cancer. so the two men have actually kept in touch. they have exchanged written messages, i'm told, in recent years. this is always a moment for the president that is incredibly meaningful. it is deeply personal. and given the events of this week, with hunter biden's conviction on those felony gun charges, and just the emotional toll clearly on the president, and the first family, i think it will have added meaning for the president to be able to have that private audience with the pope here in southern italy. >> monica alba, thank you for your reporting and that does it for us this busy hour. i'll be back at 1:00 p.m. eastern today in for my colleague chris jansing. until then, i'm ana cabrera, reporting in new york. jose diaz-balart picks up our coverage right now. good morning. 11:00 a.m. eastern, 8:00 a.m. pacific. i'm jose diaz-balart. just in the last hour, major decision from the supreme court striking down a federal ban on bump stocks enacted by the trump

administration. bump stocks are accessories that essentially allow semi-automatic rifles to fire more quickly. but in a 6-3 decision, the court said a law aimed at banning machine guns cannot be interpreted to include bump stocks. majority opinion reads in part, quote, we conclude a semi-automatic rifle is not a machine gun because it does not fire more than one shot by a single function of the trigger. joining us now, nbc news washington correspondent yamiche alcindor, laura jarrett, and katie phang, msnbc legal contributor and host of "the katie phang show" on msnbc, also barbara mcquade, former u.s. attorney and professor at the university of michigan law school and an msnbc legal analyst. so, yamiche, you were there, just as this decision came out. what are we learning about this decision? >> well, this decision is the supreme court saying the atf was wrong when it banned bump stocks

as part of a regulation that was passed under former president donald trump and in particular the justices, this is a 6-3 split decision along ideological lines, the conservative justices here is aing it is wrongaing. it is wrong to regulate it and to consider it a machine gun. i want to read part of the concurring opinion here that justice alito wrote. i think it is really important. this 2018 ban went into effect after a 2017 shooting in las vegas where 58 people were killed in a shooting where the shooter used a bump stock. the horrible shooting spree in las vegas in 2017 did not change the statutory text or its meaning but an event that highlights the need to mandate a law does not change the laws, congress can amend the law and perhaps would have done so if atf had stuck to its earlier interpretation. this ruling prompted a vigorous dissenting opinion written by

justice sotomayor. she is talking about the fact she considers bump stocks a machine gun and wrote, when i see a bird that walks like a duck, swims like a duck, quacks like a duck, i call that bird a duck. they said this is not a hard case. all the textual evidence points to the same interpretation. a single pull of a trigger, a shooter can fire continuous shots without any human input beyond maintaining forward pressure. you see this real split between the conservative justices on the court and the liberal justices on the court and it does also underscore that even a ban that was passed by former president trump who is now saying he's going to respect this decision, it shows you even in this case the supreme court is saying it was wrong to regulate bump stocks in the way that the atf did. >> and, katie, so what does this supreme court ruling tell you and, you know, we're reading through it and getting almost the importance of every word in this decision. what does it tell you?

>> well, as soon as the decision came out, and i saw it was a clarence thomas-issued decision i knew it would be bad news. we are clearly in america, gun culture and murder happy when it comes to guns. putting that aside, what you see here is a conservative majority of six justices that are statutorily looking and interpreting a federal statute in a way that kind of conveniently works with what they want. they go very quickly in the majority opinion to say this is what the definition is of a machine gun. as defined by congress. and the majority says the bump stock does not added to a rifle make that rifle a machine gun as defined by federal statute. and the copout, jose, that happens often with this conservative majority is the shrugging of the proverbial shoulders where they say, if you don't like our ruling, if you don't like our decision, then congress should actually go and do its job and amend the federal statute to include bump stocks.

but what is fascinating is our very intrepid intern working with us this summer found in 2022 there was a case, a petition for writ of cert, and what the supreme court doesn't take all cases that are coming before it. it actually chooses certain cases to take. so, there was a petition for writ of cert on another decision. >> what is that again? >> it wants the supreme court to take the case, and issue a ruling to put it -- to finality. if there is a split in the circuit's meeting, there is some type of disparities in the circuits. in 2022, the gun owners of america incorporated, sued merrick garland and what did they want? they wanted it see if the definition of this federal statute included bump stocks for machine guns. and the supreme court said we're not taking this case in 2022. there was some nuances. the decisions that come out from the supreme court have exceptionally, exceptionally grave consequences because this is now the final law as

