complexities involved with providing care for those who are mentally affected. >> reporter: helping generations of americans get the care they need. >> my mental health work, i want that to carry on, even after there is no more stigma. >> reporter: tonight, that legacy continues. andrea mitchell, nbc news, washington. >> rosalynn carter's legacy is one of service to others, let her hardworking be a reminder tonight that if you need help, please ask for it. and if you can give help, please give it. and on that note, i wish you all a very good, very safe and healthy night. from all of our colleagues across the networks of nbc news, thanks for staying up late. i will see you at the end of tomorrow. ♪ ♪ ♪

today something pretty extraordinary happened in the courtroom here in washington. lawyers for donald trump and lawyers from the special counsel's office -- former president should and should not be allowed to say what the criminal case against. the focus of this hearing was the limited gag order on trump. but when you take a step back, you can see that it was about much more than that. it was about how far the first amendment really should go. and how it should be applied to a former president who is also a criminal defendant, who is also a candidate for the presidency once again. the leading one at that. former general counselor for the arts stephensburg handled some very novel legal cases in his day. but never won like this. i am going to ask him all about it in just a moment. and as a new concerns about trump's ability to incite violence continue to surface, former trump white house aide

cassidy h will show -- it here in studio as well. but we do want to start tonight in that federal appeals court here in washington. -- we all listen for two hours over the debate -- the key word there is listen. we were hearing everything with our own ears, incredibly important moment of transparency. deeply serves the public interest. especially in a case like. this with a defendant like trump. when misinformation can spread so rapidly and so easily, often by him. at its core, today was a class dream to values. the right of a candidate to exercise free speech and the read of a judge to ensure justice. listen to this special counsel office argue a gag order here is necessary to protect witnesses and the jury a trial. >> -- there's a causal link between that person and receiving harassment, threats, and intimidation.

>> now listen to trump's lawyer make his case against it. >> a gag order in this case installs a single federal district judge as a filter for core political speech, between the leading presidential candidate and virtually every american voter in the united states at the very height of a presidential campaign. the order is unprecedented, and it sets a terrible precedent for future restrictions on core political speech. >> now, let's remember, as it stands right now, this is already a very narrow gag order. trump is still allowed to criticize the justice department, president biden, we have seen him do a lot of that. and even the judge overseeing this, case judge tanya chutkan. he could say. law he's allowed to maintain that the prosecution itself was a partisan retaliation against. and one of his favorite talking points. he just could not target prosecutors, potential witnesses, or court employees. so really he is still allowed to say quite a bit about this case. quite a bit about a lot of things.

and in that way, this gag order is kind of like the first amendment itself. it protects the speech but includes limitations. -- you can't scream fire in a crowd of, you can incite violence action like -- you can't just go out there and tell defamatory lies. there is certain exceptions, and really for good reason. because words are powerful, words carry enormous weight. of course they have an impact. especially when you are a former president. now, trump lawyers tried to argue today that there hasn't been proof linking trump's rhetoric to the violent acts of others. but as one of the judges pointed out, the purpose of a gag order is to actually print those actions before they happen. >> as this trial approaches, the atmosphere is going to be increasingly tense. why does the district court have to wait and see and wait for the threats to come? rather than taking reasonable action in advance? >> now we all know trump has a long history of violent rhetoric, unfortunately i habit

intimating misses publicly. not to mention a pattern of lashing out a judges and juries. just trying to do their job. and that's what they are trying to do here. i think we have a pretty good sense of what he will say in the future. we have seen the real impact of his words as well. so what are we waiting for? for someone to be seriously hurt? for the jury to be tainted? or if we were witness to bow out of fear of being punished. yes, it is true that no presidential candidate has dealt with these restrictions before, that's true historically. located especially envelope like this before other. this was a nonresident hearing in middleton on president's political and legal moments. all because of the unprecedented behavior of donald trump. starting us off tonight as former u.s. attorney and msnbc legal analyst chuck rosenberg. chuck, thank you so much for joining me this evening as we are all trying to make sense of this. so, i just wanted to, start you listened to the hearings, what was your biggest take away from it? >> it's exactly what he said, this is a clash of core values. the first amendment on one hand, which is not absolutely that a

