. we're following breaking news from the supreme court with

the rejection of jack smith's request for expediting the presidential immunity and the question is if trump can be prosecuted for alleged crimes while he may have been committed in office is very much in the air. >> that is delay, delay, they if you're on the trump side of things and we have the full slate of analysts tracking this. evan, take us through this ruling, a one sentence order but with major implications? >> that's right. they denied this which jack smith raised, which is the question if the former president has immunity for the actions he took while he was in office, you know, during the closing days of the 2020 election season, and the other thing that the former president is raising that because he was impeopled by the house but acquitted by the senate, it would be a double

jeopardy, and the department of justice cannot bring charges in that same action, and this is pending in the supreme court, and the supreme court is saying with this action that they're going to wait it out. they will wait for the appellate court, the d.c. circuit, and let me say, the appellate court seems to be very, very aware of the issues and very quickly put some very state deadlines on jack smith's request and put questions on this and why they made this decision to didn't jack smith's request, but in the time since jack smith went to them, the appellate court has certainly given a tight decline deadline and they will get this request back maybe in the next few weeks, but what we do know is

the march 4th schedule for a trial for donald trump to go on trial for the first time, that is almost certainly not going to happen. >> and ellie, we talk so much about the time line here and now the legal time line lines up with the election time line. you pointed out smith didn't mention the election time line in this request, tell us why? >> well, i can't speak for by jack smith refuses to get this in and any fair minded observer understand that's why he's pushing so hard, but he refuses to say it because it's contemporary to doj's policy to say this, and it was the weakness in jack smith's briefing, he said over and over, veteran, this is a momentous case, but that is not the question when it comes to whether it needs to be expedited, the question is there a need for speed? jack smith is unable to say i'm trying to get this before the

election, all he was able to give was a bunch of generalities and the court found that unper somewaysive, and they rejected it. >> the norm, the supreme court could have done this, right, if it's going to come back to them anyway, why make everybody goes through these hoops? >> i don't think there is a single member of the supreme court or their clerks or anybody in that building who is not aware of the reason that jack smith wants to expedite it. they knew that, but they chose to write in a political insurance policy for themselves. if they were to go out of the normal course -- and i think it was right for smith to ask because of the urgency, but if the supreme court had granted, they would have been depriving themselves of a cover of a d.c.

panel six. this will oppose chutkan very likely, maybe two, maybe all three say there is no presidential immunity. now, the supreme court will have two opinions, so it makes them seem less political, less like they're inserting themselves in the discourse and heading there in an absolute rocket docket. >> ordered for briefing and a fast argument and fast opinion, and as evan said, it will likely be back in the supreme court towards the end of january. >> we talk about we're coming up against the deadline, not the election, but 60 to 90 days before the election, and shouldn't voters have this information, evan, but i wonder on the front end of this, doj's initial slowness to get on this, and how this has also squeezed this in the opposite direction? >> look at this. yes, it was slow for sort of the way we look at it from the

outside, but certainly from covering the justice department, this was fast. they have a statute of limitations, and they often take all that time possible, especially when it's an important case where they want to make sure they get everything right. let's not forget that the president did a lot to get in the way of that. he fought access to a lot of things, you know, they were fighting with him for access to some of to his papers, an executive privilege. there were all kinds of roadblocks that donald trump himself made himself -- availed himself of and helped to make sure that none of these cases could happen so quickly, which is why you see, you know, you saw the impatience from the prosecutors in georgia and in new york to say, well, if doj is not able to do this quickly, we'll take the mantle. >> what do you think, jenn? >> i want to tie up what a heavy

lift this was for jack smith. it normally takes four votes and in this case to jump over the appellate court, it takes five. when you look at the make-up of of this, it was a tough audience. they were ready to come in to solve the nixon and watergate tapes, and we do not know what the vote was behind the scene. they did not reveal the vote if anybody dissented. perhaps someone was writing a dissent and decided not to make that public. i'm sure chief justice roberts did not want any dissent public. and in terms of the arguments, there were competing arguments of just how the court understands this case. trump's lawyers really stressed the political calendar saying look at what's happening here. you will be coming in and

