♪ ♪ >> kayleigh: we are getting a reaction to the supreme court blockbuster ruling on

presidential immunity. in a monumental decision for presidential powers, the court ruled that former president trump is immune from prosecution over official acts. they specified he does not have immunity for unofficial acts. the decision has massive implications for presidential powers in the criminal cases against donald trump. hello, everyone. this is "outnumbered." i'm kayleigh mcenany here is my cohost, emily compagno. also joining us, "kennedy saves the world" podcast host, kennedy, rebeccah heinrichs, and former assistant u.s. attorney, andy mccarthy. but we begin at the supreme court where "fox news sunday" houston fox news chief legal correspondent shannon bream is standing by with details on the historic ruling. shannon? >> kayleigh, you heard it this morning. it breaks down this way. the court says that there is absolute and presumptive immunity for president for the official or core acts of his presidency. they say that does not extend to

criminal activity part of unofficial activity for a president, and here's the thing. people say, what about in this case? this is a rule for the ages, as justice gorsuch said. and justice roberts, the chief justice writing his opinion today, it doesn't matter who's in the oval office, with their politics or policies are. this is the blanket finding we are making. but they do talk a little bit about the various things charged in the indictment against president trump and say, we can't make a finding on those about whether those fit into this official act or an official act, because this case was expedited. we didn't have full fact-finding, full briefing, all of those things. to those of you pushing for us to get this done quickly, here's your decision, but because we don't have that full record, it goes back to the lower court, and that means a delay. so if you are a supporter of president trump, it's a win in that respect, but ultimately the court will probably get to a trial on these specific facts. so the long term decision still

yet to be seen. the dissent, very upset, saying it empowers people to take office and do whatever they want. the majority responding to that repeatedly saying the doom and gloom the dissent lays out today is not accurate. they are not saying people can come in and commit criminal acts willy-nilly, but we are saying this is now our baseline. we send this back to the lower courts. kayleigh, it's a hurry up and wait situation now to see how this trial actually plays out. >> kayleigh: shannon, thank you. you know, andy, i heard you this morning mentioned that the january 6th case we got friday essentially throughout part of the jack smith indictment, or at least put aspersions on it. that there were seven pages left, that they could go to trial in those seven pages ahead of labor day, but all of the sudden we get this ruling. how does that affect the analysis? >> andy: i think it would be very unjack smith like to say this is pristine, private conduct, not informed at all by

any presidential authority, and we can just go to trial on that. i don't want to be misunderstood as saying i think it's a simple and straightforward thing. i think it was a simple straightforward thing -- remember, it happened almost four years ago. somebody would have pled guilty over it. 70 would have been prosecuted for it. nobody has been prosecuted on the so-called fake electors scheme. nobody. so if it was that simple, i think it would happen already, but the way the court weighed this in the way they britney opinion, at least as i understand it, if there is any part of a president's executive authority that is intermingled in the facts, then the judge had to make findings about how much of that can be proved. it's not just, kayleigh, that he can't be prosecuted, like he can't be convicted. they can't use against him the

immunized behavior. that makes it a very different case evidence wise, not just chargewise. so it's complicated. >> kayleigh: it is. emily, the supreme court went pretty far here. when you read some of this opinion, they talk about the interchange between donald trump and the acting attorney general. they go so far as to say this can readily be categorized in light of the nature of the president's official relationship. so that's off the table, an official act. they move on to some of the public statements and they say trump's communications in the form of public addresses possess extraordinary power to speak to his fellow citizens on their behalf, so most of a president's public indications are within the outer perimeter. in other words, they took all of this behavior and categorized it, sending the others back to the district court to litigated. >> emily: if we contrast that, if we can, not to the muddy the waters, but with the gag order we are hearing. in the very austere and elevated position of the supreme court, they are saying this is what an executive power looks like. this is what official conduct looks like, and these are the

