she was the energy in every room that she ever went into and i just know that as jamie's dad, i -- i am jamie's voice. i will do this work to stop gun violence because parents should never learn what it feels like to be the dad that you had on just before me talking about his son or what it feels like to be me. this is not about being antigun. this is about being anti gun violence. let's do this together. >> and your work is a testament to your daughter. thank you so much. >> thank you. appreciate you. >> that does it for us this hour. our coverage continues with katy tur reports right now. good to be with you. there is no wiggle room. if you read through the 57 page court order, you won't find a

single sentence that favors or even slightly sympathizes with donald trump's argument for presidential immunity. instead, the d.c. appeals court stands up trump's defenses only to knock them down one by one. the judges reached back through history citing case law from the early 1800s along with founders themselves on how they envisioned the power and limitations of the presidency. the court concludes quote, for the purposes of h criminal case, former president trump has become citizen trump with all of the defenses of any other criminal defendant. on trump's argument that the separation of powers doctrine bars judicial review of executive actions, the court cited presidents nixon and truman, both of whom were found to have exceeded their authority by the supreme court. nixon on trying to shield his tapes and truman on trying to

seize steel mills. they also cited an 1882 supreme court ruling that said officers of the government can be sued pulling directly from the decision, quote, no man in this country is so high that he is above the law. on trump's argument that a ruling against immunity would create a quote chilling effect for future presidents, the court scoffed. in fact, the judges conclude quote, every president will face difficult decisions whether to intentionally, sorry, whether to intentionally commit federal crimes should not be one of them and they underscore how weird it would be for the president t one person with the constitutional duty the insure the laws are executed also gets to be the one person to break those laws. finally on the impeachment judgment clause, they write that it contains no words that limit

criminal liability and when the trump team cites alexander hamilton, trying to argue hamilton meant a president's only check is impeachment, they neglect to include the very next line in which hamilton stresses quote that the president must be unlike the king of great britain, who was sacred and inviable. again, no wiggle room in the whole of the 57-page decision, there is no one moment that the judges sympathize with trump's immunity claims. the question is will this supreme court, the one that's currently up there, agree and when. joining us now, lisa rubin and laura jarrett. first off, did i get that right? >> you went all in. very thorough. >> i couldn't find a single instance where they said i kind of understand what you're trying to argue here, but you go too

far. >> some of us wondered why is it taking so long. i think part of the reason why is that they're trying to make it bulletproof. they know it's going to go up on appeal, be before the supreme court. not sure the supreme court be take it up, but i think they wanted to make sure it was thorough. they know it's a moment in history. they know this decision is going to be read for the next 150 years and they want to get it right. >> it seemed like they were speaking to this supreme court by citing marbury versus madison. citing the federalist papers, acknowledging this is a supreme court made up of individualists. >> and judge chutkan did the same thing. she structured her opinion with an eye not only toward the text of the constitution, but then it's structure and history. this is framed more on an argument by argument basis, you can see interwoven throughout this opinion, u themty among all

three judges. it's an opinion of the court. but it's woven throughout this entire 57-page opinion there was three factors because they know they have an audience in this supreme court. >> in looking at each of these arguments, when you read through it, is there something that stands out to you specifically? something that screams this is ludicrous? >> in terms of what the judges decided or in terms of trump's argument? >> trump's argument. >> i've thought his argument is nonsense. essentially, he says because he was impeached but not convicted, he can't be prosecuted and that doesn't make any sense. judges decided that made no sense either to them. they said that was the weakest of the arguments that he made and they are absolutely right. why? because it says that once you're impeached and convicted, there are certain things that the senate can do to you, but

nevertheless, you can be liable in a court of law. that doesn't, the cull lair is not true. doesn't mean if you're in the impeached and convicted you can't be prosecuted. in a footnote, they cite all the examples of judges throughout history that have been prosecuted before impeached. >> they say in the footnote, not just mitch mcconnell, but all of those other republican senators who said that donald trump couldn't be impeached then convicted because he was no longer in office. they no longer had jurisdiction. >> i think for me, the timing of all of this is key. there's any number of different reasons why they believe his arguments fail, but they also made clear they're on to what the whole purpose of this was. not just in the 57-page opinion, but in the little tiny order that appears on the docket, they make it really clear you don't get to drag your feet now for all time to try to appeal this.

