then. >> my office will seek a speedy trial. the evidence can be tested in court and judged by a group of citizens. >> why jack smith's supreme court action could be even smarter than it looks. plus, why cell phone data from inside the white house on january 6th could be a big deal. >> my reaction to it is that it's a terrible tweet. i thought it was wrong. >> as the president hosts vladimir zelenskyy in the white house, how the biden rift with the prime minister of israel spilled into public view, when all in starts, right now. >> good evening from new york. i'm chris hayes. nearly everyone watching tonight has either had the experience of being pregnant or being close to someone who has been pregnant. it's one of the most intense and overwhelming experiences in this life. i mean, i have felt, this three times when my wife's been pregnant, even as the person adjacent not having to do anything, i'll never know what it's like to have to physically go through it, and yet still, in the early stages, there's this real sense of precariousness. every one of those early checkups, your heart is in your throat. you wait to hear the baby's first heartbeat. and then you wait to tell your friends and family because you know that miscarriages happen. and then you get past that 12 -week mark, which you have got in your head, on the calendar, the first trimester, where the vast majority of those losses occur. and you think, you hope that you're in the clear, and you probably show the good news in the start making plans for the shower and the nursery and the birth, and it all seems real. kate cox has been through this before. she's got two children. when she learned she was pregnant with her third in august she was overjoyed. kate cox and her husband justin always wanted a big family. and october she had a blood test to screen for some fetal conditions and to learn the sex of the baby. she was excited to find out if she was carrying a boy or a girl. and then the cox's got the worst possible news. their unborn child had a genetic condition called twice a may 18 that causes severe heart defect and other heart abnormalities. it's almost always fatal, with most pregnancies ending in miscarriage or stillbirth. the vast majority of those who make it through delivery survive just a matter of days. kate and her husband justin cox learned through repeated ultrasounds that the fetus that she was carrying had multiple serious conditions including, quote, a twisted spine likely due to spina bifida, a neural tube defect, an irregular skull and heart development. her health was now at budgeted. the emergency room several times in severe cramping. two previous deliveries were difficult, we're c-section. the doctors if induced labor she would be at high-levels risk of uterus rupture, meaning she wouldn't be able to kill child has carried children again. another c-section would make subsequent pay disease more dangerous. kate cox and her family received this awful news in her home state of texas which of course and some of the strictest anti abortion laws in the country. it has been at the forefront at of the anti-abortion movement in the 18 month since roe v. wade was overturned, in fact leapfrogged ahead of that overturning with the very controversial law. now republicans dominate the state government at all levels. they have used the state as a laboratory for their vision of control over every texas woman 's body. every pregnant body in the state of texas is now fundamentally the state property. so kate cox and her doctors didn't get to choose what was best for her. the republican-controlled state did. cox and her doctors decided that unforeseen was the safety safest option to protect our health and future fertility. she could not have the procures she needed because in the state of texas any doctor who performs an abortion could be criminally prosecuted and face lash life in prison. amidst this devastating tortuous situation warning the much want wanted charlotte survive, and her own activity will not survive, kate cox was forced by the people were supposed to support her, to sue those people, her own state, for the medical care she needed. and think about that for a second, amidst this crisis, for the family. they had to find legal representation, they had to make their names and the most intimate vulnerable facts about themselves public, they had to go to court to ask a judge to rule that kate cox and her doctors could decide what was best for her. and last week, a court judge said yes. that judge issued a temporary restraining order against the state of texas, blocking the government from prosecuting kate cox's doctor in anyone who assisted in providing her with an abortion. but rather than that lead that ruling stand, republican attorney general ken paxton wrote a letter threatening the doctor and the three hospitals where she practices. paxton claimed the judge's ruling, quote, will not insulate you or anyone else from civil or criminal liability for violating texas abortion laws, including first degree felony prosecutions. not content with a threatening letter or prolonging the mental and spiritual torture of this woman, he petitioned the state supreme court, asking them to intervene and stop kate cox from being able to receive an abortion. and all