powers we vest and the president. i think much has been made, rightly so, about our constitutional articles. the whole point is to have limited power, and this is true, that the powers we do vest in the president, lee vest wholeheartedly. and you have subscribed many ways and many remedies for behavior unbecoming of illegal behavior. this does not excuse criminal behavior. this does not say therefore that a president's reign is unfettered. it's very specific, saying, within these constitutional and official act by the vested constitutional authority for the president, he or she shall remain unfettered and unanvilled to do the job we believe and vest in that person to do so, and all the rest is essentially noise. but exists of the people to have their voice. what we are seeing here, my point, there is a slap on the wrist occurring. every time i go to the supreme court we are reminded of the austerity of that particular

bench in that particular swath of justice, and especially with these cases against trump, it's a stark contrast with what the lower courts are doing and how they are treating him. >> kayleigh: there is a contrast. kennedy, the sonia sotomayor or dissent can be described as apoplectic, hyperbolic. she goes far as to say, when he uses his powers, he will now be insulated from criminal prosecution, orders the navy seals team six to s&s assassinatea political rival, i. takes the bride in the form of a pardon, immune, immune. that's how she wrote. but we have checks and balances in the form of congress' check on the executive author of the constitution. >> rebeccah: and anyone who serves in the military takes the oath to uphold and defend the constitution. so they'd be breaking the law. and she was also equally hysterical in the grant pass dissent when she said, "people have the right to sleep!"

and i understand that these are still human beings and they are still political people, but, andy, this has to be -- it has to give anyone running for president a sigh of relief. this doesn't just cover president trump. it's not just a political ruling. it's a very important constitutional question that has to be answered for many presidencies to come. if i were gavin newsom or kamala harris or joe biden, i would be very relieved by this. >> andy: i would say anybody who runs for president and anyone he's been president, because i think the most important thing that may be in the opinion is where they say a court is not going to look at the president's motives. because this whole idea of politicized prosecution -- we have been looking at this now for i want to say like 15 years, going back to the obama administration's running of the justice department, and the

thing it is built on, the foundation of it is this idea that the president, who is the chief executive, can take actions that are undoubtedly within the ambit of executive authority, and then afterwards, some inferior executive officer, a prosecutor, can come in and second-guess what the chief executive said or did on the grounds that, well, it may look like it's okay, but i think he had a dirty mind. i think he had corrupt motives. if they can't do that, then about maybe eight tenths of a law fare is gone. >> kayleigh: wow. that's quite something. rebecca, we have heard about this seal team six hypothetical going back to the appellate court as something that was brought up there. but there's a hypothetical proposed by justice gorsuch. he said, let's say a president sits outside and official government proceeding and has a peaceful civil rights protest,

but it obstructs an official proceeding. prosecutable? that the other end of this. if there's not some modicum of immunity for president, which now we know there is, can you prosecute someone for a peaceful civil rights protest that happens to infringe upon some statute, in the statutes that exist? >> rebeccah: that's a good example. the other thing i think about when i consider this hysterical dissent, to do a gut check. what was your reaction back in 2014 when eric holder, then attorney general, defended president obama's executive authority to carry out the drone strikes against terrorists that we knew -- overseas, but who are american citizens? what was your reaction at the time? they claim to executive authority, it's a unitary executive. he has to have brought executive authority to do that. there are plenty of people who thought that was too brought in those who are very defensive of president obama at the time. such a good gut check today to see how your reaction is. the other thing is a great point

that emily made. this is really a defense of the different branches of government. congress has already litigated through the impeachment trials, january 6th, president trump's involvement in that. it tossed it over to the senate, the senate evaluated it and acquitted him of those particular accusations. so we've already handled this through the proper channels. the political channels, that congress. >> emily: exactly right. >> kayleigh: the democrats, already going after the supreme court. they are calling this the maga court for its rulings. that's next. allison! allison's plaque psoriasis. she thinks her flaky gray patches are all people see. otezla is the #1 prescribed pill to treat plaque psoriasis. otezla can help you get clearer skin. don't use otezla if you're allergic to it. serious allergic reactions can happen. otezla may cause severe diarrhea, nausea, or vomiting. some people taking otezla had depression, suicidal thoughts, or weight loss. upper respiratory tract infection and headache may occur. live in the moment. ask your doctor about otezla.

