they're listening. i think we're seeing it in the clip you're mentioning. >> okay. mike allen, big hugs to you through the television. >> happy holiday. >> thank you. >> back at you. tomorrow at noon eastern, i'll talk with madeline dean, also representative seth molltan about the 1/6 hearings. also, the headaches for those traveling this holiday weekend. thank you for getting up "way too early" this holiday weekend. "morning joe" starts right now. sunrise over new york city on a beautiful friday morning. it is 6:00 on the dot on the first day of july. good morning. i'm willie geist. joe and mika have the morning off. it is a busy friday morn. we're following new concerns of possible coercion and witness pressure after the revelation that donald trump's allies are covering the legal fees for some

of the witnesses in the house investigation into the january 6th attack. plus, republican congresswoman liz cheney of the committee defending her work there during last night's republican primary debate in wyoming, as she fights to keep her seat in congress. and the latest in the debate over abortion rights. president biden says the senate should make an exception and suspend the filibuster and its rules to allow new protections to make it through congress. but does he have the votes to pull that off? we'll discuss it. and a brutal six months for financial markets, as wall street closes out one of its worst periods in a half century. brian sullivan joins us in a moment to look ahead to the next six months. with us this morning, we have u.s. special correspondent for bbc news katty kay. and pulitzer prize winning columnist and associate editor of the "washington post," eugene robinson.

let's start with the questions of whether donald trump may be trying to influence witness testify related to the house select committee's january 6th investigation. according to the "new york times," trump's save america pac and his allies paid for or promised to finance the legal fees of more than a dozen witnesses who have been called in to testify. financial disclosures show in may alone, trump's save america pac paid $200,000 to different had attorney fees paid for by the american conservative union's first amendment fund, which consults with trump's team about whose fees to cover. that is according to the organization's chairman. as we have learned, the house select committee asked witnesses whether anyone has tried to influence their testimony, but unlike witness tampering, which, of course, is a crime, there is nothing illegal about a third party covering legal fees for a witness. meanwhile, republican congresswoman liz cheney defended her work on the january

6th committee during a primary debate last night, while her top opponent defended donald trump. five candidates took the stage in wyoming, including cheney, who is facing an uphill battle in her re-election bid. she was outcast by republican leadership in washington for refusing to go along with the big lie and for co-chairing the january 6th commission. the former president's false claims about a stolen election and cheney's work to refute them both were on the agenda during last night's debate. >> people need to know something about me. i will never put party above my duty to the country. i will never put party above my duty to the constitution. there is a real tragedy that's occurring, and the tragedy is that there are politicians in this country, beginning with donald trump, who have lied to the american people. the truth matters. and the claims that mrs. hageman is making about the 2020

election are the same claims for which the president's lead lawyer, rudy giuliani, was disbarred. >> we're not a democracy. we're a republic. our republic is not in danger because of president donald j. trump. president trump was an excellent president for the united states of america, and especially for the state of wyoming. the threat to our republic comes from other sources, including the fact that, right now, we have two different systems of justice in this country. we have one system of justice where you have people like hunter biden or hillary clinton or even joe biden who are not held accountable for the decisions and the bad acts that they undertake. >> so, eugene robinson, harriet hageman, who is leading in a lot of polls, though there is time before people vote in the primary, standing and defending donald trump, drawing an

equivalent to hillary clinton, which is laughable after what we heard the last week. we heard something similar in arizona, in the governor's debate there, a candidate defending donald trump. liz cheney is, point-blank, putting her career on the line by doing what she's been doing the last year and a half or so. she doesn't seem bothered by that. >> no, she's not. i mean, she knew the job was dangerous when she took it. she knew what she was getting into when she stood up for truth instead of donald trump. she knew this would make it very difficult for her to get re-elected in wyoming. because the republican base is still with donald trump. you know, it's unclear at this point whether it is the base leading trump or trump leading the base. at some point, you have to look at those voters and, in the face of mountains and mountains of

truth, revealed not just by the january 6th committee but by, you know, events over the last six years about donald trump, who he is, what a danger he presents to our democracy, to our republic, to whatever you want to call it, and the republican base is unfazunphase that because they want what trump continues to sell. this is going to be very difficult for liz cheney. now, there's some slippage. trump has seen slippage among big donors, obviously. some leading republicans are getting nervous about the idea of him still essentially being in charge of the party. right now, the likely candidate in 2024. we'll see about that. but it's tough for liz cheney. you know, maybe she can convince enough democrats to cross over

and vote in the republican primary and give her a boost, but she has an uphill climb. >> one poll, katty kay, has hageman up by 30 points or so on cheney, but the gap has closed the last couple weeks. still, obviously, she's running like a underdog. she's running like she is the challenger here. it remains extraordinary, though, that you can sit and listen to the testimony we've heard the last three weeks or so in front of this january 6th committee, some just in black and white, about what the president did in and around january 6th, and still be able to stand on a stage, defend what he did, and look yourself in the mirror that night, or say good night to your children with a clear conscience, truly. but it is what you have to do, still, to win these primaries in most republican races. >> yeah. i spent time out in wyoming talking to people, supporters and detractors of liz cheney's. it's been interesting.

on this trip around america i've done over the last month, i, as you are suggesting, thought this was cynical. that people were using the idea that the election was stolen just to try to curry favor with donald trump. having spoken to people in wyoming for a week, i think people genuinely believe it. i think when you raise a point, as liz cheney did, that whatever the point is, no, the election was not stolen, rudy giuliani was disbarred, there is always, as we heard in the clip, a comeback. harriet hageman saying, well, hunter biden wasn't investigated. people are fervent in their belief that donald trump won the 2020 election, and they're opposed to liz cheney. most agree there will be some democrats, and i interviewed one who said she was going to hold her nose and vote for liz cheney because she'd never voted

democrat in her life, but this time around, it was that important. it is an open statement, you can vote either way. they think her numbers will get to 30%, 40%. closer than it is looking at the moment. but the degree to which liz cheney has sacrificed her political career by going on the january 6th committee, by voting to impeach donald trump, is clear out there. it would be remarkable if she managed to be re-elected, and she is fully cognisant of that. it is one thing to stand up in washington and talk about the january 6th committee's work and donald trump trying to steal the election. it is another thing to do it in wyoming at the moment, where the mood against her is so powerful. >> there are millions of americans who believe the election was stolen because of information they've been fed through media channels. a politician who theoretically should know better is cynical in feeding that back to them, so he or she can win an election.

president biden will likely deliver a speech on the january 6th committee's findings once the house panel wraps up the investigation, according to white house officials. sources say the goal of the speech would be to emphasize what biden believes is at stake, should former president trump or his allies return to power in washington. for more on this, let's bring in nbc news correspondent josh lederman. josh, good morning. busy week for this president as he returns from the nato summit in madrid yesterday. big news there. let's talk about this speech first. when do we expect to hear it, and what was the idea behind it? >> it won't be until after the january 6th committee finished their probe, willie. really, throughout this hearing process, we have not seen president biden piping in from the sidelines with running commentary on every new development from the hearings, shocking as it may be, and that is by design. the white house feels like president biden's use of the bully pulpit on this particular

issue is most effective if he is not seen as weighing in on incremental developments but, instead, saves that power of his voice for the big, key moments, for once the major conclusions have been drawn and the country is in a period to reflect on what they've learned. that's when they say president biden will come in with a speech that they are discussing having after the committee finishes the investigation, where the president can outline the stake here. put this in the context of the fight between democracy and autocracy he speaks about often, the battle for the soul of america that he and our friend jon meacham like to speech about. there is another reason the white house wants to wait and pick their moments for president biden to be seen out front on this issue. that's the justice department. merrick gargarland, the attorne general, under major pressure,

some democrats and even republicans like adam kinzinger are openly expressing frustration with the slow pace, outwardly, of investigations from the justice department. the white house wants to make sure they are doing everything possible to inoculate that investigative process from any perception of interference by the white house. that is why this speech is being planned for after the major conclusions have been drawn by the committee, they've done their hearings, and president biden can start to use this to frame the midterm elections, and the real threat he'll describe if republicans are allowed to retake congress and president biden -- former president trump would be re-elected in 2024, willie. >> yeah. the white house has been happy to let the hearings speak for themselves for the time being. we'll try to put a bow on it at the end. at the nato summit, president biden criticized the supreme court's decision to overturn roe v. wade. he supports making an exception

to the filibuster rules to get this through congress. >> i believe we have to codify roe v. wade in the law, and the way to do that is to make sure that congress votes to do that. if the filibuster gets in the way, it's like voting rights, it should be we provide an exception for this. require an exception to the filibuster for this action. >> exception to the filibuster. when asked to clarify, the president said he is in favor of making an exception to the filibuster to protect privacy rights, a central component of the roe decision. senators joe manchin and kyrsten sinema support codifying abortion rights into law but oppose changing filibuster rules to do it. josh, here we are again, talking about scrapping the filibuster, or making an exception for abortion rights. the white house careful to talk ab it as an issue of of privacy rights. >> that's right, willie. president biden came in front of

reporters with some news that make. he news he was likely to get a question on that. he was ready to declare his support for a carveout to the filibuster for the abortion and privacy rights. he previously expressed support for carving out an exception to the filibuster on voting protexass. now, president biden says this should extend to the privacy issues. when he talks about privacy issues underlining the roe versus wade overturn, he's talking about the concern the supreme court could go even farther and start to look at other precedents that are also based on the privacy protections. like same-sex marriage, access to contraception, and consensual sex between adults of the same sex. this was a nod to the president's base versus any real legislative strategy. stop me if you've heard this one before, senators joe manchin and

kyrsten sinema are still opposed to a carveout of the filibuster, even for this issue versus any other. democrats don't have the votes to go ahead with him, but we do expect the president to keep pushing on this issue publicly, which is really all he can do right now. to that end, today, in a few hours, president biden will be meeting virtually with democratic governors from the states that have really rushed to shore up protections for abortion rights in the wake of this supreme court decision. it is within of the ways that the white house is trying to cast a focus on how the fight really now does shift to the states, both to those where the justice department, others will be challenging some of the restrictions that may be put into place, but also to the democratic or left-leaning states that are going to protect abortion rights and which are now going to become the safe havens, where the biden administration is bracing for so many women from no abortion states to be traveling to these legal abortion states to seek

out care. there are concerns those states, public health systems, could be inundated by the influx of new patients. that's something the white house is also hoping to help states prepare for in the days ahead, willie. >> another busy day at the white house. nbc's josh lederman, thank you for capturing it for us this morning. we appreciate it. the supreme court capped off a week of landmark decisions yesterday by limiting the epa's power to curb carbon dioxide emissions. 6-3 vote, the clean air act, established in 1963, was declared to not give the environmental agency the authority to regulate greenhouse gases from power plants that contribute to global warming. chief justice john roberts conceded that even though regulating a transition away from coal would be a, quote, sensible solution to the crisis of the day, the epa does not have the authority to do that. in her dissent, justice kagan condemned the court for appointing itself, quote, the decision maker on climate

