bit of a journey in the film■ç were, toward the end of the film, they are recognizing that discrimination against asian americans -- which, of course, is bad -- is not necessarily the same thing as affirmative action in favor of disadvantaged minorities. so some people conflate the issues. in fact, many people just think , if you have affirmative action, that must mean it's discriminating against asian americans. i think even the plaintiffs in the case that are portrayed in the film have a bit of a journey where they recognize that, in fact, they, too think that race should be considered in some way to make sure that people who have a disadvantage in our country get an equal shot. and discrimination against asians is not necessarily the same thing. ■ç ng.

thing. >> jeannie suk gerson, harvard law professor, thank you for weighing in and you can watch ao missions granted tonight at 9:00 p.m. eastern here on msnbc. that's going to do it for me. o back next saturday. prime weekend is next. ♪ ♪ >> welcome to prime time weekend. i'm nicolle wallace. let's get right to the week's top stories. underscoring the stakes of the election in november even further, newly released decisions by the u.s. supreme court, the conservative super majority which includes three of the justices hand-picked by donald trump himself overturned a 40-year-old president taking aim at the power of federal agencies to function. the dechevron ruling as the blo puts it, cuts back sharply on s

the power of federal agencies to interpret the laws they mr. andrew that courts should rely on their own interpretation of ambiguous laws. the decision will likely have er far-reaching effects across the country environmental regulation to healthcare cost. today also saw the court ruled in favor of the january 6th insurrectionist who challenged his obstruction of official proceeding charge. that ruling, which we will dive into a little deeper in chcta l minute could have an impact on hundreds of other january 6 prosecutions as well. and there's still more to come from this highest court in the i land. the supreme court has indicatedn that on monday it will be their final day and on monday we will find out just how extreme this t court really is when it releases its final decision on donald trump's claim that a president should be immune from prosecution. it will be a momentous decision and we will see if this court believes that donald trump or any president is above the law

in the united states of america. senior editor for slate and the host of the podcast is back with us. also joining us, the executive director of fix the court, gabe roth, and former top prosecutor doj msnbc legal analyst, andrew weissman. i know chevron gets shorthanded. i need someone to take me to school. school. can you just remind me mwhat this decision is and what their opinion does? >> chevron is essentially shorthand for a long-standing tradition that says if there is an ambiguous statute, the uo courts defer to the agency itself and their interpretation of how to read sethat statute. because agencies are teeming with people who know science and who understand how the climate works and to understand how healthcare works and who understand how those work and essentially what the court said today was, nope, from here on in we are going to courts to

decide how agency regulations are interpreted and i don't want to be in any way alarmist about this, but this is a wholesale transfer of power over federal regulatory agencies, clean water, clean air, guns, healthcare, monetary policy, all y anof it is shifte away from federal agencies and into the laps of courts and i think the last very cynical thing i'm going to say is that the supreme court can't even control his own website this week, downloading and uploading opinions before they are ready to go. it's hard to understand how they can have the kind of expertise to talk about nuanced things like climate and healthcare if they can't even sort out their own in-house procedures. >> it's a pretty profound point. it sounds small but it gets to the essence of what the decision does. i appreciate everything that you have said and especially this contrast and this morning

almost to be careful if you dabble in horserace analysis because nothing less than the future of our government to function is already on the line, is already at stake, and the only thing i would say is you are not being alarmist but o justice kagan certainly was. let me read from her descent. in one fell swoop, the majority today gives itself exclusive power over every open issue-no matter how expertise driven or policy laden -- involving the meaning of regulatory law as if it did not have enough on its plate, the majority turns itself into the countries administrative czar. that is an alarm the likes of which i don't know that we have seen this term. dahlia. dahlia. >> the [toe)+thing i would justm point out that justice kagan does, and ■çthis is familiar to us who remember the dissent in dobbs is, her descent is a cri

de coeur about what it means when the -- willy-nilly reverses precedent without doing so carefully or thoughtfully assessing what it is that's happening and we've talked soly appso much in the l months about the need for ut stability and predictability in the law and what she ilis warnii in addition to this kind of wholesale power grab the courtst that, frankly, you are right, terrifies her. i think the other thing she is saying that every precedent is on the line. this is now a decision that if n it gets five votes, precedent is gone and, again, we have , organized our lives for four decades on the proposition that this is how the government works and ■çregulatory agencies should feel free to try to do wo their best to regulate complicated social problems and to have that go away in the ei blink of an eye without much understanding of what it is to reverse that precedent is almost the most chilling part of this for justice kagan.

