of banks, big pharma, even top administration officials. katie porter. never taken corporate pac money - never will. leading the fight to ban congressional stock trading. and the only democrat who opposed wasteful “earmarks” that fund politicians' pet projects. katie porter. focused on your challenges - from lowering housing costs to fighting climate change. shake up the senate - with democrat katie porter. i'm katie porter and i approve this message. you know, it's almost like some people on capitol hill don't actually want to solve the immigration crisis.

that couldn't be. or could it? tonight on laura coates live. let's be clear. there is no border deal yet. senate negotiators are trying to dot the "is" to cross the "ts" and there's no clear sign when they might get there. that's not stopped republicans in the house for not declaring the not yet final deal dead on arrival. >> we have a responsibility, a duty to the american people, to insist that the border catastrophe has ended. and trying to whitewash that or do it for political purposes, that it apoors it may be, is not going to cut it. that's a nonstarter in the house. >> now, john cornyn says the gop is debating whether to ditch the border deal and move ahead with money for ukraine and israel.

one senator, jon tester, has had, well, just about enough of the entire thing. and i'm quoting here. this place is so god damn dysfu dysfunctional, that was a little too natural. that's not part of my lexicon but i was quoting somebody in congress. tonight, we're going in-depth on the crisis and the politics behind it all, including the house. do ton tonight, kicking off the attempt of defeating the secretary for infl inflation. what is behind the dpram ma. joining me here, melanie and white house correspondent for "the new york times." i'm thankful that both of you are here. the rhetoric, the lack of text. what is there?

is there anything to actually sink one's teeth into? >> no. there's no build up yet. and this deal is on life support. to have the snenate republicans who are discussing whether to walk away and put forward a more stand alone, straightforward bill for ukraine and israel. no decisions have been made. but there's questions and doubts about whether this is going to come to the senate floor. and even if it does, speaker j johnson has made clear that it has zero pathway in the house. there's republicans reluctant to back this deal. they know former president trump is against it. and it's going nowhere in the house anyway. that's caused frustration inside the gop. listen to kramer, who is closely aligned to donald trump. >> here's what i worry about. if we don't try to do something

when we have the moment to do something, all of those swing voters in swing states, for whom the border is the number one priority, has every right to say you blew your opportunity. >> we are hearing from republicans, they are starting to change their tune. they want border policy changes on the border in exchange for ukraine aid. now, some are saying that biden has the power to act and there's no need for legislation. clearly, they are moving the goal post here. the likelihood of a deal is looking grim. >> let's bring us to the house. you did this in-depth dive. i was talking to you about it in the green room. i don't wear makeup. it was a deep dive in "the new york times." you go into detail about how this is horrible news, on top of horrible news for the biden administration. although, it's been decades in

the making of an immigration crisis, he chose to lead to compassion, be the foil to his predecessor, donald trump. it's been comxos exacerbated. >> i've covered this going back to the trump administration. there's definitely a difference between the biden that campaigned for president, talking about this issue. talking about moving away from the trump era policies. expanding asylum, restoring compassion and humanity when it comes to the border. >> good to campaign on. >> good to campaign on, hard to govern on. we've seen this through key points of the administration. as soon as coming into office, you see a record number of children coming from central america. and the president did say, he was not going to rapidly turn away those children crossing alone from the border, like president trump did.

you did also see, the white house delay something like the refugee camp in the country. let's keep going. a surge of haitian migrants ena beach in del rio. we talked to advisers who said that was almost a breaking point for them and the administration. >> the border patrol agents on the horseback? >> a lot of people focus on the border patrol agents on the horseback. the president did come out and did condemn that action. what the officials that we talked to, who were so angry, said there was a lot of attention on those photos. not as much on the fact that ththe ed administration was putting migrants on planes and sending them back to haiti that is in turmoil at this point. port-au-prince, sending some of aslum seekers there. that was a breaking point.

