decision, and the high court just struck down a new york state law that restricted concealed carry hand gun permits. the ruling, 6-3, with all of the courts liberal dissenting. the court ruling that the constitution provides a right to carry a gun outside the home. the new york law is that is at the enltser of this case banned carrying hand guns openly but allowed forpply for a license, but residents were required to show a special need to get that concealed carry permit. gun owners argue that the requirement made it virtually impossible for ordinary citizens to get what they needed to conceal carry. the decision comes as the senate inches closer to passing a bipartisan gun safety law, and the u.s. reckons with near constant violence in virtually every aspect of life, from going to school, to church, even to supermarkets. let's bring in nbc news justice correspondent pete williams, former federal and state

prosecutor in new york, and senior fbi official chuck rosenberg. pete, for those just joining us, walk us through this decision and what it means for americans. >> this is the first time in american history that the supreme court has ever said what part of the second amendment means when it talks about the right to keep and to bear arms. 14 years ago, in a decision here involving a gun owner here in washington, d.c., the court said the key part it protects the right to keep a gun at home for self-defense. now the court has said that the "and bear arms" part extends the second amendment outside the home. the new york law said that you can get a license to get a concealed carry permit, only if you can show some heightened or special need. basically, what the supreme court says today is, that turns a constitutional right into something that you have to qualify for, and that's not how

the constitution works. this will affect new york and it will affect half a dozen other states that have similar laws which you had to show some heightened need beyond just a desire for self-defense to get a concealed carry permit. two questions remain to be answered. the first one is, what areas can cities and states and local governments redline and say, well, you can get a concealed carry permit but you can't carry your gun into these sensitive places. the court recognizes that that's a question, but it doesn't answer that question. it leaves it open to future litigation. and the second thing the court says in concurrence by the chief justice and brett kavanaugh is that states can still put some qualifications on who is able to qualify to get a concealed carry permit. that states can conduct criminal background checks, mental health checks, but not just everybody gets a concealed carry permit merely for the asking, that the states can impose some

restrictions on that. in a very spirited dissent, justice stephen breyer says that the problem with america is that we're awash in guns. he lists a number of recent mass school shootings, including the one in uvalde, texas. the shooting at the supermarket in buffalo and other mass shooting events. and he says that this decision could just make things worse, that the proliferation of guns has also made road rage, for example, an increasingly violent problem. but it's a strong 6-3 ruling in favor of the second amendment. now the future question will be, what about state restrictions, other kinds of restrictions on guns? there are pending cases right now, kating for the supreme court's review. on state restrictions, on buying large amounts of ammunition, high capacity magazines. the so-called ar-15 type assault rifles. those are the next questions the supreme court will have to

struggle with. >> let me go back, chuck rosenberg, to the critical point that pete brought up. the couple of questions, what qualifies as a sort of sensitive area, and what might be some of the qualifications that could be put on conceal -- on carrying in public. because we heard from cathy hochul. she called this ruling shocking. it sounded to me like they had already been working on this. they had some ideas for what they might be able to do. at least in the short-term to limit the impact of this. how do you see this playing out? >> that's right, chris. for people watching this case, this can't be a huge surprise. so i imagine states, including new york, that had put certain restrictions on those can seeking permits to carry outside the home, well prepared. it is a very hard path forward, however, not just for new york, but people trying to divine what the supreme court meant by

"sensitive areas." unfortunately, that's going to be a bit of trial and error. pete did such a nice job explaining this, i'm loathe to try to add anything to it. but think about it this way -- one of the things that concerned the supreme court was that states that required a special showing, a need, a proper cause like new york were employing what the court believed to be a subjective standard. it's hard to know what proper cause, is and most people who applied in new york were granted a permit to carry a permit outside of the home, but some were not. what the supreme court seems to want are objective standards. so like pete described, back ground checks to make sure you're not allowing a convicted felon to carry a weapon outside the home is a good, thoughtful, objective way to think about it. the second circuit -- i'm sorry, the second amendment has been

significantly broadened by the court's interpretation here. more people will be able to carry outside the home, but we're going to have to legislate and litigate what the court means by certain qualification and sensitive areas. so much more to come on that. but the governor of new york is rightly concerned, and i'm convinced she and her staff were prepared for exactly what the supreme court did today. >> let me play a little bit of what cathy hochul just said at that press conference. take a listen. >> as governor, my number one priority is to keep new yorkers safe. but today, the supreme court is sending us backwards in our efforts to protect families and prevent gun violence. and it's particularly painful that this came down at this moment. when we're still dealing with families in pain from mass shootings that have occurred. the loss of life, their beloved children and grandchildren. >> you could also make the argument, and the facts bear it

