we mentioned there is a list of actual questions that parents can use to start the conversation with their own kids. we pulled all that together on today.com. back to you. >> makes me want to throw this thing into the east river. that does it for me today. "deadline: white house" starts right now. >> hi, everyone. it's 4:00 in new york. i'm ali velshi in for nicolle wallace. a high-stakes battle is unfolding at this moment. what is an ex-president with a history of inflammatory remarks allowed to say about the criminal case involving the plot to overturn the 2020 election? late last night, trump's attorneys filed a response opposing jack smith's request for an order limiting what trump can say about the case. that request is as close to -- the response is as close to

seeing trump's very own words and rhetoric in a court filing as it gets. attorneys for the ex-president accuse the special counsel of asking the court to, quote, take the extraordinary step of stripping president trump of his first amendment freedoms during the most important month of his campaign against president biden. they say, quote, now keenly aware that it is losing that race for 2024, the prosecution seeks to unconstitutionally silence president trump's but not president biden's political speech. on pain of contempt. end quote. now, if all this sounds familiar, it's because trump's attorneys have been making this argument for months now. as "the new york times" notes, almost from the moment mr. trump was indicted, his legal team has raised a first amendment defense. it's also a defense that jack smith anticipated. his indictment of donald trump on the election interference case says on the second page, "the defendant had a right, like

every american, to speak publicly about the eleioand even to claim, falsely, that there had been outcome-determinative fraud during the election, and that he had won." when it comes to this request, barring so called extrajudicial statements, jack smith makes it clear, he's not trying to muzzle trump as his attorneys claim, but instead he's seeking what prosecutors describe as, quote, a narrow, wellefed restriction that is targeted at extrajudicial statements that present a serious and substantial danger of materially prejudicing this case." limiting the gag order to, ote, statements regarding the identity, testimony, or credily of prospective witnesses and statements about any party, witness, torney, court personnel, or potential jurors that are disparaging and

inflammatory, end quote. underscoring this is the fact that nearly anyone donald trump accuse lgs of standing in his way faces threats of ce, harassment, and intimidation. smith makes clear, he said, put simply, those involved in the criminal justice process who read and hear the defendant's disparaging and inflammatory messages frort personnel, prosecutors, judges, to potential jurors may reasonably arhat they could be the next targets of the defendant's attacks, end quote. it's lot to unpack here. it is an incredibly serious matter. joining us, the former lead investigator for the january 6th investigative committee, tim, and charlie sikes. tim, the implication that jack smith is indicating here, it's important. it's the idea that, as they go to choose, to select jurors, and to ensure those jurors listen to

the evidence and listen to the trial fairly, they can't be scared that something bad will happen to them. that's just juicing jurors as an example. nobody involved in this process can be worried about intimidation not just by donald trump but by the tens of millions of people who do his bidding. >> yeah, exactly right. to be clear, the prosecutor's request for a gag order is specific. it's limited to disparaging comments about people, about witnesses, about the prosecutor, about the judge, about individuals. that does not take away a broader first amendment right to criticize the criminal justice system, criticize the case against him. i think there's a way here for the judge to protect the integrity of the process and the individuals involved from that inflammatory and specific rhetoric and allow him to continue to make much more broad general statements about his

innocence and about, you know, his theory that this is some kind of politically motivated prosecution. again, i think that she needs to protect the safety of those people, because as you said, we've seen people don't take his statements rhetorically, they take them literally, while still protecting his rights to criticize the cases. >> jack smith anticipated this, put it on the second page of his indictment. i don't know if donald trump hasn't read the constitution or doesn't under the first amendment or understands it very well. jack smith as said, and he will say so again in court, donald trump can say anything he wants about whether he won the election or didn't win the election. donald trump can be lying about the election. that's not criminal. it is the underlying conspiracy and the activities they undertook to actually change -- prevent people's votes from being counted, inhibit people from voting. that's what this case is about.

>> well, that's right. the prosecutors are not trying to eliminate donald trump's ability to speak during the campaign. they're saying in a narrow way that he should be held to the standards of other criminal defendants here. the context is important. the context of the rising threats of violence, the fact that he has used intimidation and bullying in the past, tried to influence witnesses, is trying to take the jury's book. he is attacking prosecutors and trying to undermine the court. any other criminal defendant trying to do that would face sanctions. the judge in this case has to walk a narrow line. she won't revoke his bail and put him in jail, but she does need to warn him if he continues to behave in this manner, that the court is not going to look the other way. donald trump's response, the response of his lawyers, is really on two tracks.

number one is the political track, which is he's going to claim -- he's appealing to the court of public opinion. that's a campaign document. woe is me. i am being silenced. as opposed to the narrow issue in front of the court, which is are we going to take the bullying and intimidation of potential witnesses and jurors and participants in this court case, are we going to take it seriously as we would in any other case? so, it will be very interesting to see how the judge manages to finesse this. >> tim, i think that's the important thing. as in any other case -- obviously, there are lots of cases where the defendant might be somebody of influence, either because they have money or contacts or they might be a mobster. this is not the first time that this kind of request is being made. it's not even particularly novel. what's novel is it's being applied to a former president of the united states.

>> exactly. task for judge and for the whole system is president trump should be consistent with everyone else while at the same time recognizing he's a presidential candidate. she is going to have to do something to protect the integrity of the process while allowing him to continue to exercise his first amendment rights. again, i think it's doable. i think you separate the specific from the general. that is the line she will likely draw. the harder part, as charlie said, will be sanctions. let's assume he goes over the line. for contempt, you can fine someone, hold them in custody. that would obviously be a really significant stem that i'm sure she does not want to take. but i'm curious if there is a violation and her considered sanctions. >> the problem is the nature of defendant.

yesterday you talked about this. it started with "lock her up," unseemly and unusual even for the times, but it seems so cute and benign now. then it became contributing to this whole concept of "hang mike pence." while he never said those words, his supporters did, and he didn't come out and say you can't hang my vice president, that would be a bad thing. now it's about executing mark millier. he should face the death penalty. donald trump says things that would cause a regular person to be scared of potentially crossing him. >> one of the things he seems to be doing is normalizing this rhetoric of violence. the fact he's talking about killing his political opponents. we thought it feels outrageous when he was talking about locking them up. but january 6th should have made that crystal clear, that there are people who listen to what he says and will act upon it. the normalization of the rhetoric of political violence

can lead to the normalization of political violence itself. and this is something that i think we all need to keep in mind and certainly the judicial system needs to keep in mind. as nicolle has said, all the red lights are blinking here. anyone involved in these controversies knows the level of threat and intimidation is rising out there. the real threat of violence, this is not some theoretical. we have seen lone actors act on it. we've seen conservative action. this, again, is part of the context of all of this. i do feel in some ways that we are all like the boiling froth, you know, the temperature is being turned up and we've kind of become numb to it. it's become routine. where is the blowback? how come every news show does not lead with the fact that the former president is calling for the death penalty against a u.s. general, that he channelled along with the crowd, "hang mike pence"? how does that not dominate our

political moment. >> the fraud. >> we are the fraud. and -- yes, and we better realize it before it is too late. >> i want to bring in the constitutional law and fraud expert, professor at george washington university, katherine ross, to examine this. professor, this is the problem. the judge can't either i don't ever react to this nor be seen to overreacting to what jack smith is asking for. on the other hand, charlie said the normalization of political violence can lead to the actual political violence itself. that is an actual reality in the world in 2023, and it is an actual reality under donald trump. so, what judge chutkin has in front of her is a much more substantial potential threat than let's say if it were even a mobster who was on trial, who had been -- on trial for killing people in the past, because they have limited reach. donald trump has remarkable reach.

