signed something physically, and the border patrol was enhanced with more personnel, if they address it that way. it could change the narrative. the problem with immigration, it is a visual issue. it is visible to you here in new york city walking around. it is visible to you in cambridge, massachusetts. in chicago, illinois. throughout the country, people can see what the collapse of the border has done to the environment. they can witness -- if you have a young family, you can witness what has happened as more and more children of immigrants are put into public schools across america. the cost to cities to maintain public safety, all of it, it's right there. >> well, we are grateful for you being with us this morning, mike barnicle. we'll see you again on "morning joe" in a moment. thanks for getting up "way too early" with us on this thursday morning. "morning joe" does start right now. i understand this, in this building and in the 202 area

code that is washington, d.c., border security is a political issue. but if we leave the 202 area code, everywhere else in the country, this is not a political issue, it's a national security issue. and when you actually go to the border patrol council, those that see the chaos day-to-day, they're saying, "send us some help." >> when you are handed the keys to the, you know, kingdom as it were, when you have the majority, there is an expectation that you will be able to govern. we have just struggled with that over and over again. it's a big leadership challenge that we need to find a solution for. >> honestly, i don't -- i don't care about basic governments. i actually think a little bit of turmoil, if you will, actually ends up being good for the american people at times. i mean, most of my voters would love to see this place shut down because they don't think it works for them.

specifically, they want to see it shut down until the border is shut down. >> the republican-led chaos continues on capitol hill. the bipartisan border bill that republican center, very conservative james lankford and others worked on for months, is officially dead. now, there are senate republicans who are vowing to block any foreign aid bill until the situation at the southern border is addressed first. like the bill they just killed. the bad faith arguments on those issues made by some maga republicans has angered some of the true conservative members of the gop. we'll get to that. meanwhile, there appears to be no path forward for critical foreign aid. we'll go through more of the dysfunction in washington in a moment and how it affects not only our country but the rest of the world. good morning. welcome to "morning joe." it is thursday, february 8th. along with willie and me, we have the host of "way too

early," white house bureau chief at "politico," jonathan lemire. and msnbc contributor mike barnicle joins us, as well. willie, our top story. >> let's start with the supreme court. this morning, just a couple hours, will hear oral arguments on donald trump's eligibility for the colorado primary. back in december, you'll remember, colorado state supreme court ruled trump should be removed from the state's ballot based on section 3 of the 14th amendment to the u.s. constitution. the post civil war provision of the constitution, anyone who took an oath as a member of congress or as an officer of the united states and engaged in insurrection cannot hold office again. his actions leading up to and on january 6th do not constitute an insurrection, said his team, nor was he an official of the government.

barbara mcquaid is co-host of "sisters-in-law" podcast. good morning. what do you expect to see today as this gets under way? >> i think we know what the arguments are just because all the briefs have been filed, all the amicas briefs have been filed. what we can expect to hear are the questions from the justices themselves which will be an indicator as to whether they'll go to the meat of this, looking to see whether donald trump engaged in an insurrection, or, instead, they're looking for an off-ramp to dodge the big question. as the justices ask questions, what will be interesting to hear is the focus of those questions, but also whether some justices are using their opportunity to ask questions as sort of advocating for a particular position or another. that's what makes it fascinating to listen to the oral argument. >> barbara, obviously, the supreme court, any court, is supposed to stick to the law. 14th amendment, section 3 in this case. there are obviously larger

implications here. we've heard even some democrats, heard some allies of president biden on other networks saying they worry about the implications of keeping donald trump off of a ballot, what it means for the country, what it means for telling voters, you don't have a chance to have your voice heard here. does the supreme court bring that into its decision ultimately? >> i don't know. chief justice roberts has his hands full here. i think we are at a moment in our nation's history when public confidence in the supreme court is very low. i think it has to be at the back of his mind that he doesn't want to do anything that makes that worse. if anything, he wants to bolster confidence. it is difficult to know which way that cuts. removing donald trump from the ballot, i suppose, would be putting the court at the center of american life. perhaps he would like to avoid being the decision maker that removes a presidential candidate who is leading his party for the

nomination. on the other hand, clarence thomas himself has said it is not the job of the supreme court to render extinct language from the constitution. to say that, well, he is popular, so we should just forget about worrying about the 14th amendment, it is the job of the court to interpret the law. so i think that they're a little damned if they do, damned if they don't here. if they say, you know, no, the voters should decide, that would really abdicate their role as the court to interpret the law. >> let's talk about what their job is. obviously, influencing public confidence is not the job of the supreme court. what is the question at hand here that they have to consider? because i think a lot of people might listen to this headline and say, well, he wasn't there at the capitol. he didn't break a window. so there's no way that donald trump did what this claim is saying. but this is talking about

engaging in insurrection, am i right? as a result, is it possible that could be proven? >> well, yes. in fact, if you look at the language of section 3 of the 14th amendment, it says not only that someone engaged in insurrection, it also says, or provided aid or comfort to those who did. i think there are a number of ways, just as the colorado supreme court did, to find that donald trump did, indeed, engage in insurrection, which would bar him under this clause. for example, the speech he gave at the ellipse and the tweets he sent even after -- >> right. >> -- the attack was under way could be a basis for engaging in insurrection. however, if there is a worry that that violates any first amendment rights that he may have, i think a stronger argument is that he provided aid and comfort to the same. as president, unlike the rest of us, he has affirmative duties to take care that the laws be faithfully executed. his failure to call off that

insurrection after 187 minutes, i think, is maybe the strongest argument, that he provided aid and comfort to those who were engaged in insurrection. that'd bar him, as well. >> jonathan lemire, not only did he say, "go to the capitol, i'll meet you there," and they went running to the capitol. since then, he called the people doing hard time right now for the insurrection that he instigated, he's calling them hostages. he had, i think, a convict choir at one of his rallies. he continues to give them comfort and to accept them as part of something normal. >> yeah, and he, of course, spent months spouting the big lie, which is what has primed that insurrection. >> right. >> then he appeared before the crowd on the ellipse on january 6th and whipped them up into a frenzy, even saying he'd go with them to the capitol before changing his mind and turning back and heading to the white house. certainly, ever since then, he has only praised those who

fought for him that day. we know that he watched on the television in the private dining room off the office and cheered on the violent moments of the insurrection that day. barbara, also important because it is not just colorado. there are other states considering similar measures if this were to go through. the supreme court has to step in and set precedent. walk us through the mechanics of what will happen today. who is going to speak, for how long? most importantly, what's next? when will we hear from the supreme court as to what they decide? >> they have set oral argument to allow, first, the appellant, typical case, the party who is seeking to overturn the prior decision, so the lawyes on behalf of donald trump will argue first. we'll hear from them. then the response will be divided among two lawyers. one representing the voters of colorado, to represent that interest, of not having an insurrectionist on the ballot. then, also, the solicitor general of the state of colorado

representing the secretary of state of colorado, who has slightly different interests. which is, i need to know whether to put this person on the ballot, and i have a duty to remove people who are not qualified. we'll hear from both of them. both arguing against donald trump being on the ballot but with slightly different interests there. we'll hear those arguments. as i said, to me, the most interesting part of listening, and it'll be supremely live at 10:00, i know right here on msnbc, and what will be most interesting is to listen to the questions. sometimes that can give you a hint as to what is on the mind of the justices. then your very good question, when can we expect to hear an answer, i think it'll come quickly. most of the time, these big issues are not decided until late in the court's term. june and even into july sometimes because it takes that long for them to exchange opinions and reach consensus on things or draft dissents from those majority opinions. but one of the things we've seen here is amicas briefs saying, i

need to know about the primary election in my state, so i imagine that brings a sense of urgency to the court. we have seen that from time to time when they really need to decide something quickly, a quick decision. i don't know we'll see it overnight, but i think we may see it in a matter of weeks, just because of the urgency of this question. >> barbara, that phrase you mentioned, listen to the questions, would it apply to chief justice john roberts who is carrying the weight of history on his shoulders right now? i'm sure he has a sense of his role in the supreme court's history. the supreme court had a rocky ride in terms of public opinion over the last four, five years. what role will that have in the hearings we're about to begin listening to? >> i imagine he has taken great care to prepare the questions that he is going to ask today.

in an effort to perhaps not just elicit answers to his questions but to signal to his colleagues on the bench the direction in which he is going. oftentimes, one of the things that an advocate is trained to do is, you know, listen to the question. is this really for me, or is this justice actually asking a question to signal somebody three seats down as to the direction he may be leaning? i think that, you know, court watchers will be listening to those kinds of questions. what is his poker hand here? is he revealing anything about the way he sees this case? >> barbara, i mean, everything that i've read and heard about this points to what mike barnicle just said, what you've said. sense of history at the supreme court. the reputation of the supreme court. people's confidence in the supreme court. influencing public opinion. the concern about getting involved in politics. possibly having two election cases on their hands.

do they want to really do that? what will people think? i don't think that's what the supreme court, though, ultimately will consider their job. when you look at the evidence and the interpretation of the law that's required here, is it possible that trump is removed from the ballot? >> i think it is entirely possible, mika. as you say, it is not the job of the court to decide public opinion. i think they're human, so it's got to be at the back of their minds, but i remember something that attorney general janet reno used to say, which is, when you find yourself in a situation where you are damned if you do and damned if you don't, then you might as well just do the right thing. one hopes the court will do that. i think one of the things they did here is the way that they framed the issue, which is very broadly, is donald trump eligible under the 14th amendment, it gives donald trump several different ways to win because there are really, as we discussed, eight different legal

issues they have to decide. did he engage in insurrection? is he an officer of the united states? is it self-executing? there are a number of issues. if donald trump wins on any one of those, he wins and stays on the ballot. i think that puts the odds in his favor. however, as we've just discussed, there are very strong arguments to indicate he is not eligible here, and so perhaps the court does lean in that direction. if i were betting, i'll bet they keep him on, but i think there is a chance he is removed. >> we'll get some indications this morning when the oral arguments begin at 10:00 eastern time before the supreme court. former u.s. attorney barbara mcquade, always great at explaining this stuff. we appreciate it. her book titled "attack from within: how disinformation is sabotaging america" is due out on february the 27th. barbara, thank you. a u.s. drone strike in baghdad yesterday killed a high-ranking leader of the iran-backed militia responsible for the attack that killed three american soldiers. nbc news chief international correspondent keir simmons

reports from iraq. >> reporter: flames in the iraqi capital. a u.s. strike so targeted, cars close by appear undamaged. others driving past. but in the aftermath, fury erupting. a crowd chanting "no to america, no to israel." among those killed, abu baqir al saadi, part of the ilitia responsible for killing three american soldiers in a remote desert base in jordan ten days ago. centcom saying, u.s. forces conducted a unilateral attack in iraq, killing a kataib hezbollah commander responsible for planning and participate in attacks on u.s. forces in the region. in addition to the deadly drone strike, iranian-backed militias launched over 160 attacks on

american targets since october and have kept on attacking american bases in syria, even after friday's wave of american retaliatory strikes. president biden, who has been under pressure to launch a more forceful response, was pressed about it earlier this week. >> are the airstrikes working? >> yes. >> iraq's military immediately branding the strike a violation of iraqi sovereignty. with tensions between iran and the u.s. escalating. >> keir joins us now live from erbil, iraq. you sat down with the prime minister of kurdistan there in iraq. what'd you learn from him about this attack? >> reporter: willie, he helped lead the fight against isis a decade ago. he counts president biden as a friend. but what he says now is they are facing a new battle because

while those three u.s. servicemen and women were killed in the drone strike at that base in jordan, the kurds here in northern iraq have been facing a barrage, a wave of drone attacks and other attacks from iranian-backed militia. they are under enormous pressure from baghdad, from iran, from turkey. what he says, and the reason he sat down with us is because he says he considers the u.s. a friend, but there just hasn't been the level of support that the kurds need here in order to help with that fight. the very fight that president biden is engaged in with those i iranian-backed proxies. the kurds are on the front line, he says. you fought terrorism alongside the united states. >> yes. >> now, you are fighting terrorism again but of a different kind. >> well, we know the definition of terrorism.

it doesn't matter who is behind the act. it is the act itself that we must prevent. we must fight terrorism, not who is behind terrorism. that is my way of basically looking at this collaboration and cooperation with the united states and our allies. that we need to fight terrorism regardless of what group or who is conducting this terrorist act. >> and you need american support to do that. without american support -- >> we definitely need the american support, yes. >> without american support -- >> it would be very challenging, very difficult. >> reporter: there, willie, is there voice, different from the voices we're hearing just this morning from some in baghdad who are calling again for the u.s. to leave iraq. there is that voice of a leader who says the u.s. should stay in iraq. and, yes, the kurds are divided

politically in many ways, just like everything in this region. it's complex for the u.s. but the congress passed legislation just in december that talked about bringing in air defenses for kurdistan here and for iraq. plainly, it'd help with these attacks. a business leader in this region was killed by a missile, an iranian missile, just recently. that, again, is considered to have been a message. the battle is over whether the kurds here will continue to be partners with the u.s. or whether they will be pulled into that iranian orbit even more. in a way, this is the last piece of iraq that is standing against all that. so it's a really difficult situation here, where the kurdish leaders say the u.s. could do more beyond just sending in reprisal strikes when

americans are killed. >> very complicated situation. nbc's keir simmons live for us in erbil, iraq. thank you, as always. let's bring in president emeritus on the council of foreign relations, author of "home and away," available on substack. richard, good morning. what appears to be from the american point of view, this was a successful drone strike against the hezbollah leader, a group inside iraq. since the killing of those three american service members, what's your thought of the american response, effective? >> depends what your definition of effective is. if you think success is to eliminate the threat, eliminate attacks on shipping, in case of the houthis on american troops, that's not achievable. what we're seeing, willie, we are involved in an open-ended, low-level war against iran's proxies in the middle east. we don't want it to get high

level because we have our hands full. we can't do enough to help ukraine. we're worried about what china might do and so forth. we have to supply israel and others. but we can't ignore it. what the administration is trying to do is thread the needle, but we're not going to eliminate these groups. again, iran is watching what's going on. their goal is to push us out of the middle east. let's be blunt. they want to get us out of iraq, out of syria. they want to dominate this part of the world, and they think this is their moment. again, everybody is looking at what's going on here, and they say the united states is stretched. it's divided. it lacks capacity, lacks will. this may be our moment. yes, we're right to strike back exactly the way we're doing it, but we shouldn't kid ourselves. we're not going to solve this problem. this is a situation to be managed at best, not a problem we'll solve. >> after the death of the three service members, almost immediately, there was criticism from republicans, joe biden is weak. why isn't he doing anything about this? fair to say he has. they took their time, as they should, find the targets appropriate here, but they have retaliated appropriately and

strongly at least? >> yes. what they've done is they retaliated strongly, effectively. they've, again, tried to not do things against iran directly. but we shouldn't kid ourselves. this is now open-ended. so the idea that you could have some big strike and then the problem goes away, which a lot of the critics seem to be suggesting, it doesn't work that way. they're there. these people are in the region. we've got lots of places we've got to contend with, and that gives them a certain structural advantage. >> certainly, the biden administration has been weighing carefully here. they're not done. they've been clear, this is going to be a wave of attacks over a series of weeks. but, mika, their priority is, as much as they are trying to enact some measure of retribution for what happened to those three service members killed in jordan, they also don't want to widen this war. they're trying to be very careful as to where they strike. that has been their major concern since october 7th. to richard's point, the biden administration does not use the word war, but most foreign

policy analysts say, this is now a low-level war. this white house is trying to keep it that way, so they're having very selective with what they hit. to this point, they've not ate hit an iranian asset, let's say. >> richard mentioned israel. in one minute, we'll go through the major story on capitol hill that is connected. republicans killing the border bill they demanded. we're going to play for you what the lead negotiators had to say about that. plus, we'll look at a possible plan b on a border security solution from the white house. president biden considers taking executive actions to address illegal immigration, but what does that mean for aid to ukraine and israel? you're watching "morning joe." we're back in 60 seconds. wait, no, i'm always hot. sleep number does that. can i make my side softer? i like my side firmer. sleep number does that.

