high five! high five! -i'm in a call... it's 5 years of reliable, gig speed internet... five years of advanced security... five years of a great rate that won't change. yep, dave's feeling it. but it's only for a limited time. five years? -five years? introducing the comcast business 5-year price lock guarantee. powering 5 years of savings. powering possibilities. it is a very big day on msnbc today. reverend al sharpton sits down with congressman jim clyburn to discuss president biden's candidacy and the election. that will be a 5:00 p.m. eastern. looking forward to that. and tomorrow we will get a chance to talk with the biden- harris campaign principal campaign manager, quentin fulks, and that will be right

ear tomorrow at 8:00 a.m. eastern. be sure to follow the show on social media as mentioned before. until then, "velshi" continues our live coverage from chicago. he is the man in the space. take it away, ali. >> good morning to you, friends and thank you for talking about project 2025, this deep dive we are doing. my team is going through it by topic in chapter and we will tell people what it is. the more you read it, let me tell you, i think everybody should read it. on the other hand it is tough reading. it is 900 pages, it is policy stuff, but it is there. if you decide to vote for that for whatever reason, including that you find joe biden to old, you need to know what you are getting in exchange for it because there is some crazy stuff in there, wholly outlined.

>> they know a lot about crazy, so what can i say. we like to put it on paper. >> good for us. >> you guys have a good rest of your day. we will see you tomorrow. >> a quick shout out, happy birthday to the one and only kyle griffin. good morning to all of you. it is saturday, july 13. four years ago as donald trump was preparing to nominate a third person to the supreme court, then house speaker nancy pelosi said in a statement, quote, everything hangs in the balance with this nomination. in the years since the conservative super majority has handed down decisions that led to the curtailing of americans rights and the remaking of the federal government and all of that, as it was happening, and ethical crisis was unfolding involving members of the super majority on that court, which has cast doubts about the impartiality of some of the justices and some of the most high-profile and consequential

cases that ever reached the court. those twin crises have led to a historic erosion of public confidence in the supreme court and yet efforts to reform the institution and efforts to hold the justices accountable for their actions have stalled, largely due to hyper partisanship in congress. it is not for a lack of trying. lawmakers and legal experts have proposed numerous ideas for reform. expanding the court, imposing term limits, forcing the justices to adopt a binding code of ethics. taskforces have even been formed to explore these options and more, but none of these ideas have gained any real traction. at this point it can't simply be ignored that the members of the highest court in the land should be held to the lowest ethical standards. that is the important context to consider regarding a pair of unprecedented actions taken by democrats on capitol hill this week. on tuesday we learned that senator sheldon whitehouse and ron wyden have asked merrick garland to appoint a special

prosecutor to investigate supreme court justice to clarence thomas for tax fraud. the next day alexandria ocasio- cortez filed articles of impeachment against thomas and samuel alito, citing failures to publicly disclose financial income, gifts, and other transactions as well as the recusal -- refusal to recuse themselves from cases in which they may have had a conflict of interest. >> in january, 2021, after the former president of the united states incited an insurrection on the capital in this chamber, to interfere with the results of the u.s. election, justice samuel alito and his wife flew and upside down american flag, a symbol of solidarity with the attack outside their home. despite the overwhelming appearance of a conflict of interest, justice alito refused to recuse himself from cases surrounding the 2020 election and questions of the former

presidents legal immunity in the attack. justice thomas, who is married to virginia thomas, a financially and personally involved operative in the stop the steel movement and capital attack, also joined opinions in these cases, even as clear evidence mounted that not only was his wife fully committed to overthrowing the results of a fair election, but she was act lovely lobbying members of the trump administration, attempting to do just that. the questions before the court had unquestionable implications for thomases wife and consequently thomas himself. making his refusal to recuse one of the most shocking examples of conflict of interest in the courts history.

