what happened exactly to him. but you acouple late as much information as you can, and you make choices but this is also peter morgan's version of this particular story and he has streamlined the story to keep the audience guessing about certain questions like that as well. there's a lot of information out there and we do our best to, to find our way through it and tell this compelling story. >> that's all for today, we will be right back tomorrow at 6:00 a.m. eastern. stay tuned for msnbc's the weekend and enjoy the rest of your saturday. enjoy the rest o your saturday. good morning.

it is saturday april 27th. today, trump on trial twice. over the next two hours, our legal and reporting team help us break town the supreme court immunity arguments and jaw dropping revelations from the 2016 election interference case. plus, calling his bluff. president biden is happy to debate trump. the expresident's grasp on the base weekends. congressman garcia joins us. and the joke is on us, we will preview d.c.'s big night white house correspondent din perp grab your coffee, settle in and welcome to the weekend. donald trump keeps coming back to one strategy to avoid accountability and delay, delay, delay. the supreme court now seems poised to help the efforts. indicating that it could further stall the election federal election interference

trial. this week the justices heard arguments on the presidential immunity claims although they are skeptical he has total immunity, several conservative justices indicated an openness to kick the case to the lower courts. meaning we likely will not see a trial before election day. crucial to understand the stakes here. listen how trump's lawyer defended the former president's efforts to nullify the 2020 election. >> the defendant asked the arizona house speaker to call the legislature into session to hold a hearing based on their claims of election fraud. >> absolutely an official act for the president to communicate with state oif i on a matter of enormous federal interest and concern that's an official act. >> well, attempting to defend the integrity of the election, i mean, that's the defense. the allegation is that he was attempting to overthrow an election. >> joining us now marcus childress former january 6th committee investigator and former federal prosecutor and senior writer for political

magazine. good morning. >> good morning. >> this is the most insane, not normal -- it was one of the most harrowing argue minutes i heard before the supreme court because and jamal of the "new york times" because trump wants to be king, and the supreme court is poised -- is debating on whether or not that's correct that i am wondering the lawyers at the table what -- is that an accurate way to boil it down? >> yeah. look, the way i think about what happened on thursday, the oral argument it was a national disgrace. a national historic disgrace. it's going to go down as one of the worst days in the supreme court. i cannot believe -- well, i can believe that it unfolded how it did. you and i spoke heading into it. but, i wish we were wrong those of us cynical about the court. but, you know, i want to -- i want to talk about the american

people very briefly. politico we polled people's opinions on this question. headed into the argument. 70% of americans said that they reject the position that u.s. presidents should be criminally immuned for conduct while in office. that's beyonce levels of approval in the politico. >> you knew your audience. >> exactly. >> well, i am a fan. anyway, we also asked people whether or not they trusted this court to issue fair and impartial ruling. less than a quarter of people agreed with it and unfortunately the people are correct. >> i mean, on that note, something that domed trump has always done and think it surprised a lot of us is his ability to delay and delay and delay a and more importantly he seemed helped by other people and cements hike the supreme comfort here might be doing that. so talk to the people about how, what happens here, kicking

it back down to the other courts will delay this and may never see the case especially if he wins in november. >> speaking of delay, it's important to note the department of justice tried to have the supreme court hear the case in december. that's the first point and they didn't take it. they waited until the d.c. circuitish you had their opinion and didn't do expedited argument and took it on the same course they normally would. that deep briefing, argument period back to april is four- month delay the former president is benefiting from. and then, it looks like then instead of approaching it in a narrow way which is what we saw the lower courts do, is you know trying to obstruct the 2020 election is that you have immunity for that? the supreme court is taking a broad approach to this question which means an opinion won't be the end of june or early july and 80 days from that a here court hearing is not august or september. the strategy of delay is effective. but we can hope that the

supreme court maybe might surprise us. >> you are more hopeful. >> i was going to say. >> i will the resident optimist in if people didn't hear arguments, i think we should play them for them. i am going to go to amy barrett who talks about private acts. she has an exchange with the trump lawyer because trump's lawyers are arguing there are some acts that are private, and there's some acts official. and justice barrett i think does a -- she is like okay come on now. i am agreeing with her. i think pigs are flying but play the sound. >> i want to know if you agree or disagree about the characterization of these acts as private. petitioner in turned to a private attorney he was willing to spread knowingly false claims of election fraud to spearhead his challenges to the election results private. >> as alleged we dispute the allegation but a it sounds private. >> petitioner conspired with

