four republican chairman of committees who are retiring from congress. that's a big deal. that's about as big of a promotion as one can get in congress. but they know that the speaker and the leadership is not governing, it's not working on behalf of the american people. but they're just trying to make donald trump happy. and to make people like marjorie taylor greene to have more influence over congress and american families. >> it is really wild, those four retirements being included, some of the most powerful committees that people spend a career waiting to be the chair of, and just being like, i'm piecing out. congresswoman grace meng, who represents parts of queens, we're out there at the l r i stations early in the morning -- as a part of this victory. thank you very much, congresswoman. >> thanks for having me. >> that is all in on this

wednesday night. alex wagner tonight starts right now. good evening, alex. >> you know what sort of staggering is that republicans do you think they can very publicly pledge fealty, just basically fold on immigration reform and trump's direction, and pay no price. they thought nobody would notice if that happened? >> i was talking about your book, future face. it's a great book. >> thanks for saying it on air. >> all that stuff is complicated. peoples instincts on immigration, sometimes, in the same person, sometimes in immigrant communities themselves, are complicated about how people feel about all this. finding a way to talk about the complexity in a way that sort of humanizes people and talks about solutions and doesn't do the opposite as really the kind of kept skeleton key here. and hopefully that's what comes out of this. >> yeah. skeleton key inside -- it's such a very, very fine needle to thread. >> yes, it is. >> it's really hard. thank, you my friend, as always. and thanks to you at home for joining me this evening.

we're following some breaking news on multiple fronts tonight, including the supreme court, special counsel jack smith has just responded to donald trump's latest effort to delay his federal criminal trial. for months now, smith's federal election interference trial has been put on hold while the courts considered donald trump's claim that, as former president, he should be absolutely immune from any involve criminal charges. last week, a federal appeals court unanimously rejected that argument. trump subsequently appealed that decision to the supreme court, and tonight, the special counsel's making an impassioned plea to the nine justices of the high court, urging them not to let trump delay this matter any longer. and a new filing this evening, smith writes, the charged crimes strike at the heart of our democracy. the public interest in a prompt trial is at its zanoff, whereas here, a former president is charged with conspiring to --

remain in office. smith continues, the nation has a compelling interest in the prompt resolution of this case. in all criminal cases, delay can be fatal to achieving just outcomes. delay in the resolution of these charges threatens to frustrate the public interest in a speedy and fair verdict -- ecklund pelling interest in every criminal case and one that has unique national importance here. trump's personal interest and postponing trial proceedings must be weighed against to pair for al countervailing considerations -- that governments interest and fully preserving its case without undue delay, and the public's compelling interest in a prompt disposition of the case. essentially, the special counsel is saying that the public deserves to see this trial happen and see it quickly. delays can be fatal in any trial, and in this trial, of a former president charged with felonies related to the subversion of american

democracy. well, the stakes are simply too high to drag this on much longer. and then, special counsel jack smith lays out his requests. first, he wants the government to reject trump's request to continue pushing off the federal trial. special counsel wants the court to end all the delays and to declined to hear trump's appeal at all. now, you may recall that last year, when trump first started pushing this presidential immunity claim, jack smith urged the supreme court to take that matter up right away. he asked to basically leapfrog the appeals court process, and take the question of presidential immunity right to the supreme court. essentially, to settle this matter as quickly as possible. and the supreme court said, no, sorry, mr. smith, we don't want to hear this case right now. well, in his filing today, the special counsel reminded the justices of that decision. writing, to the extent that that denial reflects that this

court is not inclined to review trump's claim, no reason for a stay exists, and the court is better situated to assess that question now that the court of appeals has thoroughly analyzed and rejected appliqui's immunity claim. -- he didn't want to hear this case before, and if that's because you thought trump's arguments were bogus, just say so. and let's get on with the trial. especially now that you have an appeals court that has said in no uncertain terms that trump's arguments were bogus. but also in tonight's filing, the special counsel offers the supreme court a second opinion -- please do it as quickly as possible. smith writes, if this court believes that trump's claim merits review at this time, the government specially requests -- expedited briefing and argument.

