07/01/24 07/01/24 [captioning made possible by democracy now!] amy: from new york, this is democracy now! >> my dear compatriots, democracy has spoken and the french people have placed a national rally and its allies on top and practically erased macron's bloc.

amy: france's far right wins the first round of voting in a snap election, followed closely by the left. we will go to paris for the latest. there . in a major real income this approved courts majority rules corporate interests can strip federal agencies of their 30 to regulate public health, environment, work protection, food safety, and more. we will get response from environmental justice advocate my former epa administrator, mustafa ali and the nations elie mystal. and we will discuss the ruling on donald trump trump's bid for immunity. we will also look at how the publisher of "the washington post" allegedly helped cover up a scandal. all that and more, coming up. welcome to democracy now!, democracynow.org, the war and peace report. i'm amy goodman.

in france, the far right is at the gates of power after a significant lead in the first round of snap part of mentor election sunday, a blow to president macron's ensemble alliance which is polling third. marine le pen's rally bloc has so far clinched nearly 34% of the vote while the new popular front, coalition formed by leftist parties, came in a close second with nearly 28% of the vote. sunday's election brought out the highest voter turnout in years as young voters were urged to come out to defeat extremists. macron stunned the country, calling for the step elections following major losses in european parliament elections last month to the far right in our party. after headlines, we will go to paris for the latest. in the gaza strip thousand cap israeli tanks were seen

advancing after brutal attacks. causes health ministry says at least 23 palestinians were killed in the past day alone, bringing the death toll since the start of israel's latest assault on gaza to more than 37,900. in guises neighborhood, survivors of israel airstrike gathered at the al-aqsa hospital to mourn the dead. this is 10-year-old belal abu hassanain, whose family home in beir al-balah, gaza was bombed by israel last week. >> i want to check out our rooftop as a struck is. i fell most of when i felt i was shattered. my grandfather started screaming. i went to see what was happening. my grandfather was telling us our home was bombed. i would you check the room where i have been sleeping. i found out my mother and brother had been martyred. amy: the palestinian government

journalist has been killed. 150 third such deadly attack reported since october. he died of wounds two days after an israeli airstrike targeted his home in this neighborhood. in israel, an estimated 130,000 protesters marched in tel aviv saturday evening demanding an immediate cease-fire deal in gaza. a prisoner swap that would see all israelis held hostage by hamas released and the resignation of prime minister benjamin netanyahu and his government. >> the one thing standing between us and our loved ones is netanyahu's stubborn insistence -- insistence to not end this war. the continuation of this war means the murder of the hostages by israeli government.

the blood is on your hands. amy: meanwhile, thousands of ultra-orthodox jewish men held protests over the weekend after israel's high court lifted an exemption to mandatory military service for members of conservative religious groups. in sudan, the rapid support forces paramilitary group claims it has captured the city of sinjah, a key state capital in southeastern sudan. tens of thousands of residents fled the city ahead of the rsf's advance. those who remain report rsf fighters have been seen widely looting homes and shops. last week, the united nations' hunger monitor warned over 750,000 people in sudan are facing catastrophic levels of extreme hunger, while more than 8 million face food shortages that could lead to malnutrition or even death. hurricane beryl is expected to -- is making landfall on the windward islands. with meteorologist warning the

storm will bring life-threatening winds and storm surge across southeastern caribbean nations. hurricane warnings were issued in barbados, st. lucia, st. vincent and grenadine islands, grenada, and tobago. over the weekend, a reached category four bank status. -- 4 status. the was supreme court's conservative super majority has struck down four decades of precedent which established that judges should defer to federal agencies on interpreting a law if congress did not specifically address the issue. on friday, justices ruled 6-to-3 to overturn the legal precedent, known as the chevron doctrine. critics call the court's ruling a major power grab by corporate interests. justice elena kagan wrote in dissent -- "in every sphere of current or future federal regulation, expect courts from now on to play a commanding role. it is not a role congress has given them. it is a role this court has now claimed for itself, as well as other judges." in another 6-to-3 ruling on friday, the conservative

