thank you for your time tonight. >> union labor president. >> that's right. that is all in on this thursday night. alice wagner tonight starts right now. good evening, alex. >> we do not talk about heat pumps, but this is the stuff. >> i talked about heat pumps. >> you do. >> minor correction. i talk a lot about heat pumps. >> i am highlighting it, because you deserve the credit for doing it, because this is actually a things change. >> yes, heat pumps. >> i mean these-- house by house, state-by-state across the country, that is how things change. thank you. >> all right. right. independence. within the trump campaign the person whose name being floated to be trump's attorney general of the united states to run the

justice department is this guy. >> we will go out and find the conspirators not just ipgovernmentpi but in the media. yes, we're going to come after people in the media who lied about american citizens, who helped joe biden rig presidential elections. we're going to come after you. yeah, we're putting you all on notice. >> that is cash patel, a man apparently on the short list if donald trump retakes office. trump has not been shy about his desire to weaponize the doj and go after his enemies, and we should probably take him at his word about that. i do think he is serious, but don't just h take it from me. last month trump announced that all of the january 6th committee members should go to jail, and today "the l.a. j times" interviewed some of those members to ask how seriously they were taking those threats. congresswoman zoe lofgren said

one thing i learned on the committee is to pay attention and listen to what trump says because hemp means it. if he intends to eliminate our constitutional system and start arresting his political enemies, i guess i would be on that list. the paper also interviewed congressman adam schiff, who trump has made one of his top political enemies.s. schiff told "the times" that he is having realtime conversations with his staff about how to make sure he stays safe if trump follows through on his threats. so the danger here is apparently very real, and the biden administration is doing something about it.ab right before trump's potential future attorney generalti cash patel told steve bannon he would use the government to go after trump's t enemies, patel laid o what he thinks would have to happen in theks government to empower him.me he'd have to clean house. >> do you believe you can deliver the goods on this in a pretty short order of the first

couple of months so we can get rolling on prosecutions? >> yes, we've got the bench work, bannon. and you know those guys.se i'm not going to say their names right now t so the radical left can terrorize them. the one thing we learn the first time around we've got to put in americango patriots from top to bottom. >> today the biden administration issued a new rule, an attempt to trump-proof the white house. the rule strengthens job protections for federal workers so trump can't just clean house and replace everyone in the executive branch with maga hat wearing trump supporters. yes, trump could still try to go after his enemies and still try to install someone like kash patel as the attorney general te do so, but that attorney general would have a harder time going full banana republic if the people carrying out the work under him were career government workers and not political stooges. so that's thed good news. that's a small silver line here.

there are stillli adults in the room in the biden white house, and they're trump proofing it in case trump gets back in office. the badet news is there's a muc more immediate threat coming from trump rightia now, and it highly unclear what anyone can do about it. you remember the guy who ran his suv into the fbi field office in atlanta on monday? authorities haven't released an official motive yet, but in the past 24 hours we may have gotten a clue. a few years back an account believed today be suspect's posted "i love you, donald trump." if you feel like you're having deja vu that entirely reasonable, but this guy is actually different from the guy who attacked an fbi field office ined cincinnati two years ago, t that guy also apparently loved donald trump and was enraged the fbi had searched mar-a-lago. and both of these attacks came after months of trump demonizing the fbi and telling his followers things like thefb fbi and the justice department have become vicious monsters controlled by radical left

scandals. trump is not just going after federal law enforcement, though. he is going after the prosecutors and the judges who are trying to hold him accountable. nbc news can now report police have filed felony charges against a man who's allegedly been sending threatening voice mails to new york attorney general letitia james and judge arcter engoron. a.d. james is leading the civil prosecution against trump for financial fraud, and judge engoron oversaw that case. the man allegedly sent the messages like "mark my words i will kill you if you even dare to permanently steal trump's assets or his property." that kind of threat to a prosecutor and a judge overseeing a case involving a former president of the united o states, that should be front page news, but it is not anymore because the idea that trump's followers would threaten the people he labels as enemies has become totally normalized.

