yolk situation, but an interesting point. >> as i talk to folks on the hail, there's a lot of animosity against bob good as a colleague? >> yeah, we saw some of his colleagues endorsing against him. we have seen that in other primaries. seems like a toxic situation for republicans up there. >> toxic is definitely one way to describe it. my sources have been animated about this race from the moment that i said a few weeks ago that we were going to cover it, i think the fact that we were able to do it and get on the ground and ask these candidates questions is critically important. thanks for being a partner and coming on and talking to us about it. keep us posted. that's it for me today. thank you for being with us over the past two hours, a very busy time. you can follow me on social media using @ali vitali and enjoy your independence day holiday. "deadline: white house" starts

right now. hi there, everybody. it's 4:00 in the east. it is the single most important decision in what could be the single most important election in the history of the story of our country. one that will affect our children and their children and generations beyond. and with so much on the line, whatever president joe biden decides to do with his campaign, is it buck up or bow out, what he decides will shape the course of our american future, our american story, and let us underscore part of what we just said, whatever joe biden decides, that's where this decision lies, according to the available reporting, with one person, president joe biden, given the stakes, it's natural to hunger, to know what comes next. but the truth is no one knows what comes next, and that appears to include the president himself at this hour. we as humans are not good at this, the unknowing part. jooild has more than earned the

-- joe biden has more than earned the space and grace to do what he's doing now, to data. we were told by officials that the data will shape and drive his next moves. "new york times" reporter citing a single anonymous source that the president told a key ally he knows he may not be able to salvage his candidacy if he can not convince the public in the coming days that he's up for the job after a disastrous debate performance last week. nbc news has not confirmed that conversation. the white house this afternoon vehemently denying it took place. press secretary karine jean-pierre calling the "new york times" reporting absolutely false. were it a week ago, we might have dismissed out of hand, now it adds to the feeling of uncertainty in this moment. for his part, the president who now suggests that his debate performance was the result of global travel is going about his normal presidential duties. this hour, he's expected to

award posthumous medals of honor to a pair of civil war heroes. we'll show you that when it happens. later this evening, he'll meet with democratic governors virtually and in person on this very topic, the state of his campaign. his staff is also trying to reassure others and themselves, apparently, that biden 2024 is still all systems go. this afternoon, the campaign held an all staff call with the president and vice president on that call. the topic was staying the course. that message, though, might best be directed at president joe biden's big donors today. many of them have been waiting for reliable, accurate polling data, before plotting their next choices, their paths forward. today they got some of that. new data from the "new york times" indicates among likely voters, donald trump who is already ahead expanded his lead over joe biden by 6 points following the debate. among registered voters, that figure balloons to nine points,

outside the margin of error. notably donald trump, a want to be dictator, with the reflexive habit of posting anything and everything at all hours of the day, true or false, has been practically silent about the future and fate of joe biden's candidacy on social media. whatever the reason for that, the threat he poses looms large. and is not lost on president biden's circle. as elected democrats try to figure out what comes next, listen to how congressman jamie raskin, one of the democrats party's most influential voices describes this moment to our colleagues, chris hayes. >> there will be lots of discussion, and lots of people weighing in, and i know this is a moving target, it's got to happen quickly. i can guarantee you, chris hayes, there will be massive unity and focus on that task when we get to the end of this process. >> every passing minute brings us closer to the democratic national convention, then to

election day after that. it's worth repeating. this is a profoundly consequential and silver moment in american political history, and to borrow a favorite phrase from president joe biden, quote, that's not hyperbole. we start with some of our favorite reporters and friends, host of politics nation on msnbc, the president of the national action network, the reverend al sharpton is here, senior opinion writer and columnist for the boston globe, kim atkins storr is here, and matt dowd is here. first, i want to thank all of you for being here. this is story that feels like it antagonizes a lot of our audience. it's a hard story to tell. i have mountains of admiration for the president and his family, what they have sacrificed in the spirit of public service. i also have a duty to cover this story wherever it goes. i appreciate all of you being

here. i want to share the reporting and ask all of you to sort of help us make sense of it for our audience. president obama, rev, is reported to be looking at what i understand the white house is looking at, the data. and this is what the "washington post" reports, quote, former president barack obama has privately told allies who have reached out to him that president biden's already touch path to reelection grew more challenge after his shaky debate performance on thursday. a harsher assessment of the presidential race than his public comments, according to several people familiar with his remarks. the white house was reported to have been waiting for this "new york times" poll, which is why we led with it as well. and it is another blow, if you will, for the state of the presidential race. >> i beg that aside from polling, which could go up and down given whatever happens in the next few days, but i think

that i certainly agree with those that say joe biden deserves the right and space to make his decision. look at what he's been able to do as president, and i think he should not be rushed into a decision one way or another. secondly, i think that we're on the eve of the fourth of july. when we saw what the supreme court just did, in terms of the powers of a presidency, i don't know how we celebrate the fourth tomorrow without really making a campaign issue. can we even risk having someone who has openly said he wanted to be a dictator on day one, openly said he wants retribution, to sit in that chair while we have a constitutional crisis with this right wing supreme court. so i think more than "the new york times" poll, the supreme court decision changed everything for a lot of people. we cannot risk that.

whatever the president decides, and i certainly think it's an awful standard to have, now, say, one bad debate, now you out of the race. i don't know whether we can sustain that throughout the rest of presidential history. you blow it one time, you're out of the race, unless there are et of the race, unless there are other underlying circumstances. but i think the supreme court decision has to be front and center, and i think media needs to talk more about that than to talk about some debate and the polling because america changed yesterday. we're getting ready to have barbecue when the supreme court is just barbecued our rights. >> does that -- i appreciate your point, and i agree with your point. we spent a lot more time on the supreme court than we have on the state of any race, presidential or otherwise. i associate myself with your opinions on this.

i want to ask you what conversations you're having. >> i'm having conversations with a lot of people off the record, and most of them have said that they think that president biden will go, will carry on, and he will go forward. i've also had some that said they're hoping that he will go forward, i've not had any civil rights leaders or people that i've talked to in government that said he should step aside. but even more telling, i do a syndicated radio show every day, and i maybe had one caller out of 50 or more that i handled over two days or three days, maybe 20 callers a day, only one has said he ought to step aside. i think that the public really became incensed at a lot of what donald trump had to say. this whole thing of black jobs and the lies he told, i think and many of them watch your show

and talked about how you fairly parsed that out. people are ignoring the offensive stuff that was said. i was disturbed when joe biden couldn't finish one or two sentences. i was measure disturbed with the sentences donald trump did finish. >> yeah, it's a great way to underscore what is actually in front of the voters. matt dowd, it was your job to read polls. i have to say to the rev's point, if a debate performance shaped presidential political history, george bush never would have been elected. he bombed his first debate. i think three of the debates against john kerry, so that is also true. but i don't want to ignore what voters are saying. i care a lot less about what the press is saying, what the polls are saying, it is also true, and it is a painful truth that there are a lot of people concerned, not just about a debate performance but about joe biden's age.

what is your counsel for this campaign and this white house? >> well, i'm really glad we're having this conversation, and i'm really glad you started it off about saying that we need to give joe biden grace and space. i think we all deserve grace and space at any moment in our life, and so especially the president of the united states. i mean, i think what this has done is elicited an incredible emotional response in this moment because the stakes are so high, and in many people's minds, especially people that are watching the show, our democracy is at stake. and as the reverend said, the supreme court decision underlined that more. the supreme court said donald trump wants to be a dictator, and we're going to let him be a dictator. that's basically what the supreme court allowed and said and gave permission for in the course of this, which is incredibly scary, and emotionally in the course of this. to me, there's two separate issues to look at, the one grace

and space for the president, and i for one am not one that calls for he needs to step down or i don't think others should, that don't have influence over the process or over his decision. it's going to be his decision, and his decision alone, and there's very few people that will have influence over him, to him, in that process in the course of this. one, whatever we say, is not going to alter the course of what biden does in the course of this, and so, in fact, i think many of us, we get out there and say he should step back, it's actually going to have the reverse effect of what people want. i think people are going to dig in in the course of this, so i just think that's one part of the conversation and the president will make that decision. the other part is the polling. and i will disagree with something that rev rand said, and i agree with 99% of what he said, this isn't about one debate. the problem with these sorts of things in this environment that we're in is that debates can

confirm narratives, positively or negatively, and what the debate did with joe biden, in his performance was confirm a narrative that developed. he's too old, not competent. when he has a debate like that, he confirms the negative. for passive voters, they had a narrative already and it confirmed that. all the polls have shown there's a large group of the public that doesn't think the president, and whether we agree with it or not, the public thinks this, doesn't think president biden is up to doing his job in the course of this. i would say when you look at all the polls, "the new york times" polls, it's important, and i would lock at likely voters in the course of this is that the race has moved two points or so to donald trump's credit in the course of this. around two points. when you look at all the polls.

