marked today by releasing 17 doves in honor of the victims. there was also a moment of silence followed by acts of service. students in the nearby eagle ridge elementary school even formed a heart on the field, showing their support for the community on this very sad day. valentine's day is supposed to be about love and kindness. i now, for too many families, it is full with the most painful memories. our hearts go out tonight to the people of parkland and now kansas city. and on that very sad and somber note, i wish you a very safe and goodnight. from all of our colleagues across the networks of nbc news, thanks for staying up late. i will see you at the end of tomorrow. ♪ ♪ ♪

we are following some breaking news on multiple fronts tonight, including at the supreme court, where special counsel jack smith has just responded to donald trump's latest effort to delay has 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 and all 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 is making an impassioned plea to the nine justices of the high court, urging them not to let trump delay this matter any longer. in 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 zenith, where, as here, a former president is charged with conspiring to

subvert the electoral process so he could 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 -- a compelling interest in every criminal case and one that has unique national importance here. trump's personal interest in postponing trial proceedings must be weighed against two powerful countervailing considerations -- that government's 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 decline 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 applicant's immunity claim. in other words, dear supreme court justices, you did not want to hear this case before. enough that was 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 if they don't like the first. if you don't want to hear this case, supreme court, 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 that it sets the case for expedited briefing and argument. the government proposes a schedule that would permit

argument in march 2024, consistent with the court's expedition 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 driben. 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 driben 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 think that they are going to give donald trump and his attorneys an opportunity to reply.

the rules about whether or not -- what the timing is on a reply, are all not all that clear. i expect his lawyers would reach out to the clerk and maybe some informal guidance on the subject of timing, we're not talking weeks here, we're talking days. i think they will give him the opportunity to do that before they rule. 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, who find all of this waiting and sort of what feels like a pro forma exercise, maybe, to be incredibly frustrating. why -- i mean, what do you make of the justices and what kristy suggests here, that 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, ma'am, 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 i'll note there's a real opportunity for mischief here, because the rules are so ambiguous, so notoriously vague. trump could sit on this, wait for days, even weeks, too 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 in 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, kristy, it feels like one party has already been equally the process, by virtue of the fact that we're sitting here, is it late february, it's gonna be late 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 very much 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, will 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 kagan pointed to the colorado lawyer and said, you know, i put it to you, should a single 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 in that oral argument just a few weeks ago, about consequences, about perception of the court and 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 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. a trial doesn't happen before the election, does it? >> 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 court's 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 cert. 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. so even though i'm rather skeptical of this court in a lot of ways, i think they want to resolve this case quickly. i think they will hold arguments in march or at the very latest 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 telling the public about it. so mark, that is quite a hypothesis. please come back again to talk about that in greater detail. kristie and mark, 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. ation. stay with us. >> woman: what's my safelite story? i see inspiration right through my glass. so when my windshield cracked, i chose safelite. they replaced the glass and recalibrated my safety system.

that's service i can trust. >> singers: ♪ safelite repair, safelite replace. ♪

my life is full of questions... mom, is yellow a light or a dark? how do i clean an aioli stain? thankfully, tide's the answer to almost all of them. why do we even buy napkins? use tide. can cold water clean white socks? it can with tide. do i need to pretreat guacamole? not with tide. this is chocolate, right? -just use... -tide...yeah. no matter who's doing it, on what cycle, or in what temperature, tide works. so i can focus on all the other questions. do crabs have eyebrows? ahh... for all of life's laundry questions, it's got to be tide. dupixent helps you du more with less asthma. and can help you breathe better in as little as two weeks. dupixent is an add-on treatment for specific types of moderate-to-severe asthma that's not for sudden breathing problems.

dupixent can cause allergic reactions that can be severe. get help right away if you have rash, chest pain, worsening shortness of breath, tingling or numbness in your limbs. tell your doctor about new or worsening joint aches and pain, or a parasitic infection. don't change or stop asthma medicines, including steroids, without talking to your doctor. ask your specialist about dupixent. why choose a sleep number smart bed? can i make my side softer? i like my side firmer. sleep number does that. now, save 50% on the sleep number limited edition smart bed. plus, free home delivery when you add any base. ends president's day. in san francisco,

two people a day are dying from fentanyl. this is a national crisis that demands new strategies. prop f requires single adults receiving cash assistance to enroll in treatment if they use drugs. i know what it's like to lose family to drug addiction. it's too late for some families. but our city needs to do what's necessary to save lives. please vote yes on prop f.