if you don't like it, you have a prescribed amount of time. >> don't they normally get 90 days? they're saying you have to appeal this to the supreme court. they try to appeal just to the broader d.c. circuit, the panel, the judge can start proceeding. >> right. we talked about maybe he'd want to let the full d.c. circuit here because then it could take longer. they'd have to rule and then he could appeal that up to the supreme court. there's many different stages. some people at home understand there's many different courts of appeal that are going to hear this and he could have gone any number of different ways. what they've done is cabined him into this one narrow lane knowing if they hadn't otherwise, he could have taken this to the full court. >> is there anything in here that you can fathom the supreme court will say i don't agree

with? >> i'm out of the prediction business after i got the timing so wrong on this. there's certainly avenues that the conservative majority could tinker with here. i actually think it's conceivable the supreme court won't even touch this and they'll decide we're not even going to hear it in which case judge chutkan's decision's back on. there's plenty of room if they wanted to to go that way, but again, like, i'm out of the prediction business. >> you're making a face, lisa. >> i'm more bullish on it. it goes back to the trump versus vance opinion in 2020. our viewers will remember that the manhattan district attorney was seeking to subpoena trump's then accountant for financial and tax records that played a role into later criminal investigations of former president trump and those around him. and in that decision, the court

essentially says we assume that a former president can be prosecuted. here, president trump is even conceding that. what he's contesting is whether a sitting president can be either prosecuted or even amenable to criminal process. but right here in this opinion, they are saying he conceded that state grand juries are free to investigate a sitting president with an eye toward charging him after the completion of his term. that's a concession made by lawyers who no longer represent former president trump that could come back to haunt him in the end. >> so including trump versus vance in this decision which they did a few times, do you think that's also a signal to the supreme court hey listen, you guys have already been here. you've got to kick this down to us or let this stand quickly so this case can proceed. >> yeah, we've already listened to you. you've already made clear. in fact, this litigant has already made clear he understands the rules of the road and is changing his mind

now. >> if the supreme court does say this stands, and they do it relatively quickly -- >> they could do it next week. >> how quickly does this get back on the schedule? >> so if we're thinking about our tree of where things are, so if in fact the supreme court says we're not taking it, then it goes back down to the trial court and judge chutkan has to make up for some lost time. >> it's supposed to be march 4th. >> that's gone. the issue now is that all this time where they've been wrangling in the courts, the clock has been paused. basicalln time since the beginning of december. so the beginning of december when the supreme court says no dice, tack all that time on. >> so next week, it's two months which means may. >> keep adding the time. and there's going to be other delays. other things with picking a jury. there's always delays with trial that are normal. but we could be facing the

process of a summer trial inching towards the convention. >> if donald trump is on trial during the republican convention, he'd have to be in the courtroom. it's a criminal trial, right? >> he would but judge chutkan has already contemplated this. kyle cheney at politico was in her courtroom this week and when they were talking about the trial date, she said she hoped to be out of the country in august unless of course she was at this trial. so by the fact that she's contemplating she could be on trial in this case in august, that could mean she also contemplates she could be in this trial in july. >> we will see if the supreme court takes it up one way or the other. thank you very much and thank you for coordinating today. you both look very nice. >> you can't get the memo? >> i did not. joining us now, mark leeb veitch. unless that memo is navy blue, i

generally don't get it. how much of a hot potato is this for donald trump? >> it's a slow rolling potato. how's that for a metaphor. what i think is damning for him as this panel put eloquently why this is so perilous to him, in terms of time, they have tried to delay this. it has slowed down. the fact is he almost to a case gets his clock cleaned on these things. these happen periodically. you can, i'm not a lawyer, but i can sort of see that he is really losing every single one of these and a lot of these conservative judges down the ladder. doing a lot of different cases. this is not something you want to campaign on but i think the larger part of it is something we're going to see play out over a number of months and i think today is part of that. >> what happens if he has to sit in a trial when he should be at

the gop convention? >> i mean, look, you can sort of point to juxtaposition of this, the drama of it. i just keep getting back to the perversity of it ultimately. this is not how our campaigns are supposed to run. this is theoretically not how our justice system is supposed to run and donald trump is not typical on any of these levels. so it would be a tragedy, but it could happen. we're seeing that it could happen on a number of different levels. >> how much stock do you put in these polls that say voters, this number of voters say they would not support somebody who's been criminally convicted. >> it does seem to be a line of demarcation. conviction that could move the needle that's been pretty stagnant. we'll see. it's not a perfect way to run a campaign but that seems to be where the republican imagination and noise machine is that the point. >> i'm surprised at the