supermajority ruled that state and local governments can criminalize sleeping and camping on public property. in a scathing dissent joined by justices kagan and jackson, justice sonia sotomayor wrote for the minority -- "sleep is a biological necessity, not a crime. for some people, sleeping outside is their only option. for people with no access to shelter, that punishes them for being homeless. that is unconscionable and unconstitutional." we will have more on the supreme court's ruling later in the broadcast. president trump's former top political adviser is reporting to a federal prison today after he was found guilty of contempt of congress for defying subpoenas related to the january 6, 2021, capitol insurrection. steve bannon is set to begin a four-month sentence after the supreme court declined bannon's request that it intervene. just last week, top congressional republicans led by house speaker mike johnson filed an amicus brief on bannon's behalf asking the d.c. circuit

court of appeals to keep bannon out of jail. bannon still faces criminal charges in new york for allegedly defrauding donors to an anti-immigrant nonprofit called we build the wall out of more than $15 million and for laundering the proceeds. democratic leaders are defending president biden after his disastrous debate against donald trump last week when biden appeared halting, disjointed, and often seemed to lose his train of thought. prominent democrats rejecting calls for the president to step aside include biden surrogates senators raphael warnock and chris coons, congressmember jim clyburn, and maryland governor wes moore. democratic strategist david axelrod wrote, "unless the president himself, decides to quit -- which he won't -- that issue is settled." this comes as a new cbs news poll finds 72% of registered u.s. voters believe biden does not possess the mental and cognitive health required to be president.

on friday, "the new york times" editorial board published an editorial titled "to serve his country, president biden should leave the race." the atlanta journal constitution's editorial board similarly called on biden to bow out. meanwhile, maryland democratic congressmember jamie raskin told msnbc there are conversations among top democrats about nominating someone other than joe biden at the democratic national convention in august. >> we are having a serious conversation about what to do. one thing i can tell you is regardless of what president biden decides, our party is going to be unified and our party also needs him as the very center of our deliberations and our campaign. and so whether he is the candidate or someone else is the candidate, he will be the keynote speaker at our convention. amy: in iran, reformist candidate masoud pezeshkian will face off against conservative saeed jalili in a run-off

election set for july 5 after neither candidate received enough votes in a weekend poll to win the presidency outright. fewer than 25 million iranians voted in the contest to replace former president ebrahim raisi, who died in a helicopter crash in may. that's just 40% of eligible voters, the lowest turnout in any iranian election since the 1979 revolution. millions of people took to the streets of cities across the globe over the weekend to celebrate lgbtq pride events. in bogota, colombia, thousands of pride participants marched against so-called conversion therapy which aims to change a person's sexuality through interventions. a bill under consideration in colombia's legislature would ban the practice, which has been described by a u.n. expert on sexual orientation as torture. in the republic of georgia, lawmakers have granted initial approval to several bills cracking down on lgbtq+ rights, including bans on the so-called propaganda of same-sex relationships, gender reassignment surgery, and even

the display of rainbow flags. the bills mirror anti-lgbtq legislation passed by russia. this is tamar jakeli, director of tblisi pride in georgia's capital city. >> pride march 4 pride events could no longer be held legally, so even though it was practically -- we difficulties holding this, now it has become illegal and basically if i want to hold a pride march or any demonstration, first i will get fined and then i might even face charges like to go to prison. amy: here in the united states, president biden has pardoned thousands of u.s. military veterans convicted under laws banning gay sex under the uniform code of military justice. in a separate declaration, biden described the anti-lgbtq lavender scare that began in the as a "shameful chapter in our 1950's nation's history." the white house says up to

10,000 lgbtq+ federal employees were investigated and lost their jobs simply because of who they were and whom they loved. on friday, president biden flew to new york city where he spoke at the opening ceremony of the newly-constructed stonewall national monument visitor center. the memorial is built on the site of a gay- and trans-friendly bar called the stonewall inn, which was raided by new york city police on june 28, 1969. as officers began dragging some of the patrons out, the community fought back, sparking three days of rioting and resistance that launched the modern-day lgbtq movement. this is president biden. pres. biden: 55 years ago today on this hallowed ground, a story unfolded. the soul of the nation was tested. the heart of this movement was

