wins the white house? his allies are telling us. time for red state ags and d.a.s to get busy said republican congressman mike collins. every facet of the republican party's politics and power has to be used right now to go toe to toe with the democrats, said his former white house adviser stephen miller. go after biden and his entire crime family, said congressman ronny jackson. time to fight fire with fire, said senator marco rubio. who nbc news now reports is on the short list for trump ears vp. in other words, i think you can sum it up as revenge. in fact, that is the very word the candidate himself is using most on his truth social app. revenge. he's even all but saying the word out loud. here is an interview he did last night with news max, regarding a potential political prosecution of hillary clinton. hillary, with the hammering of her cell phones and all of the things she did, but wouldn't it be terrible to throw the president's wife and the former secretary of state. think of it, the former secretary of state, but the president's wife into jail, wouldn't that be a terrible thing. but they want to do it. so, you know, it's a terrible, terrible path that they're leading us to, and it's very possible that it's going to half to happen to them. but i personally thought, and i really did, you know, i got a lot of credit from a lot of people. some people said i should have done it. but, you know, would have been very easy to do it. i thought it would be a terrible precedent for our country. and now, whoever it may be, you're going to have to view it very much differently. this is a bad, bad road that they're leading us down to. >> it doesn't just stop with promises or threats of political revenge, supporters online are calling for violent revenge. here are just a handful of the comments we found on patriot.win. quote, it's time to stock up on guns and ammo. quote, the better requested is -- idea is to burn the democratic party to the ground, and i plan on doing just that. quote, i don't have a wife or kids, i have nothing to lose. if trump says it's time to fight, i'll fight for him, and quote, trump should already know he has an army willing to fight and die for him if he says the words. i know i will. this country is at war. i'm a combat veteran. and i'll take up arms if he asks. the question is how much of this the political threats, the revenge, the violent threats does the electorate take seriously, and is what happened on january 6th enough evidence to say yes, absolutely. joining us now, msnbc legal correspondent, lisa rubin, former u.s. attorney, former senior fbi official, and msnbc legal analyst, chuck rosenberg, punch bowl founder, jake sherman, and political correspondent and msnbc political analyst, ashley parker. you have been on this beat for as long as i have. we saw what happened in 2016. as the rallies got more heated and violent, inside and out. we saw what happened after the election in 2020. and certainly what happened on january 6th. does the electorate need to take these sorts of threats, political revenge, and violent revenge seriously? >> reporter: absolutely. to be clear, internet commentators say all sorts of things, you know, from the privacy of their own homes and the cloak of anonymity and not everyone who makes a threat is serious about it, but i think it would be at the nation's own peril not to generally take these threats seriously, and one thing as you were doing that fantastic introduction, and going through all of those quotes that i thought of was a quote i reported that has since gone viral between election day in 2020, and january 6th. and it was a senior republican official saying, look, the president, this being trump, just needs to send out tweets, play golf, blow off steam, and then he'll go, you know, go home to mar-a-lago, and at the time, that was not an unreasonable or inconceivable viewpoint, but in hindsight, and with everything we've seen, not just january 6th but as you said, at some of the rallies, i remember penning a piece about a rally in new orleans that got very heated. i think you were there. and a little bit violent to the point where as a reporter, i packed up my bag because i thought the whole place was going to implode and i needed to be nimble to report on it. that with all of that hindsight, of course this needs to be taken seriously. >> i remember that rally. that's one of the ones i sight when i talk about what it's like in 2016, and how the bicycle barricades, the bicycle racks, seemed very flimsy at that rally as the crowd got angrier and angrier. you and i looked at each other and said, oh, my god, things could get very ugly. i know the trump team understands the power that donald trump wields. do they actually believe the words they're saying, do they actually want to act on the words they're putting out there, the idea of political revenge. do they see a second trump term, as a way to go after their enemies? >> i mean, trump says, again, not unlike these anonymous internet trolls, trump says a lot of things but there's a very real sense, including this is something his former vice president has said publicly which is that, you know, i know donald trump and i know -- and i take him at his word. he means what he says and he does what he says. and there is a real sense that this time he very clearly wants revenge, and retribution, and you can just so -- is he going to do every single thing he has threatened. not necessarily, but based on reporting, you can look at the people he is surrounding himself with, the people he's talking about putting into positions of power. the ways he's talking about rooting out the so-called deep state. it seems very likely that these are campaign promises that he plans to follow through on. >> and now it's not just republicans looking the other way or saying i didn't see that quote or i'm not sure, he doesn't mean what he says, now you have republican lawmakers saying, yeah, we got to get revenge. listen to ronny jackson, who by the way was the white house doctor under president obama and vice president biden before he was the white house doctor for donald trump. let's listen. >> president biden should just be ready because on january 20th next year, when he's former president joe biden, what's good for the goose is good for the gander, and i am going to encourage all of my colleagues, and everybody that i have any influence over as a member of congress to aggressively go after the president and his entire family, his entire crime family for all of the misdeeds that are out there related to this family. >> jake, not so long ago, that