>> let me read a little bit more of what dahlia is talking about from justice kagan's quote, it barely tries to advance the usual factors this court invokes for overruling precedent. it's justification comes down, in the end, to this : courts must have more say overregulation -- over the provision of healthcare, the protection of the environment, the safety of consumer products, the efficacy of transportation systems and so on. a long-standing precedent at the crux of administrative governance thus falls victim to a bald assertion of judicial authority. the majority disdains restraint, and grasps for power. wow. i've read that four times and only out loud twice and that just feels like -- that just feel so profound to me. the majority disdains restraint and grasps for power.

>> nicole, and somebody who understands what republicans in this country stand for, that's what's so -- the court is supposed to be a body, according to republican orthodoxy, what used to be republican orthodoxy, restraint of the courts, because it's viewed as a sort of anti- democratic check and that is what she is saying is not. in some ways this is a real wake-up call from last night because it tells you, if you didn't know this from dobbs, you know this from this decision that the supreme court is so on the ballot for those of us in the legal field, it's hard to stress enough what dahlia is saying because it's not just that this changes the fundamental way in which the courts have dealt with the administrative state, certainly

at least since fdr but also because of the complete lack of respect for precedent, it signals that this court is willing to do to chevron and roe versus wade and if it goes forward in trump 2.0, everything is on the table and g that is the message from the decision today, more than any of the cases that we see in this term. this is such a clarion call for why it is so important for people who disagree with what's going on to get to the ballot box and really think about the supreme court in the way that republicans for decades have thought about the supreme court being the fundamental institution they wanted t to change. >> what uncork's -- all of

them, did they lie in their d confirmation hearings when they described precedent and super precedent and if you're not y a lawyer or supreme court watcher, you barely understand that but you think it means they won't touch things would've been there for a long time, what uncork's them and turns them into this really active, agitated sort of burn it all down body? >> i don't know and i also don't know if there is an kn answer for all of the justices. i think that there is an answer for alito and thomas that may be different than any -- amy coney barrett and chief justice roberts and the reason i single out amy coney barrett is she's issued some interesting decisions in the last couple weeks. we are going to talk about the obstruction decision and she actually writes the descent and so, you do get the sense of a mind that is thinking and that is not just a knee-jerk

reaction to side automatically with what you know justice alito is going to think but i think for justice alito, he is leading a charge that is very much what i would call a maga justice. it seems so unthoughtful and so untethered to the facts and a complete disrespect for decades of other jurors as if the other people who served on the supreme court were a bunch of bumpkins. there is just the whole idea of what's called stare decisis where you're supposed to say, i may disagree with the prior decision but it cannot be that just because the composition of the court changes that you are suddenly going to overturn a decision from last week or last year and there's supposed to be a sense of continuity and once a decision is made, it's supposed to take a lot to overturn it and that is the

thing that i thought was so fundamentally upsetting about the decision today was that t there was no really good argument for why suddenly, now, chevron was gone and in such a bold, sweeping way. i thought their treatment of precedent signaled to me that if you think dobbs was the end of where the court was going to go, to me, this decision means, no, that's the beginning. >> gable, dobbs was something that you didn't have to be an expert in the supreme court or the law to understand because it affected every woman's life. chevron affects every element of american life as well but it's more complicated to tell. can you start trying to tell that story for us? >> sure. the federal government has billions of employees and many are experts in their field from

