maggie's phone, driving maggie's phone, throwing maggie's phone out is -- it's such a stretch for them to come in and try to put her phone in his hand. then you start thinking through, why would alex take her phone and not paul's phone? start there. why would alex take her phone and not paul's phone? that's a question i don't have an answer to. it makes no sense. it makes no sense why he would take maggie's phone if there's nothing on there. he knows her password. put it in. see what it is. we know from all the phone data her phone was never unlocked. he had the keys. if he is taking her phone to unlock or to do something with it, he didn't. why? why? why? why? these are circumstances that

have to be consistent with each other and have to point conclusively to the guilt of alex murdaugh, beyond a reasonable doubt. these circumstances just raise more questions, ladies and gentlemen. raise more questions that we wouldn't have to be dealing with if they had just simply secured mag maggie's phone on june 8th when they got it. we wouldn't be here. we do know from the time line that alex left the property at 9:07. were they killed before he left? i don't know the answer to that. i don't know the answer to that. we do know that if he was in the house when the shots were made down at the kennel that he would not have heard them.

we had testing from mr. sutton. they were angry with mr. sutton's -- not angry, but they challenged his conclusions on a lot of things. they didn't touch his acoustic testing. didn't doubt that. haven't challenged that. if he is in the house and shots are down at the kennel, he doesn't hear it. they say that sometime after 8:44 -- they peg it 8:48, 8:50, because that's when paul last responded to a text from this friend of his. they ignore the fact -- i think buster testified it takes ten minutes to get the dogs in and clean up. there's this 8:55 stuff going on on maggie's phone.

take their theory that at 8:50, after having a pleasant conversation talking about is it a chicken? bubba and -- so four minutes later, let's go ahead and kill my wife and my son because i got questioned at the office today. that's their case. let's run with it. see where it takes us. it takes us that he leaves the property at 9:07. from the moment -- he's got -- if it happens at 8:50, he's got 17 minutes. 17 minutes. he would have to be a magician to make all that evidence disappear. as you heard under dr. ey

dr. eisenstot. it wasn't about trying to figure out who has the right angles. the point of that is, we end having to get our own experts, is to prove the shooter is covered in biological material, covered in blood, covered in everything because the blow back. the doctor said there would be blowback under my version, too. blood, biological material from killing paul. the shooter is covered in blood. the shooter's gun is covered in blood. there's not sufficient amount of

time to clean all that up and make all that disappear. then call your son buster, driving to visit your mother, who he got a call earlier and said your mother is agitated because your dad went back in the hospital. check on her. he goes to check on her. he calls buster. does he say, i just blew your mom and brother up? you should see the damn mess. are you kidding me? he calls chris wilson. normal conversation. he calls his brother, talking about his dad. then he goes over and sits down with shelly and sits on -- he stays there 20 minutes. not 40 minutes or 22 minutes, i don't know. the records show what time. the fact of the matter is, he has no blood on him.

he is acting normal. he is the same old alex. yet, their theory is he just blew the person -- the people he loved the most in this world, blew them away. talk a little bit about the angles that mr. sutton did his reverse trajectories on the shots. they are having a good time joking about the size of the figure. it must have been a 12-year-old kid. it's 5'2".

let them have their fun. that's not what the testimony was. the testimony was that the barrel of the gun has to be at that level to make the shot into the pen. we didn't take the measurements. s.l.e.d. took the measurements. could a 6'4" person get down to that level? sure. mr. sutton said that's not a natural shooting angle. can a 6'4" person get on their knees? sure. shooters are in movement. a 6'4" person is going to be moving around on their knees? i don't think so. the most common sense thing here is there were two shooters. there were two guns. one gun is high capacity. holds 10, 20, 30 rounds. if you are going down to execute

somebody, one gun is enough. why take another gun that only has three shots? the doctor agreed with the angle coming out, so the angle puts it away from the door of the feed room where paul is killed. it's not our burden. it is their burden to prove to you based on circumstantial evidence that all the circumstances are consistent with each other and point conclusively to the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. those facts are just not consistent. those facts are just not consistent. i want to say a word about the

