trial court, by february 12. he has no incentive to do that. they have taken that off the table as a strategic move for him. >> laura jarrett, thank you very much. i'm glad i can listen to you. appreciate that. >> any time. thanks. that wraps up the hour for me. i'm jose diaz-balart. you can reach me on social media @jdbalart. thank you for the privilege of your time. andrea mitchell picks up with more news right now. right now on "andrea mitchell reports," immunity denied. in an historic move, the d.c. court of appeals unanimously ruled former president trump does not have immunity against criminal prosecution or charge charge he tried to overturn the election. we are awaiting president

biden's remarks, despite a switch from mitch mcconnell joining the house speaker and donald trump in trying to kill the bill without even a vote in congress. shuttle diplomacy. secretary of state tony blinken on his fifth trip throughout the middle east today, trying to strike a deal to pause the war in gaza and free the hostages. he is expected to speak this hour. ♪♪ good day, everyone. i'm andrea mitchell in new york. there's crushing legal defeat for donald trump. today's d.c. court of appeals ruling says the former president, who the court calls citizen trump, has no right to the sweeping immunity he claimed from all prosecution. he can now face trial for his alleged attempts to overturn the 2020 election, barring some future decision if the supreme court takes the case. the former president is expected to appeal to the high court. today's ruling was unanimous and

signed by the court making it more likely that the high court could just decline to consider any challenge. the ruling today by a three-court panel says, for the purpose of this criminal case, former president trump has become citizen trump, with all of the defenses of any other criminal defendant, but any executive immunity that may have protected him while he served as president no longer protects him against this prosecution. joining us now, justice and intelligence correspondent ken dilanian, nbc news trump campaign correspondent vaughn hillyard in las vegas, and former u.s. attorney joyce vance. ken, to you first. what did the judges say in their very broad rejection of donald trump's broad claims of immunity? >> this three-judge panel consisting of two democratic appointees and one republican, they systematically demolished all of former president trump's arguments for why he should be immune from this prosecution and

for why presidents in general can't be prosecuted. these judges found it's long been understood in the united states that presidents are not above the law. it's worth noting that this is the first time an appeals court has considered this question, because no former president has been indicted. they are making new law here. the judges wrote that former president trump's stance could collapse our system of separated powers by placing the president beyond the reach of all three branchs. presidential immunity, they added, against federal indictment would mean as to the president, the congress could not legislate and the judiciary could not review. we cannot accept the office of the presidency places its former occupants above the law for all time thereafter. they also spoke specifically to president trump's alleged conduct in this case, calling his alleged efforts to remain in power an unprecedented assault on the structure of our government if proven. he allegedly injected himself into the process in which the

president has no role, counting and certifying of electoral congress votes. they went on to say, we cannot accept former president trump's claim that he can commit crimes that would neutralize the implementation of election results. the judges gave mr. trump until monday to ask the supreme court to hear the case. he can ask the full d.c. circuit to rehear it. there's no guarantee that would happen. if the supreme court decides not to take the case, the trial schedule in judge chutkan's court could be on track quickly. if the high court does agree to hear it, that could delay things. >> the timing has been critical. this panel took longer than a lot of people originally expected. they had fast tracked it when they heard the arguments. joyce, i want to read more from the ruling that, quote, former president trump's claimed

immunity would extend the framework to criminal cases and decide for first time that a former president is categorically immune from federal criminal prosecution. we reject all three potential bases for immunity. that's about as categorical as you can get. it was speculated they were taking longer so it would be a ruling from the court, not from individual justices deciding on different bases. so that would make it perhaps less likely that the high court would accept a challenge that we anticipate to come from donald trump. all of this important for one reason because of the delay in the case. it was supposed to be scheduled for march 4th. that's not going to happen. it's off the calendar for that date. how significant this is ruling in terms of what the high court might do? >> this is the kind of ruling you want to see from a court of appeals, as ken said. it's a unanimous ruling.

you don't have to have a fancy law degree to understand. it says presidents -- he is amenable to -- even if it was an official act he committed as a president. the delay issue is an interesting one. writing an opinion like this some 57 pages in length, heavily researched, relying on a body of case law from the founding of the country forward, that takes some time. the court devotes a little bit of time up front to a very technical legal issue about whether trump took this appeal at the right stage in the case. perhaps it was that issue that caused the court to take a little bit of extra time. but this now goes to the supreme court in the best possible posture if you are jack smith. it's unanimous. it's clear.

