good to be with you, i'm katy tur. we're catching the impeachment trial of homeland security secretary alejandro mayorkas on the floor soft senate right now or as john fetterman calls it "the jerry springer show." how many other senators feel the same. not all of them. and will they debate the merits?

it will be news if they do. yesterday it seemed the trial would get dismissed immediately, and it still might. today, though, there are questions. we're going to explain what happened and why in a moment. we'll also get into the other major story that is coming out of the house because right now, beyond this impeachment, stories are all that is coming out of this house. a ukraine, israel, taiwan security bill is still waiting for its time on the floor, although there is text now. speaker mike johnson says he will move it. if he does, will he keep his job? there's word he will, but only because democrats want him for something. we'll explain the political horse trading there, but first to the senate where senate majority leader mitch mcconnell is speaking now. let's listen. >> the details of their case against secretary mayorkas, that he willingly neglected the duties of his office and that he lied to congress about the

extent of that failure, likewise, we will not hear the secretary's representatives present the vigorous defense to which he's entitled. our colleagues know that we are obligated to take these proceedings seriously. this is what our oath prescribes, it's what will the history and precedent require, and i would urge each of our colleagues to consider that this is what the framers envisioned. the power of impeachment is one of the most delicate balances our constitutional system strikes with a portion of the american people's sovereign electoral authority, purchases a safeguard against malpractice and gives the senate the power and duty to decide. this process must not be abused. it must not be short circuited.

history will not judge this moment well. therefore i move to table the point of order and ask for the yeas and nays. >> ms. baldwin. >> no. >> mr. barrasso. mr. bennett. >> senate minority leader mitch mcconnell, old habits do die hard. joining us now, nbc news capitol hill correspondent, ali vitali. julia ainsley. "punchbowl news" cofounder, jake sherman, and former senator and cohost of msnbc's "how to win 2024" podcast. claire mccaskill. what in the world is going on? >> well, what's going on is schumer has the votes and the republicans don't, and there was only a one-vote margin for this impeachment in the house, and there were several republicans

who voted against it in the house. i think there's a huge chunk of the republicans that know this does not rise to the level of impeachment, and by the way, every time mitch mcconnell wants to pontificate about history and precedent, i'm wondering how merrick garland feels because he blew through all history and precedent by totally ignoring the advice and consent function of the senate for a supreme court nominee, and then did the opposite to push one through on the eve of an election. so i'm not going to take seriously his lecturing about precedent and history because he's changed history in many important ways in terms of how the senate operates. and i think the argument is being made by the democrats, yeah, we're setting a precedent that you can't send an impeachment over if there is no high crime or misdemeanor. it's that simple. >> they're debating whether it was a high crime or misdemeanor, whether it qualifies as

something they can hold a trial for. they're debating whether to debate on this. do i have that right? >> no. what they are debating right now is mitch mcconnell has offered basically two table the original point of order that schumer made. okay. so he's trying to table it. so this will be a party line vote again, and it will not be tabled. then we'll be back to schumer's point of order. a point of order does not dismiss the case. a point of order does not table. it allows everyone to vote as to whether or not they believe this impeachment proceeding rises to the level of the constitutional requirement of high crimes and misdemeanor. once that vote is taken, then there would still have to be an additional motion by schumer to either table or dismiss the impeachment. >> okay. it sound like it's very complicated and might take some

time. jake sherman, look into your crystal ball, and tell us what happens next. >> when schumer makes the motion, it's over. what claire said is absolutely right. schumer knows he has the votes. this is not a game of chance. this is well sewn up at this point, and even if it wasn't sewn up and even if they wanted to bake schumer as has been mentioned offered a deal to get to, republicans were not interested in that, and here's where we are. this should be, i don't know about today, but it should be over today, and it should be relatively quick. these are all party line votes. schumer knows where the votes are and that's why he's taken this path. >> explain the politics behind all of this. >> reporter: we have seen hard line conservative republicans pushing for a trial so much so that they threaten to continue gumming up senate processes if they don't get one even after this fact. that's going to be notable here on the politics front. i also think as we watch how

