happen with this defendant, but any other defendant would probably be facing -- >> you don't think she would put him in jail or they would decide to put him in jail ultimately? >> i don't think so. >> according to former attorney general eric holder, any other defendant would be sent to the slammer for violating a gag order. so what's stopping the federal judge in donald trump's january 6th coup case from making good on her vow to treat trump just like any other defendant? plus, senate democrats set their sights on a couple of conservative supreme court justices' besties in their quest to impose some level of ethics oversight on the high court. and with abortion rights emerging as a driving force in upcoming elections, does anyone else find it weird that house republicans have chosen an anti-abortion extremist as their new speaker? and we begin tonight with the constitutional question that could determine whether donald trump appears on a state ballot next year. the house january 6th committee laid out in stunning detail the events of that day. using video evidence to show meticulously how donald trump summoned the mob, assembled the mob, and lit the flame of the attack. now an historic trial is under way in colorado to determine whether trump should be disqualified from appearing on the ballot in 2024 because of his role in inciting the events of january 6th. the lawsuit filed by six colorado voters with the help of watchdog group citizens for responsibility and ethics in washington, argues that donald trump is ineligible to hold office again under section 3 of the 14th amendment. passed after the civil war. it prohibits anyone from holding office who having previously taken an oath to support the constitution of the united states shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. lawyers for the plaintiffs argue that donald trump violated his oath of office, trying to overturn the 2020 election. leading to the attack on the capitol, which was an insurrection. trump's attorneys argue the lawsuit is an effort to get the court to endorse the house january 6th committee report. washington, d.c. police officer daniel hodges was the first witness to testify on monday. he spoke about the injuries he received that day. after being crushed in a door and as he testified, being punched, kicked, beaten, and sprayed with pepper spray. >> i was afraid for my life and for that of my colleagues. i was afraid for the people in the united states capitol building. >> california congressman eric swalwell also testified on monday about how he and other lawmakers monitored donald trump's comments as insurrectionists breached the capitol to try to stop the certification of the election. colorado's secretary of state jenna griswold is named as a defendant in addition to trump. the suit would force her to bar trump from the ballot. griswold has said she will comply with whatever the court decides. other secretaries of state in battleground states have also grappled with the issue of the insurrection cause. one said it is an unanswered question and up to the courts, not to him. new hampshire's david scanlon said he had no legal basis for invoking the 14th amendment and wouldn't block trump. and georgia's brad raffensperger claimed in a "wall street journal" op-ed that he can't block trump, and it should be left up to the voters to decide. and that illustrates the two questions at stake. there is the legal question that will continue through the courts. colorado's trial is only the first litigation on the insurrection clause. last month in california, legislators asked the state's attorney general to seek a court opinion as to whether trump is disqualified under the 14th amendment and trump faces similar lawsuits in minnesota and michigan. michigan's secretary of state, jocelyn benson, said she won't keep trump from the ballot unless the courts direct her to. today, trump filed an injunction to prevent her from blocking him from appealing on the ballot. then there's the political question, how it looks to voters if secretary of states are the one to make the call to keep trump off the ballot. colorado's jena griswold responded to that point. >> i am a democratic secretary of state and i did not bring this case. i am a party as a defendant because i certified the ballot. and i would just say, look, colorado republican and unaffiliated voters brought this case. i think it is very reasonable to determine whether the u.s. constitution is in play. if there's something unclear, it's an appropriate mechanism to file a lawsuit. what is inappropriate is trying to steal an election from the american people. >> i'm joined now by maryland democratic congressman jamie raskin, member of the select committee to investigate january 6th. and the house judiciary committee, as well as the lead impeachment manager in 2021. and laurence tribe, professor emeritus at harvard university. i am lucky enough to have not one but two constitutional scholars in front of me right now, which is exciting to get to talk to both of you. i want to ask each of you in turn to give us your evaluation of the merits of this case. it was brought by four registered