is it? >> you know, i think the question of whether donald trump engaged in insurrection is not complicated. we've had only two states that have dealt substantively with that point. they found donald trump did engage in insurrection. i think the facts and law on that are very clear. i think there are some questions

that are a little bit new as to, you know, whether courts can make this kind of determination. who does this apply to. i actually think that as courts get into it and commentators across the political spectrum get into it, i think we're finding that actually a lot of those are clearer than people thought, and really point toward enforcing the constitution and enforcing it against donald trump. but there are some, you know, some meaty issues that it makes sense for the highest court in the land to take a run at. >> like what? >> like the question of does the 14th amendment disqualification clause, is it something that courts can enforce or does it require congressional action. now, we think it's clear that courts can enforce it. you know, that was -- the 14th amendments passed together.

nobody would suggest that congressional action was required to free enslaved people or to give the vote to african americans or ensure equal protection, which were other provisions that came in the same slate of amendments. we don't think it applies here. that's something that certainly, you know, would be very useful to get the supreme court's guidance on that point. similarly, we think it's clear that it applies to the president of the united states, but again, that's an issue that, you know, probably makes sense to have the supreme court weigh in on. and give some clarity. >> the conservatives on the court call themselves originalists, they call themselves textualists. if you are arguing to them to abide by the text of the constitution, the original reading of the constitution, what does it say to you? what should they see in those words? >> well, you know, we think it

was very clear that this provision, which was put in place after the civil war, was meant to say that people who were in positions of responsibility in the government, who then engaged in insurrection, who essentially sought to overturn the authority of the constitution shouldn't be put back in charge of it. we think the language is very clear on that. we think that as we've looked at that language as it appears in the constitution as a whole and as it was understood at the time, clearly applies to the president. and that, you know, this is one case where originalism makes clear that the purpose of this constitutional provision is to protect the republic from those who attacked it in exactly the way that donald trump did. and so, you know, that if you

take an originalist approach, and look at what that language says and how it was intended by the people who wrote it, this is the case that they had in mind, and it clearly applies here. >> there are those who will argue including donald trump's team that taking him off the ballot is anti-democratic, that the voters should have the say. if he's left on the ballot after a colorado court found this, if the supreme court doesn't touch this or decide colorado was wrong in some way, are they essentially saying someone who engages in insurrection is allowed to be president. are they saying someone like jefferson davis could have been president? >> i think that that is essentially what they would be saying if they prevent the enforcement of this important constitutional provision. you know, i find it rich that the person who tried to keep himself in power after losing an election, which would have disenfranchised millions and

millions of americans is now saying that somehow enforcing the constitution is anti-democratic. what donald trump did was the very definition of anti-democratic, and the problem with the argument of we should just let the voters decide is that we did that already. that's what happened in 2020. the voters decided they didn't want donald trump back. he refused to accept those results. and ultimately that led to a violent insurrection. the idea that somehow we're going to do the same thing four years later but it's going to work differently or better doesn't seem to make a lot of sense, and that's why the framers of the 14th amendment put this key protection in there. >> this amendment was put in place after the civil war. it's a civil war era. civil war reactionary member. is it fair to compare january 6th to the civil war? >> obviously the scale is different. you know, the civil war was, you know, in many ways arguably the most traumatic event in the history of our country. but the basic idea of trying to

overturn the constitutional order of our country is similar. what happened in 1860 is that there was an election, and part of the country didn't like who won that election, and said we're not going to abide by that. we're going to do a different thing. that has a lot of similarity to what happened in 2020. and certainly, you know, it's clear from writings at the time, and the history that the people who wrote the 14th amendment meant for insurrection to be broader than just a civil war. it applied to, you know, we think it shouldn't be too broad. it shouldn't be applicable in a lot of situations. but when you have use of violence to try to interfere with the smooth transfer of power, that is very clearly an

