the register or, better yet, behind the counter. recipients should check their cards, and buy with a credit card to increase your chances of getting a refund. isn't that just extraordinary? can you believe that? these were the vanilla gift cards we looked at, but this bodes very good advice for everyone. check all of your gift carts. it could be starbucks, anything out there. take care and be careful. thank you, vicky for that story. that does it for me today. "deadline: white house" starts right now. we'll see you back here tomorrow. we we -- begin with the thunderbolt from the colorado

supreme court, that donald trump is constitutionally disqualified from being on the ballot in the ste primary. the opinion pulls no punches. quote, president trump incited and encouraged the use of violence and lawless action to disrupt the peaceful transfer of power. the tenor of president trump's messages to hisupporters in exshorting him to -- had an option to fight back. the cavalry was coming to find. here's where the colorado state supreme court went further, reversing the lower court's finding that donald trump doesn't qualify as a, quote, ofce under section 3 of the 14th amendment. section 3 of the 14th amendment

is a civil war era amendment to the united states -- taken an eat from various state and offices. it rules that the founding officers backed that up, writing americans have referred to the president as an officer from the days of the founding fathers. this is seismic. this is unprecedented,nd this is very, very likely destined to go before the supreme court. none of that is lost on the colorado state supreme court. the nod to the historic nature of this ruling, they write -- we do not reach these conclusions lightly. we are mindful of the magnitude and weight of the questions now before us. we're also cog any zap that we

travel in uncharted territory. uncharted territory indeed. importantly, colorado supreme court paused the ruling under january 4th, making way for donald trump to appeal to the supreme court. when that happens, all eyes will be on the supreme court. that's where we start the day with the leading voices. former federal judge michael l. dig. conservatives look to you for guidance, including mike pence turned to you when donald trump was pressuring him. we hearing criticisms. it's worth remembering that it -- judge, why is this ruling consistent with conservative legal thought?

the colorado supreme court yesterday decided the most consequential and pressing constitutional issue facing the country. its decision will force the nation to decide, does it believe in american democracy, its constitution, and the rule of law? the supreme court of colorado issued what i characterized as a masterful judicial opinion. it is unassailable and irrefutable in every single respect. as your viewers already know

that court head, first and importantly, that section 3 of the four teent amendment does apply to presidents of the united states. the lower cold had held that it did not. in that holding, the supreme court of colorado held, first, that the presidency is an office under the united states. second, that the president is an officer of the united states, and third, that the president when he takes the constitutionally prescribed oath as president he takes an oath to support the constitution of the united states within the meaning of section 3 of the 14th amendment. this is an historic deserve.

it's a monumental significant to the nation today, and when the supreme court eventually decides the case, it will be perhaps one of, if not the sing upmost important, consequential decision in american history. i believe the supreme court of the united states, when and if it takes this particular case, should affirm the colorado supreme court's decision. i believe that, based on the objective law which in this instance is section 3 of the 14th amendment there is no other decision the supreme court could make.

>> it has stayed the ruling under january 4th, trump's name stays on the ballot if he appeals, how does that work? >> i think what will happen is right now the ruling yesterday has no immediate legal effect, and as long as donald trump appeals, it won't have a legal effect, and his name will be on the ballot until the united states supreme court rules and affirms the colorado's supreme court. i agree with judge ludwig, that the case for them doing that is exceptionally strong. it's obviously a solemn moment, also a horrendous moment. we're only in this situation, because donald trump is an insurrectionist, and he has a party behind him that hasn't come to grips with that. you know, people like me who really hope that we would just have the chance to beat him at the ballot box, we won't necessarily have that because of

the language of the 14th amendment, which is as clear as day that insurrectionists can't hold office. the ruling yesterday is no more surprising that if the colorado supreme court said that arnold schwarzenegger is removed from the ballot because you have to be a natural born citizen and schwarzenegger is not. there's a minimal handful of qualifications. donald trump hasn't managed to do that, and that's why we're in this horrendous situation. he's saying let the people decide, but i think the more important answer to that is the writers of the 14th amendment already wrote an answer to that exact concern, because what they said is that congress can lift any disability of someone being labeled an insurrectionist and

allow that person to run. if donald trump can convince the congress that he's not an insurrectionist then he can be on the ballot. >> so that was one question on a timeline, neal. your sense, how quickly we would see this happen? >> i think it will happen quickly. the u.s. supreme court is capable of acting with remarkable speed. bush versus gore was 36 days. the court has a long recess right now, kind of their winter break, and without six are seven weeks where they're not even hearing oral argument, so there's a lot of time for them to get ready to heart this kay and ultimately decide it. >> judge, sit wonder that this

state court cites judge gorsuch, does that make it harder for him to overturn the ruling? >> first, let me add to neal's discussion there's already a hue and cry by the partisan political people in our nation, that the decision is anti-democratic. it is not. the constitution itself tells us the disqualifications, or the possible disqualifications of the former president is not what's anti-democratic. rather, the constitution tells us it is the conduct that can give rise to disqualifications under the 14th amendment so, in

other words, the framers of the 14th amendment, seeks 3 in particular on behalf of the american people wrote into the american people's constitution that by one who has previously taken an oath to support the constitution. as to your question about justice gorsuch, i will not comment on the position it places justice gorsuch in. that would be inappropriate. i will just say to you and your viewers that fact that justice gorsuch, when he was a circuit judge, decided the case that he did that's referenced in the colorado supreme court opinion, is relatively inconsequential to

the decision of this final decision of this case. >> neal, donald trump now faces the question whether he is eligible to be on the ballot, as you were saying. it seems contextually worth remembering. he rose to political prominence by pushing birtherism, floating the idea that president obama was not eligible to be on the ballot. this seems karmic. it's certainly a full-circle moment. >> absolutely right. taylor swift would have a field day, but the fundamental point, the text of the constitution and the original meaning of the constitution compelled this result. it's not trying to get back at him, or because people are aid

frayed of him in the polls, it's a basic rudimentary requirements. you've gone to be 35, a natural-born citizens and you can't be an insurrectionist. i think that's what should be presented to the supreme court. i think if it's presented that way, they'll ample the decision as monumental and consequential as the judge says it will be. judge, there's also the question that donald trump has not been convicted. the ruling states, quote -- it cannot be read to mean only those charged and convicted of violating the law are constitutionally disqualified. your sense is this will be the thing that the supreme court hones in on? >> no, i don't believe so,

alicia. this is not -- and the supreme court decision yesterday was not a political decision in any sense of that word. the arguments by the former president's lawyers that were made and addressed by the colorado supreme court -- and these were technical and entirely legitimate constitutional arguments for the former president to make -- were that section 3 of the 14th amendment is not self-executing, and indeed requires either action by the congress of the united states or a conviction for insurrection or rebellious.

i believe that's a mistake in understanding of section 3 of the 14th amendment and the colorado supreme court addressed itself to that self-executing feature of the 14th amendment, and it determined, as i had determined -- not that that's of any great consequence -- that it is self-executing and it does not require either congressional action or a criminal conviction under section 23-83. >> you have spoken about the constitutional crisis that the country finds itself in a if the supreme court chooses to take up this case, i do wonder if you have some concern that, no matter how they rule, there will be a segment of the u.s.