>> that's right. i agree with what charlie just said about the enormous risks of violence that are not even subtle. they're right out there. we're being told, we're seeing them, seeing the threats to court personnel, prosecutors, election officials, and they're being acted on by followers. so, the judge is walking the proverbial balance bar. on the one hand, she needs to treat trump like any other defendant. we have a rule of law, not of men. and on the other hand, she cannot ignore what we know about who this defendant is and his outsized influence and power as well as his history. so, she needs to think about -- i'm sure she is thinking about -- the risk of violence by his supporters if she disciplines him, and if she uses the normal processes for keeping

a defendant within the confines of the conditions of his release. i don't know how we both treat him like a normal defendant and understand the risks to our body politic and to our physical safety from his followers and that he is broadcasting. >> so, this is challenge number one for her, because both of those risks are real. treating him exceptionally and treating him like anyone else, especially when violence potentially hangs in the balance. this is, again, a man, we should remind everybody, who has just said that he thought mark milley should have faced the death penalty. he didn't disavow his protesters talking about hanging mike pence. to charlie's point, almost quaintly, this is a man in 2015 and 2016 was leading chants about "lock her up" about a political opponent who had commit nod crime.

so, what does the judge have to be thinking about right now? nobody wants a judge that has donald trump arrested for tweeting something, but at the same time he's different from any other defendant facing these charges in american history. >> well, this judge has a full-time security detail that has to escort her when she wants to get a cup of coffee in the courthouse. and she's also aware that all of the lead prosecutors require 24/7 security details already. and she has already warned defendant trump that one of the things she can do is expedite the trial date. so, if i were her, i would seriously think about limiting the time he has to create the havoc that he is trying to create in the district of columbia with the jury pool and with potential witnesses, including perhaps general milley, and move that trial date

up as early as the government is comfortable. >> tim, what's your sense of it? donald trump has had other opportunities to have this case heard, to respond to congress, to an impeachment. now it's going before -- i'll say a court of law but several courts of law -- to evaluate what actually happened. when you read in particular the georgia indictment in combination with the january 6th jack smith indictment, there's a whole lot of overlap, a whole lot of witnesses to both. there are some people who are witnesses in one who are indicted co-conspirators in the other. there are unindicted co-conspirators being called as witnesses. it's a very hard dodge at this point for donald trump and his team. >> i think that's right, ali. look, we have a tendency on this and other shows to talk about threats to democracy and whether

the vice president has authority, but there are real people whose lives and physical safety have been put in danger over the course of the events that are charged in these cases and continue to be. so, the judge has to evaluate the very real human costs of her own and participants' safety but also all of the people whose personal safety -- it's their own safety. look, as you said, there's so much evidence here that finally, not in a congressional committee where there's -- not in -- on msnbc or the "new york times" where people will say, well, that's one-sided. finally, these same facts that we've all been talking about for several years are going to be tested in a court of law, cross-examined, vigorously challenged by the former president and others. i hope that the forum of the criminal justice system, that vigorous challenge, the

presumption of innocence has the potential to change minds in this country in a way that the congressional process or other forums for presentation of those same facts did not. it has the chance to move the needle of public opinion because of that crucible of the adversarial system that the other processes didn't have. >> timothy heaphy, catherine ross, thanks for spending time with us. charlie sykes will stick around. you can, in fact, read all four indictments against president trump, complete and unabridged in a handy book form, it's called "the trump indictments." you can read all of the charging documents against trump and his co-defendants. when we come back, bonn menendez has people calling for his resignation. but the republicans are quiet, proving again they have become the pro-corruption party. and no republican or democratic president has ever

done what president biden did today, an historic trip to the picket line in michigan. we'll talk about the balancing act as we head into an election year and an interview with the union president, shawn fain, later in the show. also cassidy hutchinson warning of a make-or-break moment for the republican party when it comes to standing up to the ex-president. [♪♪] there's a way to cut your dishwashing time by 50%. try dawn powerwash dish spray.

it removes 99% of grease and grime in half the time. it cleans so well, you can replace multiple cleaning products. are you guys watching? this is my favorite part. you're watching? okay, time to get your own bed, hank. chewy has great prices. hope you like plaid. i do. who wants popcorn? shop and get a $30 egift card through october 1st. at chewy. just between us, you know what's better than mopping? anything! ugh. well, i switched to swiffer wetjet, and it's awesome. it's an all-in-one, that absorbs dirt and grime deep inside. and it helps prevent streaks and haze. wetjet is so worth it. love it, or your money back. this is american infrastructure, a prime target for cyberattacks. but the same ai-powered security that protects all of google also defends these services for everyone who lives here. ♪ the power goes out and we still have wifi

for everyone to do our homework. and that's a good thing? great in my book! who are you? no power? no problem. introducing storm-ready wifi. now you can stay reliably connected through power outages with unlimited cellular data and up to 4 hours of battery back-up to keep you online. only from xfinity. home of the xfinity 10g network.

new jersey democratic senator bob menendez is facing calls to resign with now 18 senate democrats calling on him to step down over bribery

charges. today, fellow new jersey democrat cory booker broke his silence and urged his colleague to resign from his post, saying, "for nearly a decade i've worked in the senate alongside senator menendez. as new jersey's junior senator, i imagine that i've had more professional experiences with him than most other, and i've witnessed his extraordinary work and boundless work ethic. it's not surprising that the senator is again determined to mount a vigorous defense. and i still believe he, like anyone involved with our criminal justice system, deserves our presumption of innocence until proven guilty. there is, however, another higher standard for public officials, one not of criminal law but of common ideals. as senators to, we operate in the public trust. that trust is essential to our ability to do our work and perform our duties for our constituents. the details of the allegations against senator menendez are of such a nature that the faith and trust of new jerseyans as well as those who must work with in

order to be effective have been shaken to the core." joining our conversation, one of bob menendez's former colleagues from california, barbara boxer. she'll be us in faw minutes. but charlie sykes, these developments have been rapid, they've unfolded very quickly. we went from this news coming out on friday night, saturday, into now 18 democratic senators calling for his resignation. he's saying he's not resigning, which is to be expected. what's your sense of how this is unfolding? >> well, i think what bob menendez is doing is testing the limits of our post-shame political culture. all the headlines say he's being defiant. he's being shameless because the details of this indictment are really stunning. i mean, it's kind of old-school bribery and corruption. you have cash stuffed into envelopes, $100 bills stuffed

into his clothing, gold bars, mercedes-benz in the garage, the dna of his crooked friends all over it. this should be an open-and-shut case. and the democrats i think are appropriate in policing their own. but we live in this upside-down world where you have republicans who are coming to his defense because of course they feel the need, what, to say that an indictment should not be disqualifying. i think it's heartening that cory booker and the others are basically saying, look, you know, this is a public trust, this is an important position, what robert menendez is accused of doing is not just old-fashioned corruption. it poses a real national security threat because of the role of the government of egypt. but it's going to be interesting to see whether or not he can be shamed into doing the right thing politically over the next few weeks. i think we're going to test the standards and the willingness to

police their own of both political parties. >> the "both" part is interesting. barbara boxer joins us. senator, you tweeted out, thanks to democrats calling on menendez so quit. sorry, it's not normal to have closet fulls of cash and a couple of gold bars. nobody is indispensable. if we are to save america, we need people who won't sell their souls. the nobody is indispensable part stood out. a lot of people are saying better or worse, democrats can't afford to lose a vote in the senate. i think that's your point, nobody is indispensable, even if it's the vote democrats need to get legislation passed. >> first of all, the governor will appoint senator menendez's replacement, so we won't be without a senator for very long. but this is corrupt and dangerous behavior. i was so privileged to be either

the chairman or the ranking member of the etics committee. and i went back to the rules of the ethics committee. so, if you set the legal questions aside, and it sounds to me like they have a strong case on dna and dollar bills and gold bars and all the rest, if you look at the ethics rules and you read them, they're very, very clear. rule 43 clearly says there can be no connection between your senate work and your financial ties. senate rule 35, the gifts rule -- no member can accept gifts unless valued at less than $50. and it even goes on to say -- and i well remember, you know, mentoring the new senators on this, yes, you can take a greeting card, a baseball cap, or a t-shirt. that's actually in the rules. but nowhere in the ethics rules does it say you can take cash or gold bars.

this is corruption on its face. and while the legal system moves forward, i would call on the ethics committee to begin proceedings. >> charlie, what is the political consideration here? and what role should it play, if any, at all? putting aside the fact, you're right, republicans have come to the senator's defense because they're using the argument that the doj is a corrupt organization that often wrongfully convicts or prosecutes people. put that aside for a second. the politics of it for democrats. democrats have done similar things in the past in which they have felt that their colleagues have not lived up to certain standards. what do you think -- how do you think this plays out? >> well, i mean, in new jersey, the raw political calculus is pretty clear. he's up for re-election next year, and this could be an electoral disaster. he was able to escape last time with a hung jury. as senator boxer points out, this is raw corruption. the evidence is right there. this is not really a gray zone.

