it's fancy. >> it's the good stuff. >> election night in america. that can only mean one thing. the legend at the maps, steve kornacki. >> i'm a diva, honey. and that's what we do. >> here we are trucking. this is what it looks like when we do a news show from the road. >> i got called in. >> you feel great, but i would be more happy. >> we're in brooklyn. >> if it's friday, it's -- >> time to fall back. >> hey. >> fall back on friday in brooklyn. tomorrow, you can catch us at 4:00 p.m. eastern. that's @arimelber on tiktok and the beat weekend tomorrow at 4:00 p.m. right now, jason johnson is in for "the reidout." good evening, everyone. welcome to "the reidout." jason johnson in for joy reid. again tonight with the breaking news out of moscow where a shooting attack has left at

least 40 dead and over 100 injured. that's according to russian state news agencies. this is what we know right now. the attack occurred at crocus city hall, a large concert venue northwest of central moscow. according to our viewers, we're about to show some disturbing videos. you're now seeing the inside of the concert hall where at least three men in camouflage broke in and opened fire. shooting an unknown number of people. russian officials say several of these gunmen fires automatic weapons at the crowd. the fire also started inside the venue. firefighters evacuated about 100 people from the basement of the building and efforts are under way to rescue people from the roof. who committed this and why is still very much unknown. islamic state known as isis has claimed responsibility, but without providing proof for the attack on the concert venue. their claim came from an isis affiliated account on telegram. nbc news has not yet verified

the claim, but russian officials said they were investigating the attack as a terrorist attack. let's bring in michael mcfaul, former u.s. ambassador to russia. peter baker, chief white house correspondent for "the new york times" who previously was moscow bureau chief of the washington post, and former cia director john brennan. thank you so much for joining us. john, i want to start with you on this. the idea that isis or someone in control of the isis telegram account has claimed responsibility for this, how credible is that, just from your experience? and what would be the motivation for isis to commit this kind of terror attack in russia? >> well, it's a very critical claim. especially given that the u.s. embassy issued a public warning earlier this month about extremists planning to carry out an attack. that usually refers to these

fanatic islamic groups. isis-k has long believes the russians have suppressed the muslims in syria, afghanistan, and in the caucus esas well. therefore, i think islamic militants, it's very believable they were the ones to carry out the attack. the fact they mowed down individuals and clearly it was an effort to try to cause havoc and kill as many people as possible. so therefore, i do believe that we're hearing, at least some initial reports including from some american officials, that it was isis, which is a large group now. it has a number of umbrella groups underneath it that really is from afghanistan, from pakistan, in that area. and it looks as though this was planned for quite some time because they were able to defeat russian security services and carry out this attack. >> ambassador mcfaul, it's both

shocking and surprising to see this sort of attack happen within russia. almost immediately, we heard from an aide from president zelenskyy in ukraine tweeting out, ukraine certainly has nothing to do with the shooting, explosions at crocus city hall. it makes no sense whatsoever. just strategically speaking, you know, obviously, it makes sense for ukraine to immediately come out and disavow any sort of association with this. is that something that we can find credible right now? is it something that they're just saying because they need to say this, or would it really be foolish strategically for the ukrainians who are in a very bloody battle to resist russian aggression to be anywhere connected to something like this? >> i think it's very credible. and it's consistent with the pattern of the way that ukraine is fighting russia. and the invading forces in their country right now. they're doing whatever it takes

to try to fight back. they're striking targets inside russia, what they consider to be military targets. and i believe that to be true. but they have never done terrorist attacks. at least to the best of my knowledge, against russians anywhere. and therefore, this is consistent with them not doing that. i would underscore that that's opposite from the way the russian government fights inside ukraine, where they are terrorizing ukrainian civilians all the time, including last night in kyiv. ukraine does not fight that way. now that we have isis-k taking credit for it, i think that until proven otherwise should be the working hypothesis, and those russians, including some former officials that immediately blamed ukraine, that to me was a very shameful act. >> ambassador, i want to follow up with this. i looked up a little bit about the group that was performing. it was a rock band called

picnic. they actually were banned from performing in ukraine since 2016 because they performed in crimea. do you think there was any sort of symbolism to this? do you think that not just the venue but the band had anything to do with this? or do you really think, again, it's more likely to be isis because it doesn't fit the strategy of the ukrainian army? >> i don't know. that's a great question. i don't know the answer. i do know the band, by the way. and it's kind of a hippie band from the late '70s, early '80s. it's not a pro-putin group that would be there if i were guesstimating. i don't know of any particular reason why they would strike there. other than the fact that the owner of this complex is close to mr. putin. so maybe that is why they targeted this particular place. >> peter baker, i want to step back for a second.

