years later because black folks were being disenfranchised, and the voices were not being heard. >> as justice ketanji brown jackson i thought pointed out very well today, deuel ross, who was before the free court this morning, thanks very much. i appreciate it. >> thank you for having me. is. >> are thinking about race? >> context, baby. >> thanks, chris, as always, thanks to you at home for joining us at this hour. 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 on the ongoing court battle over his alleged mishandling of classified documents at mauler. trump undoubtedly is hoping to get a favorable ruling from the

six conservative justices, three of whom trump appointed. from looking at the 100 or classified documents taken from his beach club, but they are attempting to get the review of classified documents back before the court-appointed special master which could potentially throw some fan into the gears of the investigation. despite reporting that trump's legal team is looking to soften its tone in this case, the filing today by trump's lawyers are filled with more angry screams against the department of justice. they accuse the department of, quote, feigned concern about purported classified records in order 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 scandal of legal quandaries. and it's more evidence of the mind-set of which he approaches the powers of the presidency and the keeping of the nation's

secrets. in a media website, trump told his follower, 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 belong to him and him alone. now today veteran "the 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." and the book is filled and 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 documents. in one passage, haberman explains about trump's desire to play fast with secrets including what he knew were classified. trump paints a picture of damage

at an iranian space facility without waiting for officials to ink out details because he liked how the image looked. if you take out the classification, that's the sexy part as trump put if they try to make change. trying to prevent intelligence taking upstairs to the president or left in trump's possession after briefings, trump's behavior illustrated why kelly was concerned, trump waived items such as his letters with kim jong-un which trump thought he himself had written that waived that to the oval office including with reporters. in an interview last fall trump denied taking the letters to mar-a-lago telling her, no, i think that's in the archives. those love letters were recovered at mar-a-lago by the national archives a few months later. in the way of reporting for this book, haberman reported that trump was known for throwing

records in the toilet literally. they obtained pictures of the notes that trump flushed down the toilet in violation of the presidential act. there is more, of course, the book paints a vivid picture of a man who had little respect, who lied, who flouted 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 of trump's beach club. if anyone could have seen this coming it is maybe haggy haberman. and, boy, is there a lot to unpack in her book. joining us here, the woman herself, maggie haberman. with her new book, i've been waiting for you to come back in the building and sit on a set with me. it's been a long time, my friend. congratulations on the book. >> thank you. >> it's so talkful of

information, but it also maintains a full picture of a man, not just at the start of his presidency, but the sort of genesis of donald trump, as a political animal, as kind of the cultural landscape if you will. again, i ask you, as someone who knows him well, in some ways, people think you are the sort of 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 because i read about this in the book, i want to make clear there's so many people who have done so much work on trump over the decades i was fortunate to look at their work and build this broader portrait. but trump is a person of move, a handful of moves and people around him have figured out which one he's using at any given moment and it's sometimes unclear. but what will we're seeing as far as taking the documents to

mar-a-lago and how how he's handled addressing questions about it is entirely in keeping with his dna over his life. >> the disregard with which he treated these documents and the disorganization, too, i think 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 it surprised you? >> what surprised me is the volume of material he had. that continues to really stun me about this story, is in that first tranche of boxes that he returned to the national archives, they discover that there were 184 classified documents -- actually, i'm not sure if they discovered or doj discovered. they discovered there were 184 individual classified documents which, i think, comprised 700 pages and then that wasn't it. then there were more treated in response to a subpoena in june. that subpoena whereas issued in

may for remaining material. trump's lawyer signed an attestation, saying, yep, that's it. we've given back all the classified documents. and of course they found in a search in march there were many more documents. >> 11,000 documents? >> 11,000 pages and more than 100 individual documents with classified -- >> right. >> remember, each of those documents can have several hundred pages so that was really surprising to me and continuing to be surprising. >> it's not just kim jong-un or shaquille o'neal's shoe. it's not the various mementos that he liked to wave around. it's the massive amount of paper that he squirreled away. you wonder about the rationality of this and if one can draw those conclusions. >> alex, within the boxes, it was all jumbled together. and the doj has talked about this, there were news clips with confidential materials. >> shoes. >> razor blades. >> umbrellas. >> right.

