Return to Transcripts main page

The Chris Wallace Show

Donald Trump Leading Republican Presidential Candidates in New Hampshire Polls after His Win in Iowa; President Biden and Donald Trump Releasing General Election Ads Attacking Each Other; Supreme Court to Decide Case Related to Congressional Regulations and Chevron Deference; Justice Department Releases Report Finding Cascading Failures in How Police Responded to Uvalde School Shooting; Fans of Madonna Sue Her for Appearing Late to Her Concerts. Aired 10-11a ET

Aired January 20, 2024 - 10:00   ET




CHRIS WALLACE, CNN ANCHOR: Hello again, and welcome. It's time to get together with some smart people to break down the big stories. Today we're asking, following Donald Trump's impressive win in Iowa and his lead in New Hampshire, is the Republican presidential race essentially over?

Plus, a scathing Justice Department report on the deadly Uvalde school shooting leaves us wondering, can we keep our kids safe?

And one of Madonna's songs starts "Time goes by so slowly," and for her fans, that's so true. They are now suing her.

Our gang is here and ready to go. So sit back, relax, and let's talk about it.

Up first, the state of the presidential race. On the heels of a dominant victory in Iowa, Donald Trump is looking effectively to sew up the Republican nomination this week in New Hampshire, the first in the nation primary, which could be the last chance to stop the former president.


DONALD TRUMP, FORMER PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: I'm thrilled to be back in a great state of New Hampshire.

WALLACE: On Tuesday, Donald Trump is looking to become the first Republican ever to win contested races in both Iowa and New Hampshire. But that may depend on the strength of Nikki Haley's momentum in granite state.

TRUMP: Nikki Haley is a disaster.

NIKKI HALEY (R), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: The majority of Americans think that having two 80-year-olds running for president is not what they want.

WALLACE: Haley is banking on independents, who can vote in the Republican primary, to boost her to a huge upset.

HALEY: I promise you that our best days are yet to come.

WALLACE: While Ron DeSantis is polling in single digits in New Hampshire, he's looking to contests weeks from now as his shot to claim the nomination.

GOV. RON DESANTIS (R-FL), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: Good afternoon. It's great to be with you all.

WALLACE: But following Monday's record breaking win for Trump in Iowa, the Biden campaign already says we're looking at a rematch.

JOE BIDEN, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: I'm still the only person to ever beat Donald Trump, and I'm looking forward to it again.


WALLACE: With me today, podcaster Kara Swisher, Reihan Salam, president of the Manhattan Institute and "The National Review" contributing editor, "New York Times" journalist and podcast host Lulu Garcia-Navarro, and Jonah Goldberg, Editor of "The Dispatch," and "Los Angeles Times" columnist. Welcome back to all of you. You're all so busy.


WALLACE: Jonah, you were in New Hampshire this week. Is this race essentially over?

JONAH GOLDBERG, "THE DISPATCH": What is it Miracle Max says in "Princess Bride," not dead, just mostly dead, right. I think if Nikki Haley pulls out what does not look likely right now an actual win, not a really competitive second, not a better showing than Iowa, if she actually wins in New Hampshire, there's still a scenario that you can see where it's not over. If she loses in New Hampshire, it's very difficult to see where anybody else can win going forward. There's some DeSantis people talking about the U.S. Virgin Islands, which is not historically a conveyer of big mo.

WALLACE: Or that many delegates.

GOLDBERG: Yes, right. So I think this is the last shot, is if she truly wins in New Hampshire, that changes the dynamic, changes the psychology. But that's a big lift right now.

WALLACE: Kara, is there anything that either Haley or DeSantis can do to stop or even slow Donald Trump's march to the Republican presidential nomination?

KARA SWISHER, PODCAST HOST, "PIVOT" AND "ON": Trip him, I guess, and he'll break a hip. No, no. I think the waiting out if something happens with these cases or something like that, that's what they are sort of waiting to hang in. But that's not possible. The timing is completely off, including the cases, which keep getting pushed down the road. So --

WALLACE: So do you think, I mean, there's been talk that one of the reasons DeSantis is staying in this race is because he just figures if something happens down the line. It's kind of Bataan Death March until that happens.

