wondering, is today going to be the day? great show, as always, my friend. good to see you. enjoy the rest of your evening. good evening to you. welcome to ayman tonight. some late breaking developments. special counsel jack smith, formerly requesting a agog order to limit what donald trump can say about his federal election interference trial. then kevin mccarthy is shrinking speakership. the republican leader, caving to the radical right with his impeachment push. and the intensifying efforts to block donald trump from state ballots in 2024. my conversation one-on-one with harvard constitutional law professor, laurence tribe. that is coming up soon. i'm ayman mohyeldin, let's get started. >> so, developing late last night, the special counsel jack smith asked judge tanya chutkan to issue a gag order against donald trump prohibiting him from attacking prosecutors.

including the judge, herself, or potential witnesses who may testify on in a federal criminal trials, stemming from his effort to subvert the 2020 election. now, prosecutors said, quote, the defendants past conduct, including conduct that has taken place after and as a direct result of the indictment in this case, actually demonstrates the need for this order. adding that trump's past salvos had already resulted in harassment of potential witnesses. of course, to no one's surprise, yeah, donald trump responded by doing what he always does. lashing out. this, time on social media, claiming that president biden had weaponize the doj and the fbi. of course, there is no evidence to support that whatsoever. and its requests, the special counsel's office contends that trump hosts amount to more than a mere breach of decorum, because his public vitriol has a history of unleashing harassment by his followers. of course, the prosecution

specifically cited donald trump's infamous attacks on his former secretary excoriated, chris krebs, and there was a georgia election work of ruby freeman's, there is a former georgia lieutenant governor, jeff -- all of those, just a few examples of the figures who faced direct threats as a result of being singled out by donald trump on social media. that same day, a federal appeals court also unsealed records showing that the same prosecutors had fought in court to block twitter from killing donald trump about a pending search warrant, worrying that informing him could precipitate violence or enable him to attack and intimidate witnesses. so, when you kind of take a step back, take it all together, the governments filings present this extraordinary picture of a fourth president as uniquely dangerous threat. not just to the courts, but the justice system and those who would align against him in this criminal case. let's bring in my saturday night panel for -- an msnbc political analyst and

executive vice president, principal at ben dixon, and amani international, and democratic pollster, former congresswoman, donna edwards. she's also an msnbc political analyst and columnist for the washington post. -- mary ady, a federal prosecutor is a legal affairs columnist at politico. it's an all-star panel, lots to talk about tonight. where i will start with you, renata. the scope of this potential gag order. i specifically recall, you know, a couple weeks ago when this trial was just beginning, everybody was saying, it's just a matter of time before donald trump goes out for the judge, goes after witnesses, goes after the special counsel, and we are going to find ourselves in a situation where the judge is going to have to, at some point, make a decision about how to constrain his attacks on the actual process. what do you make of former president saying, this would effectively do away with his right to speak? >> well, he's putting the issue

front and center and he's essentially trying to create a situation where he can not a first amendment challenge to a gag order. something that might, you know, be grounds for him to try to have an immediate appeal, try to delay the proceedings. i actually think judge chutkan laid out a pathway forward for how she's going to deal with him in the future, when he violates her orders. she said it at a prior hearing. when she said that if he can't keep his mouth shut and keep making statements that are going to undermine the process and potentially change the jury pool, that would be grounds to blow up the trial. and so, i actually think she's more likely to do that because it's not reviewable, really, on appeal. which is why discretion to do so and i can see her moving up the trial date as a way of sending a message to donald trump, rather than getting herself in this challenging situation where she's trying to release a speech, which is always a tricky situation for a judge, to begin with.

>> congressman, what's your take on that and how all of this is playing out right now? i mean, the fact is, and perhaps on this particular panel, you're uniquely poised to be able to talk about both the politics and the legality of, it as we hear about the legality of it, donald trump is exploiting his political because he's turning around and framing this to his base, to voters, they're silencing me. they're silencing my free speech because they know this is the only way they can win at the ballot box. >> well, you know, judge chutkan really laid out, early in august, what the parameters would be. and i think, you know, nobody can argue that from that time, until now, on his social media platform, and in his public appearances, that he continues to attack the judicial system, attack potential witnesses. he has talked about a tainted and unfair jury pool in washington, d.c., where he

thinks he can't get a fair trial. and all these things actually point to what would be rather extraordinary, but it's not about silencing donald trump. he can say lots of things out on the campaign trail. he could actually talk about what he wants to do in a second term. but he cannot attack the judicial system and the process, and all of the people involved in that, as a way to get his way and try to influence that pool. and i think that judge chutkan is going to come up with a scope of what donald trump can and cannot do, and then he will be in the position to either violate another order, and then being forced to come back in front of her. i don't think it looks pretty for donald trump because he can hardly keep his mouth shut. >> so, renata, real quick. if chuck and grants this gag order, if trump violates it, what do you think happens next? just simply move up the court, the beginning of the trial?