policy. she could not think of many things more frightening. president biden blasted the ruling, which experts say could hurt the white house plan to kurt gas emissions in half by the end of the decade. for more, let's bring in cnbc's brian sullivan. good to see you, sully. how is the business world reacting to this? >> well, this is a big blow potentially to the clean energy agenda, which, by the way, could be a major economic driver, as well, willie. let's not forget, there are trillions of dollars globally that are looking to be invested in clean energy alternatives. wind, solar, hydro, you name it. this could be, not will be, but it could be a blow to that. it also may be a more wide sweeping decision with regards to what they call the major questions doctrine. i'll get to that in a second. the decision, to your point, was 6-3. effectively said that unless congress expressly authorizes something in the text of a law, that regulatory agencies, whether in this case it is the

environmental protection agency, are not allowed to interpret and change policy that will have, to basically the court's summation, widespread, sort of policy and economic reactions. why this matters for the remainder of the economy is that if you take this concept, this major questions doctrine that chief justice roberts is enacting here, willie, you can stretch that out well beyond environment, well beyond this case, and say agencies, whether it's the securities and exchange commission, the fcc, the ftc, have just been widely reduced in their ability to create rules. >> yeah, and it raises the question of what's the epa there for then, if not for this? gene, you're writing about this in your column this morning. you call the ruling from the supreme court utterly catastrophic for the environment. what are the implications? what is fallout of this? >> look, the fallout is that the

supreme court is limiting the ability of the epa to do what congress told it to do, what it is supposed to do under the clean air act, under the toxic substances act, under the legislation that the environmental legislation that has been passed over many years, which is to, you know, clean the environment and to get pollutants out of the air and out of the water. what the court, i believe, is trying to do here is a matter of idlogy more than policy. because it's trying to sort of cut what it calls the -- or what conservatives call the administrative state down to size and to say congress really needs to, you know, legislate stuff like this and not leave it

to the agency to do. i respond, good luck with that. the epa rules are developed, you know, by experts and scientists and people who know the data, this and that. good luck trying to get congress to go through that sort of process and come out with anything that's meaningful or intelligent. but a question for sully, which is, in this case, the rules in question, which were kind of moot anyway because they're obama era rules that never went into effect, then trump era rules never went into effect, and there really wasn't anything concrete for the court to decide here, but they decided it anyhow. but the whole point of what the obama administration was trying to do was to get these existing power plants to switch from coal to natural gas and cleaner fuels.

>> uh-huh. >> isn't that happening faster, actually, than the rules would have made it happen, just because of market forces? >> well, i think you're right, gene, yeah. and i think that's one aspect to this. i know the headline for the supreme court seems pretty grim, to your point. these laws actually were never enacted. in fact, they were based off nixon era law that also was never enacted. i think the court was trying to make a bigger point. yes, you are correct. market forces are working to say, guess what? with esg, environmental social governance investing, we don't want coal. the wall street money is not beginning to go there anyway. these ultimately are going to go away. they're bad for the planet. what we're going to do is put all our wall street capital, global capital, into things like either natural gas, maybe nuclear, we'll see, gene, wind, solar, et cetera, and the irony of it is, right now, is that

coal is being used far more by china and india. we're seeing europe kind of bring a little coal back, probably in the short term, because of putin's insane war and the natural gas flows. but you are correct, the market will hopefully correct the dynamics. one thing i'd add, though, is if you expand -- i have a law degree but i'm not an attorney -- if you expand the major doctrines, what power do these agencies have? the s.e.c. is trying to limit climate disclosures or force companies to put disclosures into public releases. is that null and void? is the cap system doa because of this? this will have a were sweeping impact, potentially, than this one case. >> yeah. it is clearly a continuation of the conservative theory that very many branches of government, agencies of government, don't need to be there in the first place, and they undermine them as much as possible. sully, while we have you here, i

think this is day one of the second half of the year. the first half of the -- >> thank goodness. >> -- year was dismal for investors. what are you looking ahead to the second half? there's been a report from the euro zone saying inflation hit a record high of 8.6%, not particularly cheerful news. how is the second half going, and how is the inflation number doing? >> you're right, we're not. but it is friday. we're heading into the fourth of july weekend. i don't want to be the grim reaper. i want to be optimistic. >> a nice american optimist at this point? >> that's right. hot dogs. we're going to have sleep, also. willie and gene, we're talking about sleep being key on the long weekends. >> yes. >> here's what we're looking for, the federal reserve to pivot. right now, the federal reserve, the nation's centralraising int trying to slow the economy, pump

the brakes on the huge trump -- truck on the u.s. economy without driving it into a ditch, which would be a recession. looking for a slight pivot, probably the end of the year, where wall street is either going to slow or stop the aggressive pace of interest rate hikes. that'll be sort of the key to everything. it was the worst first half to a year for the stock market since ryan o'neil and ally mcgraw starred in "love story" in 1970. >> wow. >> how about that, willie? i don't know what that movie is. i wikipediaed it. [ laughter ] >> right. >> this is the upside, hopefully a love story in the end, i like to think that as the market has gone down 25%, 30% this year, things can only look up longer term. you're welcome.

>> that's a love story in and of itself. cnbc's brian sullivan trying to keep it positive as we head into the weekend. always great to see you, my friend. thank you so much. >> thanks. the end of the supreme court's session this year also meant the beginning of a new chapter in american history. >> all the members of the court, i am pleased to welcome justice jackson to the court and to our common calling. [ applause ] >> justice, yes, justice ketanji brown jackson officially sworn in yesterday to the supreme court, making her the first black woman ever to serve on the nation's highest court. her swearing in comes after justice steven breyer retired after 28 years on the bench. justice jackson issued a statement following the ceremony, writing, quote, i am truly grateful to be part of the promise of our great nation. i extend my sincerest thanks to all my new colleagues for their

warm and gracious welcome. gene, it is nice to have at least one brief moment in america where you can put politics to the side and just say, wow. that was a beautiful moment in history. >> yeah, it's a real milestone. you know, personally, it makes me proud. it's gratifying to see this step forward. you know, i pity her experience in the next few years on the court because i fear she's going to be there with sotomayor and kagan dissenting in a lot of cases, as the conservative majority kind of does whatever it wants to do. but the fact that an african-american woman has reached the pinnacle of our legal ladder, as reached the top there and is now serving in this

office is an inspiration. i think it should be an inspiration for the whole country and, as you said, a nice note to end what has otherwise been a pretty dismal supreme court session. >> yeah. day for history yesterday, and now the real work begins. still ahead on "morning joe," the latest out of ukraine, as russia launches new missile strikes overnight in odesa, killing more than a dozen people, including children. the very latest in a live report. plus, david ignatius says nato is united on ukraine, but plenty could still go wrong. david joins us ahead with his latest piece for the "washington post." also this morning, after months of being detained in russia, wnba star brittney griner expected to appear at a moscow courtroom today. the latest on the fight to bring her home. and millions of americans are traveling this holiday weekend. we will take a look at what to expect if you're hitting the roads or heading to the airport. you're watching "morning joe" on

a friday morning. we'll be right back.

what if i sleep hot? ...or cold? no problem. the sleep number 360 smart bed is temperature balancing, so you both stay comfortable 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, free home delivery when you add a base. ends monday. researchers believe the first person to live to 150 has already been born. it could be you! wow. really? of course, you'll have to eat your greens, watch your stress, wear sunscreen... but to live to 150, we're developing solutions that help doctors listen to your heartbeat while they're miles away, or ai that knows what your body will do before you do. cool. introducing elevance health.

where health can go.

the unknown is not empty. it's a storm that crashes, and consumes, replacing thought with worry. but one thing can calm uncertainty. an answer. uncovered through exploration, teamwork, and innovation. an answer that leads to even more answers.

mayo clinic. you know where to go. lemons, lemons, lemons. the world is so full of lemons. when you become an expedia member, you can instantly start saving on your travels. so you can go and see all those lemons, for less. 6:32 in the morning. beautiful, live picture of the white house this morning. the trial for wnba star brittney griner began today in a courtroom. it comes four months after she was arrested at a russian airport, where officials said they found vape cartridges with cannabis oil in her luggage. he face she faces ten years in prison, which officials say is all but certain, despite the calls from

the united states. the united states says brittney griner is wrongfully detained by russia. in ukraine, 19 people were killed when russian missiles hit the port city of odesa. ukraine's state emergency services say at least 30 others, including three children, were injured in the attack. one missile hit a nine-story residential building, home to around 100 people. the other missile hit a nearby recreational center. the attack comes a day after russian troops withdrew from snake island, a pivotal island in the black sea. joining us now live from kyiv, nbc news correspondent ellison barber. good to see you. the attacks seem to be coming more frequently, deeper inside ukraine. >> reporter: mm-hmm, yeah. i mean, it is an ongoing situation. from the initial reports we're getting, a very disturbing one. as you said, officials say at least 19 people are dead, dozens wounded, including children. ukrainian officials say russian missiles hit an apartment

building as well as two recreation centers. we understand, according to local officials, at least 152 people lived in that apartment building. they say dozens are still unaccounted for. they are going through the rubble because they are afraid more people might be trapped. this comes on the heels of an amnesty international report accusing russia of committing a war crime in mariupol as it relates to the theater that came under attack, when people were sheltering there. since the full-scale war began in february, ukrainian officials have accused russian forces of committing more than 15,000 war crimes. in late may, ukraine's prosecutor general told reporters that their office is receiving up to 300 reports of war crimes every single day. russia routinely denies targeting civilians or civilian infrastructure, but the evidence that that is a lie is overwhelming. we've seen it from kyiv and on.

a man recently fled mariupol, and we talked to him days after he made it out of the city. he talked about how under russian occupation, people there are forced to capture and kill pigeons so they have something to eat. they're taking water from the boilers because they don't have good access, very limited access to clean drinking water. he said when he was trying to leave the area, he almost died after russian forces grabbed him, yanked him out of the car, put him on his knees and held a gun to his back. the only reason the trigger was not pulled was because a van that had children and a lot of people in it pulled up next to him. for whatever reason, he said the russian soldier paused and odest is coming on the heels of russian forces leaving snake island. they have claimed they left as a gesture of goodwill, but the uk's ministry of defense says given the different attacks that ukrainian forces have launched

on that island, particularly the garrison and other areas where they were using it to kind of get extra resources in, that they were forced to leave this area by the attacks that were coming from ukrainian forces. ukrainian forces were celebrating that as a victory. that is very close to odesa, so this attack coming right after is really coming on the heels of another significant military development that was positive for ukraine, negative for russia. willie. >> even propaganda around that, the russians saying, no, we're just leaving the island to open shipping lanes for products coming out of ukraine. ellison, thank you, as always. joining us now, columnist and associate editor for the "washington post," david ignatius. good to see you this morning. we've been talking to military experts about these attacks, like the one on the mall a few days ago that killed at least 18 people, probably many more. they say this is pure psychological warfare. russians telling the ukrainian people, we can still do this.