republicans and two unaffiliated colorado voters. and they have until march 5th to decide, that's when the primary is in colorado. i will make deference to the congressman and go to your first, sir. you know the facts better than any of us sitting here about what donald trump did on january 6th. is this case meritorious in your view? >> well, i should yield to my constitutional law professor, larry tribe, who taught me everything i know about the constitution. but let me give you my sense of it, joy. i don't really understand people who control access to the ballot saying, well, we'll let the voters decide. if someone showed up trying to run for president at 19 years old, their answer wouldn't be, let's let the voters decide. their answer would be let's consult the constitution which says you have to be 35 years old to run for president. if jennifer granholm, the secretary of energy, or arnold schwarzenegger, both of whom were born abroad and they tried to run for president, they wouldn't say let the voters decide. they would say that violates the rules of the constitution. it's the same thing here. the hard question is not should the courts end up deciding because the courts will have to decide this because it's a constitutional question. the hard part is, did he engage in insurrection or rebellion. that's the hard part for some people. is incitement to insurrection participating in insurrection? the house of representatives already impeached him for inciting insurrection. 57 of 100 senators voted to determine that he did engage in incitement to insurrection, so you have robust bipartisan, bicameral majorities defining that as a legislative fact. but i think the alternative argument will be no, you need a criminal conviction first. it's not enough to show that it happened. and you know, against that, i would simply say, the language of section 3 of the 14th amendment says that you can't run for office if you have sworn an oath to the constitution, but then you participated in insurrection rebellion. it doesn't say if you have been convicted of insurrection or rebellion. but i think that that will become really the heart of the legal argument. >> now that i have allowed your former student to show you that -- how much he learned i will not ask you to grade him, professor tribe, but i will now turn it over to you. with this case, the 14th amendment actually has been used. this was used to remove from office a new mexico county commissioner who entered the capitol on january 6th. there was a legal trial for him doing that. it has been used in the past. but i would love to hear your take on the merits of this case, and i will really quickly say the judge would like these things addressed. you can respond to it, the history and applicaf section 3 of the 14ict amendment, is section 3 self executed which is an important question. does section 3 apply to presidents, the meaning of engaged and insurrection as used in section 3, and did trump's actions meet the standard for section 3. your thoughts, sir. >> i think the answers to all of those questions are quite clear. it is clear that section 3 by itself says that anyone who engages in an insurrection or rebellion against the constitution of the united states, that's the phrase, not just against the government, but against the constitution of the united states, is not entitled to another bite at that apple. now, donald trump says that might apply to a county commissioner in new mexico, but it doesn't apply to him. because it doesn't apply to the president. that is an absurd argument. i won't go into the details but it's clear that if there's any officer in the country who would be a danger to democracy if he were allowed again to manipulate our processes, it is someone who took the oath as president and then turned around and tried to overturn the central part of the constitution, which is the transition from one president to another, and in accord with who actually wins the election, not who says i believe i won, i thought i won, i should have won, how could i have lost to this guy, but the person who our legal process determines as the winner. now, one of the things that mr. trump and by the way, in the michigan filing today, he calls himself president trump 35 times. he seems to think that he won the election, but i have news for him. the constitution says that you serve for only four years. and if you lose the electoral college, that's the end of it. he argues, i never really took the kind of oath that section 3 talks about. it talks about an oath to support the constitution. i didn't take that oath. i took the oath that the president takes. it's an oath to preserve, protect, and defend the constitution. now, that's how ridiculous the arguments get. the legal arguments are clear. but the political argument is not so clear. a lot of people say even though congressman raskin's examples are perfect, they wouldn't apply it to a 30-year-old or to someone not a natural born citizen, but they say let the people decide, even if someone is not eligible. that's not the way that people who fought the civil war decided we needed to handle it. they decided that you needed