anymore. so he's fine. o he's fine. this sunday, the end of roe v. wade. >> the complete and utter joy of being overturned. >> the supreme court overturns the right to abortion nearly 50 years after roe. >> let's be very clear. the health and life of women in this nation are now at risk. >> states already moving to stop abortion, with more to come. >> with the authority of the state of arkansas, the authority to prohibit abortions. >> this morning, the legal, medical, and political fallout from this historic decision. i'll talk to republican governor asa hutchinson of arkansas and democratic congresswoman

alexandria ocasio-cortez of new york. the plus the january 6th committee. >> president trump ultimately wanted the department of justice to say the election was quote corrupt, and quote, leave the rest to me, and the republican congressmen. >> former president trump schemed to stay in power. claim election fraud. relying on internet rumors and baseless claims. >> my recollection, you said we've got lots of theories, we just don't have the evidence. >> my guest this morning, committee member adam schiff. and president biden signs the first gun safety legislation in decades, even as the supreme court expands gun rights. joining me for insight and analysis are nbc news chief correspondent andrea mitchell, kimberly atkins for the boston globe, nbc news senior capitol hill correspondent, garrett haake, and "wall street journal" columnist peggy noonan. welcome to sunday.

it's "meet the press." >> from nbc news in washington, the longest running show in television history, this is "meet the press" with chuck todd. >> good sunday morning. after a week after among the most significant in our recent history, even before the roe decision, january 6th committee heard evidence of an attempted coup who sought any way possible to hold on to power. we saw the supreme court significantly expand gun rights even as president biden signed the first gun safety bill into law in decades but it was the court's decision to overturn roe v. wade in nearly five decades of abortion rights that gripped the nation in celebrations and bitterness from coast to coast. we know is abortion is likely to be banned in roughly half the states. justice clarence thomas suggested birth control, gay rights and same-sex marriage could be next. we now know that donald trump's 2016 election which gave him three supreme court picks, all

of whom voted to overturn roe is easily now among the most consequential ever in our nation's history. what we don't know is the political fallout from all of this. will there be room in the republican party for people who actually want some abortion rights? can democrats channel their anger and frustration to win elections and poll even with republicans this november, and thanks to how this court was put together, its credibility has never been more in question and this decision came at a time when the country is already dangerously divided. >> it's a sad day for the court and for the country. >> today's historic supreme court decision is a victory for the sanctity of life. >> 50 years after roe. >> the landmark ruling today legalizes abortions. >> the decision by the high court to eliminate the right to an abortion met with celebrations and anger with protests in cities across the

country. >> this is shocking. this is something a woman should have a right to. >> it's a roller coaster of emotion. complete and utter joy. >> uphold mississippi's law banning abortion after 15 weeks. the case actually before the court, but then they went further deciding 5-4 to overturn roe. all three of trump's appointees were in the majority. chief justice john roberts said he would have taken a more measured course. >> we couldn't be happier with this decision and i've never been prouder to be a mississippian. >> we are headed down a dangerous spiral that will erode our democracy. >> the decision set in motion triggered bans in 13 states, in seven of the states, abortion already illegal. at least two dozen states are certain or likely to ban abortion soon. >> swift action to certify section 861, ban abortion in our state immediately. >> we fight like hell to protect michigan women's access to

abortion reproductive health care. >> access to care to fertility services to emergency contraception. about the criminalization of abortion care and what's to come for other privacy rights. >> the supreme court is a different branch of government. they can look at whatever comes before them. >> in future cases, we should reconsider all the substantive due process, including griswold, lawrence and oversell. decisions on contraception, sex, and same-sex marriage. alito's majority opinion differed, saying abortion is fundamentally different from those precedents. without the votes in the senate to codify roe into law, democrats are returning on the ballot to november. >> roe is on the ballot. >> freedom is on the ballot. the answer is simple. it's november. it's the ballot box. >> hoping the abortion issue

