alex alex alex alex alex alex alex alex alex alex alex biggest county in arizona looks like, given the headwinds that he is facing in the and the intense pressures? >> i should've mentioned it, all five of the members of the board of supervisors stood shoulder to shoulder and stood up for the facts. in 2022 and 2020, before that. four of the five of them are republicans and there may not be many left next time you look. >> barton gellman, whose latest piece is in the atlantic magazine. we appreciated. that is all in on this thursday night. alex wagner tonight starts right now. good evening. alex alex alex alex thank you very much for your time tonight. appreciate it. that is all in on this night. i went out to do an optimistic

story. >>s, my friend. and thanks to you for being here this evening. it was four days when "the wall street journal" published this. the journal was the first to report that the national enquirer paid a woman named karen mcdougal $150,000 in august 2016 in what is known as a catch and kill. basically the enquirer bought mcdougal's story about her romantic relationship in 2006 and then the enquirer killed it. it never went to press. in any news cycle this story would have been a bombshell, but in the last week of a wild campaign the mcdougal story got very little attention. first of all, the country was still reeling from the release of the "access hollywood" tape. just days before director james

comey was looking at hillary clinton e-mails and investigations were open into donald trump's ties to russia. so a lot was going on. the hush money payment, the catch and kill situation involving karen mcdougal, that all got lost in the fog, lost but not forgotten because that story, that campaign finance violation would come back to haunt president trump in 2018. and this time people paid attention. the date was january 12, 2018. it was almost exactly one year into donald trump's presidency. trump was already under federal investigation by special counsel robert mueller over his campaign's connections to a russian influence operation, and on that day the wall street journal broke the news and we first heard the name stormy daniels. here's the headline. trump lawyer arranged $130,000 payment for adult film star's

silence. a trump lawyer and a fixer named michael cohen had paid stormy daniels $130,000 in the waning days of the 2016 campaign to buy ms. daniels' silence about her alleged affair with donald trump. cohen was later reimbursed by president trump who was now in the white house. and all of a sudden that hush money payment to karen mcdougal back in 2016, that all came back into focus. and it caught the attention of prosecutors in new york. the manhattan district attorney was reportedly thinking of bringing criminal charges, but federal prosecutors were also interested in opening their own investigation into all this. according to reports, the feds basically told the manhattan prosecutors to back off. but we know how that ended. after conducting their own federal investigation prosecutors in new york threw the book at michael cohen. cohen pleaded guilty in 2018 to

multiple charges including campaign finance violations for those two hush money payments. cohen went to prison for over a year, and he served additional time in home confinement. and in 2019 michael cohen testified to congress about those payments. >> i am providing the committee today with several documents and those include a copy of the check mr. trump wrote from his personal bank account after he became president to reimburse me for the hush money payments i made to cover up his affair with an adult film star and to prevent damage to his campaign. >> and even though federal prosecutors have said in court that cohen acted at the direction of individual one,

aka, donald trump, despite that astonishing admission, they shut their investigation in 2019. prosecutors in the district attorney's office, however, under district attorney cy vance decided to pick up the investigation. and fast forward two years and a new district attorney was signed in, a man named allen bragg and it was assumed he would continue the criminal investigation, but that's not what happened. two top prosecutors on his team abruptly resigned sending their disdain for the district attorney's decision to drop the investigation into trump's false business records including those investigations related to the hush money payments to stormy daniels. one even said trump was guilty of numerous felonies and that was that. we assumed that the case looking into trump's hush money payments to two women, we assumed that

was all over, the end, finished. until "the new york times" reported this past november that the manhattan d.a. alvin bragg was, yes, looking to jump start that case. in the months since that report a who's who has reportedly met with prosecutors or testified before a grand jury when impanelled by alvin bragg. the list is names you know. hope hicks, kellyanne conway, david pecker of the national enquirer, david cohen who's made 19 separate visits. what became cnn to prosecutors in the d.a.'s office as the zombie case, it apparently never died. well, tonight that zombie case is back in a big way. "the new york times" reports this evening that manhattan d.a. alvin bragg has signaled to trump's attorneys that a criminal indictment of the

