tonight on all in. >> what an unbelievable battle that was. gettysburg. wow. i go to gettysburg, pennsylvania. >> no-nonsense criminal court. >> he said i won't tolerate it anyone have any jurors intimidated in this courtroom. donald trump selection interference trial. >> is not concerned about being sent to jail. i think like anybody, is concerned about going to jail. meanwhile, on the campaign trail -- >> one remember when he told us literally, inject leach. bless me, father. senator elizabeth warren on the stakes of biden versus

trump. >> i was planning on doing it. is who is losing money as the trump stock craters. >> now down more than 57% this month. and why republicans are publicly calling on their own speaker to resign. >> what is your response to republicans who say this should cost you your job ? >> all in starts right now. good evening, i am chris hayes. today, donald trump was back for day two of what everyone is referring to as the former presidents hush money trial. the case is not really about the hush money. it's about election interference. i will explain more in a moment. but first, juror questioning continued in earnest today with nearly 100 new yorkers brought before the judge and defendant. it did not take long for trump to behave in a way that

attracted the judges anger. judge merchan admonished the former presidents, telling that while the juror was 12 feet from your client, your client was audibly sang something in her direction. he added, i will not have any jurors intimidated in this courtroom. i want to make that crystal clear. after that interruption, juror selection continued apace. by the end of the day, 7 jurors were chosen and sworn in. they included a salesman, an i.t. consultant, a teacher, and a software engineer. those seven new yorkers, along with five more that will be selected after the trial resumes on thursday, will be charged with deciding if donald trump is guilty of the 34 felony charges against him. much of the media, including this show, has labeled this the hush money trial. it is convenient shorthand that does fundamentally follow the salient facts of the case. back in october of 2016, donald trump's lawyer, michael cohen,

says he arranged a $130,000 payment to adult film star stormy daniels as part of an agreement she would not discuss the affair she said she had with trump. it was a payment for her silence, and politically damaging information. in short, it was hush money. but it is important to note that on its own, paying hush money is a leap not illegal. donald trump is currently paying hush money to his longtime chief officer, weisselberg, even as he serves the jail sentence. he signed a $2 million separation agreement in return for agreeing, quote, not to induce, encourage, aid, abet, or otherwise cause any other person or entity to bring a complaint, file, charge, lawsuit, to trump or anyone with his country. in other words, he promised to keep his mouth shut, and it is perfectly legal. remember the revelations, in

the wake of feinstein and all that? an example of just how ubiquitous and horribly so that these kinds of payments are in certain circles in exchange for signing nondisclosure agreements . paying hush money is not the crime trump is charged with in new york. it is just not. donald trump was indicted on 34 counts of one crime -- falsifying business records in the first degree. in the false records of an enterprise to win, and an invoice dated fairbury 14, 2017, marked as a record of the trust and kept and maintained by the trump organization. now, as manhattan district attorney alvin bragg explained, this falsifying these records, it is a common white-collar crime that his office prosecutes all the time. >> my office, including the talented prosecutors you saw an arraignment earlier today, serve hundreds of falsified

business records. this charge, it can be said, is the bread and butter of our white-collar work. >> you probably haven't heard of those other cases, because they are generally pretty mundane. a case against a bronx business owner indicted for failing to report over $1 million in income, avoiding paying $60,000 in taxes. allegedly filing fraudulent certificates of liability insurance, and a mental health therapy aide allegedly defrauding workers compensation benefits. these are all people that got prosecuted for this. but it's a really key part against alvin bragg's case that separates it from those typical everyday white-collar crimes. the indictment lays out a claim for how trump falsified those business records with intention to fraud and to attempt to commit another crime and aid and conceal the commission thereof. in plain english, trump committed the crime he is

