military aid. if you want aid, you cannot starve children and cannot bomb schools. i think the american people and members of the caucus, i think he takes the money and reject every proposal coming from the by the administration or anybody else to protect civilian lives. that is the bottom line as to why we are seeing more and more opposition to military support of israel. senator bernie sande that floor effort today we have been covering. i appreciated very much. " alex wagner" starts now. >> thank you, my friend. today, the house ethics committee that locked on the

question of whether to release the report on alleged misconduct of trump's pick for attorney general, matt gaetz. the reports reportedly broke down on party lines with all five democrats threatening to release the report and all five republicans voting against it. the committee is set to meet again on december 5th to discuss the next steps, but this is all happening as new details about matt gaetz's conduct is starting to trickle out into the press. abc news has obtained records given to the ethics committee that shows gaetz paid more than $10,000 to two young women who later testified to the committee. an attorney to those women told nbc news, those appear to be records his clients went through with the committee to identify which payments from gaetz had been for sex. meanwhile, the "new york times" has obtained a fairly detailed diagram from federal investigators that reportedly shows the tangled web of payments between gaetz and

various individuals, including those two women who testified to the house ethics committee. matt gaetz denies the allegations and nbc news has not independently obtained those records. it is unclear what the ethics committee will end up doing here , but he certainly things like the pressure that trumpet house speaker mike johnson are pulling house republicans is working. house republicans seem pretty committed to protecting matt gaetz. and the question now is, will senate republicans do the same? as a reminder, it would take four republican senators to think gates's nomination, considering all democrats vote against him. to that, there are a few key senators were focusing on, first, thom tillis, a republican of north carolina. senator tillis sits on a senate judiciary committee, the first body to take up the gate emanation in the congress. as senator tillis is up for

reelection in 2026. in a state where democrats have been gaining some real momentum , despite trump's victory this year, democrats swept statewide races for north carolina's governor, lieutenant governor, secretary of state, attorney general, and superintendent of public schools. that political reality has to be waiting on senator tillis as he decides what he is going to do about matt gaetz. someone would precisely zero democratic support. gaetz himself has referred to senator tillis as an american left republican senator. here is what senator tillis had to say about gaetz's nomination a few hours ago. >> would you describe your posture on gaetz right now? >> my posture is that every nominee, whether they were biden's in the last administration, or whether they were president trump, deserve a

process, every member should meet with them, regardless of if they are a no vote or a yes vote. i met with a supreme court nominee i had every intention of voting against, and i did. people should meet and go through a respectful, professional process. it is pretty straightforward. >> you are meeting with him today, just to clarify? >> i intend to meet with congressman gaetz. >> make of that what you will. two other senators were keeping an eye on our editor collins of maine and lisa mccroskey of alaska. senator is up against a state kamala harris won by seven points. senator murkowski has made a name for herself as an independently minded lawmaker who has already survived one election against a drop back arrival. both of these senators were personally attacked by matt gaetz in 2020 over their refusal to rubberstamp amy coney barrett's nomination to the supreme court.

>> here have murkowski and collins, rejecting their duties as senators. if they are unwilling to do their job and take a vote on who the president nominates, they should not have the privilege of continuing to serve in the senate. >> lisa murkowski ultimately ended up voting for amy coney barrett. it is anyone's guess on how she will ultimately come out on matt gaetz. just yesterday, she continued to resist the idea of being a rubberstamp for donald trump. >> i would like to see archimedes do their full job. i am not interested in a process that would just say, well, because the president has named him and you have republican chairs coming into the new congress, we just move people out. there needs to be legitimate vetting. >> what other senator worth keeping an eye on is this guy, oklahoma senator mark wayne mullen. prior to joining the senate, parkway mullet accepted the

house of representatives alongside matt gaetz. you would be shocked to learn that matt gaetz did not endear himself to mark wayne mullen. gaetz has called mullen a disgrace to the republican party and mullen has shared pretty unflattering anecdotes about gaetz, like this one from last year. >> this is a guy the media did not give the time of day to go after he was accused of sleeping with an underage girl. there is a reason why no one in the conference defended him, because we had all seen the videos he was showing on the house for floor that all of us had walked away of the girls he had slept with, he had brag about how he would crush ed medicine and chase it with a energy drink so he could go all night. this is obviously before he got married. when that accusation came out, no one defended him. >> that was how mark wayne mullin talked about matt gaetz a year ago. this week, president-elect trump has turned the pressure on senators like mark wayne mullin. monday, trump park posted a

