tonight on "the reidout" -- >> the prosecutors in my office are among the most talented and

experienced in the department of justice. they have investigated this case to the highest ethical standards and they will continue to do so as this case proceeds. >> the case jack smith is referring to could proceed in new jersey, according to legal experts, which could explain some of the things trump was not charged with in the indictment filed in the southern district of florida. also tonight, what to expect when president biden attends a major gun control summit tomorrow in connecticut. senator chris murphy joins me. plus, i have a big announcement about a blockbuster reidout special next week with a very special guest. they don't get much bigger. i will spill the beans a little later. but we begin tonight with the wild card in the mishandling of classified documents case against the twice impeached, twice indicted former president, donald trump. the wild card is the judge, who is set to oversee the case, u.s. district judge aileen cannon.

you may remember her as the trump appointed judge whose past decisions on this very case were overturned not once but twice bine the conservative 11th circuit court of appeals in scathing opinions. she may provide trump his best hope of yet again receiving more favorable rulings like perhaps quashing evidence like the damning notes provided by trump's own lawyer, evan corcoran, or maybe even delaying the trial until after the 2024 election, or issuing a directed verdict of not guilty. it's not like she can rely on her vast criminal trial experience to help her through what will be one of the most significant criminal trials we have seen, because she barely has any such experience. as the times points out, of the 224 criminal cases that have been assigned to her, only four actually went to trial. in those cases, they involved basic charges including accusations of gun possession by a felon, smuggling undocumented

migrants, and tax fraud. nothing like the espionage act or obstruction of justice. in all, those four cases added up to just 14 trial days. i should add, before trump gave her this lifetime appointment to the bench in 2020, she had not previously served as any kind of judge. and while special counsel jack smith will have to wait and see how judge cannon handles this case, she might not be the only judge to oversea a case regarding those classified documents. one of the most striking revelations in the 49-page indictment were the two occasions when trump showed classified documents to others who did not have the proper security clearances. while trump was charged with illegal retention of classified documents, there was no charge for dissemination. that's likely because it happened at trump's bedminster golf club in new jersey and not in florida where these charges were brought. as andrew weissmann points out in the atlantic, smith could bring that charge which also

falls under the espionage act, in new jersey. he writes, the miami indictment conspicuously excludes many facts surrounding trump's actions in bedminster. what boxes were taken there, what they contained, how they were kept at the golf club. this silence suggests there might be more to come from the famously hard charging smith and his team of prosecutors who put together an otherwise highly detailed 49-page indictment. and as it relates to the special counsel's attempts to hold trump accountable for his actions, smith still moving forward on his other investigation into trump's role in the january 6th attack on the u.s. capitol, with a grand jury in d.c. continuing to hear testimony from witnesses as recently as yesterday. regarding that investigation, wiseman this morning predicted people who think jack smith may not bring a j-6 indictment in my humble opinion are going to be proved wrong. no way that he's going to give

trump a pass on this. joining me now is national security attorney bradley moss and timothy havy, former lead investigator for the january 6th select committee. thank you both for being here. let me back into the aileen cannon piece and start with you, tim, on the j-6 thing. when you saw that the charges were brought in florida, was it your assumption that this is the sum total of what jack smith was going to do, or would you be surprised if nothing more or if something more was done in d.c.? >> i think as andrew's piece in the atlantic points out, it's technically possible he could bring, jack smith could bring a subsequent case on dissemination in new jersey. i would be surprised if that happens. when i read the detail in the indictment, which includes the evidence of dissemination which is in part evidence that proves

intention, that's it. for the mar-a-lago matter, it's 1 case, brought in florida. it's brought in florida because that's where the core conduct happened. it also potentially provides more legitimacy to the case if there are convictions in the case, if the special counsel believes the evidence is to sustain, perhaps it has more credibility in the eyes of the public if it's brought in a jurisdiction, even in front of a judge favorable to the former president, as opposed to d.c. where there's a narrative where there's a stacked deck. >> asfer as new jersey is concerned, would it surprise you if they had that as the back pocket in case aileen cannon decides to go rogue, they could drop charges on him in new jersey? >> it's possible, but i think unlikely. i think prosecutors want to bring as many facts as they can in one indictment. and he wants to bring all the evidence of the dissemination in a single case. it's really not in the prosecutor's interest to have some facts in case a, others in case b. as you said, joy, if the judge

is wrong, it goes rogue, does some things that are clearly improper, they have a backup option and could bring a subsequent case. i don't think anybody wants that. i think the department of justice has brought their strongest case in this indictment. it's going to be in florida. they believe they can win the case. all that evidence that could have been brought in new jersey is going to come to miami. >> let's talk about judge aileen cannon. this is what "the new york times" wrote about her. her senate judiciary committee questionnaire asks for every published writing, she produced 20. 17 were pieces she had written in the summer of 2002 as a college intern at a spanish publication with headlines like winners in the quest competition. the other three were on gibson dunn's website describing cases the firm has handled. she doesn't have a lot of experience, but i think the key piece of experience she lacks is anything that has to do with

