>> thanks for joining us on the virtual couch, we will be back tomorrow. here's "america's newsroom." >> sandra: thank you. president trump firing back at john bolton accusing his former national security advisor of breaking the law by releasing a tell-all book about his 17 months inside the white house. excerpts from that book raise questions about the presence dealing with china. that should have been broader in scope. we are learning more this morning. >> ed: i'm ed henry. at the legal battle to block the book's publication no heating up. the trump administration firing an emergency application for a restraining order arguing that publishing this memoir endangers national security.

president calls books publication illegal. speak to they broke the law. it's very simple. it's highly classified information and he did not have approval. it's coming out now very loud and very strong. >> sandra: john roberts is live from the north won at the white house this morning. >> the white house is pushing back hard against john bolton's new book, the room where it happened, a memoir of his time here at the white house. as ed mentioned at the top of the justice department has gone to court seeking an emergency temporary restraining order. at the justice department's filing, it says, "to be clear, the defendants manuscript still contains classified information as confirmed by some of the government's most senior national security and intelligence officials. in the book among other things bolton accuses the democrats of "impeachment malpractice" saying that in their haste to go after

president trump from the ukraine they missed other big targets including what bolton calls the president's willingness to intervene in china and turkey to curry favor with the leaders. bolton writes in the book to "ineffective personal favors to dictators he liked." bolton goes on to say the pattern looked like obstruction of justice as a way of life which we couldn't accept. in an interview with abc, bolton says president trump's foreign policy was mostly driven by his desire for reelection. listen here. >> i don't the key is fit for office. >> president trump ripping bolton on twitter saying wacko jim bolton's extremely tedious book is made up of lies and great stories offset down like a good about me and print. a disgruntled boring fool who only wanted to go to war.

never had a clue, was ostracized and a happily dumped. in a statement the publisher simon simon & schuster saying the filing by the government is a frivolously motivated exercise in futility. hundreds of thousands of copies of john bolton's "the room where it happened" have been distributed around the country and around the world. what's interesting here is that bolton has managed to get both sides mad at him, not just the president but also congressional democrats who say, why didn't you come to us during the impeachment hearings and tell us all of this? why are you doing it in a book? no question though, "the room where it happened" will likely sell a lot of copies and make a lot of money for john bolton. >> sandra: thought back and forth will continue, john roberts of the white house. >> ed: fox news alert as protesters staged a die in outside of the police headquarters after charges were

filed in the officers involved in the shooting of rayshard brooks. the department has reported a high number of sick calls following the number of those charges. bryan llenas is live with those details. good morning. >> former atlanta police officer garrett wolfe now faces 11 charges including felony murder which is punishable by up to the death penalty for shooting rayshard brooks in the back twice and killing him in the wendy's parking lot. he also faces an aggravated assault with a deadly weapon charge and aggravated assault charges for a gun shot that hit a nearby car with three witnesses inside. yesterday the fulton county district attorney paul howard revealed allegations that rolfe kicked brooks as he laid on the ground we did and said "i got him." meanwhile, his partner devin brosnan faces three charges including aggravated assaults and to violations of both charges punishable by up to 20 years in prison.

the d.a. yesterday accused brosnan of standing on brooks' shoulders as he laid on the ground wounded. brosnan said he was concussed and injured by brooks minutes before and didn't know what happened. the district attorney said the shooting was excessive. he noted a 41 minute jovial and "cooperative" conversation before the shooting. he noted that brooks was unarmed and padded down before and that brooks was running away at the time the shots were fired. >> we have concluded that at the time mr. brooks was shot that he did not pose a threat of immediate death or serious physical injury to the officer or officers. >> rolfe's attorney says the d.a. is participating in political grandstanding has he's in the middle of a runoff election. the attorney says rolfe's force

was warranted as the suspect fired a taser at his head just missing him and that's why he fired his gun. >> mr. brooks was not running away, mr. brooks turned and offered extreme violence toward a uniformed law enforcement officer. if he was able to deploy the taser, it would incapacitate officer rolfe through his body armor and at that point he decided to disarm another officer, he would be in possession of a firearm. >> the police chief champion says the morale is terrible among police officers. president trump in an interview with sean hannity commented on the case last night. >> president trump: it's up to justice right now, if it's going to be up to justice. i hope he gets a fair shake because police have not been treated fairly in our country. they have not been treated fairly. but again, you cannot resist a police officer like that.

>> yesterday that district attorneys that brosnan was cooperating as a state witness against officer rolfe. brosnan said that's not true, he's not a state witness but he is willing to tell the truth in both men have until 6:00 p.m. tonight to turn themselves in. >> ed: bryan llenas, thank you. >> sandra: now to the show down brewing on capitol hill after republicans revealed their justice act on police reform. democrats quickly criticizing the bill which does not go far enough they say as their legislation just approved by the house judiciary committee. and that would be the proposal of the soonest of next we will proceed to. our democratic plans if we want to make a law and not just try to make a point, i hope they

will join us in getting on the bill into trying to move forward in the way the senate does move forward when it's trying to actually get an outcome. >> sandra: let's bring in arkansas senator tom cotton. senator, good morning, thanks for being here. so mcconnell is filing for quick action on this bill. i do see that happening? >> i want to commend senator tim scott for his thoughtful and careful approach for the justice act which i'm proud to cosponsor. it highlights the two difference between the two parties and the way we approach police questions. the republican bill will provide more resources and guidance for police training and resourcing, and will hold officers accountable when they do the wrong thing as all good officers want to do. unfortunately the house democrats bill will try to essentially defund the police and put left-wing groups in charge of policing standards and i trust that there are enough

democrats in the senate that they want to start to have this debate next week in good faith that we can bring tim scott's bill to the floor and start to debate it. they can offer amendments if they like but we want to make sure that police officers in the country have the resources in the training necessary to be the best servants of their communities that they can be. >> sandra: but so many democrats were quick to criticize that new bill. here's chuck schumer on what he sees as the bill's shortcoming. listen. >> the senate republican proposal on policing does not rise to the moment. while the republican bill only requires data unknown warrants. the democratic bill has a publicly available nationwide database on misconduct. the republican bill will keep such information almost entirely

shielded from public view. >> sandra: so chuck schumer claims that this bill, the g.o.p. unveiled bill yesterday does not rise to the occasion, his words. but still some democrats are conceding that so much of these two bills are the same. in some cases, about 90% of the bill. so why are we having such a hard time seeing the two parties come together on this, senator? >> there are a lot of similarities in the bill, the president's executive order will band choke holds. and what chuck schumer is saying is there aren't poison pills in the bill that republicans could never accept. for example banning no knock warrants. those have to be approved by a judge whether it's in federal court. if we do need more data on no knock warrants and how they are used and if they are overused, but to save two police officers they could never go to an independent judge and get a

warrant that allows them to knocked on the door of the dangerous drug kingpin or an unknown motor is a step too far that republicans simply cannot accept. just like we cannot accept the risk of putting police officers in court for civil lawsuits where they would be personally liable out of their own pocket for every single disgruntled criminal with whom they ever come into contact. if he lacks support for that then he should allow the debate to have them on tim scott's bill and we should have been amended next week. that's the way the senate is supposed to work. >> sandra: that of course is up to the president and what he's willing to support once the two parties come together. still the president continuing this message saying that democrats want to do away with police altogether. here's a president. speak to the democrats, all they do is complain, they complain but they've done nothing and they do nothing. they want to defund and they want to abolish, they want to abolish police department's and that's what's going to be with biden.

if you look, if you have a guardian he would be abolishing police. >> sandra: so we will leave it at that. meanwhile i want to transition now because it's been two weeks since her op-ed was published in the times and ultimately led to the resignation of the editorial page editor. you have a brand-new op-ed and this one entitled "twitter tried to censor me, and they lost." what are you writing about today as we learn more about google trying to influence going after them from the comment section and not monitoring them strong enough, what is your message? >> and sandra, i revealed in an op-ed on the website that twitter threatened to put permanently locked down my account if i didn't censor my own tweets about riots and looting's. we got a call about a week ago saying if i did not delete tweets they would lock down my

account. we received shifting explanation and unclear guidance. i called twitter's bluff and did not delete those tweets in 30 minutes and they got back to me and said they were going to take action. it's an example of how arbitrary and have a critical some of the social media platforms can be. as we saw this week when an activist disguised as a journalist at nbc news tried to get google to demonetize and be the platform "the federalist," popular conservative website. this is and i think it's a curious time for social media platforms and we had legislation they do curate, monitor and even censor their platforms in a way that more surprisingly seems to disadvantage conservative points

of view. >> sandra: in "the wall street journal" yesterday google tries to cancel a conservative website. it's a debate that is surely firing up over censoring of free speech. senator tom cotton, we appreciate your time this morning. thank you. >> ed: a massive crowd of protesters declaring an autonomous zone in portland, oregon now. a heated demonstration outside of what is believed to be the mayor's house. as portland about to become seattle 2.0? plus a dramatic step that prosecutors are considering to block john bolton's book about his time in the white house. will he face criminal charges? >> john bolton has discredited himself. he is been a misguided hawk on foreign policy and we can delve up an author. if you thought comey was a most disliked man in america, think john bolton has now taken the title.

it lets you shortcut the loan process and refinance with no income verification, no appraisal, and no out of pocket costs. one call can save you $2000 every year. call my team at newday usa right now. &gwdcd0zlójraw a lot of folks ask me why their dishwasher doesn't get everything clean. i tell them, it may be your detergent... that's why more dishwasher brands recommend cascade platinum... ...with the soaking, scrubbing and rinsing built right in. for sparkling-clean dishes, the first time. cascade platinum. ♪ ♪ ♪

♪ you know limu,g after all these years it's the ones that got away that haunt me the most.