out, when aren't we dealing with a mass shooting? they happen week after week, day after day. you worked in law enforcement in new york. what do you think the real world implications are from that perspective? >> chris, the implications are just huge. and, you know, i want to pick up where pete left off, because it's a really important point. you're asking about mass shootings. this decision was, on its face, just about concealed carry regulations, and laws like new york that say you have to show proper cause in order to get a permit to carry a concealed weapon. but the jurisprudence of this season, the legal analysis, applies to much more. what it says is that when there is a right that is protected by the second amendment and the right to carry outside the home is protected by the second amendment, just as a right to keep a gun inside the home is regulated by the second

amendment. when there is a right, it says that what states now have to show is that the regulation is consistent with how guns were regulated historically. it's not enough for the states to say, listen, right now in the situation we find ourselves in, we need this kind of gun regulation. because we're seeing that having lots of ammunition or access to certain kinds of assault weapons or other, you know, gun regulations are rooted in problems that we're trying to address now as state legislators. instead, states have to offer a historic analysis, and i think that is going to be challenging. i think that it is inevitable to say that the consequences of this opinion are that across the board, by and large, it is going to be more difficult to regulate

in the space of gun rights, not impossible. everyone agrees there could be some regulations. we heard from everybody else some of the places where that might happen, like in sensitive places or the identity of a person who is getting a gun. overall, it will be harder. if it's harder to regulate, that means more guns. and i will tell you as a prosecutor, that means to me more violence. >> chuck, what i'm trying to figure out, and, again, i realize this is something that will be litigated going forward. when you talk about sensitive areas, does that mean sensitive public areas or sensitive private areas? if you have a business that's in a building, does every business that has offices in that building decide whether or not guns are allowed in there? how broad might this go? >> that's a great question. that's exactly the problem. i think generally, the train

station and airport, a government building, but people in private setting may have private, sensitive matters. labs, universities. there are private and public universities. how do we think about them? so this is why when the supreme court issues an opinion but doesn't fully design what they mean by sensitive areas, that good journalists like you ask questions like that, and legislators wrestle with it. and then people file suit and courts have to litigate it. i imagine that we're going to see something like the question you asked back in the courts very soon. we don't entirely know. >> so what about in the meantime? >> i'm sorry, chris? >> so what about in the meantime? >> right. >> everybody gets to have their own interpretation of what that means? >> largely, yes. states are going to have to wrestle it with on their own

until they get further guidance from the courts. that happens all the time. that happened after the heller case in 2008 when the supreme court said there is a right to keep arms. and we had to figure out what that meant. we ended up back in court on the bruin case 14 years later, in which we get a little more definition on keep and bear. but now we are seeking guidance on sensitive areas. this is a sort of cycle we kind ourselves in when the supreme court rules on one thing, and then opens up several other issues for a debate. >> let me bring in the former director of counterintelligence at the fbi. frank, i'm guessing among law enforcement this has been the subject of a lot of conversation. they, as well as everyone else who follows the supreme court, knew this was coming. what does it mean for the job of law enforcement in this country? >> yeah. as someone who has carried a badge and gun for 25 years, i get very concerned about anything that may result in more

guns being on the street without state oversight. so it's great news that background investigations can continue, and they should. but the end result here, and the irony here is that the very people in the state of new york who say i have a threat against me, or i'm a small business owner and i carry a lot of cash, those people may ultimately be more -- be less safe today because there's going to be more guns on the street. and it also strikes me that the supreme court, and i've not read through this entire opinion, but we're all focused on the phrase "bear arms" which surprise nos one that you should be able to bear arms in a regulated manner. but the part, to establish a well-regulated militia, right? so we had a militia, it's called the national guard. and there's nothing about our gun problem that is well regulated. i think today makes the issue less regulated than ever. this issue of sensitive

circumstances, you could see this litigated well into the future. if new york says well, school zones, no guns. well, people are going to say we have school shootings, we need guns there. churches, sacred spaces, no guns. no, we have church shootings. we need guns there. this will be litigated and litigated and litigated. >> thank you all very much for that. i want to bring in david hogg, survivor of the marjory stoneman douglas high school shooting. you spent so much of your time since that shooting four years ago trying to get more restrictions in place. i know folks like you finally thought they were seeing some progress on the congressional side of this. now you get this ruling from the supreme court. what was your immediate gut reaction, david? >> well, thankfully that this -- the supreme court decision is not a good one, it shouldn't have that much of an impact on

