very much. and the president will speak in a few minutes, maybe just a few seconds. this is a live shot. he will come in, give remarks on the two major decisions by the supreme court today. one of them, to cancel student debt forgiveness. this was a big deal for the biden administration. this is a direct rebuke on the president's executive authority. the other one is to curb lgbtq protections in the name of free speech. the president will address both of those things. and that is not him peeking through the door, it is one of the aides, but it appears that they are getting close. so i'll hand it off now to my good friend nicolle wallace as "deadline: white house" starts right now. consider yourselves warned,

it is topsy-turvy live news event kind of day. case in point, in a matter of about two minutes, we expect to hear from president biden. he will address the nation live on a number of topics, not the least of which is the abrupt stepback our country took today away from fairness and progress toward intolerance and discrimination. the conservative supreme court ruled 6-3 in favor of a colorado web designer, an evangelical named lori smith who refused to work on same sex weddings. the court said that the first amendment protected her from punishment. and it is a turning point decision that will flip the state of equal protections on its head and allow business owners to likewise evade punishment under similar laws in 29 states. and in the longer term, it could again signal a threat to the

landmark decision of the 2015 case establishing the case of same sex couples to marry. and if you are wondering of the same sex couple, what they are doing, after being denied basic human decency, that is not necessary because they don't exist. in court documents, state officials revealed that they had no evidence, none, that anyone had ever asked designer to create a website for a same sex couple or wedding. it was a hypothetical. the movement that was about as grass roots as astroturf, this particular web designer was represented by the alliance defending freedom, a conservative legal group that argues cases like the abortion pill. and here is the president. let's listen. >> -- millions of americans in

this country who feel disappointed and discouraged, even a little bit angry about the court's decision today on student debt. and i must admit i do too. before i tell you the steps we'll take and i want to talk about -- i'll talk about what we've been able to achieve so far on student loan over the past few years. first, we made the largest increase in pell grants in over a decade helping students from families who nearly all make less than $60,000 a year. then we fixed the so-called with the help of the department public service loan forgiveness program. so the borrowers who the got into public service such as schoolteachers, police officers, social worker, service members, you know, they actually got the debt relief that they were entitled to under the law. before i came to office, only 7,000 people benefitted from that program. today over 600,000 borrowers

have received relief from that program. and it is still available. so many people -- so many more people could be helped. and i encourage you to apply if you haven't already. you are still eligible. go to studentaid to the governor. it matters. third, we approved a program on income driven repayment plan. back then we set a limit. student borrowers would pay no more than 10% of disposable income to pay back their debt at any one time. my administration will reduce that to 5%. it is now the most generous repayment program ever. no one with an undergraduate loan today or in the future whether from a community college or a four year college will have to pay more than 5% of it is possessable income, repay the loan. and that is income after you pay for the necessities like income,

housing and the like. typical borrower will save about $1,000 a year. and if you keep up payments for 20 years without missing them, your total debt is forgiven after 20 years. that is what the program was before, but we just reduced it to 15%. -- 5%. and i announced the student sdet relief plan last year on the verge of providing more than 40 million americans with real debt relief. nearly 90% of their relief, 90% of it, making less than $75,000 a year, and no one, no one making over $125,000 a year would qualify. this program was all set to begin. the website had been set up, applications had been simplified so that it took less than five minutes to complete. notices had been sent out to people about the relief they were eligible for. 16 million people, 16 million people have already been

approved. the money was literally about to go out the door. and republican elected officials and special interests stepped in and said no, literally snatching from the hands of millions of americans thousands of dollars in student debt relief that was about to change their lives. these republican officials just couldn't bear the thought of providing relief for working class middle americans. republican state officials sued my administration attempting to block relief including millions of their own constituents. republicans in congress vote order overturn the plan. i don't think i had any republican votes for this plan. at the same time think about this, they all assumed the paycheck protection program. remember ppp? which was designed to help business owners who lost money because of the pandemic. it was a worthy program. but let's be clear, some of the same elected republican, members of congress who strongly opposed giving relief to students got hundreds of thousands of dollars

themselves in relief. members of congress. because of the businesses that they were able to keep open. several got over $1 million. all those loans were for given. do you know how much that program cost? $760 billion. my program is too expensive? $360 billion more than i proposed in my student debt relief program. i was trying to provide students with $10,000 to $20,000 in relief. bay comparison, the average amount for given in the ppp pandemic loan program, average amount for given was $70,000. now a kid making 60,000 bucks, trying to pay back his bill, asking for $10,000 in relief, come on. hypocrisy is stunning.

you can't help a student but you can help a millionaire and have your debt for given? my ife plan would have been life chaining and good for the american economy. 3 million americans. more homes would have been bought, more businesses would have been started, more would have had the confidence to start a family. millions would have felt they could get on with their lives. and now they are shamelessly pushing to advance a bill in the coming weekses that gives hundreds of billions of tax breaks and handouts to the wealthiest americans. they still haven't given up on making it permanent a $2 trillion tax cut that they never paid for. never paid for. $2 trillion. so let me be clear. republicans in congress, this is not about reducing the deficit. it is not about fairness. it is only about forgiving loans that they have to pay.

