(upbeat music)
- "700 Club."
A deadly strike at sea.
Iran is being blamed for a drone attack
on an Israeli run shipoff the coast of Oman
that killed two men.
A grave mistake.
That's what Israel'sprime minister is calling
this latest attack inthe war between wars.
So what happens next?
And what impact willIran's new president's
so-called Hangman of Tehranhave on negotiations?
Here's Chris Mitchell with more.
- [Chris] Israel says anIranian suicide drone,
armed with explosives,hit the Mercer Street ship
killing its Romanian captainand a British security officer.
An Israeli-owned companymanages the vessel,
and on Sunday, Israeli Prime Minister
Naftali Bennett warned Iran.
(Naftali speaking in foreign language)
- [Interpreter] So I state hereabsolutely, Iran is the one
that carried out theattack against the ship.
Iran's aggressive behavior is dangerous,
not only for Israel,
but it also harms international interests,
the freedom of navigation,and international trade.
The intelligence evidence for this exists,
and we expect international system
to make it clear to the Iranian regime
that they have made a grave mistake.
In any case, we know howto convey the message
to Iran in our own way.
- [Chris] In a statement,US Secretary of State
Antony Blinken blamed Iranfor the attack and stated,
"We are working with their partners
to consider our next steps andconsulting with governments
inside the region and beyondon an appropriate response,
which will be forthcoming."
While Iran denied responsibility,
the attack is the latest ina series of strikes at sea
between Iran and Israel.
In the meantime, EbrahimRaisi will be sworn in
as Iran's new president on Thursday.
Called the Hangman ofTehran for his involvement
in the death of thousands of Iranians,
it remains to be seenwhat impact he will have
on negotiations over the renewal
of the Iranian nuclear deal.
Talks have been suspendedfor the past six weeks.
US Secretary Blinken says thedelay can't go on forever.
- The ball remains inIran's court and we will see
if they're prepared to makethe decisions necessary
to come back into compliance.
We are committed to diplomacy,
but this process cannotgo on indefinitely.
- And many believe the election of Raisi
could mark the beginning ofan even more dangerous period
between Israel and theIslamic Republic of Iran.
Pat.
- Chris, tell us about this new president.
Why is he considered so dangerous?
- Well, Pat, he's called the Butcher
or the Hangman of Tehran for a reason.
He's responsible for maybe 3,000,
some believe as many as30,000 deaths in 1988
of political prisoners.
He also reflects thesupreme leader's stance
to take a more hard-lineapproach against the West.
A big test, Pat, is coming up
to see how he's gonna dealwith the nuclear talks.
He's skeptical of those talks
and he'll have a new negotiating team,
and it remains to be seenhow that's gonna work out.
But Pat, he's also a firm believer
in the return of theMahdi, the Shiite messiah,
and he says the Mahdiis the savior of mankind
and he's looking for his appearance.
- Well, Chris, Iran isincreasingly using these drones.
What role do these weapons play
in this so-called war between wars?
- Well, Pat, they're a big part
of their conventional arsenal.
They have a range sometimesof up to 1,600 kilometers,
or about 1,000 miles.
We were in Saudi Arabiain September of 2019.
They called that the PearlHarbor of drone warfare,
where they had multiple drones
attacking Saudi Arabia'slargest oil refinery.
We were there, Pat, to see that.
And it's really just onepart of a shadow covert war
between Iran and Israel right now.
As you said, it's calledthe war between wars.
Earlier today, we had a briefingwith General Amos Yadlin,
he's a retired general, and he said
it's really all dimensions,it's on all fronts.
It's maritime, it's cyber, terror attacks,
Iranian proxies in Iraq and Syria.
It's all over the Middle East,Yemen, Iraq, Syria, Lebanon.
And so both sides areattacking each other,
but so far, both sidesdon't want a full-scale war.
But one day, Pat, you know,it could break out into a war.
And we say this a lot, butit's one reason why we believe
it's very important to be praying
for the peace of Jerusalem.
