from ohio. thank you for coming on the show. that's going to do it for us this hour. our coverage continues with "katy tur reports" right now. ♪♪ good to be with you. i'm katy tur. will he stay or will he go? or will he be pushed out? there are fewer than six weeks before the republicans start to decide who they want to nominate. and right now, there are a number of forces that could keep donald trump from being that person. colorado could do it, as we speak, lawyers are getting ready to argue over whether donald trump can constitutionally stay on the ballot after he incited an insurrection. which a judge ruled in colorado. a conviction in one of the criminal cases swirling around him could also do it. fulton county d.a. fani willis just listed her witnesses for the former president's election interference trial. trump's own vice president is at the top of the list. four of his gop rivals will try to do it tonight in alabama by convincing republican voters in increasingly candid language that they are the better choice. and then there is donald trump himself whose own candid language might be enough to do it by reminding voters why they did not vote for him in 2020. >> under no circumstances you are promising america tonight, you would never abuse power as retribution against anybody? >> except for day one. except for day one. >> meaning? >> i want to close the border, and i want to drill, drill, drill. >> that's not retribution. i got it. >> i'm going to be, you know, he keeps -- we love this guy. you're not going to be a dictator, no, no, no, other than day one. >> that was trump at a town hall last night doing exactly what so many are warning, telling americans he didn't believe the constitution applies to him, and while many will no doubt say the former president was just joking there, he has been serious about prosecuting his enemies, emptying the federal government of anyone who isn't loyal to him, going after free speech, remaking the justice department and more. joining us now, nbc news correspondent garrett haake who's in tuscaloosa covering the fbi, former fbi general counsel and msnbc legal analyst, andrew weissmann, and msnbc legal analyst, lisa rubin. let's talk about donald trump last night. what is the reaction to what he said to sean hannity in the context of everything that he has been saying on the campaign trail and all of the actions he did while he was president, especially in the last few months of his presidency. >> yeah, i mean, his answer last night sort of put this in the idea that it was all just a joke. something that he could laugh off. donald trump has said for months now on the campaign trail specifically, things like he would go after the biden family with the special counsel. he ran in 2016 on locking up hillary clinton. he has often expressed expanded ideas of what the power of the presidency should be and could be under him in a second term. so in that context, the reaction was fairly swift on both sides of the aisle, but especially from democtsnd the biden campaign, really pounced on the comments with a version othe idea when someone shows you who they are, believe them. they put out a statement that donald trump is hinting at the idea of being a dictator, because that's exactly what he would do if he was reelected. the trump campaign, far from shyi ay, basically plying, i know you are but what am i. it's biden who's been a dictator, it's biden whose justice department has targeted political enemies in the form of donald trump, and one trump ally tweeting out a list of biden executive actions, cancelling the keystone pipeline, stopping building the wall. this is a debate that both sides want to have in the context of who would sort of conduct themselves within the traditional scope of powers of the presidency or perhaps beyond in 2025 and beyond. >> my version of that strategy for donald trump in 2016 was to say that he was deploying the i'm rubber and you're glue strategy because he would often take accusations against him and turn around and accuse his opponents of as he's doing now. garrett, let me ask you about the primary contenders, increasingly candid language about what donald trump would mean for the party if he were nominated. what are you hearing? what do you expect to hear today? >> reporter: it's been interesting. there are so many ways candidates have found their voice in criticizing donald trump. it's almost never been on the rhetoric he uses like this. you never hear those criticisms. to republican voters and our own polling has shown this, criticizing donald trump makes you sound like a democrat. the criticism has been about his policies or failure to enact his policies they agree with him on even or the fact that he hasn't shown up at the debates and therefore must be afraid. i don't expect them to go after the candidates on their own, but the moderators have said in media interviews in recent days, they think going after just joe biden isn't going to fly at this debate. they have made the argument that these candidates all are going to have to go through donald trump to be the nominee, and they intend to force the issue tonight. we'll see if they're able to be successful on that front. >> andrew weissmann, let me ask you about these comments. how do you hear them as somebody who investigated the president with regard to his ties to russia, and as somebody who's seen the last eight years unfold? >> i don't really see this about a debate of whether he's going to use these powers and sort of is he or is he not, i think that this is a debate about is it a good thing to have a democracy and the rule of law or not. as shocking as that is, if you just look at the area that i was involved in, the use and abuse of the pardon power, donald trump abused it when he was in office the first time, and he has already said that he would abuse it again, for instance, suggesting that he would pardon everybody involved in the january 6th insurrection. and so that is a given. he is clearly going to weaponize the department of justice in the way that he did in his prior term where he said, i want to use it to go after my enemies and i don't want to go after my friends. he put enormous pressure on the department to not go after and to get rid of the cases involving roger stone and michael flynn that the special counsel, special counsel mueller had brought. so this really is not a question of wondering whether he's going to do it or not, it's a question of whether people are willing to accept this as part of a new america not tethered to the constitution and the norms of this country that we have