details about how families were notified after the shooting. some received incorrect information, suggesting their family members had survived when they had not. and others were notified of the deaths of their family members by personnel untrained in delivering such painful news. here's how family members reacted to the report today. >> i hope that the -- today, and the local officials, do what wasn't done that day, do right by the victims and survivors of robb elementary. >> because the doj stamp -- maybe you will all take this seriously now, instead of telling us to move on, telling us to sweender the rug, and not doing a dam thing about it. >> and in the wake of the report, some are calling for criminal charges, and that is tonight's read out on -- s read out on --

tonight on all in. >> enough, i said please don't be too nice. >> donald trump admits he crossed the line, but demands immunity, like a cop who gets away with breaking the law. >> the president of the united states, must have immunity. >> tonight, the dark implications of trump's new manifesto. then, the latest attack on e. jean carroll inside the trump defamation trial. plus. >> let's just wait and see what happens in new hampshire. >> if nikki haley wins new hampshire, that i think we've got a race in our hands. >> if polling and new expectations settings for the next vote in new hampshire has global elites warned the indicted ex president. >> i don't think voting for trump's family values, but he wasn't wrong about some of these critical issues. >> all in starts right now. ♪ ♪ ♪ >> good evening from new york, i'm chris hayes. we are awaiting a ruling from the d.c. circuit court of appeals on donald trump's audacious and a dangerous claim of near total presidential

immunity, for crimes he committed while in office, while president. in court last week, as you probably remember, trump's lawyers argue that the president should have the power to effectively do whatever he wants, including for instance, having a political rival assassinated by s.e.a.l. team six, or selling pardons, and could face no criminal accountability or prosecution, unless he was first successfully impeached and convicted. >> could a president ordered s.e.a.l. team six to assassinate a political rival? >> that's an official act, in order to s.e.a.l. team six? >> he would have to be, and would speedily be impeached and convicted before the criminal prosecution. >> but if you weren't? there would be no criminal prosecution, no criminal liability for that? >> in the chief justices opinion -- and our constitution, and in the plain language of the impeachment judgment clause, all clearly presuppose that what the founders were concerned about was not. -- i >> asked you a yes or no

question. could a president who ordered s.e.a.l. team six to assassinate a political rival, who was not impeached, could he be subject to criminal prosecution? >> if he were impeached and convicted first. >> so your answer is? >> my answer is qualified yes. >> it was always clear that these weren't particularly sound legal arguments, you could almost hear the resignation in trump's lawyers as voice as he slowly, against his own will, allow himself to go back into the proverbial corner. and that's because these arguments are not rooted, first and foremost, in the interpretation of the law of the constitution. rather, they will reverse engineered to arrive at the conclusion that donald trump is demanding. in case there is any question about that, the ex president effectively admitted himself on social media today. in all caps, he rented quote, a president of the united states must have full immunity, even events that cross the line must fall under total immunity. which sure sounds like a tacit admission of guilt, doesn't it? in a bar analogy, compared

himself to a dirty cop. quote, you can't stop police from doing the job of strong and effective crime prevention because you want to guard against the occasialogue cop or bad apple. sometimes you just have to live with great but slightly imperfect. and then for good measure, he added with a not so subtle message to the 63 maga majority. quote, hopefully this will be an easy decision. god bless the supreme court. not a lot of subtext there. don't need some sort of decoder ring. he is saying what he believes, right? this is an authentic expression of trumpism, as authentic of an expression of trumpism as we have ever seen from the ex president himself. it is what this entire campaign, and the movement, is centered around now. i mean, this is the singular animating focus. immunity, the concept that he is above the law, the nation is under his control, that he will be the dictator on day one of his second term. and for that mission to

function, the ex president needs to craft a legal context in which he can't be held accountable by the very institutions that he wishes to control. in trump's view, even when the president, and let's just be clear, not just any president, him, really. like he wouldn't feel this way about joe biden or barack obama, right? when the president, donald trump, does things that are obviously illegal, over the line, in his own words as he puts it. he still must have full immunity, as long as he has enough cronies on his side to prevent conviction and impeachment in congress, which trump knows he has. i also think it's particularly notable that trump compared himself to rogue cops and bad apples, which is to say police officers who break the law. i mean it's true, police officers are rarely held legally accountable for official misconduct. the dubious legal doctrine of qualified immunity, means that officers can almost never be sued for violating yourigs. fatal shootings by police are rarely prosecuted, even if they are unjustified. but also, there is not blanket

criminal immunity for cops. criminal prosecutions for accountability for police misconduct do happen sometimes, like in perhaps the most famous instance of a police killing in my lifetime. >> former minneapolis police officer derek chauvin, sentenced to 22 and a half years in prison today, for the murder of george floyd. >> thomas lane, one of the other former minneapolis police officers charged in connection with george floyd's death nearly two years ago, has agreed to plead guilty. >> jay alexander came to the plea deal back analogous -- to avoid a state criminal trial. the ex minneapolis officers already serving a federal sentence related to the death. >> a sentence of 57 months in prison for -- one of the officers involved in the george floyd's death, it's significantly higher than even what prosecutors were asking for. >> remember, those four officers were acting in their official capacity, no question, when george floyd was murdered. they were wearing uniforms, they were responding to a call.

