xfinity rewards presents: '1st and 10gs.' xfinity is giving away ten grand to a new lucky winner for every first and ten during the big game. enter daily through february 9th for a chance to win 10gs. with the ultimate speed, power, and reliability the xfinity 10g network is made for streaming live sports. because it's only live once. join xfinity rewards on the xfinity app or go to xfinity1stand10gs.com for your chance to win. good evening. breaking news from capitol hill just moments ago, the house failed to impeach secretary alejandro mayorkas by just two votes. it was an embarrassing loss for speaker mike johnson. we'll have much more on that dramatic moment later in the show. but we begin tonight with

citizen trump. the idea that an american president returns to being an ordinary citizen just like everyone else after they leave office is as fundamental to the concept of america as the bill of rights. we're a nation with no king. and therefore, even the president of the united states is just a citizen. no more, nor less. and as such, they are held to the same laws and provided with the same defenses that you and i get. that is what the three-judge panel on the d.c. circuit court of appeals unanimously ruled today in its crushing legal takedown that counter to trump's stated arguments, presidents do not have complete and absolute immunity from criminal prosecution. and thus, trump must face trial for his alleged attempts to overturn the 2020 election. in their ruling they reminded trump what the supreme court has already declared, quote, no man in this country is so high that he is above the law. no officer of the law may set that law at defiance with

impunity. all of the officers of the government from the highest to the lowest are creatures of the law and are bound to obey it. it is the only supreme power in our system of government and every man who by accepting office participates in its functions is only the more strongly bound to submit to that supremacy. and to observe the limitations which it imposes upon the exercise of the authority which it gives. to sum it up for you, donald, you are not untouchable. even if you did sit behind the resolute desk at one point. the judges added that to allow trump such onchecked powers would bring irreparable harm to our very system of government. they write, at bottom, former president trump's stance would collapse our system of separated powers by placing the president beyond the reach of all three

branches. presidential immunity against federal indictment would mean that as to the president the congress could not legislate, the executive could not prosecute, and the judiciary could not review. we cannot accept that the office of the presidency places its former occupants above the law for all time thereafter. now, remember, this is the first time that an appeals court has had to consider this question because never before in our country's history has a former president ever been indicted. let alone made the sweeping claims of immunity. and this decision will not only impact donald trump's federal election interference case but also the similar one out of georgia, where trump has also made the claim of presidential immunity. while this court has handed trump a significant defeat, he has been able to accomplish one of his ongoing goals, delay the trial for as long as possible. as it stands, the case has been on pause for nearly two months,

as he appealed the presidential immunity decision. trump's last-ditch effort is to grovel to the supreme court to take up the case, which they are not obligated to do. it would take at least four of the supreme court justices to agree to hear the case. if they choose to do so, the question is how soon would they act? as part of their ruling, the d.c. circuit court judges have given trump until monday to file his appeal to the supreme court or they will return the case back to d.c. judge tanya chutkan to resume preparations for a trial that could get under way within the next few month. joining me now is andrew weissmann, former fbi general counsel and former senior member of the mueller probe, and catherine christian, former manhattan assistant district attorney and msnbc legal analyst. thank you both for being here. this is the ruling, my friends. this is it. it gave me life today. but it probably shouldn't have taken this long, in my mind. it was brilliantly written. i'm going to start with you, andrew, because yesterday, even

the attorneys on the panel, maya wiley was here, we were talking about what our level of freak-out was that this was taking so long. was it worth the wait? >> the decision is great, but just remember where we were at the argument. at the oral argument, there wasn't anyone who was saying donald trump would win. one of the best ways of defeating the argument was when judge pan, one of the three judges, got the lawyer to say, could you just repeat what your argument is? your argument is the president can kill people. and can't be prosecuted. i mean, it was to say it was to refute it. now, this is a really bulletproof decision. it's just body blow after body blow. it's also beautifully written about upholding the constitution and what it means to be in america. and it is clearly written with an eye toward getting the supreme court to say no. so that there is no further delay. in fact, one of the things we