republican party itself knowing that these things are all coming toward donald trump. understanding that there's a vulnerability there and yet they're still all rallying around him instead of supporting somebody like nikki haley who's running against him and refusing to drop out of this race. are they reading something different than i am? do they think this is a strength for donald trump? >> no. this is the m.o. it's been for eight years. it's denial. it's pretending the problem is going to magically go away. something or someone else will magically take care of it for them. i think we've been miffed over and over again by the dereliction of duty that so many republicans for so many years that probably know better have been willing to engage in. otherwise, it's just keep your head down and hope no one notices and hope ultimately we don't have to deal with this in any direct way again. >> thank you for joining us. and still ahead, what today's

decision could mean for the question that's before the supreme court later this week on thursday, in fact. and that is can donald trump be blocked from the ballot. we're back in 60 seconds. ballo. we're back in 60 seconds (♪♪) we come from a long line of cowboys. (♪♪) when i see all of us out here on this ranch, i see how far our legacy can go. (♪♪) liberty mutual customized my car insurance and i saved hundreds. that's great. i know, i've bee telling everyone. baby: liberty. oh! baby: liberty. how many people did you tell? only pay for what you need. jingle: ♪ liberty. liberty. liberty. ♪ baby: ♪ liberty. ♪ some migraine attacks catch you off guard, but for me a stressful day can trigger migraine attacks too. that's why my go to is nurtec odt. it's the only migraine medication that can treat and prevent my 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. now i'm in control. with nurtec odt i can treat a migraine attack and prevent one. talk to your doctor about nurtec today. while the supreme court waits for donald trump's promised appeal, the justices are getting ready to consider another major case recording the former president. on thursday, they'll hear arguments on the colorado disqualification suit. the one that says donald trump can't be on the ballot because he's an insurrectionist. joining us now, senior writer for slate who covers the supreme court, mark joseph stern. good to have you. set up thursday for us. >> so this is a major case that could effectively make or break trump's candidacy. one of just a few now at the supreme court it turns out and the question is did donald trump engage in insurrection on january 6th such that under

section three of the 14th amendment he is no longer qualified to run for or serve as president of the united states. it's a very difficult case i think across the board. it poses a lot of tricky questions of law, but i'll say trump's lawyers have put almost all of their eggs in one very odd basket, which is that this provision doesn't even apply to him at all. and i do expect the justices to show a lot of skepticism toward that argument and others on thursday. >> after they hear these arguments, what's your prediction? i know we're not in the prediction business, but you follow this court and you report on them. what's your educated protection on how quickly they'll decide? >> i think pretty quickly, within one or two months. it's always tough to tell. i think the conventional wisdom is right that the court's going to be looking for an off ramp. that the court doesn't want to wresting with some of these

really weighty issues. what constituted an insurrection other than the civil war. you know, is colorado affording trump the kind of process that he is due before removing him from the ballot. i think that's why his lawyers have focused on this idea that he's not an officer to whom the clause applies but i'm skeptical that the court will take that particular off ramp because it's a really novel and kind of biz contortion of the constitutional text. this is ostensibly a court of textualists, originists. i don't think that a number of conservative justices will want to sign on. my best guess since you're putting me on the spot is that i think the court's going to say that congress has to have more of a hand in implementing this provision. that somehow, congress needs to step in and create some kind of process or standard for removing somebody from the ballot because the court's not going to want to

let a patchwork of states decide whether or not the republican front-runner can actually be on the ballot. >> i'm kind of shaking my head here because when you read the text of the constitution, when you read article three, it doesn't say that. it doesn't say congress needs to make a ruling or congress needs to legislate on what disqualifies you and what doesn't. it takes that out of it. it specifically takes that out of it. so if you are a justice on the supreme court and you're a textualist and originalist, i'm struggling to see how you can read that any other way. it's not just me. i've read it. i've had conversations at length with constitutional scholar, conservative and liberal. david french has been on this air explaining it as well. how much, given your coverage of this court and these justices do you think that the way their fealty toward the text of the

