months, the election year that seemed like it might never come, finally beginning. and i has started with a bang, literally. the assassination of an iranian general and a new releece of unredacted emails that suggest the order to keep the freeze on ukrainian aid came directly from the president. if history is any guide, that will be just the start of an election psych thal no one can predict. think about it. who could have anticipated that in 1960, richard nixon's debate performance would be remembered more for his lack of makeup than his prose or that 1970 mitt romney would say his campaign was brain washed while in vietnam. that in 1976 in a debate against jimmy carter, gerald ford would say, quote, there is no soviet domination of eastern europe, that in 1987 when gary hart told

the media that if they followed him, they'd be bored, they would, and they weren't. that in 1992, ross perrault would drop out of the race after saying the bush campaign was promising to disrupt his daughter's wedding. that the 2000 election between al gore and george w. bush would come down to something called hanging chads. that in 2004, worse than howard dean's third place finish in the iowa caucus would be the screen which he ended his concession speech and that rick perry would elect three government agencies and not be able to name them or that in 2016 this trifecta would play out, first that donald trump would would be outed with an old ""access hollywood"" tape in which he made crude remarks prior. second, that wikileaks campaign emails an hour later, third, that two days thereafter donald trump would invite the media to

watch his debate prep tonal have him surprise every een by presenting three women who each claimed sexual harassment against bill clinton. ladies and gentlemen, here is the one certainty, the only thing we know for sure about the 2020 election, that we really don't know what's about to happen, unless you're this guy. now to iran. both iran's president and the supreme leader have vowed revenge for the killing of general qasem soleimani. the u.s. is deploying thousands of troops to the region and cities are monitoring the events overseas which leads me to this week's survey question. i want to know what you think. go to my website. smerconish.com. i want you to answer this. was president trump justified in ordering the assassination of iranian general qasem soleimani. joining me now is analyst peter bergen. he just wrote this people for cnn.com, the killing of iran's

general soleimani is hugely significant. he's also the author of the book "trump and his generals: the cost of chaos." peter, the president said soleimani was plotting imminent attacks. what do you make of that? >> i think the use of the word "imminent" is part of a legal effort to make sure that this killing was legally authorized. i mean white house lawyers and state department lawyers and others have weighed in to say this was legal. imminence -- go to anwar al awlaki, the american citizen who was killed. he was an american citizen. one of the ration yahls that the white house offered at the time was imminence. this is kind of a crucial word. now, what caused that word to be used in terms of what was the actual intelligence, we actually

don't know because the administration hasn't really propheted. >> interesting that you would reference the law here. i was implying international law and how anticipatory self-defense is appropriate, but we think of it in the context of use of invading force and not against a leader. isn't that what makes this case rather unique? >> i think max boot, our cnn colleag colleague, pointed out on friday this is the first time the united states has killed a senior military leader since 1943 when the united states took down the japanese plane carrying the art text of the pearl harbor attack. that is pretty unusual. but we know from history that administration lawyers can often find a legal rationale for what the administration is going to do, whether that's waterboarding and now this.

>> let's talk about a political rationale. i want to put up on the screen a very interesting tweet. yesterday it was vice president mike pence who sent this out it. was part of a continuum of tweets, and he was explaining the rationale for taking out qasem soleimani. look what he said, peter. assisted in the clandestine travel to afghanistan of ten of the 12 terrorists who carried out the september 11th terrorist attacks in the united states. when i saw that, i thought shades of the iraq misdirection. what do you think? >> well, pretty much everything in that tweet is not correct. and if that was the standard, you know, the united states would somehow be assisting the hijackers, because they all received visas to the united states and then many of them overstayed those visas. the fact is iran -- al qaeda folks have transitioned to iran in the pre-9/11 era and they have lived in iran under some

form of house arrest since 9/11. but this is a very different statement in somehow saying iran was involved in the 9/11 attacks which the commission completely dismissed. >> i'm retweeted mike pence. here's what i said. i said, ten of 12? you're missing seven. and why aren't you talk about the 15 of 19 who were saudis. and let's just continue your thought. the 9/11 commission found no evidence that iran knowingly assisted any part of the plot of september 11th. >> yeah. and, you know, the reason that we had 15 out of the 19 hijackers were saudis, it's very easy for saudi citizens as a general proposition to get visas to the united states. you know, there were no iranians involved in the attack and there were no iranians in al qaeda itself. look. this is kind of a crazy conspiracy theory that for some reason the vice president is pushing or somebody who's

