for ag. fifth-generation mexican american. we've got to take all of that into consideration, and the great thing about new york city and where i learned politics is all politics are local even though we are playing in the national scene. all politics are local. >> the book is called relentless and available now. it is great to see you. i hope i see you again soon. that does it for all in. alex wagner tonight starts right now. >> i love the spirited conversation. >> i love him. he's a great guy. guy. this. today we got the news the prosecution in donald trump's new york hush money case does not plan to call karen mcdougal to testify. if you remember karen mcdougal is the former playboy model who

received $150,000 in the lead-up to the 2016 election as part of a catch and kill scheme with the national llenquirer to stay qui about her affair with donald trump. that means that stormy daniels testimony, the testimony that wrapped up today, will be the only testimony this jury hears that is directly from a woman accusing donald trump of trying to keepsi her quiet about an affair before the 2016 election. now, there are lots of reasons why ms. mcdougal might not want to testify, and there are lots of reasons why the prosecution might not want to call on her to testify. we're going to get some expert help unpacking all of that and what that a means for this casen just ar second. but karen mcdougal not testifying also makes the testimony we did get today from stormy daniels all it more important. and it makes the cross-examination of stormy daniels today, makes that all the more m important.

now, the defense's cross-examination today is probably most accurately described by a phrase i am loathe to say. but it really does describe what happened today when stormy daniels washe questioned by trump's lawyer, susan necheles, slut shaming. i'm going to warn you if you have children in the room or you simply don't want to hear about donald trump's alleged sex life -- i mean who could blame you -- now is a good time to mute your television. this is trump attorney susan necheles speaking to stormy daniels. you're acted in porn and 206 films right and written and directed 150 sex films is that correct? so you have a lot of experience making phony stories of sex appear to be real, right? >> stormy daniels, wow, that's not how i would put it.

the sex in the films is very much real just like what happened to me in that room. necheles, you've bragged about how good you are about writing porn movies and writing really good stories and really good dialogue, right? stormy daniels, yes. necheles, and now you have a story you're telling about donald ortrump, right? daniels, if that story was untrue, i would have written it to be a lot better. necheles, just so i can be clear in what you're saying you've acted and had sex in over 200 porn movies, right? 150-ish, yes. necheles, but according to you seeing a man in a t-shirt on a bed in boxer shorts you got light-headedt and almost faint. you were so upset he wanted to have sex with you you couldn't speak up and say you didn't wany to have sex with him. daniels, correct. necheles, this was not the first time in your life someone had

made a pass at you, was it? daniels, no. daniels continued, but it was the first time they had a bodyguard standing outside the door, and they were in their underwear and they were twice my age and bigger than me. stormy daniels wasn't having any of it today. that didn't stop the defense from trying to use the fact that she is an adult film star to try and discredit her and say her story doesn't add up because, well, she's had b sex before. that isse how trump's defense framed this alleged sexual encounter in court today. meanwhile, when it came to trump's role in that same alleged sexual encounter, here is how fox has been describing it. >> the testimony of stormy daniels that was salacious, that was theas point of it. listen, there's no person on planet earth that believes donald trump has been celibate all his life.

that is not news. >> stormy claims that she blacked out on this tryst with trump but she wasn't any on any drugs or alcohol. it could be she blacked out after having sex with trump, which is a compliment. truly he screwed the brains out of her. that makes him a sex god. everything i've heard makes trump more sympathetic, more likable. do you have a context at all for a tryst between a porn star and a billionaire? do you have anything to compare thisan against? stormy called it an imbalance of power. well, duh, that's why you met him. if he was a mechanic, a high school teacher, you wouldn't have run and slept with him. it was all about the power, it was all about the imbalance. that's how this transaction works when you're a porn star. >> sex god. > sex god. >> donald trump, sex god.