constitution versus their fealty toward maybe a republican president? a conservative president. >> yeah. the million dollar question. i would just add i don't think it's only about fealty to republican president, but also fear of outcomes. the conservatives claim that they don't do outcome based judging. that they simply follow the constitution where it leads but i imagine that john roberts, amy barrett are frightened about what could be unleashed. now, you're right. the constitution doesn't say that. and there are other part of the 14th amend that that don't require congressional act. chief justice chase who was appointed by lincoln wrote an opinion arguing that congress

had to somehow step in to enforce this amendment. now, he was actually trying to let jefferson davis off the hook. he had a lot of sympathy for ex confederates. i don't think it's a strong opinion, but john roberts loves history. he love to say oh, i'm just following in the footsteps of my predecessors. t that's one reason i can imagine him pointing to the past saying if a former chief officer thought this, i might as well hold this. >> good point. your prediction on whether the supreme court will take up the immunity case or just uphold the d.c. circuit? >> that is the toughest. i think the court clearly should simply refuse a stay and refuse to take the case. the d.c. circuit put a lot of work into making this unimpeachable. however, you know, the highest court in the land likes to have the last word on every single issue. and even though the legal arguments here aren't close, it is a case of national importance. so i think it's more likely than

not that the justices take up the case on an expedited timeline saying oh, well, we'll split the baby. we'll take it up, but decide it quickly. i don't know if that will actually leave enough time for judge chutkan to hold a trial. so i'm hoping that some of the left extreme conservatives win out and side with the progressives and say we don't need to consider this at all. but again, this is a court that has aggressively intervened in every major trump related case. whether it should or not. so i think the smart money is on the supreme court saying we'll be the ones to decide that, not some lowly -- >> i also think it's interesting if they're going to decide whether the president is an officer of the government. if you read through the ruling from today, they continually call the president an officer of the government. interesting. wonder if that was on purpose. thank you very much. still ahead, guilty on all counts. what today's verdict in jennifer crumbley's case means for parents who own guns in this country. country.

i'm kareem abdul-jabbar.

i was diagnosed with afib. when i first noticed symptoms, which kept coming and going, i should have gone to the doctor. instead, i tried to let it pass. if you experience irregular heartbeat, heart racing, chest pain, shortness of breath, fatigue, or light-headedness, you should talk to your doctor. afib increases the risk of stroke about 5 times. when it comes to your health, this is no time to wait. here's to getting better with age. here's to beating these two every thursday. help fuel today with boost high protein, complete nutrition you need... ...without the stuff you don't. so, here's to now. boost.

xfinity rewards presents: '1st and 10gs.' xfinity is giving away ten grand to a new lucky winner so, here's to now. 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.

a jury has found jennifer crumbley guilty, agreeing she was negligent for ignoring her son's pleas tor help and instead giving him a gun. joining us now from michigan, adrian. msnbc legal analyst, danny, and ucla law professor and author of gunfight, the battle over the right to bear arms in america, adam winkler. adrian, first to you. walk us through this conviction. >> we'll start with the families. a day of relief for them as the verdict was read, jennifer crumbley looked away from members of the jury. her eyes closed, her head down. we saw her cry more during the trial than we did today when she was found guilty on all four

counts of involuntary manslaughter. over the course of the week, prosecutors argued that she could have prevented what happened at oxford high school back in 2021. they argued that her actions caused the death of those four students. inside of the courtroom when the verdict was read, parents of the students who lost their lives, i spoke with the father of the youngest person killed that day. her dad, steve, says today is a step in the right direction but he's still worried about the future. listen in. >> it's a bit of, i believe it's a bit of a wake up call for people to realize that they have to take a bigger responsibility. especially within their own families because they're the only ones that can. but with that being said, it's not going to be any kind of cure

all. for shootings or mass shootings or school shootings. it's just one little piece to help us make a change. >> and when i spoke with him, he also told me there is so much more to be addressed but he said today was a good step. he said it's not a matter of when this will happen, but to who it will happen to. talking about school shootings will happen once again. >> so many parents just living with that reality. adrian, thank you very much. danny, in talking about this, and what this case is going to mean, this does set a pretty big, new precedent. >> it's more like a trend. for most of american history, we have not held parents automatically responsible for the crimes of their children. we will under certain circumstances. that is not new. but also for much of american history, we have not held one person responsible for the

