far from the u.s./mexico border demonstrated his guilt. >> liz kreutz reporting, and that's going to do it for us on a very busy friday. make sure to join us for "chris jansing reports" every weekday from 1:00 to 3:00 p.m. eastern on msnbc. in just 30 minutes, steve kornacki is going to answer all of your new hampshire primary questions. that begins streaming live on msnbc's official you tube channel at 3:30 eastern. but first, "katy tur reports" starts right now. ♪♪ good to be with you, i'm katy tur. this is a good day because we are about to em bark on my absolute favorit thing, the reason i studied philosophy, the reason i wanted to be a lawyer, we are going to dissect a single sentence, okay, two sentences. seriously, though, this is great because the words in question in these sentences are perhaps the

most significant of our time. it's about who can hold office in our country. a foundational statement on what are the basic qualifications to be president. of which there are three. an american-born citizen, age 35 and older and not an insurrectionist. that question right now is how that last part, the shall not be a traitor part, is defined. as you know, colorado has inked their definition, kicking donald trump off the ballot there. now the supreme court is considering it, and trump's legal team is officially weighing in. they've submitted their brief to the justices, warning disqualifying the former president from the ballot in colorado would result in chaos and bedlam, their words. the words in question, are all in article 14, section 3 of the constitution. a word salad of an amendment that was ratified in 1868 in the

que, no personha be a l war. senator or representative in congress o elector of president and vice presidt or hold any office, civil or military under the united states or any state who having previousl taken an oath as a member of congress or as aner of the united states or as a member of any state legislature, or as an executive or judffer of any state to support the constitution of the united states shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. but congress made a vote of/3 of each house removed such a disability. we're going to put that in plainer lan in moment, but first, here is how trump's team parses it. one, they say article 14, section 3, does not apply to trump because the president isn't a,quote, officer of the united states under the constitution.

two, and even if the president was an officer, trump didn't engage in quote, anything that qualifies as insurrection. three,esss the body that enforces section three, not the states. four, that section three only prohibits a person from holding office, not from running for office. and five, that colorado violated the electors clause becse nothing in colorado election code which was passed by the state legislature allows for the state's courts to remove someone from the ballot. so what do we make of trump's interpretation of the constitution? and how does the supreme court define insurrection? in order to answer that it is both extremely helpful to get a legal read and also a contextual read of that amendment as it was written. in other words, what was the intent behind it at the time. joining us now in concord, new hampshire, nbc news correspondent vaughn hillyard, from what he's hearing from voters, also with me, msnbc

legal analyst, lisa rubin, and constitutional law expert and opinion columnist for the "new york times," david french. i'm so happy to have you. as i understand it, lisa, is this the trump argument that none of this applies to him. >> that's exactly right. none of this applies to him because he's not an officer. he didn't take the requisite oath. congress is the one who's supposed to execute the 14th amendment. there are a number of arguments they're offering based on the text of the amendment. but they are also saying that colorado's supreme court did something that they're not supposed to do by basically taking the power away from the state legislature to administer federal elections and doing that for themselves. they say that's a violation of the constitution's electors clause, and they say, katy, something that's breathtaking at the very end of their brief, they essentially say that even if it's not a violation of the elector's clause, the supreme court should have freedom to tell a state court that it's

wrong in its interpretation of state, you know, code, essentially. that historically has not been what the supreme court does. david can tell you that very well. it's animated by principles of federalism that we allow state courts to determine for themselves, what their o law is. and here, jonathan mitchell, the president's lawyer is saying that actually, you know, that's historically been deference, but it doesn't need to do that. there's no constitutional provision or provision of federal law that requires it. that's a breathtaking assertion in terms of how it could radically change the administration of american case law. >> david, as i said, this all comes down to how you interpret this pair of sentences in the constitution, these word salad sentences. the second is easier to understand, the first has a whole lot of run-ones. can you help me understand in plain english, what those sentences mean from your reading of it? >> yeah, it's really simple. if you've taken an oath to support, protect, defend the

constitution, and then you engage in insurrection and rebellion, you can't serve in office again unless congress by 2/3 vote allows you to. that's the rule. it's super simple. after the civil war, there were no large scale prosecutions of confederate soldiers, confederate politicians, by the end of 1868, president johnson pardoned former confederates. there was a huge concern that they were still popular in the south. if you allowed confederates to run for office, they would run the place, that you would have the insurrectionists back in charge, and this was one measure taken to try to limit the influence, particularly of the confederate elite on the south. and now, here's what's really important about this. when the amendment was written, they did not limit the applicability of the amendment to the confederacy only. they chose not to do that. because there had been previous rebellions in american history, the whiskey rebellion, for

