tonight on "the reidout" -- >> and i think cognitively, i'm better than i was 20 years ago. i don't know why. i said doctor, i did say, what about a cognitive test? he said, you know, it's not that easy. but i took it.

and i aced it. i think it was 35, 30 questions. and let me tell you, they always show you the first one, like a giraffe, a tiger, or this. a whale. which one is the whale? >> donald trump is again bragging about acing the dementia test. while claiming that presidents should have full immunity for any crimes they might want to commit. former u.s. attorney general eric holder joins me on that. and on a big victory in louisiana, where a new legislative map with two majority black districts is advancing in the state legislature. plus, with a border deal on the table, which senate republicans say is a great deal, trump's maga caucus in the house is saying no. because they want to continue to stoke fear ahead of the fall election. but we begin tonight with donald trump. the leading candidate for the republican presidential

nomination telling americans very clearly that he should be able to murder and jail anyone he wants to, and no one should be able to stop him. not a single person, place, or thing. to that vein, in the dead of night, trump fired off one of his unhinged social media rants demanding total presidential immunity from prosecution over anything, including and i'm quoting here, events that cross the line. because in his words, it will be years of trauma, trying to determine good from bad. to be clear, trump seems to think it is hard to determine whether having s.e.a.l. team 6 assassinate your political opponent or selling pardons or selling state secrets are bad and illegal. these are just a few things his lawyer argued should be covered by total presidential immunity and only subject to criminal prosecution if and only after congress manages to not just impeach a president but also to convict them in the senate.

something that has never happened in 248 years of u.s. history. it is fair to say that immunity would also include his plans for sweeping raids, rounding up 11 million migrants into internment camps, a federal takeover of democratic cities, lowing troops to shoot any protesters they want to, the president ordering the military to drop bombs on mexico and the justice department to throw into prison the entire biden family plus merrick garland, plus mark milley, plus every prosecutor and judge who have gone up against donald trump, while granting every police officer total immunity to brutalize and kill at will. which is the point that he made in the same post where he wrote, quote, you can't stop police from doing the job of strong and effective crime prevention because you want to guard against the occasional rogue cop or bad apple. joining me now is former u.s. attorney general eric holder. he's currently chairman of the national democratic

redistricting committee, and attorney general holder, thank you so much for being here. i want to get your reaction as the former attorney general of the united states to a president claiming that he has such broad immunity that he could assassinate his political opponents. >> well, you know, that argument really indicates how absurd the position is of the trump camp. you know, just because a former president has filed a court paper and because we have been talking about it for an extended period of type, i think we need to step back and understand that the assertion he's making is absurd. it is crazy. it has no basis in the constitution, in our precedent, no basis in law. he's just making stuff up in order to try to keep himself out of jail. and the notion that you would give a president total immunity to do anything that he or she wanted to do is inconsistent with the american revolution. that's what kings get to do. you know, not presidents. and the very examples that you

just talked about, if he shot somebody on fifth avenue under the position that he's taking, he would not be liable to prosecution. that is clearly, clearly not the way in which the founders intended for presidents or any american citizen to be viewed. >> i'm looking here and we were reading through and my producers are reading through the supreme court filing that was made today by donald trump because it should be absurd, but this is going to the supreme court that was built by leonard leo for very political purposes and to achieve very specific conservative ends. and the arguments that are being made by them include these five. that the president is not an officer of the united states, and because that term was not specifically used in the constitution for the president. that donald trump did not engage in an insurrection, something that 179 republicans in the congress have signed an amaks

brief. and they need implementing legislation to do it, that the colorado decision violates court precedent, preventing states from prescribing their own qualifications for the presidency, and the colorado supreme court's ruling violated the electors clause, which requires states to appoint their presidential electors in such manner as the legislature may direct. do any of the arguments that i have just stated sound like something not that a normal supreme court would accept but that this supreme court majority would accept? >> well, they get an "a" for creativity. they had to sit up, i'm sure, long nights and long days to come up with those five basis for their argument, but even with this supreme court, with this ultra conservative super majority, there's not a basis for finding in favor of the assertions he is making.

