to trail with biden because biden is the answer if you want a president who supports women. >> but quickly, howard, this spike, how firm is it? is it wise to assume these women are not going to jump back on the trump bandwagon? >> i think it's very wise. i personally think this poll is a bit of an outlier. i think it's closer than this, but i do think actually is absolutely right. as we get closer and closer to the election, winner of this country are going to be more and more alarmed. this is going to be the big issue. the two big issues are, one, trump's instability when it comes to foreign policy, which is a life and death issue. two, how he treats women. we've seen very well in the last week or so how he treats women. and say, thank you. the precarious nature of military strikes. the u.s. assesses its attacks in the light of day. former white house insider and financial expert tells us how it if donald trump can pay

hundreds of millions of dollars in fines. the next hour starts right now. as i've been to a very good day from msnbc headquarters of new york, welcome to alex witt reports. breaking news at this hour, we have some new details to share from the biden administration on the u.s. air strikes on iran- backed targets in iraq and syria. a senior administration official told nbc news that the strikes, quote, said the strong signal about the capability that we have and other things that we are going to do. the u.s. striking -- five targets in seven facilities used by iran's revolutionary guard and the militants they support of the region. this is in retaliation for three american soldiers killed in jordan. a senior administration official also telling nbc news that iraq received prior warning that, of the strikes, contrary to the claims of iraqi government -- aggression against iraq sovereignty. we go right now to nbc's allie raffa at the white house.

ali, what are we hearing from the administration today? >> yes, alex, the white house notably pretty quiet throughout the day as a result of these attacks in retaliation for the strike on u.s. service members in jordan last weekend. but we have heard the reaction from the senior administrative officials, in reaction to these claims that iraq officials made this morning, contradicting a u.s.'s assertion that they rockies were given a heads up before fridays -- on these targets in syria. the senior administration official told nbc news that iraq did receive this prior warning earlier today, the iraqi prime minister had said that the associated by what was given by a national security

adviser spokesperson, john kirby, to reporters yesterday that they were given a heads up. they were called out a lie. and they say that this was not accurate. they were informed, they say iraq is a sovereign nation. and we respect their right to express their concerns but they should not harbor these iranian groups on iraqi soil, unquote. as we wait for more reaction from the white house we know that the damage assessment of how the strikes impacted the targets in syria and iraq are still ongoing. we do expect the results of the assessment, whenever they are ready, to be released by the department of defense. in the meantime, the big question is surrounding what we could potentially see next. officials have been careful not to signal specifics. but they have some expectations on what the next steps could be in this region as they try to figure out the damage assessment and how to proceed.

remember, they said that this is going to be a multi phased approach. it will take several days, it could potentially take several weeks. we could see this impacts not just military targets. this could also involve cyberspace and impact the communications and coordination ads of these iranian-backed militia groups who conducted this attack on u.s. service members last weekend. it could also come in the form of sanctions, even financially. as far as targets, we remember have seen these attacks take place, not only in places that are responsible for the attacks repeatedly on u.s. service members, but they were also meant to send a message to iran without directly engaging inside of iran. so whether we could see more strikes later today or later this weekend on the bases and where the headquarters of the other radiant -- -backed proxy

groups are located, it remains to be seen, alex. >> allie raffa at the white house, thanks for the latest for there. let's go to the region. nbc chief correspondent, gary symonds, joining us from iraq. let's get the latest of what you're hearing there on the ground. the tenor of middle east reaction and what we can expect next. >> reporter: yes, alex. we left reports from the region because we don't have confirmation from the u.s. government at this stage about, for example, the numbers of casualties. what we are hearing here is that, for example, according to the syrian observatory of human rights, which is observing -- there were 26 targets and eastern syria. 23 iranian-backed militias were killed there. here -- 16 killed and 36 injured. a figure that is being reported

by iraqi media and citing iraqi officials, including the reports that say civilians. we have no confirmation of that. we've seen images today of broken buildings, rubble, very difficult to judge exactly what was here or the nature of the strikes. i do think that the way that it was signaled, as you were discussing by the white house over a number of days, would be that likely the number of people would have left and that would've reduce the number of casualties. the strikes were along the syrian iraqi border, it runs towards jordan. of course there, the u.s. base where those three u.s. servicemen and women were killed by the drone strike last weekend's -- the big challenge for the biden administration has been to try to send a message to iran that sends a message but does not illicit the reaction which escalates the situation further.

