wallace. ever since charged were handed down against donald trump, the ex president has seen returning to the white house as his best defense. no one is more aware of this than jack smith. jack smith asked the supreme court to rule on donald trump's bid to have the charges ruled out because the alleged crimes took place while he was president. this is not new. judge tanya chutkan rejected that claim and trump appealed. jack smith is asking the supreme court to leap frog the appeals court and settle the matter once and for all. the special counsel's move setting up the first, but maybe not the last time, the supreme courtla a role in the united states versus donald trump. prosecutors say, quote, this caserents a fundamental question at the heart ofur democracy. whether a fmer president is absolutely immune from federal prosecution for crimes committed ile in office or is constitutionally protect from federal prosecution when he's been impeached by the house, but not convicted by the senate before criminal proceedings begin. it'sf public importance that the respondents claim of immunity be rolved by this court and the trial proceeds as promptly as possiblef his claim of immunity is rejected. the claims are profoundly mistaken, but only this court can definitively resolve them, end quote. "the new york times" says the request was unusual in two ways. mr. smith asked the court to rule before an appeals court. this goes back to mr. trump's defense which is more about litics than the law. "the time," quote, if mr. trump were to win the 2024 election, he could have his attorney general dismiss the charges. holding a trial after the presidential race means that voters wouldn't hear the evidence prosecutors collected about mr. trump's efforts to reverse the results of the last election before weighing in on whether to reelect him. that's where we start today with betsy woodruff swan, plus former top prosecutor andrew wiseman and msnbc legal analyst lisa ruin. andrew, how unusual is this? we're used to seeing things proceed. we're used to seeing a ruling, appeal and then maybe goes to the supreme court. how unusual is this leap frogging? >> everything about this is unusual. what you need to understand is that there's an automatic stay pending the court of appeals' decision. that means the trial currently scheduled for march 4th could not go forward unless the court of appeals ruled. if we wait for that, then you have the ability of trump to seek the supreme court to review it. this has no downside for jack smith, which is going under a supreme court rule that allows you to leap frog in certain circumstances. you need to hear it later, so why not decide this now? hostage better to know that now because the whole ball of wax is timing because it doesn't matter if the supreme court were to agree with the district court but doesn't rule on this for many, many months, it won't happen before the election. >> we had an interesting conversation not about this case, about something we'll talk about later, about some cases in which the timing means everything. we were talking about pregnancy and abortion. this is similar because what jack smith -- the point is that something's going to happen. whether the trial starts march 4th or not something is going to happen in november which could render this case problematic. >> that's right. smith doesn't say that outright, but he says the timing absolutely matters because there's a statement in the brief saying no person is above the law. that is the principle on which the special counsel's office has taken this case. if it means something, we have to vindicate that principle now by ensuring this person is tried in a timely matter. >> betsy, let's talk about your reporting about the degree to which jack smith pushed back on trump's arguments, mainly arguments that are reasons why it shouldn't go to trial including his immunity and first amendment issues he's claiming. >> one thing i can tell you is there's a name that every legal expert and adviser around trump noticed from this brief the second it went online. that is michael drieban. he's enlisted as a member of smith's team. he's important because he was a top attorney working on special counsel robert mueller's examination. this is his second tour of duty looking at trump. he was a top lawyer in the justice department's office of solicitor general. he's argued before the supreme court more than 100 times. when i was writing about him during the mueller probe, he was described as a legal demigod, someone who knows the inside outs of the supreme court and the way it interacts with any justice issue you could imagine. the fact he's working with jack smith's team on this high-stakes project is really notable and, of course, has not whatsoever gone unnoticed in trump's legal world. when it comes to what happens next in the supreme court piece of this, there are two different tracts that trump's team views this project, the legal and the political. while there's overlap, from the trump world vantage point they're separate. in terms of the politics, i spoke with a trump adviser earlier who said, frankly they're not that stressed about the political impact. they look at the polls that have come out that have been bruising for president biden. they feel this legal fight isn't necessarily existential for him where the supreme court comes down. on the side of how is it going to play out in court, what arguments will trump's team make, i would expect -- people can predict that the arguments they'll make on this supreme court case will be consistent with what they've been arguing, which is jack smith's trying to move too fast and it's unfair to trump. this is an argument they've been making the entirety of smith's investigation. i would expect them to continue pushing that argument forward and now it's going to be up to the supreme court to decide whether or not that holds water. >> i saw you posting about drieban. you must know him. >> yes. i worked closely with him on special counsel mueller's legal team. i came up with the idea of bringing him on. you don't get any better than him. in this case he's leaving private practice to go back to the government to work on this. they have the very, very top legal talent on this case. one thing that betsy said that's notable is this idea that donald trump will say this is going too fast, i think it's going to be difficult in the appeal brief that was just filed by jack smith. this is why, it is really in everyone's interest to have this decided quickly. the former president is saying, i am immune from criminal prosecution. double jeopardy has attached. i should not be suggest to this criminal case at all. i shouldn't be under bail restrictions, a gag order. >> by extension the sooner this ends -- >> exactly. i'm harmed every day this exists. to then say i don't want the supreme court to decide this quickly is at odds with what he's saying legally. you actually have jack smith saying decide it quickly. there's a public interest in speedy trials. you would think any defendant making this arguments would want it as well. obviously donald trump is certainly capable of saying inconsistent things. it puts his lawyers in a box as to how they'll deal with this. >> unless he doesn't want it scheduled soon because he's worried it could go against him. being re-elected without the public's ability to evaluate the evidence against him as it relates to the 2020 election is a serious matter. it could never see the light of day again if donald trump becomes president. >> that's certainly true. to dove tail off something andrew said, one reason trump's folks will have a hard time with their timing argument is because of a precedent jack smith cites. that's the nixon case. when the watergate tapes were distributed, the time between the district court's decision and the supreme court's decision was roughly eight weeks. there's no argument they can make historically that this never has been done before, no special counsel has asked for this before. indeed, our democratic republic survived a litigation just like this. >> betsy, something you think about all the time, for people who follow polls -- i don't follow them as closely as everyone else a year out. the trends do not indicate that donald trump is politically hurt by any of this. in these polls like the one released today where people were asked about if he were convicted, would this be an issue? do his legal problems implicate him further? people who don't think so, don't think so. their minds don't change on this matter. >> yeah, and the trump adviser i spoke to said we'll see in the next few months -- what we'll see is an interesting context of folks in the political analysis community. when the mar-a-lago raid happened way back when, it feels like ancient history, then the four indictments came out, the initial response was maybe this will help trump in the republican primary where it will activate his base and generate very heightened emotional responses from the right, but surely it would hurt him in the general election. that was a widely held view. what we're seeing now -- again, these are very early polls. it's not election day. what we're seeing now, particularly with this "wall street journal" poll are indicators that actually these indictments, these legal proceedings don't seem to be overwhelmingly bad for trump. that's something of an understatement. in other words, this legal process does not seem to have inflicted any sort of political damage of this scale, at least, again, at this point that many people predicted back when these indictments were first rolled out. >> i'm curious, andrew, whether part of that problem is that we're a year out. you can't get straight answers from people about politics that far out from an election. this is an abstraction to those of us who aren't legal people. this is process stuff. i wonder whether the reality of trials, of seeing donald trump going through the motions of convictions, of deals, change the way people think about this, especially when framed as you do in your podcast around the notion of the protection of democracy. >> i think it's right to think about it in terms of right now people are being asked to think about this extrapolatingly. if they think these are show trials, you can go to your camp and stay there. the issue i see is in the same way you think about the effect of the january 6th hearings, when you can see and hear the evidence. there will not be televised court proceedings in the federal case. still, there will be a drip, drip, drip of evidence that comes out. we have to wait and see how strong it is. by all accounts it seems like a very strong case and people's reactions to actual evidence coming out is one where it will be a test of the american public to see if they care about facts and the law. i think that it doesn't take that great a percentage to swing this one way or the other. even if you think there's a maga base that's never going to change, you can see from the january 6th hearings there are enough people who could be affected. one of the ways we know that's something that's concerning about donald trump is he does not want to go to trial. he's doing everything he can to have this be, as he said, in 2026 or never because of that drip, drip, drip of evidence. >> 2026, if he gets elected is 2029 and could be never. >> exactly. >> betsy, donald trump made his little dictator for a day comment again the other day. he wants to be dictator in one day where he's going to build a border wall and