it's strong. something that happens throughout this opinion, this court -- this panel doesn't use the sort of sweeping rhetoric that judge chutkan used when she ruled in the district court. she was dismissive of donald trump's arguments. in essence, really piled on a little bit at his effort to hold himself above the law. this panel is more measured. they make it clear that none of these decisions were difficult. they talk about the fact that trump doesn't really even take a stab at some of these arguments. for instance, when it comes to double jeopardy. i expect the supreme court to dispense with this quickly and in a straight line with this decision. >> let me just be very clear here with you. is it your judgment there would be no basis, other than delay, delay, delay, the strategy from the trump camp, no basis for the full panel of the d.c. court to

accept this and delay further the high court making its decision? >> i think that's right. we won't see that. i'm not sure trump will apply for that. there's some reasons involving issuance of the mandate that i think make it more sensible for him to go straight to the supreme court. >> vaughn, as deeply as you are involved with the campaign, the first of two election days in nevada. that's why you are coming to us from las vegas where donald trump on thursday will get all the delegates. today is the first of the two-stage review there by the voters. what is donald trump likely to do? what is the trump going to do? they rejected his immunity claims. it's hard for him to say this is politics. it's bipartisan court of appeals. >> right. ultimately, if the supreme court were to take up the case, which donald trump's spokesman just in the last hour suggested that

they will, in fact, appeal this case over the next week. the u.s. supreme court, if it were to rule and affirm the lower court's decision, it would effectively allow judge chutkan to proceed with the trial. the question here is, again, on that time line. if the u.s. supreme court were to hear this case, they would potentially not make their decision until june. the expectation that stay would remain in the case, judge chutkan has already acknowledged that she would allow plenty of preparation time for both sides of the federal election interference case to prepare for what could be a three-month criminal trial. if the supreme court were to take up the appeals, we are looking at this trial not even beginning until after the november election where donald trump has the chance to win the presidency. yet, at the same time, when you look at our nbc news polling here, it shows a seven point swing when american voters were

asked whether in a matchup between biden and trump who they support, right now donald trump with the five-point lead. if when those same voters were asked if donald trump had a felony conviction next to his name, whether they would still support him, joe biden was favored by two points. donald trump has made clear on his social media account that he believes that presidents should have full presidential immunity, which would not only impact this federal election trial but also if he were to win the white house how he would operate inside of the oval office knowing that he praised strong men and he would act as dictator for a day. >> we should point out the court doesn't take the case, this d.c. appeals court is the law of the land. the supreme court can say that this is not anything that they want to take. they have to say, deny. that's it. that would certainly move them back to pretrial motions, jury

selection and all the other things that judge chutkan has not been able to do because the case was stayed and make it more likely that this case -- this trial would start before and finish before the november election. joyce, thank you so much. objection, ken and vaughn. the border breakdown. the other story today, congressional republicans get in line behind former president trump, putting immigration legislation, the compromise negotiated for months, on hold for the foreseeable future and the ukraine funding along with it. that's next when "andrea mitchell reports" is back in 60 seconds. stay with us. you are watching msnbc. u are wac y when they'd arrive with a replacement we could trust. that's service the way we want it. >> singers: ♪ safelite repair, safelite replace. ♪ ♪♪ whoo! ♪♪ light work! ♪♪ next victims. ♪♪ you ready for this?

♪pump up the jam pump it up♪ rsv can seriously impact breathing, even for the best performer. protect yourself with pfizer's abrysvo... ...a vaccine to prevent lower respiratory disease from rsv in people 60 years and older. it's not for everyone and may not protect all who receive it. don't get abrysvo if you've had an allergic reaction to its ingredients. a weakened immune system may decrease your response. most common side effects are tiredness, headache, injection-site pain and muscle pain. ask your pharmacist or doctor about abrysvo today. we are waiting to hear from president biden, expected to speak out about a major reversal from mitch mcconnell, apparently yielding to pressure from his colleagues to let donald trump tank the bipartisan border bill that mcconnell had supposedly supported until last night.

with it, of course, the ukraine funding that mitch mcconnell claimed he was committed to passing. on the line in addition to $60 billion in vital security for ukraine against vladimir putin is also $14 billion for israel, billions for taiwan and at its heart that $20 billion for the most restrictive u.s. border and asylum changes in decades. house speaker mike johnson had said that the bill would be dead on arrival in the house. the speaker is planning a floor vote later today to impeach homeland security secretary alejandro mayorkas for carrying out the president's immigration policies with no evidence yet of any high crimes or misdemeanors that would justify impeachment. the second time in u.s. history congress would be impeaching a cabinet secretary. this might die in the house with the senate not indicating any interest so far in following up with a trial of the homeland security secretary.