>> i think that's what, i think she is likely to do that. if she does grant smith's request, at least in part, what i think she would be doing there is essentially, you know, having an additional order that tries to limit his social media posts. i imagine there will be some motion practice after that, in which trump's arguing that he's being silenced, he's a presidential candidate, and so on. she just has been so savvy until now. she's very experienced litigator. i think that she's going to try to use the immense power that she has over this trial, the schedule, rerolling's, to try to make some downside for donald trump and make it so that, you know, he has an incentive to obey with her orders. and right now, he doesn't have any incentive. he basically sees it in his advantage. to thumb his nose at the judge and try to rile up his base, and get campaign donations, and help himself. >> fernand, if you look at the

unsealing of the documents, there's a significant development there and that was, and we learned this, you know, this week, that twitter had turned over 32 direct messages from the former president's account to the special counsel. then we actually got our hands on a court filing that shows that federal prosecutors had secretly argued in april that if donald trump learned of their efforts to access his dms, his direct messages on twitter, his public disclosure of that development could precipitate violence. it seems like a pretty significant development, just because it shows, to the extent jack smith is worried about what donald trump can do on social media, but also what may have been said in those direct messages. >> amen, it is a significant development and i think there's a dimension to this special counsel's request for the gag order that we haven't really gotten into in this discussion yet, and it is not just the

specter of what trump is trying to do to shake public opinion, to rally his base and potentially influence the jury pool. but it's the specter not just of violence, but potential harm and death, even, to one of the participants in the trial. remember, the maga base, as we've seen for the actions of january 6th and other incidents before and after, has proven to be a base that response to the calls of the leader of the personality cult, in this case, donald trump. and i don't think special counsel smith is playing here or playing games, or trying to do this as a tactical maneuver. i think there's an element here of real danger, given what we've seen has been a weaponize base that trump has used. on occasion and in the past, and in fact, has been charged with some of these federal crimes for. so, i don't think we can discount the fact that violence is on the table. i think that is really what judge chutkan needs to take

into consideration. not just the threat of moving up the trial which, of course, would not be to trump's legal advantage, but to the protection of herself and all of the participants, the jurors, special counsel's themselves. we've seen donald trump stoke and engage people to act in his wishes and interests of violence, and i don't see what would stop him from doing it again. >> renata, this moving up the trial jeopardize the fairness of the trial that donald trump could exploit, if he's convicted? to say, i was not given due process because i was not given a fair amount of time to prepare for this? i mean, on appeal, which i suspect if he is convicted, it would certainly do an appeal. would he be able to argue, look, she moved up the trial, claiming that it was because of my violation of these gag orders? but i get a right to appeal. >> yeah, there's no question that he's going to make that argument, but the constitutional floor, in terms of how much time you need to prepare for trial, is very, very low.

it would really take a very significant shift for the court of appeals and the united states supreme court to say that, actually, the -- defendants are entitled to gamble amount of time, most of time to prepare for trial. it's a practical matter and i will say this -- since i've been a prosecutor, who's defended a lot of substantial cases, yes, it does take a lot of time to prepare. but as a practical matter, in terms of where the law is, courts of appeals give judges, like judge chutkan, very, very broad authority to manage their calendar. the first amendment, however, courts take very seriously. they have very strong -- first amendment. and so, i can just see her taking a position where she doesn't want to touch that as much. she's so experienced, i can see her using her levers of power, in a number of different levers, the trial counter being one of them, to try to give some downside to donald trump. because i agree, -- about her safety and i know what it's like. i've been in that circumstance where i had serious threats.

it's a very significant situation. >> congresswoman, the question of the gag order comes after trump and his lawyers on monday demanded that shotgun recuse herself from the federal election obstruction case, saying, she has prejudice or she has prejudged, i should say, his guilt or she has prejudice towards him. what is your take on that? >> well, i mean, just as we've learned in terms of the trial judges ability and latitude to manage her calendar, she also has the power to make a decision about whether she should recuse or not. and i fully expect, i mean, she's not going to recuse herself from this trial. there is no reason for her to do that. and again, i think that the trump lawyers are just trying to money muddy the waters and cause multiple delays. and i think that judge chutkan is savvy enough to know what's going on here, and that she's going to manage that process really well. >> yeah, i was going to say, is

pretty rich from trump and it seemed to ask that of judge chutkan, recuse herself while at the same time, not saying anything about the judge he appointed in the mar-a-lago case. -- buchanan from doing any measures are taking any measures. just the perception that he thinks she's the disfavor will -- alone speaks for itself. panel, please stick around. we've got a lot more to discuss after the break. we are going to talk about the other big legal story of the week, this guy, kevin mccarthy's pathetic impeachment inquiry announcement and his balance -- pressure of neon under than the extreme maga house republicans. e maga house republicans e maga house republicans for a surprise. meet arexvy. ( ♪♪ ) the first fda-approved rsv vaccine. arexvy is used to prevent lower respiratory disease from rsv in people 60 years and older. rsv can severely affect the lungs and lower airways. arexvy is proven to be over 82% effective in preventing lower respiratory disease from rsv and over 94% effective in those with these health conditions.