looking partisan to your point about, you know, do they want to appear that way? where jack smith talked about irrespective of the politics of the day, think of what your role is and try to get them on the role they have. in this day and age, it's hard to be considered without the political calendar on their mind, so i would say they are the only ones who can decide this. i think they're going to have to decide it, and you know, donald trump has a couple options after that appellate panel rules. he can ask for the full onbanking, and i may be repeating what has been said, so we're talking weeks upon weeks, and then to even establish a jury, put a jury together, to have a trial is going to take some time. so this move opens up an expansive time. let me just say one thing about

the model that jack smith was pushing the court to do. when the supreme court took the u.s. v. nixon case, the special prosecutor petitioned on may 24th. within one week, the supreme court had granted it. you know, we're already beyond that now and then turned it around, as you said earlier, you know the whole thing was turned around in a matter of two months from the oral arguments to the decision with 16 days, you know, even if the /tkreurbg d.c. circuit moves swiftly, they indicateed that he can use his rights and can easily get him beyond his current term, which is something else jack smith said. the current term ends at that time end of june, and what we feared is we would be pushing

past that. >> but there are also accelerating factors that come into play. the supreme court can say, that they can investigate trump and the sert denied and the marlago case. and they can turn off the stay and personally, i think jack smith is too consist for not fighting to say i want to keep the case going, like a jury selection. this panel is going to be by reading their opinions, studying their careers. they think this immunity is

enimical to u.s. law and borderline and in unknown territory in terms of timing. i salute him. alvin bragg never took his foot off the break and never counted on the projections and schedules and orders. he said i'm a prosecutor, and i have a trial date, and he's ready to go, and we will see a case and that brings in the american polling and the big time sienna poll, a 14-point swing in the six swing states if there's a conviction, so it is going to be a very unpredictable calendar politically and legally in the first six months of 2024. >> thank you all so much. certainly we'll have more on the breaking news, the supreme court rejecting a request by special counsel jack smith to expedite this decision whether former president trump has immunity

from federal prosecution for alleged crimes he committed while in office. we'll be right back.

. and we're back with our breaking news from the supreme court just moments ago, the justices rejected special counsel jack smith's request to fast track the expedite on the presidential immunity. >> this is if trump is be prosecuted for alleged crimes while in office, that is expected to hand here in a few weeks. we have seen jeff zelleny to discuss and political commentator jot jennings with us, so give us the most important thing here -- i don't want to say this is the most important thing, but i think that it is very significant how

this is going to impact the 2024 race, they are inextricably link anded? >> for sure. the reason the short-term is important because voting is a little more than three weeks away. now, had the supreme court ruled the other way today. >> it probably would have been more of a surprise. this is not necessarily going to be a bombshell in terms of things that change the course of history, however, it means that everything is likely to not be on the fast track. everything is slightly to be delayed, so when you look at the calendar going forward, that likely means that this march trial date here in d.c. is likely to be delayed. what is not going to be delayed is the voting that starts january 15th in iowa and former president donald trump has a commanding lead and nothing in the courtroom by a supreme court judge is going to change that. and then in the primary, he has

a bit more competition and a month later, the south carolina primary, so as this is going, there are going to be oral arguments and various legal things happening, but from the legal side of things, it's helped trump's politics immensely. look to the end of the summer, the nomination is likely to be wrapped up before we learn anything actually substantive substantively. >> delays do work for former president donald trump, but as a republican, what about the prospect that this election subversion case gets i /skwraoud adjudicated and that throws this into chaos, and it /-pld ares me of what nikki haley is saying that donald trump is a candidate of chaos and this looks like

political chaos, potentially for the republican party. >> i think the republicans already knew that this was a possibility whether a case came early or a case came late or a conviction came early or before the convention. the probability that donald trump could roll into the convention with a felony conviction has been hanging out there, and as noted earlier, it's not impacted too much his standing with republican voters, at least in iowa, maybe it's hurt him a little bit in new hampshire where the electorate is a little bit different. but overall, he's sitting over 60% nationally, and it's well known among the republican primary voters what his issues are, so i don't know if there would be chaos in the convention, to be honest, because i would be surpriseed that the republican party took the nomination from him because most of the delegates and folks in the convention will view a conviction, if it ever comes as something that was illegitimate and never brought in the first place, so i wouldn't drought

that someone wouldn't try, but remember, donald trump is the titular ahead of the republican party, and most of those in the convention are fans of him and his political team orchestrated this to put key processes and people in place to guard against some sort of chaos, as you called it, due to his legal issues, so they're well equipped to fight this out even if this were to happen in late summer. >> you know, the supreme court asked jack smith to do something, not out of the ordinary, saying this doesn't happen or we're in extraordinary tails, but this would have been a big deal if they preceded and expedited this, and what do you think of the perception of the court when it comes to supporters and voters of former president donald trump looking at how the court decided they're not going to get involved here

