white. whatever it is, they have to react against it and i think taylor swift and travis have gotten the reaction this time. >> i wonder -- i don't have enough time to continue the conversation, i wonder, the desire to accept conspiracy if you're going to accept it on taylor swift and on the election was stolen, you know, where are we headed is a larger question we could explore later. tim, thanks for joining us. always good to have you. that is going to do it for me today. "deadline: white house" starts right now. ♪♪ hey, everyone, it is 4:00 in morning, i'm alicia menendez in for nicolle wallace. we await claims in the january 6th case. it could come at any minute. there is right now a chorus of voices picking apart each of the

arguments used by donald trump to fend off the cases popping up cross the country challenging his place in the 2024 ballot. it is an existential threat to the one thing that donald trump sees as the way out of all his legal problems, winning the presidency. a brand-new brief to the supreme court alongside other prominent lawyers like george conway, michael luttig calls for the justices to take the 14th amendment very literally. they say, quote, because section 3 emerged from the hallowed ground of the civil war, this court must accord section 3 its fair meaning, not a narrow construction. mr. trump incited and therefore engaged in an armed insurrection against the constitution's express and foundational mandates that require the peaceful transfer of executive power to a newly elected president. in doing so mr. trump disqualified himself under section 3. regarding trump's argument the so-called insurrectionist ban

can only be applied after a candidate is elected, luttig and others say that would deprive voters of the ability to make a truly informed decision because they could not know if they were voting for someone who could serve and it would risk chaos as courts litigation whether a newly inaugurated president is disqualified in the action. a group of historians with expert december in the civil war say not so fast. in their brief they say, quote, decision makers crafted section 3 to cover the president and to create an enduring check on insurrection, requiring no additional action from congress. all of this for the nine justices on the supreme court to consider. oral arguments are on february 8th and officials are hoping that the supreme court settles

the matter once and for all. just today officials in illinois rejected a bid to take donald trump off the ballot saying that they lacked the authority to make the decision. and that is where we start today with former deputy assistant attorney general and former u.s. attorney harry litman plus national investigative reporter for "the washington post" carol letting and from the january 6th collect tim heaphy joins us now. tim, thanks for being here in the flesh in person. this decision out of illinois, what does it mean? >> a mixed question of fact and law so whether or not the president involved in insurrection is the question, so what? does it lead to disqualification. this is yet another fact finder, republicans on this illinois board of elections and on that question have found he engaged in insurrection. his action ongz and before january 6th actually rise to that very high bar of causing,

inciting insurrection. now, they did not resolve the legal question sufficient to rehim from the ballot and believe they didn't have the authority to do it. it should go to the courts in illinois and i believe it will now. but it's yet another voice, alicia, repeatedly state officials, special council, the select committee, all of whom are finding there's factual basis that the former president of the united states incited an insurrection. >> carol, that chorus of voices loud in my own head. ha does it sound like to the former president? how much time is he spending thinking about the 14th amendment challenges? >> well, every time there is a news alert on his phone, i could probably bet you that donald trump is looking down to see exactly what people are saying about him. he is a no news is bad news and he'll be watching this. i think what probably will be the most painful for supporters

of donald trump is that the individual in illinois who -- the retired judge, who concluded that there is a preponderance of evidence overwhelming evidence that donald trump engaged in inciting and encouraging and aiding and abetting an insurrection is a republican, who said, you know, if the board of elections in our state decides they are going to rule on this matter, you know, tim is absolutely right, that judge and panel said this should be left to the courts. that republican said as well, if the state election board is going to decide it has the authority and make a decision, then he said donald trump should be struck from the ballot, the primary ballot in march. >> that, harry, not exactly a win for the former president. >> yeah, i wouldn't say that. look, it's sort of a schizophrenic opinion, 20 pages this republican judge goes through and then he says under

state law illinois supreme court my advice to you actual election board says that you're not supposed to resolve constitutional questions and, whoo, do we have them here so that's the reason. and eight person, four rs, four ds, took it from there and now it comes to the court. one more pattern but my count, accept or eight by my count, kind of like maine where you had a hearing officer and went to the courts and to an administrative body. paramount in the u.s. supreme court's view and kind of sober reflection for next thursday, the 8th is this worry that there's going to be, unless they stop it, a real kind of crazy quilt pattern of different processes across the nation and the constitution doesn't necessarily preclude it but, man, it's a mess. this case, though, is wild and getting wilder by the day.

>> wild is a good word for it. tim, i want to play some of the argument that trump's attorneys made today. take a listen. >> this is a political question that is not capable of adjudication by the board or really a court. the 14th amendment, the third section of the 14th amendment was meant to be enforced by congress. >> there was never an admission by president trump anything near that january 6th was an insurrection. >> so, i want to take that in two parts, this idea, this argument from his lawyers that the 14th amendment was meant tone enforced by congress. >> yeah, a common argument in supreme court litigation and in proceedings of constitutional questions is essentially stay out of it, right? it is a political question best adjudicated by congress or executive branch, not you jurists, it's interesting it's

yet another voice where the president's lawyers are saying to courts, not yet. don't decide, don't address the merits, a pattern of trying to stay out of court, of trying to avoid the adjudication of these important issues, whereas you have the special counsel and plaintiffs this this case saying, no, resolve this. this is important. >> let's just walk through the argument someone like luttig is making which, okay, you allow him to proceed. he is on the ballot and in the case where donald trump is elected as president, then it gets kicked to congress which invokes the 20th amendment and question about the vice president. that does seem chaotic. >> both sides here invoke the prospect of chaos in sort of atmospheric support fire tear farringtonments. trump's lawyers saying it will be chaos. judge luttig says it will be chaos if you leave him on, it leaves this to congress and if

he wins the election then there will be uncertainty so both sides are sort of wrapping themselves around the prospect of uncertainty and chaos in support of their position. >> then you have, harry, the argument from trump's attorney saying trump never admitted that january 6th was an insurrection. it doesn't change the fact that it was an rekdz and then in all of these fact gatherings expeditions you have a number of courts who have come to that same conclusion. >> yeah, it really doesn't matter. it is or it isn't, but now that's a question of federal constitutional law, and what they have in front of them in the case is a determination by a colorado trial court judge that the respondents just filed today. their brief saying it's not clearly erroneous but funky to adopt that as a federal constitutional matter when it is made in -- by just one single

trial court. i think tim's point is right. both sides are claiming chaos, and luttig is a very straightforward texturist piece done by richard bernstein. one quick thing about the historian's brief. one of the arguments out there he is not an officer and they have a really expert dismantling of that argument focusing on jefferson davis himself, the president who believed that he, in fact, was disqualified as it turns out under the 14th amendment. it is an he will gent historical analysis and sort of thing to attract the right wing of the supreme court that might make that one exit route all the harder to take. they've got a difficult path, whatever they adopt. >> well, let's stay on that point, harry. here's how deadline jordan rubin explains. to explain why the section nonetheless covers presidents, the historians point to

congressional debate at the time of the amendment in which a senator questioned why presidents were being excluded. the historians recalled an influential backer of the amendment noted that the section incorporated the president replying, let me call the senator's attention to the words or hold any office civil or military under the united states. the initial senator admitted his error and no other senator questioned whether section 3 covered the president, the historians wrote. pull back the curtain on how a piece of evidence like that is considered as the justices contemplate their rulings? >> well, look, i think -- first of all, it's really as a say elegantly done. that person you're referring to is sort of the larry tribe of his day, of author and expert and there's also, as i say, jefferson davis himself saying this applies to me. if -- i think they will be serious about text and history. you have luttig being tech but then that's how they'll