this plays on a 2024 senate map, specifically for the some vulnerable democrats who are competing in red states, it's really important to look at the fact that no one broke party lines on these procedural steps that we have seen play out over the course of the last 45 minutes. we have looked closely, for example, at the way that senator jon tester of montana is handling these proceedings. that's certainly something that i'm going to continue to watch. i think that everyone else here has hit the point right which is that schumer came into this knowing that he had the votes. republicans on the one hand thought that by not agreeing to the initial thing that they were talking about last night, which is that they would get a certain amount of hours of debate on this and then they would get to proceed to the motion to table, republicans seemingly took the gamble that they didn't want to do that, and instead they would take their chances here on the floor, and then what you saw is the process that claire mccaskill played out, point of order on one of the central tenets that we're actually

considering here, which is article i of the impeachment, which is whether or not there was a willful ignoring on the part of secretary mayorkas of laws that govern his job, that's what they're actually tossing back and forthright now, that's the point of order. if that point of order is passed. if people say, yes, that is not constitutional, and we don't think it's constitutional. then that means article one is out of the discussion here. that's why you're watching republicans try to adjourn, try to go behind closed doors, and now try to basically table this thing all together because they know that if they lose on the point of order fight, they lose on one of the critical pieces of this entire impeachment battle itself. >> jake, can you help explain why ted cruz wants to call this vote for a closed session. >> i don't really understand what he gets from that, to be honest with you. it doesn't really make a ton of sense to me, katy. this is not sensitive matters in that it's nonclassified. >> hold on one second. let's listen to the senate,

president pro tem. >> is there a sufficient second? there is. clerk will call the roll. >> ms. baldwin. >> aye. >> mr. barrasso. >> no. >> mr. bennett. mrs. blackburn. >> did she say no? >> this is the point of order, is it constitutional, correct? is this them doing the point of order, is it constitutional? >> that's what this is, and let me explain why cruz said let's go into closed session. unless there is an agreement of the senators to allow open debate on the question surrounding impeachment, debate not allowed. in other words, when we debate

whether or not to convict on impeachment, the senate is closed down, and that's not open to the public, so what cruz was doing was pursuing the only option available for debate because they turned down the agreement that allowed open debate on these issues. that was the only option available to cruz in terms of his motion. >> what about the politics, jake, of senator kennedy trying to move this to april 30th? why does he want to move it down the line? >> reporter: i think they just, to be honest, they want to keep the issue alive is my guess number 12, and number 2, as claire just said, they don't really have many moves here, right. schumer is going in with the votes and the ability to get rid of this and dispense with it, it's over. this entire issue politically, and i guess substantively is over for the time being, and they have kind of taken that i

shall -- i don't see a ton of advantage to that. the one thing i will say is the senate has a lot of work to do this week. they have the fisa bill that the house sent them. they are going to have a ukraine, israel, taiwan bill theoretically by the end of the weekend. there's a lot of stuff they're going to have to handle in the coming days, and maybe that gives them a chance to handle it. >> does it surprise you you're seeing a level of debate at all on this in the senate? the house is one thing. are you surprised to hear any senators coming out and saying, this is something we need to take seriously? >>. >> i think, frankly, if there had been anything of substance in these impeachments, we think the border is a mess, and we think the current homeland security secretary is not doing a good job, that's basically what the articles of impeachment

are, there's not a high crime misdemeanor alleged here. that's why schumer went to the point of order. it's interest to go me to see whether or not there's a republican that votes for this. because, you know, i'm curious because i know that knowing schumer as i do, i would posit that he definitely wanted to try to get a republican vote or two. i'm wondering if this particular point of order wasn't his gamut to give cover to some republicans to say, yeah, we voted to dismiss the impeachment because we believed it was not a constitutionally based impeachment because of the lack of a high crime or misdemeanor. >> julia ainsley, you cover secretary mayorkas closely. tell me about what senate majority leader mitch mcconnell was saying. he was alleging mayorkas lied. >> reporter: the minority leader was trying to harken back to what we heard over and over again, where they said that basically mayorkas lied to

congress because he said that they had control over the border when they didn't. what all of this comes down to, katy is the definition of operational control. operational control of the border means basically nobody gets set. there hasn't been an administration in recent history who can say they have operational control of the u.s. southern border because of course people come in. they claim asylum. this has happened for decades. the issue is republicans have picked apart the words of mayorkas, and when he said, yes, we have control. it was not open season. the border is not open. it was under control in his terms. then they picked it apart, got someone else from the administration to come in. i believe it was from customs and border protection who said, no, we don't have operational control, and you can see now that you understand the definitions of why that was different and in fact, mayorkas did not lie to congress when he