they were still prosecuted, and then convicted. trump's theory, such as it is, is that he deserves even less scrutiny then the already threadbare standard we've set for police in this country. now a lot of these legal arguments surround, of course, they are about this trial, that we are expecting this year. particularly the trial for january 6th, the events leading up to, it the attempt to subvert the constitutional republic. and the subtext of this entire back and forth is, will donald trump be able to shrug off criminal charges for objecting a coup that is the question. but it also goes beyond that. and i think it is sort of important to internalize this. avoiding prison maybe trump's most pressing -- but it is not the only reason he is running for presidentlity again, after all. as of now, he appears to be cruising to the republican nomination. if and when he is nominated, he's got a real shot at retaking the white house. so imagine what he will do if

the courts of firm that he cannot ever face justice without an impeachment in the house, and the conviction in the senate first? it his lawyers will admit out loud in front of the judge, that trump cannot face charges for -- just a matter what trump is speculating about in private. the judges on the d.c. circuit court of appeals -- and i imagine are thinking long and hard about what affirming trump's argument would mean for the fate of this country. andrew weissmann worked for years in the department of justice, most recently as the lead prosecutor for the special counsel robert mueller's office. -- is a justice correspondent for the nation and they join me now. the legal theory is, i think, bunk. but there is a, i mean the theory is articulated, again, in this post. i think it's the genuine theory of governance at issue here. and it's the one that is

presented before the court. >> well in some ways, there are ways this may go even beyond what was argued. >> yes, that's right, it's more extreme. >> because you don't hear the impeachment first theory. that is the argument which is made to the court. >> i think in many ways, donald trump is saying this, he is always going to lose the d.c. circuit, that is just not credible. i don't think it helps him, actually, to say this out loud so often, especially this sort of, this is what you can expect. for anybody except the most die hard we need a king, not a president, this kind of language is oh, this is the door that you are opening. and i think it is both geared to this argument, and an argument that i think maybe made if it goes to the supreme court, which has to do with, was i acting as the president?

or was i acting as somebody campaigning? and so he is saying you know, give me the benefit of the doubt here. i may have crossed the line, not in terms of legality, but in terms of like -- campaigning. but i should still be immune. but there is just no basis for either of those, in terms of saying in a criminal law context. frankly even, as you noted, for a police officer, the qualified immunity doctrine is a civil doctrine. >> and it -- >> it is very hard to do it, it should be prosecuted more, but there is no doctrine of full immunity for criminal prosecution, for anyone. >> yes, that's right, for anyone. and you had this observation -- which i want to read, which i thought was good. you said to recap, everybody agrees that trump's lawyer fell into a trap last week, when he said that trump could order s.e.a.l. team six to assassinate a political rival. so trump's response has been to demand the immunity to assassinate political rivals. this is embracing precisely the

verdict you out of certainly was pushed into by the judge. >> and think that trump and his lawyers forget, i think, is that they ain't president yet, right. so if the supreme court says that the presidents have this complete immunity from prosecution and whatever, what's to stop oh i don't know, the actual president, joe biden, from launching a preemptive strike on a rebel stronghold at mar-a-lago, to engineer a regime change. what's the stop from him doing that? i don't think trump has thought this through. perhaps it's like on the next page of his bedside coffee of mein kampf, he hasn't gotten to work or the logic of his -- goes. but for the record, as andrew was saying, i do not think that biden has the power to launch a strike against his political rival, right. i think it would violate -- . and you know, murder laws. and so i think that biden, if he did, that would be prosecuted. trump doesn't seem to understand, and the people who support trump don't seem to

understand that the powers he calls onto himself, they then must be given to every single other president. but i think john roberts will want -- to. >> that i think is an important distinction, because i think the supreme court does understand, although they could find a ways around that too. but remember, bush v. gore, -- . but that said, i think that is exactly correct. but the other thing i think about this is, it's not, he is not articulating a broad layout of political principles, he is talking about himself. and not only is he talking about himself, i think very strongly this threat that the republic is going to be torn apart by prosecutions as reprisal, is an explicit threat to prosecute joe biden. like, 100%, it is not clever, it's not subtle. he is saying i will, that is the purpose of this entire enterprise. i stay out of prison, i will go after my political rivals. >> you know that issue came up in the d.c. circuit when one of the judges said if we go along

with what you are proposing in government, won't there be this problem of enormous number of prosecutions of former presidents. and the governments answer was, that's been the law. that is the understanding, and guess what, that hasn't happened. >> zero for. zero >> exactly, and the only reason it is happening now is because we are in a situation where factually, somebody has broken the law. >> yeah, and i think that point is a really important one, when it came up in our arguments. but it is the reason that he specifically is raising it. it is also like, elie, to me again, everyone needs to understand the core of the argument being made here. like, there is this kind of form and contact higher synthesis has come together, or both the practical reason for running is immunity. and the theoretical cause they are pursuing, right. like it is all together. like i am over the line. >> i am the state. and we have seen this before in history. what trump is trying to do is, as you pointed, out stay out of