national security. and the challenge here is that she missed when she was dealing with the special master issue and got smacked down by an appeals court. but in this case, are you concerned about her skill level when it comes to handling a case where there is so much classified material, it probably can't even be shown to the jury? >> so i'm not yet worried about her skill level so much as i'm worried simply she doesn't have the background information and knowledge and understanding of these types of procedures. to be fair to her, outside of d.c. and the eastern convict of virginia where most national security cases are brought, most judges don't have that expertise or knowledge. there might be a select few in areas where it's been needed for an occasional mishandling case that was brought, but generally all the cases are handled in d.c. or virginia. so must judges wouldn't have that expertise. she could be educated on it. the prosecutors know they have

to bring up to speed whoever the judge was on the details, the classified information procedures act and how these cases transpire, but ultimately, this was the risk you take, when you bring a case in south florida, knowing that's where venue is most appropriate, but also knowing the judges there aren't going to have the same exposure on a regular basis to national security cases. they had bad luck when it came to the draw on the random assignment and got judge cannon. >> i mean, the other question i think i have is whether or not she might be swayed by the idea, because she does in her previous rulings at least, we don't know what she's going to do, she gave such great deference to donald trump. whether she might be persuaded by his arguments that these sorts of national security materials could be possessed by donald trump and that she wouldn't really have the experience with these kinds of cases to be able to make that judgment. >> so i'm certainly concerned, given what she did last fall with the rulings, how she might view some of these more

frivolous arguments as far as i'm concerned from mr. trump, but the one safety valve here is in these pretrial motions if it goes the wong way, the prosecutors have the ability to immediately appeal to the 11th circuit and judge cannon no doubt knows that. i can't believe she would like to be so publicly rebuked by the 11th circuit in months. that's going to play into her mind set and it will play a role here. i know a lot of people are very concerned because of judge cannon. that might ultimately be a problem, i'm not there yet. >> okay, that's actually kind of uplifting for you to say that. tim, let's talk about donald trump's -- the thing that was so striking about "the washington post" article is his almost desperation to hang on to these materials. he obviously thought it was cool to have these national security secrets, and he was just not going to give them back, no matter what. and thought he was entitled to

keep them for whatever reason. the person he was listening to instead of his lawyer who was saying you have to give it back, is a guy who is not a lawyer, even though the organization he runs is called judicial watch. he took advice from him and a range of others who told him he could legally keep the documents and should fight the justice department. trump would often cite him to others, and he told some of trump's lawyers he could keep them, even as they disagreed. my question is whether or not trump will try to compel his current lawyers to try to make that argument again in court. >> there's a pattern here of the president forum shopping. looking for people who tell him what he wants to hear. the same thing happened with respect to the election. he had very capable lawyers like bill barr, like pat cipollone, like his own campaign general counsel telling him, sir, you lost the election. there's no evidence of voter fraud. he had other people in his ear telling him otherwise without a basis in fact. he may be listening to tom

fitten, who is not even a lawyer, certainly not an expert in presidential records act, when any other sober, capable lawyer who is steeped in those facts is telling him otherwise. that's not a legal defense. you can't rely on unreasonable advice. >> let me ask you this question about the january 6th piece of this. we just had -- well, let me ask you the january 6th piece. would you expect a january 6th case to also be brought at the same time, and could they be brought at the same time in theory? >> yes, the select committee even based on the evidentiary record we developed recommended criminal charges. we found evidence of intent to obstruct an official hearing, a conspiracy to prevent transfer of power. jack smith has gone beyond that and overcome privilege assertions by pat cipollone and others who asserted privilege before the committee. i think the case is only getting increasingly strong that the president intended specifically to prevent the certification of

the election. and that makes an indictment likely. now, when and what venue i think is likely d.c., likely later this summer, this fall at the latest. they want it do it early enough before the primaries. that's doj policy, but i think it's coming. >> quickly, the seditious conspiracy convictions the justice department has already gotten, do they factor in any way in donald trump's future? >> potentially. evidence of the president specifically intending force, i'm not sure. >> he did say let those people in with guns. they're not here to hurt me. >> reckless awareness of force is different than specifically use of force to overthrow the government. if he intended to obstruct, interfere with the session, that's a serious felony. that's the charge i expect the special counsel is focused on. >> donald trump has potentially a lot of problems because again, we don't know if they're really

thinking about doing a case in new jersey. we don't know if there potentially could be a case on the january 6th issues as well, but we do know that what donald trump did on the documents is something anyone else would go to prison for. note, mr. teixeira, 21 years old, was indicted today by federal grand jury in boston for allegedly retaining and transmitting national defense information on a social media platform beginning in 2022 until hes arrest in april. it's not that different from what trump did. if he goes down for it, it's hard to believe trump would not. >> so donald trump is unique in that because he's the former president, they treated him with kid gloves. if he was donald smith, he would have been indicted 11 months ago and would have been in pretrial detention. he wouldn't have been allowed out the way he was. they're being very careful and checking all the boxes and being as politically sense fvative to

