very specific list of medications that the hostages require that the qataris which is related to france, for every one box for the hostages, a thousand boxes go to the palestinian people and those boxes have arrived at the border. there are inspe inspections tha being carried out and the hope is that it will be in full swing by tomorrow morning. >> i'm sure it needs to be getting there pretty fast. richard engel, thank you very much. that's going to do it for me today. "deadline: white house" starts right ♪♪ ♪♪ hi, everyone. it is 4:00 here in new york. i'm alicia menendez in for nicole wallace. right now an extraordinary moment unfolding in a courthouse, with trump a few feet away from her e. jean carroll is on the stand and lisa

rubin will join the program. we will begin with e. jean carroll's testimony so far. today she told the jury one of the most powerful men on the planet assaulted her, lied about it and ruined her reputation. to have the president of the united states, one of the most powerful persons on earth call me a liar for if three days, 26 times, i counted them, ended the world i was living in. hateful messages popped up on facebook, hundreds a day and some using the very same words trump used to defame her, carroll said. all of it hd because trump lied about her. quote, he said i made up an accusation to sell a book. is a lie. she said i made up the accusation for publicity's sake. that is a lie. he said my accusation damaged the real victims of sexual sault, that is a lie. he said pple like me who make false accusations are very

dangerous and on very dangerous territory, that i shouldn't have done it for the sake of publicity. that is also a lie. her attorney asked her, have you paid dearly, miss carroll? i have paid about as dearly as possible to pay. throughout the testimony trump huffed and he puffed and he slammed the table at some point leading judge kaplan to ask him to keep his voice down. that did not stop trump. sean crowley had called the form psident out some jurors couldea him say this really is a con job. mr. trump has the right to be present here and that right can be forfeited and that can be forfeited if he is disrupted and if he disrupts court orders. mr. trump, i hope i don he to consider excluding you from the trial and i understand you would be eager for me to do it. i would love it. i would love it. putting both hands in the air. i know you would because you can't control in the

circumstance. you just can't, the judge responded. carroll continued to testify. she told t jury when she won her first trial she thought trump would finally stop his attacks. quote, for a few glorious hours i thought this it, and then as she put it mr. trump went on a cnn town hall and repeated the same lies and that where we start today with former acting u.s. solicitor general neal katyal and new york times editorial board member mara gay and katie fang. let's start with you. difficult to get through the testimony of carroll so emotional and so clear the price she paid for all of this. >> i think people need to realize the confrontation in a courtroom setting from a victim of rape which is e. jean carroll and in the interest of full disclosure, i am friends with e. jean carroll. i prosecuted sexual battery cases as a prosecutor.

the confrontation between the victim of a rape and her rapist is always going to be a powerfully emotional and just incredibly traumatizing one and the trauma is really the word that we need to focus on here because number one, this isn't a criminal case, right? this is a civil case, but it's the same emotions that are involved. and we've talked as prosecutors about re-traumatizing a victim of sexual assault because every time they have to tell their stories it's hard and you re-live it over and over again. in this instance when e. jean carroll has been trying to tell her story it has just been interrupted constantly by alina habba, and i want to stand back for a second because as a trial lawyer you also want to think about who is doing the cross-examination and who is doing the presentation of the witnesses because there's the gender dynamic that's there. to that extent you don't have the joe tacopina anymore, you have the alina habba, but as you

were describing in the beginning of the show, alina habba has been stepping in it along the way, but for e. jean to have to get up and do this again and again and again is one thing, but for e. jean to have to explain and that it's not just when i go to court what happens. it's all day long. it's the death threats and the constant. it's never-ending and so i think the fact that somebody has the courage to go and do this, you have to take a moment and just realize that this is one of the most difficult days of e. jean carroll's life. >> of all of the forms is a septuagenarian to hold him most accountable. >> that is satisfying to see him held accountable for something, but i guess i would ask you, too, as a former trial lawyer, it does feel to me, and i'm not an attorney, while she is going up and telling her story and e. jean carroll is being exceptionally brave as many women and any victim of sexual assault will know, it seems that

the former president is continuing to try to intimidate her. >> of course. >> in the courtroom in front of the entire world, and i guess i just wonder what consequences, if any, he may face because of that? what are we to make of that? as laymen watching this, you just think is he really going to get away with that, as well? >> so it's his right to be in court, in a criminal or civil arena, and it is your right as a defendant or litigant in court to be there. the fascinating dynamic was at the very beginning of the day when e. jean carroll walked into court she went straight to the witness stand. donald trump make eye contact with her directly, and i have yet to actually hear from what's been going on with court the fact that he is staring her down in any way. the coward that he is, he's trying to exact intimidation through the hand motions and the interaction has been most confrontational with the judge and he can't confront e. jean

directly in court for that matter. accountability can be different things. it can be jail time. it could be prison and million of dollars as we've seen ordered in this case from the first jury, but her lawyers got up and they delivered the question for the jury which is how much is it going to take to make him stop because as we've seen, he won't. he'll do it and he's taunting the judge because he wants to get more fodder for people to go outside and say, yet, i am being the victim. that's the absurdity of this, that he's claiming to be a victim where a jury has found him liable for sexual assault and for defamation. is there anything that could be done to stop this type of outburst? >> i do. so first of all, i think katie's point is a very important one. last year jean carroll relived this all in the first trial and they decided that donald trump was guilty of sex assault, was

guilty of defamation and required him to pay $5 million. now we're having the second trial to decide, you know, is there any way to get this guy to stop with the lies and the defamation of jean carroll, and what happened in court today was that when she was testifying trump did, you know, what i can only describe as a bad high school debater's trick, he started talking at the same time as she was testifying saying that's not true and stuff like that with the hope that the jury would overhear is insinuations and comments. there's nothing subtle about what donald trump was trying to do. he was blatantly trying to influence the jury, trying to provoke the judge into kicking him out of the courtroom and to answer your question, the judge has that right. you have the right to go to your trial, as katy says, but not when you misbehave. there's a supreme court that says you can be kicked out of

your own trial if you're disrespecting the court. that's what trump's doing here. he's trying to create a circus and a spectacle because the last thing he wants people to talk about is what he did to jean carroll. it's much better for him if we're talking about this judge kicking him out of the courtroom, and by the way, this judge kaplan, one of the most respected judges in the entire country. obviously, a guy who takes no b.s. because he is not just trying to intimidate jean carroll and he's trying to intimidate the judge and the judge is having none of it. >> there was a moment before e. jean carroll testified where there was a very tense exchange between alina habba and judge kaplan. here's how it's described by cnn. your honor, clearly we're not going to finish this trial tomorrow. this trial will go into next week and i'm asking for the

ki that he has the right to not miss the trial. trump has the right to be present either in person or by counsel and nobody is stopping him from doing either. the application is denied. i will hear no further argument. none. do you understand word? none. please sit down. an attempt to postpone the trial had been rejected, why try yet again if not for the spectacle and not for the scene? >> for the client sitting next to her which is really the only person she's doing this for. it is a foregone conclusion, there will be a multimillion dollar verdict rendered against donald trump and it is a foregone control and they have reached the determination that donald trump is someone that commits sexual assault on like e. jean carroll and defames her. she's doing the spectacle for her client, she's also doing it because she doesn't know what the hell she's doing. the lack of competence owe the part of alina habba is glaringly obvious. she has shown she does not know

how to enter evidence. she does not know how to impeach a witness. she does not have the requisite trial skills to be representing the former president of the united states in a multimillion dollar defamation trial and yet you get what you pay for and that is exactly what's happening to donald trump right now. he may like the fact that she is cow towing to him and the maga out there in public, but at the end of the day and number one, for what it's worth, i would love to have a camera and audio in the courtroom so people can see the spectacle that it is, but there are no cameras or audio in the courtroom and it will be trump degree his pressers after court and habba after court saying what they say which is always wrong. it is not an accurate relay of what happened in court and that's the frustrating thing about what happens when there's this perversion of the judicial system. >> you are left with re-enactments which is never good enough to watching it first hand. i was struck by the exchange

saying, i know what you want. you want me to kick you out of here. there is something about the exposure to donald trump and the pattern of behavior and he's not thinking about the lens legality and he's thinking about it as it relates to his political ambitions. >> we are someone who has operated with complete impunity, and so legally, morally, otherwise. he's saying the rules don't apply to me. i think a lot of this courtroom behavior is also the behavior of someone who has clear disregard and disrespect for the judicial system, for democracy as well as obviously for women and other human beings. so he has no respect for anyone but himself, we know that. it is a shame that there are no cameras in the courtroom because america should see exactly who it is that will be on the ballot this november.