glowing message about mullin on his social media site, calling him a great fighter, also reminding everyone that trump won every district in his home state of oklahoma. trump concluded the message by saying, mullin is taking very good player care of that special state and i am watching over it. yesterday, after that last subtle message from the leader of his party, here was markwayne mullin on the gaetz nomination. >> i think the president was a hammer at the doj and he sees matt gaetz as a hammer and all of these other appointments. he is very competent in where they are at and can deliver the administration he is wanting. his picks have been maybe unconventional, but we hired an unconventional president. the american people wanted that. they don't want politics as usual. they want someone that will shake up washington, d.c. >> he is a hammer!

he is unconventional! a radical assessment of matt gaetz than anything markwayne mullin has said before. i wonder why. today, matt gaetz is on capitol hill to meet with republican senators, while he was escorted by second-in- command, vice president-elect j.d. vance. >> senators have given me a lot of good advice i am looking forward to hearing. folks have been very supportive, saying, we are going to get a fair process. it is a great day of momentum for the trump/vance administration. >> joined me now, capitol hill correspondent for nbc news, allie. i am very eager to get your thoughts on all of this. first of all, matt gaetz thing, it was a great day or the trump/smith administration. have you heard any scuttlebutt about how those meetings with? >> we hear they did not go badly. you played my conversation with senator thom tillis, one of those senators that met with congressman matt gaetz today. the fact that tillis is saying

here outwardly that he wants to be able to have an open process, a fair process, he has met with people who he knows he will vote no for an he met with them anyway. all of that is an important piece of context as we try to piece together where these key votes may come from for gaetz. it seemed like he was pretty methodologically taking through key members on the senate judiciary committee in his meetings today, while also meeting with senator jody ernst, and senator johnstone, newly elected majority leader of the senate. so, he is ticking through some critical republicans, and i think the fact that they are showing a consistent commitment to going through the process with gaetz already shows the way that the overturned when the order capitol hill is shifting when it comes to someone who, on the house side of this building, has very few friends and many people would like to see, not just gaetz's nomination be utterly tanked, but to also see his dirty laundry sort of

dragged through the streets on capitol hill. the ethics committee, while gaetz was on the senate side the house ethics committee was doing their part in considering whether or not the ethics committee report they have been doing it to him on and off for the last several years, whether that was ultimately going to be released. they did not reach any resolution on that today. we are watching atypically shrouded in mystery process from the ethics committee sort of spill out into public view. members on that committee saying that the other has sort of betrayed the code of secrecy that committee tends to operate on. when we are watching this on the senate side, play out in somewhat normal fashion and on the house side, we are watching sort of the norms over there fray over this nomination. >> allie, i wonder how much you are reading it to the ethics committee being a bellwether for the larger republican party? there are some, for lack of a better term, normal-ish republicans for those on the house and ask committee to effectively audit, i'm going to say for matt gaetz, anybody not to release the ethics report.

in particular, i'm talking about david joyce and andrew marino joyce from ohio and again marino joyce from new york. the fact that they are in line with trump on this, does that signal anything for you? >> i think it signals, and this is where it gets convoluted. the ethics committee is this fascinating organism on capitol hill. it is one of the only committees that is 5-5, five democrats and five republicans evenly divided . it is also a committee that really operates on decorum and the fact that no one leaks what happens in those meetings. the reason you have the ranking democrat on the committee, susan wilde, saying that the chairman of the committee, congressman gast, had betrayed their sort of code of conduct is because just came out of the meeting and basically told the press, hey, we did not decide on a resolution, we did not decide whether or not to release the gaetz ethics

report. just by saying what was talked about in the room is viewed as a betrayal. the fact that we know when this committee is meeting, what they are meeting about is really atypical for the way that they house ethics committee actually works on capitol hill. a lot of the things we have seen in this process are not the traditional way that we do them or see them on the hill, but also the fact that the house speaker, mike johnson, weight in really early and said, he did not want to see the house ethics committee release this ethics report. the reason he said that, yes, for politics reasons he is clearly in line with lockstep into the line with the usc bites, down to the walkout of the wwe fight with the president-elect, but also, typically, if you are not a member of congress anymore, the ethics committee stuff goes away. their jurisdiction no longer applies. technically, that is true with gaetz, but because of the extenuating circumstance, high- stakes, and rare precedents for the ethics committee deciding