the world has made it pretty clear that they want to be on the right side of history. there aren't many people backing russia's invasion of ukraine, it's not a popular war even within russia. so what are sort of putin's options here? because when you have an attack like this happen, even right after a land slide election that he just recently won, does this weaken him? are there allies that are going to come to his aid for an investigation into this attack? where does putin find sort of a sensitive or empathetic ear after facing this sort of attack given what his army has been doing in ukraine for almost two years now? >> yeah, i think that's a fair point. he doesn't have a lot of sympathy, at least not in the west. not europe or the united states. he did, though, get a warning from the united states about this very attack. not only did the u.s. embassy say on march 7th there was indications of some sort of a large scale possible attack by extremists including at a concert venue, but american

officials say they specifically talked to the russian government about that. gave them whatever information they had to give them at that time. they did have help from the united states even as we are, of course, at odds over ukraine. but you're right to ask the question of what putin does now. this makes him look weak. add least in his eyes. he has historically looked at terrorist attack in moscow, which were quite common 20 years ago around the time he first came to power, as an opportunity to -- first of all, as a show of weakness on his part which he needs to dispel, and use them as an opportunity then to make political, you know, moves that crack down on dissent. i was in russia in 2004 when terrorists took over a school in a small town. and the first thing that happened, 330 people died, half of them school children. the first thing putin did was blame the west, and second of all, he canceled all elections of governors from then on. not just governors in the region where it happened, not just

temporarily, but all across the 11 time zones of russia. why? because it was an opportunity for him to say we need more central control from the kremlin in a country where such a terrorist attack could happen. you could easily see him using this as an excuse to further clamp down on dissent. there's not a lot of room for dissent as it is in russia right now. but that would be his natural playbook, looking at history. >> former director brennan, i want to go back to this idea that putin had a warning. even the united states said, hey, look, this could potentially happen. you're in danger, et cetera, et cetera. just for the uninformed and uninitiated. we are on the opposite side of russia. we are defending ukraine. the russian federation still considered a problem. there's no question there unless you happen to be a certain kind of republican. what is the incentive? what was the incentive of the united states to give warnings on terrorist attacks like this to putin's government?

and the fact that this came true, does it in any way thaw relations? are there any sort of undercover thank yous occurring or do the russians ignore this and say, well, you warned us about something. >> u.s. intelligence community takes very seriously its responsibility. they get information about planned terrorist attacks against targets around the world. and it's credible. it's reliable, and especially if it's specific, which this one, we will share that information with the foreign services, the security and intelligence services. and clearly, there was some significant specificity to this when there was reference to concert halls and in coming days. so the timing of this warning i think was very much on target in terms of what happened here. i'm sure it was passed to the russian security services. i don't know what the russians did with it. there is a regular channel

between u.s. intelligence and russian intelligence to share this information. and so therefore, i don't know any additional information that might have been shared to the russians. but i think, and picking up on what peter said, i think what the putin regime will do is to point the fingers to a foreign hand in this, and to blame outsiders for what happened here. but clearly, the u.s. intelligence had reliable intelligence either from human sources or from technical means that gave them the insight in advance of this attack and it's quite unfortunate and regretful that there wasn't measures taken to prevent this attack from taking place. >> ambassador mcfaul, this is the kind of thing that under most circumstances, a functional democracy, right, would obviously, there might be an election called or something else like that. let's look at the last year, year and a half of putin's leadership.