can it help us sleep better and better? please? sleep number does that. 94 percent of smart sleepers report better sleep. now, save 50% on the sleep number limited edition smart bed. plus, free home delivery when you add an adjustable base. here's to getting better with age. here's to beating these two every thursday. help fuel today with boost high protein, complete nutrition you need... ...without the stuff you don't. so, here's to now. boost. 24 past the hour. the carefully crafted bipartisan

border security and foreign aid bill was effectively killed yesterday after republicans voted against the legislation they demanded and negotiated. this comes after months of talks between both parties as republicans required any aid for israel and ukraine must be met with reforms at the southern border. every member of senate republican leadership voted against the bill, including minority leader mitch mcconnell, who had actively advocated for the package. the bill was all but doomed as soon as former president trump began pressuring republicans to kill it so he could use immigration as a general election issue. take a listen to what two of the lead negotiators of the package said yesterday. >> i had a popular commentator four weeks ago that i talked to, that told me flat out, before they knew any of the contents of

the bill, any of the contents, nothing was out at that point, that told me flat out, if you try to move a bill that solves the border crisis during this presidential year, i will do whatever i can to destroy you. because i do not want you to solve this during the presidential election. by the way, they have been faithful to their promise and have done everything they can to destroy me. and as i've mentioned, i had a few folks who said, if i can't get everything, i want nothing. i don't find most americans are that way just in their day-to-day life. we have high goals and aspirations as americans, and, quite frankly, i don't blame americans for being really angry and frustrated with where we are at the border. really angry and frustrated. but what i hear from most oklahomans is, do something.

don't just sit there. do something. make progress. but don't allow this to keep going. stop it where you can. >> we were ready to bring the bill to the floor, open it up for debate and amendments, you know, how the senate is supposed to work, and then pass the bill. but less than 24 hours after we released the bill, my republican colleagues changed their minds. turns out, they want all talk and no action. it turns out border security is not actually a risk to our national security, it's just a talking point for the election. after all of their cable news appearances, after all those campaign photo ops in the desert, after all those trips to the border, this crisis isn't actually much of a crisis after all. if you want to spend the border crisis for your own political agendas, go right ahead. if you want to continue to use

the southern border as a backdrop for your political campaign, that's fine. good luck to you. but i have a very clear message for anyone using the southern border for staged political events. don't come to arizona. take your political theater to texas. do not bring it to my state. >> independent senator sinema and senator langford completely exposing the hypocrisy of republicans on this issue. meanwhile, the senate will move forward with an alternative foreign aid package with no border security provisions. that'll happen later today. as of this morning, 58 senators, including eight republicans, are supporting the move to send more than $90 billion to ukraine, israel, and alies in the indo-pacific. chuck schumer will hold a vote on the bill today, in order, he says, to give republicans more time to, quote, figure themselves out. meanwhile, a senate republican conference meeting turned heated yesterday according to three

sources in the room. majority whip john thune telling colleagues a vote on the national security package is inevitable, so they need to stop being expletive and vote. that's according to two people familiar with that meeting. joining us now, congressional investigations reporter for "the washington post," jackie alemany, and writer at large for the conservative website, the bulwark, tim miller. good morning to you both. jackie, i'll start with you. this is -- you have to kind of stop and process what you're hearing from republicans, which is they forever wanted something done about the border. republican james lankford leads this negotiation for months, gets a deal to do something about the border. they vote against doing something about the border. then when this foreign aid package comes up, they say, we're not voting on that until we do something about the border that we just voted against. do i have that about right? >> that's exactly right, willie. pretty fair considering the day that republicans had yesterday. it is interesting because senate republicans generally consider

themselves to be the more deliberative and efficient body in congress. yesterday and in recent months in the lead up to today, they've joined and resembled their rowdier house counterparts. it was an embarrassing day that culminatd a chaotic strength for republicans after demanding this bill to address the crisis at the border that they have claimed for years now needed to be addressed, and voting that bill down. now, they're taking some time. they were deliberating all day yesterday in what turned into a very contentious luncheon that stretched through the day, really, about what they're going to do on the supplemental aid package, which is the standalone package that contains aid for israel and ukraine without the border bill. you know, republicans who are feeling pressure and want to do at least something and not be blamed for this political crisis

that they essentially have manufactured are weighing options to craft some border provisions, potentially in the form of an amendment, to add to this bill, which is why this secondary vote has taken until today to be scheduled. >> here are some of the senate republicans vowing to block any foreign aid bill until the situation at the southern border is addressed first. despite voting against legislation earlier in the day yesterday which would have addressed the situation at the border. >> what this administration and chuck schumer, they are doing, is using the crisis in israelie party. we should first secure our southern border, second, provide resources to israel, third, take a look at indo-pacific, and, fourth, make sure we have accountability woven into any resources that we give to ukraine. without doing those four things

in succession, it is going to be hard for republicans to support it. >> you have already too many republicans who have transitioned from, okay, well, this first foray into trying to force border security has gone down. now, let's move on to ukraine. i think there are those of us who belong to the sanity caucus in the party, need to throw our hands up and say, let's pump the brakes here and continue to work on solving the border problem as opposed to immediately divoting pivoting into resources for ukraine. >> it was about ukraine money. it was not about the border. most people knew that it wasn't going to happen, we weren't going to get a deal on the border. now we jumped ahead and jumped into the ukraine funding, and they're going to find a way to get it done. hopefully we can block it. we need to protect our borders first before anybody else's borders. >> tim miller, they had a deal to protect the border that senator james lankford and many

others worked on for months, a bipartisan deal that was stronger than anything that they've ever seen before and ever could get again. what happened? >> well, james lankford and kyrsten sinema and chris murphy ran into a party that is not a conservative party and not a party that wants to solve problems. it was interesting at the beginning of the segment, watching the frustration on lankford and sinema's face, talking about republicans not supporting the deal they've demanded. they've come to a realization that many of us have realized. what the majority -- not every single republican -- but the majority of the republican party wants is nihilism, extremism, and is a total servitude to donald trump, not advancing conservative policy solutions. mika, when you stand back and look at this, it is crazy to consider that james lankford, an extremely conservative senator from okay, would put forth a

border bill that has no -- none of the immigration reforms the democrats have wanted in the past. nothing for dreamers. you know, nothing to liberalize the immigration system. it is all border security, pretty harsh rules for detention of migrants. for him to be able to convince, it seems like to me, every democratic senator or nearly every democratic senator to go on board with that, and then have his own republicas scuttle it because they don't want to solve of any problems because they're happy to do putin's bidding in ukraine, i guess i'd be frustrated if i were him, as well, if it wasn't for the fact that this is something we've seen from the party a long time now. it is just a fundamental change in where our politics are right now. >> john, the conservative "wall street journal" opinion page editorial section calls this the self-sabotaging gop, saying the mistake by senators lankford and mcconnell was assuming

republicans who demanded border provisions were sincere. the senators ran for cover as soon as mr. trump handed down orders not to give mr. biden anything he could take credit for. they go on to talk about a coming betrayal of ukraine attaches to all of this. >> yeah, first the border, it is an everyday issue. it is a humanitarian issue. it is a national security issue. it is now being ignored because donald trump wants it that way. a political opportunity, perhaps, for a president running for re-election. i know the team is thinking about how they can try to take advantage of it and change the narrative on immigration. richard, i wanted to get to what willie said. the idea of ukraine. senator scott's list, ukraine was fourth, four out of four. there's reporting in "the new york times" today, an analysis that suggesting if the u.s. count come through with aid, ukraine can maybe hold the status quo for a few more months and then it'll steadily lose territory. we know this week russia had its first wins on the battlefield in quite some time. we're already seeing stark relief, the impact of what republicans are doing. kyiv is deeply worried. give us your sense as to how

this could all play out. >> they're right to be deeply worried. let's be honest here, jojonatha we're about to snatch defeats from jaws of victory. what's happened in ukraine the last two years has been extraordinary. really impressive. what ukraine has done with the support of the united states and europe, they have fought russia to a draw. over the last two years, russia has really gained no new territory. we are now putting all of that in jeopardy. we're talking about russia beginning to win back or gain more territory in ukraine. does anybody really think it'd stop there? if putin gains momentum in ukraine, does anyone think other parts of nato, europe, would not be vulnerable? what would we be prepared to do then? we were just talking about iran. does anyone think the iranians aren't watching this closely? those in china are watching closely.

you almost sense history is being made. let me put it this way, i understand the border shenanigans. i hate it. it is irresponsible, but i get it. i don't understand this. the idea they're being this reckless, if you will, with history, they think it'll rebound to their advantage? i do not understand this. it is -- i think -- i don't know how to stop it. ukraine, you know, can maybe begin to produce more stuff itself but not enough. europeans don't have the inventories. they don't have the defense industry. i'm sorry to say it, the end of the day, we really can't be replaced here. if we are going to be irresponsible, this will have historic consequences. >> jackie, these historic consequences richard haass just mentioned, apparently, there's very few republicans who have any sense of history, no sense of what happened in europe in 1939. but the legislative and voting clock is ticking. what is the voting clock ticking toward today? what's going to happen in the united states senate today? >> yesterday, after this first

failed border vote, the deliberations stretched on all day, and it was clear that republicans could not unlock the votes necessary to get this through and advance it to the house. as of this morning, it still remains unclear. we ended last night with senate gop leadership telling us they didn't know where their members were at, but there was some hope that if they could hash out these border provisions and amendments, that they could potentially unlock more support for foreign aid. some republican lawmakers made the point inside closed doors that you're either for foreign aid or you're not because some of the these amendments are ultimately unlikely to ultimately be approved and make it through to the house at the end of the day. so it is really a toss-up right now. the senate reconvenes at noon where they'll continue to deliberate. mitch mcconnell has to figure out a way to corral these votes. otherwise, this is just going to

really die like the rest of the senate legislative agenda that has expired this week. >> jackie, do you feel like we're at 58 votes for this foreign aid package? and are there two more votes to be found here in the next few hours with a vote coming up, according to leader schumer? >> i don't know, willie. that is the key question here. i mean, there were some members last night who were genuinely on the fence and they wanted to learn more information about the amendment process and whether they could stick in some amendments that would be analogous to some of the provisions that were included in hr-2, the stringent border package that the house had initially passed. but as of this very moment, those two holdouts do not exist. we're not sure who they are and whether they're ultimately going to throw their hat in the ring. this isolationist view has only grown further and seeped into

the republican conference the closer we get to the election. someone made the point yesterday that lankford took too much time to negotiate this bill and they missed the window all together. it's obviously, you know, not that unusual for big, politically risky decisions to be deferred until after an election year, but this is a huge political talking point for republicans and it's now being spun against them. there is palpable frustration in the halls of congress that they've been put into this position, where the american public agrees with making these provisions that they have previously supported and now republicans are going to get blamed for ultimately not passed it and implementing anything. >> perhaps a convenient talking point, that it was james lankford's fault for taking too long to negotiate this. not clear they'd ever go through with it if donald trump told them not to. >> right.

the border patrol union came out in support of the package in the senate, making the case clearly. senators, members of congress, republicans tied themselves in knots trying to even rebut that. watch this exchange. >> if this had passed today, because i'm sure you have looked at this closely, would it have made the border safer than the status quo that we live with right now? >> first of all, martha, i want to thank senators lankford, sinema and murphy for the bipartisan effort. we're languishing in the same situation. i don't think anybody says that a bill has to have everything we need in order for us to accept it. that's why we have compromise. there are definitely aspects of that bill that i liked for the agency, and there's aspects of it that, of course, i didn't. that's always been the case. >> the border bill has been dead. it's been as dead as woodrow

wilson. i don't see how anybody can look at the bill and confidently predict it would have been an improvement. >> the chief of the border patrol just said exactly that. don't you think he probably knows better than anybody what would have helped his people out a little bit? >> and i have great respect for him, but i disagree with him. >> that's the same show. moments later, tim miller, senator of louisiana saying he knows better than the head of the border patrol union. by the way, that's been friendly to donald trump, endorsed him a couple of times, but says in this case, this is going to make our jobs easier. this is going to help the immigration crisis. please, they're begging of these republicans, to get on board and help us out. republicans are saying, no, actually, we know better than you. of course, they don't mean that. they're just doing what donald trump is telling them to do. >> of course. that's my senator now, willie, and he definitely doesn't know anything about what's happening at the border. this is the thing, they need to come up with post facto explanations for opposing this,

right? obviously, they're going to look silly at times when they go on fox news. this is what they demanded, what they wanted. we really didn't even need to be here, right? all of the elements of this bipartisan compromise that lankford worked on should have majority support in this congress, in both houses if the democrats are for it, you know, . supporting ukraine should be a clean and easy thing for republicans to support. this stricter border security, even if it isn't everything on steven miller's, you know, wish list, should be something that people would support as a standalone. they're not supporting it for political reasons, because they don't want the country to do anything. it is in line with donald trump talking about how he wanted the economy to fail earlier this year. what all these people care about is getting donald trump back in the white house. anything that would help do that is something they would support. that's why, to your point at the beginning of this, this wasn't about timing. it's not about specific provisions in the bill.

it's reminiscent of the donald trump conviction after january 6th, right? like, well, we can't vote to convict right now because he is out of office, and, oh, we'll wait for the courts to do what they're supposed to do. then the courts do what they're supposed to, and then, oh, we're into the next election cycle. it is excuse after excuse after excuse because they need to come up with something, some talking point that justifies their only overarching goal, getting donald trump back in the white house. >> tim, i'm going to ask you to go in the wayback machine and put your hat on as a communications director for a national political campaign. >> sure. >> the clip we played coming into the segment, of james lankford talking about a phone call he got from a republican who said, if he did anything to pass the border bill, they would destroy him. he goes on to say, and they've done a pretty good job of destroying me. what would you do with a clip like that, that names names, names parties, what would you do with it? >> if i'm the democrats, you

mean? >> yeah. >> absolutely, this thing needs to be on tv. i think if you're joe biden, right, i think that there are some legitimate policy concerns with what people have about what happened at the border, and it's gotten a little out of hand. so what do you have to do to change this narrative? i think this supports the best argument that joe biden has, which is that the other side, donald trump, wants chaos, and biden and his administration wants solutions, right? what better evidence is there than i have willing to work with one of the most conservative senators to secure the border, and the republican power brokers are trying to ruin him for trying to help secure the border. these people want chaos. we want solutions. i think there are a few -- many vectors you can advance that same frame on. that's what i'd be trying to do if i was the biden campaign. >> jonathan lemire, i'm just,

like, if we could just pull back a little bit. either party saying, okay, we need a presidential candidate. ah, we got this guy. we got this guy. well, he's got 91 counts against him, couple of indictments, liable for sexual assault, it's okay. it's okay. liable for fraud. might have to pay hundreds of millions, may completely go bankrupt and lose all his homes, but we're waiting on that. don't worry about that. sex with a porn star, paid off with campaign finance. eh, don't look at that either. in a matter of hours, the u.s. supreme court today is going to be hearing arguments on whether trump, or this candidate, is eligible to even run for president. so let's run this guy. he is our candidate. by the way, when it comes to our foreign policy and domestic policy, if there's anything good going on in congress that's good for us on those fronts, let's kill it for him.

i mean, that's where we are in terms of the republicans with their candidate. that's the candidate they have chosen and will stick with. my question to you is, is there anything joe biden can do at this point? for the parts of what's happening here where this party is being self-destructive for trump, to the point where it is hurting our foreign policy and our domestic policy. >> yeah, no baggage there whatsoever for the unnamed republican candidate, mika. in terms of the white house, i mean, they're watching this. they have understood for years now that the border has been a bit of a vulnerability. it is a rare issue where democrats have criticized the oval office. you have democratic mayors and governors saying, we need help. the situation is out of control. we can't support these number of migrants. so that's why the white house took a deep breath and said, we're going to risk alienating the progressives, risk alienating voters of color who we might need come election time to have a strict border bill. they're on board. president biden made clear

repeatedly and publicly, i'll sign this if they pass this. it seems the legislation is not going anywhere, so the white house is considering what they can do on their own. they're mulling over executive orders that can toughen some measures at the border, but they won't be as sweeping in power as legislation coming from the congress. there has been debate about the president going to the border, calling out republicans and saying, you own this issue now. whether or not he travels to the border or not, that will be the refrain from this white house. they feel immigration has been a tough issue for them. polls suggest it's been good for republicans. they can try to reset the narrative. at the very least, try to negate some of the republican advantage on the issue because they can point to them and say, look, they're the problem. not us. >> mika, in case there was any doubt about what was going on here, james lankford said yesterday on the floor, what he called a popular maga media figure threatened he would destroy him if he continued to purdue bipartisan legislation to

fix the crisis at the border because it's a presidential year and they all need to rally around donald trump. they're just saying it out loud, explicitly. this has nothing to do about making the country safer, nothing to do with fixing the crisis they've been talking about for a generation, it is all about saving donald trump. >> a guy who, as you'll see in live coverage all day here on msnbc, who the supreme court right now has to figure out whether or not he engaged in insurrection january 6th, you know, when he said, fight like hell. go to the capitol. i'll meet you there, and then watched it on video all day long. now calls the people charged in doing hard time for engaging in insurrection hostages. this is the guy that they are, i'm sorry, being masochists for. "the washington post"'s jackie alemany and writer at large for the bulwark, tim miller, thank you, both, very much for being on this morning. coming up, israel's war against hamas could cost president biden votes in crucial battleground states.

we're going to talk about what the president can do to win back arab-american voters before november. "morning joe" will be right back.