folks ensuring that our water and air is clean to our r medicine and food, our safe and those individuals work for that brand. sometimes when congress writes a lot about medicine or food ore health, the language is ambiguous and that's the nature of language. if language wasn't ambiguous, your show would be 30 seconds long with -- end of show and it would be dead air for 59 1/2 minutes. but language is ambiguous and it's worth talking things out 59 and sometimes that means deferring to the peep -- the experts in the field. to me, it's not just the supreme court that is going to o be doing it. there will be earthquakes and aftershocks that we will be feeling for decades and e you have lower court judges appointed by presidents of both

parties so pick the ones you like and pick the ones you don't like but you're going to have about half a dozen cases of chevron coming down the next couple years but you will have thousands if not tens of thousands of cases in the lower courts where there's going to be an ambiguous agency action and you have lower court judges, unelected officials, deciding things about water and air and medicine and healthcare and the like and if you don't nd like what an agency is doing, you vote out their boss every four years. the agency head is beholden to a the president and the president's change every four years. you don't have that in the judiciary. lower court justices serve for life so they are viewing chevron or the end of chevron in one way and that way isn't great for our air or water. that view is going to be the prevailing view for decades unless congress gets its act together and passes a law that brings some of the power back to our elected officials. >> gable, let me ask you to jump in on the skpolitical conversation that i'm so grateful to all of you, we are

having side by side. that's how the american people are experiencing these decisions. they have unprecedented levels of skepticism and questions about the supreme court because of these decisions. this is something justice sonia sotomayor said leat harvard las month. i've played it before but i want to play it again. >> we did go backward in dobbs. i said it on my dissent so i'm not saying something new. we've taken away our right. we've never done that in our history. mind you, there are days that i've come to my office after an announcement of a case and closed my door and cried. there have been those days and they are likely to be more. >> you take what she's saying and what justice kagan has written and it feels like the warnings or calls are coming from inside the house.

>> yeah, this is a very upsetting time i twould imagin to be a liberal justice on the supreme court. primarily with dobbs. that was the earthquake of all i think justice ur sotomayor was referring to that when she was talking about closing her door and crying but there are other opinions that overturn precedent, like today's decision that not only liberals aren't going to like but conservatives have to breathe the air and drink the water too and take the medicine and eat the food. i think that, though there have been some interests that want the end of the chevron, that want this outcome, they may come to regret it if every city's drinking water is like flints in five years. >> a remarkable moment. quickly, how are you thinking of this decision as we look forward to monday?

is >> i'm thinking of this decision in light of another case we don't have time to discuss in depth but today the s court made it easier to go after the homeless sleeping in parks out west and in justice sotomayor's dissent, she is so careful to explain why there iso homelessness and she talks about housing policy and she talks about climate change policy and she essentially says this whole administrative state that is obscure and abstracts to you, this is the reason people are sleeping in parks. or part of the reason. so i want to connect it to whatn you said about justice sotomayor, the supreme court is causing some of these problems and then, turning around and making it impossible for agencies to solve them and it's really important to look at both what is coming on monday and today and think of it y through the lens gabe is offering up which is, these areg going to affect real people's real lives every single day and so, to think of it as an

abstraction is to make it something that we all say we have no skin in the game. every single one of us has skin in the game because the way our lives are organized is being scuppered by a court that is thinking about nothing, i think, other than making sure that very wealthy people find it easier to bribe or give gratuities and that very poor people have nowhere to sleep. >> no one is going anywhere. e we have another huge decision to tell you about. the ruling that prosecutors -- the supreme, court -- charging a writer with obstruction of an official proceeding. we will tell you what that means for members of the trump mob that attacked the u.s. capital that day as well as the case against the disgraced and convicted ex-president himself. convicte d -president himself. from your pits to your- (sfx: deoderant being sprayed)

secret whole body deodorant. 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.

