they don't even have 40 hostages to turn over in the latest deal in those categories of women, children injured, the elderly. in just the few seconds that we have left, do you think the hostage talks now are fruitless and the cease fire talks, or can they ever be revived? >> we have to all do what we can do make sure that those talks succeed because they are a way into getting us into calming down the situation which we all need. egypt, the u.s., we all are supportive of this. we have to make sure that they succeed and overcome whatever challenges and everybody, again, needs to focus on the broader picture, which is this war, this destruction, this hatred that is engulfing the whole region will benefit no one. the interest of palestinians and israelis is to get over this and start immediately on working effectively and irreversibly on a solution that will guarantee

peace for all and will make sure that neither the palestinians nor the israelis will have to suffer the horrors of october 7th. >> thank you very much, minister safadi. we're out of time, but "chris jansing reports" starts right now. ♪♪ good day, i'm chris jansing live at msnbc headquarters in new york city. we know how it's going to start, and we're pretty sure we know how it will end, but everything else about the impeachment of dhs secretary alejandro mayorkas is up in the air. we are monitoring the senate floor live right now where any minute this fight from the policy dispute to the political posturing is expected to begin to unfold. plus, seven down, 11 to go. with court proceedings on hold until tomorrow, how attorneys are prepping to make the most of dwindling opportunities to find favorable jurors in the pool that's left, and why more than a

year after the initial indictment it seems like we're suddenly on the fast track toward opening statements. and as we speak, arizona democrats are taking their shot at trying to block a 140-year-old abortion ban from becoming law again. the problem is they're going to need a handful of republicans to help them. so what are the chances that happens? it is a very busy day today, but we begin with impeachment. a once rare event that has somehow become almost common place, a trial is about to unfold on the senate floor, although this one could be over before arguments even begin. senators will soon be sworn in as jurors for the impeachment trial against homeland security secretary alejandro mayorkas continues, but once they're sworn in, it's exactly how things will unfold that isn't clear right now. so what do we know? how fast will it move? democrats want to do away with

the charges very quickly. republicans are angling to make that process as slow and painful as possible. no matter what happens, the ending does seem clear. unless there is a truly seismic shift, there will not be 67 votes to convict secretary mayorkas. he is charged with two articles of impeachment accused of willful and systemic refusal to comply with the law and breach of trust. democrats and at least a few republicans say this is no more than a policy disagreement. nbc' ryan nobles is reporting on capitol hill. nbc's julia ainsley is in washington d.c., and also with us matt gorman, republican strategist, former senior communications adviser for tim scott for america, former nrcc communications director and an aide to jeb bush and mitt romney. we also have former democratic senator from missouri, claire mccaskill, msnbc political analyst and co-host of "how to win 2024" podcast, okay, ryan.

do we have a sense now of how this is going to play out as we see folks gathering there on the floor, what are you watching for? >> reporter: yeah, chris, i still think there's a lot of unknowns as to how this process will play itself out. we do expect that republicans are going to do everything they possibly can to try and slow this process down, putting out points of order or bringing motions to the floor that they will hope will extend this process. normally, the senate is a place where one particular member has an unbelievable amount of power to slow this process down, it's going to be a little bit different in this segt. setting. this is a senate trial. it requires 51 votes to continue or slow down or stop the process. so at any point the senate majority leader chuck schumer could theoretically just stand up and say i'd like to offer up a motion to dismiss. if the 51 votes are there, the trial will effectively come to an end. there doesn't, though, seem to be some appetite for allowing republicans to at least say

their piece, make the points that they want to make about there being an extended trial, it's just not clear how long democrats will allow that to go on. listen to what the majority leader ask the minority leader had to say about this process earlier today. >> it is the job of this body to consider the articles of impeachment brought before us and to render judgment. tabling articles of impeachment would be unprecedented in the history of the senate. it's as simple as that. >> to validate this growth abuse -- gross abuse by the house would be a grave mistake and could set a dangerous precedent for the future. for the sake of the senate's integrity and to protect impeachment for those rare cases we truly need it, senators should dismiss today's charges. >> reporter: so you see the arguments from the two sides there, and republicans can see that they think it's very unlikely that mayorkas would actually be impeached, that there would be 67 votes to

impeach him in a situation like this, to convict him, i should say, but they still believe that the process should play itself out. there should be a full trial where all the evidence is presented. you heard chuck schumer's argument. they believe this is just a political grand standing effort by republicans and doesn't deserve the time of the u.s. senate, which is why we fully suspect that this process will wrap itself up pretty quickly. >> so claire, they both have their reasons on both sides. you were there. we often talk about the fact -- i think we mentioned this just yesterday -- that the senate was always seen as the body that was expected to be the grown-ups. what's the grown-up thing to do here in your mind? >> well, the grown-up thing to do is to not have a trial when what has been cooked up in the house is a mere political effort to highlight an issue that they think is going to get them votes in november. that's what this is all about. there is no high crime. there is no misdemeanor.

