the u.s.? plus, president biden and donald trump officially clinch their parties' nominations, but what do voters really think about the first presidential rematch in over 50 years? and later, another republican announces plans to exit the house. and soon. notice ♪♪ hello, i'm ana cabrera, thanks for joining us, capitol hill, things could be about to change for the 150 million plus americans who use tiktok. the house will vote at any moment now on a bill that would effectively ban the app here in the u.s. if its chinese parent company doesn't sell the platform. they think they have the votes despite a lobbying campaign by tiktok's ceo who's expected back on the hill today to meet with senators in a bid to stop this bill from potentially advancing. let's bring in nbc's julie

tsirkin on the capitol hill, and our brian chung's here with me in new york, and with us, lindsey gorman, senior fellow for emerging technologies, alliance for securing democracy, and also senior adviser in the biden white house. julie, this could be a rare bipartisan vote, why the urgency now and what does this bill do? >> reporter: yeah, it's rare indeed, ana, every time we talk about, we talk about how things aren't going well here on capitol hill. but here you have overwhelming support from republicans and democrats to pass forward this crackdown of tiktok essentially, this bill, as you laid out, would force the parent company of tiktok to divest to an american company, not only tiktok, this bill would force any app, any company owned by a foreign adversary to do the same or else tiktok is banned from the app store, from any platform here in the u.s. if that doesn't

happen within six months here. not everybody is on board, right, you did have a small percentage of young house democrats here yesterday with tiktok influencers, with creators, trying to prevent this bill from moving forward. take a listen to a little bit about what they said. >> not only am i a no on tomorrow's tiktok ban bill, but i'm a hell no. >> i understand the entertainment, the education, the communication, the friendship, the joy of tiktok, but i also say that all of our social media is a wonderful blessing, but it's a double-edged sword if it is not used with integrity. >> the thing is, censoring and trampling on the civil liberties of 150 million americans who use tiktok every day isn't the answer. >> reporter: a clear juxtaposition from some of the youngest members and some of the oldest, the former speaker nancy pelosi who has often spoken about the mistreatment of

uighurs in china, something that supporting tiktok only adds to, how she feels versus younger members, maxwell frost and sarah jacobs. in the last couple of minutes, the top house democrat, hakeem jeffries has come out in support of this bill. you see the floor live on your screen now and we'll be here to tell you what happens if and when that bill passes here in the house. >> we'll be watching closely, the vote count as that gets going here. brian, let's talk about the implications of this legislation. who uses tiktok here in the u.s.? what is the reach, actually, like and what are the logistical challenges when it doms potential sale? >> well, globally it's over a billion people but in the united states they have over 170 million users, just stateside. so this is a massive app, they also are a very profitable app as well, $2.7 million in revenue, the highest grossing app of 2023. julie was talking about the mechanics of this bill, and we have to remember that if this bill is passed, again it needs

to go through the senate and the white house as well, but it would still be six months before tiktok could potentially be banned, and if they are able, bytedance, the chinese parent company, to sell this company, the app would go on completely uninterrupted. the hundreds of millions of users that are going to lose the app, depends very much on what's going to happen over the course of several months. in conversations i've had with tiktok they don't sound optimistic they would be able to sell the app why they're characterizing this as an effective ban. the time this was proposed, by the way under the trump administration, there were conversations that maybe oracle, based out of the west coast, could have bought them. there have been parties interested in perhaps acquiring them but whether that could happen in six months is very much an open question. >> julie, we mention that the tiktok ceo is back on the hill today, what's he telling lawmakers? >> reporter: well, it depends on which lawmakers actually agree to meet with him. the ceo of tiktok, some of his allies, members of his board are

going to parade all over capitol hill today and tomorrow, we're told, he's trying to meet with senators now because it's clear in tiktok's mind that they've kind of lost the house here. remember, it's still a high threshold they have to clear. we don't know for sure if the house will pass that bill today, it's a two-thirds majority vote because of the process, they fast tracked this on the house floor, but then by all accounts in our reporting, if this does pass in the house it will make its way to the senate where leadership there is not keen on moving this as fast as the house has, leader schumer has said they'll beginning it to committee chairs, but we've heard from a lot of senators, ana, who said they're not meeting with the ceo of tiktok. we'll see if he's successful in the lobbying push. it's not just him on capitol hill. we've seen advertisements from tiktok, push notifications, i got it myself on my phone yesterday several times. we'll see what happens in terms of tiktok but certainly congress is moving forward here and the president said he'd sign it if the house and senate passes it.