SWISHER: Yes, that's exactly right. Again, they shouldn't trip him. It's not nice to do to a really old person like Donald Trump, but at the same time, they are hoping to be the top and then maybe get out, and if something happens, they would be the first person considered. So staying in does a little longer is probably a good idea, and probably Nikki Haley is the only one with a chance of doing that.


WALLACE: If you want to get some sense of how quickly this is devolving into a general election race, both Biden and Trump have already put out ads this year going after each other. Take a look.


JOE BIDEN, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: There's something dangerous happening in America. There's an extremist movement who does not share the basic beliefs in our democracy.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Our vibrant facility offers delightful activities and outings, around the clock professional care. White House senior living, where residents feel like presidents.


WALLACE: Where residents feel like presidents, I've got to tell you, they were playing that over and over again this last week in Iowa, and it was a devastating ad.

Reihan, given the doubts that voters have expressed in the polls that they have about both of these guys, especially independent voters, especially in swing states, is the only way for them, assuming that we are going to be on a general election campaign sooner rather than later, is their only strategy to go negative at each other, basically to say you may not like me, but the other guy really sting stinks?

REIHAN SALAM, CONTRIBUTING EDITOR, "NATIONAL REVIEW": The short answer is yes. I think that's exactly right. We're just in a moment, a national mood that's just very dour and pessimistic. There are any number of reasons for that. But it's a pretty clear reason why I don't think anyone is going to be affirmatively rushing to vote for the incumbent. And I think that when it comes to independent voters, there's not going to be this groundswell of warm enthusiasm for Donald Trump. It's all going to be about disqualifying the rival candidate.

WALLACE: Lulu, do you agree with that, the idea that Trump isn't going to be able effectively to sell his record, Biden isn't going to be able to effectively sell his record, and the way they are going to swing voters is by saying the other guy really is unacceptable?

LULU GARCIA-NAVARRO, JOURNALIST, "NEW YORK TIMES": I think that's what they are going to try, but I actually don't think that that's what's going to decide this election if, indeed, those are the two candidates that we are having to deal with. I think, on the one hand, Republicans are delusional because they think that -- they have swallowed Kool-Aid that Biden is, indeed, in senior living, assisted facility in the White House and that he's a dotard, and that basically we're living in a dystopian world filled with cultural Marxists.

And on the other hand, Democrats believe -- have, I think underestimated the power of Donald Trump, saying that we have won against him once. We can ride the Biden horse into the sunset and do it again. And I think what's going to decide this election is really turnout. It's going to be issues like immigration. It's going to be issues like abortion. And it's going to be -- these are two historically unpopular candidates, and I just do not see that this is going to be a about enthusiasm or even fear. It's going to be who will actually show up at the polls and what do they care about. And I don't think it's that they care about either Biden or Donald Trump.

GOLDBERG: I think that's totally right. But you touched on something that drives me crazy, is the explanation you get from the Biden people is they have this playbook. They have done it before. They have beaten Trump. The did beat Trump. Trump lost. He doesn't know it, but he did. But at the same time, that campaign in the middle of COVID allowed Biden to have a legitimate excuse to basically run a basement or front porch campaign where he wasn't out there on the hustings and all that. They can't run the same campaign they ran in 2020. It's a completely different environment. He didn't have a record to run on as president. And so if they are going to fall back on just this, well, I beat him before, I can do it again, past performance is not predictive.

SWISHER: They should still say that. Why shouldn't say that.

BERMAN: Because it's not reassuring people --

SWISHER: By the way, how reassuring is Trump inside a courtroom yelling at a judge? Crazy man yelling at a judge. And so neither of them has a very good place to run this. He's going to be in those courtrooms.

WALLACE: Kara, let me ask you a question. Which do you think is a bigger liability for voters right now, Biden's age or Trump's character?

SWISHER: If they can make Trump seem old, that will zero out the age thing. And he sort of wanders a little bit too, if he does more of that. I think probably -- people are so ageist in this country, probably age I would guess. It should be this guy is in court constantly. What's going on here?

WALLACE: Reihan, again, this race will be decided. I don't entirely agree with Lulu on this, I think it's going to be decided by a small slice of voters and a relatively few, a half-dozen swing states, and to the degree that they have to pick between how old Biden seems, looks, talks, and the fact that Trump has all of these legal problems, which do you think is a bigger pressing, more decisive issue?

