known to the individuals in that household. i have to add in this particular case what we're dealing with is a classic straw purchase. which is unlawful. what happened here is you had an at risk individual in the home who had talked about wanting to undertake a school shooting and the reaction of those parents was to, the evidence showed, the father go out and purchase a gun on behalf of the son. that is an illegal straw purchase. so there are multiple things that happened here which both violate the law and the norms of conduct i think we as parents, i'm a mom of two daughters, we should be expecting from other parents from all across this country. it's a victory for that standard of conduct, which is to protect our children. >> in 2024, it's only february

6th. i think i have that date right. there have been 4,001 gun deaths. 4,001 in the first month and few days. i want to put the pictures back up of the four people who died at the hand of ethan crumbley. madison, justin, just 17. what do we owe those 4,001 people this year? those four oxford students, and everyone who dies at the hands of gun violence? >> we live in a society where we can't control everything that happens outside of our household. we expect and demand a lot of each other every day to protect and keep our communities safe. one of the things that's most

important is to talk about it with each other and to insure if you have a firearm, safely store it. that means having the gun unloaded, locked and ammunition separate. that's one of the major things we can do. if all of us did that, we could change the trajectory of gun violence in this country. 76% of school shooters get their gun from a home. we would have families who have lost their children at school. let's think about that. whose children went to school and never came home. they would never have had to have experienced that if those of us who had firearms safely stored them and rethought the purchase of a firearm if or when we have someone at risk in our homes. it's very simple. very straightforward and we can save a ton of lives and stop any other family from having to

suffer the horror, and this is lifelong. this happened and it happened and it's covered in the news. for families devastated by this, they will never get over it. we owe them more than that. >> if i can ask you one more question because we were talking about this before. do you think that you've sensed in your work or maybe the decision by this jury suggests that more and more americans are moving in that direction? that they believe that we actually have to do something and are demanding in this case via a jury that something has to change? >> absolutely, 100%. that's correct. i think this verdict really reflects what we at brady have seen taking the temperature across this country. frankly for many years. the reality is that there's one house in the u.s. right now and it's the united states senate

that is in conflict or it's congress in conflict. the rest of america is not. the u.s. house of representatives is holding up a number of things including action around gun violence prevention. if every household in this country, american, whether they own guns or they don't, they are sec and tired of senseless gun violence and this verdict really reflects exactly that. >> chris brown from the brady campaign, i can't thank you enough. we really appreciate you taking the time to talk to us. i also want to bring in carol lam. tell me what you think as a former federal prosecutor of the significance of this decision by this jury. >> at the time these charges were brought or the time the events occurred, there was actually no gun storage law on the books in michigan. that's different now. but what the prosecution did

here is they charged two separate ways of finding involuntary manslaughter on the part of the parents and the husband here will be tried in a separate trial down to road. but what the jury had a choice of doing was they could see that there was actually, there's actually on the books in michigan and there was at the time these events occurred, there was a violation of law that existed where a parent is aware of circumstances in which their underage child could harm somebody else and if they did not exercise the reasonable control over that child and allowed somebody to get hurt, that could be an involuntary, that could result in involuntary manslaughter charge. the other possible route the jury can take was to find that gross negligence occurred. so the jury had its choice and they didn't have to all agree on

the theory, but they had to unanimously agree some sort of negligence or gross negligence in this way occurred so that's what happened here. the takeaway here is that there are circumstances under which a parent is going to be held responsible for the actions of a child. it doesn't necessarily have to be gun storage per se, but it can simply be that a parent has responsibility for the acts of their children when they were aware of that their child is going to endanger the health or the safety of another person. so this is an unusual situation. i think the appellate court in refusing to dismiss the charges, the appellate court said these are the facts of this case. i think the jury in this case said you know, we understand parents sometimes have difficulty with their children. they can't tell whether they're really depressed or just giving