used to be extreme rhetoric, and the republican party as a whole didn't totally align themselves with it. now you have mainstream republicans saying the same thing. marco rubio saying we need to fight fire with fire. what is going on with marco rubio, is this all about becoming the vice president? >> let me start with ronny jackson, katy. ronny jackson today like three or four hours ago was appointed by speaker mike johnson to fill a vacancy on the house intelligence committee. this puts him at literally the highest point in the congressional intelligence apparatus, and he'll oversee the cia, the nsa, divisions of the fbi, various intelligence organizations, and he will get some of the most sensitive intelligence documents and assessments and just information that the united states government has. and that shows you who the republican party is today, that somebody who says those things is then put on the intelligence committee, and further more, let me add one more thing. scott perry who was key in donald trump's efforts to overturn the 2020 election and had his phone confiscated by the fbi in a federal probe is also -- has also just been appointed to the house intelligence committee, he'll oversee the fbi that was investigating him. so we've really taken a turn, even here on capitol hill, and i want to mention one other thing before i get to rubio very quickly. marjorie taylor greene who's easy to dismiss because of her outlandish rhetoric told me in a conversation outside the speaker's office that she would withhold various funds from various prosecutors and suggested that chuck schumer should intervene if he wants those funds in the new york case that convicted donald trump, and get the judge to overturn it. i mean, these things, katy, would be, again, easy to dismiss, because they're from fringe elements of the party, but unlike ten years ago, five years ago, seven years ago, the fringe elements of the party are driving the agenda. so i think that you could foresee if trump is in the white house, and republicans are in the house majority, that we're just going to be in a forget, you know, leave aside january 6th who was horrific in and of itself, we're going to be in a completely new realm in legislative politics in which all bets are really off. given what we're seeing right now. >> there's also proposed legislation, talk about what the republicans want to do regarding allowing the president to move state cases to federal court? >> well, there's a whole host of things that republicans want to do to respond to this conviction of donald trump. but i would say most notably and most immediately, i think, it's important to focus on the fact that they want to withhold money from prosecutors. there's a government funding deadline coming up at the end of september. the question is will they shut down the government at the behest of donald trump, right before the election to make some point or defund some prosecutor or try to do so. i think that is completely possible and there's going to be elements in the party that want to do that. effectively, they are doing -- after this conviction, they see kind of a sea change in the fringe versus the establishment, versus the government battle that they have been fighting for so long. >> there's a real market change in the rhetoric for the republican better we witnessed over the past few months, especially in the past few days. let's talk about steve bannon and the way he is influencing republican lawmakers. let's listen to steve bannon on his april 24th podcast. >> we're already working behind the scenes. we're going to force jordan to do that. all jordan's given, and you can talk to the trump team, all he's done is happy talk. comber and him don't know where they're going, you haven't done the weaponization of government. you have done a terrible job on the impeachment, you haven't had the doj accountable for anything. it's about air ball for a year and a half for the u.s. head of judiciary. >> lisa rubin, talk to me about that. >> steve bannon is trying to deflect not only from donald trump's conviction but from his own. katy, tomorrow, steve bannon is due in a federal courtroom, having lost an appeal of his contempt of congress conviction that stemmed from his not respond to go a subpoena from the january 6th investigation, he lost an appeal of that conviction, and now the department of justice is saying it's time for steve bannon to start serving his sentence. he is due in a federal courthouse tomorrow, he's also scheduled to be tried here in new york in september. by who? by judge juan merchan, the same judge who oversaw trump's conviction. it's not surprising that steve bannon is trying to get into the former president's good graces in the hopes that if nothing else, he could pardon him once again. i note that the response bannon started has had a response, right. jim jordan has sent now a letter to attorney general garland, demanding documents relating to the employment at the department of justice by a prosecutor on alvin bragg's team. he has also asked alvin bragg and that prosecutor to come in for a june 13th hearing of the select subcommittee on the weaponization of federal government. they are trying to make an example of alvin bragg, and they are going to torment him if nothing less, between now and november. >> chuck, david graham, at the atlantic had a really interesting piece, arguing if it matters if the prosecution against president trump was "politico," and he says because trump's defenders are understood willing to argue that he didn't falsify records, or that it shouldn't be a crime, he argues they are actually arguing that he should get a pass on crimes, they view as minor because he's a political figure. the american justice system is never held that someone should be immune for repercussions for their actions or behavior simply because they're a politician. he says, this is what the republicans are arguing here. so when the republicans go after or promise to go after democrats, and say ag, state ags and d.a.s, and the doj should get control of it should actively get involved, what does that look like in practice? >> well, katy, i mean, take a step back. why was donald trump convicted in the manhattan courtroom. the answer is because the government had the facts to meet their burden of proof and a jury greed unanimously. saying that you want to prosecute someone, saying that you want revenge, saying that it's our turn now is very different than having a valid investigation with sufficient proof to obtain a conviction of proof beyond a reasonable doubt. at one level, it's