>> it's important that people get to hear from e. jean carroll. given the absence i want to play something that e. jean carroll said to our colleague richard maddow. >> i really wasn't doing it for myself. i was doing it for the women in the country, and i -- i got very little sleep -- every day was exciting. it's an incredible feeling to feel the waves across the country behind us and the end when i told what happened, i was heard. i was heard in federal court -- i was heard in federal court in front of a jury of my peers. they weighed the evidence and the truth was established and the system works. >> to be heard and to be

believed, to have the system actually work. this case means so much to so many, to survivors and also to those who want to see donald trump held accountable. >> e. jean would have been happy to just get her day in court. the outcome was just really the best part about the experience and yet maybe it wasn't. the best part of the experience was just having that moment of being able to tell her story to a jury, but i think what's kind of the parallel that's being drawn and what i want to emphasize is the jurors who were selected in this case were told during jury selection when they were picked. they were told not to use their rell names. think about that for a second. they were told don't tell your real names and don't tell your friends, family and loved ones that you were here. the judge has established that there have been threats and intimidation along the way if you're a juror and you look at e. jean carroll and when you

played what she said to rachel makes it even more powerful that e. jean carroll it's my name i'm getting back and it's my reputation i'm getting back from the man who used the bully pulpit of the oval office to destroy it, to destroy my reputation and my credibility to send death threats to me, that's what makes it more powerful that she's willing to put her name on the line because even the jurors are being told don't use your real name. >> rid. there is a power symmetry between the two of them, of her as a survivor and he as this person wo is being held accountable for that and defaming her, and then there's the power dynamic of an independent citizen and a former president of the united states. >> no question. at the same time what e. jean carroll has done is flipped that script and she has made donald trump look small and survivors look big, as they are.

she has shown what actual bravery looks like, not strong man bluster and nonsense, and she's given a lot of other people courage, i hope, to stand up to not just anybody who has victimized them, but to this former president who -- somebody has to stand up to him. it's so interesting. it wasn't republicans in congress largely who stood up to this former president. it wasn't people who were chiefs of staff, we learned through the january 6th committee, some did. it was this survivor, a woman that's american and inspiring and i hope she feels as powerful as she's made a lot of us feel. >> as i was listening to katy talk about the special instructions i can't help, but think that trump is attacking

this judge on truth social. he uses his meg phone to disrupt any legal from seeding that is not going his way. is there a number that is big enough? is this what this will come down to to get him to stop? >> i don't know that there's a number big enough. i want to thank mara for those comments because when you think about what e. jean carroll is doing, it requires so much bravery. its tough for any survivor to do there in a local court, but to have this play out on a global stage to have donald trump barking at her at every turn and that is an immense amount of courage that something like this takes and yes, i do think that trump. he has the power with a tweet, with a statement to call off these attacks on jean carroll, on judge kaplan in this case on judge chutkan who has been a credible threat and an fbi arrest on someone over that

judge presiding over the january 6th trial of donald trump, and he has the power to end all this and he never does and to me, that's the most unforgivable thing because those of us who serve in government in high positions and we know sometimes stray remarks can cause all sorts of collateral consequences and threaten people and you face that right away and the moment that you think you said something that might induce something you fix it and trump has had chance after chance after chance and what has he done? he's let the intimidation proceed just like after january 6th and it's the same m.o. now deployed against an older woman and an older judge. look, it's not this judge's job to listen to a 77-year-old man throw a temper tantrum during trial and more importantly, it is his job to make sure that those temper tantrums don't

infect the jury and it's no surprise to me that judge kaplan's patience is wearing thin. >> neil katyal, thank you all for spending time with us. we'll continue to follow the trial and this wild day of court wraps up and when we come back the house gop is looking for some sort of payback in the january 6th investigation and perhaps distract from the d.c. election case. they are setting their sights on cassidy hutchinson. we'll have the latest fishing expedition into her. as nikki haley tris to hit back and fail at the ex-president, he's all in striking hard and very low at the former governor, and later in the show, oral arguments today at the supreme court. some see it as the latest salvo in the conservative movement with the singular goal of weakening the

don't go anywhere. this and more don't go anywhere. the best advice i ever got was to invest with vanguard for my retirement. the second best? stay healthy enough to enjoy it. so i started preparing physically and financially. then you came along and made every mile worth it. hi mom. at vanguard you're more than just an investor, you're an owner. helping you prepare for today's longer retirement. that's the value of ownership.

(vo) in the next 30 seconds, 250 couples will need to make room for a nursery. (man) ah ha! (vo) 26 people will go all-in. (woman) yes! (vo) this family will get two bathrooms. and finally, one vacationer will say... (man) yeah, woo, i'm going to live here... (vo) but as the euphoria subsides, the realization hits... (man) i've got to sell the house. (all) [screams] (vo) don't worry, just sell and buy in one move when you start with opendoor. (woman) oh wow. (vo) oh yes. start with an all-cash offer at opendoor.com

in order for small businesses to thrive, they need to be smart, efficient, savvy. making the most of every opportunity. that's why comcast business is introducing the small business bonus. for a limited time you can get up to $1000 prepaid card with qualifying internet. yup, $1000. so switch to business internet from the company with the largest fastest reliable network. give your business a head start in 2024 with this great offer. plus, ask how to get up to $1000 prepaid card with qualifying internet. -really? -get a quote at progresivecommercial.com.

more than a year into the gop-led congress and very little to show on any front including an attempt to paint their own picture of january 6th. house republicans setting their sights on a new target, cassidy hutchinson of the january 6th select committee. it shed light on the disgraced ex-president's actions or inaction of that day. it is led by barry laddermilk after being seen giving tours of the capitol the day before the riot. well, his office wting in a statement that they have sent

hutchinson a letter, ote, instructing her to preserve and proximate cause all records and materials in her pos tegz related to the events of january 6, 2021. joining me now, tim hafy and political correspondent betsy woodruff-swan. laudermilk, as i understand it, that was the result of her changing lawyers. is that correct? >> yes, alicia. she told us that she did change her story, that when she initially met with investigators from the select committee she claimed not to recall a lot of things and that she held back some information that she later provided. she provided, as well, the explanation for those and initial claim to failures to recall and that was the advice of her then lawyer who was paid for by the save america pac, the

leadership pac controlled by the former president. so she came in with a new lawyer, jody hunt who was not paid for by the trump apparatus and told us more than she had before and she explained the reason why she had not shared with us. i'm having a hard time understanding what representative loudermilk is looking for other than reiterating that statement. >> that's a great question. to me, this seems like another fishing expedition on the part of the house gop. if you see, i don't see, please tell me, but i'm also curious what you think the answer is to tim's question? is it just about bullying cassidy hutchinson or is there actually something they're looking for bullying cassidy hutchinson and also creating a sense of chaos and diversion instead of focusing on the actual facts of january 6th. >> no doubt they a higher risk

for a cell phone, when it comes to trying to deeply excavate the reasons that cassidy hutchinson changed and augmented her testimony in the january 6th commit. back story of the evolution her testimony is almost as interesting and compelling as the testimony itself. the lawyer, of course, who she changed for, jody hunt is no resistance hero. he was a former justice department official during trump administration. he was of chief of staff toen in general sessions and hoo was not a celebrity and he was the person who helped guide-inson in the way she related to the january 6th select commit. what's going on is the tacit acknowledge that know. >> jan 6th creates a political problem for the former president. republicans are acutely aware that this is something that will be front and center for