said that they did have control. what he meant is that in his terms, the way he saw it, it was controlled. so it was not a lie to congress. >> an issue of semantics. >> reporter: yes. >> it looks like the roll call might now be finished. last name i heard was whitehouse. todd young, actually. let's see if the senate pro tem, patty murray is going to now, or what she does next because this is all very complicated, and frankly, i know claire and jake and ali are explaining it. it's hard to follow. let's listen for a moment. you know what, actually, claire, help me understand this as we wait for patty murray. >> there are only so many things that can be done. resolutions, and votes taken on the point of order are raised, so i would assume that patty

will recognize the majority leader, chuck schumer, as soon as this vote is announced, and i assume he will make a motion to dismiss or table. >> and if it gets dismissed or if it gets tabled, is that the end of it? >> it is. >> and they move on to other business. >> correct. >> we'll watch to see what happens next. when they're moving on to other business, how likely is it that they will see a security bill, ukraine, taiwan, security bill. >> sitting here at 3:15 on wednesday, it seems likely. i do think it's going to be over the weekend, it's probably going to be saturday at the earliest. i don't think mike johnson can accelerate this at all. that's number one. number two, i think it's nearly certain at this point that there will be a challenge to mike johnson's job, and he will probably he survives, if he

survives on the back of democrats, will be a thank you for putting ukraine aid on the house floor. the question for johnson becomes does he want to remain speaker of the house with democratic votes? that's a question i don't truly have the answer to. but i do think this passes, and i think it will, for once, make clear how many supporters or lack of support the drop in support for ukraine among house republicans. i have heard estimates between 40 and 100. that's a big range. i think the support has gone through the floor like that. >> can you explain why. is it just because former president donald trump isn't for it? >> i think that's a big part of it. i think there are questions, and some legitimate questions, i would say, about how -- what the end game is in ukraine. people say, listen, i'm for ukraine, but i want to know what our plan is, how you plan to succeed, how ukraine plans to succeed if we're going to keep dumping money into ukraine. congress has appropriated somewhere in the neighborhood of

$20 billion for ukraine. this is another $60 billion for ukraine. bring it up to 180 or so. that's a lot of money, and people have that legitimate concern. there's no doubt that the appetite for passing foreign aid consistently has really gone down. it has. i mean, we have seen republicans for the first time oppose aid to israel without it being paid for. this is a new era for house republicans that are sick and tired of supporting causes overseas. i'll add one more thing. this is a quizzical episode for me. mike johnson said for months he wasn't going to put the senate bill on the floor, and he effectively put the senate bill on the floor, which passed quite some time ago. i don't understand what exactly he was waiting for, what he thought he could get. he effectively did what he said he wasn't going to do, and a lot of time could have been saved and hand wringing avoided if he put the senate bill on the floor which was ready some time ago. >> we see senator schumer at the podium right now, still sigh

-- silence in the room. patty murray is being handed documents. you saw a bald gentleman go back and forth in the well. that is the secretary for the majority gary myrick talking to the majority leader. let me listen to patty murray. >> the point of order is well taken and the article falls. >> madame president. >> majority leader is recognized. >> i raise a point of order that impeachment article ii 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 is therefore unconstitutional. >> madame president. >> under the precedence 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? senator from utah is recognized. >> madame president, as wrong as the majority leader was moments ago, in making this particular point of order as to article i of the impeachment articles, article i, remember, refers to the willful defiance by secretary mayorkas of the law. as wrong as he was in making that as to article i, and he was very wrong for the reasons articulated moments ago by the senator from texas, he is even more wrong, far more so with respect to article ii, because article ii accuses him of knowingly making false statements. that is violation of 18 usc, a felony offense. if this is not a high crime and misdemeanor, what is. if this is not impeachable, what is. >> the senator is reminded we are in a non --

>> i move that the senate proceed to closed session to allow for deliberation on this very cons consequential point of order that he has made that violates hundreds of years of anglo american. >> the senator will submit his motion. >> the question is on the motion, is there sufficient second, there is. clerk will call the roll. >> ms. baldwin. mr. barrasso. >> geez, it seems like they're trying to gum up the works here. claire mccaskill, you were saying a moment ago they're going to submit motions. that's all they can do right now. you have another motion from senator mike lee who looks like he got a haircut, saying that secretary mayorkas knowingly made false statements and that in itself is the definition of a high crime and misdemeanor.

