i'm daniel lurie and i've spent my career fighting poverty, helping people right here in san francisco. i'm also a father raising two kids in the city. deeply concerned that city hall is allowing crime and lawlessness to spread. now we can do something about it by voting yes on prop e. a common sense solution that ensures we use community safety cameras to catch repeat offenders and hold them accountable. vote yes on e. a very good day to all of you from msnbc world

headquarters here in new york. welcome, everyone, to alex witt reports. we have breaking news. a massive potentially life- threatening storm is slamming into california at this hour. nbc's sam brock joins us from san francisco. they are near the bay bridge. welcome. how are things in the area today? high, -- >> right now, they're looking at 40 million people across the state of california all the way from los angeles and san diego and ventura appeared to san francisco where i am and sacramento which are under flood alerts. almost the entire state of california is under flood alerts. as far as the concerns, we're talking about excessive flooding not necessarily in the bay area, certainly further to my south. they're santa barbara and oxnard. over my shoulder on the coastal side of things, lots of waves are crashing into the -- that's not normal for san francisco. there have been a few areas so far who have seen some flooding already. that does happen with storms

here in san francisco. the bigger concern right now, santa barbara has seen evacuations already at a rare level for excessive rainfall warning for the weather prediction center. that doesn't happen often. when it does happen, alex, you are talking about scenarios where it accounts for 80% of all flood damage. that is in effect right now. as far as inland, there are also predictions of 4 to 6 feet of snow in parts of the sierra and nevada and northern california. it's not just those snowfall totals, it's coming down 2 to 3 inches per hour in some cases, paired with strong wind gusts. you're talking about whiteout conditions and the potential for avalanches. we are watching that as well. as far as what we have seen in the bay area today, just to the north and santa rosa, that is a 90 minute drive from san francisco in sonoma county. there were massive trees which fell on top of a vehicle on 101 which is the main highway artery there. it took first responders about 30 minutes to cut open a car to take a man out of it.

we have seen trees fall on top of homes in san jose as well. you are seeing a lot of wind gusts in the 40 to 60 mile per hour range. if you go to marin county, it's more like 80 miles per hour. these huge wind gusts, the national weather service is warning people that these paired with the rainfall could be extremely dangerous. take a listen. >> with this heavy rainfall, significant high impact flooding is likely, including the potential for flooding on many roadways, major rises, or flooding in creeks, streams, and rivers, mud and rockslides, and debris flows. this damaging flooding will be a threat to lives and property. >> part of the concern right now, alex, i would say perhaps the most heightened level of concern is over the possibility of the storm system stalling

out in southern california, pulling up all of the tropical moisture, the atmospheric river, and just pouring rain for a period of 48 hours on residents there. that is something we are really watching out for. right now in san francisco, sfo had a ground stop which earlier today. it is now under a ground delay of 4 to 5 hours for any passengers trying to get their. that includes those going out like the members of the san francisco 49ers who were supposed to fly to las vegas this afternoon. we are keeping a very tense -- i will send it back to you. >> we see pretty violent waves behind you there. the president will be taking off in air force one, going to las vegas as well. l.a. is experiencing that rain.

they vow the very latest strikes will not go unanswered. they say they struck 36 houthi targets in yemen last night. it's an effort to degrade the capabilities of those who have certainly been a disrupting global trade route in the red sea. the man who advises president biden on national security advisers tells meet the press the u.s. is not done with strokes. >> it began with the strokes on friday night. that is not the end of it. we intend to take additional strikes and additional action to continue to throw -- the united states will respond when our forces are attacked or our people are killed. >> we have correspondents overseas and at home covering the very latest developments on the retaliatory strikes. let's begin with nbc national security and global affairs reporter dan balloons. we are getting new information on the impact of those strikes on both iraq and syria.

