boss baby is back. we're going to have to face creepy babies. don't look at me. jail yard babies. i like glue. and ninja babies! oh my gosh. oh my gosh! if it's friday, president biden tries to seize on a positive jobs report. while the path to economic recovery might be back on track, the future of his infrastructure package, not so much. the u.s. is weighing going on the offensive against russia after the latest string of cyberattacks, even potentially using the military to go after russian hackers. leon pennetta joins me. trump's white house counsel

don mcgahn is being interviewed. what's going on behind closed doors? why it matters. we will talk about it coming up. ♪♪ welcome to friday. it's "meet the press daily." i'm chuck todd in studio two days in a row. it's nice. we saw president biden react to a jobs report that showed above average but not dazzling hiring yet in may. the numbers came in slightly below expectations. biden tried to use the positive economic numbers to force the issue on his legislative agenda. >> now is the time to celebrate the process we have been making. now is the time to build on the foundation we have laid. while progress is undeniable, it's not assured. that's why i propose the american jobs plan and the

american family plan. for generational investment, we need today, we need to make those investments today to be able to continue to succeed tomorrow. >> for what it's worth, the worst place to get analysis about this jobs report is from a press relief from an elected official. that i can promise you. the president plans to talk once again with republican senator shelley moore-capito of west virginia. after meeting a few days ago which produced little in actual progress on an infrastructure deal. the president's talks with republicans appear to be on life support. these likely doomed from the start talks with the republican senator from west virginia were really the only way the president was going do start his negotiations with the democratic senator from west virginia. this is part of the dance that is now going to begin phase two. without joe manchin, democrats can't do much of anything

anyway. manchin is standing by his position. he is not alone. he is just the one willing to publically say it. there's probably only two republicans that are in the mix to come along, susan collins and lisa murkowski. here is what he told garrett haake yesterday. >> reporter: if this falls apart tomorrow and the president calls and says it's time for democrats to go it alone, are you ready? >> i don't think it's going to fall apart. >> reporter: are you ready to go it alone with just democrats? >> i don't think you should. >> reporter: at all? >> i don't think. right now, we need to be bipartisan. if we can't become -- i have said this. i have never seen a pothole that had a republican or democrat name on it. it will bust your tire. i don't care who you are. >> why does that leave president biden, democrats and the future of the covid recovery? this virus killed more than 600,000 fellow americans. we are losing 2,000 to 3,000

americans every week, even now with more than 60% of the population vaccinated. mike memoli is outside the white house. garrett haake is in morgantown, west virginia. let me start with mike. it's pretty clear where this is headed. joe biden can't say, he still has to get joe manchin on board. it's easy for bernie sanders to say enough is enough. how are they going to walk this line? >> reporter: how many times have you heard president biden describe himself as the eternal optimism? i think this week we have seen i think two occasions of his own frustration bubbling to the surface. there was a moment in tulsa when i was traveling with him tuesday where he reacted a bit to some of the cable coverage, let's say, to say he can't wave a

magic wand. there are two senators in his own party who are an impediment to doing things along party lines. i thought in his jobs remarks today there was, let's call it a bit more urgency as he laid out what he believes has been a very successful strategy so far in terms of the american rescue plan, arguing it's worked, the strategy of growing from the bottom up and middle out as he put it is what is needed putting us in contrast to our european partners who haven't seen the same growth. you look at what the reality is in terms of the negotiations with republicans. he said he is determined to get as big a deal as he can get. it's not clear as he moved into this final conversation with senator capito there that they are going to get a republican vote. that's why the alarm bells are going off based on what senator manchin told garrett. if he has seen what -- a lot of democrats think these talks with republicans are simply about

showing to joe manchin, you are never going to get republicans on board. manchin still after all this process is saying, we need bipartisan support. it leaves them with very few options going forward, even with them poised to go reconciliation route. >> it's obvious what has to happen. joe manchin has to be the point on negotiations. when does that begin? mike memoli with that. let's see if we can get it from garrett haake. garrett, you are very good at giving the reality check. we know this hour on this channel is about reality check. not what you wish would happen but what's going to happen. when joe manchin talks about bipartisan support, is he talking about getting to 60 or talking about lisa murkowski and susan collins? that's question number one. >> reporter: yeah. i think it might be the ladder. susan collins is probably the person in the u.s. senate who