you know, the court's legitimacy is at stake here in a way that i think really goes to the way in which it will be viewed, that body will be viewed the american people. to rule for the trump camp, to say there's any basis to those five assertions that he has made really puts at risk how the court will be viewed by the american public. there is again no constitutional basis for it, no historical precedent for it. that is not the way in which our nation has been formed or for which the american revolution was actually conducted. and i think that anybody who lines up in support of that really puts at risk our democracy and really puts at risk the notion that we are one person, one vote, that the people decide things, that no one is above the law. puts at risk the whole notion otthe rule of law. >> and you know, the thing is, i think what a lot of people when we talk about the january 6th insurrection, which was an

insurrection, part of it was a denial of the right to vote. it was essentially saying that in the states where donald trump, the swing states where donald trump lost, those voters in predominantly black parts of that state are illegitimate and trump should be awarded the presidency despite that. it was an attempt also to misuse the justice department for those ends. so i want to talk about the justice department, which you used to run. donald trump is vowing to use the justice department if he gets back into the white house to prosecute and persecute his political enemies. talk to me about the risks of his being able to actually accomplish that because in a second term, there would be no normallies left. this is mike davis. this is somebody who has claimed he is in line to potentially be attorney general of the united states. here's what he is saying he would do with that job. >> i will rein hell on washington, d.c. i have five lists ready to go,

and they're growing. list number one, we're going to fight. we're going to fire a lot of people in the executive branch in the deep state. number two, we're going to indict. we're going to indict joe biden and hunter biden and every other scum ball sleaze ball biden except for the 5-year-old granddaughter who they have refused to acknowledge for five years until the political pressure got to joe biden. number three, we're going to deport. we're going to deport a lot of people, 10 million people and growing. anchor babies, their parents, their grand parents. we're going to put kids in cages. it's going to be glorious. we're going to detain a lot of people, i'm going to recommend a lot of pardons. every january 6th defendant is going to get a pardon. >> how concerned are you that that will be the kind of department of justice donald trump will run in real life if he becomes president again? >> i think we have to take them at their word and take donald

trump at his word. whether or not that idiot becomes attorney general or not, they will -- trump will try to put in place an attorney general who will do his bidding. but they have also learned from the first term and will not only be who is the attorney general, the question will also be who is the head of the criminal division in the justice department, who are the u.s. attorneys around the country, and what hiring authority those u.s. attorneys have. so that we will have an administration in place that will actually do the kinds of things that they tried to do in the first term but were thwarted by career people and by people, other political appointees who decided they would thought go against the rule of law. i think a second trump term, and this is something voters need to keep in mind, a second trump term would have a politicized, weaponized united states department of justice that would do the kind of things that with all due respect, that idiot just

said. >> and the thing is, you know, the attempts to weaponize the justice department the first time, even bill barr who was in many other ways a stooge to donald trump and willing to do his political bidding, it was too much for him. what do you make of the fact that we now have a substantial part of the republican party that is okay with that, because these senators, one after the other, are endorsing donald trump and even claiming that the attempts to do that were not an insurrection. all but i believe seven of the united states senators, republican united states senators signed on to this brief saying that there was no insurrection, even though they physically ran for their lives on january 6th, 2021. >> you have to look at what it is they're talking about. that is the trump campaign, the former president himself. and think of the america they're trying to create. you have a president who is

beyond the reach of the law, you have a justice department who goes after political opponents, on no basis. he's going to prosecute joe biden. well, exactly for what? that's not going to bother them. you have a united states of america that would be unrecognizable to us. that would be one that we would see more in putin's russia as opposed to the united states that we have come to all know and love. and this is really what this is about. this question is about whether or not our democracy will endure. whether or not our democracy will survive. they have put the interests of one man and the views they have that support that one man above everything else. you know, they are happy with or comfortable with the notion of autocracy. of dictatorship, as opposed to democracy. and people say, wait a minute, holder is overstating the case. that is not overstating. you have to take them at their word. and look at what it is they are proposing and the impact of the