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. ♪ music ♪ ♪ unnecessary action hero! ♪ choose acid prevention. ♪ unnecessary. ♪ was that necessary? no. neither is missing your daughter's competition to do payroll. with paycom, employees do their own payroll so you don't have to miss your daughter's big day. time to shine. get paycom and make the unnecessary unnecessary.

when we're young, we're told anything is possible... ...but only a few of us go out and prove it. witness the greatness of anna hall on a connection worthy of gold: xfinity mobile. only xfinity gives you the most powerful mobile wifi network, with speeds up to a gig in millions of locations. and right now, xfinity internet customers can buy one unlimited line and get one free for a year. get the fastest connection to paris with xfinity.

the supreme court the supreme court today essentially ruling against the ability of a democracy to hold people accountable that threaten it. what the dissenting justices called textual ■1ackflips to side with this guy, january 6th rioter, who you see, here in a physical confrontation with police officers inside the u.s. capital on january 6th. the ruling narrows an obstruction charge in his case and could impact justices

reliance on that charge, on that law and its prosecution of hundreds of others of january 6th defendants including one convicted felon who happens to be ex-president donald trump. the three dissenters were justice sonia sotomayor, elena kagan, and amy coney barrett who writes this, quote, court does not dispute the congress's joint ■çsession qualifies as an official proceeding, that riders delayed the proceeding or even that fisher's alleged conduct was part of a successful effort to forcibly hold the certification of the election results. given these premises, the case that joseph fisher can be tried for obstructing, influencing or impeding official proceeding seems open, so why does the court hold otherwise? because it simply cannot believe that congress meant what it said. we are back with dahlia, gabe and andrew.

that is chilling. >> i think there are a couple things worth noting because a lot of the reporting is sort of getting this wrong. one, there is the trump take on this which is that somehow this shows that the department of justice overreached and was doing so politically. it is really important to remember, not just that you have this very well written &%mmq1ñled by amy coney barrett, a trump appointee, but of the 15 trial judges who heard this exact issue, 14 of the 15 including three trump appointees agreed with the government's review of the obstruction statute. so this was not some outlier, some off-the-wall theory. this was, in fact, how everyone had been interpreting this including very conservative judges and at least one very conservative supreme court

justice. the second is that i think, although i disagree with the opinion, the majority opinion, it is -- i do not think, because ■çthey carefully, narrowly circumscribed how they were eliminating the obstruction statute, i don't think it will have any effect whatsoever on the trump january 6th indictment. the real issue there is the one we are waiting for on monday which is, will that ever go to trial? but i don't think the obstruction charges there will be affected by this decision nor with respect to the 1400 or so january 6th cases. this is going to have a minimal effect on their cases. let me give you a quick example. mr. fisher who is the lead plaintiff here is charged with other felonies including assaulting officers. those charges stand bmkand as

ketanji brown jackson says, he may ágr&l be able to be charged under the new reading of the obstruction statute. so i think although i disagree with that decision, i think it is narrower than anticipated and should leave the government with ample room to continue prosecutions. >> as someone who is rather new to trying to discern the tea leaves, i rely almost 100% cash 100%, not almost -- on all of you to make sense of it for me. i went back and tried to understand why they took this case in the first place for all the reasons andrew just articulated. do you have an answer to that? >> typically, justices take cases when they believe the lower court's interpretation was wrong, if there was a circuit split. this is sort ■çof a new area of law or a new use of section 1512, the law to charge in an

obstruction case related to the capital riots. this was a law that was related to other things that had nothing to do with the non- peaceful transfer of power so it was a bit of a new application, so i think that scotus, weighing in maybe not on first instance as was mentioned, 15 trial judges weighed in on this already but it was a new statutory interpretation case and sometimes scotus likes to take that pitch and hit it. but to the other points,■ç the vast majority of people who committed crimes, something like 94% of them, on january 6th, are still going to be tried under all the other felonies that they committed and i wouldn't read too much of this into what's going to come down on monday. monday the trump immunity case does not have a ton to do with this one specific section of federal law.