yes, you've repelled us from kyiv. yes, you've pushed us to the east and it may seem the war is there, but we have the ability to terrorize you. >> sure, we're watching a rush that continues to press us toward -- >> we've lost david's shot. we're going to work on that. katty, i'll pick up on the point with you. there was this feeling over the last couple of months that the fight had moved to the donbas, to the east, where, of course, there is fighting going on. now, russia, even just in the last week especially, targeting these facilities like the mall full of civilians, residential buildings full of civilians. >> yeah. russia does this when things are happening that it wants to almost retaliate for. the mall was struck by the g-7 was meeting. >> right. >> residential facilities as nato expands. things have been going better

for russia in the eastern part of the country. they've been gaining. ukraine is struggling. both sides have supply issues. from the west point of view, the sanctions in russia will make it hard for russia to resupply the military. we don't know. the intelligence is not as good as one might think, but that's the hope from the west's point of view. sanctions will hit, and russia will run into problems resupplying the military, particularly because of the semiconductor ban. at the moment, the russians seem to be doing pretty well, comparative to how they were doing certainly in the beginning of the war. in the east of the country. every time the west does something like expand nato or hold a meeting, recommitting to the ukrainian effort, then putin's default seems to be to take action against civilians. it's the same playbook he used in syria. there's no particular reason to be surprised by it. but it is hard for ukrainians who felt they were just starting to get back to look as normal, when you're hit again. there is a time and supply issue

we're going to start coming up against. is the west going to carry on being committed to supplying ukrainians with as much weaponry as they need, not just weapons but with as much weaponry as they need to hold off the russians, and is russia going to manage to keep its stocks alive in the face of these sanctions? that's what western analysts and diplomats and leaders are kind of looking at. at what point does russiabecome the sanctions? it doesn't seem to be affecting them as much as westerns hoped it would. >> yesterday from president biden, as he left the nato summit, $800 million more of military aid headed toward ukraine. while we work on david ignatius' technical problems, we'll take a quick break. when we come back, china's president is marking an important anniversary with his first trip out of the country in more than two years. plus, new reporting on

evidence former president trump and his allies are trying to influence witness testimoies to the january 6th committee. and delta pilots are making a statement just as we hit a busy holiday weekend. we'll have more about the many issues travelers are facing today and in the days ahead, as you get out on the road and to the airports. "morning joe" is coming right back. from prom dresses to workouts and new adventures you hope the more you give the less they'll miss. but even if your teen was vaccinated against meningitis in the past they may be missing vaccination for meningitis b. although uncommon, up to 1 in 5 survivors of meningitis will have long term consequences. now as you're thinking about all the vaccines your teen might need make sure you ask your doctor if your teen is missing meningitis b vaccination.

♪ it wasn't me by shaggy ♪ you're never responsible for unauthorized purchases on your discover card.

age is just a number. and mine's unlisted. try boost® high protein with 20 grams of protein for muscle health. versus 16 grams in ensure high protein. boost® high protein also has key nutrients for immune support. boost® high protein. -hi, i'm smokey bear and i made an assistant to help you out.

because only you can prevent wildfires. -hey assistant smokey bear, call me papa bear because i'm "grrr-illing" up dinner. haha, do you get it? -yes. good job. -so, what should i do with all of these coals? -don't just toss them out. put them in a metal container because those embers can start a wildfire. -i understand, the stakes are high. assistant smokey vo: ha-ha, ha-ha. -see, smokey think's im funny! happy to say we got david ignatius back up. columnist and associate editor for the "washington post." your piece, "nato is united on ukraine. good but plenty could still go

wrong." let's start with the goods we saw the last couple days. united commitment from the nations and a financial commitment, along with finland and sweden. >> the overused word, it was a historic nato summit. the addition of two powerful countries, finland and sweden, bolsters nato in the north. nato is moving east, i think, in terms of its center of gravity. there will be u.s. troops now stationed in poland for command headquarters. there will be additional u.s. troops going to the baltic states, going to romania. there will be american destroyers, fighter planes. our european allies were all basically speaking the same script about sticking with ukraine. the worries that some might be defecting were not in evidence at the nato summit in madrid. so what could go wrong? unfortunately, there are a series of things that i think the u.s., its allies need to

think through very carefully. the first is what happens on the battlefield. we saw overnight missiles lobbed into odesa, a city on the coast that hasn't seen much fighting. civilian loss of life, just as the terrible attack on the shopping mall earlier in the week. this a daily occurrences for ukraine. they sap morale. they make this war so hard for the ukrainians. we need to make sure that these nato weapons are getting into ukraine and the numbers and in a timely way so the ukrainians can keep up the fight as their morale is attacked by the russians. something has to be done, clearly, about energy prices. the high level of energy prices continues. again, it saps strength among ukraine's supporters. there was talk about doing something about that both at the nato summit and the g-7 summit earlier in germany, but there's no specific plan yet. finally, the question of how ukraine is going to have access

to the black sea to ship its grain. ukraine and russia, from the black sea, supply 30% of the world's grain. it is crucial in terms of the world's ability to feed itself, that that grain be able to pass out. again, a lot of talk at the summits this week about addressing food shortages, but no specific action plan yet. so my summary, willie, is there was a lot of good news. nato is holding together, seeing this fight as crucial for the future. but there's still a lot of ways you can see the west losing as putin sits in moscow, lobs his missiles, bides his time. doesn't seem to be in a rush. somehow, the pace of commitment has to be stepped up in the west. >> david, the famous david petraeus question, tell me how this ends. tell me how or what the thinking

is about how anyone might end putin's practice of just sort of lobbing missiles at civilian targets in ukraine whenever he has a fit or suffers a loss or just feels like it? it seems to me, that could go on indefinitely, despite what's happening on the battlefield in the donbas or near kherson or the actual war. he's not going to run out of dumb munitions any time soon, or ever, and has this ability to just strike civilian targets at will. that, it seems to me, could go on for years and years. what's the thinking about how you turn that off somehow? >> gene, the standard answer i hear at the pentagon and the white house is that's for ukraine to decide.

president biden has said he believes this conflict should end in a negotiated settlement, but when the negotiations begin, what position ukraine takes, whether ukraine might agree to some temporary holding of its land by russia in exchange for a cease-fire, those are all questions for the future. the white house tries to make clear, that's not for us to decide. it's the ukrainian people who are fighting and dying who will have to make the decisions. i think there is a hope that as the west steps up its aid to ukraine, puts in weapons that really can go right at russian command and control on the border, maybe weapons even that can go over the border, if russians are firing missiles, they shouldn't be invulnerable just because they're a few kilometers back, that if that weapons flow continues, if

technology controls on russia continue, they don't, in fact, in moscow, have an inexhaustible supply. at some point, they are wearied. the economic effects of the war begin to hit them. there are some u.s. and british intelligence reports that the damage being done to the russian military, their exhaustion of supplies is more serious than we've been able to report here in the west. it's impossible to fact check those, but i know the intelligence agencies take a view that russia is hurting. so the answer, gene, would be that you keep doing what you're doing. at some point, the price will be unacceptable for putin. he may not come into a formal peace agreement, nor may zelenskyy, but fighting at this level of intensity is too

costly for both sides. >> david ignatius, we appreciate you being with us. we'll be reading your piece in the "washington post." today marks the 25th anniversary of hong kong being handed over from british rule back to the chinese government. president xi jinping made the trip to the city to mark the occasion. his first trip off the chinese mainland since january of 2020, before the pandemic began. joining us now live from beijing, nbc news foreign correspondent janis mackey frayer. good to see you this morning. what is the significance of president xi's trip to hong kong? >> reporter: well, this is highly symbolic, willie. not only because it is his first international trip since the pandemic, he sworn in the new leader in hong kong, a former police officer who was hand-picked by beijing, and was also behind the imposition of the national security law there that many say has created a police state. in many ways, xi's visit seals a victory over hong kong. the protest movement has been

all but silenced. it wasn't that long ago that we were there covering protests that were sometimes drawing 2 million people to the streets. now, hundreds of activists have been rounded up, arrested, facing trial. journalists, politicians, media outlets have been shut down. the image of hong kong has been serious altered. but this is an important victory for xi jinping in a politically significant year. later this year, he will enter a third term in power. all of this being closely watched in taiwan, where the government has rejected repeatedly this same one country, two systems of rule, that they say has eroded rights and freedoms in hong kong. of course, so much tension has been building over the future of taiwan with russia's invasion of ukraine and the sense that china is watching closely and taking notes, not only to see about an eventual military move on

taiwan, but also where the u.s. stands. in that sense, the messaging from the biden administration has been confusing for chinese officials. president biden has, at times, suggesting the u.s. will do more to help taiwan militarily, only to have white house officials walk the comment back. the mixeing is getting attention in beijing. i sat down with a former official. >> they're talking about a one china policy, right? but in my observation, they will always talk about a one china policy. but the content of a one china policy is changing. so with remarks from a president, definitely something has changed. it is in the wrong direction. could someone talk about something unintentionally for the third time? that's my answer.

i don't believe the united states wants to have a war with china in the taiwan state. that said, however, it is doing still all kind of things that are considered to be provocative to the mainland. that is a problem. if china has to go to war to safeguard its sovereignty, china may just take unpeaceful means as a last report. >> reporter: another piece of disagreement is the taiwan strait. china sees it as sovereign territory, whereas the u.s. sees it as international waters. to that, zhou bo said there is no such thing as international water in international law. quote, this concept is fabricated by the united states. willie. >> my sense is speaking to business leaders in the u.s., they feel u.s.-china relations are really at a low point. there is almost no communication happening between chinese

officials and american officials at the moment. put this in the context of what that means for security in taiwan, but more broadly, what it means for american businesses and for american investors in china and for the relationship more generally. >> reporter: well, the relations are near a low. there is a lot of talk here, of course, of a new cold war, but a kind that is different from the cold war of the past with the former soviet union. zhou bo, to that, said years ago between enemies, there were still two points that the u.s. and the soviet union could discuss. one being the eradication of smallpox. these days, there are still just two issue that the u.s. and china seem to be willing to discuss. that's climate change and public health policy with the pandemic. so the sense is that there is not a bright future for u.s.-china relations, and the business environment here has been steadily deteriorating. not only because of ongoing

tensions over trade, over tariffs, but also because of the covid restrictions here. and what has been seen as a suffocating environment for any business to try to thrive, let alone fortune business sforeign. a lot of foreign companies are having trouble attracting people, especially those with families, to locate here because of the environment around covid restrictions. all of this is playing out, of course, in the economy, in the senseere that there is not much upside for u.s.-china relations, even when it comes to economic reparations. >> all this on the 25th an verse anniversary of hong kong being handed back over to china. janis mackey frayer reporting from beijing. thanks so much. a spokesperson for mark meadows is denying any attempts

to influence testimony for the january 6th hearings. we will dig into the allegations of witness tampering, as well as what comes next in the panel's investigation into the attack on the capitol. "morning joe" is coming right back. it's still the eat fresh refresh, and now subway's refreshing their 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- fishing helps ease my mind. kinda like having liberty mutual. they customize your car insurance, so you only pay for what you need. woah! look out! [sfx: submarine rising out of water ]

[ sfx: minion spits bobber ] minions are bitin' today. [ sfx: submarine hatch closes, submarine dives ] ♪ liberty. liberty. liberty. liberty. ♪ hello! minions: the rise of gru, only in theaters. hey!

to help prevent bleeding gums, try saying hello gumwash with parodontax active gum health. it kills 99% of plaque bacteria and forms an antibacterial shield. try parodontax active gum health mouthwash. i d d so my y quesonons eouout hicacase.y y son, try parodontax active gum health mouthwash. cacalledhehe bars s fi i d d soit was the best call eouout hii could've made. call the barnes firm and find out what your case all could be worth.uld've made. ♪ call one eight hundred, eight million ♪

and find out what your case all when a truck hit my car,ade. ♪the insurance companyed, wasn't fair. eight million ♪ i didid't t kn whahatmy c caswa, so i called the barnes firm. i'm rich barnes. it's hard for people to k how much their accident case is worth.h barnes. t ouour juryry aorneneys hehelpou welcome back to "morning joe."