example, is another example of a rebellion. they included the broader language intentionally, to capture future situations as well as what had just happened. that's really important for people to understand. >> that is important because one of the arguments i hear against this idea that donald trump participated in insurrection and that insurrection really means, this amendment applies to a civil war style insurrection is that these two things are radically different. what happened on january 6th is nowhere close to what happened after the civil war, and because this amendment was put into place, ratified after the civil war, it has to be of that scale. the people who wrote this would have known that in order for it to make it about the civil war, they would have put it in writing. confederates can't hold office. >> exactly. this language was intentionally crafted to include the broader concept of insurrection or rebellion. there's been a lot of interesting work done by conservative originallyist scholars to show that the

definition of insurrection or rebellion is easily, easily broad enough to encompass what happened on january 6th, the definition of insurrection or rebellion is usually a violent attempt to alter, disrupt government policy or action. in other words, you're directly taking on the government in a rebellion, and this is exactly what happened on january 6th. it was a violent attack on the seat of government for the purpose, by the way, of changing the government in essence. no president biden, trump retains power, and that's a classic example of an attempt at what you would call an attempted coup, which is a form of insurrection or rebellion. >> what about the argument that donald trump is not an officer of the united states. the president is not an officer of the united states, david. colorado in their brief arguing against donald trump's argument says no absolutely he was an officer, and they point to a federalist paper written by i think it's james madison. i got to check this.

they point to a federalist paper where those words are used, that the president is an officer. >> i think the argument that he's not an officer is extremely weak. and when you're reading the law, the law, the words on the page have their ordinary meaning, unless the actual law itself changes that meaning in a specific way. if you're looking at it, by every ordinary meaning of the word officer, trump was an officer. and he would be again if he becomes president again. this is common sense reading of the text, and it's very strained to say, well, maybe he's an officer, but he wasn't under the united states. or he wouldn't be under the united states if he's president. again, when you're reading laws, you read the words, ordinary, plain, normal meaning, unless the law at issue changes the mean, and it doesn't here. >> it's an alexander hamilton federalist paper. i should be precise on this.

and then the other question i have for you, david, is this idea that this is really congress's authority, and the last question of the amendment as written, section 3, is but congress made by a vote of 2/3 of each house removed such a disability. so they're laying out what qualifications you need to be president. they're saying you can't engage in insurrection. they have laid that out in the sentence before. the second sentence is but congress made by a vote of 2/3 of each house removed such a disability. how does that go with the argument that this is congress's purview? >> right, so, again, it's plain language. the actual prohibition is made effective by the passing of this amendment. this amendment makes that prohibition against an insurrectionist holding office effective. the amendment says plainly, congress can act to remove the disability. it doesn't say that congress has to act to impose the disability. the disability is there. it's in the constitution now.

but congress may vote to remove it. that's the congressional action that is really relevant here, and congress has not acted to remove that impediment from donald trump. if they wanted to it could. if 2/3 wanted to, they could. it hasn't. therefore the amendment is effective on its other than terms. >> the majority of the supreme court is made up by originalists, is there anything you think they might attach themselves to in donald trump's defense? >> i think the holding office language is maybe the best textualist argument that trump has on his side. it's not a particularly good one either. >> he needs to be elected in order for this to kick in. >> or that it's not ripe yet because in a presidential primary, it's sufficiently attenuated from holding office as opposed to a general election, for example, that the prohibition is on holding office as an insurrectionist and if you're a candidate in a presidential primary, you're just far enough away from that

to not make that work. i don't think it's a great argument, but i think it's much better than the two you just reviewed with david about the officer and about the self-excuse of -- self-execution of it. has written about that for the "new york times" in a persuasive op-ed. >> vaughn, you're talking to voters, one of the arguments trump's team makes is if this were to stand, colorado is right, the supreme court sides with colorado, it would disenfranchise a number of voters. what do you hear when you ask trump voters about whether he's qualified to be on the ballot? >> reporter: they're aware of what's taking place. i don't think the exact dates are completely understood here, but i think that that is part of the supreme court's decision to have these oral arguments here so quickly. on february 8th is the day of the nevada caucus. of course this upcoming tuesday is when new hampshire primary voters will go to the polls, and then nevada is up next, south

carolina follows them, two weeks later here. and i think it's important to understand that if the u.s. supreme court were to affirm the decision of the colorado supreme court, there would be a large share of the american population that would be sympathetic to donald trump's frustrations and anger over being removed. there is in a recently "washington post" poll, 25% of americans, not just republicans, 25% of americans believe that the fbi instigated the january 6th attack. there is a belief among some, including laura lumara right wing provocateur, but allies of donald trump and supporters that in fact, the events of january 6th stem from not only a stolen 2020 election, but also it was an effort to arrest supporters of donald trump and ultimately disqualify him from ever serving in the white house again. making the case that years after that attack, what the u.s. supreme court is about to rule

