. good to be with you. i'm katy tur. the southern border is a mess, a record number of migrants have been crossing, finding overwhelmed and under staffed processing centers, forcing a catch and release program that republican lawmakers decry as not just sloppy but imminently dangerous to national security. terrorists and drug dealers are flooding through the border, they claim. biden's government isn't doing enough to stop this. well, much of the gop rhetoric can be extreme. bipartisan politicians and president biden himself can see the situation along the border is untenable. which is why a trio of lawmakers, one democrat, one republican, and one independent got together to find a solution, one that would address both sides concerns and finally do something to update policy that has been broken for decades. on asylum, the bill raises the bar to claim credible fear, ends catch and release, instead, migrants crossing through a

lawful port of entry will enter the u.s. under federal supervision for three months. those who pass the interviews get a work permit. those who do not, are flown home. those who do not cross lawfully stay in detainment while their claims are reviewed. and then on the border itself, it gives dhs the ability to shut it down if too many people try to cross over. if agents encounter an average of 4,000 migrants a day over seven days, the border can be frozen. if it's more than 5,000, then the border is automatically frozen. right now, lawmakers on the hill are reacting, not all of them favorably. progressive democrats call the proposals too extreme, as house speaker make johnson says they're not extreme enough. while congress has the power right now to pass or kill this bill, in just a few months you will have the power to either punish or reward them for their actions, when you decide who to vote for. so does this sound reasonable to you? joining us now, nbc news correspondent julia ainsley,

that is the issue here, do people find this reasonable? there are a lot of people in this country who say what's happening right now is not okay. something needs to be done to fix it. a lot of local lawmakers, as well, including mayors in red states and blue states. walk me through what this bill proposals. >> what this bill does is it's very conservative. it's a marked shift from where democrats and the administration were three years ago. it's way further to the right than we thought it would be, but it focuses on 2,000 miles along the strip of the border. it does nothing to address root causes that drives migrants. it does nothing for a pathway to citizenship, or define how undocumented migrants are living in the united states. what it does is change a policy, where migrants come, they're apprehended by border patrol, and they're released sometimes for years waiting to have their trial before an immigration judge, and will then determine whether they're deported or

whether they can stay and live here with asylum and a work permit. this would change it so immigration judges wouldn't be part of the process at all. migrants would have a short time window where they would be in detention or released for 90 days while an asylum officer determines whether or not they get to stay here. what this bill is missing in terms of resources is an agreement from mexico. all of the people blocked from the border, there's no new agreement to take back migrants. we can look not too far back to see how that was a problem. if you remember during covid-19, we had something called title 42 where mexico had to take back tens of thousands, over a hundred thousand migrants that we refused to let in to the united states, in fact, a million over the years, it simply came to many, we saw rape, torture, exploitation in the northern towns in mexico along the border and mexico had to stop taking them back, and

the u.s. had to let them in. those numbers climbed and climbed, so if this were to become a reality, and we can talk about the politics, and may not even get a vote in the house, but if this were to become a reality, there would have to be serious international considerations to what the united states is doing to mexico with a deal like this, and what is being left out in terms of looking at the root causes and why there is a historic level of migration in the first place, katy. >> from your assessment, though, does this address any of the problems. would this change the situation at border. you have been down there covering this for years? >> i think it might. i think cartels could find a way to play a new game, but it would change the way the game is played so far. they keep coming, they're released, they tell their friends and family, there may be a chance for you to come here forever. they're willing to risk it all. they come because they're released pending the court hearing set years into the future because the u.s. immigration system hasn't been able to keep up with the pace. we don't have enough people,

enough judges. if you could remove the judges and have a shut down when the numbers get too high, perhaps it's a way to curb the numbers pretty substantially. >> thank you. chris van holland represents the great state of maryland. thank you very much for joining us. appreciate you waiting. where do you stand on this bill? >> katy, it's great to be with you. look, i'm still looking at the fine print of the bill. it's 370 pages, just recently released, but i would say in terms of the broad strokes, it's definitely heading in the right direction. it includes desperately needed military assistance to help the people of ukraine fight off the onslaught from putin. and it includes the provisions you just have been talking about, a bipartisan compromise on the border, which i think overall is taking us in the right direction. again, looking at the fine print, but that is my

preliminary assessment. >> can you give us a little bit more on that. overall in the right direction, what do you mean by that? >> well, as you just have been describing, we have a very broken border right now. and a broken asylum process, and what this is intended to do is dramatically expedite those asylum determinations. so that people who meet the requirements can get that understanding and confidence much sooner. and those who don't meet those requirements are sent back much sooner. right now, you have thousands and thousands of people who are overwhelming that asylum system. they are in many cases entering the united states for up to ten years before they even have those claims adjudicated. so this is designed to accelerate the process, which is both more fair to those who qualify. they're not left hanging for an