the momability. it appears there was even a chance to possibly get out of this if you read "the washington post" article from last night. various off ramps in which they could have avoided charges but trump gave them no options. they're not putting restrictions. he's going to be out there campaigning, he just can't talk about the case with witnesses. if he were anyone else, he would have been indicted a long time ago. if he was anyone else, a conviction would be guaranteed. because he's a former president and there are interesting pretrial legal arguments he can raise, it's not a certainty, but i would much rather be the government in the case than i would be mr. trump. >> bradley and timothy, thank you very much. up next on "the reidout," a promise to pardon trump becomes the new litmus test for republican presidential candidates because if you can't beat them, you may as well suck up to him. "the reidout" continues after this. imagine you're doing something you love. rsv could cut it short.

♪ rsv is a contagious virus that usually causes mild symptoms but can cause more severe infections that may lead to hospitalizations... ...in adults 60 and older... ...and adults with certain underlying conditions, like copd, asthma, or congestive heart failure. talk to your doctor and visit cutshortrsv.com. how can you sleep on such a firm setting? gab, mine is almost the same as yours. like copd, asthma, or congestive heart failure. almost... just another word for not as good as mine.

the queen sleep number c2 smart bed is now only $899 save $200. plus, free home delivery when you add any base shop now only at sleep number. we're traveling all across america talking to people about their hearts. ooh, take this exit. how's the heart? i feel like it's good. you feel like it's good? how do you know when it's time to check in on your heart? how do you know? let me show you something. it looks like a credit card, but it is the kardiamobile card. that is a medical-grade ekg. want to see how it works? yeah. put both thumbs on there. that is your heart coming from the kardiamobile card. wow! with kardiamobile card you can take a medical-grade ekg in just 30 seconds from anywhere. kardiamobile card is proven to detect atrial fibrillation, one of the leading causes of stroke. and it's the only personal ekg that's fda-cleared to detect normal heart rhythm, bradycardia and tachycardia. how much do you think that costs? probably $500. $99! imagine giving that to your dad for father's day, that kind of peace of mind.

this year, give dad peace of mind for father's day with kardiamobile card. now just $79 at kardia.com or amazon. - this is our premium platinum coverage map and this is consumer cellular's map. - i don't see the difference, do you? - well, that one's purple. - [announcer] get the exact same coverage as the nation's leading carrier. starting at $20. consumer cellular. - here we go. - remember, mom's a kayak denier, so please don't bring it up. - bring what up? kayak? - excuse me? do the research, todd. - listen to me. kayak searches hundreds of travel sites to find you great deals on flights, cars and hotels. - they're lying to you. - who's they? kayak? - arr! - open your eyes! - compare hundreds of travel sites at once. kayak. search one and done.

the longshot contingency plan donald trump is holding on to as he faces a 37-count federal indictment is of course to win the presidency again and pardon himself. but if that fails he clearly wants to railroad the other republican presidential contenders into doing it for him. that question of to pardon or not to pardon has become a new litmus test for 2024 hopefuls. other than long shot contender vivek ramaswami who is calling on all candidates to pledge to

pardon trump on their first day in office, no one seems to be willing to give a clear answer. nikki haley said she would be inclined to pardon trump, while mike pence said it was premature to talk about it. even ron desantis who last month said that he would consider a pardon has been avoiding the question like it's a black history book since the indictment was handed down. in the meantime, trump is already plotting his revenge. threatening if he's elected he will kick justice department weaponization into overdrive. "the new york times" is reporting that while trump is vowing to appoint a, quote, real special prosecutor to go after president biden and his family, his allies are laying out a radical strategy to essentially eliminate any of the doj's independence from the president. joining me now is former white house press secretary jen psaki, host of msnbc's inside with jen psaki. and mara gillespie, former adviser to john boehner. thank you ladies for being here.

>> ladies night. >> let's start with this idea of essentially republicans are both trying to say that joe biden is daughtering and incapable of being president, and he's a criminal mastermind who is destroying donald trump. here's a collage of them, kevin mccarthy, impossible for the president to indict the leading candidate opposing him. he didn't indict him. i could go on, nancy mace, who sometimes acts normal, the president of the united states had his political opponent arrested today. elise stefanik who used to be a normie, today is a dark day for our country. joe biden continues to fully weaponize our country against donald trump. also he's not president anymore. trump. which is it? you know joe biden. is he a criminal mastermind, dark brandon, or is he asleep? >> neither. i mean, he's just being president. and trying to deliver on the