so some are better, some are worse. most people say, oh, that's not anything. the problem is, the problem, i think, fundamentally is that this is not a race like 2004, and i was there, you and i were there at the first debate that george bush had against john kerry, and you remember, we were in the back room, and i said if you send me out there to talk to the press i'm going to tell him that george w. bush just lost the debate. i go out and tell them that or i don't go out at all. and i remember you said, don't go out and tell them that, which i didn't say a word in the course of this. george w. bush lost four points in that first debate. the problem today, and people say, well, joe biden's only lost two and george w. bush lost four, the problem is that we were trading in the margin in 2004 around 10 or 12 points. there was a 10 or 12 point margin you could trade in. today, the margin you're trading in in joe biden versus donald

trump is about a five-point margin. when you lose two points in a five-point margin, that's incredibly significant, and i think the fear, the fear that many have, is that joe biden, if something happens that, again, confirms this narrative, if he's in an interview and stumbles. if he's at another debate and stumbles, it's only going to lock in more solidly the perceptions that people have in that. that's, i think, the difficulty. they're going to look at the polls. the people that have going to have influence are going to weigh in privately to the president of the united states, as some members of congress. president obama i think is one of those people that can weigh in in the course of this. but let's not, you know, fool ourselves. a two point or a three-point drop in a five-point margin delta is significant, and it needs to be taken into account in this perilous time and moment we're in where the stakes are so

incredibly high. >> i'm so inspired by all of your candor, and depth, and so i want to follow up with you, matt, and then charlie and kim, i'll bring you in on the other side of a break. i feel like one of the other structural things that campaign folks are going to look at matt dowd, and the reason they pitched this debate, this was the biden campaign's idea, to have this debate on this day, done this way, was because unlike before, there aren't a lot of opportunities to reshuffle the race. they're outside events, but nobody can plan for any of those, and if there aren't any debates, i mean, there's one more, i think, scheduled for the fall, the conventions haven't really been huge movers on either side in terms of reshuffling the race, do you see a lot of opportunities to reshuffle the race in president biden's favor. >> the only other opportunity, and this is what's dicey, the only other real opportunity is the next debate, is the debate in september. that's really the only last and best opportunity.

i think his giving an interview, which i think is scheduled with george stephanopoulos on abc news is important. it's not going to reshuffle the deck of this problem until you get millions of millions of people watching another debate, and they can see, well, that was a oneoff. joe biden really is, here's what he is, and we're okay and confirmed in that. it's not going to be fixed. i'm sorry to tell people in the campaigns, it's not going to be fixed by television ads. it's not going to be fixed on any of those things because the audiences are too small, and the people question television ads because they know they're scripted and canned and they discount them, and they have been discounting them for the last 20 years, the effectiveness of the television ads in a campaign. the problem is, if we say the next best and only opportunity is in september, that's after

the conventions and that's after ballots have their people's names on them. so to me, though we can't hurry up joe biden in making this decision, they're on the clock in the course of this, and they need to make a decision, i think, relatively soon, whether it's five days, a week, or whatever it happens to be, i don't think it can go all the way to the day the convention opens because after that, there's no fixing the problem until the next debate, and if that doesn't go well, it's probably bar the door. >> and that seems to illuminate jamie raskin's comments which i found startling at the moment, i saw them live. that seems to sort of support or be the similar view that jamie raskin was articulating. i want to spend as much time with you kim and charlie. i have to sneak in a break first. we'll have that conversation on the other side. also ahead, as the rev alluded

to, we'll turn to the supreme court conservative supermajority's decision, there's a real push to make sure the court doesn't go anywhere further than they already have in this last term. we'll talk with a group stepping up the efforts in the campaign about how they do that. later in the broadcast, more on what absolute immunity for a president could look like for donald trump, if he's reelected. especially when it comes to u.s. national security. at seal team 6 scenario looking like an alarming reality to some intelligence experts. we'll talk about that and more when "deadline: white house" continues after a quick break. don't go anywhere today. r a qui. don't go anywhere today.

the cockroach. resilient creatures. true miracles of evolution. where there is one, others aren't far behind. always scavenging for food, the cockroach... well that's horrifying. ortho home defense max indoor insect barrier. one application kills and prevents bugs for 365 days. not in my house you don't. nature is wild. your home doesn't have to be. ♪ i am, i cried ♪ na[ laughing ]. ♪ i am, said i ♪ ♪ and i am lost and i can't ♪ punch buggy red. ♪ even say why ♪ ♪ i am, i said ♪ ♪ ♪

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.

we're back with the rev, kim, charlie, and matt. so, kim, the piece of it that i think is so traumatic for the biden coalition, which is the only political coalition in our country's history that defeated trump, trumpism and trumpist is that there's no symmetry, there's no remorse. mitch mcconnell who referred donald trump criminally for prosecution, which he couldn't do now because the supreme court, he had as strong of a hand in shaping anyone other than donald trump said presidents are immune. they just fell back into line. they already function as though they live in an autocracy and trump is an autocratic leader. this sort of raw pain and anxiety that i think president biden's coalition is living in is also this feeling of just how brutally unfair the process is. there's a lot of hatred for the media. i don't know what other word to use, but people should know that

the biden high command is engaging with the media. this is not a story that's been fabricated, but it is a story that feels deeply unfair to a lot of folks in the biden coalition. >> that may be true. listen, you're absolutely right that the difference between republicans and democrats is that donald trump could have fallen unconscious on that stage, and still gotten the republicans that he has now, that solid support that allowed him to coast to the nomination. democrats -- listen, it is not my job to be a spokesperson for democrats, it's my job to say what is needed to protect our democracy from the existential threat that is donald trump, and that's voting for democrats right now. instead of rallying behind the president or saying i support the president or whoever the nominee will be in this moment, you have democrats not just privately but publicly bickering

and fighting with one another about what should be done now this far past the primary when what is the alternative? nobody is asking the question. okay, what if biden steps aside, what now? have we seen how democrats handle open conventions or anything close to that? do we remember 1968 when johnson decided not to run again? how did that end? that ended with the election of richard nixon. did we see 1980 when jittery democrats thought ted kennedy could come to the rescue. how did that end, with the inauguration of ronald reagan. 2016, hillary clinton won it. you had so many bernie sanders delegates booing and crying and vetching as she accepted the nomination, many of those doing things like voting for jill steen, ending with the election

of donald trump. democrats don't do that well. what democrats need to do is take a page from republicans and say, we understand the existential threat that we are facing. we are seeing a presidential candidate who already is saying he will be a dictator from day one, and who believes that the supreme court just gave him absolute immunity. the president bragging, who stood on television and told everyone to inject disinfectant, and is doing campaign rallies about electrical currents and sharks, and nobody is doing an hour long press conference asking him about that, the way we saw the hour long press conference asking a thousand ways about joe biden's cold. democrats need to buck up, look at the threat, and fight against that threat and stop fighting against each other. our democracy depends on it, and time is up. . >> kim, i'm going to need you to

say a little more. >> listen, it's just really frustrating because i understand what people saw in that debate, and i understand exactly what matt said. what that did was confirm a narrative. who spun that narrative about joe biden not being fit for the job? republicans did. his opponents did. and what democrats are doing now is confirming that based on their reactions to what's happening. listen, i get donors with all of their money who get jittery when polls move. i even also get elected lawmakers who are so focused on their own reelections and being down ballot from joe biden that they may not be acting completely rationally. we need everyone, including the press to speak very clearly about the threat that we are facing, and that is a threat to democracy itself. have we forgotten that donald trump fomented an insurrection.