the current work being done in the senate. it will have an impact on future legislation that we need to introduce to help combat gun violence further. it's important for people to understand that this is a -- a radical decision by the supreme court that is the product of a 50 plus year chess game played by the gun industry. that does not represent gun owners. it's often said that you're entitled to your own opinion but not your own facts. you're also not entitled to your own history. that's what the supreme court is trying to do here. this challenges over 200 plus years of jurisprudence and undoes that. this decision will get americans killed. it is a severe danger to the american people and the domestic tranquility, which is in the preamble to the constitution. this is not what a well-regulated militia looks like. >> we just got a statement, david, from march for our lives. and the first sentence says this, young people will die as a result of the court's decision. do you believe that?

>> yes. i do believe that's true. the unfortunate reality here is that this is the product, again, of a 50 plus year chess game that conservatives and especially the gun industry has been playing through the organizations like the federal society, the heritage foundation, and a well orchestrated effort, where essentially conservatives have been investing with time in the market with a well diverse set of assets like the federal society and others. liberals over the past 50 plus years have been trying to emotionally invest. it is costing us our country. that's part of the work march for our lives is trying to do, to elect morally just leaders to make sure that decisions like the ones made at the supreme court, the justices that are appointed have a well regulated militia and then we see the cost of that in the first place. i would ask anybody who is interested in getting us in the

fight to text next to 954954. that is next to 954954. so let me ask you about activism. because over the years, and virtually every presidential election i have covered they always say this is going to be the year that young people are going to make the difference, right? and rarely has it been in such numbers that it has made a difference, but we are in a 50-50 divided country. more people are understanding the importance of voting for your state legislature, and the importance of the president who is able to appoint people to the supreme court. talk to me a little more about the organizing, and in, frankly, a time when a lot of people are worried about the economy. that includes a lot of young people, getting out of high school, trying to figure out how to play for college, find the money to relate an apartment. how do you make this matter? >> well, i think unfortunately,

this is going to continue to matter, because young people continue to fear for their lives and older people, too, on a daily basis. we hear that young people need to vote to change things. the reality, is we have been voting at high rights since 2018. when i was 17 years old, i said we're the kids, you're the adults, you need to do something. they said to me and my fellow young people that we need to vote, and we did. at one of the highest rates ever in 2018. we voted out more nra backed politicians ever before, and we voted tat highest rate ever in 2020, voting out, you know, an nra backed president and senate, and an nra backed -- you know, we continue to work from 2018 expanding our work into the house. and i think that's what younger people need to remember, decisions like today are not the product of work that happened yesterday but started 50 plus years ago. the federalist society was started by conservative law

students who decided they wanted to make change. unfortunately, they have been incredibly successful at doing that, and politicizing our court system to an unbelievable extent, and in a way that i believe severely endangers the future of our country. if you don't think -- if you think everything is fine, look what happened recently in texas, where they said that joe biden was not a legitimately elected president, and they also enacted a series of -- they approved a series of measure that were quite homophobic, unfortunately. americans need to wake up and not just vote but mobilize and hold our elected officials accountable. so which need to hold them accountable to make sure they're doing all they can to appoint people like supreme court justices that do not come out with decisions like we had today. because this work today is

long-term work. that's why people want to support our long-term work, that's what march for our lives mean. >> you brought up elected officials, what you think at this point they need to say or do. kathy hochul came out and said, i'm sorry this dark day has come. we are now hearing that mayor eric adams of new york city, who has been very outspoken in the damage he thinks a ruling like this would do. so we're waiting to hear from him, as well. what do you want to hear from your leaders right now, that you think could influence the way people pay attention and potentially vote? >> i want them to continue talking about this when this isn't in the news. mass shootings are happening every day, especially in black and brown communities that don't get on the news on a daily basis. it's a product of weak system of justice in our country around the fact that food deserts help promote gun violence. historic red lining and

discrimination by the federal government and the lack of investment in communities, either purposeful or unintentional, is part of the fact that they -- i want to see our leaders be champions and state this is a wrong decision and we must do the work to help eradicate it, especially activate more than anywhere at the state level than in congress. >> david hogg, thank you so much. we appreciate you coming on quickly to react to this breaking news. thank you. and up next, the doj taking center stage. what we're watching for as today's fifth january 6th hearing kicks off later this afternoon. and dangerous heat. the deadly conditions impacting millions of americans. so hot, roads are literally caving in. you're watching chris jansing reports only on msnbc. his investment account in real time and that's... how you collect coins.

