was richard nixon right when he said when a president does it, that means it's not illegal? well. >> a judge may have just said in one very specific and important way that, yeah, he might be right. tonight sara wallace says that donald trump gets to stay on the pilot in colorado. this despite the judge finding and saying in pretty plain english that donald trump engaged in an insurrection. during the january 6th attack on the united states capitol. now, the court found that trump intended to incite political violence, that trump wanted to direct it at the capitol, and that trump's plan was to stop the peaceful transfer of power. and that trump was not, in fact, protected by the first amendment when he said that. >> we are going to walk down to the capitol and we're gonna cheer on our brave senators and congressmen and women and we're probably not going to be cheering so much for some of them. because you'll never take back our country with weakness. you have to show strength. we fight. we fight like hell. and if you don't fight like hell, you're not gonna have a country anymore. >> while the judge did find that trump's inten was clear, she says that the constitution's intent is not. read her reasoning and it sounds an awful lot like a technicality. is the very thing that protected trump that the 14th amendment does not actually specifically mention the office of the president? so the judge in her ruling said that she was reluctant to embrace stripping trump's name from the ballot without, quote, clear, unmistakable indications. that's what the constitution demands. but follow her logic and the judge may have just set the table for presidents past, current and future to potentially commit insurrection to direct other people to do another january 6th without fear of accountability. in a statement, the trump campaign said, in part, quote, these cases represent the most cynical and blatant political attempts to interfere with the upcoming presidential election by desperate democrats and here with us to help understand what this ruling really means is harry litman, a former u.s. attorney and host of the talking feds podcast and also with us former white house lawyer for donald trump james shultz. so, jim, i want to start with you. what is your reaction to this sort of double-barrelled ruling here by the judge? >> yeah, she really did split it down the middle, right. she followed kind of michael my khazei's argument that he offered, i think, in "the new york times" where he said that the presidents were not included in section 3 of article 14 of the constitution, and that they specifically say members of congress, state legislature, judicial officials, and executive officers of the united states. so the key question is, is the president an executive officer of the united states? it's not in the plain text of the constitution. therefore, it's not -- this is something that's going to go, if i think -- if the president gets knocked off the ballot in one of these states, and i say if, i think this is something that will go up to the united states supreme court after getting through the supreme court of whatever state it is, and then the supreme court is going to have to make that interpretation. without the plain text, i think it becomes a very difficult argument and a good argument that the president is in fact excluded because he is not included in that language. the idea is that these are appointed officials and not elected vice president or president of the united states. >> yeah, i mean, you're right. it lists actually a host of titles of potential officials who are subject to this. harry, do you think that that is, in essence, a tech cality h? >> you could call it that. the parties spent in in their 100 pages 9 # 1/2 on everything but this and a few perhaps on is he an officer. jim is right. when this was written in "the wall street journal" maybe got nor credence. this is going to be decided by the supreme court and this officer question is a does crete legal one. the bigger point i think is that she found insurrection, she found engagement because the big question to the court, i think, is going to be, is the court the right place to decide this. and the other courts who have looked at it, minnesota, michigan have basically said no. so you have now this very long opinion concrete fact-based that's a real example of a judge saying, yes, here's why, here's what insurrection means, here's what engagement means. so i think it's going to be a template to be served up to a higher court for just how you would decide. it's true. this separate officer question will have to be reversed. but it was not the focus of the parties. so i think the big question is actually against trump, especially because a court went through and decided them. >> but on the question of who is subject to this part of the 14th amendment, jim, the supreme court right now is a very conservative court. several of the justices, three are appointed by trump. if you're the party bringing this case to try to kick trump off the ballot, do you really want to take it up to this particular supreme court? is there even a probability here that they could be successful? >> i think the court is going to look at the plain text and also look at, you know, the purpose of the law. if you date back this, this had to do with the confederate and members of the confederacy trying to become part of the united states government, the union after the war and look back on that and have to make that judgment as to whether the president of the united states applies. so i do think, you know, this court is going to look at the plain text of the constitution and likely say, you know, that the president is purposefully excluded from this because they list off so many others that are included. but i think, look, the facts that were borne out in this case are going to be heard again in the january 6th trial. right? and in the january 6th trial, in d.c., right? that's going to