was part of some operation orchestrated by fbi agents is ludicrous. your job is to review what they do. your job is to protect the american people from a tyrannical fbi storming the home of a american family. >> i could not agree more with your description of the fbi being tyrannical. >> you preside over the fbi that has the lowest level of trust in the fbi's history. people trusted the fbi more when

j. ed gar hoover was running the place. >> respectfully, congressman, in your home state of florida the number of people applying to come work for us is up over 100%. >> the american people fully understand there is a two tiered justice system that has been weaponized to persecute people based on their political beliefs and that you have personally worked to weaponize the fbi against conservatives. >> i would disagree with your characterization of the fbi and certainly your description. the idea i'm biased against conservatives seems somewhat insane to me given my own personal background. >> somewhat insane. that is also how republicans talk about the fbi now, somewhat insanely. and it's not just on capitol hill. conservative media has also gone all in on this theory that the fbi is a weapon of the federal government that will attack conservatives. here's what coverage of that hearing of christopher wray looked like today on news max.

>> anybody that finds itself in the cross hairs of the fbi and tends to be people who are politically problematic for the ruling elite. >> we're talking about multiple, multiple scandals. we're talking about spying on the american people. we're talking about targeting catholics, targeting conservatives. >> no one is happy with the fbi, no one. >> the reason that republicans have decided to make the fbi their target, the reason is donald trump. the de facto leader of the republican party has been indicted by federal prosecutors, and he's facing more potential charges from another federal investigation, and so the former president has chosen to turn his party against the federal law enforcement agency that has traditionally been run and largely staffed by fellowaqf■ republicans. a campaign has done more than just sour republican voters on the fbi and sow broad distrust in the justice system, it's also

put agents in real danger. "the washington post" reported last week prosecutors working on the trump classified documents case are now facing substantial harassment and threats online and elsewhere. as one extremism expert told "the post," rather than seeing these giant swells of activity, we are seeing a smaller subset of individuals, drilling down in a particularly intense way to find individual people to take out their anger on. it's too risky for them to go out into the streets right now. every time they do even a little bit there's a huge media frenzy and a huge police presence. joining us now our former lead investigator for the january 6th investigation, and mary mccord, former acting assistant attorney general for national security at the justice department and of course co-host of the msnbc podcast "prosecuting donald trump." tim, i would love to know from a personal perspective given your intense involvement in interviewing witnesses for the january 6th investigation, how safe -- how vulnerable did you

feel in the course of those interviews and the course of that investigation? >> alex, the best answer i can give you is that every member of the select committee over the course of our work had to avail themselves of escort protective service from the u.s. capitol police. adam kinzinger, a member of the select committee had an infant child during the investigation and received a really vile threat at his home against his wife and that child. and they were literally escorted from wherever they went in washington from multiple u.s. capitol police officers. that is what, unfortunately, working on these issues has come to. it is despicable and sad and something that didn't hamper our work but certainly impacted in the way we went about. >> yeah, mary, and to sort of protect the people who are working on these very important cases, for example, the federal

prosecutors who are working on the special counsel's probe into january 6th and also the mar-a-lago investigation, "the post" reports that, you know, the doj is trying to keep the names of those officials secret, but of course their names are part of the discovery process, part of the files the trump team are going to be able to look at in the course of these indictments, and we now have the case again according to "the post" that far right trump supporters are posting the names of the prosecutors and government workers online. i mean i guess my question to you would be is how much can we even expect the government to keep people safe in this current landscape? >> i mean these are situations like tim said where if there are specific threats, targeted threats toward particular prosecutors, fbi agents, witnesses, that may require some special security precautions including assigning escorts, potentially even to peoples homes and potentially even

installing security systems if they don't have those things. the government -- if we expect our government employees, prosecutors, fbi agents to do jobs that put them at risk, then the government has a responsibility to try to mitigate that risk. for witnesses, all the more so, and i think that's one reason why we have the protective order here whereby the government provided a list of witnesses to the defense, but on the -- you know, on the condition as ordered by the court as one of the conditions of mr. trump's release that those witnesses names be protected and not be distributed publicly. but you're right, you can only take so many precautions. there is risk inherent in this. and i think i mentioned when i went on with you before, tim and i are both prosecutors for years, and sometimes we would have threats against us, but prosecutors are fungible. if you get rid of one another is going to take our place. and many people understand that.