7:00 a.m. on the dot on a beautiful friday morning in new york city. it is the first day of july heading into this fourth of july weekend. katty kay is still with me. joe and mika have the day off. the house select committee investigating the attack on the capitol january 6th held a half dozen hearings so far, trying to make the case donald trump was at the center of a massive conspiracy to overturn the 2020 election. here is some of the key testimony we've heard so far. >> i made it clear i did not agree with the idea of saying the election was stolen and putting out this stuff, which i told the president was [ bleep ]. >> how did that affect your perspective about the election when attorney general barr made that statement? >> i respect attorney general barr, so i accepted what he was saying. >> there are suggestions by, i believe it was mayor giuliani, to go declare victory and say

we'd won it outright. >> was there anyone in the conversation who, in your observation, had had too much to drink? >> mayor giuliani. >> the mayor was definitely intoxicated. >> the noise from the rioters was audible, when we recognized maybe they'd gotten into the building. >> when president trump tweeted, mike pence didn't have the courage to do what should have been done to protect our country and our constitution. >> bring out pence! >> it was clear that it was escalating massively and quickly. >> hang mike pence! >> so then when that tweet, the mike pence tweet, was sent out, i remember us saying that that was the last thing that needed to be tweeted at that moment. the situation was already bad, and so it felt like he was pouring gasoline on the fire by tweeting that. >> the secret service couldn't control the situation and do their job of keeping him safe. >> 2:26 p.m., secret service

rushed vice president pence down the stairs. >> approximately 40 feet, that's all there was. 40 feet between the vice president and the mob. make no mistake about the fact that the vice president's life was in danger. a recent court filing by the department of justice explains that a confidential informant from the proud boys told the fbi the proud boys would have killed mike pence if given a chance. >> it is the new pattern or a pattern in our lives to worry, what will happen on saturdays, because we have various groups come by. >> and had his name, you committed treason, may god have mercy on your soul, with a slowly twisting gif of a noose. >> some people broke into my daughter-in-law's home. my son has passed, and she is a widow. has two kids. so we're very concerned about her safety also. >> there are people at her home,

and they just started pushing their way through, claiming that they were coming in to make a citizens arrest. >> you also noted that mr. rosen said to mr. trump, quote, doj can't and won't snap its fingers and change the outcome of the election. how did the president respond to that, sir? >> he responded very quickly and said, essentially, that's not what i'm asking you to do. i'm just asking you to say it was corrupt and leave the rest to me and the republican congressmen. >> i overheard the president say something to the effect of, you know, i don't think they have weapons. they're not here to hurt me. take the f-ing mags away. let me people in. they can march the capitol from here. >> a small portion of the testimony from the last three weeks. joining us now, former u.s. attorney harry litman. good morning. great to have you can us. >> good morning. >> we show that to put it together, because so much of this is woven together to tell the story of what happened. frankly, you hear one hearing and say, my gosh, that's as

explosive as it can be, and then it's the next hearing. this week was cassidy hutchinson. let's start with her testimony, how powerful it was. what part of the story this tells, and who else it might bring into the conversation. someone like pat cipollone, who has been subpoenaed by the committee. >> i thought it was extraordinarily powerful. the main thing it did was take the element of violence, the actual riot on the ground which we all saw, and people might have thought before had happened spontaneously or was a crowd run amuck, and it seemed to present it as something the former president actually waned and fomented. and she is kind of car of meadows' aide. everything from the violence that president trump is fine, if not eager to see his vice president harmed, acknowledged

that if they go down to the capitol, they'll be guilty of every crime imaginable. she testifies to that as a 25-year-old aide, putting tremendous pressure on her boss, mark meadows, who has so far been silenced. it puts specific and intense pressure on mark meadows and pat cipollone, the white house counsel. >> we heard a 24-year-old woman being the conscience of the white house on that day. so many of the leaders stood by and did nothing. you're a former attorney. step back and how do you think the department of justice may be watching all this? obviously, merrick garland is under intense pressure from democrats, republicans on the committee to say, hey, i hope you're listening to this and listening to what the president did and did not do on the day of january 6th and the

leading up to january 6th. as we take a pause in the hearings, a break for the fourth of july, and they'll come back in a couple weeks, where are we, do you believe, in terms of the way this could be prosecuted? >> much advanced. even before cassidy hutchinson's testimony, we learned they'd served search warrants, a big step, on clark and eastman. my sense is this, two points to make. the end of the day, there will be things on the other side to think about if you're going to go against the former president. you know, that's point one. more immediately, there are many actors besides him who could be in the crosshairs. here's where i am if i'm the department of justice. there has been, and you just talked about it up front, pretty strong evidence of obstruction. the facts as sort of teased out, because we haven't had

everything, stayed a case much stronger than those convicted. the doj hates that crime. i think they're proceeding methodically, but they may be at the point of zeroing in on mark meadows, who could be the linchpin to everything. everyone is very eager for them to go quickly. they've already done the biggest investigation of all time with the folks on the ground. and they're not going to go quickly. they'll go methodically. at the end of the day, there will be much to consider. but on just the question of the evidence, the normal requirements for prosecution, is he guilty? will you get a conviction? i think it's become a quite strong case, and an even potentially stronger one against others who we have things to say about him, starting with mark meadows. >> let's pick up on that question of possible obstruction here. the end of tuesday's january 6th committee hearing, vice chair liz cheney revealed at least two witnesses have been contacted by people connected by donald

trump, trying to influence or intimidate them. three sources familiar with the committee's work tell cnn one of the people contacted was cassidy hutchinson, the former aide to chief of staff mark meadows who testified tuesday. national correspondent for "politico," betsy woodrow swan, broke the story and joins us now. also with us, hugo lowell, who has new investigation on the reporting. betsy, what can you tell us about the possible obstruction and the threats, if you want to put it that way, to cassidy hutchinson and others? >> in the closing minutes of this hearing, the select committee put up two different slides on the big screen at the front of the hearing room. both described communications that had been issued by people in trump world that appear to be attempts to influence witness testimony. what i can confirm is that those slides were both based on testimony that hutchinson provided behind closed doors in

her fourth and most recent deposition to the select committee. what i can also tell you is that the final slide the committee shows is a specific presentation of a conversation that hutchinson had with a person who was an intermediary for mark meadows. in the final conversation, as depicted on screen by the select committee, this unnamed intermediary said, meadows is thinking about you. he knows you're loyal. he knows you're going to do the right thing. clearly, hutchinson was troubled enough by that communication that she brought it up to the select committee in this final deposition. also, it must be noted, that conversation that hutchinson had with this unnamed intermediary happened the night before her second deposition, which came all the way back in march. the timeline here is important, of course, because the committee only learned about these weird

conversations that hutchinson had in her very last deposition. we know the contents of that last deposition is likely the number one time factor that spurred the panel to bring her in so quickly for basically an emergency hearing with only 24 hours notice. >> spokesperson for meadows provided the following statement to "politico" and betsy. no one from meadows' camp, himself or otherwise, attempted to shape ms. hutchinson's testimony to the committee. any phone message is, at best, deeply misleading. that's from the meadows camp. betsy, who are we talking about? you're in the going to give up sources, and i understand that, but who are the potential group of people who would put the pressure to cassidy? obviously, she is close with everybody in meadows' world. she was as close as you can be in terms of being an aide. who are the kinds of people who would want her toreconsider

testimony or ateast be c when she spoke openly to the committee? >> setting aside the meadows slide, the other slide was a characterization of multiple communications that hutchinson said with other people, talking in the plural. that is referring to folks in and very close to trump world. based on what the slide says, it doesn't appear she was zeroing in on a specific individual in that characterization of what the committee views to be attempts to influence her. trump world is a really big place, but it is not as big as it used to be. so the people who are going to be the most interesting characters in all this are the folks who are still very close to trump and who are still tracking the january 6th problem and its political consequences, as well as its legal consequences for trump's future in the republican party. >> hugo, i know you were able to confirm some of betsy's report ong this question of potential

intimidation of a witness. we said earlier this week with joe and mika, it's the stuff you see in mob trials. a witness gets a whisper in his ear, a note under the door to be careful when he testifies. >> yeah, exactly like that tactic, to go behind the scenes and, you know, you'll stay loyal, right? we can count on you not to flip on anyone. great reporting by betsy yesterday. we have additional reporting on the person who sent cassidy hutchinson that message. we understand that that person in question is of interest to the select committee, not only for sending that message which may constitute some sort of witness tampering or intimidation, but because they may be a fact witness to donald trump and his actions close to january 6th. it sounds like the select committee for the moment is not making the name of the person who messaged cassidy hutchinson public because they may still

want to bring them in and interview them or reinterview them, as the case may be, in a future deposition. clearly, the select committee is focused on this as a real matter of concern. >> betsy, obviously, if this was to go to the doj, they wouldn't just want to have some kind of conviction for a small crime. the feeling would be if you're going to the unprecedented step of charging a former president, then you need to be able to convict him of something that is important. as we've got to this stage in the hearings, what's your sense about what the committee is thinking in terms of what those crimes might be that are both convictable and would rise to the level of importance enough that it was worth the doj doing something that was so unusual in american politics and law? >> from talking to sources who view this from a 360 degree view perspective, what i hear over and over is that the biggest

likely statute or crime the justice department is probably considering in regards to president trump and people close to him would be obstruction of an official proceeding. that would essentially look at the efforts that trump and his allies took to keep the january 6th electoral college certification from moving forward. the witness tampering piece of this, using, of course, the legal phrase that jamie raskin, a member of the committee, used to describe the slides the committee put up on screen is a top priority for committee investigators right now. highlights the fact their investigation very much is not done. of course, what they're going to have to do is flush out context. flush out what were these conversations? when did they happen? who had them? what was the tone of theseheari. it is a very different thing,

particularly if you're the department of justice, to know that to bring any charges against anyone related to this, it'd be in an adversarial proceeding with a defense attorney, with people pushing back, with people making counterarg counterarguments. the justice department is always moving slower than the select committee because the job they have is so much exponentially more difficult. >> hugo, we have a july breather in the hearings. the km itcommittee will resume hearings in a couple weeks. let's turn the page and look ahead. so much has been put on the table in the first half dozen hearings. what is still out there for this committee that you've been covering so closely? >> now, they've issued a formal subpoena to sat cipollone, as we were discussing earlier. that is the next agenda item for the committee. he has to come in for a deposition july 6th. that's what it says on the subpoena. that's kind of in the immediate viewfinder.

then coming down the road, we have at least two more hearings. jamie raskin is supposed to lead a hearing on the proud boys and the groups that stormed the capitol, and what doj and the committee believes was a coordinated assault. he's been preparing with a senior on the committee to lay out the hearing and plan for that. then, of course, we have the 187 minutes of the capitol attack, where trump sat in the white house and knew the capitol was attacked and did nothing. at least two more hearings to come when the house returns on july 12th. we understand that jamie raskin's hearing will be on that day that congress comes back, july 12th. more to come still. >> the "guardian's" hugo lowell and betsy woodrow swan. harry litman, as well. appreciate it. enjoy the long weekend. as we head into the fourth of july holiday weekend, travel forecasters say we'll see

pre-pandemic levels of americans hitting the road or heading to the airport. nbc's tom costello is standing by on what we can expect. plus, we're digging into new polling about how the supreme court overturning roe versus wade could change interest and enthusiasm in voting this november. you're watching "morning joe." we'll be right back.

flight cancellations and delays are expected to get worse as travelers head to airports this holiday weekend. they're already bad. the roads will be just about as busy. joining us now, nbc news correspondent tom costello. good morning. give us a little hope this weekend, can you? >> reporter: i think there is, willie. listen, we got blue skies here in the mid-atlantic. i understand the same thing is happening up in your neck of the

woods in new york and jersey. that's going to help the travel picte, especially the roads and, of course, also flying. but we already have 200 flight cancellations today already. it is going to be building. that's on top of 450 or so yesterday. the vast majority of people, though, 42 million people, will be hitting the roads despite the gas prices. we're averaging in many, many places around the country $5 and more. the national average is dropping. the vast majority of people, though, are going by road. for americans celebrating the fourth away from home, from the highways to the skyways, the great escape is well under way. for some families, this independence day may also celebrate a freedom of sorts from covid. with the youngest kids now eligible for vaccines. >> you did so good. >> reporter: nearly 48 million people are traveling over this holiday, a record 42 million by car. despite record high gas prices for the fourth of july weekend.