just a bunch of some not very smart people saying some not very smart things. on the other hand, there is a danger, right, the weaponization of the criminal justice system, even if it doesn't result in a conviction, right, the mental toll, the financial toll, the being investigated and charged is still steep. so we ought to take this seriously. we ought to not overreact to it because as i said, these are some not very smart people once again, saying not very smart things, in order to convict someone, katy, you actually need the facts and if they don't have facts they won't be succeeding. if they have facts, democrats or tall people or whoever commit crimes, charge them, have at it. >> that's a good point. there was a durham investigation, by the way, the republican, donald trump appointed durham to investigate the investigators, and he came back with nothing. lisa rubin, ashley parker, jake sherman, chuck rosenberg, thank you very much for starting us off on what is a very serious day, frankly. still ahead, what donald trump's conviction may or may not mean for the 2024 election. chuck todd has thoughts about who to look out for in particular. and it is day three of the hunter biden trial. what happened when his ex-wife took the stand. first up, senator patty murray says it's a simple question, do you support the right to contraception or no? what republicans will do when faced with a key vote on that issue later this hour. we're back in 90 seconds. back is react to fast-moving markets with dynamic charting and a futures ladder that lets you place, flatten, or reverse orders so you won't miss an opportunity. e*trade from morgan stanley i used to leak urine when i coughed, laughed or exercised. i couldn't even enjoy playing with my kids. i leaked too. i just assumed it was normal. then we learned about bulkamid. an fda approved non-drug solution for our condition. it really works, and it lasts for years. it's been the best thing we've done for our families. call 800-983-0000 to arrange an appointment with an expert physician to determine if bulkamid is right for you. results and experiences may vary. this is a simple bill and a simple vote. if you believe all women deserve to have contraception, then you should vote for this bill. that's all there is to it. in about 30 minutes, senate majority leader chuck schumer will call a floor vote on legislation to protect contraceptives. in another lifetime, you might have said to yourself, what, why would there ever need to be a vote on contraceptives? this is not that lifetime. after roe v. wade was overturned, nothing is safe. and those worries don't exactly seem unfounded when republicans say they'll vote no on legislation like is this. joining us now, nbc news capitol hill correspondent, ali vitali. why don't republicans like this legislation? >> reporter: they have their own, katy, senator joe -- democrats say theirs leave less gaps, less ways to impede access to contraceptive care, and that's why they prefer their bill. republicans explaining why they're going to vote this down, they will vote this down, it sounds a little bit like this in the halls of congress. watch. >> it's not a serious attempt to legislate. this is just a show vote in anticipation of the election. democrats think they can win this case, this election based on reproductive rights. and somehow they're suggesting that contraception is in jeopardy, which is blatantly false. >> nobody is going to overturn griswold, who wants to ban contraception? where would that pass? it's not mine. my state is a pro life state. i can tell you, no way. >> reporter: senator hawley is talking about griswold, he's talking about another landmark decision out of the supreme court that in this case dealt with privacy and medication. it's similar and is often talked at in the same breath as roe was, katy. ro not just established the right to abortion access. it was considered one of the rulings that would not be struck down. now that we're in a post roe environment, it's why you're seeing democrats try to force votes like this on contraception in an attempt, even though it will fail, to just highlight where republicans are on this issue. >> clarence thomas of the supreme court talked about overturning griswold, and he also talked about potentially overturning gay marriage. all of those decisions based in the same law that roe v. wade was based in. ali vitali, thank you very much. joining us, director of university of virginia senator politics and editor and chief of the crystal ball, larry sabado. how much do issues like this matter for this election? >> they matter a lot. i think the very best positive issue that democrats have is about reproductive rights and not just the overturning of roe, but also in this case, the potential dangers to contraception and the very real attempt in some states, some very conservative states with republican legislators and republican governors to deny the right of access to contraceptives, you know, back to the 50s i guess. this is a very good issue for democrats, and this vote is a smart move by senator schumer, it gets all the republicans on the record, and when you get a no vote to something like this, you can translate it almost immediately into a very good negative tv ad. >> how about the vote later this month on ivf, same thing? >> absolutely. after alabama, republicans cannot simply dismiss the idea that it could never happen because it's already happened. a republican supreme court in alabama essentially banned ivf. and the republicans in the legislature and the governor realizing what a disaster it was, had to work overtime to try to get it reversed, at least temporarily, and the same thing can happen in many other conservative states. people have been paying attention. they're angry about it. the horror stories have been building up. you have seen them on the news, as recently as last night. terrible cases of abortions being prevented, even when the woman's life is in danger. and these other decisions that are being made at the state level day after day. that will cause people to think twice about their votes. >> so when they vote, are they voting on the issue and voting for senators, democratic senators, are they voting for democratic representatives? does that translate to the top of the ticket? there was reporting out of arizona that suggested that arizonians would come out to protect the right to an abortion in their constitution, in the state's constitution but that they wouldn't necessarily then go a step further and vote for president biden on the ballot come november that with protecting