course chris, thank you for anchoring with me for the hour. time now to hand over to our friend nicolle wallace. "deadline white house" with nicolle wallace starts now. >> hello, everyone. justice kennedy considered to be the swing vote a uns nothing his retirement leaving donald trump to make his second appointment to the highest court in the land. justice kennedy writing in the letter to the president today, quote, this letter is a respectful and formal notification of my decision effective july 31st of this year to end my regular active status as an associate justice of the supreme court. if you are republican who reluctantly voted for donald trump because you thought he'd make the kinds of selections to the supreme court that you'd find acceptable, today is your pay day. the day that the kinds of things that the president said on the access hollywood tape and trump's reluctance to stand with our allies while he cozies up to dictators as well as assault on

the rule of law all make sense to you today. if you are part of the nearly 60% of americans who don't approve of this president, today likely exacerbates your deepest worries. brought into focus by decisions like the one yesterday on the president's travel ban. the president weighing in today. >> he's been a great justice of the supreme court. he is a man who is displaying great vision. he's displayed tremendous vision and tremendous heart. and he will be missed, but he will be retiring and we will begin our search for a new justice of the united states supreme court that will begin immediately. when i was running, i put down a list of 20 people because not being a politician, i think people wanted to hear what some of my choices may be, and it was pretty effective.

and i think you see the kind of quality that we're looking at when you look at that list. but i did add -- i added five additional people to the list. so, it will be somebody from that list. >> starting us off this hour our colleague, my friend rachel maddow. rachel, you are for me, like millions of americans, my air traffic controller. i want to ask you a question that you may or may not have an answer to. how do we land this plane? >> well, if i'm the air traffic controller, i think we should close the air space. because i am not the one you can count on to safely land in this environment. i don't know. i mean, i think a lot of the developments, the marginal developments, the things that happen on a day-to-day basis in the trump administration, when we're looking for context, we're trying to keep our eyes on the horizon. we're trying to keep things in

perspective. we have to ask ourselves, is this something that is a normal conservative republican moment, or is this something that is a trumpian moment, which is a complete departure from politics as we know it. and, you know, i'm glad you played that clip of president trump saying, you know, listen, i put out a list when i was running because i wasn't a politician and people wanted to know essentially if i was going to pick somebody completely crazy and put them on the supreme court. and instead i put out this list that was curated by republican interest groups and conservative interest groups. so that's why everybody should feel comfortable in who i'm going to pick. i mean, this moment would have happened under a normal republican president. the fact that it has happened under trump puts a different cast on it. i mean, anthony kennedy is why we got president george w. bush in bush v. gore. anthony kennedy is why we have same sex rights and why we don't execute children.

in the roper case, anthony kennedy is the reason we got the voting rights act. he's the reason we have slimite secret money. democrats and progressives and centrists will be focus on the fact that anthony kennedy is very probably the reason we have abortion rights in this country and i think within, you know, i think within a year abortion will be illegal in half of the united states. and -- because of this. and that's not necessarily a trump issue. that's a republican politics issue. but that's what this means. >> rachel, what are democrats to do in this moment where they don't have control of either chamber, they don't really have any back channel to influence the president's thinking? and i would bet just about anything that donald trump's ignorance of american history extends to the list of decisions you just ticked off where justice kennedy was the deciding vote. >> yeah.

i mean, i think that democrats right now are facing a test because democrats have a limiter on their behavior. they're like you're driving a stock car and it tells you that it can go 220 miles an hour or something, but then when you're actually drive ing it in real life, you find it gets to a limiter. democrats have a limiter that republicans don't have in modern politics right now. you might disagree with me on this, but i think democrats are really constrained by this idea that you should honor precedent and that you should play fair and that you shouldn't make radical departures from the way things have been done in this country for generations if not centuries. republicans are unconstrained by that right now. so when mitch mcconnell and republicans in the senate decided they were not going to allow president obama to make a supreme court nomination, that was, you know, a republican hardball tactic that almost no republicans had any problem with. democrats would have to play a similar kind of hardball now to try to keep this seat from

being -- from there being a nomination and confirmation before there is a new senate potentially chosen and a new senate majority potentially chosen in november. democrats don't like to break precedent. they don't like to do radical things. the reason neil gorsuch is there is because republicans reacted so radically when anthony scalia died in the spring of 2016. democrats are going to figure out how hard they want to fight and whether that limit is going to keep them from hitting top speed. i think a lot of the democratic base is going to expect them to all but lay their bodies on the line to stop the senate rather than allow any nominee to go forward. >> i mean, you just articulated the single-most sort of under reported factor of how we ended up with a president trump. the asymmetry with which he engages in every battle. the a cemetesymmetry where they close to the truth and he stood up there and lied his you know