drill, drill, drill. if i were in his sort of trouble with an allegation that i did something anti-democratic and didn't up hold democracy, i probably wouldn't drop lines like that. he's doubling down on this i just want to be dictator for a day thing, which is, of course, stupid. >> he's doubling down because he doesn't view it as that damaging of a political allegation. the other thing, of course, that trump is doing with this dictator rhetoric, which he basically always does, is take a criticism directed at him and say, actually it's not me, actually it's you, accusing president biden of being a dictator. accusing the democratic party of engaging in dictatorial tactics. it's a strategy trump has used for his entire political career and we're seeing him use that strategy now. >> i want to ask you, lisa, out this part from jack smith's petition to the supreme court. a corner stone of our constitutional order is that no person is above the law. as here, a grand jury has accused a former president of -- nothing could be more vital to our democracy than that president who abusing the electoral system to remain in office is held accountable for criminal conduct. when we heard from tanya chutkan a week ago, she used these words. she pulled from the constitution. she said there's nowhere around here that some of the stuff you're talking about is subject to misinterpretation. you're just pulling at strings that don't exist. >> i think her argument as echoed by jack smith was calibrated to appeal to the current composition of the court. it's not a dynamic interpretation of the constitution. it was let's look at the text since you guys are so fond of this. let's look at the structure of the document and look at your fixation with history. on all three of those dimensions he loses and the special counsel should be entitled to try this case. it's no accident she used those three different methodologies to analyze his claims and smith picked up on it in his brief. >> thank you to all of you. one of donald trump's lawyers told days ago that only a coward wouldn't show up. there's no way her client will cower in defending himself to the judge. well, he didn't show up. how that has an impact on his civil trial. this texas woman whose fight for health care has become national news has been forced to leave the state of texas just, she says, to stay alive. later, rudy giuliani's lies are catching up with him. a jury began to hear arguments to decide how much he has to pay in damages to two georgia election workers who had their lives practically destroyed. all those stories and more when "deadline white house" continues. dline white house" continues. (♪♪) entresto is the #1 heart failure brand prescribed by cardiologists. it was proven superior at helping people stay alive and out of the hospital. don't take entresto if pregnant; it can cause harm or death to an unborn baby. don't take entresto with an ace inhibitor or aliskiren, or if you've had angioedema with an ace or arb. the most serious side effects are angioedema, low blood pressure, kidney problems, or high blood potassium. ask your doctor about entresto for heart failure. i've spent centuries evolving with the world. orthat's the nature ofm. being the economy. observing investors choose assets to balance risk and reward. with one element securing portfolios, time after time. gold. agile and liquid. a proven protector. an ever-evolving enabler of bold decisions. an asset more relevant than ever before. gold. your strategic advantage. kate is going big and going home for the holidays. that's the plan. at michaels she got everything to make cookies that were anything but cutter. turn ideas into i-did-its. ♪ (holiday music) ♪ you're probably not easily persuaded to switch mobile providers turn for your business.ts. but what if we told you it's possible that comcast business mobile can save you up to 75% a year on your wireless bill versus the big three carriers? did we peak your interest? you can get two unlimited lines for just $30 each a month. there are no term contracts or line activation fees. and you can bring your own device. oh, and all on the most reliable 5g mobile network nationwide. wireless that works for you. it's not just possible, it's happening. watch how easy it is to put on new hands free skechers slip-ins. i just step in and go. sitting? doesn't matter. i don't even have to touch them. ooo, gangsta. in a hurry? there's not a faster, easier way to put on shoes. they know a 10 when they see it. is this for me? if you like squeaky toys from chewy it is. did i get anything this year? get a free, $30 egift card at chewy. i'm still going to eat your socks. no, you're not. get great deals on gifts that deliver excitement at chewy. he is so firmly against what is happening in this court and so firmly for the old america we know, not this america, that he'll take the stand on monday. he's not afraid. people that are afraid cower. president trump doesn't cower. we'll be back on monday. >> except it appears donald trump may have cowered. he did not take the stand today in the new york civil fraud trial. he wrote yesterday, i have successfully testified and he added he had nothing more to say. "the new york times" reports the reason behind his about face is maybe he's listening to his lawyers. they wrote, his legal advisers were concerned any further testimony would do more harm than good given that they believe the judge is biased against the former president. while mr. trump believes he can talk himself out of trouble, he appears to have heeded that advice. we're back with andrew and lisa. lisa, let's talk about this. what's the connection -- i understand all the stuff "the new york times" reporting except where they believe the judge is biased. why would that influence whether or not donald trump would speak on his own behalf? >> because donald trump has a version of the story he wants to tell and judge engoron hasn't been willing to let donald trump just talk. to the extent his lawyers are saying, this judge is biased against you -- the judge said the last time trump testified, basically if you don't cabin your speech, i can draw negative inferences against you for not shutting up. it's that sort of situation that is causing the lawyers to say, you might as well stay home. i think what's behind that is, when he testified the first time, he made a series of admissions that were literally throwing roses at the attorney general's office. he said i was the final reviewer of the financial condition. at times i made corrections. i could go on and on from that trial transcript that day on november 6th of the various things he said that were not helpful. if i'm cliff robert and alina habba, i'm telling him, please stay home. >> does it matter he's not testifying? does that matter to the outcome of this judgment? >> we don't know about the outcome. he's already testified once. in terms of the credibility finding, the judge has that ability to do it whether he testifies once or twice. i totally agree with lisa that the smart move here was for him not to get back on the stand. he could only lose. he has said already his story, whether the judge believes it or not remains to be seen. i agree with lisa he probably doesn't believe at least all of it. you know, that remains to be seen. he could only hurt himself. he's not an effective witness. if you're the defense you saying, i put on a number of witnesses. i put on fact witnesses. our defense went while. why do i want to put on the stand a wild card that could give the prosecution another opportunity to have at you and to make more headway? i think this was the right move. if i was his counsel, i don't know if i would have been on tv talking about not cowering and kept a low profile. that's not evidence in the case. it may hurt in terms of public opinion. ultimately it's about what's happening in the courtroom. now it's for the state to put on a case to see if they can rebut aspects of what the defense put on. >> donald trump thinks anybody who prosecutes him or judges his case is biased against him. that's not a new allegation. how relevant is that in this case because he's gotten into it with the judge? >> he's gotten into it with the judge. he's gotten into it about the judge's law clerk, which is the basis of the gag order enforced against him. i don't think it's relevant in terms of what's going on in that courtroom. how relevant is it to his political narrative? hugely relevant, but not a reflection of what's happening in that courtroom. over the last couple weeks you've seen a different judge engoron who has made a determination i'll give these folks as much latitude as i can without interruption because to the extent i rule against them, it's one less thing for them to complain about. >> judge engoron is the one we've been watching. donald trump has beef with judge chutkan. the judge in georgia is a charismatic character. he likes his judge in the mar-a-lago case. how important is it with the interaction with see with donald trump and this judge? >> anybody who is viewed having a check on his power is going to be subject to attack. it's not just judges. it's prosecutors, people in the media. i mean, that's the common thing. >> they've said so. >> he doesn't believe in checks and balances. that's why this is happening. i have some negative caution about judge engoron. he found against donald trump on the first cause of action, but he correctly said -- it's important to note that that cause of action didn't require a showing of intent. it did not require reliance, materiality. he said, look, the other causes of action i'm trying now that are the subject of the law that lisa's covered so well is something that requires mens rea, intent, materiality. you know, i want to wait and -- judge engoron seems like a reasonable judge applying the law. we have to see what he's going to do with the facts here and say does he think the state has proven by its standard of proof, which is lower than a criminal case, have they shown the additional elements? just because he found the first count in terms of what can happen doesn't mean he'll find the other counts which have additional elements. if i were donald trump's counsel, i would sort of talk up to the judge in terms of, you know, he's a judge who took an oath of office and will try to be faithful to it. >> do you think other judges are watching this interaction and saying, how do i -- is this going to repeat itself? is this scene going to repeat itself? >> when the d.c. circuit upheld the gag order imposed by judge engoron, after that, messages were detailed that were left for the law clerk. that affirmation was cited by the d.c. circuit. there's no question in my mind they're watching each other. on the other hand, arthur engoron and another new york supreme court judge who has the hush money case, they're both elected officials. that makes them different from judge chutkan or judge scott mcafee who was appointed by governor brian kemp in georgia. the fact they were elected gives them more transparency to the public and it's a transparency that team trump has exploited to call these people political hacks. they'll say that about a number of these folks. they can say it with greater credibility given the manner in which judges are elected in new york state. >> interesting. these are all important things to watch. i cannot imagine from the day we first started watching this new york civil trial that it would be as spicy as it's turned out to be. thank you to both of you for being here. when we