good to be with you. i'm katy tur. it is hard to read the supreme court's majority decision on presidential immunity with an eye toward the future, when it has such a major effect on the present. that is exactly what the six conservatives on the supreme court are mostly asking you to do. i say mostly because justice amy coney barrett had some notable

dissents in her opinion, which concurred in part. still, these justices, thomas, alito, kavanaugh, gorsuch, roberts and barrett seemed to treat the allegations and the indictment that brought this ground breaking case to the supreme court as more of an academic moment than an existential one. the allegations that the former president of the united states while in office tried to use the levers of power to keep himself in office. reading the decision can seem circular, even. the president is immune because the constitution implies he is immune, even when highs trying to violate the same constitution. the dissents were so scathing, instead, plowing through the majority's reasoning. from justice jackson, quote, the majority of my colleagues seem to have put their trust in our court's ability to prevent presidents from becoming kings through case-by-case application of the indeterminate standards

of their new presidential accountability paradigm. i fear that they are wrong, but for all our sakes, i hope that they are right. and even more bluntly from justice sotomayor, quote, the supreme court gives former president trump all of the immunity he asked for and more. adding this new official acts immunity lies about like a loaded weapon, and concluding with, never in the history of our republic has a president had reason to believe that he would be immune from criminal prosecution. with fear for our democracy, she writes, i dissent. so what now? what does special counsel jack smith have left to charge? what evidence can he still use and how will judge chutkan sort through it all? but beyond what a president can do now with this new shield of immunity, what can a president do now with this new shield of immunity, and what if that new president's name is donald j. trump.

justice sonia sotomayor read some disturbing scenarios. joining us now nbc news justice and intelligence correspondent ken dilanian. first off, ken, has the special counsel commented yet? >> they have not, katy, and i'm told there are no plans for them to comment or issue a statement. >> so as you read through the opinion, what stood out to you? >> so, look, i think the big question here is how are official acts defined, and what kind of guidance did the supreme court offer for courts to tell the difference between an official act and a private act, and the answer is they offered some high level guidance, but left a lot of the details to the lower courts, and that's why you have justice sotomayor raising these dire scenarios, and then you have justice roberts in his opinion saying, oh, relax. that's not what we meant here. people can agree, even our own analysts on our network are not agreeing about exactly what the

implications are. they did offer guidance of what the implications are for the trump case. what they said is the section o. case that read that donald trump tried to co-op the justice department to conduct bogus investigations, that comes out entirely, that is clearly an official act. that's gone from the indictment. then there's other aspects of the case, they presume are official acts but will have to be litigated. the president's conversation with vice president pence about his role in presiding over the senate and certifying the vote on january 6th and his exhortation to block that. there's a question about whether that's an official act. it's presumed to be official, is what this ruling says. it also says that public states of the president are presumed to be official acts but can be construed as private actsment justice sotomayor said it didn't answer the question about whether the president can order the navy seals to assassinate his or her political rival and

be prosecuted for it. that's what's raising concerns about it. >> she's arguing there's broad immunity that the decision affords the president and the united states, and very little to push back, given that the evidence that would come up in a trial would likely not be allowed to come up either. joining us now, msnbc legal correspondent, lisa rubin, former fbi general krounl and senior member of the mueller probe, andrew weissmann, and former u.s. attorney and senior official, chuck rosenberg. i think everyone is not in agreement at this table. that makes this an interesting conversation. i read through the opinion myself, and as i said at the top, it felt circular in the arguments that the constitution, the majority argues, implies, it doesn't say so in the constitution, but they argue it implies a president has to have immunity to be energetic to make decisions, he needs it in order to do the job of the presidency, and that you can't question it even when he is trying to use that same power to violate the

constitution. as you read through this, as i said, it was hard to look toward the future, and it felt more like an opinion that was squared solely on the present and the present case and the present or the present candidate for the gop nomination who's running for office again, donald trump. >> so, you know, at the oral argument, there was a lot of discussion about essentially a policy debate that seemed to be going on where you had the conservative justices saying they're worried about the department of justice and prosecutors and grand jurors going after presidents one after the other, that that's the thing that they're worried about. and you had justice jackson and others saying, that's not what i'm worried about. we don't have a history of that, what we do have is a former president who's under four indictments who's saying that when he retakes the presidency, he wants to go after people, and