SALAM: My gut is that it's going to be Biden's age, not because Trump's character issues aren't real and serious. It's because those are to some degree baked in. You have endless amounts of court cases surrounding him.


And I think that the age issue intersects with another important one, which is a perception of strength or weakness. Biden is perceived as weak. And I think that that's reinforced by the larger geopolitical environment. And I think that that's something that going to be very hard for him to overcome, and it's closely related to the age issue.

WALLACE: You guys have really made me the excited a about this election.


SWISHER: It's hope.

WALLACE: Donald Trump's Supreme Court picks are already playing a central role in our next story. A case they heard this week about fish could affect everything from what medications you take to whether you have to remove your shoes at the airport.

Then you don't hear this every day -- liberals asking conservatives for help to stem a growing crisis in America's big city.

And later, do some dad jokes go too far? We'll discuss why the feds aren't laughing at what you're reading behind the wheel.



WALLACE: After overturning Roe v. Wade, the Supreme Court is now considering whether to rollback another major legal precedent, a decision that could determine the federal government's power over our everyday lives, from the drugs we take to the food we eat. And it all starts with one little fish.


WALLACE: These herring fisherman are taking on the government over a regulation ordering them to pay for observers to ensure they don't overfish, something, they say, costs up to $700 a day.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: That monitor will make more than myself or my crew.

WALLACE: This week, the Supreme Court heard arguments that range far beyond fish. The case opens the door for conservative justices to reel in their own big catch, overturning a 40-year precedent known as the Chevron deference, which lets federal agencies create regulations to make up for ambiguous laws passed by Congress.

ROMAN MARTINEZ, PLAINTIFF'S ATTORNEY: Chevron mandates judicial bias and encourages agency overreach.

WALLACE: An argument some right leaning justices seemed to agree with.

JUSTICE NEIL GORSUCH, SUPREME COURT: The government always wins. Chevron is exploited against the individual and in favor of the government.

WALLACE: But liberals on the court are skeptical.

JUDGE KETANJI BROWN JACKSON, SUPREME COURT NOMINEE: My concern is that if we take away something like Chevron, the court will then suddenly become a policymaker.

JUSTICE ELENA KAGAN, SUPREME COURT: Judges should know what they don't know.


WALLACE: Jonah, why do conservatives generally hate federal agencies?

GOLDBERG: We don't like big, overreaching government and all that. B but I don't think that is the right frame for all this. First of all, do you want me to make a prediction? They are going to overrule Chevron. Second of all -- and they should. Second of all, one of the ironies --

WALLACE: But you're not --

GOLDBERG: So one of the ironies of this is that Chevron, which was in some ways the brainchild of Antonin Scalia and also this related thing Brand X, was the brainchild of Justice Thomas, conservative justices have realized they made a mistake in setting up the regime the way it is. The question isn't, as the justices were just saying, about whether courts should be the decider or bureaucrats should be the decider. Congress has outsourced its responsibility. It deliberately writes rules so vaguely that empowers unelected bureaucrats. And our constitutional system, the branch of government that is the most democratic has the most power. And if Congress wants to require monitors on these fishing boats, it could just write a law saying so. This was an invented thing by an unaccountable bureaucrat that should not have deference, so to speak, just simply because we think experts should be in charge of everything.

WALLACE: But Lulu, Congress can't pass anything. They can't even keep the government funded. The idea that they are going to write a law for, in this particular case, one federal agency and say, oh, and by the way, when it gets to herring, here's what you have to do. Somebody is going to have to decide how these general laws and all the different ways in which they change, especially over time, are going to be applied.

GARCIA-NAVARRO: Have you sat in a committee hearing? A lot of these lawmakers don't know anything about a lot of things. And so I think, first of all, it's not practical. And secondly, I think more worrying for me is that this is an old battle, right, big government versus small government. But the real problem, I think, is that what we're seeing on the right is the idea of destroying the federal government, is this idea of the destruction of the administrative state which was an idea coming from Steve Bannon and that has now migrated to the heart of Republican policy insofar as there is Republican policy.