this week the judge in trump's new york hush money case, judge juan merchan extended a gag order because trump was singling out and lying about merchan's daughter. somehow trump still had the gall to post this a few hours ago today. trump called special counsel jack smith alderanged and said that he should bean sanked or censured for the way he is attacking judge aileen cannon. what trump is referencing here is the fact jack smith disagreed with cannon in a legal filing. that is it.th that is the sum total of what donald trump considers an attack when the attacker is someone other than donald trump. whathe makes that post so particularly unhinged is that thert attacker here is very clearly donald trump. trump demonizes people, and then his followers threaten or attack them, and trump doesn't disavow any ofdo it. the pattern is incredibly clear,

anddi that pattern has poisoned our national politics. trump has normalized the idea that an appropriate response to political disagreement is physical violence. earlier this year reuters did the math and found that serious threats against federal judges, threats that are soai serious ty trigger an investigation byri t u.s. marshals, those threats have doubled since 2021 merchandise and s serious threa against federal prosecutors more than doubled. the directorre of the u.s. marshals said that in the past suggests mostly face threats from people who were upset about a judge's decision in their own cases. now, he said, many more are coming from people enraged because of politics. joining me now is andrew wiseman, former fbi general counsel and co-host of the essential podcast, prosecuting donalddc trump. andrew, thanks for being here. you know, to an ordinary citizen this is disturbing, it should be disturbing, but to someone who's been inside the trenches of the

justice department, the fbi who knows judges, i can't imagine how this lands with you. i just first -- you know, as you see these judges become the object of trump's ire and really targets fore violence, what do you make of it, and how chilling is this to the judicial system on a t whole? >> so to put it in context when i started as aen prosecutor i d organize crime work p here in n yorkze city. something you did not have to worry about when you did organized crime work, because all my friends would say are we ever worried? no. the rule was in organized crime you do not go after anyone in law enforcement. for simple reasons. it wasn't because people signed up to commit crimes, it was what's the point of that? you'reme only going to attract more attention, and we were

fungible. there'd be another person we'd come in and prosecute and have all this heat attracted today you, so you just didn't think about yoit. i think you're opening talking about how this is normalized and that after it happens, if you want a really good sign of the the intent ofn donald trump, is the same wayru you look at dona trump and you say you want to know what his intent was then? think about what he did di afterwards. he wasn't saying this was terrible. if you see what happened and you see the fbi being attacked, you see judges being attacked, and you see people taking the call and response, if that was not the response you intended, you would bere saying absolutely dot do this. whatso i meant was just first amendment, i disagree with what jack smith is d saying, i disage with the judge's ruling. a lot of us have very strong views of the supreme court and its rulings. that is fine.

what is not is obviously resorting to violence and it's been completely normalized. i do think it's sort of -- the fbi has its hands full dealing withll this. one thing i would note is the attacks onwo judges, it's ud bipartisan attack. i mean there are attacks against republican and democratic judges and not just words but in deeds, and they're being prosecuted. but that's the kind of thing that has to be much more front page news, and it has to be sort of like the january 6th investigation. it needs to be something that people take seriously and call out politicians who don't say you've got to stop this. >> and i do want to talk about attacks from the left, but in this particular case we're talking about a candidate for president directly fomenting violence against anyone in the judicial branch. in hishe expanded gag order, again, against a former president ofn, the united state who wouldpr like to be presiden

against juan merchan writes incredibly about history and the threats these judges are facing. this pattern of attack family members and presiding jurists assigned to his cases, trump's cases serves no legitimate purpose. it merely injects fear those call today participate in proceedings not only them but their family members as well are fair game for vitriol. judge merchan expanded the gag orders, but why don't they say i'm off-limits too in? >> ioo agree with you, but if you're asking me where do i thinkf it emanates from, i thi it does emanate from this feeling you know what, i'm going to do my duty, i can deal with an attack personally, and i don'tpe want to inject myself i

