>> jon stewart, rosie, senator gillibrand, thank you so much for your time today. best of luck with this mission. i am here to help in any way i can. >> thanks, jake. >> thanks a lot. >> and thank you for pespending your sunday morning with us. fareed zakaria starts right now. this is "gps," the global public square. welcome to all of you in the united states and around the world. i'm fareed zakaria coming to you live. today on the show, president trump announces his nominee for the supreme court. >> judge amy coney barrett. >> what do we know about her? what does this mean for an america that will now have a decidedly conservative supreme court? i'll ask two distinguished

experts. and at the u.n. on tuesday, the iranian president said his people were grappling with the harshest sanctions in history. and then the u.s. laid on more sanctions on thursday. i interviewed iran's foreign minister this week about the effects of america's maximum pressure campaign, the fate of the nuclear agreement, and iran ya 's recent execution of a local sports here. first, here's my take. by declining to commit to a peaceful transfer of power, president trump has agitated many who feel he will refuse to leave office even if he loses the november election and may even resort to violence. but the terrifying reality is that there are also mechanisms that are legal and constitutional that could enable trump to stay in office without actually winning the vote. the system of electing the president is complicated because

it was not designed to be directly democratic. the constitution calls for states to choose the presidential electors who, in turn, gather to vote for the president. over time, states have passed laws that ensured their state's popular vote for the presidency would determine the electors. but those are laws, not a constitutional obligation. now, imagine the scenario during election week. trump is leading on november 3rd but joe biden pulls ahead in the days following, republicans file objections to tens of thousands of mail-in ballots, democrats file countersuits taking account of the confusion, legislators decide to choose the electors themselves. here's the worry. of the nine swing states, eight have republican legislatures. if one or more decide balloting is chaotic is marred by irregularities they can send in what they regard as legitimate

slate of. democrats may file lawsuits and some of those states democratic governors or secretaries of state could send their own states of electors to wash war. that would add to the confusion but that might well be part of the republican plan. because you see, when congress convenes on january 6th to tally the electors' votes, there would be challenges to the legitimacy of some of the electors. it's possible republicans could decide disputed states should not be counted. suppose in this scenario michigan a michigan's votes are invalidated. that would ensure neither candidate gets 270 votes. the house of representatives vote to determine the presidential election. but it does so with each state casting a single ballot. if the current numbers hold, there would be 26 state delegations that are republican and 23 democratic with one tied.

so, the outcome would be to re-elect donald trump. trump doesn't need to do anything other than to simply accept this outcome, which is constitutional. thanks to tom rogers and tim wurth for their writings on this topic. trump clearly understands this chain of events. he's been casting doubt on mail-in ballots for months insisting the results must be the one that reflect the tally on election night. he said this week that without mail-in ballots, there would be no worries about a transfer of power because there would simply be a continuation of his rule. he's also acknowledged -- >> we have an advantage if we go back to congress. does everyone understand that? i think it's 26 to 22 or something because it's counted one vote per state. >> for this scenario to play out, state republican parties have to put their desire to win above concerns that all voices in their state are heard. unfortunately, recent history suggests that most will readily make this trade. many state republican parties

have been actively attempting to suppress votes. just a few examples perform in 2011, texas passed a law requiring a government id for voting and allowed gun licenses but not student ids from state universities. this was to prevent voter fraud which several studies have shown is largely nonexistent. in 2017, georgia passed a law blocking voter registration with minor typos. in florida the republican governor and legislature have effectively gutted a state initiative that restored voting rights to more than 1 million former felons disproportionately black. american democracy is getting warped because the republican party believes that this its path to power lies not in getting a majority of votes but through other means. in 2018, thanks to redistricting republicans in wisconsin, having won about 45% of the vote, ended up with almost 65% of the seats in the state assembly.

they have become used to this kind of situation on the national stage. think about this, since 1992, the republican presidential candidate has won the popular vote only one time. in 2004. and that, too, in the wake of the country's worst terrorist attack and with a rar time rally around the flag sentiment. nevertheless, republicans have held the white house for almost half of those 28 years. america prides itself as the world's leading democracy, and yet because of a vague and creeky constitutional process, and ferocious partisanship, this november we might put on a unctio that would rival any banana republic on the planet. go to cnn.com for a link to my washington post column this week. and let's get started.