condition of paul and maggie, particularly paul. i'm not going to show you any photos. i think you would agree that it was so bad, it was so bad. alex, in the back of the car, with me in the back, you could see me in the camera, sitting there talking to agent owen and agent craw. he says, it bad. said he said i did them so bad. i think the evidence is -- everyone who listened to it and knows what alex was talking about says they did them so bad. agent owen doesn't say to you,

he said i did them so bad. we can put that issue to rest. that issue points to a bigger question. what would they be saying in this trial if that conversation wasn't videotaped? what would they be saying? we know the agent would say, he said, i did them so bad. why would we be then? i am grateful they videotaped that. you will hear it if you have any questions. i don't think you should. they did him so bad, that is for sure. another thing that we will clear up right now is alex's concern for buster. you heard that. you heard that in mr. water's closing, that in statements alex

made on the roadside shooting labor day weekend where he tried to arrange assisted suicide, that he told officers that there's no danger to buster. of course, there was no danger to buster because of the roadside shooting because he knew who shot him. curtis a. smith. he knew he was trying to get himself killed. from that, they're going, the reason he knows there's nothing to worry about buster is because he knows he did it. that's what was just argued yesterday. deputy mcdowell captured alex speaking to buddy hill about his concern about buster's safety. will you play that, doug?

it's in evidence. i don't have the exhibit number. >> can you get a police to my older son? >> can you play that again? >> what about buster? can you get a police officer to my oldest son in columbia? i haven't told him yet. >> did you hear that? can you get a police officer for my oldest son? what about buster? can you get a police officer for my oldest son? that's buddy hill, the sheriff. they want to come in here and tell you he wasn't concerned for buster's safety.

once again, i'm grateful the sheriff's department had bodycam. now you know. you know alex was concerned. you know alex asked for a police officer for his son in columbia, buster. i'm almost done. i promise. i do want to talk about alex's misstatements about time. alex told deputy owen during interviews that -- first, alex's statements about time are not lies. they were misstatements. like i said, deputy owen said people make mistakes -- i'm sorry, agent owen. they make mistakes about time all the time. they do. mr. waters is critical because

alex was wrong every time he gave a time estimate. turns out, i think mr. waters is probably right about that. whether the time period is inconsequential or consequential, he was wrong about it. alex had told the deputies in an interview he got home at 5:00. that's not true. he went to work that day at 8:30. that's not true. so he is just wrong on times. what was consistent, whenever he had an interview, he said, you get the records. you get the records and it will show what time i was -- did this, what time i did that. it will all be in the records. guess what? they are in the records. when the records show that his time estimates was wrong, you know, they jump up and down.

they jump up and down. the statement to deputy green, he said i've gone to my mom's for an hour and a half. i last saw them 45 minutes. i don't know. frankly, i don't know if that's wrong or not. he is talking to deputy green about 10:30. an hour and a half from 10:30 is 9:00. he left at 9:07. the question about what he did when he got down to the scene, and he said he ran up to paul and maggie and he left his phone and then he went back to get his phone and then he is talking to

911. you can hear it. he says, i've been up to it now, it's bad. he doesn't remember the sequencing. i don't think anyone should hold that against him. mr. waters gets up here and says, maggie was running to her baby. alex was running to his baby. can you imagine what he saw? is it evidence of guilt that he doesn't remember what the sequencing was in that moment? is that evidence? is that evidence of guilt?

or is that evidence of trauma? this is a guy that went to get a shotgun and he put 16 gauge shells in it. he knows the difference. he didn't know that night. i'm not quite understanding what the state makes of this. did he not go up to their bodies? the forensic evidence speaks to the contrary. what we have is maggie's dna all over his t-shirt. you heard that from the agent. we have paul's dna on his t-shirt. how did he get paul and maggie's dna on his t-shirt if he didn't touch them? if he brutally murdered them, hosed off down there next to the dead bodies, got in a golf cart naked, drove to the house, changed clothes, went to his

mom's, goes down, calls 911 and then searches for a restaurant menu and checking email, waiting for the police to show up, how does he get their dna on his body? because it's on there. the forensic lab tells you that. because he went up to them and touched them. then there's a spot of blood on the suburban steering wheel that was maggie's. we know the suburban was never at the kennel, thanks to the onstar information. i'm not sure that was an accepted fact until onstar sent the stuff in. the suburban never went to the kennel until after he returned. it got on the steering wheel after he checked maggie, like he said. there's a spot of blood on the

gun. then there's gsr. there's three particles of gsr on his shirt, three on his shorts and one on his finger. the s.l.e.d. agent testified that's consistent with transfer gsr when you pick up a gun. we are back to the lie. we are back to the lie. that's all they have in this case is that alex lied to them when he last saw them. he shouldn't have. he shouldn't have. he said what a tangled web we weave once we start to deceive.