your money never stops working for you with merrill, a bank of america company. you're pretty particular about keeping a healthy body. what goes on it. usually. and in it. mostly. here to meet those high standards is the walgreens health and wellness brand. over 2000 high quality products. rigorously tested by us. real world tested by you. and delivered to your door in as little as one hour.

like many families, the auburns value time and dspent together.r door to share wisdom... i got some of my gold before i came to this country. i got some of my gold before you passed the bread. encourage one another... i can buy gold for this?! you can buy gold for this. and talk about life's wins and misses. responsibly sourced like my gold but not responsibly cooked. because at the end of the day, nothing keeps it all together quite like - gold. visit invest.gold to see how gold is everyone's asset. think he's posting about all that ancient roman coinage? no, he's seizing the moment with merrill. moving his money into his investment account in real time and that's... how you collect coins. your money never stops working for you with merrill, a bank of america company.

(driver) conventional thinking would say verizon your money never stops working for you with merrill, has the largest and fastest 5g network. but, they don't. they only cover select cities with 5g. and with coverage of over 96% of interstate highway miles, they've got us covered.

we are following not one but two critical meetings of the

january 6th select committee today. the first, a deposition happening behind closed doors with a british filmmaker who documented former president trump, his family, and close advisers for months before and after the riots. then, in just a few hours, the committee will gavel in its fifth hearing. this one, zeroing in on the justice department. specifically, how the committee says trump tried to use the doj to help him overturn the election. let me bring in our team. back with us, frank, the former assistant director of counterintelligence at the fbi. and kirk bardella, an adviser for the dnc. barbara, there is just already so much evidence and now every day new evidence coming out. who knows just how much video this documentary crew shot

during its weeks at the white house? i talked to a documentary filmmaker who told me it's not out of the realm of possibility there were certainly scores, if not 100 plus hours of film, we don't know. but considering the sheer volume, barbara, of what they have, what are we looking for? what might we expect? >> well, i doubt the committee would make such hay about this if they didn't believe there was something fruitful there. the last thing they want to do is to build up expectations and fail to deliver. so it seems to me they have previewed it and believe there's something important here. i think the key thing i would be looking for here are admissis by donald trump that he knows he lost the election. he has told repeatedly that he lost the election that would cause most people to believe he lost the election, and his plan to subvert the electoral count was illegal. but having trump say that out loud would be the smoking gun. i think that's what i would be

looking for in these hours of video. >> rolling stone has more reporting on how word of this documentary supposedly blind sided members of team trump. s o. >> i mean, it seems reasonable, kirk, that first, if you don't know someone is taping, you're not going to edit what you say. as for trump, he's never been shy about saying controversial things any way. what do you think this film might show us? >> i mean, again, we go back to one of the original tapes of trump the grab them by the you know what. he said that in the midst of a rt -- reporter.

trump doesn't have a filter. i'm sure the people that work in hismortified by the things he could have said on video. it's wise that the committee will take a step back, i'm call thing the mid-season finale, because they have acquired so much new evidence and testimony and witnesses that it is the right thing to do to take a step back, recalibrate, get your ducks in a row. every hearing they have put together has been so well crafted and so well staged. it's been on point, and very direct. and taking the time to get it right is so important. as someone who worked for the better part of five years and having been a part of the hearing process, it can be overwhelming when you get all this kind of evidence and it's so easy to blow it. it is so easy not to see the forest through the trees, keeping that focus, keeping the priority and the mission completely straightforward, is so vital to connecting the

american people. and the outcome they're hoping to get to. >> you know, i'm thinking could alex holder be the rosemary woods of this generation with pictures? we'll find out. if you have anything you want to add about that, feel free to. i want you to look ahead to the hear thing afternoon and today's three witnesses, who they are, what role they play in what happened. >> the one thing i would add to the discussion about the delay sit's not just what they have but it's what they still want. it was at the end of the last hearing we heard liz cheney to ask president trump's white house counsel to testify. we know the committee had contact with him previously, but it's clear they think he's a missing piece to the puzzle, that they don't yet have and perhaps could get with this delay. as of today's hearing, it is focused on the justice department. it will be lead by adam kinzinger and will look at broadly this effort by the trump administration to sow doubt in the election results to get doj

to open up an investigation on even to get them to claim they had opened up such an investigation. and more specifically, to potentially replace doj leadership when they proved noncompliant with that request. so we'll hear from three of the officials who were at the top of the doj, including the acting attorney general about this effort to get removed or look for information that they knew wasn't there. i want to play for you part of how adam kinzinger described to me this process of what they found here and what they're looking for. take a listen. >> i think initially the president wanted to find a bunch of stuff, and when he couldn't, he said just help me spring doubt on this, and we'll go into a lot of those details. again, i think the important thing is, any one of these, we saw in the hearing on tuesday, we've seen in the hearings prior. you always see these moment where is this could have gotten a lot worse. >> reporter: to that end, there is a through line here with what we saw on tuesday, where it was

