>> reporter: and of course, what is so interesting is everything that people bet on. you've heard it, obviously, you know, the traditional gamblers are going to bet on the line, on the spread, on the score. but there is also prospects like the color of the gatorade, coin toss, a lot of people are into taylor swift bets. most of this are below board. it has to be on the field. back to you, alex. >> and you are talking about whether or not travis might propose to taylor's today. can we get some data little longer, please, i'm just reminding folks of that. all right, my friend, have fun. i can tell you are already having it. in moments, we're gonna unpack three big headlines, one about why today is a key day in the 14th amendment fight. and another about what the colorado oral argument missed, the author of this article is going to join me. plus, what is really at stake in new york's special election. ♪ ♪ ♪ and i bet you a good day from msnbc world headquarters here in your. welcome to another hour of

"alex witt reports". we begin with this breaking news. live look right now at capitol hill, that's where lawmakers are negotiating a foreign funding deal. the senate held one procedural vote in this last hour. this massive package would send 60 billion dollars to ukraine, 14 billion to israel, nine billion for humanitarian aid, and nearly five billion to partners in asia like taiwan. senate leaders on both sides of the aisle speaking on the floor just moments ago. take a listen. >> even though we are keeping the process moving on the floor, democrats still hope we can reach an agreement with our republican colleagues on a reasonable list of amendments. >> we must reject the most short sighted views of our obligations and grapple instead with actual problems. >> we've got a number of reporters that face covering all of these new developments for you. we're gonna be with we see julia jester with things on capitol hill. julia, what can you tell us? >> reporter: alex, senators are

voting on this key cloture vote. that means 60 votes to pass. and it's looking like it probably will. now, that will open up another 30 hours of debate. and so, you see right now what's happening on the floor. off the floor, leadership is still negotiating, working on an amendment process. now, there are some amendments that senators want to bring to this bill. that could actually help the bill itself and with passage, on the democratic side, senator amy klobuchar once to introduce revisions to the afghan adjustment act which would allow afghans who helped u.s. forces a pathway to u.s. residency. and senator hawley, who is an outspoken critic of ukraine funding, said that he would vote for final passage of this bill if his amendment on providing funding for victims of nuclear contamination passes. and so, while that sounds well and good, democrats don't have an incentive to bring amendments to the floor until there's a time agreement.

and that means that all 100 senators agreed to move the process along. it is being held up by senator rand paul. i want to play for you a little bit more of what minority leader mcconnell said on the floor today because he was not mincing words with his frustration with his fellow republican colleagues. >> i know it's become quite fashionable in some circles to disregard the global interest we have as a global power. >> and so, that is just a taste of him saying, america is not funding allies for accolades, for fun. this is a strategic way to ensure that u.s. troops aren't going over, that we're not spending american lives when we could equip our allies and partners to defend themselves and handle shared adversaries. and so, unlike with the border version of this bill that mcconnell ultimately did not support, he is making his

stance crystal clear that this is critical and all eyes are on america right now, alex. >> okay, thanks so much. we appreciate you keeping your eyes on that one. with what's happening on the senate floor, julia. let's go to nbc's jake trailer in south carolina. things are getting even more contentious between the two remaining republican candidates. so, jake, here we had some pretty harsh words for trump after he questioned her husband's whereabouts. we should tell everyone haley's husband is deployed overseas. so take it away. >> reporter: yeah, alex, donald trump, he's back on the campaign trail here in south carolina. his first campaign in this state, almost 80 days, and he was quick to intrude trump fashion, pack the punches. this time, though, particularly aimed at haley's husband, michael, who as you said is deployed. before we get into this political drama, i want the viewers at home to take a listen to trump's remarks yesterday targeted at michael and then haley's response this morning. just take a listen. >> what happened to her

husband? what happened to her husband! where is he? he's gone. >> he mocked my husband's military service. and i will say this, donald, if you have something to say, don't say it behind my back. get on a debate stage and say it to my face. but if you mark the service of a combat veteran, you don't deserve a drivers license, let alone being president of the united states. >> reporter: okay, so, here is what we know. michael is deployed in a yearlong deployment in africa serving this country. and so donald trump clearly knows that. what he is choosing to do is insinuate that michael's absence from the campaign trail has to do with more. and what i've learned from covering donald trump over the past several months is that he loves to toss these hypothetical questions into the ether, and really see what sticks, what he can spin. a month ago, donald trump said

that if nikki haley wasn't winning by the state margins he is, that she would in someone be indicted by democrats for marital affairs. so we can be exactly sure what donald trump is insinuating this time around. but what we do know is that this is a classic political attack that he is taking on haley. and as if this political drama is not enough, president biden, just a couple of hours ago, he is now weighing in, saying that trump would not know service if it slapped him in the face. so, alex, this is not the type of political discourse we like to see out on the campaign trail. but regardless, one of trump's final messages heading into the south carolina primaries, early voting starts tomorrow, and that's exactly where we are at right now. >> i gotta think this one has gone over -- all right, jake, thank you so much for that. tomorrow is the final day for donald trump to ask the supreme court to weigh in on the presidential immunity question. earlier this week, a federal appeals court rejected trump's claim that he should be immune from prosecution.

