and as we teased on your show, we have a big, big, big, he was making interview tonight. so we are going to get right to it. today, i sat down with former senator and secretary of state and presidential candidate hillary clinton. and we covered a lot of ground. we talked about conflicts overseas, in the middle east, and in ukraine. talk about donald trump's legal jeopardy, and the utter chaos in the republican party. chaos that, by the way, is on full display tonight, with the senate now scrambling to figure out a path forward after republicans killed their own bipartisan border legislation in order to appease donald trump. funding for ukraine unless democrats agreed to tough new bordero policies. now, just to put this all in per spefgtive for you, ukraine is facing some of its biggest challenges since this war began. russia has ramped up missile strikes across the country as ukraine has been forced today ration the ammunitions. the ukrainian army is fighting

fatigue and morale issues, and in thele meantime republicans a playing politics. they are playing politicwise the vital resources ukraine needs to defend its democracy from invaders. the democrats agreed to work with republicans and to craft a bipartisan bill to increase border security measures in exchange for that aid. but then donald trump came out against the deal. he did not want to hand president biden a victory on trump's favorite campaign issue, which is drumming up fear about what's happening eaautothe bord. and so today republicans voted to kill their own bill in the senate. the finaln vote was 49-50 with all but four republicans voting against r it. after that stunning defeat democrat chuck schumer put a second bill on the floor. it strips out the border stuff and juste funds aid to israel d taiwan and ukraine, which is what the democrats wanted in the

first place. 58 voted to advance that bill. that is just shy until the 60 they need for final passage. now the senate has end the of the day tomorrow to convince two more to support this bill before they leave town for two weeks. even if they manage to convince those two senators, that aid bill is going to face an uphill battle over the republican controlled house. republicans are not willingll t help ukraine because they are terrified of donald btrump's retribution. ip' asked former secretary of state hillary clinton about all of that today. we're here because it's a day of events, really it's the future of ukraine. and i have to ask you watching the sort of spectacle unfold in washington around thee basic ia around ukraine funding, what's

your reaction to what the republican party has done on this issue or not done? >> you know, it's fascinating, alex, becausein i think a very small minority of the republican party has hijacked the party when it comes to a number of things like border security and aid for ukraine. i actually think that a majority of republicans in both houses if given the chance would vote for both border security and ukraine fund. itkr doesn't appear they'll get chance to vote on border funding because it's not clear that it will pass t the cloture requirement. but they think they will get a chance to vote on ukraine funding as well as israel funding and i think it'll pass both houses. >> so you're optimistic am. >> i am about those two things. i think the stripping of the border security, the defeat in the house ofhe the israel aid oy

sets up a aupgds for the senate to pass bothhe ukraine and israi aidne and then send it to the house. >> i got to ththink, though, if you're volodymyr zelenskyy and this isym a matter of life and death, and you're watching a circus unfold do you think it changes -- there are so many reasons why the globe has thought differently of america in recent years. but a moment like that where it's so clear they're sort of engaging in the most base partisan theatrics over such an incredibly critical issue for the people of ukraine, do you think that forever changes the relationship america has with the world?f >> no. i think it raises questions, and thosese are understandable becae watching this profoundly dysfunctional republican party in the congress, unable to make up its own mind about what it believes, what it will vote for inll part because they are

enthralled to trump, which is just so hard to understand, does of course raise questions. but i do think there is still a majority in both houses to support aid for ukraine. and of course president biden is, you know, fully onboard. so at the end of the day i am hoping that there will be a positive vote in the congress, which will send a clear message not just to ukrainians, europeans, others around the world, but to our own country. why would we reward such not just only dysfunctional behavior, but it's all so unserious. it's -- i saw a columnist use the other day use the word silly. it's profoundly silly to watch this circus in the congress where donald trump is the puppeteer. you know, i was in the senate for eight years, and i know some

of the people that are still there. i know they don't believe this. and whyli they continue to given to him, i don't understand. i think that the border security would have been a very good time to stand up to trump and say you've been talking about it, we're delivering for you, mr. president, and go from there. so we'll see what happens next. >> were you surprised by their capitulation toir trump's whimsn the border bill? >>rd i was surprised. because it was a really serious effort. the republicans haveou done thi before when i was in the senate we overwhelmingly passed an immigration reform, you know, in addition to security, other provisions as well. we pass it overwhelmingly in the senate. then president george w. bush said he would sign it, and the i republican leadership in the house would never bring it up for a vote. so i said for years they'd rather have a problem on the border thanra a solution. but i thought this time given the seriousness of the negotiation, the fact that it was only about security, that,