so, in new jersey, democrats have lined up to say, look, we need to move on from him, and it is not irrelevant the fact if he resigns, that the government would appoint another democratic senator, so there would be no effect in the control of the u.s. senate. the question is how it will play nationally. i think democrats need to be very, very sensitive to the fact that they cannot tolerate somebody who is this corrupt in their ranks. i think that a growing number of democrats are recognizing this. republicans may be sitting on the sidelines, but they will exploit this to the extent that they can. but the calculus in new jersey is very, very clear. he's got to go. >> senator, corruption is corruption, and the justice department under joe biden is proving it will go after breaks. did it strike you as unusual that some republicans said the

department of justice might be the problem here and the senator to should not resign? the assault on the department of justice is unrelenting in this republican house and to some degree the senate. >> the republicans are so deep into their conspiracy theories and going against the rule of law that they don't even care who it is. they're going to come down on this president even though his justice department is saying we act without fear or favor, and they are proving it. look, i don't have to remind myself -- i love to remind myself that they are going after hunter bide and now bob menendez, and, yes, donald trump. therein lies this issue for my republican former colleagues who have no guts, and they're willing to throw over the ruhle, the democracy. i want to take a moment to say

it is hard for a cory booker to stand up and say what he did today. i want everyone listening to understand that, you know, you're tied at the hip with your colleagues. there's only two senators from each state, and you're very close, so what he did was the right thing to do, a hard thing to do. the governor, hard for him to do it. and i'm proud of them, and i want to see this distinction. the democratic party, the party of democracy, the parry of the rule of law, we're not going to stand and hide when it's one of our own. >> charlie, senator gary peters of michigan has just added his name to the list. that's 19 democratic senators. but he's the head of the democratic senate campaign committee and hence it's not the same as sort of the top leaders in the senate, but now this is moving into the ranks of republican -- democratic decisionmaking in the senate. at some point, what's the tipping point for menendez?

as you said, the calculus in new jersey is clear. his fellow junior senator and his governor have called on him to resign, so a lot of other people in the state. now we're a few vote ace way from a majority of democrats in the senate. what happens -- at what point does senator menendez see the write tong wall. >> well, it feels like the dam is breaking. maybe we hit the tipping point with cory booker making that difficult decision to break with him so openly. to senator boxer's point, in an environment like the senate, that was not easy. what will it take to get the senator to see this? this is the question of how far is he going to push the shamelessness? he's been under scrutiny for some time, faced felony charges, was able to escape conviction because of a hung jury. clearly, that emboldened him. it didn't make him more cautious or prudent or honest. i'm not sure what it takes to

convince somebody to give up a seat like this, because that's doing the right thing. he's a united states senator and has the no-cut contract as long as he wants to hold on to the seat. that's the big question. and the question is how much pressure will the democratic party be able to bring to bear, will, you know, the campaign basically say we won't support you for re-election? will we hear from the biden white house or chuck schumer? i don't know. >> thanks to both of you for your analysis on this. former senator barbara boxer and charlie sykes, thanks for joining us. up next, president biden on the picket line in michigan. e i. have you saying... am i a big deal? yeah you are, because it's a big deal, when you get a big deal. wayfair deals so big that you might get a big head. because with savings so real... you can get your dream sofa for half the price.

wayfair. it's always a big deal. ♪ wayfair, you've got just what i need ♪

new projects means new project managers. you need to hire. i need indeed. indeed you do. when you sponsor a job, you immediately get your shortlist of quality candidates, whose resumes on indeed match your job criteria. visit indeed.com/hire and get started today. about two years ago, i realized that jade was overweight. i wish i would have introduced the fresh food a lot sooner. after farmer's dog, she's a much healthier weight. she's a lot more active. and she's able to join us on our adventures. get started at betterforthem.com

this tiny payment thing- and she's able to join us ois a giant pain!. hi ladies! alex from u.s. bank! can she help? how about a comprehensive point of sale system... that can track inventory, manage schedules- and customize orders? that's what u.s. bank business essentials is for. (oven explosion) what about a new oven, can u.s. bank help us there? we can serve loans in as fast as 12 minutes. that would be a big help! huge! jumbo! ginormous! woo! -woo! finding ways to make your business boom. that's what u.s. bank is for.

>> . >> folks, you've heard me say it many times. wall street didn't build the country. the middle class built the country. that's a fact. so, let's keep going. you deserve what you've earned, and you've earned a hell of a lot more than what you're getting now. >> some american history made this afternoon. that was president biden's self-described most pro-union, pro-worker president ever on the uaw picket lines in michigan, along side workers striking against gm, ford, and stellantis. the white house insists it's the first instance of a sitting president visiting a picket line, perhaps underscoring how essential the pro-labor movement

has become in modern american politics. donald trump recognizes that as well. in an apparent to grab more working-class votes in a key swing state, he'll be in michigan tomorrow to deliver an address at a nonunionized detroit area engine parts supplier. maybe he didn't get the memo on what the point of this was. joining us is the former acting united states secretary of labor under barack obama and a member of the presidential auto task force, seth harris. and former top state official during the biden administration, rich stengel is here. i'm grateful for you being here. we have the force of the labor movement and the decisions that donald trump and joe biden are making. but, let's talk about the politics of this for a second. joe biden claims to be the most pro-union president we've ever had. he definitely is strong amongst unions. you can watch his performance improve when he's amongst union people and union halls, when he declared he was running again, did it in a union hall. this is a tough one, though, for

a president. because in an auto strike, one calls upon the administration, people like seth, like you've been in the administration before. this is definitely putting the thumb on a scale in a very deliberate way. good or bad. >> i think it's good, ali. as you said, this is an historic first. no from the has ever walked on a picket line before. normally presidents avoid picket lines. they're above it all. they're trying to establish themselves as a kind of neutral judge of what's going on. biden is saying, no, i'm a union guy, i have the hat on, the vest on. as you say, ali, politics has a lot to do with it. donald trump won michigan in 2016 for the first time a republican's won it since 1988. he did historically well among union households. that's in part why he was able to win. biden took it back in 2020. he got 50% of the vote. trump only got 48%.

but the key statistic is about 20% of households in michigan are union households. biden wants those votes. the tight rope he has is his policy espousing electric vehicles. a lot of these guys on the picket lines think the problem is that the big three have embraced electric vehicles as the future. that's the tight rope he has to walk. >> seth, i mean, kind of interesting, donald trump is trying to command the idea that he's the union guy and has this theory, as rick alluded to, that china and electric vehicles are the bigger challenge right now. so he's going to michigan. he's going to speak at a nonunion shop, arguing about joe biden being sort of -- for this whole thing. all that aside, the labor movement is having a moment, seth, that we've not seen in this country in quite some time. >> it's more than just a moment,

ali. it's been going on for quite some time. we've seen huge successes at the bargaining table in 2021 with the john deere strike. we saw a huge success with the writers in hollywood. the teamsters got a tremendous contract from u.p.s. that is causing tens of thousands of people to apply nor jobs at u.p.s. because the deal is such a good deal that they want it. and i think we're going to see a very, very good contract for the uaw. they are holding strong. there's immense solidarity. their president is standing behind them. the american people are overwhelmingly in support of the uaw. so, i think we are seeing not just a moment, we are seeing a real sea change in people's view of the labor movement and the role of the labor movement in our economy and our politics. >> rick, the teamsters with

u.p.s. took an interesting approach and did very well in their negotiations. but people are doing stuff that we've all been talking about for years, and that is they're looking at the spread between what ceos earn and what workers earn. they're looking at the increases that ceos have taken in times, particularly the auto union or airline union, where they ask workers to take cuts to keep companies alive. they're doing the math and saying we'd like all of that. when the companies say no, they say, well, your ceos got it. it actually seems to be resonating with people. public support for unions and strikes is on the upswing. >> yes, ali. it's fairness. as president biden has said, the labor union took historic sacrifices in 2008 to save the big three, as president obama did. and now those three companies are doing extraordinarily well. multiple billions of dollars in

profits in the first half. and we've seen over that time a 40% increase in ceo pay of the big three. so it's only fair. and i think americans like that, they agree with that fairness, agree that working-class people haven't gotten a fair cut. by the way, remember, donald trump has been anti-union his entire career, since he used illegal immigrants to help build trump tower. he's always tried to get away from paying union people a fair price and stiffing them. so, i think this resonates as the other guy, it's performance art. >> bob king, former president of the uaw, he said trump never looked at a baby finger for these unions. however, to rick's point, in 2016, he got a lot of union support. those sort of hand-fisted terrorists he imposed on most of the world with respect to steel

did cause a lot of union workers to think he was standing up for america. we have a large portion of americans, despite low employment, a good stock market, believe the economy is doing poorly. >> right. but it's not 2016 anymore, and the american people have seen donald trump's record. and he amassed the worst anti-labor record in history. just as joe biden is the most pro-union president in history, donald trump was the most anti--union president in history. he tried to bust federal employment unions. his employees at the national labor relations board in every big case sided with the worker. he appointed justices to the supreme court who tried to gut the right to strike and don't like unions or workers, especially. i could go down a long list of ways in which the trump administration undercut workers and worked for power. but the most important thing to focus on here is the sea change that occurred here today.

