but i'm not necessarily keeping count of how many women have been nominated. >> last question is easy. a musician or artist that you would want to meet or work with that you haven't yet. you'll be with a lot of them this weekend. so any musician you want to meet or work with that you haven't. >> andy shouf. >> who is that? >> incredible canadian singer lsh song writer or tom york. >> he may be there this sfwheekd. >> don't think so which is a shame. >> you put this out on live tv. it's out in the world. >> he knows how i feel. >> it's in the world. first time on "the beat". hope you'll come back. madison cunningham, congratulations on everything. >> thank you for having me. that does it for us. "the reidout" with joy reid starts now. ♪♪ tonight on "the reidout" -- >> the american people deserve to know that president trump asked me to put him over my oath

to the constitution, but i kept my oath and i always will. >> one of the many times former vice president mike pence talked about keeping his oath. something that three former republican governors say donald trump failed to do on january 6th. rendering him ineligible to run again. one of those governors joins me tonight. also tonight, lacking the slightest evidence of a crime or misdemeanor, house republicans move forward with plans to impeach homeland security secretary alejandro mayorkas while simultaneously obstructing efforts to address the border issue. plus, congress woman cori bush joins me on the doj investigation of her and her reaction to the republican congressman who called her husband a thug. and said that bush is loud and needs to tone it down. ♪♪ but we begin tonight just one week until the supreme court hears oral arguments in the most

consequential case involving donald trump. whether he can be barred from the ballot by the 14th amendment for inciting the january 6th insurrection. today, colorado secretary of state jenna griswald filed a brief urging the court to affirm the colorado supreme court decision barring trump. griswald joins a long and growing list of figures who have flooded the high court with their views. from the colorado voters, who sued to block him, to historians and this week perhaps the most high-profile legal conservative offered his position, retired federal judge michael luttig wrote, mr. trump incited and therefore engaged in an armed insurrection against the 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 three. he added, every provision of the constitution is part of the

supreme law of the land, not the inferior law of the land. that line should serve as a reminder to trump's maga enablers in congress who are engaging in performative actions for his benefit in submitting to trump's whims, no matter how ludicrous or contrary to what used to be bedrock, grand values, including "the washington post" aaron blake notes, republicans acrimonious divorce from the rule of law in determining that they can apparently just ignore the supreme court. because that's exactly what they're doing. dutifully going along with trump's demand to foment another civil war by urging states to send national guard soldiers to texas while that state simply ignores a supreme court ruling that the biden administration can remove texas razor wire on the southern border and federal agents can intervene to prevent migrants from drowning. texas congressman chip roy told fox last week, channelling the old dixie cat south massive

resistance against supreme court deseg ration, quote, you tell the court to go to hell. you defend yourself and figure it out later. it is a remarkable turn about. today's maga republican party has moved so far from its supposed law and order positions, that congressional republicans don't even care that donald trump, their forever president, endangered their own lives on january 6th. nearly 200 of them have asked the high court to keep trump on the ballot, denying in a brief filed with the court, that the january 6th coup attempt was an insurrection at all. but three former republican elected officials stand out in a party that is otherwise completely submissive to trump. joining the ranks of those arguing to the supreme court that he is disqualified to appear on the ballot because he engaged in insurrection. they are, former massachusetts govern r governor william weld, former new jersey governor christine todd whitman and former montana governor rock

rosco. weld briefly opposed trump for the republican nomination in 2020. while whitman criticized the party as being replaced by the cult of donald trump. governor rosco's path head of the national republican committee, gives him a special insight into the mindset of their party. the filing notes that the three governors have been members oeft republican party for decades. their objectives in filing this brief are not partisan but purely patriotic, motivated by their commitment to public service. the governors argue, should mr. trump be permitted to stand again for election to the presidency, despite his past actions? neither section 3 of the 14th amendment nor the oaths that undergird the bedrock premise that public officials serve to advance the welfare of the people and our common national project will ever be the same. they will have been rendered meaningless in their legal force and stripped of their moral