were talking about as we were coming on is a little note in there that says essentially your only recourse, donald trump, is the supreme court, because if you come back to us, we're not issuing the stay. this is going -- if you don't get the supreme court, it's going back to judge chutkan. so it's really clear that the d.c. circuit is fully behind this. as they should be. yes, we would all like it be sooner because this is a race against the clock in terms of accountability, but we are where we are. i think the next thing to look for is no question donald trump is going to seek a stay in the supreme court. and the real question that we will know very quickly is does he have four votes. >> that's where i come to you, catherine, because i can think of two. >> so could we. >> both of them take fabulous vacations. i don't know that i can think of four. as much as i don't have, you

know, there greatest reverence for some of the other members of the trump six, i can really only think of two that would have the audacity to refute this. can you think of four? >> i'll say no. we should not assume because brett kavanaugh and amy barrett were appointed by trump, they're going to say he's our master. we'll do what he wants. i don't think we should assume that, or judge roberts. >> i can't see roberts doing it, honestly. >> so the two, the unnamed two, yes. >> the vacation twins. >> yes. but the rest, no, i don't think it should be an assumption. reality is it is going to be the supreme court who will decide whether the case will be tried before the election. >> some of the arguments were so brilliant. i recommend honestly, i recommend you read it. it's really not that long. 57 pages but there's a lot of white space. what's brilliant about it is they take his arguments and break them. like one by one.

first, they say well, how can it be that gerald ford was pardoned if a former president can't be charged? i'm sorry, gerald ford pardoned nixon. he says, ford issued a full pardon to former president richard nixon which both former presidents evidently believed was necessary to avoid a post-presidency indictment. clinton agreed to a five-year suspension of his law license to not file charges against him. what they're saying is if there is total immunity, they said the founders knew how to write. the arguments, what did you make of -- it felt like they closed every door. >> i absolutely agree. they clearly are thinking about timing. they wanted to shut this down and to make it as hard as possible, i think, for the supreme court to take this. you know, it is normally, you might think the supreme court

wants to be the court that affirms this, to say you know what, we're going to take this because it's really important for the supreme court to say what is said here, not to reverse it, but so there's a supreme court decision on point. the problem with the supreme court doing that is by trying to say that's the principle, they will in effect be undermining that principle because if they take this, unless they can do it in lightning speed, they de facto will be giving him immunity because it will put the trial off really to beyond the election. and that's when the american public is entitled to that decision. people keep on forgetting, the american public has a right to a speedy trial, not just the government, not just the defense, but we sitting here have the right to a speedy trial, to know is the person running for office a felon, did he engage in insurrection? did he engage in what the judges said would be one of the most serious abuses of power that

exists? >> the insurrection part is really interesting. they make the argument, and they said he tried -- trump's counsel trying to say it's double jeopardy. but the impeachment charge was insurrection. >> and he's not charged with that by the special counsel. many people criticize jack smith. where is the insurrection charge? now it seems like he's brilliant. conspiracy, those are the charges. that is not what the house and the senate were looking at. >> and not only that, they said an impeachment doesn't have any criminal penalties. so therefore, you can't say it's double jeopardy because impeachment has no criminal penalties and they even took his own arguments and used them against him. they said hang on a second, man. when you were defending yourself against impeachment, you said don't impeach me. i can always be tried later. now you're saying but i can't be tried later. they try to have it both ways. to me, the absurdity of being able to argue that is proof of two americas.

i cannot imagine the ordinary defendants who are filling the d.c. jails because of donald trump, they listened to him, this circular argument is what's keeping him from being tried. i think it's outrageous that he can play this game with these ridiculous arguments. >> i think it's very biting that they refer to him as citizen trump. as you started off, i think they said that for a reason. you know, you're a former president. and you are just like anyone else. so i think it was very important they said it, also important it was unanimous, that all three were on the same page. >> and the judge that you talked about, andrew, that did the can the president use s.e.a.l. team 6 to assassinate his political enemies, she's brilliant. all three made amazing arguments. just listening to the oral arguments, she won the case. you can see they engaged his arguments. let me do a couple things. this is about unbound authority. this is 7 for my director. we cannot accept former

president trump's claim that a president has unbound authority to commit crimes that would neutralize the most fundamental check on power, the regulation and implementation of election results nor the contention thet the executive has carte blanche to violate the rights of individual citizens to vote and have their votes count. this is an affirmation of the right to vote. >> that's exactly what i was going to say. i play this game which is like there's so many wonderful quotable things. one of the thing, the points i wanted to make with that quote was, of course, the court defeated it, but just to be clear, former president trump made that argument. the person who is running to be in the presidency is somebody who is saying to a court that i should have unbound authority to commit crimes and the court is saying no, because you would neutralize the most fundamental check on power. it's not some abstract