>> emily: we are getting new reaction from the white house and democrats. the supreme court's historic ruling on presidential immunity sending aftershocks throughout washington and the country.

madalyn rivera with reaction from the white house. >> the biting campaign just wrapped up a press call regarding this ruling and the tone on that call is quite dark, with some of the speakers warning the former president could use this ruling to go after his political opponents. one of the speakers on that call was texas congresswoman jasmine crockett, and she described feeling "shut. ." so far the reactions have been for the biden campaign. a senior campaign advisor saying this. "today's ruling doesn't change the facts, so let's be very clear about what happen and generally sixth. donald trump snapped after he lost the 2020 election and encouraged a mob to overthrow the results of a free and fair election. trump is already running for president as a convicted felon for the very same reason he sat idly by while the mob violently attacked the capitol. he thinks he's above the law and is willing to do anything to gain and hold onto power for himself." clearly the biden campaign making it clear they are not changing course, at least when it comes to how they want to put the former president on defense

for what happened on january 6th. and a campaign insists the president's best fit to beat th. that's despite the low point to the president currently finds himself in, sending off calls to leave the race after his dismal debate performance. no comment from the president and suffer now, but he did say this when asked if any president should be immune from criminal prosecution. >> [inaudible] >> i can't think of one. >> meantime, former president trump saying on truth social, big win for a constitution and democracy. proud to be an american. no comment yet from the white house where the president. if that changes we will of course let you know. back to you. >> emily: thank you. the democrats are seizing on the ruling and predictably going after the court. democratic leader hakeem jeffries released the

following statement that reads in part, "house democrats will engage in aggressive oversight and legislative activity with respect to the supreme court to ensure that the extreme far right justices in the majority are brought to compliance with the constitution." and van jones also attacked the high court. watch. >> it's bad. it makes the supreme court look very partisan. they are supposed to be wearing these black and white umpire jerseys or whatever. they look like they are wearing red jerseys or even maga hats. it's going to go but down bad politically for the supreme court. but it's also scary, because what is trump going to do? if trump gets elected and there's this idea he can get away with even more stuff, that is really scary for the public, because he already ran over every norm that he could. so it seems like -- looking at this politically, not legally. politically it's almost like a license to thug in a way.

you can do whatever you want and they're going to let you get away with it. that's very frightening in this case. so i'm very concerned. >> emily: here for reaction, jonathan turley, constitutional law attorney and law professor at george washington university. he is also a fox news contributor. jonathan, what do you make of the "license to thug" argument and that supreme court justices have to be "brought into compliance?" >> well, he drive through washington, it seems like everyone is breathing into paper bags today. [laughter] it is something that you just want to go and pull your arm around them and say, it's going to be okay. we have a constitution that has survived for a reason. the hyperbolic language has a dangerous aspect to it, because it is an effort to say something that is not true. if you read the opinion, it is

not a wild partisan opinion. to the contrary, it rejected the extreme arguments on both sides. it found a middle road as many of us suggested. and people like senator blumenthal coming out and saying they are nothing but partisan hacks, these are attacks we have heard for years. even majority leader schumer going to the steps of the supreme court to threaten justices, that they are going to be held personally accountable for these rulings. that is the danger to the rule of law. it's the lack of respect to the institution and these justices. i have agreed and disagreed with every one of these justices, but i must tell you, i respect every one of the nine. they try to get things right. i sometimes think their opinions are just radically off-base. i strongly disagree with justice sotomayor's opinion today, but i have a lot of respect for her and for her

colleagues. this is with a test not just of citizens, that our leaders, to be able to transcend the politics of the moment, to say there were good arguments on both sides. but i am afraid, and i wrote about it in my new book, "the age of rage." this is what rage is. it's addictive. people like it. and you see that, with the house minority leader, with senator blumenthal. they like it, and the cost to be borne by the court, perhaps prego and a commentator warns the court that it's not going to work wealthy politically, you we have them say, here's a flash for you, gordon. we are not political. that's why your given life tenure. whether it's good or not, we are supposed to stand up for rights and powers as long as we stand up with the constitution. >> emily: final question, professor. what you make of the fact that this decision, which, if