he continued to lie. he shouldn't have. he shouldn't have. he told you what was going through his mind. probably wasn't rational. he was in the throws of an addiction. he just found his wife and son murdered. he is being interviewed. swiped for gsr. he does think david owen is the guy that investigated his friend. but he was wrong. it turns out he was wrong. i thought that's who it was that night. he was under investigation -- he was being accused of obstructing the boating investigation for that. he was under investigation for that. he had all these skeletons in his closet. he was wanting to get them away from him and looking for the real killer.

the state in this case has gone to lengths trying to through slight of hand convince you of this and show you that without showing evidence of guilt, convince you that he murdered his wife and son because of financial misdeeds were going to come out. which is about the most illogical thing imaginable. there's no evidence to that. then the state brings all these shotguns in here. i'm not going to pick every one of them up. the forensic evidence is -- they can't be excluded. okay. they can't be included either. you know nothing more about these shotguns than you would

have the day you showed up for jury selection because there's nothing to know about them. can't exclude them. there's no blood, guts, brains on any of the guns that would have been there from the shooting under everybody's interpretation of how paul was murdered. they want you to think that because you own guns that you should be viewed differently. i don't know what else to make of that. i don't know what else to make of that. when this trial began with opening statements on january 25th, they asked why, why would alex execute his wife and son in cold blood. here we are six weeks later. you have heard weeks of testimony about alex's financial crimes, drug addiction and lies.

after all that, the state has failed to prove -- to provide a satisfactory answer to this question. why, why, why? the state cannot provide an answer to this question because the answer is, he would not. he would not under any circumstances murder those that meant the most to him. your oath requires you hold the state to the exacting standard of proof that the state must prove the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. when they rely on circumstantial evidence, these circumstances must be consistent with each other and when taken together point conclusively to the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt. if they merely portray the behavior of the defendant as suspicious, you must find him not guilty. circumstances don't point conclusively to alex's guilty, far from it.

mr. waters wants you to believe alex slaughtered maggie and paul and repeatedly lied and changed his story to fit the time line and evidence. as it turns out, in fact the state is the one that's been manipulating evidence to fit their theories of guilt, which changed over time. from the date of the murders until yesterday, in the absence of forensic science, a reliable investigation, the guns, blood spatter, the time and opportunity to have committed the murders, you are instead left to make inferences about all sorts of interactions and behaviors. the prosecution wants you to view the evidence through the monster lens they have tried to paint. but the law requires you to view it through the lens of innocence. none of these things individually or taken together prove conclusively to alex's guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

up until now, you have not been able to say a single word. i can't imagine how frustrating that must be. soon, soon you will have the most powerful voice in this courtroom. with your words, you can let everyone know in a court of law only evidence in the burden of proof matters. not gossip. you can let the state know they don't get to obtain an indictment by misleading a grand jury and bring before you a case built on theory and speculation. two words justice demands in this case. that's two words are not guilty. the oath you have taken in this case is to follow the law. to follow the constitution and to hold the government to the burden of proof. it requires a verdict of not

guilty. on behalf of alex, on behalf of buster, on behalf of maggie and on behalf of my friend paul, i respectfully request you do not compound a family tragedy with another. thank you. >> good day, i'm andrea mitchell in washington. you have been watching closing arguments in the alex murdaugh double murder trial in south carolina. the defense attorney attempting to poke holes in the prosecution's case and to help his client avoid a potential life sentence in connection to the deaths of maggie and paul murdaugh, his wife and son. joining me ellison barber, lauren jarrett and danny

