> chris, i'm all in favor of robust transparency in terms of">
> chris, i'm all in favor of robust transparency in terms of" property="og:description">
> chris, i'm all in favor of robust transparency in terms of">
pretty happy about that. that is "all in" on this thursday night good evening, alex >> chris, i'm all in favor of robust transparency in terms of health and everything as it regards our public officials and especially our president it's painful t >> oh, it's the worst. >> and in public. >> it's such a vulnerable moment for anyone that trips. >> and then the recovery and then it's on stage -- anyway, it's just -- >> it's funny. he gots back air force one ande said i was sandbagged. >> literally, it was a big sandbag. thank you, my friend, as always. in july of 2021 joe biden had been president for half a year, but the last days of the trump administration were still very much being reported on. the ways in which trump had tried to overturn the 2020 election in an series of escalating maneuvers which ultimately resulted, of course, in thed, attack on the u.s. capitol. so it was during that summer, july of 2021, when "the new yorker" published this exclusive story. you're going to have an effing war, mark milly's fight to stop trump from striking iran. that very attention grabbing headline was one of a series of reports published around that time detailing how mark milly, how general milly the spent the last day of the trump presidency frantically trying to stop the president prom starting ayi waro keep himself in office. for several months milley had been engaged in an alarmed effort. the chairman secretly feared trump would insist on launching a strike on iranian interests and it could setoff a full-blown war. so general milley was worried president trump would use the pretext of a warul with iran to stay in power, which is i guess one way to doch it. now, that war obviously never came tono pass. instead trump pulled many other insane levers to stay in the white house, but this new yorker story washe a big deal. trump was apparently furious. the summer "the new yorker" article came out trump was so enraged by general milley that trump even released a statement. if i was going to do a coup one of the last people i would want to do it with was general mark milley. if i was going to do a coup. we now know all that reporting in theat summer of 2021 really seem today have gotten under trump's skin. so much so trump's reaction to all these articles may just be the smoking gun to the special counsel's mar-a-lago investigation. as we'vel' reported here before multiple news outlets including nbc news are confirming the special counsel's investigation have nowl obtained an audio fr donald trump from that summer, july 2021. in that recording trump is angry. he's angry about that article about mark milley and he's reportedly doing everything he can in this recording to prove he never wanted to attack iran. instead trump claims the person who really wanted to attack iran was -- wait for it -- general mark milley. as evidence of that he says he has in his possession some sort of classified document showing mark milley's plan to attack iran. trump brings up the document, which heth says came from mille. trump told those in the room if he could show it to people -- if he could show it to people, it would undermine what milley was saying. so this classified document is of importance to trump, but it's still classified. and trump is's aware in that moment captured on tape that he cannot show this classified document to anybody. and this is where things get really crazy. one source says on the tape trump refers tuesday the document as if it is in front of him. several sources say the recording captures the sound of paper rustling as if trump was waving the document around, though it was not clear if it was the actual iran document. nbc news has not independently verified that specific part of the reporting, but if the reports about this audio recording are accurate, it may be the most damning evidence yet in the special counsel's documents investigation because this alleged reporting tells us three really important things before now. number one, donald trump clearly knew he had classified documents in his possession after he left the white house. at the time of that recording, the national archives had already repeatedly asked trump to return all white house documents. the head of nara had written and pleaded in an e-mail to trump's lawyer a few months prior that it was absolutely necessary that we obtain an account for all presidential records. but now here we have trump on tape talking to strangers about classified documents that he says he has making no mention of the fact that, oh, by the way, the federal government would like them back, please mr. president. okay. now, the second thing we learned from this reporting is that trump may well have been waving around thosebe classified documents in front of people, which is not what you're supposed to do with classified documents. we don't know for sure exactly what trump was rustling in that recording. it could have been a plan to attack iran from the joint chiefs or it could have been a random piece of paper used as a prop.s either way trump seems very comfortable talking about these documents, even waving them around in front of a group of people who do not have the proper security clearance. and finally, the third thing we learn from this reporting is that trump knew that the document in his possession was still classified. on the recording trump clearly understood that he could not show