lived by for over 200 years. >> i'll say thank you to garrett haake because i want to focus on the legal discussion now with andrew weissman and lisa rubin. let's talk about what we're seeing in colorado. this is an appeal regarding donald trump's ability to stay on the ballot in colorado. explain what's going on. >> jena griswold has to certify who's on the primary ballot by january 5th. you had a lower court judge decide last month that while donald trump had participated in an insurrection, he was still eligible to be on the ballot because he is not an officer within the meaning of section 3 of the 14th amendment. that's the constitutional provision that allows for the disqualification of certain folks from holding federal office or being a federal official if they engaged in things like insurrection. now, on an appeal to the seven-person colorado supreme court, we'll see whether they agree with the lower court judge's ruling after a, you know, fairly lengthy trial, and then of course that ruling can be kicked up to the united states supreme court for its determination as well. >> let's also now talk about what's happening in georgia. we talk about all of these cases. the colorado case could keep him off the ballot. convictions in other case, could mean he's not suitable in the eyes of a number of voters. let me ask you about what d.a. fani willis doing, and the reports out there that she wants to talk to mike pence that he be the top of the list. what would a testimony from mike pence mean for the rico case in georgia? >> mike pence would obviously be a very strong witness, whether we're talking about the insurrection case or the georgia insurrection case. and the reason for that is he has direct conversations with the former president, including things such as the former president saying you're being too honest when mike pence said that he was not going to not count the votes, and he said that's what the former president said to him. in addition, mike pence in many ways is an exhibit. just by being there. because he was on the same ticket as the former president. and he was not concluding there was fraud in the election, and he models for the jury how you should behave when you've lost an election. he would be a very very strong witness for a prosecutor, whether it's the federal prosecutors or the state prosecutors. >> lisa? >> i think everything that andrew just said i agree with. the other thing that mike pence can obviously talk about is the direct pressure campaign on him and how that put him in literal physical danger. you know, one of the things i think about in the federal complaint not the georgia complaint is that literally, trump has a tweet at 2:24 p.m. on january 6th, at 2:25, that's when mike pence has to be forcibly removed from the chamber by the secret service. so i think he can also speak to the very human aspect of having been targeted by donald trumps and the danger that it put not only him in but people much further removed from the white house than he was, like ruby freeman, for example. >> this is a state case where cameras are allowed. does this mean we could potentially see mike pence take the stand on camera? we could actually watch him testify under oath about what he says happened on january 6th? and i know we've talked about what he has written in his book, and he's had interviews where he's been in discussion, but mike pence under oath would be, i imagine, would have to be at least a little bit different than mike pence we have seen in his own hand or during interviews. >> sure. and, you know, mike pence on the stand would be riveting tv, but of course judge scott mcafee in the superior court would have to set a trial, and he has been reluctant to do so thus far. >> what about jack smith? we're going to bounce around to all the different legal cases. there's a little bit of news on jack smith's case in to election interference, talking about using donald trump's own words in the case against the former president. >> absolutely. so jack smith made a filing yesterday, which is required under the law to give notice to the other side about certain types of proof that jack smith is intending to use, and as the indictment lays out, the prosecution is intending to use lots of statements that donald trump made. for instance, his years long litany of saying there was fraud in an election, no matter what election is. it sounds like he reacted to what, in fact happened to any particular election. he was always having a plan b, which is if he lost saying, well, there was fraud in the election. so it was a heads i win, tales you lose situation. in addition that filing had very tantalizing evidence with respect to violence in detroit, shortly after the 2020 election that the prosecution is going to lay blame for that based on witness testimony, in addition, statements and actions by rudy giuliani and the former president with respect to going after the cheap counsel of the rnc, as part of an effort to stifle dissent within the republican party. so that he would not have to face any internal criticism in terms of what he was trying to do, according to the government in overturning the election. >> tweets back to 2012 from donald trump. remember, he subpoenaed his twitter feed and was able to get it. one more question to you, and this is regarding a new "new york times" piece. some reporting regarding what one of donald trump former aides kash patel says that donald tmp will do when he's in office. i'll read it. donald trump w prosed to use the justice department to go after hisical adversaries is expected to install mr. patel in a senior roll if he returns to power. quote, we will go out and find theconspirators, not just in government but the media, mr. patelaid. yes, we're going to come after the media about people who lied about american citizens, who helped joe biden rig presidential elections, we're going to come after you, whether it's criminally or civilly, we will figure that out. what could a donald trump do in that position with mr. patel as one of his senior officials? >> this goes back to the initial discussion you were having with garrett haake and with me. and for people who are listening who think that this is media hyperbole, it is not. the idea that somebody would say that and that there would not be universal and unanimous criticism tells you where we are as a country. and it is imperative that people think about this, not in terms of political terms but about what our country is going to be. this is really not a question of, gee, is donald trump and his allies people like kash patel, are they