joining us now, our capitol hill correspondent ryan nobles and senior white house correspondent kelly o'donnell. ryan, what happened overnight with mitch mcconnell? he was going to proceed with this border bill that senator langford, a very conservative republican compromised on with senator murphy. now what are the alternatives for getting anything done? >> to answer your secretary question, at this stage, there is no alternative. this is the only piece of legislation that is making its way through the congress that deals with all four of the separate national security emergencies. if this doesn't pass, they are going to have to start at square one. to answer your first question about what has happened, i believe the house republican leadership's insistence that this bill would be dead on arrival made it almost -- it was

impossible for rank and file members of the senate to support this. this was never going to be an easy vote. these are always difficult votes. they usually require an overwhelming majority in order to get through. when it seemed very clear that the house just had no interest in taking up this legislation at all, that's when you started to see republicans fall one after another. as things stand right now, this bill is dead in the water. i'm not sure what it's going to take for things to turn around. >> ryan and kelly, it's so strange, because the speaker had just a handful of votes in this narrowly divided house. if democrats had hung together on this -- i guess with the progressives rebelling against it because it's a tough bill, democrats could have passed this with a couple of moderate republicans. it just seems to me, kelly, that

this is a real defeat and a sign of weakness by mitch mcconnell, afraid he was going to lose his own senate caucus in the future over it because of donald trump. >> mcconnell is always particularly sensitive to the mood and the views of his own conference. he has been masterful in that relationship for many years now. it is striking this someone who has never been a legislator, is not holding current office, no matter how important a former president might be, that he could have this kind of sway on the current governing that was really the product of a bipartisan process who have been working on this, a willingness from the white house to move its position. those are normally the ingredients that bring about a bipartisan result. not this time. not in this moment of such division. for the president, we expect to hear from him this afternoon. i understand he is delayed further, perhaps reacting to some of the real time situation

that's unfolding. >> it seems to me that the president has already upset his progressive base by taking a really tough stand on the border. what does he have for it? he has to figure out how to make this work in the campaign and campaign against the republicans for them not doing anything about the border, but immigration is a huge issue. clearly, donald trump has the last laugh here for now. ryan nobles, kelly o'donnell, i have to tell you, the ukraine -- we have been doing interviews on ukraine, the nato secretary-general just last week on our program saying that it is basically live or die for ukraine. the u.s. has the only weapons ukraine needs, the air defenses and the atacms. they are only made in the united states. these are the weapons they need against vladimir putin. more on that coming up.

joining us now is michael bennet, member of the intelligence committee. senator, i think i was just going through the arguments that are made by all of the foreign policy people. bipartisan foreign policy people. lindsey graham would tell you that. what do you do for ukraine? >> we have to fund ukraine. we cannot fail. it's not an option. the ukrainian people have done more with their bravery over the last two years than anybody could have imagined. they took back half the territory putin took from them. they were able to -- without even a navy of their own, they were able to push putin's navy out of the black sea, allow food to travel around the world. their fight has not been a fight just for ukraine. it's literally a fight for democracy. it's been a fight for nato. it's been a fight for u.s. national security. they have been engaged in, i would say, the most successful proxy war in history.

for the united states to turn our back on them now would be catastrophic for our national security and catastrophic for people all over this planet that hope to live in free societies. >> it strikes me that the switch from mitch mcconnell -- from inside the republican senate, hard to fathom what could have happened in the last 24 hours other than donald trump exerting his pressure and a new speaker of the house who yielded to that, leading the way for the senate to defer to the house, it's so unusual on a foreign policy issue of this magnitude. >> it's staggering. i do believe that mitch mcconnell wants to fund ukraine. we will see whether that's true or not. i think that anybody who looks at this and says this was just the senate republicans capitulating to the house is

missing the real point, which is what you are talking about, which is this is donald trump exerting his thumb, putting it on top of people that had negotiated a bipartisan deal that, as you pointed out, was a tough deal. i would say a deal that is needed, because the border of the united states is overrun. we are seeing the effects of that in denver. we are seeing the effects in colorado. the republican party, who are consumed in the house with impeaching mayorkas without any evidence of any kind of an impeachable offense, in my view, have now impeached themselves again on the issue of immigration. this is -- it would be laughable if it weren't so catastrophic for our country. i was part of the gang of eight in 2013 that wrote the last immigration bill that passed the senate with 68 votes. it was vetoed by the freedom caucus on the floor of the house. john boehner said the worst

mistake he ever made as speaker of the house was not putting that bill on the floor for vote because the fortunes of this country would have changed. i don't think we would have had donald trump as our president if we had passed that bill in 2013. here they are under the thumb of donald trump, who is expressly saying that he wants to stop this because it's good politics for him, no matter how bad it is for the country. we're going to have to carry this message into november. i think the american people are going to see surprisingly from their point of view, based on what the republicans have said, that the democrats have actually stood for fixing our border and the republicans have been completely missing in action. >> do you think the republicans were negotiating in bad faith? is this not a flip-flop on policy but more raw politics? >> i think that -- i don't think