I just interviewed the head of the Heritage Foundation, which is a storied conservative think tank, and their entire ethos at the moment, and this is running on Sunday, is that basically when a Republican gets into government, they want to get rid of entire agencies. Whether it be the Department of Education, whether it be gutting the FBI. And so this isn't just business as usual.

SWISHER: You're a small business owner. I've run businesses out of the back of my house, in fact, when I started my various businesses. And it is onerous. It really is. And you don't know where they from. I should like a right-winger, but at some point, look, there's a medium here where bureaucrats should come up with some things, and Congress is never going to do all the things. But it is Congress's -- it should be elected officials who are making these laws. And so people get naturally frustrated. And that's why it works for the right to do this, because even I'm like, why do I have to hang it here? Why do I have to do it this?

WALLACE: But Reihan, let me bring you into this, because we're talking about very, first of all, very important issues that affect everybody's everyday life, like the drugs that you take or the safety of airplanes that you fly on, and these things keep constantly changing.


Here's what Justice Elena Kagan said during the hearing this week.


JUSTICE ELENA KAGAN, SUPREME COURT: Congress can hardly see a week in the future. Does the Congress want this court to decide those questions, policy-leading questions?


WALLACE: And that's why, and I take exception with you in this Jonah, I think ultimately, it comes down to either the agencies are going to set the policy and under the Chevron deference, the courts have to defer and say, well, if the agency says it, it's so, or if you decide that some regulation is onerous, you can go to court and fight it. Who do you want deciding these issues, Congress -- not Congress, but the federal agencies, which at least have expertise in these areas, or a judge?

SALAM: I really do think that it is fundamentally about Congress's abdication of its responsibility. And this is a place where conservatives made a crucial mistake. Remember Newt Gingrich, way back in the Republican revolution of the early 90s, what he did was he hollowed out Congress. He basically said we're going to cut congressional staffs to the bone. We're going to dismantle offices of technology assessment that gave Congress some of those tools so they could go mano a mano with federal agencies, so they could actually make these substantiative decisions.

What conservatives are getting wrong, I believe, is that, yes, Congress should be making those laws. They should be scrutinizing these regulations that have enormous effects. But to do that, you actually need resources in Congress. So I actually firmly agree with Jonah. If you're lamenting the state of Congress right now, the issue is that we elect certain kinds of people, and they punt certain kinds of things because they can. If you have a world where it's punted back to the courts, guess what, you're going to have lawmakers recognize that grave responsibility they have. They are going to step up. They are going to have to change.

SWISHER: But they're not. They're not. They're not. Tech is a perfect example. Do you know how many tech laws have been passed in the past 25 years as they become the richest companies on earth? Zero. Zero, zero, zero, because they punt everything. Now it's all in the courts.

SALAM: They punt everything because they can.

GOLDBERG: Because they can. I mentioned the Brand X thing before. One of the problems is that because of this other form of deference, you can now have, with a new president, the administrative agencies can change the regulations to fit the agenda of the president.

SALAM: Exactly.

GOLDBERG: So when you have -- it's not like the experts have decided this is the best way to do it. It's they are responding to political incentives from the president. There are a lot of people, a lot of liberals who are going to be upset if they keep Chevron deference on and Donald Trump becomes president and people that the Heritage Foundation wants to staff all these agencies with are going to do statist industrial policy covering things like FDA's coverage of abortion pills from cultural rightwing position. At least Congress, you can vote out people who make these laws if they are made by Congress. If they are made by bureaucrats who every four years could change on a dime, you don't get certainty, and you also get the politicization --

WALLACE: Lulu, if Jonah is right and if, in effect, it's going -- the agencies have control and then you get a conservative, let's say you get Trump in and this would be Trump unbound, you can see a lot of these regulations change.

GARCIA-NAVARRO: You can see a lot of these regulations change.

WALLACE: Would that backfire on liberals.

GARCIA-NAVARRO: Of course, it would backfire. But my point about this is the underpinning of all this is the idea that you have these unelected bureaucrats, i.e. people with expertise, who are actually supposed to implement these things because they understand it and they are not nonpartisan. Of course, if you have a Trump come in and weaponize things, he's going to undermine many things about the way things have worked in this country. WALLACE: Some would say when Biden comes in, he puts his people in and

they weaponize it. But somebody's ox is always getting gored. Anyway, it's a really fascinating subject. And I'm not sure I agree with you that the Chevron deference will be entirely eliminated. I think it might be modified.