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 a 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, that 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 cited 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, well, 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 was busted until i came along. i said, everybody's got to pay. they said, well, i if we don't pay, are you still gonna be protect us. i said absolutely not. if we don't pay, and we're attack by russia, will you attack protect us? you don'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 hell they would 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 oshawa wants. those 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 in that light, as a sincere expression of what he thinks. >> those sincere thoughts from president putin went beyond merely 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 nato ally poland. >> translator: before world war ii, poland collaborated with hitler, and although it did not yield to hitler's demands, as the poles i don't given the danzig corridor to germany, and went so far, pushing hitler to start world war ii by attacking them.

>> i mean, who could forget that adolf hitler was forced to invade 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 america's 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 of 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. i learned a long time ago 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. >> when 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, in trump's way, to get people to pay. senator tom cotton said that trump is simply ringing 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 chair of 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

change 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. next. have you ever considered getting a walk-in tub? well, look no further. proudly made in tennessee, a safe step walk-in tub is the best in it's class. the ultra-low easy step helps keep you safe

from having to climb over those high walled tubs, allowing you to age gracefully in the home you love. and now, back by popular demand, for a limited time, when you purchase your brand-new safe step walk-in tub, you'll receive a free shower package! yes! a free shower package, and if you call today, you'll also receive $1600 off. now you can enjoy the best of both worlds. the therapeutic benefits of a warm, soothing bath, that can help increase mobility, relieve pain, boost energy, and even improve sleep. or, if you prefer, you can take a refreshing shower all in one product! call now!

liberty mutual customized my car insurance and i saved hundreds. that's great. i know, i've bee telling everyone. baby: liberty. oh! baby: liberty. how many people did you tell? only pay for what you need. jingle: ♪ liberty. liberty. liberty. ♪ baby: ♪ liberty. ♪ only sleep number smart beds let you each choose jingle: ♪ liberty. liberty. liberty. ♪ your individual firmness and comfort. your sleep number setting. and actively cools and warms up to 13 degrees on either side. now, save 50% on the sleep number limited edition smart bed.

plus, free home delivery when you add any base. ends presidents day. only at sleep number. democrats agree. conservative republican steve garvey is the wrong choice for the senate. ...our republican opponent here on this stage has voted for donald trump twice.

mr. garvey, you voted for him twice... as your own man, what is your decision? garvey is wrong for california. but garvey's surging in the polls. fox news says garvey would be a boost to republican control of the senate. stop garvey. adam schiff for senate. i'm adam schiff, and i approve this message. you want to see who we are as americans? i'm peter dixon and in kenya... we built a hospital that provides maternal care. as a marine... we fought against the taliban and their crimes against women. and in hillary clinton's state department... we took on gender-based violence in the congo. now extremists are banning abortion and contraception right here at home. so, i'm running for congress to help stop them. for your family... and mine. i approved this message because this is who we are.

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. that 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 frontrunner 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 -- staff writer at

the atlantic. 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 showed, 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 applause. >> 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 gross irresponsibly involved. but now we are 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 cornyns, mostly rubio, that was an appalling statement, i thought. 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 were, charlie, by lindsey graham's complete capitulation to the trump line on this. lindsey graham, the hawk, the interventionalist, is like, nato members 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 mixing metaphors. but wow, on russia. there are no sacred cows. >> yes.

