>> tonight, donald trump, with one of his biggest legal headaches before the nation's highest court. earlier this evening, trump's lawyers filed an appeal to the supreme court over in the ongoing court battle over mar-a-lago. trump undoubtedly is hoping to get a favorable ruling from the courts six conservative justices, three of whom trump appointed. now, trump's lawyers are not explicitly trying to prevent doj investigators from looking at the one hundred or so documents taking from his beach club. but they are attempting to get the review of the documents

back before the court appointed special master, which could potentially throw some sand in the gears of the departments investigation. despite recent reporting that trump's legal team was perhaps looking to soften its tone in this case, the filing today by trump's lawyers is filled with more angry screeds against the department of justice. they accused the department of feigned concern about reported -- to pin some offense on trump. it is the latest in a series of aggressive and bellicose moves by trump, which he's employed for a very long time to move away from scandals and legal quandaries. and it's more evidence of the mindset with which he approaches both the powers of the presidency and the keeping of the nation's secrets. in a post on his social media website following the filing today, trump told his followers, i want my documents back. that's what he said. i want my documents back. because trump still believes that the classified government records seized from his home, his beach club, belonged to him and him alone. today, veteran new york times

journalist maggie haberman has released a new book about donald trump's life and time in office. it's called confidence man:: the making of donald trump and the breaking of america. the book is full of previously unreported stories about trump's erratic behavior in the white house, including new details about what else trump's mishandling of classified information we. and one passage -- trump battled with his own national security team over his desire to play fast and loose with sensitive secrets, including by tweeting out pictures of things he knew were classified. what trump tweeted a sensitive picture of damage at an iranian space facility without -- ink out classified details, because he liked how the image lacked. if you take out the classification, that's the sexy part, he protested as they tried to make changes. white house chief of staff john kelly tried to prevent

intelligence from being taken upstairs to the president or left in trump's possession after briefings. trump's behavior illustrated why kelly was concerned: trump waved items such as his letters with kim jong-un, which he appeared to believe the north korean leader had himself written, he would wave those at visitors to the oval office, including reporters. in an interview with haberman last fall, trump denied taking those letters from the north korean leader with him to mar-a-lago, claiming, no, i think that's in the archives. those love letters were recovered from mar-a-lago by the national archives a few months later. in the course of her reporting for this book, haberman also reported on trump's penchant for throwing paper records in the toilet. literally. she obtained these previously released images that trump tried to flush down the toilet

in an apparent violation of the presidential records act. there is more, of course. the book paints a vivid picture of a man who seemed to have little, if any, respect for classified material, who lied with little hesitation, who flooded institutional norms, who flushed important documents down the toilet. is it any wonder that we are where we are here? with thousands of government documents apparently stored in a basement at trump's beach club? if anything could've seen this coming, it is maybe maggie haberman, and boy is there a lot to unpack and her new book. joining us now is the woman herself -- maggie haberman. she's the author of the brand-new book out today, confidence man, the making of donald trump and the breaking of america. i've been waiting for you to come back into this building instead on the site with me. it's been a long time, my friend. >> it's good to see you. >> congratulations on the book. it is so chock full of information, but it also paints a full picture of a man not just at the start of his presidency, but the genesis of donald trump as a political animal, our presence in our pop cultural landscape, if you will.

i've got to ask you, as someone who knows and well, whose talk to him, i mean, in some ways people think you're sort of the singular voice on all things trump. when you look at what's happened at mar-a-lago, when you look at the various defenses he's employed, does any of this surprise you? >> no. and i read about this in the book. want to make clear. there are so many people who've done so much work on donald trump over the decades -- i was -- but trump is a person of a few moves. a handful of moves, and the challenge for people around him is figuring out which one he's using at any given moment. and it can sometimes be unclear. but what we're seeing with what he did with taking the mar-a-lago documents, and then how he has handled addressing questions about it, is entirely in keeping with his dna over the course of his life. >> the disregard with which he traded these documents, and the

