evaluate the problem. it's not clear if they were related to the explosion. in a statement boeing has apologized to airlines passengers saying we are committed to ensuring every boeing airplane meets design specifications and the highest safety and quality standards. a little bit more on those pressurization warning lights. there are three warning lights, the first trip suggesting there might be a pressurization problem, when the captain checked the backup systems, there were clear. that's why the plane was allowed to keep flying. they thought maybe they had a bad censor. back to you. >> it is terrifying. tom costello, thank you very much. that's going to do it for me today. "deadline: white house" starts right now. ♪♪ hi, everyone. 4:00 in new york. the question of whether the rule of law extends to everyone in

the country, including a former president, was the subject of a hearing today in a federal courthouse in washington, d.c. attorneys for donald trump and federal prosecutors argued over trump's claim that the federal election case against him should be dismissed because everything he did in the postelection period was in his official capacity as president. the three-judge panel that is hearing the case appeared spectacle of that claim. the ex-president and jack smith were in the courtroom today. trump has been claiming that president joe biden has been forcing him to appear in court, which is not true, he did have no obligation to appear at today's hearing. trump's attorney argued that allowing the prosecution of donald trump would, quote, open a pandora's box, but the judge has pushed back on that and many of the arguments he was making. trump's lawyer also argued that the president could only be

prosecuted if he was impeached and convicted by the senate first, no matter what he did. no matter how criminal his conduct was. listen to this exchange with judgelorence pan who mes a reference to s.e.a.l. team 6. >> a president who ordered s.e.a.l. team 6 to assassinate a political rivho was not impeached, would he be subject to criminal prosecution -- your answer is no. >> my answer is qualified yes. >> i asked you a series of hypotheticals about criminal actions that could be taken by a president could be considered official acts and have asked you, would such a president be subject to criminal prosecution if he's not -- and your yes-or-no answer is no. >> i believe i said qualified yes if hs impeached or convicted -- >> so he's not impeached or convicte let's put that aside.

you're saying a president could sell military secret, could order seal team 6 to assassinate a political rival. >> the sale of pardons has come up but not prosecuted. >> it goes on like that. even the one republican appointee on the panel expressed skepticism that trump was acting in his role as president w tried to overturn the election results. >> i thinkt's paradoxic to say that his constitutional duty to take care that laws be faithfully executed allows him to violate criminal laws. >> representing the justice department, james pierce. he said that the case puts the justice system and the country in uncharted territory but that's the more reason there should be criminal

accountability for donald trump. >> never before has there been allegations that a sitting president has -- with private individuals and using the levers of power, sought to subvert the democratic republican and the electoral system. frankly, if that kind of fact pattern arises again, i think it would be awfully scary if there weren't some sort of mechanism by which to reach that criminally. >> a decision by the appeals court could come within days. after that, whoever loses, they're expected to appeal to the supreme court. one way or the other, this is getting to the supreme court. that's where we start with legal analyst lisa rubin back with me at the table, plus former top prosecutor at the department of justice, andrew weissman and ryan reilly is here. he was inside the courthouse for us today. good afternoon. thank you for being with us. andrew, i don't know that much shocks you these days. but you were actually shocked by this argument that the president can do what he wants to do

criminally while he's president. >> what i would say is, i was stepping back and listening to you and to lisa and to the comments from msnbc all day and, you know, if you step back and think about what we are experiencing, we had an argument today where the president's counsel said that he could engage in bribery, he could engage in murder as a sitting president. unless he was impeached and convicted, he could get away with that. we are about to in two days have closing arguments in a civil fraud trial where the former president has already been found liable for fraud. a week from today there will be a second trial by e. jean carroll where a jury, not

prosecutors, not a judge, but a jury has already found that he engaged in sexual assault and defamed the -- e. jean carroll, the plaintiff there. this is not the unluckiest man in the world. this is somebody who we really have to ask ourselves who is voting for him and why. because there will always be people like donald trump in the world. that is a given. those kinds of people exist and will exist. what does it say about this constellation of cases where so many different types of people and jurors, grand jurors, trial jurors, have found him responsible. it is not a vast left-wing conspiracy against him. and today's arguments which in many ways were so shocking to

hear someone say that when it has been assumed for so long that a former president is not above the law and it's clear that's, of course, what the court will say here. >> lisa, you have been involved in this the whole time and like andrew, i'm curious after watching you all day, how this is crystalizing for you. for those of us who are not lawyers, there were some things that donald trump's teams said that were quite shocking. >> they were shocking and yet at the same time, they went down differently. in october of 2019 when i was just behind the scenes staffer, i went to hear an oral argument here in new york at the second circuit that oversees federal trial courts in new york, connecticut and vermont. i watched a lawyer argue for former president trump that he could stand in the middle of fifth avenue and shoot someone and there was nothing that the nypd could do about that. he made that argument and the

context of a case where the manhattan district attorney's office was seeking financial and tax records as they were investigating what the former president had done before he was president. and when he said he could stand in the middle of fifth avenue and shoot someone and the nypd could do nothing, there was widespread laugher in the courtroom. some of it was nervous laugher. today by contrast, when john sauer made an argument that seal team 6 could attempt to assassinate a rival at trump's direction, you couldn't hear a sound. and i think part of that is been -- we take him as a danger and a threat than we did even in october of 2019 because of everything that has come since then. and so what i am sitting here

wrestling with is both how little has changed, but also how much has changed. >> it was remarkable. ryan reilly, one of the arguments that donald trump's attorneys made today was if you do open a president to charges of anything that he did while he was president, presidents will be hamstrung. they will simply not make decisions because they're a fear of prosecution. it was one of the very, very few moments in this hearing today where donald trump reacted. he sort of stood there, stone-faced most of the day. but he did have a reaction at that moment. >> yeah, donald trump also was scribbling these notes to his lawyers on a yellow legal pad. he was mostly stoic when the special counsel's team was arguing, but then his lawyer -- when his lawyer got up, he was sort of -- had jotted down his notes and he was sort of more animated during that. i think the most excitement donald trump saw in this proceeding was when his lawyer

said that he was winning in the polls. that was something that he liked. so of course you're sitting there and there's a bunch of these citations and cases that folks like andrew and lisa are going to know and people like me without a law degree, but it seemed to be arguments that went over donald trump's head and he liked the political moments. he started shaking his heads, i'm winning in all the polls. he got a little bit more animated in -- it seemed like -- i interpret as his lawyer ended slipping in some arguments on rebuttal, that donald trump wanted him to make because he was passing the notes back and forth -- >> interesting. >> i couldn't read -- >> that's intriguing. >> let's examine this thing. i'm winning in the polls. it's january. there's an election this year. the trump impeachment lawyer during the senate trial said

this about -- made a reference to that today. listen to this -- >> there is no such thing as a january exception to impeachment. there is only the text of the constitution which makes very clear that a former president is subject to criminal sanction after his presidency for any illegal acts he commits. there is no january exception to impeachment. there is simply a way we treat high crimes and misdemeanors. allegedly committed by a president when he is in office impeachment and how we treat criminal behavior by a private citizen when they are not in office. >> andrew, the argument back then by people who didn't think that donald trump should be impeached but thought he did something wrong or maybe broke the law is, that's what the criminal process is for. right after the senate acquittal of donald trump, that's what

mitch mcconnell said. now the argument is, it's an election year. i'm running. we've had this argument. it doesn't end. either he's prosecutable or not. >> it's great that you played this clip. this issue of what the former president said and his council said to the senate at his second impeachment trial came up from the judge at the oral argument today. why? it came up because the former president's argument is that when you're dealing with conduct that is within the official conduct of the presidency, unless and until there is an impeachment and a conviction in the senate, he cannot be criminally prosecuted. that is a prerequisite to criminal prosecution. judge pan asked about exactly the statements that you have

