the ballot, they've lost. >> we saw this in ohio, we saw it time and time again. it is the only sliver of hope that i have here in this. do you feel at least invigorated by those political victories? >> 100%. i think it is hard not to be. you are just beating them again, and again, and again, at huge margins. airman so you are not alone. i think one of the things that republicans rely on especially when it comes to an issue like abortion is making people feel alone. >> -- you are not alone. kate cox who has made to be alone by the state of texas is not known as well. thanks a lot. thanks a lot abortion is making people feel like you're alone. >> and you're not alone. kate cox is not alone as well. that is "all in" on this wednesday night. alex wagner tonight starts right now. >> the fact we're talking about who's alone.

150,000 florida republicans, i believe, have signed onto that ballot. i mean it's just an epically appalling move to try and do this to pregnant people across the u.s. >> repugnant to the vast majority of voters. >> they will pay and pay and pay as long as they keep trying to do thiske to the american publi. thank you, chris, and thank you jessica vulenty as always. today the criminal case against donald trump, the one that was mostru likely to be completed before the 2024 election, special counsel jack smith's federal election interference case, todayec it effectively ca to a standstill. it was frozen or in legal terminology its deadlines were stayed. two weeks ago the judge in that case, judge tanya chutkan denied trump's claim that the entire case be null and void because of, quote, presidential immunity. trump'sty lawyers immediately

appealed that decision and asked judge chutkan to stay the case until the appeals court can rule on a question of immunity. well, today judge chutkan granted that request, and she clarified exactly what that means for the future of this case.f if jurisdiction is returned to this court, the court will consistent with its duty to ensure both a speedy trial and fairness for all parties, consider at that time whether to retain or continue the dates of any still future deadlines and proceedings including the trial scheduled for march 4, 2024. so this case is on hold until the immunity appeal works its way through. that means the final decision on this appeal and how quickly that decision is made is very much a live issue that could potentially delay or even

destroy the special counsel's case altogether. jack smith is not just rolling over here. earlier this week smith asked the supreme court to take up the issue directly and as soon as possible to tryis and head this thing off at the pass. trump's lawyers have another week to respond to that request. but even if going straight to the highest court in the land does not expedite the process here, mr. smith is working on the lower level courts as well. on monday smith asked the d.c. circuit court of appeals to fast track its appeals process on this immunity question. and today trump's legal team filed their response. now, you would think that trump's lawyers might want their own appeal heard and decided on as soon as possible if they thought they would win it. and apparently they do not.y they want a delay because that is their main strategy in all of

this. let me read you one of the actual arguments trump's lawyers made in court today in their formal filing to the d.c. circuit court of appeals. this proposed schedule would require attorneys and support staff to workto around the cloc through the holidays inevitably disrupting family and travel plans. it is as if the special counsel growled nervously drumming and must found some way to keep christmas from coming. it is one of the most spectacularly unserious legal arguments i have ever heard in one of the most serious cases this country has ever grappled with. they literally called jack smith the grinch. and the whole thing is extra comical when you think about how this entire case is about trump's actions in the lead-up to january 6th. when trump and his lawyers worked around the clock through the holidays to try to overturn the results of the 2020

election. for example, on the last night of hanukkah in 2020, december 18th sidney powell, michael flynn, rudy giuliani, they all pitched trump conspiracy theory after conspiracy theory in a, quote, unhinged west wing meeting. the same night, last night of hanukkah trump asked his followers to come to d.c. on january 6th saying, be there, will be wild. on christmas eve trump lawyer john eastman wrote his now infamous memo explaining how vice president pence could stop the certification on january 6rtth. on the first night of christmas trump asked pence to overturn the 2020 election, on christmas day. on the third night of christmas, december 27th trump talked to florida justice department officials to say it was corrupt and leave theto rest to me. and the day after new year's trump was on the phone with georgia secretary of state brad

raffensperger asking him to find trump nearly 12,000 votes. what about the stockings? was there no christmas ham that year? apparently in trump world it is fine to work over the holidays if the work is trying to overthrow the american democracy. but when the work is the most important legal case in modern american history, well, then suddenly jack smith is the literal grinch. attorneys need eggnog, too, you know. the special counsel isno amaziny ahead of this argument. within hours of them they immediately filed their response and asked theme appeals court t respond tonight. trump's legal teamwork will be due december 23rd, two days before christmas, eight days before the last night of hanukkah, and three days before