managing his tweeting account. >> peter, i want to split the other side of the aisle and look at the democratic response. on the screen here comes former vice president biden's response in part. he said this. no american will mourn qasem soleimani's passing. he deserved to be brought to justice for his crimes against american troops and thousands of innocents throughout the region. he supported tash rohr and sowed chaos. none of that negates the fact that this is a hugely escalatory movie in an already dangerous region. can you note it both ways? i know this guy said americans had blood on their hands. can you say he deserved to be taken out but not in this fashion. >> look. history will tell whether this was a bold move that, you know, took out a real enemy of the united states or a really reckless move that kind of amped up the problems in the region in such a way that, you know, it's detrimental to the safety of americans. if indeed they're more safer,

why are they urging americans to leave iraq? anyway, i -- the -- you know, the thing is very politicized. the fact is killing soleimani, i think, was a good thing for the united states. will it ramp up pressures in the region? of course, it will. is this a calculated risk that may blow up? maybe. is this a calculated risk that may pay off? maybe. we won't know yet. >> i think that's fair. thank you, peter bergen. i appreciate your thoughts. >> thank you, michael. >> make sure you're tweeting me or go to my facebook page. i'll read some responses throughoutthe program. this comes from facebook. what do we have? unless you or i are cleared with the highest security clearance, we do not have to know the specifics. we only have to trust that decision resulting in the ending of the life of a killer of americans. ed, i'm thrilled that the guy's gone, but i think it's entirely appropriate of-to-be demanding of this administration. in fact, i'll say specifically

this administration given the record of untruthfulness on a lot of security matters to know specifically what exactly was being planned that you have knowledge of. how could that corrupt or in some way diminish national security interests for us to know? i want to know the answer to that. one more, if we have time. here it is. isn't it ironic how now we have the greatest intelligence community in the world according to trump. for three years he's done everything he could to discredit it. charles, i had a radio caller or two say that, that he's been hammering the intelligence community since he came into office and now he's very reliant on them and saying he had no choice but to act at that time. make sure that you're tweeting me and i will continue to read responses and answer today's survey question at smerconish.com. can we put that back on the screen? here it comes. was president trump justified in ordering the assassination of iranian general qasem soleimani?

vote, and i will give you the results at the end of the program. coming up, was president trump justified? we'll find out. and also as nancy pelosi continues to with hold articles of impeachment awaiting details on the senate procedure, who holds the upper hand as between speaker pelosi and majority leader mick mcconnell. and this monday the trial of movie mogul harvey weinstein begins with some saying they'll be showing up in the courtroom. i'll ask his famous attorney, if you don't want to be a victim, don't go to the hotel room. plus, does this tread too close to prosecuting thought crime? if your glasses aren't perfect, we'll fix them.

so will we. no we won't. use your 2020 vision insurance on your first pair and get 50% off a second pair. visionworks. see the difference.

wean air force veteran made of doing what's right,. not what's easy. so when a hailstorm hit, usaa reached out before he could even inspect the damage. that's how you do it right. usaa insurance is made just the way martin's family needs it - with hassle-free claims, he got paid before his neighbor even got started. because doing right by our members, that's what's right. usaa. what you're made of, we're made for. usaa

the new year begins with an impeached president but no date of an impeachment trial date. my own view is mcconnell is running out the clock, content on having it delayed until americans are casting ballots for the 2020 election strengt n strengthening the argument that this should be argued at the ballot box. now with the threat of war with iran escalating, it's difficult to see how they'll get their mojo back. joining me now to discuss is

