as the ranking democrat and the oversight committee. when we win the house back in 2020, four we will, i will be the chair of the oversight committee and i want to see we the chair of the oversight committee. and i want to see this through. and i want to make sure we're going to win the house back and we'll be going all across the country to campaign for fellow democrats. and i'd rather be campaigning for democrats across america than against fellow democrats in maryland. that's the judgment i've made at this point. >> between you and me i think they're kind of snobs in the senate. congressman jamie raskin, thank you for your time. that is "all in" on this tuesday night. alex wagner tonight begins right now. >> snobs like tommy tuberville.

>> as it came out of my mouth i was wondering are we going to a problem next time trying to book -- imagine there were 50-50 odds you'd just been chosen as one of the people to decide whether or not to criminally indict donald trump. that may very well be the case for the grand juries who are just seated in fulton county, georgia. today over 100 georgians showed up at the superior court of fulton county in atlanta. and for the sake of their privacy we're not going to show you any of them, but you can see fulton county district attorney fani willis was in the room. there she is right there. the judge sent about half of the potential jurors home, but the other half he directed to one side of the room or the other. they were split into grand jury "a" and grand jury "b." each one was made up of 23

jurors plus alternates. now, other than the $25 a day these grand juries will get for their time, they may also get the chance to make history. for more than two years now fani willis has been investigating trump's election interference in the state of georgia. today they impanelled from a special grand jury that heard from a total of 45 witnesses. a woman has since told the press the jury recommended indictments for multiple people on a range of charges, but that special grand jury did not have the power to indict on its own. to bring an indictment d.a. willis needs the approval of a regular grand jury like the two seated today, which happened. and the time line remains unclear when might they issue an indictment. earlier this year willis sent a letter to the fulton county sheriff alerting him of the need of heightened security and

vigilance because at some point in that time frame the d.a. will announce her charging decision in this case. two months ago willis got even more specific telling the chief judge at the fulton county superior court the staff will be working remotely from august 31st to the 18th. the idea of that seems to be keep the people at the courthouse to a minimum for their safety in case people are riled up over i don't know a big criminal indictment. here are the days these grand juries are impanelled here are the dates fani willis has said she's likely to indict. see the overlap? buckle up. grand jury "b" starts thursday. grand jury "a" starts monday. and then down in florida on tuesday which is just a week from today, we are expecting

another key decision in another case against trump. tuesday will be the first hearing in special counsel jack smith's case about trump's handling of classified documents down at mar-a-lago. late last night team trump formally asked the judge overseeing the case to postpone the criminal trial until after the 2024 election. obviously if that case sees the light of day before or after the 2024 election has major implications and it poses the possibility of trump being able to preemptively pardon himself before the case runs its course or get the attorney general to stand down on prosecuting, so the timing here is a major decision. we anticipate the judge in this case will make a decision either shortly before or shortly after that tuesday hearing, again, which is just a week from today. so to recap, we have maybe the most important decision in the mar-a-lago case right around the corner. we have a potential indictment in the fulton county case, also right around the corner.

but then on top of all of that, we have this. andrew wiseman, the lead prosecutor in the mueller investigation, a former chief of the fraud section at the department of justice and more importantly a legal expert who is a pretty damn judicious about not getting over his skis, andrew wiseman posted this on the new social media platform threads. hearing rumblings a new january 6th indictment may be soon, would not surprise me as i think jack smith would want to try his case before the georgia case. joining us now are the former federal and state prosecutor in new york and joyce vance, former u.s. attorney for the northern district of alabama. ladies, thank you for being here. i'm sorry to use the colorful language, but, wow, all that is happening -- all that may happy, first off what iour assessment of the notion that

jack smith may want to get ahead of even d.a. willis on a potential january 6th related criminal indictment of donald trump? >> i think what andrew said makes perfect sense because the subject matter of his january 6th case as opposed to his mar-a-lago case overlaps to what fani willis is looking at, you know, looking for those extra votes and the interference with the certifying of the electors in georgia. and generally the feds want to go before state prosecutors and get to go before state prosecutors when charges are available in both jurisdictions. and he is the one who's making it part of a bigger network of crimes of election interference around the country, so i think that's right, this has a little bit of a fire under him, and as you said she's signposted a million different ways exactly what her time frame is. >> short of sending out i hp cal invites to social media.