the first sign of retribution with those, what do we know? >> that's right. the pentagon, alex, is now giving a bit of an assessment of how those strikes on friday went. those were the retaliatory strikes in iraq and syria against those iranian-backed groups who they say were responsible for that lethal attack last sunday which killed three u.s. troops and wounded dozens of others. they say that, out of those 85 targets that were hit on friday, they say 84 were destroyed or functionally damaged. they feel that was successful in terms of what they were trying to accomplish. they say they are still trying to assess whether there were any casualties among the militia forces or anyone revolutionary guard members, but they also say there are no indications currently that any iranians were killed in those strikes. that is significant and probably may explain why the reactions so far from iran have

been rather mild. the public reaction, they condemned the u.s. strikes, but there was no threatening rhetoric about a major retaliation. the other thing worth noting is that the pentagon says there has been one reprisal strike in syria by an iranian-backed militia group at a u.s. outpost in syria. there were no casualties and no damage from that. it is sort of a muted response at the moment. it may be that militia groups have gone to ground while those airstrikes are going on to try to conceal themselves. that's the latest from the pentagon in terms of what they think they accomplished on friday. >> so, i just want you to reiterate, i'm also looking at something and trying to assess, i guess, the damage assessment, but no iranians or killed? that is your understanding? >> that is the pentagon assessment. they currently say there are no indications that they killed any iranians. that was an open question. on some of these sites in the

past, there were certainly members of iran's revolutionary guard force there on the ground working with and advising those militia groups in iraq and syria. of course, there were many days to prepare for these strikes. they made it clear they were coming. they had plenty of time to move out of the area and evacuate. the administration was criticized that they telegraphed all of this too much. on the other hand, the administration is trying to avoid a major conflagration and a direct collision with iran. they did not carry out any strikes inside iran, as you know, and that is very much by design. so, i think that is significant, what we have learned so far. we don't know if any civilians were killed in any of these strikes. they say they try to minimize the risks to civilians. some of the militia groups are in remote places, alex, along that iraq and syria border here. >> it appears that the

intention is not to kill iranians from the u.s. perspective, but let me ask you, the criticism that the administration is getting for, quote, telegraphing, the reality is, the moment they knew that three american soldiers had been killed in the original strike in jordan, didn't they know in that moment that the u.s. would retaliate? >> yes. i think that is a very fair assumption. if you are in those militia groups or in the iranian regime, you have to assume that the u.s. will respond when american troops are killed. they are killed by your proxies. absolutely, alex. immediately, they of course we're going to go to ground. that is always a challenge. at the moment, you need to find where you have adversaries. you have to gather intelligence. they know what is coming. it's that much more difficult. they're also, arguably, was a reason to move deliberately, i

think, from the point of view of the administration. they wanted to wait to see what was possible, what they could strike, where the adversary was moving, and weather is always a factor. that is something the white house has mentioned. that is the picture this far. of course, you have jake sullivan there earlier, the national security adviser, making it clear that this is not over. they were still ready to take more action against these groups. deterrence is not achieved quickly. it's sort of a longer term effort. they see this as a campaign. they feel they have to push back to protect u.s. troops on the ground and then, of course, in the red sea, to protect commercial shipping which has really been under persistent harassment, lethal campaigns there by the houthis. >> in the light of day and going on these various geographically dispersed targets, it would seem like it was a success. we are getting that 84 of the 85 targets are deemed to be either destroyed or

functionally at amethyst. there is the assessment that i have in addition to what you are reporting, dan de luce. thank you so much, we appreciate you a lot. let's go to the white house and aaron gilchrist standing by for us. how was the administration responding to critics who say they don't have a good handle on the unrest in the middle east? >> well, alex, i think that the administration disagrees with the criticism, to put it plainly. they say that a lot of the criticism we have heard in the last week on a couple of different points is not warranted. in particular, i want to pick up where you and dan or talking about the idea that the administration telegraphed much of what it was going to be doing in retaliation for the drone attack which killed those three american soldiers last sunday. the administration said that it has not given any detail about what it plans to do aside from saying that there will be a multi tiered response. the criticism that the response was not quick enough or was not paid enough is something that national security adviser jake