it is a classic double standard. if a boy and a girl have sex even a lot of sex with a lot of people, the boy is considered a stud, a sex god. and the girl is considered a slut. and today the female lawyer for the former president of the united states tried to use that double standard to destroy the credibility of someone who allegedly slept with the former president. that was the strategy. and whileas trump's team seemed fairly the intent to get ms. daniels to revisit all the sleazy details about the sexual encounter during their cross-examination today, they also had the hutspah to say -- and could prejudice the jury. and then they yet again filed a mistrial motion on those grounds. and yet again that motion was denied. joining me now is duncan levine, former assistant attorney for the eastern district of new

york, and kristen. thank you both for being here. i was flabbergasted. kristi, i believe you were down there today. >> yeah. >> she says in a resigned fashion. i was flabbergasted they would make -- they would really entreat stormy daniels to revisitan the stort of sleazy moments in the hotel and then say we need a mistrial because this information has been too prejudicial. >> right, the hypocrisy of it. this is what jean merchan was saying when he denied the mistrial saying, hey, in your defense you opened the door. you said she was a liar and said this never happened. and yetth then they go into questioning and the state says, okay, now we have to go into details because that lends her story extent. and then on cross rather than maybe stay away from that and preserve this issue on appeal and saying maybe this is too

prejudicial, instead they dove right in and they were getting into it. if your argument was it never happened, i'm not sure why they were pointing out so many details in this situation whether she would have concepted orwo not. it made no sense and was not driving to the point there were inconsistencies. the only winconsistencies they kept pointing to it felt like forever whether or not he fed her dinner. >> there were some belabored moments in this trial today. the hypocrisy even to the casual observer seemed remarkable. i wonder, though, as we sort of joke about the hypocrisy, or not joke about it -- highlight it -- how much of a threat a mistrial is. the fact that karen mcdougal is not testifying, duncan, do you see that as evidence that the prosecution isev hesitant to ge into more sexual allegations

visa vi donald trump as potential grounds for calling again for a mistrial? >> well, i think the judge really called it out because he said i've been objecting to this testimony as it's been coming in myself in order to give trump a fair trial, and i shouldn't have to do that. you're not doing your job. you've let all this stuff -- and there's stuff that t came inasmh as donald trump was an uncontrollable client,stormy daniels was an uncontrollable witness for the d.a. office. she was offering so much at one point the judge said why don't you have her talk to ms. daniels and he said i've been objecting to things myself. there were details about things like mr. trump not having a condom. >> thank you for repeating that, duncan. >> i know it's a family show. that stuff does not need to come into the trial. it is prejudicial.

and if mr. trump is convicted you can be his guarantee for appeal. he's going torud say i have ineffective counsel. that's going to be the basis for hiso appeal. >> the judge pointed it out again today, hey, defense, do your job, object to more things, i'm basically playing your role. is that the strategy to get this thrown out ono appeal? >> you have to object in order to preserve the issue for appeal. so if there is no strategy in not objecting, they needed to object, they didn't do it, they were sitting on their hands. but then the strategy on cross was actually gotr into these details and dirty her up and say you shouldn't believe anything she says because she's a porn star, and a porn star in this situation being in a hotel room with donald trump couldn't feel awkward because she's a porn star. and just going back to the jury, this is a jury that is a manhattan jury, a very highly educated jury. i think most of them are college educated. they have c jobs in finance, in

law, in engineering. i mean this is not a jury -- and they're split. there's about seven men, five women split between married and single, but you have to figure, like, this is not necessarily the jury where that is going to play, where -- and it was just the watone. she was not only -- when susan necheles was doing the questioning, it was not only that the words were insulting and they were, but it was this mocking tone she used. and it was really offensive to listen to, and it was unnecessary. and i feel like, again, that was my feeling sitting there, but i have to think a manhattan jury that's that make-up would feel that way, mitoo. >> their strategy was to shame stormy daniels and there's no way she could have been traumatized i guess is the word or caught off-guard by donald trump sitting there in his boxer shorts. do you think it made her a sympathetic witness? >> 100%.

