i'll be back here tomorrow morning. right now it's time for "up" with david gura. ♪ this is "up," i'm david gura. late last night we learned the supreme court sided with the trump administration allowing plans for him to build his wall on the u.s./mexico border. >> we're building a lot of wall right now. a lot of it we've ripped down old wall. we are building a beautiful new wall. >> almost 100 house democrats are pushing for impeachment. they heard from robert mueller

and now lawmakers are fighting for access to the grand jury testimony that underpins his report. >> we're considering what remedies we can do including the possibility of articles of impeachment. and in the latest installment of politicians at the pastry plate, i still down with steve bullock. he will join 19 other contenders on the stage for the second debate. it's saturday, july 27th, i'm a dad so this story caught my attention. >> someone tried to order a cake for a 2-year-old that said happy birthday lizard, but the bakery misheard and it said happy birthday loser. christina greer joins us this morning and also with us is troy

la dean. julia ainsley is with us in new york for the first time. she's a correspondent for nbc news, and glenn kirschner is an msnbc legal analyst. the supreme court has cleared the way for the trump administration to use 2$2.5 billion in unspent military funds from the pentagon to build the border wall. the white house announced an asylum deal with guatemala. the agreement would restrict asylum applications by requiring my grants who pass through guatemala to apply for asylum there. if they failed to apply there, they would be denyied asylum hee in the united states. but this deal does not to address the mounting humanitarian crisis at the southern border. i'm holding this order that was handed down last night. about three pages in length.

the president crowing about this, calling this a victory. help us understand what it means exactly in terms of the case you've been fighting. >> i think the most important thing, this is not a final order. this is a temporary block on an injunction that was already jishejis issued. every court that's looked at this says that we all know the president didn't give money to the president to build the wall. not even the supreme court has said they think he has the authority. what the one line in the order that is not by justice pbrier says about the merits, they think at this stage, the stage of the block,s this a fair possibility that we don't have a cause of action. that should be troubling. what it means is that the court is willing to blink possibly at very unlawful conduct by saying that what the government says, which is no one can come into court to challenge it, the courts below didn't agree. we think we can prevail

ultimately. >> you've been following the undulations of this from the beginning. what does this say broadly about this, this marquee part of the president's plan? >> it could embolden the president. so many things we've seen this white house do, it doesn't seem like it will pass legally, but they throw it at the wall, so to speak -- sorry about that -- they throw it at the wall to see what might stick or be used as scare tactic. we saw that last week when they had the rule saying if you go through mexico, you have to claim asylum there. we thought when he announced this, even the president thought when he announced this, the courts wouldn't allow it. he knew this would go into a court battle when he announced this. does this embolden him to do other radical things on immigration thinking, well now that the court tipped more -- the supreme court tipped a more conservative way, he might get more through. he's right -- i mean, you were right, the president would be reading this the wrong way to be

saying, well now i have carte blanche to do what i want. this was a narrow, specific ruling. >> we've seen this strategy, this throwing stuff at the wall strategy over and over again. >> you said you're a dad. you know what children do. >> we saw it with the census case as well. looking at the hiss cotorical perspecti perspective, how effective has it been for this administration to do it again and again and again. >> well, you know he throws the cheerios on the floor because we will pick it up. he has to keep throwing things at the wall quickly because his re-election is coming up. his central promise to his supporters was that he would have that wall built on day one. that's not happened. what's really concerning is that the president does not understand article 1 of the constitution when the framers gave congress the power of the purse. he thinks i'm the president, i

should be in charge of everything, including i can build the wall if i want. that's not how things work. the third thing that's concerning to me is that deep in that story is about remittances. if he can't get his way just by mandate, if he can't get his way in the courts, he will circumvent that system and try to penalize hard working immigrants who are sending money back to these countries. and so many of those countries rely on remittances for part of their gdp. that's strategy he -- we always have to say, he, his administration and the party, those three are working in conjunction. they're throwing this out and realizing that's an effective tool. that, to me, is the most frightening. >> let me turn back to what was wro wrote. the argument that he was making is that the administration could proceed in terms of planning but not the building of this.

your reaction to that and what your says is going forward here. >> i think the concurrence and the dissent that was written is telling. we represent 2 million members of the sierra club living along the border and using it. those are people who use that land. they don't have an interest in whether the president is signing contracts or not. justice breyer said let them sign contracts. why doesn't court let the administration write the contracts and block all construction. the five conservatives said no, we'll let them construct any way, which is the harm that will be caused to our communities. i do want to say the government said that if we ultimately win, the court can order that the wall be taken down. we plan to take them up on that.

what breyer is saying you don't have to be extreme. >> and that would be harder to do. >> yeah. >> he mentioned the five conservative conservatives. what does this say to youed about the composition of the court? >> i guess i'm disappointed every time i see a 5-4 decision. it shows the court is fractured. i hate to stick out my foot and trip the president as he is taking his victory lap, i think if we break down it down, what we've seen here by this supreme court opinion, it would be like if president trump passed an executive order saying i don't want david gura to be on tv anymore because i don't like what he says. that would be unconstitutional. that's a violation of your 1st amendment rights. >> i wouldn't put it past him. >> but it would be like if i brought suit to try to address the violation of your rights.

you would be the one that has to bring suit. that's what we've seen here. we've seen with all due respect the sierra club and aclu bringing suit to try to enforce what is a battle between congress and the president. this is about congress having the power of the purse and the president being a presidential purse snatcher. that is where this battle should be met. so this standing opinion is not all that surprising to me. >> let me ask about this guatemala issue. there was a surprise announcement in the oval office yesterday. last year guatemala received 259 asylum applications. a tiny number. of those, not a single application was approved. help us understand how radically that will change by what was determined yesterday. >> that shows us everything we need to know about guatemala's

asiylum system and their abilit to take in a vast number from honduras and el salvador. the united states has claimed with guatemala under agreement that it is a safe their party country. that's the same term we use for canada. that's if you are claiming asylum and coming through canada, you should claim there before you come to the united states. canada is set up in a way that guatemala is not. they have many motherre asylum applications, they have a legal system like our own. with this, that was thrown out. guatemala is a stop gap. i spoke to someone yesterday about this. what will the international community going to say? asylum is not something the united states declares, it's an international right.

as this official explained to me, the u.n. doesn't have the authority and we can talk about this legally to be able to actually tear up that agreement. but i think that a court case in the united states could use the u.n.'s opinion to challenge it we've seen an injunction on the rule with mexico. it's hard to see how that wouldn't fall with guatemala. the only difference is that mexico did not sign anything. there was not an agreement with mexico. this is an agreement with guatemala. >> i hope you can situate us in this conversation. you're living this day in and day out. we've been talking about the construction of the border wall, but when you lock at thyou look more broadly, where are we in this conversation as we speed ahead to the election? you have congress people back in their districts for the next six weeks. >> what we have is a president and an administration and party

who are trying to circumvent the parts of the political system that they find unhelpful, that's congress and the courts. so you have the president basically when it comes to the asylum ban, there's an injunction on two previous attempts, the mexico one and for people who don't cross at a port of entry. both of those were blocked because congress is clear. after world war ii the whole asylum refugee was set up because we had a horror as a country and as the whole world community at blocking vulnerable people seeking refuge. the administration is saying how can we get rid of all our obligations? courts have blocked some of it. this is showing us we need to rely on courts and have access to the courts because the president is disregarding congress. >> thank you for coming in. much more up ahead including my one-on-one interview with

montana governor steve bullock. first, republicans said robert mueller's testimony was the last gasp. the investigations and inquiries continued along with the push for impeachment. good point! that's why esurance is making the whole experience surprisingly painless. so, you never have to talk about it. unless you're their spokesperson. esurance. it's surprisingly painless.

