apple has made wall street history. apple stock ended trading today at a record market value of $3 trillion, the only company to ever reach that mark. our senior data reporter harry enten joins us now with more. so, harry, if you were smart enough, maybe lucky enough, to invest in apple, like, 20 years ago, how much would you have made? >> i have some tissues that i'd like to use right now to wipe. just so sad. if you had invested, say, $10,000, 20 years ago, do you know how much that would be worth today? $6.7 million. >> really? >> yes. yes! this is so upsetting. you know, i -- my father asked me when i was young what stock did i want to invest in the late '90s and i said microsoft. i was so close. i was so close.

i should have said apple. even just a few dollars worth. oh, my god, something like 67,000%. i mean, it's just unbelievable how much it's changed and how lucky those people were who invested in it. >> i feel mostly disappointment and failure in this case. look, how many people have apple devices, asks the guy with two phones in his hands right now. >> i think this is a big reason why apple stock has gone so high. it's the creation of the iphone. 20 years ago, zero percent of americans had an iphone. you know what it's now? nearly 50% of u.s. adults have an iphone. it's 44% of americans who now own an iphone. it's just gone through the roof. >> harry enten, for the record, is not one of them. talk to me exactly about how much $3 trillion is. canada is one. france is another one. italy is another one.

with a gdp for 2022 was less than $3 trillion. so that is how much apple is worth. it's worth more than countries are. >> so, apple could be a permanent member on the national security council. harry enten, thank you for being with us so much. one quick programming note. anderson and his team are dedicating a special hour on the submersible underwater tragedy, the recovery effort, and the dangers of deep sea exploration. "the whole story" airs sunday night at 8:00 on cnn. the news continues. "cnn primetime" with kaitlan collins starts now. ♪ ♪ good evening. i'm kaitlan collins. a seismic shift is being felt across the nation again tonight with the drop of two more crucial opinions on the final

day of the supreme court's term, as a reshaped court continues to reshape american life, how americans live, pay their debts, and even get into college. three monumental decisions in a row. today it was on student loans and gay rights on the heels of yesterday's affirmative action ruling. president biden has said that he is angry and disappointed after the supreme court blocked his student loan forgiveness plan. and he is accusing the court tonight of misinterpreting the constitution. the president is also blaming republicans, when he was asked if he gave borrowers false hope. >> i didn't give any false hope. what i did i thought was appropriate and was able to be done and would get done. i didn't give borrowers false hope. but the republicans snatched away the hope they were given. >> biden himself once cast doubt on how much authority he had to take when it came to executive action on student debt. and today the chief justice john roberts wrote that the 6-3

opinion and agreed with what biden said in 2021, that this was overreach. today the court also ruled in favor of a christian web designer who refused to create websites to celebrate same-sex weddings because of her religious objections. it was a blow to lgbtq protections that could have further ramifications. my first guest tonight was the lead plaintiff in the 2015 supreme court case, the legalized same-sex marriage. joining me now is jim berg fell. thank so much for being here. you were at the center of one of those consequential decisions we have ever seen from the supreme court. i wonder what went through your mind today when you heard this ruling. >> well, thank you for having me on, kaitlan. and when i learned what the supreme court did today, i was disgusted. this is an incredible overreach, i believe, and a misinterpretation of religious freedom. this is giving businesses, businesses open to the public, the constitutional right to refuse service to an entire community of people.

that isn't religious freedom. that is using religion as a weapon. that is not the intent of religious freedom in this country. not everyone believes the same thing. and yet here people are allowed to take their interpretation of their particular belief and use it against others. and i always thought most religions believed in the golden rule. but clearly i was wrong. and this decision is simply wrong. and it bodes ill for the lgbtq+ community going forward. >> the attorney for the website designer was on cnn earlier talking about this decision. she said that this isn't about gay marriage specifically. this is what she told my colleague, boris sanchez. >> it's not about gay marriage specifically. it's about whether the government can force an american to say something that they don't believe. >> so, what are the other issues that she refuses to design websites about or other messages