( ♪♪ ) arexvy does not protect everyone and is not for those with severe allergic reactions to its ingredients. those with weakened immune systems may have a lower response to the vaccine. the most common side effects are injection site pain, fatigue, muscle pain, headache, and joint pain. rsv can be serious. talk to your doctor or pharmacist about arexvy today. rsv? make it arexvy. [ horns honking ] ♪ california love ♪ ♪ now let me welcome everybody to the wild wild west ♪ talk to your doctor or pharmacist about arexvy today. ♪ a state that's untouchable like eliot ness ♪ ♪ say what you say, but give me that bomb beat from dre ♪ ♪ let me serenade the streets of l.a. ♪ ♪ from oakland to sac-town ♪ ♪ the bay area and back down ♪ ♪ cali is where they put their mack down, give me love! ♪ ♪ shake, shake it, baby ♪ ♪ shake it, cali ♪ ♪ oooooooooooh ♪ ♪ california love ♪ ♪♪

no. ♪♪ -no. -nuh-uh. ♪♪ yeah. oh. yes. ♪♪ oh yeah. yes. isn't this great? yeeaahhhh!! ♪♪ yeah, i could do a cartwheel in here. oh hey! would you like to join us? no. we would love to join you. ♪♪

wow, you get to watch all your favorite stuff. no. we would love to join you. it's to die for. and it's all right here. streaming was never this easy, you know. this is the way. you really went all out didn't you? um, it's called commitment. could you turn down the volume? here, you can try. get way more into what your into when you stream on the xfinity 10g network. nice footwork. man, you're lucky, watching live sports never used to be this easy. now you can stream all your games like it's nothing. yes! [ cheers ] yeah! woho! running up and down that field looks tough. it's a pitch. get way more into what you're into >> and so, it finally begins. when you stream on the xfinity 10g network.

this week, after nine months of baseless investigations and producing no evidence or any reports, house republicans announced their long awaited impeachment inquiry in the president biden. not so fearless leader speaker kevin mccarthy has now tasked three committees, the oversight, judiciary, and ways and means, with carrying out the probe into the president and his family's business dealings over gop allegations of abuse of power, obstruction, and corruption. now, these are allegations that house republicans have been chasing, as i mentioned, for months. and so far, to no avail. so, i'm sure you are asking, what raise this conspiracy driven wild goose chase to the level of a full blown impeachment inquiry now? well, it seems mccarthy appears to be appeasing his far-right members, who have repeatedly threatened to oust.

this was speaker amaretto nancy pelosi's response, when asked if mccarthy's concessions have impacted the worth of the office that she and others once held. >> i call it the -- shrinking speakership. at some point, you have to say, why do i want to be speaker? >> but mccarthy's appeasement operation already looks like a total failure. in fact, here's one of his top critics, florida congressman matt gaetz, openly mocking the speaker on this very network. >> i couldn't tell if you cut away to kevin mccarthy or a commercial for low t, because yesterday's impeachment is somehow today's not impeachment. good gracious, if we actually had to go make that can -- joe biden, let's hope we have affective people like jim jordan and james cohen making the case, and maybe turn of kevin mccarthy's microphone for a while. i can peel back the curtain here. kevin mccarthy is going to advance and impeachment, and actual impeachment on joe biden,

a lot like he was going to advance on impeachment of ali mayorkas. once kevin got power, all of that just went by the wayside. and i think you're witnessing the same gaslighting and the same illusion, and the same mirage, right? he doesn't really mean it. >> and then there is the shadow that's been lurking over his speakership in the form of donald trump. this week, both the and politico reporting on trump working behind the scenes to urge gop lawmakers to, in fact, impeach president biden. it is clear who's actually pulling the strings here. there is no doubt about it and unfortunately for kevin mccarthy, there is nothing more motivating than revenge. for trump, you know, this impeachment mission against joe biden is not just about playing politics or distracting from his own multiple indictments. it is personal. since democrats first impeached him back in 2021, he has been desperate to repay the favor. if you don't believe me, all you got to do is just listen to

him. he admitted as much in a recent interview with meghan kelly, saying, in part, quote, i think, had they not done it to me, perhaps you wouldn't have it being done to them. let's bring back my panel this evening. congresswoman, i will start with you and i want you to listen to what congressman adam schiff who led the second impeachment against donald trump had to say about kevin mccarthy. watch. >> mccarthy realizes he doesn't have the votes to do a real impeachment investigation. he doesn't have the support of his own members to do it. but at the same time, his motivation is, what do i need to do to stay speaker one more day? or maybe one more week? and he's got donald trump pushing him to do an impeachment inquiry, he's got the marjorie taylor greene's and elise toughen exposing him to do an impeachment investigation. he knows he doesn't have the votes for it. he knows he's going to contradict himself and just two weeks ago, but none of that really matters. and this is the problem he has with his own conference, and that is, he stands for nothing.

