internet connected devices in the home. i told her, “i'm here to take care of you.” connecting with kim... made me reconnect with my mom. it's very important to keep loved ones close. we know that creating memories with loved ones brings so much joy to your life. a family trip to the team usa training facility. i don't know how to thank you. all right. i'm here to thank you. that's gonna do it for me tonight. thanks very much for being here. now, it's time for the last word with lawrence o'donnell. good evening, lawrence. >> good evening, rachel. we're gonna have to miracle workers joining us tonight, senators jon tester and sherrod brown, who somehow managed to get reelected to the senate in states where no other democrat can win. but we begin tonight with our history lessons from professor laurence tribe, also andrew weissmann is with us on this really historic night in the case of united states of america versus donald j trump. >> i'm looking forward to hear that. >> the supreme court getting involved at this stage, even just to say that jack smith, we would consider what you are asking us to do. that alone is such a big deal. >> we will consider it, and we are ready to start hearing. we want your response by next week. i mean, it's happening. it's on. here we go. >> and, rachel, guess who was proven wrong today? that would be me. as of last, i think, it was thursday night, i had gotten extremely impatient with the federal appeals court process, in these cases, and i started to get the feeling that it was gonna be business as usual, and donald trump was gonna humiliate yet another governing institution, and that is the federal appeals process, and use them to his advantage, by them simply running on their normal schedule of who knows how long anything takes. and here we are tonight in a completely different place than we were when i was complaining about that. i was expecting of them, and it's not like they watch this show, so they obviously were very, very ready, much more ready for this than i thought. >> listen, first of all, i absolve you. as far as i'm concerned, you never were wrong, and you will never be wrong, lawrence. i also think, you had reason to be complaining. it took the d.c. circuit court 11 months and 25 days to rule on the civil liability thing. i mean, that kind of a base, that is slow, even for them. that is slow even for the normal course of events. i think there was reason to be upset there. but as i said, you have never been wrong and will never be wrong. >> okay, that's the promo for this show. just got it right now. [laughter] it's a five second promo. they can afford it. >> thanks, lawrence. >> thanks, rachel. thank you. breaking news, welcome to 1974. this is what living through high-speed history feels like. 50 years ago when republican president of the night states was under investigation in the federal courts in washington, d.c., responded accordingly and appropriately. the courts worked faster than we had ever seen them work before. the breaking news of tonight is that the united states supreme court took only five hours this afternoon to decide to fast-track special prosecutor jack smith's request that the supreme court intervene now, and decide donald trump's appeal in the case of united states of america versus donald j trump. donald trump appealed a decision by the trial court judge, tanya chutkan, in which judge chutkan denied donald trump's claim of complete immunity from criminal charges from any conduct during his time as president of the united states and his claim that he was immune from prosecution in the january 6th case because donald trump's lawyers say that that would be double jeopardy because donald trump already was subjected to an impeachment trial in the united states senate on essentially the same charges. last week, this appeal by donald trump seemed like business as usual, when the federal court system, with the united states court of appeals and washington, d.c. having jurisdiction over the trump appeal. with an unlimited amount of time, to consider that appeal. and as i complained on this program last week, the appeals court could take a year to decide an appeal like that if they wanted to. and after the appeals court decision came down, losing side will surely appeal to the united states supreme court which could then take, who knows, another year. jack smith decided not to play that game. at 12:30 pm today, jack smith filed a petition directly to the united states supreme court, asking the supreme court to use its power to reach down and take this case off of the appeals court docket for immediate consideration by the supreme court. at the same time, jack smith filed a backup motion with the appeals court to expedite the appeal at the appeals court level if the supreme court refuses to take the case at this stage. and just five hours later, the supreme court responded favorably to jack smith, and a half hour after that, the court of appeals responded favorably to jack smith. the united states supreme court issued an order saying the court granted jackson its request to consider taking the case on an expedited basis. the supreme court has not decided to take the case, but has decided to consider jack smith's argument that the supreme court should take the case. the supreme court then gave donald trump's lawyers until next wednesday, december 20th, four pm, to file and reply brief to jack smith's brief that was submitted to the supreme court today. and the united states court of appeals, which still has jurisdiction over the case, unless the supreme court decides to take the case at this stage, they issued an order to donald trump's lawyers saying that they replied to jack smith's request is due this wednesday, the day after tomorrow, at 10 am. and in his petition to the supreme court, jack smith reminded the court of just