cited, there were others that were cited as well says, didn't essentially you argue the exact opposite when you were in your -- in your impeachment trial saying, don't convict me here. you can always have criminal prosecutions later. and mitch mcconnell made that exact point as well. in a normal case, as lisa knows well, this would be -- you would be viewed as waiving or forfeiting the argument that you have to have been impeached and convicted if you tell that tribunal no, no, no, you don't need to. i can still be criminally prosecuted. it's complete inconsistency and the judge was all over that and there was no good response from donald trump's counsel today on that issue. >> lisa, i want to hear from you on this. one of the things i heard you and chuck talking about today was that, you know, if that's true, if you can't be -- if you

have to be impeached before anything can happen, then a president can commit a crime and then resign and avoid impeachment. >> that's absolutely right. the president can resign and automatically make his legal problems disappear. it is a nonsensical argument. first of all, it's practically nonsensible for the reasons you identified. but it is also a misread. it is structurally at odds with other separation of powers principles and it is ahistoric. given that we're talking about a future appeal to a supreme court that is obsessed with the text, structure and history of the constitution, put aside the fact that it makes no sense to an average american who thinks, wait a second, the guy can only be criminally accountable if the senate convicts him first after the house impeaches? if the house impeaches and the senate does nothing, he gets to walk away? but this is a supreme court that has to wrestle with the other

three pieces of this too. it doesn't textually work out. it's not supportable in the structure of the constitution and the reason that the judgment clause exists in this first place is because british parliament used to jail people and the framers wanted -- when they were establishing our republican, to make clear that the senate did not have those criminal law enforcement powers. that's the entire import of this impeachment judgment clause. it's meant to be a limit on the senate. not a get out of jail free card literally for a former president. >> and yet that, ryan, the argument that donald trump and his lawyers are making. you're often inside the court, you're often outside the court to see what the antics are. we've been talking about over the next seven days, there are a few trump appearances or trump legal matters going on. what are his capabilities and what does he do on the political

side after these things? what did he do after this trial today, after this hearing today? >> logistically i think the courtroom in d.c. is a little bit more of a challenge because of the way it's structured and the way that they get him in. they took him in through the garage, and you can't have any cameras, obviously, inside of the courthouse. there wasn't an opportunity for him to sort of walk out to the cameras and, you know, the secret service obviously wouldn't like that if you went out to the cameras. there were cameras outside. there weren't a lot of supporters. i saw one guy walking around with a flag, at least, that i saw when i was outside the courthouse. but he went in and out. he's brought through the back panels to the courthouse, you know, i think that he was basically not seen within the courthouse, except within that courtroom and brought actually back out through the basement there. afterwards, he ended up speaking at a nearby hotel, sort of had to have an off-site location for him to have a press conference because i think, you know, the reason that he goes to these things, really, is to get that

media exposure and get the clips and make the points in front of cameras and maybe sent off a few truth social posts. there was no requirement for him to be in the courtroom today. it made it difficult for the court to deal with his presence. he has the right to be there. but i don't think it was certainly something that would -- would really -- help you hone in on the issues here, more of a side distraction of him being there all together. >> he did lead into it on truth social later on. he gave all the reasons a president wouldn't do something if they could be criminally charged with anything they did while -- as you say, ryan, it's nonsensical. but he did actually do it. don't go anywhere. coming up, his latest message to voters is about the stock market. we'll look at how that is playing with evangelical voters.

and the federal election case, he's trying to use the same arguments in some of his other pending court cases. reaction from today's stunning day in court where the ex-president claimed that everything that happened on january 6th was simply part of the job. one of the frontline responders to this day, harry dunn joins us, all of that and more when "deadline: white house" continues after this. d more whe "deadline: white house" continues after this like when e a big soft shoulder to cry on. which is why downy does more to make clothes softer, fresher, and better. downy. breathe life into your laundry. >> woman: what's my safelite story? i'm a photographer. and when i'm driving, i see inspiration right through my glass. so when my windshield cracked, it had to be fixed right. i scheduled with safelite autoglass. their experts replaced my windshield and recalibrated my car's advanced safety system. ♪ acoustic rock music ♪ >> woman: safelite is the one i trust. they focus on safety so i can focus on this view.

>> singers: ♪ safelite repair, safelite replace. ♪ hi, i'm sally. i'm from phoenix, arizona. i'm a flight nurse on a helicopter that specializes in trauma. i've been doing flight nursing for 24 years. as you get older, your brain slows down and i had a fear that i wouldn't be able to keep up. i heard about prevagen from a friend. i read the clinical study on it and it had good reviews. i've been taking prevagen now for five years and it's really helped me stay sharp and present. it's really worked for me. prevagen. at stores everywhere without a prescription. i brought in ensure max protein with 30 grams of protein! those who tried me felt more energy in just two weeks. -ugh. -here, i'll take that. woo hoo! ensure max protein, 30 grams protein, 1 gram sugar, 25 vitamins and minerals. and a new fiber blend with a prebiotic.

all right. we're back with lisa, andrew and ryan. lisa, let's talk a little bit about -- another argument that was made, donald trump, his lawyers made the argument that this is political. that somehow joe biden is

prosecuting donald trump. that's a political argument. it was interesting to hear his lead lawyer there, john sauer who is a very, very accomplished lawyer. he was, i think, the solicitor general for -- >> for missouri. >> yeah. it was interesting to hear him take what seemed like political arguments and try and make them into legal arguments. >> and we've seen that repeatedly in this very case. donald trump is represented by two former federal prosecutors. these arguments have made their way into their filings as well. it was still nonetheless stunning to me to see an argument that transparently political made at the d.c. circuit which has neil is fond of saying is the court just below the supreme court. even though it has appellate courts, it's seen as junior varsity supreme court, to see it made by a clerk to a judge who

has taken a very different view of former president trump's amenability to suit, to see that come out of john sauer's mouth today, even though i'm never shocked to the lengths at which donald trump's allies will go to salvage him and make political arguments into legal hay, that almost took my breath way, particularly because of the way in which it came up. it came up because he was being asked if we allow your client to be prosecuted, are the flood gates going to open. he said the future is now. look at what's happening to my client. he's being prosecuted the president who is directing this prosecution. we know that's not the case. >> how do you make that -- how do you establish that legally, though, andrew weissman? that conversation comes up a lot, that discussion about donald trump says it all the time, that's his -- that's a central grievance of his. but today was an important

hearing that could determine the future of this country. how -- what do you say back to that argument that donald trump is being persecuted legally by the sitting president of the united states. >> well, let's just focus on the legal answer to that. judge henderson was -- had that question which is what's your response government to the concern about flood gates. and the government basically i think tracked very much what judge chutkan said. that there are a number of -- they're never processes in the system to deal with that concern and let me just jump to the biggest and most important check on that. it's not the -- it's not prosecutors who decide to indict somebody, a grand jury indicts something. and ultimately it is a trial jury that has to find guilt

beyond a reasonable doubt unanimously in the federal system. so this is not just, oh, you can just throw someone in jail. we are not yet russia, we are not yet an autocratic system where the leader of the country can just throw someone in jail. this is where there are due process rights and donald trump, like every defendant -- as we're all seeing, is getting not just the same rights and privileges, but more than most defendants would get under similar circumstances. and i think that's the real answer to this concern of essentially sort of political persecution of someone being singled out. is that we actually have a jury system here that takes advantage of that and that's one of the things that i think so many millions of people in america have participated in civil and