interpreted by the supreme court. but, again, it is how it is interpreted that is important. these conservative justices said, you know what, we don't want to actually cross the nra, we don't want to cross the gun owners, we have rahini to be decided, maybe next week, thursday or friday. how are they going to look at that? i heard leah litman say in the prior hour, if congress goes and they amend this federal statute, that doesn't mean you're not going to see a challenge under the second amendment as to whether or not this bump stock addition to a rifle qualifies under the statute as a machine gun. you'll see this go back to the supreme court. right now, i think you see the supreme court end run that challenge in the future. >> laura, in reference to the las vegas shooting in 2017, the court's majority opinion says an event that highlights the need to amend a law does not itself change the law's meaning and that's what katie was talking about, about, you know, how it is that they focus on what they decide to focus on, and so your reaction to this? >> there is no question this is

a conservative majority, a super majority, that was appointed by donald trump, that does not believe that it is their role as justices to search for facts and then sort of tailor those facts to the law. they think they're there to just execute the plain version of the law, and they think under this rule, a bump stock does not meet the definition of a machine gun. so they're saying, if congress wants to do something about that, and the people's representatives want to do something about that, by all means go ahead, but they're not going to do it, they're not going to do the lawmaker's job for them. even though it is the worst mass shooting in modern u.s. history, the vegas shooting, sort of was the outgrowth of what we think the reason the bump stocks were banned in the first place, the reason that the former president was sort of spurned to take action about it, knowing how horrific that shooting was, for them, that's not enough. >> i'm just wondering, barbara,

it is the supreme court talking about the difference between an atf regulation and written law, including one that was the national firearms act of 1934. >> yeah, i think you have to squint to see the logic of justice thomas in this case. in 1934, when this was passed, it came in response to gangland murders by al capone and other gangsters who were using machine guns to mow down people with mass killings. congress said, there is no reason for civilians to have machine guns, which is why they were banned in 1934. and so fast-forward years later, when we now have some technology that can convert a semi-automatic weapon, which is lawful, into a machine gun, and suddenly that's permissible. it is absolutely the opposite of what congress said in 1934. but what justice thomas does with the diagrams in his majority opinion is said, if you

look at it mechanically, it is not really a single pull of the trigger, because the bump stock is doing the work of pulling the trigger. but what justice sotomayor says, when you talk about pulling the trigger, you're talking about what the human is doing and the human is pulling the trigger once. with a logical reading of this statute, of course, a bump stock is now converting a semi-automatic weapon into a machine gun and back to the logic of 1934, no civilian should be able to possess a gun that has this capability. so, to me, this is just more evidence of two things, one is this supreme court's desire to end what they call the administrative state by giving agencies power to interpret statutes and the other is the fetish they have with guns. >> and so, katie, we were talking about this before on the air, the whole concept and the debate going on forever about strict constructionists versus people who interpret the law, including the circumstances of

the time. >> yeah, so a lot of times conservative judges like to say i'm a strict constructionist, i look only at the language of the statute, which by the way is fine. i don't have a problem with that. what i have a problem with is the fact that to barb's point, you have to kind of squint to see the logic from justice thomas and that's true, but you don't have to squint to see the logic of the dissent from justice sotomayor which justices kagan and brown jackson joined in. if you look at this, it clearly says the same interpretation applies, a bump stock equipped semi-automatic is a machine gun. you can fire continuous shots without any human input besides maintaining forward pressure. 90 rounds in ten seconds was the forensic evidence from that las vegas shooting. there is no human capability, right, of 90 rounds in only ten seconds, the gun has to do it. so, that fits with the statutory definition of a machine gun. it is the issue of convenience. can you interpret a federal

statute in a way that works for you versus how it works for someone else, and i'm telling you right now, if we had a majority on the liberal side, you would have seen a consistent ruling with the atf. you have to give deference to the atf. what are they there for? what is that organization there for, that agency, if you're not going to give them deference for the rules they promulgate. >> the supreme court in its majority decision talks about the fact that it is the responsibility of congress to either create or amend laws. there is a political side to all of this. >> there is certainly a political side to this. it is interesting because this was passed under former president donald trump, this was his atf that passed this ban. but you're hearing from people like president biden and the biden campaign, i should say, who are saying this really underscores the dangers they say of gun culture in this country, and they are in some ways pushing to say we need more democrats elected in order to regulate guns and to keep people

safe here. among the republican side, you're seeing donald trump and his campaign saying they're going to respect this decision. they brought up the second amendment, even though this -- talking to legal experts, this isn't a second amendment case, it was an interpretation of the rules that the atf was passing. but it does tell you these are going to be the politics. abortion is a big issue in the politics here as we go toward the presidential election. but so is guns, talking to the vice president's office, while she's become a prominent voice on abortion, having a number of events on guns and really highlighting sort of the dangers of mass shootings, including, of course, the one in 2017, where 58 people died in las vegas, which is really the impetus for why this ban went into effect. you're going to hear more from democrats saying, look, this is the supreme court that is not doing the right thing, you should be electing more democrats, but definitely underscores the political issue here. jose? >> both sides on this opinion go back to history and laws, something they say laws are the

