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 this could come down.

>> we will watch the court, maggie vespa, thank you very much. that's going to do it for me. "deadline white house" starts right now. ♪♪ hello, everyone, it's 4:00 in new york. i'm ali velshi in for nicolle wallace. just a few hours ago, attorneys for donald trump filed a brief defending their can client's place on the ballot in that critical 14th amendment case that's before the supreme court over whether his role in the january 6th insurrection bars him from running for office. oral arguments before the justices are on thursday. we are also hearing from special counsel jack smith, his prosecutors are mounting a defense of the classified documents probe in a filing to judge aileen cannon. we're going to have more on that in a little while as well. we begin with developments in the middle east where the threat of further air strikes looming across the region and a furry of

diplomacy with one goal, preventing the war in gaza from widening even further. president biden and his officials say there will be more air strikes in retaliation for the deaths of three service members in jordan by iranian-backed militia groups. officials are not saying when they'll take place or how they'll be carried out, just that the u.s. response to the attack is far from over. that was after dozens of air strikes on friday, 85 target s in syria and iraq, targeting not just militias but facilities used by iran's revolutionary guard corps and strikes by the u.s. and uk on saturday which hit dozens of sites in yemen belonging to the houthi militia group. that was part of an ongoing campaign. the strikes on the houthis were part of an ongoing campaign that were intended to deter them from attacking cargo ships in the red sea, which is a vital shipping route which leads to the suez canal. the u.s. military said on sunday

they had destroyed a houthi cruise missile that presented an imminent threat to u.s. navy ships and merchant vessels in the region, end quote. questions now about what the next stage of the u.s. response in the region looks like. here's national security adviser jake sullivan. here's what he had to say about the possibility of strikes inside iran. >> 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. >> is it off the table? are strikes inside iran off the table? >> again, kristen, sitting here on television, it would not be wise for me to talk about what we're ruling in and ruling out. >> so you're not ruling it out?

>> i'll just say the same thing one more time, which is i'm not going to get into what's on the table and off the table when it comes to the american response. >> now, the backdrop of this shuttle diplomacy by the biden administration, the secretary of state tony blinken is in saudi arabia for his fifth trip to the region since the october 7th attacks. he's trying to rally support for a potentially very important deal that would see the release of hostages and a pause in the fighting, which has so far killed more than 27,000 palestinians according to the ministry of health in gaza. that's where we start with the former deputy national security adviser to president obama, ben road rhodes, plus david ignatius and with me at the table, and it feels like we've been talking constantly for the last 72 hours, collin clarke. ben, let me start with you, jake sullivan wasn't going to say that strikes on iran itself are

off the table, but the fact is i think we can largely as reasonable people say that's probably not an option the biden administration is considering. there are calls for it. a number of republicans including don bacon on my show yesterday said that it would be reasonable to hit iran directly, rather than hit their proxies. let's flesh this out a little bit. why is that a good or a bad idea? >> well, i think it's a bad idea, ali, and look, i think nobody in jake's position is going to go on television and rule things out, but i took from his body language and frankly, what the administration has done thus far that they're not looking to go into iran in this period of escalation. they're trying to contain it to going after proxy groups particularly in iraq, syria, and in in yemen. they're trying to calibrate this. i think it would be a very bad idea. that would be a qualitative escalation for the united states to go after iran directly that

could spiral out of control in all manner of ways. that would essentially be removing whatever lid there is on escalation and having this be just an all-out war between the united states and israel and iran and all of its proxies across the region. i think immediately what that does is it brings hezbollah into everything. it amps up attacks in iraq perhaps on our embassy, and perhaps it shuts down shipping. there could be attacks from iran on gulf partners or attacks into the persian gulf as well as the red sea. so you're talking about for the sake of some people wanting to look tough in washington, you're talking about risking lighting the entire middle east on fire, even well beyond what it is now, it doesn't make any sense, and it wouldn't make us any safer. in fact, it would bring a lot more risk to it. that's why i think ultimately you need to be looking at now just how are we trying to degrade the group's capabilities that are doing this. how are we trying to find some pathway for deescalation here. if it's try, and i think it is true that we don't want a wider

war, we have to start doing things to avoid a wider war rather than being drawn into the quick sand of a middle east conflict. >> this is what the expression threading the needle was invented for. the idea that the u.s. administration feels some need to respond to the fact that u.s. troops -- by the way, three were killed, but lots have been injured in more than 160 attacks over the last four months, but it feels an overwhelming and important need, as it should, to not create -- to not throw a match into the dry kindling that is the middle east right now. >> i totally agree. i empathize with jake sullivan. he doesn't want to telegraph his hand on national television. he doesn't want to give that card up. at the same time, you'll notice what he didn't say, and that's a lot of the things that are likely happening behind the scenes right now. we may not intervene in iranky

--ky netically, that coupled with the kinetic strikes in iraq, syria, against the houthis in yemen that shows what u.s. capabilities are and the hope is to reestablish deter are reince and not derail ongoing hostage negotiates. >> in theory these are separate things, they're not separate things at all. the matter with the houthis and the iranian-backed militias in syria and iraq is connected to israel and gaza, and there is an offer on the table that was worked out between mossad, israeli intelligence, american intelligence, the qatari prime minister and the egyptians to cease the fighting, release the hostages in stages, and perhaps end this war. state department is even rumored to be talking about recognizing a state of palestine. potentially a very important deal, not one that netanyahu seems to want to deal with

politically. >> so netanyahu said no to palestinian state over and over again, and he's also said no to ending the war in gaza, so in a sensuous the door seems to be closed. blinken's trip is about are trying to find a way to get through some narrow opening. i think the biden white house is convinced that the first step toward all the things it wants is an extended pause in the fighting, what's hanging up the negotiations over releasing the hostages is hamas's demand that there be a permanent cease fire, a permanent end to the war. israel will not agree to that, i don't think there's any way that you could finesse that with language, but this would be an extended pause. weeks, maybe months that would allow humanitarian assistance, would allow the houthis to step back from their confrontation in the red sea, would ease tensions

all over the region. i think blinken's view is this is the essential first step. he is trying to set the ground for that. his trip is a larger effort to do something really important, which is to begin a process towards normalization or relations between saudi arabia and israel that would provide a kind of guarantee for israeli security going forward, the biggest, most important sunni state arguably, saudi arabia, would enter into a kind of relationship with israel that it's obviously never had, and the hope is that that will convince israelis, even will convince prime minister netanyahu that it's in his interest to move forward with this, even though the demand from the saudis is the war in gaza has to stop, and you must recognize a pathway towards, not immediate, a pathway toward a palestinian state. it's a big trip, the stakes are enormous.

i wouldn't put too much into jake sullivan not ruling out the possibility of offensive military action against iran. that's not going to happen. >> let me ask you, ben, the -- we haven't heard fully from hamas. they've got the offer for this deal. they haven't rejected it out of hand, which i think is something because there have been other offers that they have rejected. the gain for israel could be pretty good here. first of all, the hostages get released, and second of all, to david's point, normalization with saudi arabia, which was always on the table, but that could become a real thing. why if there's a potential good gain for israel would netanyahu not seriously consider it? >> well, i think a couple of reasons. one, if there's an extended pause in the fighting here, let's say this is a month or two

month cease fire, not the five days that we had before, it's kind of hard for me to reenvision israel resuming, after a bunch of humanitarian assistance gets in there, a bunch of aid workers get in there, it becomes harder to turn back on a war that has had such catastrophic consequences, and hasn't rescued any hostages. diplomacy is the only thing that's gotten hostages out. i think the second thing is netanyahu's politics are very tenuous in israel. he's very unpopular. there are people in his war cabinet who would like his job, and so the longer there's a pause, the more there's a space for some maneuvering in israeli politics to oust netanyahu. so his political future and fortunes are somewhat tied to the maintenance of this war, and they're not being an extended pause. and then the last piece is there has to be a clear commitment to a palestinian state for the saudi normalization thing to go forward.

it can't just be what they were talking about before,ly like so pledge of money to the palestinian authority. netanyahu needs the support of his far right coalition to survive. the politics for netanyahu get very difficult if he does what the u.s. administration wants and i think what would be good for the world. and so he's trying to figure out a way can i get some hostages returned home without giving up that much on any of these other areas, and that's where this gets very complicated because this is an israeli leader whose interests are not overlapping with the policy of the biden administration, and that's why i think you see so much tension and almost awkwardness in trying to thread these various needles. >> there's a very good reason, collin, for america wanting this deal to go forward, and that is the houthis still are blocking the trade and commerce through the gulf of aden, and the baa ball mandere gate.