interpret it on the structure of the 14th amendment and a piece of evidence or several pieces that they bring to bear, the historians, i think, is just going to be hard to discount. it means they'll have to keep looking at possible other solutions, but this one that causes the least damage in a sense saying the president is not an officer looks to be anti-historical and that's the kind of thing that the court is normally loathe to embrace. >> tim, when you were doing your work for the 1/6 committee up late at night into the weekends taking over your lives, to what extent was the 14th amendment discussed? >> we had a constitutional law professor on the committee, jamie raskin, who frequently brought it up, section 3 of the 14th amendment disqualifies him i believe in our ultimate findings and recommendations we make that finding, that section 3 of the 14th amendment is

implicated. so it definitely was an issue. what's really interesting to me going back to the luttig brief, it's interesting that he is a conservative republican. the narrative coming from the former president and his team is that this is all partisan, this is all part of some democratic or deep state plot to prevent him from being on the ballot but we have seen voices from conservatives, again and again, judge luttig being the latest, on the merits of these legal cases weighing in against the former president. all of the witnesses, the crucial witnesses that we interviewed on the select committee were members of the trump administration, were family members, were official, without counsel and attorney general. hard to paint it as partisan when so many of the voice, legal and otherwise, that are coming forward in support of these challenges to the former president's liberty and his eligibility are conservative republicans. >> people actually have fealty to the constitution and not to trump and trumpism. carol, looming over us, a ruling from the d.c. circuit court on whether donald trump is immune

from prosecution. talk to us a bit about how the former president, how his camp views the january 6th case and the immunity issue. >> well, remember, alicia, to tim's point earlier and also harry's point many times when we have's been on before, the strategy is delay and interestingly in this immunity case, the lawyer for donald trump when he was making his arguments before the d.c. circuit said, you know, judges, you don't really have to come down with an opinion. if you're going to reject us on this, you know, just hold off on giving us a opinion and we'll brief the full panel. he didn't say it in those words but another tactic of don't give us any hard decisions on this if you think you're going to rule against us. we don't need an actual opinion. a lot of people in washington are waiting to hear this decision, which usually comes on a tuesday or a friday and many heads are being scratched

wondering where this ruling is coming down from the three-judge panel, because you may remember that in the oral argument, in the briefing, all three judges raised serious doubts about whether the president was immune from this kind of criminal prosecution and donald trump is prepared, as he always is, his aides have said, to portray this decision if it goes against him as yet another stake from the democratic liberal cabal, the deep state that's trying to get him. except for one of these judges is fairly revered in the federalist society and if it is a ruling against him, it will be hard to forget that one of these three judges is usually solidly in republican camp and it can't be the deep state if judge henderson joins this.

>> he's never been one to let the truth get in the way of a good lie. i'm often reminded by our friends who are attorneys that imminent expeditiously, they mean different things in legal circles than they do in journalistic circles which is why carol and i keep coming back to this question of why have we not seen it yet? one of the options or possibilities is the justices have arrived at the same conclusion but through different, you know, legal arguments and so they are reach writing their own decision to express themselves. how do you think this is going to shake out? >> it's not necessarily a sign of any disagreement. could be the opposite. it could be that what's happening a very comprehensive opinion is being drafted that is addressing all of the concerns of the three-judge panel and potentially others on the circuit to try to prevent it from going on -- if this opinion is really reasoned and gets judge henderson, a republican appointee, the supreme court may

not take it, which in effect the supreme court saying there is -- this is not a close case. we think the d.c. circuit got it right. no split in authority because it's one court of appeals adjudicating whether or not the former president has immunity. there is a scenario by which a thorough and careful opinion comes out, it's unanimous and it is sound and reflects the arguments made in front of the judges of the circuit and supreme court reads that and says, we got enough on our plate right now, we're going to deny cert and we move forward and judge chutkan puts that on the calendar and the case gets adjudicated >> that's the real question. how the current time line affects the larger time line. tim, thank you so much. caroline liannig, thank you. the judge in donald trump's civil fraud trial could soon announce his decision and could be an even greater penalty than $370 million. the new york a.g. is looking for. plus, the ex-president has

not yet fully accepted that he will have to pay $83.3 million to e. jean carroll. but that court has spoken and one of carroll's attorneys shawn crowley joins us. joe biden says he is not looking for a wider war in the middle east but today said he came to a decision on how to deal with the death of three servicemen abroad. we'll talk about that when "deadline: white house" returns. d recalibrated my safety system. that's service i can trust. >> singers: ♪ safelite repair, safelite replace. ♪ okay everyone, our mission is to provide complete, balanced nutrition for strength and energy. yay - woo hoo! ensure, with 27 vitamins and minerals, nutrients for immune health. and ensure complete with 30 grams of protein. (♪♪) mara, are you sure you don't want -to go bowling with us tonight? -yeah. no.

there's my little marzipan! [ laughs ] oh, my daughter gives the best hugs! we're just passing through on our way to the jazz jamboree. [ imitates trumpet playing ] and we wanted to thank america's number-one motorcycle insurer -for saving us money. -thank you. [ laughs ] mara, your parents are -- exactly like me? i know, right? well, cherish your friends and loved ones. let's roll, daddio! let's boogie-woogie!

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

as we await a ruling from arthur engoran there are new accusations of potential tax fraud from the trump

organization. according to "the new york times," quote, the new accusations against mr. trump's family business came late last week in a report from an outside monitor whom justice engoran assigned in late 2022 to keep an eye on the company and highlighted several paperwork issues at a family company trying to shake the legacy of sloppiness and questions about a $48 million loan between mr. trump and one of his companies. on monday trump's lawyers fired back defiantly calling the report an absolutely lie and claiming that the outside monitor is trying to justify her work to continue getting paid. as "the new york times" notes the findings and response from mr. trump's lawyers could embolden justice engoran who often seems kept cal of the former president's assertions. joining us is director of the public policy program basil smikle and harry litman is back with us.

how could the findings from the financial monitor and trump's lawyer's response impact judge engoran's decision. >> the monitor is appointed by him and an aspect we haven't been thinking about because engoran ruled on it and it's up on appeal. it's probably the most devastating and you're right, i think we'll get the other -- the bigger part of the opinion probably by tomorrow, but it's the one that actually yanks the certificates away from his corporate entities and appoints a monitor, barbara jones, extremely well respected, has done many high-profile cases, basically beyond reproach to get certain information and her report said, you know, they were by and large cooperative but it was riddled with errors and some of them seem pretty platant and stinky. so that could well if nothing else make engoran think, you know, these guys are

encoverageable. it's really more or less the same pattern. this is a part of james' case, count one, that he has already indicted for her and is up on appeal so in that sense it bolsters the entire six-count case that he's going to write up by, he says tomorrow. >> harry, help me under stand. the trump organization needs continued monitoring and writes, quote, absent steps to address the items my observations suggest misstatements and errors may continue to occur, which could result in incorrect or inaccurate reporting of financial information to third parties. i wonder does that mean the judge's ruling likely extends the work of the monitor? >> the work of the monitor would be extended in any event unless the appeal reversed his initial ruling. august she's saying is these guys, it's not just stray mistakes. they've got structural problems.