have we forgotten that he has been found by a court to be a sexual abuser. have we forgotten how fearful we were when he was at the helm of the pandemic response. and for democrats, have we forgotten that they have had a candidate with a successful administration, who has seen wages rise, inflation fall. it's not fast enough for everybody. itst not perfect. our economy is not perfect. i remember during the trump administration when every economist was promising us that we would have a post pandemic recession. guess what, we didn't have any. guess what, people had their student loans forgiven. we have fewer border crossings right now, when republicans refused to back border security because donald trump told them not to. we also have a vice president who we haven't even mentioned yet, kamala harris, who stands ready, should anything, god forbid, happen to joe biden, she stands ready to step in. she will stand ready to step in

next term too. all of this talk about him stepping aside because he can't perform four more years is tremendously disrespectful to her. what i want is for democrats to get a grip and to fight. that is what this moment needs. not hand wringing and public bickering about this. >> i need you to say one more thing about kamala harris. i see something in some of the reporting that benefit of the doubt she never gets as vice president, which is newfound confidence, not just in her governing abilities, her championing and warning about reproductive freedoms, but of her as a candidate, which is amazing, kim, to your point. >> that is absolutely right. i mean, the gavel gavelization,o organize with governors in states that believe in

reproductive rights to give them everything they need to do the same. in the state of massachusetts, stockpiling mifepristone before it got banned was driven largely by vice president kamala harris. she is on the job. she is visible. i think a lot of reasons people are saying where is she was in part because you have a news media that hasn't been focused on her, for whatever reason, they have made their decision to the -- to do there. she is there. she will continue to be there as a partner in every bit of the successes in this administration to carry them on, again, god forbid if anything happened to joe biden. we have seen her attacked from the right with, you know, assumptions, again, confirming a narrative that she is not qualified, she is not able because she is a woman of color, that is not true, and so democrats who know her, who have seen her can also get behind her and tell that narrative too, as opposed to publicly fretting.

i need democrats to fight. if democrats had half of the fight that maga republicans had backing donald trump, we would be in a different situation. >> on that note, charlie sykes. >> deep breath here because this fretting and this bickering is what democracy looks like and at this point, democrats do need to fight, but they need to fight for democracy, and they need to fight for the country, and they need to put the country over the party, and any individual. look, the reason we're having this conversation is because donald trump is such an existential threat to this country, the supreme court raised the stakes exponentially. the reason we are having this hammering, is because it is so urgent and we are all so committed to not allowing a second trump presidency, which i think is even more dangerous than it was before monday. but the reality is that joe biden has to face, you know, two major questions, and the

american people do deserve answers to this. he has to answer the question and prove to the voters that, number one, he has what it takes to beat donald trump. it's not enough to simply rally around someone who, in fact, is going to hand the presidency to donald trump. so that's number one. number two, tens of millions of americans have real questions about whether or not he is fit to be president for the next four years. you know, we can roll our eyes at that, but these are, as we were discussing, as matt mentioned, this has been a narrative for some time. polls show people have doubts about that. "the new york times" poll today shows that 3/4 of american voters right now think that joe biden is too old to be president. so the question democrats have to ask, is if donald trump is an existential threat to democracy, if democracy is on the ballot, are you willing to risk it all on a man that 3/4 of americans think is too old?

now, joe biden does have this time to turn it around. i think he deserves that opportunity. what does he have to do? he has to do the long form interviews, like the one he's going to do with george stephanopoulos. he's going to have to do unscripted press conferences. his white house is going to have to release credible and transparent medical information about his condition. he's got to reassure the country. now, if he did all of those things, it doesn't necessarily solve the problem. as matt mentions, i'm being told, he has good days and bad days. after last thursday, in a presidential race where the stakes are this high, he can not afford the bad days. the scrutiny is there. there's something else we ought to lay on the table. the reason we are here today is because i think that there's been a lot of denialism, and i think that there has been a lot of gaslighting and i think that

the biden white house has a credibility problem because i think that a lot of democrats turned on that debate, and they had been prepped to think that he was going to show up, he's going to be vigorous, tough, he was going to take on this guy, who was erratic, this autocrat, this guy who was notoriously unprepared, and when joe biden shuffled out there and was -- turned in the performance that we saw, people were shocked, and i think you have to ask yourself, why were we shocked? were we misled? was there a bubble around joe biden? what do we not know. what have we not been told? and i think in a democracy, we need to ask these questions, and we need to have answers to these questions because, number one, i think, you know, the american people deserve to know what their president can do, but also, folks, the fight is not about joe biden alone. the fight is about saving the

country from another trump term. that's why they have to answer these questions. they've got to do the interviews and the press conferences. as matt mentioned, he's got to do it over and over and over again. after that convention, the risks keep rising, so the question is how much do you want to gamble the future of american democracy on this, and quite frankly, i don't think it's disrespectful for democrats to say, would we be better off with kamala harris? would we be better off shaking this whole thing up. one of the reasons why donald trump, i think, is so quiet is because he wants to see how this plays out, but in the mind of donald trump, look, i know a lot of republicans are going to say, oh, we would love to be able to run against kamala harris, you know, we would beat her, but the reality is that that would be a dramatic change in the ynamic of this race. i'm not saying what joe biden

should do right now, whether he should get out of the race, but he needs to do certain things, and he needs to do them urgently, and one last comment, we are now a week out from that debate, and he really hasn't done any of those things yet, and i think that's a cause for concern, and i think there ought to be more questions, why have we not had that press conference. why have we not had that interview. why are we not getting the medical information for the white house because the clock is running on this. >> charlie sykes, kim atkins stohr, reverend al sharpton, matt dowd, i'm grateful for the things you share, especially today. thank you so much for starting us off with your wisdom and candor, we're grateful. also today, donald trump again, saying the quiet part outloud, underscoring everything everyone has said about the stakes in november. he actually praised the supreme court for giving him the power to escape any and all accountability for his criminality. how groups are mobilizing right

now to ensure reform at the high court is on the table. that story is next. table. that story is next you can count on pods to deliver when we say we will. which is why we were voted america's #1 container moving company. book your move today at pods.com

it's odd how in an instant things can transform. slipping out of balance into freefall. (the stock market is now down 23%). this is happening people. where there are so few certainties... (laughing) look around you. you deserve to know. as we navigate a future unknown. i'm glad i found stability amidst it all. gold. standing the test of time. america was founded in defiance of a king, under the belief that no one is above the law, not even the president, until now. the same trump supreme court that overturned roe v. wade ruled that the president can ignore the law, even to commit a crime because donald trump asked

them to. he's already led an insurrection and threatened to be a dictator on day one. donald trump can never hold this office again. >> a chilling warning, a brand new ad from the biden campaign this morning from the damage the trump supreme court has unleashed on the country with the new decision that presidents are now completely immune from prosecution for their official acts. the immunity decision brings greater urgency to the movement to impose some semblance of ethical standards and impartiality on this highly politicized court. one group demand justice announcing a $10 million investment to, quote, advocate for supreme court reform, and prepare for the effects a second trump administration could have on the judiciary. it cannot come soon enough as the dangers for our democracy posed by monday's decision are already coming into sharp focus. yesterday, donald trump posted on social media that the ruling

amounted to, quote, total exoneration. trump claiming that it would end legal prosecutions of its efforts to violently overthrow the u.s. government, ending the impact of the immunity ruling is a loud and clear signal for justice in the united states. i am proud to be an american. joining us now, president and ceo of democracy forward, sky perryman, and executive director of fix the court, gabe roth is here. give us some hope. tell us what you're working on, and what can be done? i think the supreme court is front and center for november no matter what happens in our political world. >> well, the hope is that the vast majority of the american people expect a court that is going to protect them, that is going to protect the constitution, and the vast majority of people in this country believe in the potential and promise of democracy, but we do have some work to do. this term, the court showed that the majority of its justices are a threat to democracy, doing

everything from granting the president unprecedented immunity, you know, akin to a king, to undercutting yet again women's health and the health of people in communities, and so we are really focused on enabling people to make their voices heard in this critical moment. >> say more about what the effort looks like with the money funds? >> well, certainly the money that was announced by demand justice is going to be focused on mobilizing core constituencies, people who have been hurt by this court. moms and families have been hurt by a court that continues to leave women's health in the balance, making it unsafe for our kids to go to school because of rising gun violence that the court continues to not curtail, and then even -- >> we're going toskye's