ignited. the course of history changed forever. not just here but i travel around the world and they look to us as part of our foreign policy as well now. amy: as biden addressed the stonewall national monument's grand opening, queer and trans activists held protests, unfurling banners reading "queers to biden: stop arming israel" and "from new york to gaza: stonewall was an intifada." stonewall veteran and legendary trans activist miss major griffin-gracy said in a statement -- "stonewall was about kicking the cops out of our lives. biden can't come here and pretend to support us while he drops bombs on people in gaza. the girls and guys will keep on fighting, chanting, marching til every damn person is free, including palestinians." and those are some of the headlines. this is democracy now!, democracynow.org, the war and peace report. i'm amy goodman. we begin today's show in france where the far-right is at the gates of power as it held a significant lead in the first round of snap parliamentary elections sunday, a blow to

president emmanuel macron's ensemble alliance, which is polling third. marine le pen's anti-immigrant national rally bloc has so far clinched to nearly 34% of the vote, while the new popular front, a coalition formed by leftist parties, came in second with about 28% of the vote. this is far right leader marine le pen. >> my dear compatriots, democracy has spoken and the french people have placed the national rally and its allies on top and practically erased macron's bloc. amy: meanwhile, hundreds of people took to the streets of paris and other cities sunday following news of the initial results. protesters held signs that read "let's not leave france to the fascist" and "enough of the hatred era." >> it worries me personally

because we see the national rally are on top and it scares me. we don't see a vote coming for social rights, we don't see progress, we don't see immigration. rightsall of this will be swept away because it is the far right. we mustn't forget that. amy: sunday's election brought out the highest voter turnout in years as young french voters were urged to come out to defeat extremists. leaders of the newly formed leftist new popular front also joined mass protests against the rise of the far-right, vowing a complete break with macron's policies. this is mathilde panot, head of france unbowed, speaking from paris last month. >> popular mobilization is the key to fight against the extreme right and to beat the extreme right.

amy: macron stunned the country calling for the snap elections following major losses in european parliament elections last month to the far-right national rally party. the rn has announced 28-year-old jordan bardella as its candidate for prime minister. the party has steadily risen in popularity in france as it proposes anti-immigrant, xenophobic, racist, and anti-muslim policies. it's also been accused of anti-semitism. many have urged parties to unite against the rn as the second round of the elections is scheduled for sunday, july 7. for more, we go to paris where we are joined by harrison stetler, a freelance journalist and teacher. his latest piece for jacobin is titled "corporate france is making peace with marine le pen." welcome to democracy now! can you start off by just describing what took place? >> of course. thank you for having me. first off, i wish i could say

these results were surprising. in electoral politics, you somewhat can occasionally expect to have pleasant surprises in elections. unfortunately, this is what many people in france have seen coming for several weeks from the day macron made the shocking decision in early june to dissolve the national assembly on the backs of what was an historic victory for the national rally and the european elections. i would say the gut reaction on the ground in paris in political circles here, in the mainstream media, impression one has is a certain sense of vertigo across the board. the headline of the moment today is "the far right is on the doorstep of power" and it seems like that says it all. this has been building for many weeks.

the decision to dissolve parliament is going to occupy many analysts from many years to come. what was macron really thinking? was this a long shot attempt to reinforce itself? was it a cynical ploy to perhaps introduce the far right to power only to weaken? that will be resolved by historians and whatnot. for now what is clear, this situation was timed at a right when the far right was at its strongest historical position in modern french political history and they have capitalized on that. they failed -- 33.5% of the vote according to the latest statistics i have seen as of yesterday's first-round vote. those figures, as a percentage, can maybe cause some undue

relief. that is one third or two thirds of the french electorate still opposed. if you dig into these numbers, upwards of 10.5 million people who voted for marine le pen's party, jordan bardella, 10.6 is a latest figure for the first round vote. that is more than about 6 million or 7 million voters compared to the legislative elections in 2022 when the party won something like 4.2 million votes. an enormous surge in two years time for a party that relatively recently was considered beyond the pale of legitimacy and acceptability in french politics. much of the rhetoric of french political culture in the late 20th and early 21st century,

obviously, one can question the sincerity, but much of the rhetoric of french politics up until very recently -- we should probably discuss this -- was about protecting the far right as the one unacceptable alternative to legitimate republican politics. amy: talk about who marine le pen is, who inherited what was known as the national front from her father -- this is a family affair. it is her nephew in law that is jordan bardella who would be the prime minister if the nr wins. >> right. marine le pen took over control of the national rally about 10 years ago in early 2010's. before this far right forced was founded by her father in the early 1970's. in early 1970's up until really the marine le pen era, this was