crimes of another unless they wanted to help that person commit the crimes. what you see here is a -- >> they urge them into it. >> ordinarily, we don't hold someone who's even reckless responsible for an independent, intentional crime of another person. child or not. what you see here is a sea change. i think america is saying when it comes to school shootings, this is a different thing. this didn't exist 100 years ago, 200 years ago and i think society is increasingly more comfortable with the idea of holding someone, a parent, responsible for the killing committed by their child. even though the parent admittedly and by definition of the crime of conviction, did not intend for this to happen. did not want for it to happen. >> it's involuntary. >> adam, does this change the way that parents regard guns in their household? regard getting guns for their children? >> well, i think this is

definitely a warning sign for parents to be very careful when it comes to firearms. look, we have a very heavily armed society and because of the second amendment and strength of gun politics in america, that's not going to change anytime soon. it really means that gun owners have to be very responsible if their firearms and especially parents who are going to give firearms to their children for reasons of hunting or culture or other reason. it's important that the parents be very cautious when doing that and know their children can be trusted with those firearms. what we saw here was really recklessness on the part of these parents to provide arms to a son that was clearly troubled. they ignored the signs that trouble was afoot if this young man had firearms. >> i wonder if part of this conviction is because of the moment we're living in and we don't have a government that's legislating on this. guns aren't being restricted. the second amendment, it seems

to be an excuse for no oversight whatsoever of firearms. is this a conviction where people and parents feel like they have no control and this is the one area that they can exercise some control? exercise some condemnation, some distaste for what's happening? adam. >> yeah. i think it may be. i do feel that these kinds of convictions are going to be few and far between. the facts of this particular case were very egregious and the parents seemed to fail as parents and as members of a society that depends on people to only provide firearms to people who can be trusted with them. so this is an unprecedented case and not likely to be repeated but given the prevalence of school shootings, we're going to see more and more prosecutors take up these kinds of cases in

an effort to try to provide incentives to be much more cautious. >> does it open up any new cases regarding any recent school shootings? any parents that might be facing legal trouble now? >> in theory, states, other jurisdictions didn't need this case as precedent. it's just a one court's verdict in michigan but i also think that prosecutors who have taken a pass on these shootings, if they were to turn around now and say hey, we see what happened in this case, it gave us a good idea, why don't we go after the parents now. i think this will inspire prosecutors in the future the try these cases out. they've seen from this one they can do it and they work. >> is there something in this case that pointed to how egregious her behavior was? >> i think the challenge was potential jurors who might sit there as parents who say i don't always my son's text messages.

so the challenge was showing them no, what if there's ordinary parental, not being the best parent. this is different. this crossed the line. this was recklessness. conscious disregard of a known risk. two known risks. number one, mental health problems and number two, access to a firearm which has to be handled with the utmost care. meaning that's the message of this case to parents everywhere. >> the text messages seem to be damning when they introduced those into the court. gentlemen, thank you very much. we also have some news. the national transportation safety board just released a preliminary report on the door that blew out of that alaska airlines mid flight. the report finds that those four bolts that were supposed to hold the door plug in place in the boeing 737 max 9 were not there. they were missing. the bolts were removed at boeing's factory and evidently not replaced. the report doesn't say who removed them, but it does

include a photo of the door plug after it was reinstalled which shows the bolts missing. coming up, what does the lead investigator on the january 6th committee think about the d.c. appeals court ruling that donald trump is not immune? we're going to ask him. and right now on the hill, republicans are about to try to impeach the dhs secretary. do they have the votes? have thes ♪3, 4♪ ♪ ♪hey♪ ♪ ♪are you ready for me♪ ♪are you ready♪ ♪are you ready♪ 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. [cough] honey... honey. nyquil severe honey. powerful cold and flu relief with a dreamy honey taste nyquil honey,

this ad? typical. politicians... "he's bad. i'm good." blah, blah. let's shake things up. with katie porter. porter refuses corporate pac money.

and leads the fight to ban congressional stock trading. katie porter. taking on big banks to make housing more affordable. and drug company ceos to stop their price gouging. most politicians just fight each other. while katie porter fights for you. for senate - democrat katie porter. i'm katie porter and i approve this message. two leading candidates for senate. two very different visions for california. steve garvey, the leading republican, is too conservative for california. he voted for trump twice and supported republicans for years, including far right conservatives. adam schiff, the leading democrat, defended democracy against trump and the insurrectionists. he helped build affordable housing, lower drug costs, and bring good jobs back home. the choice is clear. i'm adam schiff, and i approve this message.