authority and power. they will, in effect, have been written out of our constitution. and former governor mark roscoe joins me now on the phone. we had a little bit of camera trouble. thank you for joining us on the phone, governor. i want to note so people understand where you all come from. all three of you, governor whitman, as well as yourself, as well as governor weld come from states that have turned power over from one party to the other over the years, in 1989 a democrat governed your state of montana and '93 a republican and you as a republican and another republican and then a democrat. so the peaceful transfer of power is something you have all engaged in yourselves, at least your parties have. tell me why you felt compelled to weigh in on this supreme court case against donald trump or supreme court case involving donald trump. >> well, because it's a serious violation of the constitution to ignore it. and the fact of the matter is

that nobody has a right to run for office. we certainly have a right to vote if we qualify and haven't disabled ourselves from being able to vote. but we don't have a right to run. in order to run, the person that is the candidate has to prove that, in fact, they can meet the qualifications. so you don't get access to the ballot unless you meet the qualifications. the qualifications have been there from the beginning of the constitution 235 years ago. you have to be more than -- you have to be 35 years of age. you have to be native born and resident of the country for the past 14 years. then there's a fourth requirement that you have to meet in order to be eligible. and that is, you cannot have taken an oath to support the constitution of the united states and thereafter involve, engage, incite or in any other way be involved with an insurrection against the united states of america. and against the constitution.

so, simply, as you said in your introduction, it cannot be ignored. it can't be waived. it's not an option. this is something that is mandatory. and the burden is on mr. trump to prove that, in fact, he meets the qualifications. and there is evidence from two courts, a district court in colorado and the united states supreme court, plus the secretary of state in the state of maine that have all held after a due process hearing that, in fact, mr. trump was involved in an insurrection. and as a consequence, he is therefore ineligible to run for president. so, we want to see faith be paid to the constitution. that's the bottom line. >> i'm holding your brief here. read through it. and it is fascinating. it hinges a lot -- i urge everyone to read it. it's just 35 pages a quick read for those interested in doing a little legal reading. it hinges a lot on this question of the oath of office, which all three of you took as governors, which members of congress take,

that it is not trivial. that it is, in fact, sacred and that it is a bedrock upon which our government is built. i want to quote what one little part of this -- this brief that you all submitted. the 14th amendment's prescription makes sense. after all, for a democratic republic to survive, such treason or treachery as insurrection, once employed cannot be ignored or forgotten. lest the perpetrator seize the moment once again to betray the people and our constitution. your brief also makes i think very salient point that if donald trump is allowed to take the very same oath again, having violated it previously, the oath would be meaningless but also his power would be unlimited. if you would please elaborate on that. >> well, he's, in fact, promised that. he has talked about terminating the constitution as if he had the authority to do it. but obviously he's more than willing to live outside the boundaries of the constitution. he has talked about taking revenge on people that have

opposed him. setting the department of justice in a position to pursue people unnecessarily but at his direction. he has talked about the execution of the army chief of staff. as a consequence of that, he's promised to do these things. we should probably take him at his word that, in fact, if he is once again to enter into the white house, he will once again violate the oath. but the bedrock principle here is the constitution is to be observed. and we believe in this case if it's observed that donald trump will not be qualified to run for the office of president again. >> stay with me, governor. i want to bring in former senator and msnbc political analyst claire mccaskill. you have taken the oath as a united states senator and also been a prosecutor. i want to get your take on that as well. this brief really does lean heavily on the oath. it speaks about it more than anything else. and the oath itself, it doesn't lean so much on the active insurrection but on the fact

that donald trump did, in fact, pledge to upheld and defend the constitution of the united states and being the most sort of singular officer in the american government failed to do so and thus cannot run. what do you make of that argument about the sacredness of the oath? >> i think it's something that we've overlooked too often frankly in covering donald trump and most importantly covering his enablers, those elected members of office that took that oath that i took, that anyone who holds public office takes in this country. if you look at the constitution, they are -- i remember, joy, when every republican you would meet would have a pocket constitution in their suit pocket. and they would have a tendency when ever they disagreed with you to pull it out and wave it around. i haven't seen the constitution in a suit pocket in the republican party for a long time. look at the list. they're abusing impeachment. they know mayorkas has done nothing to be impeached.

