>> hi there, everyone. it's 4:00 in washington. i'm michael steele in for my friend, nicole wallace. so we're in the midst of what could be a watershed moment for the republican party that donald trump's transformation of the republican party is complete. the ex-president himself is to speak at the conservative conference tomorrow and viktor orban, the authoritarian of

hungary. steve bannon who was convicted of contempt of congress as well as mypillow guy, mike lindell. this isn't dick cheney's or the cpac during the trump presidency. it's taken a new turn. trump will be speaking as his allies scored a big win in the primary last night where kari lake was projected to be the winner of the republican nomination for governor. lake who claimed there was fraud without proving a shred of evidence gives pennsylvania's doug mastriano a run for his money in being the republican party's most extreme 2022 candidates. she's an ex-tv news anchor who attacks the media and claims donald trump is the winner of the 2020 election which, he

isn't. at least four of the six battleground states that determine the winner of the 2020 election. team trump now has their sights set on the wyoming primary on august 16th where trump's public enemy number one, congresswoman liz cheney is facing primary challenger because of her stance that donald trump is a threat to democracy. liz cheney spoke to cnn yesterday reiterating her belief that when it comes to the justice department prosecuting trump for the role in the attack on the capitol, nothing short of the rule of law in america is at stake. >> the question for us is are we a nation of laws? are we a country where no one is above the law and what do the facts and the evidence show? and certainly i've been very clear. i think he's guilty of the most serious dereliction of duty of any president in our nation's history. you had a federal judge in california say that it's more

likely than not that he and john eastman committed two crimes. so, you know, i think that we will continue to follow the facts. i think the department of justice will do that, but they have to make decisions about prosecution understanding what it means if the facts and the evidence are there and they decide not to prosecute, how do we then call ourselves a nation of laws? >> joining us now ben rhodes, former deputy national security adviser to president obama. now an msnbc contributor. isaac onstar, washington post national political reporter who covers former president trump and the maga political movement and michael singleton is here. republican political consultant and host of screenshare on peacock. welcome, gentlemen. isaac, let's start with you since you're there at cpac, what are we seeing today? what's happening? >> well, as you mentioned,

yesterday things kicked off with viktor orban are ban who delivered what we call at the post a trump in a hungarian accent and it was delivered by on the campaign trail from attacking george soros to talking about gender issues and migration and he was welcomed with a standing ovation as a hero and a model. >> so, talk to us about what's animating these attendees? what are you hearing? we've seen mike lindell and steve bannon at cpac. so is this idea of election denialism still front and center? that's the thing that's getting people juiced up? >> well, at this point it's sort of gotten blended over to what they see as the consequences of the election being lost or in their view, stolen. like former president trump has

said ukraine wouldn't have happened, inflation wouldn't have happened. all of the things they see going on in the country now that they're unhappy about they trace back to the election that they viewed as stolen from them. >> so michael, you have folks like bannon, lindell and a host of other characters there, but you've also got folks like rick scott and a couple of governors. this isn't just some fringe gathering of ideologues or trumpists. this really is the republican party? is this what it is, this sort of blended mix of people? >> well, sure, thanks for that question. i think the rick scots of the world and the sensibilities that these individuals maintain, they look at the political landscape and accepting the reality is that you have to accept even at the cursory level some components and tenets of

anglo-american conservatism that we see today by virtue of donald trump. i am of the belief that even once donald trump goes away that these sentiments will indeed sustain themselves and so political individuals who are seeking to have some type of political future and influence and dominance nat party are recognizing that they have to show up to cpac and they have to at least accept some of these positions and get onboard or they will find themselves like we're seeing with liz cheney, kinzinger or meijer who recently lost his primary in michigan. you are seeing individuals who may be conservative in every regard, and for ethical reasons and moral reasons that it is easier to destroy this thing that we built, this republic than it is to build, therefore, i must take a stand or ruin their political career. one thing about politicians, they care about self-preservations and that's why you're seeing individuals

like rick scott show up. >> which is why someone like liz cheney stands out so profoundly. we just heard her say trump is guilty of the most serious dereliction of duty than any president. as shermichael said, tripping themselves for trump's endorsement and absorbing this maga blood line and regurgitating it back out with conspiracy theories. what's your take on all of that? >> well, you know, if you look at viktor orban, the reason i think he's important and i wrote a whole book about the connection between orban and the republican party. he's the guy that says the quiet thing out loud. he's an authoritarian who spent a decade redesigning the hungarian system from being a democracy and single-party autocracy where he controls the courts, he controls the media and he has cronies who finance

politics and has an us versus them, and the liberal elites, the muslims, the immigrants, george soros, and the reason i think that's an important context here is donald trump is someone who has cast aside anything that is recognizable in terms of a small set of conservative principles within the context of a democracy and he's made the pursuit of power for its own sake and he's made his own political identity and everything the republican party does and there is no norm that is going to stand in the way including the peaceful transfer of power and trying to do what viktor orban has done in hungary. liz cheney sees this as dangerous. i agree more with the republican party with tax policy than ben rhodes or joe biden, but because she's not willing to accept the pursuit of power at all costs and the cynical embrace of the darkest strains of far-right

politics and the ethno-nationals. he said he was against the mixing of the races in europe and this is old-line facets coming out from behind the veil. if you are against that orthodoxy then you're cast out as liz cheney is. this isn't just a set of policy prescriptions for the nation, it's a competition for people that includes liz cheney and the democratic party who believe that we should resolve our differences within the democratic content and within a system of laws and norms at the foundation of which that is if you get the most votes, you win and a party that's willing to junk all of that and sure, rick scott may go along with that to get ahead and that's why we're in a period of time when these elections were far more existential and they'll

determine whether or not we'll continue on the path and that's why liz cheney is speaking with such urgency, because if he can get away with what he did, what does that send as a nation of laws? >> picking up on ben's point, isaac, nbc's gary grumbach reports one of the panels last night at cpac was titled giving liz the biz. it was co-hosted by jim jordan, and it just went on and on about liz cheney. clearly, there's a higher degree of lcds, liz cheney derangement syndrome among these attendees there at cpac, but not just at cpac. as we've seen elsewhere around the country, why liz? what is it about her that they feel so compelled to push back up against?

>> she won't go along with trump. she won't go along with saying that he won the election, and she won't stop. she has -- she's leading the -- more than the democrats on the january 6th committee and has been leading that investigation and has become the public face of it and by far the most prominent person in the party who is standing up and saying this is wrong and we can't let this happen and trump has made clear from the beginning that he wanted to pick off all ten of the house republicans who voted to impeach him the second time after the insurrection and they just picked off another on tuesday in michigan. peter meijer who lost his primary and jackie butler in washington is in danger of not making the top two and liz cheney has her primary coming up in a week and a half and she's next on the list and the biggest prize of all as they see it because she's really kind of made it her political identity in the last two years. >> shermichael, i want to play

for you a little bit of what the hungarian leader viktor orban said yesterday during his appearance at cpac. just because it's important that our viewers know exactly what those folks at cpac were cheering on. >> i am an old-fashioned freedom fighter. politics, my friend, are not enough. this war is a culture war. we were the first ones in europe who said no to illegal migration and stopped the invasion of illegal migrants. we have to build not just a physical wall on our borders, but a legal wall around our children to protect them from the gender ideology that targets them. to sum up, the mother is a woman. the father is a man and leave our kids alone. full stop. end of discussion.