frankly, the democrats gave up a lot to support the republican request for greater security, which i favored, actually. and then at the last minute toot have donald trump tell people who are independently elected in their states and have an obligation to represent their constituents and their conscience, that they had to trying to solve the problem and go back to letting it fester for his own political purposes was pretty shocking toli me. >> and to do so so explicitly, right? >> it wasn't even a surprise, was it? >> it's just trump's telling us we can't do it because it's not good for him in an election year so we're not going to do it. >> there were a few profiles in courage for a little while, people standing up and saying what are you talking about, we want to solve this problem, that's whyth they were sent to washington. but then theyon capitulated. honestly it shows a real danger

that trump poses that it doesn't whether you have a bipartisan agreement to solve a problem or not. if he wants it for political purposes then he tries to and up.eeds in blowing it that is what authoritarians do and yet another reason why we can't let him anywherean near t white house again. >> that's former secretary of state hillary clinton weighing in on the existential threat trump poses to the legislative process among other things. joining me is ali velshi. i should note ali has reported extensively from ukrainepo and even elmoderated a panel on ukraine recovery today at columbia e university, which is where i was speaking with secretary clinton. there you are at that very well-timed panel, ali. i want to get to sort of ukraine of it all in a second. i think the last couple of days we've got the border negotiations and emblematic of the stranglehold donald trump has the party. iton seems to me there's a step

further. ukraine could be even more of a test given what's passed on the bord bill about the degree to which donald trump has destroyed this party and everything it once stood for. >> at least the border issue while everyone should have wanted to fix it, no one's got it right for a long time. and republican priorities are differentan than democratic priorities, not so on ukraine. that's the wild card. the support for funding ukraine as an ally defending itself against an adversary was complete in both houses of congress. the idea as hillary clinton said to you people are voting against their own interests, if they were just allowed to vote they would probably support ukraine, but they're not because you can't get out of this minefield that donald trump has planted. doing the right thing is not the right thing. remember, on the border donald trump wants an issue. onp ukraine -- >> right, that makes it even moreak nefarious, because at let sleep sort of well at night saying eventually we'll -- if trump is e president, we'll dea

with the border, but ukraine needs the money now. >> and ukraine will go the wrong way. all putin needs to do is hold out for a few months. it's ar stalemate on the groun. it's not a stalemate elsewhere. the s ukrainians have made gain. they pushed the russians east of the black sea. it's been a very bad 24 hours for ukraine. a number of4 drones and missil hit kyiv. we know four people are dead in the last 24 hours, but they are pushing back. the bad news is we're two years into this war. the good news is it's two years and ukraine is still around because there's speculation ukraine wouldn't last a week. >> but the fact of the matter is each week is a gift to ukraine. >> that's the danger. if you're vladimir putin you just want p donald trump to com in and you'll do what you have to do to interfere in the election to have i that happen. that's what the difference here. these members of congress playing whack-a-mole and chicken with what donald trump wants,

you could lose ukraine in the process and possibly other countries around it. >> it's not just donald trump parroting putin's lies. tucker carlson who's a bandleader for the faction of these bills was in moscow defending vladimir putin. i asked secretary clinton about that journalistic endeavor, and this is what she had to say. tucker carlson is in moscow right now interviewing vladimir putin. the first american i'll say journalist to interview putin since the war in ukraine began. what does that tell you about tucker carlson and right wing media and also vladimir putin? >> well, it shows me what i think we all know, he's what's called a useful idiot. i mean if you actually read translations of what's being said ontr russian media they ma fup of him. i mean he's like a puppy dog. he's somehow after having been fired from so many outlets in the united states, he -- i would not be surprised fd if he