on was the very intent of allowing that january 6th capitol attack to take place in the first place. and so this i think it is a tough conversation of hypotheticals when i'm conversing with folks to walk down. it is one that is uncomfortable. it is one that i have a hard time seeing how a great share of the trump supporting electorate would handle this. we have seen efforts three years ago that led to violence out of frustration following the election, and this go around, i frankly don't want to go too far down as to where this would head. there would be a great share of the american electorate that would be angry with the decision of the supreme court. >> that's one of the arguments against the supreme court getting involved here, it's too highly politicized, too hot for the supreme court, and really the remedy should be the american public. they should decide who gets to be president, and donald trump should be on the ballot because he's the most popular guy as of right now in the republican party. >> i totally understand that

argument. >> david, go ahead! yeah, i totally understand that argument that it is a big, heavy lift to ask the supreme court to remove the leading gop contender from the ballot or declare that he's ineligible to hold office. but the answer to that is this is what the constitution says. when the debates were unfolding there was an option to leave this to the democratic process, and the reason why the section of the amendment exists is because the framers of the amendment were worried about the democratic process returning insurrectionist demagogues to office, and what would happen when that would happen, and guess what, ultimately those insurrectionist demagogues were returned to office in 1872, congress voted to allow people who would be barred, otherwise barred by the 14th amendment to hold office and a bunch of these confederate elites came back into office, and what did they do, jim crow, what they did was

presided over this engine of oppression in the south. so when you let insurrectionists back in office, guess what they do, they do the same things that led to the trouble in the first place. and that's what happened in the south. it's the old confederates enacted a legal regime that was as much like the confederacy as they could possibly make it, and it's a very dangerous thing to let demagogues, insurrectionist demagogues back on the ballot. >> david french, thank you so much for joining us. i know you've been steeped in this. i think it's a really interesting reading of the amendment. i know that, you know, you've cited this. this is not brought up by a bunch of liberals. this argument was made by a bunch of very conservative people, well respected conservative legal minds. federalist society people in the first place, that's how this came to be. this is not a, you know, some democratic fever dream. david french, thank you for

joining us. lisa rubin, thank you as well. i always appreciate your legal analysis. coming up, what d.a. fani willis -- what will d.a. fani willis say to defend herself against allegations she misused public funds in her case against donald trump and how the accusation could derail the whole thing. plus, him? what democrats say they are willing to do for speaker mike johnson that they were unwilling to do for speaker kevin mccarthy. and what happened this time? another plane makes another emergency landing. this time on a highway in virginia. what in the world is going on. we're back in 60 seconds. if you're like me, one of the millions suffering from pain caused by migraine, nurtec odt may help. it's the only medication that can treat a migraine when it strikes and prevent migraine attacks. treat and prevent, all in one. don't take if allergic to nurtec. allergic reactions can occur, even days after using.

most common side effects were nausea, indigestion, and stomach pain. relief is possible. talk to a doctor about nurtec odt. here's to getting better with age. here's to beating these two every thursday. help fuel today with boost high protein, complete nutrition you need... ...without the stuff you don't. so, here's to now. boost. (christina) with verizon business unlimited, i get 5g, truly unlimited data, and unlimited hotspot data. so, here's to now. so, no matter what, i'm running this kitchen. (vo) make the switch. it's your business. it's your verizon. first it was a door plug that blew off a boeing 737 max 9. and a commuter jet skidded off the runway in rochester, new york. a boeing cargo jet caught fire midair over miami, and a

small prop plane has landed on a highway in virginia, a single engine cessna touched down on route 606 in loudoun county. traffic is a mess. the good news is it appears the landing was successful. no cars appear to be hit. and so far no injuries have been reported from the seven people on board. of course this just happened so all of that could change. we'll be watching it. coming up, the judge in the rico case against donald trump in fulton county, georgia, wants to know more. judge mcafee scheduled a hearing for an allegation that d.a. fani willis has been misusing public funds. the misconduct hearing is over claims that one of trump's codefendants in the election interference case is accusing d.a. willis of hiring and paying her lover to be a special prosecutor on the case and personally profiting from the

money paid. joining us now nbc news correspondent blayne alexander. lay out the heart of the allegations. how was this money allegedly misused? >> reporter: there are certainly a lot of pieces to this ever growing puzzle. so i'll get to the heart of the allegations. basically an attorney for michael roman, one of the lesser known defendants is saying that fani willis essentially profited from the money that she was paying to nathan wade saying that because the two were in a romantic relationship, that wade was taking the money that he was earning from the d.a.'s office and booking trips for the two of them to travel together in a personal capacity, and therefore roman is alleging that she benefits from the money in that way, taking those trips. one i think i want to underscore is the motion that was filed last week doesn't present any direct evidence or any evidence, other than citing sources with knowledge of the situation and so certainly that's something that we're certainly watching for when we look ahead to this hearing on february 15th will