this document to the people in the room with him because he knew he actually did not classify that document as president. all of this matters a lot. throughout the entire mar-a-lago saga, trump and his lawyers have tried out severals lines of defense. first they claimed trump did not know he had any of these government documents. trump's d lawyers wrote in a letter to congress white house employees quickly packed everything into boxes and shipped them to florida. they claimed trump had no idea what was in those boxes. second, trump's lawyers claimed trump kept all these in a safe place. they said all these classified materials were being kept at trump's heavily secured home at mar-a-lago. and finally trump claimed none of this mattered anyway because trump declassified everything before leaving office. >> you had said on truth social a number of times you did declassify. >> i did declassify. >> okay. is there a process? >> there doesn't have to be a process as i understand it. different people sayan differen things, but if you're the president of the united states you canid declassify just by saying it'ssi declassified, eve by thinking about it. >> he said he didn't know the documents were classified, that he kept them in a secure location and that he had already declassified them anyway. but he knew he had classified documents. he wasn't keeping them in a secure location, and he knew he hadn't declassified them as president. and it's all on tape in his own voice with rustling paper. joining us now is a former federal prosecutor at the doj. also with us is carroll leoning, reporter for "the washington post." my question is f do you have tas from chats with the president? and do w you know if the specia counsel wants those tapes or has those tapes? >> i will just say, yes, we do have tapes of the recordings that phil ruck, where my colleague and i made our interview with donald trump for our book which came out at precisely this time in july of 2021 when the former president was complaining about mark milley. and i will say that it was the pattern and practice of former president donald trump to also tape record any media people that were coming tome visit him. he wanted a record to fact check and make sure nothing was taken out of context that he said. and the irony here is that researchers who sat down with him foro mark meadows' book ha the former president's own words in which, you know, they didn't misquote him, and they have evidence and now also we know trump's a aide, marco, also has the recording and evidence in which he describes his awareness of this classified material, thats it was classified, that shouldn't show it, that there were special requirements unlike the things he has said since he was under investigation for withholdingig some of these documents and obstructing a criminal investigation. >> given -- given that this is something heth did, carol, righ something that a lot of the conversations were recorded, trump had to have know somewhere in his reptilian brain, like the deep brain there existed recordings of him saying these things that are exactly counter to the defense he started to mount in the mar-a-lago documents investigation, no? >> i think it's important to remember the pattern of donald trump when he was president and since. i'll give you an example. in phil and my interview with donald trump in the spring of 2021, he described really an alternate reality that did not comport with what he had previously said in other settings about o what had happed on january 6th or what happened in the election. he said things to us that didn't really relate to what he experienced in realtime. there was a huge disconnect. so i think it's important to remember that donald trump often is of the view he's the best communicator of hiss pr crisist that moment. he's excellent in his view at seizing the microphone and explaining his point of view,nd but it doesn't necessarily have to be consistent with what he said, you know, ait week ago or year ago. it's really to seize the moment and to make sure he makes the most of that particular crisis. i'm not sure he probably remembers this exchange in which he said, you know, i could really getou milley, if i could get general milley, if i could show you these documents that conflict with his alleged claim that i wanted to, you know, or was planning to attack iran. and forgive me, alex, the second ironyco here in addition to dond trump not being consistent, insisting on recording something actually now scares him, the other irony here is it's my understanding m from sources th we spoke with over the last 48 hours that mark milley did not produce a document, a memo to donald trump in which he recommended invading or attacking iran. and so really donald trump if he was shakingld around a classifi document as he alleged in this recording, it was a pentagon document that milley probably recommended against, a -- one of the many options of things that could be done with a foreign adversary that the pentagon had sort of war gamed out. and again, donald trump is thinking howai am i going to ge this general, this chairman of the joint chiefs of staff who appears to be sharing, you know, his worries about the end of my presidency? how am i going to get him? and the t recording we have to date that said he was going to suggest he had a document that said the general wanted to invade the country, when we have information that's not the case. so it's sort of a double whammy irony. like on the one hand record everything, donald trump, so you can catch reporters misdescribing you. now it catches