disorganization too, it would be shocking to most people on the outside. was it shocking to you? when you look at the toilet filled with documents, how can any of it be surprising? but has any of the actions he apparently undertook -- has any of that surprised you? >> what surprised me was the volume of material he had. that continues to stun me about the story. in that first tranche of boxes that be returned to the national archives, they discovered that there were 184 classified documents. actually, i'm not sure if they discovered it or the doj discovered, but they discovered there were 184 individual classified documents -- that wasn't it. there were more that they retrieved in response to a subpoena. -- trump's lawyer signed an attestation saying, yeah, that's it. we gave back all the documents with classified markings and then, of course, we found out

after the august 8 search that there were many other documents. >> 11,000 documents. >> there were 11,000 pages, and more than 100 additional individual documents with classified -- >> right. remember, -- >> each of those documents could have several pages. it continues to be surprising. >> it's not just kim jong-un's love letter. it's not shaquille o'neal's shoe. it's not the momentoes he would waive around to talk about. it's a massive amount of paper that he has rolled away. it's sort of implies some intentionality in all this. i wonder if we can even draw those conclusions. >> one of the things that was striking about this was that in those boxes, it was all jumbled together. the doj has talked about this. there were news clips, right, in with confidential material, and shoes -- >> razor blades, umbrellas -- >> at the material. one of the things about him, and this is an effect he had in the white house, it's an effect he's had on our political culture. he has this flattening effect where everything is kind of the

same and context less. i read about this in the book. that is what this reminds me of with these documents. it's all the same. he's classified materials, but the same as these news clips about my time as president and my razors and my golf balls -- i think it was a raincoat, i was told, and one of the boxes. this is of a peace with who he is. but it's a reminder that things that other people consider secret, he doesn't. >> and that the rules don't apply to him. i want to read another excerpt from the book that has been less discussed. the degree to which he's making in endrun about some of the checks and balances -- or checks that exist, especially when it concerns classified information and national secrets. right? on more than one occasion, when trump agreed to relinquish his personal phone, he managed to acquire another. advisers believed he had sent a staffer who had worked for him prior to the presidency to buy one at the store without any of the standard security precautions. at one point, trump left his phone in a golf cart at new jersey club. a senior white house lawyers notes documenting the frantic search firm misplaced phone for six hours specify that it was

not our phone, apparently meaning it was not a government issued device. so it sounds like trump sent someone to verizon to get a phone for him so he can make calls that were kind of unmonitored. and then, promptly loses it. >> he was very keen on keeping his own phone. and kudos to my former colleague, alex burns, who's the first person to hear there was an issue with the phone and a golf cart. we initially reported that detail a couple years ago. but there's some new reporting here relating to it. you know, aides were a little stunned that he would suddenly have another phone after they had -- he didn't want people knowing what he was doing, but he didn't trust the government. one of the fascinating things about the donald trump presidency, explore this, it's just this deep level of paranoia. and what that meant for somebody who was overseeing this apparatus, that he didn't trust. >> he didn't trust the government. and the government didn't trust him. at the end of his presidency. -- we read it in the introduction

to the segment. john kelly doesn't believe trump can have access to these documents. -- they start taking away classified documents so he can't squirrel them away in a shoe box in the oval office. that's a staggering development. we know there's always been this institutional deep state desire to protect trump from himself. but the degree to which they really didn't trust him with anything, it sounds like. >> now, and this was an ongoing issue with the classified material where he would sometimes -- my colleagues and i wrote about this recently -- he wanted to keep stuff. and they weren't really sure why, or what it meant. they would try to get things back, but for the most part, they felt this if you can't say no to the president of the united states. and he is the president, and he wanted it. his argument would be, and his aides are the people closest to him now, they would say he had a reason not trust the government. look what happened in various investigations, and would go on and on that way. and whatever value those complaints have, and it's nothing to do with why he

wanted this classified information. this was not all about the mueller investigation, this was not all about crossfire hurricane, and the origins of the russia probe. this was about all manner of other issues according to our reporting. and it's still not clear why he picked certain things, and why -- >> the impunity. one of the things i'm so important about this book, is it contextualizes his decision as a president within the broader cross currents of his life. the person he became as a figure in new york city society. also, who he was a child. when you talk about this impunity, that's not something that was gifted to him as president. it's something he always had. and this is another story that i think is really important. kind of the citizen cain rosebud moment. well, i won't put that level of import on it.

