AMNA NAWAZ: Good evening.

I'm Amna Nawaz.

GEOFF BENNETT: And I'm Geoff Bennett.

On the "NewsHour" tonight: Israel ramps up it's aerial assault in Gaza, where civilians continue to be caught in the crossfire and little aid is making it to those who desperately need it.

AMNA NAWAZ: In a whirlwind day on Capitol Hill, Republican lawmakers consider numerous candidates for speaker of the House, but once again fail to come to a consensus.

GEOFF BENNETT: And colleges rethink their admissions, including giving preference to legacy students, in the wake of a Supreme Court decision.

MICHAEL ROTH, President, Wesleyan University: One of the reasons people choose to go to a highly selective school is because of the network it makes available to you, all the more reason not to let families hoard the wealth.

(BREAK) GEOFF BENNETT: Welcome to the "NewsHour."

Israel has intensified its bombing of Gaza again, launching 400 airstrikes today across the Palestinian territory.

AMNA NAWAZ: The Gaza Health Ministry run by Hamas reports more than 700 people were killed, bringing the overall Palestinian death toll to 5,700.

UNICEF says the number includes 2,300 children.

Israel says 1,400 of its citizens were killed in the Hamas terror attack that ignited the war.

GEOFF BENNETT: Meantime, 20 more trucks loaded with aid stood by in Egypt today, but none were allowed into Gaza.

U.N. officials said they hope to make the crossing tomorrow.

AMNA NAWAZ: But constant bombing and quickly dwindling necessities mean the humanitarian crisis in Gaza is growing worse almost by the hour.

Nick Schifrin reports on what that means for those under fire in the war zone.

NICK SCHIFRIN: Today, Gaza is a land of endless loss; 1-year-old Wateen (ph) lost her mother last night in an Israeli airstrike.

She died protecting her two children, Wateen and twin brother Ahmed (ph).

They had been fed only on breast milk.

Now it is formula provided by Wateen's aunt, Ala'a Abu Mukhaimar.

ALA'A ABU MUKHAIMAR, Sister Killed (through translator): After the airstrike, she doesn't recognize us.

And a while ago, there was an airstrike and she started to scream.

NICK SCHIFRIN: Wateen is injured, but at least she's alive.

There is no word for the parent who loses a child.

This is Khan Yunis in Southern Gaza this morning, the aftermath of what Palestinians call an Israeli airstrike on a residential building.

Down the street, residents refused to leave this site.

And Abdullah Teish refused to leave his daughter's body.

A neighbor provided a final goodbye kiss.

ABDULLAH TEISH, Daughter Killed (through translator): I don't want to let her go.

This is my daughter.

I want as much time with her as I have before we bury her.

NICK SCHIFRIN: He embraces her all the way to Khan Yunis' Nasser Hospital, even though she will never again embrace him back.

Gaza's hospitals are also its morgues.

Names are written on the body bags, including Meriam Ezat (ph) Saqallah.

The Saqallahs say their loss is all consuming.

They are burying 50 members of their extended family.

AMMAR AL-BATTA, Relative of Saqallah Family: I have lost all my family, my entire family and the relatives that we hosted.

We have lost them.

NICK SCHIFRIN: Israel says the strikes in Khan Yunis and all their strikes target Hamas terrorists, who operate from within residential neighborhoods.

Gaza today is defined by death and displacement.

But as Muslim and Jewish religious texts teach, despite the darkness, whoever saves a soul, it is as if he has saved mankind.

Rescue workers celebrated an airstrike survivor in the Nuseirat refugee camp, but only for a moment.

The apparent target here was a home right above the Dalal Mall.

SHAMS ODEH: Abu Dalal Mall was full of Palestinians, civilians, who came to the mall to buy their things, their food.

Suddenly, the Israeli air force attacked the building, attacked the Dalal Mall.

NICK SCHIFRIN: In one of the stores, shoppers fled from an initial airstrike, and then, in the grocery store on the ground floor, shocked survivors ask for the war to end.

MAN (through translator): This is indescribable.

God is greater than these disbelievers.

God is greater than Israel.

God is greater than America.

ANTONIO GUTERRES, United Nations Secretary-General: No party to an armed conflict is above international humanitarian law.

NICK SCHIFRIN: Twenty-five hundred miles away, the Security Council debated calls for a cease-fire.

Secretary-General Antonio Guterres: ANTONIO GUTERRES: To ease epic suffering, make the delivery of aid easier and safer, and facilitate the release of hostages, I reiterate my appeal for an immediate humanitarian cease-fire.

ELI COHEN, Israeli Foreign Minister: Mr. Secretary-General, in what world do you live?

NICK SCHIFRIN: Israeli Foreign Minister Eli Cohen called for Guterres to resign.

ELI COHEN: How you can agree to cease-fire with someone sworn to kill and destroy your own existence?

How?

NICK SCHIFRIN: With no cease-fire in sight, the international focus is also on humanitarian aid.

Today in Khan Yunis, residents lined up for single pieces of bread.

President Biden said today, aid wasn't arriving fast enough.

Diab Faris says he had no food, water, or electricity.

DIAB FARIS, Khan Yunis Resident (through translator): We are killing each other just for some bread.

Think of us.

Since this morning, children have not eaten.

I swear no one has eaten.

Think of us.

Look at us and what is happening.

NICK SCHIFRIN: It is the grim reality of Gaza today that, when stalked by hunger and death, Gazan children write their names on their skin, so their bodies can be identified if buried under rubble.

And after this deadly day, Gaza, its parents and its kids are not alright.

For the "PBS NewsHour," I'm Nick Schifrin.

GEOFF BENNETT: Tensions also seem to be growing ever more concerning in the West Bank, the other Palestinian territory that borders Jordan.

