lingers. as an increase in injuries is serving up a challenge to america's fastest growing sport. emilie ikeda, nbc news. so let this be a warming warning to all you pickle ballers out there, especially some of those senior citizen sisters who have recently kicked my butt on the court, better be careful out there. pickleball is getting dangerous. and on that note, i wish you all a very good night. from all of our colleagues across the networks of nbc news, thanks for staying up late with me. i will see you at the end of tomorrow. ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ it's monday everyone, sort of a new week.

if you look at your personal calendar you might see some meetings, appointments, maybe you'll see some friends, a grocery run if you have time. let's just say the leading candidate for the republican nomination's account looks a little bit different. let's just say he's going to be spending a lot more time with lawyers then you are, or i hope you are. just hours ago trump's team filed a hail mary request for the supreme court, asking them to pause the ruling from the d.c. circuit. that rejected his claim of immunity. and earlier today in florida, trump showed up at a federal courthouse, closed-door. the classified evidence in the mar-a-lago case has been busy. but, wait there's more. this thursday, the judges overseeing the hush money case. we will, see we will be watching. this friday, also new york, the judge overseeing trump's civil fraud trial is expected to deliver his ruling on whether trump can continue to do business in new york, basically how many millions he will have

to pay in damages. i mean, by any account that is a packed week and it's a packed week in courtrooms all across the country. but i do want to zero in on what is happening right now, because just down the street, at the supreme court here in washington, trump is once again pressing the issue of presidential immunity. he's not physically there, as i just said, but it's something that he push for today. remember last week a federal appeals court unanimously ruled that trump is not immune from prosecution on charges of trying to overturn the 2020 election. that was just last week. writing, former president trump has become citizen trump with all of the defenses of any other criminal defendant. so disinterest. not immune from prosecution, not above the law, imagine that. trump, for one, does not want to imagine that. which is why he is now asking the supreme court to intervene. we have already heard a lot of the arguments his team is now making in this filing.

we have heard them all before. like, say, the claim that a president can only be prosecuted if a congress first impeach and convict him. for that one, by the, way they say that it was a case my first guest tonight was a crucial part of. they also argue that it will usher in a destructive cycle that opens up any president prosecution. now, here is a crazy thought. listen to presidents could also avoid breaking the law. they say that -- trump will immediately be required to bear the burdens of prosecution and trial. , again it feels a little bit like he should've stopped that before trying to overthrow an election. that last one pretty much sums it all up. because this is a clear effort to delay, delay, delay. this is a big part of their tactic. because whether or not the court takes this up could have a huge impact on letting voters know if they are casting their ballots for a convicted criminal on lecture day. because if the justices decide,

if they decide to accept this case, to take the case, not even how they decide, if they take it, they will get to weigh in on the concept of presidential immunity. in all likelihood they will reject that claims like the appeals court did. but the federal election trial would all but certainly be delayed while those proceedings unfold. again, delay, delay, delay. if they decline it, the appeals court ruling that trump is not immune would stand and the trial could start sooner. so it is a huge impact. the timeline here is hugely consequential. as is with this request tells about donald trump himself. this struck me when i was reading this today. because this relentless quest for immunity is a window into how he sees himself. and how he would likely lead in a possible second term. according to donald trump, and his lawyers, he is above the law. he operates by a different set of rules than all of us. he can shoot someone on fifth avenue and not lose any voters. he can act inappropriately towards women and, because he is a, start they just let him

do it. he can order s.e.a.l. team six to assassinate a political rival and, as long as congress is okay with it, he can avoid prosecution. that is literally one of their arguments. this is not the first time trump has tried this get out of jail free card. in law or in life. and it's not even the first time the supreme court weighed in on this very issue regarding donald trump. take a look at this headline. the supreme court just revoked trump's get out of jail free card, says the headline. that is not a headline from the future. that is from almost four years ago. back in 2020, then manhattan district attorney's events saw records from trump's accountants relating into his investigation into alleged hush money payments to stormy daniels. trump asked the justices to block the subpoena claiming, you guessed it, if you've been following closely here, presidential immunity. but it became known as a trump v. vance, the supreme court ruled that a president is not immune from criminal investigation.