the process. if need to be objective and fa and not taking sides. and the more i can do that, the better especially when the risk is just me. but i think that judges are seeing including in this clip youn just read it is to allow to go on with anyone in the process sends a message to anyone in the process that this is allowed. so even though you say don't do this to witnesses, don't its this to jurors. >> right, if you're withstanding it, you'reht suggesting that's newre norm. the other piece of it that would have thprofound effects is the jury system and witnesses. talk moo me a little bit about -- already that's a process that is complicated in this day and age, and i wonder what your assessment of is, okay, you're going to be sitting on g the trump trial or a witne with valuable information about trump's criminal acts, are you really going to come forward?

>> picking a jury in a high profile case, which i've done quite like this has distortion affects on both sides. you have people who are i do not want to be in the limelight, i do not want to suffer, i'm scare. all ofuf that comes into play s you don't have that segment of the populace serving. in a s high profile matter with strong opinions you have some people saying i don't want to be on it, but you have other people where the biggest fear on both sides is that someone's going to lie, to sneak on and say they can be fair when they actually have -- and those two phenomenon particularly the latter is a real concern in a high profile matter. >> and the other piece of it, and you mentioned it a bit when we started talking is when you were working in the fbi is

there's no standard guiding procedure for what to do with, oh,o are you the target of a former president going onrg tri. there's no expectation you're going to become a target, so i would assume there's no protocol, there's no guardrails in place for, you know, witnesses, for jurors, or for prosecutors. i mean, is the justice department even sort of manned in a way to offer protection or some sort of insurance to these people? it doesn't sound like it is at all. >> i'd say because it's such a new phenomenon, we understood certainly in the mueller team we sort of saw donald trump is going to attack prosecutors, he was going to attack the media. but it was as short as these cases were brought, you knew that the judges and the judicial system was j going to have its turn because donald trump is to vilify -- he plays the umpire. he sits there and says, you know

what, if i win it's fair, and if it' lose it's not fair. he'sno attacking all the judges and judge cannon because he thinks she's favorable to him. i think this is such a new phenomenon, i'm not sure the justice department has like a team that's devoted to, unfortunately -- >> witness protection. >> witness protection.ss not just the witness protection program but the idea you're really going to have a team that looks at attacks on witnesses, attacks on jurors, attacks on prosecutors, and that is their main focus. it's not sort of parcelled out, you actually have a group that's doing this. and unfortunately, it really is time. >> i do want to talk just quickly about the larger issue of justice because as you point out there are attacks on the left from people who believe for example the supreme court has done something appalling,

abomable and that betrays an uninvestment in thebe court or cynicism about the court as acting fromhe purely political motives. on the other hand, you have trump saying the court and justice system is acting politically, it's a witch-hunt. the fact you have actors on both sides now casting real aspirationings on the justice system seems like a big problem for american society. >> it is. and the problem is that you don't have enough people speaking out who -- in defense. i kept on remembering when -- when mr. pelosi was attacked. i thought, oh, well this is so abominable that of course this is going to be widely condemned. so i'm naive.ai and it's the same phenomenon where you sit there and say who could possibly be for this?

and so it's such a sign where we are as a country people understand you could have violentta disagreements in term of how you talk about something, and you can really -- really care about an issue to your core, but that'sto where it end. i mean, you know, you voice those concerns, the idea it's manifesting itself in violence without then society saying that's unacceptable, and that is -- that is where there's such -- you know, i really do think trump has just completely normalized what we're seeing in washington, what we're seeing i'de' say mostly on the right b at times sort of on the far left and far right, which is making itch normal and acceptable to engage in this kind of behavior. >> and that's what he's doing in his post-presidency. the question is if he returns to office, whattu then? andrew weissmann, please do not leave yet., i have a lot to ask you about including this burning question.

can donald trump really declassify documents with his mind? d could that defense actually hold up in court? today it sort of seem like we got an answer. also tonight i'll talk to voting rights activist and founder of fair fight stacey abrams on whab democrats need to do to get people to the polls. that is coming up right after the break. ople to the polls. that is coming up right after the break.