Since the Hamas attacks on October 7, 95 Palestinians in the West Bank have reportedly been killed in clashes with Israeli troops, and some with Israeli settlers.

Another 1,250 have been arrested.

The Israeli government says they are going after terror targets and cells there.

"NewsHour" special correspondent Leila Molana-Allen was in the West Bank city of Jenin and has this report.

LEILA MOLANA-ALLEN: The occupied West Bank, long scarred by sporadic clashes between Israeli soldiers and Palestinian fighters in displacement camps and between Israeli settlers and Palestinian farmers.

In response, Israeli authorities enforce harsh restrictions until calm is restored.

But since the October 7 Hamas attacks, Israel has made clear that the gloves are off, with increasingly violent raids and clashes spreading across the West Bank daily, and now a rare sight in the West Bank and a major escalation, Israeli airstrikes.

This weekend, the IDF struck this mosque in Jenin camp with an airstrike.

Two people were killed.

Israeli authorities say underneath it is a compound being used by Hamas and Islamic Jihad to plan attacks.

Worshipers here deny that.

This man is under suspicion from security forces, so we have hidden his face.

But he says he is simply trying to protect his community.

MAN (through translator): They are liars.

There used to be a tunnel here, but they already bombed that months ago.

They bombed the place where the children make their paintings because there is no other place in the camp for children to play.

LEILA MOLANA-ALLEN: He says the psychological impact of using such a weapon in the densely populated camp, which the U.N. says in home to 24,000 people, has been devastating.

And many here fear worse to come.

Across the West Bank, the Israel Defense Forces are cracking down, aiming to kill or arrest every possible accomplice of militant groups they are fighting in Gaza.

This morning in the town of Jaba', they caught a man they have long hunted.

FATIMA FASHASHA, West Bank Resident (through translator): The special forces came and they opened fire, and they called over the loudspeakers: "(SPEAKING IN FOREIGN LANGUAGE) Come out or we will demolish your house over your head."

LEILA MOLANA-ALLEN: Thirty-four-year-old Yahya had been hiding from the IDF for six months, but went out to visit his family today.

They say an informant turned him in.

FATIMA FASHASHA (through translator): He is a leader in Islamic Jihad and is wanted by the Israelis.

They wanted to catch him.

They had a spy with them who was covering his face when they came to search the house.

LEILA MOLANA-ALLEN: After they arrested him, soldiers found weapons, including M-16s, stashed away.

His aunt says the family is traumatized from the raid, but she still supports the men they call resistance fighters in their community, who she believes fight for all Palestinians.

FATIMA FASHASHA (through translator): We feared for ourselves and for the neighbors.

Now they are bombing in Gaza in they may do the same in the West Bank.

We are all with the Islamic resistance and we are all united.

LEILA MOLANA-ALLEN: But some here say that, as Israel tracks down wanted terror suspects, innocent civilians, many of them children, are bearing the brunt of these increasingly hostile raids.

Ali Hammour came out of his house this morning when ordered to, but the shooting started anyway.

SALSABIL HAMMOUR, West Bank Resident (through translator): My daughter and I were sleeping down by the window, and they shot at as.

He did not do anything.

LEILA MOLANA-ALLEN: There are bullet holes all over the doors and walls of the house.

And it was 6:00 in the morning when Israeli soldiers started firing through this window where the kids were.

Ali was imprisoned for seven years as a teenager after slinging rocks at IDF soldiers.

But Salsabil says he's stayed out of trouble since they married eight years ago.

But, this morning, they came for him.

SALSABIL HAMMOUR (through translator): He didn't do anything.

I don't know why they want to arrest my husband.

My little girl saw her father being beaten, and she called out for her daddy.

LEILA MOLANA-ALLEN: Ali's father asks his grandson, 5-year-old Adam, to show us what the soldiers told him to do when they arrested his dad and searched the house: "Put your hands in the air."

Left to look after three kids under 7, she doesn't know how she will cope without her husband.

SALSABIL HAMMOUR (through translator): I'm afraid for my children and I'm afraid of the world.

Can't you see what they are doing to us?

LEILA MOLANA-ALLEN: As the strikes on Gaza intensify, and Israel prepares for a ground invasion, Palestinians across the West Bank say they feel constantly under suspicion.

Trapped inside their towns and villages by an increasingly strict Israeli curfew, they can do little more than watch, wait, and worry what comes next.

For the "PBS NewsHour," I'm Leila Molana-Allen in Jaba', the West Bank.

AMNA NAWAZ: In Tel Aviv today, the first public account of what it's like to be a hostage of Hamas; 85-year-old Yocheved Lifshitz was kidnapped from her home and taken to Gaza on October 7.

She was released yesterday, and, today, said she had been through hell.

YOCHEVED LIFSHITZ, Freed Israeli Hostage (through translator): They rampaged through our kibbutz.

They kidnapped me, laid me on a motorbike.

The guys hit me with sticks on the way.

They didn't break my ribs, but it was very painful and made breathing very difficult for me.

We started walking in the tunnels, where the earth was moist and it was always humid.

We reached a hall where we gathered, some 25 people.

They were very kind to us and made sure we were clean and fed.

We ate the same food that they did, pita bread with cheese and a cucumber.

That was a meal for a whole day.

AMNA NAWAZ: Lifshitz also accused Israel's Defense Forces of not taking previous security threats seriously.

Israel estimates Hamas is still holding 220 hostages, including the husband's of Lifshitz and the other elderly woman hostage who was released yesterday.

For more on the hostage situation and the larger war, I spoke earlier with Mark Regev, a senior adviser to the Israeli prime minister and a former Israeli ambassador to the U.K. Mark Regev, welcome back to the "NewsHour."

Thank you for joining us.

MARK REGEV, Senior Adviser to Israeli Prime Minister: Thank you for having me.

