enough people saying i can't do it again. and with trump, and you've got to put it >> and you've got to remember what the first time was like, which people block a understand, because it is unpleasant. david plouffe, as always, we are glad to have you here. before we go, a special programming note about tomorrow night. i will be back here at seven pm, for a special our preview and what to expect from the supreme court hears arguments on whether the insurrection clause in the 14th amendment means that trump is ineligible to be on that ballot. that is a special supreme court preview at seven pm tomorrow, before an hour of regular all in, which i will also be hosting. and then on thursday, we're going to have the oral arguments -- that evening, the whole msnbc primetime gang will be here for a special night of coverage hosted by rachel maddow. be sure to tune in for that to. that is all in on this season. -- who will be joining us thirst night for all that, we'll be seeing this to each other

emma -- like >> am i free? can i watch you guys? now, i know. >> all right. >> burning the midnight oil, chris a's. i ghlove to see, my friend, i have a good night. >> you do. >> thank d you for joining me this evening. it took nearly a month to get it, but we finally have it, the d.c. circuit court of appeals has ruled on presidential immunity, donald trump's last best attempt to evade a criminal trial for his attempts to overturn the 2020 election. it is unanimous ruling, rimmed i by all three federal appeals court judges overseeing this case, to biden appointees and one appointee of president george h. w. bush. those judges spell it out and no uncertain terms. donald trump's claim that a former president cannot be duly prosecuted is worthless. quoting from the ruling, it would be a striking paradox if the president, alone, is vested with the constitutional duty to take care of the laws he

faithfully executed, where the e sole officer capable of defying those laws with impunity. we cannot accept former president trump's claim that a former president as unbounded authority to commit crimes that neutralize the most fundamental check on executive power, recognition and implementation of election results. nor can we sanction his apparent contention that the current executive has carte blanche to violate the rights s of individual citizens to vote and to have their votes count. at the bottom, former president trump's stance would collapse our system of separated powers, by placing the president beyond the reach of all three branches of government. now, no one ever really thought that the appeals court was going to agree with donald trump's arguments in this case except for maybe, donald trump. >> there will be bet them and the country. it's a very bad thing.

it's a bad precedent, as we say. it's the opening a pandora's box. it's a sad thing that has happened with this whole situation. when they talk about a threat to democracy, that is no threat to democracy. i feel as a president, you have to have immunity, it's very simple. >> the real question ahead of the ruling, is how much of an opportunity will the judges give donald trump to delay his trial, and that is the part of the ruling that trump's lawyers cannot be happy about. judges effectively neutralized trump's ability to further e delay the case by requesting another lower level core appeal, where, traditionally, he would have another 45 days to build his case. that is not happening. and the core only gave trump until monday to appeal the ruling directly to the supreme court, so the issue is now on a bullet train and headed directly for the highest court in the country. and the new question on everyone's minds, what will the

supreme court do? the justices effectively have three options. they can choose not to view trump's appeal and let the lower court decision stand. that is the decision that we got today. they could choose to hear here the appeal quickly, as have previous supreme qcourts for important matters involving presidents and elections, or they could choose to heal trump's appeal effectively at the courts leisure, it decision that would push trump's criminal trial even further into the future. now, we don't know, of course, which of those opinions that the justices will choose, or for that matter, how they will rule if they do decide to hear the appeal. but it is worth pointing out that the conservative supreme court, despite its reputation, which, you know, is earned, this supreme court though is not always in lockstep with donald trump. when it comes to investigations into trump, this court has often ruled against him. they rejected trump's appeals

to block the certification of the 2020 election. they refused to block the release of trump's financial records the congress. they refused to stop at the january six committee from getting trump's white house records, and they refused to intervene on trump's behalf in the mar-a-lago documents case. so, what did they do now, the future of one of donald trump's federal criminal trials is literally in their hands, and how long will it take them to do whatever they would do? well, all over the supreme court building, if you have been there, you know this, maybe if you've been there, you don't know ifthis, there are tortoises etched into the stomach, you can see right there. there are allegories for the slow and steady pace of justice. now, supreme court has to decide those tortoises will become emblematic of the way that the nation's highest court allows a former president to run out the clock or not.