their parents a hard time. everybody understands that. i think that's what the defense was counting on. that parents would relate to the situation where you're not quite sure how much control to try to exercise over your child. but i think what made the difference here is that the parents actually procured this weapon for their child and then when they saw, when they saw problematic drawings and writings that morning that their child did in class about how people had to die and a picture, a drawing of that gun, they did not say hey, where's that gun that we got for him? this could be a problem. so i think it is somewhat limited to the facts of this case, but these facts could be replicated a lot of times in the future. >> i want to bring in former assistant manhattan d.a. and msnbc legal analyst, catherine

christiansen. this was far from a slam dunk. this was gutsy, that we've never really seen at this level a case like this before. what's your reaction to it and what do you think the implications are going forward? i agree with carol. this is an exceptional case. this teen was clearly troubled. he talked about paranoia and hallucinations and his parents were aware of that. and despite that, they provided him with a handgun so this i don't think will open the flood gates for parents being responsible for violent acts of their children, but when you have facts like you have in this case, and i think also the fact the mother testified and so quickly the verdict came back against her means that the jury didn't find her credible. she basically said she didn't know her son had mental illness. so they either thought she was

lying or just was willfully blind to his incredibly troubling mental health issues and despite that, they, the jury found, and her husband will have a trial later or he'll plead guilty. he was given a gun. it was clear. and he also testified that you know, her son, i mean her husband was the one was responsible for the locking up the gun but also testified her husband wasn't someone she even trusted to do house work. so i think this was a very fact specific case. i think this was a mother who testified and the mother did not find her very credible when she said she didn't believe he had mental health issues. and i think it's, we don't have to worry about you know, the flood gates opening. i believe the defense summation, she sort of used herself about how she didn't respond to texts when her own children text her. but she probably would respond if she knew her children had

mental health issues or talked about being followed around the house by a demon or had pranoia and hallucinations. i think it's a good verdict because it's based factually and they'll have a right to ppeal but i don't think it's going to open the flood gates. it should open the flood gates to parents who are exactly these like parents who ignore these symptoms then nevertheless give basically a loaded firearm to their mentally ill child. >> so lisa, catherine touched on this. there is still another case. another set of four involuntary manslaughter charges against ethan crumbley's father, james crumbley. what are you watching for in that? should we assume because there was a guilty verdict in this case there's a slam dunk in that one? >> no because while both parents were privy to certain communications with their son,

there were others that were with one parent alone. you also as catherine noted, the father was responsible for the care and locking up of the gun. that could be a factor that doesn't weigh in his favor. on the other hand, there was evidence in this trial that jennifer crumbley was asking an affair. and because of that, her attention was diverted and therefore, she wasn't paying attention to what was going on with ethan because she was too busy arranging visits. our colleague has said essentially she was being put on trial for being a bad person. not just a bad parent. how that cuts in her husband's trial will be interesting because those factors will not be there for the jury. on the other hand, again, he was the one, she said, was responsible for the gun and whether she testifies at his trial is something that remains to be seen. >> all of our guest, thank you so much for covering this

breaking news. once again, guilty on all counts in the case of jennifer crumbley. we will wait to see what the sentencing is. there's also on a day of a lot of breaking news, a key vote happening now on capitol hill so we'll go there next. you're watching chris jansing reporting only on msnbc. g chris reporting only on msnbc. (ella) fashion moves fast. setting trends is our business. we need to scale with customer demand... in real time. (jen) so we partner with verizon. their solution for us? a private 5g network. (ella) we now get more control of production, efficiencies, and greater agility. (marquis) with a custom private 5g network. our customers get what they want, when they want it. (jen) now we're even smarter and ready for what's next. (vo) achieve enterprise intelligence. it's your vision, it's your verizon. covid-19? i'm not waiting. if it's covid, paxlovid. paxlovid is an oral treatment for adults with mild-to-moderate covid-19 and a high-risk factor for it becoming severe. it does not prevent covid-19.