proposition. it's not some lawyer saying it. this is somebody who we know has run for office. he's not saying i'm going to be a dictator for one day. he's said to the court, i want to have unbound authority to commit crimes, and the court is saying no. it's really worth remembering, taking this outside of the legal sphere, to the political sphere, that is who is running for office. somebody who the court is saying, this is somebody who wants to get rid of the separation of powers. and the court has had to address that and say that is not american. >> in a way, perhaps we should almost be grateful that we have been through this era, as horrible as it's been, because it's fascinating to me there's this great reverence for the founders and the way they wrote the constitution, but we're discovering all the holes. the emoluments cause is meaningless, clearly. donald trump violated it with no compunction and no penalties. so much of it is based on their notion that there would always

be men of good character in the white house. and he's violated every norm. and now we have had to have the courts actually say, you can't kill people as president. we're now going to have the supreme court have to tell us whether you can commit insurrection essentially not essentially, try a coup and then run for office again. like, we almost need to have that written down somewhere so i almost kind of look forward to hopefully the supreme court saying that. i'm just not sure they will. >> this decision was worth the wait because the 57 pages, as andrew said, as many people said, i can't imagine other than those two unnamed people, any supreme court justice saying oh, no, they're wrong. we needed this decision for them to take their time and do it right. and just give a professional smack down to donald trump and all of his legal arguments. >> okay, let's get stupid. matt gaetz, elise stefanik have introduced a resolution that trump didn't engage in

insurrection. >> we're here today to authoritatively express that president trump did not commit an insurrection. >> anyone that puts the word insurrectionist, calls president trump an insurrectionist, and calls any of us an insurrectionist, is a liar, and you do not deserve the power that you possess. shame on you. >> rogue far left democrat operatives are attempting to use this lie to illegally take president trump off the ballot. >> i first want to apologize to my viewers for forcing you and your ears to take that in, and i apologize to the world. america really is better than that. we have a lot of intelligent people in the world, in our country. does that have any -- does that do anything for members of congress who are -- i think we have a photo of andrew clyde helping to barricade the door on january 6th. i think we have elise stefanik on the floor, photos of them on january 6th. they themselves thought there was an insurrection then, apparently. does this resolution have any

force or any impact? no? >> none. >> i think they're doing it because the arguments are on february 8th this week before the supreme court on the 14th amendment issue. >> if they file an amicus brief, will the supreme court even read it? >> no. >> this is the fundamental problem. there will always in the world be people like donald trump. the real problem is the enablers, the clips we saw, the people, especially when they're knowingly doing that and they know better. that's what's so pernicious. the people who are sort of because of power and position and wealth, they're willing to say i'll do and say anything. and sort orof wonder how they go home and look at themselves in the mirror and who are their parents. >> i'm speaking -- i'm going to go, but i'm going to give you the last word on this. i'm hearing elise stefanik. i'm not sure the other two know

any better, but she was a normal politician who decided to sell her soul. >> she was a moderate new york republican at one time. >> they still exist somewhere. coming up, much more on today's momentous ruling deniding trump's claim of absolute immunity. plus, the failed impeachment vote. this is actually something, the failed impeachment vote against secretary mayorkas. when "the reidout" continues after this. you have to know how to count. if you're looking for a medicare supplement insurance plan that's smart now... i'm 65. and really smart later i'm 70-ish. consider an aarp medicare supplement insurance plan from unitedhealthcare. with this type of plan, you'll know upfront about how much your care costs. which makes planning your financial future easier. so call unitedhealthcare today to learn more about the only plans of their kind with the aarp name. and set yourself and your future self up with an aarp medicare supplement plan from unitedhealthcare.

if you have bladder leaks when you laugh or cough- like we did- there's a treatment that can help: bulkamid. and the relief can last for years. we're so glad we got bulkamid. visit findrealrelief.com to find a physician near you.