and remember at the end of the day it really solidified what came outit on the direct examination, which is that trump was almost like a predator. there's this testimony in direct examination that he's sitting there in a hotel suite in his silk pajamas almost like a hue hefner, her hands are shaking after she'ss putting on her go heels after their sexual encounter. that was real stuff that portrayed him in a terrible light, and their cross-examination today almost solidified it as attack dogs going after this woman who's been in this situation. and stormy daniels, remember, is a witness the d.a. office did not need to call. they took a risk, and i think tonight they're celebrating the risk they took in calling her. but they didn't need to call her because arguably at this point in the trial established the elements of the crime. they've established the false business records, to defraud the voters and established this conspiracy between david pecker

anden michael cohen and donald trump. the reason they called her is that it gives voice to this horrific story that trump was so desperate not to come outright on the heels of that "access hollywood" he found out, the trump campaign found out these two women karen mcdougal and stormy daniels were unt to sell the story. the jury got to hear this week what the story was, and it's terrible. and now they viscerally can see what the story is, so that's why they i called her. it is a risk because she's a witness who has baggage. she is subject to this cross-examination. i think the defense took the bait,th fell into the trap and made themselves look terrible and bolstered her credibility. >> they went after her on these details you alluded to earlier, kristy. i guess the idea was to poke holes in her recollection, but these are such small details that seem so meaningless compared to the broader

narrative she was telling. what do you make of those exchanges?os >> first, i didn't feel they pointed today any inconsistencies. she said, yeah, i met with him at dinnertime, i never said i ate anything. she didn't tell any detail in the interviews she had and didn't point to anything that was really contradictory, that's one. and these are small details and happened 20 years ago. you expect witnesses and, duncan, we've both seen when you meet with witnesses sometimes recollections fade that are not the keyre details. details she has been consistent. so, again, this was really not effective. and the other thing, again, they opened the door by calling her a liar in the opening. when you do that, yeah, the jury would want to hear from her about what happened. so herar going through the stor again, that was a defense tactical error.

but do i think that will lead to ank mistrial or an appellate issue, not necessarily. i meanis these are retained lawyers. these are very good lawyers with strong reputations. i don't think it will get that far, but they have definitely been sitting on their hands and not making very good strategic decisions during this trial. >> i've got to talk about not good strategic decisions. today there's been a lot of back and forth on the gag order. judge merchan was asked to amend the gag order, merchan said no. earlier a few hours ago stormy daniels tweeted real men respond to testimony by being sworn in and taking the stand in court. oh, wait, never mind. is that -- duncan? >> i think, look, there's a problem in the fact that the witnesses are not subject to this gag order, and we've been seeing tweets from michael cohen attacking mr. trump as well. so i think there is a bit of a disconnect between the fact that he can't say anything and that

they -- and that the witnesses can. that being said, there's a long history here of mr. trump incitingtr violence against not only the witnesses but the d.a.'s office, the members of the d.a.'s office staff, the judge and his family. there's a real background here. there's a reason this gag orderr exists, and i think at the end of thets day he's right not to modify the gag order, because there's more witnesses coming. and if you lift the gag order right now, these witnesses coming up are going to know the minute their off the stand are going to be subject to all these attacks. it cannot stand given the history of these violent attacks on people. and i think theac judge is righ to just keep it in place and keep it as it is. >> but maybe stormy daniels don't poke the bear on twitter, just a lay person's advice there. please don't go anywhere. we still need youce badly. we have a lot to get to tonight including what happened after stormy danielsin left the witne stand. we learned a whole lot about

