>> -- the way american politics work -- not by design, it's on the constitution, in fact the american founders founded argued -- just the way it works. and what we have experience in the last eight years in this country is one of those two major parties being captured by an increasingly authoritarian and dangerous faction. but it is still just a faction. the majority of the country wants, and the big trick we need to figure out is how to represent the broad interests of the majority of americans who do favor democracy. but right now the faction is calling a lot of the shots, and we're going to have to solve that problem. that is "all in" on this

wednesday night. alex wagner tonight starts right now. >> yeah, we do. >> i don't know what's the problem. >> 200 representatives voted today keep mccarthy in power. the number of member in his own party that wanted him as speaker of the house vastly outnumbered those who didn't. thanks to you at home for joining me this hour. today in the fulton county election interference case rudy giuliani's lead lawyer asked the judge if he could be removed from that case. now, that is the second lawyer to leave giuliani's georgia team this week alone. their departure comes on the heels of mr. giuliani's lawyer and long time friend suing him last month for unpaid legal bills. we have known for a while now all is not well in giuliani land. he has huge legal bills. he is reportedly very short on

cash. and now to add to those troubles, there's a new story out today that at first feels kind of like it's been ripped from the tabloids, but ultimately it could have serious legal consequences for giuliani and his most important client -- donald trump. >> was there anyone in that conversation who in your observation had too much to drink? >> mayor giuliani. >> that was former trump campaign advisor jason miller claiming mr. giuliani appeared to have had too much to drink on election night 2020. you might remember that very late that night days before the election had actually been called, trump held a press conference claiming he had won. and one of the big things we learned from the house january 6th investigation was almost everyone around trump that night advised him not to do that. that instead of listening to

those people, trump listened to rudy giuliani. >> i think effectively mayor giuliani was saying we want it, you're stealing it from us, where did all the votes come from? you need to go say that we won, and essentially that anyone could not get in that position was weak. >> giuliani claims the only thing he drank that night was diet pepsi. but today "the new york times" is out with a story in which several people claim giuliani appeared drunk on election night slurring his words and carrying an odor of alcohol. "the times" reports that for more than a decade giuliani's friends believe his drinking had been a problem. "the times" cites instances of giuliani reportedly drinking before leaving for fox news interviews and even at solemn

occasions like a 9/11 anniversary dinner. this is far from the first time rudy giuliani has been accused of this kind of behavior. earlier this summer giuliani was sued by a former employee who accused him of sexual assault and harassment, all of which giuliani denies. but in her lawsuit this former employee alleges giuliani drank all day and night during the post election period, and she specifically cites two moments in particular -- giuliani's press conference at four seasons total landscaping, the one where he falsely claimed dead people voted in pennsylvania, and the press conference where giuliani's hair spray appeared to melt down the side of his face as he falsely claimed that venezuela was tampering with our voting machines. the former employee said it was her job to keepgiuliani from

looking foolish while he was drunk. he denies all those allegations and denied the allegations in "the new york times" today as well. >> there's a story in "the new york times" that you have a possible alcohol problem. >> i will sue them for that. i will comment if i have an alcohol problem i should be in the guinness book of world records. 79 years old and i'm an alcoholic. you know how much i've accomplished? it's a typical "the new york times" malicious lie. i do not have an alcohol problem. i have never had an alcohol problem. it's a big damn lie by a newspaper that's a disgrace and by a reporter who covered me, used to cover me very, very -- in a very glowing way and now is vicious and mean in what she does. >> thank you. >> it's my press conference.