you also do have a history of president who is arguably have abused their powers, let's take richard nixon. so you do have, on one hand, that's the thing to worried about, and so i think you see that in this opinion where they're basically saying we're going to, against, no historical record, this is what we're going to protect the president from without really thinking about that you have someone running for office. >> it almost seems as they're using the trump case as an academic one. they're saying donald trump's actions here, it's a good moment to define where presidential immunity lies, and they're not treating it as the special counsel has argued and democrats argue and a lot of folks saw what happened after the election in 2020 as an existential issue that needed to be addressed? >> i would agree with that. i also say they seem to be concerned about this unending cycle of prosecution. again, i know that chuck's view

of this is that the opinion puts a thumb on the scale not for president trump but for the executive. there are shades of that. viewed generously, you can read the section about, for example, the president's interaction with the justice department as precluding prosecution, for example, of former president biden and the attorney general for having brought about prosecutions in the first place, and maybe that's good news. on the other hand, it's hard to see how in considering this moment, they were not more swayed by the existential crisis of the person before us who is the reason the case was brought. the reason we don't have prosecutions in our 234 year history is not because as john saur argued, there was a presumption against prosecuting presidents, it was because we never would have elected a person to have done things this president is alleged to have done and the indictment and the court's failure to grapple with that more transparency is a failure. >> chuck push back, what are

your thoughts? >> i don't wholly disagree with anything lisa and andrew said. by the way, i think there are problems with the opinion, justice brown jackson touched on it, there are indeterminate standards that are going to make it hard for the district court judge to figure what's in, what's out, and how to go forward. all of that could be appealed. that said, i do think as lisa said, that this has more to do with a thumb on the scale for the executive and less to do with trump. i take the supreme court, and maybe i'm a fool, at their word, when they say they are writing for the ages. i know there's nothing in the constitution that specifically says a president has immunity. but it is implied and some level of immunity, both sides agree that oral argument was appropriate? >> you don't think it really fuzzies up the separation of powers? >> that's already pretty well fuzzed up, katy. it has been for a long time. >> so what authority does

anybody have over the executive? i mean, this gives him even more immunity. what authority is there to push back on the executive given this opinion? >> seemingly, less. >> or to hold the executive. >> seemingly less and less. there has been a shift, i think any presidential historian would tell you over the last several decades, authority from the congress has abdicated the role to the executive. it's easier to be a president, you're only one, than a member of a legislature where you're one of 535, that shift is ongoing. and this is a fairly dramatic illustration of it. but i don't think it's the end of the world. i do think it makes life much more difficult for the prosecutors because not only do they have to go down to a trial court and figure out, again, what's in and what's out, what's official and what's unofficial. but they're going to lose at least part of their case. >> sonia sotomayor was, as i

mentioned at the top, scathing her dissent, and lays out scenarios, which she believes would be fine now. she calls donald trump's actions treasonous and goes on to say the officials immunity lies about as a loaded weapon for any president who wishes to place his own interest, political survival or financial gain above the interest of the nation. the president of the united states is the most powerful in the country and perhaps the world. when he uses his power, he will be insulated from prosecution. oerds of navy sale 6 to assassinate a political rival, immune. organizes a coup to hold on to power, immune. exchanges a bribe for a pardon, immune, immune, immune, let the president violate the law, exploit the trappings of his office for personal gain, let him use his official power for evil ends.

if he knew he may one day face liability for breaking the law he might not be as bold and fearless as we would like him to be. that is the majority's message to be. there's never been a moment in history before where this line has needed to be drawn in this way. presidents have the office of legal counsel. they have lawyers on site. advising them where the lines are. why does the supreme court need to get into this? >> i think one of the most remarkable things in the majority opinion is they do not address those hypotheticals. so the concern going in was the hypothetical, the court of appeals, which is seal team 6. what if the president orders the assassination of his political adversary, and justice sotomayor is saying what about that, your test, how does it work. the argument is going to be made that that is official conduct. >> it's a case-by-case basis.