after-the-fact to release investigations, all of this now suddenly applies. again, we are watching norms refrain in real-time here. >> most people leave congress when they don't get their ethics reports released because they are just leaving congress, not going on to become attorney general of the justice department. ali vitalil, it has been a long day for all of us, especially you. thank you, my friend. joined me not to put great perspective on all of this, my friend and colleague, podcasts are for pop news and a great american. john, what does this feel like for you as you watch these-- you hear the sound of kevin cramer, markwayne mullin, people out there in the past saying , matt gaetz is effectively not a good guy, maybe being euphemistic, say, he's a hammer, he is a maverick, he's a guy that can get it done for trump, how do you read it?

>> a few years ago on a television show called "the circus" that we hosted together, we covered the brett kavanaugh nomination. i remember very vividly going up in the closing days of that, flying up to new hampshire, spending time with you, chasing susan collins around. the sound of susan collins, lisa murkowski, others, expressing deep concerns, grave concerns, real serious concerns, and in voting for the nominee anyway. that is what the since memory is that and the ptsd is that, which is you can be cynical and say, a moment where she is concerned about something, she is quite likely to overcome those concerns and do the things she is concerned about. i have sent here for the last-- since last wednesday, when the immediate reaction of a lot of people was, these three nominees, tulsi gabbard, gaetz, and obviously gaetz, are uncomfortable. they will never get confirmed. i have spent the time since

then in maine, searching for someone who can point to an example with the republicans in the united states senate have ever stood up to legitimate, hard-core pressure of donald trump. i am still waiting. if someone has an example i have forgotten on a recorded vote, there has been an occasion with someone has pressured trump on something, mcconnell on ukraine, but on a recorded vote where donald trump has came out and said, i want this, i need this, if i don't get this, i will give you my pressure, positive treasure, please do this, and eventually, we will get to the threat. you read that truth social post about senator mullin. start taking a look about the senators up in class of 2026, 2028, all of those people have been terrified of donald trump's sway over his base, and their electorates from the moment he became republican nominee in 2016. what has changed? he is not a more powerful force in the republican party that he was

then. i don't understand the logic by which, other than rationality, other than like why would you vote against these nominees, for matt gaetz next, for all the obvious reasons. i guarantee, any of them will vote against matt gaetz in the end, regardless of what is in the ethics committee report. >> that is not to give those republicans a pass. >> quite the contrary. >> we are not talking about brett kavanaugh here. we are talking about matt gaetz, a different animal entirely, the actual assault allegations, but also what he represents in terms of dismantling the federal government and urbanizing the justice department. given that, john-- we had ali on talking about the back-and- forth of the house ethics committee. there's this report that has this damaging, potentially explosive material in it, a democrat on the house ethics committee could go to the door of the house and enter into the public record. it would be a breach of protocol like we have never seen before, but it is

allowed and would put it in the public eye. i sort of understand why democrats see themselves as the guard rails, protecting institution integrity, but we are also talking about matt gaetz at the department of justice. do you see any way in which democrats start playing a different kind of a small in this moment? >> i think it is as much about there is a the core of, and precedents, and institutional, and a homeowner, really it is fear. democrats are, unfortunately in a lot of cases, afraid that if they get into the ring-- it is the, you don't want to get down in the mud with the pig, because you get dirty and the pig likes it, they have that same attitude, in which they are a little afraid to play that kind of brass knuckle politics, they are worried they would get beat up and they have seen republicans do this for so long, they are better at it, tougher, meaner, less scrupulous, more willing to

make the rules, bites, pull hitter and do whatever they need to do. there is a little of that fear. i think the most important two things to say about this whole thing people have to keep remembering over and over again, when people say that these nominees are not qualified, they are perfectly qualified for what they are being put in there for. they are being put in not to run these departments, but to wreck these departments. by the standards of what donald trump and steve bannon, and others are trying to do-- steve bennett is in the papers tonight, donald trump is applying blunt force trauma to the system. they want to destroy the system. they are very well qualified for that. think about that. the other thing is this is all about the thing lisa murkowski put her finger on. she understands, donald trump wants the senate to be a duma, a rubberstamp institution that will give him whatever he wants, when he wants it. that is what it this is about. humiliating the senate, forcing it to do things he does not want to do, so he can say, you are mine. >> that is why it matters who