you have an unpopular war in ukraine. you had a little revolt of one of the most popular generals. you have shootings of important aides of his and sort of gangland '20s style drive-by shootings, et cetera, and now you have this kind of attack. even with a sort of sham election just days ago, what is likely happening within the sort of political sphere of russia right now? are generals and other leaders beginning to question putin? because this is not a strong -- this is not a resume of a strong leader over the last year. these are actually both internal and external issues that appear to show a man who is losing his grip on his country. >> i think that's right. whether you'll hear that from a russian government official, i doubt. you most certainly won't see it on russian state television. what you're going to see instead is a rallying around the flag effect. we need to be tougher, and as peter was talking about, i suspect even more crackdown on

civil society and various people, even more control. but already, there's an undertone going on, on my social media channels from russians inside russiana from outside, saying if we're so strong, why did this happen? why are we focusing on phantom enemies like nazis in ukraine or lgbtq activists when we have these real threats. i don't want to overstate it, because this is a very strong authoritarian regime inside russia. but that has already happened in the initial phases suggesting that will linger and that is a problem for vladimir putin. it reminds me a little bit of the debate we saw that has been developing inside israel. of course, everybody rallied after october 7th against that horrific terrorist attack. but then people began to ask questions. why did it happen? big difference, of course, is that israel is a democracy and an open society. russia is not.

but i think that will linger for putin. this is not a good look for him. especially when he just told everybody that he's this strong leader that everybody allegedly supported in the elections just last week. >> yeah, it seems like his only strength is eliminating his political enemies after the fact. that's not the sign of a strong leader or a dictator. ambassador michael mcfaul, peter baker, and john brennan, thank you so much for starting us off on "the reidout." coming up, donald trump has less than 72 hours to pay his $454 million bond in his civil fraud case. more on that next on "the reidout." reidout. if you have chronic kidney disease you can reduce the risk of kidney failure with farxiga. because there are places you'd like to be.

farxiga can cause serious side effects, including ketoacidosis that may be fatal, dehydration, urinary tract, or genital yeast infections, and low blood sugar. a rare, life-threatening bacterial infection in the skin of the perineum could occur. stop taking farxiga and call your doctor right away if you have symptoms of this infection, an allergic reaction, or ketoacidosis. ♪ far-xi-ga ♪ if you have bladder leaks when you laugh or cough- like we did- there's a treatment that can help: bulkamid. and the relief can last for years.

we're so glad we got bulkamid. visit findrealrelief.com to find a physician near you.

it's the burning political question on everyone's mind this year. will donald trump face criminal trial before the november election? well, we could get an answer as early as next week. monday was supposed to be day one of trump's new york hush money trial, but it was pushed back to mid-april after prosecutors handed over a last-minute batch of documents. instead, on monday, judge marchan will hold a hearing to assess that evidence. and he's expected to set a trial date. but even though it may seem like trump's delay tactics are working, there is one thing that he can't delay anymore. and that is the $454 million he owes new york attorney general letitia james.

and the clock is ticking. as trump has less than 72 hours to put up the money. or the a.g. can begin seizing his bank accounts or properties in any state including potentially trump tower or mar-a-lago. and despite the fact that trump's lawyers say he's been unable to secure a bond, trump in one of his unhinged overnight all cap social media rants claimed that, quote, through hard work, talent, and luck, he actually has almost $500 million in cash. which is basically just undercutting his own lawyers' arguments. joining me to discuss is charles coleman, former brooklyn prosecutor and msnbc legal analyst and one of the best dressed people on the air. and david k. johnston, founder of dcreport.org and author of the big cheat, one of the best experts on trump ever. david, i'll going to start with you. from a legal and a political standpoint, we have all been

terrified about the fact donald trump is going to use all of the delaying tactics he can to not pay his fines, but i want you to contextualize this. isn't this just exactly how trump does everything? hasn't he always had a life of running up bills and fines and then getting out of it? that's what i'm seeing here. is that what you see? >> for the whole 35 years i have covered donald it's been the same story. he's not a wealth builder. he is a money extractor. and it runs through his hands like water. and that's why he's constantly in need of cash. on monday it's possible he will put a financial rabbit out of the hat yet again. we may not know how he got the $500 million. we may not know to whom he is beholden. but don't be surprised if somehow at the last moment he comes up with the money to delay any enforcement action by depositing it with the court.

