have on thanksgiving eve. >> have a great holiday and enjoy your mother's delicious -- reportedly delicious thanksgiving stuffing. see you. thanks to you at home for joining me this hour. after 47 days of fighting, 47 days of israeli hostages held in captivity, israel and hamas have agreed to a four-day pause in fighting in exchange for the release of 50 hostages, but the timing of it all may still be an open question. now, the deal was brokered by qatar, egypt, and the united states it was also supposed to start by 3:00 a.m. eastern time tonight, but israeli officials are now saying the release of hostages will not happen before friday. what that means for the timing of the temporary cease-fire is unclear. "the new york times" reports the cease-fire may also be delayed until friday, but nbc news has not confirmed this. the deal itself involves the release of 50 civilian women and children currently held by hamas. the release of 150 palestinian women and children currently held in israeli jails and the delivery of more humanitarian aid to gaza. u.s. officials have warned that we won't know for sure which hostages will be released until they're actually released, but national security advisor jake sullivan told nbc news today that three americans should be part of this initial group of 50, two women and a child. the hostages will be released in four phases, one group for each day the fighting is paused. around ten hostages are expect today be freed every day over the course of four days beginning on friday. there's an option for this system of cease-fire and release to go on as long as ten days. an additional ten hostages would be released as there's a pause in fighting. today is a help hoful day but also the start of a week filled anxiety as family members of hostages wait to see if their loved ones will be among those released. >> it's been so long. we've been stuck on october 7th for 45 days looping this in our minds over and over again. and just to have a sliver of hope and just a break already, just a break. >> no information. i'm very nervous and frustrated, and i'm waiting for news. i want just good news. i don't want any bad news anymore. >> one side i'm happy. second side i'm worried. okay, because nobody told me that my family will be in this deal. okay. there were. >> american officials cannot confirm which will be released. he's a young man and the deal struck today is limited to women and children. instead his mother has another demand, the videos of the october 7th attack show that her son was severely injured, half of his left arm was blown off by a grenade. here was his mother's plea today. >> i'm not counting hostages being freed in this deal until i see them walk over the border and be embraced safely, and then god willing these 50 hostages are released, that still leaves 190 hostages that need to be released, and in the meantime we'd like the international red cross or any other humanitarian aid organization on planet earth to go and see every single hostage and let us know are they alive, have they been treated, are they getting the care that they need? >> hours after that plea prime minister netanyahu nounced as part of a deal the red cross will get to visit unreleased hostages to provide care. that detail was unveiled so secretly and at the last minute the red cross put out a statement saying the organization only learned itself after netanyahu put out the remarks. as the details of this highly choreographed exchange of 50 hostages are ironned out, the hope here it will be the start of a process, but keeping these negotiations on track is a delicate balance and a tense one, the situation is equally tense inside gaza tonight. i will warn you some of the images we're about to show you is unsettling, so if you'd like to turn away now, this is the time to do so. this is the video of a mass grave being dug today in the southern half of gaza. more than 100 people were buried there unanimously today, part of the 14,000 who have died since the beginning of this conflict. that's according to the hamas-run gaza media office. that number includes 5,000 children. and the fighting in gaza has not yet stopped. it's expected to continue right up to that pause. one of the details still not confirmed is hoouch aid. this is video yesterday of internally displaced gazans pushing past each other and essentially breaking apart an aid truck. they were looking for water. according to the united nations around 70% of gazans are drinking salinized and contaminated water. without fuel gazans have bun unable to power desalination pumps, water pumps, and sewage pumps leaving more than a million people without clean drinking water. because of the lack of fuel this week the world health organization says that critical trauma care is no longer possible at any of gaza's hospitals. that includes care for premature babies and ne natal intensive care units. over the weekend the ooup and red crescent evacuated 31 babies from the al-shifa hospital. the u.n. reports the other five babies died due to a lack of electricity and fuel. all 31 of the evacuated babies have serious infections. one of them is on a ventilator. the world health organization warns that even though this group of babies made it out, around 180 women give birth every day in gaza, so the need for care like this will not go away not the to mention the need