things have gotten better recently, but too many businesses like mine are still getting broken into. it's time our police officers have access to 21st century tools to prevent and solve more crimes. allow public safety cameras that other bay area police departments have to discourage crime, catch criminals, and increase prosecutions. prop e is a smart step our city can take right now to keep san francisco moving in the right direction. please join me in voting yes on prop e. i'm daniel lurie

pand i've spent my career fighting poverty, helping people right here in san francisco. i'm also a father raising two kids in the city. deeply concerned that city hall is allowing crime and lawlessness to spread. now we can do something about it by voting yes on prop e. a common sense solution that ensures we use community safety cameras to catch repeat offenders and hold them accountable. vote yes on e. is it possible to count on my internet like my customers count on me? it is with comcast business. keeping you up and running with 99.9% network reliability. and security that helps outsmart threats to your data. moaire dida twoo? your data, too. there's even round-the- clock customer support. so you can be there for your customers. hey billy, how you doin? with comcast business, reliability isn't just possible. thanks. it's happening. get started for $49.99 a month. plus, ask how to get up to a $1000 prepaid card with a qualifying internet package. don't wait, call and switch today!

as we are forced once more to imagine donald trump as the republican nominee, it feels like we're barreling into banana republic territory all over then. then there are the days that remind us we are indeed a democracy, and today is one of those days. a federal appeals court ruled trump has no immunity from prosecution. meaning man who seemingly acted like he was above the law was just told he is in fact now and he's indeed a citizen just like the rest of us. andrew weissmann is back with me, and joining us is tim o'brien, senior executive editor of bloomberg opinion and a biographer of donald trump. how is he going to react to that? >> i think he privately will melt down tons. publicly, he'll act out, according to the playbook, he's acted out all along. he's being unfairly persecuted, that it's a witch hunt, that

it's overreach, but he knows he's never confronted the legal -- >> can you, yeah. >> the only time he faced a federal prosecution prior to this, this morass he's in now, was when he and his father got investigated by the justice department. for housing discrimination in the early 1970s. it was a baby case and they basically made it go away with a plea agreement, and never again. and he thumbed his nose at regulators and he broke rules and ran around the borders of the law, but no one cared about him as much then either because he was a cartoon figure and a real estate developer. he now has two federal very serious federal cases on his doorstep. and he's got a very meaty state prosecution for voter fraud in georgia, and two cases in new york state. and he's just not prepared to deal with any of it. he's never attracted top legal talent to represent him.

he doesn't know how to conduct himself when evidence is being stacked up against him publicly. all he knows how to do is test the merits of the case in public. and that works against him in a situation like this. i think the only thing that saves him from this is the clock. and that's a very real problem. i think there's a real problem that this goes beyond the presidential election in november. if he wins, i don't think there's any doubt he's going to try to get both of the federal cases dismissed, of course. but he's also, you know, he doesn't have many skills. he's unsophisticated. and he's ignorant, but he's a profound survivor, and he survived a lot of things most people couldn't get past. and i think what he does to do that is he creates a reality bubble around himself. and he says, i'm a victim, i'm going to fight back. fight back with me. i think one of the dangers as this progresses, and if the wheels of justice continue to turn against him, i think he

will incite and incent people to come out into the street because he's going to feel cornered. this ruling today, i think it's devastating. it's not unprecedented in the sense of the courts telling him he's not above the rule of law. you know, i think the trump v. vance ruling where cy vance was trying to get his business reports and they said they're not entitled to get their hands on this. roberts invoked the same argument in the appellate court briefing in a different way, citing different precedent, but the conclusion at the end of his ruling is, no one is above the rule of law. including inpresident of the united states. he's heard that before. it's the stakes are getting higher and higher each time. >> we were talking about this on break, is that we were -- even neal katyal was in freak-out mode. if he's in freak-out mode, i am. >> i can't imagine him in freak-out mode. >> it's basically the same but he's saying i'm in freak-out

mode. the thing is that the delay was not on them. the fact that this case took so long, andrew, from a prosecutor, is actually an american scandal. >> i think there are a couple things. one, the normal legal timeframe is not really built for this process. in other words, there are sort of two different timeframes and donald trump is taking advantage of that. so part of a normal delay has to be just due process of law. a defendant is entitled to time to prepare to make motions, and that was part of what judge chutkan did when she had the case that began in august that she said, you know what, we can do this case in march. to your point, though, we're not talking about the appellate court. we can quibble over, okay, maybe they should are decided it two weeks ago, but that's nothing compared to the issue of what about the timeframe of the

department of justice seeing the january 6th insurrection and not really taking real action until frankly jack smith was put on the job. and got things moving. and so that is the timeframe that sort of led to the problem we're having where i remember saying we have a clock. everyone keep their eye on the clock. and that is what we're doing now. but today, you know, just where we are, it's a good day. yes, next week, we'll probably learn more because the supreme court, if it denies the petition and says i'm not taking it, it is green light to judge chutkan and -- >> that's like six weeks. how long is that case? >> six to eight weeks. it will happen. there will be a judgment. this is where i'm an institutionalist, whether it's a conviction or not. and that jury has to find each of these things beyond a reasonable doubt. that is the government's burden.

