ukraine, and that's very true. but there are also a lot of influential republicans and committee chairs like mike mccall, mike turner, who support nato. they do want to stand up to russia and to support u.s. resistance to russia. and johnson can't just waive them away or ignore them, and he can't disrespect them. this is his attempt to show them that he's listening and he's going to put a boat out there. in this slimming and tiny majority, which by the way, is going to fall to a one-vote majority this friday when mike gallagher leaves, there are already two members of the republican conference were on the record saying they will vote to depose him. marjorie taylor greene right now is not triggered that. she's dangling this piece of paper in front of him. she's made abundantly clear that ukraine aid is a redline for her. this is the kind of thing that could trigger that vote. >> thank you very much. appreciate it. tonight starts right now with alisha mendez. alisha mendez. alex wagner begins tonight with

elizabeth warren. >> only you could break down the tax code. with donald trump's hush money case now in jury selection what is normally a difficult and pain staking process on its own, has some extra external pressures on it. case in point. >> my plea is to the people of manhattan that maye sit on thi trial, please do the right thing for this country. everybody's allowed to have their political viewpoints, but the law is supposed to be law and no respective of persons. this is trash case. there is no crime here, and if there's any potential for a verdict, they should vote not guilty. >> that was republicanld congressman and trump vice president short lister byron donalds just yesterday. despite having no involvement in the case, donalds was using his platform to try to influence the jury from outside the courtroom.

his followers on social media that, quote, if you're a trump support rt in new york city who is part of the the jury pool, do everything you can to get seated on the jury and then refuse to convict as a matter of principle, dooming the case via hung jury. it's the most patriotic thing you could possibly do. the patriotism is questionable. this case is about whether or not donald trump committed a specific series of crimes. given who the defendant is the worry someone seated on the jury with a strong bias one way or the other, that worry is real.t that's why what is happening in court this week, the process of jury selection is so important. today the first seven jurors werese impanelled, four men, an three women. two of them are attorneys, one is a software engineer, one is a

teacher, one a nurse, one is in sales. judge merchan told them to be there bright and early next monday morning. now, before this case can begin 12 jurors and 6 alternates have to be impanelled. really seven jurors being impanelled means it's only a third of the way done. yesterday when of96 jurors were called into the courtroom they were all askednt simply do you think you can be y impartial in this case. more than half of them said no, and that half was cept home. and that is the point. at the point, the process of questioning potential juror tuesday make sure the people that make it into the final jury can beth impartial. the point of jury selection in this case, in particular more than normal is to separate the politics from the case. today trump's defense team questioned potential jurors about their past social media

posts the defense team thought showed anti-trump bias. to a meme posted by a juror's husband in 2016. maybe those individuals do have strong feelings about donald trump but also feel strongly in a court of law they can put aside those feelings and generate a decision without bias. one ofio today's potential juro told the court he has read multiple trump books, a remark that drew a smile and a nod from trump himself. prosecutors could strike that juror if they believe he might be too biased in favor of trump. they don't have to, but that is the process. and i guess what, ultimately th did.ma and other "x" factor in all of this is trump himself. not only did prospective jurors have to pass protesters and a sea of p press to get into cour

today, not only do they know this case will be watched around the world, when they actually get into the courtroom they are seated just feet from the former president. today our vaughn hilliard interviewed a juror who was the jury about what that was like. >> reporter: what was that like answering questions including some about donald trump as he's sitting 30 feet from you? >> it was odd. it was such an interesting experience because it's -- i had never seen him in person before. and you see someone blown up so larger than life on the media, to see them in person is very jarring and you get the sense oh, this is another guy, and also he sees me talking about him, which is bizarre. >> the fact the defendant can see the jury, it shouldn't be an issue in a normal trial with a normal trdefendant, but this ist