we heard a little earlier from a spokesperson from the pentagon, asking about that question of whether the biden administration had got this right. take a listen. >> we don't seek a wider war, we don't seek regional conflict. we're not seeking war with iran. but we are going to continue to hold those groups who are attacking u.s. forces who are in iraq and syria to defeat i.s.i.s., they're part of the mission to defeat i.s.i.s. and as we, know ten years ago, i.s.i.s. was a major terrorist force that was across the region and has been pared back in their capabilities. that's why they're in iraq and syria. any outside groups that threaten our mission there, we are going to hold them responsible. when >> reporter: the challenge is, alex, one of the many challenges is how to strike here in iraq without pushing the iraqi government out, which is already not just a part of the u.s. but a partner closer

to iran. already there has been a blistering response, a statement from he has rocky leadership here saying that the u.s. did not give it warning despite reports within the biden administration saying that there was a warning. they say there was no warning. they say that they're pushing iraq into the abyss. we actually had the opportunity in the past hour to interview a spokesperson from one of the groups in this umbrella organization called the islamic resistance in iraq. they told us that they intend to continue, in his words, to resist and said that the explanation that they are proxies of these groups and that their aim is to try to push the u.s. out of iraq, that was just lies and they're trying to justify the strikes.

of course we know that these groups are backed by iran it various groups have various amounts of closeness or not to the iranian government. in the, and they are proxies of the iranian government. >> okay, so the proxy groups, they're saying that they're not as affiliated as tightly? the person with whom you just spoke the last hour since we last spoke? they're trying to downplay the connection? to what advantage? >> reporter: that is the whole -- well, they would say that because it's part of the whole strategy. they effectively -- what iran has built, particularly in recent years, but certainly over the past decade and more, these proxy groups that have a relationship with -- its able to claim distance. the point about the strategy is that it enables iran to put pressure on the u.s. and israel and that claim that it's not

involved and it's not its responsibility. you see it too with the houthis and you have been. analysts believe that the houthis are more distanced from tehran, more independent. but in the end they are still proxies. and that is part of the strategy of the iranian government. it's a shadow war, effectively. one of the issues with these strikes -- they were powerful and an escalation by the u.s. administration. but they were also limited as i was describing, -- one of the issues is that there were many many targets that the u.s. has not struck that we have been told, as you know, will be further waves of these campaigns. and we have yet to see what that involves. so for many americans it will be quite stunning to learn just how far the iranian reh does extend into syria, but also

iraq. the iranians campaign to put pressure on israel, to try to push america out of the region, really has made some ground in recent years. it is not what the biden administration is trying to turn around. what they are trying to do is to say the radiance, you can't kill americans. we will stay in the region. it's very different from trying to change the iranian strategy. i think what we've seen so far is unlikely to change the strategy is certainly based on what the statements made from the people that we've been speaking to and the past 24 hours. >> you have reiterated that this is the first of likely more strikes to come from the united states as part of a campaign. thank you so much, we'll see you again next hour. let's turn to mark -- 's former cia officer and now msnbc security analyst. walk us through how intelligence officials likely decided on these 85 targets.

>> we have good fidelity and what is going on in this area. the u.s. intelligence has been in syria and iraq for quite some time. i think that with the administration is give it a range of options. let me start out though noting that the u.s. -- performed incredibly yesterday. they are flying from the united states, crossing the pond, hitting targets with incredible precision. these b one bomber crews did a credible job. what i hope would be just round one, this is the first inning of a nine inning game. as we take a look at the targets that were hit, some of us were surprised that these were just the proxies. these were not iranians per se. -- certainly telegraphed. this is round one. the administration deserve some credit. we have to inflict pain on

iran, not the proxies, but iran. we haven't done so yet. >> let me ask you to comment on what i was told by the deputy press secretary. sabrina saying, when i asked her to comment on keir simmons on the ground there. his sense that there was a regional war underway. she said that is not our goal, we do not believe that at this point -- , relative to u.s. military involvement. do you agree with that assessment on either -- come down? >> we are absolutely fighting a proxy war with iran. i think we've just taken some sort of tactical strikes to stop the iranian proxies but ultimately we've never gone after the heart of the matter which is the iranian regime itself. i'm not advocating for war with iran but we've inflicted pain on the iranians and there's a lot of damage we could certainly do. 1983 was the first time in the middle east one americans, the u.s. embassy, were killed by