promises he's made. that's what he would say. i mean, he's clearly stayed out of commenting on the indictment. >> they're mad about that too. >> strategically, there's kind of an edict, do not comment on the indictment across the white house, across the dnc, because they do not want to politicize, and also because they feel they won in 2020 in part because they did not wrestle with the alligator of donald trump and his scandals and tried to kind of outtrump trump. so that is their strategy. they're going to throw lots of spaghetti or whatever it is up at the wall, but the biden team and the people i still talk to, my colleagues over there, are going to stay out of it. he talked about junk fees today, not the challenges of donald trump. that's their strategy. >> junk fees are important. just to stay with you for one moment, let's for the civics lesson, presidents do nominate the attorney general. >> correct. >> but they don't supervise them. please explain how they operate together. >> i think this is a really important one that people forget, so i'm so happy you raised it. one, he nominated merrick

garland specifically because merrick garland is a boy scout who is allergic to politics who demanded that the justice department is independent. that was part of his demand in accepting the nomination being nominated. joe biden ran as somebody who would restore integrity and independence to the justice department. there's another layer of independence here, which is that merrick garland named jack smith the special counsel, so merrick garland had an additional layer here, and jack smith is the one who moved forward with this indictment. but yes, that is another reason why joe biden has said, do not comment on this, to everybody. >> and mara, a lot of people who were making these comments are lawyers. so they know that a grand jury indicted donald trump, not joe biden. and they understand that previous presidents, i'm thinking nixon and also donald trump, threatening to fire multiple attorneys general if they didn't do what he wanted. people internally in his own administration threatened to resign anded he would be

impeached if he did it. they know that donald trump cannot direct the attorney general. the strategy, again, it is spaghetti on the wall, right? >> and creating a breeding ground for what would ultimately become a banana republic is not good for the american people. when we look ahead to 2024, what kind of candidate do the republican party, does the republican party want to have representing them for the future? we're constantly looking back. former president trump is constantly looking back, only really talking about his own issues. i don't know what else he's talked about other than the gripes he's had. the pardon question for me is what's best for the country at that time? that's up to the person who becomes president. is a hypothetical, but it's an important one to get answered, but it does come down to what's best for the country. it doesn't call into question whether he's convicted or not. >> a pardon presumes he did it. >> that's right, it's implied there is guilt. and by accepting that pardon, you're actually really confessing that guilt by

accepting it. >> this idea, it does seem to me what trump is up to is trying to bully each and every one of the candidates other than chris christie, if i can't pardon myself, you have to pardon me. it looks like he's fishing for a pardon. >> it's part of his whole system there, fearmongering. again, it's anger and fear. and that's what he's doing. constantly pitting against them, what are you going to do for me? >> it's also political strategy, right? because if you can get other candidates to just echo your talking points, which by the way, he did for ron desantis in some capacity. i mean, ron desantis' initial statement was, like, using trump talking points. they could have been -- they were very reportedly very pleased by his statement. >> yeah, he's gone from dressing his toddler up in a trump onesie to wearing it himself. >> if you are a voter who likes donald trump, why are you going to go for the watered down version of ron desantis if that's what you're looking for? the differentiation is not what trump wants because if he can

keep everybody together, then why are people going to pick a different candidate. >> the thing that has been quite interesting to me has been chris christie. he's not the only one who is taking the stand of saying no, let me explain to you why everything he did is actually a crime, but he says it in the most sort of plain spoken way. i wonder if that breaks through among republican, sort of average republicans when they hear chris christie make it plain, do you think that breaks through? >> obviously a little biased, i'm fraught new jersey. i hear him, i get it -- >> you speak jersey. >> i do. but i do think pointing out why it should matter to people at home, that's the number one thing the candidates need to do, all ten of them, need to highlight why this is important and why we can't afford another 2020 trump, why we need as a republican party a new candidate, someone different that isn't so focused on looking backwards and only, again, looking for himself, but looking at this as here are the crimes and why it marts to our national

security, to donald trump's presidency and to why he even had it in the first place. >> and the sort of weird fixation he had on them is odd and weird, but i have always wondered why, no one focused on the fact he used this other guy, right? that his valet, who according to the recent reports, he's never even said thank you to, had dinner with him once the night before he was indicted and the other gentleman has to wait, and the misuse of a navy man, are you surprised that's not been more of a talking point? >> i have so many questions about how this all happened. jen, you could speak to this more than i could. i used to work for speaker boehner. we had spreadsheets of where letters were. we knew where everything was. it wasn't john boehner filing the boxes to go back to ohio. >> the whole point clearly from the reporting or it seems is that trump specifically wanted

documents. there's a thematic, even though we don't know what the documents are exactly, there's a thematic of intel assessments, of the military preparedness of other countries, of the united states. nuclear secrets, so to me, it was he was intentionally saying, i want these specific documents. >> it's also negligence of staff. mark meadows, where were you, where was the staff helping him get out of the office. the white house chief of staff should have been present for these things. i don't understand how there's no system. >> it calls into question whether they were complicit in it and they knew he wanted it, just as mark meadows knew he wanted to overthrow the government. jen psaki and mara gillespie helping us make this make sense. and be sure to tune in to inside with jen psaki sunday at noon eastern when she will talk with john bolton and congressman adam schiff. i have so many questions. i can't wait to watch that. thank you very much.