[ squawks ] 'cause you're not like everybody else. that's why liberty mutual customizes your car insurance, so you only pay for what you need. what? oh, i said... uh, this is my floor. nooo! only pay for what you need. ♪ liberty. liberty. liberty. liberty. ♪

>> sandra: some sad news to report, we have learned that jean kennedy smith, the last surviving sibling of john kennedy has died. she served as an u.s. ambassador to ireland.

her daughter announced that she passed away last night at her home in new york city. jean kennedy smith was 92 years old. >> president trump: and then in terms of bolton, he broke the law. he was a washed up guy, he couldn't get senate confirmed so i gave him a nonsenate confirmed decision so i could put him there and see how he worked. i wasn't very enamored. >> ed: president trump slamming tom bolton again over the tell-all book about his time in the white house. this is as federal prosecutors are weighing criminal charges against bolton in order to stop the book's release. dan, good morning, great to have you. we could go on and on about whether it's going to be published or not, it's already in the houses. trump and bolton says approvingly there was a great hostility to china among the

democrats. he now starting to make a stunningly turn the conversation to the coming u.s. election pleading with president xi to ensure he would win. and, bolton goes on to write about china, how troubled are you by these allegations this is a jumble donald j. trump, the af the art of the deal. his approach to everything is transactional and personal. as long as they help mr. trump, he's always trying to negotiate deals. it was his belief that if he established a personal relationship with xi jinping or

kim jong un in north korea or vladimir putin, that he could get deals that helped the united states. i think john bolton's primary complaint is that as a matter of policy strategy in key areas like north korea and china, and china with the exception of the trade deal, the president's strategy of doing things on a personal basis simply was not working. and in fact, it was probably in bolton's mind putting the united states more at risk. >> ed: what about the fact of the president says his book is full of lies, at the same time that his justice department is potentially going to press criminal charges against bolton for allegedly publishing classified information? if the information was inaccurate, why would it then be classified intelligence? if it's classified by the intelligence community one would presume there's some accuracy there, no?

>> look. that's a writer and a journalist i do not like the idea of the government suppressing the publication of books and as the idea that bolton's book is full of lies i think bolton is an essentially honest person. i doubt that he would publish explicit lies or make things up. -- this book, no doubt about it. i don't think it should be oppressed, i honestly believe this book has been overtaken by events that foreign policy has moved into the background of the presidential campaign no matter how volatile the accusations are in this book. the events are the pandemic, the coronavirus pandemic, and the protests that we are writing about and talking about all the time. if another event were to come up in the next four or five months involving foreign policy, i think then the president's

handling of those issues and his leadership could become an issue. and i will tell you ed, i'm in the camp that thinks, and foreign policy could be an issue. that could be in the rearview mirror at this point. >> ed: if they've been talking about coronavirus coming back, saying look. we are not done yet. okay. i think dan froze up there for a moment. dan, can you hear me? all right. we lost dan and we will hope to get him back again very soon. pushing back there on some of the allegations from john bolton. we will be watching the book and a lot more today.

>> sandra: doing our best. multiple states now seeing new record highs and covid-19 cases as a new report reveals a growing consensus on how the virus spread. dr. marty makary will be here live on that. plus unemployment claims dropping for the 11th straight week with 1.5 million americans, mr. stuart bernie will make an appearance on our >> president trump: we have the best unemployment numbers in our country, we have almost 160 million people working and nobody has been close. and now we are seeing the numbers come back very strongly. these folks, they don't have time to go to the post office they have businesses to grow customers to care for

lives to get home to they use stamps.com print discounted postage for any letter any package any time right from your computer all the amazing services of the post office only cheaper get our special tv offer a 4-week trial plus postage and a digital scale go to stamps.com/tv and never go to the post office again!

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. i do motivational speakingld. in addition to the substitute teaching. i honestly feel that that's my calling-- to give back to younger people. i think most adults will start realizing that they don't recall things as quickly as they used to or they don't remember things as vividly as they once did. i've been taking prevagen for about three years now. people say to me periodically, "man, you've got a memory like an elephant." it's really, really helped me tremendously. prevagen. healthier brain. better life. theand we want to thank times, the extraordinary people in the healthcare community,

working to care for all of us. at novartis, we promise to do our part. as always, we're doing everything we can to help keep cosentyx accessible and affordable. if you have any questions at all, call us, email us, visit us online. we're here to help support you when you need us. take care, and be well. to learn more, call one eight four four cosentyx or visit cosentyx.com

>> ed: overnight protesters gathered in front of the mayor's home calling it in the autonomous zone and adding that a cut to the police budget is simply not. >> they've been protesting outside of the mayor's apartment for a thousand demonstrators last night were chanting bottom stops we all hate cops. they are wanting to cut the police department budget and sell any militarized weapons or vehicles animatedly stop replacing the protests

themselves. he fired five shots and injured tutoring a shot. and portland despite its reputation and occupy portland, apparently they don't want another seattle. disbanding the police units at work in schools, and stop investigating gun crimes and determine the transit police that have been tricked patrolling the city's transit system. about 5 million will go to a straight response unit, and

getting money will be of black leadership program. protesters wanted 50 million in cuts but some of the city council fear that would clearly dismantle the police department.ns filing for unemployment benefits last week marking a decline for the 11th week in a row. as a country reopens. i should say the number was 1.5 million people filing for those jobless benefits. still good morning. you are on the fox business network. you give us a straight

perspective. >> to the tune of 1.508 million. that's down 58,000 from last week. and clearly the economy is coming back quite strongly. nonetheless it is an 11 week downtrend in new jobless claims. it's another piece of the downtrend that's going in the right direction. speak >> sandra: i would never ask you to forecast the a stock market, but white racing as far as the dow, as we climb our way out of this, we begin this as thursday morning. that basically said a lot of the

good news is already priced into the u.s. to stock market. now we get an overall look in the coming man months of just how bad things got. >> but that's looking past. the market always looks forward to. it always anticipates and what it thinks is still to come. a lot of the analysts who appear on this program has said consistently, why because the federals are pumping -- and so is congress. we also have the reopening of america. going back to work, going back

to business. retail sales are going sharply higher. of that basis i'm inclined to agree with those people that say the market will continue to climb. the dark spot on the horizon i think is the election. you don't know what's going to happen with that selection. but you don't know what the results yet. in the market may be a little cautious about ramping up in the face of an election that they don't know the result of. >> sandra: that's fair enough. obviously the 2020 market will be a big influences obviously the concern for the market would be if there was a second wave, and especially the good news if we were to get a vaccine.

that would be a risk for an investor to take on, that's an increase in cases. it's not a spike, it's an increase in not a spike. if you get to a point, stay at home, don't go to work rules in some areas and that would hurt the market, we will get a wholesale route lock down all across the country in the event of an increase in case. it's a concern for the market

but not an absolute terrifying worry. >> sandra: that pent-up demand is good for the economy, people getting back out and flying again and making purchases, there is good news out there. stuart varney, it's always good to see you. >> see you soon, sandra. >> sandra: he will return to the fox business network. >> in the fatal shooting of rayshard brooks, but do the charges match the evidence? we will take a closer look ahead. plus this. >> if you support america, you support restoring the confidence that communities of color have been institutions of authority. we hear you and we are listening to your concerns. >> ed: a senate republicans unveiling their version of police reform.

and he weighs in life, next

how they gonna pay for this? they will, but with accident forgiveness allstate won't raise your rates just because of an accident. cut! is that good? no you were talking about allstate and... i just... when i...

accident forgiveness from allstate. click or call for a quote today. >> sandra: the fbi getting crafty at tracking down a woman accused of torching police cars during a riot in philadelphia. investigators gathering pictures of the suspect from instagram users at the protest and then taking to craft website at sea to track down the maker of the shirt the woman was wearing. after coming through users who purchase that shirt, agents were finally able to identify the suspect by a peace sign tattoo visible in the pictures from the protest. the woman has been arrested and faces a maximum of ten years in prison if convicted. >> ed: at the house judiciary committee house judiciary committee is approving the democrats police reform bill and a party line vote which came after an emotional debate. that sets up a full house vote

on the bill next week. this is a member of the judiciary committee. and he later apologized, he wanted to apologize. how does that set the table for people coming together or not? >> that's part and parcel to what's happening here. that party line is a really divisive, and that kind of offhand comment can really be detrimental to bringing us together. tim scott is a good guy and he will get over that i'm sure and be willing to work. that's my impression of tim getting to know him just a

little bit, and we can overcome slights like that, and it was pretty obvious they are putting something good and valuable together. in terms of him pushing back republican amendments, how do you want to make the bill but are and how hopeful are you to hold two or three important measures that might make this bill better? >> one was unqualified community they take that immunity away. if you just do something wrong accidentally, you will be personally liable as a cop.

what that does is that's actually a rearguard action to dismantling police because nobody -- you won't be able to recruit or retrain and you are not going to be able to train a new officers and folks are going to lead. i've talked to officers who are considering seriously leaving if the democratic bill will become law. the other great example is the antilynching provision that was in there. we offered a provision to make that a death penalty eligible offense because currently right now, the max is ten years. the lynching is a horrific crime of course, and then they said how about life imprisonment, and they said absolutely not. and that's a prime example of

that. >> ed: yet the chairman of your committee and judiciary on the house side, and that's where we get a preview of where we are headed. >> it's time now to be real legislation that will really change the situation, that meets the needs of the moment, and senator scott is offering a sh sham. he had a formal police officer with him, and how do they call it a sham? >> that's not what their real motive is. they emasculate state and local policing and centralized in federal government. senator's tim scott is much more rational and reasonable, they

don't want that. they want to immediately go in and to change things up. we were told yesterday that the autonomous zone in seattle is a community garden where peaceful people are hanging out. that's the kind of dichotomy you are. they said yesterday that antifa does not exist, it's merely fiction. nobody believes that, not law enforcement, not even cnn believes that. it's a bizarre hearing in so many ways. >> so in the 30 seconds we have, there's been this national outcry. both sides need to come togeth together, let's have reform. for example banning choke hold's, are you fearful now as we go through this piece by piece that this is becoming a mess and that we may lose sight of the several key things that both sides said we agree on?