say that happens, does it get litigated. does there have to be an evidentiary hearing first, before it's brought to a full trial. what is the process by which a person who uses seal team 6 to assassinate a political rival, how are they held accountable? >> can i give you another example, where there won't be a hearing. if someone whose president says to the attorney general, i want you to bring a bogus prosecution against my political adversary, not death, just prosecution. this decision says communications between the president and the attorney general are absolutely immune. >> can't even bring them up as evidence. >> they're absolutely immune, and you can't even use it as evidence, yes. >> there's no discussion about whether that's official or unofficial. the court takes that fully off the table. they said it's a core constitutional function, that control over investigations and prosecutions fall into the core executive powers of the president, for which we don't get into the land of evaluate area hearings, and as andrew

says, that's a very frightening prospect that any president can use. forget about seal team 6 having the department of justice at your disposal to use their favorite word weaponize is it an extraordinary thing under the opinion. there's the case that jack smith has. it does still exist. the conversations that donald trump had with his department of justice seem to be off the table now, but there is a question about conversations he had with mike pence. those are presumptively immune, but it's up for debate, and then there are the fake set of electors, et cetera. so if you are jack smith, and you read this today, what are you seizing on? >> i'm not having a great day if i'm jack smith, and i'm reading this right now. but i think there are glimmers of hope, or at least things he can grab on to it and argue. for instance, in the january 6th indictment, katy, there are allegations that mr. trump consulted with private lawyers and private consultants, people

outside of the exec active -- executive branch, i would argue that's not immunized, and wholly within the prosecutors. to your point about conversations with mike pence, presumptively off limits but that presumption is rebuttable. that's hard. i don't mean to suggest it's easy that they're going to prevail. i think the prosecutors have arguments below, and the devil's in the details, and i hate that cliche, and i've used it 17 times told. it is. we have to see what judge chutkan does with it, and whether she can figure out the indeterminate standards that justices ketanji brown jackson warned of. there's chapters to be written. one problem, though, katy is that these chapters aren't going to be written for quite some time, and if mr. trump becomes president, perhaps not at all. >> it's over, he dismisses these cases, including the classified

documents says. thank you for starting us off, and thank you for coming in and trying to parse through what is just a significant and momentous day in our history. coming up, donald trump is saying today's scotus decision, quote, should end all of the other court cases against him. what's the ripple effect. plus, what president biden's family urged him to do over the weekend following his disaster of a debate performance last night. we're back in 90 seconds. or last week, i should say. , i y (kevin) now our businesses get fast and reliable internet from the same network that powers our phones. (aaron) so whatever's next... we're cooking with fire. (vo) switch to the partner businesses rely on. [introspective music] recipes. recipes that are more than their ingredients. ♪ [smoke alarm] recipes written by hand and lost to time... can now be analyzed and restored using the power of dell ai.

preserving memories and helping to write new ones. ♪ ♪ i'm gonna hold you forever... ♪ ♪ i'll be there... ♪ ♪ you don't... ♪ ♪ you don't have to worry... ♪

now that the supreme court has handed an arguable win for, what does the decision do for the campaigns. especially when the decision puts more onus on voters to choose a candidate with judgment. joining us now, nbc news correspondent vaughn hillyard. so, vaughn, donald trump is very happy today or at least he seems so. what does the campaign do with this? >> he called this a great day for not only him but a great day for america. and so obviously there's some ramifications on the federal election interference case. there's going to be the evidentiary hearing, sometime potentially before november 5th. so, you know, the american public may become a little bit more in tune with some of the evidence, the testimony that comes out in the trial. that will not happen until after the election. >> they ruled out a bunch of that evidence can be put out there. >> i want to show you two things real fast. these are social media reposts from donald trump overnight