most of the ships are going to the suez canal and going from asia to europe and vice versa. number two, before october 7th, these groups were not targeting u.s. military installations and targeting u.s. troops around the region, and during those five days, six days of peace between israel and gaza and hamas, everybody's guns went silent. >> you're right. but it's not only the united states that's troubled by what we're seeing in yemen, in baa bow man deb, the chinese are also angered. they've tried to pressure iran to do something about this. we'll have an intel brief tomorrow analyzing the dynamics of that. we always talk about this through a counterterrorism lens, but really this is great power competition, strategic competition in realtime. we're seeing that. will the chinese be able to pressure the iranians enough to get the houthis to stop it? i doubt it. i think this is going to play out over the can coming weeks. where are the pressure points? what could get the houthis to stop? out of the all the iranian

proxies, they're the most difficult to deter. >> ben and i talked about this this weekend because he was part of the obama administration, which came up with the iran nuclear deal, which some people liked, some people didn't like, but what it did do is give us an entree with the iranians which we don't have today. now we talk to the iranians through back channels as opposed to proper diplomacy. there are people -- like i said, i had people on my show saying we need to bomb iran because we need regime change in iran. that feels like a bit of a reach right now, but what in your opinion is the best way to deal with iran? we're busy bombing proxies, but what is the best approach to try and convince iran to do something other than what they're doing right now? >> so ali, it's a combination. it is essential that deterrence be reinforced with iran, iranian-backed proxies have been taking pot shots at americans. you cited the figures since october 7th there have been more

than one attack a day when you have them all up on u.s. forces, u.s. positions in iraq and syria. that can't continue. the idea that the houthis, an iranian-backed militia can fire drones and missiles at shipping, willy nilly in the red sea disrupting international commerce, raising insurance rates, altering the trajectory of the global economy, that can't be allowed to continue. so that message hadn't gotten through, the administration decided we have to deliver a more forceful message, and they're doing that. at the same time, i think this administration understands as the obama administration did, that diplomacy with iran is search. that capping the iranian nuclear program by military action would lead us into the potentially catastrophic confrontation a sensible country wants to avoid. some diplomatic process to

reestablish the caps, to prevent iran from getting to the point it has nuclear weapons is essential. how they're going to do that, we'll have to wait and see. one necessary step is deescalation of the current crisis, and we'll see whether this forceful effort to deter iran is going to inflame the crisis more or lead to deescalation. can't say yet. >> can't say yet indeed. thanks very much. david ignatius and collin clarke, thanks for spending time with us. ben's going to be back later in the hour. when we come back from a quick break, jack smith out with one of his most forceful defenses yet of his classified documents case against the ex-president trying to set the record straight for the judge and maybe for a future jury pool. plus, we'll look at how some january 6th rioters are feeling newly emboldened with the possible return of a trump white house, now judges are having to step in and correct the record. all eyes on the supreme court this week, hearing arguments about whether or not

donald trump's role on january 6th should keep him from running for office again. his team has filed its last brief before the court's hearing. all those stories and more when "deadline white house" continues after this break. "deadline white house" continues after this break were you worried the wedding would be too much? nahhhh... (inner monologue) another destination wedding?? why can't they use my backyard!! with empower, we get all of our financial questions answered. so we don't have to worry. empower. what's next.

special counsel jack smith is extremely intentional with what he says publicly, so when we actually hear him say something publicly, we pay attention. on friday, smith used an expang -- expansive filing to push back against claims of bias. smith's team writing, it is necessary to set the record straight on the underlying facts

that led to this prosecution because the defendants' motion paints an inaccurate and distorted picture of events. the government will clear the air on those issues pause the defendants' misstatements if unanswered leave a highly misleading impression. the 68-page filing from smith's team went on to explain in detail how the justice department came about investigating the ex-president for his mishandling of classified do you means, smith's team writing, far from being a sham, the referral to investigate became necessary after months of efforts including several rounds of communications with trump presidential records act representatives failed to confirmed that trump returned any and all classified information that he removed from the white house, end quote. the filing also pushed back on trump's requests for additional discovery materials. smith's team argument that the ex-president's demands were based on speculative, unsupported and false theories

of political bias and animus, end quote. it was an out of the ordinary public show of force by the special counsel's team. "politico" notes of the filing, quote, the approach taken in the legal brief is somewhat unusual for the justice department. though the filing was submitted to u.s. district judge aileen cannon, at times it sounded like an opening argument to a jury trump could face in the future or the first chapter of a report meant to detail investigative findings to the public. joining our conversation now is the former lead investigator tim he fee, and "politico" national correspondent betsy woodruff swan. it's not that there was a lot of new material in here, if one has read the mar-a-lago indictment, the details are there. it's not questionable if one looks at that stuff as to why there's ab investigation. it's certainly not a trial, but the reasons for the investigation are stated clearly, why did jack smith's team feel the necessity to do

this? >> because they're pushing back against an argument that trump and his defense lawyers and of course allied lawyers have been making in public for countless months now that the prosecutors really haven't yet provided a fulsome rebuttal of. this document is worth reading for people who are following this from the comforts of their home. don't follow it professionally because it's a very concise synopsis of basically how what got here. what the sub text almost say but don't quite articulate explicitly, they're accusing trump and his lawyers of being conspiracy theorists. he's been pushing this notion that the justice department in cahoots with the biden administration and jack smith says whatever that is, is somehow engaging in p wrongful action to damage trump's political prospects. and the point of this filing is to say that's not true.

the justice department is acting independently. they explicitly say in this file that no one on jack smith's team has talked to the president or any of his family members, something that is not surprising but they clearly felt needed to be said, and it's a defense of the work the doj is doing and of the independence of the justice department from the portions of the executive branch including the white house that are closer to the president himself. >> tim, let me read to you from the filing that jack smith's team filed on friday. it says where the defendants perceive bias, weaponized use of authorities and a sham referral, all attributed to an undifferentiated, quote, biden administration, that's what betsy was just talking about. the record shows only different government agencies with specific portfolio and responsibilities at work to solve an increasingly vexing and concerning problem. that is hardly surprising, and it in no way shape, or form supports the hyperbolic claim of politically motivated operatives launching a crusade against president trump. the defendant's legal problems

are solely of their own making. talk to me about this. it's very detailed. who's that for? is it really for trump's team to hear that? is it really for judge aileen cannon or as betsy and "politico" are suggesting, is this the beginning of what the argument is going to be? >> yeah, i think it's for all of the above, ali. i think it is for judge cannon, an inexperienced federal judge who in the past has been struck down by the 11th circuit, i think there's some education of the court that's going on. they're clearly mindful of the public audience and the need for this to be seen as a legitimate prosecution. it's sort of a defense, as betsy said, of the integrity of the process. it essentially lays out the path to the referral and the subsequent indictment. the allegation is this is a trumped up political biden

administration politically motivated prosecution, the special counsel goes to great lengths to sort of trace the procedural history of at each step the attempts to get the document, subsequent discovery of more and more documents, which led to the search warrant and ultimately to the indictment, and that really is meant for, i think, a lot of audiences. there's a deficit in terms of what prosecutors can say outside of court and what criminal defendants can say, right? the president, former president is out there continually impugning the character of the process. the prosecutor doesn't say anything other than in filings, other than in pleadings, so this is perhaps maybe more fulsome than necessary to address the specific discovery claims at issue in the motion, but his opportunity to, as betsy said, sort of set the record straight about the integrity of the process. >> so this is really important, the point you make. there's a deficit between what prosecutors can say and what the defendant can say, betsy. to the extent this is for judge

aileen cannon, one would hope and assume that a federal judge like aileen cannon would understand what tim just said, right? that trump is out there, and i'm sure there are other defendants in history, been out there, you know, sounding off about whatever they want to sound off on, but that's not legally sound, nor is it important, and there is an indictment and there is evidence. is this a harbinger of trouble with aileen cannon or smith's team worrying about trouble with aileen cannon? >> there's no doubt that it captures concerns on the part of smith's team that the judge and the potential juror pool is being exposed to claims that they believe are incorrect and perhaps mendacious about the way the prosecution has acted. and there's one thing that actually is, i believe, news in this document that captures that theme. trump's lawyers had argued that jack smith and the people on the prosecution team had failed to share all the material they want is and specifically argued that

not everyone who needed to see closed caption tv footage from mar-a-lago had received full access to that footage in the way that they needed. jack smith's response to that in this document, and he says, actually, we bent over backwards to provide this footage to people. we've even given hardware to lawyers so they can look at it. there's a line that jumped out, smith's prosecutors write during a phone call, counsel for one of trump's co-defendants, a lawyer for one of trump's co-defendants, explained that he did not own or have access to a laptop or desktop computer and was instead attempting to review the entirety of the government's discovery on a hand-held tablet. what jack smith's team is saying, hey, these people are complaining they can't watch the videos we're trying to send them, but at the same time they're trying or at least this one particular important lawyer is trying to review the entirety of the discovery that the federal government is making via

