good to be with you, i'm katy tur. so many words to describe what happened on the house floor last night, but one fits best. failure. house republicans failed not once, but twice, in two subsequent votes last night, failing to get enough gop votes to impeach dhs secretary alejandro mayorkas, and failing to get enough votes to fund israel. that's not all. we're waiting for what could be another major fail. this time in the senate as

republicans are expected to torpedo a bipartisan immigration and foreign aid bill. well, democrats aren't entirely on board either with that bill. fail to go pass immigration reform is especially embarrassing for republicans who have been screaming for decades that the border is in crisis, and needs to be fixed through legislation immediately. but now that a once in a multi-decade opportunity to do something about it is in front of them, they're about to decide that chaos at the border is politically better for them than an attempt to fix it. in the gob smack words of conservative republican senator james lankford who cowrote the bill, quote, are we as republicans going to have press conferences and complain the border is bad and intentionally leave it open after the worst month in american history in december. well, senator, it seems the answer is yes. so what exactly is happening in

the republican party? who is in charge? and is this these failures, what they want? joining us now, nbc news capitol hill correspondent ryan nobles and "punchbowl news" cofounder and msnbc political contributor, jake sherman. ryan, bring us up to speed on what's happening in the senate right now? >> reporter: so they are right now voting on that entire supplemental package that includes the border provisions, ukraine funding, israel funding and aid to the indo-pacific. that measure is expected to fail. it won't make the 60-vote threshold. the drama we're waiting for is the next round of voting, which we expect to happen immediately after this vote closes, and that's essentially a new piece of legislation where senator schumer, the senate majority leader is planning to pull out the border component of this package which has been kind of the sticky wicket to all of this which has led republicans enmas to say they do not want this

package to pass. and then we're going to have to see what happens. it still needs 60 votes. there are certainly a number of republicans who firmly believe that aid to ukraine and israeli is something that needs to happen, and some republicans, even some of the most conservative republicans have said over the past couple of days that they are willing to move the supplemental packages separate from the border package. we do know, and i know jake's team at punch bowl has reporting on this. there's been a pretty animated, you would say, back and forth between republicans and a closed door meeting as to how significant republicans want to handle the piece of legislation, if they want to give the bill the opportunity to move forward. even if it makes it out of the senate, there's a whole other conversation about what happens in the house. this is a rare moment, katy. i know we have been saying this a lot lately and that it happens, it's really unusual that we don't know how the vote is going to go at least on the senate side, and right now, whether or not that second vote passes that 60-vote threshold, i think is an open question.

>> ryan, thank you very much. jake, talk to me about what you know about the closed door meeting? >> it was heated, katy. we have talked about this for eight months or so. there are deep divisions in the senate republican conference, the house republican conference about continuing to fund ukraine. republicans say, and it's hyperbole, but they don't know what the end game is, and they don't want to keep sending billions of dollars to ukraine. >> jake, can i just interrupt you and mention the procedural vote just failed. >> yes, that is the procedural vote on this border component, on the supplemental spending bill with the border, so that was expected to fail. the next vote is really the key, and that was the subject of conversation in the senate republican lunch today where steve daines stood up and said voting to push forward on this foreign aid bill without the border would kneecap our republican candidates across the country. a big back and forth between the various factions about

proceeding with that. our reporting tells us that this probably will succeed today, meaning they will get, you know, 10, 15 or so republicans to vote on what is called the cloture on the motion to proceed on to this bill. then there's a whole other set of hurdles they have to clear, and debate that has to happen, potentially amendments that have to happen to clear the foreign aid bill, and then as ryan said, katy, it comes over to this side of the capitol, which is a complete circus, and i know we have been covering this circus together for ten years, katy, or more. this is as circus as it's ever gotten, if it could get any more circus, we would be in the sphere in las vegas. >> just to give us a little bit more detail on the vote that just failed. for the record, the republicans who voted for the procedural vote for this immigration, and foreign aid bill, all of it

together, collins, lankford, murkowski and romney, all gop yes, sir. noes, marquee, menendez, senator schumer, the majority leader also voted no but that's a procedural move so he can bring the motion up again later if he chooses. he can bring it up again, they can vote again, if something changes. it probably is not going to change. you talk about in punchbowl, gop dysfunction, and not seeing anything quite like this. having this be just another example or actually seeing a lot of things quite like this, recently. but having this be another example of just the move toward total chaos from the republican party that started, a brand new republican party that started with the tea party, can you explain what's been happening? >> yeah, i mean, the strictures and the kind of traditional fault lines have changed so much in the last 14 years, the traditional republican party, the strong on foreign policy

global leader type party that mitch mcconnell tried to lead for the last 15 years is dead. and we've shifted into a new sphere that of a republican party that doesn't want to support allies across the world, whether it be ukraine or in the house of representatives, suggesting that we offset or cut spending to allow us to give more money to israel. it's really something that i had never seen. and you add into the mix a new speaker of the house in mike johnson who has no real background that would lend him, give him the skills to be speaker of the house, take two bills to the floor, two serious bills, katy. they are messaging bills, in some respects. these are serious topics, aid to israel. impeaching alejandro mayorkas, a cabinet secretary and having those fails in prime time is unlike anything i have ever seen. mike johnson took those to the floor, knowing they would fail.