to disqualify anyone who basically is a traitor to the constitution. that kind of person is dangerous. dangerous as a person who might attempt to seize power and then never let go. that's the history of autocracies around the world. somebody manages to make it into office, and then they decide they're going to stay. that's the danger against which this language is designed to protect us all. >> you know, and the irony, congressman raskin, well said, the irony is that donald trump is a birther. so people who supported his view thought that barack obama should be automatically disqualified from being on ballots, and they literally tried to make that happen. and so, you know, he doesn't want to be held to the standard he attempted to illegally and unlawfully and in a racist manner hold an american, barack obama, to. let me go to you on the political question. you're a politician. the question of how it would look to voters, right, this was tried on marjorie taylor greene, she survived it, it was tried on madison cawthorn, he lost a primary so it didn't really matter. how do you think the politics would play out? would it look like the deep state stopped trump from being on the ballot rather than the constitution? >> well, that goes back to the question of democracy you were raising and those who are saying well, just let the voters decide. here's the problem, donald trump tried to overthrow constitutional democracy. and the constitution has a mechanism for dealing with that which is a very strongly pro-democratic mechanism. it says this is a big country. a lot of people can be president. you don't have to go back to somebody who has already proven himself to be untrustworthy by being disloyal to the constitution and trying to overthrow the constitutional order. just as it is pro-constitutional and pro-democratic to say we're going to enforce the provisions that no, a 14-year-old can't run for president no matter how brilliant he is, also if it's been shown that you have engaged in an insurrection against the constitution, you can't be trusted once again to swear an oath to it, and then uphold the whole constitutional system. if you look at what's going on in other countries when people have attempted a coup, and they have been rejected at the last moment, that's a sign they're going to try a coup again. and is there anybody who really believes that if donald trump somehow got his way back into office, he would ever leave? if you believe that, you're too innocent to be let out of the house by yourself. >> yeah, indeed. very quickly, with the time we have left, i want to ask a slightly different question to you, professor tribe. former attorney general holder said that donald trump would be in jail if it was anyone else. i think every legal expert agrees on that. what do you think are the chances that one of these judges or at least this judge in the january 6th insurrection case, will eventually use jail as a sanction if he continues violating the protective order? >> i do think she will use the threat of jail. there are a lot of things she can do in between. she can escalate financial fines, a million dollars a day, $2 million, eventually, even donald trump might notice. in any event, the idea that because he's donald trump and calls himself president, and was once president, that we certainly can't put him in jail. frankly, i don't buy it. what's the -- what's the immunity? there is no legal immunity, and the secret service could accompany him. so i think we have to start thinking that he is not above the law. no one is above the law. real politic would tell me that judge chutkan might only threaten it, use it as a last resort, not going to be easily done, but i can't take it off the table. >> this has been so much fun. i could do this for an hour. thank you all for making time. it's always a treat to talk to both of you. congressman jamie raskin, laurence tribe, two of the very best at telling the constitution. telling you what's in the constitution, making it make sense. up next on "the reidout," senate democrats would like to ask a couple of wealthy conservative activists about their history of chumming around with and lavishing expensive gifts on america's conservative supreme court justices. "the reidout" continues after this. he hits his mark —center stage—and is crushed by a baby grand piano. you're replacing me? customize and save with liberty bibberty. he doesn't even have a mustache. only pay for what you need. ♪ liberty. liberty. liberty. liberty. ♪ hi, i'm jason. i've lost 228 pounds on golo. only pay for ♪hat you need. i don't ever want to go back to wearing a 4xl shirt or not being able to climb up stairs without taking a break. so i'm committed to golo for life. the power goes out and we still have wifi to do our homework. and that's a good thing? great in my book! who are you? no power? no problem. introducing storm-ready wifi. now you can stay reliably connected through power outages with unlimited cellular data and up to 4 hours of battery back-up to keep you online. only from xfinity. home of the xfinity 10g network. at this point, it has become abundantly clear a certain number of