vu? >> for president trump, my advice is simple. you've run a very smart campaign, you've never backed down. but now the focus should almost exclusively shift to the general election. the democrats are going to stop at nothing, they see this train coming down the track, and they want to derail it. and if they can, they are going to game the system or maybe even cheat. >> whoa, what now? that was not foxes laura angrum in december of 2020. that was fox host laura ingraham this week, january, the year 2024. despite no evidence of election fraud last time around, and having to make $787 million to settle a defamation case based on their 2020 election lies. time around and having to pay $787 million to settle a defamation case based on their 2020 election lies, fox appears to be priming their audience once again to believe that if donald trump loses in 2024 it's because the democrats

cheated. they are normalizing the completely false idea that american elections are rigged. and it is not just laura engroom. >> now, turning to joe biden and what we are hearing from voters on the ground in iowa. about a third of iowa republicans say joe biden was legitimately elected president. but almost half, almost double that i should say, double that amount say he was not, and next up we have the integrity of our elections. >> and up next moving on, no facts checks necessary. if you thought joe biden was not legitimately elected as president, you're in good company. multiple times steve kornacki mentioned two thirds of election goers, and fox moved onto the next thing, no mention that

belief defies reality. after the attack on the capitol january 6th there was a moment it really felt like republicans might finally ditch donald trump. fox news owner rupert murdoch said he wanted to make trump a nonperson, which sounds severe. kevin mccarthy discussed removing trump from office using the 25th amendment. he planned to ask trump to resign. the leader of the republicans in the senate, mitch mcconnell, said stuff like this. >> there was a violent insurrection for the purpose of trying to prevent the peaceful transfer of power. there's no question, none, that president trump is practically and morally responsible for provoking the events of the day. >> cut to today. mitch mcconnell is one of the signatories of an amicus brief

before the supreme court saying trump should not be taken off the ballot in colorado for his role on january 6th. the new republican leader in the house, mike johnson, is also a signatory as are nearly 200 republican members of congress, 42 of them senators. among the things these senators and representatives argue in this brief on trump's behalf is that the colorado supreme court's opinion so broadly interpreted engage in but it sailed right past president trump's repeated statements to the reporters both before the breach at the capitol and after it was breached telling them to act peacefully and that he later told them via video to go home now. it is hard to imagine an actual insurrectionists quickly asking for peace and encouraging disbandment. it is really quite an argument given where we were this time in january three years ago. and the language in that

republican amicus brief almost exactly mirrors the language in the brief that donald trump and his lawyers filed before the court in the same case just a few hours ago. in that filing trump argues that he wasn't responsible for what happened on january 6th at all. nothing that president trump did in response to the 2020 election on january 6, 2021 even remotely qualifies as insumedication. president trump's words that day called for peaceful and patriotic protests and respect for law and order. the colorado supreme court faulted president trump for in its view failing to respond with alacrity when he learned the capitol had been breached. but even if that were true, and it isn't, a mere failure to act would not constitute engagement and insurrection. just as a footnote here, abc news reported last week that former trump white house chief of staff dan scavino told jack smith as violence began to escalate on january 6th trump was just not interested in doing

more to stop it, just a footnote. the statements in trump's filing here are all in direct conflict with all the information we have, the hours of testimony, the deep investigations into january 6th. what is being presented here is alternative history from a parallel universe, and nearly 200 republican members of congress essentially just cosigned it. now, the supreme court is going to hear arguments next month about this 14th amendment case and whether donald trump can actually stay on the ballot, but the larger battle here over what happened at the capitol and who is responsible, well, today we also got major news that may help trump avoid or at least delay accountability for his actions in and around january 6th. today the judge in the federal election interference case, judge tanya chutkan signaled in a filing that trump's claims of presidential immunity may actually push back his trial

date. we already knew the case was on hold until trump's question of immunity made its way through the appeals court and supreme court, but today judge chutkan signaled when the appeals process is done she may set a new schedule, one that takes into account the delays. meaning trump's march 4, federal election interference trial, the big date as r as trump's potential criminal accountability, is now for the first time being questioned by the judge presiding over it. joining me now are melissa murray, professor of law at nyu and michael schmidt, investigator for "the new york times" covering washington. it's great to see you both of you. thank you for being on set with me. melissa, let me just first get your reaction to these legal filings both on trump's behalf and a number of representatives in the upper and lower chambers of it u.s. congress. trump did not engage in insurrection.