judge dearie thing to empower a fair trial. these two things may be and conflict because of trump's rhetoric. >> there is a line of questioning today of what trump is allowed to say, in cutting witnesses like mark milley and mike pants who are public figures sort of one of the points of our discussion. what did you make of that discussion today, million pants are also witnesses. let me say a word about >> that i was a prosecutor for a long time, and prosecutors are important, defense attorneys are important, judges are important we are talking about a trial it is very core, very her the two most important groups of people. the jurors, and the witnesses. jurors are unique to a case another prosecutor can take her place. that is not true with witnesses. if a judge is going to protect

anything in the trial it has to be the witnesses and we know that mr. trump's words have consequences. because the people he has singled out for criticism have been threatened. does that to sway the witness from testifying? does he or she changed their testimony because of it? if you are going to protect anything, jen, protect the witness. >> this is such an interesting and important, point as a non lawyer. that is obviously not violence than someone acting on, it that's scary and everyone wants to prevent that. but it's also about not having witnesses not participate or drop out, or change what they do. right? that's a big part of this? >> that's exactly right. without witnesses you literally don't have a trial. the folks who saw, something heard something, read something, you know, those are the people who are core to a trial. and while you are, right the judge's original case, the one that is currently stayed, which is sort of off trending on the side was narrow. perhaps a court of appeals narrows. but i cannot imagine that they

are going to permit mr. trump to attack witnesses. again, the very core, the very fabric of a trial or the men and women who take the stand, put their hand in the air, and promised to tell the truth. without them, you don't have a justice system. >> so it sounds like you are just saying that you think they may narrow it, and what would that look like exactly? >> while it will probably look a lot like the gag order that you have now. the one that's on appeal. except that, perhaps, you permit mr. trump to criticize the prosecutors. i was a prosecutor, i don't like being criticized. i certainly don't like being threatened. but i can live with it. but i could not abide anyone threatening one of my witnesses. that is a step too far. so if you ask for lawyers to read a gag order, each one might do it a little differently. and now you have had four judges weigh in on it, it may look a little bit different. but you need one in this case, because a judge has not just the authority to ensure a fair trial, but the obligation to ensure a fair trial.

and it seems unfortunately in this case that we are going to ensure a fair trial, the only ways to -- what mr. trump says in advance. >> and what could, i mean, the court the question, is what could the consequences be. because his behaviors and didnt change. how do they consider that? >> great question, let's say we get over the drafting issue with what the gag order looks like. and then the judge has to actually enforce it. hard to believe that mr. trump will radically a change his behavior. so assume, jen, that he continues to threaten witnesses. right? then what does the judge do? if she has a couple of options. great? she could hold him in civil contempt, she could seek to have him held in criminal contempt, but that requires a whole different and more complicated proceeding. if it's only civil contempt, which is an effort to get someone to comply with an order. she could reprimand, she could find him.

but it is going to be very hard, once we get past this, hurdle and we will, to enforce the order. >> that is the big question, chuck rosenberg, thank you so much as always. happy thanksgiving to you as well. from warren today's hearing a want to bring in ben ginsburg. he is the former general counsel for the republican national committee, and he testified before the house committee investigating january 6th. so ben, thank you again for joining me this evening. i want to start, this gag order has been kind of on again and off again for more than a month, we have all been kind of watching it, trying to follow it closely. where do you think, because you've been watching, this the court will draw the line between free speech and something that could compromise the proceeding as we have just been talking about -- >> they'll be free speech, there will be no bullying, devil is in the details. so my guess is, what we are gonna see or up until the trial actually starts's orders given, prosecutors or trump lawyers going to court to try and