populace, for whom it undermines their faith in the institution itself. >> that undoubtedly will be the case, but that's neither here nor there as far as the united states constitution is concerned, and frankly as far as the supreme court is concerned. the supreme court will be obliged to decide this case sooner or later. it need not decide this case through the vehicle of -- when it decides that case, then it's the responsibility of the american people all of us, to accept that decision as the

binding constitutional decision of this momentous issue. i have always held my entire life the institution of the supreme court in great reverence. i hold this court today with the same, and if the court were to decide this case differently than i believe it would be decided, i will hold the sail reverence on that day that i hold the court in reverence with today. there are 14th amendment cases pending across the country. how will the other cases be affected if the supreme court upholtz this ruling? >> donald trump's strategy is always to delay.

i think he would try to go to the united states supreme court and if they agree, say to all these other states, you have to pause these i think we should have as many states on the record as possible with their views on this really momentous question. this goes to, alisha, something you asked the judge a moment ago. donald trump's defense to this is i haven't been convicted of a crime and, therefore, i haven't been convicted of insurrection in a criminality case, therefore i can't be disqualified from the -- it's notable at the very same time he 'trying to say that, he's trying to delay the cases that would eye jude indicate that very question. it was once said i could play

ducks and drabs with the supreme court. i think the supreme court will see through those gambits. >> thank you both for joining me dates. neal is sticking with me. when we return, we'll be joined by -- plus, talking about the drug epidemic and border policies, and donald trump is doubling down on his dangerous rhetoric that immigrants are, quote, poisoning the blood of our country. and the nine justices on the supreme court are set to play a potentially historic role in the 2020 election. all those stories and more when "deadline: white house" continues. do not go anywhere. dline: white continues. do not go anywhere

( ♪♪ ) the serrano name has always been something we're proud of. it's why we show it off on our low riders and why we wear our name on our chains. we come from people we can be proud of. from socal to our family in texas, to back home in jalisco. seeing all the places i come from, i know. if it's a serrano, it's something to be proud of. i take it all with me and i always will. give the gift of family heritage with ancestry. hi, i'm ben and i've lost 60 pounds on golo.

(guitar music) with other programs i've tried in the past they were unsustainable, just too restrictive. with golo i can enjoy my food and the fear and guilt of eating is gone. i'm a little anxious, i'm a little excited. i'm gonna be emotional, she's gonna be emotional, but it's gonna be so worth it. i love that i can give back to one of our customers. i hope you enjoy these amazing gifts. oh my goodness. oh, you guys. i know you like wrestling, so we got you some vip tickets. you have made an impact. so have you. for you guys to be out here doing something like this, it restores a lot of faith in humanity. to finally lose 80 pounds and keep it off with golo is amazing. i've been maintaining. the weight is gone and it's never coming back. with golo, i've not only kept off the weight but i'm happier, i'm healthier, and i have a new lease on life.

golo is the only thing that will let you lose weight and keep it off. who loses 138 pounds in nine months? i did! golo's a lifestyle change and you make the change and it stays off. (soft music) (carolers) ♪ iphone 15 pro, your husband deserves it! ♪ (mom) carolers? to tell me you want a new iphone? a better plan is verizon. (dad) no way they'd take this wreck. (carolers) ♪ yes, they will, in any condition. ♪ ♪ get iphone 15 pro and ipad and apple watch - all on them! ♪ (mom) please forgive him. (carolers) ♪ it's all good - just a little awkward. ♪ (soloist) think we'll wrap this up. (vo) it's your last chance to turn any iphone in any condition into a new iphone 15 pro with titanium and ipad and apple watch se - all on us. that's up to $1700 in value. only on verizon.

an insurrection is a rebell union against the authority of the united states. it is a grave federal offense, anchored in the constitution itself, which repeatedly opposes insurrections and domestic violence, indeed uses participation in insurrection by office holders as automatic grounds from holding office ever again at the federal or state level. this was crystal clear to the january 6th committee almost exactly a year ago that donald trump did in fact engage in the insurrection. his behavior, they argued, meant he should never hold publi

office again. they also suggested that donald trump could never hold office game. that finding was confirmed by the colorado state supreme court yesterday, citing the 14th amendment. joining us now, tim heaphy is heave. tim, year reacto the decision yesterday. anything surprise you? now readily. the collect committee found both as a matter of fact that donald trump gave aid and comfort to others who did, and mr. raskin, indicating in that clip, under the self-executing provision of the 14th amendment, section 3, therefore should be precluded from holding another office. it's yet another court acceptance of the endorsement of

the facts and the legal conclusion that the select committee drew over a year ago. >> well, the conclusions under -- that the work of the committee also served as a road map for a case like this? >> the plaintiffs in the case actually admitted the findings of the committee as evidence into court of the factual showing of engaging in an insurrection. my limited role was essentially to authenticate the findings and the process, but the factual foundation of did a president engage in insurrection was absolutely based on the work of the select committee. that's been happening repeatedly both in criminal courts and now in this case in colorado. the core theory, alicia, that we sketched out has been reaffirmed, and only frankly made more certain as additional

evidence that is come to light. >> stillt to read you part of t dissent in yestdas ruling -- in the absence of an insurrection-related conviction, i would hold that a request to disqualify a candidate under section 3 of the 14th amendment is not a proper cause of action under colorado 'election code. therefore, i would dismiss the claim at issue here. accordingly, i respectfully dissent. they don't dispute that trump engaged in insurrection, being hinged the dissent on the fact he hasn't been convicted. what do you make of that? >> we're in new territory here. there's not been a precedent as to the threshold of evidentiary standard for insurrection. the supreme court has now affirmed there's ample evidence that the former president engaged in insurrection. it's not a criminal conviction,

but it is sufficient evidence on which they relied to make that finding. that is one of the several parts of this that the u.s. supreme court will likely take up, but there's certainly ample factual foundation to support the colorado supreme court's affirmation. >> neal, when we talk about the cornucopia of trump's lyle problems, we talk about how prosecutors are watching closely on other decisions. if you're jack smith, what are i thinking about this decision? >> before getting to that, one more think about the question you asked tim about whether a conviction is required. the word "conviction" appears nor in the 14th amendment. donald trump, when re ran for the presidency was on the idea he was a strict cruxist of the constitution and, you know, this

is just a made-up concept he's trying to import into the text of the amendment that's just not there. you can stare at it every day of the week, and it doesn't emerge. i think that's the problem. so, for originalist-minded justices that carry about the original understanding and text of the constitution, this becomes a pretty straightforward case. that's why you see people like the judge saying exactly what he said. if you're jack smith, i think you're watching it, monthly, with some degree of amusement. he 'trying to adjudicate this very question -- is donald trump a criminal insurrectionist, which is what donald trump is saying he it hasn't happened yet. it hasn't happened yet, because trump has tried to delay the trial every which way. you can't have it both ways. you can't say there's no conviction, but also let's delay

