somebody who will compromise with democrats. that's a lot of what they need. they might compromise on immigration. she might compromise on abortion. there's just a lot of ways in which she reads as a john mccain type to them, a pre-trump politician who's part of what they talk about in the -- party, meaning people to compromise with democrats. what they like about trump's he says, we'll do it my way, the only way, they see him as a fighter for their values. so she doesn't read like that to them. and so that's what they are responding to. >> they use that you know party turn? >> all the time. all the time. >> it's fascinating we could da longwell, that was great. that is all in on this thursday night. alex wagner starts right now. good evening, alex. >> we're going to be talking about all the breaking news in this hour and then some. thanks to you for joining me this hour. i want to tell you the story of two americas. the america that donald trump lives in and the america everybody else lives in.

>> at trump university we teach success. that's what it's all about. success. it's going to happen to you. >> that was trump's pitch for trump university two decades ago. he marketed his school as a shortcut to financial success. you just had to pay him and his instructors first, and then you would know everything you needed to make it big. the only problem was that it was all a scam. as a result, trump eventually settled a civil fraud case for $25 million, and that case gave us real insight into how donald trump views the average american. >> trump university a series of for-profit real estate seminars launched in 2005 ads promised donald trump would hand pick the instructors, but as a rule he did not. a set of play books for the sales team coached them how to market the courses even to single mothers with three children who, quote, may need money for food.

>> that is how donald trump sees america, a country that is just filled with easy marks and fools to be scammed by a millionaire who deserves their money more than their children need food. at the same time, this is the america that everyone else lives in. this is francis sharpals. in 2022 she was scammed out of $655,000 from her retirement fund by international criminals posing as tech support and bank employees. now, that alone would be misfortune enough, but then she got hit with $100,000 in taxes, taxes on the transactions where she was scammed out of her retirement money, taxes on money she no longer has. now, if that shocks you it is because that irs policy is relatively new. you remember when trump and republicans passed their big

quote-unquote tax cut in 2017 snl the main thing that bill actually did was cut taxes for corporations and the ultrawealthy. and to make up with that massive loss in government revenue, trump and his republican allies in congress suspended something called the casualty and theft deduction. which means that if you are the victim of a scam, you still have to pay taxes on the financial transactions involved in that scam. and that is how francis sharples ended up footing the bill for all those ultrawealthy corporate tax cuts after she lost her retirement money. now, democrats in congress just introduced a bill yesterday trying to bring back the casualty and theft deduction to let people like francis sharples amend her previous tax filings and get refunds. but right now this is still the america that most americans live in. they pay taxes on scams because trump and republicans made them.

meanwhile, donald trump was in court today arguing that he should not have to pay back ill-gotten gains from fraud. new york attorney general letitia james alleges trump made hundreds of millions of dollars in profits from fraudulently inflating the value of his businesses and properties to get loans with more favorable terms, terms he could not have gotten without lying. and not only does donald trump think he shouldn't have to pay back the money he made from those lies, he thinks he deserves damages for even being on trial in the first place. >> this was a political witch hunt for election interference but also for getting somebody elected because you want to get publicity. it's a disgrace, and they should pay me damages. that's the way it should be. they should be paying me damages. >> so here is mr. trump's version of justice in america. if you're the victim of a scam, too bad. you still have to pay taxes on

the money that was stolen from you. but if trump commits fraud, forget about paying a penalty, he's the one who deserves damages. and if you dare to try and hold donald trump accountable, then not only are you worthy of his disdain, you are now in the cross hairs. today in court trump lashed out at the judge overseeing this case, judge arthur engoron. in a 6-minute rant trump said what was happening in the courtroom was a fraud and that judge engoron had his own agenda. trump lashing out at a judge would be bad any day, but today started with the nassau county bomb squad rushing to judge engoron's house. someone had called in a bomb threat. there wasn't actually a bomb in judge engoron's home. what is happening here is known as swatting, calling in a fake crime to elicit a massive police response in order to scare