today the supreme court sided with them. i believe the court's decision to strike down my student debt relief program was a mistake, was wrong. i won't stop fighting to deliver borrowers what they need, particularly those at the bottom end of the economic scale. so we need to find a new way. we're moving as fast as we can. first, i'm announcing today a new path consistent with the ruling to provide student debt relief to as many borrowers as possible as quickly as possible. we will ground the new approach in a different law than my original plan. the so-called higher education act. that will allow secretary of state cardona, who is with me today, to compromise, waive or release loans under certain circumstances. this new path is legally sound. it will take longer, and in my view it is the beth path that remains to provide as many borrowers as possible with debt

relief. just moments ago, secretary cardona took the first step to initiate the new approach. we're not going to waste anytime on this, we're -- it will take longer, but we're getting on it right away. second, we know what many borrowers will need to make the hard choices which their budgets are on a strain now when they start to repay their monthly payments this fall. we know it can take time and they might miss payments at the front end as they get back into repayment. normally this could lead to delinquency and default and it would hurt their financial security and that is not good for them or the economy. that is why we're creating a temporary 12 month what we're calling on-ramp repayment program. now, that is about the same as the student loan pause that has been in effect the past three years. monthly payments will be due.

bills will not go out and interest will be accruing. and during this period if you can pay your monthly bills, you should. but if you cannot, if you miss payments, this on-ramp temporarily will remove the threat of default or having your credit harmed which can hurt borrowers for years to come because the department of education won't refer borrowers. the reason why that will work, they won't refer borrowers who miss payments for 12 months. let me close with this. republican officials say student loan relief is a give away to the privileged. you hear that loud now. the privileged. i love the concern for the privileged. but i know he who student loan borrowers are in this country. so do all you. the couple putting off having a child until they can find a way to deal with their debt. young putting off buying their first home so they can get out

from under student loans. hope on the horizon thanks to the relief that i planned last year, today's court decision snatched it away from them. i get it. i get it. i hear this. i'm concerned about it. but today's decision has closed one but i'll push through another. i will never stop fighting for you. we'll use every tool we can to get you the relief you need and reach your dreams. it is good for the economy, good for the country, it will be good for you. thank you very, very much for listening. we'll get this done, god willing. thank you. >> mr. president, why did you give millions of borrowers false hope? you doubted your own authority here in the past. >> i didn't give any false hope. the question was whether or not if i would do even more than was requested. what i did i thought was appropriate and was able to be done and would get done. i didn't give borrowers false hope but the republicans snatched away the hope that they

were given and it is real. real hope. thank you. >> -- did you overstep your authority? >> i think the court misinterpreted the constitution. >> mr. president -- mistakes in afghanistan? there was a report saying there was failure, mistakes. do you believe there was mistakes during the withdraw? >> all the evidence has can back-life remember what i said? i said al qaeda would not be there. i said we'd get help. what is going on? read your press. i was right. thanks. >> so the report is a mistake about the withdraw -- >> president biden fielding a couple questions from the press gathered there for his remarks on the supreme court decision basically overthrowing,

overruling his student debt loan forgiveness program outlining some steps and some immediate help for students who very much are reported to feel that the road has been ripped out from under them today. we have an abundance of experts to help us talk through all of the breaking news today at the supreme court as well as president biden's remarks. we have the president and ceo of americans united for separation of church and state, rachel lazer is here. and sarah kate ellis is here as well, she is president and ceo of the lgbtq advocacy group glad. also the reverend al sharpton. and as well as randy winegar dozen. and to round it out, our legal analyst andrew weissmann is by

my side where we like him moos. most. let me start with you, randy. the president clearly prepared with some policy announcements today. i talked to him at length about this court. i can't imagine he was surprised by the decision, but there was some policy ready to be announced dade. your reaction to that. >> look, you know, i applaud the president for announcing policy immediately. there is a big difference between the two courses of approach. one was under the heros act, you could do emergency -- an emergency approach and move something faster. under the higher education act, you actually have to go through rule making. and these two avenues were available then. and i'm glad that the president is now saying that we'll move on the other area and i'm glad that he also talked about the income replacement issues. but instead of being in the rule

making, let me just do this. i read that decision today. the hypocrisy is stunning. the pause was started by betsy devos. forgiving of interest was started by betsy devos. all of the ppi loans or what went to big business, they were all for given. but the people who are now short changed are our future? that is just absurd, stunning and hypocritical. this is our future. the people who are getting these loans, none of them were going to make more than $125,000. most of them will make less than $75,000. and many of them are my members. and i have watched them say that they are deferring having family, they are deferring buying homes. this student debt crisis right now is so much worse than it was when you and i went to school, nicolle, and just stunning that this is a frontal attack on our children and our students and

our future. >> rev, i said in the break before we came on, i think i just recently finished paying off all my student loan debt. it was a mountain. and yes, college and grad school were much less expensive, but i borrowed all of it. it is much more expensive now, the burden, the sdet and the kinds of jobs that kids are getting.debt and the kinds of jobs that kids are getting. i think the president ride to make the point about the hypocrisy. he said not one -- he was sued by state republican officials but not republican in congress voted for the student debt relief program. but he contrasted that to the ppp program and talked about the billions that republicans were willing to spend for small business owners. you know, justifiably in the wake of covid, but the hypocrisy

