the deeper is support grows amongst moss republican voters. they believe that donald trump is civil for themselves and their party. that he is being attacked is somehow an attack on them. i really don't think it was going to impact the outcome of this race. >> brendan buck and jennifer horn, thank you so much for joining us on all in tonight. >> thank you. >> that is all in on this the outcome of this race. >> thank you so much for joining us on "all in" tonight. alex wagner tonight starts right now with ali velshi in for alex. good evening, ali. >> nice to see you, my friend. . you have a great evening and thank you for being here tonight. >> thank you. >> i'm ali velshi in for alex wagner. a maga freak show.

that's how one person familiar with the january 6th trial preparations described the strategy according to rolling stone magazine. in new reporting tonight, rolling stone cites several of trump's legal and political advisers who claim the former president is demanding they incorporate fringe conspiracies into his legal defense. quote, his list of ideas has included asserting that there's evidence of anti-trump elements in the fbi framed him and maga protesters by using undercover agents and informants to instigate the deadly january 6th riot. the anarchists and left wing anti-fascists played a role in attacking the capitol that day and they gathered real evidence showing, quote, massive amount of voter and election fraud, end quote, in 2020 in swing states and heavily democratic urban areas as he has long baselessly claimed, end quote. trump's team has even discussed

calling witnesses like nancy pelosi and other political foes to the stand in an effort to paint them as the true villains of january 6th. that new reporting helped explain why just last week the special counsel jack smith asked the judge overseeing trump's federal elections case to prohibit trump from raising any of those conspiracies at trial. jack smith appears to have anticipated these fantastic absurd arguments from trump, and legally it is absurd. it's hard to see how trotting out long debunked right-wing conspiracy theories would help trump win over a jury in washington, d.c. but politically the strategy of repeating the same conspiracy theories over and over does seem to be working with many republican voters. new polling from "the washington post" finds republican voters, quote, are now less likely to believe that january 6th participants were mostly violent, less likely to believe

trump bears responsibility for the attack, and are slightly less likely to view joe biden's election as legitimate than they were in december of 2021. in follow-up interviews some voters told "the post" their views have changed because they now believe the riot was instigated by law enforcement to suppress political dissent, a baseless conspiracy theory promoted by trump and several voters cited as evidence of voter fraud, in particular the long debunked claim that georgia election workers were caught on video putting fake ballots into tallies, end quote. that theory was so outlandish a jury recently ruled rudy giuliani has to pay two georgia election workers nearly $150 million for his role in spreading baseless conspiracies about them. but despite that ruling, despite fox news settling a lawsuit for hundreds of millions of dollars

over spreading related election conspiracy theories, despite a year of hearings and testimonies from the january 6th committee debunking these claims, those conspeerlss continue to gain ground with republican voters. and now now wants to use his january 6th criminal trial to push the conspiracies even further. that is if trump does manage to see the inside of a courtroom before election day tonight. we're expecting donald trump's legal team to tell the d.c. appeals court why they believe trump should be immune from prosecution for anything he did as president. trump's federal criminal trial is effectively on pause until that question is settled, and trump's legal team is expected to push that question all the way to the supreme court in an effort to delay the case. at the same time it looks increasingly likely the supreme court is going to have to weigh in on another issue for trump, the question whether or not trump will appear on another ballot in several states. so far maine and colorado have

both determined trump is ineligible to run for president citing a clause in the 14th amendment that bars anyone who once held office and then engaged in insurrection from running for office. tonight trump's team officially appealed maine's decision to remove him from the ballot in that state citing the maine secretary of state -- calling the maine secretary of state a biased scission maker who acted in an arbitrary and capricious manner. the colorado secretary of state joined the colorado republican party and colorado voters who successfully challenged trump's eligibility in asking the supreme court to step in and settle this matter once and for all. we're also awaiting a similar filing from the trump campaign asking the court to weigh in. that filing could come at any moment as well. joining us now is the maryland congress member and member of the january 6th committee jamie raskin. he's the congressman from maryland. good to see you. thanks for being with us.