the while kate cox in a family were waiting, in limbo. she's got two kids. she's passed 20 weeks pregnant. her house health was deteriorating. she had been to the emergency room four times in one month. so she was finally forced to flee the state of texas, to flee her own government that's supposed to represent her as a medical refugee. she had to leave her home and her doctors, who know her and have cared for her, and her hospital, and she believed everything familiar and safe to have a scary and emotionally fraught procedure in a strange city with a strange doctor in a strange hospital. because that's what ken paxton wanted. that's what state republicans wanted, that she be in a hospital in another state, terrified at this moment in her life. and the very same day that kate cox fled her home state of texas, that states state supreme court ruled against her. they said no, she could not receive the medical care that she needs in her own state. the panel of republicans even had the gall to question the doctors judgment saying, quote, she did not attest to the court amidst cox's condition poses a risk the abortion exception requires. that is that the pregnancy seriously threatened her health for life. nope. they don't like it. sorry. the state supreme court says you can't get the procedure. a republican government, at all levels, state level, telling a door in the pregnant woman she cannot receive the medical care she desperately needs. it is the nightmare scenario come true. there it is. right now. happening before our eyes. the nightmare scenario, the proponents of abortion rights have warned about for 15 years. it just happened to kate cox in texas and it is coming for everyone. make no mistake, this movement, the one you just saw pursue control over kate cox's body, to appeal to the state supreme, to issue threatening letters to hospitals, that movement is not going to relent. they will never give up on their aims of exerting that level of control over every single woman's body in this country. every voter in this country needs to understand that they could be cut koch's. everyone in this country needs to understand that they could be kate cox's loved one. kate cox could be in your family and you could be going through that. we all will be if republicans remain in power and expanded power. this is a central issue. the democrats must be talking about this election up and down the ticket. president joe biden did really statement tonight saying, in part, no one should be forced to go to court or flee her home state just to receive the health care she needs. but that is exactly what happened in texas thanks to republican elected officials, and it is simply outrageous. this should never happen in america, period. here's the thing. republicans know that this spectacle, this despicable spectacle that just went on in texas, is politically toxi for them. we can tell because theyre trying hard to pretend that this didn't just happen. get testerday fox news interview texas governor greg abnd d not ask him a single question about kate cox. and today both republican senators from the state of texas refused to say anything about it. >> do you support with the texas attorney general did in blocking kate cox from getting an abortion after she found out she -- >> that strictly a matter of straight law. not federal law. >> are you worried about women in your state whose health might be at risk? >> i'm a federal official -- >> but this is something -- that >> so i'm not gonna comment on what state officials are doing. i'm happy to comment on anything that i'm responsible for. >> i wanted to get your thoughts on the texas attorney general what he is doing against kate cox and blocking of her receiving an abortion? do you have any comment on that? >> just call our press office. >> do you agree with attorney general paxton's actions and what he did? >> just call our press office. >> i have. i actually haven't received an answer. so missouri valley you like to say right now on? this >> call our press office. >> a senior staff attorney at the senator for reproductive rights that represents kate cox in this. great to have you here. i don't want to violate any privacy from a woman and family that have already incredibly brely put themselves out there, but i do want to ask how kate cox is doing at this hour. >> she's doing as well as can be expected. but i do want to whine the wheels back and think about what she has been through over the last week and a half. a week and a half ago she received the worst news of her life, confirmation that her third child head -- and would likely be stillborn or most would survey survived four minutes, hours or, days. she was also told because of her to prior c-section's she was at increased risk for uterine rupture, hysterectomy, and, as you said so eloquently, she wants to have more children. she wants to grow her family. what did she do in the last week and a half? she found a lawyer, she decided to file a lawsuit. she received an order from a court saying yes, you are entitled to an abortion. then she had the attorney general threatening her family and her doctors. then she had the texas supreme court say no, we're going to put a hold on this. we need more time. and then she spent three agonizing days waiting for an