42 years ago, president reagan fired the starting gun in an era of union busting and union avoidance by firing the air-traffic controllers. today, a president of the united states stood on a picket line, put his arm around a striker, and said, you deserve more, your president is with you. this is a huge change. it's not just the first time anybody's done that, any president has done that in history. it is a direct effort to do exactly what the uaw is trying to do, and that is to undo the harm that's occurred over the last several decdecades, undo t concessions at the bargaining table and to undo an anti-labor, anti-union politics in our society and country. the american people want to see that. today president biden spoke on their behalf. >> it may be that we are watching a moment in history in

the shift in the way we perceive and understand value of unions in this country. thanks, seth, thanks, rick. we'll talk more about the united auto workers and the strike with the uaw president shawn fain in the next hour. up next, a big loss for donald trump breaking a few moments ago in the new york civil fraud trial. that's supposed to start next monday. what the judge has ruled, right after the break. r the break. hat opens doors where it matters for you. what if we need to see a doctor away from home? ucard gets you in with medicare advantage's largest national provider network. how 'bout using it at the pharmacy? yes - your ucard is all you need. huh - that's easy! can it help keep my smile looking good? yep! use your ucard at the dentist. say cheese! get access to what matters with the ucard only from unitedhealthcare. 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. honey... honey... nyquil severe honey. powerful cold and flu relief

with a dreamy honey taste. nyquil honey, the nighttime, sniffing, sneezing, couging, aching, fever, honey-licious, best sleep with a cold, medicine. ♪ if you struggle. ♪ and struggle. ♪ and struggle with cpap. you should check out inspire. ♪ no mask. no hose. just sleep. inspire. sleep apnea innovation. learn more and view important safety information at inspiresleep.com

sleep more deeply. and wake up rejuvenated. purple mattress's exclusive gelflex grid draws away heat, relieves pressure, and instantly adapts. sleep better, live purple. visit purple.com or a mattress store near you. are you still struggling with your bra? it's time for you to try knix. makers of the world's comfiest wireless bras. for revolutionary support without underwires, and sizes up to a g-cup, find your new favorite bra today at knix.com

okay. we've got major breaking news, a major loss in court for donald trump in the civil suit brought by the new york attorney general letitia james. a new york state judge has just ruled that donald trump committed fraud by exaggerating the value of his assets in financial statements. this was a major part of her case against donald trump. that case is set to go to trial on monday. donald trump's attorneys had also asked to throw out the case, and the judge denied that request. the attorney general james' lawsuit seeks $250 million in fines and to bar the trump family from doing business. i just want to tell you, this has just come out, and we're working our way through it. one of the people working her way through it is "the new york times" suzanne craig. she was in court for the arguments. she's someone we've relied on. nobody knows more about it than

you. i don't know if you've gotten through it, but i appreciate you being on now. former united states attorney glenn kirschner is also with us on this breaking news. suzanne, let me start with you. your reporting and testimony that we've heard in years gone by, including from michael cohen, is that this was standard procedure for the trump corporation. they did things like this. they inflated their assets in certain places. they reduced the value of those assets if necessary to do other things. they were inconsistent at best at the way they treated their assets. tell me what you make of this ruling. i've tried to give the best explanation we nonlegal people can give. but i know you know more about this than most. know you know more about this than most. >> you're being kind there. i think the allegation is pretty stark that donald trump -- there would be something that i think reasonable minds would agree would be worth $10 million and he would say it's worth $100 million, and this happened over and over and over.

and these statements were submitted to banks, to insurance companies in order to secure loans and post favorable terms, and to secure insurance policies, things like that. and the attorney general had brought a civil suit, a quite large one that could cost him to the tune of $250 million. and i have to tell you i'm still working through today's ruling. it came down this is all just right before it's supposed to go to trial on monday, and there were just some last minute motions for summary judgment, and that just means that each side had asked from a ruling from the bench prior to it going to trial. and i have to tell you, i looked at this and i did a double take. it is a huge loss for donald trump and a huge win for the attorney general, what the judge has found is that donald trump on this main count i'm talking about, about the inflation of assets that in fact he's been

found liable for that. they've determined he did, in fact, overvalue his assets again and again and again. and they've not only done that, the judge has called for the cancellation of all the defendant's business certificates in new york. and then on a third one they're fining a number of the lawyers $7,500 each. this will still potentially move to trial on monday. there's also another legal battle in this going on which is that donald trump has sued both the judge and the attorney general. i think he was anticipating this and moved ahead of a hearing last week and actually sued the judge and the appellate court will come down potentially we think on thursday and weigh in with something that could move the trial and could affect this again. but in the short-term today this is huge, huge blow for the trump organization. >> there's a lot in there and all really big, so little bits of it, little sentences on here

would its own be headline news including the judge has ordered the canc clagz of all of donald trump's business certificates. >> right, that was one of the things ordered today, and the attorney general in their lawsuit that was brought, this has now been four years in the making, it's been going through the civil courts. the essence of what they're trying to do just in plain terms is literally trying to get to run donald trump's businesses out of the state of new york. trump since this has started has moved a lot of his banking and his operations out of new york, and we still don't know in terms of there's still five other counts on this suit that will go forward to trial if it's not moved. we're going to learn about that again later this week. those will still move, and also the fine hasn't been determined yet. that's sort of the number they're looking for. these are some of the things i think will hurt at trial and it will be a bench trial in front

of the civil judge. >> i've known you longer than i've known most people, so here's what i'm going to do is continue this kfrz with a couple other guests. you stick around. the camera's going to stay on you. if you get more information, that's fine. but anything i ask you, i'll be clear. so you don't have to listen in. carry on and do your work. i've also got the former assistant united states westchester district attorney mimi rocah here in studio. this is the case that people forget, it sits by the wayside a little bit. we're not sure who it is. who is supposedly harmed by this? when donald trump inflated his asassets for various purposes tish james, the attorney general is saying there's a claim of harm. can you explain that to me what's the harm and what's the claim? >> that's a great question. one thing that's different about

this case from so many others is this a civil action not criminal. >> she's suing. >> yes, essentially. the attorney general has jurisdiction in large part over civil cases which has a different standard from criminal cases, different rules, et cetera. and one of those, i just want to make this kind of a little bit inside baseball legal point but important i think. one of the things that's different is in civil cases people can move, parties can move for summery judgment. summary judgment means, judge, we don't have to have a trial on this. just based on the papers and evidence we're putting before you, there's no question of fact. can you make this ruling? and that is what the judge did here at least it seems in part in making this finding. that's pretty rare. usually a judge more often than not summary judgment is denied and they say, no, no, we have to have a trial, there's a question

of fact. here we have the judge saying it's so clear that i'm going to make this ruling in favor of the attorney general. the attorney general is bringing a case on behalf of the people of new york. now, when you talk about harm in that sense, i mean it's -- the financial institutions based on judge's ruling. the judge is saying financial institutions were -- i mean i skimmed it. financial institutions were lied to and deceived and, you know, trump and his businesses benefitted, and therefore, you know, that's what the cause of action comes from. so the harm is to those institutions and the people of the state of new york. >> glenn kirschner if there has been at least in part a summary judgment here, some of that is due in part to the work that suzanne and her colleagues have done. i don't know if people remember this massive, massive undertaking that explained this story in deep detail and minutia

that was more complicated than a legal conversation would be, more complicated than an accounting conversation would be, all put onto the front page of "the new york times" and several pages therein. there is not certainly in the minds of new yorkers and people who have known donald trump for a long time and the way he does around here not a lot of questions to what these were because it's a ledger issue. he would claim something to be $11 million and the other side he would claim less. how important is this development in the pantheon of legal challenges donald trump is facing right now? >> sorry. you were going in and out a little bit. the connection is weak. but it is a ledger issue. i think that's why the judge did

what he did. i tried to plow through the 35-legal space densely written findings, but the conclusions are really remarkable, and i'm not even going to interpret them, but some of them include the grants, tish james motion for summary judgment, which you and mimi were just discussing, and that means there are no issues of fact that have to be resolved by the jury, and it is so clear there was repeated persistent fraud by trump and others that he is ruling in favor of tish james and the people of new york. and here is just some of what we see in the judge's conclusions. he says the plaintiff's summary judgment is granted in part and trump and others -- and i'll read the others in a moment -- are liable as a matter of law towards persistent violations of executive law section 6312. what is that?

