including michelle and randy weller. >> we will always remember our wedding day because of this day. >> reporter: despite concerns about the cloudy forecast, the views did not disappoint. >> you can see the bottom corner coming out. there you go, right there on the right. >> reporter: pure magic inviting all of us to pause for a few minutes today and simply look up. >> all of us together. it is experiencing this one thing, togetherness. something we need more of. the solar eclipse has taken us off the air tonight, and on that unified note, i wish you a very good night. from all of our colleagues across the networks of nbc news, thanks for staying up late with me. i will see you again tomorrow. i will see you again tomorrow. as you probably know by now, donald trump has been claiming something so extreme, so far fetched, and so absurd

you think it would have been laughed out of the court. that is, of course, trump's arguments that presidents are immune from criminal prosecution for practically anything that they do while in office and i literally mean anything. in fact, according to trump's lawyers, that community is so broad it allows the president to assassinate a political rival and face virtually zero consequences. that is the argument they have been making. but as ridiculous as that may be, the question of presidential immunity is now before the supreme court, which delayed trump's a federal trial in d.c. and is set to hear his appeal later this month. their decision and the timing of that decision could determine whether trump is ever held accountable for his actions on and around january 6th. now, in a scathing, and i mean scathing, i have been reading it, review of the former president, special counsel jack smith is handing back hard. in a filing with the supreme court that came down literally minutes ago, i'm a fast reader.

prosecutors stated that, quote, the president's constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed does not entail a general right to violate them. smith spreads trump's argument that criminal statute somehow don't apply to presidents saying, quote, that brad also suggested which would free the president from virtually all criminal law, even crimes such as bribery, murder, treason, and sedition is unfounded. and there's a lot more and we are going to get into it right now. running now is msnbc legal correspondent misa ruben and sherilyn ifill, former president of the naacp legal defense fund. two and female legal eagles. i will start with you. i know this is literally just came down minutes ago but you are both really and lawyers, i'm so grateful to you both for being here. give me your immediate reaction to this new filing from the special counsel. [ applause ] >> jen, the thing that struck me immediately as some of the

concessions that are here. because some of these arguments, we have seen before it. this is the third time in the specials counsel office is briefing this issue of presidential immunity before federal courts in this federal interference question. but for the first time, they are encountering a supreme court that could side with donald trump on more than one issue here, more than one subpart of what is being decided. you see starting at page eight, a new argument that even if the court holds, and i'm reading from the brief here, that a former president is entitled to some immunity from criminal prosecution for official acts, that principle does not preclude trial on this indictment. and then they make a number of sub arguments. they are saying the specific thing that he has been charged with here, efforts to subvert an election and a violation in the term of office clause of article two of the constitutional process for electing president has recently so serious that even if the court decides in some form of immunity is necessary and justifiable, or former president, it is not on these

facts with these allegations of these crimes. but the second thing that they say is look, if he is saying that he is entitled to immunity for official action you somewhat agree with him, know that most of what we are alleging here is in fact private conduct. this guy was acting in his capacity as a candidate and even if he did certain things in that capacity that involves sitting in the oval office or the white house and taking what looks like official acts, he was really involved in a conspiracy with private actors for his own private and personal gain. so i think what you're seeing here from jack smith and his team are a number of different concessions designed to preserve their case even if a majority of this court or a plurality of this court decide that former president are entitled to some form of presidential immunity. >> thank you for breaking that down as you did. and i also, as a nonlawyer, it struck me the emphasis, as you just reference to, as a private citizen. it really goes into that, not

avenue ask, his official acts. sherilyn, i know you talked about immunity in this case so much that it is important to remind people why is that differentiation is important and also what stuck out to you in the portions of this you have been able to read? >> yeah, thanks, jen. trump has always wanted to, he wants to be teflon when it comes to the law. he does not want to apply to him and he has always had a conception of his role as the president that it somehow constitutes a lifelong immunity for accountability and for that reason, i think lisa did a great job of describing the filing today. i found this incredibly depressing and the reason i found the filing depressing is because this is a case with no legs. this was dealt with in great detail by the court of appeals, this should have been summarily handled by the supreme court. and it is a testament to how reckless this supreme court has become, how unpredictable, how far out of the mainstream it