i think that monday we are probably going to have nine justices telling us nine different things and who knows what the lineup is going to be. we have to wait and see but i wouldn't read too much into what's going to come down on monday based on what happened today. >> dahlia, this is our last 30 minutes and the next time we all meet we will know what the supreme court decided on presidential immunity. what are you expecting? what are the borders in which we should be prepared to hear what they've decided on immunity? >> i would say ■çtwo things and one of them is something you've heard andrew and i say for weeks now on your show which is, it's really signaling something very frightening and sobering that the court will release this decision which should have been an easy summary affirmance of the

appeals court decision in the winter that would've allowed this to already be starting. this is happening moments before they end the term and take their vacations. that's really very worrying signaling about how important this is and i think to pick up where gabe left off, you asked him, why did the court take ■ç this case? i stupidly at one point in my career, five months ago, thought the court wanted to say something important and profound about what happened on january 6th across the street from where they sit and i really thought this case in tandem with the anderson case, in tandem with the immunity case was an opportunity for the majority of the court to say we may differ on politics and donald trump, we may differ on every single thing including chevron but what we don't differ on is that people shouldn't storm the capital, assault and murder people and try to disrupt the orderly transfer of power.

i really believed i would see, in this case, or in anderson, the colorado ballot case, language suggesting that the court across the partisan lines found that horrific and untenable and undemocratic. ■ç the recitation in this case in fisher of what happened on january 6th was about as bloodless as it can get and it's left again to the dissenters to sketch what happened on january 6th and so i worry, deeply, about whatever comes down in the immunity case on monday that the court, having had an opportunity to say what ever else is okay what is not okay is what happened on january 6th, what is not okay is summoning a mob to storm the capital because you don't like the election results. i didn't see that today and i worry deeply, deeply, that i'm not going to see that language on monday. >> when we come back, the stakes of the election were

already skyhigh. they are even more so with a question facing democrats today, what do you do when the person ■çyou have picked to defend and protect and preserve democracy in america from its authoritarian threat is in your view, in your telling, not the strongest messenger? messenger? i use febreze fabric refresher everyday... to make my home smell amazing. on my bed... my couch... my jacket or jeans in between washes... even shoes. febreze doesn't cover up odors with scent, but fights them... and freshens! over one thousand uses. febreze fabric refresher. it's time.

yes, the time has come for a fresh approach to dog food. everyday, more dog people are deciding it's time to quit the kibble and feed their dogs fresh food from the farmer's dog. made by vets and delivered right to your door precisely portioned for your dog's needs. it's an idea whose time has come. ♪♪

when dry eye symptoms keep... coming... back... inflammation might be to blame. over-the-counter eye drops can provide temporary relief. xiidra can provide lasting relief. it targets inflammation that can cause dry eye disease. xiidra? no-o-o! xiidra treats the signs and symptoms of dry eye disease. don't use if allergic to xiidra. common side effects include eye irritation, discomfort or blurred vision when applied, and unusual taste sensation. why wait? ask your doctor about a 90-day prescription and pay as little as $0. xiidra. (grunt)

wanna know a secret? more than just my armpits stink. facts. that's why i use secret whole body deodorant for clinically proven odor protection everywhere. so i smell great all day, all hike, and all night. secret whole body deodorant.

kratz in a way they've never done so before are openly talking to reporters, like myself, and others, about whether president joe biden represents their best foot forward to defeat trump and everything that he threatens. one thing has not changed in the last 18 hours or 18 months and that is the cold, hard, undeniable truth, that of the choices we face for november, one candidate instigated a violent insurrection on our democracy. the other did not. he sought to protect the

democracy. that is the choice we have in november. joining our conversation, former republican congressman msnbc ■çpolitical analyst david jolly, also host of the bulwark podcast, former spokesperson for the rnc, tim miller and professor of history at nyu, officer of strawmen mussolini to the present, ruth is here. i tried to set this up and get out of the way. your thoughts today? >> i think last night changed everything. i think going into yesterday there was a sustaining argument that this race wasn't about age, it was about ideology. it wasn't about age it was about fitness. donald trump didn't tell us to inject bleach into our veins because he's old, he did it because he's stupid. he didn't get convicted for his age he got convicted for a crime. he didn't abandon nato because of age, he abandoned nato because of lack of leadership. but ■çlast night made this abou