they have very poor internal controls. that's what she says just before the passage you cited and she's not trying to justify her own work. she's saying what needs to be done in order to get accurate information out of them that, you know, they just have some structural problems that make it hard and is sticking around unless the court of appeals and this would be in a year, the apell lat reverses that aspect of engoran's ruling. >> potential fraud during a fraud trial. what the monitor is saying there is sloppiness and as harry said you have structural problems. there's not proper accounting happening within your business. you would think most businesses would go through a trial like this and say, we need to clean up shop. we need to tighten things up. the fact that that has not happened, it feels like a tell. >> yeah, it's certainly a tell

to me. if you've been in new york or following donald trump and his businesses for any extended period of time, there may have been a point where you could point to some legitimacy of it. maybe perhaps early on but what seems to be clear over time the business is built on the brand and really is just the brand. it's not even accounting. it's clearly not something related to any legal propriety, it is literally just surviving on his brand alone, you know, good accounting practices be damned and i think that's who donald trump is, his whole existence is based on a public persona that he used very heavily to sort of get the next thing including being president of the united states. and i don't think anyone really believes -- imagine certainly no one in the real estate community or among his financial peers in this city believe that he was running a significant business or legitimate business that could survive without him but it

certainly survived seemingly on the lies that he told and that others within the organization told just to move the ball forward and to obfuscate certain information that anyone else looking at it would say this is wrong. this is erroneous. >> it's so wild giving it is a highly regulated industry, right? that the industry at large has rules and regulations and everyone is supposed to be following them that donald trump says, well, those rules do not apply to me and there is, of course, the other element of the trump playbook which we see, anyone who rules against him who points out flaws he claims bias, that's what he claiming in the case of the monitor. how long can you do that? how many different people you can point the finger at before finally say, who is the common denominator here? >> i also look at the impact this has on his -- the narrative he weaves for his supporters, right? on the one hand, does this -- i'm not an attorney but on the one hand does this meet the same

smell test as bernie madoff. it's a ponzi scheme but the impact is you hurt the little guy, right? you hurt the average investor, and one of the things that's going to be interesting is does the outcome of this trial have the same impact that trump actually went and hurt and defrauded the little man, the average contractor, for example? that could create a problem for the narrative he's trying to weave. i don't know if it would be enough but that's the one way you get to this. there are a lot of folks that may not understand the accounting parts of this or may not understand what he was doing was more systemic and chalk it up as an error here or there is what he'll be able to say. if you want it to stick you got to portray him as the person who tried to defraud the american government. the outcome of the trial, do they do it? >> up's given us a sense of time line. what are you going to be looking for? >> bottom line, so jones came back in and asked -- excuse me,

leticia asked for $370 million having originally had a $250 million figure. i think that is likely engoran is likely to be close to the 250. right now he's going to clobber them without a doubt and already be looking forward to the appeal and trying to, you know, prevent reversal. quickly on the jones piece if i could, alicia, she's just there to make sure he doesn't do any funny business while this is under adjudication so she's not trying to find crimes but she did find that the so-called trump organization is really 250 plus different entities all in an umbrella in a trust out of florida. but with that aside, i'm looking for engoran -- we talked about the aftermath of the e. jean carroll case. it'll like that times four in

terms of its impact on trump and the kind of bond he'll have to put up to appeal. both the a.g. or the state of new york doesn't get the money right away. maybe e. jean carroll doesn't but trump has to part with it fairly soon and that is a major, major hit. >> we're going to be talking to one of e. jean's attorneys in a bit. harry litman, thanks for joining us. basil, you are sticking with me. new reporting on a far-reaching plan of allies of the ex-president to have on day one should he win a second term. a plan that would weaponize the american government and severely curtail access to abortion. that story is next.

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. not just any whiteboard... ...katie porter's whiteboard is one way she's: [news anchor] ...often seen grilling top executives of banks, big pharma, even top administration officials. katie porter. never taken corporate pac money - never will. leading the fight to ban congressional stock trading. and the only democrat who opposed wasteful “earmarks” that fund politicians' pet projects. katie porter. focused on your challenges - from lowering housing costs to fighting climate change. shake up the senate - with democrat katie porter. i'm katie porter and i approve this message. salonpas, makers of powerful pain relief patches for 89 years... believes in continuous improvement... like rounded corners that resist peeling, with an array of active ingredients... and sizes to relieve your pain. salonpas. it's good medicine. your record label is taking off. but so is your sound engineer. you need to hire.

i need indeed. indeed you do. indeed instant match instantly delivers quality candidates matching your job description. visit indeed.com/hire destroys america or we destroy the deep state. it is one of donald trump's common phrases, to get rid of government employees or the deep state if ee rejected part of a broader plan to keep the bureaucracy he believes obstructed his agenda during the presidency. get rid of nonpartisan federal employees and replace them with trump loyalists.

the key allies and government agencies to tackle bource access that involves the epa from the federal trade commission and nearly 100 anti-abortion and abortion groups are mapping out ways to use the it to curb abortion access to undo state and term programs promoting access to abortion to a bang. they do not require congressional approval. they are crystal clear with their intentions and doing this expressly because they don't have the votes in congress. we have a panel joining us. my co-host on msnbc, mike steele and basil is back. what would this mileage for

-- mean for abortion access. what if these plans to gut agencies to remove these federal workers were actually successful? >> it's disconcerting because they help us making sure we have clean air, fresh water, making sure that we can live a healthy sustainable life. that's part of what agencies do and when we're talking about it, you know, it's from edge race to the epa to the sba, all of these various agencies that have been responsible for doing the work that actually keep us healthy and safe, even though abortion is being targeted. when you think about gutting some of these agencies then we're talking about matters that affect our health, that affect how vaccinations, for example, come into the marketplace and how drugs come to the

marketplace. all sorts of things, you need smart people in those agencies not burdened by political pressure but what the former president is making clear he has a thumb on the scaling in much of what he's done politicizing agencies, the courts, and so much more that it would cause us to be deeply alarmed. >> when you talk about nonpartisan federal employee, these are the institutional memory of these place, meme who just know how the place works and how to get things done so it is a dramatic pivot from people distinctly by design apolitical to people who are not just loyal to an ideology but loyal to one man, right? the idea he would pluck these workers out and replace them with their own loyalists, what are these institutions going to look like? >> they begin to look like trump. they begin to look like the rnc.