has become that the special counsel felt it was incumbent upon him to create backstops, to create secondary and tertiary positions because he could not trust that a majority of this supreme court would do what every other clear, saying jurist action, not in a political contest but acting in a pure legal contest with no had to be true, that our system of government was not created to ensure that one man would lack accountability, could rise to the highest level of government in our country and that would then constitute a cloak of impunity. this is just simply not, at odds with the very concept of our country. that is king george. and so this should have been a slam dunk, the fact that even jack smith clearly is concerned that given the supreme court,

it might not be a slamdunk, made me very uneasy reading this filing. >> that is such an important point. this is a thorough, this is a lengthy race here. it is not two pages and as you just said, sherilyn, really detailed point by point here, even though experts like both of you have repeatedly said there is no basis here. i just want to dig into some of the other specific quotes here that stuck out to me and you may have other wants, of course. another expert from this filing talks about the president, smith writes, quote, the absence of any prosecutions of former presidents until this case does not reflect the understanding that presidents are immune from criminal liability. instead underscores the unprecedented nature of petitioners alleged conduct. this is, obviously it is written in a legal brief. i think it is an important, powerful message point that should be continued to be repeated. he is facing this despite what sherilyn just said, the supreme

court should be arguing this because of his actions lisa, talk to me a little bit about that, why that was so important to include or whether you agree. >> it was hugely important to include in part because that is a principal argument on which donald trump has relied, that in our nations history, we have never seen a prosecution like this and you know that some of the superlatives that come out of his mouth, the hyperbole's, he is very fond of speaking in never before have we seen this or people always say, right? one of the things that he has incorporated into his legal filings is we have never seen anything like this before. so i think it was important for the special counsel to counter that and say we haven't seen this because nobody has acted in office like you have. and to your point about this becoming an important messaging tool, i have talked a lot about how political and the legal appear to be collapsing in trump's various cases, that things that come out of his mouth that manifest themselves

in legal argument, even though as you and i discussed on friday night, they seem more like an opposition research document in a legal brief. now i think you are seeing the flipside of that which is that jack smith, in his quest to defend what should be easy for everybody to understand, somebody allegedly broke the law and in a big way, and is being called to account for that, even though that person was formerly the president of the united states. jack smith in his legal filing is now saying things that should and can be persuasive to the american people in taking back their power with respect to voting in november's election. >> today was, i was going to say, sherilyn, go ahead if you wanted to add. >> i did because you know, the flipside of that is that these kinds of arguments are also ones we are now hearing, if we are saying that trump is making arguments that you can expect from research and lining up their legal briefs. there also lining up in

judicial decisions and we are hearing it from courts. the reason why trump is making that argument that never before has this happened before is because it was just effective in the section 3 case, where the supreme court, the majority opinion was saying, have we ever seen a state try to keep a federal officer from the ballot. you know, the idea that we are facing this, unprecedented since the civil war challenge to democracy in this country is being used as evidence that we can't challenge this challenge. and i actually, when i read that, i read that as having again to confront what has been trump's argument, but what we also have heard from the supreme court and their kind of incredulity that we have never seen this before. well thank goodness we don't regularly see insurrectionist. thank goodness we don't usually have presidents engaging in criminal conduct to which they

might be subject to prosecution after they leave office. all of this is uncharted territory and that is irrelevant to the question of whether or not he has immunity. so i think just even fooling around with that notion that because it is unprecedented it means something significant, it's a way that trump does the most outrageous things that no one could have imagined the president doing and then raises the fact that no one could have imagined the president doing it as a defense and i think that is part of why jack smith is referencing that, because that seems to resonate, certainly with the supreme court and the section 3 case. >> sherilyn, you do such an effective job every time we talk about bringing us back down to planet earth and what is happening. >> i am a debbie downer, i am sorry. >> debbie downer, straight talker, return us to the planet. let me ask you, lisa, because there is a lot of history in here, it talks about nixon quite a bit and the precedent, how that is not a precedent and

what the framers intended. he points out the framers, no support of the type of immunity trump is cleaning. how is that an argument? you think as a sane person that argument would be effective with the conservative justices but i know sherilyn is going to tell me not to be naove. so how do you think that argument will play with the conservative justices that this is not what the framers intended. how likely is that going to be something we here? clean look, i agree with sherilyn completely that this is a court that fetishize his history and that the absence of history was one way in which they justified what text really was an unjustifiable result in the section 3 case. the provision of the constitution that was at issue there interpretively should have led to a different result and yet the court knew what results they wanted to reach and they reached out and grabbed that absence of history to get there. that having been said, to the extent that there is a counterpunch to that absence of history, it is this framers