former president may be forthcoming. here it is, quote, the manhattan d.a.'s office recently signaled to trump's lawyers he could face criminal charges for his role in the hush money payment to a porn star, the strongest sign yet prosecutors are nearen an indictment of the former president. unusual for the district attorney alvin bragg to notify a potential defendant without ultimately seeking charge said against him. at least six individuals have reportedly appeared before the grand jury. trump was told he could appear before the grand jury, but we have not confirmed they have signaled to trump's lawyers he could by facing criminal charges. despite the former president calling tonight's report completely insane, it is undeniable if true "the new york times" reporting this evening is

monumental. it may represent for the very first time in american history that a former president may be criminally charged. joining us now barb mcquade and professor at the university of michigan school of law, and the great neil katyal, who actually needs no introduction. so let us go right to you both. and i'll start with you first, neil. in terms how you're reading this reporting "the times" is pretty aggressive saying they believe an indictment is on its way. "the washington post" is a little more circumspect. nbc news has not confirmed an indictment is on its way but donald trump has been conferred to testify before the grand jury. >> there are two possibilities, alex. "the post" says it signals the end of the investigation.

"the new york times" says it signifies an indictment is likely. i think boast are possible. i think we're reading too leaves here at best. and i think that for two reasons. one is that the evidence against donald trump, you know, actually counts for something, and it's really bad. you know, what he did with stormy daniels and the like. and the manhattan district attorney here has paused the investigation. in fact, it looked like it was shutdown, and then something restarted it the restart to me is telling because you're not going to reopen an investigation into the former president of the united states unless you're really pretty sure you have the goods. so the fact it restarted to me makes it more likely that oats leaning toward indictment. the argument on the other side is this, there's a section in the new york code 190.50, and that says that a defense attorney can tell the district attorney, hey, i want to assert my client's right to possibly testify before the grand jury,

so please give me notice so i can give that option to her or him, my client. it could be that that's what's happened here, that the trump defense team has told the district attorney that, and now the district attorney is just saying, okay, i'm near the end of my grand jury investigation, and if you want to come in, you can come in. i think it's certainly possible. i think that's what's driving "the post" story and they don't go into all the detail and the code and stuff. i think it's less likely. >> we do know michael cohen he's not testified before that grand jury yet. we're not sure which one of those characters has just had meetings or actually testified, but given the level of witnesses that are being called, if you

will, i would ask you to read the same tea leaves neil is. >> i think it suggests to me they are at the end of investigation. new york law requires that the prosecutors at least invite the charges in to testify. but you're not going to invite that person in until you're at the very end. because before you interview someone who's the target of an investigation, you want to be informed as you can be about the investigation, so you would talk to everyone first. also expect that if the decision were not to charge donald trump, there'd be no need to invite him in. it's a big deal to invite a target into the grand jury especially when it's a former president. you'd not go to that trouble if all you're going to do is decline to bring charges. although it is speculation it seems to me if this reporting is true that donald trump has been invited in to testify, that

speculation seems pretty sound an indictment is not that far off. >> you heard a lot from michael cohen back in the day but to actually make this a felony charge, it requires some deft legal maneuvering, does it not? >> yeah. so i mean there's an obvious misdemeanor here in that trump was paying looks like these payments of $130,000 to stormy daniels and then, you know, lying about it. so the question is does it give rise to the level of criminal intent necessary for it to be a felony. and in order for it to be a felony, he has to be knowingly concealing that state crime from investigation. now, my gut is that's not going to be a very difficult thing to prove. this is not like some other things in which there aren't financial records. here there are. there will be some stuff about attorney-client privilege and the like. you know, trump was acting

through his attorneys when he made these payments, but at the end of the day i think that the evidence here so far looks pretty damning, and i think if i'm donald trump at this point, you know, i'd be pretty worried because this is a hard thing i think for him to get out of. >> barbara, i wonder what you think of some of the reporting we have from rolling stone about a possible legal avenue for trump to pursue by saying that the hush money payments had nothing to do with his campaign and everything to do with hiding his fair from his wife. multiple trump advisers including at least one of his lawyers have told him in recent months he has a stronger case if he argues the payments to stormy daniels had nothing to do with the election. instead these advisers would have trump argue these payments had entirely to do with the conflict with his wife, melania. basically melania was very angry at him and an awkward