the proceedings. a few hours ago he filed a brief, saying don't decide my absolute immunity claims -- this is the claim he can't be guilty of january 6th, because he's the president and if the president does it, it's not illegal. he's saying don't decide that for many, many months. why? because, again, it's all about delay for him and the arguments don't square up. you can't say i've never had a criminal adjudication on the one hand and then try to delay the adjudication with the other. >> and we'll be talking about that later in the show. tim, i want to ask you about this idea of accountability for donald trump, for his allies. where does yesterday's ruling fit into this broader conversation about holding donald trump accountable? >> it's yesterday another potential finding of accountability, which is crucial, if we are to cure the

fundamental ill that we face in this country, which is lack of faith in institutions, right? there's a huge segment of the population in this country that don't believe in government, don't believe that the system works. i've always thought the only way back from that, or the only ant dote for that is for the sim to work, and accountability is a way for the system to work. there's no question a lot of people will be upset whichever way all of these cases go. it won't convince everyone to suddenly become faithful again that the system actually works, but i think most americans are reasonable and have common sense, and if there's a system with vigorous advocacy on both sides yields accountability, it has the potential to restore some faith and start to repair the breach we have in this

country. >> i will take that optimism as a early christmas present. thank you both so much. we'll be right back. > we'll. - "best thing i've ever done." that's what freddie told me. - it was the best thing i've ever done, and- - really? - yes, without a doubt! - i don't have any anxiety about money anymore. - great people. different people, that's for sure, and all of them had different reasons for getting a reverse mortgage,

but you know what, they all felt the same about two things: they all loved their home, and they all wanted to stay in that home. and they all wanted to stay in that home. - [announcer] if you're 62 or older and own your home, you could access your equity to improve your lifestyle. a reverse mortgage loan eliminates your monthly mortgage payments and puts tax-free cash in your pocket. call the number on your screen. - why don't you call aag... and find out what a reverse mortgage can mean for you? - [announcer] call right now to receive your free no-obligation info kit. call the number on your screen.

when donald trump says it

out loud, how loud does he/to say it? how about now? he's doubling down on outrage usa comments that immigrants are poisoning the blood of ounce country. he's not mincing words or running with any defenses that the republicans have spoon-fed him this week. again, we do not play these comments lightly, but here's what trump said in iowa last night, so that everyone, even staunching defenders says there's no excuse, and he meant what he said the first time. >> they come from africa. they come from asia. they come from south american, but not just south america. they're all over the world. they dump them on the border. they pour into our country, and it's true. they're destroying the blood of our country. that's what they're doing. they don't like it when i say that. i never read mein kampf.

they're destroying our country and we have to get them out. >> joining us host of the podcast, jason johnson, is here. and matthew daoud is here. we don't need to be confused anymore. >> i've never been confused. remember, this is the guy who said there were decent people on both sites in charlottesville, which was my alma mater, but i think the bigger issue is this. it's not just the realization we have 30% okay with the open nazi rhetoric. now that seven years he's been using -- he was referring to immigrants as vermin. where a man, who is going to be the nominee for one of the main

political organizations has to vocally saying, by the way, i didn't get this this from "mein kampf." i didn't gelt these mitt everyones from clubs baby seals over the weekend. if you have to explain that, we probably believe you club baby seals. from a coverage standpoint, we recognize we're not just dealing with a racist. we're dealing with an authoritarian, someone who does not fundamentally believe in the american project. that's how we have to discuss it. this isn't going to stop. if he can get say with the n-word or any other slur -- >> on the alarming side of this. tommy tuberville, who said yesterday that he is, quote, a bit disappointed that trump wasn't tougher than this.

this is an endorsement particularly scary, giving that we know that type of racist xenophobic rhetoric has led to violence in this country before. >> a couple things here. what i'm amazed about this whole thing, he doesn't mention slovenia, czechoslovakia or europe. he mentioned asia, africa and south america. in case people were confused that he meant all immigrants. he doesn't mean all immigrants, but certain immigrants. if you look back at the last month or so what he says, first he says i'm going to use the justice department to mustn't punish my enemies. the gop response is he doesn't really mean that. then trump said, i'm going to be dictator for a day, and the gop response to that is, he's just joking. and now trump sits there, probably after he hears that you

will, rubs his chin and says, dang, the gop doesn't get what i want to do, then he quotes hit letters, and the gop responsible is a bunch of gibberish. donald trump seems to be the one that wants to clarify any time somebody questions what he's doing, he goes one step closer, and just exactly what jason said, he wants to put in place a dictaorship that accomplishes his goals and the goals, unfortunately and disgustingly, of 30% of the country. >> disgustingly instead. vice president harris joined us last night, and i want you to hear her response. >> i was raised knowing there will be some people who will use their voice in a way that is

meant to dehumanize, meant to suggest that the vast majority of us don't have anything in common when the vast majority of us have more in common than what separates us. it is language that i think people have rightly found similar to the language of hitler. >> right. i mean, jason johnson, i wonder to what extent they need to engage on this? >> i don't think they need to engage that much. at the end of the day for me, the biggest concern i have -- i had a conversation with a colleague, who is a real swing voter. white woman, voted for obama, voted for trump, and her biggest concern is i know a lot of people would love to vote for donald trump when he wasn't saying they things all the time. they don't have to dwell on these things too long, because trump is going to keep saying like this. the biggest concern of vice president harris, the biggest

concern of joe biden, the biggest concern of jeannie harrison is what do you do about immigration, about the wars happening? what do you do about ukraine? to the degree that anyone addresses the fact that we already know he's a racist, the only response, is any of that going to bring down inflation? is any of that racism going to bring down gas prices? why would you vote for a guy that is fighting an imaginary wave of people that fight for the wages in this country? . >> i think that's exactly right. if you use it to sigh, his eye is not on the prize, he's talking about this when he could be talking about housing affordability. he's talking about this when he could be talking about reproductive rights. pick your issue, it's a way of saying he's so distracted by

this one thing he's not focused on what you the voter cares about. >> i would add one other element, the argument of why democrat sick is important in america. i hate to say we have to have this conversation, but we do in this election cycle, but it needs to be put in terms of people's self-interest. why is it in people's self-interest we don't go to a dictatorship? lay out why that's important. one, your rights and freedoms will be protected. two, your health choices will be protect. three, any increase in minimum wage only comes through a democracy. four, protection of social security and medicare only come through a democracy. so of to have the broad argument. >> you can't not be more right. we keep saying democracy is on

the line, assuming everyone understands what that means for them in their everyday life. i do want to ask about the fact you had some republicans tepidly pushing back on donald trump over these comments, if they expect to win the gop nomination by mid march, do even those quiet voices say say, please don't say that, do they get drowned out? >> they'll get drowned out. jason mentioned this. we've had this conversation before. 8 on% of the republican party is totally aligned with donald trump on these remarks. he's going to win overwhelmingly in iowa, likely to win very big in new hampshire. this race will be over by mid february or end of february. he will be the nominee and everybody needs to get their hands around that. those republicans speaking out, i hope show up in the general election, just like liz cheney has, and adam kinzinger has, and

say you may not like joe biden, you cannot vote for donald trump. thank you both so much for spending time with us. up next, breaking this afc in another issue potentially for the supreme court, trump has asked the justices to slow down the federal election case, as the trial date gets closer and closer. we're going to look at that, next. closer we're going to look at that, next

a mystery! jessie loves playing detective. but the real mystery was her irritated skin. so, we switched to tide pods free & gentle. it cleans better, and doesn't leave behind irritating residues. and it's gentle on her skin. tide free & gentle is epa safer choice certified. it's got to be tide. millions of children are fighting to survive due to inequality, conflict, poverty and the climate crisis.