answer before the texas supreme court -- >> yes, i forgot, they paused that earlier ruling that said yes you can get this medical care. they said no you can't, wait. we're going to think it over at the texas state supreme court, whether we think you should do this. and she just had to sit there and wait. >> a week is a short amount of time for a court, but for a person, a real person in a medical emergency with young children in a family, it was agonizing. she spent most of the weekend in bed and so i really want people to put themselves in her shoes and take about who they want in the medical room with their husband and their doctors. is it ken paxton or not? >> one of the aspects of this case that i think it has highlighted is this notion of exceptions. there is under state law in texas apparently exceptions for women that may need an abortion is a medical necessity. we have seen multiple women, including other clients of yours, amanda zurawski's are among others, who have been demise denied reproductive care that they felt they needed under the exception of. what does it say about the actual lived reality of exceptions in the state of texas or any state that has them, if this is what plays out when a so-called exception actually applies? >> this is what i really want people to understand about abortion bans. exceptions don't exist. because if cape cod get an abortion, i don't know who can. you often hear about, well, 15 weeks is a compromise, or don't worry there are exceptions. republicans want to pass a 15 -week abortion ban. i have heard politicians saying that. that would mean national 15 -week abortion ban that all of us are kate cox, because -- >> she's got nowhere to go. >> nowhere to go. >> i have to say, is a bit in the ruling, a little bit in the reads of the ruling, but kate, my wife, who you know, law professor, pointed this out to me, there's something so disingenuously bad faith about the court ruling, which basically says, well, if you can get, if it's a medical necessity, they say a woman who meets a medical necessity exception need not seek a court order to obtain an abortion. under the law is a doctor who must decide that a woman is suffering from a life-threatening condition during a pregnancy, basically saying what do you mean corridor order? go ahead. if it's medically necessary. you have the attorney general of the state writing to threaten this woman with felony conviction and the court has the gall to say we don't see a court issue here. the doctor can make the call. let the chips fall where they may. >> i'm laughing because it's not funny at all, but the courts are saying they don't want to be involved, the medical board says they don't want to be involved, the attorney general's not going to do anything to help and it's going to run roughshod on the medical community in texas, and meanwhile real women's, real pregnant peoples bodies and lives of families hanging in the balance, and that should be deeply troubling to people across the country. >> what does it say to you, your lawyer, you're not a politician or a politician staffer, but what does it say to you that the two senators who represent kate cox, she's their constituents, have nothing to say about this? that greg abbott doesn't get a question about it when he appears on fox? what does that say to you? >> well, i have to talk a little bit about amanda zurawski for a moment. >> please. >> so i also represent amanda and 20 women in the state of texas who are challenging these restrictions, before i even met kate cox, because they and their doctors are saying as loudly as you can, we don't know how close to death we needed to be. our doctors didn't know, and their health suffered as a result. and when amanda zurawski testified before the janitors issue judiciary hearing, neither of our senators were in the. room they came in to make statements, opening statements about how much they opposed abortion and then they left before she testified. so the fact that ted cruz ran away from reporters asking about kate cox doesn't surprise me at all. >> i asked you it is the beginning, i just want to circle around again, i don't want to violate privacy, but is kate cox in her family, i know it's an awful situation, if you doing okay? >> she stayed off line, which i think was the best thing one could do in this situation. she's doing fine. i appreciate you asking. and i have to say, with the outpouring of support we have received from people across the country, wanting to know if she's okay, wanting to help, offering words of support, it has meant so much to us as her legal team, and that i have conveyed to her, and i also want to mention that all of those zurawski plaintiffs, each of the 20 women who are suing their state because they too were forced to become septic or travel out of state or put their uteruses and lives in children on the line, they have suffered this rollercoaster with her. the highs the lows the disappointments and their politicians in their state and the lack of guidance and real empathy and talk about being pro-life, where is the government for these families in these women? it's nowhere to be found. >> we should note that in your attorney to the court you did not want to move to the cape move the case despite the fact that the facts of