>> republicans will likely do what they can to block or discredit these efforts, but these actions, regardless of their likelihood of success, are arguably necessary in order to keep the pressure on the justices. it also sows public that there are paths forward even though they may not be politically viable just yet. the senate judiciary committee announced this week that it will hold a hearing in september to explore the effects of the supreme court decision regarding presidential immunity and to decide if congress needs to pass legislation to counteract some of the implications of that decision. as we have learned in the past couple of years, a large part of the problem with the supreme court has been the lack of transparency. practically all of the recent concerns with the court, lavish gifts, luxury trips, the length of one of the justices wife's, the upside down flags, they were all uncovered by investigations. not because the justices were forthcoming with this information and we need more of

that. exposing how bad the problem is, figuring out the proper course of action and forcing the justices, who rarely engage with the press or the public, to be more transparent about their actions. for much of history the justices have been expected to police themselves. the current court has remained reluctant, even defiant about the need for change. last year justice alito said, quote, no provision in the constitution gives congress the authority to regulate the supreme court. it should give everybody pause when one of the people entrusted to interpret the constitution says something like that. with what we know now it is simply unacceptable to let the justices continue to police themselves and until a viable path for reform emerges, it is necessary to keep up the pressure and keep an eye on the supreme court. joining me now is the president and ceo of citizens for responsibility and ethics in washington, and a professor at the university of chicago law school. she was a member of the

presidential commission on the u.s. supreme court and is also the author of the book, union, commerce, and slavery in the age of federalism. thank you for joining us. let me start with you. where do you stand on some of the many reforms we mentioned? we kind of group them together, but they are very different. there are different ways to approach them. installing an ethics code, establishing term limits. what you believe can be done? what you believe should be done? >> we start with the fact that something needs to be done, that it is simply not working to have the supreme court police themselves. it doesn't work to have anybody police themselves, especially people with tremendous, tremendous power. i think as a starting point a rigorous congressional investigation has to happen and you know we have seen new ethics problems uncovered. the senate uncovered private airfare trips paid for, that justice thomas took, paid for

by billionaires. so that needs to keep happening and the calls for a special counsel to investigate clarence thomas are appropriate and necessary at this point. you know there is, because of the kind of pressure that we have seen, there was finally, last year for the first time, a code of conduct in the supreme court. for a long time it was the only workplace in america pretty much with no code of conduct. now there is one and has no teeth. there needs to be continued pressure so there is an enforceable code of conduct with some real oversight, but i think we need to start talking about broader changes, like term limits, because we have a court that is totally unaccountable and we are starting to see the real dangers of that. >> as far as congresswoman ocasio-cortez is impeachment efforts, historically is this something that has worked, has anyone tried it?

>> impeachment is a high bar. it is part of the constitution. it is there for a reason, but in the course of history we've only seen one supreme court justice ever impeached. that was in the early 19th century and he was not removed, he was acquitted. now there have been more impeachments over the years of lower federal court judges, around 20 or so, but impeachment immediately we will see and are already singing, becomes one more piece of the partisan back-and-forth and i'm not sure if it really feels like a viable way to exercise some degree of control on the court. there are other mechanisms, but that one probably isn't the best one. >> given your experience or where you are right now on this, what do you think is a better thing to do that is possibly achievable? >> one thing is to remind the people in the conversation and the american people more generally that the court does

not get to decide the scope of its own powers. yes, we want judicial independence, that is a foundational value, but the constitution also sets up checks for we the people and sometimes we act through the president and congress. starting with judicial appointments. that is why who is president really matters, who is in the senate, but also something a lot of people don't realize is a lot of the things about how the court is structured are not constitutionally required. so, the size of the court for instance. the constitution doesn't say anything about the number of justices and there is no magic to the number nine. originally when the court was established there were six justices, so it is conceivable to think about more justices. that can be done through an act of congress. term limits is another possibility that has been discussed. you mentioned the presidential commission on the word. that is something we studied in our report and the question is

are these measures that can be taken by congress? that presents its own issues and hoops to jump through, or do we need a broader constitutional reform through a constitutional amendment, which is a much harder hurdle to overcome. >> a really interesting concept, this judicial independence versus determining the scope of your own power. for people who say this is politicized, the supreme court should be able to make the decisions it wants to and conduct its business, we are talking about two different things. nobody is suggesting the court should be any less judicially independent than it is, it is whether or not the way it works is broken. >> that is absolutely right. setting up how the court works. how many members there are, how long they serve and what types of oversight there can be is totally different from giving independence to issue whatever legal decisions they may feel are appropriate and i think we are seeing the pitfalls of a

lack of ability and willingness by anybody to perform any kind of meaningful oversight on the supreme court. in fact when you have these unregulated ethics problems that we are seeing now, it really makes you question judicial independence, if there are millionaires and billionaires who are providing lavish gifts to justices and these are folks who have clear interests in how the court rules and in many cases the american people don't even know that that is happening. is this really an independent court, when we have justices ruling on cases, where there appears to be a clear conflict of interest, where that standard of whether a reasonable person could question their impartiality seems to be violated.