>> great to be with you, ali. >> what do you make of all the posturing about donald trump about immunity? he makes two separate cases. one, he's immune from anything he did while president, which would tackle a couple of the cases he's involved in. it wouldn't deal with everything. but the other is with respect to the election he was tried by congress and he was not convicted by the senate. you'll recall after donald trump's acquittal by the senate, mitch mcconnell himself said this is a battle for the courts to handle. apparently not for donald trump. >> yeah, well, on the first point, immunity from prosecution for crimes comitted during the course of your presidency would be a standing invitation to do what trump did to try to overthrow the government because you can never be prosecuted for trying to do that. so trump would be setting the template for people getting into office and then doing whatever they could, lie, cheat, and steal in order to convert our

constitutional democracy into a dictatorship. it's ridiculous and directly contradicted by the language that says the president can be prosecuted later. even if he's still impeached in office he's still subject to prosecution in trial and punishment. but even beyond that stuff, you know, in terms of, you know, what you're raising there, they're running around saying, well, he should be able to take office again despite section 3 of the 14th amendment. why? because it would be undemocratic to exclude him from the ballot, but of course that was a decision made when the constitution was amended in 1868. that's an argument that's more than a century too late. if they want to amend the constitution now, they should go ahead and change the constitution. they need a two-thirds vote in the house and senate and three quarters of the states.

but in any event, i would say there's different ways that people are disqualified from running from president. there's 75 million americans who can't run because of age restrictions. you've got to be 35 years old. there are 25 million people who can't run because they're american citizens but they were born abroad. these are kind of morally arbitrary distinctions, but they keep at least 100 million people from being eligible for president in this election. donald trump is in a class of maybe a dozen people who essentially have disqualified themselves under section 3 of the 14th amendment because they engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the democracy. so i would say that this is a prodemocratic provision that fortifies and strengthens democracy. >> this is what a number of the proponents of that argument say, that this is actually meant to protect democracy. one of the arguments donald trump supporters in this make is

that it hasn't been determined -- it hasn't been determined legally he was involved in an insurrection. i would argue the colorado supreme court really looked into this. they really, really studied all the ways you could interpret a rebellion and all the things that donald trump did, much of which you saw as a member of the january 6th committee, we all saw. they said that's not the part that's in question, really. >> well, it was a pain staking factual analysis that the colorado court engaged in, and they also defined an insurrection according to original sources as something more than a riot but less than a full-blown revolution. an insurrection is a riot essentially that has a political purpose. and of course that riot had a very specific political purpose, which was to block the peaceful transfer of power under the constitution and to get donald trump in. i mean imagine if vice president pence had said you know what,

you guys win, i'm buckling under and i'm going to simply declare donald trump has won, i'm going to reject electoral college votes from arizona, pennsylvania, from georgia. does anybody in his or her right mind think donald trump would have said, no, no, yo, i was just kidding. the way you really do this under the 12th amendment, under the constitution is you count all the electoral college votes, and i was just kidding about all that stuff. of course not. he would have taken the office. he would have proceeded to impose martial law as michael flynn had been urging him to do and we'd be living under a completely different government right now. so if we listen today the wisdom of the founders, if we follow the literal text of the kaunlsitution, donald trump simply can't be president again. there are tens of millions of other people in the country who can be, but he has disqualified himself under section 3 of the 14th amendment by throwing to overthrow the constitutional order. >> what do you make of the

discussions getting a lot of ink these days about whether it would be more satisfying or less satisfying to have donald trump disqualified versus defeated at the polls? >> i mean it's an irrelevant question legally speaking. at this point we should be focused on who is qualified to run and who's not qualified to run. section 3 of the 14th amendment is not some kind of aberrational, eccentric provision in the constitution. i count more than a half dozen different provisions in the constitution that specifically target insurrectionary activities. so like take article 1, section 8, clause 15, which says congress has the power to call for militias from the states in order to suppress insurrections. you look at the guarantee clause in article 4 which says congress

shall guarantee the people of the states to assist them in putting down domestic violence. you look at the treason clause, the only place where crime is defined in the constitution. it consists of levying arms against the union or adhering to the enemies thereof. so even jefferson davis, it's so interesting some people are now claiming, well, section 3 doesn't apply to the 14th amendment. jefferson davis when he was tried for treason in virginia claimed erroneously and unsuccessfully that he could not be tried for treason because he was already guilty under section 3 of the 14th amendment and therefore was being punished by not being able to serve as president. of course it's not double jeopardy because it's not even a criminal punishment. it's just stating a qualification or a disqualification for serving in federal or state office you've engaged in an insurrection or

