hosting a popular game show, which requires more than a few days of work a month, is when the most coveted jobs in all of entertainment. landing the job as another notch to mr. seacrest's resume, which has included daytime talk show host, competitions areas august, red carpet interview, or radio host, and new year's eve master of ceremonies. and people, as we discovered online back in 2012, even pat sajak himself had a feeling seacrest would be his successor. just watch this. >> well, you've spun the wheel. you have to ask for consonant. >> but you have free play. you know what, i am an idiot. you see the way it works? if you land it. is their key to the puzzle. >> in. >> i'm not sure, let's look. yeah. there is the end. [applause] 1500 dollars. ryan seacrest is on speed dial.

>> did you hear that? seacrest is on speed dial. he sure wise. congrats to pat sajak and such an impressive run. and way to go ryan, on your new gig. on that note, i wish you all a very good night. from all of our colleagues across the networks of nbc news, thanks for staying up late. i'll see you at the end of tomorrow. of tomorrow we have some breaking news tonight from the new york times this evening, some reporting that makes a recently unearthed trump recording even more incredible. if you've not yet heard it, nbc news has independently obtained the audio of former president trump and his bedminster unit new jersey golf club, essentially admitting to a crime. here is trump in july of 2021 telling a group of people that he still has classified information after leaving the white house, and then proceeding to destroy his own defense. he explicitly says on audiotape

that he could have declassified this when he was president, but he did not. take a listen. >> isn't that amazing? this totally wins my case. except it is highly confidential -- this was done by the military and given to me. i think that we can probably do that, yes? >> we'll have to see, yes. >> figuring out. since president, i could've declassified it, but now i can't. >> now we have a problem. >> isn't that interesting? it's so cool. look, we heard ivan. and you probably almost didn't believe me. now you believe me. >> i believe you. >> it's incredible, right?

bring some cokes in, please? >> even to somebody that didn't go to law school like myself, this really feels like a smoking gun for jack smith. you have the suspect in this case on tape, not just confessing to a potential crime, but also debunking his own defense. bring in the cokes. we are done here. all right, on the heels of that, that audio, former president trump sat for multiple interviews today, and was pushing a sort of new defense, saying that all of this commentary, that was all bravado. quote, i was talking and holding up papers, talking about them, but i had no documents. >> i said it very clearly, i had a whole desk full of lots of papers, mostly newspaper articles, copies of magazines, copies of different plans, different stories, having to do with many subjects. what was said was absolutely fine, and worked very perfectly. we did nothing wrong. this is a hoax. i don't do things wrong, i do things right. i'm a legitimate person.

>> do things wrong. i do not do things wrong. that defense is pretty funny on its face because it is incredibly well documented how much trump did not handle documents well. that defense, and this video, these are extra interesting today because of this new reporting from the new york times tonight. the times reports that in addition to the search for classified documents down at mar-a-lago, special counsel jack smith's team also went over to trump's bedminster property, and went through that place with a fine toothed comb. smith's office subpoenaed surveillance footage from bedminster just as they did at mar-a-lago. after the fbi searched mar-a-lago last summer, they were concerned that trump still had more documents stashed at bedminster.

the time then goes on to describe another document saga, much like the one we just knew about at mar-a-lago. and smith's office, again, having already searched mar-a-lago, asked trump to provide a sworn statement that everything had been turned over. trump refused. smith's office then tried to get a subpoena so that they could search the bedminster property. minutes, literally minutes before the hearing, one of trump's lawyers alerted the court that trump's legal team had a, quote, team of professionals with military training searching bedminster for classified materials. smith's team got the judge to force trump's legal team to sign a statement saying exactly which parts of bedminster had been searched. we know how it went down at mar-a-lago. it really looks like jack smith did his homework on this one. here's the thing, at least so far, special counsel jack smith does not appear to be charging trump for what it seems that he did on that tape. over at bedminster. there is no charge, not a single charge in trump's indictment about the dissemination of classified materials. there are not even charges for anything that happened in the state of new jersey.

so far, the special counsel has just narrowly charged trump with 31 counts of the willful retention of national defense information. three counts of withholding or concealing documents in a federal investigation, two counts of making false statements to the fbi, and one count of obstruction of justice. all of that is in the state of florida. what is counsel jack smith doing here? why has he, at least so far, why has he not used this tape as a smoking gun to charge donald trump with more crimes? this is actually one of the rare cases in which we have sort of a hint from the man myself. that man being special counsel jack smith. this is a legal filing written by smith and his team, submitted to the judge in florida last week. in it, the special counsel's team describes its case like this. it has only two defendants, it involves straightforward theories and liability, and does not present novel questions of fact or law.