indeterminate amount of time, and also, better in early determinations of those who don't. >> is there anything in this bill that concerns you, anything that you think needs to be straightened out? >> oh, there are some items in the bill that concern me. some of them relate to the systems for delivering desperately needed aid to the people in gaza, so we're looking more closely at that piece. so those are the kind of things that as you go through a 370-page bill you begin to look at, and there may be room for amendments, you know. a lot of us also believe that when it comes to military assistance, regardless of who our partners are, that those countries should agree to use that assistance in a manner that's consistent with international humanitarian law. so those are some of the things that we were previously looking at with respect to the bill. >> what's your sense of where the rest of the senate stands? do you think this is going to

get a floor vote? do you expect that it could pass? >> we will have a vote by wednesday at the latest on what we call a motion to proceed to try to get on the bill. right now, you see more and more republicans essentially taking orders from donald trump. the idea of including the border discussions as part of the national security bill to provide assistance to ukraine, and others was a republican idea. now we have a proposal to address those issues and all of a sudden republicans seem to be listening more to donald trump, wanting to keep this matter open as a political issue for november than actually trying to solve it. you saw speaker johnson reject it before he'd even read the bill because donald trump told him so. this is going to be a complicating factor. i would just urge my senate republican colleagues, you know, to continue to move together.

there are lots of national security priorities in this bill. >> is there going to be another opportunity to pass a bill like this? republicans are hedging on if donald trump wins, they will be able to take this up all over again. they never did, not even when he had republicans in the house and senate? >> you're exactly right. i really think this is the last opportunity to seriously address both the border issues and you have more and more republicans, especially in the house, willing to abandon the people of ukraine to vladimir putin, which is not only a surrender to vladimir putin, but sends a terrible message to both allies and adversaries around the world, including president xi who of course is keeping one eye on whether we keep our commitments to the ukrainian people, and one eye trained on taiwan. this is a really important

historical moment, and also, i think, the last chance to address these border issues, certainly for a very long time. >> senator, thank you very much. is that right chris van hollen of maryland, appreciate it. and joining us now, nbc news correspondent ryan nobles, and white house correspondent and political analyst, peter baker. we're focussed on immigration because this does feel like a different moment, one that we haven't seen in more than a decade within congress, the ability of a group of lawmakers from both parties and an independent in this case, come together and say we got to find a solution, and let's work on something that obviously is not going to be what everyone wants. that's not what a compromise is, but find something palatable. what are you hearing now that the text of this bill is out? >> well, the one thing that struck me the most today, katy, is listening to the republicans who are supportive of this bill, in many ways, pull their hair out because they cannot believe that they were able to get the level of concession that they could from democrats and the white house when it comes to

immigration, and then have their fellow republicans toss it aside without giving it a really close look. i caught up with senator james langford of oklahoma, obviously the lead republican negotiator. listen to what he said about this moment in time as it relates to these negotiations? >> when we have house republicans, we weren't able to pass border security. some people say wait until republicans have total control, and we'll get a better bill. that actually didn't happen the last time that occurred four years ago. i don't think that would happen again in the future. we do have to be able to do something about the law, to fix gaps in the law, though we do need this president to enforce the authority he already has. >> reporter: that's so important, what senator langford said before. he reminded his republican colleagues, there was a time republicans had control of everything. we had donald trump as president, which is what many in the republican party are ping pining for right now. we weren't able to do any of the things we have on the table

right now, give this bill a chance. it's not the end all, be all. you could potentially build on it if you win the election. don't lose the opportunity right now. >> the president, president biden has said he'll sign this. president biden who's going to get a lot of flak from the progressive wing in the party, about this bill. >> yeah, the irony is in some ways, politically, he might be better off if he doesn't sign it, right? or if they don't pass in the senate because then he can say the republicans are the ones to blame for not fixing the border because they wanted to play politics, and then he doesn't take the heat from the left, it has a lot of stuff in there for the restrictionists, the people most concerned about border security and nothing for those who want to create a pathway for legalization, and citizenship for those in the country, the dreamers, younger immigrants brought by their parents as children. so, you know, the politics of this are kind of quirky here, right, he would like to take the issue off the table for the fall. one reason he would sign this, even though it's not what a lot

of progressives would like, if they did sign it, make the borders stronger, it would take the issues off the table. obviously the polls show it's one of the weaknesses he has with a lot of voters right now. >> i mentioned this at the top of the show, and i mean it. this is something in control of congress right now. congress has the ability to pass or kill this bill, and it looks like it's not going to have much of a chance in the house with speaker mike johnson saying what he's saying, but voters have a chance to punish republicans or democrats based on where they stand on this bill. what's your sense of, peter, how the electorate might react if this opportunity is passed by? >> well, there will be a lot of finger pointing, of course, there will be a lot of -- in fact, this could be a central issue between former president biden and president trump. it would be the key reason why it doesn't pass. he has told house republicans he doesn't want them to pass it. he thinks they have a better shot without it, that they can make the issue a salient one in the fall against president biden, but he will, of course,