happen in probably march or april. >> that's exactly -- i mean, the next logical question. i mean, harry, if all of this is laid out now in a case, really for the first time from a legal perspective, that trump was in fact engaging in an insurrection, what does that mean for the january 6th case being brought by jack smith? >> well, look, it's congruent in a lot of ways. the facts there will be determined by a jury. i do want to go back to this point. i really think the big issue from the supreme court will be do we decide this at all? the conservative court there i could well see saying this isn't for us. so collins decided these big chunky questions on the facts. you think more or less advanced the ball of a question that has to be served up for appeal. you are right. i think that becomes more and more the big event, especially as the mar-a-lago case seems to slip, and, you know, it will be similar facts but they will try to make their case then to a jury. >> yeah, all right. harry litman and jim shultz, thank you both. >> thank you. >> and one more notable quote from this ruling. quote, the court concludes that trump acted with the specific intent to disrupt the electoral college certification of president biden's electoral victory, specifically by using unlawful force and violence and speaking of votes, just a reminder, that he and president biden are now barreling towards this rematch in 2024. while harry enten is here with the numbers on the current state of this race, harry, what do they say? >> look, the fact is that president biden is behind president trump. if you look at one of these polls, you might say, okay, that's within margin of error. now we have four recent national polls where joe biden is trailing donald trump among likely or registered voters. fox news, trump plus four. cnn ssrs trump plus four. quinnipiac university trump plus two. marquette university trump plus two. you put it all together, you get a picture that donald trump is leading joe biden. and that is historic. why is that historic? because i want to take you through the polling archive. go all the way back 80 years ago. incumbent presidents since 1943, how many trailed in their re-election bid in the polling at this point? the answer two. just two. one of these names on the screen you may recognize from the last election. donald trump trailed joe biden by about ten points at this point in the 2020 cycle. the second wind, here we are right here, joe biden trailing donald trump at this point in the 2024 cycle. these are the only two going back since 1943. the average incumbent is ahead by ten or 11 points. this makes this cycle so much different than the last one in the matchup between biden and trump. why? look at the national polls. trump led biden. during the entire 2020 cycle were exactly zero. zero polls in which donald trump led joe biden. so far this cycle, including the four you saw on first screen, get this. 17 polls where donald trump leads joe biden. this is a vastly different race than the one that we saw four years ago. why is race so different? well, i'll give you a clue why. take a look here. age 18 to 34, biden versus trump margin, 2020 result, biden won by 20 points. now in an average of polls, biden up by just five points at this particular point. so a big part of the democratic base going away from joe biden and that is a big reason why, he is trailing when he was leading throughout the entire 2020 campaign. >> important context there. harry enten, thank you. and the divide among democrats is growing now over the israel war. two of them will join me next. plus, two major stories are developing tonight. more companies are punishing elon musk over his antisemitic tweet and one of the titans behind this a.i. boom is suddenly and mysteriously fired. ronan farrow is here on those headlines. and an nfl hosted a mitts that she made up her sideline reports and is now backtracking. jamele hill and cari champion jojoin me liveve to responond. q. do democrats have an israel problem? the divide inside the party is growing over president biden's actions as the israel/hamas war intensifies, and here to discuss now is former hillary clinton spokesperson philippe and cnn political come enthat titter former ohio state senator nina turner. parts of the left, no question, they are furious with president biden. but are they really going to withhold their support next november over how he has handled this war? >> it's a very real reality, abby. i mean, we just saw the polling that was done in the previous segment that shows very clearly that president biden right now is in trouble. 66% of americans want a ceasefire in the middle east and i believe what is happening in the middle east is animating more of the fury that voters are feeling. democratic voters, especially younger voters, may not come to the polls. when you are thinking about a race within the margins, people not showing up to the polls will really have an impact on president biden going into the 2024 election cycle. >> philippe, you wrote an op-ed this week about the fear in jewish communities saying that the uproar since october 7th has upended the feeling the jewish americans could tell friend from foe. this is playing out within the democratic party. it seems. is this something that can be resolved before this next election, given what nina just r laid out? >> well, i don't know about resolved. but i do think it could be ameliorated between now and over a little under a year from now. i think there are a couple of things at play here. first, i would like to think that in a broad sense that president biden is doing what he believes is right and that will count for something to the voters. that's who they voted for in 2020 and that's who they will vote for in 2024. second, i think, you know, a lot of people, and not to say it's all young people, because there are people of all stripes and colors and ages who have concerns about what's going on, as do i, as do anyone