constitutional system. it baffles me that the dissent would have allowed this to go through. you could have a president becoming an effective government onto itself. >> dana: we could. >> bill: we have to run. i think how many students took out a loan thinking they would get it paid off. >> dana: i know. as we said $1200 more in credit card debt added in the last three years waiting for this. "the faulkner focus" is up next. gillian turner is in for harris. you can take my rant from here. >> gillian: i can also thank dana and bill, which is nice. fox news alert. moments ago the supreme court struck down president biden's student debt relief program. 6-3 decision split alodge ideological lines. the president lacks the legal authority to provide billion else of dollars in federal student loan forgiveness without authorization from congress. i'm gillian turner in washington

in for harris today on "the faulkner focus." john roberts writing in the majority opinion, this court has never drawn the line the secretary suggests and for good reason. among congress's most important authorities is its control of the purse. justice kagan with dissent writing the majority overrides the combined judgment of the legislative and executive branches with the consequence of eliminating loan forgiveness for 43 million americans. i respectfully dissent from that decision. white house says we'll hear from the president directly on this ruling later today. in the meantime let's bring in shannon bream, fox news chief legal correspondent. a lot of political back and forthing now in washington responding to this decision but at the end of the day as you pointed out last hour, the court was not ruling on whether this was a good policy or fair policy. the court was ruling on whether the president had the constitutional authority to issue this directive in the

first place. >> exactly right. the first thing he had to get through was the idea of standing. two cases, one brought by a couple of borrowers tossed today. they aren't the right parties. but the group of states who came and argued this was going to impact them the court said they have standing. specifically missouri. they worked through the analysis. the education secretary asserts the heroes act grants them the authority to cancel student loans. it does not. the secretary can waive or modify regulatory provisions but can't rewrite the statute from the ground up. they found that's what this was. professor turley said people out there who have student loans were promised a lot of things this administration probably knew they could never deliver and the court made it clear today the student loan program affecting tens of millions of people out there, debt forgiveness plan by the white house wasn't legal.

you can't do it. this caps off another 6-3 decision yesterday by the use of race no longer in higher ed.. a tough week for the biden administration on those arguments. earlier in the week a decision the left loved by voting rights and state legislatures and the power they have when rewriting districts. i have press releases from the folks saving democracy and today this is a maga court destroying democracy. another day, another decision. a lot more opinions. >> gillian: what about the justices specifically on the heroes act legal justification underlying this biden administration policy? what did they say about that? >> the heroes act allows the secretary some room to waive or modify certain parts of statutory measures when it comes to doing things different in unusual conditions. what they said was you can't just scrap the entire thing and

rewrite it. they acknowledged that they have some power underneath the heroes act to make changes in times of crisis but they said this went far beyond that. in this case it is certainly not they think what congress would have intended something so sweeping. >> gillian: it's interesting yesterday's decision coupled with today's decision, some very immediate, real world impact for american students. kids in the wake of the affirmative action decision yesterday. now this ruling. we have students returning and current and past students returning to schools all across the country in the fall. applications are going in. affirmative action is now out. a lot of them won't have their undergraduate loans forgiven who have planned to go to graduate school based on that assumption. we could break down how it will impact students many difference

ways. >> a big week about higher education. there are things bubbling up in the senate and house with student loans. they are different in that they look at who will get the loans, could they be limited to certain majors, would the college show there is an actual economic benefit for certain majors that they actually do pay off. if not would there be limits how much money you could borrow against that kind of program? there are other discussions on who would be possibly open and available to some kind of loan forgiveness. it bounces to congress, which is already working on these issues. i imagine the president will have a lot to say about that today and urge legislative action where the court has suggested this is something better left to congress. let them iron is out and measures winding their way through. >> gillian: thank you for joining us off the top. we'll bring you back later in the hour if you could stand by. let's bring in jonathan turley

now. fox news contributor and law professor. i want to pick your brain on the legal aspects of this ruling but before we get there, just a moment to talk about this sort of legal and political gamut the president took in this instance. we'll see millions of current and former higher education students left now in the lurch. people maybe planning their loans being relieved and now finding out it won't happen. >> it will be interesting whether these students view themselves as chumps or victims. the president never had the authority. they were given an assurance that he had no right to give because he has to go to congress in our constitutional system to get this type of money. he knew he couldn't get it because there are a lot of people that object to this type

