auto workers an immediately 11% pay increase, 25% pay inkreefr over the 4 1/2 year and reinstated cost of living adjustments and shortened the time to top wage from 8 years to 3 year, right to strike over plant closures and two-tier pay structure. he was able to get quite a bit for union workers and everybody said he would not be able to. john nichols, thanks so much for joining us. next time we'll give you more time. we appreciate it. >> it's an honor to be with you. thanks for having me. >> that's going to do it for me. "deadline: white house" starts right now. hi, everyone. it's 4:00 in new york. aim ali velshi in for nicolle wallace. the first deadly strike against forces in the middle east since the october 7th is adding fuel to the fire in what is already an incredibly tense situation across the region. president biden has vowed to retaliate against a drone attack

on a u.s. base in jordan that killed three service members and injured dozens. here's what we know about the attack. you can see it in the middle of your screen, it was a logistics place where army and air force personnel are deployed as part of the effort to prevent the resurgence of isis. the pentagon reporting in the last hour all three killed were members of the army reserve. they are 46-year-old sergeant william jerome river, specialist kennedy l. sanders, 4 years old from georgia and 23-year-old specialist breonna moffett also from georgia. a drone struck the living quarters of the base where some of the troops were sleeping. eight of the injured had to be evacuated out of jordan because of the severity of their injuries. that's according to u.s. central command. an umbrella group of iranian-backed militias has claimed responsibility and brand-new reporting on what went wrong. "the new york times" reports air defenses failed to stop a deadly attack on a u.s. military

outpost in jordan on sunday because the hostile drone honed in on its target at the same time an american drone was returning to the base two u.s. officials said monday. the return of the american surveillance drone to the remote resupply base prompted some confusion over whether the incoming drone was friendly or not, air defenses were not immediately activated. the deaths on sunday significantly ups the stakes in what has been a slow boil conflict between iranian-backed groups and the united states across the region. there have been more than 170 attacks on u.s. bases, mostly in syria and iraq since war erupted in gaza and the u.s. has been responding carrying out dozens of retaliatory strikes in the region, not to mention that the u.s. has been bombing the houthi militia in yemen for blocking the fight of vital shipping routes in the nearby red sea. "the washington post" adds this, driving home the complexity of

the multifront conflict, more cross-border strikes were reported in the region monday morning. iraqi militias claimed to have israel. now, what has been a delicate balancing act for the united states has become more complicated. with the entire region waiting to see what the united states response looks like and if it includes strikes against iran itself. here's what the national security council spokesman john kirby had to say about that. >> no question there's going to be a response and you heard that from the president yesterday. we will respond. but as we've done in the past we'll do it in a time and manner of our choosing. we'll be careful. we'll be deliberate about this and the president will make the right decisions at the right time. we won't telegraph to the groups they're backing >> that's where we start with the former deputy fat security adviser to president biden, ben rhodes, plus, former united

states senator and co-host of "how to win" claire mccaskill and at the american university of bray route rami cory. if we have to stop warning everybody it will escalate into a region nall conflict it's already escalating into a regional conflict. i think the question here is whether or not america and iran are going to get into a direct conflict. >> yeah, i mean,ali, it's been in gaza but we have seen violence and exchanges of tit for tat, fire, and strikes in lebanon, in iraq, in syria, in yemen, in jordan now, and so this, make no mistake is also a conflagration across the region. think you're making the core

point this has essentially been a series of groups that some of which are proxies for iran. some of which get support from iran but are not controlled by iran like the houthis. i think we can overstate that. confrontations between them and israel and the united states. and i think the key decision point for the united states is, as it considers a response to this, does it go after iranian targets in iran? the irgc that supports some, do they go after them inside iran or their bases or nodes and some other places like iraq and syria or go after just these groups themselves just the groups themselves. i would air a note of caution. i feel liker we're on an escalatory path without a clear sense of where this is all going, and the last thing we want is to kind of be pulled into a regional war by groups that want us there. these groups are not looking to be deterred. these groups are looking to draw

the united states into this war, and i think that's a very dangerous place to be. you have to hold open space here for diplomacy and de-escalation or else risk a kind of self-fulfilling prophecy where you're getting drawn into a quicksand in this region without a clear sense of where is this all going? so, yes, i understand the absolute need to defend and protect u.s. service member, but the deterrent value of some of these actions and response are not clear to me because some of these group, the houthis in particular, for instance, won't be deterred. they want the conflict that they're trying to provoke with the united states. >> claire mccaskill, i'm surprised with lindsey graham although i shouldn't because he does know about the world and about foreign affairs. he tweeted. best response the biden administration could have to iran's bs denial in the attack that killed and wounded u.s. service members is target iranian oil or irgc military infrastructure valuable to the rejeej. anything less will be seen as weakness and put more americans in harm's way.

the president has all the authority he needs to act. he must now. by the way, that's one of the more measured responses from some members of the republican part of the side of the senate. this is a super complex issue, as ben says, attack on iran needs to be very well thought out if that's the kind of thing that's going to happen. >> well, and i think we have to be, you know, really aware that there's political connotations going on here too. there is a price to pay when our country is divided around national defense and right now, i mean, you just cited lindsey graham. there is a huge split in the republican party. i mean, none other than, you know, wacko tucker carlson went after graham for saying we should respond. so, you have a group of republicans that are trump loyalists that do not want us to fight -- to help ukraine, do not want us to counter putin, are just fine with being best friends with all the bad guys in

the world. they want us out of any military entanglement then you've got people on the armed services committee, both republicans and democrats that understand that this needs to be thoughtful, that we need to be cautious and we can't give these militia groups iranian-backed but we can't give them what they want. they want us in it and part may be that the bad guys in the world would love to cause biden political problems right now. >> let's talk about what is going on in iran. iran has -- seems to have made a decision at the moment it is not looking for a direct confrontation with the united states, but it uses those group tass are friendly to them or are engaged in these things. there are strange bedfellows involved. this hasn't become the third world war that some thought it would be but it is spreading. >> it's been spreading since the early 1980s if you look at hezbollah and lebanon and the

american marines at the embassy that was bombed in lebanon. this is not something that started on october 7 or when the base of jordan was set up. this is a long-running problem confrontation between the united states and israel on one side, england and now the uk is involved and several on the other side. what's striking here -- the only time i disagreed with ben. i don't think they want the islamist folks want the americans here. they have expressly been saying for years they're trying to drive the americans out of the region. that's not going to happen probably, but i think what they'd like is a few -- fewer bases than the americans now have, which is something i think they have 35 or 40 military bases all around the region, and people wonder what are these bases for? are they protecting americans or

are they helping israel or are they helping allies of the u.s.? what are he doing? this group that iran put together, hezbollah, yemen and the various smaller groups in iraq and syria who are now the main instruments of attacking small attacks against u.s. bases in syria and jordan, this axis of resistance as they call it has proved to be the strongest military force in the region, in the arab region, at least. turkey is stronger, iran may be stronger, and they're all nonstate actors. this is quite extraordinary, so i think the policymakers in washington need to step back a little bit, take a broader look at the region, look back 30, 40 years, look back maybe a little bit longer, and see, is this american policy of focusing on military force, attacking countries, threatening countries

and sanctioning people in countries, is it producing the results we want, or is it dragging the u.s. into more and more of these conflicts. if you look at the ones where the u.s. went in and forced afghanistan, iraq, somalia, lebanon, none of them ended well, and these smaller groups that are being created now indigenously or with iran, they all really came out of the chaos that happened in iraq, iraq and syria to a large extent after the american-led invasion to get rid of saddam hussein on false preanswer its, so i think we need a much larger, more sophisticated analysis of just keeping our, you know, keeping our honor and hitting them back when they hit us. the united states has to be more humble and more precise in how it uses military power

effectively, which it has in some cases, the battle against isis i think was legitimate. the battle to get the iraqis out of kuwait was legitimate. but many of these other military presences are not seen to be legitimate in the eyes of local people and the islamist groups are all saying, you know, don't threaten us, we're not scared of what you're threatening us. look at the houthis in yemen, and they're all saying we want to get the united states out of the region, not to pull it in. >> ben, you were in administration -- in an administration which had the view that engaging with iran is better than the alternative, better than not engaging with iran. rami makes an interesting point. not all nonstate -- all roads lead back to iran. what's the bigger view here? when lind i graham and others say hit iran and hit tehran, the simplistic view it is a war with

iran. the more complex view is just more complex. >> yeah, and i just want to pick up on what rami said, actually i think we do agree, because i think they want us out, but the way they want us out is to draw us into the kind of overreaction that causes us to completely lose any capacity to work with some of these governments, and as claire pointed out, they know that the consensus in the united states is they want to be done with these war, right? so, the small example i give, ali, u.s. undertook a strike in baghdad, which is very unusual. that prompted the iraqi government to say, hey, this is a complete violation of our sovereignty, attacks back and forth in terms of influence. these groups can present themselves as being at the vanguard of resistance to the united states and israel when regional and global opinion is against the united states and israel because what is happening in gaza and these groups know

