just one day and 4 hours later, this happened. >> just filed articles of impeachment on joe biden. we'll see how this goes. >> we'll see how this goes. biden had been president for less than 30 hours when house conservatives decided he'd already committed high crimes and misdemeanors and needed to be removed from office. since the very start of his administration republicans have been desperate to try and obscure and minimize the two

impeachment trials of former president trump. and to do that they aimed for joe biden to be the next american president to face that humiliation. but the effort failed and failed in spectacular fashion. for three years we've watched republicans reach desperately for something, anything that had even a hint of corruption they might pin on president biden. but their efforts failed to turn up any convincing evidence biden or his family had engaged in corruption. republicans did manage to wrangle one star witness who accused president biden and his family of all sorts of wrongdoing, but it turned out that guy was just a dupe, passing along provingly false information from people with ties to russian intelligence. and he has since been arrested twice for lying to the fbi. watching republicans try to impeach biden has been a lot like watching someone try to boil soup in a paper bag, just a huge embarrassing mess that

accomplished nothing. and so republicans then decided they would try the next best thing. if they could not impeach joe biden, they'd impeach a member of joe biden's cabinet. and who better to be the victim than homeland security secretary alejandro mayorkas? >> get rid of mayorkas. he's derelict in his duty. this guy needs to go. >> my view is he needs to be impeached. >> secretary mayorkas is in charge of the southern border and republicans wanted the southern border to be a key issue in this next election, so what could go wrong? impeach him. well, for starters republicans had the same problem that they always had. they didn't actually have any crimes to charge. eventual athey settled on two made up charges. the first was that mayorkas failed to enforce the laws of the southern border, which simply wasn't true. in fact, under secretary mayorkas there have been more

deportations, returns, and expulsions than there were during the entire trump administration. republicans' second charge was that secretary mayorkas had lied to congress when he said that the border was under control, which is exactly what it sounds like, an argument about the semantics of what the word control means and very clearly not a high crime or misdemeanor. so these were not real charges, but republicans decided to move forward with them anyway. yesterday house republicans brought their two sham impeachment articles to the senate, and today senate democrats killed both of them. after a few hours of procedural wrangling, a majority of senators voted that neither of the two articles of impeachment was a high crime or a misdemeanor, and therefore the articles were unconstitutional. and that was it. here was senate minority leader

mitch mcconnell just after that vote. >> madam president, we set a very unfortunate pres dependent here, which means that the senate can ignore, in effect, the house's impeachment. this is a day that's not a proud day in the history of the senate. >> republicans including mitch mcconnell are angry today because they spent the better part of this year on this impeachment and for what? they could have spent that time actually trying to fix our immigration system. democrats negotiated one of the strictest bipartisan border bills in decades, something that would have been unthinkable just a few years prior. it gave republicans lmgs everything they wanted on border security. but donald trump forced republicans to kill that bill because he thought it might help president biden. so instead of legislation, republicans made a failed attempt to impeach someone who committed no crime on an issue they themselves refuse to solve.

it would be one thing if this was the only area where our government is breaking down because of the hollowed out husk of what was once the republican party. but it is not. because at the same time that all of this was happening in the senate, today, republicans in the house of representatives were also tripping all over themselves to benefit a strong man. only this time the strong man wasn't donald trump. right now speaker mike johnson is facing a revolt from inside his own party over his decision to finally put aid to ukraine up for a vote in the house. johnson had resisted doing that for months, but this week he finally relented. here he was explaining the reality of what he is facing just a few hours ago. >> i'm operating with the smallest margin in u.s. history. i have a one-vote margin. listen, we're not going to get 100% of what we want right now