age, specifically joe biden's age and i think democrats today from barack obama on down are making the contrast argument in response to what we saw last night. they are fundamentally misreading the room. american voters who are shocked by last night aren't shocked by the contrast. many of them missed the contrast. many of them did not actually hear what was said between the candidates. they were shocked and saddened by what they saw their president and i think that is the code out to all of this. that what they saw last night raised concern, not just about democratic nominee joe biden but about their president, our president. we haven't had a national conversation around the president's age since ronald reagan's second term that we are having ■çit now, so the contrast arguments that democrats are making today are important. perhaps it's the only argument available to them but, the shock and sat this that many

americans are feeling is they don't know how to reconcile this issue now of joe biden's age. he's not asking to serve until next january is asking to serve until january, 2029 and a lot of americans are now asking themselves, is that the right decision? is he the right person for november? joe biden has done something nobody else did. he stopped donald trump and it's remarkable service to the country. he's had an incredible first term. he is making the case for a second term. but last night what landed in people's lap was the president's age, not his ideology ■çor policies. perhaps what we saw in north carolina, today, if replicated can address that. he can hit it head on. if he is the candidate that is how democrats survive the next four months. the contrast argument is already in place. the american voters now, many of them are wrestling with their own presidents age as a national question, not as a political question and that is where democrats, i think, have

to address that more head on then they are actually doing today. >> tim miller. >> i appreciate that representative jolly said that because i think there are a lot of people that believe that that haven't been saying it publicly. i would add to what he that joe biden, in addition to doing the duties of president, in order ■u= because of the stakes you just laid out, needs to be able to deliver a coherent argument that reaches people about why donald trump is so dangerous. and as for the rally today, that is nice. i'm happy joe biden had a good rally this afternoon but the people that are going to see that, that is reassuring democratic partisans that the attention to politics, they already know the stakes, they understand the threat, the

people that watched last night, the 50 million that saw it live and the 50+ million that are going to see little clips on tiktok and instagram who don't pay that close of attention, they were not given anything to work with by joe biden last night. he did not deliver a single coherent argument against the most unfit person ever to run for any■ç office in this countr donald trump. there are plenty of things he could've attacked trump on. unlimited. we talk about them here all the time. he wasn't doing it. so, when i see the messages from barack obama and bill clinton and everybody today, they bear no resemblance to the conversations i'm having with democratic elected officials who are in office now. none of them think that joe biden is a nice man and donald trump is a bad man is good enough. it's true, we all know it's true. i love joe biden. i think he's been a good president, but if we are going to save this democracy we've got to do better than joe biden is a good man and donald trump is a bad man. we've got to be able to

convince the voters that have not yet been convinced that donald trump represents an existential threat to this country and that joe biden is a better bet and if joe biden is incapable of making that argument and we ■çhave time. we have about a month to find somebody else who can and if he is capable of making it, what we saw in rally today, we need to see over and over again in our face. he needs to prove it to people and he needs to have a serious conversation with his advisers about how he can prove it to people otherwise it's just a reality check. i know some of you aren't going to be happy to hear this but joe biden was losing before the debate last night, so, you cannot leave the polls if you want but in the same polls that joe biden is losing in pennsylvania, -- is winning. why is that? it's not because the polls are rigged, it's because there's a set of voters that don't know if joe biden is up for it. >> when we come back, it's being called a dry ■çrun for another coup attempt.

how allies of the disgraced ex- president are testing the waters for overturn election results in battleground states now in preparation to do the very same thing in november. t t be ready for them... ...but at $3 a pop? your wallet definitely is. ed gutters. ...but at $3 a pop? call leaffilter today. and never clean out clogged gutters again. leaffilter's technology keeps debris out of your gutters for good. guaranteed. call 833.leaf.filter today, or visit leaffilter.com. if you're living with hiv, imagine being good to go without daily hiv pills. good to go unscripted. good to go on a whim. with cabenuva, there's no pausing for daily hiv pills. for adults who are undetectable, cabenuva is the only complete, long-acting hiv treatment you can get every other month. it's two injections from a healthcare provider.