someone. you might remember the same thing just happened to the judge overseeing trump's federal election interference case. police and fire trucks swarmed her house sunday night after someone called in a fake shooting. someone tried to do the very same thing to special counsel jack smith on christmas day. but still donald trump lashes out at all of them. he vilifies them. and he believes that he is above the law. he is not. in today's case the attorney general, letitia james, is calling for donald trump and his business to pay a $370 million fine so that he doesn't keep any of the profit from his fraud. >> at the end of the day the point is simple. no matter how powerful you are, no matter how rich you are, that no one is above the law and that the law applies to all of us

equally and fairly. i trust that justice will be done. >> judge engoron said today he hopes to issue a final decision here by january 31st. joining me now is "the new york times" investigative reporter and mary mccord a former security advisor for the national division and msnbc analyst. thank you both for being here tonight. you were in the courtroom and a lot happened there. there was a lot of back and forth. we talked about it on the show earlier this week about whether or not trump could give a closing argument, and the ruling from judge engoron was, no, if you wouldn't agree to these limitations he couldn't speak. but he did end up speaking anyway, right? how did that happen, and how did that unfold for the people inside the room? >> well, in the limitations that were to be placed on him were limitations that would be placed on any lawyer giving closing arguments, any individual giving closing arguments, which is you have to stick with the facts of

the case, and that's what donald trump declined via his lawyers to do, and that's why we didn't think he was going to be giving closing arguments today. and for most part he didn't. after a few minutes after a few of his lawyers got up, one of his lawyers asked if donald trump could speak and the judge said yes. i think the judge was inclined to let it go for a few minutes because he knows this is going up on appeal. he wants to let people speak. it's not a jury trial. he's judge and jury, and it was wild. it was exactly, though, what you would have expected. it was what we saw before. a bit of unleashed came out, i'm a victim, went after the attorney general, said a lot of not nice things about her and it wrapped up. he definitely is playing the victim card again this is crime committed against him. at one point his lawyers said he deserves not what's going on here, not to pay any money but he deserves a medal.

and that's the sort of rhetoric we heard. >> damages and a medal. mary, what happened in the courtroom today gets at the heart of how difficult this balance is to strike for judges and to some degree prosecutors but especially judges in terms of what trump can say and do here. right, there had been the official back and forth, no, you can't speak. but when it comes down to the moment, the amount of pressure on this judge to let the former president and would-be president once again say something is enormous. were you surprised by how this all unfolded? >> i'm not surprised only because this kind of behavior from mr. trump seems like something that, you know, we just come to expect. just because at one point he said he was no longer going to try to give a closing argument didn't mean he'd stick with that. we've seen him flip up on things before. i think it did put judge engoron in sort of a damned if you do, damned if you don't situation. of course he wants there to be decorum in the courtroom, the

rules to be followed. as sue said the rules for closing argument is that you argue the facts and the law. that matters more when there's a jury because if you have something like what mr. trump did today in front of a jury, it could highly prejudice the case and the jury. so i think he did give mr. trump some leeway because this is a bench trial, because he's not worried about a jury. judge engoron knows what the law is. he knows how to apply it to the facts, and he really wasn't going to be swayed by mr. trump's antics. on the other hand, you know, it gave mr. trump a platform essentially to just speak to his base, to speak to his voters and to really flout the rules that apply to a courtroom. and to me it's just another indication of him saying i am above the law, the rules don't apply to me. our entire judicial system is a fraud. and unfortunately over time repeating and repeating those

things, right? because he repeats them not just in judge engoron's courtroom. he has said those kind of things about the case -- the january 6th related case in washington, d.c., the federal case, the january 6th related case in fulton county, georgia, the mar-a-lago documents case in florida. all of these are, you know, a misuse and abuse of the criminal justice system or not criminal. this one is civil. those are criminal justice. again, these things repeated over and over and over again just like his lies about january 6th repeated over and over and over again. eventually people just start to believe them. and the damage that does to our institutions and the entire branch of our government, the judicial branch, i think it's really a -- you know, causing long-term damage. >> yeah, it's a form of character assassination, too, for some of these judges. i want to circle back to that in