will divide republicans, drive base turnout and turn swing voters, suburban women in particular from a focus on the economy to the fight over reproductive rights. one of the states with a trigger law was arkansas, and the supreme court released the decision, the state official banned all except to save the life of a mother. no exception for rape or incest. governor hutchinson, welcome back to "meet the press." >> great to be with you, chuck. thank you. >> let me start with what the arkansas law does. no exception for rape or incest. do you believe that's a mistake? >> well, first of all, this is a day that those in the pro-life movement worked for over 40 years. i didn't think it would come this quickly, and the decision of the supreme court was really something that will save lives. in arkansas, we immediately followed the direction of the

law. it triggered the ban of abortion, as you said, except for the case of the life of the mother. that means we'll work hard to make sure that mothers have the services they need, we'll expand adoption services to meet those needs. that's what's critically important right now, and we have to remember, this is not a nationwide ban on abortion. every state will have the ability to make its decisions. arkansas made its choice. previous to that based on the trigger law and other states made different decisions, this is fundamental, as the court says in our democracy, ultimately the people decide their elected representatives. >> for 13-year-old in arkansas raped by a relative, that 13-year-old cannot get an abortion in arkansas. are you comfortable with that? >> i'm not. i would prefer a different outcome than that, but that's not the debate today in

arkansas. it might be in the future, but for now, the law triggered with only one exception. you can debate whether or not there ought to be different exceptions, every state makes a different determination on that in our constitution and this will continue to be discussed, but at this particular point, the only exception in arkansas is to save the life of the mother. >> a few other questions people in arkansas have about sort of now what. emergency contraception, the so-called plan "b" pill, is it illegal for someone in arkansas to take or not now? >> first of all, the fact that justice thomas said that some of these other cases ought to be looked at, there was no one that joined in that opinion. this is not about contraceptions, this is not about same-sex marriage.

a very limited decision on this particular issue of abortion. so in arkansas, the right to contraception is important. it's recognized. it's not going to be touched, and that's the outcome here. again, every state can debate that, but i don't see that, it's very important now to assure women that the access to contraception is going to be able to continue. >> but does the morning-after pill qualify as contraception? >> well, every state, again, will make that determination. >> not clear? >> those regulations in our state will be reviewed by the court. in arkansas, that should not be an issue. >> what about iud? there are some that say it's a fertilized egg, which under arkansas's law, might be considered an unborn child. are iuds part of this ban?

>> no, it's contraception, and that is continued to be permitted. it's not an issue in this. this is about abortion, and that's what has been triggered and it's not about contraception. that is clear. and women should be assured of that. >> and what about for miscarriages? the treatment for miscarriages looks very similar to the treatment of abortion. is there going to be a department in arkansas that inspects all miscarriages or investigates miscarriages? >> no. absolutely not. we're obviously, we have oversight of abortion clinics to make sure that they follow the law, but again, chuck, this is about the limited ruling on abortion that is historic in nature, will save lives, but the

other decisions when you're talking about miscarriages, the exception is, of course, it's the life of the mother, it's a medical/health emergency and that's between the physician -- they're going to make those judgments with how to handle those things. this is simply about abortion. >> this is between a doctor and the woman then, when it comes to those decisions? i say that so the doctor can feel as if there's no criminal liability thereunder when they treat women and decide that an abortion is necessary due to save her life. that doctor is not going to get investigated or harassed? >> they certainly should not, but it's very important that doctors have always made life and health and death decisions. that's what they're trained to do. they have to make those medical judgments, and it's not the state's judgment to reconfigure those or rethink those.

they make those judgments, and the decision that has to be made is whether there's an abortion and then you go after the provider as a criminal penalty, not the woman. that's a very important thing. what i told my department of health is this. one, enforce the law, but secondly, i want a plan in which we can provide greater resources to women who are going through unwanted pregnancies, to make sure that we have the pregnancy centers, we put a million dollars more into funding of those to provide resources for the women. that's what i'm telling my department of health. >> whatever you thought of roe, that decision never forced anybody to do anything they didn't want to do. this decision now will force a woman to carry a pregnancy that they perhaps didn't want to do. does that at all make you uncomfortable that you're forcing somebody to do something they don't want to do? roe didn't do that. this ruling does.