to care for the tens of thousands of other wounded gazans, which will also require fuel. now, allowing more fuel into gaza is an explicit part of this deal, but how much of it and how quickly it gets in, that is all unclear. the broad strokes of this deal are in place, but that is just step one. all of the details here are in important. many of them are matters of life or death, and many of them are still being worked out as we speak. joining me now is ben rhodes, former national security advisor for president obama and co-host of the podcast "pod save the world." i want to get to the question of the hostages. there's been a lot of reporting how this deal came together, but sort of buried in that reporting is this reality, and i'm quoting from david ignaceous's reality in "the washington post," though the captives have often been described as being entirely under hamas' control, an israeli official says of a total of about 100 israeli women and children including toddlers and babies hamas had immediate access only to the 50 who will be released. ben, in your eyes how complicated and how problematic is it the reality hamas actually only knows about and is in control of the fraction of these approximately 250 hostages that are inside gaza? >> yeah, alex, you have to think about all the complexity that goes into this. first of all, the negotiations were taking place through qatar, the qatari government, which has hosted a hamas political office in doha. those hamas political leaders are then in touch with hamas leaders on the ground in gaza and you have a situation where the hostages were taken in a chaotic and awful circumstance and other groups operating with hamas palestinian and islamic jihad apparently took some of these hostages as well. and over the course of the past 4r5 days you've had a war zone. you've had a bombardment of gaza. think about how complicated it is. this is a very complicated multifascinated situation. now the additional work has to be be done to find these people and figure out how to transfer them to israeli custody. it's not a surprise to me this might take a dumal of days in order to begin these releases. i think tragically and painfully. >> just to that end when you talk about the logistical difficulty, i wonder if there's a further complexity between the desire of the jihadist groups that may have these hostage. apparently there are just families inside gaza that are holding to some of these hostages and hamas. would you assume these groups are effectively standing shoulder to shoulder with whatever hamas is negotiating via qatar, or could there be separate demands on their behalf? >> none of us know. i would think, though, alex, that you have a situation where hamas with command and control has a certain number of these hostages. then beyond that there, there may be other elements, factions like islamic jihad, or there's reports there are criminal elements who may want to hold hostages for ransom, and it may be in the chaos of war some of these hostageerize among the population there trying to find shelter as well. so it's a complicated endeavor. i think what your try to do in any diplomacy is test what they can deliver and say. it will be an important test on hamas' capacity to see if they can follow through on ten hostages a day. that might give you at least confidence you have a mechanism setup to try to secure additional releases going forward. >> to that end how optimistic are you this agreement could last beyond the four days and 50 hostages? and i just want to read this excerpt in "the new york times" that details how difficult it was to get to this point. on november 14th there's a sense this deal is going to come together. netanyahu calls president biden to say he could accept hamas' offer, but hours after the call the idf storms al-shifa hospital in gaza and suddenly communication between hamas and all the official parties goes silent, and when hamas resurfaces hours later, they made clear the deal was off. israel has made very clear they would like this war to continue. on the eve of the deal initially potentially being agreed upon, they go ahead and raid al-shifa hospital for their strategic ends according to israel. i wonder what that indicates to you about israel's appetite to keep it going even if it could mean the release of hostages every day. >> you know, i think it's a really important question, alex, and first of all i want to say something clearly as someone who had a deal in government in hostage situations in difficult circumstances. and none, frankly, as difficulties gaza, this densely populated area most of whom are displaced, probably most of whom are homeless right now. the reality is it's going to be much easier to secure their release. there's discordance between this ground operation and trying to secure the safety of the hostages, and i think the u.s. has been trying to press the israeli government to take into account the fact it's easier to get the hostages out through negotiation. there's also pressure to put more on the focus on hostages than the military operation itself. prime minister he attacks right. they're going to be putting pressure on him to show the military operation is going to resume. i think there's going to be counter veiling pressure, alex, because the world is looking in horror at the same images you showed today. more 5,000 