another private attorney who signed filing in court of a verification signed by petitioner that contained false allegation to. >> that sound private. >> they want to draw a distinction between official conduct tying to the president's constitutional responsibilities and so-called private conduct which is unrelated to that. to draw a distinction between the two in the immunity setting. so that you can get immunity for official acts, but not immunity for private acts. it sounds very clever and useful but it's an artificial construct. and the concern of justices, a lot of arguments are disingenuous. and think they know better. the problem with this argument, which i thought justice jackson arctic lathed jack articulated this well. we have a president who wants to assassinate someone hire a

private hitman, if this doctrine is in place they could use the military to do it. >> i want tokingy bag. i think the chief justice nailed this difficulty in separating official from private action with hypothetical what if you appoint an aambassador to a bribe it's an official act and you saw the theme back and forth of using the power of the presidency and receiving something in private. and so it's hard to really distinction a private versus an official act. i think that's what the supreme court was struggling with and why they spent over an hour and a half talking to the doj attorney about where do we draw the loon because there are ways to do an official act and receive private gain whether as an office seeker or office holder or president or private person it's really hard to draw the line. >> and it's like a coup. i mean, was it a mistake for the judge not to figure out the private and public before it got sent to the other courts.

that's. >> that's a deep sigh. >> that's crazy. i am not a lawyer but it's crazy. what? >> what he could have done before it got to the supreme court. >> what is a private and public act. if you are president you are president no? >> i have many thoughts. symone may have a few. it's possible had she done that but i don't think so. this is nothing that's happening at the supreme court is on the level. they were going to do whatever they wanted to do to slow it down. we learned that on thursday with the very silly arguments. and but i want to piggyback off what you said. we are talking about private and not private it's veriary and we heard the supreme court very theoretical. the case does not implicate serious official conduct. it's all about trump using trying to remain in power. that's campaign work that's not the job of the president to administer a state elections. and even if it were and if he had been concerned with the election fraud, which i don't think he was, that's a perfectly fine defense to raise

at trial as a factual matter to the charges. it shouldn't be a reason for him to get immunity before a trial against without having to offer any evidence that his claim is true. >> the exchang i found most clarifying was the exchange from justice brown jackson when she talked about the chilling effect and whether or not that is what we should be concerned about. take a listen. >> what i am, i guess, more worried about, you seem to be worried about the president being chilled. i think that we would have a really significant opposite problem if the president wasn't chilled. if someone with those kinds of powers, the most powerful person in the world, with the greatest amount of authority, could go into office knowing that there would be no potential penalty for committing crimes. i'm trying to understand what the disincentive is from turning the oval office into, you know, the seat of the

criminal activity in this country. >> look, i found this part of the argument. i was sitting there across from judge jackson, and it was really extraordinary. to see the justices using the advocates to talk to each other and they do that in every case but it felt particularly stark to have certain justices asking about the chilling effect of the president not being able to take decisive action and other justices pointing out well isn't that good thing we don't want presidents committing crimes and don't want the oval office tore an area to commit crimes for free and they were doing it through long explanatory phrases and asking questions on back end but it was particularly extraordinary. and judge jackson couldn't have said it any better. we don't want the leader of the country, the executive who is supposed to execute the laws being abling to get away with crimes for free and that's essentially where the hypotheticals were going on thursday. >> they truly seemed the justices seemed more concerned they said i heard from many justices saying, i am not concerned about the details of

this case. i am concerned about future presidents. and i am like. this case matters. >> and this guy could be a future president. hold the thought. there's more we have to get to. when we come back wool talk about that and next hour trump's trial in new york and laura jarrett and susannne craig will be with us. you are watching the weekend. you are watching the weekend.

all of the things that you're looking for in a pad, that is always discreet. look at how it absorbs all the liquid. oh my gosh! and locking it right on in. look at that! totally absorbed. i got to get some always discreet. (screams) bleeding gums are serious, jamie. dr. garcia? woah. they're a sign of bacterial infection. crest gum detoxify's antibacterial fluoride works below the gumline to help heal gums and stop bleeding.

crest saves the day. crest. salonpas lidocaine flex. a super thin, flexible patch with maximum otc strength lidocaine that contours to the body to relieve pain right where it hurts. and did we mention, it really, really sticks? salonpas, it's good medicine.