emerges with a contract with a russian outlet, because he's a useful idiot. he saysul things that aren't tr and parrots vladimir putin's lies aboutvl ukraine. through him he can continue to lie about what his objectives are in ukraine and, you know, what he expects to see happen. it's really quite sad that not just somebody like tucker carlson who hasads i said been fired so many times because he seems s unable to, you know, correlate his reporting with the truth, but also because it's a sign that there are people in this country right now who are like a fifth column for vladimir putin. and why, i don't know. why areon certain republicans throwing their lot in? why are other americans

basically believing putin? why did trump believe putin more than our 11 intelligence agencies? >> i don't know. do you have a working theory on that? >> i do have a working theory. but it's more than just the political partisan advantage. there is a yearning for leaders who can kill and imprison their opponents, destroy the press, lead a life that is one of impunity, unbound by any laws. there's a yearning among certain people in our country for that kind of leadership, and i find that absolutely gob smacking terrifying. >> i find it gob smacking terrifying, too, ali. and weif talk about disinformatn on social media. well, disinformation from people like tucker carlson, the platform he has, and the fact that, you know, he's a willing participant to it. >> and has been for a while.

>> he's been a big fan of victor orban in hungary. tucker carlson does a show from hungary. he talked about before the war came we shouldn't be in bed with ukraine because it's a corrupt little country. ukrainele had a corruption problem, there's no question. and when it emerges from this war, they'll have to fix that because they'll be under the watchful eye of the rest of the world. it's not a reason for getting invaded byn russia. one of the things tucker carlson said is american journalists will not hold volodymyr zelenskyy to account. i don't know what you're talking about, man. we covered that war. there are things ukrainians do that are not fantastic and we discuss at all-times but they're a country invaded by another country. >> and a fundamentally believesn democracy in a way that vladimir putin who has journalists in jail as we speak. >> for 20 years ukraine has

sfrugled to find its democratic footing. in the same way in america if someone doesn't exactly like all of joe biden's policies it's existential. it's a choice between who's upholding democracy and who's not. but tuckerd carlson is going t be there and be the journalist none of us are. >> and i say journalist in quotes. you are a journalist without quotes, my friend. thank you for joining me. thank you foran holding high th lamp, shining a light on what is happening over in ukraine both on-air and at columbus university. great to see you, ali velshi. we have lots more of my exclusive interview with hillary clinton coming up including her thoughts what the supreme court might do regarding both president trump's immunity claims and whether he's actually eligible to run for president. stay with us. ible to run for pr. stay with us

ah, these bills are crazy. she has no idea she's sitting on a

goldmine. well she doesn't know that if she owns a life insurance policy of $100,000 or more she can sell all or part of it to coventry for cash. even a term policy. even a term policy? even a term policy! find out if you're sitting on a goldmine. call coventry direct today at the number on your screen, or visit coventrydirect.com.

xfinity rewards presents: '1st and 10gs.' xfinity is giving away ten grand to a new lucky winner for every first and ten during the big game. enter daily through february 9th for a chance to win 10gs. with the ultimate speed, power, and reliability the xfinity 10g network is made for streaming live sports. because it's only live once. join xfinity rewards on the xfinity app or go to xfinity1stand10gs.com for your chance to win.

all eyes are on the supreme court now that donald trump has officially lost his presidential immunity argument at the circuit court level, he has until monday

to appeal that decision to the supreme court. and the way the high court responds to that inevitable appeal should decide how jack smith and his case moves forward. i asked former secretary of state and presidential candidate hillary clinton what she thinks could happen next. are you optimistic that the supreme court does this? >> i think on this particular issue if i were the supreme court i wouldn't want to wade into this. it's such a good opinion i would deny cert, let opinion stand. its in line with previous opinions. when trump made the old argument about this old hamstring future president he's the only one who's been in this position, and he's the only one who has claimed such broad blanket immunity. and we know what his real thoughts are. remember i could shoot somebody

on fifth avenue, my supporters wouldn't care. he thinks he should be above the law, he should be able to manipulate the law. the last time i checked despite trump and his supporter's efforts to undermine this, we were a nation based on the rule of law, not on the rule of individual then the way that trump keeps trying to claim. >> as someone who ran for presidency and ran for the popular vote is it hard to wrap your head around to argue in court you could assassinate your enemies with s.e.a.l. team 6. >> he says a lot of things i think a lot of people have stopped listening and they shouldn't. they should pay very careful attention to what trump says. because if they do, they can see the linkage between what he says and what he tries to do.