a hand-held tablet, which sounds like an ipad. these are the kind of statements, of course, that prosecutors can't say in tv interviews. they can't say outside of court, but when they file a big, thick document like this with lots of details, what they're signaling to the judge is please, please, please don't take everything you're hearing from trump and the trump allied lawyers at face value. >> let's talk about that discovery issue, tim, because one of the things that the jack smith team talked about is that they're asking for things they don't need. it seems to be -- they seem to be implying it's a delay tactic. they will have and they have got the information they need. this has already been discussed, how much time the trump administration will need to review cases, the circumstances under which they can see it. a lot of this is classified information. what's that matter and how is that going to affect the process in this case? >> so the jack smith team very mindful of the possible use of discovery disputes to delay the

proceedings gave really overly inclusive discovery in this matter, i think in the pleading, it cites 1.28 million pages of documents. so every interview, grand jury transcript, witness statement, document collected, every single minute of closed circuit television footage captured, right, correspondence between agencies, all of that has been produced because the special counsel saw that they don't want to provide any excuse for there to be this kind of pretrial litigation that might delay. that's actually been their approach in all of the jan 6 cases. they have made everything available through all charged defendants. they look at the jan 6 cases as one case and make every piece of discovery available to every charged defendant and an over abundance of caution to make sure everyone has access to everything. as you said, ali, the trump defense is now picking out things that they haven't gotten

that they claim are relevant, and essentially this pleading explains why those are a fishing expedition. there's no basis on which to believe that any of that information is relevant. it's gamesmanship, it is an attempt to potentially delay the proceedings, and in all of these cases, the two federal cases and the others, prosecutors try very hard to move this toward trial, move this toward resolution, clear the decks of collateral issues and get the matter adjudicated where the former president and his team are consistently saying hold on, wait, we don't have everything. we're not ready. pretty indicative to me in terms of who's ready to go, who has a stronger hand, at least believes they have a stronger hand when these cards are shown at trial. >> betsy woodruff swan, thank you for your reporting this afternoon. you can read jack smith's entire 68 page filing along with more legal analysis at the deadline legal blog.

the qr code right there on your screen. if that's how qr codes are put on tv i'd use more of them, it's nice and big. how many more judges are speaking out from behind the bench warning about the dangers of whitewashing the january 6th insurrection. that story is next. januar6ty h insurrection that story is next ss with her mental health... ...but her medication caused unintentional movements in her face, hands, and feet called tardive dyskinesia, or td. so her doctor prescribed austedo xr— a once-daily td treatment for adults. ♪ as you go with austedo ♪ austedo xr significantly reduced kate's td movements. some people saw a response as early as 2 weeks. with austedo xr, kate can stay on her mental health meds— (kate) oh, hi buddy! (avo) austedo xr can cause depression, suicidal thoughts, or actions in patients with huntington's disease. pay close attention to and call your doctor if you become depressed, have sudden changes in mood, or have suicidal thoughts. don't take if you have liver problems, are taking reserpine, tetrabenazine, or valbenazine. austedo xr may cause irregular or fast heartbeat, or abnormal movements. seek help for fever, stiff muscles, problems thinking,

or sweating. common side effects include inflammation of the nose and throat, insomnia and sleepiness. ♪ as you go with austedo ♪ ask your doctor for austedo xr. ♪ austedo xr ♪ ♪everything i do that's for my health is an accomplishment.♪ ♪concerns of getting screened faded away♪ ♪to my astonishment.♪ ♪my doc gave me a script i got it done without a delay.♪ ♪i screened with cologuard and did it my way.♪ cologuard is a one-of-a-kind way to screen for colon cancer that's effective and non-invasive. it's for people 45 plus at average risk, not high risk. false positive and negative results may occur. ask your provider for cologuard. ♪i did it my way!♪ hi, i'm chris and i lost 57 pounds on golo.

golo isn't complicated. ask your provider for cologuard. i don't have to follow a restrictive diet, and i don't have to spend a lot of time making meals. using golo was truly transformative. it was easy, and inexpensive. this ad? typical. politicians... "he's bad. i'm good." blah, blah. let's shake things up. with katie porter. porter refuses corporate pac money. and leads the fight to ban congressional stock trading. katie porter. taking on big banks to make housing more affordable. and drug company ceos to stop their price gouging. most politicians just fight each other. while katie porter fights for you. for senate - democrat katie porter. i'm katie porter 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. (vo) in the next 30 seconds, 250 couples will need to make room for a nursery. (man) ah ha! (vo) 26 people will go all-in. (woman) yes! (vo) this family will get two bathrooms. and finally, one vacationer will say... (man) yeah, woo, i'm going to live here... (vo) but as the euphoria subsides, the realization hits... (man) i've got to sell the house. (all) [screams] (vo) don't worry, just sell and buy in one move when you start with opendoor. (woman) oh wow. (vo) oh yes. start with an all-cash offer at opendoor.com some extent the health and safety of our democracy may depend on it, that is setting the record straight. again and again, when presented with the lie that january 6th

was anything other than a barbaric assault on our capitol and on the peaceful transfer of power, so when donald trump seeks to cast the rioters he incited that day as peaceful and patriotic and deserving the full pardons for the good of our democracy, that cannot stand, and so as defendants grow increasingly emboldened judges overseeing 1,200 such cases in washington federal court are starting to push back. from a recent ruling by a republican appointed judge, quote, the court is accustomed to defendants who refuse to accept that they did anything wrong, but in my 37 years on the bench, i cannot recall a time when such meritless justifications of criminal activity have gone mainstream. i've been dismayed to see distortions and outright falsehoods seep into the public consciousness. i've been shocked to watch some

public figures try to rewrite history claiming rioters behaved in an orderly fashion, or martyr martyrizing convicted january 6th defendants as hostages. the court fears such destructive misguided rhetoric could presage further danger to our country. we're back with tim heaphy and ben rhodes. tim, let's talk about this for a second. again, there have been people who have been on the wrong side of judgments. there are people who think people are wrongfully convicted, but this has reached a new level. it's not just donald trump and marjorie taylor greene and a bunch of assorted others, elise stefanik was on meet the press a few weeks ago when kristen welker asked her about these defendants and those who have been convicted, she referred to them as hostages.

why are these judges so concerned by what this one judge calls the mainstreaming of this weirdness? >> because, ali, we've seen what rhetoric translates into on the ground. there's no better and emphatic example of that than january 6th when the former president says we have to fight like hell or we're not going to have a country anymore, people take that seriously. so when he and others are calling these people political prisoners or hostages, this is not simply rhetorical. there are a lot of people in this country who take that seriously and who are prepared to act on it. let's talk for a minute about royce lamberth, there is no jurist in washington, d.c., or around the country who has more credibility and ultimate respect from lawyers than judge lamberth, appointed by president reagan, 37 years on the bench. he is no liberal or no part of some political plot to get at the former president, he is as

reliably conservative and frankly, credible as a judge over his long history as anyone. so when he did another example of a conservative voice with great credibility coming out and challenging this rhetoric, it's a little bit like bill barr saying to the president, what you're saying to the country is bull shit, right? when it comes from people like them who are otherwise potentially on policy matters aligned with the former president, it has more credibility. it's dangerous, judge lamberth is calling it out as are other judges because it has consequences. considering the credibility of the messenger, really significant here. >> ben, i want to play for you something that j.d. vance senator said this week on this week on abc yesterday about what he would have done if he were the vice president of the united states back on january 6th. let's listen together. >> if i had been vice president, i would have told the states like pennsylvania, georgia, and so many others that we needed to have multiple slates of

electors, and i think the u.s. congress should have fought over it from there. that is the legitimate way to deal with an election that a lot of folks including me had a lot of problems in 2020. i think that's what we should have done. >> that's wild that j.d. vance, a sitting united states senator says something that is against the law, that is against the electoral college act and that, by the way, seemed to have turned into a crime in the effort to do that. i guess that's the problem with the mainstreaming. this is not j.d. vance saying something about how he might have wished donald trump won. he's literally laying out a prescription as if it's reasonable, for the lack of acceptance of the outcome of an election, a legitimate election. >> yeah, i mean, there's no bottom, and i think there's something really important that we have to focus on here, which is there's that effort, i think, on the right in this country to cast this as some event that happened in the past and why can't people just move on and get past it. this is still happening.

this is the platform of the people donald trump and the people around him, that want to come back into power. these are the forces that want to undermine and unravel american democracy. that is a republican senator saying on national television that he doesn't believe in the constitutional order and the peaceful transfer of power. that's what's at stake not in the past but in the future, right? because as these judges are warning, the message from trump too is kind of wink wink wink, maybe i'll come in, i'll pardon everybody. we're going to be behaving like the kinds of other countries we've seen in the past where a mob can overrun the parliament, and you can have an extra drew extrajudicial process. once you discard the norms of the country like an election which there were clearly no allegations of fraud, an election can be overturned because people don't like results, how to you get democracy back? that's what's so important, remembering and telling the story about what happened on january 6th, but it's also about

communicating this is about what's going to happen in the future. these people feel no remorse over what happened on january 6th. they think nothing was wrong with it, and this is not just donald trump. this is across the mainstream of the republican party, and until we are able to move past a period in which those types of figures are willing to discard american democracy, we're kind of still living in this emergency period where every day is kind of a january 7th, you know, decision about what kind of country do we want to live in? >> it is remarkable. the mainstreaming of this is deeply, deeply concerning as we are in an election year. guys, thanks very much, tim heaphy and ben rhodes, we appreciate you spending time with us this afternoon. we're waiting for the verdict in the case against jennifer crumbley, she's the mother of the michigan student who killed four fellow high schoolers. the first mother in this country to be charged in a mass shooting committed by her son. an update there just ahead. pdatd

[♪♪] did you know, many moisturizers only hydrate your skin? for advanced science that visibly repairs signs of aging... try olay regenerist micro-sculpting cream. it delivers 10 benefits in every jar for younger-looking skin, visibly firming, lifting, and smoothing wrinkles. olay regenerist penetrates the skin's surface,

to boost regeneration at the surface cellular level for continuous improvement. to visibly repair signs of aging, try olay regenerist. this has been medifacts for olay.