not wanting to spend that on our kids really smacks you in the face. >> i think when the president raised the contrast of what they did with the ppp loans and the fact that some of those in congress benefited and for gave that and then contrasted that with how they fought the student loan forgiveness and then this right wing court coming today, yesterday, killing affirmative action and today really putting people that are in debt and disproportionately some of the same people that needed affirmative action. it shows you the kind of right wing political supreme court we have. a third of that court was you nominated and put through by donald trump. donald trump controls a third of the supreme court. the good news though i think is

that the president is saying that we're going to fight. and many of us, whether it is labor civil right, all are going to fight with them. we have no choice. when he left yesterday, i spent about 10, 15 minutes with the president there in that building and, you know, he didn't say that he thought that this decision would go this way. we talked about affirmative action. but he has a fighting spirit. we have to remember how we affirmative action in the first place, how did we get student loans to help people. we fought for it. so those that are sitting back relaxed, you need to get off the couch and we need to outorganize and outfight these people. i'm in new orleans right now, largest gathering of black women every year. essence festival. and we're talking about fighting. we can't have a world where a court loves unborn babies but then has them strangled with debt after they are born trying

to have an education. >> andrewsandrews, does this len possibility for something more narrow? it doesn't seem to do that. >> the series of cases today is student loan case, the anti-gay decision which is clearly -- can be read in a much broader way to be anti-discrimination decision, and earlier this week the affirmative action decision, so undermine tenants of are constitution. if i'm a court that previously said that they were going to respect congressional action, and then they invent doctrines like the major question doctrine in order to thwart congressional

legislation when they don't like it, they completely change standing rule, that is can you actually bring a case when they wanted to rule in favor of a conservative position. it is so dispiriting because to use randy's term, the hypocrisy of the court is so undermining of what it means to be a lawyer and act on the basis of principle. just to take the decision with respect to sga rights, sga rights, the state can't make a decision that you can't discriminate against people? when is that something that you can do? the answer is today. it is such a fundamental shift and to the reverend's point, the answer really has to be people voting. because they are ruling in so

many voter bloc ois that you wo hope there is enough of a ground swell because of the deconstruction of the court where they are taking so many rights away from people in ways that are so just not intellectual honest in the way that they are going about doing it. so as you can tell that i'm a little scattered here because there is such a wide choice of ways to criticize each of the decisions that has come down this week. >> i think that we're scattering ourselves among these two big decisions because i think the bottom line is often the same, and it is the point that you are making. this is an extreme court doing extreme things that change every corner and every facet of life in this country. and i wonder, andrew weissmann, if you can explain what it meant when any one of them said that they would expect precedent. that is clearly not true. again maybe to the untrained

nonlawyer there was a nuance in the way they answered those questions at their confirmation hearings. but i'm wondering what is the meaning of if they say things and then their rulings make it clear that there is no precedent that they view as sacred and untouchable. >> and this goes to something chris hayes has been saying. where is the role of principle. are these people just politicians who get on the court. and as somebody who has been a lawyer my entire life and i believe in the you jew addition you additional system, when you are in a country of law, when you under oath to be confirmed say that there areadditional you additional system, when you are in a country of law, when you under oath to be confirmed say that there are super precedents like roe, that you are supposed

to not just from one day to the next change supreme court decisions, even if you disagree with it, that you have to respect prior decisions of the court and then you don't do it, that is why the supreme court is in -- there is such disrespect for the court. and it is hard to muster respect for the institution. and i think that your questions to the president yesterday i really think that that is a rekey issue. he is not receptive to the idea of expanding the court or changing the rules. but that is in the something imbedded in the history that says that it has to benign. it is not in the constitution. it is a creation. and there is no reason when the docket is that big that it shouldn't be done. you don't think that republican who becomes president isn't

going to take all of joe biden's sort of effort to be apolitical and say i don't want to do it because of what it could mean for the court? you don't think that donald trump will just blow right by that and say, oh, wait, i didn't think about the fact that i could expand the court and make it not just a 6-3 majority but make it more so? so there really needs to be a rethinking about what is going on here particularly given the history of how some of justices got on the bench. >> such an important point. and it is interesting to really have very specific clarity about where he comes down on all those things. but i feel like in the wake of the three decisions we'll be talking about this right straight through to election day in 2024. i do want to bring in rachel lazer. let me read to you from justice sotomayor's dissent. today is a sad day in american

constitutional law and in the lives of lgbt people. the supreme court of the united states declares that particular kind of business though open to the public has a constitutional right to refuse to serve members of a protected class. the court does so for the first time in its history. by issuing this new license too discrimination in a case brought by a company that seeks to deny same sex couples, full and equal enjoyment of its services, immediate symbolic effect is to mark gays a second class status. the opinion of the court is quite literally a notice that reads some services may be denied to same sex couples. it is haunting. it makes you look at the calendar and you remind yourself that this is being written and decided in the year 2023. and it is a serious step

backward in this country that is being noted around the world today. >> it is dragging us backwards, nicolle. i completely agree. and a year ago when this court abolished the nationwide right too an abortion, we said that they are coming for all other marginalized communities next and that includes lgbtq people. and here we are today heartbreakingly on the last day of pride and the court historically in a terrible way has said for the first time ever that businesses that are open to the public have a constitutional right to discriminate. a constitutional right to refuse to serve members of protected classes. that is dragging us back to the days where we used to hear -- at least i wasn't alive then. but may dad who was 86 remembers hearing these stories. we're jewish. and the signs where they said no