if you have moderate to severe plaque psoriasis, every day can begin with flakes. it's a reminder of your struggles with psoriasis. but what if your psoriasis symptoms didn't follow you around? that's why there's ilumya. with just 2 doses, a majority of people were clear or almost clear. and over time, even more people were clear or almost clear. all with dosing 4 times a year... after 2 initial doses. plus, ilumya was shown to have similar risks of infections compared to placebo. don't use if you are allergic to ilumya or any of its ingredients. before starting treatment, your doctor should check for tuberculosis and infections. after checking there is no need for routine lab monitoring unless your doctor advises it. ilumya may increase your risk of infections and lower your ability to fight them. tell your doctor if you have an infection or have symptoms, or if you plan to or have recently received a vaccine.

this could be your chance to leave your psoriasis symptoms behind. ask your doctor for ilumya today, for a clearer tomorrow.

gura. lawmakers will have the next six weeks off to decide what to do with what robert mueller told them this week. some democrats are disappointed by that testimony which the "new york times" called dry,

sometimes halting. republicans made it a pivot point. >> welcomwelcome, everyone to tt gasp. the conspiracy theory is dead. >> we will continue to seek testimony from key fact witnesses. as many of you know, the committee authorized several additional subpoenas. >> a handful of democrats say they're ready to start impeachment proceedings. the list is elemealmost 100 laws long. they're looking into security clearance, members are also interested in the relationship with saudi arabia, digging into president trump llegedly paying push hon payments, also his

relationship with president putin and they are trying to look at his tax returns. as robert mueller noted throughout his testimony, robert stone will be in court later this year. let's ask about what happened yesterday with jerry nadler going to court to say he wants to see those documents from the grand jury that underpin mueller's report. how significant is that? what does that say to you about where we are in this fact finding process, this move towards impeachment by some democrats? >> that was a big deal and a big moment yesterday when jerry nadler filed in federal court something that said we are pursuing and impeachment inquiry. everybody wants instant political gratification these days. this is a marathon, not a sprint. slow and steady will win the day eventually. when people say, well, you know, bob mueller wasn't very exciting. he was halting in his delivery.

well, he's entitled. he's a war hero. he held so many significant jobs. he took on a thankless task and sat there for seven hours. he struggled a bit, yes. his health may be failing, but don't confuse the message and the messenger. what he said was dramatic. it was an opening statement. it was russian interpeerns wefe welcomed by trump and his people. obstruction of justice over and over again, congress here you go, do your job. now it's time to see the witnesses. that's how a hearing unfolds. we need to hear from mcagain, hicks, lewandowski. >> impeachment presume bly would ma make that easier to do. help us understand the politics

that is buffeting all of this. you have a speaker that is reluctant to go down this route. what does that quote say to you about that? >> leaves the door open and a window of opportunity for democrats to pursue it in the future. i think where i deviate from agreeing fully with you is that we don't know what this future looks like. we have elections coming up. when robert mueller on the front page -- the first page of the mueller report says russia has interfered. he sits down and says they're doing it as we speak. i understand robert mueller chooses his words carefully. nancy pelosi doesn't want to rush in, she wants everything prepared and ready to go. but we have the shadow of the election hanging over this. we need to do this sooner rather than later. that's where the factions in the democratic party are coming to a head. you have 100 democratic members of the house saying we can't

wait until 2020 or whenever in 2020 to start this process. we have to get the ball rolling because the longer we wait this cesspool of sdwrdegenerates seeo be stealing, lying, cheating in front of the american public especially with regards to russia and china and in regards to our government. >> i laid out some investigations ongoing, there is all of that, and the white house saying these people have immunity. >> i keep thinking about how nadler had to use the impeachment argument when he went to court in order to try to get some of this material because he said we are pursuing -- >> i'll put it up there. because department of justice policies will not allow prosecution of a sitting president, the house of representatives is the only institution of the federal government that can hold president trump accountable. >> that's strong language what they're after is material that is grand jury projected and that

you would hope congress would get on its own without having to dig through mueller's trash. not having to go back through what he's already done. they're at that point. they have not been able so far to get don mcgahn and hope hicks to testify. you have to look at the clock, the election coming up. i remember heading into mueller day, we said the bigger testimony would be mcgahn. he was the cooperative witness. he talked to mueller over 30 times. he was at the heart of the obstruction accusations. he was the one the president talked to to fire mueller, and then he said tell everybody i didn't tell you to fire mueller. is he at the heart of that. he is what all of this could switch on. >> you watched that first hearing, don mcgahn's name came up question by question. laying out the obstruction case

was so essential to what that committee did. >> and they better start running it like it's a half marathon not a full marathon because the clock is running out and the president announced i'm welcoming foreign interference again. on the don mcgahn issue, this immunity is pure legal nonsense. judge bates ruled that in 2008. once they get on the dime and they start litigating these issues, the courts will knock them down one after another after another. that's when we will hear from mcgahn, hicks, lewandowski. that's a special kind of insanity, the president dispatching lewandowski to fire the attorney general if the attorney general didn't shut down the probe. we need to hear about that. >> a little kirschner optimism there. coming up, i head out west

to interview governor bullock as he prepares for his first debate on the debate stage. he debate s. this was me before liberty mutucustomized my car insurance, so i only pay for what i need. and this is me now! any physical changes to this man's appearance are purely coincidental. only pay for what you need. ♪ liberty. liberty. liberty. liberty. ♪

(vo) ♪ sleep this amazing? that's a zzzquil pure zzzs sleep. our liquid has a unique botanical blend, while an optimal melatonin level means no next day grogginess. zzzquil pure zzzs. naturally superior sleep. since my dvt blood clot i was thinking... could there be another around the corner? or could it turn out differently? i wanted to help protect myself. my doctor recommended eliquis. eliquis is proven to treat and help prevent

another dvt or pe blood clot... almost 98 percent of patients on eliquis didn't experience another. ...and eliquis has significantly less major bleeding than the standard treatment. eliquis is fda approved and has both. don't stop eliquis unless your doctor tells you to. eliquis can cause serious and in rare cases fatal bleeding. don't take eliquis if you have an artificial heart valve or abnormal bleeding. if you had a spinal injection while on eliquis call your doctor right away if you have tingling, numbness, or muscle weakness. while taking eliquis, you may bruise more easily... and it may take longer than usual for bleeding to stop. seek immediate medical care for sudden signs of bleeding, like unusual bruising. eliquis may increase your bleeding risk if you take certain medicines. tell your doctor about all planned medical or dental procedures. what's around the corner could be surprising. ask your doctor about eliquis.

this is "up," i'm david gura. we're three days away from the second democratic debate of this

campaign. there will be a new face on stage in detroit. governor steve bullock from montana. he entered the race late and is polling at the bottom of the pack. like several other candidates he's hoping to have a breakout moment on that stage. he was in utah this week for a meeting of the national governor's association. we sat down at a table in salt lake city's hub and spoke diner, i started by asking the governor how robert mueller's testimony changed his thinking about impeachment. >> when folks are worrying about am i going to lose my hospital, or how are my schools, you know, i don't want to make the next year plus about donald trump. i want to make it about them and making sure that they know that what this guy promised them in 2016, he's not delivering. and that i could actually work to make their lives better. >> let me translate what you just said. it doesn't sound like you're in

favor of impeachment. will you say that at this point? >> i'm not -- at this point i'm not in favor of impeachment. congress has constitutional obligation of oversight of the executive branch. i'll be darned in trump doesn't also have an obligation to be responsive so that. this administration has not been responsive. i'm glad the investigations are ongoing. i'm glad that we're bringing our -- or they're bringing, you know, bringing it to court when trump's not fulfilling his obligations. certainly i want to see where all of that goes. but i also want to make sure we're making the next year about -- not about donald trump. >> if you're talking to somebody in iowa, new hampshire, nevada, what do you say to them about what you've been able to accomplish that could be put into place in other parts of the country? >> i think that -- look, we're

always working -- people talk a lot about college affordable. we have the fourth lowest tuition fees in the country. why? we invested in our university system, we froze college tuition. people look at some of the growths in the areas, not just our urban areas. why? we concentrated on that. the challenge -- it's not just montana. unemployment is low everywhere. problem is not enough jobs, it's people are working too many jobs to get by. >> this goes back to an op s-ed you wrote in 2017 in the "new york times." >> did you your research on me. >> a line that stood out to me, i'll paraphase, if you are going fishing, you have to cast your fly out further into the river. in those two years since you wroe wrote that piece, have you noticed changes in the democratic leadership that they've taken other parts of the country more seriously than in 2017? >> not enough.