that makes us question whether this is really an independent court, so i actually think some more restrictions, some more oversight would increase americans faith in the courts independence. >> what do you make of senator ron wyden and sheldon whitehouse's request for the attorney general to appoint a special counsel particularly to investigate financial matters related to justice thomas and his appointment? is that meaningful? >> it is certainly meaningful in a legal sense and political sense. i think it is important to try to separate those a little bit. it does raise some interesting and i think difficult separation of powers questions. as any special counsel regime always does as we have seen recently, one can imagine the appointment of that special counsel one day being challenged before the supreme court and that is a real question about what the supreme court is supposed to do. in those cases what has

sometimes happened, and there aren't many cases like that, but the court has to be mindful that it is the umpire of the whole system and that is what it talks about itself with, but it is also a branch of the federal government, so it does not get to have it both ways. we have seen that tension throughout u.s. history and we are in this moment right now where i think the warts independence is at stake, but also its degree to be completely uncontrolled. i think a lot of the time we see with these sorts of measures and i think of franklin roosevelt's court packing plan in the 1930s, that the introduction of the policy intervention itself can have an effect. there is a lot of debate about fdr's court packing. did it work or didn't it? the fact is the court did modify a lot of its constitutional holdings. there is a gray area that can influence how the other branches act and interact with each other. >> i appreciate this wholesome discretion discussion from us

to figure out the path forward and both of you have articulated the fact that there are several paths forward in making the supreme court more accountable. thank you. noah bookbinder is the president and ceo of citizens for responsibility and ethics in washington. dr. alison lacroix is a professor at the university of chicago law school. she is the author of the book, the antebellum constitution, union, commerce, and slavery in the age of federalism. start turning to breaking news out of the middle east. 71 people are dead and hundreds more wounded following an israeli airstrike earlier today. officials say the strike targeted multiple top hamas military officials including the hamas military commander and second highest ranking hamas official in gaza. he is widely believed to be behind the october 7 attack. it is unclear whether he is among the dead. the strike hit inside an israeli

designated safe zone in southern gaza. we will stay on top of the story for you. still to come, by now you have heard of project 2025 and its plan to reshape the government should trump become president again. it is two volumes and 900 pages long. there is a lot to unpack, so starting today we are taking you inside project 2025. each show we will dig into a specific plan that project 2025 has for america. today it is abortion rights. plus a growing course of democrats are calling for joe biden to get out of the race but if that happens the logistics and legality of getting him off the ballot is extremely tricky. president biden, though, continues to stay firm. >> i'm running and we are going to win. i am the nominee of this party. no one else, not the press, not

the pundits, not the insiders, not donors. you, the voters, you decided, no one else and i'm not going anywhere. anywhere. r-o-l-a-i-d-s rolaids' dual-active formula begins to neutralize acid on contact. r-o-l-a-i-d-s spells relief.

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. in the last 48 hours, president biden has ramped up his outreach to democratic lawmakers in an effort wash concerns about his fitness to run for reelection. 18 house democrats and one democratic senator have made public calls for biden to withdraw from the election. in a boost to the president's campaign recent polling is undercut the argument that biden lost significant support following the debate. the survey of seven battleground states from bloomberg news shows the race to be statistically unchanged since the debate two weeks ago, in spite of the political fallout it produced. no matter where you fall on this issue it is probably wise to know what could happen