a normal trial and certainly not a normal defendant. today in a court while a juror was being questioned trump said something nobody could hear in theno direction of the juror. judge merchan scolded trump's legald team for it. thank you both so much for being here tonight. are you surprised it's proceeding quickly? >> no, i think actually it's proceeding as quickly as any other trial. it's going along at a pace similar to other trials. the only real distinction is this defendant is somebody most people know and this is defendant where the crimeth is gone. this isan a different case becae

the jurors walk in and know who the defendantnd is. he's been picking injuries for years and he's moving along at a clip. i think the important thing tha came out of today's jury selection is he's not going to allow social media posts to be used as a litmus test for bias and kick people off the jury. and that is why i think the defense is in a much more precarious position because they're going to soon run out of these challenges and be left with jurors they most fear whics are educated, politically democratic jurors that are going to not be able to kicked off this jury for cause because of their social media posts. so they're going into this with a disadvantage into the second half ofsa this. >> joyce, your thoughts on the proceeding. >> well, i think that's really a great characterization because

today and yesterday both sides had all their strikes, these are the strikes lawyers can use to remove jurors who they just don't like, who they have a bad feeling about so long as they don't violate any constitutional protections, raise national origin or gender doing that. now they have far fewer of those parentryho strikes. they have to guard them preciously. i think it's important to protect the identity of these jurors. it doesn't look like a jury that leans a strongly for either sid at this point. i think that's a good thing, something that should give us confidence in theg process. >> joyce, give us your reaction to that moment you had judge

merchan admonish trump's attorney when you had trump's audible reaction to something a prospective juror was saying? >> this is notro happening in a vacuum. this is someone who has a long track record of using the megaphone that's strapped to his mouth to incite his followers against otherit people. this is someone who was the president of the united states and may well be again. the notion he would approach ana intimidate any juror in the case is unacceptable. i'm surprised the judge didn't stop him in the moment and admonish trump personally. he showed great restraint by not doing that in the presence of the juror, by waiting and telling ther, lawyers it couldn happen again. this is an issue this judge will inevitably face, whether it's the gag ruling next week, whether it's trump's in.

court conduct, this is defendant that cannot contain himself, he will not be able to behave. >> to the point of him not being able to contain himself, the identity of these jurors should be kept private. what is it the court can do to protect those jurors? >> it's hard under the best circumstances to look somebody in the eye and convict them of a crime. i think all the jurors coming through the falynx of police forces, i think at the end of the dayth it's going to be that much harder for jurors to convict in the case, not that they won't, but it's going to weigh on their minds. in 2020 in new york there was a

act passed because i've seen a lot of commentary saying throw him in jail for violating the gag order, but really the judge is limited what he's allowed to do for violation of a gag order. the conditions of bail can be tightened, but he cannot revoke bailnn based on a violation of condition of release or violating the gag order without mr. trump being charged with a second crime. he could presumably be charged with contempt of court or witnesson intimidation or witne tampering, but that would require a separate trial. it's extremely unlikely mr. bragg is going to charge trump a separate crime for it. but the bail reform really

hamstrung what the judge can do in this situation. >> i want to go back. you referenced the social media post coming up in the case of some of these jurors. howes does all of that work, right? is there a w subset of trump's team that isof calling these individuals' social media sites? >> so it seems likely that trumk would be using a jury consultant. this is someone that specializes in jury selection and voir dire and would be giving them advice, look at juror's body language, their background. and obviously in this day and age their social media is a rich field to come through for information. myh understanding is that new york state law permits lawyers to do that so long as they don't do anything that would result in them having contact with a potential r juror. it's fair gamete to look at someone's facebook page, and we saw that happening today with the surfacing of material that

todd blanch, trump's lawyer, suggested toru the judge showed those jurors should be struck for cause. that's very important to trump's team. they don't want to have to waste those special preemptory strikes trump has. that's why it's so important the judge drew that line today saying i'm not t going to let y go through social media endlessly. it has to be actual bias against your client. >> at the same time, you have social media stars on the right with their callsta for people w support donald trump to actively get themselves on the jury. how much is it a concern for the court? >> it's a concern for a lot of cases on both sides.

a jury might take into its own hands whether somebody should be convicted of a chyme not based on whether the crime is convicted but whether it should be legal in the first place. there's been a lot of history over the last 100 years of juries that have nullified. i think the real risk is trump is going to wind up with a jury pool he doesn't like you're going to wind up with democrats, educated people. >> if you're his team how are you trying to correct for that? >> i think you're using these preematories in a strategic way. i don't think there's much they can do to prevent it.