extremists they don't seem to care about that. the extreme threats and rhetoric and sometimes the actual attacks don't factor into the account that won't get rid of the problem. >> yeah, can i follow up on that, too? because i think in the wake of some of these indictments whether it's alvin bragg or whether it's the mar-a-lago case, there's been a sense of perhaps that the danger has been neutralized because there hasn't been another january 6th style, for example, but that line in "the washington post" reporting that the nature of the threat is now different, that it's a smaller subset of individuals drilling down in a particularly intense way to find individual people to take their anger out on, that really stood out to me. and i wonder, mary, given your national security background if you might expand on that a little bit. >> that sort of part of the

strategy of extremists right now, let's get more decentralized and localized with our extremism including targeting people for retribution. and the second thing i'd say is this is what's so hard to protect against. i, myself, and i know tim, i've been subject to plenty of online threats. and the question is when is that online threat just a bunch of bravado and looking tough and let's say mean things about this woman, and when is it someone going to get in their car and track you down and try to actually harm you? and it's just like the issue with lone wolf terrorists, right? they're usually not part of big group activity. they oftentimes act on their own, but act on their own very much incited by and inspired by

disinformation, and now what's so popular which is victimhood. the very idea of a weaponization subcommittee is they say the government istitt)jt weaponized and those people are the victims. and victimhood gives people that they can engage in acts of political violence and those can be justified. and who's going to engage in those acts, that's something difficult for our law enforcement. >> i just think it's still worth unpacking, tim, what happened on the hill today and this assertion the fbi is a read out of liberals intent on targeting conservatives. it bears mentioning that fbi director chris wray is a member of the federalist society who clerked for michael luding. he is a died in the wool conservative. and i love your assessment how deep the deep state may be in the trenches of liberalism given, you know, the claims that were made on capitol hill today.

>> yeah, as chris wray himself said, alex, repeatedly today the narrative the fbi is somehow full of liberal deep state anti-trump, anti-conservatives is ludicrous. chris wray is a pro. i disagree with chris probably on a lot of issues, but i respect his integrity, as i do all of the men and women in the fbi who in my experience as a former prosecutor go about their work with a great deal of integrity. they do, though sometimes make mistakes. and the tragedy of a hearing like today we're spending all this time on these ludicrous issues of political theater and not talking about real issues about how the fbi gathers information about domestic violent extremism. do they officially share information with others. do they put first amendment restrictions on their ability to monitor open source information? or is there an assessment of danger when it comes to

intelligence afflicted by some implicit racial bias. these are huge issues our work identified. but those conditions of law enforcement and how the fbi and other agencies prepare for and manage these events really deserve attention. and we're not talking about that because we're going through this charade of the fbi has somehow been weaponized or is part of the deep state. that as christopher wray said is ludicrous and prevents discussion of important issues. >> not only is it missing the point, it might even be more malignant than that. the few people from law enforcement charged in january 6th aren't there as liberal plants. they are there as actors working in support of trump and his ends. i think jared wise, former fbi bureau supervisor, thomas caldwell who claims he's a

former section chief for the fbi. these people were working in law enforcement and they were rioting on january 6th. so my question to you, tim, and also to you, mary, is to what degree is the department aware of the bad actors within its ranks who may be furthering the causes of the former president? >> yeah, alex, there's no question there were some current and former members of law enforcement in the crowd who believed that the election had been stolen, who believed that false narrative. but it is completelydiulous to suggest the fbi in any way insigated, caused, somehow motivated the riot. we looked hard for evidence of that and found none as fbi director wray said today. i think the fbi needs to get serious on its ranks and ensure they're doing all they can to ensure the men and women they bring in are not bringing in