>> charles, i have asked this question, you know, before and i have asked several different experts. is there a sort of order or a strategy to what assets tish james may take from trump if he's not able to come up with nony? like i said, i have my dream that trump tower will be covered with a giant banner that says spirit of halloween. they're not going to take the letters on day one. what do they go after first? is there a strategy to that or just what's the easiest thing to acquire from her office? >> well, i think those two things are one in the same in the sense that you go after what's easiest not only to acquire but to liquidate. when you're talking about real property assets, one of the difficulties you think about if you're letitia james and her office is number one, the notion of valuing those things is very difficult because you have to get them appraised and once you get them appraised you have to go into the long and protracted

process of actually liquidating those things. not to mention that in between that process, you actually have to manage those things. so mar-a-lago, for example, is a resort. in the middle of seizing mar-a-lago, you would then have to take over and assume responsibility for the management of mar-a-lago so that the property value did not go down significantly. that's not the business that letitia james and the office of the attorney general are in in the state of new york. so that's not going to be attractive. so all of these things are going to be considerations when you talk about what the value is but then also what is the ease in which we can turn this property, if you will, or this asset into hard cash, because that's what is king in this situation. >> yeah, the idea that we're basically trying to, you know, that the government is going to have to try to flip donald trump sounds like an hgtv show, but it's the tactical legal process we have to go through. i want to follow up on this. i think this is really interesting. what would be a potential

danger? let's say the new york office did go after mar-a-lago. wouldn't there be a potential risk the money it takes to manage that asset ends up eating away at the eventual value of selling it? is that one of the dangers? >> that's absolutely the case, i can tell you as a former prosecutor, that you do not necessarily want to seize things that are not real property in terms of, you know, cars, boats, homes, things of that nature. you don't want to seize businesses. you want hard cash or things you can very easily auction off, liquidate, and get the cash for right away. something like mar-a-lago is a very risky item or property to seize because, again, that value is going to fluctuate in such a way that the attorney general's office could potentially lose money or the value that they seize it for may not ultimately be the value that they get once they liquidate it, and then at that point, the judge is going to look at them and say, well, that's your fault, not the fault of the defendant in this case. so you have to be very careful with the types of assets you go after, whether they're real property or otherwise, because

you can't control what happens once you take control of them, especially if they're active businesses. the likes of which you're not responsible or accustomed to running, so you're not used to that. >> david, there is another potential windfall other than, say, russia and foreign money which is where trump seems to usually get his money from. there is another potential windfall, the sort of going public of this truth social, and trump could get access to up to $3 billion. but there's a catch to this. what politico is saying right now is that even though trump's state will be tied up for much of the year under a so-called lock-up agreement, a normal arrangement for such deals to make sure insiders don't bail, trump could try to obtain a waver from that rule, but even then he wouldn't be able to sell more than a small traction of his stake at any given time, up to 1% of the outstanding shares every quarter.

david, again, trump has made a career of trying to skirt around these kinds of rules. do you think he's going to just try to cash out of truth social and fight in court to see if he can use all the money now rather than trying to use it later? that seems to be the only way other than going to a foreign government that he can get the cash he needs. >> actually, wall street came up with more than 30 years ago other techniques to do this sort of thing. during the dotcom era, we had all these executive founders who got $100,000 salaries but they suddenly own yachts and airplanes. you pledge the stock to one of the investment houses or wealthy people in donald's case, perhaps, and they advance you cash against it. now, of course, the risk they run is that six months from now, the stock will be worthless. but they can also do what's called they can short that stock and they have his stock as a short, which would insulate

them. reminded here of the line in trading places where eddie murphy says, oh, i get it. you guys are bookies. and donald can probably find a way to get someone to finance it, but if anybody is financing donald, if he doesn't have, as his crazy claim that he has half a billion dollars, we need to be worried about who is behind this. i don't mean the person who wrote the check. i mean who is behind them. we never had a president in hoch to other people. he's in hawk to a swiss company. they're careful to protect the president from income by the state governments or foreign interests. never thought about debt. >> and certainly not in this particular way. and i love your reference to trading places. i had this image of two administrations later and there's a poor donald trump on a

park bench and someone drops him some cash. he's like, we're back. charles, i got to ask you this. one of the concerns also that people have is if donald trump is able to continue to delay, he gets into the white house, and then some sort of magic happens. it seems to me that legally, wouldn't he be required to pay this back even if he ends up being president of the united states? even -- he may have immunity from criminal prosecution, but if you owe money, you still owe money even if you became president, correct? >> that is correct, jason. under our current system of law, if you will, there is nothing that would insulate donald trump even if he were the president from having to satisfy a judgment that existed before he took office. even if he owed money as the president, that would not be something he could shield himself of or wave his magic wand as an executive of the united states of america and make it disappear. i think that people need to understand in terms of what he should be worried about, the e. jean carroll judgment as well as the judgment with respect to

letitia james are things he will inevitably have to deal with because he can't do anything about them even if he's sitting at the resolute desk at 1600 pennsylvania. after that, the case in fulton county has to become the biggest issue he's dealing with because even if he replaces the a.g., for example, on the federal level with the doj, that's a state case and he can't do anything about it. those two things are things he has to be mindful of. >> charles coleman and david k. johnston, thank you for joining us tonight on "the reidout." up next, attorney general merrick garland taking his time on legal action against trump has been a major source of frustration for many. with his january 6th trial now possibly notappening before the election. there's new reporting on what was going on behind the scenes at the doj. that's next on "the reidout."