>> exactly. >> we know rudy giuliani has been interviewed by federal prosecutors in this case, mike pence. the central characters of trump in the january 6th plot have all testified in front of prosecutors or in front of the grand jury. we're talking about three weeks here. do you think we might see a federal indictment of the former president or at least decisions in the next three weeks as it concerns january 6th? >> so it's tough to make those guesses and even prosecutors themselves sometimes don't know for certain exactly when an indictment will drop because there's some fine tuning that might have to be done with evidence towards the end of that preparation time, but the time line does make a lot of sense. we're about to enter into the campaign season. things will begin to pick up. prosecutors, of course, like to avoid interfering during that sort of process with something as astonishing as the indictment of one of the leading candidates even though here it's been long

anticipated. and doj's summer calender makes a bit of sense here. typically you'll see people prepare and finalize things in late july or perhaps one of the first two weeks of august. so i think the calender may dictate that, but, alex, it's a little bit unusual the situation here because doj, of course, has that first year where there didn't appear to be any investigative activity. the united states attorney's office in atlanta which would have had jurisdiction over these charges that fani willis is looking at and apparently is prepared to indict on, they did not pursue them, and that is what led to her entry in this race. she has a good bit of time ahead of jack smith. there's no indication they worked to coordinator or divvy up charges. she's had conversations with a number of in-state georgia republicans, those involved in preparing fake slates of electors, and she could

certainly have charges internal to georgia that she would be able to indict, but by all appearances she's looking at a much larger conspiracy, one that really may bump into the evidence that jack smith has. so it'll be interesting to watch this unfold. >> you know, i was speaking with attorney general letitia james, the new york a.g., and she said that depending on the timeline of jack smith's case, she would adjourn her case, and she also name checked alvin bragg and fani willis saying if they go ahead of a potential criminal indictment of january 6th, then we would adjourn our cases. joyce i think just fasterfully laid out the way in which fani willis has been on top of this way before the feds. i mean, do you think she stands down on something like this given the fact they didn't do anything for so long? >> so a.g. james is in a different position because she has civil charges against trump.

so it goes federal crimes, state crimes -- >> the pecking order. >> exactly. and then civil charges in order of importance. but remember georgia is a two-step process and so the investigative grand jury that gathered the information that she needs in order to present indictments to the grand jury that has convened today has already done its work. so joyce is absolutely right that she has a head start there. jack smith is also running this other case in mar-a-lago that has some timing challenges of its own, and so that's all also where a lot of his focus must be. and in that one, you know, we have this motion last night trump made about delaying indefinitely, and it's not reasonable to ask for indefinite delay, and some of his reasons not persuasive in the least, but the truth is the clock is on his side. i actually wondered why he did

this because he could have said i want to vindicate myself and improve my innocence and just slowly whittle away at the time line and push out that case past the point where the doj can't pursue it because we're in the heat of the election season, and i think that might happen as long as judge cannon says i'm not going to delay indefinitely. >> one of the things i found particularly interesting in their sort of argument was the idea rebutting the contention of the special counsel this is not a novel case. jack smith has said this thing can be handled expeditiously because we're not reinventing the wheel here. this is not a novel case. trump's defense team sort of makes the opposite argument saying, you know, this is the first test of the intersection of the presidential records act and various criminal statutes. do they have a case to be made here?

i mean who's right on that question as you see it? >> so i think that jack smith has the better argument here, but it's important to say that donald trump has due process rights as a defendant, so does walt nauta. they're entitled to have sufficient time to prepare their case. and it would be on appeal. convictions could be reversed, if they weren't given that opportunity. so the judge will have to be mindful of that. but at the same time although this defense motion is very well written by trump's new legal team, it just doesn't carry any weight. they're asking for no trial date whatsoever without indicating they'd be willing to waive their speedy trial rights. and a much wetter practice would be for the judge to set a date and say, look, if you guys have legitimate problems as discovery gets under way, come to me and we can talk about that. but for now the government has represented things can move quickly, and it's a little

disingenuous for trump lawyers to complain about how long the process is taking when they've failed to comply with the judge's order to complete their paperwork so the attorneys can get security clearances. she issued that order three weeks ago, said get your paperwork in, and that still isn't done. so she's got a decision point coming. is she serious about making sure that the people who have a right to have a speedy trial, that they get that, or will she line up with trump? >> yeah, their excuse about the discovery process, that it's over 800,000 pages of material is sort of like my complaint in college when i couldn't get -- well, there's too much reading, you've got to give me more time. i mean, when it comes to aileen cannon, given the embarrassment she suffered during the special counsel debacle, where's your money on her being conservative not politically but in terms of the scope of her ruling on something like this?