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

♪ (upbeat music) ♪ ( ♪♪ ) constant contact's advanced automation lets you send the right message at the right time, every time. ( ♪♪ ) constant contact. helping the small stand tall.

we have more breaking news this time from capitol hill.

right now, the house has just finished its vote and they have passed a procedural vote to advance articles of impeachment against homeland security mayorkas. give us the latest. >> the gavel just dropped on this a few minutes ago. 216-209. the vote moved forward. that means articles of impeachment will tee up a few hours of debate and there will be a final vote later this afternoon on the floor of the house as to whether to impeach. now, a few thing to watch here. there were six absences in this vote. three democrats and three republicans. that leaves the gop with a slender two-vote margin on the final count. they can only afford to lose two members in the no column or this effort will fail. so far, we already know of two house republicans who have

firmly come out and said they oppose impeachment. that's ken buck, tom mcclintock. mike gallagher, dave joyce. these are republicans who have told our team they have not made up their minds. if impeached, he will be just the second cabinet secretary to be impeached in almost 150 years. it's been driven largely by marjorie taylor greene. republicans have argued that he is refusing to enforce the laws on immigration and ignoring the law, that's why he should be impeached and republican opponents say this is an appropriate use of impeachment power. they argue the house is trying to impeach a cabinet secretary over an agreement president biden. this is going to be an extremely close outcome. finally, if this does succeed, it would go to the senate and

there's an interesting dynamic here because democrats seem to have no appetite for this. they control 51 votes in the senate and if they stick together, they can dismiss this without having a trial. senator manchin, probably the most conservative democrat spoke to us a few hours ago. he said he is not interested in a trial. he called it ridiculous. so that gives you a sense of the lack of appetite in the senate for a trial if this succeeds. >> thank you for that. let me bring in maryland democratic congressman, jamie raskin. what's your reaction to the developments surrounding the impeachment? >> well, it's almost a comedy. you know, in order to impeach a president or a cabinet official or judge, you need to show there's a high crime and misdemeanor and they've not shown that in in way. mayorkas has been doing a very competent and excellent job

under trying circumstances, but even if they think he's not doing a great job, you can't impeach someone over mere mall administration or the fact that you have policy administration. i think it's a distraction from the fact they don't have the votes to impeach joe biden because there are more than a dozen republicans in biden majority districts who do not want to go anywhere year that. the whole biden impeachment inquiry has been a complete flop and embarrassment so they're trying to feed the monster that donald trump and marjorie taylor greene have created. >> it's simultaneous to what looks like the end of hope for the border bill. just last hour, the president at the white house tried to make an argument that essentially this is what republicans have been saying they wanted. this is what the american people want. the democrats want. which is a more secure border.

he talked about new border agents, money to stop fentanyl, new judges. but is essentially a political argument because this is indeed dead? do you see any chance there's a border bill that's going to get passed? >> well, there ought to be. after all, the republicans have been demanding for months that there be a border compromise and they've gotten most of what they've wanted here. and so they're just not taking yes for an answer. we know why. donald trump has told them that he needs an issue to run on now that abortion has been taken away because the country rejects their extremist antiabortion policies so they want to run on immigration instead. but they won't take yes for an answer. on the policy, they would rather impeach the guy who's up there negotiating the deal with the senators. so again, it's just an embarrassment to congress and

the republicans need to be swiftly and categorically reputeuated for the do nothing policies and the distractions and the evasions of all of their work here. >> just so i'm clear, it sounds like you're acknowledging this is dead for all intents and purposes. >> well, i don't know. it interacts with the other thing that's gong on, which was them playing games and their sinister political ploy of stripping aid to israel away from aid to ukraine and aid to for humanitarian assistance to gaza. the president had advanced a complete package and had agreed to include the border measures as part of it and in a desperate effort to just sink the whole package, they've now separated out israel, but of course president biden has said he will veto that sinister political maneuver and i think the democrats will be standing with president biden.

