>> tonight on all in. >> we saw one of the shooters. he had a brown jacket on. >> they were really young, for somebody just acting out of control. >> a super bowl celebration ends in mass gun violence. >> parades, rallies, schools, movies, it seems like almost nothing is safe. >> what we know about what happened in kansas city. then, jack smith asked the supreme court to hurry up. tonight's filing from the

special counsel to try and end trump delay tactics. and as george santos taunts the maga congress that rejected him, new signs republicans aren't learning lessons from their evil ways. >> stop running around for trump and start running the country. >> when all in starts, right now. good evening from new york. and chris. we face a lot of news to get to tonight including a rocket of a filing from prosecutor jack smith. the results of that congressional race, but we begin with the devastating but familiar news from missouri. a suiting a shooting at the end of the kansas city chiefs super bowl victory parade has left at least one person dead and about two dozen in the crowd wounded according to police. nine of those who suffered

gunshot wounds were children, ranging in ages from 6 to 15, according to hospital officials. when the chiefs won the title on sunday, a record number of people watched the game, and by all accounts a record number of fans, hundreds of thousands, turned out in downtown kansas city for today's celebration. it was at that celebration was ending this afternoon that the shooting began. this reporters live shot, you can see people in the background running for their lives. three people are now in police custody, though i have to say it is unclear exactly what the

motive was or why any of this happened. the officials said they do not believe the motive of the shooting was terrorism. this all happened on the day meant to celebrate the back-to- back super bowl victory of the chiefs, a high point of course for community pride in kansas city in the greater metro area. a place that loves this dynastic team. witnesses report there are plenty of people helping their neighbors through the turmoil. professional football players comforting scared kids, fans in jerseys pulling strangers out of danger, administering first aid. it also happened in missouri, where republican dominated state where lawmakers have rollback gun restrictions for decades, leaving the state for some of the weakest gun laws in the nation, something the mayor alluded to a few hours ago. >> that's what happens with guns. i won't get in a big debate right now. i think we are still doing an investigation but what you saw happen was why people talk about guns a lot.

we have over 800 officers there, staff situated all around union station today and we had security in any number of places. eyes on top of buildings, and beyond, and there still is a risk to people. and i think that is something that all of us who are parents, who are just regular people living each day have to decide what we wish to do about it. >> jason kander step served as secretary of state from missouri 27 2018 is also on the board of the gifford center to prevent violence. he's a veteran of the get afghanistan war. he joins me tonight. great to have you. on i'm sorry it's under these circumstances. first, how are you and folks they are processing this awful mix of joy and civic pride being on this horrible note? >> yeah, heartbreaking is not enough. you know, like a lot of people watching right now it's stunning when you stop as un- american and think about how many people you know personally who have either been the victims of or at least at the scene of mass shootings. for me it's quite a few. that's before today. this is not that big of a town.

i promise, you in fact i have already sadly heard from some people, that for me this list is going to be bigger. i think that is just increasingly true for so many people watching. >> you are someone who, you served in afghanistan, you had an iconic ad in which you assembled an assault rifle blindfolded, or not looking at the weapon. but then you talked about your views on weapons. you're on the board of giffords. missouri is a state that's been almost the leader, a four front i would say in the kind of gun absolutist movement. do you think today changes that at all? >> probably not. sadly. but i think that has more to do with the way this debate has been framed in this country. it has been successfully framed by gun manufacturers, falsely framed, framed as a debate. we don't know what weapon was used, we don't know motive, and

i'm not talking about today. i'm talking about this because i'm just off. so i want to talk about this. they frame this debate as people like me who believe in gun safety versus people who own guns. but i also own a gun and i don't think that's what's really going on in this country. i think this is between americans and really corporations. they always talk about the second amendment, but nobody ever talks about the fact that in 2005 they passed allotted infringes on the seventh amendment, which nobody ever hears about. the seventh amendment, the amendment to the u.s. constitution, says if you have in controversy in any manner more than $20 you have a right to a civil jury trial. in 2005 we passed this law, george w. bush signed it, something lawful commerce earns act, protection of lawful commerce in arms.