this is from trump's lawyers. in fact, the opposite is true. and telling supporters to fight like hell is not an insurrection either. let me say that's from trump's filing of the amicus brief. what's your assessment? >> both parties are singing from the same. what we're getting at here is not what you say substantive arguments why donald trump should be immune or not on the ballot in colorado. we are getting the notion this republican party is all in league behind donald trump. there's a symbolism to this amicus brief. it's not ground shaking, but it shows this party is in lock step behind this leader. >> yeah, it's beyond all possible doubt an endorsement. it's beyond pledging allegiance. it feels like a complete capitulation to the alt reality

trump has encircled himself. >> it's a remaking history or recasting history in which donald trump is not a participate want in an insurrection but a sober resolute leader and did his best to stop it. but we have evidence that's nut the case. again, it's an alternate reality and an attempt to remake history. >> michael, i'm reminded of the michael cohen case when we hear about the way trump's defense sort of reinterprets his words. fight like hell is just urging his supporters to be engaged in the american election process. i wonder if you see it this way. it feels like, you know, trump gets right up to the line without, you know, explicitly suggesting criminal behavior, and it's something he's done repeatedly in his professional life. >> i understand why we give the legal arguments a lot of weight and a lot of, and they're really in our face and we can see them.

i think there's something even more significant, though, is that the country and this trial is really on the clock. and the closer that we get to the election, the more likely it is to not happen. and if that trial doesn't happen, then the real question is that why was there the delay? why did the justice department start the investigation on januar 6th at the bottom up? this trial is the most likely one to happen when you look at them, but if you look -- and i'm not a legal expert and tell me if i'm wrong, but if you look at this, this could easily get appealed to the larger appeals court en banc, and then it could go to the supreme court. so if that happens, you will have a situation in which a president of the united states engaged in this effort to overturn the election. he was never put on trial in the

four years and was able to essentially run again for his freedom without ever going on trial. and that's a possibility. >> yeah, that's not hyperbolic at all. we've said this from the beginning and i've said it on this network and elsewhere the fact we were arguing on the circuit about presidential immunity was a tactical victory for trump because there very likely would be a delay and this trial would not start on march 4th. the bigger question with this republican party is why are you lined up behind it? and michael is right. they're lined up behind it because he is the presumptive nominee. >> they look at the levers trump has to pull knowing the speed which the court moves on some of these things and say you know

what, there's no way he's going to be in a jail cell before the election. he may not even be convicted. if he is, he'll be in the appeals process. he won't be incarcerated while he's in the appeals process. he may very well be the next nominee so let's line up with him and get behind the reality. how optimistic are you about a capitol delay? >> i'm getting less optimistic. i have to say a lot of this is on the courts, too. i'm actually surprised that three judge panel hasn't rendered a decision at this point, because it seemed pretty clear from oral arguments how many of these arguments in donald trump's favor were not only up to udbut speechless. there's definitely a way forward. they all seem skeptical of this. i'm surprised it's the eve of the weekend and we still don't have a decision there. and as mike said more and more delay, it could require an en banc hearing and a petition to the supreme court. we're footing our time away at

this point. >> and judge chutkan realizes that, which is why we got what we got from her today. in the meantime trump is engaging and i think it's a legal strategy but a political strategy -- they're not tweets anymore. they're the trugs. but i don't want to call them the capitol truth social posts, suggesting that presidents who cross the line should get total immunity. first of all, let's take a moment to absorb what a former president and would-be president is suggesting here. explicitly presidents that cross the line should get total immunity. >> i don't think there's a question about how he would view presidential power if he were to come back. and i think it took him a long time basically up to the last few months of his administration to really figure out how to do it. but i think by the end he had it

