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. that is "all in" for this tuesday night. alish wagner will be joining us. >> i'm learning program updates. >> i look at what's on the monitor. >> i was like am i free, am i going to have a burger and watch you guys? burning the midnight oil, chris hayes. >> lots of news happening. >> i love to see it, my friend. have a good night.

thank you for joining us 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. in his unanimous ruling written by all three federal appeals court judges overseeing this case two biden appointees and one appointee of president george h.w. bush. those judges spell it out in no uncertain terms a former president cannot be 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 the laws be faithfully executed where the sole officer capable of defying those laws with impunity. we cannot accept former president trump's claim that a president has unbounded authority to commit crimes that

would neutralize the most fundamental check on executive power in recognition and implementation of election results. nor can we sanction his apparent contention the executive has carte blanche to violate the rights of individual citizens to vote and to have their votes count. 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 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. >> it'll be bedlam in the country. it's a very bad thing. it's a very bad precedent. as we say it's the opening of a pand dorra's box, and it's a very sad thing that's happened with this whole situation. when they talk about threat to

democracy, that's your real threat to democracy. and i feel as president you have to have immunity, very simple. >> the real question ahead of this ruling is how much of an opportunity would the judges give donald trump to delay his trial? and that is part of the ruling trump's lawyers cannot be happy about. they tried to request another lower court appeal where traditionally you would have another 45 days to delay this case. that is not happening. and the court only gave trump until monday to appeal this ruling directly to the supreme court. so this 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 hear trump's appeal and let the lower court's decision stand. that's the decision we got

today. they could choose to hear the appeal quickly as have previous supreme courts for important matters involving presidents and elections, or they could choose to hear trump's appeal effectively at the court's leisure, a decision that would push trump's criminal trial even further into the future. now, we don't know, of course, which of those opinions the justices will choose or for that matter how they will rule if they do decide to hear this appeal, but it's worth pointing out this conservative supreme court despite its reputation, which, you know, is earned, this supreme court, though, is not always in lock step 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 to congress. they refused to stop the january 6th 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 do they do now that 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're going to do? well, all over the supreme court building, if you've been there you know this, maybe if you've been there you don't know this, there are tortoises etched into the stonework. they are allegories for the slow and steady pace of justice. and now the supreme court has to decide if those tortoises will become emblematic of the way the nation's highest court allowed a former president to run out the clock or not. joining me now is mary mccord, former senior justice department official and co-host of the essential indispensable

prosecuting trump podcast. i want to parapraise the great dahlia lithwick that this ruling is a slap. and how does the ruling in the slap category figure into the way the supreme court might look at this case? >> well, you know, if by bench slapper she means it is chock-full of quotes like those you read at the top of the hour, and i could read you a dozen more if we had more time, it is really built with just well-tasted, pithy conclusions of law rejecting donald trump's arguments, and that his argument that separation of powers requires the president to have immunity for official acts. the court rejects that. it rejected his argument that

policy reasons, and this is something that the former president likes to say every time he speaks a president can't function as president. he likened himself to truman, that truman would have been chilled in making a decision to end world war ii to end the atomic bomb, they rejected those arguments and rejected handily the argument he could only be first impeached and convicted by the u.s. senate. so for each one of these arguments, it is a bench slapper. it is just filled with very, i think, in my opinion persuasive legal conclusions rejecting those arguments. it's also something that that because as you indicated at the top of the hour it's unanimous precurium decision meaning no

one judge's name is on it with all the judges joining, they agreed to everything to that decision, it shows unity. remember this is a panel that had judges appointed by both republican presidents and democrat presidents, and it actually does give the supreme court the opportunity if they so choose to decide they aren't going to stay the mandate, they aren't going to accept cert. if five of those judges don't want to stay the mandate, the mandate will not be stayed. it only takes four to grant cert, but i think this decision whether they will grant a stay is an important one. because if they don't grant that stay, that means there's five there that agree they didn't want to grant that stay. if they wanted to, they could say we're staying out of this because this decision is right, it's unanimous, and time really is of the essence. i don't know that i'm gambling