trump's financial habits. and here's a hint, he really, really doesn't like spending money. also tonight republicans are furious about president biden's latest move inn' gaza. someone should tell them it's a move several republican presidents have made many times before. that is ahead. stay with us. any times before that is ahead. stay with us sh we had more cash. you think those two have any idea? that they can sell their life insurance policy for cash? so they're basically sitting on a goldmine? i don't think they have a clue. that's crazy! well, not everyone knows coventry's helped thousands of people sell their policies for cash. even term policies. i can't believe they're just sitting up there! sitting on all this cash. if you own a life insurance policy of $100,000 or more, you can sell all or part of it to coventry. even a term policy. for cash, or a combination of cash and coverage, with no future premiums. someone needs to tell them, that they're sitting on a goldmine, and you have no idea! hey, guys! you're sitting on a goldmine! come on, guys! do you hear

that? i don't hear anything anymore. find out if you're sitting on a goldmine. call coventry direct today at the number on your screen, or visit coventrydirect.com.

with stormy daniels' testimony now complete, the prosecution appears to be moving to second phase of its argument, showing that donald trump was aware of and engaged in ms. daniels' hush money payments. they began by calling madeleine westerhouse, trump's former assistant who testified to trump's frugality and his purchases. here she is about trump's

assistant. it says please note the frames are on the pricey side about $650 minus a 15% discount. does djt want to spend that much? $650 for the billionaire. does djt want to spend that much. again a self-proclaimed billionaire and also a sitting president attending to the matter of his golf club dues at the winged foot golf course. prosecution, what's the total amount of the invoice. westerhout, 6,749. do you want me to look into it or do you want to continue paying annual due and the food minimum? and then the prosecution had westerhout read trump's hand written response written in his signature sharpy. prosecution, what's written below the note in mr. trump's

handwriting. yes, asap, okay. the not so subtle point here is if president trump was personally attending to his golf club dues and would have been concerned about the cost of a $650 picture frame, then he likely would not only have been made aware of the multiple $35,000 hush money payments that were cut on his behalf, he almost certainly also would have been involved in signing every single one of them. back with me now are duncan levin, former district attorney for the district of new york, and kristy greenberg, former deputy in chief of the criminal division of the sdny. are these $650 picture frame, the fact he had time to leaz with his assistant about the golf club dues, are they indicative of the point the prosecution is trying to make?

>> i think so. writing out and signing a check for $35,000, so if he cares about $650, and $6,000, he certainly was asking questions about why he's paying his lawyer $35,000 each month. she was an effective witness just for the testimony that he is in the weeds and even when he's at the white house when the defense has tried to argue, well, he's in a transition and wouldn't have been on anything, he would read the materials, he was interested in the information in his finance, and he would sign the checks generally, and she saw him sign the checks. again, just for that testimony alone it was effective at making the point donald trump personally signed a number of these checks and that, yeah, he likely would have asked questions about what these invoices were for. >> the check signing process, duncan, is like a really -- it's

stunningly convoluted. i think we have a graphic of it if we can pull up. so the trump organization cuts the check. the trump organization executive assistant sends the check to the oval office director that would be keith schiller's home, not the white house. trump sign's the check. the trump organization executive assistant receives a signed check and back up invoices, and then the signed checks go back to the trump organization for accounting. number one, this involves, trump. right, like he's part of this convoluted process and it seems secretive. >> there's nothing fishy about sending checks tuesday the president's body man at his home address. there's nothing fishy about that at all. you know, what's interesting is the way this all fits together because there's testimony, they were reading from his book earlier in the trial how to get rich and think like a billionaire saying this guy negotiated down to the paper clips, and he trusted allen

weisselberg, the cfo implicitly. he's famous for not paying his lawyers. they're doing a good job of showing not only is this person, the defendant very involved in the very piece of the finance of his business, this particular thing was done very secretly. and getting to him in the oval office, the oval office while he's president of the united states because what they're anticipating is the defense is going to get up there and say, look, this guy's the president, he's not paying attention to any of that. >> oh, but he is. >> and they've done a really good job of jigsaw puzzle of witnesses to show this is somebody who not only was paying attention but done very secretively. >> would you like to suspend your golf club membership for four or eight years? westerhout had something in common with hope hicks who was brought in. thought of them sbls as daughter-like figures. both broke down on the stand. i wonder what you think in terms of character and what this does