all sort of us of other material, one of the things about him, this is the effect in the white house, and our political culture, he has this flattening effect where everything is of the same kwon text. i write about it in the book. it's all the same, the classified material, they're 9 same as my time as president, my razors, my golf balls, i think there was a raincoat, i was today, in one of the boxes. so this is of a piece of who he is. but it's a reminder things that other people consider sacred, he doesn't. >> and that the rules don't apply to him. i want to read another excerpt from your book that has been left to discuss, the degree to which he's making an end iron around the checks and balances that exists especially when it concerns classified national secrets right. on more than one instance when trump agreed to relinquish his personal phone, he managed to

acquire another. advisers believed he had sent one to a store without security precautions. at one point, trump left his phone in a golf cart. a senior white house notes documenting the frantic search for the misplaced phone for six hours. specified that it was not our phone, apparently meaning it was not a government-issued device. it sounds like trump sent 51 to like verizon to get a phone for him so that he could make calls that were unmonitored and then promptly loses it. >> he was very keen on keeping his own phone. and kudos to my friend alex burns who was the first to hear there was an issue with a phone in a golf cart. we reported about this a couple years ago, but there was some reporting related to it. aides were a little stunned that he would suddenly have another phone after they had gotten him to have one away. not just he didn't want people knowing what he was doing, he didn't trust the government. one of the fascinating parts of

the donald trump presidency, and i explore this is just the deep level of paranoia, and what is that meant for somebody overseeing this apparatus that he didn't trust. >> he didn't trust the government, and the government didn't trust him. >> that's right. >> at the end of his presidency, we're talking about someone -- we read it in the introduction to the segment. like john kelly doesn't believe that trump can have access to these documents, they start taking away classified briefings so he can't squirrel them away in a shoe box in the oval office. we know there's been this institutional deep state desire to protect trump from himself. but to the agree they really didn't trust him with anything, it sounds like. >> no, there was an ongoing and my colleagues wrote about this recently, he would ask to keep stuff. they weren't sure why, or what it meant, and they would try to get things back. for the most part, 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, his aides, people closest to him would say, he had a reason not to trust the government. look what happened in various investigations, it would go on and on that way. and whatever value those complaints it, it had nothing to do with whether he had the classified information. >> right. >> it's not all about the mueller investigation or the cross fire of the probe, it was about all manner of other issues, according to our reporting. and it's still not clear why he picked certain things and why he had them. >> impunity, one of the things that's so important about this book, it contextualizes trump's life in this book, as his life, the person he became as a figure in the new york city society. and also who he was as a child. when you talk about this impunity, that's not something that was kind of like 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 kane rosebud moment.

i won't call it a rosebud moment, i won't put that level of importance on it, but it's indicative of who he is. in senior year in high school, trump's school gave him promotion to a company. this is in military school. asked the question whether he deserved the prestigious purse and they suspected because of his father's prominence at the school. trump was in charge of leading other boys. when one student in a company was brutally hazed by another the story at school was that donald trump stayed in his room listening to his record player. the hazed student complained to his parents and trump was removed from his position. trump refused to concede defeat, insisting that he had really been given a promotion to another title. i mean the shadows, the echoes of what later transpires after the election in 2020 are impossible to miss. and yet, can you talk a little bit more about the person he was, even in his teen years when it came to questions of loss and

defeat? >> i think you raised the question, i just want to go back to a point that i want to go back to which is about his sense of entitlement. >> uh-huh. >> and i think that people lose track of this because he talks like somebody, you know, a lot of voters who support him will say, he sounds like me, he expresses thoughts like me. the reality is he was the son of a well-off man, he grew up as a child of privilege. and that, in a certain way, there are people who grow up with privilege who don't expect that systems don't apply to him but that wasn't him. he expected that things were always going to be set up for him. and he refused to accept a 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 the high school, he has pretty much figured out who he is. . >> and he doesn't have to accept the world as it is, in his twisted mind. there's also a part of this book

