>> specifically calling for the genocide of jews, does that constitute bullying harassment? >> if it is directed and severe, it is harassment. >> so the answer is yes. >> it is a context dependent decision. >> it is a context-dependent decision? that's your testimony? it is depending upon the consteks? that's not bullying or harassment? this is the easiest question to answer yes, miss magill. so is your testimony that you will not answer yes? >> if it is -- if the speech becomes conduct, it can be harassment, yes. >> conduct meaning committing the act of genocide? the speech is not harassment? >> after facing widespread back lash after those remarks, magill attempted to clarify her remarks the following day. >> in that moment, i was focused on our university's longstanding policies aligned with the u.s. constitution which say that speech alone is not punishable. these policies need to be clarified and evaluated. >> but in the end, that was not enough and polo sandoval is live. magill is out. what's the latest? >> these were back to back resignations announced by the university. first we learned that the president of the university of pennsylvania is stepping down and then frankly moments, the university official who made the announcement saying that he, too, would be resigning. let's start with liz magill. she announced she would be stepping down from her position as upenn president for the university. she will remain as tenured faculty at the law school there and agreed to stay on board while they find an interim replacement. as we've reported, students, faculty, staff, donors which are certainly a critical piece of this, all losing confidence. at least, many of them losing confidence in magill after that disastrous testimony on tuesday in which she along with thees from at m.i.t. and harvard failed to explicitly say that calls for the genocide of jewish people would not immediately violate the university's code of conduct. and then moments after we learned of her resignation, scott bok saying that he, too, would be stepping down from his position as the chair of the board of trustees at the university in a statement, bok wrote, quote, former president liz magill last week made a very unfortunate misstep. following that, it became clear that her position was no longer tenable and she and i concurrently decided that it was time for her and i to leave. he defended her calling her a talented leader and as he put it, not the slightest bit antisemitism. and offering perspective and insight on the testimony from tuesday saying that she was not herself. bok wrote, she was overprepared, overlawyered, and provided a legalistic answer to a moral question, and that, bok said, was wrong. jim? >> all right. polo sandoval on the fallout at the university of pennsylvania. thank you very much. and university of pennsylvania student joe joins us now, the vice president of the jewish heritage program at the university. joe, thank you very much for being with us. what is your reaction to these resignations? is it going to go far enough to contain the damage? and make students feel more comfortable on campus? >> reporter: you know, the initial reaction from hearing these was ecstatic. we were really happy to satisfy accountability being taken against some major failures, or administration to protect jewish students on campus. when antisemitism first started cropping up this year around the time of the pal stinl rights festival, i was glad that they would handle it quickly and effectively. penn having an enormous history of a beautiful jewish community here. a very active jewish community here. i had a lot of confidence that it would be handled correctly. and then time and time again i found that it was magill and those that surround her with just dropping the ball and completely ignoring jewish students's asks for protection. we were scared. so we're really happy to see that accountability is finally being taken. after seeing the the mess-up that she had at congress, we just couldn't defend her anymore. that was the nail in the coffin. to hear the president of the university that i attend say that she can't flatly condemn calls for jewish genocide was disgusting and a little scary. at the end of the day, this is just the start. this is a huge win for jewish students all across the country. but the fight is not over because at the end of the day, just getting rid of a president who didn't do enough to protect jewish students doesn't ensure that jewish students will be protected moving forward. so that's the next step. >> what about this statement from the president of the board of trustees, the chair of the board of trustees, scott bok. he essentially said that it was an unfortunate statement that president magill made during her testimony up on capitol hill that led to her departure. it sounds like from what you're saying, that this has been building for some time. the university hasn't really gotten the message when it come to how thing are going on campus. >> yeah. i may not, the fact of the matter is that she was asked a very simple question which was is calling for a jewish genocide against the policies of the university of pennsylvania? she wasn't asked any harder question that actually involved more context. and her answer was that it was context dependent. that it could only be considered harassment if the words became actions. and i was really taken aback by that. the question was regarding jewish genocide and she said if it becomes action. so what i hear is, if call for jewish genocide turn into a jewish genocide on campus, then it would be considered harassment. i would hope that would at least be considered harassment, the fact that it would take that much to hear our president say that it would take that much to protect us, it was scary to hear. i don't think that it was just an unfortunate response. i think if she had given at left a more context on what type of context would be acceptable for a assistant or a faculty to make a call or the jewish genocide, i would be willing to listen to her and to understand what she was trying to say. even in her apology video she refused to explain what she meant. she never once said i'm sorry. in video. >> it seems like she made matters worse. >> she did 100% make matters worse. we gave her the benefit of the doubtle times. i especially was more willing to see how she would correct her mistakes from the very beginning with the palestine rights festival. i was hoping that she would turn things around and make, and make right the mistakes that she had made. time and time again i found that she dug herself