she refuses to endorse on her website? >> think of all the different websites that a website designer would be asked to create, websites that would denigrate people, political views she disagrees with, websites that would promote atheism or some other viewpoint that contradicts her faith. >> what's your response to that? >> well, i would love to know when this web designer will say and post the ten commandments. i always thought the ten commandments were the big top ten in the christian faith. being gay is not one of those. nor is being in a same sex marriage. i would love to hear from this web designer when she will refuse to design a website for someone who has committed adultery or any one of those other ten commandments. this is clearly about hatred towards the lgbtq+ community. and the fact that it's coming out that she did not truly have this client, and there are questions about the legitimacy

of this quoted client, makes me even angrier that this case went to the supreme court. those six justices who are supposed to believe in equal justice under law, who are supposed to understand that one person's religion cannot be used as a weapon against another person, they -- i'm angry. and i refuse to believe that this was not about same-sex marriage or the queer community in general. this web designer n my opinion, doesn't like the queer community and wanted to make a point and wants to be sure that she can say, no, i don't like you. i don't want to serve you. even though i own a business that's open to the public. >> i can tell this feels really personal for you. >> it does. marriage is one of the most important things any two people can do in their lifetime. committing to that one person that they love, the person they

will care for, the person that they promise to love, honor, and protect. and even with the obergefell decision back in 2015, we have not enjoyed marriage equality because of people like this who think they have the right to use their religion as a weapon. they think they have the constitutional right, which they do now, to say we don't like you, so we refuse to do business with you. that is not what this country is supposed to be about. equal justice under the law w the people, a more perfect union. this decision today certainly has not helped this country take a step toward a more perfect union. it has taken us backwards in time, just like many of the decisions coming from this extreme right wing court. >> jim, does this ruling make you feel that other lgbtq rights, when speaking legally, are more vulnerable than they were before this ruling? >> i absolutely believe any

rights the lgbtq+ community enjoy in this country are at risk. you know, we have this court now saying that one person's religious beliefs or their interpretation of their particular religious book trumps everything else. opponents of lgbtq+ equality, they are going to use this in every way that they can to continue coming after the queer community. and i will go back to my point earlier. i always was taught and thought that religion believed in the golden rule, treat others the way you wish to be treated. well, this certainly is not living up to the golden rule. this is using religion as a weapon. it's using religion as a tool of hate. so, yes, i am very worried about the lgbtq+ community and our rights and our ability to live our life in this nation. >> how far-reaching do you think the implications could be? because what justice sotomayor

wrote in the dissent for this, she essentially suggested that this could lead to other kinds of discrimination. is it clear to you how far-reaching the implications of this will be? >> you know, it's tough for me to answer that to say it's clear. i am just terrified what this means for our nation. and i also really want to understand what will happen when a christian goes to a business and the owner of that business asks them, do you believe in same-sex marriage? do you believe in anything else? and if that christian says, well, yes, that's -- or, no, i do not believe in that, and that business owner refuses to serve them, what will happen? so, i don't know what this could lead to. all i know is it leads to nothing good for anyone in this nation. this decision turns its back on what religious freedom is. people left the old world and escaped to the new world because they were being persecuted for

their religious beliefs. well, now, suddenly here in 2023, the supreme court has made that constitutional. you don't like gay people? great. you have the constitutional right to persecute them because they are gay. let's make no mistake, that's what this decision says and allows. >> jim, thank you for joining us tonight with your perspective on this, given of course just your familiarity with these decisions from the supreme court. we appreciate your time. >> thanks, kaitlan. thanks for inviting me on. >> absolutely. that wasn't the only big decision that we heard from the court today. on the other big decision, the court's reach extends directly to the wallets of some 44 million americans. and that has president biden himself turning to plan b, as he is trying to salvage one of his signature campaign promises, student loan forgiveness. >> did you overstep your authority? >> i think the court misinterpreted the constitution.