kwanzaa, plenty of time for ginger bread houses. ifgi trump's team still has gris i would like to remind them on december 23rd of 2020, not only did trump have time to pardon 26 people including paul manafort, roger stone, and charles kushner, but trump also found the time to call the lead investigator in georgia secretary of state's office to urge her to look for wrongdoing in the election results and tell her that she would be praised s when the right answer comes out. it is abundantly clear that mr. trump does not, but every who down in whoville wants to quit the delay stuff a lot. joining me now is chuck rosenberg, former u.s. attorney and senior fbi official now an msnbc contributor are, and msnbc legal analyst and not so secret weapon lisa rubin.

do you prefer the lorax or the cat and the hat or is the grinch your go to? >> i think this is green eggs and ham tonight. they are endlessly trying to peddle as green eggs and ham this incredibly contradictory story. and yet all of the judges they encounter unlike character in the seuss book do not want to eat green eggs and ham. >> first, i will ask you both, and chuck, let me go to you here. i'm not a lawyer and i did not goer to law school, but citing e grinch and making the excuse of an appeals process should not be expedited because people need to celebrate the christmas holidays seems far-fetched to me. what was your reaction to that? >> i thought it was juvenile. i'm glad you went to lisa first because she was obviously well prepared on the dr. seuss references.

i am not. i will tell you. this. on any holiday military officials, federal law enforcement officials, intelligence officials are working. that's what they do. they work because the work is important and the work is necessary. and so the notion that the most important criminal case in the country can't be litigated by attorneys over the holidays is juvenile and nonsensical and that was my reaction, alex. by the way, calling people names really doesn't get you any sort of traction. jack smith ignored it, and the courts will ignore it. i promise you that. >> yeah, i don't think this even plays to trump's base, just the idea somehow jack smith is a grinch-like figure. settling it aside for a minute i wonder what you make of the d.c. appeals decision tonight to move this thing forward. it's a three-judge panel, two of them appointed by biden, one

appointed by george h.w. bush. >> i think it's interesting they made this decision to move it along particularly given the supreme court has already set a deadline for trump to submit his brief in opposition to the served petition jack smith has put before them. we've talked beforet and you'v talked to other guests about this two-track approach jack smith is trying to pursue. now we've got a three-day window between the supreme court brief due on the 20th, his brief now to the d.c. circuit due ten days from now on the 23rd. if the supreme court wants to be what we would call good colleagues, they'll make a decision whether to cert in that three-day window. and if we're going to rule that question that obviates the need because the supreme court is supreme. >> right, thee highest court i the land. how do you read the decision here, chuck?

is thisch d.c. circuit court of appeals basically hedging its best against the supreme court and what they're going to do given the different make-ups on these two reports? >> well, i'm glad it's proceeding on al, parallel trac alex. both courts were asked to expedite this, and that's what they're doing. i don't know they're hedging their bets. i think the best solution, of course, is for the supreme court to take the case now. they're going to get it eventually one way or another, but to take case the now to resolve the issue. it's not a frivolous issue. i'm reasonably confident the government wins it, but since it's going to be litigated in front of the supreme court, let's do it now, let's resolve it as quickly as possible and let the parties go back to judge chutkan, the trial judge in d.c. and hit the play button again and get the case moving. that seems like the most logical thing to me. >> yeah, i mean no matter what

judge chutkan has issued a stay, right? the thing is frozen in time as it stands right now. and ita wonder, "a," how surprising you think that is on the part of judge chutkan and how meaningful that is in terms of trump's broader goal to delay everything here. >> it's not surprising in that jack smith effectively conceded that was the right result, that an appeal on a motion to dismous where the questions presented ones of constitutional import. his presidential immunity argument is effective lea constitutional one. he'sle saying, yes, i acknowled that deprives the trial court of jurisdiction and things have to pause. at the same time, what's notable about judge chutkan's decision today is her carving out room for her still to exert some authorize. over the gag order which she still can enforce, over trump's conditions of release, al, those are the rules by which he has to play as a free person having been criminally indicted asked over the protective order that he complained of in his brief to