and the defense doesn't have to do anything. >> why he's citizen trump. can you ever imagine in all of the years of you covering donald trump that donald trump, an unremarkable businessman, who inherited $317 million and lost $900 million, got a job with nbc, a w2 from the same place i got a w2 from, terrible guy, terrible businessman who couldn't even make casinos work, could you imagine that guy, number one would be president of the united states, but also would be the guy whose name is going to be on the cases that determine whether section 3 of the 14th amendment of the constitution is enforceable? whether the emoluments clause is real, and whether a president has total immunity from criminal prosecution. could you imagine that being donald trump? >> you know, i always had this thought of the knee jerk response any time, can you imagine connected to donald trump, the answer is always yes because he will go to any lengths to do what any rodeo

clown might do. but of course not, in this case, did i think donald trump would be president? i didn't think he would be elected in 2016. i think the revolution about donald trump isn't so much about donald trump. it's about voter. it's about us, about the dynamics. if there's any virtue to the trump era, it's that he's ripped this band-aid off ideas we had about progress on racial equity, social equity, the rule of law. and he's forcing us now to actually stand up for these things. not to sort of ride along with the argument that a rising tide lifts all boats, that a strong economy led to a strong democracy, ultimately lands in the right place, because he's ripping apart the foundations of civil society and civil discourse. so no, i never imagined he could be president because i thought about the presidency as an office that attracted miscreeants from time to time or

egotists or flawed people, but wasn't a place that would house someone ultimately that had dictatorial aspirations and is flagrantly illicit day in and day out. now he's a historical figure. >> he's going into the history books in the worst way. thank god we still have enough institutions left standing that they can actually put the rule of law back on the table. andrew weissmann, tim o'brien, thank you both. i'm glad to be here with you here at the end of all things. you can google what that movie is. >> still ahead, if you thought the republican-led do-nothing congress was a joke before tonight's impeachment debacle, baby, just wait. speaker mike johnson just shouted hold my beer in front of the entire country. we'll be right back. when you have chronic kidney disease... ...there are places you'd like to be.

like here. and here. not so much here. farxiga reduces the risk of kidney failure which can lead to dialysis. ♪far-xi-ga♪ farxiga can cause serious side effects, including ketoacidosis that may be fatal, dehydration, urinary tract or genital yeast infections, and low blood sugar. a rare, life-threatening bacterial infection in the skin of the perineum could occur. stop taking farxiga and call your doctor right away if you have symptoms of this infection, an allergic reaction, or ketoacidosis. when you have chronic kidney disease, it's time to ask your doctor for farxiga. because there are places you want to be. if you can't afford your medication, astrazeneca may be able to help. ♪far-xi-ga♪

a perfect day for a family outing! shingles doesn't care. but shingrix protects. only shingrix is proven over 90% effective. shingrix is a vaccine used to prevent shingles in adults 50 years and older. shingrix does not protect everyone and is not for those with severe allergic reactions to its ingredients or to a previous dose. an increased risk of guillain-barré syndrome was observed after getting shingrix. fainting can also happen. the most common side effects are pain, redness, and swelling at the injection site, muscle pain, tiredness, headache, shivering, fever, and upset stomach. ask your doctor or pharmacist about shingrix today. 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. ♪

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. growing up, my parents wanted me to become a doctor or an engineer.