iranian proxies. in 40 years they've been doing this. the iranians were -- explosive lee -- projectiles. it killed a lot of americans. we have not gotten to the heart of the matter and we have been in a proxy war with iran. and at some point, i, mean the administrator has to say that it's just the first round and that we're gonna have to hit some erroneous targets to deter iran and f inflict some pain and we haven't done it yet. >> but look, the fact is that this isn't response to three u.s. military servicemen and women being killed. so when it comes to tit-for- tat, are we likely to kill military personnel? iranian military service personnel? the revolutionary force members? and so then what? that's what creates response that may be difficult to control.

>> sure. you know, that's the delicate balance that the planners have to take into consideration. certainly the biden administration does have a very healthy fear of escalation with iran. i think it's inhibited them from doing a little bit more. that's always on the table. in my view, the region, enough spent a lot of my career working there, the way to allow for deterrence is sometimes we have to escalate to actually de- escalate. we have to have our enemies for us. right now the iranians don't. it sounds counterintuitive but sometimes we don't have to respond proportionally. we have to respond with the four wall big force in order to get the adversary to stand down. that's why people in the region respect and believe in that's where we have to go. >> so hang, on are you saying we need to hit iranian targets inside or ran? >> no, but the next stage should be hitting iranian targets in syria and iraq. this iranian spy ship that has been targeting data to the houthis to shoot cruise

missiles at the u.s. navy, why is that boat still floating? i think there is an intermarried -- intermediary step before hitting targets in iran. it's going after iranian intelligence and personnel in the region. it seems to be from these strikes yesterday that we did not do. that we had the proxies. not the iranian officials themselves. >> okay, again, clarity here, you are not advocating for any strike inside iran but question if the u.s. hit the iranian spy ship your referencing, how would that escalate things? >> i think it sends a message to the iranians, there's a price you pay for their support to the houthis. again, it is the tit-for-tat, it's just tactical in nature, going back and forth, we have to increase the pain on the iranians. this would do that. their ships in the region are not safe. i think it's something that certainly should be considered. it is the next ex military

step. one other thing i also think is important, you have to take a look at the assessment going on right now. these are reflections in intelligence channels, human intelligence, signals intelligence, imagery, how much damage have we done? and perhaps i'm missing something here, but perhaps we did end up killing some iranian military personnel in the strikes. that would be something that sends a strong message. >> mark, always a strong conversation. i thank you for that, i appreciated. it's a big day in the state that rescued then candidate joe biden's political career. what is the mood there this time around? should be expecting the unexpected? back in 60 seconds.

alice loves the scent of gain so much, she wished there was a way to make it last longer. say hello to your fairy godmother alice and long-lasting gain scent beads. part of the irresistible scent collection from gain! -- if you go to today's other top story, the polls are open in south carolina's first democratic primary. the state has not back to democrat in the general election since 1976. but today's numbers will test if biden support is intact or

if it is waning. nbc's gabe gutierrez is in columbia, south carolina right now. look, gabe, the president is expecting to easily win this primary today. of course he and vice president harris have made several stops there. have you seen a level of enthusiasm from voters? can you gauge how everyone feels today? some >> reporter: hay, alex that's the big question for the biden campaign. we all of this primary, even though it's not competitive, will he show some enthusiasm? not just here but across the country among some of the core parts of the biden harris coalition. that includes young black voters. the question will be, will turn up at the end of the day be significant? as you can see behind, me it has not been that busy of a day here at this polling location in columbia. and the county election officials tell me that more than 5800 people have voted so far today in this county. that's about the same that voted early as well. but again, the final tally, we still have several hours to, go

the polls close at 7:00. i will say, alex, we spoke with young students over at the south carolina state university, they support president biden but still they had some doubts. take a listen. >> >> do you think there is enough enthusiasm among young black voter such as yourself? >> no sir. in all honesty, i think in 2020 it was a very emotional time, a lot of people were supporting -- not supporting, but the black lives matter movement had received emphasis that happened with george floyd. and a lot of emphasis was pushed to vote, a lot of entertainment outlets, everybody was at home, voting voting voting. >> do you think a lot of people your age will stay home this election? >> yes sir. >> president biden has been to south carolina several times

over the last several weeks, including one trip to a church in charleston. vice president harris was in south carolina just yesterday at south carolina state university. she has been to the state nine times since taking office. but again, the question will be obviously, president biden expected to coast to victory here. but will this primary show that enthusiasm on the score group of voters heading into the november general election? >> you're definitely measuring that forest. gabe gutierrez, thank you. meanwhile -- fani willis just dropped a [inaudible] adding another wrinkle to the donald trump election interference case. this new book, looking at the actions of trump and some of his closest allies drops even harder it more bizarre truths. the author is next.