change. we will see if that continues. me molly duane, doing great lowering, and thank you very much. >> coming up, the special counsel calls don't thompson blot bluff. why jack smith asked the supreme court to get involved and why this is an even bigger deal than it looks. after this. it■s beginning to look alot like savings! blendjets holiday sale is on now! give the gift of convenience the blendjet 2 portable blender is perfect for everyone on your list. even that picky relative who hates everything. and dont forget the accessories! theyre all on sale! dont wait! our most popular colors and patterns will sell out! go to blendjet.com and take advantage of our holiday sale now. >> special counsel jack smith is trying to force a supreme court ruling on whether presidents have immunity for the crimes they committed in office. so we're now waiting to hear from donald trump's legal team, which has been ordered by the suemcourt to file its reply brief to that question next week. yesterday smith shocked a lot of people by asking the supreme court to either definitively take up a question or say they are not going to as quickly as possible, so as to preserve the schedule of his federal trial, 's attempted coup, that is currently set for march. the procedural move this myth used is a rare one. usually the way this works out is a long drawn out process. here's where we are. trump filed a motion in october claiming that he could not even be tried for his crimes because the constitution granted him immunity for his actions as president. and federal judge tanya chutkan, overseeing the case, consider that argument and rejected the argument earlier this month. she issued a ruling saying no. then what would normally happen is that trump would file an appeal with the circuit court, when level up from judge chutkan, and then three judges would come together on that court initial judgment. trump couldn't file an en banc appeal heard by the full court, not just three judges. then you could appeal to the supreme court. and then what was on appeal to the supreme court he could say to the court, look, what you just put a pause on this trial while you guys sort of consider these weighty arguments? and of course would everyone understands as i just laid out that loan process is the entire game here for trump is to use that very process to delay as long as possible. and then, in the end, the supreme court basically aids his efforts to push this all past the election. he may be president he can pardon him self or drop the case. and in making this brash move, what smith did, called surgery before judgment, jack smith is saying we all know the score here. we know trump wants to delay. we know he wants to use the length of process, and we also know this eventually gets up to you guys in the supreme court one way or another, so how about we cut to the chase now. what he is doing is forcing the supreme court to show its cards. he's telling the court the donald trump has accused of the gravest crime against american democracy since the civil war, and he cannot escape accountability before the election through some santa invisible in silent procedural motions outside public attention. he saying to the court, if you guys are gonna help him out, you're gonna have to do it in front of everyone. harry litman served as deputy assistant attorney general and department of justice, he's now a senior legal columnist for the l. a. times. he joins me now. harry, first of all, you and i have talked about this a lot. it was always going to be the case that he was going to find some vehicle to get this before the supreme court, the constitutional claim of immunity, and then hope and pray that even if he doesn't get them to the merits they'll say oh, man, this is a tough one. we need to consider this. let's have oral arguments in a few months, and then we'll think about it. and while we're doing that, stay the trial. that was always the hope. what do you think of smith's move here? >> i think it's a master stroke. i mean, having done, it it looks blindingly obvious but no one had anticipated it before. >> no. >> it's just as you say, chris, smith figured we could win the battle but lose the war. the court could weigh in. normally if you are ahead you put the other guy to make the initiative, you put trump to do these moves. but they realized time was eating up and that it really was the number one focus was the clock. so launching this kind of leapfrog over the d. c. circuit over the en banc puts it to the court and not just says decided but decided quickly this is the u.s. versus nixon and it's the new bird that will be part of the history of this case when it is written, it preserves the strong possibility that the case will still be tried in march or shortly thereafter and if the court says no because he is immune, as you say, that would happen anyway, but if they deny or uphold that claim, we go forward and it petition is full of comments about the imperative importance of going forward and the question presented, it is a really smart move on his part. >> they say this case involves an issue of exceptional national characteristics, and only this court can provide the final -- we are unfairly uncharted territory here. his constitutional claims are, bronchiolitic you