>> yes. and that's what bothers me so much, i see a one-size-fits-all approach and not being willing to even include the republicans in discussion, and even amendments that were offered in good faith yesterday that they agree with. so when that happens, we know that they are the majority. i got it. elections have consequences and that's what they are going to do, they will grind this thing through without republican support. >> ed: while we got another big election coming up. >> sandra: a terrifying scene caught on camera as an oklahoma police officer pulls a woman from a burning car. we will talk to that officer now being hailed a hero. plus, could we finally be close to a deal to bring back baseball ed?

that story is next.

>> ed: and we are keeping hope alive for major league baseball. the players reportedly reaching a tentative deal on a new 2020 season. the teams will play about 60 games, players getting their full prorated salaries and both sides may benefit to a bigger pie thanks to expanded playoffs. the players association is disputing reports there is a deal in place, the union is said to be pushing for a longer schedule. let's go. i can replay a ball already, sandra? >> president trump: we are looking with the governors and working with local representatives and mayors and supplying them what they need including ventilators. we are in great shape to put out, i used to call them the embers or flames that flareup in

areas very quick. but we will put them out quickly and won't be closing the country again. >> sandra: that was the president in a new interview witsean hannity last night. ten states reporting a high of 70 average of new cases mostly across the south in the western united states. dr. marty makary is a fox news medical contributor physician and professor of public health at john hopkins university. doctor, thanks for being here. i think by now everyone has come up in their heads with their own version of how the spreads and how they prevent the spread, because there has been so much information to take in. and in some cases, conflicting information. so what do we know today about how it spreads and how important airflow is? >> sure, sandra, good morning. it makes sense that people are confused and research has evolved. right now the best current thinking based on the latest studies is that the infection

doesn't really spread from contaminated surfaces or brief interactions, it spreads from the microbe droplets. they're not talking about the large spit or droplets that someone might project when they speak or shout, we are talking about regular microbe droplets from normal speech. and it may explain a lot. it may explain why new york got hit especially hard because ventilation is poor and public transit and in elevators, both of which are big in new york. it may explain why asian countries may have been able to contain the infection with universal masking and it may explain why the outdoors is safer than indoors. right now austin is having an outbreak among young people, and if you look at that, they go to bars where ventilation is poor and it can create a massive transmission. the core numbers of people in hospitals are ages 2329 right

now. >> sandra: it makes it difficult to explain to children because of the invisible nature of the spread. but to your point of "the wall street journal" talking about the consensus as to how this disease spreads. it's not common to contract covid-19 from a contaminated surface as you state, but instead the major culprit is close up person-to-person interaction for extended perio periods. credit events, and places where people are talking loudly to maximize the risk. i will throw up that map we have in the intro, alabama, arizona and california, some of the states are seeing an uptick in cases. florida, nevada, this is obviously something we will watch as we head into the fall as we pray and hope there's not a second wave. we really appreciate your time

this morning, thank you. >> thank you, sandra. >> ed: the white house firing back after details emerge from john bolton's explosive new book about his time in the white house. new information about the doj's push to stop the release, that is next. you try to stay ahead of the mess. but scrubbing still takes time. now there's new powerwash dish spray. it's the faster way to clean as you go. just spray, wipe and rinse. it cleans grease five times faster. new dawn powerwash. spray, wipe, rinse.

the course structure the it just suits my life perfectly because i am a mom, i'm a wife. and i was able to complete those short courses- five to six weeks- and then move onto the next until i reached my goal.

i need all the breaks, that i can get. at liberty butchumal- cut. liberty biberty- cut. we'll dub it. liberty mutual customizes your car insurance so you only pay for what you need. only pay for what you need. ♪ liberty. liberty. liberty. liberty. ♪ >> sandra: fox news alert,

residents are caught welcome to a brand-new hour of america's newsroom on this thursday morning, and sandra smith. >> ed: and i'm ed henry. of businesses and residents living under occupation, growing frustrated with president trump, telling sean hannity that simply cannot go on. speak to the governor of the state of washington is weak and the mayor is weak. they just took it over and the police are somehow told not to be there. but we would go in there if they want us in and take us back very quickly. it shouldn't never be allowed to fester like it's festering right now, it's disgraceful to our country, it's a disgrace. >> the protest and here is the

seattle police department, and as you look down the street here, this is where some of the businesses and residents are. the residence we have spoken to are generally completely supportive of the cause, the black lives matter movement. obviously there is some frustration in terms of how they get around. in terms of safety, they don't seem too concerned right now. for instance i saw a gentleman walking down the street where we are, he had his eyes coffee. a woman just came jogging here as well. at the same time as you look over into the park, given the free food and drinks that are being handed out, it has obvious would become a magnet for some homeless people and that is where if it is any danger it has come over the past few days. you heard, he left that off

yesterday. >> he's not going to be attacking washington state. >> there was another protest here in seattle yesterday. marches went toward seattle's west precinct police sedation and also shut down the freeway. and that was a message with the protesters, these protesters are going to be allowed to stay but, for quite some time, this is now semipermanent when they bring in those heavy concrete blocks we are showing you.

>> fox news alert, as we get a look inside of the former security advisor john bolton. they tried to sue to stop the publication of that book saying it contains classified information. last night on sean hannity show the president fired right back. >> president trump: in terms of bolton, he broke the law. couldn't get senate confirmed so i gave him a nonsenate confirmed position. i wasn't very enamored. >> sandra: howie kurtz is a fox news media analyst and a host of "media buzz." so far, what do we know is in that book? >> we know a lot. it's a scathing portrait, not

that trump is said to have told the president to ask him for it. help to his election, and, i don't like the president as quoted as saying journalist should be jailed who reveal their sources or even should be executed. i will take a very strong stand against executing members of our profession but the tone of the book is so unrelentingly hostile and paints trump is such an imbecile" everything ever said about him, it does make john bolton look better and makes you wonder why he went to work for donald trump. >> sandra: howie kurtz, a lot more to get to hear. if you could stand by, we got some news from the supreme court. >> ed: the supreme court has rejected the president's proposal.

shannon bream, good morning. >> good morning, ada. this is one of those very complex opinions in which there are different groups getting together and agree on part of it and it dissenting on part of it. the bottom line we can tell right now is the trump administration's efforts to roll back daca. apparently the court says they were not good enough or done properly. if you are going to take action like this, you have to follow something called the administrative procedures act. what that says is you can't take action that's arbitrary and capricious, there has to be a reasonable explanation for what you are doing. the trump administration is trying to roll back daca and took a couple stabs at it. if you don't think the trump administration got it right, not that daca couldn't be rescinded or repealed in some way, but this administration didn't go about it the right way. it looks like the opinion is by the chief justice and he is joined by what we would call the more liberal wing of the court.

justices breyer, sotomayor, kagan and ginsberg. it looks like there was dissent by justice thomas. one of those very fractured opinions but for the bottom line now it looks like tom's administrations which affects those that are estimated that and the ability to work here in the states with some type of it looks like and for now we will keep reading and get some of the details for you but that's the bottom line. >> ed: this is a big one because it includes the so-called dreamers and president obama basically gave them these legal protections as you know. i'm giving you a chance to continue to go through the opinion as we go through this together. president obama by executive fiat back in 2012 as i recall had basically given these young

folks legal protections and part of the argument here is this is something that should be legislated and that congress and should intervene and actually pass a law. this should not be done by executive fiat. as you gather more information there, if you want to weigh in on that part of it, it also seems interesting, it seems like another example of the chief justice john roberts as you suggest siding with the liberal wing of the supreme court that is not going to leave conservatives happy. >> it's interesting because earlier in the week we got decision about lgbtq replace rights and the chief justice also cited with more liberal as did chief don mike justice gorsuch. we can do a process of elimination, and we thought that the chief justice was probably writing this daca opinion about what that means is we didn't

know until we just got it just now which way it would go because he has oftentimes crossed over and built a coalition on one wing of the court or the other. so i can tell you that it looks like there are additional opinions filed by justice sotomayor or concurring in the main part of the opinion that daca was not properly rescinded by that jump administration. we would expect those in the dissent who are not for the ultimate decision here. judge thomas, dutch corsets, alito and kavanaugh. you remember part of this, elaine duke wrote a memo. there was another action by then dhs secretary kirstjen nielsen trying to withdraw daca and say these are the reasons why we are doing it. there was a whole argument during the case itself about why they just didn't do a better memo and a better right up. is there a way to solve this defect for getting rid of daca?

basically what it sounds like the cork is said today and what we can see so far, those attempts thus far and those memo saying, this is why we get rid of daca. you know the president has said many times if we don't get a good ruling from the court or if there are other circumstances, we will think about ways to handle daca. he said many times that they would come to some kind of agreement, there would be motivation on the hill, but for now daca is upheld. >> ed: let's talk about the election year and how the white house might proceed. the government failed to get an adequate justification for ending the federal program, daca.

but they could try again to shut it down and they choose to do that in the presidential election year? >> and we all know that it's hard to get something done, and that's the hundreds of thousands of dreamers. this administration has given assurances, and hundreds of thousands of people have relied on that. there have been conversations across the aisle, and we want to come to some kind of fix for this. it could be one of the first things you get done in an election year, and it's so hard to get things done. but now that the courts away and then, i need to read the details of it. if you come back to us with a better justification you should

move forward. there is some well on capitol hill, let's get a permanent fix done. that is very likely in an election year but it opens up a new conversation about trying to solve this problem which the president has often indicated he wanted to find a way to do for the people who were here under the circumstances. >> ed: and it with the vacuum of congress not taking action, that leads to the court legislating. you mentioned it a few moments ago that the bake lgbtq decision earlier this week, we had justice alito, and this is one of those areas that seems right

for some work to get done, but on this narrow question about the dreamers, that's not the f fix. they could do a more formal rescission of daca and it remains to be seen. the ball is in the white house's court. >> sandra: we are waiting for a reaction on the white house. the president has been reactive tweeting, and we will see if he has a reaction to that end we will also get an update from the white house a short time from them. this is a big and highly anticipated decision from the supreme court. i know shannon you are trying to

get a deeper look into that decision so we can see what exactly it all means. >> ed: it actually does because you can see the associated press writing this up. after they say the president's position was rejected, the outcome seems certain to elevate the issue of immigration in president trump's campaign given the anti-immigrant element. the president might frame that, and talked about building the border wall and obviously all of that. immigration which we hadn't heard quite as much in recent months, we've had issues of social injustice. >> sandra: backing up a little bit, and they could be here

illegally, they were brought here under aged, they are adults here and educated here and working in society here. but that was an obama administration action. the trump administration tried to unravel and undo daca, and they haven't done so successfully but under today's decision, it doesn't let the trump administration rollback daca. the administration can bind to their by, and those legislatures are accountable and closer to the people.