at that point, i think maybe cooler heads will prevail and we will be able to sit down and start over again and get back to the original package that president biden had advanced to aid our besieged democratic allies and to promote allies and humanitarian assistance all over the world. >> i mentioned in your introduction in a past life on your resume it includes law professor. so let me ask you about yet another breaking news story today, which is the federal appeals court rejected donald trump's immunity claims. what's your reaction to that and do you believe do you believe the supreme court will take it up or leave it alone? >> it is a magnificent ruling. i would recommend it to anybody who wants an essential primer into the basic principles of the american constitution. in our government is a three-judge opinion. one appointed by a republican. but all of them agree that this would be a striking paradox to

say that the officer in the u.s. government in charge of taking care that the laws are faithfully executed, the president of the united states was somehow immune from the law and could engage in crimes with immunity and impunity and they demonstrated how this is the absolute antithesis of the rule of law which says the constitution and federal law are supreme over all of us and everyone is bound by it. just like a judge cannot be bribed and immune from prosecution or a juror cannot be, a president cannot be bribed or engage in other crimes including murder, conspiracy, insurrection, and so on. it's hard to imagine a more thorough reputeuation of the arguments advanced by donald trump's lawyers and i just hope this moves quickly enough so we can get the trial started.

it was a real hail mary. it has failed miserably. he's going to hear from other levels of the judiciary if he continues to try to run out the clock. >> right now, donald trump is telling the american people this decision is the opposite of what you're saying. he says it's an existential threat to the country. i want to read what he posted. a nation destroying ruling like this cannot be allowed to stand. if not overturned as it should be, this decision would terribly injure not only the presidency, but the life, breath, and success of our country. for people who are hearing that who are reading that, what would you like to say? >> one of the nice things about the opinion is when the unanimous court points out that he's the first president in american history to face a criminal indictment. and not one indictment, of course, but four criminal indictments with 91 different charges. so he has all of this hysterical rhetoric about oh, my god, they're going to be prosecuting all of the presidents.

this has never happened to anybody before. i think whether you're the biggest donald trump lover in the world or you stay up all night worrying about what he's doing to our democratic republic, you will agree he's in a class by himself and everything that he's been presenting to us is utterly unique. so the court doesn't worry about that. they say we must stand by the rule of law and constitution and not allow any would be dictator or autocrat override everything the american people have built over the general jagss. >> what do you think that some time in the near future one of the trials against donald trump begins? >> i think excellent. obviously there's a terrific prosecutor in jack smith who's on the case. we have a judge who is a public defender who's been very attentive to donald trump's rights as a criminal defendant himself and is eager to see this case is heard and there's only one person who's trying to drag

this down in endless delays and postponements and that of course is donald trump. but i think that our judicial system has been responding effectively and will continue to and we're going to get answers as to the violence that was unleashed the american constitution, against the vice president, against the congress on january 6th, 2021. our constitution does not support insurrection. it rejects it in at least half a dozen places. >> thank you so much. appreciate you taking the time to talk to us. and after the break, much more on that huge ruling we were just talking to congressman raskin about. how past presidential history inspired an appeals court to deny trump's immunity request. deny trump's immunity requt.es (ella) fashion moves fast. setting trends is our business. we need to scale with customer demand... in real time. (jen) so we partner with verizon. their solution for us? a private 5g network.

(ella) we now get more control of production, efficiencies, and greater agility. (marquis) with a custom private 5g network. our customers get what they want, when they want it. (jen) now we're even smarter and ready for what's next. (vo) achieve enterprise intelligence. it's your vision, it's your verizon. there's nothing better than a subway series footlong. except when you add a new footlong sidekick. like the boss with the new footlong cookie. this might be my favorite sidekick ever. what? every epic footlong deserves the perfect sidekick.

before my doctor and i chose breztri for my copd, i had bad days, (cough, cough) flare-ups that could permanently damage my lungs. with breztri, things changed for me. breztri gave me better breathing. starting within 5 minutes, i noticed my lung function improved. it helped improve my symptoms, and breztri was even proven to reduce flare-ups, including those that could send me to the hospital. so now i look forward to more good days. breztri won't replace a rescue inhaler for sudden breathing problems. it is not for asthma. tell your doctor if you have a heart condition or high blood pressure before taking it. don't take breztri more than prescribed. breztri may increase your risk of thrush, pneumonia, and osteoporosis.