there is -- you know, if this is going to be the standard for future impeachments, anybody could be impeached with a majority in the house just for having policy disagreements. that's the precedent that's worrisome, not a precedent or whether or not there's a trial. if mitch mcconnell was really worried about senate precedent, then he wouldn't have not allowed barack obama's supreme court nominee to not even be considered by the senate. he wouldn't have rammed through a supreme court nominee within days of a presidential election. now that's some precedent setting stuff that really has changed history in many ways, but dismissing this case, i think that would be the right thing to do for history because it would send a signal we are not going to play games on political grand standing and policy differences. >> is it the right thing to do, though, claire, politically? because there is an argument that has been made that if the democrats say, no, we're going

to shut this down for all the reasons that you just lined out, and yes, for a precedent that you don't want to set, does it get an opening to republicans to go out there and say at a time when we know joe biden is already been hurt on the immigration issue, for republicans to be able to go out and say they don't even want to talk about this? >> no, because i think there is an awful lot of evidence that the democrats do want to talk about. they're the ones that put a bill together with republicans. after the republicans asked them to to actually address the border issue, and that bill came together in a bipartisan way with really dramatic tough changes in border policy, but the republicans didn't want to take it up. they didn't want to talk about it because that would show progress for the president and the democrats on this issue. they just want the issue, chris. that's all they want, and they're going to have the issue whether this trial occurs or

not. the thing for the democrats to do is push back on immigration, not to hold a sham trial when there are no high crimes and misdemeanors even being contemplated by these proceedings. >> is this a legitimate inquiry or is it what has always been just a policy disagreement, which has to be worked out every day on capitol hill? >> yeah, i think this is more a tactic that republicans in the house saw as a way to elevate immigration when there was a divided primary. this was more of a thing they were hoping that could shed light on immigration last year when we didn't have a presumptive nominee. you look at this, you look at the impeachment of joe biden. those things now tend to fizzle when you really get a one on one race. there's less of, you know, the need for that politically. and i think what this is going to come down to is you have each side has an issue that they feel they have an advantage on, and the other side doesn't want to talk about it as much. for republicans it's immigration, and for the left it's abortion.

i think with the economy as kind of that issue hovering overall. what's going to happen is at the end of the day, whichever side wins out on that issue is going to be the one that's going to be holding the white house in november. >> in the meantime, we are closely watching what's happening on the senate floor, julia. how are secretary mayorkas and the biden administration approaching this trial? >> mayorkas was in new york city announcing a new plan from dhs to try to combat child sexual exploitation online. that's something he's taken really serious in his time as homeland security secretary, and we had someone from nbc there who asked him how he's contemplating this trial going on. would he step forward? he just kind of had a really nonchalant response, a very sober response saying that he expects the senate to do whatever the senate thinks is appropriate. it's just another indication that he basically sees this as waste of time for the senate and he doesn't want to have it waste any of his time. he said something similar on cbs this morning. take a listen. >> as they work on impeachment,

i work in advancing the mission of the department of homeland security, that's what i've done throughout this process. we need congress to pass the bipartisan legislation that a group of senators worked on. that is the enduring solution. we cannot resource ourselves. we need congress to do so. >> so we've always known that it would be extremely rare to see secretary mayorkas at any of these proceedings, when it was a house committee considering whether or not to impeach him, he -- there was a back and forth, he said he could make himself available. he wasn't available on the exact day they wanted him to be. they dropped it and moved on, and now we understand for this trial, which will likely not take place, he also thinks that it would really not be pertinent for his time when he has so many big issues, not just on immigration but also on things like cyber crime, preparing our election infrastructure to make sure it's safe from attacks and foreign influence before the 2024 november election. all of these things are on his

plate and basically the message we've received over and over from the secretary himself and the biden administration is that, look, we're not going to waste our time with this. what they really see is theatrics here. >> let me go back to the decision that is going to be made on the floor here, claire. lisa murkowski told nbc news she doesn't believe the articles warrant impeachment, but quote, at a bare minimum you have to have some process here. if you just move to table, i think you are -- you're not only putting republicans in a challenging spot, but you're setting the precedent that this is what we're going to do with every future impeachment. there is a further argument that if you're a red state democrat, if you're a jon tester, it's helpful for this at least to go through the first phase. what do you think? >> i don't know. i think either there is some evidence of high crime and misdemeanor or there's not, and

a lot of people in that body are lawyers. a lot of them have sat through a couple of impeachments. i presided over impeachment trial of a federal judge when i was in the senate, and the people that were handling the cases were used to having criminal law experience in the courtroom, so there really is a lot of expertise in that room right now. they know this is not high crime and misdemeanor, and i think if you really want impeachments to go forward in the future, you need to charge somebody with a crime or a misdemeanor instead of just saying we don't think he's done the job the way we think he should do the job. so that's really the line of demarcation here, and i'll predict something here. i'll predict that if we have everybody there, i predict that there will be enough votes to dismiss this case, even without a republican vote. i just think that will happen because to me it's so obvious, and frankly, i think it's