what off. then he faced hillary clinton and she tried to engage in presidential debates and in the campaign within the, you know, sort of guardrails, if you will, of normal political conduct. can you just elaborate on what is available to democrats if they're willing to be more symmetrical, to play a more trumpian game, if you will, at this moment? >> and honestly a more republican game. it wasn't donald trump that held that seat in abeyance. that was mitch mcconnell, the pre-trump republican party that was doing that. and that asymmetry applies not just to trump versus normal politicians, but to democrats versus republicans on stuff like this. and i mean, i think that democrats, you know, obviously are fighting from a position of weakness in the senate. one of the other things mcconnell has done is he's blown up the potential of a filibuster, minority rule filibuster for the supreme court

nomination that resulted in neil gorsuch. but democrats have the option to use, exhaust and push to the limit every tactic that they've got to keep there from being a hearing, to keep there from being a vote, to push it as long as they can to delay it as long as they can in the expectation that the same sort of public argument that republicans made, that there had to be an election before there could be a new nomination. that could be applied to what they're doing here, too. i mean, i think -- tactically it will be fascinating to see if democrats have it in them to fight that hard. i do think that the democratic base is going to want them to fight that hard, to really try to save the quarter die trying. the question for citizens is when do we get back to normal. once these norms break, once these morrays break, how do we get back to being a normal country where you get in trouble for lying and stuff. >> yeah. >> and that's, that's a

citizenship question we're going to be answering, and your son is going to be answering and his kids are going to be answering, too. >> i think we'll all have to answer for that one. this is lopping over. rachel, i'm so grateful you took time to spend with us. i will be watching at 9:00 like millions of other americans and you are my -- you are still my air traffic control. thank you so much. >> thanks, darling. all right. >> joining us from outside the supreme court nbc news and msnbc contributor tom goldstein. he's an expert in all things supreme court. harry litman, former u.s. attorney, former assistant attorney general who was once a clerk for justice kennedy. with us at the table for the hour, presidential historian i don't know meacham, mimi rocca, former u.s. attorney for the southern drirkt much new york, nbc and msnbc analyst. former congresswoman donna edwards and jennifer rubin opinion writer for the washington post. tom, let me ask you to start united states off. if you could pickup the thread rachel ticked off from her magnificent mind of all those incredibly consequential decisions, touching just about every aspect of american life

from social issues to national security issues to the death penalty to -- i mean, the legacy of justice kennedy for us, please. >> sure. justice kennedy's legacy has a lot of conservative votes. for example, in 14 five to four decisions this term, he voted with the conservatives and didn't have a single one with the left. but on the other hand, he was the 5th vote that preserved affirmative action, abortion rights in a significant way not allowing roe to be cutback. issues with the death penalty. he was important in not having a big expansion of the second amendment gun rights. you can definitely see the potential for the supreme court to take a significant step to the right, and one that lasts 25 or 30 years that a new appointee would stay on the court. >> harry litman, you clerked for justice kennedy. do you have any insight into why today? obviously a lot of people who disagreed with the travel ban are still reeling from

yesterday's decision and today's announcement from justice kennedy comes as sort of a second blow to the gut. >> yeah, to say the least. nicolle, i take him at his word. i saw him not long ago. i know he's healthy. i know he's still enjoying the work, but he's quite a family man. and i think it really was a joint decision, but ultimately his to, you know, spend time with his family and have quality years. it can't have been a coincidence or can't have been something he didn't think about that this would be in the middle of the trump years. and as a sort of lifelong republican, he

>> harry, let me ask you about the kinds of debates we're having in the country. we have talked the last two weeks about infants as young as six months old mothers ripped from their arms in a policy carried out, craft the by the justice department and the white house separating over 2000 children from their parents at the border. yesterday we were discussing the travel ban from majority muslim nations. do you have any specific fears about an appointment being made to the supreme court which as tom suggests could move the court dramatically to the right at a time when we have a commander in chief with this kind of policy instinct? >> yeah, i would say i'm

terrified. i agree with tom. i mean, the general list and he's been at pains since the campaign to sort of project a more professional cadre of possible candidates. but all of them are ones that i think would auger a giant step right, and not simply the individual issues, but the kind of terms of the debate. the supreme court doesn't just decide the cases. it decides which cases to choose. and with a solid block for conservative justices and a likely 5th person with chief justice roberts, they will be emboldened to search for the cases they want, whereas the liberal four has to be very concerned and risk averse about trying to take cases. it takes four votes to take a case, five votes to decide them. if they take a case, they'll