point the finger and say, look, the border isn't secure. they refuse to pass a bill they themselves said they wanted. the republicans asked for it, democrats agreed to give to them in effect, and then said the republicans wouldn't take yes for an answer. >> peter baker, ryan nobles, gentlemen, thank you very much. and still ahead, freak out stage. what legal experts are warning about the delay in donald trump's immunity case. is it really freak out stage? we'll ask. after the deaths of three american soldiers, could the u.s. be considering strikes inside of iran. what the u.s. national security adviser told nbc news. first, though king charles has been diagnosed with cancer. what we know and what we don't know. aware back in 60 seconds. feeling claritin clear is like... ♪♪ is she? playing with the confidence of a pro and getting all up in that grass as if she doesn't have allergies? yeah.

nice. lactaid is 100% real milk, just without the lactose. delicious too. just ask my old friend, kevin. nothing like enjoying a cold one while watching the game. who's winning? we are, my friend. we are. rsv can seriously impact breathing, even for the best performer. protect yourself with pfizer's abrysvo... ...a vaccine to prevent lower respiratory disease from rsv in people 60 years and older. it's not for everyone and may not protect all who receive it. don't get abrysvo if you've had an allergic reaction to its ingredients. a weakened immune system may decrease your response. most common side effects are tiredness, headache, injection-site pain and muscle pain. ask your pharmacist or doctor about abrysvo today. in a surprise out of london, buckingham palace announced king charles has been diagnosed with

cancer. the cancer was detected during last week procedure for an enlarged prostate. the palace says it's not prostate cancer. joining us is nbc news correspondent josh lederman. this is weird because the palace doesn't often give health news about the royals. >> reporter: that's right, katy. in fact, they are often trying very hard to protect the privacy of the royal family when it comes to their personal health matters. we all remember just how tight lipped the palace was about the health of the queen prior to her death. but in the last few weeks, we have seen more transparency around these incidents, both around the enlarged prostate that the king was treated for, and now around the cancer diagnosis, which the buckingham palace says came about, was actually discovered in the course of that treatment for that prostate condition. now, the palace is not telling us very much at all, frankly, about the nature of this cancer diagnosis.

we don't know what type of cancer it was other than the fact that they say it was not prostate cancer. we also don't know exactly what kind of treatment he is undergoing. we know that that treatment has now started. the palace saying the king returned to london earlier today from one of his country homes north of london to begin treatment on an outpatient basis, and during the course of that treatment, the king is expected to cancel many of his public facing engagements, according to a statement from buckingham palace. the kinds of ceremonial activities he might traditionally see the king participating in, he will not be participating in while undergoing cancer treatment. notably, katy, a counselor of state has not been appointed. this is essentially somebody that can be tapped to stand in for the king if he is incapacitated. fact that they are not at this point choosing to name someone to that type of a role indicates that the palace does believe that the king will be able to carry out his official duties,

the kinds of activities he needs to do to still carry out the official capacity of the monarch of this country. he is expected to have some of his traditional meetings, including meeting periodically with the prime minister, even while he is undergoing this cancer treatment, and as far as why the palace is even disclosing this in the first place, katy. buckingham palace saying the king is involved in a number of charities that involve cancer treatment that he wanted just like with the prostate condition to try to encourage people to be diligent about their health, to get tested regularly, he also now wants to encourage people in the united kingdom and around the world to be diligent about the potential for cancer. >> josh lederman, thank you very much. coming up, the significance of this and what it means for the future of the monarchy and the uk. much more after the break. the uk much more after the break. fermentation? yes. feel the difference with 20 plus nutrients your body can absorb.

so you can do you. learn more at newchapter.com. covid-19? i'm not waiting. if it's covid, paxlovid. paxlovid is an oral treatment for adults with mild-to-moderate covid-19 and a high-risk factor for it becoming severe. it does not prevent covid-19. my symptoms are mild now, but i'm not risking it. if it's covid, paxlovid. paxlovid must be taken within the first five days of symptoms, and helps stop the virus from multiplying in your body. taking paxlovid with certain medicines can lead to serious or life-threatening side effects or affect how it or other medicines work, including hormonal birth control. it's critical to tell your doctor about all the medicines you take because certain tests or changes in their dosage may be needed. tell your doctor if you have kidney or liver problems, hiv-1, are or plan to become pregnant, or breastfeed. don't take paxlovid if you're allergic to nirmatrelvir, ritonavir, or any of its ingredients. serious side effects can include allergic reactions, some severe like anaphylaxis, and liver problems. these are not all the possible side effects so talk to your doctor. if it's covid, paxlovid.