if the president toe sides his rival is a corrupt person and he orders the military or orders someone to assassinate him, is that within his official acts for which he can get immunity? >> it would depend hypothetical. we can see that could well be an official act. >> you cannot make this up. donald trump's lawyer wants us all to think ordering the military to assassinate a political rival could be an official act of the presidency. marcus is back with us. crazy. >> i mean, for either of you, one of my biggest questions that as i've been watching the supreme court and others over the years, is the discussion of

executive power and how it expanded. and it seems like this may -- could what here. if they push this down and trump becomes president, this case is a wrap. his people have said that. so i guess when you think about the historical implications of the expanded powers of the executive branch, how concerned should people be if that's what happens here? >> think that's what we have been seeing since donald trump was in office, tearing down checks and balances on decisions he was making. that's what he was trying to do with overturning election. there are checks and balancess of congress to certify the election and he was trying to subvert that by going to state legislatures or pressuring the doj. that's the theme since 2016. and this is just at furtherance and we are talking about the credibility of the court and credibility of the elections. and these are all core institutions that keep the democracy going and it's been a continuing deriftive effect since donald trump was first elected. >> i want to start with you but

i want your analysis it another observer said they never saw justice roberts so uncomfortable. >> it felt tense. and when i talked to my family afterwards, i said it felt like the first january 6th committee hearing you could cut through the air because we wanted the american people to see we got it right. it felt like the supreme court is hoping that it gets it right, and that's what i could tell. it just -- >> what is right? is right right by the law or right right by. >> i told you again i hope they get it right by the law. but you can tell folks felt uncomfortable and felt the gravity of the moment. >> did they look -- what can they look like. >> you had justice who is were really leaned over like not really looking at the advocates. you had others talking to each other. i mean, it looked like they weren't necessarily aligned on where this line should be or if there should and line at all. that's why i thought the hypotheticals were outrageous because you felt justice were putting markers in the sand of like we cannot go this far.

we cannot say we are in a monarchy. we cannot talk about having a coup we cannot allow the deep of powers to exist. and then you had had the chief justice as the other commentary said sitting this quiet and lord knows what was going through his mind. this a decision that will live on forever. it. >> it is about the legacy. >> i think it has -- i am a fascinated to hear all that, actually. truly fascinated because maybe he has been reading polling and realizes this is a politically perilous situation for the supreme court. and yesterday, you know, excuse me on thursday, you know the scene must have been uncomfortable and a third of the justices on the court were appointed by trump. thomas shouldn't have been there and he should be recused and his wife is a victim of the crimes having been duped by trump and allies of false claims of election and thomas was there listening to the case

and again it was a disgrace. >> i am just going to play this piece of sound. this is justice kavanaugh on the nixon pardon. he had this exchange with the lawyer from the justice department who is representing the special counsel on thursday. >> president ford's pardon. very controversial in the moment. >> yes. >> hugely unpopular probably why he lost in '76. >> yes. >> now looked upon as one of the better decisions in presidential history, think, by most people. if he's thinking about, well, if i grant this pardon to richard nixon, could i be investigated myself for obstruction of justice on the theory that i'm interfering with the investigation of richard nixon. >> so this would fall into that small court area that i mentioned is to justice kagan and justice gorsuch.

>> one of our historians i don't think most people agree about the pardon of nixon by ford. but, many other things came up in this conversation. can a president pardon himself. is that something we should be weighing in on here? and it was justice jackson that at the end brought the conversation back to why can't we just decide the question before us. >> i just -- you are right to be asking that question. the thing i want to say is that framing all of this framing about oversetting rule for the future and concerned about the hypotheticals, that's a deliberate choice the conservative justices made and can and do address the allegations in the indictment, and resolve the case in front of them. they are deliberately complicating this. >> that's big difference between the lower court rulings and the questions the supreme court. lower courts were focus on the crimes at hand. can a president be immuned for

trying to overthrow the election and we didn't heard a the love facts about the crimes at hand. >> they didn't want to hear. >> they said they didn't want. >> >> i don't want to get into the details of the case. well, why are we here. >> that's concerning because they are talking about preventing this type of conduct in the future, and as many advocates said, for 200 years we have have. >> had the conduct in the country why are we concern for the future. again, that goes on the difficulttive effect of donald trump's actions in the presidency and the prospect we could look at it again. >> if you were part of the 70% of americans who agree that the president should not have absolute immunity and you watch what transpired this week in court, what is left as recourse? there's court reform, there's stacking the court? what is the path because clearly something more structural is necessary. >> i think as we think about this administration and its

legacy, i think it was -- it will go down as having been a historic miscalculation. >> biden administration. >> biden administration to not have made aest at supreme court. they put together a commission that produced a report no one red it was not a serious effort. >> why? because the president biden i worked for him at that time i was a part of the transition, and i worked in the white house and i know for a fact and you been asking the questions there i was there. he himself does not believe that that is an avenue that should be explored. you know, joe biden is somebody that believes that in the rules and laws and systems, and one could argue, it's time to do things differently. >> i mean, yeah, i am aware of that view and he is holding the wrong view. this court is running rough shot through the constitution. they in the last few years,

