and letting it happen. no one says oh, maybe that man it was sitting next to the kid on the plane should've done a better job of checking for the bolts. follow the money. that's what we always say in our prosecution office. follow the money. and the money has been going to them and their algorithms and how they are creating this kind of demand for this content. and we could have a new word. world some of it is giving parents the ability, but a lot of it is holding them accountable by allowing them to be sued. open the doors in the courthouse. they are one of the only industries that is immune from m >> nothing motivates people like a lawsuit, chris. >> it'sws true. it's complicated stuff. >> oh, is it? literally the most complicated thing is so onli the horizon in

terrifying way. my friend. >> youyo bet. >> and thanks to you at home for joining us this hour. it is a real hodgepodge of people andal groups, vivek ramaswamy, the rnc, the naacp, 179 members of congress, three former attorneys general, three current secretaries of state, multiple civil war historians, a group of capitol police officers, and roxan bar or at least someone named roxan bar which reports to live in the same state where the actual reaa roxan bar lives. what do all these people and organizations have inle common? they've allti signed onto amicu briefs formally telling the supreme court their opinion on the question whether donald trump can be removed on the ballot in the state of california and colorado forst violating the 14th amendment. as a refresher the third section ofhi the 14th amendment

disqualifies former government officials fromor holding officef they engage in insurrection or gave aid or comfort to those who did. the deadline for weighing in on this caseei for filing those amicusr briefs was today.ri and now that case is set to be heard next week. oral arguments begin on february 8th, which is a week from tomorrow. and the eventual ruling here will have implications far beyond the state of colorado. that case will determine whether not just colorado is allowed to strike donald trump from its ballot but whether other states could follow colorado's suit. so a big hot potato has landed on the lap of those nine justices and it is notni the on one. there's another casehe where th conservative supreme courtre cod single-handedly decide trump's viability as akened dt in the 2024 election. today out with polling. in seven swing states 23% of

republicans say they would be unwilling to support donald trump forin president if he is convicted in one of the criminal trials he is currently facing. you did not hear that incorrectly. 23%rr of trump's own party woul not vote for trump in the swing states that will very likely decide this election. in arizona and georgia, in pennsylvania and michigan and wisconsin, and nevada, donald trump would lose 1 in 5 voters in his own party. now, i cannot underscore enough how much that statistic alone could cost him the election. but all of that is dependent on whether donald trump actually faces awh criminal trial before thecr 2024 election. in the fulton county election conspiracy case d.a. fani willis has asked for an august trial ug date, but legal experts say that that's unlikely to hold. that case is complicated enough

and has enough potential reasons for delay that it is likely yr to be heard next year and get help breaking down why that is later on in this hour. then i in the mar-a-lago classified documents case legal experts also d say that case do not appear to be on track for a preelection fall. back in the fall the judge in that j case, judge ilien cannon revised the schedule for pretrial motions. that has in turn pushed all the deadlines ad couple of months. legal experts believe judge cannon has effectively structured this in a way that would push the trial past the 2024 election. today we have news from politico that very clearly suggests yet another onecl of trump's crimin trials will be delayed by yet another group of judges, the ones on the supreme court. you can figure that out by points of elimination but some

of you did not. likely to l case is be heard before this november election is jack smith's federal election interference case. but for 50 days now that case has been frozen. the judge in that case, judge tanya chutkan, stayed the case. she effectively put it on hold while trump's claim of a presidential immunity makes its wayke through the appeals proce. trump has made clear if he loses at the appellate level, he plans to appeal again to the supreme court. and judgel chutkan has made clr if donald trump does, in fact, appeal to the highest court in thehi land, she will keep this case frozen, unable to proceed until there is a decision from the supreme court. but it's been 50 days. and we don't even have an appeals court ruling yet.t and as politico reports, again, today, the longer it takes for the appeals court to rule, the likelier the supreme court would

punt the issue into the fall, effectively ruling out a trial before they election. can anything be done here? joining me now are michael schmidt, "the new york times" investigative reporter and our not so secret weapon nbc political analyst lisa ruben. every night we say is this the night, is this the night that the appeals court will reach a decision in this immunity case, and, you know, granteded the hearing was january 9th. so far goose egg, we've got nothing. what's happening here in your estimation? >> i can only have a guess as to what's happening here. but we have a three-judge panel one the d.c. circuit. my guess is these three judges have a general agreement between

