my first conversation with would be a part of my banned book club, and when i should talk about literature and writing and the pressures that it is under in america. let's do that another time, but thank you for being with us this morning. i appreciate it. tony kushner is a tony award winner in a pulitzer prize-winning activist. thank you so much for watching, alex witt reports begins right now. >> a very good day of all to you from msnbc world headquarters here in new york. welcome everyone to alex witt reports. it is noon here on the east coast. six pm in gaza, and we begin with breaking news on the israel hamas war. here's what is new at this hour. >> there you hear it. israel's grinding retaliation in gaza bringing new claims of attacks on schools, refugee camps, and ambulances. and new calls for humanitarian pauses. israel's military temporarily shut down a main highway to allow evacuations in gaza, but israeli prime minister benjamin netanyahu says a big no to secretary of state antony blinken, because the u.s. is urging eighth minute therrien pause in the conflict. but he says a pause will only be tied to a release of all hostages. the u.n. refugee agency in gaza claims that 15 people were killed on a strike in a school, and israeli defense forces admit they struck an ambulance in gaza, but they say it was being used by hamas terrorist cell. [screaming] >> well the frantic and punishing search for victims of missile strikes is unending. former president barack obama speaking yesterday at his foundations democracy forum. he says it is easy to lose hope after the brutal attack inside of israel and subsequent war. >> i will admit, it is impossible to be dispassionate in the face of this carnage. it is hard to feel hopeful. the images of families morning, of bodies being pulled from rubble. force a moral reckoning on all of us. >> today secretary blinken met with arab leaders in jordan to define waste in the war and plan for the future of gaza, and then here is a look at the human toll of ongoing fighting. almost 9500 killed in gaza with 32,000 wounded. more than 230 killed in the occupied west bank. more than 1900 wounded, and 1400 killed in israel, more than 5400 wounded. our nbc team of reporters and analysts are standing by to bring us the very latest on the war from tel aviv to tehran. we are going to go first to nbc's jay gray. he is in tel aviv, israel for. us jay, welcome. so what can you tell us about secretary blinken's meetings today with middle east leaders and about the u.s. effort to get more aid into gaza. >> and alex, let's remember. this was a meeting that initially was meant to happen when president biden visited israel, but didn't because evan attack on a hospital inside of gaza. everything was postponed. they did hold the meeting today. the arab allies all calling for an immediate cease fire. the secretary of state stopping short of that. let's listen to what he had to say. >> we all spoke today about the need to protect palestinian civilians. the united states holds israel's right defense against hamas, a terrorist organization that attacked them brutally and that cares not a little bit about the palestinian people or their futures. this is the same right that each of our countries have. but as israel conducts its campaign, how it does it matters. israel must take every possible measure to prevent civilian casualties. >> yeah, and so he won't call for a cease-fire, but he does say that there needs to be humanitarian pauses in continues to push that point. he says with leaders here in israel, he also talked about getting more humanitarian aid in, and believe that those pauses would allow for that, and they are pushing to get fuel into gaza as well. that is not happen to this point. as we've heard, the only thing that israeli prime minister benjamin netanyahu has said about a cease-fire is that it won't happen until all of the hostages are released, and they've continued to say that new fuel is getting into gaza as long as the war is going on. and so there seems to be a blocking point there, and again, we are hearing more vocally from washington, the white house, the secretary of state here that they need to pause for a humanitarian reason. but to this point, that is not getting any traction on the ground. >> got it, okay. jay gray, thank you so much for that update from tel aviv. let's go to some new video today. this is from along the israel, lebanon border. check this out. [sound of artillery] there you see massive plumes of smoke billowing as israel's military -- iran-backed hezbollah group exchange fire. it comes a day after hezbollah's leader gave his first speech since the war broke out. let's go right now to nbc's bureau chief ali arouzi. ali, welcome to you. so what is the response been in the region to that speech yesterday? sterday? >> hey alex, the response has been mixed. if you listen to what people are saying in palestine and parts of the arab world, there was relative disappointment in hassan nasrallah's speech did not declare war, did not give some sort of an alternate -- ultimatum to israel or the u.s. to back down or that they would fully get involved in this war. but if you look at other parts of the arab world, especially lebanon, where hassan nasrallah was, and there was a sigh of relief that he did not lay out concrete steps for what hezbollah was going to do if this ground incursion or the bombing continues. and that is because lebanon is on the brink of financial collapse, and an all out war that would involve lebanon would really tip that country over the edge. and a lot of lebanese were worried about that. it was a typical hassan nasrallah speech, alex. it was long, it sounded like a lecture, and it was laced with threats, but it was not a declaration of war, which people had worried about. he talked about, you know, the proxies in the region being very valiant and hitting the u.s. troops. he talked about there being no choice for hamas to do this, but the threats came towards the end of the speech where he said that israel would make its biggest mistake in history if it carried out a preemptive operation against lebanon, and said that further escalation on the lebanese front was a possibility. he did not say it was a definite. and so he really did walk back a lot of those fears people had that he was going to declare war, and he reiterated a lot of his bosses talking points. that is the supreme leader of iran, ayatollah khamenei who talked about expelling arab diplomats from -- israeli diplomats from arab countries, stopping selling oil to israel, and other essential goods and basically