>> lindsey, the concern seems twofold, the potential foreign influence through control of content on the app and the data being collected on tiktok users themselves. is tiktok a national security risk? >> it definitely is, and it's really for that first reason that i think congress has finally gotten its act together, and seems to be speaking with one voice now, at least in the house, on the national security question around tiktok. essentially, this is a propaganda platform, as we saw last week, tiktok tried to mobilize its user base in support of a policy that is carried by the chinese communist party in support of its own interests. i don't think we know that should there be a geopolitical crisis down the line, for example, say china's interested in invading taiwan, and the american president is deciding whether to, and to what extent to lend u.s. armed support, i don't think we can put it past tiktok that it might not

similarly mobilize its cruiser base to call congress representatives encouraging them to not invade, not take a stand for our pacific allies. so i think that's the real concern, and also the fact that we know that china and foreign adversaries like russia have tried to meddle in u.s. elections, we're in the election year now, and that's why there's this real urgency, i think, among members of congress where we've stalled and we've dillydallied for the better part of the last four years, now the pressure's on, we're in this election season, and we can't see this tiktok election. >> so, kate, some lawmakers have expressed concerns that tiktok could actually be used as a mass surveillance tool. is that a legitimate concern? >> i think it is. here's where we hear conversations about, well -- >> sorry. wanted to get kate into the

conversation there. >> sure, yes, so it's absolutely a legitimate concern, and i think they have every right to take measures to stop the ccp from ex-filtrating data. i do wonder whether this is the best way to go about it, i think that congress might be better served by passing comprehensive privacy protections for u.s. citizens versus banning an extremely popular source of communication and information that many, many millions of people in this country countr

. in montana they faced a statewide ban as well, this is the second time they're going through this scare here, they sell goods on their tiktok apps. they make all the income that they have coming in, on tiktok. so, they're really worried about this app going away and they say, look, i don't think i would be able to pull off the same

type of business on an instagram or youtube because the potential for virality is what makes tiktok so special to a lot of these users. that's the reason why when tiktok puts out the rallying cry, where they've been saying call your local congressperson to say vote no on this bill you're seeing so many people rally, people are traveling to d.c. itself. again, this is rhetoric that's going to pick up as it goes to the senate knowing if the house has already decided today and has the whip votes to make it happen that maybe it's the other chamber they'll be able to stop this. you'll see that full-court press from the tiktok management itself but the ceo head of the capitol hill but the tiktok users as well. >> kate, again lawmakers are saying a tiktok ban would only go into effect if bytedance doesn't sell, what are you learning about a potential buyer out there, is there one? >> there have been a lot of, you know, rumors going around, but there's nothing nailed down about a potential buyer.

i know that oracle has been in the conversation, but there's nothing certain right now, and there's also really no certainty byte-dance will sell. it's a big question mark right now. >> lindsey, let's say there is a sale, okay, so how does this bill address the issue of how data is used by any social media company regardless of who owns it? >> well, i don't think it does. this is very narrowly tailored to social media platforms, and apps that are owned or controlled by foreign adversaries, these autocratic countries, china, russia, iran, they will not have broader privacy protections that we need for consumer safety perspectives but it would remove that influence risk. it's important to remember that this isn't really a ban, no one

actually, i don't think, wants to see tiktok banned. those concerns are real, it's clearly a platform that americans love, and i think the hope is that they can continue to use tiktok, just not under ownership that's controlled by an adversary who doesn't have american interests at heart, and who's actively degrading america's position in the world with its propaganda. >> we can see the vote has begun there in the house chamber. about ten minutes left for the lawmakers to make their votes, they have that full ten minutes, they could go back and change their vote if they wanted to. we'll keep an eye on the numbers, again, they need a two-thirds majority for this bill to pass, before it goes on to the senate, and julie, we have heard donald trump now the presumptive nominee for the gop, the presidential election this year -- sort of waffle on this bill, initially being sort of anti-tiktok, but then this week

not so much. is he influential in today's vote at all? julie, can you hear me? >> yes, i hear you. so we just had some interesting votes here happen on the house floor, jim himes, the top democrat on the intelligence committee appears to have voted against this bill, as you pointed out, ana, very correctly, members can change their vote at any time before the vote is closed in the next ten minutes. this is significant he is the top democrat on the intelligence committee, part of the hearing yesterday, he's been part of many closed sessions with fbi officials, with other officials in the government in the national security space who have warned lawmakers against the threat, about the threat china poses in part due to this app, due to americans, so many of them, using tiktok. so this is just one example of

the interesting votes we can see come out here next couple of minutes and again this is to clear a very high threshold. it's not a simple majority, two-thirds majority vote. but himes coming out against this, appearing to at least, certainly significant and we'll see if any other surprises come down the pike in the next few minutes. >> thanks for keeping us updated there. everyone stay close, keep an eye on the vote this hour. as we watch the fate of tiktok in the house, throughout the hour, we'll bring you the latest as we get it. but here we go again, donald trump and joe biden, clinched enough delegates to officially become their party's presumptive nominees. what do voters think? plus, trump's legal calendar may be more packed, and his campaign schedule, the developments we're following in georgia, the florida documents case, and his new york hush money trial. and later, the online conspiracy storm in a tea cup boiling over now for the royal family. in real time.