come back, the 31-year-old woman who battled in court with the state of texas over her reproductive health says she's leaving the state. one of her lawyers joins us next. joins us next a good feeling ♪ there's big news for women going through menopause. veozah - a prescription treatment for moderate to severe vasomotor symptoms - the medical name for hot flashes and night sweats. with hormone-free veozah, you can have fewer hot flashes, and more not flashes. veozah is proven to reduce the number and severity of hot flashes, day and night. for some women, it can start working in as early as one week. don't use veozah if you have cirrhosis, severe kidney problems, kidney failure, or take cyp1a2 inhibitors. increased liver blood test values may occur. your doctor will check them before and during treatment. most common side effects include stomach pain, diarrhea, difficulty sleeping, back pain, and hot flashes. ♪ i got a good feeling ♪ ask your doctor about hormone-free veozah and enjoy more not flashes. a mystery! jessie loves playing detective. but the real mystery was her irritated skin. so, we switched to tide pods free & gentle. it cleans better, and doesn't leave behind irritating residues. and it's gentle on her skin. tide free & gentle is epa safer choice certified. it's got to be tide. [ crowd chanting ] i felt there was hope and ken paxton, he destroyed it. he absolutely destroys hope in women. >> it makes me feel like a second-class citizen and i believe all women living under abortion bans are being treated as second-class citizens. >> protesters demonstrating in support of kate cox, the woman who was forced to beg a woman for an abortion after told her baby wouldn't survive. hours ago, ms. cox's attorneys announce she had been forced to leave to state to get an abortion after the texas supreme court friday night stepped in to prevent her from getting care. in a statement her attorney said, this past week of legal limbo has been hellish for kate. she's been in and out of the emergency room and couldn't wait any longer. this is why judges and politicians shoul n be making health care decisions for pregnant people. they are not doctors. women are forced to beg for urgent health care in court. ka'sase has shown the world that abortion bans are dangerous and exceptions don't work. she wanted to get care where she lives and recover at home surrounded by family. while kate had the ability to leave the state, most people do not and a situation like this could be a death sentence. joining us now is senior counsel for reproduction rights and the president and ceo of reproductive freedom for all. thank you for being here. thank you, mark, for joining us. tell me about the case. people have been asking me as we covered this case why doesn't she just leave texas. she now is going to do that to get the care she needs. the problem is these legal matters are only relevant in a situation where someone is pregnant and needs an abortion. how does -- does the case go on without her? she was trying to get an abortion, but trying to make the law more just. >> right. so kate has now been forced to flee the state of texas to have the medical care she needs elsewhere. i do want to make clear, though, that while kate had the means and ability to do so, thousands of other women can't do that. people without the means, without the ability to secure child care, time off work and all the logistics required to leave or people undergoing a medical emergency such as a rupture of membranes or any other conditions that require remaining in a hospital can end up being trapped in the state and can't leave at all. while kate has left texas to get the care she needs elsewhere, the case itself we do intend, as we told the texas supreme court, we do intend for the case to move forward because this case can, you know, bring some clarity. it's an additional case. the center for reproductive rights has brought the case on behalf of 22 plaintiffs, argued before the supreme court last week. we're hoping to get clarity around the exceptions in the texas law. this case is another vehicle to do the same thing. we intend to proceed with this case to the extent that we can. >> minnie, what does it mean to you that this case has unfolded the way it has in the public eye? it's not even embarrassing texas legislators or ken paxton, they doubled down on this. ken paxton said this woman will be persecuted. she'll be subject to civil litigation and possible criminal activity and anybody involved in this abortion will as well. the humanity of kate cox's case should sound like that's not what we intended, but it is what they intended. >> ken paxton is one of the most despicable folks we have out there attacking abortion rights in this country. they not only don't care, they are illustrating that this exception, so-called exception, was designed by them not to work, which is the basis of the case. look, everything about kate cox's case is devastating. the fact she had to wait this long to leave the state is disturbing. only ten states actually allow abortion later in pregnancy. even though she has the means, the longer this goes on the harder it will be for her to access care. sitting from the political perspective, what this case does is illustrates how devastating abortion bans are, why exceptions do not work, why bans -- compromised bans like glenn youngkin tried to push are not compromises. nobody wants an a.g. to decide what they should do in a life and death circumstance. >> that's the issue, mark. when you say you're hoping to get clarity from the law, are you worried the clarity might be nobody can get exceptions because you need enough time, you have to think about it, you have to get a lawyer fast and deal with injunctions and stays and make decisions, meanwhile there's a clock running because you're pregnant? >> look, if that's the texas security says the answer is, then we need to know it. then the political process can take shape to change the laws. right now no one knows what these exceptions mean. texas doctors are faced -- they face life in prison, hundreds of thousands of dollars in fines, losing their license if they provided an abortion they think complies and then ken paxton decides to go after them. doctors across texas are terrify and we're not seeing medically-needed abortions being provided because of the risks. if the exceptions are not as broad as we think they are, then they violate the texas constitution. somebody has to step in here and end this ongoing political process. >> if you learn that the law is this, then the political process can take shape. we've seen it in ohio, kansas. we've seen it in midterm elections. something ron desantis said, he described the anti-abortion movement as the dog that caught car. he said dobbs came down and it was like the dog that caught the car. there wasn't a lot of recognition as what is the next step. as president, i'll help local and state folks be able to deliver the good message. ron desantis is selling this as a messaging problem. mark is in court. you're out there every day dealing with this. it's not a messaging problem. we know what these abortion bans are and kate cox and all these people are the victims of it. >> so what's wild about that quote is that ron desantis is trying to separate himself from the pro-life movement. he's in bed with them. he's signed egregious legislation in his state. it's not a messaging war. as long as they keep thinking that, they'll miss the point. what americans want is a change in public policy. as long as republicans are not supporting elimination of the bans and expansion of abortion access in this country now that more and more americans understand that abortion is health care, much-needed life-saving health care, they'll keep missing the boat with american voters. our job is to make sure american voters understand how deceptive republicans are being in this moment. ron desantis is an architect of what's egregious in florida. >> thanks for being with us to shed light on this issue. we appreciate your time. up next, the house gop will be pushing a vote on their evidence-free impeachment effort into president biden. we'll look at what's changed and why, next. ♪ i have type 2 diabetes, but i manage it well. ♪ ♪ jardiance ♪ ♪ it's a little pill with a big story to tell. ♪ ♪ i take once-daily jardiance, ♪ ♪ at each day's staaart. ♪ ♪ as time went on it was easy to seee. ♪ ♪ i'm lowering my a1c. ♪ jardiance works 24/7 in your body to flush out some sugar! and for adults with type 2 diabetes and known heart disease, jardiance can lower the risk of cardiovascular death, too. jardiance may cause serious side effects including ketoacidosis that may be fatal, dehydration, that can lead to sudden worsening of kidney function, and genital yeast or urinary tract infections. a rare, life-threatening bacterial infection in the skin of the perineum could occur. stop taking jardiance and call your doctor right away if you have symptoms of this infection, ketoacidosis, or an allergic reaction, and don't take it if you're on dialysis. taking jardiance with a sulfonylurea or insulin may cause low blood sugar. ♪ jardiance is really swell, ♪ ♪ the little pill with a big story to tell. ♪ sofia vergara: one child saved at st. jude helps save kids with cancer worldwide. you'll find our treatments and research breakthroughs everywhere, from a college freshman's room in america's west to a college graduation in america's south to a medical school in south america. ava: that can be me someday. marlo thomas: give thanks for the healthy kids in your life, and give a gift that could last a lifetime. only unitedhealthcare medicare advantage plans come with the ucard - one simple member card that opens doors where it matters for you. what if we need to see a doctor away from home? ucard gets you in with medicare advantage's largest national provider network. how 'bout using it at the pharmacy? yes - your ucard is all you need. huh - that's easy! can it help keep my smile looking good? yep! use your ucard at the dentist. say cheese! get access to what matters with the ucard only from unitedhealthcare. have you seen any evidence that president biden has committed high crimes and misdemeanors? >> no, i don't see any evidence of that at all. before you begin an impeachment inquiry you ought to have some evidence there's been wrongdoing. so far nothing of that nature has been provide. >> are you opposed to the impeachment inquiry? >> if i were in the house, i would vote against it. >> again, the american people haven't seen a shred of direct evidence suggesting that president biden improperly used his influence to help his family's finances. none. what we learned in the last hour smacks of political hackery. two sources tell nbc news the house is expected to vote on a formal impeachment inquiry on wednesday. do they have the votes? at the moment, just a single republican, ken buck, opposes the vote. other members thought to be on the fence are now either supportive or likely to support it, including the majority of republicans who represent districts biden carried in 2020. i want to bring in the former congressman from florida david jolly. that part surprised me, that last part. the idea that they want an impeachment inquiry doesn't surprise me. there's 18 or 20 republicans who exist in distributes that joe biden won. they have been the ones we sort of counted on to sort of uphold moderation where it can be found in the republican conference. that apparently has dissolved. why? >> for a very simple reason