joining me now, it's barry mccord, former senior justice official rdand the co-host of t essential and indispensable prosecuting donald trump podcasts. mary mccord, thank you for joining me. i want to paraphrase the great dolley little league that wrote that this great d.c. ruling from the d.c. court of appeals is a bench slap. do you agree with that assessment, and how does the ruling in the slap category figure into the way that the supreme court might look at this case? >> well, you know, if by bench slapper, she means, is chock full of quotes like those who read at the top of the hour, and i can read you a dozen more, if we had our time. it is really filled with well stated, conclusions of a law, rejecting donald trump's arguments, and that are his arguments of separation of

powers requires the president to have uiimmunity for official acts, the court rejects that. it rejected his argument that policy reasons, it concern about shielding -- and this is something that the former president likes to say every id time he speaks, at that a president can't possibly function as a president. he will be shield from doing what he needs to do. he would like himself to truman, and truman would have been shield and thinking a decision to end world war ii with the apollo bomb, that he would be to shield to do that. they rejected those arguments. they rejected handily the argument that he can only be prosecuted criminally, if he were first impeached and convicted by the u.s. senate, which they rejected. for each one of the arguments, it is a bench slapper. it is filled with in my opinion persuasive legal conclusions rejecting the arguments.

it's also something that as you indicated at the top of the hour, it was a unanimous decision, meaning no one judges name is on it with the other judges joining. they all agreed to everything in that decision. it is something that shows unity. remember, this is a panel that had judges appointed by both republican presidents and democrat presidents. it also does give the supreme court the opportunity, if they so choose, if you decide that they aren't going tuesday demanding, they are not going to accept it five of the judges don't want to stand the mandate, the mandate will not be state. it also takes four to serve, but that's why i think this decision on whether they will grant a stay is an important one, because if they don't grant that's day, that means there is -- there. they agreed that they did not

want to grant that stay. they agreed, if they wanted to, we're staying out of this, because the decision is right, it's unanimous at times, really of the essence. i don't know if i am gambling on the, but it's certainly an option available to them. >> let's just slow down before we get to the end of the story here, because we have to read dolly lithwick, i quoted her, and she arrived. senior editor at slate, dahlia, you are saying how you called this ruling a bench slap, and the way in which mary points out, it's a unanimous decision, a long time coming, but, man, it's a doozy. you point out today that in some sense, the supreme court should not even take ththis on, because it's so plainly obvious what the law says. do you think the court will take it up anyway? >> you know, that is the question. i agree completely with you and mary. this is an easy case. there are no set of facts, under which the court is going

to grant this and future presidents blanket immunity from criminal prosecutions for starting insurrections or other felonies. it's such a crazy notion that he could win, and the standard should be, right, that the court asked to have some reasonable belief that he could prevail. so, the easy answer is, if you look at the merits, this is not hard. the courts should bat it away. i think the questions -- i think the question you're asking is, can the united states supreme court, the imperial court that has inserted its nose into every part of our lives, whether it is clean water or clean air, president biden's loan forgiveness, there is nothing that this court does not want to have the last word on, so can it stand humbly back and say, we make the d.c. circuit panel got it right, and we'll

let it go back to judge chutkan and go to trial. that's a harder question. for this court to show humility at this stage of the game, it's hard to believe that is coming. >> i saw where you were going with that. you sort of refreshed everyone's memory supported agreed to which the courts takes its noses in other agencies business. mary, you talked about the various scenarios here, and i think a lot of this, especially when we start batting around terms like courts et cetera, it's confusing. unpack it a bit. whether they decide to take it up and then the issue of the snake, can you talk a bit about the scenarios there? the state means basically that the case with judge chutkan and nothing can happen, right? >> that's right. right now, that cases remaining with the president until monday. what the d.c. circuit of appeal says is that if donald trump files by monday a motion in the u.s. supreme court seeking a

continuation of a state of the trial court, that is a judge check-ins trial court calendar, pending a filing of a petition, if they do that, then it will remain in place, of course, until the supreme court actually takes action by eithere accepting the case, accepting it for its own review, or denying sergio. it's the night, it all goes back to check-in. that very much derives on the idea of a stay. i owill know that back in one the cases that you mentioned in your lead off, trump v. thompson, this is the case where mr. trump sued to prevent the archives, the archivist, from providing presidential records, white house records to the house select committee to investigate january six, after mr. trump's argument was rejected in the district court, rejected by the d.c. circuit, again in a unanimous opinion,

it was mr. trump that saw a state of that ruling in the supreme court, and the the court denied that stay, and the documents requested by the house subcommittee started going to them immediately. that is the case that was also involved in issues of sort of executive privilege, which is comparable to executive immunity, and it was something that the court had never squarely decided on the same type of backs, and they were content to be, i think you used the word, humble, and stand back and look at the d.c. circuit beyond the decision. again, this is a different case, but there is precedent for this, and as much as the court has taken up cases across all the issues and more, as mentioned, i don't know if they are the anxious to get into something like this, in a electioneer and be the ones responsible for the outcome