because we have the smallest majority in history and we only have the majority in one chamber. >> despite what speaker johnson understands here, far-right members of his party are now saying they'll vote to oust johnson over bringing up ukraine aid. that's how much the far-right does not want to help ukraine combat russia's war of aggression. and this is not just a problem for the republican party. it is a problem for ukraine and america and the rest of the world. because ukraine and the vote on ukraine funding has become a leverage point for russia. "the washington post" had some explosive reporting today on newly revealed documents from inside vladimir putin's government, documents which show how russia is seeking to subvert western support for ukraine and disrupt the domestic politics of the united states and european countries through propaganda campaigns and supporting

isolationist and extremist policies. russia is fomenting division over ukraine because it wants to weaken america's role in the world. in particular one cited it continues to facilitate the coming to power of isolationist right-wing forces in america. just put a finer point on this. russia very much wants the margery taylor greenes of the world to continue doing what they're doing because it serve russian interests merchandise pro-russia propaganda had infiltrated the grz and was being repeated. earlier this week margery taylor

greene calling the ukrainian government nazis. ukraine, for the record, is the only nation in the world other than israel to have a jewish head of state, volodymyr zelenskyy. but marjorie taylor greene wants to block aid to that country. republicans could vote to remove speaker johnson and once again through the house of representatives and therefore much of our american government again into chaos, something that would directly serve russia's ends, and maybe that is the whole point. joining me now is senator chris murphy, democrat from connecticut. he's a member of the senate appropriations committee and the senate foreign relations committee. senator murphy, it's great to see you. thank you so much for being here. first, let me get your reaction to the reporting we have out of "the post" the way russia is delighted to see the infighting

over ukraine aid unfolding the u.s. congress. of course they are because the only way they can win in ukraine is if the united states withdraws its support for ukraine. and let's be clear about why we care so much about stopping russia. putin has made clear he's not going to stop, and given the entire country very quickly he could be moving onto a nato ally. that will be u.s. troops, that will be u.s. men and women, americans fighting and dying in europe. that'll be a green light to china to invade taiwan, potentially erupting a regional war in southeast asia. this is cataclysmic from u.s. interests. the triggers that could be setoff by putin winning so expeditiously in ukraine only because the united states abandons them there.

so there's no doubt putin is spending a lot of money in the united states and in europe trying to undermine support for ukraine, trying to support individuals who are trying to argue against ukraine funding. and listen, there's no doubt that he is rooting very badly for donald trump. there's no doubt he'll likely play a big role in this upcoming election, because if we get this bill across the finish line, alex, if we do fund ukraine it'll only be through the beginning of next year. if donald trump is elected, that's a pretty big guarantee this would be the last funding bill that would clear the house senate and get signed by the president. >> i want to draw everyone's attention to a russian opposition figure. and he says americans consider that insofar as they're not directly participating in the war in ukraine then any loss is not their loss. this is an absolute misunderstanding. a defeat for ukraine, he said, means that many will stop fearing challenging the u.s., and the costs for the united states will only increase. it feels like some people in the

senate in the republican party understand the importance here of not empowering the isolationists both as a matter of sort of republican functionality and also in terms of the cause of western-style liberal democracy all over the world. do you think speaker johnson is willing to bring up this ukraine aid funding to the chagrin of the far right is a signal they've been employed by the use of the kremlin? >> i would not go that far. it seems speaker johnson has made an individual decision that it would be a disaster for the united states to abandon ukraine, and i think he knows this would be his legacy, right, his political obituary would lead with his abandonment of ukraine. the senate has already voted.