that there's fatigue in the united states with having this military presence and getting in these entanglements, so by getting us to react to these kind of tit for tat approach that they're taking, they both erode support in the u.s. for these continued exhaustion with military engagements and erode domestic support in these countries for the u.s. to be a partner in a place like iraq, and sour consideration in the obama year, was, look, we don't like what iran is doing, we don't like its support for the groups. precisely because of that we have to put a ceiling on this and have a nuclear deal that rolls back the iran nuclear program so you don't have them armed and de-escalate the tensions. you won't be able to resolve everything. isn't that preferable to where we are today? we haven't talked about iran since they pulled out, they could be on the doorstep of nuclear capability. if we won't de-escalate the

pathway is this quicksand going on for decades and not someplace america wants to be. >> when the united states was in a deal with iran, that acted as a sort of bulwark for the moderates who existed in iran. and when america pulled out of that deal, the moderates were essentially eliminated in iran. iran is now a much harder line government than when america had a deal with them. this is not something that republicans were able to acknowledge back then. they're certainly not going to right now. there are -- there's more than one way to solve a problem and the number of tweets from republican senators saying bomb them now does seem to be lacking the necessary nuance in this complicated a situation. >> yeah, and that's the danger. i mean, we have fallen into a horrible cycle of performance politics, viral politics, and while you've got the republican party split wide open over what

america's foreign policy should be, i mean, you've got a camp that says, forget the u.n., forget nato, putin's great, let's go hang out with strong men, we got no problem with kim jong-un, we've got no problem with these bad guys, then you have the wing that is on the armed services committees that still sees this is a path for the united states to make friends around the world where it can and to try to avoid escalating these conflicts. we need the republicans that are on the right side of that line to get together with democrats and to get together with a very experienced leader in foreign policy by the name of joe biden and figure out a way to get out as ben said this quicksand of escalation that some of these militias are pining for. >> ben rhodes, ramikhouri. thank you. the big cases looming over the 123rk9 as donald trump marks us closer and closer to the

general election and biden's policy is taking shape leaning into taking down the gop likely nominee any way he can and perhaps hoping for a pop from big name endorsements and donald trump given 83.3 million reasons to keep quiet when it comes to e. jean carroll, will they work? we'll look at that and the other financial hits that could be coming when "deadline: white house" continues. after this. we come from a long line of cowboys. (♪♪) when i see all of us out here on this ranch, i see how far our legacy can go. (♪♪) he hits his mark —center stage—and is crushed by a baby grand piano. you're replacing me? customize and save with liberty bibberty. he doesn't even have a mustache. only pay for what you need. ♪ liberty. liberty. liberty. liberty. ♪ [city ambience sounds] [car screech] [car door slam]

[camera shutter sfx] introducing ned's plaque psoriasis. [camera shutter sfx] he thinks his flaky, red patches are all people see. otezla is the #1 prescribed pill to treat plaque psoriasis. [ned?] it can help you get clearer skin and reduce itching and flaking. with no routine blood tests required. doctors have been prescribing it for nearly a decade. otezla is also approved to treat psoriatic arthritis. don't use otezla if you're allergic to it. serious allergic reactions can happen. otezla may cause severe diarrhea, nausea, or vomiting. some people taking otezla had depression, suicidal thoughts, or weight loss. upper respiratory tract infection and headache may occur. [crowd gasp] ♪♪ with clearer skin, movie night is a groovy night. [ting] ♪♪ live in the moment. ask your doctor about otezla.

week three of waiting for a ruling from a d.c. appeals court on donald trump's broad claims of presidential immunity. no matter the decision there,

the question will likely be decided by the supreme court. that means they could have two enormously consequential cases regarding the ex-president before them. the justices are set to hear oral arguments on february 8th over the question of whether trump can be barred from the 2024 ballot by the 14th amendment. the colorado voters who sued to take him off the ballot wrote to the supreme court on friday in a filing, quote, the thrust of trump's position is less legal than it is political. he not so subtly threatens bedlam if he is not on the ballot but we already saw the bedlam trump unleashed when he was on the ballot and lost. section 3 is designed precisely to avoid giving oath-breaking insurrectionists like trump the power to unleash such mayhem again, end quote. a believe that michael luttig would agree with. he argues when it comes to the legal questions there is no other decision the 6-3 majority

court could come to other than to uphold colorado's decision to take trump off the ballot. here he is on this program last month. >> i believe that the supreme court of the united states when and if it takes this particular case should affirm this colorado supreme court's decision. i believe that based on the objective law, which in this instance is section 3 of the 14th amendment. there is no other decision that the supreme court could make. >> joining our conversation is nyu law professor and former clerk to judge sonia sotomayor and andrew weissmann. they're both co-authors of a new book out "the trump indictments: the historic charging documents with commentary."

let's start with you, melissa. the likelihood that the supreme court does end up dealing with the issue of donald trump's eligibility to run and a comment on judge luttig's opinion it seems pretty obvious, particularly for the originalists on this court that's what's written in the constitution and that's how it has to go down. >> well, they're going to wind up dealing with it even if they determine that this is a political question into which federal courts cannot intervene and will have to deal with it. you raise a good point. it does seem like all of the originalists bona fides may weigh in favor of thump by the plain text is disqualified if he is determined to have participated in an insurrection. of course, this is a court whose originalism may be a bit fainthearted. they're not always originalists or at least they're only originalists when it suits them. this could be a real test. the court's priors and whether

or not they're willing to follow the approach to where it leads. that will be the real question. if pragmatism intervenes or guided by their originalism. >> andrew, i want your take. i recall you telling me there is some chance they don't get it but this letter from the colorado voters to the supreme court, which sort of states the obvious, that you and i were together the day that donald trump and his lawyers were making the case to the court of appeals and they were interesting but more political than they were following the letter of the law. >> to complicate matter, actually are potentially three, not just two supreme court cases that affect donald trump. there's the disqualification argument that's definitely before the supreme court that will be argued on february 8th. there is the potential taking of

the immunity decision that we're waiting for from the d.c. circuit court, the court of appeals that the supreme court may take but we don't know that yet. and then there's a third case that they have taken where donald trump is not himself a -- one of the parties but it involves one of the charges that he is charged with, obstruction of justice and on instructing of congress where the supreme court is going to hear argument about how to interpret that statue statute and whether it i encompasses the kind of conduct that it's charged in the january 6th case, so there actually are three potential balls in the air. you know, i am less sanguine with respect to the disqualification appeal, meaning, i wouldn't necessarily put my money on the fact that the supreme court is going to affirm the colorado supreme court that they're going to say, yes, he is disqualified, and one

of the reasons is simple math, which is there are a lot of open issues that even the text of the constitution does not decide. that's very common in interpreting the constitution that it is, you know, it is not an indenture agreement with tons ofe but every possible variation, and so the court usually has to deal with a variety of issues and interpreting the constitution. but donald trump to win only really has to win on any one of those open issues, whereas to affirm the colorado supreme court, they really have to win on everything. so, there's a lot of room as melissa points out for the court to engage in pragmatism and to use one of those open issues as a hook to say that they are not going to remove him from the

ballot. that being said, i think there are very good arguments for the side that wants to affirm colorado, so it's by no means a done deal either way. >> claire, what's your sense of the politics of this? there are some who have made the case after this became popularized, this idea of the 14th amendment, section 3, who said this shouldn't be decided by the courts, the future of this country should be decided by the voters and people like judge luttig and others have said, lovely though that sounds, it's not the way the law works. whether or not the supreme court does affirm the colorado decision, the question here is -- becomes political. there are some who would like to see donald trump disqualified and others will be disappointed if he is not. >> well, first of all, judge luttig is looking at this as an originalist and as a texturist and not looking at the fact this

this supreme court, as both of these really smart lawyers just laid out, is going to be looking for an off-ramp and there are plenty of off-ramps that they can find to not remove donald trump from the ballot. here's the thing, it will disappoint some people, yes. i believe they will find an off-ramp and they will leave them on the ballot. but i think everybody needs to wake up to the bigger political question of what this supreme court has become. very, very hypocritical. these are judges, the majority of which said when they came in front of the senate for confirmation they believed in precedent, well, no, not so much. they overturned 50 years of precedent taking away vital freedoms of every woman in this country. they said that they believed in originalism and texturalism, well, not so much. if they did they would be agreeing with judge luttig and remove donald trump from the ballot. they said they don't want to legislate from the bench. have you heard of citizens united? there are really many, many airs

ya this court has shown hypocrisy on the tenets they hold so dear and that's what i find so repugnant and one of the reasons among many that the supreme court is held in such low esteem right now by most americans and why i think politically the supreme court will be a big issue in november. >> melissa, at what point is this behind us because i would assume, we don't know. i'm not assuming anything. we'll hear from the circuit court at some point in the next few days or weeks and then there will be a decision about whether the supreme court takes us or not. at what point is this in the rearview mirror and the rest moves along including the trials we're looking forward to. >> i'm always reminded when they come up and they're donald trump cases in the docket at the court this terms seems to be unusual in how many are before the