how quickly the supreme court is capable of working. quote, the district court overseeing one of the watergate cases had scheduled trial to begin on september 9th, 1974. on may 24th, 1974, the special prosecutor sought search awry before judgment following the district courts denial of former president nixon motion to quash a subpoena seeking oval office recordings. the court granted certioarai a week later and set the case for an argument on july 8th, 1974. the decision issued 16 days later and the trial began in the fall of 1974. jack smith showed the supreme court in that example that the nixon case, one of the reasons they acted as fast as they did, was to preserve the criminal trial schedule of the watergate defendants in washington, d.c.. jack smith asked the supreme court and appeals court today to expedite their appeal to help preserve the trial date, currently scheduled for march 4th in this case. rule 11 of the united states supreme court says that an appeal canpass the court of appeals d directly to the u.s.supreme court, quote, upon a showing that the case is of such imperative public importance as to justify deviation from normal appellate practice and to require immediate determination in this case. jack smith uses that key phrase, imperative public importance, multiple times in his petition to the supreme court, beginning on the first page of his argument. and on page ten, jack smith writes, this case involves apparent dogmatic issue of imperative public importance. the amenability to criminal prosecution of a former president of the united states to couct undertaken during his presidency. it requires no extended discussion to confirm that this case, involving charges that respondent sought to wa the peaceful transfer of power through violations of federal criminal law is at the apex of public importance. the charges implicate a central tenet of our democracy. and the charges allege that the respondent conspired to transgressed the law in manifold ways by intentionally using fraudulent means to obstruct the presidential electoral process, by obstructing constitutionally prescribed processes in congress for counting electoral votes, and by seeking to deprive millions of voters of their electoral choice for president. leading off our discussion tonight is professor laurence tribe who has taught constitutional law at harvard law school for five decades. also with us andrew weissmann, former fbi general counsel, and former chief of the criminal division in the eastern district of new york. he's a professor at nyu law school, and co-host of the podcast, prosecuting donald trump. he is also an msnbc legal analyst. and professor tribe, we begin with you tonight with all of your experience as a practitioner before the supreme court, and a very successful one. please, set for us where we are tonight in supreme court history? how rare is this kind of intervention request to the supreme court? how often does the supreme court respond within hours to such a request? where are we now in the history of this story? >> we are on a very fast track, lawrence. in the 1940s, i researched it. there were only two cases. one which involved a nazi saboteurs in which the court ruled to link it to the court of appeals and consider the case straight in the trial court. in the 1950s, there was only one such case involving seizure of the steel mills. i could not find any such cases in the 1960s. there was one in the 1970s, you have described it, the nixon tapes case. in the 19 80s, there were two, one of them involving the iran hostage crisis. i haven't found any in the 1990s. and in the 2000s, the pace has picked up. there has been five or six. it's not quite as extraordinary now. the court is picking up its space. but the net result is that jack smith trumped trump. and it is going to consider this case without doubt, once the former president responds by four pm, nine days from now, a week from wednesday, urging him not to take the case. we really won't have any good arguments about why it should wait for the court of appeals. they will almost certainly decide to hear the case on an expedited schedule. it will be resolved in all certainty, in time for jack smith trial before tanya chutkan to begin on march 4th. so, we are watching history in the making, and it is on fast boil. >> andrew weissmann, take us inside what would likely be the special prosecutor's team deliberations on this strategic question. do we go -- they could have just ask that pence court to expedite this, and hailed it as fast as they could, and then armed, they hope, with a solid opening from the appeals court, donald trump would then be appealing to the supreme court. and at that point, jack smith could have asked for an expedited schedule there. but they could be going to the supreme court if it worked the way they wanted to, with possibly two strong opinions in their favor, one from the district court, one from the appeals court. jack smith had to decide, nope, we are gonna go at the supreme court without what could be a possibly very helpful opinion from the appeals court. take us through that strategic decision, how they would have made that? >> sure. that's a great question. i think the way i would have analyzed it, and i'm pretty sure the way jack and now one of the new attorneys, michael truman, and eminent supreme court practitioner, we have looked at this, is that there is really if you focus on the fact that time is of the essence. this is a case where there needs to be a trial and a resolution before the general election so that the public which has a right to a speedy trial can see that evidence and weigh that in assessing the vote. there is no question that the district judge has already found that that is consistent with due process for the defendant. and from jack smith's point of view, you do not want to