here, which will have an effect on the presidential election. >> dahlia, what is your sort oft read on this, given your wealth and knowledge about the roberts court and these sort of national importance and the really abbreviated timeline on which things need to happen which will affirm to the american voters whether one of the presidential nominees is a convicted felon or not? >> i mean, there is one other piece to the puzzle, and that is, in less than 48 hours, the court will be hearing a another issue about whether he can be removed from the ballot in the state of colorado and other states, presumably, if the court were to say yes. this is only the first of two cases this week, in which the court is being asked to intervene in the 2024 presidential election, and i actually agree completely with mary, eethat you are looking at court that has, we say this so often, when you and i talk, the

lowest public approval rating since gallup started pulling, a complete lack of public confidence in the integrity of the justices, and their ability to adhere to ethics, massive, and precedent it leaks in the dobbs case not properly investigated. i think that mary is onto something when she says that does the court really want to wa be the decider in case after case after case, because there will be more cases? we llknow that donald trump wil appeal anything he can up to the courts, so i suspect that we'll hear more of these, and i kind of agree if the court wants to look as though it is indeed above partisan politics, putting your thumb on the scale, or taking your thumb off the scale for the president, with the d.c. circuit got it right, what is the point? i think this is exactly correct to say that they are already dy viewed up to it to their eyeballs in the colorado case, and that will be a hairy case for them to the side.

why take flight of this one, when donald trump cannot plausibly when? >> really quickly, dahlia, if they don't decide to take it up, that effectively means, it goes back to chicken, and things move forward, is that right? >> things move forward, she has already scrapped the march 4th trial date, because the sake long time, but it could very, very realistically begin in the spring and be decided by the summer, if the court takes it back and says, judge chutkan, on your mark, to get set, go. >> wow, okay, we're waiting, that's all i gotta say. dahlia lithwick and mary mccord, thank you both for your time tonight, i really appreciate it. we got some big breaking news coming up and all of it has to do with the chaotic and utterly dysfunctional republican party. congressman jamie raskin joins me just ahead, stay with us. wi.

oooh! i can't wait for this family getaway! shingles doesn't care. shingles is a painful, blistering rash that can last for weeks. ahhh, there's nothing like a day out with friends. that's nice, but shingles doesn't care! 99% of adults 50 years or older

already have the virus that causes shingles inside them, and it can reactivate at any time. a perfect day for a family outing! guess what? 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. shingles doesn't care. but shingrix protects. ask your doctor or pharmacist about shingrix today. i love your dress.

oh thanks! i splurged a little because liberty mutual customized my car insurance and i saved hundreds. that's great. i know, right? i've been telling everyone. baby: liberty. did you hear that? ty just said her first word. can you say “mama”? baby: liberty. can you say “auntie”? baby: liberty. how many people did you tell? only pay for what you need. jingle: ♪ liberty. liberty. liberty. ♪ baby: ♪ liberty. ♪

i'm daniel lurie jingle: ♪ liberty. liberty. liberty. ♪ and i've spent my career fighting poverty, helping people right here in san francisco. i'm also a father raising two kids in the city. deeply concerned that city hall is allowing crime and lawlessness to spread. now we can do something about it by voting yes on prop e. a common sense solution that ensures we use community safety cameras to catch repeat offenders and hold them accountable. vote yes on e. 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! tonight, the republican spectacle, the performance art, the attempt to impeach barr for montes secretary alejandro mayorkas, tonight, that partisan effort ticking a failure in a theatrically embarrassing loss on the floor of the house. now, i should underscore the fact that secretary mayorkas

did not do anything. certainly, nothing criminal, that was all kind of the point. by targeting secretary mayorkas, republicans could look like they were being tough on the border, without needing to do anything at the border at all, i'm just impeaching secretary mayorkas and call it day. but now, the effort, that the they're, has failed, and that is not good news for the republican party, because when it comes to actual work on the border, the republican party is eating itself alive right now. i am extremely disappointed in these strange maneuvering by many on the right to torpedo potential border reform bill. >> that's a crappy bill, it's terrible. that thing is terrible. >> the senate bill is trash. >> my views on the bill has not been, at the last press conference that we had here, i described it as, quote, a steamy pile of crap. >> you got to read the bill.