conversation in their marriage, but do you think that's a viable defense here? >> no, i think you can believe that to be valid and true but not a legal defense. perhaps that was his overriding motive was to keep this information from his wife. but if there was a concealing of campaign expenditures, then that's a crime regardless of why he did it, whether it was to protect his wife or protect himself from the wrath of his wife. if he failed to disclose a campaign expenditure, that could be the underlying crime neil was speaking of that could turp a misdemeanor into a felony. it's sort of like when someone accepts a bribe to vote a contract on the city council and says i was going to vote for it anyway and it was good but i accepted the bribe. >> neil, i think given the amount of the number of investigations of fairly great

magnitude in terms of, you know, a special counsel looking into whether trump incited a riotous mob to undermine democracy january 6th. i think a to a lot of people who watched trump's legal foibles unfold the stormy daniels hush money payments seems like a throwback. it's surprising, "a," alvin bragg is pursuing this. and "b," if we're going to look at this in the longer lens of history, the first person to charge a former president, to levy a criminal indictment against a former president would be alvin bragg for this case. do you think that there is any discussion with the feds about whether or not he moves forward with an indictment given the expectations that other criminal charges are in the wings? >> i don't think so. i think you have here, alex, two federal investigations about trump. one on what he did on january 6th, the other about the

documents he stole at mar-a-lago. and the other this new york investigation we're talking about. the new york investigation does have a bit of a federal overlay because as you were reporting a moment ago, the federal justice department was looking into some of these things, so i could imagine a conversation between the state and federal government about that specific piece, but i don't think there's a bigger conversation about bragg, the district attorney saying, hey, what are you going to do about january 6th, the stolen documents, or even a conversation with the georgia and new york, you know, folks because they're very separate investigations. so i really do think it's like a race at this point to see is it going to be fani willis in georgia or allan bragg in new

york, and looks like that person may not be the last person to indict donald trump. >> we're looking at a future that could possibly be one where you have the manhattan d.a. going forward with criminal charges. you have fani willis, the fulton county d.a. going forward with criminal charges. maybe you have the special counsel going forward with criminal charges on the mar-a-lago documents case, and potentially more criminal charges relating to january 6th. i mean that is possible it sounds like at this point. >> yeah, it really could be quite chaotic. in addition, you'll have potentially donald trump defending himself in four separate criminal cases simultaneously while also running for president. and i think there's a good chance some federal cases are charged as separate cases, maybe one out of florida and one out of d.c. so he could be defending him fl in four different venues while that's going on. certainly unprecedented, yes, but so has been the conduct of the former president.

i think 2024 promises to be quite a year. >> that's an understatement if there was one. barb mcquade and neil katyal, thank you both my friends for joining me this evening. still to come this hour, we are waiting for a ruling by a federal judge that could change access to an abortion medication as we know it, but one of the nation's biggest retailers has already made its own controversial decision. that's coming up. but next president biden is dropping the hammer on congressional republicans. white house press secretary karen john pier joins me. stick around. n john pier joins e stick around all of that finger-pricking and all of that pain, my a1c was still stuck. there is a better way to manage diabetes. the dexcom g6 continuous glucose monitoring system

eliminates painful fingersticks, helps lower a1c, and it's covered by medicare. before dexcom g6, i couldn't enjoy a single meal. i was always trying to out-guess my glucose and it was awful. (female announcer) dexcom g6 is a small wearable that sends your glucose numbers to your phone or dexcom receiver without painful fingersticks. the arrow shows the direction your glucose is heading: up, down, or steady, so you can make better decisions about food, insulin, and activity in the moment. it can even alert you before you go too low or when you're high. oh, the fun is absolutely back. after dexcom g6, i can, on the spot, figure out what i'm gonna eat and how it's gonna affect my glucose. when a friend calls and says, "hey, let's go to breakfast," i can get excited again. after using dexcom g6, my diabetes doesn't slow me down at all. i lead line dancing three times a week, i exercise, and i'm just living a great life now. i have eight grandchildren. now i'm able to keep up with them again. we're not afraid anymore. it's so easy to use.

dexcom g6 has given me confidence and control that everything i need is right there on my phone. if you have diabetes, then getting on the dexcom g6 is the single most important thing you can do. once a patient gets on dexcom g6, it's like the lights come on. (david) within months, my a1c went down to 6.9. (earl) my a1c has never been lower. (donna) at my last checkup, my a1c was 5.9. (female announcer) dexcom g6 is the #1 recommended cgm system, and it's backed by 24/7 tech support. call now to get started. you'll talk to a real person. don't wait, this one short call could change your life. (bright music) 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. i screwed up. mhm. i got us t-mobile home internet. now cell phone users have priority over us. and your marriage survived that? you can almost feel the drag when people walk by with their phones. oh i can't hear you... you're froze-- ladies, please! you put it on airplane mode when you pass our house. i was trying to work. we're workin' it too. yeah! work it girl! woo! i want to hear you say it out loud. well, i could switch us to xfinity.