trying to isolate them. it was a very opaque, it was a very vague speech about what they were going to do. and i think that goes in line with iran's perspective. this is why they have proxies fighting for them, because they do not want to get directly involved and invite a massive retribution from israel and from the united states, which would either significantly weaken them or dislodge them. and so they are walking a line here. for hezbollah to get fully involved in this war, it would be seen as iran's hand guiding them, where there are some plausible deniability where hamas is involved. so for now, it looks like they are going to walk a line. they will issue threats and keeps saying, well if this goes on, we may do this we may do that, but they are holding back. i mean yes, on the israeli lebanese border, the skirmishes have increased. and they are still a long way from an all out war, and i think that suits them for now. they're keeping the israelis -- according to the hezbollah chief, and that is working for them now. but you know, the smallest miscalculation alex that all of these events could dramatically change the course of events. >> yeah, one of the percent. that is what is so worrisome about this. let me ask you a question. this may be better suited to ask someone who has a diplomatic course to it, but you can understand that. what is the difference between a humanitarian pause and a cease-fire in practical terms. a humanitarian pause requires a cease-fire and cease-fires get broken all of the time. and so i am curious why so much is being made about the nomenclature here when just the mere pausing to allow for humanitarian aid might quell a lot of the concerns on both sides. >> it's a very good point that you make. i think that the concern from people who believe that israel should be pushing hard is a cease-fire is a undetermined in very long period of time, and that would enable hamas to regroup, re-arm, resupply, which is not what they want. they want to be able to hit them hard and not give them any breathing room. whereas a pause would only last maybe 24 hours or 36 hours to lip humanitarian aid in, to let some of the very badly injured people out, and that wouldn't really give hamas much time to regroup and reorganize if we are talking about a window of 12 to 36 hours. and i think that is the differentiation between them. they don't want to give hamas any breathing room. but look, the toll that is being taken on regular people in gaza is just overwhelming. >> oh, it absolutely. as a very thoughtful response for my question, thank you so much my friend. in the next hour, i may be asking the same question when i speak with admiral james trivia this about the prospects for a broader war, and whether tony blinken can broker a cease-fire of sorts. let's go now to two big news headlines in the trials of donald trump. a federal appeals court has temporarily freed trump from a limited gag order in the d.c. election fraud case. and jack smith tells the d.c. ur that he opposes a push by media outlets including nbc universal to have cameras in federal court for trump's trial. trump will testify monday in the new york state civil fraud trial against his company, his daughter ivanka will testify there on wednesday. also new today, an explosive turn in trump's civil trial three days before he takes the stand. the judge issued a new supplemental limited gag order over remarks about his law clerk. that order came after a contentious exchange when trump's attorneys made remarks on the record about the law clerk. the same staffer trump posted about on social media, and that is what led to $15,000 in fines. nbc news investigative reporter chloe atkins is join me now here in the studio. so big welcome to you. you have had pretty much a front row seat all of this. you are in the courtroom when this heated exchange was going on. tell us what happened, walk us through. it >> so this past week was a major week and -- to say the very least. at the heart of what took place at trial was over the law clerk, like you just eloquently laid out. trump's attorneys and the judge went head to head over the law clark. the comment that were made about her being biased, left leaning, and taking issue with the note passing between the judge and the law clerk. trump's attorney even called it improper and irregular, but the judge, this guy aguirre, this moment he said look, i have an unfettered right to do so. to communicate with my staff and what this order, with this gag order does is it barr as trump's attorneys, trump, his sons, so on so forth for making comments about the communications that take place between the judge and his staff. also in the order he underscored, which he has before, the large amount of threats that have come towards his staff, his office during this trial. so we have yet to hear from trump's attorneys on this order, but that is something that we are watching very closely. s >> eric trump, all that happened there, a couple of beers for from him when he was on the stand. the first one is a poor concrete, i don't focus on appraisals. and it sounds like it was a really explosive day for him to, because he got pretty testy on the stand. >> he did, he did. during his exchange with the office, like you said, he was testy, even raised his voice at one moment when answering questions from the a.g.'s office. and through at the beginning this testimony, he hammered home that he knew nothing about these financial statements. he was not involved. he was not aware. but a short time after that he admitted that he was aware after he was shown in 2013 email to another trump employee looking for additional information for his father's financial statements. >> so he knew about that email he had to sign off, right? i mean ignorance, saying i don't know what i was signing off that does not sound like a viable defense. >> sure, and we saw this also with don jr., who also took the witness stand this past week where they a lot of times alluded to that. this is at the hands of the attorneys, the accountants and we have donald bender and the group who is head of accounting for that. they really shifted frame for them throughout the testimonies saying that we had don jr., it was very relaxed. a lot of times during during the trial which is the stark comparison to eric when he was at the stand. he was very tense and a lot of that i think it was due to him being confronted with that evidence, that contradicted his initial testimony. >> maybe different levels involvement. they're different servants. i'm curious what you expect to see when donald trump