rudy giuliani and others pressuring the arizona statehouse to have hearings. just make it look like they were looking into this issue to sow doubt on january 6th. we'll see the exact same thing laid out here at the department of justice. >> and to that end, frank, let me play some sound from witness richard donahue. >> the president said, suppose i replace him -- uppose i replace him -- >> you know, frank, there is a pattern emerging across the entirety of these hearings, that republicans, trump allies, people who voted for him were pushed to a line they would not cross. talk about that, and what their testimony might mean to doj prosecutors. >> these are people who thankfully saw the attempts to erode, undermine the credibility of institutions, the critical

institutions that go toward the rule of law in our society. so while i'm hesitant, reticent to call them heroes, because they did their job under pressure, they also served as role models moving forward. but i also want to hear more about why they felt it wasn't right to come out in the moment and say this is wrong, i want the public to know what's happening. it's likely we would hear if they did that in the moment in realtime, that all of these bad things that would cause them to resign would happen. these people would replace them and even worse things would happen. so you can see this agonizing, the moral human dilemma going on. it's going to play out today and i think it's going to be very compelling. >> there's also renewed attention on alabama congressman mo brooks, who is resubpoenaed by the january 6th committee after his unsuccessful senate bid. he told cnn yesterday he's willing to testify, but only if

it's in public. would you be looking forward to that? >> well, you know, he doesn't get to call the shots. if he gets the subpoena, the committee decides how it's done. most often they want to do a preliminary questioning outside the public domain. it takes six or eight hours to get 30 minutes of good content. so the idea that the public will have to agoize through all of that, i would say no thanks. you come in, we'll talk to you and maybe we'll play some deposition testimony. but we're entitled to know what you know. i think one way or the other, they're going to get his evidence. >> garrett, there are concerns about the escalating threats as i understand it against committee members on the heels of all that powerful testimony by election officials how they were targets. tell us about what's going on in congress and with these committee members. >> we've heard some of this publicly. we heard it from those election workers about the threats they got and still receive. and some of the members talk

about this publicly. they don't necessarily want to discuss specifics of their own security, but adam kinzinger, again, who is leading today's hearing, talked about the increase in death threats that he and his family have received as a result of this hearing. i can tell you that some of the members on this committee have full-time capitol police details for exactly that reason, to keep them under protection. so it is a concern, but not one that is widely discussed. >> finally, kirk, some republicans, including former president trump, seem to be having second thoughts about not having any trump allies on this committee. the former president said recently on a conservative radio show, and i'm quoting here, it was a bad decision not to have representtation on that committee. that was a very, very foolish decision. maybe hindsight is 2020, kirk. do you think this changing tone is a sign the committee's

message is breaking through more than republicans thought it might? >> yeah, i think donald trump is so concerned about this, because clearly outside of that fox bubble that he lives in, this is resonating, that this -- the viewership, the ratings, and we know donald trump pays attention to the ratings, has been off the charts. almost more viewers than the nba finals. america is tuned in to this, and it's seeping through. and the other part is, when we talk about that story you just referenced, how there are people inside trump world blind sided by this documentary and tapes, if kevin mccarthy hadn't talked away from the committee, when you have a committee, you have to share evidence. there would be no blind siding. every hearing there is a moment when people are going, oh, my god, we didn't know about that. that would have not have been the case if mccarthy had put his members on there. so after today, when pard ovrns return to the conversation and members of congress will get called out, they're going to be

once again looking around saying wow, it would have been nice to have a heads up. but kevin walked away from the table and it was a huger ror. >> thanks to all of you. tonight, a must-see interview on "the reedout" as joy reid speaks about hiss deposition today with alex holder. that's 7:00 p.m. eastern. also on the hill, the opposition developing with the senate set to hold a preliminary but critical vote to advance the bipartisan gun safety bill. the fight still to come. y bill the fight still to come. at driv? what do you want to leave behind? what do you want to give back? what do you want to be remembered for? that's your why. it's your purpose, and we will work with you every step of the way to achieve it. at pnc private bank,

we'll help you take care of the how. so tell us - what's your why? ♪♪ you see, son, with a little elbow grease, you can do just about anything. thanks, dad. that's right, robert. and it's never too early to learn you could save with america's number one motorcycle insurer. that's right, jamie. but it's not just about savings. it's about the friends we make along the way. you said it, flo. and don't forget to floss before you brush. your gums will thank you. -that's right, dr. gary. -jamie? sorry, i had another thought so i got back in line. what was it? [ sighs ] i can't remember. ♪♪ this... is the planning effect. this is how it feels to know you have a wealth plan that covers everything that's important to you. this is what it's like to have a dedicated fidelity advisor looking at your full financial picture. making sure you have the right balance of risk and reward.

