remember that phrase, high

crimes and misdemeanors? well, it back, but it might not be the same thing. tonight on laura coates live. ♪ ♪ ♪ all right, you've heard this before. members of the house present to mark up to new articles of impeachment tomorrow, but this time it's not for donald trump. it's also not for joe biden. instead, they are targeting president biden's homeland security secretary, the man you see right there, alejandro mayorkas. the house republicans that are accusing him is because he is not enforcing, they, say the border laws and he is losing the trust of the american people. you're probably wondering what is the high crime or misdemeanor, like elon order episode, you probably won't find it tonight. the misdemeanor, high crime, and you're not odd for asking the question because of course those are the actual constitutional standards for impeachment. frankly, it's been more

nicholas over the years, but i wonder if you feel that would meet the criteria of the top democrat on the homeland security committee says the articles don't include a shred of evidence. the dhs says it is a farce. and legal experts say that this really boils down to not a legal dispute, but a policy dispute. so, now, what is really going on? no one is arguing that what is happening at the border is somehow all roses. it is, in fact, a problem. crisis comes to mind. that is why democrats and republicans, as you know, have been working together on a bipartisan border deal so that right now it does not seem very likely to happen. why? not because of an incumbent, not because of the actual president, or even a sitting senator, or member of congress, it is because a candidate, a presidential candidate, donald trump, has said don't do it. has told republicans to torpedo it, making senators in his

party, while they are not too pleased about it all. >> this will be a very significant achievement of this republican minority in the u.s. senate, forcing the issue. so i hope no one is trying to take this away for campaign purposes. >> i don't see how we have a better story to tell when we miss the one opportunity we have to fix it and we go to say, we would love to have fixed it but it was election season so i thought i would wait. >> the question is, do you want to get something that will help us stem the tide of humanity coming across the border, and drugs, or do you want to get nothing? >> it's a heck of a choice. once again, it seems politics is trump-ing some of the solutions. the pond, is, of course, intendant. let's talk about it now with -- new york gop joe pinion, and jamal simmons, a former deputy to president biden. and tara palmieri, who is a senior political correspondent

for puck news. i'm so glad you're all here with me tonight. first of all, began with substance here. what are you hearing about what it actually would mean for this deal? what is in it, what is the deal? we're hearing a lot about the, in principle, i hate that phrase, but not the text of things. where are they? >> they haven't actually revealed the text because they don't want to be torpedoes, as they always do. they're holding it back. but what we have learned so far is that when there are surges, when there is more than 5000 migrants crossing the border in a day, the president can unilaterally stop asylum processing. he can stop these people from effectively coming into the country. and that would happen on day one, because we're getting way more than 5000 migrants coming into the country today. essentially, as soon as the legislation is signed, joe biden said he will take it into effect. the problem is that, of course, or publicans are going to say that 5000 is too many, we can't allow anyone to apply for asylum because these people are still allowed to apply for asylum. in some cases, that people

would be allowed to get work permits right away. they will be able to integrate into our society, which is what you think they would want, but there is no pathway in this for dreamers, there's no pathway for the 11 million people or so that are living in this country illegally. but it is a step, it's a step in the direction for both parties that have been saying, well mainly the republicans, that they wanted this. they want this part of the israel ukraine deal. they said we will not give aid to ukraine or israel without at the border. now you've got it, but it's not good enough. it is like they are killing it because of trump, essentially. >> i mean, congress not taking yes for an answer on something -- it is shocking in some respects. first of, all the idea for democrats that there is no pathway to citizenship. yes, republicans and democrats talked about immigration and reform over the decades and i do mean decades. but democrats have hung their heads a lot on the idea of that pathway. it is not here. isn't that an issue? >> a lot of people are

concerned about this, right? there is no pathway for dreamers. business interests are not going to have a expanded guest worker program, that's not going to exist. people are asking, rightfully, well, where are arguing, the democrats are arguing with republicans to do what republicans have already said they wanted to do, right? so where does it make sense? one, standing up against russia, standing up against putin in ukraine. to, helping to fund israel. three, securing the border, including putting more border personnel, judges, electronic equipment down on the border. all of these things, a lot of people may argue are good things to do. but republicans want to do, them but they won't actually vote to get it done. >> why? >> look, i think we have to take a step back here. i think it is a lot more complicated than simply saying president trump, or any presidential candidates try take the issue off the table. >> but he wants you to blame