call your doctor if worsened breathing, chest pain, mouth or tongue swelling, problems urinating, vision changes, or eye pain occur. can't afford your medication? astrazeneca may be able to help. ask your doctor about breztri. 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. the ruling from the appeals court that denied donald trump's

claim of immunity. i want to bring in ryan riley. it is a blistering decision. highly detailed. it tears down trump's arguments about executive power. tell us more about it. >> it's really quite a remarkable document. in one quote, they said it would be a striking paradox if the president who alone is vested with the constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed were the sole officer capable of defying those laws with immunity. we cannot accept former president trump's claims that a president has unbounded authority to commit crimes that would neutralize the most fundamental check on executive power. the implication of election results. quite a strong statement from the court there, but ultimately, there's a little bit of a win here. it's what representative raskin was sort of referring to. which was this was all about the clock ultimately. donald trump was able to kill two months on the clock here. they had been on pause since

december. the trial was originally supposed to start in march but now at minimum, we're going to have a two-month delay. the soonest you could expect the trial would be in may and quickly then given the prosecution, jack smith's office said their presentation is going to be four to six weeks. given this trial could last up to three months as nbc reported, that could bleed into the rnc, which is set to go forth in mid july. so really we're coming up against the clock here and every day really matters and president trump has a very busy legal calendar. >> and as we have been reporting, very expensive. thank you for that. you might remember back in december that president biden actually weighed in on the idea of presidential immunity. >> mr. president -- >> mr. president -

>> well, the judge has mentioned some previous presidential stories. they pointed to president ford issued a full pardon to former president nixon which both former presidents evidently believed was necessary to avoid nixon's post resignation indictment. and president bill clinton agreed to have a five-year suspension of his law license and $25,000 fine in exchange for robert ray's agreement not to file criminal charges against him. joining us now, paul butler. welcome back. do both of those cases, both involving presidents subject there is no question about whether a president is free to commit crimes and if so, what are the chances the supreme court would see it that way? >> absolutely, chris. the only reason that ford needed

to pardon nixon because if ford didn't do that, nixon could have been prosecuted. no one responsible has ever suggested before president trump that a former president couldn't be prosecuted for a crime but there isn't any precedent won from the supreme court. so for this opinion from the d.c. court of appeals, first shutout to judge chutkan who wrote the first opinion on this case that trump was appealing. basically, this is 57 pages from the d.c. court of appeals saying what judge chutkan said. it's 57 page of saying no person is above the law. remember judge chutkan's famous phrase. in this country, we have presidents, not kings. so chris, the decision is so

meticulous. it rejects every argument that the former president made. it's designed not only to withstand supreme court review, but also to persuade the court not to take the case at all. because trump's immunity argument is not supported by law. i think that the supreme court might want to weigh in because this is an issue of first impression and also because the d.c. circuit opinion wouldn't be binding on federal courts outside of d.c. >> i just want to tell folks who are watching that and you see that qr code in the bottom of your screen. that is the full text. just for whatever it's worth as a nonlawyer, i read it. i thought it was fascinating. it's something worth looking at and it really does, jamie raskin just said this, it really gives you the sweep of what these three judges, including one appointed by bush, were

thinking. one thing that stood out to me, the judge pointed to his own -- writing his counsel argued that instead of post presidency impeachment, the appropriate vehicle for quote -- is the article iii courts as we have an investigative process to which no former office holder is immune. that was his lawyer making that argument. now, mitch mcconnell, other republicans used the same argument to vote against impeachment. let's leave it to the courts but how strongly do you think that supports the ruling? >> you know, again, it's brilliant craftsmanship. not one judge has her name to this decision. it means all three judges agree on the logic.

important to remember that two of those judges were appointed by democratic presidents. one appointed by a republican president as are most of the justices or supreme court. but they weren't buying trump's arguments more than judge chutkan did. so this is kind of an easy case for the supreme court as well as it was for the d.c. court of appeal. >> thank you so much for that. quick programming note. be sure to tune into msnbc's special coverage this thursday for arguments over trump's colorado ballot case. that's the one, can he be on the ballot, can they keep him off? we'll bring you the court's live audio in full at 10:00 a.m. then rachel maddow and team will break it down that night at 8:00 p.m. eastern. much more on our breaking news.