criminal juries. and so that cynicism about the system i think is somewhat undercut by the fact that people have been part of that system in this country. it is not just the elites who take part in that judicial process, whether it's civil or criminal. before someone goes to jail, it is the american people who have to decide and it's at the highest standard under the law before someone can be sent to jail. >> lisa, were you -- what did you -- the judges all pushed back on arguments. they all had good questions and citations. to which john sauer had counter citations. did you feel the politicalization of the prosecution of donald trump, do you feel they asked the requisite questions or that they were fairly satisfied that that's not a thorough legal argument. >> a little bit of both. could they have pressed a little bit more? yes, they could have pointed out, for example, that one of

the arguments made by the special counsel in the case wasn't appointed properly is not one that the trump folks have shared or made themselves. so if they really think, for example, that former president biden is pulling the strings, why are they not contesting the appointment of jack smith or not saying something to that effect in their legal arguments. that having been said, i agree with andrew, that james pierce really had a nice response to that. the other thing is, you can't allow trump's threats to become the court's predictions of what the future looks like at large in a world that trump is no longer president in. in other words, the things he's saying he would do if he becomes president, again, can't be allowed to dictate what the rule of law is. >> andrew, back to the process just for a second. when will we know about this and what happens next? is it clear that whatever happens when goes to the supreme

court? >> those are great questions. stay tuned for our podcast episode that we're going to get into that. mary mccord predicted one week, i thought one to two weeks. i think it's going to be very fast. there's not a lot that the circuit judges really need to wait for at this point. they've had the briefs. they knew this case was coming along. they now have the benefit of the oral argument, know that they have expedited the case and so i would think it would be very quick. the one thing i would say is it's not absolutely clear that the supreme court will take this case. i think donald trump is going to lose and he will seek eventually to go to the supreme court. he might seek rehearing for the whole d.c. circuit to hear the case. why would he do that, because it delays the matter.

he could also try to go to the supreme court. it's not clear, though, that the supreme court will take it. i think they probably will, but they may just decide to sit out because, remember, the standard rule is the supreme court takes a very, very small fraction of the cases where people are trying to get their case heard by the supreme court. so they may decide that this is such a frivolous argument, they don't need to weigh in on it now. they can wait and see what happens at the trial before judge chutkan, if there's a conviction, they can hear it later. >> that was such a good answer that i'm going to pretend that we have that thing in the bottom right corner of your screen that you can scan to your phone where you can listen to where you discuss this in greater length than we just did here. i appreciate that. i've been looking forward to this conversation all day. thank you. we are definitely smarter for this. after the break, it's one of the most counterintuitive political relationships in

modern american history. donald trump and one major demographic in particular. who they are, the ways they've changed and how they ought to view his latest anti-american meanderings. that's next. anti-american meanderings. that's next.

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

(♪♪) (♪♪) (♪♪) we have an economy that's incredible. we have an economy that's so fragile and the only reason it's running now, it's running off the fumes of what we did, what the -- it's just running off the fumes. and when there's a crash, i hope

it's going to be during this next 12 months. because i don't want to be herbert hoover. >> as if an attempted coup hasn't made it clear already, that for donald trump, it's never been about what's best for the american people. it's been about what's best for donald trump. you heard him right there. in the span of a few breaths, predict an economic crash and then wish it on his political opponent for fear that it could hurt his public image. shocking? i suppose. surprising from him, not really. the real head-scratcher is why so many people identify with such an openly hostile, un-american position. evangelical voters in particular were paying attention to because of the first caucuses in iowa. their beliefs appear to be antithetical to trumpism and yet they continue tbe among his most loyal coalitions. compelling new reporting from the "new york times" asks why. scholars drawing on a growing

body of data expect one explanation, evangelicals are not exactly who they used to be. being an engelical once suggested regular church attendance and strongly views of specific issues. day it's used to describe a political identity. one in which christians are considered aercuted minority, traditional institutions are viewed skeptically and mr. trump looms large, end quote. joining me now is a staff writer for the atlantic and author of the book, the kingdom, the power and the glory, american evangelicals in the age of extremism. thank you for being with us. when your book came out, we started this conversation a little bit. you're familiar with the constituency i'm talking about. you are from the constituency that would call itself evangelicals. and you've discussed these changes with me in the past. what do you make of this analysis?

>> yeah, look, i think it's right. we have to understand that the primary driver of the evangelical political identity at this moment has very little to do with specific policy proposals, even over some of the most contentious, most divisive polarizing issues like sexuality, school curriculum, alleged indoctrination. at the end of the day, those policy battles are really not what animate the evangelical mind at this moment. really as that piece in the "new york times" gets to, it is this sense of aggrievement, this sense of prosecution, a very real sense of cultural expert political displacement. and so when you think about a voting group that believes that they are losing something, that

they are forfeiting a status in society that they have enjoyed and that many believe that they're entitled to when you think about it in terms of it in sort of a us versus them, good versus evil, how do we fight back against them, that relationship with donald trump makes a lot of sense. >> i want to for a moment step away from the cultural identity and talk about the theological, the messianic type of messages that donald trump is involved in. i want to play a little bit of an interview that nbc had with a trump supporter named bethany at a caucus event in iowa. let's talk about it on the other side. >> i'm being indicted for you. my first thought went to, well, jesus christ died for my sins. and so i -- it connects in my brain that way, like, okay, he's doing this for us as a country to make the changes we need to make and he's the target. we don't have to be.

>> i mean, it's kind of amazing that donald trump succeeded in using that sort of language and having it land the way he was hoping it land with some people like bethany. help me out with that one. >> well, look, let me just be blunt. i think that what you see and what you hear there from bethany has as much to do with what isn't happening inside of her church, inside of her religious community as what is happening with donald trump. and what i mean by that, is that in the absence of serious bible-based discipleship in which followers of jesus are trained and are taught and are formed to follow him in the right way and to order their spiritual identity ahead of their political or cultural or tribal identities, in the absence of that happening what

you see is that sort of conflating of a religious identity with a political identity and you begin to assign a sort of messianic salvation capability to someone like donald trump or just to anybody in the political arena for that matter and i think that we can look at donald trump all we want as a -- as a driver of this and he certainly looms large in the imagination at this point, but i think that we have to get back to basics. we as christians have to get back to basics and try to examine what is being taught or i think more often what is not being taught inside of our churches to avoid this sort of idolatry. >> there was a time where starting from trump's election in 2016 onward where we understood this relationship between evangelicals and donald trump to be somewhat transactional. he had promised that he would put conservative judges on the supreme court and on courts

across the country and he did. he delivered on that. this article implies, the "new york times" article implies that it's less about the transaction now. there's something else. it's morphed into a different kind of relationship. what's your sense of that? >> yeah, i mean, in many ways, that's sort of the unifying theme of the book that i've written which is to say that for lks who feel like the end is near and that the barbarians are at the gates and their time of persecution which has been told for generations and finally it is here, that this is the moment where the forces of good and evil are colliding, you become less concerned with finding allies who are good. you just become concerned with finding allies who will fight against that perceived evil. what's interesting is that many of trump's most fervent evangelical supporters, they

don't fall into this trap of assigning some, you know, moral rectitude to him or certainly even falling into this complex, but they will view him as a necessary -- as a necessary evil. they will view him as somebody who because he's not a christian, because he's not bound by biblical etiquette, he doesn't have to play by their rules. he's an ideal partner to do the dirty work and do what's necessary to defeat their shared enemies in the culture and that is, again, it's dangerous not just politically, it is deeply destructive at a theological level. >> i recommend that people read the book because it's a good analysis of what is real right now. tim, great to talk to you. thanks for being with us. >> my pleasure. coming up, donald trump letting his allies doing the heavy campaigning in iowa and setting themselves up for a return to washington. how voters are responding to the stand-ins. that's next. responding to the stand-ins. that's next.