ammend it. and it will be a back and forth. and as you can shop just discussed, the actual enforcement of a violation of a gag order is really, really difficult. >> that seems to be a very difficult part of it. it sounds like what you are saying is that we are not looking at an end, even when there is a ruling here. but there is going to be a lot of back and forth over the next couple of months. is that what we should expect? >> yeah, i think it is. on the subject of the gag order. i mean, donald trump as obviously blended in his political campaign with his trial. i think he's approaching the trials, this may be his best form for his politics, putting aside the wisdom of that judge means that he is going to say things that may not line up with everybody's interpretation of what a gag order is. so you will have a lot of these hearings back and forth. >> yeah, when we ask you about the wisdom of the judgment, because it seems like outside of the courtroom, maybe

sometimes even inside the courtroom, the arguments being made by trump and his team is that this is good for them. that this is helping them politically. do you agree with that? >> i think it is true for the primaries, it's obviously not hurting him at all, and really helping him in the primaries. but the general election is going to be different. the general election, assuming that both parties can drive their bases out. it will come down to maybe a couple of hundred thousand swing voters in four, six, maybe seven states. those swing voters are all suburban, moderate, republicans. and the harshness of the rhetoric is, i think, playing differently on the ears of suburban parents than it does with deep republican base in the primaries. >> it's certainly something, in such a different electorate to your point. back to what happened in the courtroom today. the judge is not only pressed

trump's lawyer, but also the special counsel's office on the scope of the order. they were kind of tough on both as i was listening. this exchange, which i want to listen to, came after the judge brought up mark milley's book, criticizing trump. when asked whether he would be able to respond to. it so let's listen to that in case people haven't heard, and then we will talk to live side. >> so what's not fair game, he can comment. >> yes. >> and you can comment very critically, what can he not do you? >> use the sort of inflammatory language that poses a significant risk that they have harassment an intimidation. if i had more to, say he would've done it. but with any reference to their testimony, but if that this person, you know, is a coward, a liar, or treason, and deserves punishment. but -- i think that would still violate it. so they clearly also pushed back against the special counsel's argument, it sounds like the scope of it. do you think chuck was just saying he thinks it will be

narrowed. what do you expect the judge will do in this case? >> yeah, i agree with that, i think it'll be narrowed. i think you've got to allow a presidential candidate some ability to criticize the people of the other party who are bringing these cases against him. and so there is going to be some leeway, but it will be narrowed in terms of the people who we can say. but as you heard in that back and forth. the devil is going to be in the details in terms of the actual words that are used. >> ben ginsburg, thank you so much for joining me this evening, i really appreciate it. coming, up brand new audio of donald trump when -- cassidy hutchinson gave to the january 6th committee about what the former president wanted to do that day. former white house aide cassidy hutchison is standing by here in the studio, and she joins me after a quick break.

the power goes out and we still have wifi to do our homework. and that's a good thing? great in my book! who are you? no power? no problem. introducing storm-ready wifi. now you can stay reliably connected through power outages with unlimited cellular data and up to 4 hours of battery back-up to keep you online. only from xfinity. at the heart of the home of the xfinity 10g network.

arguments made before the d. c. appeals court today was the impact of donald trump's words. and whether they can lead to violence. we are still waiting to see what this panel judges would determine in that specific case. but others have answered this question before. in a 2022 case involving trump 's civil liability on january 6th, a u.s. district judge compared to trump's january 6th speech, to quote, telling an

excited mom that corn meal -- in front of the cornelius home. and that the speech could reasonably viewed as a call for collective action. i love the corn dealer reference there. another district judge in a criminal case against the january 6th defendants said trump's words absolutely stoked the flames of fear and discontent and explicitly encouraged those at the rally to go to the capitol and fight. later on friday, a judge on colorado -- trump that administration. it's also worth remembering, trump didn't just cause the events of january six, he also wanted to participate in them, he wanted to go. you'll be watching those in the spring of 2022 that he would've gone in a minute if a secret service had let him. a few months later in testimony before the january six committee, former white house aide cassidy hutchison who is sitting right here with me told me -- more of the story. >> when the president got in the beast, he was under the impression from mr. meadows that the off-the-record movement from the capital is still possible and likely to

