thank you so much for spending time with us. i mean for alicia menendez, american voices is back tomorrow at six pm eastern. but for now, i handed over to ayman mohyeldin. >> hey paola. great to see you as always. good evening to you, and welcome to ayman tonight. breaking developments in the gag orders on donald trump. the new vicious attacks coming, just hours after one of the orders was paused.

plus, authoritarian watch, trump and his allies are laying the groundwork for an even more extreme second term. if he wins in 2024. and then, ignoring the will of voters. how republicans are trying to circumvent our democratic institutions to get their results they want. i am ayman mohyeldin, let's get started. donald trump attacks his perceived political enemies almost nonstop. it has become too routine. and breaking just a short time ago he attacked a judge overseeing his civil fraud trial, new york attorney general letitia james. and the law clerk on the case, smearing her by name in a deranged social media post. there was reasonable cause for alarm this week when a new york appeals court pause the gag order that had barred trump and his lawyers from speaking publicly about court staff in that case. just hours after the ruling,

trump began attacking george are judge arthur engoron law clerk, calling her a quote, trump hater. -- said it was a partisan attack dog, and a democrat operative. these are, as i said, just part of a much broader escalation of the ex president's attacks on his perceived political enemies. it follows his vowed to target groups he characterized as government in america. -- now, the rhetoric prompted the washington post to describe trump's language as echoing the dictators hitler and mussolini. for the record, a trump campaign spokesperson called the comparison a ridiculous assertion from snowflakes who entire existence will be crushed when president trump returns to the white house. also this week, trump re-posted a social media comment suggesting laetitia james and judge engoron should be put under citizens arrest.

this all happened, as i say, just in the last week. it's important to note here, as we have, frankly way too often, that there is an established pattern of action taken by donald trump's followers when he targets his perceived enemies. in the two days after trump posted if you go after me, i am coming after you, on social media back in august, a man from alabama, and a woman in texas sent disturbing, violent threats to both the fulton county district attorney fani willis and her office. donald trump knows his supporters listen to him. but he doesn't stop. on monday, federal peels court will hear oral arguments on the gag order that judge tanya chutkan placed on trump in the federal elections interference case. that gag order also has been paused while the appeal is being considered. in the 67-page document filed this week, special counsel jack smith's team argued that trump's attack in that case were part of a pattern, stretching back years, in which

people publicly targeted by the defendant are as a result of the targeting, subject to harassment, threats, and intimidation. prosecutors added that trump is implicitly, but unmistakably encouraging his supporters to act against the very people he targets. now, trump won't stop the attacks on its own, so the courts have an obligation with this mountain of evidence before them to actually make him stop. joining me now are michael steele, an msnbc political analyst, former mc chairman. and former maryland lieutenant governor, christina greer, and moynihan public -- at cc and. why and david henderson, former prosecutor and msnbc contributor. great to have all three of you with us. michael, i will start with you. it is not surprising that trump has gone after judge engoron, or his law clerk. i think anyone in this country would not have bet against him doing it yet again. but talk to us about this danger again, given how we've

seen trump supporters reacting to these attacks before. >> it's enormously dangerous. i just, i am shocked that we have allowed this to get this far. i'm just going to use my best analysis that i can give you at this point, on this situation with trump, and the attacks on the judges. put his assets in jail. that's how you ended. that's how it stops. now, yeah, people will be mad, they will be upset. but there is no other person on this planet, certainly not in this country, who would be given the kind of grace that donald trump has been given to run his mouth the way he has. attacking clerks, attacking judges, attacking the prosecutors personally, threatening them. we've shown the evidence when he does that. how his base responds. and so the system is getting pulverized from within by trump, and is being pressed to the up teeth corner that you can go in trying to appeal, appease him,

and allow him to be free while he is still behaving this way. so, if he wants to continue in this vein, then use the system the way the system would be used against all of us on the show right now. because you know dang well, any one of us, if we said half of what he said, we would not be on air tonight. we would be in a jail cell. we would be shut down. >> people have been in a jail cell for a lot less i would argue. i was saying, i was saying, people have been in jail for a lot less. >> a lot less. >> for violating gag orders and such. david, speak to that point that michael raise their, that he should be put in jail because of all of the violations. and yet somehow, those two parts to this. there is the constant attempts as a legal strategy to challenge everything that comes out of the court, and just delay, delay, delay.