donald trump took montana by 20 points, i won by 4. if we can't win back some of these places that we lost, we're not going to win the presidency. even if we do, let's say you can cobble together 270 electoral votes, if there's a lot of the country that feels disconnected from democrats or says they're not representing my interests, even if you win the presidency you can't govern because you won't get so many of those other senate seats and house seats that you'll need. especially in sort of the current discussion, even on where we are this far along in the primary. i think part of the discussion is detached from peoples daily lives. i guess i tried to put out that siren call in 2017. i don't think that we as a party are meeting it yet. >> how do you appeal to black voters and latino voters?

you are the governor of a stated that has rather small populations of those minority demographics. what is the case you make to those voters? >> only about 10% of montana are people of color, most of them are native americans. i will never suggest i know the experiences folks have had. raised in a single part household, living paycheck to paycheck, do i know what it's like to be an african american father and say i know what it's like to be pulled over and say put your hands immediately on the dashboard? i don't. what i do know and what i can do is begin with that base assumpti assumption, understand i don't know. and that we have inequities in this country. this has been the history. showing up, listening to how we address this, and taking action

on that so that everybody kid has a shot at that better future. i think that can connect people. >> do you pay attention to the polling at this point? given where you are. i wonder how much that weighs on you, this early in the game, what are you paying attention to tell you this is going right or this isn't? >> look, you have to see where you are, where everybody else is. there's one piece if you go back a handful of years, bill clinton didn't even announce until october the year before. i know we want to speed this up. i want to believe elections are still decided by the people, which then have to express their support through polls, and they'll make the right decision, not a quick decision, and there will be a lot of jockeying and horse races throughout. >> steve bullock talking to me. christina greer, let me turn to you. democratic outreach to other parts of the country. that's where he's been at the forefront, back in 2017 writing

this op sed sayi-ed saying peopo take seriously people who don't live on the coast or big cities ~. yes, he's a candidate but also advocating that a place out west should get more notice. >> i'm clear his role as the candidate, many people who are going to be on that stage next week. i do think, yes, it's a 50-state strategy. jesse jackson employed it in 1984, very successfully in 1988. i think the political calculus of the front runners now is such if you look at the electoral college map over the last 40, 50 years, places like montana, south dakota, north dakota have not produced necessarily democratic wins in more haven't history. so democratic candidates tend to focus on states that deliver and have delivered. so the argument is all states a red states if you think about

it. do you have enough states to flip it blue every four years during a presidential election? s that what the democrats are looking at. they're looking at the new yorks, new jerseys, then we talk about florida, ohio, pennsylvania. those are the toss-ups. we have michigan now and wisconsin in the mix. so we tend to talk about 11 s 1 states and forget about the others. i believe the governor is making that argument saying we don't necessarily have quantity but our issues are of substance. i think all the democratic candidates can do a more robust job at nodding to some of those issues without making it the n tenant of their campaign. >> he spoke about how he's not decided, he wants to see all of this play out. i want to ask you about the window such as it exists to do this. you wiere talking about runninga

half marathon verses a marathon. what do you make of what he had to say about that what are we waiting for at point? >> i think everybody who cares to pay attention to the facts rather than just the politics realizes that the president committed impeachable offenses. the question is what do we do about it? do we let the clock run out and hope for the best in 2020? i'm pessimist bic that because as we all saw the president is willing to cheat again the way he did in 2016. so an election doesn't seem to be tsd sociehe societal fix for problem. as an old prosecutor there's a matter of principle that if you catch the president committing crimes and bob mueller has laid it out on a silver platter, you need to try to hold them accountable. as jerry nadler said yesterday in federal court in his filing the only way for our country to

do that is through an impeachment inquiry. >> i wonder for people like this governor and over people out this their districts when they take this six-week recess, are they talking to their constituents about how they want them to spend the next year and a half? if they go through all the levels of the legal system, subpoenas people, carrying out this process, is that where voters want them to spend their time? when we have a crisis at the border, people wondering about healthcare. >> that's what the governor says, he's not bringing it up and often people in the audience are not bringing up. we'll have much more with steve bullock tomorrow. we'll hear how he's preparing for that first debate. up ahead, how president trump found himself on stage in front of a bogus presidential seal, an update on the optics

and the substance of a speech he gave to young conservatives this week. conservatives this week can lift you right up. expedia. everything you need to go.

expedia. [ referee whistle sounds ] ♪ sport dr[ cheering ]s when you need the fuel to be your nephew's number one fan. holiday inn express. we're there. so you can be too.

background checks on guns.e that we should have but congress won't act because the nra and gun manufacturers have purchased our government. that's just plain wrong. we know how to solve many of the challenges facing us. a majority of americans agree on the solutions. but corporate money is standing in the way. i'm tom steyer. i approve this message. because our democracy should work for the people. ♪ ♪ let's go! ♪

this is "up," i'm david gura. this week president trump addressed young conservatives at a conference in washington, d.c. there's been a lot to of focus on the optics of that speech. president trump was standing in front of a presidential seal that was altered. the "new york times" points out

it has gafolf club information s tal talons. there is that, but i want to start about something president trump said at that event. a story where he travelled to colorado springs for a ceremony where he shook hands with 1,100 candidates. >> with was really hot. that sun was beaming down. i'm just one-handed -- some of these guys are great athletes, saluting, shaking, turning, spinning, coming at all different directions. felt like a great fighter pilot. i stood up there for the whole thing. i said there's no other way presidents have done that. he says no, they do it, but they leave after 50, 60 people. i heard that, i thought it sounded implausible, made up, like a lie. which i discovered it is. this did not discover the type

of investigation that would win a pull zitzer prize. 812 handshakes in two hours for obama's final commencement. the president blocked off more than two hours of his schedule for the grip and grin session. >> commissions as ensigns in the coast guard will be presented by our commander in chief, president barack obama. >> the year before he was in new london, ketd cconnecticut, 217 guard cadets were graduating that year. the president was there to present their commissions one by one. at west point in 2014, a big speech on multilateralism. he remained on stage to shake hands with all the graduates. he spoke at a service academy each and every year of his presidency and each and every year there's some version of the

same story. basically this, it took a long time but at this graduation or that graduation president obama stayed on stage to shake everyone's hand. lest you think i just looked at the 44th president, george h.w. bush spoke at a graduation in 2008 we he shook hands, occasionally bang his chest against a graduate's chest. we chronicled president trump's false claims, misleading, and, yes, lies, and this is just one example. the reason it stands out to me because it's so strange, so small. it was about shaking hands at a graduation. bragging about something that never happened that you know never happened with the most basic google search and that is what i will take away from this. his casual and constant brazenness, the ease with which the president of the united states can spin a story that is so easy to disprove. we'll be right back.

try metamucil, and begin to feel what lighter feels like.

