nicolae, thank you very much for sharing this with us. >> thanks so much. >> great work. thank you for giving us a reason to be optimistic. >> yes, we need it. >> all right. do we have any politically, willie? >> final thoughts. >> final thoughts are you are fantastic in "the game of thrones". that's my final thought of the day. >> jonathan lemire. >> i'm thinking of the worms and the plastic and the making of the clouds. it is nice there is a reason to be hopeful. it feels negative every day. >> that does it for us this morning. we'll see you back here tomorrow morning, 6:00 a.m. eastern. ana cabrera picks up the coverage right now. right now on "ana cabrera reports," breaking news on capitol hill, a hearing beginning right now on the push to impeach a sitting cabinet secretary for only the second time in u.s. history. can republicans prove that

alejandro mayorkas committed high crimes and misdemeanors? and growing pressure on president biden to respond after a drone attack killed three american troops. and there are new questions about how that drone was able to evade u.s. defenses. also ahead, could donald trump get booted from another state's ballot? elections officials in illinois are meeting this hour just days ahead of a high stakes supreme court hearing. and later, is sci-fi becoming reality? elon musk now claiming the first neuralink implant into a human brain. thanks for being here. it is 10:00 eastern. i'm ana cabrera reporting from new york. let's get to the breaking news on capitol hill, where this morning the house homeland security committee is trying to

do something that hasn't been done in more than 150 years. impeach a sitting cabinet secretary. republicans alleging high crimes and misdemeanors by dhs secretary alejandro mayorkas, claiming he, quote, willfully and systematically refused to comply with federal immigration laws. allegations the secretary has flatly denied. joining us now is nbc's ryan nobles on the hill. julia ainsley, who covers the department of homeland security, and punch bowl news co-founder anna palmer. help us understand the allegations here that republicans believe are worthy of impeachment. >> reporter: well, ana, what republicans are trying to build a case for today with these impeachment articles and this process they're going through in a committee is establish that alejandro mayorkas was aware of the statutes and laws on the books when it comes to enforcing border security, and that he willfully and in some cases purposefully just did not adhere to those laws and that is what

has led to the current border crisis. there is a ton of disagreement as to the interpretation of how he's applied those statutes, including from the administration itself, and alejandro mayorkas himself who is forcefully defended himself this morning in a letter, but this has become such a flashpoint issue for republicans and they feel frustrated by the lack of what they see attention to this issue by the administration that they feel that the step is necessary and they targeted mayorkas as somewhat as the poster child of this immigration crisis. now, this is going to be a lengthy process today. democrats, of course, forcefully disagree with this move by republicans. they believe this is nothing more than a political stunt and they're going to use the limited power they have as the minority party today to add as many amendments as possible to this resolution and extend this process out and then try and draw out their belief that this is nothing more than a political stunt, which means this process could take all day. maybe even into the night before

this is finally settled. ultimately, though, we believe it will pass along partisan lines and that eventually go to the house floor, giving house members the opportunity to vote on the impeachment of cabinet secretary for the first time in more than 150 years. ana? >> julia, tell us more about how mayorkas is responding to these allegations and as someone who covers what is happening at the border very in depth, is there any factual basis to what republicans are claiming, that mayorkas isn't enforcing the border and the laws and following the letter of the law there? >> yeah, ana, since we don't have mayorkas in front of this committee, i'll give you a preview of their arguments and what dhs is saying in response. we have heard countless times this committee is saying mayorkas refused to testify. in fact, dhs sent a letter saying he couldn't testify on the one day they asked for him to come because the mexican delegation was in town to talk about the southern border and instead asked to work out other dates, no other dates were given, they did not negotiate

those times. and we're also going to continue to hear -- we continued to hear at least in written form from the secretary and he sent a letter last night to the committee, where he says you claim that we have failed to enforce our immigration laws. that is false. we have provided congress and your committee with hours of testimony and he's saying we're quite clearly enforcing the law. >> michael chertoff, he just wrote an opinion piece for "the wall street journal" titled don't impeach alejandro mayorkas and he writes this, quote, i can say with confidence that for all the investigating that the house committee on homeland security has done, they have failed to put forth evidence that meets the bar. and the bar being high crimes and misdemeanors. anna, have house republicans put forth any compelling evidence to back their claims? >> the thing to watch here today is what happens with republicans in general in the house. you have the chairman green, who