agree, and i think chutkan's decision was good, but it's fairly novel. there are two aspects of what smith is doing here that are so wild. one is, he won the district level. you don't appeal favorable rulings. so that's part of what is so shocking. you won. when you win, you don't go and say, like, wait, do we really went? and he is leapfrogging the appellate court. so both of those things are just like you don't do either of those things except in the rarest of cases. >> like fewer than 50 times ever has the court done it. and by the way, he says this very currently, exceptional importance. you need to show that to get the court to do this and it's so obvious that is what is their. and you know, look, you are right the members of the court might about an effort to delay things. but now they are forced to the issue. remember, justice kavanaugh in his convert confirmations and u.s. versus nixon, one of the most important cases ever, where the court really save him on the merits as opposed to procedurally? and that's going to be put to them directly in a way. this, by the way, seems to be the last chance, because the other trials are being delayed. this is now, this very issue in front of the supreme court, the big ticket item and all of trump land. >> that's exactly right. harry litman, thank you, as always. still ahead, donald trump's legal woes continue to deepen. what the special counsel found on trump's personal phone and how it can be used against him at trial. that's next. we planned well for retirement, but i wish we had more cash. you think those two sically sitting on a goldmine? i don't think they have a clue. that's crazy! well, not everyone knows coventry's helped thousands of people sell their policies for cash. even term policies. i can't believe they're just sitting up there! sitting on all this cash. if you own a life insurance policy of $100,000 or more, you can sell all or part of it to coventry. even a term policy. for cash, or a combination of cash and coverage, with no future premiums. someone needs to tell them, that they're sitting on a goldmine, and you have no idea! hey, guys! you're sitting on a goldmine! come on, guys! do you hear that? i don't hear anything anymore. find out if you're sitting on a goldmine. call coventry direct today at the number on your screen, or visit coventrydirect.com. >> in the latest court filing special counsel jack smith reveals that he plans to call an expert who has extracted data from the cell phones of the ex president along with one unnamed person at the white house, and this expert has determined the usage of these phone throughout the postelection period, including on and around january 6th, 2021, including analyzing images found on the phones and websites visited and has specifically identify the periods of time during which the defendants phone was unlocked and the twitter application was open on january 6th. joyce vance, former u.s. attorney for the northern district of alabama, and now a professor at the university of alabama school of law. she joins me now. first of all, explain to me what the context is that we learn this information from jack smith's office about their plans to call this a named expert who has more this phone? >> sure. so this is the standard, a rule 16 disclosure, and the courts are described the prosecution has to tell a defendant in the court who their expert witnesses will be in some outline of what they were testify to, so we've learned not only this witness you have mentioned but two others who will talk about geolocation data and how the crowd and individuals moved from trump's speech on the ellipse that morning of january six over to the capital. >> much this wave going about, i guess i don't know the tech involved here, but i was pretty struck to see that they have an expert, presumably it's a government expert, as someone who is overseeing a attorney's office and prosecute a bunch of cases, what's your reaction that they apparently had this information? >> it's interesting for a couple of reasons. as you indicated, we don't know who the experts are. they are not required to identify them. this document reveals that they are people who have more training than a lab person. it could be a government agent. it could be someone from the industry. but something that is worth noting here is that jack smith does not seem to have had to go to court to unlock these fans. they should both be government issued phones, which would make accessing them a little bit easier. lots of interesting details here that we don't know yet. >> there's also the context here, the call logs, that have always been weary weirdly missing. there's a gap of seven hours in the presidential prologue, or no calls entire afternoon of january six, a gap in the presidential diary of two ho that afternoon. this is early reporting by barbara costa seeing the filling in the gap in the national archives record phone calls as long been a goal of the special counsel team, based on my conversations with me -- text messages show by witnesses, all of these things are pieces of the puzzle. and witness testimony, you start to fill the picture about who was where, when, and who they reached out to as the capitol who's under siege. even the january six committee could not quite get to some of