of loan forgiveness. a lot of people decided to become plumbers or car pen dears and decided to invest in equipment. they aren't getting this type of assistance. and the president knew that. so he used this very short law, only a few pages long, designed to protect people that were going to fight our wars and to relieve them of the duty to pay tuition. it was a cynical use of this law in my view. it never was plausible that congress ever had this intent behind the law. that's what the court found today. the leading witness for the majority was former speaker nancy pelosi. they quote her at length and say of course a president can't do this. the president himself acknowledged he couldn't do it. that's what makes this all rather cynical that these students were played in this

way. the president will have to go back to congress and do it the way the constitution requires. this is just the latest example of that type of cynical overreach. he did this with the eviction moratorium. he was told by lots of experts, including people within the white house, you don't have authority for this. the cdc can't issue this order. he did it anyway. it was found to be unconstitutional. >> gillian: while you were speaking, jonathan, the supreme court has officially gone into recess for the summer. that just happened right now. chief justice roberts declared it. quite an active season. to pick up on where you left off, though. why do you think that despite legal constitutional realities, the biden team decided to go down this route anyway? >> it made for good politics. i think what they are counting

on is students will feel like the court took money out of their pockets even though he didn't have this money. this was an invalid i.o.u. that they couldn't possibly have cashed. but i think what they are banking on is that they will feel aggrieved that somehow conservative justices denied them thousands of dollars. of course, that's not true. but it comes at a cost. this president has racked up a rather impressive losses in the court. some of the losses were more politically than legally motivated. but they come at a cost to his office. each of these losses creates precedent for the future. this is major precedent. here the court saying we won't let you rely on laws creative interpretations of laws of this kind. there were a host of law professors supporting this. i was rather surprised. the court said there is no evidence in this law that there

was any intent to allow you to do this. there was ample evidence of why he wanted to do it. he didn't want to go to congress. >> gillian: the left, the rationale driving the push, this is going to give the poorest american students a leg up in the workforce. this is going to free them from some of the very big debt that makes doing other things as an adult difficult like buying a house, raising children. things that cost a lot of money. what do you say to those people now? >> well, i think that what's going to happen now is the administration will go to congress and try to see if there is a way to lessen the burden for these students. they got sold on this one. it was not their fault that the president said he had authority to do this. congress may feel like they have some obligation to help relieve

some of this mess that was created by the president. but he will have to negotiate. that's the way it works in our system. otherwise you become a government onto yourself. all the legal experts and members of congress applauded the president for circumventing congress. there is a high cost to that. it is not money for loan forgiveness. it is taking a system off line that allows a president to become a government onto himself. >> gillian: look at this now from former vice president and current presidential candidate mike pence. he says i'm pleased the court struck down the radical left's effort to use the money of taxpayers who played by the rules to cancel the debt of bankers and lawyers in new york, san francisco, and washington, d.c. is that a fair appraisal of what happened today?

do you see the policy for all its legal weak points being something that really just helped americans who already have great advantage in society? >> well, you know, some of these people who went to college do have a greater advantage over others. some of them are coming from families that are in need. it is cruel all around to make a promise that you had no constitutional authority to make. and so there was a lot of concern about who this was really helping. but i think the main concern we have to keep in mind is not whether loan forgiveness has valid arguments or rationales. in a democracy it is often more important how we do something than what we do. because how you do it is the protection against tyranny. madison created what many may

view a maddening system. you have to compromise and get things through the legislative process. a lot of presidents have chafed at that in history. it was surprising to see biden become such a foe to separation of powers. he cut his teeth in congress. and as soon as he became president, he became openly antagonistic toward that system of constitutional process. >> gillian: as i just talked about with shannon none of these factors mattered to the justices looking -- or were supposed to matter to the justices looking at the case before them. they were not concerned whether it was a great policy or a terrible policy, who it helped or hurt. they were concerned with the constitutionality of the underlying legal rationale put forward by the white house. we just got this in. senator chuck schumer pretty scathing reaction to this. he says this disappointing and