in other words, the case so far is simple. it is straightforward. there is a ton of precedent. literally last week, just last week, a former fbi analyst in kansas was sentenced to multiple years in prison for the exact same charge that donald trump is now facing. the willful retention of national defence information. that fbi analyst was also keeping hundreds of classified documents in her bathroom apparently bathrooms are a popular place for classified documents. as wild as trump's alleged crimes are here, they are not even original. it seems that that is the point. the way that jack smith's indictment lays out trump's discussion of classified documents at bedminster does not seem to be using it as the basis for its own charge. instead, the special counsel seems to be using this blockbuster tape, and it is a blockbuster, to bolster his

other very straightforward charges with an incredible, pretty jaw-dropping example of donald trump's intent. joining us now to break down this very interesting series of events, and breaking news, two of our brightest legal minds. former u.s. attorney and msnbc legal analyst joyce vance as well as attorney mark --, specializing in national security matters. thank you both for being here. joyce, i was stunned when i read this times reporting about the degree to which special counsel jack smith has been fighting trump and his legal team about potential document retention at bedminster. and yet, there are no charges in new jersey as of yet, and maybe ever. how do you read the lack of, i guess, criminal pursuit in the state of new jersey on the part of the special counsel? >> sure. there are a couple of possible explanations, alex, and we don't know for certain which

one is the truth. it is possible based on what we know that the special counsel's team does not believe that they have proof beyond a reasonable doubt. they might not have the document from bedminster, although they have testimony likely to surface the document itself. that is one possibility that they just don't have it, that they are comfortable with using the storytelling that they have and the tape as evidence to prove motive, opportunity, knowledge, in the florida case. it is certainly compelling evidence. there is another possibility here, folks that have suggested that there could be a case that prosecutors have in their hip pocket and case anything goes wrong down there in florida, separate charges that they could ultimately file in new jersey or in washington, d. c.. it could be that they are in fact sitting on these documents, and on proof beyond a reasonable doubt, but they are waiting. the most important thing is

what you point out, prosecutors are aware that this is a situation where you can't let the perfect be the enemy of the good. you need a good case. you need a straightforward case. you need a case that can get tried before the next election. that is what jack smith seems to have brought down in florida. >> mark, i think it's worth pointing out the timing here. right? the subpoenas, the attempts to search bedminster, that was all happening in the fall of 2022. it does not sound like this tape surfaced until the year 2023. what is your assessment of how useful this evidence, or at least the audiotape that we have thus far, could be in a separate criminal indictment? do you think that's a possibility, or do you land where joyce, and i think a lot of other folks are, which is don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good. go with mar-a-lago. that is the strongest case that you have. it is very clear, it is not novel? >> i agree 100% with joyce. one thing that we do not know

is while there were witnesses clearly, because you can hear them on the tape. we don't know what they said. it has been reported that at least one, maybe two or three of them have been involved before the grand jury, but perhaps they testified that they didn't see the document clearly, they didn't know if it had a classified cover, she they didn't know if it had any markings. that would fit within the bravado argument that donald trump is making, now that he did not have any classified information in his possession. that is one possibility. the reality is that this tape has two strong points going for it, where it does not make a difference whether or not the document was classified. one, first that a trump himself makes it very clear that he understands what his lawful authority was. he could declassify the information when he was president, he could not declassify information when he was not the president. he at least purports to pretend, if not have, classified information that hasn't been declassified in his possession.

the second point there will be useful for the jury to hear is the notion of, when you hear the audiotape, it certainly gives the impression that trump was holding a classified document in his hand. now when he claims that he was actually was not, he was in effect, lying to his closest staff, who remain to this day loyal to him. that is going to, i think, undermine his credibility before the jury as well. if he's going to lie to his closest staff and friends, what is to say that he's not lying anytime he opens his mouth? >> i mean, the bravado defense, joyce, on the table, he literally says that these are the papers, this was done by the military and given to me. and then he refers to declassifying it, there is a whole back and forth. i guess that that is the best defense here. is that the best defense here, joyce?