sullivan has pushed back on. i want you to hear a little bit of his response to this earlier today here on msnbc. >> our response is unfolding according to the advice of the military commanders to the president. this idea that somehow striking on friday as opposed to wednesday as opposed to thursday makes any strategic difference has no basis in reality. we think that, yes, there is some armchair quarterbacking going on because it is political season, but we are also very confident in the steps we have taken in response. so far, they have been well planned. they have been well executed. that will continue to be the case. >> one of the other points we heard on friday after the big strike in iraq and syria as we were being briefed by the national security council spokesperson john kirby and someone from the joint chiefs as well was that the commanders on the ground, the people who were watching conditions in iraq and syria in the case of

this fridays strikes, those were the folks who were making the assessment about whether this moment, any given moment, is the moment to make a move. we were told that weather was a key factor in deciding to execute those strikes in iraq and syria on friday. so, the administration says it is following the advice of the commanders, the military men and women who are making these decisions overseas about when to do these things. alex, i think the national security adviser reiterated time and again today across a lot of the more in, sunday morning shows that the response is not over. there will be actions taken against these militia groups who have been acting out in iraq and syria in particular. these groups have been tied to iran in terms of being funded, trained, armed by the iranian regime. we can expect that in the days and potentially weeks to come we will see more american strikes in the middle east. alex? >> absolutely. aaron gilchrist at the white house, thank you for that. we now go to matt bradley in

tel aviv, israel. that, i want to ask you what you make of the pentagon's assessment, the information they have released, that which erin was just talking about, what i was discussing with dan de luce. what is your take on it? >> yeah, it sounds as though we are about to see a tour of the middle east. there are two really strong currents flowing through this region, both of which involve the u.s. to a great degree. one of them is hostage negotiations to free the more than 100 people still in the gaza strip. six of them, by the way, are americans. the other are those american reprisal attacks against iranian-backed groups in iraq and syria. just last night, in yemen, though according to the u.s. government those are not related. jake sullivan, the national security adviser, and if our audience will bear with me, i will show a little bit more of what he said to our various shows today. he spoke directly to the connection between those two trends now flowing through the middle east. here is what he said.

>> we believe that the steps that we took on friday against the houthis last night are not connected to the hostage negotiations. we believe that, at this point, it's up to hamas to come forward and respond to what is a serious proposal and we will continue to press the qataris and egyptians to try to generate a positive response to them so that all of those hostages, including american hostages, get home to their families. >> you heard the national security adviser saying those are not related, those u.s. reprisal attacks against iranian-backed groups in the middle east, and the hostage negotiations, which are part of the deal inked in paris in part with the participation of the cia chief. they might not be related as far as he is concerned downstream. upstream, in terms of the source of the conflict, they absolutely are. that is because all of these

iran-backed groups, we talked about this in previous hours -- these iran-backed groups, they are attacking. they are hitting u.s. and israeli targets because of israel's continued offensive in the gaza strip. alex? >> okay, matt bradley, thank you so much from tel aviv with that. for all of you, it looks peaceful today, but there's a lot happening in capitol hill. we expect more potentially any minute, we have those details ahead. we are back in 60 seconds.

working news at this hour, new details from the pentagon on those retaliatory strikes, saying no iranians were killed in friday's strikes and saying that 84 of the 85 targets were destroyed or functionally it damaged. meanwhile, in the biden administration said today it is planning more strikes against iran-backed groups in the region. iran condemned the attack, saying they contradict the u.s.

has declared intention of avoiding a conflict. joining me now, illinois congressman -- [inaudible] a good friend to us. glad to have you back here. it is a really -- [inaudible] just released by the pentagon about the success of friday's retaliatory strikes. >> i think it was a firm response. i think that our hope is that the houthis get the message and the iranian backers get the message. all of that being said, i am cognizant that the biden administration probably would not have taken even a harder response for fear of widening the war in the region and for fear of potentially derailing the very delicate negotiations happening right now with regard to a truce in gaza and the release of hostages. further, i think that any offensive operations, quite

frankly, would require congress to be authorized. i think biden administration is negotiating all of these different parameters well at this point. we are going to have to see how it plays out in the days to come. >> i'm going to reiterate what iran said condemning the attack, saying they contradict the u.s. is declared intention of avoiding a wider middle east conflict. how concerned are you that these retaliatory strikes, not instigating strikes, retaliatory strikes could lead to a direct conflict with iran? >> i think these were in response to its malicious, causing the death of three u.s. service people, and as a consequence, i think they know that their pronouncements, i think that means that we obviously have to be very mindful that further operations need to be delicately handled