well, that is for repeated fraudulent or illegal acts in conducting business. and when that is what happens, the attorney general can enjoin. that is stop the business or the people involved in the persistent fraud from operating, and so what the judge has said is that he wants three independent receivers to be named or recommended to, quote, manage the disallusion of the cancelled llc. i'm almost loathe to interpret that, but it sounds like he's bordering the immediate post-cancellation of the llc, that is the trump organization, and he immediately appoints retired judge barbara jones as the monitor of the trump organization until further notice. barbara jones is a familiar name to many of us because she was appointed as the person who

oversaw the review of the materials, the evidence that was seized i believe from both michael cohen and rudy giuliani some years back to go through what we call a taint review, to make sure there were no attorney-client privilege materials turned over to the prosecutors. and so the judge also says he is canceling all business certificates filed by donald trump, don jr., eric trump, eric weisselberg, and jeff mcconnie. so ali, i'm kind of loathe to go beyond that and interpret what this means, but taken on its face the plain meeting at the conclusion of this 35-page order by the judge is he seems to be ordering the disillusion of the

trump organization. >> in fact the line i'm reading of this summary and there's a reference here -- again, this is very, very new major breaking news, so we're still working out some of the details here with some of the best people around to do it. they're talking about within ten days the parties are directed to recommend three potential receivers to manage the disallusion of llcs -- plural -- identified in the ruling. i'm going to ask suzanne craig when she brings us up to speed when she joins us. if you are just joining us, it is now just after 5:00 here in new york. i'm sitting in for nicolle wallace, and we are following major breaking news out of manhattan. a major blow to donald trump's businesses and the image that he has crafted over the decades as a business mogul. today a judge has just ruled -- just ruled that donald trump committed fraud by repeatedly exaggerating the value of his financial assets.

the judge has also canceled the business certificates of donald trump and his family members and allen weisselberg. that ruling has come in the new york attorney general's civil case against donald trump and his family. a trial is set to begin on monday. there remains six other issues that are still unresolved. so this is called a partial summary judgment. the judge has ruled on a number of things in this case without it going to trial. there are still unresolved issues including we believe what the fine will be and whether there will be a fine. sticking with us sue craig, glenn kirschner, mimi rocah, and msnbc political analyst david jolly. sue, i know you're reading through this and trying to make sense of it. we're trying to make sense of what the cancellation or disillusion of donald trump's llcs, is it singular or plural. tell me what stands out more to

you because you're more steeped in this than almost anybody. >> i have to say i'm thinking back to this is shocking but in a way on friday -- the hearing was on friday, and you had to see it coming. i made some notes when i was in court and the judge at one point was pounding the desk, and he said -- i'm going to paraphrase -- but he says you can't file false business stats in new york. it's against the statute. and he was really getting fed up with the trump lawyers about this and started pounding his desk over this. and so i think in a way this does -- you know, that set the table for this. but i don't think anybody was -- at least i don't want to speak for everybody but to see this sort of ruling today that really does just sort of fully go towards the attorney general in the first and main count and just looking through the decision, i mean a number of properties that people are very

familiar with are raised in terms of we know he had done the valuations on seven springs, on mar-a-lago and they're all named in here. and he is being, you know, at this point held account by the judge on those. >> i think it's important for our viewers to know very little on this front surprises sue craig, you and your colleagues. and i want you to remind us about what you did. when mimi was talking about the fact there's a summary judgment here, it's not all that uncommon to get a summary judgment, the idea there's enough information for the judge to make a determination the facts on that side are not in dispute. the reason we know the facts is on your reporting. you don't like to brag, but can you tell us about that work you and your colleagues did that brought this to the fore? >> sure, it's an interesting issue. we in 2018 wrote a story our

colleagues, we spent 18 or so months looking at it. it started as a simple thing just looking at the wealth donald trump had inherited from his father. donald trump core when he ran for president is he didn't inherit a lot, he was a self-made businessman, and that made him singularly qualified to run the country. and we just wanted to look at that claim, and we found out not only donald trump had hundreds of millions of dollars from his father, fred, but that part of that was enhanced through tax fraud. and in that story one of the things we found early on in this and family members including donald when they went to value assets, we saw patterns. one was that when they went to the irs and they had something the tax on it the value would go low and other times we would see high valuations when it would

benefit them on the other side. so this is a pattern we've seen for a long time. and michael cohen raised it when he testified before congress and brought up the statements of financial condition and talked about how they would be submitted to banks as part of, you know, getting -- as part of trying to secure a loan. and those financial statements have become, you know, at the heart of this case that the attorney general brought. and the pattern that donald trump has done this year after year, you know, donald trump his argument in this is that first of all nobody believes these financial statements, we submitted them, but the banks do their own due diligence, and secondly that they have so many disclaimers on them it renders them meaningless, and they were going on about that in court on friday, and the judge finally said it's not okay. this is why we're here. it's the rule in new york that you can't submit false business statements. so that's sort of where it kind

of comes full circle, but we spent a lot of time on that story. >> how long was that story? >> it was -- i'm sort of shy to say but it was 11,000 words. >> was that the longest story "the new york times" ever published in. >> i've heard that. i don't want to take that fully to the bank but it was a long story. it looked at the packed shenanigans he engaged him to enhance the fortune, things that fell into outright fraud. >> you made a reference to michael cohen talking about this in 2019. let's just listen to that together. >> can you explain why you had these financial statements and what you used them for? >> so these financial statements were used by me for two purposes. one was discussing with media whether it was forbes or other magazines to demonstrate mr. trump's significant net worth.

that was one function. another was when we were dealing later on with insurance companies, we would provide them with these copies so that they would understand that the premium, which is based sometimes upon the individual's capabilities to pay would be reduced. >> and all of this was done at the president's direction and with his knowledge? >> yes. because whatever the numbers would come back to be, we would immediately report it back. >> and did this information provided to us inflate the president's assets? >> i believe these numbers are inflated. >> i believe these numbers are inflated. that, susanne, is a conclusion the judge here seems to have come to today.

the judge has said that this was fraud. >> right. i mean it's -- i'm still a bit shocked this has -- i did think we would end up in a courtroom and this would take months to sort of go through. and this is now -- now we're going to move i think probably more quickly through it. but i want to stress i think donald trump is still -- it looks on thursday the appellate court could have a delay but this is certainly -- it's devastating to them. >> susanne, standby, keep reading. david jolly has joined us as well, mimi rocah and glenn kirschner are with us. david, this speaks very directly to the donald trump that the world knew before donald trump became president, right? "the apprentice," the self-made billionaire. what susanne and her colleagues

wrote a few years ago showed the emperor has no clothes. this is actually going to cost more money, so this one will probably matter to him. but he's past that. his believers will still probably tell you this is witch hunt. >> sure. let's start the conversation in the real world, which is this a case that cuts at the core who donald trump is. as much as we've been following the criminal allegations and indictments against donald trump, this is a civil case brought by the state of new york saying donald trump engaged in civil fraud, that part of who he is as a result of fraud, that donald trump himself is a fraud. and what the judge said today is you're right, letitia james, donald trump is a fraud. donald trump is, his sons are, and they used his family trust and they used his businesses to commit fraud. that cuts at who donald trump is. when he flew his helicopter into the iowa state fair to run for president and said look at me, i'm a billionaire who's for the

workingman, guess what, he made his money as a fraud. and so i think the fascinating thing here is the fact that the immediate ruling that the businesses and entities of donald trump and his family move into the receivership for disallusion in the next ten days obviously there's more to litigate here. mimi and others would know best about that, but this ruling today as much as we're chasing the criminality of donald trump, this cuts at who he is and who he has suggested he is. >> it is something. mimi, is there anything about new york that's highly unusual in terms of the bar, the standard for this judge to have made this ruling? or is this pretty clear there was a lot of evidence and the judge said i've got enough evidence to come down with something? >> no, i mean nothing that would make it easier for a judge to say summary judgment. summary judgment is a pretty uniform standard whether it's state, federal, wherever you are. so i think this is the judge clearly saying there is no

question of fact here. and usually as we've said that's unusual. usually there's a question of fact, or if there's not it goes in favor of the defendant. here he's saying there's no question of fact and holding it against the defendant, so it's unusual. it's a strong statement by this judge. >> sasanne was saying for donald trump there's often not an end to the road or 12 steps when the rest of us think there's the end of the road. there's still a case that will go forward on six unresolved issues. we don't have anything on penalties or fines and i guess you can appeal a summary judgment. >> yes, everything can be apeeled. they'll wait until probably the trial on the litigated -- the facts to be litigated and then the judge will issue a final ruling with as yowl say