and helping you plan for future generations. this is "the planning effect" from fidelity. i've got moderate to severe plaque psoriasis. now, there's skyrizi. 3 out of 4 people achieved 90% clearer skin at 4 months, after just 2 doses. 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 fever, sweats, chills, muscle aches, or coughs, or if you plan to, or recently received a vaccine. ♪ nothing is everything ♪ talk to your dermatologist about skyrizi. learn how abbvie could help you save. (driver) conventional thinking would say verizon has the largest and fastest 5g network. but, they don't. they only cover select cities with 5g. and with coverage of over 96% of interstate highway miles, they've got us covered.

finding the perfect designer isn't easy. but, at upwork, we found her. she's in austin between a dog named klaus

and her favorite shade of green. it's actually salem clover. and you can find her right now on upwork.com when the world is your workforce, finding the perfect project manager, designer, developer, or whomever you may need... tends to fall right into place. find top-rated talent who can start today on upwork.com this morning, we still don't know if it's paid or unpaid, but the school police chief in uvalde, texas is now on administrative leave. as criticism grows of a botched response to the shool scooting. that move against pete arredondo, citing -- >> an attorney for arredondo did not respond to our request for a comment. he did tell the texas tribune this month, officers never

hesitated, even for a moment, to put themselves at risk. and in washington, just as the supreme court issued its major ruling on guns and the right to carry outside the home, the senate is set to hold a key vote on that gun control package. we're joined now from capitol hill. so take us through what we expect today and whether some vocal opposition might pose a real threat. >> reporter: just a few minutes from now, we're expected to see the key vote on this, the senate voting basically to avoid a filibuster on this gun reform package, the most significant piece of legislation on guns in the last 30 years. we know based on the vote that happened prior to this earlier in the week that 64 senators got on board with this bill, 14 republicans. there are some leading these negotiations that think that more republicans could get on board. as you watch the senate floor, they're just minutes away from

that procedural vote. what it does is start the clock on 30 hours of debate. senator schumer was on the floor this morning, saying that he would like to speed up that process. he would hike to hold a final vote on the passage of this gun package tonight. it requires all 100 senators to get on board with that. some republicans would like to do things on amendments. really, once this vote passes, and if it passes, which we expect it to, it puts this gun package on a glide path to passage in the senate. the whole point of these bipartisan negotiations now ultimately meeting their fruition on the senate floor soon from now. >> thank you for that. prosecutors are planning to ask the judge to throw the book at convicted sex trafficker ghislaine maxwell when she's sentenced next week. the ask, 30 to 55 years for her role in the sexual abuse of multiple young teenage girls. the former british socialite is

60 years old. so anything within that 30 to 50-year range could effectively mean a life sentence. her attorneys argue for less than six years. she was convicted in december of five sexual trafficking charges related to her role in recruiting and grooming teenage girls to be sexually abused by jeffrey epstein. millions of americans are dealing with dangerous heat. for more than 127 million people, temperatures are expected to top 90 degrees today. for at least 30 million, 100 degrees. so hot that osha has just introduced new federal rules for outdoor workers, including water breaks every 15 minutes. and take a look at this. in chicago, officials blame the sweltderring heat for this pavement buckling on a busy road. and in virginia, a summer storm left close to 80,000 customers without power. it tore the roof off an apartment complex. all of it a frightening glimpse at what is expected to be an

especially hot summer. our january 6th special coverage picks up in 15 minutes or so. the doj set to take center stage today, the committee to take americans inside a contentious meeting between president trump and justice department leaders. were crimes committed? new customers? we got iphone 13s, too. switched to verizon two minutes ago. (mom brown) ours were busted and we still got a shiny new one. (boy brown) check it out! (dad allen) so, wait. everybody gets the same great deal? (mom allen) i think that's the point. (vo) now everyone can get a new iphone 13 on us on america's most reliable 5g network. (allen kid) can i have a phone? (vo) for every customer. current, new, everyone. to show the love.