where you talked about how trump decides he's going to refuse to leave the white house in the days art 2020 election loss. and that is a remarkable anecdote that you talk about. and it's also something that people have criticized you for, in terms of having that in the book right now, as opposed to when the whole attempt to steal the election transpired. talk to me a little bit about how you make and made decision, as far as what to leave in the book, what to report out and the sort of process by which you did that? >> sure, i turned in earnest of this project after each section, which is february of 2021. a book is different. a book takes time. i wanted to paint a broader contextual portrait of a person's live. not just a person's life, but of our country. how he came to be, how a celebrity-obsessed culture came to see him as an avatar, at least half of the country for

what it wanted, and certainly a party what it wanted. how he infused himself into the pop culture fabric for such a long period of time. and that takes time. it's a process of going back and talking to sources over and over again. and learning information. i provided a significant amount of reporting to the "times" throughout the process. and it's just an entirely different experience doing the book. but one thing i think about a lot, i spoke to -- several years ago, i talked to someone who i knew had cooperated with a bunch of these books, there was a story in one of them that the person had refused to tell me. i caught wind of it, but there was some reason i was upset. i asked a question, why do people do this, why do you talk to books and not for a daily report? the answer was, there's noed me yaes for it, it's not coming out. it's a problem for future me

which is what his person was suggesting. i think that's the reason why people decide to talk when they do. >> interesting, on the part of the source to say this is going to happen in the future. and blotback catch, if i catch anything, will be at some undetermined time in the future. when you talk about trump and the future and what's going to happen, i want to play some exclusive audio that you have generously given us regarding trump and potentially his greatest opponent, his greatest challenge, 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. september of last year. >> last year. let's take a listen to that. >> well, has he said to you that he wouldn't run if you ran? >> i didn't -- i never asked him, i never -- if -- let's put it this way, i think i'd win very easily against anybody. >> well, so let me ask you a question then -- >> i'm at 98% in the approval.

>> it's like back to trump's approval ratings. what do you think he thinks of ron desantis? >> i don't think he thinks very highly of him. he thinks he made him. he thinks he created him for the republican party for the governorship of florida and he thinks he ought to be referring to trump. trump's endorsement of him, he thinks, "a," he should be in the primary, he's not wrong, he talks about his strength in the republican party, that's very real. that's something that some people struggle to accept. just because some things trump says isn't true, it doesn't mean he is weak. in the republican party. >> and to be clear, whether that gives hip a win in the general, that's one thing but his party in the power is almost diluted. >> if he runs, a lot of people would come back, i'm not sure ron desantis wants to go up against the donald trump meat

grinder because many people have struggled with that. >> it is a meat grinder among other things, maggie, i don't know if this is a badge, but you have chronicled this man, there are a million books about trump. you have compiled something that is very special but it's a very important deep and important dive into the man himself. it's great to talk to you about this. i wish we had two more hours to chat. "the new york times" reporter maggie haberman. her new book is "confidence man: the making of donald trump and the breaking of america." thank you. one more thing in maggie's book, she describes a topic with trump last year in which the topic turns to georgia senator candidate herschel walker in particular that walker had threatened women. then years ago, maybe it wouldn't have been a problem. 20 years ago, it would have been a bigger problem. i don't think it's a problem today. just ahead, steve kornacki joins

me in the latest to affect walker. and next, donald trump calls on the supreme court to give him a lifetime in the spiraling mar-a-lago investigation. we will have more details on that coming up.