has been basically trying to whip votes for -- >> okay. we're having issues with anna's signal there. as we look at the live pictures. this is happening right now on capitol hill. live images as they gavel into this committee hearing where they'll take up these articles of impeachment. ryan, is this ultimately about attempting to enforce an impeachment trial in an election year that would allow house republicans to air their grievances about how the president is handling the issue of immigration? >> reporter: that's exactly the point the democrats are making in this situation, this is nothing more than a political stunt, designed to put immigration front and center during an election year and this is not the way you go about fixing policy to try and fix a problem that everyone does agree exists at the southern border. and what is also interesting about this, ana, it comes at the same time as the other side of the capitol in the senate, there is a bipartisan group of senators that are hashing out a

package that would specifically deal with the border crisis and it seems to be not enough for house republicans. in fact, the new house republican talking point is that really there doesn't need to be any legislation to fix the problem. president biden needs to take action and that that will solve all the problems. so, there is, you know, a very different viewpoint as to how to fix this problem, depending on who you're talking to. and the other interesting part about it is that mayorkas is part of the negotiations. he's been in the room, while they have been talking about a potential bipartisan border fix, all of this makes it that much more difficult when they have this impeachment proceeding moving forward. >> and anna palmer, we have you back, i'm told. i would love for you to finish your thought. what will you be watching or what should we be watching here? >> absolutely. i will be watching, first of all, can green get a party line vote out of this committee? it appears that is going to happen. the big question is, with this razor thin majority in the house, has he been successful

making the case to several republicans who remain not at ease with the fact of moving forward with this? i would look at ken buck from colorado, mcclintock from california. he's going to need to get all the republicans in order for this to pass on the house floor because no democrats are going to be supporting this. >> so it sounds like this outcome is not determined just yet. julia, you have some new exclusive reporting on the border talks and you have dug into the question, could biden shut down the border? what is the answer? >> well, the answer is yes, but it could be very messy. in fact, details that my colleagues have learned is the border would be shut down for a period of a week or two weeks until numbers come down. and what that means when they say shut down is not shutting down trade or travel for people who are legally allowed to go between the u.s. and mexico, but to stop all illegal border crossings and push them all back into mexico.

if that sounds familiar, that's what the united states did for three years during covid, under title 42, but more migrants came across. that's because mexico got too full to keep taking back the migrants. it depends on mexican cooperation. and former and current officials at dhs that i spoke to said they're worried about this prospect because without mexico's cooperation, you can have a buildup on the border, that's what this administration is actually been successful of, is releasing migrants into the country, republicans don't agree with that, but it is released a lot of the pressure along the border and they're afraid if you shut that down and mexico doesn't cooperate, you'll have a complete chaotic mess. >> and it is chaotic, complicated, a lot of layers and long-standing problem, julia ainsley, ryan nobles, anna palmer, thank you for the conversation. we'll be watching closely what happens in this committee hearing. joining us now is congressman dan goldman, democrat on that homeland security committee. congressman, i know you're due back in that committee room at any moment. thank you so much for taking a few minutes with us.

republicans are alleging secretary mayorkas displayed a, quote, willful and systemic refusal to comply with the law. what do you say to that? >> first of all, it is a completely wholly fabricated and baseless foundation to move forward with impeachment under the impeachment clause. both of their articles have never been used before, and they have put forward no legal support that these would rise to high crimes and misdemeanors. but even if you take them at face value, they are plainly false. secretary mayorkas, under president biden's leadership, has tried mightily to address a growing problem, situation at the border, with an increase in migrants for all sorts of different reasons, who are trying to come to this country. at every turn, every possible policy change that they have tried to implement, in order to streamline the asylum process, in order to prevent people from coming over the border, or

disincentivizing people from coming over the border in between ports of entry and funnel them to ports of entry so that they can be properly vetted, in order to restrict those who are eligible to apply for asylum, all of those policy changes were attempted by secretary mayorkas and president biden and republicans went to court to sue them to stop them. so, what you have here, ana so, what you have here, na, is republicans have sabotaged and undermined president biden's authority to address the issue at the border. and now while secretary mayorkas is actually negotiating a bipartisan legislative agreement, secretary mayorkas in the senate, rather, he's now being impeached in the house for not addressing the border. the irony is just confounding that they would move forward with an impeachment, such a serious, serious accusation, while he is trying to address

the border in the only way it can be addressed, which is legislation. >> and we're looking at chairman green right now as he has called to order this committee hearing. i know you have to run back there in a moment. here's what the chairman said earlier, making his argument for impeaching mayorkas. >> the law doesn't tell the fbi you shall capture all murderers. but it sure does say, you shall detain all people who come illegally into this country. that's what congress said he is to do. and he's chosen to do just the opposite. >> that was just last night. what is your reaction to that? >> well, first of all, that's not how the law has been interpreted. and second of all, there is no room to detain everyone who comes over. the dhs would need significantly more funding in order to be able to even do that. and democrats, under president biden, and over the last two congresses, have requested from