we heard the context around that from julia a second ago. it's a semantics issue, really. how many more of these motions do you expect? >> this is now -- it's interesting to me that schumer has decided to raise points of order on whether or not the two articles of impeachment pass constitutional muster. he's won the first one. now he's doing the same thing on the second one, and in connection with that, lee has made a motion, and you're right, he got a buzz cut. got his air all shaved off. lee's made a motion that they go into private session to, in fact, debate this because they cannot debate it in the chamber under the rules of impeachment. that's why schumer offered them two and a half hours of debate, which they turned down. so the only way they could debate this right now as to whether or not article ii constitutes a crime under high

crimes and misdemeanors is if, in fact, they were in closed session. now we're going to have the same vote again, and then we have to believe that there will be the same vote on the second charge of the impeachment and it, too, will fall, and then it should be game over. >> ali vitali, we had one present vote last round. explain the present vote and who came from it. >> reporter: the strategy is kicking out each leg of each article of impeachment. they were able toot that on article i, and they were able to do that with one republican voting president. 51 voted it was unconstitutional. 48 republicans voted it was constitutional to convict him on these charges in article i, and one senator, lisa murkowski voted present, effectively saying she wasn't voted either way, and of course democrats were able to win this and get this dispensed with. in conversations we had with her

in the halls of congress, she expressed skepticism about whether or not he had willfully and systemically refused to comply with the law in his role as homeland security secretary. it's striking that we see her here voting present. it's something several of the republicans in the chamber are going to be looking at very closely as we watch them do now exactly what we watched them do over the course of the last hour and a half. trying to knock down the schumer point of order which speaks to the procedural motions themselves. they're going to fall but it draws the process out, even though i think we're probably going to land in the same place with article ii as we did with article i. of course i have been around this building long enough to know that i'm not going to assume anything about the way these things go. if i guessed, i would imagine that article ii will meet the same fate as article i did once

we ultimately get around to the schumer point of order vote. >> claire, "politico" was reporting that the white house is not very bothered by this. they think it will just go away. and the evidence they used to back is up is that senators murkowski and romney haven't gotten any calls for the white house. >> i think the white house is ignoring this. i think frankly at the end of the day, before this is all over, most americans are going to ignore it. i think immigration is an issue, a political issue, and this campaign in november is a very real one, and one that the democrats will ignore at their peril. they need to lean into it. they need to constantly remind everyone that they were willing to go to great lengths to solve some of the serious problems at the border. donald trump didn't want them to solve a problem. he wanted the issue, and that's where they'll focus their time and energies on after today. but i don't think in the long run the non-impeachment of

mayorkas, the non-conviction, the no trial, i don't think that's going to convince very many voters one way or the other that haven't already completelily -- completely solidly made up their mind. i want to ask about the speaker of the house in the house, mike johnson. let's talk a little bit more about his future job. why would it be such a big deal for democrats to vote with him, and what if democrats, i heard there was talk about democrats potentially walking out and not actually voting but lowering the margins to make it easier for him to survive. >> yeah, that's a great possibility for him. why is it a problem? because it's very difficult politically to be speaker of the house. a republican speaker of the house, based on democratic votes. sorry, i have to cough again. it's just a difficult political

dynamic. he is effectively a coalition speaker, not that there's anything wrong with that. he owes his job to democrats, and that's not something we have seen at least in contemporary political history, the speaker of the house is a partisan job, meaning it's elected technically by the house, but my members of one party. what does he owe democrats for doing that. i don't know that he owes them anything. it's a bad signal internally in the conference. maybe the margins are so tight he doesn't have a choice. >> the house, senator -- ugh, senator scott is speaking now. let's listen. let's take a listen to what he has to say. >> noon on tuesday, april 30th, and ask for the yeas and nays. >> is there a sufficient second? >> there is a sufficient second. the clerk will call the roll. ms. baldwin. mr. barrasso. mr. bennett.