his only reason for being is to try to cling to that job. >> so, you served in the house. you know a lot more about that body than i do. have you ever seen a speaker as week as kevin mccarthy? >> well, you know, we often describe, and it is true, that nancy pelosi was one of the most powerful and effective speakers that we've had in generations. and as much as that is true, kevin mccarthy is one of the weakest, and he demonstrates that every day. i mean, one of the things that made pelosi effective is the fact that she understood her caucus, she managed it, and she created a set of discipline in the caucus. kevin mccarthy has done none of that and a part of it is how he got started. i mean, those first 15 votes to make him speaker meant that he had to give a concession after concession. you heard matt gaetz say that,

in any case, and i don't think it's stops here. he promised a vote on impeachment two weeks ago, he did a full circle on that, now you have this inquiry. it's going to come to a vote and it's going to put all of those members who want, who won in biden districts, i think they're about 18 of them, is going to put them all in jeopardy because kevin mccarthy is so weak. and that leads right into his weakness going into a possible government shutdown in the next two weeks. he has absolutely no control over that republican conference. >> fernand, what's your reaction to the new reporting on the calls trump has been making behind the scenes to push this impeachment probe along? it's not surprising on one hand, but at the other hand, it is revealing, and in what it says about the republican party, that they are happily carrying out his revenge mission for him. >> well, what it says to me is the democrats are happy to see

the republican party carry it out. even, i don't think the democrats can believe the luck that has fallen into their hands. it's kind of like on the abortion issue, which the republicans used as red meat for decades, but actually, when they made it policy, pushed through, saw electoral apocalypse result from that. in the same way with this impeachment inquiry, remember, in the republican magical thinking alternate universe, president biden's daughter works in the white house along with his son in law, and they're cutting billion dollar deals with saudi arabia. oh wait, no, that was ivanka trump and jared trump or jared. so, the point here is, the american public in poll after poll says, are you crazy? to the idea of a biden impeachment. there are no charges, it's completely illegitimate, and i think for the democrats perspective, they are loving this. they will not say, it's not admitted. it's only going to drive up president biden's numbers at a

time when there are a little bit soft. and i think the longer this impeachment inquiry goes forward, the more they're going to behind the scenes prop it up, and kevin mccarthy is going to be speaker for the remainder of this term, because he's going to have democratic votes in the house to keep him there. has an act of an alpha trump move, on the part of the democratic caucus -- if republicans try and move mccarthy, they're going to keep him in, there it'll make their life even worse. >> that will be quite an interesting political move by the democrats. i have to say, i mean, you could almost, and use the word almost here, very loosely, you could almost believe the republicans if they would have opened an investigation into jared kushner and ivanka trump for everything that they did while they were in the white house. you could almost say they were genuine about looking at all of this, and not political. but obviously, we know that that's not the case. renato, if you go back in january 2020, the trump lead justice department formally declared that impeachment inquiries by the house are invalid, unless the chamber

takes formal votes to authorize them. that move actually came after then house speaker nancy pelosi launched an impeachment inquiry into trump without initially holding a vote for it. and let's say that the biden doj plays this trump card and chooses not to cooperate. what do you think happens in a court? >> i do think the house -- ultimately, they would likely be put in a position where i think they would want to take a vote in order to strengthen their legal position. obviously, we just heard a moment ago they may not have those votes. and so, ultimately, this may, you know, be something where the republicans ultimately don't push the white house in court to try to get all the documents that they might want or off the testimony they might want, because this is really about putting a cloud over president biden. this is really about using and abusing this process in a way that hasn't been done before. you know, even controversial

impeachments like, for example, the impeachment of former president clinton, that was after a lengthy investigation where there were specific allegations of wrongdoing. here, there's really no allegation of wrongdoing there are specific. there's just innuendo, there's just very vague statements about corruption. and so really, this is, to me, about throwing up a dust cloud rather than any legitimate inquiry into specific allegations and specific facts. >> fernand, it's no secret donald trump is staring down multiple indictments. you know, you've got this attempt by the gop to blur the lines. renato's point, where they just want to have something to be able to say to the voters like hey, look, joe biden is under an impeachment inquiry, forget about donald trump's legal's. the current president is the one that's corrupt, that's how they're trying to position it for the voters. how do democrats make sure americans do not fall for that and do not fall for that

baseless comparison of trying to pit these two men against each other, because they've both now been impeached? hey, if they vote when impeach, just ignore it. >> i think democrats do continue to do what they have done, which is governed. fix the problems of the country and that is why, eamonn, when you see the public opinion polls, to my job as a pollster, i look, at there's no basis, there's no majority support. any group, with the exception of republicans, for this impeachment inquiry. so, i don't think democrats really need to do anything because the american people can see it for what it is. as renata said, they are weaponizing the votes, what which are sacred and should be untouchable tool in the arsenal of the federal government, to deal with an out-of-control elected official. the american people know that that does not apply to president biden or, as the american people did know, it did apply to president trump, which is why you saw public opinion polls support the impeachment of president trump for his actions around january

6th and for what he did with ukraine, holding money in the dispute phone call with zelenskyy, in order to get what he was looking for. so, i think as long as that happens, democrats are going to be fine. there is no danger for them with this impeachment inquiry. >> all right, fernand, -- donna edwards, ronaldo moriarty, thank you so much, greatly appreciate all three of you this evening. next, we're going to do a fact check on the republican lies that are at the center of this impeachment inquiry. don't go anywhere. impeachment inquiry. don't go anywhere. teeth sensitivity is so common. it immediately feels like somebody's poking directly on the nerve. i recommend sensodyne. sensodyne toothpaste goes inside the tooth and calms the nerve down. and my patents say: “you know doc, it really works."