joe manchin is closest to. there's the republican working group that's talking to the white house every day that's led by shelley moore-capito. for him, bipartisanship is a goal in and of itself, which sometimes obscures the actual policy goals that he is working on. he wants to bring people -- his friends along in the discussion. if you are the white house, if you are a democrat watching this, you are hanging your ray of hope here on manchin saying right now in his answer to me that he is not ready to do anything on a non-bipartisan basis, because it was not a fully shermanesque, i will not go there. there's a lot that won't move because joe manchin wants to see republicans involved. >> there's another aspect that too many people don't understand

about, quote, going it alone. you are only going to go it alone as far as joe manchin wants to go. you are not going to get your $1.7 trillion deal. you are probably going to get the actual trillion dollars in new money, maybe a little bit more and that's it, even if you just get joe manchin. are congressional democrats aware of that? >> reporter: i think they are. i phrased it this way. the president should be careful what offers you puts to shelley moore-capito because joe manchin might accept one. he is not willing to raise the corporate tax rate back up to 28%. he hasn't exactly said what he is willing to do. every offer that goes to capito about a way to pay for this or a top line spending measure may ultimately become something that manchin latches on to and says that's as far as he is willing to go. we don't talk about this. this is the dynamic because manchin has decided to throw his weight around on this.

there are 49 other democrats who could do the same thing. including progressives who could say that it's not enough what biden has proposed. this whole thing is extremely tenuous right now in the senate. >> you brought up a very important point just now. whatever deal biden offers is probably a baseline, perhaps, that -- every time you lower it, that's more likely the top end of what even joe manchin even sniffs at even if he is willing to do that. garrett haake and mook memoli, thank you for getting us started. i want to bring in a couple of economists to break down the jobs report. joining me is douglas hotz-eagen. austin goolsbee. let's start with the basics on

this jobs report. austin, is it good, not great or fair -- is it -- it feels like a b minus. okay, it's above average but i wish it were better. >> that sounds like a tough grade, but i think that spirit is exactly right. fairly solid. we want it to be better. i think now that we are getting control of the spread of the virus, i think it probably is going to get better. as the months go forward. we are a long way down in the hole. i don't think president biden's wrong that we made a lot of progress. i don't think the critics are wrong that we still got a long way to go. >> doug, how would you describe this sort of -- it's funny, stephanie ruhle described it as almost a showdown on low-wage jobs. we saw wages inched up on

low-wage jobs. acceptance inched up. is that what we are looking at? you have a sector of the labor force who is looking for better wages on some of these lower-wage job openings? >> i think the first thing is there's some strong numbers in this report. if you look at payrolls, which is workers times hours worked times hourly wages, it grew at 11.3%. that's off the charts. in part because wages grew at 6.1%. that's off the charts. the achilles heel is labor force participation didn't budge. we are not getting workers coming back and taking jobs. among the lead educated, since january, labor force participation has dropped by two full percentage points. that's really something that is going the wrong direction. very much at odds with what went on in 2018 and 2019 when those workers came in and got jobs and got raises.

>> what's the formula here? is this just -- pull krugman used the metaphor, this is going to happen, this is tires squealing and eventually your car will go fast but you are not moving yet. what did you make of that metaphor? is that what we are looking at? do we need to goose the labor shortage issue here a little bit? >> the only thing i would say is, if you are a person who thinks that this is coming from ui, then you gotta look at this monthly number and see yet again for the third month in a row massive blockbuster leading sector is leisure and hospitality. the sector you wouldn't think would be coming back strongest. the people dropping out of the labor force, if you are on ui, you count as unemployed. you are not dropping out of the labor force if you are on ui. i don't think it's necessarily tires squealing. this is quite a solid report.

the own thing that makes this many what modest or disappointing is that the hole was so deep, we need more than this on a sustained basis. >> doug, do you have an idea of what you would do to -- besides taking away the extra unemployment, is there another way in your mind to goose this labor shortage issue? >> i don't see an easy way to do it, chuck. this isn't something where you send out checks and solve the problem. figure out why people are unable to return to jobs they previously had or go search for jobs which are advertised everywhere at higher wages. there's a list of -- you round up the list of suspects. you have the child responsibilities. you still have people afraid of getting infected and being unwilling to resume their economic activities. the science doesn't tell us how much each is impacting things. as we go forward, it's less and less the virus, more and more the policy.