is our attorney general, in matters about the ethics, but really, what this is, a bellwether for the rest of the trump administration, a degree to which the legislative branch, a low-key constitutional crisis. can we take the responsibility to advise and consent senate, give it to me for me that is what trump is saying. >> and keep in mind, there are all kinds of lawyers who share the administrative state view. if it were to go down, you would get eight less objection, less heinous, less grotesque, less repugnant version of matt gaetz. someone with the same goal would be the same instrument of donald trump, to open at the justice department and tear down the rule of law. that will be the attorney general. a question of whether you also have to get stuck who is apparently in favor of having sexual intercourse with women who are either on the age or on the edge of being under age. take a look at those things you

guys had up earlier, the notations of what those payments were for. one of them is noted as joy. >> i just can't even comment. i will leave that one for the commercial break. john hellman, take you for your time. coming up, donald trump has picked wwe cofounder linda mcmahon to education secretary. he has some mighty plans for that position that might not be that legal. first, new reporting on who exactly will pay for trump's handouts to the rich and the certain political peril republicans are setting themselves up for. stay with us. with us.

♪ ♪ ♪ something has changed within me ♪ ♪ it's time to try defying gravity ♪ ♪ ♪

the fifth pillar of my plan is to make the trump tax cuts permanent. there are massive tax cuts, biggest ever, permanent, and to cut taxes even more. >> donald trump has been very clear that his signature 2017 tax cuts are here to stay. the same tax cuts that the senate budget priority says, they are on track to get a top 1% a $61,000 tax cut next year, compared to $70, as in 7-0, or the lowest earning households. to pay for that staggering redistribution, new reporting in the washington post this week reveals that trump advisors and congressional allies have began preliminary

discussions on making significant cuts to medicaid, food stamps, and other federal safety net programs that benefit the poorest americans. if you are wondering how that might work out, remember the last time republicans try to cut medicaid in 2017, dozens of disabled activists, some on ventilators and wheelchairs, held eight dying in outside of majority leader mitch mcconnell's office. the public backlash against this bill was so strong, it helped sway enough republican senators to do it passion. joining me now, former bernie sanders campaign manager in 2020, founder and executive director of more perfect union, thank you for being here. first of all, can we disabuse the public of notions about who actually is on medicaid and who is on food stamps? beginning with the fact that republican-led states have some of the highest dedicated enrollments in the country to 28 million people in texas, 2.6

million in florida. to what degree do you think that is factoring into republican plans on this, and to what degree do you think it is a liability? >> you are right, inflicting unnecessary misery and pain on a group of people, 7 million people nationwide. to the people on medicaid, children, people with long-term care, people with long-term sickness, including cancer, people who are in between jobs, pregnant women, foster care, all kinds of things that medicaid helps provide a backstop for and as a society, needless to say, we need a healthy and humane society, and we all benefit from some degree of healthcare for everybody. when you are inflicting pain on 70 million people, they will find savings medicaid, what does that mean? cut people out, kick them off the rolls, give them no healthcare. why are we doing all of this? because we have got to give state taxes to be very rich

people. we've got to cut the corporate rate. this is insanity. i will see if donald trump goes through it. i know the house republicans, senate republicans have long had these plans and we have to stop it. they have had their eyes on social safety, this is going at it with a pair of shears to the s.n.a.p. question. 42.1 million people a month receive food stamps, according to the u.s. department of agriculture. 12.6% of this country. i think that there are real misunderstandings and half truths about who needs help. a lot of people need help. by the way, the biggest portion of recipients of steps are white people. i am not saying trump should only be looking at policy that affects his supporters or doesn't affect him, there is a narrative in republican policy that says, people of color, or people in urban areas loping off the federal government.