jail. the people need to again play the tape all the way through to the end. if he stays out of jail, if he wins the nomination, if he gets reelected president, do you think he's leaving? he is not leaving ever again. he only leaves in a casket. he has president for life. or as caesar would have said, dictator for life, if you give him power again. so i think all of this is in play, and i do believe that the supreme court of justices understand the livewire that they are dealing with. obviously, the -- clarence thomas and alito, they probably like it that way. but i think there is a great chance that people like roberts, people like barrett will say we can't have this, because. in the last point i will make about this, a guy like roberts, a guy like neil gorsuch, what they are most concerned about is their own power. and i do think at some level, they have to understand that if they let trump get back in, the supreme court is moot. >> it's an actual threat to the power of the court.

and we saw in an oral argument yesterday, as you were talking about with joy last night in online about the sort of imperiousness to their power grab. but that is a direct threat to them. >> why have we not gotten the decision yet? >> you know, -- that's a question >> impossible. but you know first, remember they are going to write something that will have to be bulletproof. they know that this could be, and there's a good chance it gets reviewed by the supreme court. so there is that. to, it is not one, judge it is three judges. and so, to the extent that the oral arguments -- maybe deciding on a different ground, there will be i think a lot of back and forth try to see if they could find some unanimity on a particular theory. that would be my guess, because you are working as a committee. >> and also, henderson is a republican appointee, the other two -- were democratic presidents. but anderson was appointed by

george h. w. bush, and even she was like this is -- so trying to get them all together on the same page, i think -- >> yep. >> andrew weissmann, -- we will keep watching, we will see. good to have you here. >> thanks. >> tomorrow maybe? i don't know. coming up, donald trump wasn't at his new york defamation trial today. that did not stop a flurry of -- new testimony against him. and you know what, we're going to come to the trial even when he's not there. lisa rubin was in the courtroom today, she joins with all the details, next. th details, next.

when moderate to severe ulcerative colitis takes you off course. put it in check with rinvoq, a once-daily pill. when i wanted to see results fast, rinvoq delivered rapid symptom relief and helped leave bathroom urgency behind. check. when uc tried to slow me down... i got lasting, steroid-free remission with rinvoq. check. and when uc caused damage rinvoq came through by visibly repairing my colon lining. check. rapid symptom relief... lasting steroid-free remission... ...and the chance to visibly repair the colon lining. check, check, and check. rinvoq can lower your ability to fight infections,

including tb. serious infections and blood clots, some fatal; cancers, including lymphoma and skin cancer; death, heart attack, stroke, and tears in the stomach or intestines occurred. people 50 and older with at least 1 heart disease risk factor have higher risks. don't take if allergic to rinvoq as serious reactions can occur. tell your doctor if you are or may become pregnant. put uc in check and keep it there with rinvoq. ask your gastroenterologist about rinvoq and learn how abbvie can help you save. i think i'm ready for this. heck, yeah! with e*trade you're ready for anything. marriage. kids. college. kids moving back in after college. (applause) here's to getting financially ready for anything. and here's to being single and ready to mingle. who's ready to cha-cha? sometimes your work shirt needs to be for more than just work. like when it needs to be a big soft shoulder to cry on. which is why downy does more to make clothes softer, fresher, and better. downy. breathe life into your laundry. with chase freedom unlimited, you can cashback 3% on dining including take-out.

cashback on flapjacks, baby backs, or the tacos at the taco shack. nah, i'm working on my six pack. well, good luck with that. earn big with chase freedom unlimited with no annual fee. (aidyl) hi, i'm aidyl, and i lost 90 pounds on golo. well, good luck with that. i struggled with weight loss and weight gain my entire life. with all the yo-yo dieting i did in the past, i would lose 20, 30, 50 pounds just to gain them over and over again. in one year, i've lost five sizes, and i'm on my way to lose another three. with golo, i can do it. (announcer) change your life at golo.com. that's golo.com. i think he's having a midlife crisis i'm not. you got us t-mobile home internet lite.

after a week of streaming they knocked us down... ...to dial up speeds. like from the 90s. great times. all i can do say is that my life is pre-- i like watching the puddles gather rain. -hey, your mom and i procreated to that song. oh, ew! i think you've said enough. why don't we just switch to xfinity like everyone else? then you would know what year it was. for the first two days of e. i know what year it is.

