so anything much going on? in the news? enjoying these sleepy summer days without much happening?

all right, we have a bunch of stuff to cover tonight. first, the former president of the united states is going to be sentenced to 34 felony convictions next week on thursday. the prosecutors, who brought that case, and who prosecuted in court, that case against donald trump, they were due today to make their sentencing recommendation to the judge. in a new york state case like this, it's not the jury that convicted trump that will decide what his sentence is, it's the judge who oversaw the case, judge juan merchan. trump could face four years in prison. it's very possible however, that he might not get present time at all, or if he receives confinement it could be home confinement. on the one hand, what he's been convicted of, while it is 34

felonies, it's a nonviolent crime, and also, he is a first- time offender. he's never been convicted of anything before. that would cut against him getting significant jail time. on the other hand he does have three other felony cases pending against him at this moment. he was fined by this judge for multiple violations of this court order in this case that required him to restrain himself from speaking about jurors and witnesses and court staff and the families of the judge and the lawyers in this case. he has also shown absolutely no remorse whatsoever, which is the thing judges are supposed to consider, so all of those factors cut in favor of him getting jail time. who knows. this is why a person with the job title, judge, makes a decision like this, and not random people like you or me. before the sentencing, the judge will get three pieces of advice essentially to help him make his decision. he will get a not-public facing

confidential recommendation on trump's proposed sentence from the probation department. he will also get a sentencing recommendation from trump's on lawyers, which presumably that he should be able to get a bag of treats, because he's a good boy, and presumably, he will also get sentencing recommendation from prosecutors as well. there's no rule about whether the prosecutor sentencing recommendation is made public either before the sentencing, or during or after the sentencing, that is up to judge juan merchan for what prosecutors are asking for. it is not totally clear when the judge is going to get that sentencing recommendation from prosecutors. it was due in today, but then something happened today. immediately following today's seismic supreme court ruling on presidential immunity, trump's lawyers asked the judge, advised the judge in the new

york criminal case that they are going to ask him formally, they will file a motion, asking him essentially to set aside trump's guilty verdict despite the jury's verdict in that case. after the defense, after trump's lawyers notify the judge they were going to ask him to set aside the verdict, prosecutors then didn't send in their sentencing recommendations as they have been expected to do. the sentencing as we know is still on, but there's an element of uncertainty now in which trump has already been convicted in this case. we can report tonight trump's lawyers have asked the sentencing itself be delayed, and we expect the judge will consider delaying the sentence after he gets the request from

trump's lawyers, but also after he hears from prosecutors on the matter. the prosecutors have delayed submitting their recommendations, does that mean the sentencing itself will be delayed? anything is material in terms of the sentence trump will likely face or when he will hear about it? we don't know, we are waiting to hear from judge merchan. but even with all this new uncertainty we are in this remarkable place now. we are officially in the middle of this mess for the united states of america. we are the republican party, who has nominated someone for president to set off a violent effort to overthrow the government the last time he lost an election, starting when the republican starting off the month with the cfo serving time in rikers with his campaign manager and steve bannon

reporting today to federal prison, and who himself may be sentenced to prison depending on what sentencing he receives on nearly 3 dozen felony charges. excellent job, republican party, great choice. i love how democrats are like, how did we get into this mess? it's true that not understanding how old 81 years old looks sometimes is maybe a democratic party mistake but democrats are not the party that picked the guy whose charity was shut down as a fraud whose fake university was shut down as a fraud, whose business was convicted on multiple fraud counts, whose cfo is quite literally in jail who had one personal lawyer put in prison and the other has lost his law license who has been charged under the espionage act for whatever this is he was doing with highly classified documents including reportedly nuclear secrets-- who was found

liable by a jury for sexual assault-- who has been charged with more than a dozen felonies under indictment in the state of georgia, and who really has been found guilty by another jury of 30+ felonies for which he is now awaiting a possible prison sentence. that's who you guys picked. i love the worry is that the democrats may have made a bad choice for their nominee. only in america. i will say in fairness, if the democrats are going to change their nominee, they should maybe get on it. don't take advice from me on this, but it seems like common sense that you know, just waiting now while is the worst possible solution, if vice president kamala harris, or anyone else will take over the top of the ticket instead of president biden the candidate will need enough time to run a campaign and it's july. so i don't know if the democrats will place joe biden