these things. >> yeah, i think that's absolutely right. we'll find out what calls were made on trump's phone. the plus one, it's not clea who that is. i suspect it's mark meadows or someone else whose phone trump was using. but the interesting thing here is that this data and these expert witnesses can only talk about the phone being used, not who was, for instance, making or receiving a call. so i think bob is right when he says eyewitness testimony will have to fill in those blanks, and together it could be a pretty compelling picture of what donald trump was trying to hide by not having these calls show up on official logs. >> a great point. it is also this other expert about she'll location. this also coming from that same rule 16 filing. expert one plotted the location history for google accounts are devices associated with individuals who moved on january six from an area after near the ellipse to an area encompassing the united states building. will a jury and understanding the movements of individuals toward the capitol during and after the defendant speech at the ellipse. being able to tell the story with actual data of what happens when donald trump says go to the capital. me >> i think that's clearly what is happening here, and we have seen those maps that show how folks cell phones light up on the map and you can see people leaving the ellipse and go into the capital. what i'm curious about from how this is phrased is whether they will also be talking about any particular individuals and how we know what points they might have moved. i suspect this is more about the group data about clearly they would have access to individual sort of movements as well. >> a great point. joyce vance, as always, thank you very much. still to come, as president biden stands shoulder to shoulder with ukrainian president, republicans continue to delay. why they refused to lift a finger for a country fighting for its survival, next. rvival, next rvival, next "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. zelenskyy was in washington today making a direct and personal appeal for additional military aid, as russia's invasion of its country enters its third year. >> ukraine is gradually becoming less dependent on aid. we are moving, i think, in the right direction and i want to discuss it with the president, how to -- especially enhancing our air defense and ability to destroy russia's logistics. our goals for 24 are clear. take away rushes superiority and disrupt the offensive operations. >> congressional republicans, especially those in the house, have singled, they don't want to keep supporting ukraine and its war against russia, ahead of zelenskyy's visit. florida congressman, matt gaetz, one of the maga republicans leading the charge against additional aid saying plainly, quote, america has sent enough money to ukraine. on the senate side, punchbowl news reports, quote, senate republicans indicated they don't even really want to hear from zelenskyy. that's because republicans have decided that if they are going to keep sending aid to ukraine, they're going to charge democrats a price for it. specifically, they want to complete transformation of the policy around the u.s., mexico border to fit donald trump's desires. >> what the biden administration seems to be asking for is billions of additional dollars with no appropriate oversight, no clear strategy to win, and none of the answers that i think the american people are owed. i've also made very clear, from day one, that our first condition on any national security supplemental spending package is about our own security first. >> as of right now, there is no deal inside because house republicans want to start their holiday recess on friday. it is that time of year. today, president biden made it clear what he thinks of the republicans attitude. >> russian loyalists in moscow celebrated when republicans voted to block ukraine aid last week. the host of america a kremlin run show literally said, and i quote, well done, republicans. that's good for us. if you are being celebrated by russian propagandists, it might be time to rethink what you are doing. >> now, vladimir putin already enacted the most audacious criminal election sabotage in recent memory back in 2016, famously. when he looks at his prospects in the war in ukraine and american politics, it is obvious that it is in his best interest to do whatever he can to help elect republicans again. the guys who will assist as well as by cutting off aid to ukraine, forcing it into some settlement under conditions of surrender. just think about the messages being sent by republicans right now about what vladimir putin should do in the 2024 elections. advanced hearing aids. these aren't cheap amplifiers that don't really work, and you'll never have to pay thousands again. the fda now allows us to bring true, high-quality hearing aids direct to you. through rca's hearing america program, you can get your choice of two, state-of-the-art, ultra-discrete hearing aids, listed at $1199.00, now for a special, introductory price, or pay as little as only $29 a month, with free shipping! they're affordable. they're not the cost people associate with hearing aids. my old-fashioned ones cost me $5,000 and these actually work better. engineered