♪♪

late this afternoon, donald trump filed an emergency application with the supreme court asking the court to allow the special master, judge raymond dierry, to review the roughly 100 classified documents that the fbi seized from his beach club in august. trump's asking the supreme court to block part of a ruling by the 11th circuit court of appeals, the court that ruled against him. last month, that court said that the justice department can use the documents in that 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 pat of the special master's review which ultimately could complicate the doj's investigation into the seemingly important classified documents, or at least we think. and its argument to 19 writes,

president trump was still the president of the united states when any documents bearing classification markings were delivered to his residence. at that time, he was the commander in chief of the united states, as such his authority to classify or declassify information bearing on national security flowed from the constitutional investment of power as the president. so the argument is basically trump has all the power. he can declassify what he wants and what he wants. he can convert a record, reportedly a classified one, to a personal one, if the supreme court allows the judge to review the classified documents that also means and this is an important one, that team trump would get to see the documents. the supreme court has ordered the justice department to respond to trump's request by next tuesday. joining us now, charlie savage, the national reporter, charlie, thank you for being here tonight. i need you to 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's investigation and what trump is trying to do. >> sure. so, the status quo right now, after the appeals court's intervention to remove these documents from the special master, the trump-appointed judge had ordered is that there's one federered access to this 103 document markings. criminal investigators can present them to a grand jury, they can ask witness questions based on their contents, they can pursue criminal charges based on mishandling or obstruction of not returning them. they can try to figure out what happened to the documents that are in the effort folder that have classification banners that were stored in the jumble alongside the ones they were able to recover. so, trump is trying to partially

roll back what the appeals court did in unleashing the government to continue with its investigation in this area. he's saying, for now, you can put -- we want the special master's review to look at these things to see whether they're subject to executive privilege or attorney/client privilege, that means we, the trump people, need to be able to see them. that means we need to be able to have security clearances to do that et cetera. it's a huge mess for the special master if the supreme court were to grant what he's asking for. on the other hand, it's not a huge part on the stage by the justice department because they're not asking the supreme court to tie its hand. with this. >> if the department of justice can continue on with its investigation, what then happens if the supreme court grants the request and the judge gets to review the classified documents? that's happening in parallel as the doj is doing its own investigation. where do those thing intersect?

i would assume if deery decides the classifies documents are indeed privileged that then affects the doj 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, they knock on people's doors they learn something else that leads to something else that leads to something else, then just down the road, it's not just judge deery, it's judge cannon deciding something in that tranche was in fact privileged and they should not have looked at it, it creates opportunities for all kinds of mischief. what should she then do because investigators have exposed information that they should not have seen. that is isn't january that she make 245s decision, all kinds of things happened by him. in a minimum, does she say those people have to be removed from the investigation. does it poison -- the poison

tree as they say, and stuff has to be thrown out? does it give the trump legal defense down the road, if he's indicted with this stuff, the opportunity to try to investigate the investigation. try to turn the tables back on the government saying you used information you had no right to use, et cetera, et cetera, so therefore these charges have been to be thrown out or something like that? it's very tricky in terms of these dangling documents if they get privileged for review. and that said, confident that the executive privilege has anything to say here asserted by the former president over the objections of the current president to keep those being reviewed by the justice department. part of the executive branch thinks its crazy to even suggest that might be the case. for judge cannon to rule that way they would is have a stronger appeal, of course they'd rather not have to get into a mess, alex. >> i'm sure. this case, it's directed to

clarence thomas who oversees the 11th circuit. he's likely to refer that to the premium court. charlie savage, thanks for your wisdom, charlie, we needed it. >> thank you. up next, the story that is rocking republican politics. and once would have been enough to doom a republican ate's chances but in donald trump's republican party the 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 figure out what is happening in the great state of georgia, coming up next. program. if you're age 50 to 85, and looking to buy life insurance on a fixed budget, remember the three ps. what are the three ps? the three ps of life insurance on a fixed budget are price, price, and price.

a price you can afford, a price that can't increase, and a price that fits your budget. i'm 54, what's my price? you can get coverage for $9.95 a month. i'm 65 and take medications. what's my price? also $9.95 a month. i just turned 80, what's my price? $9.95 a month for you too. if you're age 50 to 85, call now about the #1 most popular whole life insurance plan available through the colonial penn program. it has an affordable rate starting at $9.95 a month. no medical exam, no health questions. your acceptance is guaranteed. and this plan has a guaranteed lifetime rate lock so your rate can never go up for any reason. so call now for free information and you'll also get this free beneficiary planner. and it's yours free just for calling. so call now for free information.