♪ ♪ (man) mm, hey, honey. looks like my to-do list grew. "paint the bathroom, give baxter a bath, get life insurance," hm. i have a few minutes. i can do that now. oh, that fast? remember that colonial penn ad? i called and i got information. they sent the simple form i need to apply. all i do is fill it out and send it back. well, that sounds too easy! (man) give a little information, check a few boxes, sign my name, done. they don't ask about your health? (man) no health questions. -physical exam? -don't need one. it's colonial penn guaranteed acceptance whole life insurance. if you're between the ages of 50 and 85, your acceptance is guaranteed in most states,

even if you're not in the best health. options start at $9.95 a month, 35 cents a day. once insured, your rate will never increase. a lifetime rate lock guarantees it. keep in mind, this is lifetime protection. as long as you pay your premiums, it's yours to keep. call for more information and the simple form you need to apply today. there's no obligation, and you'll receive a free beneficiary planner just for calling.

fulton county district attorney, fani willis, confirmed for the first time a personal relationship with the special prosecutor in donald

trump's georgia interference case. says that it started after she hired timid there are no conflicts of interest. in a filing her office, writes district attorney willis and special prosecutor weighed have been professional associates and frayed since 2019. there was no personal relationship between them in november, 2021. at the time of special prosecutor waits appointment. personal relationships among lawyers, even on opposing kinds of litigation, do not constitute impermissible conflicts of interest. joining me now are award- winning journalist, michael isikoff and daniel claimant. they are co-authors of the new book, find me the votes, a hard charging georgia prosecutor, a rogue president and the plot to steal an american election. i'm michael in, dan good to see you both. michael, will go with you first. so this february 4th evidentiary hearing is set. it's all the issues that we listened wait have -- you wrote

that nathan wade was actually willis's third choice to help in this case? so what do you -- >> at best. >> oh wow. talk about that in all these latest developments that have come out after your book has been published. >> well, sure. yes, it is true that nathan wade was not her first choice or at least her second choice. she reached out to a number of higher profile figures, including the former governor of georgia, roy barnes, and former federal prosecutor, nate banks. a highly regarded person. as we write and finally the votes, she got turned down. why? because of all the threats that were being posed against anybody who had anything to do with this litigation. in fact, roy barnes quotes to us in the book, hypothetically speaking, do you want a bodyguard following you around for the rest of your life? similarly with jay banks, his wife, he was not crazy about him taking the job.

so it is not as though she arranged from the get-go to have this job to nathan way. she had a hard time finding anybody willing to take it. that, said with the filing, yesterday i think that could go a long way to defusing this whole controversy because the essence of the motion filed by the lawyer for michael roman, one of the codefendants, was that there was this conflict of interest because she gave the job to somebody she was romantically involved with so they -- she could pay him a lot of money so he could take her on lavish vacations. it was a bit of a farfetched idea to propose this because there was no evidence. certainly no evidence that any of this had anything to do with the case. but if you take away the fact that they were not romantically involved when nathan wade got the job and, as part of the motion yesterday, she was paying for about half of the cost of these trips, it kind of

takes away the guts of the motion. we will see if there's any evidence that comes out that contradicts what was filed yesterday, but if there is not i think it's a good chance this is likely to be all this. >> you include an interesting exchange, first how the senator lindsey graham threw trump under the bus when he testified to the grand jury, writing that graham said that if you told trump that martians came and stole the election he would probably believe you. but after there is this auditor action graham had with fani willis. you write that willis, actually did for high-profile witnesses, went up to thank to senator for appearing. that was so cathartic. i feel so much better, he told her. then through the astonishment of onlookers, grandma hugged her. willis's reaction, she was, like whatever dude. one of those who witnessed the strange encounter. what was not about? i'm >> that's a great story. you know, it's kind of a sign of the times. these politicians publicly give