republicans, bipartisan agreement, to add additional funding for the department. and the republicans have rejected it. so, they are creating a scenario here that is impossible to meet, that does not accurately reflect the law, and is being done purely for donald trump's political interests because donald trump has been open and many republicans have said this, that he wants to run on the border in this election, and therefore he does not want the republicans to solve the problems at the border, through bipartisan legislation, he wants them to submarine legislation to continue the chaos at the border so that he can run on that. it is political cynicism at its absolute worst and we must call out the republicans for their desire to continue the chaos. >> it seems that both democrats and republicans agree that there needs to be a change at the border. we reported record numbers in december daily. there were about 370,000 total that came across the border,

which is far and away the highest we have ever seen. and you mentioned the negotiations happening now in the senate and now house republicans are arguing the president has the power he needs to take action. take a listen. >> biden could do that today. why doesn't he do it today? he doesn't need any of this to secure the border. trump secured the border with the exact same laws. >> president biden could change this tomorrow, if he just changed the executive orders they did on day one. this president could do the same thing, but he chooses not to. >> so, could the president make these changes now and how optimistic are you that any border deal gets done in an election year? >> well, it is funny it is a new day and new argument. last week, all we heard from house republicans and president trump and senate leader mcconnell is that donald trump wants to use this as a political issue.

clearly recognizing that's not a good message for the american people, they are now trying to spin this that he could do it to begin with. first of all, the -- under this administration there have been more deportations and removals than under any previous administration. there have been more fentanyl seizures and arrests than under any previous administration. the work going on at the border has been more enforcement than what has ever been done previously. and as i mentioned, the administration has tried to use their limited executive authority to streamline the situation at the border. but they need funding. the department cannot do this. we cannot process the number of asylum claims without additional funding and that's why president biden asked for $13.6 billion in october as part of the supplemental appropriations request so that he could provide more asylum officers, more cvp agents, more immigration judges,

more advanced technology to uncover fentanyl. and the republicans rejected it out of hand. in their proposals they have zeroed out every single type of funding to process immigration. it is subterfuge at its worst, ana, and it is really cynical. >> i want to underscore what you said regarding what efforts there are, and what we know of this bipartisan bill this deal that is coming together in the senate. this is according to the republican senator who is negotiating this, senator james lankford who says this bill would increase the number of border patrol agents, asylum officers, detention beds, deportation flights, would change asylum processes. so that is what is before potentially the senators and maybe eventually the house. thank you so much. >> there is no way, ana. there is no way to do what the republicans want to do without

additional funding. the department does not have the resources. so when they say this is policy, it is not policy. if you want to implement their policies, you need more funding, which is only through legislation. >> all right, well, dan goldman, thank you so much, congressman, for joining us. we'll let you get back to the committee hearing and watching closely for developments there as we keep an eye on capitol hill. we're also following what is happening in the situation in the middle east. lingering questions over how an attack drone evaded u.s. defenses in jordan and the mounting pressure the president faces to respond. plus, hamas now weighing a deal to release remaining hostages and pause fighting in gaza. what more we know about the framework of that potential agreement. and elon musk's brain science breakthrough. but have we seen enough sci-fi movies to give this brain implant now in a human a second thought? a human a second thought?

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) finally, we can eat. ♪ you know you make me wanna... ♪ and then we looked around and said, "wait a minute, this isn't even our stroller!" (laughter) you live with your parents, but you own a house in the metaverse? mm-hmm. cool! i don't get it. here's to getting financially ready for anything. and here's to being single and ready to mingle. who's ready to cha-cha? ( ♪♪ )

welcome back. president biden is facing growing pressure this morning to respond to a deadly drone strike that killed three american service members at a base in jordan. and there are still questions about how that drone got to the base undetected. the pentagon has now released the identities of the three troops, all three army reservists from georgia. joining us now is nbc's chief international correspondent keir simmons from iraq. and retired u.s. army major john spencer, chair of urban warfare studies at west point's modern war institute. keir, what are we learning about how this happened? >> reporter: well, not that much, ana. that may become an issue in the days to come unless we get more information. tower 22, where it happened, is a relatively remote, somewhat secretive place, an operation that the u.s. and regional allies here don't really like to talk about too much. as you'll hear, one of the