them president trump should not have a prosecution in the federal elections case. how they get there is a different matter. in a different world all three would likell to be in agreement but of course there are many different paths to getting there and one judge suggested during oral argument is that what really matters to her are the allegations against trump are ones thatns affect his duties o affect him in a campaign capacity and suggested almost youpa really had to parse the indictment. that wouldrs be the worst of al worlds because that could mean sending case back to judge chutkan to determine which aspects of the indictment are worthy of immunity and which are not. and that could even further elongate the case beyondfu the appellate process.pe so i think behind the scenes the two judges would like to get there in aju simpler, easier wa more akin to judge chutkan ruled

in her own ruling and ruling putting some pressure on karen henderson, the most senior of these judges, to get onboard. >> politico does talk about what thees judges can do behind the scenes to pressure. if there's a hold out, how muchical they needle her, and would they even needle her to come to a conclusion with whatever she'sa writing given w it's still the month of january but in the judicial system, this is like still -- we're still working it relatively expeditiously. >> we are. all oral argument in this matter was january 9th. typically it's different how you and i needle -- >> like how i needle you. >> i wasn't going to say that. how we needle each other. they send the drafts back and forth and they see if they can draft. it's a very legalistic dialogue and intellectual argument not

could you please pick it up for god sake, karen henderson. >> michael, it seems to me on one thand, right, there's a brd part of the american public -- well, some part of the american public would say tiktok, where are we getting with this? on the other hand, if there was some meaningful dissent here, donald trump would exploit that dissent to the ends of the worth and within the bounds of the legal system. do you think it's important legally speaking in the utility of this decision being used as a tool in trump's arsenal that everybody basically agree and come toll a general conclusion? >> i think more important than the massive issue that there was a delay in the justice department investigation into trump. >> meyeah. >> it's a huge deal. it didn't take liz cheney two years, you know, to figure out that there was a criminal problem here, but for some

reasonr it took the garland justice department a long period of time, we don't have the full story of why that happened, but they started at the bottom, and if donald trump does not go on trial before the election, a big reason for that will be because of that delay and because garland moved so slowly. and that's a huge deal. >> can i just interrupt you because we had katie boener your colleague suggesting that the department wasti too hot in layman's terms. away from to back prosecuting president trump and started with the january 6th he defendants and after the january 6th committee had the public spectacle detailing all the evidence thatcl pointed to trum didte they feel sufficient amou of pressure to pursue this in a meaningful way.

i mean, work me through how you think the department of justice is responding, can respond, might respond given the reality that we're now looking at which is the earliest you get any closure is -- >> i don't think there's anything they can do. they're subjectnk to this schede outside of their hands. they could control this on the front ouend. they could have moved more quickly. they could havemo appointed a special counsel earlier, and that would have started the clock earlier. once you start the clock, i think -- and you tell me if i'm wrong -- you start to lose control. and they have lost control.ey and now they are at the whims oa these judges, and, you know, as you were saying in that politico story, it's not really clear how they can move each other along, likech what the schedule really is, how quickly will they move. and if the supreme court steps in, then that won't happen until potentially the fall. so it raises the prospect that, and i've said this before but i

think it's really important, you could engage in trying to overthrow an election, and then you could avoid going on trial about that, and you can run for re-election ton win to essentially haveto that case dismissed. >> which feels like what is unfolding right now. lisa, in terms of the supreme court, it's an open question when we're going to get this appellate court decision. we know trump is going to appeal this to the highest court in the land. what would it take for the supreme court to take this up on an expedited basis? how unusual is that given the way they've behaved on other items. jack smith has tried to leapfroi the appellate court but they're like no thanks. >> it took jack smith 11 days between asking the supreme court for certiorari and asking for expedited briefing on that. it took them 11 days to say, no, we're not going to do that.