penalties, fines, whatever, other remedies although he already seems to have put one out there in terms of the disillusion. but, yes, everything can be appealed. if history is a pattern it will be appeal. >> i think that's an important point. glenn, i want to read this out again. this is the digest version, so i want to let everyone in the audience know we're still working through this. but it does say within ten days the parties are directed to recommend three potential receivers to recognize the disallusion of those in the ruling. as you said the honorable barbara jones will continue to be the independent monitor of the trump organization. we could today be watching the end of the trump organization. but more importantly this is the case that some people forget about, one that's not mentioned as frequently. it's a side thing because to david jolly's point it is not

criminal, but i think to david jolly's point this one may be more about everything that donald trump is than any of the other ones because this is about who he has been for a long time. when susanne craig and her colleagues were writing about this they were talking about all the money donald trump's father gave him in all his bad business practices over the decades. >> i wish i could have said it as well as david jolly said. this is ruling by a judge privy all the financial information of all the trump org and all his llcs that were part of this litigation, and he is ruling that essentially these llcs must be dissolved because of the persistent fraud by trump and his sons and the others who are named in this order. as david said this is sort of an

exclamation point on the reality that donald trump is a fraud. now, his civil empire may be falling and he has -- it could be his liberty interest is next, but as of right now this is pretty dramatic. and the one thing i don't think we mention, ali, is in the conclusion the judge also imposes money sanctions against a whole long list of trump attorneys. now, the sanctions some might say are modest, $7,500 each. but again sanctioning a lawyer by a judge, it's a pretty dramatic thing. and i'll tell you, attorneys who care about their reputation will sort of, you know, hide themselves away in shame. but i mean this is such an across the board loss for donald trump, for his lawyers, for his

family members, for his chief financial officer, allen weisselberg that i'm sure there will be appeals as mimi said, but it's hard to see how this doesn't spell the end of donald trump the businessman in new york. >> mimi, let's talk about the attorney general tish james. there was another civil case and that was the e jean carroll case, but he focuses a lot on his criminal prosecutors, alvin bragg, fani willis, and jack smith. he's endlessly calling them names. he has always accused tish james of existing to bring him down, and tish james has never shied away from the limelight on the issue. she said her job as elected attorney general is to pursue justice for new yorkers. this is a big deal for tish james. she staked a lot on this.

>> absolutely. this was a real feather in her path, but i will say, you know, first of all while she brought the case and the evidence to this judge, the judge is the one who made the ruling. donald trump knowing him will probably attack the judge as well, but what we have here now is we have prosecutors at the state level, federal level, special prosecutors, criminal, civil. we have juries in the e. jean carroll case. we have judges in various cases especially in this one. he has tried to delegitimize all these institutions and all these prosecutors, and he started it back in 2015, right, when he was running. the fbi, the doj, and he does this -- he started this and he has been successful at it because these were all institutions and people that could hold him accountable in

some way. if the facts were there and the evidence was there. and she has carried that through now in a civil case which is not easy to do, and i'm sure he will attack her, but i hope that people can see it as part of the pattern that it is that started over five years ago gaegs more than that, right, it started the minute he was elected because this is not a person who has led his life sort of by the book, let's say, and so to start early and often delegitimizing the people and institutions that can hold you accountable is really his best chance at success. and it's kind of worked. that's the terrifying part. >> so you have to be susanne, craig, and tish james, i do

recommend for whatever people are doing they set aside whatever it takes to read 11,000 words and go back to your article. because with everything the judge will talk about now and everything in the case will be referred to that was discovered in your colleague's remarkable coverage on that. susanne, you're thoughts on this. >> i go back to the journey that my colleagues and particularly russ buttener in 2015 when he first ran for president he promised he'd release his tax returns and he refused to for years, and that set us on a journey at the time to learn more about his finances, and he fought so hard to hide those from public view because they held the information that he is not the businessman that he's claimed. it's at the heart of this case and sort of the heart of him that's kind of the original lie

almost within him that he has lied repeatedly about his business performance. and then we had a tv show where it burngsed that false image. and when we finally in 2020 we got decades of his personal and corporate tax information and it laid bare barely any of his businesses made money. and not did he make money, he plows more money into them to keep them going. the judge one of the things they said is that he's living in a -- the entire defense of donald trump in this case is that it's a fantasy world and not the real world. and it's sort of i don't know maybe a good summary of the whole thing, but it goes back to how many years we worked to uncover the issue about his finances. it's an important issue when you think about somebody as president in public office or running for public office, you want to know about the pressures on them.

and he not so hard not necessarily to hide that but just the fact he's a hard businessman. >> i'm going to leave you with this from the judge's summary judgment. it's an order that any certificates filed under and by virtue of gbl 130 by any of the entity defendants or any other entity controlled by donald trump, donald trump jr., eric trump, allen weisselberg are canceled and it is further ordered within ten days of this order the parties are to recommend the names of no more than three potential independent receivers to manage the disallusion of the canceled llcs. donald trump's businesses have been canceled by a judge in new york. when we return a make-or-break moment for the republican party. that's how former white house aide cassidy hutchinson is describing this moment as she

urges her former boss mark meadows to testify under oath. we'll get to that next. also ahead the president of the united auto workers will be our guest. shawn fain will talk about the significance of president biden joining them on the picket line today. and the importance of asking the candidates whether they support donald trump's open talk of fascism and executing the chairman of the joint chiefs. we've got a lot of news. don't go anywhere. ah, these bills are crazy. she has no idea she's sitting on a

goldmine. well she doesn't know that if she owns a life insurance policy of $100,000 or more she can sell all or part of it to coventry for cash. even a term policy. even a term policy? even a term policy! find out if you're sitting on a goldmine. call coventry direct today at the number on your screen, or visit coventrydirect.com.

- they slept on me for 15 years. the things i saw, the things i collected. i gained 30 pounds in dust, pollen, dander.

they had two kids, two cats, and a ferret. all that time, they could have protected me, and themselves, with the number one selling allerease mattress protector. it would've been soft, comfortable, and blocked 99.9% of dust, dirt, and allergens. allerease, protect your mattress for a clean, healthy night's sleep. (zipping zipper) ooh, queen likes. what i will say is i hope that mark is now doing the right thing. what i define as the right

thing, which is coming forth and honoring your oath to protect your country, not your president. >> coming forward and doing the right thing to protect your country, not your president. do the right thing, simple but powerful message coming from cassidy hutchinson, the bombshell witness from the january 6th committee's public hearings to her former boss, mark meadows. meadows, unlike his former aide, did not demonstrate the courage to come forward and tell his story. he instead hid from the congressional panel which voted to hold him in contempt of congress now with four indictments issued against donald trump and one against the former chief of staff himself, we'll see if meadows has taken cassidy hutchinson's advice. she's spoken out with the new book telling her full side of story and how the future of the republican party is hanging in the balance. >> this next election cycle,

it's in my opinion is the make-or-break moment for the republican party. now is the time if these politicians, these men and some women that are currently in congress want to make the break and want to take the stand, they have to do it now. we're talking about a man who at the very essence of his being almost destroyed democracy in one day, and he wants to do it again. he wants to run for president to do it again. he's been indicted four times since january 6th. i would not have a clear consshns and be able to sleep at night if i were a republican in congress that supported donald trump. and, you know, i think that if they're not willing to split that. >> cassidy hutchinson will be nicolle's guest on this program tomorrow in studio. we're back with mimi rocah, david jolly, and glenn

kirschner. one of the things about the interview, cassidy hutchinson has not disavowed the republican party, not left the republican party. she definitely believes the republican party she thinks she believe belongs to is not the one we see on tv represented in congress. >> yeah, cassidy hutchinson has been heroic and brave and is due a lot of credit for standing up to people that few people have been willing to stand up to, so she's do a lot of grace, and what i'm about to say has not taken away from her. she's on her own journey that started recently. the existential race started in 2016 and the opportunity to speak up for donald trump was in 2017 and 2018 and 2019 and 2020 an '22. and cassidy is exactly right the republican race is a defining part of the republican party.