i believe. what has set in in the mindset of many of those republicans who are on the fence or in the mitt romney lane know that there's not enough information, they see the vote to open an inquiry as an easy vote. it's just a fact-finding mission. i would warn those republicans be careful. you could look absolutely foolish by voting to open an inquiry that you later said led to nothing. if you end up saying, oh, boy, there was nothing there, then why did you move the house into the direction of an impeachment inquiry. it shows ignorance on your part. then the psychology sets in, if the house republicans vote to open the inquiry, it's hard to see them not actually pushing the vote on an impeachment sometime next spring. one of those 18 to 20 republicans -- if we see them cave now, we should expect they would cave then. >> i want to play back something mike johnson said about impeachment before he decided to bring this to the floor. >> i would say we're the rule of law team. we have to be deliberate and careful about that. i said, and it's true, next to the declaration of war, impeachment is the the constitu. so we have to be very methodical and careful and follow the facts where they lead. the impeachment inquiry is the next necessary step because the white house is now stonewalling our investigation. >> stonewalling the investigation. here's the issue. he makes an interesting point. next to declaring war and next to the power of war impeachment is heavy. it's definitely a heavy thing. what does he think he gets out of this? i'm legitimately curious, given that they've been chasing this down and james comer keeps going on tv and telling you about the evidence he thinks he's got and it doesn't turn up, what happens here? >> yeah, it's an important question, ali. first of all, the fact that republicans consider themselves the rule of law party is laughable at this point. i think the impeachment inquiry suggests they're the party that stayed at the holiday inn last night. and somehow after six years of investigations by professionals let the members of congress step in through a political lens and find a crime that investigators were unable to find. i think what you're seeing in mike johnson, though, is less about what the party gets out of it. certainly it stokes and satisfies the base. but it's what mike johnson gets out of it. because he is back in kevin mccarthy's situation. and this is important. if you see what mike johnson has done, he has tried -- he has had to govern, right? like any speaker would have to do. well, the week that he agreed to the continuing resolution with senate republicans was one of the weeks that he flew down and -- maybe he didn't fly down but he endorsed donald trump. so he paired a governor moderate move way hard right maga move of endorsing donald trump. this week he's under fire and in a lot of trouble with house republicans over giving away a lot of their priorities in the defense bill on abortion and trans and d.e.i. and other issues and conservatives are starting to say wait, mike johnson might not be the guy for us. so what does he do? he pairs it with opening an impeachment inquiry. a lot of this is about save mike johnson. that is why the speaker's doing it. but he also knows he has to give this to fox news and he has to give this to the maga base and it's coming sooner or later, so let's do it this week while he's in trouble. >> all right. there's going to be a lot to follow this week as this unfolds. thanks, dafld arksz always for being with me. david jolly, we appreciate your time. after the break an update on a classified documents case that actually doesn't involve donald trump. oesn't involve donald trump. bowel leakage is more common than you think. an expert physician recommended axonics therapy, and it gave me my life back. go to findrealrelief.com to get started. get back to doing the things you love! only at vanguard, you're more than just an investor, you're an owner. to get started. our financial planning tools and advice can help you prepare for today's longer retirement. hi mom. that's the value of ownership. > an air force investigation into the massachusetts air national guardman jack teixeira delivered to congress today found that teixeira, what was arrested in april for allegedly leaking a trove of classified pentagon materials online, acted alone. but the pentagon has moved to discipline 15 others in his unit for dereliction of duty, finding that his leadership was not vigilant in overseeing their members' conduct, even after becoming aware of his, quote, intelligence-seeking activities. since the alleged leaks the air force has taken teixeira's unit off mission and implemented reforms to classified access. for his part teixeira has entered a not guilty plea but could face a sentence upward of 25 years if he's convicted. all right. when we come back, rudy giuliani on trial. opening statements under way. the next hour of "deadline: white house" starts right after this quick break. use" starts ri this quick break cose level is and where it's headed without fingersticks. know what activities work for you. manage your diabetes with more confidence and lower your a1c. ask your doctor about the freestyle libre 2 system. it's covered by medicare for those who qualify. visit freestylelibre.us/medicare to learn more. ♪♪ (vo) red lobster's new lobster & shrimp celebration ♪ to learn more. (vo) three lobster and shrimp entrees for a limited time. ♪ hey, grab more delectables. you know, that lickable cat treat? de-lick-able delectables? yes, just hurry. hmm. it must be delicious. delectables lickable treat. (vo) in three seconds, pam will decide... (pam) ♪i'm moving closer to thee grandkids!tables ♪ wait. i got to sell the house! (vo) don't wait, just sell directly to opendoor. easy as pie. (pam) piece of cake. (vo) whichever. get your competitve offer at opendoor.com. sometimes, the lows of bipolar depression feel darkest before dawn. with caplyta, there's a chance to let in the lyte™. caplyta is proven to deliver significant relief across bipolar depression. unlike some medicines that only treat bipolar i, caplyta treats both bipolar i and ii depression. and in clinical trials, movement disorders and weight gain were not common. call your doctor about sudden mood changes, behaviors, or suicidal thoughts. antidepressants may increase these risks in young adults. elderly dementia patients have increased risk of death or stroke. report fever, confusion, stiff or uncontrollable muscle movements which may be life threatening or permanent. these aren't all the serious side effects. caplyta can help you let in the lyte™. ask your doctor about caplyta find savings and support at caplyta.com. ♪♪ i've always been told by my grandmother how important it is to vote and how people before me, a lot of people, older people in my family did not have that right. so what i loved most about my job were the older voters. younger people could usually do everything from their phone or go online. but the older voters like to call. they like to talk to you. they like to get my card. they like to know that every election i'm here. >> hi, everyone. it's 5:00. i'm ali velshi in new york. i'm in for nicolle wallace. the georgia poll worker shaye moss along with her mother, ruby freeman, were on the front lines of democracy helping people get their voices heard. until right after the 2020 election when they were targeted by rudy giuliani and the former president, who falsely accused the mother and daughter of manipulating ballots in atlanta for joe biden. who can forget this moment from the january 6th select committee's hearing last year? >> tape earlier in the day of ruby freeman and shaye freeman moss and one other gentleman quite obviously, surreptitiously passing around usb ports as if they're vials of heroin or cocaine. >> what was your mom actually handing you on that video? >> a ginger mint. >> for just doing their jobs ruby freeman and shaye moss faced death threats and harassment from those who believed the lies that giuliani kept spreading, forcing them to go into hiding, quit their jobs as election workers. today the jury in their defamation trial against the former president's former lawyer was selected. the trial began. the two are suing giuliani for up to $43 million in compensatory damages plus punitive damages, an amount that giuliani's lawyer said in court today is the civil equivalent to the death penalty. the judge already found giuliani liable for defaming moss and freeman back in augu. the only question is how much he owes them. d just moments ago court adjourned for the day. the trial marks one more step toward accountability for the spreaders of the big lie. and the "new york times" notes, quote, it will be a landmark moment, the first time that a jury will consider not if but how to punish mr. giuliani for the role that he played in helping mr. trump spread lies about his loss in the election, end quote. now, remember, both moss and freeman explaining how unsafe they felt after giuliani's lies in some very upsetting testimony before the 1-6 committee. >> now i won't even introduce myself by my name anymore. i get nervous when i bump into someone i know in the grocery store who says my name. i'm worried about who's listening. i get nervous when i have to give my name for food orders. i'm always concerned of who's around me. i've lost my name and i've lost my reputation. >> this turned my life upside down. i no longer give out my business card. i don't transfer calls. i don't want anyone knowing my name. i don't want to go anywhere with my mom because she might yell my name out over the grocery aisle or something. i don't go to the grocery store at all. i haven't been anywhere at all. >> that's where we start this hour, with "atlanta journal-constitution" political reporter greg bluestein. also with us first amendment scholar and senior visiting research fellow at the columbia university's knight first amendment institute ronnell anderson jones. with me at the table state teern for palm beach county florida dave erinberg. plus "new york times" editorial board member maura gay. thank you all for being here. this is an important discussion. let me start with you, greg. this is but one anecdote and it's very, very well articulated in the georgia indictment against donald trump and the other conspirators. but it is so textured, it is so real about the deliberate effort that rudy giuliani and others went to to use these two poll workers, these two election workers as an example of the illegality and the corruption that was going on in the election. except it was entirely, entirely made up. >> mm-hmm. ali, i mean, i've heard that testimony over and over again. it's still heart-wrenching. i think you put it perfectly. these women were on the front lines of our democracy, particularly here in georgia. you know, serving as election poll workers to help the elderly, to help anyone who needed help to cast their ballots in georgia. and i was there at those hearings back in 2020 when rudy giuliani was spreading lies and conspiracy theories about what they were doing, especially that ginger mint. right? they were passing a ginger mint to each other and he was claiming they were passing usb cards. and their lives have been upended because of this. strangers started knocking on their door. death threats. harassment. they had to go into literal hiding. there was folks who surrounded their homes the day before the january 5th insurrection. we're not talking about just a few phone calls here. we're