president biden and his re-election campaign. he and his surrogates have made no secret that they'll be leaning hard on trump's connection to the january 6th violence as part of making the case against him against being back in office and there is a sentiment that they can't ignore this political argument and rather they have to try to find some way to engage and some way to try to push back and undermine the credibility of witnesses who testify to the january 6th commit. of course, whether or not that project will work very much to be season, the fact, it's a concern to the right. >> let's talk about that source of concern. this is reporting from "the new york after cassidy hutchinson's public testimony. delired to the house january panel by miss hutchinson. awhe house aide jolted

top justice department officials into discussing the more di, the times in the presence of attorneral merrick garland and deputy attorney general lisao. in conversations at the dertnt, the day after miss hutchinson's appearance, some of which included miss monaco, officials talked about the pressure that the testimony created to scrutinize mr. trump's potential criminal culpability and wth he intended to break the law. miss hutchinson's disclosure seemed to have opened the path to broaching the most sensitive topic of all, mr. trump's own actions ahead of the attack. the 1/6 committee and also what doj is doing. how much, tim, do you think this influences house republicans? >> yeah. hard to say what motivates the house republicans. if i had to predict what really the endgame is here it's to try to discredit miss hutchinson. the argument is that she waived her attorney-client privilege in

providing information to the committee about her discussions with her initial lawyer that they then may very well act that lawyer for his recollection of his discussions and he may not agree with her or not corroborate her testimony because, of course, he says he coached her to lie and he may take the fifth and not answer questions because the truthful answer might subject him to scrutiny by the department of justice or other. so speculating that's the endgame. certainly, miss hutchinson's testimony was so compellinging and did, i believe, catch the attention of not just the american of the department of justice burying the former president's state of mind before january 6th. to the point that they can discredit her and call her into question, i suppose that i think

there is some benefit to that and miss hutchinson has stood up repeatedly with a lot of skrut and has been found largely credible. >> we've been referencing cassidy and it's more powerful when you hear from her. take a listen. >> he had gotten into the vehicle with bobby. he thought that they were going up to the capitol and when bobby had relayed to him we're not. you don't have the assets to do it. it's not secure. we're going back to the west wing the president had very strong -- a very angry respond to that. tony described him as being e rate. the president said something to the effect of i'm the f-ing president, take me up to the capitol now to which bobby responded, sir, we have to go back to the west wing. the president reached up towards the front of the vehicle to grab at the steering wheel.

mr. angle took his arm and said sir, you need to take your hand off the steering wheel. we're going back to the wrest wing. we're not going to the capitol. he used his left hand to lunge, and he had motioned toward his clavicles. >> but see, i have to agree with you that turning the attention back to that testimony would seem to me to result -- it strikes me that they are trying to discredit her at a time when they are doing media interviews whether or not she would support donald trump or joe biden in the next presidential election. there is definitely a spotlight that is on her. i really, though, fail to see how it behooves republicans to remind folks of her testimony, right? her testimony was in some ways, it opened the eyes of doj. she is very powerful as a

messenger who can speak to repu. if i were them i would not want to be reminding voters across this is that moment of hutchinson's testimony that you played that i think without a doubt was the most vivid and riveting testimony that she gave in that hearing was unquestionably compelling. at the same time from a legal perspective, it's not an anecdote that's shown up in front in the numerous indictments and it's not amped up the way prosecutors are targeting and the actual legal jeopardy the former president is locked into right now. that story, without a doubt, is a political problem for him, but if you're house republicans looking at political and the legal and the going after hutchinson, and she's not likely to be called as a witness at trial and part of that a defense

lawyer would discuss the shift in her testimony and try to use that to undermine her credibility on the witness stand. at the same time, there's no question that republicans view her as a big liability and that as she continues to speak out, continues to discuss very candidly her concerns about trump potentially being re-ledged that they're trying to find a way to push a counter narrative to counterbalance and remight the political impact. >> if i am cassidy hutchinson, wear that with a badge honor. thank you for inning us. it is still a work in progress for the donald trump seeking the nomination, and we'll show you nikki haley's head-scratching response to what we've been talking about this hour. that's next.

what about your husband? is he here? no, unfortunately, he couldn't make it. she attacked him last night. you attacked your husband? [silence] dice dreams, attack your friends and steal their coins. play now. okay, so here's my most requested hack for stubborn odors. you'll need vinegar, a large salad bowl and... oh, hi! have you tried new tide fabric rinse? it works after your detergent to fight deep odors 3 times better than detergent alone. i love that. try new tide fabric rinse. at humana, we believe your healthcare should evolve with you, and part of that evolution means choosing the right medicare plan

for you. humana can help. with original medicare you're covered for hospital stays and doctor office visits, but you'll have to pay a deductible for each. a medicare supplement plan pays for some or all of your original medicare deductibles, but they may have higher monthly premiums and no prescription drug coverage. humana medicare advantage prescription drug plans include medical coverage, plus prescription drug coverage. and coverage for dental, vision and hearing. all wrapped up into one convenient plan. plus, there's a cap on your out-of-pocket costs! humana has large networks of doctors, hospitals and specialists across 49 states. so, call or go online today and get your free decision guide. humana - a more human way to healthcare.

it's an open question whether it's as humel yating for them as it is teed yousz for the rest of us, catalog the instances in which donald trump's challenges, and the republican nomination just gets stuck and ties themselves into knots and fall off a tightrope and criticize the leader of the maga movement without upsetting any of his supporters, but every

so often there is a display so flagrant and so backwards that you have to stop and stare. take it away, nikki haley. >> how do you feel about your party's front-runner being held liable for sexual abuse? >> first of all, i haven't paid attention to his cases, and i'm not a lawyer. all i know is that he's innocent until proven guilty and until he's proven guilty and sitting in a courtroom that's exactly what i'm talking about. you have investigations on trump and biden. >> a lot of people, forgive me, a lot of people in the republican party blow it all off and say that it's all a witch hunt. >> i think some of the cases -- >> this one in particular. >> this one i haven't looked at, if he's found guilty he needs to pay the price and he needs to do what he's supposed to. >> either nikki haley doesn't know or doesn't care about exactly what he talked about. trump isn't innocent until proven guilty because he's been liable in the matter of e. jean carroll. her inclination was to defend

the ex-president and for his part, donald trump seems perfectly happy to go low in his contest with nikki haley. trump pointedly misspelledha name in an attack on social media with haley's face merged with hillary clinton's program former lawmakers, donna edwards and david jolly, msnbc political analyst, there is the trump of this and the haley of this. you choose where we start. wow. wow. a lot there. you used the word tedious and trying to keep up with nikki haley and ron desantis and their ability to deflect on donald trump. i think nikki haley remains largely without failure and she's trying not to be recognized as one because she always gives the president cover through her own ignorance or arguments on his behalf. i think maybe it surprises some voters is nikki haley truly has

aren't emerged as the most likable of the candidates. as you consider other candidates like donald trump and vivek ramaswamy, it's easy to understand why we mistake nikki haley as someone who would be principled and imagine if nikki haley had the courage of e. jean carroll to speak the truth about donald trump. imagine if she'd answered the question that way. she'd be avoiding the scrutiny of someone who had become known as the typical politician. i'll tell you what you want to hear. i hope you like me, and if you push me i'll try to evade and that's the nikki haley that i'm seeing and it would open up attacks despite the fact that donald trump reaches around the illegitimate attacks around her race and heritage. >> we mentioned some of the trump attacks and the racial undertones there. i want to show you a conversation that nikki haley had on fox news just yesterday. here it is. >> are you a racist party? are you involved in a racist

party? >> no. we're not a racist country, brian. we've never been a racist country. our goal is to make sure that today is better than yesterday? are we perfect? no. our goal is to also make sure that we try to be more perfect every day that we can. >> donna, she was asked about the party and she answered about the country. your thoughts? >> well, i mean, this is also a candidate who had an ill-advised, wrong response when it came to the civil war and slavery. so nikki haley's problem is that she can't get out of her own way. the more she's exposed as a national candidate every time she makes a misstep, and you know, when i think about her response to donald trump's indictments and the fact that he's already been held liable, either she's been living in a box or she's choosing not to respond for fear of alienating donald trump voters. so i don't really understand her or ron desantis and their

pathway to victory if they're not able to carve out a clear line that distinguishes themselves from donald trump and nikki haley is patently unwilling to do that. >> indeed. no one is going anywhere because up next, house speaker mike johnson, the lone stunt at the garden party is single-handedly standing in the way of the deal of u.s. mexico border. it's something that must be dealt with immediately, but i guess not right now. he's at the white house at this hour. the very latest just ahead. t jud help you find and unlock opportunities in the market. e*trade from morgan stanley.