>> rudy giuliani's personal tragedy is one thing as are his denials, but whether he was routinely drunk in the post-election period could really matter legally speaking for both giuliani and donald trump. a person familiar with the matter tells "the new york times" that special counsel jack smith is now looking into giuliani's alleged drinking habits. lash month three sources told rolling stone the same thing. why? trump is widely expected to use an advice of counsel defense in his federal trial, essentially claiming he just took his lawyer's advice on what to do in the 2020 election period. that could all be in serious jeopardy if trump knew his lawyer was drunk while advising him. and trump who lost his brother to an alcohol related heart attack is not just simply a well-known tea totaler. he seems to take note of what happens when people around him

drink. >> i've never had a drink. i've never had a glass of alcohol. i've watched people and i studied people and i had in particular a great tutor on this. but i look and i see what it does people when they lose control. >> now mary mccord, former acting assistant director at the department of justice, and andrew weissman. mary and andrew are of course the co-hosts of the indispensable podcast "prosecuting donald trump." it is an honor to have both in the flesh tonight as we try to understand what's going on here. alcoholism is a disease that affects a lot of people. we know people in my family that have it, and i'm sure there are viewers out there who have grappled with this as well. and, you know, my heart goes out to everybody who's had to struggle with this, but i want to focus on the sort of legal implications here. mary, the news that jack smith

is looking into whether giuliani was drunk in the post-election period, can you talk to me a little bit about does that surprise you, and what specifically could he be looking for? >> well, i think as you indicated in your intro, one of the things jack smith and his team are trying to prepare for is an advice of counsel defense, but they're also trying to understand the conspiracy more generally, right? and so what kind of representations were made both as counsel and also just as in other consultative capacities. and as you indicated certainly if mr. trump was well aware of mr. giuliani's intoxication, it would be pretty unreasonable to rely on his advice even if he was giving legal advice. and i will say that i think already an advice of counsel defense was pretty weak. obviously we haven't seen it yet but we can surmise because we know all the white house counsel, all the department of justice, like all the counsel around mr. trump who are sort of

there being paid to be his lawyers as the president of the united states were telling him there was no fraud significant enough to change the results of the election, so he sort of just continued to go shopping until he got a lawyer. now, when you then add to that you go shopping for a lawyer potentially inebriated when giving advance, to me it makes it less reasonable to rely on that. >> i've got to say listening to that tape, andrew, of trump saying i know what happens when people drink, the fact he doesn't drink just purely on a sort of client-lawyer basis does it surprise you he would have sought the advice of rudy giuliani if he was demonsstrably inebriated when he was giving him already accepted controversial advice? >> if you're trying to essentially shop for advice and this is the best you have is rudy giuliani potentially being

drunk, sidney powell who you privately are saying is crazy, this is all i have because this is all i can get. the sober ones they were saying can't do this. also adding to mary's point about all the other lawyers who are white house counsel who are saying this, it's also work taking down what exactly is charged here because there is no advice of counsel where counsel says, oh, yeah, it's fine to threaten raffensperger with criminal prosecution. that is not something where there's going to be any claim where rudy giuliani said, yeah, that's a great idea. there's going to be no advice of counsel to saying jeff clark has no idea we're going to send a fake letter to georgia to get them to sort of go our way and to use that. no, rudy giuliani and sidney powell are not going to be saying that's fine. you really have to break this

down to what exactly is -- even if it's inebriated advice, what is the advice that is actually relevant to the pacific parts of the charge? i think it has a very, very long road to have this fly in front of a jury. >> but can i just say there's the reality white house counsel is out there saying do not pass go, bad idea, don't do it, and this one person or maybe two if you're counting sidney powell in there is saying go for it, claim venezuela did it, whatever. >> for one thing there's a criteria to even get a defense of counsel defense. the way this comes up in trial is the defense will try to put on enough evidence to support a request for a jury instruction so the jury could if they find