in his first term on many occasions he was reined and stopped by people around him. there were people who served under prior republican presidents, who understood the rule of law, understood the constitutional system and so much more. they were able to stop thim. he will now fill those positions if ever given a chance, which i hope never happens, with people who are totally members of his colt. and i don't say that lightly or as a throw away line. because when i look at people who i know were horrified by january 6th, who were republicans in the house and senate whoot have come around to dismissing it, to discounting the horror that they themselves felt as they, you know, put themselves under desks, as they ran down hallways, as they tried to escape the mob coming at them, there is something about trump's hold on the republican party that is frightening.

>> now, somehow the fact that trump was resoundingly rejected by the federal appeals court has not dimmed trump's enthusiasm for using that presidential immunity defense elsewhere. today we got the news trump is also trying to argue he has presidential immunity in the mar-a-lago classified documents case. trump's lawyers told the court today they are going to file motions attempting to toss that case out for a whole litany of reasons, but chief among them was yet again presidential immunity. so how the supreme court responds here is going to matter well beyond just the d.c. election interference case. although there is one place it won't go, the state of georgia. down in fulton county where d.a. fani willis is prosecuting trump for election conspiracy, trump is also trying to claim presidential immunity. but in the appeals court ruling yesterday in a footnote, the court made clear that its ruling does not apply to state level prosecutions, and that means the

appeals court decision would not apply to trump's case in georgia, so could his presidential immunity defense fly in a different state? we're going to get some expert legal help unpacking all of that right after the break. all of tt right after the break.

tomorrow morning the supreme court will hear oral arguments as to whether donald trump's role in the january 6th insurrection disqualifies him

from running for president. now, this all began when colorado's highest court ruled to exclude trump from that state's primary ballot because he had violated the anti-insurrection provision, section 3 of the 14th amendment. i spoke to former presidential candidate hillary clinton about how she thinks the court will handle such a novel case. the supreme court is taking up the 14th amendment question tomorrow, right? did trump foment an insurrection, should he be taken off the ballot? let's table the first part of that. the idea of effectively defeating trump by get off the ballot, do you think that's a good endeavor or not? >> i've tried to educate myself on this because it's clear this is not a section of the 14th amendment, section 3 that a lot of us paid a lot of attention to in the past. >> haven't had to. >> they haven't had to, thank goodness, but there's a very strong argument. and remember this argument did

not come from liberals. they didn't come from people who are already against trump at all. they came from conservative originalists, as they like to call themselves, law professors, lawyers, who basically said if you read section 3 of the 14th amendment it's pretty clear he should not be permit today run for president. i think the argument is very strongly on their side. now, what's the remedy? is the the remedy for the supreme court to say, no, he can't be on the ballot, or is the remedy for the court to say this very well can apply constitutionally but it's up to the states to make the determination, because remember stakes in our federalist system actually run elections. and i think that might be where the court ends up. maybe they could get to the point of saying, no, no, section 3 doesn't apply or you have to be convicted first and they can come up with some out for trump. but if they want to be true to

their so-called originalist interpretation, then i think they have to find that section 3 applies to people who foment and participate in insurrections, but the remedy lies in the states, which would be kind of a fair way of kind of parsing this. >> do you worry, though, if it's left up to the states you basically get trump taken off the ballot in blue states and staying on the ballot in red states? >> that's what our federalist system, you know, very well may lead to. i think it'd be better if he were just roundly defeated, but on the other hand, i don't think it's wise to ignore the constitution. so it's a really difficult problem that he has created for the courts and for states. you're in a dilemma. if you ignore the constitution and basically say we're not paying attention to it or you try to write it away and say it

doesn't apply even though i think most historians as well as legal experts say it does. you're doing legal damage. that's why i think they'll come up with this approach where they say, look, the states run elections, it's going to be up to the states. i think a lot of states will be very reluctant to take him off the ballot because that will be a political fire storm in a lot of states, but on the other hand, some will. >> i think about the 2016 election, and we're deeply divided than even then. and i think about the 2020 election where half the republican party, three quarters of the republican party depending on the polling doesn't believe that joe biden won. what happens if you don't even have donald trump on the ballot? and one party of the country, you know, elects joe biden, the other part elects donald trump. >> well, look at why we're in this mess. we're in this mess because we have a man who cares nothing about our constitution, cares