they overturned roe, they have invalidated affirmative action and higher education, and basically legalized same sex discrimination and threw out part of the biden signature domestic policy effort on the student loan forgiveness plan and now they are poised to issue a ruling that will change the law which has been in place for a couple hundred years. woo assumed a president could be criminally charged after leaving office to now come up with some crazy new doctrine. and. >> to say nothing of the idaho case that they are listening to right now which is like all of their chickens coming home to roost. >> yeah, and its like yeah we don't want to save women. >> the cases coming back to them after dobbs is a mess. and this immunity ruling if it comes out as most of us expecting, it will go down as a practical effect as a practical matter. as a sequel to bush versus gore. >> i saw our good friend andrew weissman talking about the lower courts what they can do and that's where i am hoping

eye goes. those of us trying the evidentiary hearings you can get more evidence than for a jury. and so if this is remanded, i hope the american people can learn of the fact that. >> you are signature. >> i am. >> you might as -- >> i am trying. >> sometimes when we talk about what happened at court and you look at volley, it gets framed as it was not a good day for jack smith's team, which was there anything driven at the team that they could have done differently. >> absolutely not. and put on one of the better oral argue minutes i ever listened to or witnessed. >> he was excellent. >> excellent. and in fact, was able to go where the court was going with the hypotheticals to his fall back position of going with justice barrett. that's a private act we can try it because it's in the outer perimeter. there was nothing he could have done. and that's why they spent and hour and 45 minutes with him and short of a hour with

trump's attorney because he was that good on his feet and i think they were trying to find the line that they can make this opinion with which i think we know is probably going to be remanded for further proceedings. think they were trying to fine the line of what's reasonable through him. >> marcus, ankush we are going you back once the decision comes back and see whose predeckss were back thanks for getting us started. democratic congressman robert garcia will be with us to discuss trump's week in court and president biden's big week on and off the campaign trail. also shoal follow the show on social media. the handle is at the weekend msnbc. is at the weekend msnbc. when anyone in this house wears white, it doesn't stay white for long. white? to soccer? i'm not gonna slide tackle. but now with tide oxi white, we can clean our white clothes without using bleach. it even works on colors. i slide tackled. i see that. tide oxi white.

weeds... they have you surrounded. take your lawn back! with scotts turf builder triple action! it gets three jobs done at once - kills weeds. prevents crabgrass. and keeps it growing strong. download the my lawn app today for lawn care tips and customized plans. feed your lawn. feed it. ♪ music ♪ ♪ unnecessary action hero! ♪ for lawn care tips and customized plans. ♪ unnecessary. ♪ was that necessary? no. neither is missing your daughter's competition to do payroll.

with paycom, employees do their own payroll so you don't have to miss your daughter's big day. time to shine. get paycom and make the unnecessary unnecessary. at bombas, we're obsessed with socks. tees. and underwear. because your basic things should be your best things. one purchased equals one donated. visit bombas.com and get 20% off your first order. ( ♪ ♪ )

start your day with nature made. the #1 pharmacist recommended vitamin and supplement brand.

hello, ghostbusters. it's doug. we help people customize and save hundreds on car insurance with liberty mutual. we got a bit of a situation. [ metal groans] sure, i can hold. ♪ liberty liberty liberty liberty ♪ in theaters now. an alternative to pills, voltaren is a clinically proven arthritis pain relief gel, which penetrates deep to target the source of pain with nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory medicine directly at the source. voltaren, the joy of movement. i am riled up about the supreme court. >> i know. >> i am riled up about the supreme court. because they are poised, they

are literally poised. jamal head the nail on head. they are poised to make him king. didn't the people that helped -- that started this country with the revolution didn't threat they want to get away from the monarchy. why are we trying to go back. >> they weren't by fans. >> i love the brits but come on. >> one of the things that's fascinate something watching roberts paying attention and knowing how low the approval ratings are, knowing how people feel about the court, and knowing that people on both sides of the aisle, have concerns about the legitimacy of the court moving forward. that's his legacy and part of when you talk to people who know him shall sits around and thinks about this all the time. and what he can do to fix it. the problem is, he is outnumbered way too much if he is going to change that. conservatives are not interested in that. and the way they were talking about it and you said this there's nothing more fascinating than watching them say we don't care about this case we want to talk about the whole conversation which does in the happen on the supreme