ask your doctor today. she found it. the feeling of finding the psoriasis treatment she's been looking for. she found sotyktu, a once—daily pill for moderate—to—severe plaque psoriasis... for the chance at clear or almost clear skin. it's like the feeling of finding that outfit psoriasis tried to hide from you. or finding your swimsuit is ready for primetime. ♪♪ dad! once—daily sotyktu was proven better, getting more people clearer skin than the leading pill. don't take if you're allergic to sotyktu; serious reactions can occur. sotyktu can lower your ability to fight infections including tb. serious infections, cancers including lymphoma, muscle problems, and changes in certain labs have occurred. tell your doctor if you have an infection, liver or kidney problems, high triglycerides, or had a vaccine or plan to. sotyktu is a tyk2 inhibitor. tyk2 is part of the jak family. it's not known if sotyktu has the same risks as jak inhibitors. find what plaque psoriasis has been hiding. there's only one sotyktu, so ask for it by name.

so clearly you. sotyktu. in san francisco, two people a day are dying from fentanyl. this is a national crisis that demands new strategies. prop f requires single adults receiving cash assistance to enroll in treatment if they use drugs. i know what it's like to lose family to drug addiction. it's too late for some families. but our city needs to do what's necessary to save lives. please vote yes on prop f. xfinity rewards presents: '1st and 10gs.' xfinity is giving away ten grand what' to a new lucky winnerves. for every first and ten during the big game. enter daily through february 9th for a chance to win 10gs.

with the ultimate speed, power, and reliability the xfinity 10g network is made for streaming live sports. because it's only live once. join xfinity rewards on the xfinity app or go to xfinity1stand10gs.com for your chance to win. 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. for more on the diagnosis of king charles iii, joining us

now, chief content officer for hers pag magazine, diana cole. what more can you tell us? the palace says it's not prostate cancer. >> yes, and i think that's fairly obvious why they said that because the king had been very very public about his prostate troubles he'd wanted to encourage other men, particularly those of his generation to get themselves tested. he said he was delighted that the interest in his own prostate had led to a huge increase in people getting themselves tested and so i think the palace was going to know that we would all assume if the king had cancer that we would think it was prostate cancer. they wanted us not to be misled into believing that, but beyond that, specifying exactly what type of cancer he's getting treatment for. they haven't told us. we know that he's getting

outpatient treatment, so again, an assumption is perhaps chemo or immunotherapy, which again, will lead to him possibly having his immune system compromised. it's clear why they said he won't be seeing as many people over the next few weeks, that he'll be cutting back. we will continue to see the prime minister. perhaps on zoom, and he won't be certainly doing any really public engagements. >> i know that we're all trying to read between the lines here. usually the palace doesn't confirm anything about the royals' health. if you read the reason for death for queen elizabeth, it's just old age, there's no underlying factors they list. i think it's reasonable to look at the statement, which it's surprising they have given it, and then wonder why they didn't say which stage it is. what do you think of that? >> well, yeah, it's a great question, katy, and it's very helpful getting daisy's perspective. this is clearly an enormous blow. the poor man has barely been in

the job. he was crowned last may. i mean, the rumor that i'm hearing out of london, and this is not confirmed in any way, but the assumption in london among certainly people i know who know is that it's bladder cancer, and this is just very very sad news for the king and obviously for the country. and of course with kate middleton, the princess of wales, also ill. this feels like a double blow. >> yeah, you know, and obviously it's not confirmed. the palace isn't confirming what type of cancer it is. >> no. >> and we can't say. >> but again, sort of fascinating that once again, the palace pr trying to deal with a very sensitive issue, of course, somehow manages to arouse more speculation than if they told someone what it was. >> if anybody has studied the

british history, the public knows this, the way queen elizabeth came to the throne, her father dying of lung cancer, he was a heavy smoker. it's foreboding, the diagnosis of cancer for someone in the royal family, especially the king who only ascended to the throne last year. >> last may. yeah, he was crowned last may and for them to be so public about the prostate issues and for them now not to say, obviously the juxtaposition of those announcements. it's hard not to deduce from that that is a serious illness, and of course they would say that he's not able to do his more public duties because the royal family watched like a hawk, particularly by the tabloid press, so people would notice immediately if he wasn't turning up to things, so they do have to make an announcement. but it is a little odd that they haven't said what it is.