to bu tres the prosecution's argument that, you know, this isn't about anti-trumpers coming out of the woodwork to damn donald trump at trial, these are some of his closest people giving pretty incendiary information. >> she testified she wrote a book because she thinks donald trump is treated unfairly and she wanted to tell his story. that's a pretty significant witness in terms of everybody that has testified so far. she's the one that has really seemed to testify most strongly in his favor. she talked about the utmost respect she had and admiration for donald trump and melania's marriage. it was a lot. and at the point where she's breaking down because she left and she felt like there was some betrayal, and then on cross-examination there's president trump has forgiven you, and she's tearfully saying, yes, it was a lot of information. she was clearly very friendly to president trump, so anything that she said was positive for the state should be believed.

>> i do wonder we're teeing up the sort of star witness here, michael cohen. given all that we've seen thus far, duncan, how critical is his testimony, and will it -- how much does it matter his character is quite flawed? >> there is no doubt that they have saved him for a later point in the trial so that by the time the jurors hear him, they not only know he's a flawed person, every single person has already testified, david pecker, keith davidson who's stormy daniels lawyer, what a jerk to deal with. everyone knows his baggage, but at the time he's going to testify, there's so many corroborating details of his testimony already, and they've done this on purpose and saved this for last because he's an important witness and basically a conduit to mr. trump. mr. trump basically it's a conspiracy between the national enquirer, david pecker, michael cohen and mr. trump. and they're trying to place him,

and michael cohen's testimony is going to place mr. trump directly in the middle of this conspiracy, so his testimony is important, it's corroborated by all these details. so they've basically saved it for lat but i think on purpose. >> trump's own words, trump's own people, all of them buttressing the argument michael cohen will eventually make. so great to have you guys here. thanks for joining me tonight. coming up, what did donald trump promise oil industry ceos in exchange for $1 billion at a mar-a-lago meeting last month? first, president biden's pause on deliveries of major weaponry to israel has led to howls of protests from across the aisle, but no apparent recognition that it is very much a republican move. i'm going to explain that coming up next. republican move. i'm going to explain that coming up next.

only purple's gel flex grid passes the raw egg test. no other mattress cradles your body and simultaneously supports your spine. memory foam doesn't come close. get your best sleep guaranteed. save up to $800 during our memorial day sale. visit purple.com or a store near you

it was the summer of 1981, and this was the headline in "the washington post." reagan halts f-16s for israel. quoting from that report, president reagan tonight indefinitely delayed shipment of u.s. f-16 fighter bombers to israel in an effort to restrain what secretary of state alexander hague called the escalating cycle of violence in the middle east. at the time israel was in the middle of a military conflict

with palestinian dissidents in lebanon and president ronald reagan was pushing israel to agree to a cease-fire, a cease-fire the israel prime minister did not want to agree to. >> israel's prime minister bagan, said no today to the american appeal for a cease-fire in lebanon and israel's 12-day offensive against palestinians went on. >> met for almost two hours, but afterwards bagan made it clear despite appeals, israel had rejected the idea for an immediate cease-fire. a spokesman said he and habib had not discussed the f-16 deliveries because they believe if there is a cease fear, the deliveries will resume. others called td an justified attempt to pressure izareal. >> an american president pushing israel for a cease-fire, israel resisting those calls, the president withholding transfers of military equipment to try to get israel to agree.