it sounds indicative who he becomes later. and trump's senior year of high school, the school administration gave trump a promotion to captain of a company. classmates questioned whether he deserved the portage de just post, and they suspected it was granted to him because of his father's influence at the school. as a captain, trump was charged with leading other boys in the unit. but he did so at a remove, a former classmate route. when one student in a company was brutally hazed by another, the story of this quote was that donald trump stayed in his room, listening to his record player. the hazed student complained to his play parents -- trump was removed from his position. he refused to concede defeat, insisting that he had really been giving a promotion to another title. the shadows, the echoes of what later transpired after the election in 2020 are impossible to miss. and yet, can you talk a little more about the person he was even in his teen years when it came to questions of loss and defeat? >> i think you raised a question -- i just want to go back to -- his sense of entitlement. i think people lose track of this because he talks like somebody who --

a lot of voters who support him will say, he sounds like me, he expresses his thoughts like me. the reality is, he was the son of a well off man, and he grew up with a child of privilege, and that in a certain way, there are people who grew up with privilege who don't expect that systems don't apply to them. but that wasn't him. and he expected that things were always gonna be set up for him, and he refused to accept the world in a way that was not on his terms. now, i think he did more earlier, when he was a younger kid, but by the time he gets to the end of high school, you know, he's pretty much figured out who he has. >> and he doesn't have to accept the world as it is in his twisted mind. i mean, there's also a part of this book where we are talking about, where you talk about trump decides he is going to refuse to leave the white house and the days after the 2020 election loss. and that is a remarkable anecdotes that you talk about. and it's also something that people use for in terms of the, buck and win this hole you no

attempt to steal the election transpired. talk to me a little bit about how we were you made and make decisions as to what to leave in the book, what's a report out, and the process and which you did that? >> so i turned on earnest to the project after the second impeachment trial which ended i think in february of 2021. and a book is different. a book takes time. i wanted to paint a broad architectural portrait of a person's life. and not as a person's life but of our country, of how he came to be, how a celebrity of such culture came to see him as an avatar for what's at least of the country, what it wants it, and certainly a party of what it wanted. how he had infused himself into the pop culture fabric for such a long period of time. and that takes time. that's a process of going back and talking to surges over and over again and learning more and more information. you know, i provided a significant amount of reporting

to the times throughout the process. and that was not different. but it's just an entirely different experience doing a book. and one thing i think about a lot was i spoke to several years ago, i talked to someone who i knew had cooperated a bunch of these books been coming out during the presidency. and there is a story in one of them that the person had refused to tell me. and i had caught wind of it, there was some reason why i was upset. but i asked a question of why do people do this? why do you talk for books, and you won't for a daily report? and their answer was there's no immediacy to it? it's not coming out tomorrow. i'm talking -- >> -- >> yeah and it's a problem for future me, essentially what this person was suggesting. and i think that informs a lot about why people are willing to talk when they do. >> interesting. i mean yes, there is a decision on the part of the sources say this is going to happen in the future, and the blow back if i catch, if i catch any, will be in some future undetermined time and place. when you talk about trump and

the future, and what's going to happen, i want to place an some exclusive audio that you've had generally given us. regarding trump and potentially his greatest opponents. his greatest challenger, if he should run again in 2024, florida governor ron desantis. this is from your interview with him i believe in, what? >> it was last year. >> last year, september of last year. let's take a listen to that. >> well, how does that tell you that he wouldn't run a new run? >> i didn't ask him -- i never. let's put it this way. i think i'd win very easily against anybody. >> let me ask you a question -- >> 98% of approval -- >> so, back to trump's approval rate ratings. what, what do you think he thinks of ronda santas? >> i don't think he thinks very highly of him. he thinks he made a, created him for the republican party. for the governorship of florida -- and he thinks that he ought to be differing to trump.

trump's view of his endorsement to people is a, he thinks that it revolves people over the line and a primary. and often does. >> it does! >> to be clear -- he is not wrong when he talks about his strength in the republican party. that is very real. and i think that something people have really struggled to accept. just because trump says so many things about himself that are not true, and he does, it doesn't mean he's weak within the party. >> right. >> a lot of his detractors hope that he is. >> to be clear, it'll help him in the primary whether it gives him a win in the general, is another thing, but his party power is almost an diluted. >> it is eroded somewhat, but he, runs i think he would likely see a lot of people who said he would not be with them, come back. and i'm not clear that ron desantis wants to go up against the donald trump meat grinder. because most people have struggled with that. >> it is a meat grinder among many other things. maggie -- i don't know if this is a badge you wear. there are million books right about trump. but you have written something that is very important.