anything, his in comport with the constitution and solidifies the boundaries between certain powers, for that to be called extreme. is it extreme because, in this day and age, deviating from the constitution has become mainstream and now we are back to where we should have started, where we did start with the framers? >> most of the people who are the loudest today are the ones who are demanding speedy rulings from these courts. get on with it, let's try trump, let's convict trump. the supreme court rejected that. they doing the same with judge cannon down in florida, saying, why can't you be like that d.c. judge and moves like a rocket docket? that judge was wrong. so was the d.c. circuit. they moved quickly and they moved wrongly. i don't blame them, because this is creating new clarity in the constitution. but speed is not the measure. but to say that this is extremism means that you have not read the opinion. they found that middle path

because the constitution is about balances. the checks and balance system is the genius of james madison, and that's what they were trying to do here, to do the right thing not for this case but future cases. they did write for the ages, as justice gorsuch said. but even if you disagree with it, there is a time when as citizens we have to embrace our common identity around the rule of law. you can disagree with these justices without attacking them, going to the houses and harassing their families. because that is what this reckless rhetoric does. >> that's right. professor, thank you so much. we will bring the conversation back to the couch. andy, to that point, we saw the same unfortunate pattern after the roe v. wade decision. all of the sudden, attacked the justices. we have to pack the court, and there's no language to soften any type of criticism or disagreement with the ruling. i.e., i respect the court, however, this ruling saddens me

because xyz. there is unfortunately a much more aggressive tone, and all it does is raise the rhetoric and raise the temperature to potentially dire consequences. see five but they do it because it works. it is not just directed at the supreme court. i'm not saying it works on the supreme court in the sense that they change their rulings, but this is what they do across the board. part of, i think it, the disconnect in the country is we are over here saying everybody has got to follow the rules, and the rules have to apply equally to everybody, and the people on the other side, particularly the progressive left, they believe as a philosophical matter -- this is, like, out in the open -- in using the power of government and using intimidation in order to move the ball up the field. so they will work within the rules as far as it will take them, and then if they hit a brick wall, then they will be in

front of the justices' homes, and they'll be doing all the intimidation tactics that they do. they do it because it works, and if you want to get an assessment of how well it works, look at the democratic party. look at the democratic party in the last 25 years. hillary clinton turning the bill clinton administration, when they were doing health care -- she was, like, the biggest radical nut job in the country. that's the way everybody painted her. now she is like the sound mainstream solid democrat. hillary hasn't moved an inch in 20 years. it's a democratic party that went from here to here. john talked about, you know, no one will read this ruling, and that's right. they know no one will. no one's going to sit down -- lawyers are not going to sit down and read 96 pages. a lot of people in the country

will be influenced by what hakeem jeffries tells them the decision says. and they do it because it works. >> emily: will it -- and all of our polling and conversations with americans throughout the country, many rank january 6th quite low on the list behind the economy and providing for their families, et cetera. the question is, will this particular hot point move the needle, do you think? >> kennedy: no. i think people who do take the time -- if not to read it thoroughly, analyze it, to the point i made earlier, they'll realize it's also beneficial for them. it's not something that singularly benefits donald trump. andy is right about the radicalization of the messaging, the latest dissent is written by justice soda mayor, it is no different than people going to the louvre and super grilling their hands to the mona lisa. it doesn't change the argument or how people feel about climate change. what it does is people hear noise and they turned away from the argument altogether. i think it has the same effect,

and justices should be above that. i think they should use careful, sometimes colorful legal language, but certainly not as political as this has been. we are already hyper politicized. the one thing people could finally agree on in our politics was that joe biden cannot be president anymore after the debate. >> emily: and other major story breaking today, on that note, president biden's desperate bid to save his reelection campaign. as new reports now claim it is jill biden he was keeping the president away from people who would convince him to drop out of the 2024 race. stay with us, guys. ♪ i'll be there... ♪ ♪ you don't... ♪ ♪ you don't have to worry... ♪ pain was keeping me off my game. and now i'm winning again.