some work dutiology into their responsibility. i think they get that and are on that. but this notion they are either part of the deep state helping liberals or somehow insigating the riot as a false flag operation is not based in fact whatsoever. >> mary, are we getting better at policing extremism in the ranks of our own law enforcement agencies? >> well, we're certainly calling attention to it, and i think certain law enforcement departments are getting better about it. i mean one of the things that i've been trying to spread the word on as much as possible over the past couple of years is, yes, police officers have first amendment rights, but those rights are not limitless, and even when they're speaking in their personal capacity about public concern if their speech or their activity or their association undermines the mission of the police department, the law enforcement agency that they're members of, they can be disciplined including firing. the courts have been very clear about that for decades, so i

think sometimes law enforcement hides behind the first amendment as a reason not to take action against extremism, and that's just wrong as a matter of law, the substantial leeway there just as there is in the military. and yet what we're seeing now is even in admiral efforts in the military to crack down on this, you're now actually seeing attachments to the national defense authorization act, which is a critical piece of legislation that will need to be passed this year. we're seeing amendments to that to try to dismantle those efforts within hetary to eradicate extremism. so for every step forward it seems like there's folks on capitol hill that want to take a few steps backward. >> yeah, and i mean a lot of the republicans, the very people who have committees dedicated to the weaponization of the federal government, the irony is too thick to slice. thanks so much for your time tonight. >> thanks, alex. speaking of donald trump and the weaponization of the federal government, we have explosive

new reporting about what the former president allegedly wanted government agencies to do to his perceived enemies. that is coming up next. plus a cautionary tale for republicans who work to undermine american faith in elections. stick around for that. my asthma felt anything but normal. ♪ ♪ it was time for a nunormal with nucala. nucala is a once-monthly add-on treatment for severe eosinophilic asthma that can mean less oral steroids. not for sudden breathing problems. allergic reactions can occur. get help right away for swelling of face, mouth, tongue, or trouble breathing. infections that can cause shingles have occurred. don't stop steroids unless told by your doctor. tell your doctor if you have a parasitic infection. may cause headache, injection site reactions, back pain, and fatigue. ask your asthma specialist about a nunormal with nucala.

he snores like an angry rhino. you've never heard an angry rhino. ask your asthma specialist baby i hear one every night... every night. okay. i'll work on that. the queen sleep number 360 c2 smart bed is now only $899. shop now only at sleep number. (woman) oh. oh! hi there. you're jonathan, right? the 995 plan! 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 is a love story. >> lisa, i love you so much, please, lisa. lisa, tell me you love me, lisa. i love you. peter, i love you. i love you like i've never loved anyone. >> that was president donald trump in 2019. and despite how it may seem mr. trump was not workshoping a one-man play. he was making fun of these two fbi agents, peter struck and lisa page who had worked into the campaign ties to russia. for taking part in that investigation both struck and page were frequent targets of

attacks and conspiracy theories and also weird kissy noises from the then-president. they then both ultimately left the justice department. peter struck was fired and they both sued the doj in a civil suit claiming their rights -- struck was also claiming he was improperly fired. well, now something has come out of that lawsuit that is a lot more troubling than trump's puppet list puppet show. john kelly, donald trump's former chief of staff has given new testimony in that lawsuit. he said in a sworn statement that donald trump while he was president discussed having the irs and other federal agencies investigate lisa page and peter struck as retaliation for their work on the russia investigation. in other words, trump allegedly tried to use the power of the federal government to punish his political enemies. and "the new york times" has some additional reporting that it did not stop with those two fbi agents.