there's been a push and pull between advisers. some advocates that have left the administration. >> in protest. >> including some that left during that moment in 2021. on the other side, you have people that more enforcement-minded, as well. this push and pull has existed in the administration. to a point you have a president that came into office pledging compassion and humanity and expanding asylum programs to one that in the last week, echoed language from the former president when he said he was ready to shut down the border. >> you hear all of that p you're covering the hill and this push and pull. the inability to say yes for an answer. this could go back to a separate bill between ukraine and israel,

isn't that how we had this before this frustration happened in the first place. you hear the description of how much it is a problem within the administration, is it a wonder it's leaking outside? >> you're right to point this out. this is the most conservative immigration proposal that's been discussed on capitol hill in probably decades. and republicans realize that, too. they know this is probably the last and best chance to do some of the things they have campaigned on and talked about for so long. yet, it is slipping away from them right now. >> i always invite the audience into our conversation. we've invited questions from the audience going on my social media. here's one of the questions from the audience. republicans now saying biden doesn't need legislation.

he has executive power. here's a question from a viewer who asks, many republican lawmakers say that president biden has the authority to solve the problem at the border. many democrats say it must be solved through legislation. what can actually the be done when members of congress squabble like children? >> some of the things that republicans are calling for have been tide up in the courts. restoring like the remain in mexico policy, that forced migrants to wait in mexico. that was executive action. that forced migrants to wait in mexico until the asylum case was caught up. title 42, that was a covid authority. the pandemic is over. it's noting for this question, too, that republicans are calling for executive action. i remember not too long ago, republicans were saying we need a legislative fix.

>> as in yesterday. >> what the administration can do in the meantime, they have limited options here. but one thing that i would watch out for is, just a couple weeks ago, the border crossings in the past, were about 11,000 a day, at the southwest border. the administration had a pretty pivotal moment, where president biden was on the phone. on the phone with the president of mexico. he urged him to send his stop officials to mexico. some of the things the united states has done in the past, the limited options, i would expect them to continue to push mexico to increase enforcement at the border with guatemala. the biden administration said they have a more regional approach with some of the countries to stop migrants before they get to the border. i spent about three months in the region, in our mexico city

bureau and found that's not always a seamless relationship. you have some countries busting migrants. i would watch that, in terms of what the president could do. working with others in the region. >> thank you so much and thank you for inviting your questions in, as well. thank you. tonight, we've been telling you house republicans are moving that much closer to impeachment. impeaching homeland security secretary mallorcas. they claim he committed high crimes for handling the southern border. some say that the evidence doesn't reach that high bar. let's bring in cnn contributor and former nixon white house counsel, john dean. i was eager to talk to you about this. every time i think about the high crime and misdemeanor standard, overtime, especially in this instance, it's been

questioned whether it meets it. republicans can claim high crimes and misdemeanors, but this is a policy dispute. how do you see it? >> laura, there is no defined term for high crimes and misdemeanors. and gerald ford, before becoming vice president, famously said the high crime or misdemeanor is whatever the house of representatives votes that it is. that's very true in a practical kind of sense. there is no standard. it was considered before to be a criminal activity. that was the lore and the norm. that's been abandoned by the current republican thinking. >> we're seeing inside of the committee room, where they are debating this issue. we'll see how all of this unfolds. the expectation is the resolution in the wee hours of

the morning. what else is new, congress? no cabinet member has been impeached since the grant administration. 150 years ago. have we lost the sense that impeachment was absolutely a lost last resort? my children were 9 and 11. are we long past the time of the means of last resort? >> well, cabinet officers have long been immune from this kind of politics and reformtive politics that we're seeing from republicans. this is beyond the boundaries of what is the norm. is it possible? is it permissible? is it legal? yes. is it acceptable? is it good policy or good process? no. this is taking advantage of a very important tool of democracy

and using it as a tactic that is going to weaken democracy ultimately. it's shameful what we're seeing, laura. but it is what we got today. >> let's follow the thread, though. if it's diluting the process, considered to be the political weapon that can be wielded in the instance it is warranted, here, you mentioned performtive. the senate is likely to never reach the two-thirds majority to convict. is the performtive aspect of this part of the process to raise awareness or serve as a notice to other governing bodies? >> i think this is harassment of a cabinet secretary. sadly. what they are doing, yes, they are focused on the issue of what to do on the border.

