there is a lot of information out there. hamas is a terrorist group oppressing the palestinian people. hamas refused a continued ceasefire, a continued pause in fighting and more aid from israelis in exchange for just freeing more hostages. instead, hamas resumed attacks. not to protect the palestinian people or obtain peace, only to destroy israel. we must stand against hamas and stand with palestinians and israelis for basic human rights.

you know, there's a word for what happened in new york, in a courtroom today. and that word is a latin term. it's bonkers. tonight, on "laura coates live." i have been waiting to talk to you guys about this all day. what a day in court today. donald trump clashing with the judge, loudly talking during e. jean carroll's testimony. loud enough to be heard two rows away. claiming it is a witch hunt and a con job. shaking his head, throwing his hands up in the air. i do that, too. it was quite a performance. one that didn't fool the judge, not even for a millisecond or a new york minute, i guess you say. here is something you usually don't hear in a courtroom.

the judge says he hopes he won't have to kick trump out of court. and trump responded, i would love it. the judge, i know you would. of course, he likely would. his goal is not maybe to win in court. it's to win at the campaign. frankly, if we're being honest, it's working with him and the polls. let's not forget. this is a man who fund raised off his mug shot in the fulton county subversion case. an attorney would say stop talking. maybe a muzzle would work. donald trump assaulted e. jean carroll and defamed her. the price now is what he has to pay in the liberty costs, the damages. he didn't show up for that trial. didn't testify before. now, he is trying to get a

second bite at the new york apple and have a trial on his own determines. and he will not stop talking about e. jean carroll. this is just the kind of talk that landed him in court in the first place. >> the witness today, the person i never knew, i never had anything to do with, it's a totally rigged deal, this whole thing is rigged, election interference. this is a person i had no idea, until this happened, obviously. who she was nor could i care less. it's a rigged deal and fabricated story. >> the question i have for you, do you stop and think for a moment and try to imagine, even for a second, what it's like to testify not only against donald trump but in the case of today, in front of donald trump.

joining me mow, a friend of e. jean carroll. she alleges that trump assaulted her in 2005. natasha thank you so much. the word i described today is bonkers in how he was behaving in the courtroom. it goes without saying, natasha. trump is very well known. he is one of the most powerful people in the world. he could be president again if re-elected. what is it like testifying against someone like that? becoming so deeply personal. what was that like for you? >> fortunately, when i testified last may, he was not the room. so, it was nervous wracking enough, just as you say, just

testifying against him. i did not have to look at him in the eyes. e. jean today had to look him in the eyes. i wasn't in the qume today. i can only imagine the nervousness we felt last may would have been multipliiied by million. looking at the man in the eyes. >> what was it in particular? it's hard to fathom what that must have been like. what was the cause and the source of your nerves? was it talking about something so personal? the anticipation of the backlash i'm sure followed? what was it for you at that time? >> a few things. on the stand, under oath, the first time i was telling my

story verbally. i had only wrote about it in "people" magazine in 2013. not only was it my first time talking about it, but i was doing it in a court of law. that was nerve-racking. second of all, not knowing what he could do or his supporters would do. when me and the other woman came forward in 2016, we had death threats and all sorts of hate mail. i had to prepare myself for that, as well. any idea what e. jean carroll is going through with all of this? this is the second trial. and this time, donald trump is in that courtroom. >> the first time she testified, she was interrogated for two or three days. it was grueling.

i can't imagine going through that again, what i'm atombing is happening. this has been building up for her for decades. she is one tough cookie. it was probably a very empowering moment for her. she could be in that courtroom and point at him and say you did this. as far as i can tell, she did a great job today. >> the idea is to have look at the person in the eye. you talk about what it's like to draw your attention and in front of a jury and a judge in a courtroom.