and we can't have a widening conflict in the region. >> some of your republican colleagues say that the biden administration's military response was not strong enough, leading to prolong the strike and giving iran time to prepare its defenses. why do you think the administration telegraphed its intentions? how do you gauge the initial round of retaliatory strikes? >> the iranians knew they were going to be attacked. their proxies knew they were going to be attacked in response for the death of those three service people. i am not concerned that they somehow did not, that these actions were telegraphed. i think some of my republican colleagues somehow want to go to war with iraq and that is completely unacceptable. that's not going to be something american people want. bomb in iran or attacking targets within iran, which is what some of my colleagues want, is completely unacceptable as well.

>> how do you even respond to a colleague who says that? what do you say in the hallowed halls of congress if you come across someone who is saying that we need to go and bomb to around? >> i think that what i would say is to listen to your constituents. they don't want another war in the middle east. anybody who is calling for bombing around or going after targets within iran it's just inviting something that their constituents don't want. >> how much do you think the escalating attacks on u.s. forces would subside if some sort of a cease-fire agreement was reached between israel and hamas? >> but, oh i think that it would subside. i think that, that's the heart of this is the conflict in gaza. we have to make sure that we focus maximal attention on bringing about an end to hostilities or at least a truce so that hostages can be released. hamas should be held

accountable. there is no doubt about that. we also have to flow massive amounts of aid into the gaza strip to help civilians. i would say that one actor that i don't think we have talked about which is actually very important is the chinese communist party, the ccp. they have tremendous leverage with iran. in turn, those proxies that iran controls, and if the ccp is going to be a responsible actor in the region, after all, it's ownership-ing is at risk in these very sees that the houthis are attacking. i think they should also use whatever they can do to reduce hostilities in that area. >> should or will? what do you think from china? >> unfortunately, i don't know. from the vantage point, i think

they should. the question is, do they view this as something that is a give or a conciliatory move for the united states or is it something that is in their best interest? obviously, we would argue that it is in their best interest. any water conflict in that area would risk all of the oil shipments that they desperately rely on -- most of their oil comes from the middle east as well as russia. my hope is that they wouldn't use whatever resources they have to reduce the conflict in the region. >> make a good case, illinois congressman raja krishnamoorthi. thank you very much, my friend. three former republican governors are working hard to keep donald trump off the 2024 presidential ballot. i will talk with one from a very red state ahead? state ah

growing up, my parents wanted me to become 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. we have some breaking news on

that long awaited senate order in foreign aid bill, which are set to be released today. congressional leaders have been working behind closed doors for weeks now, does that legislation stand a chance. to help us answer that question is julia jester on capitol hill. julia, another welcome to you with congressional leaders making the rounds on the sunday talk shows today, what have we learned? >> we actually learned quite a bit, alex. we heard from key negotiators, senator kyrsten sinema of arizona who both debunked some of the accusations republicans had been making about the bill as well as trying to sway age democrats fears on it being too harsh. so, she said on the issue of asylum, some of the restrictions that would be in place for actually good for migrants, because it would speed up their claims, rather than having everybody wait for a year. the legitimate seekers would be able to start their lives here in six months. that's just one thing we heard

from her. we heard from others, even across the aisle of folks the likes of senator lindsey graham and the house republican who might actually support this bill, or be open to it. here's what sinema said her hope is once the text actually comes out. >> i feel confident that when our bill passes through the senate and gets to the house members of the house, including speaker johnson, will have had ample opportunity to read, understand the bill, and ask questions. and watch our debate in the senate. and then they get to make a choice. do you want to secure the border. >> and on speaker johnson, senator sinema said that she hasn't received assurances that the speaker will definitely put this bill on the floor. but she is hopeful. alex? >> so, if this bill doesn't go through, does congress have a backup plan, julia? >> great question.