those smiles. that's why i do what i do. that and the paycheck. bridgett is here. she has no clue that i'm here. she has no clue who's in the helmet. are you ready? -i'm ready! alright. xfinity rewards creates experiences big and small, and once-in-a-lifetime. [ ominous music playing ] whoa! luigi! mario! this place is... the mushroom kingdom. hello. your brother has landed in the dark lands. they're under bowsers control. a mustachioed human has arrived in the mushroom kingdom. do you know him? do you think i know every human being

with a mustache wearing an identical outfit with a letter of his first name on it? because i don't. [ screaming ] since the start of the year president biden has been in a standoff with congressional republicanbes over our nation's version of a retirement program, social security and medicare. both problems, both programs are hugely popular. one poll earlier this year found that 70% of americans oppose making cuts to medicare and social security. just 17% of americans support making those cuts. and so president biden has made protecting those programs a center piece of his political messaging. he even got the entire republican conference to publicly commit to not cutting medicare and social security during that nationally televised back and forth during the "state

of the union." you've probably seen some version of that exchange in the past month, but what you might not have seen is what president biden did after that. the president followed up that speech by touring key states like florida and wisconsin and waving around a copy of republican senator rick scott's plan to sunset medicare and social security. during one event in senator scott's home state of florida president biden put a copy of the senator's deeply unpopular plan on every single seat. so president biden has made holding republican feet to fire on this issue a top priority, and he's largely succeeded. republicans are in a corner on this. "the new york times" reports today republicans are now trying to build support for a budget that would make deep cuts what raising taxes or touching social security or medicare, which is mathematically speaking extremely difficult. without any of those big ticket items to choose from, the gop is stuck making deep cuts to things

like health care, food assistance, and housing programs, all of which is politically very risky to say nothing about the actual ethics here. and today the president has delivered a sort of cue coup de graus in this standoff. an increase in the affordable care act. and president biden laid clear his priorities and he's ready for a fight on all this. >> they seem to say they're not going to cut social security and medicare. well, like i said, well what about medicaid, what about the affordable care act, what about veterans benefits, what about law enforcement, what about aid to rural communities, what about support for our military? what will they make -- how will

they make these numbers add up? here's the deal. if maga republicans in congress try to repeal the affordable care act, social security, medicare, medicaid, i'm not going to let them. >> even if kevin mccarthy could somehow wave a wizards wand on a budget without raising taxes, there's still a problem whether or not that budget could even pass his house given the republicans razor thin majority and tendency to shall we say fight among themselves. meanwhile the country is barrelling towards a debt default, a crisis, by the way, of republican making. joining us us now is press secretary karine jean-pierre. it really feels like the president has for lack of a better term dropped a hammer on

republicans in these negotiations by really seems like taking medicare and social security off the table. i wonder whether you have any indication of when kevin mccarthy may be ready to drop his own budget and start to negotiate with the president. have you any sense of a time line here? >> well, i'll say this. what you saw today from this president is he says this many times which is don't tell me what you value, show me your budget and i will tell you what you value. and those words are so critical and so important and that's what the president lays out today and start to give them a little breathing room and you're asking me about social security and medicare. he's going to continue to make sure we protect and strengthen that. he's going to reduce the deficit by nearly $3 trillion over ten years, by making sure the

ultrawealthy pay their fair share, putting more money into education and child care, building on investments we made in the last two years. all of those things are so critical, and let's not forget these are also items that 81 million of the american people who voted for him in 2020 support. so, yes, we are going to ask the republicans in congress what is your budget? what do you value? show the american people what is incredibly important to you that you want to do. and we've heard -- we've heard they've been very clear about this, alex. you laid this out so well that they want to cut social security, they want to cut medicare. yes, "state of the union" was so brilliant what the president was able to do to take that off the table, but they've also been talking out of both sides of their mouths on this. so we want to see -- we've been very transparent with the american people. why can't they do so? what is it that they believe?