and what the flip side might have been if they did so? >> they look at there as a victory, and that is how they will portray it, so the supporters will say that the supreme court did the rate thing, with air quotes around correct, but what i think, brianna, that is the big tell is when they actually take this colorado case, and i think they're not going to uphold it. i think they will throw it out. that is when the republicans will really say, look at that time supreme court is doing an awesome job, and i assume the democrats will say a terrible job. >> with the supreme court, they have effectively kicking donald trump often of the ballot? >> yeah. >> and obviously, if they take that up and punt it away, that will be viewed by republicans as a righteous decision, of course.

>> jeff, we're talking about this through the lens of republican party politics, what happens during the primaries, what happens in the convention, but if you're the biden team do, you want this hanging out there like a cloud, like a charlie brown cloud over this election cycle right up to november of 2024, i suspect there are a lot of folks in the biden camp that says that is definitely fine with us -- with the conviction, lake scott said, if that happens, if they brush that off in the convention, but if you're an independent, swing voter in the suburbs of philadelphia or detroit or any of those kind of battleground states, and the republican party standard bear, the nominee of the party has been convicted, obviously, we have to go through the trial. >> imagine if he's acquitted?

the democrats will be -- there are so much iterations to of the chess game, but the reason it matters is the biden campaign in the white house is trying to draw a contrast every moment of the day with donald trump, so i think it helps in that regard, drawing a contrast, but, again, so much of this is baked in: as scott was saying, most republicans know there is a possibility that their nominee could be a convicted felon, and he's overwhelmingly the leader in the primary, but no one has voted yet, so we don't know if this will change things on the margins or not. but what this means next year, it's a lot of legal discussions as opposed to immigration and other matters, but that actually, you know, helps -- we basically will have two incumbents and he's the nominee, and we're not sure how this will fall. perhaps enter a third party because the exhaustion factor will be huge. >> jeff and scott, thank you to both of you for the discussion,

and the widow of slain journalist jamal khashoggi will join us live a year after her husband was killed joining us live after a quick break.

>> after intense behind the scenes negotiations and several delays, the u.n. security council has passed a resolution

calling for urgent steps to get quote, safe and unhindered humanitarian access throughout gaza. >> the u.s. did not vote in favor but abstained allowing the resolution to pass. cnn's jeremy diamond is in tel aviv. jeremy, explain what happened here? >> reporter: well, this resolution looks very different than the original draft. after days of negotiations, in order to avoid a u.s. veto, this resolution does not call for a cessation overhostilities, it doesn't establish a new mechanism the aide going into gaza as it originally would have, instead, it calls for urgent and extended humanitarian pauses and corridors to allow for the entry of aid and appoint the entry of aid to gaza. now, the united states praised this resolution, but the u.s. ambassador to the u.n. made it clear that the u.s. voted to abstain rather than for this resolution in the end because of the lack of condemnation of hamas for its role and for its

carrying out the october 7th terrorist attacks. now israelis, for their part, they are vowing this war will continue up until they can achieve the goal of releasing all of the hostages and eliminating hamas, but there is no question that the focus on humanitarian aid is much needed at the moment. about half of all gaza-and-s according to the world u.n. program are estimated to be experiencing extreme or severe hunger at the moment, and there is simply an enormous gap between the amount of aid getting into gaza and the enormous humanitarian need inside. >> jeremy, talk to us writ about the cnn analysis that israel dropped these massive 200 pound bombs on gaza in the first month of the war, these are two times heavier italian the u.s. dropped on isis in mosul? >> reporter: after, we have seen some of the images to of the impacts of the massive bombs. a lot of people remember the

enormous crater at the refugee camp and we have satellite imagery over the course of the first month of this war, and what it revealed is that israel has dropped hundreds of these 2,000 pound bombs in the first month of the war finding 500 craters 40-feet wide consistent with the impact of the 2,000 pound bombs and weapons and military experts say it's the use of the bombs that has contributed so much to the very high civilian death toll in gaza, that's because when you use these types of bombs that have a nearly 1200 foot radius where people can be killed or injured in a densely populated area like gaza, this is the inevitable result. the israeli military is operating to dismantle hamas's military ability and taking all the precautions to mitigate the harm to civilians. >> all right, jeremy diamond live for us in tel aviv, thank