associate justices on the supreme court have ignored some pretty basic ethical standards for their own personal benefit. we know much of this because of the dogged word of propublica and other media organizations. what we have learned is a truly disturbing array of obviously questionable behavior from justices interacting with wealthy benefactors who have very specific political agendas and just so happen to share their generosity with the justices. justice samuel alito got a luxury vacation paid for by republican donor paul singer, who has key cases before the court this year. justice alito was also accused of previewing an upcoming decision about contraceptive access to antichoice lobbyists who were breaking bread with him and his wife. he denied sharing the information. then there's justice clarence thomas, who almost deserves a category of his own for behaving like a kept man. this year alone, we learned he failed to report many, many, many gifts including from his besty harlan crow, a billionaire neppo baby with a penchant for nazi memorabilia. the gifts included a string of luxury vacations, private jets and private school tuition for his nephew. he also bought thomas' childhood home, making crow her landlord. we also learned that thomas attended the exclusive annual men only summit at bohemian drove, care of the koch brothers who also have key interests before the court. oh, and did i mention justice thomas who loves to tell americans he's just a humble man preferring a simpler life behind the wheel of an rv, got that rv from a rich friend? they said it was a deal or a loan, gut guess what we found out yesterday from the senate judiciary committee by "the new york times," thomas never repaid a substantial portion of the $267,000 loan from that rich friend. raising questions about whether the loan was properly reported on his taxes. many of these stories have a common thread. and that is leonard leo. the man who single-handedly reshaped the supreme court and the federal bench across the country. five of the current conservative justices are hand-picked from the federalist society. an organization he used to run. leo has marshalled billions of dollars into reshaping the court and the country. and he is close personal friends with justice thomas and harlan crow. to the point where he is in a painting crow commissioned that includes justice thomas and a number of other conservative activists. leo has worked closely with ginni thomas, as she promotes right wing activism. in facts, according to reports, leo helped send money her way without a clear explanation of why or for what. yesterday, the senate judiciary committee announced they will vote to authorize issuing subpoenas for a few of those benefactors. this includes real estate billionaire harlan crow, mortgage company owner robert arkly ii, and leonard leo. i'm joined by california senator alex padilla, member of the senate judiciary committee. thank you for being here, senator padilla. let's talk about this. the reaction that you have gotten on the senate judiciary committee from people like harlan crow and leonard leo has been dismissive t say the least. leonard leo has said the llowing, i would not bow to the vile and disgusting liberal mccarthyism that seeks to destroy the supreme court. what do you expect the reaction to be to the subpoenas? >> well, this is not the first step, not the last step in our investigative efforts, joy. first, let me say happy halloween. with the senate committee on the verge of doing is certainly not a trick or a treat. issuing subpoenas by the committee has only been done a handful of times over the years. so it's a very, very significant step, and it wouldn't be necessary if we had individuals willing to cooperate with the committee. you know, for the folks who want to criticize or critique the senate judiciary committee for wanting to impose an enforceable code of ethics on supreme court justices, it's not that we're not trying to do it the other way, they have had opportunities to do it themselves. they refused. we had begun an investigation. thank god for the propublica and the other investigative reporting. we know there's lot more there, and that's why we give harlan crow and the others an opportunity to come forward with the information that we're seeking. if they refuse to cooperate, first, they would have to hide a whole lot and that's why the subpoenas seem necessary. >> you started to say, if they refuse to cooperate. we have seen people like jim jordan, who almost became speaker of the house, defy subpoenas. people like steve bannon, others in the trump world, have seemed to confer upon themselves the power to avoid and ignore subpoenas from democratic-led committees. what happens if they fail to comply? will there be contempt of congress requests made? >> exactly. if they refuse to comply to subpoenas, then we continue to escalate as well. i wanted to emphasize that point because anybody who accuses us of shooting from the hip has it all wrong. we have given them ample opportunity to supply the information we're looking for, to participate with the committee, and they refuse to do so. you have covered a