he purposely decided that he would go forward with the votes knowing it would fail. it defies everything that we know about politics, which is we want winning to be the outcome, not losing. >> it used to be that mitch mcconnell was kind of the titular head of the republican party, even in the trump years. he had a lot of sway over republicans in the senate. it seems like mcconnell no longer has that sway, and the party is fully under the control of a man who's still running for office who might get disqualified from the ballot, the supreme court is hearing a case to disqualify him from the ballot tomorrow. they're hearing oral arguments. donald trump seems to be in command of the party, though he's not in command of his own party. >> we don't have a traditional pool of ride or die defense hawks who are going to support a muscular foreign policy and

military presence for the united states across the globe. we don't have that anymore, so we have people like mike lee and jd vance and people of that nature who are inherently skeptical of more money going to countries like ukraine, and they are the loudest voices in the republican conference right now, and add into the mix a presidential election, some senators who want to be vice president, some members of the house republican leadership who want to be vice president, and you do have a republican party that continues to be under the spell of donald trump. i think that's accurate. >> jake sherman, thank you very much. >> thanks, katy. and still ahead, president biden called their counter, quote, a little over the top. what hamas is demanding this time. this man right here, the prime minister also had something to say about it. and it could be bush v. gore round two, this time the supreme court is tasked with decides if of the presidential candidates is an insurrectionist.

why one conservative constitutional scholar says there's only one way the textualists on the court can faithfully read the constitution. and it's not in donald trump's favor. first, though why it is such a big deal for ronna mcdaniel to potentially step down from the rnc. and what it means for the man next to her. donald trump. we're back in 60 seconds. my frequent heartburn had me taking antacid after antacid all day long but with prilosec otc just one pill a day

blocks heartburn for a full 24 hours. for one and done heartburn relief, prilosec otc. one pill a day, 24 hours, zero heartburn. ♪♪ whoo! ♪♪ light work! ♪♪ next victims. ♪♪ you ready for this? ♪pump up the jam pump it up♪ in yet another sign that donald trump and election denialists are on the way to complete control of the republican party, ron na mccann -- daniel may be about to step aside. trump's campaign has been planning a shake up at the party. if he becomes the nominee, pressuring her to resign in favor of someone more suited to donald trump's needs. joining us now is nbc news correspondent garrett haake. i just received a letter that

ronna mcdaniel sent to rnc members. here's the pertinent portion, with the new cycle full of intrigue and speculation surrounding all of us, i want to take the time to reassure all of you that i'm still hard as work as rnc chairwoman, and building a machine that will elect republicans up and down the ballot in november. she goes on to say myself and my staff are refusing to be distracted by the outside noise and we remain committed to our mission. rumors to the contrary are simply not true. nothing has changed, and there will not be any changes decided on until after south carolina, when we may have our eventual nominee. that's interesting, garrett. there will not be any changes decided on until after south carolina. that's basically the reporting. >> reporter: at least on that point, she's been in agreement with what donald trump has said publicly which is that he wants to have a discussion about how to grow the rnc after south carolina is handled.

ronna mcdaniel is in a difficult position. she has lost the faith of the maga movement in the party. a lot of candidates are upset at the way she handled the debates and the rnc has been getting crushed in fundraising by the dnc, democrats over the last year. she has been facing pressure on all sides. that letter has kind of reports of my death have been greatly exaggerated vibe to it. we know she was at mar-a-lago this week to discuss her future and the rnc's future with trump. i think it's not at all outside the realm of possibility that she finds herself on the outs either before or after south carolina, either by resigning or by potentially being layered over by others who can kind of shape the rnc more in the direction of donald trump's liking. >> so when we're talking about who that person might be shaping that party, and having it being led by somebody more to donald trump's liking, "the new york times" has reporting on potential contenders, including

an election denialist out of south carolina. can you tell us about what donald trump might like? >> reporter: yeah, the name you're referring to is michael wattley, out of north carolina, actually, the party chairman there, who the times reports is a stop the steal guy is the language they have used. i have heard his name floated by others in the trump orbit as well. depending on how this happens, different things might be forced to occur here. donald trump can't hand pick a nominee to run the party. he can certainly make clear what his preference is. party members will have to vote on it. the possibility that mcdaniel gets layered over is important here, whether the trump campaign can bring somebody in. saying we want to work in a different direction. one thing that's important for people to remember, it's not unusual, once a party has a nominee for that person to effectively steer the party apparatus, whether it be the rnc or dnc. that's fairly normal. what's unusual here, it might happen in february, not in june