>> and a couple surprisingly reasonable decisions from the supreme court have me wondering if they might be setting us up for something totally unreasonable down the road. we'll be right back. check. psych! really? dude, that's a foul! and now you're ready to settle the score. and if you don't have the right home insurance coverage, well you could end up paying for all this yourself. so get allstate. (psst psst) ahhhh... with flonase, allergies don't have to be scary. spray flonase sensimist daily for non-drowsy, long lasting relief in a scent-free, gentle mist. (psst psst) flonase. all good. - this is our premium platinum coverage map and this is consumer cellular's map. - i don't see the difference, do you? - well, that one's purple. - [announcer] get the exact same coverage as the nation's leading carrier. starting at $20. consumer cellular.

summer. it's the hungriest time of year for kids across america. kids whose hardworking families are struggling to make ends meet. whether it's working the crazy hours so you can have enough money for food or, you know, just giving up things for your personal self, and it's just yeah, gotta feed your kids. far too many kids are missing the meals they need this summer. that's why i'm here now asking you to join me in helping end child hunger in america for just $0.63 a day. that's only $19 a month. you can help provide healthy meals

to power kids through their days. they're growing at this age, and they need the best diet they can have. so please, call now or go online to helpnokidhungry.org right now give $19 a month, only $0.63 a day. and when you use your credit card, you'll get this special team t-shirt to show that you're helping kids build a brighter future for themselves and for the world. we want to ensure that all of our kids have healthy meals every day, and many of our parents and many of our communities are still suffering. it's very difficult to, you know, have a good family setting when we are worrying about having enough food for your family. you can help kids get healthy meals this summer and all year long. please join me in supporting no kid hungry today. for just $0.63 a day, only $19 a month.

you can help provide healthy meals to kids across america and in your local community. thank you for giving. thank you for giving. thank you! families are struggling to make ends meet. these are hard times. so please call now or go online to give. narrator: it's called, “shared leadership.” driven by each community in a groundbreaking setting: california's community schools. where parents and families, students and educators, make decisions as one. creating the school and shaping futures - together. based on the needs of their students... ...steeped in local culture. curriculum from cyber security to gardening. and assisting families with their needs:

wellness centers, food pantries, and parental education. california's community schools: reimagining public education. today, the indigenous people of thiscountry got shockingly good news from the supreme court. in a 7-2 vote, the court turned away a series of claims seeking to invalidate parts of the

indian child welfare act enacted in 1978 to keep indigenous children within tribes. among the provision's challenge was one that gives preference to native americans seeking to foster or adopt native american children. texas, indiana, louisiana, and a white evangelical christian couple who sought to adopt a native american child challenged the law claiming it intruded on individual state autonomy and that it enshrined an unfair racial preference that is unconstitutional under the 14th amendment. the case is tied to america's horrific past when public and private agencies would take hundreds of thousands of indigenous children, sometimes against their will, and assimilate them into anglo centric culture, a concept made infamous by the phrase, kill the indian, save the man. in 1978, congress moved to stop this practice by passing the indian child welfare act, protecting the best interests of indigenous children by requiring that states make active efforts

to keep indigenous kids with their biological families or within their tribes. justice amy coney barrett writing for the majority, rejected the challenge to the indian child welfare act on merit and lack of standing. while this is a major victory for indigenous people, there were some troubling signs. buried in a concurrence, justice brett kavanaugh who voted with the majority, made a point of noting that the question of race discrimination is still undecided, and that it is a serious question that the court should decide in a subsequent case. the two dissenters were justices, you guessed it, clarence thomas and samuel alito. which brings us to the major decisions the court has yet to release, including the constitutionality of affirmative action and joe biden's student loan forgiveness plan. our friend, melissa murray, posed a very good question today. does all this good news from scotus mean that tomorrow is going to be absolute s with the

court trash aformative action on the eve of juneteenth. joining me now is melissa murray, former clerk to then judge sonia sotomayor, and my answer is yes, they would. i'm not even an expert, but i know clarence thomas would. but let's start with the good news. let's take the win. this case is very good news because the history of essentially stealing indigenous children and putting them in white homes is a horrible one. talk about this case and why it's a big deal. >> well, there's even more back story to this, joy. for the last ten years, the indian child welfare act which was passed in 1978 with huge bipartisan support has been under fire from conservatives and particularly christian evangelicals who want to be able to adopt indigenous children free of the act's restraints. so they have launched an all-out campaign, and this case was intended to dismantle it once