who is watching what's happening. a lot are young and need to learn about what is happening. an example, when they are chanting from the river to the sea. i like to think most of them doan know what they are saying when they have learned, they have stopped. my point, there will be time for people to understand and learn about what's happened the same way that people in colleges now weren't alive for 9/11, which is an experience that we all had that shapes our views. third, to get down to the brass tacks of it, as nina alluded to, you have a couple of options. one is that they don't vote. that's actually not great. two, they vote for one of the third-party candidates, particularly jill stein, who was absent in the 2020 campaign but very much had a negative impact on the season campaign. or that they vote for the republican who is likely donald trump. and i don't think three is going to happen. i'd like to think the end of the day people look at the selection like every other election. it's between two people. and under no circumstances should any democrat or anyone who loves america look at those two people and say that donald trump is the better of the two. >> nina? >> see, this is the thing. this is not 2020. it's going to be 2024. a lot has changed since then. and while i don't disagree that people need to be more educated about the history of the middle east, it is patently clear that the american people by 66% overwhelmingly polls out there no less than 70% of democrats are saying that there needs to be ceasefire. to chock this up as people don't understand, people understand that genocide is happening over there. they understand that president -- >> no -- >> there is a difference between -- there is a difference between rhetoric and trump's rhetoric and biden's reality. the and the reality is donald j. trump is not the president of the united states right now. donald j. trump didn't take us to two wars. we got a war going on in the middle east. we got war going on in the ukraine. and so what the dog doesn't hunt in 2024 and the electorate, especially democrats are saying to the brunch bunch in the bubble we want to see something different happening. when you have countless lives being taken, innocent lives being taken, people are standing up and taking notice of that. "the l.a. times" is saying no more. you have 34 congress people saying no more. you have the president of the naacp, president johnson, saying no more. a host of religious leaders, all religions saying we should have a ceasefire. >> i should say -- >> an impact --. i have to say i am surprised to hear you make that argument -- i hear a lot from republicans, which is that trump didn't get the united states into wars and there are wars now. i mean, i don't know, philippe, if you think that's something -- no i understand, i wonder if that's something you think will actually end up hurting president biden? >> well, i want to go back a second. nina is criticizing hot rhetoric and using the word genocide. this is no way, shape or form a genocide. this started october 7th. thousands of terrorists going across the border -- i am not going to use the word kill, murder, they went across to behead, decapitate, to dismember people, to kill babies, to just absolutely decimate a society. if anyone's got a genocide, it's the countries of the terrorist groups that have by the definition of genocide wanted to eliminate entire team. israel going back to the inception has made peace with every arab neighbor that wanted to make peace. they never said no. they never walked away from the table. hamas has done so repeatedly because hamas doesn't want to make peace nor does other countries in the region. they want israel -- >> what hamas has done -- >> they are not protecting -- >> what hamas has done -- >> go ahead. >> is horrific. no doubt it. never say it. they were wrong morally and broke international law. what has happened to innocent palestinians, babies, women, just people in general, we have got to say that humanity must stand up and speak. so it is patently -- >> the people who can stop this -- >> deny people electricity and food and water and the health care that they need in times of crisis. that is genocide is happening. >> you know what should happen tomorrow? there is nothing stopping hamas from releasing the more than 200 hostages, which, by the way, dozens are american citizens. there is nothing stopping them from ceding the territory and tunnels and infrastructure they have. they are using the very people that you are citing, which it is heartbreaking to see what's happening. it's heartbreaking for anyone, for any innocent, any age of any type to be killed, to be a casualty of this. but it's hamas that is doing it. pure and simple. hamas base their terrorism -- >> they should definitely release the hostages -- >> you are saying that like -- >> that innocent -- they should -- but that doesn't mean that the innocent civilians who have nothing to do with the horrors of hamas should be held hostage. >> but why are they in civilian areas? they are in civilian areas -- >> and being murdered, and being killed, that's all -- i mean, and i'm not the only one that feels that way. >> i know. >> ceasefire and -- >> i know the majority -- >> to peace. >> i think, nina, one of the things -- >> the ato peace is not kill 1,300 innocent civilians. remember how this -- >> it's not to kill 14,000 palestinians either. >> the -- >> i think both of you are really showing this -- >> it's a legitimate argument. >> it is absolutely. but i think one of the things, nina, and this will be our last word before i let you both go, all of the democratic presidents prior to joe biden have maintained more or less the same policy towards israel, which is to support israel as an ally to the united states. so -- and i think you could expect more or less the same policy even from a republican administration. so if you're sitting your shoes, nina, and the shoes of those on the