and bind people afterwar after . if you can do executive action why can't you wind up through executive action. if it's like justice thomas is getting that in his dissent. if you don't let that subsequent administration undo it in the same way that it was put into practice. that memo had some reasoning for withdrawing or rescinding it, the court is not buying it. they are saying it didn't rise to the level of what you need to see and justice thomas springs that point. what does that do for future administrations if anyone administration can change policy simply through executive action. >> sandra: to your point, getting a little bit more and thomases dissent, and instead

the majority today concludes that dhs was required to do far more. they are saying this is incorrect and will have hamstring all future agencies attempts to undo action. if you could expand on that. >> he also says today's decision must be recognized for what it is. and we are rolling back daca as correct and this decision by the court, we think we got it wrong. >> ed: let's bring in john roberts as shannon continues to dig for more details.

playing a stunning rebuke to the president on policy grounds and politically he may be spoiling to have this issue front and center in this campaign. >> i don't know ed, that has its pluses and minuses as well. obviously the immigration issue is a huge one for the president's base but you can't win with just her base. i think there's some sense among moderate voters that these daca recipients aren't necessarily a really, really big problem. i think the white house would probably take comfort in the idea that this was refused on a technical issue as opposed to the merits of the program. so it does give the white house the opportunity to potentially go back and try to fight this battle again. but again just as we are now beginning, the ark of the election campaign that has been delayed now suddenly put this

one out on the table and the blowback that the white house would get for trying to do it again it's probably more than they would want to bite off. still waiting for some sort of reaction to the white house, i talked to a couple of people who are just going through the ruling right now. not exactly sure what it means or what we might do it about it and i'm sure we will hear from the tweeter in chief and just a little while. it's a defeat but not a stunning defeat as if the supreme court had ruled on the merits of the program as a post of the technicality that they didn't follow the correct procedures in seeking to undo daca. >> sandra: going back to that fact, reading directly from chief justice john roberts majority opinion here, it's a 5-4 decision with roberts being the deciding vote. this is a verb eight, we don't decide whether daca or its rescission on its own policies. the wisdom of those decisions is

"none of our concern" we address only whether the agency complied with the procedural requirements that applied a reasoned explanation for its action, and here, the agency failed in that case. so the white house could say that they would go back and decide to further build their case, i suppose? >> they could, i don't know that they would necessarily be finding time to do it. but do you want t to to fight a court battle in the heat of the campaign? this would be something that was left for the second term, should the president prevail. the other thing about the daca decision is that democrats try to force them into broader immigration because the president said, look. we got to do something about these daca recipients. i don't think he has any appetite to deport the couple million people who are here on the daca program. but this is more political leverage to try to get something

done on a broader basis on immigration but i would be surprised if the white house goes back to try to fight this case again. i just don't think it's a fight that would really get them what they need and it would certainly take up all of their political energy. this pigment what about supreme court front and center, the supreme court itself with the makeup on of it, it have noh coming up on rights and the key decision and legacy chief justice john roberts obviously nominated by a republican president and george w. bush who yet again, we saw it on obamacare and it's not what this administration. >> and sharing the same name as john roberts, people often tweak me that they don't appreciate my ruling on obamacare. so, in previous -- previous

presidents have experienced this as well. suddenly it turns around and becomes a different justice than you thought he was going to be. so here you have, and judge of course it was considered to be a conservative's conservative, maybe not quite to the degree of kavanaugh, but he has voted i guess you could say against the white house on the issue of transgender riots. now you have john roberts casting the deciding vote again in a way that goes against the white house. i'm sure that president is not particularly thrilled about that but that's the supreme court. if you put people on the court that you believe should adhere to established law and rule on the merits. chief justice roberts clearly thought the case wasn't made here to divide the department of homeland security to take down its program and they are basically saying, look. go back to the drawing board, come up with a better argument and we might be able to hear it

again. >> sandra: let us know when we get reaction on the white house. meanwhile, reaction on the senate floor, potentially with chuck schumer reacting to that, we will listen to news on that. but ed, i was going to bring up this. immigration lawyers told the supreme court after this case was argued last fall, they made the case about frontline health care workers involved in responding to the coronavirus pandemic in this country, that they rely on about 27,000 daca recipients, pharmacist, physician recipients, home health aide at technicians and nearly 200 medical students. really interesting. this was all discovered in an april 2nd court filing. and they made the case, the association of american medical colleges. if the of daca would be catastrophic. i thought that would be it

legitimate to bring up. >> ed: you make an important point because i've also seen daca recipients serving in the u.s. military and fighting on behalf of the united states. so john roberts made an important point a moment ago that the president may push this issue strongly with his face. he did it in immigration and pushed it hard in 2016, and it was a winning issue for him. but the daca issue is a bit more complicated than say the wall or other matters in the sense that these are folks who as young people were brought here illegally by their parents. but through no fault of their own, they didn't know what was going on, then they've gone on. they've gone on to college, the u.s. military, or as you say frontline health care workers battling the pandemic.

>> sandra: they went on to say they were excluded from the health care workforce. more on that coming up. but meanwhile shannon bream has had a chance to dig in deeper on what we have just learned from the supreme court. >> i was going back through my notes from the of argunts and looking at some of the things they had talked about. even if the government get something wrong it's not always the case that we go back and untangle the consequences. could there be a way to wind down the program and measured steps? that's my paraphrase of what he said. you know we take note scribbling furiously as they are talking. but he had talked about the consequences of this and justice gorsuch during the argument said i get the stories that you are bringing me about how this will impact people if we do this in one fell swoop. so chief justice today and deciding this said essentially, we don't decide if daca was a good policy or not, as we talk

about it. the wisdom of that was not our concern, we only address whether the agency complied with this requirement the data provided a reasonable explanation for its action. here the agency failed to consider the conspicuous issue and what if anything to do about the hardship to daca recipients. so that's clearly something that weighed on the chief justice and it appears swayed to him and his reasoning today. he talks about what would happen to the 700 or 800,000 people who were here under dreamer protections if this was suddenly changed or taken away from them. so it's clear, he saw through the ramifications and there are also other places in reading through the opinion where they talk about then acting secretary elaine duke who in their estimation didn't give full consideration to that. this started with the attorney general, then jeff sessions and the active secretary duke.

when that wasn't good enough and didn't hold up in court then kirstjen nielsen took another stab at writing a memo about why they were trying to get rid of daca. essentially they said this needs to be sent back on the appropriate recourses to remit it to dhs so that it may consider the problem anew but again, it's john roberts, not our john roberts for the chief justice, reporting you have to remember whether the white house will take another bite at this. in an election year there is i'm sure so much that the white house is digging through even to give it the first basic response. it's clear that the court is saying that, this administration didn't handle getting rid of it properly. i do have a second moment when i see john roberts pop up in my inbox, thinking john roberts from the supreme court supreme court is emailing me directly? we have our own john roberts and he's doing great at the

white house as they try to figure this out. >> ed: i don't want to further confuse you but we also have our own judge here, judge napolita judge napolitano. >> it's hard to add to the very thorough and easy to follow description that shannon just gave us but basically, and the viewers need to know this, this is not a ruling on the merits. the court is not saying whether daca is right or wrong, it's just saying that the manner in which the trump administration terminated it without proposing an alternative for the 7-800000 human beings who came here as babies and have been raised as if they were and for all practical purposes are americans without consideration for what will happen to them. so there is a law called the

administrative procedures act where it's promulgating rules to jump through certain hoops. the supreme court here said the trump administration failed miserably to jump through those hoops. didn't follow the rules and didn't consider the policy implications and it didn't say what it would do when daca was terminated. as the good john roberts has pointed out, they may not want to do this in an election year. as for the president, he has said. it made it very clear, if i win this case, the purpose is to negotiate with the democrats on comprehensive immigration reform. it is not, he has said several times, to kick out of this country, they tell us what to do with those 800,000 young people.

>> sandra: we will show chuck schumer, he was speaking on the floor a few minutes ago and we are still awaiting reaction from the white house. >> i cried tears of joy a few minutes ago when i heard the decision of the supreme court on daca. these wonderful daca kids and their families have a huge burden lifted off their shoulders they don't have to worry about being deported, they can do their jobs and i do believe, someday soon, they will be american citizens. >> sandra: they are calling the lgbtq decision surprising, and of course that was offered by neil gorsuch, a donald trump supreme court pick. but we are just starting to get reaction especially for members of congress.