>> i'm joined by a key champion of student loan forgiveness on capitol hill, democratic congressman ro khanna of california. thank you for joining us. you heard president biden. he said he doesn't believe he gave voters and borrowers false hope. but did he? he promised this on the campaign trail. the white house knew it was going to face significant legal challenges. >> kaitlan, the blame here isn't with the president. it's with an extremist supreme court that is totally out of touch with the facts of modern-day american life. i mean, this court is taking us backwards, backwards decades. they're taking us to a time where people on college campuses were largely the wealthy, where people were largely white. i mean, in two days they have taken away diversity. they have taken away relief for people who can't afford these astronomical fees. and as your previous guest said, they're taking away basic gay rights.

the decision makes no sense. what if the baker said, i don't want to serve someone who's indian. i think we have a crisis of legitimacy of this court. >> when it's this decision specifically on student loans, critics and what we've seen conservatives pointing to all day since this ruling came down were comments made by president biden before he became president and nancy pelosi themselves, when they said they believed the president lacks the authority, the legal authority, to forgive the student loan debt. they made these comments. >> people think that the president of the united states has the power for debt forgiveness. he does not. >> i don't think i have the authority to do it by signing a pen. >> is that not what the supreme court was arguing today, that it was a vast overreach? >> well, when you look at the actual statute, the hero's act, the hero's act was very, very clear. it said, under emergency conditions, the secretary has

the authority, the president has the authority, to take these kind of actions. now, if congress had wanted to limit the hero's act, they could have. congress didn't act. this is the supreme court engaging in activism. i believe that the president may have been deliberating whether it was good policy. legal scholar af legal scholar has interpreted the hero's act saying you have that authority. we've forgiven student loans for public forgiveness. when people have had bad universities. why is it that in this case they wouldn't have that authority? >> and what you're referencing, of course, is tied to what happens when there's a national emergency. but in the aftermath of this ruling, president biden came out. he made clear he is going back at this, trying to get student loan forgiveness. how confident are you that this next plan, plan b, which we're not even totally sure tonight what it's going to look like. how are you confident that it will hold up, though?

>> well, i'm confident, and i think we have to call out this court. i mean, you have justices there who misled the american people, who said that they were never going to overturn roe versus wade, that that was settled precedent. and they said that on national television to senator feinstein and to chair grassley, and they lied. and now they're taking away the rights of not just women but the rights of gay americans. they're moving us backwards on racial equality. they're hurting students and making our universities far less accessible. they're rolling back progress for the last 30 years. this is not president biden's fault. this is an extremist supreme court, and we need to start calling out this court. and by the way, you know, they lied during these confirmation hearings. >> i understand you're frustrated with the court overall. we've certainly heard that from many members of your party. but on student loans, do you agree that biden did not have

the authority to grant this much student loan relief the way the administration put this plan into place? >> i think he had the authority under the hero's act. i believe this supreme court engaged in judicial activism, not textualism. congress had given them the authority. congress has also given the authority under the higher education act. and the president said today that he's going to invoke that to be able to forgive the loans. and i hope that they will forgive those loans and also make sure that the pause continues. he has that authority under the higher education act. justice roberts says in his decision nothing in this decision applies to higher education act. it only applies to the hero's act. the president is perfectly within his right to go under the higher education act. >> isn't it congress that really has the authority here to do this? shouldn't it be congress that is taking action? >> it was congress that took action. congress passed the hero's act.

congress passed the higher education act. in those acts, we explicitly gave the secretary the authority under the higher education act to waive or cancel student loans. that was a congressional act. if congress has a problem with the higher education act, they can try to repeal it. if congress had a problem with the broad power we gave under the hero's act, they could try to repeal it. but what this court has done is assert the role of the legislature. they've engaged in judicial activism. they're interpreting statutes in ways that congress never intended. i think it's important for people to understand how out of the main stream this court has become. >> congressman ro khanna, thank you for your time tonight. thanks for joining us. >> thank you. >> and of course questions on this decision about the major political fallout. is it expected? will angry democrats be energized by what the supreme court decided or will progressives blame the president? we'll talk about that next.