Anyway, now to an issue every parent worries about -- whether their kids are safe in school. Following this week's report of the Uvalde school shooting, we're looking for possible solutions, including arming teachers. Is that the way to go? We'll ask the group.




BRETT CROSS, SON UZIYAH KILLED IN UVALDE SHOOTING: It's hard enough waking up every day and continuing to walk out on these streets and see a cop that you know was standing there while our babies was murdered and bleeding out.


WALLACE: That is the searing reality facing the family of those killed during the 2022 school shooting in if Uvalde, Texas, an open wound that got even more raw this week after the Justice Department released a report finding cascading failures in how police responded to the massacre. The report concluded some of the 21 who were killed, 19 children and two teachers, would have survived if police confronted the shooter immediately.

We want to focus on the bigger issue -- how to keep our kids safe in school. And take a look at this. Since 2018, there have been 185 school shootings resulting in injuries or death.

So Lulu, big picture, can we keep our kids safe in school?

GARCIA-NAVARRO: Not in this America, unfortunately, and I think Uvalde shows that. It's a devastating, devastating day when the report came out and you just see the families in absolute agony. And I think that when you have a country that's awash in guns, it doesn't matter how hard we make the schools, it doesn't matter if we give our kids clear backpacks and put metal detectors and have school resource officers and on and on and on, and arm our teachers. The fact is that, no, we can't, I think, in this America right now.


WALLACE: Jonah, I've got grandchildren who are less than 10, and they go through active shooter drills the way we used to as kids go through fire drills. Do you agree with Lulu that there are no effective solutions?

GOLDBERG: I cringe at using the phrase silver bullet, but there's no cure all. There's no here's the one thing we can do to fix this problem. We have 50 million kids in K through 12 in America. Statistically, most kids on any given day are safe. That doesn't matter. This thing shocks our conscience so much, and it should.

I don't like Nikki Haley's answer from the last debate where she said we need to make our schools like airports, because first of all, that would grind the country to a halt. No one leaves an airport saying, wow, that was great. That was a great experience. At the same time, there are obviously some low-hanging fruit about fixing things, fixing procedures as this report makes very clear. The police had an operational plan as if the kids were being held hostage, not being murdered.

SWISHER: But the shooter was already in there.

GOLDBERG: I agree, but they just should have gone in. I agree with you entirely that there are things you can do to minimize the problem. And some of them don't have to do with schools. They have to do with the way we cover these kinds of stories that create copycats. But it's an intractable problem.

SWISHER: Jonah, the reason is there's too many guns. That's really pretty much it.

GOLDBERG: But that's not a solvable problem right now either.

SWISHER: It's not a solvable problem, but there's only one reason there are school shootings all the time, is one we've become very numb to it. Like, oh, another school shooting. And two, there's too many guns. That's really pretty much the entire --

GOLDBERG: I don't think it's the entire thing at all. It's part of it.

SALAM: There are other market democracies that have similar levels of firearm ownership per capita. The thing that's really scary about this is that there's an almost virality to this. There's a copycat element to it. And I think that one really big thing we need to do is effectively prosecute gun crimes. I think it's legitimate to say if you're not storing firearms properly in your home, there should be legal consequences for you, thinking about the parents of kids who are disturbed. Red flag laws are something -- identifying people who have severe mental illness and seeing to it that those guns are taken away. There's a lot of bipartisan support --

WALLACE: Let me ask you about another question.

SALAM: Please.

WALLACE: Should teachers in at least 30 states around the country, at least some teachers in those states, are allowed to bear arm. Is that an answer?

SALAM: I think it's entirely reasonable for teachers to raise their hand and volunteer for training in how to use firearms responsibly and effectively. I think that's legitimate. This is a big, diverse country, and I think you're going to have --

SWISHER: The answer to guns is more guns with teachers, and you don't know --

GARCIA-NAVARRO: I think this is actually a complicated issue.

SWISHER: And there's kids in the way.

SALAM: It is reasonable for citizens to raise their hands and say, I'm going to undertake the kind of training to be someone who is a responsible person, who is able to --

WALLACE: Why do you think guns in classrooms --

SWISHER: Because we're not in a movie here. We're not in some western. There are kids in the way. There's one mistake and a teacher shoots a kid, it's just incomprehensible.