(jen) so we partner with verizon. their solution for us? a private 5g network. (ella) we now get more control of production, efficiencies, and greater agility. (marquis) with a custom private 5g network. our customers get what they want, when they want it. (jen) now we're even smarter and ready for what's next. (vo) achieve enterprise intelligence. it's your vision, it's your verizon. did you ever worry we wouldn't get to enjoy this? [jeff laughs maniacally] (inner monologue) seriously, i'm on the green and all i can think about is all the green i'm spending on 3 kids in college. with empower, i get all of my financial questions answered. so i don't have to worry. empower. what's next.

it is officially a two-man race again, president biden and former president trump both won enough delegates last night to secure their respective parties' nominations for president. reaching that magic number of tell gats after the contest in georgia, hawaii, mississippi, and washington state yesterday, setting up now the first presidential election rematch in the u.s. in nearly 70 years. nbc's steve kornacki is at his big board. blayne alexander standing by in atlanta, georgia and dasha burns is in west palm beach, florida with new reporting on the trump beefsteaks. first, steve, walk us through all the drama yesterday and how we hit those magic numbers. >> ana, go back here and take a look at the results. obviously, no surprise, we knew this was coming, certainly after nikki haley dropped out last week, trump was closing in on the numbers, but the primaries that were held yesterday on the republican side, one was in georgia, and you see here, nikki

haley's name did remain on the ballot, she did get a chunk of votes here, do keep in mind, georgia has extensive early voting, and some mail-in voting so a lot of these votes were cast before nikki haley dropped out, a week ago, so that factors in here. trump obviously wins overwhelmingly takes all the delegates. we did see something we've seen throughout the primary process, and frankly something we've seen with donald trump for eight years right now. to the extent he struggled relatively speaking in georgia and elsewhere this primary season it was in suburban areas, suburban counties, so take a look right here, you know, 17%, this is the suburbs of atlanta here, look at some of the numbers that haley was able to put up, fulton county, where atlanta is, there are suburban outlying areas. we know trump struggles mightily in the suburbs and that could end up being decisive in the general election. the question obviously, all this posed from the primary season is did we learn anything new about any new slippage? any new weakness for trump in the suburbs? and honestly, you look at these

results and you don't know. i hate to not have a clear answer but it's going to take the election to find out if his problem in the suburbs is any worse than it was four or eight years ago, we know he has a big problem there, the question is one of magnitude. trump did sweep georgia and the dell gats, he also swept through mississippi and then after 11:00 last night, when polls in washington state closed very quickly he got those delegates, and became the presumptive nominee, and it was an even smoother process for joe biden on the democratic side, he -- georgia closed at 7:00 last night, and again this is what we've been seeing throughout this race, mid-90s for joe biden, less than 5% for his two named opponents here, clean sweep for the state, collects all the delegates, biden goes past the numbers, and so, because it all happened yesterday, before midnight yesterday, this is the -- by one day, one day, this is the earliest that both parties' candidates have clinched their nominations, this will be, by one day, by this metric, the longest general election ever.

>> okay, thanks, steve, we want to go straight to blayne alexander now in georgia with some breaking news. blayne, we wanted to ask you about the election there in georgia last night but we just got a filing from the court there in fulton county, what can you tell us? >> reporter: yeah, just obtained that filing, and basically what is happening is that judge scott mcafee is dismissing several of the charges here in georgia against former president donald trump. six of the charges in this order, the charges so far, and i'm still making my way through the judge's ruling right now, but appear to do with solicitation of violation of oath by a public officer, those were certainly some of the charges that he was facing, other people that were named, donald trump, rudy giuliani, john eastman, mark meadows, and so this is certainly notable because the former president was facing a number of charges, but to have six of them removed is notable. now, it's important to note,

he's still facing charges here in georgia, still facing charges in fulton county. we're also still waiting on a major decision from judge scott mcafee as to whether or not fani willis can continue to remain prosecutor on this case. this is not that decision. so, to see this decision from the judge to come out this morning is a bit of a surprise. i've reached out to trump's georgia attorney here who has been representing him as the lead attorney to see if he has any comment and weave reached out to the d.a.'s office to see if they have any abide or plan to push back on this ruling by the judge. >> blayne, stay with me as i know you have to go through this filing, go ahead and look at that while i bring in caroline polici, a white collar defense attorney here, caroline, we're all just getting the news here and these documents of this filing just happened. the big headline here is that judge scott mcafee is dismissing at least some of the charges against donald trump there in

georgia, in this sweeping rico election interference case, what's your reaction? >> it's huge news, obviously, dismissing any charges is a big deal for any criminal defendant, you know, one of the criticisms fani willis got when this indictment came down that it was so sort of massive, sweeping, grand in this rico allegation, and she was criticized for its breadth and depth. there are a lot of overt acts charged here, the issue here has to do with what we call in the federal system a bill of particulars, essentially defendants arguing that the -- as alleged, the charges don't meet the specific standards of specificity to make that requirement for solicitation of violation of oath of office, i mean, this indicates that, you know, we're also obviously waiting on this huge decision about the disqualification motion, i think this shows that judge mcafee is willing to

really take arguments from defendants at face value and look at the law and the facts and rule without fear or favor. >> yeah, i'm just looking at this, and i'm piecing together the different parts here. lisa rubin is also joining us, she's our msnbc legal correspondent. and the judge writes here, turning to the indictment itself, the six challenge counts charge various defendants with solicitation of violation of oath by public officer, and then he cites the argument by defendants saying defendants argue that the indictment is defective because the charging language does not cite the oath each of these solicited public officers was required to take. and then he says the court's concern is less that the state has failed to allege the conduct of the defendants, it has alleged an abundance, the lack