cruel ruling shows the callousness of the maga republican controlled supreme court. hypocrisy is clear as justices accept lavish six figures gifts. they side with the powerful, big moneyed interests. pretty low blow there from schumer. >> it is breathtaking. you have the senate majority leader who is irate that the president will have to come to congress to get approval to spend hundreds of millions of dollars. it would mystify madison. he always believed no matter what party you are a member of, congress would protect jealously its own authority. he never saw the likes of this congress. you have a senate majority leader saying how dare you say that we have to approve this type of loan. and i think that in the end there will be a lot of anger like that directed towards the

court. i thought it was actually interesting to see chief justice roberts' statement at the end of the opinion where he says lots of critics will tell you that this is political. you are harming the court. that's extremely rare for the chief justice. he is really someone who is respected by all members of the court in bringing the court together and getting consensus. he is not given to hyperbole. the ultimate institutionalist. but he obviously felt strongly enough to put that at the end of the decision to say enough of this. we are trying to get these cases right. he is right here. he is defending the constitutional process saying go to congress. that's all. go to congress. if they approve it, then we'll give you a human wave on your way to forgiving hundreds of millions of dollars in human

loans. you have to go there first. >> gillian: while i have you, i want to make sure we talk about the other major ruling today from the court. the 6-3 decision alodge ideological lines siding with lorie smith and her free speech there. it is her first amendment right to refuse designing same sex wedding websites which she says is against her religious beliefs. leo terrell weighed in on that this morning and let's play that. >> it's a fantastic ruling. i think people will try to misconstrue it because they will now accuse companies having the right to discriminate. that's not the case. this is not an accommodation issue, it's free speech first amendment. >> gillian: this from justice gorsuch's opinion. tolerance, not coercion, is our nation's answer. the first amendment envisions the u.s. as a rich and complex place where all persons are free to think and speak as they wish, not as the government demands.

then this from the dissenting opinion today sad day in american constitutional law and in the lives of lgbt people. the supreme court declares a particular kind of business, though open to the public, has a constitutional right to refuse service to members of a protected class. the court does so for the first time in its history. how do you see it, jonathan? is this a protection of first amendment rights or is this a denial of rights to people in the lgbtq plus community? >> it will go down as one of the greatest free speech opinions in history. it clarify areas that have long been uncertain and muddled to the detriment of free speech. i'm following this case since it was before the 10th circuit. in that opinion gorsuch served. he is a native of colorado, the 10th circuit said that can

underlying commission and law said that the whole purpose here is the elimination of ideas. the court ruled for the commission in doing that. what gorsuch said is well, the first amendment is a different purpose. it is meant to guarantee citizens that they can speak about their own values and to prevent them from being -- having to speak when coerced to do so by the government. it is an enormously important decision. beautifully written by gorsuch. i don't think anyone could have written this opinion as well as gorsuch. and what it says is that yes, you are still required under public accommodation laws not to discriminate. but when it comes to products that are creative or expressive, the first amendment does protect you. it protects everyone. all the members of every community including those cited by the dissent. it is a roaring defense of free speech and for those of us in the free speech community, it is

everything we hoped it would be. >> gillian: can you give us a real-world example of how the gay couple in this lawsuit were at the center of this case could still have their request for service fulfilled and not be discriminated against based on their sexual identity? meaning like could she be compelled to still create a website for them that doesn't use their names or remember there was an analogy with the cake back shop story where the bakery would still be compelled to sell a pre-made cake to a gay couple. they just don't have to create one custom for them. what's the analogy here in this case? >> first of all that is an important distinction. even in the masterpiece cake shop, the earlier case the court took an exit ramp on, the baker said that he would sell any

cakes that were premade and that will continue to be the rule. for web designers it's a bit more difficult. if the website is about a same-sex marriage, the subject of the site is to her morally repugnant. it will not be that way to others. they will have to find a web designer for the wedding as opposed to other aspects of their life that can design this. what was interesting the 10th circuit had this odd monopoly theory where they said that well, they want you to do it and you can't have a monopoly on your own talents. it is only you that can do a website like you. and so the 10th circuit said you are a virtual monopoly like standard oil. and the court clearly rejects that. there are other website designers. and this is not a perfect world