quote, mr. trump had at times discussed using the irs and the justice department to target others including hillary clinton, amazon ceo jeff bezos, and former cia director john brennen. joining us now is john brennen who is both the former cia director and in this apparent club of people targeted by the former president. for those who have forgotten the way in which you have very plainly critical of the former president, i'll read one of your choice tweets in march of 2018 addressed to the former president at the time. when the full extent of your vuinality, moral turpitude and political corruption becomes known, you will take your rightful place as the disgraced demagogue in the dustbin of history. it's reportedly these kind of

statements that drew the ire of trump and basically put you on a retaliation list. can you talk what it was like to be targeted by the president of the united states? >> well, since that time i have been the target of many of trump army in terms of their animosity, their hatred, and even their death threats. it's clear donald trump will go to every extent possible to use every opportunity he has to be able to carry out these vendettas against those who believe have harmed him such as peter struck, lisa page, and others. therefore i shudder to think if donald trump were to get back into office, what he would do with those institutions of governments, those powerful organizations and the laws of this country which he has so manipulated and distorted in order to advance his own personal agenda. so when i think about, you know, what donald trump hawse done to

the tenants of this great democracy, this great country of ours, this really i think demonstrates the depths to which he'll go in order to do anything to hurt or harm and i think put at great risk those who have the audacity to speak out against him. >> i would love if you could talk about the guardrails themselves. we know about the literal weaponizing of the federal government, in this case sometimes the irs or doj in its hiring and firing practices because of john kelly and his testimony under oath. and i wonder the industry to which you think those guardrails hold if trump is re-elected another four years. he is of course running for president. you intimated now you're concerned about it. institutionally speaking can the center hold? >> that's a good question. john kelly who is a very close former colleague of mine as well as a close friend, he decided to do that job of chief of staff in the white house knowing it was going to be difficult because he

wanted to make sure at least somebody was going to try to protect this country from any of the abuses donald trump might engage in, and so i have no doubt whatsoever the things john kelly has said in these statements as well as many other things that trump was expected or planning to do or trying to do, and if you don't have people like john kelly, if you don't have people in the positions that are going to prevent the÷p abuse of power by presidents and others, this is something i think is really going to tear this country apart. we already are deeply polarized. but, again, if we have someone like donald trump who's the one going to select the attorney general, probably going to fire chris wray who has been doing just a tremendous job in my view to try to avoid the partisan and political waters he find himself involved in, and therefore i really am concerned donald trump who has a very well deserved

reputation of being vindictive and using any type of tactical ploy that is of questionable ethical and even legal basis to, again, to hurt his enemies. >> you know, i wonder if there is a troublesome sort of the through the looking glass aspect to the republican war against the weaponization of the federal government, right? it's like the best gaslight ever when, in fact it seems based on the evidence we have it's republicans and conservatives who have been weaponizing the federal government. but once you say the phrase enough whether you're on the left or the right, my concern is the phrase itself becomes meaningless, and you lose the importance of the evidence that backs it up, right? republicans on the house subcommittee can talk about the weaponization of the federal government until they're blue in the face. without any evidence it's meaningless, but my worry is say it enough that it then becomes meaningless even when you do have evidence as we do in this incidence with donald trump and lisa page and peter struck.

does that concern you at all, the gaslighting may be effective in the end? >> well, unfortunately i think it is affecting the attitudes and sentiments of many americans. watching that testimony today by chris wray and those questions being lobbed at him from the republicans, it was clear they had several objectives. one was to pollute the information environment so they can put out these mischaracterizations, these distortions, these lies in order for them to be replayed on the various right-wing networks as well as for their own re-election purposes. secondly, i think they're trying to discredit the investigations under way to really look into what donald trump did while he was in office and after he's been in office. and third, i think he's trying to intimidate chris wray and the fbi to try to prevent from doing their work and investigating these leads as appropriate. and the fact republicans are doing this is really just so surreal because republicans for so many years were known as the