argument because this is a court that also fetishize his original is him and so to the extent that they can bring the court back, not only to what is our political history but what is the history of this document and at its founding, i think that is hopefully going to be successful with these folks and getting them to see that there is no basis in our constitutional text or otherwise to immunize this person. the absence of history here is one supporting his interpretation as much as anything else. >> despite the absence of any justification under constitutional text, sherilyn, bring us back down to earth. is this something, will this be appealing to the conservative justices? this is not what the framers intended. what do you think? >> this time i think lisa is, i'm a bit persuaded by what lisa has said because the supreme court is quite

interested in the framers of the original constitution. they are not interested in the intention of the framers of the 14th amendment but certainly of the original constitution. i don't know how you get past article one section 3, which makes clear that if trump had been convicted during that impeachment, he could still have been prosecuted after he left office. what would be the purpose of that section in the constitution if merely because he was impeached but not convicted he now cannot be convicted or tried in a criminal prosecution. so i think it just makes that progression of the constitution illogical and i think that is something that would concern these justices i do think, and i have said this before, you know, i think we raise the nixon scenario because for most of us, that is the scenario that comes closest in terms of a president running afoul of the law and abusing power in this way. but i have said before, many of these people, including many

conservative justices on the board are people who really believe that nixon got a raw deal. and so to the extent, nixon is a president. i am not sure it is a president they like in terms the way it turned out pick one of the most powerful presidents is nixon accepted the pardon. you don't accept a pardon unless you are essentially saying that you were guilty of something. and so you know, to be, that kind of makes it open and shut and yet i am betting that there are lots of folks around her feel like it is almost railroaded. and so i just think that we are going to find out quite a bit about this case, but i felt myself very wary by the filing today. the clear eyed realization that jack smith's understands, working with a very, very tricky majority on the supreme court and nothing can be assumed. >> such an important reminder. we have to sneak in a very quick break. thank you so much for being

here for a quick reading, breaking it down. thank you for sticking around for one more block, if you still can. because jack smith's filing, a long list of military leaders are signing the special counsel and speaking out forcefully against the former president. secretary lewis caldera, briefly saw today. he is standing by and joins me in just 60 seconds. seconds.

hi, i'm kim, and i lost 67 pounds on golo. when i go out with people, they expect me to eat like a bird. they are shocked by the amount of food i eat while losing weight. with golo, i don't need a cheat day because i get to eat the foods i like any day of the week. as we all digest jack smith brief to the supreme court, thanks to lisa rubin and sherrilyn ifill. we also heard from high-ranking military officials who issued a dire warning in an amicus brief filed with the corporate those officials include generals and admirals as well as former secretaries of the army, navy, and air force who served this country under presidents of both parties, john f. kennedy up to donald trump himself. together they argued the presidential immunity for criminal prosecution would threaten the military's role in american society.

our americans constitutional border and our national security. they say that immunizing the president would place service members in the impossible position of having to choose between following their commander in chief and obeying the laws enacted by congress. and they warned it would jeopardize america's standing as it guardian of democracy in the world. it is a very powerfully written document. joining me now, former secretary of the army, lewis caldera who is the chief signatory on the amicus brief. sherrilyn ifill is back with us, as well. thank you so much for taking the time this evening. this is a very powerful brief. it is a very powerful argument. i tried to summarize the key points there. tell us a little bit more about how you decided to sign onto it and what you hope people will take away. please we thought it was very important to bring these national security issues to the supreme court's attention. these are very loaded individuals but none of them

have ever served in the military. so you talk about things like control of the military imports of military relations, how the immunity of a president from criminal actions, immunity meaning that he cannot be charged or prosecuted for criminal actions, how that would seriously threaten our national security because, for example, as you mentioned, the way the president would accomplish any of these goals to assassinate a political rival or to use uniformed military soldiers against demonstrators that he disagreed with, on our streets, something that is outlawed in the united states. the way he would do it is he wouldn't do it directly, he would order the military to use its might, its soldiers, its weapons in a way that was unlawful, whether on u.s. soil or against, or in some other way. and when he transmits those