court. we are in a different phase of the high court. >> and it's not just the justices who are thinking about this and being asked about it. our colleague kristin welker who generalously lent us her studio. >> we love the big table. >> she had an interview with senator mcconnell and asked him about this question of presidential immunity. take a listen. >> what do you think leader mcconnell? do you think that presidents should be immuned from criminal prosecution for actions while in office? >> obviously i don't. but it's not up to me to make that decision. the president clearly needs some kind of immunity or he would be in court all the time. >> again, i want to be really clear for people. okay. i worked at white house, okay. i worked for the president and vice president. this idea that like the president needs sop level of

immunity. there's something called executive privilege and attorney general of the united states of america. and the president of the united states can pick up the phone and call the greatest legal minds in this country to advice he or she on what to do. there's a white house counsel's office because the attorney general is the attorney for the people the white house counsel advices the president. there is not -- this is not a situation where they are not protections for the president of the country and the vice president when they make decisions related to the national security. that's not what is happening here. >> one of the interesting things about mcconnell in his place in all this is when they were trying to impeach president trump the second time, for this, he said that you don't need to impeach him the criminal courts will handle this. the idea and now what trump's lawyers are saying is he had to be impeached to be a crime so it's back and forth and convicted. it's back and forth between that and mitch mcconnell saying

what he said just now but he is a big player and it's good welker has him. >> he is the player. mitch mcconnell had he understood the assignment we wouldn't have the conversation. >> he understood the assignment but didn't feel like doing it. >> well. ahead, folks, we will continue to talk about the supreme court because they heard a lot of case this is week and right now, they seem split over whether idaho abortion ban violates federal law, constitutional- reproductive right. michelle will join us at the table after a quick break. you are watching the weekend. you are watching the weekend. it's never a good time for migraine, especially when i'm on camera. that's why my go-to is nurtec odt. for the acute treatment of migraine with or without aura and the preventive treatment of episodic migraine in adults. it's the only migraine medication that helps treat & prevent, all in one. don't take if allergic to nurtec odt. allergic reactions can occur, even days after using. most common side effects were nausea, indigestion, and stomach pain. people depend on me. without a migraine,

i can be there for them. talk to your doctor about nurtec odt today.

nexium 24hr prevents heartburn acid for twice as long as pepcid. get all-day and all-night heartburn acid prevention with just one pill a day. choose acid prevention. choose nexium. to me, harlem is home. but home is also your body. i asked myself, why doesn't pilates exist in harlem? so i started my own studio. getting a brick and mortar in new york is not easy. chase ink has supported us from studio one to studio three. when you start small, you need some big help. and chase ink was that for me. earn up to 5% cash back on business essentials with the chase ink business cash card from chase for business. make more of what's yours. rsv is out there. for those 60 years and older protect against rsv with arexvy. arexvy is a vaccine used to prevent lower respiratory disease from rsv in people 60 years and older.

arexvy does not protect everyone and is not for those with severe allergic reactions to its ingredients. those with weakened immune systems may have a lower response to the vaccine. the most common side effects are injection site pain, fatigue, muscle pain, headache, and joint pain. i chose arexvy. rsv? make it arexvy. ♪(voya)♪ there are some things that work better together. like your workplace benefits and retirement savings. voya helps you choose the right amounts without over or under investing. so you can feel confident in your financial choices voya, well planned, well invested, well protected. this week donald trump claimed overturning roe was really working out well for people. we are seeing just how untrue that is and how messy it can be when individual states are left to regulate reproductive rights. on wednesday the supreme court

heard oral arguments over idaho's near total abortion ban violates federal law by preventing doctors from properly treating women with pregnancy complications. the state senate poised to take up a bill in arizona appealing the civil war era ban. that he narrowly passed legislation but republicans voted it keep the ban in place in joining us at the table michele goodwin. she is the author of policing the womb invisible women and crimization of motherhood and every time i read the tighte, it seems like you are clairvoyant. >> the elisetor general went before the supreme court this week and she argued that pregnant women in medical crisis are being flown out of the state of idaho literally airlifted because the medical care they need is an abortion and can't get one. >> they have been airlifted six

times the number of women that were in the year prior. it's extraordinary. justice sotomayor you heard the frustration in her voice as she engaged in the questioning. and you also heard from the conservatives maters that are competely inconsistent with the viewpoint on textualism. what's at stake is a federal law called the emergency medical treatment and labor act. very specifically 40 years ago congress anticipated that poor women, women in distress who are pregnant, deserve to be stabilized and to be able to live and otherwise they would be dumped. the point that justice sotomayor is not isn't it another version of dumping when you have to get on a helicopter and be airlifted because you will not receive care at this hospital? >> one of the things that's interesting when dobbs came down everybody in the reproductive access space i