"washington post" columnist karen who wrote this piece, democrats are the ones who stand to suffer by delaying the senate impeachment trial. let me give the audience a taste of what you wrote. we have reached the point in which democrats are going to have to make a choice. do they want to squander precious days and weeking tilling against an impregnable republican wall to the senate or do they want to make their strongest case for removing trump from office to the people who might actually do it, the voters? >> i've covered nancy pelosi a long time. i think that, you know, when the house gets back to business next week, we're going the see her transmit those articles within a matter of days because her instincts are really sound on these things, and the democrats

will continue to point out that the process is not exactly a fair trial. but at this point, we're less than four weeks away from the iowa caucuses. the next big debate on the 14th, three of the five people who have qualified for the stage may find themselves sitting in the senate chambers silently leaving, you know, an entire debate stage right before the caucuses to pete buttigieg and joe biden. so things are going to pick up very, very quickly. by mid-march, we're probably going to know who the nominee is. >> i note your use of the word "silently." they'll be silently in the senate as this plays itself out. is this, politically speaking, necessarily a bad thing for elizabeth warren, for bernie sanders, for cory booker, for micha michael bennet, and i feel like i'm missing somebody from the list -- amy klobuchar -- no disrespect. they may be front and center.

i realize pete buttigieg and joe biden may be back in iowa and have the stage to themselves there, but i'm e not sure of the political calculation. >> right now the democratic race is extremely fluid. all you have to do is look at bernie sanders' rise over the past two or three weeks, and when you go out on the trail, and the candidates will tell you, people don't ask them that much about impeachment. they ask them much more about their views on issues that are actually going to affect their lives in the long term, and i think with what is going on with iran, you're going to see a lot of voters having questions they didn't have on national security. so, again, we are at a very, very fluid moment at this moment in the race. a lot of people haven't made up their minds not only in iowa, but in the big states that are going to be following very shortly after. the voters have a lot of questions that they want these candidates to be out there

answering. >> well, did nancy pelosi misjudge the situation by thinking she had leverage over mitch mcconnell that really doesn't exist, meaning should she have transmitted those articles of impeachment before the holidays? >> she saw that congress was going on a break and there was probably no great downside for a short delay while nobody was in town anyway. but, again, i think that things are beginning to change. i also think, by the way, the dynamic here could begin to change for her vulnerable freshmen who are also very much, you know -- their survival is very much on the line here. it's not that democrats shouldn't point out that senator mitch mcconnell has rigged the trial, but they need to move on and start making their case on other issues which, you know, voters who don't spend all their time on twitter are more concerned with. >> okay. here's something else you wrote in your column.

the impeachment imperative now, both on practical and substantive grounds, is for democrats to move on. they are the ones who stand to suffer by delaying the inevitable. does it mean anything more than bringing on the articles of impeachment? >> no. it's bringing more evidence, although, there's no proof it's swaying public opinion at all. it had surged against it and is now pretty much evenly divided. but it's been essentially frozen since october, but they should continue to develop new information, they should continue to point out that the trial in the senate, that the administration hasn't provided the witnesses that it should have, but they also need to get onto other issues. >> quick final question. at one time i thought that censure was an option that both parties could agree on and move on. has that ship sailed? >> yeah. i also thought censure was an

option back when we were talking about the mueller report, but i think that the president's actions with respect to ukraine really changed that entirely. >> karen tumulty, thank you so much. we appreciate you being here. >> thank you. what's going on in social media? comes from facebook. please stop enabling trump this year. okay. i'm enabling trump by having a conversation as to how the impeachment process is playing itself out? that's not making any sense. ladies and gentlemen, upcoming, i want to remind you to answer the survey question. it's smerconish.com. was president trump justified in ordering the assassination of iranian general qasem soleimani? make sure you're voting. coming up monday is harvey weinstein's trial. his attorney is female. does that make it easier or more

difficult for his accusers? the answer. >> if you don't want to be a victim, don't go to the hotel room. go out on fifth avenue, take a megaphone, and talk about what you want to talk about. new from revitalift derm intensives 10 percent pure glycolic acid serum. with our highest concentration of glycolic acid in a serum. resurfaces skin to visibly reduce dark spots starting in just two weeks and reduces wrinkles for a more even skin tone. powerful results. validated by dermatologists. there's a reason dermatologist love it. new revitalift glycolic acid serum. from l'oréal. we're worth it. when youyou spend lessfair, and get way more. so you can bring your vision to life and save in more ways than one.