talking about literal harassment that risked their lives. >> ronnell anderson jones, thank you for being with us. let's just discuss this because this is -- it's not the big trial. and in fact, ironically, in georgia the prosecutors have said they're not interested in cutting a deal with rudy giuliani or mark meadows. but the fact is this is a -- this is a look into how rudy giuliani is going to conduct himself in the bigger trials. he lost this one basically because he kind of didn't show up. >> yes. that's exactly right. and in some respects that gives this proceeding something of an echo to the alex jones trial that we just saw happen. in both of them they were instances of plaintiffs saying that there was a conspiratorial lie that harmed their reputation and the wider public discourse in democracy, and in both instances there was a judge who said as a matter of default judgment we won't move forward with the trial before the jury, this will come to the jury as a result of your failure to participate in the process appropriately with all of those pieces already decided. this jury doesn't have to decide if this was a lie and doesn't have to decide whether it was reputation harming. the judge at the outset has told them that both of those things are the case. all that's left for them to do is to put a dollar figure on it, to decide how much these plaintiffs are owed by giuliani for the harm that he caused to them. both as a compensatory matter and as a punitive matter. >> maura, let's just look at this from a bigger perspective. this will be settled. this is between the parties. but in the january 6th indictment one of the -- it's the last page of the indictment, where jack smith talks about the harm that was done. the victimization. if you think these lies are sort of victimless, there was i aharm to democracy, there was a harm to people who thought their votes would be counted and included or that they could vote. and these two women speak to that. they are election workers. they're regular people. our entire election system depends on civilians who feel this is an orderly system in which they participate and they can guarantee its safety. there's more to it than giuliani's lies. there's actually -- you're seeing real people who were hurt by this. >> that's right. i think we have a tendency to talk about harm to democracy in sweeping terms. >> yes, correct. >> and philosophical terms. and we talk about the found fathers, about the rights of democracy. and that's great. but the reality is the on the ground impact is more than harassment for these women. this is about intimidation. this is about intimidation of two private citizens who were engaging in the act of democracy of making it work as kind of temporary public servants too, which should be a protected status. and these are black women from the south, from an old southern state where within living memory americans who looked like them were not even allowed to vote, let alone serve as poll workers. and you know, rudy giuliani knows that. and donald trump knows that. and by invoking these women's names it was almost like just a dare, i see it as -- what can you do about it? >> right. >> i'm going to use your name. i'm going to treat you like a welfare queen because that's how i see you. and what are you going to do about it? so this defamation case is actually extremely important because there need to be consequences for this or we're going to see this again. and we're not talking about intimidation of members of congress. which is also a problem. >> right. >> okay? we're not talking about what happened on january 6th, which was horrific. the violence against the police officers as well. all that is horrific, should be held to account as well. what we're talking about is against private citizens. >> right. >> so that sends a message that's chilling to voters. in a state, by the way, where people are currently being stricken from the voter rolls as we speak, in some cases because they didn't vote in the last election or because they've moved. so this is very much real-time intimidation of voters, of black voters, and i think this is a very important case. even though it's not the big trial. >> but all these trials that we're looking at, dave, they're all not the big trial, right? the donald trump fraud trial is not the big trial. and yet we're finding so many interesting things out. let's talk a little about this. if one were to read the georgia indictment, the facts of this case are in there. if one listens to this case, the facts are in there. this was not minor intimidation. to mara's point, this was a very, very detailed plot to get these women not to testify subsequently, to talk about what had happened to them. when they found out that these women were going to talk to investigators and the january 6th committee, donald trump and team did a lot of very, very intimidating things to two women who are private citizens. >> i see this case as a proxy for the election interference case in fulton county. because that case is likely to go after the election. it's a complex rico case. but this case is being decided right now. rudy giuliani's going to have to pay up big-time money. he bought the ticket. he's going to have to take the ride. it's ridiculous and grotesque how he went after private citizens. as mara said, these are not elected officials. they didn't sign up for this. and you also see that in the maga world when they go after the clerk to judge engoron. right? here in new york. and this is the way that people are being held accountable for picking on the little guy. that's what is being done. you're seeing it through this major defamation case. you're seeing it through a gag order in new york. so maybe this is the time of accountability for those who think they're above it all. >> greg bluestein, it is interesting because when you do read that georgia indictment this -- i mean, there are certain plot points in there that read like you're reading a novel, they're almost unbelievable. and the story of these two women is one of them. people flying in, intimidating them, threatening them, warning them if you do this bad things will happen to you. it has a lot of texture to it. these two women telling their story does speak to the larger cases of election interference because it shows the extent to which people will do in hand to hand combat to get their way including rudy giuliani. >> yeah, i think you said it earlier, it puts a face to the victims. it puts a face to this election denial and this attempt to overturn joe biden's election victory. it ranges from the minor to, you know, doxing them with unordered pizzas to the major which is people literally surrounding their homes with bull horizon on january 5th, 2021, calling for -- calling for their -- essentially for their heads. right? it's not just harassment. it's intimidation. and it's of volunteers. it's folks who are not running for public office but are just the cogs in our democracy. and i think that's why it hits home to so many people here in georgia who have seen that testimony over and over again and are just as torn up about it as they were the first time they saw it. >> mara gay, where do you think this goes right now? rudy giuliani, he's not that different from the other trump characters. he doesn't ever step down. he doesn't ever give in. he is basically not contesting the facts of this case. but this is another point at which team trump has been found to be lying and found to be weakened. what happens as a result of this? >> well, i think we're still seeing the cards crumble for rudy. our reporting suggests that he's going broke. he's no longer able to practice law. he is a lawyer -- was a lawyer. people, associates who are in polite society, i'll put it that way, civilized society, don't want to work with him. he used to have a robust years ago security firm along with a reputation as america's mayor. >> yeah. >> and so that brand is destroyed by his own making. so i don't believe we've seen him fall as far as he's going to fall. but he's keeping a low profile. those in new york who've known him for many years, and i used to report on -- i've reported on him for years as well. we think that there's kind of farther to fall here. >> that's kind of amazing. >> we'll just be watching. >> ronnell, one thing that happens in all of the cases, every single one of them, is this discussion about freedom of speech, right? what you're allowed to say. on the second page of the jack smith indictment it lays it all out there. it says donald trump -- and obviously he's the -- there are no other unindicted co-conspirators to that one. but jack smith makes the point that you absolutely have first amendment rights to say all sorts of things. what you can't do is operationlize some of those lies into something that affects democracy, which is actually what rudy giuliani did, which is what works into the georgia indictment, that you actually -- you didn't just say things, which he did, a lot of. you actually did things. to interfere with the election or the counting of the election or the results or people's ability to testify truthfully about what happened. >> yes. and we see this in the opening arguments that the plaintiffs' lawyers made in this case today. they called giuliani's comments about these plaintiffs a cornerstone to a call to action on election denialism, which really does tie together the different threads here of the broader conspiracy theories and the role that giuliani is accused of having within them. the first amendment arguments are for sure going to be present here. a big piece of what we expect giuliani to argue is that he can't be held responsible for the kinds of threats and intimidation that were carried out by other people. part of this is a first amendment argument and part of it is an argument about the link between him and the damages that these plaintiffs have suffered. but the judge in this case has repeatedly suggested that the first amendment arguments that giuliani has, particularly at this stage of the trial, are weak. as she called them, arguments that had more holes in them than swiss cheese. and most recently suggested that some of his arguments were, and this is a quote, simply nonsense. one of the things that i think is most interesting about this is that we -- at the beginning of this trial, it's going to last three or four days, we get a preview of what's to come. and among the most interesting things is a piece of physical evidence that is going to be introduced. we know that the main thing that these plaintiffs said really harmed their reputations and really caused the deep difficulties that they have faced in an ongoing way was this lie about the usb port when it was really in fact a ginger mint. there is a physical piece of evidence that's going to be introduced to this jury, the lawyers here have said that they will introduce a ginger mint. >> wow. well, that'll -- and by the way, for those who haven't read that case, even that was laced with some weird tinge of racism. he didn't just say it was a usb port. he said they passed a usb port as if it was a vial of cocaine. it's like where did you get the cocaine from? why are you talking about cocaine? greg bluestein, ronnell andersen jones, thank you for being with us. i appreciate it. those of you at this table please stick around. when we return the twice impeached ex-president. talking about being a dictator. why venz are staying silent about it. plus a fight over military aid for ukraine. fears are on the rise