james langford was negotiating in bad faith. i certainly don't believe that. i do think that the degree to which they are in the back pocket of donald trump -- they just prove it again and again and again. i have no -- i feel nothing but discouraged by that. that doesn't fill me with any sense of joy or satisfaction, because the american people need us to fix the border. the american people need a functional immigration system for our economy to work and for us to be able to compete effectively with beijing and the rest of the world. the american people need us to lead the world at this critical moment for western democracy and ukraine. you have a party that's governed by somebody who doesn't care about any of that. who is willing to take his own defense into the u.s. court of appeals on a theory of the case

that any high school student would have thrown out because a high school student would know that the founders of this country believe that nobody is above the law, especially an ex-president of the united states. now we heard from them. we have a lot of business to get done here. they will have to decide, these republicans are going to have to decide if they're going to abandon the work on immigration tomorrow. we will have a vote on this. in the days that are coming ahead, the hours coming ahead, we better figure out how to fund ukraine, because there's going to be hell to pay in this world if we don't. >> we should point out that there was $14 billion for israel. john kirby just held an on the record briefing with reporters saying that nine ambassadors from the indo-pacific region, the far east have written to say how critical this is to deter china from whatever its interests are in going after

taiwan. this is a terrible signal to vladimir putin and to xi jinping that the u.s. does not have a congress that can legislate foreign policy. senator? >> it's stunning. first of all, you are right, both on in terms of the money for taiwan's defense, but also because capitulating to putin is exactly what xi jinping is hoping for. putin -- there is news today, andrea, that putin has taken back a city in ukraine. the ukrainians, as i said, have fought brilliantly. they will continue to press their advantage if we fund them. zelenskyy has told us if we don't fund them, they will lose. i'm telling you, putin does not know that he can win on the battlefield in ukraine. he has no idea whether he will be able to win because of what the ukrainians have been able to do. the battlefield he is counting

on winning on is the battlefield here, the dysfunction here. the idea that this nation or this nation's politicians is a better way of putting it would be so divided that we could fall down on something as critical as this funding of ukraine or, frankly, securing the border of the united states. the republicans are showing they're going to walk away from this border deal. they better not walk away electric ukraine. >> senator bennett, thanks for being with us. >> thanks for having me. shuttle diplomacy. the secretary of state's mission across the middle east. what it could mean for the hostages still being held in gaza. that's next. you are watching "andrea mitchell reports" on msnbc. msnc we got it? no. keep going. aga... [ sigh ] next. next. if you don't pick one... oh, you have time. am i keeping you from your job. next. i don't even know where i am anymore. stop. do we finally have it? let's go back to the beginning.

are you... your electric future. customized. the fully-electric audi q4 e-tron. ♪ ♪ a few years ago, i came to saona, they told me there's no electricity on the island. we always thought that whatever we did here would be an emblem of what small communities can achieve. trying to give a better life to people that don't have the means to do it. si mi papá estuviera vivo, sé que él tuviera orgulloso también de vivir de esta viviendo una vida como la que estamos viviendo ahora. es electricidad aquí es salud. ♪everything i do that's for my health is an accomplishment.♪ ♪concerns of getting screened faded away♪ ♪to my astonishment.♪ ♪my doc gave me a script i got it done without a delay.♪ ♪i screened with cologuard and did it my way.♪ cologuard is a one-of-a-kind way to screen for colon cancer that's effective and non-invasive. it's for people 45 plus at average risk, not high risk.

false positive and negative results may occur. ask your provider for cologuard. ♪i did it my way!♪

with nurtec odt i can treat and prevent my migraine attacks all in one. don't take if allergic to nurtec. allergic reactions can occur even days after using. most common side effects were nausea, indigestion and stomach pain. talk to your doctor about nurtec today. (vo) if you have graves' disease, your eye symptoms could mean something more. that gritty feeling can't be brushed away. even a little blurry vision can distort things. and something serious may be behind those itchy eyes. up to 50% of people with graves' could develop a different condition called thyroid eye disease,

which should be treated by a different doctor. see an expert. find a t-e-d eye specialist at isitted.com xfinity rewards presents: '1st and 10gs.' xfinity is giving away ten grand to a new lucky winner for every first and ten during the big game. enter daily through february 9th for a chance to win 10gs. with the ultimate speed, power, and reliability the xfinity 10g network is made for streaming live sports. because it's only live once. join xfinity rewards on the xfinity app or go to xfinity1stand10gs.com for your chance to win.

we have more breaking news. tony blinken in doha after meeting with the shaikh, the prime minister of qatar. he has announced that hamas has responded to qatar, in his words positively to the proposed framework agreed to ten days ago by the u.s., egypt, qatar and representatives for israel. this is a framework to have a pause of as long as six weeks in the fighting in gaza so that some hostages can be released in phases. joining us now is the nato supreme allied commander admiral stavridis and collin clark.