>> yeah, daisy, what about kate middleton, joanna mentioned she had been hospitalized for a pretty lengthy period of time. she's down and not making any public appearances for a few months now. how has the reaction been to the news of her? >> i think great concern, and again, we know considerably less about what kate is going through than we do about what her father and the king is going through. the person at the center of all of that is william. he has an incapacitated poorly wife, and a father with cancer. so no matter what your attitude to the royals, your heart would go out to him. very difficult time with three young children. we know that kate has some sort of abdominal surgery. we assume it was some quite lengthy serious surgical procedure because why would she be in hospital, very fit young woman of 41 in two weeks.

why would she need two or three months to recuperate. we're guessing it's a major surgery, certainly not key hole. something that's gone through the stomach wall that would take a lot of recovery and healing. but again, we don't know. my guess and it is purely this. when kate is through this, back on her feet, back to full fitness, that then she may well talk about what it is that she has been through or will have been through. and perhaps use her position and influence to educate people about whatever it is she's going through. i can completely understand when you are not sure how long it's going to take you, when you don't know how you're going to feel tomorrow, i understand why you don't want to be making big public commitments to everybody, not just family and friends, but everyone on the planet about your intimate health issues. i get it, but i suspect there will be more openness at the other end. >> it's also a bit of a precarious, time, joanna, for

the royal family, with queen elizabeth dying, they took a hit in the favorability ratings in the uk, king charles wasn't the most popular. does this change things? does it create more sympathy or restart the conversation of why do we need a royal family? >> well, katy, you'd have to have a heart of stone not to be sympathetic with two senior members of the royal family both having serious illnesses. i think the tragedy for king charles is that, you know, he had this nightmare role as william does of having to wait for the death of a parent to assume the role that you are destined for. he finally gets there. there's a lots of doubt that he's going to be able to carry it off, and in fact, it turns out that he's rather good at it, he's been enjoying it. that people like him. that it's sort of all geled for

him. i shouldn't say finally, but this is yearly a blow, and it's an interruption to what was actually going very well and perhaps he'd been underestimated as king. but people were feeling very sympathetic towards him for the whole situation with meghan and harry, and his youngest son leaving the country and splitting off from the royal family, he had sort of come through that. this is clearly a blow. >> daisy mcandrew, joanna cole, thank you very much. glad to have you. wish it was on the happier news. does the u.s. plan to retaliate further against iran, what the national security adviser would not rule out on nbc news, and what's sending one legal expert into what he calls freak out mode over donald trump's immunity case. ell? then add the whoa! of listerine to your routine. new science shows listerine is 5x more effective than floss at reducing plaque

above the gumline. for a cleaner, healthier mouth. ahhhhh. listerine. feel the whoa! with nurtec odt i can treat and prevent my 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. talk to your doctor about nurtec today.

(ella) fashion moves fast. talk to your doctor setting trends is our business. we need to scale with customer demand... in real time. (jen) so we partner with verizon. their solution for us? a private 5g network. (ella) we now get more control of production, efficiencies, and greater agility. (marquis) with a custom private 5g network. our customers get what they want, when they want it. (jen) now we're even smarter and ready for what's next. (vo) achieve enterprise intelligence. it's your vision, it's your verizon.

with moderate to severe plaque psoriasis, my skin was no longer mine. my active psoriatic arthritis joint symptoms held me back. don't let symptoms define you. emerge as you. with tremfya®, most people saw 90% clearer skin at 4 months... ...and the majority stayed clearer, at 5 years. tremfya® is proven to significantly reduce joint pain, stiffness and swelling it's just 6 doses a year, after 2 starter doses. serious allergic reactions may occur. tremfya® may increase your risk of infections and lower your ability to fight them. tell your doctor if you have an infection or symptoms or if you had a vaccine or plan to. emerge as you. emerge tremfyant®. ask you doctor about tremfya®. - i got the cabin for three days. it's gonna be sweet! what? i'm 12 hours short. - have a fun weekend.

- ♪ unnecessary action hero! unnecessary. ♪ - was that necessary? - no. neither is a blown weekend. with paycom, employees do their own payroll so you can fix problems before they become problems. - hmm! get paycom and make the unnecessary, unnecessary. - see you down the line. 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. 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. the u.s. says there's more to come after striking 85 targets in iraq and syria over this weekend. officials say to expect continued retaliation. though they will not confirm when, where or how. here is national security adviser jake sullivan on "meet the press." >> have you ruled out strikes inside iran? >> well, sitting here today on a national news program i'm not going to get into what we've ruled in and ruled out from the point of view of military action. what i will say is that the

president is determined to respond forcefully to attacks on our people. the president also is not looking for a wider war in the middle east. >> joining us now, nbc news senior international correspondent keir simmons. it's good to have you. tell me about how the region has been reacting? i know iraq was at least publicly very upset about the strikes. >> reporter: yeah, i think there will be someone, katy, who will frankly see quite a distance between that questioning of jake sullivan and the reality on the ground here. the reality on the ground here is that the strikes that happened on friday night happened along a kind of slither of the iraq/syria border, targeting specific iranian-backed militia. . to go to that from targeting inside of iran would be enormous. the iranians yesterday released an extraordinary video in which they pretty blatantly threatened the u.s. not to hit an