we'll get to president trump's nomination of amy coney barrett to be the next associate justice of the supreme court in a moment, but first i want to ask the legal experts joining me about the scenario i've just laid out. noah feldman is a professor at the harvard law school, a columnist and a podcaster. emily bazelon is a staff writer at new york times magazine and usually writes about legal affairs. a fellow at the yale law school. noah, will met start with you by asking you, the reason i laid out that sort of scarce scenario because what strikes me is republicans don't need to do much more than raise a lot of objections, file some laws and essentially run out the clock until the point at which the electors have to be chosen. can courts in some way have they in the past, you know, circumvent that process and say, no, you have to count faster, resolve these differences so

there are actual electors on the safe harbor date? >> if you read the constitution, just the words, there's no expless it's role for the courts in the scenario you sketched out. but you should never say never. in that scenario, democrats would be sure to go to court in each of the states where the legislature was sending a different slate of ee electric tors than the ones chosen by the voters. and it's very possible, in fact it's probable, in some cases, some federal judges at the lower level would say, you can't do this, states. you've broken the rules. the democracy is operating and you're undercutting it. that would then work its way up through the courts and it's possible the supreme court would hear such a case. they wouldn't have to. in the end it's up to the supreme court to decide if it wants to hear a case or not. >> emily, do you think that state legislatures face any real legal obstacle to choosing

electors they want? i'm assuming a situation where there is some chaotic balloting, where there are some disputes about counting, can electors say, look, this is our best sense of who was elected? >> look, no election is perfect but what you're describing is a complete up-ending of american democracy, right? you're talking about state legislatures taking the right to choose the president away from voters, away from the american people. and so despite the creeky constitution, the provisions that do on paper allow for this, i think the political price would be very high. i think people would not stand for this. and should not stand for this. this is not really a partisan issue. this is about the kind of very foundation of our democracy and making sure that americans not legislatures get to choose the president. that is how we have done it for a very long time. that is what needs to happen in the election. and i think in the end there

would also be pressure on the courts to make sure that happened, but i think it's important to go back. we want to make sure that this is a fair and accurate count and that people's ballots determine who is the president. >> noah, let me ask you about judge barrett, presumably going to become justice barrett. you clerked with her on the supreme court. and you wrote a controversial op-ed for bloomberg, where you're a columnist, where you said she's highly qualified to be on the court and your basic argument is she's extremely intelgts. you said she's one of the two most brilliant group of people in that law clerks and a very decent person. but you disagree with with her fundamentally on the law and on the constitution. isn't that worse, in a sense, for somebody like you? shouldn't liberals be more terrified of a highly competent

justice who will be very conservative versus somebody, you know, a little less competent? how do you think about that problem? >> thank you for asking that, fareed. i think it's exactly the other way around. the whole reason we have a supreme court is we care about. the constitution and we resolve certain deep societal questions by asking the justice to interpret the constitution according to their own understanding of how to do so. and you can have that done by a bunch of people who are unprincipled and who who don't have deep beliefs and they just yell at each other and they vote. we have something a little like like that. it's called congress. doesn't matter if the person has good ideas or driven by conscious, it's all driven by politics. the supreme court says we need to try to debate and discuss it in light of what the constitution says and what in light of what the constitution means. in order for us to lower the temperature a little bit in that context, i believe we need the smartest and best people, including the smartest and best people whom we disagree with all

the way down the line. let me be clear. judge barrett and i disagree on just about every important constitutional issue and most important statutory issues but i think she's the best interelector one could have. that's not the same thing as saying i think she's right. >> emily, let me ask you a political question deriving from that. if that's the case, are the democrats mishandling this? i noticed two democratic senators have said they won't even meet with her. this is, of course, tit for tat because republican senators didn't meet with measure rick garland. if she's going to end up on the court anyway, do you want to alienate her, in a sense, you know, the kavanaugh treatment presumably, kavanaugh is a human being, has driven him to be more partisan, more ideological. in other words, are you trying to seduce these justices to be a little more like anthony kennedy and a little less like ckavanauh

or are they going to vote the weigh they want to vote? >> i think the issue of whether democrats meet with amy coney barrett when she's a supreme court is just wrong. when i hear noah talk about cooking with her it's like someone defend a member of a very fancy elite club rather than think about what amy coney barrett is actually going to do as a supreme court justice. so, to me, the question is what impact is she going to have? we actually know a lot about her record. she has expressed interest in restricting reproductive rights, in potentially overturning the affordable care act and really when you buy into the full conservative, quite radical judicial agenda, you're also talking about fundamentally changing the role of american government. so, i'd be interested in noah's thoughts why he disagrees with her because i think outlining those constitutional issues is what's really crucial here. >> all right.

