Top Story with Tom Llamas - Wednesday, January 3, 2024

Episode Date: January 4, 2024

Tonight's Top Story has the latest breaking news, political headlines, news from overseas and the best NBC News reporting from across the country and around the world.

Tonight, breaking news, we have the documents, the just unsealed court documents revealing names of people associated with convicted sex offender, Jeffrey Epstein. The documents containing previously hidden names of people tied to Epstein would kill himself, of course, in 2019 after being charged with child sex trafficking. The late financier known for socializing with high-profile figures and politicians, including former president's Bill Clinton and Donald Trump and Britain's Prince Andrew, Laura Jarrett, joining us live to break down what we know. Also tonight, two bombs exploding minutes apart during a ceremony commemorating the death of an Iranian general killed in a U.S. drone strike

in 2020. Nearly 100 people killed, but the death toll could rise. An Iranian official speaking to our Ali-Aruzian Tehran immediately, placing the blame on Israel, but with no evidence. The U.S. saying, they believe it was the work of an international terror organization. Meanwhile, the chief of Hezbollah vowing retaliation for a drone attack that killed a Hamas leader in Beirut. Could this be the start of an expanding conflict across the region? Coast-to-coast storm, a system dropping heavy rain and some snow on California and the southwest, but expected to turn into a nor-easter by the weekend. Could some eastern cities see their first significant snow in two years?

Plus the fire breaking out at the Florida mansion of Dolphin Star Tyreek Hill, thick smoke billowing out of the roof as firefighters race to save the $7 million home, the investigation tonight into the cause. Pressure to tip with tipping prompts now everywhere from coffee shops to delivery drivers. Has the tipping culture gone too far and is now hurting those who rely on tips like servers at restaurants will explain? And this rough rescue out of California, a golden retriever falling 300 feet off a cliff. We speak to the Coast Guard pilot who helped airlift the puff to safety. Top story starts right now.

And good evening. We are coming on the air with breaking news. Just moments ago, court documents were unsealed, revealing the names of people associated to convicted sex offender, Jeffrey Epstein. It's the first set of names that will be released. Epstein and his former girlfriend, Galane Maxwell, were both accused of trafficking young girls to be abused by Epstein. Epstein died by suicide in a New York City jail cell in 2019 after he was charged. Maxwell was convicted in a slew of charges in 2021 and is currently serving a 20-year prison sentence.

NBC's senior legal correspondent Laura Jared has been following this story for us. And Laura, I want to be very frank and honest with our viewers, as we always are here on Top Story. We literally just got these documents. There are hundreds of documents. Our team of producers and reporters like yourself have been pouring over this, but just recently. So my first question to you is, and I don't even know if we have an answer yet, are there any headlines out of the documents we've seen so far? Well, I can tell you, Tom, we have about 943 pages of documents, so it's quite a bit to

pour through. It's mostly deposition transcripts and motions that I have seen in this civil salt. involving civil suit involving Jelaine Maxwell, obviously somebody who had been accused of grooming young girls for abuse by Jeffrey Epstein. It includes deposition transcripts from Maxwell herself, where she's asked about different sex acts with Jeffrey Epstein, and she denies, obviously, any wrongdoing, even though she's now been, of course, convicted and serving time behind bars. But this is from years ago when she was still maintaining her innocence. And she specifically asked Tom about interactions that Clinton, former president

Bill Clinton may have had with Jeffrey Epstein. She specifically asked about meals with Clinton. She says she can't recollect any meals with him. She's asked about whether he may, being Clinton, may have had a meal on Jeffrey Epstein's plane. She says, quote, I'm sure they had a meal on Jeffrey Epstein's plane. So, Tom, these are the types of interactions that we expected. Much of this has already been reported in the public domain. But it's different now, of course, seeing it in a court filing. These are court files that have been redacted. kept under wraps for many years as part of that civil litigation that I mentioned, and we're going to continue pouring through to uncover what we have found.

I should mention none of this obviously suggests any wrongdoing by the former president, suggests that he was involved in a crime. It's merely talking about his connections to Epstein, something that has already, again, been out there, but he has obviously maintained his innocence and denied any wrongdoing as it relates to any abuse by people that Epstein exploited, Tom. You know, Laura, I was able to read through some of the documents as well involving Galane Maxwell. One of the things I noticed is a lot of those pointed direct questions that are about sexual

encounters. She says, I don't recollect. There's never a flat out. I mean, I don't want to say never, but at least in the exchanges I saw, there's never a flat out, no. It's, I don't recollect. I don't recollect with very specific pointed questions about times and acts and things like that.

Do you think that's just because of advice from her counsel? or do you think, I guess my question is, when somebody wants to deny something, can they just say no? Or I do not recollect. Sometimes you understand that to mean they protect themselves as well. Yeah, sometimes you often see witnesses couch it, especially when they know there might be some legal jeopardy there. And remember, these are deposition transcripts that are happening years, years back, Tom. The lawsuit that we're talking about here in question dates back to 2015. It's long been since settled. But the court records, obviously, of interest to reporters who sued to try to get this information.