just six days now until the iowa caucus and you might expect the front-runner to win next monday's contest to be crisscrossing the state. think again. donald trump's strategy foreshadows what his year is going to look like for presidential candidate juggling 91 felony indictments along wit trump is being represented by collection of campaign surrogates in the final days before the caucus. many of whom appear to be

auditioning to be part of a future trump administration. happy to stand in for trump while he opts for the spotlight of courtroom appearances over meeting voters. vaughn hillyard spells out how donald trump has put the minimum amount of effort into campaigning in the hawkeye state since launching their white house bids. donald trump has held 34 iowa events compared to the 160-plus events by ron desantis. in the last month, trump that be in iowa five days, desantis, 15 days. joining us now, vaughn hillyard in des moines, iowa, with the look going on. that's what des moines, iowa, should look like in january. good to see you, my friend. let's talk about this. the conventional wisdom in iowa, you go there, you go there a lot, you go to the 99 counties, do that two times if you're vivek ramaswamy, donald trump is not doing any of that. >> reporter: no. i'm looking for something to cover. four years ago i was covering pete buttigieg and he was crisscrossing the states, five, six events today.

eight years ago, ted cruz, he was doing six, seven, eight events a day. donald trump is not here. and the trials he's taking part in are an excuse so far. he chose to show up in a d.c. courtroom today and on thursday he's choosing to appear in that new york civil fraud trial for his closing arguments. but tomorrow night, it's not a public event that he's taking part in. it's a fox news town hall. that's it until this weekend. i'm told that kari lake is on her way now to the state of iowa to campaign on his behalf. and i also just learned that don jr. is holding an event standing in for his father here on thursday. so a week before the iowa caucus, it's a little abnormal. but donald trump is abnormal and his lead over his other republican rivals is also abnormal. >> marjorie taylor greene interestingly enough is somebody who is supporting -- not interesting that she's supporting him, but in terms of the iowa voter, they're leaning fully into the trump, trumpism

side of things. they're not trying to play a broader republican field. >> no. marjorie taylor greene, matt gaetz. look, there's a reason that they're sending these folks out. because iowans know who they are. the republican electorate around this country knows who marjorie taylor greene is. she's not a fringe figure of this party. she is a true loyal supporter of donald trump. somebody who has the ear of donald trump, somebody who is an intermediary between capitol hill and donald trump. if he were to win the presidency, could very well be vp or a cabinet official. for the folks here that are on the ground, i remember a year after kari lake lost her race for governor, kari lake within weeks was holding her own campaign event out here in iowa and there were hundreds of people here. these are national figures. these are the most dominant figures of the republican party today, ali. it's no surprise that donald trump is leaning on them to help

turn people out for monday. >> and yet the prognostications are that donald trump is possibly going to win with a bigger lead than most anybody has ever won in iowa. >> reporter: that's what we're looking at here at this point. i've talked to numerous republican party activists, those that don't like him, including the former chair of jeb bush's campaign in iowa, and there's sort of a shrug of the shoulders. this is the state of play here. iowa is not a state where independents can come take part in the republican caucus unless they actively go change their party registration on caucus night. right now at 7:00 p.m. next monday night, we are looking at a negative 25-degree windchill at 7:00 p.m. when caucus doors open on monday night. and so what are you looking for if you're a presidential

candidate? you're looking for loyal, enthusiastic supporters and that's exactly what donald trump has. >> it's great to see you. thank you, my friend. i appreciate your work. coming up next, an update to the recent hospitalization of the defense secretary lloyd austin. we'll be right back. defense sec stauin we'll be right back. an upda

hospitalization of the defense secretary, lloyd austin.

walter reed officials out with a statement announcing that he was diagnosed with prostate cancer. it was identified in early december, and on december 22nd, austin underwent a minimally invasive surgical procedure to treat it. he was readmitted due to a resulting infection. a statement on the diagnosis coming days after the public and more importantly the white house learned that they were kept in the dark about his stay in the hospital. i want to bring in nbc news national security and pentagon correspondent courtney kube who's following this story. it's a story that's a little more complicated than we all thought. until you know these things, you don't know that the defense secretary is unique. they've got more power in certain circumstances than any other cabinet secretary. >> right, let's say some of the worst case scenarios, there's an attack coming to the united states, to washington, d.c. he would be one of the people who would get on an urgent phone call and make a decision about a potential response option. or after the attack, he would be

one of the people who would get on a phone call and make a decision about a potential response. yes, he is one of the members, a critical member of the president's cabinet, and national security apparatus. that's why there has been so much outcry about his decision not to notify the president, the white house and senior people here in the pentagon that he had been hospitalized and, in fact, was in intensive care unit with very serious condition, an infection, and a build up, we learned today, a build up of fluid in his abdomen that had to be drained. it's been several days that he was in the icu. he's now out. he's recovering, but that statement that you referenced earlier even denoted, acknowledged that this could be a slow process for him to recover from this. the good news here, you know, now that we know that he was treated for this prostate cancer, the original procedure that he had on december 22nd that led to all of these complications, his prognosis is good according to the statement. the shocking information we learned today is that secretary

austin did not even notify the white house of his early december diagnosis with prostate cancer until today. only hours before the public found out about it. >> and courtney, i've got about 30 seconds left, but the white house is going to undergo a review of the process that allowed this to happen. >> exactly. the pentagon is looking at how this happened, trying to put together a time line. they have already ordered from now on if there's a transfer of authority, a hospitalization or if the secretary is incapacitated for a period of time, there's a list of people that need to be notified. secretary of the chief of staff at the white house putting out specific guidance if they transfer authority to deputies they need to notify the white house, the sit room, et cetera. this is leading to change in procedures. i think what's surprising is those procedures didn't exist. >> thanks for your amazing reporting on this and everything else you do. more on the pivotal

arguments in a d.c. courtroom today, the consequences of the president and the rule of law was put to the test. the next hour of "deadline: white house" continues right after the break. ♪i screened with cologuard and did it my way.♪ cologuard is a one-of-a-kind way to screen for colon cancer that's effective and non-invasive. it's for people 45 plus at average risk, not high risk. false positive and negative results may occur. ask your provider for cologuard. ♪i did it my way!♪

i have an article 2 where i have the right to do whatever i want as president but i don't even talk about that. >> when the president does it, it's not illegal? >> i'm just saying a president under article two is very strong. read it. >> when somebody is the president of the united states, the authority is total, and that's the way it's got to be. >> the authority is total? >> it's total. >> hi again, everyone, it's 5:00 in new york.

i'm ali velshi in for nicolle wallace. total, as you heard, all encompassing, and legally protected. it was the same argument his lawyer made in court before three federal appeals court judges who heard attorneys from the ex-president and the special counsel jack smith on the question of presidential immunity. trump has attempted to halt jack smith's january 6th case claiming that the things he did while he was president are entirely free from legal liability. no decision was made today and one is expected to come quickly. the judges, however, seemed skeptical about the broad claims that donald trump's team was making. trump's lawyer at one point went so far in his defense of trump's im that he said this. >> could a president who ordered seal team 6 to assassinate a political rival who was not impeached, could he be subject to criminal prosecution? >> if he were impeached and convicted first. >> so your answer is no?