“look at all those snacks!” “i did just pay 60% less for my ticket with the gametime app.” “it's the best place to get last-minute deals on tickets.” “i guess i'm just a better fan than you.” “(crowd cheering) i've got to get the gametime app.”

“download the gametime app and use promo code viva to get $20 off your first purchase.”

if you're the president of the united states, you can declassify just by saying it's declassified, even by thinking about it. >> in 202 we all wondered how trump's i declassified it with my mind defense would actually work in a trial. well, today we got a glimpse of the answer, just a glimpse. today the judge overseeing his classified documents trial, judge aileen cannon, rejected trump's request to dismiss the charges against him. now, trump's lawyers had argued that the presidential records act gave trump the power to retain classified documents after leaving the white house,

thereby protecting him from prosecution. he declassified them just by thinking of it. but in a three page ruling judge cannon said it does not qualify to dismiss the charges. while that may seem judge cannon is ruling in favor of special counsel jack smith who has argued repeatedly the presidential records act has nothing to do criminal prosecution here, judge cannon very much left the door open today for the former president to use the presidential records act as part of his defense during the trial. that means jurors or the judge herself could acquit trump based on trump's interpretation of that law. back with me is andrew weissmann. andrew, how are you interpreting aileen cannon's move here? why not decide whether the presidential records act is a legitimate one of defense? >> which is exactly what jack smith wanted. he said just make a decision. we say it doesn't apply at had, we want a pretrial ruling.

in fact, the rules say they're entitled to a pretrial ruling. just decide one way or the other for good. >> not halfway. >> not halfway, which is deciding pretrial does it apply. jack smith is saying who cares about that, i care about what you're going to say at trial. why? the big sort of thing people need to understand to be in the weeds for a moment, once the jury is sworn, double jeopardy attaches, meaning if the jury acquits or if the judge acquits, it's over. >> it's finito. >> especially if the judge has the power once the jury is sworn to say, you know what, i'm entering a judgment of acquittal. and it can be on a cockamamie idea like the presidential records act. so jack smith is saying that i need a decision that it doesn't apply not just pretrial, because guess what, nobody is deciding kbk about guilt or innocence pretrial. that's going to happen at the trial, so i need you to know what your view is at the trial.

why is she not doing it because as jack smith said, with that ruling if i disagree with it, i have appellate rights. i can go up to the 11th circuit. she is doing whatever she can, in my view, to prevent an appeal. >> there is without getting into all the excerpts from -- it's a short filing but she uses some very strong language. she calls jack smith's position unjust, and she basically like dirty harry's it and is like go ahead, make my day if you want to go to the 11th circuit and appeal this. what do you make of that posture in the context of all this? >> well, you have to remember she has been reversed twice by the 11th circuit in scathing language. she really hasn't acquitted herself well. whether you think that it's from inexperience, whether you think it's because she's partisan or both, my opinion is it's both,

that she's both inexperienced and she is consistently ruling in unlawful ways for only one side. and when i say unlawful, that isn't just my opinion, that is the 11th circuit. so, you know, i think that she's not helping herself in this short opinion by using language that is not really becoming of an article 3 judge and i also think it can be attacked as being inaccurate. and that inaccurate is a charitable way to describe it. >> does that hold water with the 11th circuit? do you think if jack smith can get into the 11th circuit on appeal or without getting legalities you think he's going to find a sympathetic panel? >> a random group of three is chosen, so you don't really know who that is beforehand.

