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.

>> it'sat really hard. thank you, my friend as always. thanks to you at home for joining me thisu evening. we are following somein breakin news on multiple fronts tonight including at the supreme court where specialat counsel jack smh 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 consider donald trump's claim as former president he should be f absolutely immune fm any and all criminal charges. now,in last week a federal appes court unanimously rejected that argument. trumpje subsequently appealed tt 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 whereas

here a former president is charged with conspiring to subvert the c electoral processo that he coulde remain in offic. smith continues the nation has a compelling interest in the promptng resolution of this cas. in all criminal cases delay can be fatal to achieving just outcomes.al delay in a 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 personalpo interest in postponing trial proceedings must be weighed against two powerfuled counter veiling considerations. the government's interest in fully presenting its case without undue delay and the public's y compelling interest 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, andfa 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 muchra 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 appea 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 toem settle this matter as quicy as possible. and the supreme court said, nope, 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 t denial reflects this cou is notia inclined to review trump's claim, no reason for a stay exists. and the court is better sichuted tor assess that question now t 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, 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 you have an appeals court that's said in no uncertain terms trump's arguments were bogus. also in tonight's filing the special counsel offers the supreme court a second opinion if they don't like the first. he says if you do want to hear this case, supreme court, then please do it as quickly as as possible. smith writes if this court believesf trump's claim merits review at this time, the

governmentim respectfully reque it set the case for expedited briefing and argument. the government proposes a schedulern that would permit argument in march 2024 consistent with the court's expedition of other cases meriting such treatment. translation, if you're going to hear this case, you should hear itse next month. the special counsel even goes onto suggest a detailed schedule going forward. he suggests trump get ten days to filep his aurmtsz with the court. the special counsel could then get a week to respond, and trump could get fbisp days to respond again. the special counsel is basically saying let's b get all this paperwork done in about three weeks, huh? it's abundantly clear from this filingom tonight that special counsel jack smith isht really, really eager to get this case going. now, the question is will the supreme court listen? joining meeg now is kristi

greenberg,ti former federal prosecutor who servedg, for ovea decade in the u.s. attorney's office for the southern district of new york. alsoct joining me is mark josep stern, a senior writer for slate. i hear a quiet note of desperation in this q filing. am i wrong to hear that? is this the normal course of events when you're dealing with a high stakes federal election interference case involving the formerrf president? >> there's certainly a little bit of c desperation, but the mn note i detected here was urgency but also a sense i think jack smith's team was trying to get across that these are trustworthy attorneys and that they are making these arguments in good faith, and that they are thefa ones who stuv that presumption of good faith. they aren't rushing this. it's trump's side that's trying toru run out the clock. i'll note one of the signatories

on this filing was michael dreeben. he was a deputy solicitor-general for decades. he argued more than 100 cases before then supreme court. he's friends with chief justice john roberts. and i think that by sort of centering his style, making it clear this is michael dreeben is brief, jack smith's team is trying tok tell the court, hey we're people thatou you trust, are telling you the truth here. and so maybe we sound a little desperate, maybe we sound very urgent, but what we really want is to ensure justice be done here. and you should trust us more than the other side because we have o put all our cards on the table, and we deserve your presumption of good faith. >> kristi, the supreme court justices have a conference on friday. jack smith had until the 20th that heil filed early. do you think the justices might make a call on that this week? >> so i don't think it will come

as soon as that. i do think they're going to give donald trump and his attorneys an opportunity to reply.or the rules about whether or not, you know, what the timing is on aim replay are not all that cle. i expect his lawyers would reach out to the clerk, maybe get some informal guidance about timing of a reply. we're not talking weeks here. we're talking more like days, and i think they will give him an opportunityi to do that befe they rule, but i still expect we'll get a ruling some time i would say later next week. >> mark, i wonder whether -- there are a lot of people i think in the federal -- at the specialer counsel's office and maybe in 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 kristi suggests here, that they will wait for trump to reply here first? is that a signal they're going

to take this case up, or is that them trying to go by the books, man, and solely by the books? >> the t justices absolutely wa to play this by the books and that meansbo waiting some perio of time forea trump to file a reply briefly. traditionally that brief comes within about two days of the response, so that would put us some time ont friday. and afterme that point the supre court could rule any time. i'll note there's a real opportunity fore' mischief here because the rulesfo are so ambiguous, so notoriously vague, trump could sort of sit on this, wait for days, even weeks to file a reply brief and put the supreme court in ari real bind. they want to make it a look lik they're playing w it by the boo but donald trump never plays it by thebu 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'll 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. >> it feels like one party by virtue of the fact we're sitting here is it late february of nex week and the case has been frozen. nothing has happened in the actual, you know, federal election interference case. no jury selection, nothing. the date is very much tbd. smith sounds an optimistic note when he says, listen, if you just reject this immunity claim ultimately out of hand, we can get started in 88 days. you decide to take it up we can do it in march? do you think the supreme court if they take it up will follow on an expedited schedule? >> i do. i don't think the supreme court is going to want to be seen as