court. it's a bit like shark week only for the entire term, so we're just going to be dealing with the ramifications of this either way as we go through the rest of the supreme court term, like this election is going to be shadowed by the fact that the court intervened in some capacity to determine whether donald trump was on the ballot in these states, we are likely going to find out if donald trump is disqualified or has some sort of broad presidential immunity going forward. that's going to shadow this election so to the extent we are still hearing about bush versus gore 24 years later, i don't think we're going to see this term and the trump shadow over this term in the rearview mirror for some time. >> andrew, there was an expected start date of the federal case the jack smith against donald trump at the beginning of march. what's your sense of when that is going to get under way? >> so, i kind of look at my calendar and do the math and figure out how long has there been this automatic stay while

the case has been on appeal. and i sort of add that to the march 4th date that was set figuring that judge chutkan is not going to give donald trump less time to prepare than she said so that brings us now, if she got the green light today, that court of brings us into sort of mid-april as the earliest but that is if she got the green light today, and that's the thing i'm keeping my eye on. when the d.c. circuit does eventually rule, the key thing to keep an eye on is what did they say about when they're going to issue the mandate? that is sort of giving the ball back to judge chutkan and essentially what that tells donald trump is if he wants to try to appeal to the full court of the d.c. circuit or try to appeal to the supreme court

he'll have a limited amount of time so that's the thing that, you know, in terms of delay which is obviously donald trump's name of the game, that's the thing to keep an eye on, because even if he loses in the d.c. circuit, which i think he will, you know, this is one where he could lose the battle but win the war. meaning, he may lose immunity but gained all of this time, and so right now what we're looking at, sort of mid-april at the earliest in my view. >> we'll be talking about it for awhile, melissa murray and andrew wiseman, thanks for joining us if it breaks out in the next hour, stay close. after the break how president biden hopes to make 2024 about his policy accomplishments and about the dangers to american democracy with another trump term. new reporting on that democratic battle plan is next. and i wanted to hide from the world. for years, i thought my t.e.d. was beyond help... but then i asked my doctor about tepezza.

(vo) tepezza is the only medicine that treats t.e.d. at the source not just the symptoms. in a clinical study more than 8 out of 10 patients taking tepezza had less eye bulging. tepezza is an infusion and may cause infusion reactions. tell your doctor right away if you experience high blood pressure, fast heartbeat, shortness of breath or muscle pain. before treatment, tell your doctor if you have diabetes, ibd, or are pregnant, or planning to become pregnant. tepezza may raise blood sugar and may worsen ibd. tepezza may cause severe hearing problems which may be permanent. (bridget) now, i'm ready to be seen again. (vo) visit mytepezza.com to find a ted eye specialist and to see bridget's before and after photos. 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. hi, i'm kim, and i lost 67 pounds on golo. now is the time to see what america's largest when i was diagnosed with breast cancer, food became my comfort. i didn't think i looked pretty anymore, so i let myself go. i've seen the golo commercials for a while. what stuck out to me most was there was no celebrity endorser. the testimonials were from real people. what cancer took from me, golo gave back. (uplifting music) you want to see who we are as americans? i'm peter dixon and in kenya... we built a hospital that provides maternal care. as a marine... we fought against the taliban and their crimes against women. and in hillary clinton's state department...

we took on gender-based violence in the congo. now extremists are banning abortion and contraception right here at home. so, i'm running for congress to help stop them. for your family... and mine. i approved this message because this is who we are.

( ♪ ♪ ) start your day with nature made. the #1 pharmacist recommended vitamin and supplement brand. donald trump is betting we -- you won't vote on this issue. but guess what. [ laughter ] he's betting we won't hold him responsible either for taking away the rights. i'm betting he's prong. >> president biden in his first campaign rally tied to the anniversary of the roe v. wade decision highlighting the man responsible for stripping away a constitutional right from americans for the first time. biden wasn't kidding about betting on voters refusing to let donald trump off the hook for his role in the current crisis of abortion access. "the new york times" is

reporting that it's a key part of biden's 2024 strategy. the president's aides plan to couple a direct assault on mr. sterling with a heavy focus on abortion rights casting it as symbolic of larger conservative efforts. it's part of his effort to inject energy into his bid. mr. bible study has thrown a series of rallies across battleground states warning that democracy itself is at stake in 2024, he sent two of his most trusted operatives to take the helm of his campaign and other biden aides are drafting wish lists of potential surrogates including elected officials and social media influencers, end quote. the campaign is even reaching out to taylor swift hoping seal's speak out and endorse president biden. joining us now is the editor at large for the bulwark, charlie sykes. claire is back as well. charlie, welcome to you. let's talk about this. we have seen in the midterm elections and off-year elections and referenda around the country

that regard also of people's underlying views of abortion, this seems to be a universality that americans don't want rights taken away from them. they don't want certain decisions made on their behalf. what's your sense of the biden campaign deciding that abortion and its connection to -- abortion rights and their connection to donald trump is going to be central? >> well, this ought to be pretty obvious considering how it played during the midterm elections. it will rally the base and obviously will -- turnout is crucial, enthusiasm is crucial, but i think it will also appeal to swing voters who are watching this, particularly as one legislature after another passing punitive pieces of legislation and one twist on this, i think there's also an opportunity for joe biden and the democrats to challenge republican credentials on being

pro-life. look at donald trump and say do we think he is a pro-life champion. let's look at what they are doing to children and families around the country as well. but clearly this is going to be in any democratic playbook pretty much anywhere in the country. >> let's talk about it broadly, claire. republican messaging is often narrower and sort of easier to digest. this unwieldy big tent democratic party and most would say that's a good thing. that's what i political party should be. doesn't always gel around a singular message, there's democracy, rights, abortion, there's the economy, there's climate, what's your sense of how this should unfold? >> well, i think the biden campaign has figured out that the word freedom is -- it's time for us to reclaim freedom as a democratic party. and we have the perfect equation for that in this election. the freedom of women to make their own decisions without the

government telling them what to do and freedom to vote. and decide who leads our country. those are two pretty important freedoms to most americans and they're very important to swing voters in those states that are going to be necessary to get the number of electoral votes to re-elect joe biden so i think they figured that part out. i think anybody -- i've had so many men come up to me and say, you know, i don't think that abortion issue is still going to be that powerful by november. i said, well, you're wrong. it is not going away. women feel it every day especially in states like mine where the government is telling rape victims they must give birth. they are mandating birth to their rapist's child. if their father repeatedly them raped them as a child they are mandating that child give birth. that is not something that is supported and in red states particularly and i think, charlie, back me up on this,

they are big about the government staying out of your business. that's the problem republicans have on this issue. they really have a problem on the government staying out of your business. >> that's the nut, right? because this sounded when it happened when roe fell, the idea of states will just manage this themselves, it sounded interesting except what we've noticed is that in many of these states the laws have become draconian and do seem like remarkable government intrusion into one's life, charlie. >> well, also you're seeing a lot of confusion about, you know, what the limits are. do you have exemptions for rape and incest? how do you, in fact, interpret all of that. do you favor a national ban or leave it up to the states. they're all over the map on all of this but to claire's point, you know, conservatives for the last couple of years have been pounding away at this idea keep government away from my body. it's pie body, my choice. well, it is interesting now to make this switch back, and,

again, i think this is going to be an issue that is going to help joe biden with young voters, i think he's got a problem with enthusiasm at the beginning of the year might be an issue but i agree with claire, this is not an issue that will go away any time soon. we will have a major decision about abortion pills sometime this year and i think that's going to fire it up rather dramatically. >> the supreme court said they'll start listening to oral arguments on that, i think, around mid-march. both of you stick around please. coming up next elise stefanik's flip-flop on january 6th called out in a pretty good troll this weekend. we'll tell you all about that when we come back. >> woman: what's my safelite story? i see inspiration right through my glass. so when my windshield cracked, i chose safelite.

they replaced the glass and recalibrated my safety system. that's service i can trust. >> singers: ♪ safelite repair, safelite replace. ♪

there are some things that work better together. like your workplace benefits and retirement savings. voya helps you choose the right amounts

without over or under investing. so you can feel confident in your financial choices. voya, well planned, well invested, well protected. this has been a truly tragic day for america. americans will always have the freedom of speech and the constitutional right to protest, but violence in any form is absolutely unacceptable. it is anti-american and must be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. >> i stand by my comments that i made on the house floor. >> that was congresswoman elise stefanik on the night of january 6th, hours after the capitol rioters breached the house chamber that she was in and objected to the certification of the 2020 election, an act that helped elevate her to the current position as house gop conference chair and now trump vice presidential hopeful. those comments that day are what liz cheney called a rare moment of honesty.