just a fancy way of saying that they give the gun industry the kind of immunity that no one who makes literally any other product in this country gets. you know how there is less smoking than there was so many years ago? it's not because of congress. it's because of lawsuits. it's the reason mike are in your car doesn't flip over on the road, because of lawsuits. doctors have to get a certain amount of sleep before they go on the road. congress didn't do that stuff. lawsuits did that stuff. everyone likes to demonize them, but when 12 reasonable people can come together, called a jury, and make a decision about what is reasonable in their community, oftentimes are going to decide, is they started to in the 90s, the gun companies actually can foresee a lot of damage being done and that they can look into who is buying these guns. now gun companies, by the way, they have the ability to make

guns smart guns. most illegal gun crime happens with stolen guns. smart gun technology, if it were out there, but it's never gonna get mandated by congress, this would never happen. but you notice they changed a bunch of laws. if you just remove the dumbest law we have on the books, the gun industry is going to police itself. they're going to be begging us to police them because of the liability they're going to have. that's what i think about in addition to my community, the people that have been hurt. this is the governmental side about what i think about on the daylight today. it makes me very angry. >> you think about when you see these images, the danger of just this object and it being out there. there's all sorts of ways, all sorts of things, the security, the safety, you've got police

officers, areas taped off. you don't want cars going there. there's all sorts of ways in which the space is protected and regulated. and yet this one device, a particularly deadly and dangerous device, and we have more of them in our country than anywhere else, is gonna end up at a scene like that in the aftermath will be predictable. we have to find some way of attacking that. i think what you are saying makes a lot of sense. >> thank you. what they do is, they try to overwhelm us with the difficulty of the problem. they say over and over again, how are you gonna define what assault on assault weapon is? it's a stupid question. or they'll say how or this crime or that crime was

committed with the gun that was already is. illegal illegal for them to have again. oh. then you say should we perhaps pass smart gun technology? and they say how are you gonna define? that the answer is, you just let juries do it over and over and over again and pretty soon the gun companies, here's what they're going to do. not only do all these things on their own to avoid losing their butt in court all the time. they're gonna end up making a ton of money because they'll start gun insurance side companies, subsidiaries, and now you'll have? you'll have a registry of guns. because they can't create and need for gun insurance if they don't know everybody who owns their guns. so they're going to make plenty of money if we do it the other way. they don't want to do anything difficult. so what we're going to do is get rid of one stupid law and a whole lot of other things that we're gonna need to keep people safe are going to happen. >> jason kander, a proud son of kansas city and great to have you on. i'm sorry it's under the circumstances. great to see you though, sir. sl

>> tonight, just a couple of hours ago, special counsel jack smith filed a response to donald trump's request for absolute immunity in the case to steal the 2020 election. you will remember the d. c. court of appeals panel unanimously rejected trump's claim of immunity in a powerful ruling last week. on monday the ex president asked the supreme court to stay that ruling, part of his attempt to keep delaying a trial. a couple of hours ago jack smith responded. the supreme court had given smith a week to respond in, he did it in a day, showing his urgency in resolving this as fast as possible so that trump can face trial before the november election. he writes, the stay should be denied because the applicants failure -- the church crime strikes at the heart of democracy, the presidents alleged scheme to overturn the election and thwart the peaceful transfer of power to be the last person last place to recognize immunity from federal criminal law. he continues, trump interlocutory appeal, that's appeal before the trial happens, already, quote, places the proceedings on hold, delaying the trial in verdict

in this case. he has no entitlement to further stay while seeking discretionary view from this court. delay in the resolution in the charge is threatening public threaten the public interest in a speedy verdict. compelling interest in every criminal case and one that has unique national importance here. as it involves federal criminal charges against former president for alleged criminal efforts to overturn the results of the presidential election, including through the use of official power. joining me now, harry litman, former u.s. attorney for the western district offensive in vain, a former deputy assistant general for the department of justices. he has quote for thurgood marshall and anthony kennedy. i don't think you and i are surprised this turned around so fast. smith has been aware of the pacing. what do you make of the file?