savalis. >> you heard when jim griffin gets emotional. he seemed to be starting to cry saying to the jury, do not compound a family tragedy with another one. one thing my colleagues who have been in and out of the courtroom -- catie beck who has been here from the beginning -- have said is that this jury often seems to take quite well to this attorney, to jim griffin. he has a bit of a casual folksy delivery. the jury seems to be attentive and paying attention when he speaks. frankly, they seem to like him. there's a reason i think why we heard from him in the closing arguments and not dick who has been so at the front of this case for the defense and has been at the center of some contentious back and forth. i think in that final moment of him getting emotional, we saw why the jury seems to relate to this attorney so much. they went through a lot of different points here. one thing they maintained and stayed with was reminding the

jury that reasonable proof and what they need -- the burden the state needs to meet, that it's not the defense's burden and that suspicious behavior is not enough for a guilty conviction. they ended by saying that the state has crafted this narrative saying alex murdaugh was lying to fit an alibi he concocted. they said, that's what the state has been doing. they said from the beginning the state zeroed in on alex murdaugh. investigators at the scene did that immediately. they released that statement the next day saying there was no threat to the rest of the public because they weren't looking beyond alex murdaugh. they say since then, prosecutors have tried to take evidence, a lot of it, all of it circumstantial to fit a narrative that they believe to be true. through that process, they say, they have changed their story. they said alex's inconsistencies, that's behavior of a drug addict. they said the inconsistency,

fear, things not lining up, they asked the jury, is that evidence of guilt or evidence of trauma? telling them to remember, this is a man who found his son and wife brutally murdered. >> to laura. there's no murder weapon. at times the prosecution seemed to be really stretching to try to come up with motive, a really solid motive for doing this horrendous crime. the prosecutor took a lot of time with the jury yesterday. seemed to sometimes lose their attention. did the defense do a better job? >> you saw the defense hone in on the prosecution's theory of motive, honing in on the fact it just doesn't hang together in perhaps the most intuitive way. the prosecutors have offered this theory that he committed these heinous crimes to invoke

sympathy to distract from his financial downfall. we will see whether the jury finds that convincing. it's clear it's not the most perhaps intuitive jump off the page making the most sense theory. that's why you saw the defense attack it pretty skillfully today. saying, this is a loving family, by all accounts. this is someone who loved his wife. we heard that testimony. we heard them described at lovey dovey. you heard the defense do that carefully. you heard the defense hone in on this idea that the investigation was not the most rigorous, as you would expect. so much so that they presented evidence to the grand jury that indicted alex murdaugh for these charges with evidence that turned out to be false on something pretty material, which was blood on the shirt. the actual investigator who

testified before the grand jury told them there was blood on the shirt. that was not true. that's a big deal. to the extent the jury is bothered by something like that and thinks investigators messed up so much that they actually perhaps didn't consider someone else could have committed the crime, you could see the jury bothered by that. one thing you didn't hear from the defense today, which is something that could be on the minds of the jury, which is if alex murdaugh did not commit these murders, then who did and why was he not concerned about finding out the real killers? if he did not do this and he is completely innocent, why have we heard not a peep of testimony about him being consumed with finding the real killers? >> andrew, former fbi general counsel and nyu law professor, what's stood out to you this morning? >> well, one is just how high the burden of proof is. we are looking at this case.

honestly, we cover on your show and on the network the idea of an imminent potential charge against the former president. it's really worth remembering just how high that burden is. as is pointed out, any mistake by the government, whether it's material or immaterial or a change in what their view of what the motive is can be used to create reasonable doubt. there will be good defense counsel, as there should be for any defendant, taking advantage of that and holding the state to its burden. the final point is, you know, there's a constant way in which these cases are tried where the government tries to make sure the jury is looking at all of the evidence together and saying, what are the odds of all of that being true? this and this and this and this. the time line here is so devastating if you look at this rationally.

