cnn said special vector herr has. new findings into the investigation of why a panel called a door plug blew off in an alaska airlines boeing 737. at least three of the four bolts that were supposed to be holding the door plug in place were missing when the plane left the boeing factory late last year. here's cnn's pete muntean with a quick look at how these bolts were supposed to work. >> reporter: this is the actual 250i7 of bolt. an an-6 bolt, pretty common in aviation. this is the bolt itself. there's a castle nut and a could the tercotter pin to keep it together. in actuality, the ntsb says none of these bolts were in place at the time of this blowout last

month. >> boeing says it is taking steps to make sure this doesn't happen again. our coverage continues now with wolf blitzer in "the situation room." i'll see you tomorrow. >> announcer: this is cnn breaking news. welcome to our viewers here in the united states and around the world. i'm wolf blitzer in "the situation room" and we're following major breaking news here in washington. we're awaiting two key votes in the house of representatives on a truly historic vote, including a truly historic vote impeaching the homeland security secretary alejandro mayorkas. we're also standing by for the house to vote on a standalone bill sending aid to israel. this as federal appeals court deals a huge blow to donald trump's legal defense ruling he does not have -- does not have immunity in the federal election subversion case. let's get to cnn's manu raju. update our viewers on these important two votes.

>> reporter: we're waiting for what will be an historic and unprecedented and highly controversial vote when the house moves ahead to impeach the homeland security secretary. he has been impeached. charged with high crimes and misdemeanors. only the second time in history a cabinet secretary has been impeached. the secretary of war, william bel belknap. the republicans are pressing ahead charging mayorkas contending he has failed in his duties in securing the border with mexico. a charge the democrats fiercely oppose. they say the republicans are abusing the impeachment process to go after mayorkas on policy grounds. this vote is expected to be razor thin. they cannot afford more than three republican defections in order to move forward on these charges. we do expect two republicans to vote against it. a handful of members have not said how they will vote but

house republican leaders are confident they'll get there. they're pressing ahead with a $17.6 billion package to fund israel. this is controversial. they want to tie this to ukraine aid, the new border security package that was negotiated in the senate with the white house. they want this as one package. mike johnson has pushed for a stand alone bill. the house democrat leaders expect that bill to fail needing 2/3 majority. they're pushing back over the israel package because of concerns it does not cut spending. that is likely to collapse. we do expect mayorkas impeachment vote happens. the senate controlled by democrats will dismiss the charges. he will not be convicted of a

crime, wolf. in addition to the israel aid package collapsing, we expect the border security deal, that was cut with the white house along with ukraine, israel aid in one big package. we expect it will fail tomorrow morning amid republican rebellion and deep division in the gop rank on that issue. so much happening, wolf, but at the end of the day so much collapsing amid in fighting here in the capitol. >> manu, i want you to stand by. you'll be busy this hour. lots going on on capitol hill. another big story we're following right now. a major legal blow to donald trump's criminal defense. u.s. court of appeals soundly rejecting his claim of presidential immunity from criminal prosecution. cnn's paula reid has more on the ruling and the court's very strong message that the former president is not, repeat not above the law.

>> reporter: in a unanimous, historic ruling, three judges on the d.c. circuit court of appeals rejecting former president trump's claim, that he has absolute immunity from criminal prosecution. the judges writing, for the purpose of this criminal case, former president trump has become citizen trump with all of the defenses of any other criminal defendant. special council jack smith charged him with four federal counts related to his efforts to overturn the 2020 election. >> it's described in the indictment. it was fueled by lies. lies by the defendant targeted at obstructing a bedrock function of the u.s. government. >> reporter: trump has repeatedly insisted he was acting within the scope of his duties as president and therefore cannot be tried. >> a president of the united states has to be free and clear of mind, and you can't be worrying about something when

you're doing the right thing but if it doesn't work out you're going to end up in prison. >> reporter: the judges on tuesday batted down that argument and slammed trump's alleged efforts to stay in pow jer dismissing the election as unpressal and an assault on american institutions. we cannot accept former president trump's claim that a president has unbounded authority to commit crimes. former president trump's stance would collapse our system of separated powers by placing the president beyond the reach of all three branches. in a statement today the trump campaign argued that without complete immunity no president could properly perform their duties for fear of retribution. if immunity is not granted to a president, every future president who leaves office will be immediately indicted by the opposing party. but the court also rejected any suggestion that prosecuting trump will have a chilling