chief justice john roberts wrote this for the majority, which is just as relevant now as it was then, even more perhaps. he quoted a former chief justice, john marshals, saying, quote, a king is born to power and can do no wrong. the president, by contrast, is of the people and subject to the law. joining me now is the vans from trump v. vance, for manhattan district attorney cy vance, is now a partner at the law firm baker mckenzie. let me start here, the case anyone is cited here in this request from the trump team where they actually quote from the dissenting opinion. i'm interested in your thought on that. but they quote, criminal prosecution can come only after the senate's judgment, not during or prior to the senate trial. we've heard this argument before, but what do you make of it and the ways in which you are referenced in this filing tonight? you are in there quite a few times. >> good evening, jen, thank you for having me on. my general reaction is we have been here before.

in our case, after several years of litigation started by former president trump, the supreme court ruled, just as you indicated, that a sitting president can be investigated, but that is not the first time the supreme court has said that. it said that with nixon, it said that in the clinton case. so, our case may really i think reaffirmed, but in a very strong way, that president trump is not immune from responding to subpoenas or lawful requests for evidence, whether it is from a federal prosecutor or a state prosecutor. so that is where we were when i was district paternity and we ultimately received those records and the trump organization and see if always subsequently indicted for tax fraud. i think it goes almost without saying that, if a president is, if the supreme court holds that a president is not immune from investigation while he is president, it follows that a president is not immune from

prosecution when he is no longer president. and i think that the court of appeals decision got it right. i don't know what the supreme court will do, obviously this is a different supreme court than the supreme court we argued before. there are more trump appointees. on the other hand, even in our case, i ultimately think that no one among the nine justices disagreed with the proposition that a sitting president could be investigated for criminal misconduct. there are some planes, but they weren't about the substance of the principle that you just articulated. >> as you just said, there's ample precedent here. even before your case about presidential immunity, it's been argued many times before, chief justice is still the chief justice of the supreme court who is the one i just quoted at the end of that. i know you said you don't want

to predict, i know most people are in the prediction game, but even looking at the law here, do you think they would have any legal case to be made to grant him this immunity? >> i think the precedent that has been set, which was reaffirmed very strongly by justice roberts in trump v. vance, would lead the supreme court to be comfortable with saying that the president is not immune from prosecution for prior acts, while he is no longer president. i think it is not debated, at least in the federal context, the president wouldn't be charged by federal prosecutors while he is president, or she is president, but that's not where we are. frankly, i think we set a very dangerous precedent where we permit someone who was president, who deserves protection from the law and safeguards that ordinary citizens don't have, but he got all of them and more -- but

ultimately, as all of the justices have said from decades ago to 2020, the president is, at heart, a citizen. when he or she is a citizen they are not immune from responding to law as any other citizen would be, and it would be terrible if it wasn't so. >> absolutely, that our judicial system is supposed to work. you're also one of the rare people who have been involved in a case where clip trump claimed immunity -- one of things that struck me is this continued argument that he's above the law, that he's immune from the law for many ways. what do you think, studying him as you have, that tells you about his view that the law applies to him if at all? >> well, ultimately, i think what he has done is, with his ability to fund cases, he has been able to achieve delay

through appeals and appeals, but i don't think much of the principal. a have yet to see a court decision that takes much of the principal, so what i would say, jen, is that he is remarkably consistent, but not very successful. >> that is fair, let's see if it continues to be the case. one of the questions here, as i just outlined, it's this delay tactic. i wanted to ask you, as someone who is obviously watched the legal system and has been involved in a high level in the legal system, whether the supreme court looks at or thinks about that. if they take this case it could be delayed past the election. do they factor that in? >> well, i can't speak knowingly about what the supreme court justices think, but i think they clearly moved quickly when they want to, as we have just seen with their arguments on the issue of whether or not trump should be

disqualified from being on the presidential ballot in california, and subsequently main. so, in our case as well, it moved at lightning speed from the district court decision in our favor, to the court of appeals decision in our favorite, to the supreme court in what at the time i would say was lightning speed. it probably was in a year. so, in court, that is quick. but when the supreme court decides, and then federal judges decide that they want to decide something because it's urgent, they will do it. now, there may be reasons why perhaps the supreme court doesn't want to rush to judgment in this case and would prefer to have this decided at a later time. i think the supreme court is not immune from politics. it is, in one sense, our most political court, as well as our most learned quote. so we shouldn't expect that they would be immune from

looking at the landscape and understanding the political consequences of their decisions. >> we will all be watching closely. i always enjoy having you on and talking about all of this. thank you so much for joining me this evening, cy vance, i appreciate it. coming up, you're looking at video of donald trump's motorcade leading a federal courthouse in florida today where there is a high stakes hearing on his classified documents case. we'll tell you what happened and talk about just how different that case is from the one involving joe biden. the presidents personal attorney bob bauer doesn't do that many interviews, but he'll be joining me next. we'll be back in just 60 seconds. in just 60 seconds.