♪ ♪ (allen kid) can i have a phone? ♪ ♪ better hearing leads to a better life. and that better life... ...starts at miracle-ear. it all begins with the most innovative technology... ...like the new miracle-earmini™. available exclusively at miracle-ear. so small, no one will see it. but you'll notice the difference. and now, miracle-ear is offering a 30-day risk-free trial. you can experience better hearing with no obligation. call 1-800-miracle right now and experience a better life.

right now, we're all feelin' the squeeze. we're having to get creative. find a new way. but birthdays still happen.

fridays still call for s'mores. you have to make magic, and you're figuring out how to do that. what you don't have to figure out is where to shop. because while you're getting creative, walmart is doing what we always do. keeping prices low for you every day. so you can save money and live better. ♪ it's still the eat fresh refresh, which means subway's upping their bread game. we're talking artisan italian bread, made fresh daily! the only thing fresher than their bread is the guy reading this. subway keeps refreshing and refreshing and refreshing and re- the day of the heart attack, i was scared. subway keeps refreshing i didn't know what to do. seeing my daughter have a heart attack, it shook me. aspirin helps reduce the chance of another heart attack by 31%. be sure to talk to your doctor before you begin an aspirin regimen.

a key figure in today's january 6th hearing is the man former president trump wanted to take over the justice department when bill barr wouldn't help him with claims of election fraud. jeffrey clark is an environmental lawyer and trump ally. after the 2020 election, he met with trump, despite a rule banning contact between doj officials and the white house except through proper channels. one of today's witnesses, richard donahue, testified that he called clark's credentials into question during a tense

oval office showdown and said you're an environmental lawyer. how about you go back to your office and we'll call you when there's an oil spill. nbc news justice reporter ryan riley joins us with paul butler, former federal prosecutor and law professor at georgetown law school. ryan, let's just say donahue was unhappy about the idea of jeffrey clark taking over. what else can you tell us about these tense conversations and what more we might learn today? >> yeah. that was a legendary putdown and one that he was pretty proud of. jeffrey clark grew up in northeast philadelphia, went to harvard. then he went to -- he went to law school. he was an accomplished lawyer but purely a civil lawyer. he did not have any experience in criminal law, but what happened that a lot of his colleagues were surprised by is he went down this conspiracy theory path and seemed to believe a lot of these lies about the stolen election.

that is what made him sort of trump's inside man there. he had this meeting at the white house that was outside of the proper channels, because only really high-ranking doj officials are supposed to have contact with the white house. him being the head of head of t environmental division was not typically a channel coming into direct contact with the white house. it will be interesting to see today, just have these individuals on camera who are all trump appointees saying this was a crazy plan to have jeffrey clark investigate thermostats and bizarre conspiracies. >> is there anything you can tell us about how this might fit into the overall narrative, and maybe for a lot of people the bigger picture of what doj might be looking at? >> chris, we know that trump wanted to make jeffrey clark the attorney general, because clark was willing to weaponize the

justice department to keep trump in office. we can't overstate how unqualified jeffrey clark was to be attorney general. he had no criminal experience, no trial experience. he is an environmental lawyer. he knows nothing about election law or constitutional law. one question is, who wrote this letter that clark sent to the attorney general with this theory about alternate electors? we know 20 minutes after clark got this letter, he sent it to the attorney general and deputy attorney general for them to sign. when they tell clark he is crazy, clark, who is now a government bureaucrat gone rogue, then somehow gets a meeting with the president of the united states that his bosses at the justice department aren't supposed to know about. at this meeting, which is about how to steal the election, it's no surprise that when clark was finally interviewed by the house

panel about this meeting, he took the fifth over 100 times. >> ryan, one of the interesting things you wrote on twitter, there were qanon believers who had thoughts about him? >> they thought he was their guy. he smacked down a lot of the bs as barr referred to it. it was nonsense. no one with brain cells to rub together at the justice department thought that any of this was real. it was looked into. it was investigated. but you had jeffrey clark go forward and actually move forward with this. you have to wonder what facebook algorithm he got sucked into that he believed this trash. he is inside the oval office. he is trump's man at doj. it's a remarkable sort of combination of just comedy and tragedy in this era. which explains a lot of january 6 all together.