i'm not just accomplished. i am accomplishing. so i'm doing all i can to help lower my risk of breaking a bone. for postmenopausal women with osteoporosis at high risk for fracture taking calcium and vitamin d may not be enough. adding prolia® is proven to help strengthen bones

and reduce spine fracture risk by 68% with 1 shot every 6 months. do not take prolia® if you have low blood calcium, are pregnant, are allergic to it, or take xgeva®. serious allergic reactions like low blood pressure, trouble breathing, throat tightness, face, lip or tongue swelling, rash, itching or hives have happened. tell your doctor about dental problems as severe jaw bone problems may happen with prolia®, or about pain in your hip, groin, or thigh, as unusual thigh bone fractures have occurred. talk to your doctor before stopping, skipping, or delaying prolia®, as spine and other fractures have occurred. serious side effects, like low blood calcium, serious infections which could need hospitalization, skin problems, and severe bone, joint, or muscle pain have occurred. i have so much more to accomplish. talk to your doctor about prolia®.

president biden is in a meeting as we speak with top lawyers at the white house, top law makers to discuss his request for billions of funding for ukraine, israel and other security measures. the president has for weeks stressed the urgency to take action and congress has remained at a stalemate. house republicans vowing to block anything that does not include substantial changes to border policy. here's house speaker mike johnson this morning doubling down ahead of his meeting with the president. >> before we even talk about ukraine, i am going to tell the president what i'm telling all of you and we tell the american people, border, border, border. we have to secure our own border before we talk about doing anything else. >> i like to ask david jolly, donna, if he misses congress on days like this. it's a reminder of what you two are not missing, but do since

you have been in these meetings or draw back the curtain for us, donna. what does a meeting like this accomplish? >> well, first of all, i think it was actually really important for the president to invite the leaders to the white house to really send a signal to the white house that one, president biden is willing to negotiate, but also that he wants a hands-on approach to finding a solution that both houses can pass and get to his desk. the president has continued to signal that he's willing to negotiate on the border, sometimes to the ire of some of his democrats and particularly in the house, but there's a willingness to do that, and i think that this is what the president does best. he came out of the senate and understands how to negotiate, and we saw from what he did earlier in his term that he's able to get that done, and so i hope that what comes out of this is that speaker johnson realizes that he has to compromise and

work with democrats in the house to get a bill to the president to sign. >> david jolly, speaking of negotiating. i want to speak to what senate majority lead are john thune urged to compromise on the border deal. >> i would say, too. the house will have their own way of dealing with whatever -- we can get something out of the senate and they'll have to figure out how they'll process it, but i will say this. any idea that somehow, if we get majorities next year and we get the white house that this gets done with the republican majority of the senate doesn't understand the democrats. the democrats will not give us -- will not give us anything close to this if we have to get 60 votes in the united states senate in the republican majority. we have a unique opportunity here and the timing is right to do this and what the democrats get out of this is funding that the administration and the white

house and many of the democrats here want for ukraine. >> david jolly, i read that subtext as i need you all to get serious. it's a pretty thinly veiled message to speaker johnson. who do you think the audience was there for senator thune. >> let me start with why i don't miss politics and i don't miss the house with a little bit of license. why i don't miss politics, it goes back to the nikki haley clip. e. jean carroll was found to be a victim of sexual assault by donald trump. she is a model for women and young women alike and young women like my daughter and if she's unwilling to call it out it's a moral failing and i missed that in the last segment and i think it's important that we visit that. why do i miss the house is a different question which is what you just heard from thune, joe biden and others is because there is no logic when it comes

to house republicans. if immigration was left to just the senate and the white house they would have a deal and it would pass and it would be supported by 80% of the country. house republicans are so hard lined, xenophobic and many are racist on this issue that they will not allow anything to move that actually grant some type of reprieve to undocumented immigrants or others and so where does that leave the negotiation. i think there are three things moving at the same time and you'll have to fund the government that's four months past due and you have to forward military aid and mike johnson would lose his speakership if that passed the house. did joe biden and the senate reach some type of ukraine and ? i think they will. and then it comes down to a test vote for mike johnson. is he willing to do what kevin mccarthy did, work with democrats once again to fund the

government and responsibly fund our allies? that would lead to a motion to vacate according to marjorie taylor greene and others, but i think that's something we have to watch for in the weeks ahead. >> at least they can take another vote before this congress is over. as we were speaking, as david jolly was speaking, donna, that meeting did wrap. we're learning what happened in that meeting. speaker johnson speaking for just a few minutes outside the white house. here's the thing to follow up on the logic that david jolly just laid out. can house republicans claim the border is this big national security crisis and then not take a deal on the border that senate republicans, senate dems, and the president have been negotiating and making progress on? or do they not care, because for them, it's about optics, not actually about getting anything done? >> i think you've got it right there, alicia, and i think david jolly is right. look, house republicans in particular, they see this as a cudgel against democrats, and they want to continue to use it to beat up joe biden, to beat up democrats, and here you have a

deal that senate republicans are going to accept and negotiate and will come over to the house, and you have the same republicans who are crying out about a crisis on the border completely unwilling to sign off on the deal, and so, you know, the hypocrisy is blatant and obvious. they want to use it as a political hammer against democrats, and fortunately, i think it's not going to work, because everybody's cards are on the table. >> donna edwards, david jolly, as always, so grateful for both of you. thanks for being with us. ul for of you thanks for being with us

in just the last hour, attorney general merrick garland has been touring the murals in uvalde, texas, the portraits honoring the students and educator murdered in may of 2022. it was the deadliest mass shooting in texas history. garland is meeting with family members of the victims just a day before the justice department's release of its investigation, a report that will no doubt revive terrible memories for the families of the robb elementary school victims but will hopefully bring the uvalde community some sense of closure. up next for us, e. jean carroll has finished testifying today in her defamation case against the ex-president. lisa ruben was in the courtroom for all of it. in the courtroom for all of it.

businesses go further with 5g solutions. that's why they choose t-mobile for business. pga of america and t-mobile are partnering on 5g-powered analytics to help improve player performance. t-mobile's network helps aaa stay connected nationwide... to get their members back on the road. and las vegas grand prix chose t-mobile to help fuel operations for one of the world's largest racing events. now is the time to see what america's largest

5g network can do for your business. there's news, and there's good news. like thousands of patients receiving free life changing surgeries, from volunteer doctors and nurses on hospital ships. all made possible by donations. we love good news.

not just any whiteboard... ...katie porter's whiteboard is one way she's: [news anchor] ...often seen grilling top executives 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.

mr. trump never set foot in that courtroom. you never got to see him face-off and confront him. what would you have wanted to say? what would you want to say to him now? >> i said it to joe yesterday. he came over to congratulate me. he put out his hand, and i said, he did it, and you know it. and then we shook hands and i passed by. >> hey again, everyone, it is 5:00 in new york. i'm alicia menendez in for nicole wallace. eight months ago, when e. jean carroll took the stand in her case against donald trump, the one that ultimately found him liable for sexual abuse, she did so without him in the courtroom. he had chosen not to testify, to

not even be in the room. now, as the second defamation trial, brought by carroll, is under way, trump has taken a different approach. be in the courtroom and be disruptive. judge lewis kaplan today had to admonish the former president multiple times, even at one point threatening to kick him out for making statements that carroll's lawyer said were loud enough to be heard by the jury. the second case brought by carroll is solely for defamation. she's seeking $10 million in damages for statements trump made in 2019, so while he was president of the united states, that carroll was lying when she claimed he raped her in the 1990s. the jury in the first trial already found him liable if sexually abusing her. court just wrapped for the day a short time ago. it was a day full of testimony from carroll, who gave an emotional account of how the ex-president's lieser changed her life. he said, "i made it up to sell a book and that is a lie," she said, "and he saidy false accusations damaged the victims of real sexual assault, and that is alie," carroll said.