cheney posted a week ago as a reminder of how she really felt in the aftermath of the capitol attack echoing what we just played. but a funny thing happened after that cheney post, stefanik's statement put out on january 6th was deleted from her website. here's how it looks when you try to find it. an error message. well, liz cheney caught wind of it and shared the statement again making sure no one forgets stefanik calling for accountability to her, in her word, the perpetrators of this un-american violence. we are back here with charlie and claire. charlie, this is the albatross for a lot of republicans who are -- who still call themselves republicans elected and it's tough because without doing this you don't -- you may not get elected or primaried and certainly won't be the vice presidential candidate with donald trump. but with it, you're stuck on the wrong side of history. >> oh, very much so. you know what's extraordinary

about this is that, you know, occasionally people will try to change their resume or wipe out embarrassing moments from their past, right? elise stefanik, though, is trying to airbrush out that part of life where she was a reasonable, rational, decent person, where she was speaking honestly because she understands now that that kind of honesty may cost her a spot on donald trump's ticket and if we know anything about elise stefanik, we know that she is the ultimate opportunist who will do anything at all to win donald trump's favor, so liz cheney just caught her out, basically trying to erase from her past that moment before she descended into being a maga crackpot. it's really a very revealing moment. >> it is interesting and i want to be careful how i say this, claire. liz cheney was never not a decent person, but in terms of their policies, these two women have done a 180.

elise stefanik was one of the more moderate versions of an elected republican in this country, and she has had to embrace views that are not necessarily politically conservative at all, but she's had to embrace unsavory behavior and liz cheney has absolutely and outwardly rejected that behavior. it is remarkable to watch and one of them is no longer essentially -- no longer in congress as a result and the other one might be a vice presidential candidate. >> well, there's really within big defining interest between elise stefanik and liz cheney, and that is one of them was seduced by power to totally give up her integrity, the other one was moved by her loyalty to our constitution and to this country to do the right thing. it's that simple. if you look at their policies, frankly, if you look at their voting records, liz cheney had a more conservative voting record if you take the whole voting

record than elise stefanik did. elise stefanik was somebody who was more of a moderate, not liz cheney. you could never have called liz cheney a moderate. it's just the difference between doing the right thing and basically succumbing to the lowest snake belly base interests of performative politics so you can be powerful and i love that liz cheney did this because we now know that elise stefanik doesn't mean that these people who have gone to court, many of whom who pled guilty and found guilty in our court system, she knows they're not hostages. that's what she called them. she called them hostages. that is what donald trump wants her to say. now, i don't know if this will stop her from being vice president. clearly, that's what she's aiming for. and the whole thing kind of just makes me sick to my stomach because i hate seeing bright smart women end up laying this low to the ground like elise stefanik is now.

>> and she is that. there's no question. she's highly educated, very sophisticated, savvy political being. and she's made some interesting choices. charlie, thanks as always. good to see you again. coming up next, a gop congressman forgetting what she voted against. a pattern we're likely to see a lot this year. 're likely to see lot this year.

i think i'm ready for this. heck, yeah! with e*trade you're ready for anything. marriage. kids. college. kids moving back in after college. (applause) here's to getting financially ready for anything. and here's to being single and ready to mingle. who's ready to cha-cha? hi, i'm michael, i've lost 62 pounds on golo and i have kept it off. and here's to being single and ready to mingle. most of the weight that i gained was strictly in my belly which is a sign of insulin resistance. but since golo, that weight has completely gone away, as you can tell. thanks to golo and release, i've got my life and my health back. you voted against the chips act, and yet you praise the fact that the south florida climate resilience tech hub is going to be started in miami.

right? you voted against the infrastructure bill, and you talk about all the money that comes back to the airport. so at the same time that you're taking credit for the money that you bring back to the district, in washington you're voting against these projects on party line votes. >> listen, that was i think last cycle. i cannot really remember right now -- >> that was the florida republican congresswoman maria elvira salazar, who apparently forgot how she voted on two of the major bipartisan accomplishments of the biden presidency. the infrastructure bill and the chips act. both bills, which benefited her congressional district, which encompasses much of the miami area, but no thanks to her. it's a part of a pattern that we've seen among many of her gop colleagues in congress. it's one -- claire, this happens, but it's happening a lot in these particular bills where right after they are voted against by republicans people are making announcements and celebrating sod turnings and ribbon cuttings in their

district. president biden sort of made light of this in the past and said i'll see you at the opening. >> yeah. first of all, liar liar pants on fire. she totally remembers. and it's so obvious she remembers. her body language. i mean, this is just so damaging to a political candidate when they're this phony. and you know, i have people ask me all the time, ali, what can we do locally to help? you know, with the democrats down there in that area can do, they can get together in their local democratic committee and gather enough money and put up some billboards and call this woman out for her hypocrisy, her phoniness. her willingness to look in the camera and lie to them. lying has become part of the republican party. and it's so refreshing to see a journalist call them on it in real time. it just makes my heart beat a little faster. >> yeah. it's possible that in all the votes you've cast there's something, if i asked you about right now, you might not remember. i don't know. maybe you remember every last vote. but these were actually two very

big deal votes. it's not likely you would not know where you stood on major, major infrastructure issues like that, with a lot of spending attached to them. >> no, absolutely not. i mean, if he asked her about some amendment that was passed in committee or, you know, some amendment that was offered on the floor or some substitute bill on some arcane subject, this -- the infrastructure bill and the chips act are two huge, major pieces of legislation. she knows how she voted. she's lying to the camera. that should be a bad sign for anybody who wants your vote. >> claire, great to see you. by the way, chiefs. i mean, you must be feeling pretty good about that. >> yes, chiefs. yeah, i mean, i just love being the underdog. can we always be the underdog? and by the way, as taylor would say, haters are going to hate hate hate. i think the chiefs are doing pretty well with everybody hating on them. >> very good. claire, great to see you. thank you for spending the hour with me. i always appreciate it. claire mccaskill. up next a look at donald trump's financial hits piling up this year as the legal cases make

their way through the courts. the next hour of "deadline: white house" starts right after a quick break. e" starts right a a quick break. immunotherapies work with your immune system to attack cancer. but opdivo plus yervoy is the first combination of 2 immunotherapies for adults newly diagnosed with non-small cell lung cancer that has spread, tests positive for pd-l1, and does not have an abnormal egfr or alk gene. opdivo plus yervoy is not chemotherapy, it works differently. it helps your immune system fight cancer in 2 different ways. opdivo and yervoy can cause your immune system to harm healthy parts of your body during and after treatment. these problems can be severe and lead to death. see your doctor right away if you have a cough; chest pain; shortness of breath; irregular heartbeat; diarrhea; constipation; severe stomach pain; severe nausea or vomiting; dizziness; fainting; eye problems; extreme tiredness; changes in appetite, thirst or urine; rash; itching; confusion; memory problems; muscle pain or weakness; joint pain; flushing; or fever. these are not all the possible side effects. problems can occur together and more often when opdivo is used with yervoy. tell your doctor about all medical conditions including immune or nervous system problems, if you've had or plan to have an organ

or stem cell transplant, or received chest radiation. your search for 2 immunotherapies starts here. ask your doctor about opdivo plus yervoy. a chance to live longer. when i first learned about my dupuytren's contracture, my physician referred me to a hand specialist. and i'm glad he did, because when i took the tabletop test, i couldn't lay my hand flat anymore. the first hand specialist i saw only offered surgery. so, i went to a second hand specialist who also offered nonsurgical options - which felt more right for me. so, what i'd say to other people with dupuytren's contracture is this: don't wait —find a hand specialist trained in nonsurgical options, today. i found mine at findahandspecialist.com.

you may know adam schiff's work to protect the rule of law, or to build affordable housing, or write california's patients bill of rights. but i know adam through the big brother program. we've been brothers since i was seven. he stood by my side as i graduated from yale, and i stood by his side when he married eve, the love of his life. i'm a little biased, but take it from adam's little brother. he'll make us all proud as california senator. i'm adam schiff and i approve this message.

the elation was so great on friday. to filled me up, it was almost painful. it's taken really every day -- today i'm just very happy because i'm calm enough to realize what she did. i'd like to give the money to something donald trump hates. if it will cause him pain for me to give money to a certain -- to certain things, that's my intent. >> like? >> well, perhaps a fund for the women who have been sexually assaulted by donald trump. >> hi again, everyone. it's 5:00 in new york. i'm ali velshi in for nicolle wallace. when e. jean carroll brought her defamation case against former president trump, she said it was about getting her name back, getting her reputation back. it was taking a stand to say that donald trump could not just

utter whatever he wanted without consequence. there needed to be accountability. and that accountability came in the form of $83.3 million, the amount the jury decided that trump must pay carroll after just three hours of deliberation, hitting the ex-president where it hurts, in his wallet. friday's verdict was a financial blow to trump but not one to bankrupt a man who says his wealth is in the billions. but it also comes at a time when any day now we could hear the verdict in the civil fraud trial where the new york attorney general is seeking a whopping $370 million from trump and his business. and where he's already been found liable for fraud. meaning the former president could lose almost half a billion dollars in a very short span of time, not accounting for appeals. as "the new york times" reports, quote, together the judgments might deliver a punishing one-two punch to the former president, a financial threat unlike any he has experienced in

decades, end quote. the "times" adds, quote, if mr. trump suddenly owes hundreds of millions of dollars he might have to sell much of his investment portfolio or other assets, end quote. friday's decision seems to have made an impact, at least for the moment. at a campaign stop this weekend trump did not go after carroll directly. he only made a small reference to, quote, what happened on friday, end quote. whether that silence will remain, we will see. >> you're confident he won't do it again? what happens if he does? >> i can't be confident about anything donald trump does. >> all options are on the table. >> what does that mean? >> if we have to bring another case, we'll bring another case. it's just going to be more money. >> and that is where we start this hour with the pulitzer prize-winning "new york times" investigative reporter russ beutner plus first amendment scholar and senior visiting research fellow with columbia university ronal anderson jones. in person, very nice to see you right here in the flesh.