here, he had a flurry of posts overnight. one of them is elizabeth cheney is guilty of treason, retruth, if you want, televised military tribunals. there's another post, the people that hid j 6 footage. you see mitch mcconnell, mike pence. the reason i bring these up here is that every day, every decision like this from the supreme court here, we're just four months out. all of this brings question marks about what a second trump term would look like. >> the question is how he uses the doj, the supreme court decision says he's wholly immune in his dealings with the justice department. you can't question it. you can't bring it up as evidence. it is absolute immunity for the president to deal with other members of the executive branch. they cite the attorney general, the acting attorney general in this opinion. if he's putting up pictures like that, saying that these people should be prosecuted, there is an open question of whether he

would use his doj to perform political prosecutions. >> right, there is long standing precedent that the president is separate from the prosecution and investigation of his department of justice, and now, not only could he potentially interfere with cases directly involving him, but he could potentially order his department of justice to go and investigate individuals. individuals like mike pence, mitch mcconnell, nancy pelosi and the decision, granting him absolute immunity, the department of justice or i should say the special counsel in their indictment, they lay out the allegation, he in december of 2020 is telling the department of justice officials to write letters to urge them to say there's election fraud and send a slate of electors to be counted on january 6th. there were conversations he had with doj officials of elevating clark to be the attorney general who could help overturn the 2020 election, and all of that is protected from absolute

immunity. we're talking about not only the past, but also what a trump administration could look like in the future. >> such a significant decision, such a significant day. vaughn hillyard, thank you very much. coming up, the bar for prosecuting donald trump just got a lot higher. what today's supreme court decision means for going to the polls in november. plus, how voters answered the question should joe biden be running after last week's debate. we've got new polling. don't go anywhere. t go anywhere.

z's baking the house special. arisa's styling a new look. and steve's filling his biggest order ever.

with the first ever comcast business five-year price lock guarantee, these business owners get five years of value on gig speed internet and advanced security. all from the company with 99.9% network reliability. so now they can focus on doing what they do best for the next five years. that's a lot of bread. you got this. the comcast business five-year price lock guarantee. switch today for a limited time.

president trump is still liable for everything he did while he was in office. as an ordinary citizen. unless the statute of limitations has run, still liable for everything he did while he's in office. didn't get away with anything yet. yet. we have a criminal justice system in this country.

we have civil litigation. presidents are not immune from being accountable by either one. >> except now he kind o us. minority leader mitch mcconnell said the senate lacked the power to convict a former office holder after they became a private citizen. why he did not vote, he says to convict donald trump in the impeachment trial. the supreme court has ruled that it's pretty hard to go after criminally a president for actions while he was in office. joining us now, former law clerk and judge sonia sotomayor, and slate senior editor, and msnbc law and politics analyst, dahlia lithwick. beyond the actual content of the majority opinion and the dissent, there is a prevailing tone, i think, of anger between the justices, and you tell me if i'm wrong here, melissa, because you know them much better than i do. the lack of the word respectfully in the dissents,

and some language and the majority opinion makes me feel like there's a lot of unsaid tension within the supreme court today. >> i think that's an understatement, katy, this term has a fractious one for the court. i think they tried to issue decisions where there's unanimity or consensus. the fact of many concurrences, there's still a lot of tensions about how decisions get made and what the rationales for those decisions will be. the chief justice in his majority seemed to be calling the three female dissenters, hyperbolic, fear mongering, i think the dissent is right that the long-term implications of this decision will be far reaching and will be incredibly consequential, thinking about this case and decision in the context of the decisions we received last week concerning the administrative state. in those decisions overruling chevron, the court said the

executive through administrative agencies cannot act like a king, going beyond the scope of the authority that congress vested in it. here today, the court seems to have no trouble with vesting the president with the executive with the powers of the king as well. this is something the dissents sharply pointed out. >> there was one moment in the majority opinion in the end where chief justice roberts writes about the minority and the dissent, and i want to read it to you. as i was reading through the opinion, it stood out as condescending. while their confidence may be inspiring, the court adheres to time tested practices instead. >> yeah, i think it's not entirely inaccurate to say that it's unfortunate how gendered that turns out to be, and don't forget, if you count amy coney barrett who peels off from the majority as to one specific