don't be ignorant, read the bill. >> the bill that republicans are at odds over is 118 billion dollar immigration bill that was unveiled last week, but here is the thing about that bill, it was bipartisan, and it gave republicans a whole bunch of what they claimed that they wanted without having to give in on much of anything. >> republicans all stood up and said that they wanted a bipartisan bill to fix the border, the border is a priority, the border is a crisis. we delivered. a bipartisan bill to fix the border with the republican senator appointed by the republican caucus to cut the deal. >> that was a democratic senator chris murphy, and he was the democrat leading

negotiations on the bill. again, this is a bipartisan effort. the republican senator and border hawk, i might add, who negotiated on behalf of republicans with senator james lankford. lankford is a coauthor of the bill, and he is now under the bus, having been thrown there by his own party. yesterday, former president trump falsely claimed that he never endorsed senator lankford and proceeded to bash the senator, as one does. what trump did actually in fact endorsed senator lankford two years ago. donald trump gave james lankford's complete and total endorsement and said that james lankford was, quote, strong on the border. so, thanks for your service, james lankford? anyway, this is an incredibly conservative bill. if republicans are focused on the policy here, they would support it. republicans say that they want a secure border, but they do not, not really. >> what they actually want is

chaos, because that is what donald trump says he wants. biden's approval rating is at 33%, why would we do anything to try to help improve that this will number with a border bill? >> they think that securing the border would help biden politically, but, of course, it would. i want to secure the border, that's what i told my supporters, at least. >> the truth is, the republican party appears to be the party of symbols, or even watch of a party, really. the sole reason to exist in this moment appears to be the reelection of donald trump. if you need it further proof of that, tonight, we got news for the new york times that the chairwoman of the republican national committee plans to step down. the times reports that ronna mcdaniel romney plans to step down shortly after the south carolina primary on february 24th, and then her exit comes after months of pressure and a campaign from trump allied

forces. the times reports that trump is likely to back an election denier, a man named michael whatley, to take your place. we are going to talk about the state of the republican party and donald trump in today's very big court ruling against him, with congressman jamie raskin right after the break. than just work. like when it needs to be a big soft shoulder to cry on. which is why downy does more to make clothes softer, fresher, and better. downy. breathe life into your laundry.

millions of children are fighting to survive due to inequality, conflict, poverty and the climate crisis. save the children® is working alongside communities to provide a better life for children. and there's a way you can help. please call or go online to give just $10 a month. only $0.33 a day. we urgently need

1000 new monthly donors in the next 30 days to help the children we support around the world. you can help provide food, medicine, care and protection, plus so much more that a child needs by calling right now and giving just $10 a month. all we need are 1000 monthly donors in the next 30 days. please call or go online now with your monthly gift of just $10. thanks to generous government grants, every dollar you give can have up to ten times the impact. and when you call with your credit card, we will send you this save the children® tote bag as a thank you for your support. your small monthly donation of just $10 could be the reason a child in crisis survives. please call or go online to hungerstopsnow.org to help save lives today.

there are some things that work better together. like your workplace benefits and retirement savings. voya provides tools that help you make the right investment and benefit choices. so you can reach today's financial goals. and look forward to a more confident future. voya, well planned, well invested, well protected. 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.

three judges from the dc circuit court of appeals were united in their ruling against donald trump's claims of presidential immunity for trying to overturn the 2020 election. and the money quote from that ruling is arguably this one. for the purpose of this criminal case, for president trump has become citizen trump, with all of the defenses of any other criminal defendant, with any executive immunity that may have protected him when he served as president no longer protects him against this prosecution. joining me now is maryland congressman, constitutional law experts, and former member of the january 6th committee congressman jamie raskin. congressman, it's so great to have you on this program. first, let me just get your thoughts on the ruling that was handed down by the circuit court of appeals in d.c.. >> well, a real public servant like abraham lincoln or barack obama or thomas jefferson would love the application, citizen

obama or citizen lincoln, because a real constitutional patriot understands that those of us who aspire and attain public office are nothing but the servants of the people. and the moment that we think we are emperors or kings or despots over everybody else, that's the moment immediately to eject, evict, reject, impeach, convict, start all over again. but of course, the court was absolutely right, that decision is one of the finest decisions i've read in a really long time. and it is an excellent primer into how our constitutional works, how nobody is above the law, much less the president of the united states, whose principal responsibility is to take care that the laws are faithfully executed. so they really put not just donald trump, but the presidency and the president back in proper constitutional perspective, and said the president has no more right to violate the law then a member of congress, a judge, a juror,