what is it that way want to show the american people? and we're ready. we're ready to have that discussion. >> i guess the phrase what is it that they believe is philosophical question the gop might not be able to answer, and i wonder if the white house is at all worried about the disarray in the republican caucus? first of all, the math is not on their side. the cuts you have to make setting aside entitlements and taxes are draconian and insane, and then getting them to agree this is the budget they actually want to propose seems like a real heavy lift given how unaligned shall we say the fractious members of the caucus are, and yet these negotiations are important because we're barrelling towards the debt ceiling default. are you concerned the republicans can't get their act together and that will have a very meaningful effect on the american economy and the debt ceiling? >> so there's a saying i heard recently and i'll share it with you, which is not my circus, not

my monkey. if they can't get themselves together, that's on them. what we're going to focus on is the american people. we want to make sure we're delivering and being incredibly transparent. and look, we're going to continue to call out republicans, show me your budget, let me know what it is you value, what it is you want to deliver for the american people. and as it relates to the deficit, the default and lifting the ceiling, that is something that's their constitutional duty to do. that was something done in the last administration three times in a bipartisan way. there is no negotiation there. that should be done without conditions. now, as we're talking about fiscally responsible, this is something we want to see. what is it they want to negotiate -- because we didn't negotiate out of thin air, so show us a paper, show us your budget and then we can have that discussion. >> show us the money or how you want to spend it. i've got to ask you because the

white house has been fairly outspoken about what's happening in certain republican circles, specifically what's going on over at fox news where tucker carlson is trying to whitewash the events of january 6th. the president tweeted more than 140 officers were injured on january 6th. i've said before how dare anyone diminish or deny the hell they went through. i stand with the capitol police. i hope republicans feel ashamed on what was done to undermine our law enforcement. does the white house consider fox news a news organization? >> so i'll say this. when you look at the depositions that have been out there recently it even states from fox news leadership that they do not see tucker carlson's show as news or even truthful. that is coming from the fox leadership. that's not coming from me. that is coming from them. and i also would quote -- i'll paraphrase here what the chief of capitol police said. he said essentially when you watch tucker carlson as it relates to january 6th it is misleading, and it is

misinformation as with the conclusion of what happened on january 6th, the attacks that happened. as you saw from the president's statement 140 officers were injured, nearly 140 officers were injured on that day. it was an attack on our democracy. it was an attack on our constitution, and you cannot whitewash that. tucker carlson cannot whitewash that. anyone who doesn't see with their own eyes what occurred cannot whitewash that. and so the president's going to stand with the police officers, he's going to stand for truth, and clearly gnat is not what tucker carlson believes in. >> i'm going to say that sort of sounds like the white house doesn't think fox is a news organization, but we've got to leave it there. white house press secretary karine jean pierre, i appreciate you coming on show. >> we have more on a federal court ruling that could ban an

abortion medication nationwide. and as tucker carlson said rioters behaved respectfully on january 6th. could this argument help the rioters in court? stay with us. the rioters in court stay with us

a new video released this week is giving us a fresh look what happened in the capitol on january 6th. in it you can see the chaos as rioters trash the capitol hideaway office of republican

senator jim rish of idaho. these are as designated just for senators. rioters rifle through the desks and cut bags open as they look for intel. they also defecated in his suite. so that is noteworthy. but if you were expecting any comment from jim rish, the senator whose office was broken into and vandalized, well. when nbc news reached out to senator rish he replied i don't do interviews on january 6th, but thanks. thanks anyway. the reason we're even seeing this video of the ransacking is because it's an exhibit in the trial of a january 6th defendant. and this video evidence happens to be dropping at the exact same time as fox news host tucker carlson is dropping his counter narrative of what happened that day and suggesting january 6th was a chaotic sightseeing adventure rather than say mobs of people ransacking congressional offices and

defecating in them. surprise it's gaining traction with defendants who were citing if in court. today an attorney for a proud boy on trial for seditious conspiracy said in a court filing that the footage establishes that the senate chamber was never violently breached and, in fact, was treated respectfully by january 6th protesters. the senators on january 6th could have continued proceedings. joining us now is ryan riley, nbc news justice reporter. thanks for being here tonight. what can you tell us about how the doj is handling all of this, brand new tucker carlson counter narrative that seems to be embraced by the defendants in these january 6th cases? >> we know it's really been a challenge i think both for the justice department and defense attorneys to handle. this has been a growing issue, really the amount of discovery and in the particular case of january 6th, it's just really over the top because you have so much evidence generated by the