rebellion. >> what's your sense how this plays out? donald trump has billed everything has his legal right to do that he has the right to appeal. the d.c. court of appeals of is central a couple of times. at some time we're probably going to miss the dates of which this federal trial needs to start at the beginning of march. is it your sense this will go to trial before the election? >> yes, i believe that the jack smith case will proceed on the various insurrection charges and the conspiracy to interfere and obstruct a federal proceeding and obstruction of a federal proceeding and denial of the voting rights of the people and defrauding the public. i think that those charges will be heard, and that trial will go forward. it really has to go forward. you know, otherwise it's going to create, you know, even

greater problems down the road, but i think also this section 3 of the 14th amendment question has got to be settled by the supreme court. i mean, this is the test of textualism and originalism on the supreme court. do the self-defined textualists believe their own rhetoric? when it started it was far broader. it was total disenfranchisement forever of anyone who participated in rebellion or skegz or insurrection. when it got over the senate, they said that's way too broad, let's narrow it in to the class of people office holders before, who violated their oath of office by engaging in it. and even then we're not going to disenfranchise them, someone like donald trump can continue voting, but they can serve in office again because they've proven themselves untrustworthy.

>> it's a quick you can't ride at this amusement ride at the park if you're not this tall. it's you're not qualified to be on the ballot. >> that's right. and as i was saying there's tens of millions of people not qualified to run for president either, and some of them might be perfectly qualified. i've got colleagues on the democratic side, republican side who are not 35 years old. maxwell cross would be a great president. aoc is not 35. it's not undemocratic, it's the rules of the game. and these are our rules under the constitution, and the question is whether the court is going to act like a real court. >> i'll have to ask somebody who understands the constitution as much yoz as you do to be president. jamie raskin, congressman of maryland. >> we're going to unpack the forces that led to the resignation of harvard's first black woman president including

the role of a right-wing activist who spearheaded attacks on crt and dei in academia. plus the killing of a key hamas figure in lebanon threatens to send the israel-hamas war into a wider regional conflict. we'll have that coming up next. wider regional conflict. we'll have that coming up next think you're not at risk? wake up. because shingles could wake up in you. if you're over 50, talk to your doctor or pharmacist about shingles prevention. i'm jonathan lawson, here to tell you about life insurance if you're over 50, talk to your doctor or pharmacist through the colonial penn program. if you're age 50 to 85 and looking to buy life insurance on a fixed budget, remember the three p's. what are the three p's? the three p's of life insurance on a fixed budget are price, price, and price. a price you can afford, a price that can't increase, and a price that fits your budget. i'm 54. what's my price? you can get coverage for $9.95 a month. i'm 65 and take medications. what's my price?

also $9.95 a month. i just turned 80. what's my price? $9.95 a month for you too. if you're age 50 to 85, call now about the #1 most popular whole life insurance plan available through the colonial penn program. options start at $9.95 a month. no medical exam, no health questions. your acceptance is guaranteed. and this plan has a guaranteed lifetime rate-lock, so your rate can never go up for any reason. so call now for free information, and you'll also get this free beneficiary planner. and it's yours free just for calling, so call now for free information.

here's why you should switch fo to duckduckgo on all your devie duckduckgo comes with a built-n engine like google, but it's pi and doesn't spy on your searchs and duckduckgo lets you browse like chrome, but it blocks cooi and creepy ads that follow youa from google and other companie. and there's no catch. it's fre. we make money from ads, but they don't follow you aroud join the millions of people taking back their privacy by downloading duckduckgo on all your devices today. ♪ ♪ join the millions of people taking back♪ ♪eir privacy

♪ ♪ today across the israeli occupied west bank palestinians took to the streets protesting the recent killing of a senior hamas official. he was deputy chair of the political bureau as well as commander of their military wing in the west bank and key go between between militant group

hezbollah, which is another backed group. last night he was killed in a drone strike, not in gaza, not even in the occupied west bank but outside beirut, lebanon. more simply acknowledging the strike could draw lebanon or hezbollah directly into israel's war with hamas. hezbollah for its part has called the killing, quote, a serious attack on lebanon that will never pass without a response and punishment. now, since the start of the war hezbollah fighters have been exchanging fire with israeli military across israel's northern border, but today's development, an assassination deep inside lebanon, has the potential to move the conflict one step closer to a larger regional war, and comes as israel begins to withdraw several thousand troops from