>> gas prices are insane. >> reporter: but even as drivers pay a national average of $4.84 a gallon for regular, experts say for many families planning to take a trip this summer, going by car may still be the most affordable option. for a vehicle getting an average of 25 mile to the gallon, a round trip from vegas to the grand canyon just over $120. charlotte to the outer banks, less than $140. even kansas city to denver, 1,200 mile round trip, just over $200. but factor in meals and hotels, and it all adds up. >> with kids this age, we'd love to go to disney world. getting there and staying there, it makes more sense to stay close. >> reporter: the flying public is paying more. >> fourth of july weekend, travelers paid about $440, up 45% compared to what they would have paid in 2019. >> reporter: not just on airfare. >> the cost to rent a car this year is 70% more than the same

month in 2019. already, rental car prices are bonkers. >> reporter: on thursday, delta pilots in the midst of a labor contract dispute picketed several airports nationwide, saying they're overworked. as airlines, some of which have trimmed back summer schedules, face an ongoing pilot shortage. the wild card this weekend and beyond, the weather. >> storms from florida to the southeastern u.s. >> reporter: all of it creating a rocky travel season over the fourth and through the summer. >> every flight we were on was overbooked. it is going to get worse as the weekend comes on, i'm sure. >> reporter: attention all travelers, this is important. effective today, delta, american, united are cancelling, are trimming their schedules. going forward, what does it mean? watch your schedule. if your booked on a flight next week, the week after, taking the kids on a vacation, watch the app, watch your schedule.

your flights could be changed. you could be rebooked. you have to add pad time to the top and the bottom of your schedule so you get there in time. in case things go bad, you have time to recover. willie, back to you. >> i'll take a tom costello old tip, take the earliest flight out you can. tom costello, thank you as always. enjoy the long weekend. it's been a week since the supreme court overturned roe versus wade, leaving state lawmakers and providers scrambling to figure out what is and is not legal. and the next session for those justices will feature a controversial case about election law. that's why our next guest is writing, "a conservative supreme court is just getting warmed up." we'll explain when "morning joe" comes right back.

7:30 in the morning as you

get a live look of the united states capitol on this first day of july. after overturning roe versus wade last friday, the supreme court ended its term yesterday with a pair of split decisions for the biden administration. nbc news justice correspondent pete williams has more on the rulings affecting immigration and climate change. >> reporter: in one of the most important environmental rulings in decades, the court said the epa does not have broad authority to limit greenhouse gas emissions by shifting energy production away from coal burning plants and toward cleaner sources like wind and solar. 6-3 vote, the court said a major action would require explicit support from congress. justice roberts said it is not plausible congress gave the epa authority to adopt on its own a regulatory scheme. >> it's cut off the agency's ability to do the farthest reaching, most impactful thing, to cut carbon emissions from the

power sector. that's the sector of the economy that produces about a quarter of the greenhouse gas emissions. >> reporter: justice kagan said the decision means the court appoints itself as the decision-maker on policy. i can't think of anything more frightening. it could have broaden implications, because congress, not other federal agencies, could set the rule on major questions. some say it is the recipe for inaction. >> congress doesn't have the time or expertise to address all the major social and economic problems on its agenda. in addition, it is often incapable of reaching grand bargains. >> reporter: in a separate case, the biden administration can go ahead with its efforts to end the trump program that forces migrants seeking asylum to wait in mexico. the vote 5-4 with roberts and brett kavanaugh joining the court's three liberals. it marked the end of steven breyer's 28 years on the court. his last official act was to

join roberts in administering the required two oaths of office to ketanji brown jackson, who becomes the court's first black woman. >> so help me god. >> on behalf of all the members of the court, i am pleased to welcome justice jackson to the court and to our common calling. >> that is pete williams reporting for us. let's bring into the conversation senior legal affairs reporter at "politico," josh gerstein, and columnist for "boston globe opinion," a former appellate attorney and co-host of the "sisters-in-law" podcast. josh, we're looking back with pete at the extraordinary last couple of weeks in the united states supreme court. let's look ahead, as you say, this supreme court is just getting warmed up. what cases will you be looking at moving forward here? >> the biggest one we just heard about yesterday involves an election law issue, willie, that could really revolutionize the

way certain federal elections are held in the united states. it's a case out of north carolina. it involves a question of whether state legislatures reign supreme on all matters related to issues like redistricting as well as election procedures. you may remember in the 2020 election, some trump allies in the maneuvering right after trump basically lost the vote, suggested that state legislatures could step in and certify other electors. if this case goes to the most extreme outcome, it'd mean if you had a republican state legislatures and they had concerns about issues related to voting, they could step in. that might not be renewable by any state court or governor or any state election commission. >> kimberly, it's remarkable to think of the ruling in the context of also having a supreme court that is conservative. if the ruling goes ahead and the court rules in favor of north

carolina, you could have a potential where you have congress being much more conservative, directed by the supreme court. it is a wide-ranging victory moment for conservatives that they've been building up to for years, isn't it? >> it really is. i mean, think about in a not few terms ago, the supreme court ruled that it had no jurisdiction to review claims of partisan gerrymandering, which really allows in this redistricting process map drawers to say, oh, we're not, for example, racially gerrymandering the districts. it is based on trying to preserve a republican or democratic district, and usually it looks alike. the court said it can't review that, and one of the justifications is the idea that state courts are the better venue to review these kinds of actions. as josh just said, if the court rules in favor of this

independent state judiciary theory, that'll no longer be the case. the court is not only potential potentially really creating a situation where one party can take over elections, but it is inconsistent with its previous rational. >> it is a real sweep there. talk a little bit, kimberly, there was the moment yesterday, we all watched, where justice jackson was sworn in. it was a historic moment for the court. yet, i couldn't help but watch that and think, this woman who has broken barriers and now got onto the supreme court is potentially going to spend her entire career there in a minority if this court stays as conservative as it has been. what is her future actually look like on the court? it looks -- it seems like it is going to be a pretty frustrating few years for her. >> that very well could be the case. it was remarkable. she is coming in at a remarkable time for the court, as she was being sworn in, people were being arrested outside the

supreme court building who were protesting. imagine that being your first day. yes, she enters a minority, knowing that her most impactful decisions will probably be dissents. that is important. it is important to speak to the future. but i think one of the biggest roles she's going to play is that she has a very different background from any of the other justices on the court. from her legal experience, including being a public defender, to the fact she is a black woman, to the fact she's from florida, a different part of the country. as they deliberate, i believe those experiences will come to play and will, at the very least, make the justices, even those who are on the opposite side of the case from her, consider a different perspective. i think that her impact is going to be more -- is going to be bigger than just what we see in the court's rulings. >> josh, as we look at the roe decision that was a week ago today, and you think about the

implications of it moving forward and this moving to the state level now, which is where the fight is for so many americans and so many activists, is this a question now, do you believe, that raises contraception, as justice thomas said in his concurring opinion? does it raise same-sex marriage? is there actually a distinct possibility the court may hear and review some of the landmark cases? >> i don't think, willie, that those specific issues are likely to wind up being ones the court takes up very soon, but i do think the court has a lot to do. it has a lot on its plate that could have a pretty dramatic impact on american society. in the fall, they're going to hear the question of affirmative action in higher education, which has basically been sort of the baseline of higher education emissions for the last half century. the court could well do away with that. they could well undermine things like same-sex marriage by saying, for example, that people who have religious views can

refuse to do business with gay or lesbian individuals. so there is a lot the court has on its agenda. as i said in the story, it's really just getting started. this is what a six conservative super majority on the court looks like. >> yeah. many americans saying, now you have to take this court at its word, that it is willing to look at and review some of the issues that many people thought were settled precedent. josh gerstein, kimberly atkins, thank you for being with us this morning. appreciate it. coming up next, former president trump's support among his base still is strong, but republican mega donors, some of them anyway, reportedly are fleeing to other potential presidential candidates. that's next when we come back to "morning joe." ahead on "sunday today," we'll there be on the eve of the fourth of july with a new conversation with the always entertaining jeff goldblum. it went in different directions. we were there, theoretically, to talk about "jurassic world

dominion." he reprised the role he played in the first "jurassic park" movie. we went all over the place, in beautiful fashion, as you always do with jeff goldblum. did you know he leads a jazz ensemble? jeff goldblum with me on "sunday today." we'll be right back on "morning joe." researchers believe the first person to live to 150 has already been born. it could be you! wow. really? of course, you'll have to eat your greens,

watch your stress, wear sunscreen... but to live to 150, we're developing solutions that help doctors listen to your heartbeat while they're miles away, or ai that knows what your body will do before you do. cool. introducing elevance health. where health can go.

we've been streaming all day from every room. introducing elevance health. the power and speed of this super-sonic wifi from xfinity is incredible. mom! mass speeds was my idea, remember? get minion net, with speeds of up to one minion bite per hour. [ low screaming ] but that was an epic fail. with xfi we can stream, share, swipe, like... impress your mom with super-sonic wifi. it's unbeatable internet for a more unbeatable gru. i mean, you.