republicans go forward with impeaching the dhs secretary, but do they have the votes to get it done? tarery, but do they have the votes to get it done? taking antacid after antacid all day long but with prilosec otc just one pill a day blocks heartburn for a full 24 hours. for one and done heartburn relief, prilosec otc. one pill a day, 24 hours, zero heartburn. i know what it's like to perform through pain. if you're like me, one of the millions suffering from pain caused by migraine, nurtec odt may help. it's the only medication that can treat a migraine when it strikes and prevent migraine attacks. treat and prevent, all in one. don't take if allergic to nurtec. allergic reactions can occur, even days after using. most common side effects were nausea, indigestion, and stomach pain. relief is possible. talk to a doctor about nurtec odt.

she found it. the feeling of finding the psoriasis treatment she's been looking for. she found sotyktu, a once—daily pill for moderate—to—severe plaque psoriasis... for the chance at clear or almost clear skin. it's like the feeling of finding that outfit psoriasis tried to hide from you. or finding your swimsuit is ready for primetime. ♪♪ dad! once—daily sotyktu was proven better, getting more people clearer skin than the leading pill. don't take if you're allergic to sotyktu; serious reactions can occur. sotyktu can lower your ability to fight infections including tb. serious infections, cancers including lymphoma, muscle problems, and changes in certain labs have occurred. tell your doctor if you have an infection,

liver or kidney problems, high triglycerides, or had a vaccine or plan to. sotyktu is a tyk2 inhibitor. tyk2 is part of the jak family. it's not known if sotyktu has the same risks as jak inhibitors. find what plaque psoriasis has been hiding. there's only one sotyktu, so ask for it by name. so clearly you. sotyktu.

after months or negotiations and ayeemt that the border is in need of repair, a bipartisan bill to do that is all but dead. its fate seemingly sealed after republicans abandoned the bill

in droves over the past 24 hours. their argument, that it doesn't go far enough or echoing donald trump, that it would be a political gift to democrats. but that's not how everyone sees it. "the wall street journal" writes this is the most restrictive migrant legislation in decades. a "washington post" editorial says republicans should take yes for an answer because they'll never get a deal this good again. even those who arguably know the system best, the union representing border agents, has come out in favor of the bill and yet it appears that's what the country is going to get. even the top gop negotiator, jim langford, now says he may vote no on advancing his own bill if it comes to a vote this week. >> the biggest issue that i have is obviously i've got a lot of members that have questions on it. it's not going to move and become law if we try to force this right now on it. so there's a difference between

opposing the bill and saying we can't rush this right now. >> so house republicans answer is to impeach hhs secretary mayorkas. joining me now, jim messina who served under president obama. jeff bennett is coanchor of the pbs news hour. jim, the white house is denouncing the gop impeachment push. they call it an unconstitutional act of political retribution that would do nothing to solve the challenges our nation faces in securing the border. you've been a senior white house staffer. take us into those rooms. give us a sense of what's going on behind the scenes to manage, stop the mayorkas impeachment. >> it's the right question. this hasn't happened at this kind of political level in over 100 years. a member of the president's cabinet being impeached for political reasons. it's unprecedented and they're just not going to allow this to

happen. so they're doing a full-court press. pushing members on the hill to start talking about it. getting groups to start talking about it and just calling it what it is. just pure politics. obviously, the republicans walking away from their own border bill helps this narrative. it shows how political they're being. and it helps mayorkas. it's also clear both sides have said he's never going to come up for trial in the senate. this is just purely partisan politics and the white house will make sure that latino voters in swing states like nevada, arizona, understand what the gop is doing to a member of their own community. >> jeff, are republicans taking a risk here by pursuing impeachment for the man in charge of securing the border while failing to move a bipartisan bill that would address that very security and that he has been very involved in pushing forward? >> it's a great point. it's a potential risk in large part because of what jim just

said, that this is likely not going to advance in the u.s. senate. there has, for years now, been this asymmetry in our politics where immigration has been an issue that animated republicans than it has democrats but that is changing in the election cycle and certainly changing around the specific border bill. and the first test of this will be next week. there's a special election to replace george santos on long and the democrat who's running in that race is talking a lot about immigration. of course, we reported on the ways in which new york is grappling with the migrant crisis there, but the democrat in that race sounds a lot like president biden these days where he's talking about the need for border security, saying that you know, there's a need to shutdown the border right now and this bill would give him the authority to do that. really, it's turning this around and flipping it back on republicans. we heard from president biden in his remarks today that if the border bill didn't advance, he said between now and november what you're going to hear is the