orders, he transmits them through civilian appointees. the secretary of defense, the service secretaries, to the military, to the chief of staff of the army, the commander in chief, the joint chiefs, down to the individual service member. all of those individuals swore an oath to defend the constitution, to follow the orders of the president that was appointed over them, and to obey the law. and there is thing called the duty to disobey, which means that if you have a duty to of the law for orders. you cannot, you have no duty, you have a duty not to obey unlawful orders. this goes back to world war ii and nazi germany saying you were just following orders became untenable as a defense . it is not recognized, you cannot just say i was just following orders. so the president, who is intent on violating the law, because he is not subject to criminal prosecution, we put the military officers and soldiers, the troops, in a position to do things that are unlawful for

which they could be prosecuted. that is a terrible dilemma to put service members and. and who would transmits those orders? it would be his political appointees who would have to decide to resign because they couldn't pass unlawful orders, or if they are so loyal to him they would pass the law, and then it would be the generals who would have to either resign or transmit them or pass them down. that would destroy the relationships between our senior civilian appointed officials and the military leaders. the military leaders are career military leaders who have dedicated their lives to preserving our country. they are not politicians the appointees are appointed political leaders. and the only way that civilian and military leadership works together is if there is fundamental trust between the civilian and military leaders, that we are all on the same page. we are all trying to defend the country and the constitution, obey the rule of the law, do

what is in the best interest of the country but if you have a president whose attempt to use the military for unlawful purposes, you have destroyed the unity that exists, you have destroyed that trust, you have created chaos in the ranks, you have but soldiers in an untenable position. an incredible dilemma for them. you have probably misused the military in a way that average americans are going to say, wait, our military is being used for political purposes? you will undermine support for the military and it sends the wrong message to other countries in this world where our country is the vanguard of democracy. one of the things we actually try to teach in the military is to communicate to militaries and governments in other parts of the world that democracy is the best way to have stability and peace, where people have a voice, where you follow the rule of law. and instead it would set the example that our democracy doesn't actually function because we have a president who has the kind of authority that

kim jong-il has in north korea where he can do whatever he wishes and he is completely and totally immune from any accountability. please secretary, that was such a well stated important message for people to hear out there. and i think i am so grateful you shared it and i also, i want to ask you, sherilyn. i asked you to say because i think it is important for people to know, a respected legal expert that you are, why is this significant? his secretary just wrote down impact, which is dramatic, on the chain of command, on men and women serving our country in the military and how other countries see is and you summarized it better than i just did. why is this important legally, why is this a big deal in your view? >> first of all, i want to thank secretary not only for this brief but also for just the very very powerful way you just explained what was important about it. donald trump has two ways that he is able to hold onto power.

one is he undermines and unravels the rule of law, and the other is that he weakens and unravels core democratic institutions. the military is such an institution. we just heard the values and the laws that the rules and the ethical guidelines that govern the conduct of those who enter the military. and it is so powerful and important for the supreme court to understand that what feels for trump, trump is drowning and a drowning man will often drown others with them. he is grasping and he wants this cloak of immunity. and he is unconcerned about the fact that he will unravel the integrity of the military, should he prevail in his argument. remember also that trump has very little respect for those in the military these are the people he calls suckers and losers these are the people who he feels if they are injured,

he doesn't want them to be seen near him because it makes him look bad. so he doesn't have a lot of respect for the military. the second thing he doesn't have respect for is the rule of law. and i think what secretary caldera described is precisely what is happening in the civilian population. the more people believe that the president has impunity, can get away with anything, the less they believe that we really are a country that holds together rule of law. and once people stop leaving that the rule of law is important, that there must be accountability for violations of law, that no one is above the law, the more that becomes implicated in the american mind, the more we are going to have lawless and dangerous conduct. and in the context of the military, that is particularly disturbing. it was donald trump, you will remember, who pardoned a navy s.e.a.l. who had engaged in conduct for which he had been court- martialed. he made a hero of one of these

and visuals that he pardoned, who had been reported by his own fellow officers and trump parted him. so he is and unravel her of institutions and and unravel her of the rule of law and the supreme court needed and needs to hear from these military leaders to explain what the effect of trump's argument would be on the military, a core and critical institution of our democracy. >> secretary caldera, sharon ifill, what a powerful, powerful conversation and discussion, i appreciate you joining me this evening. coming up next, donald trump posted a link the video this morning touting his stance on abortion. but it is what he did not say, that's what should get voters pause. we will break it down after the break.