but it would be a worse world if the government can require people to speak in ways they find morally wrong. >> gillian: thank you so much for weighing in with your expertise. we appreciate it and learn from you always. >> thank you very much. >> gillian: the white house says we'll hear from president biden today and he is going to present next steps after the court strikes down his massive student loan forgiveness plan. congressional budget office estimates the plan would cost, if implemented, almost half a trillion dollars paid for by taxpayers. let's bring in william la jeunesse to break down the numbers for us. hi, william. >> for the last three years, 42 million americans have not had to pay a penny on their student loans. now that ends at the end of august. they will have to come up with $18 billion a month that will go back to lenders and not into retail, restaurants and cars. president biden, of course, wanted to wipe out those loans. court says no.

what does it mean? 26 million americans asked for and 40 million were eligible to have their loans canceled, eliminating up to $20,000 in debt per student. wiping clean their principle and interest in half of all exiting student loans. now families will have to find 200 to 400 a month that their budget to pay for those loans. the plan would have he railsed $4 hundred billion in student death. it was framed about students. in fact, there are more borrowers over age 50 who owe more money than those under 24. most student debt is held by top earners, not the poor the way it was framed. what did supporters say? it was needed because so many borrowers are behind in payments. 52% are under water meaning they do owe more today than they originally borrowed. hurting the ability to start a family, buy a house, grow the economy. critics say the loan was a

choice and those who did pay their loan or did not attend college should not be forced to subsidize the others because this giveaway would have cost, as you said, about a trillion dollars over ten years said the cbo. over the last three years rather than pay down debt, those borrowers took on more debt, $1200 in credit cards and car loans. it didn't just affect gillian existing loans but future loan payments would have been limited to 5% of discretionary income and over 25 years would have been eliminated entirely. the point of that is it would be part of the political argument of the president to young voters going forward. story does not end today. >> gillian: certainly does that. thank you very much. marc thiessen is the former speech writer to george w. bush and columnist and fox news contributor. we spoke of the legal implications of this with jonathan.

i want to focus on the political stuff with you and the real world implications here. jonathan was talking about how a lot of students may feel hard done by coming out of this decision, rightly so. the president promised them thousands of dollars, tens of thousands of dollars in loans would be relieved. that is not true and not happening. strikes me one thing that they could maybe console themselves with is that this might actually encourage somebody in the university system to fix the -- somebody in government to fix the underlying problem here, that universities continue to charge outlandish, outrageous amounts of money to receive basic education. >> very true. the student loan forgiveness and program what fueled a lot of cost inflation of college tuition to begin with. look, i think actually secretly the biden administration should be happy with this decision and here is why. he can say that he tried.

but this plan if it actually had been implemented would have been bad politically. what's the number one issue in the election? economy and inflation. jason fuhrman, an obama administration economic advisor say pouring roughly a half trillion of gasoline on the inflation fire that is already burning is reckless. if they had succeeded in forgiving half a trillion in student loans it would have made inflation much worse going into the november election. so they've saved themselves from doing another covid relief bill that set off this inflation to begin with. second of all, it is regressive. democrats claim to be the party of the working class. this bill would have given up to $40,000, the plan, not a bill. this plan would have given up to $40,000 to married couples making a quarter million dollars to pay off school loans. you had a situation where you

have the cafeteria worker in a hospital helping to pay the medical loans of the doctors and nurses working there or janitor in school paying off the graduate school loans of well to do parents. it was a regressive plan that hurts working class and helps the elite and it would have been inflationary for the democrats, the worst thing they could have done going into the november election. they secretly should be happen even though they'll attack it. >> gillian: the point on who this policy would have helped. the administration said that's not true. vast majority of loan forgive east for students with pell grants and come from the lowest income strata in the united states. people who were already living in poverty and this gave them a leg up. moving forward from higher education they have a better chance to join in the american economy by buying houses and so on and so forth. what do you say to that? >> that's incorrect.