effect on future leaders. past presidents have understood themselves to be subject to impeachment and criminal liability, at least under certain circumstances, so the possibility of chilling executive action is already in effect. trump is vowing to appeal and the supreme court will likely have the final say. the justices though were already said to hear arguments on thursday in another case with huge implications for trump on whether his actions after the 2020 election disqualify him from the 2024 ballot. with trump expected to appeal this decision, the issue is really now timing. how long will it take the high court to make clear what they intend to do with this case because the longer they sit with it, the leo trial before the 2024. paula reid, thank you very much. i want to bring in more experts on the election subversion case

against trump and, george conway, let me start with you. this panel meticulously rejected trump's defenses and at one point they called him citizen trump. not president or former president, citizen trump. do you think this is a strong enough ruling to withstand appeal? >> absolutely. both strong and very narrow and that's what makes it difficult for him to take up to the supreme court. strong opinion. it's air tight. it's methodical. it disposes of every single one of trump's arguments in a methodical fashion, even the stupid arguments, and treats them with respect but is biting nonetheless. at the same time, they narrowly crafted the opinion to deal with one circumstance and one circumstance only and it's where a former president is being indicted for having tried to stop the peaceful transition of power. and that's a very narrow opinion. that's another reason why the supreme court may not take this case. if they don't take this case, we're headed for a trial no

later than june. >> historic, indeed. very significant. elliott williams is with us. trump's strategy as we know has been delay, delay, delay. delay all of the cases that explain how this decision pushes back. >> when someone loses an opinion. >> in one voice as owes pod.

>> trump is railing against that. the party's vicious retribution. >> no other former president has ever been indicted for trying to overthrow the peaceful transfer of power. if you look at president's 1 through 44, they're not worried about retribution. this is a donald trump problem. but to your point, the word ret tw trib bugs, that is a classic donald trump word. it's what he campaigns on. it's what he says to his followers. i am your retribution. and we're seeing this where he says, political consultants can't get money. nikki haley, if you donate to her, they're going to be out of

maga world. i think it was not accidental that he used that word. >> very significant word. do you think the supreme court would take up trump's appeal if, in fact, that happens? >> i think it could go either way. i think it's really hard to predict what the supreme court is going to do in this particular situation. i think there's a strong argument for them not to take it, and that's because the d.c. circuit really -- because they took a little bit extra time in considering the case and really wrote an opinion for the history books, it is so thorough in terms of its constitutional analysis on the separation of powers, it's clear with respect to the issues it takes on as to whether or not a president who in some circumstances put out immunity from civil cases, could have immunity in the criminal context. it is an issue of first impressions for the court.

it has never happened. the court has never had to take up this position. it analyzes the immunity and lays out why the former president's arguments really just don't can have any merit and any basis. and so i think based on the d.c. circuit opinion, there is a credible basis for the supreme court to say, there is no dispute here. the d.c. circuit opinion can hold and this case should move forward. >> a unanimous decision by the d.c. circuit court of appeals would be the law, would remain if the supreme court doesn't take it up. what do you think? you need four supreme court justices to take up this appeal if, in fact, it happens. do you think that will happen? if you do, who are the four? >> i'm with kerry. i think it could go either way, but i think i would vote against it because i don't think any court is going to do a better job than this court did with this opinion. i just think it's hard to do and i think it's not worth the time for the supreme court to take it

and review it, particularly when the case can be reviewed after trump is convicted. he can make this argument to the supreme court to his heart's content. he's going to lose there. there's no reason they need to take it now. >> do you think four of the nine supreme court justices would want it taken up? >> i don't think they would. particularly when they have this other difficult case they'll hear next thursday. they have their hands full. if i were them, i would leave it alone. >> elliott, button this up. >> the only reason why or a reason why they may want to take it up is they may say this is such an important matter of what's called first impression, it's never come up before, that really we, the supreme court, needs to be the ones to make the decision. even if they rubber stamp it, i believe it's their voice. they all sign together and no discents. >> unanimous decision. thank you very, very much.

just ahead, going back live to capitol hill for the very two important house votes that are ongoing. a republican push to impeach the homeland security alejandro mayorkas on the line as well as u.s. aid to israel. also ahead, an historic guilty verdict against the mother of a school shooter. we'll break down the unprecedented conviction. stay with us, you're in "the situation" room.