they begin to look like any number of entities that trump has control over. his businesses. everything is centralized up to him. he is the final arbiter of everything, so, yes, you could have in this world that trump wants to create the president of the united states calling a midlevel manager and directly telling that midlevel manager what he wants. bypassing the hierarchical structure within the organization within that department or agency, that is utter and complete control and everybody who is in a job will know, yeah, i can get a phone call from donald trump telling me what to do. so everyone is empowered individually, which is important, because -- why? because that fuels the loyalty. if i got the power, i pick up the phone and trump is asking me to do something, am i worried

about my boss? am i worried about the employee next to me, no. where is my allegiance and my concern and interest. it's focused upward into him. this is what he's done inside the party and this is what he's done inside of his businesses and this is what he wants to do inside the federal government. the irony here, alicia, is that all of these entrenched deep state federal employees that he wants to get rid of will themselves become entrenched deep state federal employees for donald trump, so this -- if there's not a consistency of thought here it's about a consistency of creating a power center in which he is the center and the power. >> right, the deep state would be okay so long as the deep state reported to him. michele, one organization told politico about their plan related to all of this. the conversations we're having have been very clear, we expect them to act swiftly, due to not having 60 votes in the senate and not having a firm pro-life

majority in the house i think administrative action is where we'll see the most action if republic is elected. are you surprised, michelle, just how open they are being about eroding our democratic institutions specifically to attack abortion access? >> it's a great question. one can't be surprised by any of this. if you put it in a broader context. it used to be that people who were racist -- the marches that we've seen and so much more, i say that as an analogy or comparison, the quiet part is now being said out loud and in ways that are really dangerous to our democracy. kind of out loud statements in order to do the bidding of a president. now there will be a gutting of agencies to do the bidding of a president. let's keep in mind there is a reason why we have a government

where we separate powers where there are courts, where there's a congress, where there's a president and then there are agencies that help him do that work in between and what we're hearing right now are things that are not going democratic. these sound totalitarian, 40 years ago it would be we need to send in support to help ensure democracy and now what we see are these kind of challenges taking place in our own country. >> right, and we have heard so much of it, basil, that for some folks it is not ringing alarms that need to be rung because there is the damage that could be done if he were to win a second term and goes forward. there is the damage that is being done regardless because there is a segment of the population that will believe the federal government is acting as a deep state. >> yeah, so it's interesting, i tell people as a rule of thumb if you're comfortable with policy in your state but hate what's happening in the next state, donald trump becomes president, it will happen

everywhere. he will find a way to weaponize government as we've talked about to be able to nationalize policy and you could do that fairlybur. there are bureaucrats who can't easily be fired but on top of that there are thousands of employees that serve at the pleasure of and it is the pointing -- appointing of those that would push own sub servants to do the bidding, tension and politics within that, but ultimately the president would likely get his way if he were to become president and what's scary about this is that i had voters telling me it's not just confined to congress. they're concerned, is their lawyer, nurse, teamer a trump supporter, because that is the trickle down of it. it's not just within the bureaucracy. he has in many ways deputized people all over the country in every institution to do his bidding. and unless you find ways to completely extricate that from our existing institutions in the

federal government, if we don't do that it will trickle down everywhere else. that's a lasting problem one election is not going to solve. >> michele goodwin as always, thank you so much for spending time with us, michael and basil, they are sticking with us. up next, republicans in the house treating the situation at the border like a game. today holding an impeachment vote against the homeland security secretary. democrats are calling it an act of political revenge. that story is next.

republican members of the house homeland security committee are about six hours into their attempt to send impeachment articles against dhs secretary alejandro mayorkas to a full house vote. s that a, of course, despite any evidence of any impeachable offenses by mayorkas. republicans vaguely accuse oversight and failing to apply with it. they slammed the attempt as a baseless political stunt by extreme maga republicans. bennie thompson, the top democrat calling it, a quote terrible day for the committee, the constitution and country. it's a political charade months in the making if successful in the house would be only the second impeachment of a u.s. cabinet secretary the first and also the first in 150 years and the sham maze all the more clear by the republican speaker who suggested if the senate reaches

a bipartisan solution on board a security it wouldn't have a chance in the house. we are back with michael and with basil. michael, you and i were on set this weekend when these articles were filed and you were very clear, there is no basis here for an impeachment. this is pure politics through and through. >> this makes a show trial look like an embarrassment. the poor approach to all of this, the fact it is so heavily partisan and political to the point that redundancy is not even a relief here. it's just bad all around. if they can go back and say look

what we've done. the fact of the matter is if republicans really wanted to do something like this, then you wouldn't have the speaker in terms of getting the policy done on the border, you wouldn't have the speaker saying it was dead on arrival but send it over so we can send back a compromise. send the bill over so we can put on the table what we can do and have a debate. we don't even want to see what you want to do. it's doa. so they're not serious. you need to wake up and recognize what the country is going on. it's not serious. there was no policy on the border during the four years with trump except build the wall and didn't build a walling. all right? there was no policy on immigration. there was nothing to deal with this issue. now you have senate republicans and democrats finally coming to the table, oh, and get this,

keep this bit of information, giving republicans everything they want pretty much. this is a very conservative strong border bill on immigration. and yet they don't want to dance with it because they don't want joe biden to get the win, okay. >> i think michael -- >> see what he does in november. >> i think michael gets it right there, basil. which is the mayorkas impeachment inquiry would be unserious at any moment is particularly unserious when you see it side by side with this back and forth over this immigration deal, right, which is they seem to be getting close to something that republicans were at least happy with until all of a sudden donald trump puts the sudden donald trump puts the can bosh on it. >> republicans wanted to do the republican lap on reproductive rights and they can't. number two, if they were really concerned about border policy and immigration, they would have

chastised the governors of texas and florida as they were putting migrants on buses and sending them to northern states if they were serious then, they would have taken care of it at that moment. they didn't use it. they're using this as a political weapon even as joe biden has issued more executive orders on this issue than donald trump has. he's taking -- he's working to take care of this problem doing it in way that doesn't create the humanitarian crisis that we saw when trump issued the muslim ban for example, look to that for exactly that could be problematic when people want to say, i'll do anything he says. he says i'm cutting travel off for a specific group of people without telling anyone and then you have chaos. perfect example of that. so what they're doing, all they're doing is supplanting

reproductive rights with immigration and border policy as a way to be able to try to mobilize their voters. we're even seeing it in some of the ads in the special election here in new york in district 3, it's a non-issue they have created. it's a policy issue, but they're creating it in a way and charging it in a way that's only meant to try to embarrass the administration, good luck with that. >> basil, thank you so much for being us. michael steele, four hours every weekend. not enough for you, you came back for more. we'll sneak in a quick break and then we'll be right back. bak easy-to-use tools and paper trading to help sharpen your skills, you can stay on top of the market from wherever you are. e*trade from morgan stanley power e*trade's easy-to-use tools make complex trading less complicated. custom scans help you find new trading opportunities, while an earnings tool helps you plan your trades

and stay on top of the market. e*trade from morgan stanley

♪ i'm gonna hold you forever... ♪ ♪ i'll be there... ♪ ♪ you don't... ♪ ♪ you don't have to worry... ♪ when you shop wayfair, ♪ you don't... ♪ you get big deals for your home - every day. so big, we'll have you saying... am i a big deal? yeah you are, because it's a big deal, when you get a big deal. wayfair deals so big that you might get a big head. because with savings so real - you can get your dream sofa for half the price. wayfair. it's always a big deal.