>> so they slapped her pretty hard, and she must be chastised by that with the whole foray we had with the special master and the documents that slowed down the developments in ths case. i think it's unreasonable and unprecedented to say we can't set a trial date for all, so i expect her to do the reasonable thing and set a date. and as joyce said, they can keep coming back, and i expect they will team trump in saying we can't get this done in that time, we can't get this other thing in that time. and it's not just trump but also nauta. it's sort of that expression of you're only as happy as your least happy kid. you can only move as slow as your defendant, and he's also contributed to delay. he can't get a lawyer in time, and so i think this is going to be just kind of a slog for jack smith because it is a complex case. there is a lot of paper. even motions relatively weak like this challenge of the pra,

you know, against the rules around national security information, even weak motions take time to answer. >> yeah, it's gumming up the works in the name of delay. we've seen it before. thank you guys for your expertise and thanks for your time tonight. speaking of trump's legal troubles specifically the episode in trump's federal criminal indictment where prosecutors say he waved around classified documents in front of people with zero security clearances, that episode has a back story, and wait i will you hear it from one of the reporters at the center of the story. plus we're going to talk to transportation secretary pete buttigieg from everything from the raging floods that have devastated the north east to republican hypocrisy. stay with us. ith us

as we wait to see exactly when donald trump will stand trial in the charges of mishandling classified documents, we are getting some very valuable insight into exactly how he ended up in this situation to begin with. if you remember one of the key things special counsel jack smith pointed out in his criminal indictment was a recording of trump back in july of 2021. on that tape trump criticizes his former joint chiefs of staff, general mark milley, and apparently he waves around a secret pentagon document in front of people who did not have security clearance to look at it. this is part of that tape. >> well, with milley, let me see

that, i'll show you an example. he said that i wanted to attack iran. isn't that amazing? this was him. they presented me, this is off-the-record, but they presented me this. this totally wins my case, you know, except it is like highly confidential, secret. this is secret information. >> we now know what likely prompted trump to go on that rant in the first place. just days before on july 15th of 2021, the intrepid susan glasser of "the new yorker" reported general milley was extremely worried what trump might do to stay in power after losing the 2020 election including possibly tacking iran. now that coverage appeared to infuriate trump who then according to prosecutors waved classified documents in his front of his guests that would seem to exonerate trump as the source of any iran attack plan. so with susan glasser's

reporting that may have put the bee in donald trump's bonnet and in turn given rise to one of the most shocking pieces of evidence in this whole case. as she puts it, the tape, this damning evidence against trump would not exist if not for his rift with general mark milley. joining us now to talk about the remarkable feud between trump and milley is susan glasser, a staff writer at "new yorker." thank you for coming up to chat on set. what was your reaction when you heard this tape for the first time? was it like, yep, sounds like trump sph. >> definitely sounds like trump. donald trump is a big believer in the weaponization of information. that's what he's trying to do there, and of course that's very much in keeping with his style, but also an example of the big mouth getting donald trump in trouble. he doesn't text very much or if at all. he doesn't send e-mails, but what he does do is talk and talk

a lot, and he seemed to be completely oblivious the tape recordings were on there. >> you were reporting on there in your conversations with him, i mean how characteristic was this behavior? was this something that happened a lot these petty grievances and feuds animating this conversation? >> absolutely. donald trump is sort of a fulminator. we did two interviews with him for our book "the divider" that came out last year, and i have to say it wasn't really an interview as much an extended dialogue. at one point i tried to list out all the people he randomly criticized, and it wasn't just mark milley lsh let's just say. >> yeah, but milley, if you were to believe the importance of -- the fact he's waving around classified documents drafted for him from the department of defense, the fact he's so intent on exonerating himself from this alleged iran attack plan suggests to me the milley feud

got to him in a sort of visceral way, or do you think there are other people that rose to that level of indignation. >> there were a wave of books that started to come out in spring of 2021. remember donald trump was in exile, he was furious. it wasn't at all clear he was going to reemerge as the unchallenged member of the republican party, the front-runner he was in 2024. then he was much more on the ropes. this reporting i did just five days later, he's the one who's bringing this up, and by the way this also shows how he completely did not understand the role of either the chairman of the joint chiefs or his own role as the president, the idea that the pentagon having the existence of an iran war plan would somehow be a damning political fact. you know, the pentagon wouldn't be doing its job if it did not have war plans for various scenarios, but also he says in that tape we just heard, well, this is off-the-record, this is