and, he said, that blame it on the. >> looking at it from a substantive standpoint, when things most republicans, and i would say all americans want, what we have on the border is a crisis. it's a humanitarian crisis, it's a national security crisis, it's something that is affecting people all across this country. so people want to have that flow of illegal immigration. on some basic level, the issue is that if you're going to have this average of 5000 in there, we don't know that, but it is what has been suggested, then you're talking about the equivalent of another syracuse new york crossing the border on a recurring basis. you're talking about another rochester new york crossing the border on a recurring basis. places where people are already struggling with poverty, places where we see people across the political spectrum saying we cannot have our -- neglected to make sure that people who have only been here for 24 hours and up being first in line. ultimately, it comes down to what is the objective? is this going to be the broader immigration reform that people

have been seeking for decades, comprehensive immigration reform? or is this a stopgap that is supposed to deal with the actual acute crisis that we have on the southern border and republicans will say, you cannot actually have a solution to the problem that codify is the very thing that we are trying to end. >> let me is say this one thing. you can talk, to, but the number zero keeps coming to mind. i don't know why i'm pointing to my forehead. zero, because it is what mike johnson has been talking about, because that's the only way. the number has to be zero. that is completely unrealistic to think about. there is got to be a middle ground from where joe is talking about, what congress is talking about, and the idea of to zero. go ahead, jamal. >> what i was going to say it was george w. bush tried to do this in the 2000s. john mccain tried to do this when barack obama was president, and both were scuttled by the same right wing forces that didn't want to do a deal that was going to actually have any

kind of compassion to it. so the problem that i have here is that they just don't want to deal because they would rather have the politics and have the solution. >> i want to say this. i think that we have to be honest about the fact that it's an election year, that both sides like the pay politics. obviously no one should play politics with. >> democrats see that this is a popular issue with them now, but it wasn't before. even joe biden is taking a risk. >> you mean that now they want to solve the problem, and republicans follow trump are saying i don't want this done during and election year because it might benefit biden? >> because democrats a figured out at the white house that this is an issue that bothers democrats and republican voters, so it would be a win for biden to fix this issue and, for a while, the democrats didn't go anywhere near this because they didn't want to alienate the progressive base. now they're willing to do it because they want to win over the swing voters in the seven battleground states that matter in this election. >> everybody is yes except for

donald trump. therefore -- >> they're both playing >> i want it to get into this, as well. the politics of impeachment. we all seem to be on the same page in terms of acknowledging that there is in fact this issue that needs to be addressed, how you do it, a very different mechanisms for how you do it with the when and how. but mayorkas is being served as a kind of scapegoat, some would say, as to why they won't solve the problem. others say, is not a scapegoat at all. he is the problem, which i am unsure how without high crime or misdemeanor articulated, breach of trust? is that enough to satisfy a way to get at this very problem? >> it is going to be very difficult to satisfy the high crime and misdemeanor portion of this impeachment, because the impeachment in its entirety become very difficult. i don't think that the conversation in and of itself is inconsequential. when you're looking at people on the south side of chicago talking about how the crisis is

impacting them, when you're talking about people how it's affecting them. when you hear the pain and suffering of everyday people here in new york, 80 billion dollars behind repairs for public housing and, meanwhile, we're spending, again, into a deficit at the state level and city level trying to deal with a migrant crisis that many of our leaders from chuck schumer to our governor told us was a republican talking point, i think it comes down to your point. democrats finally realizing, oh my goodness, we can't actually afford to ignore this issue anymore. i think that is how you end up -- it's how you end up with mayorkas being caught in the crosshairs. to your original point, i do not believe that, ultimately, the actual pillars of what they detailed as high crimes and misdemeanors are actually able to make that. >> he's right, you have hakeem rieric adams, kathy hochul, leaders in the democratic party every single day going out there saying president biden, you need to do something about migration. we're being flooded in our cities. you have j.d. pitcher, all over democratic the cities.