. a jury in michigan has been deliberating in the trial of jennifer crumbley, she's the mother of a teenager who killed four people and injured seven others in a mass shooting at oxford high school in 2021. crumbley has pleaded not guilty to four counts of involuntary manslaughter for her role in the shooting. prosecutors argued at the trial that she is responsible for the deaths because she was grossly negligent in giving a gun to her son. if she is found guilty, it would

mark the first time in u.s. history that a parent is convicted for a school shooting related charges. i want to bring in msnbc legal analyst, lisa rubin, and nbc news correspondent maggie vespa. maggie's in pontiac, michigan, following the trial for us. maggie, let's start with you. >> reporter: as we speak, jurors are being dismissed for the day after seven hours almost on the dot of deliberations in this landmark case. again, as you said, this is the first american parent to ever be charged with a or in connection with a school shooting committed by their child. a mass school shooting i should say. the jury had a couple of questions today during their deliberations. you talked about about one of the sort of legal avenues for which the judge said today to the jury prosecutors could get at a conviction in this case, and that's proving gross negligence in the way that she stored both the gun and the ammunition, that the parents gave to ethan crumbley in the days leading up to the oxford high school massacre in 2021,

and basically, the judge said that if prosecutors, jurors believe prove beyond a reasonable doubt that she indeed displayed gross negligence in how she did that and if that caused the deaths in this case, that's one way of getting at a guilty verdict. they also have a second avenue, and jurors had questions about whether or not it was an either/or situation. the judge said it indeed is, for which they could prove guilt, the judge said you could also find that prosecutors proved she failed to exercise her legal duty as a parent and exercise what they call reasonable care in basically stopping her child from harming others. so kind of a two-pronged way that the jury can get at a guilty verdict, if they believe the prosecution indeed did their job in that way. we should also note the jury also had a question today as to why ethan crumbley didn't testify in this case, and the judge said that's because he said he would plead the fifth if called to the stand, so he was never called in his mom's trial, ali. >> that makes sense. lisa, this is what guys like me

would call a novel legal theory. is it novel because it's never been tried? never been succeeded? the concept of a parent being responsible for this type of thing, tell me a little about this. >> well, it's definitely novel in the sense that we haven't seen it tried in the past. you know, ali, we talk all the time about how intractable the problem of gun violence in this country largely because it intersects with lots of other phenomena including real mental health problems oftentimes on behalf of the shooter. one of the things that i think could be innovative about a verdict against jennifer crumbley is that it would really cause parents who supply their kids with guns to think twice about what their duties are and whether they can be held not only civilly criminally responsible as well for putting a gun in the hand of a child, and not just a child or a minor here but a minor that they knew to be having really pernicious mental health problems, even though jennifer crumbley testified that she didn't see those problems to be

of real clinical concern here. >> i guess the question for me is that messaging would be really important. this is not the first time we've seen parents involved in getting weapons for young people who commit shootings including at sandy hook. >> that's right. >> i guess the question is what's the distinction between important messaging for a societal problem and an actual crime? >> i think -- >> in this case the allegation is gross negligence. >> there are two allegations here. one is gross negligence about how the care was exercised for the gun and the ammunition. but the other legal theory, and maggie is right, the prosecution laid out two theories by which jennifer crumbley could be found guilty here. the second one is not about the gun and the ammunition. it's about her parental duty to him. that would encompass taking responsibility for his mental health and ensuring that as his parent she is also cognizant of whether he poses a danger to society. and there were certainly lots of

signs here. i think a verdict against her isn't just a message but it is supposed to, as many criminal laws are, deter other people from putting that gun in the hand of a minor, particularly where there are indissia of mental health problems. and here i want to review some of those indicia because even though crumbley texted his parents extensively about some of his problems, he referred to the ghost in their house, he talked about the demons he was seeing, he had hallucinations. now, jennifer crumbley took the stand in her own defense and said she didn't see that as indicia of mental health issues that were deserving of treatment. but you have to question why not? >> right. and even if you don't, what are the efforts you're going to go to -- a gun may not be the answer even if you don't think those are the things. thank you, my friend. thank you, lisa. thank you to maggie vespa for your reporting. of course maggie, we'll be staying with you as soon as you get information on developments in the trial. all right. up next, the royal cancer

diagnosis from buckingham palace has the world talking today. we'll give you that story next. okay everyone, our mission is to provide complete, balanced nutrition for strength and energy. yay - woo hoo! ensure, with 27 vitamins and minerals, nutrients for immune health. and ensure complete with 30 grams of protein. (♪♪) hey, you should try new robitussin honey medi-soothers for long-lasting cough and sore throat relief. try new robitussin lozenges with real medicine and find your voice. you know? we really need to work on your people skills. >> woman: why did we choose safelite? we were loading our suv when... crack! and find your voice. safelite came right to us, and we could see exactly when they'd arrive with a replacement we could trust. that's service the way we want it. >> singers: ♪ safelite repair, safelite replace. ♪

oooh! refill? help yourself man. dude? dog food in the fridge? it's not dog food. it's freshpet. real meat. real veggies. real weird. he was bad luck anyway. freshpet, it's not dog food. it's food - food. news out of buckingham palace today. king charles has been diagnosed with cancer. now, the palace didn't specify what form of cancer or the stage that it was found at. the news comes a week after both princess kate middleton and king charles were discharged from a private london clinic following

individual procedures. the king underwent a corrective procedure for an enlarged prostate while kate had an unspecified abdominal surgery. charles took the throne last may after his mother, britain's longest reigning monarch, queen elizabeth ii, died in september of 2022 at the age of 96. in a statement buckingham palace said "charles began treatment today and will postpone all future public engagements but will continue state business and official paperwork as usual." we wish him a complete and speedy recovery. up next, donald trump's last-ditch attempt at making the case that he should be on the ballot in colorado. that lawsuit in front of the supreme court this week. much more news right after this quick breck. one in five children worldwide are faced with the reality of living without food, no family dinners, no special treats,

not enough energy to play. all around the world, hunger is affecting children's physical and mental health. toddlers are suffering from acute malnutrition, which stunts their growth. kids are forced to drop out of school so they can help support their families. conflict, inflation and climate have ignited the worst famine in our lifetime, and we are fed up! fed up that hunger devours dreams. fed up, that hunger destroys joy. fed up with the fact that hunger eats childhood. help us feed the futures of children all over the world by visiting. getfedupnow.org. for as little as $10 a month, you can join save the children as we support children and families in desperate need of our help. now is the time to get fed up and give back. when you join the cause, your $10 monthly donation can help communities in need of lifesaving treatments and nutrients, prevent children from dropping out of school.

support our work with communities and governments to help children go from short term surviving to long term thriving. and now, thanks to special government grants, every dollar you give before december 31st can multiply up to ten times the impact. that means more food, water, medicine and help for kids around the world. you'll also receive a free tote bag to share your support for children in need. having your childhood eaten away by hunger is unimaginable. get fed up. call us now or visit getfedupnow.org, today. this ad? typical. politicians... "he's bad. i'm good." blah, blah. let's shake things up. with katie porter. porter refuses corporate pac money. and leads the fight to ban congressional stock trading. katie porter. taking on big banks to make housing more affordable. and drug company ceos to stop their price gouging. most politicians just fight each other. while katie porter fights for you.

for senate - democrat katie porter. i'm katie porter and i approve this message.