you saying something about classified records and your knowledge that they require special protection. and then the second is, of course, i'm going to get general milley, donald trump says, but he's going to be flashing around a document that he's misdescribing because my understanding isbe general mill did not recommend attacking iran. >> yeah, layers of irony here. and i guess the question from a prosecutorialm level is how meaningful -- there's the legal part of this and then the public opinion part of this. talk to me legally about the importance of having these statements on tape. >> yes, so this is blockbuster evidence, alex, legally speaking. and it's not direct evidence of the crimes we've been anticipating that he will beim charged with, which is having the classified documents at mar-a-lago. this obviously happened in a different setting, in a different time. but it's what we call other acts evidence that comes in to support thoseco charges and tel us three things. it tells us his intent, that he knew how classification works and that he was holding onto it, histh motives. that's hung over the documents case like why did he have this stuff? and now we have an answer i think meaningful to a jury which is personal vendetta. he was wounded by these stories about esmilley and he thought h could use these documents like thisd to help himself maybe legacy build. andga depend on what comes out,e might learn something about his m.o.so of how he managed to get documents into his hands that he shouldn't have had all of which can shed light on and support the mar-a-lago charges. and everything i've said is true even if it's all a rouse, if he was waving a blank piece of paper or something written by somebody else or something that was not even classified in the first place. prosecutors can still do all of the work that i've just described. >> do you think -- as far as charges and building a case, it is a bigger deal in this instance in terms of the charges it supports the fact he knew the documents weren't classified and was in possession of them in theoryof or that he was waving them around and potentially showingd them -- ready to show themg to other people? >> well, both. and the latter, the waving them around and showing them to other people isng really important fo the espionage act. so remember the search warrant for theem documents at mar-a-la listed aat bunch of different statutes, which doesn't have to be the whole universe. they can bring charges other than the ones they listed, but that's a statute that predates the classification system, so those technicalities don't even matter. if that criminalizes taking without authorize documents related to national security, which could be useful to the enemy or which could hurt the united states, and the showing and carelessness and content of these documents sort of tells us this is something he might be willing to do. we might see charges related to bedminster, too, but even if we don't this is very useful in an espionage case from mar-a-lago. >> right. carol, i know "the washington post" has i done some important- so important that we've bookmarked it on our browser, reporting about trump's motivation forab holding onto these documents. and i wonder how you think this creates a more vivid picture of that motivation and whether -- and the degree to which this could really just be as talie says ego. >> soe i'm glad you asked, and couldn't agree more with talie about the importance of the motive in terms of telling the story, you know, i've interviewed enough prosecutors to know the most important thing when they go to try is how do we connect all these dutes t and me itl make sense to our jurors? and there is a legal piece here and there's a political and public opinion piece here. so let's deal with the legal first. it'seg critical, and we have be reporting at "the post" for now i think nine months that prosecutors did not have evidenceos to suggest at least months and months t ago, did no have any hard evidence to suggest donald trump took these documents to quote-unquote make money, makete bank on this material but that it was really about, like, these are mine, i'm really still the president, i haveti things to brag about and boast about, and i hold onto these. we know that prosecutors have continued h to investigate unde jack smith ever since the special counsel was appointed in november last year. prosecutors have continued to seek information about the possibility that donors were encouraged ors lured by the flashing of these documents, that essentially donald trump's boasting of what he had was used to create someha favor with dons and to bring the money in that way. we don't know that prosecutors have found evidence of that. but in this case at least we know this much. there is a slightly petty, personal motive for donald trump in this setting in which he really just wants to settle a score against a very senior pentagon official who worried about the final weeks of the presidency and what donald trump might pull to stay in power including a kind of wag the dog war. that was a major fear of general milley's and one we reported on in our book of july 2021. and i think the jury upon seeing that information, alex, is going to be very concerned about why somebody would have such a small motive in flashing around material that would be valuable to anbe adversary, that would b dangerous to get into the wrong hands, that would cause grave danger to americans security. this is the tradeoff they're being presented with in this trial that thewi three of us ar envisioning. >> well, presumably