conservatives are celebrating this week's supreme

conservatives are celebrating this week's supreme court rulings as wins. but tonight some top republicans are also bracing for voter backlash, especially when it comes to the student loan ruling. several senate republicans who oppose president biden's plans have been working on bills that would lower the cost of a college education, which could also allow biden to temporarily suspend loan payments for certain low income and middle income borrowers. let's discuss now the outcome of this with maria cardona, and

rena shaw, a republican strategist, who are both joining me here tonight. i think when we look at the decisions of the student loan ruling today, it's clear it was a final ruling. some of the other rulings we got this week were open to interpretation. but on this one specifically, what do you predict the reaction is going to be among democratic voters? >> oh, democratic voters are already letting their voices heard, especially the young people. kaitlan, what i have heard from so many people across the board, young voters, latino voters, black voters, they're saying that this is completely unfair, that this is something that is going to mobilize them in the upcoming election. this decision, if it had gone through, kaitlan, would have given 43 million people, as you know, the ability to get rid of their student loans. 50% of latino students would have been under that. 40% of black students would have been under that. and black and latino families, that would have been game

changer, not just for their families but for their generation. that's the kind of thing that you look at this country and you say, this is the difference between me and my family and my kids being able to live the american dream or having to essentially live paycheck by paycheck for generations. so, that is -- it's going to be a huge contrast going into the 2024 elections. i can already see the ads being written. and i think it's something that democrats are definitely going to be underscoring. >> but it's not like republicans were shying away from this. they were touting this as a win today. the question, though, i think is, we saw with roe versus wade, that was a similar reaction. but it actually ended up mobilizing a lot of voters and hurting republicans in the midterm elections, potentially in 2024. >> this was a bit different. it is true gen z delivered the white house for joe biden. what does this mean for republicans when we talk about forgiving the loans of over 40

million americans that took out loans and should be paying them back willfully. there was a good thing during the pandemic for pausing. and the case was made these people shouldn't be compelled to pay them back so quickly. i get that. but what the court decided is that the biden administration didn't have that power, this unilateral power. so, what a lot of republicans do, moderates like myself, say take it to congress. let congress craft a plan. let biden do that work with congress. republicans are not set to lose out as hard on this as they did with roe because you've got a lot of americans out there who are not college educated. and they see this as the elites, propping up white collar americans for what they did, going to universities. you've got blue collar folks saying, this is my money paying for white collar folks. who are already earning money. let them pay their loans back. >> it's interesting, and i wonder what you think of ritchie torres, a democrat from new york. he was talking about the court today in these decisions. he thinks it's actually going to backfire on republicans.

>> the excesses of the supreme court is going to backfire. the supreme court's decision to overturn roe versus wade reduced what was supposed to be a red waive in the 2022 election cycle to nothing more than a red trickle. so, not only is the supreme court's decision bad law, it's also bad politics. and it's going to come back to haunt the republican party. >> is he right? >> i absolutely think he is right, kaitlan. because it's not just gen z. and there is a lot of young people. you know the gop is already in dire trouble with younger voters. this is going to alienate them that much more. but if you look at not just the student loans, but if you look at what happened with the lgbtq decision, what happened with affirmative action, you are taking huge swaths of americans. what this supreme court did with the support of republicans is saying to huge swaths of americans, you all are second class citizens. you all do not have the same

freedoms as others. you all do not have the same rights as others. and they are taking it personally, as they should, because this is a country where the idea and the ideals and the values of america being able to reach the american dream, being able to be valued as someone who is equal to somebody else regardless of your skin color, that is now going away in so many parts of our society. and we're going to make republicans pay for it. >> i disagree. i don't see the court as having taken away rights of any americans by saying the biden administration was wrong to overreach with this plan. i simply think they're kicking it and saying we're checking one branch. in essence what we see here is a larger problem that nobody is addressing, the cost of college. what does it mean for so many young people to not be able to afford or think to apply to certain universities. i'm not hearing that holistic conversation anywhere on either side. but i don't see rights stripped