meet the jennifers. jen x. jen y. and jen z. each planning their future through the chase mobile app.

jen x is planning a summer in portugal with some help from j.p. morgan wealth plan. let's go whiskers. jen y is working with a banker to budget for her birthday. you only turn 30 once. and jen z? her credit's golden. hello new apartment. three jens getting ahead with chase. solutions that grow with you. one bank for now. for later. for life. chase. make more of what's yours. chase. here's why you should switch fo to duckduckgo on all your devie duckduckgo comes with a built-n engine like google, but it's pi and doesn't spy on your searchs and duckduckgo lets you browse like chrome, but it blocks cooi and creepy ads that follow youa from google and other companie. and there's no catch. it's fre. we make money from ads, but they don't follow you aroud join the millions of people taking back their privacy by downloading duckduckgo on all your devices today.

228. that is the number of days left until election day. that's all the time donald trump has left to continue to delay his criminal trials before he potentially gets the chance to wipe the slate clean for his alleged transgressions. should we even be in a position where we're frantically watching the clock, hoping that some accountability will be served to a man who tried to take over the

country? you have to remember that some of these investigations have been years in the making over at the department of justice, and there have been criticisms leveled at merrick garland for not having moved faster. "the new york times" is out today with a new look into garland's efforts over the past few years. and the concerns over his by the book caution and wariness to appear partisan. the times notes, quote, in trying to avoid even the smallest mistakes, mr. garland might have made one big one. not recognizing that he could end up racing the clock. like much of the political world in official washington, he and his team did not count on mr. trump's political res reaction after january 6th. and his fast victory in the 2024 republican presidential primary. which is complicating the prosecution and given the former president leverage in court. joining me nuto discuss is jill wine banks, former assistant

watergate special prosecutor, msnbc legal analyst, and cohost of the sisters in law podcast. jill, thank you for joining us tonight on "the reidout." i am -- i am who they speak. i am one of the many people who has been complaining for years that merrick garland has taken too much time. that it's not just an issue of caution. it almost looks like complicity at this particular point. in your perspective, given your political experience, given your legal experience, is there any justification for why merrick garland has worked so slowly in a situation that was so -- it continues to be so absolutely crucial to the future of this country? >> let me say that i have joined you in being critical of merrick garland. my husband is the only one i know who is more critical than i am. but, you do have to be careful when you're dealing with a unique circumstance, a first-time prosecution of a former president.

you want to make it exactly as good as it can possibly be. you want to cover every possible error that could come up. and make sure you have evidence beyond reasonable doubt. you don't want to aim for the king and lose. on the other hand, the length of time this has taken is unconscionable. i hate to cite a trite phrase that justice delayed is justice denied, and if as the article suggests merrick garland didn't foresee the delays that trump would bring to this case, i find that hard to believe because those were very predictable. his past history of cases would show you that delay, delay, diversion, distraction, those are his best legal defenses. and so it was predictable. and it should have been happening. now, he did, within six days of january 6th, appoint an inspector general to look at how the justice department have

handled this. there was plenty to look at there as we all know. so he wasn't doing nothing, and in a way, although i was very unmoved by "the new york times" reporting, because it does show that he was doing -- he was taking action, wasn't sitting around doing nothing. so it didn't move the needle in terms of persuading unpersuaded people that he wasn't doing nothing, and it didn't meet the goal which i think was merrick garland trying to show that he really has been a good attorney general and that he should serve a second term. that's what i think the goal was. i don't think it got anywhere near achieving that goal. >> i want to play, i'm going to read some of this headline here, inside garland's effort to prosecute trump. prosecutors in the fbi spent months sticking to their traditional playbook. they started with smaller players and worked upward, despite the efforts taken by