gaza in order to prepare for a prolonged fight. israeli prime minister benjamin netanyahu said this past weekend the war will go on for, quote, many more months. joining me now is a msnbc political analyst and author of the notebook on substack. thank you for being with us tonight. first of all, let's discuss there aren't many people out there who suspect this assassination was not carried out by israel. what's your sense why israel won't say so? they're not denying it, they're not acknowledging it. they're sort of skirting the issue. >> israel has a tendency and issue of being coy about these question. as you said i don't think anyone has any doubts this was israel. i would rather have israel use military force against hamas leaders than against an entire civilian population in gaza. i also understand why israelis are worried about hezbollah's military power in the north.

but my fundamental concern is this government seems to think its problems only have military solutions. it's not offering any political solution for the basic underlying cause for these conflicts. and i don't think these actions in the long run therefore are going to make israel safer. >> one of those underlying issue is palestinian leadership. there are issues about palestinian leadership in the west bank. clearly hamas came to power because of some of those issues, because of some enabling by the israeli government and because of general dissatisfaction amongst palestinians. america is sort of trying to get israel to have that discussion about what it looks like. israel has said there's no -- there's no hamas in the future of palestinian leadership, but neither do they want the palestinian authority involved in that. you and i have talked about this. how do we look toward the end of

thor war and what happens to the palestinians? >> this israeli government isn't offering any vision whatsoever that might suggest that after hamas, palestinians even if they had a completely different kind of leadership might have any path to freedom. it's frankly an occupation and as far as the eye can see. and in those circumstances israel is going to meet with more palestinian violent resistance. the only way seems to me to undermine palestinian support for the horrifying attacks is by showing palestinians that by ethical resistance, resistance that follows international law, that they can actually achieve their freedom. but this government is dominated by people who want jewish supremacy for imperpetuity between the river and the sea, and that's only going to create

more conflict. >> the right-wing far right politician has called for something people might think of as ethnic cleansing. they're talking about the mass migration of gaza's residents. benjamin netanyahu says he's in conversations with world leaders about accepting these gazan refugees. what do you make of that? the way the israeli right wing is looking at this is that the solution for gaza is there not to be palestinians in gaza. >> absolutely. this is not a marginal idea in the israeli government. we've the infinance minister, the intelligence minister according to reports and the finance minister who have all talked about what they call mass migration. when you create a humanitarian disast, it's not voluntary. you've made gaza unlivable and now israel according to reporting by the financial times and israel's own newspapers is

basically pressuring egypt to open the doors so palestinians from gaza will flee and not be allowed back. and the oshl historical irony of this is most of the people from gaza are from families of refugees to begin with. they're not from gaza. they were expelled to gaza in israel's war of independence in 1948, and now there's the prospect of another act of mass expulsion. the u.s. government needs to take this seriously and make it clear it is an absolute red line. >> peter, crow studied this for a really long time. you've read about it, you've written about it. is there a solution in your mind -- and i don't mean a solution in the short time. with the present players is that not possible? >> i don't think with the

present players. there is a principle i believe in very strongly and it is this. when people have freedom, when they have a government that actually listens to them, when they can do things like vote, then society's become more peaceful because most people and sometimes they do as hamas on october 7th horrifying things under those circumstances. if you want to make society more peaceful, you need to give people their freedom. that in the long-term whether it's freedom in one state or freedom in another state where palestinians have citizenship and the right to vote just as we saw in northern ireland, also places where there was terrible, terrible violence you saw things became much more peace for for all people when all people got their political freedom. >> thank you for being us. an msnbc political analyst, and he's the editor at large.

still ahead tonight how donald trump has turned dozens of criminal charges into a rallying cry that could catapult him back to the white house. but first two down. that's how congressman elise stefanik marked the resignation today. we'll talk to a harvard professor about this political campaign against leaders and why conservatives leading the charge are promising to keep it going. that's next. are promising to keep it going that's next.

i'd like to make it explicit, the president of the white house, it's within their authority and power to immediately issue an executive order abolish critical race theory trainings from the federal government. >> that was a conservative activist christopher rufo in september of 2020 making an explicit request that former president trump issue an executive order abolishing critical race theory training from the federal government. he is likely the reason your conservative uncle knows the phrase critical race theory to begin with. he's the reason fox news became obsessed with it and the reason trump became obsessed with it as a buzz term for pretty much anything to do with race. we go thanks to reporting from "the washington post" when rufo made his request, trump was watching. within a month trump issued an executive order demanding that no federal money be used for critical race theory.