of detail concerning the element is fatal, as written these six counts contain the essential lements but fail to allege detail of the commission, the underlying felony solicited. lisa, can you translate all this for us? >> it's a little bit of difficulty to translate some of that. i will take a step back for a second. there's an important footnote that i think is worth considering here. when judge mcafee is saying these six counts need to be dismissed because there isn't sufficient specificity about the oath of office that the defendants for these six counts violated he also is dropping a footnote, saying not only is the entire indictment not dismissed but the state can replead these six specific counts. in order to do that, they would have to reconvene a grand jury. however, he says the state receives a six-month extension

from the date of this order to resubmit the case to a grand jury, so, in other words, he's saying, look, this is a problem, this is -- this is, in fact, defective in the way that defendants allege for the lack of specificity about what constitutional oath these folks are supposed to have violated. but, it is not irreversible for the d.a., or in the event that judge mcafee disqualifies fani willis here for anybody else representing the state to cure it, and if they so wish they have a six-month extension to do so, ana. >> would it make sense for them to go down that path, caroline, especially knowing that these are six charges, right, trump, for example, is accused in 13 charges. so this is a little less than half of those. >> right, you know, that's a judgment call. at one point, ana, remember the d.a. was saying she wanted to try this case in august. i mean, she was really pushing to get this tried before the election, i think, big picture

here, obviously this is another delay in this case, it's -- there's no chance that it's going before the election. i don't know that she would want to supersede this indictment, seating the special grand purpose jury and moving to the grand jury process, i don't know if that's how it will work but it could be just one grand jury. i think that's a bit much. my guess is that they would move forward without those six charges. >> and our blayne alexander standing by with us, blayne, of course, we are still waiting on this potentially momentous decision, or monumental decision that could completely derail the case all together if judge scott mcafee were to come out and say she's determined fani willis is disqualified. >> reporter: yeah, you know, a couple of things, absolutely, that's what we're still waiting on and that was the bomb we were expecting to drop later this week, this is certainly a separate, unexpected, though, certainly consequential ruling

from the judge, a couple of things i want to point our attention to, though, when we talk about those six counts, the former president was charged with 13 counts all together. for six of them to be dismissed that takes away nearly half the counts he's facing in georgia. when you look at the judge's breaks down of those counts, i want to take you back to what started this whole thing in the beginning. that was that phone call that the former president made to the republican secretary of state here in georgia, brad raffensperger, asking thimm to find enough votes to overturn biden's election victory here in the state. the judge is basically saying that the charges, the counts related to that phone call, he is throwing out. and so, that's kind of what a lot of people know as the biggest thing around this -- these charges for the former president, the biggest kind of action around it, and so the judge in this ruling is saying that those counts related to that phone call are going to be thrown out. what it's also saying is that, you know, part of the indictment is that several members, several

people who have been charged, solicited elected members of the georgia senate and the georgia house of representatives to quote/unquote violate their oaths by requesting or asking them to unlawfully appoint presidential electors. that's being thrown out as well. i think that it's certainly important when we look at the counts but also what the action, what the alleged action was behind it that's also being removed from this indictment. i've been in touch with steve sadow, he is the lead georgia attorney for the former president on this, he tells me that a comment is forthcoming. we expect him to speak on this sometime soon, at least in a paper statement, that's going to be coming to us sometime soon. we've also reached out today d.a.'s office to see if they plan on taking any sort of action or pushing back on this ruling from the judge. >> stay with me here, blayne, i want to bring in dasha burns standing by there in west palm beach, florida near where the president resides, former president i should say, dasha, this news dropping right after

trump clinched the gop nomination officially by delegate count just last night with some additional primaries, including there in georgia, this must be seen as a huge victory for him and his team. >> reporter: well, look, we are out to the trump campaign, and the trump world, we haven't heard back from them yet but i can tell you, just knowing how they operate and how we've seen this campaign respond to rulings that favor the former president they are very likely going to be doing a victory lap today, this coming on the heels of him officially becoming the nominee earlier than ever before, they will be using this to, again, rally voters, i won't be surprised if we see a fund-raising email or two come through today on the heels of this ruling, and this will be something that they absolutely are going to point to, to restate, reiterate what they've been saying on the campaign trail, which is that this is a weaponized justice system, that he is being attacked, that he --

the line he uses all the time, ana, on the campaign trail, i am being indicted for you, they are coming after me because i'm standing between them and you. now, of course, there's no evidence of a weaponized justice system but this is something that he has been using as a tool to rally voters, and this certainly is a boon to the trump campaign, ana? >> so lisa rubin, i know you're digging into this, what did you discover as it pertains to which specific charges apply to trump, which ones may be applied to other members of the co-defendants who have also been indicted here, and so bigger picture, what's the impact? >> so let's first talk about the bigger picture of the impact, the most important and the most significant charge in terms of what the consequences would be is count one of this indictment, which is the rico charge, and, of course, that hasn't been dismissed against any of the defendants, when we talk about the six counts here that have been dismissed, and we talk

about the full 13 against donald trump, only three of the counts against donald trump himself have now been dismissed, those are counts 5, 28, and 38, all of which involve a solicitation of another public officer in violation of the oath. i am digging in, ana, as we speak, comparing the indictment to this opinion from judge mcafee, but i want to point something else out, and actually give caroline an opportunity to, because she's the one who noticed it, in addition to giving the d.a. or the state an opportunity to replead, there is also a provision here that says that the state could just immediately ask for an appeal. so, if the state doesn't like this ruling, and they believe they have provided sufficient detail about which oaths each of the defendants who are impacted here have provided, then they can take an immediate appeal and perhaps an expedited one, too, i still think caroline's overall takeaway that an august trial on