or anybody else who is serving a public function. but in democracy, we occupy these roles temporarily, and none of us can allow our manchin agents to run away with -- the way donald trump and his lawyers have apparently lost complete contact with reality. >> what stunned me was just the incredible tie the way they slapped down two of trump's, biggest defenses, or arguments in this. the first was that allowing a president to be criminally cross a q-tip post presidency would open a pandora's box, and somehow all presidents forevermore would be subject to criminal prosecution. and that it would have a chilling effect on the presidency itself. and the appeals -- we conclude that the interest in criminal accountability, held both by the public in the executive branch, outweighs the potential risks of chilling presidential action and plummeting vexatious litigation. and they go on to say that

actually, maybe it is a good thing, instead of inhibiting the presidents lawful discretionary action, the prospect of criminal liability might serve as a structural benefit to deter possible beuse is a power and criminal behavior. basically, upending the defense of this will be a bad thing in suggesting hey, maybe presidents not doing crimes is a good thing. >> well, they really castigate trump and his lawyers even for raising that argument, both on the basis of facts and on the basis of law. and on the basis of facts they say gee, you are the only one who seems to be predicting a pandora's box parade of horrible. because up until donald trump, no president in american history had ever been indicted after leaving office. and i think that everybody, whether you are the biggest trump supporter in the world or you think that he foretells an authoritarian future for america. nobody would disagree that he is completely unique, and so -- in terms of his spectacular disrespect for the rule of law.

but beyond the facts, they make the totally correct point that there are structural barriers to any buddy in the government running away with the idea of there being a monarch or a dictator. that is where we have impeachment and conviction, as a barrier to anybody in federal office who applies to engaging in high crimes or misdemeanors. that's why we have the supreme court and judicial review of actions. that's why harriet truman's -- in 1952 was struck down. that was not selfishly motivated, the way most of donald trump's crimes were. but he thought he could go ahead and seize the steel plants for the war effort, and the supreme court said no, that is within the legislative province, and you could enforce a law attempting to do that, but you don't have the right to make the law and then go out and enforce it. everybody's got the stay within their constitutional lane. >> you know, they also take apart trump's argument that he needed to be impeached before

convicted, which is against what his lawyers were actually saying in court. and the judges go on to quote trump's lawyers back to him, in taking apart that argument. but to the point that you were just making about everybody staying in their own lane, i think the strongest language they reserve is the part of the ruling where they talk about the structural assault on the three branches of government. and that effectively, if trump's alleged efforts to remain in power, despite losing the 2020 election, that they were effectively, those are proven that he was indeed trying to remain in power, despite losing the election, that would represent an unprecedented assault on the structure of american government. that is the part i think, as someone who was so involved in the house january 6th committee, that is sort of the essence of all of this, isn't it? just someone trying to run roughshod over the ability of our government to keep tabs on wrongdoing in other branches.

>> yeah, there is a beautiful lie at the end of the opinion, when the three judges, two democrat appointees won republican appointees, unanimously say that essentially were we to by donald trump's arguments, no branch of government could contain and control a president who wants to become an autocratic dictator. the legislature would not be able to pass any laws that could control him, because he couldn't be prosecuted for anything, unless first impeached or convicted. the executive branch in the form of the department of justice and prosecutors couldn't control him, because he has got absolute immunity, according to trump. and the court couldn't do anything to control him, because trump asserts that that would be a violation of the separation of powers. so it's a three card monty, no matter where you turn, nobody could ever hold donald trump accountable. and so, this completely perverse and absurd constitutional argument that cuts against two centuries of our history, really flows out

of the warp psychology of this man, who probably began as a boy who got his way at every possible turn, like little richie rich, the comic book i use to read sometimes when i was a kid, with the archie's. you could never tell richie rich he couldn't do anything that he didn't want to do. and, in the end though, he was always offended. and i hope in the end, the constitutional patriots in america will stand donald trump down. and i've got to tell you, today was a great day from that perspective, because you could read that opinion, and you could remember what america was like, what real judges are like, and what american jurisprudence really stands for. >> yeah, well it was a good day for, i think, jurisprudence. not a great day. i have to ask you, you are a member of the house of representatives, and there was just a spectacular piece of republican theater that failed, miserably on live television. that was the attempted impeachment of alejandro