you accused trump of assaulting you in 2005. he has denied it. he said something that was deplorable. like, take a look. i know you have concerns over talking about this specific details of your case. i don't blame you. you have testified in a court of law under oath. having to repeat and go through specificity again is not what i'm asking. how did you deal with that kind of attack? and the backlash that ensued? when he said it, you talked about a front-runner and wanted to be and became president of the united states. >> at the time i was writing this book in new jersey with this mafia guy. i was in a hotel room away from everything, where no one could find me and very well protected. but i really hid for a while.

it's crazy. you write something like that. you are writing the story at 3:00 in the morning. and it appears online. i didn't think about the reaction. rit it was like a tidal wave. i removed myself for a while. i'm canadian. the night before the election, i came back to canada and stayed here for a while. thinking things would calm down. of course, they won. that didn't work. i think i removed myself for a while. and then i had to deal with e-mails and hate mail. i had to learn to ignore them and delete them. that's what i had to do. >> that's daunting in itself. thank you for giving us insight perspective on what this experience is like.

thank you, natasha. >> thanks so much. >> i want to bring in elliot williams. i want to talk about this, as well. you and i appeared in federal court. the idea of a defendant talking a out of turn. these judges enjoy that lifetime tenure. and they will exercise the authority to tell you that is their courtroom. why do you think he was operating in that way? >> it's a political stunt for the former president. i've been in federal courts a long time over the course of my career. there's a little of a pedantic adherence to rules in federal court. they tend to be stuffy. and judges control their courtrooms. the idea of walking in and saying i would love it.

that bluster works on the campaign trial but not in federal court. i'm surprised he made it this far without being sanctioned or t kicked out. it's not a criminal proceeding. he's not required to be there. i think of trying to get in the minds of what they're thinking. he doesn't have to be there. you heard natasha say. the power aspect of the accuser. he's already done this. why allow your client to be present. you can imagine the head-turning moment of what's he going to say? >> your problem is you are a spencible human being. you're talking about winning or losing the trial. this is about winning the hearts

and minds of people in iowa and new hampshire and south carolina and so on. there's no reason that one should put their defendant on the stand. two, have the defendant giving a statement outside of the courtroom. they can play the tape of that press conference. they step up to the line of defamation of the plaintiff again. it's not about winning the money or the case. this is about voters. >> that's a sad state of af affairs. he will say, i didn't accuse myself? >> and people buy that. they can make a statement. they won't allow me to speak myself. there's people that believe he's being persecuted. he's been given a longer leash than any other defendant given.

mouthing off to the federal judge. if that kind of thing happened, i've seen people get sanctioned or kicked out. the idea that he's a political candidate and he's entitled to more latitude. he's been given -- >> let's not forget. we watched a member of congress challenge a union boss to a fight. elliot williams, thank you so much. nikki haley, she started quite a political firestorm when she said that america -- this is the important word here. america has never been a racist country. i'm going to ask white house press secretary karine lapierre what she thinks about this. next.

vice president kamala harris was asked to respond to nikki haley's comment saying this country has never been racist. today on "the view." watch. >> when i think about it, i think we all would agree that while it is part of our past and we see vestiges of it today, we should also be committed collectively to not letting it define the future of our country. >> just to remind you, this is what she was responding to. >> we're not a racist country, brian. we've never been a racist country. our goal is to make sure that today is better than yesterday. >> this comes on the heels of haley flubbing the answer to a very simple question. what was the cause of the simple war? >> i think the cause of the civil war was how government was going to run. the peoples and what people

could and couldn't do. note the lack of the word slavery. and maybe it's more nuanced, it seems. joining me now to look at this and more, white house press secretary karine lapierre. >> i appreciate it. thank you for having me on the set. it's happy to have you here. i want to ask you about this point. this is something that has ruffled so many fe feathers. unable to address this issue of race in america. president biden ran on a campaign of battling for the soul of the nation. underlying context included race. what is your reaction to this idea of the state and the history of america, as it relates to racism?