you relied on the advice of counsel they could acquit on a particular charge. to even get that there's criteria that includes you as a client first of all had a counsel relationship that even more clear with respect to giuliani, maybe less clear with respect to sidney powell, but also you provided your counsel with all relevant information known to you and sought that counsel's advice. so there are a bunch of steps we still don't know about how he might go to prove. and i think this is also part of the things that jack smith and his team are looking into. >> can i ask what this does, this information, to rudy giuliani's defense? he's an unnamed coconspiratorter in the federal indictment. >> and he's an indicted coconspiratorter in the georgia case. >> i mean he's vehemently suggesting he had nothing to do with alcohol in the post-election period, that this is a smear job. does it inform his defense at all if there's information like this out there? >> well, you know, the reason

this could be relevant in two ways, one we just talked about to the former president. but to rudy giuliani if he was continuously drunk during the time period charged, he could have a diminished capacity defense, he could say i didn't form the intent necessary. obviously that's not the road he's going down because he's saying publicly this is not true. that would be a very, very difficult defense given the time period that's involved to say you're drunk so long for so much and so impaired. now, it's possible that he now, though, having said what he just said, it doesn't seem like that's where he's going. >> what does it practically mean, mary, first of all he's in pretty significant financial straights, and his lawyers in the georgia case, two of them have left this week. what are the implications for that? do they effectively need to have -- does he need to have local representation in georgia?

how does it complicate his defense down there? >> he will need to have local representation. that's something each of the defends will need to obtain. as we know the trial going to go forward is the trial of kenneth chesebro and sidney powell at the end of this month. so it's going to be some time before the others go to trial if at all, where surely by then he'll have local counsel. you can go to the court and you can say i'm too poor, i'm too indigent, i need you to appoint counsel for me, but to do that he wouldn't be able to maintain the property, the public life he maintains and still be able to acquire a public defender. so it remains to be what his scenario would be, and this sometimes leads to plea

discussions, because if you really aren't going to be able to retain counsel to fully and zealously defend you because, you know, because of your financial condition or people refuse to do it, sometimes that is a reason to try to seek some sort of resolution. >> that would be dramatic for both giuliani and donald trump. i will say to anybody who hadn't read the story, it is tragic and it very much traces the break down of a man who once had the admiration of a lot of people in this country. but we're not done with you yet, mary mccord and andrew weissman. house republicans float some interesting names. i guess that's what we'll call it to be the next speaker of the house including donald trump. we're going to get reaction from pramila jayapal what her party makes. but first donald trump leaves his new york civil fraud trial

in a huff and places the race card. that is all coming up next e card that is all coming up next 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.

goli, taste your goals. donald trump is newly gagged, ordered yesterday by the new york judge presiding over his civil fraud case not to speak about any clerks or staff members of the court. however, that limited gag order has not stopped the former

president from escalating his attacks this time on new york attorney general letitia james and judge arthur engoron himself. today on day three of this trial the trump called the attorney general a racist and deadly cop while also using a racially loaded epithet against her. inside the courtroom trump was more vocal than he'd been in previous days. he expressed his frustrations about not having a jury trial, something he potentially could have had if his lawyers requested one. they did not. halfway through the day the former president seemed to have had enough, and during the lunch break he stormed out to complain to reporters. >> i'm stuck here and i can't -- i'd rather be right now in iowa. i'd rather be in new hampshire or south carolina or ohio or a lot of other places, but i'm stuck here because i have a corrupt attorney general. they made up a fake case. they're fraudulent people, and

the judge already knows what he's going to do. he's a democratic judge. >> i'm stuck here. i'd rather be in iowa. that's what trump said before he left on his private jet for florida. so not stuck, also not in iowa. shortly after he departed, attorney general letitia james had this to say. >> mr. trump's comments were offensive. they were baseless. they were void of any facts and/or any evidence. what they were were comments were comments that unfortunately fomented violence and comments i would describe as race baiting. i will not be bullied, and so mr. trump is no longer here, the donald trump show is over. this was nothing more than a political stunt. >> andrew, how much further can trump go here? in addition to those comments, he called judge engoron someone

who is run by the democrats. he already knows what he's going to do, the whole system is corrupt, engoron came out of the clubhouse. i mean at what point is a gag order extended to the judge? >> it's interesting because the gag order issued yesterday was narrow. it was about the judge's staff. and that part seemed to work. and so lawrence o'donnell talked about this, which is a bully being carried out. donald trump does not want to go to jail and these judges in both civil cases and four criminal cases has the power to if he continues doing this. on october 15th the d.c. judge is having a hearing on this issue. if he continues down the road, that will be for judge chutkan to figure out should there be additional restriction. i think the line for me is looking to language that is sort of calling for whether intentional or not violence.