the government proposes a schedule that would permit argument in march 2024, consistent with the courts exposition of other cases meriting such treatment. translation, if you're gonna hear this case, you should hear it next month. the special counsel even goes on to suggest a detailed schedule going forward. he suggests trump get ten days to file his arguments with the court. the special counsel could then get a week to respond, and trump could get five days to respond again. the special counsel is basically saying, let's get all this paperwork done in about three weeks, yeah? it is abundantly clear from this filing tonight that the special counsel jack smith is really, really eager to get this case going. now, the question is, will the supreme court listen? joining me now is kristy greenberg, former federal prosecutor, who served for over a decade in the u.s. attorney's office for the southern district of new york, also

joining me is mark joseph stern, a senior writer for slate covering the courts and the law. thank you both for being here tonight. mark, first, i would like to get your opinion. i hear a quiet note of desperation in this filing. am i wrong to hear that? is this the sort of normal course of events when you're dealing with a high case federal elections case featuring a former president? >> so there certainly a little bit of desperation. but the main note that i detected here was urgency. but also, a sense that i think jack smith's team was trying to get across that these are trustworthy attorneys, and they are making these arguments in good faith. and they are the ones who deserve that presumption of good faith. they aren't rushing this. it's trump's side that is trying to run out the clock. and i will note that one of the signatories on this filing was michael driven. he was a deputy solicitor general for decades. he argued more than 100 cases

before the supreme court. he's friends with chief justice john roberts. and i think that by sort of centering his style, his prose style, making it clear this is a michael driven brief, jack smith's team is trying to tell the court, hey, where people you trust. we're telling you the truth here. and maybe we found a bit desperate, maybe we sound urgent, but what we really want is to ensure that justice be done here. and you should trust us more than the other side, because we've put all our cards on the table, and we deserve your presumption of good faith. >> kristie, the supreme court justices have a conference on friday. jack smith had until the 20th, but he filed early. do you think that the justices might make a call on this this week? >> so, i don't think it will come as soon as that. i do you think that they are going to give donald trump and his attorneys an opportunity to

reply. the rules about whether or not -- but the timing is on a reply, are all not all that clear. i expect his lawyers would reach out to the gore and maybe get some informal and violence. we're talking -- i think they will give him the opportunity to do that before they ruled. but i do suspect that will get a ruling sometime, i would say, later next week. >> mark, i wonder whether -- there are a lot of people, i think, in the federal special counsel's office, and maybe the american public, you find all of this waiting and sort of what feels like a pro form exercise, maybe, to be incredibly frustrating. why -- i mean, what do you make of the justices and what kristy suggests here, but they will wait for trump to reply here first? is that a signal that they are going to take this case up? or is that them sort of just trying to go buy the books, man, and solely by the books? >> the justices absolutely want

to play this by the books. and that will mean waiting some period of time for trump to file a reply brief. now traditionally, that brief comes within about two days of the response. so that would put us to sometime on friday. and then after that point, the supreme court could rule it anytime. but all night there's a real opportunity for mischief here, because the rules are so ambiguous. so notoriously vague. jump inside of sit on this, wait for days, even weeks, to file a reply brief, and put the supreme court in a real bind. they want to look like they're playing it by the book, but donald trump never plays it by the book. and so, i think one legitimate fear right now is that trump could try to draw out this process by dawdling and filing his reply brief. and if that does happen, i think there will be a tough call for the justices to make. but i do think they'll come down on the side of issuing an order. no, it doesn't follow the standard operating procedure, but they're not going to let one party manipulate their docket this way, even if that

party is the former president of the united states. >> can i just say, oh kristy, it feels like -- virtue of the fact that we're sitting here, is it late february, it's gonna be february as of next week, and the case has been frozen. nothing has happened in the actual federal election interference case. no jury selection, nothing. the date is tbd. smith sounds optimistic when he says, if you reject this immunity claim ultimately out of hand, we can get started, you know, in 88 days. if you decide to take it up, can you do the oral arguments in march? to the latter scenario, do you think that the supreme court, if they take it up, we'll follow this on an expedited schedule? >> yes. >> kristy, you go first, and mark, then we'll go to you. >> i do. i don't think the supreme court is gonna want to be seen, is tipping the scales here. the same question, thinking about the oral argument that was had in the colorado

disqualification ballot, where justice -- colorado lawyer and said, you know, i put it to you, she dunckel state be in a position to decide for everyone? well, i put it to these justices. should the supreme court be able to decide for the country whether or not this president is adjudicated for, you know, basically using his office to try -- breaking the law to try to remain in power? and i don't think that the supreme court is gonna want to be seen as doing that. they are very focused, as we saw on that oral argument, just a few weeks ago, about consequences. about a perception of the court in about the consequences of their actions. and i just think that if they do take this up, which i don't think they should, i mean, in order to have this put on hold, which is what donald trump is asking for, donald trump has to show that there is the majority of the court, it is likely, there is fair prospect, the majority of this court will read to -- reverse the d.c.