at the top of the ticket, or if they should. the only one to make that decision is president biden, himself, but i do know the window to make that decision is right now, and it's about this wide. speak now or forever hold your peace. meanwhile, the republicans are delighted to be running their felon , who really did set the mob on congress, they are awaiting. the case in which those 34 felony convictions were obtained is a case that took years to get into court in part because while trump was president, his justice department ordered federal executors to stop their investigation of trump in conjunction with that case. we know that from the former u.s.

attorney in that federal district who wrote about it in his book. they ordered that investigated stopped and of trump's involvement in that criminal case stripped from public facing documents in that case. so it took a while to get into court, and it took state court prosecutors to do it. but thanks to the community ruling today from the supreme court we know for sure that is the only case for which trump will face trial before he is elected, if ever. and, it seems important to note because we now have certainty, it seems important to note, at the heart of that new york case in which he was convicted of all those felonies, the heart of the case in which he is right now awaiting sentencing, even as he as awaiting nominating speech at the heart of that case is alive. a lie that he is still telling the american public, even as he

gets ready to be sentenced for being caught out and punished for that live by a jury. he's sticking with the light, trying to ride it back to the white house. he told the lie again in the debate, last week. so, that's the second thing i want to talk about today, which is that i am going to be back here, tomorrow at this time. i know you are just getting used to me only being here on monday nights instead of five nights a week, but-- sorry, i'm here right now. i'm going to be here tomorrow at 9:00 p.m. eastern and i hope you will come back and watch. 9:00 p.m. eastern, tuesday night, i am doing a special, it is an interview with the woman, who is the subject of that ongoing life from donald trump and she was the center of the criminal case against him that resulted in his 34 felony convictions. she was subpoenaed by the prosecution and served as the central witness in the

prosecution's case. i wanted to interview her for a very long time. her testimony in the trial was legitimately shocking-- she would like to elaborate on that testimony, and so my interview with her is finally happening. my guest tomorrow night, right here, 9:00 p.m. eastern, is stormy daniels. this will be her first interview since trump's payment to her to keep her from speaking out about her experience with him and all the fallout. her testimony at that trial was crucial to his conviction, it was legitimately shocking testimony. she would like to elaborate on that testimony, and she will do here, 9:00 p.m. tomorrow night. we'll talk about the case and what's happened since the case, we'll talk about what's happened to her because of her role in that case. we'll talk about what means is

next for donald trump and the presidency. tuesday night, 9:00 p.m. eastern i hope you will watch. now, as we await trump's sentencing in that case, this community ruling today from the supreme court is at hand. and i am no lawyer, it-- is as far as i can tell in my layman's understanding, that it is as radical as anything i have ever seen from the united states supreme court. i can certainly tell you it is profoundly worse, it is a profoundly worse ruling than even the most pessimistic observers predicted. there was essentially one substantial aspect of immunity for trump that trump and his lawyers put to the court that they did not get. that was this internally contradictory ruling that previously made a president can only be prosecuted for crimes if you first impeached him in the house and convicted him in the senate.

the implication was any failed impeachment effort would have effectively immunized that behavior for life. nothing about impeachment being connected in that way to a criminal persecution, the court threw that out as nonsense, but um-- they gave him everything else they heard him ask for and more. including for things his own lawyer conceded weren't among trump's official acts as president. things that trump's lawyer conceded were private acts were described in today's majority ruling. as things for which trump might nevertheless-- potentially get immunity. here's what justice sonia sotomayor said today, she said the court "refuses to designate any course of conduct alleged in the indictment as private despite concessions from trump's council. she continues when asked about allegations that private actors help implement a plan to submit fraudulent slates of presidential electors to disrupt

certification proceedings, and trump and co-conspirator attorney directed that effort trump's counsel conceded the alleged conduct by trump was private." that's is "only the majority, meaning only the majority ruling in the court today, thinks that organizing fraudulent slates of electors might qualify him as an official acts of the president." trump may be even more protected from prosecution on the fake electors thing than even trump asked for. justice sotomayor's dissent is being cited widely today not only because of its heat , it is considerably hot-- but also, because of the light it sheds on the practical consequences of this ruling from the majority. she says "looking beyond the fate of this particular prosecution.long-term consequences of today's decision are stark.