left, there really a choice here between someone who is going to move away from israel and someone who is going to stick with israel? it seems like that has been the policy of the united states, democratic or republican. >> the choice, abby, is to do the right thing. should every ally of the united states be able to just commit genocide or do whatever it takes to win at all costs? >> it's not genocide. >> when the entire world is saying -- when the entire world is saying let's have a ceasefire. america has plenty of allies. i get that israel is an ally. that's a good thing. it is also on america to stand up and be a leader towards peace. and not to allow innocent people to languish and to die. and this is not a left issue. this is a humanitarian issue. i can guarantee you, abby, most of those people polled, or the people who were polled are not necessarily calling themselves progressives. they are saying we want a ceasefire because what happens over there happens over here, and the way to get peace for both people is to have a ceasefire, let's get the hostages back, and let's negotiate a lasting peace. and i see the role of the united states of america as pivotal to doing just that. >> we will have to leave there. >> nina, i have say, hamas has refused to talk peace. period. >> i want to just -- one last point to philippe's point. hamas has in its charter the elimination of the state of israel and the language about genocide is there on the left, but israel's objective is not to wipe out the palestinian people as its policy. i think that's the point -- >> killing innocent -- >> we have to leave there. both of you, thank you very much. by the hour tonight, advertisers are fleeing from social media platform x, which is formerly known as twitter. this time it is over elon musk's antisemitic tweets. ronan farrow is going to be here to discuss. . tonight some of the titans controlling the future of technology in america are finding themselves in some trouble after elon musk's antisemitic post on his platform. now more and more companies are suspending their ads on x, and that includes ibm, apple, disney, and cnn' parent company warner bros. discovery. the response putting x chief executive in damage control mode. x has been clear on it's efforts to combat antisemitism. but musk has been changing his tone today. he is calling out and condemning antisemitism on the platform. curiously, it was enough to elicit praise from a long-time critic of the platform, jonathan greenblatt, who called it a welcome move. and then there is sam altman. he is seen as the face of artificial intelligence. altman is the founder of openai, the company behind chatgpt. but today his own company fired him. the reason is still a bit of a mystery, but an internal investigation shows according to the board that he was not consistently candid in his communication with them. i want to bring in contributing righter for "the new yorker" ronan farrow who recently wrote a deep dive profile of elon musk for the magazine. ronan, thanks for joining us. now this move of just so many companies, seems like a real avalanche of companies deciding to pull away from running ads on x. what does that mean for the consequences here of elon musk's repeated amplification of these kinds of antisemitic and all kinds of dark posts, sometimes from other users? >> well, this is the double-edged sword of elon musk's rule in the world. he is tremendously mission oriented. that's translated into advances in multiple significant fields. often in areas where the government has underinvested and he becomes eventually the most significant first mover. he has become the only way americans can get astronauts into space. launched off of american soil. for years we were relying on russian launches. he controls more than half of the electric vehicle chargers on america's highways. he is pivotal for green energy policies. we have this other dimension of elon musk. people say they worry about him, that he is caught in this cultural crossfire and he has seen a warm embrace from conspiracy theorists, antisemites, racists and re-tweeting a lot, as you say, really dark content. and there are people in his life that see that as a spiral, that don't know how to respond to that. he is a smart guy, but he is espousing some really abhorrent views and even views that fly in the face of logic. real conspiracy theory stuff. >> to that point, i mean, look, it's clear he has shift today the right. but now it's a question of is it now alt-right? is it really those dark corners of the internet? based on your conversations with people who know him, first of all, are they worried about elon musk? second of all, is it true that he has gone way too far? >> well, the framing that you get from a lot of people who historically have defended him but now are saying, yeah, we're worried, we don't know how to grapple with this, is that he like so many of us is a person who also on top of these qualities he has very much wants to be liked. and he was very hurt by the way in which thoughtful people who want to create accountability around someone so powerful gave him the cold shoulder. he doesn't like that the biden administration didn't invite him to a significant electric vehicle summit, that there is what he has decried as woke discourse that questions these things he says. it creates a vicious cycle. on the other hand, he owns this platform, x, which is running riot with these kinds of antisemitic statements, racist statements that aren't rooted in fact and a lot of those same people issuing those kinds of statements are holding him up as a hero. so he has drawn closer and closer to that segment of the population. that's just indisputable looking at his tweets. as you say, there are people who care about him, who believe in the good parts of elon musk who are sincerely flummoxed by this. >> sam altman, he is really the biggest name in a.i., ousted from him company. we don't know a huge amount tonight. the reality