connection. i want to point at this idea, that ruth put in my head, i ask everyone, do you remain optimistic. she said i have to because the despair and the feeling that there's nothing that can be done is a tool of the autocrat. it's what they want you to feel. and i think about that with the supreme court. they really lean into the idea, and i think it's why they resist any ethics. we're different. we don't need ethics, and there's nothing you can do. and it feels like the senate judiciary committee, which is today run by democrats gives them that power, and it's the first page of timothy snyder's "on tyranny," right. it's not what they grab violently but what is given to them. i wonder if you think monday's decision changes any of the calculations by the democrats who lead the judiciary committee? >> that's what we're living in now. it has to change the calculus, and i think it needs to do so on a few different levels. number one, we the people are

not powerless. our representatives in congress are not powerless to push the court and to push the lower courts as well. but specifically the justices to do more to be held accountable. i think part of this is kind of like, there's probably a sports metaphor in here. you don't gain that confidence until you start racking up wins. what we have seen in the senate judiciary committee, it's basically lost in the leonard leo subpoena effort. that isn't happening. it got a scant amount of information from harlan crow , the effective dropping of that. the bill, the supreme court ethics transparency act that would have an enforceable code of conduct was voted out of committee successfully but they tried to run it through the senate via unanimous consent, and obviously, you know, the republicans were going to just raise their hand, and boom, there goes unanimous consent, and the bill is dead. i think asserting that power is

something that they need to do, and the wins that i'm talking about are simple. for example, last week, jamie raskin, democrat from maryland, introduced a bill that would require the justices to follow the same gift acceptance rules as members of congress. nothing over $50. i would love to see that come to a vote on the house and senate floor, senate more likely given that it's run by democrats and have republicans tell their constituents back home why they believe that supreme court justices should be accepting all of these gifts. so that's number one. i think it's racking up small wins like that, and even if it passes through one house, i think it's something that might be worth running on in november. that's step one. and i think step two is messaging. we have an opportunity to really hit home, hit the justices and talk about what they have that we the people should have instead. to me, that's three things. one, that's time. the justices have way too much time on the court, and we need to enact term limits.

number two, it's money. the supreme court is giving $150 million by taxpayers each year, you take out the salaries required under the constitution and the security they need. that's still about $75 million they have for law clerks. see how they like not having law clerks there, and not getting catered lunches every day. it's power, they need to push an agenda that would strip the jurisdiction of the supreme court, make it easier to override the statutory decisions, and also have rules that make it harder for nationwide injunctions for a single judge to have so much power and change a presidential or a congressional directive. so i think that if we focus on the time, the money and the power reforms, then i think we'll be in a better place come january of 2025. >> we're just scratching the surface here, skye and gabe are sticking around. we have to sneak in a quick break. we'll all be right back.

break. we'll all be right back.

(woman) i'm so excited. i'm finally here in the city. what. (man) ahhhhh! (woman) no, no, no, no, no! (vo) you break it. we take it. trade in any phone, in any condition and get a new iphone 15 with tons of storage, on us. only on verizon. everywhere but the seat. the seat is leather. alan, we get it. you love your bike. we do, too. that's why we're america's number-one motorcycle insurer. but do you have to wedge it into everything?

what? i don't do that. this reminds me of my bike. the wolf was about the size of my new motorcycle. have you seen it, by the way? happy birthday, grandma! really? look how the brushstrokes follow the line of the gas tank. -hey! -hey! brought my plus-one. jamie? we're back with sky and gabe. sky, the part of the story about the supreme court that i can never fully understand is why they're not interested in being part of the solution. we've talked a bit about poll numbers today. the supreme court is the institution that should be worried. on the question of justices are impartial, 28% of americans

believe the court has impartial justices. justices are politicized. 70% of all americans. why do you think they're not at the table you trying to negotiate or compromise on a series of reforms that would help them? >> the majority of justices on this court, unfortunately, are a product of a far right legal movement that has been active in seeking to undermine the well-being of people and communities for so long. and so this isn't about the rule of law. it's not about justice as it should be. it's not even about our constitution. it seems it's about brutal power that is harming the lives and well-being of millions of people throughout the country. that's what i'll say in response to that. i'll also say if this supreme court term was not an indication of it, i don't know what is, but there is no cavalry or institution that is coming to save the american people in this

crisis. it is going to have to be we the people. that can save us. and our constitution does provide those tools and we are really focused on making sure people are making their voices heard. that we are demanding of our lawmakers that they represent people and fix this problem. >> you know, gabe, when you look at the public opinions on this, it is the softest terrain. it is the most unifying agenda. supreme court reform. you've got 70 to 76% of american who is oppose their decision on dobbs. i think it's upward of 80% who oppose their decision on bump stocks then you look up presidential immunity. i haven't seen any reliable polling on that since monday, but the vast majority of americans see themselves the opposite of what they decided on monday. the national identity is cloak nd this idea that no one is above the law. the supreme court on monday said, yes, they are, donald trump is. >> yeah. and i think this is something that the biden white house has

fallen down on the job on. i testified before the presidential commission on supreme court reform. i think actually three years ago this week. have not heard from the white house since. i think i had one call with the vice president's office on some of these reform ideas. i'm not the one pushing the most partisan reforms. you know, term limits are supported by 70% of the public. about 60% of republicans and 80% of democrats. it's kind of surprising to me this issue that seems very winnable and my organization is a c3. we don't deal with elections. speaking as a private citizen, i believe this is a very winnable issue for democrats. we can be upset about roe or any of the immunity cases or what have you, but i just don't see a reform agenda coming from the white house. coming from leading democrats.

and you know, it's going to be hard to convince voters that are going to turn up in november if you don't have a positive vision for what a future court looks like. i haven't seen that from the party that's in the white house right now. >> sky, is that part of the space that you're hoping to fill? >> i think what we want to make sure people understand is the people have the power and we cannot give way to the cynicism, especially in a year where it is all on the line. democracy, our freedoms. the well-being of people. we have to demand that our lawmakers do better but we also have to make sure that people have representation in the courts. that they are making their voices heard. that is what this effort is going to be about. we are going to mobilize people across the country to stand up for the freedoms they themselves know and believe in, that this country was founded on. we're not going to let the supreme court or any institution

undermine democracy in this time. i think that's really what we are focused on. >> how much of that, sky, is warning of what would happen if the polls hold and trump prevails in november? >> well, again, we view these threats as very deep. in terms of the right wing networks that are out there. you have the head of the heritage foundation or a representative from their foundation, on television i think yesterday saying they are calling for a second american revolution and he cannot promise it will not be bloodless. this is what's happening on the eve of the fourth of july in america today. so we believe the threats are extreme and the american people feel bad and will be focusing on mobilizing focuses around those issues. also making sure people understand there are tools. our constitution provides tools in this time of crisis for the american people to protect and advance democracy. >> sky and gabe, two people we will continue to turn to.

i think the term may have ended but the political earthquake that it put in motion is just beginning. we will continue to call on both of you. thank you so much for joining us today. up next for us, more on what broad immunity for a president like donald trump would mean. national security and intelligence experts are sounding the alarm today. deadline white house continues after a quick break. don't go anywhere. te house conts after a quick break. don't go anywhere. ortho home defense max indoor insect barrier. one application kills and prevents bugs for 365 days. not in my house you don't. nature is wild. your home doesn't have to be. known as a loving parent. known for lessons that matter. known for being a free spirit. no one wants to be known for cancer, but a treatment can be.