the defense in these kinds of cases tries to separate out each piece of proof to say, this piece of proof is not alone proof beyond a reasonable doubt and should not have the jury look at the full picture of what's going on. that is a constant theme for people to look for in these kinds of cases. >> thanks to all of you. for first time since russia invaded ukraine a year ago, secretary of state blinken and russia's foreign minister lavrov met one on one. it w scheduled meeting, at the margins on the outside of a g20 meeting in new delhi today. blinken said the u.s. will support ukraine. russia must reverse putin's decision and implement the s.t.a.r.t. treaty and moscow should release paul whelan. with pressure from france and germany on ukraine to begin

negotiating with russia, blinken said that the u.s. stands with ukraine's president zelenskyy's ten-point peace plan. >> president putin, however, has demonstrated zero interest in engaging, saying there's nothing to talk about, unless and until ukraine accepts, and i quote, the new territorial realities while doubling down on his brutalization of ukraine. >> objections from russia and china prevented any condemnation of the war by the g20. they didn't produce a final joint statement. an unusual event. here to put this into perspective is michael crowley. this meeting, encounter, between lavrov and blinken, the first since before the war when we were all in sweden and they met and had a contentious meeting, lasted less than ten minutes. a lot happened. give me your takeaways.

>> that's right, andrea. as you know, because i sat next to you in the press conference we were in geneva back in january of 2022, the last time that blinken met with lavrov. this was notable because there had not been any contact since then, had not been a meeting like that. secretary blinken did use the opportunity to get a lot in. how much of a difference it's going to make is not clear to me. for instance, the u.s. has been trying to secure the release of paul whelan for a very long time. he has been imprisoned in russia for years. he was not part of the swap that released griner. the russians are not showing any inclination to move. it's not clear blinken brought anything new to the table. underscoing support for ukraine is worth doing. president biden made it clear that the u.s. is in for the long haul in supporting the

ukrainians. i think the russians know the american position on that. it's not clear how much this is really changing the game. the u.s. made its position on s.t.a.r.t. clear. it can be helpful to communicate in person. what might blinken have said that hasn't been part of a public readout? i think as a final word here, probably the main purpose here is for the u.s. to show that it is still looking to have dialogue with russia. we are not the ones who are refusing to try to find some way to end this war. a lot of the world is impatient to see this wrap up, to get into peace talks. it's important for secretary blinken and the administration to show they are willing to talk to the russians, even if they don't think now is the time for negotiations. >> if fact, the location in india, it's so important because india, of course, has been supporting russia in a lot of

ways. keeps buying its oil, for instance. not innovating the sanctions. buying cheaper price-controlled oil. janet yellen was just there and got a lot of pushback from the global south against the war. she went to kyiv. the war in ukraine did overshadow this gathering with russia and china refusing to join the statement. blinken confirmed sanctions could be one of the tools the u.s. would be using against china if it were to provide lethal military aid to russia as the u.s. claimed today china is considering. here is what blinken said. >> were china to engage in material lethal support for russia's aggression or were to engage in the systematic invasion of sanctions to help russia, that would be a serious problem for our countries. this concern that china is considering providing assistance to russia, this is a shared concern. many other partners have raised this. not just raised this with us,

but it's my understanding have raised it directly with china, including here today in new delhi. >> no backing down from blinken about what they say is solid intel that china is considering it. bill burns, the cia director, was very clear about that, he has confidence in it. what is your takeaway about the possibility of sanctions if china were to do it? is that an idle threat? sanctioning china would be very hard for europe to swallow. >> this is new. i pressed the secretary a week or so ago, what step would you take? would you impose sanctions? he didn't want to get specific. he is getting more specific. it's a tough step to take. china has a lot of ways they could hit us back economically. do we want to start getting into an escalating economic confrontation with china? that's a tough decision for the administration to make if china

goes forward with arming the russians, assisting them in that way. ukraine right now is pretty much the highest priority for biden administration. they might be willing to do it. but it is risky. >> michael crowley, thanks so much. invaluable insight. ukraine's president zelenskyy is signaling kyiv is prepared for count ercounteroff. i spoke to ukraine's ambassador to the united states yesterday. joining me now is the am bass -- ambassador from ukraine. let's talk about this a year in. what are the prospects of a count counteroffensive that can push russia back to what it took a year ago now? >> thank you for having me. thank you for keeping an eye on everything that happens in

ukraine as it is important for all of us. we have already retook 50% of what russia occupied at the beginning of this. we are able to do more. we need to do more. all the territories controlled by russians, ukrainian people are suffering. people have been killed. women have been raped. children have been abducted to russia. we are ready since last year to go on this major counteroffensive. as soon as we have enough capabilities, enough weapons, believe me, nobody will stop ukrainians. >> i know president zelenskyy has been pushing for the f-16s. the u.s. and nato allies said they are not the ideal weapons. how important are the f-16s to you? >> everything is important. we are discussing all capabilities with our partners. of course, air defense is still a big priority. artillery is a big priority.