and with me at the table for the hour the host of the podcast fast politics and the special correspondent for "vanity fair" and a newly minted msnbc political analyst, our friend molly jong fast. welcome to all of you. thank you for being with us. molly, i want to start with you because you have a personal connection to e. jean carroll. i want you to just tell us a little bit aboutt personal connection because molly jong -- your mother and e. jean carroll represent something now. >> yeah. and they're -- so i met e. jean through my mother. my mother wrote "fear of flying," was a second wave feminist. is the very same generation as e. jean. this generation that fought for reproductive freedom, that fought so hard for roe. and my mother used to tell me 1973 was a demarcation line in her life. she got bodily autonomy. right? they got the rights over their own bodies. it was a sea change culturally.

and then donald trump, a contemporary of theirs, someone they even -- both of them knew, went to parties with, were in the same gossip columns, you know, very much similar crowd, he appointed three far right justices. he said he was going to do it. in the hopes of overturning roe. and they overturned roe. and they lost that bodily autonomy for their daughters which they had fought so hard for. so i do think when i look at e. jean carroll i think of my mom. and i think of me. and i think, you know, when trump became president there was a wave of racism and sexism and misogyny. and when e. jean got this victory it was like women matter. we really matter. >> russ, let's talk a little about the money situation. it's complicated, right? in most people's case if they got a judgment against them for $83.3 million it would be the end. the interesting part about this is we're discussing whether that's actually the end or whether another $370 million will be the end. what's your sense of the impact of this judgment, assuming it

stands? >> well, it's always kind of a moving target trying to figure out how much cash donald trump might have on hand. and i say that having seen 20-plus years of his tax returns and his father's financial records. it's not going to be a happy day if he has to pay that. but i would look back at some of the records that were filed in the court case that support the things that we also saw in his tax returns. in 2016 he told deutschebank according to his court records that he had total cash on hand in his businesses and his personal accounts of $114 million. his businesses were cash flow negative at that point in time. he was having to put money into them each year to support them. that doesn't sound very good. like right now he might have an extra $80 million sitting around that he could pay for a bond for this judgment. but he did have some influxes over the last couple of years as well, when he sold the old post office hotel in washington,

d.c., an investment he doesn't control but is one of the best that he has. refinanced a couple of buildings that he owned. that could have created a windfall for him. so it's where you meet sort of the intersection of the cash-hungry nature of the businesses he runs. generally the businesses he runs themselves don't cover their own expenses and he's had to put money into them over the years. matched with money he gets from things he doesn't really control. and over the last ten years, like the money he got from "the apprentice" and licensing deals fell from a high of $51 million according to our analysis in 2011, i believe, to almost nothing by the time he was in the white house. that left a gaping hole in his balance shoot every year. that's what's at the center of a lot of this lawsuit. it's going to be a big impact, ali. the degree, how big an impact is not clear. if this judgment comes in from the state attorney general's

case, 370 million, that's a hard hit. would wipe out the cash he has on hand and probably would require the sale of some of his assets to fill in the holes. >> ronnell, the lawyer roberta kaplan who was on with e. jean carroll, had made the into the pot jury and she said before, the point here is to do something that will make donald trump stup. you're an expert at free speech, and the last time donald trump had a decision against him about e. jean carroll it was less than 24 hours before he was talking about her. do you believe this will have the impact that roberta kaplan hoped it would? >> well, it's a really hard thing to guess in part because we've entered into this really strange new era in which defamers seem not to be deterred in the way that libel law expects them to be. we wouldn't have expected that 24 hours after a $5 million -- >> right. >> -- libel verdict we would have him on national television

digging in and doubling down on the lie. libel law doesn't account for that. it imagines -- >> that you will take the lesson. >> that you will stop from the feedback of that. and so this sort of will he or won't he that's on everyone's mind at the moment is really quite a new phenomenon. we kind of have assumed all along that libel law will continue to do the jobs for us that we expect it to do, not just remedying reputational harm but also correcting the public record and deterring the defamer from saying the lie again and again in the aftermath. but that really presupposes a defendant who is chastised. and it -- >> who has some shame. >> and also presupposes a defendant who doesn't have political or profit motives or incentives that are stronger than the incentive to stop sharing the lie. and it also presupposes a lot about all of us as audiences. it presupposes that we will value truth when it is found

through information that is provable and relevant in a court and that we want to have a shared objective reality. so this new space is a really complicated one. we're making predictions on the basis of a new libel framework, and i think we can't be certain whether the next libelous repeat of that comment is just around the corner. >> interesting that roberta kaplan says if he does it again we'll just go after him again. these two trials, which didn't seem to i think the general public as important as the four criminal trials, do so much more than threaten to take away donald trump's liberty. they take away his creation myth. right? they take away his imagery. both of them. the fraud trial, which says -- in which judge engoron says you're a fraud, you're built on a house of cards, and then this one because he has constantly talked about women in remarkably disparaging ways. every time somebody has accused him of sexual assault he's

associated that with what they look like or why he wouldn't have gone for them. both of these things hurt donald trump in some ways where it really hurts. >> yeah. oh, for sure. and i would say that i think donald trump's whole play here has been a mistake for him. so he has really done this as candidate trump as opposed to defendant trump. so he's out there bragging about how much money he has. that's candidate trump. right? he's using these trials as campaign rallies. but the problem is candidate trump does not serve defendant trump. so when he's bragging about how rich he is, that's why these judgments keep going up. >> because juries hear him. he had a deposition in april in which he talks about how much cash he's gotten, how much money he has, how big his assets are. the jury heard that. >> yeah. and i think he's really played it wrong. and i don't think he realized that the court has really been the one place where he just can't get away with it. >> it's interesting, russ, because that deposition was part of the new york fraud trial in which he said i've got about $400 million in cash.

and of course as you said his cash situation potentially changes quite often. that's a tough one. he can't make the argument that this is going to destroy me. he typically has been able to raise money for his legal fees. but it's unclear as to whether he can raise money. i've had people say that by law he can't really raise money for his penalty. but one never knows with donald trump how things work. >> yeah, we've been told that he probably could fund-raise off of that penalty somewhat if he organized it correctly. but i think you've hit, ali, on the great irony of this moment, which is that he's being sued by the attorney general for overestimating how much money he had in ways that really mattered, in telling banks that in order to get more money himself. he's built his whole life on the idea that he was a self-made billionaire overlooking that his father gave him half a billion dollars as we uncovered several years ago. overlooking that most of what he has came after that from being

on television. that's a billion dollars between those two things that have nothing to do with his business at all. i don't think he has a billion dollars today. so that's really at the core of what he's done. and here he is at this moment, he continues to lie about how much money he has. and as molly i think just pointed out, that's what's causing the jury to say if we're going to stop him from doing this the numbers have to be really big. he's not only hurting himself in the things that he's saying about e. jean carroll and in kind of engineering his legal strategy, he seems to really be hurting himself in saying the same things about his money that have been at the essence of his being for his entire life. >> ronnell, we have not discussed some of the legal aspects of this because this was settled a long time ago. his liability was established a long time ago. this was about the money. but let's go back to it because donald trump, whether it's this or the immunity case that is before the district court in d.c., or other things, claims first amendment protections for a lot of things. clearly he understands the first

amendment better than he pretends to. but the first amendment does not prevent other people from seeking a remedy from you if you defame them. >> yeah, i mean, one of the most interesting and i think most overlooked aspects of this is that trump was found liable for defamation last year under was genuinely the most defendant-protective standard in the world. this actual malice standard that exists in the united states, which is very protective of freedom of speech, very protective of freedom of the press, requires that you show not only that something was said about you that was false but also requires that you show that you knew it, that it was knowing falsity or reckless disregard for the truth. that is, a deliberate lie in essence. and the juryconcluded that and that finding carried over to the decision this year. what we have is a very speech

protected standard that is in place and he lost even under that standard. i think it is also worth noting that that standard is an important one for us to continue to uphold. donald trump when he's on the other side of the v, when he's the plaintiff rather than the defendant, has argued quite strongly that we ought to water it down, that we ought to make it easier -- he would like it to be the case that he could use this standard -- this watered-down standard to threaten critics and to silence folks who would like to critique his policies. so having a vibrant protective -- speech-protective standard is really important here. and it's notable that even under that very protected standard he has now twice lost. >> you are now giving me ideas for another segment. molly, you and i touched on something the other day which i think is really important. and that is -- it often happens in the case of women who say that they have been sexually assaulted. they get accused of being things. in the case of e. jean carroll donald trump implied and said that she was doing this to --

for fame. you talked to me about this the other day. it's a certain type of person who would accuse someone of sexual assault for fame. it's a terrible thing. it's a terrible thing. >> i mean, look, donald trump -- let's just point out here, e. jean is not donald trump's only accuser. right? >> yes. >> there are more than 18 accusers. she's just the only one who was able to bring this case because of the adult survivors act. so i think that's really important. i would also say she had a very good career as an advice columnist. she was sort of a gen x, you know, to a lot of gen x. she was a hero. i don't know that she -- >> and she's in her 80s. >> right. i don't think she wanted to spend her 80s sitting in court across from donald trump. and remember, donald trump is not defaming her right now, but all of his people are spreading things about her on the internet. you know, i've seen just vitriol about her. she's not exactly like removed from any of this. and you know, i'm sure she has security.