jean carroll's second defamation trial, donald trump came to court to make a spectacle of himself, to seemingly try to intimidate carroll in the witness stand, to cast him self as a real victim. -- get a good fight with the judge. he was not in court today. but footage of what he said at that press conference yesterday was. carol's attorney, showing the jury the moment he claimed that is all a, quote, made-up fabricated story. remember, a separate jury already, after trial and evidence, found trump liable for sexually assaulting carroll, in the dressing room of a manhattan apartment store in the 1990s, and for defaming her by calling her claim a lie. the current trial only determines damages for other defamatory statements made by donald trump. today, e. jean carroll was back on the stand, where trump's lawyer asked her about becoming, quote, famous about what happened. quote, do you believe you are more well known because of the

allegations you brought against my client, donald trump? >> carroll responded yes, i am well known, and i am hated by a lot of people. i am partake in this trial to bring my old reputation and status back. msnbc legal analyst lisa rubin has been inside of the courtroom since the trial began, and she joins me now. great to have you here. what happened in court today? >> today was like a study of two courts, right. you had the morning session, where e. jean carroll was still on the stand until lunch, and we had a very -- afternoon session, where both sides examine e. jean carroll's damages expert, who testified to the fact that in her estimate, it would cost somewhere between seven and $12 million to restore e. jean carroll's reputation. that was slow, it was ponderous, there were lots of objections. it was a study and how -- has maintained control of his courtroom, and lost control sometimes of his patients. but e. jean carroll was the star of this morning. and as you noted, elena hobbs themes seem to be donald trump

made you famous, didn't he? and e. jean carroll's response to that was no. first of all, if people know me better now, not everybody likes me. my life has been turned upside down. and to the extent that i am famous, it's because of my hard work, not because of his defamation. >> it's also interesting to, just what the defamation is something that goes all the way back to common law, right. and the notion is, the value of someone's reputation is important. there is biblical injunctions about this, in the old testament. and what is being litigated here is like, the tangible and material harm done to a person by calling them a liar. >> that is absolutely true. in fact ashley humphreys, who is e. jean carroll's expert, testified to that today. because she was asked what are the components of a reputation? and she was like, reputation has two parts. part of it is economic. will people higher? you are you less employed because of damage to your reputation? but the other part is moral.

are you a trustworthy individual? two people want to associate with you? so to your point, there is a sort of moral or ethical component to the restoration of her reputation. and i'll venture to guess that the e. jean carroll, that is more important part here, and the one that is more difficult to quantify, even though it is separate from the emotional harm that she has suffered as a result of trump's attacks. >> what i find so interesting here is that this is someone, what he has done to e. jean carroll's particularly, in my mind, despicable, targeted, and destructive. but it is of a piece of things that he has done to so many people. >> absolutely. >> and today, i mean this is the other thing. there is the sort of sense of restitution for the price of what you have suffered, right, the cost of it. but he is on truth social today. i mean, he will not stop defaming her over and over and over again. >> and on the day that he is supposed to be mourning his former mother in law, who by all accounts was very devoted to his wife and a child.

a person who probably deserved his attention today, didn't get it because he was too busy defaming e. jean carroll. i should also note that you mentioned the video that he made, as recently as today. and -- tried to show it to the jury, but was stopped because alana hobba said it was a partial clip of the entire press conference that trump had given. and somehow, she wanted the jury to see all of it. i am not sure how trump's defense gets any better by playing the rest of what he said, other then a small clip of his further defamation of e. jean carroll. but that is the wacky world we live in in trump's legal minds. >> there has been back and forth. i mean, one of the things we saw yesterday or the day before, orbit today, is trump's lawyer, alana hobba, jousting with caplan. i saw -- a person who is practiced in the federal law saying, if this happened to me in a federal district court, i would leave the court and walk into the sea, because judge kaplan once said

why don't you take a break and go remember how to introduce things into evidence. there has been a real kind of envelope pushing by hobba ally donald trump, all throughout. by the way it's not just hobba, it's her partner michael medea, who examined the damages experts today. at one point, caplan got so angry with him, and essentially said we all know lincoln was the 16th, move on. because they kept circling the same wagons, they can't pivot, they are not nimble with the rules of evidence to understand how to move forward when they are blocked on a particular line of questioning. >> yeah, and caplan again, we have been talking about these trials as interesting -- precursors and prologue for the criminal trial. there are different in certain ways. we saw judge engoron really struggling to control trump, and trump's lawyers. caplan seemed to have a bit of a harsher line, and a sort of stronger hand, but also struggled with trump. but would you say about his

control of the courtroom? >> i think caplan is in control of the courtroom. that having been said, elena and her coworkers are definitely trying to suggest to the jury, even in their body language and their acceptance of defeat by him, that he is 100% biased against them, and not giving them a fair shake. so what he shuts around, she will say things like okay, sure, as if to suggest there is something illegitimate about this, and you should be suspicious of as well. >> i am so glad that you are in the courtroom, honestly, and that your coming here and talk to us, because you can't get this stuff obviously through courtroom sketches and even text your boarding. so thank you for doing. that >> while i wish the cameras were there, but thank you for having me. are >> all right, lisa rubin. still ahead, the ever shrinking republican majority. how new court orders are shipping away at the republican's chance to keep control of the house of representatives, next. presentatives, next.