everything is the priority, including all the air capabilities, whether f-16 or some other. we are discussing everything. we are against an enemy which is so much bigger. no red lines. very immoral. really large in numbers. we need all the capabilities. i'm sure that we will see more capabilities from the battlefield hopefully faster. >> how frustrating is it that you got an agreement for the tanks, yet you are not getting the numbers of those leopard tanks, those german-made tanks that we thought you were going to be getting? what's happening with the supply chain on that from european countries? >> you know, as you rightfully pointed, all of us, all peaceful countries were not prepared for war. as we learned during this year, not only tanks but there are so many other capabilities which we thought we had in numbers. they are not there.

again, it's not a reason for frustration for us. it's a task. we cross that bridge. we know what we have to do. we will work tirelessly with our friends and allies. really, big thanks to the u.s. this week not only we getting from the last week more weapons following historic visit of president biden, but also u.s. started dispersing budget aid, which is very important. the level of transparency and accountability and oversight is unprecedented. i can tell you the foreign minister of finance, it's all out there. but it's very vital for us to receive this aid so that we can, in addition to fighting on the front line, can sustain life in ukraine. >> our treasury secretary janet yellen was there, which was a significant indication of support and concern and commitment. let me ask you about china. secretary blinken, national security advisor jake sullivan,

have both warned china and said that china is considering doing something they have not done, which is to send weapons, lethal aid to russia, which would help putin and could be a game changer. president zelenskyy said he wants to meet with president xi. is that on the horizon? >> well, i don't know. we clearly are united with the united states in a strong message to everyone not to do what iran and belarus is doing. not to help the war criminals. russian war criminals will end up in the hague or any other place. we really hope that all countries, not only countries that support us from the beginning of this, but everyone who believes in u.n. state, everyone who says sovereignty and territorial ining at the rut -- integrity is important for them cannot help them.

>> how concerning would it be if china, with all of its capability and weapons, a superpower, helped bail out vladimir putin who has been losing on the battlefield because of the extraordinary ukrainian resolve and commitment? >> it would be concerning. a year ago, russia had the second largest army and capabilities. but we see when people are fighting for their homes, like ukrainians, when people are fighting for the loved ones, when people fight for freedom and we are supported by everyone, including american people who have this fight in them, who believe in the same values, we can win. we must win this war. >> you spoke of war crimes. i'm thinking of the thousands of children you referred to them who have been kidnapped, taken from their homes, taken to

russian-held territory or russia itself and gone to so-called reeducation camps. this is cultural genocide. >> absolutely. absolutely. this is a continuation of what russia has been doing from february 24th, attacking our museums, universities, civilians. it is a genocide against ukrainian culture and ukrainian people. what they do to children is -- it's horrific. this is a war crime. every child that has been either put into this -- whatever they call it. uncontrolled territories or deported, because this is what it is, forcefully deported and kidnapped to russia and put for speedy adoption. they cannot be forgotten. this cannot be forgiven. we will work even after we win until we get every child back and until everyone is punished for this. >> finally, the american people,

they have shown great support so far. i was in this wonderful community in chicago, ukrainian village, with this church school, st. nicholas cathedral school. they have embraced so many families, mostly women and children, whose husbands are fighting back home. what can you say to these extraordinarily brave refugees here about the chances they will be reunited with their husbands, families, their homeland? >> to ukrainians, i want to say, stay strong. learn languages. get ready to go back home. the embassy is here to help you. to all the americans, big thank you. thank you for everything you have done. during this year, we clearly saw that we have a strategic not

partner/ally, but friend number one. we have to stay together. we together have to win for the sake of freedom. >> thank you so much. our thanks to her. we skip back to politics. the big name republicans bowing out of what was once the place to be for conservative politicians and what that means for 2024. you are watching "andrea mitchell reports" on msnbc. ea mitchell reports" on msnbc i have moderate to severe plaque psoriasis. now, there's skyrizi. with skyrizi 3 out of 4 people achieved 90% clearer skin at 4 months, after just 2 doses. serious allergic reactions and an increased risk of infections or a lower ability to fight them may occur. tell your doctor if you have an infection or symptoms, had a vaccine or plan to. ♪♪ ♪ it's my moment so i just gotta say ♪ ♪ nothing is everything ♪ talk to your dermatologist about skyrizi. learn how abbvie could help you save.