ultimate arbiter of this issue. but, boy, so much to talk about. yamiche alcindor, laura jarrett, katie phang, barbara mcquade, thank you very much. up next, reaction from gun safety advocates is coming in fast. we're going to be hearing from every town for gun safety next. plus, we'll talk about the ratifications of this decision with a retired atf agent. we're back in 90 seconds. you're watching "jose diaz-balart reports" on msnbc. os you're watching "jose diaz-balart reports" on msnbc. not flossing well? then add the whoa! of listerine to your routine. new science shows listerine is 5x more effective than floss at reducing plaque above the gumline. for a cleaner, healthier mouth. ahhhhh. listerine. feel the whoa!

♪ [suspenseful music] trains. [whoosh] ♪ trains that sense what isn't on the schedule. ♪ trains that use the power of dell ai and intel. ♪ to see hundreds of miles of tracks. ♪ [vroom] [train horn] [buzz] clearing the way, [whoosh] so you arrive exactly where you belong.

14 past the hour. we're back with our breaking news. last hour the supreme court announced their decision overturning the trump era ban on gun bump stocks, which allow for hundreds of bullets to be fired per minute. joining us now is nick suplina, senior vice president of law and policy at every town for gun safety. thank you very much for being with us this morning. what is your reaction to this ruling? >> well, i think we once again have seen from the supreme court a decision to go with politics over reason and public safety. we're disappointed in this decision. the supreme court had the opportunity to right the wrong of the fifth circuit's opinion and it didn't take that opportunity. the fact of the matter is, right, we knew when we saw justice thomas' decision what this was going to look like, and the fact of the matter is that this supreme court will use whatever logic it needs to get to the political outcome it

wants. this was not a textualist decision or originalist decision to comment on your conversation earlier. it is not even second amendment decision at all, but what it is is an outcome that a trump supreme court ensured would happen, while atf is trying to keep dangerous guns off our streets, the same one that took 60 lives and injured 411 others in las vegas, the supreme court just put those weapons right back on our streets. so we're disappointed today. but we're ready to keep fighting to keep americans safe. >> and so how would that fight look like and how would that fight change after today? >> well, look, there is, you know there is no question that congress can act here to fix this rule. but, let's take a step back. congress has already spoken on machine guns. it has said very clearly they have no place in civilian hands. so, what the supreme court did today was really take action against the will of congress and the will of the people, and the

fact is that across the country, there are, you know, republican governors signing laws, banning machine guns, banning bump stocks and similar devices. but the fact is what really stands out to me today is that elections matter and the composition of this court matters. president biden came and spoke to every town this week. he made it clear what is at stake in this election, between donald trump whose court just struck this law and another biden administration which is by far the most impressive gun safety administration in history. so, what needs to be done is the composition of this court needs to change, that can only happen if, you know, quite honestly, president biden wins again, democrats control congress because this supreme court has showed itself willing to play politics with our lives. >> thank you very much for being

with us. really appreciate it. >> my pleasure. i want to bring in jim cavanaugh. jim, great to see you. what is your reaction to this first? >> jose, it is a horrible decision. it is nonsensical. it is sad that the supreme court would rule this way. bump stock clearly turns a semi-automatic rifle into a machine gun. the trigger is pulled once and the explosive action of the cartridges keeps firing the weapon. and that's what the 1934 congress tried to define. if you see that shooter there, his trigger is held. he's not moving his trigger finger. his trigger finger is held still, the explosion sends the gun back against his shoulder, and in a traditionally manufactured submachine gun, only the slide goes back, which is the top of the gun. and so basically this was a two

clever by halfway to get around the law, and the atf director interpreted appropriately said it is the submachine gun. and the supreme court just, you know, lost their common sense. i mean, we're a nation based on common law, but apparently not common sense. and, you know, it is akin to a boater hanging four tires off the side of his boat, and when the coast guard stops and says, well, this is a car, so you have no authority over me. i mean, this is -- it is really a sad time for a court to make that kind of ruling. and the argument that you -- i'm sorry, go ahead. >> no, no, i'm just wondering about that. because you are absolutely correct. and the fact is that what is it that a machine gun means, right? and so, if you pull that trigger

once, and for whatever reason, regardless of the technology used behind it, the weapon continues to fire, that is in and of itself what a machine gun is, where am i wrong? >> you're exactly right. and, look, in 1934, the national firearms act was a result of the gangsterism of the 30s. in 1933, four law enforcement officers were killed at the kansas city train station, the kansas city union train station, when pretty boy floyd with a submachine gun tried to break out a frank nash who is being transported to the federal prison at leavenworth. they tried to break minimum out and killed four law enforcement officers, two kansas city officers, a chief of police in oklahoma and fbi agent were killed by submachine guns and that was the last in the string of those and congress said, hey,