that's worth watching. >> are we just all trying to look at this too soon? it feels like we're going to -- i look at just the white collar private sector. it's clear that we are going to have a slow movement back into the office, because lo and behold, it's summer. there's been this demand that people want a little more break. is the october -- the september jobs report the first one that will really tell us where we are headed as an economy? >> maybe. you raise a good point, which is, if you put this comeback against any previous comeback from a recession, we are actually on the fastest speed. you have the youtube video playing at 2.5 speed. it's just that our patience level with recovery and business cycles has gone so down during this pandemic. >> doug, same question to you. is this really -- we are trying to almost -- almost trying too

hard to read tea leaves. give this a quarter, not a month. >> i think there's a lot of truth to that. one of the problems is, this recovery is unusual because this recession is unprecedented. this is a recession where income rose throughout in the aggregate. wealth rose throughout in the aggregate. this isn't a typical recession. the recovery is not typical. it's driven by the virus. we had to watch how people react. we don't have a good feel for it. >> if you were in your old position right now, how would you use this report to make the case for the larger investments in infrastructure? >> if you remember, when i was there, i used to say, don't take any one month's job report to mean anything. >> you were honest. >> you need three months. >> you weren't a good spinner. >> the thing is, the pandemic revealed a bunch of things that

we knew. it made them more extreme. the neglect of big public investments like infrastructure, like health care, like childcare, we knew about those things and they got worse in pandemic. i think that's why when you look at the polling, there's still pretty widespread support for the ideas that joe biden is pushing in these packages, because people know that those are problems. i think they should push on that. >> there's something to be said here. we may be arguing over details. the public wants a tighter safety net. what we argue over is the details of what that looks like. appreciate both of you coming on and sharing your perspectives. coming up, possible payback, the president prepares to meet vladimir putin.

what we are learning about the highly anticipated u.s. intelligence report on ufo sightings. the truth is out there, folks, and the serious national security concerns being raised. leon pennetta will be here. facebook banned president trump for two years just when he might be starting a re-elect. rtt ♪ well, the names have all changed ♪ ♪ since you hung around ♪ ♪ but those dreams have remained ♪ ♪ and they've turned around ♪ ♪ who'd have thought they'd lead you ♪ ♪ (who'd have thought they'd lead you) ♪ ♪ back here where we need you ♪ ♪ (back here where we need you) ♪ ♪ yeah, we tease him a lot... ♪ welcome back, america. it sure is good to see you. ♪ ♪i've got the brains you've got the looks♪

♪let's make lots of money♪ ♪you've got the brawn♪ ♪i've got the brains♪ ♪let's make lots of♪ ♪uh uh uh♪ ♪oohhh there's a lot of opportunities♪ with allstate, drivers who switched saved over $700. saving is easy when you're in good hands. allstate click or call to switch today. i've lost count of how many asthma attacks i've had. allstate but my nunormal with nucala? fewer asthma attacks. nucala is a once-monthly add-on injection for severe eosinophilic asthma. not for sudden breathing problems. allergic reactions can occur. get help right away for swelling of face, mouth, tongue, or trouble breathing. infections that can cause shingles have occurred. don't stop steroids unless told by your doctor. tell your doctor if you have a parasitic infection. may cause headache, injection-site reactions, back pain, and fatigue. ask your doctor about nucala. find your nunormal with nucala. hearing is important to living life to the fullest. that's why inside every miracle-ear store,

you'll find better cheers with your favorite fans. you'll find a better life is in store at miracle-ear, when you experience the exclusive miracle-ear advantage. our team is devoted to your care, with free service adjustments and cleaning of your miracle-ear hearing aids for life. we're so confident we can improve your life, we're offering a 30-day risk-free trial. call 1-800-miracle today and experience the miracle-ear advantage.

