right now on "ana cabrera reports," breaking news here in new york. donald trump back in court for day two of his jury selection in his hush money trial. and there is something happening today that could impact his potential testimony in this case. plus, the trial and betrayal. a campaign split screen as

president biden kicks off a campaign swing while trump sits in court. also ahead, more breaking news at the supreme court. we're watching for decisions any moment as justices prepare to hear a january 6th case that could have big legal implications for trump. >> and good morning. it is 10:00 eastern. i'm ana cabrera reporting from new york. we begin with the breaking news out of a manhattan courthouse. day two of the hush money trial just getting under way this morning. the court will resume efforts to find 12 jurors who will decide this case. plus six alternates. they have yet to seat a single juror. also happening today, a discussion about trump's potential testimony. nbc's vaughn hillyard is outside that courthouse. vaughn, not only do we have jury

selection continuing today, there is also this hearing we're expecting that could impact trump's potential testimony. what can you tell us? >> reporter: yeah, good morning, ana. just in the last three minutes, the jury selection process has begun again. and there was a delay, namely because two jurors didn't show up who were previously in that jury box of 18. after waiting for more than 15 minutes, judge merchan said they're going to move forward in those two jurors, because they didn't show up, are dismissed. a third judge -- a third juror who showed up with flu-like symptoms. that juror was also dismissed. that gives you insight into why this process could take a long time. we're lucky today if they're able to get through the first batch of 96 jurors. this questionnaire process takes a lengthy amount of time, there is a 42 questionnaire for each of these individuals. i want to let you listen to donald trump a few moments ago, right as he was walking into the courtroom, talking about this case. take a listen.

>> we have a trump hating judge, we have a judge who shouldn't be on this case, he's totally conflicted. the judge should recuse himself. >> reporter: this morning on social media, he called it an assault on america, this trial. and you mentioned that other hearing, we expected this morning's proceedings to start with what was called a sandoval hearing, but it appears the jury selection is beginning before we get to this part. now, we expect that to happen potentially at some point today here, but what this sandoval hearing, when you hear that term come up here in the hours ahead, is an opportunity for the district attorney's office to get an understanding from the judge about what other trial determinations, previous trials, for instance, potentially the e. jean carroll trial or the civil fraud trial, they would be able to bring forward before the jury during cross examination if in fact, donald trump testifies.

and the judge would be the one, once the d.a. presents what they would like to bring forward to the jury, the judge is able to make that determination at that point of what is germane or relevant to the case. they say they should stick to the case alone and not be able to bring up other trials from the past that donald trump has been engaged in for the purposes of not tainting the jury pool's view of donald trump. but, this is sort of this ongoing piece here, where we could be still several weeks here before the trial begins, knowing that the sandoval hearing must still take place as well as this jury selection, which is slow and very much methodical. ana? >> vaughn, stay with us. let's bring in chuck rosenberg, former u.s. attorney and senior fbi official along with charles coleman, civil rights attorney and former prosecutor, and jessica levinsohn, law school professor. let's start where vaughn left off. help us understand the sandoval

hearing, what is it exactly and is it typical here in new york for a defendant to get sort of a preview of the type of questioning they could face on the stand? >> absolutely, ana. this is something that is standard procedure when you talk about criminal trials. in new york, particularly ones where defendants may take the stand. you have to give their defense team an opportunity to assess what is the extent of the bad act they will ask about and whether the judge will allow it in court. once you have had that information presented in front of the jury, whether it is objected to or not, it could be incredibly prejudicial. you cannot as we say unring the bell. before you even get into trial, you want to make sure that there are limits and understand what those limits are if you're the prosecutor in terms of what you can ask about, and what you can't, and then as a defense attorney, you want to have the opportunity to understand the contours of what they will be able to ask about, so that you can either object and/or prep

your client or talk to your client about not testifying. so this is standard in new york. not something that is a surprise. it is a routine hearing that occurs almost every time that you have a trial, when you're talking about a defendant who may testify. >> chuck, one of trump's lawyers who is not representing him in this case specifically suggested it might not be a bad idea for trump to take the stand. take a listen. >> what do you personally think? do you think he should get up there? >> as one of his attorneys -- i think president trump would be a very compelling witness in this case. i think his testimony would be able to explain as other witnesses' testimony would that he did not wrong here. >> chuck, what's your reaction? do you agree? >> i don't. i was a federal prosecutor for a long time, ana. first of all, very few defendants take the stand. when they do, it's rare, it