>> thank you for giving me this opportunity. it's important to have this conversation. speaking to nikki haley, she's a candidate. i'm a federal employee. i have to be careful not to speak to an upcoming election. i can speak to the reality, right? we cannot rewrite history. we cannot. anyone who is a leader, a political leader, has to be truthful. they have to be honest about that. and it is not helpful. we're talking about our kids as they are learning about our history, it's not helpful to our children. we have to be where we are and where we're going. you talked about why the president jumped into the race in 2020. he saw in 2017 in charlottesville. he talks about this. the tiki torches going down the

streets of charlotteville. and you had the president at the time saying there were good people on both sides. and the vile things they were saying. we lost a young woman who was fighting anti-racism died that night. a mom lost her daughter that day. he said he saw that and he said to himself, we're in trouble here as a country. we have to save the soul of the nation. he believed it was important for him to run. and he did that. >> when you think about the issues and why it's so pressing for so many people, you cannot begin to change something or have a workable solution unless you first identify a problem. it's the underpinning and crux of any issue that politics musmust address. here's the problem, here's the solution. i like to call it feel e no,

ma'am i won't pretend to know as much as she does about economics. but i know how i feel about things. i know how the covaverage perso goes to the grocery store. they have a big bill and a small bag. we know our personal budgets. why is there a disconnect between what the administration wants people to feel and believe about the strength of the economy and how so many people ultimately are feeling personally taken day in and day out. >> there's a lot to unpack. i appreciate the question, the opportunity here. there was data that comes out of 2023, and shows consumer confidence. it went up in a big way that we hadn't seen in a long time in the month of december. that's important. >> did you expect that increase?

>> here's the thing. the economy is strong right now. i know the feelenomics. i get that. but unemployment is at a historic low. the president has been able to create 14 million jobs in the last two years. when we talked in, we were in a pandemic. people were losing their jobs. small businesses were shutting down. because of the actions he's taken, the american rescue plan, the bipartisan structure legislation, or the manufacturing we're seeing coming back, wee seeing good paying jobs. that's a fact. why does 71% of americans think the economy is not doing well? you listed a litany of things already. why the disconnect? >> we know it will take time for to feel what the president has done.

but confidence is going up. people are starting to feel it. last month, in december, people spent money. we have to lower costs. >> i think the bigger issue, is that the economy comes in number one. and then, there's immigration. immigration has continued to be, not just this administration. from bhiden to trump and obama before that. it's such a source of tension. what is in terms of blocking the federal government. what is the plan to address and resolve this? >> almost three years ago, the

president put forth a comprehensive proposal. this has been under decades of presidents. this did not start today or two years ago or three years ago. he put that forward and nothing happened. there's something happening in the senate. republicans and democrats coming up with how to come up with a bipartisan agreement to the crisis at the border. you need republicans and democrats to deal with this issue. the president is encouraged by that. he had democrats and republicans at the white house to talk about ukraine. that was the importance of funding ukraine. to fight against the tiyranny ad the aggression of putin. >> the border and ukraine are

sortses of extreme tension between republicans and democrats. >> it's part of the national security supplemental that the president put forth. the reason it's supplemental is it's emergency request. we have to fund ukraine. it's about national security not just ukraine. ukraine is doing something that's important fighting for democracy. and the border security. he included that in our yashl security. pa important issues to us that matter as americans and our national security. in a conversation went well. there was a bipartisan understanding that we need to do at the border. and a bipartisan understanding. >> we haven't had a resolution towards evading a shutdown. do you feel optimistic that friday night at midnight we're

not wondering if the government is open or not? >> it is congress' number one duty to keep the government funded. we cannot do what republicans have been doing, kicking the can down the road. in the spring, the president came together with democrats and republicans in congress. they had an agreement. two- two-thirds voted on. went to the senate. there was an agreement. there's no reason the government should be shut down. if it shuts down on the 19th, sadly. that's not acceptable. the american people deserve more. >> this pressure coming from the democratic party to president biden, on israel in particular, is there a plan to resolve and unify the party on that at least? >> it's not a monolith. people have feelings and

thoughts. the president as you stated, is commander in chief. israel is an ally and has been for some time. 1,200 souls were moassacred on october 7th. you have hamas, a terrorist organization. a terrorist organization, leaders said they will do october 7th over and over and over again. we do not want one more life taken in gaza. we do not want that, as it relates to the palestinian people. it's not something that the president cants. that's why we had conversations with israel on being precise and accurate on what the actions and the operations are. m they said they would lower the inte intensity.