spoke to that all the colleagues spoke to they say these things were will happen they said not just the airlifting, but also that the cases would pop up. >> yes. >> the laws would be there that the court would have to reap what they sew. >> yes, the criminallation. one piece that has not been acknowledged in any of this as the conservatives on the court said, well, this is strange why should federal law preempt here? row could federal law use its purse dollars. well, federal government has been doing this for a while now. it did this because historically, black patients were dumped. black patients dying on the front steps of hospitals that refused to admit them. black patients being left in corridors in white hospitals where they refused to to be treated. and was part of the civil rights legacy of johnson president johnson to make sure that there would be legislation put forward that could save

black patients' lives. and this is a corollary to that. >> you often remind us we are living in a new jane crow era. >> that's what this is. and keep in mind, there are medical wards that would otherwise treat women in idaho say we don't want to do it because we are concerned about our doctors being prosecuted, losing the medical licenses to practice. and so we are just going to stop treating pregnant women altogether. >> i take your point about the court and some of the justice on the court and convenient textualism. >> sure. >> and serves their means. there is also this exchange it made the rounds on my twitter and on my instagram from jessica valente who grew up in a post roe world and. >> i want. >> a millennial and mortgage millennial. but i think this is the sentiment for a the love us which she tweeted i don't know how to raise my daughter where the supreme court is debating how many organs are okay women to lose before providing health

care. >> that's the tragedy of the times. and i've been reminding people that we are still on the ark towards women's citizenship in the country. there's the era that has not been ratified. countries have estance ateed women's equality in the constitution. ours hasn't and we might get confused there's full citizenship by fact women are in law schools and medical schools a things like that. but let's be clear, we are a country where its supreme court has taken away the right to be able to terminate a pregnancy, and is now debating whether a woman's life matters at all and then something fundamental to american law has always been that federal law trumps state law. and so we see a complete reworking of our constitution. and our democracy. >> when you say debating whether a woman's life matters at all, some people might say, okay, they are being a little hyperbolic this morning what do they put in their coffee. do we have to sound of justice

alito and in -- making these just what i felt were very wild claims. we don't have it. i am going read it to you he says, the hospital must save lives a threat to the unborn child. it seems the meaning is the hospital must try to eliminate immediate threat to the child but performing an abortion is and at this time cal to the duty and solicitor general when i see her i am buying her a drink she says if congress had wanted to displays protens for pregnant women in danger of losing their lives or their health, it could have eee defined the status of the fetus with an emergency medical condition but that's not how they structured this and put the expand protection for the pregnant woman. justice alito is he is pudging the life and conception act from the bench. >> let's be clear for justice alito who claims textualism is the direction to go, there's no

text in the united states constitution that recognizes embryos or fetuses and in fact the opposite is true. the first sentence of the 14th amend minute says citizens are people that are born. specifically. that's what it says. and so, there is this reaching that is taking place and it's important what you have just said so americans know because you are right. it's been framed this is something that's hyperbolic, and it's something that is unmeasured. people need to just simply be more reasonable in this. but let's remember it is our united states supreme court that acknowledged in 2014 in case called whole women's health a woman is 14 times more likely to die carrying a pregnancy to term than by having an abortion. so abortions are incredibly safe they save women's lives and we are a country where the maternal mortality rate exceeds that of all other nation and rank 55th in the world. and so those facts really matter because what's left on the other side is really a

death penalty for women. in country like this. let's just be clear about that. it's very dangerous in this country to care yea pregnancy to term and in the states with abortion bans, they have not seat priority of saving women's lives protecting them, and for that matter, caring for children after they are born. >> i mean, none of this is happening in the vacuum. so the politics of this, right, i am paying a lot of attention to covering the biden campaign and white house not women who are the boogie women of the abortion young people just out there having too much sex and had to get somethings abortions before they are 16. it's women that are affect by this. women who want to have children, may have a child, and doctors are saying to them, i cannot give you an abortion until you are septic. >> that's right. >> those are the -- talk a little about the politics and

how whatever they decide here might impact that. >> well, that's an important point that you are making. it's kind of like the rosa parks version, right, so who becomes the poster children for this. and let's say tragedy all around but think about kate cox many people litigants are people anti-abortion themselves. or who wanted to be parents and found themselves in situations that were critical to their health where they experienced near death and needed to be able to manage a miscarriage. you know, there's lack of appreciation for science about 28% of pregnancies result in miscarriage and still birth anyway but those have become the kind of highlight cases in the wake of the dobbs decision, the people who wanted to be pregnant and there was failure. women who were gestating fetus without skulls and without brain development. and gestating fetuses there