families of those killed, military, are beginning to ask questions about whether, how it was possible for this iranian-backed militia to trick the defenses of this base. this morning, questions over how a drone laden with explosives evaded defenses on this american base in jordan, and what the u.s. response should be. the family of 23-year-old specialist breonna alexsondria moffett from georgia speaking to nbc news. >> we would like to know what happened and how could this happen? >> reporter: it is first time american servicemen and women have been killed by what the u.s. says was an iranian-backed militia since the war in gaza began, despite waves of attacks, iran insists it did not direct the drone attack. but it appeared to be relatively sophisticated, flying low, possibly tricking the base's

defenses by flying in at the same time as an american drone, according to pentagon officials. the service members' families now grieving. >> if we knew what we know now, we would have said i love you so much, just make sure that she knew that she wasn't alone and that we love her. >> yes. >> reporter: 46-year-old sergeant william jerome rivers was from new jersey, and specialist kennedy ladon sanders who was 24 was from georgia. >> always very liked by everyone, a dedicated friend, teammate, she was well liked and very joyful, bright personality. >> reporter: the president vowing a response. the u.s. could decide to strike iranian-linked groups or commanders in the region or send a stronger message with a strike on iran itself. the biden administration under pressure.

>> stewart, i think it is important to go after iran. they're behind all of these attacks. >> reporter: amidst calls to avoid an escalation that might pull the u.s. into a wider war. >> we have and we will continue to defend our personnel. >> keir, sounds like to try and calibrate the right response here is going to be a big challenge for the biden administration. >> reporter: yes, no easy answers honestly. secretary of state blinken not saying when a response might happen, suggesting it might be multilevel, that it would come in stages and potentially be sustained over time. but here's one of the challenges, the u.s. has launched eight strikes against iranian-backed militia in iraq and syria, similar number against the houthis in yemen and nothing seems to have worked. what the biden administration

was trying to figure out is whether it is possible to escalate against iran in order to de-escalate without sliding into a further confrontation, possibly a full scale war. we're not close to that, of course, but that is one of the issues that analysts will be worrying about. >> keir simmons, thank you very much for your reporting. major spencer, the base hit by a drone on sunday is known as tower 22, houses about 350 service members. nbc has reported that there are essentially three theories now about how this drone went undetected and to put it simply, it could be perhaps it was believed to be a u.s. drone, there was one that was returning around the same time, we think. the defense systems maybe didn't recognize that as a threat, came in at a low altitude. what seems plausible to you? >> all seem plausible, especially if it is a site where u.s. drones are launched from and received from. when you do have to drop, you basically change the air defense

posture or even the defense posture while that is happening. but first reports in war are usually wrong or at least not all the information, so i definitely say all those are plausible, everything from defense systems to unfortunately human errors, not recognizing it as a threat, absolutely. >> the question is how do you respond? president biden met with his national security team yesterday, as he considers a response. what is he weighing and what are the risks of this escalation? >> absolutely. the response has to be rapid, it has to be overwhelming, just to maintain the united states immense deterrence power in the world. it is a complex political decision, what will iran do? you have to strike these groups that have not been deterred so they have to be overwhelming strikes. and send a message to their backers, both publicly and

possibly covertly. >> no one wants a war directly with iran, of course, which is a big piece of the calculation. major john spencer, got to leave it there for today. thank you so much as always for offering us your perspective and expertise. hamas leadership confirming this morning it is studying a proposal for a new deal that would release hostages in exchange for a cease-fire. and joining us from tel aviv, israel, is matt bradley. as hamas studies this new proposal, they said any deal would need a permanent cease-fire. israel says that's out of the question. what more do we know about this plan? what is different this time? >> reporter: we heard from hamas that in fact their position now is flexible. we don't know exactly what that means. hamas seems to be studying this plan, they may be coming back with information about changes and that's why the israelis we heard from last night, they said they have the final word on this plan either. it is still now in the cabinet and it is being discussed.