all of their allegiance and loyalty to donald trump, because of the power he holds over them in some cases. and privately sometimes you see what they actually really think. the case of lindsey graham, what he found out that he was subpoenaed by fani willis for conversation he had with georgia secretary of state, brad rauschenberger, he said i am going to fight this all the way to the supreme court. this is the weaponization of the law. this is an outrage, jans than he lost the battle. and so once he had to testify, he wanted to the grand jury, and according to the sources we spoke to, people who were eyewitnesses to his testimony, your shot at the bus. as you read, he said that if martians told that the election had been stolen, he would have believed. it also on a lighter note, he accused him of cheating while playing golf. but to me, you know, the word

cathartic is so revealing. because you have to think that a guy like lindsey graham who, after, all his mentor, his hero was john mccain, you know, the maverick who famously bucked his party. trump comes along and all the sudden he swears allegiance to him. we wonder whether there is some internal battle going on. if he's a little bit -- he gets it for the grand jury where he swore to tell the truth and all the sudden he's experiencing catharsis and then hugging fani willis. pretty extraordinary. >> can i just ask, i mean, i'm just envisioning that. is there any part of that with lindsey graham saying please don't indict me to fani willis? >> you know, i don't know about. that i don't think he was -- there was a lot of exposure there. but you know, you never know, politicians can be pretty ingratiated to advance their

own personal political and i guess potentially legal interests. we really don't know. it's hard to get inside his mind. >> yes, okay, michael, we have jordan fuchs, the 30 year old republican operative, georgia secretary of state, brad raffensperger, who reported the infamous call. she was in florida, a two party consent state. you say this about her. quote, fuchs did what was arguably the gutsiest most consequential act of the postelection battle. more than anybody she was keenly aware of the dangerous raffensperger faced when talking to trump with the presidents well habit of inventing reality to suit his political needs. in the moment, fuchs decided she would protect the boss. without telling raffensperger or been, house she taped the call. what did you learn about her decision to do it in the legal ramifications that she had? >> this is one of the most extraordinary stories of the entire election saga.

because they get about it, that phone call, the trump raffensperger phone call where he said fine to be 7000 -- 11,780 votes, just one more than he needs to flip georgia's electoral votes, and by the way, if you don't, you could face criminal prosecution. it's the most compelling evidence we have of trump's pressure campaign one state officials. and we would not have it if it had not been for this spur of the moment unilateral decision by this young political consultant, jordan fuchs, working as chief of staff to brad raffensperger. and look, she knew the dangers raffensperger faced by getting on that phone call. the trump campaign was suing the senate's -- secretary of state. and she knew anything that got set on that phone call, trump would likely distort and make a

claim that he would then put out there and stir the pot even further, and she wanted to protect the boss. she did by doing that but then at the same time, she put herself in legal exposure because she was in florida, a two party state rating the consent of anybody on the phone call to take -- to tape it. jordan fuchs has never talked publicly about what she did here. the january six committee wanted to bring her in as a witness, raffensperger's office had a lawyer call and ask them not to call jordan fuchs. for this very reason. it is potential legal exposure. and the special grand story in fulton county called her as a witness she testified under immunity and confirmed that she taped that call aired had we not -- you know, the phone call, words on the phone call, trump's words, they're in jack smith, central to jack smith's

indictment and fani willis is, we wouldn't have it if it weren't for her. >> last question to, you, dan in what michael said about the dangers that fani willis faces, and those people who didn't want to join the team because of concerns about that. a body double had to wear a bulletproof vest. to be, where things stand today? what has that been like for fani willis? >> oh, well, i need to some extent she had gotten used to these terrible threats. you, know she's got pretty thick skin, but in the days leading up to the indictment, they were coming in fast and furious on her personal cell phone. there were there was one person in particular who was calling her on a regular basis with the computer disguised voice, really creepy, we heard the tapes, we have them, saying that he was gonna rape, her saying he was gonna lynch or, using the and word, then he started talking about her

daughters. and he pronounce the names correctly, and he indicated that he knew where they live. and that was -- that cross the line for. her that was really rattling, then a couple days later her office, her security team discovers this assassination threat on a maga website. it -- the best time to shooters when she leaves the building. and they set up this elaborate operation with a body double to be able to smuggle her out of the building and -- in civilian clothes, t-shirt, baseball, kept getting her into a sedan in off to an undisclosed location. really dramatic stuff. >> michael, dan, this is the book, find me the votes. i told my executive producer thursday and friday as i was reading the book. this thing is so good. page turner. thank you for coming on and talking about. it good luck with it. thanks. >> thanks for having us. >> of course. breaking news from capitol hill, the type that may leave

you shaking your head, the u.s. begins its military response after three american soldiers -- congressman robert garcia joins me next.