she had said before she slept with a gun next to her bed. i'm sure it's only worse now. so i don't think that most people would want this in their 80s. >> no. i don't think anybody wants it ever. >> yeah. >> it's a horrible thing. >> yeah. >> what happens to those other people? i mean, e. jean carroll is now out there and the things that donald trump has said about her are out there. he's facing a penalty for it. but what happens? i mean, part of what she -- the penalty was so that she can repair her reputation. several million dollars. because that's work to do when every time you open a social media and you put your name in all this vitriol is there about you. >> that's right. one of the complexities here is that there were experts who were placed on the stand within the last trial last year and in the one that just concluded last week that really quite carefully itemized exactly what it would cost to try to move the needle in terms of public opinion on this, to remedy the harm that has actually been inflicted on

e. jean carroll. and that estimation is a really complicated one to make in the current environment, in which there are folks who are quite eager to continue to be willing audiences for the lie. and so a lot of what they had to try to do there was kind of hoe new ground here where they tried to imagine people who are inclined to believe the lie that has now been repeatedly told over the course of the last several years, and to figure out how to remedy that reputation. they landed on a number that was quite high and then added punitives to that in order not really to remedy anything at all but rather just to drive home the point that this defendant shouldn't engage in this behavior again. whether that will sticky think remains an open question. >> all right. thank you. i appreciate it. good to see you in real life, by the way. and thanks also to russ. tonight at 9:00 eastern, by the way, because we've been talking about this, a really exciting hour to tell you about. e. jean carroll and both of her

attorneys, roberta kaplan and sean crowley, will join rachel maddow to discuss the verdict against donald trump. be sure to tune in. "the rachel maddow show" 9:00 p.m. eastern today, e. jean carroll and both of her attorneys. russ beutner, ronnell andersen jones, thank you for starting us off this hour. molly, stick around. when we return how democrats are looking to flip the script on republicans who don't want to make a deal on immigration all in serve ilt to donald trump who wants the issue as an election year cudgel. that's next. plus congressman seth moulton former marine, a retired marine on the drone attack that killed u.s. soldiers in jordan and how the biden administration should respond. later in the hour nikki haley reveals new details of a very ugly incident of swatting. but it only raises the question of why republicans can't or won't link the growing threat of political violence to the men who will likely be their presidential nominee. "deadline: white house" continues after a quick break. don't go anywhere. after a quick. don't go anywhere.

every day, more dog people, and more vets are deciding it's time for a fresh approach to pet food. they're quitting the kibble. and kicking the cans. and feeding their dogs dog food that's actually well, food. developed with vets. made from real meat and veggies. portioned for your dog. and delivered right to your door. it's smarter, healthier pet food. get 50% off your first box at thefarmersdog.com/realfood

i think he's having a midlife crisis get 50% off your first box i'm not. you got us t-mobile home internet lite.

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

it's irresponsible, manipulative, and excruciating failure of statecraft for which donald trump appears solely responsible. but what's worse is he's actually taking credit for it, for sabotaging an imminent bipartisan agreement on border security. quote, "please blame it on me," end quote, he said this weekend after describing such a deal as a gift to democrats in an election year. think about that. it's shameless. undercutting a solution to a problem that republicans have been focused on for years in order to manufacture a political attack on joe biden.

and spectacularly, not even republicans are pretending it's any different. here's conservative senator james lankford, who's working on the agreement. >> republicans four months ago would not give funding for ukraine, for israel and for our southern border because we demanded changes in policy. so we actually locked arms together and said we're not going to give you money for this, we want a change in law. and now it's interesting a few months later when we're finally getting to the end they're like oh, just kidding, i actually don't want a change in law because it's a presidential election year. we all have an oath to the constitution, and we have a commitment to say we're going to do whatever we can to be able to secure the border. >> i don't know if you listen to james lankford very much, but that is a remarkable statement about the state of the republican party in congress. joining our conversation former lawmakers donna edwards and david jolly. welcome to both of you. molly's back with you. both of you are members of congress, former members of congress. david, i'm going to start with you because we're talking about the republican party for a minute. that's wild. like lankford is calling it all

out. he's saying, wait a second, we had what some of us might think are outsized and unreasonable demands that republicans locked together to get an answer. they got an answer. they actually moved the needle toward something that they wanted. and that's it. it doesn't matter. donald trump said no, no, don't make a deal, that's ridiculous. >> i would have a slightly different take than senator lankford, which is i don't think donald trump is responsible for the house position of killing immigration reform. i think he's taking credit for it. this has always been the position of house republicans, to kill whatever immigration bill comes out of the senate. look, there are two blinking red lights for the biden administration and democrats going into november. the first is the electoral college map. forget about the head to head. look at the electoral college map. that is a blinking red light, and republicans know it. the second is immigration. historically, democrats are underwater on the issue of immigration and border security by maybe 20 points.

going into this cycle the numbers are at about 35 points that democrats are underwater. in fact, i think you're going to start to see border state latinos start to trend toward donald trump over joe biden. that will be a major break. republicans know that. and there is no way, no way that house republicans are going to give a legislative victory to democrats and joe biden. speaker johnson has said that. he has said there will not be immigration reform until donald trump is president. and ali, i've shared this before, it the now about eight years old, when i was a house member and john boehner had resigned and we were looking for a new leader i said to the leadership candidates, some of whom are still there today, tell me when we are going to pass immigration reform and you have my vote for leadership, and i was told do you know what the american people would do to us if we passed immigration reform? >> wow. >> the republican plan has always been, always been to kill immigration reform. it's not happening because of house republicans. donald trump's just taking the

victory lap. >> look, donna, i'm not one of these people who thinks that you should measure the success of a congress based on the number of laws that were passed because some of them may be not necessary, some of them may be silly. maybe you just need two laws passed that are really important. but there was fear among some republicans that come the election they're going to have trouble, people are going to remember that you hardly basically got yourself a speaker a couple of times and who knows whether mike johnson will be the speaker by then. so having some legislation is important. the idea that they look at legislation as a win for democrats is going to come back and bite at least 20 or 25 of these moderate republicans. i think 18 or 20 of whom won in districts that joe biden won in 2020. they're going to have to come up with something that looks like legislation, especially on the things that they claim are matters that are important to them. >> or not. >> that's -- donna, that should be the end of the segment. that's exactly right. you just put the nail on it.

go ahead. >> well, this is not a congress that has ever pretended, these republicans in congress, that they are interested in any kind of policy. this has been a congress, a set of republicans who have been devoid of any policy ideas or solutions. they are crass hypocrites. if you look at immigration, they have been beating the drum on border security and the need for border security the entirety of the biden administration and presidency. and now just when deliver what they want they say no. and the reason is because they think of this as a sacrificial lamb for the republican party and they will continue to throw stones at democrats over immigration even as they have it right in front of them. and i'm going to go back because david was right, both under john boehner and paul ryan a comprehensive immigration bill was available, had the signatures ready.

and republicans refused to bring it to the floor in the same way that they're standing in the way right now. and tomorrow they're going to vote to impeach secretary mayorkas over what? border security. it is a complete fiction that republicans want to get anything done. >> molly, the issue here, donald trump said he wants to be a dictator just for one day, and he had two legislative priorities. two priorities. border wall and drill, drill, drill. right? at some point what do democrats do? the republicans have basically said they're about two things. this is weird because one of the two they're just actually not prepared to do anything about. in terms of drilling, whoeth you like it or not, we're actually producing more fossil fuels than anybody in history, than any country. but what do democrats do? because it does seem that abortion, or abortion rights, let's put it that way, are a winning formula. whether people like abortion orrin, they don't seem to want rights being taken away. they don't want their book

reading rights taken away. the economy is doing comparatively very well. how do democrats position themselves in this next election in. >> i think democrats have to just be really clear. look, republicans are talking about the border because that's all they have. they can't talk about inflation because the price -- i don't know if you saw today, the price of chicken went way down. we are seeing gas is down and food is down. and these are -- inflation is down. and this is like this -- >> or not up as much. >> right. not up as much. >> up at a normal rate. >> but this soft landing that economists had been fantasizing -- >> right. we were talking about perhaps being in a recession right now. >> and that is sort of incredible. and i do think the reason republicans are so focused on this is because it's all they have. i will say this house is really -- they are the burn it down caucus, this crew. the freedom caucus, they don't want the federal government to work. they want to do whatever they can to show that the federal government doesn't work because that's how they got elected. so to me them not legislating is pretty much like what they do.