a testament to your work as a journalist. it's great to see you and talk with you about this. new york times senior political reporter maggie haberman. her new book is confidence man. the making of donald trump on the breaking of america. thank you for being here, maggie. one more thing. in maggie's -- in which the topic turned to georgia republican senate candidate herschel walker, and in particular, allegations that walker had threatened women. trump told her that ten years ago, maybe it would have been a problem. 20 years ago it would have been a bigger problem. i don't think the problem today. just ahead, steve kornacki joins me to discuss the latest allegations to walker's candidacy and whether it will have an effect in one of the most important senate races in the country. but next, donald trump calls on the supreme court to give him a lifeline in the spiraling mar-a-lago investigation. we will have more details on that coming up. ♪ ♪ ♪

new astepro allergy. now available without a prescription. astepro is the first and only 24-hour steroid free spray. while other allergy sprays take hours astepro starts working in 30 minutes. so you can... astepro and go.

♪ music (“i swear”) plays ♪ jaycee tried gain flings for the first time the other day... and forgot where she was. [buzz] you can always spot a first timer. gain flings with oxi boost and febreze. ♪ ♪ ♪

>> late this afternoon, donald trump filed an emergency application with the supreme court, asking the court to allow the special master, judge raymond dearie to review the roughly 100 classified documents that the fbi seized from his beach club in august.

trump is asking the supreme court to block part of a ruling by the 11th circuit court of appeals, a court that ruled against him. last month, that court said the justice department can use those classified documents in its investigation and that those documents did not fall under the special master's review. while trump is not technically asking the high court to stop the doj from using the classified documents in the doj's investigation, he is now asking that the court make those documents a part of the special master's review. which ultimately could complicate the doj's investigation into the seemingly pretty important classified documents -- or at least we think -- and in its arguments, team trump, wrote, quote president trump was still the president of the united states when any documents bearing classification markings were delivered to his residents. at that time, he was the commander in chief of the united states. as such, he's authority to classify or declassify information bearing on national security flowed from the

constitutional investment of power in the president. >> so the argument is basically trump has all the power. he can declassify what he wants, when he wants. he can convert a presidential record, even apparently a classified one. to a personal one. if the supreme court grants trump's request and allows judge dearie to review those documents, that also means, and this is important, that team trump would get to see those classified documents! the supreme court tonight has ordered the justice department to respond to trump's request by next tuesday. joining us now is charlie savage, new york times national security and legal reporter. charlie, thank you for being here tonight. i need you to help me understand exactly what can happen to these classified documents as they pertain to the justice department. if the supreme -- talk to me about the import here in terms of the department investigation and what trump is trying to do. >> sure. so the status quo right now

after the appeals court intervention to remove these documents from the special master, the trump appointed judge had ordered, is that there is unfettered access for this 103 documents or with classification markings. criminal investigators could present them to a grand jury, they can s witnesses questions based on their contents. they could pursue criminal charges based on their mishandling or obstruction in not returning them. they can try to figure out what happened to these documents that were in the empty folders that have classification banners that were stored in the jumble alongside these ones that they were able to recover. so trump is trying to partially rollback what the appeals court did in unleashing the government to continue with its investigation in this area. he is saying, for now, you can put -- we want the special master's review to look at these things -- to see whether or not they were subject to executive privilege,

or attorney client privilege. that means we, the trump people, need to be up to see them. that means we need to have security clearances to be able to do that. et cetera, it's a huge mess for the special master if the supreme court were to grant what he is asking for. on the other hand, it is not a huge mess at this stage for the justice department, because they are not asking for the supreme court to tie its hands with respect to these documents. >> okay, so if the department doesn't continue on with its investigation, what then happens if the supreme court grants this request, and you dearie would get to review these documents. that's happening in parallel as a department of justice is doing in this investigation. where do those things intersect? i would assume that if dearie somehow decides, you know, that some of these classified documents are indeed privileged, that then affects the doj's investigation -- is that right? >> that's exactly the right question to ask, because that's where this gets tricky. if the justice department takes