charged with, falsifying business records, because he's trying to conceal or commit another crime. the d.a. bragg explains, quote, the defendant repeatedly and modularly falsified new york business records to conceal criminal conduct that had damaging information in the voting public during the 2015 presidential election. the defendant orchestrated a scheme, and in a word, execute the unlawful scheme that participants violated election laws. the whole point of falsifying those business records was to interfere in the election process to vent his presidential campaign. the access hollywood tape had just come out, revealing trumps lewd comments about women. another revelation, like weeks after, but the salacious extramarital affair, really could have been the end of his campaign. so again, this is where they are saying -- the manhattan district attorney case claims 130,000 dollars payment to

stormy daniels was essentially undisclosed and illegal campaign contributions. now, in terms of that theory, it's not so far-fetched, because michael cohen literally already pleaded guilty to -- wait for it -- violating federal campaign finance laws for his role in the scheme, and he served prison time. so again, beyond the tawdry details on top of mistresses, that the state will have to prove is that donald trump paid off stormy daniels, because he was trying to influence the election. and the document of the payments were false, right? the jury will decide of the former president is guilty of a felony in this election interference case. our embassy nbc legal -- katherine christian spent over 30 years as a prosecutor in that office , and they join me

now. great to have you here. can we start with the moment -- with the juror and trump saying something, and the words of judge merchan, within 12 feet of a juror? >> after that juror left the stand, essentially, she is being questioned. after she left, the judge decided he was not going to use or for cause. he said, i have some and i want to put on the record. and that's when he said mr. blanche, your client, while this prospective juror was sitting no more than 12 feet away from him, was audibly saying something and looking in her direction. i couldn't quite make out what it was. i couldn't quite make out what it was, but i want you to wonder's and that witness intimidation will not be tolerated in my room. have a talk with your client. >> i'm going to do my check in that i always do with you. a

common thing in voir dire to have the defendant audibly saying things to jurors? >> i'm not making light of this. only the mentally unwell once. that's the only time you see criminal defendants acting out. >> it is someone who, for some deep psychological medical reason, literally can't control themselves. >> that's the only time you ever see that. >> i will say that having seen both e. jean carroll's trials, there were some episodes that were reminiscent of what happened today. i don't recall them happening during jury selection themselves, but there were times when lawyers was leaking in the courtroom and he disagreed vociferously with what they were saying, and for demonstrative effect, donald trump pounded the table or shook his head or crossed his arms to indicate his vigorous disagreement with what was being said. and we all know how that story ended. none of the jurors were

positively impacted by that performance. in fact, there were jurors in that case who i thought were not at all partial to e. jean carroll, who looked the other way , and when her lawyer was closing, i really thought that something might happen that we weren't expecting. and yet, unanimously, they found for her. that's a long way of saying, you can always read into prospective jurors behavior just based on what a defendant does in the courtroom. >> i'm going to start with where we are and work backwards to where we got here. we got 7 jurors this morning. again, this is not my thing. it seems to me -- >> judge merchan is known as a fair and efficient judge. this is remarkable, because this type of defendant, people with strong opinions, this is very remarkable that he was able to to, judge merchan, get

seven jurors, which means he only needs five more for the 12 and an additional's tics. he also worked overtime today. the courts close it 4:30, he worked until 5:30. it shows, we are going to do this by thursday. and he probably will. but i think there will be a complete jury by the end of the day on thursday. >> just to benchmark this, we had a former new york judge sitting in that chair thursday, i believe. she was looking at this saying, i don't know, this could be a few weeks. >> she's a friend of mine. there's only one other judge and that courthouse who would get a jury as fast as this judge. it's just -- he has done a remarkable job. >> so the process today, we already got the 15 who said we can't. donald trump. forget it. >> and even some more, because there were not people who took themselves off the topic but came back, and when they were

ready to take the jury questionnaire, they said, i thought about it overnight and they can't do it. >> that's two cuts. i can't do it. and the other one are like, i can do it. and then to me, the slightly comical spectacle of trumps lawyers and legal team furiously checking out the social media file of these people. and in a number of cases, finding, you know, someone posted in ai video of trump saying i'm a dumb -- f word. i think on the day the election was declared on facebook, being like -- lots of means about trump being a buffoon or bad or dumb, being right into court from the record of prospective jurors. what was that like? >> it was fascinating, because on some level, some of them, you can see they really were legitimately struck for cause.