there be any evidence that's produced. the other thing, though, is that we have not heard d.a. fani willis responding directly to these claims. she appeared to respond indirectly during a passionate speech during an mlk celebration over the weekend. neither she nor nathan wade directly responded. her office, i spoke with a spokesperson in the last 30 minutes or so, says they plan to file a written response, and the judge set a deadline of february 2nd to do that. >> blayne alexander, thank you very much. we have breaking news to bring you. actor alec baldwin has been indicted on new charges in new mexico by a grand jury of involuntary manslaughter over the death of cinematographer helena huffins, killed in 2021 after the actor's prop gun fired a live round of ammunition on the set of the film rust. it's a charge that was previously dropped. if convicted, baldwin could pace up to 18 months in prison. in a statement, baldwin's

attorney says the actor looks forward to his day in court. a trial date has not been set. coming up, after showing up in person to offer public testimony, hunter biden is suddenly relenting. what made him agree to testify to republicans behind closed doors? and who is threatening house speaker mike johnson's job, and who is offering to save it t. it's not who you might think. hok it's not who you might think. . it's not who you might think. it's not who you might think . it's not who you might think

businesses go further with 5g solutions. that's why they choose t-mobile for business. pga of america and t-mobile are partnering on 5g-powered analytics to help improve player performance. t-mobile's network helps aaa stay connected nationwide... to get their members back on the road. and las vegas grand prix chose t-mobile to help fuel operations for one of the world's largest racing events. now is the time to see what america's largest 5g network can do for your business. struggling with the highs and lows of bipolar 1? ask about vraylar. because you are greater than your bipolar 1,

and you can help take control of your symptoms with vraylar. some medicines only treat the lows or highs. vraylar treats depressive, acute manic, and mixed episodes of bipolar 1 in adults. proven full-spectrum relief for all bipolar 1 symptoms. and in vraylar clinical studies, most saw no substantial impact on weight. elderly dementia patients have increased risk of death or stroke. call your doctor about unusual changes in behavior or suicidal thoughts. antidepressants can increase these in children and young adults. report fever, stiff muscles or confusion which may mean a life-threatening reaction or uncontrollable muscle movements which may be permanent. high blood sugar, which can lead to coma or death, weight gain and high cholesterol may occur. movement dysfunction and restlessness are common side effects. sleepiness and stomach issues are also common. side effects may not appear for several weeks. ask about vraylar and learn how abbvie could help you save.

i think he's having a midlife crisis learn how abbvie 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.

republicans, most of them anyway, say they want a solution at the board e but not all of them are willing to make a deal with democrats to do it marjorie taylor greene is threatening mike johnson's job if he agrees to ukraine aid in exchange for a border deal. democrats are saying ignore her, we'll save you if the extremes of your party vote you out. joining us now, nbc news capitol hill correspondent ryan nobles, so what's going on here? >> reporter: there definitely seems to be a disconnect here between certain members of the republican party, both in the house and the senate, and other members of the republican party as it comes to this issue on border security. you do hear some republicans, in fact, those that are heavily involved in the negotiations around the supplemental package argue that this is a once-in-a-generation opportunity for republicans to get conservative policies injected into the debate over immigration, while you have other hard line republicans

suggesting we should either go for everything or nothing at all. and that's led to this disconnect where you even see some democrats now getting involved in this conversation who desperately want to see a supplemental package pushed through that has funding for ukraine, has funding for israel, has funding for the indo-pacific region, and also believe that something needs to be done at the border, making a signal to mike johnson, the house speaker. don't side with those most conservative members of your party. listen to the overwhelming majority of your republican members that are saying let's do something, and if it gets to the point where they try and push you out through a motion to vacate, we may be there to rescue you. while this sounds like a "west wing" plot, there's a reality check involved in this in that democrats are not just going to hand over their votes if a motion to vacate comes. it will come with stipulations which may make it difficult for speaker johnson to get to that

point. but to sum this up, i should say, there's at least an opening here, and that's why you see these negotiations moving forward. >> it feels like a right moment for a deal on immigration. ripe moment. democrats want the ukraine aid. democrats may be understanding there are democrats out there who are saying something needs to happen at the border, it's not working as it stands. >> reporter: i think you're exactly right. it was part of a long discussion on this topic with representative dan crenshaw of texas made that point. we are in an election season right now. that's the leverage we have on joe biden, and he said that some of his republican colleagues have argued, well, then we shouldn't give joe biden this opportunity to solve the problem at the border because it could hurt him politically, and his argument is that he didn't come to congress to win elections. he came to congress to solve problems and if republican members aren't interested in