we are learning reports that israeli intelligence has confirmed that more of the hostages have died than we previously thought. they had no proof of life. this, of course -- we don't know what's going on with six americans who were there. tony blinken is speaking. we will carry some of that in a moment. this sounds like there's at least a positive response. the qatari characterization. what is your take? >> this is potentially a big stepping stone, if we can confirm some of the details. this could be a confidence building measure for further negotiations. the question that i have right now is, if you look at the united states' response in iraq, syria, yemen, does that response, that military campaign derail what we have here? that's the key. can the cease-fire hold if it's

agreed to? >> secretary blinken is saying they are reviewing the response. admiral, you know how long these negotiations can take. this war is having a devastating impact on the population in gaza. it threatens to widen throughout the region because of what's been happening within -- with the red sea, with the iranian-backed houthis and more recently with at tack sthe atta killed three military and from the terror groups that include the iranian regime's own military wing, the revolutionary guard, according to the u.s. we are on a tightrope here in the region. we can see what's happening in the naval sphere. what would this mean if hamas might respond positively? if this response from hamas speaks for the more radical -- the terror elements who are inside gaza and are responsible

for october 7th? >> there's certainly a rich basket of unknowns here. a degree with dr. clark, potentially this is very important as follows. let's be hypothetical if this led to a one or two-month cease-fire, it's possible in my view that the houthis, for example, may cease and desist for some period of time. the iranian might take a little bit of pressure off the back of the proxy groups that have been attacking us in iraq and syria. i think it would be a prudent moment for the united states to kind of hit the pause button on further strikes while we see what happens here. final thought, andrea, a lot of credit to tony blinken, of course, but the reason i have felt this would probably happen, this being a deal, a hostage

deal, a bit of a cease-fire, is due also to the efforts of the director of the cia, bill burns, former ambassador to jordan. this has been a big effort between secretary blinken and director burns. if they can pull this off, my hat is off to them. >> you are right, bill burns has been the negotiator for the u.s. with the intelligence leaders. in paris, it was the leaders of mossad and the idf. reports it has been rejected by israel are incorrect. israel has a coalition government. they have -- the prime minister has been speaking to try to hold his more right wing ministers in place rather than quitting the government over this. clearly, the heads of mossad and idf are not speaking in paris and signing the text in paris without the support of netanyahu

as divided as his government is. >> that's a big sticking point. i see two types of objectives. the tactical objectives, which means securing the release of some of the hostages. that's directly connected to the strategic objectives, which is warding off this brewing regional war between the united states and israel on one hand and iran on the other. i said this for some time. the road to tehran runs through gaza. if we can make progress there, we can make progress more broadly. >> we should point out that tony blinken has said that he will be presenting this. he is arriving in israel tonight after he leaves. he has been in egypt earlier today. he was in saudi arabia yesterday speaking to the saudi leader. the carrot for israel and for netanyahu is what he reportedly believes is his legacy, what could be his legacy, not october 7 and the failure and having been caught off guard in the worst massacre in israeli history, but the carrot could be the economic benefits of

normalization with saudi arabia, a security agreement with the entire arab world, economic benefit, political and security benefit, aligning israel and saudis and the arab world against iran, their mutual adversary. you can clearly see, blinken has said he will present this to israel tomorrow. >> yes. i agree with your assessment. these are kind of interlocking pieces. i will add one to your excellent list of benefits. from the saudi arabia perspective, this could lead to a more wholesome security relationship with the united states. this would be a kind of package deal for all entities here. ultimately, i agree with dr. clark that the road to tehran leads through not just gaza, i

think, but jerusalem as well. we have to get that two-state solution kind of moving in a direction -- that's the strategic goal here. this is certainly potentially some tactical good news, which could bleed up to having more strategic affect in this turbulent region. >> the goal of a pathway for a palestinian state, netanyahu said he rejected that because of october 7th. but israeli government, all of his predecessors accepted it going back to camp david, but then oslo and the accords signed since. that's now since october 7th a prerequisite from the saudis and others. they were demanding all of that for the palestinians before october 7. but after the horrors of what they have seen and what the palestinian world and arab world has seen in gaza, in the israeli

anticipated response, which was stronger and more immediate than many might have expected, but the human tragedy that is now taking place with the civilians in gaza has so alienated the palestinian, muslim and arab world, that the saudis are demanding this up front, a pathway to citizenship down the road after security has been arranged. >> you are right. let's be clear as well, netanyahu has attempted to block palestinian state well before october 7th. we are four months in. it has come up again. his far right allies in the government are with him, attempting to block that. one of the side effects could very well be a long-term israeli occupation of gaza. i had a piece yesterday warning against that. there's so many moving parts here. the fact that secretary blinken has been to the region five times. a lot of intense diplomacy, political will, political

capital spent by the united states. hopefully, this leads to a big breakthrough. >> admiral, let's pick it up there. the u.s. is against israeli occupation of gaza. that's a position that blinken and the rest of the administration has taken. let's go to secretary blinken who is answering a question at the news conference. >> work toward an end to the conflict is through an agreement on the hostages. that's what we are intensely focused on with our partners here in qatar, egypt, working with israel and, of course, now that we have the response from hamas to the proposal that was put on the table. a week or so ago -- that offers the prospect of extended calm, hostages out, more assistance in. that would clearly be beneficial for everyone. i think that offers the best path forward. there's a lot of work to be done to achieve it.