or july, i think it speaks to the relative weakness of the rnc in this moment, and the broad dissatisfaction among all the factions in the republican party and the way he's run things over the year. >> i had a 50% chance on the carolina, and i got it wrong. >> reporter: this close. >> garrett, thanks. joining us now, republican strategist and former communications director for the republican national committee, doug hyde, good to have you. >> good to be with you. >> what is the significance of moving aside ronna mcdaniel, who may have been seen as a moderate republican. she used to use her middle last name, ronna romney mcdaniel. until she became aligned with the trump side of things. is it significant to have her move aside for somebody more aligned with donald trump? >> i think garrett got the point exactly right. the move is not necessarily significant. this is what happens time and time again, when it's clear who a nominee is, they essentially can set the tone for the rnc or

dnc. the timing of this is obviously is unusual. this is something that happens usually closer to the convention, and so that is different here, and it highlights some of the challenges that ronna romney mcdaniel has had over the past few months, running afoul of the maga movement, two, some difficulty with fundraising. also, her chief of staff, mike reed, who's a real pro is leaving the rnc. he has been planning it for a while, but just announced it this week. there are changes that are happening at the committee regardless. >> what happens to the section of the republican party that doesn't feel aligned with donald trump or somebody who, if they are installed, might be someone who was pushing stop the steal? what happens to the more moderate voices in the republican party? can they even consider themselves republicans any longer? >> i would consider them more voices of realism and reality than conservative or moderate, but look, there's not a really big spot at the table for republicans like that,

republicans like me. it's one of the things i'm reminded of if not every day, certainly every week. looking at how the committee operates, and it's something i know well. the reality is whomever donald trump was going to pick. michael whatley who i have known for 20 years. when i worked with senator burr, from north carolina. somebody who's going to be aligned in their value. if you're a democrat in 2012 and said obamacare was terrible for the midterm elections, probably weren't going to head to the dnc. if you said george bush was wrong about the iraq war, the bush administration wouldn't put you forward for the rnc. stop the steal and election denialism is a bridge a lot of people never thought we would get to. it tells you where the republican party is right now, and that's donald trump is going to put somebody who conforms with his world view. that's the reality, unfortunately. >> doug hyde, thank you very

much. >> thank you. israel has hamas's demands, will benjamin netanyahu accept the terms to start freeing hostages again? first, there is only one way to read it, what one conservative constitutional scholar says the supreme court should decide if it is actually in the business of following the constitution. and what that will mean for donald trump's candidacy. i have moderate to severe crohn's disease. now, there's skyrizi. ♪ things are looking up, i've got symptom relief. ♪ ♪ control of my crohn's means everything to me. ♪ ♪ control is everything to me. ♪ feel significant symptom relief at 4 weeks with skyrizi, including less abdominal pain and fewer bowel movements. skyrizi is the first il-23 inhibitor that can deliver remission and visibly improve damage of the intestinal lining. and the majority of people experienced long-lasting remission at one year. serious allergic reactions and an increased risk of infections or a lower ability to fight them may occur. tell your doctor if you have an infection or symptoms,

had a vaccine or plan to. liver problems may occur in crohn's disease. ♪ now's the time to ask your gastroenterologist how you can take control of your crohn's with skyrizi. ♪ ♪ control is everything to me. ♪ ♪ learn how abbvie could help you save. she found it. the feeling of finding the psoriasis treatment she's been looking for. she found sotyktu, a once—daily pill for moderate—to—severe plaque psoriasis... for the chance at clear or almost clear skin. it's like the feeling of finding your back... is back. or finding psoriasis can't deny the splendor of these thighs. ♪♪ once—daily sotyktu was proven better, getting more people clearer skin than the leading pill. don't take if you're allergic to sotyktu; serious reactions can occur. sotyktu can lower your ability to fight infections including tb. serious infections, cancers including lymphoma, muscle problems, and changes in certain labs have occurred. tell your doctor if you have an infection,

liver or kidney problems, high triglycerides, or had a vaccine or plan to. sotyktu is a tyk2 inhibitor. tyk2 is part of the jak family. it's not known if sotyktu has the same risks as jak inhibitors. find what plaque psoriasis has been hiding. there's only one sotyktu, so ask for it by name. so clearly you. sotyktu. covid-19? i'm not waiting. if it's covid, paxlovid. paxlovid is an oral treatment for adults with mild-to-moderate covid-19 and a high-risk factor for it becoming severe. it does not prevent covid-19. my symptoms are mild now, but i'm not risking it. if it's covid, paxlovid. paxlovid must be taken within the first five days of symptoms, and helps stop the virus from multiplying in your body. taking paxlovid with certain medicines can lead to serious or life-threatening side effects or affect how it or other medicines work, including hormonal birth control. it's critical to tell your doctor about all the medicines you take because certain tests or changes in their dosage may be needed. tell your doctor if you have kidney or liver problems, hiv-1, are or plan to become pregnant, or breastfeed.