tends to be a very bad idea. but, let's be clear, sometimes it works and it is absolutely mr. trump's right to do it if he so chooses. but i fundamentally disagree that he can make a good case for himself. with all of the statements he's made, all the false statements, all the contradictions, all the discrepancies, i think he would be a ripe target for a good cross examination. >> jessica, weigh in on trump taking the stand. >> i think that comment by his attorney was meant for an audience of one, donald trump. you can't be his attorney and say i think he would absolutely implode on the stand because he's a pathological liar. so i didn't really take that to be serious legal advice, frankly. i agree with what was just discussed. it is a hail mary oftentimes for any defendant to take the stand. and a lot of times you want to wait to see how strong the prosecution's case is. we heard time and time again from the former president, i

want to tell my stostory, i wano take the stand, and when that push comes to shove, that doesn't always happen. i think if you imagine a person who would be subject to a really stinging cross examination, with a lot of statements that you might not want to be confronted with, you have a picture of donald trump. he has a right to do so, but i don't know that legally it would help his case. >> and, vaughn, let's go back to you, give us an update as to what is happening right now as today, day two, gets under way. >> right, to give you an idea, the first juror of the morning to be asked that 42-question questionnaire is currently responding to questions and you go back to yesterday afternoon, nearly two-thirds of that first batch of 96 individuals that could be potential jurors said that they felt like they could not be fair or impartial and were promptly dismissed. that's what is unique about here, this jury selection process here, is that if an

individual without even giving a reason says that they are unable to take part in this trial, they were allowed to leave. but, this individual, this juror who is currently in the trial box answering questions with donald trump sitting right there got to question 21 and was asked about potential impartiality and i just want to let you hear from part of this individual responding, i can't be impartial because i may have an unconscious bias. growing up in the state of texas, i believe i have an unconscious bias. a bunch of family and friends are republicans. that individual has been excused. and so, that juror will be replaced by another potential juror in the next round of questioning and it is going to begin. >> charles, donald trump is very well known. especially in new york. it's pretty reasonable that jurors would say they can't be fair and impartial. just how difficult is it going to be to try to fill this jury? >> you know, ana, i think this is going to be a challenge. i said that this is going to be a challenge for a long time. and some of my legal colleagues

have disagreed. people can say that they will be fair and impartial, but there is a very big difference between being in a room with the former president, having any sort of inclinations or strong feelings about him, and sitting in that space. and i think that that reality hits a little bit differently for a number of perspective jurors. i think that there is a notion of -- i'm very concerned quite frankly as a former prosecutor -- with the notion of a stealth juror. for those in our audience who may not know what that is, someone who says all the right things, they want to get on the jury, they desperately want to get on the jury because they already made up their minds and they have decided whether they are going to convict donald trump on all counts, whether they hear the information or not, and regardless or conversely with whatever is presented by the prosecution, even if they don't meet their burden, i'm sorry, even if they do meet their burden, there is some jurors who want to get on just to try to acquit donald trump. this is something in terms of

the question of being fair and impartial that is a very real thing, it is very difficult, it will get done. but it is going to take time. and it is going to take vetting and very honest voir dire from the prosecution, the defense and the judge to be able to use the causes -- the cause challenges they have and the preemptive challenges that they have. >> and so, chuck, when charles talks about these stealth jurors, that's got to be in the back of the minds of both sides. the prosecution as well as the defense. and you say that it is sort of a routine defense strategy to play for a mistrial and that starts with this jury selection process. can you explain? >> right. so, in order for a defendant to be convicted, or acquitted, the jury has to be unanimous. 12-0. any other numerical breakdown, 11-1, 10-2, any other breakdown, ana, is a hung jury, a mistrial. if your goal is to be acquitted,

a mistrial doesn't really help you do that. you're still a defendant, and the government can retry you. if your goal is to try and kick the can down the road, to buy more time, to incur delay, mistrial can be very helpful. and so, i think it is a routine strategy, i don't mean that it is under-handed in any way for a defense team, defense lawyers, to try and find a jury that may hang. of course, they're trying to avoid conviction. of course, they're hoping for an acquittal, but those are rare in jury trials. but what they are looking for is as charles said that stealth juror who perhaps could hang the jury, ensure that it is not unanimous, create a mistrial, and give mr. trump more time. by which he might be president and be able to avoid a second trial altogether. so a possible strategy. >> for now, jessica, trump has