save the children® is working alongside communities to provide a better life for children. and there's a way you can help. please call or go online to give just $10 a month. only $0.33 a day. we urgently need 1000 new monthly donors in the next 30 days to help the children we support around the world. you can help provide food, medicine, care and protection, plus so much more that a child needs by calling right now and giving just $10 a month. all we need are 1000 monthly donors in the next 30 days. please call or go online now with your monthly gift of just $10. thanks to generous government grants every dollar you give can have up to ten times the impact. and when you call with your credit card, we will send you this save the children® tote bag as a thank you for your support.

your small monthly donation of just $10 could be the reason a child in crisis survives. please call or go online to hungerstopsnow.org to help save lives today. 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. just in this afternoon,

lawyers for donald trump have asked the supreme court to not intervene on the question of presidential immunity in the federal election interference case. they argue that jack smith's team has given no compelling reason why the supreme court should step in swiftly. they also because the d.c. can't will review the matter next month, there's no reason for the supreme court to consider the same matter on an expedited basis. lisa rubin, what do you make of this? >> alicia, there's real doozies here. the real takeaway is, yes, the supreme court should -- this is an issue of first impression, but not now. all of his reasons is sometime, but not now don't care a lot of wear. he claims the special counsel has suffered no injury that would justify the expedition of the review, but, of course, the

stay occasioned by judge chutkan's opinion is a real injury. it means no pretrial proceedings, much less the trial itself can happen. they also say that jack smith ace invocation is nakedly a partisan interest. i want to push back on that. all members of the public would be benefited by understanding whether donald trump will face criminal liability here, and special if he is quiblgted before they make their decision they ballot box. you know that in that numbs published a poll say, saying 58% of primary voters polled believe that donald trump committed very serious crimes, but even more importantly, 32% of the republican voters in that poll say, if trump isn't convicted, he shouldn't be the nominee, so the notion this is simply

partisan on behalf of the biden administration, is as misleading, as it is untrue. trump's tactive obvious is to delay. i wonder if the justice will take it into account? >> i absolutely do believe it is. trump is saying there's no magic to the march 4th trial date and accuses the special counsel as if it's some talismanic thing. the longer it goes, the less likely it is trump can be tried prior to the election and equal -- the tactic is not just delay, delay, day, it's stay the case, then delay it further, because he'll claim that his political speech rights are being infringed upon, and then what he really wants to do is get reelected and destroy this

case altogether. as you know, the department of justice policy right now precludes the prosecution of a sitting president. al he cares about is getting to november and getting inaugurated, so he can prevent this case and the other prosecutions that are facing him from existing at all. it's not a when, but a never argument. >> if trump is so confident in his immunity, wouldn't he want to have the supreme court ample it. >> you would think, but he doesn't. it reveals the truth of what he's trying to do, which is delay. if he's so confident of his immunity and keeps invoking nixon, the very existence of nixon should remind us all that former president ford would never have pardoned him if there wasn't some understanding that former presidents could be

criminally prosecuted for things they did while in office. of course, trump doesn't want to invoke that, but every time he mentioned the word nixon here. that's what calls to mind for me. no one reads and digests a legal brief for you than my friend. thank you. we'll take a quick break and we'll be right back. you. we'll take a quick break and we'll be right back. is that tiny troy? the ingredients in head and shoulders keep the microbes that cause flakes at bay. microbes, really? they're always on your scalp... little rascals... but good news, there's no itchiness, dryness or flakes down here! i love tiny troy. and his tiny gorgeous hair. he's the best. - make every wash count! - little help please. as americans, there's one thing we can all agree on. the promise of our constitution and the hope that liberty and justice is for all people. but here's the truth. attacks on our constitutional rights, yours and mine are greater than they've ever been. the right for all to vote.

reproductive rights. the rights of immigrant families. the right to equal justice for black, brown and lgbtq+ folks. the time to act to protect our rights is now. that's why i'm hoping you'll join me today in supporting the american civil liberties union. it's easy to make a difference. just call or go online now and become an aclu guardian of liberty. all it takes is just $19 a month. only $0.63 a day. your monthly support will make you part of the movement to protect the rights of all people, including the fundamental right to vote. states are passing laws that would suppress the right to vote. we are going backwards. but the aclu can't do this important work without the support of people like you. you can help ensure liberty and justice for all and make sure that every vote is counted. so please call the aclu now or go to my aclu.org and join us. when you use your credit

card, you'll receive this special we the people t-shirt and much more. to show you're a part of the movement to protect the rights guaranteed to all of us by the us constitution. we protect everyone's rights, the freedom of religion, the freedom of expression, racial justice, lgbtq rights, the rights of the disabled. we are here for everyone. it is more important than ever to take a stand. so please join us today. because we the people means all the people, including you. so call now or go online to my aclu.org to become a guardian of liberty.

these 11 flag officers have now been approved, joining the

rest of their colleagues who we approved a few weeks ago. that's good news. >> that was majority leader chuck schumer last night moments after confirming the last of the millnary nominees. senator tommy tuberville finally released over his months-long blockade. all positions vital to our military readiness, and all positions we are safer for having filled. senator schumer and mitch mcconnell -- they do agree on warm-up thing, that this is good news. up next for us, how the 6-3 conservative supreme court could be the ultimate decider in several political issues heading into 2024. that story and much more, right after this quick break. that sto after this quick break -it's contagious. you can even spread it to other people.

-mom, come here! -don't worry about it. it'll go away on its own! -no, it won't go away on its own. it's an infection. you need a prescription. nail fungus is a contagious infection. at the first signs, show it to your doctor... ... and ask if jublia is right for you. jublia is a prescription medicine used to treat toenail fungus. its most common side effects include ingrown toenail, application site redness... ... itching, swelling, burning or stinging, blisters and pain. jublia is recognized by the apma. most commercially insured patients may pay as little as $0 copay. go to jubliarx.com now to get started.

joanna gaines: discoveries at saint jude helped this kid beat cancer at age two. marget: and now this kid has three kids. chip gaines: and that's what we do at saint jude. subject: give thanks for the healthy kids in your life and give a gift that could last a lifetime.