>> well, no. i think it's a very appropriate ruling. obviously, when you're looking at the government and the power of the government forcing someone to carry a child to term, you've got to think that through and legislators are thinking that through. whenever you look at the opportunity to save the unborn child, that is the rare circumstance in this case that you use the power of the state to say, unless the health of the mother is at risk, let's carry that child to term. and so when you're saving life, that's an appropriate role of the state, and that's what the courts have said, the states can determine. other states might make a different judgment. that's why we have elections. that's why we have elected representatives to make these best judgments pertaining to life and that's what arkansas did under these circumstances. it will continue to be debated, but for right now, that's the judgment we made.

>> you're thinking about running for president. former vice president mike pence is pushing for a nationwide ban on abortion. if you got elected president, would you advocate and sign into law a nationwide ban on abortion? >> the answer is, i don't believe that we ought to go back to saying there ought to be a national law that is passed. we fought for 50 years to have this return to the states. we've won that battle. it's back to the states. let's let it be resolved there and i think there is also a constitutional issue to institute whether the federal government has that authority to begin with under the commerce clause, but also to add it's important in the republican party, we're broad-based party, and we're going to have people disagree on this issue and this is healthy for the debate. we're not going to start excluding people because they might have a different nuanced

view on this. that's what a robust party does. that's what the debate will be in the future. by and large, it's different from the democrat party who says abortion without limits. we say we ought to work to protect life but a lot of debate within that and that will continue. >> governor asa hutchinson, thank you for your perspective on this issue, sir. >> great to be with you, thank you. >> joining me now, democratic congresswoman alexandria ocasio-cortez of new york. congresswoman, welcome back to "meet the press." look, before i get to my first question, i want to get your reaction to the governor of arkansas, especially specifically to this issue of, it is that he is comfortable with the government essentially forcing a woman to carry out her pregnancy. >> naturally, i couldn't disagree more with governor hutchinson but what's important is honing in on this idea that the governor and the republican

party and frankly, the republican legislature in arkansas cares about the life of a woman, life of a mother. the state of arkansas, governs over a state, the third highest maternal mortality in the united states. 71% of the women who die are black women as well. this is a state that has 26% child poverty, where one in four children are living in poverty in the state of arkansas and forcing women to carry pregnancies against their will will kill them. it will kill them, especially in the state of arkansas where there is very little to no support for life after birth in terms of health care, in terms of child care, and in terms of combatting poverty. this decision and this policy will kill people no matter what \their spin and what their

talking points are, and that's what the data shows and that's what the statistics show. >> congresswoman, i know most of what makes change will have to be done at the ballot box but what would you like to see the biden administration do between now and november? >> i think what we need to do is show the american people that when they give the democratic party power and when they actually do vote for us, that we will be using and are willing to use the power that they do give us in order to merit increased expansions in our majority. in terms of what i think the presidential administration should be able to do, we have many ideas. we have some ideas coming from senator warren, signed letter along with 25 other democratic senators asking president biden to explore opening health care clinics on federal land in red states in order to help people access the health care and abortion services that they need. we also must, and president

biden did indicate he would look to expand abortion access via the pill as well as educational efforts henceforth, but also, what i believe that the president and the democratic party needs to come to terms with is that this is not just a crisis of roe, this is a crisis of our democracy. the supreme court has dramatically overreached its authority. we had two conservative senators in the united states senate, senator manchin and collins come out with a very explosive allegation that these, several supreme court justices misled them in, during their confirmation hearings and in the lead-up to their confirmation. this is a crisis of legitimacy. we have a supreme court justice whose wife participated in january 6th and used his seat to

vote against providing documents that potentially led to evidence of such to investigators in congress. this is a crisis of legitimacy and president biden must address that. >> it's interesting you say that. i want to put up the joe manchin quote in particular. his reaction. because he used the word, he said, they testified under oath. he made sure that was in his release. it sounds like you believe, okay, he might as well be saying, they lied to him, that he feels like they lied to him. >> they lied. >> you think the house judiciary committee should begin the process of an investigation there? >> if we allow supreme court nominees to lie under oath and secure lifetime appointments to the highest court of the land and then issue, without basis, if you read these opinions, issue without basis, rulings that deeply yubd underundermine

human civil rights, of the majority of americans, we must see that through. there must be consequences for such a deeply destabilizing action and hostile takeover of our democratic institutions, to allow that to stand is to allow that to happen and what makes it particularly dangerous is that it sends a blaring signal to all future nominees that they can now lie to duly elected members of the united states senate in order to secure supreme court confirmations, and seats on the supreme court. >> do you think lying in a confirmation hearing is an impeachable offense? >> i believe so. i believe so. i believe lying under oath is an impeachable offense and violating federal law and not disclosing income from political organizations as clarence thomas did years ago is also potentially an impeachable offense.