to be in court every day. this is a criminal trial. those are the rules. last night he was complaining on social media about the judge rejecting his request to miss court for his son's upcoming graduation and the upcoming supreme court arguments on presidential immunity, which happen next week. what do you make of the judge saying no. >> i think the judge, this is not the judge's first criminal trial and the judge is treating the former president like he would treat other criminal defendants. what he said is you're a defendant in the state of new york. and here's what i don't allow people to do and therefore, and of course i'm paraphrasing, this is what you're not allowed to do. you don't get to say as a criminal defendant you know what, there is another court case that i don't have to be at, but i'm just interested in in washington, d.c., in the supreme court. you don't get to say i'm sorry i have a family obligation. now, of course, there are moments where a judge can decide to, you know, quote, unquote, go dark. and where an attorney or

defendant or witness can't be there, but i think we have seen all along that this is a judge who knows how to run his courtroom, is taking this case seriously and is going to do his absolute best to the extent possible to treat this like any other case, any other defendant. >> jessica levinsohn, thank you so much. vaughn hillyard, chuck rosenberg, charles coleman, stay close. trump's name has been on manhattan skyscrapers for decades. his life chronicled on city tabloid covers. how do you seat a jury in the city that made him? campaign split screen. while trump is stuck in court, president biden prepares to hit the trail. how the case is upending the race. first, we're back in 60 secondses with breaking news at the supreme court. justices hearing a january 6th case that could have legal repercussions for trump. d have l repercussions for trump. 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. my frequent heartburn had me taking antacid after antacid all day long but with prilosec otc just one pill a day blocks heartburn for a full 24 hours. for one and done heartburn relief, prilosec otc. one pill a day, 24 hours, zero heartburn. breaking news from the supreme court this morning.

the justices are preparing to hear a case today on one january 6th defendant's move to dismiss an obstruction charge against him. this is a case that could also have an impact on donald trump's legal future. want to bring in nbc news washington correspondent yamiche alcindor. let's start with the january 6th case that the court is hearing today and how it could have important repercussions for donald trump. explain. >> that's right, ana. this case centers specifically on joseph fisher, he is a former police officer who broke into the u.s. capitol on january 6th, he was charged with obstruction and specifically obstruction of an official proceeding. he's arguing that the obstruction law should not apply to him. it is mainly the case that he's making is that he didn't destroy any records and, in fact, that he should not be charged with this charge. now, what we're looking at here is whether or not the government is going to be successful in arguing that this really -- this obstruction law is a catch all phrase and that in fact because he was part of the crowd that obstructed an official proceeding of congress, of course, that being certifying

those votes on january 6th that he should be charged with that. what is interesting here, of course, is that former president donald trump is also charged with the obstruction law. so if joseph fisher were to win his case, it could have repercussions not only for donald trump, but also more than 330 defendants, other americans who broke into the u.s. capitol, they also have been convicted of this charge. so very interesting case. one that we're going to watch and, of course, oral arguments will be made today. >> as the court continues to hear oral arguments in different cases, they're in the mode of issuing decisions. we didn't get any big ones today. what significant cases are we waiting on this term? >> we have a number of cases that we're looking at. one of them deals with gun violence and whether or not domestic -- people that are charged and have a history of domestic violence, whether they should be restricted from the kinds of guns or having guns at all. that's a big case we're following. we're also looking at a case dealing with purdue pharma and

the makers of oxycontin. looking at whether or not the sackler family that was involved in the industry, if they can be held liable as part of people's lawsuits against that company as well as the lawsuits dealing with oxycontin. that's a big one. we're looking at bump stocks, gun violence, a number of cases dealing with social media, so a lot of cases to look forward to, but the two big ones are the gun violence case and that oxycontin case. >> and the presidential immunity arguments again are on the docket. just next week they'll have to make a decision on that this term. yamiche, thank you. keep us posted as always. we're continuing to follow that breaking news in manhattan. trump on trial. we'll get an update from the courthouse where day two of his new york hush money trial is already under way. plus, trump has a decades long history with the big apple. so how do you find a jury in the very city where he made his

name. city where he made his name our way. and she could track us and see exactly when we'd arrive. >> woman: i have a few more minutes. let's go! >> tech vo: we came to her with service that fit her schedule. >> woman: you must be pascal. >> tech: nice to meet you. >> tech vo: we got right to work, with a replacement she could trust. we come to you for free! schedule now for free mobile service at safelite.com. >> singers: ♪ safelite repair, safelite replace. ♪

she runs and plays like a puppy again. his #2s are perfect! he's a brand new dog, all in less than a year. when people switch their dog's food from kibble to the farmer's dog, they often say that it feels like magic. but there's no magic involved. (dog bark) it's simply fresh meat and vegetables, with all the nutrients dogs need— instead of dried pellets. just food made for the health of dogs. delivered in packs portioned for your dog. it's amazing what real food can do. from chavez and huerta to striking janitors in the 90s to today's fast-food workers.