should joe biden choose to step down. under the party rules, quote, all delegates to the national convention pledged to a presidential candidate shall, in all good conscience, reflect the sentiments of those who elected them, in vote. the application of this rule has led to uncertainty about how loyal delegates would cast their votes of someone else were in the race. two scenarios could unfold. the first is that biden appoints a successor, likely kamala harris, and urges his delegates to support her. a move that is seen as safe and seamless. if that were to happen and harris were to prevail at the convention, she would inherit biden's campaign funds from their primary campaign committee. that is $91 million at the end of may. since federal law states that the campaign funds also belong to the vice presidential candidate. what is less clear is what

happens to the other money that is currently pledged to the biden campaign. alternatively the democratic party could opt for an open convention where all pledged and unpledged delegates could be free to support various delegates. this process would likely position harris as a frontrunner, giving her an opportunity to select a strong running mate based on the results. the specific procedures for the actual vote is detailed in a document known as the call for convention, which calls for a simple majority of delegates to clinch the nomination. if an initial round of votes fails to determine a nominee, the superdelegates made a party leaders and elected officials would also cast ballots in subsequent rounds until a majority is secured. a third scenario comes if biden gives up the nomination after accepting it at the convention. according to the national election task force, an election watchdog group, it would then fall to the democratic national committee members to select a new nominee

by a majority vote in a special session called by the dnc chair, harrison. harrison would consult with leaders in congress and democratic governors and then report to dnc members who would then choose the new nominee. no matter how this happens, if it were to happen, time is the democrats biggest enemy at the moment, more than any rule or procedure. with just over a month to the convention, any replacement will face difficulty securing the nomination and uniting the party. there is one more potential hindrance, though i think you will hear that you should take this one with a grain of salt. the heritage foundation, the conservative group behind project 2025, the far right blueprint for another trump term has warned of potential legal action if biden is removed from the ticket. the executive director of the foundation declared on thursday, quote, as things stand right now there is a 0% chance of a free and fair election in the united states

of america. i am formally accusing the biden administration of creating conditions that most reasonable policymakers and officials cannot in good conscience certify an election. a memo issued last month by the heritage oversight project specifically cites three states as targets for potential litigation. georgia, nevada, and wisconsin, which are all battleground states which biden won in 2020. legal experts say there is very little chance of these frivolous lawsuits succeeding, but that's not really the goal. the goal is likely delay. delay the certification of the eventual nominee for president and so confusion and doubt in the process, which as you know has worked in prior years. after a quick break i will discuss all of this with a law professor and former senior advisor and chief spokesperson for kamala harris, symone sanders-townsend. our businesset fast and reliable internet from the same network that powers our phones. (aaron) so whatever's next... we're cooking with fire. (vo) switch to the partner businesses rely on.

this summer. snacking. just. got. serious. introducing new $3 footlong dippers. the world might not be ready for them... ...but at $3 a pop? your wallet definitely is. (♪♪) when life spells heartburn... how do you spell relief? r-o-l-a-i-d-s rolaids' dual-active formula begins to neutralize acid on contact. r-o-l-a-i-d-s spells relief.

don't you quit, don't you quit! >> that was joe biden at a rally last night in detroit, michigan. the crowd chanting, don't you quit, amid a litany of calls to drop out of the race. joining me now a professor of political science at ucla and director of the safeguarding democracy project and author of the book, a real right to vote, how a constitutional amendment can safeguard democracy. also with us is my friend and colleague, symone sanders- townsend. she previously served as a senior advisor and chief spokesperson for vice president kamala harris and of course you know her as one of the cohosts of the great program before this one, the weekend, right here on msnbc. nice to see you again, my friend. symone, you were literally the first person i talked to after the debate. everybody had an opinion on everything and that is fine. that's the beauty of america. i want to understand what can

happen and will happen and i am surprised we are talking about this so much later, but we are, so let's address it. i tried to lay out how this could unfold so people who are calling for joe biden to step out of the race understand that is not a seamless thing. there is complexity to it. what is your sense of how i laid that out? is there anything missing? >> i think you laid it out perfectly. the only thing i would add is the conscience clause, the good conscience clause which changed in the 70s or 80s. it used to be that it was enforced, it was binding, and then they loosened the language, the rules did, so it is now about a conscience clause. that is very important. the only person that can release the delegates is joe biden. you have two scenarios. one is joe biden releases his delegates. he has said he is not doing that. he encouraged people to vote their conscience and be in good standing, but joe biden has to