mayorkas. do you have a thought on that? they are going to take another pass at it again in the coming days, i believe. >> yeah, well the mayorkas impeachment was like the trinket consolation prize for the maga right. which is not going to be able to bring the biden impeachment to the floor. that really has been an extraordinary flop in our committee, and in the oversight committee, as every which way they have turned, the witnesses have rejected what they are saying about joe biden. they just haven't laid a glove on joe biden, and there is no high crime or misdemeanor, there is no treason or bribery. so they said let's go ahead and impeach mayorkas, that is the bone we will throw to marjorie taylor greene and matt gaetz and the crowd. but three republicans defected today, and as you know, they have the tiniest of margins with speaker mccarthy having

joyfully skipped town. and then the expulsion of george santos. so they've got this tiny margin, and they were abandoned by can buck, they were abandoned by mcclintock. and then -- surprised them. they thought they still had one vote, but my wonderful colleague al greene, who was sick, made it to the floor. i don't know exactly what happened, i haven't talked to al. some members were saying that he forced himself to get up and to be able to go, others thought that it was a strategic maneuver by al greene, created in advance. i don't know, the historians we have to figure that went out. but in any event, mike johnson ended up with egg all over his face. i mean, you could literally see him blushing, and then furious and enraged the ray the republicans were. they held the vote open for a long time, to try to change somebody's mind, and none of that worked. so like everything else they are doing, it's all boomerang, because they don't have a plan for america. and the things that they used

to talk about, like abortion, they can't talk about anymore, because the public has completely repudiated them. so now they are down to immigration, and they won't take yes for an answer, because donald trump wants to run on immigration as a problem, not as a solution. and of course, vladimir putin is in the background, pulling the strings to make sure that the republicans don't go along with aid to the heroic people of ukraine, resisting his aggression. >> congressman jamie raskin, such a pleasure to have you on the program tonight, thank you for your time sir. >> coming up, president biden's top migration adviser and the national security council joins me. she just left the white house last week, and she will be here to discuss what's going on at the border, and all of the republican non-efforts to avoid fixing at all costs. that's too many double negatives, and it's coming next. many double negatives, and it's coming next. mainly because i just love helping people. as i got older, it was just a natural part of aging, i felt that my memory was beginning to decline

and that's when i started looking for something that would help. when i first started taking prevagen, i noticed my memory was so much better. just stuff seemed to come together and fit like a jigsaw puzzle in my mind. prevagen. at stores everywhere without a prescription. are you still struggling with your bra? it's time for you to try knix. makers of the world's comfiest wireless bras. for revolutionary support without underwires, and sizes up to a g-cup, find your new favorite bra today at knix.com

love you. have a good day, behave yourself. like she goes to work at three in the afternoon and sometimes gets off at midnight. she works a lot, a whole lot. we don't get to eat in the early morning. we just wait till we get to the school. so, yeah. right now here in america, millions of kids like victoria and andre live with hunger, and the need to help them has never been greater. when you join your friends, neighbors and me to support no kid hungry, you'll help hungry kids get the food they need. if we want to take care of our children, then we have to feed them. your gift of just $0.63 a day, only $19 a month at helpnokidhungry.org right now will help provide healthy meals and hope. we want our children to grow and thrive and to just not have to worry and face themselves with the struggles that we endure.

nobody wants that for their children. like if these programs didn't exist me and aj, we wouldn't probably get lunch at all. please call or go online right now with your gift of just $19 a month. and when you use your credit card, you'll receive this limited edition t-shirt to show you're part of the team that's helping feed kids and change lives. if you're coming in hungry, there's no way you can listen to me teach, do this activity, work with this group. so starting their day with breakfast and ending their day with this big, beautiful snack is pretty incredible. whether kids are learning at school or at home, your support will ensure they get the healthy meals they need to thrive. because when you help feed kids, you feed their hopes, their dreams, and futures. kids need you now more than ever. so please call this number right now to join me in helping hungry kids or go online to helpnokidhungry.org and help feed hungry kids today.

type 2 diabetes? discover the ozempic® tri-zone. ♪ ♪ i got the power of 3. i lowered my a1c, cv risk, and lost some weight. in studies, the majority of people reached an a1c under 7 and maintained it. i'm under 7. ozempic® lowers the risk of major cardiovascular events such as stroke, heart attack, or death in adults also with known heart disease. i'm lowering my risk. adults lost up to 14 pounds. i lost some weight. ozempic® isn't for people with type 1 diabetes. don't share needles or pens, or reuse needles. don't take ozempic® if you or your family ever had medullary thyroid cancer, or have multiple endocrine neoplasia syndrome type 2, or if allergic to it. stop ozempic® and get medical help right away if you get a lump or swelling in your neck, severe stomach pain, or an allergic reaction. serious side effects may include pancreatitis. gallbladder problems may occur. tell your provider about vision problems or changes. taking ozempic® with a sulfonylurea or insulin may increase low blood sugar risk. side effects like nausea, vomiting, and diarrhea may lead to dehydration, which may worsen kidney problems. living with type 2 diabetes? ask about the power of 3 with ozempic®.