- booked our trip to vegas! talk to your dermatologist about skyrizi. - in this economy? what are we, rich?! ♪ ♪ are we rich? oh, what a relief. no more secretly renting the attic to that scary lodger that i met at the reservoir. - we're not rich... i used kayak to compare hundreds of travel sites to get a great deal on our flight, car, and hotel. (loud rustling and clanking from the attic) - who goes to the reservoir?! - kayak. search one and done. if shannon's thinking about retirement, she'll get some help from fidelity. with one-on-one financial coaching, shannon feels so good about her plan, she can enjoy more of right now. that's the planning effect, from fidelity. (woman 1) i just switched to verizon business unlimited. it's just right for my little business. right now. unlimited premium data. unlimited hotspot data. (woman 2) you know it's from the most reliable 5g network in america? (vo) when it comes to your business, not all bars are created equal. so switch to verizon business unlimited today.

everything's changing so quickly. before the xfinity 10g network, we didn't have internet that let us play all at once. every device? in every room? why are you up here? when i was your age, we couldn't stream a movie when the power went out. you're only a year older than me. you have no idea how good you've got it. huh? what a time to be alive. introducing the next generation 10g network. only from xfinity. the future starts now.

♪ ♪ to all the chevy silverado owners out there. the adventurers and the doers. to everyone that works hard and plays hard. whether it's your first silverado or your tenth. thank you for making chevy silverado the #1 best-selling retail full-size pickup. some of the biggest names in republican politics are skipping the annual cpac conference of conservative republicans that kicks off in maryland today, 2024 candidates nikki haley and former president trump are going to be there, so will mike pompeo who is likely to run, but trump rival governor ron desantis, former vice president pence and

top republican leaders in congress are also skipping the conference, under increased increased skrut knee, joining me now vaughn hillyard at cpac in maryland. vaughn, why are desantis, pence, and even the rnc chair skipping event this year? >>. >> none of these individuals are explicitly saying it's because of the allegation of groping that was made by herschel walker staffer against matt s schlepp o is sitting on stage. it's notable, this is a crisis in the conservative movement about whether to stay with cpac, this is a conference that has been taking place now for 49 years here. it was ronald reagan who gave the inaugural speech here. this is no small billing here, when you see hundreds, thousands of conservatives around the country fly in for this

conference, and yet, matt sh lap has held firm. i was talking to kimberly guilfoyle before jumping on the stage and i asked her what it said about ron desantis not coming here today. she told me it speaks volume was her wording saying it's important for everybody to listen to the grass roots of the conservative movement. that's why it's notable it's not speaker mccarthy, not leader mcconnell. this is the likes of mike lindell and steve bannon. cruz, marsha blackburn are here, congressman scott perry, who i also spoke with. he smiled when i asked what he thought about mccarthy not being here. this is really a dividing time here for the republican party as it chooses its path forward, whether to go with donald trump who will be the featured speaker on saturday night, or whether to

go with the likes of ron desantis. >> vaughn hillyard at cpac, and just moments from now, president biden is going to be leaving the white house going to the capitol to meet with senate democrats as his 2024 campaign strategy is coming into focus in remarks to house democrats yesterday at their retreat. the president urging lawmakers to promote what they have accomplished, they have a pretty good legislative record as they fight to take back the house. >> folks, you all know how much we've gotten done, but a lot of the country still doesn't know it. that's why the big job in front of us is implementing the laws we've passed so people start to see all the benefits that are there because you produced it for them. you stepped up and got it done. >> and joining me now from capitol hill, nbc's capitol hill correspondent ryan nobles there on the second floor outside where the senate lunch is going to take place. what do the democratic senators want to hear from the president? >> reporter: you know, i think, andrea the message that