a second, mary, but i do want to talk about the trial itself. i mean this is closing argument day. $370 million being sought here. yeah, wow bhch it was a big number initially when it was 250, i think. that number went up. can you sort of -- for folks trying to understand the layman's terms how the attorney general got to the number $370 million. >> right, and let's back it up a little bit because i think it's important. many people probably know, some people may not, that there was a summary judgment in this case, which means there's already been a finding of fraud. donald trump is not looking at coming out at the end of this with it going down to 10 or $20 million if there's been a fact he's not found liable. he's been found liable on the most serious count in this case. and the number is $370 million. and i'll break it down for you. i've brought a break down. the $168 million is the first number. and that's on saved interest on four commercial properties. they're saying if he hadn't

submitted the fraudulent documents that are in question, that he would have paid more. and that number according to the attorney general comes down at $168 million. and there's a discouragement component of this. one is $139 million for discouragement of the sale of the old post office hotel in washington. that is a hotel he famously owned when he was president. we hear a lot about it because there was a lot of wining and dining that wept on the other end of pennsylvania avenue. the argument is fraudulent documents went into getting that loan and profits to be discouraged. the same argument goes for another loan he got for the sale of a golf course in new york or for the loan of a golf course in new york and the sale of a price of $60 million, those profits should be discouraged. those are the main components we're looking at in terms of the number $370 million. so the next question is

continuing it is what is this -- i've covered a lot of trials and you hear a big number comes in, and a lot of times it's in class action lawsuits and then it gets whittled down to a pretty small number. i'm going to take a stab at this just for fun. >> i love you say that. most people say i'm not a gambling person, don't read tea leaves. sue's like i'm all in. >> i was listening to some of the debate on tv on msnbc on "deadline white house" about what the number is going to be. there were some very reasonable voices who came out and said there's no victim here. the banks are, but they're not sympathetic -- >> the money not going to the banks. it's going to the state. >> it's going to the state, to the pax payers and more general services in new york. and so that was one thing is it's not like -- there's no real

victim that we can feel sorry for here. and that the number might come down. and in fact it might come down, but i have to say and i thought a lot about this. and i was sitting in court and we were just leaving. everything was wrapping up, and judge engoron right at the end the attorney general had wrapped up their arguments. and judge engoron had one question, and he looked at the lawyer for the attorney general and he says how does this case compare to bernie madoff. >> ah, wow. >> and i went, wow. like the judge has bernie madoff on his mind. and that is the largest ponzi scheme in history, happened right after the 2008 financial crisis. it was into the billions. and the answer was of course this is smaller but the behavior -- >> but he's thinking about it. >> but the fact he was thinking about that i have to say i would

think -- and he's already come in and not -- he's already come in and found the trumps to be liable. >> yes, that he's guilty of fraud. >> and there's a court full of evidence. i'm going to go out there and say it's going to come in on the higher end. it's not going to come in closer to the old number, it's going to come in closer to the new -- that's just my feeling. >> when you invoke the specter of madoff, that is significant. >> this is the judge that is going to decide that number, so who knows, right, of course? we're going to know in a couple of week, but when i heard that i thought, wow, that's where his mind is. >> mary, just really quickly in terms of what is being said about these judges, the fact this kind of behavior from trump, the talk of his immunity from the 40 wall street property, the assassination of political enemies and on a day

when judge engoron has a bomb squad sent to his house, how are you looking at the terrain for those who seek to hold mr. trump accountable? >> i mean, this is what they're going to be facing and every case they already are facing. and as any case goes to trial, and i think one of the most likely to go is the january 6th case in d.c., also the manhattan d.a. bragg case. i mean this is what they know they're facing. we've heard the protection for jack smith is something like $4.4 million and just part of his term as special counsel for him and his staff. we know marshals protecting judge chutkan in d.c. are around the clock protecting her. the effort to go through yesterday or tuesday, i'm sorry, to protect that courthouse when mr. trump decided to show up for arguments before the circuit, these are huge expenditures. and then every time someone gets attacked, swatted, all the law enforcement that have to respond, think about the