we're now seeing this will take time to play out. at the same time, the real life changer that is being posed to these officers of the court. >> ayman i'll repeat something i told you before, at the end of the day, he's calling their bluff, because he knows that they won't do, it that's why he keeps engaging in this behavior. it is an understatement to say that if anyone threatened a judge, or member of the judges staff, they are leaving that courtroom in handcuffs, period. i've seen people get locked up for far less than this, for violating these types of conditions. this is what it becomes when you don't do that. because legal decisions, when you're actually in a trial, they rest between law and common sense, sometimes it feels like never between they shall meet. this is the legal equivalent of cher noble. i mean you have someone on the ground making decisions, are being second guessed by people in high -- are directly exposed to the problem. as a result, you'll have an explosion, and the aftermath will be just as bad, if not worse than the explosion

itself. you have judges who institute a gag order, so they're not only thinking about the first amendment, they're also saying, listen, i am in the courtroom. i see the looks. i hear the exchange is happening at the bench. i say the way people are behaving in the hallway, in council tables, i'm telling you, the situation is going to explode. -- who stop those gag orders because they're saying, well, from an academic point of view, maybe you should have the right to say some of these things. but it brings us back to the first situation, when when you're doing things like endorsing citizens arrest, that's not just complaining about your circumstances. you are inciting people to take action that will lead to violence, when there is an established pattern of having seen it happen before. we have a responsibility to not let this get further out of hand. at this point, we are as much of the problem is he is. >> we're a society that has become complacent to this, and that is the dangerous part of this, christina, because no one has stopped trump before. despite the documented history of his supporters taking action when trump speaks.

we have seen it time and time again. and yet, nothing changes. >> no, and we have to remember, donald trump is not new to the courtroom. he has been in or out of courts ever since he's been in our political imagination for decades now. because he's been lying, cheating, stealing, drifting, all across new york, and now it has gone national. i think we need to expand the point. it is not just about speaking out of term against the prosecutorial judges and churches, and clerks. also the attorney general. the racist, sexist comments. and the call to action is actually a called arms. we have seen donald trump incite his supporters. he wants this. he wants to be televised. he wants to make sure, in the court of public opinion, he seen as the hero and victims simultaneously. as was said, the horse has left the barn. it is, so far away from us at this point. because donald trump is now controlling the narrative.

he knows that he probably won't be put in jail for contempt in court. so he just keeps pushing the envelope. he has done it with policy, conduct, norms when he was in the office. and now that he's no longer in office, he's doing the same thing in courts all across the country. so i don't know how we put this, dare i say, genie back in the bottle. but i don't know how we retract sort of what donald trump has pushed us into. all that he's excavated, all of the negative vitriolic, sexist, homophobic, anti-immigrant, anti-muslim's enrollments. as he said, in some ways we've become numb or immune to it, which we cannot expect the democratic republic to in any shape or form. >> michael, to david's points about not just threats to the officers of the court, but in jack smith's team in making the argument for reimposing the gag order, they are saying this

actually amounts to witness intimidation. so it's not even just about the gag order for the safety of the people, it is actually the assault on the judicial process in our country, that a weakness in his trial will feel intimidated by what donald trump is saying right now. and that could impact whether or not the wheels of justice actually spin as they are supposed to down the road. >> absolutely. what you are seeing is sort of a trifecta of moves all simultaneously. one, the first order is the attack on the judge and the clerks. the second is the attack on the prosecutors, and those who are bringing him to court. those who are bringing these charges against him. and the third is everyone else. that everyone else involves a pool of people who will be called, and brought into a courtroom to serve as judges,

or as jurors. and also, the witnesses that may be participating. but more to the jurors, more to finding that one person who in all of the cases would say, no, he's innocent, and throw the whole thing out. so donald trump has been, from the beginning, very much, and i love this idea of his trying to be both the hero, as well as the victim, that is what he is trying to do. he is trying to use the system against itself. and by the time you get into that jury room you will have that one person who is so hell-bent on freeing donald trump, like freeing willie that you wind up with these mistrials, and again, he will be the one who will be saying i told you so. but this i told you so is based on all of the crap he is doing right now.