the bravado? >> if your best defense is bravado, in essence you are saying that my defense is that i was lying. right? that is a terrible defense, certainly for a former president and for anybody to make in front of a jury. there is a little problem underlying this, which is that for trump to put on this defense, there is a good chance that he would have to take the witness stand. that is just something that he cannot do. no lawyer could let donald trump take the witness stand in his own defense without committing malpractice. perhaps they cobble together some of his television appearances that they put that in front of the jury. at the end of the day, you still have a defendant telling the jury, hey, i am a liar. you should not convict me. juries are smart. juries, and mark knows this like i do. you can put contradictory statements, that witnesses making or the defendants making in front of juries, and they can sort that out.

they know what's going on. it is a terrible defense here. >> also, to talk about the asymmetry of the case, the defense in the prosecution here, mark, we know from court filings that jack smith in the political counsel's office might bring as many as 84 potential witnesses in the mar-a-lago case. if you look at the evidence there, this tape from bedminster, that they're not even charging on, basically being used to show motivation. they have maybe 84 or more witnesses lined up on mar-a-lago. they are still pursuing this very narrow, not novel charge here. right? the willful retention of classified documents. is it your assessment, and i know that i am asking you to sort of predict here, but based on the way that they have put this mar-a-lago case together, do you think that the special counsel will be similarly circumscribed in the potential charges for the january 6th investigation that is currently underway? >> those are very, very different cases. the january 6th case is legally problematic.

factually, not so problematic. i mean, i will fully disclose that i am suing donald trump for the estate of officer, capitol police officer michael sicknick, for january 6th. alleging essentially that he could be prosecuted for a crime, but obviously we have a civil burden, much lower. that would involve some novel application of laws that typically would not have been applied in that type of situation. we just have not had that fact pattern. the fact pattern in the mar-a-lago case is exactly what you described when you reported on the former fbi agent that just got sentenced to prison. this happens, i don't want to say all the time, but routinely enough where it is very open and shut, black and white type of case. any case brought against the former president of the united states should be just that. no special counsel or attorney general is going to want to

push such a novel case, because the ramifications for losing that case are going to be horrible for the country. obviously, the conviction is horrible for the country, but good for the rule of law. we will see what happens with january 6th, but i expect the mar-a-lago case, or a parallel bedminster, or a parallel d. c. case if it goes that way, depending on how judge cannon rules to say very steadfast and straightforward. >> part of the reason that i'm asking about how narrow the indictments could be, or charges could be in january 6th, because we have the reporting from washington post that the special counsel smith's office is looking at potential wire fraud charges. eliciting donations based on advertisements and messaging about election fraud that didn't exist, that they knew didn't exist. could that be the end of the road for the january 6th investigation?

who could know. what we do know as of a few hours ago is that rudy giuliani was interviewed in jack smith's probe. we know that brad raffensperger is going to be interviewed by the special counsel's office. what does that suggest to you in terms of his -- how aggressively he's pursuing this, how broad of a blanket he's throwing over the investigation? >> yes, prosecutors here look like they are doing what prosecutors do when they are trying to get ready to make a prosecutive decision. when they are trying to get ready to decide whether they have sufficient evidence to indict, if they have that evidence on them, and what the charges should be. that does not predispose that they have made the decision to go ahead. they're just dotting the eyes and crossing the tees. you, for instance, have to talk to rudy giuliani. he's either a witness for you or a witness against you. maybe some of each. you have to know, it's good to lock him down under oath.

and, really what's going on here i think it's an assessment of what those charges would look like. it could be a very narrow charge focused solely on a conspiracy involving the effort to interfere with the electoral college vote certification. it could be something much broader that looks at all of the lawyers around trump, their efforts to concoct the larger plan that might have involved false allegations of fraud, the big lie, the fake slates of electors, and it could even go as far, as you have pointed out, towards this notion that trump, or that somebody in the trump orbit, continued to use these allegations of fraud after january 6th to fund-raise, and to do that fraudulently. you can write a big, complicated case, you can write a simple case. it is much the same problem that fani willis seems to be facing in fulton county. do you indict a rico case, or something much narrower? ultimately, prosecutors have to make a good judgment call about where the facts lie, where

their evidence can take them, given what the law is once you apply those facts to the law, and what does justice? that is the ultimate question of the january six. how do you get justice for the american people? >> such an elusive question. sure to be discussed a lot in the coming year. joyce vance and mark zaid, thank you both for being here tonight. we appreciate it. >> thank you. >> we have more to get to this evening, including big surprises from the roberts court. that, and the u.s. intelligence committee's failure to take seriously the white rage that led to the january 6th attack on the capitol. that is next.