they're not willing to have a legitimate discussion, where they commit to doing something that is useful. this is a substitute. they can go home and say we impeached the secretary of homeland security for not enforcing policy, which they won't give him the strength or the manpower to enforce in an effective way, now that the president says he is ready to go. that hasn't been resolved but this is one of the substitutes they can slide in there, as a pretend that they have taken some action for their const constituency. i am hopeful they're opponents w their opponents will run on this and say this is pure show. this is theater. >> i can imagine the retort is, pot calling kettle block, even it's not warranted. and we know that. thank you so much. we're continues to watch what's happening in that committee room. we'll bring you the latest when we have it.

john dean, thank you, as always. >> thanks, laura. the bipartisan effort? that's not an oxy moran. an bipartisan effort, an issue voters care about. why can't congress get a border bill done? that's next.

this place is so god damn dysfunctional. those are the words of jon tester, playing bear the growing acrimony on capitol hill. will they be able to solve the border crisis? let's talk about it now, with ashley allison, who served as the national coalition director for the biden/harris 2020 campaign. and former republican congressman from pennsylvania,

charlie dent. you've been hearing about the bipartisan effort, the role of donald trump in all of this. speaker mike johnson saying it was laughable or whatever the phrase was, they would stop because of trump. why can't this get done? >> because a rumbling of the house gop is trying to insist on a policy outcome. they don't want ukraine funding. many of them said, in the house and the senate, we need a border fix for ukraine funding. now, they are saying they don't want the border fix. james lankford has negotiated right of center policy than republicans would like. this is a cynical ploy to blow up donald trump, who is stirring the pot here. he doesn't want a deal. he thinks it helps biden the in tend, it will hurt republican because they will own some of the border dysfunction by failing to do anything. >> on that point, charlie, you

think about that. the blame. will the blame be the failure to accomplish or the coddling of a candidate? which is the blame? >> a lot of this has to do with donald trump. donald trump wants to blow up this deal. he sees joe biden benefiting politically. biden is being harmed by the border chaos. but republicans are failing to act while a crisis is going on right now. nikki haley is attacking donald trump over this. this is a mistake. the bigger issue becomes what happens if there's a failure in ukraine, if putin prevails. will republicans own that, just as biden owned the botched withdrawal from afghanistan. it's a cynical ploy. many republicans want to fund ukraine. if they can't do the border, the speaker is going to be under tremendous pressure from his own

members to bring up the ukrainian funding vote. he has to do it. i don't know how you do nothing. >> and separately, we bring you back to square one, before they attach it to border security. if that's right back where you started from, what does that mean for the democrats? republicans could be blamed for a lot of this. democrats don't escape the wrath of voters who say congress is dysfunctional. >> well, look, we can start with the beginning point. we need to do something and we need a broader approach to immigration reform. what do democrats do? in ten months, there's ele elections. the wing of the republican party that you're talking about, it's up to republicans to get them out. they are dysfunctional and

preventing any governing from happening. democrats could go hard at the districts. some of them are red and will never flip. the majority in the house is so slim. if democrats played their cor c right, they might be able to take the house back. the senate is a harder thing. this is a split government. the democrats having the white house and the senate. but republicans have the take some responsibility. they are not trying to -- the overwhelming majority is not trying to find a solution. and republicans often say, joe biden is so rod cal. he is so to the left. charlie just pointed out, this is a conservative bill. it's not like the progressive wing is running laps of victory. he is realizing he has so many levers he can pull. democrats are working for a solution. and some republicans are, as well. will they remain hostage to the