they have. a lot of that is because of what this president has been doing. there's humanitarian aid going into gaza. that's because of the leadership of this president. we want to make sure we're getting that important humanitarian aid, as i just mentioned. water or medical assistance, aid into gaza. these are important conversations to have. and i appreciate this opportunity. >> he's got that to reconcile. he's going to north carolina tomorrow, i understand. to promote what? >> thank you for that, as well. >> he's going to go to raleigh durham. he's going out there. going across the country to different states, obviously, and cities, talking about bi bidennomics. he's going to talk about how

we're repairing infrastructure. he's going to talk about lowering costs. what he's been able to do is because of what he's done, you're seeing the private sector investing in north carolina alone, $31 billion. investing in manufacturing. he's going to north carolina and peek to the north carolinians and talk about what his administration has been able to do for them. >> my mom is from fayetteville. she calls it god's country. i don't know about the barbecue. i won't get you in trouble. let's not go there. karine jean-pierre. >> thank you, laura. up next, former president trump stepping up his attacks on nikki haley. tonight, haley is calling it all a temper t tantrum. to duckduckgo on all your devie

duckduckgo comes with a built-n engine like google, but it's pi and doesn't spy on your searchs and duckduckgo lets you browse like chrome, but it blocks cooi and creepy ads that follow youa from google and other companie. and there's no catch. it's fre. we make money from ads, but they don't follow you aroud join the millions of people taking back their privacy by downloading duckduckgo on all your devices today.

well, things are really heating up. there were dueling campaigns in new hampshire tonight. nikki haley in rochester. donald trump in spports mouth. and nikki haley had something to say about the late-night attacks last nights. >> i heard that. i've seen the commercials you see. always tell you the truth. so, one of the things that my friend trump said. i don't want to close the

border. he said i didn't want a wall. i don't want just a call. we have to do more than that. >> i'm joined by neera huck. and michael singleton is here with us, as well. the temper tantrum discussion is novel. but the fact he is going after her tells how he sees her. why her now? >> look at her standing in new hampshire. donald trump wants to win by a resounding margin, similar to iowa. so there's no doubt in mind that the race is over. if you're advising nikki haley, you have to question, do you want your candidate to lose her home state by 25, 30 points, if you want that candidate to run in 2028. most strategists will say no.

>> she did serve in his cabinet and made phone calls to him when he was fretting about keeping the seat in the white house and calls him and asks him, you know, how are you doing? and starts off with a set of remarks we saw right now. my friend, donald trump. she is trying the set herself up as an alternative. he sees right through that. >> donald trump is 40 points ahead of her in south carolina. those states are more conservative. nikki haley is attuned to the politics of this. she knows it's critical not to isolate those voters and defending herself for the moderate leading republicans who want a candidate to stand up. >> those still left in the republican party. versus the 60% of general

americans who are unaffiliated because they are done with the partisanship. her comments are in a primary field that will be hard. the temper tantrum is that he is using her ethnicity for birther attacks. he is playing with her name the way he did with barack obama or with ted or rafael ruiz. >> it's obvious looking at nikki haley she is a woman of color. she can't hide that anymore that tim scott can. the public is not naive that she is not a white woman. i think it's an entertainment for him. i don't think it's going to move the needle one way or another for those listening. >> i go back to this.

maybe i'm being nit-picking. you tell people you want to be president of the united states, you're going up against people who are not pleased with the policies of this country and beyond. why isn't she going back on the offensive? he is promoting a false claim that she is ineligible to run for president. being part of the administration in the past. not wanting to alienate the voters. you have to fight back or can you be commander in chief? >> you have to fight back. she wants to be careful to not lecture the base on race. >> that's the challenge of the modern republican party, to stand up for a person as color .