on that, but it certainly is an option available to them. >> we have the great dahlia lithwick. i quoted her and she arrived. dahlia, we were saying how you called this ruling a bench slap, and it's a unanimous decision, it took a long time coming, but, man, it's a doozy. and you point out today, you know, in some sense the supreme court shouldn't even take this up because it's so plainly obvious what the law says. do you think the court will take it up anyway? >> that's a question. i agree with you and mary this is an easy, easy case. there's no set of facts in which the court is going to grant this and future presidents blanket immunity from criminal prosecution for starting insurrections or other felony -- i mean, it's such a crazy notion

that he could win. and the standard should be, right, that the court has to have some reasonable belief that he could prevail. and so the easy answer is if you look at the merits this is not hard. the courts should bat it away. i think the question you're asking is should the united states supreme court, the imperial court that has inserted its nose into every part of our lives whereby whether it is what is clean water, clean air, president biden's loan forgiveness, there's nothing this court doesn't want to have the last word on. and so can it stand humbly back and say, you know, we think the d.c. circuit court panel got it right and we're going to let it go back to judge chutkan and go to trial. and that's a harder question. for this court to show humility at this stage of the game, it's hard to believe that's coming.

>> i saw where you were going with that one. you refreshed everyone's member memories about the degree to which this court sticks its nose into every agency's business. i think a lot of this especially when we start batting around terms like cert, et cetera, it's confusing. the issue of the stay, can you talk about the scenarios there? a stay basically means the case with judge chutkan remains froze squn nothing can happen, right? >> that's right. so right now that case is remaining frozen until monday. and what the d.c. circuit panel said if donald trump files by monday, a motion in the u.s. supreme court seeking a continuation of the stay of the trial court, that's judge chutkan's trial court calender, pending a petition for cert, if they do that, then the stay

would remain in place, of course, until the supreme court actually takes action by either accepting the case for certiorari meaning just accepting it for its review or denying certiorari, so it's denied, it all goes back to judge chutkan. that's why so much rides on this idea of a stay. i will note back in one of the cases that you mentioned in your lead off, trump v. thompson, this was the case where mr. trump sue today prevent the archivest from providing presidential records, white house records to select committee to investigate january 6th. it was rejected in the district court, rejected in the senate. and the court denied that stay, denied cert, and the documents requested by the house

subcommittee started going to them immediately. so that is a case that was also involved in issues of sort of executive privilege which is comparable to executive immunity, and it was something the court had never squarely decided on the same type of backs and they were content to be i think you use the word humble and stand back and let that d.c. panel stand. this is different case, but there is precedent for this. and as much as this court has taken up cases across all the issues and more that dahlia mentioned, i don't know they are that anxious to get into something like this in an election year and be the ones responsible for the outcome here, which will have an effect on the presidential election. >> dahlia, what is your sort of read on this given your wealth of knowledge about the roberts court and the sort of national

importance and the really abbreviated time line on which things need to happen in order for the american voters to understand whether one of the presidential nominees is a convicted felon or not? >> i mean there's one other piece to the puzzle, and that is in less than 48 hours the court will be hearing 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. and so 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 that you are looking at a court that has we say this so often when you and i talk the lowest public approval ratings since gallop started polling, a complete lack of public confidence in the integrity of the justices and their ability to adhere to ethics. we have a massive unprecedented

leak in the case that wasn't investigated. i think mary is onto something when she says does the court really want to be the decider in case after case after case, because there will be more cases. we know donald trump is going to appeal anything he can up to the court, so i suspect 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 a thumb on the scale or taking a thumb off the scale for the president when the d.c. circuit got it right, what's the point? i think it is exactly correct to say they're already in it up to their eyeballs in this colorado case, and that's going to be a pretty hairy case for them to decide. why take a bite at this one when donald trump cannot plausibly win it? >> just really quickly, dahlia, if they don't decide to take it up, that effectively means it goes back to chutkan and things