- Chris, thanks for your insights.
We appreciate it.
Chris Mitchell in Jerusalem.
Well at long last, senators unveil
a nearly $1 trillion bi-partisaninfrastructure package.
So what's in it and will it pass?
And what is AOC threateningto do with the deal
if it doesn't make the House?
Here's Dale Hurd.
- Pat, the 2,700-page infrastructure bill
costs about $1 trillion and would improve
the nation's roads, bridges,power grid, internet,
and drinking water.
But it also includes 66billion for passenger railways
and 21 billion for what'scalled environmental concerns.
But for Majority Leader Chuck Schumer
and progressive Democrats,it's not enough.
Next up is $3.5 trillion ina budget reconciliation bill
that includes massive new social programs.
While moderate Democrats aren't yet ready
to sign off on that bigger bill,
progressives say they're ready to scuttle
the bipartisan deal without it.
- And I said, "We willgo on budget resolution.
Let's look at the whole bill.
But don't forget, we've got inflation,
we've got a $28.6 billion debt,
we have $4 billion a day growing in debt.
All this should be consideredbefore we just jump in."
- There's not a reconciliationbill in the House,
and if the Senate does notpass the reconciliation bill,
we will uphold our end of the bargain
and not pass the bipartisan bill
until we get all of these investments in.
- This morning, anotherheadache for Democrats.
The moratorium on evictionsexpired over the weekend,
meaning millions of Americans
could be forced out of their homes, Pat.
- Dale, how many millions of Americans
may be facing eviction under this problem?
- By one study,
as many as 15 million Americansare behind on their rent,
and perhaps between threeand five million face
immediate eviction, so courtscould be very busy today.
Now on the other sideof that are landlords.
Some of them, as you know,are not wealthy people.
And throughout this process,
they've been out a collective,I think, $20 billion,
but they've had to continue paying taxes,
and in some cases, mortgages.
Congress has allottedsome rental assistance,
probably enough to cover this problem,
but states have been slow to dole it out.
- Dale, thank you very much.
Well in other news,
President Trump put threeconservative justices
on the Supreme Court.
So conservative votes rule, right?
(scoffs) Not exactly.
Jennifer Wishon explains.
- Pat, this latest termof the court has taught us
that not all conservativesare created equally.
Instead of seeing this 6-3 split
between conservative and liberal justices,
some of the court's biggest decisions
have shown more of a 3-3-3 split.
- I think the most conservativemembers are Justice Thomas,
and probably next, Justice Gorsuch,
and close by is probablyJustice Samuel Alito.
- [Jennifer] In the middle,
making up a more centrist coalition,
Chief justice JohnRoberts, Brett Kavanaugh,
and the newest justice, Amy Coney Barrett.
- We learned thatJustice Amy Coney Barrett
was not the judicial torpedothat a lot Democrats believed
she was going to be onthings like Obamacare.
- [Jennifer] In that case,
led by the more centrist conservatives,
the Court chose consensus
over striking at the heart of the matter.
Likewise, in Fulton versusCity of Philadelphia,
the Court ruled unanimouslythat the City was discriminating
against a Catholic foster care agency,
but stopped short ofaddressing the larger issue
of religious liberty.
That led a frustratedJustice Alito to write,
"This decision might as well be written
on the dissolving papersold in magic shops."
- Their job is to decidewhatever case is before them
and not create these cockamamie schemes
of what will happen in a decade.
- [Jennifer] A recent Galluppoll shows 49% of Americans
approve of the job theSupreme Court is doing.
Republicans and Democratsview it similarly,
revealing Americans areboth pleased and frustrated
with its rulings.
Finding that equilibrium of public opinion
is what some observers saydrives the middle of the Court
to issue narrow opinions
and decline some controversial issues.
Roberts, Kavanaugh, and Barrett
joined the three liberal justices
to refuse hearing the caseof Barronelle Stutzman,
a Washington florist forced to use her art
to celebrate a same-sex marriage.