i believe that not recusing from cases with clear family members involved with deep violations with conflicts of interest is an impeachable offense and should be seriously considered, including by senators like joe manchin and susan collins. >> i want to ask you a slightly bigger picture question here. this was written in the republican and seemed to ring true with a lot of folks under the headline, democrat theory of change. hard work, steady funding, momentum through period of setbacks. for democrats, it's reactive after they heard just enough people to make republican rule untenable. what do you make of that? >> well, i think that it does speak to a generational change within the democratic party. i believe that there are, there is an establishment within the

democratic party that has a nostalgia for a better time of politics from decks ago. -- decades ago. you hear this very often when you hear certain democrats say they wished for a strong republican party, but the fact of the matter is that we have a new and very different republican party that more people are recognizing. but frankly, the roots of which have already been there, which is a lack of respect for american institutions, a lack of respect for the law and a deep desire to debase underpinnings of our democracy, so i do believe there has been a weak democratic strategy in the past and we cannot continue to use the same play books. right now, as i say, this is overtime for our democracy and we must be aggressive. >> congresswoman alexandria ocasio-cortez, democrat from new york. appreciate you coming on and sharing your perspective. thank you.

>> thank you very much. when we come back, the legal, medical and political fallout from this monumental supreme court decision. that's next. that's next. italians. like the new supreme meats, topped high with new italian-style capicola. that's one handsome italian. uh... thanks. not you, garoppolo! ♪♪ subway keeps refreshing and refreshing and refres- here's liz, whose bladder leaks drop in uninvited. but instead of period pads, she brought poise ultra thin. so she can bounce on with clean, dry, fresh protection from poise.

it's still the eat fresh® refresh, and now subway® is refreshing their classics, like the sweet onion teriyaki sauce,

topped on tender shaved steak. it's a real slam dunk. right, derek? wrong sport, chuck. just hold the sub, man! subway keeps refreshing and refreshing and refreshi- at xfinity, we're constantly innovating. and we're working 24/7 to connect you subway keeps refreshing and refreshing to more of what you love. we're bringing you the nation's largest gig speed network. available to more homes than anyone else. and with xfi complete, get 10x faster upload speeds. tech upgrades for your changing wifi needs. and advanced security at home and on the go to block millions of threats. only from us... xfinity. every search you make, every click you take, every move you make, every step you take, i'll be watching you. the internet doesn't have to be duckduckgo is a free all in one privacy app with a built in search engine,

web browser, one click data clearing and more stop companies like google from watching you, by downloading the app today. duckduckgo: privacy, simplified. welcome back. our panelists, andrea mitchell, nbc news senior correspondent garrett haake, peggy noonan, and kimberly atkins stohr. opinion write fore are the boston globe. oasis let's start with susan collins and what she vote. throwing out a precedent overnight that the country has relied upon for half a senty is not conservative. it is a sudden and radical jolt to the country that will lead to a political chaos, anger and further chaos in our government. further confidence in our government. john roberts, judicial restraint, peggy.

i'm curious of what happened to small conservativism in judicial restraints. >> in a way, i understand what susan collins said, but another way to view this is a long 50 year struggle that observed all processes and appeal to the public and tried to get support and play the long game and did its very best has suddenly, it seems, but after 50 years, succeeded in the court and the end result of that is that a big huge dramatic question will not be settled by the court as it were, as it had been 49 years ago, but will actually go back to the people of the country who, state by state, will decide through their legislators and representatives what their local abortion law will be. i do not see this big decision as a settlement of this question. >> right. >> but i do think it has put forward a legitimate and