is that this is someone who has a lot of power in his hands. you have written about this with elon musk. what do you think happens now that sam altman is out of openai? what does it mean for the future of that critically important technology? >> it is a seismic development in this community. there are a lot of tech giants coming to his defense right now. saying what a significant shaper of the a.i. movement he has been, what a good steward he has been. the reality is we don't know the underlying facts. this is board that had a lot of confidence in his previously. he created a tremendous amount of value for openai. he shepherded it through difficult times, including when elon musk promised investments and the financial certainty of the outfit was in doubt. i talked about that that with sam. he is quote d in my reporting about it. it is profoundly unexpected for this board to abruptly oust him. that leads to speculation how significant these lies they are referring to. that's how they character it. he wasn't honest with this board. >> what he does next, which i'm sure we will find out more about soon. ronan farrow, thanks for joining us tonight. >> thanks, abby. an admission sending shockwaves through the sports world. an nfl host says that she just made up reports earlier in her career on the sidelines. i'll talk about this with cari champion and jamele hill next. shattered sidelines. this week clarissa ward, who hosts "thursday night football" on amazon prime admitted to something that really no journalist ever should. >> i have said this before, so i haven't been fired for saying it, but i will say it again. i would make up the reports sometimes because, a, the coach wouldn't come out at halftime or it was too late and i didn't want to screw up the report. i'm just gonna make this up. first all, no coach will get mad if i say we need to stop hurting ourselves, be better on third down. and do a better job of getting off the field. like, they are not going to correct me on that. i'm fine. i'll make up the report. >> that admission has sparked huge backlash from a lot of people who do that same job and actually take it seriously. thompson's job status is unchanged as of right now. today she did, though, make an attempt to do some damage control on instagram writing in part, i said i would make up reports early in my career when i worked as a line of scrimmage reporter before i transitioned to my host role. i never lied about anything or been unethical during my time as a sports broadcaster. joining me two veteran sports broadcasters, cari champion and jemele hill. jemele, it is the confidence that really gets me about how she said that. and she said that she never lied but then in the clip she says she was making things up. how does this work? >> well, when i did sideline reporting in 2012, it didn't work that way certainly for me. listen, it's the toughest job i have ever done. a sideline reporter is no joke. and, look, i worked a clarissa at espn. i found her to be likable and enjoyable to work with. but this is -- i think it's the way she made the admission. like you said, the confidence. her saying i haven't been fired because she is not worried about being fired. and i think it was the tone of it, which a lot of us really felt betrayed by her admission. >> should she lose her job? jemele, do you think -- >> listen, that's above my pay grade. >> cari, you worked with her before. i mean, were you surprised to hear that? >> i wasn't surprised to hear that happens. so i really want to make sure i separate what i'm saying. like jemele, yes, we worked with her. we find her very likable. piling on for me is not what this conversation should be about. it should be about why does she feel comfortable enough to say that? there seems to be a lack of awareness on her part in terms of the privilege that i think she has. i think she believes she worked hard to get everything she has, she believes she deserves everything she has received, but the lack of awareness is what other reporters what i like to call the day-to-day grinders, someone like myself would not feel comfortable ever saying anything like that. first, we would never do it. we wouldn't feel comfortable to go on air and say the coach didn't talk to me, so i took information from the game and i feel comfortable going on air saying what the information i have and presenting it as if i spoke to someone. she may not have ever had attribution, but presenting it. in the world we live in the fake news world, we are fighting daily to prove that we are accurate in our content is fact, not necessarily just opinion, it's really hard for you not to be aware of this environment that we are working in. i truly feel journalists are under attack. people often say fake news. it's their opinion. >> jemele, just to kind of read between the lines a little bit, maybe, in what cari is saying, this isn't the first time she admitted to something like this. she and erin andrews said that they made things up. if this were a black woman sideline reporter, would the reaction be different? >> having been the sideline reporter and as a black woman, this is something i would have took to the grave. i mean, that was part of my response to this, is that, yes, this was definitely a kick in the pants to a lot of sideline reporters who have spoken out. michele tafoya, a number have said this is not how you do this. for a black woman especially. 