solving the problem, they're interested in winning elections, they're in it for the wrong reasons. the question is are there more dan crenshaws or marjorie taylor greenes. and that's a question we don't know the answer to just yet. let's talk about hunter biden and his concession that he's making. he's going to testify behind closed doors to congress for two separate committees. joining us now, nbc senior investigative producer, sarah fitzpatrick. i'm having you join the conversation, nobody knows the story better than you. having a news conference outside of congress, he would appear publicly, going inside to capitol hill for a surprise visit to a hearing to demonstrate that he was happy to appear publicly. why now is he saying yes to appearing privately? >> i think ultimately, you know, the timing is no accident here on both sides. there was a contempt, you know, he had demonstrated multiple times through letters, appearances, a willingness to

testify, and ultimately the committee put on the calendar the possibility of a contempt of congress, you know, of that happening, becoming a reality. and so i think what we saw here is it went for the first time, those negotiations became -- went out of public, and went into being actual conversations between his attorneys and the committee about the real logistics, and i think the point here is that they ultimately, once they started communicating, found a place that satisfied both. that satisfied the terms, the very clear terms of a legal subpoena from congress for hunter biden, for the committee, but ultimately, the committee agreed to certain things that the biden team believed were necessary for maximum public transparency, that a transcript will be released relatively quickly. there won't be any redactions, things of that nature. they believe that ultimately the american public deserves to know what hunter biden has to say and these terms make it as much as

is possible behind closed doors. >> how much of his testimony is going beyond, i plead the fifth? >> i think we're going to see him be very emphatic, despite the fact that he is under criminal investigation, he is facing, you know, serious charges in both california and delaware, that despite five years of investigations by the fbi, the irs, republicans in congress, there has been no concrete allegation of criminal activity or improper activity, as it relates to things like foreign lobbying or improper political influence, especially as it relates to his father, the president, joe biden. so i think we will see him speak for the first time in detail about this kind of the difference between the charges he has been charged with in terms of taxes and guns and what republicans have been insinuating and alleging. but there still is no concrete allegation. >> ryan, are the republicans seeing this as a win? >> reporter: i think there's no doubt about that. i talked to the oversight

committee chairman james comer yesterday, and he firmly believes that the fact that they were able to push a contempt of congress resolution out of a committee and threaten to have it on the floor of the house and also the uncomfortable position that would put attorney general merrick garland in if the congress referred a contempt of congress charge to the department of justice for potential prosecution is what led hunter biden's team to get serious about negotiating the terms, this does not come without risk for republicans on the panel. hunter biden is going to be testifying under oath. they're going to be asking him very specific questions that are based on these assumptions they made that sarah talked about, the business practices and influences his father may or may not have had. they still have a wide gap between those assumptions and the evidence they're looking for. this is risky for both sides. a lot of eyeballs on the

appearance. >> and still ahead, what israeli prime minister benjamin netanyahu said that could widen the gulf between him and the united states. first, though, what donald trump says he'll have that nikki haley will not have in the general election. we're still going for that nice catch. we're still going for that sweet shot. and with higher stroke risk from afib not caused by a heart valve problem, we're going for a better treatment than warfarin. eliquis. eliquis reduces stroke risk. and has less major bleeding. over 97% of eliquis patients did not experience a stroke. don't stop taking eliquis without talking to your doctor as this may increase your risk of stroke. eliquis can cause serious and in rare cases fatal bleeding. don't take eliquis if you have an artificial heart valve or abnormal bleeding. while taking, you may bruise more easily or take longer for bleeding to stop. get help right away for unexpected bleeding, or unusual bruising.

it may increase your bleeding risk if you take certain medicines. tell your doctor about all planned medical or dental procedures. the number one cardiologist-prescribed blood thinner. we're going for it. ask your doctor about eliquis. a force to be reckon with. no, not you saquon. hm? you! your business bank account with quickbooks money, now earns 5% apy. 5% apy? that's new! yup, that's how you business differently. ♪ students... students of any age, from anywhere. students in a new kind of classroom. ♪ using our technology to power different ways of learning. ♪ harnessing ai to plant new beginnings. ♪ so when minds grow, opportunities follow.

the best advice i ever got was to invest with vanguard for my retirement. the second best? stay healthy enough to enjoy it. so i started preparing physically and financially. then you came along and made every mile worth it. hi mom. at vanguard you're more than just an investor, you're an owner. helping you prepare for today's longer retirement. that's the value of ownership.

power e*trade's award-winning trading app makes trading easier. with its customizable options chain, easy-to-use tools and paper trading to help sharpen your skills, you can stay on top of the market from wherever you are. e*trade from morgan stanley power e*trade's easy-to-use tools make complex trading less complicated. custom scans help you find new trading opportunities, while an earnings tool helps you plan your trades and stay on top of the market. not just any whiteboard...