they know that. this is a political stunt. look at ignoring the supreme court. they understand checks and balances laid out in the constitution. they understand what they're doing is violating the constitution. the peaceful transfer of power and encouraging an insurrection. they know that's not allowed under the united states constitution. so what exactly are they loyal to at this point? it certainly is not the constitution. >> i want to ask you, governor, on those two very points. i'll hit both of those two with you, sir. the first is that republicans have now said when it comes to the border, they actually -- it's okay to ignore the united states supreme court. what do you make of that? >> well, that's suggesting the -- it's suggesting the end of the republic. and as a -- we enter into a social contract, joy, all of us, as citizens, and our servants do the same thing. and that social contract says i'm taking this oath and pledging and promising you that i will enforce the constitution.

i will respect it. and i will make certain that it's preserved and protected. and that doesn't -- that clearly states what the intentions are as a contract. and so, if you engage in conduct that undermines the public good, undermines the constitution, undermines civility and our civil society, ultimately threatening the abra gags of the constitution, our way of life and our union can't survive. >> first to you and then to claire. congressman matt gaetz of florida, he is circulating a resolution to his fellow members of the republican caucus in the united states house which would declare that donald trump did not, in fact, engage in insurrection or rebellion against the united states or give aid and comfort to the enemies thereof and politico obtained the draft of that. what do you make of members of the actual body that were -- whose lives were threatened actually by the

insurrectionists, circulating that, obviously to try to help donald trump's legal case. >> well, i think they're dill luted. the fact of the matter is it's nonsense. they have no capacity or capability to influence this particular decision. the effort to try with all of these people that have signed on requiring -- in their brief that somehow congress be involved in this process is not even closely, not even remotely, contemplated by the constitution. so, it's piffle. it's nonsense. and it's just simply once again a focus on issues that are completely irrelevant and have no bearing on what it is that we're talking about. it's actually part of the atmosphere, part of the context we're dealing with in this country. and if we don't regroup and bring back some sanity to how it is that we conduct our public affairs, then we're not long for this world where the

constitutional democracy and republic that's been alive and functioning longer than any in the history of human kind for the last 235 years. >> i have an additional question to claire but i'll kick it to the other side of the break. we are short on time. former montana governor marc racicot. thank you for joining us. thank you very, very much. up next on "the reidout," as republicans move to impeach homeland security secretary mayorkas, are they really that terrified or immigrants, or is it all just pointless performance in an election year? "the reidout" continues after this. ut" continues after this a statin. diets and exercise add to the struggle. today, it's possible to go from struggle to cholesterol success with leqvio. with a statin, leqvio is proven to lower bad cholesterol by 50% and keep it low with 2 doses a year. common side effects were injection site reaction, joint pain, and chest cold. ask your doctor about twice-yearly leqvio.

lower. longer. leqvio®

♪ parodontax ♪ blood when brushing could be the start of a domino effect of gum disease. all of these signs could lead to worse. parodontax is clinically proven to reverse the signs of early gum disease. parodontax, the gum experts.

i am here this morning to beg of my colleagues to help us force the administration to take action. we have to stop this now. where in the world is secretary mayorkas on all of this? >> well, i don't know, maybe speaker mike johnson has been too busy chatting with the former president about the campaign to notice, president biden has agreed to do something about the border. he had his dhs secretary negotiate with a bipartisan group of senators a deal that would shut down the border, expedite asylum requests and change the way the president can grant parole. all huge concessions to what normally would be republican priorities. but here is the thing, speaker johnson's sugar daddy, donald trump, has made clear he doesn't want johnson to lift a finger to help biden and by extension the american people because that wouldn't help trump get back into the white house. just yesterday, trump used his