the court effectively creates a law-free zone around the president, upsetting the status quo that has existed since the founding. this new official acts immunity lies about like a loaded weapon for any president that wishes to place his own interests, his own political survival, or financial gain, above the interests of the nation. the president of the united states is the most powerful person in the country and possibly the world. and he uses his official powers in any way under the majority's reasoning he now will be insulated from prosecution." if he orders assassination, immune, organizes military coup, immune, takes a bribe in exchange for a pardon, immune. immune. immune. immune. let the president violate the law. let him explore the trappings of his office for personal gain, let him use his official power for evil ends. because, if he knew that he may one day face liability for making the law, he might not be as bold and fearless as we

would like him to be. that's the majority message today. even if these scenarios never play out, and i pray they never play out, this has shifted irrevocably. the president is now a king above the law and she closes "never in the history of our republic has a president had reason to believe he would be immune from criminal prosecution if he used the trappings of his office to violate the criminal law. moving forward however, all former presidents will be cloaked in such immunity. if the occupant of the office misuses power for personal gain.criminal law the rest of us must abide will not provide a backstop. " she says "with fear for our democracy, i dissent." justice sotomayor's dissent was joined today by justice kagan and justice jackson. the three of them and through justice sotomayor's writing

favor of writing what is kind of a speaking dissent, it spells it out in plain english, the star consequences of this ruling today. to his credit president biden did the same tonight at the white house. this is a fundamentally new principal and the power of the office will no longer be constrained by the law even the supreme court of the united states. the only limits will be self- imposed by the president alone. but, there are two practical consequences of this ruling that i feel like i need help in understanding tonight. i am worried about both of them, i have to tell you, but i feel like i need expert advice in terms of understanding what they really mean. i will ask for help on two things in reticular, the first is this, not from the dissent, but from the actual ruling, it's talking about the part of the

federal indictment against trump for overthrowing the january 6th stuff, the part of the indictment that relates to him trying to use the justice department, trying to employ the justice department, basically is a tool, in his scheme to overthrow the government and hold on to power after he lost the election. on that point specifically the ruling says this, "the indictments allegations requested investigations were shams are proposed for improper purpose do not divest the president of exclusive authority over the investigative and prosecutorial functions of the justice department and its park officials. because the president cannot be prosecuted for conduct within constitutional authority trump is absolutely immune from prosecution for the alleged conduct involving his discussions with justice department officials. " absolutely immune from anything related to his discussions. my question is,

doesn't that mean the president, anyone here, is being given over to carte blanche from the court that he or she can tell the justice department to do anything for any reason, and it can never be reviewed for the life of that president? because if so, among other things, richard nixon would like his presidency back please . if everything that happens between a president and his justice department is absolutely immune from the criminal law is absolutely immune from not only the prosecution, but investigation by the courts as a potentially criminal matter, that means the present can do things with the justice department that-- i mean , what is the limit? my second question is about what happens next in that federal case referenced there about january 6th.

the justices and majority today with chief justice roberts writing saying explicitly they want portions of this case sent back to the district court. so, not the part that relates to trump talking to justice barrett officials, but the other hearts of it, they want the indictment sent back to the district court, meaning back to chutkin's courtroom, actions described in the indictment were official and therefore immune or were they not official, which might mean charges on those matters can go ahead. what does that mean? what are the justices saying should happen in judge tanya chutkan's courtroom , and the public, actively considering whether to send this particular felon to the white house,

thanks to the republican party of the united states. nina, long time supreme court reporter who was there today for the ruling, it's a really special honor to have you tonight. >> i'm very pleased to be here. i hope i have the answers to all your questions. >> can you explain a little bit about what the justices in the majority, with the rulings said today about conversation between the president and justice department officials? >> well, what the court said is that the president, the presidency is unlike the other two branches of government, the house and senate have hundreds of members, the judiciary has hundreds of judges, and at the top of it are nine supreme court justices, but the president is just one person, and he controls the entire