So when she says, I don't recall, and in other places, she does flatly deny some of the allegations, it's obviously well before, you know, all of the federal investigation that ultimately led to her downfall and led to her prison sentence for 20 years behind bars. She's now, of course, serving. And, Laura, I think it's good to remind our viewers why this is happening right now, right? This is all part of a lawsuit that happened between one of Epstein's victims, Virginia Joufrey, against Galane Maxwell. And finally, the judge said,

listen, there's this lawsuit the public wants to know, we're going to release the names. We know there's several names, right? There's hundreds of court filings. There are several names. We know at least two people, right, have asked that their names not be revealed just yet, and the judge is going to wait 30 days.

What do we know more about those two people? So it's a possible, Tom, that they could easily both be survivors, victims of Epstein's abuse. We know that some of these documents still have redaction. It's our understanding that some of the victims who were underage at the time of the abuse have asked that their identities still be protected, and the judge has wanted to honor that. Two of them, we don't obviously know their identities. They're still anonymous.

The court has said she's going to look at that. She's going to take it under evaluation and figure out what to do with documents that still mention those two people. If there are any John Doe's, perhaps, you know, former associates, friends of Epstein's, men who were associated with him in ways, obviously that are problematic. We'll have to wait and see. But the court has already said most of these documents are not supposed to be salacious. Again, a lot of this has come out through public evidence and reporting so far. But we're still in early days here as we dig through just the first couple of these and come on there with you. And Laura, I know because so many people have been attracted to this story, they've watched this story. It's led to so many conspiracy

theories. Going through the documents I went through, I did see already names redacted. We know part of it might be a John Doe, a Jane Doe, who the court's going to review now for 30 days. But again, there's also victims who they don't want their names out there. Will those names stay redacted because they were minors at the time of the crime? They should. They have asked for their identities to be protected. They have said that they have faced threats, given the connection to this case. And so they have asked for their own safety for those names to stay redacted. And I think the court is going to honor that time. Okay, Laura, I know you've got to pour through about 900 documents. So we're going to let you do

that. When you find something else interesting, we're going to come back to you. We thank you for your initial reporting so far. For more on the shocking list and what it means, I want to bring in Shan Wu. He's a criminal defense attorney and a former federal prosecutor. And Bernarda Villalona, she's also a criminal defense attorney and former prosecutor. We thank you both for being here, our legal eagles tonight, if you will. I'm going to start with you, Bernard. I'm going to start with you. Why is this happening? Did the judge have to do this? Well, the judge didn't have any legal grounds to prevent this from happening. So remember, if a decision has to be made in terms of a judge making a decision, the first thing that they're looking at to see, what does the law tell

me of how I should guide my decision? And here, there is no legal way for her to have stopped from this information coming forward. With the exception of, as you can see, there's still some Jane Doe's that remain in these documents. And that's because the law has to weigh in the privacy interest, does it outweigh the public interest? And that's why those names still remain redacted and they're referred to as Jane Doe. So the judge had no choice but to unseal these redacted documents. Shan, as Laura was reporting, a lot of these are depositions. That's what I read. It was a deposition of Galane Maxwell. The lawyers essentially can ask anything. They can mention any name and it would be in these court documents. Just because someone's name is in these court

documents, it doesn't necessarily mean they've committed a crime or they've even done anything nefarious, correct? That's correct, yeah. As Laura was saying, there are so many names mentioned here, and many of the people knew that their names had mentioned. This happened quite some time ago, and that is a really important point. I mean, there's so much on social media with these conspiracy theory is that the mere mention of the names means that the people have done something wrong.

That's absolutely untrue. I mean, it could be a fertile ground for plaintiffs' law. lawyers to mine. If there are existing civil cases going on, this evidence could corroborate that somebody was at a certain place or had met with Epstein at a certain time. And what I'll be watching for is whether some of the ones redacted, we talked about might be victims, whether new victims may emerge after this type of release, either from seeing the names of people, recognizing who they are, or feeling more empowered to come forward now that this is public. What does this do for Virginia Joufrey, who may be the most high profile of Jeffrey Epstein's victims?

All these names are out as part of her lawsuit against Galane Maxwell. We should also mention she has already settled a suit with Prince Andrew as well. And she removed a suit against the lawyer, Alan Dershowitz, misidentifying him, at least in her words. So what happens to her case now? And is this a victory for her, in a sense? It's a huge victory for her, because it's vindication for her. because for many years, people kept trying to shut her up, trying to say that she is lying,

that she's making this up, that this is a money grab for her. And for her, she wanted justice in the sense of not just holding just Jeffrey Epstein accountable and Gilane Maxwell accountable, but she also felt that these associates that helped to empower these men should have been held accountable. And the reality is that nothing's going to happen to them. There's not going to be any criminal charges. I don't see any further civil lawsuit.

So if anything, this is going to be a public shaming for those that were associated with that. Shan, for the very powerful, right? And we mentioned some of the names of the people who have associated with Jeffrey Epstein in the past. We know a former President Bill Clinton. We know a former President Trump, Prince Andrew. This is something the public knows. Could they have done anything with their legal teams to prevent their names from being in these documents? Or is that genie already out of the bottle?

I think the genie now is out of the bottle. They may have tried to do something. There'd be an argument that they could make that this could cause them a lot of security problems, for example, in this sort of volatile atmosphere. But I think the point was well made that the judge really didn't have any illegal grounds. And to the extent the judge is holding off on some of it, we don't know what the circumstances are, but the judge will consider that. But I don't think at this point there's anything they can do.