that's a positive when the supreme court wants to it can move at deliberate speed.de in an ordinary course this would move at a sloth's pace. a petitioner at the supreme court has 90 days after an entry of a judgment out of appeals court tot even ask for certiorari. >> just to be clear so that means the appeals court could say, donald trump, you're not immune'r and he has 90 days to take it to the supreme court. >> in the ordinary course. and then the person that opposes that review, has another 30 days to oppose, and two weeks after that and no sooner it can be distributed to the justices to confirm whether to grant review in the first place. that illustrates to you how slowly this goes. on the other hand, the supreme court is proof positive when there's a will, there's a way. this is also the supreme court that reviewed bush v. gore in four days and its own written decision in briefing and

arguments inde between. just four days. it also made a decision in the nixon case often used as sort of the precursor to this, seven weeks from the district court opinionwe to the supreme court opinion, again, with lots of briefing and argument in between. this supreme court is capable of moving, whetherof it wants to - >> is an entirely different -- >> correct. >> donald trump has had two master shows in this it feels like, michael. one is making the basic prosecution of trump and his inner circle appear to be a partisan witch hunt, right? that's apparently part of the reason merrick garland sat on his hands for lack of a better metaphor in the early days of the biden administration. the other thing he's done that's been remarkably effective is to suggest pex aditing these trials, getting a verdict whether guilty or innocent is somehowil partisan. that idea has really seeped into the ground water here, and it sort of feels like even the

judges are e buying it. judge cannon down in florida reallynn seems to be slow walki this. i think the definitive piece on aileen cannon and her experience and it feels like she's towing the trump line on this. >> thetr problem she has is whe this all started and it came out he was under investigation for the documents she made these rulings that legal experts and judges both looked at and said made no sense related to what thens government can do with th evidence that they took from donald trump's -- from mar-a-lago. and out of all the judges that could have gottenud the case, s now has the actual case, and she's someone as we detailed has extremely little experience, has a highly complicated case in front of her, has shown unusual lenience towards trump, and can very easily make sure that this -- can have this trial not

happen until after the election. >> and is skillfully not saying explicitly i'm going to push this, butpu it's kind of like death by a thousand cuts, right? there's small incremental delay that seem reasonable -- >> and whether it's fair or not in our system judges, and i think legal folks would say this is not fair, get branded by the people who appoint them. so she's a trump appointee. does that mean she's on the table for donald trump, or does that mean the perception is there? whatever it is she has that perception and amongst a lot of folks closely watching this. >> well, we are saying a lot. karen henderson and judge cannon. thank you so much for your time and thoughts this evening. coming up, nikki haley turns up the attacks on trump and biden and barack obama. more on that coming up. but first new subpoenas to

fani willis may require her to testify publicly about an alleged a affair. whatge does that all mean for t conspiracy case against donald trump? that's next. pie against donald trump? that's next.

there is some news out of fulton county, georgia, today where district attorney fani willis who has charged donald trump and 18 others in that sprawling election conspiracy case, where she has been subpoenaed. d.a. willis may now have to testify publicly in a hearing next month over allegations she was an affair with prosecutor nathan wade and mr. wade benefitted financially from their relationship. the subpoenas were part of a new lawsuit filed by mike roman, an alleged fake elector and trump codefendant who's trying to disqualify d.a. willis from this case. mr. rollin' is now claiming d.a.

willis is intentionally withholding information ahead of the hearing, which ms. willis denies. it's unclear if willis or wade will testify. they can both seek to quash these subpoenas, but if they do testify they can do so under oath and the hearing will be televised under georgia law. meanwhile, the judge in this case judge scott mcafee also overseeing the conspiracy case has directed ms. willis to respond to the misconduct allegations by friday. these allegations are merely that, allegations. and as of right now they do not change the facts of the actual case against trump. but could it change its outcome? joining me now is anthony michael price, assistitant professor of law at georgia state university. anthony, it's great to see you. thank you for making the time. i know we checked in with you when the case was -- what should we call it? the situation was unfolding down in georgia, and there's since

been more evidence produced of the relationship between mr. wade and ms. willis. i wonder what you think happens now in terms of next steps for ms. willis and where judge mcafee may come down on this. >> well, the first thing we'll have to see is whether or not d.a. fights these subpoenas to prevent her, to prevent special prosecutor wade and others from testifying in the evidentiary hearing scheduled for february 15th, in addition to seeing what the filing contains that's due on february 2nd or at least before february 2nd. i think really ultimately as a legal matter it's very unlikely judge mcafee will disqualify the office or find prosecution is somehow tainted by this relationship as all the facts bear out as they seem to be bearing out. there's two basic claims at issue here, one in a selective prosecution claim. in other words, the prosecution is only pursued and advanced because there was a profit to be had by the d.a. and by special