no more of these gangster type weapons. no more submachine guns that aren't controlled and regulated. so, now we're going to control and regulate them. and, of course, the forerunner of the atf was the bureau of prohibition, we all know the history of elliott ness. they're given the responsibilities to enforce those laws and that's been the way america has been for years and then a ban on civilian ownership in 1986 for machine guns not already possessed. so, this is a two clever way by -- that video you just showed of the feed is the tell all right there that the supreme court is wrong. look at that shooter, i can tell you his finger is not manually going back and forth -- >> that's the key. >> that's the key. because -- >> let's go to that video. it is important that we do that. it is the single pull of the trigger. >> he's not moving his trigger finger. i'm not talking about -- not

that one, but the one where the gun is actually firing. because the other one, there is no explosion, so you can't see it clearly. but when he's firing the gun, it is the explosion of the cartridge, that's it right there. just run that thing. the explosion of that cartridge is what makes the gun go back and fire again. so, we can argue how they interpret it, but here is the bottom line, they're dead wrong and they're dead wrong for america. i would just say this, quickly, jose, this argument that the atf director can interpret the law. look, i was a law enforcement officer for 36 years, you interpret the law every day, all day, when you make a traffic stop, you interpret the law. was the guy careless driving? was he reckless driving? you have to interpret the law. every lawyer interprets the law all day, every judge does as well. if you say a state trooper can't interpret the law and he was careless driving, he has to call in and get a judge to decide that. you can't have a country like

that. and the atf, this is the only item that they decide on. they get shipped all kinds of -- i don't know the numbers, but scores and hundreds of gun add-on devices and all kinds of things that they technically have to look at and rule on and say that is not a firearm, that is a firearm, that's not a machine gun, that's not a silencer, it is a silencer. i mean, i don't know what the supreme court is going to do. are they going to be the atf? the country can't work that way. it is silly that argument that the administrative law enforcement officer can't make the ruling. at every level of law enforcement, law enforcement officers make rulings, they have to. they have to. >> jim cavanaugh, thank you very much. a pleasure to see you. up next, we got reaction to the bump stock decision from both the biden and trump campaigns. plus, our other breaking story as the world leaders at the g7 wrap up their events today, russian leader vladimir putin

announces he's ready to peace talk with ukraine. but there are conditions. talking about that next. you're watching "jose diaz-balart reports" on msnbc. you're watching "jose diaz-balart reports" on msnbc. kayak. no way. why would i use kayak to compare hundreds of travel sites at once? kayak. i like to do things myself. i do my own searching. it isn't efficient. use kayak. i can't trust anything else to do the job right. aaaaaaaahhhh! kayak. search one and done. ♪ limu emu... ♪ and doug. (bell ringing) limu, someone needs to customize

and save hundreds on car insurance with liberty mutual. let's fly! (inaudible sounds) chief! doug. (inaudible sounds) ooooo ah. (elevator doors opening) (inaudible sounds) i thought you were right behind me. only pay for what you need. ♪ liberty, liberty, liberty, ♪ ♪ liberty. ♪ we're still going for that nice catch. we're still going for that perfect pizza. and with higher stroke risk from afib not caused by a heart valve problem,... ...we're going for a better treatment than warfarin. eliquis. eliquis reduces stroke risk. and has less major bleeding. over 97% of eliquis patients did not experience a stroke. don't stop taking eliquis without talking to your doctor as this may increase your risk of stroke. eliquis can cause serious and in rare cases fatal bleeding. don't take eliquis if you have an artificial heart valve or abnormal bleeding. while taking, you may bruise more easily... ...or take longer for bleeding to stop. get help right away for unexpected bleeding or unusual bruising. it may increase

your bleeding risk if you take certain medicines. tell your doctor about all planned medical or dental procedures. the number one cardiologist-prescribed blood thinner. ask your doctor about eliquis. (aaron) i own a lot of businesses... blood thinner. so i wear a lot of hats. my restaurants, my tattoo shop... and i also have a non-profit. but no matter what business i'm in... my network and my tech need to keep up. thank you verizon business. (kevin) now our businesses get fast and reliable internet from the same network that powers our phones. (waitress) all with the security features we need. (aaron) because my businesses are my life. man, the fish tacos are blowing up! so whatever's next... we're cooking with fire. let's make it happen! (vo) switch to the partner businesses rely on.