because if the system doesn't clamped down on it, the back end of this looks incredibly ugly. >> mike, i can let you invoke free willie in this. that's a great movie, and that will does not deserve to be compared to donald trump. in any case -- >> fair point. a whale is a whale, so. >> i have to ask david from another point. which is what we heard earlier this week, judge engoron rejecting this attempt by donald trump's team to seek a mistrial. that kind of had me wondering a little bit. the judge, i should say, they were arguing that the judge and his clerk are biased against team trump. is that part of the strategy here, that i can assault this judge of horribly, if i can get under his skin, if i can provoke him to do or say something irrational, i can then use that in my appeal to say, look, look how he talks to me, look how is trying to curve my rights. look how insult me. look how he's voting against me

this trial is not being dismissed. >> ayman, i'm inclined to say yes, but i'm not gonna say that i think he's that intentional about the way he goes about this. who i say that, is because i was a prosecutor, especially crimes prosecutor, i've dealt with lots of people who created, to committed acts of domestic violence, similar crimes like sexual assaults. i've seen how people bully and intimidate behave, i'm not willing to say they're always necessarily thinking about what they're doing. but with that in mind, goading a judge under these circumstances, where not only is a judge taking actions, where it's only intended to keep people safe, you're dealing with someone who's going down a hallway, talking about you, talking about people who work with you, you are taking steps to keep people

safe as best you can. then you get second best by a higher court that says let's stop this gag order for right now. and who they may in fact overturn it. everyone has a point in which they will break. so yes, i could see that being part of what someone may have in the back of their mind. if a judge snaps and says something, maybe at least kisses freeway, leeway to cause an additional problem that it further comes up the works. >> that's the fear, he can point to, it or's team can point to it, and say the judges bias against me. to your point, i'm not sure donald trump is not part. maybe maniacal, but not that smart on that front. david henderson thank you very much my friend. michael steele, christina greer, think you so much, stick around off the. rake new reporting -- in even more radical dangerous second term.

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 a $1000 prepaid card with qualifying internet. yep, $1000. so switch to business internet from the company with the largest fastest reliable network and that powers more businesses than anyone else. learn how you can get $1000 back for your business today. report pulling back the curtain comcast business. powering possibilities. on donald trump's plans for a second term. according to the outlet, the disgraced ex president and his allies are currently spending tens of millions of dollars to prescreen ideologies of thounds of potential footsoldiers, as part of an unprecedented operation to centralize and expand trump's power should he retake the white house. their goal? rip off the restraints imposed on the previous 45 presidents and help trump carry out his radical second term agenda.

it is an agenda that is come more into focus over the last few weeks, thanks in part to several bombshell reports from the new york times. , here is just some of what we could expect from a second trump trump presidency. the disgraced ex president wants to use the justice department to carry out his own personal revenge missions, using the power of the federal government to take vengeance on his political adversaries. he also plans to carry out an extreme immigration crackdown, including erecting sprawling camps to hold undocumented detainees. to accomplish these goals, trump and allies are looking to purge career civil servants from the government, and replace them with trump loyalists. they will also want to install more aggressive and ideologically aligned legal gatekeepers throughout the government, who will carry out trump's plans with no questions asked. a second trump presidency truly runs the risk of ending american democracy as we know it. that is not hyperbolic. let us bring back michael steele and christina greer, also joining the conversation -- ruth -- and an expert on

authoritarianism. it is great to have you with us. ruth, let me start with this axios report. that this trump allied machine that is beginning to spin has the most power over the formation of a potential future government of any group in u. s. history. just put this reporting into perspective for us. is this effort from the ex president and his allies something that is unprecedented as it seems on the surface? given the fact that our country has not had presidents who have lost and then come back to win reelection? >> yeah, well, you know, trump is an autocrat, not a democrat. what he is doing here is straight out of the history of authoritarianism. it is not just the content of what he wants to do, mask importation,'s mass detentions, and also if you get into it, he says he wants to expand psychiatric institutions, to