the d.c. circuit today. that means as i was telling one of our colleagues today, trump can't walk into the hallway, throw up the discovery into the public domain and let everyone see that which jack smith and the department of justice do not wanttuse have vantage points into at this point. >> that all has to stay effectively under wraps. chuck, the jury selection in thisch seems like it's going toe a propronged process, and that has to stop while the appeals courtth plays out, right? i would assume that's meaningful time the judge is losing here and that the special counsel's office is losing. >> potentially, al, and that's the problem. i think lisa described it correctly. the case didn't evaporate. it didn't disappear. it simply paused. and so the protective order and the gag order and other things like it remain in place. but the parties cannot go back in front of judge chutkan and

continue to litigate other matters by picking a jury while the case is on appeal. so you're right, jury selection will be paused. obviously very important. in a case like this somewhat cumbersome, and that's when you begin to see the potential delay tactics taking hold and taking effect, right? so the quicker that this gets resolved and it gets back to a point we were discussing earlier, the quicker the supreme court hears the case and decides it, the faster judge chutkan cau go back, hit the play button, and resume all the things you need to do before trial like picking a jury. i don't know that the march trial date is doomed, but it's certainly endangered. >> that's going to be -- i mean i think that's -- it's hard to hear that given the fact that this case is in many ways the best shot the country has of determining whether or not the president -- the former and potentially future president of the united states is apo felon.

double jeopardy is another case that trump'spa lawyers are maki alongside the presidential immunityid claim. thir saying that effectively because trump was already impeached for actions around january 6th he can't be held accountable again. that's been kind of waived. i feel like we've waived off that as a viable defense. but the supreme court says it's going to rule on that. what do you make of the double jeopardy defense? >> when trump was saying earlier that the issues that trump is presenting here are serious, they are serious.ar and they're issues of first impression for the supreme court. however, between the two, between his sort of like structural absolute presidential immunity argument and his double jeopardy argument, i don't think it's a serious argument to say because he was impeached but not convicted by the senate, he can't be criminally prosecuted. there's nothing as judge chutkan said in her decision and in fact there's a provision in the constitution. the impeachment judgment clause that would lead you to the

opposite conclusion based on its actual plain text. >> well, i mean, if anything the trump team throwing spaghetti at the wall and the fact the supreme court -- this is such like a difficult metaphor -- is scraping all the spaghetti potentially off-the-wall at the same time by deciding to take all of it seems meaningful here. chuck rosenberg, i'm sorry we sprung all the seuss trivia on you without adequate preparation. we have a lot more ahead tonight. abortion is back before the supreme court. what the justices are considering and how their decision could impact women even in states where abortion is legal. but first, the impossible logic behind house republicans newly launched impeachment inquiry against joe biden. congressman adam schiff joins me on that coming up next. stay with us. s me on that coming up next stay with us

(man) mm, hey, honey. 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.

first time i connected with kim, she told me that her husband had passed. and that he took care of all of the internet connected devices in the home. i told her, “i'm here to take care of you.” connecting with kim... made me reconnect with my mom. it's very important to keep loved ones close. we know that creating memories with loved ones brings so much joy to your life. a family trip to the team usa training facility. i don't know how to thank you. i'm here to thank you.

during my battle with addiction, my parents were there for me. they literally saved my lives. in the depths of my addiction i was extremely irresponsible with my finances. but to suggest that is grounds for an impeachment inquiry is beyond the absurd. it's shameless. there's no evidence to support the allegations my father was financially involved in my business, because it did not

happen. there is no fairness or decency in what these republicans are doing. >> that was hunter biden today outside the u.s. capitol taking accountability for his actions and calling out republicans for a sham impeachment. hunter biden is facing nine charges of tax evasion in california and three gun charges in the state of delaware. now, in any normal election cycle republicans would be everywhere talking about the president's son in a swirl of tax evasion gun charges. this is not a normal election cycle, and republicans have spent the last three years telling their base that the biden family is orchestrating some kind of grand criminal conspiracy, a conspiracy that directly implicates president biden in all kinds of nefarious acts. as it stands they have precisely zero evidence to back up that claim, but that has not stopped republicans from raising expectations sky high, and now

they are in a real bind. the very real charges against hunter biden kind of pale in comparison to what conservatives have been promising. and so what republicans and conservative media are actually down-playing the crimes hunter biden is charged with, claiming those charges are actually an effort to cover-up the much bigger and so far imaginary crimes of president joe biden. >> they've been sitting on this potential indictment. why do they release this now? is this a further cover-up? i'm wondering if the timing on hunter biden is partly a cover-up? >> i agree the timing is suspect. >> pushing hunter in front of the bus and saying okay we've got to feed the masses a bit to keep them off the joe scent. it does have a feeling of the biden folks creating bad news to cover up other bad news. >> the fact they're covering this up, sean, it's not only the crimes biden committed, it's the