you. the widow of slain "washington post" and saudi contradict jamal khashoggi has received political asylum here in the u.s., just granted, we learned. her husband suffered a brutally, violent death at the hands of a saudi assassination squad in 2018. investors said he was strangled and the wife went into hiding because she fear end she returned to the native eygpt or the uae where she had been living for 26 years, her life would be in danger, and she's here with us in studio, hanan khashoggi. we certainly appreciate it. we understand this has come as quite of a surprise to you, to get asylum, tell us? >> it was a surprise for me. migration lawyer was to make

sure this is the right information and did i get approval for my asylum, that i'm safe, that i did a choice to come to the u.s. and seek and start to establish justice for my husband, and i realized yes, after they confirmed it to me. >> because what were you afraid would happen? >> i was afraid that i will meet the destiny that my husband had. i was threatened to have the same destiny in the mideast, i was under house arrest, and i had a very experience in the mideast before i fled to the u.s. >> interrogated, placed under house arrest -- >> twice. >> you had spying software put on your devices prior to his death, and certainly, i know you've been very fearful of future surveillance because of that. tell us what your life was like

after jamal was slain? >> after jamal disappeared, in the beginning because it was not accurate information what exactly happened to him, i was in very bad shape, because i was not sure about what happened to my husband until they admitted, the saudi authority, they took the time to admit it. they did not admit it immediately. when they admit it, i remember that day, i couldn't stand on my feet even, because jamal was a very peaceful man, and he doesn't deserve this ending. >> as i mentioned, what happened to jamal threatened the u.s.-saudi relations, and since then, we saw it strengthen and the fist bump that president biden gave mds and he said that biden is poised to relax a two

year ban on sales of weapons to saudi arabia, so what do you make of this what the relations are like between the u.s. and saudi arabia? >> to be honest with you, i will walk the same way my husband walked, he doesn't want his country to be abandoned. he wants his country to be good relations to all countries in the world including the usa regardless of an economic or political deal, i want saudi arabia not to suffer because i don't want the saudi citizens or the country itself to suffer. this is what my husband was doing, and i'm doing the same exactly what my husband was doing. >> when you look also, we talk about the economic relationships between the united states and saudi arabia, we've seen that particularly when it comes to sports, right, when it comes to golf and live golf, financed by

the saudi government, the possible joining with american golf, how do you see that? >> i do see this as normal -- again, i don't want saudi arabia to be abandoned and to suffer because of the act of a bunch of criminals and the mental psycho. i don't want the saudi people to suffer, and if jamal was here, he would agree what i'm doing. he would seek mccullum political asylum, and he says i love my country, and i'm an advisor for my country. >> randa hanan is demanding that turkey return his cell phone for analysis, have you gotten any assistance from the u.s. government on. >> well, thank you for asking, because those are the two remaining issues, so on the issue of returning the devices

from a turkey, i had the good fortune in person seeing the director of national intelligence haynes and she acknowledged receiving hannan's letters and says she will go to the justice department to work with the justice to see if they can make that request to the government of turkey to get the devices back. since then, i've been in touch with tony blinken and others saying we want the devices back. on the issue of compensation, brianna, the saudis admitted responsibility for gentlemanal's death under the u.s. death or sharia law, there is compensation if you murder someone's husband or father. the saudis have compensated the four children of jamal, and now

they need to take responsibility for hanan and that includes financial compensation. >> what do you want for saudi arabia, what change do you want to see and what will it take, hanan? >> i would like to first apologize for the crime and listen to what jamal likes, to carry his message and release political prisoners. they're not criminals. they are advisors for their country, and this is their duty, and they don't deserve to be punished. at least this is a start. >> hanan, congratulations on your new status. i know it's a huge relief for you, and rhonda, thank you for being with us, as well. >> thank you. >> and we'll be right back.