{tires screeching} {truck honking} [alarm beeping]

(avo) life doesn't give you many second chances. but a subaru can. (dad) you guys ok? you alright? wow. (avo) eyesight with pre-collision braking. standard on the subaru ascent. the three-row subaru ascent. love. it's what makes a subaru a subaru. my copd medicine... ...that's why i've got the power of 1 2 3 medicines with trelegy. the only fda-approved 3-in-1 copd treatment . ♪trelegy. ♪the power of 1-2-3. ♪trelegy 1-2-3 trelegy. with trelegy and the power of 1 2 3, i'm breathing better. trelegy works 3 ways to... ...open airways,... ...keep them open... ...and reduce inflammation... ...for 24 hours of better breathing. trelegy won't replace a rescue inhaler for sudden breathing problems. trelegy is not for asthma. tell your doctor if you have a heart condition or high blood pressure before taking it.

do not take trelegy more than prescribed. trelegy may increase your risk of thrush, pneumonia, and osteoporosis. call your doctor if worsened breathing, chest pain, mouth or tongue swelling ...problems urinating, vision changes, or eye pain occur. think your copd medicine is doing enough? maybe you should think again. ask your doctor about once-daily trelegy and the power of 1 2 3. ♪trelegy 1-2-3 save at trelegy.com this is "up," i'm david gura. pete buttigieg is in des moines, iowa today. a few days ago he was in nashville for an interview on one of the most popular country music shows. >> i think there's a lot of

voters who feel like they haven't heard much from my side of the aisle in a while. i live in indiana. a lot of places where our message can resonate with folks of different political persuasions. a lot of people don't think in terms of party anymore. they're looking for leadership, open to different ideas. but you have to show up, ask people for support, explain yourself. that's why i take the same message on fox news that i take on to msnbc when we do political television. >> you can find that interview online. but in the end it never aired on the radio. it was pulled at the last minute. some 67,000 people listened to it far fewer than the hundreds of thousands who would have heard it on the radio. in 1992 bill clienten appenton n mtv. president obama appeared on "between two ferns." there's more than 1,000 podcast

interviews so far, but pete buttigieg's desire to court conservatives sets him apart from many democratic competitors. at a town hall yesterday he addressed his decision to appear in a town >> i know it was a little controversial within the party, but i made the decision to appear on fox news because i'm worried those viewers will never hear our message at all if people like me aren't there to say it. >> kurt bardella was in the room for pete buttigieg's interview. kurt, help us for your takeaway there. i've heard the interview. it was not a highly political interview. the host of the show said that before it aired that it wasn't going to be about politics and the show isn't about politics. what is this what happened here tell you about the relationship between country music and the campaign as a whole and what is the outreach that pete buttigieg did say about how he's approaching the campaign?

>> well, you know, david, pete was in nashville to do a big rally. they had the idea in the campaign that while they were there wouldn't it make sense to maybe reach out to a different media outlet outside of the political media that we hear day in and day out and go to country radio. they reached out to blair and his nationally syndicated show and blair was very happy to have them in. as blair said, this was the first time ever a presidential candidate had reached out to his show to come on. how refreshing was it he thought at a time when things are so divisive and we hear every day about the back and forth and partisanship, here was someone who wanted to reach out and communicate with them. they made it very clear as they set the parameters that it wouldn't be overtly political. they weren't going to get into right versus left and the hate and negativity that we see flood our political discourse. i tell you, david, the interview began with pete recollecting a funny story he had about meeting brad paisley and not recognizing him. thinking that it was fred paisley in the backstage of gma.

so they went into this conversation very positively. >> christina, i want to ask you about this episode. i was citing some of the historical examples. >> and bill clinton on arsenio hall. >> and the sax as well. what does this say to you. i heard of this show before. i read kurt's piece about it. this effort at failed outreach, what does it say to you? >> i think it's brilliant on the part of the campaign because those of us who don't live in cities, car culture folks listen to a lot of talk radio. and so the garner show is actually a huge show so i think it's brilliant that they're reaching out to a nontraditional television media outlet. but i think mayor pete is correct in the sense that so many voters don't necessarily fully, fully identify with the party right now. they are feeling those calcified

definitions don't represent them so he wanted to just have a conversation. i think the fact that it was pulled says a lot about the front office and how they either feel about sexuality, his message, whatever it may be. but as sort of someone who studies black voting patterns, there are so many missed opportunities from candidates because they never bother to go to black voters to talk to them, to ask them what their issues are, to show up. so i think mayor pete's argument was this is a population that possibly has not been spoken to by a democratic candidate. maybe we have something in common. and i think -- the last point is if we are going to get donald trump out of office, it's going to be people who have to hear a message, have it resonate with them and they have to tell their loved ones, friends and family and community members to change their minds and go and vote against trump. i think that was the seed that mayor pete was possibly trying to plant. the powers that be made sure that didn't happen. >> it talks about the powers that bow and the front office

and their statement was this is an equal time issue. you can't have mayor pete on and ignore the rest of the candidates. none of whom approached blair about doing something on his show. >> how about we talk with and listen to people that have different views, people that don't necessarily, you know, think exclusively in terms of left or right or party or ideology. a real quick story and i know you'll accuse me of dragging my prosecutorial background into this. one of the things that i did when i went into a courtroom to try a murder case, early on not only did i have a relationship with the victim's family but i asked the defense attorney can i please meet the defendant's family. yes, they're going to have very different priorities, but they're victims too. their loved one is now going to spend a very long time potentially in prison. and let's all kind of discuss what we can and answer your questions and hopefully that makes you feel a little bit better about the fairness of the process and it sort -- it reaps

benefits when everybody goes back out into the community. so let's talk with and listen to people who are different from us. >> julia ainsley, justice reporter, noted country music fan. >> yes. when i'm thinking back, back in the day the dixie chicks controversy when they spoke out against george w. bush and they were banned from all these country radio stations. i'm still a huge dixie chicks fan, went to their concert when they had a reunion a few years ago but you don't hear them on the radio anymore. you didn't hear them from that point on. there comes a point where we can say, yes, this is part of our culture, the music we listen to, it's not our politics, but the two come together. when you have such a polarizing culture where people think if you listen to country music you're a conservative and if you listen to this you're not, it can leave you in a place you don't even get exposed to the other views and i think that's the most dangerous. >> thanks to kurt bardella. thanks to all of you here as well in new york. make sure you tune in tomorrow.

sunday starting at 8:00 a.m. eastern time right here on msnbc. in our next hour, robert mueller sounding a dire warning about election security and that clarion call has rung out across an empty washington, d.c. the risks are real but congress has skipped town for summer break that lasts six weeks. must be nice. we'll be right back. be nice we'll be right back. up the years. but what i do count on... is boost® delicious boost® high protein nutritional drink has 20 grams of protein, along with 26 essential vitamins and minerals. boost® high protein. be up for life. so chantix can help you quit slow turkey.key. along with support, chantix is proven to help you quit. with chantix you can keep smoking at first and ease into quitting. chantix reduces the urge so when the day arrives, you'll be more ready to kiss cigarettes goodbye. when you try to quit smoking, with or without chantix, you may have nicotine withdrawal symptoms.

stop chantix and get help right away if you have changes in behavior or thinking, aggression, hostility, depressed mood, suicidal thoughts or actions, seizures, new or worse heart or blood vessel problems, sleepwalking, or life-threatening allergic and skin reactions. decrease alcohol use. use caution driving or operating machinery. tell your doctor if you've had mental health problems. the most common side effect is nausea. quit smoking slow turkey. talk to your doctor about chantix. what might seem like a small cough can be a big bad problem for your grandchildren. babies too young to be vaccinated against whooping cough are the most at risk for severe illness. help prevent this! talk to your doctor or pharmacist today about getting vaccinated against whooping cough. talk to your doctor or pharmacist today did you know you can save money by using dish soap to clean grease on more than dishes? try dawn ultra. dawn is for more than just dishes. with 3x more grease cleaning power per drop,

it tackles tough grease on a variety of surfaces. try dawn ultra. look limu. a civilian buying a new car.ug let's go. limu's right. liberty mutual can save you money by customizing your car insurance, so you only pay for what you need. oh... yeah, i've been a customer for years. huh... only pay for what you need. ♪ liberty. liberty. liberty. liberty. ♪ you want a war you've got one. [ "psa" by jay z ] we're never going to survive their firepower.