executive branch. it's basically what chief justice roberts said. and, that means he controls the justice department, too. and he can call up the justice department and say, do this, or don't do this, as i understood what the chief justice was saying, that is within his prerogative as the chief executive of the united states of america. and it's true those of us who lived through watergate thought we saw the supreme court say you can't really corrupt the fbi and the rule of law through by ordering various members of the justice department to do corrupt things, but that, in fact, seems to be what the court's saying today is sort of off the table. and that is a very huge difference from what those of us who have been around longer than we care to admit thought

the rule of law was, at least after watergate. >> when it comes to um-- stopping and starting terminal prosecutions or investigations for improper purposes, that's scary. that's rhetoric we have heard from mr. trump potentially heading into a second term, but i also think of things the justice department does. i think about-- i mean-- just-- i think about, you know-- the use of force by the justice department, and what the president could order in that regard. hypotheticals involving the worst scenarios, of assassinations and things, are always brought up in terms of the military, but the u.s. military does not have any sort of deployable force in the united states absent invocation

insurrection act, it would be the federal law enforcement agencies that are employed to use force, including deadly force, against americans on american soil. that would edge to the president having immunity for that sort of thing as well. >> i think that is at least a reasonable comp conclusion. i don't know whether the court would agree with that, but those of us at the original oral argument understood that the court was going to as it were, divide the baby. it was very clear that a majority of the justices thought that at least this case should go back to the trial judge, and she should decide which of these things were official actions, and which weren't, and if they were official actions they were much more likely to be protected, the president was more likely to be protected from any sort of prosecution than if they were not official actions.

but the court went much further to the astonishment of, i think i'm a those of us who were there, who thought this was way more differential to the president's power than any of them had expected. but, if you look at five of those six justices spent their entire lives before coming to become judges, most of their lives, as acolytes to president. they top positions. brett kavanaugh was staffed secretary i think was his title. he decided who and what the president saw and materials that went in to the president. most of these guys felt for all

their lives, that presidents were being harassed by the opposition party, harassed by plaintiffs, harassed in all kinds of ways that made their jobs very difficult to do. and that is reflected in this decision today, and the only member of the conservative super majority who dissented at all was justice amy coney barrett, who did not have that experience, who said look, if you can show he accepted a bribe you have to be able to present that evidence in court, you cannot limit evidence. not only is the president basically immune from prosecution for a great many things, for those things you can prosecute him for you cannot use the evidence

of his wrongdoing if it involved official acts in order to prove to a jury that he did something bad. she said that's basically where i'm getting off this boat. i don't agree with you, i agree with the dissenters. >> even with her dissenting on that point there are five justices and five votes. astonishing. i don't qualify as a legal observer, i am just a person, but the astonishment is real. it's always an honor to have you here. thank you so much. >> it's always great for my ego when you introduce me that way. thanks so much for having me. take care. we have much more to come on this very big newsday. we have a lot of guests and a

lot of stuff to cover. cover.

♪ [suspenseful music] trains. [whoosh] ♪ trains that sense what isn't on the schedule. ♪ trains that use the power of dell ai and intel. ♪ to see hundreds of miles of tracks. ♪ [vroom] [train horn] [buzz] clearing the way, [whoosh] so you arrive exactly where you belong. ♪ limu emu... ♪ and doug. (bell ringing) limu, someone needs to customize and save hundreds on car insurance with liberty mutual. let's fly! (inaudible sounds) chief! doug. (inaudible sounds) ooooo ah. (elevator doors opening) (inaudible sounds) i thought you were right behind me. only pay for what you need. ♪ liberty, liberty, liberty, ♪ ♪ liberty. ♪

when we're young, we're told anything is possible... ...but only a few of us go out and prove it. witness the greatness of anna hall on a connection worthy of gold: xfinity mobile. only xfinity gives you the most powerful mobile wifi network, with speeds up to a gig in millions of locations. and right now, xfinity internet customers can buy one unlimited line and get one free for a year. get the fastest connection to paris with xfinity. i concur with justice sotomayor's words today. the president is now aching above the law. we fear for our democracy. i dissent. so should the american people dissent.