away with this decision on the student loan forgiveness plan. >> i agree that that is a conversation that absolutely should be had. this congress is not going to go there because it is way too maga oriented to be able to do that. >> the hi pock si of that argument, in term of republicans not wanting to give this kind of student loan the ability to forgive it, when you have people like marjorie taylor greene taking ppp loans at over $200,000 -- >> we get it. there's a lot of hypocrisy. >> -- and no one has a problem with that, that's something students are going to say, what is the hell is going, and we're going to go the ballot box and say what we believe. >> president biden himself made that point himself today. thank you for joining us on this friday night. as you heard at the top of the hour, there was a notable detail that was part of today's supreme court case on the colorado beb designer who said she had a first amendment right for refusing to design websites for same-sex couples. designer

had a first amendment right for refusing to design websites for same-sex couples.we designer wh she had a first amendment right for refusing to design websites for same-sex couples.b designer she had a first amendment right for refusing to design websites for same-sex couples. at the heart of the case they said was a man, identified as i stuart. cnn tracked down stuart, who asked that his last name not be used. and he claims he never requested the web designer make anything for any wedding. he says he doesn't have a fiance named mike and that he's already married to a woman and has been for 15 years. stuart, who i should note used to work for cnn, is also a web designer and said no one connected with the case has ever reached out to him until the other day. he was even unaware of his information being part of this until he was contacted by the media outlet, new republic. a lawyer for the other side said this is all irrelevant to the case and the ruling that happened today. but it certainly is interesting. and for what it's worth, stuart said he thinks the supreme court's decision today is disgraceful. of course it is rare to hear supreme court justices argue with one another so openly as we have in recent days. but the tension in this court is

palpable. we're going to be joined by someone who knows the court better than anyone and can take us behind the scenes ahead. introducing the limited edition disney collection from blendjet. nine exciting designs your whole family will adore blendjet 2 is portable, which means you can blend up nutritious smoothies, protein shakes,

or frozen treats, just about anywhere! recharge quickly via usb-c. it even cleans itself. order yours now from blendjet.com and bring a little disney into your life. julian's about to learn that free food is a personal eating trigger. no, it isn't. (sigh) yes, it is. and that's just a bit of psychology julian learned from noom weight. sign up now at noom.com.

this week, supreme court

division spilled out into the public view in ways that we hardly ever see or hear or read. justices that are usually pretty buttoned up had pretty raw and emotional opinions when it came to the big decisions that they were making. and it was clear some of them disagreed vehemently with one another on the ultimate outcome. tonight of the high court with our senior analyst who literally wrote the book on the supreme court and knows it better than anyone. you were actually in the room as a lot of these opinions and dissents were being read. what stood out to you about these last two days and the interactions we saw between these justices, who come from very different ends of the spectrum here? >> you're exactly right, kaitlan, that they're a buttoned up group, and they try to keep it in check. by the time we get to the last week in june, they just can't anymore. you know, they have kind of a -- they operate under a fairly

useful fiction for a group of nine that is appointed for life and have to deal with each other every day. and that fiction is everything's okay here. let's just use for example the student loans case. chief justice john roberts, you won that one big, you already talked about it. but at the end of his decision he says, you know, he admonishes critics to say, we're not disparaging each other in this case. we actually get along, and any disagreement that we have should not at all be interpreted in a way that would cast doubt on the integrity of the court. just as justice kagan, who read part of her dissent from the bench, had a bit of a get real attitude. her dissent was dripping with ridicule at many turns. and she said of the chief from the first page to the last, his opinion departs from judicial restraint. here was her bottom line. the court acts as though it is the arbiter of political and policy disputes rather than of cases and controversies.