this on charges of plotting to overturn the 2020 election. in its ruling, the appeals court took measures to limit trump's ability to further delay the election supervision trial, by setting a monday deadline to ask the high court to keep the trial on home. joining me now, we're not omari audi, former federal prosecutor, and legal affairs columnist for politico as well. and a friend to us. so, renato, welcome back. so this would be a novel question for the supreme court. why? because no former president has been indicted. do you expect the court to weigh in on this, what options do they have when it comes to their involved? >> that's a great question. so, i do think that the court will at least stay this case and give trump the opportunity to make this case for why the court should hear it. but ultimately, i don't think the supreme court is gonna take this case, alex. and the reason why is you have a very well reasoned, thorough,

comprehensive opinion from the d.c. circuit court of appeals. and i don't really see the united states supreme court wanting to show the vision on this question. in other words, i'm not sure that there's an opinion that all nine justices could sign on to that would, you know, who essentially be something that all of them could agree on. i suspect there is some people in the court who want to side with trump on at least a few points. but there's no way that the majority of the court is going to say that donald trump, you know, can murder, rape, and pillage without any consequences. so i think you're just gonna let the d.c. circuit court of appeals ruling stand. and then, that would ultimately allow the trial to go forward. >> you used the word comprehensive. let me throw out the word unanimous. it was a unanimous vote. so when something is a unanimous vote, typically, does the supreme court take that up? i mean, a divided vote, perhaps is more likely, right?

>> well, typically, alex, the supreme court doesn't take case at all. i mean, they take a very, very tiny percentage of the cases that are handled by the united states court of appeals throughout this country. typically, it's not just a split within a court. but actually, alex, they're looking for splits among the various courts of appeal. they don't want a situation where the court of appeals that is overseeing california has a different view than the court of appeals that oversees new york, because you get uniformity across the country. here, this has only come up once in one case. it's probably not gonna come up outside of the district of columbia, probably ever, you know, certainly not for a long time. i think the united states supreme court might just sit this one out. >> so given how this goes, are you optimistic the election subversion trial happens before the election? >> i think it's more likely than not, given that we now have an opinion from the dc circuit

court of appeals. but if the supreme court does take this case, then it will happen after the election. so, that is really what is at stake here, the timing is really more important than anything. and i think there's a lot at stake. >> what about judge arthur engoron, expected to announce a decision on the penalties in the civil fraud trial against trump, his sons, as well as the trump organization. that is supposed to happen as soon as this week. new york attorney general letitia james is seeking 300 and $70 million after watching the proceedings, though, if you have a sense on how judge engoron is going to rule? >> you don't need to be a lawyer to see that that case is not very well for donald trump. and this is the guy, in his deposition, who took the fifth hundreds of times. and that trial, he and his team were doing everything possible to thumb their nose at the judge, throw tomatoes at him, right? i mean, they were attacking him all the time, flouting his rules . very unlikely that that

ruling is gonna go out for trump. and it is clearly taking some time. i expect that the judge is, just like the d.c. circuit court of appeals, drafting a very thorough comprehensive opinion, because he understands that it's going to be heavily scrutinized. >> for sure. what about -- look, the trump legal team, the m.o. has always been a delay, delay, delay. but it is starting to get to special counsel jack smith and the mar-a-lago case. in fact, this week, after they asked judge cannon to delay the deadline for some pretrial motions, smith wrote in this somewhat fiery legal filing, their objective is plain, to delay trial as long as possible. and the tactics they deployed are relentless and misleading. they will stop at nothing to stop the adjudication of the charges against them by a fair and impartial jury of citizens. this trial is set to begin, what, may 20. so here's the question, is it legally responsible for judge aileen cannon to allow another delay? >> wow, it's a big question. i

think it's fair to say that she herself is causing unnecessary delay in this case. i mean, that is sort of how would i characterize it. i think that she, had times, has given extensions and at times to respond, none was warranted. realistically, i think there is no chance, given who judge cannon's, and her mentality, that this case is gonna go to trial before the election. i think jack smith is putting that out there and making clear to judge cannon, but also to the public, that he sees this for what it is. and ultimately, making clear that she's gonna be responsible for a delay. but given her history and how she's acted in this case, it sure seems to me that she's in no hurry to move this forward. >> okay, renato mariotti, thank you so much for weighing in. appreciate that. they are shocking, but not surprising, trump's comments