these are not the only tapes that jack smith has. there's so much more to talk about, we have to leave it there. so great to hear from you both. thanks for joining me tonight. so that was new bombshell reporting on special counsel jack smith's mar-a-lago investigation, and when we come back we'll dig into the fresh reporting on thent social counsel's other big investigation into trump's role in january 6th. that's just ahead. stick around.th do you remember the conservatives-only dating app called the right stuff? maybe you don't, but it was the dating app that had people like vigilante slash conservative hero kyle rittenhouse as a spokesperson. the app had promps for your dating profile like january 6th was dot, dot, dot, fill in the blank. the app was basically a litmus test so you'd only get upset up with people that had the same views as you, and it was the brainchild of someone who was president trump's former director of the presidential personnel office. but this app wasn't his first rodeo when it came to the bizarre act of litmus testing people's conservatism. towards the end of the trump administration he was on a mission to find and fire employees who were seen as disloyal to president trump. employees applying for political appointments within the trump administration had to fill out a questionnaire with questions like what part of candidate trump's campaign message most appealed to you and why? this is not the usual process for vetting white house job applicants. and now "the new york times" reports special counsel jack smith is looking into these loyalty tests as part of his investigation into trump's efforts to overturn the 2020 election. in particular smith is looking into the firing of the trump administration's top cyber security official, a man named chris krebs. smith has gone so far as subpoena the white house officials he believe was involved in the firing. that firing was very public when it happened. five days after the 2020 election was called for biden, krebs cyber security and infrastructure security agency known as sica put out this remarkable statement about the election. in it krebs assured the public in a line bolded for emphasis there was no evidence any voting system deleted or lost votes, changed votes, or in any way compromised. that statement was a big deal because at the time trump was insisting his election had been stolen and lawsuits were popping all over the country. and here was his administration's agency, the one that oversaw elections and cyber security saying outloud we can assure you we have the utmost confidence in the security and integrity of our elections. that statement incensed president trump, and days later he fired chris krebs by tweet because that's how trump fired people. now "the new york times" is reporting that jack smith's office is interested in all of that. they want to know how mcentee's personal office interacted in the period. "the times" reports the special counsel appears to be focused on trump's state of mind during that period. it is likely the special counsel wants to know the degree to which trump himself knew the election was not stolen while he continued to promote the big lie to his supporters and to american public and how trump took action to remove any officials who were getting in the way of that narrative by telling the truth. joining us now is the lead investigator on the january 6th committee. it's great to emeet you distantly and get your thoughts on this. first off in terms of what the special counsel is after in looking at the firing of chris krebs, do you think we're reading this accurately this is a bid to just try and understand what trump was trying to do to the truth tellers in his administration? >> yes. i think this is jack smith anticipating a potential defense that the president may put forth, which is reliance on counsel. i had lots of people telling me that there were problems with the election and that is what motivated my actions. that is an unreasonable belief, and as the select committee found, there were far more voices and more credible voices explaining directly to the president that there was no evidence, as krebs said in that statement no evidence that any voting machines were compromised in any way. so the extent the special counsel can lay a foundation that there were truth tellers surrounding the president, telling him again and again truthfully that there was no such evidence, it makes his reliance on other voices less and less reasonable, and that's why it's directly relevant for the potential criminal prosecution of the former president. >> and do you see special counsel smith's interest in the loyalty test that was given to potential employees and extension of that line of inquiry? >> yes. look, what happened with chris krebs is not uncommon towards the end of the administration as your reporting suggests correctly, there were a lot of people that drew the ire of the president before telling the truth. bill barr is another example. and then it became jeff rosen and other officials at the department of justice by truthfully saying, mr. president, we looked at this and there's no evidence to support the incendiary things you're saying publicly about the election. and they either lost their jobs or almost lost their jobs. and that all, his attempt to replace people that were doing the right thing with people that were willing without a basis in fact or law to say other things to facilitate this multi-part plan to disrupt the joint session, that is why the special counsel is asking about the loyalty test and all these