off-the-record. it actually shows up not only in his tape but in mark meadows' book that's published in 2021. >> mark meadows actually lays the bread crumbs for this tape in print. i've got to ask because you make note of the fact this all is happening in a period where trump is licking his wounds, where his future is uncertain. we have reporting -- well, a new book i believe claims that white house staff were worried while trump was president that he was showing classified material to random people. do you think that the documents -- and there are a lot of them that he held onto, may have been used in other -- i know i'm [you to surmise something you don't have a definite answer for, but given the sort of promiscuousness in which he's waving the documents around and this sort of behavior happened while he was president, would you assume more instances like bedminster happened in his post-presidency? >> let's just say we'll see when

the trial happens, but i would be very curious to see what additional evidence there is to suggest this. our reporting for "the divider," we spoke with multiple national security officials who worked with donald trump throughout his four years. that was a persistent theme almost from the very beginning from his tenure in the white house was this concern he was being reckless with classified information, he was talking on unsecure phones. that was something that h.r. mcmaster, his second national security advisor, john bolton, they all worried about this. our allies, there were questions about what kind of intelligence donald trump might share. there was a concern about whether allies would be even more withholding of intelligence because they were so worried about what donald trump might say about it. >> i've got to -- trump has long been obsessed with as you point out being on the inside, having the access, having the power. and an extension of that

inclination is his obsession with military generals. from the outset he was obsessed with his general, my generals, keeping them close to his vest. i think it's remarkable we have this milley incident which reflects so poorly on donald trump, and now we have reporting from "the times" about john kelly, his former white house chief of staff who had some damning regulatory testimony under oath about just how characteristic -- just how poor trump's character was in terms of his recklessness while in office, his orders to investigate certain personnel at the irs who weren't behaving well in trump's eyes. i mean the fact there's been such a break with these men he once held in such high astream, i wonder how much you think that animates all these grievance in the post-presidency years. >> i do think for that reason his feud with general milley particularly stuck in his craw. you point out john kelly, there's another example in our book dozens and dozens of times,

not just once donald trump demanded that his enemies have their security clearances taken away, people like john brennen, for example. and this was something where he sought to weaponize the machinery of government but also to weaponize information, which is what he's doing there with general milley. milley particularly infuriated him because he chose him himself. he tried to basically embarrass and undermine jim mattis, who was the defense secretary he was feuding with, and he thought, well, i'm going to pick this guy, general milley, instead of it preferred choice who was an air force general of jim mattis. and then it really didn't work out. again, i would just like to point out that this kind of a feud between the top uniformed nonpolitical military officer and the commander in chief is almost without precedent in modern american history. it is something that really struck at sort of the foundations, and this began back during the election year in

2020, but this is some of the most extraordinarying i've ever done, the idea we came this close to weaponizing basically and politicizing the u.s. military in trump's vain quest to stay in power after 2020, that's the context here. there was a domestic element to it, trump sitting in the oval office discussing openly with advisers whether he could somehow declare martial law in order to seize voting machines, so this was a nightmare scenario. that's the phrase milley used with others. he said this was a nightmare scenario. he said he was worried about the possibility of a moment where trump would essentially use the military to seize power. and then there's international component, too, the fear he would get us into an escalating crisis with iran, again, as part of his effort to stay in power. this is something really unprecedented in america. >> it's incredible reporting, and my oh, my what it has setoff in terms of a chain reaction. susan glasser, thank you so

much. please come back all the time. still to come here tonight, protesters came out in force today as iowa legislators convened a special session to take away their rights. >> plus, when it comes to republican spending they say one thing in washington and another thing back at home. we'll talk about it with transportation secretary pete buttigieg. that's next. transportation secretary pete buttigieg. that's next.