just hours, ago house republicans held a vote to impeach homeland security secretary alejandro mayorkas. and they failed. along with an utterly unserious political theater, republicans in congress have been doing all they can to kill the bipartisan immigration bill, negotiated by the senate and the white house. a bill that is filled with things that republicans themselves have been demanding. joining me now is katie tobin, president biden's former top migration adviser the national security council, and former senior director for trans border security, who just left

the white house last week. katie, congratulations i think on leaving? let's just first talk about what's happening here, right. the border has become this political third rail, in a way. and also politically expeditious for certain republicans. what does it mean practically, if you are trying to deal with the issue of migration? >> to have like it >> -- underway for the department of homeland security, and house republicans especially doing everything they can to scuttle a deal that was negotiated by senate republicans. >> it's been quite a day. and thank you alex -- for >> of course. >> just to say at the top, i have had the chance to work with secretary mayorkas quite a bit over the last couple of years, and he is just such a man of integrity, i think an inspiration that of so many who have worked for him. his parents were refugees from cuba, and what he has done to rebuild morale in the department, and to usher in

just historic legal pathways to the united states, along with important enforcement measures, with really no support from congress. today was vindicating, but really it was a waste of time. i mean -- should not be targeting him this way. and then, i think the president said it well today, when he spoke and really addressed the american people, that this is serious. we need border reform, we have for a long time, he has been calling for it since day one of the administration. i think today really illuminated the games that are being played on this issue, and in the seat that i wasn't in the national security council, i was really focused on the foreign policy aspects of this. so working with our partners in latin america, and this is an issue, migration is impacting all countries. it's at a level that we have never seen before. and so we are in negotiations with our foreign partners to, and we don't always see eye to

eye on everything, but we've been able to come to the table and find common ground, because this issue is that important, it is existential. so we want to see that in congress. >> well i mean, i think for a lot of people, the president has gone all in on this, in a way that is surprising, and perhaps distressing to some democrats in particular, his rhetoric around the border has shifted rightward. i mean just saying i'm going to shut the border down feels like a page out of, for lack of a better phrase, a trump playbook. and then you couple that with some of the statistics here, the biden dhs removed a higher percentage of border crossers in its first two years then donald trump did over his last two years. under trump, migrants were also more likely to be released after a border arrest. can you help put into perspective how hawkish, if you will, this administration is? how hard when this administration is, compared not just to trump, but to other

democrats? >> i mean having worked with the president, since day one, i actually don't think that there has been a shift. i think the president has been consistent all along. his view is very much that we need order at the border, that our system is broken, that we need legislative reform. the last time we had major border reform was in 1996, and the situation then was so different than the situation today, other than the fact that during both periods, we've actually had a really strong economy. but we can talk about that more. but, he also really believes that we need to be a country that is welcoming, that we were founded, we are a country of immigrants, we have to be welcoming, but we can do that in an orderly way. so a lot of that, the work we've been doing over the last three years is to increase, consequences at the border, with the laws that we have, with the limited resources, and then to expand orderly, safe,

legal pathways for people to come, so they arrive on planes with a work permit in a visa versus crossing through the -- gap, and crossing the rio grande. so, and i think if you look back at what we proposed on day one, and then what we've been working to achieve, it's consistent. so it's unfortunate to see the politics around this, and i think you've seen the president on other issues be very willing to make compromises, very willing to make compromises. and he is on this issue to, and he said that very clearly today. >> at one point, especially vice president harris, was dispatched to get to the root of this problem, which is the countries that were in some ways failing their citizens, and causing them to migrate north. that, the administration seems to have moved away from that entirely, and it is really just dealing with the border issue itself. what happened there? >> well so, that work is

continuing, and we are really making some real strides on that. i think the magnifying glasses on the border right now, but i actually think it needs to be on the root causes, and the work we are doing in the region. so i've actually traveled with the vice presidents national security advisor twice the last few months. we were just in guatemala together. the vice president has done incredible work at bringing the private sector to central america. one important thing that just recently happened is we had an election and inauguration of a new president in guatemala, and anti-corruption candidate. that is critical, because we need, with out really going to those root causes of corruption and democratic -- , it is actually really hard to get the -- to invest. so we see a real turning point, for guatemala. but the work of root causes is something that the president cares a lot about. he held the mantle on that during the obama administration, vice president harris has taken that on. and then the other work we have