they actually have a backup plan with one component of this package, now remember, it combines aid for ukraine, israel, and taiwan as well as border funding and policy changes. now, on one front, israel, speaker johnson introduced a bill that would provide aid for israel only. that could solve one piece of that puzzle. it would leave the others a bit in the dark, alex. we'll see if there is a piecemeal approach, or four back to square one of this does not succeed. >> okay, julia gesture on capitol hill, thank you so much for that. what happens at the supreme court later this week could have monumental and historic impact on the 2024 election. and i know we say that a lot, but this is truly one of those moments. we'll talk with a former republican governor next about his role in trying to get donald trump off the 2024 ballot. mp off the 2024 ballot. arthritis pain relief gel, which penetrates deep to target the source of pain with nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory medicine directly at the source. voltaren, the joy of movement.

♪♪ ugh! nope! try my old spice you can use it on your pits, chest, and even, your... toes? [both] oh that's fresh! ♪♪ ♪ old spice whistle ♪ here's to getting better with age. here's to beating these two every thursday. help fuel today with boost high protein, complete nutrition you need... ...without the stuff you don't. so, here's to now. boost. with nurtec odt, i can treat a migraine when it strikes and prevent migraine attacks, all in one. don't take if allergic to nurtec. allergic reactions can occur, even days after using. most common side effects were nausea, indigestion, and stomach pain. ask about nurtec odt.

♪ ♪ nausea, indigestion, and stomach pain.

from pep in their step to shine in their coats, when people switch their dog's food to the farmer's dog, the effects can seem like magic. but there's no magic involved. (dog bark) it's just smarter, healthier pet food. it's amazing what real food can do.

i'm daniel lurie and i've spent my career hfighting poverty,. helping people right here in san francisco. i'm also a father raising two kids in the city. deeply concerned that city hall is allowing crime and lawlessness to spread.

now we can do something about it by voting yes on prop e. a common sense solution that ensures we use community safety cameras to catch repeat offenders and hold them accountable. vote yes on e. as donald trump barrels towards locking down his party's nomination, a major hurdle remains. a supreme court showdown regarding his eligibility as a candidate. this week, the high court will hear arguments on whether the former president should be barred from election for his role in the january 6th riots. trump's appeal in colorado's decision to disqualify him for the state ballot. and now three former republican elected officials are breaking ranks with their party. they are arguing to the supreme court that trump is not qualified to be on the ballot because he engaged in

insurrection. and one of those governors, former republican governor mark roscoe of montana is joining us right now. governor, sir, welcome. let's get to these legal arguments that you submitted to the supreme court this week outlining your view. what is in that brief and why do you feel the need to get involved in this case? >> well, because it's an unusual situation. very, very important to the country. we, of course, have had a lot of experience, the three of us the governor as well. whitmer and myself as a consequence, we believe it's important to elucidate on the arguments that should be offered to the court. that's why we submitted our brief. >> so, one of the other two governors that separated -- christine todd whitman of new jersey, bill weld of massachusetts, what are you hoping to accomplish by speaking out so publicly against trump? >> we are hoping to accomplish

informing the united states supreme court in a way that allows for them to draw the conclusion based upon the facts, circumstances the law and the constitution. it's meant to be a persuasive effort, to point out from our perspective, what it is we think are the issues. to agree with the call about a supreme court, and with the district court in colorado in so far as it dealt with the definition of insurrection and the maine secretary of state, we believe that the donald trump is simply not qualified to gain access to the ballot in any state in the union. obviously, we're focused upon colorado in this specific case. >> let me get to some details here in the brief, in which you say, sir, of section three of the 14th amendment here's the quote, applying a diminished interpretation amid a near historic ebbed of public trust in american governmental institutions, threatens the very existence of our

constitutional republic. that is a profound statement can you explain the near historic arab of public trust? >> well, i think, to be quite honest with you, everybody in america, or at least those that are engaged to a certain degree and filled with intensity and understand and feels that there's something desperately wrong with what's going on in the country. in addition to that, we see evidence, virtually every single day, of the kind of political subterfuge in warfare that quite obviously is tearing the country apart. it's the adhesive that holds us together. it has been substantially -- at the end of the day, we believe that it's an emergency moment. this deals with the defiance of the constitution. by the former president. we end up in a situation where, literally, the constitution is at risk. and this is a very fragile agreement that we have at one another. that is manifest in the