cover-up. >> weiss may have indicted hunter biden to protect him. >> ah, yes. he indicted him to protect him. yes, the classic rubric. >> the republican theory of the case here is laughable. even the most generous reading of it makes no sense, but republicans are still hanging onto this theory as the basis for an impeachment inquiry into joe biden. tonight the house voted along party lines 221-212 to open a formal impeachment inquiry into the president. so-called moderates in swing districts every member voted in favor of it. what do they do they've opened this door with promises to expose this grand plot when there's no reason to believe that grand plot actually exists. and how do democrats respond? i'll talk to congressman adam

schiff who led trump's first impeachment about all of that coming up. trump's first impeachment about all of that coming up.

(man) mm, hey, honey.

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.

the house has now spoken, and i think pretty loudly pretty clearly with every single republican voting in favor of moving into this official impeachment inquiry phase of our constitutional duty to do oversight. so when i a majority of the house goes on record in support of an official impeachment inquiry with the power that resides solely in the house of

representatives, this impeachment power, i think that sends a message. >> as congressman jim jordan points out today, every single house republican, all 221 of them voted to formally open an impeachment inquiry into president biden. and yes, it sure does send a message, but perhaps not the one mr. jordan thinks it does. joining me now is congressman adam schiff of california, member of the house judiciary committee. he also served as the lead house manager in donald trump's first impeachment trial. congressman schiff, thank you so much for being here. i -- we are told those of us on the outside of the house of representatives that there are these phantom republican moderates who understand the gravity of what this impeachment inquiry represents and the tenuous position they have as republicans from districts that joe biden won in 2020. and yet they still voted for this. what do you make of the entire republican conference supporting

an impeachment inquiry? >> well, they're cowards. you know, i think you can fairly say the so-called moderate republicans in the house, they're always there when you don't need them. but when there's actually something of consequence, they cave. you know, they spend years and particularly this year investigating joe biden. they came up with nothing, and they admitted as much. so now they're going to have a formal impeachment inquiry so they can find even more of nothing. they don't know what they're looking for. they don't know what crimes they even want to suggest what crimes joe biden committed. all they do know is donald trump wants this, donald trump needs this. donald trump is going to make their life difficult if they don't give it to them. those moderate republicans don't want trump coming after them and ginnying up a primary against them. they're going to do this to gratify, you know, their master at mar-a-lago.

they also know they have no affirmative positive agenda for their country even their own members can agree on. they're doing nothing on health care, nothing on climate, doing nothing on guns. they can't agree among themselves on any policy, so what are we doing? what have we spent the year doing? well, they censured me for leading trump's impeach, vacated their own speaker's chair, and now they want to begin an impeachment against joe biden mchts this is how they're occupying the nation's time when there are serious challenges like funding ukraine, israel that we should be doing. >> you make mention of the master down at mar-a-lago and it seems pretty obvious this is in service to the man they call orange jesus inside the republican conference. and yet it's sort of a strange strategy, right? if the point is to humiliate biden by impeaching him to give him that scarlett letter, it only brings up the fact that trump himself has been impeached

twice. how do you begin to bring this up on the campaign trail without evfaebl ending back up in the place which is trump got impeached twice in. >> they hope to muddy the waters. they hope to persuade people oh, you know, trump was impeached twice but it was just politics, and now we're going to impeach biden and that's just politics. they're going to try to, you know, what aboutism. they're going to establish some kind of false equivalence when there is no equivalence. donald trump was impeopled for his own abuse of power, for his own commission of high crimes and disam demeanser, for withholding hundred of millions in military aid for ukraine while that nation was at war to extort zelenskyy and helping smear his opponent. his actions, his misconduct, his abuse of power, his constitutional high crimes and

misdemeanors. by contrast they're proceeding with an impeachment inquiry into joe biden based on hunter biden. based on hunter biden's conduct, which they have not been able to tie to the president. it couldn't be a more stark contrast, but they hope that if they throw up enough chaff maybe they can confuse the public and hopefully persuade what donald trump did they can discount it because everybody does it. you mention hunter biden, and wae played a bit of the sound of his remarks outsicide the capitol this morning. i find it actually really effective and somewhat moving to hear someone grappling with addiction somewhat take ownership of his wrongdoing. and i wonder what, "a," your reaction to his comments, his remarks was and also how important it is to hear from hunter biden in the middle of all of this. >> you know, i did think it was