move forward, is that right? >> things move forward. she's already scrapped the march 4th trial date because this took a long time, but it could very, very realistically begin in the spring and be decided by the summer if the curt just kicks it back and says, judge chutkan, on your mark, get set, go. >> wow. well, we're waiting. thank you both so much for your time tonight. really appreciate it. we got some big breaking news coming up, and all of it has to do with a chaotic and utterly dysfunctional republican party. congressman jamie raskin joins me just ahead. stay with us. h us rsv can severely affect the lungs and lower airways. but i'm protected with arexvy. arexvy is a vaccine used to prevent lower respiratory disease from rsv in people 60 years and older. rsv can be serious for those over 60,

including those with asthma, diabetes, copd, and certain other conditions. but i'm protected. arexvy is proven to be over 82% effective in preventing lower respiratory disease from rsv and over 94% effective in those with these health conditions. arexvy does not protect everyone and is not for those with severe allergic reactions to its ingredients. those with weakened immune systems may have a lower response to the vaccine. the most common side effects are injection site pain, fatigue, muscle pain, headache, and joint pain. i chose arexvy. rsv? make it arexvy.

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.

tonight the republican spectacle, the performance art, the attempt to impeach homeland security secretary hall hawn droe mayorkas, tonight that partisan undertaking failed in a theatrically embarrassing loss on the floor of the house. i should underscore the fact secretary mayorkas didn't actually do anything impeachment worthy here, certainly nothing criminal, but that was all kind of the point. by targeting secretary mayorkas, republicans could look like they're being tough on the

border without having to actually do anything on the border at all. just impeach secretary mayorkas and call it a day. but now that effort, that theater 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'm extremely disappointed in the very strange maneuvering by many on the right to torpedo a potential border reform bill. >> well, it's a crappy bill. i mean it's terrible. that thing is terrible. >> my views on this bill have not been ambiguous. at the last press conference we had here i described it as, quote, a steaming pile of crap. >> got to read the bill. i mean don't be ignorant. read the bill. >> the bill that republicans are at odds over is a $118 billion immigration bill that was unveiled last week, but here's

the thing about that bill, it was bipartisan, and it gave republicans a whole bunch of what they claimed 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. and within 24 hours before the ink was even dry, republican senators decided they don't want a bipartisan bill to fix the border. >> that was democratic senator chris murphy, and he was the democrat leading negotiations on this bill. again, this was a bipartisan effort. the republican senator and border hawk, i might ad, who

negotiated on behalf of republicans was senator james langford. he's a coauthor of this bill, and he's now actually under the bus having been thrown there by his own party. yesterday former president trump falsely claimed he never endorsed senator lank and proceeded to bash the senator as trump does. but trump did actually endorse senator lankford just two years ago. donald trump dpa gave james lankford his 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 a conservative bill. if republicans were actually focused on the policy here, they would support it. republicans say they want a quote-unquote secure border, but they do not, not really. >> what they actually want is chaos. because that's what donald trump says he wants. >> joe biden's approval rating

is at 33%. why would we do anything to try to help improve that abysmal number with a border bill? >> i want to secure the border that's what i told my voters i would do. >> the truth is the republican party has ceased to be a party of principles or even much of a party really. the gop's sole reason to exist in this moment appears to be the re-election of donald trump. and if you needed further proof of that late tonight we got the news from "the new york times" that the chairwoman of the republican national committee plans to step down. "the times" reports that ronna mcdaniel plans to step down shortly after the primary on february 24th and that her exit comes after months of pressure and a campaign from trump allied forces to unseat her. "the times" reports that trump is likely to back an election denier, a man named michael

watley, to take her 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. congress right after the break.