>> joyce, you made the point you are struck by the fact donald trump is sitting there on his own just with his attorneys, not really a circle of support around him. just how unusual is that? >> h well, it is unusual. you will often see a family pull together or friends show up in court to support a defendant. that could still happen in this case. the courtroom is very crowded when a jury is being selected, so perhaps we'll see members of his family s show up to support him as these proceedings get under t way, but it's a very stk picture of a former president in a courtroom with none of his four grandchildren, without his wife, surrounded only by just a couple of aides and his secret service detail. >> to saycr nothing of the noddg off. do you think he's going to testify? >> i think it's unlikely he's going to testify because it's unlikely that any defendant testifies, but i think what we really neednk to watch for is wr people were calling those boring house keeping things.

one is called sandoval, one is called malano. so that was delayed. judge merchan delayed ruling on that and i think we have to watch that closely because his rulings there might tipec it on way or the other. >> joyce, you had judge merchan say expect opening statements monday. what are youte expecting to hea? >>ec well, what we'll hear is prosecutors will lay out their case for the jury. you don't yet argue your case, you can't argue the case in opening statements. you tell theca jury what you expect the evidence will show andex you begin to explain the legal theory. this case is a little bit complicated because prosecutors will prove the misdemeanor crime of falsifying business records, and then they'll have to prove thatll that crime was committedo aid in the commission of or to conceal another crime. that'snc how this becomes a fely

charge. they'll probably talk about campaign finance and tax charges, and as you can tell from my explanation this gets a little bit complicated, so they'll have a task in front of them to explain how this will work with the jury. we will see the primary theme they'll stick with throughout this jury they will say the prosecution has failed to prove it beyond a reasonable n doubt. and they'll tell the jury as you hear evidenceur throughout this trial, always pay attention for that. they don't just have to give you evidence. they have to give you compelling evidence, proof beyond a reasonable doubt or you cannot convict. >> joyce vance, duncan levin, thank you for getting us started tonight. coming up house republicans putting on a united front, but don't be fooled. evidencedo the chaos caucus persists. but first reading the tea leaves in supreme court arguments today in a case that

has the potential to upend the january 6th rioters and donald trump himself. more on that after this break. dd trump himself. more on that after this break.

today a supreme court heard oral arguments on a case that could determine the future of many january 6th defendants and even donald trump himself. at issue is a law prohibiting the obstruction of an official

proceeding, a statute the justice department has used to prosecute a quarter of the january 6th rioters that have been charged in trying to stop the electoral votes. this ruling brought by special counsel jack smith in his federal election case. lawyers argued the statute was not meant to apply to circumstances like the january 6th insurrection. and the government argued the january 6th attack is exactly what the proceeding look leak. there was one exchange. >> so we've had a number of protests in the courtroom. let's say that today five people get up one after the other and they shout either keep the january 6th insurrectionist in jail or free the january 6th patriots, and as a result of this, our police forces have to remove them forcibly from the

courtroom. >> i think it's a fundamentally different posture if they stormed the courtroom, required the justice and participants to plead for their safety. >> what happened on january 6th was very, very serious and i'm not equating this with that. >> joining us now is mary mccord, the co-host of the prosecuting donald trump podcast. mary, good to see you. your sense of how the justices received the arguments today and if they gave any indication about which way they're leaning. >> well, we heard i think different concerns expressed by multiple different justices, and it's really hard to count noses i think at this point. you just played an excerpt of justice alito trying to set forth a hypothetical that the statute is too broad and could apply to something that i think the solicitor-general very well