i dissent. >> president biden tonight at the white house responding to the supreme court's ruling that hands presidents including himself absolute immunity from prosecution for anything they can successfully argue was an official act. the president name checked justice sotomayor's blistering dissent which she delivered from the bench at the court today, it started "today's decision to grant former presidents criminal immunity reshapes the institution of the presidency. it makes a mockery of the principle foundational to our government that no man is above the law. about the need for bold and action because our constitution does not shield a former president from answering for criminal and treasonous acts, i dissent. then she laid out the basis for

her dissent. normally what supreme justices usually say i respectfully dissent. each today struck the word respectfully and just wrote dissent. that is what we are seeing from experts everywhere today. nina totenberg just telling us moments ago that legal observers and experts including what she described as both sides of the aisle meaning both sides of the ideological number line were in her words astonished by how radical this ruling was today. former president director counsel legal defense fund responded to the ruling by saying this, "today's decision in trump versus the united states is a grotesque and hideous distortion of the rule of law by a majority of the highest court of the most powerful democracy in the world. the national and global implications of a pending this core principle of democracy has

potentially catastrophic national and global implications." vernon e jordan junior distinguished chair and civil rights at howard law school. it makes me happy to see your face. i am really glad you could be here tonight. thank you for making the time. >> of course. >> justice roberts criticized the liberal justices' dissent, said they were striking a tone of chilling doom, essentially saying calmed down, ladies, accusing them of overreacting and betraying the ruling's consequences as something that they are not. you clearly think the consequences of this ruling are in your words potentially catastrophic. can you explain why you think so? >> i do, thank you so much, rachel, for having me. that was part of what was so disturbing about chief justice

roberts' opinion. if you're going to burn the house down don't be mad that people call it arson. you know, this decision is i talked about it having catastrophic consequences, because precisely of what justice sotomayor says about the rule of law. there is no question on what that means. it means the law applies equally to all, rich, and poor, high born and low born, black, white, latino, it means that one principle of law applies to everyone equally, and the president, when no longer a president, is a citizen of the united states and therefore the presumption is that he is covered as well by the rule of law. to shatter that today is so incredibly shocking that i think many people are back on their heels, and i say it has global implications because our country is a tremendously influential country because of

our power, our history, our national identity that we have worked so hard to press to other nations. we have held ourselves up as an exemplar of democracy, and for the highest court in our land to send a signal.only to this country but the rest of the world that the rule of law is something that can be interrupted for a president of your same political party is incredibly dangerous. the worst part is that it it is not theoretical conversation. we actually have the experience with former president trump. we know the kind of excesses he would like to and did engage in as president. this is not a case in which the court didn't have evidence of someone who would dangerously use the power that they so recklessly put in the hands of any president today. >> i was interested in the way justice sotomayor went back to

the particularities of the indictment and trump's conduct, as if to say this is not something we are deciding in the abstract. i think making that exact point implicitly. let me ask you about a very dark potential consequence of this, and this was raised by justice sotomayor. the implications of the hypothetical assassination scenario, you know, let's say a president ordered an element of the military to carry out an attack on somebody we saw as a danger or political rival. the justices seem to have made clear if the order to kill the person could be construed as something that was official, that the community matter is settled, and that would be something for which a president could never be prosecuted, is

it that simple? how would that work in the legal system? >> you know, it seems impossible , but that is what they mean, we have a former president, who you remember ask his defense secretary why they could not just shoot protesters, black lives matter protesters, in the legs. this is actually someone who thinks in that way. one of the things that held trump back when he was president was very often people around him would not carry out the things he asked. he asked white house counsel over and over to fire jeff sessions, and they would not do it. they would ignore him knowing that he would not do it himself, he would not do it himself, because he was at the time unsure of his liability. now he is sure this supreme court inks he would have no liability, so we have a category of things he can do