he knows it would be him and him only who would get the blame for handing ukraine to vladimir putin. i think this suggests a conversion inside the party and speaker johnson make the right decision in the here and now. and today at least we should celebrate that. >> do you have an expectation we're going to be looking for a new speaker of the house, and if you are what's the expect asian for the u.s. congress and what happens next? >> so, you know, my sense is that there are some democrats who will oppose a motion to vacate should he bring a vote before the house and not be successful. he needs to get enough republican to support it so alongside democrats it pazes the

house and moves to the senate. so it's possible he will survive a motion to vacate because there will be a handful of democrats who support him. and the reality is right now the only way to pass anything through the house of representatives is a coalition of mostly democrats because the majority of republicans in the house are full time arsonists. they are inside government to destroy government, to destroy the legitimacy of government, to try to burn down the government. so whether it's votes to who's the next speaker, votes to pass ukraine aid, votes to pass a budget, it's really still democrats that are the only thing that keep that place functional, and johnson has finally realized that. >> yeah, in terms of burning down the government i have to ask you what happened in your chamber today. democrats effectively killed off the impeachment trial. senator mitch mcconnell who likes to be an institutionalist when it suits him, suggested an

unfortunate precedent had been set in so doing, that the senate is effectively ignoring the will of the house. what's your reaction to that? >> well, the dangerous precedent we could have set was to legitimize and endorse this sham impeachment process. i mean those articles of impeachment are laughable on their face. there is not a sliver, there is not a hint of a high crime or mish demeanor. this is just 40 pages of complaints of what's happening at the border today. what it really stands for is a pretty simple premise. republicans do not want to fix the border. as you said in your opening they had a chance to do that. the toughest change in border law in 40 years that would have brought order to the southwest border. republicans rejected that bill because they actually want the border to be out of control. what they want is for there to be headlines every day about how chaotic the border is so they can score political points and

it will help them in this election. that's what the articles of impeachment are, just a mechanism to keep the border in the headlines. i think american people are catching on. all this evidence that republicans are just interested in politics and are allergic when given the chance to vote to get the border under control is sinking into the public. >> senator chris murphy, thank you for making the time tonight. really appreciate it. >> thank you. >> we have lots more ahead tonight including republicans wasting no time to turn a congressional hearing on anti-semitism on college campuses into a broadside against wokism. but first day three of jury selection resumes tomorrow morning in the criminal hush money trial of donald trump. george conway was in the courthouse this week, and he joins me right here after the break. s week, and he joins me right here after the break.

donald trump was not in court today, but his criminal hush money trial was clearly top of mind this morning. he took to truth social to rant about what he considered unfairness during jury selection yesterday. specifically that his lawyers were not allowed unlimited opportunities to strike prospective jurors. now, remind the fact that trump's legal team was alauded the same number of so-called frontry challenges as prosecutors, and they've used the same number of those to weed out what they think would not be impartial jurors. what donald trump is actually upset about is that he's being treated so far like any other criminal defendant. he's had to sit through the repetitive questions and after trump spoke and gestured in the

direction of a juror, he was reprimanded like any other defendant would be by judge merchan. this process is proceeding so normally the judge believes a jury will be seated in time for opening statements to begin on mondays, which is way ahead of the two-week time line he estimated earlier this week. joining me now george conway, attorney and contributor to the atlantic. i know you were in the vicinity, you were in the zone, and i want to hear about what that was like. but first, what do you make of the dissidence between trump asserting this is all such an unfair jury selection process and the fact seven jurors have already been selected? >> he's going to say everything is unfair in the matter no matter how it comes out. and he thinks he's going to get unlimited parentry challenges.

it would take the entire year and next year and the year after that but he'd have to sit there. but that's classic donald trump. donald trump thinks the rules don't apply to him. >> so far it really feels like and you wrote to this in the atlantic this is proceeding in a pace in an almost humdrum fashion with the exception of these outbursts. judge merchan has not been playing around with this gag order, right? we know i think it was a few hours ago trump reposted on truth social this claim from jesse waters of fox. "they are catching undercover liberal activists lying to the judge in order to get on the trump jury." so sayth, jesse waters. does that run up to the line of violating the gag order? does that flirt with it, or is that fair game? >> it's not fair game because it's a lie.