AMNA NAWAZ: So, let me start by asking about those hostages, more than 200 people, 30 different nationalities, we understand.

If they are still held in Gaza, are they at risk in the continued bombing?

MARK REGEV: I think there are a lot of people at risk.

And when we send our troops into the ground, they will be in danger too.

Hamas is a formidable enemy.

It's capable of the most atrocious brutality, as you have reported on the "NewsHour."

And our young men going into battle will face a fanatical, suicidal, dangerous enemy.

And, unfortunately, I'm afraid they will be putting their lives on the line.

There's dangers for -- obviously, for the hostages.

And -- but I think it is, unfortunately, unavoidable.

We have to remove Hamas from power.

We have to destroy its military machine.

AMNA NAWAZ: With regards to the 200 people still held, though, if there was still, say, potential for a cease-fire that led to their immediate release, would you support that?

MARK REGEV: We would argue that the only reason we have had these four people released so far is because of the strong pressure on Hamas.

They didn't suddenly become humanitarian.

So, they are only releasing the people they have released, the four out of the over 200, because of strong pressure on them.

And we think, if we keep the pressure up, the military pressure, the international diplomatic pressure on their allies, specifically on the -- on Qatar, that will deliver more releases.

Without that pressure, they won't release a single person.

AMNA NAWAZ: You mentioned -- you likened this fight against Hamas, who have called for the end of Israel.

As you mentioned, this is an existential threat for Israel.

You compared that to the U.S.-led coalition fight against ISIS.

You have seen this comparison before, that the U.S.-led coalition dropped some 2,500 bombs a month across Iraq and Syria in that campaign.

Israel dropped some 6,000 bombs in the first six days of this war alone on a much smaller area in Gaza.

So, how do you explain that level of firepower?

MARK REGEV: Well, hopefully, we will get it done quicker.

That's one of our goals.

But it could take longer than many Israelis would hope, because Hamas has been in power for 16 years.

They have got a very elaborate system of underground tunnels and bunkers and defenses.

And, as I said earlier, when we say, and our forces in, it could well be very difficult fighting.

I mean, we will win, but it won't be without cost.

AMNA NAWAZ: Mark, when you say get it done, what does that mean?

I mean, what does mission success look like?

MARK REGEV: There has to be a new reality in Gaza, a more peaceful reality, a more secure reality.

The people in Southern Israel have to feel that they can rebuild their homes and reestablish their lives.

And the people in Gaza deserve better.

AMNA NAWAZ: And in that new reality, who will govern Gaza?

MARK REGEV: It's clear we don't want to stay in Gaza, that any Israeli presence there will be temporary to destroy the Hamas military machine.

And I think, after that, we can talk about all sorts of options.

Those options are being discussed in meetings with foreign interlocutors, but I'm at this stage not on liberty to go into any detail.

AMNA NAWAZ: I need to ask you about the level of civilian casualties as a result of those bombings, though, because you have said before that Israel will take the maximum steps to not -- to avoid civilian casualties.

As you know, the Gaza Health Ministry now says some 5,000 Palestinians have been killed in the last 17 days, including women and children.

I just wonder how you square saying that you're avoiding civilian casualties as much as you can and that number of 5,000.

MARK REGEV: So, first of all, I don't deny suffering in Gaza.

I don't deny the fact that there have been Gazan civilians who have been killed in the crossfire between us and Hamas.

But I would urge you please to be cautious with the numbers that come out of the Hamas-controlled Ministry of Health in Gaza.

AMNA NAWAZ: Sure.

MARK REGEV: We saw the inflated numbers... AMNA NAWAZ: Do you have more accurate numbers?

MARK REGEV: No, I can't -- I can't give you more accurate numbers, but I'm urging you to be skeptical with those.

Remember the incident with the hospital, where -- in the end, it was conclusively, I think, proved that it wasn't us.

But they were talking about 500, 800 casualties.

And it was clear afterwards that the numbers were much, much lower.

AMNA NAWAZ: Well, do you know how many Hamas terrorists you have hit, then?

(CROSSTALK) MARK REGEV: Well, lots.

And if all those 5,000 are Hamas terrorists, that's a good thing.

We want to get them.

(CROSSTALK) AMNA NAWAZ: But, clearly, they're not.

All 5,000 are not.

Do you know how many Hamas members or leaders you have hit?

MARK REGEV: We can only estimate.

We can only estimate.

We actually, if we compare our numbers -- like, in any combat situation, like, when the United States was leading a coalition that is there to get ISIS out of Mosul, there were civilian casualties.

We think our ratio between civilian and combat casualties, between the people we want to get and between people, innocent bystanders, compares very well to NATO and other Western forces.

(CROSSTALK) AMNA NAWAZ: And, Mark, if I may, but what is that ratio?

What are those numbers?

MARK REGEV: I'm not at liberty to discuss that, I apologize, because we're still got combat ongoing, and we haven't had ground troops in yet, and the situation could change.

But what I would say is this.

We are trying to make a maximum method to avoid collateral damage.

Hamas, unfortunately, has the opposite goal.

And here is something that I think needs to be said.

When we're asking civilians to leave areas of expected heavy combat, Hamas is telling them to stay, and they must die for the crazy cause.

(CROSSTALK) AMNA NAWAZ: But, Mark, if I may, many people tell us they fled the north to the south, and then there was Israeli bombing in the south as well.

MARK REGEV: Yes, but -- it's true, because there are Hamas targets in the south.

But there won't be the same level of heavy fighting, because it's -- in the north there, especially under Gaza City, there's a network of tunnels and bunkers and arms depots.

And it's going to -- we expect very heavy fighting there.

I'm not saying it's going to be easy for those people who are internally displaced, but the idea is to find an area where they can be safer and with the international community to make sure they have their elementary needs until the fighting is over.