28 past the hour. we're following new reaction from the supreme court's ruling just moments ago striking down a federal ban on bump stocks which are now used to allow semi-automatic rifles to fire much more quickly.

trump's campaign weighing in on the decision, saying, the court has spoken and their decision should be respected. the biden campaign saying in part, quote, weapons of war have no place on the streets of america, but trump's justices have decided the gun lobby is more important than the safety of our kids and our communities. joining us now, jake sherman, founder of punch bowl news and msnbc political contributor. jake, always a pleasure seeing you. what are you hearing on capitol hill? any reaction? >> i have reaction to those statements, which is this is very interesting, which is i think the trump statement is notable because it doesn't really take a position on the issue of bump stocks, which is a controversial issue which democrats have used as an example of overreaching with firearms in a way to kill a lot of people really quickly. he says well, we're going to respect their decision, we support the second amendment. there are a lot of people who support a lot of lawmakers who support the second amendment who

don't support the use of bump stocks. on the politics of it, to the extent democrats can say that if you elect donald trump, we're going to have more justices on the supreme court who are quoing going to allow gun manufacturers and gun rights to go out of control in their estimation, that's a useful argument. democrats believe the public generally speaking is on their side, that people do want sensible gun laws, sensible gun regulations in place while allowing americans to still bear arms. that's the politics of it, jose. >> just wondering, because the supreme court mentions this in its majority opinion, the fact is that there could have been movement on capitol hill after the massacre in las vegas for something like, you know, banning bump stocks. it didn't do that. is there any possibility on capitol hill, you think, that anything like this could go

forward now? >> i would say, jose, there is almost no configuration of government that i see on the horizon that would allow for any more gun regulation than currently exists after the bipartisan gun bill that joe biden was able to get through in the first two years of his administration. almost nothing. remember, you need 60 votes in the senate, you need a democratic majority and i'm not saying there won't be a democratic majority, but you need 60 willing votes in the senate to do it, democratic president and democratic majority that is willing to prioritize this. i don't know -- i don't think that anybody is predicting a 60 seat democratic majority anytime in the near future, but, remember, republicans in their view, what they say is they went as far as they could possibly go on gun regulation in the first two years of the biden administration in passing that bipartisan gun act and i don't think to be frank i think a lot of republicans would be

skeptical of going any further. >> meantime, trump visited capitol hill yesterday for the first time since the january 6th attacks. while he was there, he called milwaukee, quote, a horrible city, milwaukee, hosting the rnc next month. you were the first to report about trump's milwaukee comments. what was the context around them? >> well, that's a source of a lot of debate, jose. it is really interesting, the people who came out of the meeting and you could see they called me fake news jake sherman, i take issue with that, but nonetheless, they -- listen, the people came out of that meeting and said, first, he never said that. of course he did say it, many, many sources who said it, we know for a fact he said it. and they first said he didn't say that, then they said, well, he was talking about voting rights, voting laws, he was talking about crime, and then the state -- the convention spokesman in milwaukee said, actually, he was talking about the location for protests in

milwaukee at the republican convention. and then brian style, republican from wisconsin, who chairs the house administration committee, came out after he said he did not say that, he went on television in wisconsin and said, well, he said that, but he was talking about the functions of milwaukee and some of the issues in milwaukee, not the city and not the people. you can see this, jose, is a really useful reminder of how republicans act when donald trump is around. he says jump, they say how high and they have no problem twisting the truth for him, and in fact they're eager and willing to do it because trump absolutely said that, almost privately, by the way, a lot of republicans came to me after that and said this is actually how a lot of republicans in wisconsin feel. so, bizarre episode, but a lot of the other stuff he said was bizarre as well. >> again, i encourage all of you, if you don't speak spanish fluently to go and check out the term -- which is based on an

extraordinary mexican comic who talked about how you could say one thing and then say it something else and not mean it and not say it and say it, but i didn't and it fits perfectly in 2024. jake sherman, thank you for being with us. joining us now with more on this, brendan buck, former press secretary to house speakers boehner and ryan and jennifer palmieri, former communications director in the obama administration and hillary clinton's campaign. both msnbc political analysts. great seeing you both. brendan, front page of the milwaukee sentinel this morning, let's look at it, it reads, "trump milwaukee horrible." milwaukee, of course, in a state that is highly competitive in 2016, trump beat clinton in wisconsin by 20,000 votes. in 2020, biden flipped it by the same margin. what is trump thinking he can accomplish with this comment, you think? >> well, i hope he wasn't trying to accomplish anything positive

for himself. certainly not a good idea to attack the largest population center of an important swing state. i think there is something going on here. i'm curious as to what his thinking is as it relates to the convention. does he plan to not show up to the convention? there is reporting his planning, for whatever reason, is it because of legal action, is it because he has something in his head from years ago that he doesn't like this city for some reason? bizarre thing, but usually something that comes out of his mouth, there is something that is stuck in the back of his head, something to it. so i'm curious what this is. otherwise you wouldn't attack not just the swing city, but the city hosting your own convention. lots of people volunteering and spending time and money to put on a good show for you, to throw them under the bus like that was remarkable. >> jen what are your thoughts on this? >> i think he doesn't want to go back to a city that he lost. he lost wisconsin.