insurrection. as contemplated in the 14th amendment. >> is crew behind any other lawsuits out there, anything else that could come up? >> we're really focused on this colorado case and doing it right, and making it stick. so that is our focus. we helped out, we made sure that in maine that our colorado trial record could come in to the record in maine. it's not our case. but we did play a role that way, but, no, we're really focused on, you know, making sure that this case, which has had this momentous effect carries through and is preserved. >> and then one last question, i know you're going to file your response to trump's appeal. do you have an expectation of when the courts might weigh in on this, when the supreme court might weigh in? >> we really don't know. the supreme court keeps its own

counsel as to timing. we know that the colorado republican party has asked them to expedite this. our clients, the republican unaffiliated voters who brought the suit have asked for it to be expedited. we think that everybody involved thinks this needs to move quickly. my expectation is that we will hear from the supreme court soon, maybe within a matter of days setting out what their course of action is. but we really don't know. >> it's a big fundamental question in front of them about the nature of our democracy and who can be being. thank you very much for joining us. we appreciate it. >> and coming up, why exactly can't congress pass a bill to fix the immigration crisis? what precisely is in the way? senator chris coons joins us. plus, iran blamed the u.s. and israel, now the islamic state says it is behind yesterday's bombings. what does iran say now?

first, though, how much money did donald trump make while he was president from foreign governments like china? house democrats say they have literal receipts. we're back in 60 seconds. in 60s

donald trump made nearly $8 million from foreign governments while he was president, according to a new report from house democrats. 20 foreign governments paid millions to various trump businesses, including his hotel in washington, d.c. joining us now, nbc news senior capitol hill correspondent garrett haake. democrats argue this is a violation of, wait for it, the emoluments clause. what else did they find, garrett? >> this is my constitutional hour, katy. jamie raskin leads the democrats on the oversight committee. he was interested in this question when donald trump was president and the committee staff worked together to put this report together that covers

the first two years of the trump administration, and in it they find as you laid out some $7.8 million that flowed from foreign governments to donald trump's pockets through things like his hotel here in washington, d.c. his hotels and other buildings in new york. all of these payments legal, but they argue all of them ethically questionable at best because it would be an opportunity for these foreign governments, which included china and saudi arabia among others to influence donald trump as president. we have not heard from trump himself on this, but eric trump, his son who deals with a lot of the business side of things did so when trump was still president indicated that, you know, this is all basically much adieu about nothing, and none of these governments successfully influenced donald trump, so why are they still talking about it was his argument. >> 5.5 million from china. 615,000 from saudi arabia. there was a big arms deal with saudi arabia, and that was the first place that donald trump went when he made a foreign visit as president. so there's that.

it's interesting timing-wise because the republicans right now are trying to go after president biden. they're going after hunter biden claiming that they were making money off foreign governments and using their influence and their position in an untoward manner while biden was vice president. >> yeah, and i think it would be reasonable to assume that the timing of this suggests an effort to inject the last president's financial entanglements about whether or not this president has foreign financial entanglements. democrats have long made this case here when you're talking about an impeachment inquiry into joe biden and business dealings that involved his son or that happened when he was out of office, you're missing the forest for the trees, essentially, because you just had a president who was involved with foreign business dealings himself while he was in office. now democrats will be able to point to this report as you said with receipts as kind of a jumping off point for making exactly those kinds of comparisons as we start into

impeachment season on capitol hill. >> garrett haake, thank you very much. coming up, the gridlock in washington over immigration could be worsening the crisis at the border. what is congress actually ready to do about it? i'll ask senator chris coons. first, though, the doj says texas is violating its law. stay tuned. for you. humana can help. with original medicare you're covered for hospital stays and doctor office visits, but you'll have to pay a deductible for each. a medicare supplement plan pays for some or all of your original medicare deductibles, but they may have higher monthly premiums and no prescription drug coverage. humana medicare advantage prescription drug plans include medical coverage, plus prescription drug coverage. and coverage for dental, vision and hearing. all wrapped up into one convenient plan. plus, there's a cap on your out-of-pocket costs!