that's really the real issue. that's why the reason the judge was so concerned about the comments about his staff. i do think one thing that's very interesting is this week we saw both the attorney general of the united states and now letitia james speaking out. we talked a lot about this -- you know, the disparity because most of the times prosecutors don't speak. they speak only in court. i thought it was very interesting and i actually think commendable for them to be picking their moments to talk about not the guilt of the defendant, not to cross the line and to talk about why he's so guilty but rather to sort of show that they're not really going to put up with this and they're going to pull the integrity of the process and the institution. i thought it was really interesting and a good sign that they're not sticking to the sort of older model, which is you don't say anything at all. >> jack smith has not said

anything. he's made very clear the doj would like to have some kind of limited speech order imposed on former president trump, which is the case that you mentioned in that response there, andrew, judge chutkan's case. my question is, yes, to some degree the limited gag order prevented trump from saying anything disparaging about the clerk. it certainly didn't prevent him from saying anything disparaging about the attorney general or the judge in this case. it's like whack-a-mole. and one would assume that gag order has to be expanded to cover more people in this case. but i guess the question i have for you, mary, is are any of these judges actually prepared to mete out the punishment that comes with a violation? >> there's different type of punishment. particularly when judge chutkan has her hearing on october 16th, she'll be weighing mr. trump's first amendment rights

particularly as someone running for office against the threat he poses to those people who he is denigrating, who he is attacking, and knowing -- because we all know this and this is replete in jack smith's motion and his reply, that there is this call and response effect. donald trump says something disparaging, someone issues a threat towards that person. he says something disparaging, someone takes a gun and tries to attack the fbi. these judges know that, so i think they're going to try to thread the needle here with orders narrow enough to not tread on his first amendment rights to be a candidate. in terms of what they will do in the criminal cases obviously these are conditions of his bail, his pretrial release. i don't think they would immediately jail him, but they might do other incremental steps. one of it things andrew and i talked about before you have to have your social media posts

cleared by your attorneys and run past your attorneys. >> what about his mouth, how do they do that? >> that's just it. this statement out in the hallway is not something that could get pre-cleared. then what else? and i will note in the civil case even though that's not a case that involves a condition of your pretrial release, if a judge issues an order and you violate it, that's contempt. and you can be held criminally or civilly liable for contempt of court. that could mean financial penalties or also jailing. jailing is an option. whether it's civil or criminal, i do think the judges will be reluctant to give that option unless he keeps just violating, violating, violating. and i think he's going to try to go right up that line, and sometimes he may go recognize over it. >> do you think judge chutkan is looking at what judge engoron is doing in new york and saying, okay, when i say what speech i'm limiting i've got to keep in mind what's happening there and perhaps have a more sort of

aggressive initial ruling on this because of the precedent that's set in new york? >> i think she's going to be thinking about every statement that he has made in writing or orally from the moment that he has been under indictment. and i think she'll also be looking at whether he complied with an order from -- from the judge here. and i think in some ways if he is complying with this order, that's sort of good for him, right, in that it means he can actually tailor his conduct to an order and she'd be less likely to jail him immediately and would be thinking about a more narrowly tailored order. but the main issue is this potential for violence because there's -- that has to be the thing that is weighing i think should be on all of these judges is that you don't want to be doing this after the fact. >> yes, absolutely. and we know what the track

record here is. mary mccord and andrew weissman, two of my favorite brilliant mind to listen to both in podcast form and in person, you can catch more of them on their indispensable podcast "prosecuting donald trump." we have a lot more this evening. the race to fill the house speaker's chair after kevin mccarthy's dramatic removal, that race has officially begun. and former president trump wasted no time turning the occasion into a spectacle. look at that. that's next. at that that's next.