(♪♪ ) why did i keep missing out on this? before you were preventing migraine with qulipta? do you remember the pain, the worry, the canceled plans? and look at me now. you'll never truly forget migraine but qulipta reduces attacks making zero-migraine days possible. it's the only pill of its kind that blocks cgrp and is approved to prevent migraine of any frequency. to help give you that forget you get migraine feeling. don't take if allergic to qulipta. most common side effects are nausea, constipation and sleepiness. learn how abbvie could help you save. qulipta, the forget-you-get migraine medicine. [coughs] when caroline has a cough, she takes robitussin. so, she can have those one on ones again. hey jim! can we talk about casual fridays? oh sure. what's up? get fast, powerful cough relief with robitussin, and find your voice. ♪robitussin♪

everyone say space pod! (♪♪) meanwhile, at a vrbo... when other vacation rentals are just for likes, try one where you'll actually like. 52 past the hour. benjamin netanyahu has rejected the latest demands by hamas as part of a proposed deal for the release of the remaining hostages in gaza. nbc news foreign correspondent raf sanchez has the latest. >> reporter: secretary of state blinken insisting there's still a path to a deal to free israeli hostages after israel's prime minister rejected a new list of demands from hamas. >> clearly, there are things that hamas sent back that are absolute nonstarters. at the same time, we see in what

was sent back space to continue to pursue an agreement. >> reporter: hamas was responding to an american-backed proposal, saying it'd free all its hostages in exchange for a 4 1/2 month cease-fire, leading to an end to the war. the release of thousands of palestinian prisoners and a total withdrawal of israeli forces from gaza. prime minister netanyahu calling the proposal delusional. "giving into hamas' bizarre demands not only won't bringhos invite another massacre," he said. israeli strikes hitting rafah. mohamed stares at his hands, shaking uncontrollably. yunis, troops into what were tunnels for hamas. the military israeli says this was a cage where at least three

israeli hostages were held. you can see there is a slot for delivering food. here, a lock from the outside. somewhere in these tunnels, more hostages waiting desperately for a deal. >> nbc's raf sanchez reporting from inside gaza. thanks so much. richard, let's talk about this proposal. quickly rejected by prime minister netanyahu of a prisoner swap. what are the options? what is the role for president biden when you have two sides so far apart, and netanyahu saying, we're not doing deals. we're going to eliminate hamas, continue to push into gaza until we root them out. what do we do with this? >> the idea the israelis can somehow quote, unquote, eliminate hamas, that there is a military solution without any political dimension is just fanciful. it's not going to happen. what is also increasingly clear, almost the attempted humiliation by the israeli prime minister by

the secretary of state yesterday. we do not have a partner in this prime minister or this government of israel. u.s. policy has to pivot and take that into account. i would say we've got to look really hard at introducing our own resolution into the u.n. security council so we can stop abstaining or vetoing. let's have the united states say what it wants. we can look at what we're doing for israel in terms of aid. we sanctioned some of the settlers the other day. there's that signal. biggest thing is, look, if this prime minister is not going to work with us, let's find israelis we can work with. let's start speaking over the head of this government, and let's talk directly to the israeli people about what we think needs to happen. what is in israel's interest as well as in the interest of this bilateral relationship? it's one thing to say what hamas asked for yesterday is not right, is a nonstarter, but what is the alternative? is it just continued military operations that kills thousands of civilians and open-ended

israeli occupation? is that really the alternative? it can't be. we have got to begin developing the alternative. >> to this point, richard, every time the secretary of state or president talks about the future in the area, they talk about the two-state solution. the prime minister isn't endorsing that. the israeli army ignored a lot of the guide lines and guidance the u.s. is putting forth to minimize civilian casualties. one option that's been considered is putting conditions on aid to israel. to this point, they've not done it. would that be a possible first step? i mean, when you say speaking over the head of the prime minister, you floated the idea of the president heading to israel to talk to the knesset or give a speech there, but the fear the white house has is it'll further ensnare them in a region that is on fire and they're trying to -- the last thing they want to do is be further involved. >> we have to get more involved politically and diplomatically if we don't want to be further involved militarily. it might be in the prime

minister's interest to see this war continued. >> some in the administration think that. >> they could be forgiven for thinking it. he set out military goals that, again, i believe can't be met but he wants to prosecute the war. he doesn't want to have new elections, and continuing the war reduces the chance of new elections. i don't rule out a possible widening of the war. he's also playing for time. he obviously wants donald trump to get elected, and he'd much rather work with donald trump than joe biden. i think what the president has to say to himself is, i have nine months to try to bring about a cease-fire, to try to change the political dynamic in israel, in the middle east. it's not -- what we're doing now, even though i think it is directionally right, it's not working. i think what the white house needs to do is recalibrate and basically come to the understanding that what we're doing needs to be changed. we have to basically be more forceful and independent of israel. stop thinking we have to work with israel and give them a veto over what we're doing. start working more independently in the middle east.

still ahead, we've got a lot going on. we have an expert legal panel standing by as the supreme court this morning will hear oral arguments on donald trump's eligibility to appear on the ballot. plus, a disturbing revelation surrounding the threat of a destructive cyber attack from china on critical u.s. infrastructure. "morning joe" will be right back. orning joe" will be right back there's nothing better than a subway series footlong. except when you add on an all new footlong sidekick. we're talking a $2 footlong churro. $3 footlong pretzel and a five dollar footlong cookie. every epic footlong deserves the perfect sidekick. order one with your favorite subway series sub today. rsv is out there. for those 60 years and older protect against rsv with arexvy. arexvy is a vaccine used to prevent lower respiratory disease from rsv in people 60 years and older. 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.

the only long term solution to the crisis, and only way to ensure the endurance of our nation as a sovereign country, is for congress to overcome open borders obstruction. >> donald trump back in 2018, was it, lamenting the limitations of his power as president, saying it was up to congress to solve the crisis at the border. hmm, what a difference a couple of years makes. congress doing nothing to solve the crisis at the border after saying they'd do something and creating a bill that would have

done something. welcome back to "morning joe." thursday, february 8th. jonathan lemire and mike barnicle are with willie and me. joining us is the host of the podcast "on brand with donny deutsch," donny deutsch. it is presidential politics season, right? we're looking at the candidates. a lot of people are saying joe biden is too old. just imagine. you put a candidate out there, right, and he's this powerful guy, right? there's just a few things. he's got multiple indictments against him. he is liable for sexual abuse. he's liable for massive, massive fraud across the country. he cheats on elections, incites insurrections, and, right now, we don't know whether or not he is eligible. let's run this guy. go for it. >> yeah, led an attempted coup

against the government. also, in a few hours, the supreme court is going to hear arguments in a case that could have a big impact on this race. justices will decide whether donald trump can be removed from colorado's ballot for his role in the insurrection on january 6th. in december, the colorado state supreme court ruled trump should not be on that state's ballot because of section 3 to the 14th amend. to the constitution. voters in 30 states challenged trump's eligibility, but only colorado and maine decided to remove trump from the ballot. joining us now, retired judge jay michael lewdic, who served on the appeals circuit, and from the constitution center and professor of law at the george washington law school, jeffrey rosin. also a contributing writer at "the atlantic." judge, what can we expect as the oral arguments begin at the

supreme court? would you expect the supreme court to be receptive to the idea that donald trump should be kept off the ballot? >> good morning and thank you for having us with you this morning. the argument today will be historic. this case is probably the most historic, constitutional, and political case in all of american history. section 3 of the 14th amendment is the safety net, the constitution's safety net for american democracy. and it's as if the framers of section 3 foresaw january 6th, 2021, and they provided in section 3 that america would never experience another january 6th.

if section 3 doesn't disqualify the former president, in my view, it'd not disqualify any person at all. that is to say that the supreme court finds itself in a very precarious position today. undoubtedly, it doesn't want to decide this case, and it will be looking for all legitimate off-ramps to decide that the former president is disqualified. but there are no legitimate off off-ramps to that decision. what you'll see this morning at the court is the court looking, plumbing all possibilities with counsel as to how the court can resolve the case without deciding whether the former president was disqualified. >> so the interesting thing is,

especially, judge luttig, no legitimate off-ramps. i'm wondering if you can explain that. in your view, why are there no legitimate off-ramps for the supreme juvenile court? a lot of people have said, oh, they will keep trump on the ballot because they don't want the public to lose confidence in the court. they don't want the supreme court interfering in elections. it'll make people uncomfortable. is that what this is about, or is it about whether or not donald trump engaged in insurrection and then sort of gave safety and comfort to those who participated in the insurrection alongside with him? >> it's the latter. section 3 disqualifies any person who engaged in an insurrection or rebellion against the constitution of the united states, having previously taken an oath to support the constitution. there's no question whatsoever that the former president

engaged in an insurrection against the constitution when he attempted to remain in power beyond his constitutional term of four years and denied president joe biden the powers of the presidency to which he was entitled, having won the election by a vote of the american people. all of this prevented the peaceful transfer of power for the first time in american history. this is precisely the insurrection that disqualifies one under section 3 of the 14th amendment. so, you're right, that is the only legal issue. but there's such massive political consequences, that although the supreme court ought not consider those, undoubtedly, they will consider them. but the constitution requires the disqualification of the

former president. >> jeffrey, let's remind people, because there's been all this muddling over the last couple of years about what an insurrection is and isn't. it is a violent uprising against a government or an authority. that's the dictionary definition. replay january 6th in your mind and ask yourself what that was. so i would put the question to you that we were discussing earlier with barbara mcquade, which is, this is a constitutional question. is the job of the supreme court to interpret the constitution? obviously, to do this on the law. do they consider, though, in your assessment, the implications of a decision that would keep donald trump off the ballot? that is to say, a large group of americans saying, our right to vote for the candidate for whom we want to vote is being taken away by the supreme court. >> the court wouldn't explicitly consider the political reaction to the decision, but it might decide that the issue is a political issue and it is up to

other brachbbranches to decide, congress when it counts the vote. and it might suggest off-ramps. the court might decide the president is not an officer of the united states and, therefore, is not covered by section 3. you stated the definition of insurrection. it might hold otherwise, that january 6th was a riot, not an insurrection. or that the president didn't engage in it when he called on people to march on the mall. finally, there is this really big question about whether states can enforce the amendment on their own or whether congress has to pass a law before the amendment can be enforced. all of these off-ramp, as the judge so well said, are available to the court if they want to avoid a definitive ruling. in the oral argument, we should listen closely to hear who is sympathetic to which off-ramp.

>> donny, the question is explicitly, did donald trump participate in insurrection? a group of republicans said, donald trump did not. >> i don't think you can argue, at the least, he aided an insurrection, as you've talked about. clearly, it'd make him guilty here. i hope he is on the ballot. i hope this doesn't happen. i think, look, donald trump is the candidate of grievance. he is the candidate of victimhood. i think if you tell voters, you can't vote for him, and he can tell voters -- somehow, he'll attach this to joe biden, that he was behind it. even though the supreme court is a mostly conservative supreme court, it will come out that, somehow, the democrats caused this to happen. i think when you weigh everything, i hope they don't disqualify him. i'm not contradicting the legal end of it from a political point of view -- >> donny? >> yes? >> this is about eligibility.

if there's a candidate, i don't know, i think you have to be 35 or 40 to run for president, whatever the age is. so what if the supreme court let someone who is 28 run for president just because they're scared that people will be upset about it? i mean, this is about eligibility. their job is to decide whether or not he is eligible to run for president. >> i completely agree with you from a legal. i'm saying politically, it will play to donald trump. that's sick and unfortunate. >> things will be worse than they are now? look what's happening in congress. >> look, i don't want to see this guy in office. anything that happens that somehow lubricates that and makes this path easier concerns me. i'm not talking for -- you have all the legal scholars on here. i'm talking from a voter point of view, candidacy point of view, it aids him. that's what i'm saying. it is sick, twisted, and unfortunate. it is what it is. >> george conway joins us now. george, what do you think is going to happen during the oral

arguments today? how do you expect the supreme court to rule? what would be the fallout if donald trump were kept off of the ballot? >> well, i'm not going to hazard a guess on what the supreme court is going to do. i will say this, though, i came as someone who was kind of skeptical about this argument. i read the article, the law review article that started this ball rolling written by two federal society conservative law professors, and i said, that's interesting. i thought, well, there must be some kind of, to use the phrase, off-ramp here. there must be some argument against it. when the colorado supreme court came down with its decision, and i'd been listening to judge luttig off along and he said, there is no off-ramp. i said, i'll take your word for it. when i read the opinion of the colorado supreme court and saw the dissents, and i looked there first to see what the off-ramp would be for the supreme court, and i did not see a good off-ramp. all i saw were burning tires on the off-ramp and creeky

off-ramps. as a result, the arguments discussed here about the off-ramps being whether the president is an officer of the united states, i mean, those are ridiculous arguments. whether the 14th amendment, section 3, has to require implementing legislation, those are actually ridiculous arguments. the one prediction i will make today is, we're going to hear a lot more discussion than we have in the past about whether or not donald trump engaged in an insurrection. i think there's actually no question he did. i think there's, in particular, no question that this was an insurrection. an insurrection is defined as virtually any revolt or physical action taken to block the operation of government. the we is going to be, i think they're going to focus on, is what does it mean to engage? does it mean calling your supporters to washington and sending them up to capitol hill, or do you have actually have to hold a can of mace in your hand or throw things at police officers? i don't think that's what

engaged means, but i think we're going to be talking about that by the end of the day. >> jeffrey, of course, there's also the matter of precedent here. today is about colorado. we know maine has also taken steps to remove donald trump from the ballot. other states, there's litigation pending. they're considering it, as well. but there is a timeliness. these primaries are happening soon. the november election is not that far away. give us a sense as to the timetable you think the court will act. >> the court decided bush v gore in a matter of days. they could act really fast. no one expects that much, but, certainly, a month or something is reasonable. they're going to have to make a really important decision. will they issue a ruling that applies to all states, or will they allow each state to make its own decision about whether or not to remove president trump from the ballot? to resolve it definitively is more likely, so we should have an answer sooner rather than later. >> judge luttig, you've had a

distinguished career on the bench. americans are looking at what is about to happen today as an indication of whether they will be deprived or granted the right to vote for or against a single individual, donald trump. but earlier today, on this program, we played a clip of a republican senator, jim lankford of oklahoma, indicating his role in putting together an immigration bill caused a republican operative to call him, and he said this, quote, unquote, on air, that he was told that if he pushed this bill to progress, to fruition, that he would be destroyed. he said, and they have already done a good job of destroying me. this is jim lankford. i want to ask you about the combustion factor in this decision culturally, politically, out in the country. if it goes against trump and he is deprived from being on the ballot, as you indicate you would favor that happening in this decision, do they measure

at all -- do justices measure at all the potential of combustion in the country politically and culturally as a result of this decision? >> thank you for that question. the first thing i would say and make clear to your viewers is that the disqualification of the former president is not what is anti-democratic, rather, the constitution tells us that it is his insurrection against the constitution that is anti-democratic. our constitution could be characterized as anti-democratic in many, many different ways. foremost among which is that the constitution guarantees us certain rights against the democratic process. so, but in this case, in particular, it's the people

through the ratification of section 3 that decided that one who engages in an insurrection against the constitution of the united states is ineligible to hold higher office. now, as to your combustibility question, i'm of two minds. i don't really believe that if the supreme court disqualifies the former president that it will lead to rioting in the streets. on the other hand, what i would say is this, if the supreme court rules that he is qualified, 75% of america will accept that decision as the final decision about our constitution. so i am only concerned about the

20%, if that, that would not accept the decision from the supreme court exactly the way they did not accept the results of the last election. but the question for america, not just the supreme court, is, you know, can we allow ourselves to be held hostage by threats of violence upon a supreme court decision? if we are going to do that, we don't have a constitution anymore. >> that's right. that's the bottom line there. george conway, to wrap this up, the oral arguments start in just a few hours. we'll be carrying them live on msnbc. procedurally, how is this going to play out? how long could it take? what do we know? >> how long will it take in terms of getting a decision?

it could take a number of weeks. there are nine justices and there are going to be nine desperate views about what happened at the argument and what the issues are. this is a particularly difficult case, not just because of the political context. i don't think it is a difficult case legally. i think it is a difficult case because of the political context and the fact that there are going to be justices looking for a way out that doesn't really exist. i think the court is going to have a tough time reaching consensus on how to avoid the question of whether or not donald trump is an insurrectionist. i would expect this case, even though secretaries of state throughout the nation are urging the court to decide this as quickly as possible, i think it might take the rest of the term for them to decide. this would be june. >> george conway, j michael luttig, and george washington university's jeffrey rosen, thank you for your insight this

morning. ahead, steve rattner joins us with charts, breaking down how democrats are beating republicans in fundraising. plus, we'll examine what the biden administration can do to win back arab-american voters who are not happy with the president's position on israel's war against hamas. you're watching "morning joe." we'll be right back.

i'm andrea, founder of a boutique handbag brand - andi - and this is why i switched to shopify. it's the

challenges that we don't expect, like a site going down or the checkout wouldn't work. what's nice about shopify is when i'm with my family, when i'm taking time off, knowing that i have a site up and running and our business is moving forward because we have a platform that we can rely on. that is gold to us. start your free trial at shopify today. (tony hawk) skating for over 45 years has taken a toll on my body. i take qunol turmeric because it helps with healthy joints and inflammation support. why qunol? it has superior absorption compared to regular turmeric. qunol. the brand i trust.

hey! sarah! if you had to choose would you listen to elevator music all day or deal with payroll compliance? payroll compliance, for sure. gusto automatically calculates and files my taxes for me. hold up, compliance? easier? choose payroll compliance without the ups and downs. that's working with gusto.