release his delegates. the other option is that about 2000 delegates, pledged delegates, people who ran on slates to be biden delegates to go to the convention, 2000 of those individuals would have to go against what they ran on to support some phantom candidate that is currently not on the ballot at convention. i don't see that happening. stranger things have happened, but it is not there. i talked to a number of pledged delegates today. we had the chair of the caucus on earlier who said that her membership and the pledge to delegates that she knows, herself being one, they are supporting the president. the only other thing i would add is if there is some random scenario that is not going to happen, but let's say it does and joe biden does release his delegates, there is a process by which people would need to get on the ballot. there are signatures you need

from various states and that is governed again by the call to convention. >> let's talk about that, the technicality. i think this is the least interesting part of the conversation, but people ask about it or you may see news reports, so we will address it. how likely are these threatened lawsuits from the heritage foundation and what affect could floating these discussions about legal challenges have on the election process? this is all done by conspiracy peddlers, so let's put that point on it, but tell me what you think, rick. >> well, there is a huge difference between the situation right now and the situation after a nomination. right now joe biden is not the official nominee of the party and if you look at the rules in the different states they have a process where after a party has nominated its candidate at a convention, the party leaders transmit that information to state officials so they can start telling the counties to prepare the ballots. so right now there is no nominee.

there is nothing in the law in these states that requires joe biden, who is unofficially the presumptive nominee, to be on the ballot. after he has been nominated, if he is nominated, if he then withdraws it gets complicated. then there are a set of complicated rules and the potential for lawsuits to try to replace his name on the ballot and there is even the possibility his name could remain on the ballot and then there would be a question about how presidential electors could vote if the votes were cast for ballots but there were someone else sitting in on the democratic side. >> symone, talk to me about what role you see vice president kamala harris, who you know better than most people, playing in this moment and the course of the next few days when in theory this conversation needs to come to an end one way or another. >> i think you can look to immediately after the president's first debate performance and it was the vice president that was out making

the rounds on television. on our network and others and it is my understanding that was not at the request of anyone. she herself wanted to go out. i think people forget, what is the role of the vice president? the role is one, frankly, to be ready to do the job of president if the time ever comes, that that is needed, but in the absence of that the role of the vice president is to support the president. to promote the administration's agenda and to be a good governing partner. if you look at the appearances the vice president has had, the campaign stops over the past couple of weeks and even well before, i think she is effectively executing that task as the number two on the biden- harris ticket, so she is being very supportive of the president, is my understanding publicly and privately and if we can be candid, more supportive than some of the people who've known the president for 30 years. >> no question about that. there is no talk about knives

out from the harris campaign. rick, there are people who don't think joe biden should leave the race, but they are making sure everybody understands, as we are right here, saying if he were to where you think you should, you should know how this process potentially plays out. another idea that is being floated, proposal being floated is the idea of holding a mini primary before the actual nominating convention which is set to start august 19. that idea was floated by south carolina representative james clyburn, who is a very strong joe biden ally, but talked about this as a potential idea. is there any legal prohibition for that to happen? do you think that would be a good idea? >> an actual primary requires a huge number of people doing a lot of things. we have early voting and registration. what i think would be much more likely if joe biden decides not to run and opens it up would be some kind of beauty contest.

that is you would have your network and others would have debates. people would get to speak, say what they think and at the convention, that is when there would be a vote. there is really no time to put on any kind of primary in any state in the next few weeks where you could gear things up and have an election that would have any kind of validity. >> thank you to both of you. i appreciate this. this continues to be a complex and vaccine issue and i appreciate the time you have taken. richard hasen is a professor of political science at ucla and the director of the safeguarding democracy project and author of the book, a real write about, how a constitutional amendment can safeguard american democracy. symone sanders-townsend is a former senior advisor for kamala harris and the cohost of the wonderful show, the weekend, which i watch every weekend before "velshi". it airs every saturday and sunday morning from 8:00 to 10:00 a.m. eastern right before the show. now for a departure from what i

normally do, i will be covering the republican national convention this week, but not from the anchor chair and not from the convention in milwaukee and not even outside on the street where i am most comfortable. i will be on youtube. starting tuesday night i will be hosting msnbc's very first cast of the rnc on youtube. i will be watching the convention in real time along with some of your favorite political analysts and we will deliver instant commentary and analysis. join us at youtube.com/msnbc. on tuesday, wednesday, and thursday. see you then.