blue-emu is the powerful relief i need. shop our expanded family of products at major online retailers.

hey, i just got a text from my sister. you remember rick, her neighbor? sure, he's the 76-year-old guy who still runs marathons, right? sadly, not anymore. wow. so sudden. um, we're not about to have the "we need life insurance" conversation again, are we? no, we're having the "we're getting coverage so we don't have to worry about it" conversation. so you're calling about the $9.95 a month plan -from colonial penn? -i am. we put it off long enough. we are getting that $9.95 plan, today. (jonathan) is it time for you to call about the $9.95 plan? i'm jonathan from colonial penn life insurance company. sometimes we just need a reminder not to take today for granted. if you're age 50 to 85, you can get guaranteed acceptance whole life insurance starting at just $9.95 a month.

there are no health questions so you can't be turned down for any health reason. the $9.95 plan is colonial penn's number one most popular whole life plan. options start at just $9.95 a month. that's less than 35 cents a day. your rate can never go up. it's locked in for life. call today for free information. and you'll also get this free beneficiary planner, so call now. (soft music) ♪ hello, colonial penn? >> kayleigh: president biden in a desperate bid to save his reelection campaign after his disastrous debate last week. reports say, while democrats are rallying behind the president publicly, many are raising doubts about his candidacy

privately. donors are worried the ticket is on a path to defeat, and they could be right. politico is now reporting that democratic michigan governor gretchen whitmer has told biden's campaign that the critical battleground state of michigan -- he needs that you win, and she says it is no longer winnable. in another blow, this "new york times" headline, to serve his country, president biden should leave the race. that was the editorial board. but the biden teams that he's not going anywhere, confirming to fox that the president has no plans to drop out. new reports claim first lady jill biden is largely to credit for that, and while the biden campaign is in a tailspin, the first lady defended joe in her new vogue spread. this popped today. jill's interview for the cover was done last week before the debate, but the magazine called after the national reaction and got this comment from the first lady. "they will not let those 90 minutes define the four years he's been president. we will continue to fight."

she added, "we will always do what's best for the country." rebeccah, i want to put that picture back up, because i think it's an important one. this is the first lady. she is on "vogue." according to reports from kate bennett and others, it's a multithousand dollar outfit she's wearing, very much in touch with the american people. daily mail reported it was more than that, and they said the photo portrays an image of authority at a time democrats say she is the only one who can take joe biden off the ticket. and "vogue" says it is jill biden who will remain the president's closest confidant. the question becomes, who is running the country? >> rebeccah: evidently it is dr. jill biden advising the president, and that he's taking advice from hunter biden, as well, about some of his decisions. so we know those two are deeply influential. i would take her up on the offer. she says she doesn't want that 90 minutes to define his presidency. then let's do an unscripted q&a

with president biden, every week, from here on out. let's hear it. because i've got questions about afghanistan. he didn't answer them. he answered a question on afghanistan in response to a question about the economy. he didn't know evidently that there were 13 service members killed during the precipitous withdrawal, or that three american service members were killed in jordan just six months ago. so let's hear some more unscripted, no-teleprompter questions from president biden. >> kayleigh: it's a great idea. katie rogers of "the new york times" had reporting about what they did. and you think after debate performance like this that you would all regroup and rethink running. no, not the bidens. let's put it up. here's katie rogers. "biden spent the morning not having a summit, that in hair and makeup for a shoot with annie leibowitz, the vogue who shot obama and clinton in march. family suggested this week because hunter and family in town." chad gilmartin asked the question, america is getting a part-time president who is

easily confused and exhausted. they get fame, fortune, and "vogue" covers. >> kennedy: that's the kind of glossies that he should do post presidency photowho shot obama and clinton and the one term of president biden, but now -- it wasn't just the 90 minutes that is defining his presidency or his life in public service. it betrays someone who is incapable of the most basic tasks of being human being, not to mention the most powerful and important job in the world. we cannot have a six-hour president. the presidency requires someone who, like hillary clinton said, can wake up in the middle the night and take that 2:00 a.m. phone call. he can't do that. of course jill biden and hunter biden want him to hang onto the presidency, because they are the beneficiaries of the power and the access and all the trappings that go with the job. so these are the last two people he should be listening to, that