we're monitoring breaking news right now on the house of representatives floor where we're awaiting a vote to impeach the homeland security secretary alejandro mayorkas. we'll go back there when that happens. also tonight, another very important story we're following. a michigan jury has just made history convicting the mother of a school shooter, ethan crumbley, on four counts of manslaughter after a gut wrenching, very emotional trial. jean ka sarris has the verdict. >> a historic verdict. >> we find the defendant guilty. >> reporter: in the manslaughter trial of jennifer crumbley, the mother of a student who killed

four students at a michigan high school in 2021. the jury unanimous after more than 10 hours of deliberation. jennifer crumbley plead the not guilty. she faces a maximum punishment of up to 15 years in prison for each count which would run concurrently and would be sentenced in april. on november 30th, 2021, ethan crumble y killed madison baldwin, tate mere, justin schilling and hannah saint julianna at oxford high school using a gun his parents gave him. the case is a novel one and unprecedented in testing the limits of whether a parent of a mass shooter can be held accountable for the attack. >> this case is a very dangerous one for parents out there. it just is.

and it is one of the first of its kind. >> reporter: the jury forewoman said one detail stood out in deliberations. >> the thing that really hammered it home is she left him at home with the gun. >> it was a long time coming but it's definitely a step towards accountability. it's not really about winning or losing, it's about making it apparent that this has to stop in society. >> reporter: during the trial prosecutors painted jennifer cru crumbley as grossly negligent. >> the question about why jennifer crumbley didn't take one of the small, small actions, secure the gun. find out where the gun is. it looms large in this courtroom. there is no one it looms larger for than the victims and the

family members of those kids who were killed on that day. >> reporter: but the 45-year-old lawyer argued her son's actions could not have been predicted. >> can every parent really be responsible for everything their children do? especially when it's not foreseeable? and this clearly was not foreseeable to mrs. crumbley because there's no one in the world, including mrs. crumbley, who would let a school shooting happen. >> reporter: scenes from the day of the shooting were heard in court while the jury heard from those who survived it. >> i texted my husband, i love you, and then i started feeling blood dripping down my arm. >> reporter: jennifer crumbley took the stand and appeared to shift some of the blame on to her husband. >> who was responsible for storing the gun? >> my husband is. >> reporter: jennifer's husband is scheduled to go to trial on

the same charges in early march. he, too, has pleaded not guilty. and jennifer's sentencing will be on the 9th. we expect it to be extremely emotional because if there are, and there should be victim impact statements, those would be the family members of those four students that were gunned down by ethan crumbley. no word whether james crumbley's trial will get started one month from today on the 9th of march. >> jean, thank you very much. i want to bring you in our chief legal analyst lora coats. this is the first time a parent of a mass shooter has been criminally charged and convicted of her son's actions. what kind of precedent does this set? >> historic verdict. this is the first time in a long line of sadly school shootings, mass shootings, not only a

living shooter but also the parents being held to account for what has happened. and many family members unsure of how to channel their need and desire for justice. well, here it was in the form of having this involuntary manslaughter charge. what that tells you is it wasn't intentional. that's not what the law requires. it requires recklessness. it requires criminal negligence. you could have done something differently to save these children. what's interesting here is the testimony of the defendant herself. she testified about how she was unsure about his mental health in many ways. she was focused on other things. she wouldn't have done anything differently. she pointed the finger at her husband. at the end of the day the community of jurors said here the evidence is overwhelming that that day of the actual shooting you, unlike the school educators you met with, you were aware that your son had access to a weapon and a school shooting happened. >> heartbreaking situation.

does today's verdict, do you think, make it more or less likely that her husband will also be found guilty when he comes up for a trial next month? >> frankly, i would be surprised if he had a trial. i'd be more inclined to think of a change of plea because when you think about the jury pool, if the wife has already been found guilty, and everyone deserves a presumption of innocence, absolutely, the prosecution has got to carry their burden of proof, but the same set of facts surrounding what her defense was will likely be used by this particular defendant as well save for perhaps an affair, affinity for horses, but it changts the entire dynamic. it will be a new set of jurors, a new prosecution having to actually approve their case but the precedent has been set that if you were aware of red flags and chose to do something -- nothing about them, then you are as guilty as the person who actually committed the crime. that's voluntary and involuntary

manslaughter across the board. >> there were plenty of red flags. >> there were. >> laura, of course, will be back later on tonight with her program. laura coates live starting at 11 p.m. eastern later tonight. we'll be watching. we're still awaiting two key votes on the house floor. the vote to impeach the homeland security secretariy alejandro mayorkas. and a vote for israel. stay with us. you're in "the situation room."