mr. blumenthal. mr. booker. >> no. >> mr. boazman. >> this is another motion to adjourn to another date so, again, in the parade of motions we're getting from republicans because as claire has been pointing out, they're not allowed to debate, and we've heard it from senator patty murray who's the president pro tem. she's loudly said no debating, as senators from the republican side have tried to debate this issue. democrats control the senate so this will likely fail as well. gosh, you know, in talking about a speaker who has to be propped up in the house side of things by democrats, claire, in this incredibly divided moment, would

it be hoov mike johnson if he is saved by democrats and see what happens from there? >> that's a really good question. it's hard for me to get inside the head of mike johnson. he seemed to me to be very indecisive. he's frankly in a little over his head when he first took the job. i don't think he realized that he could not allow four or five members to control the house of representatives until he finally realized it. keep in mind what they're going to throw him out over. talk about precedent and history. they're trying to throw a speaker out because he has the nerve to bring to the floor a bill to debate aid in wartime to one of our allies. that's how you get kicked out? allowing people to vote on whether or not we should send money to our friends who are in a war against our enemies? that's just bizarre, if you

think about it in context. so i do think he's going to need democrats to get these bills passed over the weekend. i do think they will get them passed and then i think they will probably kick him out, and i don't know who they're going to find who's going to want that job. by that time, they're going to have a one-vote majority. >> jake, who is going to want that job? >> i think ultimately he's not kicked out. >> what if he resigns because democrats have helped him? >> that would be a problem. i don't know who would be next. you would probably have to go to an institutionalist. the hard right wouldn't want an institutionalist. maybe jim jordan gives it another run. i don't think steve scalise would at this point. maybe tom emmer. maybe it's emmer versus jordan. i'm not sure either of them could get 218 votes on the floor. i don't think that could happen.

could you get a consensus candidate? i don't know. you know, you and i have talked about this. we talked about this last time, katy. i think it's not terribly feasible. it would have to go through another couple of weeks again to get a consensus candidate. you're not going to get hakeem jeffries, so, you know, maybe johnson sticks in there for the rest of the term and leaves at the end of the term. i don't know how that would work. i don't know whether he would be able to get anything done. there's not a ton he has to get done after this. >> what have they gotten done? >> not much. >> how productive has this session been. >> very unproductive. they have kept government open, raised the debt limit. >> they keep kicking the can down the road on funding the government. >> that's right. and then they have started an impeachment of president biden which is going absolutely nowhere. they have impeached mayorkas, which is also as we see in realtime, going nowhere. it's been a very bad congress for republicans. just listen to republicans talk about it.

they say we have nothing to run on. we have no accomplishments or giving into chuck schumer and joe biden at every turn. they're saying it to themselves. i think the proof is in the pudding. >> what happens to marjorie taylor greene. does she remain influential in another iteration of a republican majority, say there are, you know, ten plus vote, 20 plus votes in a republican majority down the line, and marjorie taylor greene is in office. does she get sidelined after these antics? does matt gaetz get sidelined? and i'm talking about a theoretical future. >> depends where ten or 20 new people are they hard liners, moderates, in a more moderate and more center right house republican majority, greene's stock goes down, as does matt gaetz. if you add hard liner freedom

caucus types, it probably grows a little bit or becomes a crowd of that discussion. marjorie taylor greene, much of what she says is not worth covering, not worth talking about, but listen, she does have a vote and the one vote and the ability to file a motion to vacate is as important as anybody else, even if you disagree with her. she can trigger that vote and that's a powerful thing to do. >> in a different congress, it would be certainly different or a past congress, i might say. would democrats stand to gain anything by letting marjorie taylor greene stand on the senate floor and make her case? she's an impeachment manager. she could argue part of the case against mayorkas. >> i just think there is such incredulity that this impeachment was actually brought. you know, if you really look at

it in the cold clear light of day, they want to argue about the semantics he used in a hearing, and i would argue that i saw many cabinet secretaries of both parties use semantics in a hearing that was not as forth coming as they possibly should have been. that's not impeachable. it's not impeachable to follow the direction of the presidential of the united states on immigration policy. if you're a member of his cabinet. that's not impeachable. so the problem here is not that they're not giving this weight. the problem is that the house crazies did this in the first place. that's what lessened and cheapened impeachment. not anything that the democrat are doing today. >> right now we are watching a parliamentary inquiry. let's listen. >> that is not an appropriate parliamentary inquiry. >> madame president, there are

other ways for the majority to move this off the floor of the senate. i would urge my colleagues -- >> does the senator have a motion -- >> to understand what we're doing. >> question is on the point of order raised by the majority leader. the senator from louisiana. >> madame president, i have a motion and it takes precedence. i appreciate the majority leader's allegation, lying to the united states congress is not a high crime and misdemeanor you don't have to be mensa material to know -- >> the senator will state his objection -- >> to be a high crime and misdemeanor. it is a felony. >> would the senator please state his motion. >> i will. since we're not allowed to talk among ourselves about the absurdity of this, and my democratic colleagues will not allow us to go into closed session to talk about this --