and you don't want to alienate democratic voters in election year. both sides are playing politics. at the end of the day, it is also a test of a grip that trump has on the party, because this would be a pretty consequential piece of legislation for both sides. >> go ahead, jim. all >> politics is politics. remember, this is the president put in place when he called a muslim ban, when he -- what i said during the course of this campaign, he wants to reinstate his immigration policies. there are some people who are acting in good faith here. a lot of the mayors, some of the governors, senator lankford who are actually trying to solve the problem. then you have got donald trump, stephen miller, and the right-wing gang over there in maga land actually don't even want more legal immigration to this country. >> something tells me that between behind the scenes to when the camera cuts to commercial it's going to be heated at this panel. if only there is camera still on us. joe, jamal, paris, thank you so much. biden is under pressure for a lot of reasons tonight, which we talked about for immigration.

others because of his need to respond, they believe, to the drone attack in jordan that killed three u.s. service members. but how will it all play back home, especially with younger voters who are already very much fed up with a lot of the foreign policy efforts? we'll talk about their perspective, next.

tonight, top white house officials say they do not want to go to war with iran. but they are promising a very serious response after a weekend drone attack at a u.s. military outpost in jordan killed three u.s. army soldiers and wounded more than 40 others. this comes at a precarious time for president biden, with two international conflicts and potentially a third one looming. the young voters are especially

concerned about what's happening overseas, and frankly about u.s. foreign policy decisions. i mean, check out this quinnipiac university poll. 70%, look at this number, 70% of 18 to 34-year-olds disapprove of the way that biden's handling foreign policy. i won't make you do math right now, but 16% approve. not quite 100% yet, but still, 16% versus 70. let's talk about it now it time magazine correspondent charlotte alter, who is author of the ones you've been waiting for, how a new generation of leaders will transform america. charlotte, thank you so much for being here. i have been seeing every time biden is speaking, even vice president harris as well, there are protesters that are present. they are talking about a number of issues, including of course gaza, ukraine, and beyond. i wonder when you look at this, what are you hearing from young voters about how they are feeling about our foreign

policy involvement in these wars in general? >> so one of the things i'm hearing from young voters and activists and organizers that i'm talking to is that this situation in gaza was in many ways the straw that broke the camel's back for biden's standing with young people. i think young people have been getting increasingly disappointed and increasingly disillusioned about the biden administration, particularly around something called the willow project, which not that many people necessarily know about, but it's a drilling project on federal land in alaska that the biden administration approved after promising to young voters in the 2020 election that he would ban all drilling on federal land. so there is already a lot of disillusionment, already a lot of disappointment. and then i think what happened -- what's been happening in gaza has really been the tipping point for that disillusion to turn into outrage. >> and what is it specifically about the outrage? is it steeped in an issue

around peace more broadly? is it about the prioritization of certain areas over others? is it about the alliances? is it pinpointed to a particular aspect of why the protest? >> that's a great question. i think for a lot of younger voters and younger americans, they see this as a systemic justice issue. they see it connected to many of the other issues of systemic injustice that we've seen the younger generations protest over in the united states, like racial injustice. so they see these injustices as connected to each other. and so, i also think the older cohort of this generation, the millennials, have a deep skepticism about american interference abroad. this is the generation that grew up in the shadows of the war of iraq and afghanistan. so they're deeply skeptical about what happens when

american comes to entangled and overseas conflicts. >> you want to, especially with that, whether it means there is a solution, a and point, where there's some kind of protracted involvement that does not result in a tangible result. in the end, i wonder about it all the time. also, vice president kamala harris, she's actually in california today to talk about reproductive rights, part of what their new campaign has been about. listen to this moment when she's interrupted by a pro palestinian protesters. listen to this. >> you know, i will tell you -- >> [crowd chanting] cease-fire now! cease-fire now! >> now, of course, as you can imagine, they have been paid in a lot of their hopes on trying to galvanize voters who -- the right in a post-dobbs world. but nearly event focused on this has focused on these protesters in this issue.