personnel changes. >> "the times" reports also that the special counsel is in particular looking at what mr. trump did -- president trump did in and around the justice department and trying to install trump loyalists there. can you flush out for me why in particular in particular the department of justice, was that just seen as the most convenient lever of which to stay in power? >> the justice department is where some of these very same allegations the president were repeating publicly actually were investigated. right, bill barr on november 9th sent a memo to all u.s. attorneys and all fbi fieldophiluses saying you should go forth and investigate credible allegations of voter fraud. it's important for americans to have confidence in the outcome of the election, and that's what happened. a lot of these theories, the suitcases of ballots in georgia, dead people voting now in pennsylvania or michigan, the justice department looked into this. the president when he heard bill barr and others say, again, sir, with all due respect what you're saying publicly is not accurate, we have looked at this. that is what prompted the discussion about personnel change, and that again informs what the president did. special counsel's entire focus is on proving state of mind and rebutting some potential argument that the president relied upon the advice of those who said there's a basis for his actions or his statements. and that's why chris krebs and that's why jeff rosen and bill barr and all the people that told him no are so important. >> you know, as we talk about the falsehoods that were spread in and around the election, i think it's important to note how much the misinformation has seeped into the ground water. today congresswoman marjorie taylor greene claimed that honey pots may have been used to entrap january 6th participate wants. as someone who worked so diligently on this investigation, what is your reaction to that? >> it's patently absurd. there's absolutely no evidence of any such -- of anything. again, it's grasping for straws. people who were there on january 6th were there because they were fed lies by the former president that the election had been stolen. they were lies because credible peg people like chris krebs consistently told him that there was no foundation for that. that makes his actions criminal. that makes and informs the intent behind all of the multi-part political steps he took in advance of the election, his incendiary words on january 6th, and his inaction during the riot all informs a showing, an evidentiary showing he intended for that riot to succeed. >> thank you for making the time tonight. really appreciate it. still to come this evening as florida governor ron desantis continues his presidential campaign through early states, people back home are protesting a law he signed the most extreme anti-immigration legislation into the country. what it does and how people are fighting back today, right now. that's coming up next. t. ah, these bills are crazy. she has no idea she's sitting on a goldmine. well she doesn't know that if she owns a life insurance policy of $100,000 or more she can sell all or part of it to coventry for cash. even a term policy. even a term policy? even a term policy! find out if you're sitting on a goldmine. call coventry direct today at the number on your screen, or visit coventrydirect.com. something happened last month that you may not have read about all that much if you lived outside the state of florida. governor ron desantis signed florida's bill senate bill 1718 which is the most extreme immigration legislation in the country which is saying given the republican party's issue ongration these days. the bill will make someone you know who is undocumented a ride into the state, will make it punishable by up to 15 years in prison. now, this vaguely written section of the law could apply to mixed status households which means children born here in the u.s. to undocumented parents might not be allowed to give their parents a ride if it means crossing state lines. the law also invalidates out-of-state driver's licenses given to undocumented immigrants, and florida is of course a tourist state. nearly 140 million people visited last year. that means people visiting from new york or california where undocumented immigrants are allowed to have driver's licenses, they will no longer have their licenses recognized in the state of florida. the law requires more businesses to use e-verify. that's that federal online database that employers use to confirm a worker's employment eligibility. that requirement could prevent scared migrants from taking certain jobs, which could worsen the state's already existing labor shortage. it also gives governor desantis $12 million to continue to ship migrants out of florida, an exercise in cruelty that last saw 50 migrants shipped unknowingly in some cases to martha's vineyard without any resources once they arrived. and they will require hospitals including emergency rooms to collect data about patients' immigration status, which means if you're hurt or sick in need of emergency care before you're given the stitches or x-ray, you will be asked about your citizenship. in many cases advocates say scared migrants may not even seek medical help for fear of being deported. now, all of this will go into effect one month from today, on july 1st, but the fear and anxiety this is causing is happening right now, and so migrants are fighting back. today hundreds of migrants all over florida protested a bill under the banner, a day without immigrants. you saw gatherings