the then-president declared, "people need to pay dearly, and i have paid as dearly as possible." that is where we start this hour with lisa ruben, who is inside the courtroom for us today. plus former deputy assistant attorney general and former u.s. attorney harry litman, and bbc news special u.s. correspondent and msnbc contributor katty kay. lisa, you were in the courtroom. how did things go down? >> reporter: alicia, if before the lunch break, you saw fireworks, today you saw elina try to light a fire that never quite kindled and the reason i say that is because at virtually every angle that she turned, there were objections to the questions that she asked, either because they were argumentative or she was trying to revisit subjects that the judge has already ruled this jury must accept as true. and some cases, the objections were as basic as to the way that she formulated the question because she was assuming certain

facts that weren't yet in evidence, and all in all, i left thinking this. alina has some serious presence. even her detractors can't deny that, but she is lacking some fundamentals in basic courtroom mechanics that made today's examination of e. jean carroll a whole lot less effective than she promised it would be in her opening statement, which as we say, was fire. >> there's that, and then there's the donald trump of it. how was the jury reacting to him shenanigans? >> reporter: you know, i didn't notice the jury interacting with donald trump or even looking in his direction. they were focused on the exhibits they were being shown. in this courthouse, every juror has a screen right in front of them on to which the exhibits, as they're introduced, are projected, and a lot of the exhibits in this trial are things that really warrant your full attention. they are tweets. they are emails. they are truth social posts, or

in some cases, they have been videos, and the jurors seem to be very focused on that or focused on the back-and-forth between e. jean carroll and the lawyer who was examining her. the other person, really, who got the most attention today, and i shouldn't overlook, is judge lou kaplan because a number of us have predicted to you that judge kaplan would be far more in control of his courtroom than judge arthur, whose courtroom is just a stone's throw away to my left here. and kaplan has been that person to date. again and again today, when applications were made, elina and her colleague not only moved for a mistrial today on the basis of evidence that they claimed erroneously e. jean carroll has destroyed, but they also asked kaplan to recuse himself on the basis that he accepted, without consulting with the defense, a representation made about how trump was reacting from sean crowley, who is not only e. jean carroll's lawyer but previously

served as a law clerk many years ago to judge kaplan. that was their basis for a mistrial, and both instances, kaplan cut them off sharply, said denied and some variation of, sit down or take a seat. lou kaplan wants everyone to know this is his kroorm, not donald trump's courtroom, and he has been very effective. >> some of us heard that message loud and clear. some others did not. how did judge kaplan leave things for tomorrow? what are the next steps? >> so, elina has 20 to 30 minutes left in her cross-examination of e. jean carroll. that's largely in part because her flow was interrupted so many times today by side bars or objections. you could tell that former president trump is frustrated that that cross-examination is not yet done. he wanted to be here for every moment that e. jean carroll is on the stand, so when we come back tomorrow, e. jean carroll listen cross-examined or there

might be some redirect or clean-up by her lawyer. the next witness we expect is professor ashley humphries, the reputational expert that not only has been used previously by e. jean carroll but was an expert for ruby freeman in their own defamation case against rudy giuliani. that trial ended with an award of damages in the amount of $148 million. e. jean carroll's lawyers have similarly invited this jury to award very significant punitive damages. they haven't yet quantified what that should look like, but they want to make donald trump think twice about further defaming e. jean carroll. they have asked the jury to consider this question. how much will it cost to make him stop? earlier today, our colleague, chris jansing said, at least i heard that on "morning joe," those aren't my words. those are the words of plaintiff's lawyers yesterday, and i expect we'll hear it again when they close.

how much will it take to make him stop? my guess is hundreds of millions of dollars will be their answer. >> right, harry, i was about to say, that's the million dollar question, and lisa already preemptively corrected me. it's the hundred million dollar question. trump knew what he was doing. today, for him, was about making this a show about making this a spectacle, the entire back-and-forth with judge kaplan where judge kaplan says, i know what you want me to do. you want me to toss you from this courtroom. it is apparent. it is clear. there is no subtext here, harry. >> at all. he was a spectacular jackass, showing disrespect for everyone, including the jury. i guarantee you, whether or not there was eye contact, they absolutely noticed at the end of testimony, trump stands up, strides out of the courtroom. everyone, i mean everybody in a court setting, waits for the jury to stand up and leave first, and he didn't do it. he showed contempt for all, and i think hava is not simply lacking in mechanics but in

judgment here. she chose, really, the wrong way to try to go after a victim like e. jean carroll. there were points she could have scored, and instead, whether to grandstand for her client or just because she doesn't know better, she just tried to savage her. a final point. i agree with lisa that the real drama here will be how many hundreds of millions. there's a general rule of thumb that courts of appeals, this is the second circuit, don't allow a huge disproportion between the compensatory part and the punitive part. sometimes it's expressed as five or six, and yet here we have a billionaire who's been absolutely incorrigible. it may take more than a court of appeals may endorse. nevertheless, he has only hope seems to be that they award so

much in punitive damages that and it's trimmed on appeal. >> for those of us who have not been in a courtroom for this type of trial, can you help us understand the interplay between the evidence that the jury was presented with, the way they will factor that in, and the way they are likely to factor in the behavior that they watched in court today? when they are deliberating amongst themselves, how much are those two things weighted? >> yeah, i mean, it's a deep mix, and it's why it's so great to have lisa or someone who's in the courtroom just to sort of feel the vibe. it's true that most jurors, in my experience, try hard to follow the instructions, but they bring in and probably form very early, social science tells us, you know, impressions of the various litigants and those are not easily dislodged. and after that, they may well let the evidence kind of conform to their previous thoughts. if that theory is right, and a lot of trial lawyers hold to it, it couldn't be a worse day for

donald trump whose disrespect for everybody in the whole courtroom, save his own lawyer, who showed her own disrespect, was just paramount. >> katty, i want to bring in this point that joyce vance made. she said, "e. jean carroll has continued to speak truth to power despite the consequences in a way that should make every republican official who has bent the knee ashamed of themselves." it's pretty wild to watch the power this 80-year-old woman successfully holding donald trump accountable as we saw in may. she won her case against him. in some ways, she has had more success than anyone else. >> yeah, look, it's always difficult for victims of sexual assault and rape to speak up in public and to go through a trial, and it's one of the most bruising things you can do as a victim of sexual assault, to have to relive that, to have to

make your case, to be -- to have your credibility questioned is very, very difficult, and yet e. jean carroll last may held her own. she answered the questions, and a jury of her peers found donald trump guilty, and that hasn't happened before, so you know, it's interesting to watch these jurors this time around, how are they going to respond to his behavior? are they going to feel that he is bullying them? i mean, the very fact that these jurors have been warned not to reveal their identities, not to tell their friends and family that they are jurors in this case, will that then make them more sympathetic to e. jean carroll because of what she has been through and because of the slurs and the death threats and that she has received? i think it's -- in a way, her case has almost become the public's case in this particular instance where the juror is being warned of the kinds of things that could befall them

which are the kinds of things that have befallen e. jean carroll. it's the two sort of seem to be linked in this case, and i wonder how that's going to play into what kind of damages get awarded. >> and we're on the precipice of a man we're talking about getting re-elected, a reminder of what he said in his deposition in the first e. jean carroll case when he was asked about the "access hollywood" tape. take a listen. >> that's what you said, correct? >> historically, that's true with stars. >> true with stars that they can grab women by the [ bleep ]? >> if you look over the last million years, i guess that's been largely true. not always, but largely true. unfortunately or fortunately. >> you consider yourself to be a star? >> i think you can say that, yeah. >> fortunately or unfortunately, what we're watching, katty, is a pattern of behavior. >> i think, you know, it's the fortunately/unfortunately that's so extraordinary there, but then the "access hollywood" tape was extraordinary when it came out