the result here is that the court substitutes itself for congress and the executive branch in making national policy about student loan forgiveness. with all due respect, i dissent. bit kaitlan, i have to add, sometimes the justices even drop that reference to, with all due respect. >> which is so funny because to regular people who have interactions, that doesn't seem so offensive or so out there. but for supreme court justices to drop that is actually pretty significant. yesterday, joan, as we were looking at the affirmative action ruling -- and of course there was a major racial divide on that one. but we were looking at the comments on it, the opinion and the dissent from the two black justices on the court. and they were talking about this. what was it like to be in the room as you were hearing that? >> well, first of all, kaitlan,

justice clarence thomas, who is only the second black african american male justice in history, has always been opposed to any race conscious remedies. but he's also not said much from the bench. when he started to reveal his concurring statement, he didn't -- he said, i rarely do this. and he not only talked about the stigmatizing effect of racial remedies and affirmative action. he had a few choice words for his colleague, justice jackson, who is the first woman african american on the court. he referred to her as labelling all blacks as victims trapped in a fundamentally racist society. and she returned -- not in the courtroom, kaitlan. i have to say that justice sotomayor spoke for the liberal dissenters. but here is what she said on paper, what justice jackson said on paper. the best that can be said for the majority's perspective is that it proceeds ostrich-like -- from the hope that preventing

consideration of race will end racism with let them eat cake obliviousness. today the majority pulls the rip cord and announces that color blindness for all by legal fiat. you know, she just had so many biting lines toward the majority that said, we don't talk about race here. but both she and justice sotomayor in their comments on paper and from the bench said race still matters. and the constitution itself would allow these kinds of programs because the ideal of equal protection under the law necessarily requires the country to consider race. >> let them eat cake obliviousness is one that sticks in the mind. joan biskupic, as always, thank you for being such a great supreme court watcher for us. >> thank you, kaitlan. have a great evening. tonight about 44 million of us are circling october 1 on our

calendars because that is when the first payment for federal student loans are going to be due after today's supreme court ruling. millions of people in the united states have not made a student loan payment since march of 2020, when they were frozen amid the covid-19 pandemic. katherine van pell is here to talk about the impact for so many who may have thought they were potentially done with student loans. katherine, i think when people look at this and if they are in that category of people who haven't made a payment in those three years, are they even ready for this do you think? >> i think a lot of people are not. look, these payments were going to start -- restart, i should say -- in the fall for at least some americans, whether or not the supreme court ruled as it did today. however, there is a large contingent, some millions of americans who thought they would never have to deal with this system again, right? they thought that the entirety of their balance had been forgiven. and it turns out it hasn't been.

and the administration has done relatively little outreach to date to get in touch with those people to say, hey, you know now we told you that your debt was going to be wiped out?ow we told you that your debt was going to bhow we told you that your debt was going to be wiped out? that may not happen. and when i talk with the administration about that, why haven't they been in greater communication with people about the potential risks of such a supreme court outcome, they basically said some combination of they didn't want to get in the way of their own court case. they didn't want to undermine the argument that the u.s. government, the biden administration, was making to try to pursue student debt forgiveness. and also they were worried about sending conflicting messages to the general public to borrowers. but the end result is that there are a lot of people i think are going to get hit with a surprise bill because they haven't been following this quite as closely as those of us in the media and the administration have been doing. >> when president biden comes out today, he says, i'm not done fighting for this. he's going to pursue these other

routes, which he was calling an on-ramp for payments, but essentially trying to pursue what's going to be a rule making process. and officials acknowledged yet this is going to take time. what do people who have to start paying in october take away from that? do they wait to see if something comes to fruition, or do they begin making their payments on october 1? >> i think the message to borrowers should be, do not count on a plan b here. it looks like the administration is going to try to pursue some other regulatory means for wiping out or at least reducing people's debt beyond the kinds of expansion of income-driven repayment program, for example, that they have already put in place. but if that had been the solution to this problem that had the firmest legal footing, i think it would have been their plan a. so, it may very well work. i don't know. i'm not a lawyer.