likely find themselves on the defensive and so in many ways it's not simply the list that tom ticked off and a few others, but the actual entries on the list and the agenda-setting function of the court that will also take a major step right. >> let me ask you, donna, to expand on some of what rachel was talking about in terms of the asymmetry with which the republicans handled the merit garland nomination. how would you advise your former colleagues to deal with this situation they find themselves in? >> look, i said it's time for democrats to throw down. and what i mean by that is that we've been playing by the rule book and donald trump and republicans have been playing by street rules. we need to play by street rules. >> so, what does that look like? >> so, i think it looks -- it looks inside and outside, it's murkowski and it's susan collins and it's putting public pressure on them because we know that they are where most of us are on issues concerning abortion

rights and other things. but it also means having the street rise up against them in maine, in alaska and, of course, in washington. and i don't think it's time to be donna is right.

i think the best play, if you will, for democrats is to appeal to that very narrow stratum of republicans in the senate who every once in a while as the three did on health care, decide to exert their power, decide that -- >> act as independents? >> decide like independents. if they like democrats were to say, listen, we know it's going to be a conservative justice. he's the president, he has a right to do that. but we'd rather have an institutionalist who is not going to allow the president to pardon himself, who does not think the president is incapable of obstructing justice. in other words, to put it in the context of a greater obligation to america and to our democratic norms. i think the abortion issue is soon going to take absolute front and center. h this has not happened in our lifetime. when one justice was replaced, it was replaced by someone else

who had the same position on abortion. now for the first time as rachel said, we could have a potential to reverse roe v. wade. that would be an enormous change in the social fabric of america, in the political tenor of america. people have to appreciate the gravity of that issue. just to add one thing to what harry said. it's not just what case you decide and how you decide that, but how broadly you decide them. kennedy was infamous, if you will, for having very narrow, very constrained decisions on the case before him. in a way that's appropriate for the court, which is not a political body to simply decide the case before them. and there is a gradualism there for the court, you decide one issue, you let the lower courts deal with that for a while, it percolates up, you deal with the next one. i don't think a replacement for justice kennedy would necessarily feel constrained and we may have some very broad, very sweeping language and decisions that we really haven't

experienced, frankly, in a decade or so. and that matters a lot, too. >> another thing that matters, mimi, is that everything -- there is so much hyperbole, that when it really matters, when you're actually talking about a future generation growing up with abortion being illegal again, i mean, when you really are talking about young women and men, you know, taking the kinds of risks that a generation now hasn't had to consider, that is cause for hyperbole. as elise jordan said at this table yesterday, i am radical ey ized by jeff sessions. that is a reason to stop everything, to drop the nonsense and really think about that. think about what that means -- kids get scared and do all sorts of things, but this part of a civilized country, i believe, for a woman to have a right to choose. we are really talking about regression. we are really talking about rolling back on sort of a

fundamental freedom for women, for future, which is just inconceivable. how have we lost the ability to break through? >> we're talking about the supreme court and obviously that's the biggest check that we can have, especially given the way congress seems to be right now on this president's power. so it does feel very much like the moment, you know, to be extreme because i remember when, after trump won the election, i was explaining to my young daughter, it's okay, we have checks and balances in our system. we have congress, we have courts. and even she understood that. so this feels not just like -- it's big enough that it's possibly a swing vote about abortion and that we could be rolling back all sorts of rights, but it feels like what's at stake here is even bigger than that. it's about a check on a president who seems very out of control and especially at a time when we don't have a congress that seems either willing or able to do that.

and especially after the travel ban decision, it feels like trump is going to be emboldened even more and willing to do things, not just in the area of immigration, but possibly in that area. the flicker of hope, i will say, is, first of all, as people have pointed out at this table, the democrats have tools available to try and not make -- not let this happen now. and even since the travel ban decision yesterday, we have had two district court decisions come down that have put limits, great limits on president trump's immigration policy. so, you know, we are talking about the supreme court. it is a huge deal. but remember, most cases are in the district court, not at the supreme court. and there's a lot of judges being a pointed there. there's a lot more to it than just the supreme court. and i think it's a reminder, i felt very hopeful when i saw the aclu brought these cases to the district court and they, they said, nope, you're reuniting parents.