...katie porter's whiteboard is one way she's: [news anchor] ...often seen grilling top executives of banks, big pharma, even top administration officials. katie porter. never taken corporate pac money - never will. leading the fight to ban congressional stock trading. and the only democrat who opposed wasteful “earmarks” that fund politicians' pet projects. katie porter. focused on your challenges - from lowering housing costs to fighting climate change. shake up the senate - with democrat katie porter. i'm katie porter and i approve this message. donald trump is calling nikki haley nimarata, even

though she's always gone by her name nikki. you can make your assumptions. she's trying to remind voters that he's old and not exactly competent. >> the majority of americans don't want to see two 80-year-olds battling it out for president. trump says things, americans aren't stupid to see what he says. the reality is who lost the house, who lost the senate, who lost the white house, donald trump, donald trump, donald trump. nikki haley will win every single one of those back for us, i've proven that. >> joining us in manchester, new hampshire, ali vitali. we are a few days, three days out from the primary, four days out from the primary. where do things stand? >> reporter: they stand that nikki haley is still trying to push the narrative that is her versus trump, of course, trump has caught on to that, and we're watching the ways that he's going at her, but we're also the

watching the ways that trump has been able to coalesce the field around him. we saw senator marco rubio endorse him just before the iowa caucus. that was notable because haley had endorsed rubio in 2016. and now we're watching senator tim scott, fellow south carolinians and the person who nikki haley put in the senate in 2012, tim scott now coming out and endorsing trump, a source familiar telling me that scott is down in florida right now, he'll fly up to new hampshire tonight with trump, and speak at the rally that he'll be hosting here tonight. in response to that, we're hearing from nikki haley in a statement, though when i first asked her about it, it was as th ns was breaking and she ignored our questions as she was leaving a diner. now in a statement she's saying in part, it's interesting that trump's lining up with all the washington insiders when he claimed he wanted to drain the swamp. haley then goes on to say but the fellows are going to do what the fellows are going to do. clearly this is not welcome news because, again, this is someone who ran in the primary, is from her home state, and to the

extent that endorsements move votes, which i think you and i could debate, and i'm not sure that i'm in the camp that says they move vote, it is notable that trump has been able to coalesce this many parts of the party. >> ali vitali, thank you very much. and still ahead, what some democrats see as an opportunity and a great risk in the general election. but right after this break. they had their first conversation in more than 26 days. what was said between president biden and israeli prime minister benjamin netanyahu. in netanyahu . help fuel today with boost high protein, complete nutrition you need... ...without the stuff you don't. so, here's to now. boost. dad and i finally had that talk. no, not that talk. about what the future looks like. for me. i may have trouble getting around, but i want to live in my home where i'm comfortable and my friends are nearby.

i can do it with the help of a barber, personal shopper and exercise buddy. someone who can help me live right at home. life's good. when you have a plan. ♪ ♪ if you have chronic kidney disease you can reduce the risk of kidney failure with farxiga. because there are places you'd rather be. farxiga can cause serious side effects, including ketoacidosis that may be fatal, dehydration, urinary tract, or genital yeast infections, and low blood sugar. a rare, life-threatening bacterial infection in the skin of the perineum could occur. stop taking farxiga and call your doctor right away if you have symptoms of this infection, an allergic reaction, or ketoacidosis. ♪ far-xi-ga ♪ ♪ ♪ wake up, gotta go! c'mon, c'mon. -gracie, c'mon. let's go! guys, c'mon! mom, c'mon! mia! [ engine revving ] ♪ ♪ my favorite color is...

[ imitating trombone ] because, it's like a family thing! [ engine revving ] ♪ ♪ made it! mom! leave running behind, behind. the new turbocharged volkswagen atlas. does life beautifully. ♪everything i do that's for my health is an accomplishment.♪ ♪concerns of getting screened faded away♪ ♪to my astonishment.♪ ♪my doc gave me a script i got it done without a delay.♪ ♪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!♪ some migraine attacks catch you off guard, but for me a stressful day can trigger migraine attacks too. that's why my go to is nurtec odt. it's the only migraine medication that can treat and prevent my attacks all in one.

don't take if allergic to nurtec. allergic reactions can occur even days after using. most common side effects were nausea, indigestion and stomach pain. now i'm in control. with nurtec odt i can treat a migraine attack and prevent one. talk to your doctor about nurtec today. (dad) it's our phone bill...we pay for things that we don't need. talk to your doctor (mom) that's a bit dramatic. (dad) we must tighten our belts! (mom) a better plan to save is verizon! (vo) starts at $25 per line... ...guaranteed for 3 years for a limited time only... only on verizon.