apparently -- so some of the reporting i saw from the meeting that jake was talking about said that he, i think the campaign, the trump campaign said this, well, he was talking about the crime and election fraud in milwaukee when he said that it was a horrible place. so, i suspect he does not want -- he doesn't like to go where he's not a winner and i bet he zrnt want to go back to wisconsin because he lost there. it is one of the three sort of -- the formerly blue wall states. wisconsin, michigan, pennsylvania, where biden is tied or beating him in wisconsin. so, i think he doesn't want to go there. i think that's what it is about. >> jennifer, in response to all this, biden, the campaign, ruled out -- biden tweeted a photo of him with the milwaukee bucks, i love milwaukee. is this something you think is going to make a difference? could this have some weight? >> it is the kind of thing that really, like, sits badly with people. i do. it is a kind of thing -- it is

always hard, the joe biden's biggest problem in this campaign is breaking through the trump noise. and this is a time where trump said something that everybody gets, it is offensive, and it hurts the pride of the people from -- not just from milwaukee, but the state as a whole. and it is the kind of thing that is -- it is sticky, it is a kind of thing that if he does go to the convection, it will be repeated constantly. and, yeah, i think it matters. >> brandon buck and jennifer palmieri, thank you very much. appreciate it. >> thank you. when we come back, pope francis is meeting with g7 leaders, making him the first pontiff to attend that summit. details on his one on one meeting next hour with president biden. plus, today, the fourth straight day of flooding in south florida. millions more are being affected across the country. risk of severe weather is ahead.

we're going to talk about that next. e going to talk about that next dad is a legend. and his legendary moves might be passed down to you. ancestrydna can show you which traits were inherited, where they came from,

and who he shares them with. but get movin', this sale is only for a limited time. oooh! this is our night! shingles doesn't care. but shingrix protects. only shingrix is proven over 90% effective. shingrix is a vaccine used to prevent shingles in adults 50 years and older. shingrix does not protect everyone and is not for those with severe allergic reactions to its ingredients or to a previous dose. an increased risk of guillain-barré syndrome was observed after getting shingrix. fainting can also happen. the most common side effects are pain, redness, and swelling at the injection site, muscle pain, tiredness, headache, shivering, fever, and upset stomach. ask your doctor or pharmacist about shingrix today.

40 past the hour. we're following breaking news out of russia. vladimir putin announced he is ready to begin peace talks outlining his conditions for a potential cease-fire in ukraine as the g7 leaders were meeting in italy. while speaking with diplomats in moscow, putin said that if ukraine forces pulled out of

four eastern regions and if ukraine drops plans to join nato, he would be willing and able to begin peace talks. meanwhile, italy, pope francis is the first pontiff to address the alliance, he is also expected to have a private meeting with president biden. joining us now from italy is nbc's gabe gutierrez and richard engel from eastern ukraine and general barry mccaffrey, retired four star general and nbc news military analyst and susan page for usa today. what more did putin have to say today? >> reporter: so, putin it seems was responding to this new pact that was signed yesterday between president biden and ukraine, a security pac in which the u.s. commits for the next ten years to helping to arm ukraine, provide intelligence, give this country a real deterrent because right now as we all have seen and as

ukrainians have seen, they are dependent on foreign aid. and they are dependent on these injections of foreign aid, whether it is money and weapons, every several months, otherwise the system collapses and they lose to russia. so, what this pact yesterday was seen to do give them more breathing space to shore up this country in case there is a change in leadership, to try and trump proof it, whether that works or not is -- remains to be seen. it could be too little too late because if re-elected, president trump could cancel this agreement at his discretion. now president putin seems to be responding to this and he said does he have conditions for peace talks and he wants four provinces of ukraine in addition to crimea, which he didn't talk about he said that is already part of russia and not even part of the equation, even though the

u.s. doesn't consider that, ukraine doesn't consider crimea to be lost forever, they consider it occupied territory. but the issue is right now russia doesn't control those areas. they control portions of these provinces, but the front line, the battle lines that russia and ukrainian troops have been struggling to establish losing men to establish for the last year and a half run through those provinces, so ukraine sort of -- vladimir putin is effectively telling ukraine pull back your forces, give up territory in ukrainian hands, give up cities, give up towns, pull out of your troops out of them, even areas russia hasn't conquered and we can talk peace and the ukrainians have responded saying this is an absurd offer. >> yeah, and i mean, gabe, i'm wondering what the united states, if they said anything