whatever counts are remaining is unlikely but the state does have some options here on these six counts, none of which is the rico charge itself. >> what do you think? >> yeah, i think if you were to try to look on the bright side in many ways this potentially could streamline the case a little bit more if she doesn't have to go about proving these other crimes, solicitation for violation of oath of office. again, a rico charge is extraordinary complicated, difficult to be before jurors, to get them to really understand every element of every single crime, so i think, you know, she -- the way she's been litigating this case, it doesn't sound like she will back down. it does seem like she may take that immediate appeal because she's been sort of fighting every single issue. it might be more well advised just to move on for the sake of alacrity and getting the case on

the calendar, although, again, we're having this conversation against the backdrop of her potential disqualification and, again, i think this shows that judge mcafee is taking, you know, his duties seriously with respect to really not letting politics play a part in his decisions whatsoever. >> i just wonder if he would go there, if he would dismiss charges, if he's planning to throw out the case, or remove it from fani willis all together, as we await that decision over the question about whether, you know, there was misconduct with her relationship in nathan wade. >> it shouldn't have anything to do with it, these are completely distinct legal issues, and certainly his decision on the disqualification as we all know does not kill the case in and of itself. he wouldn't dismiss the indictment. it would just be reassigned to sort of a governing body in georgia, to then be reassigned. however, i myself feel, and many other people feel, that that would, in effect, essentially be

the death nail for this case because, you know, another time when fani willis was removed from a case for, in this very case, for a conflict of interest, that case is stale languishing at that body. it hasn't been reassigned yet. i don't know that there are many other prosecutors in the state of georgia that would want to take on the case, that have the resources, the expertise. and so, this, you know, could be sort of death by a thousand cuts for this case. >> lisa, do you read any clues into where judge mcafee may be headed with this other decision we're awaiting, given that he's still moving forward with the case, clearly? >> yeah, no, but i want to be really clear, nobody is saying the case itself should be dismissed on the basis of the alleged misconduct. it is just that, the d.a. herself should be disqualified. >> and her office could be disqualified as well. >> as caroline just said, that would have tremendous consequences for the future of the case but it wouldn't technically result in its

dismissal, it would just shift the case the prosecuting counsel to georgia that has a single person in charge of the redistribution of cases. he gave a really interesting interview to the "new york times" earlier this year where he said the challenge for him in finding someone to further investigate the possible allegations against bert jones, now the lieutenant governor, and also in the event that this were to happen, is significant. why? because anybody he assigns it to would be perceived as a partisan choice, and many district attorney's offices in georgia simply don't have the resources to devote to a case this enormous. he also said, i could find a private prosecutor to do this, but the statute that allows me to transfer this case to someone else has a reimbursement rate of $70 per hour. ask yourself, particularly given what we've learned about what nathan wade has made in this case. >> this was like $250 an hour. >> which is based on what new york and d.c., big law lawyers make, i know this personally,

really substantially below what you'd expect a top chair lawyer to make in the first instance. so i read this at first, when somebody put this in my hand, he must be presuming that fani willis gets to take control of this case. but the flipside of that, is he might be trying to clarify what the charges are, no matter who's going to be in charge of the case. he feels a responsibility to articulate, what does this case look like going forward? and if anything, that makes me think that he is trying to thin out the case before a possible disqualification, if i had to read the tea leaves here. it doesn't look good for fani willis. it looks like he's trying to say, this is what this case will look lick before i tell the world who gets to prosecute it. >> maybe or maybe not. >> right. >> we would all be reading it wrong. >> that's correct. >> and i do want to just mention as a little extra note on the better jones case you mentioned, my understanding is that one's been left in limbo for more than 18 months at this point, where it was taken away, and has not been reassigned. >> to be clear, it's not a case,

right, it's still an investigation. it was in the investigatory stages at the point in time that another judge if in fulton county disqualified fani willis from further investigating better bert jones. >> separate case. >> correct. >> but gives us a little bit of a road map if it were to happen in this case, were fani willis to be taken off because of the misconduct allegations. >> i do want to answer a question you asked me earlier, which defendants are impacted by the dismissal of these charges? when i look at the counts here, some of the defendants here have already pled out. for example, jenna ellis, who has already pled guilty here, was charged with count 2, which has now been thrown out but that count exists also against john eastman who is very much still a defendant in the case. similarly, there is a count that's been thrown out here that exists against rudy giuliani who still remains a defendant in the case, and count 38 here exists against mark meadows, there are

other defendants who are not household names, who are impacted by this ruling as well, they are, you know, likely -- i'm sorry, they are georgia figures, mostly, they include ray smith, and robert cheeley folks involved, as i remember, in both the solicitation of ruby freeman. >> oh, right. >> right, that's -- >> ruby freeman, the georgia election workers. >> correct, and ray stalling smith is, i believe, a gentleman who served as a fake elector, and an official of the republican party in georgia. i will check the indictment to make sure that is correct. so i don't leave you or our viewers with the misimpression there. >> everybody stay close. we'll let everybody keep reading. we'll bring updates as we get them. in the meantime, we're staying on top of the other breaking news we're following this hour, the vote in the house on tiktok, and whether that platform could be banned here in the u.s. if it's not sold, you're watching ana cabrera reports only on