court of appeals, which was unanimous, just like the district court opinion was very clear. so, again, i don't think he can meet this standard. what the court should do is just deny his application and send this right back to judge chutkan. but if they want to put their stamp on it, they're gonna move quickly. >> if they want to put their stamp on it, mark, and they hear oral arguments on this in march, do we wait for late june for a decision? i mean, honestly, on just a basic calendar call here, if the supreme court doesn't decide what it's doing till the beginning of the summer, this thing doesn't happen before the election. trial doesn't happen before the election. doesn't? >> that's absolutely right. if the supreme court takes up this case and treats it like a regular old case, they put it over to the fall, absolutely no way the trial happens before november. and they've essentially ruled for trump, through a pocket veto. i don't think the courts going to do that. i do think this is the supreme court that likes to have the last word on every possible

matter of law. and so, i think there's a strong chance they will decide to take up this case rather than simply dismissing it and allowing the d.c. circuit to have the last word. but i want to note something the court has been doing lately that might be a tea leaf. the court has been taking up other cases, run-of-the-mill cases, granting sort. but they haven't been putting those cases in their april calendar. they've been holding those cases over until next october. i think there's a real possibility the justices have known for a while but they were going to be extra busy with some 11th hour appeals in march and april. and that they have actually been reducing their workload in anticipation of this case, and perhaps another one or two that might come down the pipeline. -- i think they want to resolve this case quickly. i think they will holler arguments in march or at the very least early april. and i think they'll issue a

decision by the end of may. i don't think they'll make the country wait until late june. and a decision in may could at least, in theory, allow for a trial in advance of november. >> i mean, it would mean a trial in september and october. we'll set that aside. the court does have a history of deciding it's gonna hear a case, dobbs, and not tongue the public about it. so mark, that is quite a hypothesis. please come back again to talk about that in greater detail. thank you both for your time tonight. really appreciate it. >> thank you. >> we have a lot to get to tonight, including how the party of trump may be becoming the party of putin. and what that means, not just for republicans, but for democrats. plus, the latest on the breaking news out of kansas city where a deadly shooting happened at a super bowl celebration. stay with us. celebration. stay with us. ♪ i'm gonna love you forever ♪ ♪ ♪ c'mon, bear.

♪ ♪ ♪ you don't...you don't have to worry... ♪ ♪ be by your side... i'll be there... ♪ ♪ with my arms wrapped around... ♪ millions of children are fighting to survive

due to inequality, conflict, poverty and the climate crisis. save the children® is working alongside communities to provide a better life for children. and there's a way you can help. please call or go online to give just $10 a month. only $0.33 a day. we urgently need 1000 new monthly donors in the next 30 days to help the children we support around the world. you can help provide food, medicine, care and protection, plus so much more that a child needs by calling right now and giving just $10 a month. all we need are 1000 monthly donors in the next 30 days. please call or go online now with your monthly gift of just $10. thanks to generous government grants, every dollar you give can have

up to ten times the impact. and when you call with your credit card, we will send you this save the children® tote bag as a thank you for your support. your small monthly donation of just $10 could be the reason a child in crisis survives. please call or go online to hungerstopsnow.org to help save lives today.

♪ ♪ hungerst♪ ♪now.org ♪ ♪

today started with a doozy of a statement from the republican chair of the house intelligence community. congressman mike turner. mr. turner put out a statement warning about a serious national security threat without giving any actual details. instead, congressman turner released information about the serious national security threat to all the members of congress and then called on president biden to declassify the information. which means that, practically speaking, today featured congress members shuffling in and out of his secure room in a basement on capitol hill learning about whatever this threat is, and then giving winking, cryptic statements like, it's a serious issue, but it's not going to ruin your thursday. and, i can confirm it says what we all know, but there is no intelligent life in congress. white house officials told nbc news today that the matter in question is indeed serious, but there are ways to contain this

threat without triggering mass panic. thank, you mr. turner. nbc has not independently confirmed this, but the new york times and abc news are reporting tonight that the threat citing by house intel chair turner is the attempted development of a space based anti satellite nuclear weapon in russia. and while we don't know any more than that, the fact that it is a russian threat, and that a republican in congress is the one sounding the alarm, while, that feels significant. particularly this week. because just this past saturday, the republican front runner and the de facto leader of the gop said this. >> nato is busted until i king along. i said, everybody's got to pay. they said, well, i if we don't play, are we still gonna be protected. i said absolutely not. if we don't pay, and we're tech by russia -- you didn't pay, you're 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 hull they want. >> i would encourage them to do whatever the hell they want. that is what donald trump is telling russia to do to america's allies. whatever the hell russia wants. the statements this past saturday did not happen in a vacuum. days earlier, tucker carlson traveled to russia and interviewed russian president vladimir putin, or should we say, tucker carlson traveled to russia to get a lecture from russian president vladimir putin. because for two hours, putin hardly let carlson get a word in edgewise. instead, president putin offered his version of a russian history lesson. >> what you're about to see seemed to us sincere. whether you agree with it or not. vladimir putin believes that russia has a historic claim to parts of western ukraine. so, our opinion would be to view it and that light, as the sincere expression of what he thinks. >> those sincere thoughts from