himself, he can strip military members from their ranks for not following his orders. he can accept cash, bribes for pardons. there is a whole bunch of things he can do, and he also can order others to do things, and the people he's going to have if elected in his second round are going to be people of considerably less restraint than those he had the first time around, and they were not particularly restrained. what this court has opened to us is a true danger, it has unleashed the full power of someone who has shown themselves to be unfit to lead this country, someone who has no regard for restraint or ethics. and the fact you can litigate it later, the fact that you can return to the district court, or that you can address these matters in the lower court to make their way back to the supreme court won't change the fact that people can be harmed,

and that our systems of government, that the rule of law can be further degraded, somewhere along the way there are a majority of justices on this court who decided they needed to be the last word on everything, that they could not trust the apparatus of democracy, federal agencies, overturning chevron, that they can't trust women to make decisions about their bodies or how to build classes, and they could no longer trust the political system to decide fairly how to pick representatives so they could not interfere with partisan gerrymandering. now they have decided determining whether or not the law covers the president of the united states and how much it does and when it does and doesn't is fully in their hands, and they have cut a wide swath of the president's actions, powers, official and unofficial, that they deemed barred from criminal prosecution. it's stunning. and i hope people

understand how much this is a day people will remember as one with very serious consequences for our understanding of the rule of law in this country. we better wake up and understand the consequences of the selection and allowing the supreme court to have this power in which they believe they cannot be checked by any level of government in our society and not trust the american people to make decisions for themselves. i am so alarmed and disturbed, but i also feel a sense of resolve. i think they fully shown themselves. this court has played its hand. anyone pretending we don't know what's going on is doing that. pretending. and i think we have to get serious about what it means. we are allowed to protect our democracy, and we have to do so at the ballot box. once we prevail in the elections we have to make decisions about what we want to do to ensure the supreme court

is ethical, acting in a way democratic, and we have to pass laws that will close these loopholes that have been left open, because we had believed norms and ethics would guard us against certain kinds of conduct. that has not proven true. so we have work to do. >> we will be making a decision in four months about who should be in the oval office holding what is now effectively unlimited, tyrannical power. and what person ought to be entrusted with that which nobody should be, but that's what we have. seeing you here is a comfort to me, because i trust and believe in you. i am grateful for your wisdom tonight. thank you. more news here ahead tonight including what sharon and i were talking bout in terms of going back to the district court, the expectation that

there will be of all things a big evidence year he hearing, like a miniature trial on trump's criminal indictment related to january 6th. it is an ironic and interesting next phase given what happened at the supreme court. we will talk about that with adam schiff. chiff.

immediately, today's supreme court decision on donald trump's immunity claim is far worse than anything i imagined. under this ruling a president can order the assassination or jailing of their political rival and be immune. they can take a bribe in exchange for an official act and still be immune. they can organize a military coup to hold onto power and still be immune. if that sounds mad, that's because it is." that was the response from congressman adam schiff who knows something about trying to hold a president accountable. he served on the january 6th investigation after trump left office. he has been a very frequent target, of explicit threats from trump once posted he, has

not paid the price yet, for what he has done to our country. he also suggested schiff should be arrested for treason after he appeared to fantasize talking about execution. members of the january 6th should be put in jail. a second term president trump would have brought new immunity from prosecution for actions he might take against his political enemies, with looking at the ruling, one very straightforward way it looks like he would have that authority almost without limit. congressman adam schiff, for thank you for joining us. >> good to be with you. expect the seriousness of this ruling i think is slowly

sinking in. it might have had limited scope, but as your reaction indicates, and as we understand now, this is one of the most far-reaching approaches they could have taken to this issue, and it goes far beyond what even i think conservative observers thought they would do. do you think that's fair? >> i think that's more than fair. it is difficult to overstate how dangerous this has become, they have unshackled the presidency to be able to commit crimes. the court has told the american people a president of the united states is fully authorized to commit crime in as simple as that. the court has found the rule applies to everyone with one exception, it does not apply to the president of the united states, the very person in most need of constraint. the president has the ability by virtues of the power of the office to do the most damage by violating the law. so i don't think anyone can overstate just how destructive

this president precedent is that it becomes before july 4th, as another body blow. it is hard not to see this as a dangerous precedent that will haunt us, and i won't be surprised if it is one day turned into ms. for this decision among others. >> one of the practical consequences of this ruling is that for many of the provisions in the federal indictment of donald trump foraging trying to overthrow the government to stay in power the supreme court has essentially told the district court, told the trial court, judge tanya chutkan in dc, that she should hold evidentiary hearings on what trump did and whether the things he did that are part of that indictment should be

