saying it's a catastrophe. level 4 and level 3, level 4 is the emergency level, three is crisis, and frankly, if only every gazan had that can of beans you're referring to, but of course, many of them don't. >> 245 calories. this must be unlike anything. >> it's the density and the speed of the descent into absolute that is fast. let's not forget, this 25 million people in sudan suffering from a civil war, there are people in syria, elsewhere, who desperately need him about in terms of density of population, speed is in a league of its own. >> some truly essential and lifesaving heroic work, thank you so much for your time, and all that you do on behalf of the global community. that is our show for this hour. lawrence o'donnell, good evening. >> good evening, alex, we have experts with us tonight,

senator sheldon whitehouse, who i'm always taking notes when he speaks. and of course, joining us on that presidential immunity claim, donald trump is pushing at the supreme court. >> over to you, scotus, april 24th. >> thank you, alice. it's not donald trump people who voted for donald trump, and put the power of supreme court nominations in donald trump's hands for four years. people who voted for george w. bush, or who volunteered for his campaign, or who helped which meant that they indirectly voted for chief justice roberts and justice samuel alito, who wrote concerning roe versus wade. and is the 49 million people who voted for george h.w. bush, who indirectly voted for clarence thomas to serve on the supreme court, where he waited

for decades to vote to overturn. many of those republican voters did not mean, most voters had every right as a presidential posturing. george h.w. bush, and the bush family were supporters of planned parenthood until george h.w. bush had to change his position in 19 in the vice presidential running mate. an act of ultimate cynicism and politics. no one working in american politics believed that george h.w. bush from connecticut was really opposed to abortion. which in that year was running on an antiabortion platform

that the candidates never emphasized, to ensure that antiabortion voters knew about. it was the most cynical vice presidential candidate. the first the first of his sons did not need to engage in a public reversal. he became a governor running for governor of texas. with the absolute antiabortion politics of the republican party that had taken hold by that time. the next presidential republican, in republican politics, not by principle, to get in line with the party on abortion was mitt romney, who ran a losing campaign in massachusetts against ted kennedy, claiming to be to the left of ted kennedy.

on abortion. massachusetts, running with the identical position on abortion of every democrat in massachusetts. romney was completely pro- choice as the governor of massachusetts, and then when he ran for president, completely flip-flopped and became as any other republican. so when donald trump says as he did this week that the republican politics, he means it. and he's not the first one to think so cynically about republican abortion politics. republican presidential candidates debated abortion, 24 years ago. when john mccain wanted to ban all abortions with exceptions for incest and life of the mother, and george w. bush

>> do you believe in the exemption in abortion case of incest and the life of the mother? then you know it's interesting, you are talking about, here's one that says that george w. bush, supports the pro-life, so, in other words, your position is you believe there's an exemption for incest in the life of the mother but the one the platform that you're supposed to be leading >> i will. the platform talks about, >> it doesn't refer to have that constitutional amendment ought to be defined. it does not, john. >> read the platform. it has no exceptions. >> we need to keep the platform the way it is. this is a pro-life country. may i finish, please? please.

we need to be a pro-life party, we need to say, life is precious, that's what our platform returns to. that's why we need to leave it the same. george w. bush, the man who became president, clearly did not know what he was talking about. if he would tell his then 15- year-old daughter that she could not have an abortion if she became pregnant, john mccain said, no. i would discuss this issue with cindy and megan as a private decision that we would share, i would encourage her to know that that baby would be brought up in a loving family, the decision would be made by megan with our advice and counsel, and i think that's such a private matter. it is. a private matter. people agreed with that answer, but that was not actually john

mccain's position as a candidate, and that meant that john mccain was in favor of banning abortion for everyone except his daughter. john mccain was forced to go into republican damage control my calling reporters, saying, i misspoke. what i believe i was saying and intended to say is that this is a family decision. the family decision will be made by the family, not by megan alone. that clarified nothing, of course, except that republican elected officials, especially presidential candidates, do not mean what they say about abortion, they never have. they have always been posturing, and none of them ever wanted to deal with the reality of their position on abortion, which we are now dealing with, and the people of arizona are dealing with tonight, having been thrown back to 1864. to live by a law written by one