we should hear from them in the next couple of hours. this is a fluid negotiation, despite the massive meeting we saw in paris, between those four different nations, the u.s., israel, qatar, and so -- and egypt this is something that could change in the coming hours in the coming days, but here is the plan as we know it was presented to hamas. it is a 60-day cease-fire, and the exchange over the course of those 60 days would be essentially one israeli captive in exchange for three palestinian prisoners. that sounds like a massive disparity, but actually it is not, if you remember the galad shalit exchange. there is this disparity and that might shift in the coming days. it goes to show if hamas is changing their position, they are under substantial pressure

as israel's incursion into the gaza strip continues. >> matt bradley, thank you for that update. up next on "ana cabrera reports," could illinois be the next state to boot donald trump from its primary ballot? as we wait for a decision in trump's new york fraud trial, how difficult would it be to actually dissolve his real estate empire? actually dissolve his real esteta empire? with nurtec odt, i can treat a migraine when it strikes and prevent migraine attacks, all in one. don't take if allergic to nurtec. allergic reactions can occur, even days after using. most common side effects were nausea, indigestion, and stomach pain. ask about nurtec odt. type 2 diabetes? discover the ozempic® tri-zone. ♪ ♪ i got the power of 3. i lowered my a1c, cv risk, and lost some weight. in studies, the majority of people reached an a1c under 7 and maintained it. i'm under 7. ozempic® lowers the risk of major cardiovascular events such as stroke, heart attack, or death in adults also with known heart disease. i'm lowering my risk. adults lost up to 14 pounds.

i lost some weight. ozempic® isn't for people with type 1 diabetes. don't share needles or pens, or reuse needles. don't take ozempic® if you or your family ever had medullary thyroid cancer, or have multiple endocrine neoplasia syndrome type 2, or if allergic to it. stop ozempic® and get medical help right away if you get a lump or swelling in your neck, severe stomach pain, or an allergic reaction. serious side effects may include pancreatitis. gallbladder problems may occur. tell your provider about vision problems or changes. taking ozempic® with a sulfonylurea or insulin may increase low blood sugar risk. side effects like nausea, vomiting, and diarrhea may lead to dehydration, which may worsen kidney problems. living with type 2 diabetes? ask about the power of 3 with ozempic®. there's nothing better than a subway series footlong. except when you add an all new footlong sidekick. like the philly with a new $2 footlong churro. sometimes the sidekick is the main event. you would say that. every epic footlong deserves the perfect sidekick. (christina) with verizon business unlimited, i get 5g, truly unlimited data, and unlimited hotspot data. every epic footlong so, no matter what, i'm running this kitchen.

(vo) make the switch. it's your business. it's your verizon. it's odd how in an instant things can transform. slipping out of balance into freefall. i'm glad i found stability amidst it all. gold. standing the test of time. in san francisco, two people a day are dying from fentanyl. this is a national crisis that demands new strategies. prop f requires single adults receiving cash assistance to enroll in treatment if they use drugs. i know what it's like to lose family to drug addiction. it's too late for some families. but our city needs to do what's necessary to save lives. please vote yes on prop f. you're probably not easily persuaded to switch what's n mobile providerslives. for your business. but what if we told you it's possible that comcast business mobile can save you up to 75% a year on your wireless bill versus the big three carriers?

did we peak your interest? you can get two unlimited lines for just $30 each a month. there are no term contracts or line activation fees. and you can bring your own device. oh, and all on the most reliable 5g mobile network nationwide. wireless that works for you. things have gotten better it's happening. recently, but too many businesses like mine are still getting broken into. it's time our police officers have access to 21st century tools to prevent and solve more crimes. allow public safety cameras that other bay area police departments have to discourage crime, catch criminals, and increase prosecutions. prop e is a smart step our city can take right now to keep san francisco moving in the right direction. please join me in voting yes on prop e. and now to the growing efforts to keep former president

trump off the 2024 ballot. in just a few minutes, illinois election officials will meet to consider removing trump from that state's march primary ballot, which could put more pressure on the supreme court where justices will hear arguments next week on the ruling in colorado to keep the former president off that ballot. garrett haake joins us with more on all this. what exactly are illinois officials considering today? >> these illinois officials will consider the same 14th amendment question that judges and election officials in other states have been grappling with over the last several months. the idea of whether donald trump engaged in or supported an insurrection with his actions around january 6th. and whether those actions should keep him off the ballot in concert with the 14th amendment to the constitution. now, in illinois, it is an election board, four republicans, four democrats, it would take a clear majority to boot trump from that ballot. that means one of the republicans would have to vote in favor of kicking him off. when he talked to trump

officials, folks in his orbit, folks in his legal broader legal team about this, they say, you know, they are keeping one eye on this, but their view is that the supreme court is ultimately going to be the arbiter of this. the supreme court is going to hear an argument about this as it relates to the colorado case, the first of these states to kick donald trump off the ballot next week. the trump team believes the supreme court's decision, whatever they decide is probably going to wrap together all of these arguments whether it be state courts or state election boards who have made similar decisions and probably come up with one decision they believe to keep donald trump on the ballot, but at the very least, one decision that will clear up all of this, so each of these little individual state cases are not of a high level of concern to them right now. >> all right, garrett haake, thank you so much for all of that context. let's bring in former u.s. attorney and senior fbi official chuck rosenberg. i want to get your thoughts on what is happening in illinois today, these new cases keep popping up, so how much pressure