“look at all those snacks, you must be a king!”

“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 to get great deals on last-minute tickets.”

business. “ it's not a nine-to-fivep to proposition.als it's all day and into the night. it's all the things that keep this world turning. the go-tos that keep us going. the places we cheer. and check in. they all choose the advanced network solutions and round the clock partnership from comcast business.

see why comcast business powers more small businesses than anyone else. get started for $49.99 a month plus ask how to get up to an $800 prepaid card. don't wait- call today. okay, so former president donald trump put out a statement this morning on abortion. a very specifically said statement there. even that word might be generous in describing his word salad he put out this morning because despite some headlines that may be suggesting otherwise, it was definitely not a clarification or an announcement of his position on abortion rights at all. he said lots of things and he also said a sickly nothing. now some, including the leader of an anti-choice group parted as a rebuke of all of her efforts to roll back women's right thing in particular, we are deeply is pointed in president trump decision.

national advocacy from the abortion industry. pretty strong words from an anti-choice leader against donald trump. before we start painting donald trump, the guy who once said there should be some sort of punishment for women who get abortions and who is responsible, i think it is important to remind everyone, for nominating three of the supreme court justices to overturn roe, reading that statement he issued this morning as moderate is completely the wrong grade. listen to what he is actually saying here. >> the state shall determine by vote or legislation or perhaps both, in whatever they decide, must be the loss of the land. in this case, the law of the state now it is up to the states to do the right thing. >> so he says he wants to leave it up to the states. let's just dive into what that really means. it means too bad for the women

in the more than 20 states facing bands or significant restrictions early in pregnancy. the state will decide for you. it means that for women in florida who will soon live under a six week abortion and, before they know they are pregnant, they are just going to have to deal with it. it means under a trump administration, we will likely hear more stories like that of kate cox who found out when she was pregnant that her baby had a fatal diagnosis and when she tried to terminate the pregnancy to save her own life, the texas court said no, forcing her to leave the state to get the procedure. more stories like amanda who could not get medical care because of her states abortion laws, causing her to develop sepsis and nearly die. that is what leaving it up to the states means, just to be totally clear. while donald trump display tried to avoid taking the position here today, dodging questions essentially just for stating where he stands. what may be most revealing is what he did not say. he did not say how he would treat mifepristone, the abortion pill facing a legal fight. he did not say how many weeks

he believes his approach appropriate to ban abortion and crucially he did not say whether or not he would sign a national abortion ban of one exit to his desk. let's be clear, not addressing a national abortion ban does not mean he would not sign one. if he puts out a statement saying i won't sign a national abortion ban, by all means, the headline should say that but that is not what he did. so trump might have talked a lot in this video, he has put out a lot of statement today saying a lot of words but he really offered very little. we have known him, no answers on the most pressing questions. the thing is, he is intentionally muddying the waters because he knows this is a losing issue for him. he reads the poles, right on that front. it is also pretty interesting, old, even, given this is a mess he himself created. let's go back in history a little bit. in 1999 he was pro-choice. listen to this clip we dug up of trump's in his own words in

1999. >> i thought i would read a statement so many people have been asking, asking my views on it and that is the following. i am pro-choice, but i respect the views of those who are not. i believe that this is a very personal decision that must be left to women and their doctors, not to the politicians. >> so that was 1999, then in 2011, when he was mulling a run for the white house when it was advantageous for him, it was all right. in 2016 he decided to throw pro- life and he ran a pledge to overturn roe v wade. of course, over the course of his presidency he then nominated three of the justices to the supreme court to overturn roe. and he is right about his role in that. here's the thing, no one should be tricked by his word salad statements. to him, he could care less about women's rights or freedoms. that is pretty clear. he is also his guiding principle on this issue is

political expediency. that is also clear. even literally admitted as much in his announcement today, saying, quote, you must follow your heart on this issue but remember you must also win elections. but hey, that is all this is, all it has ever been about for donald trump i can understand why, even if you look at a state like ohio, one that has been trending red, 57% pass a constitutional amendment protecting abortion access just last year. so let's call this what it is. your healthcare, that of your daughter, your granddaughter, your sister, your wife, your neighbor, it is all political games for trump and the last time he had the chance, when he was president, he did not protect those rights, he paved the way for having them taken away. sharon brown is standing by and he joins me next, we will be right back.