two leading candidates for senate. two very different visions for california. steve garvey, the leading republican, is too conservative for california. he voted for trump twice and supported republicans for years, including far right conservatives. adam schiff, the leading democrat, defended democracy against trump and the insurrectionists. he helped build affordable housing, lower drug costs, and bring good jobs back home.

the choice is clear. i'm adam schiff, and i approve this message. do follow over the strikes, including on capitol hill. lawmakers on both sides of the aisle are ramping up their responses. some calling it long overdue and also confirming that they were notified in advance. joining me now with more on that, and bases julia chester from capitol hill. , julia welcome, give us a sense of the latest reaction from lawmakers. >> we've learned that senate majority leader, chuck schumer, was informed about their strikes ahead of time. we're also hearing from mike johnson in the house, who was critical in his statement. he said unfortunately the administration waited for a week and telegraph to the world, including to iran, the nature of our response. the public hanging ringing and excessive signaling undercuts

our ability to put a decisive and to the barrage of attacks endured over the past few months. we are hearing the public saying they're glad action was taken but they think it took too long or didn't go far enough, we're hearing from democrats while largely supportive of the president, they are concerned about further escalation. there is one area in which we are seeing a little bit of bipartisan agreement. >> you should never take options off the table when you're dealing with an adversary like iran. they still seems to fundamentally believe that you can engage, appease, get at the table and concede your way to stability with iran. >> iran's goal as they want the u.s. out of the middle east. they don't care about the details. they're trying to drive us out. so we have to discourage those militias from doing that. i do think the options of

getting inside around, as they said before, they need to be on the table. >>, alex that's a little taste. and i'm sure we're hear more from lawmakers when they return next week. >> i will hear more from you than as, well if not tomorrow as well. thank you julia. joining me right now, congressman robert garcia, democrat from california. he sits on the house oversight committee and homeland security committee. good to see you. let's begin with the breaking news, the significant strikes, 85 targets have been struck in syria and iraq on thursday. the administration says this is just the beginning. are you comfortable with this initial response? >> i think the president is absolutely responding appropriately, just like he did with the houthi strikes recently. i think it's really important, obviously we lost three soldiers, incredible people that we've learned about in the last few days. i think the response is strategic, i think the response is also responsible. i think what we have to be cautious about is some of these extreme voices, calls for

broadening the war or directly attacking iran. they think the president is taking a real approach, it's really about a response that is measured, support with actions -- doing the right thing. >> look, you're a member of the progressive caucus which has, in recent, weeks called for the president to get authorization from congress for any strikes given the killing of three americans. does that, in your, mind eliminates the need for any congressional authorization? >> look, the president will have to make strategic decisions when these types of strikes happen. look, if the president was actually going to enter and we were actually going to enter in some products elected -- of course i support, they should come to the congress for congressional approval. i agree with my colleagues. these strikes are strategic, they are direct, obviously there in response to a horrific attack and tragedy. so i do support the president here but of course, if this escalates and anyway, i think we're all hoping and pushing

that it does not, of course congressional approval is appropriate. but we have to remember that right now the president does not want a broader war. he does not want escalation of this war. he's moving to move this conflict back and he's working ideally on this negotiated cease-fire agreement that the administration is really focused on with our negotiators. that is where the energy needs to be. >> so this brings me to a question because some of your republican colleagues, they're questioning the timing, telegraphing of the strikes. why do you think the administration telegraphed these strikes and shouldn't have? >> look, in this situation i don't think we should be second guessing the president or those in charge, where they had the strikes, how they did, it the timing. it's really a sponsor poll -- it's just politics. they want to hurt the president, they want to do whatever they can to move the agenda backwards. i think doing the right thing

-- it has been supported here. what i'm pleased to see is that we're not taking their horrific advice, would just escalate the war. we've had members of congress tell the president to directly attack iran. that is just insane. so i think that this approach is the responsible measured approach. the president should absolutely not be taking advice from the extreme right wing of the party that just wants to see more war in bombings. >> as the concerns are rising about the conflict expanding, if the biden, which is right now taking a longer took -- term look after the war, discussing policy options for the u.s. and its allies, to recognize the palestinian state, security guarantees of course with israel. netanyahu says he's not compromising the. this he wants full israeli security control of all territory west of the jordan river. where do you stand on this? what leverage does the u.s. actually have here?

