(vo) new and existing customers get iphone 15 on us when they trade in any iphone.

good day, i'm chris jansing live at msnbc headquarters in new york city. first it was cocaine and steroids, now it is energy drinks. the expertations game for tomorrow's big presidential debate is shifting more often than a race car driver at indy. and we're learning more about the growing stakes as a new poll say a majority of americans will be tuning in. plus a stunning courtroom surprise. the man accused of killing seven people and injuring dozens more at a fourth of july parade in illinois at the last minute in court rejecting a plea agreement. how survivors and families of victims are reacting as the case now proceeds to trial.

and an american journalist in a glass cage as his secret trial begins in russia. the falsely accused "wall street journal" reporter faces up to 20 years in prison following a trial expected to last for months. i'll ask an executive for the journal what this means for efforts to free him. but we begin with the expectations game. which has taken another new and questionable turn today. supporters of donald trump moving away from false claims that president biden will take drugs to get through tomorrow's debate. and instead perhaps suggesting he'll turn to legal beverages. >> trump's team should not underestimate joe biden and his team's ability to, you know, whether they're going to jack him up on mountain dew or whatever it is, that, look, the state of the union, he had energy for an hour. >> will he be an energy drinks or something. look, his energy levels, you

could see, vary depending on what format he's in and what forum. >> this latest tactic comes just days after a third theory from trump that suggested that biden would prepare by sleeping. it is worth noting that none of this new. trump accused both hillary clinton in 2016 and biden in 2020 of taking performance-enhancing drugs. both sides know this debate could be a game-changer and a new poll shows the high stakes. a strong majority saying they're pail attention to the debate which suggests tens of millions of americans are likely to see or hear about part of thursday's debate despite how early it comes in the campaign season. bottom line, it is likely to be the most watched event of the campaign. nbc's gabe gutierrez is reporting from atlanta where tomorrow night's debate will be heltd. also with us, david jolly and msnbc political analysis. peter baker is "new york times" chief white house correspondent

and msnbc political analysis. okay, gabe. where are expectations right now as the candidates prepare to face-off tomorrow? >> well, chris, they are all over the placesa were talking about. the trump campaign floating the idea that president biden might be an on energy drink, this comes after months of former president trump trying to make the case that president biden is unfit for office. now they're trying to lower expectations here and the biden came is firing back. after president trump suggested that president biden might be on performance enhancing drugs and the campaign saying donald trump is to scared of being held accountable for his toxic agenda of attacking reproductive freedom and cutting social security that they have resulted in lies. and we're told his campaign is preparing a robust rapid

response operation both at campaign headquarters in delaware and also here on the ground in atlanta to counter false and misleading claims by former trump. trump, for his part, is right now at mar-a-lago and his campaign is planning to burn up several topics during the debate that it feels it could hit president biden with, including inflation and immigration. chris. >> so peter, when it comes to these shifting attacks that biden will be on something, could it be viewed as a preemptive move by republicans to set up an explanation, an excuse if biden is considered to be the winner of debate? >> yeah, this is the pregame, obviously. people are looking for things to talk about and to get excited about. and as you say, set the expectations. it was trump who was going around saying that biden was so feeble, so senile, so dottering, he couldn't put two sentences together so if he shows up on stage in atlanta and will be able to put more than two sentences together, then

trump has to find a way to explain it. so he and his allies look for ways of explaining he's on energy drinks or whatever it is. it is all -- it is all game playing that you expect before a debate. the truth is most viewers won't be paying attention to this stuff. they'll be paying attention to what they see on stage. this is the one event that will be spontaneous and unscripted with both candidates on stage. it is possible to have a second debate in september that they've agreed to but we know of this one tomorrow night and anything could happen. >> and tens of millions of sets of eyeballs watching. and david, peter is right, the expectations game is nothing new. but talking about things like mountain dew, how does this help the gop beyond the base? i mean, if the point for both of these campaigns is this is an opportunity for them to reach out to people who truly are not decided or may be waiving for

them offer the other candidate, what does this accomplish? >> chris, i see this as a very embarrassing and despicable moment for the republican party. a time stamp of what the party has become on donald trump. they're playing the expectations as we see as the pretext, their working the refs, whether that is the american people or the press. but look at what they're working the refs on, republicans are. it is on joe biden's acuity, his physical capabilities, his fitness, it is not on policy. and converts that or contrast that with what joe biden did in his response. which was to acknowledge exactly that. that they're coming after the president's physical capabilities, i want to talk about reproductive freedom and the economy and roe pecting economy. i think this shows that donald trump is scared going into the debate and republicans are scared because on the issues they're not that strong. the only issue that i think will see donald trump really hit home is on immigration and on the the