-- french political life. it was the party that brought together neofascist -- a lot of hard right conservatives in southern france. people mostly driven by staunch opposition and a party that traces its roots back to the nostalgics of previous regimes, far hard right who never accepted the defeat of france in the war of independence in the 1960's. so this was the bête noire of french political life. marine le pen, when she took over, the constant framing of the marine le pen shift in the early 2010's is that she moved to the term the french use is

what was then called the national front and 20. she changed the name. the main narrative of the marine le pen tyears. the main narrative of the last 12, 10 years of the national rally's history or the national front's history is marine le pen 's attempt to detoxify the party. she moved to expel her father a few years ago on account of further outrages holocaust denying claims he made. and her broad strategy is to try to present the force that is more or less capable of governments can be amenable to traditional conservative elites. on the other hand, you had an

attempt by marine le pen in the 2010's to mark somewhat of a shift from the original economic positions of the far right national rally, which in her father's years, essentially the french version of reaganism. up until the 2000's, had rhetorical support for the french welfare state defending certain social institutions that maintain the peace, businesses and workers. the original national front was very much alleged to be the defender of the small entrepreneur against big business and collusion with state -- marine le pen orchestrated a shift toward a more workerist populist position which in recent weeks has essentially been dropped out of the arena. what we have seen in the last

two weeks is the party essentially prepares itself for a likely position of government from perhapsext week is that it is reassuring itself of many of the economic populist positions that marine le pen held in an attempt to impress or assuage the concerns of many figures in the french community. amy: i wanted to ask about the closing the borders, and immigrant mantra of this party. and also -- i mean, we have a close second at the left, if the left were to combine with macron 's forces, the center, which were trounced, that was certainly beat out the far right. is that a possibility in this july 7 final election? >> of course. to respond to the first question, if there has been a shift back to the far right, what it has clung to

absolutely is staunchly xenophobic rejection of immigration. we will see an attempt to fully accelerate and expedite the process for expulsion of immigrants in france, zero-tolerance policies, attempts to institute a firm division between french nationals and non-french nationals, even between the french nationals and those who have a second passport. the party -- there's more that can exit to its past than distant wishes it. the second question, which is the question of the next 24 hours, what are the other political forces going to do in a situation? in first place in the majority of runoff for next sunday and what can the other forces do?

to the left's credit, they have put out a very fair offer, a reasonable proposition to withdraw all left-wing candidates from this which the left-wing candidate qualifies for the second round runoff, but is in third place behind another figure by the macron's interest collusion or the wing of the center-right that did not ally with marine le pen. the left as made it clear they are willing to move to reconstitute something along the lines of what the french over the last several decades have called the republican front against the far right. now, if you look to what is happening in theo center, you're getting anything but clarity in that regard. you have macron --macron put out a vague sentence of wanting to have a democratic alliance.

you hear some figures say, yes, they will pull out from certain districts, certain constituencies when the alternate candidates, second or first place i have them against national rally, someone they deem republican enough. amy: just to be clear on that point, you have the leftist to popular front saying there candidates would stand down if they were in third place. like 300 candidates. macron's coalition has not stated there candidates would step down if they were in third place. >> you are hearing mixed signals. you have an acknowledgment of willingness on macron's party to withdraw candidacies -- again, what macron's is the dominant force in the left-wing popular front alliance is essentially as dangerous -- little has done more harm to france political debate than this equivalency

drawn between the left-wing and marine le pen. over the next week, we are going to which that will hamstring any attempts to build some form of republican front lines above the far right. but for much of the french political class, for much of the mainstream media organizations, and for many pundits that will do the rounds on television networks or will be signing many of the columns in the weekly magazines next week, they will have this line of the far left is an anti-semitic force, is an equal threat to republican order, and it is an extremely dangerous equivalent. it touches to i think the core