>> my answers qualified yes. >> i have asked you a series of hypotheticals about criminal actions that could be taken by a president and could be considered official acts and i've asked you, would such a president be subjrinal prosecution if he's not impeached or convicted and your answer, your yes or no answer, is no. >> i believe i said qualified yes if he's impeached and convicted yes. >> so he's not impeached or convicted, let's put that aside. you're saying a president could sell pardons, could sell military secrets, could oer seal team 6 to assassinate a political rival. >> sale of pardons is something that's come up historically could not be prosecuted. >> so he's good if he's just selling military secrets. the issue of presidential immunity is a historic question. never before has a former

president been criminally indicted. as we know, he's facing 91 criminal accounts across four cases and waving around his presidency like a get out of jail free card. yesterday, a federal appeal's court, rejected trump's immunity claim in the e. jean defamation suit. in georgia, trump has claimed presidential immunity there too. his lawyers filed a motion to throw out the charges he faces in the racketeering case say the acts in question lie at the heart of his official responsibilities as president, end quote. hugely consequential questions about the presidency and our nation's rule of law put to the test by the ex-president. that's where we start this hour with the former assistant united states attorney and nycb legal analyst, glenn kirschner who was inside the court thousands today. also joining us, "new york times" washington correspondent glen thrush, and the former

congressman from florida, david jolly. welcome to all of you. glenn kirschner. let me start with this idea that donald trump, a president, can do anything they want to do including murder people, including send seal team 6 in if it's during their presidency and an official act of presidency. >> yeah, none of the three appellate court judges was buying what it was donald trump's criminal defense attorney was selling, and really, donald trump's entire argument boils down to one clause of the constitution, the impeachment judgments clause. let me try to do this in a laymen's friendly way. basically that clause says, a president can be impeached by the house, convicted in the senate, trial on the articles of impeachment, and he can still be criminally prosecuted.

what trump's lawyers tried to do is take that and turn it on its head and say, well, you know, to these three judges, it doesn't really mean what it says. so let's set aside the plain language because what the framers were doing is they were putting in place an impeachment first rule. in other words, if the president is not first impeached and then convicted by the senate, he can never be prosecuted by the department of justice. the thing is, the plain language of the impeachment judgments clause doesn't stand for that proposition, and the judges just kept lodging these truth and logic and consistency bombs at donald trump's lawyers saying things like, so wait a minute, you're saying if the congress decided not to impeach the president, they would basically be giving him immunity because he could never be criminally prosecuted? or if he resigns before an impeachment trial, he would be

giving himself immunity because he could never thereafter be prosecuted. the judges were having none of it. >> david jolly, remember those days in donald trump's second impeachment hearing everybody was making the case that this is not the venue for this. this should be done in the criminal courts. in fact, when he was acquitted by the senate, it's the first thing mitch mcconnell said. there's a venue. donald trump did bad things, and there's a venue to deal with this. there would be criminal courts. apparently this is a different group of trump people who are making the arguments today. >> yeah, i don't think mitch mcconnell could have foreseen this argument, and i would suggest, ali, this is a very humiliating day not just for donald trump but trump's team. what i find fascinating about this all or nothing kind of nixon on steroids ask for relief, that somehow whatever he does, even shooting somebody, must be overlooked. that is a bit of a pivot from the early argument, even some of

the written briefs in this case where they said that donald trump was acting within the outer perimeter of his office. right? that somehow donald trump as president does have an interest in the fair administration of elections, but i think the reason they've given up on that angle a little bit is even if that was the standard, sure, the fair administration is within the outer perimeter, trump actually fails his own standard because of all of the facts in this case. because what donald trump tried to do was chase votes for donald trump, not secure the fair administration of the election. an easy question of donald trump would be, what did you do in cases where perhaps joe biden or democratic voters we aggrieved. how did you try to resolve those favorably, and obviously they didn't. they have gone for this nixon defense that he can do whatever he wants and i think in a very public way, this is a humiliation for the president and the president's legal team. >> glenn thrush, the outer perimeter that david jolly is

talking about is it was just my job defense. the crux of the whole case against him is he wasn't doing his job as president, he was involved in what jack smith alleges was criminal activity. but here's his lawyer. john saur, trump's lawyer, the former solicitor general in missouri, a very experienced and smart lawyer. here's another point that he was making, if you hold a president liable for thingse does in office, here's what he says the danger is. >> if a president has a look over his shoulder or her shoulder every time he or she has to make a ctroversial decision, after i leave office, am i going to jail for this, when my political opponents take power, that inevitably dampens the ability of the president. >> there are two arguments that he's making in there. both of them seem more political than legal. but the lawyer, john sauer, is trying to make them legal. if one is charged and convicted

or tried and convicted of something, he will do fewer things, he or she will do fewer things and the second part, the last sentence was, if his opponent was elected. john sauer is saying, this is a trump argument he uses all the time, this is a political prosecution. >> well, look, and this was the one area where the judge who was on the three-member panel who was a republican appointee seemed to indicate at least a minimal level of sympathy with the trump legal team. she said you could open the flood gates potentially if you don't restrict, place some sort of legal restrictions on prosecutions of former presidents, but this is very clearly a stupendous extension of the powers of the presidency. and i would add something to your excellent introduction, in his florida documents case, he is arguing essentially that those powers transfer to his

presidency. so when you take both of these cases together, he is essentially arguing for not only presidential supremacy, but post presidential supremacy, which is just an extraordinary extension of powers. and the other thing i should say is just being someone who's read a lot of presidential history, presidents were worried about being -- about the long-term knock on effects of their actions throughout american history. always concerned about potential criminal liability, and other liabilities. lincoln agonized over some of the decisions that he made that he himself perceived as extralegal, including issuing of the emancipation proclamation. this is something presidents have had to struggle with in a system that not only has checks and balances, the president not only has absolute authority with respect to the other two branches but doesn't have authority to do whatever he has regardless of what the criminal code says.

>> glenn thrush makes an interesting point, donald trump is claiming whatever he did as president he's immune for, some things after he was president he's immune for, and things bruce caster referred to as the january defense. you can't go after donald trump in january because he's the leading republican candidate to be president next time which is a pre-presidential immunity. this is remarkable. there's no way the framers said that everyone who possibly ever wanted to was, had been president is always immune from everything all the time. >> yeah. and bruce castor came up in another setting when one of the judges very pointedly said, wait a minute, bruce castor speaking for donald trump at i think it was impeachment trial number two before the senate said wait a minute, when donald trump leaves office, doj knows what to do, arrest and prosecute him. he actually said that's what they do with people like that. and the judges said now you're

arguing something that is completely contrary, and i think john sauer said it's not rice judicada, which is a fancy way of saying someone else said that. >> this will open the flood gate for, you know, people to commit crimes. >> exactly. the very first line out of john sauer's mouth when he was allowed to get to his prepared line. he wasn't even allowed to start with it because they started peppering him with questions immediately. he said if all of a sudden presidents can be prosecuted, it will open a pandora's box from which the country may never recover. i chuckled to myself because i think for about the last 50 years now, we have all been under the assumption that presidents could be prosecuted, because if they couldn't, gerald ford would not have had to deliver a pardon to richard nixon, so i think that opening line looking to appeal to the floodgates argument kind of falls under the weight of its

own because there's nothing in the constitution or the case law or the statutes that says a president can't be prosecuted upon leaving office. >> david jolly, the new republic had a write up about some of this. ays a favorable decision, meaning for trump, could unshackle trump, couldll unshackle trump in a big way. trevor morrison, associate white house counsel under obama says the key is whether the courts rule that trump has immunity on the theory that his alleged inal conduct does fall in the outer perimeter, as you mentioned, of prtial duties and how the courts define that perimeter. if they accept trad vision of immunity or something li it. he may argue that future potentially criminal acts also fall within that perimeter. so lefs rush made the point, he talks about mar-a-lago, donald

trump who's told us bad and dangerous things he's going to do if he becomes president again, we argued many of those things can happen within the existing constraints of the law. what does this look like? donald trump possibly gets to be president, and thinks that get out of free jail card is actually good? >> and i would suggest where donald trump can be most dangerous is within the latency of the application of the law. the latency of the application of justice, and what i mean by that is on this question of immunity, everybody gets an opinion, and certainly the two glenns would have a more informed opinion than i on this, but i do think that what we will see come out of this is some sort of standard. it is within the outer perimeter of the presidency to have an interest in the fair administration of elections, even though those elections are administered at the state level. it is not what we saw donald trump do. what we saw donald trump do was not involve himself in the fair administration of elections, and that's where i think justice and accountability will prevail in