have the delay at the court of appeals level, and then potential additional delay at the supreme court level. so, this is sort of a win-win, no matter what the supreme court does in terms of taking it or not. in other words, if they are not gonna hear it, fine, then there is nothing lost. they are proceeding at a pace at the court of appeals level. but if they are going to hear it, and i agree with professor tribe that they will hear this, and they are going to get a faster ruling. remember, picking a jury in this case takes time. you have judge chutkan who has set aside two months. those jurors can't just wait around waiting for a supreme court decision or a court of appeals decision. so this really has to be decided quickly. finally, i don't think that donald trump, and this is something that professor tribe was getting at, has an argument as to why this shouldn't be heard quickly. remember, his point is that he is entitled to presidential immunity with respect to this case. he should not be subject to even that indictment. he is saying that it is double jeopardy. he's should not be subject to the indictment. what he is going to say in terms of why this should be decided quickly. his whole point is that he is suffering every day because his rights are being violated. so, he should be on the side of saying that i want an expedited review of this, so all parties, the government and the defense, have the same interest here. and of course, the public has an interest. so i think that should weigh very heavily, and professor tribe's point, supreme court needs to resolve this. >> professor tribe, i know for the court to grant that they will actually hear the case, it takes four votes of the justices to get to that stage. what we saw today, does that require four votes of the justices? or is this something the chief can do on his own? >> no, the chief wouldn't feel free to do this on his own. in fact, the granted motion actually requires five votes, the grant a motion to expedite consideration of certiorari before judgment. it takes one more vote then it takes to grant certiorari before a judgment. one of the main reasons that i think both andrew and i are so confident that the court will agree to hear the case is that this might be one of the few instances where donald trump and his lawyers do the sensible thing, and that is simply wave the time they have been given between now and a week from wednesday, and say, of course, we agree this case should be held, it should be heard quickly because, as andrew said, he can't simultaneously say that i'm hurt by the very dependency of this proceeding, with every passing hour, but i wanted to stretch out. so he might as well be consistent. and his arguments on the merits arguments that he doesn't really want to rehearse, by filing an opposition to certiorari, a week from wednesday. why not just give the court a full flavor of those arguments on the merits? besides, the arguments are remarkably weak, even in a highly conservative court. the argument that he is absolutely immune above the law, it's really quite easy for judge chutkan to dismiss it in a very powerful opinion. and the argument that she quite rightly described as nonsense, that there is double jeopardy because he wasn't convicted by the senate, that argument is not going to get any traction in the supreme court. so, we might as well be on with it, although past is prologue, despite the best advice of his lawyers, the president, the former president's gonna say, let's drag it out, even if it makes me look bad. >> we have to squeeze in a commercial break here. we have so much more to cover in this very important day. in the united states of america versus donald trump. professor laurence tribe and andrew weissmann are gonna stay with us. we're gonna be right back with more. ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ control is everything to me. ♪ feel significant symptom relief at 4 weeks with skyrizi, including less abdominal pain and fewer bowel movements. skyrizi is the first il-23 inhibitor that can deliver remission and visibly improve damage of the intestinal lining. and the majority of people experienced long-lasting remission at one year. serious allergic reactions and an increased risk of infections or a lower ability to fight them may occur. tell your doctor if you have an infection or symptoms, had a vaccine or plan to. liver problems may occur in crohn's disease. ♪ now's the time to ask your gastroenterologist how you can take control of your crohn's with skyrizi. ♪ ♪ control is everything to me. ♪ ♪ learn how abbvie could help you save. every day, more dog people, and more vets are deciding it's time for a fresh approach to pet food. they're quitting the kibble. and kicking the cans. and feeding their dogs dog food that's actually well, food. developed with vets. made from real meat and veggies. portioned for your dog. and delivered right to your door. it's smarter, healthier pet food. get 50% off your first box at thefarmersdog.com/realfood rsv is out there. for those 60 years and older protect against rsv with arexvy. arexvy is a vaccine used to prevent lower respiratory disease from rsv in people 60 years and older. arexvy does not protect everyone and is not for those with severe allergic reactions to its ingredients. those with weakened immune systems may have a lower response to the vaccine. the most common side effects are injection site pain, fatigue, muscle pain, headache, and joint pain. i chose arexvy. rsv? make it arexvy. there's something going around the gordon home. good thing gertrude found delsym. now what's going around is 12-hour cough relief. and the giggles. the family that takes delsym together, feels better together. (fisher investments) it's easy to think that all money managers the family that takes delsym together, are pretty much the