so, we are going to talk about exactly that when we come back. noah, hold your thought. i'm going to ask you weather roe will be overturned and what the consequences of a 6-3 majority will be when we come back. 20 years ago, i was an hourly associate cart pusher. the different positions i've had taught me how to be there for others. ♪ i started out as a cashier. i mean, the sky's the limit with walmart. it's all up to you. ♪

♪ some companies still have hr stuck between employeesentering data.a. changing data. more and more sensitive, personal data. and it doesn't just drag hr down. it drags the entire business down -- with inefficiency, errors and waste. it's ridiculous. so ridiculous. with paycom, employees enter and manage their own data in a single, easy to use software. visit paycom.com, and schedule your demo today. tonight, i'll be eating a veggie cheeseburger on ciabatta, no tomatoes.. [hard a] tonight... i'll be eating four cheese tortellini with extra tomatoes. [full emphasis on the soft a] so its come to this? [doorbell chimes]

thank you. [doorbell chimes] bravo. careful, hamill. daddy's not here to save you. oh i am my daddy. wait, what? what are you talking about? [bir♪ chirping] [female announcer] food delivery just got more rewarding. now that grubhub gives you rewards when you order your fav foods. [dog barks] want a hamburger, some fries, a drink, nuggets? then, boom! rewarded, with a wendy's '4 for $4' perk. [talking sounds]

ordering chipotle for the family? voila! rewarded, with guacamole and a side of quiet. grubhub gives you rewards for rewarding yourself.. with food! [doorbell rings] - [all] grubhub! [motorcycle beeps] but a resilient business you cacan be ready for it.re. a digital foundation from vmware helps you redefine what's possible... now. from the hospital shifting to remote patient care in just 48 hours... to the university moving hundreds of apps quickly to the cloud... or the city government going digital to keep critical services running. you are creating the future-- on the fly. and we are helping you do it. vmware. realize what's possible. and now your co-pilot.. still a father. but now a friend. still an electric car. just more electrifying. still a night out. but everything fits in.

still hard work. just a little easier. still a legend. just more legendary. chevrolet. making life's journey, just better. a book that you're ready to share with the world? get published now, call for your free publisher kit today! more now about what a truly conservative supreme court would look like. it's been sort of conservative. we now have a 6-3 majority. noah feldman and emily bazelon are back with us. noah, the big question everybody wants to ask about is roe versus wade, but it raises the issue emily was getting at earlier, that if there are these huge consequences to a 6-3 majority

and a very conservative judge, isn't that a truly scary scenario and the fact she's a good lawyer doesn't matter? >> i think there's a fundamental misunderstanding, a dangerous misunderstanding of how the supreme court works and how the justices operate that's implicit in what emily said. if you think of chief justify john roberts, he voted this last turn to uphold casey versus planned parent heed, neil gorsuch voted to give lgbtq rights. the justices are holding themselves up to the plan, the goal of interpreting the law without an eye to its consequences. does that always happen? no, of course not. of course they have beliefs and of course judge barrett has mreefs. i subject to originalism. would you rather have justices who are trying hard to reach fair, even-handed decisions with

something like the presidential election on the line or would you rather have justices who say, i don't care about that sort of thing? we need a court devoted to the principle of doing justice under law equally. without that principle, we are no longer in a world where the supreme court really helps. so, am i worried about roe v. wade? of course i'm worried about roe v. wade, extremely worried about it. do i think justice barrett might street to strike it down? yes. that's not the question in front of us. the question in front of us is do we want a court where justices argue, debate and try to act conscientiously. we have to accept that as our reality. >> i want to get to the real world consequences, though, emily was laying out. emily, i want to ask you, wouldn't it be easier and less controversial for a court like this not to overturn roe v. wade but to simply gut it in ways that have actually happened in