children have been killed. you have a siege mentality, and as you pointed out a capacity for water borne illnesses if you're not getting water and fuel in that could lead to many, many more deaths. so the idea of pausing this for several days and picking up where we were, i think that's going to cause a significant amount of blow back, and frankly from the united states concern about where this is all going. i think the best c scenario you try to extend this pause and de-escalate. can we talk quickly about that diplomacy? "the times" has a quote. from some senior american officials who signal they would not be disappointed if the pause became a more permanent cease-fire. is that the administration's best route to actually calling for a cease-fire? according to "the new york times" he's the one who pressured prime minister netanyahu to take the deal does the administration not have more leverage here if they actually would not be disappoint fd a cease-fire happened snd. >> i think they do. they have diplomatic leverage in the sense if they start taking a position calling for a cease-fire or deescalation that makes it harder for israel to sustain its operations given the international pressure they're facing. i think the other reality of this, alex, is where this is all going. we know there's major disagreement where this ends. there's some proposals about an arab peacekeeping force. we know prime minister netanyahu said, no, no, no, we're going have to sustain control over gaza for an open period of time. that's a huge gap. so the question is how long does this military operation go, how maximum is the objectives, and what is the end goal is it the end goal to have a palestinian authority in gaza and people can return to their home being rebuilt and/or the end goal israeli occupation? i think the sooner you can address those questions, alex, the better. and i think a pause is a good time to address those questions. look, we share your objectives of destroying hamas but what's happening now is a lot of international tension. hamas is probably blended into that civilian population of over a million people pushed out in gaza. the ability to go one by one and eliminate hamas in that kind of environment is very difficult and could lead to a significant loss of life. i think the administration is going to want to put forward the questions now about what is the objective, where is this going, how do we minimize civilian harm, and how we get aid to people, and how do we address muhamas militarily that replaces some palestinian leadership. >> ben rhodes, thank you so much for your time and wisdom this evening. >> thanks, alex. coming up, the decline and fall maybe of the desantis campaign after spending $100 million and falling to fifth place in the polling. the blame game begins in desantis world. but today trump talks and talks some more. today we got an update on the sheer number of attacks on the subjects. that's up next. r number of attae subjects that's up next while you were out today grabbing a last minute bag of frozen cranberries, trump was lashing out at prosecutors. ranting about the crooked prosecutors working closely with my political opponent. trump is currently free to say whatever he wants at least for now about judge engoron and his court staff in his $250 million civil fraud case. and that is happening while an appeals court decides whether to revoke judge engoron's gag order. but things could soon change for donald trump. today an attorney for judge engoron argued in support of keeping that gag order citing an alarming increase inthets against the judge and his clerk since the gag order was temporarily lifted. since trump posted a picture of the judge's clerk online last month she has received 20 to 30 calls a day per day on her personal cellphone and 30 to 50 daily messages on her personal e-mail and social media accounts. today the attorney said the hundreds of voice mail messages fills more than 275 single-spaced pages. roughly half of those messages the filing states had been anti-semitic. meanwhile we continue to await a ruling from the circuit court of appeals. joining me now is josh gerstein. christine, the evidence the attorney for the court presented today is staggering. it is when donald trump posts pecktures and posts messages about this judge and this clerk. how does the appeals sort of process balance, yes, trump's first amendment rights but quite obviously the security concerns that are on the table here? >> well, the judge has to -- the judge has to look at this and balance. you don't have particularly as a defendant either in a civil case as it is in new york or in a criminal case as he has in d.c. or florida -- don't have an aunfettered right to say whatever you want to say. you are in a court proceeding and there are counter veiling interests here in particular the safety of the people that are involved, and when you look at some of these messages, just look at the sampling that were in there, they are vile. the messages against the clerk were wishing her death and demise. i mean, they are sickening. and the worst part about it is in the affidavit that was put in, the department of public safety -- so these are the police that are helping the court administrators, said they found these sort of credible violent threats, right? they researched. they looked into this and they