nothing about our country, cares nothing about real national security. all he cares about is himself. that's all he cares about. he cares about his own power, prestige, his own standing. and how do you say, wait a minute, this is not permitted within our system? as i said i would be perfectly satisfied if we beat him both in the popular vote and in the electoral college as joe biden did so convincingly in 2020. but we also have laws, and that's what courts are for. they have to interpret those laws. >> joining me now are chuck rosenenbering and kristi greenberg, former fbi deputy chief. let me start with this scenario secretary clinton paints there, the idea the supreme court might return this decision to the states. i mean how realistic do you think is that coming from a high

court? >> i've heard a lot of smart people say a lot of different things about what might happen i'd be lying to you if you told you that i knew, but secretary clinton is right. elections are the problems of the states. and they set lots of rules and polls close, mail-in ballots are due, all those sorts of things. so is it possible that the supreme court returns this to the states? i think so. strikes me that it would be chaotic. >> completely chaotic, wouldn't it be? then wouldn't it just not be up to depending on the process for getting the name on the ballot the secretaries of state or voters to sue the secretary of the state to get donald trump's name removed. >> right, i think the supreme court will issue a holding that will be broadly applicable to all states. i think that is what they're going to endeavor to do so they don't have to relitigate how many different state lawsuits that may come their way here. >> because the possibility is

endless in that scenario. we're talking about this immunity claim he continues to make down in mar-a-lago and making it in the georgia case and we'll get to that in a second. doioathink these two cases there's kind of a -- whether spoken or not an intersection in the minds of the court, like they might hand trump a loss on a presidential immunity defense if they hand him a win on the 14th amendment case, which would be we can stay on the ballot. >> certainly went to the mind of the public i think, whether or not the justices are thinking that way, alex, i don't know because it's hard because in many cases they can pick what they hear. many people petition the supreme court and the supreme court takes a number of cases each year. they involve really difficult constitutional issues, so i'm not sure you can duck it. and i hope they decided on the facts and the law in front of them, not one for you and one

for the other guy. i think that would be a mistake. >> kristi, can you explain to us for those of us new to the law, that's me if the d.c. circuit court can rule so definitively on the presidential immunity case, throwing it back on the wall in florida which basically what trump is doing, trump is having a lot of success before juj cannon and i think he's shooting his shot and hoping maybe she'll come up with a different interpretation. again, the d.c. circuit opinion is so good. it is so clear and convincing in how it just methodically disposes of each of trump's arguments. so for her to come out pretty differently i feel would be pretty lawless at this point, and i don't think that's where this would land. but he's going to take his best shot. >> kristi is exactly right. if the d.c. circuit doesn't find

judge cannon, judge cannon in the district of florida resides in the 11th court of appeals. kristi is 1 47b% right. it's a very strong opinion, well-reasoned, well written. >> in another part of the country. >> in another part of the country. so if the goal, alex, it lay why not raise in another case? >> could the supreme court not take up the circuit court of appeals litigation and if aileen takes it up and rules on it, could an alternate sort of pipeline go to the supreme court? could they basically take up aileen cannon's version of this and not the d.c. circuit courts? >> yes, actually. i would expect the supreme court would have any questions whether or not there's anything there for them to answer. this was a unanimous opinion, a strong opinion so they may not

take it up. let's say judge cannon does something different. >> she's been known to do that. >> she does. they have a different view, that may be something the supreme court takes up. again, though, these arguments donald trump is making about having absolute immunity, they're frivolous. and so i really don't see -- i don't foresee judge cannon, you know, straying too far from what the d.c. circuit has already ruled or the 11th circuit for that matter. >> i do have to ask because the 11th circuit was so clear, chuck, for saying this decision does not hold for the prosecution. donald trump is trying out the presidential immunity defense, yes, at maug but also trying it out in georgia with judge mcafee and the fani willis conspiracy case. do you think the dynamics changed dramatically down there? >> i don't think the law changes dramatic. ly. again, if you look at it through