for example, there was someone who, relevant to the events at issue here, had posted something on face saying, get him out and lock him up. that person can't stay. >> i think we are all agreed. >> and the person with the ai video was the other person to go, but let's talk about the woman with the horn. that woman, when she was brought in for questioning, send me put in some context for you. i took that video watching what was happening in the neighborhood because election night felt his door to me and it's also evocative of the nightly 7:00 cheer that we did in new york for emergency workers and healthcare workers during that period of time in 2020. and i wanted to remember. and she said, i documented it. sitting here today, do i believe that i can be fair? unequivocally, yes. the judge said, i have the power to take her at her word, and i'm going to. she was struck with a preemptory challenge, but not for cause.

>> page get 10? were you can just strike people for any reason. >> if trump is convicted, they will appeal on that, that they were denied that cause. they will lose that, because the judge, as lisa said, struck other people and didn't even wait for cause and just said, you are gone. and also struck people who self identified that they couldn't be fair. there's no appealable issue, assuming he is convicted, on the jury selection. >> in a point something else out that's unusual? i find new york's date court, voir dire, that is a questioning of the prospective jurors, fascinating. it's conducted by the lawyers. it reads like watching a focus group. here are some things that are important to me. here are some issues they really care about. what do you thing about that, juror number one? >> you know that song how to be an american? that lee greenwood's song?

>> it was an opportunity to connect with them and try to get from them, what is your opinion of donald trump, when they didn't want to get it. >> very interesting. great to have you. we will have you back against noon. coming up, while the indicted president breasts's eyes in court, senator elizabeth warren joins me on the continent contrasts.

business. 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. the go-tos that keep us going. the places we cheer. and check in. they all choose the advanced network solutions and round the clock partnership from comcast business. see why comcast business powers more small businesses than anyone else. get started for $49.99 a month plus ask how to get up to an $800 prepaid card.

don't wait- call today. >> day two of the criminal

trial and he didn't quite manage to get through the day without resting his eyes. those in the courtroom reporting that he periodically leaned back in his chair, only to shift his weight moments later. it's difficult to say whether he fell asleep or was resting his eyes or maybe just silently praying. this is possibly the most punishing ordeal for trump to just sit down and shut up in a room where he has no control for eight hours a day, four days a week. this is also time when trump is not on the campaign trail while his opponent is out. president biden is doing a three-day swing in pennsylvania where he is hammering home his economic message. >> people like donald trump learned very differently. he learned the best way to get rich is inheriting. not a bad way. i guess that's how you look at the world when you're in park

avenue and mar-a-lago. when i look at the economy, i don't see through the eyes of mar-a-lago, ice the to the of scranton. >> elizabeth warren serves on the subcommittee of taxation and irs oversight, and she joins me now. senator, we've been doing this series on my podcast about the records of the two men, because it's the first time since 1892 when they both have records. one place with a record is probably just clearer than any other is on taxes, is on who gets tax cut, and to that effect and who benefits and who doesn't. >> look at it this way, right? donald trump actually had only two accomplishments in his four years, and one was the extremist supreme court that overturned roe versus wade, and the other was more than $2 trillion in tax cut -- mostly soaked up by millionaires, and giant corporations. here is joe biden, out there

fighting to make sure that we get asked this to abortion and other reproductive rights, but on taxes, watch the difference. joe biden actually got through a 15% minimum corporate tax on billionaire corporations. let me just remind everybody what that is. remember how amazon a couple years back reported 11 million dollars in audited financials on their profits, and how much did they pay in federal income taxes? nothing. and so what this bill -- what this law is about is, it says for those companies that make more than $1 billion in reported taxes, and reported profits, they've got to pay a minimum of 15% taxes. and i want to say one more thing -- that was the first tax increase on these big corporations in more than 30 years, and it was used to fund

the biggest climate package in the history of the world. >> so one of the things it is interesting to me, you got a record here. the funding of the american rescue plan and the inflation reduction act, and the tax consequences. you got the truck trump tax cuts, but there's a huge division in 2025. i'm not sure people are keyed into this, but the 2025 lip this a big chunk of the trump tax cuts expire that mostly benefit the people at the top. and basically, we are going to go one of two rounds depending on who has control. >> yeah, you come to the fork in the road. take it. because here's where this goes. donald trump has said in rooms full of rich people, just get him back in there, and he is going to make sure that taxes are cut for the millionaires and the billionaires and the giant corporations.