folks in the republican party who just don't want solutions at this point? >> well, right now, up to the speaker. we'll see if the senate passes this bill. the speaker has to make a chase to do something on the border mayhem and not to fund ukraine. i think the consequences of doing nothing could be terrible for the gop. with the geopolitical level of ukraine. the speaker will be under pressure to act. he does not have a functional majority in the house to deal with. it's razor-thin. if he had a few more votes, he couldn't pass an appropriation bill. >> we were on capitol hill when the last speaker vote was going. we spent some time together. if he does this deal, is he the next kevin mccarthy? >> no. republicans would be crazy to va gate -- given the political dynamics.

a good deal they could lose the house majority, anyway. why would they do that on the eve of election? i think he's going to be safe. this doesn't mean the right wing is going to the minority and might not keep him. >> while they have him here, i have to know about the investigation by the d.o.j. they are alleging she hired her husband as security and you can have purchases if it's the fair market value. that's the crux of the investigation. i understand it. when you look at this and see this investigation, whether it is fruitful or not, menendez, being indicted, you got jamal bowman having the issue of the fire alarm pulling and how have you been looking at your former colleagues as a whole? how people are viewing the institution. everything points to the core

issues and the distractions of the individual issues. this is a terrible look. i don't know if she used d fedl funds or not. you can't use funds to pay for your immediate fachlly. members of congress have always paid members of their family to run campaigns. it's a terrible look. i was chair of the ethics committee. when the public sees members of congress indicted, they get back to the culture of corruption issue. and we had george santos recently. it's a pox on both houses. >> what is your reaction? >> i don't know the details of all of this. let the investigation play out. what i don't like is the response that a congressman made, saying, calling her husband a thug.

saying she was quiet. didn't need that much security. that kind of language is inappropriate. not one that people that hold the title of congressman should have. we need people in our elected offices that have a little more integrity with their words than that. >> mud slinging on capitol hill. who would imagine the day? thank you so much. now, the question, how do you beat donald trump in court? there's a number of prosecutors and litigants who are asking that very question. i have someone who did, who will explain his take next.

i think he's having a midlife crisis i'm not. you got us t-mobile home internet lite. after a week of streaming they knocked us down...

...to dial up speeds. like from the 90s. great times. all i can do say is that my life is pre-- i like watching the puddles gather rain. -hey, your mom and i procreated to that song. oh, ew! i think you've said enough. why don't we just switch to xfinity like everyone else? then you would know what year it was. i know what year it is.

some pretty major legal decisions are hanging in the balance concerning donald trump. is he immune from prosecution? is his new york business empire or career over? and will he have to pay hundreds of millions of dollars? we'll learn all of this soon. prosecutors involved in all of those cases take note of my next guest. he prosecuted the case against trump university and won. tristan snell is here and he is author of the new book, taking down trump, 12 rules for prosecuting donald trump from someone who did it successfully. >> reporter: prosecutors are leaning in to wonder about this notion. you won a major fraud

settlement. $25 million against him. we know that e. jean carroll, $83 million. i am not besting in any way. i wonder how you viewed that trial. >> i thought they handled it well. this is really piggybacking off of the trial from last year. things that were decided in that were carried over to the next one. trump and his lawyer did not make matters better for themselves to relitigate the findings from that earlier trial. all it did was make them look terrible and lacking in contrition in front of the new jury. and they threw a huge punitive judgment at him. >> tell me about the conduct in the courtrooms. you must have been watching, comparing to your own experience. what did you make based on your experience, actually suing him? >> we never got to have him come the court with us. on the other side of it. we never got presented by the lovely prospect of having him

storm off in a huff. that must have looked good in front of the jury, too. you know, there's -- why didn't you get there? >> we never got to that point because he hadn't shown up for any of the other proceedings running up to trial. going up against his lawyers. now, that was -- there's some similarities between that situation and what you see today. but trump really made his situation a lot worse going to court. every time he steps inside the courtroom, he makes his situation worse. >> i ask viewers their take on it. and they ask questions of my guest. i have one for you, as well. someone on instagram following me. which upcoming court decision, motion, appeal or verdict, involving donald trump, will have the most impact on his behavior? what do you think? >> i would go and say that would be the january 6th criminal trial we have forgotten.