border. and on that he'll misrepresent the facts. the bipartisan immigration deal or conflating crime numbers with the border, but i expect donald trump to pull a katie britton immigration, try to scare the american people. but republicans focused on joe biden, they're not talking about policy, they're talking about his physical capabilities. it is a shameful moment for mike johnson and other leading republicans right now. >> and policy is one part of it and immigration is big and the economy is big. but we also have new nbc news reporting that speak to the optics of this. we've asked multiple sources in both campaigns if they expect the debate stagehand shake. the consistent response is, i don't know and we'll see tomorrow. of course, in 2020, there was no handshake because of covid and in 2016 trump did not shake hands with hillary clinton. do you think that kind of optic or lack of sends a message to the american people, maybe some voters who are frankly fed up

with what is happening with politics and are deciding whether to vote at all, let alone who they're going to vote for? >> yeah, it is an interesting question. when president trump was still in office and he gave his last state of the union dress and he went to the chamber and he refused to shake nancy pelosi hand as is done with the speaker in such a setting. so there is, of course, as you say, a precedent for this and it would be interesting to see whether they do. they both truly dislike each other. that is truly a genuinely the case. and it would not surprise me if neither one wants to shake the others hand. but it says something about our politics. because other candidates in the past, may not like each other, but there was something important about participating in an exercise of democracy, yes, they could disagree on issues and qualifications an disagree strongly, but they were part of the system. and we know that donald trump doesn't believe he's part of

this system. he's been trying to tear the system down and joe biden is sort of the embodiment of the system, at a time when a lot of people don't particularly like it and i think that is going to be the symbolic import whether we see a handshake or not. >> let me ask you about a poll. 40% are extremely likely or very likely to watch clips from the debate later and 35% are somewhat likely to do the same. there is the expectation is there are huge numbers for the debate itself but i think it is fair to say a awful lot of people will only watch the debate or get their information from headlines or whatever clip goes viral. how important are those moments potentially tomorrow night, those moments that everyone will be watching? >> yeah, and it may feel shallow and deceptive, but in fact, that is what the reality of modern politics is.

we've seen time and time again, instant polls often show what the voters think at the moment is different than what becomes the wisdom afterwards about who won and that is partly because of some viral moment and we didn't have anywhere near the ability that we do today through social media to create viral moments out of what may happen at this debate. and it is interesting to see the debate after the debate. the arguments about what is most important moment, what gains traction, what finds an audience in the broader ecosphere of our politics today and i think that is in a way the contest after the contest will be as interesting as what we see on stage in the immediate -- in the immediate moment. >> it would certainly be a moment, gabe gutierrez, if this debate came along with a vp announcement from donald trump. nobody knows what will happen. but what do we think we know? >> well, it could happen, or it could not. people familiar with the situation telling nbc news that

the timeline, there have been high levels discussions within the trump campaign, but perhaps shifting the timeline of this vice president pick potentially as early as this week. now the caveats you mentioned, the timing is fluid and it is all up to donald trump. and you'll remember, former president trump, he actually said that he would reveal his vice presidential pick sometime around the republican national convention. which is in mid-july. but again, now, it could happen as early as this week according to people familiar with the situation. and we've been reporting that the top contenders here are doug burgum and j.d. vance and marco rubio. here is what j.d. vance said in a pre-taped interview that airs this morning. >> we reach out a lot of people among them and they said hey, sent us information. my best guess is they're looking at me and looking at a lot of other people too and they'll ask me if they ask me, and if they don't,s that fine.

and if it doesn't happen, there is certainly a little bit of disappointment. >> and overnight former trump said in his own interview he expected to reveal his vice presidential decision, quote, fairly soon. we do know those three top contenders are expected here at the debates in atlanta. >> thank you both. former congressman david jolly is sticking around. watch chris jansing on thursday ahead of the debate, i'll be live with reporters and experts at 11:00 a.m. eastern and from 1:00 to 3:00 p.m. eastern right here on msnbc. also thursday, rachel maddow and team leads special coverage and analysis of the first presidential debate hosted by cnn. you could watch thursday beginning at 7:00 p.m. on msnbc. well, more politics. the squad will be shrinking in the next congress after one members got crushed in the most expensive house primary in

history. nbc news projects that congressman jamal bowman lost new york 16th district primary by more than 16 points to moderate george latimer. it exposed democratic divisions over the israel-hamas war. bowman has been a vocal israel critic and apack investing $14.5 million to beat him. we'll dig into this much more and much many more races next hour in steve kornacki. and a shocking twist at an emotional hearing for the highland park shooter with survivors and families watching. we're live outside of the illinois courthouse with the details after this. >> today you saw absolute unadulterated evil. e unadulterated evil nothing dims my light like a migraine. with nurtec odt, i found relief. the only migraine medication that helps treat and prevent, all in one. to those with migraine, i see you.