with advanced technology, the rca's are rechargeable, and have easy to use volume controls, built right in. and unlike so many others, with a push of a button, these hearing aids give you pre-sets for better hearing. in a quiet setting, loud restaurants, or listening to music, you can adjust them to help you hear the best... wherever you are” there's no tools required and no batteries to fumble with! when i first popped them in, i went, wow! i hear everything. simply slip in your rca hearing aids, and instantly hear your world again. grampa, i love you. never miss a moment again. you know rca... the quality is there. you cleared up decades of frustration in a second. order now and we'll ship your pair of fda registered hearing aids in your choice of style with incredible savings. pay as low as only $29 a month! you get a 45-day money back guarantee, free 24/7 us based support, a portable charging case, and free shipping. with rca, you can be hearing better in just days! order yours now! call this number or go to: rcahearingaids.com now 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. first time i connected with kim, she told me that her husband had passed. and that he took care of all of the internet connected devices in the home. i told her, “i'm here to take care of you.” connecting with kim... made me reconnect with my mom. it's very important to keep loved ones close. we know that creating memories with loved ones brings so much joy to your life. a family trip to the team usa training facility. i don't know how to thank you. >> the simmering tension i'm here to thank you. between the administrations of president bideisraeli prime minister benjamin netanyahu apparently boiled over today. buttons as he warned behind closed doors that netanyahu risked losing support across the world if the israeli military does not change course on its, and i quote him here, indiscriminate bombing in gaza. the sentiment he echoed in slightly softer language hidden from cameras a few hours ago. >> we have made it clear to the israelis and they are aware that the safety of innocent palestinians is still of great concern, and so, the actions that they're taking must be consistent with attempting to do everything possible to prevent innocent palestinian civilians from being hurt, murdered, killed. >> one of the other big sources of tension between prime, president biden and prime minister netanyahu, is the question of what will happen in gaza after the war? the white house is pushing for the palestinians -- currently the governing regime in the west bank to take over gaza. netanyahu says it is a nonstarter. it's worth remembering netanyahu has facilitated the payment of millions of dollars to hamas in gaza to prop it up at something as a competitor to palestinian authority, in order to make the prospect of a two-state solution with a unified palestinian regime less likely. now, this comes as the dire humanitarian crisis in gaza gets ever more perilous. -- airstrikes and killings from the israeli military. according to analysis from financial times, a larger percentage of buildings have been damaged in northern gaza, per the campaign starter, over the past two months, than in the entire allied bombing campaign of dresden in germany during world war ii. legendary, as one of the most intense bombing campaigns of war. practically every single ngo and aid organization is shouting at the absolute top of their lungs about the scale of mass death and war crimes. leaders from any of those groups coauthored on usa in new york times titled, we are no strangers to human suffering, but we have seen nothing like the siege of gaza. yanni sarepto is a coauthor of that as a. she's president ceo of save the children, which has provided aid to palestinian children for sen decades. peter beinart is auor of the buyenobook on substack, contributed to another piece in the times today about a path to peace in gaza, and they both join me now. let me start with you on this -- it's been a challenge, i think, you might want to read from it. you say, most of our organizations have been operating gaza for decades. we can do nothing remotely adequate to address the level of suffering without an immediate and complete cease-fire and an end to the siege. the aerial barnesav rendered our jobs impossible. the withholding of water, fuel, food, and other basic goods has created an enormous scale of need that aid alone could not offset. we get images of places in dire humanitarian straits a lot in the world. there are several hotspots right now, including in sudan and other places. as an aid organization has experience in this, i've been struck by doctors without borders saying, there is something particularly afoot here. why? >> yeah, thanks. there are a couple things and i should say, save the children has been doing humanitarian work for over 100 years and all these hotspots and is doing so today. from sudan, to afghanistan, to ethiopia, and anywhere else. what is unique here is a very small piece of land, on every decreasing piece of land, with 2 million people. 