i was born a republican. my family was a republican. raised a republican. i'm one of those weird people. i read the constitution. quite often. if something comes up and i'm curious, i have one i keep next to where i sit and watch tv. also, i have one in my purse. >> a lot of constitutions. hi, everyone. it's ali velshi. it's 5:00 in new york. i'm in for nicolle wallace. that woman who you just heard from is 91-year-old norma anderson. she's a former fixture in the colorado state legislature and a woman who could possibly take down donald trump's 2024 candidacy. anderson is among the colorado voters who are challenging trump's eligibility to hold office again, saying that he disqualified himself by engaging in insurrection on and around

january the 6th. colorado's supreme court ruled in favor of anderson and the other plaintiffs back in december, but trump appealed that decision, and it will now be in front of the united states supreme court. this thursday arguments begin before the nation's highest court, whose ruling could have an impact on all 50 states, not just colorado. but as the "washington post" notes, the court may not provide a definitive ruling. quote, the justices, three of whom were nominated by trump, cementing a conservative majority, could rule in his favor without ever answering whether the attack was an insurrection or whether trump is an insurrectionist. the court could avoid those questions by determining that trump never took an oath that subjects him to the part of the constitution barring insurrectionists from office, finding that the presidency is not covered ruling that congress rather than the judiciary gets to decide who is barred from office.

however, to anderson the facts are clear. >> he proved the case. he committed insurrection. >> you trust this court to make the right decision? >> i've always trusted the courts before. i don't think the younger generation truly understand how close they are to losing their democracy. >> and that's what it comes down to, anderson says, protecting american democracy. she told the "post", quote, the very first time i ever ran i didn't win. i didn't go out and try to chait election. i said whoops, work harder next time, lady, end quote. just a few hours ago trump's team filed its last reply brief, a final word before arguments begin. the 30-page brief was filled with claims that he's already made such as the president is not an officer of the state, which is the terminology used in section 3 of the 14th amendment, and that january 6th was not an

insurrection so he couldn't have engaged in one. and that's where we start this hour with msnbc legal analyst lisa rubin and "new york times" editorial board member mara gay, both with me on set. plus msnbc columnist and contributor charlie sykes with us as well. charlie, you've got to come join the party one of these days. we're having a nice time here. lisa, let's start with you. the two questions at hand. the legal questions at hand. whether or not donald trump is an officer or whether or not he engaged in an insurrection. let's deal with the insurrection part. for better or for worse they're making the argument that no one has ever tried the fact that there is an insurrection. the colorado supreme court really did examine this in remarkable detail. they went through a lot of options and concluded that was an insurrection on january 6th. why doesn't that hold? >> well, it could hold. right? it is what we call a mixed question of law and fact. but the factual findings of a trial court are supposed to be given deference by an appellate

court, including the u.s. supreme court, unless they are clearly erroneous. donald trump's folks say because they are sort of enmeshed with constitutional interpretation this court should feel free to throw them out and revisit the whole thing entirely. folks like norma anderson, on the other hand, are saying no, no, no, a court has already found all these facts after a week-long trump, they found that trump -- that it was an insurrection and that trump engaged in it, which is also crucial to the language of section 3 of the 14th amendment. >> but the court's not struggling with the engaged in part. they're stlugling -- or what i think the court's going to struggle with is was it an insurrection. >> i think the court's going to try to avoid that entirely, ali, because i think there are a number of legal issues that are strictly legal interpretive issues and they also include did he take the necessary oath in section 3. it's an oath to support the constitution. trump's people say because the presidential oath is to protect and defend and preserve the

constitution he's not covered by section 3 of the 14th amendment. they say he's not an officer within the meaning of section 3 of the 14th amendment. and perhaps my favorite argument of theirs is because the 14th amendment refers to holding office that it is either premature or just not even a question right now at all -- >> about being on the ballot. >> correct. and they say that it's really a disability that congress can remove up to and including through 2029, so that if he is elected congress then has four more years during his -- what would be his second term to determine if he is prevented from holding office. >> which is a fine idea, except he's going to be dictator just for a day, he says, just to drill and build a wall. but i think we know that's not going to work. so if norma anderson and people like her, republicans in many cases, are worried about the upholding of democracy, that this case is about the upholding of democracy in america, we can't be assured that other institutions in america, i.e.

congress, will do their part. we've seen since january 6th of 2021 that they haven't. there's no indication they will now. >> well, i would just say that donald trump has clearly tested every american institution, every american tradition, every norm of democracy, and blown right past many of them. now, fortunately, others held. of course on january 6th, ultimately those votes were counted and joe biden was sworn in as president. so what we're seeing here is this is happening again. the irony for me is really that you have a president who appointed someone to the supreme court who is supposedly an originalist and so we have a situation now where you have to think about the intent of that amendment. i think if you go back to reconstruction i know that for most americans that seems really nerdy but actually it's quite relevant here. >> it's relevant because that's

where this amendment came out of. >> that's where this amendment came out of because actually the civil war was fought by people who betrayed the union. and so this amendment is an attempt to say we don't want this to happen again, we want to preserve not just the union but democracy from traitors and threats to it. and so the spirit of that amendment is obvious. you don't need to be a lawyer. i'm glad we have one here. but you don't need to be a lawyer to understand the intent of that. and to say that that is not relevant is also laughable because here we have a former president who is a clear and present threat to democracy in the united states. so i think it's -- the law, the legal case of it will play out. the supreme court is certainly, you know, a wild card. at the same time i think that this is a clear and shut case of a former president who's a clear and present danger. and so it's hard to understand as a layman how he doesn't fit the description of someone who

should be barred from that ballot. >> so charlie, when the court looks at these things, you know, non-lawyers like me sit there and say all right, there are originalists and textualists who say this is what the words mean and what was intended. and there are others who say the world changed, so in the context of what they really meant this is how it would apply today. i think mara makes a really important point. whether you read the words as they were meant -- as they were written or whether you fully understand the intent of the amendment because it was after the civil war, it was actually about that, you would come to the same conclusion. this isn't some weird thing that the people who wrote the amendment weren't thinking about. it's kind of exactly what they were thinking about. >> no, i agree completely, but what the court should do is not necessarily the same thing as what it will do. what are the justices thinking? they're thinking they do not want to be put in the middle of this. this is john roberts' worst nightmare. you want to be remembered as the

roberts court, this is exactly the kinds of things that supreme court justices don't really like to do. so even though the arguments that lisa laid out very, very clearly are i think as a layman completely ludicrous, the idea that it doesn't apply to the president of the united states or that it only applies to serving in office, these are laughable arguments. but these are the kinds of off-ramps that justices who do not want to be in the middle of this are likely to take. i agree with you. i think the language is clear. i think the application is clear. the court should apply the 14th amendment. i think it's highly lightningly they will because despite all the protestations about being originalists ultimately the court is a political body as well as a legal body and i just don't think they're going to do this. which means that ultimately the final guardrail is still going to be the american public in november. i don't know that they're going

to say this and anyone who expects the supreme court will save us from this is engaged in wish casting. >> let's say the supreme court does what some very smart lawyers are suggesting they will do, they'll punt on this one. are we worse off or better off than if this case had never been brought? >> i think we're still better off because i think these issues need to be aired out here. and you made a point in the last hour that i hope we don't gloss over. and i hope the justices keep it in mind. because as mara mentioned a few minutes ago donald trump has violated or challenged every single norm in our culture. and in the last couple of days we've seen some of his supporters like j.d. vance floating the idea that a president could ignore the rulings of the u.s. supreme court, invoking andrew jackson's alleged comment, justice marshall has made his ruling, now let him enforce it. so i think that again, we need to be at this moment of saying

where are theguardrails? do we have a president and a court that will ignore the constitution? might we have a president who would ignore not just the constitution, not just the law but also rulings of the u.s. supreme court? we are headed into really fraught and dangerous territory here. i don't think this will change the justices' mind. but they need to keep in mind that trump and his circle are already beginning to play with that kind of dangerous extra anti-constitutional rhetoric and logic. >> lisa, what -- look, i'm asking you to tell me about what the supreme court's going to do, which is anybody's guess. but let's say they don't take these two issues, they -- what's the way around that? what are our potential outcomes that they say not interested in any part of this, we cannot determine whether he's an insurrectionist, we cannot determine whether he's an officer of the government, what might they do to at least try and federal reserve their

credibility as the highest court in the land meant to interpret these types of issues? >> they could even, ali, go as far back as saying that the plaintiffs in this case were not injured by or would not be injured by donald trump's being on the ballot and therefore they don't have what lawyers call standing to bring the litigation. they could also say section 3 of the 14th amendment is not self-executing, meaning it's not within the pourt of a court to decide but there has to be some form of legislation with respect to a particular individual to disqualify them. i happen to think that the text of the amendment doesn't support that argument, but they could say that. that could be another potential off-ramp. i want to say i'm in full agreement with charlie how this movie ends. it's just none of us know how the second act is going to play out. >> and i guess, mara, the bigger question to norma's point the woman we heard from in the beginning, that this is about the preservation of democracy, that's the movie we're mostly interested in right now.