man who no one elected to anything, back when arizona was a territory, a half-century away from becoming a state. make america great again now means make america great the way it was in 1864. when the territory of arizona was fighting on the side of the confederacy in the civil war to preserve slavery in america and imposing laws on women and doctors and nurses that everyone in arizona has to live with tonight. the democrats in the state legislature in arizona tried to repeal that law today, and the republicans blocked it, and so the republicans in arizona, actively made the decision today that the people in arizona must live as if it were 1864, and it wasn't even a state. and so, reporters can and should hound donald trump on the campaign trail about the

five-year prison sentences that doctors and nurses and support staff and drivers are facing in arizona, now, but you should also stand outside george w. bush's home in texas and demand an answer from him. is this what he wanted when he chose samuel alito for the supreme court? or was george w. bush just playing the game of abortion politics? just like every republican did before him. the game was never to win. the game was to keep the game going. if you are antiabortion, you have to vote republican as long as they kept the game going. because they were the only ones who were at least pretending they wanted to stop it. equally, republican politicians didn't want abortion to stop, because then you wouldn't have to vote for them anymore to stop abortion. you wouldn't have to contribute money to their campaigns. you couldn't ask for a more

powerful lesson in how much your vote matters, and how long your vote matters. your vote lives after you. long after you. millions of people who voted for george h.w. bush, and who therefore voted for clarence thomas to be on the supreme court to overturn roe versus wade, are now dead. millions of those voters have been dead for decades. their vote continues to live after them in the hands of clarence thomas on the united states supreme court. it didn't seem like a life- changing election in 1988. when michael dukakis was running against george h.w. bush. i didn't know anyone who thought the country was going to take a major turn for the worse because of the outcome of that election. the stakes seemed about as low as they could get in a

presidential election. but as i've said before on this program repeatedly, whenever the stakes appear low in a presidential election, you always have to remember united states supreme court. and so, for the democratic voters who just weren't excited enough about michael dukakis, or the republican voters who voted for a guy who used to support planned parenthood, the truth is that that time, at that time they couldn't possibly have known they were going to change life in america profoundly, decades later, with their vote for george h.w. bush, or the decision simply not to vote. same thing in 2000, when george w. bush was running against al gore. the stakes did not seem high. that's why enough people voted for ralph nader as a third- party candidate in florida to give the electoral college,

thanks to the supreme court decision, to george w. bush. bush, from the connecticut bush family, who pretended to be texan. he couldn't be a real, hard- core texas conservative, could he? the stakes couldn't be that high. it turns out a vote for george w. bush was a vote for samuel alito to take a seat on the supreme court in 20 years later, write the opinion overturning roe versus wade. so yes. you can and should blame donald trump, but you should have to blame the people who voted for donald trump for president in 2016 and you have to blame the voters who voted for george w. bush and the voters who voted for george h.w. bush before that. if michael dukakis had won, or if al gore had won, then donald trump could have put three right-wing judges on the supreme court and they still wouldn't have a majority. for the voters who voted for joe biden four years ago and are no longer with us, because they were lost to cobit or cancer or other illness, their

votes are going to live after them for probably another 30 years, with ketanji brown jackson will serve on the united states supreme court. your vote will live after you. it will live in the supreme court. your vote will live on in the hands of federal judges, in their 40s, appointed by joe biden, who will serve for another 40 years. your vote will decide what century we live in. will we live in an age of legal and constitutional enlightenment? or will we live in 1864? your vote is not just about the next four years. the importance of your vote has never been more clear. not just as a vote to preserve democracy in this country, we already knew about that.