for small prices, you can build big dreams, spend less, get way more. shop everything home at wayfair.com

on monday, the trial of movie mogul harvey weinstein begins in new york. when his story broke in 2017, it ignited the #metoo movement. weinstein has denied all charges and has countered by claiming to have been a champion of women in film. i spoke earlier with weinstein's lead attorney donna rotunno. counsel, tell me if i'm correct. this seems like one of those cases where you, the defense

lawyer, are facing the jury and saying, hey, i don't like my client, either, but that's not what this case is about. >> i don't know if that's true. for me it's talking to a jury about the fact that you don't have to like everything he has ever done in his life to find that he's not a rapist. >> you say he might be a sinner, but not a rapist. what's the sin that he'll admit to? >> well, he cheated on his wife, he made very bad decisions in business in terms of how he treated people, and he'd be the first one to admit those things were not nice. >> is the defense in each of these instances one of consensual sex? >> yes. consensual sex and a history of a relationship -- a history of a relationship. >> don't you require his testimony in order to make that defense effectively? >> i don't think you do, and it's possible that he may take the stand, depending on how the evidence plays out. but in this case, we have a lot

of evidence that show as continuing relationship between him and the women who are charged in this matter. >> and i recognize that there's an important distinction here between the accuse errs generally and those that are going to testify or may testify in this particular case, but what would you say to the public that is drawn by the sheer number of accusers, 80 or so women, who have made a similar allegation about weinstein? >> i think you have to look at the accusers with a very skeptical eye that the numbers we hear in the media has nothing to do with what we're going to hear about in a criminal case. when we hear the number, it has nothing to do with what's happening in the criminal case, and we expect the jury to look at the evidence and the evidence only. although we understand it's a difficult task and something difficult to ask, we're going to

make sure to remind them of that. >> right. but you'd have to be living under a rock not to know there were dozens of women making the same claim about harvey weinstein how do you find a fair and impartial jury in that context? >> i think in some ways the number helps us. once the jury sits down and hearing that this is really only about two women, i think they start to wonder how truthful those other circumstances are or if there's so many, why aren't they part of the criminal case? so i think in some ways -- >> you do -- >> go ahead. >> two women, right, but you do have to deal with the so-called prior bad acts witnesses, and my understanding is you could be facing four of those, double the number of the accusers. >> yes, you're correct, and we have to deal with those prior bad acts witnesses, and we will do that. their testimony, i think, in the end will not be very compelling to the jurors for a variety of reasons, and once the jurors hear the evidence, we'll make

that call. but i think we have good evidence to be able to show those circumstances don't rise to the level that the prosecutors believe that they do. >> is it easier or more difficult for you as a female defense attorney to cross-examine a female accuser? >> in terms of easier, my male counterparts are just as qualified and able to do what i'm able to do. but i think my role as a woman is really more important and the effect of the listener. so when the listener watches me cross-examine a female, i think they view that differently. they view the questions i ask differently. i think that they look at men asking the same questions potentially as being bullying or maybe feeling sorry for the women when they're being questioned. i think for me, a woman speaking to a woman is a different conversation and it has a different effect on the listener, which is the trier of fact in our situation. >> and what if that female that you're cross-examining is a celebrity like in this case

annabel la shura. >> you know. annabella shura is an actress and she's spend her entire life acting and i believe she'll be an excellent witness on the stand. i'm sure she'll be prepared to answer my questions. she'll be ready for what i'm going to ask her. again, the circumstances and the facts and the evidence in the case will show to the jury that her statements don't rise to the level of what the prosecutor is asking the jury to convict mr. weinstein on. >> and i come back to a question i asked previously which is, okay, but if annabel la shura is telling one set of allegations or facts and you don't have harvey weinstein to rebut that, can you provide him with auction saysful defense? >> i think you're forgetting the substance of government is to prove harvey winestein guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. the system of justice does not

requine mr. weinstein to get up and prove himself innocent. that's not the foundation. the jury is going to be told that they cannot consider whether or not mr. weinstein testifies in their decision-making process, and i think that once the jury sees the evidence and they see the communications and the conversation and the length of time that it took somebody to come forward, the fact that for years she claimed nothing happened, i mean we have a wealth of evidence in our arsenal to be able to say that these cases don't rise to the level of rape. >> finally question. on balance, the #metoo movement, good or bad for women? >> i think many good things have come from me too. in the end if it strips your rights to due process and a fair trial, then as a criminal defense attorney, i have to say there are problems with it. >> my question was to women. i think your answer is to refer to harvey weinstein, the claim that he's been stripped of due