rebutted by saying that's not at all what happened here, this is not at all about the kind of violent attack on the capitol with the intent to obstruct the peaceful transition of power that happened here, but nevertheless cases are decided based on how the law might apply in other situations. and i think the solicitor-general went on at various points in the argument to point out the dominmous types of things would not be argued. knowing your conducts is wrong to actually disrupt, obstruct an official proceeding. but at the same time we saw other justices including justice kagen, justice sotomayor push pretty hard saying how could the

clause applied here which says otherwise obstructs, influences, or impedes an official proceeding, how could that mean anything than otherwise doing it in any form. he wants it to be limited to altering records and destroying records, and those justices said that's not then statute, otherwise means otherwise. then you had other justices suggesting isn't there a middle road here maybe where even if the other clause maybe doesn't apply in its natural form to a violent attack, couldn't it apply where there was an effort here to preclude documents, those being the electoral college votes of the certifications to be transmitted to the vice president to open for counting, for congress to count them and tabulate the votes and certify the elections. even if you want to limit this to documents or records, is

there a bay to do it? it's hard to read the tea leaves right now. there are clearly disagreements i'd say between chief justice and justice kagen, clear disagreements about how they think the statute applies. i do think it's important and you're probably going to go there next to say whatever happens in this case does not necessarily dictate what will happen in the jack smith case brought against donald trump. >> mary, you can't be taking our producer's jobs. you have to admit that as a nonlawyer the fact the word "otherwise" was the word in the statute that took up so much time today. to your point about donald trump the lawyer for the january 6th defendant argued his client didn't obstruct a january 6th proceeding and doing so requires manipulating evidence or a document in some ways. this is how he framed that argument to justice barrett. take a listen. >> this statute prohibits operation on specific evidence in some way, shape, or form.

attempting to stop a vote count or something like that is a very different act than actually changing a document or altering a document or creating a fake new document. >> well, he's obstructing evidence. >> so to recap he's saying to create a fake document would constitute an obstruction of an official proceeding. if the justices agree with that interpretation, would that mean trump would be charged in his role in the fake elector system with fake documents? >> i think the answer is yes. one part of the multi-pronged scheme that underlies two of the charges in the jack smith indictment, one, this same charge obstructing official proceeding, the other conspiracy to obstruct an official proceeding. one of the major parts of that scheme is the fraudulent electors scheme. this is a scheme between mr.

trump and others to allege -- in fact, this is what happened the electors in swing states who had determined to be donald trump electors, went ahead and met on the date the electoral college needs to vote. they cast their ballots even though he'd not been certified the winner in those states even though litigation there had failed and joe biden had been certified the winner. they then sent their electoral college certificates, these signed certificates up to the capitol to vice president pence and to others in the hopes he would count those votes as opposed to the legitimate electoral ballots setup buthe biden-harris electors. even here it would involve exactly what mr. green today admitted, these were fake electoral college ballots. i would also remind viewers

there are two other charges unrelated to the obstructionploding and that is a conspiracy to defraud the united states and a conspiracy to deprive people of their civil rights. so even in the event that the supreme court would really go broad on a ruling that actually could draw -- you know, call into question the obstruction of an official proceeding counts in the jack smith indictment, it would not touch those other counts. so people can feel safe in that. >> mary, we always talk about how all these cases are on a collision course, and today no exception. mary mccord, as always thanks so much for your time. still ahead for us tonight, republicans in the house of representatives are perhaps best known for their dysfunction. if i told you that today they actually found something they agree on reliably enough to do something about it. today they united to deliver impeachment articles against homeland security secretary alejandro mayorkas.

that story is next. y alejandro mayorkas that story is next

you're probably not easily persuaded to switch mobile providers for your business. but what if we told you it's possible that comcast business mobile can save you up to 75% a year on your wireless bill versus the big three carriers? you can get two unlimited lines for just $30 each a month. all on the most reliable 5g mobile network—nationwide.