for the acute treatment of migraine with or without aura and the preventive treatment of episodic migraine in adults. 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. it's time we all shine. talk to a healthcare provider about nurtec odt from pfizer. (bell ringing) someone needs to customize and save hundreds with liberty mutual! (inaudible sounds) (elevator doors opening) wait, there's an elevator? only pay for what you need. ♪ liberty, liberty, liberty, ♪ ♪ liberty. ♪ i thought i was sleeping ok... but i was waking up so tired. then i tried new zzzquil sleep nasal strips. their four—point lift design opens my nose for maximum air flow. so, i breathe better. and we both sleep better. and stay married. (man) every time i needed a new phone, i had to switch carriers... (roommate) i told him... at verizon, everyone can get that iphone 15 on them. (man) now that i got a huge storage and battery upgrade... i'm officially done switching.

(vo) new and existing customers get iphone 15 on us when they trade in any iphone. verizon 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. it was a shocking and emotional day for families of those killed in the 2022 highland park july 4th mass shooting, all in court this morning and preparing to deliver their victim pact statements. the suspect had been expected to take a plea deal but in this surprise move, that deal was rejected. and the trial will now move forward. >> we came to court today in hopes that we could put this out of our mind. we have fourth of july coming up and it will be two years and all i wanted was to be able to fully

grieve my mom without the looming trial knowing that he was going to spend the rest of his life in jail. and instead, we were yet again shown his complete and blatant disregard for humans, for anyone, for all of us in that courtroom. >> nbc's kathy park is outside of the courthouse. paul butler is a former federal prosecutor and msnbc legal analyst. heartbreak, kathy, it is palpable there. tell us more about what happened in the courtroom today. >> reporter: chris, good afternoon, yeah, motions were running high ahead of this hearing. as you mentioned, there were dozens of family members representing victims here ready to read off victim pact statements. they were preparing for a possible sentencing later on today. instead, we didn't get that far. there was a surprise twist in the courtroom shortly after court got underway this morning. after robert creamo iii, the

attorney went over the terms of the plea deal, there was silence. the judge asked if the suspected shooter discussed this with his attorneys and he said nothing. and then at that point they took a recess and after that they said no. so what is next? well the trial will move forward. as scheduled february 2025. and this is something that once again the families are having to prolong another round of pain. in fact, just a few moments ago we had a chance to speak with one of the victim's daughters. take a listen to this. >> my dad was somebody who always said that we -- we should take -- if we did something, we should say we did it and be accountable for what we do. and i know he's up there looking at us now telling us right now, just to be patient and to let

the court system do what they have to do. >> reporter: now robert creamo iii will be facing more than 100 charges. including murder and attempted murder and once again, chris, trial will move forward february 20, 25. this is going to drag on for several more months. when we asked if the family members if they were surprised or shocked and some of them said no because they knew that suspect was a wild card because earlier this year he had decided to do this on his own, kicked off his lawyers, but then brought them back and initially he changes his decision to move forward and decided to plead not guilty in the attack. so a lot of back and forth. and even the lawyer representing the plaintiff said that this individual used today as theater

and this is kind of what they were anticipating, unfortunately. so we'll have to wait several more months now as the trial gets underway next year. chris. >> kathy, thank you for that. paul, how often have you seen something like this, i mean for families who have spent time preparing their victim pact statements. it is just -- you've dealt with this, just for them to walk into that courtroom where the person who they believe is responsible and who is charged with being responsible for killing thur loved one is there, for they to happen. does this happen very often and what is your reaction to it? >> it is not unusual for this to happen. when you plead guilty, you have to state to the duge that you are responsible for all of the criminal acts that the prosecution is accusing of you and sometimes when it comes to actually showing up in court and doing that, that is difficult for defendants. but chris, this will not be a hard case for the prosecution to

prove. he admitted his guilt shortly after he was arrested. the advantage of the plea bargain for the prosecution is that it saved the resources of going to trial, i mean actually proving the case in front of a jury. and also as we heard, it protects survivors from the trauma of having to testify during a trial about something this horrific. >> and i wonder, given the evidence that they have, and in cases like this where a defendant and presumably his lawyer has explained to him the reasons why a plea deal might be advantageous, is it sometimes just because it gets them out of incarceration? it is another extensive period for them where they're not in those four walls and frankly from the perspective of some of