prosecutor wade. and then there's a claim that there's a larger conflict of interest that there's a pecuniary gain to be had from the conviction of these defendants. and i think that latter claim is really unlikely to manifest in term of anything of a disqualification. and the former one is also unlikely to get judge mcafee's attention because it's really unlikely for these defendants to show special prosecutor wade and his involvement in this case is really the driving force behind the prosecution. it's really hard to bring a selective prosecution claim, sole i think ultimately they're both very unlikely to fail. >> there's other efforts that the state if not the courts can pursue to sort of get d.a. willis taken off this case, is that right? >> i know there are various commissions that have been established and disbanded, and there are various levels of evolution, but it appears that

the republicans in the state are if not eager interested in examining further ethics breaches in this case, and that could be problematic for davis, is that right? >> it sure could be. there are a lot of moving parts here. there was a disciplinary body created last year for prus curators that the general assembly couldn't really have implemented because of a georgia supreme court decision. that is being passed through again this session. that could be a source of headache for the d.a. down the road. there's also a senate committee hearing or committee that's been formed to investigate the fulton county d.a.'s office and this particular incident. that could be potentially problematic. there will be subpoena power with that committee, but it's really an untested power in the state of georgia and under the georgia constitution, so that could be dragged out for quite some time before any information is produced. there's also the potential for impeachment that i think really will have no success of -- no

success in the general assembly should that be pursued, but that could also be a potential headache for the d.a. if more damning evidence is unearthed. so there are those kind of outside forces, which would certainly can create a headache, can create a problem for the d.a. i think that, you know, we really have to separate these issues out into two buckets, one is the political and one is the legal. the legal one being does this derail the case in any significant way? that seems to be really unlikely to happen, but the political side of things, the optics of it, dealing with these kind of outside institutions looking in and engaging in oversight, that's something i think the d.a. will really have to contend with and will be a major headache, again, even if the ultimate legal questions before judge mcafee are decided in their favor. >> yeah, i mean the headaches are one thing, but one would thing all the sort of swirl of perceived controversy here might undermine her ability to on the most basic sense here get plea

deals, right? i think in december fani willis said that there was a possibility that more of these codefendants would be taking plea deals with the state. we haven't heard any plea deals announced, and i wonder if you would draw a line between the sort of allegations that are in the air now, the suggestion that maybe it should be taken off or that the case has somehow been weakened, which is obviously the intention here from michael roman and his allies and the inability from the d.a.'s office at least from the outside to secure these plea deals from the defendants. >> it's a real mixed bag. so if i was a defendant sitting in their shoes on the one hand this looks really good because it's creating, right, a dialogue that is completely removed from the merits of the case. on the other hand, people have pretty short memories. juries in the process are meant to ferret out people who come in with prejudices, so there's a real kind of mixed risk there. the other thing, too, is if

there was a disqualification there might be the chance this gets sent to a d.a.'s office that has no interest in pursuing prosecutions or they'll make super favorable deals, or it could go to a neighboring office like in dekalb county which is similar to fulton county where you be equally talented prosecutors with the bandwidth and political will to continue the investigation. so that's a real risk as well. i don't know if it really ultimately will affect anybody's calculus especially if they can get a particularly good deal. i think what we have to see is what happens with the case on february 15th and the evidentiary hearing because this may be much to do about nothing. there is certainly evidence that, again, is politically not ideal. it is certainly implicating potential ethical issues and the like. but if it's not going to derail the case or remove the fulton county district attorney's office from the case, you know, hedging your bets against a rico

charge with an unlikely result, you know, is something you probably don't want to do. >> right. hedging your bets against a reekee charge equals never a good idea. anthony michael, thank you so much for your time and expertise on this matter. i really appreciate it. >> thank you. coming up nikki haley today unveiled a new novelthyry who's to blame, and here's a hint, it's not donald trump or joe biden. i'll give you the answer right after the break. u the answer rit after the break.

so, you've got the power of xfinity at home. now take it outside with xfinity mobile. like speed? it's the fastest mobile service around... and right now, you can get a free line of our most popular unlimited plan. all on the most reliable 5g network nationwide. ditch the other guys and you'll save hundreds. get a free line of unlimited intro for 1 year when you buy one unlimited line. and for a limited time, get the new samsung galaxy s24 on us.

republican presidential candidate nikki haley attack joe biden at the same time. "the new york times" reports today in a new series titled "grumpy old men" the haley campaign plans to start unveiling online video, digital ads, and voter e-mails that will underscore the ways in which ms. haley has argued the two party front runners are alike. okay, set aside -- set aside the fact for a moment that nikki haley is trying to attack her opponents for being old by referencing a movie from 30 years ago, set that aside.