your vote for who chooses supreme court justices is nothing less than an exercise in incredible intergenerational power that will live long after you. leading off our discussion tonight is democratic senator of the senate judiciary committee, and chairs the subcommittee on federal courts, also the author of captured, the corporate infiltration of american democracy. senator, i really wanted to be able to talk to you about this tonight, because when i say, i'm going to hold up this chart that you've created that shows the republican multi-decade plan to take over the united states supreme court, we've shown it on the program before. when i say people didn't realize, or i certainly didn't realize how big the stakes were, and the presidential election of 1988, or the

presidential election of 2000, i didn't know about this chart. i didn't know that this plan was underway to take over the supreme court in the way that they have taken over to now, as we see in the state of arizona, and possibly in other places, sending us back to 1864. >> i would add one detail to your well told story, lawrence, and that is that when george w. bush became president, and he had the vacancy to fill, his first choice was harriet myers. who might well not have written the dobbs decision, and george w. bush was attacked from the far right he was attacked by the creepy far right billionaires for nominating harriet myers, a conservative lawyer who was his own white house counsel, and from pressure from the far right,

and from the folks who work with the same guy on that graphic you just showed, leonard leo, he was forced, humiliated, really, to withdraw his own white house counsel nomination for the supreme court, and replace her with samuel alito. so, it's not just the people who voted for bush. it's the people in the republican party who tolerate the right-wing billionaire dominance over their party, won't call it out, won't stand up against it, and will let them pull out harriet myers and insert sam alito and put us on the pathway to dobbs. >> i've been, since i started the show, i've been struggling for how to teach the lesson of how important the presidential vote is in terms of the supreme court. if there's nothing else. if there's no other issue that's moving you, or your

angry about four or five other issues, you always have to come back to the supreme court and say, which one of these candidates do i want making the next appointments to the united states supreme court? >> particularly when the court has been as weapon iced as it has been, and is now point by point delivering on the republican agenda through cases that have been spun up by billionaire funded litigation groups, by billionaire funded flotillas of who come in and file briefs telling the courts what to do. and landing in a court that has been over and over again picked by the federal citing the billionaires behind it to do exactly the job of delivering the goods for the far right. >> senator sheldon whitehouse, thank you as always for your guidance on the supreme court, you have taught us more about it than anyone else who is working on the subject these days.

>> thank you. >> thank you. coming up, 15 historians have filed a brief with the united states up cream court opposing the claim of presidential immunity, a claim he has invented. stanford historian jack ray croft will join us, next. next. ] at st. jude, the mission is just something that everyone can truly get behind. look at our little st. jude pin there on the fridge! we're just regular people donating. yeah. and i think it's cool to be able to make a difference in someone's lives in a way that is meaningful. morikawa on 18. 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... -alligator. 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. hello, ghostbusters. it's doug. we help people customize and save hundreds on car insurance with liberty mutual. we got a bit of a situation. [ metal groans] sure, i can hold. ♪ liberty liberty liberty liberty ♪ in theaters now.

oh... stuffed up again? so congested! you need sinex saline from vicks. just sinex, breathe, ahhhh! what is — wow! sinex. breathe. ahhhhhh! i love that my daughter still needs me. but sometimes i can't help due to burning and stabbing pain in my hands, so i use nervive.

nervive's clinical dose of ala reduces nerve discomfort in as little as 14 days. now i can help again.

seven weeks. special prosecutor jack smith asked for a deadline of march 18th for donald trump lawyers to disclose any classified evidence that they would like to use in donald trump's criminal trial for violations of the espionage act, and donald trump's favorite judge, aileen cannon set a date seven weeks later than what jack smith asked for. so in an order issued today, judge cannon gave the trump criminal defense team until may 9th to disclose with classified material they would like to use in defense of criminal defendant donald trump. we are two weeks away from hearing oral arguments at the

united states supreme court independent trumps appeal claiming that he has something that the trump lawyers are calling presidential immunity. from any criminal charges for anything donald trump did while serving as president, and after serving as president. a 34 page brief filed with the supreme court by 15 historians and scholars of the founding era including stanford history professor jack raycroft, who will join us in a moment, opposes donald trump's invention of presidential immunity, which appears nowhere in the constitution. historians brief stresses five points. first, early americans held a deep antipathy to and distrust of executive power. second, the founders came to the constitutional convention determined to create a new kind of executive without the powers and privileges of the king. third, the framers never contemplated giving the president any role in the conduct of elections or transfer of power.