that i can't answer, but you always sort of say to yourself if i'm dealing with judges who are are rational and fair-minded and you sort of have to take that as a basis, it's very hard to look at what she has done and say that's the correct legal answer. the pra is a civil statute. >> came about after watergate, was not intended for his use. >> absolutely. in fact, it was intended for the opposite. here's the really key thing. it's a civil statute. this is a criminal case. civil statutes don't apply. he's charged with a criminal. yes, exactly. >> andrew, we were talking about confidence in the judiciary and i'm all for believing but judge cannon, she tests the bounds every day. still to come this evening, we will talk to obama's former white house communications director, dan fifer, about what

dan is saying about bibiand to bibi. and we're going to get voting rights reaction from stacey abrams. that's next. stacey abrams that's next. energy that gets you to the next level. cirkul is what you hope for when life tosses lemons your way. cirkul, available at walmart and drinkcirkul.com.

you've got xfinity wifi at home. take it on the go with xfinity mobile. customers now get exclusive access to wifi speed up to a gig in millions of locations. plus, buy one unlimited line and get one free. that's like getting two unlimited lines for twenty dollars a month each for a year. so, ditch the other guys and switch today. buy one line of unlimited, get one free for a year with xfinity mobile! plus, save even more and get an eligible 5g phone on us! visit xfinitymobile.com today. here's the thing, all i need you to do is remind people about how important this election is coming up in november, and if

you can ask people to go to vote.gov to register to vote or to check their registration status that would mean a lot. >> oh, that's easy. you know i got you. >> that was vice president kamala harris and queen latifah last month at the naacp image awards urging an audibly enthusiastic black audience to vote and register. it has benefitted from nonpartisan voter registration efforts in years past, but "the washington post" reports this week that there is a confidential strategy mem row circulating among top democratic donors warning that if they want democrats to win in november, they need to rethink their approach to voter registration. the memo reportedly cites polling data showing that the share of unregistered citizens who would likely register as democrats has decline. and the share of unregistered citizens who would likely register as republicans, has

risen to the point where the two groups are almost even. it also reportedly cites polling showing trump is popular among unregistered voters. "the post" reports that the memo's author told democratic donors that if they were to blindly register nonvoters and get them on the rolls, they would be distinctly aiding trump's quest for a personal dictatorship. the author reportedly called on donors to focus their spending instead on specific, heavily pro-biden populations like black americans. joining me now is the perfect person to discuss this, voting rights activist, the great stacey abrams. she's also the author of -- can you believe this -- 15 books is including the political thriller "rogue justice." it's great to see you. and wow, your prolific authorship, we're going to get to in a moment.

but first i wonder what you make of this memo. i feel there's a lot of conflict democrats may feel when learning about it. >> i think it takes -- it raises a very important point about the efficacy of voter registration, but i think it misses the larger picture, which is that we should have nonpartisan registration because that's how we protect democracy. getting people to own their right to their citizenship, to their ability to cast a ballot and participate in elections should be a nonpartisan effort by everyone because we should want more americans involved. the partisanship piece comes in where we want them to actually get the things they need, and my party, i believe, does a better job of delivering the outcomes that communities need. however, i think the misunderstanding that and the tension we're hearing is that we see this as an either/or. but what i've done, the work we did in georgia was actually never simply about voter registration. while that got the greatest

share of the attention, we actually recognize that voter registration is like, you know, teaching someone how to drive or giving them the key tuesday a car, but then you have to teach them how to drive, and you've got to tell them where they're going. those component pieces, registration is giving them the keys and then you have to do voter education making sure they understand who's in charge, what's happening. and then you actually engage them saying here's where we want to go now, now that you have these pieces. and so while i do appreciate the tension embedded in this argument nonpartisan or partisan, what we really should be focusing on is how do we engage nonvoters who to this day have believed their voices did not matter enough to put their names on the roles. that means we've got to stop these reductive arguments and instead focus on the broader outcomes. i will say the success we had in georgia actually proves this works. because what we were able to do over the course of starting in