mr. trump in public and behind the scenes to retain power after voters rejected his bid for another term. look, jill, i say this all the time. if you want to get tony, fine, you flip michael. if you want to flip a corner boy in order to get omar, okay, fine. but that doesn't make any sense in a coup. it's almost as if no one at the department of justice understood any semblance of history. the vast majority of people who attacked us on january 6th, they had no direct connection to trump. there's no one they can actually flip on. so can you explain perhaps why merrick garland, anybody in his office, thought that going after a political coup, a violent political coup that you can use the same strategy as you would going after a drug dealer or a mobster? >> i think the headline in your statement captures exactly what the worst mistake was. and that was in many cases, you do try to flip the underlings to

talk about the higher ups. not in a case like this where you saw it happen live. you didn't need to spend all the resources department of justice spent immediately on getting the rioters. yes, they deserve to be prosecuted and they should be. but if you have limited resources, then you should have started at the hotel war room, at all the people who were there. you should have started with how did they not know about cassidy hutchinson? during watergate, going back that far, secretaries were some of the best witnesses because people don't pay attention to what they're saying in front of them, and they hear and they know. and so why weren't they looking at the aides to all of these top people? that would have been a better place to start, was starting, maybe not with the chief of staff to the president, but the chief of staff to the chief of staff would have been a good place, and look what we got from her. so i think there were definite mistakes made.

there's no way that in the case like this anybody except maybe the leaders of the proud boys, who might have had a connection, there was some reason to look at those who were being charged with seditious conspiracy, because they did seem to if not directly to the president, and there's some evidence there were called to the white house, certainly to the war room at the hotel. they had connections. and so that would have been the lowest i would have gone. and i would have diverted all of the resources to looking at donald trump and his top aides. >> yeah, it seemed like a waste of resources to be running after a bunch of twitter terrorists who came to d.c.s for the weekend. jill wine-banks thank you for joining us tonight on "the reidout." >> thank you, jason. coming up, if the republican party wasn't already divided enough, maga is going to maga, with marjorie taylor greene filing a motion to fire the

speaker. that's what's up next on "the reidout" with jason johnson.

everybody wants super straight, super white teeth. they want that hollywood white smile. new sensodyne clinical white provides 2 shades whiter teeth and 24/7 sensitivity protection. i think it's a great product. it's going to help a lot of patients. voices of people with cidp: cidp disrupts. cidp derails. let's be honest... all: cidp sucks! voices of people with cidp: but living with cidp doesn't have to. when you sign up at shiningthroughcidp.com, you'll find inspiration in real patient stories,

helpful tips, reliable information, and more. cidp can be tough. but finding hope just got a little easier. sign up at shiningthroughcidp.com. all: be heard. be hopeful. be you. hi, i'm janice, sign up at shiningthroughcidp.com. and i lost 172 pounds on golo. when i was a teenager i had some severe trauma in my life and i turned to food for comfort. a friend told me that i was the only one holding me back from being as beautiful on the outside as i am the inside. once i saw golo was working, i felt this rush, i just had to keep going. a lot of people think no pain no gain, but with golo it is so easy. when i look in the mirror, i don't even recognize myself. golo really works. ♪♪ no. ♪♪ -no. -nuh-uh. ♪♪ yeah. oh. yes. ♪♪ oh yeah. yes.

isn't this great? yeeaahhhh!! ♪♪ yeah, i could do a cartwheel in here. oh hey! would you like to join us? no. we would love to join you. ♪♪

earlier today, we got yet another reminder what an absolute joke the modern day republican organization has truly become. the day started with georgia congresswoman marjorie taylor greene, trump's dutiful bull dog in the house, filing a motion to vacate against speaker mike

johnson. she's put him on notice she wants him out of there. motion came just minutes before about half of her republican colleagues approved a $1.2 trillion spending package tossing the government shutdown hot potato over to the senate. they accused speaker johnson of abandoning republicans because he didn't agree to shut down the government over spending. >> this is a betrayal of the american people, this is a betrayal of republican voters. i filed a motion to vacate, but it's more of a warning. >> is this the fight you want in an election year? >> absolutely. >> people are getting sick and tired of being sick and tired even in the republican party. mike gallagher of wisconsin announced today that he was resigning next months after previously announcing that he was retiring at the end of his term. he's joining colorado tea party congressman ken buck who also chose early retirement effective today. he told reporters that

retirement was more appealing that the maga republican dysfunction. the maga house majority will be down to one single seat. joining me now to discuss is dr. christina greer, pliical scientist and host of the blackest questions podcast, and fernand amandi, msnbc political analyst. great to have you all tonight. i will begin with you, professor. in my experience, if you have a lot of people of one party choosing to retire rather than run again, that tends to be a sign that they feel like they're not going to keep their jobs this fall, or that they're not going to be in a position of power after the next election. is that what we see happening here with these republicans or are they just saying i just don't want to work there anymore, even if trump became president? >> i think it could be both, jason. here's the thing, oftentimes it's the institution like say the rnc, that would help them get re-elected, that would give them the tools they need.