happen, when it had been relayed to him, we are, not we don't have the assets to do it. it is not secure. we are going back to the west wing. the president had a very strong and very angry response to that. the president says going to the effective i am the effing president, taking up to the capitol. >> now recently released audio donald trump speaking with jonathan carl of abc news reveals that trump thought he would be welcomed by -- >> i was going to, and the secret service said you can't. and by the time, i would have, and then when you get back, i said i wanted to go, back i was thinking about going back during the problem stuff, doing it myself. secret service didn't like that idea too much. >> -- >> i would have been very well received -- former trump white house aide

cassidy hutchinson. thank you so much for being here with me. every time i watch that footage of you testifying, i just think about a courageous that wasn't how much poise that required. so i hope when you watch, and that's how you feel as well. i wanted to talk to you about trump's words. -- that was essentially their argument, january six was a clear example of people following -- does he recognize the impact of his word? >> thank you for having, meghan. yes, i absolutely believe that he knows the impact it was words and i believe he has -- >> you have heard him say i know people listen to me? >> i think that is evident from just how he has been able to get away with how often he has tweeted and the rhetoric of his tweets. they'll trump knows the impact his words have. he knew he would put out the

tweet on december 19th, thousand and 20, when he summoned the mob to come to washington d. c.. but he was going to expect a crowd. that is why he continued pushing and pushing and pushing that rhetoric and pushing those invitations to all of his supporters that ended up coming to washington d. c. on january 6th. so when donald trump says something, i think that we as a nation do a big disservice to our own constituents and our neighbors when we don't take what he says that face all you. >> it's so important for people to remember, you talk in your, but you are right or the impact of trump's -- including how trump's tweet about his vice president on january 6th promoted chants of hang mike pence, something that is haunting every time i hear it. you also write that according to mark meadows trump said that he deserves it. really scary, it's scary -- you know a number of the people, former colleagues who are going to be witnesses. are you nervous about their safety when you hear trump's words and you see what he is doing out there, publicly.

>> yes, sam, and i know from my experience to, you know, the american people should not ever have to live in fear of retribution from a president of the united states or a former president of the united states. president is, here elected to protect people. not to incite violence on those people. i think about my pay myself, but more importantly i think both men like rusty bowers who was cornered in his home. i think about ruby freeman in -- what members of congress on the january 6th committee who needed security tails or even up until a few weeks ago, during the speakers voice race, -- and there are republicans that were not planning to vote for the individual that personally had endorsed trump. this violence has become unfortunately somewhat normalized in our society. i know that i don't want to raise my children explained i

or have to explain to my grandchildren -- why we let america get to this point. >> it is such an important moment to think about where you are history. i mean, you have been out there publicly, there's not been easy, i imagine. some of your former colleagues have also been other publicly speaking out. what would you tell those are your former colleagues who are concerned but haven't come up publicly about the importance of doing that at this point in time. >> i think about the washington post who put out a good story today about -- the very few particular -- towards the last half of the article, there were former trump aides -- anonymous former trump aides, and i will point out that they were of the masculine pronouns. so primarily man speaking at the washington post anonymously about how they might want to speak out if he is the nominee. or they don't think it is worth speaking up because they will lose clients. what i will say to them, i do understand a fear of retribution and i do fear backlash. i do understand their fear of

backlash. but when we think about this next election in 2024, i don't like to play a hypothesis, but it does look like he has is going to be the republican nominee as of right now. if donald trump is elected president again in 2024, i do fear that it will be the last election we are voting for democracy, because if he is elected again, i don't think that we will be voting under the same constitution that we would be if we are voting if joe biden is elected in thousand 24. >> are there a, i, mean there are a number of you have spoken out. are you talking together. olowokere post talked about, this will talk more about that. but do you, meet your chat? how do you engage about what you are gonna do to prevent him from becoming president again? >> no, i think at least in my position, i haven't been very involved in with -- to my knowledge at least there is not an organized effort, although i would love there to