those are good careers! but i chose a different path. first, as mayor and then in the legislature. i enshrined abortion rights in our california constitution. in the face of trump, i strengthened hate crime laws and lowered the costs for the middle class. now i'm running to bring the fight to congress. you were always stubborn. and on that note, i'm evan low, and i approve this message. on this vote, the yeas are 214. and the nays are 216. the resolution is not adopted. >> stunning. wow, that was -- that was house speaker mike johnson just moments ago facing a truly stunning defeat. as a vote to impeach homeland security secretary alejandro mayorkas failed on the floor with four republicans joining all democrats to reject the

measure. it was a dramatic measure as the roll call ended in a 215-215 tie until a member of republican leadership changed his vote to no at the last second. that's a procedural move that will allow them to bring the issue up again when majority leader steve scalise returns from cancer treatment. the effort was part of a months-long performative stunt that frankly served no purpose other than to try to put on a show impeachment trial. what they so badly wanted to do to jooid but couldn't make it happen without witnesses or proof of any wrongdoing. actually, they didn't have that against mayorkas either. believe it or not, it is not the republicans' only failure of the day. as senate republicans made it clear they will kill the bipartisan border security bill that the party spent months demanding from the white house. it was a bill so conservative that the chamber of commerce, the border patrol union that endorsed donald trump in the last two elections and the editorial board of the rupert murdoch owned "wall street journal" urged republican

lawmakers to pass. president biden spoke about the refusal to even consider the bill and made it clear he will take their reluctance to the american people. >> if the bill fails i want to be absolutely clear about something. the american people are doing to know why it failed. i'll be taking this issue to the country. and the voters are going to know that it's not just at the moment, we're going to secure the border and fund these other programs, trump and the maga republicans said no. because they're afraid of donald trump. >> joining me now is democratic senator alex padilla of california. it is incredibly stunning. i was listening to ari melber on sirius xm on my way over to 30 rock and could not believe. i guess i can believe it because the republican party could barely elect a speaker. but as you watched this senator, this bill go down in flames on the floor, this is all they're talking about. they don't want to pass a border

bill. they want to impeach mayorkas. your thoughts on them failing to be able to get that vote through. >> yeah, joy, you can't make this stuff up. for those of us actually serious about the task at hand, you know, we keep asking not only when the republicans are going to get serious, but they have to make up their mind. on the one hand, they say we need a border deal and we're going to get secretary mayorkas in the room to help us negotiate policy and language, but with the other hand, they call for an impeachment, they can't even do that. and on the one hand, they're saying it's a crisis at the border. there's an urgent need to act, and there's definitely room for improvement there, but you know, once donald trump says no, no, wait until the november election, they all fall in line. this is not a way to govern, joy. we have real issues, and let me remind us why we're even here on the border conversation, because this is the price republicans

wanted to extract for funding to help ukraine. and their battle against putin's aggression and even through the negotiations, even with the work product, they put their tail between their legs and they're running away. >> i mean, i have seen sort of failed politics before. you have seen it before, you have seen, and look, speaker mike johnson is no nancy pelosi. she had the same majority, never missed a vote. she could count, and there's a majority whip whose job it is to count votes. the fact they actually went in not knowing whether they had the votes is stunning. it's like the speaker's job 101. let's talk about the actual bill itself. here's what's in it. it's $60 billion to assist ukraine, as you just mentioned, israel funding, $14 billion. it's $10 billion for humanitarian aid to civilians in ukraine and gaza. it's $4.83 billion for countries in the indo-pacific. the bill was negotiated by chris

murphy of connecticut, democrat, james lankford of oklahoma, very conservative republican, and democrat turned independent from arizona, kyrsten sinema. this is not even a bill you support, sir. the bill is pretty harsh, and it was, you know, not negotiated with folks like you in the room. what do you make of the fact it is a bill that is to the liking one would think of far right wpens and they're saying they don't want it? >> let me be clear. there's a lot that i would be supportive of in the overall package, not just the assistance to ukraine and the humanitarian aid which is critical, funding for taiwan for their strengthening their posture in the indo-pacific. that's all urgent, but not at the expense of bad border policy. i mean, what we had on the table, we had in this package was a retread of trump's failed policy when he shut down the border. remember for years we talked about title 42?

most people should understand and appreciate the number of people coming to the united states went up during title 42. so if it didn't work then, why do we think it's going to work now? we can go through other elements of what's in the bill that democrats should not be thrilled about, but there's also what's not in the bill. historically, democrats said look, enforcement alone isn't going to do the trick. you balance enforcement measures which are smarter and more thoughtful with legal pathways, relief for dreamers, relief for farm workers. relief for essential worker that sacrifice so much during the pandemic by having to be undocumented. that was want in this package. which is a big failure here. there's people who are counting on seeking asylum, and we need to fund that system more to reduce the back clogs. one of the criticisms is there's too many people who don't qualify for asylum but come in here to try to work.