we are back. the biden administration could be headed for a shift in how they respond to russian-backed cyberattacks. the pentagon is considering an offensive cyberattack against the hackers. the turn toward potential action, maybe military action, but something that's beyond investigatory, signals an escalation in the way the united states has dealt with cyberattacks and how much of a threat the administration

believes they are to our national security. courtney kube joins me now. when you think the conventional warfare, they have targets. they have a potential list of targets if we went to war with iran. is this something that they have mapped out over the years and they are just now thinking about using it? are they beginning the mapping out process? >> reporter: we now know -- this comes from some reporting from our colleague that in 2019 the nsa started spying on some of the cyber criminals to try to determine who potential targets would be. not just potential targets for offensive operations but people planning hacks they need to watch who they started spying on them about two years ago. that suggests that they were in the early phases of considering these offensive operations. we should point out, the u.s. military in this case it's u.s.

cyber command, they have the authority for offensive actions. it can be a case by case basis. these recent attacks that have gotten attention here in the u.s., the ransomware attacks, those have been handled by law enforcement, the fbi. one reason that the government is looking at a different way of handling it is there's rarely anything that happens after the ransomware attack. the fbi doesn't have jurisdiction of a criminal network in russia. russia will not let them in to arrest these individuals. now they are considering making this a national security issue and potentially using some kind of offensive operation by u.s. cyber command, some offensive actions, chuck. >> i guess what's the difference between this and, say, the action that does not speak its name? >> reporter: that's one of the questions. that goes to one of the big

issues, legality of this. what this would take is for the administration, the white house, i guess the general counsel to say, what is and what is not legal for the military to do. they would are to provide them the authority. even without that authority, u.s. cyber command, the administration can go to cyber com and say, give us options. they would present options. then the white house and president biden could make the decision whether he wants to give them the authority to act. what's really different and new here is this would be the u.s. military going after criminals as opposed to going after a state like you mentioned with russia or china or potentially iran. there's some precedent in the u.s. military going afterwindow.

>> thank you. joining me now is someone who has been listening to this. i was able to see him nodding and laughing at a certain classified operation that he won't talk about when it comes to cyber. it's the former defense secretary, former head of the cia, former white house chief of staff, to name a few titles, leon pennetta. welcome back. >> good to be with you, chuck. >> i want to start with something john mccain said in 2012. the reason i'm bringing it up is because you were fully engaged in all of these issues back then. he said this. it was right after the 2013 defense authorization act. he said, i believe that cyber warfare will be the key battlefield of the 21st century. i am concerned about our ability to fight and win. i'm concerned our strategy is

reliant on the defensive measures. this debate was a debate in the obama administration that you were a part of. walk us through it. where are you on this issue? >> i very much consider what's been happening to be a national security threat. when you talk about taking down our basic infrastructure, major pipeline providing fuel to the east coast, our meat procession operations, transportation systems, it raises my greatest fear about what could happen with the cyberattack. it goes back to when i was secretary. iran used something when they deployed against an oil company in saudi arabia and destroyed 30,000 computers. you use that in this country, you could take down our electric

grid, our transportation, our financial systems. could you virtually paralyze the country. it's important to treat it as a national security threat. i think that's what's going on today. >> let's walk you through that. it's a national security threat. what would be the difference between a terror network and the cyber hackers that russia gives sort of protection to? is there a distinction between these groups right now? >> listen, from my point of view, they're terrorists. when they come at us with ransomware, even though they are a criminal operation, they are operating out of russia, and they are going after some very important infrastructure in this country. they're doing it for money. but it's weakening the united states every time this infrastructure gets impacted. don't forget, this ransomware attack is going after hospitals, going after transportation

systems, it's going after a vast array of areas and costing about $6 trillion in payments. the justice department will start treating this not as criminals but as terrorists. that's the right decision. >> okay. that means russia is a safe haven. when we identified afghanistan as a safe haven, we know what happened. i'm not -- the point is, what is the line here? it seems to me that when it comes to cyber offense, the united states does believe they do things with a set of values. we don't want to punish russian citizens for the actions of the leaders. we take that into account. can you be on cyber offense that punishes putin without punishing the russian people? >> look, we have some smart people operating this technology for the united states.