AMNA NAWAZ: Mark Regev, senior adviser to the Israeli prime minister, former Israeli ambassador to the U.K. Mark, thank you for joining us.

Appreciate it.

MARK REGEV: Thanks for having me.

GEOFF BENNETT: In the day's other headlines: The United Auto Workers expanded its 40-day-old strike again.

The latest addition is a GM plant in Arlington, Texas, with 5,000 workers.

It makes highly profitable large SUVs, including the Chevy Tahoe and Cadillac Escalade.

This morning, a handful of workers there began manning picket lines after the company announced a quarterly profit of $3 billion.

In all, some 46,000 UAW members are now on strike.

Crews in Louisiana spent much of the day clearing wreckage after a so-called super fog triggered sweeping highway pileups.

Seven people died Monday in crashes involving 158 vehicles near New Orleans.

Cell phone video shows cars, trucks and trailers crushed and, in some cases, burned.

Officials blamed marsh fire smoke combined with dense fog that sharply cut visibility.

In China, the government today removed General Li Shangfu as defense minister.

State media announced it, but gave no explanation.

Li had been on the job since March, but disappeared from public view almost two months ago.

It follows the ouster of Qin Gang as foreign minister back in July.

Thousands of women across Iceland, including the prime minister, staged a one-day strike today to protest gender inequality.

They took to the streets to speak out against pay disparities and violence against women.

Organizers said today's action is in the tradition of a similar walkout nearly half-a-century ago.

SVANDIS SVAVARSDOTTIR, Icelandic Minister of Food, Agriculture and Fisheries: It is about gender equality.

We have been fighting for it for decades, and this day is very special for us, for women in Iceland, because we all skipped work 48 years ago, and we are doing it again today, because the gap is still there, and we are fighting against it.

GEOFF BENNETT: Businesses, schools, and banks across Iceland also closed in solidarity with the strikers.

And on Wall Street, stocks got back in the win column, held by solid helped by solid corporate earnings reports.

The Dow Jones industrial average gained 205 points to close at 33141.

The Nasdaq rose 121 points.

The S&P 500 added 30 points.

Still to come on the "NewsHour": former President Trump appears in a New York City court to hear testimony from his former lawyer; Meta in the legal crosshairs, as dozens of states accuse the tech giant of harming children's mental health; and a new book from a former Republican strategist raises alarms about the state of the GOP.

House Republicans have lost another speaker nominee, their third this month.

Pushback from former President Trump and his allies doomed Congressman Tom Emmer's bid, and he withdrew just hours after getting the nomination.

Republicans are now left with a question: Can anyone get the votes needed to be speaker of the House?

Lisa Desjardins has been following the chaos and infighting on Capitol Hill and joins us now.

So, Lisa, Tom Emmer around noon Eastern was elected speaker-designate among House Republicans, and, by 4:30 Eastern, he had dropped out.

What happened?

LISA DESJARDINS: I will tell you, even if you were wearing a seat belt today, you probably would have gotten a political concussion.

This was a wild, extraordinary, another time in the House of Representatives.

Tom Emmer, a Republican from Minnesota, former hockey coach, attorney and also the one who's in charge of counting votes for the Republican Conference, thought he had a good chance.

He's popular.

He's someone who is generally well-liked and is trusted.

And he came out with the most number of votes today, the majority.

He was the nominee.

However, there were holdouts against him, enough of them that prevented him from getting that 217 that's needed to become speaker.

After we knew there were holdouts, then something else happened that actually doomed him further.

It was this statement from former President Donald Trump, who had sort of been back and forth on Mr. Emmer.

He wrote: "Voting for a globalist RINO" - - Republican in name only -- "like Tom Emmer would be a tragic mistake."

There was the idea that Trump didn't like Emmer, but here it was, the former president going out of his way to kneecap his party's own nominee for speaker of the House.

Emmer did not have a chance after that, and withdrew his nomination altogether.

And it was kind of a surprise turn.

Now we are looking for a fourth Republican nominee for speaker.

GEOFF BENNETT: And we should say that Congressman Emmer, unlike 147 other House Republicans, he voted to certify Joe Biden's win.

To what degree did that contribute to his failure to consolidate support among House Republicans, Lisa?

LISA DESJARDINS: It was absolutely a factor.

It's a litmus test for the former president and for some of the Republicans here.

Another vote that was a problem for Tom Emmer is, he voted to codify the idea that same-sex marriage is legal in this country.

That is something that was raised today.

Now, talking to Republicans about what's all underneath this, we know there are a lot of layers.

There's a power vacuum here.

There's Trump exercising influence.

There are resentments.

But one Republican, Mike Gallagher, who's the chairman of the China Select Committee, said there are even more deeper issues as well.

REP. MIKE GALLAGHER (R-WI): This is the product of decades of institutional neglect.

So if you have people that feel no loyalty to an institution like Congress, because it's weak, it's gone from being the most powerful branch of government to the weakest, and they're not going to abide by the rules of conference or the norms of congressional behavior.

And it just seems like, if you disagree with someone on one policy position, like a lot of people disagree with Emmer's position on gay marriage, I guess, that's enough to say you won't support him for speaker.

We can't operate that way.

LISA DESJARDINS: Seem to be drifting into the outer room, sort of an area where it's not clear what rules and laws are in effect.

It does feel like we're there right now.

But one sign this is also capturing even more of the public imagination, just anecdotally, I'm getting more from my neighbors, even my mom, about this situation.

The concern about the chaos in the House really is expanding, clearly.

GEOFF BENNETT: And, look, the House has been rudderless for more than three weeks now.

What happens next, Lisa, to the degree that anyone knows?

LISA DESJARDINS: As you and I are talking right now, Geoff, the House conference is again meeting behind closed doors.