is this putting on the supreme court to make a ruling very swiftly after next week's arguments and can they come out with a ruling that is really a one size fits all? >> well, i think they have to, ana. i think the supreme court has to resolve this in a way that gives us uniformity. whether you love mr. trump or loathe mr. trump, want him on or off the ballot, it is difficult to have 50 states doing 50 different things. this is where the supreme court could lay down one set of rules and that all the states could then follow it. >> chuck, i want to ask you about what we are awaiting here in new york in trump's civil fraud case, the judge saying he hoped to have a decision by the end of the month, which is tomorrow, so could come at any moment, the new york attorney general is arguing trump should have to pay $370 million, be banned from doing business in new york permanently, this judge who already ruled there was fraud also indicated that trump could have certificates needed to run many of highs current companies revoked. so just how unprecedented could

this ruling be? >> quite unprecedented. so under new york state law, the dissolution or liquidation of a company for committing this sort of fraud is unusual. and you typically find it when there is harm to victims, when there is identifiable victims with identifiable harm, which was a little opaque here. and so, we have to read the judge's decision when it is issued, we have to see what exactly he was referring to back in september when he spoke of dissolution, interestingly the state attorney general is seeking a large penalty, but it is not necessarily seeking the liquidation of his businesses. so, we're going to have to wait and watch and read when that opinion comes out. >> and we'll be watching and reading carefully, thank you, chuck rosenberg. good to see you. up next on "ana cabrera reports," money moves. the network of gop megadonors calling on the haley and trump camps to make their case with an eye on november. plus, how the biden campaign's anti-trump battle plan may involve a very famous

antihero. y famous tihero

the virus that causes shingles is sleeping... in 99% of people over 50. and it could strike at any time. think you're not at risk? wake up. because shingles could wake up in you. if you're over 50, talk to your doctor or pharmacist about shingles prevention. ♪ students... students of any age, from anywhere. students in a new kind of classroom. ♪ using our technology to power different ways of learning. ♪ harnessing ai to plant new beginnings. ♪ so when minds grow, opportunities follow.

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.

some fighting words this morning from nikki haley, perhaps one of the biggest issues in the 2024 race, age. here's what she said when asked point blank whether she thought donald trump has experienced mental decline. >> are we really in this country going to have two 80-year-olds running for president? it is a fact that when you are their age, you have mental decline. i don't care who you are. you have mental decline. he didn't just get me confused, he mentioned it over and over and over again. he's not what he was in 2016. he has declined. >> and joining us now, republican strategist susan del percio and democratic strategist bazell smikle. she was not mincing words there. what do you make of this strategy? >> well, i think the strategy is also based on her donors who she is looking to attract who say if

you want us to back you, you have to take trump head on. and these are things that don't go to trump's policies. so, it is a different type of attack that i think works in her favor right now because also the american public agrees, they don't want two 80-year-olds running for president. they don't -- it is just the way it is proobprobably going to tut but it is a strong attack. >> we have seen in a lot of the exit polls or in the case of iowa, the entrance polling going into the iowa caucuses that the economy was top of mind for the most important issue for voters. and now we have trump trying to take credit for the surging stock market. i don't know if you saw this, he wrote this, quote, this is the trump stock market because my polls against biden are so good that investors were projecting that i will win and that will drive the market up. so, trump's stock market under biden, help make sense of that? >> he did the same thing.

he accused obama, said things were better under him than under obama, which was not true. there is a long history of folks in the trump circle claiming credit for stuff they haven't done. i want to actually pivot to susan's point, the policies are really important. 80-year-old joe biden can't flaw him on any of his policies because the metrics under joe biden's presidency have actually gotten better with respect to the economy. but you can use age against trump because, you know, all of the uncertainty and the chaos there. what i think in sort of to your point, there is nothing that donald trump is going to say that sort of shields him from the attack of age and chaos in an administration. but where biden is concerned, age or not, the economy under joe biden has actually gotten stronger and all the metrics show that, even the folks that said there would be a recession have to actually swallow their