in the past, when i was there, we certainly developed not only good defenses to try to deal with these attacks -- when i was cia director, i was told we were getting 100,000 cyberattacks a day. you can imagine how -- >> when were you cia director? remind people, that was nine years ago. i don't mean -- that's the point. what is it today? >> no, no, i'm sure it's multiplied 1,000 times over. it really constitutes a real threat when that takes place. the real question now is to develop not only good defenses but good offenses as well. that's what we did then. i'm sure that's what's happening today. you can target these offenses in a way that don't necessarily have to impact on people but can impact on businesses, can impact on the government and send a signal to russia very frankly that if you are going to continue to play this kind of

game, you are going to have to pay a price. that signal needs to be sent. >> i gotta ask you about ufos. the truth is out there. the question i have is, we have been reading about these -- it's mostly been observations from navy personnel. when you have seen this unidentifiable stuff, is your presumption that it is a china or russia testing some crazy technology that we somehow don't have? or are we over assuming the abilities of china and russia, and if it's not us, that it's something otherworldly? >> it's been going on a long time. there's speculation. i have never seen any evidence that any of this is related to

extraterrestrial human beings or beings of any kind. for that reason, i have always thought that even though we have these sightings and i guess the report coming out is going to acknowledge that there are a lot of sightings, they haven't tied it to ufos in the sense of relating it to enemies in space. >> sure. >> but i believe a lot of this stuff, probably could be countries like russia, like china, like others who are using now drones, using the kind of sophisticated weaponry that could very well be involved in a lot of these sightings. i think that's the area to go to very frankly in order to identify what's happening. >> more importantly, it sounds like you think you should exhaust that out, exhaust that hypothesis first before you start dealing with any of the

other hypothesis? >> yeah, absolutely. i think the reality is, we know what some of the capabilities are from our adversaries. we have seen what they're capable of doing. i think because they are adversaries, it's more logical to me to believe that they are trying every way possible to be able to gather the kind of intelligence that would help them in terms of developing their approach to how they deal with the united states. i think that's the better approach to take right now. >> i have to say, the chinese can't even control their space junk. some of me questions some of that. it's always a pleasure to get your perspective on these issues. thank you. >> good to be with you. coming up, facebook announced its ban on former president trump's accounts will last two years, at a minimum. trump has just responded. that's next. next. , the lone wos of the great highway.

all they need is a bike and a full tank of gas. their only friend? the open road. i have friends. [ chuckles ] well, he may have friends, but he rides alone. that's jeremy, right there! we're literally riding together. he gets touchy when you talk about his lack of friends. can you help me out here? no matter why you ride, progressive has you covered with protection starting at $79 a year. well, we're new friends. to be fair. eh, still. nobody builds 5g like verizon builds 5g. thousands of engineers taking business to a whole new level. employees are empowered. customers are engaged. near real time data for fast decision making. this is business at the speed of 5g. because the more businesses do with 5g, the more your network matters. it's us pushing us. it's verizon vs verizon. my plaque psoriasis... ...the itching ...the burning.

the stinging. my skin was no longer mine. my psoriatic arthritis, made my joints stiff, swollen... painful. emerge tremfyant™. with tremfya®, adults with moderate to severe plaque psoriasis... ...can uncover clearer skin and improve symptoms at 16 weeks. tremfya® is the only medication of its kind also approved for adults with active psoriatic arthritis. serious allergic reactions may occur. tremfya® may increase your risk of infections and lower your ability to fight them. tell your doctor if you have an infection or symptoms or if you had a vaccine or plan to. tremfya®. emerge tremfyant™. janssen can help you explore cost support options.

i've got moderate to severe plaque psoriasis. now, there's skyrizi. ♪ things are getting clearer. ♪ ♪ i feel free to bare my skin yeah, that's all me. ♪ ♪ nothing and me go hand in hand nothing on my skin, ♪ ♪ that's my new plan. ♪ ♪ nothing is everything. ♪ achieve clearer skin with skyrizi. 3 out of 4 people achieved 90% clearer skin at 4 months. of those, nearly 9 out of 10 sustained it through 1 year. and skyrizi is 4 doses a year, after 2 starter doses. ♪ i see nothing in a different way it's my moment ♪ ♪ so i just gotta say... ♪