>> the senate is not in an -- >> we adjourn until 12:00 noon on may the 1st, 2024, and i ask for the yeas and nays. >> is there a sufficient second? would the senator modify his motion? i would ask the senator to modify his motion. >> madame president, 2004 would probably be preferable but i'll accept a friendly amendment we make it 2024. >> the question is on the motion. is there a sufficient second? there is a sufficient second. the clerk will call the roll. >> ms. baldwin, mr. barrasso. mr. bennett.

mrs. blackburn. >> we're getting another motion. this time, instead of april 30th, he's moved it another day. he wanted to move it 20 years ago, but, no, that's not going to happen. it's going to be in 2024. claire, wrap this up for us. we're going to put a pin on it, and move on to other news. give us your last thoughts. >> this is silly, i don't know what they think this is getting them. it just makes them look dumb. they shouldn't have brought up impeachment when there wasn't a serious crime involved, and they did, and now this is what happens. and this is called elections and people who are in charge, so we'll have the same vote on this, and if they want to keep motions to dismiss, adjourn all afternoon, they're going to sit there for a while, but eventually the senate will turn on them, including their own colleagues. >> just to be clear, there was an immigration bill that was agreed to by democrats and republicans in the senate, spearheaded by senator james langford, a republican.

it was a more conservative leaning bill. democrats agreed to it. it was a compromise. president biden said he would sign it. it never got anywhere because former president donald trump said i don't want this bill to go anywhere. this was a bill that would have addressed the situation at the border. it would have addressed asylum. it would have addressed the long period of waiting that people experience when they cross the border in order to make it so eyes can be kept on the asylum seeker, number one, and those who don't have valid reasons for claiming asylum would be sent back. all of these things were addressed this this bill. the bill went nowhere because former president trump didn't want it to go anywhere, so republicans in the senate fell in line, certainly in the house as well. former senator claire mccaskill, thank you so much for joining us, and helping us understand the complicated matters of senate procedure. it is very complicated, but it is interesting nonetheless. claire, thank you so much. coming up next, what happens

if all 18 jurors get seated this week in donald trump's hush money/election interference trial. what judge merchan will do. don't go anywhere. will do don't go anywhere. 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. (vo) verizon small business days are coming. ask your doctor or pharmacist about the pfizer vaccine april 22nd to the 28th. get a free tech check. and special offers and deals. don't miss out. partner with our experts today. ava: i was just feeling sick. and it was the worst day. mom was crying. i was sad. colton: i was diagnosed with rhabdomyosarcoma. brett: once we got the first initial hit, it was just straight tears, sickness in your stomach, just don't want to get up out of bed.

joe: there's always that saying, well, you've got to look on the bright side of things. tell me what the bright side of childhood cancer is. lakesha: it's a long road. it's hard. but saint jude has gotten us through it. narrator: saint jude children's research hospital works day after day to find cures and save the lives of children with cancer and other life-threatening diseases. thanks to generous donors like you, families never receive a bill from saint jude for treatment, travel, housing, or food, so they can focus on helping their child live. ashley: without all of those donations, saint jude would not be able to do all of the exceptional work that they do. narrator: for just $19 a month, you'll help us continue the life-saving research and treatment these kids need. tiffany: no matter if it's a big business or just the grandmother that donates once a month, they are changing people's lives.

and that's a big deal. narrator: join with your debit or credit card right now, and we'll send you this saint jude t-shirt that you can proudly wear to show your support. nicole: our family is forever grateful for donations big and small because it's completely changed our lives and it's given us a second chance. elizabeth stewart: saint jude's not going to stop until every single kid gets that chance to walk out of the doors of this hospital cancer-free. narrator: please, don't wait. call, go online, or scan the qr code below right now. [♪ music playing ♪] 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.