put people in their. that is what authoritarianism always does. he mentioned jack smith, interlocking, declaring investigator is exactly what authoritarians do. communists in the ussr routinely put dissidents in psychiatric institutions. it's not even just all that, it is the method. because autocrats need a compliant bureaucracy to implement their repression quickly, and so they need a long list of corrupt people who will not have -- conscience. that's what happened the first time, he's learned from that, too many civil servants who actually had ethics. too many lawyers. so this time, he's not making that mistake. and it's like, it's like seeing the corruption chapter of this book come to life. because i wrote about this, that you must have lawless and corrupt people in government in order to have an autocracy. >> you break up such an

interesting point ruth, but tell me, you are certainly more of an expert on this than i am, there is a false perception i think in our society, that we have such strong democratic institutions, and we have such strong guardrails that our democracy has survived for 250 plus years, that is sam can't simply be undone in the span of four years by one man and his cohorts. but the truth is, our institutions are vulnerable. they can be co-opted by a handful of people. am i wrong and making that assessment? or do you think our institutions are resilient enough? >> no. no place is immune and perfect in terms of that we had january six because he already did a number of corrupting the gop, and all the other people that contributed to that coup that almost had success. it came far closer than people know. so we are already cry along the way. and he intends to pick up and

accelerate indeed everything that he was doing. it -- [inaudible] which leave us by 2026, looking on the road to looking like robots, hungry in ways that americans are not prepared for. >> michael, nbc news is reporting that donatis ve surged two groups linked to 2025, which is seeking to create a government in waiting for the next republican presidential administration. does it worry you the sheer amount of energy and power these conservative groups are putting behind this effort to fill the white house with an army of, in army of yes men who fundamentally are undemocratic? >> yes. it does. in fact actually it does. and it does for a number of reasons. the first being, people need to listen to ruth.

they need to read her book. they need to listen to what she is telling us. and what those in this space who are looking at this democracy from the inside out are trying to warn us about. because it is real. these folks, they learned a lot from january six. they are not going to make the same mistakes again. i'm sorry the revolution will not be televised, nor will it appear on facebook. they have learned. they are not going to tweet about it. they are going to create the institutions, and the infrastructure away from your face. away from your prying eyes, so you are caught by surprise as much as possible. groups like this, this project 2025 that are planning, they are raising money. and that money is going to be spent. and it is going to be spent against the american people, against the very institutions you think have been safeguarded against what is about to come.

and it hasn't. and it isn't. our institutions are only as strong as we are. and the fact that we have a significant number of americans who are more worried about, you know, the price of gas and inflation, not taking away from the importance of that, but relative to the democracy and the threat that is in front of us, that is being reported out every single day, the man is telling you what he wants to do. he is telling you who he wants to do it to, and he is not even giving you a reason why. he is just saying, it will happen. and you look at joe biden, and you go, while he is just too old. i don't know what i'm going to do. what you're going to do is you're not going to vote for donald trump. and that, that is what this election boils down to. that's what these moments boiled down to. people need to realize, ruth is not on this show just because she has nothing to do on a saturday night, right? she has a lot to do. she's been doing it. read the books, listen to the

smart people who are telling you firsthand from their experience, and from their study, and from their listing, and they're watching what is about to happen. >> well, first of all, i second your statement there that ruth has a lot of better things to do. but our democracy -- we appreciate every minute of her time rigging the alarm bells as loud as possible for everyone who is watching this. and unfortunately, christina, there are people who are watching this and probably listening to donald trump. he is not exactly hiding these intentions on the campaign trail. his first rally of the 2024 presidential campaign, this is a guy who stood up in front of a crowd, and literally declared, quote, i am your retribution. he is telling us, he is telling the country exactly what he wants to do. and i worry that he is kind of numbing people into it. and that is what concerns me. people out there listening to this, they say, trump is just being trump. >> yes, well, ayman, you know

he began going down that cold escalator, calling mexicans rapists. and journalists and voters were that's inappropriate. but, dot dot dot. we saw him go through the campaign, systematically pick of his republican contenders. and then he was the nominee. well, he couldn't really become president. then he became president. he was caught flat-footed. -- >> what makes this moment so dangerous and horrifying realistically, when we think about agenda 47, or project 2025, is because when trump was first a president elect, he wasn't prepared. he didn't have any people in position because he really, honestly, didn't think he was going to be president. you saw his face on election night, he was a shocked as we were. so there were so many times where we either had whistleblowers, people who cared about this country, kate about the future of our democracy, who put the brakes on some of his proposals, we had some people in his inner circles who said, sir, we actually can't do that. they will be fired, or they will quit. slowly but surely, it eroded.