resources drained and diverting their attention from other important things they should be responding to. so i actually do hope that our supreme court justices who are going to at least be ruling on the 14th amendment section 3 disqualification question, they may be ruling ultimately on the immunity question, i hope they are keeping in mind the damage that mr. trump -- and they will rule on the cases based on the facts and the law, and they will rule predominantly about interpreting the law. that's their jobs, but i hope they are paying attention to the efforts that he is undertaking to completely, completely undermine our rule of law, our system of how we use the courts in this country, how they've been used for hundreds of years. people abide by the rule of law. they abide by judgments to the courts. they abide by the rules judges say in courtrooms. and he's just violating all of that. >> thank you both for your time and wisdom this evening.

i appreciate you both. we have a lot to get to tonight including what republican runner-up nikki haley is whiling to do when it comes to taking on donald trump. but first what does chris christie's withdrawal from the race mean? jim jordan joins me to talk about that next. jim jordan joins me to talk about that next. remember the three p's. what are the three p's? the three p's of life insurance on a fixed budget are price, price, and price. a price you can afford, a price that can't increase, and a price that fits your budget. i'm 54. what's my price? you can get coverage for $9.95 a month. i'm 65 and take medications. what's my price? also $9.95 a month. i just turned 80. what's my price? $9.95 a month for you too.

if you're age 50 to 85, call now about the #1 most popular whole life insurance plan available through the colonial penn program. options start at $9.95 a month. no medical exam, no health questions. your acceptance is guaranteed. and this plan has a guaranteed lifetime rate-lock, so your rate can never go up for any reason. so call now for free information, and you'll also get this free beneficiary planner. and it's yours free just for calling, so call now for free information.

[dice dreams game] when i grow up, i want to be just like my mom. eva longoria. she's really famous and rich, because she steals money from her friends. she's taking money from my dad. she wants to destroy him. ah... it's dice dreams. dice dreams, attack your friends and steal their coins. play now.

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. last night former governor chris christie left the 2024 presidential race vowing he would not go quietly into that

good night. today we learned one platform has already presented itself should governor christie wish to say more. sources tell nbc news no labels, a political organization trying to put together a bipartisan third party ticket reached out to mr. christie through donors and allies before he left the race. christie's campaign says he's not spoken it no labels, but neither the campaign nor the man have ruled out a third party run. the chair of no labels tnks it may be time for a second look. >> look, earlier in the year when he was asked about no labels he basically said it was not an effort that had any chance of succeeding, but maybe the world will look different to him now. and i'd like to reach out to him and see if he, governor christie, is at all interested in being on a bipartisan no labels unity ticket this year.

he could be a very strong candidate. >> joining me now is america's sweetheart steve kornacki, nbc news national political correspondent. steve, not only are you a political suvant, you're also a jersey expert, and i feel like you understand the mind of christie better than most. do you think it's at all in his sort of -- somewhere in his mind, front, middle, or back of mind to really keep in this thing as a third party candidate? >> i think it's somewhere in his mind. i would guess there's probably not any clear intention to do it now. if you think about what seemed to be animating his presidential campaign, he talked about this openly. he had that desire to meet donald trump on stage in the debate. he was selling that at the beginning of his campaign as the thing that would happen, and it never happened. now, there's no guarantee if he would run as an independent, if he were to take the no labels nomination, there's certainly no guarantee there will even be debates this fall let alone

debates that would include third party candidates. he's clearly long for the opportunity to go toe to toe, face-to-face with donald trump. and i think if he saw an avenue that would get him there, i think he'd have some interest in it. but you'd have to look at the viability question with no labels, ballot access. he's said the unpredictability, there's all those issues, too. >> go toe to toe, stick it to donald trump without the threat of actually giving to the donald trump. if you lk at the third party numbers they are not insignificant -- they really are an issue potentially in this campaign. rfk jr. 21%, cornell west, gymstein, someone else, chris christie, i have no idea, and not sure 40%. i mean that's incredibly volatile for this stage of the game when you're talk about, you know, an incumbent president and a former president. >> yeah, i've noticed this in the polling, too. it's a bit all over the place, but it seems when they include