And for them, of course, it is a shaming. I mean, it's sort of like a guilt by association. I think it reminds us of just what a huge network of financial and personality connections that Epstein had, which in many ways really empowered him and gave him the ability to lure all these victims into that web. Yeah, and we should remind our viewers, Jeffrey Epstein, of course, was a very, very wealthy financier, an investment banker at one point. He taught at private schools in Manhattan, and he used all that money to make connections,

and then he used those connections to do philanthropies, and that's where he met a lot of celebrities and a lot of these politicians. There's 900 pages here. If an attorney in one of these civil cases throws out a name randomly, maybe they heard a rumor and this person has nothing to do with Jeffrey Epstein, never met Jeffrey Epstein. Would that name now be revealed in these documents? And is there a danger there? Or did the judge sort of kind of vet these documents before releasing them and saying, look, there was no merit here. We're going to take this name out? Well, it's difficult for the judge to have vetted the documents in a sense of credibility, a credibility decision because who is she to determine whether the answer or the question is true

or not? Because then she becomes the fact binder there. The reality is that the damage is done once these names are revealed because the public is going to make their own determinations as to the validity of the question and the answer. So that black cloud is going to remain forever for any names that are mentioned there. But it's important to note is to keep everything into context. And what context are these names being mentioned? Is it, oh, the person visited? or the person was multiple times at the location, or was a person an employee, or was a person on Jeffrey Epstein's plane.

It's all about context. But to me, the damage is done because we know what public shaming can do for anyone's reputation. Shan, I have a sort of a long question for you, but just follow me along here. There's so much mystery surrounding Jeffrey Epstein, right? Ever since this case first broke,

ever since he committed suicide, when I was as a reporter investigating Jeffrey Epstein, I went to the Epstein Island that is just off the coast there in the Caribbean. And even the people who worked on that island, they had all these rumors, they had all these ideas. There was a mystery of him, even in the Caribbean as well. And what I want to get at is do you think that some of these mysteries,

some of these questions are going to be answered with these documents, or are they just going to lead to more questions? You know, unfortunately, I think they're going to lead to more questions. One of the big mysteries has always been, you know, what was the source of his wealth, you know, what kind of leverage might have he had on powerful people. I don't think we're going to see that here. We're going to see a lot of the connections, corroboration of the fact that he knew people,

corroboration that people were in certain places at certain times. And, you know, that might provide some grounds for new theories of civil liability. The criminal statute's limitations are mostly past. Very few states have done away with those limitations. But I think it's really going to lead to a lot more questions and probably a lot more speculation. Shan, Bernard. I want you guys to stand by as well. If we get some more headlines, we're going to come back to you for analysis. We appreciate your time. For right now, we want to turn to that other major headline we're following tonight. Those deadly explosions in Iran killing nearly 100 people. The two bombs exploding just minutes apart during a ceremony, commemorating the death of Iranian general, Qasam Soleimani. He was killed in a U.S. drone strike in 2020, you may remember, during the Trump administration. The U.S. believes a terror organization is responsible for this bombing. But Iran, is blaming Israel. It comes just one day after a drone attack

that killed a Hamas commander in Beirut. Yesterday, Israel has not claimed responsibility so far for that. But today, the leader of Hezbollah, which operates out of Lebanon, vowing punishment to Israel for that assassination in a fiery speech. We've also learned Secretary of State Anthony Blinken will travel to the Middle East again

tomorrow. His fourth trip to the region since October 7th, as fears grow over an expanding conflict. Let's get right over to Keir Simmons reporting tonight in Beiru. You can hear an explosion on this video. Sending crowds screaming and scrambling for safety in Iran after deadly twin blasts, 20 minutes apart that the state news agency says were caused by two remote-controlled explosive devices placed in bags.

It happened during the public ceremony for the anniversary of the death of Iran's general Qasam Soleimani, who was assassinated by an American drone strike during the trial. Trump administration. The U.S. had blamed Soleimani for plotting terror attacks, including against Americans. No one has claimed responsibility for today's blasts in Iran. ISIS has carried out terror attacks there before. But tonight crowds in Iran chanting death to Israel and death to America. NBC's Ali Yeruzi is in Tehran. Tonight, a senior member of Iran's parliament says that he's waiting for more information, but that this attack bears all the hallmarks of an operation by Israel's Mossad intelligence agency.

But tonight, the Biden administration says neither the U.S. nor Israel is behind the attack. We have no indication that Israel was in any way involved in this. Current and former U.S. officials tell NBC News they believe a terror group like ISIS is most likely responsible. The new attacks come as fears are rising of war escalating throughout this region. Just yesterday, a top Hamas leader was killed in an a air strike on a Hamas office here in Beirut. Tonight, NBC News has learned Israel did not notify the U.S. in advance of the strike on the Hamas leader, but did inform the U.S. as it was underway, according to two U.S. officials, a defense official and a person briefed on the operation. Israel has publicly denied any involvement, though Israel's military has vowed to hunt down all Hamas leaders,

following the Hamas terror attacks on October 7th that Israel says killed over 1,200 people. Keir Simmons joins us tonight live from Beir. You mentioned the protest that broke out after that separate strike yesterday there in Beirut that killed a senior Hamas official. What has the reaction been in the region in the wake of these latest attacks in Iran?