majority of it would have gone to graduate school loans is my understanding of it. either way, it is regressive because you have people paying off working class people paying off graduate school loans for people who went -- and also think about this. how many millions of american parents took out extra jobs, worked extra time so their kids wouldn't have to take college loans out and start their lives with debt? students who decide i'm going to go to a state school rather than a private school. i'll go to community college so i can save money so i don't start out my life with loans or who paid off their loans before this came along and now they are supposed to turn around and pay off the loans of people who didn't and weren't responsible and took out loans they couldn't afford? what was devastating is the heroes act. that was a -- which thump they were using to justify it.

it was a law passed after the 9/11 attacks to make sure members of military who went on active duty didn't default on their loans. this was an act of stolen valor giving benefits to people who didn't serve that were intended for people who served and sacrificed for our country. this was politically very bad for the biden administration in every aspect. >> gillian: i want to ask you about yesterday's affirmative action ruling also impacting tens of millions of students. listen to the president. he criticized the justices ruling that race can no longer be considered a factor in college admissions. >> president biden: today the court once again walked away from decades of precedent. i strongly disagree with the court's decision. this is not a normal court. >> gillian: critic pounced on that not normal remark. the president tried to clarify later on in a tv interview what he meant to say.

listen to that. >> president biden: what i meant by that is, it's done more to unrave el basic rights and decisions than any court in recent hills tree. that's what i meant by not normal. it has gone out of its way, for example . take a look at overruling roe v. wade and take a look at the decision today, take a look at how it's ruled on a number of issues that are -- have been precedent for 50, 60 years sometimes. that's what i meant by it. not normal. >> gillian: what do you think? >> i think it's disingenuous. the left has been on an attack to delegitimize the court. one of the reasons they say that it is doing things out of touch with the american people. well, on affirmative action 7 to 10 americans say that we should not be taking race into consideration in college admission decisions. so this is the court doing something the majority of the american people. not that's the reason, but they

are doing something that the majority of the country believes in. we do have a huge problem in this country with racial inequity in schools. that's largely because black and hispanic kids are stuck in failing public schools and affluent white parents can put them in private and parochial schoolings. if you want to address the racial inequities and make sure we have more black and hispanics kids to make it into college and succeed in college we need school choice. conservatives need to now after this victory, they need to turn around and double down their efforts. they've been doing it. iowa and florida are doing it. we need to double down on school choice to help black and hispanic kids get into college and succeed there. >> gillian: have to leave it there. thank you for joining us. bad blood between two justices after the decision striking down race in college admissions.

th th thomas >> when you view us first and foremost by the box we check off for which race we are always opposed to an individual student that's problematic and not fair or equal. >> gillian: kenny schuh wrote a book about asian-american applicants and how they're treated. he joins us next. you should get a second opinion from innovation refunds at no upfront cost. sometimes you need a second opinion. [coughs] good to go. yeah, i think i'll get a second opinion. all these walls gotta go! ah ah ah! i'd love a second opinion. no. i'm going to get a second opinion. with innovation refunds, there's no upfront cost to find out. so why not check like i did for my small business? take the first step to see if your small business qualifies for the erc.

(dog barking) we love our pets. but we don't always love their hair. which is why we made bounce pet hair and lint guard with three times the pet hair fighting ingredients. just one sheet helps remove pet hair from your clothes! looking good starts in the dryer with bounce pet.

the first time you connected your godaddy website and your store was also the first time you realized...

well, we can do anything. cheesecake cookies? the chookie! manage all your sales from one place with a partner that always puts you first. (we did it) start today at godaddy.com - this is our premium platinum coverage map and this is consumer cellular's map. - i don't see the difference, do you? - well, that one's purple. - [announcer] get the exact same coverage as the nation's leading carrier. starting at $20. consumer cellular. >> gillian: affirmative action is going out with a war of words. thomas and brown jackson duking it out in opposing opinions yesterday directly calling each other out. thomas blasted jackson saying her, quote, race-infused worldview falls flat at each step. she calls it a tragedy. republicans applauding the court's decision. >> i strongly strongly disagree

with the court's decision. >> there may have been a time 50 years ago when we needed to affirmatively take steps to correct long-term racial bias in institutions of higher education. but i can tell you those days are long over. >> it is a serious moment in our nation's history. you are seeing this regression in realtime. >> this is a day where we understand being judged by the content of our character, not the color of our skin, is what our constitution wants. >> gillian: new op-ed argues decades of affirmative action failed to achieve its stated goal. the headline reads at last supreme court strikes down something that has never helped the poor. the author of an inconvenient minority, the attack on the asian-american excellence joins me now. great to have you here.