are you throwing money away? money stresses me out. so, i went to experian. they actually helped lower my monthly bills. phone, internet. also subscriptions i forgot about. streaming, music, news sites. now i can see them in one place. and the ones i forgot about? experian can cancel them for me. experian did the work. finally getting smart about money feels really good. helped me take control of my money. save money now on monthly bills and unwanted subscriptions at experian.com/save. ♪ 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 start! ♪ ♪ as time went on it was easy to see ♪

♪ i'm lowering my a1c! ♪ jardiance works twenty-four seven 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. serious side effects may include 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 jardiance and call your doctor right away if you have symptoms of this infection ketoacidosis, or an allergic reaction. you may have an increased risk for lower limb loss. call your doctor right away if you have symptoms of infection in your legs or feet. 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! ♪

“look at all those snacks, you must be a king!” “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 to get great deals on last-minute tickets.” when it comes to how the issue of abortion might affect down ballot races, people understand quite like my next guest, joining me now democratic senator sharon brown of ohio who is up for re- election this year. thank you so much for taking the time. it is quite a newsday. word salad abortion statement, legal news, and eclipse. so let me just start with trump's statement on abortion this morning. what did you make of it when you read it? >> i pretty much made of it what you just said, that they, that across the country, and i will talk about my opponent or three republicans in the primary for the senate of the

national abortion ban, the winner of the primary trump's guy was his first six week ban, no exceptions, the national abortion ban, six weeks on dancing about it. but now, it is who do you trust, do you trust women and their families and their physicians or do you trust columbus politicians or do you trust the washington politicians and that is clear that is why ohio, state that a lot of the international media like to say is trending a certain way, overwhelming 14 points, almost 14 points, 57-43 said no way. the places that we would not have expected communities we wouldn't have expected. but women spoke out and we won on them. >> yeah, it is such an important point and i will say my husband is from ohio, i've been to ohio many many times so i know it well. but as you said, it is an issue

that is really trending among women, independents and men, as well. this is what they are concerned about and that abortion, constitutional amendment last year, 57% of ohioans supported it which i think is a pretty big number, does that surprise you ask and how important is this as an issue in your race against your opponent. that is a very extreme position on abortion as you just read. >> i thought we were going to win it. all of the political people in columbus, the governor, all the state officeholders, the secretary of state changed the ballot language trying to require six weeks. all of that, we still won by 14 points, which tells the turnout was expected because it was the middle of august for the first vote, expected to be secretary of state said eight, 910 point, too much political minutia. the fact is is that they did all kinds of things to try to defeat this, but they still said yes to a constitutional amendment of abortion rights and republicans in ohio. the quite know what to do.

they know they're on the wrong side but even though the voters said by 14 point, no constitutional amendment on abortion, abortion rights, there is still the arrogance are still trying to stop it. using the courts, calling it a national abortion ban, all of those things, show such a disregard. that spills into the whole election because my opponent has that arrogance and a whole host of issues. if you are against women's rights and women and their families making these personal decisions, it usually means you are wrong on some right, you are wrong on human rights and worker rights. just line up all the issues and , that matter to most people, and i stated, as you know, jen i don't look at politics left to right, that is why i know what this election is, it is going to go the right way because whether it is standing up to the drug companies or wall street or the railroads in

east palestine where they had the derailment, voters don't think of little concerns, they think of society. clean no question about it, your neighbors don't talk about things on the way the people talk about them in washington, d.c. let me ask you, because you have been re-elected, course, twice already in ohio. you are popular in the state that has been trending red, as you said, and presidential races. people question can a democrat win the senate race. lost by seven points. rick down for me how can you win this race and how are you going to defeat your opponent? >> of course you can. let me give you a quick story. i spoke, there is a group in the building trades around ohio, understand they have got to bring more women and, more people of color and they are doing that. this graduation i spoke to in columbus a few weeks ago and mostly were young people that