Tom, the leader of Hezbollah, the militant group here in Lebanon, has given another fiery speech today, in which he described the killing of that Hamas leader as a crime that will not go unpunished, talked about war in his words. And that is what, of course, many people fear, Tom. There are Israelis who do worry that assassinations only lead to more bloodshed, and certainly the tension is only rising in this region. We've said it, haven't we, again and again over the past months since October 7th, but it remains the case that at any moment, this could escalate if some kind of

an event like that spirals. And, Kier, as you reported, the accusations are already flying about who did this, right? One Iranian officials saying it looks like Israel, the U.S. saying it wasn't Israel, that a terror group likely, ISIS was responsible. What's the latest on that investigation? And if you could, viewers at home may be thinking ISIS attacking Iran. I know it's complicated, but we should explain. explain why the U.S. is going that route, too.

Yeah. Look, it is complicated. There is an ISIS presence still in the region and in Iran. ISIS and other terror groups too, by the way, Tom, have been interested in trying to destabilize Iran.

So it is a possibility. Of course, at the same time, Israel's involvement is still possible, despite America saying that it has no indication that that would be the case. And in another sense, perhaps some of the important thing here is the optics that you've heard there, those crowds in Iran, chanting death to Israel, death to America. Perhaps

one of the issues with all of this is that in this heightened tension, that kind of perception can lead to an escalation no matter what the truth is. The reality is in this region, Tom, that we often don't find out for years from the historians who know more than us exactly what did happen when events like these play out. Keir Simmons reporting live for us from Beirut, we thank you for that. For more on these explosions and what they mean for escalating tensions in the Middle East, I want to bring in Jason Razai on a global opinions writer for the Washington Post. He was the Post-Turan Bureau Chief from 2012 to 2016 and was unjustly imprisoned by Iran for 544 days.

Also with us is Elise Labut, author of Cosmo Politics on Substact and a contributing editor for Politico. She has covered global affairs for decades. It's Jason and Elise. Thank you for both being here tonight on Top Story. Jason, my first question to you, you know this region, you know the country. What do you think the retaliation strike is, if there is one? Well, Tom, thanks for having us on to discuss a really important and tense situation. I think the reality is there will be a lot of bluster from Iran, but I don't think there'll be an immediate response.

We have seen so many provocations in the Red Sea and the Persian Gulf over. over recent weeks. The U.S. has been trying desperately to kind of wind down that tension. I think it will continue. But as far as a large retaliatory response in a kinetic way, I don't see that happening because I just don't think that Iran can risk that right now. At least, you know, Iran is already blaming Israel. What does this do to Israel and the war right now in Gaza? Well, first of all, I agree with Jason entirely. I don't really think we're going to see a big retaliation. And that's because I think Iran pretty much knows that Israel likely wasn't involved here. This really, Tom, isn't Israel's kind of modus up Iranai. When Israel wants

to go after, whether it's Iranian scientists or specific Iranian leaders, they'll do it that way, like a targeted assassination. But Israel is always saying that it has no beef with the Iranian people. And it just doesn't seem like really that this is something that Israel will do. I mean, obviously, we don't know at this point. But I think you're going to continue to have that bluster. It's very crowd-pleasing for Iran, not only to continue to blame Israel, but also to deflect from any security issues with the regime that it was able, that it missed an attack of this nature. It does put Israel in a delicate situation with all this tension in the region, with Hezbollah, but despite all the rhetoric, whether you hear it from Nasrallah, whether you hear it from Iran,

I think nobody really wants a full-out war. There could be a miscalculation. In my mind, the real kind of maverick here in the area we have to watch are the Houthis in the Red Sea. And actually on that point, I want to ask Jason this. You know, we sometimes discuss the proxy wars that are happening because of what happened with Israel and Hamas. And there are so many different factions and so many different groups in a very complicated region of the world. But my question to you, Jason, is these terror attacks, these bombings, these proxy strikes that are happening in the Red Sea, is this all part of an effort that could possibly lead to more instability in the region? And then for our viewers here in the U.S., lead America into

some type of conflict? Yeah, I mean, I think that that's the concern. I think that three months into this conflict, that constant ratcheting up of attacks against tankers, the squeezing off of important trade byways, where, you know, massive amounts of global trade have to pass through, is a security issue for everyone, a real issue for the United States, something that they can't ignore. But at the same time, I don't think that there's a real appetite here in the U.S. in the public or in the government to get drawn into a larger contract conflict. So I think it is a really difficult situation, and I think the Iranians, it's the one piece of the puzzle that they're able to play effectively because, you know, the notion that these

proxy groups are completely under their control has been tested so much in recent years. I don't think that they are. But at the same time, they are providing so much material, military. and intelligence support to these groups, especially the Houthis, that obviously their hands aren't clean. So, you know, I just think that the tension gets higher and higher and higher and the possibility for us spiraling into a much bigger conflict increases by the day. At least, do we know what the reaction has been from inside Israel about this terror attack inside of Iran? I mean, I think they're watching it. I think, again, like they know what

Israel's kind of goals and what they want to achieve are. So I don't think there's a lot of, I mean, it's new. There hasn't been a lot of reaction. There's been a lot more reaction to the killing of this military leader in Hamas. I think it was pretty comical that Israel didn't say it wasn't involved, but said, oh, but we know that this is, you know, not against Hezbollah, not against the Lebanese people, this was against Hamas. So that's really where the Israeli public is right now in terms of, you know, these Hamas. leaders and expecting more of these type of assassinations. Obviously, there's always a concern about Iran.