in october of 2016, and we all reporting on that election thought that would make it impossible for donald trump to get elected. we thought his campaign was going to be over because of that tape, and we saw what happened. he was elected president of the united states, even though people had heard what he said. we've just seen what's happened in iowa where evangelical voters have voted for donald trump to be their nominee and watching all of the social media responses to the trial online today, and there is as much of an outpouring of sympathy for donald trump and he is the victim and he's playing that part very well. the irony of donald trump saying that he is the victim in this case, in this courtroom setting, when he was found guilty of assault a year ago, is pretty extraordinary. but his supporters don't see any of this as a problem. the fortunately or the unfortunately, you can grab them, you know, by the private parts, the fact that he has been found guilty of sexual assault, it's not -- it doesn't seem to

change their opinion, and it's -- and watching the -- kind of his supporters' response to what's happening in trial today, he's the victim. the judge is out to get him. she is a liar. it's the predictable things that we now have learned to expect from trump's supporters, unimpeachable defense of their guy. >> predictable indeed, lisa. we just heard the president departed the courthouse. your sense of his departure? >> reporter: my sense of his departure was, alicia, i didn't see it because he left through an underground garage. i will tell you that he stayed in the courthouse much longer than anyone expected. i really don't have an understanding of why he was still here, other than to potentially excoriate his legal team for a poor showing today. i want to return, though, to something that katty was just saying about e. jean carroll sort of being one of the only people to have achieved any accountability so far from donald trump, because i saw that the president posted something

yesterday on social media, saying, remember, i'm the only person who has beaten donald trump, and i remember thinking to myself, wait a second, what about e. jean carroll? e. jean carroll, too, has beaten donald trump, and that point sort of backfired on elina today when she tried to insinuate that e. jean carroll was a person who's very attention-seeking and for someone who doesn't like to mention donald trump, hasn't she done a lot of tv and sought a lot of attention given that she doesn't like to talk about him? and her response was perfect. she said, i won a historic victory at this trial. i'm 80 years old. and i wanted women to know, you don't have to stay silent. it doesn't have to be this way. and so, in that way, the attorney toward the end of the trial day gave e. jean carroll a tremendous gift, and the courtroom was fairly still for that portion of the testimony. >> right. harry, it strikes me the, and may i not remind you of the

number of legal cases that donald trump is currently facing, that there must be prosecutors in other cases who are watching what is happening in this e. jean carroll case, who are watching the behavior that was demonstrated on full display today in court, and trying to decide how they preempt it, how they work around it, because it is -- since it is a playbook, there are elements that we know we will see again. >> i think he's predictable and that's almost certain why he's not going to testify in a criminal trial. it's an absolute playbook. they are watching, and just two quick lawyer points. as lisa says, habba makes a textbook mistake in leading with her chin and giving that opening to e. jean carroll. you have to know exactly on cross-examination how you're controlling, and just very quickly on the deposition you cited, it shows why trump is the worst client in the world. did you say that? the answer is, yes. but he, in fact, then goes on to

explain why it's true and has been true for millions of years, and stars can do these things. it's a classic bone-headed answer and that's the kind of client he is. he's a client who's running for president and having no awareness, it sometimes seems, for his legal fortunes which decline precipitously every hour he spends in court. >> lisa ruben, i wonder about the conversations with trump's various legal teams are today after the behavior we just watched and the ways in which, quite frankly, it backfired on him, potentially both legally in that courtroom in front of that jury but also to the nation as we watch as well. >> reporter: well, you know, i think one of the conversations they're having is, what happens when you run up against the buzzsaw that is an effective judge? harry mentioned that prosecutors all over the country are going to be watching what's happening in this case to try and take lessons. i also want to make sure that

folks understand, judges who have criminal cases against donald trump that they're overseeing, they are also watching because judge kaplan has been a study in how to have donald trump in your courtroom and largely prevent him from getting away with the kind of nonsense that he has tried in other places more successfully. and as harry well knows, jurors love judges. the most popular person in any courtroom for any juror is always the judge, so they are taking their cues, in many respects, from how the judge is reacting to this behavior also well. and when the judge is losing patience or being sarcastic with the trump lawyer, saying at one point to alina habba today, "thank you for your illumination," i guarantee he did not mean that sincerely. the jurors are watching, and i think team trump is thinking today and tonight, what do we do with this guy who we seem to not be able to shake? >> especially because, as we were talking, he was speaking,

again, repeating a number of his lies, saying he didn't even know e. jean carroll, saying that the thing was rigged. again, a very common playbook, things we have seen before. lisa ruben, my friend, i want to return you to the indoors and the warmth. thank you for being there at the courtroom for us. katty kay, as always, thank you. harry, you are sticking with me. when we return, a look at how the disgraced ex-president plans to fight off the charges of mishandling classified documents. his goal? to attack the intelligence community, something that sounds like his political talking points and not a solid legal defense. that's ahead. plus, oral arguments today in a major supreme court case that could reshape how government works. amid growing calls that two of the court's conservative justices recused them from the case. and as roe vs. wade nears its 51st anniversary, democrats on capitol hill highlighting the pain and the suffering women are facing in a post-roe america and vowing to restore reproductive rights for all.

"deadline white house" continues after a quick break. house" conts ter a quick break. use kayak to compare hundreds of travel sites at once? i like to do things myself. is it efficient? of course not. but no machine is better than me. at booking travel. cleaning floors. anything. kayak. search one and done

you're probably not easily persuaded to switch mobile providers for your business. but what if we told you it's possible that comcast business mobile can save you up to 75% a year on your wireless bill versus the big three carriers? did we peak your interest? you can get two unlimited lines for just $30 each a month. there are no term contracts or line activation fees. and you can bring your own device. oh, and all on the most reliable 5g mobile network nationwide. wireless that works for you. it's not just possible, it's happening. 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.

a new filing in the classified documents case underscores the unprecedented whirlwind of legal woes facing the ex-president across four indictments. his insistence on not only playing victim but making it the heart of his case. in 68-page motion last night, trump's lawyers suggested they plan to accuse the intelligence community, among others, of bias against him with requests for more information that, as "the new york times" puts it, "often leads more like a list of political talking points than a brief of legal arguments." in the filing, trump's lawyers say they're seeking to prove

that the investigation that led to the charges was "politically motivated and biased." there are a wide-ranging list of new requests, includes communications with the white house, prosecutors into other of trump's upcoming trials, and even evidence from the special counsel "reflecting bias and/or political animus towards president trump by his own prosecutors in the documents cases." joining us now, peter strzok. harry is also back with us. harry, your reaction to these requests, because trump's lawyers are also asking for info on prosecutors that have charged trump in georgia and for more information on the lead prosecutor in the election interference case. >> it's just classic trumping. he loves, he needs to get personal. he's doing this in the political arena with nikki haley as he sees her as a possible threat. so, what he's saying is, you know, some kind of bias, some kind of conspiracy, look at the indictment. the indictment says there were documents. they were classified.

that's a fact. they have national defense information. that's a fact. he took them. it is perfectly irrelevant, almost certainly false, but more important, perfectly irrelevant whether or not anybody in the phalanx of the fbi had it in for him or not, and it's a dangerous motion, however, because judge cannon has shone a propensity to give him a lot of rope, and it would be a ton of delay, because what he's asking for is all this discovery, as you point out, including some information that the doj would be loath to or maybe even forbidden to turn over. that creates a separate skirmish in and of itself that eats up a month or more, and it's really all about irrelevant stuff that i don't think judge chutkan or judge mcafee or judge kaplan would stand for for a minute, but judge cannon might. >> two things can be true at the

same time. this can be in line with trump's claims of partisan attacks, which we have heard over and over again. it can also be true that it is unprecedented, asking the special counsel for evidence of bias by his own team or the intel community that once served him. it's important that we don't lose track of just how wild what he's doing is here. >> that's absolutely right. the fact of the matter is, donald trump is the person who's going to be on trial, presumably, if it gets to trial, not the u.s. government. what he's trying to do is score political points, trying to turn this around for fund-raising, but at the end of the day, the government has an obligation to go into court and prove that trump had this information that was national defense information. they're going to have to put up an expert, you know, potentially someone who can speak to why the information is classified, how it would harm united states national security or help a foreign adversary or foreign country if it was closed to them and trump knew it.