msnbc, lots of updates to come, stay right there. for my one-of-a-kind skin. and there's no other skin i want to be in. >> tech: cracked windshield? make it easy and schedule with safelite, for my one-of-a-kind skin. because you can track us and see exactly when we'll be there. >> woman: i have a few more minutes. let's go! >> tech vo: that's service that fits your schedule. go to safelite.com. >> singers: ♪ safelite repair, safelite replace. ♪ breathing claritin clear is like... (♪♪) is he? confidently walking 8 long haired dogs and living as if he doesn't have allergies? yeah. fast relief of your worst allergy symptoms, like nasal congestion. i have moderate to severe plaque psoriasis. thanks to skyrizi, fast relief of your worst allergy symptoms, i'm on my way with clearer skin. 3 out of 4 people achieved 90% clearer skin at 4 months. and skyrizi is just 4 doses a year after 2 starter doses. serious allergic reactions and an increased risk of infections or a lower ability to fight them may occur.

tell your doctor if you have an infection or symptoms, had a vaccine, or plan to. nothing on my skin means everything! ♪ nothing is everything ♪ ask your dermatologist about skyrizi. learn how abbvie could help you save. with nurtec odt, i can treat a migraine when it strikes and prevent migraine attacks, all in one. don't take if allergic to nurtec. allergic reactions can occur, even days after using. most common side effects were nausea, indigestion, and stomach pain. ask about nurtec odt. hey, dad. i got an a on my book report. that's cool. and i went for a walk in the woods and i didn't get a single flea or tick on me. you are just the best. -right? i'm great. -you are great. oh, brother. this flea and tick season, get 20% off your first pharmacy order at chewy. there's nothing better than a subway series footlong. except when you add an all new footlong sidekick. like the philly with a new $2 footlong churro. sometimes the sidekick is the main event. you would say that. every epic footlong deserves the perfect sidekick.

breaking news out of capitol hill where the house just passed a bill that could ban tiktok. back with us is nbc's julie tsirkin, lindsey gor man is with us as well. and donna edwards of maryland. julie, bring us the breakdown. >> reporter: yeah, the bill passed overwhelmingly above that two-thirds threshold, the final vote total, ana, was 365 -- 352, excuse me, to 65, with one individual voting present, crock et al. of texas, there's a steady stream of lawmakers headed home right now, but we'll

stop them as we get them. there are interesting votes when it came out to this bill. talking about jim himes, the top democrat on the intelligence committee in the house, he released a statement a couple of minutes ago explaining his vote. he said that as somebody who possesses a lot of classified information, briefed often, and is concerned about national security threats, what one of the ways that the u.s. is different from our foreign adversaries is that they ban social media apps, they ban newspapers, and we don't, and that is why he voted against this bill. you also have some interesting yes votes, like jeff jackson from north carolina, one of the most prolific users of tiktok among the house lawmakers here, he has 2.5 million followers on tiktok, his last video was actually post add day ago, how he communicates and reaches his voters. he told my colleague ali vitali that one of the concerns he had about tiktok is he does believe it should be divested from its chinese ownership. he actually uses a separate phone when he uses tiktok, so clearly he has some national

security concerns with it. another notable note i want to tell you about is katherine clark, the number 2 democrat in the house. her breaking with leadership like jeffries who supported the bill is interesting to me. as to its path forward in the senate, steve scalise, in republican leadership, has said he's been communicating with senators across the chamber, across the capitol behind me, and that they were looking to see if the vote total today was strong enough that they feel comfortable and confident to put the house-passed bill without any changes on the senate floor. one of the concerns that lawmakers have is how fast this process went in the house. some civil liberties republicans and democrats who are in favor of those protections have argued that it needs more consideration and time in committees. we'll see what happens in the senate. but so far, a strong show of support, and a big sign to tiktok, whose ceo is supposed to be here on capitol hill today and tomorrow trying do convince senators to vote against it. >> the vote, 352-65, so huge

bipartisan shift on this particular issue. lindsay gorman is with us, expertise with national security risks that many lawmakers feel tiktok poses here in the u.s. your reaction to this passing the house, and whether this is going to be a band-aid or a real fix, potentially. >> i'm hopeful it will be a real fix. i think this is obviously a welcome step, and you mentioned that it seems like it's rushed. you know, i think that really this has been coming for now over four years, and so we've had plenty of time to debate the pros and cons of tiktok, and i think that's why congress, at least in the house, could get its act together quickly. i do think, though, that representative himes makes a good point. we do have to be careful in our response to china, that we don't risk emulating the autocratic

power that we're trying to compete against, and we're trying to contest, and that's why i think a forced vesture of sale of tiktok from bytedance to another company, in the u.s. or another democratic allied country is the right step and one that there's precedent for as well. a few years ago, the online dating app grindr faced similar concerns over chinese influence and was actually sold to a company without that influence. this is something that we do. it doesn't happen all the time, but i think that it -- that this kind of sale is the right step, and i hope it goes through. >> something that also doesn't happen all the time is bipartisanship. understatement. because we just saw something that's such a rarity these days, 352-65. congresswoman edwards, that was the vote count here in this congress that's huge, what's your thought?