president putin went beyond nearly claiming ukraine as russian territory. those sincere thoughts also pointed towards something even more alarming, which is how putin views the rest of europe, and in particular, our native -- nato ally poland. >> before world war ii, poland collaborated with hitler, and although it did not yield to hitler's demands as the polls at -- corridor to germany, and went so far, pushing hitler to start world war ii by attacking them. >> i, mean it could forget that adolf hitler was forced to in fade poland because it was stubborn and refused to surrender. thank you, president putin. that interview was released thursday. putin, who is already at war in ukraine, threatened americas nato allies in american media on thursday. donald trump's response to that on saturday was to say, i would

encourage russia to do whatever the hell they want. and the response by the republican party, the party of russia hawks, their response to trump's statement was largely stuff like this. >> donald trump is not a member of the council of foreign relations. he doesn't talk like a traditional politician. and we've already been through this. now you think people would've figured it out by now. >> i encourage people not to overreact. not to react to what president trump says or what he tweets. i think everyone should take what he says seriously but not literally. >> i don't take president -- i don't take everything he says literally. >> speaker of the house mike johnson was asked about trump's nato statement, he said simply, not going to comment on that, and moved on. but other republicans went even further, actually embracing trump's sentiment. senator lindsey graham said the point here is to you, in

trump's way, to get people to pay. senator tom cotton said that trump is simply being the warning bell for our allies. that is where the republican party is on russia right now. it's either see no evil, hear no evil, or threaten our allies to cough up some cash or throw them to russia. that's the party line. so while we still do not know what exactly this mystery threat is that the republican sheriff the house intelligence committee is warning everyone about, the fact that it is a russian threat, and that he, a republican, is the one flagging it, is significant. not because congressman mike turner might single-handedly changed the republican position here, but because the republican position has gotten so extreme that calling out the threat posed by a nuclear armed authoritarian feels like some kind of rebellion against republican party orthodoxy. that is how tight donald trump's grip on the gop is right now. we're gonna talk about what

that means for both republicans and for democrats, coming up next. coming up next. are you still struggling with your bra? it's time for you to try knix. makers of the world's comfiest wireless bras. for revolutionary support without underwires, and sizes up to a g-cup, find your new favorite bra today at knix.com we all know that words have power. they set things in motion and make us happy or sad. but there's one word that stands out, because when people say it, lives are changed. it's not a big word. it's itsy bitsy. it's only three little letters. but when you say it, the life of a kid like me can be changed. so what is this special word? it may surprise you. it's yes, yes, yes,

yes to becoming a monthly supporter of shriners hospitals for children®. that's right! your monthly support allows the doctors and nurses at shriners hospitals for children® to give the most amazing care anywhere and change the lives of kids like me and me and me. because people like you have said yes. now i can play football and i can play catch and i can walk. so what do you say? will you say yes? right now? it's so easy. all you have to do is pick up the phone or go to loveshriners.org right now and say yes. when you say yes to giving just $19 a month, only $0.63 a day. we'll send you this adorable love to the rescue® blanket as a reminder of all the kids you're helping every day. my life is filled with possibility because of the monthly support of people just like you who called the number on your screen and said yes. yes, yes, yes. your yes

is making a difference in my life and the lives of so many other kids like me. thank you. thank you. thank you. thank you. thank you for giving. please call or go online now. if operators are busy, call again or go to loveshriners.org to say yes right away. i love that my daughter still needs me. but sometimes i can't help due to burning and stabbing pain in my hands, so i use nervive. nervive's clinical dose of ala reduces nerve discomfort in as little as 14 days. now i can help again. feel the difference with nervive. sara federico: at st. jude, we don't care who cures cancer.