we are focused on doing that work. of course, as we have said all along, all of this could have been over yesterday, last month, three months ago, four months ago, first of all, if hamas had not committed the atrocities of october 7th and second, after that, had they stopped hiding behind civilians, had they put down their weapons and had they surrendered, but that, of course, has not happened. the best path now is to see if we can make real this renewed hostage agreement. i will let others speak to my character. all i can say is that most people who assume the position that i have the great privilege of assuming now don't get their

by being nice all the time. >> translator: second question. mr. secretary, mr. prime minister, my first question is to both of you. i understand there are sensitivities about hamas response. but i'm wondering, mr. secretary, how do you plan to overcome israeli prime minister netanyahu's refusal to commit to a permanent cease-fire after the phases of these deals? was there anything in the hamas response that would -- that you think might change his mind? mr. prime minister, could you help us understand why the reply took a week? was it a communication challenge, difficulty to reach hamas? are you worried the fighting would actually hamper -- is hampering the communications on

this important area of negotiation? one more for you, mr. secretary. i'm going to try to ask a similar question that my qatari colleague asked, maybe a little less directly. it's been four months into this war and this is your fifth trip. yet, the united states seems unable to meaningfully influence netanyahu's position on some fundamental issue that you yourself advocate for, the creation of a palestinian statehood, how long israel's military campaign will last, minimizing civilian casualties. aren't you worried that this is -- this makes america look weak and it undercuts its ability to rally allies and partners in other issues and in that sense, what can you do differently, for example, tomorrow? thank you. >> want me to start?

>> yeah, go ahead. >> first, on the hostage question, i appreciate you asking the question. you will appreciate i'm not going to answer it because the sensitivity of this matter is such that we're just not going to get into any of the details. all i can say is what you have heard from both me and the prime minister, which is that we have received the response to the proposal. we are studying it intensely. it's been shared with the israelis. i will pick up that conversation tomorrow in israel when i'm there. we will be working as hard as we possibly can to try to get an agreement so that we move forward with not only a renewed but an expanded agreement on hostages and all the benefit that that would bring with it. virtually everything that we do

in diplomacy in general and in the case of this crisis more specifically is a process. it's almost never flipping a light switch. and it requires being in there with your sleeves rolled up every single day to try to make progress in all of the areas where we have been determined to make progress. i think if you look at the record, we have seen important steps taken, significant steps taken. that, i would argue, would not have happened without our engagement and our intervention, including the provision of humanitarian assistance to begin with to gaza, which was not the case in the days following october 7th. the significant expansion of that assistance, the efforts to open more crossing points into

gaza, the work that we're doing every single day to try to strength protections for civilians, our effort as well to prevent the conflict from escalating. and despite some of the recent actions that have been necessary in response to violence we have seen directed at our personnel and our people, wave been working effectively to do that. in each and every one of these areas we have achieved results that had we not been engaged i believe would not have been achieved. in all of these areas, there is much more work to be done. in a number of places, we need to see, as i said before, real and clear results, not simply a

change in intent but a change in what actually results. i will be discussing all of that when i'm in israel tomorrow, as we have throughout this trip. >> secretary blinken responding to questions and comments the ministers had made prior, which were critical of the coalition strikes that have taken place in the red sea against the houthi attacks on international shipping. that was the response to the fact that he is saying, standing next to someone he worked very closely with, the qatari leader, that he is not accepting that criticism of what the white house -- what the president has been ordering. this is a pivotal moment. he is going to pursue this. the last trip that i was on a few week ago with him, ifmeasur

individually with the war cabinet. netanyahu is facing pressure to do what he can against hamas. his generals are telling him if he takes the strongest action against hamas in those tunnels, the hostages are not going to survive. he is under pressure from the families to get them home. >> a lot of domestic political pressure on netanyahu. we know urban warfare is particularly difficult. two things from blinken's remarks that i agree with. one, this would not have happened without the united states. two, any success -- potential success is going to take a long time. we need to be patient here with people like netanyahu and his ministers always having the possibility of playing spoiler. >> all of the militant groups, during the last pause, which was back in november for the hostages and the palestinian prisoners to be exchanged, they stopped their attacks during that time. of course, the hope is if