now v how does that one end? people on many levels in different places, in different venues have tried to say what you said, donald trump has attacked and tried to overrun so many of the institutions in this country. we are left with some more avenues including the election in november. but until everybody in this country is motivated enough to understand that democracy itself is on the line, and i worry that they're not, this could end very badly. >> it could end very badly. my hope is that it will be democracy that ends this threat to democracy, which is really just to say i actually think that we're in a moment where you need a majority of americans to with their votes choose democracy. and that would send the strongest message. more than any supreme court justice. more than just a single 91-year-old republican of conscience. more than liz cheney. i think the most important thing is for americans to vote with

their feet, go to the ballot box and say no, we reject trumpism and we support democracy. >> and yet how many times have we heard in the last few weeks with primaries, things like that, people who very validly are saying i have reasons why i'm not that interested in this election, i have reasons why i'm not that interested in joe biden, i don't think joe biden has done all the things that i would have wanted him to do? those are valid. but there's actually a bigger thing going on here. >> that's right. what you hit upon is very real. i've been out on the campaign trail in the past few weeks and i've been talking to voters and you hear that a lot. and it's really difficult because in one sense the democratic party doesn't actually have real democratic competition. so you have a lot of people who are democrats right now whose needs and concerns are not necessarily being addressed by the democratic party. so it's really frustrating and it's difficult but at the end of the day you have to be able to

see the difference between being disappointed or not having all of your needs addressed and fascism. so this is a very clear choice. and i think people need to understand that this is a decision that is really about democracy versus not having a democracy anymore. there is a big difference between joe biden and donald trump. so to say -- it's very easy to say oh, well, all politicians are corrupt, all politicians are the same. that's not the case. and i would just challenge people who may feel that way to go a little bit deeper and really ask what is at stake. >> right. that's the point. >> and remember what life was like in 2020 under donald trump. >> charlie, that's the point. the question here isn't what you like. the question isn't what you feel like and who you like and who you -- what was the stupid thing we used to say, you want to have a beer with this person as opposed to that person. the question here is the stakes. and the stakes are as high as they have been probably since the civil war.

>> no, i agree with that. and i think people have to decide at some point between now and november what is most important to them, what is their number one value? is it this policy or that policy? is it because the administration hasn't moved quickly enough in this particular initiative? or are they going to step back and say what i most value is that america stay america, that i most value that we do not continue to spin off in this trajectory toward authoritarianism, that there are certain standards of character -- look, part of the feeling that a lot of people are taking crazy pills, is we are talking about a man running for president, donald trump, who has been found liable for sexually assaulting a woman and then defaming them. i want people think to by thy about this. we've moved past can you shoot someone in the middle of fifth avenue to can you rape someone in the middle of fifth avenue and then lie about it and have one of the two major american

political parties say that is okay? that would be a disqualifying thing for any other position of trust in america. at any other level of politics. so i guess the american people are going to have to decide not just are they going to stand with democracy versus authoritarianism but are we going to change all of our standards to the point where we put somebody like that back in the office held by george washington and abraham lincoln? so a lot of this has to do with who we are as a people and what we really value the most. >> i'd like to bottle this conversation and let everybody hear it. i appreciate all of your wisdom. we really are grateful for it. lisa rubin, thank you as always for your expertise and for spending time with us. mara and charlie, stay with us a little bit. when we return, for decades republicans have clamored for tougher laws to protect our southern border. hey, guess what, they got that now with senators on both sides of the aisle hammering out a deal on immigration reform. but house leaders say the deal is dead because the disgraced ex-president would rather have an issue to run on than let joe biden be part of the solution.

we're going to get to the political gaslighting that's going on here in just a minute. plus our dear friend joy reid's stunning new biography on med he guerre and merrily evers, two giants of the civil rights movement whose work resonates today. later the growing number of threats facing the 2024 election. the department of homeland security now sounding the alarm about what could happen and what's being done about it. "deadline: white house" continues after a quick break. stay with us. continues after a quick break. stay with us liberty mutual customized my car insurance and i saved hundreds. that's great. i know, i've bee telling everyone. baby: liberty. oh! baby: liberty. how many people did you tell? only pay for what you need. jingle: ♪ liberty. liberty. liberty. ♪ baby: ♪ liberty. ♪ businesses go further with 5g solutions. that's why they choose t-mobile for business. pga of america and t-mobile are partnering on 5g-powered analytics to help improve player performance. t-mobile's network helps aaa stay connected nationwide... to get their members back on the road.

and las vegas grand prix chose t-mobile to help fuel operations for one of the world's largest racing events. now is the time to see what america's largest 5g network can do for your business. i have moderate to severe crohn's disease. now, there's skyrizi. ♪ things are looking up, i've got symptom relief. ♪ ♪ control of my crohn's means everything to me. ♪ ♪ control is everything to me. ♪ feel significant symptom relief at 4 weeks with skyrizi, including less abdominal pain and fewer bowel movements. skyrizi is the first il-23 inhibitor that can deliver remission and visibly improve damage of the intestinal lining. and the majority of people experienced long-lasting remission at one year. serious allergic reactions and an increased risk of infections or a lower ability to fight them may occur. tell your doctor if you have an infection or symptoms, had a vaccine or plan to. liver problems may occur in crohn's disease. ♪ now's the time to ask your gastroenterologist

how you can take control of your crohn's with skyrizi. ♪ ♪ control is everything to me. ♪ ♪ learn how abbvie could help you save. new projects means new project managers. you need to hire. i need indeed. indeed you do. when you sponsor a job, you immediately get your shortlist of quality candidates, whose resumes on indeed match your job criteria. visit indeed.com/hire and get started today. i think he's having a midlife crisis whose resumes on indeed match yoi'm not.riteria. you got us t-mobile home internet lite. after a week of streaming they knocked us down... ...to dial up speeds. like from the 90s. great times. all i can do say is that my life is pre-- i like watching the puddles gather rain. -hey, your mom and i procreated to that song. oh, ew! i think you've said enough. why don't we just switch to xfinity like everyone else? then you would know what year it was. i know what year it is.

speaker johnson wants to kill this bill in the senate because he knows there will be

enormous pressure on him to call up this bill for a vote in the house. we need legislation. republicans know we need legislation. and many of them are trying to stop this legislation because they know the president can't fix it on his own and they know that the border will still be chaotic without us passing a bill. >> we've got a lot of crazy in the last seven or eight years. this is definitely a contender for leader of the pack. that was senator chris murphy, one of the lead negotiators of the senate bipartisan border bill, on the partisan politics behind republican efforts to tank the bill that their own party insisted upon and helped write. yesterday the speaker of the house mike johnson called the bill worse than expected and said that it is, quote, dead on arrival in the house. now, that bill, if it is passed, would be the first significant action on immigration in a long time, an issue that republicans have been campaigning heavily on. far right members of the republican party, however, seem reluctant to give up their stump speech material about immigration being broken, the

border being broken, in an election year, exasperating all of us but especially, and this is interesting, the lead senate republican negotiator of the bill, senator james lankford. >> the key aspect of this, again, is are we as republicans going to have press conferences and complain the border's bad and then intentionally leave it open? are we going to just complain about things or are we going to actually address and change as many things as we can? if we have the shot -- >> lankford's pleas for sanity are unlikely to win out with this republican party. this morning donald trump pressuring republicans not to back the deal. quote, the ridiculous border bill is nothing more than a highly sophisticated trap for republicans, just in time for our most important ever election. don't fall for it, with lots of exclamations. joining our conversation is my great friend joy reid, the host of nbc's "the reid out." and the author of the new book medgar and myrlie. ed medgar evers and the love

story that waingd america. which we are going to talk about in just a bit. mara and charlie are also back. joy reid, lankford is not the center of the republican party. he's a very conservative guy. >> very. >> and he has for days been going on television saying that what mike johnson is doing is ludicrous. they insisted, they have stopped the funding to ukraine, they've done all sorts of things to say they want a bill, so for better or worse, and a lot of democrats are not happy about this -- >> yes. >> -- the biden administration and democrats sat there and said okay, we'll get you a bill. they got a bill. >> it is like saying hey, man, you're on fire. put me out, throw some water on me. i can't. it's going to make the wrong fireman look good. they've literally been screaming the country is on fire, we've got to solve -- >> it's the biggest issue. >> but then given the opportunity, not to pass a liberal bill, a bill -- >> it's not a liberal bill. >> it's literally the things that you and i, the three of us, we all have been covering republicans for a long time. they've been asking for this stuff since the obama

administration. they're now getting everything they want, nothing on daca, nothing that democrats want, nothing progressives would even stand for, but they're afraid if they pass the bill then donald trump won't have a stump speech for his election. it's insane. >> it's insane. charlie, part of the problem here is that -- in fact, there are progressives who are not happy with this. look, there hasn't been been enough done on immigration generally for a very long time. but donald trump, you'll recall, said he would like to be dictator for just one day, and what he will do on that one day is he will drill drill drill for several hours and then he will build a wall for the remaining several hours. they are literally getting meaningful movement in a direction that republicans wanted. help me understand what to do. help james lankford understand what's going on here because it's not me, it's conservative republicans who are even confused by this. >> that's the key point, is it is people like james lankford