policies that they will try to put in place. american democracy could end with the election of donald trump. >> i want to point you back to the statement, this unhinged statement that donald trump posted. he made a reference to the police. and says that you have to basically allow for bad apples in the police department. that's the analogy he used, that you have to essentially allow police violence because you want good law enforcement, so to do that, you just have to live with the fact that there will be some bad apples. essentially saying, some police are going to kill people, and you just have to live with that. what do you make of the fact he keeps going back to that idea of wanting police violence to be acceptable and using that as the analogy for his own administration? >> that's consistent with his world view. but that is not something the american people necessarily have to accept or should accept. you know, the notion that there

is a tension between good, respectful law enforcement and keeping the american people safe is simply not true. i mean, there is no tension between those two things and no reason for us to accept the fact some cops are going to abuse their power, some cops are going to be unnecessarily violent. we don't have to accept that, if we want to have good law enforcement, and by the same token, we should not have to accept the fact that a president should be allowed to do the kinds of things that he is in fact proposing. you know, if you want to have a good, safe, prosperous america, you can still have a good functioning democracy. where the american people get to decide what the direction of the nation is, what everybody has the right to vote, where everybody is respected, regardless of economic situation, ethnicity, race, gender, lgbtq status. all of these things are possible in having a nation that we think

can be, as i said, prosperous and very successful. this notion of having to have i guess a dictator, having an authoritarian figure to have police officers who go rogue, all of that is inconsistent with a successful america. >> let me ask you to assess as a former prosecutor, former attorney general, jack smith's case before in d.c., his d.c. case, basically the insurrection case, the coup case. how confident are you that this is a case that can be won, and that it will be completed before the election? >> well, i think you have to look at three possibilities. you're going to get 12 people to acquit donald trump, say he's not guilty. no, i think that is not going to happen. will he get 12 people to say he is in fact guilty? you have the possibility of that is extremely, i think that's what will happen. i think their only hope is that middle possibility that you come

up with one or two jurors who are whatever reason hang the jury and therefore we don't get a result. i think the case is strong. i think that with the judge that yo it's likely to be tried. maybe not on the date that she originally set, but i would expect to see within a couple months of that that the case will actually go to trial. and they're going to try to delay that case as much as they can because a conviction there or a conviction in any of the cases in which he's indicted, if he can be labeled a convicted felon, all the polls say his support really starts to go down in really significant ways, not among his core, perhaps, but around the periphery of his core and with independents, they pull back. as a result of that, they're going to do all they can to delay this case as much as possible. and they seem to have an ally when it comes to the documents case with regards to judge cannon, who i think is going to do all she can to actually delay the case. >> you will note i did not mention that case for that very reason. attorney general holder, please

stay with us. i do after this break want to talk with you about actually some good news for voters in louisiana. the state of louisiana has actually ruled in favor of reversing some pretty egregious gerrymandering and i want to talk with you about that on the other side of the break. please stay with us, and everybody stay there, we'll be right back. right back oooohhh, it is cold outside time to protect your vehichle from winters wrath of course the hot sun can be tough on vehicles too you need weathertech all year round! come on, protect your investment laser measured floorliners and cargoliner will shield the carpeting from sand and snow for your interior, there's seat protector and sunshade plus, mudflaps and bumpstep for the exterior order american made products at weathertech.com

surfs up yeah, right

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.

attorney general eric holder, and let's share with our viewers

some good news. a congressional map adding a second majority black district has passed the state senate in the state of louisiana. it still haa ways to go, it still has to pass the house. 33% of louisiana's population is black, only 17% of the districts are majority black. the new map would make the numbers match. what is the significance of that and how confident are you this will make it to the governor's desk? >> this is hugely significant and a validation of the voting rights act of 1965. if you look at louisiana, the same way we looked at alabama, you will see that african americans in those states have been too long to die the opportunity to elect a candidate of their choice. the cases we brought in alabama as well as in louisiana were actually upheld by the united states supreme court. the alabama case was upheld by the court and now being applied in louisiana. i'm actually pretty confident we're going to have out of louisiana, as we will have out