takes the stand what, like 48 hours from now? and then subsequently ivanka on wednesday. >> exactly. so it's going to be a big moment, in this trial the filly going to be some explosive testimony come monday. we even saw secret service cutting out the area leading up to monday. morning which he is set to take a stand around 10 am. we are likely to see him really probably ousted don junior and eric really lean on shifting blame like i said to the attorneys, to the conference saying that i was not involved in the weeds when it came to putting together these financial statements. . i was really more big picture. and so that is what we expect him to take. now ivanka is also poised to take the stand on wednesday. we're not sure exactly what she will talk, about but the a.g.'s office had said that she is intimate, she has intimate knowledge of the inner workings of the trump organization and business dealings. >> which when you come back in the next hour, i'm going to ask you a little bit more about what we expect from her. thank you coy, good to see you. so that is just the beginning of the trump legal saga this week. what happened in another courtroom thousands of miles away could prove the biggest threat to trump's 2024 chances. the 14th amendment question is now very real. and later on, michigan secretary of state jocelyn benson joins us. donald trump is suing her over the 14th amendment efforts there. we will get a response and we are back in 60 seconds. (♪ ♪) the walking tree is said to change its entire location in pursuit of sunlight (♪ ♪) where could reinvention take your business? accenture. let there be change. honey... honey... nyquil severe honey. powerful cold and flu relief with a dreamy honey taste. nyquil honey, the nighttime, sniffing, sneezing, couging, aching, fever, honey-licious, best sleep with a cold, medicine. right now get a free footlong at subway. like the new deli heroes. buy one footlong in the app, get one free. it's a pretty big deal. kinda like me. order in the subway app today. >> we are now awaiting rulings on two historic cases that could determine whether donald trump will be on the ballot in two key states. closing arguments in colorado are set for later this month, and minnesota's supreme court could rule in the matter in just a couple of days or weeks. the lawsuits are among many filed around the country seeking to disqualify trump for his role in the january 6th attack. the cases argue that trump violated section three of the 14th amendment, which says officials who take an oath to uphold the constitution should be disqualified from public office if they engage in a insurrecti or rebellion or gave aid or comfort to those who do. trump's attorneys argue he is protected by the first amendment. joining me now is charles pullman, former brooklyn prosecutor, msnbc legal analyst as well. but also host of the charles coleman podcast. okay my friend, let's get into this, charles. how compelling are these competing theories in court this week? is this a political question, or is it a constitutional one? and how much gets left to interpretation rather than just a sense of constitutional law. >> well alex, i think that at its core what we are dealing with is indeed the constitutional question. but it is inevitable that we have to consider the political lenses where we are exploring in examining this because we are in the midst of a presidential cycle and in election cycle where donald trump is a candidate. that being said, the issue really boils down to is how does the 14th amendment actually articulate what is insurrection for the purposes of disqualifying you candidate, and what is aiding insurrections for the purpose of describing defying a candidate. i think it's on trump's fence team has put forth a legal interesting theory. all of this being first impression. these are not issues that we receive. obviously this is new, uncharted territory. so because of that, the issue is going to come down to the interpretation of the constitution and specifically that clause in the 14th amendment around what it is to be a insurrectionist and what it is to aid and abet insurrectionists. because donald trump's argument is going to be and has been that all his dumb is used and exercise his right to free speech. >> yeah. by that description there, it has been given a lot of thought, including that from the minnesota supreme court chief justice, who posed a question at the beginning of the hearing, saying even if all of the justices agree that theyhave the -- to bar trump on the ballot, quote, should we? that is the question that concerns me the most. will there be judicial restraint to avoid electoral chaos? will this end up in the supreme court? regardless how they will? re i think that is one thing everyone here has to be cognition of. you have to strap in. likely one way or another, this is going in the long haul. i do understand that the judges express concerns because it is the type of thing that you don't want to have on your hands considering that many people will charge you one way or the other with interfering with an election. and for people who do not understand, you cannot assume that donald trump meets the standard of an insurrectionist simply because you say so. it is important to note that jack smith has not charge donald trump with insurrection regardless of what the human eye test may tell us, he has not been convicted of that. because he has not been convicted or even indicted for that, the question then becomes, what is the standard? you cannot necessarily call someone an insurrectionist and then -- from the ballot based on the 14th amendment because you say so. so that is a big deal in terms of understanding where is that line drawing and has we actually crossed it. if he had been charged or indicted or convicted, now that is a very different conversation as opposed to what some people believe and many people for that matter believes that his role was in the january 6th insurrection. now having said that, again, as justices look at this and consider the but it's what ramifications, that is when that lens alex that we were just talking about begins to shift from being constitutional to political. and it is something that most jurists would like to avoid if they can. and so there is going to be a hesitancy. but make no mistake, this is more likely than not going to go to appeals courts and then after that likely to end up in front of the supreme court. >> yeah, i think you're absolutely right on that. let's switch gears a bit and get to more on the civil fraud trial for donald trump here in new york. p as