figured out and he had gotten rid of all the john kelly's and don medpans and folks standing iphis way. he didn't know how to do it at first. if you look at his moves in the first few years, he wasn't nearly as successful as he was in that final part where he put all of his time, energy, and power behind it. >> well, i mind argue also, michael, he's always been mad at the deep state, but given the sort of -- he's been taken to the cleaners in terms of criminal liability, 91 felony counts. his rage is unbound in a way it is directed at the system of justice in a way it wasn't. he was always mad generally at the bureaucracy, but he's focused like a laser on those

who hold him accountable. that is terrifying for a potential second trump term. >> the focus is different. i'm sure if you listen to his speeches there's stuff about the wall and all the other things. but when he ran in 2016 there was like a broader message that he used to appeal to his votes, and it wasn't running on vengeance. and the thing that i wonder with political hats on is that is vengeance something that really appeals to voters? >> well, i can tell you definitively as based on his -- you know, where he is right now in terms of the republican nomination. but, listen, the number of republican senators, and i focus on senators specifically because the senate is so critical in all these arguments about immunity, for example, right, does president trump need to be convicted in the senate first for his activities in and around january 6th, the insurrection before he can face criminal liability? that's what team trump is now arguing. and then you see a letter like that and it suggests to you the

senate is not going to do anything about january 6th ever -- we didn't think it was, but holding trump to account seems like a pipe dream. >> mike's point is a good one. when donald trump started in 2016 it was about trying to work in a still kind of norm bound understanding of government. but as he proceeded over the course of four years, those norms really eroded and there weren't any checks. now he's completely unbound. i do think his base understands his vengeance, but vengeance is really just a more accelerated form of grievance, which he's always been pedaling. so it's very familiar in that way. and there are no norms left. he's eroded all these checks. impeachment is a toothless paper tiger. the press he's disregarded and discredited. >> and targets exclusively in these missives. >> a andads you say he has congress in his back pockets he thinks he has the courts in his back pocket.

he's literally tyranny forward at this point. he really has the makings of a dictator. >> when is the supreme court going to issue this ruling on presidential immunity? ticktock. michael schmidt, thank you so much. there's a very, very high profile legal case i want to get to. the latest development in one of the criminal indictments down in fulton county. d.a. fani willis is now under fire from 1 of trump's codefendants who wants willis and her entire office disqualified from the prosecution. and today. a. willis fired back. we're going to talk about that next. illis fired back we're going to talk about that next

♪ ♪ ♪ ♪

♪ ♪ 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.

ten days ago one of donald trump's codefendants in the georgia election interference case threw a bombshell at fulton county district attorney fani willis. michael roman, a former trump campaign official alleged in a filing without proof that d.a. willis is involved in an improper romantic relationship with special prosecutor nathan we'd and that her office has paid wade for an exorbitant amount of money for his services which he's used to take willis on vacations. because of this conflict of interest they're requesting that

wid, willis and the entire office be removed from the criminal case. michael roman's filing referred to sealed court records in mr. we'd's divorce proceedings and now fani willis has been subpoenaed for a deposition in those proceedings. today a lawyer representing willis filed a motion asking the judge to quash that subpoena saying that d.a. willis has no relevant information to offer in this divorce matter and adding a subpoena of district attorney willis is being sought in an attempt to harass and damage her reputation. defendant, that would be mr. we'd's ex-wife has conspired in the case, that would be trump's codefendants to use the discovery process to annoy, embarrass, and oppress district attorney willis. back with me here is melissa murray. melissa, it feels like the messiness of nathan wade's divorce proceeding is a convenient tool for trump

codefendants to get their claws in and say these untoward behaviors are cause for dismissal. >> this is basically the real house wives of atlanta version of the trump immunity argument. i mean it's a distraction. it's meant to insert a new set of legal proceedings while we try to figure out whether fani williss to disclose this or that, have a subpoena, and it delays the prospect of this indictment ever going to trial. that's the name of the game here. and to be very clear, i don't know what's going on between d.a. willis and nathan wade if anything. and none of us do and there's been no proof offered here. but whatever is happening it actually doesn't affect the strength of the charges against donald trump and any of the codefendants that were named in that indictment, and no one can dispute that. >> yeah, just to that central allegation that fani willis isn't sure her parahour gets paid, this exorbitant amount of