24 past the hour. a senior biden administration aide will travel to michigan today to hear from muslim and arab-american community leaders amid mounting concern over the israel-hamas war and the civilian casualties in gaza. last month, biden's campaign manager was publicly rebuffed by local arab-american officials and the mayor of dearborn, michigan, which is home to the

largest muslim population in the u.s. and is roughly 54% arab-american. alexi mccammond is writing about this in "the washington post." jonathan lemire, the president and the administration's public persona as it pertains to israel, and then there is what we're hearing through a lot of reporting about the growing frustration with netanyahu on the other side. 27,000 palestinians have paid for what has happened on october 7th with their lives. this is a real issue that the president needs to navigate. are they going to be addressing it head on? is biden going to be making any changes in his approach to the war in israel? >> well, there are two fronts here. first of all, the president, as we discussed earlier with richard, there's really growing frustration in the administration as to how prime minister netanyahu is conducting this war. the u.s. has been trying to push israel to change tactics. secretary of state blinken

over in tel-aviv, trying to get a deal for release of hostages. domestically, there is the political ramifications of what's going on. that's why these officials are heading to michigan. of all the battleground states, michigan has the largest arab-american and muslim-american population. it is vitally important for this president to win in november. polls show he is down. his approach to israel has alienated those voting groups as well as some young voters and progressive voters. a few weeks ago, the campaign manager, rodriguez, went to michigan, and some of the groups wouldn't meet with her because there is anger in those communities. anytime the president goes anywhere, including here in new york city last night for fundraisers, he is greeted with protesters who are upset with his handling of the situation in gaza. willie, there's certainly the politics of this here. campaign officials have confided with me, that they think those votes might be gone. not that they'll vote for trump, but they'll stay home.

they need other pathways to victory in michigan, a state he can't afford to lose. >> they're not going to vote for donald trump, who called for a muslim ban at one point, suggested he might do it again, but they might stay home or write in someone else. a senior leader of a militia was killed in a strike, believed to be responsible for the killing of three american soldiers. keir simmons has the latest. >> reporter: this morning, new details emerging of a deadly u.s. strike inside baghdad. a precision drone incinerating a vehicle, killing three. an assassination so targeted, cars close by appear undamaged. among those killed, abu spgs baqir al saadi, a leader of the group accused of leaving three

u.s. servicemen and women dead. last night, the official says, the opportunity presented itself. u.s. central command saying in a statement, u.s. forces conducted a unilateral strike in iraq in response to the attacks on u.s. service members. in the aftermath, a furious crowd chanting "no to america, no to israel," vowing revenge and promising more missile attacks. kurdistan's prime minister in iraq, a partner who helped fight isis, says there are still threats in the region and america must not walk away. >> we've always been in front of fighting terrorism as friends, as allies, that we need to be capable enough. >> you need american support for that? >> we do need american support for that. >> reporter: the ongoing war in gaza escalating tensions in the region. with no signs of a cease-fire, a

hamas proposal that included the release of large numbers of palestinian prisoners firmly rejected by israel's prime minister, even with u.s. secretary of state blinken in the country. >> while there are some clear nonstarters in hamas' response, we do think it creates space for agreement to be reached. >> nbc's keir simmons reporting for us from iraq. joining us now, supreme allied commander of nato, retired four star navy admiral james stavridis. he is chief international analyst for nbc news. always great to have you with us. what's your sense after the weeks since the service members were killed, about the response from the united states, including the targeted strike inside baghdad on a single vehicle that took out this leader of hezbollah? >> the administration has done the right thing, trying to use proportional force and gradually ratcheting up as we continue to see attacks coming, not only

from the hezbollah, but also these militant groups, such as the leader who was just killed, and the houthis down in the red sea, willie. so the administration has been upping the ante. as the statement from u.s. central command down in tampa says, they had a shot. this was the leader of the group that actually perpetrated the attack that killed three servicemen and women. this is the paktari hezbollah, meaning brigades of god. they took out the commander, a very clean strike. no collateral damage, as you can see. i think it's an appropriate level of response. >> admiral, yesterday, as we saw in the clip we played, secretary of state blinken met with prime minister netanyahu. my question to you is, prime minister netanyahu and his cabinet, friend or foe?

>> a terrific question and increasingly, you feel the word frenemy in there from the pop culture. certainly, benjamin netanyahu, on the other hand, the second leading figure in the cabinet, mike, is former general, leader of the israeli defense forces, benny gantz, someone i count as a close personal friend throughout my time as nato commander. i was additionally required to be the lead on u.s.-israeli military-to-military, so i worked a lot with then general gantz. i think he's probably the next prime minister of israel. a lot of polls would tell ya that. he's certainly someone we've worked with for decades and continue to do so. netanyahu is an obstruction to peace in this process. >> admiral, part of the thinking behind, of course, the u.s. strikes is to be a deterrent. with the houthis, it's not

working. the u.s. and the uk even had a joint launch a few days ago. it took out a series of houthi targets in yemen, yet, yesterday, yet another houthi strike in the red sea. what would you recommend there? i mean, i know this is a naval operation, so, certainly, it is near and dear to your heart. what more could be done to try to stop these attacks which are having real economic impact? there's reports today about a major shipping company that's cutting back its boats through the red sea because of these strikes. >> i think there are three things additionally we're going to have to do here. number one, correctly, we're focused on thehe tactical end. the radars, the command and control, the fuel, the repair depots, the small boats. there are more targets there that we need to, as we say in the business, service. we ought to go after those

targets at a higher level of volume. secondly, jonathan, it's the resupply routes from iran. these are principally done at sea. you have to interdict them at sea. i've run those interdiction operations many times. it'll require not only u.s. but our allies. third and finally, there are economic tools that can be placed at play here that'd further sanction iran and its oil and gas. that's the obvious package. the next level up, jonathan, if that doesn't get the attention of tehran sufficiently, i think you go after iranian maritime capabilities. go after perhaps their naval boats, some of their small coast guard. the oil and gas platforms they use for intelligence. the next step, beyond the first three i mentioned, is probably upping the game to go after iran directly. that's big casino. let's hope we don't go there. >> retired four star admiral

james stavridis, thank you very much once again for being on this morning. and coming up, steve rattner is standing by with a look at the 2024 money race, as president biden leads donald trump in fundraising efforts. plus, pop culture, politics and sports merge into a wild conspiracy theory at the super bowl. we'll show you how chiefs head coach andy reid reacted when asked about it, ahead. there's nothing better than a subway series footlong. except when you add a new footlong sidekick. like the ultimate bmt with the new footlong pretzel. nothing like a sidekick that steps up in crunch time. [laughing] not cool man. every epic footlong deserves the perfect sidekick.

what do you say about the conspiracies that have popped up concerning taylor swift and travis kelce, republican conspiracies that you made it to the super bowl to help re-elect president biden?

>> hmm, that's way out of my league. very similar to me speaking german. listen, we appreciate -- i appreciate the question. she's been great. we had a nice visit with president biden. that's about as far as i can go last year, yeah. >> the chiefs visiting the white house as super bowl champions last year. andy reid brushing off a question from a german reporter during a pre-super bowl news conference earlier this week, making jonathan lemire's point that we need to go back to one week. too much time for questions about taylor swift. >> this is one of my defining issues. the two-week gap, it's not good for anyone. it just leads to trouble. now, we're seeing the latest with the fuel of this conspiracy theory that's out there, mike. as we've been talking about this week, the nfl somehow rigged their season this year so taylor

swift could be in the attendance at the super bowl on sunday, increasing viewership, of course, but then, the twist for republicans, is she and travis kelce, perhaps newly engaged, endorse president biden. >> do you not believe roger goodall can put this together? >> you have air pressure. >> can i weigh in? >> yeah. >> i'll be canceled here. i'll say something negative about taylor swift. >> oh. >> pause, pause. i thought her acceptance speech at the grammys was really disappointing and tone deaf, just basically getting up there, instead of humbly thanking people -- and here's the big news, my next album drops so and so. >> in april. >> should i stop now? >> it's over already so -- >> yeah, yeah. >> just stop. >> last appearance on "morning joe"? >> i mean, donny -- >> obligated to say -- no, no, she is a human being. can we not say when she misses

it? >> you are a brand guy? >> she missed. i thought it was -- >> okay. >> a brand guy. she's on stage in front of millions of people. what better opportunity -- >> come on, taylor swift, always promoting. >> are you kidding me? >> always selling? i don't know, taylor swift, you're bigger than that. listen, i know -- >> what? >> wait, actually, they're taking me off the set right now. >> that's it. >> get rid of him. >> blow dart in his neck from somebody off the stage. >> yeah. >> i think, by the way, taylor swift, she can make mistakes. she made a mistake. she's not perfect. as i said, you can see me online after this because i'll no longer be on "morning joe." >> yeah. >> yeah. >> go ahead, willie. move on. >> by the way, andy reid handled that great. you just laugh it away. >> who is more likable than andy reid? much more -- >> taylor swift. >> oh, geez. meanwhile, super bowl lviii is quickly becoming one of the

most expensive nfl games in history. probably the most expensive. nbc news correspondent kaylee hartung has details. >> reporter: super bowl excitement is surging in sin city. football fans from all over the country getting in on the action at the super bowl experience as they test their skills and run some drills. >> do you have a touchdown dance for me? oh, look at her go! >> reporter: all week, the clash between the 49ers and the chiefs has lit up vegas. now, just three days until kick-off, ticket sales are spiking. >> touchdown! >> reporter: the price for a single seat at allegiant stadium averaging 9,000 bucks. are you going to the game? >> we can't afford it. >> neither can i. >> reporter: no one does luxury like las vegas. >> welcome to our luxury suite. >> this is the seat i'd like to have. >> reporter: this is how high rollers will watch super bowl lviii in style. 146 private suites, some going

for more than $1 million. even fan favorite mama kelce got sticker shock, joining the "today" team. >> i have a feeling i'm not in the box. i have a feeling i'm in the stands. >> reporter: for those who can score a box seat, you'll have views of the action, prime drinks and a meal fit for a super bowl champion. what can you get here you're not getting anywhere else? >> you're getting lobster, steak, sushi, just over the top. >> reporter: that's what vegas does best. >> of course. >> reporter: even those who won't be one of the lucky 60,000 inside allegiant stadium on game day are getting ready for it. ♪ let the games begin ♪ >> reporter: swifties gearing up for themed super bowl parties and prop bets inspired by the pop star. the sports betting website, betonline, has 89 swift-related wagers, including how many seconds will swift be shown on tv, and will boyfriend travis kelce propose post game? a question the tight end

skillfully dodged on wednesday. >> there are bets. >> i'm hoping i get this ring on sunday. i know that. >> reporter: in all, a record $23 billion in gambling wagers is expected this year, and fans are going all in. >> what do you think a final score of the game will be? >> chiefs, 50. 49ers, 0. >> oh! >> okay. >> wow. 50-0. that's kaylee hartung. >> the average ticket price is $9,000. by the way, mama kelce wasn't the only one. christian mccaffrey's mom laughed when asked if she'd be in a luxury box. she goes, oh, no. even moneybags over here, christian mccaffrey, can't get us in one of those boxes. $1 million a pop. >> it's all corporate, too. >> yeah. >> by the way, of course, i used to do this for a living. that pays off. you have ten top salespeople from your biggest client. by the way, $7 million for a 30-second commercial.

>> why are we listening to you? you attacked taylor swift. >> i shouldn't even be here. >> $7 million? >> $7 million for a 30-second spot. >> really? >> it'll be the most watched show of the year by a significant margin, even in an election year and an olympic year. super bowl always comes first. yeah, i mean, and i think taylor swift, sorry, donny, is certainly going to add to the interest there. will bring in new fans to the game. could be a record-setting number. >> good teams, star players, vegas, taylor swift, usher at halftime, this thing has it all. >> yeah, it does. donny, you're canceled, okay? >> look. >> oh! [ laughter ] >> extraordinary. >> that was great. >> okay. >> i'm back. >> i didn't know we had a special effects budget, mika. >> cgi. >> that was just -- >> i was a list of guests i'd like to use that on. can i submit that? >> i do, too. i have some thoughts of where i

could use that. okay. another thing that is shaping up a high price tag, cheesy, alex, the 2024 election. former treasury official and economic "morning joe" analyst, steve rattner. let's start with trump and your first chart. i'm curious, though, does his money, like, is it used for the campaign, or can it go to his legal fees? what does this fundraising look like? >> we'll get to his legal fees in a second because you're on the right track. let's start with the overall numbers for the campaign. i'll compare trump and biden. trump announced in november of 2022, one of the earliest announcements that i can certainly remember, so he got off to a pretty good start in his fundraising. this is the democratic national committee. biden wasn't yet a candidate. over the summer of last year, you can see what happened here.