we're going to need cars... and guns. oh i can handle that part. i got your back brother. and me yours. [ laughing ] [ screaming ]

this is "up." i'm david gura. on monday most americans will be back at work but most members of congress are taking some time off, six weeks to be exact, just days after they passed a last-minute bill to keep the government up and running. the presidential election is less than a year and a half away. as the campaign continues, we heard loud warnings about election security. in a new report the senate intelligence committee says russia targeted all 50 states. key parts of that report are redacted, but we know state and federal officials missed most of those attacks. democrats have been pushing the congress to do more but just this week republicans killed the latest bills that would do that. senate majority leader mitch mcconnell called them partisan, which prompted this response from his democratic counterpart. >> this is not an issue, a democratic issue or republican issue. this is not a liberal issue, a moderate issue, a conservative issue. this is an issue of patriotism. and what do we hear from the

republican side? nothing. >> there's a big piece in "the new york times" this morning about election security at the date level. delaware has replaced its voting machines to ensure paper backup for a record in case of a breach. south carolina said it would introduce a paper-based voting system in january. but florida, home of the best-known presidential balloting problems seems far behind and federal officials are worried about new jersey, pennsylvania and texas. the loudest warning was spoken quietly by robert mueller in testimony to congress this week during an exchange with republican congressman will hurd, who was a former cia officer. >> in your investigation did you think that this was a single attempt by the russians to get involved in our election or did you find evidence to suggest they'll try to do this again. >> it wasn't a single attempt. they're doing it at we sit here, and they expect to do it during the next campaign. >> up with me this morning, a former deputy assistant secretary of state, long-time advisor to former secretary of

state hillary clinton and he has a podcast called "unredacted." jill wine-banks is a former prosecutor and michael steele. michael steele, let me start with you. i'm sure you watched all seven hours of the hearing this week. >> i did. >> but that moment, i said it was a loud statement spoken quietly. people were straining at times to hear what the special counsel had to say. did it stand out to you? >> i thought it stood out. there were a number of those moments that stood out. i have to admit i got caught myself getting caught up in the sort of presentation of what mueller was saying and not really saying, okay, step back from the soundi of it, listen t the words and what he's saying. that was one of those moments where it's very clear that -- the other one being did you exonerate the president? no. you can't get more concise than that. and so i think that what the american people have to do now

is to begin with the help of other institutions, whether it's the congress, whether it's third-party organizations which are themselves going out and replaying moments like this for the american people, condensing it down, so we get past all the stuff that was a distraction in terms of the presentation but focus on the words, to begin to understand exactly what we're talking about here. the russians want to help this president win. there is -- okay, there's no other way to say that. they made it very clear. the president has welcomed their help. he has said that on the record officially. so this is our space. the states now have to go out and begin to put in place the controls and measures, so wake up, florida. wake up, new jersey. wake up, pennsylvania, texas, and get in the game. you're not going to get help from mitch mcconnell in the senate. you're not going to get help from the congress as a whole. the states are going to be left to go out there and put in place

the paper ballot backups and other security measures to make sure that next year we don't have a moment on that wednesday morning where someone stands up and goes this was a rigged election. >> there was a moment focusing on russia, there was the moment focusing on wikileaks as well. he was asked about that and said that those comments from the president about wikileaks were problematic, to say the least. i'm paraphrasing the former special counsel there. talk about the import of that moment. >> i think the entire discussion of volume 1, which that was part of, really was as clear and concise as what michael is talking about. >> just to interrupt quickly, was it a mistake to do volcanum second? >> i think i would have put the background first, which is we are at severe risk from russian interference. it happened, it is currently happened and that's why he covered up because he wants their help. he seaccepted it willingly, eve if he didn't engage in doing the

actual work. he welcomed it. that encouraged them. it not only encouraged them, it's encouraging other foreign countries to act. foreign hostile acts are going to occur. by the way, that's the second reason why congress has a right to the grand jury testimony. they have a right to the grand jury testimony because it's part of a judicial proceeding. but there's another exception that says they can have it when there's a foreign hostile act and they have to take steps to protect america. so i think what was made clear by mueller was i did not exonerate him. there was multiple evidence of substantive acts by the president that constitute obstruction of justice, at least five times when there are all the elements satisfied and that the only reason he wasn't indicted is because the office of legal counsel wouldn't let me. i gathered the evidence so that either congress could impeach or a future prosecutor after he's out of office could act. all of that is absolutely clear

and the democrats are not as good at communicating as donald trump, who has six words, only six words, no collusion, no obstruction, i'm exonerated. there's his six words. we need, okay, six words isn't enough for all the crimes he's done. i'll give us 50 words. come up with a message that in 50 words summarizes what we're talking about now. >> felipe, i mentioned this as a clarion and i think the democratic leader said that in the senate as well. robert mueller was issuing this warning and yet it fell upon deaf ears. what is your takeaway from what happened in that senate chamber a day before everybody left for this recess. as chuck schumer said, this should be a nonpartisan issue. this should be something we all care about. the weirdest moment looking at that afternoon hearing for me is you had republicans making these conspiratorial allegations about it during the wrong hearing. i think a better audience for that was in the morning. but when you're laying out the back story and look at the remit that robert mueller had to look

at election interference, it seemed dissident to have them talking about it in that setting. >> and to jill's point i think we can boil the democratic message down to one word, which is guilty. >> okay, i accept that. >> you know, it's disheartening, it's deflating watching chuck on the floor saying it shouldn't be, about it is, a partisan issue. it is a divide. and i -- the argument that the republicans are making that they don't do publicly but are saying t to themselves and to each other is they think democrats are going to play fast and loose with this. first of all, i can't believe that's the worst thing in the world that more people will vote. but what's truly scary about this is, again, you know, forget about the fact even if bob mueller had been the energizer bunny the other day, he didn't say much except the topics we're talking about, about exoneration, about wikileaks and about the ongoing threat.

and it was just not about russia. why would we be surprised about that? we have donald trump every day nearly saying it didn't happen. it surely didn't come to my benefit. oh, my the way, come 2020, i'm ready to take more. and, you know, i try to avoid if hillary had won stuff, but if he had won, let's just say the exact same circumstances, if he had won the electoral college by 70,000 votes and someone said, hey, we think russia was helping you, she wouldn't bury it under the rug. she would be incensed. she would say this is not going to stand. i don't care it benefitted. russia would be screwed right now because she would be saying this isn't acceptable. if you do it again or if we see you do it again -- and by the way, we are seeing you do it again, we're going come back pretty hard. so this should be something above politics. >> it's not. >> it's not. and even within the jaded, you

know, world of what we all live in, it's disheartening. >> can i add to something he just said. he said if hillary had won. if there hadn't been a fox news, if there wasn't one right now, there's no question that impeachment would have already started, criminal trials might have started, office of legal counsel could have been changed. their opinion is just an opinion. but for sure american people would believe overwhelmingly that he is guilty of crimes. >> jill, you can't possibly be saying there's hypocrisy in the republican party. >> michael steele, i want to get your observations of my home state senator. that's richard burr, head of the senate intelligence committee. i mentioned the report they released this week. he by doing that is sounding the alarm about all of this. how do you watch him, the role he's playing as we move forward with this? >> step up. declare the space and push the senate and the house to move and

act. all of these scenarios that we've been dealing with, we deal with them and have to deal with them the way we do because at least half the participants don't act or react. so, you know, when you have four pieces of legislation that are put up to deal with ballot security, safeguarding our elections and the republican majority leader blocks those four, okay. that's fine. then what are your plans? if you don't like the four that we've put up, then give us your plan. give us something. don't just go home for summer recess. so when you look at someone like burr who's saying, look, we've got to start to move and act and do these things, the test for him is going to be to get his colleagues to get behind and reinforce that effort. yeah, i can stand up and wave the white flag and say, okay, we've got to do something, but

if we don't, all i did was wave a flag. dramatic development in the fight over the wall the president wants to build on the u.s./mexico border. why the president takes a victory lap, his opponents are vowing they're going to fight on. re vo wing they're going to fight on it's show time.

let's cowboy up! exhilarating speed. woo! precision control. woo! maximum reliability. access denied. [ repeats ] access denied. if it's not xfinity xfi, it's not good enough. for wifi with super powers, get xfinity xfi. and go see, fast & furious presents, hobbs & shaw. august 2.

this is "up." i'm david dpchgura. the administration can move ahead with its plans to divert $2.5 billion from the defense

department to build a wall on the u.s./mexico border. the 5-4 decision lifts a stay imposed by a federal judge in california. president trump tweeting big win for border security and the rule of law. house speaker nancy pelosi says the supreme court has allowed the president to steal military funds to spend on a wasteful, ineffective border wall rejected by congress. adding, our founders designed a democracy governed by the people, not a monarchy. to set the table for our discussion, let's turn to mike at the white house in washington, d.c. as i said the president is crowing about this this morning, mike. help us understand where things go from here. they can proceed, but to what ending? >> reporter: first of all, let's provide some context, david. the president called this one back in february. you remember the record shutdown, 30 some days at the outset of this year. the high-profile standoff over border funding, over funding the wall, the wall that incidentally president trump said mexico would pay for. he wanted a lot of money for it.