attention hearing loss sufferers! do you struggle to hear loved ones? do you have trouble keeping up with conversations? do you listen to tv on max volume? hearing loss affects your life. you miss out on important moments... you feel alone. start hearing better today with rca's all new, advanced hearing aids. these aren't cheap amplifiers that don't really work, and you'll never have to pay thousands again. the fda now allows us to bring true, high-quality hearing aids direct to you. through rca's hearing america program, you can get your choice of two, state-of-the-art, ultra-discrete hearing aids, listed at $1199.00, now for a special, introductory price, or pay as little as only $29 a month, with free shipping! they're affordable. they're not the cost people associate with hearing aids. my old-fashioned ones cost me $5,000 and these actually work better. engineered with advanced technology, the rca's are rechargeable, and have easy to use volume controls, built right in. and unlike so many others, with a push of a button, these hearing aids give you pre-sets for better hearing.

in a quiet setting, loud restaurants, or listening to music, you can adjust them to help you hear the best... wherever you are” there's no tools required and no batteries to fumble with! when i first popped them in, i went, wow! i hear everything. simply slip in your rca hearing aids, and instantly hear your world again. grampa, i love you. never miss a moment again. you know rca... the quality is there. you cleared up decades of frustration in a second. order now and we'll ship your pair of fda registered hearing aids in your choice of style with incredible savings. pay as low as only $29 a month! you get a 45-day money back guarantee, free 24/7 us based support, a portable charging case, and free shipping. with rca, you can be hearing better in just days! order yours now! call this number or go to: rcahearingaids.com now

c'mon, we're right there. c'mon baby. it's the only we need. go, go, go, go! ah! touchdown baby! -touchdown! are your neighbors watching the same game? yeah, my 5g home internet delays the game a bit. but you get used to it. try these. they're noise cancelling earmuffs. i stole them from an airport. it's always something with you, man. great! solid! -greek salad? exactly! don't delay the game with verizon or t-mobile 5g home internet. catch it on the xfinity 10g network. is it possible my network could take my business to the next level? it is with comcast business. powering all your devices with gig-speed wifi. and you get fast downloads and uploads. pick it up! pick it up! oh we got this! because it's powered by the next generation 10g network. more speed for your business? it's not just possible. it's happening. get started for $59.99 a month for 12 months. plus, ask how to get an $800 prepaid card with a qualifying internet bundle.

comcast business, powering possibilities. inside the capitol building there are official portraits of all of the former speakers of the house. in recent years that wall has grown to include the speakers of this century, nancy pelosi, john boehner, and paul ryan. but there is one 21st century speaker who is absent from that wall and for good reason. a warning some of what you are about to hear in this segment involves references to sexual abuse. >> federal prosecutors say dennis hastert was paying hush money to a man who was 14 years old years ago. he abused wrestlers and two others while he was the coach.

>> he was essentially wiped from the history books after pleading guilty in a hush money case that revealed he'd serially sexually abused teenagers when he was a high school wrestling coach. when you hear the words republican speaker of the house, republicans really do not want you to think about dennis hastert. and today house republicans are trying to determine who their next speaker will be. and you would think that one of the most basic criteria for republicans here would be that none of their candidates should be accused of any involvement in any wrestling related sexual misconduct scandals, right? >> a high profile republican congressman is under fire tonight, a new lawsuit alleging when jim jordan irk worked as a wrestling coach at ohio state university he turned a blind eye to sexual misconduct by a team doctor. >> a college wressage referee named as john dough 42 says he