keytruda is known to treat cancer, fda-approved for 17 types of cancer. one of those cancers is advanced nonsquamous, non-small cell lung cancer, where keytruda is approved to be used with certain chemotherapies as your first treatment if you do not have an abnormal “egfr” or “alk” gene. keytruda can cause your immune system to attack healthy parts of your body during or after treatment. this may be severe and lead to death. see your doctor right away if you have cough, shortness of breath, chest pain, diarrhea, severe stomach pain, severe nausea or vomiting, headache, light sensitivity, eye problems, irregular heartbeat, extreme tiredness, constipation, dizziness or fainting, changes in appetite, thirst, or urine, confusion, memory problems, muscle pain or weakness, fever, rash, itching, or flushing. there may be other side effects. tell your doctor about all your medical conditions, including immune system problems, if you've had or plan to have an organ, tissue, or stem cell transplant, received chest radiation or have a nervous system problem. depending on the type of cancer, keytruda may be used alone or in combination with other treatments,

and is also being studied in hundreds of clinical trials exploring ways to treat even more types of cancer. it's tru. keytruda from merck. see all the types of cancer keytruda is known for at keytruda.com and ask your doctor if keytruda could be

one might argue that it isn't plausibly legal to order

s.e.a.l. team six. i don't want to slander s.e.a.l. team six because they're honorable officers and they are bound by the uniform code of military justice not to obey unlawful orders, but i think one could say that it's not plausible that that action would be legal. i'm sure you've thought, i've thought of lots of hypotheticals. where a president could say, i'm using an official power and yet the president uses it in an absolutely outrageous manner. >> yet, here we are. it was raised as an extreme, trivial, almost silly and absurd argument during oral arguments just a few months ago, but samuel alito to show what could come of the ex-president's demands of absolute immunity.

a scenario so unthinkable, so unimaginable, that it reportedly drew laughter in that very solemn place. the supreme court. cut to the political and legal earthquake that was ushered in by the court's decision on monday. that same court essentially giving permission to the worst case scenario. a president using his office to order the assassination of a political rival without the backstop of the threat or promise of criminal law and prosecution. experts are now warning about what that absolute immunity looks like on every level of government. especially national security. the court's opinion as politico reports did not attempt to directly carve out such extreme examples. and that immediately raised alarm among national security experts. the majority instead accused the dissenting justices of quote, fear mongering on the basis of extreme hypotheticals. the justices painted a grim portrait of what we could be

looking at in six months' time. justice sotomayor wrote this -- in every use of official power, the president is now king above the law. justice sotomayor wrote that. justice brown jackson acknowledged the president may have the authority to remove the attorney general. for example, quote, the question here is whether the president has the option to remove the attorney general by say poisoning him to death. more from politico's reporting. quote, the biggest challenge for a president ordering an assassination would be finding the military personnel willing to carry out the order, legal experts explained. while the president himself would have the protection of immunity. others involved would remain vulnerable to prosecution because the supreme court's decision doesn't make the underlying act legal. if they are given an illegal

order by the president or someone directly answering to the president, they may be a position that they are subject to court marshal in either direction. a lawless president, however, could get around that problem by promising to pardon anyone who carried out his orders. it's not an unlikely scenario for ex-president donald trump who already promised pardons for carrying out illegal orders when it came to border security. his alarming suggestions are even rhetorical questions about shooting protestors in the legs could play out entirely differently now. that already happened, too. it was former joint chiefs of staff, chairman general mark milley who told the atlantic this. if trump quote ordered us to do x, y, or z, we would do it. all that at best murky now.

after the supreme court's decision on monday. it's where we start the hour with some of our favorite experts and friends. former assistant director at the fbi. former cia director now msnbc senior national security analyst, john brennan. former acting assistant attorney general for national security at the justice department, msnbc legal analyst, mary mcchord is here. mary, i'm going to ask you to start out by just kind of explaining your old job. national security is in pop culture, more closely associated with the cia, but it's hub really is of the department of justice. explain why and how monday's decision makes that more the case. >> you know the department of justice, the attorney general, deputy attorney general, they are part of the president's national security team along with people like john brennan when he was the director of the cia, the director of our intelligence community and all of the national security

agencies. they sit together in the white house in the situation room in a skip, a sensitive compartmented information facility and talk about national security issues on a daily basis. the president seeks the advice of not only his legal adviser within the national security council, but also the advice of the principals part of that national security community. the department of justice also through its office of legal counsel is a really important part of ensuring that the proposals that are brought to the president, the policy proposals, the actions, are consistent with law. that's domestic law and international law. and in my experience, the premise that undergirds the majority opinion here, that in order for presidents to act fearlessly and boldly in our national security and other

matters, they can't be chilled or cowed by the prospect of criminal prosecution. that's just not what is driving these discussions about how to respond to national security issues. whether they're defense related issues, intelligence related issues, terrorism issues. or so many other things that come before the national security counsel and the president on a daily basis. so this notion that you need to provide this broad criminal immunity to ensure that presidents can do their job, i think that's just a fiction. i think that was an excuse to write such a capacious ruling that expands presidential functions. what are called in this decision, core executive functions that derive allegedly from the constitution. this capacious, expansive ruling really doesn't have any grounding in our constitutional text or our history and it's not warranted by any kind of

practical necessities. one other thing i would say is this opinion also seems to assume that we have other functioning remedies where a president who does something that is so you know, meets the criteria that justice alito talked about, but those other methods, things like impeachment, those have failed us in recent years. so the notion that now there is no backstop, that's why you have people so concerned about this opinion. >> so director brennan, tell me how this happens operationally and functionally in the president of the united states as trump did last time he was president of the united states, wants to do something illegal and his lawyers, i think don mcgahn said that's illegal. he would have his note taker write it in her notes, too.

saying you can't prosecute hillary clinton and jim comey because it's illegal. we know more about what he wanted the military to do at some points. jail. migrants at other points in both the insurrection act and other points seize voting machines. if he's not stopped by the fear of consequences of criminality, what happens? >> well, a lot happens and it's not good. it's hard to be shocked during these abnormal times, but i was truly shocked by the breadth of the supreme court ruling. as mary noted, there are legions of lawyers in the government to ensure that all the actions that the government officials take are going to be legal. and when a president is going to authorize some type of action, whether it be a covert action or some type of military action, there is rigorous legal review that is done at the white house by the legal counsel, but also by the interagency lawyers group to ensure that every order that

a president gives is going to be solidly anchored in the law. and this is not to protect a president's you know, eventual criminal liability. it's because at least for the six presidents that i served, all of them wanted to make sure that everything they did, everything their administrations engaged in, was going to be lawful. and so the president of the united states is the chief executive of the executive branch. the breadth of this ruling is really astounding and i don't think the justices who voted in support really understand the implications here. because the president heads up all departments of agencies in terms of military personnel, law enforcement, intelligence, homeland security. there are so many different opportunities for there to be some type of nefarious action that a president would authorize and as was pointed out in your lead in, it's possible that a president could in fact issue preemptive pardons to those individuals who would carry out

this unlawful act that a president alone is immunized against some type of liability, but they are not, unless they are actually giving a presidential pardon. so again, the scope of this, the implications of this, especially if a lawless, corrupt president is going to be in the white house, it is really quite chilling in terms of what could happen. >> you know, frank, we also cover trump like he's a question mark. he's an answer. he's answered it. he wanted to break the laws. he wanted to have evidence manufactured. he wanted don mcgahn to make up things that didn't exist to get out of criminal exposure with mueller. he wanted border patrol agents to do illegal things and he tang dangled pardons in front of him. we know what he did at his department of justice when it came to wiretaps. we found out at the end of his presidency, he was listening to journalists, lawmakers.

what does this absence of any semblance of fear of criminality, how do you assess what trump would do in a second term with all of the awesome power of the fbi? >> yeah. as you said, he told us what he's going to do. he's done some of it. as it's engraved over the national archives in washington. the past is prologue. exactly. the past will tell us where we're going in the future with him. i often think as i'm contemplating what the impact is on the national security community with this ruling, at first, my reaction was boy, we're going to have a lot of people in the intelligence community doing unlawful things but then i stopped myself and i reread the opinion and it's worse than that. because we've redefined what lawful means in this ruling. so you know, we're all, oh, it's going to be unlawful. no. if the president says it's lawful, it's in the scope of his official duties, his core duties. he's consulted with his attorney

general or department of defense secretary, then it could be deemed lawful. so it's not the unlawful acts that i'm worried about. it's the so-called unlawful acts he's going to go forward with. oh, the dissenters are just talking about extreme hypotheticals, none of this is hypothetical. we need not go back in history to the mid 1970s and the discovery in america that the fbi and cia were spying unlawfully on our citizens domestically and then the senate had to convene something called the church committee, named after senator frank church, and what did that committee discover? there were systemic spying outside of all judicial rulings. no court authorizations. there were black bag jobs which means break-in, and illegal