humana has large networks of doctors, hospitals and specialists across 49 states. so, call or go online today and get your free decision guide. humana - a more human way to healthcare. the first time you connected your godaddy website and your store was also the first time you realized... well, we can do anything. cheesecake cookies? the chookie! manage all your sales from one place with a partner that always puts you first. (we did it) start today at godaddy.com (tony hawk) skating for over 45 years has taken a toll on my body. i take qunol turmeric because it helps with healthy joints and inflammation support. why qunol? it has superior absorption compared to regular turmeric. qunol. the brand i trust.

every day, more dog people, and more vets are deciding it's time for a fresh approach to pet food. they're quitting the kibble. and kicking the cans. and feeding their dogs dog food that's actually well, food. developed with vets. made from real meat and veggies. portioned for your dog. and delivered right to your door. it's smarter, healthier pet food. get 50% off your first box at thefarmersdog.com/realfood i love your dress. oh thanks! i splurged a little because liberty mutual customized my car insurance and i saved hundreds. that's great. i know, right? i've been telling everyone. baby: liberty. did you hear that? ty just said her first word.

can you say “mama”? baby: liberty. can you say “auntie”? baby: liberty. how many people did you tell? only pay for what you need. jingle: ♪ liberty. liberty. liberty. ♪ i think he's having a midlife crisis baby: ♪ liberty. ♪ i'm not. you got us t-mobile home internet lite. after a week of streaming they knocked us down... ...to dial up speeds. like from the 90s. great times. all i can do say is that my life is pre-- i like watching the puddles gather rain. -hey, your mom and i procreated to that song. oh, ew! i think you've said enough. why don't we just switch to xfinity like everyone else? then you would know what year it was. i know what year it is. 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. the justice department is suing texas over a new law that would allow state authorities like sheriffs or local police to arrest migrants they suspect of entering the u.s. illegally. federal prosecutors are asking the court to declare that law invalid and to block texas from enforcing it before it does take effect on march 5th. joining us from texas, morgan chesky. explain why they think it is invalid. >> reporter: in a word, they are calling it unconstitutional,

arguing that texas is over exceeding its authority to protect borders. that solely is a federal responsibility. they say that they gave texas an ultimatum, basically take this law off the books by january 3rd or we will sue, and they now have sued. we have heard a response from texas leaders. governor greg abbott sharing he likes his chances in court if this law is challenged and the attorney general ken paxton sharing that they are more than willing to fight the biden administration over this law, which as you mentioned will go into effect in march. in the meantime, texas also fielding another challenge from the state of new york. the mayor of new york city, adams sharing today, katy, just a short time ago, that he plans to sue more than 15 charter bus companies from texas for more than $700 million in costs, in damages, essentially, because that's what it cost the city of

new york to house the migrants that these bus companies took to the city from texas. all part of what governor greg abbott has said is illuminating the problem here on the border with some of these, what he calls, sanctuary cities. so texas fielding lawsuits from multiple place right now. this field that was fielding thousands of migrants weeks ago is empty. there's a temporary lull in the illegal crossings. nobody expects that to last much longer. we embedded with the texas tactical marine unit, troopers that patrol the river. their job has shifted from one of law enforcement to a humanitarian effort, and they're responsible for some of these dramatic rescue efforts we have seen in the middle of the rio grande, migrant families being pulled from the water. some of them in the process of drowning. those troopers, katy, tell me there's not a single one of them in that entire unit that has now not personally rescued someone

crossing this river that they call deceptively dangerous. as for what resources or help it would take, everyone down here says they don't know the exact answer. they just need an answer sooner than later, katy. >> morgan, thank you very much. and immigration is a major campaign issue. every campaign cycle. because it's an issue that never gets solved. for two decades now, congress has tried on and off to come to some agreement, and for two decades, nothing has happened. not even when there was bipartisan lawmakers backing bipartisan legislation, and not even when one party controlled congress and the white house. so i ask this earnestly, why. joining us now, democratic senator from delaware, chris coons. i'm earnest in my question, senator, why can't this get solved? >> katy, tragically, partisan politics has prevented us from getting to a solution.