the family members that we heard today, he just doesn't care. >> so, the legal advantage of a plea bargain for mr. creamo, is that it would avoid the mandatory sentence of life without the possibility of parole that he's almost certain to get if he's convicted of the crime. so, he could have presented evidence at his sentencing under this plea bargain about his mental health problems, any family issues, his age at the time of the trial, he was very young, i think 21 or 20 years old. again, maybe that would have made a difference to the judge. he certainly if convicted will go to prison for virtually the rest of his life. again, the plea bargain might have allowed some possibility of parole way down the road. so again, because the evidence is so strong, i'm not sure it is the most rational decision to

reject this deal. but this is clearly a person who has issued with rationality. >> so paul, stick with us. we have some breaking news from the supreme court. bloomberg law reports that the court accidentally posted a document on its website related to its idaho abortion decision. now it is important, we do not know whether it is a draft, the actual decision, or neither, but it appears to show that the justices are poised to allow abortion in medical emergencies in idaho. but again, the court has not yet rendered its decision officially. and nbc's yamiche alcindor is reporting on this and i'm joined by paul butler and mary ziegler. what more do we know? >> we're still sort of waiting to see exactly what is going to happen with this decision officially. but bloomberg law is reporting that the u.s. supreme court is poised to allow abortions in medical emergencies in idaho. this is a big case that we were

watching. this according to post on the website. nbc news reached out to the supreme court and we were told a decision has not yet been rendered by the court and it was posted in error by the court. we do not know if this is a draft decision or the actual decision or neither. nbc was told the court's publication unit briefly up loaded a document to the court's website, that opinion, though, they were told, has not been issued and it will be issued in due course. so said, bloomberg is reporting the decision will reinstate a lower court order that ensured hospitals could perform emergency abortions to protect the health of the mother. and that is a big difference because the issue had been whether or not idaho's law was in contradiction to federal law. it allows exceptions for rape an incest and the life of the mother, but the health of the mother, whether she might be sick or lose her -- her future fertility, whether or not she might have to undergo a surgery

or have a hysterectomy, if she was denied an emergency abortion, in this case, aboarding to bloomberg, tlar saying that the supreme court is siding with the biden administration. we'll waiting to see what the official ruling will be. this is a big case that we've been watching and waiting for. a number of women in idaho seeing whether they could have access to that emergency care because the biden administration is saying there are women who might go into an emergency room and need an emergency abortion and dealing with the complications of pregnancy and denied that because of a total ban of abortion in idaho. chris. >> how monumental would this be and i wonder what you make of what seems to be an accidental posting here of what exactly we're not 100% sure. >> so mistakes happen. during the dobbs litigation, something was posted earlier, at least it was released earlier and it turned out to be a pretty

exact. so i think then there was a question about whether politics had something to do with that case, with that decision being available by that leak. here, this does seem more like an error. although at the supreme court level it is still weird that this could happen. but on the merits, at the oral argument the supreme court was focused on the supremacy clause, there is other constitution, there is a doctrine called preemption, if a federal and state law conflict, that it is the federal law that prevails. so that may have been the basis if this is actually the decision. chris, the stakes are really high here. the solicitor general at oral argument arguing on behalf of women who might need this service, emphasized that it is patients that are being harmed, women with serious complications were being sent home from idaho hospitals and being transferred

out of the state and even providers of medical services to pregnant women who were leaving the state. so this is a big deal and it is an important advance for women's rights, that the court -- if they decide the case in the way that it has been reported. >> mary, this is the first time we would have seen this kind of action on a state abortion ban from the u.s. supreme court. what do you make of this move? >> i think we have to be cautious about overreading it. what was posted on the website by bloomberg was the court saying -- dismissing a case that they granted, meaning we're not going to rule on the merits or say if women in idaho have a right to access these procedures, we're not going to talk about preemption, we're going to say we shouldn't have intervened this early in the litigation and it will continue in the lower court. so this is not -- i don't think if it urn its out it be accurate, not a big win for

reproductive freedom rights, it is just people could come back and raise the same claims down the road. this same litigation will continue. so we simply don't know. and we won't know until after the election how this is going to rule. i think everyone else is absolutely correct that the stakes are huge for patients not just in idaho, but across the country. patients with wanted pregnancies who are being denied access to life and health preserving care. but we simply can't say based on the court's order if this is what they're ultimately going to hold. if the court will preserve that access. that is what the court would say, which might be right. i don't know why they withdrew the order. was it because someone was concurring or dissenting. there is a lot of mystery here. but if this is the final ruling, we still can't say with any certainty that this is the big win for abortion rights.