of alabama, a majority black district where it should have existed for time in memorial. the fact is in louisiana as well as alabama, the legislatures there have drawn districts not in conformity with the voting rights act of 1965 and this ultra conservative united states supreme court recognized that that was the case and said that you have to draw these districts in a way that are now being drawn in louisiana. i think this is really, really good news. >> mike johnson, who people sometimes may forget, is from louisiana, he's a congressman from louisiana. this is his take on these developments. we have just seen and are concerned with the proposed congressionp map should the state not prevail at trial, there are options that do not require the necessary surender of a republican seat in congress. he has like a two-seat majority, anyone home sick one day, he's

down to almost nothing. are you confident that this, this new map, this new much fairer map, will withstand a supreme court that has seemed quite hostile to the voting rights act in the past? >> yeah, i think the supreme court in the allen v. milligan case, the alabama case, really took out the position that i think i would expect it would follow as it looks at what comes out of louisiana, which is to say that when you have a cohesive community of interest, when you have the numbers you have in louisiana, that you should create in fact that second black opportunity district. this is what we have litigated. our national redistricting foundation component litigated that case in louisiana, litigated the case in alabama. and it is for that reason that i think that we are going to see the supreme court, if for whatever reason the legislature and the governor in louisiana don't do the right thing, i think the federal courts will impose upon them the districts as they should be constructed.

>> when you were attorney general, you brought a lot of cases. you were for suing folk when they were violating the voting rights act. i want to ask you about this current attorney general. i'm not asking you to give him a job performance review. they have been less litigious, but here is the state of what's happening now. there are groups like ldf that have been out there really fighting this. awaiting court decisions on their maps and o gerrymandering, florida, south carolina, texas, north carolina, and arkansas. already ordered as we just discussed to redraw their map, louisiana. new majority districts approved in georgia and alabama. what all that has in common, those are the states below the mason dixon line where 52% of african americans still live and where gerrymandering is most aggressive. do you believe this attorney general's office has been aggressive enough in trying to defend the right to vote, again, of the places where a majority of black voters live? >> yeah, i think the justice department has a number of things it has to consider, but i think that the interest of

african americans in those places as well as the interests of americans in other parts of the country has been validated, vindicated and looked after by other entities. it's a recognition of the cases, as i said, the national redistricting foundation has brought, the naacp, the league of women voters. common cause. and it's not only the south that worries me. it's also the midwest. you see what's going on in ohio and in wisconsin. we live in an era of perpetual redistricting. this is no longer a one-year thing. we see that african americans have historically been those who have been most disenfranchised. if you look at what's going on in wisconsin, white folks in wisconsin have been denied the opportunity to have a representative government at the state as well as at the federal congressional representation level. it's a lawsuit that's going on there now. and so i think our work has really been successful.

"the new york times" said this is the most fair redistricting we have seen in the last 40 years. you look at all the districts, about 75% now are considered to be fair, but that still means 25% are considered to be unpair. so there's additional work we have to do. the battle for redistricting goes on. what happens in these court cases and over the course of these next few months will really determine, i think, the congressional majority in 2024. and all we're fighting for is fairness. fairness, fairness for regardless of what your ethnicity is, what your race is, regardless of what part of the country you live in. let's draw the maps in a fair way and let the people actually decide. that's something that i think democrats are comfortable with. republicans understanding that their policy choices are not necessarily supported by the american people, want to put their thumb on the scale and disenfranchise african americans as well as white voters. >> indeed, and indigenous voters and you could go on and on.

former attorney general eric holder, thank you so much for spending so much time with us. really appreciate you and be well. >> be well, joy. >> thank you very much. coming up, the white house republicans are wailing and gnashing their teeth about an immigration crisis. you would think they would want to do something to fix it. crazy talk, right? we'll be right back. if you have chronic kidney disease you can reduce the risk of kidney failure with farxiga. because there are places you'd rather be. 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. ♪ far-xi-ga ♪

when i was diagnosed with h-i-v, i didn't know who i would be. but here i am... being me. keep being you... and ask your healthcare provider about the number one prescribed h-i-v treatment, biktarvy. biktarvy is a complete, one-pill, once-a-day treatment used for h-i-v in many people whether you're 18 or 80. with one small pill, biktarvy fights h-i-v to help you get to undetectable—and stay there