i mean, you having watched graham's sycophancy 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 here is the republican party in 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 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,

perhaps future 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 used 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 takes this? how do you think vladimir putin takes the fact that the republicans in congress are about to kneecap ukraine and hand him this massive victory? do you think he takes that seriously and or literally? >> it's such an essential point. this is happening against the backdrop of a war in ukraine, and a funding bill that republicans are refusing to pass that could be make-or- break for ukraine in the struggle. even if you're rhetorically in the gray, your actions, if you are a republican congress speak

incredibly loudly. i want to bring up an assessment that your colleague mckay coppins had in the atlantic about how and why the republican party has so thoroughly capitulated to trump's wiles. to many elected republicans, it probably felt like an answer to their prayers when a 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 reasoned analysis of american policy, foreign policy position we're getting from the base. we are getting kind of rote applause for donald trump, for the strongman. and if you think about what populism is at its core, in america today, it's sort of

celebrity. that is populism. and donald trump and his purest form rode 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 in its most literal form and telling people what to do. and there are applauding with no sense of what the policy ramifications could be. and what the real world 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 clock the catastrophic implications, because you're not thinking too hard about much of anything. but lindsey graham knows, but marco rubio knows, john cornyn 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 the republicans reasoned themselves into. there has not been this long 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 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 mitch mcconnell? 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

both 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 firsters 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 sentient thoughts about geopolitics to become effectively an anti maga coalition, a massive tent. we didn't get to talk about all the things we needed 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 in this very dark hour for the globe.

coming up, we will talk to the 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 was ruined today by a recurring american problem, gun violence. that is next.

what causes a curve down there? is it peyronie's disease? will it get worse? how common is it? who can i talk to? can this be treated? stop typing. start talking to a specialized urologist. because it could be peyronie's disease, or pd. it's a medical condition where there is a curve in the erection, caused by a formation of scar tissue. and an estimated 1 in 10 men may have it. but pd can be treated even without surgery. say goodbye to searching online. find a specialized urologist who can diagnose pd and build a treatment plan with you. visit makeapdplan.com today. 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 kaitlan cnut, a local anchor for nbc affiliate kshp in kansas city. she was covering the kansas city chiefs super bowl party when gunfire broke out -- 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. congressman emanuel cleaver represents kansas city as part of missouri's 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 mayorkas's, 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 -- g-man in front of union station. and -- -- nash was killed, which, 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 it 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 -- well of the house. 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. words. and frankly -- i'm tired of wasted waits. words. 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

privilege i appall about what happens next. happens next. so when my windshield cracked, it had to be fixed right. i scheduled with safelite autoglass. their experts replaced my windshield and recalibrated my car's advanced safety system. ♪ acoustic rock music ♪ >> woman: safelite is the one i trust. they focus on safety so i can focus on this view. >> singers: ♪ safelite repair, safelite replace. ♪

(♪♪) it's inspiring to work at a place where our patients succeed. and where we as therapists do, too. with great benefits from principal, our clinic shows they truly care about us. (♪♪) gusto is easy, modern small business payroll. starting at just $46 a month. but it's so much more than that. with gusto, paychecks are deposited in just a few clicks. gusto calculates and files your payroll taxes automatically. gusto offers health insurance for nearly any budget. and gusto even connects you with certified hr experts. it's fast, easy, and affordable. gusto is payroll and benefits built for small businesses. get started for free at gusto.com you're probably not easily persuaded to switch

mobile providers for your business. but what if we told you it's possible that comcast business mobile can save you up to 75% a year on your wireless bill versus the big three carriers? did we peak your interest? you can get two unlimited lines for just $30 each a month. there are no term contracts or line activation fees. and you can bring your own device. oh, and all on the most reliable 5g mobile network nationwide. wireless that works for you. it's not just possible, it's happening.

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. haven't. secure our border. close the roads used for illegal immigration, but open passage citizenship -- for those willing to follow the rules. 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 -- his republican opponent and flip 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 pramila jayapal. democrat from the great state of washington and of course chair of the congressional progressive 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? >> 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. -- he ran a great, disciplined campaign. secondly, i think what democrats should learn is 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 -- progressive, labor and community coalition knocked out 100,000 doors in that district. district, and the aapi about, vote 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. no. 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 of the democratic vision when it comes to immigration. >> congresswoman pramila jayapal, thank you, as always. it's great to hear from you tonight. that is our show for this evening. now, it's time for the last word with lawrence o'donnell. good evening, lawrence. >> good evening, alex. as you know, there were two big winners last night in special elections. when you are just talking about, the other in pennsylvania. we're gonna get from the winner from pennsylvania to join us later in