words now. >> i think -- go ahead. >> the age thing with donald trump, with the mistakes he's making, it makes him dangerous. i think that is going to be one of the key factors for republicans who supported joe biden, may not be interested in supporting him again, or right leaning independents, the things that donald trump is saying are dangerous. imagine confusing world leaders or giving orders to the military. it is not that far fetched because right now donald trump is completely worn down. this is not the same candidate of 2016 or 2020. this is someone who has either a lot on his mind and just can't keep up, or is losing his sharpness and i think ron desantis said, he has no fastball anymore. >> the fact of the matter is, though, trump is well ahead when it comes to the primaries, right? he very well could end up the

nominee for republicans and so, you know, if nikki haley is to stay in the race, she's going to need money. we have some reporting that biden, trump and haley will try to stump for donations this week with biden in florida today, next week, we have the republican megadonor group set to meet with trump and haley's campaigns. how much does haley need that money to keep it on? >> she needs a lot more than donald trump does, that's for certain. and she did get dealt a setback earlier -- late last week when the coke network said, you know what, you didn't do what we wanted to in new hampshire, they poured millions and millions and millions of dollars into iowa, and new hampshire, and haley, and they're going to redirect their focus on the house and senate. so, that's one donor that she has to now make up for and that is a lot of money. and the only thing that is keeping her alive right now is not the amount of delegates she has and not the polling, it is the cash to keep going.

>> inside the biden campaign, we're learning some of their strategy is focused on getting celebrity endorsements. the number one, taylor swift. there was some talk according to "new york times" and maybe this was a bit in jest, they say, of talk of sending president biden to miss swift's eras tour. is she, like, the endorsement that actually can make a celebrity endorsement count? >> some apparently think so. there is a conspiracy theory apparently that there is an effort to make sure that the chargers win so that she can be more popular to be able to endorse joe biden and so he can win. >> it is san francisco -- >> if the chiefs win the super bowl, then taylor swift becomes more popular than she is now, then goes and endorses joe biden and therefore that puts him over the top, so there is this effort now to get the 49ers to win,

still that doesn't happen. so the world is a very crazy place. apparently that's a thing right now. but having said that, look, celebrity endorsements only go so far. ultimately the people that endorse candidates have to make sure there are still boots on the ground to get people out of their house and be able to go vote. i'll say this one quick and specific thing, there have been reports that there are concerns particularly among black male voters that the biden administration isn't doing enough. can we not talk about taylor swift and then talk about all of the black celebrities, particularly in the hip-hop community, talking about civic engagement for decades? i would rather -- >> same in the latino community. >> right. i would rather he focus and collectively the party focus on having those individuals be surrogates for the party and not as much taylor swift. love taylor -- i don't know taylor swift, if it was sade, it would be a different conversation. that said, there is a lot that can actually be done outside of

the taylor swift endorsement. >> and it is a conversation to be continued.ank you, guys. up next here on "ana cabrera reports," a south carolina judge's decision about whether to give convicted killer alex murdaugh a new murder trial. al murdaugh a new murder trial. known for loving the outdoors. known for getting everyone together. 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 cancers. one of those cancers is triple-negative breast cancer. keytruda may be used with chemotherapy medicines as treatment before surgery and then continued alone after surgery when you have early-stage breast cancer and are at high risk of it 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.

welcome back. in south carolina, a judge has denied a request from convicted murderer alex murdaugh for a retrial. the jurors who voted to convict

murdaugh for the murders of his wife and son were back in court yesterday, but this time on the witness stand, facing questions about accusations of jury tampering from a court clerk. the judge ultimately didn't buy it, saying the clerk did not impact the jury's verdict. nbc's sam brock is with us from columbia, south carolina. sam, break down this ruling and what it means. >> reporter: so, this was definitely high drama, ana, for about eight hours yesterday, in the courtroom, starting with the juror that came out and said the first person who was examined, that she was influenced by becky hill, the clerk of court here, which, was what the judge was looking to find out, was anyone actually prejudiced, followed by the fact that other jurors were listening to testimony live streaming it, knowing they were not supposed to, for this first jury. that was highly disruptive. then hill takes the stand in the afternoon and said i had no contact with jurors about alex murdaugh with the specifics of the case. i was doing my logistics and job

and that was refuted by multiple jurors, including an alternate who was allowed to tate stand and said before the defense presented is its case, she was told by becky hill that they should be careful not to be fooled. before this thing even started. so there is all that evidence, the judge decides becky hill is not a credible witness, she said this was essentially a siren call for celebrity, and however in the judge's opinion, it do not actually change the outcome of this trial. she looked at it wholistically, 12 total jurors, 11 said they were not influenced and that's where this landed. right now becky hill is under an ethics investigation. >> okay, sam brock, thank you. and now live to the white house where just moments ago president biden spoke outside about the response to the under ethics investigation. president biden spoke outside in response to the deadly attack on u.s. troops. >> i do hold them responsible as