so, today, in his very bissell legal week, donald trump made an appearance at the federal courthouse in florida to meet with judge aileen cannon, a judge he appointed and the one who is now overseeing the criminal case and his handling of classified information. the purpose of the closed door hearing team was, basically, to

discuss why trump's team thinks the defense should have access to various types of classified evidence, which is of course a big factor here. but it was also a reminder of the unique dangers from proposed as a defendant. remember, special counsel jack smith has implored judge cannon to keep the certain documents sealed out of fear they could be used to identify more than two dozen witnesses and threaten their safety and testimony. why? because -- to intervals it's a reminder of how the trump documents case and the one involving president biden could be a more different. that nine-day difference is something the biden case, a doctor who you know well, points out in his report. here it is from robert her himself. quote, after being given multiple chances return classified documents and avoid prosecution, mr. trump allegedly did the opposite. he not only refused to return the documents for many months,

but he also obstructed justice by -- and then lie about it. in contrast, again, these are her's word, mr. biden turned in classified documents, consented as a search of multiple locations, including his homes, sat for a voluntary interview, hours of them, and another way to cooperated with the investigation. so, please, let's not forget the clear differences in these two cases. they have been just a bit overshadowed, i think it's fair to say. joe biden was cleared of wrongdoing, and donald trump is facing 32 counts of willful -- one count to obstruct justice, three counts of withholding or concealing a document, two counts of false statements, and two counts of altering, destroying, mutilating, or concealing an object or record. i almost had to take a breath there. it is a lot. joining me now is bob bauer. thank you for taking the time. >> it's great to be with you. one of the main issues that

legal experts had with robert hur's report is about the way that he betrayed his interviews with the president. i've been talking about this over the past couple of days as well, the things in the report. you are in the room sitting next to him. i know you said you're not gonna answer about when the transcript of that five hour interview could be released, if it should be released. but i want to know more, if people were to read that transcript what you think their takeaway would be about the performance in conversation. >> he engaged in a vocal those who represented him engaged in vocal operation with the special counsel, and the special counsel's report on that is very clear. the interview, i will give you my recollection of, it i was there, is sitting next to the president. the interview is completely consistent with that posture of cooperation. he engaged with the questions,

he answered to the questions to the best visibility. i had mentioned before that the special counsel at the very beginning indicated to him that he knew that international events must be on the presidents mind. that he was going to be taking the president many years back and certainly hoped for him to give his best recollection. i can tell you that's what's the president did. i could tell you that his insinuations or the suggestions in the report simply don't correspond with my recollection of how that interview went. and frankly i don't understand why they are in that report. this is a case that was open and shot from the very first day. he had engaged in any wrongdoing. it was a case of full cooperation. he was turning over the documents that were found. and that point forward, he cooperated in other ways, beyond the interview beyond the

turnover. the documents the, president cooperate with the investigation and did so with answers to questions that portrait him in the interview. >> you said me yesterday, i underlined, it that the special counsel was asking bad questions. the thing is with these reports, you only see one side. tell me a little bit more about that, why were they battery imprecise? >> i wasn't suggesting that every single question was bad, i was simply pointing out that the special counsel indicated that somehow the president wasn't able to answer questions directly or clearly. i was simply suggesting, again, based on what i clearly recall, i think all of us in the room recall, that the president was not only answering questions, he was pointing out flaws in lines of questioning that were put him by the special counsel. on a couple of occasions he noted that there was a problem with the question, i think it became immediately clear to everyone in the room that there was a problem with the question. i didn't deduce from that that