a deeper hole. >> all right. thank you very much for your time. i hope thing get better on campus. being in college is a great time in your life. i hope things improve. thank you so much. >> thank you. >> in the meantime, former president donald trump says he'll be a dictator only on the first day if he's elected to the white house again. that's leading to comments from his critics. and later in the program interesting texas supreme court blocks at least for now a dallas woman's court approved exception to the state's abortion ban. we'll have that story as well. president biden is delivering perhaps his sharpest warning about his likely republican rival for the white house, telling donors at a fund-raiser in california last night that, quote, the greatest threat trump poses is to our democracy. the president went on to slam trump's role in the january 6th attack on the u.s. capitol saying it is despicable, simply despicable, end quote. the harsh rebuke come days after the former president gave a chilling preview of what the first day of a second trump term would look like. >> under no circumstances, you're promising america tonight, would you never abuse power as retribution against anybody. >> except for day one. >> except for -- >> except for day one. >> meaning? >> i want to close the border and i want to drill, drill, drill. >> that's not -- >> let's drill down on this further. joe biden is not the only person familiar with donald trump to warn what a second presidency would mean for democracy. today we spoke with the niece of the former president. mary trump. take a listen. >> we need to take donald at his word to a certain point. we go ignore the second part. dictators don't stop being dictators. he has every intention of destroying american democracy. >> joining me now, myles taylor, chief of staff. he looks at a second trump presidency and what it would mean for the united states. and myles, i guess it's good to talk to you, as always. i guess i have to ask you, what did you think when you heard trump say he would only be a dictator on day one. what did you make of that? >> i thought here we go again. anyone who thinks trump would be a dictator for one day deserves to have donald trump be their president. we know it would be far worse than that. and i say here we go again. you know this. five years ago from within the administration, i was warning this guy was unstable. his cabinet thought he was uns unstable. the response was people thought it was wrong to criticize trump from within his administration. four years ago, i warned about the danger of re-electing him and people said it was the deep state. three years ago, i made very clear. if he lost, he would not give up powers. and it would end tragically. people said that was hyperbole. that he would concede power. he said he would run again and people said no. trump is gone. he's not coming back. here he is. he's back. this year i made very clear in a second term, he would operate department by department like an autocrat. i'm not saying this because i have a crystal ball. i don't have a crystal ball. the point is it is so obvious who this man is and how he will act in a second term and people can ignore it again but they will deserve what is coming to them. to the point about one day. if he wins office again, it will be 10,460 days that he's dictator. that's a four-year term. i have to add an asterisk to that. i genuinely believe he would not give up power. we have precedent for that. that's the time of situation we're talking about. and we don't have any historical precedent for it in the united states. >> and he's given as you window. his aides and allies have told us what he plans to do if he's reelected including mass deportations. another muslim ban. he's talked about that openly on the campaign trail. firings across the federal government. you were inside when he was president. and you saw some of what he was up to back then. is it a stretch to imagine those things actually happening? and that this is more than his usual rhetoric? >> yeah, jim, it's not a stretch at all. this is how stephen miller, likely to be one of trump's cabinet secretaries in a second term, described the second term to me. he specifically described day one to me. em, day one, when we win, will be a shock and awe blitz. you have to take him at his word. what does stephen miller mean by that? he means in a second go-around, there won't be years of delay and indecision about whether to moderate trump's position so he can win a second term. it will be throwing the kitchen sink at american democracy and doing all the things he's wanted to do by abusing federal power for partisan political process. that's what they'll try to do on day one. tell pieces that were immediate are the weapons of the national security community. if you look anywhere in history you see the most grievous abuses of power is when the army or domestic security forces are used against a leader's political enemies. and those are things that aren't just forecast of what trump could do. he's talked about weaponizing the spy community, to spy on his adversaries. he has talked about creating his own mercenary force within the community so he to go through a chain of command that he worries would disobey him. he's talked about using the department of homeland security to intimidate his opponents in democratic sanctuary cities and to make sure that blue states don't get aid and red states do when there's natural disasters. this is laid out very clear. we know what will happen. and i do worry. it will be likely the end of the american republic as we know it if he come back. something that again, five, six, seven years ago, if you asked me, it would have sounded crazy but it's the reality. >> these names are not surprising. you mentioned steve bannon. cash patel said this about retaliation. >> we will go out and find the conspirators, not just in government but in the media. yes, we'll come after the people in the media who lied about american citizens, who helps joe biden rig presidential elections. we'll come after you. >> miles, what did you think of that? >> i've been told to prepare for lawsuits. i think other people that current against trump, people in the media. they should take kash patel seriously. they will be in top positions. no, he won't put extreme people in those positions and even if he tries to, the constitution must offer advice and consent and confirm people. no. that's wrong. at the end of the trump administration, donald trump's homeland security, my former colleague chad wolf was determined about eight former judge