trump continued to raise money at a good pace. i'll show why he was able to do that. biden took office. he announced and immediately came out of the gates with strong fundraising totals. then in the fourth quarter, you can see what happened. trump dropped off. biden took off. in total, biden has substantially outraised trump in this cycle. biden also raised more than obama, and trump raised less than he did last time. how did trump raise this money? indictments have something to do with it. you can see what happened. you've seen some of this before. every time donald trump got indicted, his fundraising soared. his biggest single day was after georgia when he raised $4.2 million. of his total fundraising, $64

million, it was general fundraising, but $40 million was tied directly to the indictments. i can just say, as it happens, my wife and i had a fundraiser for biden last night. the enthusiasm for him is really strong. obviously, a lot is anti-trump, but it is also a good amount that is pro-joe biden. >> all right. so the legal troubles are actually adding to his fundraising. i think that's why he shows up in court, actually, to sort of make little speeches that get people all riled up. so the 2023 money raised for presidential campaigns between the dnc and the rnc, how are they doing? >> as you said, trump raised a lot of money from his indictments, but he's also, as you also mentioned, let me cover that point that you raised a minute ago, he's also spending a lot on his legal fees from his fundraising. last year, he took $55 million of money his donors gave him and

used it on his legal fees. may well have been all his legal costs for what we know. the second half of the year, he took $29 million. most of it came from -- this is maga inc., his pac for biggest donors. people like linda mcmahon from wwe are in here. i don't know whether they'd be surprised to know that 60% of all the money they gave to this pac went to trump's legal fees. it was funneled around here and ended up in legal fees. i don't know people who contributed, even a lot of the small dollar contributions you saw over there, would know that 10% of their money went to pay trump's legal fees. he anoungs -- announced he'll continue to do that. >> i'll sound naive, but the that allowed? 91 indictments, civil cases. is it a random court battle or

something that is part of the democracy. >> if they don't know, hopefully they do now. there has been some notice. i assume it's maybe legal. it's a lot of funny business that goes on in terms of people giving more than they want you to. they can funnel it through the pacs. it's really unprecedented in my these charges were in connection with his official duties, and that's what's happening. an enormous amount of money going over there. >> steve, let's move to that last chart. as mika mentioned, the large spread between the dnc and the

rnc to this point, how does it look? >> so again, you know, i think people think of the republicans as the party of money, that they outraise the democrats all the time. that's not true. it was not true as i just showed you on trump versus bide. it's also not true in other places. so this is the democratic national committee compared to the republican national committee. this is raiing money at the party level. you can see how substantially the democrats outraised the republicans. maybe this has something to do with ronna mcdaniel not staying on the cycle, but i'm not sure. what this translates into is cash on happened and you can see that again, the democratic national committee has more than twice as much cash on command as the republican national committee. same is true at the senate and the house. so the democrats so far are winning the money race by a long

way. it's not everything, but it's something. >> all right. steve ratner, thank you. we appreciate it. so we learned yesterday that chinese hackers have been lurking inside systems that are critical to u.s. infrastructure for years. that's from an assessment released by the cybersecurity and infrastructure security agency in partnership with the fbi and nsa. the agencies issued a joint cybersecurity advisory saying they believe chinese state-sponsored cyber actors are trying to position themselves to cause, quote, disruptive or destructive cyberattacks against u.s. critical infrastructure in the event of a major crisis or conflict with the united states. they say one group known as volt typhoon has already compromised the i.t. environments of multiple organizations including

multiple critical sectors of the economy. the agency has found the group has had access for at least five years. this is ominous. joining us now, the former director of cybersecurity and infrastructure security agency, chris krebs. he is chief public policy officer at the cybersecurity company sentinel one. chris, this sounds absolutely frightening. are we talking about banking institutions or government institutions? what do we know? >> well, they for sure hit government institutions including in the military and the defense industrial base. we've seen prior activity against banks for sure, but as they point out, this is a lot of that core lifeline infrastructure and the intent is to take this infrastructure down at a time of escalated tensions with china, and ruin service to you and me and cause societal

panic and chaos so we ultimately start to question our leadership and this is very much a technical attack as much as it is a psychological attack. >> hey, chris. this has been going on for five years according to the reports. what do you figure or do you know what we've done in response defensively over the past five years? what are our capabilities in putting them off or perhaps even engaging in the same sort of subterfuge within china? >> i mean, to actually step back, this sort of activity from whether it's russia, iran, or china, has been going back to the bush administration. you know, for personal experience, i can tell you that we have been tracking chinese activity against critical infrastructure, one of the earliest, most significant that i can recall is about 2013 against the natural gas pipeline in the midwest. so we very much have been aware of this activity, and there are a range of different tools, and i think we've discussed this before, but there's deterrents where you go out and you actually disrupt the activity,

and we saw last week the fbi announce that they had disrupted an iot bot net which is a bunch of devices connected to the internet that the chinese could use to conduct a denial of service attack or overwhelm a website or a company, but there's also denial by deterrence, and that's what this report represents. this is getting information, technical information in the hands of defenders. companies like mine saying, we can take this. we take this, and we load it up and make sure our customers are defended, but you're not going to be able to catch every arrow, so you've got to be prepared. we have to be more vigilant np threat is not going away at all. we are so digitally dependent and every mistake creates an opportunity for the bad guys. >> former director of the cybersecurity and infrastructure security agency, chris krebs. keep us posted on this. thank you very much. >> will do. and still ahead, we'll get a live report from outside the

supreme court ahead of arguments on whether donald trump can be removed from the ballot in colorado, and possibly other states. plus, a recap of the dysfunction on capitol hill after republicans killed the bipartisan border bill they spent months negotiating for. "morning joe" is back in just a moment. otiating for "morning joe" is back in just a moment oooh! i can't wait for this family getaway! shingles doesn't care. shingles is a painful, blistering rash that can last for weeks. ahhh, there's nothing like a day out with friends. that's nice, but shingles doesn't care! 99% of adults 50 years or older already have the virus that causes shingles inside them, and it can reactivate at any time. a perfect day for a family outing! guess what? shingles doesn't care. but shingrix protects. only shingrix is proven over 90% effective. shingrix is a vaccine used to prevent shingles in adults 50 years and older. shingrix does not protect everyone and is not for those with severe allergic reactions

to its ingredients or to a previous dose. an increased risk of guillain-barré syndrome was observed after getting shingrix. fainting can also happen. the most common side effects are pain, redness, and swelling at the injection site, muscle pain, tiredness, headache, shivering, fever, and upset stomach. shingles doesn't care. but shingrix protects. ask your doctor or pharmacist about shingrix today. (♪♪) with wet amd, sometimes i worry my world is getting smaller because of my sight.

but now, i can open up my world with vabysmo. (♪♪) vabysmo is the first fda-approved treatment for people with wet amd that improves vision and delivers a chance for up to 4 months between treatments. which means doing more of what i love. (♪♪) vabysmo is the only treatment designed to block 2 causes of wet amd. vabysmo is an eye injection. don't take it if you have an infection, active swelling, or are allergic to it. treatments like vabysmo can cause an eye infection or retinal detachment. vabysmo may cause a temporary increase in eye pressure after receiving the injection. there is an uncommon risk of heart attack or stroke associated with blood clots. severe swelling of blood vessels in the eye can occur. (♪♪) open up your world! a chance for up to 4 months between treatments with vabysmo. ask your doctor. there's nothing better than a subway series footlong. except when you add a new footlong sidekick. like the boss with the new footlong cookie. this might be my favorite sidekick ever.

what? every epic footlong deserves the perfect sidekick.

i understand this. in this building, and in the 202 area code that is washington, d.c., border security is a political issue, but if we leave the 202 area code everywhere else in the country, this is not a political issue, it's a national security issue. and when you actually go to the border patrol council, those that see the chaos day-to-day, they're saying, send us some help. >> when you are handed the keys

to the, you know, to the kingdom as it were, when you have the majority, there is an expectation that you will be able to govern, and we have just struggled with that over and over again. it's a big leadership challenge that we need to find a solution for. >> honestly, i don't -- i don't care about basic governments. i actually think that a little bit of turmoil if you'll actually ends up being good for the american people at times. i mean, most of my voters would love to see this place shut down because they don't think it works for them, and specifically they want to see it shut down until the borders shut down. >> the republican-led chaos continues on capitol hill. the bipartisan border bill that republican senator, very conservative james lanford and others worked on for months, is officially dead, but now there are senate republicans who are vowing to block any foreign aid bill until the situation at the southern border is addressed

first, like the bill they just killed. the bad faith arguments on those issues made by some maga republicans has angered some of the true conservative members of the gop. we'll get to that. meanwhile, there appears to be no path forward for critical foreign aid. we'll go through more of its dysfunction in washington in just a moment, and how it affects not only our country, but the rest of the world. good morning, and welcome to "morning joe." it is thursday, february 8th. along with willie and me, we have the host of "way too early," jonathan lemire, and msnbc contributor mike barnicle joins us. >> let's start with the supreme court this morning. we'll hear rulings on donald trump's eligibility. you'll remember the colorado supreme court ruled that trump should be removed from the state's ballot based on section 3 of the 14th amendment to the

u.s. constitution. the post-civil war provision of the constitution bars anyone who took an oath as a member of congress or as an officer of the united states and engaged in insurrection from holding public office again. trump's legal team is expected to argue that as president, he was not an officer of the united states, and that his actions leading up to and on january 6th do not constitute an insurrection or rebellion. let's bring in former u.s. attorney and msnbc contributor, barbara mcquaid. she is co-host of "the sisters-in-law" podcast. what do you expect to see as this gets under way? >> i think we know what the arguments are because all the briefs have been filed, but what i'll be looking for and what i think we can expect are the questions that we hear from the justices themselves. that will be a real indicator as to whether they're going to go to the meat of this, looking to

see whether donald trump engaged in an insurrection, or instead they're looking for an off ramp to dodge the big question, and as the justices ask questions, what will be interesting to hear is the focus of those questions, but also whether some justices are using their opportunity to ask questions as sort of advocate for a particular position or another. that's what makes it so fascinating to listen to the oral argument. >> so barbara, obviously the supreme court, any court is supposed to stick to the law. the 14th amendment, section 3 in this case, but there are obviously larger implications here. we've heard even some democrats and allies of president biden on other networks saying they worry about the implications of keeping donald trump off of a ballot, what it means for the country, what it means for sell telling voters, you don't get a chance to get your voices heard here. that make sense? >> chief justice roberts has his

hands full here. i think we are at a moment in our nation's history when public confidence in the supreme court is very low, and so i think it has to be at the back of his mind that he doesn't want to do anything that makes that worse, and if anything, he wants to bolster confidence, but it's difficult to know which way that cuts. removing donald trump from the ballot, i suppose, would be putting the court at the center of american life, and perhaps he would like to avoid being the decision-maker this removes a presidential candidate who was leading his party for the nomination. on the other hand, clarence thomas himself has said it is not the job of the supreme court to render extinct language from the constitution. he's saying, instead of, oh, he's popular so let's forget about the 14th amendment, it is the job of the court to interpret the law, and so i think that they're a little damned if they do, damned if they don't here, you know, because if they say, no. the voters should decide, that

would really abdicate their rule as the court to interpret the law. >> so let's talk about what their job is because obviously influencing public confidence is not the job of the supreme court. what is the question at hand here that they have to consider? because i think a lot of people might listen to this headline and say, oh, well, he wasn't there at the capitol. he didn't break a window. so there's no way that donald trump did what this claim is saying, but this is talking about engaging in insurrection. am i right? and as a result, is it possible that could be proven? >> well, yes, and, in fact, if you look at the language of the section 3 of the 14th amendment, it says not only that someone engaged in insurrection, it also says or provided aid or comfort to those who did, and i think there are a number of ways just as the colorado supreme court did to find that donald trump did indeed engage in insurrection which would bar him

under this clause. for example, the speech he gave at the ellipse and the tweets he sent even after. >> right. >> the attack was under way could be a basis or engaging in insurrection. however, if there is a worry that that violates any first amendment rights that he may have, i think a stronger argument is that he provided aid and comfort to the same because as president, unlike the rest of us, he actually has affirmative duties to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, and so his failure to call off that insurrection after 187 minutes, i think is maybe the strongest argument that he provided aid and comfort to those who were engaged in insurrection, and that would bar him as well. >> and jonathan lemire, i mean, not only did he say go to the capitol, i'll meet you there, and they all went running to the capitol, since then, he's calling the people who are doing hard time right now for the insurrection that he instigated, he's calling them hostages.

he had, i think, a convict choir at one of his rallies. i mean, he continues to give them comfort and to accept them as part of something normal. >> yeah, and he, of course, spent months spouting the big lie which is what primed that insurrection. >> right. >> then he appeared before the crowd on the ellipse on january 6th and whipped them up into a frenzy even saying he would go with them to the capitol before changing his mind and going to the white house, and ever since then he has only praised those who fought for him that day and we know he watched on that little television in the private dining room of the oval office and cheered on the insurrection that day. barbara, it's also important because it's not just colorado. there are other states considering similar measures if this were to go to. supreme court has to step in and set precedent. walk us through the mechanics of what will happen today. who's going to speak for how long, and then most importantly,

what happens next? when will we hear from the sport as to what they decide? >> they have set oral argument to allow first the appellate which is the typical case, the party who is seeking to overturn the prior decision. so the lawyers on behalf of donald trump will argue first. we'll hear from them, and then the response will actually be divided among two different lawyers. one lawyer representing the voters of colorado, to represent that interest of not having an insurrectionist on the ballot, and then also the solicitor general of the state of colorado representing the secretary of state of colorado who has slightly different interests of i need to know whether i can put this person on the ballot, and who's disqualified. we'll hear from both with slightly different interests. we'll hear those arguments and to me, the most interesting part of listening, and it'll be streaming live at 10:00. i know right here on msnbc, and i know what will be most

interesting is to listen to the questions because sometimes that can give you a hint as to what is on the mind of the justices, and then your very good question about when can we expect to hear an answer? i think it will come quickly, you know, most of the time, these big issues are not decided until late in the court's term, you know, june, even into july sometimes because it just takes that long for them to exchange opinions and reach consensus on things or draft dissents from those majority opinions, but one of the things we've seen here is amicus briefs, and others saying, i need to know the answer to this question because i have to send out the ballots for the primary election to my state. >> yep. >> i would imagine that brings a sense of urgency to the court and we've seen that from time to time when they need to decide something quickly, a quick decision. i don't know if we'll see it overnight, but i think in a matter of weeks because of the urgency of this question. >> barbara, that phrase you just mentioned, listen to the questions, would it apply do you

think to chief justice john roberts who is carrying the weight of history on his shoulders right now? and i'm sure that he must have a sense of his role in the supreme court's history. the supreme court has had a rocky ride in terms of public opinion over the last four or five years. what part of that do you think will play a role in the hearings that we're about to begin listening to? >> yes. i imagine that he has taken great care to prepare the questions that he is going to ask today in an effort to perhaps not just elicit answers to his questions, but also to signal to his colleagues on the bench the direction in which he is going, and so oftentimes one of the things that an advocate is trained to do is, you know, listen to the question. is this really for me or is this justice actually asking a question to signal somebody three seats down as to the direction he may be leaning? and so i think that, you know, court watchers will be listening

to those kinds of questions. what is, you know, his poker hand here? is he revealing anything about the way he sees this case? >> so barbara, i mean, everything that i've read and heard about this points to what mike barnicle just said, what you've just said, sense of history of the supreme court, the reputation of the supreme court, people's confidence in the supreme court, influencing public opinion, the concern about getting involved in politics, possibly having two election cases on their hands. do they want to really do that? what will people think? i don't think that's what the supreme court, though, ultimately will consider their job, and when you look at the evidence and interpretation of the law that's required here, is it possible that trump is removed from the ballot? >> i think it's entirely possible, mika, and as you say, it is not the job of the court to decide public opinion. i think they're human so it's

got to be at the back of their minds, but i remember something that janet reno used to say, when you find yourself in a situation where you're damned if you do, and damned if you don't, you might as well just do the right thing. one hopes that the court will do that. i think that one of the things they did here was the way they framed the issue which is very broadly, is donald trump eligible under the 14th amendment? it gives donald trump several different ways to win because there are really as we've discussed, eight different legal issues they have to decide. did he engage in insurrection? is he an officer of the united states? is he self-executing? there are a number of issues. if donald trump wins on any one of those, then he wins and stays on the ballot. i think that puts the odds in his favor, however, as we've just discussed, there are very strong arguments to indicate he is not eligible here, and so perhaps the court does lean in that direction. if i were betting, i'm going to bet they keep him on, but i

think there is a chance he is removed. coming up, a u.s. strike in baghdad has killed a high-ranking militia commander accused of directly planning and participating in attacks on u.s. forces. we'll have those new developments straight ahead on "morning joe." developments straight ahd eaon "morning joe." my car insurance and i saved hundreds. that's great. i know, i've bee telling everyone. baby: liberty. oh! baby: liberty. how many people did you tell? only pay for what you need. jingle: ♪ liberty. liberty. liberty. ♪ baby: ♪ liberty. ♪ only sleep number smart beds let you each choose your individual ♪ libfirmness and comfort.y. ♪ 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.

♪oh what a good time we will have♪ ♪you... can make it happen...♪ ♪♪ try dietary supplements from voltaren for healthy joints.

xfinity rewards presents: '1st and 10gs.' try dietary supplements 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. but in the aftermath, fury erupting. a crowd chanting, no to america, no to israel. among those killed, a commander in hezbollah, the group says, the iranian-backed militia

accused of killing three american service members in a drone attack on tower 22, a remote desert base in jordan ten days ago. centcomm saying in a statement, u.s. forces conducted a unilateral strike in iraq in response to the attacks on u.s. service members, killing a hezbollah commander responsible for directly planning and participating in attacks on u.s. forces in jordan. they have launched over 160 attacks on america since october, and have continued to do so even after the american retaliatory strikes. president biden who was under pressure to retaliate more aggressively, he has spoken out. with tensions between iran and the u.s. escalating.