That's the real existential threat in Israel's eyes from Iran. But I think right now, all eyes are on what's going on with Hamas. All right. At least, Jason, we thank you for being on Top Story tonight, and we appreciate your analysis. All right, we want to turn now to the forecast and the fast-moving Pacific storm slamming the West Coast right now. We also want to show you this video, rain and snow falling across the Great Basin and portions of the southwest as well in southern California, heavy snow blanketing the mountain town of Wrightwood. So the coast to coast-to-coast system set to move east as the weekend approaches. I want to bring in our good friend Al Roker, who's going to walk us through the next few days and the big question about what's going to happen in the northeast.

That's right. That's the million-dollar question, Tom. And we've been really, really dry when it comes to snow for the last. Look at this. Last time we had one inch of snow or more in a day, 689 days ago, February 13th of 2020, D.C. It's been 717 days. Same in Richmond, 714 in Philadelphia. That's the longest snow drought on record. Same for New York. Second longest in Washington, D.C. and Richmond. But that may be coming to an end. Here's that storm you had just showed us with that video. It's now bringing snow into the plains and into the southwest. Now, tomorrow, it's going to move into the southern Rockies with heavy snow. Shows and storm. pushing through western Texas. We move on into Friday. It races to the east, picks up moisture from the Gulf with heavy rain along the Gulf, could be some flooding. Saturday moves into the Mid-Atlantic coast. Snow starts to fall into the northeast by evening. Sunday it pulls away,

and as it does, it brings in blustery conditions. I-95 windy with some snow showers possible. Now, here's the problem, the track. If it hugs the coast, the mild ocean air, water temperatures in the 40s, that air gets in. in here, and it's all rain along the coast, heavy snow inland. But if it tracks a little further to the south and off the coast, it pulls in that colder air, Tom, and we're talking snow from Portland all the way to Elkins, West Virginia, Roanoke as well. Here's what we look for. It's too early to give you actual accumulations, but we see an area of moderate snow from central Pennsylvania all the way to southern New England, and we're also looking at some areas of heavier snow

pockets within up into New England. But again, it's going to be that track. We're going to continue to fine-tune it. We'll have the latest tomorrow morning on today. Tom. Okay, Al, we appreciate that. Thank you, turning out of power and politics and the state of the 2024 GOP presidential race. With less than two weeks until the Iowa caucus,

former President Trump is appealing a decision to banning from Colorado's ballot to the Supreme Court as his competitors continue to campaign in the Hawkeye State. NBC's Dasha Burns in Iowa tonight with more. Tonight, Republican frontrunner Donald Trump asking the U.S. Supreme Court, to overturn a ruling by Colorado's highest court banning him from the state's ballot because of his actions on January 6th. The former president's lawyer's appeal saying the move would be the first

time the judiciary has prevented voters from casting ballots for the leading major party presidential candidate. The Trump campaign calling it an un-American unconstitutional act of election interference. It comes just 12 days from the critical Iowa caucuses where polls show Trump maintaining his dominant lead. Ron DeSantis today was pressed by one of his own supporters. Why hasn't he gone after Mr. Trump more? I've articulated all the differences time and time again on the campaign trail. Then there's Nikki Haley, slamming moves to ban Trump from the ballot.

I will defeat President Trump Fair and Square. I have no doubt about that. But this is not the way to do it. Meanwhile, long shot Vivek Ramoswamy, a fierce Trump defender, has already said he won't appear on any ballot. the Trump is banned from, claiming the system is rigged against the former president. If you're going even further than Donald Trump, why wouldn't it work against you, too? Well, look, they don't have on me what they have on him.

You can just look right now. They've got four different wars they've waged on this man. This managerial class in the swamp, they duped Donald Trump. They duped Trump in a way that they won't be duping me. And we'll see Mr. Trump here in the Hawkeye State on Friday when he'll kick off the first of four rallies here this weekend. Tom? Burns for us, Josh, and we appreciate that. For more in Iowa, in the GOP primary race,

I want to bring in chief political analyst, Chuck Todd. Chuck, I have to ask you first, Trump has such a big lead here in Iowa, right? I've been calling him an ultra frontrunner. Is there any other, is there any chance that any other candidate catches him, or at least gives him a tough race, you think, in the next two weeks? Look, I'm skeptical that it will. Is there a scenario that is semi-realistic? Sure. Nikki Haley finishes a surprising strong second in Iowa. She catapults, wins New Hampshire, setting up a showdown with Mr. Trump in South Carolina. Is that a plausible scenario?

It is. I'm skeptical that that's going to happen. I mean, what I just described is sort of the boomerang effect that Iowa has been for candidates in the past who have been chasing frontrunners. You know, this has helped Gary Hart, to use a name in history, against Walter Monk. back in 1984. But here's the thing that Donald Trump has in his favor, besides being an incumbent president. The conservative media ecosystem doesn't seem to be interested in seeing a race. I brought up that Walter Mondale, Gary Hart, example for a reason here.