this specific case. but what are we witnessing in the latency of the application of justice is the room for donald trump to do more damage and to act more dangerously. you can ask why are we here now three years later? what took so long for big justice to decide it's now time to prosecute this. you can say impeachment takes too long now because it's seen strictly through a partisan lens. the important thing is donald trump knows it takes a long time. whether it be his border policies that ultimately get overturned, the banning of immigrants from muslim nations, whether it be taking actions using the irs to conduct audits on individuals, or whether it be tampering with elections. donald trump knows if i can resolve something in my favor now, by breaking the law or defending the constitution, it may be years before i'm held accountable for that, and let's see what happens. >> glenn kirschner, talk to me

about what happens next, when do we hear from these judges and what happens with either outcome, one that's favorable to donald trump or one that's favorable to jack smith? >> you know, i think we hear something from this appellate court panel very promptly. it could be within days, maybe a week or two. i think the entire system understands the urgency of the moment with an upcoming presidential election. in the event donald trump is the nominee, i think people have every right to know whether they would be casting their vote for a convicted felon or a completely exonerated man, innocent of all charges by a jury of his peers. there will be both a petition for a re-hearing with all of the judges from the d.c. circuit court of appeals, and inevitably a appeal or seeking review, a petition to have the supreme court review it. i maintain if the supreme court is an honest broker of the law and as i always say, if is doing

a lot of heavy lifting in that sentence, i don't think they should accept it for review because there's no open constitutional principle here. there's no legal support for what we heard john sauer argue today. >> there's no legal support, and a number of experts were surprised to hear somebody as skilled and well strained and as knowledgeable as john sauer, take donald trump political arguments and try to weave them into legal theories. the judges pushed back but john sauer was doing that. the two times that trump sort of reacted during the hearing today were the times that things that sound the like political arguments that made sense to him were articulated by his lawyer. >> he is a limber lawyer. i covered sauer in the context of what was called the second amendment protection act in missouri, which is a fairly radical law that was passed in

2021 that essentially outlaws attempts to supersede federal gun laws in missouri. the justice department and a federal judge has ruled that's in complete contravention of the supremacy clause of the constitution. in missouri, he's arguing against a strong central federal government and here for trump he's arguing for the strongest possible central presidency. so he is somebody who has shown, i think, a flexibility in terms of his capacity to pivot from one legal argument to the next. >> for people who didn't listen to it, it's hard to do because there's no cameras. you're listening to the audio. worth listening to. there were a lot of interesting, and as kirschner would say, novel legal arguments made. thanks to the three of you. glenn kirschner, david jolly, and glenn thrush, a good start to the hour. one of the police officers who defended the capitol on

january 6th and a long call for accountability is taking a major step, officer harry dunn now running for congress. he's going to be our guest next. trump and his allies maybe topped themselves in missouri. that state's attorney general making the bizarre case that it's president biden, not donald trump, who's the real insurrectionist and should be disqualified from the ballot. and a disturbing trend in the israel-hamas war where journalists in gaza are being killed at an alarming rate. we'll talk to someone working to protect reporters on the ground in that war. "deadline: white house" continues after a quick break. don't go anywhere.

your shipping manager left to “find themself.” leaving you lost. 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

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 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.

appearance and his argument that he's immune from the rule of law, for alleged crimes committed while in office, speaks volumes about his plan for a second term, and for why accountability matters. for donald trump, for his codefendants across four indictments, for his unindicted coconspirators and a wide swath of the gop that still backs this man. our next guest, harry dunn has worked tirelessly to hold them accountable through extensive and emotional testimony about how he physically defended democracy on january 6th as a capitol police officer, and how he was later dismissed by republicans in congress still in denial about what happened that day. it's also why he's launched a campaign for congress joining a crowded race for maryland's third district for a seat at the table to prevent, he says, another january 6th or worse. here's just some of what dunn testified before the select

committee. >> i witnessed the rioters using all kinds of weapons against officers, including flag poles, metal bike racks that they had torn apart, and various kind of projectiles. officers were going bloodied in the fighting. more and more insurrectionists were pouring into the area by the speaker's lobby near the rotunda, some wearing maga hats and shirts that said trump 2020. i told them to just leave the capitol, and in response they yelled, no, man, this is our house. president trump invited us here. >> joining our conversation now is the former united states capitol police officer harry dunn for his first interview on this program after announcing his run for congress. harry, great to see you. thank you for being with us. people have all sorts of reasons for getting in the race. some is their past experiences, you're almost doing it to continue what you did. you were protecting that house on that day, and you were very

very fearful that the threat is not over. this is not a three year ago thing, january 6th, it may be a future thing and may get worse. it might even succeed the next time someone tries. >> yeah, ali, good to be with you. thanks for having me. it's safe to say that january 6th has been the spring board that has propelled me into this moment that we're in right now. if january 6th didn't happen, you know, maybe you and i are having this discussion ten years from now, who knows. but as an extension of public service, what better way than to continue fighting for my country, fighting for democracy, fighting for the constitution, and now for the people of the third district of maryland, what better way than to run and serve in the body of congress. >> i have to ask you about today, the stuff you heard, the idea that, a, what donald trump was doing was in his official capacity as president, b, it doesn't actually matter, even if

it were illegal, he can get away with doing that stuff. you know, we have been talking to lawyers all day. you're in law enforcement. you understand the danger of allowing a society to feel that criminal activity is actually all right. >> yeah, just the argument that how bizarre was it to hear that in court, a former president's lawyers argued that the seal team 6 could go kill somebody. just pause for a minute and think about how bizarre that sounds. that type of stuff is not supposed to happen here, and nobody is above the law here in america. just pause and think how bizarre that sounds. and one of the reasons why we're here, you know, a lot of people are overlooking, they brought up the senate, the impeachment, i hold the republican senators that voted to acquit him responsible for this moment that we're in right now. if they would have stood up and voted with what they knew was right, mitch mcconnell said it out of his own mouth that donald

trump is responsible for the actions of that day. and if mitch mcconnell, the leader of the minority in the senate, if he could have got his colleagues to vote to impeach him, we wouldn't even be in this situation right now. >> interestingly enough, part of the problem is not just donald trump and his crafty and creative lawyers, it's all of those members of congress who have gone along this, the ones who did not vote to certify the election. the ones who continue to support donald trump in this despite all of the things he's done. if you were to get elected, you'd be serving with -- i'm just guessing here -- over 100 of them, possibly 140. there were 141 or something who voted to not certify the election. that will be unusual. that will be something. these are people you protected, regardless of their political views, but who actually were there on the same day that you were and see it entirely differently, what do you think? >> i disagree that it will be

unusual. what's unusual is them walking past me every day for the last three years since january 6th, and thanking me for my service, and thanking me for keeping them safe. that's unusual. that's what's weird. me running for congress, i will be serving as their equal. i'll have a voice that won't be able to be dismissed. i'll have a seat at the table. i can't be brushed aside as some angry police officer, some activist. i'll have the ability to confront them without being dismissed. >> what would you do differently? what would you want to do? what will your priority be if you get elected knowing that actual democracy is on the line? i'm sure you have a lot of political opinions on a number of policy issues, but that this is the thing, you're running to try and save, you know, do your individual part to save democracy in this country. >> there's so many things that fall under the umbrella of democracy, too, voting rights are under attack, the women's right to choose is under attack.