but it will at the very least take some time to go through that regulatory process. and if indeed it does stand up in court, and presumably that will be challenged as well. and i think the message to borrowers should be, you know, do not bet on your debt being forgiven. assume you will have to make those payments in the fall, and budget accordingly. i do worry that there are a lot of americans who, in anticipation of their debt being forgiven, may have already spent some of that money, you know, as they were reasonably inclined to do. you know, buying a house, paying for a car, et cetera. but they cannot assume that going forward. >> major questions of what that looks like and also the effect that it has on the economy. thank you for joining us tonight. >> thank you. in other legal news, congressman george santos, known for fabricating key parts of his life story, was in court today. here's his court sketch -- af after pleading not guilty to multiple felonies.

and there was something that he seemed particularly concerned with inside that courtroom. we'll tell you what it was, next. plus, two codefendants and two cheese steaks to go. donald trump and his aide, walt nauta, were spotted together in philadelphia, as both are awaiting the next steps in the classified documents case.

former president trump is on the campaign trail today with his codefendant and a potential witness. trump was seen earlier with his body man and personal aide, walt nauta, and the famous pat's king of steaks in philadelphia getting what looked like to be two cheese steaks to go. nauta, who you can see pictured to the former president's right, was also indicted in the classified documents case and has not yet been arraigned because he hasn't gotten a florida attorney. but he is expected to be arraigned this coming week after two delays. this all comes as cnn is also told that trump's campaign adviser, susie wiels, was also in philadelphia traveling with the former president and walt nauta. she's the political aide who was

allegedly shown a classified map by trump during a meeting in his new jersey golf club in the fall of 2021. that is one of the two instances that is cited in the special counsel's indictment of the former president when he was talking about classified information to people who did not have security clearances. trump talked about his legal issues today while addressing moms for liberty. >> it turns out with me, i did nothing wrong. they got me on nothing. got me on nothing. and all of the things that they do have, it's like the pundits are saying, wow, that's nothing. >> with me now is cnn political commentator, spectrum news political anchor, and the host of "you decide podcast" errol louis. are all the political pundits saying -- >> i would say i'm a political pundit and it is not nothing. it is very much something. he's in a lot of legal trouble. >> we just learned yesterday that the grand jury that

indicted him in miami is actually still investigating the documents case. we don't know what it means or if anyone else is going to be charged, but they're still looking into this. >> they could be looking for evidence of new charges, in which case you could see a superseding government or they could try to button up the case by getting more testimony, more evidence, more witnesses. and that's not good for donald trump either. so, one way or another he can say whatever he wants. you know, he's free as a defendant to say there's nothing to this. it's all a political hoax and so forth. but the actions of this prosecutor do not suggest that they're done. it doesn't suggest that there's nothing there. and in fact it suggests that he's going to have to really sort of coordinate this with his campaign because there may be some really bad news coming for him down the road. >> and you're talking about how he can say whatever he wants. one thing he's not supposed to be saying is talking to other witnesses in this case about the case itself. and we saw that photo of trump and walt nauta, but we also were

told suzie whielz is on the campaign trail. margo martin is another person who often travels with the former president. they are all witnesses here, and it kind of underscores the complicated aspect of this case that these are witnesses who could be in this trial but are also working with him still on a daily basis on his re-election efforts. >> that's exactly right. from trump's point of view, he's calling this election interference, that they're going af or sort of trying to put political and legal pressure on his top political aides for political reasons. that is something he's entitled to say, once again. on the other hand, you know, if they're in the room with him when he's waving around a map, when he's allegedly exposing classified information to people who are not entitled to see it, it turns them into witnesses. and you don't get a pass on a trip to the grand jury. you don't get a pass on possibly having to show up as a witness if something wrong has happened just because you happen to be working for a politician. so, they'll have to work that out at some point.

there's a chance where their legal interests may diverge, in which case he's going to need a new campaign manager. >> right now we know he's paying the legal fees for walt nauta. suzie wielz, she's noted in the indictment. he told her not to get too close because it was classified information. speaking of another defendant today, we saw george santos in court making an appearance here. as he was pleading not guilty to the 13 counts in the criminal fraud case was one thing that stood out as you can see the court sketch, his attorneys seem to be more concerned with the timing of the next hearing conflicting with when congress is back in session than the charges themselves. >> well, clearly his client must have told him we have a political schedule that i'm going to have to meet and i can't be tied up with this when i'm supposed to be showing up for votes and otherwise doing my job in washington.