joe biden is headed in a very different direction. he says he is going to raise taxes on the billionaires, and he's going to increase the minimum tax on the billionaire corporations. and that he's going to use that money to invest back in america. and that is a huge difference between, if i can, there's one more contrast between the two. and that is tax cheats. you know, the people who make a lot of money, and the law is perfectly clear that they are supposed to pay, but they cheat on their taxes. one of the bones of contention of the last couple of years is that joe biden and the democrats have actually funded the irs so they can go after those millionaires and billionaires that cheat on their taxes. and the consequence of that is to actually make them start paying. that is something that president biden wants to make

long-term. that is something that the republicans and donald trump want to get rid of. it's partly about what the law says you have to pay, and it's partly about who is going after the cheaters, and donald trump and the republicans were saying, cheat on your taxes if you are really, really rich. it's fine with them. >> in case anyone thought you were making up the promise, he said this at a huge high dollar fundraiser her very, very wealthy people. here's what he had to say on taxes. >> these are all people that have a lot of money. were going to give you tax cuts, and were going to pay off our debt. were going to do all of the things -- >> were going to do all of the things. just to get back to the distribution -- can we go back to that chart? i think it's important for people to understand. that's what it looked like, the distributional effects of the trump tax cuts. on this point on 2025 -- i want to zoom in on this for a

second. they expire on their own unless affirmatively extended. the kind of -- the default is on the side of them going away, which does create an enormous incentive for people who are very wealthy and want to see taxes cut to try to get donald trump elected, because it really will make an enormous amount of difference in a lot of people's bottom line. billions and billions of dollars are on the line here. >> another way to say that is, taxes are going to happen next year. it is going to be a huge -- there's going to be a tax bill one way or another. but because of this expiration, if the republicans get to control the game, then the answer is, it's going to be a payday for the people who are already rich. and remember what that means. everybody else has to pick up the slack. so that is everybody else who is going to actually have to pay

for all of those roads and bridges that we need. if everybody else was going to have to pay to make sure that the military is still paid. it is everybody else will have to pay because somebody like jeff pazo's is paying taxes at a lower rate than a boston public school teacher. that's the kind of thing that is on the line. and what joe biden is saying is, give him a chance. and what he's going to do, is he's going to raise taxes for those at the very top, reinvest that in america, and he's going to make sure that the irs has enough money to go after tax so that -- just because they are rich and just because they can hire a bunch of lawyers doesn't mean they don't have to pay their taxes. they got to pay like everyone else. >> that point about next year is such an important one. it's a question of who controls. thank you so much for your time. appreciate it.

actually just so happens today that we are covering this very issue on our podcast. it's the second episode of this new series that i'm really excited about. it's called the stakes, where as i said before, we take one issue, we just compare the presidential records as a two man vie for office in an election that represents the first time since 1892 were both nominees previously served as president and both have records. we don't have to speculate about what they might do. we can just actually go to the tape and contrast the actual records. i was joined by economist and talk slack professor called kimberly clausing. she actually helped shape the biden administration tax policy. she talks about the different effects of their tax policies. you can listen by scanning that qr code on your screen or you can find it wherever you get your podcast. still to come tonight, the ex- president stock just continues to plummet. that is next. next.