i think he's having a midlife crisis i'm not. you got us t-mobile home internet lite. after a week of streaming they knocked us down... ...to dial up speeds. like from the 90s. great times. all i can do say is that my life is pre-- i like watching the puddles gather rain. -hey, your mom and i procreated to that song. oh, ew! i think you've said enough. why don't we just switch to xfinity like everyone else? then you would know what year it was. i know what year it is. more now on the breaking news we're following. two major votes in the house of representatives ongoing.

i want to bring back our chief congressional correspondent, manu raju. we're joined by cnn white house correspond debt priscilla alvarez and gloria borger. manu, we've been waiting for this impeachment vote to start up for some time. is there a holdup? what's going on? >> reporter: typically, wolf, when the votes are held up it allows them to whip them into line and get the votes. this will be a very, very narrow vote. republicans have no margin for error. they can only afford to lose three republican votes. right now there are two republican votes and a handful of others have not said where they'll come down. undoubtedly those conversations are happening. i caught up with some of those members today and one of them in particular, tom mcchlintock

talked about the precedent this vote would set. can you talk about the precedent this vote would set? >> i think it lowers the grounds of impeachment to the point where we can expect it to be leveled to every conservative supreme court justice. there will be nobody there to stop them because we will have been complicit in redefining the fundamental definition of impeachment the american founders placed in our constitution. >> reporter: how are you going to vote on the mayorkas impeachment? >> that last blowing of the kiss came from maria salazar imposed moving forward with impeachment but not saying how she will vote here. she is one person be to watch as well as congressman mike gallagher who has not said how will he vote. if there are four votes, that would force this effort to collapse. but house gop leaders still believe they will get there and they'll have this be the second

cabinet secretary ever to be impeached. >> about 150 years since the first time that happened. priscilla, how is the white house reacting to this upcoming impeachment vote? >> well, the white house and the department of homeland security have been preparing for this moment. it was clear when house republicans took control of the house and -- they were going to start threatening to impeach homeland security secretary alejandro mayorkas. they telegraphed it. they hired a private law firm. that happened last year, and there have been strategic meetings with homeland security officials and senior white house officials leading up to this. of course, the secretary really became the face of president biden's border policy. he fielded intense criticism from republicans and sometimes democrats about the handling of the u.s./mexico border. notably, he was also deeply

involved in the ongoing border negotiations to reach that border package that the senate unbe veiled on sunday. so the white house, again, has been preparing for this. they have noted this was predetermined from the start, that this is a farce and there is no there there. they have moved forward as administration officials have expected they would in what is, wolf, an exceedingly rare move. as you just mentioned, it hasn't happened in over 100 years. the last time this happened was in 1876. that is something administration officials have also reminded reporters of. >> that's interesting. gloria, the democratic controlled senate is almost certainly not going to remove mayorkas from office even if he's impeached in the house of representatives. he's not going to be convicted in the u.s. senate when there's a democratic majority. what's behind the move from the house republicans? >> this is a move for republicans to say they got a trophy and the trophy is

mayorkas. and he's a symbol of border policy. and they can take it to their constituents and they can raise money off of it and they can say, look, we got this scalp. he's the guy running the department of homeland security. and he was at fault for all of this. what they can't say, and there is a lot of testimony about this, is that mayorkas committed high crimes and miss ddemeanors. >> let me go back to manu. i understand, manu, the house vote has just started on the impeachment. what should we be looking at? >> reporter: this vote happening now. we're looking at the republican no votes. that is going to be critical. we expect all democrats to vote no against impeaching mayorkas. how many no votes. we're told three at the moment

appears to be the magic number. two republicans have voted no. three is the most they can a ford. n this is just a caution. it depends on absences. some may vote present. that would lower the threshold to ultimately get a majority in the chamber. past and present votes could change the actual calculation, the math here, but if all things go as we expect, we expect they can only lose three republican votes. you can see, wolf, just hitting number 3. we did not know if there would be three or not. we expected there would be two. here we go, there's not anymore margin for error. cautioning absences could change the math here. there was some expectation going into this vote that this was passed by the narrowest, narrowest of margins and at the moment that is exactly the case. there are 81 members, now fewer than that, 78, 76 who have not voted yet. people are now casting their