>> you know i don't know that the president will be as furious and his appointees, justices or such and it justice kavanaugh in part consented and in part concurred. the best descent said, what kind of hoops do you want to put the government through? we never before in our history have had one president buying his successor in a decision that was discretionary with presidents. but the 5-4 decision prevails, without the emotion, and chuck schumer is right. these 800,000 people can go about their lives without fear of being deported. now if the president is reelected we may go through this again and presumably his homeland security secretary, whoever that may be at the time, will follow the rules. if the president is not reelected then whoever succeeds him somehow is going to have to address this. either to change daca or keep it

in place. >> ed: i know you had a fondness for the late justice antonin scalia and one of the things that would fire him up was knowing that there was legislating from the bench. when you talk about the lgbtq decision, as well as this one, it also shows that, with both of those issues congress has failed to act. both president obama and i was on daca were saying we want to get formal reform here. so we aren't leaving them on alert. >> the trial judge in this daca case, president obama himself

offered daca's legislation in the house of representatives then controlled by the republicans rejected it. the senate which was controlled by the democrats never considered it and then the president and act in it anyway. so this again shows as you pointed out a failure of congress to resolve this. congress does this for political reasons like everyone in the government and so sometimes i think chuck schumer is very happy. let's put it this way. the court took the burden off of congress to shoulders because there simply are not enough votes in the congress to enact daca into affirmative law which is why president barack obama was only able to accomplish this by a series of 24 executive orders and that which is why when president trump rescinded those executive orders he should have been advised to do so in accordance with the administrative procedures act

which he did not. >> sandra: i believe the former campaign manager is standing by. edit, would you like to react? >> you know, i was there in 86. that daca is the gold standard, the vast majority of americans including republicans did not want to exclude these young people from this country but what they want to do is make sure they have a comprehensive plan and this was the peace that everybody was sort of willing to agree on. the premise was if you gave them in a single issue, he couldn't do the come company and set. this is the one thing i think you could probably get but if you do so as a single piece as opposed to competence of, i don't think you'll get a big bill. the president has enough on his plate. but it's very, very important to understand that the vast majority of americans do not want to exclude these young people as they age and as they participate fully as citizens. >> obviously the clock is ticking on getting anything done with congress between now and the election, neither side in a

move and may be to work together they are already working on police reform and other matters as well. what would be your advice in terms of moving forward? >> my advice would be from time to time not confuse immigration reform on what he's done in the world and all the rest of it with this particular element. i think he has enough on his plate, you have a senate majority and you could try to move it, but otherwise it's a dead issue at this point in time. it's not going to put an executive order out there but it will be quickly overruled by any federal court. >> sandra: addict, we appreciate you joining us. shannon bream has no reaction from the u.s. senator. >> hey there sandra. i just got a call from someone who has been key in the negotiations on the healtjust hh his decision. it was his assessment, and that

will not help on the hill. as we talked about this daca thing will be part of a bigger package and getting something done on immigration and that was part of the bargaining chip. now that it has essentially been taken off the table of the supreme court depending on how you want to look at this, not on the merits, but as an attempt to repeal it, he feels it will hurt any attempt to move something forward on immigration in this election year because now that you have to think about what the white house is going to do, essentially the court and the majority of the opinion says, we are talking about does the administration take another stab at this. you know no matter what memo you put together it's going to be taken back to court so are we going to launch into a process that takes another year or two or more with respect to this administration trying to wind down the daca program when we have an election this fall, when

apparently this kills the hopes on the hill forgetting broader immigration packages done because daca can be part of the broader negotiations now. so they think this is not helpful and they will not be able to move any immigration until well past the election then we find out who is running the country and when this administration takes another stab at it. >> ed: what other and answers are we waiting on? daca was a big one we were waiting for, the lgbtq decision, what else is on your radar? >> there are two english the prosecutor in new york state is trying to get to the president's financial records. that's going to be a big one. that has implications for congressional subpoenas and far behind. it was argued late in the term because coronavirus sort of threw off the whole schedule. we are supposed to get these decisions by the end of june and

i would think they would do everything they can to get things done on time. i think we could bleed into july and waiting for some of these decisions. we also have a big abortion case out of louisiana. we also had those faithless electric cases, people who are selected by the states to go to the electoral college. then when it comes down to the boat, they have the freedom to say, i'm going to break with my state and i have the freedom to vote as i want. you get a handful of those in a tight election and it could change the presidency. we will probably get opinions again next monday and over the next two or three weeks we should have all of those decisions. >> sandra: obviously it will continue to be a busy week. if you could stand by we will bring ed rollins back end is also responding to this decision. i will read what ari fleischer says. this is a temporary reprieve, the only meaningful measure's company competence of immigration reform enacted by congress and signed into law by

the president. both sides will need a compromise. what further reaction do you have for this decision? >> anybody talking at this point in time of a comprehensive a comprehensive immigration bill, it took reagan five years to get his immigration bill. finally in 1986 he said it, and just done. you had a bipartisan bill which is nowhere near as dramatic as what you're trying to do today. you can make the young people legal but you can't make the parents legal without doing comprehensive bills. this is the one thing everyone could probably agree upon so you are not going to give it up that early on. i think realistically you have a long battle ahead before you have immigration reform and i totally agree that we need it desperately but it's not going to happen in a short hall or even the first part of the next issue. >> ed: we also have judge napolitano here. we look back at this decision

and we had into this big presidential election, think about the peaceful protest on racial equality and to think about the lgbtq decision, just a few days ago. the debates about reforming police in this country, what are your thoughts about where we are right now big picture? >> i think we are in revolutionary times. that's a wonderful question. i think we are in revolutionary times in american history and we don't really know how this is going to end. we allowed governors to shut down churches and shut down all businesses, some have open them up and some say the virus has coming back. the president is being assaulted from all sides even people who are intellectually intimate with him during some of the most significant decisions that he had to make. the supreme court is coming down with decisions which are stunning but chuck schumer may be overly emotional. but he's right, he never

imagined this. i never imagined the lgbtq movement happening earlier this week. we need to get a grip on ourselves and realize that life goes on. america still the freest land of the world. we have an election coming up and that is the most important issue facing us now. but there is a lot of undercurrents, lots of people who are unhappy with the way things are. i pray that they manifest that unhappiness peacefully and at the ballot box, consistent with the bill of rights, respecting the life and liberty and property of everyone us. >> sandra: it looks like we continue to get reaction on both sides of the aisle. members of congress starting to weigh in on twitter. still awaiting white house reaction. it appears the president has to tweeted since the decision came out but it was on other matters. the obvious question is how the white house plans to proceed and

what options they have two proceed after the decision has been made, judge. >> i think ed rollins is 100% correct. the president may wade into it rhetorically, he may mention it saturday in tulsa and at his -- if his rallies continue throughout the campaign but in terms of directing chad wolf, his acting secretary of homeland security to begin this process. first of all if they'd do the process right, this would take us right into the heart of election time. i would be quite surprised if the president's advisors pushed him to go in this direction or if he goes there. i also don't believe we are going to get competence of immigration reform unless the president has a bargaining chip in his hand like daca or unless one party controls both the white house and the congress.

>> ed: a lot to address there. the judge is teeing up here, there's a narrow window for congress to get anything done. you've been in the thick of the police reform negotiations are moving forward and they obviously already have the pretty full play, talking about a potential stimulus plan, what are your initial thoughts as we take all of this in? >> the most interesting thing came a few minutes ago on the senate floor. chuck schumer was going to come down and talk about the john bolton book and some of the reactions there and chuck schumer was visibly shaken up. he was choking upwards. he said "this decision is amazing, i'm so happy. who would have thought this supreme court would have had so many good decisions in one week? he's referring to the monday

decision about lgbtq issues. in about five or 10 minutes house speaker nancy pelosi is supposed to have her weekly press conference and you can bet this will be issued a. you might remember that our colleague john roberts noted a tweet back in mid-november from the president who indicated that the supreme court did not rule to get rid of daca than the president would be willing to deal. i asked house speaker nancy pelosi back in 2018, back when we are going back into that government shutdown, and whether or not she would be willing to deal and maybe provide some money for a border wall in exchange for a bona fide daca solution and she gave me a one-word answer. she said, "no." so you can bet your bottom dollar that we will be posting those questions to house speaker nancy pelosi. she usually runs a little bit late and perhaps with this breaking news they might be further delayed. but judge napolitano hit with a further debate.

immigration reform, this is one of those seemingly intractable issues on capitol hill that never, ever get solved that's why president obama with the executive order implemented daca because i couldn't get to an agreement. they passed a bill several years ago in the senate, i bipartisan bill with marco rubio and john mccain they got to two-thirds of the united states senate but republicans are in the house. he could see potentially where house speaker nancy pelosi might get together a piece of legislation in the next couple months and say, let's try to do something here and force the hand may be of republicans and force the hand of president trump. we will see if he sticks to his word. but this is something that judge napolitano referred to. presidents are looking carefully at the polls, they have a very good chance of flipping the senate and they are seeing good full numbers from former vice president biden as it pertains to the electoral

college. they might say, look. we can do all of this. he was pretty bullish that they were going to have all three branches of the government, the white house, the house and the senate several years ago and when republicans weren't willing to deal on daca and immigration reform, he said maybe we will write our own villa. of course that didn't happen. they could certainly use that as an election issue. >> covering capitol hill, he will appreciate continued reaction we are getting from some members of congress. they called this the most disappointing week in years. as you know he's also a constitutional lawyer. he writes that scotus continues to invent and rewrite statuses at will. they reviewed standards under the democratic procedure act and

another for republicans, a very interesting continued reaction from some members of congress. >> that something when you go into these confirmation battles everyone thought they were going to know how neil gorsuch was going to pool and brett kavanaugh was going to pull, that you have these decisions don't filter out the way people think. we certainly heard folks on the right upset about the employment decision earlier this week certainly on the daca decision today. and president nixon, and he talked about some of his nominees for the supreme court and said he was rather disappointed in how they turned out. you think about justice, former justice david souter who was pretty much of moderate on the supreme court, nominated by the first president bush. so you don't really know how jurisprudence is going to play out and that's why it's so interesting to contrast these

absolute brawls over supreme court confirmations and event what the legislative or jurisprudence says down the road. you just can't predict that when you go into conference someone in the supreme court and how they would rule years or perhaps decades into the future. >> ed: chad pergram breaking it down so well. we will keep breaking this down and we got a whole are more to digest throughout the morning and we will be right back after a quick break. where will you go first? wherever you make go, lexus will welcome you back with exceptional offers. get zero percent financing and make no payments for up to 90 days on all 2020 lexus models. experience amazing at your lexus dealer.

balanced nutrition for strength and energy. whoo-hoo! great tasting ensure with 9 grams of protein, 27 vitamins and minerals, and nutrients to support immune health.

and nutrients to yeah. this moving thing never gets any easier. well, xfinity makes moving super easy. i can transfer my internet and tv service in about a minute. wow, that is easy. almost as easy as having those guys help you move. we are those guys. that's you? the truck adds 10 pounds. in the arms. -okay... transfer your service online in a few easy steps. now that's simple, easy, awesome.

transfer your service in minutes, making moving with xfinity a breeze. visit xfinity.com/moving today.