2014 with registration, continuing in 2018 and beyond with our engagement work, we actually built an electorate that shows what can happen. if you look at the post-2016 election cycle in georgia you had about 525,000 african americans, black voters who were considered super voters. they voted in almost every election. well, post the work we've been able to do that number is closer to 870,000 people, a 65% increase. and that did not happen simply because more people got on the rolls. it happened because they got on the rolls, we kept them engaged. we made certain they understood who was responsible and what their power was. and what i would urge the democratic party to do is to lean-in once again on the extraordinary success of the biden-harass administration, what we have done. but we cannot get distracted by whether or not we should engage more people in our democracy. >> yeah. i do wonder what you found, you know, in that first step where you're giving people the keys to the car, their level of interest in actually driving it for lack

of a better -- you know, building on your metaphor. in 2016 pew did some research as to unregistered voters and sort of what motivated them to be unregistered or why they were unregistered, and 44% said they didn't want to vote, 27% said they hadn't gotten around it vote. 25% said no candidate or issue inspired me, and 6% said i don't know how. now, i don't know would seem like the easiest ones to get because it's a matter of, this is how you turn on the ignition. the largest share here i don't want to vote or no candidate or issue inspired me, what is that conversation like? what do democrats or anyone interested in a functioning representative democracy, like what is the beginning of that to get people to be engaged as you found in your experience? >> so we know that i don't want to vote often is an easy shorthand for i'm angry, i'm upset, i'm despairing or people who represent me don't actually hear me. i created two organizations in

the wake of the 2018 election. fair fight, which is really focusing on protecting the infrastructure of democracy, making certain once you get someone registered governors and legislators can't have them thrown off the rolls or have them moved through mass clalgs which is what governor kemp and his cronies are doing in georgia right now, but it's often about making sure they connect the dots. i don't want to vote is actually i don't know who to the vote for or why it matters. it's connecting the dots. we use our census as the point of entry, but we give them pamphlets. we explain this is the issue you're concerned about in your community, here's who's responsible. but if we don't do the hard work of connecting the dots not simply in election years but year-round, we luds the opportunity to build that representative democracy, and that's why i'm so bullish on what has been accomplished by the biden administration. we have stories to tell.

we can explain why you should want to vote, but you have to begin by asking people not just do you want to vote but why don't you want to vote? what disturbs you? what holds you hostage? and what are you angry about? and also what would make you joyous? what would make you excited about being a part of it? one of the ways you get to inspiration is by asking people what inspires them. we keep hoping it's going to be this manifest moment but it's often just starting with how can i help, what do you need, and how can we work to together to get you there? >> you have these three books. you talk about democracy if you're joe biden or talk about economic policy. from a storyteller's perspective what is the narrative this campaign should be focusing on if you're joe biden? >> i think they're doing it.

today was the announcement of a record $27 billion being invested in climate action, specifically in helping low income communities access the clean energy technology that so many others can take for granted. that's going to solve real problems. i'm part of a project in georgia where we were able over christmas to get someone a hot water heater, which sounds small. but if you lived without running water, without hot water in your house for two months and someone on the eve of christmas says i can help you and make sure your house is warm and safe and comfortable and your bills aren't going to go up, they're going to want to know why and tell their friends and neighbors. and that's what joe biden has accomplished. we should be telling that story and also asking others what else do you need. when you answer the question what else do you need, ask them to decide who will actually deliver, who will deliver pontification and false promises and who's actually proven they'll deliver the goods. and that's the conversation we

need to have between now and november. >> stacey abrams, such a pleasure to hear from you, stacey. thanks for your time tonight. >> thank you have having me. coming up president biden said he ratcheted up the pressure in a call with prime minister benjamin netanyahu today. there has been some movement on that front. we'll have more on that coming up right after the break. we'll have more on that coming up right after the break

if you spit blood when you brush, it could be the start of a domino effect. new parodontax active gum repair breath freshener. clinically proven to help reverse the four signs of early gum disease. a new toothpaste from parodontax, the gum experts.