in they are supplying the weapons to the people who did it. >> reporter: there have been attacks in past, and what will be different this time? >> we'll see. i don't think we need a wider war in the middle east. that's not what i'm looking for. >> donald trump -- >> because of guys like you. it's early. >> reporter: you have done everything you can do with executive authority? was there more you can -- >> give me the power. i asked for that the very day i

got in office. give me the people that can stop this and make it work right. >> reporter: there's a possible escalation in the middle east -- >> we'll see. >> that was just moments ago at the white house. the president was leaving for some fundraisers, and gabe gutierrez, he began talking about the attack and you asked if he held iran responsible? >> yeah, the beginning of the question and answer session, and the president was asked directly you have made a decision on how to respond to the attack, and he

said, yes. again, the breaking news there, president biden saying he has made a decision on how to respond to the death of three americans. he did not say, of course, what that decision was, but he says he has made a decision as he heads down to florida. as you mentioned, ana, i asked him did he hold responsibility for the death of those three americans, and he began to answer just like the administration has before, that iran bears some responsibility, and the administration believes iran was supplying the weapons to the proxy groups, and then i followed up and asked if he held iran directly responsible, and he said, we will have those discussions. he was asked about the border funding discussions on capitol hill, and he said he needs the authority from congress to shutdown the border. it's also making the case that republicans need to give him what he wants in terms of

funding and immigration judges. he did respond to those questions as well, and at the top with reporters, the president saying he has made a decision on how to respond to the deadly attack in the middle east. >> gabe, what do we know about that potential decision? he didn't, obviously, give us any details, but as far as who has been surrounding him and going through the potential options and what potential options they may be considering, what do we know? >> he has been meeting with his national security team, and we saw the photo with him with the national security team and the secretary of defense in the situation room at the white house, and the president and his team are looking at a wide range of options here, and it could be anything from increased economic sanctions on iran or a cyberattack. going into responding like the administration has over the last several weeks with the

retaliatory strikes against the proxy groups, but will the white house make the decision to attack any groups inside of iran? that would be an escalation, and the president was asked, by the way, ana, whether he was worried about a wider war in the middle east, and president biden responding right there saying i don't think we need a wider war in the middle east. that's not what i'm looking for. ana? >> dave gutierrez as we look at the three soldiers that died. thank you. playing with fire or the future of humanity? what elon musk claims his brain science just took. brain science just took. er with age. here's to beating these two every thursday. help fuel today with boost high protein,

complete nutrition you need... ...without the stuff you don't. so, here's to now. boost. (ella) fashion moves fast. setting trends is our business. we need to scale with customer demand... in real time. (jen) so we partner with verizon. their solution for us? a private 5g network. (ella) we now get more control of production, efficiencies, and greater agility. (marquis) with a custom private 5g network. our customers get what they want, when they want it. (jen) now we're even smarter and ready for what's next. (vo) achieve enterprise intelligence. it's your vision, it's your verizon.

welcome back. today tech billionaire, elon musk, is touting a break through in his latest venture, brain

science. musk claims his newest device, a brain chip has now been implanted in a human. a brain implant? how is this device supposed to work? >> sometimes it feels like this would be something we are talking about in 50 or 100 years, but here we are and the future is here. the product is called telepathy. it will enable people to control a computer or phone by merely thinking. take a look. successfully implanted in a human, according to elon musk. he said it has implanted a device in a human for the first time, and the product enables control of your phone or computer and through them almost any device just by thinking. >> imagine the joy of connecting with your loved ones, browsing the web or playing games using

only your thoughts. >> musk said the person is recovering well, and promising neurons spiked detection. >> discussing his vision back in 2019. >> i think it has a very good purpose, which is to cure important diseases and to help secure humanity's future as a civilization. >> for decades, scientists worked on similar ideas for brain computer interfaces, but for many a microchip in the brain feels like something out of a movie, like in 2015 "the king's secret service." as science fiction gets closer

to reality, musk is hoping a device can help everyday life. >> they are testing and implanting chips in humans, and in 2015 there was somebody paralyzed through a car accident, and he was able to fist bump president obama at the time. and there's a question now where this technology could go and safety, and we reached out for comment but have not heard back. >> it's like a big device, and not a little computer chip that i was envisioning. >> yeah. that's going to do it for us today. thank you for joining us. i will see you back here tomorrow, same time same place. josé diaz-balart pic o