with cascade platinum plus, i have upped my dish game auntie, in that dishwasher? watch me platinum plus gives you the highest standard of clean, even in your machine. clean enough for you? yeah! scrape. load. done. cascade platinum plus. (vo) you've had thyroid eye disease for a long time. and you've lived with the damage it caused. scrape. load. done. but even after all these years, restoration is still possible. learn how at tedhelp.com. everybody wants super straight, super white teeth. they want that hollywood white smile. new sensodyne clinical white provides 2 shades whiter teeth and 24/7 sensitivity protection. i think it's a great product. it's going to help a lot of patients.

what is cirkul? cirkul is what you hope for when life tosses lemons your way. cirkul is your frosted treat with a sweet kick of confidence. cirkul is the effortless energy that gets you in the zone. cirkul, available at walmart and drinkcirkul.com.

we've got a couple of updates on inflation this weekend the overarching headline is that things are looking better for americans. according to the bureau of labor statistics, part of the labor department, annual inflation in america which is broadly measured by the consumer price index, cpi, fell to 3% in june, which is better than economists expected after may showed a 3.3% increase. 3% may not seem ideal. the ideal level for inflation is 2%, but we are now back in the ballpark of where inflation was during the obama and pre- pandemic trump years and we are a far cry from where inflation

was at the height of the pandemic which hit a peak of 9.1% just two years ago. it has been steadily coming down, as you can see, which doesn't mean that prices are lower. inflation going down means prices are moving up much more slowly. on top of that wages continue to grow faster than inflation and have been since february of last year. i will say it has only been this way for a while, so it will take some time for americans to actually feel this particular improvement. while the inflation rate is lower for some goods, there are still areas where inflation is quite high. you might feel that when it comes to things like rent, insurance, particularly car insurance, and hospital services. from 2022 to 2023 the fed raised rates 11 times as a way to curb inflation. the thinking is that higher interest rates cause people to not spend as much, especially if they need to use credit to make purchases and that slows the economy, leading to lower demand for goods and services,

which causes inflation to come down. on tuesday testifying before the banking committee, jerome powell touted the strength of the current economy and the progress we have made over the past few years. >> the story for the past two years has been just how exceptional the performance of the u.s. economy has been and that is not a secret. clearly the u.s. economy has performed very well compared to sort of our advanced economy. colleagues. >> with inflation decreasing, many economists say they expect the fed to cut interest rates in september. up next, inside project 2025, our new series exposing the plan to reshape the american government under a trump presidency. you don't have to read far into the far right manifesto to discover its plans for abortion rights in america, literally on

page 6. quote, the dobbs decision is just the beginning. discover the power of wegovy®. ♪ ♪ with wegovy®, i lost 35 pounds. and some lost over 46 pounds. ♪ ♪ and i'm keeping the weight off. wegovy® helps you lose weight and keep it off. i'm reducing my risk. wegovy® is the only fda-approved weight-management medicine that's proven to reduce risk of major cardiovascular events in adults with known heart disease and with either obesity or overweight. wegovy® shouldn't be used with semaglutide or glp-1 medicines. don't take wegovy® if you or your family had medullary thyroid cancer, multiple endocrine neoplasia syndrome type 2, or if allergic to it. stop wegovy® and get medical help right away if you get a lump or swelling in your neck, severe stomach pain, or an allergic reaction. serious side effects may happen, including pancreatitis and gallbladder problems. wegovy® may cause low blood sugar in people with diabetes, especially if you take medicines to treat diabetes.

tell your provider about vision problems or changes, or if you feel your heart racing while at rest. depression or thoughts of suicide may occur. call your provider right away if you have any mental changes. common side effects like nausea, vomiting, and diarrhea may lead to dehydration, which may cause kidney problems. with wegovy®, i'm losing weight, i'm keeping it off. and i'm lowering my cv risk. that's the power of we. ♪ ♪ check your cost and coverage before talking to your health care professional about wegovy®.