only sleep number smart beds let you each choose your individual firmness and comfort. your sleep number setting. and actively cools and warms up to 13 degrees on either side. now save 50% on the sleep number limited edition smart bed. plus, free home delivery when you add an adjustable base ends monday. only at sleep number.

three judges from the d.c. circuit court of appeals were united in their ruling against donald trump's claims of presidential immunity for trying to overturn the 2020 electionch

and the money quote from that ruling is arguably this one. "for the purpose of this criminal case former president trump has become citizen trump with all of the defenses of any other criminal defendant. but any executive immunity that may have protected him while he served as president no longer protects him against this prosecution." joining me now is maryland congressman, constitutional law expert, and former member of course of the january 6th committee congressman jamie raskin. congressman, it's so great to have you on this program. first, let meet 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 appalachian citizen obama or citizen link because a real constitutional patriot understands that those of us who aspire and attain to public office are nothing but the servants of the people. and the moment that we think we're lords or kings or queens

or despots over everybody else, that's the moment immediately to eject, evict, 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's an excellent into how the constitution works, no one is above the law much less the president of the united states. they really put not just donald trump but the presidency and the president back in proper constitutional perspective and said, you know, the president has no more right to violate the law than a member of congress, a judge, a juror, or anybody else who's serving a public function. but in democracy, we occupy these roles temporarily, and nunl of us can allow our imaginations to run away with ourselves the way donald trump and his lawyers apparently have lost complete contact with

reality. >> yeah, what stunned me was just the incredibly tidy way they slapped down two of trump's sort of biggest i guess you could call them defenses or arguments in this. the first was that, you know, allowing a president to be criminally prosecuted in post-presidency would open a pandora's box and somehow all presidents forevermore would be subject to criminal prosecution, and the court, that it would have a chilling effect on the presidency itself. and the appeals court writes "we conclude that the interest in criminal accountability held both by the public and executive branch, outweighs the potential risks of chilling potential action. and they go onto say maybe it's a good thing instead of inhibiting the president's lawful discretionary action it might serve as a benefit to deter possible abuses of power and criminal behavior.

basically up ending the defense this would be a bad thing and suggesting maybe presidents not is a good thing. >> on the basis of fact they seem to be saying, up until donald trump no president in american history had ever been indicted after leaving office. i think anybody whether you're the biggest trump supporter in the world or you think he foretells an authoritarian future for america no one would completely believe he's unique and suey generous in respect for his spectacular disrespect for the rule of law. they make a good point there are structural barriers to anybody in the government running away with the idea of their being a monarch or a dictator. that's why we have impeachment and conviction as a barrier to

anybody in federal office who it applies to engaging in high crimes and misdemeanors. that's why we have the supreme court and judicial review of actions. that's why harry truman's steel seizure in 1962 was struck down. that was not selfishly motivated the way donald trump's crimes were, but he thought he could seize the steel plants for the war ert, and the supreme court said, no, that's 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 go out and enforce it. everybody's got to stay within their constitutional lane. >> you know, they also take apart trump's sort of argument that he needed today be impeached before convicted, which is against what his lawyers were actually saying in court. and the judges go onto quote trump's lawyers back to him in taking apart that argument. but to the point you were just making about everybody staying in their own lane, i think the sort of strongest language they

reserve is the -- is the part of the ruling where they talk about the structural assault on the three branches of government. and then effectively if trump's alleged efforts to remain in power despite losing the 2020 election that they were effectively -- if those were proven 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's the part i think as someone who was so involved in the house january 6th committee, that's sort of the essence of all of this, isn't it? just someone trying to run rough shot over the ability over the ability of our government to keep tabs on wrongdoing in other branches. >> when the three judges, two democratic appointees, one republican appointee unanimously say that essentially were we to buy 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's 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 munsey no matter where you turn no one can hold donald trump accountable. so this completely perverse and absurd constitutional argument that cuts against two centuries of our history really flows out of the warped psychology of this man who probably began as a boy who got his way at every possible turn like little richy rich, the comic book i used to read sometimes when i was a kid.