and having taken the journey cassidy has taken as others have, there is an evolution to it. you think you can stay within the party and fix it and you can win that battle within the party. you resign yourself to the loss but you think i'll sit here until it corrects itself, and then you realize it never will. cassidy hutchpson will end up where i ended up, where adam kissenger, liz cheney, and others have ended up. it's a journey. god bless her for being on it, but it's a journey that started in '16 and the opportunity to stop donald trump was then not now. >> you're a young guy for politics and she's much younger than we are. >> she's incredibly brave. >> but, in fact, could it be influential that young people -- or people in america look at this young woman and say, all right, you've got guts? >> i would like to think so. i would like the think cassidy hutchinson is the future leader

of the republican party. when you get to nikki haley and others that's just not where the party is. that party is dead, and there's a cultural identity to your political affiliation, and i think that's what some people are clinging to, but this notion there's somehow an ideology left in today's gop, that verdict was rendered a long time ago. >> glenn kirschner, david jolly said cassidy hutchinson is brave. and i think anyone who watches these interviews will come to that conclusion, but bravery is not a simple matter when it comes to donald trump and his machine. this is beyond the i'm being courageous. cas odd hutchpson has subjected herself to potential harm. >> courage and patriotism you would think that those would govern, that those would control those of us who choose public service. and i only wish that the mike

pences and the mark meadows of this sort of sad chapter in our nation's history had one one thousandth of the courage and patriotism of someone like cassidy hutchinson. she really did more troubling evidence to the table in her interview with rachel about mark meadows' behavior. mark meadows at this point is indicted in georgia and of course he's lost the battle. he's appealing but he's lost the battle to have his case transferred from georgia state court to federal court. we don't know if he will be indicted some time in the future in connection with jack smith's investigation of all crimes january 6th, but, you know, it seems that at some point mark meadows has to take a long hard look at himself and say, well, even if i'm not courageous, not

patriotic, maybe i should cut my losses and try to make right what i've done so very wrong up to this point and negotiate himself a cooperation agreement with jack smith if he hasn't already and try to resolve the case in georgia and actually help d.a. willis prosecute the other wrongdoers including the one bigger criminal fish, and that is donald trump. but i will have to say i don't hold out much hope that mark meadows will choose that path because he's on the path that's brought in to where he is at this moment in his life. >> cassidy hutchinson, mimi, her stuff was quite colorful. it's relevant because mark meadows is an indicted coconspirator in the georgia case, andmark meadows would like to because he tried to get that case removed -- wanted everybody to think what he was doing was in service of had presidency as

opposed to donald trump for president. there's a quote from cassidy hutchinson's book "enough" in which mark meadows wife was complaining about the smell of smoke on his suits. this one is interesting. the next is on packing and off boarding routines. debbie, mark's wife helped pack his blaupgings. as she made a time trip to the car she made one last request. cassidy, eliza, please don't light that fireplace anymore. mark doesn't need to burn anything else. all of his suits smell like a bonfire and i can't keep up with the dry-cleaning, end quote. mark rolled his eyes when he was informed his fireplace was no longer to be used. this is the chief of staff to the then former president the united states and he was burning things in his documents at the white house. >> it is from a scene out of a movie probably a bad movie, but, you know, it also is not at all

unbelievable. in fact, it's very believable given many of the things that we've heard and know about this i don't even want to say administration, but these people in the oval office. and mark meadows lost that motion to move to federal court because just because you do something in the oval office doesn't mean you're doing it as part of your role as chief of staff. >> i can't imagine the national archives after everything we've heard about thinks you can burn documents in the white house. >> depending what the documents were could be obstruction of justice, there are all sorts of reasons why it could be wrong to criminal. one thing i just want to say about cassidy hutchinson is, you know, there seems -- of course there's going to be and there already is this response to her book of, well, she's just making stuff up. why didn't she say it sooner or just to sell a book? but, first of all some 06 of the

things she says, for example, rudy giuliani basically sexually assaulting her, those are things that over time we know take time for people to come forward with. they often don't -- also where was she going to say it, who was going to listen to them? right now she has the opportunity and vehicle for saying it. but also even if she held onto all of this information to put it in a book because it would help sell the book, that doesn't make it untrue. i mean that is going to have to be their response is it's untrue, she made it up to put in a book. but she may have waited to put it in a book once she became this hero who came forward on january 6th. that doesn't mean it's untrue just because she put it in a book. and i think they're going to have problems with how much what she says, which is very damaging in many different ways to trump, to giuliani, to meadows, rings true with everything we know about that in the court of

public opinion. >> by the way, if one reads the indictments, there's a lot of stuff in here that cas odd hutchinson wasn't involved in the writing of any of these indictments, and yet these mob-type stories that seem unbelievable that might be true have similarities in jack smith's indictment and fani willis'. mayor giuliani responded to that allegation in the book. his spokesperson saying is it fair to ask cassidy hutchinson why she's just now coming out with these allegations just two years ago as part of the upcoming marketing campaign for her book release. those things can be separate, right? >> yes. >> rudy giuliani was america's mayor. >> yes. i mean that's like saying there never was a priest who was convicted of sexual assault or sexual abuse. good people do bad things. people who have done good things in their life do bad things and

do things that are wrong. but it's just the reflective talking point that came out as soon as that allegation was made known, the fact that he came right out and immediately it's, oh, she must be making it up when in fact we know and i can definitively say this as a prosecutor over 20 years that sexual assault, sexual harassment, there's a reason why the statute of limitations on those crimes both civilly and criminally have been extended because we now recognize those take time for people to come forward. so i just don't think that why'd she wait 2 1/2 years. >> i thought we relitigated that two years ago. mimi, thanks for everything today and coming and jumping in a little earlier because when that news came down i had no idea what any of that meant. glenn kirschner, i don't even know why you agree to be on tv with me anymore when you hear it's me. i ask you to opine on things you

haven't read yet, so thanks a million for that. david jolly, i haven't squeezed all the juice out of you that i can. stick around for a few minutes. when we return we'll return to the united auto workers union. shawn fain is our guest after a very short break. r guest after very short break nicole: my daughter, natalie, she is the youngest of my five children, and she has neuroblastoma. she really didn't have any symptoms until one day she just stopped using her arm. andrew: by the time we realized that she was sick,

it had grown into about a softball sized tumor and spread through her bone marrow, her lymph nodes. so it's a very fast, aggressive cancer. nicole: so we came to st. jude and learned how much hope there was and learned how much they could do for natalie here. [soft horn music playing] narrator: you can join the battle to save lives by supporting st. jude children's research hospital. families never receive a bill from st. jude for treatment, travel, housing, or food so they can focus on helping their child live. andrew: money wasn't even an issue. we just did the best treatment for natalie. nicole: it's the donors who have already taken on that burden on their backs and said, all right, we've got this. we're going to pay this bill and make sure this family is taken care of. i can say, for sure, that that money is being put to incredible use.

and our family is forever grateful for donations, big and small, because it's completely changed our lives and it's given us a second chance. narrator: when you call or go online with your credit or debit card right now, we'll send you this st. jude t-shirt you can wear to show your support to help st. jude save the lives of these children. nicole: we thought we were losing our daughter. and then when we came to st. jude, everything changed. andrew: hope changes everything. narrator: there's still so much more that needs to be done. and st. jude won't stop until no child dies from cancer. become a partner in hope today. [soft piano music playing]

that's how we're going to defeat these people, how we're going to defeat corporate greed

is by standing together. this is a historic moment, first time in our country's history that a sitting usa president has stood on the picket line. >> president joe biden today joined the picket line for striking uaw workers in wayne county, michigan, an unprecedented show of support by a sitting president for labor rights. biden's stop tomorrow highlights the importance of a mission with the prez potential race. workers of unions over 20 states have walked out after unsuccessful negotiations with three of the largest auto makers in america and demanding increases in wages.

joining us is shawn fain. mr. fain, thank you for being with us. i've looked forward to the chance to talk to you. where are you in negotiations with the auto makers right now? >> hey, thanks for having us. you know, we're trying to get agreements. we've been at the table every day as we have been for the last roughly ten weeks, and this all goes back to one thing, corporate greed. and it's a shame that these companies chose to sit around for several weeks and not address our members concerns and wait until the last minute. but there's only one reason we're on strike right now and it's because these companies put themselves in that position. we're working hard. the negotiating teams are working hard, the vice presidents are working hard, our team's working hard to try to address our members demands and our needs. and it's up to companies. and if things continue to regross and not move forward, we will be taking more action. >> normally sometimes on big strikes like this, meaningful strikes that affect the economy potentially lots of workers, lots of people, administrations

do get involved but usually at the negotiating table. very unusual for a president to go to the picket line. what do you think about that and do you think it has any influence on the outcome? >> i think it's a historic day just from the fact the president chose to come and stand up with workers. and, you know, this was about our members. i mean i don't want to sidestep what this is all about. i mean the members, you know, being out there standing up for their future and for a better future it's what brought the president here. and it's a great testament to see him come here, and i think his comments were very well-received. him recognizing the sacrifices our members make, you know, he was there back in the great recession and he recounted, you know, the sacrifices our members make and also how our members have not kept up since then and have not been paid back when they generated all these great profits for the companies. it was definitely good to see.