the defense can cross-examine that expert. the defense gets to see all the information about that expert. at the end of the day, i agree with harry. ordinarily, a motion like this, and i read it as well, in most cases, certainly d.c. or edva where a lot of mishandling cases go on, it wouldn't hold water, but the wild card is absolutely judge cannon. i don't think this is going to be anything that the government can't overcome, but as harry notes, it may take a lot of time, and at this point, that's absolutely part of what's going on. >> right, i mean, trump, harry, seeking to undermine the charges that many of these documents were connected to national defense. in your estimation, what is the case that jack smith is building to prove that at the heart of this indictment? >> that aspect? it's the marking on a piece of paper, maybe as pete says, it adds atmosphere to say, here's what has to do with the national defense, but this is really a cut and dried aspect of the indictment. that's what these markings are for.

he took them. he knew about the markings. he doesn't need to have sophisticated notions of how this can harm our national interest with iran. he just has to take documents that he knows he's not supposed to because of how they're marked. that is really open and shut, and as pete says, even if -- and it seems dubious in the extreme -- but even if people had it in for him at the fbi, et cetera, at the end of the day, they're marked this way, he took them, case closed as far as the act goes. he can talk about intent, et cetera, but even intent is just about knowing they have these markings, not about knowing their deep, nuanced effect on national defense. it's just not part of the case. >> pete, as "the new york times" points out, the filing asks for more information about an energy department security clearance they say trump maintained until last year that they think could help him defend against one doc related to nuclear weaponry. regardless of clearances, you can't keep these documents in a

shower. you can't keep these documents in a ballroom at a private residence. >> yeah, that argument strikes me as a nonstarter. look, the d.o.e. maintains control over classified information related to nuclear weapons and to that extent, it seems to me that there was something where trump continued to have in an administrative database, listing an act of clearance. but everybody who's worked with classified information knows, and it's drummed into your head from day one, access to classified information depends on two things. one is having a clearance, which trump is arguing he may have had in d.o.e.'s system. the second, equally necessary point, is having a need to know. donald trump had no need to know, starting at noon on january 20th, absolutely none. so it doesn't matter what the department of energy did or didn't do in an administrative context with his clearance. the fact of the matter is, the moment he left the presidency, donald trump had no need to know any classified information, period. so, again, this strikes me as a

frivolous argument. they're going to make it because it chews up time, but i don't think that gets anywhere for trump at the end of the day. >> pete, harry, thank you. why a case today could trigger an unprecedented revamping of how government works. we'll explain. taus sta. stay with us. we'll explain. taus sta stay with us ♪everything i do that's for my health is an accomplishment.♪ ♪concerns of getting screened faded away♪ ♪to my astonishment.♪ ♪my doc gave me a script i got it done without a delay.♪ ♪i screened with cologuard and did it my way.♪ cologuard is a one-of-a-kind way to screen for colon cancer that's effective and non-invasive. it's for people 45 plus at average risk, not high risk. false positive and negative results may occur. ask your provider for cologuard. ♪i did it my way!♪

the issue we'reeciding here is more like that, it's

more like t countless policy issues that are going to confront this country in the years and decades ahead. will courts be able to decide these iue as to things they know nothing about? courts that are completely disconnected fm the policy procs, from the political process, and, you know, that just don't have any expertise and experience in an area. or are people in agencies going to do that? >> justice elena kagan on the sweeping implications for the country contained in two seemingly innocuous cases heard by the supreme court earlier today. with the power to radically remake american life. the case before the court is ostensibly about fishermen versus maritime agencies, not exactly a barn-burner, but it represents a broader fight by conservative activists to undermine the regulatory power of the federal government in what is known as the chevron doctrine, which says that courts should defer to experts at federal agencies rather than trying to interpret unclear

rules themselves. if the doctrine is overturned as justice kagan warned, that power is in the hands of the courts, many of which have been stacked with conservative judges by the same conservative activists seeking to have that doctrine overturned. the suit is packed by a petrochemicals billionaire as well as a notorious alliance funding freedom, the organization responsible for the dobbs decision and the efforts to ban abortion pill mifepristone. not shockingly for this court, there are a quagmire of ethical issues. dick durbin has called on justice clarence thomas to recuse himself from this case over his personal ties to charles koch, and there have been calls for neil gorsuch to recuse himself over personal and financial ties to an executive with stakes in this case. let's bring in danielle holly plus vox senior correspondent and author of "the agenda: how a republican supreme court is

reshaping america," ian mill miser. danielle, i think we set the stakes here, but what are the implications of what would otherwise seem like a pretty esoteric case? >> i never thought as an administrative law professor i'd be talking to the american public about what is known as the chevron doctrine from 1984. justice kagan really put her finger right on it. the question is who makes complex decisions about regulations that are passed by our administrative agencies? when we think of the equal protection, when we think of the environmental protection agency, when we think of the s.e.c., all these agencies that make regulations that really impact many of our lives, chevron doctrine simply says that the agencies are both politically accountable and the experts. what the conservative majority of the supreme court seem to want to do today is to take that power from the agencies and put it in the hands of judges, who

are politically unaccountable and who, as justice kagan pointed out, are often not experts in these areas of the law. so, for example, this case is about fisheries. we know that many judges don't know much about fisheries, whereas the agency that made these decisions is the expert in those matters, and that's what chevron is really about. >> and we touched on the ethical issues in the introduction, but walk us through how justice thomas, justice gorsuch, how their impartially is threatened here. >> well, i mean, justice thomas, i think, is unlike any other official in the united states except for maybe former president trump. i mean, he's a uniquely corrupt individual, but all justices are chosen because the white house that nominated them thinks they will do things that that white house wants them to do. they are political appointees, nominated by a partisan president, confirmed by a partisan senate. and what this case is about is that there are all sorts of

questions that have historically been decided by federal agencies. they touch on every aspect of american life, everything from how should power plants limit emissions to what rates does your cable company charge is decided by these federal agencies, and what this case seeks to do is take that power away from these federal agencies, agencies that sometimes are controlled by democrats and sometimes are controlled by republicans, depending on what the voters decide to do in the last election, and instead give it to a judiciary that is stacked with lifetime appointees, six of the, you know, nine justices are republicans who are heavily vetted to do republican things. so, ultimately, what this case is about is it's about taking power away from the democratic process, letting us say, do we want to have democrats or republicans make these decisions in every election and saying, instead, we're going to permanently give this power to these six officials who serve

for life, who were carefully vetted by republicans to make sure they will do the things that republicans want? >> danielle, there were echos of what ian just laid out in justice ketanji brown jackson's questioning during oral arguments today. take a listen. >> maybe we just differ on this. i'm worried about the courts becoming uber legislators. if we're talking about a policy question, there are several reasonable meanings. why should the court be the one to make that determination? >> the danger there, right, of having multiple branches of government, which are supposed to be checks on one another, but in this case, really, it's becoming incredibly murky, the role that each is supposed to play, that idea of the courts becoming an uber legislator. i think that should be terrifying to pretty much anyone. >> it really should, and the separation of powers issue, the

supreme court is remaking the laws in the way that we have seen the constitution over the course of many centuries and more particularly over the course of 50 years. one thing this case has in common with a case like dobbs is that they would need to overturn a 40-year-old precedent in chevron to grab that pour for the federal courts, and most of this won't be decided at the supreme court level. these could be trial court judges on the federal side who are deciding really important matters about things like climate change, which we typically think of is in the hands of the political branches now being put in the hands of unaccountable, lifetime-appointed federal judges,which means they could make many decisions that would be in the interest of business or others without any check. >> you know, i want to make a pivot and turn to another case before the supreme court that could potentially imperil jack smith's case against donald trump. this is political reporting, "an issue is whether prosecutors and the department of justice have been improperly using a 2002 law originally aimed at curbing financial crimes to prosecute a