there's no evidence to support it. and if he were referring to specific individuals and trying to intimidate them, it would violate the gag order. and just think he's trying to poison the well in the public domain to say nothing here is fair, it can't be fair. people in manhattan can't be fair to me even though he's spent his entire life in new york until relatively recently. >> well, independent of just trying to poison the well, which is no small thing, it also could be -- at some point could be contrued as this goes on and the jury is finally selected as a form of intimidation that puts the juror's lives in dangers to get trump, my question to you is merchan, he has uttered i believe at some point the suggestion jail time could be a part of this if trump violates the gag order. do you think there's any universe in which that happens? >> yeah, i think it's possible. i think it's possible because he does not know boundaries. boundaries have to be explained

to him, and he has to actually believe boundaries apply to him. i think before that happens, judge mer. chan is going to be very explicit about it to say, okay, you've done this, this is it. next time bring your toothbrush. >> wow. you've seen merchan in action. do you feel -- that is going to take an extraordinary amount of fortitude to even consider doing something like that to a former president of the united states who's currently running for president. >> i think he's very conscious of what he's doing and what he's projecting in the courtroom. and i think he's going to protect the jurors because that's the most important thing. his job is to ensure a fair

trial, and that means protecting the people who are going to be deciding the facts of the case, which are the members of the jury, members of the public. >> when you talk about trump's inability to control himself, there is something happening i believe tomorrow afternoon called the sandoval hearing. my law degree at television law schools i'm getting closer to taking the bar, but the sandoval hearing is going to determine basically which of trump's misconducts and criminal aktsz could be used if trump were to take the witness stand and undergo cross-examination, is that right? >> that's basically it, yes. >> so trump is going to be presented with a litany of wrong doing. can you explain that process and the likelihood trump is going to absolutely freak out during it? >> he's not going enjoy it, because he's going to hear about all the bad things that have been attributed to him. and i don't know how he's going to react, but all the things

he's done, the lie in the public domain including to -- including about e. jean carroll and all that stuff, i mean if he goes on the stand he's going to open a lot of that up. and i think the issue is whether or not it's sufficiently probative of his credibility for the prosecution to cross examine him, and it probably will be. so he's not somebody who should go up on the stand. that being said, you know, he's a narcissistic sociopath. he's impulsive. and if he feels on a given day that he has to do it, he could decide to do it and overrule his lawyers. but, you know, at other times he's followed his lawyer's advice. he's followed his lawyers advice during the first e. jean carroll trial basically not to show up,

and then he showed up for the second one, and he couldn't contain himself in front of the jury, and that cost him tens of millions of dollars because he basically behaved exactly as the plaintiff was describing him, as somebody who was remorseless, who was ready to say anything, who had contempt for the court's rulings and contempt for the truth. and he just -- you know, he acted outright in front of the jury. and it's going to be a lot harder for him this time because this is a lot more -- if this is about his own people are going to be testifying and describing things that he did, people who are loyal to him, you know, from david pecker -- we've actually never heard from david pecker. hope hicks, we never really heard from her about this. and he's going to have to sit there and listen to it, he's not going to enjoy himself. and he's -- you can't guarantee he'll be able to control himself. >> yeah, and he's going to have

to listen to it day in and day out. he gets a break on wednesdays. he's going to be accosted with a lot of material, a lot of tedium. and what does that do to a man you call a psychopathic narcissist? >> he's a narcissistic sociopath. he's a psychopath also. >> tomato tomato. as you've watched this unfold you've described it as a beehive of activity. >> it's a standard office building built 1938 to 1949. it's drab, it's ordinary, it's spartan. and it's very functional. there's no gold plated toilets, nothing fancy about it.