third party candidates, first of all a lot of times these polls they're throwing different potential third party names. the names don't actually mean anything to people but become none of the above, i don't like trump, don't like biden, but smith that sounds good to me. i think some of these that included rfk in them, the numbers have been coming back some of them in the teens and low 20s. i've seen others still in the single digits, but i do think back to 1992 which is the last time you had a third party candidate that registered double digits. that was ross purow, and when that started he got as high as 40% in the polls at one point back in 1982. there was serious talk he could win the election but that was the economy was not in a good place and at least through most of that campaign people had serious questions about bill clinton, his character, his honesty. in a setup like that people got very interested in a third party

candidate ross purow. in a setup for a third party candidate to garner more support than we're used to seeing certainly is there. >> the volatility in the potential general matchup and then there's the sort of stasis in the republican campaign, right? broadly speaking it feels like chris christie's exit is to the benefit of nikki haley. and everyone is talking about new hampshire. i'm interested in south carolina. i think if nikki haley comes in and wins new hampshire or comes very close to donald trump in new hampshire, that's an interesting data point. but the real proof in the pudding is whether that momentum carries forward. she's the former governor of south carolina. do you think there's a world in which she could pose a threat to donald trump? >> you're right. it would go to south carolina and test especially because it's her home state. it's hard to see for a couple of reasons. some is just demographic. trump is doing well. he seem tuesday have a strong

political bond with evangelical christian. it's powering him in iowa. and one of the reasons haley is doing well compared to trump in new hampshire it's like two-thirds in iowa. it's maybe 20, 25% in new hampshire. go down to south carolina, over 70%. so you've got something like that working right there, and then you've just got if she wins new hampshire and it's on independent voters and it's on voters that don't necessarily like donald trump, if trump can turn around and say most republicans in south carolina and everywhere like donald trump, they like him a lot, and he can make it a loyalty test. he can say she went and got votes from people who don't like me, who weren't republicans, who weren't one of us. do you want to side with her, side with the media, or side with me. and that loyalty test in most states trump would have the numbers probable to carry with that loyalty test. >> when you talk about most republicans liking donald trump,

there are the few, the loany who will come out in the ice storm, the blizzard or whatever it is in iowa and caucus for nikki haley or ron desantis. same thing independents new hampshire. when biden is looking at the sort of soul of those republican voters, do you think there's a world in which they say we don't like donald trump enough to vote for joe biden? understanding that their person is not going to make it through the primary process? >> typically, you know, what happens with these two you need to test the third party candidates, they do decline in support as the campaign goes along, and people end up looking and saying, i want to vote for a candidate who has a chance of winning. you do see a lot of times the third party candidates perform best now and it fades as you get towards the election. i did notice there was a poll in michigan last week certainly got a lot of attention. in the a two-way head to head it had biden up 8 points. one of the names they put in was liz cheney. and liz cheney if chris christie

had some appeal as an independent candidate, it would probably be the same voters liz cheney would have appeal to. and the trump lead expanded. it expanded to double digits in michigan when they threw that name on the ballot. that gives us a hint. >> they don't like trump enough but not that much. like chris sununu. they'll vote for the republican over the democrat every time. it's great to see you. thank you for your time and thoughts. still more to come tonight as nikki haley takes that number 2 spot in the republican primary or edges very close to it. is she actually ever going to take on donald trump? plus, we'll have some breaking news as the u.s. and a coalition of allies strike at iran-backed militants who have been attacking ships in the red sea to protest israel's invasion of gaza. is it the beginning of a wider war? war? after advil: let's dive in! but...what about your back? it's fineeeeeeee!