in orlando and miami, fort myers, west palm beach, tampa, and jacksonville. demonstrations were planned in conjunction with the labor strikes and the closure of dozens of hispanic owned businesses in support of these undocumented migrants. the hope here is that with enough outcry governor desantis will be forced to reconsider this. organizers also planned peaceful gatherings in california, colorado, illinois, minnesota, south carolina, and texas, and even in mexico. they all want desantis to know that they are fighting this together. >> freedom is only for a selected few, it's no longer america. okay? we will always fight back. >> we're here with all our brothers and sisters to support all the immigrants in the state of florida. our communities have been victimized by racist politicians masquerading as defenders of democracy. we are sick and tired of it, and we're not going to take it anymore and that's why all these people are here. >> we will have more on that fight ahead with one of the lawmakers who's at the very center of that fight. stay with us. there is a better way to manage diabetes. the dexcom g7 continuous glucose monitoring system eliminates painful finger sticks, helps lower a1c, and it's covered by medicare. before using the dexcom g7, i was really frustrated. all of that finger pricking and all that pain, my a1c was still stuck. before dexcom g7, i couldn't enjoy a single meal. i was always trying to outguess my glucose, and it was awful. before dexcom g7, my diabetes was out of control because i was tired, not having the energy to do the things that i wanted to do. (female announcer) dexcom g7 is a small, easy-to-use wearable that sends your glucose numbers to your phone or dexcom receiver without painful finger sticks. the arrow shows the direction your glucose is heading-- up, down, or steady-- and because dexcom g7 is the most accurate cgm, you can make better decisions about food, medication, and activity in the moment. it can even alert you before you go too low or when you're high. oh, the fun is absolutely back. after dexcom g7, i can on the spot figure out what i'm gonna eat and how it's going to affect my glucose! when a friend calls and says, "hey, let's go to breakfast," i can get excited again. (earl) after using the dexcom g7, my diabetes, it doesn't slow me down at all. i lead line dancing three times a week, i exercise, and i'm just living a great life now. it's so easy to use. it has given me confidence and control, everything i need is right there on my phone. (earl) the dexcom g7 is so small, so easy to use, and it's very discreet. (dr. aaron king) if you have diabetes, getting on dexcom is the single most important thing you can do. (david) within months, my a1c went down, that's 6.9. (donna) at my last checkup, my a1c was 5.9. (female announcer) dexcom is the number one recommended cgm brand and offers 24/7 tech support, so call now to get started. you'll talk to a real person. don't wait, this one short call could change your life. (bright music) that was some of the public outcry in florida today against one of the most extraordinary punitive and restrictive immigration bills in the country, a bill signed by governor ron desantis last month that criminalizes the transportation of undocumented immigrants and requires hospitals to check the immigration status of patients among other things. the bill goes into effect a month from today, but migrants in florida are not waiting. today many of them gathered outside the office of local republican legislators to pressure them and governor desantis to repeal this law. there were also peaceful protests in at least seven florida cities a part of demonstrations called a day without immigrants. representative, thanks as always for being here tonight. my first question is just do you think these protests we've seen there's a lot of passion here. do you think they are moving any republican legislators to rethink their position on this? >> well, thanks so much for having me, and as a daughter of immigrants myself, i know, alex, your mom is an immigrant and these issues are personal. and we made this fight on the house floor against this bill, but the reality is that many floridians don't realize it even happened until after the bill is passed, and that's because governor desantis is on a chaos tour. he pushed many bad bills this session dividing and conquering, if you will, resources, the ability to get out information to the public. as more and more floridians learned about this policy whether they're business owners, whether they are immigrants themselves, the backlash is being felt. and so my hope is that for republicans who didn't feel the heat before, now they do. and they'll understand why this bill should be repealed and going into the next legislative session and campaign season they'll have a dangerous perspective why so many oppose them. >> the cruelty piece never seems to move governor desant, but the economic argument against this law seems to be pretty strong. there's the piece where if you were an undocumented visitor to florida, your driver's license is no longer valid in the state and that will affect the tourism industry. there's the basic labor emplication here in terms of migrants being afraid to show up for work or not applying for the jobs. do you think republicans just didn't calculate that? and how much does disney and the debacle that has been for the state of florida factor into the decision over how much economic pain they can take? >> i mean i made this point when it came to disney how our governor is a -- and this is more of the same. let's look at the facts. 