just 6 times a year. don't receive cabenuva if you're allergic to its ingredients, or if you're taking certain medicines, which may interact with cabenuva. serious side effects include allergic reactions, post-injection reactions, liver problems, and depression. if you have a rash and other allergic reaction symptoms, stop cabenuva and get medical help right away. tell your doctor if you have liver or kidney problems, mental health concerns and if you are pregnant, breastfeeding, or considering pregnancy. some of the most common side effects include injection-site reactions, fever, and tiredness. with cabenuva, you're good to go. ask your doctor about switching. (♪♪) (♪♪) try dietary supplements from voltaren, for healthy joints. to give your teeth a dentist clean feeling. start with a round brush head. add power. and you've got oral-b. round cleans better by surrounding each tooth

to remove 100% more plaque. for a superior clean. oral-b. brush like a pro. 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. why would americans why would americans assume that our constitution and our institutions and our republic are invulnerable to another attack? a key lesson of this investigation is this. our institutions only hold when men and women of good faith make them hold. regardless of the political cost. we have no guarantee that these men and women will be in place next time. any future president inclined to attempt what donald trump did in 2020 has now learned not to install people who could stand in the way. >> was from congresswoman and select committee vice chair liz

cheney sounding the alarm about the all too dangerous lessons of the disgraced ex-president and his their first failed attempt to steal an ■çelection. now the washington post has uncovered a widespread effort by gop officials to block certification of election results in key battleground states. quote, since 2020, counsel -- georgia, arizona, michigan, nevada, and pennsylvania have tried to block the certification of vote tallies in both primaries and general elections. so far, these efforts have failed, they could upend the next election. advocates -- unsubstantiated fraud by trump and his allies are sowing even deeper mistrust in the fall election results than they did four years ago. raising the potential for unrest and even violence on a greater scale too. and as liz cheney ■çwarns, many

of the people who stopped trump in 2020 are no longer there. they've been replaced with true believers of donald trump and the big lie. joining us now, voting rights attorney, the founder of the site democracy docket. we've had a lot of conversations just this week about one sort of lull in the chatter around domestic violent extremism tied to the big lie. we dug into what is being peddled to trump supporters on fox news and its this certainty that trump will win and if he doesn't it's fraud. that feels like an even deeper and more dangerous line than what they told in 2020 which was , we think we are going to win, if we don't we will look and manufacture fraud. how do you ■çfeel about the tracks that are being laid? by trump? the fact is, after the violent insurrection on january 6, republicans had a choice.

they could either back away from the brink, they could distance themselves from donald trump in his lies, they could tell the truth which was that he lost the election fair and square or they could do what they eventually did which was to double down on the lies, which was to say with more certainty that donald trump won 2020 when he didn't and to insist that there is some broad deep state conspiracy, whatever that means, to deny donald trump the election again in 2024. so this has been building slowly. the washington post talks about the attacks on certification, ■ç it was -- who got on the phone with the two republican members of the wayne county kind missing board in 2020 to try to convince them not to certify the election results. when that failed, the republicans tried to get the republican members of the statewide canvassing board not to certify. that almost succeeded but it

failed. in 2022, cochise county arizona refused to certify the election results. my letter -- law firm and i sued them. those officials have been indicted by the state. in pennsylvania, three counties refused to certify in the primary election. one county refused to certify in the general election and we sued them and force them to -- this is been building over and over again. building up and up■ç, rather, b it's much more dangerous for 2024 because the true believers, as you point out, are now more firmly in control of these offices. >> i want to ask you about the impact. people talk about the deterrent effect of the justice department prosecutions in the foot soldiers of january 6. which i always think is ludicrous because the commander of january 6th is just sitting fat and happy at mar-a-lago, literally. but, you got the spouses of two supreme court justices who are

enthusiasts of the insurrection and their symbols so, i don't know how many hundreds of prosecutions you need to override the fact that two of the nine households of the most powerful justices in our country are down with the insurrections iconography and mission, i want to have that conversation. i have to sneak in a quick break. please stay ■çwith us. because they have bills to pay? hear me now, paycom! return the world of hr and payroll to its rightful place of chaos or face a tsunami of unnecessary the likes of which you have never seen! you know what's brilliant? boring. think about it. boring is the unsung catalyst for bold. what straps bold to a rocket and hurtles it into space? boring does. boring makes vacations happen, early retirements possible,

and startups start up. because it's smart, dependable, and steady. all words you want from your bank. for nearly 160 years, pnc bank has been brilliantly boring so you can be happily fulfilled... which is pretty un-boring if you think about it.