you got "the new york times," the atlantic, "the atlanta journal-constitution." all of these major media outlets, calling for him to step aside. but because of hubris and ego and the desire for power, he absolutely cannot let himself. >> kayleigh: andy, if you believe the reporting, they have been a large part of this cover-up, and it goes back three years. listen to this very closely. this is an anecdote not from july 4th last year, the three years ago. it says this, "biden's behavior stunned many in the white house in part because biden's closest aides, also often led by anthony burnell and deputy chief of staff annie to masini, took steps early in his term to essentially rope off the president. on july 4th, 2021, biden hosted a party on the south lawn. it was a hot day and after hours outside he went into the white house to the diplomatic room come into the nearby map room, sat down, and the door was abruptly shut as biden's aides

blocked the light has butlers and resident staff from aiding the president. they siphoned off the residence staff. >> andy: i think it's time to have 25th amendment hearings. i don't really care that much about the campaign when it comes to this issue. i come at it kind of like rebeccah comes at it. the threat we are under today is reminiscent of rep before 9/11, except right before 9/11 we didn't have war raging in europe and the middle east, where israel is looking at a 2-front war now. it is crazy to have someone who is not compl compos mentis as

president. >> emily: that they willingly give it up, that's hilarious. that goes to the grandchildren and hunter and dr. jill. i encourage everyone to read it because it touches on everything we are talking about today. sequestering the president so residence staff don't see the extent of his health issues. and if he's the only one that can save democracy, i think these for your speak for themselves and have been incredible. why do we need saving? hasn't he been the president? >> kayleigh: good question. we are learning new details about his mental state and how he is dependably engaged only between -- listen to this -- they are as of 10:00 a.m. at 4:00 p.m. ing in the navy that the toughest job in the navy is a navy wife. and if you've made the deployments and you've been the wife at home, or you've been the spouse at home, you understand what i'm talking about. your spouse has earned the right to apply for a va home loan. the newday 100 loan allows you to borrow up to 100% of your home's value. so if you're in a situation where you need some help financially, give us a call.

>> kayleigh: we are getting considering new details about president biden's mental state and how white house staffers work around it.

xo's reporting, "from 10:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m., biden is dependably engaged. many of his public events in front of cameras are held within those hours. outside of that time range or while traveling abroad, biden is more likely to have verbal miscues and become fatigued," aides told axios. and while the biden family and democrats are counting on him to stay in the race, there are serious national security concerns. "u.s. bases in europe on high alert for possible terrorist attack," according to the dod. iran warns of obliterating war if israel launches an offensive at lebanon paid all of that developing thursday's debate. rebeccah, our enemies, our adversaries, watched thursday's debate. outside of the hours of 10:00 at 4:00, a lot happens. notably last night, the headline from dod. >> rebeccah: as i watched the debate i had this sinking sick feeling. a lot of people are joking and mocking but because of these threats i found it very alarming. all lights were blinking red.

a heightened terror threat abroad in europe, and the middle east which is on fire, in part because the administration dismantled the previous administration's pressure campaign against the iran regime, so we have terror threats across the middle east. obviously we have the largest land war in europe since world war ii with russia's invasion of ukraine. they said biden messed up and use talking to ukrainian president zelenskyy about what aid we were even providing him. these are things that the president must have command of this information, and to speak clearly and articulately whenever he's talking about the differences between various countries and leaders. >> kayleigh: emily, to that end, the water journal said two european official cited a european union u.s. summit in october in washington which biden struggled to follow the discussions. both said he stumbled over his talking points at several moments, requiring secretary of state antony blinken to intervene and point out the lines he should use. some of the biden administration dispute that characterization,