there was something wrong with the special counsel's mental acuity, i just assumed that, in those instances, he had framed his questions poorly. but what i was trying to emphasize there was that the president was engaged with this, interviewees trying to provide's best recollection, and, on equivocations, he pointed out that there are problems with the questions put to him that i think everybody in the room recognized. he correctly identified. >> as someone who has been on the receiving end of the president and unraveling your line of questioning, i have been, i know you have been, i relayed it a little in that moment. i did want to ask you a little bit about that day, because i think this is sometimes lost in the reporting. it was the day, two days after the october 7th attack. obviously the country saw how much that impacted the president. i know from working from him that he often is juggling many things at the same time, making calls with foreign leaders,

getting updates. did the come from a two-hour meeting, what was happening that day? two-hour meeting, what was happening that day? important the special counsel that we try to stay on schedule. scheduling two days five hours, it's not easy to wodo and rescheduling them is not easy to do, he gave d that interview >>, there were hours an hours of meetings before hand rsone o the points that you have made another legal minds tshave said about this report.

a goes outside of the scope of norm. his reporting, who we talked. stu it went outside of what would be normal. even for a special counsel. do you think that orshould be investigated or looked into? the judicial system r and -- it not a positive, you necessarily by the american public at this point. well, and the role that i have all that i can do is pointed out. you had an investigation that ran for 15 months, which could've been concluded in just a few months. there was never any question that the president had not engaged in criminal wrongdoing. he was a self reporting party

here. he had turned the documents over discovery. and yet, somehow in this report the special counsel felt compelled to engage in a irrelevant, often pejorative commentary. i think it's clear, that commentary is inconsistent with the norms. i want to make one point, i want to o stress it. the special counsel is bound by the norms and policies of the department, like any other prosecutor. the special counsel regulator provides that he is thbound by those norms and policies. he does not have an exemption from them. there is some view, that perhaps because of special counsel, he didn't have to observe them. that is not correct. by the terms in rules, he is to comply with those norms and policies. he didn't. >> do you wish the attorney general had done more? could he have? >> i am not going to speak to anybody other than the special counsel and his performance in the specific report. the president said the other night that he understood thby t attorney general thand thought

that he not only couldn't understand, but e find fault wi the attorney general's decision to appoint a special counsel. i was at that point that i got involved. so, i can speak to what the special counsel did. it's a spspecial counsel's responsibility. >> bob bauer, thank you. i know you taught along class before you joined us. so, i appreciate you making the time for us tonight. >> it was a pleasure, thank you so much. >> donald trump doubled down today with. attacking our nato ally, is i'm. not that is not hyperbole. he worked to pat -- anyone leaving nato. and now he is once again sounding the alarm. the senator joins me after a very innoquick break. quick br e 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.

>> in the summer of 2020, walkaway are, zaghar traveled with president biden in the first trip overseas. there are lots of big line head grabbing parts of this. chipped a meeting with queen elizabeth, a summit with russian president vladimir putin. that is a different time. but what's stuck with me was the presidents conversations with other nato and g7 leaders. that was most of the. aaa revealed so much about the impact of donald trump's one term as president. it was six months after he left office. each of these meetings, president biden reassured allies and key partners that the united states was.

back back as an advocate for democracy in the global order. back, as a country that would stand up for territorial integrity. they would stand up for foreign aggressors. but the president was struck by a response he got from world leaders. it's basically, okay, you are back but for how long? so, when donald trump invited russia to attack him over the weekend. that is nato allies. how do you think they heard it? well, we don't have to wonder. foreign minister told the new york times, quote, nato article five has so far been invoked once. was to help the u.s. in afghanistan after 9/11. he sent brigade for a decade. they did not send a bill to

washington. republicans here at home, don't seem at all concerned with trump's comments. senator lindsey graham's response, here it is. give me a break i, mean it's trump. all i can say is what trump's president nobody invaded anybody. i think the point here is to, get people to pay. >> inviting biden and putin to attack, eyes it's just normal stuff here. what about senator marco rubio, was he outraged, was he angry and pounding his fist on a desk. he was not did he go out of way to measure and reassure our closest allies, of course not. >> it's a story that happened in the past with donald trump

as president he doesn't talk about a traditional politician. we've already been through this and i think people are going to figure out right now. >> trump was telling a story okay. that is a pretty scary story. especially, for allies around the world. by the, way senator rubio help draft and pass a bipartisan bill last year. preventing the president from leaving nato. i wonder why he felt compelled to do that. >> joining me now is the co- sponsor that bill.