♪ nothing is everything. ♪ skyrizi may increase your risk of infections and lower your ability to fight them. before treatment, your doctor should check you for infections and tuberculosis. tell your doctor if you have an infection or symptoms such as fevers, sweats, chills, muscle aches, or coughs or if you plan to or recently received a vaccine. ♪ nothing is everything. ♪ now is the time to ask your dermatologist about skyrizi. welcome back. if you haven't looked at your phone, then we have breaking news. facebook announced that its suspension of former president trump's accounts will last another two years at a minimum. he will only be reinstated if conditions permit it, if he is no longer a threat to incite an insurrection like he did on january 6. the company says that they believe his posts around the insurrection at the capitol,

quote, merit the highest penalty available under the new enforcement protocols. last month, the oversight board ordered them to review their rules. trump responded in a statement a few moments ago calling it an insult to the people who voted for him. joined by chuck rosenberg, an nbc news legal analyst. we were here to talk with him about the don mcgahn testimony. we will. i want to ask a question more as a constitutional law professor for us. is there a legitimate first amendment case for donald trump to bring against facebook? what would that look like if there is? >> there is not. no. it's not a first amendment issue. let me explain that. let me explain it in legal terms

and prudential terms. legally, the bill of rights, the constitution limits government or state action. you work for nbc. it is a private company. it's not part of the government. you could say something on the show right now and it could decide to ban you or fire you. that is not a first amendment issue. it's a private employer. facebook is a private employer. if it decides to ban mr. trump for some number of years, it's absolutely as a legal matter not a first amendment issue. prudentially, it's a big, important company with 3.5 billion users. it ought to have clear rules about transparency and accountability and punishment for violating rules. what it ought to do, needs to do, trying to do prudentially is lay down a bunch of rules that people can see and understand and we can debate whether they went too far or not far enough. not a first amendment issue. >> basically, when you sign up

for whether it's facebook or any entity that's private that you go public, you agree to certain terms and conditions. right? most people -- i'm guessing the former president who is not known to be a reader may not have read the terms and conditions. the minute he clicked okay or somebody on his behalf, he basically lost any potential rights he might have had anyway, correct? >> that's right. those are long, complicated agreements that we all click through. i do it, too. i don't read the rental car agreement. that said, it's not a first amendment issue. whatever rights he has are spelled out in that agreement. once he accepts the terms of service, well, i would make an argument that he is bound to it. please do put aside the notion that it's a first amendment issue. the bill of rights, the first amendment, fourth, fifth amendment binds the government, binds the state, it doesn't bind private actors. there may be other consequences,

but it's not a first amendment constitutional abridgement of his rights. >> he could sue for damages saying their inability to put him on in a separate way -- he couldn't make a constitutional argument, he would have to make a financial argument? >> i think that's right. anybody can sue anybody for anything at any time. there's a huge difference between a lawsuit and a meritorious lawsuit. mr. trump is known to be litigious. maybe he files a suit. i have no idea. if he does, a first amendment claim fails utterly for the reasons we were discussing. facebook is not the government. >> let me get to the story for why we booked you in the first place. it's about don mcgahn. more than two years after he was subpoenaed. former white house counsel. house democrats want to talk to

him about what robert mueller found out and the amount and sort of the specifics of the potential obstruction of justice that the former president may have been asking his white house counsel to do. what do you think will come out of this? what clarity can we get do you think from this testimony when we see this transcript a week from today? >> yeah. really interesting question, chuck. i read volume two of the mueller report twice. i think i have a pretty good sense of what mr. trump asked mr. mcgahn to do and what mr. mcgahn fortunately refused to do. i imagine he is going to affirm all of that in his testimony. i don't know we will learn new things. i do think it's good that there's an accommodation between the executive branch now represented by mr. biden and the legislative branch to have mr. mcgahn provide testimony. that's how it usually happens. there's an accommodation. it looks like the lawsuit between the two will be dropped.

i'm not sure there are going to be remarkable revelations. as part of his agreement to testify, he said he is only going to talk about things in the mueller report and that were made public. >> is it more important that the congressional subpoena was upheld? in some ways, the testimony -- as you just said, we have an idea of what he is going to affirm. is the more important precedent sent, is this, yes, the congressional subpoena was legit and he should have been there? will this mean we won't have these delays the next time we're in a situation like this? >> i can almost assure you we will have fights between the executive branch and legislative branch. i think of this is an institutional thing between two branchs of government. your point is a good one. an important one. congress gets its witness. again, usually it happens between the two branchs by

accommodation. they get their documents, their witness. no court has ruled that this is legitimate. the court is going to drop the case ultimately, upon request of the parties. but there is a congressional legislative branch interest that has been vindicated, because mr. mcgahn is there today talking to them. will we learn lots of new things? probably not. it is important to congress' oversight responsibility that they get to listen to witnesses, talk to them direct. >> what would happen if the former president used executive privilege? >> that's an interesting question. it's interesting question day. he can try. the privilege, i would argue, is owned by the current president of the united states. mr. biden would perhaps assert an executive branch position, which is that the privilege pertains. why would he do that?