millions of children are fighting to survive due to inequality, conflict, poverty and the climate crisis. save the children® is working alongside communities to provide a better life for children. and there's a way you can help. please call or go online to give just $10 a month. only $0.33 a day. we urgently need 1000 new monthly donors in the next 30 days to help the children we support around the world. you can help provide food, medicine, care and protection, plus so much more that a child needs by calling right now and giving just $10 a month. all we need are 1000 monthly donors in the next 30 days. please call or go online now with your monthly gift of just $10. thanks to generous government grants every dollar you give can have up to ten times the impact. and when you call with your credit card, we will send you this

save the children® tote bag as a thank you for your support. your small monthly donation of just $10 could be the reason a child in crisis survives. please call or go online to hungerstopsnow.org to help save lives today. ♪ i have type 2 diabetes, but i manage it well. ♪ ♪ jardiance ♪ ♪ it's a little pill with a big story to tell. ♪ ♪ i take once-daily jardiance, ♪ ♪ at each day's staaart. ♪ ♪ as time went on it was easy to seee. ♪ ♪ i'm lowering my a1c. ♪ jardiance works 24/7 in your body to flush out some sugar! and for adults with type 2 diabetes and known heart disease, jardiance can lower the risk of cardiovascular death, too. jardiance may cause serious side effects including ketoacidosis that may be fatal, dehydration, that can lead to sudden worsening of kidney function, and genital yeast or urinary tract infections.

a rare, life-threatening bacterial infection in the skin of the perineum could occur. stop taking jardiance and call your doctor right away if you have symptoms of this infection, ketoacidosis, or an allergic reaction, and don't take it if you're on dialysis. taking jardiance with a sulfonylurea or insulin may cause low blood sugar. ♪ jardiance is really swell, ♪ ♪ the little pill with a big story to tell. ♪ not just any whiteboard... ...katie porter's whiteboard is one way she's: [news anchor] ...often seen grilling top executives of banks, big pharma, even top administration officials. katie porter. never taken corporate pac money - never will. leading the fight to ban congressional stock trading. and the only democrat who opposed wasteful “earmarks” that fund politicians' pet projects. katie porter. focused on your challenges - from lowering housing costs to fighting climate change. shake up the senate - with democrat katie porter. the slim house majority, the i'm katie porter and i approve this message.

republicans won in the 2022 midterm election has dwindled significantly, thanks to the vacancies caused by one -- george santos's explosion. and two, kevin mccarthy's abrupt retirement after being tricked out of the speakership. republicans now control just 220 seats, compared to the 213 seats democrats hold. that's a difference of seven, which means they could only lose three votes to carry a majority. and in this election year, it is actually looking more like

democrats have a decent chance of retaking the chamber. now those chances are aided by a set of court decisions that have thrown out some wildly aggressive gerrymandered, and constitutional congressional maps in certain states. remember, it started in alabama, last october, when federal court pick a new congressional map for that state. it said quote, completely remedies the vote dilution that we found. for an idea of how gerrymander the alabama congressional map was, the state populations about 27% black, but because of how the districts are drawn, black voters only had one majority district, and then about 14% of the representation in the house delegation. the supreme court itself set that was unconstitutional, and violated the voting rights act. with the new map that representation could go up to 29%, closer, much closer to the proportion of the democratic vote in the state, which is mostly black. louisiana is in a similar situation, with a new map that adds another black majority district, which likewise could give democrats an additna seat.

that new map passed the state senate yesterday, it is now a louisiana -- house so those are two seats that could flip for republicans and democrats. and then in wisconsin, this is really interesting. so remember, the state supreme court in wisconsin just throughout their wildly partisan gerrymandered state maps. that's the state legislature and state senate. there is now a lawsuit over their congressional maps, that are also quite aggressively gerrymandered. it cites the fact that in 2022, republicans running for the house congressional house won about 57% of the vote, that translated into control of 75% of the states house seats. joining me now is mark -- a lawyer specializing in election litigation, founder of the website democracy docket, that tracks that litigation. he is also representing the wisconsin voters currently challenging their congressional map. all right mark, let's start with wisconsin. this is very interesting. so the supreme court has ruled that partisan gerrymandering, as opposed to racial gerrymandering, is not

something that the court can do anything about, it's fine. your lawsuit is not to the federal supreme court, but rather to the state supreme court, but about the congressional maps. how does that work? >> yeah so look, we have a federal system in which you could bring claims in federal court, if they are federal claims, in state court you could bring state constitutional claims, you could also sometimes bring federal claims. so it is not that unusual. the law firm, in addition to the alabama case in the louisiana case as we mentioned in federal court, we have made successfully challenged the fact that the new york map congressional map needs to be reopening, and successful -- . so in wisconsin, what happened is that the governor, the democratic governor in the republican legislature, after 2020 was unable to pass -- . they were unable to agree on a new congressional map. and so, they came to the courts to do so, and the state supreme court, which at that point was one of the most conservative majorities in the country, said