the democratically controlled house wouldn't do it. they gave him $1.4 billion but he declared a national emergency, took to the rose garden and said the lower courts are going to strike this down but i'll ending up winning in the supreme court just like i did in the so-called muslim ban. right now he's come out on top in the supreme court. a friday night ruling. of course the supreme court, as you know, is out of session right now but this was an emergency brought to them by the administration. they said they needed a decision and needed to hand out the contracts, their authority to do that would expire on september 30th. and so the supreme court in a 5-4 decision, you're right, $2.5 billion, some 100 miles of fencing to replace older fencing, lower fencing, not as high-tech fencing. the president crowing about it, calling it a victory. it will still be fought over in court. this is a result of a suit brought in california. two lower courts had halted construction, halted the transfer of this money, but now

the supreme court says it can go forward, david. >> mike, thank you very much. mike joining us from the white house this morning. jill wine-banks, we draw upon your experience in the watergate era but you have experience in the pentagon as well as general counsel of the u.s. army. what do you make of this? help us understand how you see this going forward from here. nancy pelosi is making the case congressional cates the money, the administration can't do this. what a novel thing. >> i think it is a real threat to our constitutional framework for government. we have separation of powers and the house appropriates money and the president cannot take from the power of the purse and just say, okay, i'm going to spend it differently than you have allocated. that's the role of our elected representatives in the house and in the congress and that's where it should stay. and remember, they're taking money from the defense department. so the defense department had that money allocated for its use as it wanted to use it. so now he's diminishing the defense department budget by

taking the money for a wall on a phony claim that there's an emergency, which there isn't, and so i think it's sort of bad in terms of the facts, it's bad in terms of the constitution, it's bad in terms of policy, and it's just one more threat in the same way that he's stonewalling congress on all of the subpoenas, enabling them -- or disenabling them from being able to pursue oversight. that's a serious problem and we need to make sure that the constitution remains intact after this presidency. >> michael steele, i can hear clapping from the oval office, at least one person is clapping at this division. how about the party as a whole? the president taking a victory lap here himself. is this something that republicans largely get behind? >> yeah. have we heard anything to the contrary? have we heard anyone counsel the president that this is violative to the constitution, about the impact it could have? the impact it could have on the defense department alone?

all of that is on the table, but no one is sort of calling out and saying that this could potentially be a problem. and again, this speaks to where republican leadership and the party as a whole finds itself right now. trump has got them in a chokehold. at a certain point they just tapped out. okay, you win. we're done. whatever you want, we'll give it to you. and i think we're going to see more of that. this is just -- as these cases continue to roll through, there won't be a congressional response or pushback. there won't be any type of internal discussions any longer. i think that we'll have the effect of sort of slowing the president's role. he's getting the wins. he's chalking them up. or at least he's calling them wins. and that plays into the overall psyche with that base out that, that broader base that looks at this and says, see, this guy is fighting and they're throwing everything at him and he's still

winning. >> felipe, he's got them in a chokehold and he's got a few countries in chokehold as well. this deal that he's brokered with guatemala that asylum claims will be done through a third-party configuration. i think guatemala's legislature has to approve any agreement like this. but drawing upon your experience in the state department, he's reducing funding to these northern triangle countries, not looking at the push factors at all. help us understand this decision. >> to start, he's practically defunding the state department himself. that was one of the priorities coming in. but it's not that easy. look, again, immigration is a wicked problem. it's not like it's gotten this far because people have ignored it and just decided not to hit the simple solution button. but these are not the way -- these are not the fixes. and, no, we don't get to tell third countries exactly how to do it. you know what's proof of that?

we're paying $2.5 billion, not mexico. this emergency isn't coming out of their defense budget, it's coming out of ours. and this continued -- you know, it's a show. it's a show. and it's an election issue. he got elected on it. most human beings would say he didn't get it done. you didn't get an inch of wall, things are still terrible, except now he's going to campaign on it again. he's going to use build the wall. they're going to use those bumper stickers all over again as a rally cry as opposed to a failure. and, you know, this is another -- in terms of the republicans, i think they found $2.5 billion a great use of money to shut him up. >> jill, last question to you. nbc news reporting about active duty troops in a border processing center. your reaction to that. we knew that troops were going to be sent down to the border, but the way that they're being used. their presence in the facility like that?

>> it's in the entire system of immigration having them at the border and posse comitatus is not a well-known law but it came up when i was general counsel and should be lookds at very closely here. they're not supposed to be involved in civilian law enforcement. that's not what our military is for. and it diverts them from training and from other things that they are supposed to do doing the same way if you take $2.5 billion from the military, it affects them. but to something michael said about congress' role, the question in the supreme court was standing, were the people who filed, do they have the right, do they have some damage to them. well, congress does. i think that the house could well bring a suit saying we have the power of the purse and he has taken it away from us and that's the damage to the constitution. >> well, it's possible the house is doing it, just taking it very

slowly, very carefully, waiting for america to support it. >> they're not acting slowly now. you saw what happened. nancy pelosi approved them going ahead to use the impeachment word. >> jill, don't get me started. >> mcgahn subpoenas are coming next and once he's subpoenaed and forced to testify. >> we'll get back to that, i promise. after donald trump unites the democratic party's left and center, nancy pelosi and aoc bury the hatchet although there is some disagreement whether there is a hatchet. is s disagreement whether there is a hatchet [alarm beeping] {tires screeching} {truck honking} (avo) life doesn't give you many second chances. but a subaru can.

(dad) you guys ok? you alright? wow. (avo) eyesight with pre-collision braking. standard on the subaru ascent. the three-row subaru ascent. love. it's what makes a subaru a subaru. o♪ ozempic®! ♪ oh! oh! (announcer) people with type 2 diabetes are excited about the potential of once-weekly ozempic®. in a study with ozempic®, a majority of adults lowered their blood sugar and reached an a1c of less than 7 and maintained it. oh! under 7? (announcer) and you may lose weight.

in the same one-year study, adults lost on average up to 12 pounds. oh! up to 12 pounds? (announcer) a two-year study showed that ozempic® does not increase the risk of major cardiovascular events like heart attack, stroke, or death. oh! no increased risk? (announcer) ozempic® should not be the first medicine for treating diabetes, or for people with type 1 diabetes or diabetic ketoacidosis. do not share needles or pens. don't reuse needles. do not take ozempic® if you have a personal or family history of medullary thyroid cancer, multiple endocrine neoplasia syndrome type 2, or if you are allergic to ozempic®. stop taking ozempic® and get medical help right away if you get a lump or swelling in your neck, severe stomach pain, itching, rash, or trouble breathing. serious side effects may happen, including pancreatitis. tell your doctor if you have diabetic retinopathy or vision changes. taking ozempic® with a sulfonylurea or insulin may increase the risk for low blood sugar. common side effects are nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, stomach pain, and constipation. some side effects can lead to dehydration, which may worsen kidney problems.

i discovered the potential with ozempic®. ♪ oh! oh! oh! ozempic®! ♪ (announcer) if eligible, you may pay as little as $25 per prescription. ask your health care provider today about once-weekly ozempic®.

this is "up." house speaker nancy pelosi stressing family unity. she spent half an hour with congressman alexandria ocasio-cortez on friday and afterward trump's re-election campaign released this video. >> yeah, you know, if that's what radical means, call me a radical. >> call me a radical. call me a radical. >> well, that comes as speaker pelosi continues to downplay any internal tensions in her caucus. house democrats are headed home and will have six weeks to think about what will top their agenda when they get back to business as usual.