in the mid-'90s he told jordan, then ohio state's asis tpt wrestling coach, that the team's physician richard strauss, performed a sect act on him in the shower. he also says he complained directly to jim jordan after he says strauss once tried to pull his pants down. >> i had told him, hey, this is not right. >> jim jordan has previously denied any knowledge of the sexual abuse alleged to have taken place at the university where he was wrestling coach. he has called the allegations against him politically motivated, but his accusers have stood by their claims, and jim jordan is now one of the republicans running to be the next speaker of the house. while jordan has already received the backing of a broad swath of house conservatives, his or her not the only candidate in the running. republican majority leader steve scalise has also announced his intention to run for speaker. and steve scalise is hardly an uncontroversial pick himself. as a state representative in

2002 steve scalise gave a speech to a white nationalist organization founded by ku klux klan leader david duke. scalise has since apologized and said he did not know the organization he was speaking to was a hate group. and a louisiana political reporter claimed scalise once described himself to her as david duke without the baggage, which is what exactly? to be fair steve scalise has since earned considerable goodwill from his colleagues after being shot at a 2017 congressional baseball practice and severely injured as well as announcing a recent blood cancer diagnosis, but at a moment when the republican party is facing broad criticism for its association with white prusemacy, steve scalise sternly has his own complicated back story. and then there's the other

potential candidate for speaker, a guy named donald trump. several conservatives have already started to promote a trump speakership. and trump did not exactly close the door on that idea when he told reporters today if i can help them during the process, i would do it. now, i don't need to list for you all the reasons that donald trump would be a controversial choice for speaker, but there is one important reason that seems to have gotten lost in the shuffle here. house republicans own rules bar donald trump from becoming speaker. according to rule 26a of the house republican conference rules, a member of the republican leadership shall step aside if indicted for a felony for which a sentence of two more more years imprisonment may be imposed. donald trump has been indicted on several such felonies, which is all to say the race to become the next republican speaker is shaping up to be exactly the mess you might expect it to be. i'm going to speak with democratic congresswoman pramila jayapal what that means for the

house and what democrats plan to do for all of this coming up next. all of this coming up next have any idea? that they can sell their life insurance policy for cash? so they're basically sitting on a goldmine? i don't think they have a clue. that's crazy! well, not everyone knows coventry's helped thousands of people sell their policies for cash. even term policies. i can't believe they're just sitting up there! sitting on all this cash. if you own a life insurance policy of $100,000 or more, you can sell all or part of it to coventry. even a term policy. for cash, or a combination of cash and coverage, with no future premiums. someone needs to tell them, that they're sitting on a goldmine, and you have no idea! hey, guys! you're sitting on a goldmine! come on, guys! do you hear that? i don't hear anything anymore. find out if you're sitting on a goldmine. call coventry direct today at the number on your screen, or visit coventrydirect.com.

republican congressman steve scalise and jim jordan today confirmed they would each like to be next in line to hold the speaker's gavel. now scalise and jordan are not exactly known as moderate consensus builders, but if it sounds like it's going from bad to worse for house democrats, axios is reporting at least some moderate republicans may be considering another alterative. my advice, one of these

moderates told axios, is to cut a deal with the dems and stick it to the nitwits. the nitwits here being presumably the maga right-wing. another moderate republican congressman don bacon added i would recommend seeking a more bipartisan way forward. we need to make some more rule changes, no doubt about it. we need to make these mccarthy rebels more relevant. joining me now is congresswoman pramila jayapal. thank you for being here. i want to read back to a quote from you before the motion to vacate vote. there is reason after reason to just let republicans deal with their own problems, let them wallow in their pigsty of incompetence and inability to govern. i believe we call that a mic drop, quote. congresswoman, and while the doors of that pigsty has been