>> sandra: fox news alert on the daca decision just in from the supreme court. their bid to end the legal protection for dreamers, robert wolf is now a former economic

advisor. robert, our coverage continues of this breaking news out of the supreme court. what is your reaction? >> i think it's been an incredible week for the nation in the democratic parties. so if you think about it you have the protection of lgbtq rates this week and then you have the protection of dreamers. i know that both obama and president biden are smiling today. this is the direction our country should be going, we need to have justice for all. i disagree with what the senator was saying about constitutionality because, let's be clear. you have constitutionalists, this must be the direction that the country goes. we have to look at the broader coalition and just not look at what i would call yesterday's news.

>> but can you address, now joe biden who is standing on his own two feet, they had the house, the senate, and the president promised to do a comprehensive reform, didn't do it, and then did daca by executive fiat. >> let's be clear, when you enter the presidency you get to do a couple of big things. president obama did dodd-frank and he did the affordable care act, doing immigration reform should have been done. we had a group of eight who actually worked it but we just could never get there. at the beginning he said we have to take care of all the dreamers who did early. he did it with executive order, kept it going like a hot potato. there is no question that our country needs immigration reform but i think you have parties that look at it very differently. you have president trump who looks at border, porter kemp a

border. you remember what he called mexicans and so forth when he walked down the escalator, and you are the party of diversity. the facts don't lie. of the 105 women in congress, 90 are democrats. of the 54 black in congress, three are democrats. of the 46 hispanic in congress, 37 are democrats. so there's a party of diversity that is looking to the future, which is why today republican senators are saying it's not a good day. how could this not be a great day for this country? >> sandra: and of course you are referring back to, we just read off a tweet from senator hawley who just called it a disappointing week for the supreme court. bernie sanders put his reaction out moments ago on twitter saying this is a major victory for grassroot routes, and agains bernie sanders. now we must quickly pass legislation to provide a path to

citizenship for dreamers and the 11 million in this country. robert, it looks like you had a reaction to what i just read? >> i agree with bernie, this is grassroots and there is zero chance you will have immigration reform into the election year. we will not have infrastructure built, i do think we will have police reform done and that i think that's the only thing that will get done before the election. >> ed: eat you are normally here talking about the economy, we don't want to forget those who have lost their jobs. >> i am totally for carriers act 4.0. we need to make sure we have another ppt, payroll protection. we only gave it to about 12% of small businesses and we absolutely need to take care of

states and cities, not about the unfunded pension but those who have impacted by the pandemic. they're still 12 million unemployed people then where there were and 12% of small businesses are closing. we are applauding the reopening but this is going incredibly slow as is the recovery. >> sandra: we help the best for the country and that we come out of this as strong as possible. robert wolf, thanks for being on this. we will have continuing coverage of the decision from the supreme court as we begin a brand-new hour, come on back. to eligible members so they can take care of things like groceries before they worry about their insurance or credit card bills. right now is the time to take care of what matters most. like we've done together, so many times before. discover all the ways we're helping members

at usaa.com/coronavirus

and let me tell you something, we're hrodeo...embers i wouldn't be here if i thought reverse mortgages took advantage of any american senior, or worse, that it was some way to take your home. it's just a loan designed for older homeowners, and, it's helped over a million americans. a reverse mortgage loan isn't some kind of trick to take your home. it's a loan, like any other. big difference is how you pay it back. find out how reverse mortgages really work with aag's free, no-obligation reverse mortgage guide. eliminate monthly mortgage payments, pay bills, medical costs, and more. call now and get your free info kit. other mortgages are paid each month, but with a reverse mortgage, you can pay whatever you can, when it works for you, or, you can wait,

and pay it off in one lump sum when you leave your home. discover the option that's best for you. call today and find out more in aag's free, no-obligation reverse mortgage loan guide. access tax-free cash and stay in the home you love. you've probably been investing in your home for years... making monthly mortgage payments... doing the right thing... and it's become your family's heart and soul... well, that investment can give you tax-free cash just when you need it. learn how homeowners are strategically using a reverse mortgage loan to cover expenses, pay for healthcare, preserve your portfolio, and so much more. look, reverse mortgages aren't for everyone but i think i've been 'round long enough to know what's what. i'm proud to be a part of aag, i trust 'em, i think you can too. trust aag for the best reverse mortgage solutions.

so you can... retire better. >> ed: fox news alert, the supreme court issuing a major ruling on daca urging them to end the program protecting youngsters from deportation. busy morning. >> sandra: good morning everyone. the court issuing a 5-4 ruling with chief justice john roberts the deciding vote. and i did not rule on the merits of the program. >> ed: john roberts has a reaction. shannon, good morning again. >> let's dive right into this,

the chief justice did join them for new liberal members of the court. it's not about the substance about what was contained in daca, it's about, the sound policies. here the agency failed to consider the conspicuous issue and what if anything to do about the hardship to daca recipients. the dual failure has its doubts about whether they exercise of discretion in a reasonable. talking about homeland security, they did put together that the reasons that they were trying to, and the executive action put back into the obama administration. this administration wants to get rid of it. they have the power to rescind a daca but they didn't do it

properly. here's what he says in part. despite grounding the position in either the law or precedent the majority declares that dhs is required to overlook their obvious legal deficiencies and provide up additional policy reasons and justifications before restoring the rule of law. the holding is incorrect and it will hamstring all future agency attempts to undo actions that exceed statutory authorities. justice thomas spells it out very quickly and on the part of his dissent saying, this means that any administration to executive action can bind the following administration to be stuck to those actions if that subsequent administration, in this case the trump administration doesn't have a clean way of on doing the executive actions. but again, doesn't get to the merits, it sends us back to the department of homeland security so now we wait to see whether the white house will take another staff at trying to undo daca for a different, may be more lengthy or recent memo to

support that action. >> ed: shannon bream has been all over the supreme court for us this week. we appreciat proceeded. sandra? >> sandra: now reaction from the white house on the next steps from the trump administration. in response to that ruling chief white house white house correspondent john roberts joins back into our coverage of this breaking news. >> sandra and ada, good morning to you. nothing from president trump on this and nothing official from his aides yet but i get a sense of the white house is taking some comfort from the fact that this was not a ruling on the merits of >> president trump: program but rather a technical issue, and the other john roberts wrote "the dispute before the court is not whether dhs may rescind daca," all parties believe it's the procedure of the agency of doing so. hundreds of thousands of people

now will not be deported. while there was never any intention by the president to deport them in the first place, because if you remember, let's go back to november 12th, the day of the oral argument. at the president tweeted "president obama said he had no legal right to sign the order but what anyway if supreme court remedies with it overturned, the deal would be made for the dems for them, the daca recipients to sit day. the white house move was to get leverage to push democrats into a bigger bargain on immigration. president trump also wanted to codify the daca program in legislation and to take it out of the realm of the executive branch. this takes a very big bargaining chip off the table because i don't expect that anything will get done on immigration before the election. i would also be very surprised if the white house decides that it's going to go back and write another executive order which would then obviously be challenged in court on this before the election, because there are so many other things,

sandra, that the president of the white house and the campaign of god on their plate that i don't know whether they would really want to go back to this. knowing the fact that they are not going to get anything done on immigration, i think what they will probably do is wait until after november and find out the results of the election if president trump does prevail and wins a second term. then i think you will see this issue back on the table again. if the president doesn't win this one could be gone for a long, long time. >> sandra: perhaps that's the only reaction that we seen from the president or the white house since this came out. but the president did just retweet a daily caller headline. justice thomas' decision is a "effort to avoid a politically conservative but legally correct decision of the opinion of justice thomas attached there. that's about all we've heard so far. john, keep us posted from the

white house. >> retweets from the president are sometimes endorsements but sometimes they are not but in this case i think it probably is. >> ed: all right. what we endorse you, john roberts. more on the daca decision now. not joining us, james lankford is the republican on the committee. >> we want to talk about police reform and other issues. let's start with daca. the senate leader is on the senate floor saying he's crying tears of joy about this and then walked across the street to the supreme court where there are a daca recipients during this on. my sense is you have a much different reaction? >> that this makes the future of daca recipients even more murky. in february 2018 the senate put on the floor for different bills to try to deal with the legal status of daca. one of those was from the president offering the ability to be able to give permanent citizenship, literally days before there was a final agreement on those four and then

the supreme court snatched it away and said we wanted to look at this first. we created a situation years ago and they have now set basically every future administration has to play mother may i with every court to say do i like your opinion, and your reason enough. if not i will keep sending it back to you. any person judge in any court in america could hold up any president. so this does create a situation where every president in the future is found by president trump's executive actions unless they can find a court that disagrees with that. and that's just arbitrary on its face. >> sandra: it's great to have you here this morning to react to the news. nancy pelosi just spoke and said it as a ruling itself, we were and substrata as to what could happen on the court. so to continue to see how that

side reacts, meanwhile we are watching for reaction from the president. i would you like to see the white house proceeded? >> the president we assume will come out and say we will reevaluate this but clearly no president is bound by the actions of a previous president, no president can be bound by previous legislation. they can only undo the action of a previous president if the court agrees to that and that's absurd and violates all separation of power. i assume the president will come out and challenge the issue of separation of power which you should step out and say that white house has worked for years to try to get to a legal solution on daca that goes through congress and the white house is going to put out a proposal in the days ahead. but i agree with john roberts, the other john roberts as we say, when he made the statement. this will not happen before the election. there's a lot going on right now and so it puts the situation even more arbitrary for those