might have been twins but one had demised and so you are gestating a dead fetus. these are the cases now making their way through litigation, and let us know forget that after dobbs you had lawmakers saying they didn't care about 10-year-old girls pregnant and needing to go to another state to terminate a pregnancy or the fact that now, we have girls going into elementary school and middle school as mothers. in the united states. and the post dobbs reality. and lawmakers saying, well, so what? and i think the reason why the ballot initiatives have been succeeding is because it's not just democratic women sitting across the table from the daughters. it's republican moms who are looking at their daughters and saying, should my 10-year-old become a mother if something horrible happens to her by a neighbor up the block. and they are saying no. >> michele goodwin thank you, thank you, thank you. up next, tense protests over the war in gaza.

and they have reached a boiling point on college campuses across america. michael will help us contextualize this important moment and this is the weekend. moment and this is the weekend. try killing bugs the worry-free way. not the other way. zevo traps use light to attract and trap flying insects with no odor and no mess. they work continuously, so you don't have to. zevo. people-friendly. bug-deadly. ♪ i wanna hold you forever ♪ hey little bear bear. ♪ ♪ ♪ i'm gonna love you forever ♪ ♪ ♪ c'mon, bear. ♪ ♪ ♪ you don't...you don't have to worry... ♪ ♪ be by your side... i'll be there... ♪ ♪ with my arms wrapped around... ♪ when you put in the effort, but it starts to frizz...

you skipped a step. tresemmé silk serum. use before styling for three days of weightlessly smooth hair that frizz can't beat. new tresemmé keratin smooth collection. i was born to live in the limelight. but psoriasis kept me in the shadows. until i got clearer skin with bimzelx. most people got 100% clear skin. some after the first dose. serious side effects, including suicidal thoughts and behavior, infections and lowered ability to fight them, liver problems, and inflammatory bowel disease, have occurred. tell your doctor if these happen or worsen, or if you've had a vaccine or plan to. (♪♪) start to get yourself back, with bimzelx. ask your dermatologist about bimzelx today. smile! you found it. the feeling of finding psoriasis can't filter out the real you. so go ahead, live unfiltered with the one and only sotyktu, a once-daily pill for moderate to severe plaque psoriasis, and the chance at clear or almost clear skin. it's like the feeling of finding you're so ready

for your close-up. or finding you don't have to hide your skin just your background. once-daily sotyktu was proven better, getting more people clearer skin than the leading pill. don't take if you're allergic to sotyktu; serious reactions can occur. sotyktu can lower your ability to fight infections, including tb. serious infections, cancers including lymphoma, muscle problems, and changes in certain labs have occurred. tell your doctor if you have an infection, liver or kidney problems, high triglycerides, or had a vaccine or plan to. sotyktu is a tyk2 inhibitor. tyk2 is part of the jak family. it's not known if sotyktu has the same risks as jak inhibitors. find what plaque psoriasis has been hiding. there's only one sotyktu, so ask for it by name. so clearly you. sotyktu. i brought in ensure max protein with 30 grams of protein! those who tried me felt more energy in just two weeks. -ugh. -here, i'll take that. woo hoo! ensure max protein, 30 grams protein, 1 gram sugar, 25 vitamins and minerals. and a new fiber blend with a prebiotic. (♪♪)

you know, i spend a lot of time thinking about dirt. at three in the morning. any time of the day. what people don't know is that not all dirt is the same. you need dirt with the right kind of nutrients. look at this new organic soil from miracle-gro. everybody should have it. it worked great for us. this is as good as gold in any garden. if people only knew that it really is about the dirt. you're a dirt nerd. huge dirt nerd. i'm proud of it! [ryan laughs] as protests rage on dozens of college campus over war in gaza, this morning, we are learning that the white house is planning to limit the number of commencement speeches the president will give. he is only scheduled to speak

at morehouse college and u.s. military academy at west point next month. protest at the university of southern california prompted administrators to cancel their commencement over safety concerns. and now students at columbia university one of the schools at the center of the protests, are worried their graduation could be disrupted. joining us nbc news presidential historian michael beschloss. bogood morning. good morning how are you. >> we are very glad to see you. i was looking at all of this, and there's a lot of focus what he ap mont campus of columbia, but it is happening all over the country on college campuses. and you hear the students talking a lot now about divestment. and it made me go back and read about the movement for divestment when on college campuses during south africa apartheid. can you talk about if there's similarity in the moment we are