-dad, what's with your toenail? -oh, that...? i'm not sure... -it's a nail fungus infection. -...that's gross! -it's nothing, really... -it's contagious. you can even spread it to other people. -mom, come here! -don't worry about it. it'll go away on its own! -no, it won't go away on its own. it's an infection. you need a prescription. nail fungus is a contagious infection. at the first signs, show it to your doctor... ... and ask if jublia is right for you. jublia is a prescription medicine used to treat toenail fungus. its most common side effects include ingrown toenail, application site redness...

... itching, swelling, burning or stinging, blisters and pain. jublia is recognized by the apma. most commercially insured patients may pay as little as $0 copay. go to jubliarx.com now to get started. it's easy to get lost in investment research. introducing j.p. morgan personal advisors. hey david. connect with an advisor to create your personalized plan. let's find the right investments for your goals okay, great. j.p. morgan wealth management. my most important kitchen tool? my brain. so i choose new neuriva ultra. unlike some others, it supports 7 brain health indicators, including mental alertness from one serving. to help keep me sharp. try new neuriva ultra. think bigger. why do dermatologists choose dove? the dove beauty bar, is gentle. it not only cleans, it hydrates my skin. as a dermatologist, i want what's best for our skin. with 1/4 moisturizing cream, dove is the #1 bar dermatologists use at home.

businesses need 5g solutions today. that's why they choose t-mobile for business.

mlb partners with t-mobile to not only enhance the fan experience, but to advance how the game is played. aaa relies on t-mobile's network to stay connected nationwide, so they can help get their members back on the road. and we're helping pano ai innovate, to stop the spread of wildfires. now's the time to see what america's largest 5g network can do for your business. >> kevin mccarthy's impeachment inquiry into president biden's built on a slew of nothing but misleading claims and flat out lies, with no clear evidence of wrongdoing on the presidents part. and tonight, we actually want to set the record straight by debunking these claims, one by one, for you. let's start with a republican accusations against biden for his alleged connection to his son, hunter, his foreign

consulting and investment work in ukraine, trying to, and kazakhstan. this week, mccarthy claimed that, quote, president biden lied to the american people about his knowledge of his family's foreign business dealings. let's go back to 2020 to investigate that. during the presidential debate, then candidate biden said, hunter did not earn money from his businesses in china while he was serving as vice president. nearly three years later, we actually learned from hunter biden's court testimony that he had been paid in china, but it's unclear whether joe biden was actually aware that was the case. because, as the president said during his 2020 campaign, he and his son never discussed his overseas business dealings. republicans haven't produced any evidence to the contrary. in fact, here's kevin mccarthy's next flimsy claim. >> i witnesses have testified that the president joined on multiple phone calls and had multiple interactions, dinners,

resulted in cars and millions of dollars into his son's business partners. -- >> all right, so the, summer's hunter biden's former business associate dennis archer told the house oversight committee that biden put his father on speakerphone during business meetings about 20 times, but never to talk business. quote, as he described it, it was all casual conversation, niceties, the weather, what's going on? there wasn't a single conversation about any business dealings that hunter had. congressman dad wouldn't toward told reporters that after a closed-door meeting, again, there's no public evidence that the president ever participated in business dealings with his son. no one's corroborated that. and there is the claim that payments totaling $20 million were directed to biden's family members and their associates through shell companies. and there is some truth to this claim, as it pertains to biden's family and associates on the biden side. but again, there's no evidence.

once again, that joe biden received any money for that. republicans also point to hunter and his associates creating llcs to accuse them of creating shell companies. but again, there is nothing inherently nefarious about simply creating pelosi's. in fact, it's commonplace to create them when starting a new business. take a listen to kevin mccarthy again. >> the treasury department alone has more than 150 transactions involving the biden family and other business associates that were flagged as suspicious activity by the u.s. banks. >> hunter and james biden, the president's younger brother, have reportedly wrapped up at least 150 suspicious activity reports further business transactions, but emphasis here is on reports. this whole existence of these reports is not hard evidence of wrongdoing, nor does it necessarily trigger an investigation. and senate investigators and the justice department have reviewed these reports, and

again, no criminal charges have ever resulted. republican south also said that as vice president, joe biden allegedly engaged in a bribery scheme when -- this stemmed from a whistleblower allegation that the ceo of burisma, which is that ukrainian energy company on which hunter served on the board, made to 5 million dollar payments to the bidens. and this claim was debunked by testimony from hunter's former business associate, devin archer, who said that he was not aware of these payments. and what is, mora burris my executive set in 2019 that no one at the company had ever been in contact with joe biden. and finally, there is the claim that you've probably heard about the most. that hunter biden has somehow received special treatment from the justice department. well, this week, hunter was charged with two counts related to falsely mincing -- in-person again and a third count of possessing a firearm while using a narcotic.