♪ wayfair you've got just what i need ♪ we're waiting for more details on the u.s. response to drone attack that killed three u.s. soldiers and injured dozens more alt a base in jordan this weekend. president biden said he made a decision there, no details as of yet. we do know however he spoke with the family members of the three that lost their lives. he'll be attending the dignified transfer ceremony at dover air force base this friday. john kirby saying the president, quote, made sure that those families knew not only that service and sacrifice going to be honored and respected that they would continue to get the support they need as work through what no family wants to go through. a live report from the middle east as we wait for that expected u.s. response in the

region. up next, one of e. jean carroll's attorneys joins us right after this quick break. t k ♪ ♪ 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. new projects means new project managers. you need to hire. i need indeed. indeed you do. when you sponsor a job, you immediately get your shortlist of quality candidates, whose resumes on indeed match your job criteria. visit indeed.com/hire and get started today.

you may know adam schiff's work to protect the rule of law, whose resumes on indeed match your job criteria. 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.

three, four days before trial i had an actual breakdown, i lost my speak, i lost my words, i couldn't talk and i couldn't go on. it was -- that's how frightened i was, but oddly, we went into court, took the lectern, i sat in a witness chair like this and she said, ms. carroll, good morning. please spell your name for the

court. and amazingly i looked out and he was nothing. he was nothing. he was a phantom. it was the people around him who were giving him power. he himself was nothing. >> hi, again. it's 5:00 here in new york. e. jean carroll with a powerful message for those unwilling to stand up to donald trump. do it, he's not as scary as you think. he won over $83 million in her recent trial. signal that our nation's system of justice is still intact that despite the efforts by the former president and his allies to tear down the rule of law for trump's benefit. he's not untouchable. in a moving piece in atlantic, attorney george conway on pines on this second verdict in the e.

jean carroll means to him. conway felt very close to the case. he writes the jurors in both this trial and the earlier one got to see donald trump, up close and personally. through their own eyes, throughout these trials, they got to see how trump had nothing but contempt for the women. they saw just a few feet away, how he had nothing but scorn for the court the judge and the law, they saw donald trump is a man who must be held to account if simple justice is to be upheld. in the eyes of the law, everyone in america is equal. that bravery resulted in not only a financial win but it sent an important message to the

women of this country. here's more of carroll last night. i'm going to get that clip back up for you. that's where we start this hour with one of e. jean carroll's attorneys. this big question about the rule of law and the importance of the rule of law being intact, i wonder if you felt the burden of that responsibility as you were presenting this case? >> i think, we felt the burden but more than that we felt like it was our responsibility to show the jurors that donald trump doesn't think he's bound by it. in fact he totally disregards it, he did it to e. jean in the years, months and days leading up to trial and he did it even during the trial, you know, after court each day when he showed up he would leave the courtroom and give a press conference or tweet on social media and continued to defame

her, which of course he was on trial for defamation, he sat in court and was incredibly disrespectful, would get up and walk out when he didn't want to be there, shake his heads, mutter things loudly so the jurors could hear. so he helped us to show the jury that he really doesn't think that he's bound by the law or any rules. >> during the first trial he wasn't in the courtroom during this trial he was, did that then change the strategy, the approach? >> so, it didn't really change our strategy, our strategy as robi said in the clip that you just played was to come in and tell the facts and use the law to help prove the case. it did change the day-to-day in trial, not only because he has an entourage around him but just because there were a lot of antics in the courtroom that the judge had to deal with and frankly we had to deal with, the jury were hearing things that

they weren't supposed to hear. we felt like it was helping us, you know usually what happens during a trial is attorneys and witnesses describe events that have happened in the past. donald trump was literally giving them like a live stream into what we were saying. this guy is defaming her. he would then defame her. this guy won't be bound by laws. then he'd acted it out. >> for of us who weren't in the courtroom, he was making a political play, never meant to be legal arguments but political arguments. i don't know though where that leaves you as the opposing legal team. >> so i think probably it was a little bit of both, i do think and i have no visibility into donald trump's brain, but i do think he probably thought and he has said publicly that he messed up or his attorney messed up by not having him come to last

trial, i think he thought his presence looking at the jurors, persuade him what he was saying was right, so i think that maybe that sort of a little bit of a legal strategy but it was intended for the audience outside the courtroom. he was drafting truth social posts while he was sitting at counsel table, handing them to his colleagues and they would run out of the courtroom and post them. >> good to know what the process is for those posts being posted online. you said something during the rebuttal, what could be more on brand on for trump analysis -- any concern about making it to jurors whose political leanings you might not be clear on. >> so, that was a concern throughout the trial and the jury selection in this case was very quick and so we didn't know a ton about the jurors as you

know, they were anonymous, we didn't get their names, that was for sure a concern, but i think that we really believed and we really tried to try the case putting politics aside. and that was a theme of both of our closing arguments. this is not about politics. this is about a man who has broken the law and who needs to pay for that. >> trump said he's going to appeal this ruling, can you walk us through that time line, what could that potentially look like, when you think e. jean carroll will see the damages owe to her. >> the first thing he needs to do which has not happened yet, is put up a bond in order to appeal, he has to make sure that the money is going to be there if he appeals, once that happens he has a month to file a notice of appeal and it could take a year or more for that appeal to run its course, we do feel very strong and good about our

arguments on appeal and we certainly expect when we win we'll be enforcing the judgment. >> this case, in mosaics of defamation cases, a voting technology companies, fox news, are we at an inflection point in defamation cases? >> i certainly hope we are. the three cases you mention have had significant overlap in types of statements that were made and even in the people who were making them and i think those people think they can say anything and do anything to people who they perceive as their enemies. these three cases and others are hopefully showing people like that they should be careful before they speak. >> well, there's the flip of that, first amendment scholar

anderson jones on this show yesterday and she talked about defamation law used to do a good job of exactly that, of getting people to stop the defaming and yet part of what we have seen with donald trump, with rudy giuliani who came out of the courtroom and gave very similar remarks it didn't seem to have the intended, intended effect, i wonder how you square that. >> it's a good point and certainly true for giuliani, and i will say there was an earlier trial in a related case between e. jean and donald trump last may, where a jury found him liable for defamation. while this case was pending. he was found liable there, in ordered to pay $5 million in that case and literally the next day he went on a cnn town hall and continued to defame her and then continued for the next two years, and i will say one of the

arguments that we made to the jury was this guy cares the most about money, maybe only about money, so you should think about that and you consider his wealth when you decide how much he should pay. it's been five days. so far, he has not defamed her again. that's actually something of a record in the history of this case, who knows what he's going to do next, i suspect when he was on the campaign trail and asked questions it will be harder for him to stay quiet. so far it has worked. >> that may be the answer to my next question, a moment that jumps out to you the most surprising. >> i'm not sure that i have ever seen a defendant walk out, or party to litigation walk out of court in the middle of a lawyer's summation, so that was surprising. though, i will say that given his behavior in the preceding

week it wasn't totally shocking. but it was surprising. the jury verdict in the first case where they held him liable for the actual underlying assault that was a great surprise, surprising and frankly the fact that he went right back to it the next day. >> of course, i want to play that sound we were trying to play earlier of e. jean on rachel maddow. >> we're doing this for women around the country who have been knocked down, repeatedly, and so it's really not about me anymore. we moved beyond me and as you say now the fight is take back our future. this is a man who stacked the supreme court, took away women's rights over their own bodies, we would like to be a part of turning our eyes to the future and taking back our rights.