first of all, that is not true, period. second of all, they got the picture wrong. can you talk a little about what we are trying to do in terms of establishing work requirements, or stringent guidelines for which people can access the program spirits >> i am glad you said work requirements. that pains me. you hear republicans talk about this in those terms. the truth of the matter, if you're really upset and angry about wanting to reform steps, you know what you should be focused on, you've got people who work at walmart, they work at mcdonald's, they work in a whole variety of sectors, taco bell, burger king, just look at the roles of people on medicaid and food stamps, working. and these corporations right now, literally today, walmart reported record earnings for themselves, and yet, they have employees on food stamps. first of all, that is unnecessary. if you want to start reforming food stamp programs, tax walmart

and make sure they are providing both a living wage for their employees, and that would help solve some of the problems. why can't walmart provide a living wage for their employees? now it becomes an issue for the federal government and now we want to take away from people already struggling, already trying to barely scrape by, it is an unnecessarily is crucial infliction of pain. >> people should not have to depend on food stamps to eat,-- >> and yet, they do. they are working at dollar general now, on food stamps. >> that is what we are talking about in america, a fundamental economic problem we need to solve. the reality of these tax cuts, the top 1% are going to maybe get $61,000 in tax benefits. the middle quintile, people making 33 to 91,000, $910. look at that jump. $61,000- $910. the republicans have an argument? do you expect them to make an argument that this is a

necessary tax cut? we have to be prepared for this battle. they will play smoke and mirrors with us. they will throw out a lot of candy to very wealthy people and they will combine it with some pockets of popular no tax on social security. by the way, if you do no tax on social security, bankrupt social security. social security pays taxes? the rich people, not people making tips. maybe even a child tax credit. they might throw it in there just to say, democrats, how are you going to vote against this? haven't you been talking about tax on overtime? we have to be clear about our argument. i think we also have to outflank them. while we oppose them, we should be coming with ideas-- if you care about social security, donald trump, raise the cap and increase the benefit for people on social security. how about we do it that way, rather than the way you want to do it?

why don't we expand people eligible for overtime? why don't we eliminate the sub for minimum wage. and oppose what i think will be a disastrous tax-cut package that benefits the rich. >> it is great to see you, thanks for your time tonight. still ahead tonight, donald trump chose former wwe executive linda mcmahon to the department of education. what exactly does he expect her role to be? it involves a smack down of sorts and also involved the bible. that is also next. next.

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.

let's go boys. the way that i approach work, post fatherhood, has really been trying to understand the generation that we're building devices for. here in the comcast family, we're building an integrated in-home wifi solution for millions of families, like my own. connectivity is a big part of my boys' lives. it brings people together in meaningful ways. ♪ ♪

yesterday, donald trump named his pick for secretary for department of education, linda mcmahon. on its face, this appears to be far from trump's most concerning staffing position, mcmahon served in trump's first administration as head of the small business administration and briefly served on the state board of education back in 2009. she is perhaps best known for stunts like this, ones that have gone viral since trump's announcement, because mcmahon cofounded wwe, and was often in the ring herself for what we will call skits. now, nearly all of trump's staffing announcements so far

have been a circus. if mcmahon's assent to the top of the education department seems particularly unserious, it is because donald trump does not take that department seriously. this is the vision for the department of education that trump outline while running for a second term. >> one person, plus the secretary, and all the person has to do is, are you teaching english, are you teaching arithmetic, what are you doing, reading or writing, and arithmetic, and are you not teaching woke, not teaching woke is a very big factor. >> one person and a secretary. as a candidate, trump opposed abolishing department of education, shrinking it to a house, so that children might be saved from indoctrination. as president-elect, trump is not only doubling down on eliminating the education department, he says, he wants to denies it against people of color with a goal of abolishing woke.

>> i will direct the department of justice to pursue federal civil rights cases against schools that continue to engage in racial discrimination, and schools that persist in as listed, unlawful discrimination under the guise of equity, will not only have their endowments taxed, a portion of the seized funds will be used as restitution for victims of these illegal and unjust policies. >> aside from the antiwar agenda, the centerpiece of trump's education pitch is this- - >> sending all education and education work and needs back to the states. we want them to run the education of our children, because they will do a much better job of it. you can't do worse. >> for the record, this is what the states are doing with their departments of education right now. >> we are excited to announce a new office in the state department of education, it will be the office of religious liberty and patriotism.