reason that the border isn't secure not because of failure with democrats. it's because the republicans are acting at the behest of donald trump and have decided that the problem of immigration, there's more political utility in that, than actually solving the problem. >> so we have a debate going on now on the floor. jim, if you were managing the biden campaign, was that the right message today? but also, i just wonder. it's only february. by november, will the collapse, assuming it does collapse of the border bill even matter? >> i think it will, chris, because i think to geoff's great point, this is an issue for voters. for swing voters. they want to understand what the deal is here and the white house has got to continue to message this. they have to get caught trying to get these things done and once we get into the fall and into debate season, there's going to be a very clear difference between the two parties. mitch mcconnell said himself the

republican nominee, donald trump, doesn't want us to pass this bill. he's going to have to answer why. >> yeah. in fact, we just heard chris murphy talk about this and i wonder if this is essentially what we're going to hear from democrats and the president going forward. he said a group of us spent four months working every day through holiday weekends to satisfy the demands that republicans made. we followed republican instructions on bipartisan border deal within 24 hours of revealing that agreement, they abandon the bipartisan border bill and ukraine funding for one reason. because donald trump asked them to. now, i know you know this, jim messina. that's been denied by people like the speaker of the house, but do you think the american people will buy that? >> i do. because i think the american people have seen this issue be played politically for, to your point, chris, over a decade. and they want something done. this is the closest we have had it. the not so liberal "wall street

journal" editorial board saying thises the best deal we've gotten in a very long time. those quotes are going to come back to haunt the republicans. and they're going to have to answer why they couldn't get something this easy and this bipartisan done. >> the u.s. chamber of commerce was mentioned today by the president himself. look, nobody thought that this was going to be a particularly productive congress. it's been the least productive house we've seen. but when you have chris murphy saying you know, we spent four months, we worked through holiday weekends. we thought we had an agreement and now they turned on us. does that basically say forget it until the next congress? >> we will see. i will say this though, chris. this is yet another marker that speaks to the ways in which our politics have dramatically changed in the trump era. in any other universe when you have "the wall street journal" editorial board, the chamber of commerce and the republican leader come out in support of a

bill that was basically fronted by the republican senator from oklahoma when all of that is tanked because donald trump says that it's not the right time and he would rather campaign against joe biden on the issue of immigration, that just says so much about where we are. about the ways in which the republican party has been remade in the totality of donald trump's image. >> gentlemen, thank you so much. well, it's an historic verdict. a mother found guilty of manslaughter in a mass shooting carried out by her son. what precedent could that set? i'll talk to a father who lost his daughter in the parkland school shooting, next. s daughted school shooting, next. ? i'm not waiting. if it's covid, paxlovid. paxlovid is an oral treatment for adults with mild-to-moderate covid-19 and a high-risk factor for it becoming severe. it does not prevent covid-19. my symptoms are mild now, but i'm not risking it. if it's covid, paxlovid. paxlovid must be taken within the first five days of symptoms, and helps stop the virus from multiplying in your body.

taking paxlovid with certain medicines can lead to serious or life-threatening side effects or affect how it or other medicines work, including hormonal birth control. it's critical to tell your doctor about all the medicines you take because certain tests or changes in their dosage may be needed. tell your doctor if you have kidney or liver problems, hiv-1, are or plan to become pregnant, or breastfeed. don't take paxlovid if you're allergic to nirmatrelvir, ritonavir, or any of its ingredients. serious side effects can include allergic reactions, some severe like anaphylaxis, and liver problems. these are not all the possible side effects so talk to your doctor. if it's covid, paxlovid. ask your doctor today.

have you ever thought of getting a walk-in tub for you or someone you love? now is a great time to take a look at getting a safe step walk-in tub. with safe step's standard heated seat and new fast fill faucet, you can enjoy a nice warm bath up to 20% faster! and the convenient touch pad control is right at your fingertips. each tub comes standard with a dual hydrotherapy system.