they're looking for economic opportunity. last i checked there's employers across so many sectors of our economy looking for workers. we have record sustained low unemployment levels. so imagine broadening the categories, matching workers with employers who need workers. that's a more thoughtful way to approach it. >> and yet, i'm sorry, joe biden essentially said republicans, we'll leave all of that aside and we'll give you everything you want, and they still said no. it is remarkable. do you expect the senate to also back away from the bill? are senate republicans very quickly, are they also backing away from this bill? >> well, i think by the minute, there's another republican, another republican that says they're a no vote on the package that they themselves asked for, that they themselves negotiated and shook hands on. we'll find out tomorrow if we'll take the next procedural step of taking up the package. if it falls short, which i think

at this point is the expectation, the urgency doesn't go away. the need for assistance for ukraine, funding for middle east, humanitarian aid, taiwan, indo-pacific, and to address the border. clearly, it needs not just modernized immigration law, but to secure the border, more orderly, more humane, not returning to the failed policy of the trump administration. >> we will see what happens, senator alex padilla, thank you very much. we'll see what happens. when we come back, i'll be joined by michael beschloss to talk about how today's events fit into american history. stay right there. believes in continuous improvement... like rounded corners that resist peeling, with an array of active ingredients... and sizes to relieve your pain. salonpas. it's good medicine. ♪ parodontax ♪ blood when brushing could be the start of a domino effect of gum disease. all of these signs could lead to worse. parodontax is clinically proven

to reverse the signs of early gum disease. parodontax, the gum experts. rsv can seriously impact breathing, even for the best performer. protect yourself with pfizer's abrysvo... ...a vaccine to prevent lower respiratory disease from rsv in people 60 years and older. it's not for everyone and may not protect all who receive it. don't get abrysvo if you've had an allergic reaction to its ingredients. a weakened immune system may decrease your response. most common side effects are tiredness, headache, injection-site pain and muscle pain. ask your pharmacist or doctor about abrysvo today.

♪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!♪

it is a truly important day in american history with an appeals court ruling that donald trump indicted four times with 91 charges does not have absolute immunity in his election interference case. meanwhile, in an embarrassing really truly humiliating attempt to play politics, house republicans failed to impeach homeland security secretary alejandro mayorkas, a move so ridiculous he would have been only the second cabinet member to ever be impeached. joining me now is the best person to process this day, historian michael beschloss. i'm going to let you start in either place you want to go because these are two equally bizarre and different odd things that happened today. which one would you like to start with, my friend? >> i would like to start with

another, my friend. that is just as a point of guest privilege, there's another historical event today. that's the publication of your astounding and brilliant and essential new book, medgar and myrlie, which is the love story that changed america. everyone watching us should read it, should order it. go to your book store. you'll be inspired. you'll love it. it's an emotional story. it's also a story that tells us all how to behave in the year 2024. >> you're so kind. >> i'm sorry to spring this on you, but my heart feels it. >> you're so kind. i appreciate you so much. thank you, my friend. well, now on to the shenanigans. let's start with the house, because you know, it is not every day that a secretary in the president's cabinet gets impeached. it's very rare. and the fact that that is where the house majority wanted to go rather than trying to pass an actual bill to deal with border

security, what do you make of that being their plan and that plan failing? >> it's ridiculous and it's an effort by republicans to vandalize another institution of democracy, which is the way that the congress behaves toward cabinet members. you know, in history, if the majority of the house of representatives, like these republicans, for instance, disagrees with a policy, as they do disagree with a lot of things that mayorkas has done, the way you do it is you argue with him and you pass legislation. you don't you pass legislation, you don't impeach him. that is reserved for instances of malfeasance. even -- the harding secretary of the interior during the teapot dome scandal, he wasn't impeached, he was forced to resign he was sent to prison. the same thing with john mitchell, nixon's attorney general.