talk to me about your reaction, your personal reaction, the organization's reaction to the ruling yesterday. >> i think this is a great win for color blind in this nation. despite history of discrimination in this country, asian-americans have thrived. the highest incomes and highest educational containment in our country based on culture. i wish we could move to celebrate excellence of all skin colors instead of focusing on race as a criteria for entry. >> gillian: what do you think about the impact of yesterday's ruling on black american students? >> i think that what affirmative action has been is going to do is shed new focus on the pervading racial disparities in education going on in our country today. so black americans score comparatively low on standardized tests compared to white americans persistent for

the past 40 years. in my new book school of woke i talk about why this is the case. it is not because of racism but it is because of culture and the 75% out of wedlock rate and poor discipline in the schools. we need to make changes. >> gillian: folks who disagreed with yesterday's opinion, democrats, lawmakers and voters aligning said what the conservative justices were trying to do is force a color blind standard in college admissions when the reality is that we definitely from their perspective don't live in a color blind society. what do you say to that? >> i think what brown jackson said, the constitution has never been color blind, america has never been color blind, her solution makes the whole thing worse. she is defending harvard's

race-conscious admissions process that suggests that asian-americans should be stereotyped. harvard's admission process rated asian-americans lowest in personality out of all races because they wanted to stereotype them and lower the percentage of their student body so crafted a personality score that is discrime tore. that's racism. brown jackson saying american has never been color blind is actually creating more racism. >> gillian: former president obama had an interesting argument against the ruling yesterday. it was long but he essentially argued look, special consideration is given to certain groups of students all the time, legacy students, students whose parents can afford to hire s.a.t. tutors and sports coaches and pay people to help them write better essays to get into schools. why is that form of special

consideration is okay but not okay when focused on minorities. >> it's not okay. we want a merit-based society. i actually do support the end of legacy admissions, the end of special privileges for anybody. i want people to be judged by merit. harvard's affirmative actions policy don't. but neither do legacy admissions. i support the end of both of those things. >> gillian: kenny, thank you for joining me on set. appreciate it. love talking to you and love to have you back. so more problems now for hunter biden. could mean big political headaches for president biden. more on that next. a new report outlines it will be a headache indeed. the president apparently is consumed by the problems that his son is facing. the white house focus now.

>> no matter what biden does, nobody wants harris. as bad as biden did it would get worse. they would have a real clown show if biden wasn't able to make it. >> gillian: can the white house and re-election campaign boost the v.p.'s profile? power panel will debate that coming up next. my most important kitchen tool? my brain. so i choose neuriva plus. unlike some others, neuriva plus is a multitasker supporting 6 key indicators of brain health. to help keep me sharp. neuriva: think bigger.

your heart is the beat of life. if you have heart failure, entrust your heart to entresto. entresto helps improve your heart's ability to pump blood to the body. don't take entresto if pregnant; it can cause harm or death to an unborn baby. don't take entresto with an ace inhibitor or aliskiren, or if you've had angioedema with an ace or arb. the most serious side effects are angioedema, low blood pressure, kidney problems, or high blood potassium. ask your doctor if entresto is right for you. sleep more deeply. and wake up rejuvenated. purple mattress's exclusive gelflex grid draws away heat, relieves pressure, and instantly adapts. sleep better, live purple. save up to $800 off mattress sets during purple's july 4th sale. visit purple.com or a store near you. mara, are you sure you don't want -to go bowling with us tonight? -yeah. no. there's my little marzipan! [ laughs ] oh, my daughter gives the best hugs! we're just passing through on our way to the jazz jamboree.