it's one district court and who knows where that will end up. but that was a step, you know, and a check and that's what we're looking for right now, checks and balances. >> is there any other moment in time, john meacham, that matches what mimi just described, our country needing the supreme court as a check on a president who seems out of control? >> summer of 1974 when the supreme court ruled that nixon had to turnover the tapes which revealed the cover up which led to his resignation. it was a three-week drama. >> that's where we are? >> we've been there a long time. at least nixon had a sense of shame. that's potentially the difference. >> and no fox news. >> and no fox news. the speed is relative. let's not impute super powers to the opposition. got to have a vigorous conversation and we wish that reason played a bigger role in this battle against passion. but this is the end of the age of reagan on the supreme court. scalia, o'connor and now kennedy

are gone. and in many ways it's the end of ronald reagan in other ways, too. the other thing i'd say is on the checks and balances point is that court, i believe nixon appointed four justices to that court including the chief justice and they ruled against him. and so what we have to continue to hope for is that this is an institution that will continue to obey the rule of law and not the people who put them there. >> my concern on that, john, is that those conservative justices were different than the kind of conservative justices we have now. >> sure. >> and i don't know that a justice thomas is an institutionalist more than he is a partisan, and that's also what's so confounding. >> all right. tom goldstein at the court. coming up our friend steve schmidt weighs in along with the democratic judiciary committee. the planning is done for donald trump's summer sit-down with vladimir putin. the national security advisor a uns noing those details in moscow earlier today. stay with us. i'm ray and i quit smoking with chantix. in the movies, a lot of times,

i tend to play the tough guy. but i wasn't tough enough to quit on my own. not until i tried chantix. chantix, along with support, helps you quit smoking. it reduced my urge to smoke to the point that i could stop. when you try to quit smoking, with or without chantix, you may have nicotine withdrawal symptoms. some people had changes in behavior or thinking, aggression, hostility, agitation, depressed mood, or suicidal thoughts or actions with chantix. serious side effects may include seizures, new or worse heart or blood vessel problems, sleepwalking or allergic and skin reactions which can be life-threatening. stop chantix and get help right away if you have any of these. tell your healthcare provider if you've had depression or other mental health problems. decrease alcohol use while taking chantix. use caution when driving or operating machinery. the most common side effect is nausea. my favorite role so far? being a non-smoker. no question about it. talk to your doctor about chantix.

no question about it. i've got to tell you something it's not going to be easy. quicksilver earns you unlimited 1.5% cash back on every purchase, everywhere. actually, that's super easy. my bad.

our republican colleagues in the senate should follow the rule they set in 2016, not to consider a supreme court justice in an election year. senator mcconnell would tell anyone who listened that the senate had the right to advise and consent, and that was every bit as important as the president's right to nominate. >> for our friends who listen on radio and car, that was senator schumer in the last hour saying that we should abide by the mcconnell rule. joining us by the phone to weigh

in on that, our friend steve schmidt. steve, your thoughts. >> well, nicolle, i think there is a very unfortunate -- where strength is an important policy in a democracy, particularly in a country where the politics are closely divided. and the reality is you have donald trump lost the popular vote by 3 million. he won by 78,000 votes across three states. and the rub cans control all three branches of government. the legislative and by republican nominees on the supreme court. so, we have a minority that is ruling the majority of the country who are opposed to this president, and that is extremely unhealthy in a democracy. as you know in the white house, i ran the robertson/alito confirmations. i was supportive of president

obama -- with kagan and sotomayor. because i believe presidents -- with regard to the supreme court nominations. but mitch mcconnell has as much as anyone done great damage to the united states senate as a institution that was once known as the world's greatest deliberative body. they stole a supreme court seat from the democrats. and for the fabric of our democracy, democrats should dig in hard here and do everything they conceivably can do to block this nomination, any nomination from going forward until after we see what happens in the midterm election. this is also, and i think it is important to point out, a president who is increasingly law less, who asserts himself to be above the law, who attacks

constantly fundamental institution ands pillars in the middle of a criminal investigation that has moved closer and closer and closer to the oval office. so, there is an enormous amount at stake here, and democrats, i think, need to hold the line and be very, very tough in this moment and not allow this to go forward. and lastly, with bob corker and jeff flake, i think it is incredibly important for those two -- and it's only those two, we're down to two possibility -- to signal if a nominee does go forward, they will insist it will be a conservative, it will be an institutionalist, it will be somebody with the highest qualities of probity and rectitude who can be trusted not to be a politician on the court, but to be a justice of the supreme court. >> steve schmidt, thank you for