for too long in this country, we have seen the radical left attack individuals' religious liberties in our schools. we will not tolerate that in oklahoma. >> that was oklahoma superintendent ryan walters, who has begun buying bibles, specifically trump branded bibles for use in classrooms, announcing a new office of religious liberty that will among other things, students to watch a video of him praying. meanwhile, in texas, education officials admit a plan this week to incorporated material from the bible into lesson plans. that is the conservative agenda. got the department of education, weapon i can think of low income and minority citizens, elite education decisions to the states that want to blur the line between church and state. last month would donald trump called education the civil rights issue of our time, he might have been onto something. we will talk to melissa murray about that, coming up next. nex 24 hour. hydrating curl definition.

style your life the way you want. ♪♪ tresemme, style your way.

you know, i'm going to take the department of education, in washington, let the states run their own education. >> you are teaching arithmetic, what are you doing? not teaching woke is a very big factor. we are going to get this anti- american insanity out of our institutions once and for all. >> we will support rigging back prayer to our schools. the time has come to reclaim our once great educational institutions from the radical

left, and we will do that. >> president-elect trump has outlined a vision for the department of education, one that eliminates woke news, slashing schools with opposing policies, infusing public curricula with christianity, and dismantling the department of education. joining me now is professor of nyu and cohost of the indispensable strict podcast. melissa, help me understand if any of this can be stopped in the courts. >> first of all, the whole church and state thing, how easy is it for trump to reintroduce christianity into public school curriculum at large? >> last week, in louisiana, there was a challenge to a louisiana law that requires the 10 commandments to be prominently displayed in public schools or classrooms. a judge in louisiana enjoyed that law said, it clearly violated accidents precedents, demanding separation of church and state. that case is on fast track to the supreme court. it is going

to go to the fifth circuit. we already know about the fifth circuit, the lead before the supreme court. we have a number of fifth circuit judges auditioning to be the replacement for justice alito, or justice thomas when they decide to step down and from there, it will likely go to the supreme court and everyone understands that challenge to the law will be geared to the vehicle for overruling cases like gold versus metallic of the 1960s era case that basically said, you can't have school prayer. this is all happening. you have the oklahoma public school superintendent going on to have a bible, a trump bible in every classroom. these are very clearly targeted at challenging the lying line between church and state, ultimately city cases to the federal courts where, it is first administration, donald trump made sure it was stocked with movement conservatives here they are ready to undo these, and they will go to the supreme court, where donald

trump is appointed a third, a super majority. we will see if we get to live in a multifaith, pleural democracy. >> and to say nothing to the fact that this has been on the right's agenda for a long time. he woke part is the most current expression of their anti-inclusive and anti-civil rights agenda. when trump says, i'm going to/funding for any schools that don't apply to my agenda. i assume there can be into determination lawsuits. this is so gives you sort of tied up civil rights that has been a part of our nation's history in recent years, but the supreme court has not been interested in upholding. >> i think the religion stuff as a better chance of being struck down. for years, the right has stroked, physically manipulating the promise of brown versus board of education to stand for this principle that what brown is about is

colorblind education, race does not matter at all, which is why you could strike that affirmative action and say, because brown needs it. brown says, you can't think about race at all. if you take that frame of mind, efforts to expand diversity in schools, efforts to provide equity, or bring it points historically have gone out of insulated. all of those things now seem like they are coat of conscious, race conscious, and therefore constitutionally impermissible. we have already seen this with the dismantling of affirmative action. we will see even more. it will go into the corporate sphere definitely something in education, k-12, and higher education. this is where this is going. an assault on this idea of a plural, multiethnic, multifaith democracy. >> i guess if you make any difference, if you see in the difference between dei

initiatives and the affirmative action aspect of this, that part of inclusion and the teaching of history, the words we use around race, racism , and slavery. do you see the courts as being may be more open to the preservation of that kind of learning, that necessarily affirmative action? >> i wish i could say yes about that. we saw during the affirmative action oral arguments at the court that certain litigants, certain members of the court try to talk about the fact that this was an issue that was historically contingent. there is a period of time with many of the institutions that affirmative action policies are being challenged at like harvard, the university of north carolina, did not admit certain groups, including african americans. why couldn't that history of exclusion be repaired through race conscious remedies that were holistic, that considered a wide range of factors, but also considered race, alongside other factors? the court was not hearing any

of it, and instead, a different kind of historical narrative was advanced, what it which brown versus board of education said, full stop, we don't consider race at all. that is not really what brown says. brown is really about subordinating individuals, the idea the use of race for the purpose of subordinating, not necessarily the use for the purpose of repairing, or remedying past extermination, we did not want to hear any of that, just know race. >> this is where we are at. i will say, education is the dividing line in politics. the numbers are upside down. college-educated voters trump, don college-educated voters. melissa, thank you for making the time. texas offers president- elect trump 14 acres of land to help build migrant deportation facilities. the latest on trump's mass deportation plans and what might be done to stop them. that is next. .