felipe, did you with your bury hatchet? nancy pelosi said there's no hatchet to bury. let me play a bit of tape here. nancy pelosi and jerry nadler talking about the time frame for impeachment, potential impeachment. let's take a listen to what they had to say back-to-back. >> no, i'm not trying to run out the clock. let's get sophisticated about this, okay? we will proceed when we have what we need to proceed, not one day sooner. >> we will continue to seek testimony from key fact witnesses. our work will continue into the august recess and we will use those subpoenas if we must. >> the work continues, they're getting sophisticated. felipe, your reaction to that. we were talking earlier about the debate over impeachment. woe talked about it through the commercial break as well. but your reaction on that front. >> it's funny to watch those two examples of supposed breaks. the one that gets more attention is aoc and her colleagues.

that's actually the lesser of the two internal disputes than the one that's going on with nadler. i mean what you saw yesterday with congressman nadler was basically saying, madam speaker, we've had this conversation in private a number of times. i just don't agree with you. and i'm going to make sure that we continue this process and i'm going to make sure people know we're continuing this process before they scatter for six weeks. i'm going to be honest, as someone who watched all seven hours of the hearing, it was deflating. i'm probably one of those people that had too high of expectations of what he was going to say, not how he was going to say it. but rather than say i can't talk about that might have given expansive answers or at least repeat it. but the point is that is a bigger fissure. you have 235 people in the democratic caucus. you've got just at 100 who have said we want to move forward with impeachment. that is a much bigger fissure than the speaker and four

people, because these are 100 people who are saying -- they're not 100 people for it and 135 against. there's 100 people for it that have said it publicly that are trying to tell the speaker we don't agree with this process, we don't agree with this plan, we don't agree with this pace. you've got 135 that's going to keep getting smaller, especially as the six weeks go on. >> jerry nadler introduced going to the courts yesterday, saying he's doing that with the approval of house speaker nancy pelosi. how significant was that, him making that move and also the indication that she gave it her blessing? >> i think that's very significant. it shows a change in her, and i think if you listen to the two quotes you put up, they aren't that different. they're both saying we're going to get the facts. that's what i've been urging from the very beginning, using the watergate model. facts make a difference. and so as they come out, it will be significant. and it was a matter of substance, not of style that mattered in terms of mueller's testimony. i think substantively he gave

all the bases that they needed to proceed. it's clear crimes have been committed and it needs to go forward, so i think it was fine. i'm not concerned at all. >> michael steele, they got this funding bill passed. something nancy pelosi said afterward is i consider myself a weaver making sure these come together. in the context of getting these fissures to go away. i know there's been a lot of talk that the best thing that could have been done to unify this party was president trump attacking these four freshmen congresswomen. >> yeah, that's true. i think trump and republicans overplayed their hand a little bit when it came to the squad. it allowed two things to happen on the video -- >> the video tells you that, doesn't it? >> just a little bit with the circle eyes and all that. what it did was two things. one, it reinforced the democrats to sort of come into space together and sort of stand their

ground against this. so it helped on their fund-raising. they raised a lot of money off of it. number two, it distracted away from the tension that was underneath, which is why they had the meeting yesterday. so nancy is the weaver in that sense too. when you look at what she's doing, she is weaving two things at the same time. they're going to be two very different garments when they're done. the first is with her squad. she's learned by watching both speaker boehner and ryan that what happens when you have an unmanaged force within your caucus. she has done everything that she can to make sure they understand, a, who the boss is. b, i respect what you have to say, but, c, know who the boss is, all right. and so has strained as that picture may have been between her and aoc at the end, i'm sure

certain messages were delivered. the second thing she's weaving is giving the committees the room to go out and get the facts, to reinforce what mueller put on the table. yes, mueller didn't do to your point, felipe, what we thought he would do and not just say, no, i didn't exonerate him, but for the olc opinion we would have indicted the sitting president of the united states. so now what she's got to do and i think they're trying to do through these hearings is to get that part of the evidence to bring to the table. it would not surprise me that come late this fall there is a proceeding that begins known as impeachment. >> do you all agree on that? >> no, i'd be surprised. >> you'd be surprised? >> if that story line comes in. >> i hope i'm wrong. i don't like being wrong, i like to think it's rare. i don't think i'm going to be wrong on this. she doesn't want to do it. >> i agree with that. >> but the last couple of days has been about pelosi versus nadler. if it's pelosi versus nadler the next two weeks, i know who wins

that fight. in terms of yesterday, again, i thought what she said yesterday was pitch perfect. the problem is she said it six months too late. the two interesting things she said yesterday was, one, that her members can say what they want. and the second was i'm for this legal lawsuit. and, you know, a former boss taught me a saying, be for what's happening. i think speaker pelosi was being for what's happening. nadler was filing this lawsuit. he wasn't asking for permission. a hundred members are not asking for permission. it was happening. she might as well make it look like i'm okay with it, because that's her biggest fear is the appearance of the caucus not being unified. >> jill, last word to you quickly. >> i think that when members come back from meeting with constituents, they have six weeks to really interact, they're going to be hearing from constituents that they want this to proceed. and that's what i'm suspecting. >> whether they want it or not, we should be doing it.

>> we'll talk in six weeks time and see what happens. after a short break, the bombastic boris johnson becomes the united kingdom's prime minister and the administration here seems to be thrilled to be dealing with someone the president referred to as britain trump. omeone the president referred to as britain trump. to the ford hurry up and save sales event. for the first time ever get 20% estimated savings on select ford models, plus earn complimentary maintenance through fordpass rewards. it all adds up. don't you love math? so get here asap because tasty deals and summer go fast. get in or lose out on 20% estimated savings on select ford models, plus earn complimentary maintenance through fordpass rewards.

but some give their clients cookie cutter portfolios. fisher investments tailors portfolios to your goals and needs. some only call when they have something to sell. fisher calls regularly so you stay informed. and while some advisors are happy to earn commissions whether you do well or not. fisher investments fees are structured so we do better when you do better. maybe that's why most of our clients come from other money managers. fisher investments. clearly better money management.

i say to all the doubters, dude. we are going to energize the country. we're going to get brexit done. >> welcome back to "up."

i'm david gura. the united kingdom's new prime minister, boris johnson, brings a not-so-typical approach to that job. his ascent has been peppered by his showmanship, his faunondnes for broad declarations. mr. johnson or bojo is cut from trumpian cloth. boris johnson has a fondness for zip lining, for driving tanks. there was the time he tackled a child while playing rugby. the bombastic boris stands out, but one thing is certain, he has a fan and supporter in one president trump. >> they say britain trump, they call him britain trump. people are saying that's a good thing. they like me over there. that's what they wanted. that's what they need. that's what they need. he'll get it done. boris is good. he's going to do a good job. >> we are going to turn to the guardian's man in washington, david smith. he's the washington, d.c., bureau chief. britain trump was the phrase the president used. i wonder about the veracity of that. is that something they're saying

over in the united kingdom? what do you make of the parallel? >> i don't think anyone has ever used the phrase britain trump before. and also the polls and protests that we've seen in the uk suggest donald trump is not so popular as he's claiming there. but certainly i think there are two kindred political spirits here. both donald trump and boris johnson are creatures of the post-truth, post-shame celebrity era of politics. there are a lot of parallels. they both have a habit of making stuff up. that was certainly true of johnson in his days as a journalist, who was fired for making up some quotes and spent years inventing stories about the european union, which really helped generate some of the hostility to the eu that led to brexit. of course brexit will really unite them, so i think you'll see johnson head to washington

pretty early and there will be some very warm relations. >> david, let me just read a quotation from a former colleague of mine, frank langua langford. he said like trump johnson is a larger than life populist who made controlling immigration, restoring his nation's standing in the world key issues. he is given to speaking in latin, making ancient historical allusions and written a biographychurchill. you mentioned that he's facing brexit and facing travails domestically. but there are cohesive similarities to them when you look at global policy? >> less so, i think, indeed in terms of character and style. there is a lot of overlap all the way through the peculiar blond hair styles. in terms of substance and policy, once you scratch the surface, i think you will find differences. whether that's on the iran