law and order party, the ones that were defending the law enforcement officers, the fbi, the intelligence professionals and others. and now the tables really have been turned and it's the democrats coming to the aid and to the rescue of the fbi and intelligence community as a way to protect these institutions so that they're able to do their work despite the fact they're being so roundly condemned unfairly by these republican members of congress who only have their own very hyper-partisan agendas as their goal. >> yeah, i mean my concern is that institutional integrity has to be bipartisan, right? it is good democrats are trying to rush in and preserve these important institutions of democracy, but if it -- that in and of itself is a problem for the country, right? it has to appear republicans believe in them, too, and yet it has become a plank in the republican party platform to sow distrust in institutions of the government. how much hope do you have there

are efforts that can even be taken to mitigate this given the absolute silence, the deafening silence at best from the crop of presidential candidates now running to lead the nation and of course the republican party? >> it's not good. and these have always been very strong bipartisan issues so both sides of theale will come together. when i see how republicans again are misrepresenting the facts and the truth and really trying to teardown these institutions that we as american citizens rely on, i really am hoping we're going to be able to find some way to get past this difficult period in american history and put donald trump and others like him behind in the rearview mirror and move forward. but it's going to take some very strong independent minded and courageous republicans both in the senate and the house to be able to say this is wrong. sometimes they stand up and say it but then they forget it right

away. they need to have a sustained effort to make sure they pursue the very strong interests of the united states in a bipartisan fashion with their democratic colleagues in a way to make sure we preserve these institutions that, again, keep us strong not onlyternally but keep us strong from external adversaries. >> former cia director john brennen, the only person i know of at this moment who's used the word cack stalkeracy in a tweet and made it meaningful. iowa's six-week abortion ban is going to put some republican presidential hopefuls in a very public political bienld. plus, election denialism has consequences. just ask the my pillow guy. we're going to explain that coming up next.

for the low, low price of 5 american dollars this thing could be yours. it ish roller. it rolls pillows. but it's not just any industrial pillow roller, it's a my pillow pillow roller from the my pillow pillow factory. my pillow is auctioning off more than 850 pieces of equipment from sewing machines to fork lifts. the company is even subletting

part of its manufacturing space. why? because my pillow is not everyone's pillow or even a lot of people's pill or so it seems. after january 6th big box stores stopped selling my pillow pillows. and wal-mart dropped my pillow, too. it turns out having a ceo who is both the face of your brand and the face of conspiratorial election denialism is bad for business. my pillow's ceo mike lindell says after those retailers dropped my pillow the company's annual sales fell by $100 million. and that's just sales. don't forget that mike lindell's lies about the 2020 election mean that he and the company my pillow itself are facing a $1.3 billion with a "b," billion dollar defamation lawsuit from the voting machine company that mike lindell lied so much about. now, as much as mr. lindell is

getting his comeuppance here, no group is perhaps feeling hurt from its own 2020 election lies quite as much as the republican party. in 201 54% of republican said they were confident votes in elections would be counted accurately. new polling shows only 22% of republicans have confidence votes will be counted accurately. 22%. by contrast democrats have become more confident about elections in that time. between 2018 and now, of course, the de facto leader of the republican party, donald trump, has pushed the big lie that the 2020 election was stolen. in particular trump repeatedly demonized mail-in ballots as a source of fraud. but trump did not do this all single-handedly. remember virginia republican glen youngkin's race in 2021, he didn't endorse conspiracy theories, but he also didn't debunk them. he was unwilling to say whether

joe biden had been fairly elected until after he won his primary. duncan couldn't risk alienating a huge chunk of the american electorate who still believes american electorates are rigged. but it turns out having an electorate who doesn't believe voting works is a good thing. governor youngkin is not the only republican now in this position. in a big new national push this year the rnc is desperately trying to get republicans to bank their vote, which is shorthand for vote early or by mail. even the election denying arizona gubernatorial candidate kari lake who to this day has not conceded the 2020 election, even she has realized telling people voting is not secure is not the best way to win votes. so kari lake has launched what

she calls the largest ballot chasing operation in american history, which you guessed it means helping people cast their ballots early or by mail. republicans casting doubt on voting itself is one of the biggest self-inflicted wounds in the history of our democracy. it is unclear how the party is going to cleanup this mess, but if they need an industrial floor scrubber, i know a guy. up next republicans are digging themselves into another hole on another issue ahead of another election. claire mccaskill joins me. stay tuned.