iranian-flagged ship in the red sea and gulf of aden off the coast of yemen. that's an option president biden could choose. president reagan did something similar decades ago. no president has ever chosen to target iranian targets inside iran since the iranian hostage crisis and president carter. the fact is, i think, that the most likely aspect of this is a further escalation, if it happens, and what would that mean? well, we do know that there are enormous numbers of facilities supported by, even run by the iranians in syria, for example, and just today, we heard from the kurds who remember, are supported by the u.s. that their base, one of their bases in syria have been hit by a deadly drone fired by the same pro-iranian militia, they say, who were targeted over the weekend, and they say seven people have died there.

18 have been injured. some seriously, so there's always a message from these iranian-backed militia to the united states and to their allies saying we plan to continue. >> keir simmons, thank you very much. and joining us former secretary of defense, cia director and author of "worthy fights" leon panetta. secretary, it's good to have you. what is your reaction to the scale of the strikes and the promise for more? >> i believe that the united states had to send a very strong message that we will not tolerate people attacking and killing our soldiers. so i think the president took the right step, and i think it's continuing. i think the administration basically said this would be a multi-pronged attack. it went after 85 targets.

it's continuing to go after targets. i think that's the right strategy in order to send a clear message to both iran and their proxies to not target u.s. personnel. >> some of these iranian-backed militia groups have vowed revenge on the u.s., saying the u.s. won't forget what they did. what is the risk for the united states here? >> look, there are a lot of moving parts in the middle east right now, including obviously these attacks, but also the effort to try to see if we can find some kind of hostage deal, and prisoner exchange. and cease fire. hamas. with hamas. in addition to that, there's a whole issue of whether or not we can achieve some kind of palestinian state, and that's on the table in the hopes that we could help resolve that for the future. and lastly, there's the whole issue of saudi arabia and trying

to work out, perhaps, some kind of deal with saudi arabia that gets them into the abraham accords. if those pieces move in the right direction, then we could be hopeful about where we might wind up in the middle east. on the other hand, if they move in the wrong direction and there's a miscalculation of some kind that takes place, then yes, we could have an expanded war in the middle east. >> are our predictions accurate right now? cia director william burns says he's never seen the middle east like this before, never seen as it as disrupted as it currently is. can we make accurate predictions given that? >> it's a very uncertain time. i think bill burns is absolutely correct that the middle east right now has a number of uncertain conflicts that are going on. and we don't know what the end result is going to be here.

as i said, if there's a miscalculation here and, for example, instead of three americans being killed, 25 americans get killed because the proxy forces in iran continue the attacks on our personnel. there's no question that would escalate the situation there. the same thing is true on gaza and whether or not they can achieve some kind of long range cease fire here. they're talking about six weeks, and be able to do some hostage exchange and provide some humanitarian aid. that might take us in a better direction rather than having this war continue. and so, there are a lot of moving parts, and that makes it very frankly a dangerous part of the world right now. >> secretary leon panetta, thank you very much for joining us. it's not very heartening to hear, but it is the truth. appreciate it. >> good to be with you.

and coming up, the fate of a mother whose 15-year-old son gunned down four fellow students and by gun downed, i mean killed. four fellow students. now in a jury's hand. what we know about the 12 people deciding whether jennifer crumbley bears responsibility for what her son did. >> first, though, what is taking the d.c. circuit court so long to decide whether or not donald trump is immune from criminal prosecution. i'm getting vaccinated... ...with pfizer's pneumococcal pneumonia vaccine.

so am i. because i'm at risk for pneumococcal pneumonia. i already got a pneumonia vaccine, ...but i'm asking about the added protection of prevnar 20®. if you're 19 or older with certain chronic conditions... ...like asthma, diabetes, copd, or heart disease,... ...or are 65 or older, you are at increased... ...risk for pneumococcal pneumonia. prevnar 20® is approved in adults... ...to help prevent infections from 20 strains of the bacteria... ...that cause pneumococcal pneumonia. in just one dose. don't get prevnar 20® if you've had a severe... ...allergic reaction to the vaccine or its ingredients. adults with weakened immune systems... ... may have a lower response to the vaccine. the most common side effects were pain and swelling at the injection site,... ... muscle pain, fatigue, headache, and joint pain. i want to be able to keep my plans. i don't want to risk ending up in the hospital with pneumococcal pneumonia. that's why i chose prevnar 20®. ask your doctor or pharmacist about the pfizer vaccine... ...for pneumococcal pneumonia. ♪ voya ♪ there are some things that work better together.