>> the speed of it, as you say, really communicates urgency, need for speed. there is also kind of a swashbuckling quality, at least within the culture of the supreme court. look what i can do, i only need a day, boom, there it is, try to top that, trump. >> basically he's trying to make two arguments here. you're not likely to succeed on the merits here because the law is against you as has been found in the district court and in the unanimous opinion below. and here's why the law is against him. and there is a huge public interest here to move on this. but if you're going to grant it, he says, we believe, if you believe it merits review, the government respectfully requests to treat the application as a petition for certiorari, grant the application, the government proposes a schedule that would permit argument and rightfully 24, consistent with the courts expedition of other cases meriting such treatment. what does that mean? >> let me take that into parts,

please. the first is, and the all important fact is, is that they are trying trump needs a stay. that means for starters five votes, not for, and if he doesn't get it it doesn't matter if the court continues to review the claim. the mandate goes back to chutkan. for starters, he needs five votes. that's the first point about the stay. the second point about this day is there are established standards for having it. they argue the merits, as you say, but within the context of a heightened showing trump must make. first he's got a fair probability of success. he's likely to win the immunity claim. they say no way no how for all the reasons immunity would fail. and then balance of equities, where they talk about speed and

come as close as they have to tiptoe into the line and saying guys, look at this, we need to do this by november. so that's the first part in the most important part. remember, stay, rule of five, he's got to make the showings, the court has to believe he's likely to succeed, and he isn't, by the way, very few people think he will win on the merits. your second point, yes, they are saying if you really want to take it, and i think at the end of the day they will take it if they want. they want if they don't. it won't be really because of what smith says. do it super quick if you can. take that motion for a stay and turn it into a petition for cert. they do that increasingly in the last few years. let's get it on and have this by march and then if they do, probably they would have an opinion, say, by early may. then you have to add the big chunk of time that has been lost so far. but i think that still makes it tenable but it gets really

close. the most important point is the argument for a stay and justices having to find to grant a stay that he's likely to prevail on the merits. i think that's a hard argument for them to prevail on. >> just so i'm clear, i'm a little clear about the difference between the -- it makes a big difference whether you need five votes or four. you need for to grant cert, you need five first day, and they've just asked for a stay here. if you're going to grant this day, treated as cert. but it still needs five votes. they still have to round up five votes. >> 100%, and it really matters. i worked on a case where there were four votes to grab but not the fifth for a stay, and it was a death penalty case and he

was executed. i don't think roberts will want that to happen. it's not just that you need five. that's for starters. but you need to make a difference showing. you need to show, trump needs to show he's likely to win. i don't think he is likely to win. so we will see if the court gets contentious about that. but that's what really matters. and also the balance of equities, meaning we have to get to this case, it is super important. so that factors in to a stay would be very different if it were on the merits, where they were just aren't you straight up or down.

>> last thing, quickly. one of the things he so can keenly where the clock in the math. it seems everyone else is like, the clock starts and then it's 88 days and he says this case got paused with 88 days to trial. every time we unpleasant it's 88 days. like saying this has to happen very soon. >> exactly right. trump will have a due process right to go through what he was going to go through anyway. but then it will be before chutkan and he is really making it clear. in court we need this, we need this now. this has been true from the start, when you and i first talked about the bringing of the case. it was built for speed. he has had his focus on this from the start. and again, opposing this day. remember they moved for cert before but now they are saying don't take the case. it is perfectly fine. >> all right, harry litman, very illuminating. thank you very much, as always. still ahead, ousted congressman george santos gets the last laugh over democrats flip his forrepu