same, but at fisher investments we're clearly different. (other money manager) different how? you sell high commission investment products, right? (fisher investments) nope. fisher avoids them. (other money manager) well, you must earn commissions on trades. (fisher investments) never at fisher investments. (other money manager) ok, then you probably sneak in some hidden and layered fees. (fisher investments) no. we structure our fees so we do better when clients do better. that might be why most of our clients come from other money managers. in his petition to the at fisher investments, we're clearly different. supreme court today, special prosecutor jack smith said, a corner store of our constitutional order is that no person is above the law. the force of that principle is at its zenith where, as here, a grand jury has accused former president of committing federal crimes to subvert the peaceful transfer of power to his lawfully elected successor. nothing could be more vital to our democracy than that a president who abuses the electoral system to remain in office is held accountable for criminal conduct. neithe t separation of powers nor a respondents acquittal in impeachment proceedings lifts him above the reach of federal criminal law. like other citizens, he is accountable for criminal conduct. professor laurence tribe and andrew weissmann are back with us. and professor tribe, we see what is the essence, or what will be the essence of jack smith's argument to the supreme court on the merits of this appeal. we will get the first hint of what the trump team response to this is wednesday morning when they actually have to respond to the court of appeals on this very same question. this is one of those documents that i read and i struggle to imagine any response by the trump lawyers. >> well, i can't imagine any coherent response, especially since the argument that is central in this case, the argument that is central in this motion for expedited consideration is not a one-sided ideological argument. it is the argument that says, because no one is above the law, or below the law, it is vital that the american people before voting for the next president of the united states have an answer to whether a jury of his peers designs that donald trump committed this grave crime. if he is innocent, the people deserve to know that. he deserves a bill of good health. if he is found guilty, the people need to know that too. this is one of those rare cases in which it is virtually impossible to make a principled argument about why the supreme court shouldn't resolve the matter and resolve it in time because whichever way it goes, it's going to be moot if it happens only after the election. it is something people have a right to know, and because they have a right to know it, they have a right to know it in time. the justice delayed is justice denied, it was never more appropriate than in a case like this. >> andrew weissmann, the argument that the trump lawyers are facing, are about to have to make, is not on the merits of the case. it's on why this should not be decided now. they have to say to the supreme court, you should not decide this issue now. and here is why you shouldn't decide it now. i don't know how to fill in the next sentence about why the supreme court shouldn't decide it now. >> well, i agree with you. i mean, i think given that they have already told the district court that they are being harmed every single day, every hour by the fact of being under indictment based on the two legal theories they are putting forth, the presidential immunity and double jeopardy. i think it makes it truly impossible to come up with any coherent argument. and so, they have a very steep hill to climb with respect to that part of the argument. and as professor tribe said, on the merits, which is the double jeopardy claim in the presidential immunity claim. the double jeopardy claim, that is just beyond a loser. it's just not grounded in the law. he's not tried twice for the same crime. it just doesn't work. with presidential immunity, that is one where it's hard to imagine the supreme court isn't going to want to weigh in on that because this precise issue of presidential immunity in the criminal context, as opposed to a civil context, has not been decided by the supreme court. so, they are, i think, going to want to weigh in on it. and they understand the need to act expeditiously, if they have done that increasingly in the past, obviously, they did it in the nixon case. and that is a case that is cited repeatedly by the prosecution and their papers. one quick point, the newest member of the prosecution team is michael -- he's been deputy general of united states for decades. he's argued over 100 times in the supreme court, the area that he specializes in is the criminal law. i have worked with him for many years. you do not get anyone more steeped in this issue. and he is thought about and written on this when he was the head legal officer in the special counsel mueller investigation, where he wrote about this very issue. so, jack smith has, you know, the a+ team in order to, for this argument before the supreme court. >> professor tribe, is this tactical choice by jack smith to go straight to the supreme court and up can affect a public expression of confidence by jack smith? >> it certainly is. and it's one that i think is quite warranted. in addition, we all know that the supreme court is not in the best shape ever. it's confidence level in the country is low. one thing that it knows it can do in order to help restore some of that confidence is act with expedition when it's clear that the only conceivable motive for not acting with expedition, for delaying, is to play into a strategy that judges all over the country have said is characteristic of the former president. and that is delay, delay, delay