desirable democratic settlement and it will be turbulent for the next few years. it just will. >> kimberly, what was interesting, she talked about the long 50 year campaign on the right to get this done. they never succeeded in changing public opinion. >> no, public opinion has changed here and this is what is remarkable at how the conservative bent, the fast change of this supreme court that was done by design, by pure construction, has gone so far against public opinion. i personally don't believe that people's civil rights and constitutional rights should be up to public approval, but the fact that it is going so far against it speaks to that, and my quibble with what peggy has said here, is that it is interesting that the court picks and chooses when they take the democratic route. they didn't do so with the second amendment. they imposed their will on even states that wanted to put better

protections there and deciding it goes so far beyond abortion and reproductive health care is important, but this is the very heart of the 14th amendment of what protects all the vulnerable people in this country and what they are saying is, unless you have a long history of having this country respect and protect those rights, you may be out of luck in the future and for a black woman, that's terrifying. >> andrea, i've actually talked to some legal experts, with what kimberly said, if this gets back to the supreme court, it may be under an equal protection standard because of, look at what we'll see around the country. women are not going to have the same or equal rights depending on the state they live in. >> this is contributing to the vocalization of our country. our country will be so divided. half the states are not going to permit abortion, and that is going to prohibit abortion from those who cannot travel and

immediately, there are people in arkansas and mississippi who are going to have to go a thousand miles. that is absolutely, to illinois. i was talking to several people in those states yesterday, as we were anchoring on the very subject. they can't travel a thousand miles. they don't have the money. they don't have the money for day care. they don't have the ability to get there for all of the pre-testing that you're supposed to have and for the follow-up exams, and what's so remarkable is when roe is decided, and i'm nold enough to have lived as an adult pre-roe and i know what the situation was, and public opinion has not really changed over these 49d 1/2 years. >> not at all. >> over the 49.5 years. what's happened is that the court has changed. you know how the supermajority with the chief justice does not even have sway or the last year and a half or so because of the super majority which is basically ignoring public opinion and they're not supposed

to be political, but they're going their own way. the super majority who can do whatever they choose to do. roe was decided 7-2, an opinion by justice blackman, a republican, to put by chief justice berger, a republican, during the years of richard nixon. and it was decided, you know, on the basis of what they interpreted, which has been questioned, which is privacy, which is not equal protection, but now what you will see is more of this red blue state division on the policy issue. >> when roe was decided in '73, the two parties were equally divided on abortion. a lot of pro-life democrats and a lot of people have noted, one time, donald trump was pro choice and one time joe biden was pro life. the george bush family, donors

of planned parenthood back in the day. if this new republican majority comes in the house, is there going to be an abortion ban? >> certainly left that option on the table suggesting he would put forward a narrow support, 15 week abortion ban as i suspect one probably will, especially if the majority is big enough in the house. ironically, this has been kyrsten sinema's position on not getting rid of the filibuster that this vote will come up and the filibuster may be the only protection democrats have left. in two years from now or four years from now under a republican president to prevent a national abortion standard. now, conservatives made the argument they want this decided at the state level, but i think democrats, as you just heard from congresswoman ocasio-cortez, read the writing on the wall. you can say one thing whether it's a confirmation hearing or what have you, but republican, everything they have done suggests they want to see this banned at a national level, and to your point about the parties being vulcanized on this, you're not winning for the state house seat in missouri or texas or a state like that unless you

believe in, you know, abortion ban with no exceptions. that's the direction that party is going and democrats have to prepare for it. >> peggy, politically, during the era of roe, it was the democrats fighting over, where do you draw the line? late term abortions. republicans did a great job of wedging. and now all of a sudden, it's the republicans will have to, because some will want exceptions. governor hutchinson talked about it, but garrett brought up a point, is that going to survive? >> this is going to work its way out. i would say everybody here, i think, agrees that when polled, the american people say they're for roe, they're for the right of abortion as seen in the constitution, but the minute you get beyond that, to questions of the cutoff. is it 12 weeks or 14? then, then support goes down. it all becomes more complicated. the fact was, i think legally,

r oxide -- roe and casey were just sort of incompatible with getting all of those reservations worked out in the law, so i think that is part of what drove it. but the republican party, you know what they should do now? use the victory, if you see it that way, to change itself and become a party that helps women and children, and it becomes responsible and supportive. >> we're here because donald trump and got together for a litmus test for overturning roe as a nominee. sandra day o'connor, did not have it, anthony kennedy it not have it. the republicans from the top set the tone. >> i'm going to give you guys more time, just not right now. it will be later in the show. when we come back, the story that in any other week would

have led our show and dominated news. riveting testimony about former president trump's scheme to stay in power. yes, sirman adam schiff is next. . uh line? (♪ ♪)