knock-off twitter to scream ant closing the border and telling republicans you don't need a ridiculous bill. just stop for a second and acknowledge the absurdity of that statement. it is literally the primary responsibility of congress to come up with bills to deal with these issues. which they have refused to do since alf was on tv and reagan was president. we're still waiting on the final draft of the compromised israel-ukraine border bill, but we are no longer waiting to see what house republicans are going to do with dhs secretary alejandro mayorkas. early this morning the house homeland committee vote aid long party lines to move forward with his msnbc. they tried to attach amendments to the resolution which stated the obvious. >> later this year, united states voters will choose a president for the next four years. donald trump was found by a court of law to raped and defamed at least one woman. he is currently facing 91 criminal charges for a wide

variety of alleged offenses. including a felony conspiracy to defraud the united states. he was twice impeached by the house of representatives, including for inciting a violent insurrection. he is currently working to foment this court and perhaps a civil war, encouraging republican governors to order national guards men to take up arms against the federal government. >> secretary mayorkas responded to the move by impeachment by a fiery letter. we need a legislative solution and only congress can provide it. i assure you that your false accusations do not rattle me and do not divert me from the law enforcement and broader public service mission to which i remain devoted. i will start with you. let me play the boss. donald trump, their boss. because this is what he used to say about how immigration should be fixed. >> the only long-term solution

to the crisis and the only way to ensure the endurance of our nation as a sovereign country is for congress to overcome open borders obstruction. most importantly democrats must change our immigration laws right now. right now. we can do it -- i used to say 45 minutes. we can do it in 15 minutes. we can solve the problem if they would change some of the rules and regulations, change asylum, change so many different things. >> what happened? >> they might be saying the same thing. i think -- first of all, i think what we need to level set, joy, because what is happening at the border is absolutely complex. and right now some of the negotiations you're hearing is, there are countries right now that are receiving and absorbing a lot of these immigrants themselves, colombia, for example, absorbed close to 3 million venezuelans. what they have done, they have

given people working papers, allowed their kids go to school and tried to create assimilation, ensuring people can stay there. why on the table is it not this opportunity for us to work with other countries and say how do we make sure that people don't have to make this dangerous journey. the moment that someone gets to our border, it's broken. that's not immigration policy. and i think the president would be well served to have that conversation with the american people. because one of the reasons we're in this mess, it's been 45 years of neglect when it comes to latin american. we can't remember the last time that we did a real trade agreement, that we actually invested. imagine if you had half a million -- $500 million to do exactly that. >> so people could stay in their country. >> they want to stay in their countries. but what trump is trying to do, a one-trick pony. you know this idea of trying to demonize all immigrants, that got me to the white house last time. let me try it again.

what secretary mayorkas is trying to do, he is trying to prevent further dehumanization of immigrants. our biggest challenge, i will tell you, we're not always on the same side of the administration on how they are handling the border. but we are clear, there are no high crimes and misdemeanors when it comes to mayorkas. the high crimes may be coming from congress from these individuals that actually support an insurrection andry fuse to recuse themselves when it came to actually telling donald trump to take a hike. >> you know, claire, texas republican troy nells, he said why would i help joe biden with his dismal 33% he can fix border security on his own. we're not going to pass anything at all. i'm old enough to remember the gang of eight process in which four republicans and four democrats including lindsey graham and the late john mccain got together and tried to do immigration reform and then rubio got screamed at by the previous donald trump, rush limbaugh and suddenly that went away. is this just literally all about donald trump playing the role of

rush limbaugh in the current cycle and saying you can't do it because it won't help me? >> yeah. i was a member of the senate when we passed a comprehensive bill that did a lot of things that are still unattended to. and it was bipartisan. i think there was over -- i know there were over 60 votes for it. and a lot of republicans, including the ones you named. so, here is the thing we have to be honest about. the republicans don't have very many issues to run on. they certainly can't run on freedom with what happened with dobbs. they can't run on its okay to slaughter children in classrooms with weapons of war. they can't run on we want to make sure you can vote. they really don't have the issues to run on. they can't run on the economy sucks because the economy is doing really well. the only issue that polls well for them, with the majority of americans, and partially it's because what she just said, americans haven't been talked to about this issue in a comprehensive way because it is