process. i think that's what you mean. straighten me out if i'm wrong. >> no, you're not wrong, but i'm not claiming there are not good things that have come from me too. but in terms of it being good for women f we live under a system, whether it's the justice system, whether it's a system of social justice, to say that we must believe someone just because they make a claim, that's problematic for you, for me, and for every american citizen. so it can't be that, you know, we just believe everything everybody says. there's cross-examination, there's our ability to ask questions in regard to get to the truth and get to the bottom of an congratulations, aallegat what we're going to do. >> appreciate your time. >> thank you, michael. >> pretrial conference on monday, jury selection on tuesday. trial expected to last about eight weeks. what's come in from social media. i think this comes in from twitter. smerconish, perhaps today's survey question should have been

"will harvey weinstein have an advantage by securing a female attorney." male, female, she's sharp. you'd have to say that. still to come, a person burning an american flag is practicing their right of free speech, but a person who is accused of burning a gay p.r.i.d.e. flag is guilt of a hate crime and may spend five years in prison. a hate crime is only a step away from a criminalalizing thought. that's ahead. you can both adjust your comfort with your sleep number setting. so, can it help us fall asleep faster? yes, by gently warming your feet. but can it help keep me asleep? absolutely, it intelligently senses your movements and automatically adjusts to keep you both comfortable. so, you can really promise better sleep? not promise... prove. don't miss the final days of the lowest prices of the season. the queen sleep number 360 c4 smart bed is only $1299, save $400. ends sunday

that's ensure max protein, with high protein and 1 gram sugar. it's a sit-up, banana! bend at the waist! i'm tryin'! keep it up. you'll get there. whoa-hoa-hoa! 30 grams of protein, and one gram of sugar. ensure max protein. nyquil severe gives you powerful relief for your worst cold and flu symptoms, on sunday night and every night. nyquil severe. the nightime, sniffling, sneezing, coughing, aching, stuffy head, best sleep with a cold, medicine. so what's the difference between a regular crime and a hate crime? the supreme court held up in

1989 burning the american flag is protection of speech, but what if the flag is made up of rainbow stripes? are you free of that? a man was sentenced to prison for taking a gay pride flag and burning it in front of a strip club. while his long sentence was partially due to his two previous felonies which made him a habitual offender, he was charged with a hate crime, which carries a maximum of five years in prison. my next guest says designating an offense as a hate crime criminalizes not the action but the idea that supposedly impelled it. here we are but a step away from the thought crime george orwell described in 19784. here we are with mr. myron

magnet. what you write makes sense to me. i've always struggled with this issue. not all speech is protected by the first amendment, defamatory speech. you can't yell "fire" in a movie theater. there are some things you're not permitted to say or act upon, right? >> yes, that's absolutely correct. >> how do you deal with the anti-semitism among us? in today's "new york times" by way of coincidence, i hope you can read this headline. if not, i'll read it to you. >> read it to me. >> scrutiny -- i have a problem thinking a person who spray paints a swastika on a synagogue is deserve of the same punishment as someone who tags with graffiti in a subway station? >> i agree with you, michael.

remember this man was also charged with harassment. it was third-degree harassment. we have laws against intimidation. and if the person is shown to have the intent of terrorizing people from doing what their normal activities are, then t t that's an additional crime and that should be punished accordingly. the point is what did you want to do? we have laws going back to reconstruction that don't allow you to, for instance, terrorize free blacks, and these laws can be used all the time. the point is are you allowed to say i don't like the american government? yes, you are. are you allowed to say, i think that homosexuality is a sin, yes, you are. are you allowed to say, i don't want a black person to live next to me. yes, you are. but you cannot then do something to terrorize that black person or that jewish person from