>> we've got results of the first special election in 2024 and it was a huge loss for

republicans. new york's third congressional district, democrat tom suozzi defeated republican mazi pilip by nearly eight points. swansea will now replace the expelled criminally indulgent former congressman george santos, bringing republicans tight majority in the house down to six seats. you might think today after the party would be wondering where they went wrong after such a crushing loss in what was supposed to be a neck and neck type race. george santos won the same district by about eight points just over a year ago. instead republicans are defiant in their defeat. the chair of the new york republican party, ed cox, released a statement saying republicans will win this eaten of ember when the campaign resets to folks on joe biden and democrats disastrous open borders soft on crime policies rather than specific

circumstances that brought about this special election. i have to say, the statement defines the difference between the two major parties. republicans approach each election with a kind of unbridled undeserved confidence. they believe the voters are with them. they think they represent real americans and therefore the real majority of the country. according to republicans, democrats are the party of the out of touch elite, the freaks, minorities. so republicans do not have to think about whether their message is working or whether they are running good candidates. it is simply their destiny. it is their fate to be voted

into power. of course we will keep seeing over and over, 2020, 2022, and now 2024, is the majority of americans do not like the candidates republicans are running. or the messages they are pushing. in the party refuses to learn that lesson in election after election. they ran, unlike the book candidates, on ridiculous issues and they lose. >> mazi pilip was a soldier who fought terrorism, who supports strong borders and lower taxes. >> tom suozzi open the border. >> we will wage a war on the woke. we will never ever surrender to the woke mob. >> i'm dave white, and i'll never let crt be taught in our crass rooms. >> there's nothing racist about stopping critical race theory. >> my senior year i was forced to compete against a biological male. >> that's unfair and wrong.

>> which is one of you is from the new york times? you know there's only two judges, right? >> every one of those candidates lost by the republican party and learn from kari lake and trans members of josh mandel and crt or josh -- they won't learn from mazi pilip in the border either. one of the shoe were on the other foot? it's totally possible it would wake up this morning and the democrat had lost to new york. and just imagine, imagine the amount of second guessing that would be circulating in the party, and progressive in center-left circles in the mainstream press, on the op-ed pages of the new york times. it would be constant. because the democratic party in the larger coalition is in a near constant state of anxiety. they're always worried that the coalition will crack, they lose the support of real americans. i think part of that is because the party apparatus is, in fact, dominated by college educated people living in big metro areas, big cities, who

make up a disproportionate number of political staffers, elected officials, in the media. and especially since 2016, that group of folks really does fear they are missing something. something key about what voters not in those circles think. now that fear, that they're missing something, can be neurotic and debilitating of the source of the hundreds of diner safari pieces we've all read, but i will say this, i think it's also an important helpful effect. the whole point of politics and elections is to win the support of a majority, so if you're always worried about losing them, you have to really engage with what the voters think and

feel. how to reach. them it does, i think, keep the democratic party tethered to reality while the republicans are just about the opposite. they're just about convinced of their own virtue, losing sight of the fact that on a lot of topics they sound like freaks and weirdos. they are so certain they are the real americans, they cannot see how far they are from them. here's a perfect example. republicans about how lost republicans are. the conservative uproar about taylor swift and travis kelce. somehow republicans are threatened by the image of the towering square jawed conventionally handsome star athlete kissing his blond red lived conventionally attractive popstar popstar girlfriend. he's from ohio, she's from kansas city, she go to start and country music. she's miss americana and he's the heartbreak prince. it's a james team daydream.