don't take paxlovid if you're allergic to nirmatrelvir, ritonavir, or any of its ingredients. serious side effects can include allergic reactions, some severe like anaphylaxis, and liver problems. these are not all the possible side effects so talk to your doctor. if it's covid, paxlovid. 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!

in between, we have pressed israel in concrete ways to strengthen civilian protection, to get more assistance to those who need it. and over the past four months, israel has taken important steps to do just that, starting the flow of aid. doubling it during the first pause for hostage releases, opening the north and south corridors in gaza so that people could move out of immediate harm's way, through these corridors with four hours pause every day, three hours notice. opening shalom. starting the flow of assistance from jordan, establishing

deconfliction mechanisms for humanitarian sites. as a result, today more assistance than ever is moving into gaza from more places than at any time since october 7th. as the largest donor of humanitarian aid to the palestinians, the united states has helped provide much of that assistance, including funding 90,000 metric tons of flour, delivered from ashdot port, enough to provide bread for 1.4 million people for the next five months. a u.n. team, the mission to the north, to assess conditions for the civilians who are still there, as well as what needs to be done to allow displaced palestinians to return back home to the north. and yet, as i said to the prime minister and to other israeli officials today, the daily toll that its military operations continue to take on innocent civilians remains too high. in our discussions today, i

highlighted some key steps that israel should take to ensure that more aid reaches more people in gaza. so citizens can flow to northern gaza where as i said, hundreds of those of people are struggling to survive under dire conditions. it should expedite the flow of humanitarian assistance from jordan. it should strengthen deconfliction, and improve coordination with the humanitarian providers. and israel must ensure that the delivery of life saving assistance to gaza is not blocked for any reason by anyone. we urge israel to do more to help civilians, knowing full well that it faces an enemy that would never hold itself to those standards, an enemy that cynically embeds itself among men, women and children and fires rockets from hospitals, from schools, from mosques, from

residential buildings, an enemy whose leaders surround themselves with hostages, an enemy that has declared publicly its goal to kill as many innocent civilians as they can, simply because they're jews and to wipe israel off the map. that's why we have made clear that israel is fully justified in confronting hamas and other terrorist organizations, and that's why the united states has done more than anything other country to support israel's right to ensure that october 7th never happens again. israelis were dehumanized in the most horrific way on october 7th. the hostages have been dehumanized every day since. but that cannot be a license to dehumanize others. the overwhelming majority of people in gaza had nothing to do with the attacks of october 7th. the families in gaza whose survival depends on delivery of

aid from israel are just like our families. their mothers and fathers, sons and daughters, want to earn a decent living, send their kids to school, have a normal life. that's who they are, that's what they want. and we cannot, we must not lose sight of that. we cannot, we must not lose sight of our common humanity. we remain determined as well to pursue a diplomatic path to adjust in lasting peace and security for all in the region. and notably for israel. and that diplomatic path continues to come into ever sharper focus as i travel throughout the region. and talk to all of our friends and partners. an israel that's fully integrated into the region with normal relations, with key countries, including saudi

arabia. with firm guarantees for its security, alongside a concrete time bound irreversible path to a palestinian state living side by side in peace and security. with israel, with the necessary security assurances. over the course of this trip, we discussed the substance and sequence of steps that all would need to take to make this path real. that includes steps by the palestinian authority to reform and revitalize itself, and i reaffirmed the imperative of the steps in my meeting with president abbas, chief among them, and improving governance, increasing accountability to the palestinian people. reforms that the palestinian authority is committed to make in a recently announced reform package and that we urge it to implement swiftly. now, we can see so many of the actors in the region lining up to move down the path that i

just described. but some are not. some are trying to sabotage that path. iran and its proxies continue to escalate and expand the cycle of violence that we all want to break. we'll continue to defend our people. we'll continue to defend our interests in the face of such attacks. not to fuel escalation, but to prevent it. finally in my discussions with the prime minister, it raised my profound concerns about actions and rhetoric, that inflame tensions, undercut international sport and place greater strains on israel's security. the people of israel have sacrificed enormously to forge this nation and to defend it.

they often decide the right path to take and whether they're ready to make difficult choices necessary to realize the vision of the long elusive prospect of true peace and true security. as a true friend of israel, as the country that has always been first to its side, whether that was may 14th, 1948 or october 7th, 2023, we will always offer our best advice on the choices before this country. especially the ones that matter the most. thank you, happy to take some questions. >> the first question goes to zolan with the "new york times." >> reporter: thank you, mr. secretary, for the question. just have a couple for you here. i know you said there's still room for agreement in terms of the negotiations over release of hostages but the prime minister after you spoke with him pretty bluntly dismissed hamas's response.

describing it even as ludicrous. i just wanted to clarify, is this response, are these negotiations doa at this point? and what specifically did the prime minister object to in that response? also, the prime minister short after you met with hill, made clear that israel troops will be moving deeper into rafah. will the united states simply stand by as this action is pursued, even with more than 1 million palestinians being held or are in rafah, seemingly with nowhere to go? and if i may, congress is now moving ahead with a bill that would pair aid for ukraine with aid for israel. would the administration endorse any potential package that once again prohibits unrwa funding? thank you. >> that's impressive. now, i'm taking it that that includes the questions of all of your colleagues as well, is that right? >> i don't think so. couldn't do that.