(woman) oh. oh! hi there. you're jonathan, right? the 995 plan! 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) ♪

those voting aye, 32, nay, 17. the bill having received a constitutional majority is declared to having passed the senate and the title was agreed to. the chair recognizes senator -- >> those were protesters in the iowa senate chamber last night voicing their disapproval a few moments after lawmakers passed a six-week abortion ban in a marathon 14-hour special session. the bill includes exceptions for the health of the woman and for certain pregnancies resulting from rape or incest. today groups including local chapters of the aclu and planned parenthood filed a lawsuit to temporarily block that ban as the courts determine whether it is constitutional. even still iowa governor kim reynolds plans to sign this

newly passed bill into law on friday afternoon. this republican governor does not want to sign her six-week abortion ban behind closed doors in the dead of night like, for example, governor ron desantis who announced he had signed his ban in april shortly before midnight and with no media in the room. instead governor reynolds wants to sign it here at the very public family leadership summit. and because her state is the first nominating contest in the republican presidential cycle the governor will have quite an audience. six republican candidates are slated to be there excluding notably i'll add former president donald trump. ron desantis, mike pence, tim scott, nikki haley and asa hutchinson have all signed up to attend this life summit, and whether they like it or not three of those candidates will take the stage in the afternoon session, which now features the signing of a six-week abortion ban as its opening act. joining us now is claire

mccaskill, former democratic senator from missouri. claire, thank you so much for joining me. and i would love for you to weigh in on the absolute awkwardness of governor desantis and nikki haley now having to same the zip code with a six-week abortion ban. >> it's interesting. desantis is running for president so he wanted to hide the fact he signed this bill. i'm not sure what the governor of iowa thinks she's accomplishing by this but it certainly isn't speaking to most of america or even most of iowa, alex. 61% of iowans, and this is a poll by the des moines register nationally recognized. and just recently they polled and 61% of iowans said they wanted abortions to be legal most of the time, safe and legal. 70% of iowa women say they want abortions to be safe and legal in most instances.

only 34% said they wanted it to be illegal in all circumstances. so she's not representing her state. she is playing to the far right crowd that has a firm grip on the republican party right now. and it is that part of the party these six presidential candidates are going to be catering to. >> it's almost like she didn't get the memo you're supposed to sign the six-week abortion ban behind closed doors at midnight. the reality this is just absolutely abysmal politics on the national stage, once if you get out of the mud fight that is the republican primary, the polling on this isn't even a question. and therefore republicans are making calculation that they can do all of these things behind closed doors in primary season and that the public is somehow going to forget about them when it comes to the general, and i wonder, you know, claire, put on your pessimistic hat or your, you know, your disillusioned hat if you would for a minute, and do you think there's any truth

to that? do you think you can get away with something like what ron desantis is doing, which is sign it behind closed doors, sort of pretend it didn't happen and then hopes that placates the base enough to get you through the primary and never speak of it again once you're the general election candidate? >> well, first of all, i don't think that's going to work in this instance because women -- this feels personal to women. the supreme court has taken away a right that women have counted on for 50 years. women do not want the government telling them what to do with their own bodies and in their relationships with their families, with their own faith. the government doesn't have a primary role in that instance, and women aren't going to forget this. i remember being on "meet the press" after the dobbs decision, and i remember the republican panelists touted a poll that said everyone is talking about this abortion decision and