investigative steps based on these documents and knock on peoples doors. they learn something else, leaks to something, else that leads to something else. and then down the world road, it's not just judge dearie, it would be judge cannon deciding that something in that tranche was in fact privileged and that they should have not looked at it. it creates opportunities for all kinds of mischief. what does she then do? because these investigators have been exposed and information that she decided should not have seen. but that could be in december, or january, that she makes that decision. so all kinds of things could have happened by then. at a minimum, does she say those people have to be removed from the investigation? does she say the whole thing for the, poison treaty as they say, and staff have to be thrown out? does it give trump legal defense down the road, if he's indicted over the stuff, an opportunity to investigate the investigation and try to turn the tables back on the government and say, you used information you had no right to use, et cetera, at satirize? and therefore the charges have

to be thrown out or some kind of sanction like that. so it is very tricky, because of that, on the possibility dangling if these documents do get resubmitted for privilege review. that said, the government seems very confident that the idea that executive privilege has anything to say here, asserted by a former presidents, over the objections of the current president, to keep executive branch information from being reviewed by the justice department, part of the executive branch for criminal investigation. they think it's crazy to even suggest that it might be the case! so with judge cannon work to rule that way, they will have a strong appeal. not to get in such a mess at all. alex? >> i'm sure they would rather not have to get into such a mess. this is directed to clarence thomas who oversees the summits the 11th circuit, and he is likely to review that to the full supreme court. charlie savage, new york times national security and legal reporter. thanks for your wisdom tonight, charlie, we needed it. >> thank you. >> i'm next, the story that is rocking republican politics.

once would've been enough to do a republican candidates chances. by then donald trump's republican party, we are reporting that herschel walker paid his girlfriend to have an abortion in 2009. will that information even affect his candidacy? the great steve kornacki joins us to understand what is happening in the great state of georgia coming up next. up next

♪limu emu & doug♪ it's nice to unwind after a long week of telling people how liberty mutual customizes your car insurance so you only pay for what you need. showtime. whoo! i'm on fire tonight. (limu squawks) yes! limu, you're a natural. we're not counting that. only pay for what you need. ♪liberty. liberty. liberty. liberty.♪

california, only pay for what you need. mountains, oceans, natural wonders, diverse and creative people.

but when the out-of-state corporations behind prop 27 look at california, they see nothing but suckers. they wrote prop 27 to give themselves 90% of the profits from online sports betting in california. other states get much more. why is prop 27 such a suckers deal for california? because the corporations didn't write it for us. they wrote it for themselves. after my car accident, they wrote it for themselves. i wondered what my case was worth. so i called the barnes firm. when that car hit my motorcycle, insurance wasn't fair. so i called the barnes firm. it was the best call i could've made. atat t bararnefirmrm, our r inry a attneysys wk hahard i could've made. atat t bararnefirmrm, to get you the best result possible. call us now and find out what your case could be worth. you u mit bebe sprisised do you remember about a month ♪ the barnes firm injury attorneys ♪ ♪ call one eight hundred, eight million ♪

ago, when south carolina republican senator lindsey graham decided to take a big crazy swing on abortion policy and propose a national ban on abortion? do you remember that? he said explicitly that if republicans get control of the senate this november they would outlaw abortion after 15 weeks. it was almost like he was trying to make an ad for the democrats before the midterms. when that happened, basically every republican running for election or reelection distanced themselves from graham. i say basically every republican, because there was one very notable exception. georgia republican senate nominee herschel walker. walker told politico at the time that he would back grams grams federal ban, saying he was a proud pro life christian who would always stand up for unborn children. last night, the daily beast reported that in 2009, herschel

walker urged his then girlfriend to get an abortion, and then paid for the procedure himself. now, i should mention nbc has not independently confirmed that reporting and herschel walker denies the story. but because it's such a major allegation against walker, the daily beast appears to have really done their due diligence and getting the receipts. literally. they verified this woman's claims with the receipt from the abortion clinic. a bank deposit receipt with an image of a signed personal check from herschel walker. and, the get well soon card that walker sent that check inside of. the daily beast also corroborated the details of the claims with a friend the woman told at the time of the abortion. so, if this reporting holds out, it shows a massive amount of hypocrisy that you would think might tank a political campaign in a normal year. but especially in a year -- where abortion is front and center on the ballot. but this is not a normal year. and national republicans are