voting cards here. this will go pretty quickly. this is a five-minute vote. in the next few minutes, wolf, we will get a sense about whether or not mayorkas will be charged with high crimes and misdemeanors. two articles of impeachment. three republican, four republican no votes suggests this could collapse. it went down again to three. sometimes that happens. sometimes a member may think they're voting yes and they vote no and they realize that frantically and change it back the other way. it's back down to three republican no votes. at the moment still enough votes it appears to get this through the chamber, but not much time, wolf. this is still running. there's two minutes left. two minutes and 40 seconds. 42 no votes. 42 people who have not voted yet. 3 no votes on the republican side. democrats are all voting against impeaching mayorkas. the big question, how many will

vote. >> two and a half minutes to go. go ahead. >> normally, manu can speak to this any better than we can, normally you wouldn't bring this to the floor unless you thought you had the votes to do what the speaker wants, which is to impeach mayorkas. in fact, we don't know the answer to that. maybe the speaker does. maybe he knows he's got a couple of votes in his back pocket, but normally this is not the way you would proceed because if it doesn't work, it's an embarrassment for him. >>. >> reporter: well, there have been discussions all day long whether they would pull this. >> right. >> reporter: some members thought this would be pulled because it was so close. some members had family issues. congressman rogers was in a car accident. he was in the capitol with a neck brace. others had some other issues but they came back to vote. that changed the numbers. if they had the number of absences, republican absences,

that would have made it harder. on the democratic side dean phillips came back to vote against this measure. if he did not appear, that would also have made it easier for republicans to get the votes to get this through. but people came back because this is such a critical vote. the one member who's missing, steve scalise, the house majority leader undergoing house issues, he's been out for a few weeks now. because of those absences that changes the math. as you can see, wolf, it looks like the votes will be there, which is a big -- as gloria said, it would be unlikely the republican leadership would have went through with this not knowing they had the votes. at the moments it looks like they will get there. there are only three republican no votes and seven republicans have not yet voted here as the vote is ticking down to the final seconds. >> we'll see what happens and we'll watch it very closely. it's truly remarkable, gloria, when you think about it, house republicans are attempting to impeach mayorkas because they

claim he failed to control the border while at the same time they're refusing to take up a bipartisan bill aimed at controlling the border. >> it's the ultimate cynical act, isn't it? you're saying here he's guilty of high crimes and misdemeanors because we disagree with him on policy, which is really what this is about. then a bill is presented to the house which actually changes policy, which is a bill that they wouldn't be able to get if donald trump were president because democrats would never support it, and suddenly they're backing off and saying it's not good enough. it's not strong enough. we need more time tow study it. so, you know, it's just, you know, cynical politics. >> let me follow up with you, priscilla. you've been doing a lot of reporting on this. republicans claim we have a major crisis at the border right now but they're also willing to delay legislation addressing this crisis until next year. how much worse could this situation get simply by waiting?

>> president biden is planning to flip the script on republicans by using this vote against his homeland security secretary and their threat to not even take up the senate bill as a way of throwing into question how serious republicans really are on border security. we got a preview as to how the president plans to do that on the campaign trail earlier today. take a listen. >> if the bill fails, i want to be absolutely clear about something, american people are going to know why it failed. every day between now and november the american people are going to know that the only reason the border is not secure is donald trump and his maga republican friends. >> now i've been talking to democratic strategists who say it's simple here. you can boil down the message. the democrats wanted a tough deal on immigration and republicans didn't want to take it up. that's one step further than where democrats have been. they talk about immigration reform, say republicans didn't

give them that. this time it's not only that, they also were opting to take a tougher approach to the u.s./mexico border. now again border numbers are lower than they've been. whether that can hold moving forward is a big question. >> manu, take a look at this. 215-215, that's the numbers with zero time remaining. what's going on? >> i will tell you exactly what's going on. democrat al greene we expected to not appear for this vote which is why we thought they could afford three republican defect shuns. it appears al greene has showed up and is voting against this which has changed the math completely. remember, i have been saying it all depends on the absences. absences were going to be absolutely critical here. because of the one republican steve scalise has been undergoing health issues for some time, he was not expected to be here, they had expected one more democrat not to be here, al greene. three no votes on the republican side would have been enough to