♪♪ do you remember a month 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 if republicans get control of the senate this november they would federally outlaw abortion after 15 weeks. it was almost like he was trying to make an ad for the democrats right before the midterms. when it happened almost every republican running for election or re-election distanced himself from graham.

there was one notable exception, georgia nominee herschel walker. walker told graham he would back the federal ban saying he was a proud pro-life christian who would always stand up for unborn children. well last week, the daily beast reported that herschel walker urged his girlfriend to get a procedure and paid for it himself. i should note that nbc has not that and walker denied it. they've done their due diligence in getting the receipts, literally. they verified the woman's claims with a receipt from the abortion clinic, a bank receipt and signed personal check from herschel walker and a get well soon card that walker sent that check inside of. the daily beast corroborated the claims with a friend the woman told at the time of the

abortion. so if this reporting holds up, it shows a massive amount of hypocrisy that you think might tank a political campaign in a normal year, but especially 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. president of the mitch mcconnell-aligned pac, the senate leadership fund, said they're, quote, full speed ahead in georgia. the national senate committee put out a statement calling it a smear and saying republicans will stand with herschel walker. this race can control the senate. it is now too late to pick a republican candidate. for that party right now, herschel walker is too big to fail. joining us now is steve kornacki, nbc's political correspondent, steve, thank you for being here. i hope you're enjoying the reprieve from the big board.

so glad to sit down with you and have a conversation, my friend. will you tell me how the contours in georgia have been shaping up? there have been a number of scandals that herschel walker has, i guess in some way weathered. have any of them redowned to reverend warnock's benefit, warnock being the democratic candidate here? >> yeah i think the context, what you're referring to, the trouble that walker had even before the story, he was paying somewhat of a price in it in the polls if you look at the senate race in georgia, walker versus war knock and kemp and abrams. kemp the republican governor is running eight points better even before this than herschel walker on the senate side. so there was a gap between those candidates. when you look inside the polls in walker's negative ratings were particularly high, earlier revelations on the campaign. his performance on the campaign trail have not been reassuring.

he's running in a state -- until the 2020 election had been a pretty red state at the presidential election went for biden in 2020 but barely. so in a midterm climate, that helps any republican, certainly in contention for the seat. but i look at it as a situation where he was already testing the limits of voters in georgia. i know we live in a very different era of politics than we did a generation ago, so the question is raised will this really matter, this doesn't have to matter as much as a point or two points to make a significant difference in a race like this. >> warnock's numbers have been holding steady, is that accurate -- is it more than -- are we seeing a split ticket here when you talk about kemp's numbers being high, and warnock's being steady where you're going to maybe have georgia republican pulling the lever for cover up but then voting for warnock the democrat

in the senate race? >> that's what we're seeing in the polling. it's not too hard to imagine who that voter is, you have to remember earlier this year, brian kemp went to war with donald trump and brad raffensperger, secretary of state, went to war with trump. and they won worth primaries against trump-backed opponents. here's georgia who doesn't like democrats or biden but also doesn't like donald trump. that's the kind of voter that they were able to get to vote for biden in 2020. they're saying they stood up to trump but walker is too far. that's where we're seeing the disconnect. the other thing with warnock, he has to finish ahead of walker, obviously, but georgia is a runoff state. if he doesn't get there, there's a libertarian in the race, we've seen this many times poised to get 2%, 3% of the vote, you could be in that same snare joe in 2020 that senate control comes down to a georgia runoff.