1 million of whom are children, and there is no way to escape. in many of the other crises in near present, not everybody can always get out. not everybody can flee, but a lot can. here, it's completely impossible. there's also a complete withholding of basic necessities. water, fuel, electricity, food, also in the places where there is no fighting. so, you know, there is no water. we are looking at, yes, children are dying from bombing and shelling, and violence. many more will die from waterborne diseases, from hunger, if this does not stop. >> the comments by joe biden behind closed doors, where we use that word indiscriminate, which has been a real sort of third rail thing to say, i think. one of the weird paradoxes here always is that the biden administration has wrapped itself very closely to netanyahu, he's wildly unpopular in israel, and also just has a different -- instead of politics and values that joe biden does. it feels to me like there is only so long that tension is going to be -- >> yeah, but listening to joe biden, i think it's kind of surreal. i mean, he says, international support is eroding. he's not just a political commentator, he's the president of the united states. the question is, if you, joe biden, believe it's indiscriminate, why are you sending more weapons with no restrictions on what the weapons can do? it doesn't make any sense. >> right, to put it on some other -- >> something like some other guy is going to make the decision, you have to make the decision. your legacy is going to be american complicity in this historic slaughter and it destruction of the very international norms that you have saved your presidency on. >> let me ask you something about the ngo community because i've heard this critique and i like you to respond to it. it basically goes the following. all these ngos are doing important and good work in gaza, and there are a lot of them because of the weird situation that it finds itself in with, you know, doesn't have normal trade, but because of the fact that they're basically dependent on hamas, which is the governing authority, hamas doesn't like dissent and that everyone sort of has to kind of accommodate them and that the ngos are not going to say anything bad about them, they're not going to criticize hamas. so that they can operate and do the humanitarian work, but it means that groups like yours aren't really sort of, like, fair dealers or neutral arbiters. >> yeah, we get that a lot. we and others. and look, we work in super complicated crises like this one, but it's not the only one where you have that tension between the importance of access, the importance of safety and security for our staff on the ground. we do not want to put a target on their back. as well as sticking to our humanitarian principles, neutrality -- independence, humanity. and that's sometimes the dancing of the -- and that's why, yes, we do private advocacy, we try to speak out publicly. sometimes with others, sometimes alone. so, those are in the -- judgments we are making. we've been very clear from the onset in this particular crisis, we abhor the events of october 7th, hostages should be released immediately, it's great that some were released, but clearly, there are still hostages left. they need to be released unconditionally, of course. so, all parties here are absolutely guilty of fighting this, you know, of ensuring now that children in gaza have no future. and they need to stop. >> the end of that pause, which was the only good news that we've had since everything we got to see hostages released, right? it was an amazing image. i mean, a woman -- whose brother was sitting at this table, you know? she's back with the family for hanukkah. it's like, that fell apart and there are different accounts of why, but it doesn't seem that, it does seem like hamas wants the fighting to go on. they pulled off this audacious atrocity because they want the war. when people say, well, there should be a cease-fire, like, it takes two to tango. like, can you do a cease-fire if one side wants to keep going? >> well, a cease-fire, by its nature, has to be both sides. processes stop it's rockets. i think i understand the impulse by israel. absolutely, of course, to destroy hamas because of the horrors of what it did. but again, and you've made this point again and again, which is really important. one of the lessons america learned after 9/11 is, you should not depose a government unless you have an idea of what is going to come afterwards. otherwise, you own it and you are trapped in an insurgency. >> and no one seems, i mean, when you think about the work of save the children in gaza, the day after, what does that even mean? >> everybody talks about the day after. we are asked, what would you do about the day after? i'm like, we've had a ten point plan. this is what we would do in a crisis like this, but as it is today, there is no day after. >> what does that mean? >> there is no infrastructure left, there is, you know, what is it? less than a third of the hospitals are even remotely operational. half of the homes are destroyed, that number is probably old by now. half of, almost none of the schools are undamaged or completely destroyed. there is no infrastructure. there is no water infrastructure. >> the founding fathers -- the founders of this country warned against single party they said it would be bitterly divisive, perhaps irreparably divisive for the country. the founders of this country warned us against a sin