tipping the scales here. the same question thinking about theth oral argument that was ha in the colorado disqualification ballot where justice kagen pointed to the colorado lawyer and said ite put it to you, shod 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 this country whether or not this president is adjudicated for basically using his office and breaking the law to try to remain in power. and i don't think the supreme court is going topo want to be seen as doing that. they'reo focused as we saw in that argument a few weeks ago about consequences, about the perception of the court and the consequences of their actions. i just think if they do take this up, which i don't think they should, in order for this to be put on hold, which is what donald trump is asking for,

trump has to show the majority of the court, the majority of this court will reverse the d.c. court of appeals which was unanimous, justof like the district court opinion was very clear. again, i don't think he can meet the standard. the court should do is just deny his application and send it right back to judge chutkan. but if they want to put their stamp on it, they're going to move quickly. >> if they want to put their stamp on it, mark, and they hear oral arguments on it in march, do wait for late june for a decision? or i mean honestly on just a basic calender call here, if the supreme court doesn't decide what it's doing untile the beginning of the summer, this thing doesn't hemibefore the election, a trial doesn't happen before the election, does it? >> that'sle absolutely right. if the supreme court takes up this case and treats it like a regular old case, they'll put it over to these fall, absolutely way a 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 a supreme court that likes to have the last world on every possible matter of law,ev and so i think there's a strong chance they will decide to take up this case ratherhi than simply dismissingt and allowing the d.c. circuit to have t 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 otherbe cases, run of the mill cases granting cert, but they haven't been putting those cases in their april calender. i thinkpr there's a real possibility that the justices have known fory a while that ty were going to be extra busy with some 11th hour appeals in march and april, and they've actually been reducing their workload in anticipation of this case and perhaps another one or two that might come down the pipeline. and so even though i'm rather skeptical of this court in a lot of ways, i think they want to

resolve this case quickly. if they take it up i think they'll hold arguments in march or early april. i don't think they'll make the country wait until late june. and a u decision in may could a least inde theory allow for a trial in advance of november. >> i mean it would mean a trial in september or october. we'll set that aside. the court has a history of deciding to hear a case -- dobbs -- and not telling the public about it. kristie and mark, thank you both for your time tonight. 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 aly super bowl celebration. stay with us. l celebration. stay with us

♪ ♪

♪ ♪ ♪ ♪

today started with a doozy of a statement from the republican chair of the house intelligence committee, 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's 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 anymore 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. >> it was busted until i came along. i said, well, if we don't pay, are you going to protect us. i said absolutely not. if we don't pay and we're attacked by russia, will you protect us? i said 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 the do whatever the hell they want. >> i would do 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. 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 seems 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 nearly claiming ukraine as russian territory. those sincere thoughts also pointed toward something even more alarming, which is how putin views the rest of europe and in particularly -- and in particular our nato ally poland. >> before world war ii poland collaborated with hitler, and although it did not yield to

hitler's demands as the polls did not give corridor to germany, it went so far pushing hitler to start world war ii by attacking them. >> i mean who could forget adolph hitler was forced to invade poland because poland was stubborn and wouldn't simply surrender. thank you, president putin. now, that interview was released thursday. putin who's 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 on foreign relations. he doesn't talk like a traditional politician, and we've already been this now, and you think people would have figured it out by now. >> i just encourage people not

to overreact. i've learned a long time ago not to overreact to what president trump says or what he tweets. i think everyone should take what he says seriously but not literally. >> take everything of president trump seriously but not literally. >> when speak of the house mike johnson was asked about the 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 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 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 are going to talk about what that means for both republicans and for democrats coming up next. h republicans and for democrats coming up next

i've been saying, look, if they're not going to pay, we're not going to protect, okay? and this is so bad, this is so terrible and one of the heads of the countries stood up and said does that mean if we don't pay the bills you're not going to 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 is one thing, an incredibly dangerous thing to have the republican presidential front-runner saying things like this repeatedly, but it is all the more dangerous because trump's party seems to be completely reworking 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. gentlemen, thank you for joining me. mark, you would think after the panic that ensued over the weekend after trump said basically this thing about throwing nato allies to russia for not paying their bills, there might be some recalibration here but apparently not at all. the question i would ask you is does this effectively change the republican line on nato? >> no, god no. just to be clear what you just showed 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 applause to greet that tonight. i mean, look, it's the next iteration of the strong -- >> that was a pause --