meet the portable blender we can barely keep in stock. blendjet 2 gives you ice-crushing, big blender power on-the-go. so you can blend up a mouthwatering smoothie, protein shake, or latte wherever you are! recharge quickly with any usb port. best of all, it even cleans itself! just blend water with a drop of soap. what are you waiting for? order yours now from blendjet.com before they sell out again! my a1c was up here; now, it's down with rybelsus®. his a1c? blendjet.com before they

it's down with rybelsus®. my doctor told me rybelsus® lowered a1c better than a leading branded pill and that people taking rybelsus® lost more weight. i got to my a1c goal and lost some weight too. rybelsus® isn't for people with type 1 diabetes. don't take rybelsus® if you or your family ever had medullary thyroid cancer, or have multiple endocrine neoplasia syndrome type 2, or if allergic to it. stop rybelsus® and get medical help right away if you get a lump or swelling in your neck, severe stomach pain, or an allergic reaction. serious side effects may include pancreatitis. gallbladder problems may occur. tell your provider about vision problems or changes. taking rybelsus® with a sulfonylurea or insulin increases low blood sugar risk. side effects like nausea, vomiting, and diarrhea may lead to dehydration, which may worsen kidney problems. need to get your a1c down? you may pay as little as $10 per prescription.

♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ get it with gurus. cargurus. we moved out of the city so our little sophie could appreciate nature. get it with gurus. but then he got us t-mobile home internet. i was just trying to improve our signal,

so some of the trees had to go. i might've taken it a step too far. (chainsaw revs) (tree crashes) (chainsaw continues) (daughter screams) let's pretend for a second that you didn't let down your entire family. what would that reality look like? well i guess i would've gotten us xfinity... and we'd have a better view. do you need mulch? >> it was early on christmas what, we have a ton of mulch. morning of 2020 in nashville, tennessee, where residents saw

a mysterious rv pulling up to a commercial street. there were gunshots, followed by a computerized voice telling people to evacuate now. a few minutes later, the rv exploded. it caused major damage to the surrounding area, killing the driver inside. it was later revealed that the man responsible for that suicide bombing, he acted alone. at the time, somebody saw the news about that nashville bombing and became concerned that it might have been a part of a larger domestic terrorist attack, an attack that that person knew was supposed to take place at the u.s. capitol, in less than two weeks, on january 6th. that person sent an anonymous tip to the fbi, quote, they will all be armed. they think that they will have a large enough group to march into d. c. armed, and will outnumber the police so that they cannot be stopped. they believe that since the election was stolen, it is their constitutional right to overtake the government, and during this coup, no u.s. laws apply. their plan is to literally kill

people. please, please take this tip seriously, and investigate further. especially after what happened in nashville today. this could be a test run. they think that they will have large numbers, and every single one of them is expecting and eager to use their weapons. that tip was one of many examples listed in a new senate report on the intelligence failures leading up to the capitol attack. the report paints a damning picture of the missed opportunities to prevent or prepare for that insurrection. what might be the most revealing here is that it confirms what many people, including president biden, what many people knew to be true in the moments right after january 6th. >> nobody can tell me that if it had been a group of black lives matter protesters

yesterday, -- they would've been treated very differently than the mob of thugs that stormed the capitol. we all know that that's true. it is unacceptable. totally unacceptable. >> according to the senate report, in the lead up to january 6th, the intelligence community focused intensely on black led racial justice protests while effectively ignoring threats from right-wing domestic terrorists. in the summer of 2020, just a few months before the attack, protests erupted across the country over the killing of george floyd. according to the senate report, during those protests, intelligence leadership was particularly focused on civil unrest in portland. everything relating to it was treated as being urgent. intelligence collectors were pressured to find evidence to support management's conclusion about the important portland protest, such as by linking the protests to antifa, despite the fact that overwhelming intelligence regarding the

motivations or affiliations of the violent protesters didn't exist. following those protests, an internal review at dhs said that intelligence committee officials were too zealous in trying to prove racial justice protests were part of an antifa conspiracy. the evidence simply didn't exist. instead of redirecting its attention towards real domestic threats, like right wing extremism, the department of homeland security decided that it would just investigate everybody a little bit less. the report describes a pendulum swing within the intel community that had a chilling effect on reporting and information about january 6th. quote, they thought that almost everything was reportable during the portland protests, but were hesitant, or fearful to report information related to january 6th events. the intelligence community failed to understand the rise of white supremacist violence in america, while buying into a false narrative about the violent potential of people seeking racial justice, many of

them people of color. my next guest, wesley lowery, has written a very important book on this topic, the rise of violent white supremacy right here in america. he will join me, right after the break. stay with us.