bizarrely that you would use the least change approach. in other words, they would start with the map that had previously been in place. well, that map had been in extreme republican -- . so you know, what happened recently is that the state supreme court and the state legislative case that you mentioned, said that this change approach is wrong. it violates the states constitution, it is not appropriate in wisconsin, so my long -- then promptly brought this case under that directly in the state supreme courts, actually reopening the prior case. >> yeah, so there's a bunch of litigation happening on these state maps. new york, we've seen alabama and louisiana have drawn new maps. new york is probably gonna have to draw a new map. they've challenge the maps in wisconsin, there is also a lot of litigation ongoing around access to the ballot and voter i.d.. this is a tweet from ronna mcdaniel, saying that the gop and the new hampshire gop filed a motion to defend new

hampshire's voter i.d. law from bad faith dnc attacks. this is the 75th election integrity lawsuit the rnc has engaged in this cycle alone. we will keep fighting for fair and transparent elections. how much are you leaning, how much is this sort of fight happening in the states around questions of a voter i.d. and ballot access? >> oh, tremendously. the rules of voting matter, you know, where you put public places determines who gets the vote. how you allow people to obtain and return mail in ballots affects the outcomes of elections. we know that, it's not just i.d., it's a whole range of rules where republicans try to make it harder to vote, and easier to cheat. and so, democracy -- which you mentioned, i found it in 2020, it has put out its annual report. and what it found is that there were 146 court orders last year, and across 34 states. and the good news is that the conservatives and the republicans lost twice as many

as we won. so the good news is the good guys, not just me, but generally the good guys in the pro voting guys won two times as many as the other side did. so they filed a lot of lawsuits, but they lose a lot. >> it was striking to me. you know, nikki haley, i was thinking of you actually when this happened, in that the other night, believe it was in the debate with desantis, and she said joe biden won, which was good. it's true, the earth's round. >> it's a start. >> yeah, the earth's round -- but before she did, that she did a whole preamble about the problems of the election, we need an election integrity, and all of this. and so one thing i've said is that even republicans who reject the big lie, which is sort of a preposterous lie and indefensible, we'll also see this sense that there's something amiss, there's something wrong, there's something that has to be tightened up. and i wonder what effect you think that rhetoric has, even for people who aren't doing it

in the context of rejecting the big lie. >> no, i think it's incredibly corrosive, i think it's putting the democracy under an incredible amount of pressure. and i think we are to see that in 2024. because you know our system of elections have been hit bad enough now by one political party. not just donald trump, by the entire political party now, for four plus years. and our system is set up where there is a page entry of democracy, that people buy into. and whether they win or they, lose whether they are happy or unhappy with the votes. and the republicans have weaponized that pageantry of democracy, and turned it into a cynical game to try to discredit the outcome of elections. i'll tell you one quick statistic. so as you pointed out, after 2020, donald trump and his allies litigated a lot of cases. i was fortunate enough to represent president biden and the dnc. we won 64 and 65 cases. and one of those cases was, as you recall, and i think you talk about it at the time, the state of texas tried to throw out the election results of

four entire states, in late december. >> counties. >> 2020. and 126 members of the house signed on to that brief. 126. now, 126 members of the house signed on to a brief to throw out the results in four states. then you had january 6th. that night, 139 republican house members voted to throw out one or more results. now fast forward to just yesterday, and the brief filed by the hundred and 40 members of the republican members of congress, to try to keep donald trump on the ballot, notwithstanding the 14th amendment. chris, the problem is getting worse, it is not getting better. and you know you do a tremendous job of pointing that out, but we can't let ourselves become desensitized to just how bad republicans are on voting. >> mark -- thank you very much, appreciate it. >> thank you. >> still to come, donald trump

the politician has always claimed to be against the elites. so why is wall street lining up behind the so-called man of the people? that's next. that's next. i work hard, and i want my money to work hard too. so, i use my freedom unlimited card. earning on my favorite soup. aaaaaah. got it. earn big with chase freedom unlimited. how do you cashback? chase. make more of what's yours.

[♪♪] did you know, many moisturizers only hydrate your skin? for advanced science that visibly repairs signs of aging... try olay regenerist micro-sculpting cream. it delivers 10 benefits in every jar for younger-looking skin, visibly firming, lifting, and smoothing wrinkles. olay regenerist penetrates the skin's surface, to boost regeneration at the surface cellular level for continuous improvement. to visibly repair signs of aging, try olay regenerist. this has been medifacts for olay. there's been a lot of really

good reporting on the possible agenda of a second trump administration. and largely it's terrifying. it's a vision of retribution based government, a presidential dictatorship, crushing dissent, traders -- mask deportations. but with all those radical plans to essentially subvert

american democracy, there is a central aspect of trumpism that is very old school republicanism. and that is helping out the richest americans in the biggest corporations. now you don't hear it from trump on the campaign trail. i mean, he keeps on the populist authoritarian red meat to crowds of, quote, everyday people. but as jeff stein of the washington post reported this month, behind closed doors, trump is telling people close to them he would like to push through a big second round of tax cuts for the biggest corporations. if you are paying attention, this has been identical trumpism all the way back to 2016. all of trump's america first population had a rally against the establishment donor class, and taking back the country for the little guy. and doing it with really -- overturns. >> the establishment has trillions of dollars added stake at this election. for those who control the levers of power in washington, and for the global special interests, they partner with these people that don't have you're good in mind.