last month, there was a lot of coverage around trump media, parent company of truth social going public. the ex-president owns about 57%

of the company, but according to its own recent s.e.c. filing, it lost $58.2 million last year, generating just $4.1 million in revenue total. revenue. the auditor the company hired even reported operating losses raised substantial doubt about its ability to continue as a going concern. that $4 million in revenue is so low, it means the federal government definition of a small business. and yet on the first day that it was on the stock markets, it started trading at a valuation similar to reddit, which also went public, but also has literally 100 times the monthly visitors of truth social, and 200 times the revenue. so something didn't add up, and there were warnings about this dock, even in the fox news bubble. >> why are you even talking about this? it's a scam, just like everything he's ever been involved in some kind of con. >> is worth somewhere between nine and $12 billion right now. they are arguing this doesn't represent the underlying

business. >> you think you're going to get rich over this. just heed what i said. this has come, this is happened in the past. this is scary stuff for the average person. >> he tried. he did try. you will never guess what happened next. the stock has dropped nearly every day for the past 2 1/2 weeks. today, enclosed to just under $23, erasing billions in value. there's reporting a people who invested in the company like an interior designer at west palm beach, some $20,000 of the country. he blames it on the liberals that are trying to knock it down. there is a tree service owner in oklahoma who amassed hundreds of shares for $25,000, pretty much his whole nest egg. he believes the trump media deal is a sign he is supposed to invest. joo hartwell is a washington post reporter on that story and he joins me now. great reporting on this. i want to, before we start to

folks, to talk about the reporting of folks when invested. the trajectory here of who is driving the movement in this market broadly speaking. >> i mean, with a bloodbath we've been seeing the last couple of weeks, people are just running away from the stock as quickly as they can. as we saw with the market debut late last month, when a peak into the eighth, nine, $10 billion range, i think there were a lot of regulators just betting that the stock was going to be high. it's going to be like the stocks before it where they can get in, get their money, and get out. i think a lot of that, he has gone away, and now people are starting to -- the stock is starting to come back to earth. there are a lot of these trump supporters will been trying to buy up stocks, but they are not really, you know, compensating for how quickly the stock is plunging. it's lost 66% of its value in about 20 days.

it's so rare to see a company fall apart that quickly. >> i want to read some of your reporting, because the trump media companies will start touting her success among retail investors. you went and talked to some of these people that didn't put their money in. the claim, the tree service owner, said the stock could go to $1000 a share easily once they start writing so negatively about it. it's another stock to meet that i feel like it was god almighty that put it in my lap, he said. if you go on the motion, you will go out of this thing the first time it goes down. i'm curious what you heard from some of the people that had invested a terrible amount of their money in this. >> they are true believers. i mean, they believe in donald j trump, they believe in the guy whose initials are on the stock. the pop right at the debut should have been higher without the deep state and the media suppressing the dock as they have suppressed their hero in trump.

you know, for them, they are not evaluating this like a normal business. they are not looking at the balance sheet. they don't care that the revenue last year was somewhere between an average of mcdonald's and chick-fil-a. they see this as a badge of honor, a sign of their belief, and the past presidents, maybe future president. they feel like it will all get ironed out. it's basically dogmatic at this point that they are so believing in this company, they can turn around. >> when you say an average mcdonald's or chick-fil-a, you mean an individual franchise? a moderately successful chick- fil-a, like when you might go to, is doing somewhere in the three to $4 million of revenue. that's what we are talking about. now, my colleague has a great report on this last night where she talked about, you know, if you bought the stock at $70 or

$60, you lost a little money. trumps perspective, it's all kind of free money, because he just got it -- you know, even if it is $20 a share, it's still a chunk of change for him, and they are not planning to further dilute the stock if i'm understanding. right? >> that's a big thing. no matter what happens for the smalltime shareholders, they could lose their shirt on the stock. but trump has arranged it in such a way that trump can basically win no matter what happens. the stock can drop 90% to something like six dollars, but because he owns 57% of it, 78 million shares, which will jump up to even more in a couple weeks. and because he didn't really put any money of his own to begin with, he stands to make hundreds of millions of dollars, if not billions of dollars. so this is all funny money to him. the only kind of caveat to that is that he can't sell it for another basically six months due to a lockout revision. so you know, at this time, when

he would probably love to have free money in his pocket, he can't. i think he is pretty closely watching the stock price, too. unlike these people that put it basically their entire retirement fund and watch it sort of drain away, he can still really stand to make a fortune out of this. >> he can only win, and his supporters can only lose. it's interesting. thank you very much. appreciate it. stop me if you've heard this one before. republicans want to plunge the house back in the chaos by firing the speaker again. no! the groundhog day dysfunction in the party of trump, ahead.