♪♪ [ inaudible question ] >> well, i think it's self-evident. you saw it all. we'll let the court make that decision, but he certainly supported an insurrection, no question about it. none, zero. and he seems to be doubling down about everything. anyway -- hey again, everyone. it's 5:00 here. i'm alicia menendez, in for nicolle wallace.

the biden predecessor is ruled that he's disqualified to hold the office again. the ruling now becomes a question for the united states supreme court. the legal team has already said it will appeal the decision. the latest ruling from colorado, the 6-3 conservative majority court will now have to answer multiple questions about a former president and current 2024 candidates who nominated three of the justices currently on the bench. trump is trying to use immunity to attempt to dismiss the case against him. smith last week asked the supreme court to intervenes for a ruling from the d.c. district court.

also on the docket for the supreme court, a case over whether the government can charge insurrection, with obstruction of an official proceeding. hugely consequential question before a court that, as of late is struggling with low public approval and concerns about corruption that will shape our elections and answer the fundamental questions about the strength of american democracy. that's where we start this add with danielle holley, and michael steele, and with me at the table founder of the site, mark elias in the flesh, how nice to see you, my friend. >> great to see you. >> what do you think? >> i think the supreme court in

colorado got it right. what struck me in so much of the commentary in the last, what, 24 or 12 hours or so, is how many people recognize that fundamentally the court got it right. donald trump incited an insurrection, a violent mob to sack the capitol, to prevent the certification of the election for president of the united states, that he was a former officer, he took an oath, and therefore under the plain meaning, he is disqualified under section 3 of the 14th amendment. instead of stopping there, they offer several excuses. look, the rules are the rules. the constitution says what it is. and for a country that has come to accept what are pretty outrageous rulings from the u.s. supreme court around, for example, the absolute epidemic of gun violence, because they insist on a plain and absurd

reading of the constitution. for people to then say in this case it's a bridge too far i think is dangerous. 24 guardrail exists for a reason and it needs to be followed. >> what about the timeline perspective? >> i think the case will define very, very fast. >> define it in legal terms. >> great question. what is fast for lawyers is not fast for the country. donald trump's legal team has until the beginning of january to ask the court to review the case form the supreme court will take the case up. i expect there will be very fast briefing in the month of january with an oral argument probably by the end of january and a decision sometime in february. >> danielle, run through what you think will be the sticking points. >> i think one of the great points marc just made is one of the skepticisms is how would it work mechanically, but the colorado case is really set up to answer the key legal

questions under the 14th amendment. did he engage in insurrection? and in this justicible, can a court hey this, or is this something the court can decide on a constitutional basis? so, this case it perfectly teed up, we the court finding that the former president did engage in insurrection, so it becomes political question and other key questions of interpretation under the 14th amendment. >> michael, obviously there are stakes here for democracy, also stakes for the fabc of this country, the ruling, no matter whathe supreme court decide, there's huge consequences, rim pildes said, unless the court can reach a close to unanimous decision or decide the case in a ways that scrambles up the perseid ideological divides,

half the country will believe it acted in a partisan fashion, and there's no workaround for that. >> no, there isn't, i appreciate what marc said,them's the rules. so unless you no longer value the principles of the constitution, yeah, you're going to find something wrong with this decide, regardless. the hope is that the court honors its responsibility and does not put a political patina on a decision, as some of the justice have been want to do in prior decisions. we don't care about your political views, you're not there because of your political views. you're there to do what the constitution requires, what the rule of law requires, and that is to adjudicate. that's the floor here.

now, you've got a lot of folks, alicia out there trying to break up the floor, because they want a unique political outcome. that's going to be the real test in this timeline that marc laid out, whether or not the court tries its best to avoid in a political outcome by sticking to a reasonable judicial schedule to hear this case irrespective of what's going on politically. remember, january 15th starts -- the gong is run for the primary on the republican side with the iowa caucuses. so once that bell is rung, how does the court respond? i hope with ears closed to the political noise and focus on the judicial question in front of it. >> he's right. the timeline is likely, marc to get crunched. i keep wonder the historical

log. is bush versus gore it? though it feels different. >> it does, but bush versus gore was an extraordinary case, because the supreme court had to do three things. the first is, it had to create a new legal doctrine that never existed before. here, it's in the constitution, right? no one is asking the supreme court to create a new theory out of thin air. the text of the 14th amendment has been well settled for a while. number two, the supreme court was doing it after the election took place, here in a nation of 300-plus million americans, presumably there's some other election die nigher vote suppression to run for president. donald trump is not the only person who can oppose a woman's right to reproductive health. there's a whole party of that that can run for president. three, that brings me to the largest context, donald trump is

not a taint-free candidate who this is being thrust upon? al gore had doing nothing wrong. george bush, frankly, had done nothing wrong. the supreme court was interjecting itself into a political dispute after an election between two candidates who were essentially faultless for the screw-ups in the way the ballot was designed and the vote counting. donald trump faces a myriad of problems. indicted in fourth different places. he's already indictment for racketeers and fomenting an insurrection. that's before you get to the very civil problems he's had, where he has been found to have violated the law. plus, he's a serial litigant. so, i think the parallel to 2000 is in some ways apt. they're both impactful cases, but i think these easier,

because the text is clear. before the republican convention, republicans can choose a different vote suppressor for their candidate. >> i did not mean to suggest this was apples to apples, but i think in terms of the stakes when you team about democracy, you also talk about confidence in the court. that is absolutely critical to our democracy. >> yeah. i think it is a different moment, in some ways, because even though the best analog is bush versus gore, confidence in the court was undermined in bush verse gore, and i think our view now is confidence in the supreme court is at one of the lowest levels we have ever seen, whether it's from the dobbs decision to the affirmative action decision this summer to many other decisions where they have been viewed largely highly political, and the ethical question that had been raised. so the decision between now and

2000 is the court really the respect and the confidence that the public has in the court is at an all-time low. when they begin their decision-making process in this case, they're already starting from a very low point, which makes this an even more fraud political moment with the justices so heavily involved in what is likely to be one of the most important and determine cases. >> you heard the intro, this is one of several cases the supreme court could take up that would have consequences. i wonder if you see them as having an interplay, cross winds, that they are wearing them in sum total. >> i think it would be impossible for the justice not to think about these cases in some way in total, even though they're asking different legal questions. the question of how they move

forward, the court in relationship to consequence, in relationship to the presidency and to our democratic elections, all of that is under debate in all of the cases you talked about. in some ways it would be almost impossible for the justices to separate these cases, because they really are in some ways about the fundamental parts of our separation of powers under the constitution, and the role of the presidency, and who happens when you enter an environment in which the rules of engagement have disappeared in terms of the snubs than folded on january 6th. marc, the wife attended the rally, she texted with mark meadows, he was the only dissenting voice on sending white house documents to the 1/6 committee. it seems like you have to talk about whether or not he would recuse himself here? >> i don't think there's any chance justice thomas will recuse himself. but when you ask questions about

the court's legitimacy, let's be clear. it has a legitimate can i problem because of what it did in dobbs and the harvard affirmative action case, and it has a legitimacy problem, because it's made a series about ethics, judicial recrecusals. it's dug its own hole here. that's not an excuse for the court to now not follow the constitution when it comes to the hard cases. they are confirmed for life. they get the benefit from that. they exempted themselves from a lot of recusal rules, so when the hd decisions come down, they hav t follow that. >> i want to ask you, danielle, this is from an op-ed, it's easy to say the ultimate rejection should come fromhe voters, not the courts. e obvious rejoinder is an outright majority ofoters