fourth, the founders were careful to limit and make explicit the few privileges that they attached to constitutional offices. fifth, advocates for the new constitution sought to assure state ratifying conventions that the new president would not be an elected king. the historians brief goes on to say, there is no evidence in the extensive historical record that any of the framers believed a former president should be immune from criminal prosecution. such a concept would be in the makeable to the basic intentions understandings and experiences of the founding generation. the crime alleged, a failure to respect the election of a new president, is the ultimate crime against the people who are the basis of the government, the president by constitutional design should have no role, official or unofficial in the determination of the people's vote.

immunity for the crimes here alleged would be most important to the framers because immunity would upset the constitutional scheme, and ate a president in overwriting the people's power over him. the framers would also have been appalled that former president trump, despite having left office, seeks permanent immunity. joining us now is former acting u.s. solicitor general and host of the pot podcast courtside, he is an msnbc legal analyst. neil, in your experience, how does the court treat briefs like this, coming from parties not directly involved in the case? >> i want to answer that but first, i have to compliment you for how you started the program tonight. i don't think i've ever heard it that are said on a news program, elections have huge consequences. and the supreme court has huge

consequences over our lives. i've been saying this in every presidential election since 2000, and unfortunately democrats didn't listen, but if you care about choice or you care about reasonable gun control or if you care about reasonable punishment or you care about strong environmental and climate protections, the supreme court has outsized influence over our lives, particularly because of life tenure, and i get the privilege of seeing that up close. i've argued 51 times of the court, i've seen justice catania jackson and what she can do. i've seen what justice sotomayor did and i saw what justice ginsburg did before that. this is a huge issue. with respect to your question about historians, i do think the supreme court can take them seriously, particularly when they're as well-done as this brief is. they destroy this presidential claim, and they say what it is. this is a claim that the president is not an elected official, he's a king, and he's above the law. there's really no principle in

our constitution that's more anathema to that, and if you have any doubt about this, there was a guy after january 6 happened who explained that a president can be criminally indicted, and that person was donald trump's own lawyer, who said, don't impeach him, you can indict him after he leaves office. that was one of the few times donald trump lawyer got the constitution right. >> let's do jump back to this issue of how voting affects who the supreme court justices are. i think both of us, over years, have been trying to make this point, and unfortunately, this happens in human experience, sometimes the lesson has to be learned the hard way. and it does seem like some voters have learned this lesson the hard way, in the kinds of turnout we have seen around the country in states when they are voting on constitutional amendments in their own state

to preserve, essentially, the protections of roe versus wade. >> that's right. i thought for a long time, why is it that the democrats don't care about courts, and part of it does go back to roe versus wade in 1973. we won at row, so the right to choose was firmly entrenched in our constitution, even so much so that it was republican justices in 1992, justices o'connor, souter, and kennedy who said, we're not going to overturn it. democrats grew complacent about the court, republicans, by contrast, launched the federalist society, launched an active movement to try to change the composition of the courts, and there's two ways of looking at it. one is, that's a nefarious plot, the justices are nefarious and the like. the other is, this was just the plan, it was a legitimate plan, there's nothing wrong with trying to use presidential elections to change the composition of the court, that's been the tradition of america. you don't have to take the first of you in order to think

that elections have huge consequences over our lives, and if you care about autonomy and you care about reproductive justice, this election in november is as critical as anything that's happened in our lifetimes. >> neal katyal, thank you very much for joining us tonight. >> thank you. the historians brief to the supreme court says the founding generation sought to ensure that, unlike a king, the president would not acquire any special status that would carry forward after the end of his term. instead, the president would be elected from the mass of the people, and, on the expiration of the time for which he is elected, return to the mass of the people. again. founding era history provides former president trump no solace in his efforts to evade the ordinary operation of law.