complex. but most americans think we have a real problem at the border. and so they're going to take this issue. they don't want to solve it. they know that mayorkas has done nothing that warrants impeachment. this is a way they can have a show trial to try to make this issue the only issue that americans are thinking about come november. i don't think it will work. but that's their plan. >> right. put the brown guy on trial, right? it's so much easier than try to solve the problem. what's the most urgent issue facing the country. 24% preserving democracy. 20% economy, immigration is at 20. gun violence is ahead of abortion. people are focussed on immigration because they're focussing them on it. >> right. well, and here is the thing. when we were talking about the gang of eight, that immigration policy was not about closing borders. that was about what do we do with the essential worker, with the daca recipient, with the temporary person that's been here for 20, 30 years. they have all been dropped off

and no one talks about them. but you know who cares about them, the 163,000 latino youth that are about to turn 18 in arizona because they have a loved one. if the democrats want to get smart about immigration, they have to recognize that, yes, there's a crisis happening at the border. that is an international issue. we have to bring in our western hemisphere partners and start and acknowledge the reason that so many young latinos got into the game and started voting is because sheriff arpaio politicized them. they're wanting to vote to protect their family members and serve the president well to address them. >> what do you make of the fact that president biden's approach has been all about security and, you know, he's really picked up the republican -- the things that republicans want which is all about security, not about the things you're talking about. not about comprehensive immigration. >> we already know what happened when president obama tried to negotiate with republicans when they had no intention of actually trying to solve the issue. this is happening again. it's groundhog day all over again. but what is a winning issue? if you talk to moderate

independent republicans about safeguarding the person that is the essential worker, the buddy they worked with for the last 20 years, you better believe that person deserves a pathway to citizenship, they deserve to come out of the shad dose. these are individuals paying billions of dollars in taxes. they are good citizens. they believe to be able to demonstrate in america you can actually become self realized. the folks are starting to question if that's true. the kid who can vote. >> yeah, claire. if you put up on the screen just the states that have the most immigration court cases, the states where the crisis is the most acute in terms of the backlog. it's florida. right? florida is way up there ahead. it's texas. california. such a big state. new york, illinois. go through all of those states. some swing states, a lot of them not. georgia very important state. tennessee. so you can see kind of where the issue is urgent. but republicans have managed to get people in idaho to talk about it. they've managed to get people in wyoming to talk about it. they've managed to get people in states that have no real issue at hand to talk about it. they really focussed their voters on it.

is that anything other than, i don't know, i guess you can call it anything other than racial demagoguing because in some cases the people talking about it aren't really actually experiencing it even in their states. >> well, they're certainly comfortable with racial demagoguing. some of them -- i mean, congress woman beetle juice out in colorado actually tried to say -- talked about colorado's southern border. i got news for her, her southern border is not the border. so, here is the other thing i think we need to remind people about, if donald trump is so effective, why didn't he get any immigration reform done when he had the house and the senate and he was sitting in the oval office? i'll tell you why, because what he wanted to do the majority of republicans didn't want to do. you should have heard the whispering on the senate floor. you know, they didn't want a wall. they didn't want to pay for a wall. they knew that wasn't the way. so, donald trump couldn't get his own party to change

immigration policy in this country. how in the world does he think he's going to do that with speaker hakeem jeffries? >> i think that needs to be snipped, clipped and shared. everybody needs to hear. people always say those who say they like trump, they like him because he kept his promises. he didn't do a wall and he had all three, he had the house, the senate and the white house, did he pass an immigration bill? did he shut the border down? did he stop immigrants? no, he took a lot of kids from their parents when they were breast-feeding but sure did not solve the problem. it's important to notice, promise not kept. thank you both very much. coming up, we are waiting key decisions on trump's legal cases and awaiting and awaiting and awaiting. shake a leg, folks. we have elections to hold. we'll be right back. hold. we'll be right back. get help reaching your goals with j.p. morgan wealth plan, a digital money coach in the chase mobile® app. use it to set and track your goals, big and small... and see how changes you make today...

could help put them within reach. from your first big move to retiring poolside - and the other goals along the way. wealth plan can help get you there. ♪ j.p. morgan wealth management.