it is a postponement of the ultimate conclusion in the case. >> let me bring in medical contributor and former obama policy director kavita patel. it is good to see you. so put it into the context of the fight over reproductive freedom in america and how important this decision will be. >> yeah, chris, first of all, i completely agree with marry, it is hard to know what to make out of it, but this is so much at stake. not just emergency treatment which is what is at hand in this case and whether doctors could help to stabilize a person's health in states like idaho and across the country, but it is interfering with every act of care. even in states like mine, the state of maryland, where we have enshrined a lot of rights, people were stopped and do i need to ask permission to do that and is this life-threatening. and even outside of reproductive

services. so it is access to care on a fundamental level. and there is so much at stake and i don't think people understand the ripple effect beyond reproductive services. if you're in many of the states, not just idaho, many states across this country, if you don't have experience in identifying some of these issues with the pregnant woman's life and what you need to do to stabilize her and give her a life saving treatment. think about that, chris. that changes the fabric of health care for everyone, not just women. >> so, what do we know about what the real world impact has been up until this point, kavita? >> yeah, well, so here is what we know. we know that the numbers of request for medication abortions which are legal and we did see that come through with the recent supreme court decision for allowing mifepristone to continue to be prescribed. again states could make that very difficult. but forwardly that is allowed.

and it is in the cases of miscarriages, where they're seeking health care, that they've had the-h to come out of states like to idaho and transfer to other states and we know there has been a higher maternal mortality. so pregnant mothers are dying as a result of this confusion and this political pressure at the hospital level. so those are facts. that doesn't need -- that is not political debate. those are facts about what the state of the medicine is on the ground and we know that people are not choosing to do their residency in these tates with most restrictive laws. >> that means there are fewer providers in this state. >> and this disproportionally affected women of color. women who don't have the financial means, whatever their race to travel across state lines as they're needing to do in some cases to get reproductive care. talk about the disparities that

are created by the state by state by state laws. >> you know, part of the -- one of trump's talking points about reproductive points is that it should be decided on a state by state base and sometimes he said that and sometimes he seems to be in favor of a federal ban on abortion. but one problem with this state by state approach is that women who need medical services, it turns out it depends on which state you live in. and you know, it sounds simple to say, if a person can't get a service in one state, she could just go to another state. well, for a lot of people, that is not a viable option. it is expensive, you have to take off work and might have childcare responsibilities, so it is important, i think, for a lot of women that there be a united kind of federal approach as there was under roe v. wade.

>> so, let me go back to what happened here. and lisa joins us now. lisa, mistakes happen, but how does this happen? >> let's start with how the decision itself might have been reached assuming this is actually the decision of the court. and then i want to talk about how this happened. because the statement of the court spokesperson is that the court's publication unit inadvertently uploaded and put a document on the court's website. they are not blaming outside forces. this is not a hacking for example of the supreme court's internet system. this is somebody at the court in the publications unit that has responsible for sharing opinions, that is how this document got posted and obtained by bloomberg. so we have to assume there is some reason that this document is in their hands and that it is not a fake document for example, and it may not be the final word

on it, but it likely is a draft of what the court's opinion is going to be here. if bloomberg's reporting is accurate and what the court is prepared to do is to dismiss the case as improvidently granted, what does that mean in real world terms? it means that the injunction against idaho statutes would be reinstated to allow for emergency abortions in keeping with the federal law that the united states government sued idaho over and an appeal could happen in the ordinary course. and that brings us how to did this case get to the supreme court in the first place. because after the injunction was issued and before the ninth circuit, thats the federal court of appeals could act, idaho went directly to the supreme court and asked them to put a stay on the abortion statute and -- asked mem to put a state on the injunction and then said, we

want you to take the case immediately. and in other words, skip over the middle step. that is also a jack smith asked the court to do with respect to presidential immunity and they declined to do. if i'm a ordinary viewer, why did the court grant review if they with were going to say it was improvidently granted. because on your supreme court it takes only four justices to grant certiori or review, but it takes five justices to make a majority and we might see five justices coming forward so a we shouldn't have reviewed this case before we heard from the intermediate acourt, the appellate court, and this should move through in the ordinary course so the supreme court could make a larger decision as circuit courts around the country are deciding how this emergency treatment act interacts with different states abortion restrictions and not

just idaho. >> so mary, that brings me to what are the real possibilities here from the court once we actually see this decision? >> yeah, i mean, if we see this decision tomorrow, i'm expecting there is some reason they took it down. so there may be someone who is concurring or dissenting or saying i think we should be deciding this now. when the court issues a final ruling, there were a lot of questions that were raised at oral argument or at the supreme court level but haven't been discussed in the lower court. so that may be one of the reasons that the justices are sending this back. and there was fragmentation about who should prevail in this case and why. was this about limits on congress's power under the spending clause. was this about congress's intention to protect pregnant patients as the idaho attorney argues to protect unborn patients, was this case about the unworkability of protecting