there's another pause, there would similarly be some restraint from the iran-backed groups as well. thank you so much. our thanks to admiral stavridis for being with us. capitol gridlock. the funding for ukraine, israel and the border on life support with no clear solution in support. a leader on the problem solvers caucus joins us next. you are watching "andrea mitchell reports." this is msnbc. i got the power of 3. i lowered my a1c, cv risk, and lost some weight. in studies, the majority of people reached an a1c under 7 and maintained it. i'm under 7. ozempic® lowers the risk of major cardiovascular events such as stroke, heart attack, or death in adults also with known heart disease. i'm lowering my risk. adults lost up to 14 pounds. i lost some weight. ozempic® isn't for people with type 1 diabetes. don't share needles or pens, or reuse needles. don't take ozempic® if you or your family ever had medullary thyroid cancer, or have multiple endocrine neoplasia syndrome type 2, or if allergic to it. stop ozempic® and get medical help right away if you get a lump or swelling in your neck,

severe stomach pain, or an allergic reaction. serious side effects may include pancreatitis. gallbladder problems may occur. tell your provider about vision problems or changes. taking ozempic® with a sulfonylurea or insulin may increase low blood sugar risk. side effects like nausea, vomiting, and diarrhea may lead to dehydration, which may worsen kidney problems. living with type 2 diabetes? ask about the power of 3 with ozempic®. if you have this... consider adding this. an aarp medicare supplement insurance plan from unitedhealthcare. medicare supplement plans help by paying some of what medicare doesn't... and let you see any doctor. any specialist. anywhere in the u.s. who accepts medicare patients. so if you have this... consider adding this. call unitedhealthcare today for your free decision guide. ♪ rsv can seriously impact breathing, even for the best performer. protect yourself with pfizer's abrysvo... ...a vaccine to prevent lower respiratory disease from rsv

in people 60 years and older. it's not for everyone and may not protect all who receive it. don't get abrysvo if you've had an allergic reaction to its ingredients. a weakened immune system may decrease your response. most common side effects are tiredness, headache, injection-site pain and muscle pain. ask your pharmacist or doctor about abrysvo today. as you heard breaking news from the middle east that hamas has responded and at least qata secretary of blinken will be carrying that next to israel tonight and tomorrow. we're now waiting still to hear from president biden shortly who is expected to urge congress to pass that emergency national security supplemental appropriation, which senate republicans now vehemently threaten to block, to the surprise of many who thought they were supporting it. joining us now is new jersey's democratic congressman josh gottheimer who co-chairs the

bipartisan problem solvers caucus, and serves on the house intelligence committee. congressman, thank you for your patience. we wanted to bring you that breaking news from the middle east. i know you're interested in that as well. the senate republicas threatening to block the border security bill, mike johnson says the senate border bill was going to be dead on arrival. let's listen to what he had to say earlier today. >> they did not send us a border security measure. they didn't. they sent us a supplemental funding proposal that has immigration reform, but not real border security reform and so that's why it is a nonstarter. >> by my recollection, there was $20 billion in there for security. and it has been endorsed by the union that represents the border patrol. so, what is going on here? >> i don't get it. i'm not sure if the speaker is reading the same bill that i read, which makes it very clear this will lead to more border

security and deliver on what many of my friends on the other side have been asking for, for months, if not years. so, those of us who have been involved in and supporting what the senate has been doing and, by the way, i give the negotiators a lot of credit, this is not an easy bill when you develop a bipartisan bill like this, but it does exactly what you need. it secures the border. it will make sure that we get support to ukraine, israel and taiwan, will help american forces fight terror in the region. so, all things that come together in a bipartisan package like this are tough. but to walk away before you even read the bill makes no sense to me and it is clear that they just want some sort of political win, they don't want to solve the problem. was the house going to be a complete block or was there a chance if there was a strong vote, 60 plus, maybe the house could have picked up enough votes? >> i'm not fully giving up on this. because there is still some hopes out there. i think when the public learns

of actually how this will help actually secure borders, help solve some of the challenges that we have had on the border, that people will learn, wait a second, actually, put pressure on folks to deliver this package, i actually believe this will come out in a strong way and if it does, out of the senate in a strong way, it will create momentum in the house and put a lot of pressure on the speaker to bring it to the floor. again, this has all of the elements from border security to processing, as you pointed out, to border patrol, to border -- to all forms of actually enforcement that you need to actually help address the challenges there. this is, you know, given all the facts, i don't know how -- unless you're playing politics, trump doesn't like it, this might hurt his ability to scream and yell like he wants to, i just don't understand how you could be opposed to this bipartisan piece of legislation. >> congressman josh gottheimer, we'll stay close and wait to see if this could be rescued. thank you so much. >> let's hope, thank you.