all of those things fall under the umbrella of democracy. what happens if trump gets into office and he becomes the dictator, just for a day, like he said, what happens to all of those things, do they just go away with a whim. we need people willing to stand up and push back and fight. just to be clear, those individuals in congress who voted not to certify the election, they had the right to do that. it wasn't illegal. what we need in congress is more people willing to push back against the lies that they cast that vote upon. you know, we need truth tellers in congress, and that's how we will continue to fight and combat these maga extremists on the right that are election deniers, and just flat out whitewashers about what happened that day. >> in my business when you're running an election like yours, we call it a crowded field, at the moment, there are a lot of people who are trying to get the nomination to be the democratic candidate in maryland. tell me about that. what's your sense of the field,

and how you're going to prevail? >> sure. it is a crowded field, and it's a crowded democratic field, and we're all on the same team, to be frank. i support a lot of the work that the individuals running have done to this point. but right now, i refer to where we are in this country as this moment that we're in right now. you know, who knows what the next election is going to look like. who knows if we will have another election after this election. we don't know. so for this moment, i think we need a fighter that has been proven to show that i am willing to stand up and push back, and fight against all of the evil, the rhetoric that has been going on out there. and also, with all due respect to them, i left my job four years short of being able to collect the full retirement. when and if they lose the primary, they go back to their seats in annapolis, and you know, i don't have the luxury to sit around and wait for somebody else to do it. it is really important that i step up and meet this moment right now. >> harry, it's a pleasure to meet you, and an honor to meet

you. thank you for your service to the country. your very very brave service. we will not forget that. he's a former capitol police officer, a congressional candidate for maryland's third district. when we return, a tried and true playbook for the maga right, whatever donald trump is criticized for, putting the same thing on president biden. how is that playing out, after a quick break. ■ if you're happy and you know it, clap your hands. ■ ■if you're happy and you know it, ride your bike. ■ ■ if you're happy and you know it, then your face will surely show it. ■ if you're happy and you know it, smile big and bright. ■ thousands of kids just like me, are happy every day.

and it's all because of generous people like you, who support shriners hospitals for children every month. all you have to do is call the number on your screen or go online to loveshriners.org right now with your monthly gift. because of people like you shriners hospitals for children is able to make an everyday miracle happen for kids like me. ■ if you're happy and you know it, dance around. ■ ■ if you're happy and you know it, play a song. if you're happy and you know it, ■ and your face will surely show it. ■ ■ if you're happy and you know it, take a shot. ■ and when you call or go online right now to donate $19 a month or more, we'll send you this adorable love to the rescue blanket as a thank you and a reminder of all the smiles you're bringing to kids faces every day. will today be the day you send your love to the rescue?

when you call the number on your screen right now and give as little as $19 a month, just $0.63 a day, you'll be making a life changing difference for a child just like sarah. your monthly gift today could change your life forever. because of you, we are happy and we know it. thank you. thank you. thank you. thank you. please call or go online right now to give if operators are busy, please wait patiently or go to loveshriners.org right away

it's becoming a common theme in the republican party, they demand that president biden be subject to the same treatment for nothing. we saw it with the house gop impeachment inquiry into president biden, which even matt gaetz called a failure theater where house republicans basically admitted the effort was purely political tit for tat after donald trump was impeached for soliciting foreign interference in an election and then for attempt to go overthrow the government. now, in response to trump being removed from the blot in two states over his role in the january 6th insuecon, missouri secretary of state, this man, jay ashkroft, is, you guessed it, threatening to remove biden from the ballot if the supreme court doesn't intervene to keep trump from being removed. nbc news asked ashkroft how he would justify removing b from the ballot. his response, quote, let an invasion, meaning biden, letn

invasion unstopped into our country from the border. visident kamala harris supported people that were rebelling against the u.s. rnnt during the riots in 2020, end quote, referring to racial justice protests in the wake of george floyd's murder. the translation is pretty simple. you did it to our guy, now we'll do it to yours. joining us now is the democratic senator, chris coons of delaware. senator, i'm sorry to debase you with such a dumb question as to put this to you. what do you do about this? this is dumb. donald trump did actually things which it's difficult to hold him to account. it's not entirely sure he'll be held to account. ashkroft knows better. this is not a guy who's new to the political system. >> that's right. attorney general of missouri had no credible basis for his threat to try and throw president biden off the ballot in missouri in exchange for him having been

provisionally thrown off the ballot in the state of maine, in the state of colorado. that action by the states of colorado and maine and the consideration of that in other states is working its way through our judicial system. there's no basis for removing president biden from a statewide primary ballot or general election ballot. he didn't participate in any of the events around the insurrection of january 6th. the things that you just recited that attorney general ashkroft raised have no foundation in law and no relation to the elements of the 14th amendment concerns that the colorado supreme court weighed. so i don't think there is any credible basis for him to move forward with this action. >> the problem is, once you start saying it enough, people listen. i want to, you know, talk to about -- let me show you what donald trump has said about this. says we can't have every four years there's a cycle of political recrimination where

one administration attacks the prior administration. we open the pandora's box to political ption after political prosecution after political prosecution. in fact, joe biden could be prosecuted for trying to stop this man from becoming the next president of the united states. it's nonsensical because that's not actually how it's worked. you've been in the senate for a minute. in a functioning democracy that doesn't actually happen. it happens now because donald trump did the things allegedly, that he is charged with doing. >> what donald trump is trying to say there is that all of the cases against him are merely politically motivated, trumped up charges, and i think in the end, the real judge of that will be the american electorate, but also a jury of his peers in several different actions. in state court, in federal court, some of these have economic consequences. the action in new york. some of them have a personal or political consequence, the action in georgia and the federal actions.

they are all rooted, in my view, well founded charges. it is true that we have never had a president of the united states indicted, charged, criminally, certainly not for 93 counts across four different major cases that president trump, former president trump is trying to characterize all of this as baseless political theater may play to some who are his strong supporters, but i think in the end will fail. just as his 60 legal challenges to the legitimacy of the 2020 election all failed. >> senator, let me ask you about in february we're going to be two years into the war in ukraine. this problem about u.s. funding to ukraine is becoming very serious while the ukrainians are still trying to rally their troops and their people, they are literally begging america to not allow a domestic dispute about the border to stop the funding of congressionally approved aid.

>> president zelenskyy came and visited with us in the senate just before we broke for the holidays. and he is a proud and capable and strong leader. i wouldn't say that he bedding, but he pressed his case as hard as he possibly could. the ukrainian people are determined, they are brave. ukrainians are fighting and dying on the front lines every day. ukrainian civilians are dying because of russian attacks on civilian infrastructure, on apartments, on power systems. our support has been matched, actually exceeded by 50 other countries around the world. president biden and many other leaders have built a strong global coalition of support for ukraine. this is not the time. in the depths of winter for us to flag in our support for ukraine. the ukrainian economy is actually come back. the ukrainian military is holding their ground. if we continue to provide them with funding and with military

aid, i am confident they will hold their ground and retake significant amounts of it. but if we begin to fail and fade, some of the other countries in our coalition soon will as well as they turn to domestic concerns. this is a critical lynch pin moment for our standing for freedom in europe. standing up to putin, and frankly, avoiding the future costs of putin rolling over ukraine, and then threatening several of our nato allies on ukraine's borders. >> senator coons, you have cowritten an op-ed with cindy north carolina cane about global conflict, hunger, starvation, those kinds of things. we have a report from the telegraph that rising hunger in gaza is turning children into skeletons. the ngo, human rights watch has reported thattarvation m be being used as a weapon of war in gaza. you have made the point that we need to do more to protect the civilians in gaza who are not involved with hamas. >> we do. we have to do more to protect

civilians, innocent civilians in gaza. it's important to remember that part of hamas's tactics is to use innocent civilians as human shields, to locate their facilities, their tunnels, their storehouses, underneath schools and hospitals and mosques, but frankly, the level of suffering in gaza is unacceptable, and we have to get more humanitarian aid delivered in to the people of gaza. the northern most part of gaza has been almost completely cleared of hamas. the idf is in near total control. it is my hope that the israeli government will soon begin to provide directly into northern gaza and that they will increase the number of trucks cleared, the speed with which they're cleared through the two southern gates. it is heartbreaking to watch the hundreds of thousands of hungry children in gaza and the steady rise in the death toll. israel has an obligation to protect its people from hamas.