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- psst. girl. you can do better. subway keeps refreshing ok. wow. i'm right here. and you can do better, too. at least with your big name wireless carrier. with xfinity mobile, you can get

unlimited for $30 per month on the nation's most reliable 5g network. they can even save you hundreds a year on your wireless bill, over t-mobile, at&t and verizon. wow. i can do better. yes, you can. i can do better, too. break free from the big three and switch to xfinity mobile.

welcome back. almost lost in all the news about roe v. wade was the consequential week in the january 6th hearings. two of them, on tuesday, the congressional panel tied former president trump to a plot to fake elector slates and how he pressured state officials to overturn his election loss in any way they could find and then on thursday, we heard how mr. trump sought to install allies ahead, jeffrey clarke, to falsely claim it was false and coerce states for the results. >> i said to mr. president within 48, 72 hours, hundreds of resignations of the leadership of your entire justice department because of your actions. what's that going to say about you? >> the actions of rosen and donoghue there, basically kept us within two hours of a

constitutional crisis. joining me now is congressman adam schiff who led tuesday's hearing. >> good to be with you. >> two more hearings this coming weeks, delayed two weeks. can you give us a little bit more? what more has come in and on what specific areas has more information come in that you feel you need more time? >> the next couple of hearings will cover the run-up to january 6th, the marshaling of this mob that appeared on the mall that day and attacked the capitol and the final hearing will cover what the president was doing and more importantly, what he was not doing as we were being attacked. >> in those hours, not january 6th itself. >> exactly. basically, the president's flagrant dereliction of duty while the capitol was being attacked and this will give us more time to prepare for the two hearings. a lot of work, as you might imagine, goes into each and every one of these hearings and learn more information all the

time that we want to incorporate, so this will give us more breathing space to do that. >> you've spent a couple of hours with a documentary filmmaker, got all of the video information. does it add any fact that you did not know? >> you know, it's hard for me to characterize because we have information from other sources that the public hasn't seen yet, but it certainly adds to the footage of that day. some new perspectives that we haven't had, at least captured on film. i don't want to get too far ahead. part of what made the hearings successful is they're a combination of what's already known and things that the public hasn't known yet, and most important, we do try to tie it all together and show the public where it all fits its pieces. >> look, one of the, if there's a search for a smoking gun here, it is to find evidence that donald trump knew he lost but went about this anyway. have you found specific evidence

that he knew he lost and that this belief defense is one that is just not going to work? >> i think we continue to see powerful evidence of that, and just this week and every now and then, you see something that tells you a microcosm of what it's all about. in the last hearing, the president saying to top justice officials, just say it was corrupt and leave the rest to me and republicans. that's an acknowledgment by the president after making all these fruitless claims of fraud and being told, that's not true, that's not true. the president didn't care. what he wanted them to do is just say it was corrupt and jeffrey clark, this unqualified environmental lawyer that he was going to put at the top of the justice department, drafted a letter to georgia, falsely claiming that the justice department believed there was fraud to overturn the election and called the legislature back into session. the president understood that

all of the justice department leadership thought it was completely bogus and he was prepared to go along with it, except for the threat of mass resignation. >> that meeting, january 3rd, two hours from the constitutional crisis, is it when that fails, should we then see the pressure campaign on pence that basically begins 48 hours before january 6th? it intensifies. does that no-go intensify this? is that the connective tissue there, the conclusion we should draw? >> i think you see the pressure continue to build and build and build. these lines of effort that were failing, we're never completely walked away from. the pressure on the state legislatures continued right up to the 6th, the effort to get the fake electors counted by the vice president, the first campaign against the vice president. all of that continued but on the 6th, the last ditch effort was to get that crowd to stop what was happening in the building, and we see then that january 6th