so, that plus the fact that, kaitlan, conveniently enough, if you've been given 80,000 documents to look through -- and the attorney is going to have to look at every single one of them or at least know what's in them -- it's going to take them some time. probably the best time to do that and have access to this client as he goes through this arduous task is while he's on his august break. >> what did you make of that, that it was the 80,000 pages they turned over to santos' defense team? >> i'm guessing from the nature of the indictment that a lot of that is bank records, right? so, if you get a bank statement, i don't know about yours, but mine can run eight or ten pages because there's just a lot of transactions. i'm doing a lot of transactions on them. so, that can really run up the page count. i'm hoping that it's something like that for the sake of his poor attorney, who's got to make sense of all of this stuff. >> good luck to him. errol lewis, thank you for joining us tonight. a former president who lost his last election spread false

claims about rigged voting systems and created a nationwide movement to overreturn the result, has now just been barred from holding office for the next eight years? no, we are not talking about donald trump. we'll tell you who, next. this is how tosin lost 33 pounds on noom weight. i'm tosin. noom gave her a psychological approach to weight loss. noom has taught me how you think about food has such a...

huge impact on your relationship with it. visit noom.com and start your trial today. so many people are overweight now and asking themselves, "why can't i lose weight?" for most, the reason is insulin resistance, and they don't even know they have it. conventional starvation diets don't address insulin resistance. that's why they don't work. now there's release from golo. it naturally helps reverse insulin resistance, stops sugar cravings, and releases stubborn fat, all while controlling stress and emotional eating.

at last, a diet pill that actually works. go to golo.com to get yours. ♪ splash into savings with our 4th of july sale. blendjet gives you ice-crushing, big blender power on-the-go, so you can soak up the sun with a frosty beverage. enjoy 15+ blends before rapidly recharging via usb-c. and it even cleans itself with a drop of soap and water. stand out even when you're accidentally twinning

with our kaleidoscope of colors. don■t miss out on our best deal of the summer. visit blendjet.com to order yours. you founded your kayak company because you love the ocean- not spreadsheets. you need to hire. i need indeed. indeed you do. indeed instant match instantly delivers quality candidates matching your job description. visit indeed.com/hire

a former president abused his power and spread misinformation and tried to wants and insurrection is now barred from election for the next eight years. we are talking about the former president in brazil. the highest electoral court form the majority today to block the former leader from running from office again until 2030. the tactics used between the brazilian leader and for president trump were very similar including a shared claim of election fraud. they both decided they lost their elections. a friday afternoon before the holiday weekend with little notice, the state department dropped a long-awaited report on america's withdrawal from afghanistan in the summer of

2021. this review lays the blame at the feet of former president trump and president biden. claiming that both administrations are at fault for the chaotic drawdown. i am now quoting they said there were insufficient senior- level consideration of worst- case scenario and how quickly it might follow. the frenzy withdrawal garnered intense scrutiny from the right while democrats including some inside the white house pointed the finger instead at former president donald trump and the deal brokered by his administration with the taliban that they say initially set the drawdown in motion. tonight during the operation 13 troops in the u.s. died in a suicide bombing. thank you for joining us. who is talking to chris wallace. we have a quick break and then we will have more information. d cancers, can start then too. for most, hpv clears on its own. but for others, it can cause certain cancers later in life. you're welcome! now, as the “dad cab”,

it's my cue to help protect them. embrace this phase. help protect them in the next. ask their doctor today about hpv vaccination.

our heritage is ingrained in our skin. and even when we metamorphosize into our new evolved form, we carry that spirit with us. because you can take alfa romeo out of italy. but you best believe,

you can't take the italy out of an alfa romeo.