money to take her on vacations. she hasn't denied their relationship, he's had more billable hours, but i do wonder given the fact she may be romantically involve would the prosecutor in her case that the state is paying, is that -- i mean if you're judge scott mcafee here, is this open and shut-in her favor, or is there a potential avenue for more problems? >> so i mean the optics are terrible if, in fact, there is a romantic relationship and he is billing some exorbitant amount of hours and profiting in some way from this. this should be disclosed if they are in fact in a romantic relationship, and i think most people would say that to err on the side of caution it would be better not to work with someone with whom you're in a romantic relationship in a matter as high profile as this one. it's just messy, and maybe it's an ethical problem with regard to how the prosecutor's office

is working but it doesn't necessarily mean there are ethical problems with regard to the charges they brought. i think again disaggregating those things are important here. the optics are bad. it's going to be tough sledding for fani willis but not because of the strength of the charges. >> there's going to be hearings, some of it is going to be televised. it is going to be messy. i was surprised to learn if for whatever reason she is ordered to step down from this case, her entire office goes with her. >> and new people have to come on and get onboarded which means we're not having this trial until after the election, which means we may not have it at all. >> is it aforegone conclusion new people will take it up or an open question prosecutors will take it up. >> i'm presuming there may be prosecutors who may want to continue it, if there's an interment d.a., but that too is part of the tactic here. it's a sort of go big or go home

kind of tactic. smear this woman, blow up her life, but also blow up this prosecution to the point it doesn't come back. >> or at the very least have a rock to hide under and say this the whole thing is rigged, this is crooked prosecutor, she was just using this to make money. "the new york times" has reported today there's been very heated exchanges between fani willis' office and trump's defense team. "the new york times" is reporting that some of the attorneys have been addressing d.a. willis and her praurs cutes in ways she finds disrespectful. she has said to them via e-mail in the legal community and in the world at large some people will never be able to respect african americans and/or women as their equals and counter parts. that is a burden you do not experience. what is your reaction to this exchange? >> it's not surprising. i mean i think, you know, one way that we might understand the events of january 6th is not simply a riot in favor of donald

trump and a quote-unquote stolen election but also a kind of revanchist assault on the changing model of leadership in this country. we had that j happen on january 6th, a week later we saw nancy pelosi as the first lady speaker of the house file articles of impeachment against donald trump, and we saw sonia sotomayor swear in kamala harris as the first woman of color to serve as vice president. there's a change in leadership not just in this country but corporations and law firms, whatever. and there are some who think that changing model is unfamiliar and threatening and respond in kind. and maybe there are some in those positions of leadership. >> i will say i was in atlanta, georgia, on january 5th watching rafael warnock become elected the first black, and i'm not saying it's causal but the two

are linked to the decline of individuals and the ascension of another. melissa murray, always great to see you. still ahead tonight how would you best describe the 91 felony counts multiple civil lawsuits facing the current president and current front runr for the republican nomination, the guy who says he bants to be a dictator on day one in office? would you call him a little chaotic? then i have just the candidate for you. we're going to talk about nikki haley's curious campaign strategy. that's next. strategy that's next. i'm jonathan lawson, here to tell you about life insurance through the colonial penn program. if you're age 50 to 85 and looking to buy life insurance on a fixed budget, 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.

i think he's having a midlife crisis i'm not. you got us t-mobile home internet lite. after a week of streaming they knocked us down... ...to dial up speeds. like from the 90s. great times. all i can do say is that my life is pre-- i like watching the puddles gather rain. -hey, your mom and i procreated to that song. oh, ew! i think you've said enough. why don't we just switch to xfinity like everyone else? then you would know what year it was. i know what year it is.

heading into the new hampshire primary in 2016 donald trump did not have the endorsement of a single sitting member of the congress. and today donald trump has the endorsement of more than 100 republican members of the house. he has the endorsement of 25 republican senators, which means nearly half of all the republicans in congress have endorsed donald trump. they're all just waving the white flag on this one. at this point the only thing standing between trump and total victory over his party and the long shot candidacy of former south carolina governor nikki haley. but in order to beat donald trump, nikki haley probably has to run against donald trump.