was not a day in isolation. it was the culmination of several efforts to overturn the election. >> a couple of things, this week, the department of justice certainly let the public know it was doing a lot more on january 6th than we've seen in the past. i think there were subpoenas served on at least nine people in four states, a search warrant was executed on a home of jeffrey clark. you've been critical in the past of the justice department. you felt as if maybe they were being a little passive, do you still have that criticism or do you look at their actions this week and does that reassure you? >> it certainly seems that there's a greater sense of urgency than i've seen before. at the same time, i have yet to see any indication that the former president himself is under investigation, and i concur with what judge carter on california said that there's sufficient evidence to believe he violated multiple federal laws, and you can't hold anyone immune.

you can't say, there's a different standard, different rule of law for former presidents, particularly, when you took the position while in office that they couldn't be indicted. >> the country is divided right now and indictment of a former president could throw gasoline on the fire, choosing not to hold him accountable could also throw gasoline on the fire. no good outcomes here. what's the worst outcome on that front? do you understand why the attorney general may be really struggling with this decision? >> i think it's a very difficult decision, but i don't think, that is, to prosecute. not a difficult decision to investigate when there's evidence before you. and i think the worst case scenario is not that donald trump runs and wins, but that he runs and loses and they overturn the election because there's no deterrent, because there's no

effort to push back. >> what if you prosecute and he gets off? >> that's always a risk, but the fact is that if you fall the evidence where it leads and a belief that you can prove beyond a reasonable doubt, then you have a duty to prosecute and the decision not to investigate or not to prosecute becomes a political decision that this person doesn't fall under the rule of law. >> adam schiff, thank you. when we come back, the other other big story of the week. supreme court's expansion of gun rights. the ruling was on a new york state law that was over 100 years old. what happened in new york is not staying there. back in a moment. back in a moment ugh, i thought she was actually gonna jump. just use this code and order on the subway app!

it's still the eat fresh refresh, and subway's refreshing everything, like the baja steak and jack. piled high with tender shaved steak, topped with delicious pepper jack cheese,

and kicking it up a notch with smoky- baja chipotle sauce? yep, they're constantly refreshing. y'all get our own commercial! subway keeps refreshing and- welcome back. data download time. the abortion decision was not the only news from the supreme court this week. on thursday, the high court struck down a new york law that strictly limited who can carry a gun in public, over 100 years old. the 6-3 ruling immediately raised questions about similar laws in other states. the long-term, it could have even broader impacts on all sorts of other gun rules nationwide. let me show you. first of all, the law that was impacted was new york state, but it could impact laws on the books very similar to new york when it comes to who can carry a gun in new york, maryland, new jersey. bottom line, there may be a handful of states but a lot of people reside in these states. 25% of the population impacted by that ruling directly. what was interesting is what was

said on the ruling, the justification of this ruling is this. to justify a firearm regulation, the government must demonstrate that the regulation is consistent with the nation's historical tradition of firearm regulation. pretty broad new standard with gun standards. the magazine ban, about ten states plus the district of columbia has those. are those in the tradition of gun regulation that goes back more than 100 years? it's unlikely the court would find that. those could be targeted by gun rights organizations to try to get those bans ruled unconstitutional. and then the red flag law. u.s. congress and president biden to encourage more states to have red flag laws, but that doesn't mean that gun rights organizations think they're constitutional and they may go back to court to see if that

standard that can be used to rule states and others unconstitutional. bottom line, a lot of gun laws, on a lot of injures digs could be vulnerable with the new standard that the supreme court has come up with. coming up, bad politics for republicans and the abortion decision. me up with coming up, bad politics for republicans and the abortion republicans and the abortion decision keeps refreshing and refreshing and re- why choose proven quality sleep from the sleep number 360 smart bed? because it can gently raise your partner's head to help relieve snoring. ah. that's better. and can help you get almost 30 minutes more restful sleep per night. the queen sleep number 360 c2 smart bed is only $899. plus 0% interest for 36 months. ends monday.

the eat fresh® refresh just won't stop!

now, subway® is refreshing their catering with easy-order platters and lunchboxes perfect for any party. pool parties... tailgates... holiday parties... even retirement parties. man, i love parties. subway keeps refreshing and refreshing