we just need to advance the cure. the heart of st. jude is to take care of children with catastrophic diseases and to advance their cure rates. but we need to be able to do that for everyone. it's a bold initiative, to try and bump cure rates all around the world. but we should. it is our commitment. [music playing]

i've been saying, look, if they're not gonna pay, we're not gonna protect. okay? and biden said, oh, this is so bad. this is so terrible. he would say that. one of the heads of the country stood up and said, does that mean if we don't pay the bills, then you're not gonna protect us? i said, that's exactly what it means. >> that's exactly what it

means. that was donald trump at a rally in south carolina just moments ago, doubling down on his comments from this weekend that he would not defend america's nato allies if they were attacked. they didn't pay their bills. that's exactly what it means. it was one thing, an incredibly dangerous thing, to have the republican presidential -- saying things like that repeatedly. but it is all the more dangerous because trump's parties seems to be completely re-working its own foreign policy to stay in line with donald trump on this issue. so what does that mean about the state of the gop? and for that matter, what does it mean for democrats? joining me now is mark leibovich -- and charlie sykes, cofounder and former editor at large of the bulwark. gentlemen, thank you for joining me. mark, you would think after the panic that ensued over the weekend, after trump said this thing about basically throwing nato allies to the jaws of russia, should they not pay their bills, that there might

be some sort of recalibration here. but apparently, not at all. and the question i would ask you is, does this effectively change the republican party line on nato? >> oh, god no. what you just shows, just to be clear, is not that clip from a few days ago. this is, now i guess, part of the message. i'd be shocked if there wasn't a applause to greet that tonight. look, it's the next iteration -- >> there was a plus. >> i'm sure there was. this is vladimir putin. before, eight years ago, if you look at the original, russia, if you're listening, show us the email. there were many layers removed, and there was absurdity in many ways, there was growth irresponsibly involved. but now are cohen of going directly from point a to point b, and the republican party, at least the base of the republican party, is cheering wildly. the marco rubio's and the john corman, mostly rubio, that was

an appalling statement i saw. you know, it all rolls into each other. and like, this is where we are right now. >> so you do think it's changing the position of the republican party on this? i was flabbergasted, and i don't know if you wear, charlie, by lindsey graham's complete capitulation to the trump line on this. lindsey graham, the hawk, the interventionalist, is like, nato members of gotta pay their bills. i guess it's not surprising that lindsey graham takes a knee to donald trump when, you know, when push comes to shove, that's missing metaphors. but wow, on russia. there are no sacred cows. >> yes. i mean, you haven't watched -- you wouldn't think you'd be surprised anymore. but this is genuinely shocking. if you step back from the clownish-ness of donald trump, what we're seeing is a seismic shift in the republican party. this is an abandonment not just of reagan foreign policy, but of a century of republican

foreign policy. and yet, the party is going along with it. and it's not just the rhetoric. the other context year is the republican party and the house of representatives is in the process of blocking aid to ukraine. handing vladimir putin a victory that he was not able to win on the battlefield. so it is extraordinary to watch the republican party go along with the rhetoric that would've been considered absolutely beyond the pale and reckless even a few years ago in trump's first term. but i also think we need to step back from the political implications of this. because this is the former president of the united states, are feature commander in chief, who is signaling to the rest of the world, to our allies, to vladimir putin, and to china, a policy of appeasement and weakness. this invites aggression. this can lead to the kind of miscalculations that can cause

war. republicans use to understand this at a visceral level. and the fact that they're kind of blowing it off with that clichi of, we take him seriously, but not literally, how do you think vladimir putin tastes this? how do you think vladimir putin takes the fact that the republicans and congress are about to kneecap ukraine, and hand him this massive victory? do you think he takes that seriously or and or literally? >> it's such an essential point. this is happening against the backdrop of a war in ukraine, and the funding bill that republicans are refusing to pass, that could be make-or- break for ukraine in the cycle. even if you're rhetorically in the gray, your actions, if you are a republican congress -- i want to bring up an assessment that your colleague had in the atlantic about how and why the republican party has so thoroughly capitulated to trump's vials. to many elected republicans, it probably felt like an answer to their prayers when the strongmen finally parachuted in and started telling them what

to do. maybe his orders were reckless and contradictory. but as long as you did your best to look like you were obeying, you could expect to keep winning your primaries. it's such a cynical assessment, but i think it's spot on. i think it's spot on. >> shout-out to my colleague, mckay. i think that's right. i agree with everything charlie said, but if you think about it, this is not a recent analysis of american policy, foreign policy position we're getting from the base. we are getting kind of wrote applause for donald trump. for the strongman. and if you think about what population is at its core, in america today, it's sort of celebrity. that is populism. and donald trump and his purest form road that victory in 2016. he's now taken that and combined it with the strongman populism which is kind of a contradiction of terms in some way, but also, is basically taking and most literal form and telling people what to do. and there are plotting with no sense of what the policy