chris roughfo got what he asked for. after that rufo's anti-crt campaign ginned up enough conservative pressure against nicole hannah jones, the cofounder of the 1619 project that the university of north carolina denied her tenure. jones had a pulitzer prize, a macarthur genius grant, and support from the school's chancellor and faculty. but conservative pressure worked. rufo then set his sights on florida. he helped florida governor ron desantis craft legislation like the stop woke act that restricted discussions of race and gender in schools, universities, and workplaces. early last year desantis appointed rufo as one of the members of the board of trustees for florida's public university new college. there again rufo published his goal early and loudly. he tweeted, quote, we'll be

shutting down low performing ideologically captured academic departments and hiring new faculty. we'll recruit new students who are mission aligned. at new college board meetings rufo made clear he did not care if his goals failed to win hearts and minds. >> one of the items that we discussed -- that i discussed today with governor desantis and legislators present is that diversity, equity, and inclusion which sounds great but in practice divides people and offers separate judgments on the basis of race and identity -- >> your opinions don't matter. >> my opinion does matter unfortunately for you. >> his opinion does matter. within a month of that comment rufo's board of trusties had aball jgsed the equity and inclusion office and recruited professors more in line with their conservative mission.

since rufo's board took over more than a third of the former faculty have resigned and about 125 students have chosen not to return. rufo's plan worked and now today we're seeing the impact of rufo's latest crusade, a crusade against the first black woman to serve as president of the oldest institution of higher education in the country, harvard president claw dean gay. last month rufo tweeted, quote, we launched the claw den gay plagiarism story from the right. in the past few weeks allegations harvard's president had plagiarized academic work accomplished exactly what rufo predicted. they went from rufo's blog to conservative publications to mainstream publications like "the new york times." now harvard itself has investigated the allegations and found they are at worst

instances of inadequate citation, but they are not what the word plagiarism makes you think of. gay was not stealing anyone's ideas nor was she presenting other people's ideas as her own. nevertheless, today claudine gay resigned anyways. this is also a story of bad actors like chris rufo trying to bend academia toward their own ideological missions. we're going to talk to a current esteemed harvard professor about all of this and the other bad faith argument used to chase president gay out and what it means for discourse in this country after this. it means for discourse in this country after this until they're gone for good. shipstation saves us so much time it makes it really easy and seamless pick an order print everything you need slap the label on ito the box and it's ready to go our cost for shipping, were cut in half

just like that go to shipstation/tv and get 2 months free i'm jonathan lawson, here to tell you about life insurance just like that through the colonial penn program. if you're age 50 to 85 and looking to buy life insurance on a fixed budget, remember the three p's. what are the three p's? the three p's of life insurance on a fixed budget are price, price, and price. a price you can afford, a price that can't increase, and a price that fits your budget. i'm 54. what's my price? you can get coverage for $9.95 a month. i'm 65 and take medications. what's my price? also $9.95 a month. i just turned 80. what's my price? $9.95 a month for you too. if you're age 50 to 85, call now about the #1 most popular whole life insurance plan available through the colonial penn program. options start at $9.95 a month.

no medical exam, no health questions. your acceptance is guaranteed. and this plan has a guaranteed lifetime rate-lock, so your rate can never go up for any reason. so call now for free information, and you'll also get this free beneficiary planner. and it's yours free just for calling, so call now for free information.

there is a reason that the testimony of the presidents of harvard, person, and m.i.t. made history as the most viewed testimony ever with over 1 million views. >> republican congresswoman elise stefanik was celebrating the resignation of claudine gay. it comes a month after stefanik pressed the presidents of the university of pennsylvania, the massachusetts institute of technology, and harvard about anti-semitism on their campuses in the wake of the october 7th terrorist attacks on israel.