to have been appointed illegally. do you know what the consequences were? there were no consequences for that. trump learned a lesson. he can put people in posts. he doesn't have to get them confirmed. even if congress objects, congress can't enforce its own laws. we should expect that. we should go into a second trump administration clear eyed that these people will have their eyes on the levers of power. >> i remember when i was doing my reporting during the trump reporting, one of the thing a senior white house official told me about trump and his discussions about cabinet officials and so. on he once said to some of his aides, how long can i keep acting secretaries around. because of these reasons. great to talk to you as always. we appreciate it. we'll do it again soon. we're short on time. thanks a lot. as always, we appreciate it. in the meantime, a dallas woman won her case for an exception to a texas abortion ban. why did the supreme court in that state then block it? one of her attorneys joins us next in the cnn newsroom. tonight the texas supreme court is blocking at least for now a dallas woman's court-approved exception to the abortion ban. the mother of two said her baby is suffering from a rare genetic condition that is almost always fatal and her own health is at ri risk. >> so kate cox is 20 weeks pregnant. her fetus has a fatal genetic condition. so she says that the complications of her pregnancy have been detrimental to her health and she is worried about her future reproductive health. and this is according to her doctors in which she's been discussing with them. so she decided to sue the state of texas to ask them to allow her to get a legal abortion in the state. a judge in texas granted that. and this is significant, extremely significant, when it come to the debate over abortion bans. not only that but the medical exemption in the state of texas. this is a state with one of the most restrictive abortion laws in the country. you see the exceptions there. so this ruling was very significant. but the attorney general in the state of texas did not agree with what the judge ruled so he asked the state supreme court to intervene. that's exactly what they did here. essentially, freezing the lower court's decision, saying that it is a temporary block. that at some point they will review the case but did not give a time line here and time is really critical. as we mentioned, she's 20 weeks pregnant. i want to read what her attorney said. her attorney is saying they are very hopeful but saying that this is why people shouldn't beg for health care from a court of law. on the other hand you have ken paxton saying that kate cox failed to demonstrate what life-threatening condition, or why she's at risk of death. you see part of what he wrote there, saying she fails to identify what life-threatening medical condition she has. again, she says that this has been extremely difficult and she's had to go to the emergency room. believes that if her child is to be born, it would only live for a few days. she is asking for essentially the state of texas to allow her to do this right now. the supreme court saying not yet. >> all right. thank you very much. let's discuss more now with former democratic state senator wendy davis of texas, and center for reproductive rights. they are representing kate cox in court. thank you both for being with us this evening. really appreciate it. let me start with you, mark. how is she handling this ruling? it feels as though the clock is ticking and there's not a lot of time to get resolution to this. how is she doing? >> she's obviously unpins and needles waiting to see what the texas supreme court is going to say. the order that came out last night is what is call an administrative stay. what that means is that the texas supreme court is saying it needs more time to consider the issues and it is going to give us an order. time is of the essence. she is 20 weeks pregnant. every day that goes by, the risks to her health increase. her doctors have told her in their best medical judgment, the treatment she needs to preserve her ability to have kids in the future for this pregnancy, it is an abortion. it will not end with a legalitiy child. so for the state of texas, to force her to continue to carry this pregnancy, there is no justification for it. >> what is your reaction to all of this? you've been on the front lines of this battle for some time. >> i have been on the front lines. i have to tell you. i also personally have experienced the very thing that they woman in texas is going through. also, a fatal fetal abnormality prior to the law being enacted that of course, banned abortions in our state. i was able to get the care that i need. even in spite of that, it was the most emotionally stressful, difficult experience i have ever been in in my life. i cannot imagine what she is going through with this added stress of not being able to get the care that she needs. having to fight through a court of law and against our attorney general to get that care. it is just extremely excruciating and it breaks may heart that she's going through it. i hope people see this is an example of the fact that these exceptions as they are written tend to be fairly meaningless because in a state like texas where the consequence to a doctor and a hospital who violate the law, if it is determined to be the case that they've done so is that they will lose their medical license and they can literally spend the rest of their life in prison. it's a terrible situation on the ground here. >> and mark, i have to ask you what miss cox has been going through in all this. it sounds as though, please correct me if i'm wrong here. in addition to talking with her doctor about the condition of her fetuses, how all of this might affect her own health, she has to go through state officials. she has to go through courts. she is asking the government for permission to get health care. is that it? >> that's basically right. it is ludicrous that she has had to file this lawsuit. but that's where we are in 2023 in the state of texas. where the state officials are threatening to send doctors to prison for the rest of their lives if they provide essential health care. but it's even worse than that. because not only did the doctors say they believe that she qualifies for an exception. not only did she go to court and file this lawsuit and get approval from a judge who says yes, i agree with you. you qualify for this exception. even after all that, ken paxton comes along and says, he disagrees with the doctors. apparently he can exercise, h