as the election draws nearer, project 2025, the conservative blueprint for a potential second trump term has come under scrutiny and for good reason. despite the claim that he knows nothing about project 2025, we know beyond a shadow of a doubt that trump is intimately and extensively tied to it. he is mentioned more than 300 times throughout the document and according to a cnn count at least 140 people involved with project 2025 once worked for donald trump and roughly two thirds of the authors and editors involved in the plan served in the trump administration. the heritage foundation, the conservative think tank behind project 2025 proudly touts, quote, one year after taking office president trump and his

administration have embraced two thirds of the recommendations from the heritage foundation mandate for leadership. so project 2025, i am traveling right now so i'm not carrying it with me, but when you see my copy of it you can see that the actual title is mandate leadership, the conservative promise. it isn't a wild conservative wish list. it is 900 pages of super specific policy proposals with plans for how to carry them out. it includes instructions on who to appoint and what values those appointee should have. it lays out a vision for how to concentrate power, deregulate, decrease social services, abandon any effort to combating climate change in favor of the fossil fuel industry and it aims to push conservative christian values on every aspect of american life. so it is vitally important that we, all of us, understand this plan and understand what is at stake, which is why starting today on "velshi" we are taking you inside project 2025. every weekend, every time i'm

on tv i'm going to dig into these pages and parse what is in this mandate. today we kick it off with abortion and reproductive rights. abortion is mentioned 199 times. the forward to the entire thing reads, quote, the dobbs decision is just the beginning. conservatives and states and washington including the next conservative administration should push as hard as possible to protect the unborn in every jurisdiction in america and in particular the next conservative president should work with congress to enact the most robust protections for the unborn that congress will support while deploying existing powers to protect innocent life and vigorously complying with statutory bands on the federal ending of abortion. later on in the chapter on the department of health and human services, roger severino, a former trump white house official wrote, quote, the secretary should pursue a robust agenda to protect the right to life. from the moment

of conception every human being possesses inherent dignity and worth. abortion and euthanasia are not healthcare. he does not stop there. on medication abortion he writes, abortion pills pose the greatest threat to unborn children in a post-tran44 world. fda should therefore reverse its approval of drugs because the politicized approval process was illegal from the start. project 2025 aims to prevent abortion from the moment of conception, which would likely involve establishing so-called personhood rights for embryos and fetuses. it aims to crack down on so- called abortion tourism. instances in which women travel to liberal states to seek abortions. it proposes using the comstock act to prosecute people who send abortion pills by mail. it aims to take away most medication abortion altogether. trump and the rnc seem to understand that abortion is in fact, or at least abortion bans or a losing issue for them.

americans ever increasingly support access to safe, legal abortion. a recent poll found 70% of americans support legal access to abortion in most or all cases. so this is where it gets tricky. trump and the rnc put out their official gop party platform this weekend and this time for the first time since 1984, the republican party platform does not call for a national abortion ban. instead the republican platform reads, quote, we believe the 14th amendment to the constitution of the united states guarantees that no person can be denied life or liberty without due process. and that the states are therefore free to pass laws protecting those rights, and quote. that might appear to be a softened stance on abortion rights. many legal experts raise red flags, pointing out the antiabortion movement is used the 14th amendment to claim

that the unborn, or fetuses, or embryos from the moment of conception, are persons under the law in the constitution with legal rights the same as we have. to see the rnc softening on abortion as anything other than an empty strategic or tactical move is to be willfully blind to all of the evidence before us. after all, by our count, at least seven people who wrote the rnc 2024 platform have close connections to 2025. 202. during the wise buys sales event, get two progressives and a comprehensive eye exam for just $129.95. book an exam online today. every day, more dog people are deciding it's time for a fresh approach to pet food. developed with vets. made from real meat and veggies. portioned for your dog. and delivered right to your door. it's smarter, healthier pet food. have you ever considered getting a walk-in tub? well, look no further!

safe step's best offer, just got better! now, when you purchase your brand new safe step walk-in tub, you'll receive a free shower package. yes, a free shower package! and if you call today, you'll also receive 15% off your entire order. now you can enjoy the best of both worlds! the therapeutic benefits of a warm, soothing bath that can help increase mobility, relieve pain, boost energy, and even improve sleep! or, if you prefer, you can take a refreshing shower. all-in-one product! call now to receive a free shower package plus 15% off your brand new safe step walk-in tub.