were looking for an opportunity, they took this class, they will be ready at the end of their 13 week certification to be certified to join the building trades they will get an apprentice card, an apprentice carpenter or electrician or bricklayer or operating engineer. and at the end of there, they will make $18-$20 an hour in the beginning. no student debt, i might add and we have to do with the student debt problems. at the end of four or five years they will be making close to $40 an hour with benefits and they were all wearing this t-shirt that said direct path to the middle class. we have to learn how in this democratic party has to learn how to talk to workers. i talked about work and i ask people along those lines to come to sharp ground.com and help us get that word out about the dignity of work. regardless of whether you punch a badge or punch a clock or swipe a badge, where the work in an office, whether you work for attempts, you stand on the side of workers. you make the right decisions i

wear this canary pen, a canary in a birdcage, the mineworkers, taking a canary down in the mind, they had no union 100 years ago, strong enough government that cared enough to protect them and i wear this as a reminder to focus workers to focus on how do you build people joining the middle-class and that is what we are doing in ohio. that is what we can do around the country. please i love a canary pen next time i see you. i think that is a very powerful message. thank you so much for joining me tonight, for talking to me about such important issues going on in your state, i really appreciate it. coming up next, the great american eclipse was just plain cool to most of us. but to others, like marjorie taylor greene there was something more sinister going on, apparently. i will explain after this quick break.

today millions of americans across north america and the united states had the rare chance to watch a solar eclipse. the total solar eclipse, which has been nicknamed the great american eclipse for its long path over north america was visible in 15 states and there were very views of a partial eclipse where they were enjoyed throughout the rest of the country, including by members of our team here in d.c. and new york. that was only back in august of 2017 that the last solar eclipse cut across the united states. and just like today, americans throughout the country paused their days to safely gaze at the sun through their protective shades. with, of course, the notable exception of this guy. in past millennia, solar eclipse is used to be tied to

mass superstition and fear along time ago but now instead, where moments of collective all where people get to watch an incredible but very cool celestial event. but sometimes even in this day and age, some folks try really hard to make it something more. like on friday, the day of the earthquake that rumbled parts of the northeast in the mid atlantic. marjorie taylor greene posted this. quote, god is sending america strong signs to tell us to repent. earthquakes and eclipses and many more things to come. i pray that our country listens. i mean, i am just going to pause on that for a moment because it is really something and you need to read it. her post, was of course quickly tagged with a community note that pointed out that the u.s. averages about four earthquakes the day, that's what happens. and that solar eclipses are able to be protected well in advance. but have no fear, congresswoman greene doubled down on her

post, writing, quote, many have mocked and scoffed at this, correct, she noted. yes, eclipse's are predictable and earthquakes happen, however god created all of these things and uses them to be signs for those of us who believe. i mean, another explanation is sometimes these things are just coincidences, maybe. but even fox news attempted to not so subtly tidy eclipse to their favorite all-time political issue. clear fox news alert, a celestial event collides with a policy failure on the ground the southern border will be directly in the path of totality today with the moon covers the sun for nearly four minutes. >> the funny thing is back in 2017, the last time there was a solar eclipse in the u.s., no serious person was trying to spin it this way, but in the larger context of the language that the right is pushing seven months out from election day, by the way. we are mongering about invading migrants and donald trump

warning about a bloodbath if he is not re-elected. this is just another example that they are all too eager to enjoy and everything under the sun. , an exciting announcement about something i have been working on for a very long time . my new book and a big adventure on the road, we will be right back.

before we go tonight, got some exciting news. my brand-new book called seymore is coming out on may 7th , you can preorder it now. tonight i can share that i will hit the ground running that

week on a book tour. i will be in new york city on may 8th, i'll be visiting many cities and having conversations with some of my favorite people who you also probably know. i'll be sure to share all the information on the shows social media channels for anyone interested in attending. i look forward to seeing you out there on the road and taking your questions, too. that does it for me tonight, the rachel maddow show starts right now. hi, rachel. >> hello, jen, tell me the title of the book, full title. >> the book is called seymore, i'm going to bring in a copy a couple days when i come up to new york. i wish i had this book 20 years ago. and for you, i have some stories in there about dealing with bullies like the kremlin who i've dealt with. please tell me your publication date. >> may 7th >> may 7th. may 7th, say more, communication, jen psaki. i am changing my calendar and moving anything around, thank you very much and congratulations.