but people are noticing and talking. >> emily: the catastrophic p.r. disaster is an armistice. when people sort of pick and choose or try to criticize one example at a time, there are too many at this point to ignore, or to explain away. to me the most sick if you can highlight -- i'm so grateful you addressed it -- is the dismantling of our allyship. when enemies are emboldened and we are in a weakened position, the thought that we can count on our allies at least in mutual relationships to carry us through now is nonexistent thank you to the incompetence of this president. and i have to point out, when former senator claire mccaskill asks how to get here, there's no plan b, well, it is sort of not our fault, and you haven't been listening to the americans that have been clambering this entire time that that person is not worthy or not fit to continue in this capacity as commander in chief. anyone with a loved one in service right now could tell you that four years ago. i will close with the question. i wonder what it feels like for

kamala harris, the acting vice president, to see up on scs nine other individuals that are like, "maybe one of these will work!" it is so telling that the vice president isn't the natural understudy. she somehow has been eclipsed by everyone else. he won andy, i couldn't agree with you more that my concerns about mental acuity are not poll ones, they are national security ones. do you think there's been any discussion of a 25th amendment? has to be his cabinet, that the only people who can intervene. >> andy: and it would have to be kamala harris. she has to trigger it. you can't have a president who is mentally impaired. and i'm not making a republican point, i'm not making a conservative point. you think i want kamala harris to be president? that's like the last thing on the planet. but you can't have a president who is mentally impaired, and we do, and we can't. 25th amendment, it should be harris, the cabinet, and senior members of congress.

that they should be all over this. it's not politics, it's the country. >> kayleigh: it's national security, our troops abroad. nancy pelosi says we've got it all wrong, it is trump he has dementia. my gosh.

type 2 diabetes? discover the ozempic® tri-zone. ♪ ♪ i got the power of 3. i lowered my a1c, cv risk, and lost some weight. in studies, the majority of people reached an a1c under 7 and maintained it. i'm under 7. ozempic® lowers the risk of major cardiovascular events such as stroke, heart attack, or death in adults also with known heart disease. i'm lowering my risk. adults lost up to 14 pounds. i lost some weight. ozempic® isn't for people with type 1 diabetes. don't share needles or pens, or reuse needles. don't take ozempic® if you or your family ever had medullary thyroid cancer, or have multiple endocrine neoplasia syndrome type 2, or if allergic to it. stop ozempic® and get medical help right away if you get a lump or swelling in your neck, severe stomach pain, or an allergic reaction. serious side effects may include pancreatitis. gallbladder problems may occur. tell your provider about vision problems or changes. taking ozempic® with a sulfonylurea or insulin may increase low blood sugar risk.

side effects like nausea, vomiting, and diarrhea may lead to dehydration, which may worsen kidney problems. living with type 2 diabetes? ask about the power of 3 with ozempic®.

>> we have brand-new reaction to the supreme court ruling on presidential immunity.

judge jeanine pirro and shannon bream are here to break it down for us. they would join us live at the top of the hour. plus, critics say it was one of the worst moments is not the worst moment of the debate. president biden falsely claiming no troops died under his watch. a gold star family who lost their son will join us live, and a cat 4 hurricane is making its way, "berylling" for the cribbing islands. join us live as "america reports," top of the hour." >> emily: today's historic supreme court ruling on presidential immunity getting former president trump and other win. over the weekend he declared victory over biden at the first presidential debate. >> we had a big victory against a man really looking to destroy our country. we won landside. >> [crowd chanting] >> this november the people of virginia and the people of

america are going to tell crooked joe biden, biden, you're fired! get outta here! >> emily: despite the performance we all watched from president biden, former house speaker nancy pelosi says actually it is the eight who needs to get checked out. watch. >> my people i very much biden, kamala harris, and this is an opportunity for joe biden to go out there and show he has the stamina. by the way, while the press and for some reason, they don't -- there are health care professionals who think that trump has dementia, that his connection, his thoughts do not go together. not only that he just lies, he doesn't even know the truth. so if we are just talking about mental acuity, let's be fair about it. >> emily: oh, right, a very fair opinion coming from the former speaker. >> kennedy: i didn't realize