it appears to be getting tense between president biden and prime minister benjamin netanyahu who is openly defying the wishes of israel's closest ally and saying there's no way he will accept a two-state solution with the palestinians. now for the first time in 26 days, president biden has gotten on the phone with prime minister netanyahu. the white house says their conversation was not in response to netanyahu's words but you got to imagine it came up. joining us now from tel aviv, nbc news correspondent raf sanchez. i know there's a readout, but the idea that prime minister netanyahu is going out and saying there will not be a two-state solution when the americans have said it's necessary, pretty much everyone else has said the same, how is that playing there where you are? >> reporter: well, katy, it's worth noting that the prime minister has built a very

successful decades long career in israeli domestic politics saying that he opposes a palestinian state and saying that he is the israeli politician who is able to stand up to the united states, in his words, stand up to even israel's closest friends and say no. we did just get this readout. it is framed in the sort of polite, diplomatic language that you would expect, but katy, as you know, it's interesting, one of the most precious commodities in washington is the president's time. what do you spend the president's time on? and judging by this readout, it looks like his national security team felt the most useful thing here was to discuss two actually quite technical issues that potentially could have the implications for the palestinian people, one is about getting flour directly into gaza from an israeli port, ashdod, which is south of here. and the other is getting tax revenue to the palestinian authority in the occupied west bank to try to make sure it

doesn't collapse, which could create a new security crisis in the west bank on top of the one in gaza. the readout does say at the very last line, the president also discussed his vision for a more durable peace and security for israel fully integrated within the region which is a way of saying potentially making peace with saudi arabia, with other arab states, and a two-state solution with israel's security guaranteed. it may very well be from the white house's perspective, katy, they know that prime minister netanyahu has been arguing with democratic presidents about the question of a two-state solution since bill clinton. they may have felt it wasn't worth spending a lot of time on this call arguing that when there is such dire humanitarian need in gaza, and when you have the west bank frankly teetering ant edge. katy. >> that's a really good point. raf sanchez, thank you very much. joining us now independent journalist, noga tarnopolsky who spent two decades covering the conflict between the israelis

and the palestinians. noga, thank you very much for being here. give us more insight on to what benjamin netanyahu is facing? >> well, he is pretty close to a dead end, i would say. he has lost the support and the faith of the israeli people. he's facing a pretty angry protest including hunger strikes from families of hostages. and he's facing a bizarre situation. if we listen to what raf just said, i think it's important to note that yesterday when the prime minister responded to the white house offer with just a no, no palestinian state, and the white house responded immediately that that's the only avenue forward, the israeli media covered this not as israel standing up to the white house but as netanyahu said no to our top ally. and i think that may indicate a shift in the public consciousness here. >> what about the internal

criticism of benjamin netanyahu? a member of the war cabinet just came out and said some things about him. what were they, and how is that being received? >> i think you're referring to an absolutely astonishing interview yesterday that i think kind of, like, broke the waters here in the public. netanyahu has always liked to refer to himself as israel's mr. security. that's how he sold himself to israelis principally, and yesterday, former chief of staff of the israeli army who lost his own son fighting in gaza last month gave just an amazing interview on israeli tv, and he said the prime minister is in t of thestate. he's acting on his own interest, and i will know when to quit discoverment. he was just stark in his assessment of the prime minister's failure to act on behalf of the israeli people. and i don't think we've seen

something like that before. and the reactions have been huge today, i would say. >> the question of what happens next in this two-state solution. raf was just saying this is what benjamin netanyahu has been trafficking in, that there would never be a two-state solution. how does the israeli public feel? >> i think the israeli public is feeling exhausted. and it's important to say that while de facto, what raf said is true, netanyahu has always acted to thwart a palestinian state. it's not what he has always said. netanyahu in the past has usually tried to say yes but no. yes to the americans, and then he says we don't have anyone to negotiate with, there's no one on the other side. now the united states is offering very serious guarantees regarding the other side, and, again, what we're seeing is that when he says no, the israeli public responds by saying, wait, is that putting us in danger because he's defying our number

one ally? and it's important to remember, joe biden thus far has shown a much better understanding of, i would say, the general public opinion in israel than netanyahu has. and that's why he's, you know, at 25% support. >> noga, thank you very much. it's just a fascinating moment. yeah, wow. coming up next, what some democrats think is president biden's best chance at winning re-election. jordan's sore nose let out a fiery sneeze, so dad grabbed puffs plus lotion to soothe her with ease. puffs plus lotion is gentle on sensitive skin and locks in moisture to provide soothing relief. a nose in need deserves puffs indeed. america's #1 lotion tissue. i won't let me moderate to severe plaque psoriasis

symptoms define me... emerge as you. with tremfya®, most people saw 90% clearer skin at 4 months... ...and the majority stayed clearer, at 5 years. serious allergic reactions may occur. tremfya® may increase your risk of infections and lower your ability to fight them. tell your doctor if you have an infection or symptoms or if you had a vaccine or plan to. emerge as you. emerge tremfyant®. ask you doctor about tremfya®. - i got the cabin for three days. it's gonna be sweet! what? i'm 12 hours short. - have a fun weekend. - ♪ unnecessary action hero! unnecessary. ♪ - was that necessary? - no. neither is a blown weekend. with paycom, employees do their own payroll so you can fix problems before they become problems. - hmm! get paycom and make the unnecessary, unnecessary. - see you down the line.