ramifications could be. -- which is, frankly a catastrophic one for ukraine. >> charlie, mark makes such a good point about the catastrophic implications. i think maybe if you're mike johnson, you don't track the catastrophic implications, because you're not thinking too hard about much of anything. but marco rubio knows, john cormack knows. these people have served in the senate. they know about foreign policy. and yet, it's just appalling, their capitulation to a very dark reality for the people of ukraine. >> it is appalling. and in fact, it is breathtaking. and to mark's point, i think this is really crucial. this is not a position republicans reasoned them solved into. there has not been this weird rethinking of america's place in the world. this is this knee-jerk reaction to donald trump. it has been donald trump's obsession. the really troubling thing is that there are still

republicans like mitch mcconnell in the senate who understand the immediate stakes, and or who are trying to stand up to vladimir putin. but look at the generational shift in this party. a lot of this is donald trump. but what's the trajectory here? what is more likely to be the future of the party? people like j.d. vance? and marco rubio? or people like -- they are kind of the last line, the old guard trying to remind people what republicans used to stand for. and they're being swept away by the trumpist, the nihilism of donald trump. but also just this new style of america first populism, which increasingly reminds us of the first iteration of america first. remember in the 1930s, with charles lindbergh? when the america first airs

kept america out of war and appeased adolf hitler? now we have the second version of it, which is appeasing vladimir putin. and may lead to the same kind of catastrophic outcome. >> and to say nothing of the fact that the democratic party has had to absorb all the people with any kind of sentiment thoughts about geopolitics to become effectively an anti maga coalition, a massive tent. we didn't get to talk about all the things we need to talk about, but thank you for sitting here in talking about the things that we did get to talk about. >> thank, you alex. >> mark leibovich, and charlie sykes. thank you both for your time at this very dark hour for the globe. -- progressive house caucus about exactly what democrats should learn from their victory in a new york special election last night. but first, a uniquely american event. a super bowl victory parade is ruined today by a recurring american problem. gun violence. that is next. problem. gun violence. that is next.

that's service i can trust. >> singers: ♪ safelite repair, safelite replace. ♪ these underwear are period-proof. and sneeze-proof. and sweat-proof. they're leakproof underwear, from knix. comfy & confident protection that feel just like normal. with so many styles and colors to choose from, switching is easy at knix.com

are you still struggling with your bra? it's time for you to try knix. makers of the world's comfiest wireless bras. for revolutionary support without underwires, and sizes up to a g-cup, find your new favorite bra today at knix.com (♪♪) ohhh crap, that's a really good gift. now we gotta get france something. wait! we can use etsy's new gift mode! yes, what do the french like? ...anyone? cheese... they like cheese! brilliant. done. plateau de fromage! oh la la! [cheering] don't panic. gift easy with gift mode, new on etsy. every day, more dog people, and more vets are deciding it's time for a fresh approach to pet food.

they're quitting the kibble. and kicking the cans. and feeding their dogs dog food that's actually well, food. developed with vets. made from real meat and veggies. portioned for your dog. and delivered right to your door. it's smarter, healthier pet food. get 50% off your first box at thefarmersdog.com/realfood wow. it's hard to describe looking at this. something that was supposed to be so joyful just turned so quickly. and you can see some strollers out here, and it's -- you never think you're gonna be the one covering it when it happens, but it can happen anywhere. >> it can happen anywhere. that was kaitlin can news, a local anchor for nbc affiliate

k s hp in kansas city. she was covering the kansas city chiefs super bowl party when gotten party broke out, killing at least one person. at least 21 others were killed -- wounded by gunfire, including nine children between the ages of six and 15. all of them are expected to recover. three people are currently in custody, but no motive is currently known. so far, nbc news is reporting that the shooting appears to be criminal in nature and not terrorism. congresswoman emanuel cleaver -- fifth congressional district. he joins me now. congressman, thank you for being here. i understand that you had family members who were in attendance at the event, and first, our thoughts and hopes that they are in safe hands. can you tell us a little bit more about that and how this is impacted your own community? >> well, there was always going to be a float for congressional

representatives. and because we had that important vote here on the impeachment, the silly impeachment of america, the secretary of homeland security, i decided that would stay, and decided that the last minute i wasn't gonna try to get up early in the morning and get down and get back. so my wife and children went down to the station when the shooting started. they were ushered inside union station with a number of other elected officials, and officials of the kansas city chiefs football team. so they made their. but there were people who were killed who i know, and those one woman who i know, i know her entire family for that matter. and it's sad, sad day. especially at union station, because it was june 17th, 1933, when pretty boy floyd came into the parking lot that everybody's on national tv and