californians have led the way. now, $20/hour is here. thanks to governor newsom and leaders in sacramento, we can lift workers out of poverty. stop the race to the bottom in the fast-food industry. and build a california for all of us. thank you governor and our california lawmakers for fighting for what matters.

we're back, following the breaking news in lower manhattan, former president donald trump back in court for day two of jury selection in the hush money trial. and we're getting more updates from inside the courtroom. msnbc's yasmin vossoughian is among the many people standing by outside the courthouse. you are following our google doc with the reporting coming from inside. what are you following right

now? >> reporter: so, we have got a lot of folks that are being excused so far today, ana, because they got right into this thing. so far this morning we have four potential jurors that were excused, three of them, vaughn was talking about a little bit earlier was because of their inability to be impartial. two more also saying it was because of their inability to be impartial. it seems like that one question of do you have political beliefs that you feel like will get in the way of serving as a juror in this trial, and that is the question that is kind of stumping some folks, which is interesting, though, by the way, considering that merchan asked everybody at the beginning of this selection process as to whether or not they can be impartial and if they could not be and raised their hands and they would have been excused. now some of them are saying they cannot be impartial. one more juror, by the way, was excused for work schedule and conflicts. if i can just for a moment take you through the process quickly. they're going to have to get 18

jurors into that box. and then they'll move on to the voir dire process where the defense and the prosecution will ask their own set of questions, within parameters, of course, they cannot ask you a republican, are you a democrat, did you vote for donald trump, did you vote for joe biden. those questions are out of the game. however, they're going to ask their own set of questions and then whittle the group down from there. so, as you can tell, this is going to be a very long and painstaking process. >> yasmin vossoughian, thank you, stay close. one of the biggest questions right now of the jury selection is how do you seat a panel in the very city where donald trump made his name? as "the washington post" put it, new york, quote, made trump famous as a queens-born real estate magnate who owns trump tower in manhattan, in midtown, and whose residence first got to know him as a gossip pages tabloid fixture during his rise in the 1980s. now after decades splashed across new york's front pages,

going down memory lane here, are there 18 new yorkers left who haven't cemented an opinion of the man? joining us is jury consultant alan turkimer. thank you for taking the time with us. do you think it is possible to seat a fair and impartial new york city jury? >> i do have faith in new yorkers in that those who can say that they'll be impartial and obviously the lawyers from both sides will go through painstaking processes to sort of whittle that down and make sure that's the case. they're going to want to know things like what kind of podcasts do you listen to. the larger question is donald trump has been in the new york imagination for so long. but many new yorkers know that his name is on the buildings, but he doesn't own the

buildings. many remember him from the days of the lifestyles of the rich and famous and his multiple wives but he's changed from being this icon in much of music and hip-hop music to someone who has tried to divide this country and racialized and racist ways. so it is going to be difficult, but i do think it is possible. we got, you know, the beauty of new york is that it is a changing organism. there are many new yorkers in the city now who weren't here in the '80s and '90s, who don't have the same attachment to donald trump. >> that's a good point. a newby to new york, relatively speaking, moved here in 2017. as we were just hearing from yasmin and vaughn's reporting today, it seems like people are quick to say i can't be fair and impartial. yesterday, day one, more than 50 of the first 96 potential juror group said they could not be impartial. alan, can you put that number into perspective for us? how does that compare to cases with other high profile

defendants and is there anything this court can do to try to counter a history and reputation as prolific as trump's here in new york city? >> well, certainly, so many people in new york city know him. it is hard to think of a case where there is a high profile criminal defendant where the venue consists of people who know him over 40, 50 years. and as your reporting, a lot of those perceptions are negative. it is the central park five, a lot of people think that all these buildings have been gaudy and he represented access in the '80s and a lot of people think he's a slumlord from queens. there is many characterizations, but if you think about it, the numbers is how you combat that. if you have hundreds of jurors coming in, it is narrowed down and sure, you have some that say well, i can't be fair and impartial and then they get to the courtroom, they're standing 20 feet from donald trump and they'll say the same thing. the process does have safeguards built into place.