about letting russia do whatever it wants. our next guest is the former supreme allied commander of nato. his reaction, when you are back in 60 seconds. when you are bac in 60 seconds. ve♪ ♪you... can make it happen...♪ ♪♪ try dietary supplements from voltaren for healthy joints. wanna know why people are getting a covid-19 shot? i'm turning the big seven-o and getting back on the apps. ha ha ha. variants are out there... and i have mouths to feed. big show coming up, so we got ours and that blue bandage? never goes out of style. i prioritize my health... also, the line was short. didn't get a covid-19 shot in the fall? there's still time. book online or go to your local pharmacy. 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. one of the residents of a big countries stood up and said, well, sir, if we don't pay and we are attacked by russia, will you protect us? i said, you didn't pay, you are delinquent. he said yes, let's say that happened. no, i would not protect you. in fact, i would encourage them to do whatever the hell they want. you gotta pay, you gotta pay your bills. >> this breaking news, it is new and alarming, these remarks, from donald trump. once again, threatening nato countries at a south carolina rally on saturday, trump saying, while he was commander in chief, he told an unnamed world leader the u.s. would not protect the block if they did not pay their fair share. let's head now to nbc's allie raffa at the white house. ali, what has been the white house's response to this? >> reporter: alex, the white

house issued a very sharp response to former president trump's comments last night. white house spokesperson andrew bates issuing a statement last night after he made those comments, where he said in part, quote, thanks to president biden's experienced leadership, nato is now the largest and most vital it has ever been, encouraging invasions of our closest allies by murderous regimes is appalling and unhinged and it endangers american national security, global stability, and our economy at home. the biden campaign also seizing on this, alex, hosting a clip of trump's comments on x. and last i checked, about an hour and a half ago, that clip had over 17 million views. and as you have noticed, as much as i have, we have seen the president repeatedly talked about his foreign policy chops, and how he's been able to coalesce the nato allies, specifically, around ukraine, shortly after russia's

invasion. so i would expect the white house and the biden campaign to continue seizing on these comments, one of multiple that the former president made in south carolina last night, to try to continue drawing that contrast between the president and his predecessor, alex. >> yeah, let me ask you also about the other breaking news today, with a new phone call between president biden and prime minister netanyahu emit the impending raw invasion. what are you learning about what they discussed? >> reporter: yes, this was the first phone call that these two leaders have shared since january 19th and there was a lot of attention on this phone call because it's the first conversation that we know. they have had since those very critical comments by president biden of israel's ground invasion of gaza. we called them, quote, over the top. and according to a white house readout of this call between president biden and prime minister netanyahu, that you talked about their shared goal to see hamas defeated. talking about ongoing efforts to secure the release of the

more than 130 hostages that remain in gaza being held by hamas. they also talked about needing to capitalize on the negotiations to be able to do that and also ensure the continued deliveries of humanitarian aid into gaza to support those innocent palestinians. and lastly, the president also reaffirmed his view that a military operation in gaza should not proceed without what the white house says was a credible and executive will plan for ensuring the safety of the support for more than 1 million people sheltering there. the white house says the two leaders agreed to remain in close contact. and all of this, of course, happening as white house officials continue to say they will not support any ground invasion of the rafah border area without a very robust plan by israel to be able to protect those innocent civilians and evacuate them from that area. how that is able to be done is

still unclear, alex. >> okay, allie raffa at the white house, thank you so much for that. joining me right now former supreme allied commander of nato and msnbc chief international analyst, admiral james -- i'm glad to have you here, sir. we're gonna begin with that call. here's some of what benjamin netanyahu said today about israel's plans. here it is. take a listen. >> the areas that we've cleared north of rafah, plenty of areas there, but we are working out a detailed plan to do so. and that's what we have done of until now. we're not cavalier about this. this is part of our war effort to get civilians out of harm's way. it's about hamas effort to keep them in harm's way. those who say that under no circumstances we enter rafah basically saying lose the war, keep hamas there. >> let me ask you, what do you make of that fact that there are these details, the phone call, and the fact that at least they talked. it has been over three weeks.

that's a good sign? >> it is always good when we and the israelis talk. look, i know the israeli defense forces extremely well. when i was a nato commander, i was in charge of u.s. israeli military to military cooperation. i had no doubt the israelis are doing what they can to relieve the humanitarian crisis in gaza. but as you all know, alex, it is now coming across as so disproportionate. the number of deaths, number of deaths in children, the dire straits on the ground, i just think israel has to be more responsive to that. they have to bias their response towards the humanitarian side. it doesn't mean they're gonna lose the war. it doesn't mean we're telling them to quit fighting hamas. but they have to take more account on the civilian side. i am certain that is what our president conveyed to prime

minister netanyahu. >> do you take benjamin netanyahu at his word that those people would be safely evacuated? the question is where could they possibly go? and we remind viewers that air assaults continue. >> indeed. it defies the laws of physics. you just can't take 1.2 million people who are crushed into this area in and around rafah and wave a magic wand and imagine that suddenly, they're gonna go to some safe zone and what is clearly an enormous combat zone. so israel has got to walk the walk, not talk the talk on the humanitarian piece of this. >> netanyahu said that israel's goal of toppling hamas is impossible without rallying the battalions embedded in rafah. and as you heard, he claims that those saying israel should not invade in the city are essentially saying israel should lose the war. do you agree with him? >> i don't.