across europe that a second trump presidency would mean an american retreat from nato. a top democrat on the senate foreign relations committee will be our guest. and later elon musk showing exactly where he stands on the rise of disinformation ahead of the 2024 presidential campaign. why musk's latest move all but assures that we will be confronted with a toxic stew of conspiracy theories in the days ahead. "deadline: white house" continues after a quick break. don't go anywhere. " continues after a quick break. don't go anywhere. t! so now, do you have a driver's license? oh. what did you get us? [ chuckling ] with the click of a pen, you can a new volkswagen at the sign, then drive event. sign today and you're off in a new volkswagen during the sign, then drive event. baker today in the "new york times," he said that i want to be a dictator. i didn't say that. i said i want to be a dictator for one day. but "the new york times" said -- and you know why i wanted to be a dictator? because i want a wall. right? i want a wall. and i want to drill, drill, drill. >> how about that for a defense? he didn't say he wanted to be a dictator. he said he wanted to be a dictator for a day. which of course is the same thing, especially considering that the individual in question -- i mean, it's a post-parody moment in american history. and many republicans appear to be in on the joke. downplaying the idea of a trump dictatorship while not so quietly pining for what it could mean. the fact is there's a lot that donald trump could do without ever calling hself a dictator even for aday. the "washington post" not that scholars say that even without violating the letter of the law trump would have access to broad powers granted to him as chief executive of the executive branch. he does not nd to become a dictator to subvert demoacy, they say. he can simply use the tools of democracy to do so, end quote. and joining me now is somebody who has been warning me of exactly that for a really long time. i'm jont by ruth ben ghiat, professor of history at nyu, author of strongmen mussolini to the president. you have made this point i don't know how many different ways you've said it. you've said democracy doesn't depend on losing the vote or whatever the case is. but what we are really coming down to and what we've learned in the last seven years or so is that our system can be turned into a dictatorship within the system and donald trump has said he's prepared to do that. >> yeah. so you know, old school dictators, you associate that with a one-party state, of which we have today north korea and china. but it's more common to have what we call electoral autocracies. so you keep elections going and then you use trickery and banning anybody who could be a good rival to kind of game the system so you stay in power. and keeping elections going allows people like erdogan in turkey to literally say i'm not a dictator. so it's very notable that trump is saying that he's going to be a dictator because he's been whetting people's appetites for a strongman rule. and now he's going to play that to the hilt. >> dave, let's talk about what the "washington post" says that donald trump can do. this is a matter of law. there are things you can do in the system that we have depended on people not doing because as you said earlier polite society demands you that don't act in dictatorial ways. t the "washington post" talks about weaponizing the internal revenue service to go after political enemies. firing large numbers of federal employees. he can do that on day one. invoking the insurrection act to marshal the military to put down by force any protest that might emerge against his enemies. punishing media foes. and going to war or in some cases getting out of wars. kash patel, one of his guys who might be in his cabinet if he becomes president, has said we'll go after the media, we'll go after you civilly and we'll go after you criminally. they're saying what they're going to do and they can. >> yeah, i'm particularly worried about the insurrection act, which is a vague law that does give wide powers to the president. and i'm worried unless congress tries to tight ten up like they did with the electoral count act it can be abused. he's telling us what he's going to do and people are just whistling past the graveyard. people say well, he didn't do it in his first term. well, back then he had some guardrails. he had adults in the room. the chief of staff kelly and others. those folks are going to be gone. they're going to be replaced by the kash patels who are going to let him do whatever he wants whenever he wants. >> yeah, there's no guardrails. mara, this is from the peter baker article. "if mr. trump is returned to office people close to him have vowed to come after the news media, open criminal investigations into one-time aides who broke with the former president and purge the government of civil servants deemed disloyal. when critics said mr. trump's language about riddi language of vermin echoed that of adolf hitler the former president's spokesman said the critics' sad miserable existence will be crushed under a new trump administration." what do you make of this? ? . >> well, first of all, we're in a very dangerous period because the decision by prosecutors across the country and in washington to go ahead and hold donald trump and his accomplices accountable, while incredibly important and pivotal, now raises the stakes for him and his head personally. this is in some way going to be about revenge i believe if he's elected. the purging of actual civil servants from the civil service, which is an enormously important role. again, we have to look back at these poll workers in this defamation case right now to see how important -- >> that's just a small version of the -- >> that's a small version of what could happen. pardon power. i mean, there's a lot at stake here. but i think also it's important to take someone like donald trump at his word. and i think that many of us have this tendency to kind of look away from that and say, well, you know, we have institutions that will hold, that will save us. our institutions are strong but they're not infallible. they can as ruth has written for years about be used and turned against democracy. that has happened in other countries. i also think it's an important moment to just take just a broader look at the history of this country and remember that actually in broad swaths of the united states it was not in any appreciable way a modern democracy until about 1970. we had across the american south a situation in which large swaths of the population could not vote, could not vote regularly. freedom of assembly, freedom of -- all kinds of freedoms, frankly. and so i think that this idea that it can't happen, it did happen. it happened here. look at every single southern state and the history of it from the end of reconstruction until -- >> when this theory there was democracy. >> when in theory there was democracy. there were elections but they weren't free and fair. so we don't have to look elsewhere. we can look right here at home and our democracy is younger and more fragile than we could possibly imagine. >> ruth, one of the things that it's important to look at because it's not really central to what's going on right now, but the leader of hungary is meeting with republican leaders. one of the points you always make is this is not a donald trump thing exclusively. meeting with republicans in the course of the next few days. ironically, volodymyr zelenskyy is going to be meeting with the president and members of congress this week about supporting ukraine. the leader of hungary's doing the opposite. he wants to not continue the same aid to ukraine. he wants to slow down or stop the ascension of ukraine into nato. doing what looks like fairly anti-democratic bidding that sounds like it's the kind of thing that putin would like. >> well, orban is a client of putin. and he's there in that capacity. he's also there -- he's the kind of intermediary in that way because you don't read about people falling out of windows and being poisoned in hungary, so he's like the cleaner face of autocracy. you but he's been a very important mentor to the republican party as they've become an autocratic entity. and it's very, very sad and disgraceful as an american that one of our two major parties is having this powwow and one of the points of it is to be convinced to withdraw aid, you know, to ukraine altogether and the person who obviously benefits from this is putin, who's allied with all kinds of other autocrats in the world, from iran to hamas to china. so if the gop had a foreign policy, it would be the foreign policy of an autocratic state. >> dave, somebody said to me the other day something that mara just said. our institutions survived trump 1.0. nothing broke. evaluate that statement for me. i don't know. i mean, faith in public institutions may have broken. lots of things feel broken. how do we square the fact that we've got strong institutions with what the "washington post" wrote about, that donald trump can become a dictator inside of our institutions without changing a thing? >> our institutions are only as good as the people who are running the institutions. rex tillerson was the secretary of state. john kelly. you had all these grown-ups in the room. but now those folks will be replaced by people who are sycophants. and that's the problem here. because with the insurrection act you could see tanks rolling down our streets. and who's going to stop them? the courts? i think because that law is so vague -- and then you have the pardon power. and so if you think that things are out of control in the first term, this is going to be -- trump 2.0, it's going to be on steroids. so i'm very worried about it. and when i tell my friends who are going to vote for trump, because i live in florida, it's a red state, they keep saying oh, it's never going to happen. look at the first term. and they forget that the fact is we had people there, even bill barr, who are now outcasts because they dared speak the truth to the leader. >> so "the atlantic" has done an entire issue on this and ruth ben-ghiat has been writing about this forever and talking about it. what do you do in this moment where people still say today in florida, people probably say it to you in new york too, that you know, it's not going to be that bad, it can't be that bad. your hair's all on fire about this democracy thing. >> yeah. i think depends on who you're talking to. people are motivated by different needs, different things. i think that there needs to be a massive campaign to get as many americans to the polls as possible. unfortunately at this moment we have a situation where the democratic party is the only major political party that is still committed to democracy. that's a problem for a number of reasons, of course. number one is trying to take us to autocracy. but the other problem is they need some competition, i believe, that's only healthy. and -- >> healthy for democracy. >> healthy for democracy. >> it's not about where you stand on the political spectrum. >> it's not about supporting the democratic party. the question is what's healthy for democracy. so i think that, you know, you need to motivate voters to get to the polls by doing more than fearmongering about donald trump. there are a lot of americans who aren't thinking about politics or democracy day to day, they're trying to put food on the table. they are struggling with high prices. whatever