whether you're just starting or replacing your current treatment. research shows that taking h-i-v treatment as prescribed and getting to and staying undetectable prevents transmitting h-i-v through sex. serious side effects can occur, including kidney problems and kidney failure. rare, life-threatening side effects include a buildup of lactic acid and liver problems. do not take biktarvy if you take dofetilide or rifampin. tell your healthcare provider about all the medicines and supplements you take, if you are pregnant or breastfeeding, or if you have kidney or liver problems, including hepatitis. if you have hepatitis b do not stop taking biktarvy without talking to your healthcare provider. common side effects were diarrhea, nausea, and headache. no matter where life takes you, biktarvy can go with you. talk to your healthcare provider today.

why would i use kayak to compare biktarvy can go with you. hundreds of travel sites at once? i like to do things myself. i can't trust anything else to do the job right. kayak... aaaaaaaahhhh kayak. search one and done.

you would be forgiven for not knowing the term siop, if you're not a right wing conspiracist or from a military background. it's short for psychological operations, influencing the state of mind or motives of a target to a certain point of view. you could also say the republicans' ultimate psy op for a migrant invasion, why in reality they have -- red state governors are busing and flying migrants to blue cities like new york to get people in those nonborder cities to freak out about an influx of impoverished nonenglish speakers in their midst. they're racing to impuv homeland security administrator mayorkas

with no evidence of wrongdoing or his testimony. and republicans are on their way to completely normalizing donald trump's hitler rhetoric that migrants are poisoning the blood of the country. it's enough to get maga republicans to believe that immigration is a huge danger and it's a problem only trump can fix, and yet, when presented with a potential bipartisan deal for new asylum and border laws, republicans don't actually want to do anything. at the top congressional leaders met with president biden at the white house wednesday, senator lindsey graham told maga republicans in the house that they would not do any better. >> to those who think that if president trump wins, which i hope he does, that we can get a better deal, you won't. you have to get 60 votes in the united states senate. so to my republican friends, to get this kind of border security without granting a pathway to

citizenship is really unheard of. >> but any potential progress is likely doomed since trump says no. last night, on his fake twitter, he demanded that republicans reject a border deal unless they get everything. well, everything like what? we already knew that the fix was in hours earlier when during an appearance on fox, laura ingraham enforced how -- informed house speaker mike johnson that trump had told her that he was adamantly opposed to a deal with democrats. >> president trump is not wrong. he and i have been talking about this pretty frequently. i talk to him the night before last about the same subject. >> joining me now is ruth ben-ghiat, professor of history and a scholar of authoritarianism at new york university, and michael steele, former rnc chair and cohost of the new msnbc morning show, the weekend. and chairman steele, i'll start with you because you used to run this party. i think it is clear on this they want the issue, not the solution. right? >> oh, absolutely.

there's no doubt about that. and it's really interesting, the history behind the point you just made really goes back to the end of the reagan term and certainly the end of the bush term where president george bush 43 developed a deal, got a deal, had a consensus built in the house and the senate back in 2006, and it was ironically in this instance the senate conservatives killed the bill. the bill died in the senate, and that began this long trudge to nowhere on immigration, because it was worth more as political fodder than policy solution. and so now, in this environment, where you have got someone like donald trump, who does not care about the issue other than build a wall, let's keep mexicans out, et cetera, this is the political narrative that fuels money and

it fuels passionate votes. it draws out people who live in parts of the country who on any given day of the week don't have to think about a border but are furious about it and really concerned because, you know, they could be coming to my neighborhood. they could be taking my jobs. et cetera. so that's the real thrust of this, and lindsey graham is right. there is no bill in the senate in a trump term. because they're going to need those 60 votes and democrats are not going to give them to them if it requires everything. >> right, and i am old enough to remember marco rube uwho was part of the gang of eight negotiating those deals helping to kill the deal his own staff was writing because rush limbaugh told him to. rush limbaugh yelled at him and suddenly he was against the deal that he and john mccain, their staffs were writing. the other part that i think is the nefarious part, we want the