governor haley's new strategy seems to be drawing comparisons between two people who apart from their ages has nothing in common. in other words, nikki haley is ail yaniating almost all voters on every side of the issue as if she has no idea which people she's supposed to be courting. and if you need a clearer example of that nikki haley sat down for an interview with the breakfast club, which is one of america's most popular syndicated plaque talk radio shows. and on that show nikki haley decided to blame america's division on the first black president. >> i think with obama that was -- if you go back, that's when we really started to feel the division. that's when we -- >> donald trump is a white supremacist, though. >> it was everything -- everything was exaggerated would the obama administration. it became more about gender, more about race, it became more about separating americans instead of bringing them

together. >> permit me for a second here. nikki haley says during the obama administration everything became more and more about separating people between gender and race. it has been eight years since barack obama was president, but it is worth noting what he led on gender and race. he became the first president in history to endorse marriage equality. he worked to ensure health insurance covered birth control under the affordable care act. when it came to race, president obama started the my brothers keeper initiative to help young men of color overcome opportunity gaps. he used his position to speak for grieving communities many of them communities of color after the massacre at mother emmanuel church and after the killings of unarmed black teenagers like trayvon martin and michael brown. and all of that, according to nikki haley, was about dividing americans. >> it became more about

separating americans instead of bringing them together. >> that was the right-wing media, though. they were scared to death of a black president. >> look, i don't think -- everybody's at fault. i'm not saying that one person did this, but i'm saying under that administration it really did cause some -- you just felt people felt like they were being put in camps. >> the obama administration was dividing americans by putting people in camps. just take a second to remember how nikki haley's actual primary opponent in this race, how he ran for president the first time around. >> donald j. trump is calling for a total and complete shutdown of muslims entering the united states until our country's representatives can figure out what the hell is going on. when mexico send its people, they're not sending their best. they're bringing drugs, they're bringing crime, they're rapists,

and some i assume are good people. >> and donald trump is now running on an immigration plan that would literally put people into camps based on their immigration status. but it's all obama's fault? beyond the factual absurdity here, what is the goal ongoing on one of the most popular black radio programs in the country to disparage the man who won re-election in 2012 with 93% of the black vote? who is the strategy for? and how long will nikki haley keep this up? we're going to talk about that and the state of the 2024 presidential race next. of the 2 presidential race next in 99% of people over 50. it's lying dormant, waiting... and could reactivate. shingles strikes as a painful, blistering rash that can last for weeks. and it could wake at any time. think you're not at risk for shingles? it's time to wake up. because shingles could wake up in you.

if you're over 50, talk to your doctor or pharmacist about shingles prevention. ah, these bills are crazy. she has no idea she's sitting on a goldmine. well she doesn't know that if she owns a life insurance policy of $100,000 or more she can sell all or part of it to coventry for cash. even a term policy. even a term policy? even a term policy! find out if you're sitting on a goldmine. call coventry direct today at the number on your screen, or visit coventrydirect.com. why choose a sleep number smart bed? because no two people sleep the same. only sleep number smart beds let you each choose your individual firmness and comfort. your sleep number settings. it's so smart, it actively cools and warms up to 13 degrees

on either side for your ideal sleep temperature, and effortlessly responds to both of you. for your best sleep, night after night. now, save 50% on the sleep number limited edition smart bed. plus 0% interest for 36 months on select smart beds. ends monday. shop for a limited time and sleep next level. only at sleep number.

. i've never kissed up to trump. i've always told the hard truth. and he said the stack market is great because people are excited about him being president. how many more times are you going to let him lie about things that aren't true and say you know what something's not quite right? and this also is about a general election. this is about who can win. he can't win moderates. he can't win independents. he can't win suburban women. he lost in 2018. he lost in 2020. he lost in 2022. how many more times do you have to lose before you say you know what, maybe that's not the guy? >> until now nikki haley refused today go after donald trump in any meaningful way. but as the primary season heats up, it appears she's finally