for the last year governor haley has offered one canned line whenever she is asked about trump. >> i agree with a lot of his policies, but the truth is rightly or wrongly chaos follows him. 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, and chaos follows him. >> haley is now essentially in a one-on-one battle here. she's being given every opportunity to contrast herself with trump's increasingly lawless and authoritarian tendencies, so how did she respond today? >> donald trump has said on day one he'll be a dictator. what's your alarm bells, and how would you respond if he was in front of you? >> look, i agree with a lot of his policies.

i've said it rightly or wrongly chaos follows him. nikki haley was literally asked about something donald trump says he plans to do, to turn america into a dictatorship for a day, and even then the only critique that she was willing to make of a self-proclaimed would-be dictator was a swipe at his personal shortcomings, which by the way may not even be his fault. he's just followed by chaos rightly or wrongly. to the extent that nikki haley had any substantive criticism of her opponent today, this was pretty much it. >> he needs to answer the question why does he want to raise the social security age to 70? why did he propose a 25 cent gas tax increase? why did he put us $8 trillion in debt over four years? i want those questions asked. get him on a debate stage. >> those are the issues haley thinks trump needs to answer for. the gas tax, theset, and a proposal on raising the inretirement age basically

indistinguishable from haley's proposal to do the same. nikki haley is categorically either unable or unwilling to take donald trump on regarding the issues that actually animate the republican electorate right now thanks in large part to donald trump, the explicit racism, the xenophobia, the misogyny, all of which issues nikki haley more than anybody else can talk about. she's a woman of color, the daughter of immigrants, the governor of south carolina during one of the worst white supremacy attacks in that state's modern history. and she responded to that attack by removing the confederate flag from the state capitol recognizing in so doing that symbols of racism were embedded in america's culture and its history and that those symbols needed today be removed. it is a moment tailor made for nikki haley to distinguish herself from the former president, a man who once said white supremacist, there are

good people on both sides. and yet just weeks after failing to identify slavery as the cause of the civil war nikki haley wept on live television and said this. >> we're not a racist country, brian. we've never been a racist country. our goal is to make sure that today is better than yesterday. are we perfect? no. but our goal is to always make sure we try to be more perfect than we already can. >> nikki haley's comments about racism may just be errors but it's probably a tacit acknowledgement whitewashing racism and slavery are things that power the base of support in an era of trump, a base she needs to win. we'll talk to david plouffe whether she can actually manage to do just that next. e whether she can actually manage to do just that next

nikki haley will never secure the border. i don't know that she's a democrat, but she's very close. she's far too close for you. i actually think she might go to the democrat party. she stabbed the party in the back by siding with barack hussein obama against the trump travel ban. >> that was donald trump attacking nikki haley at a rally in new hampshire last night. with five days left until that state's primary it remains to be seen if nikki haley intends to respond in kind over the next five days or ever. joining me now is david plouffe, campaign advisor for barack obama's 2008 presidential

campaign and host of the hq podcast. so many credentials, david plouffe. yeah, how are you thinking about this? nikki haley is the only thing standing between the republican party and the trump abyss. and yet after attacks like that, some of them are explicitly racial, they're definitely demeaning, and they're, you know, gloves off. we are getting nothing from nikki haley even approaching that level of velocity. >> for sure. to be clear i was campaign manager for barack hussein obama. >> i was actually going to say it. >> this is one of the most intense weeks in american politics. and i'd say haley's schedule i think the urgency of what she's saying trump has to be stopped, it's very weak sauce. >> yeah. >> and i assume, you know, they

think that there's just too much to be lost by going too negative on trump, but it's not like you can get those voters anywhere. it's almost like a football team you're down three touch downs and you're a running team like we're a running team. if you don't pass, you're going to lose even if the odds of success aren't great. i still think it could be relatively close. i think trump stealing in new hampshire is not 65 or 60. it's probably 48 or 54 and she'll get the rest of that vote. >> do you have -- help me look behind the curtain here. do you feel like on the race stuff, we were playing some sound earlier. her reluctance, her inability to say the civil war, that the root of it was a fight over slavery. she has america has never been a racist country. these are at odds with positions she staked out early in her career as governor. she took the flag down from the south carolina state capitol.