>> well, it really is. and, you know, considering that the threshold really on a suspension would have been about 285 votes, the senate is looking to see whether there is a strong support in the house, they've gotten that message with a 352 vote. i always get worried when congress tries to regulate technology, given the expertise on the -- in the congress, but here you have a really strong message, and there's an opportunity for tiktok and a private sale, and we'll see how it goes. but the senate really got the message on this one. >> congressman deb, the other person may be getting a message is donald trump. he had kind of suggested maybe don't vote for this bill to his republican lawmakers, and allies there in the house. they bucked trump. >> yeah, of course, they did. look, donald trump -- >> of course they did?

of course they did? they never do. >> but they -- well look how trump handled the issue, though, he said -- he said he wanted to -- he was okay with tiktok now because this would empower facebook, and he's upset with zuckerberg. this is how he does policy, based on his own petty personal grievances, nothing considered about the policy. now, i think a lot of these members looked at this bill and do think that tiktok must be separated from bytedance, jim himes, i have a lot of respect for him, and i think he made a very fair point about we don't do what the chinese do in terms of banning or restricting social media apps but that's the reality, and trump, look, he -- this is about grievance with him. i don't know that he believed it. he had a few people close to him doing work for tiktok now, so surprise, surprise, you know, he changes his position. but, so i think right now, the members of congress, you know, are very concerned about the chinese communist party, and by

the way, facebook doesn't have a data sharing arrangement with the chinese communist party. this will force the senate to take the house very seriously. i suspect the senate will be a little bit more considerate in their analysis of this bill, and maybe make some changes but they're going to be under pressure to do something. >> i'm just remembering one of the responses that we got from a congress member on the democratic side before this vote, congressman garcia, who didn't want this bill to go through, saying this would be a huge harm to the u.s. economy. we know there are about 170 million americans who use this app, many of the creators on the app are using it to bolster their small businesses, we played some sound earlier with some of those creators who were really passionate, this is going to hurt them, and their economy, and their personal finances, congresswoman edwards, if this

gets to the desk and this is signed by the president, this legislation, does it have any implication or impact on the election? and his level of support? >> i don't think so, and i think precisely because it has broad support across the political lanes that that will insulate any particular political concern, look, the bigger concern is, how can there be a platform that can be created as tiktok is sold, reserve the platform for these entrepreneurs, i think that's really important. but, you can't sacrifice national security for this business interest, and there are other platforms that will evolve if tiktok just goes by the wayside. >> let's go back to julie on capitol hill. this is one of those days where the breaking news just keeps on coming, julie, i understand you have news on hunter biden?

>> reporter: yeah, that's exactly right. our colleague sara fitzpatrick received a letter from abbe lowell declining their invitation to appear for a public hearing on march 20th. remember, this invitation came last week, not only to hunter biden, but also to several of his business associates, many of whom testified behind closed doors, before the committee, rather, hunter biden testified a week before that, behind closed doors, and i want to read to you some pieces of this letter as to why they're declining. his attorney says in part if you're serious about pursuing this oversight purpose, in a legitimate and bipartisan fashion you would hold a hearing with relatives of former president trump about whom you indicated you would ask, abbe lowell continues to say if you do, mr. hunter biden would consider an invitation for that event. they also go on to disparage the committee's effort, to disparage republicans' efforts saying that

it is their surprise for this hasty request because they've realized that, of course, during their closed-door testimony that the republican inquiry is baseless and that it not come up with any evidence linking the president to hunter biden, his son, or his brother james biden or other close allies and family members, business ties overseas. i want to note, ana, we have not yet heard from the house oversight committee responding to this declining of invitation, but certainly this is notable, the hunter biden has said he's not appearing before the house panel, in their planned public testimony at the end of the month, that as republicans are growing sour on this impeachment effort as well. >> all right, julie tsirkin, thank you for bringing us all that breaking news, appreciate you sticking around, lindsay co charlie dent and donna edwards, thank you for joining our discussion as well. breaking news from georgia, let's talk more about this, the judge dropping three counts against donald trump. much more when we come back. oun

against donald trump much more when we come back. ♪♪ ugh! nope! try my old spice you can use it on your pits, chest, and even, your... toes? [both] oh that's fresh! ♪♪ ♪ old spice whistle ♪

with nurtec odt, i can treat a migraine when it strikes and prevent migraine attacks, all in one. don't take if allergic to nurtec. allergic reactions can occur, even days after using. most common side effects were nausea, indigestion, and stomach pain. ask about nurtec odt.

if you've ever grilled, you know you can count on propane to make everything great. but did you know propane also powers school buses that produce lower emissions that lead to higher test scores? or that propane can cut your energy costs at home? it powers big jobs and small ones too. from hospitals to hospitality, people rely on propane-an energy source that's affordable, plentiful, and environmentally friendly for everyone. get the facts at propane.com/now. morikawa on 18. and environmentally he is really boxed in here. -not a good spot. off the comcast business van. into the vending area. oh, not the fries! where's the ball? -anybody see it? oh wait, there it is! -back into play and... aw no, it's in the water. wait a minute... are you kidding me? you got to be kidding me. rolling towards the cup, and it's in the hole! what an impossible shot brought to you by comcast business.