shifting gears from park into neutral. joining me now is charlie sykes, editor at large at the bulwark. i don't know, is that too mean? everyone is like here it is, the arrows are out for donald trump, and it's like she's going after him for tariffs. right, like i don't know do you think we're seeing the new nikki haley right now? >> well, you know, about every hour on the hour i get a text from her saying, charlie, it's nikki, have you heard the latest thing donald trump has done, he's lying about me and trying to sell a t-shirt based on his directives to exile anyone who contributings to her, and just when you think that maybe she's found the voice, you get something like what we heard today. you know, nikki haley, you know, comes up to a ball, looks like she's going to kick it, and then pulls it away herself to mix the metaphor. but i mean she's not the one we've been waiting for because

even though she's been willing to say, you know, donald trump is a liar, donald trump is a loser, she is not willing to say the kinds of things even that chris christie is saying, that he is just fundamentally unfit. and i think that whole dance where she's trying to say the country is divided because of barack obama shows, you know, how hard it is for republicans in this particular electorate to deal with the damage that donald trump has done. they just cannot take him on and place him in the context and say, look, we are in this moment because that guy came down the golden escalator, and republicans capitulated him over and over again. >> well, it also seems me she's taking a page almost from trump's play book and trying to invoke the specter of obama. right, like obama was the person who divided the country? don't even get into the division question if you're going to pupt it to obama. this is a tried and true

mechanism from donald trump to foment fear in and around the country's first black president, and it seems like she's adopting the same strategy here. >> oh, very much so. i mean what you're seeing is the addiction to what aboutism, that if you're going to attack trump, you also have to make it very, very clear to the republican voters that you also oppose the democrats. i understand the political tactic here that you are running a republican primary, but, you know, as you point out the grumpy old man is not only tired, it doesn't really, you know, make any particular substantive point. but going back to obama, i think what she's trying to do is she says this is one of the erogenous zones of the republican electorate, and we can find something we can all agree on. but, again, in the context of this particular moment when donald trump says or does something on a regular basis that reminds us how dangerous and anti-constitutional he is, a

man was impeached for trying to overthrow a free and fair election, and you're going and saying, yeah, he's not the cause of the division, it's this other guy that's been gone for eight years. this is the problem with nikki haley. she just can't -- and remember the hot mic, alex, the hot mic incident with chris christie where he was caught the night he dropped out and he said you know what, she's going to get smoked because she's just not up to it. and i think you're seeing that demonstrated again. >> well, and i think her inability to talk about race, i mean she gets -- she seems so disoriented and marble mouthed whenever she's asked about race. i want to play she was asked about the way in which donald trump has tried to weaponize her indian name, nimarata, and whether or not that's racist, and this is what she had to say. >> do you think trump mocking your birth name is racist? >> i think we can let other

people decide that. you look at it and it's sort of like tim scott and you sleep with it. >> oh, he don't care he sleeps very good. >> she can't even defend herself and all other americans who are maligned by donald trump. i find that just shocking. >> well, i find it, you know, sadly not shocking because, you know, we've seen how republicans have become really gun-shy in talking about race. when she was asked, you know, as a former governor of south carolina when she was asked what was the cause of the civil war, and she was not able to mention slavery, that was a reflection of the fact that she thinks that the republican party voters do not want to hear that kind of thing anymore, that they don't want to have racism called out anymore. it shoals not only that she's somewhat timid about this, but she has a view of the republican electorate that may not be completely inaccurate.

here's the other point that is sort of revealing. she is not going to be elected president, she is not going to beat donald trump. and at this point she has to decide when does she want to be? does she want to go down in defeat by being mealy-mouthed when she has to stand on the stage, or does she want to make a full throated statement of principle of who she is and what she thinks the republican party can be? and, you know, from moment to moment it feels like she's shifting, that she's like edging up to there and saying i'm going to go out here with my integrity intact, and then she says, yeah, maybe not. >> yeah, it's amazing to watch the sort of psychological push and pull or the ethical push and pull so clearly on display with her candidacy. charlie sykes, we still have 24 days to go theoretically to go at least in the nikki haley candidacy. please come back soon and talk to me about it. i appreciate you. >> anytime. coming up this week in congress we got to witness something that is more rare than

a solar eclipse. in fact, it has not happened in 148 years, and it is not a good sign that it is happening now. we're going to talk with brenden buck about what it means for congress and the country and 2024 coming up next.