SALAM: I agree with you that it shouldn't be a free-for-all, and it should be something --

GARCIA-NAVARRO: I have actually interviewed teachers who have trained in Utah to carry guns after Uvalde. And what I will say is that it is a complicated issue. There are some nuances here, which is this -- teachers do not feel safe in this country. They are afraid. They look at Uvalde and they say, who is going to come for us? Who is going to protect us? We are there with a potentially disturbed child who might have a gun, and what are we going to do to protect ourselves, which is happening?

And the other side of this is that, of course, they also know that putting a gun inside a classroom might mean that they harm the wrong child. And having a teacher point a weapon at a student, what message does that send to the other students? It's a very complicated issue.

WALLACE: I want to bring up one other issue, and that is parents. In Michigan, James and Jennifer Crumbley are the first parents charged in a mass school shooting after buying their son a gun he used to kill four students and injure seven others. Jonah, let me ask you, should parents be held responsible in these cases?

GOLDBERG: I think these cases it's too blanket. There has to be a threshold about this kind of thing. But those parents should be held responsible, right.

WALLACE: Where would you draw the line as to where parent responsibility should be?

GOLDBERG: The facts in that case were they bought the gun for the kid. They had warnings about all his behavioral problems. They laughed them off. They were utterly negligent. I'm not saying that they should be charged with first-degree murder, or anything like that. But they should have some legal culpability for their grotesque irresponsibility and cavalier attitude about their kid who they knew had problems having --


WALLACE: Kara, do you have a problem with -- SWISHER: Not in that case. But most parents, no. I think most parents

are not responsible in that regard.

GOLDBERG: I agree with that.

SWISHER: But in this case, that was an astonishing thing. And then they didn't check the backpack.

GARCIA-NAVARRO: Maybe gun owners aren't responsible. There has been an absolute blockage of responsible gun ownership, of having things in gun safety. We have the technology now to have a gun only shoot for someone who has a particular thumbprint or fingerprint. There's all this technology that could help this. And yet, there is absolutely no appetite, specifically on the right, to have anything meaningful happen here.

SALAM: I say there's a lot of appetite for prosecuting gun crimes more seriously. Gun deaths are a huge problem, particularly in urban areas like where I live. And I think that is something that we need to take really seriously and would have knock-on effects for the school shooting problem.

WALLACE: We're going to talk about a different safety issue now, and one that's a lot lighter, although the feds aren't laughing about some funny highway signs.

Also, Madonna fans express themselves by taking her to court for a bad habit. Our gang gives its yea or nay on both. And maybe they will vogue, too. That's next.




WALLACE: Time to get our group's yea or nay on some stories we think are interesting. First, putting the brakes on dad jokes posted on highway safety signs. Around Thanksgiving you may have seen this, "You are not a turkey, don't drive basted." Or, getting right to the point, "Buckle up, windshields hurt."

But now the Federal Highway Administration is getting the last laugh, telling states to slow down on funny signs because they distract drivers. They are giving them two years to clean up their act. Jonah, are you a yea or nay on dad joke highway signs?

GOLDBERG: I'm a yea. I think the mere fact of changing the message helps keep people from tuning them out, which is what they normally do if they just see the same thing every time.

WALLACE: But, Lulu, the countered argument to that, this is what the Federal Highway Administration, one of those federal agencies is saying, is it's distracting.

GARCIA-NAVARRO: Yes, I think it's distracting. And I think there is many studies to support that. And I think America has a terrible problem with deaths on the road. And if these messages aren't doing what they are meant to do, which is to save lives, and they are actually distracting drivers and causing accidents, then I'm a nay. Very, very firm.

WALLACE: OK, let's huddle up for this next one. California lawmakers proposing a ban on youth tackle football. They say it puts kids at greater risk of brain injury while the other side argues it should be up to parents, not the state, to decide if their kids can play. Governor Gavin Newsom said this week he'd veto a ban and side with parents. Kara, who should make the call on kids under 12 playing tackle football?