>> and keir joins us now live from erbil, iraq. you sat down with the prime minister of kyrgyzstan in iraq. what did you learn from him about this attack? >> reporter: well, william, the prime minister led -- helped lead the fight against isis less than a decade ago. he counts president biden as a friend, but what he says now is that they are facing a new battle because while those three u.s. service men and women were killed in that drone strike at that base in jordan, the kurds here in northern iraq have been facing a barrage, a wave of drone attacks and other attacks from iranian-backed militia. they are under enormous pressure from baghdad, from iran, from turkey. what he says, and the reason he sat down with us is because he says he considers the u.s. a

friend, but there just hasn't been the level of support the kurds need here in order to help with that fight, the very fight that president biden is engaged in with those iranian-backed proxies. the kurds he says are on the front line. >> you fought terrorism alongside the united states. >> yes. >> now you're fighting terrorism again, but of a different kind. >> well, we know the definition of terrorism. it doesn't matter who is behind these terrorist acts. it's the act itself that we must prevent. we must fight terrorism, not who is behind terrorism. so that's my way of basely looking at this collaboration and cooperation with the united states and our allies, that we need to fight terrorism regardless of what group or who

is conducting these terrorist acts. >> and you need american support do that. without american support -- >> we definitely need american support, yes. >> without american support? >> it would be very challenging, very difficult. >> reporter: so willie, there is that voice, different than what we're hearing from some in baghdad who are calling for the u.s. to leave iraq. there is that voice of a leader who says the u.s. should stay in iraq, and yes. the kurds are divided politically in many ways just like everything in this region. it's complex for the u.s., but the congress passed legislation just in december that talked about bringing in air defenses for kyrgyzstan here and for iraq that plainly would help with these attacks. a business leader in this region was killed by a missile, an iranian missile just recently, and that, again, is considered

to have been a message that the battle is over whether the kurds here will continue to be partners with the u.s. or whether they will be pulled into that iranian orbit even more, and in a way, this is the last piece of iraq that is standing against all that. so it's a really difficult situation here where the kurdish leaders say the u.s. could do more beyond just sending strikes when americans are killed. >> complicated situation. keir simmons live in erbil, iraq. thank you. let's bring in president emeritus richard haass and author of "home and away". welcome. this appears to be from the american point of view a successful zone strike against a hezbollah leader of an

iran-backed militia in iraq. what is the sense since the killing of the service members? is the response effective? >> it depends on what your definition of effective is. if you think the definition of success is to eliminate the threat and the attacks on houthis or american trade, that is not achievable. we're in an open-ended low-level war against iran's proxies in the middle east and we don't want it to get high level because we've got our hands full. we can't do enough to help ukraine. we're worried about what china might do, and so forth. we've got to supply israel and others, but we can't ignore it. what the administration is trying to do is thread the needle, but we won't eliminate those groups, and again, iran's watching what's going on. their goal is to push us out of the middle east. they want to get us out of iraq, out of syria, and they want to dominate this part of the world. they think this is their moment. everybody's looking at what's going on here, and they say the

united states is stretched. it's divided. it lacks capacity. it lacks will. this may be our moment. so yes, we're right to strike back exactly the way we're doing it, but we shouldn't kid ourselves. we're not going to solve this problem. this is a situation to be managed at best. it's not a problem we're going to solve. coming up, republican hypocrisy when it comes to border security? we'll talk about where things go from here after gop lawmakers killed the immigration bill that they asked for. "morning joe" is back in a moment. moment an alternative to pills, voltaren is a clinically proven arthritis pain relief gel, which penetrates deep to target the source of pain with nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory medicine directly at the source. voltaren, the joy of movement. why choose a sleep number smart bed?

can i make my side softer? i like my side firmer. sleep number does that. now, save 50% on the sleep number limited edition smart bed. plus, free home delivery when you add an adjustable base. ends monday.

hi, my name is damion clark. if you have both medicare and medicaid, i have some really encouraging news that you'll definitely want to hear. depending on the plans available in your area, you may be eligible to get extra benefits with a humana medicare advantage dual-eligible special needs plan. all of

these plans include a healthy options allowance, a monthly allowance to help pay for eligible groceries, utilities, rent, and over-the-counter items. the healthy options allowance is loaded onto a prepaid card each month. and whatever you don't spend, carries over from each month. other benefits on these plans include free rides to and from your medical appointments. and our large networks of doctors, hospitals and pharmacies. so, call the number on your screen now and ask about a humana medicare advantage dual-eligible special needs plan. humana. a more human way to healthcare.

but the carefully crafted bipartisan border security and foreign aid bill was effectively killed yesterday after

republicans voted against the legislation they demanded and negotiated. this comes after months of talks between both parties as republicans required any aid for israel and ukraine must be met with reforms at the southern border. every member of senate republican leadership voted against the bill, including minority leader mitch mcconnell who had actively advocated for the package. the bill was all but doomed as soon as former president trump began pressuring republicans to kill it so he could use immigration as a general election issue. take a listen to what two of the lead negotiators of the package said yesterday. >> i had a popular commentator four weeks ago that i talked to that told me flatout before they knew any of the contents of the bill, any -- nothing was out at that point, that told me flatout, if you try to move a

bill that solves the border crisis during this presidential year, i will do whatever i can to destroy you. because i do not want you to solve this during the presidential election. by the way, they have been faithful to their promise and have done everything they can to destroy me, and that as i've mentioned, i have had a few folks that have said, if i can't get everything, i want nothing. i don't find most americans are that way. just in a day-to-day life. we have high goals and aspirations as americans, and quite frankly i don't blame americans for being really angry and frustrated for where we are at the border, really angry and frustrated. what i hear from most oklahomans is, do something. don't just sit there. do something. make progress. don't allow this to keep going.

stop it where you can. >> we were ready to bring the bill to the floor, open it up for debate, and amendments, you know, how the senate is supposed to work, and then pass the bill. but less than 24 hours after we release the bill, my republican colleagues changed their minds. turns out they want all talk and no action. it turns out border security is not actually a risk to our national security. it's just a talking point for the election. after all of their cable news appearances, after all of those campaign photo ops in the desert, after all of those trips to the border, this crisis isn't actually much of a crisis after all. if you want to spend the border crisis for your own political agendas, go right ahead. if you want to continue to use the southern border as a backdrop for your political campaign, that's fine. good luck to you, but i have a

very clear message for anyone using the southern border for staged political events. don't come to arizona. take your political theater to texas. do not bring it to my state. >> that's independent senator sinema and langford completely exposing the hypocrisy of republicans on this issue. the senate will move forward with an alternative foreign aid package with no border security. that'll happen this morning. 58 senators including republicans are supporting the move to send aid to ukraine and allies in the indo-pacific. chuck schumer will hold the vote on the bill tonight in order, he says, to give republicans more time to, quote, figure themselves out. mean meanwhile, a senate republican conference meeting turned heated yesterday. john thune telling colleagues a vote on the national security package is inevitable so they

need to stop being expletive. invoked. that's according to two people familiar with that meeting. joining us now, congressional investigations reporter for "the washington post," jackie alemany, and writer for "the bullwork," tim miller. jackie, i'll starlet with you. you have to kind of stop and process what you are hearing from republicans which is they forever wanted something done about the border. republican james langford leads this negotiation for months, gets a deal to do something about the border. they vote against doing something about the border. then when this foreign aid package comes up, they say we're not voting on that until we do something about the border we just voted against. do i have that about right? >> that's exactly right, willie, and pretty fair considering the day that republicans had yesterday. it's interesting because senate republicans generally consider themselves to be the more deliberative and efficient body in congress, but yesterday, and

really in recent months in the leadup to today, they have joined and started to resemble their rowdier house counterparts, but it was a very embarrassing day that culminated chaotic stretch for republicans after demanding these -- this bill to address the crisis at the border that they have claimed for years now needed to be addressed, and voting that bill down. now they're taking some time. they were deliberating all day yesterday in what turned into a very contentious luncheon that stretched through the day really about what they're going to do on this supplemental aid package which is the stand-alone package that contains aid for israel and ukraine without the border bill, but, you know, republicans were feeling pressure and want to do at least something and not be blamed for this political crisis that they essentially have manufactured. they are weighing options to craft some border provisions

potentially in the form of an amendment to add to this bill, which is why this secondary vote has taken until today to be scheduled. coming up, much more on the fight over border security. we'll show you what some republicans are saying about blocking foreign aid until the situation at the border is addressed even though they just had the chance to do that and killed it. more "morning joe" in just a moment. moment

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! here are some of the senate republicans vowing to block any foreign aid bill until the situation at the southern border is addressed first despite voting against legislation earlier in the day yesterday which would have addressed the situation at the border. >> what this administration and chuck schumer, they are doing, is using the crisis in israel to support other priorities of the party. we should first secure our southern border.

second, provide resources to israel. third, take a look at indo-pacific, and fourth make sure we have accountability woven into any resources that are given to ukraine. without that in succession, it'll be hard for republicans to support it. >> you have too many republicans who have transitioned from, okay. well, this first attempt to force border security has gone down, and let's move onto ukraine, and there are those of us who belong to the sanity caucus who need to throw our hands up and say, let's pump the brakes here and let's continue to work on solving the border problem as opposed to immediately pivoting to putting more resources into ukraine. >> there was about ukraine money. it was not about the border. most people knew it wasn't going to happen. we wasn't going to get a deal on the border, so now we jumped ahead and jumped into the ukraine funding and they're going to find a way to get it done, but hopefully we can block

it. we need to protect our borders first before anybody else's border. >> but tim miller, they had a deal to protect the border that senator james langford and many others worked on for months. a bipartisan deal that was stronger than anything that they've ever seen before, and ever could get again. what happened? >> well, james langford and kyrsten sinema ran into a party that's not a conservative party and not a party that wants to solve problems. i was watching the frustration on langford and sinema's and in their words as they were talking about how the republicans wouldn't support this deal that they demanded, but i just think th realization that many of us have realized that what the majority, not every single republican, but the majority of the republican party wants is nihilism, is extremism, and is a total servitude to

donald trump, not advancing conservative policy solutions and we can stand back and look at this. it is crazy to consider that james langford, an extremely conservative senator from oklahoma, would put forth a border bill that has no -- none of the immigration reforms that democrats have wanted to pass, nothing for dreamers, you know, nothing to liberalize the immigration system. it is all border security, pretty harsh rules for detention of migrants, and for him to be able to convince -- it seems like maybe every democratic senator or nearly every democratic senator to go on board with that, and then have his own republicans scuttle it because they do not want to solve any problems because they're happy to do putin's bidding in ukraine, i guess i would be frustrated if i was him as well if it wasn't for the fact this is something we've seen from the party for a long time now, and it's just a fundamental change in where our politics are right now. >> john, the conservative "wall

street journal" opinion page editorial section calls this a self-sabotaging gop saying the mistake by senators langford and mcconnell was assuming republicans who demanded border provisions were sincere. those senators ran for cover as soon as trump gave orders for things they couldn't take credit for, and it becomes a betrayal of ukraine attached to this. >> it's a humanitarian issue and a national security issue. it's being ignored because donald trump wants it that way and a political opportunity perhaps for a president running for re-election. i know the team is trying to think about how to take advantage of this and change the narrative on immigration. the idea is on ukraine. ukraine was fourth, a four out of four. there's reporting in the "new york times" today in an analysis that suggests if the u.s. doesn't come through with aid, ukraine can maybe hold the status quo for a few more months, but will steady lose territory. we know this week russia has had

its first wins on the battlefield in quite some time. we're seeing stark relief, the impact of what republicans are doing. kyiv is deeply worried. give us your sense as to how this could all play out. >> well, they're right to be deeply worried. let's be honest here, jonathan. we were about to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. what has happened in ukraine over the last few years has been extraordinary, merely impressive. what ukraine has done with the support of the united states and europe, they have fought russia to a draw. over the last if years, russia's really gained no new territory, and we are now putting all of that in jeopardy. so we're talking then about russia beginning to win back or gain more territory in ukraine, and does anybody really think it would stop there? if putin gains momentum in ukraine, does anyone really think that other parts of nato, europe, would not be vulnerable? what would we be prepared to do then? does anyone think we were just talking about iran?

that those in iran are not watching this? saying, hey. this could be a moment for us. does anyone think china is not watching this closely and taking notes? this is one of those moments where you almost sense that history is being made, and let me put it this way. i understand the court, the border shenanigans. i hate it and it's irresponsible, but i get it. i don't understand this. the idea that they're doing this, that they're being this reckless if you will with history and they think this will rebound to their advantage? i do not understand this, and i think -- i don't know how to stop it because ukraine, you know, can maybe begin to produce more stuff itself, but not enough. europeans don't have the invent inventories. they don't have the defense industry. i'm sorry to say at the end of the day, we really can't be replaced here, and so if we're going to be irresponsible, there will have historic consequences. coming up, today the supreme court will hear oral arguments in a case that could have a major impact on the november election. msnbc's ari melber joins us next from outside the supreme court. t

why choose a sleep number smart bed? can it keep me warm when i'm cold? wait, no, i'm always hot. sleep number does that. can i make my side softer? i like my side firmer. sleep number does that. can it help us sleep better and better? please? sleep number does that. 94 percent of smart sleepers report better sleep. now, save 50% on the sleep number limited edition smart bed. plus, free home delivery when you add an adjustable base. the first time you made a sale online with godaddy was also the first time you heard of a town named dinosaur, colorado. we just got an order from dinosaur, colorado. start an easy to build, powerful website for free with a partner that always puts you first. start for free at godaddy.com

all right. you're looking live at the supreme court. we are about an hour away from the start of oral arguments before the supreme court on whether former president trump is eligible to appear on colorado's presidential primary ballot. in a moment, we'll go live to the courthouse and speak with msnbc's chief legal correspondent on what is at stake this morning. the oral arguments will be live here on msnbc. first, we're taking a look at a surprising trend among a number of top businesses and global leaders, unexpected resignations. just last week the ceo of h & m rocked the fashion world and the company's stock prices when she

abruptly announced she was stepping down. the move comes as h & m reported lower sales and earnings that missed analyst's expectations. helmerson cited a lack of energy for the demanding role. her resignation is part of a larger potential trend in leadership turnover from walgreens and bumble, leaving their ceo jobs last fall. remember the resignations of scottish first minister nicholas sturgeon. here to discuss is maggie mcgrath and huma abedin. she's also an msnbc contributor and cohost of "morning mika." your team at forbes women has been reporting about female ceos

and how they tend to receive more pressure, more blame from shareholders, peers and media when their companies are going through a crisis. what do you make of this latest resignation at h & m and what it says about the larger gender dynamics in the c-suite? >> it is always concerning when we have a female ceo step down and get replaced by a male ceo, which is what happened at h & m. we know from research that women are 50% more likely to be named the ceo of a company in crisis than a company not in crisis. so they're getting tapped to lead during times of trouble. that's a vote of confidence perhaps, but we also know from other research that women are more likely to get the blame for their company's troubles than their male counterparts. women get the blame 80% of the

time. men get the blame 31% of the time. what's interesting in the case of the h & m ceo transition here is that a lot of the reports, as you noted, say that h & m sales are down 4% year over year. helmerson took the helm of the company in january 2020. she is not exaggerating when she says that she has had a very challenging set of market environment conditions to navigate as ceo. she said in a press conference she doesn't quite have the energy to continue leading. that is something we have heard from other leaders who have stepped down in the last year. my big question is, what are the conditions that america's corporate boards are putting in place to allow female leaders to succeed? because i think ultimately what we want to see are sustainable, long-term tenures. >> yeah. and i also wonder if you could take a look at how many male

ceos that leave their jobs and actually get better jobs. i've seen so many men get fired and manage up to end up higher, and women don't. that's just my anecdotal experience. joanna garrity was named as the first female ceo of jetblue. >> i think it's good to champion the positive leaders. we all say representation matters. it's important for young women to see that. and she is the first woman to run a major u.s. airline. there have been other countries, other airlines that have done that. maggie was just referring to what we call the glass cliff, which is where women aren given

jobs at the top when the company is in crisis. she has real experience. she has two decades at jetblue. there's talk of a merger with spirit airlines, which is complicated. women with experience can make a difference. i think having more women serve on the board because they're the ones who help make decisions about dismissing some of these leaders -- i think it's great and exciting news, and i look forward to see what she does at the helm. >> we're going to talk about leadership at the forbes and know your value 30/50 summit. we have shania twain, susie or monday. we have one of the best tiktokers to follow.