about this as richard calls it, you know, that -- citing the ukrainians an absurd offer. any reaction there from the united states? >> reporter: well, no official word from the white house just yet. but i point you to something that president biden said yesterday, in that news conference, with president zelenskyy, and as he signed that bilateral security agreement that richard was mentioning, just yesterday, the president said that the aim was to get a peace rooted in a u.n. charter and the principles of sovereignty and territorial integrity. so, basically this idea floated by vladimir putin seems to go against that. so far no official word from the white house. >> and, so, general, let's talk about the impact of this. is there any possibility that this could lead to anything, you know, using that, i guess, as a base. what richard was describing, you know, putin wants what he has and what he doesn't have and

what he wishes he had. >> i think the putin action, of course, is a violation of international law. they already have essentially seized 20% of ukraine, the second biggest country in europe. it is a criminal operation. there is zero chance of zelenskyy or the ukrainians accepting this kind of proposal. i think the biden administration made a tremendous gift through u.s. leadership, pulling together the g7 to some extent, and then, of course, u.s. bilateral arrangement with ukraine to try and add deterrence to the equation to push the russians who accept some form of diplomatic end to the war. but, jose, at the end of the day, mostly what is going to happen is the russians have to come apart internally through the massive casualties they had. and it is incredible, more than

300,000 russian troops have been killed or wounded. they transfer themselves into a war economy, how long can they keep that up? and at some point, if putin either comes -- is taken out of office or the russian states are to unravel, then there will be peace. but i believe not sooner. >> general, it is an interesting thing you just mentioned. you're saying that essentially russia and the putin regime must come apart in order for there to be any real possibility of change. i'm thinking, you know, if you look back at history, i mean, you know, stalin had the 1932, you know, massacres and starving people to death in ukraine by the millions. and, you know, world war ii, they lost millions of people. it doesn't seem like in russian history -- it seems as though human expenditure is cheap.

>> well, you make an excellent point. the russian people, the exception of the big metropolitan areas, leningrad, places like this, st. petersburg, it is clear that russia to some extent is a third world state with dirt roads and no plumbing and, by the way, armed forces that doesn't work very well either. this is no longer the soviet empire. this is a russian federation. the deployment of their two combat ships and two support ships to cuba just underscores the submarine force. the russian navy, a third, had been sunk. russians are used to -- at the end of the day, i think the economy is the key to breaking putin's hold on the russian people. it is not doing well. they're isolated in a world community with the exception of

some support from china, and iran and north korea, they're a rogue country now. there may be a chance for them to come apart. >> yeah, you know, it is, like, that dichotomy of the regimes that russian people have been forced to live under and then this extraordinary contributions in history and culture and art and music and literature. they're just so rich as a people and with a history, but then condemned to live under these regimes. and putin used to be part of those summits, as a member of the g8, kicked out in 2014 because of the annexation of crimea. what do you make of this putin now? is it a 2.0 attempt to get back into these things? >> you know, obviously president zelenskyy is not going to accept this proposal from putin and neither is president biden. but donald trump, re-elected donald trump might. he says he could end this war,

the war in ukraine in 24 hours after taking power. and the way -- the most likely way he would do that is to accept something like the conditions that putin lays out. territorial concessions and agreement not to have ukraine join nato, so that he -- that is one of his two audiences is donald trump. the other are war weary americans and others who think there is not going to be a clean end to this war, it will end in negotiations, what kind of negotiations could we have that might settle it? i think those are the two audiences he has with this proposal, jose. >> and, gabe, soon the president is going to have a one on one with the pope. what can we expect from that? >> reporter: yeah, that's right, jose, just a short time ago pope francis arrived at the g7 as you said earlier, he's the first pontiff to attend a g7 summit and he spoke to world leaders, and he addressed his concerns over artificial intelligence, saying, quote, artificial

intelligence is a fascinating tool and also a terrifying one. the pope having concerns about the ethics of artificial intelligence and this will be a significant meeting for president biden. of course, devout catholic, he has spoken with the pope many times before. the pope consoled him after the death of his son beau biden and the president last saw him in person in 2021. we're expecting a private meeting between the president and the pope. and then world leaders will discuss a range of issues here, jose, from climate change to keeping china in check and also immigration. >> gabe, sue and richard, thank you. south florida residents brace for a fourth day of more rain, more flooding. we will check it out with our meteorologists. is it going to stop?