joining us every day. thank you for joining us today on a day like this. joining us now, democratic congressman eric swalwell. congressman, we've now heard almost word for word the same analysis from former republican steve schmidt, from former democratic congresswoman donna edwards, from our own rachel maddow, that it is time for you guys to get mean and fight. are you ready? >> yes, nicolle. and we've seen this week that we cannot count on the court to save us from the wrecking ball that is donald trump. and as far as what i can do as a congressman, electing a democratic majority that can push that big red button to stop the wrecking ball, that's what we have to do. but what the senate should do, i believe mitch mcconnell should believe in his own rules, that he set under merritt garland. and as long as he is the leader of the senate, i don't think they should, they should work under any other rules. >> are you ready, though, to take a sharper message to the country? i mean part of the reason that

donald trump defeated 16 republicans and i guess bested hillary clinton is that he doesn't play by the old rules. as rachel maddow articulated, he's not restrained by the truth, he's not restrained by the norms, he's not restrained by arguments rooted in facts. he plays to people's fears. he makes emotional arguments. are you ready to rip up some of the rules as rachel said has limited democrats? yes, nicolle, i know we're ready because i've seen the candidates. i was in dallas and tulsa just last weekend. i'll be in indiana, kansas and colorado coming up. we have 60 candidates who are under the age of 40 and what they're talking to to the voters that they have to appeal to is that why don't we put on donald trump's desk all the things he has said he would do that republicans have been unwilling to do. infrastructure, background checks, prescription drug refill, taking money out of politics. he has benefited from making imaginary decisions every day, just blaming it on the democrats

because he knows republicans won't put it on his desk. it's time to see if he's ready to be serious. and if not, i think he will pave the way if you put those items on his desk for a democratic president who will sign those bills in 2020. >> let me ask you something. my old boss john mccain called it straight talk. let me ask you for some. for all of the dramatic high points and low points of the trump presidency, i'd argue there have been more low points than hype points. he's poll numbers are pretty steady. no matter what he does, whether it's talking about grabbing women you know where, whether he's separating infants from their mothers and fathers at the border, his numbers don't go much higher than they usually are, between about 38 and 40. but they don't go much lower than that. how do you plan to breakthrough if none of those, none of those what would be considered sins, what would be considered disqualifying things, how do you breakthrough on the idea that roe v. wade is now potentially in jeopardy, if you haven't been able to breakthrough when the

president's essentially been shooting himself in his own foot? >> i don't think you have to reach all the way down the rabbit hole, nicolle. i think you need the voters who voted for barack obama and either stayed home in 2016 or voted for donald trump. if you can appeal to them to make sure they have jobs they can count on, paychex that grow and a health care guarantee, i think we'll get them back. that's what they've always believed the democratic party has stood for and by the way, you have to go to those places. you have to go to wisconsin. you have to go to the rust belt. you have to go to the southwest. look them in the eye and tell them what you believe in and what you're going to fight for. again, you have to understand that they rejected politics as usual by electing donald trump. they want us to collaborate and they also want the dirty money and the dirty maps out. i've heard this across america and our candidates more importantly. that's what they're fighting for. >> congressman eric swalwell, thank you for spending time with us today. >> my pleasure. >> i saw you nodding. what part of the trump presidency do you worry that his

critics will continue to get wrong? i mean, i think as you put it best, this is a moment where really big stuff is on the line and the democrats, by being restrained as rachel said by the rules, really haven't scored a lot of victories against donald trump who would appear just by the daily news cycle, should be in a downward cycle in terms of his poll numbers. they're pretty steady. >> i think what we sometimes fail to appreciate is he does not think of himself as president of the whole country. he thinks of himself as president of his base and that's all he has to worry about. that's all he's focused on. he has no shame, as john eloquently put it. he has no sense of i've gone too far. as long as he is throwing strikes down to his base, getting them revved up, he doesn't much care if he accomplishes anything, if what he accomplishes is good for america. no one thinks this trade war is

good for america but his base loves it so it's a win. put another mark on the board. >> but beyond his base, do you think having another opportunity to reshape the court is what keeps people who do have shame? someone talked about shame. paul ryan used to have shame. i'm not sure if mitch mcconnell did, but they used to be people with the capacity for shame. they have marched along in lockstep with a president who should bring shame to every still card carrying member of the republican party. do you think this is what they were waiting for, another opportunity to reshape the court? >> those people who said it was all about the supreme court, i guess it's all about the supreme court. i frankly never bought that because it's never just about one thing. and i think they were giving voice to a lot of people who had something entirely in mind which was a roll back the clock mentality, which was an assertion of this white working class grievance mentality. but for those republicans who kind of went along because they were republicans, they are going to also have to think carefully about, was this the kind of judge they wanted on the supreme