obvious to the majority of the republicans too. if they had their way, i bet they would have told the house, hey, stop this. this is stupid. >> so julia, with these articles of impeachment, house republicans, of course, as we've said want to put the biden administration on trial over the border crisis. what is the current reality of the situation there? >> currently we are not at record highs, chris. in fact, what we usually see this time of the year as the weather gets better is a pretty sharp increase. instead numbers are staying steady. there were about the same number of migrants, just over 189,000 that crossed in february as well as in march. this time last year those numbers were steadily climbing because they were about to end those covid-19 restrictions known as title 42. they came to a record high in december when we saw my grass crossings reaching over 12,000 a day. they've steadily stayed between

5,007,000 encounters with undocumented migrants per day along the southwest border. is that perfect? of course not. secretary jeh johnson who served under the obama administration said if they saw more than 1,000 migrant crossings in a day, they'd work over the weekend. they'd get everybody from every component on the line and have a conference call about why this was happening, but it has continued to grow. it's also factor of what's happening globally and in the western hemisphere. you have more migrants displaced now, more people rather displaced now than any other time since world war ii, and it's not just the western hemisphere. we're seeing migrants from china, india, africa, all over the world who are either desperate or also taking advantage of, you know, economic pulls as the u.s. economy continues to grow and continues to need more migrants to fill job openings. it's both a process of or a factor of this administration, of politics, what's going on in the united states, but also you have to take into account global trends and of course no administration is immune to

that, and we should point out that there were more migrants across the border under the trump administration than under the obama administration. these numbers have continued to grow. it's something that i think could easily be brought up to take the air out of these arguments coming over from the house that isn't just a matter of one administration or one man. this is a global trend we're seeing here. >> so matt, look, there is a little element of ground hog day here, right? we have been talking through republican and democratic administrations about something needs to be done about immigration policy in this country. comprehensive immigration reform has eluded both parties, presidents from both parties. can republicans put the blame, though, this time for the border crisis on democrats and on secretary mayorkas while simultaneously refusing the call for congress to act on immigration legislation, which

democrats will argue they handed to them on a silver platter. >> i think joe biden likes to act like he's flummoxed with this thing. he rescinded the remain in mexico policy. there are orders he can do like that to try and figure this out again, and i think the problem with that bill was with a one vote -- or back then it was a three-vote margin in the house, if you don't make the house part of those negotiations especially with such a tight majority, you're never going to get that done. that was dead before they even came to an agreement. nobody failed to notice it yet. it was practically impossible to get something like that through with such a thin majority. look, from '08 to '19, you had about 400,000 border apprehensions a year. in biden's first year in office 1.6 million, and it hasn't been below that since. look, whether this impeachment thing, i i think at the end of the day, voters won't really --

this won't factor into their vote. however, if you're a jon tester, a sherrod brown, you should have gotten ahead of this. you can call for mayorkas to be fired, you can call for things to happen. tough conversation with biden for folks who are in the -- leaders of the countries that claim to have the root causes of this. if you're jon tester or any of the red state senators, pin your hopes on a dismissal here, that's a little far behind the game. >> all right, clara, i want to play what some republican senators told msnbc before convening on the floor. >> going to try to sweep this under the rug and act as if the biden border crisis never existed, but the evidence is very plain. >> senator schumer and president biden don't want to hold a trial for political reasons. they think it will hurt the president and my senate colleague in their re-election efforts. and that's what's going on. >> so what do you expect

republicans to do? >> well, they are trying -- i'm going to maybe get in the weeds a little bit here. they were trying to get an agreement, the senate typically operates on agreement, but usually not in impeachment trials. in an impeachment trial, senators don't get to talk. they were trying to reach an agreement, and you see there on the floor, gary who runs the floor for senator schumer, he is discussing with him right now, and the issue is do they have an agreement, and the agreement was going to be each side was going to get x number of time to talk, and then they were going to try to go ahead and move some kind of dismissal or motion to table. evidently they had difficulty getting that agreement. it was hot lined yesterday, and there were objections. you've got some folks like senator lee and some of the other kind of hard right wingers that want to do performative politics of their own. then you're going to get into a situation where those same republican senators are going to

try to make points of order. patty murray who's sitting in the chair, senator murray, she is pro tem of the senate, and you wonder how she got there. was that a vote? was that an election? no, she is the longest serving senator in the majority. that is why she has that chair. she is talking to elizabeth mcdonough who's the parliamentarian. she will be talking to her a lot over the next several hours, and when there's a point of order made, in all likelihood patty murray will say, no, that point of order is not well taken, and then the senator offering that will ask for a vote on that ruling. that's what will slow this down. how many of those votes will there be? and at what point in time does the chair finally say, does the pro tem finally say these are just delaying the process and recognize senator schumer for a motion to dismiss. that's the way i think it will play out. i think it's going to take several hours. the first thing that's going to happen, they're going to get