thrown open for the world to see, is there any movement inside the democratic caucus to have conversations with republicans as they try to figure out who the next speaker of the house is going to be? >> well, alex, look, picking a speaker is the first duty of the majority, and it is never the case historically, never the case democrats would vote for a republican speaker. this is really their family problem, and they have shown, it's been exactly ten months now -- they have shown they can't govern over and over again. the idea there's anyone more extreme than kevin mccarthy is just not true. because kevin mccarthy whether you think he was an extremist or governed as an extremist the reality is everything he did was really contributed to the destruction of our institution, the debt ceiling, turning that into a fight in the first place, taking the country to the brink

of a debt crisis, taking the country to the brink of a shutdown crisis. and then passing bills at every turn that empowered his right-wing extremists in the caucus. and he did that from day one, alex, when he agreed to the rules change after 15 rounds of voting for speaker. anybody else would have been humiliated at that point, but kevin mccarthy kept going, and he basically got to the place where any single person in the house could bring up a motion to vacate. and that's why he's been catering in this way. any speaker that comes after him is going to have the same issue. so this is not for democrats to wade into -- into this pigsty. it is really for republicans to choose their speaker but recognize that we're always ready to work with republicans who want to be bipartisan. their structure right now does not permit that. the candidates they're putting forward i don't think are going to be any different. and the so-called moderates in

their party have not stood up to any of this. there are so many times, alex, when they could have crossed over just five of them crossed over and passed sensible reforms with us, whether it was averting the shutdown, whether it was, you know, the debt ceiling crisis, whether it was sensible bipartisan legislation, but they haven't. >> okay, let me make one thing clear. i called you the congresswoman from wisconsin, which is obviously not true. washington state. i apologize that for that. let me understand what you're saying here because i'm not by any means suggesting is democrats' mess to cleanup. but as the old proverb goes every cries is an opportunity. if this situation presents an opportunity for democrats to steer republicans and moderates to a more empowered position, to pick someone not beholden to the right flank, wouldn't it make sense to use that opportunity? >> i think it depends on what it

is. and any kind of discussions along those lines would have to be negotiated by our leader, our choice for speaker, hakeem jeffries. not individually, got to be something that would bring power to the caucus to be able to govern. because remember whatever we do that contributes to a republican speaker being there, we will be blamed for everything that they do, so maybe they do some good things but what about all the bad things that they do. so if there was some way perhaps down the road where a bunch of republicans came and said let's think about power sharing agreements, maybe. but that's above my pay grade right now. that is really i think something that republicans would have to want. clearly mccarthy didn't want that. i'm not sure any of the current candidates that are running want that either, and so i think it's really important for the country to understand this is not a democratic problem. we, of course, are always open to the opportunities to govern for the american people. but there's got to be some

reasonableness about power sharing because the other thing i'll just say is actually in some ways democrats have been the governing force so far. republicans could not pass the debt ceiling deal on their own. in fact, kevin mccarthy made a deal with the president and then immediately reneged on it and then relied on democratic votes in the rule, which is a procedural motion. we never vote for each other's procedural motions but a couple of democrats went over so that we could pass that rule and then ultimately so that that debt ceiling deal could be -- could be negotiated. but they continue to rely on us for all of this, and yet they're continuing to do terrible things that hurt the american people and the country. >> i would even say in some ways the democrats have been the governing force in american politics. they have been the force, the reason things are getting done is because democrats have been willing to cross the aisle and have the tough conversations.

congresswoman pramila jayapal of washington state. no disrespect to wisconsin. my sincere apologies for that mistake. good luck in the dumpster fire that is the republican led congress right now. >> thank you, alex. still ahead this evening now republicans booted their leader out very few of them actually want the job, but there is one guy, the guy who used to live in washington, d.c. that seems open to holding the speaker's gavel. that's next. to holding the speaker's gavel that's next. new pronamel active shield actively shields the enamel to defend against erosion and cavities. i think that this product is a gamechanger for my patients- it really works.