defendants themselves who are recording themselves in selfies while they committed crimes, and you have all these data dumps from phones that were seized during the court process, and it's just a ton of information for them to have to go through. what it allows you to do is sort of put together all the pieces of a puzzle what happened on january 6th and put together a mosaic. there's a ton of evidence but it does sort of choose your own adventure scenario. without showing any other context which is what tucker carlson did this week. there was some mystery how that individual went into the capitol. and you can trace his steps on the western side of the capitol.

he was walking through this inauguration platform with the mobs as the cops were trying to hold them back and was among the first people to go through the door and there's people that think, oh, the capitol police snuck this guy through the back door and gave him a tour of the capitol. that's not what happened. they were overwhelmed that day. it was a chaotic situation, they were vastly outnumbered and they made some strategic decisions about how they could best try to de-escalate it and that video is being cherry picked now to make it look like this was some sort of calm event when in reality it was chaos. >> also all these defendants had access to most of this footage already, did they not? >> that's right. the justice department has turned over thousands of hours of this video. a lot of this is just sort of

throwing spaghetti at the wall and seeing what sticks. because a lot of the discovery has nothing to do at all with their cases. there's one defendant he's just made it his mission to get as many videos out as he can. on the one hand as a journalist you appreciate because i want to see as many materials as we can from january 6th to help put together a complete picture of what was happening. but, you know, his mission has sort of been to draw up all these conspiracy theories, and, you know, that amount of raw material does allow a lot of people with bad motives to create sort of the story that they want to tell about that day. while ignoring all these factors of what was happening more broadly on january 6th. >> well, undeniably between tucker carlson and marjorie taylor greene there's a movement this week to sort of reframe the quote-unquote victims of january 6th and the defendants themselves. we know marjorie taylor greene i believe has sent a letter to the

d.c. mayor over the treatment of the january 6th detainees in the d.c. jail. they're going to check on them to see how they're doing. do you expect a fight between the oversight committee which marjorie taylor greene sits on as well and do you have any insight into how the january 6th detainees are being treated in jail? >> suddenly they care about the conditions in the d.c. jail which has been going on for decades really, but suddenly a bunch of white people, trump supporters locked up there and there's all this public interest. so i think, you know, that's -- frankly it could be something good overall because they've had long-standing issues.

but i think more broadly the information about how defendants are being held. and there's this use of the word political prisoner saying 1,000 people have been arrested. and when you talk to a lot of the people as i did last year or the year before when there was a rally in support of these defendants they were under impression all these people were being locked up pretrial on misdemeanors. and that's not what's happening. each of these individuals has had an individual assessment by a federal judge or a judge in appeals court even about whether or not he could be held pretrial. unlike in a lot of states are people are held simply because they can't afford money to be put up for bail, that doesn't happen in the federal system. they're all being held because they have an assessment about when danger they pose in the community, the danger -- the extent of the evidence against

them and whether or not they pose a threat going forward. so that's something that a lot of people who have contact with the criminal justice system don't really get. so they're on the lucky side of this, but they're acting as though they're the victims when in reality they're getting something that a lot of people in the criminal justice system don't. >> we can thank january 6th defendants for calling attention to the inequities of the cash bail system. there's that. thanks for your time, ryan. we will be right back. at thanks for your time, ryan we will be right back.

for nearly three weeks now members of our team have been hitting refresh on the docket for a federal case in texas, anxiously awaiting a ruling from a trump appointed judge that could undo the fda's approval of a drug. medication abortion accounts for more than half of the abortions performed in the u.s. it's a key component of medication abortion. these pills are safe, they are convenient and significantly less invasive than surgical abortion. but a lone trump appointed judge in texas could effectively issue a ruling that bans it nationwide any moment now. and yet the forces that want to ban abortion boy any method everywhere all at once are not quan tented to wait for a final ruling. here's the thing, medication abortion is still legal in

several of those states including alaska, iowa, kansas, and montana. so walgreens has essentially been bullied by anti-abortion attorneys general beyond where the law actually lies. a representative for walgreens told nbc this is a very complex and influx area of the law and they are taking that into account and that walgreens will only dispense it in those jurisdictions where it is legal to do so where they are certified by the fda. and now the state of california, which, by the way is not one of the states affected by the walgreens decision is punishing walgreens. yesterday california governor gavin newsom announced his state will not renew a $50 million contract with the pharmacy specifically because of walgreens decision on the abortion medication. joining us now is the expert on all of this, writer of the newsletter abortion every day, because every day there's something new. >> every single day there's too much in peoples life.