it's going to take to get minutes to the polls and engaged i think is very important. and i also think within american institutions including the media, in a really important time, i don't like to hector my colleagues, it's not about that, but we need to get real with ourselves and with the american people about what's happening. we're not stenographers. we're journalists. and this threat is very real. and i think just treating the american people like the adults that they are, it's very important. so we don't want to sugar-coat this threat. we want to call the shots like they are. and it's a scary time. >> that is good guidance and it's not about hechtoring your colleagues in the media. we all need to be learning every day about how we can handle this thing better. dave, he just handed you a piece of paper. i don't know what that means. >> so jack smith went to the u.s. supreme court and asked them to intervene on the question of presidential immunity. because the appellate court hasn't ruled yet. jack smith wants to speed this whole case along as the d.c. election ints feerns case, that's the only case i think's growing to be heard before the election, and the u.s. supreme court just now said that they will consider it. so it's game on. and that's a good thing. that shows the supreme court takes this matter seriously and wants trump's trial in d.c. to actually be heard before the election. >> okay, so this is a very big -- that i think we need to put the big breaking news banner. the supreme court will hearing this. they are asking donald trump to respond, to file a written response. they are going to consider this. but they're asking the respondent to file a response to the petition before 4:00 p.m. on wednesday december the 20th. so one of the things we were discussing at the beginning of the show was whether this would happen, whether the supreme court would hear it, but more importantly the timeline. right? the reason jack smith went to the supreme court is because he wants his trial to start in march and donald trump would like this trial possibly to never happen. and the danger was that the supreme court doesn't hear this. >> right. trump wants the trial to happen half past never. and the issue is the appellate court, they were sitting on the gag order, it took them weeks. and it's like come on. so jack smith saw the writing on the wall and said hey, supreme court, you're going to get this case anyways, do it now. and the supreme court just like they did in 1974, u.s. v. nixon, decided to intervene. >> the news here is not that a decision has been made. it's that jack smith's motion to consider whether or not donald trump enjoys immunity from certain prosecution by virtue of being president, they are prepared to consider it and they are asking donald trump for a response. donald trump's lawyers for a response by 4:00 p.m. e.t. on wednesday december the 20th. ruth ben-ghiat, david aronberg and mara, stay with me. when we return, with military aid for ukraine hanging in the balance, president zell enszky as we mentioned is coming to washington for a last ditch appeal to save his country from russian forces. a top democrat on the senate foreign relations committee joins us after a short break. re joins us after a short break children are the greatest joy and our best hope for a better future. friends, they are the future. but did you know that millions of kids right here in our own backyard are facing hunger every day without healthy food? it's harder to grow, to thrive, to feel their best. the impact when children don't have enough to eat is tremendous because when you're hungry and your basic needs aren't being met, you cannot learn. that's why i'm here now, asking you to join me in helping end child hunger in america. this is a problem we know how to solve, and we can do it better by supporting no kid hungry for just $0.63 a day, only $19 a month. you can help provide healthy meals like a good breakfast in class to power kids through their days. breakfast in the classroom contributes to kids being more focused, which leads to higher grades. test scores, and simply just their well-being. ensuring all kids get a good breakfast and other nutritious food is a beautiful thing. it's a game changer and you can help make it happen. when you join me in supporting no kid hungry today, that food is not just food. it's energy, health, confidence, hope and even love. yes, love. so please call now or go online to helpnokidhungry.org, right now. give $19 a month, only $0.63 a day. and when you use your credit card, you'll get this special team t-shirt to show that you're helping kids build a brighter future for themselves. thank you. families are struggling to make ends meet. these are hard times, but together we can help connect america's kids with meals. so please call now or go online to give. thank you. let me be frank with you friends. if there's anyone inspired by unresolved issues on capitol hill, it's just putin and his sick clique. >> ukrainian president volodymyr zelenskyy earlier today previewing the message that he's going to bring to capitol hill tomorrow, where he'll have an opportunity to face some of the lawmakers stalling aid to his war-torn country. this is part of a last-ditch trip. it's announced yesterday to meet with president biden and congress to appeal for more funding to help in their war against russia before the end of the year. a deal seems increasingly out of reach as republicans have tried to tie aid for ukraine to u.s. border security. while the gop seems in part willing to do vladimir putin's bidding, there are also increasing concerns about what a second trump presidency could mean for one of putin's goals, and that is the dissolution of nato, not to mention the invasion of ukraine -- the completion of the invasion of uk "the new york times" reporting over the weekend, "in interviews over the past several months more than i ahalf dozen current and former european diplomats speaking on condition of anonymity for fear of retribution from mr. trump rising on embassy row and among their home governments that mr. trump's return could mean not just the abandonment of ukraine but a broader american retreat from the continent and a gutting of the atlantic alliance." let's bring in the democratic senator chris coons of delaware. always good to see you. thank you for being with us. this is very serious on a number of levels, the least of which is i think we can all acknowledge border security is a massive issue and it has not been something we've been successful at dealing with for decades. but to tie it to ukraine aid right now, i don't even know -- i don't have the words to describe how dangerous that is. >> so ali, we are on the verge of abandoning ukraine as they continue to fight for freedom, as they continue to push back on russia's brutal aggression. it was just over two months ago that president zelenskyy came here to the u.s. capitol, made an in-person appeal to the entire u.s. senate in the old senate chambers. he was greeted with round after round of standing applause, with commitments from republican and democratic leaders in the senate that we would promptly take up and pass the supplemental request to provide more funding. funding for the winter, funding for the year to come. and yet here we are two months later and instead of president zelenskyy being in kyiv, leading his nation in this difficult and important fight, he's once again coming hat in hand to thank us for our billions in support but to secure it. this weakens our standing in the world. this encourages other authoritarians. this makes our 50 partners and allies, the other countries around the world who have joined us in funding ukraine's fight in providing weapons and budget support and welcoming refugees, this is going to make many of them question whether they should stay in this fight as well. so while i of course welcome president zelenskyy, he of course is someone who hugely impresses me with his determination, with his personal embodiment of the fighting spirit of the ukrainian people. he should not have to do this. we should take up and pass our president's supplemental funding request for ukraine promptly. >> it's remarkable because there is -- this war is almost two years old. there's a growing fatigue around the world. and president biden at the beginning of this war went in and sort of picked up nato that had fallen off the wall because under donald trump there had been a weakening of nato and a global malaise about nato itself. and now those very countries that have stepped up, that have increased their defense spending, that have been partners in this war, are saying the quiet part out loud, that they're very, very concerned that this type of behavior leading up to a potential second donald trump term means it's not just game over for ukraine, it might be game over for a number of other countries in europe who really do fear a russian invasion. >> that's a profound concern that i've heard expressed by ministers of government, by national leaders, by parliamentarians all throughout europe, in fact around the world. ali, i was just in the middle east at the climate summit in dubai and had a meeting yesterday with a whole series of legislators, of members of parliament from a dozen allies and partners of ours in europe, many of them raised the same question. will donald trump possibly be re-elected? if re-elected will he pull the united states out of nato? will the united states disappear as a trusted and reliable ally in the indo-pacific, in europe? will we continue our push to fight climate? remember, it was former president trump who pulled us out of the climate agreement made in paris, now 2015, eight years ago. so there's a lot of concern about our place on the world stage, about our continuing to be the indispensable country. one of the things i think has been president biden's strongest moment on the world stage is how he has pulled together not just nato but a global coalition of 50 countries who in combination have given more than we have to support ukraine in their important fight. >> senator, i want to just ask you, your colleague from ohio, j.d. vance, has said that everyone with a brain in their head knows it was always going to end in a negotiation, the idea that ukraine was going to throw russia back to the 1991 borders was preposterous, nobody actually believed that. i don't know if that's true. i think volodymyr zelenskyy and a whole lot of ukrainians believed it and a lot of americans believe the fight they're fighting over there is one americans can believe in. we're starting to say this part about how you know what, maybe russia rolls into another country, takes some land and what are we going to do. >> the only way that putin will stop is when we stop him. that's something i've been saying for years, before his expanded invasion of ukraine began in february of 2022. and i'll remind you, in last summer's fighting season the ukrainians took back half of the area in their country newly occupied by russia. they made dramatic gains as russian morale collapsed, given the weakness of the russian military system. their losses on the battlefield in ukraine have been dramatic, have been far beyond what anyone might have expected. so i'll disagree with my colleague senator vance. it was not beyond thinking given just how fiercely the ukrainians defended themselves in the first weeks of the war and given the significant success they had on the battlefield last summer. it wasn't beyond belief that they would