1 in 4 of florida's 2 million front line workers are immigrants. and as you mentioned this includes industries that are essential to our economy, whether it's child and social services, public transportation, trucking, warehouses, retail, of course construction and agriculture. and agriculture in particular is one of our largest industries in florida generating over $7 billion in state revenue each year. these are also areas of work that citizens typically don't want to do. and so we need to emphasize the economic consequences of this policy, and that was part of the goal of today was to encourage not only our workers but our businesses to shutdown and for consumers not to shop. we know to show that economic pain and how this really is not just a commitment to the american dream of democracy and welcoming the immigrant but of course also highlighting the essential role immigrants play in florida's economy. >> do you think the protests continue up until july 1st. can you tell us about any plans here? >> yes, absolutely. not only will the protests continue, but we're on the ground hosting educational seminars. we want to make sure those impacted know their rights especially when it comes to this invasive collection of data in hospitals. this is voluntary, but we are concerned that due to language barriers and just complete fear of the notion of deportation, that our immigrant community members especially mixed families will not seek medical care. we're ensuring everyone knows their rights and of course we'll continue to organize on the ground pushback and build coalitions. many members of the faith community oppose this bill alongside the business community, and we need every ally at this time especially in florida as governor desantis continues his bid for the republican primary. >> yeah, the intersectionality on just recognizing each other's humanity is pretty profound. as always, thanks for your time. >> thank you. coming up, the senate is racing the clock to pass a debt limit deal before the u.s. government defaults on its bills. we're going to bring you the latest just ahead. the latest just ahead. or sharp, stabbing pains. ♪♪ this painful, blistering rash can disrupt your life for weeks. a pain so intense, you could miss out on family time. the virus that causes shingles is likely already inside of you. if you're 50 years or older, ask your doctor or pharmacist about shingles. right now the senate is working late pushing toward a final passage of the bill raising the u.s. debt limit. the bill passed by the house last night with a major assist from democrats. as it stands the main sticking point right now is that a handful of senators are forcing the chamber to vote on amendments to this bill. there are 11 total. and if any of them pass, the whole bill has to go back to the house, and that would almost certainly push the u.s. government past the point of default. so far seven of these amendments have failed. joining us now is ali vitally and nbc news capitol hill correspondent. ali, this bill seems poised to pass the senate tonight, right? >> yeah, that is the expectation. and you're right if any of these amendments were to pass that would be a pretty big deal and a bad thing because no one anticipates any of these amendments were going to pass. if they did, it would mean this bill would have to go from the senate back to the house, and then we would be in a state where everyone is surprised and we're likely defaulting on our debt. what's happening now, though, is the senate's way of going slow in the short-term to go faster in the long-term. this is an agreement made by all 100 senators to do these amendment votes and then finally maybe 30 to 40 minutes from now is our expectation vote on the fiscal -- on the debt deal that they have in front of them. that's probably going to be at around 11:00. and look, i know it doesn't look like it's happening very fast, but this is pretty fast by senate standards. you know, ten minutes per each of these amendment votes, and we've got senate minority leader chuck schumer chiding his colleagues when they go over ten minutes and urging them to stay on the floor so this can get done as quickly as possible. this is, again, the senate coming in days ahead of deadline after the house haggled over this debt deal for weeks between speaker mccarthy and the white house. and do think the thing striking about it, and you and i have watched so many of these late night senate hurdles, most of these senators agitating for amendment votes were doing to knowing that, "a," their amendments were going to fail, and "b," the fact this debt deal was going to pass anyway. so even though we're doing this the long way, it's still being done in the shortest way possible and it's almost done in a halfhearted fashion because everyone here expects this bill by the end of the night will be passed and on the president's desk. >> a rare moment of bipartisanship when chuck schumer and mitch mcconnell want their people to do the same thing, which is simmer down and go vote quick. ali vitally, burning the midnight oil with the rest of the senate, nbc news capitol hill correspondent, thank you, ali, for your time and wisdom. that is our show for tonight. we will see you again tomorrow. "way too early" with jonathan lemire is coming up next. demanded a bipartisan solution. we knew we'd need to come together for a solution like the one that passed tonight, and so i'm happy to stand here passing this critical legislation to support our families, observe vital programs and most importantly avoid catastrophic