shot and killed four -- in front of union station. and -- they were trying to break him out of jail. so, it's unfortunate that one of our major attractions to kansas city had visited upon some of the worst things that we can think about. but the worst thing about today, after the unnecessary killing and wounding of people who were to have a good time, it's the fact that it made me realize even more than ever that i am a part of a body that does nothing, even in the face of tragedy. nothing at all. thoughts and prayers. you know, i don't need thoughts and prayers, and those people down here, and others will be shot in the future don't need thoughts and prayers. they need action. and it is so troublesome and painful to me, and hopefully

people around the whole country are angry with that, you know, when some tragedy like this occurs, we marched down to the -- and somebody says, we want our thoughts and prayers to go out to these people who have been shot and killed, and their families, and so forth. prayer with out action is just wasted where it's. and frankly -- i'm tired of wasted waits. we ought to be ashamed of ourselves as the legislative body to allow these actions to continue. we also had a shooting in atlanta today. probably 100 other shootings that we will never know about. >> missouri has the 48 worst gun laws and the united states of america. there is no universal background checks, -- assault weapons restrictions. do you think that had a direct effect on what happened today,

congressman? >> yes. and i'm embarrassed about the fact that we're so far behind that were coming across as troglodytes as it relates to this issue. all people want our common sense gun regulations. and people that lie to people for years and years, they're out for your guns, and they try to create this kind of paranoia and anger, and the truth of the matter is nobody wants to take anybody's guns. but i think we have military skill guns -- does a used right now, almost exclusively, to kill human beings. and the truth as, we can do better in misery. i realize that people look at us as a rural state, but i think there are a lot of people in missouri, like people around the world, if they had a chance to votes on -- go to the ballot

box and vote, they would vote for it. we're not trying to take peoples guns, and all the lies that have been told year after year after year, every time we get ready for an election. the fear mongers go out, and say they're trying to take your guns. and that's a lie. >> president biden a statement today says we know what we have to do, we just need the courage to do it. congressman emanuel cleaver of missouri, thank you for taking the time tonight. we trust that your family is safe and well. thank you again. >> thank you. >> still ahead tonight, on the heels of a big victory for new york democrat tom suozzi, a whole bunch of democrats are saying that is strategy to talk tough on the border could be the path to victory in november. but is everyone in the party on board with that? i'll talk with congresswoman jamille jayapal about what happens next. what happens next. a nose in need deserves puffs indeed. america's #1 lotion tissue. what causes a curve down there?

who can treat this? stop typing, and start talking. it could be a medical condition called peyronie's disease, or pd. you're not alone, there is hope. find a specialized urologist who can diagnose and treat pd. visit makeapdplan.com today. marlo thomas: my father founded saint jude children's research hospital because he believed no child should die in the dawn of life. in 1984, a patient named stacy arrived, and it began her family's touching story that is still going on today. vicki: childhood cancer, it's just hard. stacey passed on christmas day of 1986. there is no pain like losing a child, but saint jude gave us more years to love on her each day. marlo thomas: you can join the battle to save lives. for just $19 a month, you'll help us continue the lifesaving research and treatment these kids need now and in the future. jessica: i remember as a child, walking

the halls of saint jude, and watching my sister fight for her life. we never imagined that we would come back. and then my son charlie was diagnosed with ewing's sarcoma. vicki: i'm thinking, we already had a catastrophic disease in our family. not my grandson too. marlo thomas: st. jude has helped push the overall childhood cancer survival rate from 20% when it opened to 80% today. join with your credit or debit card for only $19 a month, and we'll send you this saint jude t-shirt that you can proudly wear to show your support. jessica: for anybody that would give, the money is going towards research, and you are the reason my child is here today. charlie: i was declared-- this will be two years cancer free. but there's thousands and thousands of kids who need help. saint jude, how many lives they do save is just so many. marlo thomas: charlie's progress warms my heart,

but memories of little angels like stacy are why we need your help. please become a saint jude partner in hope right now. [music playing] ♪3, 4♪ ♪ ♪hey♪ ♪ ♪are you ready for me♪ ♪are you ready♪ ♪are you ready♪ these underwear are period-proof. and sneeze-proof. and sweat-proof. they're leakproof underwear, from knix. comfy & confident protection that feel just like normal. with so many styles and colors to choose from, switching is easy at knix.com you can make money the hard way as a bullfighter with so many styles and colors to choose from, or a human cannonball... or save money the easy way, with xfinity mobile. existing customers can get a free line of our most popular unlimited plan for a year! not only will you save hundreds but you'll also be joining millions who have connected to america's most reliable 5g network.