>> paul, when you use words like wacky and trash, it almost seems unbelievable but exactly. this was stuff that was going on in the oval office. we are talking about an institution you worked for. what goes through your mind when you hear these details? >> today is about how president trump illegally attempted to corrupt the justice department. other hearings have demonstrated how trump tried to coerce the vice president and state election officials in his plot to remain in office, even though he knew he lost the election. today, these justice department officials, all republicans appointed by trump, will say there was no evidence of widespread fraud. chris, one question is how richard clark got a meeting with trump. it's against justice department regulations for lawyers to talk to anyone in the white house without approval.

i would have been fired on the spot if i had done that. >> literally fired on the spot? >> you don't go, as a lawyer for the justice department, you don't stroll over to the white house to tell the president what you think. there's a chain of command. it's very important to how democracy and the rule of law works. we know that president trump wasn't concerned about either democracy or the rule of law. that's why he is being investigated by the house panel and hopefully soon by the justice department itself. >> it's going to be another interesting afternoon. paul, ryan, thanks to both of you. finally, we have to leave you with a look at a very sweet dog. a bloodhound named trumpet became the first of his breed to win best in show. he is four years old. he beat out a french bulldog, german shepherd and 3,000 other

hopefuls. the audience seemed a little surprised. trumpet comes from a long line of winners. his grandfather was once in the book of world records as the dog with the longest ears. you heard it here. get it? you heard it here. they got it. that's going to do it for us this hour. join us every weekday at our usual hour, 1:00 eastern time, right here on msnbc. do not forget, msnbc will air the next january 6th hearing that begins later this afternoon, 3:00 p.m. eastern. we will pick up our special coverage of that hearing next. coverage of that hearing next.pr passion for learning through our grow up great initiative. and now, we're providing billions of dollars for affordable home lending programs... as part of 88 billioupport underserved communities...

including loans for small businesses in low and moderate income areas. so everyone has a chance to move forward financially. pnc bank: see how we can make a difference for you. this... is the planning effect. this is how it feels to have a dedicated fidelity advisor looking at your full financial picture. this is what it's like to have a comprehensive wealth plan with tax-smart investing strategies designed to help you keep more of what you earn. and set aside more for things like healthcare, or whatever comes down the road. this is "the planning effect" from fidelity. moderate to severe eczema or whatever comes down the road. still disrupts my skin. despite treatment it disrupts my skin with itch. it disrupts my skin with rash. but now, i can disrupt eczema with rinvoq. rinvoq is not a steroid, topical, or injection.

it's one pill, once a day, that's effective without topical steroids. many taking rinvoq saw clear or almost-clear skin while some saw up to 100% clear skin. plus, they felt fast itch relief some as early as 1 week. that's rinvoq relief. rinvoq can lower your ability to fight infections, including tb. serious infections and blood clots, some fatal, cancers including lymphoma and skin cancer, death, heart attack, stroke, and tears in the stomach or intestines occurred. people 50 and older with at least one heart disease risk factor have higher risks. don't take if allergic to rinvoq, as serious reactions can occur. tell your doctor if you are or may become pregnant. disrupt the itch and rash of eczema. talk to your eczema specialist about rinvoq. learn how abbvie can help you save. this? this is supersonic wifi from xfinity. it's fast. like, ready-for- major-gig-speeds fast. like riding-a-cheetah fast. isn't that right, girl? whoa! it can connect hundreds of devices at once. [ in unison ] that's powerful. couldn't have said it better myself. and with three times the bandwidth,

the gaming never has to end. slaying is our business. and business is good. unbeatable internet from xfinity. made to do anything so you can do anything. this is xfinity rewards. our way of showing our appreciation. with rewards of all shapes and sizes. [ cheers ] are we actually going? yes!! and once in a lifetime moments. two tickets to nascar! yes! find rewards like these and so many more in the xfinity app. finding the perfect project manager isn't easy. but, at upwork, we found him. he's in adelaide between his color-coordinated sticky note collection and the cutest boxed lunch we have ever seen. and you can find him right now on upwork.com

when the world is your workforce, finding the perfect project manager, designer, developer, or whomever you may need... tends to fall right into place. find top-rated talent who can start today on upwork.com good day, everyone. i'm andrea mitchell, joined by katy tur and hallie jackson.

we get ready for our coverage of the january 6 public hearing focusing today on donald trump's pressure against the justice department to support his false claim of a rigged election. first, big breaking news. a landmark 6-3 supreme court ruling today upholding the right to carry guns outside the home, except in undefined sensitive areas, invalidating gun safety laws in new york state and seven other states, even as the senate was set to move forward today toward passing the first gun safety law in nearly 30 years. let's talk about this major gun decision with justice correspondent pete williams joining us. pete, take us through it. >> this 6-3 decision is written by perhaps the court's most strongly -- the most strong advocate for gun rights, clarence thomas. what he says is, you don't have to show some special need to exercise your first amendment right of free speech or your