constitution. so, we want and believe that the constitution should be abided by. and that the consequences upon the 14th amendment section three, it disqualifies mr. trump from being a candidate. and we believe that it's absolutely important and paramount that you do the first right thing here, the first right thing is to determine whether he's qualified. by constitution, he's not qualified. >> governor, it's very clear that you believe donald trump engaged in insurrection. however, as you are well aware, he has not been charged with that crime. why not? >> well, disqualifications have never been matters of charging people with things. the burden here is on the candidate. there is no constitutional right to run for office. there is one to vote. there's no constitutional right to run. it virtually every code in the country, and every election of the federal law level points out that to gain access to the ballot, you have to be

qualified. you have to be 35. you have to have lived in a country for 14 years. you have to be native born. and the fourth qualification is you have to be free of any kind of activity. that involves you as a candidate having previously taken an oath to abide by, protect, and preserve and defend the constitution and then get engaged in an insurrection, you simply cannot buy the terms of the constitution be a candidate. you're not qualified. just as if you are under 35. and it's a gravely important, here this is the first time in history of america that we've had an acting president who has set about to betray the constitution well in office, well the white house. and as a consequence, he is disqualified from being able to run again. i mean, think about how much sense that makes, and why the framers did in the first place. how many times are you going to

allow a candidate to try and acquire an office, in this case, the most powerful in the world, and then betray the constitutional mandates, the legal mandates, that have to do with your office. so, his betrayal of his office, and of the constitution exclude him from being eligible to be a candidate. it's really very simple. there have been disqualification throughout our history just a few years ago in montana, there were a different legislative candidates disqualified. the burden is on them to prove that he's qualified. he has not proven that he's qualified. and as a consequence of that, he's not eligible to gain access to the ballot. >> you do put this out in a simple way. to some degree. but i ask you how you think the supreme court is going to take this, given the makeup of that court, which includes three people that were nominated by

president trump and have made their way to that court. >> well, you know, i've tried a lot of cases. i've been in front of a lot of different courts. and my view is that you should presume the capacity of the court, especially when they have appeared in front of their examining panels have pointed out that they are a regionalists when it comes to judicial interpretation. that means, essentially, you take constitution, to mean what it says. and you believe it says what it means. and at the end of the day, the language in section three is very plain. in an obstructive. it's unmistakable. in my belief is that these judges will, as they have in my experience, do everything in their power to fulfill their responsibilities. they took an oath. and that oath requires them to act with judicial temperament. they have analysis, essentially, that they believe in a traditional interpretation

process. of framing this in a way that the framers meant it to be framed. and that the plain language dictates what needs to be done. well, this is a case that will obviously test their philosophy. my belief is that they will do the right thing for the right reasons in this instance. so, i guess i'm not tarnished about whether or not one president or another appointed these judges. having watched them throughout the course of the last couple of years, especially all of those who have been appointed by the former president, there has been no favors shown towards his particular point of view throughout the entire process, even though there are many of those judges who were appointed by him. so, i believe, i have a presumption of innocence as we said about it here from the supreme court, i believe will try to do the right thing for the right reasons. >> and if they end up siding with trump, sir? what message does that send to

americans. quickly. >> if they end up siding with donald trump, sir, what message does that send to americans? >> well, i think it'll depend upon what basis they decide. as you know, there are a number of different issues that are in consideration. violation of the oath is quite obviously. one that provides the penalty of disqualification. there have been other issues presented. they involve everything from whether or not he fits within the definition of an officer, which is plain, overwhelmingly plane, that he does. and other issues about whether or not there needs to be trial. there's never been trials of disqualifications. these are judgments made by elections officials. because the burden is not on the people who are administering elections, the burden is on the candidate. to provide that evidence that they, in fact, are qualified. listen, this is a terribly unpleasant and difficult moment for the country. but we're never gonna get back on track if we don't start