and these charges stem from a 2018 allegation that hunter biden lied about his drug use on those gun applications. but as our friend renata ariani explained in a column for politico entitled, hunter biden got exceptional treatment especially harsh, quote, until this week, never heard of a prosecution of anyone for possessing a firearm while addicted to a controlled substance. mariotti, according to the data, federal prosecutors charged over 12,000 cases involving a firearm last year alone. but the overwhelming majority of these cases involve the possession of a firearm by felon. and these cases are usually a way to get felons -- or gang involvement off of the streets. which sounds nothing like joe biden's son. so, if you take away anything from this, let it be this. yes, hunter biden may have used his father's name and cachet to pursue business deals overseas,

which may be distasteful, but so far, it's far from illegal. and if you aren't a fan of hunter biden, i have some really good news for you. he's not running for president in 2024. he's not serving the government, nor does he serve at the white house. yet republicans are trying to paint his actions on president biden in a transparent attempt to distract from the very real criminal charges that the republican front runner, donald trump, is facing, including obstruction of an official proceeding and ultimately, plotting to overthrow this government. rest assured, we, on this show, we're not getting distracted. coming up, the efforts to remove trump from state ballots under the 14th amendment is expanding. harvard constitutional law professor, laurence tribe, will react to those efforts, next. wil react to those efforts, next react to those efforts, next ♪breeze driftin' on by...♪ ♪...you know how i feel.♪ you don't have to take... [coughing] ...copd sitting down.

♪it's a new dawn,...♪ ♪...it's a new day,♪ it's time to make a stand. ♪and i'm feelin' good.♪ start a new day with trelegy. no once-daily copd... ...medicine has the power to treat copd... ...in as many ways as trelegy. with three medicines in one inhaler,... ...trelegy makes breathing easier for a full 24 hours, improves lung function, and helps prevent future flare-ups. trelegy won't replace a rescue inhaler... ...for sudden breathing problems. tell your doctor if you have a heart condition or high blood pressure before taking it. do not take trelegy more than prescribed. trelegy may increase your risk of thrush, pneumonia, and osteoporosis. call your doctor if worsened breathing, chest pain, mouth or tongue swelling, problems urinating,... ...vision changes, or eye pain occur. take a stand, and start a new day with trelegy. ask your doctor about once-daily trelegy... ...and save at trelegy.com. (dad) oh yeah! ask your doctor (mom)t once-daily trelegy... bringing in a new roommate to save money? is that the plan? (dad) well we gotta find someway to save. so say hi to glenn from work. (glenn) hey! that's my mom. (mom) yeah... i think i have a much better plan. we switch to myplan from verizon for just $25 per line.

(daughter) and that price is guaranteed for 3 years. (mom) all on the network we can count on. (daughter) it's a good plan. (dad) it is a good plan. glenn looks like we're not going to be needing you. so, i'll see you at work? (son) uh later, glenn (vo) save big with myplan. starting at... just $25 when you bring your own phones. guaranteed for 3 years. its your verizon. ♪ (man) that looks really high. (woman) it is high. whenever you are ready. (man) are there any snakes? (woman) nope. (man) are you sure? here we go! (vo) it's time to push your limits. (man) okay. (woman) you're doing great! (man) oh, is that a buffalo? (woman) babe, that's a cow. (vo) the all-new subaru crosstrek wilderness. adventure on the edge. my most important kitchen tool? my brain. so i choose new neuriva ultra. unlike some others, it supports 7 brain health indicators, including mental alertness from one serving. to help keep me sharp. try new neuriva ultra.

think bigger. age is just a number, and mine's unlisted. try boost® high protein with 20 grams of protein for muscle health versus 16 grams in ensure® high protein. boost® high protein. now available in cinnabon® bakery-inspired flavor. learn more at boost.com/tv ♪ tourists tourists that turn into scientists. tourists photographing thousands of miles of remote coral reefs. that can be analyzed by ai in real time. ♪ so researchers can identify which areas are at risk. >> a judge has denied donald and help life underwater flourish. ♪ trump's request to move to federal court case in colorado that is aimed at removing him

from the 2024 state ballot. now, the lawsuit was brought by a group of colorado voters who contend that trump violated section three of the 14th amendment, which prohibits officials who have engaged in an active insurrection from seeking office, due to the ex presidents role on january the 6th. and this week, a group of minnesota voters filed a similar lawsuit to remove trump from that state's 2024 ballot. that lawsuit was brought with the help of a liberal election and campaign finance organization called free speech for people. the group's legal director tells nbc news that plans to file more legal challenges in other states, and work to persuade secretaries of state to use their authority to exclude trump from state ballots. but many secretaries have state are not on board with that, including michigan secretary of state, justin benson, who writes in the washington post, quote, whether trump is eligible to run for president again is a decision not for secretaries of states, but for the courts. joining me now is laurence tribe, professor emiratis at

harvard law school and coauthor of the book to end the presidency, the power of impeachment. you and i, professor trump, we spoke about this a couple weeks ago. the conversation got a lot of people's attention. we wanted you to come back after and again, because he wrote that piece with jay michael luttig, who again, a former conservative federal judge, you basically made the initial argument that the constitution bars trump from even being present and you wrote in that, we long ago we came to the conclusion that the 14th amendment contains with it, within it, a protection against the dissolution of the republican -- has president. given that perspective, how do you view these particular efforts in colorado and minnesota to disqualify trump? >> even, thanks for having me back. i think these lawsuits are very carefully and thoughtfully designed. they amass a great deal of evidence, but what happened, not just on january 6th, but in