hi, i'm kevin, and i've lost 152 pounds on golo. i had just left a checkup with my doctor, and i'd weighed in at 345 pounds. my doctor prescribed a weight loss drug, but as soon as i stopped taking the drug, i gained all the weight back and then some. that's when i decided to give golo a try. taking the release supplement, i noticed a change within the first week, and each month the weight just kept coming off. with golo,

you can keep the weight off. >> back in 2020 during the george floyd protest, a united states senator pended controversial op-ed calling for the u.s. military to be brought in to crush the protests in the streets, claiming those demonstrations were shot through with, quote, cadres of left-wing radicals like nt for. that was, of course, tom cotton of arc and. that essay was hugely controversial and led to a revolt amongst staff at the times, her readers concluded it should not have been published. the top opinion editor ultimately result resigned over the publishing. we would later find out from an editor who actually worked on the essay, is of conservative editor, that he had a soft and cotton's first draft by deleting several objectionable sentences and adding that cottons desire for essentially mass violence on americans treat

by the state should not apply to, quote, peaceful protesters. the result was still pretty objectionable. it raised the question, how much worse is tom cotton when he doesn't have an editor trying to save him from the self? turns out there is an answer. yesterday, he posted this. i encourage people who get stuck behind the pro-hamas bombs blocking traffic, take matters into your own hands. it's time to put an end to this nonsense. that's a sitting u.s. senator. he's calling pro-hamas mobs, americans, including from jewish groups that are protesting and calling for a cease-fire in gaza. that's not even a radical sentiment in america. the majority of americans actually want a cease-fire. and tom cotton sure seems like he's calling for vigilante street violence against those people when they protest. wildly reckless, despicable behavior from an official.

he edited the post to clarify that you should take matters into your own hands, quote, to get them out of the way. much better, right? i've got to say, even by the quite based standards of our day, this is just crazy explicit excitement in violence i a sitting u.s. senator. also a good reminder of what happened back in 2020 was editor tom cotton wanted to crush the protesters with military might. the investigation found that the 16 month after george floyd's death, drivers ran to their cars and trucks in the protesters at least 139 times. they recorded three deaths and 100 injuries including concussions and broken bones. i got to ask, as i would tom cotton means by taking matters into your own hands? wait, there's another edits. today, cotton posted a demonstration of the violence he actually wants against peaceful protesters, saying that this is, quote, how it

should be done. a little kick to the peaceful protesters space at the end. that's how tom cotton wants it done. most of us, i think, how that inner voice, that internal editor, if you will, that reminds us to be decent and humane together, even in difficult circumstances. but for years now, a different, darker impulse hasn't pushed on americans by people with no internal editor, no capacity or use for empathy. some of them are even united states senators.

“look at all those snacks!” “i did just pay 60% less for my ticket with the gametime app.” “it's the best place to get last-minute deals on tickets.” “i guess i'm just a better fan than you.” “(crowd cheering) i've got to get the gametime app.” “download the gametime app and use promo code viva to get $20 off your first purchase.”