the lens of delay, if your goal is to push these cases off as far as you possibly can, then what's the incentive for mr. trump not to raise it again in georgia, in florida, anywhere that he's charged? it doesn't mean he's going to win. kristi's right. it's a very strong opinion, the law was clear, the appeal is frivolous, but look at it through the lens of delay and why not? >> why not seems to be the legal strategy in trump land. chuck rosenberg and kristi greenberg, thank you for your time and early analysis on all this. tomorrow night starting at 8:00 p.m. eastern speaking of the 14th amendment, i'll be joining our colleagues in our prime time special coverage, a recap of oral arguments at the supreme court. all about that 14th amendment case, you're not going to want to miss it. coming up secretary of state hillary clinton weighs in on the war in gaza and what she thinks needs to happen with prime minister b.b. netanyahu. that is next. . netanyahu. that is next

ah, these bills are crazy. she

has no idea she's sitting on a goldmine. well she doesn't know that if she owns a life insurance policy of $100,000 or more she can sell all or part of it to coventry for cash. even a term policy. even a term policy? even a term policy! find out if you're sitting on a goldmine. call coventry direct today at the number on your screen, or visit coventrydirect.com.

today israeli prime minister benjamin netanyahu rejected a counter proposal for a cease-fire put forward by hamas saying there's no solution besides total victory for israel. despite the setback secretary of state antony blinken said he still hoped a deal could be reached to pause the fighting and pledge the u.s. will work at that relentlessly until it gets there. i spoke with former secretary of

state hillary clinton about the war in gaza and what happens next, and this is what she had to say. i got to ask because you said, you know, the people being killed over there is horrible. it's more than 27,000 gazans have been killed, and israel estimates that a fifth of the hostages have been killed. meantime, universities and schools have been destroyed. young gazans are ripe for radicalization. if your goal as the israeli government is to root out terrorism, root out hamas, how is any of this in the interest of the israeli government? >> you know, it's a war, alex, that israel didn't start. hamas started it, and israel has the right to defend itself, but it has to abide by the laws of war. look what russia has done to ukraine destroying hospitals, school, leveling whole cities, kidnapping children. it's horrible. it's horrible. when you're the aggressor as hamas was on october 7th or as

russia was in february of 2022, what do you do with an aggressor? you have to stop them. and i think it's fair to say hamas cares nothing about the civilians who are being murdered or killed both by hamas, still in gaza or through military operations by israel. the hamas leaders could not be clearer. hamas is not doing anything to protect palestinians. >> israelis are now targeting rafah, which is where they told palestinians to move through. >> well, that is horrible. it's horrible and it is something that we wish there was a cease-fire. if hamas would agree to a cease-fire, there would be a cease-fire. >> and secretary clinton had this to say about president biden's current relationship with prime minister netanyahu and how that might and maybe should change. what do you think of biden's handling of the issue, i mean he was very early, you know, in lock step with prime minister

netanyahu. it feels there's a bit more distance between the two men especially on the subject of a two state solution. it seems it could be costing biden politically. >> i think biden is doing everything he could do. to number one respond to the legitimate concern of the israeli people following october 7th, to ally himself with israel in the face of a terrorist attack from a terrorist organization. but i think it's also clear biden is doing everything he can to, you know, influence netanyahu. he is not a trustworthy leader. it was on his watch the attack happened. he needs to go. and he's an obstacle to a cease-fire. if he's an obstacle to exploring what's to be done the day after, he absolutely needs to go. >> he absolutely needs to go. i'll be discussing that and what secretary clinton had to say about cease-fire protests across the u.s. including in her own

classroom at columbia university. that's next. next. ll benefits of magnesium. qunol, the brand i trust.

one of the biggest issues for him right now especially with voters of color, young voters is gaza. and we're sitting on the campus of columbia university. this has been a place where there have been a lot of protests that have made national news. students are decrying what they call censorship. there have been protests. some people have protested your

classes. what is the appropriate way for a university to handle the deep divide and the questions about, you know, what can and what cannot be said in the course of debate? >> well, i think that there's -- there's a role for protests and there should be rules set, guardrails set just like, you know, you have to get a permit to have an event or a march here in new york. and i'm not saying it's easy because it's not. and i think people who violate the rules have to be held accountable. so from my perspective you can't have a responsible debate about whatever your point of view is if you're screaming at each other. >> do you think, though, i mean there are people that understand and believe what is happening in gaza is a genocide, right? and i would imagine it's hard to say you can talk about it, you