whole lot of legal issues over the years. when somebody has nothing to hide, they're more than happy to cooperate with the authorities. in the interest of finding justice. but when you refuse to cooperate, when you do nothing but obstruct, it begs the question, why? thank god all the investigative reporters who brought the light the information that they have, but we know there's so much more there. we need that information to better enforce the law and to impose the necessary enforceable code of ethics on the supreme court that they refuse to adopt for themselves. >> is there any thought of subpoenaing ginni thomas? >> well, as any good investigation, you go where the information takes you. we already know there's information on the money that has come to ginni thomas' quote/unquote nonprofit organization. the role and activity she had around the january 6th insurrection, she's obviously married to an associate justice of the supreme court. so there's a lot there, and that's why this is not the first step nor the last step in an investigation. >> let's talk about some of the cases that are comin up before the court, should the consumer financial bureau ist, the cfpb, can public officials block critics on social media, evaluating the 2018 first step act. the one that stands out to me is the question of a wealth tax. whether or not the chevron deference doctrine exists, et cetera, about gerrymandering. whether or not, you know, one can legally gerrymander based on politics if not race. the wealth tax one stands out to me because it seems like the people that are testifying, it impacts them directly. do you, sir, believe and has your investigation revealed that part of the supreme court is for sale? that they are exchanging votes and rulings for largesse. >> that's at the core of our activity. the crisis of confidence. there is not the public confidence in the supreme court of the united states that the people deserve. how can the highest court in the land, the most powerful justices in america not have a code of ethics that they have to comply with? and we know that leonard leo is, as my colleague has put it, the spider in the middle of a dark web of money influencing the supreme court. money and politics, that's an important debate. money in the court system, really? but that's what we have here when billionaires are entertaining supreme court justices on their private planes, you know, at these expensive resorts on these exotic fishing expeditions. they have so much at stake with the questions before the supreme court, when it comes to taxation and when it comes to their livelihood. there's a clear conflict of interest that needs to be spelled out for supreme court justices. rules for when they need to recuse themselves and explain to the public why they need to recuse themselves and so much more. so again, not a trick. this is not a treat. this is serious. >> we appreciate the halloween reference. happy halloween to you, too. senator alex padilla, thank you. coming up next on "the reidout," next week's elections in ohio and virginia are shaping up as bellwethers on the fate of abortion rights. that's next. with cirkul, your water is deliciously flavored at the turn of a dial, with zero sugar and zero calories. and cirkul has over 40 flavors, so your water can be as unique as you are. try cirkul. your water, your way. now with even more flavors. available at walmart or drinkcirkul.com. ♪♪ no. ♪♪ -no. -nuh-uh. ♪♪ yeah. oh. yes. ♪♪ oh yeah. yes. isn't this great? yeeaahhhh!! ♪♪ yeah, i could do a cartwheel in here. oh hey! would you like to join us? no. we would love to join you. ♪♪ we're traveling all across america, talking to people about their hearts. how's the heart? - good. - you sure? - i think so. - how do you know? let me show you something. put two fingers right on those pads. look at that! that's your heart! that is pretty awesome. with kardiamobile, you can take a medical-grade ekg in just 30 seconds, from anywhere. kardiamobile is proven to detect atrial fibrillation, one of the leading causes of stroke. kardiamobile is now available for just $79. order at kardia.com or amazon. one of the pivotal issues that will be front and center in next year's election is abortion rights. house republicans have done themselves no favors in unanimously voting for mike johnson as their new speaker. he is so virulently antiabortion that he wants called abortion, quote, a holocaust. and said the judicial philosophy legalizing it was no different from hitler's. republicans call johnson's election a victory because it united the caucus, he may very well turn out to be a political albatross that weighs down candidates in close races. we'll get our latest chance to see how intense the feelings about abortion are when voters go to the polls next week i two key states. there's ohio, which will decide whether to enshrine reproductive rights in the state constitution, and virginia, where control of the legislature could determine if it will be the last state in the south to roll back abortion rights since roe v. wade was overturned. i'm joined by mini tim arogue, president and ceo of reproductive freedom for all, and