considered as official acts and therefore immune, or whether they should be unofficial acts, and not quite sure if those army in tulsa, but they wanted to do factual hearings. what are you expecting? what should the public expect? >> i don't think the public should expect to find much comfort in that. the supreme court did a few things today, he opened the door for presidential crime and also delayed accountability for donald trump. it waited such a long time to issue this decision. it set such tight boundaries over what actions the court could even consider to be as to thoroughly constrain the lower court it held categories of conduct involving the justice department off-limits for the district court to consider. those hearings won't be like the january 6th committee,

because they won't be public, and the most dire consequence of all this is accountability is being pushed off until after the election. should donald trump be elected that accountability in the form of this prosecution, will probably never come. a president can now lose an election, 62 overturn the election, violate the constitution, and the supreme court said does nothing the american people can do about it. and i find cold comfort. they went out of there way their way the conversation between donald trump and the acting attorney general just say the election was corrupt and leave the rest to me and the republican congressman. that can't even be admitted under this rule. the court said you can't considered the president's motive or actions

and words as the patina of a fishy reality. so i take very little comfort in the power of the district court to sort this out. >> congressman adam schiff, i appreciate you taking time to talk to this and for being as you want as you are. i agree in terms of those implications, and it's not worth sticking our heads in the sand about it. congressman, thank you very much. we will be right back. back. for cancer, but a treatment can be. keytruda is known to treat cancer. fda-approved for 17 types of cancer, including certain early-stage and advanced cancers. one of those cancers is early-stage non-small cell lung cancer. keytruda may be used with certain chemotherapies before surgery when you have early-stage lung cancer, which can be removed by surgery, and then continued alone after surgery to help prevent your lung cancer from coming back.

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. keytruda is an immunotherapy 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 right for you.

just a reminder before i go tonight i will be back here tomorrow, tuesday night, for a special event. tomorrow night starting at 9:00 p.m. eastern from 9:00-11:00 p.m. eastern i have an interview with stormy daniels . the case, the criminal case, about the payment to her to stop her from talking about her experience with donald trump is the case that will result in his sentencing on 34 felony counts next week. this is the first american interview she's done since her testimony. she will describe her experience on testimony in that trial, she will elaborate on her very shocking testimony, she will talk about threats and harassment that have gone along with her standing up to him. i will tell you the interview is not easy material. it is not necessarily something you want to watch with your

kids. but, i will tell you, she has a very compelling story to take. a story to tell. she is also excellent company. she's really really funny. you want to hear what she says tomorrow night 9:00-11:00 eastern on msnbc. time for "the last word. " it's time. yes, the time has come for a fresh approach to dog food. everyday, more dog people are deciding it's time to quit the kibble and feed their dogs fresh food from the farmer's dog. made by vets and delivered right to your door precisely portioned for your dog's needs. it's an idea whose time has come. ♪♪

detect this: living with hiv, robert learned he can stay undetectable with fewer medicines. that's why he switched to dovato. dovato is a complete hiv treatment for some adults. no other complete hiv pill uses fewer medicines to help keep you undetectable than dovato. detect this: marnina learned that most hiv pills contain 3 or 4 medicines. dovato is as effective with just 2. if you have hepatitis b, don't stop dovato without talking to your doctor. don't take dovato if you're allergic to its ingredients or taking dofetilide. this can cause serious or life-threatening side effects. if you have a rash or allergic reaction symptoms, stop dovato and get medical help right away. serious or life-threatening lactic acid buildup and liver problems can occur. tell your doctor if you have kidney or liver problems, or if you are pregnant, breastfeeding, or considering pregnancy. dovato may harm an unborn baby. most common side effects are headache, nausea, diarrhea, trouble sleeping, tiredness, and anxiety. detect this: you could stay undetectable with fewer medicines. ask your doctor about dovato.

the moment i met him i knew he was my soulmate. you could stay undetectable with fewer medicines. "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. good evening. tonight on ayman, defiance.