the many southern states? it's hard for particularly poor women tore women to get abortions and you go down that path where you kill it by a thousand cuts. couldn't you do the same with gun laws or campaign finance? isn't that the more likely outcome here? and how dramatic -- how dramatically would it change america? >> yes, i think you're right. good lawyers know how to chip away at rights without making necessarily huge headlines like roe versus wade overturned that could hurt their republican party politically in the polls. there is a connection between politics and law, especially when we're talking about provisions of the constitution that the justices determine the outcomes of the most important cases. the cases that we're talking about now. and so when you erode rights over time, sometimes with very clever or smart, legal arguments, that is the kind of effect you can have. every study we have of the supreme court over the last

decade shows that it's moving to the right. yes, you can cite a few exceptional votes by chief justice john roberts, but he will no longer be the fulcrum of the court. when you look at the overall trends of the court, the direction in which it's going, yes, you see an erosion, likely greater erosion of reproductive rights, striking down gun control lights and you see this larger project of changing the relationship between the government and its ability to protect people, to provide legislation like the aaffordable care act, and the american people. this is really about the impact the supreme court has on the lives of regular people. >> i want to pick up on that last point emily made, noah, and make sure people understand it. the court has become very conservative with regard to the ability of federal agencies to do things like regulate clean air, clean water and things like that.

and that seems to me likely to perhaps be -- in terms of the change the lives of americans, more dramatic than people realize. what is the conservative view there? >> what's going on is some of the conservatives, especially justice gorsuch are increasingly skeptical that agencies like the e.p.a. should have the final say on what the law means. they think judges should have the final say. so, they're trying to not just chip away but just actually attack the basic idea that when it comes to the reasonable interpretation of the law, we should listen to the agencies rather than the courts. so, this is kind of an inside baseball idea for lawyers but it has real world consequences. exactly as you say, it makes it harder for the e.p.a. to do its job or the fda to do it's job. we don't know where judge bear ret is with that. judge scalia believed strongly

in deferring to the agencies. the fundamental point is elections have consequences. it is an absolute disaster that justice ginsburg died during president trump's term in office while the republicans controlled the senate from the standpoint of democrats. it would have been far, far better from the perspective of democrats today had she resigned when president obama was in office. and so, you know, the fact that president trump will have had the chance to nominate and presumably confirm three justices will make a long-term change. and it's a terrible, terrible outcome that i think we should all be rightly upset about. the question is, given that state of affairs, what's the right way to engage with justices from the other side? and the answer is, i think through reason and logic. and then it's not just an outlying thing. lgbtq rights are not an outlying thing. they're a fundamental transformation and they were brought about by a vote from donald trump's nominee, neil gorsuch. >> emily, you have a minute. i'm going to ask you to quickly leave us with a memory of justice ginsburg, because -- and

this is an example of noah's point that these things have consequences. your grandfather served on the d.c. court of appeals with her. your grandfather was appointed in 1949 by harry truman, served until 1985, was briefly on the bench with scalia and are ginsb. what is the one thing you recall from ginsburg from the prism of your grandfather's memories. >> when i went to interview justice ginsburg from the new york magazine, i brought three tape recorders with me. she is known for speaking -- she was known for speaking very in pauses. so, i was terrified that in my exuberance i was going to interrupt her, so i really went into that interview trying to be as careful a listener as i could and she was very kind and generous. >> emily bazelon, noah feldman, fantastic discussion. thank you both. next on "gps," a conversation with iran's foreign

minister, javad zarif, about that country's recent execution of a sports hero and much more. [ engine rumbling ] [ beeping ] [ engine revs ] uh, you know there's a 30-minute limit, right? tell that to the rain. [ beeping ] for those who were born to ride, there's progressive.