i would say at a minimum, he could consider putting a cord on around coming in through the tunnels, using unmanned vehicles to get into those tunnels. try and encroach gradually. but the idea of launching a conventional attack into this 1.2 million person conglomeration, overwhelmingly of refugees, half of whom are probably children under the age of 18, it's untenable. so israel needs to go back to the drawing board and figure out how to solve the humanitarian piece of this before they can simply prosecute the military side of it. and by the way, i say all of that with immense sympathy for israel in the wake of the attacks they suffered on october 7th. now, they have got to put that humanitarian piece of this at that top of the agenda. >> netanyahu has not provided

details for a timeline for this ground invasion, hasn't said whether the palestinians who are evacuated would then be able to return to gaza after the war ends. so what could israel be planning for the displaced palestinians? what good netanyahu's endgame be here? >> the best-case would be for israel to, in fact, create some monitored safe zones in the northern portion of gaza, where they have done a pretty thorough job of eliminating hamas. but that's gonna take time, alex. and the way the prime minister speaks, it sounds like this attack on rafah is imminent. i think this is gonna be a matter of weeks, if not months, to move that civilian population. and, again, 1.2 million people, very difficult problem. final thought, look at where it

is located, right near the egyptian border. i think another possible course of action here is to redouble efforts to work with egypt on creating u.n. supervised refugee camps across that border. but there's a lot of work that has to be done before israel can simply go sweeping into rafah. >> my colleague, nbc's matt bradley said that if israeli gauges in a ground offensive, egypt might suspend its longtime peace agreement with israel. how long, 1979 long. we're talking almost half a century. jimmy carter was president. what are your thoughts on that? how frightening is that? >> it's very concerning. and it ought to be very concerning, if you are an israeli. they have had decades of reasonable diplomatic relations with egypt, and by the way, jordan will probably not be far behind, and you probably start

to blow up the relatively new relationships that have been created, for example, between israel and some of the gulf arab states. and oh by the way, you can simply table the idea of the saudis recognizing israel. they signaled today that an attack on rafah would simply freeze that process. last thought, alex, it would also bring to a complete halt any negotiations for the hostages. so, for a host of reasons, all the humanitarian things we discussed, the geopolitical, and the fate of these hostages, i would counsel my israeli friends, hit the pause button here. >> i do have to ask you one question on donald trump's nato comments, these comments, obviously, doing very little to ease our allies concerns about whether the u.s. can be dependent upon to deliver aid to ukraine, uphold our commitments to the alliance. the biden administration is calling these remarks, quote, appalling and unhinged.

nato's chief saying they put american and european soldiers at increased risk. i have to ask your response to trump's comments, do they threaten global stability, even if he's not in office? >> 100%, threatening global security because there is a growing presumption around the world that he is, has a very real chance of returning to the white house. and let's -- can we just inject some reality into the conversation here? he talks about nato as though it's a protection racket, and extortion racket, almost, run by the united states. you can hear him saying to estonia, hey, you've got a nice little country here. it would be terrible if something happened to it. that's not how alliances or. and by the way, let's do the numbers for a minute. the european collective defense budget is over 300 billion dollars. it's the second largest defense budget collectively in the world.

it's a bigger defense budget then china's, triple that defense budget of russia. so yes, i would love to see the europeans get to that 2% goal across all 32 nations in nato. i think they will. but the way to get there is not by telling russia to invade and have its way with them. it's a disgraceful set of comments by the former president. >> and, again, as the white house called them, appalling and unhinged. admiral, always good to see you, my friend, thank you so much for weighing in on all of that. we have some breaking news to get, senate procedural vote. we're gonna bring back in nbc's julia jester from capitol hill. what can you tell us, julia? >> reporter: well, alex, the national security supplemental package has cleared what is arguably the most important hurdle so far. it needed 60 votes to pass this closure, and it looks like the final tally for this is 67 yes, 27 no, meaning that three more

senators voted to advance the package today and did so on friday. now, the next question is when could final passage of this legislation come? it could take hours. it could take days. i wish i had something more specific for you, but given in the senate rules, unless 100 senators agree unanimous consent to speed up that passage, then we are now heading into another 30 hours of debate on this bill. and so, now we are seeing what's going on on the floor, off the floor. it is up to an agreement on amendments and a timed agreement for this process. so we are waiting to see if, when there will be conversations about amendments brought to the floor. that senators can vote on to end it about before final passage, or if no agreement is reached, then we could seek final passage of this bill but not until late tuesday or late wednesday. alex? >> am i interpreting all this to mean that we will see no more votes today on the senate floor? >> correct.