simon rosenberg, democratic strategist and author of the hopium chronicles substack. thank you for being here. minnie, i want to start with you. because the question is whether the intensity is still there. we know that abortion moved the election in 2022. do you see the issue being as hot, as salient in states like ohio and virginia now? >> absolutely. i just want to add pennsylvania, too, where we have a supreme court race that could also be a bellwether going in to 2024. we absolutely believe it's still salient, every poll after poll shows that it is a top motivator for democrats and also independents. and some republicans as well. you know, it's such a powerful issue that we see over 80% of voters in pennsylvania, you know, over 58% is the number in ohio right now, 58%, and in virginia, the majority, close to 80% in virginia support abortion rights, which is why you're seeing glenn youngkin and his party blatantly lying about their positions on abortion. candidates scrubbing their positions tromtheir websites. you know, i just got back from trick-or-treating with my kids, and there's nothing more horrifying right now than these extremist republicans blatantly lying about their positions. >> yeah, you can tell, simon, that even though they didn't want to admit it and pretended that they thought the last election was going to be about inflation and crime, they know, i think, republicans that it was abortion. that abortion is what did it to them. so i wonder how the two parties are sort of playing these elections out in ohio and in virginia, and is abortion front and center in the way that the campaigns are acting? at least in virginia, i should say. >> yeah, it's really important to recognize that strong performance we had in 2022 has carried over all across the country this year. we have had 27 special elections in all different parts of the country, where democrats have outperformed their 2020 numbers by eight points, fivethirtyeight just did an analysis showing in over 30 races we're outperforming our partisan lean, as they call it, of the districts by over ten points. that strong heightened performance we saw all across the country in 2022 in part because of abortion has continued in race after race all across the country. look what happened in ohio just in august. we got all the way up to 57% in ohio on that pre-ballot initiative that happened. so what we're seeing now is what i'm hearing on the ground is that polling the good in ohio. turnout is really strong in the early days. in virginia, polling is good. money is good. the early vote is a little concerning. we're not really exactly where we want to be. so we have work to do to get to where we want to be in virginia. we're not there yet, but i'm optimistic by election day we can get there. >> you know, minnie, virginia is concerning for a lot of reasons. glenn youngkin has made it pretty clear if they win the majority in both the senate and house there, his next step is going to be to get on board with an abortion ban there, but also if he wins, national republicans are already signaling that would be their signal to go for a national 15-week abortion ban. your thoughts on that. >> yeah, this goes back to there's no part of the country where abortion bans are popular, period. every time we have gone directly to the people around an abortion ban or a ballot initiative, we have won on our side, the reproductive freedom side. he knows the only way to get this done and he's betting to create a road map for republicans across the country is to be able to confuse voters with disinformation about what a 15-week abortion ban is. it is still a ban. it's not a limit, not consensus, it's not a compromise, but they're hoping that through rhetoric and messaging they can shift and confuse voters about what this is. the problem is, story after story, report after report, shows that abortion bans are very unpopular, exceptions don't work, and american voters don't want them. >> and i will note that in ohio, mike dewine, the governor there, is trying to say wait, wait, if you just don't pass this constitutional amendment, we'll make our abortion ban less horrible, we'll pass exceptions for rape, incest, and life of the mother. let's talk about mike johnson just for a moment, simon. putting him in place is almost an advertisement for the democratic party getting the house back. i mean, there's a lot of other challenges. we know there's issues on israel, palestine, and other things, but this particular issue does not play well even with republicans. the mike johnson factor for you, because he definitely would push a national abortion ban through the house. >> well, national abortion ban with no exceptions. mike johnson is among the most significant abortion extremists we have seen in our politics in recent decades. there's no one to his right in the republican party. i mean, that bill that he introduced in the house to have a national ban with no exceptions only the 20 cosponsors so republicans were running away from that bill. so it guarantees your introduction i think, joy, was correct. it guarantees that a national abortion ban with no exceptions is going to