they're quintessential middle america, conservative as it gets, and republicans have so alienated themselves from actual middle america that this is a threat to them now. they can't hear it, though. they cannot learn from it. they cannot course correct. they keep attacking americas promise king and queen. they plan to run mazi pilip in the third district again in new york, and chauvin on the same issues. they still support donald trump. because when you believe that you never have to listen to what the voters are telling you , you can pretend that you won an election that you lost by 7 million votes. michelle goldberg is in opinion columnist for the new york times and she joins me now. michelle, you have written about this. you and i talked about it so much. i was so amazed by the

republican party putting out the statement last night, after they got their butts kicked. they lost badly. being like, we're just going to do this again. i mean, run this exact same race in nine months, and if the shoe was on the other foot, you know we would have 100 op-eds this morning about tom suozzi was too woke. >> well, i actually want to say that there's one reason why, look, i don't think it's going to go any different in november, but i do think that there is something specific about special elections, that this democratic coalition. there is a lot of reasons that the republican candidate lost here. the district had just kind of been humiliated by the george santos debacle and along comes this untested person who is not a kind of george santos level, hadn't really been a paratrooper, was a democrat, wouldn't say whether or not he voted for donald trump, wouldn't wasn't straightforward about the position on abortion. and at the same time, the republican party has exchanged

basically middle-class college educated suburbanites for downscale voters and several elections that can be a decent trade because there are a lot more non-college-educated voters than college educated voters. but what it means is that a lot of the most conscientious voters, the people who vote in every election, vote in special elections, motion off-year elections, who vote early, those people are now kind of the most reliable, and increasingly reliable part of the democratic base. you also saw this in a state house election in pennsylvania yesterday, in the suburbs of, the purple suburb where the democrats won overwhelmingly. >> that's true about special elections, but it connects to one of the points here that's

important, which is candidate quality. they are not recruiting good candidates, routinely. i think there's a real breakdown there, because i do think they are a little less worried about this. with her it's like oh, she has this amazing bio. she's an immigrant herself, she is originally from ethiopia, she's israeli, she's orthodox. but she was a ban candidate. and they keep running a string of ban candidates, and it doesn't seem like they're having an internal discussion, like what are we doing wrong question. it's amazing how -- it is in that universe. >> what you're seeing in the house is all about quote unquote normal republicans, people who seemed to take governing seriously. those just an accidents of that. you're seeing all around the country and i'm in michigan

right now but you're seeing it all around the country, republican parties collapsing, being taken over by incompetent weirdos, crazy infighting, real fundraising problems, just real management challenges. the trump part of the party is not really interested in governing. they don't have a talent for administration. they can be good at being inflammatory and driving certain cable news cycles. but they are not good add the nuts and bolts of politics. and so the republican party is in a bind because the people who are attracted to trump sort of aren't there when he's not around. with so many other people who used to be republicans are repelled by what the republican

party has become. >> michigan's got a funny to posts it's situation, where two people are -- whether she takes a hint we don't know, but what do you think of this idea? i go back and forth on this. what do you think about the idea of, like, the kind of post- 2016 particularly liberal neuroses anxiety they were out of touch, we're attach, we're losing people, does have some adaptive qualities. that it isn't totally insidious, that insecurity can be really malign and pathological and all kinds of ways that i find taxing. but also it does force people in the coalition to constantly be trying to check back with where voters are at. >> right. and -- we'll never hear mainstream democrats outwardly malign huge parts of the country the way you hear republicans speak with absolute contempt about new york. you, california, the coast, big cities. democrats are very concerned by losing by less even in a place where whether or not they're able to win. it definitely goes to what you said earlier about republicans believe that they represent, quote unquote, the people, and the people who don't vote for them are in some sense not real americans anyway so don't necessarily deserve representation. but i think it also has to do with not necessarily the house with the structure of politics, where the republicans just don't need to win as many people in ordto maintain power. many cmaintainto wbuilhag ththank you so much. simmion it

the congressional budget office, also known as the cbo, is a non partisan congressional agency, which has provided -- since the 1970s. earlier this month, it released its economic forecast for the next ten years, which included a very fascinating bit of information that i think has gotten under covered regarding immigration. the report effectively says the gdp, the growth of all our economy, everything that we do, it's going to be boosted by seven trillion dollars more over the next ten years due to immigration. what's more, the federal government will raise an additional one trillion dollars in revenue thanks to high immigration rates. that means that a trillion dollars will go into government coffers in the form of taxes paid that wouldn't have otherwise. let me say that again. the u.s. economy is going to grow by seven trillion dollars over the next decade solely because of immigrants.