be one. but also i feel like on a larger scale, this isn't just a republican party issue. i think right now it is so important for democrats and for republicans to come together, to bring bring light to this issue. you, know this isn't about political parties. i hope that there is a day where i can set this table and we can talk policy and have a productive policy conversation. because i'm sure that we would be able to hopefully have a very productive conversation on that. this is next election -- looking at a ballot where we are fighting for our democracy. the candid that we are voting for americans have to vote for is either going to be able to sustain our democracy or is going to let us die. >> we're gonna talk more about, this we have to be a quick break, seems -- after the break, including the washington post story just referenced, to really dig into.

stay with us, we'll be right back. ah, these bills are crazy. she has no idea she's sitting on a goldmine. well she doesn't know that if she owns a life insurance policy of $100,000 or more she can sell all or part of it to coventry for cash. even a term policy. even a term policy? even a term policy! find out if you're sitting on a goldmine. call coventry direct today at the number on your screen, or

visit coventrydirect.com.

here's something that tells you a lot about donald trump. the people sounding the alarm the loudest about him are the people who have worked most closely with him. it's always a bad sign. today the washington post reported on the frustration of many former trump aides who have been trying to warn voters about the danger of electing him again and cassidy hutchinson just mentioned the

story and i want to drill down on it because it is an interesting one that -- in that story, quote, so fortuitous surged towards the gop nomination. even his former aide critical him have played the airwaves, giving stating speeches, testifying on camera, in front of congressional committees, pending books. shaking off the kinds of condemnations that could mortally wound another politician and almost any other presidential year. so he interviewed 16 former trump advisers and found, quote, they are grappling with how they can puncture trump's candidacy in 2024. whether they can or should coordinate with one another, and whether their voices will even matter. back with me is former trump white house aide catch the hutchinsin. this story has so much in it, including it includes trump's former chief white house chief of staff john kelly who of course at the same job that your former boss marcano had. kelly said in this story, i would, rita what's going on in

the country that single person thinks that this guy would be still a good president when he said the things he said and has done nothing he has done. it's beyond my comprehension. he has the support. he has it. do you have similar feelings of surprise with a level of support trump still have out there? >> i do and i don't. you know? there's a massive constituency of trump voters that were never going to change their minds. i think that it is sad that we haven't changed a larger swath of the population's minds, and you have to think about that as we approach the election in 2024. donald trump showed us who he was in 2016 when he went down the escalator in trump tower in new york city. i admit that i was blinded to a lot of his faults. i read a lot in my book, my book is full of unflattering truth and things that i wish i could change about my past. but i think what's important now is that i have the role that i have. i have the hindsight that i have. and i want people to continue

calling attention to this. because with the hindsight i have, there is no reason that he should've been elected in 2016. there is no reason that the election in 2020 should have been close. and that is coming from somebody who worked for him until january 20th, 2021. but when we think about this next election, we need to change the tone of the conversation. because talking -- >> what do you mean by that? >> in my view, at least, talking at people or continuing to harp on so-called character flaws, sometimes in my opinion, from what i have experienced, that sort of drills people in more to their support of him. they get more defensive about him. and i know that because that is how i used to feel. it wasn't really until, you know, i went through the trials with the committee the first few times that eventually switched legal counsel from trump funded legal counsel to my own independent legal counsel. and it wasn't really until i retained my own independent legal counsel when i was finally free of everything

trump where my horizon began to open. i felt that it wasn't being talked at. i felt that not only my lawyers, but members on the january 6th committee. at that point, i had a lot of faults, i had a lot of, i have made a lot of mistakes. but people listen to me, people helped me get to the point where i am at now where i see it clearly, i see that he is a dangerous man, i see that he has severe character flaws, but those character flaws go one step further. his character flaws make him uniquely unsuited for the office of the presidency and should be nowhere near the oval office ever again! >> you have, as you just, said gone through this journey over the last several years. which has not been an easy one. and i think what you touched on there is that people don't like to be talked at. maybe his supporters. so what do you think the argument, there is a lot of people watching other wondering, how do we bring trump supporters over? and say, this guy is scary, he