[ cheers and applause ] >> so shermichael, is this what the republican base wants? just culture wars all day long? build a border wall, fear migrants, you know, throwing trans and gay and lesbian individuals out of the country? is this where the party is right now? >> i mean, look, for a long time chairman steele and you and i have discussed this in private many times before, conservatives have argued for -- i guess two decades now that in many ways since newt gingrich and his great takeover during the clinton years sort of ceded the culture wars to democrats and many within the activist rank of the party have argued as a result of that, this is why you're seeing some of the cultural normative changes that we're seeing today, therefore republicans need to begin to hit back against those things. that's not my perspective, but

that appears to be the temperament of the party thus far. the question or concern i have with a conservative and being a traditionalist in many ways is that we live in a very diverse society and part of a living in a diverse societiy is recognizing that you have to be amendable to change. it's an innate part of human nature and the conservative british philosopher wrote often about this idea particularly when describing what is going on in the united states as it pertains to conservatism and the unwillingness to be unmendable at all to any type of cultural changes which may be to the benefit of the progress of the country and that's what you're seeing and so i think about in many ways my grandparents and i think about my great-grandparents, and i think about some of the cultural arguments that they were having during their generations and the arguments have sort of updated if you would because of certain things that we're dealing with today versus then, in many ways, the premise of the argument

remain the same and that is if you don't look a certain way, of a certain ethnic background and of a certain religious pedigree, then you were not an acceptable member of society and we thought we defeated this stuff during my great-grandparents stuff and we did not, and i'm 32 years old and here we are still having in many ways the same type of conversations with similar people about who is acceptable and who is not acceptable in our country. it is an appalling reality about the face of our country and chairman steele, we have to deal with this. this could not be the argument when my kids become of age, and i'm afraid that that indeed, may be the case. >> i'm afraid you're right and it leads ben to one of the, i think, more damning aspects of what we are witnessing going on in texas at cpac and that is the fact to shermichael's point,

we've now taken this narrative and embraced it globally about other, right? i want -- because you've been in the political space and you've been inside of the administration, i want someone who has worked in american foreign policy, who has worked on promoting democracy abroad not from a political standpoint. i want to get it all into politics. i just want you to react from the sensibilities that you've seen domestically and globally of the sight of an authoritarian, european leader giving a speech in the united states in texas being cheered on by americans who know his background is one of white nationalist racism and getting a standing ovation from that crowd. what does that say to you that is both concerning and what should we do about it, if

anything? >> so it's a tearing down of the example america sets for the world. an important way of thinking about this, michael, is the most famous speech viktor gave was not the one at cpac. in 2018 he said the future beng loed to a liberal democrat. he said the world should no longer look to the united states to set the model for the rest of the world. it should look to russia and china. that's who he mentioned, autocratic model, right, of government. that's what victor orban aligns with. that's the team that he's on, and so it has profound implications because it's not just tearing down democracy. it's tearing down the entire system that emanates from american democracy of rules and norms and international order. it's saying we're going to junk all of that system and we're going to go all of the way back to the preworld war days where

you just had big ethno nationalist powers who duked it out and that's what we're seeing in ukraine and that's the actualization of that vision. we know where european blood and soil fascism leads. it leads to the subjugation of minorities with the country and the stakes are high and we have to defend -- to a global defense of democracy that is under assault right now. >> ben, thank you for that clarifying moment. i want to thank all of you for the clarification that you've brought to our conversation. ben rhodes, isaac onstaff and shermichael singleton. thank you very much for starting us off. >> when we come back, an update to the january 6th investigation. the first signs of ex-president trump fearing an indictment. new reporting that his legal team is in talks with the justice department. plus, arguably a very good week for democrats in the weiss.

the president announced the killing of the mastermind of 9/11, voters heard themselves on abortion and they're on the cusp of signing a new, pretty significant piece of biden's agenda. how democrats carried through to november? we'll talk about that and later in the show we will talk about trump's hold on the party, but at the same time, there's new evidence to suggest republicans are a little bit weary about a 2024 run. all those stories and more when "deadline: white house" continues after this. don't go anywhere. " continues after this don't go anywhere. your home i, here's a pool party. look what i brought! liberty mutual! they customize your home insurance... so you only pay for what you need! ♪young people having a good time with insurance.♪

♪young people.♪ ♪good times.♪ ♪insurance!♪ only pay for what you need. ♪liberty liberty. liberty. liberty.♪

at xfinity, we're constantly innovating. and we're working 24/7 to connect you only pay for what you need. to more of what you love. we're bringing you the nation's largest gig speed network. available to more homes than anyone else. and with xfi complete, get 10x faster upload speeds. tech upgrades for your changing wifi needs.

and advanced security at home and on the go to block millions of threats. only from us... xfinity. i gotta say moving in together has been awesome. no regrets. for you and emily. these are... amazing. thank you wayfair. how's the puppy? puppy's perfect. yeah great decision! ♪ wayfair you've got just what i need ♪ you're a cio in 2022. so what's on the agenda? threat briefings, it meetings, and lots of coffee. but with fully integrated security solutions all in one place. you're ready. comcast business. powering possibilities. ™

new reporting today about the doj criminal investigation into january 6th that's inched a little bit closer to the ex-president in recent weeks. "usa today" says trump's legal team is now in talks with doj officials making what they say an apparent attempt to use executive privilege to block conversations with his former top aides. it could be the first signs of exactly how much he's fearing the possibility of a criminal indictment. joining us now, national correspondent for politico and msnbc contributor betsy woodruff-swann and harry littman, former deputy assistant attorney general and he's the host of the show talking heads. i got my "h" mixed up there.

does he have a chance at protecting these arguments because he's lost his executive privilege to the committee? >> that's right. it's pretty interesting and he's obviously panicked when sill sip loany and philbin get subpoenaed. the law is very strongly against him and so a rush to the department, but what are they going to say then? normally, a defense attorney comes to see the pros cure the and of course, the prosecutor will say come on in, and the prosecutor will listen, not talk, not show his hand and the defense attorney will give some kind of legal argument. not much to say here. my best guess is they'll say something like, look, we're going to fight you tooth and nail. trump has the ability to actually intervene in the dispute and we'll try to delay it out forever and hey, guess what? if and when it gets to the

supreme court it might be a little different story even though the law right now is against us. so why don't we try to cut a deal and at least allow me to shield some of these conversations? something like that because he doesn't really have a strong hand to play. >> so to that point, betsy, this idea of deal cutting, does it tell us something about trump's fears about the doj probe possibly closing in on him and could they, his team, be aware of people flipping like, for example, mark meadows? >> i don't want to speculate, but what it tells us for sure is that trump's lawyers are taking this investigation seriously and that they accept the reality that it's no longer just a probe of the people who engaged in violence at the capitol building on january 6th, but that it's also moving full steam ahead into what we might call the white collar arena. full steam ahead into this

investigative work targeting, certainly investigating and certainly looking into the president's immediate orbit and when that's happening, think, any reasonable defense lawyer would start thinking, well, who's next on the agenda? the problem for trump from an executive privilege standpoint is sort of twofold. first, trump's lawyers don't have a massive amount of leverage in talks with the justice department because there's no one higher up than trump on the priority list who he could plausibly flip against. people who are lower down in the organizational hierarchies of groups that the justice department investigates often have lots of leverage because they can offer information, potential testimony at trials and other types of cooperation and insight that would make it easier for the justice department to go after bigger fish, but in trump's case, it's unlikely that that's a dynamic he's dealing with. additionally, when it comes to this executive privilege issue

it's a very short conversation because what's a key question is what happens if a former president wants something to be covered by executive privilege, but the current president says it shouldn't be. if you're a very conservative legal mind and if you're a panelist type one of the core things you believe is the unitary executive that there is only one president at a time and that former presidents can't override or veto the positions of current presidents. that's likely to end the conversation when it comes to litigation about whether or not trump can try to veto president biden's position on these executive privilege questions. >> so, harry, we played earlier liz cheney basically challenging attorney general garland that if there's evidence he needs to prosecute trump. so the kids in the backseat in the car, are we there yet? and if we are, how could it get even worse for trump to say, someone like cipollone decides

to speak to the grand jury? >> yeah. so think about it, and as a former prosecutor i will speculate. you put cipollone and philbin in there you're going straight at trump. they are the inner sanctum. they're the ones we already know said to him you can't do this, this is unlawful. what did he say in return? we know he went ahead and did it. that will be some very incriminating information. to congresswoman cheney's point, look, i basically agree, it's not so simple as to say as long as the evidence is there, and by the way, the evidence is there, that that ends the matter with a former president, but in this case he's been so brazen. it's been so toxic. he's been so unrepentant that, yeah, if they take a pass on this it really does put into question our status as a nation of laws. i agree. i think -- i was -- i was