sworn in. then they have to individually go up and sign a book, and that's going to take a while. that's going to take anywhere from 45 minutes to an hour just the formal process of getting the senators sworn in at the beginning of the impeachment process. >> yeah yeah, they're going to sign a book to basically to accept this oath in addition to raising their hands. my understanding was the senators were asked to be at their desks at 1:00, which was 0 minutes ago. and then once everybody was at their desk this would start, but what's happening on the floor right now? >> so the first step in this process is called a quorum call. that's basically their attendance log to make sure that everybody that is supposed to participate in this event is there and accounted for. and then once the quorum call wraps up, that's when they will formally swear in the senators and begin this process. that could happen perhaps at any moment. we're just waiting for the

quorum call to wrap up. i can tell you we have a group of our producers inside the chamber right now, and they're feeding in some color as to what's actually happening right now. some of the impeachment managers from the house side including congressman andy biggs, congressman matt rosendale, these are people that were heavily involved in the effort to pass these impeachment articles in the house of representatives, they're actually in the senate right now sitting along the back of the chamber. now, it's our understanding that we won't hear from any of the impeachment managers today from the house side. you'll recall in these past impeachment proceedings, these trials, the impeachment managers from the house play a very forward-facing role in all of this. they essentially prosecute the case. we don't expect it to even get to that point. we do have these house members that are in there right now paying attention to it all. we also know that republicans are in the process right now of lining up their points of order as senator mccaskill was talking about. the plan is that they will go in order one right after the other

it try and gum up this process for as long as possible. they already have kind of their ducks in a row as it relates to that. the question is how long will democrats allow that to go on for? as we mentioned before, you know, this is a process that democrats can essentially bring to a halt at any point, but one of the things i think is important to remember in the back of your minds. if you're watching this and wondering why would democrats give republicans any runway at all to talk in a situation like this if they can with just 51 votes move on, that's because what they would prefer is that there are some republicans that join them in this effort to end this trial as quick laze -- quickly as possible. there is the possibility that there are more moderate republicans, think of the names we always think of in this situation, mitt romney, lisa murkowski and others that may agree with democrats that this is not the proper way to conduct an impeachment, that this trial is nothing more than a political

exercise that will slow down the work of the senate, and they will demonstrate that by voting with democrats. that would allow democrats some cover. then they could say this was a bipartisan effort to just dismiss this trial and not go forward and blunt some of the criticism that republicans have given them over the past couple of weeks that they weren't moving forward with the trial and that is essentially an unprecedented action as it relates to an impeachment that was passed by the house. that's part of the reason that they're going to give republicans some breathing room here. how much breathing room they give is kind of the open question right now and one of the things we're trying to figure out, chris. >> matt, the person who says she deserves all the credit for what we're seeing right now and that is the impeachment of secretary mayorkas is marjorie taylor greene. she is someone who in statewide polls, i think the ones i've seen, she polls in the 10s and 20s approval ratings. in a list of who should be the running mate of donald trump, at

least one of the many lists, she came in tenth. what's her play here? she's got to save seat. what's her play? >> i think it's very simple. raising a lot of low dollar online donations. it's no more complex than that, and that's not a knock per se. you know, she's not going to be a statewide office holder in kind of the purple -- doesn't seem to be in the as you said the running to be trump's vice presidential nominee, but with the incentive structure in congress for many of these folks now, can you raise a lot of money on low dollar donations, and you certainly can with stuff like this. and can you get booked on cable news. the incentive structure has completely changed over the last 20 or 10 years. this will be, i can almost assuredly say, you know, if you were writing her fund-raising copy, i would say exactly basically what you said, and i'm sure she could raise a bunch of money off of it. >> so i just want to again let

people know we are waiting for this to get underway. each desk has a notepad on it. it also has a copy of the impeachment articles and a copy of the resolution that names the managers of this. claire mccaskill, what are you imagining? and you were talking about how you were involved in an impeachment for a judge, which we should say across the course of history, impeachment is very rare, and the majority of them, more than any other position, there have only been two cabinet members, this is the second, most of them are judges. what do you imagine the mood is on that floor right now? >> it depends on who you are. if you're a democrat, you're thinking what a waste of time. for a lot of the republicans they probably think that too se secretly. the reason it's important for everyone to be at their desk and i think the reason schumer will do his very best to keep everyone at their desk is they