>> we are back. one person whose legacy is going to be defined by the overturning of roe v. wade is donald trump. andrea mitchell, donald trump doesn't seem to be excited about this. he called it a victory for life at his rally in illinois yesterday, but he is mumbling and grumbling all over the place about this and he believes this is going to hurt republicans in the midterms. >> absolutely. look, when he ran, as a fake evangelical and fake supporter of banning abortion and all this antithetical to him and politically important in iowa and other places as he was running, so this is not his core

beliefs because he is not ideological. he's just pragmatic, and he can see the handwriting on this. while the economy is the biggest issue and will continue to be the biggest issue and inflation, driving the midterm elections, it is going to be abortion rising as a big issue, and it's especially toing to be important in trigger states and states with a total ban, in michigan, wisconsin, where governors could change hands. people who could veto republican legislature. one thing overlooked is how in 2010, this really emerged with republican activists, not republicans generically, but activists who really wanted to ban abortion seized on this with the tea party movement in 2010 and it was a census here. they grabbed state legislators that changed hands from democratic to republican but at the state level, this became baked in with the redistricting

and more and more states now have republican legislatures, who will ban or restrict abortions if governors or state officials are not there to veto it. >> this has been a challenge for democrats, to keep focused on state legislators, ag's rations, races, having barack obama for eight years is one thing but if all of these state legislatures are flipping, you're in a world of hurt. i don't see this issue playing as much on the federal level. maybe it's a margin in some of the senate in house races but if you run for governor, the total abortion ban doesn't really play in play know, in texas. >> this is not something you can flip overnight. this is a generation-long movement on the right that's led

us here and the democrats, not clear to see if they'll started what will have to be a generation long movement to move this backwards, not just with the supreme court but at the state level as you're saying. you think it's going to take horrific details about how women are dying because of complications in pregnancy and other terrible outcomes for this before the public really understands how important this is. >> i wonder if there's a blueprint in what we just saw with the guns legislation, where it was a decade in that case but it took sandy hook for democrats to get electorally organized around the issue of guns. spent a decade doing it. able to get a big breakthrough this week, whether this ruling is enough to start a process -- >> we've got a presidential election and a midterm and they're going to lose control potentially and won't be able to do anything. there's no way they can do anything in the senate, until you get rid of the filibuster move. >> not happening. >> i think something that is important for liberals now, realize this. big decision came down. for 50 years, the courts had put it one way.

liberals will now have to get in the game in a whole new way democratically and that's through persuasion, not anger, rage, all that stuff. persuasion. >> persuasion argument never works. >> no, no. people said consistently yes, roe abortion rights but the minute you got past the fourth or sixth week, that's where the persuasion. but that's where they did, i think, change minds. >> what i just don't understand and what it feels like why a boomerang is coming, the life side was winning incrementally and now it's like they've rushed to crash the car. we don't like when anything is rushed in overtime. >> it's not rushed but sure feels sudden. abrupt. i experienced that so much on the day of dobbs, with so many emails and texts came in from

people. normal humans who said, i have no idea this was happening. they were just shocked. so there was an abruptness, but i think persuasion was part of the whole thing. he had to persuade a lot of people to make a movement triumph. >> you can't have persuasion when you have a young supreme court. they're going to be here for decades. this is a super majority that is not going anywhere anytime soon and it was done because of, as i say, merrick garland not getting a hearing and then three trump justices who misled the senate, and so whether you like that or not, it can't be done at the senate level. >> that is all we have for today. this conversation will keep going, but i have to turn the cameras off. thank you for watching. we'll be back next week because if it's sunday, it's "meet the

press." it's sunday, it's "meete press. from coast to coast, americans hit the streets over the weekend, to protest the supreme court's decision to overturn roe v. wade. democrats are seizing on the ruling, hoping anger will fuel support at the ballot box in november. and while republican leaders are cheering the decision, behind the scenes, president trump maybe voicing some concern and what he is saying about the potential impact to the gop. also this morning, we're live from austria, as president biden meets with world leaders at the g-7 summit where the focus is on the global economy and the ongoing war in ukraine. it comes as russia launched an apparent show of force yesterda