we're travelling all across america, talking to people about their hearts. how's the heart? -good. -you sure? i think so. how do you know? let me show you something. put two fingers right on those pads. look at that! that's your heart! that is pretty awesome. with kardiamobile, you can take a medical-grade ekg in just 30 seconds, from anywhere. kardiamobile is proven to detect atrial fibrillation, one of the leading causes of stroke. this year make a resolution to take care of your heart. don't wait. get kardiamobile today for just $79 at kardia.com or amazon.

growing up, my parents wanted me to become get kardiamobile today for just $79 a doctor or an engineer. those are good careers! but i chose a different path. first, as mayor and then in the legislature. i enshrined abortion rights in our california constitution. in the face of trump, i strengthened hate crime laws and lowered the costs for the middle class. now i'm running to bring the fight to congress. you were always stubborn. and on that note, i'm evan low, and i approve this message. you want to see who we are as americans? i'm peter dixon and in kenya... we built a hospital that provides maternal care. as a marine... we fought against the taliban and their crimes against women. and in hillary clinton's state department... we took on gender-based violence in the congo.

now extremists are banning abortion and contraception right here at home. so, i'm running for congress to help stop them. for your family... and mine. i approved this message because this is who we are. ♪♪ at any moment donald trump could receive word on two rulings with profound implications for his financial, business, legal and political future. judge arthur engoron was efforting to release his decision in trump's new york civil fraud trial by today which could result in a $370 million fine for trump and a ban on doing business in new york. it has also just been over three weeks since a d.c. circuit court of appeals heard arguments over trump's claim of absolute immunity in his federal interference case.

more than 50 days since that was put on hold. it gives trump the delay he wants to try to keep the case from reaching trial before november's election. remember, respective jurors were supposed to appear next week to fill out a written questionnaire for use in the jury selection process for the march 4th trial date. that, of course, is now on hold. joining me now is melissa murray, professor of law at new york university and msnbc legal analyst. all of these cases are important. i feel like the american people should know if they're going to elect a guy that he should use seal team 6 to kill his opponents. that's a baseline question we need answered. >> it was certainly the most provocative question at that oral argument. and one that really elicited an eyebrow raising answer when donald trump's lawyer said, it was a qualified yes. he could do that which was essentially an admission that this president, at least, in his

view, is above the law for really egregious acts. and so, i'm surprised that it's been almost more than 20 days since the d.c. circuit heard oral argument in the case and we still haven't gotten a ruling. everyday that goes by is a day that we get further and further away from that stated march 4th trial start date that judge chut kin put in place. she already indicated she is likely to push that date out further. but everyday that goes by and the farther we get from that date is basically a win for donald trump. who is not necessarily just on the art of the deal but is really practicing the art of delay. >> let me read you what politico wrote even if the appeal were resolved next week against trump, that calculation would put his earliest trial date in late april. they take additional weeks or months to deliver a final ruling, the opening days of trump's trial could be pushed to the summer or fall or the supreme court agrees to hear trump's bid for immunity but won't take up his appeal on an emergency basis the trial could

remain on hold until after the election and if trump wins he would be virtually certain to shut down the case. the political and legal calendar together. these trials are supposed to be happening in july. that's when the republican national convention is, november 5th is election day. we literally could go into knowing who that trump is the nominee but not knowing whether he has the immunity complete immunity to kill whoever he wants using the military and go into election day not knowing the same thing. is this something that these appeal court judges in your view take into account? >> i think everyone has to be taking into account what this calendar looks like and the really, really importance of sensitive issues that are on the table here. the best that i can guess from what is going on and just sort of the work that i have done in appellate courts is that there is likely two judges, probably three who agree that there is no such thing as qualified -- absolute immunity in this case. and they're really sort of wrestling with how far to go.

it could be the case -- the judge that seemed the most skeptical of the idea that donald trump was not immune from prosecution was judge henderson, who is a senior member of that panel. and if she is in the majority, she agrees with the judgment of her colleagues and they're all there together and majority for it, she gets to assign the opinion. may be she's taking her time writing this and trying to work out the details. or it could be that she's not in the majority and she is writing a dissent. and if that dissent is something that she spends a fair amount of time on and they go back and forth between the majority and -- that's going to take a lot of time. but again, any time taken, any delay here is a win for donald trump. >> you know, there is a sense i think a lot of people have that the judge in the documents case -- we also should probably know if the person that people are considering electing president was stealing classified documents and disclosing them to people who didn't have authorize -- that's probably something people might want to know. it feels like she is slow walking that case.