>> you have come up with a pay increase demand that the auto workers have -- the auto companies have said is outsized. you've done this through math, through the concessions you've made, cost of living adjustments, inflation. and then you've also talked about what the ceos of the companies have made and increases they've had. today when the president was there a reporter asked president biden if he supported the union's demand -- the reporter i believe asked for a 40% wage increase over four years. it's very hard to make sense of what was actually happening because a number of your members there said yes. and the president responded -- and it's unclear what he said. the white house subsequently said the president said something like, yes, i think they should be able to bargain for that. what's your understanding of what the president said in response to your demands for 36% wage increases? >> i don't know what he said. i didn't hear that, but the thing to me is this is about the

companies and corporate greed. let's talk about those facts again. a quarter of a trillion dollars in profits over the last decade the big three have made, those profits are generated by the work -- on the backs of our members. 21 billion in the first six months this year alone. the price of vehicles went up 35% over the last four years. ceo pay went up 45% over the last four years. our worker pay went up 6%. and the cost of labor that goes into making these vehicles is around 4 to 5%. labor is not the problem. and what we're asking for is our fair share of what we deserve. and we have fallen further and further behind over the years, so i'm not sure what the president said, but i do know this, this is on the corporations, and they own this. >> i guess, okay, fair enough you don't know what the president said. but i guess it's important for you to know what he believes or what the american people believe. that support for unions has been going up in the last several

months. and unusually sometimes there's support for unions, but when there are actually strikes, the public support diminishes a little bit. but that's not been the case with the writer's guild, with sag-aftra, with the teamster strike that didn't happen with ups and with your support, the public strike supports are strong at this point. >> yes, and i believe it's not just our fight. this is a working class issue. it doesn't matter if you're a uaw member, if you're the member of another union, or if you're not a member of a union at all. this is about economic and social justice for the entire working class, and that's the issue here. this country in the last 40 years i mean, you know, some of the pundits want to talk about this being class warfare, that we're asking for our fair share. class warfare has been going on in this country for the last 40 years. the billionaire class and corporate class have been taking all the profits and the workers

are being left with the scraps. and they're scraping to get by pay teak which paycheck. whether you're union or not, we can all identify what that's like. so i believe the majority of america gets it and they're fed up with living this way. it's time we turn this around. that's what this is battle is all about and i think everyone understands that and we share in that. >> shawn, one of the arguments you make with the companies when you go in there and they say this is outsized, we need to do something and you're offering some increasesut not what you're asking for, squaz we put up on the screen and put up again the increases the ceos of those companies have had. these are over slightly different te periods. but $29 million, $21 million jim farley at ford. what do you say when the companies say you're able to give your ceos bonuses. in fact the gm said most of this is not my salary, it's a

performance bonus. don't you have the same argument back to them give us a performance bonus. >> i don't think they care. this is about corporate greed, the bottom line, and it's about taking anything -- john stewart said it best a few months back in the bad times the companies want to socialize their losses, it's all pot on the backs of the workers, we pay for it. but in the good time and high profits they want to keep it all, it's all theirs and they want to privatize it. no one is worth $29 million a year. i don't know how someone makes that kind of money. a worker on the line would have to make 400 years to make what one of these ceos makes in a year. there is something severely wrong with this system if we're saying that's okay. it's not okay. no one is worth that much money. i don't begrudge anyone for doing well, but they shouldn't

have to -- >> shawn fain, thanks for your time today. i know you were busy in actual negotiations with the company. i know in between talking to people on tv you're actually trying to negotiate a great contract. and we appreciate you being with us. when we return the disgraced former president has embraced authoritarian tactics but he's pretty open about it. we want to know what his gop rivals should dee about it during tomorrow night's debate. t during tomorrow night's debate ♪ i'm gonna love you forever ♪ ♪ ♪ c'mon, bear. ♪ ♪ ♪ you don't...you don't have to worry... ♪ ♪ be by your side... i'll be there... ♪ ♪ with my arms wrapped around... ♪ this is spring semester at fairfield-suisun unified. they switched to google tools for education because there's never been a reported ransomware attack

on a chromebook. now they're focused on learning knowing that their data is secure. ( ♪♪ ) love you. have a good day, behave yourself. like she goes to work at three in the afternoon and sometimes gets off at midnight. she works a lot, a whole lot. we don't get to eat in the early morning. we just wait till we get to the school. so, yeah. right now here in america, millions of kids like victoria and andre live with hunger, and the need to help them has never been greater. when you join your friends, neighbors and me to support no kid hungry, you'll help hungry kids get the food they need.

if we want to take care of our children, then we have to feed them. your gift of just $0.63 a day, only $19 a month at helpnokidhungry.org right now will help provide healthy meals and hope. we want our children to grow and thrive and to just not have to worry and face themselves with the struggles that we endure. nobody wants that for their children. like if these programs didn't exist me and aj, we wouldn't probably get lunch at all. please call or go online right now with your gift of just $19 a month. and when you use your credit card, you'll receive this limited edition t-shirt to show you're part of the team that's helping feed kids and change lives. if you're coming in hungry, there's no way you can listen to me teach, do this activity, work with this group. so starting their day with breakfast and ending their day with this big, beautiful snack is pretty incredible. whether kids are learning at school or at home, your support will ensure

they get the healthy meals they need to thrive. because when you help feed kids, you feed their hopes, their dreams, and futures. kids need you now more than ever. so please call this number right now to join me in helping hungry kids or go online to helpnokidhungry.org and help feed hungry kids today.

tomorrow night, the republican primary candidates will take the stage for their second debate. this time around, seven republicans have qualified, and once again, the disgraced ex president current kbop gop front-runner by a mile will be skipping it. the come burn his nearly daily escalation about violent rhetoric, this time about treason and that mark milley joins the death penalty. joining me now, molly and john fast. molly, two conversations we have had in one day. but these are big issues. david and i were just talking about this. it's all offhand until it's not. right, he's talk about the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff facing the death penalty, and he's talk about comcast, the parent company of nbc, being treasonous. again, funny till it's not. >> yeah, and i think very serious stuff. and i do wonder why we're not

seeing more straight reporters on the news site going to those republican candidates and asking them, do they support execution for general milley, which is a pretty insane thing to say. do they support trying to shut down comcast? these people should go on the record. while people are chasing down democrats to see if they support the resignation of menendez, perhaps they should be chasing down republicans to ask them if they support some of trump's crazy claims. >> it's kind of wild. the menendez story's got a lot of interesting stuff to it. we don't think this probably should be the leadoff question. it's not going to be. maybe it will. maybe they'll surprise us. should be, are you guys okay with this? >> i think we know the answer that everyone on that stage and republicans have done more to embrace donald trump's

escalation of authoritarianism and violence than they have to stop it. we have to accept we're in a dangerous moment. we had january 6th. there was an opportunity for republicans to say, we're done, and they didn't. they all said, we're going to continue to support donald trump. we had our january 6th, and we didn't stop it. republicans did not stop it. so to expect that they will now, we're fooling ourselves. we're in a dangerous moment, and it could have serious consequences. >> do you think -- does donald trump, is anything going to stop him from talking this way? >> no, and i worry if he gets back in office. i worry about our safety. i worry about the safety of the country. a worry about the freedom of people who are otherwise exercising freedom of speech in politics. i worry about america under donald trump. it's very dangerous. >> david and molly jong fast. thanks to both of you for being with us. quick break for us. we'll be right back. quick break for us we'll be right back.

we really don't want people to think of feeding food like ours is spoiling their dogs. good, real food is simple. it looks like food, it smells like food, it's what dogs are supposed to be eating. no living being should ever eat processed food for every single meal of their life. it's amazing to me how many people write in about their dogs changing for the better.

the farmer's dog is just our way to help people take care of them. ♪ when i first learned about my dupuytren's contracture, my physician referred me to a hand specialist. and i'm glad he did, because when i took the tabletop test, i couldn't lay my hand flat anymore. the first hand specialist i saw only offered surgery. so, i went to a second hand specialist who also offered nonsurgical options - which felt more right for me. so, what i'd say to other people with dupuytren's contracture is this: don't wait —find a hand specialist trained in nonsurgical options, today. i found mine at findahandspecialist.com.

thank you for spending this very busy tuesday afternoon with us. nicolle will be back tomorrow. "the beat" with ari melber begins right now. this is your beat, man. ari, i have been struggling through this last hour. i'm glad we have an expert here now who can tell us about what all the developments of the last couple hours mean. >> we were generously equipped and extra prepared. i'm reading it. i had you on. you had the great "the new york times" report. you pointed out, blushing that 11,000 words is lengthy. we're all doing it together. good to see you, sir. >> this, have a great show. >> appreciate it. welcome to "the beat." as ali velshi