addressing these issues in the right way. we have to do the first right thing. and then the next right thing. and in this instance, even though it's messy, even though it's regrettable, we simply must, in order to vindicate the constitution, to the first right thing. the first right thing is to bring this case into expect that donald trump cannot qualify for office because of his actions in the past. he betrayed the office. he betrayed the office he held. and as a consequence, and his oath, the most importantly. at the end of the day, it's difficult, it's challenging. but we have to adhere to the principle, and i believe that's what myself and the other two governors who are with me in this particular effort have as a firm belief. that's the motivator. it's not a partisan effort. it's just simply that the constitution transcends everything. and we need to make sure that it's enforced. >> former montana republican

governor, marc racicot, i want to thank you for your time. and for your efforts. appreciate that. some new details from the pentagon this hour on those retaliatory strikes and what was hit and who wasn't killed. next. wasn't killed. next.

breaking news out of the middle east, the pentagon releasing some new details this hour on the retaliatory strikes in iraq and syria. saying no iranians were killed, and that all but one targets were destroyed or functionally damaged. this has secretary of state antony blinken returns to the middle east to just moment for now. and joining me now, senior executive editor of national security, david roads. david, welcome to the broadcast. i will get a response to the pentagon saying that almost every single one of those 85 targets on friday's airstrikes were destroyed. and that no iranians were killed. >> i think the second part of that statement is more important, this was a calibrated, a limited effort i think by the administration to push back as to for the killing

of the three u.s. soldiers. but did not kill iranians to not try to ignite a wider regional war. we haven't seen major attacks backed from the iranians since the houthi attacks on shipping in the red sea will continue. that's clearly a problem. but it's good that the reaction at least in the first 24 to 48 hours has been this calm. >> i'm curious how concerned you are that the u.s. may be on a path to war with iran. the pentagon press secretary told me yesterday, they don't want this to expand. take a listen, sir. >> we acknowledge that tensions are high in the region. but we don't necessarily agree that word a wider regional conflict. again, we have seen attacks on our forces in both iraq and syria prior to october 17th. we had attacks on our forces earlier in 2023. so, i think it's important to remember, this is nothing new. yes, we have seen an increase in cadence from these iraqi- backed groups. and their attacks on our forces. but we've seen these before.

so, we don't seek a wider conflict. we don't seek war with iran. >> i'm sure, david, you've heard the reports from our colleague, keir simmons, who told that mid east actors, they believe they are in a regional war. what is your assessment? >> i think there's more radical groups, such as the houthis in yemen, that believe they are in a regional war. they say they're fighting for the palestinians. they are demand is that israel stop its military operations in gaza and if that happens, they'll stop firing on ships in the red sea. i think that's true. the key thing to watch here is secretary of state blinken's trip to the middle east over the next few days. there's a framework for a cease- fire in gaza. in the exchange of prisoners. israel would release prisoners in exchange for hamas releasing hostages. if that can take hold, that would help stabilize the region more than anything else. >> how convinced are you of that? how convinced are you that there aren't actors who may go

rogue. iran has said, whether or not it's true, but iran has said we don't necessarily control the actions of some of these disparate groups. so, are you confident that ssa shun of actions between israel and hamas, a cease-fire for an extended period of time, would indeed calm things down with regard to attacks on the united states and our interests? >> i think it would substantially calm things down. you would see the u.s., and i think most leaders in iran, continue on this path of publicly stating they don't want a regional war. but there will be actors. i mentioned the houthis, there's militia groups in iraq and syria. one of these groups carried out that terrible attack that killed three americans. but there's just no question, if this framework can be agreed upon, and it's down to the numbers, there's a framework but the key thing is how many prisoners hamas is going to be asked to be released. in exchange for every israeli hostage, it's a very difficult issue for the israelis. it could take several more days. or even a week for this to move