i have been in the senate more than a dozen years and participated actively in several different bipartisan working groups. we spent hundreds of hours together in the last administration after president trump told senators graham and durbin that if they could come forward with a bipartisan proposal, he would embrace it, and we would be able to get something big done. we were bitterly disappointed, those of us who had worked on that bill when we got the bill to the floor, and that exact day, president trump started calling and calling members of the senate to lobby against the bill. we had 60 votes when we started. when we finally called the roll, we only had 54. that would have put $25 billion into building the wall that president trump was demanding in exchange for legalizing dreamers and doing a number of other important things. right now, as you know, katy, a bipartisan group of senators is finishing weeks that they have spent negotiating along with

input from the biden administration a change in law to help promote border security, to help reduce the number of illegal crossings, to help make positive progress. my hope is that the former president donald trump will not once again weigh in and prevent that bipartisan compromise from moving forward. >> i wonder if part of the issue, and i've been told this by very senior officials and former administrations who were in charge of issues like immigration, whether this is an issue that lawmakers -- i'm not accusing you of anything, but that lawmakers broadly actually want to solve or if it's a better issue for them politically because they can so effectively campaign on it? >> well, katy, i can tell you, i effectively want to solve this. so do many others. a bipartisan group of us went to the border to yuma, arizona, and to el paso, texas, and then to mexico city last year, and out of those conversations, two good

friend of mine, congresswoman veronica escobar, a democrat of el paso, and congresswoman maria salazar of florida wrote the dignity act, a broad bipartisan challenging bill that would deal with a whole range of things that we ought to be legislating towards. i haven't been able to get strong support for that in the senate. it hasn't moved forward in the house. they are the latest pair in a long number of house members and senate members who in the dozen years i have been there have tried to move forward. i agree that sometimes partisan politics encourages members to make a campaign issue out of this rather than solving it. but it's in the best interests of our nation that we promote border security, we continue to increase legal migration, we find paths toward legalization of those who are here and want to contribute to our society and meet the work force challenges

that we have. and that we fund the requests from the biden administration to increase border security and to make possible a humane, safe and legal immigration system. katy, it's been broken for decades, it's going to take american voters saying we're willing to have you compromise on a solution that will move us forward. my hope is that's what we'll see happen when we return from our christmas, from our new year's break next week to the senate. >> i hear you, and when you're talking about voters broadly for the senate, they're kind of different than voters broadly for individuals in the house because the districts are gerrymandered. >> that's true. >> the primaries are, you know, made up of the extreme wings of individuals bases of support. is it possible to fix an issue like this. is it actually possible to fix an issue like this when you have so many in congress who are beholden to very small minorities that are keeping them

in office? >> katy, i remember back when president biden began running for the presidency in 2019. many of my colleagues derided him as out of touch and out of step because he believed in bipartisan solutions. now look back at the record of the first three years of the biden presidency. he has signed into law broad bipartisan bills to address gun safety, community mental health, investing in infrastructure, bringing manufacturing back to the united states, things that many thought we couldn't legislate on, he's found ways, we have found ways in congress to get to his desk. big bills that address all sorts of issues. if you're asking the question is it possible for us to solve difficult problems, you're really asking the question, can democracy still work in america. i believe it can and it must. and our president is delivering an important speech tomorrow

near valley forge, pennsylvania, to remind us that the whole history of the united states has been overcoming huge challenges, finding ways to work together and to reach compromise even on difficult and divisive issues. we're in a very hard, very partisan moment in our politics today. our country is very divided, but frankly, we overcame the great depression. we overcame the second world war. we have solved big problems together in the past. there's no reason that we can't solve big challenges today. and it's my hope that we'll once again prove that the american political system can work, must work, should work for the american people. >> senator, i'm out of time. can you tell me in one word or two words, if you could fix one thing about our system, gerrymandering, finance, what would you fix to make congress work better. >> campaign finance is an absolutely critical issue, but frankly, trust in each other and

our ability to find a way forward together underlies our challenges with the whole system. >> i'd say gerrymandering. senator chris coons, thank you very much for joining us. >> thanks, katy. jimmy kimmel called aaron rodgers a soft brained, and might take rodgers to court. first, secretary of state antony blinken is headed back to the middle east to try and stave off a wider regional war. what happened today to increase those fears? those fears? it 's a pretty big deal. kinda like me. order in the subway app 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.