but many people in his inner circle, they at least said, at certain points, far, far too late, but they did say, i'm not going to do that. or that is too much. we remember jeff sessions, we thought he was the worst person on the planet. then he rolls in bill barr. there is always a greater abyss. but this time, he knows what a transition looks like. he knows who he can put their. he knows he can fire a lot of african american women who are loyal soldiers within the middle and lower runs of government, they actually said, no, we're not going to put through your proposals. we actually work for the american people. we don't work for you. he now knows, if i just get rid of that entire swath of people, i can actually just do what i want. and so there is a certain level of knowledge that he is coming into the second race with that makes this a much scarier time than 2016. 2016 he knew nothing. now he has four years of preparation, it four years of reflection, and sort of revenge

making that he has been working on. >> yeah. >> it is imperative that voters pay attention. which sadly, they are becoming immune to him in his antics in many ways. >> i've made this point really quickly, previously, that it wasn't my pants that saved us on january six, or saved our democracy. it was dan quayle who managed to convince mike pence to not overturn the election. that's how close we were to losing this democratic experiment of ours. ruth ben-ghiat, thank you so much for joining us on saturday night. we certainly appreciate it. michael, christina, please stick around. the conversation continues after the break, because it's not just trump acting like an authoritarian, it is his party.

>> it's not just trump, republicans across the country are pushing their authoritarianism to new extremes, including blatant attempts to ignore the will of voters in the wake of ohioans voting overwhelmingly to

enshrines reproductive rights into the state constitution, for state lawmakers said that they are planning to introduce legislation th wld strip judges of their power to interpret that amendment. as the associated press reports, these republicans want the legislator, not the courts, not the judges, to actually make decisions about the amendment. a legislature, we should know, that is of course dominated by republicans. now, ste republican house speaker echoed that idea, saying quote, the legislator has multiple paths that we will explore. this is not the end of the conversation. as mother jones puts it, the gop is trying to enforce minority role. they don't care what the vast majority of ohioans won on this deeply personal matter. they will find a way to impose their position, a minority held view we should note, on everyone. back with me, michael steele and christina greer. christine, at your thoughts on this.

ohio republicans trying to ignore the will of voters, who have now, in two different occasions, one rejected a republican opposed to ban abortion, too, to enshrine it in the constitution to make sure that women have the right to an abortion. and now they are saying no, no, it is not up to judges, we are the ones who can interpret the law. >> right, what we know the republican party consistently moves the goalpost to suit their needs. i think the real story here is twofold. one, abortion is a winning issue for democrats, and they need to stay the course. this is an economic issue. it's an issue about a woman's right to choose. we should just say it's abortion. because it is really about people who believe a woman should have autonomy over her body, versus people who do not believe a woman should make decisions that have autonomy over her body. that's a clear debate. i think we need to just make sure that we don't shorten it to abortion just because we can actually get people who are on the fence. and we could get some republicans, republican voters, not republican legislatures. the issue of a woman's right to choose is overwhelmingly supported by the vast majority

of americans. so when you have this minority of republican legislatures who are so adamant about controlling a woman's body, and her right to choose, and changing the laws and states at all levels, local state, and trying to do it on a national level, we have to make sure that we keep people engaged, and recognize that this is not the only issue that people go to the polls. but it is a very key, important issue, especially in a number of years. to make sure that we don't let all of our rights that are hard fought for the past several decades just go by the wayside, just because republicans of chosen to make sure they try and take away -- they are the party of regression, of taking all of rights and civil liberties away. that we have worked so hard for. it they want to take them away when it comes to immigration, when it comes to civil rights, when it comes to transgender rights, when it comes to marriage equity, when it comes