>> all right. starting with the first part. as i said, we have looked very carefully at what came back from hamas, and there are clearly nonstarters in what it's put forward. but we also see space in what came back to pursue negotiations, to see if we can get to an agreement. and that's what we intend to do. and i'm not going to speak for israel or anyone else involved. but, again, we believe the space is there, and we believe that we should pursue it. with regard to rafah, look, as i said before, israel has the responsibility, has the obligation to do everything possible to ensure that civilians are protected, skp -- and that they get the assistance they need in the course of this conflict.

any military campaign, military operation that israel undertakes needs to put civilians first and foremost in mind. and i suggested, again, some ways to do that. and that's especially true in the case of rafah where there are somewhere between 1.2 and 1.4 million people. many of them displaced from other parts of gaza. so we want to make sure, again, that in anything that's done, and any military operations, the situation for civilians is first and foremost in mind, and that the necessary steps are taken to make sure that they're protected and they have the assistance they need. >> you suggested some ways to do that. >> well, i just went through a number of things that we urge israel to do now on the building on what it's already done in

terms of both humanitarian assistance and civilian protection. and as i said in the case of rafah itself, that's extremely important because it has such a dense population, including many people who have been displaced from other parts of gaza. and on unrwa, look, the -- we were deeply concerned by the allegations that were made about the participation or involvement of some of its employees in october 7th. and it's imperative that as the u.n. has said it's doing, that there be a thorough investigation, that there be clear accountability, and that there be clear measures put in place to make sure that this can't happen. again, that personnel working for it were not in any way involved in terrorism or the events of october 7th.

we know that the work that unrwa performs, the functions that it performs have to be preserved because so many lives are depending on it. and so going forward we're going to look to the actions that are taken, and as i said, it's imperative the functions be preserved. >> reporter: sounds like the administration would then potentially support an aid package that still prohibited funding for unrwa. >> i'm not going to get ahead of views on hypothetical situations. >> reporter: there was already an aid package the administration endorsed. >> i'll leave that to the next time. thanks. >> reporter: gill, with channel 13. mr. secretary, thank you for the opportunity, it seems to be that the entire biden doctrine, vis-a-vis, israel, future palestinian state, normalization with saudi arabia is collapsing. netanyahu says, no, with capital

n, to any form of palestinian state. saudi arabia says normalization with israel will only be considered after an independent palestinian state is formed in the 1967 borders which is jerusalem as its capital. how does the u.s. intend to break this deadlock. and secondly, regarding the hostage deal, after we listen tonight to prime minister netanyahu, that says that hamas's demands are delusional, how do you find the space, as you mentioned, for negotiation, and do you feel that netanyahu is exhausting every possible option to bring back the israeli citizens kidnapped and held hostage by hamas or again, israeli politics is intervening, and lastly, why did you cancel your visit tomorrow to ke ram

shalom? >> this is good, i think we have a trend going of at least three questions. last question first. there was no planned visit, so there was nothing to cancel. one of the things we want to make sure as well as i said is that assistance be able to move smoothly and sustainably, but there was nothing to cancel. second, i guess i'll go in reverse order, i can only repeat myself. clearly, clearly there are things that hamas sent back that are absolute nonstarters, and i assume that's what the prime minister was referring to. but i don't want to speak for him. but at the same time, we see in what was sent backspace to

continue to pursue an agreement, and these things are always negotiations. it's not flipping a light switch. it's not yes or no. there's invariably back and forth, and as i said, we see the space for that, and given the imperative, given the importance that we all attach to bringing the hostages home, we're intent on pursuing it. finally, as i said before, you know, we were -- before october 7th, pursuing the possibility of normalization between israel and saudi arabia. and, in fact, i was scheduled to come to israel and to saudi arabia i believe it was on october 10th to pursue that.

and in particular, to focus on what we already knew back then was a necessary palestinian component to any normalization agreement. when i saw the crown prince in saudi arabia just a couple of days ago, he repeated to me his desire and determination to pursue normalization. but he also repeated that in order to do that, two things need to happen. one, there needs to be calm in gaza. two, there needs to be a clear and credible pathway to a palestinian state. so as i said before, you can see the path forward for israel and for the entire region with integration, with normalization. with security assurances.