the next vote won't come for another 30 hours boast debate. so we will see another vote on monday night. however, that could change if an agreement is reached among all 100 senators, to speed up the timeline, and have a timed agreement. now, why don't they just do that? senator rand paul continues to block that, which is causing frustration to mount among senators here. but the good news, it looks like they will likely be able to make it home in time for the super bowl. >> oh, well, that's important. i mean, it kind of is. all right, julia jester, thank you so much. my next guest has something very important missing from oral arguments about the 14th amendment at the supreme court. those details, ahead. . ♪ ♪

♪ no two bodies are the same. some pads, never got that message. but, always flexfoam did! it protects against different flows for up to zero leaks. and it flexes to fit all bodies, for up to zero feel. feel it yourself with always flexfoam. with nurtec odt, i can treat a migraine when it strikes and prevent migraine attacks, all in one. don't take if allergic to nurtec. allergic reactions can occur, even days after using. most common side effects were nausea, indigestion, and stomach pain. ask about nurtec odt. ♪ ♪ nausea, indigestion, and stomach pain. ♪ ♪

♪ ♪ today is the day colorado lawyers asked the supreme court to decide whether or not trump can remain on the ballot because tomorrow, the state's primary ballots would be mailed out. but while that case is on a fast

track for a ruling, don't expect decision today. court watchers say it is more likely that justices will rule out of super tuesday, on march 5th. my next guest says the court seems ready to leave the issue of trump's eligibility up to congress, but something was missing from the oral arguments that could give the justices pause. joining me now, the chair unconstitutional law at ohio state university, where he also directs its election law program, that is -- he also filed an amicus brief to the supreme court about this case. glad to have you here. let's get into this because you wrote, there might be even more a unanimous decision to allow trump to remain on colorado's primary ballot and the momentum towards such a ruling is likely unstoppable. yet, you write, there are still strong reasons for the court to pause before leaving the issue up to congress, and arguments worth considering that did not get fully aired or substantiated at the oral arguments. what was missing? >> well, history.

the justices kept asking for historical examples of what would allow the states, like colorado, to make a decision with respect to presidential elections. they wanted to know what would happen back at the time of reconstruction when this revision of the 14th amendment was adopted. and some of that history unfortunately oz not presented to the justices of the argument. >> so can you elaborate a little bit? is there a specific argument you wish had been? >> yes. so, three hard for americans today to understand our presidential election system because modern sensibilities, we think of the president as a national office which it is and that all americans should equally participate in it. but that's not how the president election system was set up originally. it was meant to be state based. that's why the electoral college is have each state voting for

electors that we kind of forget about, and the electors then vote for president. and if you go back to the 19th century when the 14th amendment was adopted, the disqualification provision was adopted, everybody in the time would have understood that states could control how their votes for president when. and in fact, in 1868, the first presidential election, after the 14th amendment was adopted, florida, for example, said we're gonna, the legislature of florida said we're gonna appoint our electors directly to make sure that the result is what we want it to be. now, that is something that doesn't sit right with us today, but it bears on the capacity of colorado to make a decision that those electoral votes should not go to somebody who was disqualified. >> that is fascinating. it is something that perhaps should have been presented on thursday. but several justices question, seemed to say that trump's eligibility, the challenge of that was premature, that

section three is about disqualify people from holding office, not necessarily running for it. how do you address this in your amicus brief to the court? >> this is another example of where the history is useful. at the time, they would've understood that state legislatures could make sure that if someone was ineligible to hold the office, they could not be a candidate for the office from that state anyway. and one of the examples mentioned briefly in our brief, and then more elaborated in some historical scholarly analysis is about an ohio politician who wanted to be u.s. senator of ohio, but was disqualified because of his conduct during the civil war. and so the ohio legislature would not let him represent that state of ohio in washington. and then also, it shows that colorado should have the power to say, well, we don't want to send to washington our electoral votes to someone who might be

disqualified. >> let's take a listen to justice roberts who is raising some concerns about the domino effect, if it is left to the states, to disqualify a candidate. take a listen to this. >> in very quick order, i would expect, although my predictions have never been correct -- i would expect that, you know, a good number of states would say, whoever the democratic candidate is, you are off the ballot. and others, for the republican candidate, you are off the ballot. and it will come down to just a handful of states that are going to decide the presidential election. that is pretty daunting consequence. >> and frankly, a mess. but you have written that it would be even more of a mess if this is not decided by the states. how so? >> well, the fear is that if the court does what it seems like they're going to do, which is say that nobody can decide this except for congress, that