like your workplace benefits and retirement savings. voya helps you choose the right amounts without over or under investing across all your benefits and savings options. so you can feel confident in your financial choices. ♪♪ they really know how to put two and two together. voya, well planned, well invested, well protected.

do you have a life insurance policy you no longer need? now you can sell your policy - even a term policy - for an immediate cash payment. we thought we had planned carefully for our retirement. but we quickly realized we needed a way to supplement our income. if you have $100,000 or more of life insurance, you may qualify to sell your policy. don't cancel or let your policy lapse without finding out what it's worth. visit coventrydirect.com to find out if your policy qualifies. or call the number on your screen. coventry direct, redefining insurance.

i am officially now at the freakout stage. i can't imagine a more compelling need for speed than the idea that american citizens deserve to know before the election whether a candidate for office is a felon and an insurrectionist. >> where are you on the freakout meter here on your end? >> neal and i are in violent agreement on this. >> violent agreement. neal katyal and andrew weissmann says the question of donald trump's immunity should be an easy one but it's been four weeks since the d.c. appellate court promised to act swiftly, and no news on the claim for any actions he took while serving as president. joining us knew, nbc legal analyst, lisa rubin, part of the argument is that donald trump could kill somebody, and that

would be fine so long as he wasn't impeached. order the assassination of a political rival. >> with seal team 5, and. >> seal team 6. jaws dropped in response to that argument, the same way they did four years prior when he said he could shoot someone in the middle of 5th avenue and there wasn't anything anyone could do about it. this should be an easy case in the sense that trump shouldn't be immune from prosecution in this case. how the d.c. circuit gets there on the other hand is a little bit more complicated. judge tanya chutkan and her decision said there's no criminal immunity, full stop. the d.c. circuit has a rule with respect to civil cases that's more complicated. you have immunity within the outer or up to the outer perimeter of a president's duties, and beyond that there is no immunity, and at the oral argument, judge karen henderson, a george h.w. bush nominee to that circuit and the most senior judge seemed to be flirting with the idea that we should import

that rule from the civil context and make the criminal one just the same. that could be a disaster here. >> hold on, let's walk through this and get very specific. that means that donald trump would be immune for anything related to his official acts as president, as the civil statute says, and i guess the question, then, would be, does what he did on january 6th and leading up to january 6th saying the election was stolen, even though courts kept telling him there wasn't, there was no evidence, his team never produced evidence of fraud, and he was just saying it, does that fall within the bounds of his official duties? >> well, let's even go back a step further because on a motion like this, the court has to take all of the allegations in the indictment as true, meaning they don't get to parse out did donald trump actually do the things in the indictment, assuming all of the things that the special counsel's office has alleged are true. >> they want to be able to

litigate them. you assume it's all true. >> you assume it's all true for purposes of a motion to dismiss, which is fundamentally what this is, then on the basis of those allegations, are they alleging something that falls within his official duties even up until that outer perimeter, or are they alleging acts that really fall within his identity as a campaigner, as a candidate, as a person but far outside what any president would be authorized to do. >> you think this is what's getting sticky? >> i think this is what's getting sticky, or it could be another issue. i think the ultimate issue here is not that they disagree on the actual result, but they disagree about how you get there -- >> how you write the statute essentially. >> how do you write the decision here. this is one thing our viewers don't understand. you and i are sitting here having a conversation about it. if we were judges on the d.c. circuit, you would imagine we would do the same. that's not how appellate decisions get written, they get written by exchanging drafts and paragraphs back and forth.

it's almost like an extended letter writing or pen pal campaign. at the very beginning they talk out what they heard at oral argument and they have a vote to determine who's going to be on what side. but throughout that, you're constantly trying to persuade your colleagues that you think are winnable. this happens at the supreme court too in a much larger context. >> this is why get ago philosophy degree is great for law school, you write various sides, arging various philosophical matters to make it so there's no holes within your argument. anyway, let me ask you about timing. we've had a month now from this appellate court getting this decision. >> yes. >> and deciding that they were going to consider it on an expedited basis. >> right. >> is a month a long time? >> in the absolute sense, no, even on an expedited basis, not quite. however, i did some math for you. i looked at some d.c. circuit opinions that are fairly recent involving the former president to determine even in important

cases involving him, is this fast or slow. let's do some comparisons for a second. the gag order appeal when judge tanya chutkan also put a gag order on former president trump, it took between oral argument and the decision 18 days. obviously we're in excess of that now. when trump was litigaing with the january 6th -- >> is this 18 business days? >> i'm including calendar days. the number of days between when there was oral argument on the question of executive privilege when the january 6th committee wanted his materials and trump was saying even though i'm no longer president, i'm still entitled to a certain executive privilege, that was ten days. however, when the d.c. circuit decided this question of civil immunity that you and i were just talking about a few moments ago, not an expedited decision, but it took them almost a year from the oral argument to are ender a decision. so that shows how long sometimes appeals courts can take when they're deliberating. >> i'm going to assume you're