issue because it galvanizes our voters but there's also part that galvanizes autocracy and autocratic thinking. this first one is the governor of texas, greg abbott, lamenting his forces cant shoot people. >> the only thing we're not doing is not shooting people who come across the border, because of course, the biden administration would charge us with murder. >> and his immigration police, his immigration forces in state of texas refuse to intervene when a mother and two children aged 10 and 8 were caught in his web of, you know, his sort of makeshift barbed wire fence, and they drowned. so there's actual literal dying going on in the state of texas, and this is what he believes, greg abbott, and i assume trump believes the base wants. >> yeah, and i'm glad you started the segment talking about psy ops, because

propaganda is not just trying to get somebody to believe one false fact like vaccines cause autism. propaganda is actually changing the way people think and feel through the associations they make. so famously, like in nazi germany, if you heard the word jew, you were trained to think filthy and dangerous. so trump and the republicans are doing the same thing to immigrants, and of course, there's a long history of racializing and hating immigrants in our country. but the blood polluter thing, to link them to not only crime, taking away people's jobs but also polluting the blood, this goes right back to fascism. i truly feel like i have spent way too many hours looking at fascist rhetoric and mousselina in 1927 actually talked about, his words, black, brown, and yellow people trying to come

over the border and ruin, quote, white civilization. this is very old. it's actually the biggest through line in authoritarianism, right wing authoritarianism is people coming over the border to ruin your country and ruin white christian civilization. >> yeah, and viktor orban uses that exact same framing. meloni in italy has used the same framing, and hitler literally used the polluting the blood line, it's literally straight out of hitler. now, let me allow you viewers to listen to the speaker of the house, mike johnson, of the great state of louisiana, literally justify that rhetoric. >> that's not language i would use, but i understand the urgency of president trump's admanation. he's been saying this since he ran for president the first time. that we have to secure the border. i think the vast majority of the american people understand the nuvestee of that and i think they agree with his position. good. >> but that statement goes

beyond what you're personally comfortable with. >> it's not language i would use, but i understand -- >> it sounds hateful. >> it's not hateful. >> it's awful mealy-mouthed, ruth. he's essentially downplaying hitler talk. >> yeah, and what's going on, and this is also trump's comment about vermin, which the gop has not disavowed. there's an active attempt to dehumanize groups of people, immigrants, in order to create a climate that's conducive to both getting people to participate in any violence that will come, mass deportations, many abuses, but also not care. cultivating apathy, cultivating cruelty and indifference, which is what the greg abbott clip was showing. so this goes straight back to autocracies need people to be indifferent as well as being

cruel. you have to turn the cheek when the police or others start persecuting people. this is the secret, so how do you kill kindness and empathy in people? you do it the way we're seeing these things done now. >> and you know, michael steele, that's precisely it. you also take away the idea of admonition and embarrassment. you and i were literally together in the same city of cleveland when steve king ended his career and self emilated in a conversation with our own chris hayes in which he justified saying only white people have contributed to civilization. he was then on his way out after saying why can't i say white nationalism? he would have survived the present era of the republican party. >> well, it says a lot about that through line that ruth just laid out. it's there. it's an ever present part. and what happens is the timeline shrinks.

so you look at the arc from the 1930s to today. but then you look at the arc from the point, you know, that you're talking about in 2016, 2020, and now. it's a much shorter timeline. and how much more quickly we're moving into that time, into that space, to embrace the very things that you were just talking about. you know, to sort of find acceptance because you don't want to be bothered or to find, you know, appreciation for something because it aligns a little bit more with your view of the world. well, you know, to the speaker's point, when he says, well, it's not the way i would say it, oh, you would just clean it up. but the intent is the same. you wouldn't use the words that are associated with hitler, but the intent is the same. so explain to me the difference. so basically, what we're seeing

and i think we're going to see more of particularly in this cycle is they're going to dress it up and dumb it down. they're going to put -- it literally is going to be the lipstick on the very, very incredibly ugly and dangerous pig. >> indeed. the same way they have dressed up an insurrection as a tourist visit. ruth ben-ghiat and michael steele, thank you both very much. still ahead, day three of the e. jean carroll defamation damages trial. this time without trump's disruptive antics. we'll be right back. ♪ limu emu & doug ♪ ( bell ringing) customize and save with libberty bibberty. liberty bushumal. libtreally blubatoo. mark that one. that was nice! i think you're supposed to stand over there. oh am i? thank you.