and for all, and the court dealt native american tribes a stunning victory. unexpected just as the voting rights victory last week was a stunning surprise. >> yeah, and it doesn't surprise me that the two -- it was those two who said no, take the kids. they apparently agree with that old saying, that horrible saying about kill the indian, save the man. let's go to the kavanaugh concurrence, which to me did have what definitely felt like a poison pill for the future. because he has now twice in his, whether it's writing for the majority or for the dissent made hits he has a real issue with the idea of saying racism is real, which says to me we're about to lose affirmative action. >> what i took from the kavanaugh concurrence was that the majority viewed the equal protection question, the race question here, as improperly brought. like the plaintiffs here were not the right plaintiffs to

bring this claim. justing kavanaugh seems to be saying it was a very important issue and one he would be receptive to hearing were it brought by more appropriate plaintiffs. you're right, this is an invitation to find the right plaintiffs and re-up this case for the court for future consideration. in terms of the dissents, neither justice thomas nor justice alito said anything about save the indian or save the man, kill the indian. but it was very clear that they were very skeptical of congress' authority to pass the indian child welfare act in the first instance and they too were receptive to the prospect of hearing equal protection challenge that would limit the consideration of native american status which had previously been held by this court to be a political category to be a racial category subject to all of the limits of equal protection. again, a very fine grain decision, but you're right, it opens the door to so much more. >> and you know, the question of standing, i think, has something -- is relevant in both of these other two cases that i

am concerned about. the affirmative action case, who brought the case? it's not -- it's these organizations that were sort of designed in a lab to try to take affirmative action down. and in the student loan case, it's not like students. it's states that are saying they don't like the idea of helping, of giving to students in deep debt what we gave to banks. where -- the standing question is weird in both of these for me. >> that's exactly right, joy. i think a lot of what the majority wrote about the standing issues with regard to the state of texas who was one of the litigants here is going to be relevant for biden v. nebraska which is the student loan case. there's also a standing question in the affirmative action case because litigants are arguing that race is the reason they were locked out of the university of north carolina and harvard university, but it's not clear they can even prove that because race is one of many factors considered in the admissions calculus. we just don't know that race was

dispositive here, but more importantly, it seemed like the court didn't even care about that threshold question of whether the litigants had standing. they wanted it get to the merits. that's what worries me. this is a court that seems to be in a hurry to decide this affirmative action case, and again, it would not be beyond the pale or unexpected for this court to begin the process of dismantling affirmative action as the country prepares to celebrate the new federal holiday, juneteenth, which is meant to commemorate the freedom of african americans from enslavement. >> it's the inconsistency. the conservatives on the court don't seem to have a coherent set of ideas. on the one hand, they say precedent is important. on the other hand, they say precedent is trash. on the one hand, they say this person has standing. on the other hand, they don't. the only thing that seems consistent is there are political outcomes you can tell they want, and then they find a way to get there in their rulings. >> well, as one person said to

me, it seems like the court is consistent, at least the 6-3 conservative supermajority is consistent in their desire to roll back modernity. that may be what we see here. this is an enormous decision. i don't know if it will come out tomorrow. based on what i saw at oral argument, it seems really clear that the court is very skeptical about the prospect of race conscious admissions, but more importantly, the question is are they going to go as far as the litigants have asked them. the litigants are asking basically all admissions policies in the united states for higher education be done in a race-blind way, which is to say not just that schools cannot consider race, but that applicants cannot proffer evidence of their racial identity and how it shaped their experience in their applications. that's a much broader step. and again, that decision, although it is about admissions and higher education, is going to have trickle-down effects into the way higher education institutions operate after the

admissions decision, and even in context like employment where folks are considering things like what it means to have a diverse work place and why diversity is important to operate a successful and thriving business in this country. >> i call it repeal the 20th century. and it's consistent among republicans in the elected world and it seems consistent among these six conservatives. they do not like what the 20th century did for black folks, for women, for anyone who is a minority, and the 20th century was revolutionary in the changes that were made to create equality, and they don't like it. and they want it gone, and they're going to repeal everything they can and set things back to the 19th century where sam alito feels more comfortable. that's me saying that, not you. that's really what i think. melissa murray, thank you very much. coming up, president biden gets ready to attend a big gun safety summit in connecticut. as congressional democrats get ready for a renewed push on badly needed gun safety legislation.

senator chris murphy of connecticut joins me next. i struggled with cpap every night. but now that i got the inspire implant to treat my sleep apnea, i'm sleeping much better. in fact, it's making me think of doing other things i've been putting off. like removing that tattoo of your first wife's name. but your mom's name is vicky too! that's even worse. ( ♪♪ ) inspire. sleep apnea innovation. learn more and view important safety information at inspiresleep.com. we know patients are more than their disease. learn more and view important safety information that's why, at novo nordisk, we've spent a hundred years developing treatments to help unlock humanity's full potential. these are the greats: people living with, thriving with — not held back by — disease. they motivate us to fight diabetes and obesity, rare diseases and cardiovascular conditions, for generations to come. so, everyone can meet their moment. because your disease doesn't define you. so, what will?