>> david jolly, there is some talk that mike johnson at some point might be in danger. his speakership is in danger. because the way they've built the system is that everybody's in danger. there's even some talk from susan wild and a couple of democrats about reaching out and helping mike johnson. what happens in this case where you've just got a dysfunctional caucus in which we're going to end up with another conversation about a government shutdown in about a month? there's no chance -- there's no likelihood of meaningful legislation coming out in the next few months, anyway. what happens? >> yeah, you put your thumb on it exactly. if immigration and border security was up to the white house and senate republicans, forget about senate democrats, a deal would be done. but if mike johnson brings up that deal, his speakership is over. it's done. immigration is the lightning rod for republicans. speaker johnson would lose his speakership. because he also has to fight this battle of keeping the government open. and on that himself is he walking the plank. look, on this immigration and border security question we

cannot avoid the conversation around xenophobia and racism because it exists. and the irony is for republicans' own xenophobia and racism, the party who is allowing more central americans and south americans and immigrants into the united states right now than any other party is the republicans because they refuse to do anything about it. and the hypocrisy in that despite their immorality and amorality is really touching right now. and immigration and border security deal would be supported by 80% of the country. speaker johnson himself and house republicans standing in the way. what will save speaker johnson is killing this deal. >> there were a whole lot of democrats who were frustrated by reports that the white house and democrats were involved in negotiations to try and get this deal done so that they could get the russia funding. a lot of democrats said don't make a deal with republicans on this. and yet they persisted in negotiating and the republicans themselves are going to tank it. thanks to you, both of you. david and donna, we always appreciate you spending time with us. when we return, how the biden administration plans to respond

to the drone strike that killed american soldiers in jordan. we'll talk to one member of congress who has a warning for what he calls the chicken hawks calling for war with iran. r war. known for keeping with tradition. known for discovering new places. no one wants to be known for cancer, but a treatment can be. keytruda is known to treat cancer. fda-approved for 16 types of cancer, including certain early-stage and advanced cancers. one of those cancers is early-stage non—small cell lung cancer. keytruda may be used with certain chemotherapies before surgery when you have early-stage lung cancer, which can be removed by surgery, and then continued alone after surgery to help prevent your lung cancer from coming back. keytruda can cause your immune system to attack healthy parts of your body during or after treatment. this may be severe and lead to death. see your doctor right away if you have cough, shortness of breath, chest pain, diarrhea, severe stomach pain, severe nausea or vomiting, headache, light sensitivity, eye problems, irregular heartbeat, extreme tiredness,

constipation, dizziness or fainting, changes in appetite, thirst, or urine, confusion, memory problems, muscle pain or weakness, fever, rash, itching, or flushing. there may be other side effects. tell your doctor about all your medical conditions, including immune system problems, if you've had or plan to have an organ or stem cell transplant, received chest radiation or have a nervous system problem. keytruda is an immunotherapy and is also being studied in hundreds of clinical trials exploring ways to treat even more types of cancer. it's tru. keytruda from merck. see all the types of cancer keytruda is known for at keytruda.com and ask your doctor if keytruda could be right for you. ♪ before planning the wedding your bad hip was really acting up. then, you heard about mako robotic-assisted hip replacement. it starts with a ct scan to pinpoint the problem. that becomes a personalized, 3d plan to guide your doctor during surgery. mako can help lead to better outcomes,

like less pain and shorter recovery times. the lifetime of a hip implant is limited, and revision surgery may be required. individual results and recovery times vary. risks of surgery include pain, infection, heart attack, stroke, death, and other serious risks. ask your doctor for important safety information. to find a doctor who uses mako visit makocan.com

all right. we're awaiting details of what is now a promised response from u.s. officials to the first deadly attack on u.s. forces in the middle east since the beginning of the israel attack war. as we mentioned earlier in this

program, three american soldiers were killed and 34 others injured in northeast jordan over the weekend. me were struck by an unmanned drone that officials say was fired by iran-backed militant groups operating in syria and iraq. it happened overnight saturday, you can see it in the middle of your screen there, at a logistics support base for the u.s. military on the border between jordan and syria while troops were sleeping. the white house says president biden met with his national security team in the situation room this morning as he vows to take necessary action. but it's the kind of escalation between the united states and iran that has been long feared. one that will require an extremely strategic response and an extraordinary amount of diplomacy from the biden administration and its months-long commitment to de-escalation in the middle east. which is why our next guest, congressman seth moulton, is calling out republicans across the aisle for demanding aggressive retaliation. "to the chicken hawks calling for war with iran, you are playing into the enemy's hands, and i'd like to see you not send

your sons and daughters to fight. we must have an effective, strategic response on our terms and our timeline. deterrence is hard. war is worse." let's bring in congressman seth moulton of massachusetts. he serves four years -- four tours, i'm sorry, as a marine in iraq. representative moulton, good to see you. thank you for being with us. you make a -- your last sentence there is the point. lots of people can get on their phones and tweet out a hit tehran now, hit them hard. this is really, really complicated and the wrong move by america, a forced move, an ill-timed move can draw us into a much, much bigger war than already exists in the middle east. >> that's absolutely right. and that's exactly what these militia groups want. they're trying to drag the u.s. into a war. they're trying to widen this conflict. by the way, it's exactly what russia and china want as well. i mean, it would be the best

news xi jinping has heard in a decade for the u.s. to get bogged down in another war in the middle east. so we've got to be very careful, very strategic about how we respond. the president needs to do something, and he needs to do something that sends a decisive message. so i'm not saying that there shouldn't be military action. but it's got to be very carefully calibrated, and that's exactly why president biden is taking his time here. >> congressman, let's talk about the situation in the region. first of all, this took place in jordan, a country that has worked very hard not to get drawn into this conflict. they are american allies. they have very, very strong relations with israel. there are a group of strange bedfellows in the middle east, most of whom can trace some line back to iran. how does this end well in terms of not -- it's already a bit of a regional war but how does it end up so that america is not at war with some other country in the middle east? >> well, the goal of course is

this balance between deterrence, deterring these kinds of attacks that kill u.s. troops or our allies, while not actually starting a huge regional war. but any sensible person doesn't want, except of course if you're one of these terrorist organizations. that's a hard balance to strike. it involves diplomacy. that's a key ingredient here. it involves some military action but carefully calibrated military action. it also requires improved defense. i think it's going to come out that the air defense assets at this tower 22 base made a mistake. they confused this incoming enemy drone for a friendly drone that was returning about the same time. and you can call that sophisticated enemy tactics. we don't know if it was deliberate or not. but even if it was, it's ultimately a mistake here that was made. so there are a lot of different things the president needs to do here. not just strike back. that's part of it. it's got to be very careful. but there's a wide range of things that have to be on the table.

>> right. and lindsey graham, just one of the tweets. and one can expect more of him because he's zpivthed and has a military background. his tweet was "hit iran now. hit them hard." seems obvious the kind of thing that x likes. very direct, plain statements. why is that potentially dangerous thinking? >> well, again, it risks starting a war as opposed to deterring a war. ultimately wa you want to do is a&e r. deter a war. you saw the "wall street journal" editorial board basically say the same thing. saying by trying to prevent a war president biden is putting more u.s. troops in danger. excuse me? by preventing a war that would cost the lives of thousands of u.s. troops he's putting more u.s. troops in danger? i mean, the logic just doesn't hold up there. we do need deterrence. but let's also keep in mind the context here, that for 20 years of our presence in the middle east iran has been killing u.s. troops through proxies. so under both democratic and

republican administrations we haven't figured out the magic solution to get this to stop. what we've tried to do under both democrats and republicans, including president trump, by the way, who's quick to criticize biden here, is to provide deterrence without actually starting a war. we've heard from trump advisers who were very careful to make sure that the president didn't start a war. and look, if president trump's administration had been successful at dealing with the iran problem, we wouldn't be in the situation we are today. >> congressman, good to see you. thank you for joining us today. thank you again for your service to the country. congressman seth moulton represents the 6th district of massachusetts. he's on the house armed services committee. and he served four tours as a united states marine. when we return, nikki haley reveals startling new details about a swatting incident at her home. but what might be more interesting is what she isn't saying about it. that's ahead. that's ahead

one in five children worldwide are faced with the reality of living without food, no family dinners, no special treats, not enough energy to play. all around the world, hunger is affecting children's physical and mental health. toddlers are suffering from acute malnutrition, which stunts their growth. kids are forced to drop out of school so they can help support their families. conflict,

inflation and climate have ignited the worst famine in our lifetime, and we are fed up! fed up that hunger devours dreams. fed up, that hunger destroys joy. fed up with the fact that hunger eats childhood. help us feed the futures of children all over the world by visiting. getfedupnow.org. for as little as $10 a month, you can join save the children as we support children and families in desperate need of our help. now is the time to get fed up and give back. when you join the cause, your $10 monthly donation can help communities in need of lifesaving treatments and nutrients, prevent children from dropping out of school. support our work with communities and governments to help children go from short term and now, thanks to special government grants, every dollar you give before december 31st can multiply up to ten times the impact.