yesterday, iran blamed the bombing at general soleimani's memorial on the u.s. and israel. the islamic state says it was actually them. nbc news has not yet corroborated their claim. here is teheran bureau chief ali arouzi with what happens now. >> reporter: a lot of new information is starting to emerge after yesterday's twin bombings that killed at least 85 people. just in the last few hours, the islamic state group on their official telegram channel have claimed responsibility for those deadly bombings in southern iran. they say the two suicide bombers with explosive vests detonated them in the middle of that crowd, about ten minutes apart from each other. they took great pride on their

telegram channel saying that they had killed around 100 people in those suicide attacks. and it was a blow to shias. just before they made that claim. iranian state tv released a report saying investigators in this country believe that suicide bombers were likely had carried out yesterday's attack during the commemoration for leader kasim soleimani. a report quoted an unnamed official as an informed source saying that surveillance footage from the route to the commemoration at the cemetery clearly showed a male suicide bomber detonating explosives, adding that the second blast probably also came from another suicide bomber but they're still trying to determine that. now, you'll remember yesterday, iranian officials were saying

that there were two explosive-laden suitcases that were detonated remotely. now the situation looks very different. also yesterday iranian officials were very quick to point the finger at israel saying that this was an israeli-american operation. now, the islamic state has taken responsibility for this. it's going to be interesting to see who they lay the blame on. we talked about this wasn't an israeli m.o., that they do targeted strikes and not mass casualty strikes. this goes in line with the islamic state's claims. but iran, in the past, after islamic state or other militant suni groups have carried out terror attacks in the country have said that israel and the united states are behind those attacks too, so it will be interesting to see how they cover and spin this attack in the coming days and weeks. joining us now from beirut is nbc news foreign correspondent keir simmons, you

had these duel bombings in iran. you had the assassination of te leader in beirut. hezbollah is angry about that, beirut is angry about that. israel and gaza, what are the fears about this widening into a broader war especially as countries look internally, if we're talking about hamas, and say, hey, we're hosting some of these hamas leaders, could we be next? >> reporter: yeah, listen, i think, katy, that hezbollah are angry and ostensibly angry, publicly angry, not angry enough to escalate this into a full-scale confrontation with israel. the leader of hezbollah, nasrallah could have done that in many of the months gone by. didn't do that. so i think that's the calculation that israel will have made before launching this drone strike on this hamas leader here in lebanon. but a counter point to that in terms of, you know, that's kind

of to suggest that there is still some stability by the tension. a counter point, just thinking about the week that we had. we had that assassination of that hamas leader here in lebanon, then those explosions that ali was talking about in iran, which iran accused israel of being behind. then it turns out it's isis, and now we have a u.s. strike on an iran-backed militia leader in iraq. he was killed by a drone strike there. and the u.s. saying that he had targeted u.s. military in iraq. but iraq is furious about that, saying that it contravenes an agreement that iraq felt it had with the u.s., and then you've got the houthi rebels in yemen, continuing to fire and send drones, the latest a sea drone

in the red sea, 12% of shipping in that area, a real impact on the world economy if it doesn't stop. it does appear to be a real push to try and stop it, but how do you? and just think about this, saudi arabia has fought a seven-year war with the houthis, failed to silence them. and we haven't even talked about gaza, so that just gives you a picture of just how inflamed the region is, and the risk. and this is why secretary blinken is coming, again, the fourth time. the risk is that at some point any one of these situations escalates and you do get that wider regional war we have been warning about. >> it is a big risk and i don't think anyone is looking forward to anything like that. keir simmons, thank you very much. coming up, what quarterback aaron rodgers did to make jimmy kimmel threaten to sue him. nyquil honey, the nighttime, sniffing, sneezing, couging, aching, fever, honey-licious, best sleep with a cold, medicine.