They have decided to just reopen their candidate list, and they again have now a slate of six candidates.

I want to talk about two of them at the top, two who were in the running this morning that we're watching especially.

Kevin Hern, he's in charge of the Republican Study Committee, an important group of Republicans.

And then also Mike Johnson of Louisiana, also known as a conservative.

Behind the scenes, their two camps have already been talking about who's more conservative than the other, but they now have to fend with sort of a quasi new field with four other candidates tonight.

We don't know exactly how this is going to go.

We expect the conference will take some votes tonight.

And if they are able to get someone with a very large amount of votes, we could even have a vote on the floor of the House tonight for speaker.

There are some who are saying they want to go all night until they figure that out.

But, you know, Geoff, we have heard that before.

Meanwhile, as you and I talk, it is three weeks until our government runs out of funding.

And that is the exact same amount of time as we have been without a speaker.

So that time can move very quickly.

GEOFF BENNETT: All right, Lisa Desjardins, thanks so much.

We appreciate your reporting, as always.

LISA DESJARDINS: You're welcome.

AMNA NAWAZ: Donald Trump is facing legal hurdles on several fronts, both civil and criminal, in both state and federal courts.

And, today, it was some of the former president's closest former aides who were pointing the finger at him.

Laura Barron-Lopez picks up the story.

LAURA BARRON-LOPEZ: Amna, in New York, the state attorney general's $250 million civil fraud trial against Trump and his company is in its fourth week.

Today, Trump's former attorney and fixer Michael Cohen took the stand for their first face-to-face confrontation in five years.

Cohen put the blame squarely on Trump for inflating the value of his assets.

The war of words began before they entered the courtroom.

MICHAEL COHEN, Former Attorney/Fixer For Donald Trump: This is not about Donald Trump versus Michael Cohen or Michael Cohen versus Donald Trump.

This is about accountability, plain and simple.

DONALD TRUMP, Former President of the United States (R) and Current U.S. Presidential Candidate: He is a proven liar, as you know.

He's a felon, served a lot of time for lying.

And we are going to just go in and see.

And I think you will see that for yourself.

LAURA BARRON-LOPEZ: Andrea Bernstein covers Trump legal issues for NPR and hosts the new podcast "We Don't Talk About Leonard" from ProPublica and On the Media.

She was in court today and joins me now.

Andrea, thanks so much.

This fraud trial in New York is in its fourth week.

What role does Michael Cohen play in this case, and how does his testimony today directly implicating the former president change anything?

ANDREA BERNSTEIN, ProPublica and NPR: Yes.

So, up to now, we have had a lot of bits and pieces of testimony, accountants, bookkeepers.

There have been spreadsheets introduced, documents.

And little bits of the story have emerged about how it is that Trump -- which a judge already found that Trump committed persistent and repeated fraud.

And the question here is, was there a conspiracy, and how much money does Trump have to pay back to New York state?

So, there have been all these little pieces by witnesses who've been sort of reluctant to testify.

But Cohen is in a different category.

When Cohen was sentenced to prison back in 2018, he said that he wanted to make sure that history didn't remember him as the villain in this story.

And this testimony was part of that.

He really wanted to say how Trump, according to Cohen, fraudulently valued his assets.

And he gave this description of being called into Trump's office and Trump saying: I'm not worth $4.5 billion.

I'm really worth $6 billion.

And then he would direct Cohen and the chief financial officer to basically go back and find numbers to, as Cohen said, reverse-engineer the asset value.

So, this is what Cohen did.

He was somebody very close to Trump who was able to tell the full story of how this happened.

LAURA BARRON-LOPEZ: And Judge Arthur Engoron said that Trump committed fraud by misrepresenting his wealth.

So what's ultimately at stake for Trump and his businesses in New York?

ANDREA BERNSTEIN: Right.

So, already, there is a procedure going on, a parallel procedure, to basically force Trump to sell most of his business and activity in New York.

And at stake is $250 million, which is a lot of money for Donald Trump, for anybody, really, about whether he will have to pay the state, as well as this sort of parade of witnesses and testimony showing the anatomy of how Trump fraudulently values his property.

Now, I should say his team very strongly pushed back.

And at the end of the day, they really leaned in to what the former president said, that Cohen had been convicted of lying and that he was somebody who is not to be trusted.

LAURA BARRON-LOPEZ: This isn't the only case against Trump, as you know.

He's facing 91 felony charges across four jurisdictions.

In Georgia's Fulton County today, a third former lawyer for Trump, Jenna Ellis, pled guilty and expressed regret.

JENNA ELLIS (Former Trump Campaign Senior Legal Adviser): In the frenetic pace of attempting to raise challenges to the election in several states, including Georgia, I failed to do my due diligence.

I believe in and I value election integrity.

If I knew then what I know now, I would have declined to represent Donald Trump in these post-election challenges.

I look back on this whole experience with deep remorse.

LAURA BARRON-LOPEZ: Jenna Ellis also said that she was relying on advice from lawyers with more experience than her.

How significant are these guilty pleas in Georgia, Andrea, and specifically Ellis' testimony and whether or not that impacts Trump and Rudy Giuliani?

ANDREA BERNSTEIN: Right.

Well, this is all of a piece with what we see,Michael Cohen in New York, a former attorney who worked closely with Trump.

Now there are three former -- or three attorneys in Georgia who worked with Trump who have pleaded guilty, and Ellis, who sort of is central to this, and has said she will cooperate with prosecutors all along.

So, if that plays out as this Cohen case has in New York, what I think we may see is a lot of intimate details about the anatomy of how this happened.

So you really see this pattern of people who worked with Trump feeling that he betrayed them or let them hang out loose, and are now deciding that they want to do what they can to cut him loose.