in order to avoid accountability. a court concerned about standing with the american people is bound to adhere to the law in this case. and the law in this case could not be clearer. and there's no reason for delay, and on the merits, there's a clear need for the supreme court decision on the matter that is not really been decided. and both andrew and i think the right decision is quite clear. >> well, as usual, i learned something once again tonight from professor tribe. on my note that here, it says five votes. i now realize that what the supreme court did today indicates that they are off five votes on the supreme court right now tonight, that are essentially in favor of expediting this case. professor laurence tribe, andrew weissmann, then you both very much for joining us on this very important night. >> thank you, lawrence. and coming up, the miracle workers. two senators who somehow managed to get reelected in republican voting states, senator sherrod brown and senator jon tester, they'll join us here at the table, next. the table, next. >> ucard gets you in with medicare advantage's largest national provider network. how 'bout using it at the pharmacy? yes - your ucard is all you need. huh - that's easy! can it help keep my smile looking good? yep! use your ucard at the dentist. say cheese! get access to what matters with the ucard only from unitedhealthcare. [deep exhale] ♪ trumpet music plays ♪ 579 breaths to show 'em your stuff. every breath matters. don't let rsv take your breath away. protect yourself from rsv with abrysvo, pfizer's rsv vaccine. abrysvo is a vaccine for the prevention of lower respiratory disease from rsv in people 60 years and older. rsv can be serious if you are 60 or older. having asthma, copd, diabetes, or heart disease puts you at even higher risk. abrysvo is not for everyone and may not protect all who receive the vaccine. don't get abrysvo if you've had a severe allergic reaction to its ingredients. people with a weakened immune system may have a decreased response to abrysvo. he most common side effects are tiredness, headache, pain at the injection site, and muscle pain. ask your pharmacist or doctor about pfizer's rsv vaccine, abrysvo. visit these retailers or find other retailers near you at abrysvo.com [deep breath] - bye, bye cough. - later chest congestion. hello 12 hours of relief. 12 hours!! not coughing? hashtag still not coughing?! mucinex dm gives you 12 hours of relief from chest congestion and any type of cough, day or night. mucinex dm. it's comeback season. okay everyone, our mission is to provide complete, balanced nutrition for strength and energy. yay - woo hoo! ensure, with 27 vitamins and minerals, nutrients for immune health. and ensure complete with 30 grams of protein. (♪♪) when you have chronic kidney disease... ...there are places you'd like to be. like here. and here. not so much here. farxiga reduces the risk of kidney failure which can lead to dialysis. ♪far-xi-ga♪ farxiga can cause serious side effects, including ketoacidosis that may be fatal, dehydration, urinary tract or genital yeast infections, and low blood sugar. a rare, life-threatening bacterial infection in the skin of the perineum could occur. stop taking farxiga and call your doctor right away if you have symptoms of this infection, an allergic reaction, or ketoacidosis. when you have chronic kidney disease, it's time to ask your doctor for farxiga. because there are places you want to be. if you can't afford your medication, astrazeneca may be able to help. ♪far-xi-ga♪ time for tonight's episode i just always thought, “dog food is dog food” i didn't really piece together that dogs eat food. as soon as we brought the farmer's dog in, her skin was better, she was more active. if i can invest in her health and be proactive, i think it's worth it. visit betterforthem.com of how to do with impossible, starring to people who do the impossible every six years by winning seven seats in states where apparently no other democrat seems to be able to win. as politico notes, this isn't the first campaign that will force senator jon tester and senator sherrod brown to rely on their distinctive personalities and quasi-populist politics in the face of steep challenges. both men won their second terms alongside former president barack obama, and then they won in pro trump states six years later. each time they defeated gop challengers who tried to brand them as too liberal. the last democratic presidential candidate to win ohio was president obama in his reelection campaign of 2012. president obama actually also won ohio in the first campaign in 2008. the last democratic presidential candidate to win montana, this guy was bill clinton, who won montana in his first presidential campaign 31 years ago before many of these audience members were born. senator jon tester and senator -- yes, just a few years. >> and the good old days -- >> as the holiest democrat on this panel, everyone out there, whenever they see you guys, they're always wondering how do they do it? how do they do it? before we get to that, i want your assessment of what it's like to read how you do it, from politico, and from these other places who think they have figured out how you do it. >> well, look, i don't usually read -- how i do it because we know how we do it. and i think brown will tell you the same things. it's about being real. it's about representing the people of your state. it's about leading. it's about letting people know where you are from. and what your beliefs are. and what they've always tried to do to me, they tried to -- because they can't beat who i am. and then that's a fact. now, sherrod and i have got a pretty good track record on what we have done and accomplished in congress over the last many years. and we can talk about what we have accomplished. we can talk about who