jews, no blacks, no irish. dragging us backwards. and let's not forget who is behind this case. alliance defending freedom. you said it in the introduction. they are a christian nationalist group, white nationalist group, part of a billion dollar had toe network. and they have manufactured this case. the woman, the business, didn't create wedding websites. they never were approached by a guy gay couple. they never turned away a guy couple. but this is being brute to give religious extremists power and privilege above the rule of you la. law and thatis dragging us way backwards. >> andrew, when justice sotomayor described the stench on the court, what she was talking about was the way dobbs

got to the court, by conservative legislatures waiting for the appointments of trump's picks to the court and then the case of overturned roe v. wade. but at least it was a real case. this is absolute fabrication. this is justice sotomayor's stench on steroids. >> so it is important for people to understand what happened here. and i think to understand it, i have to go a little bit into the weeds on a legal doctrine. in this country, you cannot bring a case that is a hypothetical. you can't say to the court, you know, here is a situation i'm thinking of in my mind, can you give me a ruling on what you would do. you need to have something called a case or controversy. there has to be a real dispute. and when you think about the fact that supreme court hears, what, a few dozen cases a year?

of course it needs to decide real cases, it doesn't have enough time to do hypotheticals. the thing that is so amazing about this case is that this is somebody who there was no real issue. there was no complaint. there wasn't even somebody who had opened up a business. this was somebody who said, hey, i'm thinking i might open a business and i'm thinking that i might want to discriminate against same-sex marriage couples. and it turns out even all of that didn't raise a case or controversy because there was nobody who was actually asking -- there was no same sex couple who was asking for the person to do anything. so the whole thing was a hypothetical. just remarkable that that becomes the vehicle and as justice kagan said, any court

that was functioning as a court, not as a legislature, as a court, would have said there is no standing. there is no case here. we're dub. meaning you have to wait for another vehicle. maybe you come up with the same horrendous decision later, but that is why as a lawyer it is so dispiriting because if you do not have honesty and integrity in the courts and you are not operating with the rule of law, then you're in tyranny. this is wherever law ends tyranny begins. and if you don't have the supreme court at least, you know, in good faith applying the law, it is impossible to have respect for that institution. and i know that justice roberts gave a plea at the end of his decision saying that he really hopes that people don't take this the wrong way, et cetera. i mean, but he is -- he really only has himself to blame in

terms of the court. >> and i think dem any lovato calls it sorry not sorry. and i want to bring into our coverage lgbtq advocate chastin buttigieg. i'll read the dissent. quote, imagine -- this is from justice sotomayor. imagine a same-sex couple bruises the public market with their child. the market could be on lane owing or in a shopping mall. some stores sell products that are custom sized and expressive. the family sees a notice announcing that services will be refused for same-sex weddings. what message does that send? that we live in a society with social castes. it says to the child evident of the same-sex couple that their

relationship is not squall to -- fall to others. and there are some public places where they can be themselves and somewhere they cannot. i know from reading your memoir that is adapted for younger audiences that that is retraumatizing. that is the trigger, the shame trigger to the journey that so much men and women take when they come out in the first place. this is a profound damaging and devastating opinion. your reaction. >> yeah, i fund out about the ruling as i was getting my kids ready to go shopping today. and was trying to ignore twitter while i was in target and did not anticipate using that preciousment of nap time when the kids were napping to read a scotus opinion.

sotomayor's dissent really struck me because what does this say to my kid or all lgbtq people in america, that there are still people in this country who make it there entire life's work to discriminate against you and as sotomayor called it, a sort of caste system to make lgbtq people people feel that they are not equal and full members of society and as a sdad, a queer american, those are things that i'ming about and a rugging my husband and my kids a little closer today realizing that there are people in this country with these solutions in search of a problem especially in this case. like your previous guest said, theres of no gay couple looking for a website. this is a person who paired up with the adf who introduced the dobbs case. they are constantly serving up solutions in search of a problem and as we've seen, especially this year, especially during pride month, there is an entire political party who has decided

to abdicate the idea of leadership and solutions and rather focus on attacking lgbtq americans. >> and something we've talked about is that enshrining deposit criminal nation has real world consequences. and i was listening to drive radio probably one of like 11 people that still does that, but it had the weather and the air was dirty, and they were announcing that pride events in my area. and then they went through the security threats against them. and i almost crashed. i was like what country are we living in that the announcement with weather and traffic comes with the pride events and the threat warning for all of them. i mean, making discrimination part of your policy gives it a permission structure and legitimacy that puts in motion all sorts of other things like the threats of violence. how are we living in this

moment? >> you're absolutely correct in that vagueness and confusion is one of their goals. similar to the don't say gay bill in florida. many teachers and librarians were asking what does it mean, what can i to, what shouldn't i do. because there is that void, that gray area, you see people going back into the book, you see teachers maybe not even mentioning their spouse or their family. and that fear and confusion is the goal. so the moment this decision was handed down today, one of my questions was what does it mean. so i got on the phone with some of the lgbtq lawyers i know and was asking that question. and that is the point. that there are some people in this country now who believe that it is just open season again on lgbtq people that you can discrimination against lgbtq people, the supreme court said it. there are folks who won't log on and read all 78 pages or whatever it was of the opinion today. and because there is that void, political party has captured that and realized that rather than focusing on real work, real