to a woman's right to choose. the list goes on and on. when it comes education. i mean the only way they know they're gonna win is either to steal elections, to make sure that democrats and de facto people of color cannot vote, or to keep their voters so uninformed, and an educated, that they can sort of have them go to the polls and vote against their own interest consistently. >> michael, i need your thoughts on this. rick santorum, another night on the network, st-pierre democracies are not the way to run a country. >> [laughter] that is laughable. look, it is just one more silly, stupid thing that republicans say to justify what they are doing. rick santorum knows well that's a idiotic statement to make. he would never have made it prior to trump. he never would've made it when he is running for president, never would've made it during the reagan years.

so why are you making it now? at what point did you decide that appear democracy was not a good thing? when did that, when did that conversation happen? it just speaks to a whole swath of things that we've covered tonight, and in terms of where this is going. this question about what they're trying to do in ohio, with the legislature. the reality of it is, folks focus on the fact that, oh, republicans are losing. they lose a lot of elections. they lose at the federal level. when will you turn the table in the corner, that is at the state and local level. the state legislature that you need to focus on, because that is where it begins. they're the ones handling all of these, putting all these bills out here that are criminalize a woman's womb. they criminalize her travel across state lines to seek health for herself.

they assume it's an abortion. it may not be. >> right. >> that is the way they are going. so the more independents, and democrats, and like-minded republicans look at ousting these bad actors, at the state level, the state legislatures, then you began to turn that corner. >> yes, safe to say the republican party is increasingly, if not outright an anti democratic party. michael steele, christina greer, it's always a pleasure, thank you to the both of you. coming up, next i'm gonna speak with the first prosecutor of the international -- about calls opened an investigation into israel's action in gaza. stay with us.

>> free palestinian groups have filed a lawsuit with the international criminal court against israel, accusing the state of putting, committing war crimes including genocide in its bombing and besieging of the gaza strip. israel's airstrikes in gaza including on hospitals and refugee camps have continued

now for more than a month in his 43rd day. more than 12, 300 people have been killed, including an estimated 5000 children according to the gaza health ministry. the gaza strip has almost entirely been cut off from food, electricity, and water nce october 9th. which the lawsuit cites as crimes against humanity. in addition to asking the icc to consider crimes of apartheid and genocide in its investigation, the human rights groups are also asking for arrest warrants against the israeli leaders new york using of committing these crimes, including president isaac herzog, prime minister benjamin yahoo and -- attorney -- and you filed suit with the icc against russian leaders against the war crimes in ukraine said quote there is no place for double standards in international justice. in response to this suit, a spokesperson for israel's foreign ministry told reuters, quote, israel's also collting evidence for crimes ainst humanity and war crimes commitd by hamas during the

october 7th attack. joining me now to discuss this is luis moreno ocampo, the former first prosecutor with the international criminal court. he held opposition from 2003 till 2012. mr. luis moreno ocampo, it's great to see you again, thank you so much for coming back on the show. i want to start first with this charge by this lawsuit. and the very legal definition of genocide, which requires specific intent to destroy in whole or in part a national essick, racial, or religious group, by killing members of that group. among meeting other criteria. and the key word for me here, and for everyone's intent, which, as you know, scholars of genocide and state crime have already pointed to in gaza. we can just take a quick look here at some of the statements made by some israeli leaders, more than 70 statements that experts say show intent. how would you sir describe what is taking place in gaza? is what we are seeing genocide? >> well, the hamas attack on

october the 7th is probably genocide, because hamas intentionally destroyed jewish people living in palestine, in israel, or on the land. so that is a genocide. the problem is -- of israel, the blockade itself, it could also be genocide. because killing is not the only form to commit genocide. the genocide convention described five different forms to commit a genocide. to see is inflicting conditions to destroy a group. and the blockade, the siege, cutting water, and gas line used in gaza to obtain water, that itself could be genocide. yes, you can have genocide --

but also, sadly, we can also find some of major operations conducted by israel that could also be considered genocide. in addition to the bombing of buildings, that is another crime, a different crime. >> what about the crime, or the allegation of apartheid? should the international prosecutor look into the crimes of apartheid as well? do you believe that threshold has been met? >> well yes. look, they have a discretion to choose what incident he -- for me, before this gaza problem, the real problem was a war crime -- territory. because that -- all the other crimes, judges could make the decision of voting -- because a call to intervene with the national does not.