so, a couple more? we'll just...we'll rip. we'll go quick. libu smeebo. libu bribu. limu bibu...and me. doug: he's an emu! only pay for what you need. jingle: ♪ liberty. liberty. liberty. liberty. ♪ ♪ i wanna hold you forever ♪ hey little bear bear. ♪ ♪ ♪ i'm gonna love you forever ♪ ♪ ♪ c'mon, bear. ♪ ♪ ♪ you don't...you don't have to worry... ♪ ♪ be by your side... i'll be there... ♪ ♪ with my arms wrapped around... ♪

for a second day, writer e. jean carroll was on the stand in her second defamation trial against donald trump. it was a much calmer day in the courtroom, perhaps because unlike the past two days trump was not present as he was in florida attending his mother-in-law's funeral. that of course didn't stop him from continuing his attacks and again defaming carroll. in a 1:00 a.m. social media post, he repeated his denials that he ever had anything to do with her, nor would he want to, and again called it a made-up and disgusting hoax. of course, the federal jury disagreed with trump last year, finding him liable for sexually abusing ms. carroll and for defaming her. joining me is lisa reuben, who was in the courtroom today. talk about the difference between e. jean carroll's day today and yesterday. >> joy, some of the issues that she was asked about today are no less difficult to talk about. and there were times where it

was difficult for her to talk about, particularly when alena habba, trump's lawyer, insinuating that e. jean carroll is better off today than she was four years ago because their theme seems to be a variant on the kanye famous song. like, i made that rhymes with witch famous. and so she was saying, you make more money now, you have celebrity friends. you're celebrated on twitter by the likes of john cusack and bette midler and you go to fancy parties and aren't you more famous now because of trump? >> because you were sexually assaulted. >> and also ignoring the fact that e. jean carroll was carrie bradshaw before candice bushnell ever thought about a 27 year-long column. but >> she had a tv show previously on this network. >> she did, she shared a stage manager with you. >> but going back to her response, her response was no, i'm not better off. yes, more people know who i am, and many of those people hate

me, they'd -- as a liar and a whack job, and i sleep with a gun beside my bed, because i am worried about my physical safety. so, i want to be clear, some of the testimony today was contentious. and yet, e. jean carroll's demeanor was different today, without donald trump in the courtroom. you and i were talking before the segment started about how in earlier days, e. jean carroll was perched on the edge of her seat, her posture was straight, almost as if to pitch yourself away from him, knowing that he was seated a couple of rows in back of her. and in this courtroom, the plaintiff and defendant, both were side by side. the point of sits in one row, the defendant two rows behind. e. jean carroll just could not stand being in that room with donald trump. if you didn't believe her before you saw that posture, that is trauma personified, and you see the position. >> and the other piece of it there was an expert witness, who also testified in the rudy giuliani case, in which he was forced to pay huge damages to

ruby freeman and shaye moss. this is the same expert, right? >> that's right, she was -- in e. jean's first case to. she was basically testifying to what it would take to restore e. jean's reputation. so putting aside what damages e. jean might be owed for her emotional harm, and what punitive damage the jury awards specifically to punish donald trump. just, what would it cost if you wanted to mount what she calls a reputation restoration campaign. she estimates it would cost between ten and $12 million. the thing that i thought was most interesting was that trump's lawyers were sort of nibbling around the edges of that report, but they never found fault with the actual numbers. they don't have a damages expert of their own, in fact. so they were trying to do is poke little holes in it here and they're, asking her, did you consider how much money e. jean carroll made? did you consider how her reputation has improved since?