because one day he might want to make the exact same assertion over advice given to him. trump could say that he still has a privilege. the courts would have to hear litigation on that matter. it would drag out further, to your point. fascinating question, chuck. i don't know if the end that it's going to be resolved in this particular case. we may need another lawsuit and another contest between the branchs. we need a court to rule more quickly than the courts have ruled in the past. >> yeah. let's hope we don't have a situation where we are worried about the power of one branch usurping what the constitution has given them. chuck rosenberg, nbc news legal analyst, thank you very much. coming up, a topic we don't talk about nearly enough, climate change and its growing impact on our lives. combating the extreme weather means some places may need to make extreme changes. it's not easy, nor popular.

a dive into athletes on their power to impact social issues in this country. impact social issn this country ♪ i want to see you stand up ♪ ♪ i want to feel you be proud ♪ ♪ i want to hear your beating heart ♪ ♪ live out loud ♪ ♪ you can do it on your own ♪ ♪ stand up now ♪ ♪ be proud, yeah ♪ ♪ stand up now ♪ ♪ live out loud, oh ♪♪ did you know you can go to libertymutual.com to customizes your car insurance so you only pay for what you need? really? i didn't-- aah! ok. i'm on vibrate. aaah! only pay for what you need. ♪ liberty. liberty. liberty. liberty. ♪ before we talk about tax-smart investing, what's new? -well, audrey's expecting... -twins! grandparents! we want to put money aside for them, so...change in plans. alright, let's see what we can adjust.

♪♪ we'd be closer to the twins. change in plans. okay. mom, are you painting again? you could sell these. lemme guess, change in plans? at fidelity, a change in plans is always part of the plan. try one a day 50+ multivitamin gummies. with vitamins c, d & zinc for immunity support. lemme guess, change in plans? plus 8 b-vitamins for brain support.

one a day and done.

welcome back. this week marks the start of hurricane season. 20 named storms with predictions like that becoming more the rule than the exception. cities are being forced to consider drastic measures to combat the effects of climate change. this includes my hometown of miami, where this week the army corps of engineers announced they are proposing a 20-foot high seawall to protect the city from potential storm surges. needless to say, it wasn't a very popular idea in south florida. with me now is a professor of meteorology and physical oceanography at miami university. amy, when i saw this proposal, it seemed like it panicked

everybody. there's more folks than ever in south florida who know something has to be done. it seems as if there was panic whether it's property value panic, just environmental ecosystem panic, however you want to put it. it seemed nobody was happy with this solution. what is an alternative though? >> well, thanks for having me on, chuck. the way that climate change is playing out here in miami -- this appies to plenty of other cities. it's not just about one threat. it's not just about the threat of a hurricane brings seawater into the streets. there are multiple threats at the same time. you have increasing intense storms, more rainfall happening on top of a rising sea. you have increasing urban heat. we even have sunny days flooding when seawater comes into the streets without a storm, even without any additional rainfall

through the drainage system. what the u.s. army corps of engineers is proposing dealing with one threat, that's the threat of seawater coming in. the way that these threats have been traditionally handled across the government is that different parts of the government will handle a particular threat whether it's storm surge handled by the federal government and sea level rise impacting aging infrastructure, our septic systems, the county. we have storm water management at city level. all of these things have to be coordinated to have a coherent response. the u.s. army corps proposal of the seawall plan, that needs to happen. but it's not the only thing. >> what's the philosophy here? this is the conundrum. is the goal to protect the liveability of miami or is the

goal to protect miamians? you get the difference there? >> i do. it's a great question. it's a question of infrastructure, the built environment versus the people living in it. i think the seawall or the flooding or the flooding walls that are proposed are a really good example of that, that perhaps putting a seawall will protect when that big storm happens, but people have to live with it. and these are seawalls, there are flooding walls running through the middle of neighborhoods. how does that impact their mobility in their neighborhood, the liveability in their neighborhood? i think these are difficult questions and it's difficult to look at from a living perspective. it doesn't necessarily lead to positive outcomes for the residents that are living there the rest of the year when there is not a storm happening.