joining us now is jack raycroft, professor of history and american studies and professor of political science at stanford university, who he is on this amicus brief, to the supreme court. he won the pulitzer prize in history for his book, original meanings, politics, and ideas in the making of the constitution. desiree croft, you are trying to teach the supreme court a history that they certainly present themselves as if they know all of this. but so often, they seem to veer off in their own historical adventures. >> well, it's true, lawrence, all kinds of claims are made about history, are often on specious grounds, and historians, whether we read as individuals or collectively as we do in this brief to come up with the somewhat more complicated and more accurate explanation of what was the world of the framers of the constitution occupied and how did they think about executive

power in the way that they did? it's basically our test to get the historical record out there, so both the justices but also the american body politic, educated intelligences, will understand the richness of that history. and therefore will be better able to recognize the spaciousness of the claims pending in the current litigation. >> you debated with yourself, and been in debates about what did this mean, what were they trying to do, and used your professional tools to investigate to get the answers to that. in your brief, you say sometimes history speaks ambiguously, but here it speaks with surpassing clarity. talk about that clarity, and how valuable that is in a situation like this. >> i think clarity divides from the fundamental fact of the desire and concern to limit,

the cabinet executive power was the major motif, a dominant theme in both british and american political thinking in the 17th and 18th century. that's the what the glorious revolution of 1688, accomplished in great britain. the american colonist of the 18th century because of the nature of their dealings with royal governors and to some extent the british monarchy, shared those concerns. when i started writing constitutions in 1776 at the state level and then have teen 87 at the national level, the question about what to do with executive power, how to think about it, how to empower it but also how to limit it, was really one of the main concerns. i did it was the most difficult concern they faced. we spend a lot of time these days, as in prior segments have suggested worrying about the supreme court and the basis of judicial review and the different theories of interpretation. we spend a lot of time worrying about the partisan gerrymandering of congress, but the power of a national executive in the 1780s was truly difficult problem.

the one thing that really held the founding generation together, both the framers of the constitution and the rectifiers, was their conviction that the chief task of the president as the constitution says, is he shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed. it's that obligation, or in better term, the responsibility which really underlay the whole framework for thinking about executive power at the time the constitution was written. get the wild claims about presidential immunity from legal constraints, particularly in a self-serving way, when the constitution itself and the election system gives the president no authority at all over the conduct of elections, it shows the sheer outrageousness of the claims being made by trump and his lawyers. >> donald trump has really bothered by your brief and has decided to comment. we will listen to this, and i want to imagine, i want you to

imagine a stanford student standing up in one of your classrooms and saying this. let's listen to this. >> this is not what the founders had in mind at all. this is not what they wanted to think about. this is not where they wanted us to be. the founders wanted the president to have immunity so the president can feel free to make decisions. >> what grade does he get, professor? >> [ laughing ] is this on a pass, no credit scale? on what? >> i want the standard stanford grading system. >> is obviously a f. i always thought the trumpet played a terrible joke on the american people when he swore the inaugural oath back on january 20th, 2017. i doubt he's ever read the constitution. i certainly think he's never studied it, he's never

discussed it. it's a pathetic situation. for so many tragic and threatening reasons. we have a president who is constitutionally illiterate as well as politically incapable of dealing with the responsibilities of his office. >> professor jack raycroft, thank you very much for joining us once again tonight. >> my pleasure. >> thank you. coming up, donald trump's accountant was handcuffed and dragged off to jail once again today, adam class felt was in the courtroom and will join us, next, along with harry littman to consider what's coming for defendant trump in a manhattan clinical courtroom on monday. m

♪ (upbeat music) ♪ ( ♪♪ ) with the push of a button, constant contact's ai tools help you know what to say, even when you don't. hi! constant contact. helping the small stand tall.

♪♪ ♪♪ bounce back fast from heartburn with new tums gummy bites, and love food back. ♪♪ i suffer with psoriatic arthritis and psoriasis. i was on a journey for a really long time to find some relief. cosentyx works for me. cosentyx helps real people get real relief from the symptoms of psoriatic

arthritis or psoriasis. serious allergic reactions, severe skin reactions that look like eczema, and an increased risk of infections, some fatal, have occurred. tell your doctor if you have an infection or symptoms, had a vaccine or plan to or if ibd symptoms develop or worsen. i move so much better because of cosentyx. ask your rheumatologist about cosentyx. (tony hawk) skating for over 45 years has taken a toll on my body. i take qunol turmeric because it helps with healthy joints and inflammation support. why qunol? it has superior absorption compared to regular turmeric. qunol. the brand i trust.