get this through but because greene has come back, this is now tied 215-215 and that means this vote will fail if it stays this way. this vote is still open. that means there may be some efforts here by the republican leadership to try to twist some arms, try to urge those three republican no votes to vote yes. change their vote to get this over the finish line, but if this gavel comes down, democrats are on the floor right now yelling at the presiding officer to bang the gavel down and close this vote so they can kill it, but there's going to be an effort here by the republican leadership to try to flip the vote to yes. even if they kill this now, wolf, it could be very short lived. when steve scalise comes back, expected back sometime later this month, maybe by march, they will have the votes. you can see one more republican vote would make it 216-215. this will be a short-lived victory for democrats but one they would undoubtedly cheer if

this 215-215 tie stands which would mean this measure to impeach mayorkas would fail, wolf. >> you need a simple majority to impeach. 215-215. manu, it looks like the speaker, speaker johnson is presiding right now. he's in the speaker's chair. what does that suggest? >> it means he's going to bang the gavel closed any minute here. typically on big votes the speaker is the one who does it. otherwise, they have a designee who goes up to the diet and bangs the gavel closed. he probably was expecting this to pass because we did not know the exact nature of the absences here, but he's under pressure, as you can see. there's a lot of stress on the floor when things are taking an unpredictable turn on the house floor, you see this drama play out right in front of your eye. that's exactly what's happening here. they're probably trying to figure out what they should do? they can keep the vote open as long as they want.

they are the majority. five minute vote. technically it should have been done several minutes ago. they can decide to keep this open for hours if they wanted to. we'll see. maybe if they can't convince those three republicans, one of those three republicans to vote yes, then it will be time to bang the gavel shut, take the loss now and come back later to impeach mayorkas when steve scalise returns to the chamber. undoubtedly, a major twist here, wolf. the republican leadership was confident they would get the votes today even though they knew it would be by e slimmest of majorities in this razor thin republican-led majority. because of the republican defect shuns, the one absence and the democrats being in full attendance here, that is enough to scuttle their plans to charge alejandro mayorkas with high crimes and misdemeanors unless something changes in the next couple of minutes. >> just want to be precise. 215-215. if it's a tie vote, if it ends like that, he is not impeached.

you need a simple majority, right? >> reporter: that is absolutely correct. tie vote means a failed vote. the republican leadership knew that all along but they cannot count votes on the democratic side. the democrats weren't going to help them out and tell them who was going to come and who was not going to come. they wanted to see who was here, who was not here so they could judge the absences, they could know how many votes they could afford to lose and i've got to go back and check, but i assume al greene was not here in that first vote appearing for this vote which probably caught them a bit by surprise. now there's four republican no votes, wolf, and i'm not sure if someone said this is going down, i'm going to vote no. that could be a problem, wolf, if that fourth vote stays. that could be a problem. if steve scalise comes back, when he does come back and votes yes -- >> hold on, manu. speaker johnson is speaking. right now let's listen.

>> on this vote the yeahs are 214 and the nas are 216. the resolution is not adopted. for what purpose does the gentleman from utah seek recognition. >> mr. speaker, i have a motion at the desk. >> the clerk will report the motion. >> mr. moore of utah moves to reconsider the vote on resolution of house 863. >> the question is on the motion to reconsider. those in favor say aye. >> aye. >> those opposed say no. >> no. >> the ayes have it. >> the gentleman from utah. >> mr. speaker, i request the ayes and nays. >> the ayes and nays are

favored. >> they will rise. sufficient number having risen, the ayes and nays are ordered. pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20, further proceedings on this question are postponed. pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20, the unfinished is the vote on the motion to suspend the rules and pass 7217. the clerk will report the title. >> hr 7217, a bill making emergency supplemental appropriations to respond to the attacks in israel for the fiscal year ending september 30th, 2024, for no other purposes. >> the question is will the house suspend the rules and pass the bill? members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a five-minute vote. >> all right. i want to go quickly back to manu raju watching all of this. the it looks like it's failed at least so far, manu, to impeach the second of homeland security. they're taking up the separate legislation, stand alone aid

bill for israel, $17.6 billion for a stand alone bill that president biden has vowed to veto because it's not part of this broader compromise package. >> wolf, this is also expected to fail, this measure, because of the opposition from democrats as well as some members on the far right. we're going to see two failures here by the president pushed forward by the house republican leadership. just on the mayorkas vote. this is a setback, a major setback. one that they had pushed hard to get done and expected this would happen swiftly. blowing back at them even as they expected they would have the votes. this is what happened, wolf. i want to give you a sense of it. there are three republicans, four republicans who voted against it. three of them are firm no votes. ken buck of colorado. tom mcclintock and mike gallagher. a fourth member, blake moore, voted against it, but that was for procedural reasons, so they could call off the vote again.