doubling down on herschel walker. the president of the mitch mcconnell aligned -- pac -- said today that they are, quote, full speed ahead in georgia. the national republican senate committee put out a statement calling the story a smear, and saying republicans would stand with herschel walker. this race could decide control of the senate. and is now too late to pick a new republican candidate. for that party right now, herschel walker is too big to fail. joining us now is steve kornacki, nbc national political correspondent. steve, thanks for being here with us tonight. i hope that you're enjoying the reprieve from being at the big board. i am thrilled to -- sit down and have a conversation with you, my friend. will you tell me about what -- are the contours in georgia have been shaping up? there have been a number of scandals that herschel walker has, in some ways, i guess, weathered. have any redounded to reverend raphael warnock's benefit?

warnock, of course, being the democratic candidate there. >> the context for this is what you're referring to -- the trouble that walker had had even before the story. he was paying a price for it in the polls. if you look at the senate race in georgia, and you look at the governor's race, camp versus abrams, and the governor's race there is an eight-point difference. between those two races. kemp, the republican governor, is running eight points better even before this than herschel walker. in the senate side. so there was a gap between those candidates. when you look inside the polling, walkers negative ratings were particularly high. his performance on the campaign trail had not exactly been reassuring. i think he's been struggling as a candidate. he's running in the state -- until 2020 election, it had been a pretty red state at the presidential level. it went for biden in 2020, but barely. so on the midterm climate, that helps just any republican. he had certainly been in contention for the seat. but i looked at this as a situation where he was already

testing the limits of voters in georgia. and i know we live in a very different era of politics now than we did a generation ago, so the question is really, raised, will this really matter? this doesn't have to matter much more than a point or two points, perhaps, to make a significant difference in a race like this. >> warnock's numbers have been basically holding steady throughout the late election season. is that accurate? is it more that -- way are we seeing the split ticket here when you talk about kemp's numbers being high and warnock's being steady, where you are going to have maybe georgia republican voting for raphael warnock in the senate race? >> i actually think it's not too hard to imagine -- who that voter is. because he has to remember, earlier this year, that brian kemp went to war with donald trump, and brad raffensperger the republican secretary of state, greg and they both won republican primaries about against trump backed opponents. so if you're a voter in georgia

who doesn't really like joe biden, doesn't really like the democrats, but also doesn't like donald trump, that's a kind of voter that georgia democrats were able to get four votes for joe biden in 2020 -- and might say, hey, can't is perfectly acceptable. -- but walker is a bridge too far. that's what we have been seeing, that disconnect. the other challenge though, warnock has, is he has to finish ahead of walker, obviously, but georgia is a runoff state. if he doesn't get to 50% plus one, there's a libertarian in the race. we've seen this in georgia many times, he is poised to get two or 3% of the vote. this could be forced to a runoff. you could see the same situation as you had in 2020, where senate control comes down to a georgia runoff. and, then you look at the dynamics. walker, warnock, in a runoff, you start to wonder if any of the personal stuff matters at at all, or are they purely voting on party. because the states would be absolutely clear in that case. you're voting for senate control. >> that runoff would be, i believe, december 6th. i'm gonna ask you.

is this remind you of doug jones and roy moore? i think the same flaw is probably a bit too euphemistic, generous, and given the sort of hypocrisy on display potentially in this latest herschel walker scandal -- but doug jones won that but alabama senate seat by the hair of his cheney chin. -- he barely won. it certainly has had an impact in that race, anyway. there is that story that roy moore would have been well positioned there. again, i think we are talking about impact here. if there is impact in the story, my guess is it would be minimal, a pointer to. but like i am saying, given that he is not brian kemp -- he's not seven points ahead of raphael warnock right now, he's running a point behind. one or two points, if you are herschel walker, is absolutely critical. >> literally every vote matters

in the state of georgia. every vote matters period, but especially at that moment. in that state. steve kornacki, msnbc national political correspondent. it's great to see. up next, brand new justice ketanji brown jackson. supreme court justice. she schools up an alabama solicitor general as the court takes up a challenge that can got the voting rights act. we'll be right back. when a cold comes on strong, knock it out with vicks dayquil severe. just one dose starts to relieve 9 of your worst cold and flu symptoms, to help take you from 9 to none. power through with vicks dayquil severe. ♪♪