then you look at the dynamics, walker and warnock in a runoff. you start to wonder then does any of the personal stuff matter at all to voters or are they purely voting on party? because the stakes would be absolutely clear at that case you're voting for senate control. >> and runoff november 6th, right? >> november 6th. >> i've got to ask you, does this remind you of george jones and alabama and the flaw -- i think saying flaw is you've fall mystic, and given the hypocrisy, essentially, in the latest herschel walker scandal. jones won that by the hair on his chinny chin-chin, is it all over again? >> you have to keep that in mind, if doug jones did win in that december 2017 race and he barely did. you know, certainly had an impact on that race, without that story that roy moore would have been well positioned there. but again, i think we're talking about impact here, if there is

impact from the story. my guess is it would be minimal, a point or two but i'm saying, he's not brian kemp. he's not running seven points ahead of warnock right now. he's running a point behind warnock. one or two points for walker is critical. >> literally, every vote matters in the state of georgia. every vote matters but particularly in that state, steve kornacki, national correspondent, my friend, good to see you. >> you, too. up next tonight, brand-new justice, ketanji brown jackson, supreme court justice. she schools alabama solicitor general, as the court takes up the challenge that could gut the voting rights act. we will be right back. ♪ ♪ away suitcases come in many colors. so you can find your color. colors. choices. happiness. away. ♪ ♪

we planned well for retirement, but i wish we had more cash. you think those two have any idea? that they can sell their life insurance policy for cash? so they're basically sitting on a goldmine? i don't think they have a clue. that's crazy! well, not everyone knows coventry's helped thousands of people sell their policies for cash. even term policies. i can't believe they're just sitting up there! sitting on all this cash. if you own a life insurance policy of $100,000 or more, you can sell all or part of it to coventry. even a term policy. for cash, or a combination of cash and coverage, with no future premiums. someone needs to tell them, that they're sitting on a goldmine, and you have no idea! hey, guys! you're sitting on a goldmine! come on, guys! do you hear

that? i don't hear anything anymore. find out if you're sitting on a goldmine. call coventry direct today at the number on your screen, or visit coventrydirect.com. president reagan today signed a 25-year extension of the 1965 voting rights act. the president who originally favored only a ten-year extension came late to endorse this version had nothing but praise for it today. >> right to vote is the crown jewel of american liberties, and we will not see its luster diminished. >> that was president reagan in 1982. and we have seen the luster of that jewel, the right to vote, diminish twice in recent memory. first in 2013 with shelby versus holder when the supreme court gutted section 5 of the voting rights act when the court invalidated the part of the law

that would require states with a history of racial discrimination to get federal approval before changing the way they hold elections. then last year, the supreme court ruled in another case making it harder for minority groups to use section 2 of the voting rights act to challenge voting laws. today, the supreme court took another swipe at the voting rights act with the supreme court one that centers on whether alabama's that practice discriminates on the basis of race, black people make up more than a quarter of alabama's population. the state's new congressional map only designates one majority district, district 7. it's the awkwardly placed blue blotch on his map here. the group challenging this claim it's diluting its voting power, by creating a super majority with black voters out of the other six. but if the justices decide with

the state of alabama that section 2 of the voting rights act should not allow the state to consider race with the election act that would further erode the directions that they're trying to be providing. joining us now, janay nelson president and direct of council of the naacp defense fund. she was present for arguments at the supreme court this morning. miss nelson, thank you 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 court's track record. you were in the room, how did you read some of the comments from conservative justices, that seemed 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 courtroom, because one of our attorneys was arguing before the court, duele ross,

incredible attorney who has been working on the state of alabama rights for years. and what i observed is 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 2 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 little 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 voting rights act, section 2. and i am -- i hope that the court will not follow alabama down that very wrong path. >> when you talk about the narrow path, you can chart out what that actually is? because if they don't go -- if