wireless that works for you. for a limited time, ask how to save up to $830 off an eligible 5g phone when you switch to comcast business mobile. don't wait! call, click or visit an xfinity store today. hear ye, hear ye, hear ye, all persons are commanded to keep silent on pain of imprisonment while the house of representatives is exhibiting to the senate of the united states articles of impeachment against hall hawn droe nicholas mayorkas, secretary of homeland

security. >> the managers on the court of the house will proceed. >> today house republicans put on quite the show of unity. you'll remember back in february the house voted on party lines to impeach homeland security secretary alejandro mayorkas. and this afternoon that process moved forward. house impeachment managers including margery taylor greene and andy biggs walked to deliver article of of impeachment to the senate. the last time was back in 1876. then the secretary of war was accused of trading military posts for profit. now in the year 2024 what has homeland security secretary alejandro mayorkas done to merit impeachment? in reality republicans were the ones who sabotaged a border protection bill just a couple months ago, the fact new york representative dan goldman

earlier today. >> unfortunately, the republicans have put politics over our border security. they want chaos in order to win an election rather than to solve the problems. there was a policy bill. there was a policy change that would have significantly addressed the problems at the border. and instead you all on the other side of the aisle sabotaged it where you basically impeached the secretary who's trying to solve our problems at the southern border because you want to win it. you don't want to solve the problem. >> so a politically motivated, baseless impeachment vote. congrats to republicans in congress by accomplishing tat. don't be confused by the displays of unity in congress because this is pretty much the only thing republicans have managed to accomplish in this.

bipartisan border deal shot down, aid to israel, taiwan, and ukraine stalled for months. in fact, fighting over the ukraine aid bill has become so contentious among republicans that congresswoman greene has been threatening to oust house speaker mike johnson for weeks. and until today green stood alone in pushing for the ouster. when suc congressman tom massy koez to join forces with greene, today he chose to cosponsor after johnson announced a plan to advance the foreign aid bills this week. so to recap stalled legislation, in fighting stalls our leadership and the inability to fund our government or our allies certainly doesn't sound like unity to me. after the break we're going to talk to congressman jamie raskin about republican dysfunction in congress. that's next. out republican dysf congress that's next.

are you throwing money away? money stresses me out. so, i went to experian. they actually helped lower my monthly bills. phone, internet. also subscriptions i forgot about. streaming, music, news sites. now i can see them in one place. and the ones i forgot about? experian can cancel them for me. experian did the work. finally getting smart about money feels really good. helped me take control of my money. save money now on monthly bills and unwanted subscriptions at experian.com/save.

>> i am not resigning, and it is in mew view an absurd notion that someone would bring a vacate motion when we are simply here to do our jobs. >> speaker mike johnson remained defiant today amid growing calls for his removal led by marjorie taylor greene. on monday speaker johnson unveiled his plan to bring three separate bills to the floor that would approve funding for israel, taiwan, and ukraine.

on social media johnson should do what former house speaker john boehner did i, quote, announce his resignation. so far johnson has done the opposite. but the push to oust mike johnson is gaining momentum and adding to the dysfunction in the house. all while these republicans ban together to do the only thing they seem to agree on, impeaching homeland security secretary alejandro mayorkas. joining me now is former lead impeachment manager of trump's second impeachment trial. it is so good to see you. i was thinking about the fact two weeks ago you and i were talking about the fact the impeachment seemed like it was reaching a dead end, and then i realized you and i been talking about the other politically motivated sham impeachment, the biden impeachment. the fact we have to choose among them tells you something about the republican agenda here. >> the mayorkas impeachment was the big consolation prize for