want to give the republicans time to raise points of order because they didn't agree to a time set for them all to have a chance to actually just get up and debate the issue, and these votes will go much more quickly if everyone's at their desk. one of the most frustrating parts about being a senator is the notion that a 15-minute vote or a 20-minute vote morphs into an hour and a half because everyone is wandering in at their own time on their own schedule to vote. so keeping everybody in that room and at that desk will make this go much more quickly as points of order are raised and then dispatched with by a vote on every ruling, and then it will just be a matter of time -- and i'm sure there's going to be constant communication between the republicans that have indicated they think this impeachment is ill-advised, and the majority leader's team. when will enough time pass in

terms of people talking about this that they are comfortable that they might get one or two or three or four votes on a motion to dismiss or a motion to table. that's really going to be -- i've been told by people who know they expect this to last total somewhere around three to four hours. >> matt gorman understanding what you say about fund-raising, and impeachment is certainly a way for many republicans to fund-raise, beyond that, is there really any there there is this impeachment used to be something of great consequence. are we at the point where impeachment just doesn't really have a lot of political ramifications at all? >> i think a couple of things. i think the story that we're going to see and talk about five years from now is the senate will be what the house currently is, right? especially with institutional

leaders like mcconnell who are able to keep parties in line. you're going to see a lot more of kind of the house in the senate. i think that's number one, and i think number two, you know, carl holt "the new york times" wrote a really great book on this and relate it had to confirmation wars on the judiciary, confirming judges. one side escalates, the other side goes furthers, i think you could see that with impeachments. >> let's listen in to patty murray right now. >> pursuant to rules 3 of the rules of procedure and practice in the senate, when sitting on impeachment trials, having arrived and a quorum having been established, the senate will proceed to consideration of the articles of impeachment against alejandro n. mayorkas, secretary of homeland security. >> madame president. >> majority leader is recognized. >> at this time pursuant to rule 3 of the senate rules on impeachment and the united states constitution, the president pro tem emeritus, the senator from iowa will now

administer the oath to the president pro tem, patty murray. sfwr. >> do you solemnly swear in all things related to the trial of the impeachment of alejandro n. mayorkas, secretary of homeland security now pending, you will do impartial justice according to the constitution and laws so help you god? >> i do

the president pro tempore: at this time i will administer the oath to all senators in the chambe . ambe >> at this timer i will administer the oath to all in the chamber, clause 6 of the constitution and the senate's impeachment rules. will all senators now stand and raise their right hands. do you solemnly swear that in all things appertaining to the trial of the impeachment of alejandro n. mayorkas, secretary of homeland security now pending, you will do impartial justice according to the constitution and laws so help you god? >> i do. >> the clerk will now call the names in groups of four. senators will present themselves at the desk to sign the oath book. >> ms. baldwin, mr. barrasso,

mr. bennett, mrs. blackburn -- >> and so claire mccaskill, this is exactly what you and i talked about. they will continue to call the 100 members of the senate in groups of four. they will come up and sign the oath book. there is something we talked a little bit about this yesterday, something majestic about working in that building. the weight of history in that

building. do you think that there's anyone going up and signing that book who may be rethinking a position or considering more deeply a position? there is a certain -- seems to be from the outside, a certain weight to what we're watching right now. >> well, i'm not going to say there's not weight in that room. frankly, i felt it every time i walked in the room. it's why january 6th was so incredibly difficult to watch, to see people hanging off the balcony and going through people's desks and somebody with, you know, horns on and no shirt sitting in the presiding chair. those images are, frankly, in the hard drive of every united states senator that has ever served that's still living in

the united states, and especially i think some of hose people that are still there in that chamber. on the other hand, i would tell you that everyone signing that book knows this impeachment only succeeded in the house by one vote and there were republicans that voted against this impeachment in the house. this was not everybody in the republican party in the house did not sign up for this. many of them who thought it was a joke have actually resigned and left and said we're done with the house it's become such a freak show. and so i do think that this is not like it has felt i think historically for an impeachment because it has been cheapened by the political performance. >> cheapened to the point as matt suggests that just several years from now the senate won't be much different than the

house? >> well, i think that remains to be seen. if the republicans take the senate this year, if they win in november, then whoever you saw john cornyn trying out, every time you see a republican now on screen, they're trying out for something. tom cotton's been trying out for vice president. john cornyn is trying to be the leader and the people who are running for leader to replace mitch mcconnell are busy trying to get the votes of some of the newer members that are more maga, that are more trump. a lot of that will depend on whether or not they decide to keep the filibuster or not or if the democrats decide to keep the filibuster if they maintain the majority without some of the members that are not going to be there that have adamantly opposed doing away with the filibuster. but the senate is not what the senate was just a mere decade and a half ago. we used to vote on things all the time.