(christina) with verizon business unlimited, i get 5g, truly unlimited data, and unlimited hotspot data. so, no matter what, i'm running this kitchen. (vo) make the switch. it's your business. it's your verizon. - "best thing i've ever done." that's what freddie told me. - it was the best thing i've ever done, and- - really? - yes, without a doubt! - i don't have any anxiety about money anymore. - great people. different people, that's for sure, and all of them had different reasons for getting a reverse mortgage, but you know what, they all felt the same about two things: they all loved their home, and they all wanted to stay in that home. and they all wanted to stay in that home. - [announcer] if you're 62 or older and own your home, you could access your equity to improve your lifestyle.

a reverse mortgage loan eliminates your monthly mortgage payments and puts tax-free cash in your pocket. call the number on your screen. - why don't you call aag... and find out what a reverse mortgage can mean for you? - [announcer] call right now to receive your free no-obligation info kit. call the number on your screen. ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪

most democratic voters view former president donald trump as a huge threat to democracy, some also believe he's the only way to get president biden re-elected. joining us now, chief white house correspondent for "the new york times" and msnbc political analyst, peter baker. peter, you've written about this today. and it's kind of -- it's a double-edged sword here. the idea that donald trump could ascend to the white house here

terrifies democrats and a lot of independents as well, but going up to face a, you know, nikki haley could mean that president biden doesn't get re-elected. how is that balance playing out within the biden campaign? >> yeah, i mean, look, they understand that nikki haley obviously is untested in a general election, so they don't know for sure, but if you look at the polls, she obviously has less baggage than donald trump does with the voters in the middle that biden needs to get back in his camp if he wants a second term. cbs poll showed she had an eight-point lead over biden in a hypothetical general election match-up against trump, who's at two points over biden. that doesn't mn they want trump to be the no they're kind -- they do belie trump is probably the easiest of the remaining republican candidates to beat, but they also recognize in their view the threat they see if he were to win. this is something democrats went

through in 2016. a lot of them thought, well, if donald trump gets the nomination, we're not too worried because obviously he's such an outlier, there's no way we can't beat him. in fact, obviously they learned quite the opposite. that doesn't mean they want, obviously, nikki haley to be president either. i think they're kind of torn in this position while they're waiting on the sidelines for an answer to the question of who they're going to face in the poll. >> is it because they see the biggest turnout driver of trump voters is trump, but also the biggest turnover driver of democratic voters is donald trump? >> yeah, absolutely. the best case that biden has to make to the public in this view is not that he's not done a lot as president, he'll make that case, he had the infrastructure and climate, so forth, but telling them that -- or turn to the white house by donald trump is a scary thing, a threatening thing to america. that has a much more galvanizing effect on at least, you know, the undecided voters or the biden voters in 2020 who kind of peeled away from him.

if you actually ask them which are they going to pick between biden and trump, a lot of those voters who might be unhappy with president biden because of his age or border or whatever issue might be on their minds, inflation, but the idea that donald trump might come back is even scarier to these voters and the idea that biden is going to have to spend his year trying to make that case to them. you may not like me -- he says it all the time. his favorite phrase is don't compare me to the almighty, compare me to the alternative. the alternative, donald trump motivates a lot of democrats. >> it worked in 2020 but it was chaotic. there was pandemic, donald trump was telling you inject bleach into your veins, the economy was crashing and it was chaos. there was worry about donald trump, he was in front of everybody's face all the time. he hasn't been in front of everybody's face all the time for the past four years. are they worried that in this past four years, some of the

voters who either didn't turn out or switched their vote to biden might look again and say, hey, listen, it wasn't really that bad, i want to take a chance on this guy again? it's risky. >> yeah, i do think you're right to make that point. the exhaustion factor in 2020 was a big one. that's kind of faded, obviously, with time. ironically, so has the outrage factor over january 6th. you would have thought after january 6th there's no way a person who instigated a mob and attacked the capitol to stop the transfer of power could ever be elected again. that does now seem to be the case. i think you're right to say that, you know, out of sight means that he has -- he's less, you know -- a lot of voters might be willing to give him a second chance. if not give him a second chance, maybe stay at home because they won't see it as bad as they saw in 2020. >> peter baker, thank you very much. that's going to do it for me today. "deadline: white house" starts right now. hey, everne