with the pathway to a palestinian state. that entirely changes the equation and the future for the better for israelis, for arabs, for palestinians, and in so doing, isolates groups like hamas, isolates countries like iran that want a very different future. but as i also said, going down that path, pursuing it requires hard decisions. none of this is easy so it will be up to israelis to decide what they want to do, when they want to do it, how they want to do it. no one is going to make those decisions for them. all we can do is to show what the possibilities are. what the options are, what the future could be, and compare it to the alternative. and the alternative right now looks like an endless cycle of

violence and destruction and despair. we know where the better path lies, but i don't minimize in any way the difficult decisions that would need to be made by all concerned to travel down that path. >> anton laguardia with the economist. >> thank you very much, secretary. >> reporter: you used some very specific words in describing this vision for a better path, what do you actually mean by clear, credible, irreversible time bound path, and in qatar again today, you spoke about israel receiving security guarantees and assurances from its neighbors, what does that actually mean? what's on the table for israel if it goes down this path? and would that include additional u.s. assurances to israel on top of the

arrangements that currently exist? thank you. >> look, i'm not going to get ahead -- secretary of state antony blinken met with prime minister benjamin netanyahu and other officials today to discuss hamas's proposal, counter proposal to release hostages. they also discussed the u.s.'s requests and seems to be saying firm requests for the israelis to limit the number of casualties. they're not happy that the israelis are moving to rafah which they've said is the last place for palestinians to flee from the violence, and now they're facing violence in rafah as well. joining me now is msnbc anchor, ayman mohyeldin. it's good to have you. let's talk about the hamas counter proposal. president biden said today it was a little over the top, and then benjamin netanyahu said it was ludicrous. what was the proposal? what are they asking for? >> we learned from paris there was a frame work had been put in place that would largely follow what had previously been agreed to, which is kind of an exchange of hostages for a release of

palestinian prisoners. we didn't know what the demands from the palestinians was going to be, specifically the number and what else hamas wanted. they put forth a proposal that asked for the release of 1,500 palestinian prisoners in exchange for israeli hostages that include women, anyone under 19 years old, and the elderly and the sick. in addition, they wanted 500 palestinians who were serving at least life sentences in israeli prisons, and all women and children held by israel captured or held since october 7th. >> life sentences for the 500, do you know what they're accused of, what israel said they did? >> committing terrorism, the murder of israelis, master minds of terrorist attacks that took place against israeli civilians. many of them serving multiple life sentences, some as many as 46 life sentences. >> this is not israeli soldiers, this is women and children who were supposed to come out in the first round. >> this is for israelis being

held, that are under the age of 19 and women and elderly or sick. >> tony blinken was also saying even though there were nonstarters in the proposal, he does see room to negotiate. have you gotten a sense from your conversation where that room might be? >> it's hard for me to say. the understanding of what might be negotiable is the quantity of aid trucks, israeli reconnaissance over the gaza strip, allowing of palestinians the movement inside gaza for the north to the south to be able to get in tents. those were some of the demands that hamas asked for. the deployment of 60,000 mobile home units, 200,000 tents to allow for refugees to have shelter in the winter. so those areas are probably where there's going to be quick agreement on how to get the humanitarian aid. >> he's still on the diplomatic tour acrosses middle east, and what he's hearing from leaders of arab countries is that they

want to see a path toward a palestinian state in order to normalize relations with israel. he's repeated that and reiterated that multiple tiles. he even said the sequence and substance for steps of regional integration, do we have a sense of how receptive benjamin netanyahu is to that? >> we do. he said no to a palestinian state. he's very clear about that. i think this is the -- >> he does want regional stability. he does want normalization with saudi arabia. >> right, and i think the arab states have been pointing to that statement from the prime minister that there won't be a palestinian state. you can't have your cake and eat it too. on one hand while the arab world and saudi arabia the last great country or large country that has not normalized with israel officially, they're saying we will not have diplomatic relations with israel, explicitly unless there's a palestinian state on 1969 borders. what it has done is put the ball squarely in the israeli prime

minister's court, because what the saudis are saying to the israelis and americans is we don't anticipate a state will be announced tomorrow but we also can't keep doing what has happened in the years past, u.s. security resolutions, frameworks, oslo peace process and none is producing a viable palestinian state. >> and what you have from prime minister benjamin netanyahu today is that the only way to get peace would be to route out hamas, no existence of hamas whatsoever, and the day after he didn't say occupation, he said he would demilitarize gaza, but that israel would also be in charge of keeping gaza demilitarized, which i think was a, you know, an interesting way with words. >> right. it's an interesting things, parsing words a little bit, but the general consensus among americans is defeating hamas is one thing. and destroying them is another. realistically, i don't think many in the american establishment, not in the military community feel that israel can actually just destroy