[splash] before advil: advil dual action fights pain two ways. advil targets pain at the source, acetaminophen blocks pain signals. advil dual action. we planned well for retirement, but i wish we had more cash. you think those two have any idea? that they can sell their life insurance policy for cash? so they're basically sitting on a goldmine? i don't think they have a clue. that's crazy! well, not everyone knows coventry's helped thousands of people sell their policies for cash. even term policies. i can't believe they're just sitting up there! sitting on all this cash. if you own a life insurance policy of $100,000 or more, you can sell all or part of it to coventry. even a term policy. for cash, or a combination of cash and coverage, with no future premiums. someone needs to tell them, that they're sitting on a goldmine, and you have no idea! hey, guys! you're sitting on a goldmine! come on, guys! do you hear that? i don't hear anything anymore. find out if you're

sitting on a goldmine. call coventry direct today at the number on your screen, or visit coventrydirect.com.

we're following breaking news tonight out of the middle east where the united states and the united kingdom tonight carried out targeted strikes against iran aligned moogty militants ipyemen. those militants have been attacking commercial shipping routes in the red sea, one of the world's busiest waterways and declaring that the attacks are to protest israel's military campaign in gaza. but in a statement tonight confirming the attack, president biden said the strikes in the red sea have gone well beyond israel, affecting more than 50

nations and that crews from more than 20 countries have been taken or taken hostage in acts of piracy. earlier this week the american and british navies shot down at least 21 drones and missiles from houthi rebels in the area intending those shots as a warning. for months now the biden administration has been trying to avoid a wider conflict in a region already in turmoil, but houthi rebels have continued to target the shipping routes, and their leaders have said they are comfortable with a direct confrontation with america. joining me now is ben rhodes, former deputy national security advisor in the obama administration and co-host of course of "pod save the world." ben, thank you for being here tonight. this seems just like an extraordinarily difficult line for the white house to walk, calibrating how much is enough to try and get the houthi rebels to stop and how much is too much that will draw the u.s. into a war with iran. i mean what do you make of the

decision here and the sort of careful calibration? >> i think this is a pretty major escalation, alex. there's no question that the u.s. military has a responsibility and a right to protect shipping in the red sea. there's a commonly understood right to freedom of navigation, the right of ships to perceive that harassment. so the idea you would take military action against houthi ships that are harassing those container ships and other vessels in the red sea including u.s. military vessels, that's one thing. to go after the houthi kind of command and control infrastructure and the houthi bases in yemen, that is a different thing, and that's what the administration had restrained from doing until this point. and the reason why is once you do that you potentially open up a pandora's box because they are connect today a network of groups that could take action against the united states in

iraq that can escalate the war across the region in yemen, that can ultimately lead to a regional war that draws in iran. so the stakes of this are enormous. the viewers may be looking at this why does it matter so much. it's because if this gets out of control, if it spirals, this could lead to a truly regional war, and that's what we want to avoid. >> that was -- i remember shortly after october 7th wondering and i think i asked john kirby at the time, you know, what prevents this from becoming an actual war between the u.s. and iran? and not that i'm sort of cassandra, but the iranian sort of shadow in all this has been constant. and i wonder against the wack drop calling israel to the international court of justice for claims of genocide, the degree to which the u.s. is dramatically, drsicily

rethinking its relationship to israel and this war in gaza. >> well, look, the reality is the longer the israeli military operation goes on in gaza, the more there's risk of escalation in various places. we see right now the risk of that escalation in lebanon, where hezbollah could be -- which has been going tit for tat back and forth with israel. that risks boiling over into a conflict in which there's essentially a war in lebanon. you see it in iraq where the u.s. has taken military strikes in baghdad, which we rarely do because of iranian backed militias taking strikes and shots at u.s. military personnel in syria. so iraq could boil over. and now you see it in yemen with this u.s. military action against the houthis. and look, there's good reason to want to protect shipping in the red sea. that is an absolutely valid and necessary objective. at the same time, you're not going to defeat the houthis

militarily with just a few air strikes. keep in mind that there was a multi-year war against the houthis backed by the u.s., i think a mistake in the obama administration to begin to support the saudi-led effort to go after houthis that did not eliminate them. so you're not going to eliminate them in four air strikes if several years of the military campaign didn't. i think what we're seeing now is just the risks the longer the war goes on, the longer this goes on in the middle east, the more one of these pots could boil over, the more there's a risk to u.s. service members. and the administration is balancing against trying to balance protect things like freedom of navigation, try to deter iranian backed proxies from doing things to escalate. but at the same time we're kind of getting drawn in. there's a quicksand component, and i can say this, alex, as someone who's been in the white house for eight years, the white house has a quicksand component where it can draw you in. and the last thing anyone wants is a full-scale regional war. but unless there's some