meet the portable blender we can barely keep in stock. blendjet 2 gives you ice-crushing, big blender power on-the-go. so you can blend up a mouthwatering smoothie, protein shake, or latte wherever you are! recharge quickly with any usb port. best of all, it even cleans itself! just blend water with a drop of soap. what are you waiting for? order yours now from blendjet.com before they sell out again! income tax. sales tax. gas tax. californians pay some of the highest taxes in the nation. but now lawmakers are proposing a so-called “link tax” that would charge websites every time they link to a news article online. experts warn it could undermine the open internet, punish local newspapers, while subsidizing hedge funds and big media corporations. >> within the racially

so tell lawmakers: oppose ab886, because another new tax is the last thing we need. paid for by ccia. motivated, or racially and ethnically motivated extremists, i would say the biggest chunk of them, i can't give a percentage, but the biggest chunk of that are individuals that are motivated by some form

of white supremacist ideology. that is the -- that group, the motivated violent extremists, have been responsible for the most lethal activity over the years. >> in september of 2020 during the house homeland security committee hearing, the director of the fbi, christopher wray, warned that the threat of domestic violent extremism was growing. three months later, hundreds of people, violently stormed the nation's capitol. fueled in part by the racist white nationalist rhetoric shared by a president donald trump and his allies. today, we learned that the intelligence committee also received warnings that this could happen, and that those warnings went unheeded, that there might be armed violence on january 6th. the plane was to literally kill people. that attempt to topple the democracy after black voters helped to secure a victory for joe biden. that's an example of what wesley lowery calls a whitelash.

in his new book, whitelash, a changing nation in the cost of progress, lowry writes that each step towards triumph gained by the anti racist sides sparks a backlash, a pullback on the rope from the unjust system's beneficiaries and boosters. he posits those white fears might be the defining force of our time. the undercurrent beneath the thrashing of our society, politics, and culture. as long as there are elements within the mainstream politics and media willing to cynically playing to those viewers, and unwilling to call racism and bigotry by their rightful names, we can expect additional bursts of white racial violence, the horrific calling card of our era. joining us now is the author himself, pulitzer prize-winning journalist and author of american whitelash, wesley lowery. congratulations on the book, sir. >> thanks for having me on. >> just such an essential thesis to help us understand what's happening in our world today. there's a reason that so many of the stories that we're covering go back to this central notion of white grievance, white rage, and just the fear and anger towards a

changing america. i wonder, as we talk about january 6th, this contention that we would've had a vastly different response, i think it was the head of the d. c. national guard, william walker telling the january 6th committee that it would've been a vastly different response if those were african americans trying to breach the capitol. do you agree with that? >> i don't think there's a question. i think that what we've seen across the history has been our institutions, and the institutions that are charged with defending our democracy. whether that be law enforcement, whether it be the political parties, whether it be the press very often, they've been extremely sensitive to the idea of any black radical ideology, right? the fear of some sort of revolutionary black movement rising up. they've been largely negligent when it comes to undermining, infiltrating, and preventing violence from what is the oldest terrorist movement in the united states of america, the white supremacist movement. people that would preach the americans that are not, white not entitled to full humanity

or full citizenship. what we see, and we know that the populist nativist movement of donald trump is not only about race, right? we know that there is a collection of grievances there in the same way that the rise of the claim in the 19 twenties was not only about anti black racism. it was also about concerns of the urbanization of america, and catholics, jews, immigration. and so what we see is but we have movements like this who planned their coups in public and yet they're not still prevented. i think that it speaks to the failings of the institution of this moment. >> and the degree to which we have not only normalized white rage and white violence, but institutionalized as well. right? if you look at the origins of police forces, some of those's going from slave patrols. we have a country founded with institutionalized racism, how do you get to a more perfect union when you can begin to see not just the existence of white nationalism, and white rage, white racism, but we can to combat it.