hesitant as many people have been, but i've come to the view that the only thing worse than prosecuting him would be not prosecuting him. >> betsy, you have some brand-new reporting out that doug mastriano is threatening to back off his interview with the january 6th committee if they don't let his lawyers record the session? is this again about election disinformation? >> mastriano several months ago said that he would participate, he would cooperate with the january 6th committee and he turned over documents and the vast majority of the documents he turned over were public social media postings. at the time he said said he would participate in a voluntary interview. since theyaried thoed meetings that we all watched that we effectively viewed brief video clips from witnesses to make the case against trump, mastriano's lawyers are taking a different perspective saying they believe the committee could try to release selectively edited clips

to try to harm mastriano's competitor, and he's the nominee for the powerful job. ? mast ri an on will only show up if mastriano can make his own copy and his own interview so they will be able to release counter clips that any of the community puts out. this pitch is totally dead in the water with the committee and in the past they haven't allowed other witnesses to engage in the same practice and what that means is that we're likely to face a standoff here that will result either in civil litigation or the committee having to weigh whether or not they try to take more aggressive steps to force mastriano to answer questions or to force unpunishment for not answering questions. it's likely to become tense in the months leading to one of the

most important midterm races which is the race for the governor's mansion. that race is important because the pennsylvania governor is the top election administrator in a key swing state. whoever wins that race will play a key role in administering an election in the 2024 presidential race and the stakes are extremely high. whatever they have next has the potential to become consequential. >> make as much of a mess of it as they possibly can. betsy woodruff swann and harry littman, thank you both very much. >> it's been quite a week for president and his agenda. how democrats plan to use this to head into the midterms. we will talk about that next. hat

who's on it with jardiance? we're managing type 2 diabetes and heart risk. we're hittin' the trails between meetings. and putting the brakes on fried foods. jardiance is a once-daily pill that...not only lowers a1c, it goes beyond to reduce the risk of cardiovascular death for adults with type 2 diabetes and known heart disease. and jardiance may help you lose some weight. jardiance may cause serious side effects including ketoacidosis that may be fatal, dehydration that can lead to sudden worsening of kidney function and genital yeast or urinary tract infections. a rare, life-threatening bacterial infection in the skin of the perineum could occur. stop taking jardiance and call your doctor right away if you have symptoms of this infection, ketoacidosis or an allergic reaction, and don't take it if you're on dialysis. taking jardiance with a sulfonylurea

or insulin may cause low blood sugar. a once-daily pill that goes beyond lowering a1c? we're on it. we're on it with jardiance. ask your doctor about jardiance. 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. non-gaming tribes have been left in the dust. wealthy tribes with big casinos make billions, while small tribes struggle in poverty. prop 27 is a game changer. 27 taxes and regulates online sports betting to fund permanent solution to homelessness. while helping every tribe in california.

so who's attacking prop 27? wealthy casino tribes who want all the money for themselves support small tribes, address homelessness. vote yes on 27. kids don't always take the best care of school supplies. so save money shopping back to school on amazon. while they... 0oh... uh... figure their stuff out.

while we're not there yet, we're on the cusp of passing the most important step we can pass to take -- to help congress to help us lower inflation, the inflation reduction act. in short, this bill is a game changer for working families and our economy. i look forward to the senate taking up this legislation and passing it as soon as possible. >> president biden on the inflation reduction act, the ambitious bill aimed at tackling the climate crisis, taxing the richest americans and lowering prescription drug crisis and expanding health care subsidies. the senate is expected to pass

the bill tomorrow. it is the cherry on the top of a banner week for the president with a strong jobs report released today. top al qaeda leader killed and abortion restrictions defeated in kansas earlier this week, all helping to bolster optimism among democrats about the upcoming midterms less than three month away. so let's get into it. joining us now reverend al sharpton and host of msnbc's "political nation" and president of the national action network and david plouffe, former obama campaign manager and now an msnbc political analyst. david, let's begin with this, this has been a hell of a week for victories and the democrats are feeling pretty good, right? but a lot, as you know, in the crazy game of politics can happen between now and november, what should democrats be doing to sort of not grab victory -- or defeat from the jaws of victory or even just stymie the momentum? what should they be doing now?

>> well, it adds more to their arsenal. i think any democratic incumbent now has more positive storytelling about reducing prescription drug costs and expanding healthcare subsidies and now you have to tell people what's in the bill over and over again and spend the money to do that. it will not just happen through the press coverage and obviously, every republican incumbent who oppose that and the democrat that will attack them and that was an election about abortion and that's all it was about, but to the extent some of the major governor's races and the senate races and some of the house races that can become as much the reality is not, you might see similar dynamics, so yeah, it was a great week for the country most importantly and also for the president and i think it gives democrats more ammunition and listen, we are getting very, very close to ballots going out. within a couple of months of people beginning to vote with

some verocity. the challenge now is you have basically eight weeks to do the story telling out of this legislation, but i think every democratic incumbent and democratic challenger and job one is to discredit your opponent and it's still a tough thing for democrats and republican incumbents will now have to bear the burden for defending why they voted against these measures and that's a way to engage voters across the spectrum and particularly young voters. >> reverend al, david makes an interesting point about the ballots that will be going out in a couple of months for the general election and how democrats have an opportunity to kind of set the tone now to help them with those ballots, and maybe this goes toward that. according to a new poll 43% of americans say they're satisfied with biden's job performance. do you think this bump in his numbers reflect the actual support he has out there with

voters or at least beginning to build with voters? >> i think that he's definitely beginning to build, but the building must continue because you never know what day to the next what will happen in the political winds turn and you're certainly going to have major salt from your opponents. i really think that a lot of it is that they have now a text to speak from and they need to give it in a way that people understand what it means to them at home. so when we say inflation reduction, we have to break it down in terms of how it deals with health care costs and how we deal with the climate energy and where that impacts you and where it impacts you and where you live when you talk about a founding member of al qaeda killed. what does that mean to me?

i think that we can have all of these headlines we want, we've got to bring it home to where people understand where it actually changes or helps their lives and that they've got to vote in order to protect it. people vote their own interest and they're not sitting around reading policy statements. >> so, david, picking up on the rev's point about how people are reacting. president biden's donors are a little bit antsy, worried about his re-election chances and annoyed that they have little access to him and prepared to walk away from him in 2024. many contributors would prefer a different nominee in 2024, but are sticking with biden primarily because they believe he's the party's strongest contender against trump. david, a, do you believe that and democrats will be sticking with him because they're so afraid of trump's resurgence and

b, where do thai go if they don't stick with him? >> we have one election in front of him which is not the 2024 election, and it may be the most important midterm election and i would encourage everybody to focus that and we have governor's races and state legislatures. so there will be plenty of time for naval gazing and bed wetting and all of the other thins after november and joe biden will have to make a decision about what he does and if he runs, i would assume most of the party will get behind him, but i think right now we don't have any margin for error, so whether you're a big donor or an activist, nobody has any time to waste thinking about 2024. will biden run? what's the field going to look like? will trump run? what's the electoral college look like? we'll be there before we know it, but we have to focus on the battle in front of us and so,

listen, i spent a lot of time in the democratic party as did reverend sharpton. these kind of stories pop out all of the time, but i don't think that they are representative of where most people are. i think most people are focused on the midterm elections and understanding that if we lose those democracy is hanging by a thread. >> so the president was able to get both senators cinema and manchin onboard for his inflation reduction act. getting those two senators were a big get and they've been responsible for killing previous parts of his agenda. how long does this unity last and can it hold into the fall? >> well, we do not know how long it will last, but i think we're glad it lasted because of the importance of this bill and we're glad it lasted now for the

president and for chuck schumer. i remember when we were really frustrated with senator manchin and sinema dealing with the john lewis voting bill and then again, the george floyd bill. schumann never gave up on manchin even when we had very heated meetings with them, and i give schumer credit that on this particular case manchin and sinema came through. that does not mean that they have bought the whole house. they are renting a room for rid now. well see where it, and this bogus argument about '24, if the president is doing a good job of course, the president ought to be the one to run and if he doesn't run it ought to be his decision and i don't think we should let them drag us into that, and this bogus argument over age. i wish someone would remind people, donald trump is only

three years younger than joe biden, and when i saw him on the golf course the other week with the arabs, he looked like he's picking up weight. he's not aging well [ laughter ] he needs to push back from the fast food if they're going to push the age issue. joe biden look trim and fit. you need to be careful, mr. trump, you're building up a little. [ laughter ] i'm just going to leave that there. david plouffe, thank you so much. reverend al, my man, you're going to stick around and you'll be back with us in the next hour. i really appreciate you. up next, alex jones' big payout. lawyers making the case that he's worth a lot more than he's let on. the jury again deliberating just how much more he should pay for his years of lies. y for his years of lies.