LAURA BARRON-LOPEZ: And with the 30 seconds or so we have left, Andrea, there's another member of Trump's inner circle that appears to have turned on him.

ABC is reporting that Chief of Staff Mark Meadows, former chief of staff, has been granted immunity by special counsel Jack Smith in exchange for his testimony.

What does this mean?

ANDREA BERNSTEIN: Well, Mark Meadows, as he has said, was everywhere with Trump after the 2020 election, up to January 6, on January 6.

We have had his former staffers testifying about what he knew.

He knows a lot.

And if he's talking, and talking truthfully, I think we will learn a great deal about what the former president did and did not do in the run-up and in the aftermath of January 6.

LAURA BARRON-LOPEZ: Andrea Bernstein of NPR, thank you so much for your time.

ANDREA BERNSTEIN: Thank you.

GEOFF BENNETT: The U.S. Supreme Court's decision last summer to limit the use of race in admissions was a game-changer for colleges.

While the ruling's biggest impact is on the most selective schools, a pre-pandemic survey found nearly a quarter of all colleges considered race to some degree.

As part of our Rethinking College series, special correspondent Hari Sreenivasan looks at how some schools are looks at how some schools are rethinking admissions.

HARI SREENIVASAN: The Supreme Court's decision left burden on the schools.

And many have been cautious, revealing what they may or may not do since the court issued its opinion.

But Wesleyan University President Michael Roth has used it as an opportunity to end the practice of letting students in because of their family connections.

What went into the decision to do away with legacy admissions?

MICHAEL ROTH, President, Wesleyan University: So this is something I have been thinking about for, I'd say, five or six years.

And then, this summer, when I read the Supreme Court opinions that were so self-righteous about not using affiliation with broader groups to judge an individual's case, and we can't use affiliation with a racial group, I thought to myself, how could we continue this practice?

How could we give an advantage just because of who your parents were?

HARI SREENIVASAN: Wesleyan joins a small group, including Johns Hopkins and Amherst, which both ended legacy admissions before the court overturned affirmative action.

A few weeks after the Supreme Court's decision, Roth took the idea to the board.

MICHAEL ROTH: Their first reaction wasn't enthusiastic, but -- and I wondered, OK, could I continue as president, actually, if I don't believe in the policies?

Well, you see something that's unfair, you ought to correct it.

The next day, they called me and said, we see the point.

We should do this.

HARI SREENIVASAN: What about the argument that alumni and legacies and generational affiliation with the university helps create community, a benefit over time that says, you know what, this is what the alumni network gets me is access to people who succeeded from Wesleyan?

MICHAEL ROTH: Yes, one of the reasons people choose to go to a highly selective school is because of the network it makes available to you, all the more reason not to let families hoard the wealth.

You benefit from the system, you want your children to benefit from the system.

It's a natural thing for a mother and father to want.

It's not necessary that an institution, especially a wealthy institution, give the preference to people who already have the benefits of the opportunities you have given them.

I also received some messages from alumni who said: "Bravo.My daughter wouldn't have applied -- didn't apply to Wesleyan because she didn't want to be a legacy.

And I told her she'd get in anyway.

She said: 'I don't want to be associated with that.'"

HARI SREENIVASAN: The university says Wesleyan's rate of acceptance for children of alumni has always been under 10 percent.

But other analyses have found some elite schools have much wider gaps between legacy applicants and other applicants.

A civil complaint that was filed against Harvard claimed legacy applicants were nearly six times more likely to be admitted compared to non-legacy applicants.

And, this summer, a new analysis of several elite schools found children of alumni were nearly four times as likely to be admitted as applicants with the same test scores.

What is the kind of general or status quo thinking about legacies in the first place today, if it's not about giving your offspring a leg up?

MICHAEL ROTH: I do think there's the crass version and then there's the cultural version.

The crass version is, people are much more likely to donate if their children get in.

Many children get in because they're the children of alumni.

HARI SREENIVASAN: The end of affirmative action has made the application process even more intense for many students.

But because, in his opinion, Chief Justice John Roberts wrote, universities can still consider an applicant's discussion of how race affected his or her life, be it through discrimination, inspiration, or otherwise, the college essay is how many students are hoping to distinguish themselves and highlight diversity in their backgrounds.

Sarah Lawrence College in Yonkers, New York is addressing Roberts' statement directly.

The college's president, Cristle Collins Judd, and its head admissions officer, Kevin McKenna, believe this encourages applicants to think about how the ruling affects them.

You made the decision to almost cut and paste the decision of the Supreme Court as one of the essay prompts.

Why?

CRISTLE COLLINS JUDD, President, Sarah Lawrence College: Well, as the decision came out, and we read the decision and the syllabus that accompanied it, there was very specific language that was guiding us about how we could continue to both explore that question, but also something we knew our students and our prospective students would really engage in.

What do you think this decision means for you?

HARI SREENIVASAN: As one of three possible prompts and a supplement to the common application essay, the college quotes Roberts' opinion and continues: "Drawing upon examples from your life, quality of your character and/or a unique ability you possess, describe how you believe your goals for a college education might be impacted, influenced, or affected by the court's decision."

Is this a way to circumvent the spirit of what the Supreme Court decision tried to prescribe?

KEVIN MCKENNA, Head Admissions Officer, Sarah Lawrence College: It is absolutely not an attempt to try to get students to disclose racial identity.

HARI SREENIVASAN: So, Kevin, what was the conversation like with your legal counsel when you said, this is kind of what I want to do?

KEVIN MCKENNA: I think the internal conversations that we had covered a lot of territory, and this wasn't just from a sense of legal obligation, but also ethical within the admissions office.

Is this something that we want to put out there, given the risk that some students might feel like they have to relive past injustices or traumas?