(woman) oh. oh! hi there. you're jonathan, right? the 995 plan! yes, from colonial penn. your 995 plan fits my budget just right. excuse me? aren't you jonathan from tv, that 995 plan? yes, from colonial penn. i love your lifetime rate lock. that's what sold me. she thinks you're jonathan, with the 995 plan. -are you? -yes, from colonial penn. we were concerned we couldn't get coverage, but it was easy with the 995 plan. -thank you. -you're welcome. i'm jonathan for colonial penn life insurance company. this guaranteed acceptance whole life insurance plan

is our #1 most popular plan. it's loaded with guarantees. if you're age 50 to 85, $9.95 a month buys whole life insurance with guaranteed acceptance. you cannot be turned down for any health reason. there are no health questions and no medical exam. and here's another guarantee you can count on: guaranteed lifetime coverage. your insurance can never be cancelled. just pay your premiums. guaranteed lifetime rate lock. your rate can never increase. pardon me, i'm curious. how can i learn more about this popular 995 plan? it's easy. just call the toll-free number for free information. (soft music) ♪

we moved out of the city so our little sophie could appreciate nature. but then he got us t-mobile home internet. i was just trying to improve our signal, so some of the trees had to go. i might've taken it a step too far.

(chainsaw revs) (tree crashes) (chainsaw continues) (daughter screams) let's pretend for a second that you didn't let down your entire family. what would that reality look like? well i guess i would've gotten us xfinity... and we'd have a better view. do you need mulch? what, we have a ton of mulch.

okay, here's a tweet from republican senator tommy tuberville of alabama. broadband is vital for the success of our rural communities and for our entire community. great to see alabama receive crucial funds to boost broadband efforts. then the senator links to a local story about alabama receiving $1.4 pillion in funding for a new broadband access. the problem for senator tuberville is that alabama received that $1.4 billion in new broadband funding because of joe biden's bipartisan infrastructure bill, a bill republican senator tommy tuberville voted against. and here's a similar tweet from john cornyn celebrating the $3.3 billion in federal funds that texas received to expand broadband in that state. and as you can probably guess senator cornyn also voted against the biden infrastructure bill that was responsible for that influx of funding. in south carolina it was

republican congresswoman nancy mace touting a new bus project in that state again made possible by that same infrastructure bill, which nancy mace also voted against. in fact, when the bill passed congresswoman mace called it a fiasco and the socialist wish list. u.s. transportation secretary pete buttigieg was asked about the republican highway hypocrisy when he was in nancy mace's home state last month. >> what are your thoughts on republicans applauding projects that are funded with federal dollars they voted against originally? >> well, i would say welcome

aboard. >> and transportation secretary pete buttigieg joins me now. mr. secretary, your magnanimity is in impressive in that moment. what is the biden administration's plan in making sure americans know who voted for these programs? by my count a majority of republicans voted against this infrastructure bill that's going to bring $110 billion for road repair, $39 billion to modernize transit, $7.5 billion in electric vehicle charges. these are big investments they voted against, so is the any kind of messaging strategy here to correct the wrongs? >> well, look, i think it's important for these members in congress for their constach wnts to know where they stood when we were fighting to get this money in the first place. remember this bill even though it was bipartisan and even though we're proud of the strong bipartisan majorities and it passed in the end, this bill

didn't easy. it was declared dead multiple times. the president kept fighting for it, congressional democrats kept fighting it, and some congressional republicans crossed over to work with democrats to get it done. many others stood in the way, denounced it as wasteful spending, denounced it as socialism. what's remarkable of course they don't think it's socialism when it's coming to their districts. they think it's so great they want to be at the press conference. they sent press releases touting their advocacy for it. sometimes they even describe themselves as having secured it, which is obviously sitting in the department of transportation approving some of these grants or knowing other departments in the biden-harris administration are making the decision. i think we're demonstrating, look, we're going to send this funding where it's needed and these are places that are red,

blue, and purple. we're not going to punish any american for the shortsightedness of their elected officials if there's any project. i've been in red, blue, and purple states, recently was in eastern kentucky, the lake project there. that's going to mean a lot to the community of jackson and the appalachian community devastated by funds last year. and repairing state route 15, we're also going to be able to repair the dam and make it safer for flooding. a big priority for governor bashir also a big supporter of this bill. we burn talking about democrat and republican but were talking about how this is going to save lives in grand forks, north dakota, where we celebrated the work that was going on there with the railroad drossing they didn't want to get rid of since the early 1990s since it cuts the town in two. these were good projects, and look, the sign of a bad policy is the people who pushed it and abandoned it later on. the sign of a good policy is even the people who fought it