hamas militarily. at some point you're going to have to engage with it. >> it's difficult to destroy an idea. ayman mohyeldin, thank you very much. yesterday, a federal appeals court called donald trump citizen trump and demolished his argument for presidential immunity. the supreme court will consider whether to demolish his candidacy, hearing oral arguments in the colorado suit which argues trump is not eligible to be president under the constitution because he's an insurrectionist. joining us now, nbc news senior legal correspondent, laura jarrett. set us tomorrow for us. >> for a long time this has been a debate confined to legal circles, dinner party conversation about whether the former president could be disqualified under the 14th amendment. then colorado did something bold, something no other state had done before, despite the fact there have been dozens upon

dozens of lawsuits all over the country trying to get mr. trump kicked off the ballot. and colorado said we're kicking him off the ball lot. one, he's covered under the 14th amendment. he actually engaged in an insurrection and we think this is something that the courts, not congress, but state courts are allowed to resolve under the 14th amendment. those are the core issues. there's a bunch of other issues but those are the core issues i'm looking for tomorrow. whether they want to delve into the merits of the insurrection itself. do they want to take that on or do they want to look for one of the more, what we might call procedural off ramps and decide not to touch the insurrection but find the former president is not covered by the 14th amendment for some other reason. joining us now, constitutional law expert, and "new york times" opinion columnist, david french. good to have you on again. the 14th amendment, section 3, what does it say? >> it says if you've taken an oath of office as a member of

the government and then you engage in insurrection, you cannot be an officer of the united states government again or you cannot be a congressman, an elector again. so once you take the oath, if you violate the oath, and you violate the oath by aiding and abetting an insurrection or engaging in an insurrection, then you can't serve again unless congress lets you serve. it's a very simple amendment. >> let's take two things here. we'll leave the whether donald trump participated in insurrection to the side for a moment. is the president an officer of the government? >> yes, absolutely. he's an officer. there are those who argue that he is not an officer under the united states, which is a very highly technical legal argument, but i think it is -- it doesn't match the text, and it doesn't match the history and tradition around this particular amendment, and under this particular amendment, it's very clear that it's meant to be very

expansive. and clearly a president is an officer. a president is the chief executive officer. they're an officer of the united states, so i think that that argument is among the weakness arguments that trump will bring. >> it's interesting, law fair brought up something justice scalia said about the officer of the united states and whether presidents are, and scalia said, yes. i'll read this from the article. if the supreme courts wants to definitively lift the shadow not just from the 2024 presidential race but january 2025 counting and certification of electoral college votes, the simplest way to do so is to adopt the argument that the president is not an officer of the united states, but one relevant fact about that argument has received surprisingly little attention. justice antonin scalia, in a short private letter explaining

it believed that the president was deed an officer of the united states for constitutional purposes. in addition, a strong case can be made that founding father, alexander hamilton like wise believed that the president was an officer of the united states. can you explain this scalia opinion? >> yeah, so essentially what you're talking about is the term officer, is it a term that has a special, unique meaning specifically for this particular amendment, or is it the term that has the general meaning, that it has in regular life. and the the rule is that words in law have the meaning that they generally have in life unless the statute or the rule itself changes the meaning, and that's not what is happening here. so in that sense, what scalia is talking about is the word officer means officer, and the president is an officer. this is sort of basic civics

101, and the language of the 14th amendment section 3 doesn't contain special language that opts the president out of that definition. so he's an officer, and his argument that he's not an officer i think is specious. i don't think it's going to go anywhere with the supreme court. >> what if the supreme court ped to argue or decide that donald trump didn't participate in insurrection as defined by amendment 14, article -- or section 3? could they do that? >> they could absolutely do that. they could choose to say that january 6th either wasn't an insurrection or the conduct that trump engaged in as we know thanks to the january 6th commission, for example, that that didn't -- that didn't -- that didn't mean that he engaged in an insurrection or that he provided aid or comfort for an insurrection. it's entirely possible they look at these facts and say, you know what? this is just too far from the context of 1861 and the civil war and all of that for it to

apply to donald trump. that is very possible. however, i think that if you look again at the historical record, it's pretty clear that the framers of the amendment were not intending that it apply only to the civil war or to circumstances like the civil war because there had been other insurrections in american history, and they did not specify that this was going to apply to the civil war only. >> explain that. why do you say it doesn't specifically apply to the civil war? what's the language in this amendment that makes it broader than that? >> it just talks about engaing in an insurrection. it doesn't specify the particular insurrection of 861 to 1865. they could have passed an amendment that says the participants in the civil strife from the periods 1861 to 1865 aren't eligible to serve. no, what happens is the framers of the amendment learned their lessons from the insurrection of