the court doesn't follow through with alabama's proposed, you know, the suggestion that they shouldn't have to take race into account when drawing their congressional maps, what could the supreme court do here? and what could -- what 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 2 violation. you have black voters, as you described, who comprise 27% of the state's population. and only are able to elect an candidate of their choice in one out of seven districts. so what the court should do is follow the lower court, the three-judge panel, that said alabama needs to go back, redoll redo its maps and make sure that

black voters have more than one district of which they have an opportunity to elect a candidate of their choice. now, the court seemed to question a few different ways of which to go about it. there was lots of conversation about the role of race in determining whether there was a violation of the voting rights act. and to me, that's such a curious question, because the voting rights act was enacted very specifically to counter racism and racial effects in our democracy in our electoral system. so, of course, we're going to think about race and consider race, as we enforce the voting rights act, and make sure that we aren't continuing to engage in racial discrimination. >> right. that was the entire point of the voting rights act, right? it 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 kind of a nod to the originalism that is practiced by the conservative

members of the court, although this had a distinctly different flair. >> yeah, i would say justice ketanji brown jackson's discussion was as much for the oralists and litigants as much as 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 fact 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 didn't quite solve the problem with the reconstruction amendments. and so the voting rights act came in to do that work and it's still doing that important work today. >> indeed, we have not solved that problem around voter disenfranchisement in this country. and janay nelson, thank you for taking time to join us tonight. >> absolutely, thank you. one more story before we go, as ukrainian forces take back their land from russia, and exasperated vladimir putin has threatened to use nuclear weapons. how people in kyiv are reacting and preparing. stay with us.

♪ ♪ away suitcases are designed with 360-degree spinner wheels. ♪ ♪ so you can go with the flow. ♪ ♪

(woman) oh. oh! hi there. you're jonathan, right? the 995 plan! so you can go with the flow. yes, from colonial penn. your 995 plan fits my budget just right. excuse me? aren't you jonathan from tv, that 995 plan? yes, from colonial penn. i love your lifetime rate lock. that's what sold me. she thinks you're jonathan, with the 995 plan. -are you? -yes, from colonial penn. we were concerned we couldn't get coverage, but it was easy with the 995 plan. -thank you. -you're welcome. i'm jonathan for colonial penn life insurance company. this guaranteed acceptance whole life insurance plan is our #1 most popular plan. it's loaded with guarantees. if you're age 50 to 85, $9.95 a month buys whole life insurance

with guaranteed acceptance. you cannot be turned down for any health reason. there are no health questions and no medical exam. and here's another guarantee you can count on: guaranteed lifetime coverage. your insurance can never be cancelled. just pay your premiums. guaranteed lifetime rate lock. your rate can never increase. pardon me, i'm curious. how can i learn more about this popular 995 plan? it's easy. just call the toll-free number for free information. (soft music) ♪

this was the scene today at a ukrainian village in the

southern region of kherson. the ukrainian soldier shouted glory to ukraine, as he draped a flag in one of the new villages, one of the four villages that vladimir putin's sham referendum now declare part of russia. in the days since, ukraine's military has continued pushing back russian troops in the south and east of the country, cutting off strategic supply routes and infrastructure for russian forces. ukraine's recent military wins follow a new round of harsh warnings from russian president vladimir putin who on individual declared to defend russian tort using, quote, all available means. that set off alarm bells across the world and sent some in ukraine preparing for the worst. the ap reported today in the kyiv city council, they're 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 event of a nuclear strike. the biden administration announced a few security package for ukraine worth $620 million in military aid. it 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, "way too early with jonathan lemire" is yumming up next. there's a very general appeal. >> you could spin out things that would go very badly for donald trump, as far as the special master having a hearing on whether these are classified or declassified. that would be a nightmare for donald trump. >> that's nbc news analyst andrew weiss mann, weighing in on the fight with the justice department. trump's efforts to keep the doj from going through the documents found in the country club in florida, that fight could now