rejecting his plea, the special counsel says theshld be allowed to prosecute the former president. that relies heavily on evidence gathered by the january 6th house select committee which turned over thousands of pages of documents and testimony to the department of justice in december of 2022. joining us now, former lead investigator on the january 6th select committee. tim, thanks for being here. tell me your reaction today to the d.c. court of appeals. >> not surprised. i don't think this is a close case. i think the arguments demonstrated that. i think the opinion conclusively shows that. that no person is above the law. that the criminal statutes, if proven, and that's obviously yet to be determined, should apply to anyone who violates those laws. so all the way from the foundation laid by the select committee, this is yet another step toward resolution of that key question.

is this or is this not beyond a reasonable doubt criminal? and it brings us closer to that trial. >> why do you think this is criminal? >> because this was much more than rhetoric. this was much more than speech. this was a multipart intentional plan as we laid out in our report and hearings designed to disrupt the joint session and interrupt the transfer of power. if this were simply hey, the election was stolen without action designed to bring about that result, it wouldn't be criminal but it was the combination of the fake electors, the pressure on state officials on the justice department, on the vice president. then the rhetoric that launches them toward the joint session that together makes this, presents evidence, of intent to disrupt the joint session. that's what's at stake. is there intentional conduct designed to interfere with that official proceeding. >> when the supreme court considers immunity, what is your

expectation for whether they're going to take it up and consider it in full or if they're going to just uphold the second circuit. >> very hard to predict with the supreme court, but i think this opinion, i was struck by how careful it is. how thorough it is. it considers absolutely every argument that the former president made. rejects them both with respect to precedent and policy. i think it is designed, it's per cure yum, it's designed to essentially prevent the case from further review by the supreme court. i think again, it's not a close case. the supreme court does not waste its time on things. if the lower court opinion or consensus is sound and i think there's a good chance they deny here and again, that just sets the calendar. we go back to when the case will be adjudicated by judge chutkan. >> the supreme court is going to be hearing oral arguments on thursday regarding the colorado

case which says that donald trump is disqualified from the ballot because he participated in recollection it says if you participate or give aid and comfort to, you can't run for office. this was in reaction to the civil war. although they specifically did not say former confederates. they said anybody looking forward to the future knowing this could potentially happen again. that the popular vote, the popular opinion could give rise to somebody who isn't exactly in line with our constitution. when they decide whether or not donald trump participated in insurrection or decide whether january 6th was an insurrection, what's your argument to siding yes to both those questions? >> there's a lot of evidence on which the colorado court relied that supports the finding that the former president engaged in insurrection. and the supreme court frankly doesn't really review questions of law. they resolve, excuse me,

questions of fact. they resolve questions of law. so i think the supreme court on thursday will assume that there is record evidence that supports the finding the president engaged in insurrection. the question then will be so what. does the 14th amendment, section three of the 14th amendment, give rise, authority to a state, secretary of state taking him off the ballot. removing him from the ballot. or is there, does there need to be enabling legislation. must congress be the body that enacts that. i think there are uncertain questions of law that makes it a closer case than the immunity case, which does not seem close to me. again, the uncertainty is on the law. not the facts. >> tim, good to have you. thank you very much. >> thanks. still ahead, what republicans are saying now that a court has decided donald trump is not above the law. the law omz i'm a flight nurse on a helicopter that specializes in trauma.

i've been doing flight nursing for 24 years. as you get older, your brain slows down and i had a fear that i wouldn't be able to keep up. i heard about prevagen from a friend. i read the clinical study on it and it had good reviews. i've been taking prevagen now for five years and it's really helped me stay sharp and present. it's really worked for me. prevagen. at stores everywhere without a prescription. you know, when i take the bike out like this, all my stresses just melt away. i hear that. this bad boy can fix anything. yep, tough day at work, nice cruise will sort you right out. when i'm riding, i'm not even thinking about my painful cavity. well, you shouldn't ignore that. and every time i get stressed about having to pay my bills, i just hop on the bike, man. oh, come on, man, you got to pay your bills. you don't have to worry about anything when you're protected by america's number-one motorcycle insurer. well, you definitely do. those things aren't related, so... ah, yee! oh, that is a vibrating pain. (ella) fashion moves fast. ah, yee! setting trends is our business. we need to scale with customer demand...