substantiated them. they found that they were credible, and so they got the fbi involved and homeland security involved to make sure there are security measures in place to protect them. but every time they found them when donald trump opened his mouth and threatened and attacked these people, the threats went up, and so it just -- enough is enough already. like there just has to be a gag order that has teeth, that will be inforlsed that is going to shut him up and stop it. like, this is completely unacceptable. >> i should also just say, you know, if donald trump himself could stop doing it, too. there are not a lot of former presidents in this club that people willingly put out messages that foment violence. i digross. josh, we're waiting for the d.c. circuit court of appeals to decide whether to revoke judge chutkan's gag order down in d.c., and you wrote earlier this week this panel is likely not the time word. the losing side may appeal the judge's decision to the full bench of appeals or the supreme court. now, judge chutkan has been adamant about keeping this trial on track. and yet how optimistic are you that she will be able to given the fact this could be an opportunity for further delays? >> well, i think the gag order is just a small part of the maneuverings that could happen in advance of this march 4th trial date. it may end up at the supreme court. i think, though, alex, if there's a snag that starts to delay the trial it's more likely to be around some of the very broad claims, in fact the claims of absolute immunity that former president trump has put forward in the case basically saying he cannot be prosecuted for these events because they involve things that took place while he was president. we expect judge chutkan do deny the motions he's already brought on those grounds, and those i could see definitely going to the d.c. circuit or the supreme court, and those are the ones i think if we do derail the trial date, it'll be coming from that particular direction. >> we know trump has filed a reply in support of his -- this was as i was walking to celt, in support of his motion to dismiss the selective and vindictive prosecution tonight. am i wrong when i believe this is the sort of throw everything at the wall and see what sticks delay sort of strategy? >> it is. and i think this was clearly expected based on his rhetoric, based on what his lawyers were saying. it's not surprising he's making this kind of motion because, again, for him it's always he's the victim even though he's the one as we know from everything he's saying that's actually putting other people at danger and risk for their own safety. but it's always that people are continually attacking him. so, again, i don't think this is going to have much to it. there's ample evidence of there being probable cause they had a worthy case to bring. >> josh, there are some things the judges can control and some things they can't. we are sitting here at thanksgiving effectively. as you pointed out the hut chutkan case is expected to go to trial march 4th and judge cannon in florida who has not said forthrightly i'd like to deny the case but in your writing last week you point out cannon is aware of the suspicion in some quarters but sees no reason at the moment to ignite the firestorm she would face if she puts it off. there is at this point no real reason to believe this trial is going to happen when it is supposed to. is that fair to say, josh? >> that's what all the legal experts i talked to said including the ones that have handled cases involving classified information, criminal prosecutions. they think that what judge cannon is up to here, the lawyers sometimes call taking a position subsilentio in latin meaning you don't come out and say it, but it's effectively what you're koog. if you slide all the deadlines in some cases by as much as three months even if you don't say you're putting off the trial date, you're putting it off. you look at what a delay of more than a week or so in that trial date would mean, it would mean the trial could collide, for example, with the republican national convention, or it could slip into august or september, which really is the thart of the general election campaign if we assume that former president trump is going to be the republican nominee, so a lot of people think if that trial doesn't get under way by the end of may or beginning of june at the absolute latest it's realistic only going to happen after the election, and of course that means it might not happen at all. >> right, adding more stakes as if we needed them to the presidential election november 2024. thank you guys both for your time tonight. i appreciate it. we have more ahead this evening. chief justice john roberts and his his long battle against the voting rights act. what it tells us about the future of voting rights in the case since coming before the high court. but first what do you get when you pour $100 million into ron desantis' bid for presidency? no really, what do you get? stay with us. get stay with us i got this $1,000 camera for only $41 on dealdash. dealdash.com, online auctions since 2009. this playstation 5 sold for only 50 cents. this ipad pro sold for less than $34. and this nintendo switch, sold for less than $20. i got this kitchenaid stand mixer for only $56. i got this bbq smoker for 26 bucks. and shipping is