our next guest, adam klasfeld, was in the courtroom today when donald trump's criminal accountant, alan weisel berg got handcuffed and dragged off to jail once again. in court today, he said three words. the judge asked, is there anything you would like to say? no, your honor. adam klasfeld live tweeting of the court session today captured the final moment this way. handcuffed behind his back, and escorted out of the courtroom. that's it. alan weisselberg is heading back to jail for perjury during the civil fraud trial involving donald trump and his business is. attorney general letitia james is asking for information to

clarify if defendants and their counsel facilitated that perjury by withholding of incriminating documents. and, in an appeals court today in new york, donald trump's latest attempt to delay the start of his first criminal trial was denied. jury selection remains scheduled for monday, morning in manhattan. joining us now is adam klasfeld, who was in the courtroom today, and who will be in the courtroom every day for us at the trump trial, beginning next week. he's a fellow at the justice security and harry littman is with us, former deputy assistant attorney general, the senior legal affairs columnist for the los angeles times. adam, you're in the room with defendant weisselberg, you've been in the room before, but there's nothing quite like seeing someone walk into a courtroom, a free man, a free citizen, and then handcuffed and dragged off to rikers island. what was that moment like?

>> allen weisselberg was certainly dressed for the occasion, by which i mean he arrived knowing the sentence was baked in, it was going to be a five month sentence, and he went into court dressed in loosefitting athletic wear, dark-colored, you would think that he was already in his prison uniform, although it got a little bit of an upgrade. so this hearing was two minutes long, and that moment, the reason why i ended that reporting with, that's it, was, that was the pace of it. it was a quick exchange with the judge. he wanted to say as little as possible, and he did say as little as possible, and headed for his second stint at rikers. >> what is the feeling you get from him? is it trump zombie, in his 70s, who doesn't know any other way? a good soldier? >> he has been a good soldier.

he's been a good lieutenant, that's been allen weisselberg his entire life. it's not for nothing that this conviction, this guilty plea, was for perjury. if you look at the substance of this perjury plea, it's that he had essentially lied, twice, about not knowing when he found out the true size of trump's new york triplex, and he said that he didn't know whether trump was present when he had conversations about the size of the new york triplex. these are key issues in the civil fraud investigation. this is why trump is paying such a high penalty, among other reasons. and he held out that information. this, he's paying the consequences of that again, and that's, it's a fitting farewell that he says as little as possible in a way that was clearly to the benefit of

trump. >> harry littman, what are the trump lawyers be feeling tonight with attorney general james trying to inquire about whether they facilitated this perjury? >> depends first whether they did. it really was no secret what weisselberg had done, and it was well known from the whole forbes magazine article, so the judge may say, enough, we don't have to go too deeply into this, it is just surmised, but obviously, trump lawyers often lined up imitating the client in dangerous ways. just quickly on weisselberg, they say everything trump touches dies, and this guy has died more than once. as adam says, he shows up in his track pants, like roadkill, utterly beaten, his liberty, his reputation is credibility, all in tatters because he

wanted not to be loyal to donald trump, what an ultimate kind of casualty. >> and harry, appeals court in new york today, knocking down donald trump's latest attempt to delay the monday morning reckoning with jury selection. >> another day, another crazy motion from trump, and another very quick read bus. it was a single judge who said, i'm not even going to give this to a five judge panel, forget about it on the delay. we can talk next week about the substance if you think we should reform the gag order. there's no reason to but we can talk about it, but on your delay efforts, here, in a skinny new york minute, they said no, don't even have to serve it up to the larger court. >> and adam, it seems like there is nothing, now, between

where we're sitting here and jury selection monday morning. >> absolutely. who knows whether trump is back to appellate court tomorrow morning, but appellate court has made itself heard three days in a row. three days in a row, trump is coming in with a last-minute bid to delay the trial, and he gets rebuffed by three separate judges. by the d.a.s count, he has tried to halt this trial more than 10 times. it's 11 times by the d.a.s count, and every time it gets rebuffed. >> adam klasfeld and harry littman, thank you both for joining us tonight. coming up, will wisconsin now be forced to go back to 1849 and live under an 1849 abortion law? wisconsin democratic senator tammy baldwin, who is running for re-election in wisconsin, will join us next. us next. [cat meow] —is she? letting her imagination run wild even though she has allergies. yeah.