[ beeping ] want conservative judges on i'the court.vative, this may make you feel better, but i really don't care. if an opening comes in the last year of president trump's term

and the primary process has started we'll wait to the next election. i want you to use my words against me. you're on the record. yeah, hold the tape. lindsey must go and the lincoln project are responsible for the content of this ad. and the clock could be ticking towards bad breath, receding gums and possibly tooth loss. help turn back the clock on gingivitis with parodontax. leave bleeding gums behind. parodontax. ♪ here? leave bleeding gums behind. nah. ♪ here? nope. ♪ here. ♪ when the middle of nowhere...

is somewhere. the all-new chevy trailblazer. ♪

united states on a speech played at u.n. general assembly, comparing the u.s.'s treatment of iran with the murder of george floyd, the african-american man killed by police in minneapolis. i had a chance to talk this week with iran's foreign minister, javad zarif.

he was equally incensed of america's treatment of his nation but i started out asking him about iran's recent execution of a local sports hero. foreign minister, welcome. >> good morning to you and to our friends joining us. good to be with you, fareed. >> foreign minister, the first thing i do have to ask you about is a topic that has raised an enormous amount of international outcry, which is the execution of the 27-year-old wrestler, navid afkari. a 27-year-old young man who was engaged in protests against the government two years ago in shiraz. he was executed, he was hanged. and as you know, this occasioned protests far and wide, well beyond the usual places. the united states condemned it, the european union did, u.n.

human rights did, the international olympic committee, the world players association. many of them saying this was really an extraordinarily brutal act. i want you to respond to the international outcry against this execution. >> well, thank you for asking that question. and moving forward, i think it is important to set the record straight. first of all, as you know, we have an independent judiciary. and the government is not involved in the decision-making of the judiciary. in fact, judges in the judiciary have their own independence from the center of authority of the judiciary. second point is, the issue about capital punishment is a livelily debate in the united states, in iran, elsewhere, whether capital

punishment is good or bad, whether it serves the purpose of the deterring crime or whether it does not. and i don't think in the span of our one hour, even if we had more, we could settle that debate. all of us have our personal views. the point is, capital punishment is in the iranian criminal court, as it is in many of the united states' states. recently, people have been executed in the united states. a gentleman was executed in texas, who was 18-year-old when he committed a crime. i don't think anybody would ask secretary pompeo to explain that. be it as it may, it is an important issue. third, i am not in a position to judge the decision of a court. a court is a court. it makes its own decision. obviously, there are people who like the decision of the court, who like the ruling of the

court. and there are people who do not like the ruling of the court. the fourth point that i have to make is that this gentleman, and -- as i feel sorry for the family of his victim, was executed not because of participating in demonstration, but because of a murder. he was accused of a murder. he had been through a court proceeding on a murder charge. there were private claims against him by the family of the deceased, who was killed. >> if candidate biden, vice president biden, were to win and become president biden, he has indicated that he would return the united states to adhering to the jcp, the iran nuclear deal, as long as iran abided by it as well, but he said he would use it as a starting point to begin

negotiations to strengthen the deal, to extend its duration and to deal with some other issues. are you willing to commit that were this to happen, iran would engage in those negotiations? >> well, i think iran as a participant in the jcpoa, which has observed the rules of jcpoa, which has taken -- exercised a lot of restraint and patience, is in the position to say how we want to proceed. not the united states. the united states has an extremely bad record. i think it is the united states that has to show it's committed to this deal, that it will not violate it again. that it will not make demands outside the scope of the deal. that is will compensate iran for the damages. the united states withdrew from jcpoa without any reason. it incurred a lot of damages on

the iranian people. you know, today iran is not able to even buy vaccines for influenza because the united states does not allow us to transfer the money. right now, as we speak, our order to buy back -- vaccines for the flu not covid, to pay our own money. we're not asking anybody for donation. so, i think the united states, whoever is president, it's not -- it's immaterial for us who sits in the white house. for us, what is important is how they behave. and the united states has behaved extremely irresponsibly, dangerously in the international community. so, it is up to the united states. the united states has to be -- take into account it is up to the united states to prove to the rest of jcpoa participants,

particularly to iran, that it's going to act responsibly. it's not going to make demands outside the scope of the jcpoa and basically stop causing damage to iran and compensate us for all the damages, billions upon damages they have inflicted upon iran because somebody didn't like the previous president of the united states. it's none of my business that this president or the next president liked the predecessor or don't like their predecessor. it is the united states that has to act responsibly in the international community, which, unfortunately, it hasn't. >> but, foreign minister, as you point out, the damage caused by the united states by the resumption of sanctions has been very dramatic. i mean, your currency is down 50% this year. >> more than 50%. >> right. so, if you want to try to get iran's economy back on track,