does it sound familiar? president biden has dispatched negotiators to try to broker a cease-fire agreement between netanyahu and his government. those talks have stalled and netanyahu is threatening a full invasion of rafah, where most palestinians are sheltering. and so president biden like president reagan before him is threatening to with hold weapons shipments to israel. >> civilians have been killed in gaza as a consequence of those bombs and other ways in which they go after population centers. if they go into rafah, i'm not supplying the weapons that have been used historically to deal with rafah, to deal with the cities, to deal with that problem. >> republicans wasted no time in pouncing on the president's decision. donald trump posted on his social media site that crooked joe is taking the side of these terrorists. earlier today republican

senators held a press conference to attack the biden administration over its decision. >> president biden's decision to with hold critical ammunition to israel is a total betrayal of our friend and our ally. >> joe biden's de facto position is for a hamas victory over israel. >> i urge the president of the united states to not be the very first president to not stand with israel. >> the biden white house has been the most anti-israel administration this nation has ever seen. >> this is unprecedented. >> unprecedented. the biden administration is taking a tougher line with israel, it is new. but it is far from unprecedented. in fact, it is exactly what ronald reagan did 43 years ago in order to broken an end to hostilities in the region. so how does the biden administration work to bring this conflict to an end while navigating the political fallout each decision brings in an election year? i'll talk with former obama

advisor ben rhodes and former biden press secretary jen psaki about just that coming up next. about just that coming up next why choose a sleep number smart bed? can it keep me warm when i'm cold? wait, no, i'm always hot. sleep number does that. now, save 50% on the sleep number limited edition smart bed. plus, free home delivery when you add an adjustable base. shop now at sleepnumber.com

we planned well for retirement, but i wish we had more cash. you think those two have any idea? that they can sell their life insurance policy for cash? so they're basically sitting on a goldmine? i don't think they have a clue. that's crazy! well, not everyone knows coventry's helped thousands of people sell their policies for cash. even term policies. i can't believe they're just sitting up there! sitting on all this cash. if you own a

life insurance policy of $100,000 or more, you can sell all or part of it to coventry. even a term policy. for cash, or a combination of cash and coverage, with no future premiums. someone needs to tell them, that they're sitting on a goldmine, and you have no idea! hey, guys! you're sitting on a goldmine! come on, guys! do you hear that? i don't hear anything anymore. find out if you're sitting on a goldmine. call coventry direct today at the number on your screen, or visit coventrydirect.com. the biden administration has repeatedly warned that a full-scale israeli invasion of the gazan city of rafah would have catastrophic human consequences, ones that could dramatically increase the already staggering death toll. and yet president biden's latest move, threatening to cut off delivery of certain weapons if the israeli government moves

forward a full-scale offensive in rafah, that decision has ignited a political firestorm. republicans and some democrats see the move as a betrayal of israel. and younger progressive democrats say biden's move is not enough. the president of young democrats of arizona told nbc news this week that while this is a step in the right direction, there needs to be a much more permanent solution. joining me now to discuss this are two former obama officials, also a former biden official, former deputy national security advisor ben rhodes, and my colleague jen psaki, host of msnbc's inside with jen psaki. and author of because she needs more credentials on her cv, her new book "say more lessons from work, the white house and the world." we're going to talk about those lessons, jen, and maybe you can employ them in the current situation this biden white house finds itself in. this is very difficult place for the president to be. what do you make of the strategy as it stands right now? >> well, i certainly think this step in using leverage, which as

you just outlined in your last block it's not unprecedented despite others claims. there's moments in history, we can all google them and look them up, but it's significant for the biden administration for a number of reasons. one is clearly the president has a long history of supporting israel. he has had a rocky relationship with prime minister netanyahu way back to 2010 when as vice president he went to visit israel and there was announcement of settlements being built while he was in israel. they reached this point holding back military equipment and weapons that israel is very reliant on is a step people i don't think would have predicted he would have done six months ago and also a step many people would have liked him to do earlier. i think there will be a plot -- i know somebody said it's a step and more needs to happen.