each side, there is an unlimited number of cause strikes each side can use and then ten peremptoies to use. i think it will be a long process, but a fair and impartial jury will be seated in this case. >> are you surprised at how quickly people are taking themselves out? >> i don't think so. i think that -- and criminal defendants all across the country are not likable. this is not the first time there has been a criminal defendant where the perceptions are not positive. that's nothing unusual. and jurors are good at compartmentalizing. so i believe that these jurors who get through the process, aside from a stealth juror, i think they'll be fair. manhattanites are candid. they'll express what they're feeling about donald trump. i think it is going to work out in the end. i think that at the end of the day, it is going to take a week or two, the fair and impartial jury will be seated and they'll

be open minded. >> new york city isn't exactly quote, unquote trump country. the first ten jurors who were questioned yesterday were not voracious consumers of social media with the exception of a marketing director for a sports betting app and none had read trump's books or attended political rallies or participated actively in anti-trump rallies. is this the average new yorker? if if so, how far are they and this potential jury from trump's base? >> let's be clear, trump's base hasn't read trump's books. that's, you know, not necessarily a marker. i think what is interesting is, you know, as alan was saying, the types of people that -- the trump lawyers are looking for, we know donald trump has specific views on women, he has very specific -- >> i think we just lost christina's signal there -- >> -- more generally. i'm curious to see -- >> you're back. >> am i back? >> go ahead, christina. >> okay, sorry. we know that his lawyers have

very -- >> let's bounce to alan since we're having trouble with her audio. this is a major trial, obviously in the age of social media. and trump is constantly communicating on social media. many of these perspective jurors may have their own social media presence. what do you see as the social media factor here in selecting a fair and impartial jury? >> the judge won't tell jurors not to go on social media. the judge will instruct them to avoid that, but, of course, every once in a while, it is engrained in our society's habits. i'm sure a juror or two will probably see what has been posted. but there is nothing you can do about it. that's how trials are these days. there is really nothing that can be done about it. what is interesting is whether or not the post continues on truth social.

viewer will be watching trump very closely. his demeanor, attitude, things he says, not necessarily on social media, but right there in the courtroom, that's going to give jurors clues to his disposition and where he stands. they'll be watching him closely, even when he's not speaking and that's another question, whether or not he ends up testifying. >> alan, thank you so much. christina, great to have you with us as well. sorry for the tech gremlins today. we'll work through them. >> thanks, ana. coming up, how managers set to send articles of impeachment against alejandro mayorkas to the senate today. what to expect from a senate trial. plus, new trouble for house speaker mike johnson and his fight for political survival. but first, growing tensions in the middle east as the world awaits israel's response to iran's attack. aits israel's res iran's attack. (♪♪) i'm getting vaccinated with pfizer's pneumococcal pneumonia vaccine.

so am i. because i'm at risk for pneumococcal pneumonia. come on. i already got a pneumonia vaccine, but i'm asking about the added protection of prevnar 20®. if you're 19 or older with certain chronic conditions like asthma, diabetes, copd, or heart disease, or are 65 or older, you are at increased risk for pneumococcal pneumonia. prevnar 20® is approved in adults to help prevent infections from 20 strains of the bacteria that cause pneumococcal pneumonia. in just one dose. don't get prevnar 20® if you've had a severe allergic reaction to the vaccine or its ingredients. adults with weakened immune systems may have a lower response to the vaccine. the most common side effects were pain and swelling at the injection site, muscle pain, fatigue, headache, and joint pain. i want to be able to keep my plans. i don't want to risk ending up in the hospital with pneumococcal pneumonia. that's why i chose prevnar 20®. ask your doctor or pharmacist about the pfizer vaccine for pneumococcal pneumonia. you know what's brilliant?

boring. think about it. boring is the unsung catalyst for bold. what straps bold to a rocket and hurtles it into space? boring does. great job astro-persons. over. boring is the jumping off point for all the un-boring things we do. boring makes vacations happen, early retirements possible, and startups start up. because it's smart, dependable, and steady. all words you want from your bank. taking chances is for skateboarding... and gas station sushi. not banking. that's why pnc bank strives to be boring with your money. the pragmatic, calculated kind of boring. moving to boca? boooring. that was a dolphin, right? it's simple really, for nearly 160 years, pnc bank has had one goal: to be brilliantly boring with your money so you can be happily fulfilled with your life... which is pretty un-boring if you think about it. thank you, boring.