is this a signal to the biden campaign or the administration more broadly that they have to divide their attention among the two areas, because this latter one is what's really at stake? >> i think it's a signal to the biden campaign that they have to really start taking young voters, under 30 in particular, more seriously. particularly because what these cohorts of voters, the voters under 30 who voted for biden in 2020, who really put him over the top in these key states, in michigan, arizona, pennsylvania, georgia, i mean, young voters really helped, along with many other parts of biden's base, really powered his victory. but as the years go by, those voters who are 28 in 2020 are 32 in 2024. so it's not the same people who voted for him in 2020 who he now needs to win over in 2024. and that means that he needs a new playbook. he needs to give these voters something to vote for, not something to vote against.

and you know, the more i talk to these younger voters and younger organizers, the threat of a trump presidency, you know, they are deeply concerned about it. but it does not seem to be enough to motivate them. they are so upset about what's happening in gaza that they almost don't want to hear about trump. so i think this playbook of making the election all about trump again, i think it's gone to work with some parts of biden's base. but i'm not sure it's going to be enough to win over this cohort. >> so what's the or else, vote for trump or all stay home? >> i think it's stay home. there are some recent polls, the end of last year, that showed trump leading with some young people. i would like to see more data on that before i believe that this cohort that has really been leaning left for the last ten years is suddenly going to switch to matta. i think it's more likely that they stay home. >> wow, that would be something to think about if that's the case. that would have to rewrite the entire playbook though, as you

speak about this issue. charlotte alter, the thank you so much for being here tonight. e. jean carroll, speaking to cnn after winning her defamation case against trump. she says that trump is using her to win votes.

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. well, e. jean carroll is speaking out on the heels of that massive, and i do mean massive, $83 million in damages awarded to her and defamation cases against donald trump, telling cnn she believes the former president is trying to use her and her victory in court, why, to drum up votes for him.

>> the courtroom was not a courtroom to him, it was a campaign stop. that was clear. so we had two different objectives. ours was to win a case, his was to win voters. a mount found liable for sexual assault is using the woman he sexually assaulted to get votes. >> joining me now, cnn's legal analyst and former federal prosecutor jennifer carter's. also here, cnn contributor leah wright ruger. i'm so glad you guys are both here with me today. first of all, leah, let me begin with you. because she says trump is using her to win votes. and i'm also wondering will hurt speaking out, if that is his plant, does that help or hurt his campaign more broadly? >> so right now, e. jean carroll and the entire case surrounding e. jean carroll and donald trump, including the payout, this massive historic payout in this defamation and libel suit, is absolutely

helping donald trump. but i want to offer a caveat with that. it's helping because it's part of this larger victim narrative. he says the courts are corrupt. look at this massive payout. of course, he's calling into question, as very much donald, trump calling into question e. jean carroll as a person. so all these pieces, this is an attack on. us this is a reflection of a system that is rigged. so that is helping generate a energy amongst his core base. at the same time though, this is the caveat, at the same time, it is also deeply hurting his campaign and the larger institution of the republican party. and let me tell you why, because it's not just this case, it's not just the defamation case, it's also these other cases where trump is going have to pay out millions in damages. e. jean carroll has also said she is willing to sue him again if necessary. so ultimately, it's about a financial cost to donald trump and the republican party. so it's kind of a trade-off. it's good for his campaign as

an individual, it's terrible for the party and certainly -- for the country. >> she raised a good point on what is to come. because it's just one of the cases, 83 million is one of them. there's also the new york civil fraud trial, where he stands to possibly have his business, his political currency as being a real estate mogul and how uses that in campaign, to be reduced. they're seeking over $370 million. i'm not a mathematician, but that's a whole lot of dollars. and if that's part of what's ahead of him, i mean, that could be truly unprecedented. >> yeah, and listen, then there's the criminal trials, too. i'm part of me thinks i'm not a political analyst, but part of me thinks this is all his desperate bid to stay out of prison. he has to be reelected to the white house in order to stay out of president. there are four criminal cases coming, you'll be convicted and at least one of them. if they go forward, because he's not elected, he is going to face a jury in all of these cases, and i think be convicted in multiple of them. so this, to me, is all eggs in