if former president trump wins in november, then it goes back to congress next january. and that is where it could be really messy because what's even worse than deciding this issue one way or the other now, as difficult this issue is, it is worth after the votes are cast, the votes are in effect taken away from the citizens by congress saying, okay, now we're gonna decide he is disqualified. much better to decide this now than take it back to congress for after the election. >> so you are saying that's what would happen on january six of 2025, if this scenario plays out? >> yes, i mean, i don't know if it would be successful in congress, but i think it would be very unsettling for the country. i think it will come up in congress. we know there are many members of congress who think that former president trump is disqualified. they voted to impeach him after all for the january 6th insurrection. there were votes in the senate as well, not enough to the two

thirds rule on impeachment. but potentially enough to disqualify him next january because it's not a two thirds requirement under the constitution when you collect and count the electoral votes. >> a lesson we've just been given by you. professor edward foley, thank you so much, appreciate that. the republicans dumpster fire week on capitol hill. why some members are still burning. -- 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. two leading candidates for senate. two very different visions for california. every epic footlong steve garvey, the leading republican, is too conservative for california. he voted for trump twice and supported republicans for years, including far right conservatives. adam schiff, the leading democrat, defended democracy against trump and the insurrectionists. he helped build affordable housing, lower drug costs, and bring good jobs back home. the choice is clear. i'm adam schiff, and i approve this message.

summer of 2021 which put all of our enemies around the world on notice that preside bid breaking news, right no the senate is in session. this is super bowl sunday, we remind you, lawmakers on the hill got over a procedural hurdle just a few moments ago with a vote of 67 to 27. it offers a positive sign that the larger foreign aid bill stands a strong chance of passing later on this week. of course, the initial bill with a border deal failed, with republicans influenced by donald trump, who called for the bipartisan deal to be killed. joining me now is don calloway, democratic strategist and

founder of the national voter protection action fund. republican strategist, susan del percio, and former florida congressman david jolly. both msnbc political analysts. and i'm always glad to welcome the three of you on sunday. susan, is it safe to say that donald trump has proven he is the master puppet master of the republican party, killing the bipartisan border deal earlier? >> absolutely. in fact, he hasn't stopped being the puppet master since he was elected in 2016. donald trump's control over the party, and what is so bad, especially over our elected officials, is just, it's a death -- we can get anything done in this country. let's face it, republicans, and one of the reasons why have been supporting democrats, republicans have no interest in governing. and donald trump has no interest in them governing. they like -- donald trump would like to win, but especially the house republicans, they just want to be laughed.

they don't care if they get anything done. >> this week was a disaster for congressional republicans and their agenda items. the border crashed. it burned. their attempt to impeach secretary mayorkas failed at the last minute. congresswoman marjorie taylor greene is threatening to oust speaker mike johnson if he brings ukraine aid to the floor. you are a former member of congress, david, what do you make of all this chaos? >> buckle up, alex, buckle up, because the next three weeks or so are going to actually not just be somewhat interesting to watch, potentially could be very dangerous for the inability of congress to govern, not just to fund our own domestic priorities but to fund our national security interests in terms of our alliances with both israel and ukraine. and here's why. the interest, and the intriguing thing this week, was to see mitch mcconnell actually stumble, someone who's pretty adept at leading the republican conference, let this border bill come up and then turned around and said, no, everybody, let's shut it down.

and it's kind of what his own way to caucus. as a result of what we are seeing today, the senate now is going to pass a clean aid bill to support our interest in ukraine and israel, and support taiwan, and so forth. but the house has said for months, four months, we are not passing the foreign aid bill if we don't secure the border. when the house republicans said we're not gonna pass the border bill. all eyes on mike johnson. if there is a coalition to pass something that governs, it is under mike johnson's leadership allowing for the vote, and a majority of democratic votes, not republicans, which leads them to the kevin mccarthy moment. the only thing stopping mike johnson right now is nobody wants his job. so maybe -- i don't see how he pulls this rabbit out of the hat. >> so we have congressman elise stefanik, she's rooting for another kind of job. she's facing backlash from both sides of the aisle for saying she would not have certified the 2020 election had she been vice president. but take a listen to this. >> i would not have done what

mike pence did. i don't think that was the right approach. i specifically stand by what i said on the house floor. and i stand by my statement which was -- the constitutional overreach. there was unconstitutional overreach in states like pennsylvania. listen, we need to make sure the election is constitutional and legal. we're talking about democrats -- it was not. >> don, is this kind of an audition process that she finds herself in to be trump's vp? and if so, what does it tell you about the people that he is auditioning? >> this is really difficult because, you know, when you come around washington, d.c., you identify a small universe of 25 to 30 people who you think are going to be the adults in the room. and since she's been here in d.c., elise stefanik has been one of those people. she is articulated. she's capable. she's younger, represents a younger generation of american leadership. she went to harvard. and frankly, she worked her way up into congressional