is dangerous, what is the argument that should be made? >> i wish that i had the keys to the kingdom. because i think we would be a much better place. i think there's a few things, jen. in the washington post article there is a quote from general kelly who i think is an american patriot, he has served his country in many capacities. and i think a phenomenal man and public servant. but there is a, quote and i'm paraphrasing here. he said something to the effect of that he spoke out against about what trump had said about members of the military. >> yeah. >> and it was about a half a day -- when i say just feeling like that in my experience is, you can't just talk once. and the media is a very useful tool. we need to be able to expand our horizons and expand the way that we are communicating with people. >> yeah. >> -- because saying something once doesn't create change. you would need to have conversations with people, you need sometimes they're a smaller conversations,

sometimes you need to go into swing states and have remote conversations with people. because the media can only reach so. >> far neighbor to neighbor is often very powerful. most powerful, -- in his story which i thought was interesting, been alarmed some democrats out there, that many of these aides he spoke with don't want trump to be president again. they are loathed to be the u. s. helping a democrat. and members of this group including former attne general bill barr have argued that trump is both unfit a surf, has probably committed crimes, but they may still vote for him over a democrat. is that kind of what you are hearing from former aides? some who have spoken out? and some who have not? >> to be completely candid, i don't often speak with any of my former colleagues. but from what i read and articles like this, and also from my experience. there was a point that i felt that way too. i am not proud of the. but what i will say to that is that that is an egregious form

of partisanship. donald trump is not a republican. yes maybe by name he considers himself a republican. but donald trump cares more about authoritarian role then he does our rule of law. he doesn't care about preserving our constitution. he cares about leveraging it for his own power and his own gain. so when you look at this next election, you need to think about if you want our democracy to survive. who'd reelect that we can fit in the oval office that has the character, integrity, and great to be able to carry our country through this moment in time. and that person isn't donald trump. >> well as you have, said he is likely the nominee. i know you have been reluctant to say who you are gonna vote for, but are you leaving the door open to voting for joe biden if his between the two of them? >> i will say my doors completely shut to voting for donald trump. the only reason that i will not endorse a candidate right now is because i still am hopeful that donald trump does not end

up being the nominee next year. i think our country will be in a much better place overall. not just for myself, but the ticket and the future of our country will be! but what i will say is that i think everyone should vote for joe biden if they want our democracy to survive. >> that's a powerful statement, cassidy hutchinson, thank you for joining me here this evening. cassidy spoke enough -- wherever you get your. books coming, up as the -- over 2024 continues, kentucky governor andy beshear is writing a roadmap on how they can win. governor beshear joins me after a very quick break. we'll be right back. looks like my to-do list grew. "paint the bathroom, give baxter a bath, get life insurance," hm. i have a few minutes. i can do that now. oh, that fast? remember that colonial penn ad? i called and i got information.

they sent the simple form i need to apply. all i do is fill it out and send it back. well, that sounds too easy! (man) give a little information, check a few boxes, sign my name, done. they don't ask about your health? (man) no health questions. -physical exam? -don't need one. it's colonial penn guaranteed acceptance whole life insurance. if you're between the ages of 50 and 85, your acceptance is guaranteed in most states, even if you're not in the best health. options start at $9.95 a month, 35 cents a day. once insured, your rate will never increase. a lifetime rate lock guarantees it. keep in mind, this is lifetime protection. as long as you pay your premiums, it's yours to keep. call for more information and the simple form you need to apply today. there's no obligation, and you'll receive a free beneficiary planner just for calling. for a long time, abortion