how do you unwind that? >> i think that that is one of the official questions. i write in the book when we referenced it a little bit, so much of american history has been a tug of war between diametrically opposed forces. forces of white supremacy, and i don't mean that colloquially, the literal foundation of the government being a racialized caste system, where white people are fully human, other people are not. right? and forces pulling and pushing, and the difficulties is that we tend to overestimate, and white americans choose to overestimate, what they believe that progress has. been other americans, those likely to be victimized by these systems, suggesting that far less progress has been made then their colleagues. in this moment, when we see those massive demographic changes, the rise of a black presidency, the new civil rights movement, cultural changes, what we see our white americans who the majority of whom are pulling at the end of the obama years, believing that they themselves face racial discrimination in the united states of america. white americans now believe in

essence, they are an oppressed racialized groups. i think that that speaks to a lot of the reactionary politics that we see. >> and don't forget that the obama years were followed by the trump years. this is the bigger question. when you have somebody like donald trump who has normalized racist dog whistles at best, explicitly racist rhetoric and calls towards racist violence at worst, how do you -- how do we as a society deal with that? i would ask as a journalist, a member of the media, right? there is always this tension between, okay, donald trump is a front runner in the 2024 presidential race. what he is saying is irresponsible again, at best, and a directive towards violence at worst. how do we cover him in a way that is responsible to the role that he plays as a national stage figure, and also, responsible to the fact that in many ways, he does incite violence. >> i think it's a complicated question.

i don't want to oversimplify it. i also think that we can be more thoughtful than we have been collectively. i don't think it's as complicated sometimes as we make it seem. i think the reality, as we know, the dehumanizing rhetoric, the dehumanizing language paves the way towards violence, towards the people that have been dehumanized. if we have a major political figure who is going to be trafficking in that language, and be so divorced from reality, it is our responsibility to cover that person and contextualize to not serve as a signal boosting platform for them, not just screaming, live tweaking, every utterance, but also wrapping those up in context. what would it look like, and this is in some ways an incendiary example, but frankly i don't think that.

is what would it look like if louis farakhan were running for president? we would not every day all day the live tweeting everything he says about jewish people. why would we not do that? we understand that by the function of, that we are just spreading the lies, we are spreading the rhetoric, we are normalizing it. when people see the most base prejudices reflected back on public stages, it gives them permission to structure, and now express them some selves. >> as we talked about, that there is an explicit example, an explicit policy area that has been kind of the hotbed of some of those disgusting and violently racist rhetoric, which is whenever you have donald trump or ron desantis talking about immigration, to me, on the outside, immigration feels like the kind of county fair, where republicans are invited in to give their most -- to dehumanize brown and black people in a way that is explicitly racist, but is sort of covered by the veneer of questions of legality and what we are going to do about the policy, that thorny policy issue of immigration. it's like the hall pass that you can have to express white rage and white grievance, white racism. and directed at a group of brown people will still

remaining in polite society, not being deemed a racist because you're talking about undocumented people. let's talk about the way in which you feel -- i mean, what do you think of the suggestions that have been made thus far on the part of let's say, ron desantis? i think it was yesterday, announcing his plans to end birthright citizenship for americans -- well, people born in america. >> it's an example of what we're talking about where it masquerades as a policy issue, a policy debate, but the reality is the expression of vibes. aren't these people scary, isn't the country changing in ways that you don't like? let's remember, the 14th amendment, which legalizes birthright citizenship was a corrective to the dred scott decision. this is literally our remedy to the supreme court saying that black people are subhuman. that was our birthright citizenship creation. secondarily, the president

can't get rid of it. it is not how the constitution works. this is completely messaging. it's not actually a policy proposal. i think about the interview that he did recently, with sean hannity. they had this back and forth about immigration, and they lay out all these talking points, he goes okay, look, i think that we should solve this. and the biggest problem is the brokenness of the system. let's talk about the visa policies, let's talk about the process, let's talk about the line. if we want to solve the issue of our immigration system not working, there are actually bureaucratic things that we can do, but none of those things are the things that our candidates are talking about. i think that that gives away the game. it speaks to the fact that these are -- this is about messaging, it's about the feeling, about playing on anxieties. it also cuts to a real rich history. people forget, when the klan was at it's most powerful in the 1920s, its major victory was an immigration bill in 1924. this idea of how we keep other people out, how do we define who is an american and who is not, which makes us think about the birther movement, is this

black either got elected president, was he really one of us? this question of, are these the children of immigrants? are they really one of us? it speaks to a very base prejudice that is currently aggravated and acclimated among many of our fellow americans. it's effective politics, it's why donald trump was able to get elected. it's why we saw the tea party -- it's part of what we saw on january 6th. it imperils people and impact peoples lives. >> i'm with, you i think this is the central argument in american politics, and american life. which, is who gets to be an american? what country are, we who belongs here? i think it emanates almost everything in our country today. it is such a timely look, and it's essential book. thank you for writing, it thank you for coming on to the show to talk about it. wesley lowery, pulitzer prize -winning journalist, and author of american whitelash, good luck with the book sales and book tour, my friend. >> when we come, back supreme court watchers brace for bad news but, and maybe got a pleasant surprise today. what's going on on the roberts court? that's next. we used to struggle with greasy messes.