who is she? >> she is a nigerian-american influencer and creator. she has appeared on the forbes 30 under 30 list and our top creators list for her account drea knows best. social media was her side hustle, but it's what she loves. she has amassed 7 million followers across tiktok and instagram. she's known for her comedic takes on nigerian food and culture and life. she has an online class for people who use tiktok on how to understand the platform, how to grow your audience, how to grow your algorithm. she really believes if you're an expert in something, you should share your knowledge with other people so they can level up. that so embodies the ethos of the 30/50 summit. i might sit in on those classes because i know nothing about

tiktok. we are so thrilled to have her. >> huma, you also have an announcement. a woman from a fashion world who's using her brand to create impact. >> we are so excited that staci bendit will be joining us in abu dhabi. the number of first i have north of 50 who wear alice and olivia speaks to how her brand, her fashion statement and also her continuous ability to change is exciting. i love hearing her story that she started dressing herself at 2 years old. in 2002 she designed a pair of pants that has grown into a global fashion phenomenon. she had no formal training. she thought herself fabrics and production and decided that she was going to learn by constantly

being open to change, being resilient and using the power she has to say i have to use my voice. she's launched this initiative called big feelings, one of many she's announced. that's about mental health advocacy, showing that she needs to use her voice and platform to help empower other women. she's such a force andhearing w to share in abu dhabi. >> thank you both very much. if you want to join us at the 30/50 summit in abu dhabi, get details at forbes.com and knowyourvalue.com. we're going to roll right into the fourth hour of "morning joe" right now, just before 6 a.m. on the west coast, 9 a.m. in the east. in about an hour from now, the supreme court will take the most

direct action in a presidential race in 24 years. the justices will consider whether donald trump can be removed from colorado's primary ballot for his role in the insurrection on january 6th. colorado's state supreme court ruled in december that trump was disqualified based on a section from the 14th amendment. it was added after the civil war to keep confederates from holding office again. let's bring in msnbc chief correspondent ari melber, live for us outside the supreme court. ari, what's at stake here? a lot of the conversations we've had in the past few hours have been, well, the supreme court will not rule against trump on this, because of public opinion, the conversation in the court, they don't want to be involved in too many election cases. isn't their job to decide

whether or not he is eligible? >> reporter: the main job of the court today is to hear these arguments and decide is there a way you could disqualify a candidate in this position or not. because there isn't a lot of precedent for doing that, a lot of legal observers suggest it would be unlikely to make new precedent and to do that. the off ramps could be, well, this is a special case. it's only the primaries. we're not going to deal with all of it. or they could issue the rule that would resolve this for years to come and say there's got to be a higher bar than one state deciding sort of on its own to do this. >> aren't other states looking at this as well, or is colorado the only state? >> reporter: many states are looking at it. from the court's perspective, i

think history would suggest they want a rule that works across the country. in other words, if one state has the unilateral power to do this, if colorado can say no to this candidate and other places say yes, that can create a lot of confusion and inconsistency for what is still fundamentally a national election. i'm sure you've heard the hypotheticals. people say, if it's done state by state, what's to stop texas or idaho to come up with its version of why some candidate that's less popular there gets disqualified. the history makes this an uphill battle. the judges are going to hear this behind me today and ultimately decide. new history could be made. >> i'm just curious about the other states that are dealing with this. isn't that what the supreme court is for, though? because if you have these questions coming up across the country, doesn't it get elevated to the supreme court that can make a ruling for everybody to

follow that's precedent? >> reporter: sure. that's the most common reason the supreme court will take a case. sometimes it's called a circuit split where different places have disagreed. we've seen states, in all fairness, that have secretaries of state or local officials who might be more skeptical of donald trum and who have not come down this way and found what colorado found. if you read the colorado decision, it says something that's familiar to a lot of people which follow the news, which is, it seems that donald trump did a lot of things to overturn the election. they interpret that as him essentially engaging in insurrection. other states have not found that. i don't think anyone would want a presidential election where a candidate is allegedly disqualified in one place for that reason, but also qualified

to be on the ballot in other places under the same rule. there needs to be, i would think, some consistency. that could break against trump if they found overwhelming evidence of that insurrection. based on what we know, i wouldn't expect colorado to have a real strong shot today. >> and the question at hand is eligibility to be on the ballot. are you saying that the supreme court might say we don't want to deal with the primary, or do they have to look at the question as to whether or not he's eligible? >> reporter: it's a great question. the case that brought this up is a primary. in our funny system in america, most of these primaries are run through the party, not through the general election government mode that we think of in november. so, yes, one way the supreme

court could narrow this is to say, well, we're only going to look at the primary context and leave the other fights for another day. another thing they could do is say, no, the constitutional provision, you're talking about overall eligibility. the primary leads to the general. we all know what's coming in november. and they could make a wider rule. that's another reason it's so hard to predict. in other cases, you have many years of precedent, so you can look at how they've done it in the past. there's no modern precedent for removing a candidate based on this provision about insurrection. >> ari melber, i have so many questions for you. thank you very much for joining us. let's bring in the host of "inside with jen psaki" jen psaki, and jonathan lemire is back with us as well.

jonathan, i'll start with you. this is the first time all morning we're talking about different off ramps to the legal question at hand. they also are dealing with another case potentially coming their way, and that's immunity. i wonder if the supreme court, how many election-related cases they would want to deal with in the long run any way. >> what's happening today is probably the most consequential presidential case before the supreme court since 2000's bush v gore. this is for a supreme court court that at least publicly tries to not be political. at least it did for a long time. that era is over. it became political in the year 2000 and certainly ever since including with the decision on

roe v wade just two years ago. the immunity issue is one that was dealt with earlier this week unanimously. that's probably not going come to the high court for quite some time. there is a political argument on colorado that this would be a bad thing if donald trump were taken off the ballot, because it would fuel his argument that the deep state is out to get him. almost to a person, every legal expert we've talked to says it's pretty clear that trump did what he's accused of doing, that he violated the 14th amendment and therefore fomented insurrection and shouldn't be allowed to be on the ballot. it's hard to imagine the court going there. >> it might be in company in the sense that i'm not a lawyer, but

i think the legal case that he's in violation of these things is very strong. but i am sympathetic to the view that this is the wrong way to beat trump for a couple reasons. number one, you and i were just talking about this in the hallway. i think there has been since 2015 a fantasy of getting rid of trump through kind of investigations and inquests and criminal proceedings and this and that. it is now nine years on and none of those have actually shown the ability to protect american democracy from him. so nine years is a pretty long time to wait for our institutions to save us. they may not save us just as a matter of timing. secondly, we should let these legal things play out. i think there's a distracting quality. we turn on the news and we're always talking about these investigations. what we're not talking about is organizing that's happening in communities to actually try to build a coalition to defeat

american fascism and the big lie. i think we are lulled into being like passive consumers of legal cases winding on, over which we have no control, instead of doing the thing over which we have immense control. only half of us vote in this country. there's people that could be organized into voting and building a movement to put american facism in its proper place, which is the dustbin of history. every moment we are obsessing and fixating over will the courts come for him, we're not talking about fixes this the old fashioned way, which is beating it at the ballot box. >> i think you make a great point. i hear and understand the concern that you're sending us here. at the same time, you know, when the first indictment came down, everyone was like, this is the

wrong way to beat trump, stormy daniels, this is the wrong case to start with, and then i think it was documents, and then i think it was stolen elections, and then there were civil suits. my god, every case doesn't feel like the right way to beat trump, but at some point we are a nation of laws. this former president has run through so many stop signs both politically and, one could argue, legally. i'm only going to talk about the things either he has openly done, like defame a woman's character when a judge has already ruled that he defamed the woman's character and he continues to defame her character when told not to. those are obvious, blatant problems. and also massive fraud he's been found liable for. right now we're just talking about how many hundreds of millions of dollars he might have to pay for the fraud he committed. and stolen documents, possibly

even nuclear secrets that he claims are his documents and he can have them and nobody else can have them and he has them sitting in mar-a-lago. these are things he admits to that he's indicted for or charged with in civil court. and he runs through stop signs, and the system doesn't seem to hold him back. some people might say that at some point before we lose our democracy there has to be a consequence for actions that if anybody else in this country committed, they would be hauled off politically or to jail legally. >> in all due respect, i'm in a completely different place on this. i would say it's important to remember the origin of the 14th amendment. that was brief where they outlined this as a reminder that it was to protect the voices of those who are often suppressed, including the african-american community. it's important to remember the

history here. the other thing i would say is it's important to talk about these cases, because it's important to remind voters out there in the country what donald trump tried to do, which was to suppress exactly those kinds of voters. when ari said this is unprecedented, it's also important to remind people that his actions were unprecedented. so the job of any legal system, the judicial system, is actually not to contemplate the politics, not that anyone here is suggesting that. it's to ignore that and apply the law. if you look at donald trump's argument, what they're arguing is that the insurrection didn't even happen, that he didn't participate in it, that it was three hours long and not that many people were armed and, therefore, it didn't happen. that's ludicrous on its face. the other thing they argue is he's not an officer of the united states. that's a big part of their

argument. i think it's essential we talk about this. we're all tired about talking about the intricacies of legal cases, but it's so important to remind of what happened, what's at stake. that's what will help motivate people in part to organize. >> that's a great point. i want to be clear. i'm not saying these cases are not important. they're incredibly important, but there are a small number of people who need to work on these cases in the legal system and most of us do not have power over what happens in these court cases. i'm talking about just average people watching this, because i experience this when i go out and talk to people. probably a very large fraction of our viewers, i think, invest a ton of their emotional energy in their despair about trumpism, focused on the cases instead of what they can do in their communities to build a bigger, better, overwhelming movement to

crush american fascism. he has definitely done things that would send him to jail for the rest of his life, if there's any justice in this country, and lose every dollar he has, if he even has that much. but i'm not talking about whether it should happen or not. i'm talking about our attention, regular people's attention, and what i perceive to be a real deficit around actual movement building for the pro democracy class. everyone is angry. then you ask people, how many hours a week are you marching? when was the last time you saw a million people in the streets about this? the answers are sad. >> i'm not saying what you think i'm saying, which is that we should be talking about this. i can tell you a lot of what people need to understand is also that he's capable of. it's not the only thing people should be talking about. object abortion rights, different approaches to the economy, the fact that the

opposing party wants washington dysfunction are all important. but i think explaining and talking about what's at stake here and what the threat is these cases present in terms of what donald trump is capable of doing to our democracy is essentially important. we can't underestimate what people think about that too. >> i agree. i just think it shouldn't monopolize our focus. >> let's bring in symone sanders townsend. you know, we are a nation of laws for reasons like this. i mean, there are some situations that need to be handles in the court, because they are difficult. while i totally agree that democracy is at stake, all hands

on deck, do anything you can to help this country, absolutely. but some things need to be decided in court. >> some things need to be decided in court. i just want to remind everyone we would not be here without the work of the january 6th select committee, because it was not until they took the time to peel back the layers that not only the justice department but the american people writ large understood what was happening. that understanding is very important to govern what people believe could happen in the future. there are so many people when you talk to them about donald trump in 2016 that did not believe that he would do the things that he was saying he would do. even today people brush things off that he says tongue in cheek. but i implore people that when donald trump says what he's going to do, we should believe him. he has been clear he's going to

be a dictator on january 1. he has been clear he will come after the press and journalism and this very network. he's been clear he wants to put enemies and political foes in jail. he will weaponize the government. because of that, people do need to understand what donald trump has done, because he has been the president before, what he will do, because that will inform what they do at the ballot box. we hear it all the time, oh, they can't do this because they, meaning the supreme court, because of the division in this country. if that was the case, we would still be drinking from segregated water fountains and in segregated classrooms. brown versus the board of education potentially tore this country apart. on one hand, they have to do what they are meant to do

without concern about the political ramifications. unfortunately, we're not talking about a regular supreme court, we're talking about this one. so i don't have much faith in the supreme court. lastly, people should, in my view, increasingly take their eggs out of the legal strategy will take care of trump box. voters should put their eggs in the beat him at the ballot box box. that doesn't mean that the legal isn't important. but nikki haley just started attacking trump two weeks ago. what would happen if she had more forceful language seven months ago? we might be in a different moment. >> can you imagine if all of the republican primary candidates took him on? it would have been perhaps a different situation. there was so much fear of donald trump. you talk about what he will do if relected or if he gets off on some of these legal

challenges. look at what he's doing now. look at congress. congressional republicans continue to stall progress. they're self-destructive as they remain unwilling to negotiate on the border and foreign aid bill. this is something they wanted, but then trump said, no, you don't. correspondent ryan nobles has the latest. >> reporter: the chaos on capitol hill is showing no signs of slowing down. >> we've struggled. people know. >> reporter: less than 24 hours after republicans effectively killed a bipartisan deal to address the border crisis and provide aid to ukraine and israel, the senate's attempt at a new push to provide the aid without the controversial border provision is stalled, leaving congress searching for answers as to what could break the impasse. do you think house republicans are interested in bipartisan bipartisanship at this point? >> they're going to have to show

their ability to govern. >> reporter: james lankford spoke out yesterday. >> i had a popular commentator that told me flat out, if you try to move a bill that solves the border crisis during this presidential year, i will do whatever i can to destroy you, because i do not want you to solve this during the presidential election. >> reporter: some in the gop saying now is the time to focus. >> and, no, we're not going to just pass the buck and say, oh, any president can walk in and secure the border. i saw former president trump make that allegation earlier today. well, with all due respect, that didn't happen in 2017, 2018, 2019 and 2020. >> reporter: house republicans remain entrenched in their all-or-nothing position. >> most of my voters would love to see this place shut down, because they don't think it works for them. >> we're governing here. sometimes it's messy. >> reporter: as the crisis in

places like texas continues. >> i'm hoping that the federal government will cut a deal and completely stop this mess. >> reporter: but for now, there's no path toward providing assistance, and the hope of capitol hill being the source of relief is dwindling. >> okay. so trump's impact on politics is really rearing its ugly head. they wanted this bill. this bill would have given them more than they would get in the future, and they killed it for donald trump. so we can talk about what he might do in a second term, but we're looking at right now, staring straight in the face of what he's doing right now to our political process in washington and continuing to deteriorate the republican party into something unrecognizable. is there anything the white house can do as it pertains to

the problems on the border? can biden do something on his own, for example? >> even in this edition of the republican party, this is a particular galling episode, where this was their bill. democrats were unhappy with it, but willing to go along. this was a gop-led effort. as soon as donald trump said to, they all turned on it instantly. president biden and the white house have pointed that out. the president and his aides have said they will explore executive action, but it's limited. the powers are not nearly as broad as if there were legislation passed through congress. let's set aside the policy part and talk about the politics. this does seem like it's an opportunity for this president. immigration has been a vulnerability. they know that. polls suggest it's been a better issue for republicans for some time now. this is a moment where biden

could flip the script and blame republicans for chaos at the border and potentially negate that as an advantage. how would you propose they do it? >> yeah. there's no question, jonathan. as much as there are a number of democrats who did not like the details of this bill, although i will note only four democrats in the senate voted against it, which is kind of interesting, in addition to bernie sanders. it would be better had this passed, because the border is on the minds of lots of americans, as much as this bill was imperfect. given that is not happening because of the dysfunction, i would say use the republicans' words against trump. i watched senator lankford's speech on the floor. he basically called out yesterday the dysfunction within his own party. he is a former preacher. he is a definite conservative from a very conservative red state. he did what his party leadership asked him to do and got agreement on a bill that is more

conservative and hard line than any border bill you would probably get under trump and has been proposed in the last several decades. he did what was asked and more than delivered for his party. the thanks he got was being censured and attacked by radio hosts who said they were going to destroy him. i would say for the biden campaign -- and they're very sophisticated about this sort of thing -- is to take the words of republicans who are saying this is dysfunction. we're in charge and we can't make anything happen. they need to throw that back at the public. that's what will inform people of how they can be in charge. >> you write about the fears surrounding the border. quote, the underlying emotion behind the border panic is more interesting than the actual situation on the border. why do people feel so invaded?