jack smith has questions about whether donald trump's attorneys can get to look at some classified documents in that skiff which seems bananas they would let him see it again. is there a sense of -- the lack of urgency generally in the appellate division and in the appellate world, it is alarming to me and i wonder if it is alarming to you. >> well, i think it is a larming. there's a lot that might go to explaining it. i think that of the cases the one concerning the classified documents is the one where the prosecution probably has the lightest lift to establish guilt because basically he has the documents. he did not turn them over. there it is. but, it's also the most complicated in terms of evidence because so much of the evidence in this case is going to be classified and there's all kinds of procedures and protocols for dealing with it, as you just suggested. and the defendant has certain rights here. he has to be able to see the evidence against him. should that evidence be shown to him in a skiff, where it's protected or can it be out in the open? what sorts of protocols do we

take to ensure it's not further disseminated and insecure as it was at mar-a-lago. all of those are real questions and they're before a judge who is a trump appointee. that's not really the issue. the fact is that she is not a very experienced judge. only been on the bench for a limited amount of time and she hasn't had a lot of criminal trials. and certainly not a trial like this where there are really complicated evidentiary worlds. >> what a world. still ahead, republican congressman react to the doj investigation of cori bush. saying she is so loud and that her husband is a thug. we'll hear what she has to say about that when she joins me after a quick break. stay with us. s me after a quick break. stay with us

on tuesday, congresswoman cori bush of missouri confirmed that the department of justice is investigating her campaign suspending on security services. >> i have endured relentless threats to my physical safety and life. as a rank and file member of congress, i am not entitled to personal protection by the house. and instead, have used campaign funds as permissible to retain security services. i have not used any federal tax dollars for personal security services. any reporting that i have used funds for personal security, is simply false. >> representative bush

acknowledged that she retained her husband as part of her security team, saying he has had extensive experience in this area and is able to provide the necessary services at or below a fair market rate. she also accused right wing opponents of lodging baseless complaints against her and noted that the independent office of congressional ethics had investigated the matter and unanimously voted to dismiss it. joining me now is congress woman cori bush of missouri. thank you so much for being here, congresswoman. >> thanks. >> let's talk about this for just a moment. i want to start with the fact that the independent congressional ethics office cleared this matter. how did it then proceed to an investigation by the doj? >> so, what happened was, there is someone who made a complaint. they sent the complaint, i believe, to the fec which that moves really slowly, is what i hear. and so, because, you know, nothing had happened, they didn't see any movement, they decided -- there are articles about it.

they decided, hey, i want the doj, i want house ethics, i want all of these different entities to investigate now. so they did at one time, just asked all of these different entities to investigate. >> so these agencies are obliging a complaint. your husband is named courtney merits. military veteran. >> yes. >> why was he the choice that you made in terms of your personal security? >> so what was happening, there were a lot of issues with us retaining just good staff. what was happening, we had -- you know, we couldn't pay the big cost for security like some of my colleagues are able to do. and so, we went with what we could afford. it worked out for a while, but then we started having call-offs, you know, people just not showing up to work. people sleeping on the job. and so it was very hard for me to have security when it was unreliable. and so what was happening was courtney would fill in. he would volunteer. sometimes he would even, you

know, even when he was there and they were working, he would say, hey, you should be standing over here and doing that. he was volunteering a lot of his time. and then we had someone who was kind of leading the group, leading the team, who could no longer do it. one day just said i won't be back for three months. it left me in a position, there was no way to manage a security team plus the work i was doing, so he was able to pick up that slack. and not only was he able to pick it up, he could handle all of it. i mean, he was air assault soldier in 101st airborne. he had already worked so this was in the his lane. >> obviously somebody you trust. you are someone who has had a lot of threats. obviously activists turned congresswoman. talk about the atmosphere around you. >> prior to me entering congress i had had a lot of threats all my life. i had even had at times where