piece of this case, you literally have all four women justices in many places on one side of this case, and the men on the other. and so then when you get this sort of like there, there, little missy, you're overreacting, it feels very familiar to a lot of us. i think i also just want to lash it back to justice alito last week in the abortion case, also suggesting that the dissenters were emotional, and that this was an emotional issue. it does feel a little bit like 1970s vibe here, where women get positions of power, only to be told that this is about abstractions and dispassionate intellectual analysis, whatever it is you're doing, you're just too emotional. >> with this case, is this the ruling that this court will be

known for? is it the dobbs ruling? is it a set of rulings that say a certain thing? >> i don't think we can put any single ruling as the defining one for this court. this is a conservative super majority since obtaining the conservative super majority, each term has overruled a significant precedent of the courts that preceded it. so i think the overall take on this court is this is a court that is unleashed, unfettered by any restraints that had previously lashed any other courts. it is a court proceeding entirely on its own steam without any regard for what comes next or what has preceded it. it is hubris squared as justice sotomayor said last week in a decision. >> it's giving great deference, dahlia, to executive authority. >> in this case, as melissa noted, it was whittling away executive agency last week and for a substantial time before

and in the chevron case. here, again, i think if you turn this into a fight about theoretical powers of a theoretical president, who is theoretically at risk of an overzealous, deep state prosecution. you can kind of sort of get to where the chief justice is going. but given that that is not, in fact, the problem at hand and that i think we believed until recently that at minimum, the chief justice didn't think that this was like a deep state weaponizing the justice department to go after donald trump, it's an astounding, astounding place to plant the flag, to say we're going to have this theoretical ruling about chilling a theoretical president who wants to add boldly when absolutely nothing suggests that that is the problem at hand. the problem at hand is we read in the dissents is that we have a president who has committed criminal conduct and now claims he's above the law. >> they're using what they believe is implied in the

constitution to allow a president to violate the constitution. on the subject, melissa, if you can, of chief justice roberts, i think dahlia is pointing out something significant which was that people had started to assume that he was not a moderate, but leaning more in the moderate direction in the current makeup of the court with the current position that he has. did today blow a hole in that? >> well, i have never been of the view that chief justice roberts is a moderate. i have always said that chief justice roberts is a movement conservative who has been fed the mother's milk of the conservative legal movement. the only thing that restrained him is he served as the chief justice of the united states and he and he alone is the chief institutional steward of the federal judiciary and that has served as something of a restraint. we have succeeded in voting rights cases, this is something that's a true believer in the conservative legal movement, we saw it here today. it is the unitary executive theory on steroids.

everything must go through the executive branch and when it does, the executive cannot be held to account, there is a clearly private act, most acts may fall into the clearly constitutional bucket or the bucket where it is presumptively appropriate and therefore presumptively immunized. so this is a sweeping grant of authority to the executive branch. this is a court that is irrigated power to itself and now irrigating power to the president. >> dahlia lithwick, thank you very much. still ahead, what voters are saying as president biden plans the next steps in his campaign. does he stay or go. arlem is hom. 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. 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. (man) mm, hey, honey. prilosec otc. looks like my to-do list grew. "paint the bathroom, give baxter a bath, get life insurance," hm. i have a few minutes. i can do that now. oh, that fast? remember that colonial penn ad? i called and i got information.

they sent the simple form i need to apply. all i do is fill it out and send it back. well, that sounds too easy! (man) give a little information, check a few boxes, sign my name, done. they don't ask about your health? (man) no health questions. -physical exam? -don't need one. it's colonial penn guaranteed acceptance whole life insurance. if you're between the ages of 50 and 85, your acceptance is guaranteed in most states, even if you're not in the best health. options start at $9.95 a month, 35 cents a day. once insured, your rate will never increase. a lifetime rate lock guarantees it. keep in mind, this is lifetime protection. as long as you pay your premiums, it's yours to keep. call for more information and the simple form you need to apply today. there's no obligation, and you'll receive a free beneficiary planner just for calling.