>> there's a much bigger fight here, inasmuch as this about e. jean carroll but women, it's about the man's relationship to power. >> for sure, i think, one of the themes in first trial, the sexual assault trial, there was a lot of discussion and argument by trump's lawyers and cross-examination of e. jean on the stand about what we call the perfect rape victim and how there's an expectation about how a woman who has been sexually assaulted should be behave. she should scream. she should call the police. she should never speak publicly about it. she should never be happy again. she should never try to be successful again. they used the fact that e. jean didn't quite fit that mold as a way of telling the jury you

shouldn't believe her and the jury rejected that and i think, i hope that that was a really big lesson for women, for men, for anyone who's worried about coming forward because their story isn't quote/unquote perfect. >> this argument this time around she did this for wanton fame. >> we called it she asked for argument, big theme of ali in ahabba's closing argument. it's very offensive. more people know her now, but way more people hate her. >> i want to bring into our conversation, senior editor for bloomberg, tim o'brien. what's got to be going through the former president's head? >> $83.3 million is a lot of money.

that's what's going through his head, his head is basically a cash register, he sees everything in the world through the prism of money. only two lenses that he understands things through. in this case, in which three women took him and his lawyer to the cleaners, through a very effective judicious and determined use of the court system, has got to utterly rankle him, as was noted they didn't know how his court antic might play out, but it ultimately didn't convince the jury, the ultimate jury that's going to be dealing with donald trump this fall are voters and i think if voters have the fact pattern put in front of him, the history put in front of them. the dangers he presents in this case to women and in other cases

the national security and the democracy and the constitution, juries will go the right way. it shows the rule of law does matter. in this case specifically, you know, donald trump has historically been a skirt chaser of the most ruthless and virs sort. there's been talk about how he em powers women in his businesses but most of his life he treats them like arm candy and sees them as dispensable. he probably went into this case thinking that he could power through it with bravado and performance art. and they schooled him and it rankled him in his sense of self-and i don't see him keeping quiet for any meaningful length

of time. every time he opens his mouth in coming months and years she can us sue him again and it can continue to fund her retirement and keeping people on notice that donald trump shouldn't be allowed to get away with that. >> are you psychologically prepared for that. >> let's talk about that next week. >> i do think there's bigger point, too, here, george conway wrote in his piece, the jury saw trump for who he really is. it matters as it relates to faith in these institutions. >> yeah, they sure did see trump for who he is. when he chooses not to appear, the jury isn't exposed to donald trump, they reward e. jean

carroll $5 million. when he does appear they award her $83.3 million. one of the memorable or shocking moments was during closing arguments which are usually a pretty solemn affair, you know, when we think about the fact that every court in the land really in every jurisdiction has rules against disrupting the proceedings and as they were arguing to the jury that donald trump is a liar who seems to believe the rules don't apply to him, what does he do? jumps up and leaves court in a huff, doing what, disrupting the proceedings. you know, that's a litigator's dream, when an opponent behaifs like that, i would probably say, ladies and gentlemen, i would love to invite donald trump back into the courtroom and slap an exhibit sticker on his head. he's exhibit 1 proving the point we were arguing to you.

so, yeah, it's good that not only the institutions held but, you know, what does to ms. carroll years ago and more recently with this relentless defamation, donald trump has been held to account for all of it and i do hope that em boldens others who are victims of sexual offenses who are hesitant to come forward for all sort of reasons. >> tim, i think about the argument that sean just shared with us, shared with the jury, one thing donald trump cares about and that is money, that seems particularly relevant given the ruling we're waiting for in the civil fraud trial, that could actually be the greatest undermining of his wealth, and as he would say his brand. >> right, you know, that case could have damages as much as $370 million, it's a civil fraud

trial, i doubt the judge will go that high, but who knows. donald trump has routinely disrespected judges in the courtroom. in every venue he's disrespected of the process in every venue. i can't imagine a judge would predisposed would be lenient on donald trump. but one doesn't know. more than $460 million in financial penalties is huge. trump is worth around conservatively $3 billion, he plays hide and go seek with most of his debts. his wealth is tied up in liquid assets, urban real estate properties. plus, a clutch of golf courses. most of that stuff you can't just turn around and sell tomorrow. he maybe has $600 million or so in cash. and let me tell you, donald trump does not like doing that.

he's probably going to try to find every avenue he can to avoid it. he'll have to pay up a significant amount and if he doesn't pay it, then people like judge kaplan can attach his assets. >> their prosecutors across the country who are trying cases, some of them criminal against donald trump, what's your counsel -- what did you learning being in the courtroom with him successfully trying multiple cases against him, what do other attorneys need to learn from the success of these cases? >> i have been asked that question a couple of times, and i have been thinking about it, really go things, they don't need to hear from me because they're very experienced prosecutors who have had some experience with donald trump. but two things, one is there's no trick that he won't try to play.

no matter how seemingly far-fechd or frankly dirty at times he'll try it and he may have lawyers who will go along with him. the other is, though, and this was somewhat of a surprise me being in the courtroom with him, when he's stripped of the press, or the tv cameras, and rally and his supporters, he's just a guy and he can be controlled. putting aside some of the antics that we just talked about, by and large judge kaplan controlled him, he controlled the courtroom and made him follow the rules. he testified. he was only allowed to answer three questions from his attorney. the judge cut him off twice. he's just a guy. he may not think so. he's actually bound by the same rules and same laws as we all are. >> thank you so much for taking

the time to be with us. thank you so much. when we return, the middle east on edge as we await the u.s. response to a drone strike that killed american soldiers, we have a live report from the region on what may be the precipice of what many fear is a widening war. joe biden is on the ground in donald trump's backyard raising money in a state that democrats have largely written off. and the right wing has lost it again, spreading conspiracy theories that she's spreading. s.

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

all we need are 1000 monthly donors in the next 30 days. please call or go online now with your monthly gift of just $10. thanks to generous government grants, every dollar you give can have up to ten times the impact. and when you call with your credit card, we will send you this save the children® tote bag as a thank you for your support. your small monthly donation of just $10 could be the reason a child in crisis survives. please call or go online to hungerstopsnow.org to help save lives today. here's why you should switch fo to duckduckgo on all your devie duckduckgo comes with a built-n engine like google, but it's pi and doesn't spy on your searchs and duckduckgo lets you browse like chrome, but it blocks cooi and creepy ads that follow youa from google and other companie.

and there's no catch. it's fre. we make money from ads, but they don't follow you aroud join the millions of people taking back their privacy by downloading duckduckgo on all your devices today. you're probably not easily persuaded to switch join t mobile providersople taki for your business.cy but what if we told you it's possible that comcast business mobile can save you up to 75% a year on your wireless bill versus the big three carriers? did we peak your interest? you can get two unlimited lines for just $30 each a month. there are no term contracts or line activation fees. and you can bring your own device. oh, and all on the most reliable 5g mobile network nationwide. wireless that works for you. it's not just possible, it's happening.

have you made a decision on how you'll respond to the attack? >> yes. >> do you hold iran responsible for the death of those of three americans. >> i do hold them responsible in sense they're supplying the weapons to those who did it. >> that was president biden today confirming he's made his decision on how to respond to drone attack that killed three u.s. soldiers in the middle east. that he blames iran for backing the militants that fired it. nbc news has learned biden met with members of his national security council again this morning, and he's publicly vowed to retaliate for the american lives taken. his own team has acknowledged this week it will require

delicate strategy and diplomacy. further underscoring the delicacy of the matter, news of proposal in the works to free the remaining hostages. a framework by officials, has learned is being discussed by the israeli war cabinet. joining us now is raf sanchez in tel aviv. john brennan and katty kay. raf, what's the latest about how the president could respond and what iran is saying? >> reporter: so, starting with iran, you heard the president said he holds the iranians responsible for that deadly attack in jordan in the sense they're the ones providing to the weapons to these shia militant groups all over the middle east attacking u.s.