why do people feel in such little control of their environment? what is making racism so easy to activate? the missing piece of the puzzle in our battle against today's authoritarian threat is a serious, concerted effort to help millions of people, not the hard core fanatics of maga, but the next traunch of voters who are in play for fascism. it is organizing not for the faint of heart. yet, this is the central undertaking for a pro-democracy movement in this country. if we are to have one worthy of the name to be deeply, persistently engaged in the psychological process through which millions of americans are trying to figure out these changes, figure out the era, find new identities in a changing country and ultimately come to see themselves in a way they'd like to see on the far

side of change. you know, fash curious is what i'm seeing. that's a great term, because i think a lot of trump supporters who don't know enough about what is going on because they're super busy just getting by, feel like it would be good to have somebody in charge calling the shots, but maybe perhaps understand that the ultimate undermining of our democracy would hurt them. >> yeah. when we talk about these issues, we talk about the people at the top who are deciding these things. we talk about the dysfunction in congress, the senate and the house. we talk about what donald trump's doing. we talk about how the house is responding. i think my focus always, but certainly in this election year, is on what's going on in people that makes what's happening at the top possible? what happens at the top is only possible because of the state of

people, right? tens of millions of people want the american fascist offering that is being clearly presented to them or are fash curious, as i wrote. the question is, what is going on with them? you see democrats chasing this border compromise that doesn't work and chasing each symptom and not addressing the root causes. my question is, why are people so fearful about the future and anxious about their place? we're in a situation of enormous racial progress that we should be proud of, of enormous progress on gender that we should be proud of. but those very good things that we would celebrate will leave lots of people a little bit like this is a new world. that's totally normal. i was reporting in india in the 2000s for the "new york times." economic growth revved up, and a lot of people are suddenly like,

whoa, everything's new. i think that is the background condition, the context of the country in which this political crisis is happening. i think we need to think about the pro-democracy issue in general not just telling an issue at a time, but telling a story of the country that soothes anxieties and gives people something to look forward to and invites them into this vision of progress. >> the new piece is entitled "future shock." you can read it now at "the ink." thank you for being on this morning. symone sanders townsend, thank you as well. we'll be watching saturday and sunday mornings 8 a.m. to 10 a.m. right here on msnbc. still ahead, we have more on the historic arguments that will take place in just a few moments before the supreme court on

donald trump's eligibility for the colorado primary ballot. we'll bring in someone who's argued before the high court numerous times, neal katyal. also we're following a nj of major business headlines, including three major media companies teaming up to create a new way for consumers to see live sports. andrew ross sorkin will join us to talk about the potential game-changer. k about the potent game-changer hi. my name is kim and i am 41 years old. i've been given the opportunity to work from home, so that means lots of video calls. i see myself more and i definitely see those deeper lines. i'm still kim and i got botox® cosmetic. i wanted to keep the expressions

that i would normally have, you know, you're on camera and the only person they can look at is you. i was really happy with the results. i look like me just with fewer lines. botox® cosmetic is fda approved to temporarily make frown lines, crow's feet, and forehead lines look better. the effects of botox® cosmetic may spread hours to weeks after injection, causing serious symptoms. alert your doctor right away as difficulty swallowing, speaking, breathing, eye problems, or muscle weakness may be a sign of a life-threatening condition. do not receive botox® cosmetic if you have a skin infection. side effects may include allergic reactions, injection site pain, headache, eyebrow, eyelid drooping and eyelid swelling. tell your doctor about your medical history, muscle or nerve conditions, and medications, including botulinum toxins, as these may increase the risk of serious side effects. see for yourself at botoxcosmetic.com.

(vo) in the next 30 seconds, 250 couples will need to makek room for a nursery.effects. (man) ah ha! (vo) 26 people will go all-in. (woman) yes! (vo) this family will get two bathrooms. and finally, one vacationer will say... (man) yeah, woo, i'm going to live here... (vo) but as the euphoria subsides, the realization hits... (man) i've got to sell the house. (all) [screams] (vo) don't worry, just sell and buy in one move when you start with opendoor. (woman) oh wow. (vo) oh yes. stathings have gotten better at opendoor.com recently, but too many businesses like mine are still getting broken into.

it's time our police officers have access to 21st century tools to prevent and solve more crimes. allow public safety cameras that other bay area police departments have to discourage crime, catch criminals, and increase prosecutions. prop e is a smart step our city can take right now to keep san francisco moving in the right direction. please join me in voting yes on prop e.

33 past the hour, a live look at las vegas for you. consumers will soon have a new way to access marquis live sports as espn, fox and warner brothers discovery announce a plan to launch a joint sports streaming service this fall. the new platform does not yet

have a name or price. let's bring in andrew ross sorkin. is this a big deal? >> it could be a huge deal. we will see ultimately what it turns out to be. it could hasten the unbundling of the cable bundle, if you will. it is both targeted towards folks who already unbundled and want to get access to sporting content and for those who are thinking about unbundling and want access to sporting content. it will be about 80% of all sports on television that have licenses through those three companies. it raises some questions about both our parent company, nbc universal, which of course has nbc sports and the nfl, paramount which owns cbs, and of course amazon and apple and others. it could raise some questions in washington state about the consolidation. this is not a merger per se.

they're all going to be acting independently of one another. sports leagues are looking at this very carefully and saying, well, are these guys going to have any incentive to bid against one another if they're all on one platform? that's going to be a big issue. >> andrew, you had an exclusive interview with the cree you of alphabet and google and asked him about this topic. >> the super bowl is coming up, and there was a big deal made this week in the sports tv world. youtube tv is bigger than netflix right now. what do you think is going to happen to the cable bundle? you've been part of sort of keeping that bundle through youtubetv. what do you think of this new bundle that disney is creating with warner brothers, discovery

and fox? >> first of all, these are some of our important valued partners both on youtube and youtube tv. i expect our partnerships to continue. look, i think people are responding to how users are consuming all of this. the consumption patterns are clearly evolving. i think you're seeing people adapt to that. >> what else did you learn, andrew, from this interview? >> there's two things. one is that this new service by these three companies on the sports side could become a trojan horse for creating a skinny bundle, if you will. so it's not just the channels around sports, but maybe includes a cnn, maybe includes a lot of the other channels that these networks own. that's one part. the other piece that is very important as it relates to google, this morning the company announced something called gemini advance and gemini ultra.

it's their upgraded version of ai to compete with chatgpt. it is remarkable in many ways that i think are going to change us for the better and in a number of ways that i think are going to make you nervous. he talked about the example of submitting pictures of a house to the service and said, pretend you're a real estate agent and write a description of the house just from the pictures. and the description was so much better than anything that any real estate person would have written on their own. they're doing this by just looking at the pictures of the house and it's coming up with this on its own. you start to think about not just pictures, but the ability to put different documents into it and start to say compare this document with this document. at the same time we talked about

deep fakes and the voice issue, the biden replicated robocall issue and who's going to be responsible. i will say he didn't equivocate, but there's a question should the technology guys be held responsible or should the people who use these tools improperly be responsible? i think there's a big question. >> i'm scared about where this is all going. andrew ross sorkin, thank you very much. up next, we have an expert legal panel standing by to take us through donald trump's ballot case that will be argued in front of the supreme court in a matter of moments. "morning joe" is coming right back. f moments. "morning joe" is coming right back

well i was on my regular route, when i find this note... bring rings to beach wedding? fedex presents tall tales of true deliveries. so i grabbed the rings and hustled down the beach.

who has the rings? i do... i mean, i do. okay... save wedding...all set. just another day on the job. if this is what we did for love, see what we can do for your business. fedex. hey! asthma's got you going through it? grab nucala for fewer asthma attacks. nucala is a once-monthly add-on injection for severe eosinophilic asthma. not for sudden breathing problems. allergic reactions can occur. get help right away for swelling of face, mouth, tongue, or trouble breathing. infections that can cause shingles have occurred. don't stop steroids unless told by your doctor. tell your doctor if you have a parasitic infection. may cause headache, injection site reactions, back pain, and fatigue. ask an asthma specialist if nucala is right for you.

welcome back. moments from now, the supreme court will hear arguments in an

historic case on whether or not donald trump can be excluded from colorado's primary ballot. nbc news senior legal correspondent laura jarrett explains what's at stake. >> this morning, a legal case that could rock the race for the white house now in front of the u.s. supreme court. former president trump hoping to reverse an unprecedented decision, colorado going where no state had gone before, disqualifying the republican frontrunner from the primary ballot this year all because of his actions in the last election. >> we fight like hell. >> in a 4-3 decision, the colorado supreme court finding mr. trump ineligible to run for president under section three of the 14th amendment, which disqualifies any officer of the united states who takes an oath to support the constitution and then engages in insurrection from holding public office again. a conservative columnist who voted for trump in 2020 is now one of the six voters serving as

plaintiffs in colorado. >> for someone who might look at this and say why don't we just let the voters decide, what do you say to that? >> former president trump didn't want to let the voters decide, right? he tried to disenfranchise 80 million americans that voted for biden. >> mr. trump's lawyers argue the 14th amendment's disqualification clause shouldn't apply to him at all, predicting bedlam if the high court doesn't rule in his favor. a new poll finding americans divided on the issue with 41% supporting efforts to disqualify the former president, 36 opposed to it. >> joining us now, former u.s. attorney and msnbc contributor chuck rosenberg and mary mccord

and former acting u.s. solicitor general neal katyal. jen psaki is with us as well. neal, what's at stake today in the supreme court? and do you think they'll be looking more for off ramps or to address the question? >> well, this is one of the most momentous question the supreme court has ever had to deal with, which is, whether someone could be disqualified from the ballot because they gave aid and comfort to insurrectionists. the colorado supreme court answered that question yes. i think it's a hard thing for the challengers to donald trump in today's argument, because there are so many different off ramps that would allow the supreme court not to decide the case one way or the other. i actually think that's the wrong legal answer. i think if you delve into briefs and so on, that actually the

case against trump is really, really strong. i am worried about the advocates and their ability to present that case. the briefing against trump wasn't particularly strong. the friend of the court briefs was very strong. hopefully they'll be able to tap into that reservoir of briefs filed against trump and try and tell the supreme court the original intent of this amendment, the 14th amendment, was just about precisely this kind of factual circumstance. >> chuck, i know you're getting pulled in a different direction. number one, what do you think the questions are in your mind as to how it's going to go down in these oral arguments? >> i think the most important thing today is not what the lawyers have to say. it's what the justices have to say, and in particular the most

conservative justices. are they looking for an off ramp, factually or procedurally? procedural off ramps might anyone collude the notion this is a political question and is best left to the political branches of government. or perhaps as one judge did in a related case find that the plaintiffs in this case don't have standing. there's so many questions that have to break in the voters' way, whether the 14th amendment applies to a president, whether mr. trump took the oath of office, whether he engaged in an insurrection in order for the voters to prevail. i think the questions from the justices will be telling and are certainly the most important thing i'll be listening for today. >> isn't engaging in an insurrection not a political question? it's a frightening criminal

question, isn't it? >> i think that's exactly right. there are some questions courts can and do ordinaily resolve. whether or not there was an insurrection is the type of question courts do. there are questions courts can and do and should answer, but this supreme court may decide there are other questions bound up in this issue that are more political in nature and are best left to the political branches. i'm just saying that one possible off ramp would be for the supreme court to find this overall constitutes a political question and they ought not resolve it. >> chuck, i know you're going to be part of msnbc's live coverage which will be starting momentarily and they need to get you to a different studio, so we'll let you go for that.

thank you for joining our coverage as we lead up to the oral arguments before the supreme court. je psaki, next question. >> i've heard you make a similar point about watching what the justices are going to be asking, which why it's so amazing we have all of you legal eagles telling us what to watch for here. what types of questions from the conservative judges will tell you they're actually considering this seriously? >> we'll learn so much from the questions and any follow-up questions. it's notable, notwithstanding what people might call technical off ramps that the court has, it's notable that the parties on both sides are urging the court to reach the merits here. part of that is because there is a need -- and i think this is

something the supreme court is going to be cognizant of. there is a need for some stability and predictability going into this election season, and there's a need for the court to resolve this definitively for the whole country. i don't think anybody would feel comfortable with colorado alone or colorado and maine alone being able to sort of dictate what other states might be able to do on their own in challenges in their own states. so people want to hear from the supreme court. so we will see if we get questions that go to the heart of the matter, such as, did that go to sort of the heart of the matter, such as did the colorado court determine that mr. trump engaged in insurrection. insurrection is undefined in the constitution, engage in is undefined, and the theory here has been mostly that trump incited that insurrection and that incitement constituted direct participation or engagement. we'll see if they ask core

questions, and i'm sure that they will, about whether section 3 actually applies to the office of the presidency. the -- mr. trump has made an argument that might seem sort of illogical to a layperson, that very technical argument that the use of the word office under the united states and officer of the united states do not include the president of the united states, and historically i think we'll hear arguments about how back in 1866 when this amendment was being considered, senator moral, who was a proponent of the amendment was asked why doesn't it include the president, and he called attention to his fellow senators to it applying to any office under the united states, and that of course included the presidency. and just as a historic matter, of course at the time those who were, you know, pushing for and ultimately did ratify this amendment had jefferson davis very much in mind.

he had somebody who had previously sworn an oath, and could otherwise potentially run for presidency, and they certainly did not want that to happen. as a practice cal matter, i think we'll hear those kind of arguments, but we'll determine a lot from whether the court is asking these key questions that really go to the merits as opposed to political question types of questions, standing types of questions. >> oh, my gosh, i cannot wait to see and hear how this plays out. neal, i'm curious, how many other states are dealing with this question? would the supreme court want to bring some clarity to this issue, or again, are they there to answer the question as to whether or not donald trump engaged in insurrection, doesn't mean he started the insurrection, doesn't mean he went up there and put a bat against the window. just engaged in the insurrection

is pretty simple, whether or not he was part of it. >> this is pending in other states, illinois, maine, and several other states, so there is a need for the supreme court to resolve the question. there are, as mary was saying some off-ramps that would say supreme court kick this can down the road. for example, you could say as some people have argued to the court, well, the 14th amendment is only about holding office. it only kicks in after january 20th, and the time to bring this case is after someone. it's not about someone running for office, and i think that that has some superficial appeal, but it was destroyed by ben ginsburg who's the leading republican election lawyer and rick hasen, and what they said is, look, that's a recipe for chaos come january 20th or come november. the american people, the courts,

voters, everyone needs to know what the rules of the road are. i think they're going to decide the case. the question is where will they go, and you're an advocate for the challengers to donald trump, i think you have to be thinking about not just trying to win the case but how if you are going to lose the case, are you going to be able to engineer a soft landing. the advocates today should be pushing the supreme court to say there was a direct finding by the colorado trial court after days of evidence that donald trump is an insurrectionist. now, maybe that isn't going to be enough to disqualify him. maybe you want some other procedural mechanisms, but don't disturb that finding. the goal here is not just to try ask win but to make lemonade out of lemons. i will watch the advocates to see, are they going to be steering the court toward a soft landing if nothing else. >> all right, former acting u.s.

solicitor general neal katyal, thank you very much. we appreciate it. and former justice department official, mary mccourt, thank you as well, and special coverage of this morning's historic arguments before the u.s. supreme court begins with ana cabrera, andrea mitchell, and josé diaz-balart. they'll pick up the coverage after a quick final break. after a quick final break.

sleep more deeply. and wake up rejuvenated. purple mattresses exclusive gelflex grid draws away heat relieves pressure and instantly adapts. sleep better. live purple. right now save up to $800 off mattress sets during purple's president's day sale. visit purple.com or a store near you. my mental health was much better. but i struggled with uncontrollable movements called td, tardive dyskinesia. td can be caused by some mental health meds. and it's unlikely to improve without treatment. i felt like my movements were in the spotlight. #1-prescribed ingrezza is the only td treatment for adults that's always

one pill, once daily. ingrezza 80 mg is proven to reduce td movements in 7 out of 10 people. people taking ingrezza can stay on most mental health meds. ingrezza can cause depression, suicidal thoughts, or actions in patients with huntington's disease. pay close attention to and call your doctor if you become depressed, have sudden changes in mood, behaviors, feelings, or have thoughts of suicide. don't take ingrezza if you're allergic to its ingredients. ingrezza may cause serious side effects, including angioedema, potential heart rhythm problems, and abnormal movements. report fevers, stiff muscles, or problems thinking as these may be life threatening. sleepiness is the most common side effect. it's nice. people focus more on me. ask your doctor about #1 prescribed, once-daily ingrezza. ♪ ingrezza ♪

only unitedhealthcare medicare advantage plans come with the ucard - one simple member card that opens doors where it matters for you. what if we need to see a doctor away from home? ucard gets you in with medicare advantage's largest national provider network. how 'bout using it at the pharmacy? yes - your ucard is all you need.

huh - that's easy! can it help keep my smile looking good? yep! use your ucard at the dentist. say cheese! get access to what matters with the ucard only from unitedhealthcare.

good morning, and thank you for being with us, i'm ana cabrera alongside josé diaz-balart and andrea mitchell on a day that will make history. for the first time ever, the u.s. supreme court set to hear a case about disqualifying a presidential candidate for allegedly engaging in an insurrection. >> the candidate in question, former president donald trump. at the heart of these arguments, whether trump can be barred from colorado's ballot over the events of january 6th, 2021, and his attempts to