one in five children worldwide are faced with the reality of living without food, no family dinners, no special treats, not enough energy to play. all around the world, hunger is affecting children's physical and mental health. toddlers are suffering from acute malnutrition, which stunts their growth. kids are forced to drop out of school so they can help support their families. conflict, inflation and climate have ignited the worst famine in our lifetime, and we are fed up! fed up that hunger devours dreams. fed up, that hunger destroys joy. fed up with the fact that hunger eats childhood. help us feed the futures of children all over the world by visiting getfedupnow.org. for as little as $10 a month,

you can join save the children as we support children and families in desperate need of our help. now is the time to get fed up and give back. when you join the cause, your $10 monthly donation can help communities in need of lifesaving treatments and nutrients, prevent children from dropping out of school. support our work with communities and governments to help children go from short term surviving to long term thriving. and now, thanks to special government grants, every dollar you give can multiply up to ten times the impact. that means more food, water, medicine and help for kids around the world. you'll also receive a free tote bag to share your support for children in need. having your childhood eaten away by hunger is unimaginable. get fed up. call us now or visit getfedupnow.org, today. i was born with wings,

but psoriasis swooped in to clip them. it crushed my confidence. but no longer will psoriasis get a piece of me. i can love my skin again. with bimzelx. only bimzelx targets and blocks il-17a plus f to calm inflammation. i can control my plaques, and start getting myself back. bimzelx helps adults with moderate to severe psoriasis control plaques, to deliver clearer skin fast, for results that last. i will give myself back the freedom of shorts. dare to wear black again from head to toe. (♪♪) most people got 100% clear skin. some after the first dose. serious side effects, including suicidal thoughts and behavior, infections and lowered ability to fight them, liver problems, and inflammatory bowel disease, have occurred. tell your doctor if these happen or worsen, or if you've had a vaccine or plan to. (♪♪) start to get yourself back, with bimzelx. ask your dermatologist about bimzelx today.

nothing dims my light like a migraine. with nurtec odt, i found relief. the only migraine medication that helps treat and prevent, all in one. to those with migraine, i see you. for the acute treatment of migraine with or without aura and the preventive treatment of episodic migraine in adults. don't take if allergic to nurtec odt. allergic reactions can occur, even days after using. most common side effects were nausea, indigestion, and stomach pain. it's time we all shine. talk to a healthcare provider about nurtec odt from pfizer. business. talk to a healthcare provider it's not a nine-to-five proposition. it's all day and into the night. it's all the things that keep this world turning. it's the go-tos that keep us going. the places we cheer. trust.

hang out. and check in. they all choose the advanced network solutions and round the clock partnership from comcast business. powering more businesses than anyone. powering possibilities. when president biden and democrats say they want to codify roe versus wade, what they mean is that they want to pass senator tammy baldwin's bill, the women's health protection act. senator baldwin is running for re-election in wisconsin against a republican candidate who wants to return wisconsin to 1849, the first year of wisconsin's statehood, by invoking an 1849 law that bans abortion. that republican senate candidate also seems to believe

that you should lose the right to vote if you are in an assisted living facility. >> if you're in a nursing home, you only have five, six month life expectancy. almost nobody in a nursing home is at a point to vote. >> joining us now is democratic senator tammy baldwin of wisconsin, she's running for re- election to the united states senate in 2024. entered her, i want you to address this thing that we haven't heard from anyone other than this person, you're running against. which is there is such a thing as being too old to vote. he believes that you're too old to vote if you need help with anything, getting through your day. >> can you imagine saying this about your mother or grandmother? lawrence, i was raised by my grandparents. i was so fortunate to have them, stability and their love.