novo nordisk. driving change. we're talking about practicing-- practicing good financial strategy. ...by cashbackin. what'd you think i was talking about? -not a game. -not a game. -talking about cashbackin. -cashbackin. cashback like a pro with chase freedom unlimited. how do you cash back? she found it. the feeling of finding the psoriasis treatment she's been looking for. sotyktu is the first-of-its-kind, once-daily pill for moderate-to-severe plaque psoriasis for the chance at clear or almost clear skin. it's like the feeling of finding your back... is back. or finding psoriasis can't deny the splendor of these thighs. once-daily sotyktu is proven to get more people clearer skin than the leading pill. don't take if you're allergic to sotyktu; serious reactions can occur. sotyktu can lower your ability to fight infections including tb. serious infections, cancers including lymphoma, muscle problems, and changes in certain labs have occurred. tell your doctor if you have an infection, liver or kidney problems, high triglycerides,

or had a vaccine or plan to. sotyktu is a tyk2 inhibitor. tyk2 is part of the jak family. it's not known if sotyktu has the same risks as jak inhibitors. find what plaque psoriasis has been hiding. ask your dermatologist about sotyktu for clearer skin. so clearly you. sotyktu. pedro was born with a cleft lip and palate that threatened his future and impaired his speech, but his cleft condition didn't define him. he's playful, smart, loving. ask your dermatologist about sotyktu for clearer skin. pedro is like any child you know and love. children like pedro need your help. thousands of children are born with cleft conditions and have no access to surgery. with your support, operation smile can heal them. scan or go online to give a new smile to a child like pedro, a child like yours. - representative! - sorry, i didn't get that.

- oh buddy! you need a hug. you also need consumer cellular. get the exact same coverage as the nation's leading carriers and 100% us based customer support. starting at $20. consumer cellular. shingles. some describe it as pulsing electric shocks or sharp, stabbing pains. ♪♪ this painful, blistering rash

can disrupt your life for weeks. a pain so intense, you could miss out on family time. the virus that causes shingles is likely already inside of you. if you're 50 years or older, ask your doctor or pharmacist about shingles. ♪ ♪ - why are these so bad? - if i would've used kayak to book our car, we could have saved on our trip instead of during our trip. ughh - kayak. search one and done. connecticut, this is not about me. this is not about politics. this is about doing the right thing for all the families who are here that have been torn apart by gun violence. it's about them and all the families going forward, so we can prevent this from happening again.

this is about these families. and families all across the country. who are saying let's make it a little harder for our kids to get gunned down. >> remember him? that was former president barack obama imploring congress to pass gun control after the horrific shooting at sandy hook elementary school in 2012 that killed 20 first graders and six educators in newtown, connecticut. congress didn't act, and the shooters continued in schools, synagogues, churches, nightclubs, every single aspect of public life. in fact, a decade later, the member of mass shootings had almost tripled. it wasn't until last year after the tragic shooting at yet another elementary school in texas and the racist shooting at a buffalo supermarket that congress passed the bipartisan safer communities act, the first major gun legislation in 30 years. it expanded mental health services, strengthened background checks and closed the

boyfriend loophole, but it doesn't include an assault weapons ban. so there's a lot more to be done. tomorrow in the same location where president obama delivered his plea for change in 2013, people from all walks of life, including sandy hook parents, are gathering for a major national gun sommet. speakers include gabby giffords, miguel cardona, keith ellison, and senator chris murphy of connecticut, who spearheaded the bipartisan safer communities act. senator murphy joins me now. first of all, i want to congratulate you. you and joe biden happened to be two of the rare senators who have ever gotten gun reform passed. he did in the 1990s, including an assault 1990s including in assault weapons ban, and you lead with this. do you think that there is momentum, given how angry young people are, and how much they are demanding change, and the fact that, actually, something

passed, in the world didn't fall apart? >> yes, the short answer is, absolutely. momentum is on our side, and i think we are entering a ten-year period of time in which we will wind, regularly, on behalf of kids, and families. but, it is heartbreaking to listen to that clip of president obama the university of harper ten years ago, and think, it took us a decade to do the right thing, to pass a law, let some of the bipartisan safer communities act that enjoys 80 to 90% support amongst americans. you are right, the sky did not fall for republicans, and that was the theory we were testing. we wanted to show republicans, those who voted that the last year, they could vote against a gun lobby. the nra oppose that bill. it would not only not pay a political price, but also, they would get a political benefit. none of the republicans who voted for the bill lost the races, the rams who ran for election came back to congress, by in march. and, i think, this summit will shed light on the changes that we have made, that are saving

lives, right now, all across the country. and, as you said, the work that is still to be done. this is probably the first time all anti gun violence groups have come together in one place in sandy hook, for a major event like this. i'm really glad the president biden will be here at cap off, it will be a great day. >> robert, your producer referred to it as the avengers of gun reform. and yet, we still have 294 gun massacres, just this year alone. the united states is, by far, the most dangerous country in the world to be in, in terms of getting shot. it's just here. we are the only place where it's terrifying to go to the mall, or a restaurant. what breaks the logjam to get us the rest of the way? this sounds like an incredible event you guys are doing, but what, to actually, changes senators minds and make them vote for more? >> well, the first thing is to just make clear, nobody should