it's very not trump-like, and it's not an environment he would want to be associated with even if it were something he wouldn't want to own. >> right. >> so it's just the juxtaposition of him and his unwillingness to exceed to the rules and norms of society and his just contempt for the legal processes lined up against this building an institution that does this every day to hundreds -- with hundreds of people involved. and it was just the juxtaposition as i wrote in today of the ordinary and the extraordinary was just quite amazing. and the fact that it was kind of mundane to the point where even i kind of nodded off on day one is just -- well, it's a tribute to the system actually. >> you're allowed to runoff

because you're not running a presidential campaign where your chief line of attack is competency. look forward to more dispatches from the front lines. thanks for joining me on set tonight. coming up republican lawmakers -- republican lawmakers in arizona today once again blocked an attempt to repeal a 160-year-old abortion law set to go into effect in their state. but first, house republicans held a hearing on anti-semitism at columbia university today, sore at least that was supposed to be the topic. more on that coming up next. to be the topic. more on that coming up next.

in case you missed it, this is how most of today was spent in the house education committee hearing on anti-semitism at columbia university. >> i have your answer. let me move on here. >> republicans in congress brought columbia university president shafik down to washington. if republicans were actually listening president shafik was

quite clear on anti-semitism. >> it's hab horrent and has no place. one of the issues we're debating now and david, part of the anti-semitism task force will help us find solutions as you've asked for, congresswoman, is to clearly clarify where language crosses the line from protective speech to discriminatory or harassive speech. >> she was very precise there, the debate that should be happening on college campuses is where the line is between first amendment speech and discriminatory speech. that is a very worthwhile conversation. but that is not the conversation we saw in the house today. instead, we saw stuff like this. >> how many -- do you just in your own mind could you rattle off ten republican faculty off the top of your head?

>> yeah, i could actually. we have two of our fellows from our institute of global politics who are former trump administration. >> let me give another question. >> what does the number of republicans on the faculty at columbia have to do with anti-semitism, we're going to get to that. the congressman asking the question there clearly did not like president shafik could answer his question. it didn't fit the narrative he was trying to establish, a narrative other republicans tried to cement with questions like these. >> can you explain why the word "folks" is spelled f-o-l-x throughout this guidebook? is this how columbia university spells the words folks? >> what does a student group spelling the word folks with an "x" to be gender inclusive, what does that have to do with anti-semitism? well,thality question and the

one sklg president shafik how many republicansren the columbia faculty, both of those questions have a lot to do with what republicans were trying to have in the house today. a week ago a group of jewish faculty members at columbia published this open letter to president shafik, employing her not to fall for the exact republican campaign we saw in that committee hearing room today. rather than being concerned with the safety and well-being of jewish students on campuses, the committee is leveragic anti-semitism in a wider effort to caricature and demonize universities as hot beds of woke indoctrination. we're going to talk with the dean what is actually happening on columbia's campus and what republicans are actually trying to do here right after the break. s are actually trying to do here right after the break.

hi, i'm david, and i lost 92 pounds on golo. my life partner connie and i were in really rough shape regarding our health. and our doctors told us that we needed to lose weight. i saw a golo commercial and i thought, "we really need to try this." as the weeks went by, the weight came off. we learned to make healthy choices and be supportive of each other. together, we've lost 170 pounds. golo worked for us. since losing weight on golo, i'm feeling grateful and hopeful about the future. (energizing music)

in december republicans on the house education committee questioned the presidents of harvard, m.i.t. about anti-semitism. enduring a month of personal attacks the president of harvard also resigned. and now today it was the president of columbia university, nemat shafik. joining me now is the dean of

columbia university. dean cobb, it is great to see you. i know it's been a busy time on campus. can you give me a sense what is happening on your campus? there was a hearing today where i feel like we didn't actually get an accurate picture of how deep the battle lines run and what the fundamental arguments are about. >> well, it's contested. there are, you know, debates, there are heated debates happening. there are protests and demonstrations and counter protests and counter demonstrations. and, you know, just as this has become, you know, a hugely polarizing issue in lots of different avenues of american life, we're seeing that play out on the university campus where people were supposed to engage with ideas, they're supposed to debate. they're supposed to think about these things critically and so on, so we are seeing a lot of that happening. in addition, on the day to day people are going to class, learning, reading, preparing to graduate and all the other