the basket of do whatever i can to get myself reelected, because if i don't, jail is coming. >> so interesting that after last may, when he had the first verdict, i want to remind you of this, he spoke pretty quickly about e. jean carroll. listen to this. >> i have no idea who this woman -- this is a fake story, made-up story. >> and i swear, and i've never done that. and i swear, i have no idea who the hell -- she's a whack. job >> that is a day after our cnn town hall, moderate by kaitlan collins. now we haven't heard anything. it's like crickets with him. message received? >> message not received. >> mm. >> because one of the things we know about donald trump as he hates to be silenced. but he also has a relatively good team of lawyers surrounding him this time around. and i'm not just talking about the lawyers in the e. jean carroll case, i'm talking about some of these lawyers in the

criminal cases and the other charges that he's facing. somebody is telling him to be quiet. that is the smartest strategy that he could have right now, not just because he beast this million dollar lawsuit that he's going to have to ultimately pay out, but also because e. jean carroll has said i will sue you again. your words can be used against you. he can be caught in a lie. there are innumerable things that can happen. but we have also seen is that at the same time is either donald trump or whoever is monitoring, working his social media channels, truth social, twitter, x, that kind of thing, has also been tweeting out and sending out lots of disinformation around e. jean carroll. we've also seen some of these i think harder right wing media sources do the dirty work of donald trump. so while trump is not out there kind of speaking from his platform, we see that there are various vehicles that are asking these questions about who is e. jean carroll? does he really know her? is this part of a larger trade

system? in order to push back on this larger narrative and really undermine e. jean carroll's entire approach. i will say this though, it's not working in the broader public. and e. jean carroll as been very clear about this, particularly in going on his campaign and saying what is this about. is this about accountability and it's about controlling the narrative. so even as trump's silent at the hands of the advice of his lawyers, e. jean carroll is not. and she's using this as an opportunity, i think, to fight back. >> you know, it's fastening to think about, jennifer, the idea of automating one's message, like needing to keep your hands clean from here on out because you've -- done the groundwork. now, your minions can do everything else for you. i'm really curious though as to why we have not heard from the courts on the other cases. circuit court, on the immunity issue in particular, the supreme court is going to have oral arguments coming up. in fact, justice sotomayor was speaking today about her frustrations on the court more

broadly. listen to this. >> change happens because people care about moving the arc of the universe towards justice. and it can take time. and it can take frustration, i live in frustration. >> [laughter] >> and as you heard, every loss truly traumatizes me, in my stomach and in my heart. but i have to get up the next morning and keep on fighting. >> i don't know if she's foreshadowing something deeper about what's happening in deliberations behind closed doors, but it does speak to, i think, impatience and frustration is how people feel about the courts on issues like this, that we don't yet have it in the broader judiciary answers to questions like does the president have absolute immunity? can he be on a ballot? what's the deal?

>> yeah, that doesn't make me very -- doesn't make me very confident for what's going to happen the rest of this term. those are big questions. i mean, those things are coming. we have -- i'm surprised the d.c. circuit as taken as long as it has. >> me too. >> obviously, writing a comprehensive opinion by, this may be the dissent, i don't know. we have the february 8th argument coming up on the ballot question. and i think the supreme court will decide that quickly, because primaries are going on. you will need to know whether he's going to be on the ballot. but court cases do take time. and that's why when it finally does happen, like when the e. jean carroll verdict finally comes in and they say, listen, there was a really interesting point that both e. jean carroll and her lawyers made, which is that he's this fearsome figure, trump, he's a bully, he says anything he wants, he has this power, these followers, they will do anything he says. when you get within the four walls of the courtroom, or rules govern, where he can be controlled, where you can't adjust fly, where the truth governs, it's different.

he's just a man. he's just a man. i mean, his lawyer, e. jean carroll's lawyer, sean crowley said, he's just a guy. he's not this all powerful figure. so it does take time. it takes time to get him into the courtroom. and that's what we're seeing, is taking time to get these cases well underway. it will be more time before we are at trial, when we are and the truth is paramount and the rules of evidence govern and you have a judge who can control the proceedings, he's just a man facing the law. and it will be different. >> well, to quote notting hill, one day he will be a boy in front of a court asking them not to throw the book at him. jennifer rodgers, leah wright rigueur, like you so much. next, never before seen video made public in the trial of ethan crumbley's mom. it shows that crumbley's parents were seeing their son hours after he carried out that horrific school shooting. we will walk through exactly what happened.