the question i'm asking is, if a president biden were to say, i will return to the deal, but i would also require that iran commit, as the united states would, to nuclear negotiations, follow-on negotiations, to extend the deal to strengthen it, are you willing to go -- to enter those negotiations? >> well, as i said, first of all, the damages that they inflicted upon iran were wrong. they have to be corrected. that's without condition. nobody is in a position to put conditions for making good on their own promises. so, let's put that out of debate. now, iran has never been hesitant to negotiate, but we do not renegotiate what we already negotiated. >> i just want to be clear because this is important. because the deal was signed five

years ago. some of the provisions start to get sunset, you know, pretty soon. so, you are saying, you are open to renegotiating -- negotiations -- >> absolutely. >> -- as long as the u.s. abides by the jcpoa or not? >> absolutely not. absolutely not. there are parts -- part of the deal. the united states accepted those. we spent more time negotiating those limitations than anything else. those were parts of the deal. i accepted less commitment from the united states because i did not want to give them more. a deal is a process of give and take. the united states secretary kerry, then vice president biden, remember this very well. there was a give and take. any attempt to undermine those gives and takes is a sign of bad

faith. and as i said, the united states must first prove that it's worthy of the trust that is required for its re-entry into the deal, where it sets conditions. for more of my questions about the execution of that wrestler and other topics, go to cnn.com/fareed for a link to the full interview. we'll be back in a moment with more with the iranian foreign minister. you just heard him say iran doesn't care who america elects in november. i'll press him on that and ask him if that's true, why is his country purportedly trying to hack the election. we do things differently and other money managers don't understand why. because our way works great for us! but not for your clients. that's why we're a fiduciary, obligated to put clients first. so, what do you provide? cookie cutter portfolios? nope. we tailor portfolios to our client's needs. but you do sell investments that earn you high commissions,

right? we don't have those. so, what's in it for you? our fees are structured so we do better when our clients do better. at fisher investments we're clearly different.

back with more of my interview with iran foreign minister javad zarif. just a few days ago, mike

pompeo, the secretary of state, announced the united states government had found evidence that iran was engaging in escalating cyber attacks against the united states. this is a claim that is also corroborated, in part, by microsoft, which has identified certain iranian actors, apparently sponsor ted by the government. why is iran escalating cyber against the united states? >> first of all, it is the united states that acknowledged engaging in cyber warfare against iran even to the point of destroying very sensitive nuclear structures that could have ramifications with the death of hundreds of thousands of people. if you don't believe me, just watch "zero day," so, i mean, there were articles written, there were -- there was even a

documentary made in the united states about those attempts. those are on the record acknowledgment by the u.s. government. now, there are allegations that iran is engaged in trying to infiltrate the u.s. electoral system. this is nonsense. for us it doesn't matter who goes to the white house. i mean, if we had an interest in victory of one candidate or the other, that argument could be made, but it seems president trump is using every opportunity u.s. election, which is something of news for all of us, for a president to question his own country's election. >> you really don't care whether trump or biden wins? >> not at all. it's none of our business. for us the behavior of the u.s. government is important. for us it's not important who

sits in the white house. as a foreign government, we cannot bank on something we do not control. later in the session, the foreign minister took questions from others. the journalists and cnn analysts kim dozier asked about the january killing of iran's top killing of qassam soleimani. here is what the foreign minister said in reply? >> as far as general soleimani is concerned, the united states made a great mistake of assassinating in a clear terrorist way somebody who was the number one enemy of isis. general soleimani was revered, not only in iran, but elsewhere. again, the cognitive problem was that secretary pompeo on the night of assassination of general soleimani put on his

twitter a clip of people dancing in iraq, showing people of iraq were celebrating the death of soleimani. we saw the next morning that tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands of iraqis came to the streets of various iraqi cities mourning the killing of soleima soleimani. so, soleimani has a lot of people seeking revenge for his -- for his murder. >> can i just follow up, javad? are you saying the iranian government is still considering the possibility of some kind of retaliation or are the books closed on that? >> no, the books are not closed. president trump ordered the assassination of a national hero for iran and a hero for the region. so, the books are not closed. i'm not in the business of of making threats, but the book is not closed. an ominous note to end on from iran's foreign minister, javad zarif.