the maga wing of the party that did not get the impeachment of joe biden they wanted. of course the mayorkas impeachment is lacking the central thing you need an impeachment constitutionally, which is treason, bribery, or another high crime and misdemeanor. and they don't have it. they have policy differences with secretary mayorkas where at best they have a claim of maladministration, which is precisely what the framers said you can't impeach someone over. >> look at them marching, though. they seem very committed. you've got to give that to them. this morning you had secretary mayorkas testifying before the house appropriations commit as they held annual hearing on the dhs' budget request. now you've got him facing this impeachment, and secretary mayorkas, he appears pretty unfazed by this process earlier this month. he said when i say i'm not

focused on the impeachment proceedings, clearly a disconnect on the amount of things on secretary mayorkas' plate, the portfolio he has whether the u.s.-mexico border, international threats, and what republicans want him focused on. >> well, if you think about it given this is just a policy conflict and at least a dozen republican senators have acknowledged that over the last couple of days, the public is dramatically on the side of mayorkas and the bipartisan senate deal, which was blown up at the last minute by maga republicans and donald trump because trump doesn't want a border solution. he wants a border crisis to run against. he's got nothing else in the tank. he's running on empty because he can't talk about abortion anymore because the whole country has so decisively turned against him whether we're

talking about kansas or ohio or pennsylvania or florida. they can't talk about that so it's just immigration. he also had vladimir putin breathing down his neck because putin doesn't want $61 billion going to the people of ukraine. really what he's pursuing now is just an autocrat's agenda, and it's amazing to see the republicans in the house just following him like lemmings. >> let me ask you about that. today you had congressman michael mccaul saying this before criticizing the biden administration in his words not projecting strength in the ongoing conflicts in ukraine and in israel. take a listen. >> the world is on fire, and history will judge us by our actions. were you chamberlain or were you churchill? >> i mean how seriously can you take them when that is their posturing, and yet their own caucus can't coalesce around a foreign aid bill?

>> well, i think that was really directed at mike johnson. it wasn't directed at joe biden. he's been doing everything in his power to try to dislodge the foreign aid package he sent us several months ago, but now it's mike johnson who's fallen captive to the pro-putin maga wing of the party, which might be dominant in the republican caucus now. but he does seem to be trying to extraicate himself from it with this succession of single issue bills so we could get an up or down vote on ukraine, so the big majority in the house pretty much every democrat and maybe as much as 50% of republicans and certainly 30 or 40% of republican, but we would definitely have a big majority to do it, but that's what marjorie taylor greene and matt gaetz and the extreme right of the party is so upset about. it was donald trump who was calling the shots on that one. >> let me ask you about that

because you had congressman massy joining marjorie taylor greene efforts. do you think more republican will join them? >> i've heard there are a couple others in the wings they've got ready to demonstrate their momentum. but of course understand the maga rules, which speaker mccarthy had backed and pretty much the whole caucus was behind, any member of their caucus can file a motion to vacate the chair to topple the speaker, and so it does give the extremist elements in the party reporting directly to donald trump the power to dictate the course of events. it may be mike johnson is just fed up with it and he says, look, if you want to vacate the chair, go ahead and do it, but i've got to move forward at this point. he has several committee chairs who seem to be determined to get us a vote on ukraine. and they are starting to blow the whistle on how putin's

propaganda has begun to saturate the republican caucus, and you have members like marjorie taylor greene and like matt gaetz who basically parrot putin's talking points. marjorytail r greene said a couple months ago, this is just a classic putin smear and disinformation tactic against the democratic nation of ukraine, the only nation on earth that has a jewish president other than israel itself. >> the fecklessness is a feature. congressman jamie raskin, thank you so much for taking the time with us tonight. we have one more story this evening, new details on israel's response over the weekend, what it all means for israel's ongoing military operation in

gaza. that's next. n gaza that's next. with us anymore? he has something called osteoarthritis pain. it's joint pain that hurts him all the time. come on, scout. now, there's librela. the first and only once-monthly injection to control your dog's oa pain. veterinary professionals administering librela who are pregnant, trying to conceive, or breast feeding, should take extreme care to avoid self-injection, which could cause allergic reactions like anaphylaxis. this is the best day of my life!