>> how much of a gray area are these pharmacies actually in? >> they're not in a gray area. they have a very clear decision to make between patients and politics, and walgreens chose politic. and now they're dealing with the consequences of that. they're seeing their stock shares go down. they just lost a $54 million deal with california, and people are furious. people don't want corporations making their medical decisions for them. >> is your expectation the other major retailer cvs is going to do the opposite of walgreens? how much do you think -- >> if you would have asked me a week ago i would have said cvs is going to do the same thing, but now because of the public outcry they're going to hold their horses and wait to get their certification. they're all waiting for this fda certification. walgreens jumped the gun a bit and made this announcement so i think cvs and other major pharmacies are going to use that

as an excuse to wait and not say anything. the fda certification which is supposed to allow them to sell this medication that's over-the-counter -- is it over-the-counter? it's without an in-person medical visit. my question is we're waiting for this ruling from the texas judge, and that seems like it could further complicate this landscape by a lot, right? can you walk me through what might happen if he does, in fact, say, okay, you cannot -- it's off the market? >> theoretically it could be gone for everyone. it could be gone for pro-choice states as well. and that's what makes this decision so scary. the biden administration has sort of kept saying to folks, you know what, don't worry about it, it's going to be okay, and make sure everyone has access to abortion medication. i think what they're referring to is that the fda can keep it on the market even if they have to do that whole process over

again proving it's safe even though it's been out there for 20 years, we know that it's safe. it's a ridiculous sham situation also. >> well, and it sets the table for them being able to do the same thing with any other medication. >> with anything. it sets a precedent they can go back and do this with anything, and really their evidence is not there, the lawsuit is bunked. it's just like the height of ridiculousness we're in this position especially when it comes to something like abortion medication and over 50% of people ending their pregnancies are using abortion medication. >> do you sense that the white house has a plan? i mean we can see this coming from a mile away and same with the dobbs decision also and i think a lot of people thought biden white house wasn't prepared for this, they weren't acting aggressive ely ahead of time. do you think they can make it so the fda -- that it can continue

to be presiebed even if its ultimate future is one of reregulation. >> they better. they really faced so much deserved push back after roe was overturned. and if they don't have their stuff together on this one it is going to be a real problem. so i am remaining optimistic, but i would love to hear more from them about what that is actually going to look like. what are they really going to do to make sure that people can get abortion medication because they can't now, right, in some states. and so it's incredibly important that we hear from them. >> what about -- i mean the reality is this is a political -- i don't want to say dire because the stakes are so dire for americans. republicans do not understand this is terrible for them. >> it is awful for them. and the mid-terms showed us that in every single poll that comes out shows the same thing and has for decades that americans overwhelmingly want legal access to abortion even in red states,

and republicans know that. and that's why they're doing these things like trying to make it harder to pass ballot measures because they know if voters have a say when the comes to abortion they're going to come out on the pro-choice side. >> they want to keep abortion off the ballot because they know where the american public, where their opinion is. jessica, abortion every day, we wish it wasn't such a tickly storm front. thank you for your time and wisdom tonight. >> thank you. >> we'll be right back. wisdom tonight >> thank you >> we'll be right back t, some wishes do come true. and it turns out the general is a quality insurance company that's been saving people money for nearly 60 years. for a great low rate, and nearly 60 years of quality coverage- go with the general. you could see nothing here. and nearly 60 years of quality coverage- or here. or you could see, everything that could be. go. baker tilly.

when i was his age, we had to be inside to watch live sports. but with xfinity, we get the fastest mobile service and can stream down the street or around the block! hey, can you be less sister, more car? all right, let's get this over with. switch to xfinity mobile and save big on the new samsung galaxy s23 series. i should get paid more for this. you get paid when you win. from xfinity. home of the 10g network.

that's our show for tonight. we'll see you again tomorrow. "way too early" with jonathan lemire is coming up next. no billionaire should be paying a lower tax than somebody working as a