our appreciation to the council on foreign relations for hosting this important conversation. next, europe's covid cases are spiking again. can we learn something from the nations across the atlantic? that story in a moment. still your best friend. and now your co-pilot. still a father. but now a friend. still an electric car. just more electrifying. still a night out. but everything fits in. still hard work. just a little easier. still a legend. just more legendary. chevrolet. making life's journey, just better.

keeping your oysters busihas you swamped. you need to hire.

i need indeed indeed you do. the moment you sponsor a job on indeed you get a shortlist of quality candidates from a resume data base claim your seventy-five-dollar credit when you post your first job at indeed.com/promo and raise property taxes w$11 billion a year?

small businesses get saddled with big tax bills they can't pay. they're forced to cut jobs. or, pass on higher costs to consumers. that means we pay more for everything like gas, food, utilities and health care. and the cost of living in california gets even more expensive. now is the wrong time to raise taxes on californians. vote no on prop. 15.

now for the last look. reopening schools is a crucial step to jump starting the economy because so many parents can't go back to work until their children are out of the house and back physically at school. many european and east asian countries have reopened schools across the board. they did so with common sense precautions. and systems are in place to deploy effective contact trac g tracing. now, europe is egan alarming surge in cases, 65% higher than the peak in april but it does

not seem to be emanating from schools. governments there are relying on policies and practices to keep kids in school and parents at work. but the u.s., parts of which have much lower infection rates than europe now, is struggling to even get students into school, let alone keep them there. take new york city, for example. its infection rate clocks in at a stunningly low 30 per 100,000 and yet schools there continue to favor hybrid models. compare that to madrid, where the infection rate since at 400 per 100,000 and kids are in classrooms. while states have issued plans for reopening schools, only four have mandated plans for part or full-time in-person instruction due to inconsistent federal guidelines, the rest linger indecisively. chaos and doubt have dominated america's initial response to the pandemic. the lack of leadership and clear, consistent message is

disrupting its recovery. as schools were reopening this month with weak safety plans, teachers unions demanded more precautions and many parents were reluctant to send their kids to school. "the new york times" says the lack in confidence might lead to remote learning for the remainder of the fall semester. in the meantime, they are sooelg seeing lit racy rates and math proficiencies decline. donald trump wanted schools to reopen, but his undermining of public health authorities, inconsistent methods and questioning scientific evidence created mistrust and division. the result now is even when there is good news in parts of america, people don't quite believe it and will not act on it. thanks to all of you for being part of my program this week. i will see you next week. tonight, i'll be eating a veggie cheeseburger on ciabatta, no tomatoes.. [hard a] tonight... i'll be eating four cheese tortellini with extra tomatoes. [full emphasis on the soft a]

so its come to this? [doorbell chimes] thank you. [doorbell chimes] bravo. careful, hamill. daddy's not here to save you. oh i am my daddy. wait, what? what are you talking about? but a resilient business you cacan be ready for it.re. a digital foundation from vmware helps you redefine what's possible... now. from the hospital shifting to remote patient care in just 48 hours... to the university moving hundreds of apps quickly to the cloud... or the city government going digital to keep critical services running. you are creating the future-- on the fly. and we are helping you do it. vmware. realize what's possible.

♪ here? nah. ♪ ee nope. ♪ here. ♪ when the middle of nowhere... is somewhere. the all-new chevy trailblazer. ♪

and the clock could be ticking towards bad breath, receding gums and possibly tooth loss. help turn back the clock on gingivitis with parodontax. leave bleeding gums behind. parodontax.

. auto i'm brian stelter in new york. we hear about joe biden planning to give a big speech. it may be a rebuttal of sorts of president trump's supreme court announcement. it's 12:15 p.m. time. this will be his first time commenting on trump's selection of amy coney barrett. there's no further details about biden's speech yet, but cnn will bring it to you live when it begins. now, turning to "reliable sourc sources" and a big list of newsmaker, be brian karem is here and since trump is threatening the election in multiple ways, how are the votes actually tallied? how does it work at the tv net yoshg works? cnn's d.c. bureau sam feist is here to take us