court, someone who is going to let the president -- >> and i think you're exactly right about why republicans -- the republicans who voted for him, the establishment republicans, all six of them that are left -- who aren't named bush -- voted for this guy because of this afternoon, because they did not want to see president 8 hillary clinton walk out and make this appointment. you used the phrase pay day. it is exactly right. this election for those republicans who acquiesced in the high jacking of the party, which the base did and the establishment went along with it, was basically about fewer taxes and more justices. and they got both. this is why they sold their soul and so, no. the idea mcconnell is going to follow some rule he created is hilarious. we're not in a world where that happens. and so this is a margaret chase smith moment for somebody. maybe it's for bob corker, maybe it's for flake, maybe it's for senator collins, senator

murkowski. margaret chase smith stood up before anybody else and said joe mccarthy was bad for america. and it took the men four years to catch up. somebody needs to be senator smith here. >> harry litman, what is the case you would make from your vantage point to a republican with a conscience, a republican who still believes in the rule of law, republican who didn't like what they say maybe yesterday on the muslim ban being upheld by this supreme court, what's the case that you would make to that kind of republican that john meacham is talking about? >> well, it would depend, of course, a lot on the nominee. i think what jennifer said kind of hits home. you want, you want for the future, you want for any party as america an institutionalist. someone who even more than her or his specific views on individual provisions of the constitution, respects the role of the court, understands the need to check.

that is more clear in this president than it has ever been. now, there is a possibility that he will nominate someone who will pass as a kind of institutionalist. there is also, by the way, a possibility he'll nominate someone who will at least talk a decent game on abortion rights. that will be i think the immediate strategic decision before them. will they take a kind of chief justice roberts line and signal the kind of assurance that might quiet at least some of the people who are concerned there. so it will first be in trump's corner, but basically you wanted to think about broader views. the court over time, the court is an institution and understand the whole notion of checks and balances which are really on the line with the president like trump. >> harry, we talk most days about the mueller investigation. >> right. >> and i wonder if -- i understand from a source close to mr. mueller that if he's made any decisions about whether he can or cannot indict the

president about whether he can or cannot subpoena him, he wouldn't have shared them. he certainly wouldn't have telegraphed them to rudy giuliani. if any of those clashes end up in front of the supreme court, what's the worst case scenario? >> i mean, the worst case scenario is they all fold and we have a trump/uberalist republic. as john talked about, the summer of '74, i think there are many people, chief justice roberts among them who might be nominated by this party who, nevertheless, would resist the kind of complete rolfing of the tri-partite structure of the government. the scenario, if they rollover, that is a constitutional crisis. there's no move left. >> mimi? >> just in terms of the message, the messaging by democrats, this

is a president who has claimed to be a law and order president. obviously that's been true of the republican party for a while. nothing could be further from the truth. i mean, first of all, what he did at the border made us less safe, what he's doing at the border. the diversion of resources to prosecute people criminally for misdemeanor entry -- illegal entry crimes, when you could be investigating terrorism, drug cases, we already have a u.s. attorney's office in california come out and say they've had to divert resources. that is an obvious result of what he's doing. not to mention that it's pushing, you know, many of these people trying to come across the border into the hands of traffickers, gangs, narcotics traffickers. so that's one example. and more broadly, his constant denunciation of the department of justice, this supposed call for transparency which is really forcing the department of justice to reveal sources in ways that it never has before.

>> harassment. >> it's harassment and it's making us less safe. any agent -- i've sure you've spoken to many -- will tell you it's their job on the street of getting sources to confide in them, both in terrorism cases and just, you know, regular street gang cases. it's gotten much harder. i don't think democrats should let him claim the mantle of being a law and order president. i think he's anything but. >> i also don't think democrats should spend all of their energy on infrastructure. this is a really important moment. it's a generational shift. and i think democrats have been highly motivated during these primary elections. they will be even more motivated, as motivated as the republican base on the ability of the supreme court to be completely shifted for a generation and we need to ride that wave. >> all right. harry litman, thank you for sending so much time for us today. we're grateful. up next, unable to escape the cloud of the russia investigation, president trump

finally plans to meet face to face, wait for it, vladimir putin. i realized something was missing... me. my symptoms were keeping me from being there. so, i talked to my doctor and learned humira is for people who still have symptoms of crohn's disease after trying other medications. and the majority of people on humira saw significant symptom relief and many achieved remission in as little as 4 weeks. humira can lower your ability to fight infections, including tuberculosis. serious, sometimes fatal infections and cancers, including lymphoma, have happened; as have blood, liver, and nervous system problems, serious allergic reactions, and new or worsening heart failure. before treatment, get tested for tb. tell your doctor if you've been to areas where certain fungal infections are common, and if you've had tb, hepatitis b, are prone to infections, or have flu-like symptoms or sores. don't start humira if you have an infection. be there for you, and them. ask your gastroenterologist about humira. with humira, remission is possible.