[ imitates trumpet playing ] and we wanted to thank america's number-one motorcycle insurer -for saving us money. -thank you. [ laughs ] mara, your parents are -- exactly like me? i know, right? well, cherish your friends and loved ones. let's roll, daddio! let's boogie-woogie! so many hotels. ah! ah! ah! trouble booking the family vacay? come on. comfort has free hot breakfast for the whole fam. they have waffles! and splendid pools.

cannonball! book direct at choicehotels.com. okay everyone, our mission is complete balanced nutrition. together we provide nutrients to support immune, muscle, bone, and heart health. everyone: woo hoo! ensure with 25 vitamins and minerals. enter the $10,000 nourishing moments giveaway.

>> gillian: president biden is reportedly making it clear he will not be cutting back his public show of support for his son or exclude him from white house events despite the worries the president's son could be very damaging. biden warns top aides against offering him political advice about hunter. this as house republicans continue their investigations into the president's son in the wake of his criminal plea. those lawmakers are now demanding interviews with over a dozen officials involved. they insist something just isn't adding up. >> we see different store eaves from the people in the field offices, who sometimes have been the whistleblowers getting good information to us. and we want people to get their stories straight. let's bring the inconsistencies out of the stories and get to

the truth. >> gillian: mike meredith is getting all the intel for us this morning. >> good morning. we're awaiting the official reaction from the white house to today's supreme court decision. we are hearing plenty from house and senate republicans outraged with the justice department and the u.s. attorney in delaware raising questions how the investigation into hunter biden went. hunter biden recently reached a deal to allow him to pay back taxes without having to spend time in jail. two investigators would worked on the case say they were limited into what they could look into and shocked at how the case played out. republicans urged the attorney general to provide them with more detail and seeking testimony from 11 federal employees who may be able to shed light on what happened behind the scenes. three top house republicans telling fox the federal government is supposed to work for the american people. whistleblower evidence shows several federal employees were working overtime to cover up for the bidens.

reports the president has told aides he doesn't want political advice how to handle the growing fallout over the scandals involving his son. he was on msnbc last night and has great confidence in his attorney general and taking lengths to keep his distance from the justice department. >> president biden: i have not spoken once, not one single time with the attorney general on any specific case, not once. and -- but i do talk to him about law enforcement and all those other things. but the point is that i just think there is -- >> the attorney general is expected to testify before the house judiciary in september. a possible impeachment procedure is talk about it against the attorney general. we'll hear from the president on the student loan decisions from the supreme court. whether or not he takes any questions possibly about his son, gillian, we have to wait to find out. >> gillian: we will indeed.

thank you so much. let's bring in the panel now. c panel, thank you for being here. richard, what do you make of the reporting that the president -- in the wake of hunter's criminal plea last week, right, is not reconsidering anything about how he is handling the relationship publicly? >> it's an interesting moment in time. zoom out a little bit. if you went to the democratic national party or a caucus meeting on the house or senate side on the democratic side i don't think you see anybody with a hunter biden t-shirt on saying go huntser. with that being said you have a father in the president and a mother in the first lady saying this is our son who has a history of drug addiction making his way forward and we'll support him. with that being said let's look at the other side of this. you have a republican investigation that continues to

say look at all the smoke, look at all the smoke. we have this and that. >> gillian: he pled guilty to federal criminal tax crimes. that's not smoke and mirrors. >> there was a five year investigation done by the justice department by a trump appointed u.s. attorney. they found hunter guilty. he pled guilty. that should be the beginning and end of it. what republicans are trying to do is rehash and investigation that's complete. trying to say there is bribery, trying to make this connection for politics. no facts here between hunter biden and his father around bribery based on all the evidence we've seen and the reporting there is no there there. if there was maybe there would be hearings on capitol hill about it. >> gillian: the president continues to involve hunter in official white house events two days bringing him to a state dinner honoring the prime minister of india when he just admitted to foreign business crimes underlying the tax stuff. take a look at this.

want you to hear the media this week taking swipes at the credibility of the i.r.s. whistleblowers who spoke out against the investigation into hunter biden. >> i'm a whistleblower lawyer. this guy is not one. >> this guy is a complainer with a political axe to grind. >> gillian: "new york times" put quotes around the word whistleblower even though we now know that gary shapley, at least, followed all the protocols necessary to become a government designated whistleblower. twitter user fired back one called them scarecrows. president biden sat down for a rare tv interview days after his son's criminal plea but wasn't asked one question about it. listen. >> the president of the united states is here at the table. 46th president of the united states, joe biden, thank you for being here. >> president biden: thank you for having me. >> this is very exciting for us.