who are saying look, this is the strongest bill we are ever going to get, this is virtually everything we said we wanted. you are never going to get an opportunity like this again, and donald trump said no, i don't want a solution, i want an issue. to joy's point, they don't want to put the fire out because they want to run on the fire. i mean, this really tests the limit of political cynicism. and i just think it's really important to understand that in the past the compromise was always okay, the republicans get border security and the democrats are going to get daca reform, they're going to get some kind of amnesty or some kind of pathway. in this bill the republicans get virtually everything they want. the democrats get very, very little. and donald trump is saying no, this is not good enough for me, i was elected president in 2016, he thinks in part because he wanted to build the wall. here you have the republicans, who have been saying for months as you point out in their stump speech that this is an imminent

existential threat, this is a threat to national security, your children are dying as a result of this. when they are handed on a platter what they have defined as the solution, they say no. i mean, i think sometimes i feel like i'm too cynical about politics. what is extraordinary about this is how transparent the cynicism is, how naked the cynicism is. and again, you're hearing this not from democrats but from very conservative republican senators like james lankford. >> in fact, mara, a lot of progressives are holding their nose at this. they're saying okay, i get it, i get if, something's got to happen here. a lot of democrats who are not progressives but understand that ukraine needs to be funded are saying okay, i get it, we've got to hold our nose here and see this done. part of the problem republicans have in this election cycle is they have -- many of them have said outward they've got no to run on. they're just stopping all sorts of things. they can hardly keep the speaker and they struggle to keep the house open. lankford's argument here, which

he's been having largely on fox news with mike johnson, is that you're finally going to get something that you can call a win while they control the house, while they don't control the senate but they've been able to get a bipartisan deal. it is not likely to get much better than this. >> right. but of course this is an entirely irrational action. if you realize that the animating force of the republican party, and by that i mean at this point both voters and some of the representatives that they have sent to washington, are actually not motivated by getting the work of government done. they're motivated to essentially destroy government. they're nihilists, they're cynics. they don't see a point. what they're doing is actually just wanting power and wanting to stay in power. and they're doing that by essentially denying joe biden a win in the white house. and that's exactly what joy pointed out. so this is really what they were sent to washington to do. they were sent to washington to set washington on fire.

not to run the government. now, of course, that doesn't mean that that's the majority of what americans want. so the practical application of that is even though it is not a bill that most democrats or most progressives would support, it is true that there are many americans who would like to see action on the border. it's also true that we actually need a lot more workers in the united states. so you're hurting the economy. you're hurting american communities. but these are not people who were sent to congress to deliver for americans. they were sent to, again, destroy government. >> joy, what does this portend? if the republicans in the house will not grab -- low-hanging fruit but they have a deal. donald trump has two issues. he wants oil and he wants immigration solved. >> and by the way, we're drilling more oil -- >> than anyone in the history of the world. not just anybody in the world right now. >> ever. >> so we've got the oil and they've got

border? what does this portend? because it's only february right now and we have a madhouse of an election. >> it is. literally, understand that democrats could put -- or republicans -- democrats and republicans in the senate could put together a bill that says we're going to build a 60-high-foot wall, somehow sink it into the rio grande. they could do literally everything donald trump has said on his social media. they would still say no because he wants to be able to say the border. we get that's what they're doing. what it could portend if you had a democratic party that was coherent in the way it communicated with america, there would be an ad on television in every swing state plus texas every day saying it's been x number of days since democrats and republicans came together in the senate to pass the strongest security bill at the border that we've ever seen, delineate what's in it and say this congressman won't pass it, that congressman won't pass it, that congressman won't pass it.

they might actually be harming their own re-elections. because if democrats, and i don't know if the democratic party is that coherent or cohesive in terms of being able to message. but if they were facing a democratic party that could do that, they would get buried. every single negative incident that happened at the border would be an ad. every single person that somehow broke away through immigration and committed a crime would be an ad. they're so lucky that they face a democratic party that is focused on governing and not messaging. >> this one's hard for me to get my head around. please stay here. i appreciate that. mara, thank you so much. charlie, as always, thank you for joining us. joy is sticking around because when we return we are going to talk about this, joy's brilliant new book. it's called "medgar & myrlie," about the civil rights icon medgar evers and his wife, who worked tirelessly to secure rights and freedoms for all black americans, arguably americans at large. a painful task that today is

just as important as ever. ver. ne and i saved hundreds. that's great. i know, i've bee telling everyone. baby: liberty. oh! baby: liberty. how many people did you tell? only pay for what you need. jingle: ♪ liberty. liberty. liberty. ♪ baby: ♪ liberty. ♪

growing up, my parents wanted me to become jingle: ♪ liberty. liberty. liberty. ♪ 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. all right. we are back with my friend and colleague joy reid, whose newest book comes out tomorrow. it's an important fresh look during this first week -- full week of black history month at the difficult and consequential civil rights work of medgar and myrlie evers that awakened america. their fight together in hostile and dangerous mississippi for equal rights, voting rights, desegregation and public accommodations and at the

university of mississippi until medgar was shot and killed in the carport of his home in 1963. you will all be familiar with some of these images. by an assassin with ties to the ku klux klan. his assassination in part fueled the march on washington later that year. but this book is not just the things you already know about medgar evers. this is also a love story about a wife who despite her fears tirelessly stood by her husband as he investigated the emmett till lynching and became the first naacp field secretary in mississippi and who for the last 60 years has continued to honor his legacy and to inspire. joy reid writes this about what myrlie told her, quote, i knew that if he continued to pursue civil rights justice and equality and certainly at that time that his life would be taken from him. and i could not imagine life without medgar. in those months when his young wife raised her doubts and fears medgar was encouraging but he was clear about his commitment to the movement. quote, you're stronger than you

think err, he told myrlie. you know what i'm in? i'm not going to leave it. and he said to him -- and i said to him, well, why not? i'm your wife. and he said to me, that's exactly why i'm not going to do it. because i'm fighting for you and my children and other parents and their children. i really had no answer for that because i knew how sincere he was. we're back with my friend joy reid, author of "medgar & myrlie: medgar evers and the love story that awakened america." what an amazing, amazing book, my friend. >> thank you. >> thank you for writing it. there's a lot of stuff in here to talk about but one of the things that's really pornths there's a through line here and that is myrlie evers. the families and the spouses of the people whose names we know, whose names we don't know as well, we don't know the spouses and we don't know the threat they lived with, the phone calls they picked up with the death threats, the things that happened to them and the discussions that happened between medgar and myrlie about

the dangerous they both knew he was in. they knew he was in mortal danger. >> absolutely. and the thing is i think we have this tendency to make icons of these civil rights leaders, these civil rights legends as if they weren't men, human beings who fell in love, had kids, got married, you know, medgar was the fun dad on the block. and he was the guy who was throwing the football with the kids on the block. in addition to doing what he was doing. so when he was assassinated it wasn't just an assassination of one man. it was an assassination of a family unit. it was an assassination of a block, of kids who were all traumatized from the top of the block to the bottom. one of the sweet kids, they called them, that lived down the street talked about the fact that when medgar -- when mr. medgar as they knew him was killed, it was literally like their entire childhoods died. and the idea that someone would kill a man in his own car park in front of his kids tells you the depravity that he was facing in mississippi and the courage that myrlie and medgar had to

have in order to live with that, in order essentially to make their neighbors live with that threat, right? and to still be willing to love him and support him and be his secretary and chief cook and bottle washer and sounding board and everything. it was not just him in the movement. it was them. >> i want to read from the book. on page 4 you write, "love had made myrlie put up with the fear and dread that came with being the wife of a civil rights leader, who was continually on the hit list of the mississippi kkk and hated by every racist in the state. love made her put up with the threatening phone calls and the terror her children endured as they learned to drop to the floor if they heard gunshots and to hide in the bathtub if the bad men came for their daddy. and love would make myrlie pick up off the bloody pavement where medgar lay dying -- pick herself up off the bloody pavement where medgar lay dying and turn her screams and rage into a determination to hunt the killer for decades until she got justice for her slain husband

and family." i think it will be news to some people that this fight continued. the evers' fight in the evers household continued for six decades. >> and what people have to grapple with -- and we're in this age where people are sort of trying to banish history. not even sort of. just banish history. is it was effectively legal to kill back black people in this country until the 1970s. throughout 1960s remember, even women weren't on the these juries. it was only white men. and white men were guaranteed a jury that would acquit them in what, ten minutes? for emmett till they said only the time it took to drink a glass of pop. and they knew that, and there was a sense of impunity about murder. and so the fact that byron de la beckwith murders medgar evers in front of his kids, he knew he would never be convicted. the only surprise for him is that it was a hung jury. that was surprising. the interesting thing about his '63 and '64 trials both of which were hung juries is they this had a couple college educated imports to mississippi on the juries which somewhat changed their makeup.