buying the house or renting the apartment next to you. that's against the law. >> but if i torch the rainbow flag, aren't i intimidating my gay neighbors. >> if you're torching it in front of your guy neighbors' house and telling them, i hate you, then you are guilty of maybe harassment. i don't know that you're gmt of intimidation. but do you really want to send somebody to jail for 16 years for doing that? >> "the wall street journal," your op-ed, had this summary of what's going on among us. the new york area has experienced a rash of what governor andrew cuomo demounss as hate crimes. swastikas have been scrawled in largely orthodox jewish neighborhoods. adolescent thugs have assaulted

hasidim on the streets. in mid-december three customers and a cop were murdered in an astack on a jersey city, new jersey, corner market. on saturday, a madman stabbed five people at the home of a rabbi in monsey, new york, north of the city. describe that. >> sure. there are two things going on. we no longer do the broken windows quality of life policing we started to do under giuliani, which cut crime by 80%, which cut murders by over 80%. so when people know that the cops are watching, they do not do things like scrawling graffiti, including scrawling swastikas. they know that the cops are watching. and so the pre-socialized -- unsocialized adolescents don't act out in this way. the madmen living in the streets

don't act out this way. that's what we had in the monsey stabbings. also failure of law enforcement. this guy had a whole bunch of ant anti-psychotic medication that he didn't take. we have a law in new york that says if you're a crazy person, you have to take your meds, or you'll be locked up in a psychiatric ward. that's thing one. thing two is it would be very nice if black leaders like al sharpton and lewis farrakhan did not preach anti-semitism, if we had not has the crown heights incitement 30 years ago, with three days of rioting left to go. not to say that most blacks are anti-semitic. it's to say when you have poorly socialized kids or crazy people who are looking for somebody to take their hostility out on, then they're going to take it out on jews.

to quote a hate crime s that going to stop it? i don't think so. >> okay. but the madman who breaks into the raby's house and stabs five people, hate crime, yes or no? >> no. >> you're not going to -- so you're going treat him as if he were someone who went into a different home, not with an apparent religious bias on which he was acting. >> what would the difference be, michael? he's an attempted murderer, right? >> right. >> what more can you give him? what more can you give him beyond the many years he will get for attempted murder or -- >> but the argument -- >> hang on, hang on. hang on just one second. >> the argument is this. the argument is that a person like that is inspiring, instilling fear in a particular community unlike the guy that breaks into your house or my house and acts likewise. quickly, but you get the final word. >> yeah. but the question is it's the

person who committed the crime who's on trial, and the law can ask only two things about his state of mind. is he sane and did he intend to do the crime. and that's it. you're a lawyer. you know that. >> by the way, that look of yours, what do you think for me? i've got part of it going here? >> well, you know, when the hair goes on top, you should put some of it on the bottom. >> my sentiments exactly. myron magnet, thank you. >> such a pleasure, michael. >> i hope that you're answering the survey question, folks. it's smerconish.com. was president trump justified in ordering the assassination of iranian general qasem soleimani? results coming soon. like many other novel revelations devised in the golden state, will this, too, go national? what'd we decide on the flyers again?

uh, "fifteen minutes could save you 15% or more on car insurance." i think we're gonna swap over to "over seventy-five years of savings and service." what, we're just gonna swap over? yep. pump the breaks on this, swap it over to that. pump the breaks, and, uh, swap over? that's right. instead of all this that i've already-? yeah. what are we gonna do with these? keep it at your desk, and save it for next time. geico. over 75 years of savings and service. my age-related macular dso today i made a plan with my doctor, which includes preservision...because he said a multi- vitamin alone may not be enough. and it's my vision, my morning walk.. my sunday drive, my grandson's beautiful face. only preservision areds2 contains the exact nutrient formula recommended by the national eye institute to help reduce the risk of moderate to advanced amd progression. it's how i see my life. because it's my vision... preservision. mostly. you make time... when you can. but sometimes life gets in the way,

and that stubborn fat just won't go away. coolsculpting takes you further. a non-surgical treatment that targets, freezes, and eliminates treated fat cells for good. discuss coolsculpting with your doctor. some common side-effects include temporary numbness, discomfort, and swelling. don't imagine results, see them. coolsculpting, take yourself further. save $100 on your coolsculpting treatment. text resolution to 651-90 to learn more.