>> i'm sure there was, yes. this is vladimir putin eight years ago, russia, if you're listening show us the e-mails. there were absurdities in many ways. now we're going directly from point "a" to point "b" and at least the base of the republican party is cheering loudly. and the marco rubios and the john cornyns, mostly rubio -- that was an appalling statement i thought. it all rolls into each other, and this is where we are. >> so you do think it's changing the position of the republican party on this. i mean 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 interventionest is like, yeah, well, nato members got to pay their bills. i mean i guess it's not surprising that lindsey graham takes a knee to donald trump,

you know, when push comes to shove, that's mixing metaphors, but, wow, on russia. there are no sacred. >> yes. you didn't think you'd be surprised anymore, but this is genuinely shock. if you step back from the clownishness of donald trump what you're seeing is a seismic shift of the republican party. and the party is going along with it. and it's not just the rhetoric. i mean the other context here is the republican party in the house of representatives is in the process of blocking aid to ukraine. you know, 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 wouldn't have been considered absolutely beyond the pail and reckless even a few years ago in trump's

first term. but i also think we need to step back from, you know, just the political implications of this because this is a former president of the united states, a future commander in chief who is signaling to the rest of the world, to our allies, and 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, the fact they're kind of blowing it off with that cliche about we take him seriously butinate literally, how do you think vladimir putin takes this? how do you think vladimir putin takes the fact 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? >> yeah, it's such an essential point, this is happening against a backdrop of a war in ukraine and funding bill republicans are

refusing to pass that could be make-or-break in the struggle. even if you're rhetorically in the gray your actions if you're the republican congress speaking loudly. i want to bring up about how and why the republican party has so thoroughly capitulated to trump's whiles. to many elected republicans it felt like an answer to their prayers when a strong man parachuted in and started telling them what to do. maybe his orders were reckless and contradictory, as long as you did your best to keep obeying you could keep winning your primaries. it's such a cynical assessment but i think it's spot on. >> shout out to my colleague mckay. i agree with everything charlie said, but if you think about it this is not a think about it this is not a reasoned analysis of american policy or foreign policy position we're getting from the base. we're getting kind of wrote applause for donald trump, for

the strong man. and if you think about what populism is at its core, in america today it's sort of celebrity, like that is populism. and donald trump i mean in its purest form rode that to victory. he's taken that but basically taking the most literal form and telling the people what to do, and they are applauding with no sense of what the policy ramifications could be and what the real world ramification could be, which is, frankly, a catastrophic one for ukraine. >> 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 much about anything. but lindsey graham knows, mark cornyn knows. they know about foreign policy, and yet it's just appalling

their capitulation to a very, 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 there are still republicans like mitch mcconnell, and, you know, in the senate who understand the immediate stakes and who are trying to, you know, stand up to vladimir putin. but look at the generational shift in this party. i mean 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? it feels 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 both by the, you know, trumpest, the nihilism of donald trump but also this new -- 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 adolph 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. we didn't get to talk about all the things but thanks for sitting here and talking about the things we did get to talk

about. thank you both for your time in this very dark hour for the globe. coming up, we'll talk to the chair of 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. problem, gun violence that is next 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.

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 you never think you're going to be the one covering it when it happens, but it can happen anywhere. >> it can happen anywhere. that was katelyn, a local anchor for an affiliate in kansas city. she was covering the kansas city chiefs super bowl victory parade today when gunfire broke out killing at least one person. according to kansas police at least 21 others were wounded by gunfire including nine children between the ages of 6 and 15. all of them are expected to recover. three people are in custody but no motive is currently known. so far nbc news is reporting the shooting appears to be criminal in nature and not terrorism. congressman emmanuel cleaver represents kansas city as part

of missouri's fifth congressional district. he joins me now. congressman, thank you for being here. i understand you had family members who were in attendance at the event, and first our thoughts and our hope that they are in safe hands. can you tell us a bit more about that and how this has impacted your own community? >> well, there was always going to be a float for a congressional representative because we had an important vote here on the impeachment vote, the silly impeachment of mayorkas, the secretary of homeland security. i decided i would stay and last minute i wanted to try to get there early morning and get there and get back. so my wife and children went down to the station. when the shooting started they were ushered inside the station with a number of other elected officials and officials of the

kansas city chiefs football team. so they made it out. but, you know, there were people that were killed and there's one woman i know and it's a sad, sad day because it was june 17, 1933 when pretty boy floyd came into the parking lot that everybody saw on tv and shot and killed four g men in front of union station and they were trying to break him out of jail. it's unfortunate one of the major attractions to kansas city has had visited upon it some of the worst things we can think about. but the worst thing about today after the unnecessary killing and wounding of people who went