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. sleep more deeply and wake up rejuvenated. purple mattresses exclusive gel flex grid draws away heat, relieves pressure, and instantly adapts. sleep better. live purple. right now save up to $1,000 during our black friday sale. visit purple.com or a store near you drop everything and get some magic of your own during the xfinity black friday sale.

xfinity internet customers, our best deals of the year are back! switch to xfinity mobile and get your choice of a free 5g phone, plus your next unlimited line free for a year. get amazing savings and connect to wifi speeds up to a gig on the go with xfinity mobile. fly don't walk to get our best deals of the year. connect to the world of wicked this holiday, only in theaters november 22nd.

president-elect trump says, he plans to use the military to carry out what he claims will be the largest deportation in u.s. history. specifically, it seems he plans to have the military fund or build camps to hold and attain migrants. one big hits in that plane, pointed out by the "new york times" on monday is that federal immigration authorities do not have access to enough space to enough physical land to house all the people trump claims he will deport them accept, except the state of texas has now stepped forward with a solution. the land commissioner of texas has written trump a letter, offering him access to more than 1400 acres of state owned land along the rio grande river for quote, unquote mass deportation facilities. joining me know, covering the department of homeland security and immigration policy for the

"new york times", thank you for joining me. i am thinking back to tom homan on 60 minutes, literally last month trump's hand-picked orders are saying, there will not be camps. it sure sounds like there will be camps. do you have any-- can you add anything to the picture that is emerging here? >> we don't have any further details at this point. tom homan has given some interviews to fox news, and the new york post where he has indicated that the military could be used for things like administrative tasks, or helping with removing people, deporting people on planes. that is one issue where i.c.e. is struggling often times, to find enough slaves to deport people. it has long been an issue for them. you can see how the military could come in handy in at that aspect to help them, carry out their plans.

think back to what degree, stephen miller has talked broadly about using the military and other agents from other federal agencies to help with mass deportation spirit legally and constitutionally speaking, can trump do that with a wave of his wild? >> it would certainly be up for legal challenge. you can imagine, that would be a challenge in court right away. it is important to note that, the idea that i.c.e. and federal agents could go into communities and arrests and neighborhoods, it would be incredibly difficult to get the numbers they want. ultimately, i.c.e. and dhs is going to have to rely on digging up people from county jails and prisons. those are the areas where i.c.e. gets the vast majority of their deportations. that is where they will have to focus on. >> and the reality is, you hear this from i.c.e. agents, planning a raid takes a long time, a lot of manpower and a lot of resources. i wonder if you have any

reporting on the degree to which there is an understanding within these agencies that are supposed to be tasked with these massive deportations, rounding up millions of people. do you sense any pushback from within the government about this alleged plan? >> you can look back to tom homan's own deposition in federal court years ago, where he said, it was much easier for them to get immigrants from jail. you can send one officer pick up several immigrants from jails as opposed to going out in the community. you need multiple officers for one individual. it takes weeks of research to track down an immigrant at large. you have to figure out when they are leaving their home, when they go to work. often times, if the immigrant does not come out of their house, they don't arrest them. there is a lots of complications in the way of his plan to try to arrest and remove millions of people. >> you have an understanding of how trump might go after immigrants here in this country legally? i am speaking of the haitian community in springfield, ohio here on tipperary protective status. is

there a sense of a plan in the works in the trump administration for those folks? >> residents elect trump has already said, he plans to strip tps protections for haitians. that would be in line with what he did in the first trump administration. he stripped protections from people in nepal, from haiti, from el salvador. this was a direct effort to try to get rid of these tps protections. they felt like it had got too far. too many people have these protections for too long. >> all right, it is a quickly moving storefront. it is great to have you. great to have you reporting on the show tonight. thanks for your time. time. >> i don't think there is any way he could get confirmed if this is accurate. i will say when he