of the broad cultural and political shifts that have led us to this point where we are today with the far right in a very strong position and reasonably confidenxw of winning an absolute majority or at least a relative majority. amy: harrison stetler, independent journalist and teacher based in paris. his latest piece for jacobin is "corporate france is making peace with marine le pen." up next, paragraph. we will look at the chevron decision and more of the u.s. supreme court. stay with us. ♪ [music break]

amy: this is democracy now! i'm amy goodman. today is the final day of the u.s. supreme court's current term. we look now at several major rulings from the court's conservative supermajority. in a 6-3 ruling friday, the court approved a power grab by

corporate interests who want to strip federal agencies of their authority to regulate public health, the climate and environment, worker protection, food and drug safety, and more. the court struck down four decades of a precedent known as the chevron doctrine that stems from a reagan-era ruling called chevron v. natural resources defense council, which establishes that judges should defer to federal agencies on interpreting a law if congress did not specifically address the issue. justice elena kagan read her dissent from the bench saying -- "in every sphere of current or future federal regulation, expect courts from now on to play a commanding role. it is not a role congress has given them. it is a role this court has now claimed for itself, as well as other judges." some democrats responded to the ruling by vowing to introduce legislation to protect their policymaking ability. senator ed markey said the

ruling would create "a regulatory black hole that destroys fundamental protections for every american in this country." meanwhile, thursday, the justices voted 5-4 to block the environmental protection agency's good neighbor plan, which allows the epa to regulate air pollution that drifts across state lines. in a statement, earthjustice wrote -- "the court's order puts thousands of lives at risk, forces downwind states to regulate their industries more tightly, and tells big polluters that it's open season on our environmental laws." the supreme court had to issue a corrected version of its opinion in the case after justice neil gorsuch confused the air pollutant at issue, which is nitrogen oxide, with nitrous oxide. actress oxide is laughing gas, which dentists administer.

he said this more than five times. this is no laughing matter. this all comes as the two years after the supreme court overturned roe v. wade in its dobbs ruling and before today' highly anticipated ruling on former president donald trump's bid for immunity in his federal indictment. for more, we're joined by two guests. elie mystal is the nation's justice correspondent and author of "allow me to retort: a black guy's guide to the constitution." and mustafa ali is the former head of the environmental justice program at the environmental protection agency, now executive vice president of the national wildlife federation and ceo of revitalization strategies. we welcome you both to democracy now! mustafa ali, let's talk about chevron. for people who are not following this day and night, explain the significance of this decision. >> this decision actually weakens our protection interrelationship to clean air and clean water in the land. it says that the expertise that

exist inside a federal agencies, those toxicologists, biologists, the others who have spent their life learning and then being able to help to make sure our country is protected or no longer valuable. it says that those who were in the courts now get to make the final decision if you're able to breathe clean air, drink clean water, or to be able to make sure the land you are walking on her growing food in, it will be safe enough. this is a very devastating decision that was made -- it should have had a warning label on it that said "the following actions are both deadly for both the democracy for our economy and for the health of both wildlife and people." amy: and can you talk about what exactly the decision -- chevron versus natural resources defense council, what started all of this 40 years ago? and how this became so important?

>> it started because they wanted to make sure there was actually clean air. the original decision said that folks in congress can create the laws and then move those over to the federal agencies where the expertise actually exist. it also deals with the ambiguity that often exists inside of the law and that you need to have those individuals who have the knowledge and skillss to understand the dynamics that will play out on the ground. play out in places like cancer alley or in institute west virginia or the diesel death zone currently going on out in california. in over 18,000 times it has been used, not only in the environmental context but in other contexts, so we gave those individuals who have the skills to keep our country safe the ability to do that. and now that has been taken away. amy: how do you see this what project 2025 is. >> this begins to follow along

line of actions that have been going on for over 40 years going back to ronald reagan. they've been trying to weaken the laws that we have in place, the statutes, the rules. and what is playing out is we are seeing there is a shifting power. now you overlay that with project 2025, which in itself is 900 pages, of how we will restructure the government. what you will find now is you are going to have individuals who will be put into place who will further weaken the basic sets of protections out there, will give business and industry the opportunity to do more polluting so they can maximize profits, and you will find more folks inside our country will be struggling for a breath of clean air and a drink of clean water. amy: i want to bring elie mystal