stefaniking to issues with the leader's lawyerly answers to the question, does calling for the genocide of jews violate your views on bullying and harassment. stefanik called for all three university presidents to be ousted. when liz mcgill resigned from that school's board stefanik celebrated. she celebrated today, quote, i'll always deliver results. this is just the beginning what will be the greatest scandal of any college or university in history. joining me now is a harvard university professor in studies of women, gender, and sexuality and in african american studies. professor perry, it's good to see you. normally i get to talk about fun things like literature and books. this feels to me to be very dark what has happened here. it's a confluence of a whole bunch of nefarious interests have got together to oust claudine gay. at first it was ostensibly about

college campuses and chris rooufo took great pride he say going to oust her and now she's out. >> i think one of the things that's been lost in so much of the conversation is how challenging it was to be in a position leader of any university at this moment. we have all these constituencies. we have the board, faculty, alums, and we have donors all with varying investments in this moment of intense political conflict, a historic moment i think in many ways of devastating proportions. and so it was really difficult i think to be a leader and then to have this concerted effort that was really part of a kind of comprehensive decision to commit to keeping certain kinds of people out of the institutional

spaces and also to keeping knowledge about them out of these institutional spaces for ideological purposes. it's altogether quite harrowing. i think there is -- there's a concerted effort to oust some of us from being in places that are deemed prestigious and sources of knowledge, and that happens from k-12 all the way to universities and claudine gay is the latest victim of those efforts. >> i would argue most people don't know the names of too many university presidents. they come and go. they've existed for a long time. we don't necessarily know their politics. we certainly haven't read their theses or whatever it is. claudine gay came under remarkable scrutiny, and it wasn't accidental. it was a project really. this project to oust university presidents including claudine gay was helmed by what i think are very odd bedfellows. chris rooufo of the manhattan institute who's come out against

dei or crt and he doesn't know what crt is or at least he does and he misrepresents it. jonathan greenblack from the anti-defamation league, elise stefanik, who's not articulated a particular apprehension of anti-semites of the time and suddenly this was her charge. what happened here? how did this come together to end up ousting claudine gay? >> it's hard to fully understand it, and i think it'll take some time to actually pull apart all the elements. what's remarkable i think is how transparent the interest was, though, in getting rid of her. and what's alarming is that it seems to be the case these political forces can, you know, dismantle the structure of higher education as well as k-12 education. and universities are supposed to be places where there are a range of ideas where people can

debate, where people can develop, where people can be in conflict, where people can grow. and we seem to be finding ourselves in a kind of neo-mccarthiest moment driven by political actors who have not necessarily all the same interests but for the fact they are resistant to the idea of sort of multiracial democratic order with people of varying identities taking various positions. and so, you know, it's a dark day, it's a devastating day. i do hope, though, those of us who believe in principles of democracy and deliberation and intellectual openness and free speech actually -- you know, true free speech can actually sort of push back against this. >> you and have spent a lot of time talking about banned books. because of that we believe in free speech. you're also a person written about some of these things that

make people uncomfortable in this challenging time. chris rooufo, a lot of people may not know about it. he tweeted recently. he said i am contributing an additional $10,000 to plagiarism hunting fund. we'll expose the rot in the ivy league and restore truth rather than racialist ideology as the highest principle in academic life. now, i would argue that you in your writings, your books, your teaching, you are pursuing truth. you would like truth to be known you don't think people have heard before. but some would put people like you you or claudine gay or anybody into a bucket of racialist ideology. >> sure. and the very formulation is predicated on the fallacy there's a singular truth, right? ideas and history are constantly under debate. interpretations are subject to debate. we look at varying pieces of evidence, we organize them in various ways, and we try to come

to our best account of what happened or what should be or how we describe the world. you know, to reduce on the one hand any discussion of race and racial inequality to racialist ideology and on the other to propose a kind of singular truth that an individual, sort of a self-donned individual who can be the arbiter of truth and the other is alarming and manipulative to a general public in ways that are clearly quite damaging. and this will have a chilling effect, without question. both on this institutions that will shy away from embracing scholars that push us to think critically about the world and from scholars who do not want to put themselves under this kind of scrutiny and exposure. >> dr. perry, thank you for joining us tonight. we always appreciate your time.

amani perry, a professor in studies of gender, women, and sexuality and african american studies at harvard. how donald trump transformed a string of political failures in his third run at the white house into staggering political fortune. that's next. staggering politic fortune. that's next.

when donald trump aflounced his third run for the presidency he didn't do so from a position of strength despite the image that he sought to project. republicans were coming off a bruising failure in the mid-term elections. many blamed trump for their losses after voters rejected somebody of his hand picked senate candidates in key races. add to that dozens of grand jury subpoenas that have gone out to members of trump's orbit as part of the federal investigation into january 6th. some of his advisers had begun testifying before the grand jury and then newly lected florida governor ron desantis was hinting at the possibility of a presidential run and shoring up support to beat trump.