♪ have you always had trouble losing weight and keeping it off? same. discover the power of wegovy®. ♪ ♪ with wegovy®, i lost 35 pounds. and some lost over 46 pounds. ♪ ♪ and i'm keeping the weight off. wegovy® helps you lose weight and keep it off. i'm reducing my risk. wegovy® is the only fda-approved weight-management medicine that's proven to reduce risk of major cardiovascular events in adults with known heart disease and with either obesity or overweight. wegovy® shouldn't be used with semaglutide or glp-1 medicines. don't take wegovy® if you or your family had medullary thyroid cancer, multiple endocrine neoplasia syndrome type 2, or if allergic to it. stop wegovy® and get medical help right away if you get a lump or swelling in your neck, severe stomach pain, or an allergic reaction. serious side effects may happen, including pancreatitis and gallbladder problems. wegovy® may cause low blood sugar in people with diabetes, especially if you take medicines to treat diabetes.

tell your provider about vision problems or changes, or if you feel your heart racing while at rest. depression or thoughts of suicide may occur. call your provider right away if you have any mental changes. common side effects like nausea, vomiting, and diarrhea may lead to dehydration, which may cause kidney problems. with wegovy®, i'm losing weight, i'm keeping it off. and i'm lowering my cv risk. that's the power of we. ♪ ♪ check your cost and coverage before talking to your health care professional about wegovy®.

54 past the hour. in south florida, we remain under a state of emergency as record flooding threatens florida for the fourth straight day. the flooding caused a fatal car crash that left two people dead. joining us now, bill karins. when is the rain going to stop? today, there was clearing and

then boom. >> this tropical wave that has been responsible for this flooding is pushing out. today will be the last day of a chance for significant rainfall and significant flooding. we saw the pictures wednesday, it was horrendous. historically bad. yesterday, we were fearful. it didn't develop. it was a lighter rain. that was good. now we are waiting to see what today will bring. we have flood watches for 6 million people, ft. myers, miami, through the keys. so far, it's been a pretty good day. we have not seen heavy rain, just scattered showers. this catches our attention in the gulf. a lot of heavy rain. we are waiting to see if this will head over south florida. if it does, how far north will it go? now, projects are miami southward is where it will head. we will see how that develops. that's the reason why we have flood watches up. our computer estimates are one to two inches of additional rain, isolated up to four.

if you have standing water, it will cause additional problems quickly. that's why we have the big concerns. the other thing that we have to talk about, the hurricane center has upped this area of watch in the southern portions of the gulf of mexico to 50% chance of development, that's early next week. i'm sure we will chat about that more. >> thank you, bill karins. good to see you. coming up, the latest reaction to the supreme court's decision on bump stocks. stay with us. you are watching "jose diaz-balart reports" on msnbc. ee a long time ago. and year after year, you weathered the storm and just lived with the damage that was left behind. but even after all this time your thyroid eye disease could still change. restoration is still possible. learn how you could give your eyes a fresh start at tedhelp.com.

kayak. no way. why would i use kayak to compare hundreds of travel sites at once? kayak. i like to do things myself. i do my own searching. it isn't efficient. use kayak. i can't trust anything else to do the job right. aaaaaaaahhhh! kayak. search one and done. power e*trade's award-winning trading app makes trading easier. with its customizable options chain, easy-to-use tools, and paper trading to help sharpen your skills, you can stay on top of the market from wherever you are. e*trade from morgan stanley

♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ chewy, a citi client, uses citi's financial expertise to help drive its growth and keep its supply chain moving, so more pet parents can get everything they need... right when they need it. keeping more pets, and families, happy. ♪♪ for the love of moving our clients forward. for the love of progress. 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. (aaron) i own a lot of businesses... talk to your doctor so i wear a lot of hats. my restaurants, my tattoo shop... and i also have a non-profit. but no matter what business i'm in... my network and my tech need to keep up. thank you verizon business. (kevin) now our businesses get fast and reliable internet from the same network that powers our phones. (waitress) all with the security features we need. (aaron) because my businesses are my life. man, the fish tacos are blowing up! so whatever's next... we're cooking with fire. let's make it happen! (vo) switch to the partner businesses rely on.

norman, bad news... i never graduated from med school. what? -but the good news is... xfinity mobile just got even better! now, you can automatically connect to wifi speeds up to a gig on the go. plus, buy one unlimited line and get one free for a year. i gotta get this deal... i know... faster wifi and savings? ...i don't want to miss that. that's amazing doc. mobile savings are calling. visit xfinitymobile.com to learn more. doc? right now on "andrea mitchell reports," putting the squeeze on russia. the u.s. and allies agree to make war more costly for moscow as ukraine rejects vladimir putin's latest peace offer, since it would mean ukraine essentially giving up most of its ground. supreme decisions, the high court overturns a