that means more food, water, medicine and help for kids around the world. you'll also receive a free tote bag to share your support for children in need. having your childhood eaten away by hunger is unimaginable. get fed up. call us now or visit getfedupnow.org, today.

i will tell you that the last thing you want is to see multiple law enforcement officials with guns drawn pointing at my parents and thinking that something happened. it is a -- it is an awful situation. that goes to show the chaos that's surrounding our country right now, and the fact that these things are happening. >> keep those words in mind. swatting, if you haven't heard about it, is when somebody calls the police and tells them something bad is happening at your address, really bad, and then police show up with their

guns drawn. and in theory this can go really bad because somebody can kill somebody. that was nikki haley talking about a swatting call at her home earlier this month. she joins a growing list of political figures and lawmakers from both parties who receive these illegal false calls to their house. concerned and frightened and rightfully so by what is really an intimidation and a scare tact ib. but while haley blames the state of america, the quote chaos that's surrounding our country right now, end quote, what she and republicans are not talking about, what they refuse to say is how their own likely eventual presidential nominee is driving it. he's escalating violent political rhetoric continues to receive cheers at his rallies. and the reality is a growing list of his own perceived enemies, targets of his name calling and his political lies, are among those who have received swatting calls in recent weeks. joining our conversation is a former fbi counterintelligence agent, peter strzok.

molly's back with us as well. peter, it's got a very benign name, swatting. and most times someone figures it out and nobody kills anybody. but it's actually a thing where police show up or, you know, law enforcement shows up thinking that they've got to intervene in something very bad that's happening at someone's house, often with their weapons at the ready. one day someone's actually going to get killed as a result of this stuff. it is what i think you in the industry call stochastic political violence. >> right. and unfortunately, ali, it's very easy to do. and it's easy to do in a way that isn't necessarily traceable by law enforcement, whether that's state, local or federal law enforcement. the fact of the matter is as you said police have to take every one of these potential 911 calls seriously. they have to assume that somebody is under duress, that there is the threat of violence or actually violence going on. and you're right. anytime you get law enforcement showing up at somebody's residence or somebody's business with their guns out, there is the potential for violence, whether inadvertent or a mistake

or an accident. that's a problem. and the fact is, ali, too i think this is underreported. i know from sources i have that there are a lot of events that have gone on that people simply haven't talked about publicly. so it's an issue. it's getting worse. and it's going to continue to get worse as long as we have somebody like donald trump inciting this sort of, you know, violence or using the words that he uses with his crowds at his rallies. >> you're totally right it's underreported. and part of that is because nobody wants a second go at it. no noh one wants to say you tried to swat me and if didn't work. let me give you a list of some of the people who have been swatted in recent weeks. the maine secretary of state, who has filed a case against donald trump being able to run for office. judge tanya chutkan. the fulton county district attorney fani willis. the lincoln project co-founder rick wilson. the boston mayor michelle wu. nikki haley, marjorie taylor greene. i don't know who instituted that one. brndon williams. senator rick scott. the republican house majority whip tom emmer. and a georgia elections official, a republican named

gabe sterling. it is actually happening an awful lot. and it is all people who are somehow in the political sphere. >> right. i mean, look, what we need right now is the leaders of both parties, we know that there's the leader of one party, political candidate, presidential candidate, who refuses to disavow violence. and we need him to disavow violence. we need him to say it's not okay. and he's had many opportunities, and he really runs from it. and i think that would -- >> i would argue he even says things, he uses these nebulous statements like there's going to be mayhem, it's going to be chaos, it's going to be wild, right? it's not even running from it. it's -- >> right. he sort of -- and he has >> right, he sort of -- and he's always done this. this sort of intonation that -- and it's a way to avoid responsibility. and the truth is, we're in a very scary --

were all very on edge, as we should be, and as a way to take the tone down, and i wish that donald trump would do it. >> peter, in the fbi, when they talk about things that happen like mass shootings, or the kind of violence that we see, right wing extremism, they talk about and all of government response. the idea, as molly says, that everybody needs to be involved in solving this problem. but we also see another country's, particularly in dictatorships, that the state doesn't have to be responsible for this type of violence or a threat. you just put it out there. like donald trump does. all the way back to proud boys stand by and stand back. you let people come to their own conclusions, and if they have access to someone's address, swatting or worse could be the outcome. >> right. and this is not, as molly said, this isn't something that he is even trying to not do. he watched his campaign on the 30th anniversary of the standoff from waco, texas. he is talked about people who are in jail right now for

assaulting members of capitol police and -- he's talked about them as political prisoners. there is nothing that he is doing -- january 6th committee, his behavior on january 6th itself is reticent to say anything to his supporters to stop the violence. the fact is we need everybody, whether it's political leaders, faith leaders, to say something. and donald trump is doing the opposite. and again, i have no hope or expectation that he's going to stop or change that situation as we move forward into what i fear is going to be a very potentially violent summer and fall. >> as i was saying in the break with molly, what if we had set of conversations that we have in 2024, america, that i don't think anyone would've guessed we have ever been talking about. thank you so much. -- thank you for spending some time with us. a quick break for us, we'll be right back. 'll be right back right back using our technology to power different ways of learning. ♪

harnessing ai to plant new beginnings. ♪ so when minds grow, opportunities follow. i have moderate to severe plaque psoriasis. thanks to skyrizi, ♪ i'm on my way with clearer skin. 3 out of 4 people achieved 90% clearer skin at 4 months. and skyrizi is just 4 doses a year after 2 starter doses. serious allergic reactions and an increased risk of infections or a lower ability to fight them may occur.

tell your doctor if you have an infection or symptoms, had a vaccine, or plan to. nothing on my skin means everything! ♪ nothing is everything ♪ ask your dermatologist about skyrizi. learn how abbvie could help you save. children are the greatest joy and our best hope for a better future. friends, they are the future. but did you know that millions of kids right here in our own backyard are facing hunger every day without healthy food? it's harder to grow, to thrive, to feel their best. the impact when children don't have enough to eat is tremendous because when you're hungry and your basic needs aren't being met, you cannot learn. that's why i'm here now, asking you to join me in helping end child hunger in america. this is a problem we know how to solve, and we can do it better by supporting no kid hungry for just $0.63 a day, only $19 a month. you can help provide healthy meals

like a good breakfast in class to power kids through their days. breakfast in the classroom contributes to kids being more focused, which leads to higher grades. test scores, and simply just their well-being. ensuring all kids get a good breakfast and other nutritious food is a beautiful thing. it's a game changer and you can help make it happen. when you join me in supporting no kid hungry today, that food is not just food. it's energy, health, confidence, hope and even love. yes, love. so please call now or go online to helpnokidhungry.org, right now. give $19 a month, only $0.63 a day. and when you use your credit card, you'll get this special team t-shirt to show that you're helping kids build a brighter future for themselves. thank you. families are struggling to make ends meet. these are hard times, but together we can help

connect america's kids with meals. so please call now or go online to give. thank you. today marks 15 years of the lily let better fair pay act, a landmark piece of legislation meant to close the gender pay gap. in for a woman who put in 19 years of tire shop in alabama only to find out in 1997 that she'd been paid a fraction of what her male counterparts made, lily let better sued and took her case all the way to the supreme court. she lost the case in 2006 and a 54 decision, but justice ruth bader ginsburg famously said, quote, once again, the ball is in congress's court, and quote.

congress did act, passing legislation in 2009. but as president biden noted today, quote, the fight for equal pay continues. women workers are still paid on average 84 cents for every dollar paid to man, and the disparities are even greater for many women of color. the administration honored ledbetter today announcing new actions to close the page gap in the federal workforce and echoing justice ginsburg, calling on congress to act by passing the paycheck fairness act. another break for us, and we'll be right back. r us, and we'l be right back. be right back. (♪♪) [ding] meanwhile, at a vrbo... when other vacation rentals are just for likes, try one you'll actually like. (♪♪) we come from a long line of cowboys. (♪♪) when i see all of us out here on this ranch,

i see how far our legacy can go. (♪♪) ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ i brought in ensure max protein with 30 grams of protein! those who tried me felt more energy in just two weeks. -ugh. -here, i'll take that. woo hoo! ensure max protein, 30 grams protein, 1 gram sugar, 25 vitamins and minerals. and a new fiber blend with a prebiotic. (♪♪)

in order for small businesses to thrive, and a new fiber blend 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 all right, thank you for with qualifying internet. spending part of your monday with us. we're grateful. the beat with ari melber begins right now. hello, my friend. >>