solutions that would protect my kids, everyone's family, make your life easier, better, safer, they spend that time and attention on attacking vulnerable groups because it raises them a lot of money. there are three cs. click, clout and cash. and it is so much easier to get those things out of attacking vulnerable people rather than making people's lives safer or better. >> when you made your call, what did the lawyers tell you? what does it mean? >> that is the confusing thing. i was calling around 11:00 and they were like let me finish reading the opinion. >> let me call you back. >> yeah. but that was the conversation that we were having about the confusion and what the gap leads to. kind of like almost the fear of this right wing attack sort of picking away at the corner of a wrapper, kind of like peeling up the corner of that seal. what can they get away with. and all of our fears in the

lgbtq community, what does it lead to. you already have a supreme court justice, justice thomas, who has not only hinted at but sortthro should consider bergfeld. so what does it mean for the lgbt rights in the country. >> an imaginable place to be. and you have a lot of demand on your time. but one more question. polls range from 70% to 80% of all americans support marriage equality. there it is, 71%. it is even higher than the dobbs decision. after dobbs i think more people support safe abortion thousand. these kinds of decisions and putting in to law policies and lawyers that make discrimination part of the policy structure is so wildly unpopular.

what do you think the impact is of a supreme court that is so outside the mainstream. as andrew was saying, the president made clear that he is not looking at reform because he is afraid of politicizing doing what republicans seek as to do. but where does that leave us? >> when you discuss minutish trust in the court, you diminish trust amongst all americans. this is where we should turn to for high guidance, where we should be turning to see opinions that granted marriage equality where the majority are with you on that opinion. it is usually the court is catching up to the people and now you see it the other way around. you see the american people are overwhelmingly supportive of lgbtq equality and the woman's right to choose and now the court is rolling some of those rights back. and that is dangerous because it really fires up and gives people the ability to lean into some of the hatred that the court and progress in our country has sort

of shown that they will have to keep at bay. and it is again putting a target on the backs of vulnerable people when you have decisions like this. that will allow other people to believe, hey, it is okay to discriminate, it is okay to say some of the bigoted views again. but i'm glad you pointed out the data. we have to remember that the majority of americans are on our side, the majority of americans support lgbt equality. so if anyone is watching, i hope that they know that. and if they disheartened by this opinion today, just know that the majority of the american people are with you and that even though the decisions are heartbreaking, and frustrating, you have a lot of people supporting you, a lot of people have your back and just keep fighting. >> it keeps could go up that we'll have to keep fighting. fighting for the 71%, the 85% who want gun safety, the 68% who want safe and legal abortions. a remarkable moment in our

country's history. chasten, thank you so much. so much more to get to with all of our guests. and i have to sneak in a short break. sneak in a short break. imu emu & doug ♪ what do we always say, son? liberty mutual customizes your car insurance... so you only pay for what you need. that's my boy. now you get out there, and you make us proud, huh? ♪ bye, uncle limu. ♪ stay off the freeways! only pay for what you need. ♪ liberty. liberty. liberty. liberty. ♪ (vo) this is sadie, she's on verizon. and she's got the new myplan, so she gets exactly what she wants and only pays for what she needs. she picks her perks and saves on every one. make your move to myplan. act now and get it for $25 when you bring your phones. it's your verizon. first, there's an idea and you do something about it for the first time with godaddy. then before you know it,

(it is a life changer...) you make your first sale. small business first. never stopped coming. (we did it!) and you have a partner that always puts you first way. (no way!) start today at godaddy.com. i have moderate to severe crohn's disease. now, there's skyrizi. (no way!) ♪ things are looking up ♪ ♪ i've got symptom relief ♪ ♪ control of my crohn's means everything to me. ♪ ♪ ♪ control is everything to me. ♪ feel significant symptom relief with skyrizi, including less abdominal pain and fewer bowel movements at 4 weeks. skyrizi is the first and only il-23 inhibitor for crohn's that can deliver both clinical remission and endoscopic improvement. the majority of people on skyrizi achieved long lasting remission at 1 year. serious allergic reactions and an increased risk of infections or a lower ability to fight them may occur. tell your doctor if you have an infection or symptoms, had a vaccine or plan to. liver problems may occur in crohn's disease. ask your gastroenterologist how you can take control of your crohn's with skyrizi. ♪

♪ control is everything to me. ♪ learn how abbvie could help you save. so, you've got the power of xfinity at home. now take it outside with xfinity mobile. like speed? it's the fastest mobile service around. with the best price for two lines of unlimited. only $30 bucks a line per month. that's hundreds in savings a year when you wave bye to the other guys. save hundreds a year on your wireless bill over t-mobile, at&t and verizon. and right now, get up to $1000 off select samsung phones. switch today.