you could never tell richy rich he couldn't do anything that he didn't want to do. and in the end, though, he was always upended. and in the end i hope 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 were like and what american jurisprudence really stands for. >> it was a good day for jurisprudence, not a great day because you remember the house of representatives and there was a spectacular piece of republican teeter that failed miserably on live television. that was the attempted impeachment of alejandro mayorkas. >> 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, in the oversight committee as every which way they've turned, the witnesses have rejected what they're saying about joe biden. they just haven't laid the glove on joe biden, and there's no high crime or misdemeanor, no treason or bribery. they said let's go ahead and impeach mayorkas. that's the bone we'll throw to marjorie taylor greene and matt gaetz in the crowd, but three republicans defected today, and as you know the timing is the 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 ken buck. therapy abandoned by mcclintock and gallagher surprised them.

they thought they had one vote. then al green who was set made it to the floor. some pebs were saying she forced himself to get up to be able to go. others thought it was a strategic maneuver, 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 way the republicans were. they held the vote open for a long time to try to change someone's mind, and none of that worked. like everything else they're doing, it's all boom ranking because they don't have a plan for america, and the things they used to talk about like abortion they can't talk anymore because the public has completely repudiated them. now they're down to immigration and they won't take yes for an answer because donald trump wants to run as immigration as a

problem and not a solution. and of course vladimir putin is in the background pulling the strings to make sure republicans don't go along with aid to the heroic people of ukraine resisting his aggression. >> congressman jamie raskin, such pleasure to have you on the program tonight. thank you for your time tonight, sir. coming up president biden's top migration advisor and national security advisor joins me. she's going to be here to discuss what's going on at the border and all the republican non-efforts to avoid fixing it at all costs. that's too many double negatives. and it's coming up next. that's e negatives. and it's coming up next.

just hours ago house republicans held a vote to impeach homeland security secretary alejandro mayorkas and failed. other than the 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 filled with things republicans themselves have been demanding. joining me now is katie tobin, president biden's former top migration advisor and former senior director for border security who just left the white house last week. 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 joined a deal on the thorny issue of migration to have like an impeachment proceeding under way 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. thank you, alex, for having me on. of course. just to say at the top i've had the chance to work with secretary mayorkas quite a bit over the last three years and he's such a man of integrity and i think an inspiration to see many that have worked for him. his parents are refugees from cuba. what he's done to rebuild morale in the department and to usher in, you know, just historic legal pathways to the united states along with important enforcement measures with really no support from congress, today was vindicating but really was a waste of time. they should not be targeting him this way.

so, you know, i think the president said it well today when he spoke and really addressed the american people that this is -- this is serious. we need border reform. we have for a long time. he's been calling for it since day one of the administration. i think today really illuminated the games that are being played on this issue. in the seat i was on the national security council i was focused on this. this is an issue, migration is impacting all countries. it's at a level we've never seen before. and so, you know, we are in negotiations with our foreign partners, too, 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 is issue that important, it's existential, so we want to see that in congress. >> yeah, well, i mean, i think for a lot of people the president has sort of 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, 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, they removed more border crossers in the first two years than the last two years. can you help put into perspective sort of how hawkish, if you will, this administration is, how hard line this administration is compared not just to trump but to other democrats? >> i mean having worked for the president since day one, i actually don't think there's 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, and the fact that during both periods we've had a strong economy, but we can talk about that more, but he also really believes we need to be a country that's welcoming and we're founded -- we're a country of immigrants, we have to be welcoming but we can do that in an orderly way. a lot of 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 and a visa versus, you know, crossing through the darian gap and crossing the rio grande. i think if you look back on what we proposed on day one and what we've been working to achieve,