power e*trade's award-winning trading app makes trading easier. with its customizable options chain, easy-to-use tools and paper trading to help sharpen your skills, you can stay on top of the 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 (son) dad. you ok? (dad) and stay oit's our phone bill! we pay for things that we don't need! bloated bundles, the reckless spending! no more... (mom) that's a bit dramatic... a better plan is verizon. it starts at 25 dollars a line. (dad) did you say 25 dollars a line? (sister) and save big on things we love, like netflix and max! (dad) oh, that's awesome (mom) spaghetti night -- dinner in 30 (dad) oh, happy day! (vo) a better plan to save is verizon. it starts at $25 per line guaranteed for 3 years and get both netflix and max for just $10/mo. only on verizon. with nurtec odt,

i can treat a migraine when it strikes and prevent migraine attacks, all in one. don't take if allergic to nurtec. allergic reactions can occur, even days after using. most common side effects were nausea, indigestion, and stomach pain. ask about nurtec odt. with the freestyle libre 3 system... know your glucose levels no fingersticks needed. all with the world's smallest and thinnest sensor. manage your diabetes with more confidence and lower your a1c. try it for free at freestylelibre.us. my name is caron and i'm from brooklyn. i work for the city of new york as a police administrator. i oversee approximately 20 people and my memory just has to be sharp. i always hear people say, you know, when you get older, you know, people lose memory. i didn't want to be that person. i decided to give prevagen a try. my memory became much sharper. i remembered more! i've been taking prevagen for four years now. prevagen. at stores everywhere without a prescription. right now get a free footlong at subway.

like the new deli heroes. buy one footlong in the app, get one free. it's a pretty big deal. kinda like me. order in the subway app today. looking for a bladder leak pad that keeps you dry? all of the things that you're looking for in a pad, that is always discreet. look at how it absorbs all of the liquid. and locking it right on in! you feel no wetness. - oh my gosh! - totally absorbed! i got to get some always discreet! there's a 4:00 p.m. police

conference in iowa about the latest school shooting. this at a high school in perry, iowa. republicans have been stepping across that state, but regulating access to guns has not been a campaign issue, which is stark since the laws on the books right now, both on mental health and guns themselves, are clearly not working. in 2023, 42,959 people were kill ed by guns. 656 of them were in mass shootings. 1,119 were at schools. how many more people will die unnecessarily this year in 2024? we hear all about the mass immigration at the border and the national security threat it poses to american safety. what about the number one culler of children in this country, what about the guns? when will we hear more about that security issue?

joining us from perry, iowa, ali vitali. so you're covering two things for us today. you're covering the shooting at the high school. and two, you're covering the republicans who have been campaigning across iowa. tail light me how these two stories converge. >> reporter: i started today thinking i would be covering vivek ramaswamy on the campaign trail with about two weeks to caucus. it culminated with me standing here listening for what the candidates were saying in response, but really watching as yet another school found itself at the center of this mass shooting crisis that you so deafly detailed in your introduction. the fact that kids here four days into the new year, their first day back after winter break, and before classes even officially began, there were calls and reports at 7:37 this morning of a shooter in the building behind me. i caught up with aer mother, who said it was the scariest moment of her life to get a text message from one of her kids inside that building saying

there was a shooter on the loose. and then we also heard from students hours after they were able to leave that building about what it was like inside. listen to this one account. >> people are calling their parents, friends, and then we hear he's down. you can go out. i run. you can just see glass everywhere. blood on the floor. i get to my car and they are taking a girl out of the auditorium who had been shot in her leg. >> reporter: you can just hear how heartbreaking and stunned that girl is. i have seen local members of this community at local businesses talking about trying to support each other during this time. many of them saying to me they can't believe that a moment like this finally has come to perry, iowa, but every community we cover, unfortunate ily during these tragic moments, say they never think it could happen