things that happen in a normal academic year. >> is there a conversation about -- i mean president shafik got at this in the hearing today. the conversation needs to be about what is free speech and discruinatory speech. is that a debate happening at any point? >> the irony of this, this is a debate we've had serially long before this conflict began. this was a debate in a robust issue we should be debating on college campuses. of course the irony of this is the president was being questioned by congress, who actually has purview over this. it makes legislation and laws, and the supreme court which determines by precedence chut is acceptable and what's not acceptable. so really universities are being beaten up and columbia in particular are being beaten up over things we have really no control over. we're following the guidance of the people who are actually doing the questioning there. >> well, it seems like to that

end what was happening in congress today wasn't really about columbia, it wasn't necessarily about anti-semitism. it seemed like it was very clearly an opportunity for republicans to go after what they perceive to be a group of liberal elites and the wokism that is -- that has penetrated america's college campus system. did you think that they were successful in maligning columbia university today? >> i mean they've said all kinds of things about columbia university, and that's not the institution that i think most of us experience. even though there have been incidents of anti-semitism, no question, and those incidents have been denounced, you know, broadly by that community. but what we've seen in place of this has been a kind of disingenuous caricature what the university is, what the university stands for, who are faculty are, and that's been

going on for weeks before this. and so, you know, listening to that hearing, you would not think that there was anything redeemable, you know, happening at columbia university. >> do you -- do you think -- i mean it seems like the war in gaza and the absolute schism that has been created in its aftermath and some would say predating the war in gaza has been approval for conservatives in f in particular to get at the culture of wokism and culture of liberal elites. not to be repetitive, but i do wonder how effective they have been in turning some part of the country against what is perceived as, you know, higher institutions? >> sure. but i think one of the more, like, more pernicious things and one of the more disingenuous things is the presentation of this as if this were a matter of principle. what this is really about is the perception that universities are too liberal, especially elite

institutions are too liberal. this is part on par with the attacks on dei, on par with the attacks on affirmative action. what's happening at new college in florida, for instance. the idea is we're laying the ground for these institutions to be something other than what they are perceived to be. these are also heterogenous institutions. i teach opinion writing. i have students whose views are all across the spectrum, which you'll find at this university and this institution. >> republicans attend columbia university, too. >> shockingly they do. and i've actually taught a few amazingly. none of these issues of substance were on display there. this was a kind of theater in order to caricature the university to further an agenda of kind of making it more difficult for our institutions to function the way that they

have. >> yeah, i will say if we have time i would love to play an exchange between president shafik and representative rick allen who was asking if she wanted columbia to be cursed by god. can we play that? >> are you familiar with genesis 12. do you consider that a serious issue? i mean do you want columbia university boo be cursed by godlike the bible in. >> definitely not. >> okay, well that's good. >> it's like a very curious logic to somehow bring in white christian nationalism in a conversation that's supposed to be about anti-semitism. i'm not going to get into the logic by which representative allen got there. it is a culture war. it's about republican white christian national conservatives against heterogenous

multicultural liberal learning, and that's the fight they want to have. >> i also think it was race baiting. i think asking about genesis is what's happening. it was the most thinly veiled of the most pernicious parts of what we've seen, you know, particularly given the proliferation of anti-semitism that we have seen in the right-wing of that party itself. >> right. so maybe the mirror should be turned upon the party in the line of questioning. i have to ask you, you know, we talk about this as a kind of exercise in politics, but it has had some real consequences. the number of university heads who have had to step down that have, you know, had to leave their posts or been otherwise, you know, seriously professionally wounded in the course of this, does that make you worry? do you think we're turning a corner when the sort of -- you know, the goals of at least one-sidedness have revealed to