i typed in my dad's name... and i found his childhood home. he's been wondering about the address for seventy years... (chuckle) and i found it in five minutes. travel back in time in no time with the 1950 census on ancestry.

it's 5:00 a.m., and i feel like i can do anything. we've got apples and cabbage. 7,000 dahlias, vegetables, and brisket for dinner. this is my happy place. we've been coming here, since 1868. my grandmother used to say, don't call me, don't bother me. i'm going out to mow. there's a lot of cushy desk jobs out there, but i make the earth take the shape that i want it to take. there are millions of ways to make the most of your land. learn how to make the most of yours at deere.com bubbles bubbles so many bubbles! as an expedia member you earn points on your travels, and that's on top of your airline miles.

so you can go and see... or taste or do absolutely nothing with all those bubbles. without ever wondering if you're getting the most out of your trip. because you are. kids, one year they want all dinosaurs stuff the next, camels. - llamas. - llamas. so save money shopping back to school on amazon. you sure that's not a camel? yeah. whatever you say.

a jury in austin, texas, today is deliberating again determining how much more the infowars host and conspiracy theorist alex jones will have to pay in punitive damages to a family of one of the children killed during the sandy hook elementary school shooting. it follows the more than $4 million in compensatory damages handed down yesterday for spreading lies and misinformation about the massacre. the family was saebing $150 million in defamation and emotional distress. let's bring in nbc news senior reporter ben collins.

ben, welcome. we've learned a lot more about his finances today in court. clearly, he's made millions and millions off of the lies he's told. how do you think that's factoring into the jury's decision right now? >> i just want to read you the very last sentence that was said to the jury before they were let out to deliberate and this is from the sandy hook lawyers. alex joan is worth almost $270 million that we know of. please take an amount that punishes him in an amount that ensures he never does this again. so they're asking for the remaining $146 million they asked for at the start of this trial in punitive damages. $150 million in total after the $4 million from yesterday. they are trying to make a statement here and they said to this jury, you can make a statement here. haven't we seen enough of this? haven't we seen enough of these lies over the last ten years that have overtaken our country?

haven't we seen enough of this idea that, you know, lies should be weighed just as much as truth and the harassment should be weighed just as much as news? that's in the hands of the jury right now, and if they want to make a statement against alex jones they against alex jones, they have a full ability to do it in a texas court. >> to the point you just made, ben, are lawsuits like this the best way to hold someone like jones accountable for years and years of misinformation? >> it's really good question. i don't know the answer to that question, but i will say that this man has been hiding money in shell companies, and that's what was revealed in court today as well. and it's -- it was unclear, entirely, how much this man made until his phone was leaked by his own lawyers by mistake earlier this week. he's been saying that he made probably half of what he does make or has in net worth over the last few years. you know, there are days in 2018, remember, so that's many years ago, that's four years

ago, where he made $800,000 a day. his profile has only increased since then. he has complained for years about how deplatforming has silenced him. that's clearly not the case. that was not punishment at all. he makes more money now than he ever has before. he's probably more entrenched in the republican party, in the gop, and how they handle their media apparatus than ever before. so, deplatforming was not a punishment. it was a helpful thing for him. getting him off facebook and twitter and on to his own services, that was a way for him to build his empire. losing this amount of money in court might be a different story. >> yes, and it has been quite a story so far. ben collins, thank you so much. appreciate you. an update on the rising number of monkeypox cases in this country as concerns grow about a dwindling vaccine supply. that's next. about a dwindling vaccine supply that's nt.ex i have moderate to severe plaque psoriasis. now, there's skyrizi. with skyrizi 3 out of 4 people achieved 90% clearer skin

at 4 months, after just 2 doses. skyrizi may increase your risk of infections and lower your ability to fight them. before treatment, your doctor should check you for infections and tuberculosis. tell your doctor if you have an infection or symptoms such as fevers, sweats, chills, muscle aches or coughs, or if you plan to or recently received a vaccine. ♪ nothing is everything ♪ talk to your dermatologist about skyrizi. learn how abbvie could help you save. if you're turning 65 soon or over 65 and planning to retire... now's the time to learn more about an aarp medicare supplement insurance plan from unitedhealthcare and get help protecting yourself from the out-of-pocket costs medicare doesn't pay. because the time to prepare is before you go on medicare. don't wait. get started today. call unitedhealthcare for your free decision guide.

life... doesn't stop for diabetes. be ready for every moment, with glucerna. it's the number one doctor recommended brand that is scientifically designed to help manage your blood sugar. live every moment. glucerna.

flowers are fighters. live every moment. that's why the alzheimer's association walk to end alzheimer's is full of them. because flowers find a way to break through. just like we will. join the fight at alz.org/walk right now, there have been about 600,000 vaccines deployed. we will soon have 1.1 million. we've got to concentrate all our efforts to make sure that everyone who's at risk of getting infected with monkeypox has the ability and accessibility to get a vaccine to protect them before the fact. >> dr. anthony fauci on the ongoing shortage of monkeypox vaccines needed to combat the rapidly growing outbreak in this

country, which was declared a public health emergency by the biden administration yesterday. it's a rare but important designation that dr. fauci says could expedite decisions that would improve the fight against monkeypox. one move authorities are currently considering, splitting vaccine doses to increase the supply. cases in this country have doubled about every eight days since may. today, there are more than 7,000 confirmed cases in nearly all 50 states. up next, what those primary wins for election deniers may not say about trump's chances in 2024. we'll explain that one next. s in 2024 we'll expln aithat one next. when you order the new lemon ricotta blueberry protein pancakes with 37 grams of protein, you get a smile on your plate. only from ihop. download the app and join the rewards program today.

hi, i'm steve and i live in austin, texas. i work as a personal assistant download the app and join to the owner of a large manufacturing firm. i've got anywhere from 10 to 50 projects going

at any given time. i absolutely have to be sharp. let me tell ya, i was struggling with my memory. it was going downhill. my friend recommended that i try prevagen and over time, it made a very significant difference in my memory and in my cognitive ability. i started to feel a much better sense of well-being. prevagen. healthier brain. better life. kids don't always take the best care of school supplies. so save money shopping back to school on amazon. while they... 0oh... uh... figure their stuff out. man 1: have you noticed the world is on fire? record heat waves? does that worry you? well, it should. because this climate thing is your problem. man 2: 40 years ago, when our own scientists at big oil predicted that burning fossil fuels could lead to catastrophic effects, we spent billions to sweep it under the rug. man 3: so we're going to be fine. but you might want to start a compost pile, turn down the ac. you got a lot of work to do

because your kids are going to need it.