pretty powerful. it reminded me, too, of a voice mail i think the republicans leaked some time ago of the president making -- leaving a message for his son that he loved him, that he knew he was going through a hard time, that he was there for his son. and i remember, you know, watching republicans push this out and thinking why do they think this is going to somehow engender support for the gop among the public? i think the public is going to see a father concerned about his son. and there are enough people in the country that have tragic experiences and their families with loved ones with substance abuse addiction and, you know, attacking a father for being a father i don't think is a good political strategy, but i do think that part of it, alex, is they know the president loves his son. and this is a way to hurt the president not just politically

but hurt him personally. and in that sense the republican congress is just like trump. donald trump loves to hurt people in the way he thinks is most effective to wound them. it's a fundamentally indecent aspect of trump's very malignant personality. and here you see republicans emulating it. >> yeah, the cruelty is the point and stands true for the entire republican conference at a moment like this. congressman schiff, given how organized the democrats were, how much evidence they had before they began their impeachment inquiry, what are the implications for an impeachment inquiry that's going off to find the evidence? just in terms of the time frame we're operating under, the amount of cost to the american taxpayer and like what they actually come up with, which may not have anything to do with any of the things they are talking about at this moment. >> you know, i think the biggest cost to the american people are

the opportunity costs. that is while they occupy all the time and attention with the house with this impeachment proceedings and intent proceedings and vacate the expulsion proceedings they're not dealing with the nation's problems. we're about to break for holidays, and there's a war going on in ukraine, there's a war going on in the middle east. and congress is failing to act. and so the biggest cost is the opportunity cost, but i think they're also setting themselves up for a terrible end because these things have a way of gaining momentum. now that they've started this inquiry, donald trump is going to insist they come to a conclusion with an impeachment that they probably don't have the votes for. and so they're going to be in a position of either disappointing trump, disappointing their maga fueling base and either going to

have say, sorry, there's no there there or try to force a vote, force these vulnerable republicans to vote and potentially lose that vote. but it's frankly a loser for the country any way they take it. >> a loser for the country from the least productive -- the second least productive congress in modern american history. congressman adam schiff, thank you for your time and wisdom tonight. i appreciate it. >> thank you. still ahead this evening it has been a year and a half since the supreme court overturned the constitutional right to an abortion, and already today the justices have decided that they might go get back to it once again. more on the new case the high court has decided today review. that's next. case the high court has decided today review that's next.

(man) mm, hey, honey. 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.

today the supreme court agreed to hear a case that could describe future access to appeal using more than half of abortions in this country, mifepristone. anti-abortion activists have been seeking to limit its use if not take it off the market completely, and now the supreme court is going to decide whether mifepristone will still be accessible via telemedicine and through the mail up to 10 week of pregnancy or whether pregnant women, many of whom now live in abortion deserts, will have access to the pill cut off at 7 week of pregnancy and are required to have several in-person doctor visits to

obtain a prescription. the high court now finds itself in the awkward position of ruling on abortion 18 months after it decided the matter should be left to the states. oral arguments are expected early next year, and the justices could rule by the end of june. joining me now is the senior correspondent for new york magazine. thank you for being back here. i mean it's like whiplash. every other day there's some sort of heinous infringement on reproductive rights. and now the high court is taking up mifepristone. first let's talk, about sort of what these potentially newly reimposed restrictions could mean for people seeking actees is abortion. mifepristone available only to 7 weeks of pregnancy seems meaningful. >> right. and who can sprieb it and the manner in which it be prescribed. i think this is an administrative law case, but before you fall asleep anyone watching this, this is about a

blue state abortion ban. the dear wish of the people who concocted this case out of whole cloth have invented standing. these are anti-abortion doctors who have brought the case despite the fact they do not ever prescribe this pill and can't find any kind of harm to people who access the pill. the they are doing so because they understand this pill, the more you restrict it -- or let's put it this way this pill represents freedom and privacy. in states where abortion is restricted, people have been able to say drive right across the border, get this pill from a mobile clinic, from a truck, through the mail, through a p.o. box. they understand that abortions have actually gone up since dobbs because of increased access, and huge part of that is that the privacy, the quickness, the lack of multiple visits that is represented by this highly safe drug -- >> mifepristone. >> yes, mifepristone it's taken in combination. and they understand what they