it's really -- it's consistent. so it's unfortunate to see the politics around this. and, you know, 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, too, 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 were the countries that were in some ways failing their citizens and causing them to migrate north. the administration seem tuesday have moved away from that entirely, and it's just dealing with the border issue itself. what happened there? >> well, so that # work is continuing and we're actually making some real strides on that. i think the magnifying glass is on the border right now, but i actually think it needs to be more on the root causes and the work we're doing in the region. i've actually travel would the vip's national security advisor twice in 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 nugeration of a new president in guatemala, an anti-corruption candidate. that's critical because we need -- without really going to those root causes of corruption and, you know, democratic backsliding, it's actually really hard to get the private sector to invest and other donors to invest. so we see a real turning point for guatemala. but the work of root causes is something the president cares about a lot. he held a mantle on that, vice president harris has taken that on. the other work we've done as a companion to that is to strengthen our cooperation with countries across the region to manage am thigration flow. and so president biden in june of 2022 launcheded the los angeles declaration with 22

countries across the western hemisphere signed this. so we need a common approach. we need to be working together. so the work we're doing in the region is critical, but it, unfortunately, i think the focus is often 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. we have one more story coming up and it is this. did the key witness in trump's fraud trial lie under oath? the answer to that question could prove very, very expensive for donald trump. we'll have more on that after the break. donald trump we'll have more on that after the break.

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.

when "the new york times" broke the news last week that donald trump's former cfo, allen weisselberg, was negotiating with the manhattan d.a.'s office to plead guilty to perjury in trump's civil fraud case, it raised questions whether this might be causing judge arcter engoron, the judge presiding over that case, to delay his

final ruling as to whether donald trump will potentially shell out $370 million or more for committing fraud. today we kind of got an answer. in an e-mail 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 -- rebecca, sorry. going right to it. former manhattan assistant d.a. why is judge engoron asking trump's lawyers to respond to this weisselberg potential plea? >> 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 he lied on the stand this obviously has a huge impact on the judge's evaluation of the testimony and the case itself. and even though the alleged perjury may be about a 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. >> exactly. >> and weisselberg is a key defense witness in engoron's trial, is he not? >> yes. i mean he is an important witness, and he, you know, testified as to a lot of the alleged valuations that were supposedly exaggerated in order to get a benefit in these -- in these loans. >> is this the kind of thing that would potentially move judge engoron to increase the sort of fine, if you will? we know he's looking at maybe $370 million fine here in this civil fraud trial. >> right, it's complicated because that fine is going to be based a lot on these expert, you know, assessments of how much damage was done, but i think, yes, in terms of his ultimate finding of the extent to which this has -- this fraud occurred. and if he finds this was massive, then the -- of course the fine can be massive. >> the other piece of this

that's interesting is the way all these cases are sort of collapsing in on each other a little bit. >> it's very interesting. first of all, we know there's this ongoing case in manhattan, a criminal case unrelated about the hush money payments. alvin bragg has that on his mind. even if weisselberg is not going to be an important character 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's that. there's also the fact he was himself looking at these same facts that constitute the facts that made up the civil case and deciding whether to charge that criminally. he's decided to move on and not to, but that's always a possibility as well. these cases are all going on, and there's so many of them sometimes you can forget about

one when you focus on another. >> and well, let's just say donald trump showed up to the courtroom for the engoron case because it involves his pocketbook, and that means it matters to him. rebecca, you didn't even need an introduction. such a well-versed expert in all this. i'm so appreciative of your time. thank you, rebecca. >> before we go we have a quick note about tomorrow's program. i'll not want to miss my exclusive sit down with former first lady hillary clinton. that's tomorrow at 9:00 p.m. eastern, 9:00 a.m. eastern if you live on the other side of the planet. "way too early" with jonathan lemire is coming up next. citizen trump is not above the law. that's what an appeals court ruled after rejecting the former president's claim of presidential immunity in his january 6th case. we'll break down the key take-aways just