and stood in the way at the time come to support it. i just wish they would be a little straightforward and go far to acknowledge they were wrong when they said this infrastructure bill was a bad idea and wrong to call it socialism as evidenced by the fact -- or wrong to denounce it as socialism and wasteful spending. if it is socialis ieems to be socialism republicans love when it's coming their way. >> i understand the sort of like haha, the hypocrisy and irony of it. it is hilarious but in some ways quietly devastating. lies to american public about its position and spends a lot of time and a lot of ink and soapboxing denouncing the biden administration and calling it some of the worst names in the book. and some of it has has the intended effect to erode

americans confidence not only in government and what it can do but in this government in particular. as you point out these are important projects that touch red and blue and purple states alike. and i think for democrats in particular it enrages them this administration does not get the credit and democrats don't get the credit that is due in terms of passing these big pieces of legislation, envisioning change in the country, and moving it forward. i mean do you think more needs to be done like a wpa-style stamp or signing things like donald trump likes to do. does there needs to be more of an effort to correct the record? >> yeah, i do think we should not be shy about making clear who was for and against this work. you're going to see that in terms of certainly me and cabinet colleagues hitting the road, the president and vice president hitting the road. you're going to see that in terms of the story we're telling, signage and things to let people know how their tax dollars are being put to work. i will say it actually

represents progress that these republican congressional members who voted no on the bill are talking about these projects even if there's some obviously rich irony in them trying to take credit for the projects. i have to say it's actually good news they're talking about it, because another pattern that i've seen especially in the ecosystem of the media on the right is they almost never talk about the projects at all. i could go to ten different states including the conservatives in rural areas delivering fantastic projects and then maybe along the way i'll comment about why we care a great deal about an issue like inequity, and i'll see some of these political figures denouncing being so obsessed on quote-unquote social issues we're not taking care of the basics. but when we're taking care of the basics they tend not to talk about it or cover it. honestly it really is progress

to have them at least acknowledging these projects are happening even if it comes in the form of them taking credit or trying to take credit for projects that they also tried to block when it came time to get them funded. i think in the end people hold their elected officials accountable for the choices they make. we certainly expect that, we expect to be held accountable for the policy consequences, the policies we advocate, and i think people out there are pretty smart and they're going to connect the dots for who is out there and not out there to get the funding and helping us with roads and bridges needed to be fixed, helping us improve airports at a time where we've recently reported the highest number of passages ever, and we need the infrastructure to keep up with that growing demand. i think people are going to see very clearly who stood where. and of course we're not going to hesitate to remind them. >> i guess i've got to ask you

really quickly because you're a busy man and you've been a presidential candidate before. what do you make of the fact donald trump says he can't have a trial over his mishandling of classified information while he's running for president? do you think that that's a good line of defense as someone who himself has run for president before? >> you know, look, i think the important thing is that america, not just an individual but our country can handle a lot of things it wants. i'm not going to speak to a law enforcement process that's playing out. it's very appropriate in our system that that has nothing to do with politics in terms of the process that's followed, certainly all i know about it is what i see on the news. but, look, we're grownups. this is country that has a lot on its plate and needs to handle everything from processes in our courts to the policy processes i'm involved in every day from everything from supporting the national airspace at its busiest

time in u.s. history to making sure we get these roads and bridges fixed, making sure we get these trains and tunnels done, making sure we get all this good transportation funding out the door and help the communities that need it. >> yeah, there's a lot to talk about on that front. please come back, transportation secretary pete buttigieg, thank you so much for your time tonight, sir. really appreciate it. i know you're busy. >> thank you. good being with you. we have more to come this evening including a visit from . plus, a battle is raging tonight in the state of iowa as the republican-led legislature is working overtime to override the will of its constituents. that's next. constituents that's next.

vote them out, vote them out! >> hundreds of abortion rights protesters filled the hallways of the iowa state capitol today where they clashed with anti-choice activists. they were all there because the republican led house and senate are meeting right now in a special session to advance a bill that would ban nearly all abortions in iowa after six weeks of pregnancy, which is, of course, before most people know they are pregnant. now, the republican governor of the state, kim reynolds, called this special session after iowa's supreme court deadlocked last month in a vote that left the previous six-week ban permanently blocked.