and with donald trump's claims of immunity rejected by an appeals court today, unanimously, a primary voter in nevada reacted to that decision. >> the d.c. circuit court just said that donald trump is not immune from being charged with any of the crimes that he's up against. do you have a reaction to that as a voter? >> he's not the only criminal in washington, d.c. there is plenty of them. >> not sure what that means, but back with us now, former u.s. attorney joyce vance and republican strategist susan del percio joining us as well. susan, donald trump's grip on the base appears to be solid. >> it is rock solid. there is no doubt about it. and this will not hurt him. the fact that the -- that he has to take it to the supreme court and joyce can talk more about this than i, it will delay the case going forward, and it has already and that only helps him run his campaign from a courthouse instead of on the

campaign trail, which works with his base. now, i don't know if he wants to be having this conversation in july and august, when he's done with the convention, but for right now, it is not hurting him. >> and, joyce, the court case might be helping him as a matter of fact, but right now with this rejection, is it unlikely as we were discussing earlier that the supreme court would even delay it further and take the case? is it more likely that judge chutkan can now reschedule her trial and start pretrial motions and jury selection? >> so that's entirely in the hands of the justices, andrea. and it will depend on whether they want to hear this issue, it is an important issue of first impression. that means the court has never decided previously whether a president has immunity from criminal prosecution. the supreme court may wish to take the case, just to put its stamp on it, but this is a compelling decision, one that they could, if they are of a

mind to simply permit to stand without weighing in on their own. >> so, now we have got the fund-raising releases from former president trump, who is called citizen donald trump, not president trump by the appeals court panel. so, with all the breaking news from trump, i have no presidential immunity, and the witch-hunt against president trump, so the flyers are coming fast, they're flying through. >> they're flying through. please help me pay my legal bills, because that's what he's using all his campaign money for. it is crazy. it is amazing that he will raise a lot of money off of that right now. it works towards his base. people who can barely afford the $25, $50, $100, are going to give it to donald trump because in some way they feel like they must help him, which is just so sad. >> so, joyce, you know, just to

paraphrase what was said by one of the hosts on late night, he spent $50 million of campaign money to get an $83 million judgment against him, that doesn't seem like a brilliant business decision. but, in any case, how soon do you think this could all resolve? if the supreme court does not take it if that appeal which he has until monday to file, if they don't take it, if they deny, how soon could judge chutkan get back in gear and get that case started? >> right, so if that were to happen, it could be pretty quick. the court would issue a mandate, that would restore jurisdiction to judge chutkan, that is the legal mumbo jumbo for how a case moves from one court to another, following an appeal. and she would then be able to proceed full force. that could happen as early as mid-february, which this order seems to contemplate. >> joyce, let's just quickly talk about the next big supreme court argument involving donald trump, which has to do with

colorado and the 14th amendment, and that is going to be thursday morning, starting 10:00 a.m., shortly after 10:00 a.m., we'll all be here together, i'll be here with jose diaz-balart and ana as well, and we're going to have, you know, full audio, live audio with jose and ana cabrera with the supreme court, we're going to hear the arguments, which is going to be an amazing experience to hear how an unprecedented argument, a supreme court argument about the 14th amendment and whether the president can be kept off the ballot, the former president, because of his alleged involvement in trying to sponsor or aid and abet the insurrection against the united states. >> it will be an incredible moment for the country. this, of course, this 14th amendment section 3 goes back to the civil war and something i'll be listening for, andrea, there is an amicus brief filed by some historians, and they reference

conversations among legislators as they were passing this law, and there has been one legislator that has taken the argument that trump is taking here and says this doesn't seem to apply to presidents and one of his fellow legislators said, no, it absolutely does. here's where it is in the language. and so it seems very clear that this is meant to apply to presidents, no matter what trump says, and frankly for a court that is full of textualists who believe you should give meaning to the language of the law, this is going to be interesting to watch how the conservative jurists try to distance themselves from the 14th amendment if they're going to let trump stay on the ballot in colorado. >> and, of course, there are a number of other states that will be watching this very closely because this will establish the precedent, unless they have a narrow ruling on this, when they do rule on it. this could establish the precedent for the 14th amendment going forward. joyce vance, we'll be talking on

thursday. susan del percio, thanks to you as well. and to everyone else on this breaking news edition of "andrea mitchell reports." remember, follow us on social media at mitchell reports and you can rewatch the best parts of the show anytime on youtube, just go to msnbc.com/andrea. chris jansing reports starts right now. good day. i'm chris jansing live at msnbc headquarters in new york city. it is a 57-page court ruling that could alter the course of american history. at its core, it sends one message over and over and over again, donald trump is not immune from federal prosecution. no one, not even a current or former president of the united states, is above the law. but that may not be the final word. the supreme court still has a chance to weigh in. but will they? and what does all this mean for trump's multiple criminal trials and the chance that