now, we just freak, wipe, and we're done! with mr. clean clean freak, conquering messes is that easy. clean freak's mist is three times more powerful, and it works on contact. clean freak, just freak, wipe, done. 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. ♪ hey bud. wow. what's all this? hawaii was too expensive so i brought it here. you know with priceline you could actually take that trip for less than all this. i made a horrible mistake. ♪ go to your happy price ♪ ♪ priceline ♪

♪♪ remember the things you loved doing... before your asthma got in the way? get back to the things you love... with fasenra. fasenra is an add-on treatment for eosinophilic asthma. having too many eosinophils, a type of white blood cell, can cause inflammation and asthma symptoms. fasenra is designed to target and remove eosinophils and helps prevent asthma attacks. fasenra is 1 dose every 8 weeks. fasenra can help patients to breathe better. most patients did not have an asthma attack in the first year.

and fasenra helps lower the use of oral steroids. fasenra is not for sudden breathing problems or other eosinophilic conditions. allergic reactions may occur. don't stop your asthma treatments without talking with your doctor. tell your doctor if your asthma worsens. headache and sore throat may occur. tell your doctor if you have a parasitic infection. get back to better breathing. and get back to your life. ask your doctor about fasenra. if you can't afford your medication, astrazeneca may be able to help. >> today, in a 6-3 decision, the supreme court shut down a fringe legal theory, largely pushed by donald trump's allies, that would have radically changed the way federal elections are conducted in this country. the case, which was brought by north carolina republicans, revolved around something called the independent state legislature theory. it's an idea based on a very farfetched interpretation of the constitution's election

clause which says the times places and manner of holding elections for senators and u. s. representatives shall be prescribed in each state by the legislature there of. now, proponents of the independent state legislator theory believe those words magically gave state legislatures total power over u.s. elections and that their decisions cannot be undone by state courts. so, basically, that would give, say, a republican-controlled state legislature the power to gerrymander maps or to disenfranchise entire groups of voters, and the courts would have no power to stop them. today's supreme court decision which was written by chief justice john roberts, it poured cold water on this idea and it's stated clearly that legislatures do not have the power to make unilateral decisions regarding federal elections. bad news for state legislators who want to have total control

over american democracy. this decision comes after the supreme court earlier this month stepped back from the brink of totally gutting section two of the landmark 1965 voting rights act. that ruling held that a congressional map drawn by alabama republicans and denied black voters a reasonable chance to elect a representative of their choice. in what can only be seen as an immediate effect of that earlier alabama decision, yesterday the supreme court dismissed an appeal coming from louisiana that would have diluted the power of black voters. okay, given the recent, very controversial and conservative rulings of this current supreme court, like, overturning roe v. wade, you may be wondering, what exactly is happening over there on the roberts court? writing in slate today, mark joseph stern writes that the more v. harper ruling, one smacking down the lacking independent state legislator theory is a paradigm attic example of the course example this term. republican litigants come forward with a sloppy, big swing arguments that would destroy large swaths of progressive precedent and, in

some cases, endanger our constitutional system. roberts, joined by the liberals, plus justice brett kavanaugh, or justice amy coney barrett, or both, declines the invitation. in the process, this coalition gets to look reasonable, moderate, and independent even though they are just leaving the law where it was before. after the atomic bomb that was dobbs and his ongoing toxic followed cabinet and baird must surely be taking some comfort in the shelter that justice roberts is offering them. joining us now is mark joseph stern, and he's a senior writer for slate, covering the courts and law. mark, it's great to see you tonight. thanks for being here, let me get right to it. so, i think i know your answer but, you know, john roberts did need to rule on this case. why did he? was it purely a matter of a lack of a better term, optics? >> well, that's part of it. roberts gets to look extremely reasonable, and like a compromised pro justice here, which is a good look in his book. i think he was also spooked by

donald trump's efforts to overturn the 2020 election by empowering this independent state legislator theory. i think he saw the mischief it could work in the lower courts especially in a close election involving donald trump which we may be facing. he wanted to shut it down, which is why he leaped over a lot of really concerning procedural hurdles to get to the merits and resolve this case in a way that makes it clear that state legislators do not have this sweeping authority over election law. >> you point out, near writing, roberts attacked on a coda, effectively reminding state courts he's the one in charge the supreme court is the one in charge. what is that? is that an opening for conservatives? do you think that is, you know, looking for to 2024, and saying, the buck stops at the supreme court in case? >> roberts likes to preserve as much latitude and flexibility for himself and his court as possible. that's what he did here. he said, look, as a rule, state courts get to call the shots when it comes to election law.