already jected mr. trump. and we saw how it turned out. why should we expect it to be different next time? talk about this question here of whos that should have the ultimate say this. >> i think there's something fundamentally important about the supreme court upholding the rule of law. when we ask the question who should make the decision, that's one of the threshold questions -- is this part of a political question that ultimately the courts should not interfere with? but i think at the same time, the 14th amendment and the language of the 14th amendment, they have an obligation to uphold that language. so, to not answer this fundamental question, i think would be something that would hurt democracy tremendously for them to try to avoid. such a serious question about

whether if someone engaged in an insurrection, they should be allowed to hold office again. that's the kind of question that, if the supreme court doesn't face it, it will be seriously detrimental to the foundations of our democracy. >> it's also important to remember, marc, we are talking about colorado in this moment, but it is not the only state where this type of legal action is being taken. i wonder, with one of the more than a dozen pending questions looking at this question, how that interplays with what we'll see out of the supreme court from colorado. >> i think this is potentially for the whole country. if donald trump took an oath of office, was the former -- a former officer of up, took an oath and engaged in rebel union or insurrection, then he is disqualified, period. that's true in colorado, that's true in alabama, that's true in minnesota, and that's true in alaska. it's true in all 50 states plus

the district of columbia. this may be for all the marbles. >> michael, you always come back to the accountable. if donald trump faces no accountability, where does that then leave us as a nation? >> it's not just the accountability of donald trump, but the accountability of the political party behind his actions, supporting it. it's the accountability of the supreme court itself as to how it looks at this particular question in front of it. for a party and a court, more importantly a court ha has ascribed itself and claims fervently that it's all about the rule of law, and it is about stare decisis, this will be a test for that. if they're all about the plain text, you're not going to get

much plainer than section 3 of the 14th amendment. it's pretty well laid out there. you layer up the language of that clause to the actions of the president, the officer that he was, the government official he served as, you see the case. it will be interesting to see if they do. if they do, how they adjudicate it. that's where the accountability for them will lie. as for the political piece, there is no accountability. donald trump will not hold himself out to be accountable for anything. he doesn't believe he ever has to confess any sins to god, so what the hell makes you think he'll be accountability to the people he represents and serves? it's just not in the making. we need to move off of that. the focus is on the court. we now hoe the political piece will behave.

the question is whether the court sees the country the way the rest of us do. that will be an interesting tell come february. >> our guardrails being tested like never before. danielle and marc, thank you so much. when we return, if ump running against a candidate, you would do anything other than defend them, right? not this gop. plus, the consequences of the republican war on voting rights. new reporting reveals that black and latino voters were the most affected. later in the program, what's the matter with texas? from draconian and legally dubious determine abortion restrictions to a law targeting asylum seekers, republicans are having extreme positions. don't go anywhere. positions don't go anywhere. is this for me? if you like squeaky toys from chewy it is.

did i get anything this year? get great holiday prices on all their favorites at chewy. i'm still going to eat your socks. no, you're not. get great deals on gifts that deliver excitement at chewy. ♪ students... students of any age, from anywhere. students in a new kind of classroom. ♪ using our technology to power different ways of learning. ♪ harnessing ai to plant new beginnings. ♪ so when minds grow, opportunities follow. why choose between a longer life or quality of life? you deserve both. and with kisqali, a treatment for people with metastatic breast cancer, you can have both. kisqali is a pill that when taken with an aromatase inhibitor is shown to both help people live longer

and improve or preserve quality of life. because you shouldn't have to sacrifice one for the other. kisqali can cause lung problems, or an abnormal heartbeat, which can lead to death. it can cause serious skin reactions, liver problems and low white blood cell counts that may result in severe infections. avoid grapefruit during treatment. tell your doctor right away if you have new or worsening symptoms, including breathing problems, cough, chest pain, a change in your heartbeat, dizziness, yellowing of the skin or eyes, dark urine, tiredness, loss of appetite, abdomen pain, bleeding, bruising, fever, chills, or other symptoms of an infection, a severe or worsening rash, are or plan to become pregnant, or breastfeeding. live longer and live well. ask about kisqali, and long live you. (inspirational music) - [narrator] wounded warrior project helps post-9/11 veterans realize what's possible. with generous community support. - aaron, how you doing buddy? - [narrator] we bring warriors together and empower them to become stronger inside and out. - it's possible to begin healing

- to get the help you need. - to find peace. - [narrator] and as each warrior's needs evolve, so do we. because these last 20 years are just the beginning.

what you're seeing the left do is, they will use the power of the state to advance their agenda. you see that with the colorado supreme court. >> we don't need judges making decisions. we need voters to make these decisions. >> i do not believe donald trump should be prevented from being president of the united states by knit court. i think he should be prevented from being president of the united states by the voters of this country. it is a fascinating dynamics monitor here on what we call earth one, observing candidates who so clearly stand to gain grudgingly coming to his defense. it's a family contradiction in

the modern political era, an impossible balancing act, where by rivals seek to criticize, but just not too much, lest they support his supporters or the man itself. perhaps that decision in colorado helps donald trump's political standing. it's no secret his career blossomed through perceived grievance and victimhood. joining our conscious, my future co-host symone sanders, townsand. >> these are not campaigns currently being run. it's not a primary campaigns. as the chairman very well knows, in primary campaigns, there's at least some form of competition. there are folks willing to compete. what we have seen time and time again, except from a bit of governor haley, she's been

critical from the very beginning. and obvious li governor christie's and governor hutchinson have been critical in calling a spade a spade, if you will. there's very few people willing to compete here. none of the candidates today or yesterday needed to come out and say, yes, i agree with whatle colorado supreme court did, but what they could have said, look, we need to let the supreme court decide. why weigh in and defend him? this is still a competition, or is it? >> one of the things you kno is this is a pattern of behaviors. in the second impeachment, seven republicans voted to convict. more than half are either out of office or not running for reelection. i wonder about the permission structure that's grown up around

him. >> when you go back to the second impeachment, again we're talking post-january 6th, post-insurrection where it's feeling fresh for all the members. there was a prevailing thought here in washington, especially on capitol hill, mitch mcconnell told us what the prevailing thoughts were is this was not necessarily the vehicle to, you know, blunt donald trump's ascension any further. he's lost reelection. i think there was an idea he would just go away. what we have seen is he refused to go away. he's only grown stronger and more detine for the point he's telling us he will be a dictaor and day one, and people are laughing it off. i think this thing about a permission structure, again -- there's strength in numbers if you will. what if every single member -- republican member of the united states senate stood up and said the conduct we have seen from donald trump, the rhetoric we believe is not okay, we condemn

it, and we demand more. if every senator did it, there might be a change, just as if every candidate stood up on solidarity, there could be a change. but people don't want to stand up. they don't want to take a risk. that's why none of those people repeatedly stand on the debate stage will be president. >> michael, i wonder what you make of the republicans saying these overreach. >> it's ironic when george bush's case was before a supreme court and that decision was decided. they were okay with that. democrats were apoplecticapople. so now we have almost a situation where democrats are concerned about what the court's decision is going to be, and republicans are like, we're good.