♪♪ i am the authority that kari lake referred to that she would turn the evidence over to rather than the, quote, fake news, and she has not turned over any evidence to me. the fact is, she doesn't have any evidence. this is just a baseless claim that she is using to continue to gin up her base. >> hi again, everyone, it's 5:00 in washington. i'm michael steele in for my friend, nicole wallace. the clean sweep of trump-backed candidates in arizona's gop primaries was solidified last night when the republican primary for governor was called for former tv anchor and election denier kari lake. lake, as we have been discussing this week, had previously suggested she would not accept the results of her election if she lost and that her race had already been tainted by fraud and irregularities. as you heard in that sound byte we just played, arizona

secretary of state katie hobbs told me yesterday that lake has any yet to turn in any evidence of fraud. hint, hint, seems like there's none, right? lake will now face off against hobbs in the general election in november. the victories of election deniers like lake in primaries in arizona and in other battleground states pose a critical threat to our democracy. greg sargent in the "washington post" writes about the true underlying objective when these republican candidates push that big lie that the election was stolen. "they are essentially running on an implicit vow that as long as they are in power, no democratic presidential candidate will ever win their state again. no democratic victory in their state will ever again be treated as legitimate." it's that threat to free and fair elections in this country that the january 6th vice chair and staunch republican liz cheney is determined to defend. >> how do we stop it if these people get elected? >> well, i think we have to make

sure they don't. i think we have to make sure that, you know, we come together and form alliances across party lines to make sure that the people that we are electing are not going to unravel the republic, and i think that's going to be a particular issue in '22 and certainly it will be again in '24. >> when it comes to 2024, new reporting in the "washington post" finds that the support for trump-endorsed candidates doesn't always translate. "in interviews with dozens of republican primary voters, here suggest that voting for trump's preferred midterm candidates is not the same as eagerly wishing to vote again for trump himself. while these voters continue to express support for trump and his agenda, many doubted he would be the best nominee for president and showed openness to potential rivals, most often florida governor ron desantis. there's too many people that hate him, charles, a republican

from phoenix who still likes trump but doesn't want him to run again said of the former president. you have other candidates that work better with other people, he said." sam stein, white house editor for politico, plus former republican congressman david jolly, also an msnbc political analyst, and former democratic congresswoman donna edwards of maryland. thank you. sam, my sam, my friend, talk to us about this sweep in arizona, man. we've seen the -- these -- this hold that trump has on the party. but at the same time, you're now having republicans apparently a little bit wary about trump running in 2024. what is this telling us? >> well, i think there are two competing threads happening here. one is that if you want to win a republican primary, you do have to exhibit some sort of fealty towards trump. you know, put it this way. blake masters, who won his

campaign for -- to be the senate nominee, he wouldn't have won had he not questioned the results of the 2020 election. he just wouldn't have gotten through the door. so you do have to have some fealty to trump to have agency in the republican party. at the same time, there's a cross current, which is that the january 6th committee has damaged trump politically. you don't just need to read quotes from "the post" to see that. there's, you know, focus groups that you could sit on with former trump voters who say they're just ready to move on. they're exhausted by it all. you can see it in some of the public polling data that came in early but show general election match-ups where trump doesn't do that well against joe biden, even at this nadir of president biden's political support. i think what they're trying to do is thread the needle, which is elect these people, knowing they are damaged by their association with trump in a general election contest, and at

the same time, hope that someone comes around and maybe gets the nomination from trump come 2024. >> david, pick up on one of sam's points that, you know, even if some of these republicans are supposedly cooling their jets on trump a little bit, the damage that trump has done, that he has inflicted on the party, it's already done. it's there. >> yeah, michael, in some ways, donald trump is kind of a victim of his own political success, and what i mean by that is the endorsement of donald trump now in republican primaries is not really dispositive. what is dispositive is whether or not a candidate is willing to hug donald trump closely. right? you saw that in the pennsylvania race where cathy barnett says, listen, no one person owns all of maga. you're seeing it in congressional races where the republican candidate did not get the endorsement, they still stand up as a proud trump republican. that's happening in florida right now in a competitive race. so, in many ways, it's not

whether or not trump has endorsed the candidate. it's whether or not the candidates are willing to affiliate with trump. and then i think that leads to the broader conversation here, which is, is it still now donald trump's party? and michael, i think we're fully now within the chapter of this story that whether or not donald trump runs for president, there will be other republican candidates, likely ron desantis. we couldn't have said that six months ago, but i think if donald trump enters a republican primary for the republican nomination, it will be crowded now, and that's a very different landscape than it was a year ago. >> wow. that's a very interesting point. yeah. i'm going to put a pin in that one, because that's a good one. donna, i want to shift real quick with you, though, to kari lake and her fraud allegations. this is really how democrats respond to that. should they be calling her bluff? should they allow her the lanes that she's created for herself to just outright lie to floridians about what happened

in that primary and the big lie itself? should you guys be forcing her to own it a little bit more? >> well, you know what, michael, i don't know how much more she can own it. i mean, she's fully embraced it. i mean, she built her entire primary campaign on that big lie and continuing to promote it, and even in this interim period before her race was called, she perpetuated that lie again as though somehow that even if she won, that there still is some question about the election, and i think that what democrats have to do with these candidates is allow them, enable them to be as extreme as they want to be and then to go out and fight for that middle, which i believe is there. i think that that -- part of that fight that liz cheney described is people who are willing, no matter what, across lines, to stand up for the

republic. and i believe that those people are out there, and i think that democrats have every opportunity to get them because it's not as though kari lake or all of those acolytes of donald trump are going to back off because they still need that solid whatever one-third of the base of the vote in order to have any prospects for winning in november. so, i say, let them go full-out trump and full-out big lie and then democrats claim the middle. >> david, nbc's policy editor, benji, writes about what could happen if these election deniers in arizona, that just won their elections and their primaries, were empowered two years ago, fully. >> that's right. >> or even partially trumpified arizona government could have sown chaos had it been in place in 2020 and followed through on demands from the former president and his allies.

the governor or secretary of state might have refused to certify an election or issued conflicting claims. a state legislature built in trump's image could have tried to toss out the results and appoint their own electors. a lot to what donna was just saying about letting them go full maga. talk about the danger these individuals pose if they win in november. >> yeah, look, democrats have to do two things in november. one is advance their policy agenda, but the second is to protect the very underlying tenets of democracy. the reality is, republicans are strengthening their ability to steal the '24 election. we're watching it in plain sight. their elevation of candidates in georgia, arizona, pennsylvania, and other key states who have professed not just denial of the outcome of the 2020 election but have professed a willingness to use the levers of state government where the administration of elections actually occurs, that they would

be willing to do that to essentially reverse the will of the people, that is theft of an election, and that is what the republicans are architecting right now. the danger is exceedingly real, and so not only should all americans be talking about it, it is tough. democrats really have to take that message to the voters, but also realize that that might not be the most important issue for the voter today. unfortunately. but they're the firewall to protect our republic in the november election. >> so, david, i'm going to stick with you a little bit more because i want to dig down a little bit deeper in some of the work that you're doing out there in this space to sort of create a new lane, if you will, to sort of combat this kind of maga control of our state legislatures and government. how does -- how do your efforts in creating that third lane, a way forward, if you will, is complimentary to the work that the democrats are doing with the january 6th committee, trying to promote democracy, and what does that look like, politically,

going forward in the face of the kari lakes out there? >> michael, that's a great question. and thank you, because a lot of times, people say, look, if you're mobilizing the independent space, you're going to be a spoiler somehow, and depending on where you sit, you might see it being spoiled one direction or another. what i would suggest to you is this. 40% of the country today says, i don't see myself in either major party. that is the voters speaking, not david jolly speaking. but we also know in '18 and '20, you saw a coalition of disaffected republicans, independents and soft-leaning dems to say, we're going to stop trumpism. and what i would suggest is that that broad consensus within the independent movement is part of the pro-democracy coalition. here's the important thing. it's just the reality of 40% of the voters speaking. they don't see themselves in today's democratic party, and perhaps that's okay. that's a question for the democratic party, whether they want to expand their tent or

not, but what i would suggest is, this is a coalition that is working, and so rather than the democrats be worried about independents mobilizing, maybe recognize that this mobilization was there in '18 and '20 to help keep the republican, keep that democratic voting coalition together. that's where i see the independents' space playing in '22 and '24. >> so donna, how do you begin to assess what david is saying here about this opportunity where you have got 40% of voters out there saying they don't want to identify with either party and what that may mean for democrats like yourself in trying to combat this maga creation out there? >> well, first of all, i think it's important to recognize, and especially -- this is especially true in a number of swing districts and states, is that the democratic party actually

does have a very, very big and expansive tent that was proven in both '28 and in '20. the other thing that i would say is i know david and i are both part of very expansive groups that include democrats who are progressive like i am and conservatives and everybody in between. former elected officials who are about the business of protecting democracy. we agree that we don't have to agree about a whole bunch of other stuff, but we do need to agree about protecting the republic, and i think that that is where these various currents really come together, and i think that there are plenty of democrats who are partisans who recognize that as an opportunity, both an electoral opportunity, but also the real opportunity to forge these coalitions so that we can do just that, and that is protect the republic. >> so, sam, you get to -- you get to work between our friends

here and to help you with that, to help you with that, i want to get your thought on liz cheney saying, to work across party lines, to defeat extremist candidates, is important. it matters. it's what we have to do. what's your take? >> well, that is the sort of unifying cause for everyone who's not in the trump tent. if you believe that democracy is under threat, you are mobilized around that fear. the question is, what does it mean in sort of practical electoral terms? and you know, there are plenty of democrats who are worried, frankly, about an independent third party run because they fear it would siphon votes away from the one party, in their mind, that is for upholding democracy. and so, you know, this is the question that i suppose david needs to answer as he goes forward. >> you know i'm coming back to you, david. you know i'm coming back to you.