the survey question, folks. while california has often been on the vanguard of cultural

relationships, think frisbee, hula hoop, mcdonald's, it often leads to changing. it causes the rest of the country to snicker and they have a way of migrating east. every year i like to look at what laws california has just enacted. in the past, such measures have includeled everything from no-fault divorce, marijuana decriminalization. anybody remember howard jarvis? well, hundreds of new california laws took effect on january 1st. which ones might become nationwide? joining me now is john myers. he's the sacramento bureau chief for the "l.a. times." he coauthored the piece "how will california's new laws affect you?" john, i want to tick through four or five of them. let's talk about independent contractors. what's the change there? >> this is interesting, michael. it's about the nature of work in the 21st century.

there was a california supreme court ruling that said there had to be a strict litmus test as to who could be an employee and who could be a contractor. there's a strict debate about when it's appropriate to have an independent contractor. if you're not an employee, you don't get benefits. on the other side, those who are like the flexibility and freedom of that. so this says that there are strict limits. there is a litmus test to this. i can tell you the real flash point out of all of this, michael, has been the big tech companies like uber and lyft whose business depends on independent contract ee eors an don't want this to apply to them. >> i can see their argument that will stifle their on tre pre nowialship. let's go to the next within on

prove sichlt i still don't understand it. >> i think a lot of people are still trying to figure it out. you're absolutely right. consumers have the right in california to know who is sharing their data, who is buying their data, and they have the right to tell the company, delete my personal data. this is going to have a national impact, there's no doubt about it. those is are large u.s. companies that will have to react and change their business processes. we're seeing on websites little icons, remove my data logos that have been put up in the last few weeks. there are a few months to figure this out. there are a few implications to figure out. this doesn't fully take place until the summer. i will tell you, michael, there's a move to strengthen this brand-new law this year and, again, give consumers more power over the information. control of data has become a big revenue source for many businesses. you'll laugh, but i saw an episode of "shark tank" this week that reminded me of this

fact. companies acquire other companies because they want access to that information. so it will have quite a significant ripple effect. here's number three on my list. the president on a national level has been dismantling the affordable care act and yet in california the individual mandate is alive and well. >> yeah. no state has embraced the obamacare law than california in a lot of ways. you're right. when president trump and those in congress killed the mandate, california said, well, you've got to have insurance in california. so effective now, all californians are required to have health insurance. it will work pretty much like the national law, the level of coverage you have to have. and if you don't have it, it's a penalty on your taxes you pay next year, and that money goes into providing sub cities for health care insurance for californians who are middle-class in their income. again, this is the limits, i think, of what a state can do, especially a democratic liberal

state lie california in the face of the trump administration and the efforts of washington. rising housing prices, a homeless problem that's related, has led to a cap on rental increases. explain that to me. >> this is a statewide cap on how much rent can go up. it says that rent can't go up more than 5% a year for the next decade across california. now, there are cities in california that already have rent control rules. los angeles and san francisco for some renters. this is statewide. this is much broader. this is one effort in that big issue that you're referencing there. i mean california has an affordable housing cry circumstance homelessness crisis that is a subset and offset of that. this is one effort to get a look at that to say these renters need finally, there have been a number of high-profile controversies on the subject of vaccinations. what's the change in that regard? >> this one i would say,

michael, is a viral media effect, especially of people who are critics of vaccines and who have asserted they don't want their children to go through the vaccine protocol. of course you have to have the vaccines to go to school. the state has been talking a lot about limiting the number of exemptions that are given to kids from these vaccine protocols. this new law simply gives the state public health department a lot more oversight into doctors writing these medical exemptions. says they're going to review them. doctors who write too many medical exemptions will have their practices reviewed. this was fiercely debated by scores of vaccination critic parents and by vaccination supporters here in sacramento and the california state capital. i don't think we've heard the end of it but this will give the state more oversight of who gets exempted from those vaccine rules. >> hey, john, final question. what is it about california? why is california so often on the vanguard -- i said at the outset when i was introducing this conversation, sometimes