diplomacy here, that's the momentum that i feel happening right now. >> yeah, and you talk about that, you mention the obama administration with yemen, joe biden was part of that administration. he knows well these lessons. you know, can you talk a little bit about the sort of chain of command and the decision making here. i ask mostly because the secretary of defense is in the hospital and has been there for some time. he's still issuing some statements, but this is -- you've been inside these rooms. it's very much biden's call, it always is, but given the fact his defense secretary is not there, can you talk a bit how it works in a crisis point like this? >> well, i think it becomes a very white house-centered thing because when you are taking military action that is new, right? it's one thing when there's a strike against another isis target or another al-qaeda target or even in the context of the last several weeks against kind of iranian-backed militia

that is harassing our troops in syria, this is a new thing to go after targets in yemen, houthi targets in yemen. that crosses a new line, a new legal line, a new military objective. and that ultimately becomes a white house decision, a presidential decision. so i'm sure there have been a flurry of meetings over the course of the last several weeks about how do we stop this harassment of shipping in the red sea, how do we stop these attacks on u.s. military vessel in the red sea? you have those meetings at various levels, and ultimately it gets teed up for president biden. here's the spectra we can do. we can continue to go after houthis in the red sea when we see them or we can go after yemen. ultimately that comes to his desk. the defense department presents a range of options, here what we can do. we can do this in the red sea, we can do this in yemen. you can decide how far to turn that dial. and i think what we see with president biden today is a degree of frustration with what the houthis have been doing in the red sea but also willingness

to take some risks here, because the houthis are likely to respond and it may not just be in yemen but other iranian backed militia in iraq going after u.s. targets there or the u.s. embassy there. he's risking that in favor of trying to send a message that back off shipping in the red sea, we mean what you say, you can't do this. >> indeed the houthis have said preemptively they're comfortable with a direct confrontation with america. we leave it there. ben rhodes, thank you for your time and expertise tonight. coming up, rightly or wrongly chaos follows him. that has been former governor nikki haley's tepid critique of the republican front-runner since the start of her campaign. should we, can we expect anything to change if it becomes a two-person race? that is next. a two-person race? that is next

♪oh what a good time we will have♪ ♪you... can make it happen...♪ ♪♪

try dietary supplements from voltaren for healthy joints. 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. i believe president trump was the right president at the right time, and i agree with a lot of his policies. but the truth is rightly or wrongly chaos follows him. i personally think president trump was the right president at the right time. i agree with a lot of his policies, but the reality is rightly or wrongly chaos follows him. i agree with a lot of trump's policies. i think he was the right president at the right time. chaos follows him.

>> is it chaos follows him or does he create the chaos? i mean that sounds so passive chaos follows him. >> i mean rightly or wrongly, you call it whatever you want to call it. but when you feel it, it's chaos. >> when you feel it, it's chaos. rightly or wrongly chaos follows him. throughout this campaign that has been nikki haley's line about donald trump. it's not that she disagrees with trump's policies or his behavior, it's just that he's plagued with some sort of horror movie curse. chaos, it follows him like a bad smell or a piece of toilet paper stuck to his shoe rightly or wrongly. but now for the first time, former governor nikki haley is in a position to become trump's main rival. and so last night we got the new gloves off nikki haley, the one who finally isn't afraid to criticize donald trump. >> i think he was the right

president at the right time. i agree a lot of his policies, but his way is not my way. i don't have vengeance. i don't have vendettas. i don't take things personally. >> i mean, i guess that's better. at least obliquely suggests that donald trump is somehow responsible for his own behavior. but this is hardly the kind of actual criticism you might expect from someone who's trying to beat a man running double digits ahead of her for the republican nomination. the truth is when it comes to donald trump, governor haley does not have a hard line to take. she's already committed to pardoning donald trump even if she is elected president. she's already committed to voting for donald trump if he is the eventual nominee even if he's a convicted felon. and that has leftd us in a position where the closest thing we get to an actual rebuke of donald trump's lawless anti-democratic extremism is this. >> do you agree with the argument donald trump's lawyer