>> so that's what he said to voters. and then a week after he won that election, he went to the 21 club restaurant in midtown manhattan, the former speakeasy frequented by the rich and the powerful, and he told the plutocrats they're something completely different. >> thank you. >> hi mister president-elect. >> thank you. we'll get your taxes down. don't worry. >> [applause] >> make america great again. >> yeah, they loved him. we'll get your taxes down, don't worry. that was one of the rare promises that donald trump absolutely kept. in 2017, he signed a 1.5 trillion dollar tax cut bill, largely for the rich and corporations. it was hands down the largest, the least popular piece of legislation he ever signed, and his most important. a plan they gave lots of breaks to the rich, to corporations, and didn't stimulate the economy. it also, and people forget this, it gave trump's lowest approval rating until the capitol

insurrection. trump is now thinking about doing it again, but fundamentally that is whose interest donald from his looking to serve. even as he accuses -- of being captured by -- >> him in the -- [inaudible] -- america first. >> he likes the globe. what makes that rhetoric especially riches that at this very moment, the globalists, the global financial elites are gathered together at the stately alpine ski resort town of abdallah switzerland for the world economic forum convention. so is the donor class fearful of one another trump term portends for them? nope, not according to multiple u.s. executives in davos, who spoke to cnbc thisweek. one prominent u.s. executive, who said not to be named, said a um victory would not be the end of the world. -- told that trump is quote, all bark and no bite. the bank chief then added quote,

he is going to win the presidency, many of his fallacies were right. a point that jamie dimon, the ceo of jp morgan, had no trouble making on the record. >> he's kind of right about nato. he's kind of right about immigration. he drew the economy quite well. tax reform worked, he was right about china. >> as a ceo of a multinational global business, what do you think would be better for business? >> i have to be prepared for both. i will be prepared for both. we will deal with both. my company will survive and thrive in both. >> i loved jamie dimon saying tax reform worked. yes, oh yeah jpmorgan gotten enormous tax cut like every other corporation, it worked. the global financial elites of dabo's, they will be just fine. because the trump tax cuts were great for them, as everyday americans consider how a reinvigorated -- revenge seeking president trump will stick it to the left, and to immigrants, to gay and trans folks, and two women and

seeking bodily autonomy. it's absolutely clear to me that while a second trump term threatens american democracy, and threatens a lot of americans, it sure does not threaten america's davos set. rica's davos set as i got older, it was just a natural part of aging, i felt that my memory was beginning to decline and that's when i started looking for something that would help. when i first started taking prevagen, i noticed my memory was so much better. just stuff seemed to come together and fit like a jigsaw puzzle in my mind. prevagen. at stores everywhere without a prescription. you always got your mind on the green. not you. you! your business bank account with quickbooks money now earns 5% apy. (♪♪) that's how you business differently. intuit quickbooks.

when moderate to severe ulcerative colitis takes you off course. put it in check with rinvoq, a once-daily pill. when i wanted to see results fast, rinvoq delivered rapid symptom relief and helped leave bathroom urgency behind. check. when uc tried to slow me down... i got lasting, steroid-free remission with rinvoq. check. and when uc caused damage rinvoq came through by visibly repairing my colon lining. check. rapid symptom relief... lasting steroid-free remission... ...and the chance to visibly repair the colon lining. check, check, and check. rinvoq can lower your ability to fight infections, including tb. serious infections and blood clots, some fatal; cancers, including lymphoma and skin cancer; death, heart attack, stroke, and tears in the stomach or intestines occurred. people 50 and older with at least 1 heart disease risk factor have higher risks. don't take if allergic to rinvoq as serious reactions can occur. tell your doctor if you are or may become pregnant. put uc in check and keep it there with rinvoq.

ask your gastroenterologist about rinvoq and learn how abbvie can help you save. there are some things that work better together. like your workplace benefits and retirement savings. voya provides tools that help you make the right investment and benefit choices. so you can reach today's financial goals. and look forward to a more confident future. voya, well planned, well invested, well protected. ♪♪ vicks vapostick provides soothing, non-medicated vicks vapors. easy to apply for the whole family. vicks vapostick. and try vicks vaposhower for steamy vicks vapors. i think i changed my mind about these glasses. yeah, it happens. that's why visionworks gives you 100 days to change your mind. it's simple.

anything else i can help you with? like what? visionworks. see the difference. not just any whiteboard... ...katie porter's whiteboard is one way she's: [news anchor] ...often seen grilling top executives of banks, big pharma, even top administration officials. katie porter. never taken corporate pac money - never will. leading the fight to ban congressional stock trading. and the only democrat who opposed wasteful “earmarks” that fund politicians' pet projects. katie porter. focused on your challenges - from lowering housing costs to fighting climate change.