coming here to the u.s.. put another way, the amount the economy is projected to grow each year over the next five years alone is gonna be higher than the previous 15 years in large part because of immigration. in fact, the economy is expected to grow faster than it has since before the great recession. and as the cbo puts it, quote, at faster growth of potential gdp stems mainly from -- nuts immigration which increases the projected growth of the labor force. speaking of the growth of the labor force, immigration is effectively saving our labor supply in this country. look at this chart from the cbo

report. the orange line is the projected growth of people working in this country. see how it keeps going up at a dramatic rate? again, that is because of immigration. because even as our population ages out of the labor force, or people retire, immigrants, most of whom are adults of working age, are coming in to fill the gaps. all of which is to say, it's not a zero-sum game, at all. it's not people coming to take you are piece of the pie for themselves. the pie itself is just getting

bigger. we're making more stuff. there's more growth. to put it in raw numbers, the cbo projects labor force in 2033, the amount of people working in this country and contributing to the economy will be larger by more than 5 million people, mainly because of immigration. again, more people working and paying taxes and into social security. it also means more people buying houses, more people building houses, as cbo notes. because immigrants tend to live with family or friends initially and form their households gradually, i have rates of immigration will continue to stimulate construction of new homes during the second half of the 20 twenties. also worth knowing, immigrants are more likely to start businesses the native born americans.

yet another boon to economic growth. but you don't have to take my word for it or even the nonpartisan congressional budget office. just listen to donald trump's and picked chairman of the federal reserve. >> the u.s. economy has benefited from immigration, and frankly, just in the last year, a big part of the story of the labor market coming back into better balance is immigration returning to levels that were more typical of the pre- pandemic era. >> the country needed the workers. >> it did. >> right now, immigration, at the border specifically, is among the most dominant issue in american politics. it's why -- impeached homeland security secretary alejandro mayorkas last week by one vote. although that was a more political stunt than anything else. it was certainly the number one issue in yesterday's special election in new york's third congressional district. well it's true migration has produced genuine stress on a whole bunch of social systems and cities across the u.s., including here in new york, i've gotta say, the consistent tenor of the rhetoric surrounding immigrants in this

country is maddening. there is this notion that is embedded in the conversation about people coming across the border in right-wing media, though by known means exclusively, which basically posits that life in america is a zero sum game. that there's only so much stuff, and when you add more people, they come and take it. they're gonna come take your stuff. and it's just wrong. in the most basic way. it completely fails to account for the obvious gift and bounty that is and has been immigration to the united states. the countless social and cultural benefits, share, but just the sheer dollars and cents massive benefit to our economy. and so, as we get closer and closer to november's election, you're gonna hear politicians, perhaps even politicians of both parties, demonize migrants to score political points. but if you care about the growth of the u.s. economy and more deeply about the strength of our country as a whole, about the greatness of america, we should be grateful for our immigration rates. and find ways to make paths into this great country more orderly and humane.

you can make money the hard way as a bullfighter 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.

in the weeks ahead of last night's new york special election polling -- right the border in that district as a top issue, and republicans have a huge advantage on it. that's why you are seeing republicans and fox news continue to cover the issue, i mean, relentlessly doesn't even begin to describe it. and over the course of that new york campaign, senate democrats announced that work on a

bipartisan immigration bill. one that republican negotiator senator james lankford said was a strong conservative border bill. the border patrol union even endorsed it, which was shocking. and, then donald trump just killed it. because he wants the border to be as chaotic as possible so that he can run on it. he basically told everyone that. so the newest member of the new york congressional delegation, thomas suozzi, turned it into an advantage in the special election. spent a lot of time talking about the border, attacking his opponent for being against that bipartisan bill, and that strategy appears to have work. joining me now is democratic congressman -- sixth district, that is right next to the western side of new york three, encompassing much of northeastern queens. congresswoman, it's great to have you here. i saw this tweet of you at the ally our base side stock -- i heard from people that were working on this campaign that you are tireless working on this election. why did you think this race was so important? >> well, this is a race that we knew was gonna be a difficult