at booking.com, finding perfect isn't rocket science. kitchen? sorted. hot tub, why not? and of course, puppy-friendly. we don't like to say perfect, but it's pretty perfect. booking.com, booking.yeah. woman tc: my a1c stayed here, it needed to be here. doctor tc: ruby's a1c is down but it'swith rybelsus®. pretty perfect. man tc: my a1c wasn't at goal, now i'm down with rybelsus®. son tc: mom's a1c is down with rybelsus®. song: a1c down with rybelsus® anncr vo: in a clinical study, once-daily rybelsus®

significantly lowered a1c better than the leading branded pill. anncr vo: rybelsus® isn't for people with type 1 diabetes. anncr vo: don't take rybelsus® if you or your family ever had medullary thyroid cancer, or have multiple endocrine neoplasia syndrome type 2, or if allergic to it. anncr vo: stop rybelsus® and get medical help right away if you get a lump or swelling in your neck, severe stomach pain, or an allergic reaction. anncr vo: serious side effects may include pancreatitis. gallbladder problems may occur. tell your provider about vision problems or changes. anncr vo: taking rybelsus® with a sulfonylurea or insulin increases low blood sugar risk. anncr vo: side effects like nausea, vomiting, and diarrhea may lead to dehydration, which may worsen kidney problems. mom tc: need to get your a1c down? song: a1c down with rybelsus® anncr vo: ask your healthcare provider about rybelsus® today. president reagan today signed a

25 year extension of the 1965 voting rights act. the president who originally favored only ten-year extension and came late to endorse his version had nothing but praise for it today. >> the right to vote is the crown jewel of american liberties and we will not see its luster diminished. >> that's president reagan in 1982, and we have seen the luster of that juul, the right to vote, diminished twice in recent memory. first in 2013, shelby county v. holder, when the supreme court gutted section five of the voting rights act, when the court invalidated the part of the law that -- bug history of racial discrimination to get federal approval before changing the way that they hold elections. , then, last year, the supreme court ruled in another case making it harder for minority groups to use section two of the voting rights act to challenge voting laws. today, the republican-led state of alabama took another swipe

at the voting rights act with with the case at the supreme a case at the supreme court. one that centers on whether alabama's new congressional map, violates another part of section two. that statute prohibits voting practices or procedures that discriminate on the basis of race. black people make up more than a quarter of alabama's population. the states new congressional map only designates one majority black district, district seven, that's the awkwardly placed blue splotch on this map right here. the group's challenging this map argued that it is diluting they are voting power by creating a supermajority in that one district, spreading black voters out across the other six. but if the justices side with the state of alabama, that section two of the voting rights act should not require the state to consider race when drawing its congressional map, well then that would further erode the protections that the vr a is supposed to be providing to historically and represented voters. joining us now is janai nelson, president and director-counsel

of the naacp legal defense fund. she was present for oral arguments at the supreme court this morning. thank you so much for joining us. >> thanks for having me. >> i think a lot of folks are very worried about what is going to happen here, given the courts track record. you were in the room, how did you read some of the comments from of the conservative justices that seem to be somewhat skeptical of the case that the state of alabama was making here? >> yeah, well i had the pleasure of being in the court room because one of our attorneys was arguing before the court, do well ross, an incredible attorney who has been working on this for years. what i observed was that even the conservative justices seemed to think that alabama was engaging in a bit of overreach in suggesting that the standard for interpreting section two of the voting rights act, the standard that

this very supreme court has used for decades, was somehow flawed, all of a sudden! with no basis! for suggesting that the court should change its interpretation of the statute. so what we saw was, conservative justices trying to steer the state of alabama towards a bit of a narrower path. and alabama did not seem to want to do that. and still seemed to want to erode the foundation of the erode the foundation of the voting, section two. and i hope that the court will not follow alabama down that very path. >> when you talk about that narrow path, can you charge out with that actually is? because if the court doesn't follow through with alabama's proposed -- the suggestion that they should not have to take race into account when drawing congressional maps, what could the supreme court do here? and what could -- what can damage could the