. okay. so we're going to talk about bringing recycled drinking water,ia yeah, i know that sounded gross, but officials in california say it's one of the best solutions for combatting the effects of climate change? >> this allows sewer water to be transformed to clean, drinkable water after extendively treated before boing to the tap. >> you don't say, jim? here to explain, and you have a lot of explaining to do is darren polimas, the deputy

director for the california water division board of drinking water. darren, i'll tell you, i am from california. i understand how it's like liquid gold when you were there. some critics, though, have coined this plan toilet to tap. i know it's a bit more complicated than that. tell us about the process? >> sure. happy to. first thing i want to recognize is that all water is recycled, right? people drinking from rivers, lakes and others, that is where we discharged waste sometime ago, and it's still picked up. what we're talking about here is taking it straight from treatment process connecting it to an advanced level of treatment with multiple steps all the way through, and then adding a raw additive to the front of the drinking water system or actually putting it straight into the drinking paper pipes. again, as you mentioned, it goes through extensive level of treatments, and i'm happy to discuss each of those. it's about eight steps in all it

goes through and monitored each step of the way to really verify the water. i think the important thing to note is we actually take out so much, we have to put minerals back before you can drink the water. >> tell the folks how you're going overcome the skepticism on this, because i have a feeling folks will say, i don't care what you do to this water, i ain't drinking it? >> yeah, i think the public has come a long way here in california. we have been using recycled water for numerous years, and for a decade, we have treated it highly, put it in the reservoir and take it out a couple months later, so we're actually shortening the time frame, so it doesn't sit in the reservoir and monitor it but take it right back into the drinking water system. we require a public process. we require a water system that will bring the public along with

education, you know, make them understand what's going on, gain their confidence in how they're doing it. this has already been done in california by several of the water systems, orange county is the leader in this educating their public with the indirect reuse, and we're confident we can gain their trust for the direct public use. >> shoutout' to the co county, my hometown. let's put the graphic back up, and this really does explain why you're able to take this so incredibly seriously and make sure the water is clean. california is hoping this will combat climate change, drought, which is such a big problem in this state. how realistic is that? >> yeah, it's going to be awhile before anybody completes projects that actually uses dpr.

the facilities are not used yet, and it will be six or seven years of construction or planning to actually get them to come on board, but it will be an important part of the water system's portfolio, you know, it could be 15, 20% of their supply at some point. the criticality we see with doing this is we know our water sources are highly variable as climate change continues, and from a sourced drinking water, waste water is always there. the community is always producing waste water and always provides ability to use it as long as you're treating it highly, like we set forth in the regulations and make sure it's completely safe for public consumption, so it will be an important tool for large water systems to use in california to be planet resilient. >> yeah. well, we have to do something about the climate, there's no question about it, and i'm sure we'll have to check back in with you, darren, to see how things are going, but thank you for

bringing us this heartwarming holiday tale how things will be changing in terms of treating water out there in california. best of luck to you. appreciate it. >> most welcome. >> reverse osmosis, treat it with ozone, see the initial steps. >> what could possibly go wrong? >> it looks delicious. he said they have to put minerals back in. >> it's california. it's all your fault. when we come back, with the airport so busy this week, you might be hoping that the pre-check or clear is going to get you right through security, bubut does i it realally getet u through h the gate f faster? wewe'll look..

millions of people are flying to their holiday destinations. everyone hoping to get there sort security as quickly and painlessly as possible. in an effort to cut the line many are signing up for either tsa precheck or a private company alternative known is clear. which is better? >> i have them also i have no idea. i just get it. is it best to try your own luck to go through the regular security line? we know the answer to that is no. let's bring in our consumer reporter. nathaniel, do you have the pre- check and clear? i have global entry as well. anything they offer that make it faster i will sign up. >> they've got you hooked. i just have tsa precheck. i don't fly enough to need clear.

whoever thought that airport security lines could be this complicated? let's break down the different between these two programs. clear is a lot more expensive at $190 a month versus -- a year, versus pre-check was about $15 a year or $80 over the course of five years. clear is a private security company. it lets you jump the tsa line if you scan your biometric data , facial recognition or thumbprint versus tsa precheck which is a government program and it is available at many more airports. about 200 airports versus clear at about 50. >> which should you choose? >> if you are a frequent traveler like jim it may make sense to have both of these programs. if you're an occasional traveler like me, it makes more sense to have tsa precheck and not that $190 a month -- $190 a

year clear program. if you can get it with your credit card, clear does have the option for some of that. we are seeing on social media people who have clear saying t's -- tsa precheck lines are shorter. >> that does happen. sometimes the clear line is longer, but also you get into sporting events faster with clear. >> amazing. nathaniel, thank you for that. lots to think about. the lead with jake tapper starts now. being a journalist is the best job in the world. asking challenging questions of the folks who run the world. > the lead d withth jake tat.