in real time. (jen) so we partner with verizon. their solution for us? a private 5g network. (ella) we now get more control of production, efficiencies, and greater agility. (marquis) with a custom private 5g network. our customers get what they want, when they want it. (jen) now we're even smarter and ready for what's next. (vo) achieve enterprise intelligence. it's your vision, it's your verizon. 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. ♪♪ with fastsigns, create factory grade visual solutions to perfect your process.

♪♪ fastsigns. make your statement™. i know what it's like to perform through pain. if you're like me, one of the millions suffering from pain caused by migraine, nurtec odt may help. it's the only medication that can treat a migraine when it strikes and prevent migraine attacks. treat and prevent, 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. relief is possible. talk to a doctor about nurtec odt. (vo) sail through the heart of historic cities and unforgettable scenery with viking. unpack once, and get closer to iconic landmarks, local life, and cultural treasures. because when you experience europe on a viking longship, you'll spend less time getting there and more time being there.

viking. exploring the world in comfort.

so what are voters going to think about this? joining us now, mark mckinnon. voters, what are they going to think about the immunity claim. waiting to get reaction. this is a man named dan deegan from dearborn, michigan. he says he's leaning toward biden in 2024. yeah, i totally agree with it. i don't think anybody's above

the law and i heard it was a unanimous decision so i'm all far it. there's another dan voting for trump. he says i think it's a total travesty what they're doing to him. he should have immunity. he also thinks biden should be prosecuted. there are other people who say it's been a big issue. they're saying he's not immune. this is a first time voter. i know a lot of people want him back and a lot of people are expecting to vote for him and expecting him to be on the ballot. mixed bag to be on the ballot. mixed bag so far. i can't take these individual sound bites to say this is what -- either if you're a democrat you're going to say it's great, and if you're a republican, you'll say it's a travesty. what's the middle ground? who are the voters out there who might like trump or leaning toward trump or not sure about biden who will see the immunity question and the potential trial

and think, i just don't want to take that chance? >> somewhere between the two dans there. we know it's going to be a close election. these kind of -- this kind of thing could have a significant impact on the outcome, maybe not huge numbers, but it won't take huge numbers. here is the interesting thing. the court today ruled that -- what's amazing is donald trump believed there was a world in which a court would say, yes, one man is above the law, and you're the guy. i think he actually believed that. listen, we also know he said he could shoot somebody on fifth avenue and his supporters would probably still support him. that may be true, but now we know the courts won't. we also know from data we've seen and you've reported on that up to half of republicans could potentially change their mind about donald trump if he's convicted. and he cannot be convicted

unless this trial, presumably this federal trial goes forward. that's really the only shot for a trial to be tested before the election. >> how confident are you that those voters don't assume that, if he were convicted, he would be barred from the ballot, that if he had been convicted of a crime, he can't run for president? >> listen, i think there's been enough discussion now that they believe he's running under any circumstances. that's, of course, what the history and the law proves. i think the gray area here, katy, is we've heard people can change their mind if he's convicted. what's going to happen is, if he's convicted, it's going to go on appeal. that's a gray area. we don't know what's going to happen if he's convicted and it's on appeal. i think it's a very fraught political situation because donald trump's political and legal strategy are embedded. >> explain to me the republican rationale for sticking behind

him? they have a viable alternative right now in the race. they have nikki haley. yet i see republican after republican line up behind donald trump. tim scott, nancy maz, all of them saying donald trump should be the nominee, that nikki haley should get out of the race. >> it makes zero sense to me. i think it's a circular firing squad. you have a candidate who clearly, if nominated, would beat joe biden and beat him handily by double digits. we're in an era of tribal politics, where the litmus test now, because of the brutal way our politics are conducted, where that's the test to be a republican now. you have to be a donald trump republican or you're castigated from the party. >> mark mckinnon, good to have you. coming up, what happened overnight that makes it increasingly unlikely that a border deal will pass in the

senate. i told myself i was ok with my moderate to severe rheumatoid arthritis symptoms. with my psoriatic arthritis symptoms. but just ok isn't ok. and i was done settling. if you still have symptoms after a tnf blocker like humira or enbrel, rinvoq is different and may help. rinvoq is a once-daily pill that can rapidly relieve joint pain, stiffness, and swelling in ra and psa. relieve fatigue for some... and stop joint damage. and in psa, can leave skin clear or almost clear. rinvoq can lower your ability to fight infections, including tb. serious infections and blood clots, some fatal; cancers, including lymphoma and skin; heart attack, stroke, and gi tears occurred.