into the conversation. the lever and others reported supreme court justice clarence thomas changed his position on chevron, one of america's most significant regulatory doctrines come after his wife reportedly accepted secret payments from a shadowy conservative network pushing for the change. thomas's shift came while he was receiving lavish gifts from billionaire linked to other groups criticizing the same doctrine, which is now headed back to the high court. the lever notes the so-called chevron deference doctrine stipulates the executive branch that the federal court has the power to interpret laws passed by congress in certain circumstances. can you talk about this connection and your overall response? because it is not only about the environment. >> so this goes to a larger republican conservative shift on the issue. you brought up the initial chevron decision in 1984. let's remember, that was a

conservative decision. chevron was championed by the conservative svengali antonin scalia it is one of the better decisions to ever come out of the supreme court. the reason why it was a conservative decision in the 1980's and trumpeted by conservatives in the 1980's is because conservatives believed they were more likely than not to hold control over the executive branch. this is during the reagan era. when reagan looked unbeatable. when george h.w. bush would succeed him. they thought they would control the executive rage and thus be able to deregulate the environment, worker safety, health safety, civil rights -- thought they could deregulate through the executive branch and so they loved chevron because it capped what they thought were liberal activist judges out of their way. fast forward 40 years, it is relatively hard for republicans and conservatives to ensure long-term control over the

executive branch. it is relatively easy now that they have the super majority on the supreme court to control regulation through the courts for the next 20 or 30 years. that is why the rest of the conservatives have flipped on this issue. chevron, if you go back to 1984, this was a decision trumpeted by the den reagan epa had who was neil gorsuch's mom. neil gorsuch's mom wanted chevron in the 1980's when she was in control of the executive branch now that neil gorsuch is one of the people in control of the supreme court come all of a sudden now they don't want chevron anymore they want the courts to have the say. to roll it all back together, yet to remember when we are talking about a power grab, who is the power coming from? we know where it is going to. who is it coming from? a lot of conservatives and republicans are trying to

gaslight people and tell them, "we're just taking power from unelected bureaucrats and giving it to unelected bureaucrats on the supreme court." no. they are taking power from you. they are taking power from the voters. because the voters, through their votes of congress and the president, get to decide what laws and regulations we have. when you take power out of the executive branch, you take power away from the one elected official we all are allowed to vote for, the president of the united states. and you give it to unelected people at the supreme court who don't change their mind every four or eight years, only changed upon retirement or death every 20 or 30 years. that is the power grab here. taking power out of our hands, out of democracy's hands and putting it in the hands of the court. amy: and the court were justices the nitrogen oxide is a serious

pollutant, laughing gas. >> couldn't be how more important of how not expert the court is that have gorsuch confuse laughing gas for smog in an opinion where he said the epa cannot regulate smog. amy: and another 6-3 ruling on friday, justices ruled that local governments can criminalize sleeping and camping on public property, and cameras of unhoused people. in a scathing dissent joined by justices kagan and jackson, justice sonia sotomayor wrote for the minority -- can you respond to this decision? >> neil gorsuch basically wrote the majority opinion for the republicans.

basically doesn't think the eighth amendment is allowed to exist. this is basically a part of a long string of gorsuch cases where he has written the eighth mm it out of the constitution. nothing is too cruel for neil gorsuch and nothing -- no punishment is unusual. in this opinion he wrote that criminalizing people, throwing people in jail for the crime of not having any place else to sleep but outside is not in eighth mm it violation. it is not cruel or unusual. neil gorsuch literally analogized sleeping on the street in oregon because you have no place to live to campers or perhaps people who are camping out because they wanted concert tickets. it is the same thing, according to neil gorsuch. just like the city or the county can say, hey, you can't cap outside ticketmaster just because you really want to see pearl jam, they can use that same law to take homeless people

who have no place else to go and send them to jail as well stop neil gorsuch found no difference between that. it is a cruel decision. i would go so far to say it is an evil decision. there something broken was up there something broken with people who look at people have no place else to go, look at people sleeping on the streets, get people sleeping in their cars because they have no homes and say, know what? get that person in a jail cell, that is where they belong. there something broken about people who do that. unfortunately, six of those broken people control the supreme court for the rest of my natural life. amy: before we go, can you lay out what is at stake in today's highly anticipated ruling on former president donald trump's bid for immunity for trying to