Because in 1984, the media was like, oh, we don't want to end this nomination fight. It just got started. Hey, let's give a lot of attention to the guy that finished a super distant second. Gary Hart, well, it turned it into a real race. Mainstream media, I think, looks at this and thinks, why aren't the Republicans having a competitive race? Why would they not want somebody other than Trump on the ballot? But if the conservative media ecosystem is not that interested in promoting who finishes second

or a challenger to Trump, I think that's another reason why he could wrap this thing up before the end of the month. Why has this sort of the evangelical vote not been sort of dissected or focused on as much? And I asked this because, you know, we had Rick Santorum, we had Mike Huckabee, we had Ted Cruz, who all won the Iowa caucuses, right? They didn't win their nominations, but they won the Iowa caucuses. I was speaking with the Des Moines Register reporter just yesterday, who's saying she's curious to see where the evangelicals break. Do you think they make a difference this time around? I think it will be, look, do I think Trump's going to do a little worse than the polls show? I do.

because I do think that the evangelical number against him will be a little bit higher than we think. That said, Trump's not a pretty good job of sort of keeping the evangelical community, at least divided. Look, this is clearly the DeSantis strategy. What you just outlined, he's trying to do Santorum, he's trying to do Cruz, right?

He's trying to run that race. But Trump, just like he did eight years ago and he's doing it again, he's got just enough support that I think it dilutes it so that one candidate isn't the dominant evangelical candidate, right? DeSantis isn't going to get the entire vote. Trump's going to get a lot of it. And remember why Trump gets a lot of it. He appointed those Supreme Court justices, right? That's all they cared about. At the end of the day, he appointed them. So if you care about the abortion issue on the right, you actually may look at Trump as the person you're more thankful for.

Real quick, Chuck, what do we know about organization? Because one of the things that struck me in 2016 when Cruz won the Iowa caucuses. I wasn't shocked because Cruz was so disciplined and he had such a good operation in Iowa. Do we know about the ground game for Trump in Iowa? Will he have those people that are convincing the other caucus goers to vote Trump? Look, I think Trump's ground game is going to be a lot better than it was eight years ago. It's still not going to be as good in theory as DeSantis is. DeSantis has the governor. Governor Kim Reynolds, who inherited the Terry Brantzstadt organization, is a longtime political power player there.

She's made it even supercharged that. So she's a significant force. She's an tremendous force behind DeSantis. So if you and I talk on Caucus Night and DeSantis is having a surprisingly good night, it'll be because he's got the best organization. He does have the best organization. But guess what? Rick Santorum had no organization, and he won the caucuses eight years ago.

So it doesn't always translate. It's a good point. Chuck Todd for us. Chuck, we always appreciate your analysis. Still ahead tonight, the shooting manhunt in New Jersey. An imam shot and killed outside a mosque just hours after early morning prayers. What witnesses say they saw fleeing the scene. Plus, the latest on that airport disaster in Japan,

the new air traffic control transcripts giving more insight into what caused that deadly crash. And the fire tearing through the Florida mansion of NFL star Tyreek Hill, how firefighters race to save the $7 million home. Stay with us. Welcome back. We're going to head overseas now to Japan, where new information has emerged about what might have caused that fiery plane crash in Tokyo as the country deals with a rising death toll from the devastating earthquake. Janice Mackie Freyer is there with late developments. Tonight, new clues in the investigation into the fiery crash at Tokyo's Hanita Airport. Transcripts of air traffic control instructions just before the collision obtained by NBC News,

appeared to confirm that Japan Airlines Flight 516 was clear to land and approached runway 34 right. The smaller Japan Coast Guard aircraft had permission to taxi, but not to take off. The Coast Guard acknowledging that call from the tower in its last transmission before the crash. And tonight, a flight operations document shows that the red stoplights meant to alert pilots not to taxi onto the runway where the crash occurred were out of service at the time. people inside the Airbus A350 were calling the impact. Yes, you felt the airplane was not in a normal position,

was like bending on the front. All 379 passengers and crew safely evacuating the burning aircraft in less than 90 seconds. It's a tragedy for Japan's Coast Guard. Five of six crew members killed in the collision. The plane, part of the effort to get supplies to Japan's western coast, devastated by earthquakes on New Year's Day. Government officials confirming at least 73 people have died.

Japan's Prime Minister saying today, we are at a crucial stage. Investigators here are still searching for the black box from the destroyed passenger plane. Meanwhile, Japanese media reporting that the three pilots from the Japan Airlines flight say they didn't see the Coast Guard aircraft on the runway when they were given clearance to land. Tom? Okay, Janice Mackey Freyer with some new reporting there. Janice, thank you. When we come back, wild video, we're just getting in. Look at this. A man going airborne, you just missed them. Lungy at a judge in a Las Vegas courtroom. The judge knocked to the ground. What happened next? Stay with us. All right, we're back now with Top Stories News Feed, and we begin with the manhunt for a suspect who shot and killed an imam in New Jersey.

Police say the imam who also works as a TSA agent was shot outside of a mosque in Newark early this morning. According to authorities, a suspect dressed in all black was seen running from the scene. It's unclear if the shooting was targeted, but authorities say it does not appear to be a biased attack at this time. A judge in Las Vegas attacked her in his sentencing hearing today. Look at this. This video just into the newsroom shows a man lunging at the judge over the bench and knocking her over. A court marshal immediately jumping in trying to subdue him. He was eventually removed from the court.