people 50 and older with a heart disease risk factor have an increased risk of death. serious allergic reactions can occur. tell your doctor if you are or may become pregnant. done settling? ask your rheumatologist for rinvoq. and take back what's yours. abbvie could help you save. as the world keeps moving, help prevent covid-19 from breaking your momentum. you may have already been vaccinated against the flu, but don't forget this season's updated covid-19 shot too. ( ♪ ♪ ) start your day with nature made. the #1 pharmacist recommended vitamin and supplement brand. (♪♪) we come from a long line of cowboys. (♪♪) when i see all of us out here on this ranch, i see how far our legacy can go.

(♪♪) day ♪] i see how far our legacy can go. i'm starting to think this was a bad idea. now you tell me? i just think we could find a better gift on etsy's new gift mode. what! yeah! maybe something cowgirly! oh cute! let me see! [fussing] [♪ happy birthday ♪] [burst] [scream] [gasp] [guest chatter] there's people in the cake. [guest gasp] it's a people cake! don't panic. gift easy with gift mode, new on etsy. lactaid is 100% real milk, just without the lactose. delicious too. just ask my old friend, kevin. nothing like enjoying a cold one while watching the game. who's winning? we are, my friend.

we are. is it possible to count on my internet like my customers count on me? it is with comcast business. keeping you up and running with 99.9% network reliability. and security that helps outsmart threats to your data. moaire dida twoo? your data, too. there's even round-the- clock customer support. so you can be there for your customers. hey billy, how you doin? with comcast business, reliability isn't just possible. thanks. it's happening. get started for $49.99 a month. plus, ask how to get up to a $1000 prepaid card with a qualifying internet package. don't wait, call and switch today!

meanwhile in the house republicans are debating whether to impeach dhs secretary alejandro mayorkas. after the debate the full house will vote, but will the gop have enough yays to follow through? already two republican lawmakers are saying no. joining us nbc capitol hill correspondent ryan nobles. republican lawmakers that are saying no, why are they arguing the house doesn't have the evidence to impeach alejandro mayorkas? >> reporter: it's not so much about the evidence, katy, in this case it really has more to do with the fact that they don't think it's the correct interpretation and application of the u.s. constitution. the two members that have come out and in opposition to it, ken buck and tom mcclintock, have cited the fact they don't believe alejandro mayorkas has done his job well as the department of homeland security

secretary. that's a common belief among republicans, but they just don't think what he's done as homeland security secretary rises to the level of high crimes and misdemeanors which is explicitly spelled out in the constitution. furthermore, you see some of these republicans that are hedging whether or not they're going to support these articles of impeachment are also concerned about the fact that it will effectively do anything. it will essentially turn out to be a slap on the wrist. it seems very unlikely that once this is snt to the senate and held for trial, there's no universe in which there's two-thirds of the majority in the senate to convict mayorkas and penalize him for whatever they prescribe to be the problem. i want to pause for a moment and consider this. there is an immigration bill crafted by three people, democratic, independent and very conservative republican. that conservative republican is saying we need to do this immigration bill. republicans have been screaming about what a crisis it is at the border and it nides to get fixed

immediately. yet republicans beyond him are saying, no, we don't like this bill, and at the same time they want to impeach the dhs secretary for not doing enough at the border. how do those two things exist at the same time? >> reporter: it is a little baffling, to be honest with you, katy. republicans are all over the map when it comes to their approach to the border. they've been screaming since they took the majority that something needed to be done legislatively to solve the crisis at the border. now they've been presented with a legislative package. it's certainly not everything they've been looking for. it's a bipartisan package, the only way things can get passed in congress right now because there's divided government. they're saying not only would it not do enough, that it would hurt the situation and president biden can fix it on his own. there's been a lot of back and forth. not all of it is consistent. >> the bill is arguably a lot more conservative than moderate than even liberal. ryan nobles