he called you out. i'm coming back to you. >> i'm diplomatically and gently raising the question, which is that, you know, if it comes down to a moment there, you know, does the binary choice need to be between a democrat and republican, and the fear that an independent might siphon off votes, what do you do in that case? this is the existential issue of our times. doesn't it beg that you bow out in that moment? >> just real quick. it's a legitimate question. we've heard it a lot, you know? david and i have had these conversations. how do you assess that? and in addition to that, you've got a political piece out here that talks about republican leaders don't know how to handle these extreme candidates. so, what does all of this mean when you're looking at the work you're doing, the fight for

democracy, and a party that's implode on itself? >> look, we call it the spoiler question, right? if an independent is in a race, does that spoil the election for the better candidate? what i would suggest that i personally am involved in is nothing related to launching a presidential candidate. i think people deserve more than just two political parties, so could there be an effort to build a durable, viable, sustainable minor party in the united states? and that means running candidates for mayorships and town supervisors and state legislative offices. i don't think more choice in those elections is a threat to democracy as some have suggested, and i would say i'm personally not going to play a hand in having a spoiler candidate for white house run. i have no interest. you will see establishment groups, i would say, inside the beltway, that plan to do that. that will be another group that probably does it. but here's the final point i would offer on this, and it is important. look, ideology has a stronghold in the major parties and that's fine. but any notion that a minor

party might arise and be a threat to democracy, i would suggest for the 40% who can't see themselves, it is because, look what's happening to manchin and sinema. they're being villainized for being the final votes on a democratic package that was watered down. what's the attraction for a moderate? in utah, the democratic party of utah made a decision not to run a candidate and instead is coalescing with an independent, evan mcmullen, who is the greatest threat mike lee has faced. so, if evan mcmullen is successful in utah, you have removed an autocratic senator, arguably, whose hands are tainted by january 6th, and you've done so in the independent lane where democrats couldn't be viable. look, the independent space is a very smart space when it comes to protecting democracy. it is not going to waste its efforts to further the hand of, in this era, what is defined by trumpism. >> i say, everybody in the pool. the more, the merrier.

we could use a full pools for everybody to jump into. sam stein and david jolly, thank you, brothers, for starting us off. donna is sticking around, which i'm happy to say. after the break, a scramble among some republican candidates to dial back their hardline stance on abortion rights. plus, new revelations from fbi director christopher wray about who was pulling the strings in the brett kavanaugh investigation before he was confirmed to the supreme court. and an outcry inside the wnba over brittney griner's 9 -and-a-half-year sentence. all those stories and more from "deadline white house" returns. "deadline white house" returns

lily! welcome to our third bark-ery. oh, i can tell business is going through the “woof”. but seriously we need a reliable way to help keep everyone connected from wherever we go. well at at&t we'll help you find the right wireless plan for you. so, you can stay connected to all your drivers and stores on america's most reliable 5g network. that sounds just paw-fect. terrier-iffic i labra-dore you round of a-paws at&t 5g is fast, reliable and secure for your business.

another busy day? at&t 5g is fast, of course it is. you're a cio in 2022. but you're covered. with security that protects your company everywhere, on-premise... in the cloud... and right here too. comcast business. powering possibilities.

after abortion rights supporters secured an overwhelming win in kansas on tuesday, republican candidates are frantically backtracking, attempting to moderate previously extreme positions on abortion ahead of november's midterms. "the new york times" writing, "in pennsylvania, doug mastriano has latelily taken to saying the people of pennsylvania will decide what abortion looks like in the state, not the governor. in minnesota, scott jensen, a family physician who said in march that he would try to ban abortion as governor, said, in a video released before the kansas vote, that he does not support -- that he does support, rather, some exceptions. if i've been unclear previously, i want to be clear now."

axios breaking down the data from tuesday showing that republicans, even in more conservative districts, should take notice, writing that, "an 18-point loss for a proposal to strip abortion rights out of the state's constitution yielded new evidence that abortion can push swing voters toward democrats and mobilize the liberal base, adding that it may hurt republicans in the very races they need to take control of the senate. writing, abortion now and often ranks as the second most important issue in national polls after economic concerns. it has particular resonance in battleground states where access hangs in the balance." joining our conversation, olivia troye, former top aide to vice president mike pence and donna edwards is back with us. so, donna, can republicans -- the republicans that we're seeing now backtracking and sort of doing sort of the backstroke, you know, from their hardline positions on abortion, can they

save themselves now that their rhetoric is already out there? >> yeah. i mean, i think it's very difficult. some of the positions that have been taken previously are really extreme, not in the case of rape or incest or, you know, to save the life of the mother. and so, i think these are the most extreme positions that many of these republican candidates and elected officials have staked out, and it's going to be up to democrats to highlight that, to really take it to them and not back away from that pride, and there's every indication that democrats are prepared to go full bore when it comes to expressing both their support for abortion rights but also pointing out where these elected officials have said things that are on the record, on radio programs in front of microphones, and it's pretty easy to -- i mean, it's pretty difficult, rather, to backtrack

away from those positions, because they have been stated so publicly, and they are so extreme. >> olivia, "the new york times" has run the numbers on the motivating power of abortion rights for voters like this. "the kansas vote implies that around 65% of voters nationwide would reject a similar initiative to roll back abortion rights, including in more than 40 of the 50 states, a few states on each side are very close to 50/50. this is a rough estimate based on how demographic characteristics predicted the results of recent abortion referendums. but it is an evidence-based way of arriving at a fairly obvious conclusion. if abortion rights wins 59% support in kansas, it's doing even better than that nationwide." so, how significant a factor will this change in momentum -- and certainly, this attitude among voters to sort of lean in

on this issue, push results on election night? >> look, i think this is very significant issue for voters. and i think republicans picked the wrong fight. i think, you know, the power of women when we come together is strong, and i think what you saw in kansas was, you heard women's voices, conservative women's voices as well, moderate voter voices like myself, who, you know, we may lean pro-life. we may lean more conservative. but i think the important message to stress with a lot of these voters is the overreach. the overreach of these types of initiatives that are being passed, and the extremeness of them. extremism of them, the, you know, invasion of privacy. it is a very, very personal matter. it is a matter that is someone's choice to make, right? and i think, also, what we're seeing is just like the vigilante, you know, turning on your neighbor and the kind of reporting and attacking each other over this. i don't think women are going to

stand for this, and i don't think they want any part of it and what republican conservative women may not speak this publicly, but behind closed doors and within republican circles, there are a lot of women who are very upset about this entire scenario, and i think you're seeing it play out in kansas. >> olivia, you just -- you just nailed it for me, because you and i have been inside those rooms. we know what these conversations are like and how they go and particularly with republican women. how did republican leadership get this so wrong in thinking that they could actually push this? i know there was some concern about mississippi pushing its case in this cycle to get to the supreme court for this very reason. and what does that say about other social issues like birth control and gay marriage, for example, where, again, republicans have taken very