>> a lot of people say the house republican majority as a do-nothing congress, but today, they did do some things. they sent articles of impeachment to the senate and in impeachment effort is expected to die quickly. but i will say that is something. it's a thing they did. it's not as wild as the other thing house republicans appear poised to do, which is remove their own speaker again. for right congressman thomas massey joined a motion to vacate the speaker's office first proposed by marjorie taylor greene. just half a year after speaker mike johnson took the gavel

from kevin mccarthy. he told reporters he would prefer it if johnson would just quit. >> i asked him to resign. he said he would not. i said, well, were going to put an end to this. the motion will get called. and then he's going to lose more voice and kevin mccarthy. >> that comes right after johnson visited. johnson said today he will not resign. is going to keep doing his job. trying with the latest, the senate passed the aid package for ukraine, israel, taiwan. it's been sitting there. mike johnson has been doing, et cetera as anyone can tell, nothing. no one knows what the plan is. over the weekend, he said he was making a play call.

he was going to move and announce the move. what is the move? >> is quite a mess over at the house right now. this is speaker johnson. he stalled and stalled and stalled. used all his time-outs, and is at the side of the field right now to call the play. this is what he's trying to do. he's trying to trigger a series of votes here and essentially take the components of the senate package and pass them in four separate bills. ukraine aid, standalone. and the separate hodgepodge of certain national security priorities that are popular with republicans. the ideas actually sound, if you think about it. there would be progressive objections on the question of conditionality. it would pass with mostly democrats and a few republicans and would defeat the of objections. the other two are less controversial, but johnson has to get past these objections from the right to even bring this up.

that's where it stands right now. it's tuesday night. there still is no bill text. this takes us a late friday night, so it is still possible that this whole thing falls apart. but johnson is taking a shot here. >> i think it was funny when he said it was playcalling. it's the third quarter, the fourth quarter and you're calling a play. we've been sitting here for a while. just to be clear, there's a certain logic for this. now, there's one thing he could do, which we get a little nerdy here, but he could do something called suspension of the rules. he can bring that senate package to the floor. it would need two thirds to pass. it would probably get that, right? >> maybe. it's a moot point at this stage. >> i'm just saying, it's an option. it's a thing that could happen and he's not going to do it. >> if johnson had with the senate package up quickly, it almost certainly would have passed with a majority.

but now you've lost more republicans in ukraine, and the whole thing is gotten complicated to get to this point. >> i want to come back to what is so crazy here. there's a certain logic here. you split them up and now have majorities for all four. but to get to that point, you know, it sounds obscure, but you got to vote a rule. the rule is the key that unlocks your ability to have those votes. and usually, parties vote in lockstep to give leadership what they want. but the republicans keep killing the rule. so how is even going to do it? >> the short answer is mike johnson is probably going to need democrats to support the rule. you negotiate on the front end. the reason they have voted down pretty much every rule republicans a put forward is that it generally how that works. the minority doesn't get a say, and johnson has never really gotten to them and said, i need your support for this.

that's work on some sort of process together. in this case, he will almost certainly have to. it's impossible seeing him get republican support in his tiny, slimming majority. >> there's no way he can have a party line at the pole? he's got to go to democrats to execute his plan. to do that, there's going to be substantive negotiations about what these hills look like, and that will then only further infuriate people like marjorie taylor greene and tom massey and maybe others who then have the ability to try to essentially call a vote to depose him should he do what he looks like he's going to do, which is get this stuff to a boat, followed by, we think, some sort of purge attempt. >> this is exactly the problem that beaker johnson faces. he's come up with this mechanism that can craft these coalitions to pass the foreign aid bills. is a lot of talk about the hard right and the opposition to

ukraine, and that's very true. but there are also a lot of influential republicans and committee chairs like mike mccall, mike turner, who support nato. they do want to stand up to russia and to support u.s. resistance to russia. and johnson can't just waive them away or ignore them, and he can't disrespect them. this is his attempt to show them that he's listening and he's going to put a boat out there. in this slimming and tiny majority, which by the way, is going to fall to a one-vote majority this friday when mike gallagher leaves, there are already two members of the republican conference were on the record saying they will vote to depose him. marjorie taylor greene right now is not triggered that. she's dangling this piece of paper in front of him. she's made abundantly clear that ukraine aid is a redline for her. this is the kind of thing that could trigger that vote. >> thank you very much. appreciate it. tonight starts right now with alisha mendez. alisha mendez. alex