the lead up to it, with fake electoral slates and all the rest, was an insurrection. as the constitution uses that term. and that donald trump was at the center of that insurrection against the constitution of the united states. and gave a comfort. that does not mean that he gets punished. that would depend on whether he's prosecuted for insurrection and indicted, or whether the pending indictments stick. this is not a punishment and when you said they violated section three, that's not quite the way some people would put it. some people would say, section three, we like the requirement that you not run a third time after you've been president twice, or like the requirement that you be old enough and a natural born citizen is just an

eligibility requirement. and when secretary of state benson of michigan said she thinks the courts should decide it, that's really the theory of these lawsuits. they proceed by suing the secretary of state because under the laws of colorado and minnesota is that secretary's responsibility not to let someone on the ballot, if they're ineligible, to hold the office. but we know quite clearly the human tendency of pass the buck. that's what all the secretaries of state are likely to do. so, it's going to end up in the courts, where i think it belongs. and the courts will hold a hearing, and then they will decide whether, under the constitution, and under the facts as demonstrated at these hearings, the former president is disqualified. simple as that. it will go up to the u.s. supreme court and ultimately, those nine justices, who i wish

we could trust a little more than we can, that's what we've got. those nine justices will render a decision and it's likely to happen fast, because they don't want chaos, they want this to be settled before the primary season. >> so, let me ask you kind of a procedural question first and then i want to get to something a little bit more legal. you have, it looks like, at least a dozen states who are going to pursue this legal strategy, if you want to call it that, saying that he does not meet the requirement because he was involved in insurrection. how does that play out when you have 12 states? i mean, you're not going to have all 12 cases proceed to the supreme court because at their essence, they're all about the same requirements. so, what happens in this situation, when you have these 12 different states considering this legal question? >> well, it's just like, you know, the horse race with 12 horses. one of them gets their first.

whoever gets there first with the supreme court discretion to say, no, we don't think that's a very good case, we will wait for the next one. there will be a case that the supreme court agrees to hear first. and when it does, that's the case that everybody is going to be talking about. it's really fairly straightforward. the case the cases differ. i mean, in minnesota, for example, the procedure allowed the petitioners, the citizens, to go straight to the top, to the highest court of minnesota. which is going to render a decision without the usual kind of trial. and that might get to the u.s. supreme court very quickly. in colorado, it's going to go up the chain. trial in the state court, then the intermediate appellate court, or maybe straight to the colorado supreme court. but when the colorado supreme court or minnesota supreme court, or any other court disqualifies trump, if any of them do, trump is bound to

challenge that in the u.s. supreme court. if none of the states highest courts disqualify him, that's going to be much more of a difficult problem, because ordinary citizens who are bringing these cases don't have standing in the federal courts. so, that might be a difficult item, but we will have to see how it all pans out. >> so let me ask you the second part of what i wanted to ask you, which is, correct me if i'm wrong here, there are two parts to this decision. one is, was january 6th an active insurrection? and to, was donald trump involved in it, right? and i think, is this what the courts are going to have to decide? and this is what the secretaries of states don't want to decide? they don't want to decide if january 6th meets the legal definition of an insurrection, because i think for the american public, and certainly for a lot of the secretaries of states, donald trump was involved with whatever happened on january the 6th. i mean, he told people to come to the capitol on january the 6th. that part is irrefutable. the question is really, does

what happened on january the 6th actually legally get defined as an insurrection? >> the real question is, does the whole course of conduct leading up to and including january six, including the fake electoral slates, constitute an insurrection or rebellion? that word is in there to. against the constitution of the united states. if this was not an insurrection or rebellion, it's very hard to imagine what could have been. you don't need an army like the confederate army to have an insurrection. everyone agrees with that. if this provision is not a dead letter, than anyone who tries to overturn the constitution on its forceful way as donald trump appears to have done is the very person against whom this provision was designed to protect the country and the constitution. so, the courts are going to

have to decide all of those things. they're also more technical questions. even if it was an insurrection against the constitution, even if he lead it, is this something where you have to have a conviction first? history is clear, the purposes of section three are clear. but some people try to argue you've got to be convicted of insurrection. there are even people who argue that the president is not an officer of the united states. that is a wild one, since he's described as an officer nine times in the articles of finding executive power. that just shows how desperate people are not to apply the constitution as it was written. the very people who insist on being textualists and original assent historically minded want to turn their backs on text on purpose and on history, when it comes to this awkward provision of the constitution. >> i've said it before and i

will say it again, these are uncharted waters that we are heading into, as a country. but there is no one better to help us break it down legally speaking, professor laurence tribe, it's always a pleasure, sir, thank you so much for your time. >> thank you, amy. >> next, the cowardice of texas republicans. republicans. republicans. the coach. the manager. and the snack dad. all using chase to keep up with their finances. the coach helps save goals here, because she saved for soccer camp there. anddd check this out... the manager deposited a check. magic. and the snack dad? he's getting paid back. orange slicesss. because this team all has chase. smart bankers. convenient tools. one bank with the power of both. chase. make more of what's yours.

at bombas, we make the comfiest socks, underwear, and t-shirts that feel good, and most of all, do good. because when you purchase one, we donate one to those in need. visit bombas.com and get 20% off your first purchase. bombas.