>> first, netanyahu is absolutely wrong. i think i was not a supporter of netanyahu prior to october 7th. i'm certainly not now. he has led the war in escalation, just the way he has really just done horrific things, even to his own people, prior to what happened on october 7th. i'm looking forward to him not being the prime minister anymore. but i think he's wrong, the president is right. first we must have a two-state solution. that is something that we, as american public support, it has supporting congress, this idea that we're going to deny the palestinian people their own state is shameful. i think it's wrong. and netanyahu is conducting himself in a way that -- his own people in israel are projecting. what is really important here is we have to get back to diplomacy. we have to get back to a place for israel in the palestinian people can live in peace, in two states, and that is where

the focus should be. i reject netanyahu's claims there. i think -- >> let me ask you one more quick question on a different topic here. breaking news from capitol hill, having just heard today that the house rules committee hasn't said monday at eight pm, an official impeachment of secretary mayorkas. i'm interested in your reaction to, that as well as the timing. >> marjorie taylor greene impeachment of secretary mayorkas continues. this is just such a joke. there is obviously no reason to impeach secretary mayorkas. we all know we have a border challenge. the president is working on it. he's putting forward solutions, we're all trying to come together to see how we can move forward. they just want to focus on political stunts. we know that what we can actually be talking about this immigration reform, republicans and donald trump are demanding we don't do any of. that instead, we should focus on this shame and political impeachment. i was there last week with our committee, this went to 1:00 in

the morning. they didn't even allow amendments early in the morning. republicans just want to smash this through. this is all to appease marjorie taylor greene who is a first want to file this impeachment effort. we oppose it strongly and obviously there is republicans that keep saying that they are quote unquote moderates or centrist. they should as well. >> all right, congressman robert garcia from california. always good to see you. >> developing this, our south carolina voters are at the polls. the first democrat primary and nbc -- 's gaining voter interest. they're getting some real and surprising answers. he joins me next.

hello, i'm a supporter of biden. i have always been. obama as well. i trust him. incidents he is dependable even a good president. he doesn't make a lot of noise,

he just does his job. >> south carolina voter they are speaking out today as the first democratic primary is underway right now. president biden aims to build momentum in the critical state. nbc's tremaine lee as a north charleston forest. as you, know jermaine, the president has been campaigning and the importance of black voters, people are connecting with his message? >> i will tell you, alex, we've been here all day talking with folks who have come to vote at this democratic primary. they are excited, they're motivated, and the kids say they understand the assignments here to hate. when you dig a little deeper there is a segment of black voters who are a little bit more skeptical. these are typical democratic voters but still they are a little concerned about biden in this moment. i had a chance to sit down with a few of them. check it out. >> is there anyone that is getting you guys excited for the election? >> no. >> not really. >> i'm not seeing it for anybody.

>> i see a chuckling. >> i'm not. i'm not. short answer. >> what about you guys? biden? >> i would say that's warm leading but it's hard to say that i'm excited about it. >> how do you think about this? >> i think it's a big distraction. a big circus right now. it feels like it's commercialized and people aren't giving us truth about a lot of things. >> what is missing from the election cycle? what is missing? >> a good candidate right now. i'm not feeling trump and i think with biden it's his age. that's some concerns. >> joe biden's age is probably of chief concern for me. on the other side, donald trump is just as old as joe biden by a few years. so i feel like, as far as galvanizing in energizing a majority of the country, it is

very lacking. >> i feel biden -- he doesn't give you the warm tingly feeling. >> i want to say yes but whatever excitement i had for him, he's about to lose be. so if it keeps going in this direction i'll probably have to hop off the bandwagon soon. he's not who he said he was gonna be. >> are you going as far as to say you might not vote for him? >> i'm not gonna go that far today. but i will say that i have enough disappointed in what i've seen that i could be persuaded to go somewhere else with my vote. >> are you hearing this a lot from your front group? >> i'm hearing a lot that we are hopeful for the future of politics where it has more dynamism and the candidates. and that is something that we're not getting. i it's a lot of old hats. we've seen both of these