we are. we can talk about what we will do moving forward. but make no mistake about it, that label is gonna be the same on their part, try to make it into something that isn't, so we can run as that guy. and in my playbook, it's gonna be the same. talking about who i am, what i've done. i'm proud of my record. and i'm proud of what i've done for montana and united states of america. >> how does it work in ohio? >> the same. i think you go down the dark hole if you start reading too many articles about yourself. and if you look at to any opposition ads. for me, as i've said on this show before, lawrence, given in this -- 25 years ago and it helps me focus on, you know, the story of the canary down the minds. it was strong enough for government to care enough. and i noticed that tester doesn't do this, but your first week in the senate, they give you this fancy cool expensive then. i'm pretty important, i'm senator. i put the canary pin back on because it keeps your focus where it ought to be. and one of the things, one of the things i'm proudest of, and jon is the chair of the veterans committee. he is a lieutenant on that committee. and we wrote, morehaven i, the pact act, which takes care of veterans. what we did not do with a generation ago, if you are exposed to these footballs field size burn pits, you get care from the va. and jon wrote that bill. i helped him and that. it was named after ohio. we both got the idea from talking to local people because he and i have gone most weekends and actually listen to people in the grocery stores, him on his farm. we had a union hall, whatever -- it's how you win and it's the best way to serve this job. if you serve right, you have a chance to win. >> by the way, does sitting beside him make you feel lazy about the way you use your weekends compared to this guy? because i've seen the pictures of this guy on the weekends, on the summer recesses, he's in the dirt. [laughter] >> you need to see the pictures. you haven't seen him do that. i'll say this -- i have a garden, man. does my garden count? >> just tell me how much is garden. >> i'm not sure he knows that i plant broccoli and cauliflower -- >> i used to milk cows. i used to shovel the barn. i worked, i had a real job. it didn't pay much. but jon tester, he's one of the few people that goes home and has a real job too. my real job is representing people, and he does both. >> does your style of campaigning work because your state is a small population, where you really can get out there to people in a way that's much more challenging than a big population state like ohio? >> i can't speak to that because i need to represent the state that i know. i can tell you that governor back in the 80s would say every time you run a state, that everybody is gonna vote for you and against you. and that's a fact. in a rural state like montana, you need to talk to people. by the way, that gives you good ideas. that's how you come back to washington, d.c. and get good legislation passed. talk to the guys on the ground, try to make a living, try to make the books balance. say, hey, if you do this, or you do that, it will certainly help us out. you take those ideas back. and, you know, try to get brown to sign on as a sponsor and you get it on. >> what's this -- >> this is toys for tots, it's one of them -- [inaudible] >> so, brown doesn't wear his senate been. i lost my. >> john had a bad crop yield when he sold his spin. >> so, on issues, you talked about issues right away. and you are describing things you've done. and you say that here, the way you say it in ohio. and somehow, voters actually listened to you because joe biden has more accomplishments to bring to voters than any democratic president of my life. the voters don't know he did that, apparently. the voters in ohio that he needs don't know he did that. what's the gap that's going on there between joe biden's accomplishments, voters understanding of it, for him to say, here's the accomplishments -- >> on the pact act, as i have been in 41 counties in the 88, i think just in the last years since that got passed, i go to a legion halt, dfw, or polish and working veterans hall, and sit for an hour and a half with 15 veterans around the table, and asking them really to get the word out on how important this is. and they have many friends that can sign up. but it's also being very public about who's side you are on. and as you know, ohio legislature passed a six-week abortion ban. they call it the heartbeat bills. they essentially ban abortions. 7000 ohio in sign petitions. the republican secretary of state tried to disqualify all kinds of signatures. they called a new issue on the ballot to force a 60% versus 50% threshold. we won on that. and we got it passed by 13 points. and next year, the three republicans who want my seat, that are gonna be running in the primary, everyone for them has called for a national abortion ban. we will make that contrast clear. jon calls it freedom in montana. i call it, i want women and their doctors to make that choice not a bunch of politicians in columbus. but we just, jon and i know our states so much better always than the people who run against us. and we know how to talk to the. we know how more important it is to listen to them. and i think that's what counts. >> we have to squeeze in a break here. when we come back, and we want to hear how the abortion issue is discussed, and how you discuss it in montana, with a conservative voting bloc let that state has. and here we are on a night where a woman has to leave the state of texas because the supreme court says absolutely not. you cannot have this health care that your doctor believes uni. this is a woman who wants to have a family, wants to have babies. we're gonna back to discuss. we're gonna be right back with sherrod brown and senator jon tester. tester - bye, bye cough. - later chest congestion. hello 12 hours of relief. 