the judge was examined at the hospital and is expected to be okay. The attacker was being sentenced for attempted battery. A high-profile TV producer facing more allegations of sexual assault. In a lawsuit obtained by NBC News, two former contestants of the 2003 reality show, All-American Girl, alleged Nigel Lithgow, groped and forcibly kissed them during filming. Last week, Paul Abdul also sued him, alleging he sexually assaulted her while working together on American Idol, and so you think you can dance. Lithgow denied Abdul's allegations

but has not commented on this latest suit. And a massive fire breaking out at the home of Miami Dolphin superstar Tyreek Hill. Aerial footage, you see it here, shows thick smoke billowing out of the roof of the mansion in Southwest ranches. Firefighters pumping water into the roof to try and stop the flames. So far, no word on any injuries, that's good news. But officials say there is extensive damage to the home. According to public records,

He'll bought the home in 2022 for nearly $7 million. All right, we want to return now to that major news out of Iran we've been following throughout the broadcast. Those two deadly explosions near a memorial for General Hassam Soleimani, a senior Iranian official who was killed by a U.S. drone strike during the Trump administration. No one has claimed responsibility for the blast just yet, and now one of the worst terror attacks in Iran's history has come full circle. I want to bring in NBC News, Tehran Bureau Chief Ali Arousi. Ali, what are you hearing from inside Iran right now? What has the reaction been to these horrific attacks? Well, initially there was a shock at these attacks.

I mean, this was a planned ceremony. It happens every year to commemorate Ghassim Soleimani, who was taken out by a U.S. drone strike four years ago. And after the shock, there was obviously a lot of anger from officials in this country. And even though nobody has claimed responsibility for the attacks, and according to Iranian officials, the investigation is still ongoing. Officials were very quick to point the finger at Israel. Top member of parliament here says that he's waiting for more information, but this bears all the hallmarks of a Mossad attack.

Other officials said that, you know, this is a U.S. and Mossad joint operation, and that there is going to be some serious retribution. against those who carried out these attacks. So initially, shock and that quickly turned to anger and talks of retribution. You know, Ali, and I want to kind of lean into that, the retribution, knowing Iran like you do and studying the history of Iran, especially modern history, what do you think we can expect from Iran in retaliation? That's a really salient question, Tom.

Iran is predictably unpredictable. They issue a lot of threats. They do a lot of saber-rattling. but they don't always deliver on them. I mean, we're talking about this massive terrorist attack on the day of Soleimani's anniversary. And for four years, officials in this country have been issuing direct threats of retribution over Soleimani,

but they didn't do anything. They kept drawing red lines about the war in Gaza and warning that they may get involved, but they didn't get involved directly. What they may do, and this really fits their modus operandum, is to start an uptick in attacks by their proxies. They use their proxies for plausible deniability to say that they weren't involved, but they will then encourage them to start attacking U.S. interests, possibly Israeli interests

in the Levant, and then maybe the Houthis in the Red Sea, that we've seen so many attacks by them recently. So that's the important thing, I think, to look out for in the next 24-48 hours, whether their proxies, what they call the access of resistance, suddenly has an uptick of attacks in the Levant and the Red Sea. Even though the U.S. has warned the Houthis not to do this, it'll be interesting to see if they do this tomorrow or the next day. Ali, Arousi, Lafrosseh tonight from Iran. Ali, we thank you. Coming up next, the iPads pushing customers to a tipping point. You've seen them at coffee shops, fast food restaurants, and even at the mechanic, but are those prompts asking

for tips actually leading people to give less? We'll take a little. We'll take a little. look at the numbers and give you a reality check on when and how much you really should be tipping. That's next. We're back now with Money Talks and a question on a lot of people's minds tonight has tipping culture gone too far. We've all seen those iPads with prompts to tip popping up in more places than ever before. The trend now dubbed tipflation, but is it actually leading to people tipping less overall? CNBC's Emily Lorsch has spent the last year looking at tipping trends and has this report.

You're ready or you need more time? The tipping backlash has begun and those in the service industry already feeling the pinch. Tips have gone down. I'm making 30% less than what I typically make in a given year. According to data from Toast, the average nationwide tip at full service restaurants fell to 19.4% of the total check in the second quarter of 2023, the lowest percentage since the start of the COVID-19 pandemic. So what we're seeing now nationwide is something that is known as tipflation.

And this idea of tipflation is that pretty much at every opportunity, we're being presented with a tablet that's asking us how much we'd like to tip. I always click 20 because I feel pressured to do so, even if it's just to get a cup of coffee. This tipflation causing tipping fatigue. Consumers are fed up. I feel like now it's not great. Just everyone's so stingy, I feel like.

Tipping should be about great service. It's about someone going to the extra steps. It's not something that should be required. It's not something you go in and pay with a card and it says, okay, what kind of tip you're going to leave me? It's about service. But when you're deciding what to tap on that iPad, are you really thinking about how your choice is a,

affecting the worker behind the counter? Unfortunately, we are in a space where we do still rely on tips, and that is needed income for us to feed our families as well. The federal minimum wage is $7.25 per hour. But if you're a tipped worker, it's $2.13 per hour. Also referred to as the sub-minimum wage. The difference between the two $5.12 cents is called a tip credit. If a worker doesn't receive $5.12 an hour in tips, the employer is responsible for paying them that difference. law. Most consumers have no idea that every time you tip in a restaurant in most states, it cuts

against the workers' wage rather than being something on top of the wage. Hello, ladies. How are you? Lupe is a server at Cisco's restaurant, Bakery in Barn, Austin, Texas, one of many workers around the country who makes the federal minimum wage for tipped workers, which is $2.13 an hour, a rate that's been in place since 1991. Sometimes my kids tell me, ma, baby me something. You go, okay. Not today because mom not make money today. As of 2023, only seven states have eliminated the sub-minimum wage. These states actually have the same or in many cases higher restaurant industry business growth,