leadership, when it was very, very hard to do at a young age. she was one of the more younger members to be in leadership. and that is historic, frankly -- very difficult for her to do . but to see her take that stance of not being on the side of fundamental democracy, remember, we're not talking about partisan politics here. we're talking about being on the side of democracy versus on that side of chaos. she effectively as a white- collar insurrectionist, as of that moment, as of that statement. if you are saying you would not have certified the election, then you are saying you would have been with the insurrectionists and been willing to throw the government into chaos. and so, you know, what you see she doesn't say is what she would have done. if that was not the proper thing to do, what was the alternative to preserve democracy? i am no mike pence fan, but objectively, he did the right thing. and i think that elise stefanik has shown that she does not have the moral fiber or the moral courage to go further into american leadership positions

such as vice president. it certainly shows she's auditioning for an audience of one. >> how much do you agree, david, with what don has just said. your reaction to what she said about what she would have done had she been vice president on january 6th? >> i think everything don said is right in terms of how she started out. she's more dangerous than across an. and what she said this week is that she would have violated the constitution to save the presidency, for someone who just yesterday said he would abandon nato and encourage russia to attack our democratic allies. elise stefanik is not reasonable. she's not sensible. she's not moderate. she's dangerous, and we need to start contextualizing her comments as such. >> okay, what about you, susan, because there's a lot of speculation about who is going to be in the running for trump's vp. aside from stefanik, this rumored list, includes south dakota governor, congresswoman marjorie taylor greene, also senators j.d. vance and tim scott. of that group, who do you think would likely have the best shot at it? >> it's hard to say, maybe tim

scott, but the reason i don't think any of those people will be the vice president nominee is because they have too big of a platform. donald trump does not want someone who could go out and speak better than he does, to rally people more so than he does. he doesn't like the attention on someone else. and certainly, you know, if you look at mike pence, he picked someone at the central casting who just obeyed, followed, and kept his head down. i don't think he can trust any of those folks would do it. so i go with tim scott because he seems to be more of an institutionalist and someone who just goes along with a party line, wherever it takes him. >> what about you, don? democrats are slamming special counsel hur for questioning the president fitness that report. it was supposed to be over handling of classified documents. you are a lawyer, was this overstep? >> no, i didn't think he overstepped whatsoever. as a matter of fact, i thought that his comments were

objectively reasonable and in saying that, yes, biden is responsible for some negligence, or perhaps even recklessness. but it does not rise to the level of criminality. and i think that the hur report was significant in as much as it lays out that we're not even comparing apples to oranges here in the case of the former president versus joe biden. we are comparing apples to whale sharks. i mean, there was no obstruction here. there was no interference here. there was no witness intimidation here. you had all of those things with the same actions with trump. you also don't have willful criminality. and biden returned the documents to the department of justice in a reasonable and timely fashion. remember, he had to go to mar-a- lago to get them. the last thing which i think is most important here is that joe biden volunteered himself to sit in front of the special counsel for two days to be deposed and interviewed last october. and we've never seen that kind of participation and cooperation from the trump administration, or the president himself. so it is just too broadly

different cases. and there's really not a whole lot of comparisons to be made. it doesn't mean that joe biden acted reasonably and correctly. >> with all that part about the presidents medical ackerman, not, should that have been there? >> we can talk about that. obviously, they're both old men. and i think both of their memories are probably not what they used to be ten years ago. but i think that it's probably -- it's kind of helpful to biden in as much as it is suggested -- this is probably somebody who needs help, print out things, keeps things in -- and when you do that it reduces the security of the documents. i'm really not mad at that special counsel report at all. i think it shows that joe biden went over and beyond to provide transparency in as much as he cooperated with the investigations. >> you are a silver lining kind of guy, it's what i'm gonna call you today. good to see all three of you and i hope next week as well. thank you so much. it sure is pretty, the brand-new stadium in las vegas

where the super bowl is going to be played. but pretty doesn't come cheap. the cost for taxpayers, it's a lot. so our taxpayers, are they cashing in on today's game? not everyone agrees on that answer. that's next. not everyone agrees on that answer. that's next. shingles doesn't care. shingles is a painful, blistering rash that can last for weeks. 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. wanna know why people are getting a covid-19 shot? i'm turning the big seven-o and getting back on the apps. ha ha ha. variants are out there... and i have mouths to feed. big show coming up, so we got ours and that blue bandage? never goes out of style. i prioritize my health... also, the line was short. didn't get a covid-19 shot in the fall? there's still time. book online or go to your local pharmacy.