if they are found this week, the trial could begin at 9:30 on monday morning. joining us now, nbc news correspondent vaughn hillyard and former new york prosecutor and msnbc legal analyst, charles coleman. vaughn, it was a surprising turn yesterday because i was sitting on the show at 3:00. they had zero jurors. they dismissed everyone from monday, and at 3:00 there were 3, and then there were 6. how did that turn take place so fast? >> happy hour. we walked away with seven jurors. we've got four men, three women, software engineer, we have folks from all over manhattan, at least one black woman, an asian american man here. so this is new york city and it's going inside of the

courtroom. >> who's the jury foreperson? >> the jury foreperson is -- >> an irishman who is a business owner, and he is 28. >> yep. young man. >> he's married, but with no kids. so that tells us nothing at all, but that's who he is. >> these are the folks that are going to hold the fate of donald trump in their hands here. this is a moment in time when you are looking at a particular question that caught my attention was the number of folks that said they would be able to be fair and impartial against donald trump because they didn't hold strong opinions out of him. >> i don't think that's as surprising as people may expect. i think there's definitely a portion of this country who follows politics very closely. there are a lot of people who know who donald trump is, but i think there are a great number of people who feel a little bit more dispassionately about politics than others do, and so i'm not entirely surprised by that. charles, let's talk about what

kind of jurors both sides want here. i know we have talked about it in broad terms. i'm hoping that you can just kind of focus in and tell me the kind of jurors described generally speaking, the kind of jurors that the prosecution would want and the kind of jurors the defense wants, with the acknowledgment that the defense only needs one juror to have a hung jury here. >> you know, katy, when i was listening to the descriptions around the jurors that have been selected, two things that stuck out to me was the fact that there are going to be attorneys on this jury. any lawyer will typically tell you you don't want to have other lawyers on the jury because most of them will try to outsmart who you're presenting the case to. in a case like this, i actually think that having lawyers on the jury plays to the advantage of the prosecution. because they will be able to determine whether the prosecution has, in fact, met its burden beyond a reasonable doubt, and dispassionately, you

would hope, look at this case and make proper assessments. if i'm the defense, i want people who seem like they are on the fringes of society. what i mean by that, is maybe they're entrepreneurs, they're not necessarily working for other people in the sense of following rules. they can create their own rules, and they have a little bit more give. for people who are going to work every day, understanding the rules of society, understanding the rules of a particular workplace, for example, these other people who are going to be more inclined to say, even though i may not necessarily like the rule or agree with the law or think it's a big deal, i can understand the notion that the evidence presented in front of me suggests that you have broken the law and i need to hold you accountable for that regardless of my feelings, and so that's how that breaks down. the last piece is typically people who are willing to convict. i don't want to sound sexist. i have said this before, and it's been a thing, but in the past, typically, when you are a prosecutor, and you think about cases, you're not always

thinking about women as being people who are usually willing to convict primarily because they get in the jury box, and sometimes they like to play social worker and think what's the best way that we can figure this out without necessarily sending someone to jail, but in a case like this, where the defendant is donald trump and they have likely heard at least something around his wrong doing with respect to sexual assault accusations and the other things that he has done, and maybe perhaps the connection between his administration and dobbs and the elimination of roe, you may think of that in terms of somebody who's more likely to convict the former president. >> let me also mention this stack of papers i was handed. this is the latest filing in this case, the hush money election interference case. this is the sandoval notice that the d.a.'s office has submitted. this is what they want to use as evidence against donald trump in the trial.

explain. >> correct. and on the same day that they sent him this notice, trump's legal team actually responded with a letter to the judge saying, we want to essentially restrict them from being able to use any of donald trump's prior criminal activity that has already been determined by previous courts as part of this case, right. they do not want to taint the jury's image of donald trump. what the district attorney's office is requesting is that they are able to bring up as evidence in front of this jury here, not only if we go back to the decision from just this february as it related to the civil fraud trial and the fact that donald trump had repeatedly engaged in financial fraud, they also want to bring up the decision on e. jean carroll and the fact that he had engaged in sexual assault and the fact that he had defamed her. it will be up to the judge to hear this. it could be friday. it could be monday before they have opening statements in which they hear the district attorney present the arguments as to why this is germane. >> he said he's going to bring

it up friday if we're fortunate and get done early on friday, that's what he said. you have the e. jean carroll case, you have the trump foundation here. i don't see trump university, which is interesting. the allen weissberg stuff, and trump versus clinton, it references a legal action initiated by trump against hillary clinton and several others involving allegations that clinton and her associates engaged in a conspiracy that negatively impacted trump's political and personal interests. that's interesting that they would bring up that one. charles, if you can, quickly, why would they bring up a case like that? >> i think they want to basically create a pattern of donald trump is very much self-invested in his political image. he paid this hush money to karen mcdougal, and to my previous

point about women on the jury, they are going to make the case that this is someone who has disdain for women, and that shows itself, and that further buttresses the notion that in this instance, he was so concerned about how this was going to impact his chances in 2016 of being president that he wanted to try and do anything he could to put himself in the best position, even if it meant paying the hush money to cover up this affair that he had with a former play mate. >> charles coleman, vaughn hillyard, thank you very much. earlier today, house republicans break. don't go anywhere. k. don't go anywhere. l? - 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?