all right, there's a flood of legal news today, starting with the judge denying alex murdaugh's requests for a brand-new trial. that denial came after a juror said they were swayed by comments from a courtroom clerk. alex murdaugh was convicted last year of killing his wife and his son. another that is the trial for jennifer crumbley, the mother of ethan crumbley. he is serving life in prison without parole for killing four students in a michigan school shooting back in 2021. and now, whose parents who are the first in the nation to go on trial for what could be charges against them to hold

them responsible for their son's school shooting. so who is the best to talk about all this with? shelly jackson is of course here, cnn legal analyst and defense attorney extraordinary. joey, first of all, this murdaugh trial. because unite talked a lot about this trial in south carolina. the fact that a juror says they were swayed by a court clerk was influencing that person in a way that was not expected, shall we say, that was not enough to get a new trial. did that surprise you? >> so it didn't, and here's why, great to see you in person. so listen, laura, the reality is that you are entitled to a fair trial, not a perfect trial, that's one distinction to make. the second thing is that, remember, there was an evidentiary hearing in which the judge evaluated the testimony of all 12 jurors. now i know it takes all 12, beyond a reasonable doubt. 11 said absolutely not, had no influence, right, this clark had no influence. the others said the clerk did

have an influence, however that the other jurors had more of an influence with respect to why she voted to deal. so at the end of the day, you have a six-week trial, three hour jury deliberation. and overwhelming evidence which suggest, as you and i both know, -- error. had the end of the day, yes, there was a miscue by this clear. but it did not and it was not outcome determinative to the issue appealed, the judge saying it was so overwhelming, it would not have mattered. this is not the last -- court of appeals, and then to the supreme court, and then maybe federal court. but i think this was the right call. >> just thinking about that, because it's a cost-benefit analysis. one, -- let's talk about the ethan crumbley mother's trial, jennifer crumbley. this is again the first time this country has grappled with a parent of being charged for the actions of their child, a minor at the time, who committed this horrific act. we've got some new footage, it's never before seen footage,

joey, of jennifer and james crumbley, the parents of ethan crumbley, seeing their son at the police station right after the shooting. look at this. >> [inaudible] >> why? i >> [inaudible] >> why? >> i love you, i love you, i love you. i love you, i love you, i love you. [inaudible] >> [crying] -- [inaudible] [bleep] >> now you look at this, and she is crying, someone is saying i love you, and she's asking the question why. how does this play into her defense? >> so, one piece of evidence, which would suggest that she's, what do you mean, why, why, why, very surprised.

remember, three things are really important here, laura. number one, foreseeability. is it foreseeable that your son would behave in this way under circumstances where he has mental health maladies you are not paying attention, perhaps you should. so the foreseeability question is big. the second question is the notice question. where the parents on notice to the ailments and maladies of the child? and number three, did they act reasonably? if they really know, if they were really surprised at this, then how could you suggest if they would have went in and said, okay, yeah, probably something he would've done, but certainly had a different effect. but their goal was to show they didn't know the extent and severity of the child's, really, mental health condition. and that enters to their benefit. >> the most important thing, when she hits this testimony to the stand, that's going to really be all the marbles. >> riveting, without question. her testimony as to what she knew and when she knew it, if anything, overwhelmingly significant, can't wait for that to happen. >> again, what -- tried separately, the one who's being tried first, will she point the finger at her husband and who knew what?

joey jackson, that would -- will see it happen, i'm sure it will be -- we will cover it here. joey jackson, thank you so much, i appreciate it. >> thank you, laura. up next, the super bowl is now set and there are new conspiracy theories that are already floating around. but it may not be about what you would expect. how taylor swift got dragged into all of it, next.