january 6th defendant named joseph fisher. should the court side with fisher, it would also call into questi the use of the law against other january 6th defendants, including trump." what are you watching for in this case? >> i'm watching a lot of things. i mean, i'm watching how the court decides the case. this case, even if they construe this law narrowly, so even if they say it doesn't -- that basically some of the january 6th protesters get off, that doesn't mean that trump necessarily gets off. he could still be convicted under the more limited reading of the statute. but it would be harder. and then the other big thing i'm watching, i'm watching this in all of the trump cases that are coming up to the supreme court, is how fast is the court going to move? trump's strategy in his criminal trials and especially in the d.c. trial, the one that really matters, the one that's about election theft, his strategy is to try to delay and delay and delay until the election happens, and than if he becomes president, he can order doj to drop off the charges against him. so, we need these trials to

happen in a normal -- in the normal way with normal speed, and my biggest concern, whatever the supreme court takes a case that touches on the trump prosecution's including this case is if they drag their feet on it, they potentially drag out when this trial can start, and that means that trump may escape justice altogether, because the trial will be pushed to after the election. >> we keep coming back to this question of timeline. danielle holly, ian milhiser, thank you very much for joining us. democrats mark the upcoming anniversary of roe vs. wade and vow to keep up the right for reproductive freedom. that's ahead. the right for reproductive freedom that's ahead

this cruelty that treats american women as less than human is all by design. anti-abortion lawmakers and activists had 50 years to plan for this moment, and they made that plan carefully, strategically, and callously. every child forced to give birth, every cancer patient denied care, and every woman arrested after having a miscarriage was accounted for and strategized over. republicans are desperate to hide that truth from voters. >> just one of many brutal testimonies at a senate briefing earlier today about life in america without the protections of roe. one doctor told the story of a patient of hers who was forced

to stay in a homeless shelter overnight. one journalist recounted a story of a college student who attempted to end her pregnancy at home and later died of those efforts. one doctor described being forced to flee the state herself when she found out her own pregnancy was not viable. >> where am i going to go? who is going to take care of me? who will take care of my children when i'm gone? what about my patients? what if this is the last time i ever get to be pregnant? so long as i remained on texas soil, i was to remain pregnant, forced pregnancy, forced delivery, forced to watch him die. either in my womb or in my arms. >> let's bring in michigan

senator debbie stabenow, who was at today's emotional briefing. you know the stakes. you understand what is on the line. what of your colleagues who don't? how do they sit and listen to that testimony and not experience a change of heart? >> well, alicia, it's wonderful to be with you. i wish it was not on this topic. listening today, i kept thinking, is it 2024 or 1824? i mean, it's just unbelievable. that's why the democratic women of the senate, led by senator murray, hosted this briefing. we had democratic colleagues there, all of whom who care deeply. there were not republican colleagues there. but the reality is what we heard over and over again is that this is strategic, they have been planning for it for 50 years. they're now trying to hide the data on infant mortality and what is happening to women, and it's incredibly serious. it's all hands on deck right

now, and i really want to stress one thing, alicia, and that is in a state like michigan, where in 2022, we got the signatures, we got a measure passed in the t our reproductive choices, our freedom, we got it in our constitution, and we all thought we were okay, but the national abortion ban that the republicans are pushing that will, in fact, be what they do if donald trump's back in office, and the republicans are in control, wipes out everything. everything. everything that we have seen happening, whether it's in wisconsin or ohio or michigan, we have 22 states and the district of columbia that right now have protection for our freedoms, our reproductive freedoms, in law. and their national abortion ban and where they're headed is going to wipe out all of it. this is really an all hands on

deck moment. >> senator, you get it so right when you talk about the political maneuvering on the part of republicans that went into this moment, all of this by design, none of this by accident. one of the speakers today put such a fine point on the republican response after dobbs. i want to play it for our viewers. take a listen. >> when republicans feigned surprise or compassion over post-roe horror stories, they are lying. when republicans tell americans that the national 15-week ban they're proposing is a reasonable middle ground, they leave out the fact that the law would force women to carry nonviable pregnancies to term. their compromise would do to any american capable of pregnancy what texas tried to do to kate cox. they use the word "consensus" while passing bans that voters don't want, and they call democrats extremists while fighting for the right to deny women life-saving abortions in emergency rooms. >> there's this question we hear over and over, senator, about the saliency of this issue, will

living in a post-dobbs america have the same impact as it had in 2022? there are more and more americans who have the kate cox who lives next door, who are learning about the implications of the legislation, federal legislation, state legislation, and the ways in which it is making it impossible for women to access basic health care. i have to believe if there is a question about the saliency of this issue, it is as salient today as it was a year and a half ago. >> i couldn't agree more. amen, amen. the reality is we have 22 states now where women do not have full access to abortion care, can't make their own decisions, over 18 million women directly affected at this moment, and the reality is, no matter what they say, this is about who decides. some right-wing mag republican, some right-wing justice in the court or the woman who is faced with challenges in a pregnancy

, her family, her faith, her doctor. this is about who decides in america, who decides the most basic fundamental questions of women's health care. if reproductive health care for anybody who's pregnant. that's the point. all these folks that talk about freedom all the time, all these folks that talk about how, you know, government should get off our back. hello? the ultimate intrusion is what they are talking about, and i would just say one more thing. on top of everything which galls me, i share the nutrition committee. we have a shortfall in funding in wic which funds pregnant moms and healthy food, baby formula for babies for about half the babies born in this country. and we see republicans objecting to funding the opportunity for babies to be born healthy, and

moms to be healthy. so, this whole thing, it's shocking, and we are going to stand up, and we're going to make it very clear the women of this country are going to have our freedoms restored. >> they act as though the pro-life branding is the problem. perhaps it is the policies they push. debbie stabenow, thank you so much. debbie stabenow, thank you so much ♪ (upbeat music) ♪ ( ♪♪ ) constant contact's advanced automation lets you send the right message at the right time, every time. ( ♪♪ ) constant contact. helping the small stand tall.

millions of children are fighting to survive due to inequality, conflict, poverty and the climate crisis. save the children® is working alongside communities to provide a better life for children. and there's a way you can help. please call or go online to give just $10 a month. only $0.33 a day. we urgently need 1000 new monthly donors in the next 30 days to help the children we support around the world. you can help provide food, medicine, care and protection,

plus so much more that a child needs by calling right now and giving just $10 a month. all we need are 1000 monthly donors in the next 30 days. please call or go online now with your monthly gift of just $10. thanks to generous government grants every dollar you give can have up to ten times the impact. and when you call with your credit card, we will send you this save the children® tote bag as a thank you for your support. your small monthly donation of just $10 could be the reason a child in crisis survives. please call or go online to hungerstopsnow.org to help save lives today. when you have chronic kidney disease... ...there are places you'd like to be.

like here. and here. not so much here. farxiga reduces the risk of kidney failure which can lead to dialysis. ♪far-xi-ga♪ farxiga can cause serious side effects, including ketoacidosis that may be fatal, dehydration, urinary tract or genital yeast infections, and low blood sugar. a rare, life-threatening bacterial infection in the skin of the perineum could occur. stop taking farxiga and call your doctor right away if you have symptoms of this infection, an allergic reaction, or ketoacidosis. when you have chronic kidney disease, it's time to ask your doctor for farxiga. because there are places you want to be. if you can't afford your medication, astrazeneca may be able to help. ♪far-xi-ga♪

democrats scored a massive and surprising win yesterday in florida, of all places. flipping a state house seat in the 35th district, the democrat tom keen beating out republican erica bth. keen's platform included things like affordable housing protecting abortion access, protecting the environment and defending free speech, such as book bans in sools. heather williams, president of the democratic legislative campaign committee called the victory a "earthquake", and the florida democratic party wrote on x, "it's the first democratic flip of the year and the second major loss for ron desantis this week." don't count florida out. another break for us. we'll be right back. a out. another break for us we'll be right back. students in a new kind of classroom. ♪ using our technology to power different ways of learning. ♪

harnessing ai to plant new beginnings. ♪ so when minds grow, opportunities follow. your record label is taking off.

but so is your sound engineer. you need to hire. i need indeed. indeed you do. indeed instant match instantly delivers quality candidates matching your job description. visit indeed.com/hire

thank you for spending part of your wednesday with us. "the beat" with ari melber starts right now. hi, ari. >> hi, alicia. thank you so much. welcome to "the beat," i'm ari melber, and the political world is