oooh! i can't wait for this family getaway! shingles doesn't care. shingles is a painful, blistering rash that can last for weeks.

ahhh, there's nothing like a day out with friends. that's nice, but shingles doesn't care! 99% of adults 50 years or older already have the virus that causes shingles inside them, and it can reactivate at any time. a perfect day for a family outing! guess what? shingles doesn't care. but shingrix protects. only shingrix is proven over 90% effective. shingrix is a vaccine used to prevent shingles in adults 50 years and older. shingrix does not protect everyone and is not for those with severe allergic reactions to its ingredients or to a previous dose. an increased risk of guillain-barré syndrome was observed after getting shingrix. fainting can also happen. the most common side effects are pain, redness, and swelling at the injection site, muscle pain, tiredness, headache, shivering, fever, and upset stomach. shingles doesn't care. but shingrix protects. ask your doctor or pharmacist about shingrix today. inflection point. that is how one u.s. official

described today's phone call between president biden and israeli prime minister benjamin netanyahu. according to a white house read out of the call biden pushed for, quote, an immediate cease-fire, and for the first time ever suggested that the u.s. may condition its aid to israel unless netanyahu implements a series of specific, concrete, and measurable steps to address the protection of civilians in gaza. the president also labeled israel's recent killing of seven aid workers from world central kitchen as unacceptable. tonight there appears to have been some movement. the white house says netanyahu has agreed to open new paths for humanitarian aid into gaza, quote, at the president's request. joining me now is dan fifer, former white house communications director for president obama and co-host of "pod save america." dan, thank you for being here. what do you make of the read out of this call, and i guess what we'll call one of the results of

it, which is the opening of this aid corridor? >> i think the language inflection point is exactly right. this represents a potential real change in how the president plans to use his leverage against -- his leverage with prime minister netanyahu to get israel to change how it's handling civilian casualties in gaza and aid for the people in gaza. and the proof will be in the pudding. will israel actually follow through on this? and if they don't, will the president be willing to condition aid going forward, condition the use of weapons going forward? i think it's a very important moment and he delivered results. that's a good thing. >> i guess i wonder we get these sort of leaks or reporting biden is infuriated with netanyahu and that's unacceptable and he wants an immediate cease-fire and et cetera. and it is significant, of course, in terms of the broader posture, but then there's reporting on the same day that seven world central kitchen workers are killed the white house approves the transfer of thousands more bombs to israel. granted, that was approved by

congress earlier, but how much does that undercut biden's position, his message, and how should they be handling those two clashing realities? >> i think today -- the shift in rhetoric today and the shift in actually saying if you do not do a better job, then we're going to reassess how we're helping you is the result of i think a very real and challenging political position for the president where he was saying things, expressing oftentimes in background leaks from white house aides his anger and frustration. and then prime minister netanyahu who is sticking his thumb repeatedly in the president of the united states' eye. and that made the president i think look ineffective in the eyes of the public. it was frustrating to people in his own paert who have a good faith disagreement with his policy approach here. my hope is this represents a change in policy, because this is ultimately not a messaging problem. it's not that the president wasn't saying the right things. could he have said better thing, absolutely.