what is cirkul? cirkul is the fuel you need to take flight. cirkul is the energy that gets you to the next level. cirkul is what you hope for when life tosses lemons your way. cirkul, available at walmart and drinkcirkul.com.

turning now to the middle east where israel is vowing to retaliate against iran's massive drone and missile strike. four u.s. officials tell nbc news they expect a response from israel to be, quote, limited in scope. iran's president meantime is warning of a severe and extensive and painful response to any retaliation taken against them. nbc news chief foreign correspondent richard engel has more from jerusalem. richard? >> reporter: israel's war cabinet is meeting for the third day in a row to discuss a possible military

but israeli officials are being tight lipped about how that might take place, where or to what extent. israel says it will retaliate to iran's unprecedented and unsuccessful missile and drone attack. while touring a base that was lightly damaged, the chief of staff of the israeli army gave no hints. >> -- will face the consequences for its actions. >> reporter: for u.s. officials tell nbc news they expect israel's response to be limited in scope, and most likely involve strikes against iranian forces and iranian-backed proxies outside of iran. iran controls well armed militias in lebanon, syria, iraq and yemen. striking them would not be seen as provocative as hitting iran directly, but could also trigger a violent response, especially in lebanon, home to hezbollah, the world's most powerful nonstate military. but as of now, it is all a

guessing game. u.s. officials stress they have not been briefed on israel's final decision, which may change. last night, iran's foreign minister saying its response to future action from israel will be, quote, immediate and severe. israel and iran have fought a shadow war for decades, which burst into the open earlier this month, when israel bombed the iranian consulate in damascus, killing senior iranian military officials. the amir of qatar working to broker a cease-fire in gaza, overnight and called it all a distraction from the war in gaza, where many of the 2.3 million people, according to aid agencies, are on the brink of starvation. in multiple american cities yesterday, pro-palestinian protesters took to the streets, blocking traffic from the golden gate bridge in san francisco to seattle, chicago's o'hare

airport and new york, to demand a cease-fire. israel is trying to strike a difficult if not impossible balance of re-establishing deterrence with iran, showing strength at home, without provoking a wider war. but what israel does and what israel thinks won't be escalatory is very unlikely to be shared by iran. >> richard engel, thank you. joining us now, nbc news military analyst and retired u.s. army colonel jack jacobs. always good to have you. what do you see as the best option for any kind of israeli response? >> well, the likelihood of there being a large scale kinetic attack on iranian soil is unlikely. the united states is arguing strenuously against it. it would precipitate another response from iran. more likely something, if there is a kinetic attack, as richard

engel was suggesting, iranian proxies in the region, perhaps black ops, nontraditional attacks, but of the small scale and very narrowly focused. and cyberattacks. israel is very, very good at it, has done it before and may do it again. richard also suggested that there are two almost mutually exclusive things that are driving all this. satisfying the israeli right at home, on the one hand, and deterring iran from the rest of the world. this is a very, very narrow line to walk and it will be difficult for israel to select a course of action or a series of actions that will not enflame things further. >> and that's the key here, colonel, that i think everybody is really hoping, praying for,

is that this doesn't escalate further. and we mentioned the warning from iran's president, iran's foreign minister also saying that if israel launches an attack, the regime's next response will be, quote, immediate, stronger and more extensive. is there any way this conflict doesn't escalate further? in other words, is any response by israel a dangerous response? >> no. limited attacks on proxies would probably not engender a response from iran. anything on iranian soil will, of course. we have to remember also that as difficult a position as it israel is in right now, iran is also in an extremely difficult position. if israel strikes iran significantly, it has far more capability to destroy iranian interests on iranian soil than iran has. israel's military contains, among other things as we saw in the video, f-35s, which can fire from long distances, extremely

accurate munitions, tons and tons of munitions, pinpointed at iranian targets. israel would love to be able to attack iranian sites where the development of nuclear weapons is taking place, at al bashir and other places, but probably won't do this. so limited attacks off iranian soil may deter iran, may satisfy israeli domestic politics, and not engender the kind of response which will mushroom into something far more significant in the middle east, ana. >> colonel jack jacobs, thank you for joining us. up next on "ana cabrera reports," a campaign split screen with donald trump in court, president biden heading to a key swing state, how this trial is upending the 2024 race. .

are you keeping as much of your investment gains as possible? high taxes can erode returns quickly. at creative planning, your portfolio is managed in a tax-efficient manner. it's what you keep that really matters. book your free meeting today at creativeplanning.com. if you have wet amd, you never want to lose sight of the things you love. some things should stand the test of time.