you can't just wave a magic wand and get a cease-fire. that would be great, but this is step that hopefully will show the u.s. is willing to use leverage, the president is willing to use it, and we'll have to see what the impact is. the question i have for ben, i will add it to your list, is they already have weapons they need. >> that is why we both work here because i was going to ask the same thing, ben, which is there's still billions of dollars in the pipeline here in terms of meaningful effects of this decision. this isn't to undercut president biden's choice in the moment but to understand what actually will and can happen in the next several weeks now because cease-fire talks have fallen apart. >> well, i think there's two effects. practical, yes, israel has a lot of weapons. but they also plan for a pipeline of continued resupply from the united states of munitions, shells, the 2,000-pound bombs they've been

dropping. so at some point it would have a military effect. i think more importantly, though, it sends a message, a substantive message not just a rhetorical message to a military operation in rafah where you have over 600,000 palestinian children and so the u.s. is signaling to the world and to the israeli people as well as the american people that we don't support this and we don't want to be a part of this. and that i think diplomatic puts a lot of pressure on israel. back in 2014 jen may remember president obama began to get concerned about the military operation in gaza, and that public and substantive pressure helped bring about a cease-fire. so this doesn't guarantee that israel will not go forward with some type of operation in rafah, but it does begin to bring leverage to bear to get this to a cease-fire or to at least get israel to move forward in ways

that take into much greater account the civilian harm created by this war in gaza. >> that's such an important point because the republican outrage in this decision i think embedded in that is a tacit acceptance that the invasion of rafah has to go forward. if you look at the naked political reality, more than two-thirds of the country believes there should be a cease-fire. politico, the economists, 63% of the country believes a cease-fire should happen. i do think there's a reality that support for this war is changing in this country. >> that's true. and i think that the substance of what's happening on the ground there and our colleagues chris hayes made this point, i thought it's a smart one, it's much harder to talk about and debate and more important and vital than even some of the domestic politics in our country. i would say on the republican front what today sort of exposed in terms of their reaction and as a reminder to the public is that even for people who may be

frustrated with the president's response or the president's support for israel, the contrast on the other side is that donald trump, the members of his party, republicans, many republicans, not all of them in congress, think that israel should have a free license that netanyahu should i should say to do whatever they want here, and they should have any weapon they want, that it should be unchecked. this is the view if not but many. that is a reminder to a lot of people for those frustrated about the president's pace, they're frustrated by, you know, his continued support for israel and for prime minister netanyahu's actions there, the other side is much worse and unfettered, and today is kind of a reminder of that. >> the republican outcry over campus protests has really obscured the fact that they apparently actively support a war that has cost 35,000 lives.

>> yes, that's a much better articulation of the point i'm going to make. the outcry and alarm and there are real issues happening on campuses. not all protests are monolithic. there's also anti-semitism that is on the rise in our country, but they have made that an issue that is their predominant issue while simultaneously giving unfettered support -- untested support for any action that the israeli military is doing. and that is an important contrast for people to understand even those who are frustrated out there. >> ben and jen, it's a franchise already, please stay with me, i have many more questions for you on very, very important topics. we have one more story to get to. what donald trump told a gathering of oil industry ceos at a gathering at mar-a-lago last month will likely shock but not surprise you. trump's billion dollar proposal is next. s billion dollar propos is next.

you're all people that have a lot of money. i know plenty of you and you're rich as hell. we're going to give you tax cuts, we're going to pay off our debts. we're going to do all of the things -- >> that's leaked audio from a high ticket fund-raiser in april featuring former president trump promising to extend tax cuts for the very wealthy if they would just support his campaign. and now today "the washington post" is reporting trump had a similar message for oil executives at another fund raiser last month. help me get re-elected and i'll kill biden's environmental regulations. more prespicily trump reportedly said you all are wealthy enough you should raise $1 billion to return me to the white house and then he vowed to immediately reverse dozens of biden's environmental policies and stop new ones from being enacted. back with ben rhodes and jen psaki. thanks for sticking around. ben, does this remind you of the obama administration? i jest. >> i mean, yes, the similarities are very slight here, alex.