be not potentially that pure? >> so i think the real concern is that when we're in a moment of democratic crisis, you know, and this goes back to the 1950s when we're talking about the cold war. how do you handle challenges to your democracy? the way you handle challenges to your democracy is by being more democratic. you have to double and triple down on your principles. and so to see these kind of assaults on free speech and on academic freedom at a point where we're also seeing other parts of our democratic tradition being assailed is chilling, is deeply chilling. >> dean of the columbia university school of journalism jelani cobb, thank you for bringing much needed perspective to us on a night like this. thank you for your time. still to come tonight arizona democrats fight to repeal a civil war-era law criminalizing most abortions while republicans do everything they can to stop democrats. we'll talk about the strategy and the political fallout with

aaron carmon coming up next. n c.

there are so many people who are watching right now and watching what arizona is doing. >> we have had since 1864 to repeal this abhorrent law, and for the past six years democrats have introduced this bill. democrats have introduced this bill for six years and been ignored every single one of them. including this one. >> that was the arizona house floor today after republican state legislators for the second time in less than two weeks rejected democrats efforts to repeal an abortion ban from 1864, which was reinstated last week from arizona's top court. joining me now the author of an upcoming book about the post-dobbs era called "unbearable being pregnant in

america." what do you make of the discrepancy between what national republicans are calling for in terms of getting rid of this ban and what the republicans in arizona are actually doing? >> yeah, i mean what happened is that the supreme court handed them a gift that has actually proven to be a curse for republicans. republicans, some of them are true believers such as the speaker of the arizona statehouse who says some believe that killing children is wrong or that abortion is killing children and people like donald trump who will say whatever it takes for them to win. now, i think up until the supreme court made it possible for these sbraumby laws to go into effect, these two sides could be in alliance, they could be in coalition. unfortunately for them americans have actually seen the true real life consequences of being banned when it's not just a debate tactic or political move. they found out they don't like the reality how women are being

treated across the country. now, hence this conflict where people like kari lake and donald trump would like to say they're against something, that they, in fact, either championed or in the case of donald trump directly enabled. suddenly they're acting shocked. why? they're in tough races. contrast that with the legislators in arizona. the house and the senate are both controlled by republicans. there are i believe one in each chamber cross over votes. when the motion to appeal or the motion to begin debate on the appeal failed, when it was blocked by republicans, they cheered. so on the one hand you have kari lake working the phones and trump saying this goes too far, but when push comes to shove, there are plenty of republicans who are thrilled that the 19th century is coming back to rule the women of arizona. >> there republicans won't do it and democrats can't do it. it feels like the voters of arizona will do it. we now know republicans are concerned a ballot referendum

might enshrine the right to abortion in the arizona constitution therefore overriding the ban. and arizona republicans want to add a second referenda to the ballot to confuse things, and i wonder if you think they could be successful in that or whether arizonians are paying close enough attention here that it won't work? >> i was on the phone today with the spokeswoman for that campaign, and she does not believe arizonians will be fooled. we're seeing this sustained voter outrage and interest and seeing past the kinds of obfuscation republicans are putting forward. remember what happened in ohio where they tried to change the rules on referenda. voters didn't fall for that even though abortion wasn't directly the issue and wept onto pass that overwhelmingly. notice what republicans are offering to put on the ballot or all the legislation they're offering directly relies on

trying to confuse people. to be clear some of that confusion is actually harming patients because all of these kind of dueling laws and which one is in effect have actually prevented people from getting abortions in arizona even when it's legal and allowed. so it has real life consequences. but the politics of it i think there's no reason to believe arizona is going to be tremendously different from many of these even red states when the democratic process the supreme court said it wanted to allow in dobbs actually happens. voters are going to say actually we want abortion to be legal, we want it to be safe, and we want it to be accessible. >> thank you for your great reporting on this. really appreciate your time tonight. >> thank you. >> that is our show for tonight. "way too early" with jonathan lemire is coming up next. i think providing legal aid to ukraine right now is critically important. i really do. this is not a game, not a joke. we can't play politics with this. we have to do the