democratic senator, tim kaine. my home senator. he served on the armed services committee. , so senator i don't think we should ever be surprised necessarily by what president trump does. but it is disappointing even for me. i was at the state department in 2014. it was the first russian invasion of ukraine. and if you hear comments like, that from senators who have long been supporters of the

protection of the territorial integrity of ukraine. i guess, we shouldn't be surprised. but i just love to know what your thoughts are when you hear the responses to what trump had to say. >> well, jen it's really disappointing. people aren't surprised that donald trump says what he says. but what our allies want to see is what the american public, through their representatives in congress think.

i gave a speech about the 70th anniversary in nato and paris in number of years ago. i was struck by the audience's reaction, which is that donald trump is one guy. is his election a deeper reflection that either congress or the american public no longer values alliances. >> alliances are our most important military assets. our personnel, our platforms. it's the alliances that most frightens the dictators. the russia's, the north korea's. but one colleagues of mine who even joined with me to make clear that no president can get out of nato with the two thirds vote of the senate. they joined with me for a reason. i started this effort in 2018 with john mccain. and after he passed senator rubio picked up the mantle.

they joined me because they wanted to send a message that alliances are important. and when they suddenly have a front runner in the presidential race who is willing to tear up alliances, the fact that they crave and bowed to his latest utterance is disappointing. the good news, we have a guardrail in place. we will be able to stop him from. will stop him or anyone else who wants to do. it >> it's a really important. point that guardrail is important. you know very well, while this bill was senator rubio who just made these storytelling points. very strangely, it's important. trump could also, or anyone who wants to could weaken u.s. support by doing a range of things. pulling back troops in our presence in the number of eastern european countries. what concerns you that maybe isn't covered and we need to be mindful of. it stops this from unilaterally drawing from. nato but they can try to send us a budget that defends in europe. it's on congress's shoulders to provide the chat. but we do this every year. the presidents send us this bill, it has everything we don't. like congress changes. that we send the bill back to the -- we will have to do that this year. if a president trump or president anyone in the future where to want to reduce our support for our allies, the burden shifts over to the article one branch. it's the branch that it's the budgeting branch. our most salient power here, i think that the overwhelming support from our nato bill so

that there's bipartisan support and both allies. there are some lab pro trump voices, but they are not the majority. it is still in support of democratic allies, the norms are stronger together. and we are going to have to be delicate. going forward we can't just assume that everybody is on board with this. and then for president trump's comments on the weekends, we are going to have to work extra hard to send the right message to our allies. >> section important point. senator, we are gonna have you back on to talk about israel. i know you are obviously working on the supplemental bill. we had to talk about trump's comments. it's important for peofor joint >> gladare deor much senator, littlecome back. abnormal "egfr" or "alk" gene. keytruda can cause your immune system to attack healthy parts of your body during or after treatment. this may be severe and lead to death. see your doctor right away if you have cough, shortness of breath, chest pain, diarrhea, severe stomach pain, severe nausea or vomiting, headache, light sensitivity, eye problems, irregular heartbeat, extreme tiredness, constipation, dizziness or fainting, changes in appetite, thirst, or urine, confusion, memory problems, muscle pain or weakness, fever, rash, itching, or flushing. there may be other side effects. tell your doctor about all your medical conditions, including immune system problems, if you've had or plan to have an organ or stem cell transplant, received chest radiation or have a nervous system problem. depending on the type of cancer,

keytruda may be used alone or in combination with other treatments, and is also being studied in hundreds of clinical trials, exploring ways to treat even more types of cancer. it's tru. keytruda from merck. see all the types of cancer keytruda is known for at keytruda.com and ask your doctor if keytruda could be right for you.

>> so, part of the problem is robert f. kennedy feels perfectly content to run a campaign that play spoiler to the election hopes. it's an donald trump back to the white house. he's won democratic legacy family, but 24 years ago he was singing a much different tune. >> despite fading pool, numbers the core support behind the candidacy is making liberal

democrats unhappy. >> there is a political reality here that is his candidacy could drawn up votes in certain key states from al gore to, give the entire election to george w. bush. >> nadler says that is not his problem. >> sound familiar? >> joining me, now someone who's done a lot of reporting on rfk junior. msnbc correspondent, on hillyard. so, you have gone to these rallies, you have visited with people who are supporters. what is it, like one of the people like? . some 2016, trump 2020 rallies. >> this is an eclectic group. here there's a group of women. they are socializing, it looks like they've been a long time