this woman knows better. is she doing it because she understands saying racism, acknowledging institutional racism would basically disqualify her with trump's base? is that what it is? and why -- as you point out, why bother? like if she's trying to win the racists, she's never going to. >> it's such a sad state of where that party is what she believes, and she's probably right about that. the problem is it looks weak. and you're just not going to beat trump if you look weak, and i think ultimately that's going to keep some lid on what she ultimately can get in new hampshire. >> what is your -- as far as -- i have to ask you because i know you've been vocal about the need to be -- you said at the beginning of this she hasn't had a particularly break neck schedule. there's this idea in american politics you need to be hitting the roads, knocking on doors, doing the retail stuff. you need to be in voters faces.

trump won iowa without doing any of that. certainly he had a ground game, but he's really nationalized american politics in a way no one else has recently. and then people understanding the way their candidates are, and does that render the old model of politics sort of moot? >> i don't think in a small state like new hampshire -- so i think it's definitely changed a lot, and trump was in such a downward position he didn't have to -- back in '16 one of the reason heez lost to cruz is cruz hustled him. i think with haley she would be doing four to six events a day. but you're cutting great social media content. you're just story telling all day long. having been in new hampshire in 2008 where we lost it, hillary really hustled, and i think you get rewarded for that. and again haley is long shot right now, and voters particularly want to see long shots doing everything they can

to both be make their case and fighting for an early vote, and that's not what you get out of it. again, i don't understand what the point is, because if she doesn't win next tuesday, she's done, the race is done, trump's still the republican nominee, the general election starts. >> david, what about the left behinds if that is snare dwroe that comes to pass, right? i don't think a lot of people paid attention to this. when asa hutchinson dropped out of this race, many asa hutchinson supporters forgot was still in theerates, the dnc released a kind of snarky statement saying his retirement, if you will, was a shock to those of us who could have sworn he already dropped out. the biden campaign, i think it was the white house then apologized to asa hutchinson saying the president knows asa hutchinson to be a man of principle who quers about our country. the chief of staff called the governor to convey this and apologized for the dnc

statement. that's certainly, you know, playing to everyone's better angel and raising the bar how we treat each other. but i wonder also if it's tacitly a play for all these republicans who don't want donald trump, who are opposed to donald trump and who biden is going to need come november. >> absolutely. this has to be a coalition, an uneasy coalition put together including the last let's say 4 to 5% of biden's ultimate vote to win are going to be people who disagree with him on just about everything else under the sun. and we all have to say, you know what, in this moment we're going to come together so we can save the country, and then we can go back to fighting about tax rates and who gets health care and who doesn't and all the things that use today be a part of politics. anybody even if they're just conservative but for whatever reason they're saying trump's going too far and he will destroy democracy and become an autocrat or dictator, if they're willing to be in the car with

you, you've got to let them in. >> wow, it is getting to be a crowded car. wait until nikki haley's supporters are being invited for a ride. it's going to be a weird year.d joining me tonight. i appreciate it. we have one more story for you tonight. what benjamin netanyahu said today and why it's in direct opposition to the american position on how to end the war between israel and hamas. that is next. between israel and hamas that is next

shipstation saves us so much time it makes it really easy and seamless pick an order print everything you need slap the label on ito the box and it's ready to go our cost for shipping, were cut in half just like that go to shipstation/tv and get 2 months free

these are new satellite images out of gaza that showed the staggering number of displaced civilians wedged into the southern city of rafah since the october 7th hamas terror attacks. the highlighted areas show the explosion of tent cities where there's little to no access to food or clean water. this week u.n. officials warn that famine across gaza is imminent. the world health organization predicts that the death toll from sickness and starvation could eclipse the number of people killed in the war, which according to the palestinian health ministry, is more than 24,600 people. 10,000 of which are children so far. as it stands 132 hostages from

israel are still being held by hamas inside gaza, 27 of whom israel says are no longer alive. what is happening inside gaza right now is already apocalyptic, but the end of this war is nowhere in sight. the u.s. has continuously pushed for a two-state solution as a means to end this conflict, but today prime minister benjamin netanyahu rejected that notion outright. this was the response from the u.s. state department. >> there is no way to solve their long-term challenges, to provide lasting security, and there is no way to solve the short term challenges of rebuilding gaza and establishing governance in gaza and providing security for gaza without the establishment of a palestinian state. >> joining me now is eamon mohyeldin, host of ayman which airs weekend nights on msnbc. it feels like a circular argument that's happening here.