HARI SREENIVASAN: As schools and kids grapple with the changes brought about by the court's ruling, students like Molly Sannoo say the adjustment Sarah Lawrence has made might have helped her when she was applying to college.

MOLLY SANNOO, College Student: I'm a first-year student here, and I had a lot of trouble applying to schools and everything like that.

And my essay questions were kind of like very hard for me.

And having this new essay question, I mean, it brings out a whole other part of people and finding out where they're from and having sort of a sense of, like, their community.

HARI SREENIVASAN: Both Sarah Lawrence and Wesleyan are highly selective small schools with fewer than 5,000 students each.

But how will other universities handle changing admissions criteria?

Undersecretary of Education James Kvaal says it is a challenging time for the entire higher education system.

JAMES KVAAL, U.S.

Undersecretary of Education: One of the things that we saw in some of the states that banned the use of recent admissions was a change in who's applying to all types of colleges, not just the most selective colleges.

So it's important for students to continue to aspire, because even our most selective campuses, all types of students belong there.

And it's important for all types of colleges and universities to have a plan for how they're going to react to the changing landscape.

HARI SREENIVASAN: He's noticed leaders in higher education are being proactive.

JAMES KVAAL: Well, I have seen a renewed sense of urgency about trying to build an inclusive higher education system.

And there isn't going to be a single silver bullet.

There's a lot of work to do across the board.

HARI SREENIVASAN: It's work universities and colleges will have to embrace in order to navigate the changing landscape.

For the "PBS NewsHour," I'm Hari Sreenivasan in Middletown, Connecticut.

AMNA NAWAZ: More than 40 states, plus the District of Columbia, have sued Meta, the parent company of Facebook and Instagram, accusing the tech giant of building addictive features into its popular social media platforms that contribute to a youth mental health crisis.

Stephanie Sy looks into what is behind the lawsuits.

STEPHANIE SY: Amna, 33 states filed a federal lawsuit in Northern California today.

It claims Meta is in violation of consumer protection laws and children's online privacy laws.

The District of Columbia and eight other states filed a separate lawsuit.

In the larger 233-page suit, the states say Meta uses -- quote -- "powerful and unprecedented technologies to entice, engage and ultimately ensnare young people."

Phil Weiser is the attorney general for Colorado and helped lead the suit and joins us now.

Mr. Weiser, thanks for joining the "NewsHour."

So it's a bipartisan group of attorneys general from states ranging from West Virginia to Washington suing Meta now.

What led to this point, and why is the lawsuit being filed now?

PHIL WEISER (D), Colorado Attorney General: In the summer of 2021, a number of state attorneys general were focusing on what we saw as declining youth mental health and a connection to social media platforms.

They were addictive.

They took people down dark holes.

And we thought there could be a connection here.

After the Frances Haugen whistle-blowing testimony, the documentary she released, our work accelerated.

And for the last two years, intensively, collaboratively, we have put together this complaint.

We see a real problem.

Meta has lied to people.

They have been deceiving people about their platform.

They have been marketing to people under 13, and they failed to protect young people.

That's why we're taking this important action.

STEPHANIE SY: So, just to remind viewers, Meta owns Facebook, Instagram, and WhatsApp.

You're also alleging that these apps are creating addictions comparable to other public health threats to teens, such as smoking.

In what specific ways are they doing that?

PHIL WEISER: The features designed for these apps, the infinite scroll feature, for one example, are done with a awareness that they drive addictive behavior, that there are no guardrails, that young people aren't self-regulating, and that they're adopting these technologies, to their detriment.

All the while, their public statements are, these platforms are safe, young people have nothing to worry about.

That's not right.

We know young people are losing sleep, are finding their mental health really descent, sometimes not just eating disorders, but into self-harm, even suicide.

They need to take responsibility for the platform.

We need to better protect young people.

STEPHANIE SY: Meta did turn down our interview request, but, in a statement, says it is disappointed by these lawsuits and argues it has introduced dozens of tools to make minors' accounts safer.

I want to show our viewers some of these tools.

Here is a screen that shows different examples of how a parent can monitor their child's Instagram account.

They can see time spent on the app.

They can also click a button to set a limit on time spent on the app.

The middle screen shows a notification for something their child reported to the app.

And the last screen shows who is following them on the app.

Meta has also introduced these full-screen reminders for kids to take a break from screen time when it gets late or when they have been scrolling for too long.

Attorney General Weiser, these are just a few examples of tools parents have at their disposal.

What else are you asking of Meta?

PHIL WEISER: Let me start with a threshold concern related to the federal Child Online Privacy Protection Act.

Meta, under federal law, cannot and should not be marketing to young people, collecting data without parents' awareness or consent.

They're doing just that.

Meta has identified young people, 11-, 12-year-olds, as an untapped and valuable audience and engaged in behavior, in violation of federal law.

We are bringing this federal action under that law.

Moreover, they have said at Meta, don't worry, there's no harm from the platform.

But their internal research tells us otherwise.

It tells us that they know young people are losing sleep, are facing addictive behavior that takes them down dark holes.

These tools can and in some cases may even be valuable.

But in the mainstream and in the overwhelming cases that we know about, young people are hurting.

And this platform is responsible for that harm.

They need to do more.

STEPHANIE SY: I have a preteen.

And I have to ask this.

Why just target Meta and not other popular platforms that teens and preteens are using like YouTube, TikTok and Snapchat?

Why target this one company?

PHIL WEISER: This is an industry-wide concern.

Our concerns are broad.

We have publicly announced that we are closely investigating TikTok's behavior.

And, ultimately, we need to make sure that we're protecting kids wherever they are engaged online.

This is our starting place, this lawsuit against Meta.

The statements made by the whistle-blower, the internal awareness of the company tell us a very simple message.