the kansas city chiefs heading to the fourth super bowl now in just five years. they will take on the 49ers in

a las vegas 2020 super bowl rematch. this time around, of course, taylor swift, she has to be mentioned here, she was in the bleachers last night. while, not in the bleachers, she was in a box of some kind. and on the field for the postgame celebrations. and some say they have some bad blood, had to do, it with the nfl over the attention she's getting. and there are a lot of conspiracy theories now, including one from vivek ramaswamy, who's going to be in the election into all of this. get this, he claims that the entire thing is now rigged to give her more airtime ahead of an eventual joe biden endorsement in the fall. joining me now, people who are laughing already in the background, contributor carrie champion and also comedian pete donnek. of course, first of all, i have to say taylor swift, go. but let's talk about for the moment the fact there is a conspiracy theory, the fact that the entire thing is rigged, to try and get an endorsement. >> we should talk about it. it's so ridiculous that anybody believes any of this nonsense. and where was the rigging when

they were losing games on the way to the super bowl? the idea that an nfl game, i will leave it up to carry, could be rigged, how? how would you do that? who is in on it? and the fact that it would somehow be tied to a political campaign, it's very hard to believe that people come up with these ideas and think that people will believe them. but there you go. but it's vivek. >> yeah, he's trying to get some sort of headline. he's grabbing something from this. the conversation to be had, even if you want to talk about a script or conspiracy theory, and people forgive me, but it's time to say that patrick mahomes is the equivalent of a goat, as is tom brady. >> how dare you! we are on tv. this is america. >> i bring the tsv, and i'm here to say. theories in his late twenties, going to his fifth, counter, fifth, super bowl. tom brady has seven rings. i don't know how many rings, in fact, patrick will have, but that's the conversation i have, hard earned. and nobody would probably say a

couple weeks ago, as you pointed, out as they were losing, that there is a script to be written here. now to the tailor point of it all -- >> the point of it all for so many people. >> the fact that they're winning. and >> have to be honest, and i want this swifties to give me some grace here, i honestly don't really understand why the nfl is acting like it's never happened in the history of sport. oh, guess what, an actress, a singer, dates a famous quarterback? russell wilson, namely married -- let me tell, you victoria beckham and david. okay, tony willow and jessica simpson. >> giselle bundchen, tom brady. -- >> so there you go. but she's just as famous. my point is it happens. and i understand that she registers 8 to 80, she hits. but i've got to tell you, the true fans, we've had enough. and let her enjoy the game. >> i think partially it's different, because it's taylor swift. >> your daughter loves her? >> my daughters never watched football.

but they started coming in the room. they're watching. she's bringing us together! she's bringing america together. people are watching football that didn't watch football before. >> i agree with you, i love the idea. and i'm happy to have another group of younger women watching football. but to say that, i'm hearing all these theories that women weren't watching football, i was in philadelphia just last week. tell that to the lady sitting at the bar next to me who were so upset about the fact that taylor is the only person they show. also upset that -- that's not here nor there. but women have been watching sports before taylor swift came on. >> but two things can be true, women have been watching sports, and especially football, who do you like? but, -- do you have a team? i was talking football. >> laura is here, as many people are, for that concert between the little football game. so you're ready for our show. >> let me tell you, i swear, if during oscars performance at the halftime, it cuts repeatedly to anyone but, i am going to call you pete dominick.

>> that's not gonna happen, they're not going to do that. i've talked to all the higher ups. and i said please don't cut away from usher to taylor swift, because that's not gonna be good for anybody. the bottom line, it's mostly unified. it's a wonderful thing, this whole season, this whole taylor swift travis kelce thing has been fun. and the fact that it's working a lot of football fans are trump fans or man is beautiful. deal with it. it's just fun and funny and great and it's love and love should win. and i think it's authentic -- >> you think love should win? >> is that a controversial thing. >> that is so controversial to say. >> i think this travis kelce -- >> i think 49ers, are you asking for the chiefs to? and not about love, who wins? >> the lions. >> [laughter] key now is the anti-hero. -- pete dominick, cari champion, think you both so much. and thank you all for watching. i'll be live on instagram at the laura coates in a few minutes. be sure to tune in.

our coverage continues.

in order for small businesses to thrive, they need to be smart, efficient, savvy. making the most of every opportunity. that's why comcast business is introducing the small business bonus. for a limited time you can get up to $1000 prepaid card with qualifying internet. yup, $1000. so switch to business internet from the company with the largest fastest reliable network. give your business a head start in 2024 with this great offer. plus, ask how to get up to $1000 prepaid card with qualifying internet.