nuclear deal, to which britain remains committed, whether it's the paris climate accords, whether it's free trade, which johnson has always believed in, even the issue of immigration. johnson is not a wall builder. in the past he's talked about amnesties for undocumented immigrants and so on. and in fact all the way from his belief, his great interest in ancient greece and rome and his love of the classics, his travels, i think, in some ways he's an internationalist. his main objection to europe has often been the bureaucrats in brussels rather than europe itself. >> felipe, let me get your perspective on this. we have this burgeoning friendship between these two leaders and so what? we're familiar with the special relationship. how does it change as a result of this? when you look at what kind of relationship he might have with boris johnson versus the kind

that he had with theresa may? >> well, boris johnson speaks latin, he's interested in biographies, he plays rugby, it sounds just like -- you know, i don't think it makes a difference because contrary to the lie donald trump was telling about how people think it's a good thing, people don't think it's a good thing, i think boris johnson wouldn't like the comparison because the brits have several occasions in the last few years. don't forget the state visit came after basically two years of being snubbed, of being told we don't want you here. and the white house not wanting to go because he was going to be protested. you've got the balloons. i mean the balloons started over there and they have modified the balloons. there's now a baby holding a cell phone. so i don't know watching that if i feel better other countries are having the same problem or if it's oh, my god, we're all doomed. >> david, the last trip to london he brought his whole family.

there was an effort to protect an american royalty image during that trip to the uk. help us understand from where you sit here in washington watching those worlds. what did that say to you, that last visit the president took, his sense of or attitude toward the uk vis-a-vis his sense of himself? >> i think it was perhaps old-fashioned, that love of britain there and the sense of down t downton abbey and the things trump stands for. trump talked about how much he loved meeting the queen, that sort of deference to past traditions. i think particularly the trump family just adored all the trappings, all the pomp and pageantry, perhaps in a similar way to trump's love of bastille day in france and when china has rolled out the red carpet. it really flatters his ego. but tellingly is perhaps out of

step with a lot of modern britain and modern london, and we see that in the way he insults the muslim mayor of london. he's far more comfortable with the very white british royal family and notably, of course, did not meet meghan markle and also took a swipe at her. >> david smith joining us from washington, d.c., this morning. david, thank you very much. i appreciate it. the 2020 clash taking the oxygen out of the campaign trail as joe biden and cory booker tussel over criminal justice ahead of next week's debate in detroit. ahead of next week's debat e in detroit. and we'll match it at the end of your first year. nice! i'm thinking about a scuba diving trip. woman: ooh! (gasp) or not. you okay? yeah, no, i'm good. earn miles. we'll match 'em at the end of your first year.

liberty mutual customizes your car insurance, so you only pay for yeawhat you need.d. i wish i could shake your hand. granted. only pay for what you need. ♪ liberty. liberty. liberty. liberty. ♪

this is "up." i'm david gura. a new poll from fox news indicates president trump is in trouble. in hypothetical head-to-head matchups he trails joe biden and bernie sanders and barely edges out senators elizabeth warren and kamala harris. days away from the second democratic debate, biden still faces criticism on his record on race from two prominent candidates, senators harris and cory booker. on friday senator booker continued to attack vice president biden on that record. >> i will always speak truth to power. watching the crime bills of the '80s and the '90s and all the

things that he put into place, this is something that should be talked about. the response to having a substantive conversation about people's records shouldn't be to go on the attack. i found his substantive challenge to the record is attacks. >> cory booker, radical love, is giving tough love a try. joining me, alley vitaly. help us understand how this is the focus of candidates on the trail this week. we're looking to the debate, seeing three candidates in particular on stage. to what degree is this issue being talked about on the trail? >> reporter: look, i think alf the candidates are looking ahead to detroit. they're in the process, hearing elizabeth warren in new hampshire, she's always been someone that framed this in her own way, not talking about the other candidates. in the course of conversations i have been having with strategists as you talk about what the debate may look like, booker and biden are challenging

how it might develop. it will be booker going after biden for being the proud architect of a failed system on criminal justice reform, someone like joe biden that took aim at booker's time as mayor. that's probably how that will shape up. a lot of strategists see the first debate as a wakeup call for joe biden who struggled against kamala harris and her line of prepared attacks. that's what we're looking for on the second night. with elizabeth warren, she had a big milestone, one million grass roots donors. that bolsters what she's done, shoe the traditional fund-raising, not doing high dollar donors and fund-raisers, puts her in the league with bernie sanders who also has a million grass roots donors. >> thank you very much from a farmers market there this morning. >> reporter: yes. >> michael steele, i want your reaction to what joe biden said

in recent weeks, how he repositioned himself. he got into the campaign late, said he wasn't attacking other democratic candidates, looking to the general election. now he is saying if they want to talk, paraphrase, if they want to talk about the past, i am ready to. >> he has to thrown down. he realizes he has to smack back. not his intent or how he wanted to do this. a little bit of hubris and little bit of former vice president. yeah, you do. the next generation is ready to take the leadership mantle now. and they're talking about being the future. what he is trying to get folks to understand is we need to talk about transition because you have a transition. that's where the battle lines are drawn. this discussion around the crime bill to be honest is phony because at the time the country was in the thros of a massive crime way. congress and states responded to

that to get it under control. there are a heck of a lot of democrats that seem to be silent or staying on the sidelines, i understand why joe did that. well, you were part of that system that bought into this. if i'm joe, i'm saying look, we responded in the moment in the times. if we could have projected out, said this would have this kind of impact and knew it then, we would have probably drafted a different bill. but don't sit back and second guess my leadership, don't sit back, second guess decisions we made at a critical time in this nation's history. you need to prepare to make those critical decisions as president. are you prepared for that? that's the point he needs to make. >> if he needed a speech writer, he is offering good material. >> i was saying, i wish he was listening now to you. i agree completely. it was a horrible time in america and everybody reacted to it. and no one predicted the horrible outcome.

i think joe biden is correct. we have to look to the future now. let's fix the problems. let's rewrite laws. it has had a horrible impact. it's had an unfair impact, and it hasn't accomplished at all what it was set out to do. but we have to remember that we were responding to a particular crisis and it didn't start with him, it started during nixon actually when the crime wave started, everybody was like we have to stop it. >> law and order. >> that was his big thing. i think biden is a very good centrist candidate and makes a lot of sense, his health care plan is terrific. i think that he needs to listen. he has started not apologizing, you can't apologize. i acted with all of the facts i had. i made a sensible decision. now i'm saying i am ready to move on, take a different action. >> last thing, when are people talking about kamala harris' personal history, a lot of talk

about biden's personal history. there was a sense that that was something he wanted to engage with. he brought up she was a prosecutor, he never was. do you see that moment as something that resurfaces in the next debate? she's the owner of that personal professional history thus far in this campaign. are you at all surprised it has been something she had to talk about and defend? >> i think she has to talk about it in general, especially among african americans who have questioned decisions she made, some things that happened in her office. but this dynamic is shaping up to be almost comical. babe ruth would stand at the plate and point, the up version of the bat, pointing to left field, saying that's where i'll hit it. i feel like it is like the 4g commercial, everyone is fast, someone is ten minutes later.

biden has an answer a week later. cory booker tried this last time. had a fight all week about a phone call. and then it was kamala harris. >> they're telling me to wrap. next up, joy reed uncovers election security next. reed uns election security next e blood s, but it can be difficult to find a balanced solution. try great-tasting boost glucose control. the patented blend of protein, fat, and carbs is part of a balanced formula that's clinically shown to help manage blood sugar levels. in fact, it provides 60% more protein than the leading diabetes nutrition shake and contains only 1 carb choice. enjoy the balanced nutrition of boost glucose control as part of a healthy diet.

russia, if you're listening, i hope you're able to find the 30,000 emails that are missing. i think you will probably be rewarded mightily by our press. >> good morning. welcome to "am joy." happy anniversary. i didn't get you anything, i was a little busy. today is the three year anniversary of the infamous words by donald trump. what better way to commemorate the day the republican candidate for president personally invited russia to launch a cyber attack on an american citizen to help him get elected, and to give