we are thinking about scotus and the d.c. circuit. they're going to rule and probably sayi ing that trump is not immune. we'll have trial on this. it's as early as march 4th, that's five weeks from now. it may happen weeks after that. it may be a delay of weeks, not months. i think we're going to get a guilty verdict on one count in that d.c. case. you know, nothing like a criminal imprisonment to change someone's behavior. >> right now, he's been quiet with an $83.3 million verdict. we haven't heard much from him, in stark contrast to how he has been in the past. i wonder if there's a monetary insentive, as well. we may think about teflon don. you think about stonewalling, instead. what do you think? >> the stonewalling is part of his playbook. how do you overcome his

playbook? the stonewalling and the delays and the assassination, the counterattacks. that's part of the playbook there. you have to overcome that. e. jean carroll and the legal team did a masterful job of handling all after that. they didn't pay attention. tish james in new york, the new york a.g. has done a great job of that. not paying attention to the counterattacks and the clown show that shows up with these cases. that's a lot of the key to meeting him. you can't let him make it about something else. you need to focus on your facts, your law, argue the case in front of the court. keep pushing. don't give up. don't get distracted. they are following the playbook, that the a.g.'s office came up with in the university case and you're seeing the results. >> tell me about d.a.fani

willis. will trump capitalize on her being the story? >> i believe personally, there's a very good chance that trump is part of all of that. i don't believe that one or the other defendants came up with this idea. and the soon-to-be ex-wife of this one gentleman decided to make it an issue. it very much looks like the trump playbook in action. to come up with a side show thing that can hopefully divert everybody's attention. i think the key there is for willis, to not bring it up at all. don't say anything about it. keep pushing ahead. the best response she can make is to flip another witness. that would be the best countermove. i'm continuing on with my case. your move. >> well. whether that's checkmate or not is anyone's guess. "taking down trump: 12 rules for

prosecuting donald trump by someone that did it successfully." his name, tristan snell. there's big developments in the trial of the mother of the michigan school shooter. including newly released video of her in the back of a place car after the shooting. i'll tell you about the dramatic day in court next.

another day of shocking testimony in the involuntary manslaughter trial for jennifer crumbibly. newly released video shows her after her son, ethan, was taken in court. we got to see photos inside the home. you can see two bullet-riddled gun range targets hanging on his wall. and a bowl of spent shell casings on his bedside table. inside the parents' bedroom, a gun safe that held two firearms. the password for that gun case, the default code, 000. the dean at that oxford high school. he spoke about the meeting he had with the parents on the day of the shooting. that meeting was over concerns raised from this drawing, that included a picture of a gun and the words, "the thoughts won't

stop. help me." the dean explaining he returned the backpack to him without searching it because there was no reason to suspect any wrongdoing, according the testimony. the bag contained the weapon used in the shooting. let's talk about this with joey jackson. i've been thinking about this trial and i thought of you. the dean had this to say on the stand. listen. >> did jennifer crumbley ever tell you she had given her son a handgun before this drawing was created? >> would have that completed a full picture? >> it owould have. it would have changed the process we followed. >> how is a jury going to see all of that? >> nice to be with you.