not calm, but you're not panicked yet, you're somewhere in between andrew and neal. >> i'm more toward andrew and neil, i'm getting increasingly panicked as the days go on, but i'm not freaking out. >> i'm sure you have a refresh going on the d.c. appeals court docket right now. lisa rubin, thank you very much. coming up next, what's happening in michigan where a jury is deliberating in the first case to put a parent on trial for a child's shooting. mp. ♪ ♪ i got the power of 3. i lowered my a1c, cv risk, and lost some weight. in studies, the majority of people reached an a1c under 7 and maintained it. i'm under 7. ozempic® lowers the risk of major cardiovascular events such as stroke, heart attack, or death in adults also with known heart disease. i'm lowering my risk. adults lost up to 14 pounds.

i lost some weight. ozempic® isn't for people with type 1 diabetes. don't share needles or pens, or reuse needles. don't take ozempic® if you or your family ever had medullary thyroid cancer, or have multiple endocrine neoplasia syndrome type 2, or if allergic to it. stop ozempic® and get medical help right away if you get a lump or swelling in your neck, severe stomach pain, or an allergic reaction. serious side effects may include pancreatitis. gallbladder problems may occur. tell your provider about vision problems or changes. taking ozempic® with a sulfonylurea or insulin may increase low blood sugar risk. side effects like nausea, vomiting, and diarrhea may lead to dehydration, which may worsen kidney problems. living with type 2 diabetes? ask about the power of 3 with ozempic®. it's odd how in an instant things can transform. slipping out of balance into freefall. i'm glad i found stability amidst it all. gold. standing the test of time.

pain hits fast. so get relief fast. only tylenol rapid release gels have laser drilled holes. they release medicine fast for fast pain relief. and now, get max strength topical pain relief precisely where you need it. with new tylenol precise. your record label is taking off. but so is your sound engineer. you need to hire. i need indeed. indeed you do. indeed instant match instantly delivers quality candidates matching your job description. visit indeed.com/hire

i'm kareem abdul-jabbar. i was diagnosed with afib. matching your job description. when i first noticed symptoms, which kept coming and going, i should have gone to the doctor. instead, i tried to let it pass. if you experience irregular heartbeat, heart racing, chest pain, shortness of breath, fatigue, or light-headedness, you should talk to your doctor. afib increases the risk of stroke about 5 times. when it comes to your health, this is no time to wait. xfinity rewards presents: '1st and 10gs.' xfinity is giving away ten grand to a new lucky winner for every first and ten during the big game. enter daily through february 9th for a chance to win 10gs. with the ultimate speed, power, and reliability the xfinity 10g network is made for streaming live sports. because it's only live once. join xfinity rewards on the xfinity app or go to

xfinity1stand10gs.com for your chance to win. both the defense and prosecution have rested their cases, and now jennifer crumbley's fate is left to a jury. they are deciding whether she is to blame for her son taking a gun to school and using it to kill four of his classmates at oxford high school in 2021. the prosecution argued she was

grossly negligent, that she ignored her son's pleas for mental health help and instead gave him a deadly weapon. the defense counters that she could not have known her child would be a mass shooter. if convicted, it would set a ground breaking precedent that could have a significant impact on how parents monitor their children. joining us now in pontiac, michigan, is maggie vespa. maggie, bring us up to speed. >> reporter: so katy, we are six hours, almost on the dot, by started around 9:50 this morning into jury deliberations. the morning started off with jury instructions. jurors since then have had some questions about kind of the crux of what prosecutors are required to prove. in short, jennifer crumbley on trial for the deadly 2021 shooting at oxford high school carried out by her son. she faces four counts of involuntary manslaughter, and this morning in the jury instructions, the judge told jurors that prosecutors in this

case could basically prove anonymous beyond a reasonable doubt through one of two avenues. and this is important, basically telling the jury that they had to decide whether the prosecutors proved that jennifer crumbley did one of two things. one of them showing gross negligence in the way she locked up the gun that they had given to her son, that he used in the shooting, also locked up the ammunition, and through that gross negligence allowed him access to the gun, which then caused the death of these four students. that's avenue number one. avenue number two is that they say she failed to conduct or uphold her legal duty in the state of michigan as a parent and exercised what they call reasonable care in protecting other children from being hurt by her child. so if the jury decides that prosecutors proved either of those cases, then they would have a guilty verdict in this case. the jury's asked questions about that since. we're six hours into this with no verdict. it's anyone's guess as to when