search warrants by the fbi. there was wiretapping, unlawful wiretapping, of anybody deemed a threat by hoover including martin luther king. including trying to convince kipg to kill himself. including the fbi by most historians' findings, that coordinating with an intel unit at chicago pd to actually murder a black panthers leader. there were no rules. so when anybody says don't worry, things will work out. we've been there and now we have rules that came out of that church committee that are the operating guidelines for the fbi, for the cia. but things had to get very ugly, literally murdering somebody deemed a threat because the fbi director thought the guy was a threat. that's where we're headed here. >> well, and with trump, there's always a projection, right? it always struck me as bizarre that he described the court approved search of mar-a-lago to retrieve classified materials asked for somewhere between

eight and 15 times. a quote assassination attempt. it's clear that trump already thinks along these lines. what is the, what has to be considered a threat that they would have to contend with inside the fbi right now if trump's re-elected? >> well, the first thing he's going to, among the first things that trump is going to do, of course, is replace the fbi director. even though it's a republican and federalist society member. he's not moving quickly enough or as radical enough for trump. so he'll go. but beyond that, you're going to see the top echelon of the intelligence agencies. the inspectors generals, dni, all pledge loyalty to trump. the rank and file may lose their civil service protections so they'll be extremely fearful. if you think trump's threats and intimidations have not impacted

decision making, just look back at "the washington post" reporting about searching or not searching mar-a-lago and realize that they were yelling at each other. doj and fbi executives, about you know, this isn't going happen on my watch. so talk to andy mccabe as i did just a couple of days ago on my youtube show, who's being threatened by steve bannon to charge him on some bogus charges and extradite him if he flees the country. how do you put mechanisms in place now to stop that from happening? i don't have an answer to that. >> you know, we, director brennan, have covered for eight, nine years now the threats to the rule of law. is it dead? did it die on monday? >> well, it certainly closer to death than i think it has ever been before. if we think that a republican party would try to limit what a

donald trump might do in terms of unlawful activity, i think this is very unrealistic. in light of the fact that most republicans in congress feel quite constrained by laws. that they haven't been able to achieve their objectives and agendas because frequently, they are limited by those laws. so if there was been someone in the white house who has this ability to basically do anything under the official authorities of a president and will not be held liable for it, i think they will just be cheerleaders for him. and so as both frank and mary said, again, the scope of this, the breadth of this, are truly profound. it's only if we have people in the white house like president biden or president obama who truly respect the rule of law as opposed to somebody like a donald trump who continually has been frustrated by the limits that the law places upon him. this is going to be quite concerning in light of the fact that we may very well see a donald trump emerge in november's election on top, god forbid.

>> yeah. a fair read of the polls today suggests that that is at least a possibility. we have to rumble with. mary, i want to ask you a question about whether there's anything, i mean, what's interesting to me is nobody from monday to whatever today is. it feels like it's been 11 days. it's only but three. has worried about what joe biden would do with this. all the commentary is about what donald trump would do. my colleague said this is binding. this is it. this is the law of the land now. and so what we have to do is make sure that donald trump is never, ever, ever president again. something liz cheney also said in almost the exact same words. what, if anything, can be done to shore up the office of the presidency in these, you know, last months of the first term of joe biden's presidency? >> it's such a great question because what you've been, what you're pointing to is what we've

been lamenting now for several years as dying, which is sort of norms in the rule of law because not everything that makes up the rule of law is about a statute that congress passed or a constitutional provision. there are long established norms and that's really what i think president biden even with new ruling that would theoretically allow him to take some of the outrageous actions that we are now talking with concern about potentially happening in a future administration. i mean, this is a man who i cannot see doing that because of the norms. this would be so outrageous, such an abuse of executive authority. so corrupt. that most presidents, at least in our modern times, have felt bound by those. their advisers feel bound by those, right? and they also feel like they have an obligation to the american public not to engage in that kind of outrageous conduct.

norms, those don't have any binding effect and one of the other things i would call attention to in this opinion is it also seems to really limit the power of congress. and it's detrimental to what our entire constitutional structure of separation of powers is built on. when the chief justice writes about the preclus sieve effect on congress, again, read very, very broadly, he's basically saying congress last, not basically, he's saying congress lacks authority to criminalize things that are within this area of very broad executive powers. that means you know, what happened to checks and balances? the authority of congress under the constitution under article i to legislate and conduct oversight seems also to be imperilled by this ruling if you look closely at what the court is saying here. so think about things like

limits on the president's military authority. the act that makes it criminal for our military to engage in domestic law enforcement. unless the insurrection act is invoked. why would any of that need to happen? why would the act ever apply to a president if being the commander in chief and being able to issue orders to your military is such a core executive function that congress can't act to limit it. this is like when we get into this nitty-gritty here, it's hard for me to answer the question about what can be done to shore up, you know, the guardrails because the opinion is so exceedingly broad. >> two things. one, the answer is nothing and two, we're going to get into more of the nitty-gritty. i think our audience is pretty well steeped in the litany of crimes donald trump either committed or sought to commit. i want to press all of you on what that looks like should he

be re-elected. there's much more to get to with our national security experts on the implications of monday's immunity decision from the supreme court and the alarming prospects of what it would mean if the ex-president should ever return to office. plus, with the growing specter of autocracy in america and big decisions facing joe biden, one thing is clear. we are living through a perilous anxiety producing moment. we'll try to find some reason to hang on to hope later in the broadcast. later deadline white house continues after a quick break. le continues after a quick break. dr for this? those were hard days. representative. switch! 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, any condition. guaranteed. (man) i really wished you told me sooner.

(roommate) i did.

sara federico: at st. jude, we don't care who cures cancer. we just need to advance the cure. the heart of st. jude is to take care of children with catastrophic diseases and to advance their cure rates. but we need to be able to do that for everyone. it's a bold initiative, to try and bump cure rates all around the world. but we should. it is our commitment. [music playing] the moment i met him i knew he was my soulmate. "soulmates." soulmate! [giggles] why do you need me? [laughs sarcastically] but then we switched to t-mobile 5g home internet. and now his attention is spent elsewhere. but i'm thinking of her the whole time. that's so much worse. why is that thing in bed with you? this is where it gets the best signal from the cell tower! i've tried everywhere else in the house! there's always a new excuse. well if we got xfinity you wouldn't have to mess around with the connection. therapy's tough, huh? -mmm. it's like a lot about me. [laughs] a home router should never be a home wrecker. oo this is a good book title.

how is the system going to work if intelligence officers are going to try and decide whether this president is going to be trust worthy? like, how does that work if those people who are honor bound to give it to the president now say but i don't know whether this guy can be trusted. he might take it. do they start making choices about what they share and what they don't? the whole system breaks down. >> we're back with frank. director brennan and mary. director brennan, just elaborate on how the immunity decision exacerbates what sue gordon's talking about there. >> well, i think we already saw, i've seen with donald trump, his reckless disregard for security practices in terms of how classified documents are going to be handled and stored, which is what i think she was referencing there. because the individuals at the

cia, fbi and other places that really put their lives on the line in order to acquire the information that is necessary to keep this country safe really will wonder whether or not what they provide to a trump white house is really going to stay classified and not be shared broadly. and so i do think it undermines the credibility of the system in terms of the intelligence community, law enforcement, justice, are supposed to have a very trusting relationship with the chief executive and if that trust is not there and if there's concern about what the chief executive might be doing now with the supreme court ruling, chief executive could also be engaged in unlawful activity utilizing and leveraging the information and capabilities they have. so again, thinking about this in the context of what we've already seen donald trump do and say and what he is likely to do and say when, if he returns to the white house, i think that is why so many national security

experts are deeply, deeply concerned about disturbed that this supreme court ruling combined with a possible trump second term really is a threat i think to our national security. >> frank, how would you, if you had to profile the court, i mean, they offer no specific example of when they couldn't do something bold. some members during the obama and bush presidencies, which were frankly both hallmarks of the national security were bold questionable in the case of the bush administration counterterrorism policies. the court offers no example of anyone in modern or ancient presidential history has been reigned in, but they have to language ability they need to be bold. they also ignore all the real examples. we're talking about an ex-president who incited a deadly insurrection across the street. we're talking about an