there used to be amendments offered on the floor. these bills are now being written in leadership's offices. there's very little true deliberation on the floor of the senate. very few amendment votes are taken. there has been a decline in the robust nature of senate debate over the last decade. i don't know if we are at the all-time low or if it's going to keep getting worse, and a lot of that will depend on what the next senate does with the standing senate rules. >> and who is in the next senate, obviously, which is a very big part of what we're watching right now. julia ainsley, the man who is at the center of this, ostensibly, secretary mayorkas is not there, but he is the person who will go down one way or another and the expectation is that there is zero chance that they will vote him out of office, but he will go down in the history books as one of two cabinet members who faced a senate impeachment

trial. i wonder if you're hearing anything from your sources about the impact this has had on him or people who work closely with him at dhs. >> i think on the surface what you'll hear time and time again of course this has no impact. he's going to continue to do his job. i think if there is a concern, there are two, it takes some time. they had to hand over a lot of information. they had to establish a team to go through documents and hand that over to the house in the first place. of course they have to have a whole press team ready to go on days like this, sending out information to all of us trying to get an idea of where they stand on all of this. but also you have to remember in these highly politicized polarized times there could be a threat to his security. he's already one of the most closely guarded members of the cabinet. there are a lot of people on the right who really blame him for what's happening at the border, and frankly, a lot of them could have a very distorted picture of what's actually happening at the border, and i think that, you

know, his security and his family's security are something that he's always worried about. and you know, he may be more worried after something like this that it could draw more attention to him. i'm sure it's something that his security detail is really aware of that it's happening today. it's just something to remember that as we go through this, it looks very procedural. it looks kind of very outside of really affecting any one person, that there is a man behind this and he does have a life and a family and would like to protect that. there are fears about his security that have definitely increased over the year. in terms of what it does at the border, i think it just makes the job all the more frustrating because what they're asking for is more money. the secretary was just on the hill this week talking about dhs funding. republicans have threatened to cut and in some cases have cut some key areas.

it's not as far as they thought those budget cuts might go. they got some more funding just last month. if they hadn't had that, they would have been cutting key areas of i.c.e. and cbt officers along the border. the messages coming out from this administration and what they're trying to do are falling on deaf ears among a lot of house republicans. they're going to get people actively swimming against their policies and it's just going to make it harder to send the message that this administration wants to send on immigration, which is not that they're open borders. that they're sympathetic to the plight of all migrants. they want to make it harder for people to cross the border illegal will and make it easier to apply for legal pathways. you can say that's mixed messaging, and perhaps cartels can tell migrants they should come and misinterpret a lot of those messages. that's something this administration and secretary mayorkas have tried to repeat over and over again, and when

things like this happen on the hill and it sucks up all the oxygen in the room, it makes it harder and harder to get those messages out. particularly when you don't have the authorities or the funding to back up those policies, it definitely makes their jobs more difficult. >> we just got a statement from the senator from pennsylvania, john fetterman who i think is very happy to say he is the most casual of u.s. senators, but he is wearing a suit today. he thanked republicans on his way to the chamber for bringing the jerry springer show to the senate. we all know it's over, he said. we have enough already bad performance art, we're not really adding anything to this. if this is a show, matt, and an awful lot of people, and that includes some republicans think that it is, if it were not, if as julia says the need was recognized that there needs to be a budget, that there needs to

be a serious conversation about what's wrong at the border, how do we fix it, how do we fund it, what would that conversation actually sound like? >> first of all, it's great to be reminded that fetterman's a democrat because he's been such a strong supporter of israel i forgot. it was great having him being on the same side when it came to israel. i will say this, the overton window has shifted on immigration. we've all done this a long time, almost always up until this point, the starting point for any immigration discussion if you wanted border security and all that entailed, you had to talk about a pathway to citizenship, a pathway to legal status, what have you. right? that window has shifted and you're not hearing that as a precursor to these discussions. but again, it's a matter of, you know, what can biden do executive order wise and also i think again this is where the other bill fell short, what can realistically pass a house that

as of two days from now will have one vote majority, republican, right? and so i think that is a conversation ask that's the tough thing and realistically probably nothing until election, that happens, and then we'll see where things are, but that's where things currently stand at the moment. >> and we're about halfway through the signing. so 50 more members of the u.s. senate who have to sign this oath book. in the meantime, i could ask you from the other side's perspective we can get to that claire, about what needs to be done about immigration, but i've been handed something very compelling, which is there will be only milk and water allowed in the chamber during the hearing today. coffee and other beverages are strictly prohibited. if you can explain that to me. food is also restricted on the senate floor, with one exception, candy, and representative kevin mullen of california is covered entirely in candy on his desk. representative cory booker could

be seen on the floor handing out candy to his fellow democratic colleagues. i guess this is something that went into effect during trump's impeachment hearings in 2020. do you know what that's all about? >> well, you always are only allowed milk and water on the floor of the senate. there has never been an opportunity to are any other -- and i remember i was told at one point the history of the milk. i don't remember it right now, but there is never any food or beverage allowed. the pages will bring you water, and there's a list back in the cloak room of what kind of water people want. do they want still water or sparkling water, bubbly water, and typically that's all that you can see on the desk right there. i think that's mcconnell's desk, there's some water there. thousand, the candy, there is a secret candy drawer on the senate familiar. getting some inside info. it is back to patty murray's