done that is a companion to that, is to strengthen our cooperation with countries across the region, to manage the migration flow. and so, president biden in june of 2020 -- launched the los angeles decoration, -- across the western hemisphere signed this. so we need a calm approach, we need to be working together. and so the work that we are doing in the region is critical, but unfortunately i think the focus of it is just on the border. >> certainly, yeah a lot needing to be done, and not a lot getting done, at least in congress. katie tobin, thanks so much for being here. >> thanks for having me. >> we have one more story coming up. -- a key defense witness in trump's civil fraud trial lie under oath? the answer to that question could prove very very expensive for donald trump. we will have more on that, right after the break. will ha, right after the break.

these underwear are period-proof. and sneeze-proof. and sweat-proof. they're leakproof underwear, from knix. comfy & confident protection that feel just like normal. with so many styles and colors to choose from, switching is easy at knix.com

i love your dress. oh thanks! i splurged a little because liberty mutual customized my car insurance and i saved hundreds. that's great. i know, right? i've been telling everyone. baby: liberty. did you hear that? ty just said her first word. can you say “mama”? baby: liberty. can you say “auntie”? baby: liberty. how many people did you tell? only pay for what you need. jingle: ♪ liberty. liberty. liberty. ♪ baby: ♪ liberty. ♪

when the new york times broke the news last weekend that donald trump's former cfo, allan weissenberg was negotiating with manhattan d.a.'s office to plead guilty to perjury in trump's civil fraud case, well it raised questions about whether this might be causing judge arthur engoron, the judge presiding over that case, to delay his final ruling as to whether donald trump will potentially shallow 300 and $70 million or more for committing fraud. today, we kind of got an answer. in an email sent on monday, judge engoron wrote to trump's lawyers about the times reporting, and suggested this plea deal might change the timing of judge engoron's decision. okay, so why is -- sorry -- to a former assistant diane hatton d.a.'s office. rebecca, i am already ahead on our questioning. why is -- asking trump's lawyers to -- this weiss and -- >> well because they are in a position to have to know whether or not in fact it's true that he lied on the stand,

and if you light on the stand, this obviously has a huge impact on the judges evaluation of the testimony, and the case itself. and even though the alleged perjury may be about some small part of that testimony, the judge says maybe i have to discount all of his testimony, because somebody who lies about one thing could lie about everything. everything, exactly. >> and weisselberg is a key defense witness in endurance trial, is he not? >> yes, i mean he is an important witness, he testified as to a lot of the alleged evaluations that were supposedly exaggerated in order to get a benefit in these -- >> is this the kind of thing that would potentially move judge engoron to increase the sort of fine, if you will? we know he is looking at 300, maybe 370 million dollar fine here in this civil fraud trial. >> it's complicated, because that fine is going to be the base a lot on the expert

assessment of how much damage was done. but i think yes, in terms of his ultimate finding of the extent to which this fraud occurred. and if he finds that this was massive, then of course the fine can be massive. >> the other piece of this that's interesting, is the way all of these cases are collapsing in on each other a little bit. can you talk about that unusual dynamic? >> it's very interesting. first of all, you know that there is this ongoing case in manhattan, a criminal case that is unrelated about the hush money payments. and so alvin bragg has that on his mind, even if weisselberg is not going to be an important character or witness in that case, that case is pending. and he wants to send a message that witnesses who lie have consequences. all prosecutors want to do that, especially in high profile cases, and especially even more when there are even more high-profile cases that are pending. so there is that. there is also the fact that he was himself looking at these

same facts that constitute the facts that made of the civil case, and deciding whether to charge that criminally. i assume that he has moved on and decided not to, but that is always a possibility as well. so, these cases are all going on, and there are so many of them. sometimes you could forget about one when you focus on another,. >> well let's just say, donald trump showed up to the court room for the engoron case, because it involves his pocketbook. and that means it matters to. him >> -- so you didn't even need an introduction. are >> such a well versed expert in all of this, i am so appreciative of the time. >> before we go, we have a quick note about tomorrow's program. you will not want to mis-c my exclusive sit-down with former -- former secretary of state and former first lady hillary clinton. there is quite a bit to talk about, that is tomorrow at nine pm eastern, 9 am eastern if you live on the other side of the plan. that does it for us, now it's time for the last word with lawrence o'donnell. good evening my friend. >> good evening alex,