that is the way we do it. if you criminalize every policy disagreement, the democracy is basically finished. >> and to that, point that brings us almost perfectly to where we stick with the d.c. circuit. we wait a long time to get this ruling, a lot of people, neal katyal scared us all for going into freak out mode yesterday, as i did with him. >> so did i. >> same. but i mean the thing is reading that ruling today, it made it almost worth the wait, because it was so brilliantly laid out. and they took each of donald trump's lawyers arguments apart so systematically, that one cannot imagine even this supreme court standing in the way of it. but you know, i asked tim o'brien, this and i will just ask you this as well. tim o'brien said he couldn't have imagined someone like donald trump being president. but, what do you make of the fact that it is donald trump or, this ridiculous figure of american popular culture in many ways, who is the guy whose name is going to be on the rulings that tell us whether the article three of the 14th

amendment has any effect? >> well, i hope that is the worst thing that happens, joe. but when i hope does not happen is the supreme court, god forbid, decides to take this up as if those idiotic arguments made by those trump lawyers about presidential immunity were even worth three seconds of their attention. or even more insidiously, if the supreme court says well, we will consider this, but it is going to take a while. and the result is that this case is never tried before the 2024 election, and donald trump becomes president without having ever faced justice in a court for what he did on january 6th. >> yeah, analyze just for us, i mean the founder is get a lot of love, particularly from conservatives, who make them sort -- of their intellect is perfect. but clearly, they created a system with giant flaws, right. the constitution has these holes that donald trump just drove a truck through.

and, what do you make of the fact that we have come to a place where 246, 250 odd years into this country, where we actually could have a dictator? >> our luck has run out. and the problem is that this is a constitution, as we know, that was written in 1787, was amended since then, but you cannot expect a document like that to be airtight against the world of 2024. i mean, i wish our founders were that brilliant, and in certain ways they were obviously not brilliant. they allowed institutions like slavery, they gave too much power to areas that had small populations. and we are paying the price for that now. but, a lot of founders assumed that every president of the future was going to be like the first one, george washington, people of character. that they had established a system that would make sure that only people of character got elected president. and that is why if you look at the constitution, it doesn't say too much about what a president should do, because

they knew that george washington high school, or's of tower and character in most respects, he was a slave owner, that was one exception, a large exception. but that he would basically work this out. alexander hamilton, who was a little bit more familiar with the gloomy side of human nature, he was one of those who predicted that a person elected president could one day be a demagogue, or -- , essentially a possible criminal. we almost avoided that all of this time, our luck is running out. and i hope against hope that our system is going to make sure that we are protected against that. >> and very quickly, as we wrap up. does it give you, i don't know what it does. in a sense, i feel like justice delayed is justice denied, and the fact that somebody of wealth can make it take so long to get justice, it is the problem, right? it is not that our institutions are flawed, is that they are

slow when it comes to people like trump. >> they are slow, and if this is delayed and there is no trial before the election, that is justice denied, and we could be witnessing the death of american democracy this year, if that happens. and at the same time, you look at somebody who doesn't have those -- going in a legal system. they go to jail. >> straight to jail. >> straight to jail. >> -- it is always a pleasure to speak with you, thank you my friend. >> congratulations on -- the >> thank you, thank you so much. we'll be right back. you, thano much. we'll be right back.

i used to leak urine when i coughed, laughed or exercised. i couldn't even enjoy playing with my kids. i leaked too. i just assumed it was normal. then we learned about bulkamid - an fda-approved, non-drug solution for our condition. it really works, and it lasts for years. it's been the best thing we've done for our families. visit findrealrelief.com to find an expert physician near you. ask if bulkamid is right for you and discuss potential risks. results and experiences may vary. move beyond the leaks. ♪3, 4♪ ♪ ♪hey♪ ♪ ♪are you ready for me♪ ♪are you ready♪ ♪are you ready♪

on thursday, the u.s. supreme court will hear oral arguments on whether donald trump can remain on the ballot in the state of colorado. be sure to join me thursday evening, at eight pm eastern, immediately after the readout, along with the great rachel maddow and many others, as we break down the arguments and how it affects this year's election. and i'm very proud to announce that they actually's official publication day of my new book. thank -- you for that big up. that means you can pick up the copy of -- the love story that awakened america, right now. and you can see me talk about it later tonight, on the late show with stephen colbert. so much fun, and that is tonight's reidout. chris hayes, rachel maddow, and lawrence o'donnell are next, with special coverage of today's trump immunity ruling. and it starts. right now immunity ruling. and it starts. right no tonight on all in. >> a court has denied trump's argument. >> the d.c. circuit court makes s