need to do is restricting in places like new york, california, new mexico, colorado that have become havens for people living in abortion restrictive states. and so what they really wanted today do and this is so crazy is get a time machine and go back to 2000 and say the approval of this pill almost 24 years ago should be undone. now, the big thing that happened today is the supreme court saying, okay, that is too crazy. >> we're not going back to the original approval of this drug back to 2000. >> but they'd dearly love for that to happen, and they could they would take away the option more than half of abortion patients prefer. the fifth circuit tried today have it both ways, is it based in science, is it based in what's safe, is it based in process does not appear to be the case. so the question is the supreme court coming in to say, okay, this is absurd or coming in to say let's make up yet another compromise.

>> right, the compromise being roll back the regulations that they were in 2015, which would have profound effects because in 2015 there were not abortion deserts across the state. it is not as critical as it is today. >> there's been a whole body of research for years about do people understand how to take this safely, can they do telemedicine to find out where they are in their pregnancy. a large body of research has built-up to say there's this is very safe. not only is there the need but also a demonstration this is a safe option. and it's a safe option for people getting it legally and also those being forced to take the matter in their own hands. >> when you look at the court and dobbs a lot of people are considerably worried. taking up the issue on standing, though, how do you interpret the sort of way in the which court is saying it's going to get rid

of this. >> to be fair to the court typically but the fifth circuit did create this situation the supreme court didn't allow to go into effect, so it's actually good news for the supreme court to take this up if they choose. were they not to take it up, then those restrictions would not go into effect. should they choose to undo the fifth circuit's opinion. what's also good news they have not taken seriously what the conservative christian soldier for the district court tid is take it at face value. so there is a chance this is kind of conditionally good news. they cannot show there's any harm to them, they cannot show in any way mifepristone, cannot show harm to their patients

either. and at least they have not put the entire approval of the drug on the table. and i think it's a sign. you know, the supreme court went so far than what they were initially asked to do to overturn roe v. wade. and it may be even they realize this blow back is something they now need to kind of moderate a little bit even on this issue. >> yeah, coming two days or three days after the case in texas where a woman is forced out of the state because the texas supreme court says she's not dying enough to have an abortion. it's just an appalling turn of events. maybe it resonates with the court. we will see. thank you as always, my friend, for thoughts and great analysis on this. still ahead this evening the new deal that some officials are calling the beginning of the end of fossil fuels. we'll talk to journalist about what the cop28 climate summit was able to accomplish and what it left undone. that is next. complish and what it left undone that is next you miss out on important moments... you feel alone.

start hearing better today with rca's all new, advanced hearing aids. these aren't cheap amplifiers that don't really work, and you'll never have to pay thousands again. the fda now allows us to bring true, high-quality hearing aids direct to you. through rca's hearing america program, you can get your choice of two, state-of-the-art, ultra-discrete hearing aids, listed at $1199.00, now for a special, introductory price, or pay as little as only $29 a month, with free shipping! they're affordable. they're not the cost people associate with hearing aids. my old-fashioned ones cost me $5,000 and these actually work better. engineered with advanced technology, the rca's are rechargeable, and have easy to use volume controls, built right in. and unlike so many others, with a push of a button, these hearing aids give you pre-sets for better hearing. in a quiet setting, loud restaurants, or listening to music, you can adjust them to help you hear the best... wherever you are” there's no tools required and no batteries to fumble with! when i first popped them in, i went, wow! i hear everything.

simply slip in your rca hearing aids, and instantly hear your world again. grampa, i love you. never miss a moment again. you know rca... the quality is there. you cleared up decades of frustration in a second. order now and we'll ship your pair of fda registered hearing aids in your choice of style with incredible savings. pay as low as only $29 a month! you get a 45-day money back guarantee, free 24/7 us based support, a portable charging case, and free shipping. with rca, you can be hearing better in just days! order yours now! call this number or go to: rcahearingaids.com now

for the first time since countries began needing to fight climate change nearly 30 years ago a global pact to move away from fossil fuels has been approved. the agreement reached during negotiations for cop28 in dubai is not legally binding and cannot force any action. instead it calls upon countries to transition away from fossil fuels and energy systems in a just, orderly and equitable manner triple the amount of renewable naej by 2030. today president biden called a historic milestone and a u.n. climate official dubbed the beginning of the end and critics say the language of the agreement does not go nearly far enough and they fear it could allow wealthier countries to admit fossil fuels to continue delaying significant action. joining me now is david wallace wells, opinion writer for "the new york times," and author of the uninhabitable earth, life after warming.