always free. go to dealdash.com right now and see how much you can save. c'mon, we're right there. c'mon baby. it's the only we need. go, go, go, go! ah! touchdown baby! -touchdown! are your neighbors watching the same game? yeah, my 5g home internet delays the game a bit. but you get used to it. try these. they're noise cancelling earmuffs. i stole them from an airport. it's always something with you, man. great! solid! -greek salad? exactly! don't delay the game with verizon or t-mobile 5g home internet. catch it on the xfinity 10g network. we know her as crooked hillary, but to nikki haley she's her role model, the reason she won for office. >> i often say the reason i got into politics is because of hillary clinton. >> you write about the big inspiration in term of a leader. >> she is actually the reason that i made the jump. >> that's an ad from the newly formed super pac fight right which is taking aim at former south carolina governor nikki haley on behalf of another presidential candidate, florida governor ron desantis. fight right was formed only in the last week amid the shall we say declining confidence amid another soup pac, never back down. never back down spent a staggering $100 million in the past nine months alone in support of the desantis candidacy, which is really something which you consider polling that shows the florida governor ranked fifth in new hampshire. nbc news got an inside look at the hand wringing and finger pointing inside desantis land. i'm a bit agitated these guys have spent all this money for no rush, one desantis contributor has said. you don't just keep throwing money at radio shack. mark, you called the desantis problems before anyone else was aware of them, but i wonder what you make of this shall we say the circular firing squad that seems to have developed among his big dollar donors. do you think the never back down problem is its ads are bad or people are genuinely choosing nikki haley over ron desantis. >> i would say generally the never back down fiasco that happens in realtime is a distraction from the fiasco over 8 to ten months. this is one crisis own top of another crisis. the irony here first of all is never back down is eventually the super pac might have to be back down and they're being replaced. look, this is a campaign that has been basically a disaster in the last year. i think nikki haley has been a beneficiary of that and i think nicky hilly has been a beneficiary of running what is probably the best race in the republican field. the problem each of them have is unfortunately each other. donald trump is going to love seeing the two of them go after each other here. >> i say this with a grain of salt, a fistful of salt, the candidates have also maybe learned a lesson of 2016, which is don't -- don't stay in the race longer than you're actually really factually welcome. you have seen some shall we say expoleiation of folks like tim scott, the folks that were effectively taking votes away from the anti-trump -- the eventual anti-trump candidate whoever he or she may be. >> right. >> do you think there's an awareness inside the field that things need to be different in this time in the way that a lesson is learned? >> yeah, i would say a couple of things. i mean, one, mike pence, tim scott were basically fringe figures which you look at percentage wise and they cease to become threats to anyone by the time they got out. i'm not sure they selflessly said, okay, we must consolidate the field in order to stop donald trump. they seemed to be responding to their own ineptitude. and the problem is with the people who were left especially when you look at desantis, haley, christie and vivek, these are people that don't strike me they'll band together and consolidate their effort for the good of stopping trump. they have their own interests and loyalty true to trump himself. and it doesn't sound like desantis is the kind of guy going to say, okay, spent all this money, spent all this time i'm going to be bound to nikki haley and let her carry the torch. to what end? he's he's shown no interest in doing that and vice versa. and that's to the benefit of donald trump. >> your point about the egos involved here is well-taken given the nbc news reporting of just what was happening among the heads of these various super-packs. i'll read an excerpt. you have a stickup your bleep, scott, said jeff, fuming at a member of the never back down board. why don't you come over here and get it, wagner response -- no relation -- rising from his chair. he was quickly restrained by two fellow board members. we saw mark wayne mullen almost come to fist cuffs in the senate with a union leader last week. we now see republican super pac heads threatening violence with one another. i mean how reflective is this of the broader republican party and to your earlier point i mean what does it indicate about anybody being able to be the adult in the room as it concerns scuttling the candidacy of donald trump? >> yeah, i mean the adults in the room has seen better days in the republican party. i do think the quality of the trash talk within the republican ranks, and even like the kevin mccarthy like when someone asks mccarthy if he actually elbowed him in the kidneys and said if i hit him in the kidneys he would have known it or whatever it was, they really need to up their trash talk game