there were actual attempts made and i went to social media to talk about them because they do not feel safe going anywhere else. i could talk about what was happening to me on social media, even turn it into the fbi at one time. document that there were actual threats on my life. attempts on my life. but even before i entered congress, during orientation, i went to the house and talked about, hey, this is what i'm experience-ing now. is there a way for you to keep me safe in congress? >> and there are members of congress who are independently wealthy. are you one of them? and that's how you're trying to figure out how to pay for. it i do want to play for you, and i apologize for making you happy dollison to it. and now responded on social media. this is congressman troy nehls of texas. this is what he had to say about the situation. let's take a listen. >> she doesn't even support the police. but the idea to pay her thug money to try to help protect

her for? what if she wouldn't be so loud all the time maybe she wouldn't be getting threats. >> are you saying she deserves threats? >> no, what i'm saying is is that when you are out there talking the way she does, i'm surprised that people are probably pretty upset because she's a pretty radical person. and maybe should donate down a little bit. >> and i will just let you respond. >> absolutely ignorant. anti black. racist and sexist tropes by a sitting member of congress who was a colleague i had even met. for him to spew something so disgusting. to call my husband my thug? what qualifies him as a thug? what does he know about him to call him a thug? that is a dog whistle. and also to tell me that i am being too loud? the advocating for st. louis is i'm being too loud? how about if you could fix the issues of st. louis i wouldn't have to talk about it. i wouldn't have to fuss about it.

but yes, i'm going to be loud. that's okay. if i want to be loud, if i want to be quiet, that's my prerogative. he, you know, him putting his mouth on it just shows his racism at its best in congress. >> this is one of the issues, and we've talked about this on the show before. there is a bit of a campaign against measures of, we call it the squad, the young progressives in congress. the cofounder of linkedin, for those who don't know who read hoffman's, he's a supporter of president biden. but he recently gave $250,000 to a super pac supporting nikki haley, and he is reportedly behind a primary campaign to oust congresswoman rashida tlaib and you. your thoughts on this is that the person who running against you, prosecute queuing attorney wesley, bell has the opposite opinion of you on israel and gaza. you've been vocal about the gaza issue. that has drawn a lot of attention, negative attention

to you, and it seems now some pretty well funded opposition. what do you make of this sort of campaign against not just you but other progressives? >> we're not afraid of the opposition that will pop up its head because we made a principled policy stance. we are here to do what's right, what's necessary, not what's easy. we are not here to appease big dollar donors. where here to do what the people sent us to do. and so i far to this before. i have had this same principled stance for years. i won audit in 2020, and i won again in 2022. the thing is this. free palestine. the thing is, we need a cease- fire now. that's not going to change. the thing is, most democrats believe the same thing that i need to be a cease-fire. >> very quickly, we're out of time, the house minority leader did endorse some relief, also facing a primary challenge on the same basis when he endorsed you. >> we haven't asked for the endorsement yet. we're still working on that.

my -- >> hers is earlier than mine. congress woman cori bush, thank you very much. we really appreciate your being here. stay safe. we'll be right back. right bac.

>> we don't seek war with iran. we're not looking for a war with. ran the president believes it is important to respond in an appropriate way now that three american soldiers have been

killed. we will respond in the time and in a manner of our choosing, on our schedule. >> there was national security council spokesperson john kirby on the news that president biden has decided on a response to the deaths of three u.s. soldiers in jordan last weekend. could be attributed that attack today to the islamic resistance in iraq, and iranian-backed group. nbc news reports that while the administration has not yet finalized its targets for retaliatory strikes, officials are describing this is a campaign that could last weeks. the response is expected to include iranian targets outside of iran and will include both kinetic strikes and cyber operations in multiple countries and locations. iran has threatened to decisively responded any west attack on the country or its interests, a harrowing situation will certainly be keeping an eye on right here. that is the reidout for tonight. all in with chris hayes starts now. chris hayes starts now. >> tonight on all in. >> this is a good