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. power e*trade's award-winning trading app makes trading easier. with its customizable options chain, easy-to-use tools and paper trading to help sharpen your skills, you can stay on top of the market from wherever you are. e*trade from morgan stanley. we're back with what i have described as our embarrassment of riches panel. i haven't even had a chance to bring you into the conversation yet and i apologize, sarah.

rachel laser is here and randy winegarden and andrew weissmann. sarah, your reaction and then we'll dive into it. >> i think that takes narrow decision. however, it can have an enormous step backwards. we live in a country where my wife and i's rights live and die by nine justices whether or not we can get married, whether or not we can buy a piece of cake, whether or not we can now order a website. and i think that to pull it into context for everybody because there has been a lot of thought on this and really great thought, there has been over 500 anti-lgbt bills proposed at the state level this year. about 75 of them have become law. 10 of those are "don't say gay" bills. in ten states we have don't say gay bills now.

glad just reported that there have been 350 acts of violence against our community. so we're living in a country right now that is attacking us as humans, attacking our rights. and we still didn't have an equality act. we don't have federal protections for our community. we live and die by the supreme court whether or not we have rights. and as we can see, they are willing to trade our rights for other folks. and so i think that we're at a really important moment in time. and this is something where we really have to say elections matter. voting matters. and 2024 is a big year for us and we need to show up and be loud and as you've been saying organized. >> sarah, the right seems to make a bet that there will be a competition, right, that the pie is just this big and that the left has to divi it up between fighting the dobbs decision and fighting threats against

marriage equality and fighting -- and it seems that president biden and democrats like the new governor of pennsylvania are making a bigger argument, they are making the argument that freedom is under assault and it is all connected. and the court seems to be intent on proving that right. and i think to andrew's earlier point, no one is safe. nobody anybody with a womb are second class citizens. they are under threat. no secret, but stated threat. these decisions this week, where do you feel that we have slid to? >> quarter, it feels like we're 30, 40, 50 years ago versus 2023. and i think what is really important, yes, under the banner of freedom and democracy we're

all united as marginalized communities. whether it be women, people of color or lgbtq folks, people with disabilities and the decisions the past year from dobbs to affirm difference action to 303 are all crystal clear, if you are marginalized, they are going to take your rights away. not expand your rights or protect your rights or build your right, they will take your rights away. so we need to come together to fight for our rights together. >> we cover a lot of the hate directed at you. when you see this organized legal and policy structure under

it, it is really sick and part of the plan. >> yeah, the ambiguity is part of the plan. the chilling effect is part of the plan. we now have a new rand study that says that 60% of teach everies are now self-censoring because they don't know where that line is. teachers follow the rules and they want to help all kids because they don't know what that line is now. so you can see the erosions of schools being able to create a safe environment for kids and also teaching history. i think all three of these decisions this week and basically they say if you are

not part of the power elite of dominant in the republican party, you don't have rights. it is not just marginalized communities before think about what has happened even earlier in the session about taking away labor rights. think about taking away student rights. if you are not part of that particular club that clarence thoms and some of the other judges are a part f decision that they want regardless of precedent, regardless of the merits, regardless of freedom, regardless of principal. that's part of what's very scary about what this court has done.

and i think all your guests have said this. elections really do matter in terms of, are we a country that expands freedom and opportunity and justice and the sense we're all in it together or is it now going to be who has the power and who doesn't? >> rachel, it is so interesting to break it down. i mean, the court is on the other side of 80% of americans that want gun safety, the kinds of things they struck down earlier in the year. 65% to 70% of americans think choice is a better way to exist as a country. marriage equality, 71% of all americans think that should be the law of the land. clearly under assault. you go down the line. and the supreme court doesn't even represent the whole of the republican party. that is inaccurate. the supreme court is extreme, the most extreme republican party that's existed in my lifetime. what is the conversation about -- and they hate when that is said, so let me say it again.

the united states supreme court today is more extreme than the most extreme version of the republican party that's existed in my lifetime. they will give speeches. they will complain about attacks on legitimacy. their legitimacy is under attack because they stand with about 20% of all americans. >> i think that's important to point out. we are amidst changing demographics in the country, right? there has been a 40% decline in one generation in america in white christians, for example. i think the ultraconservative block of the supreme court is siding with these white christian nationalists who are raging against the dying of their privilege. that absolutely explains some of what is happening right now. so i think one of the important things to point out, voting 100% so important. and so is recommitting as a nation to keep church and state

separate because we are fighting white, christian nationalism. the belief that america was made for white christians and the antidote to that, the cure, is to keep church and state separate. it is not anti-religion. it is pro everyone's religious freedom. what it protects is all of our right to live as ourselves, free from anyone else's religious doctrine and to believe as we choose. it protects freedom without favor and equality without exception. and it is one of those issues, church/state separation, that binds us all against all these ways we're being attacked and marginalized. so it is another issue to bring forward. >> it brings me back to all of the investigative reporting we tried to lift up here from publica. i know these stories matter and get under the skin of the chief

justice and conservative justices that have been outed for not disclosing their cozy ties to billionaire republicans. it is why there is so much distrust. because the decisions are not -- they're not carrying a lot of the republicans. more republicans lost in the mid-terms because of dobbs than without it. so they are now perceived as being beholden to very, very, very small group of very wealthy people. that is the perception. and these decisions do nothing to dispel it. >> well, i think i would go further and say with respect to two of the justices, it is more than a perception. i do think that it tarnishes all of them. but with two of the justices, justice thomas and justice alito, it's not just the perception.