with chewy, it's never been easier to get their favorite toy delivered again, come on, let go. and again, and again. good luck. get whatever they love delivered right on time. save 35% on your first autoship order with chewy.

now that the supreme court has ruled that presidents enjoy broad presumed if not absolute immunity, the burden on voters to choose wisely just got heavier. the question of whether president biden is the best candidate to keep donald trump out of office more cute. what will president biden do? according to sources familiar who spoke with nbc news, his family told him to keep fighting at a pre-planned retreat at camp david this weekend. is that the safest bet? the editorial board for the company's prominent newspaper say he should step aside, like james carville, thomas friedman, who personally argued it is the democrat party's duty to make a

change after the debate. the concerns are echoed privately as well. in my conversations over the weekend, lawmakers, donors, and senior officials in the obama white house all called into question not just his ability to campaign but to govern. more importantly, though, voters are worried. according to a new cbs poll of registered voters done after the debate, 72% say he does not have the mental and cognitive health to serve as president. nbc news cautions a poll taken so quickly after a debate can lead to squishy results, but these results showing 72% of voters also don't want him to run are well in line with what voters have been saying for a year now. which is give me someone else. joining us now, former adviser to george w. bush, john mccain, and creator of the circus, mark mckinnon, and white house communications director for president obama and cohost of msnbc's "how to win 2024" podcast, jennifer palmieri. jen, what do you think?

>> i think a lot of things. okay. let's see, it's monday. i had to actually check myself. it's monday. this happened thursday night. i think people are still processing all of it. i think that you had a very initial, you know, like very high degree of concern thursday night. >> a visceral level of shock and horror. >> shock and horror. and then, you know, i myself have some humility about judging how the american people are going to react to joe biden because i was definitely wrong. i thought he should not run in '20. i thought he couldn't win. and i didn't think he was going to get the nomination, and he did. and i think that some of us, you know, who have been in politics a long time, kind of use old metrics for judging how people are going to react to him. he's older and people aren't going to like that. people decide a long time ago, he's the guy to take on trump, and they have stuck with that. we need to give it time to

understand how people are processing this. that 72% number you showed me is horrifying, it was 67 last week. so, i mean, that's not great either. that's very concerning as well. i'm not sure how much of a difference it's going to make. but, you know, we are in totally uncharted territory, and the white house understands they need to do more to reassure people about, you know, where the president is and why that happened. but, you know, we are just living hour by hour now. >> i wonder when a decision will be prudent. we have another poll, and we're going to aggregate polling over the next week or two and have a better consensus of where the americans stand. this is a usa today suffolk poll. nbc news will caution after a debate, it can be squishy. 44% says it does not impact their decision about who they will vote for.

10% say it made them more likely to vote for biden. 9% third party. the poll also finds a sizable share of democrats, 41% who say biden should be replaced as the party's nominee. 51% say he should remain their standard bearer. this is going to be a close election that will come down to a few voters, a few thousand voters who are going to make a decision, and i wonder, mark, as the conversation turns from not just can he campaign, but can he govern over the next four years. how does a candidate come back from that and convince those on the fence voters, those voters who might shrug their shoulders and say, why should i show up to vote, that he's worth their time. >> exactly right. listen, it was going to be a close election before the debate. i'm shot sure it will be anymore, if biden remains the nominee. i was clear and wrote about the debate. it was a smart, strategic thing,

to do the debate and to do it early. but i said it was a high risk strategy. i mean, he had to get out there and show that he could be -- spend 90 minutes on the stage, with full cognitive ability and vigor and stamina. if he didn't, there's no net. that could be the end of the campaign, and the only good news about that that there is time between now and the convention to do something about it. i think and i think a lot of other voters think, too, if biden is the nominee, he will lose, period, end of sentence. that's it. he's not going to rebound from this. there's been lots of days like this, there's going to be lots more days like it. 72% of the country have said, he does not have the cognitive health to be president. he's not going to get better between now and november. yes, it's hard. all of those things, but at least democrats would be excited and enthusiastic. nobody is going to be excited about joe biden, it's only going to get worse, katy, in my