but if a state court goes really crazy, if it transgressive the bounds of normal judicial review, we can still step in and be the adults in the room. a lot of progressives are alarmed by that language. i understand the pessimism. but i read it more as a statement of principle, saying as long at state courts remain somewhere within the realm of reason, a federal court should keep out of these disputes. >> what do you make of his rulings? again, this is a very conservative court that has not seemed particularly sympathetic to the plight of people of color, and democrats, and progressives in this country. his rulings within alabama and louisiana that effectively strengthened the voting power of black voters, how does that square with the overall roberts agenda? >> i will tell you, when roberts abolished preclearance and took away a big part of the voting rights act, he said, well, this other part remains. section two is still in force and congressional redistricting still has to be racially fair. in this case, just a few weeks ago, he kept to that promise. it seemed he wanted to make sure people didn't view him as the kind of justice who had

just pulled a bag and which, pulled rocks out of it against, and i think something similar is going on here. a few years ago, robert said that federal courts couldn't stop partisan gerrymanders, but he assured everyone that state courts could. state courts could still step in and police election laws. that's exactly what he wrote today. i think, in part, this is roberts looking around, saying, you know, i've achieved a lot of my agenda already. i will try to shore up some legitimacy and public support by declining to stretch the law even further the way red states are asking me to. >> shore up legitimacy. we are awaiting the ruling on affirmative action, and i will keep that phrase in mind. mark joseph stern, thank you for making the time. and thanks for the great analysis, mark. >> thanks, alex. >> we have one more story for you tonight. it involves this. this big head. stick around and i will explain.

what do we always say, son? liberty mutual customizes your car insurance... so you only pay for what you need. that's my boy. ♪ stay off the freeways! only pay for what you need. ♪ liberty. liberty. liberty. liberty. ♪ somebody would ask her something and she would just walk right past them. she didn't know they were talking to her. i just could not hear. i was hesitant to get the hearing aids because of my short hair. but nobody even sees them. our nearly invisible hearing aids are just one reason we've been the brand leader for over 75 years. when i finally could hear for the first time, i started crying. i could hear everything. call 1-800-miracle and schedule your free hearing evaluation today. introducing the limited edition disney collection from blendjet. nine exciting designs

your whole family will adore blendjet 2 is portable, which means you can blend up nutritious smoothies, protein shakes, or frozen treats, just about anywhere! recharge quickly via usb-c. it even cleans itself. order yours now from blendjet.com and bring a little disney into your life. 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.

bridgett is here. biktarvy can go with you. she has no clue that i'm here. she has no clue who's in the helmet. are you ready? -i'm ready! alright. xfinity rewards creates experiences big and small, >> one more thing before we go, and once-in-a-lifetime.

actually, make it to. there is a person missing tonight from the crackerjack team that makes this to show. our hardworking and deeply beloved executive producer, matthew alexander. this guy. this is how we stay close to him. the reason he is missing is because his powerhouse champion of a wife, alison, also, by the way, a former msnbc producer, she's given birth to not one, but two babies. these are the alexander twins.

you should all remember these names well because these kids are going places. helena graham alexander and tali gayle alexander were born last week on june 22nd. helena came into the world 11:57 a. m., weighing a powerful five pounds nine ounces. tali arrived four minutes later at 12:01 pm, clocking in at six pounds and two ounces. way to go, alison. i want to congratulate julian who is now a big brother to his baby twin sisters, and who appears to be enjoying the new circus come to town and will be staying forever. matthew, enjoy the bliss of being a party of five, and do not worry, the doj is requesting the mar-a-lago documents trial be pushed until december. stay strong! that is our show for tonight. we will see you again tomorrow. now it's time for the last word with lawrence o'donnell. good evening, lawrence. >> i think you started a booking for over the alexander twins. >> we have the exclusive! >> i know, 10 pm is too late for them, right? i'm not going to be able -- >> they are the alexander twins