forward. but it's a critical moment here, a cease-fire would be a positive step forward. >> david, last question, house host you think they are to achieving that? >> there's another big step. we're waiting for hamas to give an answer. we expect, whether they agree to this would be a six-week cease-fire. hamas had asked for a permanent cease-fire. israel has rejected that. then the israeli cabinet would have to vote to approve the ratio. the past cease-fires it was three palestinian prisoners released for each israeli hostage. you know, that's where it's gonna be difficult. we need the israelis and hamas to agree on a similar ratio to that. i think hamas is pushing for more. >> nbc news senior executive editor of national security, david rohde. thank you for time, david, appreciate it. why republicans fear success. the answer probably won't surprise you. but it might, msnbc's hayes brown wrote about, it is gonna join us to discuss. to discuss. ? it's fineeeeeeee! [splash]

before advil: advil dual action fights pain two ways. advil targets pain at the source, acetaminophen blocks pain signals. advil dual action. a force to be reckon with. no, not you saquon. hm? you! your business bank account with quickbooks money, now earns 5% apy. 5% apy? that's new! yup, that's how you business differently. looking for a bladder leak pad that keeps you dry? all of the things that you're looking for in a pad, that is always discreet. look at how it absorbs all of the liquid. and locking it right on in! you feel no wetness. - oh my gosh! - totally absorbed! i got to get some always discreet! (christina) with verizon business unlimited, i get 5g, truly unlimited data, and unlimited hotspot data. - totally absorbed! so, no matter what, i'm running this kitchen. (vo) make the switch. it's your business. it's your verizon.

new information on the impact of former president trump's many legal battles on his campaign coffers. fec filings show trump campaign and political action committees spent $50 million in donor funds on legal expenses in 2023. for more on this, let's bring in msnbc columnist hayes brown. hayes, good to see. you wrote that well all his legal costs could cause trouble for trump, quote, we also may need to shift our perception of those legal fees being a distraction from the campaign, rather than something that compliments it. what do you mean by that? how will he use this to this advantage? i don't see an advantage there. >> i mean, you would think that your client being on trial, your candidate being on trial for criminal charges would be a bad thing. but the trump campaign, and trump himself, have seen his trials an extension of the campaign. look at outside the courthouse in the civil trials, look at the filings that his lawyers had put in for his criminal

cases. arguing immunity et cetera. all reflect from a campaign rhetoric over the legal rhetoric. look, we're talking about it. we're talking about all of the issues that he faces. and normally, for a candidate to appear on tv for those issues to come, up that's paid media. this is earned media. this is people, journalist especially, talking about him because he's news. >> can i ask you about what you wrote with the dysfunction within the republican party right now as these bipartisan deals on taxes and immigration, they could be in jeopardy because some republicans in the house senate threatened to sink them. and you argue the gop now fears success, saying republicans worry that if these bills become law, biden will be the only person to get the credit. so, with this singular mindset, hayes, have they lost the ability to govern effectively, even when they might want to? >> yes, absolutely. part of the problem here is

that democrats are offering major concessions on key points. key things that conservatives want. and the senate, on immigration bill. democrats want to pass funding for ukraine, israel, taiwan, and border security. republicans insisted on adding immigration to it as well. now republicans in the house don't want anything done on immigration because it might help biden in the election. in the meanwhile, the house has finally passed an extension of the child tax credit, republicans get key tax cuts for business is extended in return for that. but now republicans in the senate might not go for it. because, again, they're worried that biden might get too much credit for something good happening under his watch. some seem to believe the american people will understand that they came out and won conservative winds that are pro business over biden if they actually get things done. >> can you give me 30 seconds how democrats take advantage of this dysfunction? >> i mean, unfortunately, i think the one thing the have to do is just keep hammering home

that they are trying their best. and republicans are in the way. republicans, -- you think it's a crisis at the border? while republicans have many offers to tighten up border security. and they're not taking it. i think that that is how you do, it you hammer home what is being lost. as republicans try to play politics instead of giving, and taken on winds. >> okay, hayes brown, both great op-eds you've written, i appreciate you coming on in talking about. we'll see you again soon. and for all of you, that is gonna do it for me on this edition of alex witt reports. we will be back next saturday and sunday at one pm eastern, but right now, stay tuned, msnbc prime weekend is next. pr. ♪