but in the case of the population, it's not a crime for israel. therefore, that for me is a crucial point. because the problem is, settlers to the west bank, that itself is a crime. and that is probably the key, the key element to obstruct the independents providing palestinian the recognition -- so yes, in a prosecutor -- i believe the most important crime is this occupation of the land in the west bank. >> let me play for you a soundbite of an independent journalist asking a state department a question about americas complicit missed in this, watch. >> the center for constitutional rights just put out a statement, legal organizations but members of congress on notice for complicit on genocide. quote, please take note, this is a letter they sent to

members of congress, center of constitutional rights. please take notice, that should you vote in favor of that package, the biden package for israel, you risk facing criminal in civil liabilities for aiding and abetting genocide war crimes, and crimes against humanity under international law. and they face investigation of prosecution. two members of the state department faced similar possibility? >> again, sam, as i said, we have, the u. s. government has a rigorous process in place for evaluating whether something constitutes genocide. and we have not made that assessment. >> given the amount of support that the united states is giving israel, both militarily, financially, and throughout all of this, even diplomatically, does the united states bear any legal responsibility internationally for what is happening inside of gaza right now, from an international, legal perspective? >> well that is a very important question. because the genocide convention has a point. state parties, including israel and the u. s. . have the duty to prevent genocide.

and the center for prevention is very low. -- in a place called bosnia versus -- ? serbia said state obligation to prevent before genocide starts. as soon as they know, they should know that there is a. risk of genocide, they should prevent. the prevention, depending on what the states are doing -- if the u. s. is providing weapons to israel, usually gaza, that is a problem for u. s. . because it's not about defining genocide, it's about the risk of genocide. the prevention is to prevent the risk of genocide. the u. s. had the obligation to prevent genocide. is the u. s. doing that? >> it is not only are giving a

definitive answer with that last reaction. am i safe to say that? >> well no, i don't believe it they do the maximum they could to prevent. to me, when you say, i don't know -- the investigation is important. very important. it's not that this ngo document sending to the acc will define -- its prosecutors deciding. but, they are now in south africa, bolivia, bangladesh -- the issue is, if you are general in israel, you have to make sure that what you are doing, you can show to an eventual litigation -- that's why this idea to bomb buildings, you have to be sure, you have to have evidence, to show you did the right thing. it's not so much who investigated.

-- i don't know when the prosecutor will trigger the cases, but it's important in prevention. >> mr. ocampo, i have to apologize, we've run out of time. but i always appreciate you making time for, us because it's always so informative. we will have you back on the show to continue this conversation. thank you so much mister ocampo. we will be right back.

>> the supreme court finally adopted a new code of conduct, and surprise, surprise, it won't actually fix their glaring ethical issues. all nine justices signed on to this new code, that describes -- in fact, it doesn't appear to impose any significant new requirements on the justices, and leaves compliance entirely to each justice. that means the rules are still voluntary. the justices will continue to make their own decisions about recusal. and there's no method of oversight that determines if and when a justice breaks the code. by contrast, senate judiciary have spent months pushing for a statutory ethics rules with real teeth. now, their code could, or would create a public process process for submitting -- a panel of lower court judges would then investigate and make recommendations based on those complaints. and their code could establish new, stricter rules for recruits will, and disclosure of gifts and travel. the question now is whether

democrats will continue pressing further overhaul despite this announcement. it seems chairman dick durbin is not able to give up just yet. saying the new code falls short of what we could and should expect from a code of conduct. i'm gonna squeeze in a quick break. another hour of ayman begins right after that.

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 a $1000 prepaid card with qualifying internet. yep, $1000. so switch to business internet from the company with the largest fastest reliable network and that powers more businesses than anyone else. learn how you can get $1000 back for your business today. live from miami, florida. comcast business. powering possibilities. we have lots of news to cover and lots of questions to answer. let's get started. congressional cleanup --