forces the iranians haven't been shy about that but they are denying they gave the order for these groups to attack u.s. forces, either if jordan or anywhere else and in their words, these so-called resistant groups are attacking u.s. forces as a natural reaction for american support for israeli operations if gaza, difficult to know exactly what level of command and control the iranians have over these proxy groups, but the u.s. certainly has a range of options when they decide to respond to this attack in jordan the obvious one would be striking these militant groups themselves, most likely in syria, potentially also in iraq, we've seen that happen since october 7th. it has not deterred these groups from continuing their strikes at the air base in western iraq and this base tower 22 in jordan. the president could go a notch

further up the escalation ladder, he could target iranian operatives across the middle east that's something that we see the israelis do regularly, the other week there was a strike in the syrian capital of damascus, a suspected israeli air strike that killed a senior official with the revolutionary guard. on to which escalation ladder, the president could order a strike inside of iran itself, that's something that american presidents have largely avoided because it could trigger an all-out regional war between the united states and iran, something you heard the president say he does not want to see. back in 1988, the u.s. did bomb a number of iranian navy ships in the persian gulf, so it's not without precedent to strike iran directly. >> director brennan k you walk us through the complexities of the latter approach that raf

just laid out? >> well, hitting iran in iran is certainly a major's cla toir step. because also congress i think would authorize strikes against another sovereign state. so, as raf pointed out i do think the biden administration's response is going to be forceful, go after these militias and extremist groups that operate in these ungovern areas in syria and iraq, but also going after some of those iranians who train and provide weapons to these groups. and actually operate in theater with these various militia groups. so i believe the biden administration is going to go after targets that are connected to the many attacks that have taken place against u.s.

interests over the last several months. try to degrade those capabilities. i do think there's a number of targets they'll go after without having to hit iran proper itself. >> katty, what are the conversations being had among allies? >> they hope that some kind of major escalation can be avoided. everyone's hoping for that. uk siding with washington if it were to come to that kind of escalation and other european countries the french included not doing so, you can divide allies who have been remarkably united up until now, but there's a bigger risk here the only optimistic scenario that we hear out of the middle east at the moment is the normalization of ties between israel and saudi

arabia. it depends on a cease-fire of getting the hostages home. some kind of major escalation between iran and the united states the chances for that cease-fire the chances for a hostage deal, all of that gets thrown up into the air and unlikely to happen, so you know, there are big strategic questions, longer-term strategic questions here rather than how the u.s. responds now. >> raf, to that point, what can you report about this potential proposal to free the remaining hostages. >> reporter: it was hammered out over the weekend at a meeting between senior intelligence officials in paris, including cia director bill burns, under this proposal hamas would release its remaining civilian hostages, in return israel would grant a two-month pause in the fighting, it would allow more aid into gaza and it would

potentially pull its troops back from the southern city of khan younis where we're seeing intense fighting going on right now. i spoke to a senior israeli official he said this proposal was discussed at the israeli war cabinet last night which is a sign of how seriously it's being taken. but prime minister netanyahu is under real pressure from the far-right cabinet not to be seen to be giving concessions to hamas and he said he's not prepare to release thousands of palestinians convicted of terrorism offenses as part of an agreement, and now that's a major, major demand of hamas, hamas' leader in gaza was supposed to spend the rest of his life in an israeli prison and he was freed in one of these prisoner exchanges. there's the potential for wiggle room here. there may be a way for israel to

get those people back without releasing the most senior hamas operatives. from hamas' perspective, we heard from the political leader of hamas, he says he's studying the proposal, he repeated his demands that any agreement to release the hostages also end the war, something israel said is totally unacceptable. at this point neither side has dismissed this out of hand and it's possible that there may be some kind of meeting of the minds in between these two positions that could lead to a pause in the fighting which would be welcome, more than welcome by palestinian civilians in gaza and the release of the hostages which would end some of the agony for families here. >> thank you for spending some time with us today. katty, you're sticking with it. what president biden is

doing in florida today in the hometown of his future rival. later, why the right wing is consumed by a bizarre conspiracy theory about taylor swift. abou. h viking. unpack once and get closer to iconic landmarks, local life and cultural treasures. because when you experience europe on a viking longship, you'll spend less time getting there and more time being there. viking. exploring the world in comfort. love you. have a good day, behave yourself. like she goes to work at three in the afternoon and sometimes gets off at midnight. she works a lot, a whole lot. we don't get to eat in the early morning. we just wait till we get to the school. so, yeah.

right now here in america, millions of kids like victoria and andre live with hunger, and the need to help them has never been greater. when you join your friends, neighbors and me to support no kid hungry, you'll help hungry kids get the food they need. if we want to take care of our children, then we have to feed them. your gift of just $0.63 a day, only $19 a month at helpnokidhungry.org right now will help provide healthy meals and hope. we want our children to grow and thrive and to just not have to worry and face themselves with the struggles that we endure. nobody wants that for their children. like if these programs didn't exist me and aj, we wouldn't probably get lunch at all. please call or go online right now with your gift of just $19 a month. and when you use your credit card, you'll receive this limited edition t-shirt to show you're part of the team that's helping feed kids and change lives.

if you're coming in hungry, there's no way you can listen to me teach, do this activity, work with this group. so starting their day with breakfast and ending their day with this big, beautiful snack is pretty incredible. whether kids are learning at school or at home, your support will ensure they get the healthy meals they need to thrive. because when you help feed kids, you feed their hopes, their dreams, and futures. kids need you now more than ever. so please call this number right now to join me in helping hungry kids or go online to helpnokidhungry.org and help feed hungry kids today. not just any whiteboard... ...katie porter's whiteboard is one way she's: [news anchor] ...often seen grilling top executives of banks, big pharma, even top administration officials. katie porter. never taken corporate pac money - never will. leading the fight to ban congressional stock trading. and the only democrat who opposed wasteful “earmarks” that fund politicians' pet projects. katie porter. focused on your challenges -

from lowering housing costs to fighting climate change. shake up the senate - with democrat katie porter. i'm katie porter and i approve this message. president biden is in florida today taking part in two campaign fund-raising events in jupiter and in miami. while the state has trended red, south florida has historically been a strong fund-raising area for both parties.

biden's first visit to the state since kicking off his re-election campaign and a lot has changed since the last time he campaigned there. 2022 midterms, solidified the state as a republican strong hold. governor desantis won re-election by a whopping 19 points. then, there's the man biden beat and may face again in november. florida now of course home to donald trump. how much of an effort biden campaign will put into the state this cycle. joining us is mike memoli in florida. also with us is fernando moddie and katty is also back with us. what politico said about how florida has changed for democrats, quote, biden takes a swing through unfriendly trump country. biden's brief, money-focused excursion is emblem mattic of the challenge florida present to his campaign.