going to do this? they're telling you they're going to do it. the issue is whether you care, whether it is something that you think our country, a road that our country should go down. it will be, just to be clear, the end of the rule of law in this country. >> andrew weissmann, lisa rubin, thank you, guys, very much. we're going to obviously keep on reporting on this. we have also have breaking news to report, not great news. we're following this out of las vegas. the university of las vegas, the politics there are reporting that they're responding to reports of an active shooter on campus. they say there does appear to be multiple victims at this time. people are being told to avoid the area. avoid the area of the university of las vegas campus. we're going to bring more information as it comes in. this is just coming over the wires right now. we're working to confirm more. what caused senate republicans to storm out of a classified briefing in the war in ukraine. plus, he helped republicans take control of the house in 2022, and today kevin mccarthy announced he's leaving congress at the end of this month, before his term is up. so why now? and why is marjorie taylor greene saying she hopes no one dies. (caroler husband) think they'd take this mess? (caroler #1) ♪very much so. just trade in that old phone.♪ ♪get a free 5g phone, tablet, and watch.♪ (wife) you really just should have done that. (carolers all) ♪mom is mad. this plan has backfired.♪ (vo) for a limited time, trade in any samsung phone in any condition for a galaxy s23+, watch6, and tab s9 fe. all on us. that's up to $1800 in value. only on verizon. my frequent heartburn had me taking antacid after antacid all day long but with prilosec otc just one pill a day blocks heartburn for a full 24 hours. for one and done heartburn relief, prilosec otc. one pill a day, 24 hours, zero heartburn. we are following news from capitol hill, breaking news, where former speaker kevin mccarthy announced that he will resign from congress at the end of this year. that's in just a few weeks. instead, mccarthy says he plans to, quote, serve america in new ways. writing in a "wall street journal" op-ed, quote, i know my work is only getting started. jakehean joins me on that in a moment. but firs t is a funding fight that is getting ugly in the senate over border immigration policy and ukraine. multiple senators told nbc news a controversial briefing for all 100 senators on the white house's request for aid for ukraine and israel dissolved into a screaming match. so what does this mean for today's initial funding vote? joining me now is democratic senator from pennsylvania, bob casey. senator, thank you for being with us. tell me about this meeting and what happened. >> well, katy, it was a classified briefing that focused on the supplemental bill that's coming up for a vote today. i'll spare you the details of the back and forth. the most important thing right now is that we passed legislation to help ukraine defeat vladimir putin. secondly, to fund the effort that israel's undertaking to destroy a terrorist organization, hamas, and also to provide humanitarian support and support for border security because democrats support border security. i have for years billions and billions of dollars. this legislation has billions more, not just for the border itself in terms of hiring more border patrol, but new money for screening technology to stop fentanyl. the bill also has a new bipartisan fentanyl bill in the legislation. i don't know how you couldn't vote for legislation this afternoon that would fund all of those critically important security measures. >> i know that you don't want to get into the details of the screaming match, but the details seem to be what matters here because right now republicans don't want to vote for this. what were they saying yesterday about not wanting to vote for this, and how were democrats responding? >> well, katy, there was a dispute, and a continuing dispute about some aspects of immigration policy, but i don't think there's any question that after today's vote, whatever happens, if it passes, that's the best result. if it doesn't pass, every member of the united states senate has an obligation to go back to the drawing board and prepare to get a second vote and get this done. we cannot allow vladimir putin to have an advantage to prevail. if we don't vote for this money for ukraine, putin will win, and hamas will win. and other despicable figures and terrorist organizations around the world will win. we have to get this done, and we have to stop fentanyl at our border. that's what this bill will do. >> let me ask about the border and where democrats are willing to go from here. here was the president who was asked about whether more border compromises should be made on the part of the democrats. here's what he said. >> would you be okay with democrats willing to put more on border policy to get this current package through? >> yes. we're willing to do significantly more, particularly equipping the border capacity that we need on the border from judges to more border security. in addition to making some substantiative changes. but they're unwilling to do it. i really thought -- i felt good for a while. i thought we were making some real progress. langford's a decent guy. looked like he was prepared to move in a way, in a direction, that we could come up with a compromise, changing the policy on the border as well as security at the border. but they walked away. it's take everything we have here, their one proposal, which is extreme, or nothing. >> what are republicans asking for that democrats say is too far? >> it's not one thing in particular. look, i'm going to focus on the way forward. we're going to get a deal here. it's going to happen. >> what compromises are going to be made to get the deal? >> i'm not going to negotiate this on television. we'll get a deal on the policy but it's important for people to know there would be zero money available in this bill for border security if democrats didn't propose billions of dollars. there would be zero money to stop fentanyl if democrats didn't propose it. we're the ones who proposed billions for border security and to stop fentanyl. in fact, the republicans took a bipartisan fentanyl bill out of the defense bill. we put it back in this bill. we're going to get a deal on this. we're going to support ukraine, we're going to support i, and we're going to get one of the most important border security bills in recent american history done. >> we reported a moment ago on an active shooter in las vegas. we'