shake up the senate - with democrat katie porter. i'm katie porter and i approve this message. there was supposed to be a debate night. did you know that? but not anymore. abc and cnn both canceled the republican primary debates they had scheduled ahead of next tuesday's primary in new hampshire, after donald trump and nikki haley declined to participate. now trump also skipped the previous debates, and nevertheless one aisle with 51% of the vote. nikki haley has absolutely zero reason to do single combat with ron desantis, who is way more under in new hampshire. the granite state looks to be make-or-break for haley's campaign. she is holding independents -- and the latest tracking polls are not looking amazing. so, no more debates, no more drama for once, a lack of drama might work to trump's advantage. jennifer -- is the former chair of the new hampshire republican party, who left the republican party in

2020. brandon -- served as counsel for speaker paul ryan and press secretary speaker john boehner. and they both join me now. jennifer, as someone who knows new hampshire politics, what is your read on how things are looking there, as we are just a few days away from the primary? >> well, i would say that i don't see things going well for nikki haley. i think that dropping out of the debates was a big mistake, frankly. she seems to have forgotten that debates aren't supposed to be about the candidates, they are about the voters. and in new hampshire, there is a strong sense of wanting maximum exposure to the candidates, getting maximum information from them. and she needed something big and bold and different, in order to make up that gap between her and donald trump, and she is just not doing that. instead, what we are seeing are the numbers that came out yesterday post-iowa, that actually up from higher. he is in 50% at least two of them. and the gap between them is

growing. >> that is interesting. i mean, one of the things, brendan, one of the things that is the question here is about independents, and not affiliated voters who can vote in the new hampshire primary. all of the polling suggests those folks are much more amenable to haley than trump. but republicans are much more amenable to trump, and this of course is not anything new. and new hampshire has a wrinkle, because there might be a lot of independent voters, but it is still, as desantis set, an uphill climb to win a republican primary, if you are not winning majority republican voters. >> yeah, that's exactly right. you have to be a conservative to win the primary. and i think nikki haley is certainly a conservative. the problem is that she has developed a bit of a reputation as being a never trumper at this point. and that is really working against her, her and favorables are way higher than you would like to see. it's the catch 22, that any of these republicans have. you need to go after your opponent, you need to go after -- if you go to take him down, and failed to do that. but if you do, like chris

christie did, you become wildly unpopular with a lot of republicans. so there is no real good safe place to go. now, ignoring him, i don't think that puts it on the right path. i think you will look back and say that was a big failure on all of their hearts. but just to be clear, there is no easy way to beat donald trump. he was probably always going to be the nominee, but they clearly didn't bring any game changing strategies that put that in question. >> yeah i mean, to your point, i think you are right. to the degree that there is some sort of -- to being a never trumper has sort of wafted over nikki haley, it's because she's running against donald trump, and doing decently well, hence competing with him, and it's a logical matter, it must be the case. like this is the sort of inescapable line, jennifer, that everyone has found. and it's the reason that you left the republican party, fundamentally. i think there is some question of like oh, does it -- new hampshire voters. this is the same answer poll, just to show it. among registered republicans, trump is up by 40 points, 65,

25. desantis -- among undeclared, it's haley 52, trump 37, desantis for. but again, you don't think there is going to be enough of those latter category in order to tip the balance? >> no, absolutely not. you know it's interesting to me to hear the idea that nikki haley is being looked at as a never trumper, and that's what's keeping her down. nikki haley served in his administration, nikki haley has already committed her vote to donald trump, should he become the nominee. but, i think the issue here is less about nikki haley, and more about donald trump. donald trump's support in the republican party has been on wavering for eight years now. two -- point, there was never a chance that anyone other than donald trump was going to be the nominee. and nikki haley simply hasn't shown, i guess the courage that is necessary to take on trump

in a way that would actually impact his support within the voter base. and in the primary, no matter what those undeclared voters do, in the end as you just showed in the numbers, the republicans overwhelmingly want trump. >> brendan, to stay with us for a second. there was a moment for people on the ground, and again we don't know what will happen on tuesday, it is possible it will surprise us. i was in new hampshire in 2008 when everyone had written the obituary for hillary clinton's campaign, and it didn't work out that, way she won that primary and, that led to a very very long extended primary fight between barack obama and herself. who knows. that stead there was a reason people didn't think they could dislodge him back after the 2022 midterms there is a reason all those people were in the race. and his polling reflects that and i guess do you think how inevitable were things turning or where they're missed

opportunities early on. so i think there is a couple of missed opportunities. i think was a huge failure not to somehow draw him into any of the previous debates. he had no reason to debate, i think they ignored him at the debates, they didn't try to use his ego against him in any way. but i think probably more than anything, there was really no appetite at any point for that. so, this was probably an uphill climb from the very beginning. >> we will see what happens on tuesday. jennifer -- and -- thank you very much, appreciate it. that is all in on this thursday night. alex -- starts tonight. good evening alex. >> we are going to see what happens on tuesday. >> that's the thing about the future it is in the future, and then it comes, and then it's the past. >> and then they get to revise it and say what happened. >> that's right, exactly. and >> then it becomes litigated. thank you my friend, as always. and thanks to you at home for joining me this hour an are you ready for a little déjà vu? >> for president