looked at derisively by the rest of the country. and then these things end up migrating eastward. but what is it that makes your state such a laboratory? >> it's a good question. i've lived out here about 25 years. i tend to think california's dream is an experimentation of the american dream. it's ways to make the american dream better. at least that's the premise that i think a lot of lawmakers and californians began with. i think there is this notion that you have to figure out where the level of government should be. you said it very well at the top. it's not all liberal. it has been conservative in the past but it is an experimentation. i would also tell you quickly i think it is this merging of what elected officials can do in a california state legislature and what voters can do on the ballot in california. there is a push/pull pressure there. if we don't act in elected office they're going to act at the ballot box. so there's experimentation. we get criticized for it some but as california goes, so goes the country a lot. in some of the laws we talked

about, you'll see a national conversation moving forward because of what's been happening here. >> beach boys, van halen, red hot chili peppers. thank you, john. >> thanks very much. still to come, your best and worst tweets and facebook comments and your final chance to vote on today's survey question at smerconish.com. was president trump justified in ordering the assassination of iranian general qasem soleimani. go vote. when you move homes, you move more than just yourself.

that's why xfinity has made taking your internet

and tv with you a breeze. really? yup. you can transfer your service online in about a minute. you can do that? yeah. and with two-hour service appointment windows, it's all on your schedule. awesome. so while moving may still come with its share of headaches... no kidding. we're doing all we can to make moving simple, easy, awesome. go to xfinity.com/moving to get started.

hey, time to see how you responded to the survey question at smerconish.com. was president trump justified in ordering the assassination of iranian general qasem soleimani. survey says this. 72% say no. wow, with nearly -- with more than 15,000 votes. i'm really surprised by that. because i think it was justified, but "the new york times" in a lead editorial today has a really -- it's like they anticipated today's survey question. can we put the first paragraph up. listen to this. the real question to ask about the american drone attack that killed major general qasem soleimani was not whether it was justified but whether it was wise. many pieces of the puzzle are still missing, but the killing is a big leap in an uncertain direction. i think they probably have a better question than i had. not the justification, but the

wise question. here's some social media that came in during the course of the program. what do we have? smerconish, wrong question. trump may be justified but it doesn't mean it was the right thing to do. janet, there you go, you're on the same page as "the new york times." i think he was probably justified, as obama would have been justified, as w. would have been justified. but wise? unclear. what else? the lead attorney for harvey weinstein is no joke. the prosecution better be on their game. the art of lawyering. mitsubishi, i thought he was sharp as well. you know what i thought was interesting? one of the more interesting moments in that trial is going to be when annabella shora, i loved her in "the sopranos," when she testifies. when i asked what will it be like to cross examine a select, a female cross examining a female. i'm sure she will be a great

witness and she has spent her entire life acting. i thought there was a message there. join me for my american life in columns tour. pittsburgh, manchester, soldout shows in st. louis and raleigh. thanks for watching. see you next week. with your sleep number setting. can it help keep me asleep? absolutely, it intelligently senses your movements and automatically adjusts to keep you both comfortable. and snoring? no problem. ...and done. so, you can really promise better sleep? not promise... prove. don't miss the final days of the lowest prices of the season. the queen sleep number 360 c4 smart bed is only $1299, save $400. ends sunday does scrubbing grease feel like a workout? scrub less with dawn ultra. it's superior grease-cleaning formula gets to work faster. making easy work of tough messes. dawn takes care of tough grease, wherever it shows up. scrub less, save more... with dawn.

wean air force veteran made of doing what's right,. not what's easy. so when a hailstorm hit, usaa reached out before he could even inspect the damage. that's how you do it right. usaa insurance is made just the way martin's family needs it - with hassle-free claims, he got paid before his neighbor even got started. because doing right by our members, that's what's right. usaa. what you're made of, we're made for. usaa our mission is to provide complete, balanced nutrition... for strength and energy!

whoo-hoo! great-tasting ensure. with nine grams of protein and twenty-seven vitamins and minerals. ensure, for strength and energy. well, we're just learning that right now the nearly 3,000 troops president trump promised to sending to the middle east are on their way. welcome to our viewers in the united states and around the world, i'm christi paul. >> and i'm martin savidge in for victor blackwell. the president is holding true to his word sending thousands of troops to the middle east after a u.s. drone strike took out a top iranian general. the president said he was plotting imminent and sinister attacks against the u.s. >> this morning the president of iran says the united states committed a, quote, grave mistake vowing revenge after he met with the family of the commander that was killed. we