the only bed that adjusts on both sides to your ideal comfort your sleep number setting. and snoring? does your bed do that? don't miss final closeout savings on the queen c2 mattress. now only $599, save $300. it's the lowest price ever, only for a limited time. visit sleepnumber.com for a store near you. you might or joints.hing for your heart... but do you take something for your brain. with an ingredient originally found in jellyfish, prevagen is the number one selling brain-health supplement in drug stores nationwide. prevagen. the name to remember.

i think they're doing a fantastic job with the world cup right now. it's in russia, and i will tell you that's exciting. my son loves soccer and he loves watching the world cup, and they have really done a fantastic job with the world cup. it's exciting. even if you're a non-soccer fan, i'm a soccer fan a little bit. it would look like we will probably be meeting sometime in the not too distant future. we will be probably meeting sometime around my trip to europe. >> do you know where? >> it hasn't been determined yet. probably, i will know within an hour. >> world cup is fantastic. that's what the president had to say about russia today as we learned plans have been set for a summit between donald trump and vladimir putin. trump as national security advisor john bolton today in moscow put the finishing touches on the details of that summit, making clear that the meeting between the two leaders is the brain child of the president himself.

>> president trump asked me to come and speak to russian authorities about the possibility of a meeting between him and president putin, and there will be an announcement on that tomorrow simultaneously in moscow and washington on the date and the time of that meeting. there are a lot of issues to talk about that have accumulated, and i think it was one of the reasons why president trump believes so strongly, but it was time to have this kind much meeting. and as you can see, president putin agrees. >> a lot of issues that have accumulated. i don't know. donald trump has been running a campaign to add russia back to the g7 to make it the g-8. donald trump believed him when he told him that he hadn't meddled in our election. what's built up between them? they seem to have a pretty live -- >> remember, the ukrainians wanted to be invaded. >> what's built up?

>> it continues to be one of the great mysteries. >> mysteries? why is it a mystery? he is basically being run as an asset by the russians. what is mysterious about that? >> i want to know how the overture happened. >> mueller will get into that. >> if you want to recruit him, do you make an appointment at trump tower? apparently yes. >> let's look at it, trump thinks that something happened on his wires. that's the only explanation for constantly worrying about his wires being tapped, his phones. if you just take the things that make trump squeal every day, witch hunt every morning, no collusion, every morning, he hasn't sent that many tweets about anything else. >> no. if there is nothing, which i don't think is true, but if it is, this is one of the great cases of political and legal malpractice in the history of the american republic because he has at every point, as our friend gene robinson said, it's like being pulled over by a cop and the driver says, whatever,

you can write me a ticket, but whatever you do, don't look in the trunk. and vladimir putis in the trunk. >> not since saddam hussein said he had weapons of mass destruction have we had anybody do this. >> whether you are an unstable actor, right now we have a president who is an unreliable actor. >> do you think the president is an unstable actor? >> yes. what stuns me is why the markets have not reacted to the lack of stability. they are beginning to on the tariffs. remember that was what everybody said. everybody said, going into the election, you know, hillary is -- she may not cut taxes but she's good for the market because trump is unstable. and then the market goes up. so, i continue to believe -- the reason his approval rating has a 4 in front of it, i keep thinking the 401(k) trumpists. they don't pay attention to this as much as we do, which is probably healthy for them.

but i think without this prosperity and a friend of mine pointed out this morning that it wasn't until nixon's recession that the watergate stuff drove. so, if a recession the watergat stuff drove. if the a recession sits. >> the bottom falls out. >> i think so. >> okay. good. >> check. >> we have this reporting today that our allies fear the trump/putin summit. saying that would leave europeans feeling abandoned. i guess that's amazing to see that headline in the paper. they have been abandoned. they had to drag him kicking and screaming to affirm our commitment to nato, to article five. they -- the president doesn't hide his afinity for vladimir putin.