made in court that a president should have immunity for any conduct including and ordering the assassination of a political rival unless that president is impeached and convicted by the senate for that offense first? >> no, that's ridiculous. that's absolutely ridiculous. i mean, we need to use some common sense here. >> when your political opponent is advocating in court for the right to assassinate his rivals, a group that by the way could at some point including nikki haley, common sense dictates one should make a very clear contrast with that rival a top priority. nikki haley is not ready to take on donald trump, and she probably isn't even interested. i'll talk to former republican strategist tim miller about that and more coming right up next. t and more coming right up next. proven over 90% effective, shingrix is a vaccine used to prevent shingles in adults 50 years and older. shingrix does not protect everyone and is not for those with severe allergic reactions to its ingredients or to a previous dose. an increased risk of guillain-barré syndrome was observed after getting shingrix.

fainting can also happen. the most common side effects are pain, redness and swelling at the injection site, muscle pain, tiredness, headache, shivering, fever, and upset stomach. ask your doctor or pharmacist about shingrix today.

♪ ♪

♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ if former president trump is convicted in a court of law, would you still support him as your party's choice? please raise your hand if you would. >> that was the first gop primary debate of this cycle. former governor nikki haley was very quick to raise her hand and has ever since then been quite cautious in the extreme as far as expressing any real criticism of donald trump. so now that chris christie is

out of the race and ron desantis is slipping even further in the polls, the likelihood of a two-person race between nikki haley and donald trump is increasing by the day. so does anything change? can anything change? joining me now is tim miller, writer at large at the bulwark. tim, does nikki haley wanting anything to change? i will say i think it's kind of awkward to imagine this becoming a two-person race. i have a hard time imagining nikki haley's digital team is going to be setting up a trump lies.com she'll be setting up in the next two-thirds debate. >> right or wrong, it doesn't seem she's going to be taking on donald trump anytime soon. the whole thing is bizarre. when i was in iowa a few months ago i was asking about this. they are just viciously insulting the second place candidate, calling them a

birdbrain and saying they're a warmonger, you know, anything under the sun. the candidate ends up losing by 30 points, the only thing they can say to criticize the leader is something very passive -- very passive voice, passive aggressive. it's not how any campaign i've ever been on or ever seen that wants to win has ever run itself. it's hard to not come to the conclusion she's not really trying. there's not a real path to victory, so i don't know if she has 2028 on her mind or if she's just liking the attention or if there's a vp? she's not running a campaign to win so i don't think we need to pretend like she is. >> what is interesting is her sort of desire to curry favor with trump extends to her desire to curry favor with the trump base and leads her into these strange intellectual rabbit holes where she's asked about the root cause of the civil war and can't say slafblry. i mean the sort of soft shoeing

around the elephant in the room extends to literally any topic that treads on, you know, a desire or an mating idea held close to the heart of the trump base. it's so weird. >> it is. i think chris christie could have had a number on this one. she doesn't pretend like she does tough talk. she wants to say she's tough when she's talking about an easy target. but where something comes up with the maga base or even the evangelical base, the odd types of voters she needs to win in new hampshire, she doesn't know what to do. it was true about the civil war, it's true about abortion, it's true about answering what to do about donald trump and pardoning him. and so it doesn't feel like she wants to offend anybody, and you end up with a campaign that's kind of for nobody. and i think where she's going to end up is she'll all of the people that didn't want to vote for donald trump in the first place, which is the chris

christie voters and maybe a small number of ron desantis voters. the problem is maybe it's enough to win one primary in new hampshire where a lot of independents show up, but it's not enough to win a nomination of the republican party. so it's kind of like why are you putting yourself in this awkward situation where you're not telling the truth about how you feel in order to run a campaign that is destined to lose? >> maybe she just really likes debating ron desantis. i say that with a little bit of irony. tim miller, my friend, thank you very much for joining me at the end of this busy news