small business growth rates, job growth rates in the restaurant industry, and tipping averages than the rest of the country. But some restaurant owners in Austin, Texas, a state that abides by the federal sub-minimum wage, Say, easier said than done. The end of the day, if we were to increase our minimum wage internally, we have to then pass that off to the customer, which then likely probably tips less. These are real human beings that are going home,

dealing with things the same way you are. Ultimately, I really want all of our staff to make as much money as they can. The goal here is to continue to grow, but not have to charge people an arm and a leg to come have a really good meal. And with that, CNBC's Emily Lerner, Lores joins us now in studio. So, Emily, I want to go on the record first. Like, I think if you have great service, you should always tip. I agree. But I know we're getting into situations now where people feel like they're forced to tip. And in some situations, they really should tip, right?

Absolutely. I think that consumers really need to think about who is making that sub-minimum wage and who isn't. So who is relying on that tip. Now, historically speaking, it's going to be your waiters, your waiters, your bartenders. Those are typically workers who are making that some minimum wage and are relying on your tip. However, these days, with these iPads being flipped around, no matter where you go, we're seeing those just about everywhere, right? And so we're being asked to tip at new places. And I think consumers really need to think about,

is this historically a place that I'm being asked to tip or not? And if it's not, if it's a barista now, I mean, the other day I was asked on the Hopper app at the end, I was booking a flight, and I was asked to add a tip at the end. That typically, that worker at Hopper is not making that sub-minum wage. I think in those instances, it's okay to think about maybe giving them a smaller percentage or maybe deciding not to tip. But when you're dining out, when you're, you know, ordering a drink, those are times when these workers rely on your tip.

And experts say it's really not optional. Is there a way to tell in that situation when people need the tip? They don't need the tip. You can't really have a conversation. Also, we're talking about a couple bucks here. I mean, are you really going to stop and tell people, hey, who's getting this tip? I don't know. It's really not easy.

According to the Department of Labor, a tipped worker. is defined as a worker who makes $30 or more a month in tips. Now, these days, that could be so many different people, and it really depends on the employer and how they're paying their workers. So my advice to people trying to figure that out at checkout of whether or not this person is relying on their tip is, number one, do your research, look into your state laws, find out what the sub-minimum wage is, or if there is a sub-minimum wage in your state in seven states, there isn't a sub-minimum wage. So think about that.

And then also, don't be afraid to ask the question. Ask that manager, ask that business owner, how they're paying their workers. Yeah, I know there's sometimes at the grocery store, if you want to tip somebody who's helping bag your groceries, they'll say, oh, no, we can accept tips. Why do some businesses not let their employees accept tips? That's so interesting. I think it really just depends on the business owner. A lot of businesses now even have, you know, hospitality charges added. I went out to Austin, Texas.

I spoke with some business owners. So Austin, Texas is a place that abides by the sub-minum wage of $2.13 for tipped workers. And this restaurant owner said, that's ridiculous. I don't want to abide by that. So in order to make sure that every single worker is making at least $17 an hour, they put on a 20% hospitality charge. Now, some consumers don't like that and they disagree with it. But that's a situation where they tell people, if they do leave an enormous tip,

they walk over to the table and say, you really don't have to tip. We have that taken care of. Okay. Emily, thanks so much for joining Top Story. I really appreciate that. When we come back, a daring rescue off the coast of Oregon, a golden retriever falling off a 300-foot clover. rescue team's unable to reach him on the ground.

Coming up, you'll hear from the pilots that helped get that stranded dog to safety. Stay with us. Finally, tonight, some heart-stopping moments captured on camera after a golden retriever fell off a 300-foot cliff. The U.S. Coast Guard racing to airlift that injured dog to safety. NBC's Kathy Park spoke with the pilots that reunited the three-year-old dog with his family. It was a New Year's miracle for this goal. Golden Retriever Leo, the three-year-old running ahead of his owners while on a hike at the

Okola State Park in Oregon, plunging 300 feet down the side of a cliff. Leo incredibly survived, but was stranded on a beach that first responders couldn't reach on foot. Hoist evolution of dogs. Enter the United States Coast Guard flying into the rescue. What were some of the challenges that you guys were up against at that time? We have strong big tides here in Oregon in the Washington Coast. By the time we got out there, about 45 minutes later, we have probably lost 70 to 80% of the beach that we had seen before. But the team quickly mobilizing, deploying the rescue swimmer down from the helicopter, who then carefully approached Leo on the beach, putting him in a basket and hoising him to safety.

Our rescue swimmer said that the dog was scared, but generally seemed okay and happy probably to be helped. But his ordeal nowhere near over. Leo rushed to the closest emergency vet an hour away. He suffered from a collapsed lung, a broken jaw, and several other wounds. His family is starting a go-fund meet to help cover the thousands of dollars in medical bills. Owners Alex Ferry and Cody Chimient detailing NBC News, they're thankful Leo is alive, adding Leo wouldn't be with them if it weren't for the first responders and Coast Guard who rescued him. And our whole crew felt a strong sense of accomplishment. And it was a good way to kick off 2024.

Kathy Park, NBC News. Glad Leo was rescued and doing much better. We thank you for watching Top Story tonight. I'm Tom Yammis in New York. Stay right there. More news on the way.