extreme positions that are out of step with what national polling, 60%, 70% of americans are saying? >> well, honestly, i think that's the extremism in the republican party. i think you had a group of people who were pushing extremist agendas and narratives across the board that have engulfed the republican party, and look, with trump leading the charge himself. and so -- and a lot of these other far-right people that are running for candidacy still today. and i think they thought that they had a platform now and they were going to ram this through, they're going to push it forward, and i think what they're seeing now is that this is backfiring, and you can go to the kitchen table issues, and they can, you know, cry about gas prices and inflation and saying, you know, oh, all of these things that are -- matter to the voters, but these other issues are equally just as important, and we are in a very different time than we were in the old days, and i think people are going to stand by each other and are not about these policies, and i think you're seeing it in states like texas,

my home state, and other states where there is the overreach that is happening, and i think that's what american voters need to remember, whether you are a republican, conservative, you know, whatever. i think that we're in a time where i think, you know, when we see the overreach on these things at several levels, we all need to take a stand. >> so, donna, olivia raises some very interesting points, and so on the flip side, do you worry that democrats risk going all in on abortion when it may prove to be something that's more local or regional or just, you know, to a specific, certain districts, not just sort of a national mood or feeling about it? >> well, a lot of these races, whether they are individual congressional races or statewide races, in these key states, are going to turn on a couple of percentage of the vote, and so i think that democrats are smart that they will use the abortion

issue and their strength on supporting abortion rights to carve out that extra one, two, 5% that it's going to take to win in these districts, and look, i went to the gas station today. i don't know about anybody else, but my price filling up my tank is lower. president biden's -- the support is higher today. his approval is higher. there are a lot of issues that are churning right now, and abortion happens to be one of those issues that even for a very narrow and targeted group of constituents, will be enough to change the outcome in some of these elections, and so i do say to democrats, lean in on this. the american people are with you, and american women who are going to decide this election are with you as well. >> all right. donna edwards, it's always a pleasure having you on with us. thank you so much.

olivia troye is staying with us. after the break, how conflict over political flash points like abortion may make america a more dangerous nation. america a more dangerous nation. i love all types of dancing... salsa, and even belly dancing! i am a triathlete. i've always been into health, and wellness, and fitness... i tried everything with diet and exercise, and nothing worked. there was just kinda this stubborn area on my stomach. but coolsculpting worked for me! coolsculpting targets, freezes and eliminates treated fat for good. no needles, no incisions. discuss coolsculpting with your provider. some common side effects include temporary numbness, discomfort and swelling. you've come this far... coolsculpting takes you further. visit coolsculpting.com riders! let your queries be known. uh, how come we don't call ourselves bikers anymore? i mean, "riders" is cool, but "bikers"...is really cool. -seriously? -denied. can we go back to meeting at the rec center? the commute here is brutal. denied. how do we feel about getting a quote

to see if we can save with america's number one motorcycle insurer? should flo stop asking the same question every time? -approved! -[ altered voice ] denied! [ normal voice ] whoa. when you order the new lemon ricotta blueberry protein pancakes with 37 grams of protein, you get a smile on your plate. only from ihop. download the app and join the rewards program today. flowers are fighters. download the app and join that's why the alzheimer's association walk to end alzheimer's is full of them.

because flowers find a way to break through. just like we will. join the fight at alz.org/walk we just moved. so there's millions of - dahlias in bloom. over nine acres. when we started, we grew a quarter of an acre. now i'm taking on new projects on the regular. we always dreamed of having this property, so - i want to make my yard look as beautiful as butters, here. butters. how are you doing over there? we do both vegetables and large mouth bass. yep. we've got tons of them, don't we, buddy? there are millions of ways to make the most of your land. learn how to make the most of yours at deere.com

non-gaming tribes have been left in the dust. wealthy tribes with big casinos make billions, while small tribes struggle in poverty. prop 27 is a game changer. 27 taxes and regulates online sports betting to fund permanent solution to homelessness. while helping every tribe in california. so who's attacking prop 27? wealthy casino tribes who want all the money for themselves support small tribes, address homelessness. vote yes on 27. and we are watching an austin, texas, courthouse where a verdict has been reached for punitive damages in the sandy hook families' defamation case against alex jones.

we will bring you that verdict as soon as we have it. but first, the story we mentioned earlier. fbi director christopher wray confirming the agency punted hundreds of tips back to the white house during its investigation into allegations against then supreme court nominee brett kavanaugh. here's some of that testimony yesterday. >> is it true that after kavanaugh-related tips were separated from regular tipline traffic, they were forwarded to white house counsel without investigation? >> when the hundreds of calls started coming in, we gathered those up, reviewed them and provided them to the white house. >> without investigation? >> we reviewed them and then provided them to the -- >> you reviewed them for purposes of separating from tipline traffic but did not further investigate the ones that related to kavanaugh, correct? >> correct. >> wray went even further, admitting the fbi also took

direction from the white house as to which calls the agency should look into. this comes after an admission last year by the assistant fbi director that the tipline received more than 4,500 tips. after repeated failed attempts by senators to get a thorough explanation of the agency's investigation. joining us now, msnbc national security analyst, frank figliuzzi, former fbi assistant director for counterintelligence, and olivia troye is here. welcome back. frank, what's happening? you got the assistant fbi director saying the fbi provided the white house with all relevant tips of over 4,500 tips? is there -- is this fbi failure or another trump failure within our government and our institutions? >> so, look, i'm sorry if i

sound weary of explaining this, but i've been explaining this since the kavanaugh nomination. i've written about it, spoken about it. it's not new information. the rules of the road right now and that have existed for decades under numerous administrations do something really bizarre, michael. there's only one kind of investigation the fbi does. only one. where the american people are not their client, and that kind of investigation is a reinvestigation of a white house appointee. in the case of a reinvestigation of a white house appointee, the white house calls the shots, and the parameters are set by the white house on what they can and can't do in the fbi to reinvestigate an appointee. kavanaugh was a reinvestigation because as you know, he had been a federal judge at the district level, had a background at the appellate court level, so this was a reinvestigation. if people don't like how this works, they should demand, and

senator whitehouse, who's been extremely vocal on this, who knows the rules inside and out, i can tell you that from personal experience, he knows. he's feigning indignation here. he should be demanding the white house to change the rules about how the white house and future white houses should interact with the fbi on an appointee reinvestigation. if you don't like it, change it. but there's a lot of people out there saying, the fbi should have just plowed forward and ignored the rules. i don't think we want an fbi who ignores the rules. i think we want a white house that demands resolution of 4,500 tips. that's what i think we should be demanding. the other thing we need to be looking at and focused on is since kavanaugh was a district court judge and an appellate court judge and had background for those positions, how come in those backgrounds under pevious administrations, how come they didn't turn up this information? that's a valid question. >> it is. and i think it's a little bit confusing, because people, to your first point, believe that

whenever these nominees come up, the fbi's going to do a background check. they're going to look into them regardless of how many times they've been before the committee. so, you make a very important point there. so, olivia, trump apparently had the power here to do more, so it's not a great look after a rushed appointee who had a lot of unanswered questions, to frank's point, that should have been vetted before. what do you make of this? how do you think this reads to the american people right now? >> honestly, the person that came to my mind was a mob mentality, right? now he has a sitting justice there that's basically there because he did him a favor, and they likely didn't follow up. i'm sure they didn't. it also speaks to, you know, a lot of these tips came from women, is my understanding, and i think we're pretty clear on how donald trump views women and their worth. and so i think, honestly, those were the first things that came

to mind at the time, was the sort of, you know, the lack of care, the lack of care of integrity of someone that will be sitting on the supreme court, a body that should be held with integrity, and the lack of follow-through on really looking into this and deciding, deciding to go ahead with this nomination, fully knowing that there were all these concerns that were being recorded, apparently, and outside the investigation, like frank said, one would think that a president of the united states would take a pause on that and say, well, maybe this is not the right person to put forward for the bench, and maybe other republicans, officials and elected officials, would maybe stop and think the same thing, but that is not, unfortunately, the integrity of what we're seeing here with many of these people on the republican side of the house, and especially something that pretty much did not exist in the trump administration. >> frank, director wray also told senators that the supreme

court's abortion decision has sparked a general intensification of violence across the issue and they've opened up a number of investigations. so, what's your reaction to that? and how much worse do you think this is going to get for us? >> there have previously been dhs warnings that included this amongst the concerns of threats coming up, so the reason that that was prompted, that warning, was domestic extremist chatter, you know, chat rooms, blogs, are indeed talking about the potential of a soft target represented in abortion demonstrations. they're talking about hurting people, and they view that -- in fact, even following the buffalo shooting, michael, there was talk online from people saying, you know, supermarket, not such a great target. why didn't he just hit a pro-choice rally? would have been a much smarter target. so, that's where we are right now in this divided society.