♪♪ no. ♪♪ -no. -nuh-uh. ♪♪ yeah. oh. yes. ♪♪ oh yeah. yes. isn't this great? yeeaahhhh!! ♪♪ yeah, i could do a cartwheel in here. oh hey! would you like to join us? no. we would love to join you. ♪♪ before my doctor and i chose breztri for my copd, i had bad days, (cough, cough) flare-ups that could permanently damage my lungs. with breztri, things changed for me. breztri gave me better breathing. starting within 5 minutes,

i noticed my lung function improved. it helped improve my symptoms, and breztri was even proven to reduce flare-ups, including those that could send me to the hospital. so now i look forward to more good days. breztri won't replace a rescue inhaler for sudden breathing problems. it is not for asthma. tell your doctor if you have a heart condition or high blood pressure before taking it. don't take breztri more than prescribed. breztri may increase your risk of thrush, pneumonia, and osteoporosis. call your doctor if worsened breathing, chest pain, mouth or tongue swelling, problems urinating, vision changes, or eye pain occur. can't afford your medication? astrazeneca may be able to help. ask your doctor about breztri. >> texas attorney general ken paxton will remain in office. i know that is a shocker, it certainly was for us when we saw the news today. today, he was acquitted on 16

articles of impeachment. the remaining four were promptly dismissed by the senate. now, paxton is the first texas official to ever be impeached and acquitted. this is following a two-week trial that was filled with a slew of witness testimony, alleging that he repeatedly abused his office by trying to help his friend and donor, nate paul. only two senate republicans voted to convict paxton on any of the articles. paxton had been on unpaid suspension since may, when lawmakers overwhelmingly voted to adopt the 20 articles of impeachment,. 100 and 21 to 23. it wasn't even close on the house side. but paxton support in the senate while improved on -- and now he likely won't face accountability from his colleagues in the state legislature. let us not forget, controversy has followed this meant since the very beginning. and yes, let's not forget that he is still under investigation in texas for securities fraud

charges dating back to 2015. that was his first day in office. but the impeachment trial really stems from more recent allegations, being 2020, when his own aides, his own aides, accused him of misconduct and they were subsequently fired. he was facing 20 separate counts, including this regarding his official duty, making false statements, on official records, constitutional bribery, and while paxton and his republican allies are celebrating today's acquittal, the texas democratic caucus issued a statement reading, in part, the senate, quote, inability to see through the fog of politics does not change the fact that are now etched in the granite of the texas capital. senate republicans in the state may have been able to turn a blind eye to the mountain of evidence put before him, but the attorney general still faces a federal investigation that mirrors the allegations laid out in the impeachment charges and that 2015 felony fraud case i just mentioned a moment ago. so, paxton, he might be able to

stay in office for now, who knows. but if the other investigations do not go his way, he could be worrying about something much bigger. and that his prison time. all right, stick around. the second hour of ayman begins right after this quick break. begin right after this quick break right after this quick break tv: try tide power pods with 85% more tide in every pod. who needs that much more tide? (crashing sounds) everyone's gonna need more tide. it's a mess out there. that's why there's 85% more tide in every power pod. -see? -baby: ah. white 80...! white 80...! hello patrick mahomes! hut...hut...?

wait, who do you even play for? t-mobile! and i'm here to protect you from wireless companies that blitz you with phone deals that sack you with a 3-year device contract. even i could get sacked? not at t-mobile! they have plans that make upgrades work for you. they even have a plan which makes you upgrade ready every year. thanks ben! now can i do the thing? do the thing! excellent! take charge of your upgrades with our best go5g plans at t-mobile. let's have a huddle! you don't know what huddle is do you? no. some people just know there's a podcast about that. those are the people who know to choose allstate. big tea drinker? yeah. there's a podcast about tea. he knows and he wants you to know too. i was listening to a podcast on if dogs know they're dogs there's a podcast about that? just like he'd want you to know about allstate. there's a podcast about fly fishing... ...called why is that person doing that? ...it's called tea-rrific. are you listening to a podcast? yeah, it's about multitasking. some people just know there's a podcast about that. those are the people who know you're in good hands with allstate. it's easy to get lost in investment research. introducing j.p. morgan personal advisors.

hey david. connect with an advisor to create your personalized plan. let's find the right investments for your goals okay, great. j.p. morgan wealth management. ah morning. the golden hour of cold and flu symptoms. i'm feeling better. cough? congestion? all in one and done with new mucinex kickstart. ah! hated that. headache? better. ah! fever? body pain? better now. aaaaah! new mucinex kickstart gives all in one and done relief with a morning jolt of instant cooling sensation. it's not cold and flu season. it's comeback season. all right, coming up in the

second hour of ayman, mitt romney unleashes, the retired senator unveils the true depravity of his republican colleagues. and, failure to govern, kevin mccarthy,