folks that are in daca instead of getting solution that we would have had two years ago. >> ed: a lot going on indeed and one of those big issues is of course police reform. we will showing you in republican colleagues live, tim scott was leading the effort but you are there front and center as well. shortly after that news conference, the number two democrat in the senate dick durbin had this to say about tim scott effort and your effort. the sin. >> what we say on the democratic side is you cannot waste this historic moment. let's not do something that is a token half-hearted approach. >> ed: he talked about a token approach. durbin apologized later, i won't get lost in the back and forth on that but i want you to react to that and most important going forward. given this kind of tension back and forth, how do you move forward and what do you expect to get in terms of bipartisan

reform? >> i expect we wouldn't pour gasoline on the fire that we as congress would actually work to pour water on the fire at this point. but democrats have thrown out terms like what dick durbin said, it's a token effort and knowing exactly what that means, we had jerry brown who came out and basically said mitch mcconnell is appealing to his bigoted base, basically saying all republicans are bigots. what they are arguing about is one area of this bill that we disagree on. and it is on qualified immunity. we want to strip away and expose every police officer in the country to litigation all the time. it's completely unacceptable and if there are lots of areas of common ground on this between the two bills because when we deal with racism and police reform, these are not supposed to be at least partisan issues and we have an it in a partisan way. quite frankly i'm a republican by choice because i believe in the party of lincoln and equal opportunity for every person. and equal access and equal justice under the law that takes

the basic principles of the party of lincoln that we established 150 years ago and that still remains true today. but for democrats they are just trying to throw out all over again that all republicans are racist, they are isolationists or whatever it may be. they continue to be more and more divisive as the country. as democrats look at tim scott and say he's the only black republican, they sit in the conference where there are two black democrats in the senate and they somehow think, we don't have one, we have to. and that somehow changes the dynamic witch's bizarre in the conversation. so let's treat each other as americans rather than trying to divide because there are areas where law enforcement and communities of color, and where all americans can agree on and that's what we are trying to zero in on and that's how we can make a more perfect union. >> sandra: senator, brandy reaction going back to the daca decision, about an hour after that, it was handed down and

president trump tweeted this. a shotgun blast into the face of people that are proud to call themselves republicans or conservatives. we need more justices or we will lose our second amendment and everything else. vote trump 2020. i just want to point out that chief justice john roberts led this ruling, the recent decision was authored by neil gorsuch, and trump picked for the supreme court. your reaction to that? >> then we go back to the obamacare decision that was led by the chief and in the obama decision congress has the right to do anything they want to as long as it is a tax. it was a sweeping new invention and they can require any american. and it comes out of the executive branch. if the executive branch in the courts agreed basically they can

create new legislation on americans. it's odd to be able to see it and i would expect it for liberal justices, but after the decision from obamacare and now from this decision i guess i shouldn't be surprised surpris surprised. >> thank you senator. >> ed: in this fox news alert 1.1.59 americans filing jobless claims but it's less than previous weeks but still a big number. we will break down with this downward trend can mean as more states begin to reopen. and dana perino begins next with explosive claims from john bolton's new book. the president bears a response and the daca decision. a whole lot coming up our team is standing by right now to take your call. and from start to finish, you can do it all without ever leaving the house. with our va streamline refi,

there's no income verification. no appraisal. and no out of pocket costs. one call can save you $2000 a year. theand we want to thank times, the extraordinary people g%m]iñ..ó;ik6r÷nñfuqóéc9 in the healthcare community, working to care for all of us. at novartis, we promise to do our part. as always, we're doing everything we can to help keep cosentyx accessible and affordable. if you have any questions at all, call us, email us, visit us online. we're here to help support you when you need us. take care, and be well. to learn more, call one eight four four cosentyx or visit cosentyx.com ♪ ♪ ♪

♪ this virus is testing all of us.

and it's testing the people on the front lines of this fight most of all. so abbott is getting new tests into their hands, delivering the critical results they need. and until this fight is over, we...will...never...quit. because they never quit.

i know that the president and his team are disappointed today but i also think that if they are crying up on capitol hill, there is something they could do which is, they could try to pass legislation. one of the reasons that barack obama and his administration puts forward an executive order to deal with dreamers is because he was frustrated that congress couldn't get something done. now, you see we have a congress that is quite divided on a number of things, but obama's eo

did what it is. that was arbitrary and capricious and they throw it out. now here is a opportunity for the president. he could decide to go forward and -- or not. what does he think it was the right thing to do. and, the second thing is something he has already tweeted that is to gin up his voters to say, we need more conservative justices on the court. so we need to make sure that i get reelected, and i would suggest that they vote for republican senators as well. >> ed: there may also be conservatives following the president on twitter and saying, i thought there were a bunch of conservatives on the court, what happened? neil gorsuch who president trump nominated obviously went with the liberal wing on the lgbtq

decision of two days back and then there's that man chief justice john roberts who when i was covering you in the bush administration, they seem to think that man right there was considering not. your thoughts on that? >> sandra: i was a spokesperson for john roberts and for justice alito. this is what president said. and they would be a great jurist and they would basically rule as they see fit. that's a long time for suggesting they would have a litmus test. i think that it's wrong for all of us to think that just because you are nominated by a certain

person, liberal or conservative, republican or democrat. these are people being chosen, nominated and confirmed and then we go back to executive orders which are a terrible way to do policy that states. the president has an opportunity if he wants to take it. >> sandra: i will never forget sitting down with supreme court justice neil gorsuch last fall answering that question about the politics of the court, and of course his response is there is no such thing as a bush justice or trump justice or obama justice. we are justices of the court. there's a brand-new tweeted from the president saying, just now, do you get the impression that the supreme court doesn't like me? just what the president on twitter. >> i don't know what the supreme court justice that

thinks of him, we saw this with the way to get things done and get policy is supported is to do with through the congress. and to push them to do it and make them come to the table. both sides are going to be wholly disappointed if they can't figure out a way to actually have congress make laws that they can then sent to the court and get an up or down ruling on. executive orders can come and go. let's say president trump won't win reelection, what do you think will happen in january? the next time there is a president, it's not a matter of who likes or doesn't like who. and better yet and we've always

love to watch the program. rod and this out a little bit. that's a big presidential election coming out, and he said he wanted to see more fire from the president. he made the important point that as joe biden's live with that, he seemed to be sort of going in slow motion. her thoughts on that? >> it was a strange thing and when you have a a chance to look at peter doocy's reporting from the event, campaigning and the pandemic are a different thing. you had people that were socially distanced, there was no crowd, he didn't even have an introduction, he just sort of walks in. he's very subdued and tells the president to wake up.

you would think if you were in a crowd that you would say, wake up, with some energy. and that's a way to watch the campaign unfolded. >> sandra: i was watching you live, too, and meanwhile, final thoughts on john bolton and this back-and-forth with the president in the white house trying to stop the publication. what are your thoughts on that this morning? >> sandra: i've given this a lot of personal thinking. the former press secretaries got mcclellan wrote a book that was largely considered very negative about him.

and i still have great affection for scott mcclellan. i did think him writing the book was one bad for the president, and everyone gets to make a choice. it was really upsetting. i remember being called into the oval office though because the president had heard that i was upset about the book and the president had his glasses on the end of his nose and he looked at me and said to come i heard you are upset about this book. i said yes, sir, i am. i was all spun up and i said i'd like you to try to forgive him. i said can i throw him under the bus first? and he said no. this is not going to be important in two weeks. that's important work that we are doing here, and he zeroed in on something that was important for me to hear.

i also heard that every president will have to deal with this. it will always be somebody that turns on you. you have to make as good of a decision as you possibly can and move forward. i don't think that there is a tension that's going to get a lot of attention, and in a couple of weeks that will be in the rearview mirror. >> ed: she wanted to throw him under the bus first. and that's what i dealt with. >> i still have love in my heart for them. >> she was a tough customer. >> peter navarro is the white house trade advisor and he's going to be here live with his reaction about what really happened. and that the officers involved in a deadly police shooting no have just hours to turn themselves in.

>> if you really want to do something to improve police misconduct, why don't you give district attorneys the right to proceed with the case without waiting for a grand jury. we design and engineer in america.

and assemble more vehicles here than anyone else. it's why at moment's notice we can take american ingenuity and our manufacturing capability and put it to work. building respirators, ventilators and face shields. building what we've been building for over a century. an unbreakable connection between the ford motor company and america.

and let me tell you something, rodeo... an unbreakable connection i wouldn't be here if i thought reverse mortgages took advantage of any american senior, or worse, that it was some way to take your home. it's just a loan designed for older homeowners, and, it's helped over a million americans. a reverse mortgage loan isn't some kind of trick to take your home. it's a loan, like any other. big difference is how you pay it back. find out how reverse mortgages really work with aag's free, no-obligation reverse mortgage guide. eliminate monthly mortgage payments, pay bills, medical costs, and more. call now and get your free info kit. other mortgages are paid each month, but with a reverse mortgage,

you can pay whatever you can, when it works for you, or, you can wait, and pay it off in one lump sum when you leave your home. discover the option that's best for you. call today and find out more in aag's free, no-obligation reverse mortgage loan guide. access tax-free cash and stay in the home you love. you've probably been investing in your home for years... making monthly mortgage payments... doing the right thing... and it's become your family's heart and soul... well, that investment can give you tax-free cash just when you need it. learn how homeowners are strategically using a reverse mortgage loan to cover expenses, pay for healthcare, preserve your portfolio, and so much more. look, reverse mortgages aren't for everyone but i think i've been 'round long enough to know what's what. i'm proud to be a part of aag, i trust 'em, i think you can too. trust aag for the best reverse mortgage solutions.