♪♪ looking good, guys! thanks! vacations are better with the credit gods are on your side. i'm coming up! rewards once available to the few are now accessible to the many. earn points for travel with credit one bank, and live large.

joining me now is former senior director for the center for reproductive rights and also a lawyer, campaign strategist, and the host of the substack interview series. good to see you again. thank you for being with us. >> really good to see you. thank you for having me. >> tell me why the republican party has what appears to be an abortion platform that on the surface appears substantially softer than the stuff that appears in project 2025, which is pretty clear about what they think about abortion and abortion rights. >> it is really simple. they realize that it is a polarizing issue to focus on the really radical and extremist agenda that they have around abortion, so what they are trying to do is really try to have the best of both

worlds. they are signaling how they want to govern, but they are trying to hide it. more broadly what they are talking about presidency would really look like and what we are talking about. >> let's talk about this thing that the republican party did where they said that the 14th amendment, which talks about a person in america cannot be denied their life or liberty without due process. a.k.a., you can't just pick someone up and kill them. you have to build a case, you can't throw them in jail. there has been an attempt since the 80s to apply that to the unborn, to fetuses and embryos. the republican party and its platform says they support states rights to determine their own abortion policies. talk to me about that, because that is kind of what the fall of roe did and that has turned out to be draconian and

horrible. >> absolutely. for so long the talking point has been, this issue should be decided by the states. but the fact of the matter is that was the law of the land under roe. roe established a floor below which no state could fall, but it did not say states could not do more to make sure people were safe during pregnancy and any number of reproductive freedoms and choices were available. so the idea that this was about getting back to the states is untrue and we are already seeing that play out. since the dobbs decision overturned roe, we have already seen 14 states outlaw abortion, but more states put in restrictions and we are seeing more and more of that. what we are also hearing at the national level is a call for a national ban. the idea that they should be left up to the states, was always just a trojan horse talking point to get rid of roe and then to start trying to hatch what would be a draconian

law across the country. it does not matter what state people are living in and importantly, especially when talking about medication abortion, the efforts to ban medication abortion would be wide. these are not individual states, but these are attempts to say that the fda never should have approved medication abortion. medication abortion is the number one way that people access abortion rights, so that would be a national ban. the idea that we just want states to be free was never true and we are seeing that very clearly right now. >> and for the viewer or the people my viewers talk to, this is important to understand. project 2025 has a 180 day implementation deadline. this is not a conceptual thing for the next 50 years. this is what will happen in the first six months of a trump administration. if you live in california, you live in new york, you live in illinois, you could lose your

abortion rights under project 2025. you are voting for a platform that says that is what is going to happen. >> absolutely and i think this is what is so important and what we are seeing republican lawmakers try to step away from right now because people turn out for abortion. every time it has been on the ballot since the fall of roe, people have voted. so they are trying to run away from what is very clear, which is that we will see an outright assault on abortion, on emergency contraception. we have to play this to the logical conclusion and also say on other types of contraception, on ivf. the language being used right now cannot stop with abortion and that is so critical. more and more, trump has been doing it, but more lawmakers have been doing it, too. they are trying to parse this and say we can have these really extremist views on abortion, but they won't touch

all these other things and they will. they absolutely will. >> thank you. >> we are talking contraception. g contraception. [ inaudible ] we're talking about ivf, and we are also talking about planned and unwanted-- wanted pregnancies, when people are experiencing pregnancy, they are being turned away because of these laws. >> your references, and we don't have any time to get to it today, but we will keep digging into it, how this extends to contraception and 1 million of these, i will not say millions, but dozens of these examples we have seen from women suffering because they can't get treatment are planned and wanted pregnancies because pregnancies actually complicated in this country, more so than any other er developed nature. my rubric, host of power brick or subsecond review series and the podcast when we went with my rubric. new articles of impeachment thing to supreme court justices to accounts of