be on the ballot in 2024, period. i mean, that's going to be the republican party's position. you elect republicans to the house, elect a republican president, you get a national abortion ban with no exceptions. it's a huge problem for them. and i think that it's why i think their attempt to be houdini here and try to escape out of the disaster they have created for themselves is not going to work. they may have a victory here and there, but over time, they're on the wrong side of history here and they're paying a terrible price for it politically and will continue to in the elections to come. >> let me put up the map, this is where abortion is banned now. it kind of looks like the old slave states and free states, but if virginia joins that list, you would essentially have a solid wall of, you know, your womb belongs to the state throughout the entire red part of the southeast of the united states plus texas. it's pretty scary. thank you both very much. as israeli ground forces push further into gaza, questions remain about u.s. goals in the war-torn region. just back from israel, nicholas kristof of "the new york times" joins nee next. stay right there. as israeli forces push deeper into gaza and intensify their bombardment of the region, today in washington, defense secretary lloyd austin and secretary of state antony blinken testified before the senate appropriations committee. maxing the case for president biden's $100 billion request for aid for both israel and ukraine. >> many are again making the bet that we're too divided, we're too distracted at home to stay the course. that's what's at stake with president biden's national security supplemental funding request. >> in both israel and ukraine, democracies are fighting ruthless foes who are out to annihilate them. we will not let hamas or putin win. >> as the secretaries spoke, dozens of protesters sat behind them, holding up red stains hands, with some interrupting the testimony to demand a cease-fire. >> the committee will suspend. >> why aren't they at the table? cease-fire now. i beg you. cease-fire now. >> it was a stark illustration of just how deep the divide has become over the administration's response to this war. it comes amid growing questions about america's role in this conflict. and what exactly our leaders have signed off on. especially as n reporting today from the associated press says that it is an israeli government ministry drafted a proposal to transfer the 2.3 million refugees in gaza to egypt's sinai peninsula. we should note that israel's intelligence ministry conducts research, it does not set policy, and the prime minister's office said this is an initial thinking document. but it is still significant as the a.p. writes, its conclusions deepened long-standing egyptian fears that israel wts to make gaza into egypt'sblem and revive for palestinians memories of their greatest trauma, the uprooting of hundreds of thousand of people who fled or were forced from their homes during the fighting surrounding israel's creation in 1948. this report comes just days after president biden tweeted that during a call with egypt's president, he reaffirmed his commitment to insure that palestinians in gaza are not displaced to egypt or any other nation. this is something we would love to ask the administration about directly on this show. we reached out to national security council spokesman john kirby to come on and talk about it. he was unavailable, but the invitation to him or to any other white house official still stands. joining me is nicholas kristof, "new york times" columnist who spent the last couple weeks in israel and the west bank. i'm eager to talk to you about what you learned in your column on that is excellent, but really quickly, i would love for you to respond to this a.p. reporting. and there's been reporting previously about the desire among some in israeli leadership to mass transfer palestinians out of gaza into egypt. and this is what was in the omb letter that was provided to congress regarding biden's national security funding request. it said funding will also provide life-saving humanitarian assistance in israel. these resources would support displaced and conflictand to ads gazans fleeing to neighboring countries. this would include food, d items, health care, emergency shelter. it goes on to talk about potential humanitarian infrastructure costs for refugee populations outside of gaza. it sounds like the administration has at least thinking through and preparing for the idea of an out flux of gazans. but that is not, i don't think, according to international law for them to be pushed out. what do you make of this? >> so, for palestinians, this is a complete nonstarter and touches on this very sensitive issue of -- the catastrophe of when they fled or, in many cases, we're -- 1948 and, you know, the administration apparently did approach egypt to suggest that some gazans might go into the sinai. every palestinian i spoke to in gaza was just, you know, they felt that they were being pushed out once more, that if they left into egypt, they would not be allowed back. people in the west bank share that view that