experiencing living through now, and moments that have come before. >> well, you know, i don't need to tell anyone on this panel or probably any viewer watching that protests is one of the sacred rights and sacred responsibilities of all of us as citizens. and where more so than on college campus. take vietnam and civil rights. again, i am preaching to the converted i know, but, doesn't mean it is not right. we would not have ended the vietnam war as early as we did and should have been much earlier, unless there were protesters on college campuses saying, we won't go. this week, for instance, we had an anniversary. this week in 1970, kent state in ohio and protests against vietnam war and what president nixon was do 4th of may ohio national guard fired into a crowd and killed four people,

in student crowd, and wounded five. that's how bad things got. at the time of civil rights protests, down in the south for instance, when president kennedy was sending in troops to integrate the university of mississippi, two people died in the course of violence. this is something we have seen in american history and it's horrible, but what we have to see always and this is american historical thread, is this struggle between freedom and security. freedom to express ourselves at the sam time as people have security of their lives and their ability to survive and protect themselves. not only from hate speech but also from violence. >> well, happening, michael, against a backdrop of rising anti-semitism in the country. >> absolutely. yes. that's another form of security. so, if jewish student, for instance are endangered on campuses, it's the responsibility of the university, the locality, and the federal government if

necessary, god forbid, to make sure they are protected. >> what is -- i guess, the questions that i have many questions have arisen let's but clear over the last week, specifically. >> it's complicated. >> it is extremely complicated because it is not -- if you look at some of the images i've seen come out of columbia are from two blocks down, and they are not students. these are outside agitators but there are videos of students as spousing just saying things that i don't think in anyone -- it was hard to see and hear. but where's the line because the people in power have choices. and from columbia to university of texas, austin to usc. usc canceled -- university of southern california canceled the commencement but let's be clear first they remove the valedictorian because they told her she copt speak because they didn't like what she could say

potentially and protest erupted there. the leadership has a choice, and it seems to me the choices institutions are making, are agitating the protest movement. >> totally agree with you. you know, if you were protesters against segregation of the southern university in the 1950s, or 1960s. if we had done that, we would have probably been thrown off the campus by the campus police, and there wouldn't have been very much from that. what history shows us is each time this happened, it is almost always a case unto itself. a president who makes a decision like that, has to deal with faculty that's not going to be very happy with it. donors might take another point of view. the local law and the federal law provide other protections, and i hate to say something that something but it is true we have in every case a lot of stake holders and they fight with each other you know over

this central struggle between freedom and security. and in almost every case, a college campus and neighborhood it is in, makes its own choice. sometimes good, sometimes terrible. >> michael beschlos. thanks for coming on. we could do this for a whole hour. >> thank you all. >> thank you. we have another hour of the weekend straight ahead. we will be joined by "the new york times" susanne craig and laura square the and congressman robert garcia of california. that's coming up right here on the weekend. . .

we're hitting the road, talking to people about their hearts. putting the mobile in kardiamobile. -how's your heart? -doing good. -is it? -i think so. -you think so. but how do you know, right? -how do i know... -i don't actually know. -you don't actually know. - i'm believing so. let me show you something. it looks like a credit card, but it is the kardiamobile card. that is a fda-cleared ekg device. -want to see how it works? -yeah. let me see it. winner gets to check your heart. ready? one, two, three, heart! with kardiamobile card, you can take a medical-grade ekg in just 30 seconds, from anywhere. kardiamobile card is proven to detect atrial fibrillation, one of the leading causes of stroke. and it's the only personal ekg that's fda-cleared

to detect normal heart rhythm, bradycardia and tachycardia. -you know, mother's day is coming up. right? -yeah. -give that as a gift to your mom. -great idea. - i like it. this year, give mom peace of mind for mother's day with kardiamobile card for just $89. that's a $10 savings. get kardiamobile card at kardia.com or amazon. it's hard to explain what this feels like. ♪♪ moving piles of earth. towing up to 4,000 lbs. cutting millions of blades of grass. nothing compares to experiencing it for yourself. you just have to get in the seat. [♪♪] nothing compares to experiendid you know,ourself. there's a way to cut your dishwashing time by 50%? try dawn powerwash dish spray. it removes 99% of grease and grime in half the time. dawn powerwash has 3 cleaning boosters not found in traditional dish soaps that remove food and grease 5 times faster. and, because it cleans so well you can replace multiple cleaning products for counters, stoves, and even laundry stains.

try dawn powerwash dish spray. brand power, helping you buy better.