campaign. this was a race that was the republican parties to lose. and so what we've seen is that we had a candidate who was someone who would finally be able to provide proper and deserved representation for the constituents and the families of the third congressional district. and so, myself, the labor unions, the women who write postcards, and under represented communities, we did everything we could to ensure that tom suozzi would win this seat. >> i would like to show the map of the sixth and third district. because there's a little bit of queens that borders a district that is in this district. and we saw very high performance by suozzi last night there. and your district and parts of that district have a lot of immigrant communities. folks from all over the world who've come here. and i'm just curious how the politics of this question plays with those voters, the message here has been, look, suozzi pivoted to the right on immigration, and it helped him get tough on the border. don't let that issue be owned

by republicans. and from someone who represents a ton of immigrants across the world, what is your read on that? >> so, tom really leaned in to talking and engaging with the voters of his district. he didn't shy away. he wasn't missing. he didn't hide. you want to to do more debates, and he just got out there and talked to the people. when people feel like they're being heard, they want to support a candidate. first is a candidate who was rarely seen anywhere publicly in the district. she wasn't even allowed to answer questions at her own press conferences. and so, it's really important for voters that they have a candidate who is willing and ready to govern instead of just trying to entertain the top of the ticket, or playing in marjorie taylor greene's playpen, and just spouting hateful and fearful rhetoric. >> yeah. and you did a lot of -- you hosted him, i think, at a few events with local media from

another -- an number of different languages. things were translated into chinese and korean. there was a dim sum event with chinese americans in the area. so at the same time as you have this messaging about border migration, you have this at reach. is there tension between those two? >> this is why tom was such a good candidate. because he was willing to meet voters where they are. asian americans made up about 18 to 20% of the electorate in tom's decree district. so he went to multiple dim some events, korean fried chicken events, visiting south asian business owners, houses of worship. he really met people where they were. and he talked to them about immigration. he talked to them about being willing to govern and being willing to reach across the aisle to fix things, to get the job done. >> there are people inside the democratic coalition who -- chris murphy, for instance, wrote this memo. and it went out today saying basically, look, this is a blueprint that democrats should learn a lesson from. we risk losing the 2024

election if we don't seize this opportunity to go on offense with the issue at the border. so that's one position -- there are other folks, particularly folks who are in the immigrant rights movement, and other people have talked to, who are very wade that sort of reinforcing the kind of language republicans have been using about migrants coming to a place like new york city is gonna be bad politics, and also put people in danger. but it's sort of cultivates the worst instincts and people. what do you think? >> i think we can do it all. i think we can work together to look for a solution. tom is someone who said that he's been willing to work across the aisle to bring up a sensible and humane solution. but we also have to make sure to include the leaders of the people who are most impacted. we need to make sure that we're

including our immigration rights activists, and also members of our congress, like the congressional him spanish caucus. >> where does this go? now you're serving in a house that's got -- it's been the most dysfunctional that i've ever seen it in my time covering. they just lost another vote. what is gonna happen next? they have to bring things to the floor. the governments gotta get funded. this -- mike johnson saying he wants a border bill right now, even though they just ripped up one? what does this tangibly mean? tom suozzi's victory, the diminishment of that majority in terms of what this congress

looks like? >> i think that the republican party is in trouble. we now have, up to this point, 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. >> it's also interestinghey thought nobody would know that your book and all this stuff is complicated, right? people's instincts and on immigration sometime in the same person, sometimes in immigrant communities themselves are complicated about how people feel about allab this. and finding a way to talk about the complexity in a way that humanizes people and talks about solutions and doesn't do the opposite is really the skeleton key here. >> yeah, skeleton key inside a -- it's such a very, very fine needle to thread. >> yes, that's it exactly. >> i