there you go, 7:44 in the morning. beautiful live picture of the statue of liberty as we head into this fourth of july weekend. former president trump's support among his base is still very strong, of course, but republican mega donors, some of them, reportedly fleeing to other potential presidential candidates. revelations of trump's efforts to overturn the 2020 election revealed by the january 6th committee are accelerating that trend. cnbc reports a person close to

some of the biggest real estate executives in new york who backed trump during both of his runs for the white house now say things have changed. their view is he has taken major hits during the january 6th hearings. none from that group are coming to defend him, at least for now. the lack of interest in trump by some of the wealthiest republican donors could boost fundraising efforts for other presidential hopefuls. a number of republicans could run in 2024, including florida governor ron desantis, former vice president mike pence, senator tim scott, and senator tom cotton. despite a lock of support from corporate leaders, trump maintained a massive campaign war chest, thanks to small dollar donors. his political action committee, save america, had over $100 million on hand going into june, according to the latest federal election commission filing. so, katty, this is interesting. liz cheney getting ruckus applause at the reagan presidential library, also a

statement a couple days ago. we shouldn't overstate this, donald trump still has tons of money at his disposal and a big base of support, if he does decide to run. >> right around the country, people that i've spoken to told me they'd still like donald trump to be the president. they point to a host of things he did well for america and a whole host of reasons they want him to come back again. i've spoken to people who say, look, the economy wouldn't be in such bad shape if donald trump was still president. so he still has, and the poll polls are showing this, he has a base of support in the conservative movement, the maga movement in the population. the question is whether the january 6th hearings have made enough big donors think, you know what, he's too much trouble, we still support all of the ideas, the policies, whatever they were, the philosophy of maga. we still want those things in the white house, but perhaps there is a candidate out there who represents those things, is

acceptable to the maga crowd, and, yet, comes with a little bit less drama and baggage around him. that could be one of the biggest impacts in the january 6th hearings. it could be that the course of these hearings, the drip-drip we've heard has actually damaged donald trump with perhaps some more independent supporters and, more importantly, with some donors. it was hard not to listen to cassidy hutchinson and think there might be quite a jubilation in the desantis camp at the moment. any clash, any primary run between desantis and trump is going to been a extraordinary explosion, but you have to think that the january 6th hearings have been better, certainly, for desantis than donald trump. >> just for perspective on all this, a new emerson college poll that came out just this morning put out a potential republican primary in 2024. this is as of this morning. donald trump gets 55% of the vote. ron desantis, 20%.

mike pence, 9%. still, donald trump is a behemoth in the republican party. president biden today will host democratic governors in a call to discuss the next steps in safeguarding abortion rights at the state level. the meeting follows the supreme court ruling's last week to overturn roe versus wade, and the immediate response from republican-controlled states to enact stricter bans on abortion, some of them immediately with trigger laws. joining us now, democratic congresswoman sharice davids of kansas, and theco-founder of the group, all in together, lauren leader. i want to take cast cast as the snapshot of what is happening. there is something on the ballot coming up next month. >> that's right. currently, the kansas legislature is barred from

passing laws that would place an undue burden on people seek reproductive health care services. but we have constitutional amendments on the ballot on august 2nd, and, you know, this is so important as we, as kansas has watched neighboring states, like missouri, pass some very extreme laws, total bans that would criminalize people seeking health care, and similar proposals have been introduced in kansas previously but were blocked by or constitution. so, you know, we're doing everything we can to beat back this constitutional amendment that would really, no just pave a path for those extreme proposals, but essentially create a highway to those extreme bans. kansas has made it clear, this is not the direction they want

to go. >> this is a case study for across the country, people fighting for abortion rights. if this passes, it is possible somebody raped or the victim of incest would have to deliver that baby. what is your recourse here? what can what can activists do? what can members of congress do? what can people do who want to protect their rights in their home states ? >> i can tell you here in kansas, so many people are working to make sure that, you know, on august 2nd, that everybody knows that this constitutional amendment is on our ballot and to vote no. because we don't want to eliminate constitutional rights. kansas is a free state. and we have fought long and hard to make sure that we continue to be so. and i think that making sure that our neighbors, that folks

know that we're going to be the first place in the country to have voters speak on this specific issue and make their voices heard and make sure that everybody knows it's not okay to take away our rights. it's not okay for politicians to try to insert themselves into our health care decisions, our reproduct reproductive health care decisions. it's not okay to have bans on access to reproductive health care services. including contraception. i can not over state the importance of this constitutional amendment we have on the ballot on august 2nd. >> congress woman, there's quite a lot of concern around the country amongst democrats that i've spoken to that come november when it's a few months after the supreme court's ruling on roe and at a time when americans are really struggling economically with inflation, with high gas prices, but actually other issues might be more important,

and those other issues might favor republican candidates in the midterm elections is that what makes the amendments, this amendment in kansas so interesting to look at? partly because it's sooner, it's in august but also because it's specifically on the issue of abortion. so you're going to gauge the kind of temperature if you want of how many people turn out to vote on that one single issue in this amendment. >> you know, i think the importance of the august primary that we have here in kansas is, i mean, absolutely it's going to help us see how many people are really willing to step up and fight for, you know, people to be able to make their own decisions about their health care without the intervention of frankly some

pretty extreme politicians. but i also think that as it relates to this issue being on the ballot in august, it's also on the ballot in november, along with so many other things. you mentioned the costs of everything going up, whether we're talking about gas or things at the grocery store, if you can get your hands on things, and i think that, you know, while people are very, very upset, people are scared, people are frustrated and angry about the decisions of the supreme court to overturn roe, i also think that people continue to be very concerned and frankly frustrated about the rising cost of gas. about the cost at the grocery store. and i don't think that those two things are mutually exclusive in any way. i think that people are very concerned about all of it. >> at the end of the day, inflation may trump everything.

you mention november we should point out your opponent is a rematch. he defeated this republican miss atkins two years ago. this year she's against abortion in cases of rape and insist and advocated for the defunding of planned parenthood. so i'm sure we'll be talking to you much more as we go forward, democratic congress woman sharice davis of kansas. let's talk about the polling you've looked at in this issue and whether abortion may in fact galvinize voters. does it energize people on either side or both sides to go to the polls in november. >> we have no polls we're releasing this morning looking specifically at the roe question. we polled americans in september and then we polled them again just this week and asked this critical question about whether or not the decision to overturn roe is motivating to turn out at the

polls. and what we found is that absolutely it is motivating among democratic women, independent women, and it is especially motivating among young women. and this is where we saw the most dramatic increase in the commitment, sort of very committed, devoting in november. this is enormously important because democratic motivation for the midterm has been depressed as we spoke about on this show. and many polls have shown including ours, young voter motivation for the midterms has been depressed. we found a 26 point increase in the number of young women particularly who say they're very motivated to turn out at the polls in november. specifically because of the abortion ban. >> we spent some time last week with an abortion provider in pennsylvania. and she spoke about how this was motivating women to tun out and vote in the midterm

elections. she raised something else that i thought was interesting that i hadn't really thought about. this is also a motivator on the conservative side. on the republican side as well. i wonder in your break down of those numbers particularly with the young women, i'm assuming most of those are going to vote in favor of keeping abortion rights. but are you seeing indications too that this could spur voters on in the conservative movement because they want to get to a place where there is a national ban on abortion? and they feel this is not the end of this. this is just the first step in that direction. >> right. and bedid look at that. and there is very little difference in terms of the motivation for republican voters going into the midterms from a few months ago. meaning that the abortion, the change in the sprortd ruling has not measurably changed the motivation of republicans. now their motivation was higher to begin with. that's why this is so significant. it's galvinizing for democrats and galvinizing for democratic

women and independent women and that is critical. that is the coalition of voters that flipped the elections in 2018 and in 2020 and if democrats are to maintain the majority in 2022, that is the most critical voting block. we also saw a significant increase in the motivation of black women. those are voting blocks that obviously vote consistently on the democratic side. so this is extremely significant. i think it shows that the roe issue clearly other issues as you said, issues like inflation won't matter and it'shearted to know we'll track this over the summer to what extent that over shadows the abortion issue. if democrats were looking for a galvinizing issue going into the 2021 mid terms, this is it. >> in the immediate aftermath of the ruling last friday, that's what speaker pelosi and president biden said, if you don't like this, go out and vote this fall. ceo of all in together in with some fascinating polls. still ahead, new concerns of

possible coercion after the revelation donald trump's political organization and its allies are covering legal fees for some witnesses in the house select committee's january 6th investigation. we'll get to that new reporting. plus congress woman liz cheney spars with her republican challenger over the 2020 election. the highlights from last night's debate in wyoming where cheney faces an uphill climb for reelection. morning joe is coming right back on a friday morning.

cancer research requires bold and innovative thinking. everyone's experience with cancer matters. it is in our stories and data that the answers can be found. i want effective treatment for the next generation. if you're a cancer patient in the u.s. and its territories or canada, you may be able to help science uncover the next breakthrough by sharing your patient data and unique experience with researchers. for our family. for our friends. for us all.

join stand up to cancer, count me in, and patients already participating at standuptocancer.org/countmein. good morning i'm willie geist joe and mika have the morning

off. the revelation donald trump's political organization and allies are covering the legal fees for some of the witnesses in the house investigation into the january 6th attack. plus republican congress woman liz cheney defending her work there during last night's republican primary debate in wyoming as she fights to keep her seat in congress. and the latest in the debate over abortion rights, president biden says the senate should make an exception and spend the filibuster and its rules to allow new protections to make it through congress but does she the votes to pull that off? we'll discuss it. a brutal six months for financial markets. wall street closes out one of its worst periods in a half century. brian sullivan joins us in a moment to look ahead to the next six months we have u.s. special correspondent for bbc news. pulitzer prize columnist, eugene robinson. it's great to see you both.

why don't we dive in with new legal and ethical questions being raised about whether former president trump may be trying to influence witness testimony related to the house select committee's january 6th investigation. according to the "new york times," trump's save america pack and his allies have paid for or promised to finance the legal fee of more than a dozen witnesses who have been called in to testify. financial disclosures show the save america pack paid $200,000 to different law firms. more than a dozen witnesses have received free legal advice and had attorney fees paid for by the american conservative unions first amendment fund which consults with trump's team about who's fees to cover. that is according to match slap the organization's chairman. as we learned the house elect comply tee asked witnesses whether anyone has tried to influence their testimony. unlike witness tampering there's nothing illegal about a

third party covering legal fees for a witness. meanwhile republican congress woman liz cheney defended her work on the january 6th committee during a primary debate last night while her top opponent defended donald trump. five candidates took the stage in sheridan wyoming including cheney and the trump backed harriet hagman. cheney facing a big uphill battle in her reelection bid after she was out cast by republican leadership in washington for refusing to go along with the big lie. and for cochairing the january 6th commission. the former president claims about a stolen election and cheney's work to refuse them. both on the agenda during last night's debate. >> people need to know something about me. i will never put party above my duty to the country. i will never put party above my due toy the constitution. it's a real tragedy. and the tragedy is that there are politicians if this country begins with donald trump who

have lied to the american people. the truth matters. and the claims that miss hagman is making about the 2020 elections are the same claims for which the president's lead lawyer rudy giuliani was disbarred. we're not a democracy we're a republic. our republic is not in danger because of president donald j trump. donald trump was an excellent president for the united states of america and especially for the state of wyoming. the threat to our republic comes from other sources. including the fact that right now we're seeing we have two different systems of justice in this country. we have one system of justice where you have people under biden or hillary clinton or even joe biden who are not held accountable for the decisions and bad acts they under take. >> so you jean robinson, harriet hagman who is leading most polls. some by a sizeable margin.

there's still some time before the people of wyoming vote in the primary standing and defending donald trump. drawing the equivalence to hillary clinton. given what we heard in this case in the last week alone is laughable. we heard something similar in arizona two nights ago in the governor's debate there. candidates standing and defending donald trump. liz cheney as we said many times is just point blank putting her career on the line by doing what she's within doing over the last year and a laugh or so. and she doesn't seem bothered by that >> knob, she's not. she knew the job was dangerous before she took it. she knew what she was getting into when she today up for truth instead of drover. she knew this would make it difficult for her to get reelected in wyoming because the republican base is still with donald trump. and it's -- you know, it's unclear at this point whether it's trump leading the base or the base leading trump. you know. at some point you have to look

at those voters and in the face of mountains and mountains of truth revealed not just by the january 6th committee but by events over the last six years about donald trump who he is, what a danger he presents to our democracy, to our republic, to whatever you want to call it. and the republican base is unphased by that. because they want what trump continues to sell. and so this is going to be very difficult for liz cheney now. there's some slippage, trump is seeing slippage among big donors. obviously, you know, some leading republicans are getting nervous about the idea of him still essentially being in charge of the party. and right now the likely candidate in 2024, we'll see

about that. but it's tough for liz cheney. you know, maybe she can convince enough democrats to cross over and vote in the republican primary. and give her a boost. but she's got a real uphill climb. >> there's one poll that has hagman up by 40 points on liz cheney. but the gap clezzed in the last couple weeks. but she's running like the under dog. she's running like she's the challenger here. it remains extraordinary that you can sit and listen to the testimony we've heard in frontd of this january 6th committee. some of it in black and white about what the president did in and around january 6th and still be able to stand on a stage, defend what he did and go and look yourself in the mirror that night or say good night to your children with a clear conscience. truly. but it's what you have to do still to win these primaries in most republican races.