the ten water jets can help, increase mobility, relieve pain, boost energy, and improve sleep. while the microsoothe advanced air therapy system oxygenates and softens skin. safe step walk-in tubs are built to maximize safety. so you can stay in your home and enjoy the comforts of bathing again. so call now for more information and a free no obligation consultation. call now to receive our best offer of the year! a free shower package plus $1,600 off! with the purchase of your brand-new safe step walk-in tub. breaking news. we are now hearing from the parents of some of the victims of the oxford high school mass shooting now that the shooter's mother has been found guilty on all four counts of involuntary

manslaughter. this is the father of justin schilling who was killed when he was just 17 years old. >> he was an awesome individual. i think about him every day. he loved life and he deserved to live it. the cries have been heard and i feel this verdict is going to echo throughout every household in the country. >> joining me now is a parent who knows this kind of monumental loss all too well. fred guttenberg is the father of jamie who was killed in the marjory stoneman douglas shooting. thanks for joining us. nothing can repair harm like this, but do you see this as some form of justice? >> absolutely.

it is time to hold those accountable. and i heard you had my friend chris brown from brady on earlier and she mentioned 76% of all shooters who are young and go on a shooting rampage get their guns from home. it is time to hold them accountable. this is preventable. it doesn't need to be this way. >> we just heard also, fred, from the jury foreperson, on how they came to a decision so let's play that. >> sure. >> it was very difficult. it wasn't an easy decision. lives hung in the balance and we took it seriously. the thing that really hammered it home is that she was the last adult with the gun. >> so what is the answer do you think? i mean, we heard as you said, i

spoke to chris brown but the chair of the newtown action said this verdict means that congress should pass ethan's law, which will carry gun storage regulations. >> yeah, and you spoke with my dear friend paul murray -- who i love dearly and ethan was killed playing in a friend's home where a gun was left unsecured. listen, when ethan and my daughter, jamie, were born, 20 years ago, we had about 200 million weapons in america. today, we're over 400 million and there are estimates that today, about 50% of all of those 400 million guns are unlocked. that means that over 200 million weapons just imagine if we start locking up our weapons. if we start protecting our kids by having adults lock the weapon

up. keep the ammunition separate. how many lives we can save immediately. we won't have any more ethan songs. maybe we can prevent these school shootings. this isn't complicated and you know what, it's time for congress to force it. >> there's also the question right of mental health and that was part of this trial. for jennifer crumbley, whether she should have known her son was struggling. it's part of what happened in the case of the shooter who killed your daughter. is there something that can and should change that we need to identify these folks before they get their hands on guns? >> listen, i spent thursday last week, the fbi facility in west virginia. their threat assessment center and also touring where they conduct the enhanced background checks on under 21. what i'll say is this. every country has mental health issues. what makes america different is

the easy access to weapons and numbers of adults who are irresponsible when it comes to locking them up. here's what needs to change. we need legislation to ensure people lock them up. we do need parents held accountable, but i will also tell you, the threat assessment the only as good as the information provided to the fbi. if you see something, say something. if you know someone is a risk to themselves or someone else, notify law enforcement. don't wait until after the fact to wonder could i have done something more. should do it. >> we have less than a minute left but i never want to say good-bye without reminding people what's at stake here. tell us about jamie. >> yeah. that's jamie standing over my shoulder. forever 14. will always be a beautiful dancer. competitive dancer and i hope she's dancing in heaven now.

jamie had a big, loud voice. she was the energy in every room that she ever went into and i just know that as jamie's dad, i -- i am jamie's voice. i will do this work to stop gun violence because parents should never learn what it feels like to be the dad that you had on just before me talking about his son or what it feels like to be me. this is not about being antigun. this is about being anti gun violence. let's do this together. >> and your work is a testament to your daughter. thank you so much. >> thank you. appreciate you. >> that does it for us this hour. our coverage continues with katy tur reports right now. good to be with you. there is no wiggle room. if you read through the 57 page court order, you won't find a