within the larger farce we're talking about here. ultimately i do think this is emblematic to some degree of a pretty unserious party right now but also quintessential trumpian and quint essentially of the spirit and chaos and of the childishness that he kind of brought to the dance in 2016 which has been the identity of the party and basically the dominant force for much of america the last five, six, seven years and here we are. >> i'll just recall what you wreet in november 2022. my sense is trump would gut desantis was a dull deer antler. that was according coo to one insider. one of my favorite reporters out there, thank you for joining me, mark. coming up the voting rights act saw another setback this week from an appeals court in a decision that could soon find its way before the supreme court. what will john roberts and his justices do next? that's coming up. justices do next that's coming up (man) mm, hey, honey. looks like my to-do list grew. "paint the bathroom, give baxter a bath, get life insurance," hm. i have a few minutes. i can do that now. oh, that fast? remember that colonial penn ad? i called and i got information. they sent the simple form i need to apply. all i do is fill it out and send it back. well, that sounds too easy! (man) give a little information, check a few boxes, sign my name, done. they don't ask about your health? (man) no health questions. -physical exam? -don't need one. it's colonial penn guaranteed acceptance whole life insurance. if you're between the ages of 50 and 85, your acceptance is guaranteed in most states, even if you're not in the best health. options start at $9.95 a month, 35 cents a day. once insured, your rate will never increase. a lifetime rate lock guarantees it. keep in mind, this is lifetime protection. as long as you pay your premiums, it's yours to keep. call for more information and the simple form you need to apply today. there's no obligation, and you'll receive a free beneficiary planner just for calling. the president who originally favored only a ten year extension and came late to endorse this version had nothing but praise for it today. >> the right to vote is the crown jewel of american liberties, and we will not see its luster diminished. >> the bill signing ceremony moved indoors because the threat of rain was witnessed by some of the president's severest critics, black civil rights leaders, and edward kennedy. >> in april 1922 president ronald reagan signed the extension of the voting rights act and he signed it reluctantly because this 25-year extension included an amendment to seconds 2 which prohibits discriminatory voting practices and the reagan administration did not want to sign that. the amendment ensured victims of discriminatory voting law would not have to prove the laws were intentionally discriminatory. they just the to prove they were discriminated against, that that was the effect of the law. this issue had been litigated for years even in the supreme court which ruled in 1980 with exceptions the vra only forbade intentional discrimination. after that ruling an attorney for the black voters in question, called the decision the biggest step backwards in civil rights to come from the nixon court. that is why the amendment reagan signed in the summer of 1982 was so important. it kept the country from taking a big step backwards. it is why presumably the reagan administration lobbied equally hard against it with the help of a young lawyer named john roberts. for months before reagan signed that bill, roberts, than a special assistant to the attorney general drafted -- he argued section 2 should be kept the way it was prohibiting only intentional discrimination and not just discrimination. roberts argued that violations of the voting rights act should not be made too easy to prove since they provide a basis for the most intrusive interference imaginable by federal courts. roberts added revising parts of the vra would not only be constitutional spektd but also contrary to the most fundamental tenants of the legislative process in which the laws of this country are based. john roberts lost that argument in 1982. congress passed it, and president reagan signed the updated voting rights act. but that was just the beginning of john roberts work against the vra. as a supreme court chief justice, roberts would get more opportunities to gut the law starting with section 5 of the vra which was designed to monitor states with a history of racial discrimination. >> the court's conservatives today followed through on a threat they made four years ago to strike at the heart of the voting rights act unless congress updated it. the ruling deals as crippling and potentially fatal blow to the law signed by president johnson in 1965, a response to widespread efforts in the south to prevent blacks from voting. >> and very soon the supreme court could have another chance to erode voting rights protections. on monday a federal appeals court panel ruled section 2 of the vra does not allow private plaintiffs to bring lawsuits. contrary to the way the law has worked up until now, this appeals court now says only the federal government can bring lawsuits alleging violations of the voting rights act. cases almost certain to reach the supreme court. and when it does, justice roberts and the other conservatives on the court could continue the campaign