when you own a small business every second counts. 120 seconds to add the finishing touches. 900 seconds to arrange the displays. if you're short on time for marketing constant contact's powerful tools can help. you can automate email and sms messages so customers get the right message at the right time. save time marketing with constant contact. because all it takes is 30 seconds to make someone's day. get started today at constantcontact.com. helping the small stand tall. (♪♪) 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.

the arizona state house was back in session today. and democratic lawmakers are pushing to repeal the civil war era abortion ban. republicans just blocked it again. but there may be some other options. the so-called zombie law was brought back to life last week in a ruling from the supreme court to a time when medical science was rudimentary. back then a risk to a woman's life excluded excessive vomiting according to mary ziegler, citing leslie reagan. that could be life-threatening to be sure. but physicians were left with

real discretion about when a patient's life was at risk. unlike today. joining us now, arizona state senator anna hernandez. thank you very much for joining us and i appreciate your patient as we were following the breaking news in the senate in washington. let me ask you about what is happening in arizona today. state house republicans have blocked the attempt, and this is going to a senate -- what going to happen? you tell me. >> thank you so much for having me. for the third time the house republicans have blocked representative's bill that is a repeal on the abortion ban to be brought to a vote. so what that means is that i'm ready and the senate democrats are ready to put forward a motion to make this path happen for a clean repeal on that abortion ban. >> and what do you expect to happen. >> and that is -- you know, i

expect any republican colleagues to keep to their word and especially for the members that have been socially vocal on all social media platforms, that they support a repeal of this territorial ban to follow through with actions today and allow this to happen. >> i think what i just menged a moment ago, from mary ziegler, is setting a historian about the practice of medicine back in the mid 1800s and how different it is today. excessive vomiting a problem. but that a woman's life and the danger to her life, the discretion was given to the doctor, not to the courts. if the doctor felt something was going wrong, the woman had a right to an abortion. and there was a wide array of options, a wide array of conditions that were brought up back at the time. and now, when medical science is much more advanced, and we've a better ability to monitor a woman's life, women are being pushed as we've seen in cases

that we've discussed here on this show, women's life is being pushed all the way up to edge when sepsis is coming on, when their at real risk, not just for losing their life, but for ever having a child again. i don't understand the concern from some republicans about going back to the 15-week ban that they had already passed in the state legislature instead of allowing this 1864 law to stand. >> well, it is an interesting that you bring that up. because in that -- in the language, in the bill that was passed in 2022, which is a 15-week ban, there is explicit language that would allow for this territorial ban to stand. had roe v. wade be struck down. so the intention here and their goal has always been a full on abortion ban in the state of arizona. so, you know, this is about

control, this is not truly about caring for the health of the mother or the family or the person. and we're seeing that because they continue to block any attempt to do a repeal of this ban. which is what the majority of arizonans want. you know, nine out of ten arizonans agree that politicians an government have no business in our reproductive choices but they're refusing to listen to those constituents, the people of arizona and failing to deliver solutions on this. >> how much of the state house is up for re-election in november. >> every single member in the state house is up nor re-election in november. >> every single member. do you expect that power might change hands? >> absolutely. i think that the people of arizona are ready for new majority, that have shown that we are ready to lead, that we have policy ready, that will make the material conditions of every single person in arizona better and i think we will see

that in november. >> is a presidential election residing on abortion and there is the entire state house that might ride on abortion and there is also a constitutional amendment that activists right now are trying to put on the ballot in november in arizona to enshrine the right to abortion. we've seen amendments like that pass on the ballot even in very red places like kansas. thank you so much. i appreciate. thank you very much for joining us. >> thank you so much. >> i appreciate it. and that is going to do it for me today. "deadline: white house" starts right now. hi, everyone. happy wednesday. it is 4:00 in new york. donald trump is many, many, many things, right. a disgraced twice impeached four times indicted ex-president who has never met a