ex-president who stole classified documents and refused to give them back. what is the, what is your best guest or best theory of the case on what happened here? >> i must have missed the part in the constitution about where the president must be bold. that's interesting. the part of the constitution that i recall is that i took the same oath when i joined the fbi that the president of the united states has, which is to preserve, protect, and defend the united states. and the constitution. so, look. i'm not going to sugar coat this. i view the supreme court as a national security issue. and certain members that we're talking about. there's an agenda here. they went out of their way. i'm perfectly fine with disagreeing with the supreme court decision. heck, i went to law school. i can argue both sides of anything, right? but that is not what they did here. the reason we're dissenting so much for this is they did things

they didn't even have to do. when one of trump's lawyers during the argument for this decision said yeah, i guess there are, the business of alternate electors and fake electors. yeah, i guess you could say there's a personal, private, not official decision. they said no, it is actually. it is. they gave him more than he asked for. they went out of their way to make this happen. so what do i conclude as an investigator? there's an agenda among some of the support justices and quite frankly, when they speak privately at so-called private speeches to groups and organizations, they're at dinner after a few drinks, we hear the agenda. for alito, it is the belief that america's going to hell in a hand basket and we need to take a more theological, theocracy approach to running the country. we know amy coney barrett, even she had to go off and write her own summary and decision, but she came from what is

essentially a cult like background where the cult had to approve who she married. you can't tell me this is an agenda. >> mary, the government and the people who work in the government are not sort of in the dna of people who work in the government. they're not wired to be political actors. those are the very people trump wants to purge first based on the blueprint provided in project 2025. what would happen at doj for example if he carried that out? >> that's part of the concern. because normally, i might respond to an opinion like this by saying look, the president can't really do anything alone. right? if it's a military operation, he needs the military. if it's weaponizing the department of justice, he needs the career prosecutors to go along with it. it might be that he puts in a deputy ag who are willing to

take the power of prosecution and use it against political enemies but there would be a lot, a lot of rank and file who would refuse to do that. but you layer on top of that the promises about schedule left. this idea of converting sort of all the career civil service and that includes the department of justice, to essentially fire up without protections then you have the potential of really cleaning out of those who would otherwise stand as guardrails against an overreach or a weaponization of the department of justice or of other agencies like the irs, for example. now, you just can't clear, clean house completely, right, or the functions of government will grind to a halt. even though that's the threat and it's out there, at some point, i think even mr. trump, should he become the neks president, is going to have to realize that there are some functions that just have to keep continuing and the american people really, really would be

upset if some of those things end. things like social security payments. right? and various things of that nature. so, i'm a little torn because i think that you know, our, some of our best guardrails are in our career federal government employees and our military. so you know, threats to one of those is really a threat to so much more than that. but i do think as reflecting on the break on your question about what can we do to shore things up and i think part of that is really to provide good legal opinions. for military officers. good legal opinions by experienced civilian military experts about what's a lawful order and what's not. give those generals, if they are asked to do something they think is unlawful, give them the power that they need to look to their lawyers and those lawyers the sources and the resources they need to be able to give you

know, opinions that can keep some of those guardrails. and you know, similarly, within even places like the department of justice, the irs, and other places, again, some of this is going to be based on norms but shore those up as much possible so that we can hopefully rely on our career folks across multiple agencies to stand up against what might otherwise be some really horrendous overreach. >> i'm just thinking back to trump's presidency where no one was too high or low on the food chain for him to single out by family name and smear on his massive social media platform. i take your point that that's what we could do. i just, you can't see it holding up to the power of a criminally immune american president, but we can hope that doesn't come to pass. frank, john, mary, thank you so much for having many conversation with us.

when we come back on the eve of july fourth, it's safe to say we are at a pivotal moment in our country's history and the critical decisions by the supreme court we've been talking about. the growing threat of authoritarian ism. we'll try to put it in a historical perspective after a very short break. don't go anywhere. perspective a very short break don't go anywhere. [rumble] [whoosh] so you arrive exactly where you belong. (♪♪) [smash] picky cat? at chewy, we have cat food for any cat mood. chewy's here! find the food they'll love at prices you'll love. and get it delivered to your door again and again. [thud] [purring] ( ♪♪ ) luke's mom: without easterseals, my luke would be a very different luke. look up. where you going? luke's mom: there's an incredible urgency to get your child into services, because the longer you wait, these motor pathways are set in stone. i knew he needed help. he needed these services. i'm almost there.

yes, you are. you're so close. you're so strong. i'm gonna say hi. okay! let's say hi. hi! nolan's mom: none of my friends or people in our network have a child with these needs. and then you go to easterseals and it's such a good feeling to feel like you're in good hands. they really understand what you're going through. jaxon: at one point, i wasn't able to walk or ride my bike. the little things that other people take for granted that i need help with. sometimes those are hard because you don't want help. but you need it. but children can't get the help they need without support from people like you. go online, call this number, or scan this code and donate just $19 a month. luke's mom: these children deserve access to care, and they need help. and if the funding's not there, it's hard to reach every single family. so please, visit this website, call or scan now.

it's just 63 cents a day to provide life-changing services to these children. therapist: you are literally creating an opportunity for this child to grow and to be an independent, successful adult. join now, and we'll send you this one-of-a-kind t-shirt with our heartfelt thanks. to reach into your heart and see what your donation can do for these kids. it really does make a difference. you're helping kids believe in themselves. go online, call or scan now to change a child's life forever.

whatever you're feelings are

about the only way forward running on the ideas and policies that guarantee we continue to live in a democracy, gleszing it includes at least some parts worry and fear. this often helpful to turn to our own history to see if there are any lessons to draw from or reassurances to be offered to those who came before us. for that, we turn the our next guest. presidential historian, professor of history at rice university, douglas brinkley is here with us. also, former rnc spokesman, tim miller is here. doug, we are in need of perspective. tell me how you see this moment. >> thank you for doing that on the supreme court. it's important to give that a lot of air time. and happy fourth of july to you and all of the viewers. look, this is a big crisis going on for america.

joe biden has to decide whether he has lost his own narrative. whether this debate is so seismic that he can't really glue it back together. it's not a time to be rocky or i'm a boxer, you're not going to knock a biden down. he always gets up. it's not about a biden's personal narrative. he has to have a truthful talk to himself with his wife, can i really be a president two years from now, three, four years from now. we're not electing somebody for a few months. we're electing them to four. the decision is in biden hands. i see some good signs talking to democratic governors, but they have to talk to the state dnc level people. the ones dealing with the constituencies. there's a lot of disgruntlement with leaders state by state. they're going to have to cast a wide net and find out what's going on, but i think they're trying to eat up the clock of biden the stay in the game. the stephanopoulos interview will be important but he'll have to follow it up with two or

three more interviews and i think stage a town hall two and restore confidence in his presidency. harry truman dropped out in 1952. there wasn't confidence in him. it was said to err is truman. he had 30% approval rating and lyndon johnson, 68. bailed not just because of the vietnam war, but also because of health concerns and he brought in a lot of elders like jean acheson and others who said you're not popular and it was something he's been grumpy about is he feels the -- just like lyndon johnson, harry truman felt the press loved fdr. why they don't love me. lbj, but the press loved kennedy, but why not me. we're seeing that kind of feeling of kind of blaming the media by biden and that's never good for a president. you have to float above that media fray and not try to say that what's been a largely

friendly media to him by and large over the last four years is the ones that's up to fault for him not doing the super bowl interview or for him botching the 90 minute cnn debate. >> tim miller, it is an extraordinary moment. our viewers are angry that we have this conversation. i want to share with you though something from the author of on tyranny, timothy schneider, which i read in '16 but went back and read it while i was on maternity leave this year. he and ruth, my touch stones in touching all of this through on authoritarian ism versus democracy filter. i think if we have to cover the republican convention, it's no longer adequate for the press to put on a former democrat and republican. it should be a former democrat and republican. trump is running as an out and

proud authoritarian and the supreme court on monday gave him a huge assist. so with that as my purpose, let me read you what timothy schneider tweeted today. quote, unless trump loses, america ends. the supreme court has made this clear. as has trump himself. over and over. our enemies know this. which is why they all without exception support trump. we have no excuse not to know this and once we know it, we can act. each of us doing what we can trusting one another, making contact. we can do this. if we each do what we can, this republic will go on and get better. i want to show you one more piece about the despair and feelings of hopelessness. this is ian on this program on monday about despair as a tool of the authoritarian. >> despair and fatalism are the tools of authoritarians. so by adopting that perspective,