democratic senators are hoping to hear is very similar to the one that the president offered to their colleagues on the house side last night. they want to know that the white house is very committed to implementing all of these things that they were able to accomplish over the past two years and then be able to use that as a talking point when they get out on the road in the 2024 campaign in what will be a very difficult map for senate democrats. they were able to hold on to the senate majority in this last election cycle despite having a tough map that time around, the map in 2024 is going to be even more difficult with a number of red states that currently have democratic senators representing them up for re-election this time around, that will be a big part of what they're going to talk about as well. then also expect -- we expect that part of this conversation will also be about some of the more bipartisan issues where we do see democrat and republican senators starting to find some consensus. for instance, there is a lot of momentum right now on a bill that would address rail safety

after that tragic train derailment in east palestine, ohio. this is something that you're seeing both republicans and democrats start to coalesce around, and also we would expect there to be a lot of encouragement to the biden administration to make sure that the epa and everyone involved in the recovery effort there continues to step up their efforts. and then in general, you know, this could be in many ways a pep rally for senate democrats, as they continue to talk to the president about ways they can work together to try and strengthen the democratic brand, perhaps strengthen biden and his re-election hopes, and you know, it will be interesting to see this. of course we'll be behind closed doors, andrea, whether or not there's any real talk about president biden's re-election bid, will senate democrats actually press him on when he will formally announce his plans to run for re-election. all those things are possibilities. and this of course the first time that the president has been here and talked to senate democrats since the midterm and the midterm victory as it was

for the senate democrats back in the fall. so certainly an important meeting and there could be a lot of fruitful discussion that happens here in the next couple of minutes. andrea. >> and ryan, briefly, do you feel any discomfort, any unease among senate democrats about the president running again? you know, we've seen the articles and he's been insistent that he has more to do, and the first lady emphasized that during her trip to africa. there's no question he is going to declare. any settlement about the age issue or other issues we're seeing in the polling? >> you know, when you talk to these senate democrats publicly, there is nothing but support for joe biden. you know, the senate majority leader chuck schumer is very supportive of him in general, you know, senate democrat to senate democrat seems to want him to run for re-election, but there are, you know, some cracks in that senator joe manchin, for instance, has not officially ruled out a presidential bid of his own from west virginia. so you know, this is something

where you could imagine that this is a conversation that senate democrats would like to get past. it would certainly allow them to -- for their own re-election bids in 2024. >> the question for man chin would be under what party would he be running. ryan nobles, thank you so much. that it does it for this edition of "andrea mitchell reports." follow us online, chris jansing will be here after this brief message. ing will be here after this brief message. the towel washed with downy is softer, and gentler on your skin. try downy free & gentle. your shipping manager left to “find themself.” leaving you lost. you need to hire. i need indeed. indeed you do. indeed instant match instantly delivers quality candidates matching your job description. visit indeed.com/hire ♪ ♪

♪ get directv with a two year price guarantee. ♪♪ allergies don't have to be scary. (screaming) defeat allergy headaches fast with new flonase headache and allergy relief! two pills relieve allergy headache pain? and the congestion that causes it! flonase headache and allergy relief. psst! psst! all good! i've got moderate to severe plaque psoriasis. now, there's skyrizi. ♪things are getting clearer.♪ ♪i feel free to bare my skin yeah, that's all me♪ ♪nothing and me go hand in hand♪ ♪nothing on my skin♪ ♪that's my new plan♪ ♪nothing is everything♪ achieve clearer skin with skyrizi. 3 out of 4 people achieved 90% clearer skin at 4 months. in another study, most people had 90% clearer skin, even at 4 years. and skyrizi is just 4 doses a year, after 2 starter doses. ♪i see nothing in a different way♪ ♪it's my moment so i just gotta say♪ ♪nothing is everything♪

serious allergic reactions and an increased risk of infections or a lower ability to fight them may occur. tell your doctor if you have an infection or symptoms, had a vaccine or plan to. ♪nothing is everything♪ talk to your dermatologist about skyrizi. learn how abbvie could help you save. ♪♪ alex! mateo, hey how's business? great. you know that loan has really worked wonders.

that's what u.s. bank is for. and you're growing in california? -yup, socal, norcal... -monterey? -all day. -a branch in ventura? that's for sure-ah. atms in fresno? fres-yes. encinitas? yes, indeed-us. anaheim? big time. more guacamole? i'm on a roll-ay. how about you? i'm just visiting. u.s. bank. ranked #1 in customer satisfaction with retail banking in california by j.d. power.