rights are an issue that even democrats thought would only appeal to women in the suburbs and we are that every election cycle. it was still seen as a divisive issue across the country, one that would help turn out the base and in purple and blue, states but not too much else. but there are a number of races that have just disproved that in recent months that even years. including a ballot initiative in ohio where voters chose to insert an abortion rights in the state constitution. and on that very same day, just a couple of weeks ago. democratic governor andy beshear was reelected in kentucky, a state, by the, way where trump defeated joe biden just three years ago by 26 points. that is a huge margin. and as much as this campaign focused on things like the economy, including the local

impact, educations. his closing argument was on abortion. and that closing argument came in the form of a searing, straight to camera ad featuring a young woman named hatley. >> i was raped by my stepfather after years of sexual abuse. i was 12. anyone who believes there should be no exceptions for rape and incest could never understand what it's like to stand in my shoes. this is to you, daniel cameron. to tell a 12-year-old girl she must have the baby of her stepfather who raped her is unthinkable. i am speaking out because women and girls need to have options. >> that message didn't appeal to just women in the suburbs of kentucky, that message and the contrast beshear drew with the extreme views of his opponent daniel cameron helped him win in kentucky with 50% of the vote. so for anyone out there who is questioning whether abortion rights should be central to the democratic argument, and central to the arguments everywhere in the country, the evidence is against you.

just today we saw brand-new polling from the wall street journal showing that support for abortion access is near a record high in this country. according to that poll, 55% of americans now say that a pregnant woman should be able to get an abortion for any reason. joining me now is the recently reelected governor of kentucky, andy beshear. governor, thank you so much for joining me this evening. i know so many people are excited to hear from you. i wanted to start with the issue of abortion rights. because one of the things that was so interesting about your race to me is that there is this false assumption out there in the view that abortion is an issue that should only be used to appeal to suburban women. those are the only people who care about it. but you made this very effective argument on the issue that is a -- wide swath of voters in your state, including white non-college outlook van and what lessons do you think they should take away from how you talked about abortion in your race? >> well thanks for having me

on. and certainly i believe that our race was a rejection of extremism. a rejection of angry politics. and i believe when you look at how we talked about it portion in kentucky and it comes down to basic empathy. see, in kentucky right now we have one of the most restrictive laws in the entire country. there are no options even for victims of rape and incest. look at those individuals violated, just about every american believes that at least they should have some options. it doesn't come down to pro this or pro that. just a basic level of caring for somebody who has been through way too much trauma. >> you also, your race was interesting in a lot of ways. but one of the issues that came up was, of course, trans rights. i mean, you did not hesitate to veto a sweeping anti-trans bill passed by the kentucky state legislature. but your opponents still kind of came after you.

they, also because of, that came after you on that. it didn't work. what does that tell you about the effectiveness of this kind of an attack. this approach from a lot of republicans out there? >> while children are children of god, that's what my faith teaches me. and i was going to stand up especially for the most marginalized children that didn't deserve either a state legislature or an entire campaign of all these super pacs picking on the. individuals are already at the margin. studies show suffer -- more mental health issues, more at risk for suicide. we ought to be in the suicide prevention business. and not further harming kids who are going through too much. i did it because it was the right thing. but i will say that -- one about their campaign, it was just mean. and it was gross. it was cruel. and people don't like that.

that's not who we are. this ought to be a message that you can't scapegoat people just to get folks angry. and is wrong! right? think about what some people are doing, trying to dehumanize other human beings. trying to turn people against each other and to even foster hate and anger towards another american here in kentucky, and why? so you can elect one more person that has a certain letter behind their name? this can't be right and, left some things have to be basic right and wrong. and we have got to get our politics back to where we ask the basic question of right and wrong. here is got to be limits. this can't be a rule list type of game, because it is so much more than a game. ask any of these kids. >> now, before i let you, go i have to ask you a 2024 question, of course. because there are questions out there in democratic circles about whether joe biden is the right person or the best person to run against trump in 2024. what do you make of that?