SWISHER: Only Gavin Newsom. No, I agree with him completely. I didn't let my kids play tackle football. They played touch football, because I paid attention to the statistics. I think they should have the statistics out there for parents to understand, which I think the football industry doesn't like you to see. But I think parents should decide this. And that's why I decided against it.

WALLACE: And your kids abided by what you said?

SWISHER: They did. They are nice boys. No, they played basketball.

WALLACE: I had a son who played tackle football. I told him not to. I begged him. In any case, he broke his arms five times. Now he says to me, how dare you let me play tackle football. I swear this is a true story.


SWISHER: My boys pay attention to their mama.

WALLACE: My son did not pay attention to his dad. Reihan?

SALAM: I'm also a yea on this one. But I'll also say there's another angle, which is that Governor Newsom seems to be trying to carve out a different political identity for himself, someone who is not just the usual censorious progressive, but someone who is trying to mix it up and introduce a libertarian streak. I don't buy it as genuine, but I think it's politically shrewd.

SWISHER: He has five kids.

WALLACE: Finally, you'll want to talk about next one, guys. Finally, this is no cause for celebration. Madonna fans are irate over the Material Girl showing up more than two hours late to a series of concerts in Brooklyn. So they are now suing the pop icon, claiming the delay caused them significant inconvenience when her shows didn't end until 1:00 in the morning.

Kara, we all know how you feel about Taylor Swift, but how would you feel about a Madonna concert that was supposed to start at 8:30 and didn't start until 10:30 and didn't end until 1:00 in the morning.

SWISHER: It's Madonna. I'm going Monday, and I'm showing up at 10:00, too.


WALLACE: What if she starts on time?

SWISHER: Then I'll miss her. Whatever. I think she's Madonna. Come on. It's Madonna.

WALLACE: Jonah, one, have you ever been to a Madonna concert?

GOLDBERG: No. And in fact, I would be inclined to sue if she showed up.


WALLACE: And what would you do if you did somehow get dragged to it you're there at 8:30, and she's apparently notorious for this, and it went on two hours?

GOLDBERG: I would leave forthwith. This is, let the market decide on this. If you have a reputation for constantly being late and not showing up for two hours, it's not like that's a secret. Let the fans price that into whether or not they want to go.

SALAM: Also not recognizing that your fan base has aged.

GOLDBERG: Yes, well that's --

WALLACE: I will not allow you to say that about Kara.

SWISHER: I'm going to be partying until 1:00 a.m.


WALLACE: Up next, a growing crisis in America that's making for some strange political bedfellow, which have gone under the radar.



WALLACE: Now to a story that's gone Under the Radar -- the homeless crisis in America and some strange political alliances. In major cities across the country, homeless camps like this have become part of the landscape in parks and playgrounds and along city streets, and clearing them out a growing frustration for government officials.


GOV. GAVIN NEWSOM, (D) CALIFORNIA: I think we can all agree that we need to do more to clean up encampments in the state of California.


WALLACE: And he's not alone. In fact, he's supporting another liberal state, Oregon, in its appeal to the conservative-leaning Supreme Court asking the justices to give cities the power to clear homeless camps on government property. The courts will hear those arguments in April.


So Lulu, should cities be able to clear out homeless camps on public property?

GARCIA-NAVARRO: Listen, nobody likes to have homeless camps. Homelessness is a growing problem in this country. It is absolutely horrific in the conditions in some of these camps. That said, the problem that I have with this is it's not actually tackling the root causes of homelessness. What they are saying let's move these homeless people somewhere else and have them be somebody else's problem, and they are not actually looking at, for example, creating more housing or more affordable housing or trying to place them in places that are more beneficial. And so I think --

SWISHER: That's not true.

GARCIA-NAVARRO: I think it's disingenuous.

SWISHER: San Francisco has spent $750 million on this thing, and tried all kinds of different things. And the thing that worked to begin with is to clear the streets and make them livable so people could have their lives there. I am with Newsom on this one again, I have to say, because it changes the tenor of a city if you have homeless camps everywhere. And I have interviewed lots and lots of people who are trying to fix this. And every one of them says they get sued in their ability to do anything by groups --

WALLACE: But the issue that the Supreme Court is going to hear is that the liberal Ninth Circuit Court out west has ruled that if you clear out a homeless camp and there aren't places for the homeless to go, enough shelter beds, that it is, quote, crucial and unusual punishment. Jonah, what do you think the Supreme Court should do here?