opinion. >> i was talking to a democratic donor over the weekend. there are conversations about where to put the money and the money will mean a lot to joe biden. and these are people that have had concerns about joe biden for a while now. they had concerns after a fundraiser that he did here in new york last fall, walking out of it saying, oh, my god, i don't think he's well. that was last fall. going forward, does the money stick by him, and is he still the best option. >> i mean, that's what, you know, like, we don't know, you know, it's like, this is what people are -- i think people are approaching this with a lot of -- >> you're starting to change your opinion because you were so stallworth for so long, and now to hear you say we're not sure. >> i'm being realistic. i think that -- what i think is like, right now, the reaction is people, actual voters are having his back, and the elite are the

one that is don't. okay. that is what's happening. and is that happening because the elites know better? or is that happening because the elites are out of touch. i'm not being snarky. i'm being sincere. >> i think the base is going to be with the democrats. >> the donors, they raised $33 million from the debate. that's a very big number. individual donors may be saying they have concerns, right, this is like -- so there's like two tracks here, and the question is what is the one that we can count on that's real, and, you know, people have -- they talk about the president's speech, excuse me, friday, in north carolina. you know, it was a strong speech, and it was like, you know, his message was great. what was important about that was the way people reacted to him. right, and so i think we all have to say, you know, make sure he's capable of doing the job, and it's a big deal for people to suggest that he's not, right.

we're talking about the president of the united states here. let's have some evidence that he's not actually able to do the job before we conclude that. you know, obviously very concerning the debate. and then how it's going to -- then understand how it's going to impact the race. >> change is also risky. >> i'm out of time. >> i'm sorry. i totally monopolized mark. >> does it make you like after today's decision, and hearing that someone like donald trump could have broad immunity for a second term, and who knows how he could use the justice department, do you get a lump in your throat, seize up saying, oh, my god, and do you think is joe biden the right guy for this? is he going to convince the fence voters, he needs enthusiasm to win. >> we're processing it all. if anything, what it makes you think is this is about a principal, not a person. this race is about, like, are we going to have a democracy or not. for real. >> it's a person running for the approximately. >> you're asking for immediate

reaction, that's what i think. >> i'm getting the wrap. >> sorry. >> i really need to be wrapped. >> jen and mark, thank you very much. still ahead, we're going to go back to today's top story out of the supreme court. what a second trump could look like. and sure looks like it in france, what the far right did in last night's elections. don't go anywhere. iberogast bloating iberogast thanks to a unique combination of herbs, iberogast helps relieve six digestive symptoms to help you feel better. six digestive symptoms. the power of nature. iberogast. (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 won't let my moderate to severe plaque psoriasis symptoms define me. emerge as you. with tremfya®, most people saw 90% clearer skin at 4 months and the majority stayed clearer, at 5 years. serious allergic reactions may occur. tremfya® may increase your risk of infections and lower your ability to fight them. tell your doctor if you have an infection or symptoms or if you had a vaccine or plan to. emerge as you. emerge tremfyant®. ask you doctor about tremfya®. ( ♪♪ ) (♪♪) imagine checking your own heart

with medical precision from anywhere. introducing kardiamobile 6l, the fda-cleared ekg that provides six-times more heart data than any smartwatch. and it detects three of the most common arrhythmias in just 30 seconds, including atrial fibrillation, bradycardia and tachycardia. check your heart with the most advanced personal ekg outside the hospital. get yours at kardia.com or amazon. (♪♪)

who we've spoken to before about donald trump's attraction to thoern tarianism, his book is called "when the clock broke, con plan, spearists and how america cracked up in the early 1990s," it is now, congratulations, a "new york times" best seller. thanks for being here. >> thanks for having me on. >> we had a conversation in the past about donald trump's war toward authoritarianism, which we mention and quite a bit of immunity, note just presumed but absolute immunity especially when it comes to the d.o.j., what would a donald trump presidency look like under those terms? >> i think he has pretty much explicitly made those threats. he has talked about using the power of the state against political enemies. he thinks that is what is done to him and he think it would be