this is partly an operation to drive people out forever from gaza. even moving from northern gaza into southern gaza, people are worried that they would not be allowed back into the northern part of that area. so, you know, i don't, i think the administration didn't appreciate just the sensitivity of this issue of moving people and plus, it also raises, as you say, fundamental questions about international law and forced removal of populations. >> can you talk a little bit about, you know, you are in the west bank, you are also in israel. talk about what people were telling you. we know there was a bombing of refugee camp today, you know, by airstrikes to try to kill a hamas leader. total devastation there. it's devastating, the pictures coming out. what are you being told by people? >> so, i was in touch with people in gaza by whatsapp, by phone, and the pictures they described her just agonizing, in terms of, you know, not getting access to health care, kids being operated on without anesthetic. obviously, -- by my count, a child has died since the beginning of the war about once every ten minutes, and, you know, if power can't get into fuel generators and people on dialysis die, and kids in incubators die, just the fear of undergoing this constant bombardment and not knowing if you're next has been completely staggering. i think it's also radicalized the west bank. one of the things that i worry about is if there will be mass unrest in the west bank, as people, you know, all people are talking about is what's happening in gaza and there's also a widespread conviction among people in the west bank that the explosion at the hospital a week ago, that that was not only caused by israel, but it in fact was a deliberate strike on a hospital by israel. my best guess that it was probably an islamic jihad rocket that went astray, but that's not the perception in the west bank. >> right, you've expressed some skepticism. you spoke with -- former prime minister there, but you've expressed some skepticism that this ground incursion and bombing campaign will, somehow, eradicate hamas. say more on that. >> joy, i mean you and i have both seen lots of conflicts where people start off very bullish on invasions and as it goes on, it turns out to be more of a quagmire, and i, you know, i think that's what what's happening here. i don't think that israel has a real plan for house to house fighting. i don't think it has a plan to extricate itself afterward and what will happen undoubtedly is mass numbers of civilian casualties. when i say that -- previous -- those bombings radicalized people. and when a kid's parents are killed, that kid wants to be a shaheed, a martyr, they want to fight back. just as so many israelis understandably want vengeance after the horrible attacks of the seventh, not a lot of palestinians, intern, are going to want vengeance for what's happening to them right now. and so, at a practical level and at a moral level, you know, a major ground invasion is protracted going to be a disaster. >> and i'm showing some pictures or that show just sort of what that devastation looks like. i think a lot of americans agree with you. nicholas kristoff, glad you made it home safely. thank you so much for being on tonight. much appreciated. we will be right back. cheers. we will be right back. cheers cheers (♪♪) we come from a long line of cowboys. (♪♪) when i see all of us out here on this ranch, i see how far our legacy can go. (♪♪) so... i know you and george were struggling i with the possibilitycy of having to move. how's that going? we found a way to make bathing safer with a kohler walk-in bath. a kohler walk-in bath provides a secure, spa-like bathing experience in the comfort of your own home. a kohler walk-in bath has one of the lowest step-ins of any walk-in bath for easy entry and exit. it features textured surfaces, convenient handrails for more stability, and a wide door for easier mobility. kohler® walk-in baths include two hydrotherapies— whirlpool jets and our patented bubblemassage to help soothe sore muscles in your feet, legs, and back. a kohler-certified installer will install everything quickly and conveniently in as little as a day. they made us feel completely comfortable in our home. and, yes, it's affordable. i wish we would have looked into it sooner. think i might look into one myself. stay in the home and life you've built for years to come. call... to receive $1,500 off your kohler® walk-in bath. and take advantage of our >> whatever your tastes on this low monthly payment financing. halloween, we have plenty on tap for you over on the reidout blog. tonight, our writer jon jones highlights an incident involving house speaker mike johnson and why it's been condemned by black journalists nationwide. also be sure to read his thoughts on republicans free speech reversal and his report on martha robinson, the rising republican star who's in hot water over his toxic facebook feed. all that and much more at msnbc.com slash readout blog. that is tonight's reidout. happy halloween, everyone. all in with chris hayes starts now. >> tonight on all in. >> reducing the irs does not make a lot of e