GOLDBERG: Look, the question is not whether or not these camps should be cleared out. The question is whether or not local authorities have the authority to clear out places that they thing should be cleared out. There's a real trade off --

WALLACE: What's the answer to that.

GOLDBERG: I think they should be able to. Obviously, they should be able to. And that doesn't mean that you should not provide other service services or figure out stuff, but you look at places like Portland, Oregon. The tax bases of these places are just being decimated because they can't even get homeless people out of playgrounds, out of downtown business districts. And you can't have a functioning city if you have no ability to deal with these problems at all. And so this is not necessarily to say they should be cleared out everywhere. It's saying that the local authorities should have the deference to do what they think is best for their own communities.

WALLACE: I just want you to know that you can write to Jonah.Goldberg at whatever with all your comments.


WALLACE: The panel is back with their hot takes or predictions of what will be news before it's in the news. That's next.



WALLACE: Welcome back. It's time for our panel's special takes on what's happening, our predictions of what we should be looking out for. So Reihan, hit me with your best shot.

SALAM: We just had the World Economic Forum, this big global gathering of corporate grandees in Davos, and one really striking takeaway from it is that corporate America is getting less woke. You had major statements from the CEO of Palantir. You also had the CEO of JPMorgan Chase, Jamie Dimon, coming out and saying, wait a minute, let's slow it down. Let's recognize that there are a lot of conservative consumers and voters out there that we need to respect. This is a big change in tone because a lot of folks these companies need to appeal to younger customers, progressive employees. We need to move left, left, left. And now there's a really pronounced reaction.

WALLACE: Lulu, as I understand it, the World Economic Forum, which I have never been to -- I don't know if you have -- in Davos, Switzerland, what a sensible to have it, is on your mind, too.

GARCIA-NAVARRO: It is on my mind. It's funny that you've mentioned that. I actually was reading a different set of reports from Davos. I find it always fascinating because the masters of the universe, they get there. They're supposed to talk to each other to decide what is going to happen in the world. And all the reporting that I saw said that everyone feels very, very sure that no one knows what the hell is going on. And everyone, all these people that we are entrusting our economic fortunes to are very, very confused about what's happening. And that made me laugh because even though we have never been to Davos, we are probably just like the people there. We really don't know what's happening in the world.


GARCIA-NAVARRO: I know you've been to Davos.

WALLACE: Jonah, you're looking overseas, but not at Davos.

GOLDBERG: Yes. It's the international edition of Best Shot, I guess. This week, the head of the -- the president of the E.U., who is also the head of Belgium, Alexander De Croo, basically said that Europe needs to make peace with the fact that the possibility that Trump can get elected means that Europe is going to be alone militarily, that it can't count on Trump to honor NATO commitments, and there's a real movement afoot in Europe for the first time in a while of a unified, independent military strategy for Europe.

WALLACE: Separate from NATO?

GOLDBERG: Separate from NATO.

WALLACE: Kara, take us home.

SWISHER: As I said, I've been to Davos, and my review is rich people licking each other up and down. Thank you. That's my entire review of Davos.


SWISHER: And speaking of rich people --

WALLACE: I'm glad we didn't miss that.

SWISHER: And speaking of people licking each other up and down, Dean Phillips in New Hampshire, I don't know what is happening.

WALLACE: Let's just quickly explain. That's the congressman who is running --

SWISHER: Dean Phillips is running against Biden, and he's up in New Hampshire. He's being backed by very wealthy people, including Bill Ackman and Elon Musk and Sam Altman. He has gotten a lot of money, especially this week from Bill Ackman. I'm not sure what he's doing up there. And I don't understand why a congressman, when there's so many amazing possible candidates in the Democratic Party, is doing this. It's only for recognition and to pal around with his rich friends.

WALLACE: Supposedly he's also saying there ought to be a choice.

SWISHER: That is true. That is true.

WALLACE: And he's a proxy for that.

SWISHER: His ice cream is excellent.

WALLACE: I learn so much from you.

SWISHER: Anytime.

WALLACE: Thank you all for being here. Thank you for spending part of your day with us, and we'll see you right back here next week.