to hollow out one of the most important anti-discrimination laws in this country. i'll talk to the atlantic's -- coming up next. atlantic's -- coming up next you want to be able to provide your child with the tools or resources they need. with reliable internet at home, through the internet essentials program, the world opened up. fellas, fellas. that's how my son was able to find the hidden genius project. we wanted to give y'all the necessary skills to compete with the future. kevin's now part of this next generation of young people who feel they can thrive. ♪ ♪ on monday a federal appeals court panel ruled section 2 of the volting rights act does not allow private citizens or civil rights groups to challenge racial discrimination in voting. the ruling stands to further erode the protections of the vra and the conservative supreme court is expected to weigh in. the atlantic's adam serur is calling this decision that could end voting rights. the constitution is supposed to forbid such a ruling if you have enough justices to find unconstitutional the laws adopted to enforce that right or willing to rule in such a way that nullifies the abilities of those laws to function, you can simply renlder the 15th amendment, the one granting black men the right to vote, you can render that useless. joining me now is the staff writer at the atlantic. thanks for being here tonight. your piece is so essential in this moment and you draw a sort of through line between the justices of the supreme court and the twilight of reconstruction around 1871 and today. i wonder if you can elaborate on that for folks who haven't yet read the piece. >> i mean the 15th amendment was adopted during reconstruction, and what happened is it simply ceased to be enforced. the supreme court at that time simply allowed it to be nullified by the southern states which wanted to impose a jim crow regime on black people in the south. and it required a second reconstruction to make the rights guaranteed by the 15th amendment rights. and what happened in the decades following is that people like john roberts decided that racism was over, that racial discrimination in voting was not a serious problem anymore, and that the bigger problem was he put it as a young attorney in the justice department, this interference with the rights of the states to limit voting as they see fit even if that abridgeed the rights of black people to vote. and that really is the problem here. and the question is whether he still has that sort of dorm room libertarian naivety even now after alabama openly defied a supreme court ruling in this past year because they wanted to prevent, they wanted to dilute the votes of black citizens of alabama, the question is whether he and justice brett kavanaugh who told alabama that to follow the supreme court's ruling and draw a second black history in alabama where black voters were able to elect the representative -- the representative of their choice. the question is whether they're committed to this idea of unraveling these laws that protect the right to vote, whether it's a question of ideology or naivety, whether they've been shown how serious this problem continues to be and understand why now the protections were adopted in the first place or whether they're so bent on helping the republican party disenfranchise their constituents that they'll allow this to go forward. >> adam, to that end you assign i would say not the best of motives in terms of the supreme court's ruling on the alabama case. can you talk a little bit about how you understand the court to have ruled and why you think they voted effect evly in the support of black voters in that case. >> there's the initial case in which they upheld the section 2 challenge that alabama was required to draw a second black district because a law portion of the state is black and they only have one black district. the real issue in terms of motive it's actually quite interesting that kavanaugh and roberts upheld the law in that case. but the second time around alabama basically said assume, you know, the court is majority republican appointees, so we're going to do what they want, and they're going to let us do it. and what the court said was, well, no, we're going to uphold the law because to allow you to simply openly defy a ruling like that would undermine our power as a supreme court justice. if you say that the supreme court -- what the supreme court -- supreme court rulings are the law of the land and you allow people to defy those rulings, it's not going to be just alabama defying it. it's not going to be other actors who don't like the outcome of certain cases. so in that case the decision was i believe unanimous in terms of telling alabama the second time to go back and draw that district. but that was a direct challenge to the power of the supreme court. and this case is -- is a statutory case. it's not a direct threat to their power, and so they can rule safely without undermining their own authority. >> it's about the power of the court and not necessarily disenfranchising black voters. thank you so much for your time. happy thanksgiving to you and everyone at home. that is our show for this evening. tonight the temporary pause in the israel-hamas war now delayed. israel says no hostages in gaza will be released before friday as families eagerly await to hear ifir