be hopeless. in fact, mass shootings have remained steady in 2023. there, actually, is some encouraging data out there. early numbers from the country's biggest cities suggest, gun violence rates may be coming down in this country. maybe even by double digit margins, in many cities. there is no doubt, if that is true, and i think it is, that is the bill we passed last year starting to take effect. it's proof, again, when you pass more legislation, you get a pretty immediate effect in terms of lives being saved. what must happen? our movement needs to get stronger. the real thing that happened last year that was different was that mitch mcconnell, and republican leadership in the senate just decided, there would be more likely to get the reelected if they voted with the gun safety movement, instead of the nra. the first time in ten years i made that decision, because they feared us, more than they fear the gun industry. so we just need to do more of

the same. continue to build our movement, build resources, build volunteers, i wish republicans would vote with us, because it's the right thing to do, but if they vote with us because of expediency? the result is the same. kids lives are saved. >> one of the reasons that republicans in the states are so amped up about trying to do voter suppression against young voters is they know that this issue is a ruinous for them. if young people voted a scale, i'm not sure republicans would ever win, anywhere, again. people are hoping that about this issue. how do democrats plan to respond to that? to get democrats to do what republicans do, which is a vote on guns as their issue? >> the evidence suggests, there's just as many people, if more, if not more, who are coming out to vote for changes in gun laws, as those who come out to vote with the gun lobby. joe biden talks about banning assault weapons all the time, because he believes in it and as hard, but also he knows, that is the way to turn out voters, to turnout young people,

and to show them what his priorities are going to be. so what we know from data and 2022, is that young people turned out in that election, in part, because they knew that we did something. when you told young people, hey, when you turned out in 2018, 2022, you elected a congress that passed the first major gun safety legislation and 30 years. they responded to that by turning out, again, in 2022. we need to celebrate the successes, in part, to prove to young people, we can make progress if they turn out. >> you people result through the exit, you need a list, we need to know what you've done. you're right chris murphy. thank you for all you do on this, issue thank you for sticking with it. much appreciated. i have a big announcement coming up next, so stay right there. gh there. after advil dual action back pain... yo! uh! ha! ha! [dog bark] what? my back feels better.

before advil... new advil dual action back pain fights back pain two ways. for 8 hours of relief. when i was diagnosed with h-i-v, i didn't know who i would be. but here i am... being me. keep being you... and ask your healthcare provider about the number one prescribed h-i-v treatment, biktarvy. biktarvy is a complete, one-pill, once-a-day treatment used for h-i-v in many people whether you're 18 or 80. with one small pill, biktarvy fights h-i-v to help you get to undetectable—and stay there whether you're just starting or replacing your current treatment. research shows that taking h-i-v treatment as prescribed and getting to and staying undetectable prevents transmitting h-i-v through sex. serious side effects can occur, including kidney problems and kidney failure. rare, life-threatening side effects include a buildup of lactic acid and liver problems. do not take biktarvy if you take dofetilide or rifampin. tell your healthcare provider about all the medicines and supplements you take, if you are pregnant or breastfeeding, or if you have kidney or liver problems, including hepatitis. if you have hepatitis b do not stop taking biktarvy

without talking to your healthcare provider. common side effects were diarrhea, nausea, and headache. no matter where life takes you, biktarvy can go with you. talk to your healthcare provider today. - representative! - sorry, i didn't get that. - oh buddy! you need a hug. you also need consumer cellular. get the exact same coverage as the nation's leading carriers and 100% us based customer support. starting at $20. consumer cellular. i'm saving with liberty mutual, mom. they customize your car insurance so you only pay for what you need. you could save $700 dollars just by switching. ooooh, let me put a reminder on my phone. on the top of the pile! oh. only pay for what you need. ♪ liberty. liberty. liberty. liberty. ♪

♪♪ allergies don't have to be scary. (screaming) defeat allergy headaches fast with new flonase headache and allergy relief! two pills relieve allergy headache pain? and the congestion that causes it! flonase headache and allergy relief. psst! psst! all good! >> before we go tonight we have

a big announcement. hard to imagine an issue that impacts so many, and so personally, then the right, and freedom, to make choices about your body. that decision was taken away from millions of americans one year ago when the supreme court to roe v. wade, eliminating federal, constitutional protections for abortion. one year later, the landscape of abortion legality across america is even worse. the legal battleground, more tense, and the threats to doctors, women, and girls, even more dire. it's why vice president, kamala harris, joins me next tuesday, in dallas, where we will discuss the abortion landscape post roe. what a path to federal protections could look like, and why abortion rights will define the 2024 election, and beyond. you won't want to miss the, so please join us next tuesday, right here on msnbc for very special addition of the readout,

one year post