and i understand why the brutal attack of october 7th justified an attack on hamas. but the way this war is being conducted on the ground in gaza has to change. i was encouraged by the idf's recent announcement that they intend to change their strategy on the ground to reduce the intensity of combat, that they have withdrawn several combat brigades, but i think we need to see more, and i think that's a message secretary blinken is delivering in israel today. >> senator, it's always a pleasure to talk to you, thank you for taking time to spend with us this afternoon. >> thank you. great to be with you. >> when we return, an alarming number of journalists and media workers in the israel-hamas war. what's being done to help keep them protected after a short break. protected after a short break.

sometimes, the lows of bipolar depression feel darkest before dawn. with caplyta, there's a chance to let in the lyte™. caplyta is proven to deliver significant relief across bipolar depression. unlike some medicines that only treat bipolar i, caplyta treats both bipolar i and ii depression. and in clinical trials, movement disorders and weight gain were not common. call your doctor about sudden mood changes, behaviors, or suicidal thoughts. antidepressants may increase these risks in young adults. elderly dementia patients have increased risk of death or stroke. report fever, confusion, stiff or uncontrollable muscle movements which may be life threatening or permanent. these aren't all the serious side effects. caplyta can help you let in the lyte™. ask your doctor about caplyta find savings and support at caplyta.com. i'm an active mom, but when i laughed, lifted or exercised, bladder leaks were holding me back from doing

the things i loved. until, i found a bladder specialist that offered me bulkamid - a life-changing and fda approved non-drug solution for my condition called stress incontinence it really works, and the relief can last for years. take the next step at findrealrelief.com to arrange an appointment with an expert physician to determine if bulkamid is right for you. results and experiences may vary. move beyond the leaks.

. we continue to discuss how to build a more durable peace in the region. every partner i met on this trip said they're ready to support a lasting solution that ends the long running cycle of violence, and ensures israel's security. but they underscored that this can only come through a regional approach that includes a pathway to a palestinian state. to make this possible, israel must be a partner to palestinian leaders who are willing to lead their people in living side by side in peace with israel and as neighbors. >> secretary of state antony blinken in tel aviv today discussing the future of a

possible palestinian state. his remarks this afternoon came after his meeting with the israeli prime minister benjamin netanyahu where he reportedly stressed the importance of avoiding further civilian harm in gaza, and part of that civilian crisis has been the killing of journalists reporting in gaza. since the start of the israel-hamas war on october 7th, a staggering 79 journalists and media workers have been killed, according to a tallyaintained by the committee to protect journalists. "the washington post"s today that, quote, that is the single biggest death toll for journalists in a conflict zone for years, surpassing the toll exacted on the press operating in ukrair t past two years in just matter of months. by one estimate, 1 out of every 10 journalists in the gaza strip has already been killed, end quote. a snapshot of this crisis is embodied by the story of al jazeera ra's bureau chief, in the early days of the war, his wife, two children and infant

grandchildren were killed by strikes on gaza. stck his family again when an y israeli drone struck a car in rafah, killing two journalists, one of whom was his eldest son. joining our conversation, the northeast to protect journalists, shareef moore, thank you for being with us. its very very hard to be a journalist in gaza in the first place. when they are not in an active state of war. in a situation like this where it is chaotic, it is impossible for those of us on the outside to get a clear view of what's going on, what happens when journalists die? >> according to our record, especially if they are palestinian, nothing happens. the israeli army has never charged or incriminated any soldier for killing a journalist. and this is not just in this war. before this war, we made a

report called deadly pattern. we counted at least 20 cases of journalists who had been killed by israeli fire over 21 years. 2/3 of them, 13 out of the 20 were killed in gaza in past gaza wars, and also israeli bombardment and targeted the press offices, but also 13 of them were visibly identified with press signs, and there was complete disregard of the press insignia. 18 out of the 20 before this war were palestinian. we see this time around, 70 out of the 77, we've counted are palestinian journalists who have been killed in gaza. so what we see is a deadly pattern that's becoming more deadly, and i think it's merely because israeli army are not

taking any responsibility for minimizing civilian casualty, including journalists, they refuse to give any guarantees of safety for international news outlets, and they have muzzled international media by allowing them access unless they are escorted and censored by the israeli army. what we see is the most dangerous and the most risky environment we have seen for journalists. that's also the most deadly, and this is because the israeli army have killed more journalists in ten weeks than any other army or entity has ever done in our records since 1992. >> when asked about this, the israeli government has said they do everything they can to try and avoid killing journalists. what is it that you would like them to do?

well, they should be transparent about the rules of engagement, what checks they are making to avoid journalist casualties. we have asked them to inform these rules of engagement. we have asked israeli government allies, including the u.s. government to raise with them the need for them to reform these rules of engagement. we also said in the past, the pattern that they have used, the responsible journalists has killed has to end. it's designed to evade responsibilities, including doing things like what they did yesterday, saying journalists are tourists or saying that they have evidence that there is militant account, and never release any evidence to support those claims after they smear the journalists. and also they are to be serious. we need to see independent investigations, thorough, rapid investigations that can lead to holding the perpetrators

accountable, including in cases like journalist who was killed not near any fire, and was not causing any threats on the israeli position, and yet, was hit, and we have seen at least two drone precise attacks now, killing and injuring al jazeera journalists, and a pattern where journalists received threats from the israeli army, were smeared by israeli supporters, and later they were killed or the families were killed. we need to see serious accountability and federal investigation in those cases. >> shareef mansour, thank you very much. a quick break for us. we'll be right back. r us we'll be right back.

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 only at vanguard you're more than just an investor you're an owner. that means your priorities are ours too. our retirement tools and advice

can help you leave a legacy for the ones you love. that's the value of ownership. 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. this morning, just down the hall from where the ex-president's lawyers argued he should be immune from the consequences of january 6th, a man who has paid the consequences for his role, ray epps was sentenced to a year of probation, namely that he was an undercover government agent,nd those conspiracies were amplied by fox news and other right winged outfits. the dartment of justice requested six months in prison. when sentencing epps, the jud

said he hopes the threats against them subside so they can move on with their lives. epps received no jail time. but he will have to serve 100 hours of community service. another break, and we'll be right back. with my psoriatic arthritis symptoms. but just ok isn't ok. and i was done settling. if you still have symptoms after a tnf blocker like humira or enbrel, rinvoq is different and may help. rinvoq is a once-daily pill that can rapidly relieve joint pain, stiffness, and swelling in ra and psa. relieve fatigue for some... and stop joint damage. and in psa, can leave skin clear or almost clear. rinvoq can lower your ability to fight infections, including tb. serious infections and blood clots, some fatal; cancers, including lymphoma and skin; heart attack, stroke, and gi tears occurred. people 50 and older with a heart disease risk factor have an increased risk of death. serious allergic reactions can occur.

tell your doctor if you are or may become pregnant. done settling? ask your rheumatologist for rinvoq. and take back what's yours. abbvie could help you save. 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. the right age for neutrogena® retinol? that's whenever you want it to be. it has derm-proven retinol that targets vital cell turnover, evens skin tone, and smooths fine lines. with visible results in just one week. neutrogena® retinol get over here kids. time for today's lesson. wow. -whoa. what are those? these are humans. they rely on something called the internet to survive. huh, powers out. [ gasp ] are they gonna to die? worse, they are gonna get bored. [ gasp ] wait look! they figured out a way to keep the internet on.

yeah! -nature finds a way. [ grunt ] stay connected when the power goes out, with storm ready wifi from xfinity. and see migration in theaters now.