so when this vote happens again in the future to impeach mayorkas, they almost certainly will have the votes to go forward because steve scalise, a majority will be back after recovering from an illness. a short-lived victory but still a victory for democrats in scuttling this effort that republicans had hoped they could cheer for the impeachment of mayorkas making him the second cabinet secretary ever to face high crimes and misdemeanor charges from the united states house of representatives not happening today because of this failure here. just in a matter of moments we do expect this also to fail. this vote on the floor to approve $17.6 billion in aid to israel would be 2/3 majority of the house to do it because house republicans in the freedom caucus, the far right faction said they would not go along with the leadership's spending and dome kratz said they would not go along with it, wolf, because it is not tied to aid to

ukraine, aid to taiwan as well as the new border security package negotiated with the white house and a handful of senators. they did not want to move along on this. the democratic leaders in the house said they would absolutely not go for this. we do not expect there to be enough democratic support to get the 2/3 majority to get this israel aid package through the house. two efforts by the speaker to get through the house, impeachment of mayorkas and aid to israel on the verge of collapse here. >> just the bottom line on all of this, manu, if the aid bill for israel fails and the impeachment vote fails, this would be a huge embarrassment for the republican leadership in the house. >> it certainly would, wolf. it would raise questions about their legislative strategy, how they plan to move forward from here just on the issue of aid itself. there is no path forward for moving forward on aid to israel,

moving forward on aid to ukraine and aid to taiwan. things that have been called for for some time, particularly the ukraine piece at a time of war in russia. there is no path or passage for that. also on the border security piece, the republicans have demanded that they must have border security provisions, new policies in place before they green light all of those other aid packages. now they have cut a deal with the white house, a handful of senators. that is not good enough for the house republican leadership. because they are opposed, senate republicans are opposed, we are going to see so many things collapse here in front of our eyes. israel, border security, ukraine, taiwan and now the impeachment of alejandro mayorkas all showing you the perils of managing and governing in this narrowly divided house, wolf. >> very interesting. historic voting going on. manu, stand by. you're still going to be very busy up there. right now i want to bring in

former republican congressman adam kinzi zzingerkinzinger. thank you for joining us. what's your reaction to apparently both of these votes, these failed house votes? >> well, this is a massive defeat for the leadership. let's keep in mind, gallagher, buck, mcclintock are the three no votes. blake moore, that was for a different reason. that took a lot of courage to do that because the 217 or so other republicans knew this should not have gone forward. you had three with the courage to say no. that also portends anything now for the potential biden impeachment. you know they're going to have to try to bring that forward no matter what evidence they have. if they cannot pass the impeachment of this cabinet member, they're going to have a hard time getting through the impeachment of joe biden. this is a big embarrassment for speaker jorn son. on the other hand, everybody wants aid -- almost everybody

wants aid to israel, but the reason speaker johnson is putting this forward is to take off the pressure to bring forward ukraine aid. that's the whole reason israel aid is coming forward. so thankfully there are enough people that are going to have the courage to say no to that because they say, look, yes, israel's important, but ukraine right now is basically starving of shells to defeat the russians and they can defeat them with our help. this is the kind of stand that needs to happen if we're going to bring ukraine aid to the fore. by the way, if it came to the fore, it would pass overwhelmingly. speaker johnson is trying to stop that from happening to assuage his far right base. >> it's interesting. the $17.6 billion in proposed aid for israel normally is something that democrats and republicans would support, but in this particular case so many of them are opposing it and president biden himself says if it were to pass he would veto it

because he wants it to be part of the broader package of aid for ukraine. >> that's correct. speaker johnson and those that are putting this on the floor are hoping that the american people don't understand the game because they're going to go out. they're going to attack after this vote anybody that voted against this. the american people are smart enough to know this is not about aid to israel, this is about killing aid to ukraine, which the american people support. yes, there is massive -- you'll have some on the far left and far right that oppose aid to israel on the principle of it, but the vast majority of people don't but they recognize ukraine has to get done. >> in a statement that was released by the white house the president made it clear he supports aid to israel but he wants it to be part of his broader package, including the aid to ukraine and the border protection money as well as humanitarian assistance to palestinians in gaza. that's why he says he would veto