health versus just life. there were a lot of questions that the justices seemed unclear about as they dealt with this in argument. there were even questions about what the idaho attorney was arguing. at various points he would say idaho would not allow certain abortions to proceed that the federal government were required under federal law and other times they said there was no conflict and idaho would allow it and amy coney barrett seemed confused and puzzled by his argument. i think it may be a harbinger of things to come, the justices understand they have high stakes and weren't even entirely clear what the attorney from idaho was saying. so what is happening in idaho today. it is hard to predict what will happen in the case is decided on the merits by the supreme court

potentially soon but more likely down the road given what is reporting. we know initially that the court did allow idaho's law to go into effect and that would suggest that at least four of the justices were inclined to think that the biden administration's argument about this federal statute were incorrect. but as lisa pointed out, where is that fifth vote and i think the answer to that question may take some time to resolve. >> where is that fifth vote? >> i think that could come from justice barrett. during the oral argument, just barrett was dubious about the idaho lawyer's argument and she seemed to be particularly inclined to understand or ask why the idaho statute shouldn't give way when the woman's health was at issue. but not necessarily her life. and was very troubled by the fact that a doctor would have to defend themselves with saying, i thought i was providing life saving treatment and yet the prosecutor could put on their

own expert and say, no, you weren't saving her life, you're merely safing her organs. a woman might have to sacrifice her reproductive organs and not get care in a hospital as i remember it, chris. >> so i want to go back to the real world impact here kavita. because there is a story of a physician in oregon, who had a patient airlifted to him from idaho. he described this as a patient who was gravely ill, 18 weeks pregnant with twins when she suffered severe pregnancy complications. doctors there determined one of the fetuses had die and her lab results were troubling. she told the doctors she wanted them to do whatever they had to do but then she ultimately had to be airlifted to oregon and it is the woman, if she had started her care there, she would have been offered a terminate almost immediately. and the medical director for

physicians for human rights looked at it this way. in a way, quote, you were torturing the woman because you're not providing the definitive care until you could say they're at the brink of death. i think that is what is at stake here. do you concur with that? >> that is absolutely what is at stake here. i wanted to refresh for the numbers because on the ground is exactly where this is playing out. the health system in idaho has reported saint luke, since january of 2024, they've had to airlift six pregnant patients out of idaho for emergency care. that is a significant increase from all of 2023 when they had sun such transfer. there are people on the ground, maternal fetal experts and ob/gyns, recommending that pregnant persons in idaho might want to get emergency transport insurance, you could imagine that this is now what happens when you're pregnant and you worry about exactly what played out. and then even the physician leadership, at many of the hospitals in idaho, have said,

that if this case continues, what they're seeing in 2024 on the ground in idaho, there could be 20 to 30 similar patients in oregon because of exactly that. they are not able to give not just life saving health, but we don't come into a situation and may maybe i'll do this if i could save your life. we just practice medicine. we look at the science and try to give that person in front of us the best chance that science and everything around us could offer. i don't care about the legal language and in the sense that i know exactly what science tells us to do. and that is usually what the person across from me wants. and imagine that now you have to stop, and that is exactly what doctors do, they have to stop and consult with administration who have to consult with some committees who in some cases if it is a case of rape or incest, have to consult with law enforcement. chris, this is -- it is not what i thought we would be talking

about in 2024, let's put it that way. but that is what is happening on the ground. >> dave jolly is back with me. david, you cannot ignore the political implications of this and obviously there is an incredibly consequential debate tomorrow. abortion will certainly be among the topics. we know that it is very much on the minds of voters. what do you think a decision like this particularly if we actually get the details, could mean for tomorrow night? >> well i think it keys up a conversation joe biden wants to have with country, which is this case is simply one additional indication of the chaos that donald trump architected by pointing the judges he did with the intent that they would repeal roe and give us the dobbs decision. this happens, this type of case, these types of moments, occur in a post-roe world. and that is the heart of joe biden's argument. that roe was a structure that whether you considered yourself

pro-life or pro-choice, that worked for the health of the mother and right for the country but a dob's structure gives us this. where services could be denied to a woman because state legislatures step in. this issue has proven time and time again to be perhaps the greatest winning issue for democrats in key races and certainly a topic for the debate tomorrow night. expect joe biden and democrats to focus in on the chaos unleashed by the dobbs' decision and donald trump has bragged that he gave the country the dob's decision. >> and is it possible that scotus, the supreme court would consider the implications of this decision for tomorrow's debate and not want it out there before the debate? >> it is possible. would you say it is unideal. it is not what we think about when we imagine what our ideal supreme court should look like in terms of considering