long lasting eylea hd could significantly improve your vision and can help you go up to 4 months between treatments. if you have an eye infection, eye pain or redness, or allergies to eylea hd, don't use. eye injections like eyla hd may cause eye infection, separation of the retina, or rare but severe swelling of blood vessels in the eye. an increase in eye pressure has been seen. there's an uncommon risk of heart attack or stroke associated with blood clots. the most common side effects were blurred vision, cataract, corneal injury, and eye floaters. and there's still so much to see. if you are on eylea or a similar type of treatment, ask your retina specialist about eylea hd today, for the potential for fewer injections. - so this is pickleball? - pickle! ah, these guys are intense. with e*trade from morgan stanley, we're ready for whatever gets served up. dude, you gotta work on your trash talk. i'd rather work on saving for retirement.

or college, since you like to get schooled. that's a pretty good burn, right? need to be at your best? you need an antiperspirant that goes beyond. dove men with 72 hour protection plus care for your skin. so you can forget about your underarms and focus on being unforgettable. dove men forgettable underarms, unforgettable you.

we're continuing our breaking fbreak ing news coverage of donald trump's first criminal trial and more insight from the courtroom on the jury selection and what donald trump is doing on day two. i want to bring in nbc's vaughn hillyard at the courthouse in new york. what can you tell us? fill us in. >> reporter: we're watching this in real time here. and to give you an idea of this process, each individual potential juror is being asked those 42 questions and either at the end of the 42 questions or right in the middle of it, depending on how they answer on a particular question, they are either dismissed or they stay seated. that doesn't necessarily mean when they stay seated and pass a questionnaire that they are going to be a juror, but it essentially moves them to the next round. what we'll call voir dire. they're asked further questions from examination from not only the defense, but also the prosecutors and the judge. and now to give you an idea where we find ourselves, we're at ten. ten individuals who have passed the questionnaire, and have not

been dismissed at this point. so, we are making progress. to give you an idea, though, three individuals who had previously passed and gone on through this process, overnight, they came back, sat on the jury box and informed the judge they felt they could be impartial. one individual saying that they have family members in texas, and friends in texas, who are republicans and couldn't be impartial. so this is sort of the complicating process through this -- as this goes on. another individual said that they're concerned about their dog and was promptly dismissed because, like any other 65 million american households that own dogs, frankly it is, of course, going to be on somebody's forefront of the mind and the judge allowed that individual to not be seated on the jury. and one other note here, as we work our way through the process, lisa rubin informed us from inside the courtroom, that donald trump is, again,

throughout moments been closing his eyes and it is not apparent whether he's sleeping or not, but resting his eyes through this jury selection process. but, this continues, we're now at officially ten individuals who have passed the questionnaire and not been dismissed. so we're making the process. once we get to 18, that's when the voir dire process begins in further examination of those jurors will commence. >> thank you so much for the update, vaughn hillyard, outside that manhattan courthouse. turning to a couple of breaking news stories we're following on capitol hill, another republican lawmaker has announced he is joining congresswoman marjorie taylor greene who is looking to oust house speaker mike johnson from his speakership if he moves forward with funding for ukraine. and nbc's ali vitali is following it all for us from capitol hill. ali, who is now saying that they'll support this motion to vacate and how is speaker johnson responding? >> reporter: well, for a while there, it was just congressman marjorie taylor greene saying she would vote vacate the chair

if she saw speaker johnson move forward on foreign aid, similar to the way he's doing right now. now we heard that this morning in their closed door meeting a second republican lawmaker, congressman tom massey added his voice to that. we're talking tight margins, but we're also talking about a speaker who is defiant right now in the face of these calls to resign, even if it is just from two voices within his conference. you know why we pay attention to two voices around here. the first only one person can needed to trigger a motion to vacate and the second part is that we are dealing with a game of thin margins that are degree growing ever motion, and the republican lawmaker is set to come this friday. nevertheless, i just left a room with speaker johnson and he responded to one question about this and he was defiant. >> i am not resigning, and it's in my view an absurd notion that

somebody would bring a vacation motion when we are trying to do our jobs. it's not helpful to the cause or country, and it does not help the house republicans advance our agenda which is the best interest of the american people, a secure border and sound governance. >> somebody else previously made a governing motion, and we are seeing mike johnson making that same argument. we will see if that actually makes sense with his congressional conference. i asked him at one point, at what point do you have to call these folks' bluff? he didn't answer that. >> a big story on the hill is the house impeachment articles headed to the senate involving