>> yeah i just spent time in wyoming talking to people both supporters and de tractors of liz cheney. it's been so interesting on this trip i've done around america over the last month. i thought that this was entirely cynical that people were using the idea that the election was stolen just to try to curry favor with donald trump. having spoken to people in wyoming for a week, i think people genuinely believe it. i think when you raise a point as liz cheney did, whatever the point is, no, the election was not stolen. rudy giuliani was disbarred. there is always as we heard in that clip, a come back, harriet hagman saying hunter biden wasn't investigated. but people are fervent in their beliefs that donald trump won the election in 2020 in wyoming those i spoke to. and they are really opposed to liz cheney. most people there agree there

will be some democrats and i interviewed one who said she was going to hold her nose and vote for liz cheney in the poll box because she never voted democrat in her life but this time around it was that important. because it's an open state so they can vote either way. they think the numbers will get up to 30% to 40%. but the degree to which liz cheney has sacrificed her political career by going on the january 6th committee, by voting to impeach donald trump, it's pretty clear out there. it would be remarkable if she managed to be reelected and she is fully cognizant of that it's one thing to stand up in washington to talk about donald trump trying to steal the election. it's another thing to do it in wyoming at the moment where the mood against her is powerful. >> millions of americans believe the information was stolen because of information they've been fed through their media channels.

but a politician who theoretically should know better is cynical in feeding that back to them so he or she can win an election. president biden will likely deliver a speech on the january 6th committee's findings once the panel wraps up its investigation. the goal of that speech would be to emphasize what biden believes is at stake. should former president trump or his allies return to power in washington. for more on this, let's bring in nbc news correspondent, josh letterman, good morning, a busy week for this president as he returns from the nato summit in madrid yesterday. big news there. but let's talk about this speech first. when do we expect to hear it? what do you think is the idea behind it? why would the president do it? it won't be until after the january 6th committee has finished their probe, willie, throughout this hearing process, we have not seen president biden piping in from the sidelines with running commentary on every new development from the hearings.

shocking as they may be. that's really by design. the white house feels like president biden's use of the bully pulpit on this particular issue is most effective if he's not seen as weighing in on incremental developments but instead saves that power of his voice for really the big key moments for once the major conclusions have been drawn and the country is in a period to reflect on what they've learned. that's when they say president biden will come in with a speech they're discussing having after the committee finishes its investigation where the president can really outline the stakes here. put this in the context of the fig between democracy and autocracy that he speaks about so often. that battle for the soul of america that he and our friend john misham like to speak about. and there's another reason that the white house really wants to wait and pick their moments for president biden to be seen out front on thissish you into news

cast the justice department and merrick garland the attorney general all ready under enormous pressure as many democrats and even some republicans like adam kinsinger are openly expressing frustration with the slow pace at least outwardly of investigations from the justice department. the white house wants to make sure they're doing everything possible to inoculate that investigative process from any per perception of interference by the white house. that's why the speech is being planned for after the major conclusions have been drawn by the committee. they've done their hearings and president biden can use this to frame the midterm elections and the threat that he'll describe if republicans are allowed to retake congress and president biden, former president trump would be elected in 2024. >> the white house has been happy. i'll let the hearings speak for themselves for the time being. and will try to put a bow on it at the end. at the nato summit yesterday,

josh, president biden criticized the supreme court's decision to overturn roe v wade. said he supports making exception to the senate filibuster rules to get abortion rights through congress. here's what he said. >> i belove i believe we have to codify roe v wade in the law. the way we do that is to make sure congress votes to do that. if the filibuster gets in the way, it's like voting rights, we provide an exception for this -- the required exception of the filibuster for this action. >> an exception to the filibuster. when asked to clarify the president said he's in favor of making an exception to the filibuster to protect privacy rights. a central component of the roe decision. senators joe mansion and kyrsten sinema both support codifying abortion rights into law but oppose changing filibuster rules to do it. so josh, here we are again talking about scrapping the filibuster at least making an exception in this case for abortion rights the white house

careful to talk about it as an issue of privacy rights. >> that's right, willie, this is one of those moments where president biden came in front of reporters with some news to make. he knew he was likely to get a question on that. and was ready to declare his support for a carve out to the filibuster for these abortion and privacy rights. he had previously expressed support for carving out an exception to this filibuster on voting protections. now president biden says this should extend to these privacy issues. when he talks about privacy issues underlining that roe v wade overturn, what he's talking about is the concern that the supreme court could go even farther and start to look at other precedents that are also based on those privacy protections. like same sex marriage. like access to contraception and even like consensual sex between adults of the same sex. so this was more of a nod to the president's base than any real legislative strategy. because as you point out, you

know, stop me if you've heard this one before, senators joe mappings and kyrsten sinema are still as opposed to a carve out to the filibuster even for this narrow issue of abortion and privacy as they are to any other issue that means that democrats, they don't have the votes to go ahead with this. but we do expect the president to keep pushing on this issue publicly, which is really all he can do right now. to that end, today, in a few hours, president biden will be meeting virtually with democratic governors from those states that have really rushed to shore up protections for abortion rights in the wake of this supreme court decision. it's one of the ways that the white house is trying to cast a focus on how the fight really now does shift to the states. both to those where the justice department, others will be challenging some of the restrictions that may be put into place. but also to the democratic or left leaning states that are going to protect abortion rights and which are now going to become the safe havens where the biden administration is

bracing for so many women from no abortion states to be traveling to those legal abortion states to seek out care. there are concerns that those states public health systems could be inundated by that influx of new patients, that's something the white house is also hoping to help states prepare for in the days ahead, willie. >> another busy day at the white house. nbc's josh letterman, thank you for capturing it all for us this morning, we appreciate it. >> coming up, the supreme court strips the epa of a key tool to control pollution, how that could impact the environment and the economy. brian sullivan joins us straight ahead.

-hi, i'm smokey bear and i made an assistant to help you out. because only you can prevent wildfires. -hey assistant smokey bear, call me papa bear because i'm "grrr-illing" up dinner. haha, do you get it? -yes. good job. -so, what should i do with all of these coals? -don't just toss them out. put them in a metal container because those embers can start a wildfire. -i understand, the stakes are high. assistant smokey vo: ha-ha, ha-ha. -see, smokey think's im funny!

by a 6-3 vote, the court ruled the clean air act first established in 1963 does not give the environmental agency the authority to regulate greenhouse gases from power plans that contribute to global warming. writing for the conservative majority, chief justice roberts conceded that the epa does not have the authority to do that. in her dissent, justice elana condemned the court for appointing itself the decision maker on climate policy. president biden blasted the ruling which experts say could hurt the white house plan to cut greenhouse gas emissions in half by the end of the decade. for more on this, let's bring in cnbc's brian sullivan. how's the business world reacting to this? >> well, it's a big blow potentially to the clean energy

agenda, which could be a major economic driver as well, let's not forget that there are trillions of dollars globally that are looking to be invested if clean energy alternatives. wind, solar, hydro, you name it. this could be, not will be, but it could be a blow to that. it also may be a more wide sweeping decision with regards to the major question doctrine. i'll get to that in a second. but the decision to your point was 6-3. and it effectively said that unless congress expresley authorizes something in the text of a law that regulatory agencies, whether in this case it's the environmental protection agency are not allowed to interpret and change policy to the court's summation that will have widespread policy and economic reactions. why this matters for the remainder of the economy is that if you take this conception of this major questions doctrine that chief justice roberts is enacting here, willie, you can stretch

it out well beyond environment. well beyond this case. and say that agencies, whether it's the securities and exchange commission, the fcc the ftc, have just been widely reduced in their ability to create rules. >> yeah. it raises the question of what's the epa there for then if not for this. you're writing about this in your new column this morning you call this ruling from the supreme court utterly catastrophic for the environment. what are the implications ? what's the fall out of this? >> well, look, the fall out is that the supreme court is limiting the ability of the epa to do what congress told it to do. what it's supposed to do under the clean air act. under the toxic substances act. under the legislation, the environmental legislation that's been passed over many years, which is to, you know,

clean the environment and to get pollutants out of the air and out of the water and what the court i believe is trying to cohere is a matter of ideology more than policy. because it's trying to sort of cut what it calls the -- or what conservatives call the administrative state down to size and to say congress really needs to, you know, legislate stuff like this and not leave it to the agency to do. i respond good luck with that. you know the epa rules are developed, you know, by experts and scientists and people who know the data and this and that and good luck trying to get congress to go through that sort of process and come out with anything that's meaningful

or intelligent. but a question for sully which is, in this case, the rules in question, which were kind of moot any way because they were obama era rules that never went into effect. and then era rules never went into effect. and there really wasn't anything concrete for the court decide. but the whole point of what the obama administration was trying to do was to get these existing power plans to switch from coal to natural gas and cleaner fuels. isn't that happening faster? actually than the rules would have made it happen just because of market forces. i think you're right, gene. and i think that's one aspect too. i know the headline for the supreme court seems pretty grim to your point. these laws are based off a nixon era law that was also

never enacted but i think the cower was trying to make a bigger point here. but you're correct. market forces are working to say guess what, with environmental social governance investing we don't want coal the wall street money is not going to go there any way. the market is saying these technologies are growing to go away. they are bad for the planet. so we're going to put all of our wall street capital, global capital into things like either natural gas, maybe nuclear, we'll see, gene, wind, solar et cetera. and the irony of it now is that coal is being used far more by china and india. we're seeing europe bring colback probably in the short- term because of putin's insane war and the natural gas flows. but you're right the market will hopefully correct these dynamics. the one thing i will add. i'm not an attorney if you expand the major questions doctrine, you can get to a

point where you can say what power do the agencies have, the sec is trying to klimt climate disclosures or force companies to put climate disclosures in their public releases ? is that null and void a cap and trade system created by epa and other agencies is that doa because of this. this is going to have a lot more sweeping impact potentially than just this one case. brian sullivan, enjoy the holiday weekend my friend, thanks so much. brian mentioned the war in ukraine, next we'll get reporting from that country's capitol as russia continues its assault on a new attack on civilians. where that fight stands next on morning joe.

researchers believe the first person to live to 150 has already been born. it could be you! wow. really? of course, you'll have to eat your greens, watch your stress, wear sunscreen... but to live to 150, we're developing solutions that help doctors listen to your heartbeat while they're miles away, or ai that knows what your body will do before you do. cool. introducing elevance health. where health can go.