1861 and 1865 and how dangerous insurrectionists could be if they gained power again. so they're learning lessons from 1861. they were not confiing the amendment to the civil war, and why were they not? because there had been other insurrections, shay's rebellion, whiskey rebellion. >> why did conservative scholars, legal scholars, constitutional scholars say this was an insurrection pretty clearly? >> yeah, there's -- the definition of an insurrection, especially a definition of an insurrection as we understood it at the time the amendment passed really relates to the use of violence for a public or political purpose, not just violence say to steal something or violence for the -- you know, for the sake of vengeance, but this is violence for the sake of a public, political purpose. in other words, it's trying to

alter the government in some way by violent and illegal means, and that is a classic definition of an insurrection, and in fact, what we had in 2020 was the equivalent and in early 2021, was the equivalent of an attempted coup. this was an attempt to change the government of the united states. so again, this is classic insurrection nar behavior. you've got violence, illegality tied to alter the government of the united states. >> what about this idea there's not jurisdiction for the courts, that the secretaries of state don't have jurisdiction, that ultimately congress should be deciding this? >> now, that is an interesting argument where if you see the court drilling down on this, you might see that they're headed in the direction of, wait a minute, congress had to pass enabling statutes before you could apply this. however, i don't think that's what the amendment says. i don't -- if you look at the amendment, what it clearly says

is congress can act to remove the disability. in other words, congress can act to make someone eligible again, but it doesn't say that congress has to act to make them ineligible, that they're ineligible if they participated in the insurrection or provided comfort for the insurrection. that's when they're ineligible. that provision should be held to be self-executing, but i do think if the supreme court is looking for a way out here where they don't go ahead and rule that january 6th wasn't an insurrection, which could be a very dangerous precedent to set quite frankly, or that the president isn't an officer, which, again, is a weird construct to think that he's not, if they want to avoid this, they may say wait a minute, congress never enacted a statute that provides the framework for deciing whether someone's an insurrectionist or not. >> there have been places in history where somebody has been taken off the ballot, right? this has been used before or

removed from office. >> well, there was -- again, going into the late 1860s, this is ratified in 1868, there was an enormous amount of controversy around the former confederate officers at that time, and then unfortunately what happened, before you could really develop a full jurisprudence of this amendment and this section of the amendment is that there was an amnesty act passed several years later that lifted the disability, lifted the prohibition and allowed an awful lot of former confederate officeholders back into office, and so we didn't get to have that sort of full judicial explanation of this section because congress kind of cut it off at the knees in 1872. so really, this is going to be the first time the supreme court has really fleshed this out. >> it's going to be a big day tomorrow. we're going to be listening carefully. david, i look forward to your insights following that. thank you for your time today.

>> thanks so much for having me. and as expected, another major fail in the senate as bipartisan lawmakers torpedoed a bipartisan bill aimed at finally addressing the southern border. joining us now democratic senator from california, alex padilla. senator padilla chairs the subcommittee on immigration, citizenship, and border safety. there are a lot of americans out there who are looking at the southern border, sir, and they're saying it is a mess. something needs to be done and they might look at this bill and say at least that is a start. why did you vote against it? >> yeah, good to see you again, katy. look, i have my reasons for voting against, it's very different than the republicans, which i think is a bigger story here. my vote against the measure as much as i'm for the aid to ukraine, as much as i'm for not just the aid to israel but the humanitarian aid so desperately needed in the region, aid to taiwan, the indo-pacific region, the border elements of this bill

were bad enough that i had to in good conscience vote no. both for elements that were in the bill like a return to significant closures of the border, like title 42 under the trump administration, we know that policy failed because the numbers went up under trump, so why we think that's a solution is beyond me. but also, what's not in the bill, katy. historically negotiations or conversation, it was a balanced approach of some enforcement, which is more than appropriate, but also some relief, some legal pathways for dreamers, and for the first time ever, that was absent this package. so a lot more in the substance and the details, but that's why i was a no vote. >> there was some restrictions being put on asylum making it a little tougher to claim asylum, but it was also adding a lot more staff to monitor asylum and process asylum cases making sure that people who claim it are

under federal supervision for three months, not, you know, ten years while their claim is processed and then getting a work visa. was that something you agreed with or disagreed with? >> i agree in concept and i've been calling for more hearing officers and their support staff to process these claims more quickly. people deserve an answer yes or no in a matter of weeks or months, not years and years, which is currently the case. there's another line item in the measure that would have provided funding for local government and community-based organizations providing the support for migrants when they do come into our communities. a lot more was needed. don't fall for the window covering here. the biggest question is republicans have a decision to make. they showed through their votes today that there's no policy extremist enough for them to approve it. it's a deal that they negotiated and the moment that donald trump says no, no, no, let's wait until november, they all kneel.

they all cave in, and it's not the first time in 2013, this is exactly what happened. there was a bipartisan deal, which included those legal pathways that passed the united states senate. speaker boehner didn't bring it up for a vote. 2018 we saw it again, 2024 republicans are cutting and running again. >> we have some breaking news, a u.s. official tells nbc news that there was a u.s. military strike in iraq that killed a hezbollah commander responsible for attacks on u.s. forces. this is near baghdad. much more on "deadline white house," which starts right now. it is 4:00 here in new york, i'm in for nicolle wallace with breaking news. an official tells nbc news an air strike by the united states has killed a commander belonging to the militia group believed to be responsible for the strike that killed three