law enforcement has got to step up, has got to step up, develop the intelligence, do proactive measures, but the domestic extremist threat you know, michael, is more real than ever, and now, yet another vulnerability has developed with regard to the abortion issue. >> yeah. it is a dynamic space right now, frank, as you mention. thank you, frank figliuzzi and olivia troye. thank you very much. up next, a powerful message from the wnba over brittney griner's nine-and-a-half-year sentence in russia. nine-and-a- sentence in russia

for too long, big pharma has been squeezing americans for every penny, and inflation has only added to the pain. but congress has a historic opportunity to deliver relief, by passing a bill to let medicare negotiate lower drug prices and put money back in the pockets of seniors. 87% of americans support the plan, and applaud the senators who are standing up to big pharma. let's make history. vote yes to let medicare negotiate lower drug prices. only at vanguard you're more than just an investor you're an owner. that means that your priorities are ours too. our interactive tools and advice can help you build a future for the ones you love. that's the value of ownership. okay everyone, our mission is to provide complete balanced nutrition for strength and energy. woo hoo! ensure, complete balanced nutrition with 27 vitamins and minerals.

and ensure complete with 30 grams of protein. ♪ ♪

bring her home. >> what you're watching here is a 42-second moment of silence from last night's wnba game between the connecticut sun and phoenix mercury. the 42 seconds signifying the jersey number of brittney griner, who yesterday was sentenced to nine years in prison by a russian court. the wnba and nba released a joint statement yesterday condemning the court's ruling, saying, "today's verdict and sentencing is unjustified and ununfortunate but not unexpected, and brittney griner remains wrongly detained." griner's sentence yesterday reignited a new wave of outrage among athletes and ordinary americans alike who are pushing

the biden administration to do whatever it takes to bring brittney home. the reverend al sharpton is back with us, the host of msnbc's "politics nation" and president of the national action network. reverend al, in your statement yesterday, after the verdict was announced, you called brittney's sentencing a moral outrage and legal atrocity in any court of the world. talk to us about how that hit you when that verdict came down and your reaction in that moment and what it means for this effort to get her home, get brittney back home. >> well, what we at national action network wanted to raise is that the moral issue here is here is a young lady that had gone to russia for seven years and played basketball and had ingratiated herself with many russian citizens, so much so to some of her russian teammates

and former coach came and testified on her behalf in court. and she went above the boundaries of country, beyond the global politics, and entertained russians like she did americans. yet, they're treating her in this way over some vapor that she was prescribed by doctors. that's a moral issue. the legal issue is, what they had wouldn't amount to a misdemeanor in most countries around the world. so, what we're saying is, forget putin vs. biden. forget all of the global politics. this is a humane issue. that's why i've asked to be allowed to go and have a clergy visit with her. this is inhumane, to do to anyone on some bogus situation as them having some vapors in a cartridge, which is not in any court around the civilized world going to get you nine and a half

years in jail. let's be serious about this. >> so, reverend, let's pick up on the point you raised just a moment ago about the clergy, because for the last couple of years, or, excuse me, couple of months, you have been calling on the u.s. and russian governments to lead a delegation of clergy to see brittney. what have you heard about your request? what does it look like, you know, for that opportunity to arise for you to go there and minister to brittney? >> well, i've talked to the state department at its highest level, and they said they have no influence with russia, that i can make the application, but that they were going to direct all of their energies toward me being able to pray for her here and pray with her here, and i appreciate that. we've heard nothing from russians. i even reached out to the russian orthodox church. now that she's been sentenced, we've reiterated it again, and we intend to be in touch with the soviet leadership again to

see if they can be granting that. but i would really want to see her immediately brought home. whatever they need to do, and secretary blinken and others and the president has made this a priority. i was glad the president, in five minutes after

let's cut a little bit deeper on the underground case. you touched on the point i want to get to. the nba, largely stayed behind the scenes. mainly sticking to the public statements, letting the wnba lead the way here. to quote the new york times piece, handling the brittany griner case, "there are no easy answers." they run the political research. they have done more. here the question. should the nba be doing more? what else could they be doing? you mentioned the male

athletes. how did you weigh that among the callings out there? this is on the male side of the sport. what can they be doing saying things about women? they were out publicly on an issue. >> from a personal vantage point, i would love to see some of the stars in basketball come out. it's a moral issue. just say it's not fair. they are going through with other situations that they have had with trey von martin, or george floyd. come out and say that it's there. we want to see her free. they have tremendous platforms. they shouldn't be political. they just raise the moral issue. i was glad to see they did a joint statement with the wea. they can do more.

the wnba is one of the most eloquent women organizations in the country. they need to understand, and to say that this is a moral outrage. we need to claim that this is a different issue. they are culturally given your country so much. they are taking them on such little bits. she admitted to it. i have prescriptions. i did it. you give her nine and a half years, that's unmoral. more than anything i have seen in my career. this is why i have not been able to remain silent. i hope to see male players, and other men stand up. i want to see people stand up and ready this on a moral plane. the question that many are asking, is that is russia acting this way because she is black? is this acting because she is

trying 26? is she a different orientation? is this different in terms of raising your aggressive issue? no one is putting a gun to your head, saying anything provocative. the family doesn't want that. >> appreciate you very much. breaking news, from the courthouse in texas. the jury has just reached a unanimous verdict on another charge against alex jones. defamation cage, a six-year-old boy was killed in the massacre. 45 .2 million damages cost.

the jury awarded that yesterday. we are back with nbc news and senior reporter, then collins. walk us through this. what do we know here? >> reporter: $50 million that alex jones has to play and pay. this is just for the family. this is a trial set in austin, texas. this is a lot of money for alex jones. it's alleged that he makes more than $800,000 a day. $50 million to lose in two days is a tremendous amount of cash. they are asking for 150 million. normally they don't go 10 times the amount. alex jones is dealing with that here. it we have a payout of $50 million. he will grovel and beg for more donations through been going. he will try to sell some more

stuff. $50 million, a tremendous amount of force that they have to sell to make that up. >> thank you for the update. a quick break, and we will be right back. for free. easily connect it to social platforms and marketplaces. and manage all your sales from one place. because if you've got it, we've got you. start for free at godaddy.com/startfree

>> tech: cracked windshield? don't wait. go to safelite.com because if you've got it, we've got you. you can schedule service in just a few clicks. it's so easy. and more customers today are relying on their cars advanced safety features, like automatic emergency breaking and lane departure warning. that's why our recalibration service is state of the art. we recalibrate your vehicle's camera, so you can still count on those safety features. all right, we're all finished. >> customer: thank you so much. >> tech: thank you. don't wait--schedule now. >> singers: ♪ safelite repair, safelite replace. ♪

thank you for being with us this friday. the stars right now. hello, katie. >> i'm so spoiled. yesterday, today, this weekend. there's nothing that beats spending time with you. >> same here.

have a good show. we are going to start with breaking news. a jury in texas, right now, coming in with an award for the sandy hook family, and an amount of $45.2 million in punitive damages. a monster punishment for lying about the tragic sandy hook massacre, and the defamation of the parents who lost their children during that incident. in total, with the compensatory damages that were awarded to the plaintiff yesterday, alex jones, must pay over $49 million for the process that he put these grieving families through. more from sandy hook parents, saying this for the closing arguments today.