it speaks to how the court has been for some time in the last 20 years a volley ball, back and forth, a political volley ball, back and forth between the two parties. i know for a fact it's one place that the chief justice roberts does not want the court to be, which is why i think he will be working very closely on how this case is handled. >> in terms of the broader political narrative, there are no incentive to do anything more. that's just not where their head

is. they're more afraid of where the screaming and shooting from an angry base that does not want them in the position that they're in, that they would not by primaried, so, you know, the sky is falling for them the moment they start screaming the truth about trump. you see that in chris christie, even with the rhetoric he's put out, 56%, 60% of republicans polled say they don't like him and don't want him near the whithouse. >> there's an argue that this is a golden opportunity for anti-trump republicans. the supreme now has an opportunity to offers republicans by insisting on

nominating an even weaker alternative , the colorado court's decision might yet save the gop from itself. will it consent to be rescued? i want to know if you buy it?

so, no, i think it falls on deaf ears, but it's important to say it. that's the cry call thing in all of this. important to lay down the markers, alicia, within and outside the republican party about this moment in time, because it's going to be relevant in the future. indeed. in the wake of the 2020 election, republicans put the big lie into action, setting up a special unit, but what happened instead? a crackdown on minority voters. that story is next. minority vos that story is next hmmm...

kind of needs to be more, squiggly? perfect! so now, do you have a driver's license? oh. what did you get us? [ chuckling ] with the click of a pen, you can a new volkswagen at the sign, then drive event. sign today and you're off in a new volkswagen during the sign, then drive event. i'm going to sell my life insurance cuz i don't need it anymore. my kids are grown, my wife is great, let's settle up the score. it's time to travel to paree, spend retirement happy. call 877-sell-easy. 877-sell-easy. 877-sell-easy, and sell your policy. you can sell all or part, live your life and play it smart. 877-sell-easy, and sell your policy. if you've had

a change in health, or you're over 65, and paying for $100,000 or more in a life insurance policy you don't need, get paid for it instead. then take the money that you get, go to live it up, you bet. call 877-sell-easy. 877-sell-easy. 877-sell-easy, and sell your policy. every day, more dog people, and more vets are deciding it's time for a fresh approach to pet food. they're quitting the kibble. and kicking the cans. and feeding their dogs dog food that's actually well, food. developed with vets. made from real meat and veggies. portioned for your dog. and delivered right to your door. it's smarter, healthier pet food. get 50% off your first box at thefarmersdog.com/realfood

one of false claims in the aftermath of the 2020 election efforts to prosecutor people guilty of voter fraught. today we got those results. according to an extraordinary analysis, the integrity units established or expanded in six states after trump's loss obtained only 47 convictions during a period in which million were cast. surprise, surprise. the post goat keep. the analysis found that 76% of

defendants whose weren't black or his spain, while white people constituted 24%. registered republicans were 23%. the rest of the cases, the defendant was not registered with a particular party. we are back with simone and michael. i know this shocked and surprised you simone. >> i'm not shocked, and i'm not surprised. it's terrible. democrats often say there's no such thing as voter fraud that happens. and that is correct, you know, there are no absolutes here. voter fraud does happen. >> it's a scope. >> right. it's a question of scope. what more so happens is that the rights of voters -- and large and small ways on a regular basis. so reports such as these and

investigations such as these are very important, because we live in a time where -- i mean, the vice president of the united states is a black woman. there are women governors in this country. there are black elected officials. the former chair of the rnc is sitting here, he's black. what do you mean voter fraud? it's happening in ways large and small. it is important that folks understand black and latino voters are still disenfranchised and disproportionately -- >> it's part because of the laws in place. the analysis also showed that election integrity uts have not uncovered the typ of wide-ranging schemes claimed by trump and some allies that might tilt an election. the vast majority of convictions repres- or as some defeants argue, the stakes by

individual voters, such as sting ballots, falsifying registration. the cases that the units pursued often collapsed, the 115 cases that have been resolved, 42 ended in dismissal, acquittal or dropped charges, nearly the same as the number of guilty verdicts. i mean, how much of in is about satisfies donald trump's ego? how much of it is about convincing their own base that the elections aren't fair and free, and how much of it is actually about intimidating the new majority voters from going to the polls, knowing they're less likely to vote for them? >> i think it's all of the above. i think what's most concerning for me here is that we should be making it -- voting more accessible for everyone across the country. >> yeah. >> we had marc elias on a bit

ago. i used to work with him. they defended students, folks on reservations, folks in rural america, from the naacp to other organizations. it's about opening up access to the ballot box. i also think about ron desantis and hi units targeting people whose rights were re-enfranchised because of a law that people voted for and passed. the bedrock of america are free, fair and open elections. we should want as many people voting as possible. at the end of the day, i just want them to vote. i don't care who they vote for. laws as much as as these are designed to discourage people, because when they news american majority young voters, voters of colors. and supports that when they have participated in the political process, they're not necessarily

voting for republican elected officials. so, to our republican friends, let's run better campaigns, put together better policies. appeal to the new majority and let people vote. >> michael, some ofhis is also geographic. this is part of the postsis. all of them occurred in florida, texas and ohio, while other units failed to obtain a single guilty verdict, despise dozens of staffers and millions of dollars to ferret out fraud. it's a waste of money. >> it is, but that's part of the point. it's not about the money it's not about anything other than the target.

>> he was complains about black voters in philadelphia, you know, their turnout, and how that could affect the outcome of the election. there must be corruption there, because they're turning out. yeah, they're turning out for vote you out of office. to simone's point, we need to put up a better candidate. we need to run a better campaign. we need to talk about the policies we say we believe in, but when you don't do that, the voters will be left with choices that you're not going to like as a party. that's part of it. the other part of it is, on the other side, you don't get to come arrange and change the rules of the game because you lost the election, because you didn't do those things i just said. it's not about trying to fix

what ails the party -- corrupt the rest of the process, towards the sickness that they have. so then we're all sick together. people turn out? no, they turn off. that's really what it's all about. we want very few voters to participate. this is true of both political parties. just ask. the democrats and republicans, they want everybody who is eligible to vote vote? no. they want their voters to vote, period. but we have a right as citizens to participate, regardless of what the parties want. we're going to talk -- you of course have opened a can of worms as i'm being taken to commercial break. luckily the three of us will spent time together. thank you for being with us. catch the three of us a our new program "the weekend" saturdays and sundays, 8:00 a.m., starting january 13th. civil rights group are

trying as to strike down some -- congressman allred joins the program. e -- congressman allred joins the program.

when you're ready to begin treatment for chronic lymphocytic leukemia, calquence helps you do the fighting. and you can do the exploring. you can do the splashing... ...the sightseeing... ...and the playing. calquence is an oral targeted therapy for cll. more patients begin with calquence than any treatment of its kind, and calquence is proven to work better than chemoimmunotherapy in patients with previously untreated cll. calquence may cause serious side effects, which may lead to death. these include serious infections with fever, chills, or flu-like symptoms; and bleeding problems that may increase with blood thinners. decreased blood counts are common and can be severe. new cancers have happened, including skin cancers. heart rhythm problems with fast or irregular heartbeat, dizziness, feeling faint, chest discomfort, or shortness of breath, have happened. tell your doctor if you have bleeding, heart rhythm, or liver problems; infection,

or if you are or plan to be pregnant or breastfeeding. calquence helps you do the fighting. and you can focus on the things you're loving. ask your doctor if calquence is right for you.

at bombas, we're obsessed with comfort. quality. movement. because your basic things should be your best things. one purchased equals one donated. visit bombas.com and get 20% off your first order. we've already seen, for example, also pregnant moms being trapped in barbed wire having a miscarriage. we've seen children pushed in the river. these are not the types of policies a state should be able to implement. that's why we've been fighting ot and nail against these attacks by governor abbott.