a separate aid package for israel. let me go back quickly to manu raju. >> reporter: wolf, this is about to fail to approve this aid to israel as we had expected. we expected they needed 2/3 majority to get there. that's roughly about 70 democratic votes they'll need. there are 46 democrats voting in favor of this. the 13 republicans who are voting against this. they need full attendance, they would need 290 votes in full attendance. there are a couple of absences here, so they are not going to get there. this will be two failures by the republican leadership to getting these bills through on the house. they tried to move through this israel bill to try to preempt the senate's bipartisan action here to try to put pressure on senators to move forward on this clean israel bill. it does not have spending cuts. remember, the first action by the new speaker when he came into power was to move an israel aid package that included cuts

to irs spending. democrats rejected that. then the speak joer tried to essentially call their bluff. i'll move on this now without any cuts whatsoever, but democrats, because they want all the other issues, ukraine, taiwan, those border packages as well, are voting against it. we should listen to this. they are calling this vote almost certainly meaning a failure here, wolf. he's gaveling it shut. looks like this bill is -- >> failure, indeed. he just announced it. the aid to israel package, separate package, standalone package as it's called has failed. manu, stand by. i want to bring in eric swalwell. first of all, congressman, what's your reaction to these two votes? >> it was the right outcome with secretary mayorkas, wolf. this was a sabotage effort by republicans to take out the guy in charge of keeping the border secure as the president was negotiating with the most conservative members of the republicans in the senate. and so the right result is that

mayorkas will not be impeached tonight. this reflects a party who will only follow and echo donald trump and what he wants and will show no leadership to address the biggest needs of our country. >> republican leaders were confident both of these votes would pass so what changed? >> you saw some courage from mike gallagher from wisconsin who said this isn't how you go about doing this. that reflected what the wall street journal was saying, which is if you want changes to the border, support the bipartisan legislation that the president is negotiating. i hope they don't double down on this and try to bring it back and frankly get back to governing rather than, you know, just pure ruining. >> this proposed $17.6 billion standalone aid package for israel clearly failed tonight as well. president biden had issued a veto threat. why was that the right move? from your perspective, how did you vote on that? >> i voted against it. i certainly have supported

israel all the way through. they have a right to protect themselves but republicans were asking us to stand not just with israel tonight but also with putin because when you fund israel at the expense of ukraine, which is what they wanted to do tonight, you allow putin to continue to move through ukraine and threaten our own freedoms here and the freedoms of our allies. we can do big things in washington. we can fund ukraine, our border and israel. that's the way our senate wants to do it in a bipartisan way. that's the way we need to do it in the house. >> i want to turn to the bipartisan package that was negotiated in the senate that included aid for ukraine and israel appears to have collapsed due to gop opposition. listen to what republicans used to say, used to say about this compromise. listen to this. >> any national security package has to begin with the security of our own border. >> the price of getting that done, again, which i support, is going to be meaningful policy

changes which slow the flow of illegal immigration across the southern bored wither. >> republicans want to restore it and free up the aid as soon as we have aid for our own border and control the illegal immigration. >> congressman, what do you think changed? >> donald trump. he said, you know, the quiet part out loud, that this helps joe biden. if you didn't know then you know now that maga republicans are not serious, wolf, about governing. for the last three years every sentence construct has been noun, verb, border. well, president biden negotiated with the second most conservative republican in the senate, james lankford. democrats went along because we want to see action there on the border and now donald trump says, don't do that, that helps biden, and he's walking away from it. that's the difference between a party of leaders, what you're seeing from president biden, and a party of followers. >> what do you see in the next step in this whole process to try to secure the border? >> we have to go on offense.

every american needs to know that any issues at the border are owned fully by donald trump and the people who enable them. there's a state of the union coming up. frankly, shame on democrats if it's not clear now to voters that we're here serious about governing. we want to get things done. >> what do you make of president biden today blaming trump for the border deal collapse saying he'll remind voters of that every single day until election day? >> we have to. i think democrats are too nice and we stand on false virtues sometimes. people need to know that democrats and president biden on infrastructure, on gun safety, on the chips bill to bring jobs back to america and now on border security, we're the ones that will compromise and work with republicans to get things done. donald trump who called for the economy to crash, and he hopes that that happens, is also now calling for border disorder by encouraging republicans to vote against it. >> congressman