♪oh what a good time we will have♪ ♪you... can make it happen...♪ ♪♪ try dietary supplements from voltaren for healthy joints.

last night the homeland security committee approved two articles of impeachment against homeland security secretary alejandro mayorkas in a party line vote of 18-15. just to underscore how unusual all this is, it has been more than a century since a member of the president's cabinet has been impeached. the last time was in 1876 when secretary of war william bellmath was charge would

criminally disregarding his duty and prostituting his high office for his lustful private gain, in other words taking bribes. this time around republicans are moving to impeach secretary mayorkas for failing to uphold the law and breaching public trust, which sounds very official but is not actually a crime or misdemeanor. in fact, by all accounts secretary mayorkas has been basically doing his job, a job that allows him to determine how and when to detain migrants, to decide which migrants to prioritize, and to use his authority to allow migrants to temporarily live and work in the united states for humanitarian reasons. someone should tell steve scalise. >> secretary mayorkas' job is to protect america's homeland. he's the homeland security secretary. when he comes before congress, he testifies under oath that america's border is secure. that's a flat out lie. the secretary homeland security is the person in charge of the border.

he can secure the border today. he's chosen not to. >> the articles of impeachment against secretary mayorkas are now headed to the house floor for a vote as early as next week. joining me now is brenden buck, msnbc political analyst and former press secretary to former house speaker john boehner. brenden, is the impeachment of alejandro mayorkas the big winner in 2024? >> well, they certainly think it is. and you know what, it may be. at least immigration has proven to be a winner for republicans, and i think that's why they have their foot to the gas here. polls have consistently shoep voters blame joe biden more than republicans on this issue, and anything they can do to put it in the spotlight they probably think is good. i think we're giving them too much credit to think there is actually a political angle here. a lot of this is pure base republican politics. it's even just house conference politics where there's been so much energy spent convincing people at home that the

administration is willfully allowing immigrants into the country for whatever agenda. you can tell people this problem has been going on for so long, they're eventually going to expect you to do something about it, and this is perhaps the easiest thing they can grasp and do. it certainly cheapens what impeachment is all about, but a lot of times you've got to remember a lot of house republicans are really in their own universe, their in their heads. they think they're solving these really important problems whether or not the average voter looks at them and takes them seriously at all. >> i think it's fair to mention here they think they have a winner by impeaching alejandro mayorkas, but the reality is the thing that would potentially go much farther towards solving the immigration crisis is the bipartisan border deal that has been scuttled by donald trump. >> yeah, they're obviously given the president a huge opportunity. i mean, look, this is what is so

frustrating about this. we have an incredible, incredibly rare opportunity right now to actually do something about the border. you're a republican who's always rejected these compromises because democrats insisted on things having to do with legalization, this is an opportunity that's not even on the table. you really just get a stronger border policy, and this is the argument mitch mcconnell has been making to senators and yet we're walking away from that. it is very emblematic of what the house has become. we're putting this type of theater in place of solving actual problems. and i think where i'm concerned is no one does pay a political price anymore for not putting policy first. you are awarded for theater, and that's what so much of the house has become. look, in 2016 there was a somewhat similar effort to impeach the irs commissioner. i don't know if you remember this. >> oh, we do. >> the freedom caucus was trying to impeach him because they were upset largely with the irs and

some of the past actions. he wasn't even the commissioner at the time that some of the people were upset with. we made an argument to members this was not serious, that impeachment should mean something and when it was brought up for a vote over 100 members of the republican conference voted with membership to defeat it. we were a much more serious place just eight years ago when that took place. >> i don't know whether i'm getting too deep down the conspiracy rabbit hole, but the fact mitch mccomwas so clear they were going to punt on this in service to trump, really felt like really kind of almost a back handed disclosure. do you think that was mitch mcconnell kind of, if you will, getting the last laugh in. >> mcconnell obviously does the politics better than anybody. mitch mcconnell is trying to find some way to send money to ukraine. that's what this is all about for him, and i think he realizes that he's exhausted everything that they can do here.

i mean, it's not surprising. you know, we've talked about this before. immigration is the single hardest thing for us to be able to do. you leave donald trump aside, this was going to be very hard to do just because of the incentives of republicans to cater that base again. but donald trump walking into this dicy of an issue basically guaranteed it wasn't going to happen. it's surprising it took that long for mcconnell to actually say that out loud. >> i'll say. the only good thing to come out of all this is my understanding of the history of cabinet impeachments, and it goes back to william bellmap back in 1876 when impeachment was a real thing pursued by house republicans. thank you for your time tonight. that is our show for tonight. "way too early" with jonathan lemire is coming up next. with a touch of your finger, that smart phone that can entertain and inform you, can become a back alley where the