it's the reality. and i think there is a -- there is a secondary point here. it is not just that they took these, quote, gifts of, you know, tens and tens of thousands of dollars. but just think about justice alito defending that by saying that he has interpreted all of that to be, quote, personal hospitality and it somehow isn't worth anything if the seat on the private jet would have gone vacant anyway. so that now is worth zero dollars. so the reason i'm raising his interpretation is that same ludicrous interpretation is from a justice who we are supposed to accord respect to when he writes decisions like the ones that came out this week. it is, i find, personally just impossible to accord the respect

you want that institution to have when you have justice thomas saying it was totally fine for me not to disclose this information. and then he writes a decision like the one on affirmative action. it is -- it's so, to me, ironic that you have justice roberts complaining about people den grading the supreme court, when he cannot clean up his own house. he won't even go to congress to talk about the issue of should there be ethics rules. you know, supreme court justices should comply with ethics rules. you know who else does comply? elected members of the executive branch. they're constitutional actors in the same way that supreme court justices are as well. they all should have to comply with that. to me, if you really need to welcome in a mirror if you want to have respect for the court

and if you are going to make controversial decisions like this, you really need to be sure that it is coming from people who are cesar's wife, who are absolutely beyond reproach. >> my favorite thing, too, is that no one's first financial commitment to anyone, including a supreme court justice is that justice's mom's house. so we don't know what we don't know in terms of financial intanglements. thank you so much. andrew is sticking around a little bit longer because it is one of those days. up next for us, we'll turn to the investigations against the ex-president. subpoenas are reportedly still being handed out in that classified documents case. that and much, much more news straight ahead when "deadline white house" continues after a quick, quick break. don't go anywhere today. t go an. and save on every perk.

sadie is moving to the big city and making moves on her plan, too. apple one, on. now she's got plenty of entertainment for the whole ride. finally there! hot spot, on. and she's fully connected before her internet is even installed. (sadie) hi, mom! (mom) how's the apartment? (vo) introducing myplan. get exactly what you want, only pay for what you need. act now and get it for $25 when you bring your phones. it's your verizon. 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. ♪ i have moderate to severe crohn's disease. only pay for what you need. now, there's skyrizi. ♪ things are looking up ♪ ♪ i've got symptom relief ♪ ♪ control of my crohn's means everything to me. ♪

♪ ♪ control is everything to me. ♪ feel significant symptom relief with skyrizi, including less abdominal pain and fewer bowel movements at 4 weeks. skyrizi is the first and only il-23 inhibitor for crohn's that can deliver both clinical remission and endoscopic improvement. the majority of people on skyrizi achieved long lasting remission at 1 year. serious allergic reactions and an increased risk of infections or a lower ability to fight them may occur. tell your doctor if you have an infection or symptoms, had a vaccine or plan to. liver problems may occur in crohn's disease. ask your gastroenterologist how you can take control of your crohn's with skyrizi. ♪ ♪ control is everything to me. ♪ learn how abbvie could help you save.

adherence to the rule of law is a bedrock principal of the department of justice. and our nation's commitment to the rule of law sets an example for the world. we have one set of laws in this country, and they apply to everyone. applying those laws, collecting facts, that's what determines the outcome of an investigation. nothing more and nothing less. >> hi again, everyone. it is 5:00 in the east. when special counsel jack smith announced the first ever federal indictment of an ex-president he emphasized doj's adherence to the rule of law and commitment to follow the facts. well, it would appear there are still facts that need following. according to brand-new reporting in "the new york times," people familiar with the matter say the investigation into trump to classify documents is very much continuing. in recent days, the federal grand jury in miami has you

shall youed subpoenas to a handful of people who are connected to the inquiry, those familiar with it said. while it remains unclear who received the subpoenas, it is clear that the grand jury has stayed active and that investigators are digging even after a 38-count indictment was issued this month against trump and a co-defendant, one of his personal aids. the times also confirms something first reported by abc news, that the individual described this way as pac representative in jack smith's indictment who was shown by trump a classified map and told to not get too close to it during his visit in august or september of 2021 is a woman named suzie wilds who happens to be one of trump's top campaign advisers right now. she met with investigators numerous times. it presents a messy situation as "the new york times" reports, quote, the fact that she could

become a prosecution witness underscores the complexities the former president now faces as he deals with a presidential campaign and a criminal defense. in what will come as a surprise to no one, another defense of the ex-president's has been shot down, dead, killed. bloomberg responding in response to a foa request neither doj or odni could find the standing order that trump claimed he had to instantly declassify documents he took from the oval office. from that bit of reporting, quote, the plausibility of a standing order was dismissed as nonsensical by more than a dozen white house officials. while u.s. presidents can declassify any document at will, such a standing order would have to be memorialized in writing and shared with the intelligence community, specifically the

office of the director of national intelligence, as well as the agency that classified the document in the first place. the ongoing investigation into behavior that has already resulted in criminal indictments of an ex-president is where we begin the hour with some of our favorite reporters and friends. new york times washington correspondent mike schmidt is back. joining us david jolly. and former justice department prosecutor andrew weissman is still with me. take us through what your colleagues are reporting. >> we are reporting on how the investigation continues. the investigators are continuing to look at a range of conduct that trump engaged in. what i find most intriguing about this is how much of this is -- i'm interested to hear what andrew has to say about this, but how much of this is a backup plan if they run into real problems with the judge. and are they able to bring, you know, other charges, let's say