Meanwhile, Gorsuch joinedthe three centrists
to block hearing atransgender bathroom case
out of Virginia.
- The Court's conservatives,
at least three or four of them,
do not want to get boggeddown in the transgender issue.
I think they want to stay away from it.
- [Jennifer] Still, next term,
the Court will tackleseveral hot button issues
like New York's handgunlaw and an abortion case
out of Mississippi that strikesat the heart of Roe v. Wade.
- The fact that they haverelegated this decision
to one question on whether or not
pre-viability restrictionsare constitutional
indicates to us thatthey are going directly
to the heart of the matterand will make a determination
as to whether or not Roe was good law.
- [Jennifer] So howwill this new alignment
on the Court play out?
Blackman has a prediction.
- I don't think there are enough judges
with the backbone to do it.
- And Pat, this case out of Mississippi
is exactly what pro-lifesupporters have been waiting for
as a vehicle in hopesthat the court will use it
to overturn a constitutional right
to abortion in this country.
- Jennifer, years ago whenthat ruling came down,
it was so palpable that thepolice power of the states
under the Constitution,controls about abortion
that should not haveever been federalized.
Roe versus Wade was calledblack man's abortion
and it was based on materialfrom Planned Parenthood.
So what do you think the moderatesare trying to accomplish?
It looks like a couple of them,
maybe Kagan for example,
was dean of the Harvard Law School.
What do you think?
- Yeah, well, you know, Pat,
it looks like they're lookingat the long game here.
They're taking this incremental approach,
baby steps toward where theythink the law ought to be.
But in the meantime, youhave Americans suffering.
I mean, I pointed out BarronelleStutzman in the story,
Jack Phillips, the cake maker in Colorado
that we've reported on a lot.
You know, these people
are having their constitutionalrights infringed upon,
spending years of their life
draining their savingsaccount defending themselves
while the Court is taking this approach.
And so, some of the people I've talked to
have called it an arrogant approach,
you know, them saying that, basically,
they have more powerthan they think they do
and that they need to go aheadand get this done because...
Look, Pat, the Constitutionisn't changing.
It hasn't changed.
It was written 200 years ago.
And so they need to just take the case
that's in front of them,apply the Constitution,
and move on instead ofworrying about public opinion.
- Jennifer, I talked to a legal scholar
and I said, "What's wrong with Roberts?
He's supposed to be a conservative."
And he said two words, "Chevy Chase."
The Chevy Chase Club has gotten to him
and he's trying to please them.
Do you think that's maybethe case, or do you know?
- Well, it could be.
I mean, I think we certainlysaw him change a bit
when he was Justice Roberts
and then when he becameChief Justice Roberts.
And we see, Pat, I mean,you look at the Fulton
versus City of Philadelphia case.
It looks like he was really trying
to build consensus around this case.
That was a unanimous decision.
But it only applied
to that narrow circumstancein the City of Philadelphia
where this Catholic foster agency
was being discriminated against.
And so that's why we sawJustice Alito being frustrated,
saying, "Look, this is not worth
any of the paper it's written on
because it doesn'taddress the bigger issue
of religious liberty."
And you could go down theline at other cases like that.
Chief Justice Roberts, by the way,
was the person who wrotethat opinion, and so...
We've also seen himstaunchly defend Obamacare
and a lot of people can't figure that out.
And so I think you maybe right about that.
- Well, Jennifer, I appreciate it
and we'll keep watching and praying.
I mean, we've got apresident who's nominated
a number of conservativesto the Supreme Court,
and yet at the same time, they don't seem
to want to take a bold stand.
And the biggest time when they passed
was in ruling on the last election.
They refused to even consider it.
They said that the plaintiffs,
although they representedabout 30 different states,
they didn't have, quote, standing,
and therefore, the justiceswouldn't consider it.
So you just say,
you know, has anybody gotsome intestinal fortitude?