i mean, look, there's so much happening here it's basic pay to play corruption. our government is for sale, policy is for sale. basically if you're rich you get a tax cut. if you are destroying the environment with fossil fuels, just give me a billion dollars and i'll make those regulations go away. in addition to being corrupt in its own face, it's something he has in common with the autocracy that rise around the world. this is actually how you get autocracy too. with putin it was like i'm going to create some klepto autocrats and we're going to have a small group of people that control the country. that's what's happening in hungary with viktor orban they have such affinity for. if you care about corruption and a government that's working for you instead of a handful of rich oligarchs, then you can see the

danger of donald trump. if you introduce the substance to it as well, alex, he's basically saying he's going to destroy the planet that our children -- the three of us have young kids are growing up in -- just if these guys would write him a check. you should be mad about the process, the character being revealed, and you should be mad about the substantive things he's doing in just shoveling tax cuts to the rich and shredding environmental regulations. >> to put a finer point on that, ben, this is what he was trying to do in ukraine. this is the play book he runs, and he hasn't learned anything from the first time he was impeached over it. >> ben can talk. go ahead, ben. we're into that point. >> ben, speak. >> ben, speak. >> no, no, that's it. it's staring you in the face. at some point he's saying all the quiet things out loud, he's saying them on camera.

and look, we have every reason to look around the world and see where this brand of politics goes, and it's nowhere good for the people of the country. >> jen, putting on your white house hat here, i mean if you're biden, this seems like a gift to biden, right? it is a presidential election year. there's video. yes, so what do you do with it? how do you tell the story to the american public in a way it's not just about climate change but it's about the central integrity of the man who's on it ticket? >> yeah, first of all the climate change and climate crisis is something people actually very much care about just like you can't talk about it like tree hugging, right? you have to talk about it as an issue that impacts health and an issue that impacts our national security and the economy and a range of parts of our country including places like southern florida to be honest. so you talk about it like that. i think an event he did in wisconsin would be kind of an interesting type of model here because he sort of went to a place where trump had failed, this company, foxconn, and he

did a bit of an edgy event and edgy speech. and his language is getting harder and sharper. this is clear contrast. it may be hard to break through on domestic issues, but people do care about this. and you can do a clear contrast event with trump as ready to be like paying off oil executives and, you know, wasting away, getting rid of the safe air and safe drinking water for your grandchildren. i'm going to protect it and do it in a place where people are reminded of it because it's present in their lives. that may or may not probably break through in the trump trials because it's a historic moment, but it's also something people in a lot of communities would deeply care about and that's ultimately his audience, about six or seven states. >> i have to ask because, you know, jen, you have a new book out. and if it's not abundantly clear to people watching this show you guys have been friends for a long time. and the book chronicles -- it's a beautiful cover. the book chronicles jen's time in white house, lessons she

learned. ben, when you think about jen psaki and your time with her, what is your favorite memory? >> oh, gosh. first of all, this book it's a great -- it's basically jen's personality and jen's incredible personal story. and she's been in the room for so many different things and has learned so many different lessons. i mean some of the best stories about jen maybe didn't make it into that book, but my favorite thing about jen is, you know, she was there as a friend if i was ever really in trouble, the first person -- >> which you were constantly in so -- >> i think my favorite thing is the constant impact she had. i remember in the 2012 election and i have a picture in my book actually, we're men so we're idiots, so we grew play off beards and stressed out. and jen was just like this calm force along the whole last stretch of the campaign. she's simultaneously briefing

the press, making sure we don't get in the wrong way because we're people not used to being on the campaign plane. everything we went through, jen had this calming demeanor that was laser focused on what we're trying to get done but also on the people getting it done with her. and i think what people learned on msnbc is she's like the best friend you'd want in your living room. that's how we felt when we were serving government with her, and that's why everyone should buy this book. >> guys, this is what friendship is all about. >> it's true. >> the show is over, however. we have to leave it there but not before plugging one more time jen psaki's new book. again it is called say more, lessons from work, the white house and the world. that is our show for this evening. "way too early" with jonathan lemire is coming up next. stormy daniels wraps up her second day of testimony with a contentious cross-examination