out to a have good time, it's the fact it made me realize even more i'm a party that does nothing, even in the face of tragedy nothing at all, thoughts and prayers. you know, i don't need thoughts and prayers of those people and others who 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 the people around the whole country are angry that, you know, when some tragedy like this occurs, we march 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 without action is just wasted words. and frankly, i'm tired of the wasted words, and we ought to be ashamed of ourselves as a

legislative body to allow these actions to continue. and probably 100 other shootings we'll never know about. >> missouri has the 48th worst gun laws in the united states of america. there's no universal background checks, gun owner licensing, domestic violence gun laws, assault weapons restrictions. do you think that had a direct effect on what happened today, congressman? >> absolutely. and i'm emparised about the fact we're so far behind we're coming across as troglodytes as it relates to this issue. all people want common sense gun regulations, and people have lied to people for years and years and years. they're after 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 gun. but i think we have military-style guns. we have guns that are not used

for deer hunting, and those are used right now almost exclusively to kill human beings. and the truth is we can do better in missouri. i realize people, you know, look at us as a rural state, but i think there are a lot of people in missouri like people around the world who if they had a chance to vote on common sense gun regulations, go to the ballot box and vote, they would vote for it. we're not talking about taking people's 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 in a statement today says we know what we have to do, we just need the courage to do it. congressman of missouri, thank you for taking the time tonight. we trust your family safe and well. thank you again. >> thank you. still ahead tonight on the

heels of a big victory for new york democrat tom souzzi, a whole bunch of democrats are saying his strategy to talk tough on the border could be the path to victory in november, but is everyone in the party onboard with that? i'll talk to congresswoman pramila jayapal about what happens next. jayapal about what happens next

the southern border is 2,000 miles away, but the migrant crisis has landed right in our backyard. i'll work across the aisle to do what our leaders haven't, secure our border. close the routes used for illegal immigration but open a path to citizenship for those following the rules. i'll work with anyone to get it done. >> that was not a republican campaign ad. it was released last month by tom souzzi. the new york democrat ran a

campaign focused on immigration policy and strict border policy in a district where republicans had won every major election in the past three years until yesterday. that's when mr. souzzi defeated his republican opponent and flipped the seat that was vacated by disgraced maga fabulist george santos. today democrats including senator chris murphy says souzzi's victory should provide a road map for the democratic party in november. murphy told democrats they should learn a lesson from new york 3. we risk losing the 2024 election if we do not seize this opportunity to go on offense on the issue of the border and turn the tables on republicans on a key fall voting issue. joining me now is congresswoman pramila jayapal. thank you for making the time. i've been so eager to know how you think -- what you think of the sort of broadly held suggestion today that democrats

run the souzzi play book on immigration. do you think that that is the right idea? >> well, i think it demands on what you call the souzzi play book. congratulations to tom souzzi. i served with him before, looking forward to serving 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. now, he also, alex, talked about a path to citizenship. i mean he talked ability the issue of immigration as being one that needs to be fixed. and later on in the campaign he also talked about the hypocrisy of republicans who don't want to fix it, who want to leave it out there as an issue to just try to divide us. he also was very, very inclusive in talking about his own immigration story, in talking about ellis island. i mean he really had a fairly

inclusive message. is it exactly the message i would have used in my district, no. but i think the lesson should not be you got to 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 just can't say how much progressives deserve credit for this race as well. because battleground new york, which was a progressive labor and community coalition knocked on 100,000 doors in that district and the aapi vote for the first time there was a very on the ground campaign with tom speaking to every asian american community, learning to speak a bit of the languages, going out with lit, with dedicated hot lines for people with different languages 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 aapis. now, we'll see what the final numbers are, but i think these two things together are a reminder 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 is -- is -- the immigration system is broken and that what's 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 and hasn't performed. >> well, you know i love talking about the aapi community, but i do think one of the things mr. souzzi touted was 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 of democrats really quote-unquote serious about fixing the problem. i mean is that the right piece of policy in the minds of

progressives to show the american voter that the democratic party is serious about immigration reform? >> no, i think what the message there is republicans are hypocrites. this is what we've been saying for a long time. they don't want to fix it. tay pushed for the most restrictive immigration policy, policy i don't agree with and i don't think democrats should have gone along with. even when they got a lot of that, 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 no more legal pathways that work, no more processing that works, delays that simply don't allow for people to come and join 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. it's 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's 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. "way too early" with jonathan lemire is coming up next. and this is a day that a lot of people look forward to, something they remember for a lifetime. and what they shouldn't have to remember is the threat of