friend. you see them there. only two of them in fact know each other coming into the night. one of them told me, if it wasn't for rfk junior this year they would vote for biden. they said they would not vote at all. the one thing that united them, though was anti vax, anti covid vaccine. rfk junior, back at the time of approving the covid vaccine. he said it was a mockery of science. it's important, listening to one of his speeches. it's somebody who was environmental air. the income inequality gap, again at the same time not anti vax but expressed -- unique are people bringing together these forms. >> quite a bond over i guess

pro russian anti vax. it's very interesting to hear who these people are. you also spend a lot of time following the trump team campaign. as you, know there's always breaking news in that world. michael wally who is with trump, as daughter-in-law as the co-chair. tell us more about that and -- jen, he is still not affirmatively said that he is going to resign. >> she's still hanging in. >> she still hanging in there. >> this is not donald trump's decision to the chairs going to be. >> you get to pick who runs the party. as one told me the other day, -- drew mckissick is a south carolina chairman. he is currently the co-chair to run miss mcdaniel. i've been told by multiple sources, he has been making calls to other members who is the hundred and 68 member body of the rnc to choose the chair. he endorses michael while he can endorse laura trump to be the co-chair. but it's going to be up for several of them.

hesitancy, letting donald trump be the decider here. he will be the crucial nine month. it is a congressional race. it is a real job to be a deal this year of the chair. whatever your politics are, what is the concern you are hearing about the impact on the party apparatus? as you, said it's a real. job you have to do and implement things. >> right, at the end of 2023 they only had 1 million dollars cash on hand. the democrats and joe biden have a leg up. they've been able to jointly fund-raiser the dnc for months now. compare that to the rnc with the fact that nikki haley is not yet dropped out of the race. the trump campaign has not been able to set up a joint fund raising committee with the rnc. so, none of this is have viciously been allowed to take place. which has under their ability to fund-raise. and for the rnc, they are key at not only the county levels, the state level for their parties.

again, it's much more than the white house. you are talking about who is going to organizationally be running the state parties in places like arizona, georgia, michigan. arizona and michigan who lost their gop chairs, this is important for the future of the party. and nine months, out they still don't have an exact plan. >> you need money to political campaigns. vaughn hillyard, you work so hard out. there thank you so much for bringing us insights. >> you have one more thing from rachel maddow. this is coming up after a quick break.

i still love to surf, snowboard, and, of course, skate. so, i take qunol magnesium to support my muscle and bone health. qunol's extra strength, high absorption magnesium helps me get the full benefits of magnesium. qunol, the brand i trust.

>> and senator dianne died last, year there is tense speculation over who california gavin newsom would appoint. a black woman to fill. despite he kept his word of openly lgbtq+ united states senator. the first black lesbian to serve in congress in american history. the only black women serving in the senate right now. senator butler is not reelecting, and the race for the sea is really heating. up congressman schiff, congressman katie porter and barbara lee are vying for that seat. but until that race has decided in november, senator butler will continue to represent a great state of california. and all of, that is why i'm really looking forward to talking with her this week at howard university. it'll be her first major sit-

down interview. me at noon eastern, msnbc. i am my mom and what she will do in the senate. that does it for me this hour, the rachel maddow show starts now.

what is cirkul? cirkul is the fuel you need to take flight. cirkul is the energy that gets you to the next level. cirkul is what you hope for when life tosses lemons your way. cirkul, available at walmart and drinkcirkul.com.

>> and senator dianne died last, year there is tense speculation over who california gavin newsom would appoint. a black woman to fill. despite he kept his word of openly lgbtq+ united states senator. the first black lesbian to serve in congress in american history. the only black women serving in the senate right now. senator butler is not reelecting, and the race for the sea is really heating. up congressman schiff, congressman katie porter and barbara lee are vying for that

seat. but until that race has decided in november, senator butler will continue to represent a great state of california. and all of, that is why i'm really looking forward to talking with her this week at howard university. it'll be her first major sit- down interview. me at noon eastern, msnbc. i am my mom and what she will do in the senate. that does it for me this hour, the rachel maddow show starts now. identity not going to inquire live on television how you got that interview, but i am going to button hole you