that means that for now iowa allows abortion up to 20 weeks of pregnancy. by contrast several neighboring states banned the procedure in almost all cases. if a legislature moves as fast as expected, it could pass this bill and send it to the governor tonight. and that means iowans could lose abortion access in just a few hours. it is not what they want. 61% of iowa adults think abortion should be illegal in all or most cases. and yet iowa is poised to join the 14 states that have banned most abortions since the supreme court overturned roe last year. if you remember voters across the country responded to those bans by turning out to vote in november, which flipped some state level republican strong holds and suppressed a predicted red wave. abortion could be a defining issue in 2024 as well. as iowa lawmakers gathered for this special lemg s slative session, republican presidential hopefuls are in iowa making their case to people who will take part in the first

republican nominating contest the iowa caucuses. and protesters have not been shy in confronting the candidates on abortion. we're going to talk more about the issue in the 2024 presidential race with america's sweetheart, my colleague steve kornacki. that's coming up next. stay with us. kornacki that's coming up next. stay with us or an unbearable itch. this painful, blistering rash can disrupt your life for weeks. it could make your workday feel impossible. the virus that causes shingles is likely already inside of you. if you're 50 years or older, ask your doctor or pharmacist about shingles. he snores like an angry rhino. you've never heard an angry rhino. baby i hear one every night... every night. okay. i'll work on that. save $1200 on our most popular sleep number 360 smart bed. plus, save up to an additional $500 when you add select adjustable bases.

iowa lawmakers are still at the state capitol tonight debating ahead of a vote that would essentially ban abortions in the state before most people know they are pregnant. even though the majority of the state like the majority of the country supports abortion rights, it's still going to be one of the biggest issues in the presidential race next year. joining us now to break it all down is steve kornacki. thank you for wearing a jacket and being here. how have these fights over abortion shaped the american electorate? >> it's interesting and a little complicated. i think broadly speaking you ask a question about should abortion

be legal in the country. that is broad support there. even states like iowa where you had these six-week bans and potentially implemented here, there's broad opposition to that. so that's definitely a core element of this. where it gets a little complicated and take a state like iowa. they just had a governor's race last year. governor kim reynolds was an incumbent and signaling this was on her agenda. she's going to push for the six-week ban, in the face of the polling like you showed in broad opposition of the six-week ban. she wasn't around. when you look at georgia brian kemp got re-elected by 8 points, he ran a six-week ban, was part of the platform. and he got re-elected and at the same time herschel walker is losing the senate race. >> i think you mentioning in the break kim reynolds had an 88% approval rating. what is going on in the minds of voters we are opposed to this signature issue, but we also support this government

overwhelmingly? >> yeah, i thought georgia last year was such an interesting example because that clash between herschel walker and brian kemp, basically running on the same set of issues on the same ticket in the same state and one won easily and one lost. i think the wild card and x factor in 2022 donald trump, and it ended up kemp had that distance from trump and that walker didn't. and what swung swing voters in georgia in 2022, i think it was more the trump factor, the january 6th factor than it was the abortion factor just because kemp was poised to sign, you know, the six-week ban, and he got re-elected and herschel walker said i've got the same position and he lost. >> it was a personal relationship he had with trump and a relationship kemp apparently had with the georgia voters. what about iowa as a presidential battleground here? we know trump has had the governor in his sights because she hasn't endorsed him yet. what is your expectation about

the ability of anybody to break through right now given the strength of trump's numbers? >> i guess you have to keep in mind trump did lose iowa in 2016 by 3 points to ted cruz. the polling you've seen this time around completely different. i think the theory for so many of these candidates is it's got to start in iowa. they've got to use these next few months in iowa to build that support the grass roots way in iowa to trust, to hope, to pray somehow that style of politics still works in a state like iowa, and then they're counting on a slingshot effect. if you can beat him once in iowa and can you roll him into new hampshire and down south. the one thing in 2016 in the republican primaries, he never lost two big contests back-to-back. he always had the answer for the lost. he lost iowa and bounced back in new hampshire. he lost wisconsin and bounced back in the midatlantic states. he always had an answer. if somebody can come forward

here and put together a one two munch against him, that would be something he hasn't seen before. >> steve kornacki's prediction corner, i like it. or at least strategy corner. >> that would be strategy. >> not prediction corner to be clear. steve kornacki, my friend, thank you for closing off the show with me. that is it for us tonight. "way too early," with jonathan lemire is coming up next. we reaffirm ukraine will become a member of nato and agreed to remove the requirement for membership action plan. we also made clear that we will issue an invitation for ukraine to join nato when allies agree and conditions are met. >> that was nato secretary-general offering an ambiguous path to membership to ukraine, which drew a strong reaction from the ukrainian president. we'll have a live report from lithuania for the latest on the summit. also ahead the department of justice will no longer defen