dachb ud, thank you for being here. i don't want to rain on the parade immediately. this seemed like a step you're like no. >> 30 years. >> well, that is not harming. but the fact there's this idea that the word fossil fuels has been uttered publicly as something that needs to be if not phased out, turned away from, how did you understand that language and how meaningful is this? >> i think it's a sign a lot of the processes aside are following the systems and markets. in this way i think we know 70 years from now fossil fuels are going to be a very small part of our economy if they're there at all and the next couple of decades are going to be, you know, dominated by renewables. we sort of know that's in the near future. the question is how quickly can you get to zero, and on that point i don't think this agreement does much.

tripling renewable energy is good. we don't know if we're going to hit those targets, but if we do it'll be progress. but it won't be sufficient to limit the levels of warming we've been saying necessary to limit the grim catastrophic outcomes. i think one legacy of the conference may be we may look at and say it was a moment we all realized we were not going to hit those targets. >> practically speaking there's what we want to do, what we are on track to do, and what it reasonably looks like to get off of fossil fuels. what do you in your sort of expert opinion does that look like? >> i think the low hanging fruit are things we know how to do and we know how to provide power and electricity. we know how to drive our transportation in fossil fuel ways and the power sector most cars on the road and still internal combustion vehicles. it probably needs fewer gas stations and people charging their cars and solar panels. and the challenging stuff is

what we're going to do about heavy industry, agriculture, and aviation, these are things we don't have such easy power for. we have little time to do that rnd, and what we don't have time to do is dramatically and quickly replace fossil fuels with renewable resources in the areas we know how to fix right now, which is to say essentially power leck tristry, and transportation. >> do you imagine it's kind of like a steep decline in fossil fuels? does it level off or is the transition gradual and steady and then spikes? >> so if we want to keep global warming to 1.5 degrees which i think is effectively impossible, it would mean getting all the way to zero somewhere around 2040. we only have about 5 to 8 years of carbon emissions before we completely eliminate that budgeimatech and under 2 degrees we have maybe until the year 280. those are slightly more manageable time lines, but none of the projections from any of the agencies suggest we're going

to see a rapid decline resembling any of those. what they project is we're likely to see a peak in the next few years followed by a long plateau. and that's why it's necessary not just we build renewables but figure out a way to draw down our falseal capacity and there's very little initiative in the world that brings us close to that goal. >> what is the point of what is it conference of parties, the cop symposia as it were. there's been 28 of them and another scheduled in two years. let me participate an even more dystopian picture. if donald trump is elected what interest the implications of multinational agreements if we have someone like trump in the oval office, and furthermore what's the utility of having these kind of climate symposia if the united states and other western countries aren't really leading the charge? >> i think to take the second question first, i think it's a test of how much rhetoric matters and leadership matters.

these are not binding agreements. they're not enforceable in any way, but they do show a consensus among the world's leadership where the future is heading, and they have work that way in the past. in the paris agreement in 2015 we established the goal and in the years since we talked about that bench mark every time and internalized the fact that was important to get close to 1.5 and the world looks much worse, and all of that is because of the rhetorical. it's not because paris owned us to pursue that goal but taught us in different ways to pursue the future and think about what we need to do to get there. it's possible for conferences like these to shape the future that way which is to say as i mentioned a minute ago almost everyone knows we're heading towards a fossil fuel of the future. it's just a question how quickly we're going to get there, and i don't think rhetoric can do all

that much there. we need more progress on finance particularly for the global south. they have a hard time building their projects now, and they need to move much faster. as for what donald trump means, you know, i think there's some hope in the fact that the markets are really moving this themselves. and 5 or 10 years ago we talked about global warming as a moral burden that we have to undertake, but it's going to be costly and difficult and therefore require diplomacy. now every disruption to the green transition not fast enough, but i think an election of of donald trump as tragic and awful that would be, would mean worse things for the united states than for the global climate challenge. >> always a wealth of information if not optimism on an important topic. that is our show for tonight. "way too early" with jonathan lemire is coming up next. we are here today on the house floor