we'll do whatever is best for the country and for the republican party. >> that was donald trump outside a new york city courthouse this morning talking about the house republican effort to draft him to be the next speaker of the house. you heard that correctly. a few hours later this is what trump posted to his social media site. joining me now is mark, worth rereading in this season i'll say. mark, the entire problem here seems to be that the house republican conference was too beholden to trump and the maga right, and their solution for it appears to be making trump speaker of the house. what do you make of that? >> well, i mean i guess you could eliminate the middle man, the middle man in this case

being, you know, whoever the speaker is. i'm sort of amused by the idea that donald trump is eager to serve. he just wants what's best for the party, for the institution. i mean can you imagine him actually taking the gavel and sort of trying to lead an institution as arcane and sort of unruly as the house of representatives? i will say i don't think this is going to happen, but also i've lived through these last few years. you just never know. donald trump would love the opportunity i suppose to be at the head of the house of representatives every day especially with cspan and so forth. i wouldn't hold your breath, though. >> yeah, i don't actually think it's a possibility, but what's distressing about it is what it signals, right? the lesson that perhaps the republican party might have taken away from debacle is we need to circle the wagons and figure out a new gravitational pull, we need to figure out a new center.

and yet they seem to be doing the opposite whether it's steve scalise or jim jordan. i guess i want to ask you is this republican party capable of learning lessons? >> at least steve scalise and jim jordan served in the house and they know a little bit about law making and legislating and so forth. technically you don't need to serve in the house in order to be speaker of the house, so donald trump could do it. he's legally -- you know, he's allowed to do it. no, i mean the lesson here is before we even get to who fills that seat, the idea that like members are falling all over themselves to be the one to nominate or promote donald trump to this job ostensibly just to win favor with donald trump and get the thanks for the nice words phone call which they covet is itself pathetic but also standard operating procedure over the last several years. and again, this is kind of the old normal of the gop. >> yeah, the old normal is such i think an apt assessment of what's happening here.

because of your intrepid reporting about this part -- this generation of the republican party, i want to call your attention to something that was making the rounds on social media yesterday which was the cover of the young guns book from i believe it was 2010. how do you think history will look back at these three individuals and what they represented? >> yeah, i mean, look, i guess you could probably find that in remainder bins around -- everything must vacate, the pun there. this was a fund-raising gimmick, a branding gimmick. no one -- i don't just like today the republicans of 2010 were thinking much further beyond the next fund-raising election cycle. but, yeah, that was a moment where certainly canter and ryan and to some degree, mccarthy, were seen as seriously driven and just sort of new idea driven republicans that could actually lead the republican party

forward. didn't turn out to be that way and obviously we've seen what happens. >> you have spent time with kevin mccarthy as part of your reporting. i know you had ice cream with him in 2021 in bakersfield. and what came through is how enamored mccarthy was with celebrity, of fame. how do you think he's processing this moment? >> this is a fan boy politician. this is someone just lurching from crisis to crisis trying to extend himself another day, and his one true sort of higher calling was self-per pechuation and actually making this ride last as long as possible and collecting souvenirs and kobe bryant and donald trump and arnold shwarzenegger, he kept showing it off in these meals we were having out in bakersfield. look, there's nothing wrong with being a fan boy politician. at the end of the day when your gavel is taken away from you,

what's left? it's not like he has all the friends to draw on he thought. he said when this leadership is over i'm not going to get people laughing at my jokes and returning my calls the way they were before. i guess today he finds himself waking up to a very different reality. >> yeah, the lack of friends, the lack of people that he could lean on someone who was known as the sort of glad hander in congress, the irony, the tragedy of kevin mccarthy, the ineptitude of kevin mccarthy. i know you have a piece publishing tomorrow on all of this. thank you, mark. >> thanks, alex. >> that is our show for this evening. "way too early" with jonathan lemire is coming up next. i think, unfortunately, you know, some of them were useful idiots in this crusade on matt gaetz's part. it was