this cuts in both ways. in the first instance, a jury can evaluate this and say this is the school misplacing responsibility. this is the dean. the dean had reason to know and see there was a photo, blood on the photo, a gun on the photo. you saw and noticed that photograph, didn't you? you had the ability to see that bag. you had the ability to rummage through that bag. this is the photo here. you said on the stand, if you learned about a gun, it would have changed the equation. did you ask that question? should you have asked that question? could you have asked that question? on the one hand, it's the school deflecting blame and saying, no. on the other hand, you're the school, you're the dean, and you should know. and these are going to be the arguments. you see the photo and you see the bullets and the art and the house, this cuts both ways. in terms of the photo we were

looking at just before, with the bullets and the pictures there, the reality is, we are a big second amendment country. people have a right to bear arms. not 15-year-olds. but people hunt. people use weapons, et cetera. if you have something in your haem that reflects bullet casings or the fact that you went to the shooting range and shot up different things, so what? people do that. is that indicative of a person who is going to go to a school? and is it foreseeable that if you shoot with your family as a hobby, you're going to do that? these are fair game to argue. the prosecution will argue it for its purposes. the defense will say, it's not right to do that. and she had no idea that her son was capable of this. and that's what you're seeing. >> when i hear you, i this i about foreseeability, who had the ability to act and what was knowable at the time.

she is being tried separately from her husband. that dean is not on trial. i sense a moment of pointing fingers in different directions. you use the term deflection in this instance. we've seen behind the scenes as to whether or not she was unnoticed, she can expect this behavior. her former boss testified, discussing these texts with her on the day of the shooting. here's what crumbley said, i need my job. don't judge me for what my son did? how do you think about that text going into evidence? the jury is going to be scrutinizing everything that happened that day. her demeanor. her words. her texts and her concern about her livelihood. >> without question. what you summed up perfectly. foreseeability is at issue.

to what extent do you have a gun that a child has? it's reasonably foreseeable that a child would do this. were you not on notice of your son's maladies. did you do enough? did the school do enough? and you get to the issues of the text they showed. the jury could say how selfish of you. you are thinking about your job and the reality is that your son engaged in such carnage at the school. four precious lives of children are lost and you're worried about your job? really? how dare you? on the other hand, people know and understand that self-preservation is important. people need jobs to survive and live and support themselves, and should not be judged by what their children do. like all evidence, it will be evaluated and spun in one way, if you're the prosecutor and another way if you're the defense. >> joey jackson, seeing both sides of the issue. the jury is going to have to

weigh all of this. thank you so much. we'll keep on this story. it's that important. thank you, joey jackson. >> always. up next, remembering broadway icon chita rivera.

♪ ♪ come on, baby why don't we paint the town ♪ ♪ and all that jazz ♪ i can't help it. i'm singing with her. she painted the town every

imaginable color. tonight, broadway is mourning the loss of one of its most iconic and pioneering actresses, the great chita rivera. her publicist tells cnn rivera died in new york following a brief illness. her career spanned decades as a singer, a dancer, as an actress and as a star. she was the original anita in the 1957 broadway musical "west side story." she starred in 18 broadway shows and won her first tony award in 1984 for "the rink." she won a second tony award in 1993 for "kiss of the spider woman." ♪ rivera became so legendary, she amassed heaps of awards that

would take me all day to talk about it. in 2002, she became the first hispanic woman to receive the prestigious kennedy center honor. former president obama awarded her the presidential medal of freedom in 2009. in 2018, she got a special tony award for lifetime achievement. now, along with serivera's riseo stardom in new york city, she forged a path for other latino artists, as a proud puerto rican. she entertained generations for more than 60 years. chita rivera, what a life. ♪ ♪ somebody's going to rob them when they're out making more ♪ what for i don't lock the door ♪

you can make money the hard way as a bullfighter or a human cannonball... or save money the easy way, with xfinity mobile. existing customers can get a free line of our most popular unlimited plan for a year! not only will you save hundreds but you'll also be joining millions who have connected to america's most reliable 5g network. sure is a lot safer than becoming a stuntman for money. get a free line of unlimited intro for a year when you buy one unlimited line. plus, get the new samsung galaxy s24 on us.