my grandmother lived to 94 years old. she was born before women had the right to vote. when she was 90, she broke her hip, and needed nursing care for her remaining four years. she was proud to cast her ballot, and there was nothing that stood, should stand in her way. thousands of wisconsinites live in nursing homes. eric hovde does not have a clue what he's talking about, and if you think about, maybe he's trying to prevent older people from voting because he's ashamed of his positions on raising the retirement age and cutting social security and medicare benefits. republicans in wisconsin, and throughout the nation have tried to make it harder for young people to vote. communities of color to vote. and now we're hearing this from eric hovde, he is so out of

touch, and maybe it's not surprising. he owns a $2.8 billion california bank, and maybe it shouldn't surprise us that he does not have a clue about the realities of wisconsinites and their lives. and while he is self funding his campaign, people want to help me fight back, please go to tammy baldwin.com. >> what is at stake on the issue of abortion rights in wisconsin and this election? >> right now, we are seeing both president trump, who recently endorsed eric hovde, and eric hovde trying to dance away from their position. when eric hovde ran for u.s. senate in 2012 in wisconsin, he said, i am 100% opposed to abortion rights. now we're seeing both dance around, should the states decide, or should the federal government decide? well, i want women to decide,

and that's exactly what i'm fighting for with the women's health protection act. >> as we go forward, the possibility of codifying, as we say, putting into law roe versus wade is only possible if the democrats win the house of representatives and the democrats when the united states senate and if the democrats win and retain the presidency. >> without question, that is the fact. when you look at my opponent who is 100% opposed to abortion rights, even though he's trying to surmount that, women in wisconsin will not forget the woman who bled for 10 days before she could get care. the woman whose water broke at 17 weeks, and face the risk of before she could get care. we have three out of 72 counties where there is any care available in the state of wisconsin, and we cannot afford to go back to living under that 1849 law, and it will take

voting, and making sure that i win and continue to be the champion of the women's health protection act in order to get us across the finish line. >> senator tammy baldwin running for re-election in wisconsin, thank you very much for joining us tonight. >> thank you so much, lawrence. >> we'll be right back. and prevents future flare-ups. trelegy also improves lung function, so i can breathe more freely all day and night. trelegy won't replace a rescue inhaler for sudden breathing problems. tell your doctor if you have a heart condition or high blood pressure before taking it. do not take trelegy more than prescribed. trelegy may increase your risk of thrush, pneumonia, and osteoporosis. call your doctor if worsened breathing, chest pain, mouth or tongue swelling, problems urinating,

vision changes, or eye pain occur. ♪ what a wonderful world ♪ [laughing] ask your doctor about once-daily trelegy for copd because breathing should be beautiful, all day and night. ( ♪ ♪ ) start your day with nature made. the #1 pharmacist recommended vitamin and supplement brand. my mental health was better. but uncontrollable movements called td, tardive dyskinesia, started disrupting my day. td felt embarrassing. i felt like disconnecting. i asked my doctor about treating my td, and learned about ingrezza. ♪ ingrezza ♪

ingrezza is clinically proven for reducing td. most people saw results in just two weeks. people taking ingrezza can stay on most mental health meds. only number-one prescribed ingrezza has simple dosing for td: always one pill, once daily. ingrezza can cause depression, suicidal thoughts, or actions in patients with huntington's disease. pay close attention to and call your doctor if you become depressed, have sudden changes in mood, behaviors, feelings, or have thoughts of suicide. don't take ingrezza if you're allergic to its ingredients. ingrezza may cause serious side effects, including angioedema, potential heart rhythm problems, and abnormal movements. report fevers, stiff muscles, or problems thinking as these may be life threatening. sleepiness is the most common side effect. take control by asking your doctor about ingrezza. ♪ ingrezza ♪ i brought in ensure max protein with 30 grams of protein!

those who tried me felt more energy in just two weeks. -ugh. -here, i'll take that. woo hoo! ensure max protein, 30 grams protein, 1 gram sugar, 25 vitamins and minerals. and a new fiber blend with a prebiotic. (♪♪) - [narrator] this is my coffee shop. we just moved into a bigger space,

brought on another employee, and ordered new branded gear for the team. it was so easy. i just chose my products, added our logo, and placed my order. bring your own team together with custom gear. get started today at customink.com. senator tammy baldwin gets tonight last word, the 11th hour with stephanie ruhle starts now. >> tonight, arizona becomes ground zero in the battle over abortion rights, as republicans in the state scramble to cut off two vote