but it was a policy problem. the decision the president made that sticking close to netanyahu would give him the best ability to influence how israel conducted the war was not, i think, proceeding as they had hoped, and that israel was not being -- was not doing what the white house wanted them to do. and so there was a shift. i think if today represents an actual change in u.s. policy, a change in approach, that's a very positive thing subsubstantively and politically for the president. >> i think it was driven by policy and president biden's own instincts what to do on it. what has been the constituency biden has been concerned about up to the point of taking a more aggressive stance on netanyahu? is it more swing voters, nikki haley voters he wants to entreat to his side of the aisle? what is the calculation you've

seen thus far? >> i actually don't think it was a political calculation. because it was bad politics domestically. i think it was an actual legitimate decision the president made because he believed this was the best way to influence. because he's getting hammered from the right, from the left, but he's looking less effective than he would like of folks in the middle, this you see as a domestic political person in a white house dealing with national security issues, this is frustration i felt like the time, is the policy decided by the president influenced by his nonpolitical national security advisers often put -- were based on what they believe was in the best interest of the united states globally of homeland security and all those things but were often really about politics. i really don't believe the president's position here because he was appealing to those voters, picking voters the right over the left, i think it's what he thought was the best and there were political consequences. i think the policy is not

working as he wants so he's working on a change in policy. the change in policy i think would be better in politics but it's a policy decision being made here. >> as biden grapples with this in a substantive and head on fashion i want to remind everybody donald trump is out there as it pertains to the conflict in gaza, get it over with. that's the detail he's offering the american public as he runs for office for a third time. dan fifer, my friend, thank you for talking about this very complicated topic with me. i really appreciate it. >> great to be with you, alex. coming up while he was president, donald trump oversaw the separation of thousands of children from their parents at the border. and tonight he seems to be signaling a willingness to do it again only worse in a second term. that story's next. n a second term that story's next. more cash. you think those two have any idea? that they can sell their life insurance policy for cash? so they're basically sitting on a goldmine? i don't think they have a clue. that's crazy!

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

not all caitlin clarks are the same. caitlin clark. city planner. just like not all internet providers are the same. don't settle. you want fast. get fast. you want reliable. get reliable. you want powerful. get powerful.

get real deal speed, reliability and power with xfinity. she shoots from here? that's kinda my thing.

in 2018 the country was rocked by this audiotape. i have to warn you some viewers, some of you may still find it very disturbing. >> that was the sound of one of trump's hallmark immigration policies, the sound of children

being ripped away from their families at the u.s.-mexico border. during the trump administration more than 5,000 families were separated that we know of. the trump administration took zero steps to ensure those families could be reunited, and about 1,000 children remain separated from their families. the cruelty did not end there. during the trump administration immigrants were detained in appalling conditions. children were kept in cages. court filings described migrant children being given rotten sandwiches and drinking water that smelled like chlorine. outbreaks of disease went untreated. at one point lawyers for the administration argued in open court that they shouldn't have to provide toothbrushes and soap to migrants in their custody. treating human beings, treating children like animals, that should be the great shame of the trump administration. but instead trump has made it

part of his platform for re-election. >> the democrats said please don't call them animals, they're humans. i'll use the word animal because that's what they are. >> that was donald trump at a campaign rally in michigan this week. trump has been teasing an even more radical vision for immigration in his second term, one that includes mass detention camps and deportation. while trump has stopped short of saying whether he would resurrect his family separation policy, there are signs he plans to do just that. in recent interviews trump has tried to rebrand his federal kidnapping program as a success. >> a lot of people didn't come. it stopped people from coming by the hundreds of thousands because when they hear family separation, they say, well, we better not go. they didn't go. >> now, tonight nbc news reports that trump is attending a gala sponsored by an anti-immigration advocacy group featuring several of the key architects of his

family separation policies. so as trump looks to make immigration the central issue of this next election, it's important to remember what america's immigration system really looked like under donald trump and how much is still left to repair, things like the unsafe open air camps near the southern border where migrants including children are left in the hot desert for days. last night a federal judge who consistently ruled against the trump administration's treatment of migrants ordered border patrol to try to solve that problem by providing safe and sanitary housing for those migrants. one of the things donald trump might try to do in a second term is shutdown that judge's ability to help those migrants. he tried it in his first term, and he's bound to try again. that is our show for tonight. "way too early" with jonathan lemire is coming up next. right now there is no higher priority in gaza than protecting