where they are. they are chris kosing the state because it's so close to caucus time. they have offered thoughts and prayers, but the question ha has to be asked, and the governor will be at this ten pretrial conference, at what point do you have to consider the guns in policymaking. it's a question we ask in washington, d.c. law make rarely come up with an answer. certainly on a state level, we have seen actions taken, whether it's restricting gun violence or making it easier to access weaponry, i think that's the question that has to be posed to these politicians both the ones running for federal office, people like ron desantis saying that he's upset to see a moment like this happen, but he wouldn't detail any kind of gun violence prevention legislation he would push for. the poicy conversation kind of goes in circles and never goes anywhere. >> first school shooting of the year. it's january 4th. ali vitali, thank you very much. joining us now -- we'll be right back. don't go anywhere. now -- we'llt

back don't go anywhere. and something serious may be behind those itchy eyes. up to 50% of people with graves' could develop a different condition called thyroid eye disease, which should be treated by a different doctor. see an expert. find a t-e-d eye specialist at isitted.com for moms, from centrum. ♪ (this new mom here i go) ♪ ♪ (i am strong and brave) ♪ ♪ (i know) ♪ ♪ (with a little time for me) ♪ ♪ (no doubt i'll get through) ♪ ♪ (loving me is loving you) ♪ from centrum, the women's choice multivitamin brand.

when you walk up to the counter at the pharmacy and you have a new prescription, you don't know what it's going to cost. that's why i always recommend you check the singlecare app before you go to the counter. i found the cheaper price with singlecare! yes, you did. see. give it a try. go to singecare.com or download the free app today. ♪♪ it's two things a young man want to be, a cowboy or a gangster. and a gangster's out of style. i got back to my roots. we come from a long line of cowboys. my grandfather, my great-grandfather, my aunt even rode horses. when i see all of us out here on this ranch i see how far our legacy can go. now on sale at ancestry. 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. ♪ ♪ join the millions of people taking back♪ ♪eir privacy ♪ ♪ you can save.

espn's pat mcafee is offering a public mea culpa to jim kimmel after aaron rodgers suggested on his show his name might appear in the jeffrey epstein's documents. he says what kimmel is saying and what rodgers is not. >> a feud heating up in the new year. >> i can understand why jimmy got mad. >> reporter: espn sports host pat mcafee apologizing for controversial comments made on his show by jets quarterback aaron rodgers. rodgers i appearing to suggest, without evidence, there might be a connection between late night host jimmy kimmel and sex offender jeffrey epstein. >> a lot of people, including jimmy kimmel, are really hoping

these documents aren't released. >> reporter: referring to documents released that included names of hundreds of people tied to epstein. kimmel oos name not among them. >> there could be things that were probably meant to be talk joke that can then become something that is obviously a serious allegation. >> mcafee noting he and rodgers recorded tuesday's show on two hours of sleep after the rose bowl game adding he didn't think the comments were serious the calling it locker room talk. >> i think aaron is like, hey, he said stuff about me in his monologue. i don't think he meant anything else. but he's going to have to clarify that. they have been jousting a bit. sfwlr over the past few years, the comedian has made the nfl star a punch line on his show. frequently criticizing rodgers for conspiracy theories and his anticovid vaccine stance. >> he received a home owe pathic treatment over the summer.

nothing says i heal myself with crystals like this haircut. >> but kimmel making it clear in a post that rodgers' latest comments are no laughing matter denying any association with epstein and threatening legal action writing your reckless words put my family in danger. it's unclear if his family has received threats over the matter. after giving rodgers a platform to speak on his show, mcafee now leaving the door open to clarify his comments. >> we apologize for being a part of it. can't wait to hear what aaron has to say about it. >> i wonder what he will say. that's it for me today. "deadline white house" starts right now. hey, everyone. it's 4:00 in washington, d.c. the nine justices on the united states supreme court receive is up to 8,000 requests to hear a case every year. out of those thousands of requests, they usually hear oral