>> right. is the city or the county or the state ready to make tough decisions when developers start to bellyache, when wealthy property owners start to worry? because it does seem as if we're going to come to a moment -- seawall is an extreme idea. moving people is going to be another extreme idea, and it feels like that is also an inevitable recommendation that is coming. is the politics even prepared for recommendations like this down there? >> you know, if you asked me that question five, ten years ago, i would have said no, but i would say the answer now is yes. and we have a number of different elected officials, we have government staff, we've got people from different sectors that are all on board with trying to come up with solutions that make sense for the city. the problem is that we don't necessarily have institutions

yet that can address the questions or the problems at the level that we need to. so the siloing of different departments is really a problem. everyone in those different departments understand that we have to do something about it, but the departments have to come together to answer the question. i think the answer is yes, people are ready, and how we go about it, that's where the devil is in the details. >> that's why i wanted to shine a quick spotlight on this, because it's just a reminder that there is not going to be any great decisions. these will all be tough decisions whatever direction is taken to mitigate climate change and live with climate change. amy clement, thank you for your expertise. >> thank you. on friday we have a new episode. it's on ondemand and peacock.

this week we talked to activism on george floyd and professional athletes used their platforms to call out racial injustice. in doing so, joined the long list of sports stars through history that fought for equality. my colleague craig melvin has more. >> reporter: a statue stands in philadelphia dedicated to a sports hero. no, not the famous one of the fictitious boxer, but an activist, a civil war veteran and a pioneer in baseball. his example can be found throughout history. jackie robinson, mohammad ali, billie jean king, colin kaepernick, sports stars who brought forward equality. >> it's my job to make sure people are taken care of. >> he retired in 2007 to help those folks who needed it.

>> what are you doing now? >> number one i helped people have a voice. right now we're in an era where athletes have power, and with that comes a responsibility. if you're going to speak about issues, make sure you educate yourself. that's a big responsibility. >> dr. harry edwards has been a leading voice of activism in sports for nearly five decades. star athletes get involved, he says, because they know how lucky they are. >> athletes still believe in the power of this country. they can pack away their gear and say essentially, hey, i've got mine, to hell with everybody else, but they don't do that. >> reporter: he points out that female athletes are the first to take up a cause despite racial and gender bias. >> this league is close to, if not over 80%, black women.

we have cousins, sisters, mothers, everyone. we matter. and i think that's important. >> we black women, people try telling us to shut up. we don't care. we're going to say how we feel. >> and craig melvin joins me now. craig, as we went through this episode, it is interesting, whether it was my conversation with kareem, your conversation with anquan, the big difference between now and really every other moment that we've had in our lifetimes or even before you and i were on this planet is the leagues responded to their players. that's what changed. >> listen, chuck, you remember last year when we all heard commissioner roger goodell utter those words that he had been so reluctant to utter for so long that black lives matter. i think that marked a critical turning point. you know, you could make the argument that the nba and the wnba certainly, before major league baseball, certainly before the nfl, they made sure

their players had a voice, had a platform and were able to use those voices and platforms to advance certain social causes. over the past year, we've really seen the nfl and major league baseball step up and other sports teams as well. anquan said something interest. he said when people tell athletes to shut up and dribble, it's not because they don't want them to be advocates or activists, they don't agree with their politics. and that was not something i had considered until the potential hall of fame receiver said that. >> craig, you and i get this all the time, right? if somebody likes your report, it's great journalism. if somebody doesn't like your report -- >> you're hacked. >> -- it's a bunch of hack, right. i think this is sort of human nature on that course, that's for sure. craig, it's always great to work with you. i'm glad we got to work together on this one. >> same to you, buddy.

have a great weekend. meet the press report is available now online. we have two great sports reporters and columnists as well. don't miss it. msnbc's coverage continues right now with geoff bennett right after this break.

good afternoon, i'm geoff bennett. as we come on the air, we're following three major dramas, each involving donald trump. as we speak, don mcgahn formally testifying about the trump organization after his fight to avoid it. mcgahn, you'll recall, turned out to be the key witness for robert mueller about trump's repeated efforts to stifle or stop the russia investigation. but his testimony is a big