we concede the territory and democracy depends on a sense of agency and possibility and a sense of hope and so i do still have those things. >> hope and agency. i do still have those things. do you, tim? >> absolutely. i love tim schneider. i'm glad you started with both of those. i've been reading on tyranny as well. here's the thing. i've been reading that as well. and i understand the anger. i do. i understand finger pointing, the frustration. there are people that are on side with you and me and our new team that are like wait a minute, why are you bringing up concerns? we've got to all be rowing the same direction. here's the thing. it is because of that threat that tim schneider laid out that it is absolutely critical that in this moment, we make sure that we as a unit, as a prodemocracy unit which is

unwielding, which goes from liz cheney to bernie sanders. we're not always going to agree on everything. and so right now to determine what is the strategy to combat that tyranny that can win because right now, we just have to be honest that we are on a losing trajectory. you can see you don't believe the polls. maybe some are wrong. but they're not biased against democrats. the polls right now show that joe biden is losing but democratic senators are winning in the same states. so something is amiss here. right? and i agree. everybody's got to play their role and from the democratic convention until november, everybody is going to be rolling the same direction but in the meantime, we need to make sure that as part of everyone's role is to make sure that we have a unit that can combat this threat and that includes the person that is supposed to be leading the unit. and this is i think the frustration right now with the president and his campaign team. and it is we need them to be

leading us into battle. leading us into charge, charging the charge of the light brigade and we're getting a lot of nothing. a lot of finger pointing. he was in the interview yesterday or tomorrow with george steph stephanopoulos but that's eight days after the debate. it's much more vigorous and so if joe biden is going to lead this charge against tyranny, we need a vigorous campaign that everyone can get behind that recognizes we have to change tr trajectories because right now, we're on a very dangerous one. i understand some people don't like to hear it. i don't like to say it. i totally get it but that's my perspective right now. >> we have a lot more to get to. i want to come back to the supreme court. i have to sneak in a quick break. i'll ask both of you to stick around to the other side. ask b around to the other side we are developing agents...

with powers far beyond mortal men or you might just explode. [ laughing ]

the promise of this nation should extend to all from new york to new mexico, from alaska to alabama. but right now, people like you are losing their freedoms. some in power are suppressing voting rights. banning our kids books from libraries and attacking our right to make private health care decisions. we must act now to defend these freedoms and protect our democracy. and we can't do it without you. we are the american civil liberties union, and we're asking you to join us in protecting our democracy at the national level and in communities like yours. call or go online to myaclu.org to become a guardian of liberty today. your gift of just $19 a month. only $0.63 a day will help ensure that together we can continue to fight for the freedoms of all americans, no matter your zip code. if you also believe in the right to vote, the right to free speech,

the right to learn, the right to bodily autonomy. please join us now. these are your fundamental rights that people are playing with. and so you need to get involved, because if you don't, then someone else is going to decide whether or not you get to choose what happens to your own body. so please call or go to myaclu.org and become an aclu guardian of liberty for just $19 a month. when you use your credit card, you'll receive this special we the people t-shirt and more to show you're part of a movement to protect the rights of all people. we can't make systemic change in the way that we want to doing it by ourselves. we have to work together because we the people, means all of us. from sea to shining sea. so please call or go online to myaclu.org to become a guardian of liberty today.

there's great alarm in the country about this decision. it's hard to believe that the alarm could be heightened but this one really shows a radical break for more than two centuries of understanding of the president's role and it's as if they are trying to set the stage for donald trump's new monarchical tim. doug, one of the consequences of the political turmoil happening in this country is that conversation hasn't been 24/7. and this is our sixth hour of the week. we have two hours a day.

we've probably spent a week and a half on the supreme court decision. but the truth is they ended the rule of law in america. it's hard to argue it resembles anything that we had before monday's decision. i'm sure the decision was done before monday but before it became known to the public and the world, frankly. we haven't begun to scratch the surface of what the world thinks of an america whose president is functionally a king. that's not me saying it. that's one of the supreme court justice who dissented. what in your view are the after shocks of monday's decision should trump prevail in november? >> it's just deeply alarming what the supreme court did. representative raskin is not overstating it at all. we now have an imperial presidency on steroids in the making. you can call it a king, you can call it a despot, a monarch, authoritarian rule, but it's not in the spirit of the founding of the united states 248 years ago.

this is not what jefferson or hamilton or adams had in mind. they were trying to stop this sort of powerful chief executive to the point where if you really go back there hasn't really been much executive power in the 19th century up until lincoln's emancipation. it is true in the 20th century presidents started doing executive orders in a grandiose way, and it was a slippery slope to this. but this is a radical right-wing supreme court. history will look at hillary clinton's loss to donald trump 2016 as the epic moment that allowed trump to be president, that allowed him to become the election denier, but most importantly that allowed him to put these three supreme court justice on and smashing our democratic impulses in this country. but, you know, the democrats -- that's where it gets connected in history is there are democrats worried about why did

ruth bader ginsburg step down earlier and grab one of those seats? and that's what's being connected to joe biden now on age. we've got to get an american offensive spirit backing our constitution, believing in our government. the poll number on how many people like the u.s. federal government are so low. it's frightening. so, yes, i do think we just can't solve. we need a leader to take on trumpism, and the question is is it kamala harris or is it joe biden? but one way or the other we've got to amp it up because this supreme court's not going the way -- and giving this new recipe to donald trump is a nightmare in the making. >> douglas brinkley and tim miller, for your candor, for your wisdom, thank you very much for spending some time with us today. another break for us. we will be right back. today. another break for us we will be right back.

(woman) i'm so excited. i'm finally here in the city. what. (man) ahhhhh! (woman) no, no, no, no, no! (vo) you break it. we take it. trade in any phone, in any condition and get a new iphone 15 with tons of storage, on us. only on verizon. my name is brayden. i was five years old when i came to st. jude. i'll try and shorten down the story. so i've been having these headaches that wouldn't go away.

my mom, she was just crying. what they said, your son has brain cancer. it was your worst fear coming to life. watching your child grow up is the dream of every parent. you can join the battle to save the lives of kids like brayden, by supporting st. jude children's research hospital . families never receive a bill from st. jude for treatment, travel, housing, or food, so they can focus on helping their child live . what they have done for me, my son, my family-- i'm sorry, yeah. life is a gift, especially for a child battling cancer. call or go online and help save another lives of children like brayden. now, i'm 11 years old. we were actually doing the checkup for my brain. and they saw something in my throat.

it's thyroid cancer. it was heartbreaking to find out that he has cancer again. but we knew who we had behind us. it just gives me hope. you can make a difference. join with your credit or debit card for only $19 a month. and we'll send you this st. jude t-shirt. without st. jude or its donors, we would have been in a bad place. these kids, they've done nothing wrong in the world. finding a cure for childhood cancer, it means everything. help st. jude give kids with cancer a chance. [audio logo] she runs and plays like a puppy again. his #2s are perfect! he's a brand new dog, all in less than a year. when people switch their dog's food from kibble to the farmer's dog, they often say that it feels like magic.

but there's no magic involved. (dog bark) it's simply fresh meat and vegetables, with all the nutrients dogs need— instead of dried pellets. just food made for the health of dogs. delivered in packs portioned for your dog. it's amazing what real food can do. on the eve of july 4th as we prepare to celebrate our independence day, the country we sought our independence from on election day british voters are set to elect a new prime minister and parliament, and the polls suggest it will be a landslide there knocking the conservative power out of power after 14 years. economic turmoil and numerous political scandals, they will likely be handing the keys of 10 downing street from current prime minister rishi sunak to the leader of the u.k. center left party. the labor hasn't won an election since 2005, but the polls

suggest they could pick up more than 430 of the 650 seats in parliament. we'll keep one eye pointed across the pond on your behalf. another break for us. we'll be right back. our behalf another break for us we'll be right back.

thank you so much for letting us into your homes during these extraordinary times. we are so grateful. "the beat "with katie phang in for ari starts right now. >> my best wishes to you and your family for a good and safe fourth of july. >> you too. and welco