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.

the trial for wnba star britt my griner began today in a moscow courtroom. griner was arrested at a russian airport where officials said they found vape cartridges containing cannabis oil in her luggage . she faces ten years if convicted. something legal experts tell the "new york times" is all but certain despite call for her release from the united states. the state department considers griner wrongfully detained by russia. overnight in ukraine, 19 people were killed when russian missiles were in the port city of odessa. 30 others including three children were injured in the attack. one missile hit a nine story residential building. home to 100 people. the other missile hit a nearby recreational senor the attack comes a day after russian troops withdrew from snake island. a pivotal island in the black sea. join us live from kiev, nbc

news correspondent ellison barber. good to see you today, these attacks seem to be coming more frequently deeper inside ukraine. >> yeah, i mean it is an ongoing situation and from the initial reports we're getting a very disturbing one. as you said officials say at least 19 people are dead. dozens wounded. including children. russian missiles hit an apartment building as well as two recreation centers. we understand according to local officials that 152 people lived in that apartment building. dozens are still unaccounted for. they're going through the rubble because they're afraid more people might be trapped. i mean this comes on the heels of an amnesty international report accusing russia of committing a war crime in mariupol' as it relates to the theater that came under attack when people were sheltering there. since the full scale war began in february, ukrainian official haves accused russian forces of

committing more than 15,000 war crimes. in late may, ukraine's prosecutor general told reporters that their office is receiving up to 300 reports of war crimes every sickle day. russia routinely denies targeting civilians or civilian infrastructure but the evidence that that is a lie is overwhelming. and we've seen it from kiev. i spoke to a man a few weeks ago who recently fled mariupol'. we talked to him days after he made it out of that city. he talked ab how under russian occupation, people there are being forced to capture and kill pigeons just so they have something to eat. they're taking water from their boilers because they don't have good access. very limited access to clean drinking water he said when he was trying to leave the area he almost died after russian forces grabbed him, yanked him out of the car, put him on his knees and held a gun to his back. the only reason the trigger was not pulled was because a van

that had children and a lot of people in it pulled up next to him and for whatever reason he said that the russian soldier paused and then just let him go. so what's happening in odessa, it's coming on the heels of russian forces leaving snake island. they have claimed that they left as a gesture of goodwill. but the uk's ministry of defense says given the different attacks that ukrainian forces have launched on that island particularly, the garrison and other areas where they were using it to kind of get extra resources in. that they were forced to leave this area by the attacks that were coming from ukrainian forces. ukrainian forces are celebrating that as a victory, that's very close to odessa. so this attack coming right after is really coming on the heels of another significant military development that was positive for ukraine, negative for russia. willie? >> and even propaganda around that, the russians saying we're opening shipping lanes for products coming out of ukraine.

ellison barber live for us this morning in kiev. ellison, thank you, as always, coming up, a conversation with our good friend historian john me echum ahead of this 4th of july holiday. how a divided nation can still find common ground. what is this nightmare? it's how some people describe... shingles. a painful, blistering rash that could interrupt your life for weeks. forget social events and weekend getaways. if you've had chickenpox, the virus that causes shingles is already inside of you. if you're 50 years or older ask your doctor or pharmacist about shingles. ♪ limu emu ♪ and doug. [power-drill noises] alright, limu, give me a socket wrench, pliers, and a phone open to libertymutual.com they customize your car insurance, so you only pay for what you need... and you could even save $652 when you switch.

ok, i need a crowbar. and a blowtorch. [teddy bear squeaks] [doug sighs] limu, call a mechanic. only pay for what you need. ♪ liberty. liberty. liberty. liberty. ♪

welcome back to morning joe. it's great to have with us pulitzer prize winning historian, john meechum with us. i always start talking to you around the 4th of july. it seems over the past four or five years there's beep so much going on that it's important to have a reminder of who we are as a nation, where we've been, and how we're making our way toward being that more perfect union. i want to talk about what

happened though a lot of people talking over the past few days about cassidy hutchison and her testimony on january 6th committee. reminds me of something that you speak a great deal about. and that is something that happened i believe on june 1st 1950 with a certain female senator from maine. tell us about what being an american, what being a patriot is really all about on this 4th of july weekend. >> it was lincoln's birthday in 1950 when joe mccarthy of wisconsin drew the short straw and went to speak to the wheeling west virginia women's republican gathering. believe me. wheeling west virginia was not where they sent the top tier folks of the republican party in 1950. there mccarthy gave his famous speech that he had in his pocket, the number kept moving

but circa 200 communists in the department of state. it sets off our second great red scare. the nirs in the late teens and 20s and he began really his reign of terror that joe mccarthy was the author of in 1950. margaret smith of maine the republican senator who gave the first great statement against mccarthyism. it was very early. february 12th to june 1st. she went to the floor. she gave a speech titled the declaration of -- we can disagree about the goals of policy but we should not question each other's motives. we cannot be un-american in that way. she only got six coupon sponsors. and mccarthy dismissed them as snow white and the six dwarfs.

but four years later the senate of the united states would side with smith. she was right. the majority that decided to take an easier path, mccarthy seemed powerful. the press loved him. he understood stood how to manipulate it. and we had four years of madness. dwight eisenhower, much argument about that about what he did. but he actually took a dive during the 1952 campaign and took out a section of the speech attacking mccarthy. because they just didn't want to affront the base. huh. that sounds pretty familiar, doesn't it? >> eisenhower, one of my heroes when i was reading larry's great book on mccarthy. got to that point. it was really hard to read because dwight eisenhower was a hero. he was going to win in wisconsin easily. he had a chance to criticize

joe mccarthy. he had a chance to criticize a man who had gone after and tried to wreck the career. wreck the life of his mentor, general marshal. and he refused to say a negative word about him. and like you said, actively went into the speech, took out a part that would have condemned mccarthyism. just didn't have the courage to do it. just like so many people haven't had the courage to cross donald trump. but once again, you have a strock woman here. you have liz cheney and again margaret chase smith. that reminds me, john, when i read history, it actually reminds me that we aren't so disconnected from our past. we like to think that we shaw five years, ten years ago were

the housian days. you've been through this before. you read larry tie's book. you see mccarthy owned like you said he had the press in his pocket. he ruined lives. he wrecked career ts. he caused people to commit suicide and he gained the loyalty of the republican party for a very long time. the fever though eventually did break. and it was four years. it was a long time. and what we're dealing with now is the fullest manifestation of the darkest forces in american life. and those forces are perennial. they're far older than america. they start in the garden of eden, right? it's the will to power. it's the putting of your own ambition and appetite ahead of anything else. and one of the things we commemorate on july 4th is the founding of a nation that however imperfect and however imcomplete its realization of

that ideal is, was founded on an ideal that all men are created equal and are endowed by their creator with certain inalieable rights. the moment you arrive or anybody else would want to go back to that they're willing to admit to are moments where we expanded the definition of what it means to be an american. we expanded the meaning of that incredibly important sentence written by thomas jefferson as part of one of the great commitees of all time. and great committees, like 20th century french military victories. it's not a huge category but ben franklin and john adams and thomas jefferson. livingston, sherman, they were on this little subcommittee and they wrote this declaration. and it was meant to be read.

it was a declaration to the world. trying to make its case that the united states should have its own standing among the powers of the earth. and what we're dealing with now and over the last six years in particular is an inversion of what we should be. too many people have put the pursuit of power at the center of their political public facing being. and the thing about america is that we are at our best when the strong do not exploit the weak. the rule of law is about putting up a guardrail because we're all fallen, frail, and fallible. if you grew up in southern baptist tradition. i grew up in a southern episcopalian tradition. we know that we are sinful. and because democracy is the fullest manifestation of all of

us, the country is going to be sinful too. the reason you have the rule of law, the reason you have commandments is to try to do better. and if you don't assent, if you don't agree to win by the rules or lose by the rules, then the entire enterprise collapses. if we break the united states of america, we don't get it back. >> yeah. saved by grace. as you and i were taught in the church and thank god because i'll speak for myself, i know i need grace. i know the country i love so much needs grace. let's talk about a person you've written about. you just mentioned him, thomas jefferson. i think as we grapple with the challenges of coming to terms with our history and we have this debate between those that are in the 1619 camp. and those in the 1776 camp.

it's so important that we're able to hold those two truths at the same time. it doesn't have to be an either or. i was explaining this to a graduating class i spoke can b at the same time.i spoke can b so we don't just completely wipe away our history. >> absolutely and 1619 and 1776 and 1865 and 1920 for the 19th amendment and 1944 with the

landings at norm dee, 1965 the votes rights act all these are parts of whole and history because it's human is a couple steps forward, a step or two back and do it again. there is nothing guaranteed about our success. there is nothing guaranteed about justice but at every point, we know what we should do. whether we do it or not is an entirely different question. we should take no solis from the fact it's worked out in the past. what we should take solis from is that human beings make it work out in the past. and they were not nobler or more perfect than we are. our friend david mcculloch said nobody walked around in the past saying what an interesting world the past was. they didn't know how it would

turn out, either. what we can learn again and again is that when we live into that sentence that jefferson sentence as flawed and difficult as he was, we can create that more perfect union. a paragraph, the more perfect union paragraph written by gubinor morris, i know she's miss this but morris wrote that. he walked around on a pegged leg because it was said that he had jumped out the window when he was with another man's wife and the man showed up. these are not, you know, olympian figures. they're human and the remarkable thing about the united states, it's not just the powerful but also those far from power who meet in this dialect and, you know, another quick point is a line president obama loved and dr. king loved, the ark of a

moral universe is long for justice but it only bends if there are people like john lewis and rosa parks and the men on the beaches in normandy that insist it's swerved because there are always going to be forces of reaction. there are also going to be forces of stasis and that's what history is and it's hard to remember that from day to day, the tsunami of news we live in, but if you take just half a step back you understand that it really is up to us and i'd argue this fourth of july as much as our history, certainly since the civil war is when we have to realize that patriotism isn't passive. it's an active state and this is a stress test for citizenship. >> so i tweeted a couple days ago a question because i was

ready to be abused. the question even with all of our flaws, why are you proud to be an american? that's a dangerous question to ask on twitter. got a lot of really positive responses, got obviously some negative responses from people who are deeply concerned with where the country is right now. this is one of my favorites by joe reynolds and he said when you are some small person with your back against the wall, a natural disaster, a political prisoner or pandemic, you don't say maybe india will help us or maybe china. you say maybe america will help. we don't always live up to that but we should. i loved that answer because again, through all of our flaws, through all of our problems, this republic has fed and freed more people than any country in history. and so on this fourth of july

week end, why are you proud to be an american? >> i'm proud to be an american for the same reason i'm proud to be a human being. i know i'm capable of great evil and great shadow and great darkness but i also know that there are days and moments when there is light and life and love and that if we can just get to light and life and love, 51% of the time, then we're having a good day and we're having a good era. don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good and i think that america is a marvelous example of a human community that gets so much wrong but which knows intuitively that if you do the right thing, everybody benefits. and we have to see each other as neighbors and not as enemies.

>> do not despair. do not give up in the words of churchill never, never, never give up. jon meacham, as always, thank you so much for being with us. hope you and your family are having a great 4th of july weekend. >> thank you, appreciate it. , a.

♪ ♪ ♪♪ voltaren. the joy of movement. ♪♪