and so many republicans just recognize that their party is in such disarray. they can see it's slowly but surely fully becoming the financial party of donald trump. and they're choosing to just pack up their bags and go home and not even give their constituents the decency of staying through their term. there's also a growing segment of republicans who recognize they can cash out now and make a lot more money outside congress by either lobbying when the time comes or serving as consultants so the work of going to d.c., which is a very dysfunctional place with so many faction within the republican party, they don't feel like doing it anymore. it was never for many of them about serving the people of their district and serving the people of america. >> fernand, we're going to move from the organization of dysfunction, because they're no longer a party, just a dime store front for the terrorist organization, to the governing party, the democrats. the biden administration, a new announcement, they're about to

forgive $5.8 billion in debt for nearly 78,000 borrowers. if you look at in the in context, biden has forgiven $143.6 billion in loans, which has helped 3.96 million americans. fernand, why is this not the topic of news and tweets and conversations every day from every democrat? that's 4 million people. that's probably going to be the margin for the next presidential election. shouldn't we bethe next electio shouldn't we be talking about the great things we're doing for the people? because the other side can't seem to get themselves together. >> jason, as always, you ask the right questions. but i think here we have to go. for the answer to your question. donald trump, he was right all along. remember, he said, you're going to get so sick and tired by all the winning, you're going to be

tired of all the winning. but winning was joe biden. in what is already the most historic presidency of the last 60 years, and actually getting things done for the american people on all sectors. climate change. the economy. healthcare policy. here in the case for relieving this student debt for millions of americans. it just builds and adds to the case, that the biden campaign is making now. and will continue to make. and if they make the election about that, and about what this dysfunction on the other side represents if they regain power. i think they're going to win comfortably. and i think what marjorie taylor greene did earlier today, is just another nail in that coverin. what's happening right now, jason, as we speak, there is panic in the republican party. because i think the feeling is after this two-week recess in the republican party tonight, there is a possibility we could come back with speaker hawkin jeffries, if they get a couple

of members to split given this dysfunction. >> dr. greer, i want to talk about disfunction in our public discourse as well. there's been a big split within the maga journalist ecosphere. we have candace owens who is leaving. we've seen in the weeks prior to this break, candace owens showing up with joe budden on his podcast. showing up, often given free rein to spout disinformation or nonsense, for people who seem disinterested in holding her accountable. dr. greer, what is our solution to this? if we're going to have more people in connection with the audience, spending more time talking about racist nonsense, than they are about student loans, we're not going to have

an informed public to be prepared to vote. >> i spoke with her colleague -- [ inaudible ]

asthma. it can make you miss out on those epic hikes with friends. step back out there, with fasenra. fasenra is an add-on treatment for eosinophilic asthma that is taken once every 8 weeks. fasenra helps prevent asthma attacks. most patients did not have an attack in the first year. fasenra is proven to help you breathe better so you can get back to doing day-to-day activities. and fasenra helps lower the use of oral steroids. fasenra is not for sudden breathing problems or other eosinophilic conditions. allergic reactions may occur. don't stop your asthma treatments without talking with your doctor. tell your doctor if your asthma worsens. headache and sore throat may occur. tell your doctor if you have a parasitic infection. get back to better breathing. get back to what you've missed. ask your doctor about fasenra, the only asthma treatment taken once every 8 weeks. if you can't afford your medication astrazeneca may be able to help.

nexium 24hr prevents heartburn acid for twice as long as pepcid. get all-day and all-night heartburn acid prevention with just one pill a day. choose acid prevention. choose nexium.

and that's tonight's reidout. joy returns monday. be sure to catch my podcast, a word with jason johnson. joy is my guest to talk about her amazing book. med gar, murrelly and the love story for america. all in with chris hayes starts right now.