so you can... retire better. >> ed: president trump firing back after excerpts from the national security advisor's brand-new book the room where it happened came out, at least excerpts showing numerous

accusations against the president. saying it reveals classified information. john roberts is live outside the white house with some details. >> good morning. this is at the center of the dispute between the white house and a john bolton. the justice seeking an emergency injunction and temporary restraining order. the doj is insisting in its filing saying "to be clear, and in the book bolting claims president trump's foreign policy was mostly based around his reelection and saying they missed the mark and focusing solely on the ukraine and turkey among others. bolton writes democrats could have wrote a broader pattern of his behavior including its pressure campaign involving hulk

bank, cte and what way among others. he said that could have led to a greater chance to persuade others that higher crimes and privileged comic misdemeanors had been perpetrated. and bolton says president trump cut a deal with president xi jinping to cut a deal with u.s. agricultural goods. they are saying absolutely untrue. it never happened, i was there and i have no recollection of that ever happening. i don't believe it's true and i don't believe it ever happened. they dismiss the entire premise. >> he is a misguided hawk on foreign policy, and none other

than john bolton. it's too little, too late and copies of the book are already distributed around the world. all of the bad stuff is already a lot of bad stuff out there. and all the bad stuff is out there. >> a fox news alert, brand-new numbers on the economy, they unemployment benefits last week.

while that number is still historically high it does mark the 11th straight weekly decline since those applications peaked back in march during the pandemic. peter, good morning. a lot to get to. first reaction to those jobs numbers, as the economic situation in this country improving? >> that was a trump greatest jobs president in history, build up the economy and the best in modern history and we are doing it again. we have to get back to a good place, there will be structural headwinds but, so far we are on the upswing. there is a lot of hard work ahead of us. >> ed: question obviously peter about whether there will be a fourth round of stimulus, and that will be strategy on stimulus.

navarro six a $2 trillion package and that would be you but other administrations and officials appear scattered on how to proceed. navarro speaks for navarro on senior administration officials. and peter and there is to anonymous people you went rogue. my name is right there. i'd love to know who these are and i'm not even sure if they are in the white house. here's the point, rather than haggle over a number, what this administration clearly wants to do is make face for a strategic as well as tactical. the first three phases of the stimulus, and, and get back on

their feet along with businesses particularly, small businesses. sectors like entertainment, hospitality, all are being disproportionately affected. to make sure that we have jobs moving forward in the strong economy, is be strategic in bringing our manufacturing jobs home. and that's a solid manufacturing base so that we can employ service sector rep refugees so they can lose their jobs in these beleaguered sectors. if we don't do that in phase four, we don't see the strategic opportunity, then we will miss a big opportunity. >> sandra: peter, i know this is not in your lane but you just spoke to the presence of alaska. the decision was just handed down to the supreme court by

blocking the attempt by the trump administration to end at daca the president has been tweeting about this asking whether or not, do you get the impression that the supreme court doesn't like me? have you heard any reaction from the president and his team this morning? >> i have not. one of the things i did want to talk to you about was, book deal, big lie, other than daca. i'll stay out of that lane but i would be happy to talk about mr. bolton if you care to. >> sandra: go for it. i'm asking you about the president wanting, that's a complaint that has been filed. because you tell us that this classified information in that book? >> what i would like to do is tell you about john bolton. and what i knew when he was here

at the white house. the moniker does suffice, he begged -- he literally begged to try to get him to beat a national security advisor. but the minute he got in here, what he did in that building right over there was set up the national security office as an autonomous zone with him literally as the warlord. big issues like china, he had nothing to do with it and didn't want anything to do with. he spent a lot of time trying to engineer coups in places like anna soileau. he was good at acquiring turf but he had no clue what to actually do with it. the biggest surprise i had with him was he was one of the worst administrators that i've seen pastor here in three and a half years. he talked about this pattern of behavior, and this is a repeatable pattern. and the big lie that he told

there was iraq had weapons of mass destruction. that's something that president absolutely opposed. and then when he left at the bush of administration, what did he do. this is steve swamp revenge on the part of john bolton. >> ed: it's the deeps swamp political equivalent. if the guy got fired because he didn't obey the chain of command and he will i was at that dinner, that tale he told her, i didn't hear that tail.

i kind of wonder what his thing is other than make his mone makg money. >> but his charge is that the president is unfit for office, your answer to that? >> this is the greatest president we've ever had in modern history. he's the president of national security and does not want to get this country into foreign wars and that's what john bolton doesn't like. john bolton wants to send them all over the world. the people topple in venezuela. >> you go back to people who are going to challenge that and say the president chose to bring him on board as his national security advisor. >> indeed he did. the president gave john bolton a second chance after bolton begged for the job and right n now, what we've got is being relied bolton who is basically

going out and spending lies just like he did during the bush administration. i think there is -- it's almost common. he comes in here and his seersucker summer suits with his big mustache, and i was in a staff meeting one time and he walked in and he was absolutely giddy at the prospect of a coup in venice venezuela. i think to myself, wait a minute. this is a serious, serious matter and he is giddy. there's something wrong with that dude. this is not right what he's doing. this is not comported with the tradition of people serving in the administrations and he knows exactly what he's doing but he does has done it before. shame on him. >> is a lot to unpack. >> a lot to unpack. in the meantime, target is

boosting pay right now, getting a bonus for working during the pandemic. what it means for the company's bottom line and the prices you pay. with that, mark laffer coming up. an lower paymentrtgage by this time next month. 3.za$m - sir. - you're talking about a first [runnigeneration americanren] from the streets of the imperial valley who rose to beat the odds. she worked nights and weekends till she earned herself a master's degree. she was running in a marathon when a man behind her collapsed from cardiac arrest. and using her experience saved this man's life. so why do i think there should be more people like carmen bravo in this world? because that man...

was me.

>> sandra: big news. target the retailer giving target workers a pay raise, raising its minimum wage to $15 an hour that will start july 5th. the retailers also handing out opponents to its workers for working during the pandemic. art laffer serves as an economic advisor and the reagan administration. good morning, so good to see you. we had talked about doing this and then they backed it up with action, what did you think? >> let me say that interview with peter navarro was the most amazing interview. and that was a wonderful interview. they will do it with respect to

its own company and i think target has a perfect right to have minimum wage and they can make it whatever they want. it's when governments put in the minimum wage that you start getting risks. because what they do is if they raise a minimum wage too high, they get the minorities that are disenfranchised. and they lose their ability to acquire skills to be much more successful. target can do whatever it wants and passed them on them. if they think it's the right thing, fine. the government should be very, very careful of minimum wage especially when they have the one-size-fits-all. minimum wage in kentucky or alabama should not be the same as the minimum wage in new york or chicago or california because you will just ruin the states of alabama and kentucky if you have a minimum wage that is high. and they should make the

decision. you look at the economic situations and discussions of another economics skip stimulus, broadly speaking. and that's the pain that took it during this pandemic. and you have two and a half million jobs that were added instead of lost and it new initial claims are down. it's wonderful. economics is working beautifully on this of administration has done a great job. and i expect with the payroll tax waiver that we will get a real jump-start and get right back to normal very quickly. >> sandra: art laffer, perfect as always and we hope to have you back soon. >> say hello to ada, will you? i love him dearly. >> sandra: i will indeed, yes absolutely. >> ed: thanks, art. we will put you on with peter next time and have a little

debate. up next we have a breaking news out of the police shooting in atlanta. that's the big story, next

these folks, they don't have time to go to the post office they have businesses to grow customers to care for lives to get home to they use stamps.com print discounted postage for any letter any package any time right from your computer all the amazing services of the post office only cheaper get our special tv offer a 4-week trial plus postage and a digital scale go to stamps.com/try and never go to the post office again! gubut force factor's test x180 are tough. can help us man up, america, by boosting total testosterone. build muscle, fuel desire, and improve performance. get test x180 from force factor, the #1 fastest-growing men's health brand at walmart. feeling heavy? probioslim promotes healthy digestion and helps you lose weight.

patented probiotics ease constipation, gas, and bloating, while powerful egcg burns fat and calories. unleash your potential with probioslim, the #1 probiotic fat burner at walmart. >> ed: one of the officers involved in the shooting of rayshard brooks has just turned himself into police. bryan llenas is live. >> atlanta police officer devin brosnan turned himself and 1117 this morning. he had until 6:00 p.m. to him to turn himself in. he was not the officer who shot rayshard brooks, he was a partner, the officer who did not fire. he's facing aggravated assault charges as well as two charges of violating his oath. and, up to 20 years in prison. now brosnan's lawyers have said from the start, they said last

night that he was concussed in an assault with brooks and didn't know what was happening. the d.a. accuses officer brosnan of standing on rayshard brooks' arms while he was wounded on the ground. he was concussed and injured and showed up at the scene, didn't know what was happening and there is a video that showed he was trying to apply cpr at the time. criminal charges including felony murder which is punishable up to the death penalty. there's a lot of questions and concern from officers alike who have been calling out sick, reportedly, as well as walking off the job of the last 24 hours and a protest for the charges. district attorney paul howard is particularly biased and motivated in making those charges given the fact that he is up for a runoff election that is due in august.

there are calls now for an independent district attorney from the republican representative doug collins of the state given that there is election taking place. right now officer devin brosnan has turned himself in facing aggravated assault charges as well as a violation. >> ed: we will follow that. >> sandra: more on the breaking news out of the supreme court and a decision that affects millions of those so-called dreamers in this country, coming up. 300 miles an hour,

thats where i feel normal. having an annuity tells me my retirement is protected. protected lifetime income from an annuity can help your retirement plan ride out turbulent times. learn more at protectedincome.org.

>> ed: peter navarro said deep state revenge, what an interview. >> sandra: what a three hours, great to be with you through all of it, ed. we'll be back here tomorrow morning. "outnumbered" starts now. >> melissa: president trump hitting back after the supreme court rejected his administration's efforts to end daca, the obama-era program that gave legal protection stil too g immigrants brought to the country's children. it seems to elevate the issue in the 2020 election. president trump in the past hour tweeting, "these horrible and politically-charged decisions coming out of the supreme court are shotgun blasts into the face of people who are proud to call themselves republicans or conservatives. we need more justices,