>> president biden: exciting for me. >> you said today, and i know that you have a lot of power but i can't imagine you can't -- you said this court is not normal. what did you mean? >> president biden: what i meant it has done more to unravel basic rights. >> gillian: not the right sound bite but there is a media consensus if you challenge the president about his son's criminal misdeeds you are somehow disrespecting him as a father. >> this has been the game plan all along richard and others have said this is father loving his son. we have a horrible drug epidemic in our country now. there is great emotion path eel for that. the rub comes when it says a father and son are benefiting from the father's position and we have evidence text messages of hunter biden saying my dad is sitting right next to me. he have evidence of this laptop that the left and friends in the

media have spent years discrediting that is actually real and you have hunter biden giving a deposition on that lawsuit against the owner of that company. so there is more here to unpack. the american people are not satisfied with the sweetheart plea deal that hunter biden took. we know that because polling shows a majority of americans don't agree with it including 33% of democrats. not only as you see more whistleblowers come forward, but as joe biden continues to go against his advisors to bring his son out on whether oh state dinner or on the trail with him is only going to further remind the american people different rules for the biden family than it is for them. >> gillian: richard, i have to ask you. i have to imagine that the president's closest advisors on the campaign or whether at the white house, are telling him the optics of taxpayers footing the bill for hunter biden to go to camp david is not good. a couple seconds. >> the optics are terrible but

the optics when president trump had one of his children and son-in-law working for him was terrible. that being said here is what we know. burisma executives said they had no contact with the vice president. a former president biden. >> gillian: we have the leave it there. guys, thanks so much for joining us. sorry we're going to a hard break. thank you for joining me for "the faulkner focus." "outnumbered" is coming up after the break. and high rate credit cards, and save hundreds every month.

family is just very important. she's my sister and, we depend on each other a lot. she's the rock of the family. she's the person who holds everything together. ♪ it's a battle, you know i'm going to be there. keytruda and chemotherapy meant treating my cancer with two different types of medicine. in a clinical trial, keytruda and chemotherapy was proven to help people live longer than chemotherapy alone. keytruda is used to treat more patients with advanced lung cancer than any other immunotherapy. keytruda may be used with certain chemotherapies as your first treatment if you have advanced nonsquamous, non-small cell lung cancer and you do not have an abnormal “egfr” or “alk” gene. keytruda can cause your immune system to attack healthy parts of your body during or after treatment. this may be severe and lead to death.

see your doctor right away if you have cough, shortness of breath, chest pain, diarrhea, severe stomach pain, severe nausea or vomiting, headache, light sensitivity, eye problems, irregular heartbeat, extreme tiredness, constipation, dizziness or fainting, changes in appetite, thirst, or urine, confusion, memory problems, muscle pain or weakness, fever, rash, itching, or flushing. there may be other side effects. tell your doctor about all your medical conditions, including immune system problems, if you've had or plan to have an organ or stem cell transplant, received chest radiation, or have a nervous system problem. it feels good to be here for them. living longer is possible. it's tru. keytruda from merck. ask your doctor about keytruda.

i was told my small business wouldn't qualify for an erc tax refund. you should get a second opinion from innovation refunds at no upfront cost. sometimes you need a second opinion. [coughs] good to go. yeah, i think i'll get a second opinion. all these walls gotta go! ah ah ah! i'd love a second opinion.

no. i'm going to get a second opinion. with innovation refunds, there's no upfront cost to find out. so why not check like i did for my small business? take the first step to see if your small business qualifies for the erc. >> kayleigh: supreme court dealing severe blow to the biden administration, the highest court striking down the $400 billion student loan bailout derailing a campaign promise. it comes with the 2024 election season around the corner. hello, this is "outnumbered," i'm kayleigh mcenany, here with co-host emily compagno. joining us is fo