>> state representative from texas on this show yesterday. earlier this week, the governor signed a new bill which congressional democratsled the most extreme anti-immigrant state bill in the united states. civil rights groups are suing to prevent the law from going into effect. it's not limited t immigration policies. it's become a fixture of governing in texas as world was horrified of the story of kate cox, forced to left the state of texas after the courts denied a medically necessary determine abortion. if it passes, it will become the second jurisdiction to ban travel for determine abortion cases just this week. let's bring in colin allred,

running against ted cruz for senate next year. you called this the most extreme. if this bill is allowed to take effect, what would it mean for migrants coming into texas and for this country itself, which has prided itself on a legal right to claim asylum. >> yeah. well, sb-4 is blatantly unconstitutional. every first-year law student in class knows that, because immigration enforcement is explicitly a federal responsibility, but what we are seeing is something that could lead to profiling and discrimination, and really another effort by a state that's proven itself to be hostile to its own citizens. it's wrong and something that we have to stand up against. if it's a federal responsibility, we do have to

step up at the federal level and we respond to a crisis, and it requires more resources, a comprehensive reform to the system unfortunately we don't have a republican partner on our side to work with us. >> we're talking about immigration, determine abortion rights. it seems to go beyond just one issue area. how about we get here? >> the incentive structure is off. i have to say that. there seems to be a race on the republican size to see how cruel and barbaric you can be. what happened to kate is just something that breaks my heart, as my wife and i have had two baby boys in the last five years in texas. our boys are 4 and 2. i can't imagine if one of our doctors' appointments a doctor had said there's a problem with the baby, but there's nothing i

can do, because politicians have decided they know better than i do about what's best for your health, and those decisions are so deeply personal. what we're seeing is they governor and republicans politicians trying to find area where they can excerpt enormous government influence over the lives of texans and americans. this is big government used to target certain people and to control certain people. it's not who we are as texans and now who we are as americans. >> to that point, congressman, it strikes me no one in the republican party wants to claim responsibility for what it is they have done to women in texas. the two jon cornyn and ted cruz, they both refused to comment when they were asked. i wonder what you would say to them. >> it's cowardly. this is an unfolding tragedy that's the result of years of folks like ted cruz pushing for

this. this is what it looks like when extremists get their way. when determine abortion is banned in basically every case in the state of texas. it's a mother of two, who has a complicated pregnancy, and who asked her state if they can get the medical care she needs close to home, and she's told no, has to flee the state and tremendousened by the attorney general. this is what ted cruz want to do at the national level. we have to codify roe v wade. when i'm in the united states senate, we will codify we will wade and supercede laws like this in texas that are turning texas women "into the woods" prisoners in their own state. >> we are talking here about texas, but it all is part of a broader movement by conservatives. i want to read how adam sew put it in "the atlantic." to those who sympathize with

kate c's plight being persecuted for not wanting to carry a documented pregnancy to term in order to preserve they are ability to grow her family, in the eyes of the conservative movement it is a utopia they nope extend to the country. if some families are destroyed to advance that cause, it is a price they are willing to pay. your thoughts? >> well, yeah, this is the predictable outcome of their efforts. and they have not wanted to say what would come from these bans that they put in place and these policies that they put in place, but this is what it looks like. and everyone, many of us warned for years this is what was going to happen in the united states. this is what was going to happen to 30 million texans that they would be in a situation where if you are a victim of rape or incest, you have no options. if you have a complicated pregnancy, the hospital has to spend probably hours that your life may be in danger consulting

with lawyers to determine what their liability will be if they give you the medical care you need. that's what we're facing in texas right now. but i also know a different texas. one that really wants folks to be left alone, that would -- we have a libertarian streak, allow us to chase our version of the american dream and get out of our way. that's the texas that i think will show up on november 5th next year because we are going to have to, at the federal level, deal with this law that we have here in texas. our supreme court's not going to do it. the state legislature is not going to do it. we have to codify roe v. wade and send a message this is not who we are as texans or americans because it's not just this law. there is an overall effort here to enforce a really radical world view on so many americans and we are not going to accept it. >> congressman, thank you so much for spending time with us. when we come back, a guilty plea from a january 6th defendant who confessed to his role in the insurrection on a dating app. that incredible story is next. y.

from having to climb over those high walled tubs, allowing you to age gracefully in the home you love. and now, back by popular demand, for a limited time, when you purchase your brand-new safe step walk-in tub, you'll receive a free shower package! yes! a free shower package, and if you call today, you'll also receive $1600 off. now you can enjoy the best of both worlds. the therapeutic benefits of a warm, soothing bath, that can help increase mobility, relieve pain, boost energy, and even improve sleep. or, if you prefer, you can take a refreshing shower all in one product! call now!

. >oday another individual pleaded guilty to assaulting officersit a deadly and dangerous weapon on januy h. you're looking at photos of defendant andrew taake from the justice department. what is interesting about him is that he was turned into the fbi after revealing his involvement in the riot to a young woman on the dating app bumble. on the app aft january 6th,

aiming to identify some of those who stormed the capitol. the woman recalled how comically ego stroking from her trump supporters to give her information. i felt civic duty. truthfully, i was mad and thinking f these guys, she said. here strategy was wow, telling me more to guys on repeat until they gave the information to send to the fbi. when asked how she felt after taake's guilty plea, she said i regret nothing, lol. a quick break. we'll be right back. ng, lol. a quick break. we'll be right back.

(husband) yoohoo, surprise! (son) dad? (husband) ♪ hey there family! while you're shopping, ♪

♪ get me a 5g phone, it's on my list. ♪ (wife) seriously? a better plan is verizon. (husband) they'd take this mess? (caroler) ♪ very much so. just trade in that old phone. ♪ ♪ for a free 5g phone, plus netflix and max ♪ (wife) you really just should have done that. (caroler) ♪ this didn't land, she didn't like that. ♪ (husband) honey! i immediately get it! (avo) this holiday turn any samsung phone, in any condition, into a galaxy s23+ on us. and now add netflix and max to your plan for just $10 a month. save big this holiday. only on verizon. (aidyl) hi, i'm aidyl, and i lost 90 pounds on golo. i struggled with weight loss and weight gain my entire life. with all the yo-yo dieting i did in the past, i would lose 20, 30, 50 pounds just to gain them over and over again. thanks to golo, i've been able to steadily go down the sizes in my closet and keep the weight off. for the first time in forever, i feel in control. (announcer) change your life at golo.com. that's golo.com.

thank you for spending some of your wednesday with us.