she has a name of people overseas. that's what president trump wants to embrace. and remind people of his version of making america great again, prenaturalization act. what that would look like. and those are the strains of the republican party and the nationals he's appealing to. >> from the perspective of the individuals that we've seen, the idea of a racial reckoning. we can talk about it and deal with it and finally move on. white americans, and blue collar folks. i'm not a racist, i will participate in the process of this national dialogue. then, you add the genter influx.

people say, i'm not too sure. you see the individuals as i would call a east coast hubris, if you will. individuals are well-traveled and well-cultured. this is how you should behave and these are things you should accept. if you don't accept this, you must be bigoted. but donald trump said, we have to protect our cultural norms. >> whose norms and identities? >> and for them, those things are important. that's why nikki haley is careful not to lecture those voters. they don't want to be lectured on those issues. they said, we had enough. >> that's fascinating, right? this is backlash to obama as opposed to the whole other part of the conversation that's existed for multiple years what it means to have women's rights,

abortion rights. voting rights and all of that. a segment of the population that is catching up. >> we do. i think you're going to try to define who is america and only have one face looking back at you, you got a problem. thank you so much. merrick garland meeting with families of the uvalde school shooting. and the importants of one child ended up walking out. we tell you why, next.

we have news tonight on the deadly uvalde school massacre. merrick garland meeting tonight with some of those who were killed and injured. the meeting comes ahead of tomorrow's planned release of a justice department report to the response who killed 19 children and two of their teachers in 2022. committee members were briefed by garland about the contents. the families of those who survived the massacre left saying they didn't hear anything new. >> there were a lot of information. i guess the next step is to find out what will be done with this information.

>> another family member of a boy what was shot in the back and survived, says he is hopeful that people around the world will finally see the abysmal failure that law enforcement had. we'll be right back.

it is the unsolved airplane hijacking in the history of this country. tonight, there's new clues. this is 52 years after the infamous d.b. cooper hijacking mystery. i'm going to paint the picture for you. set the scene. it began on a rainy night in november 1971.

a man who identified himself as dan cooper boarded a flight to seattle. he was wearing a suit, a trench coat, a clip-on tie and sunglasses. a little after takeoff, coomer ordered a drink and handed the flight attendant had a note saying he had a bomb. he said he told the pilot to fly to mekts coe. then, the unthinkable. with the cash strapped to his waste, d.b. cooper parachuted out of the plane and disappeared. now, there's new evidence that emerged from cold case investigator eric eulis and he joins me now. i remember hearing about this unsolved mystery. and here we are, all these years later, new evidence leading you to focus on a particular person who died last year. his name, vince peterson.

this was 2022. this is your theory. cnn has not reviewed the information on this. but his daughter has sent you an envelope with his dna on it. what's the lateest? >> there was a skinny black clip-on tie that d.b. cooper left on the jet. it was analyzed in 1971. wasn't much value at that time. recently, it was analyzed under an electron microscope. and there were particles on the tie that pointed to a specific company in pittsburgh and a specific division in that company. there's a person of interest, vince peterson, that was a met lunchist there that i'm interested in. and i'm working with his daughter to ascertain if he was d.b. cooper.

>> we reached out to the peterson family. they've declined to comment. but his daughter doesn't believe she was d.b. cooper. what has she told you about her father and the person he was? >> she was 6 years old at the time of the sky jacking in 1971. she remembers her father being a kind person. the kind of person that wasn't be involved in anything like this. at the end of the day, there's stories out there of people that pull off crimes or things of this nature. they manage to get away with it, because people around them, is no way in 1,000 years would they believe this person was involved. it's appealing to the fbi to get access to that clip-on tie and

run a dna test on it. if we get access to the tie, ten minutes here, we can determine if her father was d.b. cooper. if it wasn't her father, who it was. at that point, we have a dna profile to use 2024 state-of-the-art technology. >> you have to keep us posted. this has always been a very fascinating story. he parachuted out of the plane, whoever this d.b. cooper was. thank you so much. thank you all for watching. our r coverage c continues..

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