can call it genocide, but you have to do it in this way. >> you could have that conversation in a classroom but not screaming about it. >> that was professor hillary clinton explaining her views on the wave of cease-fire protests across the u.s. and on college campuses. joining me to discuss all that is michelle goldberg, opinion columnist for "the new york times." michelle, thank you for being here. just for some context here, i mean hillary clinton, yes, former secretary of state, yes. former senator, former presidential candidate. she has been teaching at columbia university. she started i think at the institute of global politics there. today she spent three hours as part of a panel talking about the future of ukraine. this is someone who's grappling with this campus free speech concerns in and around the war in gaza quite literally on her front doorstep. i wonder what you make of her sort of delineation, that some conversations can happen but they have to happen in an orderly fashion when you're talking about something about when there's genocide.

>> i would say it doesn't surprise me someone who's a professor or administrator is not a fan of disruptive protests especially when she's the one being disrupted. i kind of expect it's too much to her to cheer it on when it comes to these thorny questions. i think she's right whether israel's actions in gaza can be construed as genocide do require nuanced conversations about rules of war rather than just the shouting of slogans. but i was really quite shocked about some of what she said about just her -- antony blinken today in jerusalem is able to say that the civilian casualties in gaza are unacceptable high. it's really surprising to me not to hear her say that. >> i asked her point-blank what about rafah, which the israelis are reportedly targeting, which is where palestinians were told to flee, and she said it's

horrible but effectively their ally. how you understand the nature of war, what you think israel should be allowed to do and then it feels there's very much a jen rational divide on this, too. i think yugoslavia saw the iteration of that in biden's response to this. it was as if he just didn't understand where a whole -- sort of where the american youth in large part are on this issue, and they see it wildly differently. >> i think -- i'm glad you put it like that there are separate divides because there's a divide about who is the aggressor in which case, you know, i side with people who say that, you know, hamas started this round of hostilities with their rampage and massacre on october 7th. but the question is that doesn't license anything in response, right? i would like to know whether she thinks they are following it laws of war because there has

been a lot of evidence not just in these truly horrific and unacceptable levels of civilian casualties, "the new york times" reported just this week on the social media videos of israeli soldiers, you know, kind of committing vandalism, bulldozing and blowing up civilian infrastructure in a way that kind of is very unclear there's any military purpose. there is a lot of evidence that israel is not taking every step possible, you know, far from it to protect the people of gaza. and there's not really -- you hear the rhetoric coming from israeli leaders that's extremely heedless of palestinian life. >> well, to that end she's really clear that b.b. netanyahu needs to go. i think it's interesting you have this kind of lacuna around the aggressions of israel, the kind of genocidal acts, the war crimes its committed, and she's not going to necessarily dress it up but she will say --

>> that's pretty close to a consensus issue in israel itself. not a consensus issue, but you have overwhelming opposition at this point to b.b. netanyahu whatever your views are on war. >> do you think when we talk about the protests in israel and the united states, what do you make of the sort of peril biden has to manage at this hour given the cease-fire agreement's not going where it needs to go. the casualty numbers are staggering and a fifth of the hostages may be dead? >> i mean it's obviously extremely serious. you see this in polls of both kind of muslim and arab voters who are souring on biden and pledging not to vote for him in disaffection of young voters in these really distracted primary voters of israel over these congressional campaigns. and i think biden recognizes he needs to create some distance from b.b. netanyahu. he just put this -- he sanctioned west bank settlers in what is a really important step.

but i still think there needs to be more distance and, you know, the theory at least kind of the administration was saying is that they're hugging b.b. in public and trying to prod him in private. well, b.b. has no interest in kind of shoring up biden's political fortunes, right? he holds him in complete contempt, so i think it's pastime to admit that strategy's not working. >> yes, i can say b.b. netanyahu is probably a trump supporter at this point. joe biden, take a note. michelle goldberg, thank you for your time tonight, my friend. that is our show for this evening. "way too early" with jonathan lemire is coming up next. i understand this, in this building and in the 202 area code that is washington, d.c., border security is a political issue. but if we leave the 202 area code, everywhere else in the country, this is not a political issue, it's a national