12 hours!! not coughing? hashtag still not coughing?! mucinex dm gives you 12 hours of relief from chest congestion and any type of cough, day or night. mucinex dm. it's comeback season. test 12346 9:12 12346 9:1 teeth sensitivity is so common. it immediately feels like somebody's poking directly on the nerve. i recommend sensodyne. sensodyne toothpaste goes inside the tooth and calms the nerve down. and my patients say you know doc, it really works. hmmm... kind of needs to and be more, squiggly?wn. perfect! so now, do you have a driver's license? test 1234 test 1234lick of a p, you can a new volkswagen at the sign, then drive event. sign today and you're off in a new volkswagen during the sign, then drive event. dupixent helps you du more with less asthma. and can help you breathe better in as little as two weeks. dupixent is an add-on treatment for specific types of moderate-to-severe asthma that's not for sudden breathing problems. dupixent can cause allergic reactions that can be severe. get help right away if you have rash, chest pain, worsening shortness of breath, tingling or numbness in your limbs. tell your doctor about new or worsening joint aches and pain, or a parasitic infection. don't change or stop asthma medicines, including steroids, without talking to your doctor. ask your specialist about dupixent. ♪ i have type 2 diabetes, but i manage it well. ♪ ♪ jardiance ♪ ♪ it's a little pill with a big story to tell. ♪ ♪ i take once-daily jardiance, ♪ ♪ at each day's staaart. ♪ ♪ as time went on it was easy to seee. ♪ ♪ i'm lowering my a1c. ♪ jardiance works 24/7 in your body to flush out some sugar! and for adults with type 2 diabetes and known heart disease, jardiance can lower the risk of cardiovascular death, too. jardiance may cause serious side effects including ketoacidosis that may be fatal, dehydration, that can lead to sudden worsening of kidney function, and genital yeast or urinary tract infections. a rare, life-threatening bacterial infection in the skin of the perineum could occur. stop taking jardiance and call your doctor right away if you have symptoms of this infection, ketoacidosis, or an allergic reaction, and don't take it if you're on dialysis. taking jardiance with a sulfonylurea or insulin may cause low blood sugar. ♪ jardiance is really swell, ♪ ♪ the little pill with a big story to tell. ♪ the best advice i ever got ♪ jardiance is was to invest with vanguard for my retirement. the second best? stay healthy enough to enjoy it. so i started preparing physically and financially. then you came along and made every mile worth it. hi mom. at vanguard you're more than just an investor, you're an owner. helping you prepare for today's longer retirement. that's the value of ownership. there's something going around the gordon home. good thing gertrude found delsym. now what's going around is 12-hour cough relief. and the giggles. the family that takes delsym together, feels better together. he hits his mark —center stage—and is crushed by a baby grand piano. you're replacing me? customize and save with liberty bibberty. he doesn't even have a mustache. only pay for what you need. ♪ liberty. liberty. liberty. liberty. ♪ senator jon tester and cher browne are back with us in the studio. i am hearing from people who do not consider themselves really pro abortion in a sense but even pro-choice but they do believe other people need to be able to make important medical choices like the woman in texas who needs to be able to make a link late term decision about a possible abortion. she's had to leave the state in order to follow the best medical advice she can default how does that example of what these kinds of shot abortion bans, how does the example of those abortion bans read to people in montana, republican voters? >> what montana is a libertarian state. republicans, democrats, and lieutenants earl libertarians. and what they don't like is being told what to do especially by the federal government. in this particular case, it's a woman's decision in consultation with her family, dr. relationship, advisor, all of the above. what's going on in other states as we don't have that opportunity to make the decision. you have somebody in the united states senate who was deciding for you. i think people like the freedom in montana and they don't like somebody from washington, d.c. or helen telling them what to do if they. want to make the decision themselves. they're pretty capable of doing it, they've always been that way. we've got about hundred thousand new people and because of the pandemic and because of the -- but but bottom line is they still believe that they make their own decisions, not somebody from the federal government. >> it starts the same place in ohio that people, the reason we passed by 13 points even though the republican secretary of state changed the language made it appear worse than it was, trying to change the way the threshold works on who gets the vote and on what percent. but a past by 13 points. but then it got worst in that sense. my the republican opponents all called for a nationwide abortion ban. they are still insisting that we have that and that particularly bothers voters. we voted for this now you gonna take it away? it's not that they are just against all abortions, begging to take abortion rights away and, we voted demo in by 13 points. that's what really bothers them. and it's a libertarian turn, but how dare you do this after we made that decision as a state? >> -- voter initiatives that's king in my book, if voters vote for it that's the way it is. legislature or congress doesn't change that that's the way it is. >> exactly. how do you individually for voters, for voters who don't want to vote for a democrat, but end up voting for you, or don't want to vote