justified to do it to others. during the george floyd protest, there was some discussion among high elected officials about invoking the insurrection act. there has been some discussion about trump invoking the ichbs recollection act immediately upon, insurrection act immediately upon election if there was a vast protest in the united states. so i think pretty much we have to think in terms of the worst case scenarios about his use and abuse of the powers. >> and when he invokes the insurrection act, what happens? >> he is ordered to permit the military on the streets of american cities and they could potentially use lethal force against american cities. >> and his orders are presumed under official acts according to this ruling? >> yes, i mean soldiers are not supposed to follow illegal orders but it is unclear if those orders would legal under these circumstances. >> when we talk about donald trump and toward authoritarianism, is that being too alarmist given the donald trump that we have experienced in 2016 through 2021?

>> no, i think it's pretty clear that his own conception of himself as a leader is that he has a special connection with the real people of the united states that is not bounded by law, precedent, or tradition, and he is just sort of an expression of them, and he can do anything that he feels necessary to accomplish their ends which are identicalle with his ends. >> how did we get to this point? you wrote about the 1990s. how are we here in 2024? >> i think there is a long tradition on american right about interest and curiosity about a more authoritarian form of rule, pat bu cannen who was a major precedent for trump, always viewed watergate as a kind of a deep state coup against richard nixon, someone he admired deeply, and he thought it was a missed opportunity to do kind of a counter-coup on behalf of the real american people that he thought nixon represented. and then samuel francis, another person i write about in the book

conceived of the presidency as a kind of caesar, as populist authoritarian system that could be used to smash up liberal elites and replace it with a government on behalf of middle americans. >> john, on that happy note, thank you so much. >> sure. any time. >> congratulations on making the best seller list. "when the clock broke," on sale at stores now. john, thank you. and still ahead, what president ma crone is doing to prevent france's first parlay government since the nazi occupation in world war ii. what can he do? don't go anywhere. don't go anywhere. (woman) oh no! (man) woah, woah, woah! (woman) no, no, no, no, no! (woman) great. (man) ughhh. (man) dude. (vo) you break it. we take it. trade in any phone, in any condition. guaranteed. and get a new iphone 15 with tons of storage, on us.

(woman) oh yeah. only on verizon. dusting is the worst. there's gotta be a better way. so i gave swiffer a shot. love it! duster gets in all those hard-to-reach-places... trapping 3 times more dust! switching to swiffer. totally worth it. love it, or your money back. want a next level clean? swish with the whoa of listerine. it kills 99.9% of bad breath germs for five times more cleaning power than brushing and flossing alone. get a next level clean... ahhhhh with listerine. feel the whoa! oh no. running low? with chewy, always keep their bowl full. save 35% on your first autoship order. get the food they love. delivered again and again.

(♪♪) [thud]

france might be making a hard turn right. voters delivered a resounding blow yesterday to incumbent macron's centrist party in the first round of legislative

elections, vaulting far right politicians in france even closer to the nation's seat of power and prompting thousands of parisians to take to the streets in protest. joining us now from paris, nbc news chief international correspondent keir simmons. this was a gamble by macron and one that does not look like is paying off. >> reporter: it sure doesn't, katy. some of this will resonate over there and some of it won't. this landslide, this electoral earthquake was started by a guy who was 28 years old, grew up impoverished, didn't go to university, but the party he leads, former fascist, anti--immigration, not positive about europe, warm about president putin, not positive about supporting ukraine in that war, and 33% of the vote. now, you're right there, is another vote next there, but they left president macron's

party far behind. the left is divided. the far left, the centrists and even center right, they're trying to unite against the far right. but the question is, will they be able to do that? and when it comes to president macron, we're learning how to say humiliated in multiple european languages as these headlines get read across this continent. it is deeply, deeply concerning for those in the center in europe. it is likely to change the politics of europe, particularly if the far right wins. the far right government may be welcoming olympians this summer. >> keir simmons, thank you very much. and that is going to do it for me today. deadline white house starts right now. rts right now. hi there, everyone. it is 4:00 in new york and the very last decision of its term, the highest court in the land