my frequent heartburn had me taking antacid after antacid all day long but with prilosec otc just one pill a day

blocks heartburn for a full 24 hours. for one and done heartburn relief, prilosec otc. one pill a day, 24 hours, zero heartburn. eggs make all our family moments better. especially when they're eggland's best. taste so fresh and amazing. deliciously superior nutrition, too. for us, it's eggs any style. as long as they're the best. eggland's best. growing questions this super bowl sunday about home should pay for those expensive venues. here's a live look right now, that is allegiance stadium, it cost billions to build. in fact, almost 40% of it from tax money. and we see david noriega is

outside the stadium in las vegas for us. it's a bit of a growing controversy, david, it doesn't seem to be going anytime soon because people are talking about the cost of this at taxpayer expense? >> reporter: yeah, alex, vegas today is packed with football fans. the hotels are full. the suites are full. the bars are full. the people who work to get this stadium built say that that is a very clear sign of its success. but the story is a bit more complicated than that. take a look. >> for the first time ever -- the super bowl is in las vegas. >> let's go, baby. >> reporter: and it is all thanks to this building, allegiant stadium known as the death star, home of the raiders. finished in 2020 to lure the raiders and eventually big games like the super bowl to vegas, allegiance, at 1.9 billion dollars, it's one of the most expensive state stadiums in the world. and it has a lot of bells and whistles. >> that is the actual grassfield it's on a joint platform that weighs 19 million

pounds and gets rolled into the enclosed stadium for game day. >> reporter: the stadium is privately owned but taxpayers paid about 40% of the cost of building it. >> my family has been here -- >> reporter: jeremy is a consultant who was hired to help get the stadium built. >> $750 million of taxpayer money went into building that? >> correct. >> was it worth it? for the people of las vegas, the people of nevada? >> i don't think there's any doubt about it. over 50% of the people that are in their come from out of town. and when they come from out of town, each one of them spends about 1100 dollars per person, per trip while they are here. that creates jobs, wages and salaries, and tax revenues. and when we have something like the super bowl here, those visitors are gonna spend somewhere between three and four times that amount in our community. >> reporter: cities and states have been subsidizing stadiums for years. it's a controversial practice. and nevada is about to do it again, approving 380 million in taxpayer dollars for a new

ballpark to lure the oakland hayes. the state union sued to stop public funding of the baseball stadium. the suit is pending and the state did not respond to requests for comment. union members say that if the state can find hundreds of millions of dollars for stadiums, it should be able to find them for schools. >> when we are told there is no more money, when the teachers on the frontline are sacrificing to try to hold these schools together with basically tape and a stapler, so that we can teach. it is infuriating. >> reporter: nevada ranks at or near the bottom of the country for class sizes and per pupil spending, according to the national education association. and the unions, stadiums, even with the promise of new tax revenue haven't done anything to change that. >> is there a benefit to the community for having new stadiums that justifies the amount of public money being spent on them? >> i don't think so and there is certainly no benefit to these children. what i think it does is it makes rich people richer. >> reporter: alex, when the 750

million dollar were approved for allegiant stadium here in nevada, that was a record. that record has since been surpassed in tennessee, where more than 1.2 billion dollars of public money were approved for a new stadium for the titans. now here in nevada, for the proposed stadium for the oakland ace here in las vegas, the teachers union that sued to stop that publican is also actually bringing that question to a referendum, by means of a ballot measure. so that will be an interesting litmus test for how the general public feels about subsidizing these stadiums. alex? >> definitely keep an eye on that. thank you, david noriega. coming up, tomorrow, tomorrow, and tomorrow, the big deadline looming in donald trump's immunity claim. you ready? surprise! i don't think you can clear this. i got this.

it's yours now. my frequent heartburn had me taking antacid after antacid all day long but with prilosec otc just one pill a day blocks heartburn for a full 24 hours. for one and done heartburn relief, prilosec otc. one pill a day, 24 hours, zero heartburn. i know what it's like to perform through pain. if you're like me, one of the millions suffering from pain caused by migraine, nurtec odt may help. it's the only medication that can treat a migraine when it strikes and prevent migraine attacks. treat and prevent, all in one.

don't take if allergic to nurtec. allergic reactions can occur, even days after using. most common side effects were nausea, indigestion, and stomach pain. relief is possible. talk to a doctor about nurtec odt. 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.

now to these other top stories, the national

transportation safety board confirms all six people in a helicopter crash in california's mojave desert have died. among them, herbert wiig way, the ceo of nigeria's largest bank. witnesses report wintry conditions at the time of the crash. the reward to find the man who shot and killed a sheriff's deputy in tennessee is up to $100,000. police say kenneth the heart shot two deputies during a traffic stop, killing one of them. they say he is considered armed and extremely dangerous. today, britain's king charles made his first public appearance since announcing he has cancer, attending church with queen camilla. he released a statement expressing heartfelt thanks for the messages of support. in moments, the new request from colorado to the supreme court, why attorneys won a decision about the ballots today. >> reporter: very good day to all of you from msnbc world headquarters. welcome to alex witt reports. we begin with breaking news from capitol hill.