things like that, as if to insinuate, we are not even going to try to back away at these numbers, because our position is she wasn't damaged at all. and if she was, it's on her. >> and it's on her. really quickly, alina hobbit, we want to talk about her for a moment. you know, i have a different feeling about elena hava,. there is not -- legal -- i don't think she is a really talented political communicator. >> but isn't this lag law school 101. >> yeah and so i want to be clear i don't alana hobba think is dumb, and i don't think alana hobba is failing a performative lee. i think she is not a skilled trial lawyer, because those are not skills she has valued or needed in her career. she doesn't know the federal rules of evidence law, for example, and it shows. but she's a performer. >> and that's why -- lisa rubin, thank you very much. >> thanks for having. me >> coming up, department of justice has just released its report on the police response to the uvalde school shooting, calling it a significant failure. more on that, straight ahead.

ht ahead ♪ ♪ charlotte! charl! every day can be extraordinary with rich, creamy, delicious fage total yogurt. ♪3, 4♪ ♪ every day can be extraordinary with rich, ♪hey♪ ♪ ♪are you ready for me♪ ♪are you ready♪ ♪are you ready♪

i've struggled with generalized myasthenia gravis.

but the picture started changing when i started on vyvgart. ♪♪ vyvgart is for adults with generalized myasthenia gravis who are anti-achr antibody positive. ♪♪ in a clinical trial, vyvgart significantly improved most participants' ability to do daily activities when added to their current gmg treatment. most participants taking vyvgart also had less muscle weakness. and your vyvgart treatment schedule is designed just for you. in a clinical study, the most common side effects included urinary and respiratory tract infections, and headache. vyvgart may increase the risk of infection. tell your doctor if you have a history of infections or symptoms of an infection. vyvgart can cause allergic reactions. available as vyvgart for iv infusion and also as vyvgart hytrulo for subcutaneous injection. additional side effects for vyvgart hytrulo may include injection site reactions. talk to your neurologist about vyvgart. ♪♪ when people come, they say they've tried

talklots of diets,logist nothing's worked or they've lost the same 10, 20, 50 pounds over and over again. they need a real solution. i've always fought with 5-10 pounds all the time. eating all these different things and nothing's ever working. i've done the diets, all the diets. before golo, i was barely eating but the weight wasn't going anywhere. the secret to losing weight and keeping it off is managing insulin and glucose. golo takes a systematic approach to eating that focuses on optimizing insulin levels. we tackle the cause of weight gain, not just the symptom. when you have good metabolic health, weight loss is easy. i always thought it would be so difficult to lose weight, but with golo, it wasn't. the weight just fell off. i have people come up to me all the time and ask me, "does it really work?" and all i have to say is, "here i am. it works." my advice for everyone is to go with golo. it will release your fat and it will release you. we must never forget the

shooters heinous act that day. and the victims, the survivors, they should never have been trapped with that shooter for more than an hour, as they waited for their rescue. >> with -- the families gathered last, night what i hope is clear from the hundreds of pages and thousands of details in this report. their loved ones deserve

better. >> that was attorney general merrick garland on the sweeping doj report outlining the, quote, cascading failure of the law enforcement response to last year's robb elementary school shooting in uvalde, texas, in which 19 kids and two teachers were murdered by a mass shooter. according to the report, the most significant failure was that responding officers should have immediately recognized the incident as an active shooter situation. the report notes that the generally accepted practice would have been for law enforcement to immediately, and without hesitation, penetrate the classroom with the objective of stopping the shooter. and that the resulting delay provided an opportunity for the active shooter to have additional time to reassess, and re-engage his deadly actions inside of the classroom. it also contributed to a delay in medical interventions, with the potential to impact survivability. so children's lives may have been saved by a different

response. the report also has horrifying details about how families were notified after the shooting. some received incorrect information, suggesting their family members had survived when they had not. and others were notified of the deaths of their family members by personnel untrained in delivering such painful news. here's how family members reacted to the report today. >> i hope that the -- today, and the local officials, do what wasn't done that day, do right by the victims and survivors of robb elementary. >> because the doj stamp -- maybe you will all take this seriously now, instead of telling us to move on, telling us to sweender the rug, and not doing a dam thing about it. >> and in the wake of the report, some are calling for criminal charges, and that is tonight's read out on -- s read out on --