break through, particularly when provided with cutting edge weapons by the west. today right now the front line is in a stalemate. but the russians are launching wave against -- wave after wave of more drones, more missiles, trying to get the ukrainian civilians in the dark and cold by knocking out their power and water systems. we can't let them succeed. it's important that we hold russia accountable for their war crimes in ukraine and that we give the ukrainians the resources they need to defend themselves. yes, like many wars, this might end at a negotiating table. but we should not allow vladimir putin to win and to potentially roll over the ukrainian defenders, which is what may well happen if we abandon them. >> senator, good to see you. thank you for joining me this evening, this afternoon. chris coons, senator from delaware. >> thank you. >> when we return the growing specter of disinformation ahead of next year's presidential campaign all too real now that elon musk has let conspiracy theorist alex jones back on the platform formerly known as twitter. that story after a very short break. break. bladder leak underwear has one job. i just want to feel protected! especially for those sudden gush moments. when your keys are in the door and your body's like, “it's happening”! if you're worried about your protection, it's not the right protection. always discreet protects like no other. with double leak guards that help prevent gushes escaping from the sides. and a rapid dry core that locks in your heaviest gush quickly for up to zero leaks. and it contours, to everybody. now this, is protection! always discreet- the protection we deserve! known as a passionate artist. known for loving the outdoors. known for getting everyone together. no one wants to be known for cancer, but a treatment can be. keytruda is known to treat cancer. fda-approved for 16 types of cancer, including certain early-stage cancers. one of those cancers is triple-negative breast cancer. keytruda may be used with chemotherapy medicines as treatment before surgery and then continued alone after surgery when you have early-stage breast cancer and are at high risk of it coming back. keytruda can cause your immune system to attack healthy parts of your body during or after treatment. this may be severe and lead to death. see your doctor right away if you have cough, shortness of breath, chest pain, diarrhea, severe stomach pain, severe nausea or vomiting, headache, light sensitivity, eye problems, irregular heartbeat, extreme tiredness, constipation, dizziness or fainting, changes in appetite, thirst, or urine, confusion, memory problems, muscle pain or weakness, fever, rash, itching, or flushing. there may be other side effects. tell your doctor about all your medical conditions, including immune system problems, if you've had or plan to have an organ or stem cell transplant, received chest radiation, or have a nervous system problem. keytruda is an immunotherapy and is also being studied in hundreds of clinical trials, exploring ways to treat even more types of cancer. it's tru. keytruda from merck. see all the types of cancer keytruda is known for at keytruda.com, and ask your doctor if keytruda could be right for you. 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. ♪ ♪ ♪ we're building a better postal service. for more on-time deliveries. and easier, affordable ways to ship. so you can deliver even more holiday joy. the united states postal service. delivering for america. amid rising concerns about the impact of lies and munson formation on democracy in the 2024lection, two of the biggest purveyors of misinformation and hate are getting shiny new platforms today. political reporting that, quote, elon musk has restored the account of conspiracy theorist alex jones, pointing to a poll on the social media platform formally known as twitter that came out in favor of the infowars host who repeatedly called the 2012 sandy hook school shooting a hoax. not to be outdone -- tucker carlson announced he's launching a streaming service, the tucker carlson network, a network that almost breaks under the weight of its own irony. what's true, and what's a lie? sometimes, it's hard to know. there's just so much deception, and quote. -- nick confessore. nice to see, nick, and your back. this is a uniquely fraught discussion in this moment because there's nobody in america over the last year who has not discussed freedom of speech, whether it's donald trump saying that his is being infringed upon, or the war in gaza, where the university protests that we were just talking about in the break, or social media, which has become kind of a sewer. so this becomes, for us as journalists, a very complicated question. we live and die by freedom of speech. we believe in freedom of speech. how do we think about what's going on on x, or with tucker carlson? >> yeah, i think it's complicated for us. and of course, and other countries, they look at just how extensive and strong our first amendment is, and they think oftentimes i hear, you guys are crazy. as a journalist, i don't feel that way. but i think one thing that's important is just, more clearly defining what is journalism from what is just a pure social media platform, helping the public be more informed consumers to probably go a long way. so in other words, how do you spot misinformation? how do you get different sources? my mother is a teacher. she teaches a lot about that. make sure you go to multiple sources before you make a decision. no exactly whether the source you're getting information from is trustworthy. so i think that's important. but the thing that's a little bit unsettling to me is about kind of the further siloing of these kind of platforms into more niche kind of audiences. so somebody who's on x is not necessarily going to see the same thing that they would if they tuned into this program. and somebody who's on tucker carlson's program, i don't even know. maybe the moon landing wasn't real. so i think that's disturbing, because we're not dealing as americans with a common set of facts anymore. and i don't know what you do about that except that i do feel as journalists, it's just our job to continue to do everything we can to gain the trust of readers in our audiences so they know how we're doing our work, and that we could be trusted sources for them. >> nick, what do you think? there are distinctions between what is freedom of speech, what's allowed, versus what's just hateful on what we can decide that we don't like as a society. and this distinctions between what's illegal and what's legal. what do you make of all of these discussions at the moment? >> look. as a reporter, i almost feel i'd be a hypocrite if i didn't vouch for, you know, strong and robust free speech. and even for -- say terrible things on twitter, what makes everybody exasperated is there are no real clean ends here or standards being applied evenly across these platforms or these institutions. there's a lot of ad hoc decision-making under political pressure. i'm not sure how we get away from that. it's hard for me to argue that we should go back to the days when there were three news networks, and centralized information. there was something a bit healthier about our public discussion, when you can look back to it in the scatological. but it's hard for me to make the case we should go back to that and squelch all these smaller websites and upstarts and get back to legacy media. i don't know how to square that circle. >> you have an interesting point. the thing that you can be nostalgic about, everyone feels like being nostalgic, is there was something different about civil discourse. also a lot of stories who were told. there are a lot of people who weren't represented. social media lets everybody, whether you like it or not, have access to that conversation. -- figuring out what that looks like. >> i think that's right. and even though we don't talk about this a lot, because there's no solution within capitalism anyone has come up with yet, i do believe that the collapse of local news has played a role in this. because your local newspaper was a great way to understand how good journalism or bad journalism works, doesn't work. so if you had a local reporter who is successfully covering your kids minor league game, let's say, the baseball game, while, okay, maybe i can trust them. just say, when they're covering an election, here's what you need to now. and i think that collapse has really led to kind of a breakdown, a larger breakdown of trust in institutions. you also have local governments that aren't being held accountable. >> because there's no local reporter in the room. >> exactly. >> a lot of these stories, you know, people will tell you that just a local reporter showing up at a city council meeting, whether or not the right about it, you knew someone was on the watch. and now we are even absent that. we've replaced all of our reporting with opinion. >> the other vantage -- local model for journalism is those reporters have some accountability to the community that cover. they have to go back to those people, look them in the eye, buy groceries next to them. everything now is nationalized. we're always talking about national issues. national fights. things that feel life and death, that are very polarizing, that are very big. and we don't look in the faces of our readers and our audience that often anymore, because at that level of altitude, it's hard to do that. and i think we could learn to take a little more of that spirit of local journalism, international journalism, if and when we can, even if we can't restore all those small -- >> i didn't enjoy my time in local journalism all that much, and i think to myself, i would love to go back now. i understand how important it actually is. and if you give it the importance when i did it. >> there's nothing like accountability journalism. >> thanks to both of you. it's great to see you both. nick confessore, and myra. quick break, we'll be right back. back. i can do it with help from a prep cook, wardrobe assistant and stylist, someone to help me live right at home. life's good. when you have a plan. ♪ ♪ when you have chronic kidney disease... ...there are places you'd like to be. like here. and here. not so much here. farxiga reduces the risk of kidney failure which can lead to dialysis. ♪far-xi-ga♪ farxiga can cause serious side effects, including ketoacidosis that may be fatal, dehydration, urinary tract or genital yeast infections, and low blood sugar. a rare, life-threatening bacterial infection in the skin of the perineum could occur. stop taking farxiga and call your doctor right away if you have symptoms of this infection, an allergic reaction, or ketoacidosis. when you have chronic kidney disease, it's time to ask your doctor for farxiga. because there are places you want to be. if you can't afford your medication, astrazeneca may be able to help. ♪far-xi-ga♪ i'm a little anxious, i'm a little excited. i'm gonna be emotional, she's gonna be emotional, but it's gonna be so worth it. i love that i can give back to one of our customers. i hope you enjoy these amazing gifts. oh my goodness. oh, you guys. i know you like wrestling, so we got you some vip tickets. you have made an impact. so have you. for you guys to be out here doing something like this, we're gonna start tonight it restores a lot of faith in humanity. with a story we're gonna stah with a story i, thanks for spending part of your monday with us. we are grateful. the beat with ari melber starts ri