They knew that their platform was harming young people, and yet they failed to take the actions to protect young people because it could compromise how much money they're making on their platform.

We, as a bipartisan group of A.G.s, in this lawsuit are clear.

You cannot put money over the health of our young people.

I am a parent of two teens, and, for me, this is personal.

We know young people are hurting.

We need to protect them.

That's why you have got so much state A.G. engagement on this matter.

STEPHANIE SY: Attorney General Phil Weiser of Colorado, thanks so much for joining us.

PHIL WEISER: Thank you.

AMNA NAWAZ: Stuart Stevens has spent the majority of his decades-long career getting Republicans elected to political office.

But his latest book is a warning to the country, not just about the current state of the GOP, but what he says is its threat to American democracy.

I spoke with Stuart earlier today about that book, "The Conspiracy to End America: Five Ways My Old Party Is Driving Our Democracy to Autocracy."

Stuart Stevens, welcome to the "NewsHour."

Thank you for joining us.

STUART STEVENS, Author, "The Conspiracy to End America: Five Ways My Old Party Is Driving Our Democracy to Autocracy": Thank you.

AMNA NAWAZ: So, in your book, you lay out five driving forces on the right that you say are working in concert basically to end our democracy.

You list them as propagandists, the support of a major party, financers, legal theories to legitimize actions and shock troops.

But I want to begin with this idea of support of a major party, because you draw a pretty alarming comparison.

In the book, you write: "What happened within the Republican Party in 2016 was a repeat of the rise of national socialism in the 1920s and 1930s in Germany."

You're arguing that the Republican establishment's acceptance of Mr. Trump echoed the German establishment's acceptance of Hitler.

What are the parallels you're talking about here?

STUART STEVENS: Yes, it's interesting.

For a long time, there was sort of a trope that any time you compared anything to 1930s Germany or World War II, it reduced it to sort of absurdity.

But I take a very different view, because I think the parallels are striking.

What happened in Germany was that the ruling class, mostly Prussian aristocrats, realized that they had lost touch with the working class, and they thought that they could control Hitler, that he would be someone who could connect them to the working class and take them into power.

And it's really exactly what happened with the Republican Party.

Mitch McConnell said that he was confident that Trump would change, that they would change Trump, that they were the mainstream conservative and Trump would adapt to that.

And it just proved to be incredibly naive, and it's still playing out.

And every chance the party has to turn against Trump, they go in the other direction, and they embrace him more.

AMNA NAWAZ: There are some along the way who've rung the alarm, so to speak, like Mitt Romney, for example, whose campaign you ran in 2012.

STUART STEVENS: Yes.

AMNA NAWAZ: He criticized Donald Trump, but then he considered joining his Cabinet.

So, you can't really argue that some folks didn't see the danger.

Is the story here that they just chose to ignore it?

STUART STEVENS: It's a fascinating question, because it is very difficult to find anyone in the Republican Party who will say in private that Donald Trump was a great leader, that Donald Trump is someone that they admire on any sort of personal level.

And yet they have basically turned over the party to him.

And I think that what happened here was that Donald Trump, in some sort of animal instinct, realized that the Republican Party ultimately did not believe in all the things that we had said that we believed.

What we said were values turned out to be marketing slogans, and that he realized that if he could give the party power, the party would go along with whatever he wanted.

And that literally is what's happened now.

And it's extraordinary.

I don't think we have seen anything like this in American history, just a complete collapse of a party.

But it's the reality.

It's the world that we live in, and it's not going to change.

He's probably going to be the nominee.

And there's a good chance he will be reelected president.

AMNA NAWAZ: You do talk about the impact of money in the chapter on the people who finance candidates like this, big money donors, who you say are complicit in helping to destroy democracy.

But why isn't there any kind of effort to get those big-money donors off the sidelines to coalesce around another candidate that could potentially beat Mr. Trump, if Republicans don't want him to be their candidate?

STUART STEVENS: Yes, I think this is a case in the primary where money is really not going to matter.

Tim Scott supposedly had backings of wealthy individuals who were going to put unlimited money in it.

And it really didn't matter.

There's not a market in the Republican Party of any size that is anti-Trump.

This is the thing that is difficult for a lot of us to grasp.

The Republican Party wants to be what Donald Trump has turned it into -- not turned it into, where Donald Trump has led it.

The party is what they -- there's nobody forcing them to support Donald Trump.

They don't have to.

They -- Trump has made it acceptable to embrace your worst self.

And once that becomes acceptable, it's very easy.

It's, I think, sort of addictive.

And now that's where the party is.

It's become a grievance party, and primarily a white grievance party.

AMNA NAWAZ: Stu, what about when you look at what's happening among House Republicans right now, their inability to elect a speaker?

Is that dysfunction at all related to any of this, or is that separate and apart?

STUART STEVENS: I think it's completely related to it.

At the core, there really is no governing principles to the Republican Party.

I mean, what does it mean to be an American conservative today?

I worked in the party for 30 years.

I have no idea.

And so, when you lack that ability to unite a party over a higher purpose, you end up in these sort of "Lord of the Flies" battles that they're in now.

So no one can stand up there and say to the Republican Caucus, look, it's really important that X-person be speaker because we have important business to do.

There's just nothing there that anybody can point to and say, this is what the Republican Party stands for with any credibility.

AMNA NAWAZ: Well, the book is "The Conspiracy to End America: Five Ways My Old Party Is Driving Our Democracy Towards Autocracy."

The author is Stuart Stevens.

Stu, thank you for joining us.

Good to talk to you.

STUART STEVENS: Thank you.

AMNA NAWAZ: And that is the "NewsHour" for tonight.

I'm Amna Nawaz.

GEOFF BENNETT: And I'm Geoff Bennett.

Thanks for being with us.

Have a great evening.