right up against the wall, there is a drawer. and i don't know the republicans usually didn't come over there. they must have a candy drawer somewhere on their side. there's always small little wrapped pieces of candy. the candy and the milk and water is not something that came about during donald trump. those three things have been around on the senate floor for a long time. >> so i guess if you need a little boost, caffeine is not okay, but maybe you can have caffeine infused candy or at least get a sugar boost. >> well, you can, chris. you can walk right back in the cloak room, which is right behind -- there's two cloak rooms, right behind where even is sitting, and there is coffee always in there, and there is usually an opportunity for your staff to bring you up a diet coke, and you can enjoy those beverages back there, but you can't bring them on the floor. >> important behind the scenes information from claire mccaskill. as we continue to watch the

senators sign the book, matt gorman, thank you. we're all going to be back as the senate trial, impeachment trial of dhs secretary alejandro mayorkas gets underway. we'll be right back after this short break. underway we'll be right back after this short break. 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? i thought i knew a lot about our irish roots; i was surprised to learn so many more things. there's the family name. 1892 wow. that one here is the boat they came over on. yes. wow. my name is oluseyi and some of my favorite moments throughout my life are watching sports with my dad. now, i work at comcast as part of the team that created our ai highlights technology, which uses ai to detect the major plays in a sports game. giving millions of fans,

like my dad and me, new ways of catching up on their favorite sport. 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.

anticipation is high on capitol hill because we will find out shortly what comes next at the impeachment trial of alejandro mayorkas, the dhs secretary. let's bring you up to speed, all 100 u.s. senators raised their right hand, took an oath, and now they are signing a book. it's called the oath book, and then after that we are going to hear -- after from the sergeant at arms who will say a proclamation including hear ye hear ye, and then essentially we're in uncharted territory. we don't know exactly where this is going to go next.

i want to bring back ryan nobles, claire mccaskill, i know you touched on this at the beginning of the hour, now that we're already there, tell me, ryan nobles, what might happen next as we watch bernie sanders sign the book? >> reporter: yeah, that's right, chris. so as you point out, shortly after they're done signing this book, which makes their swearing in official, that's when we'll get a reading of the initial impeachment articles, and then that will begin the process, and our prediction, what we believe will happen is that relatively quickly we'll see the senate majority leader chuck schumer take some sort of action to bring the trial to a close. whether that be a motion to dismiss or a motion to table, that's still an open question. it will be at that point that we'll see republicans attempt to intervene by offering up points of order, and you know, there will be a series of these points

of order. they essentially will be republicans making an argument that they've been making since the house passed these articles of impeachment that this would be unprecedented for impeachment articles to come to the senate and for there not to be a full trial where evidence was presented, witnesses were called and arguments were made, and democrats will then dismiss all of these points of order. they can do that with a simple majority vote, 51 votes. they have 51 votes to do that, assuming that all the moderate democrats and those independent members that caucused with the democrats saying -- >> can i interrupt you for just a second? because kyrsten sinema just signed the book. she's one of the key people we're watching, the book, she' the key people we're watching, right? >> reporter: that's exactly right. the people you should keep a close eye on are the group of people in the middle who often are the swing votes on issues like this. kyrsten sinema is one of them. she, of course, not a democrat

anymore, she's an independent. she's also not running for reelection. she's got nothing to lose. she's also in a border state. those are all many of the reasons where she may have more of a skeptical eye as it relates to alejandro mayorkas than some other democrats may have. now, we don't anticipate a surprise from kyrsten sinema, but one of her trademarks is she doesn't forecast votes. >> there was jon tester from montana, another person to watch. he is running for reelection in what could be a tough race in a very red state. >> reporter: right. so jon tester is also someone who has not told us how he feels about this process. we have repeatedly tried to ask him about his thoughts on the articles of impeachment up until right before these proceedings he had told us that he had yet to read the articles of impeachment. he now said as he was walking in that he had read them but he wanted to hear the arguments on the floor before telling us which way he was going to vote. he also represents someone who is someone worth watching. i should point out, chris, these

are just people worth watching to see whether or not this is going to come to a quick end or whether or not there's going to be a bit of a longer process. there's no one who believes that alejandro mayorkas will be convicted because that requires 67 votes. this is that small group of people who have someflexibility in extending or limiting this process is one of the reasons we're watching them. on the republican side, mitt romney, susan collins of maine, lisa murkowski of alaska who have expressed skepticism about this process, using impeachment as a vehicle to display concerns about the situation at the border. all three of them are not happy with the situation at the border. they're not necessarily fans of alejandro mayorkas. they have been more critical of using impeachment in this form or fashion to settle a policy dispute. so they could be among a group of people that work to try and wrap this up quickly. that's why i think you will see republicans given a little bit of runway here to make this case