“look at all those snacks, you must be a king!” “i did just pay 60% less for my ticket with the gametime app.” “it's the best place to get last-minute deals on tickets.” “i guess i'm just a better fan than you.“ "(crowd cheering) i've got to get the gametime app.” “download the gametime app to get great deals on last-minute tickets.”

this hour we're awaiting israel's response to the unprecedented iranian attack that took place last weekend. for the first time in history iran launched a direct military attack against the state of israel, though the impact was limited. no one was killed according to the israeli military. 99% of the attack was intercept by israel's aerial defense systems and its allies, namely the u.s. which shot down dozens of exploding drones and missilesch the iran issued these strikes in retaliation for a suspected air strike that took place earlier this month, one that destroyed iran's consulate in syria and killed several iranian military officers including a high ranking commander. now the fear is that israel's anticipated response could escalate tensions further, possibly sparking a wider regional war, something allies of both israel and iran want to prevent. according to axios president biden urged prime minister

netanyahu to exercise calm and take the wing, warning the u.s. will not support any israeli counter path against iran. and this is all happening as the devastating war in gaza continues. cnn is reporting the israeli military is set to begin an invasion this week where over a million displaced civilianvise taken refuge. now iran has reportedly put that on hold. thank you so much for being here and being with me. your estimation of whether or not this expands. >> well, if israel responds with a direct attack on iranian soil, that is automatically an expansion. if israel responds with a heavier than usual attack on iranian proxas whether that's in lebanon or in syria, that's an

escalation. we've been seeing nothing but escalation in that region for a very, very long time. we were distracted for a time by what's going on in gaza. now we're being zragted by what's going on here. there are two different kinds of crises taking place simultaneously. one, a catastrophic humanitarian crisis, another a potential regional war that will have blow back for the whole of the world. so there are -- there's no corner of the middle east in which you can -- you can peer and say, oh, that looks hopeful. >> i want to talk about the overlap between these two conflicts. but first, if in fact israel chooses to hit iran proxies, how do those proxies fire back? >> those proxies take instruction largely from iran itself. they do have a certain amount of autonomy. it varies. the houthis in yemen for instance seem to have a greater

degree of autonomy than, say, hezbollah and lebanon. so it sort of depends who you hit and how hard you hit them. if you take out a top commander of hezbollah, then hezbollah will feel obliged to respond. hezbollah has stayed out of the fight with israel to a substantial degree for a very long time. remember immediately after the terrorist attack on the 7th of october the big concern was that when israel inevitably responded to hamas, hezbollah would enter the fight, and that would be the trigger for a regional war. that didn't happen. thank goodness. the events of last weekend with the iranian attack, there have been concerns that could be the trigger. look, every time what you have is what is called an escalation ladder, right? people from both sides are climbing up this ladder. you can't depends on both sides

to remain rational the whole of the way. at some point one side is going to get off the logical sequence of events and react -- overreact and trigger. just because they didn't go to war at the last provocation doesn't mean the next one will not be the one that triggers it all. so that's the concern. that's why the biden administration as you said is pushing so hard as netanyahu is supported to take the win. netanyahu has an opportunity now to say, look, they attacked us, we've proven we can defend ourselves. they sent 300 missiles and drones our way, and our defense system held up. they didn't land -- they barely scratched us. that can be announced by a good politician. that can be announced as a victory. if he does that and walks away

and focuses, yes, then that gives everybody a little breathing space including the biden administration. but he's facing pressure himself, netanyahu. he may be a write in politician, but there are people to the right of him. even if you're not let's say politically active, a country that has been threatening your destruction for decades shoots 300 missiles and drones in your direction, you expect your government to do something. >> thank you so much for being with us. that is our show tonight. you can catch me back here on the weekend 8:00 a.m. eastern saturday and sunday. "way too early" with jonathan lemire coming up next. we are going to continue our fight and