>> well that's going to be the race. pundits all do the hammering and the who this or the who that, that's what it's going to be. and the president is just going to have to get out and talk about people's lives. we live in a pessimistic society, you asked that question oh right tracker wrong trump, it's almost -- question should be how are you doing? right? the opportunity and a better job. do you feel safer in your communities. are you excited about the opportunities that your kids are going to have. we have great things going on in kentucky, we have a record breaking economy. our best years for economic development ever. but with the help of bipartisan infrastructure law we are doing three what people call impossible infrastructure process all at the same time and when the reasons i got to be governor another 40 years people are excited about their future. it lets them breathe a little bit and push out, you know, some of the cynicism.

and say, you know, there is a chance that my kids are gonna be better off. they are going to have more opportunities and the kids of the top he will have more opportunity, and i think that is hopefully what we will be talking about in 2024. now, the right type of race is about two individuals that ought to be sharing their ideas about how to make the country better or a track record on how to do it. and not to the type of attacks that certainly my opponent in our race used, and i hope that we won't see on a national level next year. >> it may be worse on a national level, believe it or not. governor andy beshear, thank you. i wish you a very happy thanksgiving with your family as well. >> happy thanksgiving to you! and everybody out there! enjoy! >> coming, up as you remember the life and legacy of rosalynn carter, i will show you something that she told me the press back in 1976. it really stuck with me. back after a quick break. ,

you want to be able to provide your child with the tools or resources they need. with reliable internet at home, through the internet essentials program, the world opened up. fellas, fellas. that's how my son was able to find the hidden genius project. we wanted to give y'all the necessary skills to compete with the future. kevin's now part of this next generation of young people who feel they can thrive. ♪ ♪ you have likely heard this

quote before, and it may resonate now more than ever. a leader takes people where they want to go, a great leader takes people where they don't necessarily want to go, but ought to be. those words were made famous by former first lady roslyn carter, who died at the age of 96. she may not have been one elected leader of the free world, but she was one half of what the carter biographer describes as, the longest,

closest, arguably most productive political partnership in american history. famously nicknamed the steel magnolia, her soft spoken approach packed a powerful punch and she helped redefine the role of a modern first lady. first to set up an office in the east lady, first to attend cabinet meetings. only the second to testify before congress. challenged heads of state on had human rights abuses. became a fierce advocate for mental health care, history may not remember her at all as a controversial figure. but perhaps one of the greatest leg lessons in her legacy, all the things she did with her willingness to be controversial. especially when you want to effect change. you can see that during an appearance on meet the press, before she even became first lady. >> you have said that you liked eleanor roosevelt, she's very controversial at times, would

you as first lady would you shy away from controversy or would you not? >> i don't think i could ever compare myself with eleanor reasonable, but there are so many things that need to be done. i don't think i would ever shy away from controversy, i don't think jimmy would ever shy away from controversy. jimmy tell me that if you do anything you're going to be criticize, the only way you'll never be criticized is to be mediocre and never do anything. the things i want to work with, are the mental health program. i have worked with them for a long time, i want to work with programs of the elderly. everyone talks about the out early, but nothing gets done for them. i don't know, i learned when jimmy was governor that i could do anything, i could help with any program. because you are in a position of influence, here in the position to see what the needs are. sometimes you don't even have to do anything, and just have to ask somebody -- . >> controversial for the right

reasons, the only way to not be criticized is to be mediocre, those are good words to live. by roslyn carter's life is a reminder of all of that, she helped take people where they did not necessarily want to go, but where they were supposed to go. a lesson leading everyone into next year. that does it for me tonight, the rachel maddow show starts next, hi rachel. hi jen thank you very much. thank you rachel have a great show. . thanks to you at home for joining us this hour so there are minimalist candy bars, and then there are maximalist candy bars. minimalist are the ones classic hershey's bar which just chocolate or a heath bar which is toffee in the middle and then chocolate. my favorite is a payday bar. i don't even know what that is. it's basically like peanuts and goo. i don't know. but a picnic bar, on the other hand, is not one of thos