gentlemen in a position now and not necessarily seeing the level of excitement that maybe we expected out of them. >> alex, analysts are saying that if you shave off a small percentage of black male voters from various states, it could swing an election one way or another. depending on which side the divider on, something that's terrifying or something that gives you a little hope, alex. >> i have to tell you there's not one vote be taken for granted. that is for sure. thank you so much for that. for all of, you can watch germain on the msnbc special black men in america, the road to 2024. he joined civil rights attorney, charles coleman junior for a view of america through the eyes of an overlooked voting bloc. it is tomorrow for, you nine pm eastern on msnbc, streaming on peacock. we are awaiting a big decision in the donald trump for rod case. could lead to a fire sale of his properties? former white house insider joins me next.

(man) mm, oney. looks like my to-do list grew. "paint the bathroom, give baxter a bath, get life insurance," hm. i have a few minutes. i can do that now. oh, that fast? remember that colonial penn ad? i called and i got information. they sent the simple form i need to apply. all i do is fill it out and send it back. well, that sounds too easy! (man) give a little information, check a few boxes, sign my name, done. they don't ask about your health? (man) no health questions. -physical exam? -don't need one. it's colonial penn guaranteed acceptance whole life insurance. if you're between the ages of 50 and 85, your acceptance is guaranteed in most states, even if you're not in the best health. options start at $9.95 a month,

35 cents a day. once insured, your rate will never increase. a lifetime rate lock guarantees it. keep in mind, this is lifetime protection. as long as you pay your premiums, it's yours to keep. call for more information and the simple form you need to apply today. there's no obligation, and you'll receive a free beneficiary planner just for calling.

it is speculation about the enormous financial strain facing donald trump. new federal election filings reveal trump's political action committee enter 2024 with just $5 million and cash on hand after spending a staggering $76 million to pay his legal bills over the past two years. this after trump suffered the 83 million dollar loss in the e. jean carroll defamation case, and could soon face a penalty more than four times that in the new york several time -- joining me is former white house communications director and cofounder and -- anthony scaramucci. good to see you, my friend. opening up to the state of trump's finances in just minutes. despite being a former trump ally, you have said he will support joe biden if he goes head to head again with donald trump. was that hard for you? you are a lifelong republican. was it hard to make that decision? i'm curious what your biggest concern is about a second trump

term. >> it is actually not that hard, because this is really about a threat to the american democracy. you just have to take trump at his word, he wants to demolish the separation of powers. he said he wants to go after his political adversaries and potentially poll s.e.c. licenses of people on the air that disagree with him. that is just -- that should really be enough for -- how the -- document has been in the service of all of our families in this great wonderful country. >> so saying that, how surprised are you after his muddy legal entanglements in unhinged rhetoric? trump's team ruling his way to the republican nomination. did you think rhonda syllabus would pose more of a threat? i'm curious what happened there. funding challenges aside, should nikki haley stay in this race as long as possible? does she weaken trump?

>> let me start with. that i think she does weekend the president. i think governor kelly is a very competent politician, great public servant, and she pulls very well versus president biden. so she would be the natural candidate. but unfortunately, to answer the first part of your question, the president has already support. there's a large group of people in the country that feel left out and are quite angry about it. mr. trump is an avatar for their anger. he represents them. he is this orange wrecking ball crashing into the institutions of the establishment that 20% of the people's alike. i would say that the biden administration, figure out a way to reconnect those people into the social fabric of america because it was those people's grandparents or great- grandparents that voted for lyndon johnson and fdr respectively. so to me, i would like to weaken him but you know, this

is a money game. if he runs out of money it will be impossible for her to do it. >> speaking of money, at the question, can trump pay carroll the 83 million-dollar verdict against him? he claimed it definitions that his stockpile of cash exceeds 400 million as one analyst suggested, it's less than 300 million. do expect him to put up the cash? will he have to liquidate assets? >> you know, i don't think he's gonna have to liquidate assets for that. if he gets hit with another 370 or so million he will be forced to liquidate assets or expand the balance sheet in terms of taking loans on his assets. the real trouble is, you mentioned that 76 million dollar number, he's got several more cases coming. the insurrection case, documents case, election interference case. you did the numbers, alex, he's probably got 100 $250 million of legal fees coming. there is an avalanche about him