peoply really aren't paying attention to it, it won't matter in the mid-terms. and i we looked at each going he's wrong. he doesn't understand women care about this. they understand it. and women understand many times you don't even know you're pregnant at six weeks. it is just the same as missouri law which makes it illegal to have abortion in all instances from the moment of conception. >> i think it's notable that donald trump who's so far sort of the only person who's raised a red flag around the abortion issue being maybe possibly terrible for republicans in an election is not going to be at the summit. ron desantis is the unlucky guy along with nikki haley who gets to be in the afternoon session when this is signed, which coupled with his general strategy on abortion and bodily autonomy, gives rise to the latest reporting on ron desantis

that even rupert murdoch has concerns. the question is do you think it's just dilutional for them to believe that anybody but trump is going to be the nominee, or do you think there's still the garage door not yet down on that? >> well, i think this is really one of the big problems they have. they all know if they can beat trump in iowa, that it shakes the premise he is unbeatable. and in iowa the vast majority of the republican voters that participate are white evangelical voters that are in line with the six-week abortion ban. so now this has become a litmus test for all those candidates whose only hope of getting a win in the primary is to win in iowa. and that's why it's interesting that trump's not showing up.

trump had a hard time there. he didn't win in '16 and frankly had to run around the state with jerry fallwell to try to drum up conservative evangelical support even in 2020, to try to do better than he had in the past. so i think it's one of those things that they are hoping this issue will save trump in iowa and they'll have a chance. but the ironny is they're going to sink all of them because women aren't going to forget this. >> the governor is going to make sure of that as well. the great claire mccaskill, thank you for your time tonight, claire. really appreciate it. >> thanks, ali. >> and this quick programming note 30 rock tomorrow a circus where all three of my former co-hosts on the circus will join me to talk about all things 2024. there will be a lot to discuss. that's tomorrow night right here on msnbc.

but first hollywood is holding its breath as actors threaten to join the writers on strike for the first time since 1960. what is on the line there and which major political figure led them during the last strikes. that's next.

tonight just hours after nominations were announced for the 75th emmy awards the machinery of hollywood may be coming to a grinding halt. the union representing 160,000 it be, film, and radio actors is threatening to go on strike at the stroke of midnight pacific time tonight if contract talks with the major studios fail. if negotiators do not reach a deal, the result would be a double whammy of historic proportions. actors would join hollywood writers who have already been on strike for the past ten weeks. the last time anything like this happened, that both actors and writers went on strike at the very same time, the last time this happened was 63 years ago. and leading those very tense negotiations in march and april of 1960 was a b-list actor who you might have heard of. his name was ronald reagan, and you can see him in this photo standing second from the right

right next to charl hesten. reagan was serving his second stint as president of the screen actors guild known as sag. that is correct. two decades before he ush shd in the modern era of conservatism rooted in the idea of small government and slashing the social safety net and diminishing the power of organized labor, two decades before that, ronald reagan led the actors union through bitter negotiations, ones that ultimately secured investment dollars for a new union health insurance plan, a pension plan, and residuals for films produced after 1960. that was ronald reagan's handiwork. and today residuals are once again at the core of the demands of the actors union. they're asking to be compensated for their work appearing on streaming services and also demanding safe guards from artificial intelligence as well as better compensation and

better working conditions and better benefits. right now production has already shutdown on abbott elementary and yellow jackets and stranger things because of the writers strike. and we're going to find out in a few hours if even more shows have to stop production and whether this might be the summer of strikes. that's our show for tonight. we'll see you tomorrow. "way too early" with jonathan lemire is coming up next. we will not waver. we will not waver. i mean that. our commitment to ukraine will not weaken. we will stand for liberty and freedom today, tomorrow, and for as long as it takes. >> president biden closing out the nato summit with an impassioned speech in support of ukraine. we'll have his remarks and preview the final leg of his trip. also ahead chro