voting rights act sustain, in your mind? >> well, first, i think the easiest path for the court to follow is the one that it charted for itself for many decades, and that is to affirm the lower court's decision in this case. this is a cookie cutter textbook, section two violation. you have black voters, as you described, who comprise 27% of the states population and only are able to elect a candidate of their choice in one out of seven districts. so what the court should do is follow the lower courts, the three judge panel that said, alabama needs to go back, read redo its maps and make sure that black voters have more than one district in which they have an opportunity to elect a candidate of their choice. now the court seemed to question a few different ways in which to go about it. there were lots of conversations about the role of race in determining whether

there is a violation of the voting rights act. to me that such a curious question because, the voting rights act was enacted very specifically to counter racism and racial effects in our democracy, and our electoral system. so of course we are going to think about race and consider race! as we enforce the voting rights act and make sure that we are not continuing to engage in racial discrimination. >> right, that was the entire point of the voting rights act! right? race was central to it. our newest supreme court justice, justice ketanji brown jackson brought up the sort of, -- her version of an originalist argument on that front. is that right? i thought of that as a nod to the originalism that is practiced by the conservative members of the courts, although this had a distinctly different flare. >> yes, i would say justice ketanji brown jackson's exquisite discussion of the 14th amendment was as much for the or a lists and the

litigants as it was for her colleagues on the court. it was clearly a way in which to show that even if you were to consider original intent, even if you were to follow the conservative doctrine of originalism, you cannot evade the injustice of this case. that you would still wind up in the right place, recognizing that even the founders, even those who were amending our constitution, after reconstruction, to ensure that racial discrimination would not continue to weigh this democracy down -- that even those individuals were thinking about race! they were confronting the facts of racism in our history and in our country, and trying to construct a remedy for that. and the voting rights act, as you noted, was enacted about 100 years later, because we did not quite solve the problem with the reconstruction amendments. so the voting rights act came into do that work, and is still doing that important work today. >> indeed, we have not quite

solve the problem around voter disenfranchisement in this country and seem to be making more problems as time goes on. janai nelson, president and director-counsel of the naacp legal defense fund, thank you for making time to join us tonight. >> absolutely, thank you. >> one more story before we go, as ukrainian forces take back their land from russia, an exasperated vladimir putin has threatened to use nuclear weapons. how people in kyiv are reacting and preparing, coming up next. stay with us! to become dangerous. tide pods child-guard pack helps keep your laundry pacs in a safe place and your child safer. to close, twist until it clicks. tide pods child-guard packaging. new astepro allergy. no allergy spray is faster. twist until it clicks. with the speed of astepro, almost nothing can slow you down. because astepro starts working in 30 minutes, while other allergy sprays take hours.

and astepro is the first and only 24-hour steroid free allergy spray. now without a prescription. astepro and go. clunky beige, plastic... or... presto... you choose. better hearing made virtually invisible. this was the scene today in the that's that eargo difference.

ukrainian village in the southern region of kherson. the soldier there shouted glory to ukraine, as he draped the country's flag over newly -- one of the four regions where vladimir putin, through sham referendums, declared are now part of russia. ukraine's military took the key city of lyman in the donetsk region -- and in the day since, ukraine has continued pushing back russian troops and the south and east of the country, cutting off strategic supply routes and infrastructure for russian forces. ukraine's recent military winds follow a new round of harsh warnings from president putin, who on friday declared to -- defend russian territories in, quote, all available means. that set off alarm bells across the world, and has had some in ukraine preparing for the worst. the ap reported today in the kyiv city council, the they are providing evacuation centers with potassium iodine pills in preparation for a potential nuclear attack. those pills can help people block the absorption of radiation in the aftermath of a

nuclear strike. the biden administration today announced a new security package for ukraine worth $625 million in military aid. and includes more of the advanced rocket systems that -- observers credit with helping ukraine's military begin to turn the tide of war. that does it for us tonight. we'll see you again tomorrow. now it is time for i the last word with lawrence o'donnell. good evening, lawrence o'donnell. >> good evening, alex. we are joined tonight by arizona senator mark kelly, who has not been with us in a long time, because he is busy doing his job and this will be his first appearance on this program as a senate candidate for reelection to the united states senate with abortion as the new top issue now in these campaigns, thanks to the supreme court and herschel walker. >> yes. a senate candidate, i would ad, who has some real lift his candidacy there in arizona. good time for mark kelly and for democrats to care about women's reproductive choice.