sure is a lot safer than becoming a stuntman for money. get a free line of unlimited intro for a year when you buy one unlimited line. plus, get the new samsung galaxy s24 on us. the southern border is 2000

miles away, but the migrant crisis has landed right on back at. i work across the island to do what our leaders have been. secure our border. close the roads used for illegal immigration, but open passage citizenship -- i'll work with anyone to get it done. >> it was not a republican campaign ad. it was released last month by tom suozzi, new york democrat who ran a campaign focused on immigration policy and strict border policy in a district where republicans had won every major election in the past five years. until yesterday. that's when mr. suozzi -- put the seat that was vacated by disgraced maga fabulist george santos. today, democrats, including senator chris murphy, say suozzi's victory should provide a roadmap for the democratic party in november. in a memo today, murphy told fellow democrats that they should learn a lesson from new york three. we risk losing the 2024 election if we don't seize this opportunity to go on offense on the issue of the border and

turn the tables on republicans on a key fob voting issue. joining me now is congresswoman camilla jayapal -- and chair of the congressional caucus. congresswoman jayapal, thank you for being here. i'm eager to know what you think of the sort of broadly held suggestion today that democrats run the suozzi playbook on immigration. do you think that's the right idea? >> why i think it depends on what you called the suozzi playbook. congratulations to tom suozzi. i served with him before, looking forward to working with him again. -- don't run away from immigration. i agree that we need to lean into this issue. and that is what tom did, because he didn't let republicans define us. he defined us. he also, alex, talked about a path to citizenship. he talked about the issue of immigration as being one that

needs to be fixed, and later on in the campaign, he talked about hypocrisy of republicans who want to -- try to divide us. he also was very, very inclusive in talking about his own immigration story, in talking about ellis island. he really had a fairly inclusive message. was it exactly the message i would've used in my district? no. but i think that the lesson should not be you've gotta talk tough and talk about shutting down the border. it's about talking about immigration, embracing it. and it's about the ground game. and i just can't say how much progressives deserve credit for this race as well, because battleground new york, which was -- knocked on $100,000 in that district, and the aapi about, for the first time, there was a very on the ground campaign with tom, you know, speaking to every asian

american community, learning to speak a little bit of the languages, going out with late, with dedicated hotlines for people of different backgrounds to get to the polls. it was a very concerted effort to speak to immigrant voters in their languages, in their home places. and in fact, he outperformed biden in many of the areas that had large numbers of aapi's. we'll see what the final numbers are. but i think these two things together are reminded to the democrats that we need our base. we need immigrant voters. and we need an inclusive message that is real about the fact that the border, the immigration system is broken, and that was happening at the border is a direct and inverse relationship to the fact that we have taken away all these legal pathways. and we have a legal immigration system that simply isn't working, because it's 30 years old. >> well, you know i love

talking about the aapi community. but i do think one of the things that mr. suozzi touted was this is the bipartisan senate deal on the border which a lot of progressive democrats were not really fans of. and he touted that deal as evidence that democrats were really, quote unquote, serious about fixing the problem. it's not the right piece of policy in the mind of progressive's to show the american voter that the democratic party is serious about immigration reform? >> now. i think with the message there is is republicans are hypocrites. this is what we've been -- a long time. they don't want to fix it. they pushed for the most restrictive immigration policy. policy that i don't agree with, and i don't think democrats should have gone along with. even when they got a lot of time, they said no. so let's focus on the hypocrisy of republicans who don't want to fix the problem, and as democrats, let's embrace an inclusive message that goes back to the values of fixing an underlying system that has more

no more legal pathways that work, no more processing that works, delays that simply don't allow for people to come enjoying their families, or even take jobs. in an economy where immigrants are contributing, and we desperately need workers and people to do the work across this country. and yet, republicans are stopping us from any progress on anything related to immigration. and by the way, they don't share our values. they want to separate families. they want to go to trumpian, harsh enforcement policies that simply don't work. and that's the way i would phrase it. is not that we had a perfect border deal. i don't like that border deal. but i think it is an opportunity to show the hypocrisy of republicans, and to remind democrats, once again, that we win elections when we turn out our base as well as independents. and i think that something democrats constantly forget. let's not run away from immigration. let's dive into it, and show the beauty