we're back with the breaking news on another of donald trump's legal cases. michael cohen has just arrived at the manhattan district attorney's office for a prep session. you'll recall cohen is the key witness in the upcoming hush money case against trump. this comes as we're learning more about the breaking news out of georgia, where judge scott mcafee dismissed six of the criminal counts against donald trump and his co-defendants. the judge writing in part, as written, these six counts contain all the essential elements of the crimes, but fail to allege sufficient detail regarding the nature of their commission. back with us is nbc's blayne alexander, lisa rubin and caroline polisi. for those who may just be tuning in right now, washington us walk us through what we know so far. >> reporter: what we know so far is this ruling came out, it was a surprise to many people who

cover this case, and by my understanding many people involved in this case saying that several of the counts including three counts against former president donald trump had been dismissed by this judge. now, i want to say i did speak with a source who is familiar with the d.a.'s thinking, and we understand that right now the ruling is currently under review by her office. that's all the guidance we have been given. what will the d.a. choose do in this situation? what sort of action will she take? what we do know, according to this source, the ruling is currently under review by her office. i also reached out to somebody whose name that we know very closely associated with this case, georgia secretary of state brad raffensperger, the person on the receiving end of that pressuring phone call from the former president. his office is also declining to comment in all of this. but, you know, one of the things we have been discussing throughout the day is what impact this will have on the case. you know, initially, when we began this year, the d.a. was seeking a very aggressive timeline for the start of trial.

she wanted to go to trial by the summer. this, along with the events over the past two and a half months or so, have made that all but impossible, have made that seem all but impossible. we talk about just the delays that we have seen with this case, remember, whether these charges were initially filed, when you held up all four cases against former president donald trump, many people looked at the georgia case and said for a number of reasons this was the strongest, this certainly is a blow, not a complete dismissal of this indictment, but a blow to this case. >> blayne alexander, thank you. lisa, six charges the judge has thrown out. three charges apply to donald trump specifically. the judge in his ruling here does say there are a lot of evidence, you have a lot of details in these allegations. so, does this mean evidence in this case is limited as well? >> no, it means exactly the opposite. i point anybody who has this

opinion in their hand to the top of page eight where he explains even though he's throwing out these six counts, the fact that the d.a.'s office didn't sufficiently plead a violation or what oath these folks were trying to get other public officials to violate doesn't mean that the underlying episodes won't come into a trial of the rico charge. in fact, he references specific paragraphs that correspond to the three charges thrown out against former president trump. former president trump was alleged to have called former house speaker david ralston and pleaded with him to appoint fake electors and brad raffensperger on that call to january 2nd to implore him, find the votes. again, he called brad raffensperger on september 17th, 2021 and asked him to decertify the whole election. while the individual charges based on each of those three acts have been thrown out, the evidence is not and can come

into any rico trial. >> i have to wonder how did we land here? we see these filings constantly, it seems to have charges dismissed in all of the many trump cases we have been covering for criminal cases that are still in the process of moving forward here. and, so, would this be the judge responding to one of these motions that trump himself and his team filed? >> yeah, look, steve sadow is feeling pretty good right now. but forest from the trees, trump also asked for a rico charge to be dismissed, which judge mcafee said, no, we're not -- i'm not going to dismiss. trump is left with ten counts against him. i think it is really interesting when you juxtapose this pace, a large sprawling rico indictment with jack smith's january 6th case, which is lean and mean, he could have charged that case as a conspiracy, but he chose to focus on one individual defendant, donald trump, because he wanted to get that case in or wants to get that case in before the election. this is what happens in rico

trials. this is, you know, maybe this specifically couldn't have been anticipated, but when you have a case of this magnitude, and this many defendants, and this many defense attorneys coming up with their own ideas with motions to dismiss, you get these big bulky omnibus motions where different defendants are, you know, saying -- putting their hat into the ring with different motions, a lot of collaboration and it is their due process rights to make these types of cases. trump gets a lot of flack for, you know, delay tactics, but any criminal defense attorney will tell you most of these motions that he's sort of lobbing out there, they have some merit, and he's allowed to litigate these issues. no case -- certainly no case i've ever been involved in goes to trial on the first day that the judge sets it, so this was anticipated. >> the other trial that we are, of course, monitoring and gearing up for looks like it is moving forward in less than two weeks' time is the one here in

new york city, the manhattan d.a. case, the hush money probe here. michael cohen, there today. lisa, we have less than a minute in the show. explain what a prep session would look like. >> prep session involves taking a witness through potential questions that you anticipate them being asked both on direct examination by the state and cross examination by the other side. all the things that could be embarrassing to or damaging to that person, you want to draw the sting out in your direct examination, prep the witness for it too. >> lisa, thank you so much. thank you, caroline. nice to have you here. never know what kind of breaking news is going to drop on any given day and you ladies were ready. thank you so much at home for joining us. we'll see you back here tomorrow, same time, same place. for now, i'm ana cabrera reporting from new york. jose diaz-balart picks up our breaking news coverage right now. good morning, it is 11:00 a.m.