the president doesn't hide his effort to bring him back into the g7. they sort of remind me of the democrats, no offense. they are playing by the old rules and scoring no points against an out of control president. >> it's interesting, they did one thing i thought was very smart. they should do it again. the eu is meeting with china to come up with new rules of the road for international trade. that's the card they should play. >> making china great again. >> or whoever will listen to them, to make themselves a formidable force so trump not only has to look down the eu, but china, russia, whoever it is. they have to play some strategic politics on the international stage. i will say they have every reason to be panic stricken, from giving away national security secrets and their sources to flattering him about his human rights record -- listen, if kim jong-un got all of that, what is he going to give to vladimir putin, who is much more adept, much more

impressive, much more important on the world stage? >> roland? >> i don't know. what is he going to -- >> don't laugh. >> i'm not laughing. i'm just saying what is going to happen. >> he is going to talk about how the warsaw pact was great, there is stability, everybody has their zone of influence. who knows what this ignore ammous who never read a textbook or read anything is going to say in the face of that. he doesn't even know when he is giving a greenlight to a dictator to do whatever. >> we don't know, because none of us will be in the media. i'm serious about that. i think this is the thing that is worrisome, different than kim jong-un, is trump being in the room with putin by himself without anybody to check him. we won't know what's been given away. >> how much do you think the making of foreign policy that is so flagrantly, so blatantly so obviously pro-putin is of

interest to bob mutualer. >> i was just thinking about that. it has to be, right? i mean they can sit here, as he pointed out, he tweets every morning no collusion, no collusion. but the fact of the matter is we now know from the intelligence community that the russians helped influence the election to you were from. we know there were dozens of meetings between people in the trump campaign to people connected with russia and putin in various ways. either that's the greatest coincidence in the world or logically he has a pro-putin foreign policy as a result of all of that. you have what is the quo. the quid, and the pro, and the quo. >> yeah. >> it's interesting. like we are all saying, he's almost baiting mueller. you know, there is nothing there, nothing there, but look what i'm doing over here. >> right. >> it really i think will only increase the desire to get to the bottom of this.

>> we know that his national security officials have been before bob mueller as witnesses. when we come back, did the white house inch a little bit closer to becoming the fox-run state with the addition of a former fox news executive added the i don't have see the entire press operation. stay with us. even though geico has been- ohhh. ooh ohh here we go, here we go. you got cut off there, what were you saying? oooo. oh no no. maybe that geico has been proudly serving the military for over 75 years? is that what you wanted to say? mhmmm. i have to say, you seemed a lot chattier on tv. geico. proudly serving the military for over 75 years. you ok back there, buddy? happy anniversary dinner, darlin'. can this much love be cleaned by a little bit of dawn ultra? oh yeah one bottle has the grease cleaning power of three bottles of this other liquid. a drop of dawn and grease is gone.

now body repairing,e to experitempur-pedic sleep. purchase a tempur-luxe or tempur-breeze mattress today and enjoy $500 off... or a free adjustable base upgrade. experience the most highly recommended bed in america today. find your exclusive retailer at tempurpedic.com

donald trump may soon be adding another forearm fox news employee to his senior staff.

billshine, the former president of the network s reportedly in talks to oversee the entire press operation. a white house source says the president considers him as a peer and sees him taking on a role larger than sarah huckabee sanders the press secretary and schlapp. if he takes the shop,shine would have the rank of assistant to the president, the highest rank for any west wing staff. he resigned last year as fox news grappled with sexual harassment scandals. according to the "new york times" officials at the white house are aware they will face blowback for placing someone so closely ties to mr. ailes and the allegations of sexual harassment at fox news but believe today they can weather it. it will cut dunton phone calls to fox news just being there. i would say this is a farce but we've passed farce.

if he listens to bill stein, who is not a raving lunatic, maybe there is something to be said there. maybe he will go to schwarzenegger and say you know, you go out there and bold faced lie to the press over and over again. i don't think that's such a great idea. >> it occurred to me that if he takes this job it is his mission to turn the heat down. they view her as exacerbating some of their problems with the press and for a president so obsessed with media coverage that's not constructive. >> in your lifetime, who do you think the best person at -- was. >> mike mccurry. >> that's an interesting model. mike was, he didn't mind saying he didn't know. you bought it. >> the best thing anybody said to anybody about mike mccurry. he could be lying to your face and you believed hip.

ari fleischer -- the character of the person matters. >> i think that relationship from afar looks broken. >> i think you are right. again. rights, all hour long. when can you come back. we will make you a regular. jon meacham, mimi roberts, and jennifer ruben, my thanks. "mtp daily" starts right now with steve kornacki in for chuck todd. doing double duty, my friend. >> on a day like this, it's -- [ no audio ] ♪ good evening. i'm steve kornacki in new york, in for chuck todd. welcome to "mtp daily." we begin tonight with that breaking news that could reverberate through american life, culture, politics, for a genera