mayorkas. what will happen next? >> the articles are physically transmitted to the house side to the senate side of the building, and then we expect it to be a quick process in terms of how chuck schumer will handle this, and we likely will see it taken up tomorrow and dismissed by the end of the day, and speaker johnson echoed the same. how trump's case is upending the 2024 race. stay with us. stay with us we got a bit of a. [ metal groans] sure, i can hold. ♪ liberty liberty liberty liberty ♪ in theaters now. (vo) if you have graves' disease... ...gritty eyes could be more than a rough patch. people with graves' could also get thyroid eye disease, or t-e-d, which may need a different doctor.

find a t-e-d eye specialist at isitted.com. 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. 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. and environmentally friendly for everyone. the trail versus the trial. today we will see quite the split screen for the 2024 race

for the white house. donald trump sits in a new york courthouse facing a criminal trial while biden is in pennsylvania. >> i should be in pennsylvania and florida, in many other states, north carolina, georgia. >> just listening to a bunch of swing states, and proof trump's legal woes have entered the race. joining us, former senior aide for the biden and harris candidacy. >> you have one presumptive republican nominee and former president seated at a defense table in a manhattan courtroom, and on the other side you have president biden hitting the campaign trail and swinging

through pennsylvania acting as commander and chief, over seeing the response to the attack from iran against israel. if voters see this, not just today, but day after day after day for the next several weeks, how do you think they will see that? >> it's the ultimate split screen where you have president biden going to pennsylvania and talking about all the jobs he's delivered. he's delivered over a million jobs for pennsylvania families since taking office, versus donald trump who is not just sitting in a courtroom making history as the first former president to be tried on criminal charges, and also falling asleep.

this is the ultimate split screen you will continue to see coming from the president, from president biden versus donald trump. >> our reporting from inside the courtroom appears to suggest that trump is being rather subdued and is keeping quiet. you will recall in past court appearances, he has been combative with the judge and prosecutors, and he has scoffed, you know, and been on social media fast and furious with the rants. what is your take on how he's handling this trial so far and the impact on voters? >> first of all, i think it's nice that he's being quiet. i think his lawyers have told him to calm down and relax. i don't think he's falling asleep, though. i think that's a bit ridiculous to even imply that. with the voters, this is baked in. we have been talking about stormy daniels and michael cohen for years now. this is the weakest case against the president, so i don't

anticipate this will be a huge problem. he's either leading in the polls or tied in the polls in every swing state, and we will have to see what happens with the jury and with the verdict. right now i think this is just kind of a waste of time. >> adrian, do you agree? >> i -- i respect sarah's opinion but i definitely disagree here. again, we are talking president biden and donald trump are talking to a small sliver of voters, the voters that will decide the election, and the blue wall states, michigan, wisconsin, they are important to both candidates heading into this cycle, and president biden is going back to pennsylvania, a state that he was born in and that he has deep roots in and talking about what he delivered for the people of pennsylvania and what he delivered for the commonwealth, and contrast that again with donald trump who is sitting in a courtroom and focusing on himself, and joe

biden is focusing on the people and trump is focusing on himself and that's going to be the take away. >> voters could have a verdict to consider before casting their ballots, so how much could the outcome of the trial impact the trajectory of the race? >> i certainly think it could affect the outcome. frankly, if i am president biden i do not want president trump could be found guilty, because if trump cannot run, that's a whole new game and i think biden has no chance of winning. he's an 81-year-old man and that's the best chance for him to win is to have trump there. it would be interesting to see what the verdict is, and i think this is the weakest case and i think it's ridiculous that they brought this. they were desperate and couldn't bring any other cases. >> adrian, we have 30 seconds.

what does the president do and his campaign do if trump is convicted? right now the president is staying away from commenting at all on the trial? >> that's a smart tactic from the campaign and white house to not comment on the trial because it speaks for itself. what the bottom line is, president trump is no different than any other citizen in the country when it comes to justice being served. that's what we are seeing happen maybe perhaps, and we will see what the jury ultimately finds, but he's being criminally convicted of doing something wrong and because he was the former president doesn't mean he can get away with something that he did that was criminally wrong. >> ladies, thank you very much for offering your insights and perspective. that will do it for us today. i will see you back here tomorrow, same time, same place. josé diaz-balart picks up our coverage right now.