political consequence. on the the other hand, this is still the same court that as jody canter reported last year for "the new york times," delayed telling the public more many months that they even took the dobbs case up for consideration. they were reporting on their website that it was still being conferenced when in private there was a consensus among at least four justices that they should take the case. and yet they didn't tell the public that. so i think this is a court that is being strategic here. whether they're being strategic for political reasons, we can't know. but i think it is likely what what went up on the website today is not just some form writing or someone's imagination of an early draft. but rather something close to what we'll see in the final draft. somewhat akin to what we saw in the dobbs draft. there was a question of is this legitimate and is this going to look like the ultimate opinion

and the answers to those questions were yes, and yes. and i suspect we'll see the same thing here irrespective of the timing. >> mary, let me ask you this same question. because we know the concerns that have been raised about the supreme court and the politicization of the supreme court and we know that john roberts, the chief justice is concerned about that perception. is it possible that they wanted this decision not to be out there before the debate because it is so highly politically charged? >> i think so. i think it is also fair to read potentially the decision itself as a political decision. we know that we would have two -- so have the courts reached in two major abortions [ inaudible ] and were consistent with what we would expect gib the kpom position of the supreme court. that would have been asset to the biden campaign.

that would have reinforced what they mentioned about the message, which is this is donald trump's supreme court, this is abortion criminal bans that donald trump has brought into being or has allowed across a large swath of the united states. in fact, if this reporting from bloomberg is accurate, there are a lot of news outlets saying this is a win for abortion rights an that is going to make it much easier for the trump campaign to say maybe this is a states right issue and the supreme court isn't as bad as joe biden has been saying. maybe you don't need to worry as much about abortion rights when you go to the polls, you could focus on other issues. so i think that kicking the can down the road, if that is in fact what the supreme court is going to do, in not one but two major abortion cases, might have political implications or political resonance too. again, as lisa said, i don't know if that is the only reason the court would be thinking about. but we do know from reporting

about dobbs and not just about dobbs but the court does take politics into account in reaching conclusions and timing the rulings and framing the argument. justices are human. politics creeps in whether we want them to or not. and obviously the supreme court justices themselves are political actors in some sense. so i think it is fair to wonder about the timing of the release of the decision, and even if bloomberg's reporting is correct about the substance, if this is a way of avoiding an explicit issue in an election year that could damage not just the reputation of the court, but could affect the election in critical ways that the justices may not want to be. >> we'll continue to follow this. but my thanks to everyone who joins me on this breaking news coverage. coming up next, american journalist evan gershkovich, the lengthy sentence he's facing and ongoing efforts to bring him

home, next. ongoing efforts to bring him home, next (man) every time i needed a new phone, i had to switch carriers... (roommate) i told him... at verizon, everyone can get that iphone 15 on them. (man) now that i got a huge storage and battery upgrade... i'm officially done switching. (vo) new and existing customers get iphone 15 on us when they trade in any iphone. verizon ♪♪ with fastsigns, create striking custom visuals that inspire pride district-wide. ♪♪ fastsigns. make your statement.

(man) every time i needed a new phone, i had to switch carriers... (roommate) i told him... at verizon, everyone can get that iphone 15 on them. (man) now that i got a huge storage and battery upgrade... i'm officially done switching. (vo) new and existing customers get iphone 15 on us when they trade in any iphone.

today just minutes before american journalist evan gershkovich was shut behind closed doors for the espionage trial the wallace journal calls a sham, here he was in a locked cage of a russian courtroom with a shaved head but smiling and nodding to his colleagues. everything after that took place in secret. gershkovich is the first western journalist to be tried for espionage in russia since the cold war. he has implored the wallace journal and the u.s. government all vigorously deny the charges. if convicted, gershkovich faces up to 20 years in prison. the future is daunting. russian courts convict more than 99% of the defendants who come before them, leaving little doubt about how this trial will end. i want to bring in the executive vice president and general

counsel for dow jones, the company that owns the wallace journal. i want to get your impressions of what you saw of evan before they closed the courtroom. >> thanks for having me and following this important case. evan showed being a strong and resilient reporter today. he is sitting in a glass box, in a cage, like he's an animal being trotted out with cameras before any proceedings happen. and he had his head high. he looks strong and straight ahead and he even smiled a number of times. he's a resilient guy and he is a committed guy to the craft of journalism. and he is in that box because he's a journalist. make no mistake about it. >> how did he look to you? and you mentioned that you spoke with his mother this morning. so as much as you want to reveal of that, how is she doing? >> his family is amazing. one of the unexpected benefits of this was to get to know a family that i otherwise wouldn't have known. his mom, dad, mikaela, his