latino voters here who make up nearly a fifth of the state's electorate are trending away from democrats. former president donald trump who won florida by more than three points in 2020 and likely will be the gop presidential nominee is a florida resident. mike, what is the campaign telling you about the effort they plan or don't plan to put into florida? >> reporter: well, broadly speaking, one of the reasons the biden campaign is about more optimistic about his chances this year than the conventional political wisdom has, illustrated when air force one touched down, the choice is becoming clear between president biden and former president trump. air force one after it landed the president's motorcade happened to drive past trump's plane on that same palm beach

tarmac. when you talk about florida, it was interest tock hear what president biden said at one of these fund-raisers today, he said he thinks he can win florida. starting in 2008 and then in 2012 when i spent a lot of time on his campaign plane on air force two, no state he traveled to more than ohio was florida. yes, president biden lost florida by about three points in 2020, that's landslide when it compare to other florida elections. one of the main vulnerabilities that was ascribed to democrats in 2020 campaign it was the attacks on the party as socialists, communists, given of course the demographic makeup of south florida, that attack had particular resonance with voters. they haven't invested quite as much money in the air waves in state as they have in other

states. but targeted investments on advertising targeting latino voters. talking about donald trump as a dictator. think they that's a potential pathway for him here which considering in future. the other thing that president said today, was to say florida has had its dose of trumpism. desantis, what he's enacted in the state. those kind of policies which are deeply unpopular nationwide would certainly be illustrated by florida and so that's road map for how they would campaign here if and when they do more than just fund-raising. >> let's talk about a few things, let's talk about national investment or lack of investment in the state. voting restrictions republicans have put in place, all that said, when mike memoli tells us

what the biden campaign is thinking in terms of potential path to victory, you're a pollster, you're in focus groups in florida, does that comport with what you're hearing from florida voters? >> well, i think the question is florida a battleground state? is something that depends on who you ask and when you ask. national pundits and certainly florida republicans say it's not a battleground state, it won't be in play, however you asked e. jean carroll and their attorneys, they'd say go for it because it's brand-new day and the question of when? the polling is going to tell the tale here. right now, i don't believe that florida, today, is competitive. but, donald trump as we all know is the most flawed candidate for president in the history of the united states. and if in july or august, the polls show that deeply flawed, maybe even convicted donald trump has lost even more

altitude, even in a state like florida, that's where i think you might see the biden campaign make a full fledged play for the killshot to get florida's 31 electoral votes and make it a game over state, because the republicans cannot win or recapture the presidency and propel donald trump back into power without the state of florida. >> she was questioned on her vote, take a listen. >> 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 airports, 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 last cycle. i can't really remember right now. >> can't keep track of all those votes they have taken in the least productive congress in recent history. there's the question of joe biden, there's also the question of whether or not some of these districts can be competitive. >> yeah, i think what democrats and democratic surrogates and campaign managers should do is take a transcript of that interview with a great local reporter and put that question to every republican candidate running in a congressional race, where we have see this happening all the time, voting against these bills that have provided millions of dollars of federal funding, and then turning around acting like they're the deliverers of that money.

republican members of congress will not be able to explain those votes away to their district. >> katty, what does your reporting show you, worth an investment or maybe not? >> i'm old enough remember to democrats thought texas was going to fall into their column. democrats saying florida not competitive. trump campaign people they never egs pressed hesitation about florida. they're looking at trying to get the path that don't include wisconsin and pennsylvania but i never heard anyone close to donald trump they're going to look at a path that doesn't include florida. two arguments for democrats in florida, you force republicans to spend more money there they were going to have to. very important they can't swoop in this summer and start

speaking to latino voters in florida or any other state, i mean the one thing i hear from the la teen voe voting communities we're fed up of parties coming along at the last minute and saying you're important to us. >> when we return, the right-wing never met a conspiracy theory it didn't like. some conservatives are going off the deep end with a crazy freakout over taylor swift. we'll try to make sense of it, next. e of it, next

sometimes jonah wrestles with falling asleep... ...so he takes zzzquil. the world's #1 sleep aid brand. and wakes up feeling like himself. get the rest to be your best with non-habit forming zzzquil. ♪ ♪

and although no one in the nfl or travis kelce needs taylor around, apparently the democrats do. make no mistake about it, taylor swift is clearly a tool. >> taylor swift is going to come out in the presidential election and she's going to mobilize her fans. >> major league sports in and of itself is nothing but a sci op. >> is swift a front fora covert political agenda? we have into evidence. if we did, we'd share it. we're curious. the pop star who endorsed biden is urging millions of her followers to vote. >> no evidence. just curious. in order to fully buy in to the far right's latest worms for brains conspiracy theory, think about all we must accept to be true. first, that taylor swift, arguably the most successful

person on the face of the earth is a secret biden operative. travis kelce is rigging the season in order to promote a democratic agenda or something. and most crucially, that everyone involved from the managers to executives to players on opposing teams can keep a perfect secret. it is a class of paranoia so delusional that if you or i brought it up to a loved one, they might ask if we had fallen or hit our heads. here we are, suggesting taylor swift is a pentagon asset, a front for a covert political agenda. it might be funny if it weren't so sad and confusing. joining us now, former chief of staff of the department of homeland security in the trump administration and a self-described swifty, myles taylor. caddy is back. myles taylor, putting aside how

one might feel about the constant cut aways to taylor swift during an nfl broadcast, i want to read to you. i wonder who ace going to win the super bowl next month. and i wonder if there's a major presidential endorsement coming from an artificially culturally propped up couple this fall. just some wild speculation over here. let's see how it ages over the next eight months. how, myles, is this possiby a real thing? >> this is a whopper of all whoppers. i'll tell you, i know this story all too well because during the trump administration there were people who were told not to listen to taylor swift music because in doing so they would out themselves as democratic operatives. and make no mistake, the bad blood between conservatives and taylor swift goes back in time because, look, she's out there on issues like lgbtq rights and encouraging people to vote and common sense things that far right conservatives stand

against, but i think when it comes to this absurdity, this latest absurdity, the conservatives need to calm down because taylor swift is not going to rig the super bowl and they just need to shake it off because she's not going to come out and endorse biden during the halftime show. i think, alicia, the issue here, the end game for the conspiracy theorists, they know when more people go out and vote, it doesn't help far right conspiracy spewing conservatives and so what they want to do is try to keep her from doing that. and they want to discredit her. and secretly, alicia, they wish she was advocating for them but not in their wildest dreams would taylor swift advocate for their crazy conspiracies. all of this comes down to the fact that there is a blank space in the super bowl. they are trying to write taylor swift's name into it, but the only names that are going to be written into that blanks space

are the chiefs or 49ers. this is about the game. let this girl love who she wants. >> myles taylor, someone in the control room tried to count how many taylor swift songs. i think we got to seven or eight. i want to know how long that took to rehearse. are we just talking about this to talk about taylor swift? the answer is no. we are talking about this because folks on the right seem to be taking this very seriously, and we're trying to understand what to make of that. the rolling stones cited three people familiar with the matter in reporting maga land's upper crust is plotting to declare what one source described as a holy war on taylor swift should she endorse president biden again. that reporting indicates several conservative figures have gone so far as to talk about it with the disgraced ex-president. it's nuts. caddy? >> we're probably kind of talking about it -- we're probably slightly talking about it because of taylor swift and

for myles to get the soongs in. i think what he said at the end is absolutely right. if taylor swift is going to endorse anyone, as she did last time, she's going to endorse president biden. when she puts out an instagram message telling people to volt, 30,000 people go register to vote. the republicans would absolutely love to have her on their side. she's not going to be on their side so what's their alternative? their alternative is to demonize her and try to make sure that she doesn't have the reach that they fear she is going to have. to the extent of the one georgia district chair who called her, and i love this, luciferion which is one of the ar kayic, not just demonic, luciferion. you don't want someone such as taylor swift rooting for the ore side. >> i feel like you did not properly prepare katty kay to

invoke as many taylor swift songs. >> zero. >> thank you so much for unpacking and sending time. >> what can we do, alicia? >> we'll be right back.

thank you for spending part much your tuesday with us. we are as always suh grateful. the beat with ari melber starts right now. hi, ari. the debacle inside this republican national committee. that is, the formal power structure of the republican national party. they're in trouble over the failed effort, there's the building, to see them try inside that building to hatch a p