subvert the 2020 election and stay in power? even the significance of this putting this to today, extending the term -- it is something they could have decided months ago. >> speaking a broken and damaged people, right? look, donald trump has already won. jack smith at the supreme court to resolve this issue on december 11 2023. the supreme court has had this time to deliberate and decide whether or not donald trump is immune from everything in itself is a ridiculous position. even if they disagree with that position here on june 1 at the end of the term, donald trump has already one because donald trump only made that ridiculous unconstitutional stupid argument in order to delay the commencement of his trial until after the election. and because the supreme court is only ruling on it today, that goal has already been accomplished.

all we are waiting for today is the shouting. i do not think today the supreme court will agree presidents are actually immune from everything. what i think they will say is presidents are immune for some things but not other things. who can say which things are which? they will send the case back to the lower court for some other ruling on what acts official or unofficial a president might could be immune for. that really will happen to have -- have to have it in the lower court and that will get an appeal and that will get appealed to the supreme court. so if donald trump looses the next election, there is a high chance this time next year we will be sitting right here waiting for the supreme court to rule on the appeal of donald trump's appeal and only then will we see whether or not trump can be prosecuted for his alleged crimes that he committed on january 6, 2000 and 2021 when

he tried to overthrow the government. amy: elie mystal, thank you for being with us the nation's , justice correspondent. we'll link to all your pieces. he's the author "allow me to retort: a black guy's guide to the constitution." we also want to thank mustafa ali, former head of the environmental justice program at the environmental protection agency. now the executive vice president of the national wildlife federation and the ceo of revitalization strategies. next up, how the publisher of "the washington post" allegedly helped cover up a scandal. that is the headline of our guest's latest piece. we will also talk about the biden-trump debate fallout. stay with us. ♪ [music break]

amy: a march, the band joined other musicians and pulling out of the sxsw music festival to protest its "ties to the defense

industry and support of the palestinian people." last week, south by southwest announced "after careful consideration, we are revising our sponsorship model. as a result, the u.s. army and company to engage in weapons manufacturing will not be sponsors of south by southwest 2025." this is democracy now!, democracynow.org, the war and peace report. i'm amy goodman. we end today's show with media news and the unfolding ethics scandal at "the washington post" that has rocked the paper's newsroom and raised questions about the future of one of the leading u.s. news outlets. a british editor who was tapped for a top position at "the washington post" will no longer take that post as outcry continues to mount over a plan to shakeup "the post's" newsroom. the editor, robert winnett, will now stay at "the daily telegraph" instead of coming to

"the washington post." the decision comes days after it was revealed that winnett had a history of using fraudulently obtained phone and company records in newspaper articles. "the post's" chief executive will lewis is also coming under scrutiny over his record. both lewis and winnett are veterans of british papers owned by rupert murdoch. "the guardian" also recently revealed lewis advised then-u.k. prime minister boris johnson and top officials to "clean up" their phones amid public uproar over government violations of covid-19 safety precautions in what became known as partygate. will lewis has also been accused of trying to suppress stories about his connection to the phone-hacking scandal at rupert murdoch's "news of the world" newspaper in britain. the owner of "the washington post," amazon founder jeff bezos, has supported lewis. for more, we are joined by chris

lehmann, d.c. bureau chief for "the nation" where his recent piece is headlined "how the publisher of the washington post allegedly helped cover up a scandal." chris, welcome back to democracy now! it was great having you on on friday responding to the debate and we will ask you to talk a little more about the fallout from the weekend, but first, lay out what is happening at "the washington post." >> it is not good, amy. will lewis is basically the successor to catherine graham, the famed publisher. lewis is sort of plain the part of the nixon -- and this boris johnson scandal. he went to great lengths to tell johnson aids not to disclose sensitive communications after public investigation was launched in the partygate scandal. as you noted, this is on top of

the whole phone hacking scandal. there has been another report in "the new york times" since i wrote my piece for "the nation" in which investigators and scotland yard detailed to the phone hacking case say that lewis did not disclose what turned out to be millions of sensitive emails as he claimed initially to have done. so you have the leading executive one of the nation's great newspapers in this position of covering up both for boris johnson when he was running a political consultancy and covering up for himself. at the most basic level of how journalism should operate, executives in charge of news and the public interest should not be suppressing news. it is a pretty simple bar and