the u.s. is pushing for a two state solution. netanyahu is dismissing that out of hand. what are people negotiating about at this point? >> to be honest there's not much negotiations taking place on the big picture. what you're seeing right now are kind of low level negotiations taking place on getting medicine into gaza, trying to get more aid trucks into gaza, trying to secure more access to the hostages. we're very far away removed from conversations around a two-state solution. but what was interesting today about what netanyahu said, it's not that he is now emboldened and denying the u.s. stated objectives of having a two-state solution. this has been the implicit policy of the government of benjamin netanyahu for years, forever. he has boasted about this directly to his political constituents saying i have denied and prevented the creation of a palestinian state. he campaigned on that. so i think american officials who are just now waking up to this sound bite today from netanyahu have either been

living in denial or ignoring it for the sake of political convenience, that they don't have to deal with this or confront this issue head on. >> what is the logic there? first of all, the two leaders, biden and netanyahu, haven't spoken in 25 days. netanyahu is out there explicitly undermining the goal that americans have laid out, which is a two-state solution. and yet given that, senior biden administration officials tell nbc news if we took such statements like the one netanyahu's making as the final word, there would be no humanitarian assistance going into gaza and no hostages released. we'll continue to work toward the right outcome particularly on issues where we strongly disagree. i mean, this isn't some small footnote about how many aid trucks get into gaza. this is the essence of the conflict itself. >> this is the ultimate vision of what the united states has for the middle east, that its ultimately security for the region, ultimate peace rests on this corner state of two states

for two people, security and peace for both people. the iisraeli prime minister is openly defying the largest backer of his government, diplomatically, militarily, financially, and is doing so brazenly knowing there won't be any consequences either on capitol hill or within the american political establishment at large. to your point about just, you know, why, what's the logic behind this, the logic behind this is this right-wing government in israel, the most extreme in its history has never believed in a two-state solution. and the fundamental problem is what governments have told us is the ipockeracy of americans when they look at the palestinians and say your words matter, your language matters. if you do not accept a two-state solution in your rhetoric, even if you believe it in your actions, if you don't acknowledge it rhetorically, you will not receive any support for america and we'll denounce your resistance as a representative of the palestinian people. however, that doesn't apply to

israeli officials who come out and say explicitly we'll not work toward a palestinian state, we'll have full control over the river to the sea will be under complete israeli sovereignty. the very slogans people in this country are saying somehow these are genocidal slogans when american college students say them on campus, somehow when the israeli prime minister says it american pall ticks are suddenly quiet and say, how, that sounds like a call for genocide when you say there will only be israeli sovereignty over israeli territory. >> in the meantime this is increasingly spreading to a direct confrontation with iran, the bombing of the houthi bases. and i really want to get this in here in this news broadcast. all universities in gaza, 70% of the schools have been destroyed. you know, the way to recruit terrorists is by having a population that is disenfranchised, feels no hope,

is not educated. >> and universities and cools what are they about? they're about future. israel says they are bastions of tunnels and rockets, but when you put the numbers you outlined when you destroy a school, when you're destroying a university, you're destroying a future generation of education match that means tens of thousands of palestinian kids will not go to school. what to you think happens to those kids who are ripe for the extremism and doctrination extremists will exploit? >> thank you my friend for taking time this evening. a reminder it airs weekend nights on msnbc. "way too early" with jonathan lemire is coming up next. you're asking the wrong person. it's donald trump that needs to get on the stage. the second he says he's going to get on stage, i'm ready. he hasn't done anything. he threw a temper tantrum last night, he's