85% is white men, all right? so it's tough for women, period, to get in sports media. even tougher for black women to get in sports media. we often don't get the positions and status she has been able to work hard to get. i couldn't imagine pam oliver saying this so confidently -- >> she would never. >> pam would never. >> she would never. >> yeah. >> abby, i get what you're saying. a black woman, this conversation really hits differently pause we understand that, yes, as jemele mentioned these positions are rare. yes, these positions rarely come us to. so it is the lack of awareness, what appears to be entitlement, and just audacity. whether it is ignorant audacity or not, it's unfortunate that you can say that and couple it with i have never been fired so i'll say it again. the lack of warnd and the entitlement. >> yeah, i think that's really why this has really touched a nerve for women, for women of color in the sports journalism industry. ladies, just stand by for us, because tonight an nba star has returned to the court after a suspension and he says that his fans will ignore his domestic violence if he wins. we'll discuss that next. tonight nba star miles bridges returned to the court after a 19-month layoff. his stat lines, 17 points, 5 rebounds, 4 assists and 33 minutes sounds good, sounds like a feel-good story except that it's not. bridges isn't returning from a career-threatening injury, he's back after 583 days and felony domestic violence charges. bridges pleaded not guilty, no contest to charges stemming from an incident in which he beat his girlfriend in front of their two children. this was the hospital report. strangulation, brain concussion, closed fracture of the nasal bone, con tuesday of rib. ask bruises and says winning will cure everything. >> i know a lot of people feel that way about me being back and i understand that and i say before a game, so i'm just going out there looking to play, if i can get us some more wins, i feel like people's perspective will change. >> i don't know what to say but talk about saying the quiet part out loud. he's just like, well, everyone will just forget about it. >> abby, that's the best thing you could have said. he is suggesting if i win and the team does well, this will go away. and i would hate to say that's wrong. adam silver went out of his way to explain it's hard to give punishment out for these sorts of things and he thinks that he's done enough. he was suspended for all of last season, ten games this season, these are one of these uncomfortable conversations where as you mentioned, he's saying the quiet part out loud and i think most people understand that and that's really unfortunate in this day and age. >> jemele, such an important question. adam silver is saying we want do anything about that but is that really true? >> well, i mean, what they could do, i'm not saying they should do this, but i mean i guess people have to ask themselves, should he have been banned from the league? playing in the nba is not your right. it's actually a privilege and then this is really on his team as well, because they're the ones who are employing him. they're the ones who feel like despite whatever he has done, that he is worst them taking the public relations hit but it points out to something that is very ugly about sports, miles bridges as awful as it was that he said that he is absolutely right, because we have seen it so many times before, that athletes who have done horrible things to women, whether it be sexual abuse, whether it be domestic violence, they are forgiven. i say it repeatedly. colin kaepernick had been back in the league if he had hit a woman and not taken a knee during the national anthem because that is the way, unfortunately, sports is set up. it's a results-oriented game and all they care about, i mean, a lot of fans are this way, that they will forgive the most unforgivable things as long as somebody helps their team win. the fact that he's still a young player with a long career ahead of him and outweighed what he did to his girlfriend in front of their children. >> sobering, that's all i can say about all of that. jemele and cari, great have you both here on a friday night. thanks so much. >> thank you, abby. >> thank you, abby. and more on our breaking news, a judge finds that trump can remain on the ballot in colorado while also deciding that he may have engaged in an insurrection. that's ahead. we are grocery out and we are your bargain bliss market. what is bargain bliss? you know that feeling you get when you find the name brands you love, but for way, way less? that's bargain bliss. this thanksgiving, we're giving you even more reasons to celebrate. we are offering you $21 off a jennie-o frozen turkey with in-store discount. that's as low as $0.50 a pound. so why wait? hurry in to your neighborhood grocery outlet today. because this deal is only available while supplies last. just in, we want to bring you this news from "the new york times." sean "diddy" combs has reached a settlement with the singer cassie. this is happening just one day after cassie filed a bombshell lawsuit that accused the music mogul of rape, sexual violence and sexual abuse. laura coates, this was an extraordinary set of allegations and now an extraordinary settlement. we don't know the details but it seems to indicate that diddy has decided this is not something that they want to go through a process of discovery on, it was already getting i think pretty ugly with people raising all kind of questions about him and now it seems to be over as far as the legal case is concerned. >> i mean, the second that these allegations dropped, you had a number of opinions all across the spectrum, particularly about somebody who was so-called a late reporter or a delayed reporter of all these things, remember, she was trying to get within the window of the new law in new york that says an adult survivor of sexual assault or abuse had a very slim window and she was trying to get through that and had a very extensive complaint against this person but there were no criminal charges that had been filed so people -- they ran the gamut. the fact it happened, the day after his counsel has already said that she was in it for a payday prior to this and he had been for the past six months threatened with action like this, she withdrew the threat and came back with this lawsuit, there will be a lot of questions about what's in the actual settlement and whether it's a complete and total muzzle for her now, which it li