will lewis has failed to clear it, clearly. amy: can you talk about the relationship between winnett and will lewis? the two of them, i guess you could say murdochians from britain, people who work for rupert murdoch, worked together and are being investigated together. >> that's right. basically, winnett was a protéée of will lewis at "the telegraph" and they worked together on these stories involving what is called the lacquer, which is someone hired on contract to misrepresent himself to obtain information that will be embarrassing to various institutions and figures. this is typical of the british

tabloid press. the information they sought was kind of banality and not of any great public interest. there was a report of a manchester united ownership spats and a story about rich britton -- britain's who were lining up to buy luxury mercedes vehicles. under british law, you can use sort of sketchy means of obtaining information if it serves a public interest. it is very difficult to see how any of these stories met that standard. you have this sort of squalid tabloid culture that produces titillating clicks. that appears to be what jeff bezos wanted at "the washington post." boy, is he getting a full dose of it. amy: before we pivot to the debate, i wanted to ask you about the level of outcry in

"the washington post" newsroom, having people at the pulitzer prize winning reporter david maren and others speaking out and writing articles -- some of the best coverage of the deadpool is "the washington post." >> that was to the credit of celli busby. one of these episodes involved lewis reportedly strong-arming sally busby to not cover underdevelopment in the civil suit involving the phone hacking scandal. she went ahead and did it anyway. resigned shortly afterwards. lewis denies having done that but other reporters have written that they tried the same tactic with him when considering doing an article about lewis. lewis basically said, i will give you an exclusive so long as you don't write about this phone

hacking business. again, suppressing information is bad for journalists. it is that we live in ah where it has to be reiterated. -- we live in an age where it has to be reiterated. that is why a lot of people at the post are really -- a lot of telling supporters are reportedly eyeing exits. i came to washington originally to work for "the washington post" and a big reason was catherine graham's ownership. now we have a "washington post" owned by an absentee billionaire who apparently likes the report rupert murdoch business model and has been pushing it in that direction. it is a sad and scandalous set of development. amy: i want to continue our conversation from friday. let me quote the philadelphia inquirer -- "to serve his country, donald trump should leave the race.

biden had a horrible night thursday. but the debate about the debate is misplaced. the only person who should withdraw from the race is trump" was a headlight in the "philadelphia inquirer" friday. but others were much more focused on biden. "the new york times" headlined its editorial friday "to serve his country, president biden should leave the race." "washington post" columnist david ignatius wrote a piece headlined "why biden didn't accept the truth that was there for all to see." "the new yorker's" david remnick wrote in a piece headlined "the reckoning of joe biden" -- of about four biden to remain the democratic candidate would be an act not only of self-delusion but of national endangerment. to go on contending that his good days are more plentiful than the bad, to ignore the inevitability of time and aging, doesn't merely risk his legacy -- it risks the election." chris, you've been following all of this. president biden was supposedly hunkered down at camp david with his family to make a decision.

apparently, they were there for an annie leibovitz photo shoot. talk about the fallout. it is uncharted territory for sure. out of all of those quotes from the various pieces, we are in a moment where things are true like donald trump should not be a major party nominee. he tried to overthrow the government. it is not upholding the constitution, which is in the oath of office. biden's situation has not improved after a week of flexion about the future of the campaign . it appears the biden and his inner circle of advisers are doubling down. they're going to proceed.

my head. this is after a cvs poll in the wake of the debate, 72% of americans don't think biden is cognitively up to the job of being president. i don't know how you battled back against that. gretchen whitmer, governor of michigan, reportedly called biden's campaign and said, "michigan is no longer really in play for the president," which is important to realize the reason this debate happened when it did was the biden campaign was taking the risk that it would turn things around, especially they have been trailing and all the swing states -- which as we know from bitter experience, is it regardless of the popular vote, a ticket to losing the election. amy: five seconds. >> they took this incredible risk to do this debate in which

biden performed in a way that really troubles everyone. following our politics. they are now saying it is a greater risk to change horses. amy: we have to leave it there. chris lehmann of the nation. democracy now!