still no women, though. by the time myrlie evers was finally able to come up with enough, right? she had held on to the transcripts. jerry mitchell, who's a brilliant investigative reporter, had come up with new information that really implicated the state in protecting de la beckwith and helping him in his trial. by the time all of that was put together in 1994, the difference in mississippi is that there were blacks and women on that jury. and suddenly a mixed-race jury was able to convict him. a jury that had some women on it. it's like you really needed social progress to happen before you could actually have equal justice under law. >> i am -- it's an amazing book, and i thank you for writing it, my friend. and i'm going to see you two times today. this is a special occasion for us. we're very rarely in person and very rarely together at the same time on tv. so i'll see you later on on your show. >> see you soon. >> joy us in book is "medgar & myrlie: medgar evers and the love story that awakened america." it is out tomorrow, so you can

buy it. you don't want to miss it. when we return, new warnings about the 2024 election as the department of homeland security lays out the threats we're facing and what's being done to protect the democratic process. s

it's an unsettling reality that there exists a significant potential for political violence and civil unrest in the leadup to the 2024 election. consider november is going to be america's first time at the presidential polls since an armed mob stormed the nation's capitol at the behest of a

failed candidate. three years later following prosecutions, a big lie about election interference and threats of revenge, with that same disgraced candidate running for office again, can anyone make an honest case that the wounds have healed, to tensions have lifted in any meaningful way since then? the fact is the united states right now is sadly fertile ground for threats from voter manipulation to physical violence. and that is not conjecture. it's actual aanalysis from the department of homeland security. "threat actors intend on harming americans through the use of violence may become more aggressive as election day approaches and may seek to engage in or provoke violence at voting locations, government facilities, public meetings, ballot drop box locations or private sector vendor locations that support elections." joining our conversation, the former assistant director for counterintelligence at the fbi, frank figliuzzi. frank, talk to me about this kind of thing, this bullet in.

it's got serious language in it. does it mean that homeland security knows something? suspects something? thinks something's going to happen? >> i think that it's likely that they have more intelligence than we do about what's going on behind the scenes. but ali, we can discuss this as you just did based on open source information and what we know's already happened. you'll remember the mueller report, robert mueller, special counsel, indicted two dozen russians for trying to first engage in online propaganda, second, hacking into dnc e-mails, and much propaganda was in social media last election. we're going to see even more of that likely. we just can't keep up with that. the social media platforms are trying but they can't. and then the risk of violence against election workers, polling places, and then factor in the possibility of foreign

power involvement and even terrorist organizations. now we have iran on the radar screen. we should have hamas and hezbollah on the radar screen. and so we're likely to see both domestic and foreign attempts to mess with this election. >> frank, i want to -- a few things i want to concentrate on, but one, and we saw this in the rudy giuliani trial, we see it in the georgia indictments of donald trump. the attacks on election workers. the threats to election workers. we're seeing it in droves. election workers, some are volunteers, some are paid. nobody does it to get rich. they are literally people from across the political spectrum, some people with no particularly strong political positions on anyone, except for one, that they are standing up for democracy in this country. our election system is actually built on the idea that these people do this. and that is actual weakening because some of them feel threatened. they've faced actual threats. >> oh, indeed. and let me say this as someone who spent 25 years at fbi, doj.

not enough prosecution of these threat actors is happening. not enough. there are thousands of cases of threats. hundreds are actionable, deemed actionable by the department of justice and fbi. yet we're looking at maybe about a dozen prosecutions so far. and with regard to state, county and local prosecutions of threats against election workers, it's a goose egg as to what they're inclined to do there. so there are consequences happening, and when you add in swatting to intimidate people, when you add in artificial intelligence to tell people -- give people a fake news report that there's a polling place on fire, don't go there, yourthere your name is not on the register here or there, you are looking at a recipe for potential chaos throughout this campaign. >> so you're talking about swatting where somebody calls in on an address that somebody lives at and tells them there's

some violence going on. police show up with guns drawn sometimes and it could end up with a very bad situation. nikki haley was the subject of swatting the other day. today, news came out in the last hour that she has accepted secret service protection. she's asked for an accepted secret service protection after an increase in threats, dot dot dot. many of those threats are because of the opponents he's running against in her own party , her own party is undermining her and doing that sort of thing that trump does. this is not just a widespread problem. it's not just a donald trump problem. but donald trump is central to this. >> oh, indeed. this threat environment can be going through a lot of the rhetoric that seems to be instigating this. and yes, i'm unable by the way to get confirmation, and i'm not sure nbc has yet confirmed, please correct me on this stat, there is granted secret service protection, but rather that nikki haley has requested the secret service protection -- >> you are correct on that -- she's applied for and requested

it. we do not have word that it's been granted. >> exactly, and so, your viewers might be very interested in this process. really quickly, it's not a secret service entirely that makes this decision. they received the request at the secretary of homeland security level. he passes it to the senate sergeant of arms who convenes and advisory council for presidential protection. that's elected members of congress. and they make the call based on the threat and risk involved. so members of her own party will help make this decision as to whether she's the significant candidate, which is described by at least significant percent, polling at 15% which she may not be there yet. >> it's just kind of remarkable to watch exactly how this is unfolding. frank, thank you as always for being with us. thanks for your clarification. nikki haley, we do not have confirmation she's been granted this secret service protection. she's asked for this at this point. frank figliuzzi, thank you. a quick break, we'll be right back. ♪ ♪ ♪ break, we'll be right

back. ♪ ♪ ♪ pter vitamin's we have been busy too innovating, sourcing organic ingredients testing them and...fermenting. fermenting? yeah, like kombucha or yogurt and we formulate everything so, your body can really truly absorb the natural goodness that's what we do so you can do you new chapter. wellness well done children are the greatest joy and our best hope for a better future. friends, they are the future. but did you know that millions of kids right here in our own backyard are facing hunger every day without healthy food? it's harder to grow, to thrive, to feel their best. the impact when children don't have enough to eat is tremendous because when you're hungry and your basic needs aren't being met, you cannot learn. that's why i'm here now, asking you to join me in helping end child hunger in america.

this is a problem we know how to solve, and we can do it better by supporting no kid hungry for just $0.63 a day, only $19 a month. you can help provide healthy meals like a good breakfast in class to power kids through their days. breakfast in the classroom contributes to kids being more focused, which leads to higher grades. test scores, and simply just their well-being. ensuring all kids get a good breakfast and other nutritious food is a beautiful thing. it's a game changer and you can help make it happen. when you join me in supporting no kid hungry today, that food is not just food. it's energy, health, confidence, hope and even love. yes, love. so please call now or go online to helpnokidhungry.org, right now. give $19 a month, only $0.63 a day. and when you use your credit card,

you'll get this special team t-shirt to show that you're helping kids build a brighter future for themselves. thank you. families are struggling to make ends meet. these are hard times, but together we can help connect america's kids with meals. so please call now or go online to give. thank you. ♪everything i do that's for my health is an accomplishment.♪ ♪concerns of getting screened faded away♪ ♪to my astonishment.♪ ♪my doc gave me a script i got it done without a delay.♪ ♪i screened with cologuard and did it my way.♪ cologuard is a one-of-a-kind way to screen for colon cancer that's effective and non-invasive. it's for people 45 plus at average risk, not high risk. false positive and negative results may occur. ask your provider for cologuard. ♪i did it my way!♪

some sad news to tell you about before we go. bob back with, the former new york city firefighter who stood next to george w. bush at ground zero just days after september 11, has died. he became one of the many heroes of 9/11, a firefighter who had retired years earlier, but rushed back to service to help look for survivors in the rubble in the twin towers. the photo op with bush was entirely coincidence. beckwith had climbed the top of

a fire engine to get a look of where he thought the president might speak, only to be approached by the presidential aide, carl rove, and told that the ip was headed his way. rove asked beckwith beckwith drop the person up to where he stood, and then when bush got to the top of the truck, he put his arm around beckwith and told him to stay. in a statement, the former president bush said, quote, his courage represented the defiant resilient spirit of new yorkers and americans after 9/11. i was proud to have bob by my side at crime zero, and. quote beckwith was 91 years old. another break for us. we'll be right back. old. another break for us. we'll be right back. help make trading feel effortless. and its customizable scans with social sentiment help you find and unlock opportunities in the market. e*trade from morgan stanley. everyone say, “space pod.” cheese. [door creaks open] [ominous music] (♪♪)

[ding] meanwhile, at a vrbo... when other vacation rentals are just for likes, try one you'll actually like.

you can make money the hard way as a bullfighter when other vacation rentals or a human cannonball... or save money the easy way, with xfinity mobile. existing customers can get a free line of our most popular unlimited plan for a year! not only will you save hundreds but you'll also be joining millions who have connected to america's most reliable 5g network. sure is a lot safer than becoming a stuntman for money. get a free line of unlimited intro for a year when you buy one unlimited line. plus, get the new samsung galaxy s24 on us. thank you so