13 months later donald trump appears on track to easily win his party's nomination. new national polling shows donald trump leading his closest opponent, nikki haley, by 49 points. and trump's 91 felony charges appear to be having little to no negative impact on his base of support. new reporting from "the washington post" describes donald trump's turnaround this way. he's turned his criminal indictments into a rallying cry. his gop opposition has so far fail today coalesce around a single challenger and his political operation has been so far disciplined than in the past with savvy moves such as changing contest rules, lining up supportive delegates and pressuring republicans to come to his defense. joining us now is "the washington post" national political reporter and coauthor of that piece. he's also the author of the forthcoming book "finish what we started, the maga movement's ground war to end democracy."

thanks for being with us and thanks for your reporting. those poll numbers are fascinating. we were showing some polling early in the show, mainstream republicans are less likely to blame donald trump for january 6th and more likely to think maybe joe biden didn't win the election. to what do you attribute all of this? >> well, there have been a few factors. one, you mention the failure of the opposition within the republican party to coalesce around a message against him, and it wasn't for lack of trying. our reporting found that there was -- there were a lot of well-funded efforts throughout 2023 to find attacks on trump that would work with republican primary voters, and they basically came up empty because they were just hitting this wall of how much republican primary voters still like donald trump and how much they resented attacks on him. a lot of those attacks actually backfired on the other

candidates when they tried them. the other thing that happened was ron desantis who a lot of republicans who wanted to move on from trump were pinning their hopes on right after the mid-terms, he waited a really long time to get in. he waited until may, and part of that had to do with needing to change the law in florida so that he could run as a sitting governor, but that gave trump a lot -- a huge head start, but he just pummels desantis and starts to steadily bring down his poll numbers with desantis -- without any outfit around him to respond. the other thing we have to mention is the prosecutions, the indictments, which are certainly causing trump a lot of trouble now and could be a different story in the general election. but the effect in the primary was to rally republicans around him and make a lot of republican voters want to support him because of those prosecutions. >> one of the things you

reported on is trump's team actually testing attacks against trump in focus groups. i'm assuming that they were honest about it, they were in good faith, they were trying to figure out what attack would stick, and they largely found nothing. >> well, that's standard in a campaign. you have to figure out what your vulnerabilities are so you can figure out how to respond to them. so it was both the trump campaign that was testing that, and the other candidates and even major donors who weren't necessarily affiliated with a campaign but were sort of testing the waters, you know, if they're going to write a huge check to attack trump, you know, a lot of these are investors who want to know they want to get some return on on that investment. and i spoke to one republican operative who recalled observing one of these focus groups, and they tried explaining to the republicans in the focus group that trump promised to build a wall, that was like his signature campaign promise in 2016, and there is no wall on

the u.s.-mexico border. and there was a woman in the group who said, well, actually he must have meant to do that. he intentionally left gaps in the wall because that way it would herd the migrants into those gaps and make them easier to detain. and the operative told me watching this and just thinking how can you possibly argue with that kind of thinking. >> isaac, how much of this has to do with a polarized news environment where people just get different stories, their realities of what donald trump is and the things he says are entirely different including the fact he sort of uses increasingly authoritarian and dictatorial rhetoric that would generally turn people off in a democracy and it's not with his supporters. >> he's been speaking to right-wing media and his supporters directly. he hasn't faced a main stream interview in quite some time, several months. and so he's intentionally going

around, and that changed, you know, early on in the primary when he was trying to use an advantage of media coverage over ron desantis. there was a lot more access, and that's changed as he has increased his lead. and you see the effect of that in "the washington post" poll that you referenced earlier. and those -- the number of republicans who believe that january 6th was a -- was an fbi sting operation or something like that, or that the election wasn't legitimate, those numbers have actually increased since 2021. >> some wild reporting, isaac, but thank you for doing it. national political reporter, we appreciate your time tonight. "way too early" with jonathan lemire is up next. a key senior hamas leader killed in an attack in