for so many collaborative but end up voting for you. it has to be because you got them to vote for the person instead of what they were told about the person. how do you accomplish that? >> in part, i built my career based on taking on parties were trailing when it's. because if you see the word nafta, which some people have some vague feeling about in the city, but if you say in youngstown, or mansfield where i grew up, they understand that was a president of the united states one of each party or two of each party that cost them their jobs. and east palestine, ohio where the train derailment was there was a major setback that time. they are fighting back. 70% of all the table we're in this country, mugs, plates, dish where were made in that one county 40 years ago. all those jobs are gone. there may be 30 or 40 ceramics pottery jobs left. they understand that if it wasn't what nafta is something like nafta. i've always stood up for worker jobs like that, and the compliments that in a sense. but workers know that when an issue comes before us regardless of who the president is, i'll make the decision through the eyes of workers. it doesn't mean i get every worker, doesn't mean i get a huge majority, but we went and will continue to win based on looking for what's best and looking out for what is best for ohio workers. >> how do you get past that shorthand? people like the shorthand of democrat i'm not voting for him. >> you've got to tell people what you've done for them. when i told democrats in the state of montana i think it applies across the country. you have to tell people what you've done what you gonna do for them. >> but democrats are doing that in other states. >> they're just not as good as brown and i. the truth is, if you don't give the vote a reason to vote you in montana, they will vote republican. she really got a focus on things like benefits and health care for veterans, making sure we have infrastructure needs in this country, bringing jobs to this country that we've been outsourcing for 30 or 40 years. >> did you run against donald trump in montana? >> now i can be running against the person whether they choose to run in the party. i think that bringing in other personalities doesn't help. it's me against the person that they pick. they don't have that picked yet. i get that pick to the first tuesday in june. but once the republican party picks that, it'll be asked to going at it. there's no need bringing in other people. i don't use surrogates at all because i want this race to be about me not somebody else. >> not even him? >> i love doing that, i send my kids are. john, one of the things i've watched about john, john stands up to the meat packing interest, he knows what that does to food prices and he knows what that does to farmers wages. the same that i stand up to wall street and drug companies. voters don't care for your party if you are standing up for an interest group that is screwing over people. when people go to the grocery store, frankly their grocery prices go up because they are paying for executive bonuses and stock buybacks. that's pretty clear and voters understand that when you talk about it. >> it pains me to say that we are out of time. we've got to do this again. and now, i've got to say, having listened to how he spends his weekends, i now feel lazy compared to both of you on the weekends at least. >> you're assuming he's really a farmer. >> and believing it. so senator sherrod brown senator jon tester thank you very. much will be right back. very much will be right back. much will be right back. >> biktarvy is a complete, one-pill, once-a-day treatment used for h-i-v in many people whether you're 18 or 80. with one small pill, biktarvy fights h-i-v to help you get to undetectable—and stay there whether you're just starting or replacing your current treatment. research shows that taking h-i-v treatment as prescribed and getting to and staying undetectable prevents transmitting h-i-v through sex. serious side effects can occur, including kidney problems and kidney failure. rare, life-threatening side effects include a buildup of lactic acid and liver problems. do not take biktarvy if you take dofetilide or rifampin. tell your healthcare provider about all the medicines and supplements you take, if you are pregnant or breastfeeding, or if you have kidney or liver problems, including hepatitis. if you have hepatitis b do not stop taking biktarvy without talking to your healthcare provider. common side effects were diarrhea, nausea, and headache. no matter where life takes you, biktarvy can go with you. talk to your healthcare provider today. the virus that causes shingles is sleeping... in 99% of people over 50. and it could strike at any time. think you're not at risk? wake up. because shingles could wake up in you. if you're over 50, talk to your doctor or pharmacist about shingles prevention. there's something going around the gordon home. good thing gertrude found delsym. now what's going around is 12-hour cough relief. and the giggles. the family that takes delsym together, feels better together. she runs and plays like a puppy again. his #2s are perfect! he's a brand new dog, all in less than a year. when people switch their dog's food from kibble to the farmer's dog, they often say that it feels like magic. but there's no magic involved. (dog bark) it's simply fresh meat and vegetables, with all the nutrients dogs need— instead of dried pellets. just food made for the health of dogs. delivered in packs portioned for your dog. it's amazing what real food can do. i'm free to explore. i'm free to learn. i'm free to forge my own path. contra costa college is free for full-time students, which makes you free to explore all the incredible opportunities unleashed by higher learning. start your future and apply today at contracosta.edu/free