sister, remarkable human beings. resilient and strong. and most important, evan and his family have a tremendous sense of humor through all of this. they try to folks on the absurd elements of this to get through it. otherwise, what choice do you have? the other thing is they stay positive. they try to focus on the optimism of it. otherwise, you default or crumble. instead, they say, no, he'll get out eventually. >> let's talk about those efforts and those odds. you're part of a legal team that has been behind the scenes to secure evan's release more than a year now. where does that stand? >> i describe it lots of activity, not clear of the progress. it is 455 days that evan has been in detention. there is only one marker of successful getting him out of that box and out of prison in russia. and this giant team, the journal, government, are trying to work on it but it is a government to government

situation. our goal is to push those who have the ability to get him out, to do a deal as quickly as possible. i would say there's lots of activity happening. again, until there is actual progress in getting him out, we haven't done our job and we need to work harder. >> how does the trial impact that, do you think? >> it is a little unclear. russia has said in the past, we won't do a deal until there is a conviction of some kind. never use the word trial of evan without saying it's bogus or a slam. that's what his. >> 99% conviction is not a criminal justice situation. >> no. it's behind closed doors. even our own lawyers were brave putting themselves forward to do this case. they cannot share the details with us. keep the strategy with us. they've signed an nda because they're forbidden from doing so. it is not a real trial or legal case in any real sense. separate from that, we have to keep the foot on the gas to get

a deal to get him out. on that's priority number one. he is a journalist has done nothing but commit the act of journalism. for 455 days, he's been in custody and it is time to bring him home. >> you've been petitioning your company to the united nations. how likely a path is that to at least maybe move the ball a little? or keep it in the public eye which is no small thing. >> that's part of the strategy. it is another path to have his case declared as an arbitrary detention like the u.s. did in april 2023, calling him wrongfully detained. it puts pressure on governments all over who believe in free press to try to get him out. the real problem is this kind of political hostage-taking could continue to happen if there aren't consequences for countries that take journalists off the streets. if you look at russia, there have been no consequences. a good reporter gets taken off the street. western operations pull out

their reporters because they're scared. if it is any predictor, there will be a deal where a guy goes back to russia. one of the consequences, there aren't any. we'll have to figure out a solution to that or this may be a bigger problem. >> executive vp, general counsel of dow jones, we're all thinking of evan, his family and all of you who i know love and are just anxiously awaiting his return as we all are. thank you for taking the time to come on the show. >> thank you. up next, a disastrous scene. relentless storms that brought more flash flooding to areas already underwater. we'll head live to south dakota for the latest ahead. stay close. more chris jansing reports after this. jansing reports after this that's why i use secret whole body deodorant... everywhere. 4 out of 5 gynecologists would recommend whole body deodorant, which gives you 72 hour odor protection from your pits to your- (sfx: deoderant being sprayed) secret whole body deodorant. first, we did the impossible.

then, you ate so many of the impossible that we completely ran out. and now... ♪♪ they're backk! the footlong cookie is back at subway! (vo) in three seconds, this couple will share a perfect moment. (woman) is that? oh wow! but we got to sell our houses! (vo) well, almost perfect. don't worry. just sell directly to opendoor. (woman) yes! (vo) close in a matter of days. when life's doors open, we'll handle the house. 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. (man) every time i needed a new phone, so clearly you. i had to switch carriers... (roommate) i told him... at verizon, everyone can get that iphone 15 on them. (man) now that i got a huge storage and battery upgrade... i'm officially done switching. (vo) new and existing customers get iphone 15 on us when they trade in any iphone. verizon ♪♪ imagine a future where plastic is not wasted... but instead remade over and over... into the things that keep our food fresher, our families safer, and our planet cleaner. to help us get there, america's plastic makers

are investing billions of dollars to create innovative products and new recycling technologies for sustainable change. because when you push for smarter solutions, big things can happen. the itch and rash of moderate to severe eczema disrupts my skin, night and day. despite treatmen it's st. but now i have rinvoq. a once-daily pill that reduces the itch and helps clear the rash of eczema —fast. some taking rinvoq felt significant itch relief as early as 2 days— and some achieved dramatic skin clearance as early as 2 weeks. many saw clear or almost-clear skin. plus, many had clearer skin and less itch, even at 3 years. rinvoq can lower your ability to fight infections, including tb. serious infections and blood clots, some fatal, cancers including lymphoma and skin, heart attack, stroke, and gi tears occurred. people 50 and older with a heart disease risk factor have an increased risk of death. serious allergic reactions can occur.

tell your doctor if you are or may become pregnant. disrupt the itch & rash of eczema. talk to your dermatologist about rinvoq. learn how abbvie can help you save.