on the floor, to come out and say these are the reasons why we think we should have a full trial. these are the examples of similar impeachment proceedings in years past, where a full trial took place even if there was no chance of a conviction. these were all things that republican senators have been insistent upon, saying that it met the banner, the standard necessary of passing through the republican house of representatives, even though it was by a razor thin majority. even though the votes against impeachment were bipartisan. the votes in favor of impeachment were partisan. senate republicans believe that that doesn't disqualify this from the standard of requiring a trial. i think the important thing to keep in mind, chris, as you're watching these proceedings. you can talk about precedent, the way the senate operates. you can talk about the senate's history. you can talk about all of those things. the simple fact of the matter is you can do anything you want in the senate if you've got 51 votes. now, i know people watching us right now are saying, ryan, what

about the 60 vote filibuster threshold. that is true. but theoretically, you could end a filibuster with 51 votes. you could end a rule with 51 votes if you wanted. in this case, the filibuster threshold doesn't exist anyway. >> let me interrupt you for a second. we want to go back to the floor. chuck schumer. >> fact known to the chair so the oath may be administered as soon as possible to the senator. >> the sergeant at arms will make the proximate -- proclamation. >> hear ye hear ye, all persons are commanded to keep silent under pain of imprisonment while the senate of the united states is convened as a court of impeachment to consider the articles of impeachment against alejandro mayorkas, secretary of homeland of security. >> in a moment i will ask

unanimous consent to allow for debate time, to allow for republicans to offer and have votes on trial resolutions, and allow for republicans to offer and have votes on points of order. so i ask unanimous consent that senator lee be recognized to offer a resolution that is the text of sra 624, the full senate trial, that senator cruz be recognized to offer as text 622, the trial committee, there then be up to 60 minutes of debate on the resolutions, concurrently and equally divided between the two leaders and designees. vote on or in relation to the resolutions in the order listed with no amendments to the resolutions in order. further, that following the disposition of the trial resolutions, if they are not agreed to, senator schumer as

designee be recognized to make a motion to dismiss the first article of impeachment that the motion be subject to only seven points of order, that there be up to 60 minutes for debate, concurrently and equally divided on the motion to dismiss and the points of order and that following use or yielding back of that time, the senate vote in relation to the points of order in the order raised and the motion to dismiss. further, that if senator schumer as designee makes a motion to dismiss the second article of impeachment that the motion be subject to only one point of order, there be up to 60 minutes of debate, concurrently and equally divided. on the motion to dismiss and the points of order and that following the use of yielding back of that time the senate vote in relation to the points of order in the order raised and the motion to dismiss. following that further disposition of article ii, the senate vote on the motion to adjourn the court of impeachment. finally, that there be up to

four minutes for debate equally divided between the two leaders or their designees prior to each roll call vote, all without intervening action or debate. >> is there an objection? >> madame president. >> senator from missouri. >> reserving my right to object. to dismiss or table articles of impeachment against secretary mayorkas without a trial here today or in committee is an unprecedented move by senator schumer. never before in the history of our republic has the senate dismissed or tabled articles of impeachment when the impeached individual was alive and had not resigned. as senator schumer said in 2020, a fair trial has witnesses, a fair trial has relevant documents as part of the record, a fair trial seeks the truth, nothing more, nothing less. i will not assist senator schumer in setting our constitution ablaze and bulldozing 200 years of precedent. therefore, i object.

>> madame president. >> objection is heard. >> madame president, i raise a point of order that impeachment article i does not allege conduct that rises to the level of a high crime or misdemeanor as required under article ii, section 4 of the united states constitution and it's therefore unconstitutional. >> under the precedents and practices of the senate, the chair has no power or authority to pass on such a point of order. the chair therefore under the precedence of the senate submits the question to the senate. is the point of order well taken? >> the republican leader is recognized. we'll call the roll.

>> claire mccaskill, let me go to you about what we're seeing right now, now that we have heard from majority leader schumer. >> interesting. there was an agreement obviously that he tried to put forward, and we had one grand stander, unfortunately, from my state, who said, no, i'm going to object. the leader of the senate offered up 2.5 hours of debate and 15 different resolutions, including two at the beginning to cruz and to lee, and then a number of

more resolutions that could have been offered on the first article of impeachment and then one on the final article of impeachment. but, you know, everybody's looking for their moment of performative politics to raise money off of, and the senator from missouri grabbed one. i think he's competing with josh hawley to see if he can be better at performative politics, and that's quite a race between the two of them. so now after he objected to the agreement, then what schumer did is say, okay, let's do a point of order as to whether or not article i is even constitutional because it doesn't rise to the level of high crimes and misdemeanors. and the vote was called, and now they're voting on it. and now they've got to figure out what they're going to do. so it will be interesting. this is, you know, it feels like a test run. if it's found unconstitutional, then i'd assume the next motion would be the motion, the