dr. biden had another powerful democrat female who is also a medical professional, nancy pelosi, doing some armchair diagnosing. i think she's absolutely right. let's give these cognitive tests to both presidential candidates and nancy pelosi! and then let's compare scores. whoever gets the highest score gets to be president. that's my rule. >> emily: who is your money on? >> andy: i'm feeling stupid watching this stuff, i've got to say. since thursday night that is my major take away. i'm glad the supreme court wrote a nice opinion today so we can remember what the government looks like when it is functioning properly. but these guys all have got to retire. i am considerably older than all of you, so maybe i'm the one who has to go next, but these guys have got to get out of town. >> emily: at the end of the day, the "i know you are, but what am i cannot" argument coming from figureheads of the democratic party is, to me, perhaps pulls back the curtain e panic they are feeling, and what did they do now?

>> rebeccah: and this panic is coming at a very bad time for u.s. national security. the threat environment continues to be done not get worse, china acting aggressively to the philippines. russia continues to be aggressive in certain larger scale war. the middle east is on fire. she knows how bad things are, so to try to cover this up and point fingers is really bad. again, to andy's point, the country must come about all. >> emily: is this going to work, kayleigh? her saying that? >> kayleigh: no. she clearly got the dnc talking point that trump lied in the debate. i challenge on this couch, what lie did he tell, no one can come up w with one. there's no footnotes to it. secondly, to claim that trump has dementia, everybody watched that debate. he was with it, he was comprehensive in his answers, he challenged joe biden in an effective manner. you going to say this guy has

dementia? the american public doesn't believe that. better . more "outnumbered" in a moment. allison! (restaurant noise) ♪ [announcer] introducing allison's plaque psoriasis. she thinks her flaky, gray patches are all people see. otezla is the #1 prescribed pill to treat plaque psoriasis. over here! otezla can help you get clearer skin and reduce itching and flaking. with no routine blood tests required. doctors have been prescribing otezla for over a decade. otezla is also approved to treat psoriatic arthritis. don't use otezla if you're allergic to it. serious allergic reactions can happen. otezla may cause severe diarrhea, nausea, or vomiting. some people taking otezla had depression, suicidal thoughts or weight loss. upper respiratory tract infection and headache may occur. ♪ [announcer] with clearer skin girls' day out is a good day out.

live in the moment. ask your doctor about otezla. it's good to get some fresh air. fresh air? hi guys! bill, you look great! now that i have inspire, i'm free from struggling with the mask and the hose. inspire? inspire is a sleep apnea treatment that works inside my body with a click of this button. no mask! no hose! just sleep. give me this thing. where are you going? i'm going to get inspire. inspire. sleep apnea innovation. learn more and view important safety information at inspiresleep.com.

>> this breaking just now. congressman upton alexandra because he cayo cortez tweeting this about the ruling. >> the can supreme court has been consumed by corruption crisis beyond its control. today's ruling represents an assault on american democracy. it's up to congress to defend our nation from this capture. i intend on firing articles of impeachment a pause our return. >> that's a complete joke and a shameful to hear this is the magic court. you expect that from aoc not chuck schumer. ketanji brown jackson sided with the conservative majority. amy coney barrett wrote a dissent.

this is a court and institution a venerable one that ought to be respected. >> to the point earlier you can't expect everyone to read the opinion. unfortunately it is all the worse when it is a congressperson that doesn't and twist the meaning. you are filling in for jesse watters tonight and you have an exciting interview coming up with speaker johnson. what can we expect on that? >> at 8:00 p.m. eastern time i will get the exclusive reaction of the house speaker mike johnson on the immunity decision. not only that the house judiciary committee said they are suing the biden administration to get the audio that they have that merrick garland has of her interview. kate kellogg has a story about donald trump when he answered the phone at 3:00 a.m. we will compare and contrast commanders in chief. >> i will be glued to the screen tonight at 8:00 p.m. on fox news. thank you for watching us. when you can't watch us live, don't forget to dvr the show and now here are our friends at "america reports."