it's it's hard for me to understand why the court even took this case. i'm worried when justin this -- justice kavanaugh says we need to write for the ages, no you don't, you need to decide on the case in front of you on the basis of the law and the facts in front of ■çyou and if you do that you will reach the same conclusion as the applet court that the president needs to be held accountable in the same way that any other american would be. anything other than that is both absurd and extremely dangerous. >> we are back with mark elias talking about the immunity case. we talk a lot about sarah longwell who is running republican voters against trump, permission structures and i wonder what sort of

symbolically and by association the permission structure the supreme court itself and the spouses of two of the justices create around the kinds of things you are talking about. >> i'm very worried about it because the fact is that people who engage in election ■çto nihilism, they don't come to this naturally. they come to it because they are first told lies and they are sold that these lies are true. but then they have to look at the elites in their party and their movement for validation and certainly there is no bigger validator of the lies than donald trump. let's be clear. that responsibility begins and ends with him but they also look at the validation being given to them by others. what are republican senators and house members, but when it comes to legal matters, when it

comes to whether you are breaking the law or not, there is no more prominent validator than the u.s. supreme court and we have seen the supreme court undermine its legitimacy in so manq ■ways. one of the ways unfortunately building up its legitimacy is on this very far right wing that wants to engage in election riots. so the very fact that as the attorney general said, they took the immunity case was a validation point for them. the fact that they engaged in what seemed to be a good-faith debate about whether or not donald trump, if president, could assassinate his political opponents, i think we have not heard the last of and i fear that was a form of validation. what we saw with the flag flying, the upside down flag flying which, used to be something that was viewed as an extraordinary sign of distress, that was sort of out of balance, but which has now been legitimized.

>> mark elias, as always< çthan you for spending time with us and being part of all of our coverage. great to see you. this has been prime time weekend. i'm nicolle wallace. please tune in to all of our prime time shows weekdays on msnbc. to me, harlem is home. but home is also your body. i asked myself, why doesn't pilates exist in harlem? so i started my own studio. getting a brick and mortar in new york is not easy. chase ink has supported us from studio one to studio three.

when you start small, you need some big help. and chase ink was that for me. earn up to 5% cash back on business essentials with the chase ink business cash card from chase for business. make more of what's yours. no, my denture's uncomfortable! dracula, let's fight back against discomfort. with new poligrip power max hold & comfort. it has superior hold plus keeps us comfy all day with it's pressure absording layer. time for a bite! if your mouth could talk it would ask for... poligrip. why use 10 buckets of water when you can use 1 fire extinguisher. and to fight heartburn, why take 10 antacids throughout the day when you can take 1 prilosec. for easier heartburn relief, one beats ten. prilosec otc. one pill. 24 hours. zero heartburn. chris counahan for leaffilter— the permanent gutter solution that protects your home in so many ways, it takes more than one chris to explain it. but together, i think we've got the job covered. like leaffilter's has your gutters covered. protecting you from getting up on this thing to clean out your gutters ever again. and you know how else leaffilter protects your home? with our lifetime transferable no clogs warranty.

we'd be glad to come out for a free no-hassle inspection. to schedule your free inspection, call 833-leaffilter today or visit leaffilter.com (vo) in the next 30 seconds, call 833-leaffilter today 250 couples will need to make room for a nursery. (man) ah ha! (vo) 26 people will go all-in. (woman) yes! (vo) this family will get two bathrooms. and finally, one vacationer will say... (man) yeah, woo, i'm going to live here... (vo) but as the euphoria subsides, the realization hits... (man) i've got to sell the house. (all) [screams] (vo) don't worry, just sell and buy in one move when you start with opendoor. (woman) oh wow. (vo) oh yes. start with an all-cash offer at opendoor.com.

good evening, good evening, welcome to politics nation tonight, the difficult decision.