in new jersey where bed minister is, and to bring a case there if they run into real issues in florida. i don't know the answer to that. what we do know is that this is a judge that they have had -- the government has had enormous amounts of problems with. they had this huge fight over the search warrant of almost a year ago, when that started. and there is doubt in a lot of people's minds about whether this judge has the experience and will be able to actually manage this -- this case and this trial. so if they're able to develop new information and this investigation continues to move forward, we know that bedminister has been a place where a lot of conduct was looked at. there was a lot of disclosures about bedminister in the indictment. there is other things we know about that went on in terms of how trump's lawyers responded to the search and dealt with the search and handed back documents and didn't hand back documented.

that raises questions about whether there is other parts of this investigation that we haven't seen come to fruition yet. but i'm most interested to know that if the government is looking for a backup plan, could they go to new jersey with these charges? >> andrew, your name has been evoked and it is something you floated i think a couple weeks ago. i think you wrote a piece about it, right, with your colleague ryan. tell us about what you think of mike's reporting. >> sure. so ryan goodman at nyu and i wrote a piece for "the atlantic" where we were struck by the fact there was a description in the documents case, two instances the former president being alleged to share highly classified information. but both of those instances happened in new jersey in bedminister and they're described in the indictment, but they're not charged with the indictment, meaning they're in

the preamble, but they don't form any of the specific charges. so we were sort of wondering why that is, why do they not charge it? and there is all sorts of possibilities. one is lack of venue because it happened in new jersey rather than florida. one idea, as mike is suggesting, is is this a plan b if things don't go according to plan, if there is a huge dely by judge connor, would they be able to bring additional charges in new jersey. there is no question they could bring them. if they have the proof. we talked about the issue do they really have the documents. do they have this in a way they can prove beyond a reasonable doubt. my instinct is yes, or else they would not put that in the indictment. we do not have the answer to that. it is important to know the way

a grand jury works is that federal prosecutors cannot use a grand jury just to continue investigating for purposes of an existing case. they can't just be looking to use this for the upcoming trial. they have to be focussing on either new charges with respect to existing defendants or new charges as to new defendants. in other words, so they're either looking at new charges with respect to the former president and mr. nada or they could be looking at additional people. one of the things that i would just suggest is one reason to keep your eye on additional people is this is an extremely unusual investigation that we are looking at where there haven't been lots of people like him charged. if you think about the mueller investigation, for instance, there were all sorts of people high and low who were charged along the way, and that's pretty

typical because you come across people who lied, obstructed justice or committed other crimes. and it is a way to flip people, which is that you say you are going to be facing charges. and if they don't agree to plead or cooperate, you can charge them. so it is not surprising to me, and it seems totally right that you would see "the new york times" reporting that there is this ongoing investigation coming out of jack smith's investigation. >> well, i want to turn to someone who is in the news now. and that's ms. wiles. in august or september of 2021 when he was no longer president, trump met in his office at the bedminister club with a representative of his political action committee. trump commented an ongoing military operation was not going well. he said he should not be showing the map and to not get too

close. the pac representative did not have a security clearance or any need to know clearance. we know who that is right now. she is right now working on his campaign. and this had a real echo to all of your reporting of don mcgahn being in and out of robert mueller's office while serving as counsel. trump is under scrutiny because of so much bad/criminal behavior, and there are people right under his nose that might be witnesses against him. >> what i'm most intrigued by is that donald trump has not shown at all in the time since he's left office a willingness to change his behavior. if anything, he has dug in further to his behavior and not gone along with a lot of what other folks wanted, including the justice department when they

gave him a subpoena. what i'm intrigued by and i would love to know more about are what are his interactions with witnesses. we know he has a history of this. we know that when it came out that don mcgahn had spent all this time with mueller. he tried to have don mcgahn create a fake document that tried to go back and refute what he had told investigators. the information that is contained in the indictment from this witness is obviously stuff that is not favorable to trump. it is damning and it is damaging. and he has not shown an ability to change his behavior. so what is he going to do in response to this? and how is he going to react with someone who is very closely in his orbit, who is working very closely, you know, on his political campaign. and someone he's interacting with on a very frequent basis. >> i mean, david jolly, the

narrative fits that bill as well. i mean, everybody implicated and exposed criminally in the conspiracy to willfully retain classified material is someone in his inner circle. it has, in this instance, an echo to the sloid committee. everyone that was a witness to the coup was a trump supporter, either on his campaign, an ally in congress or an ally in a battleground state he lost and tried to steal. >> that's right. and the people closest to donald trump have shown they're willing to put their own liberty ahead of the president. i think suzie wiles has spoken with investigators several times, and it is earth shattering in trump world. this is big news and unsettling for the former president and the people around him. not only because she is in her fifth decade of politics, a true seasoned hand, a veteran of several campaigns, but somebody

that emerged as a con cig lair ( to trump. give her whatever title you want. she is kind of his number one. and she is also somebody, though, who is not going to go to jail for donald trump. and it sets up a little palace intrigue as to what she could have possibly shared, how did she answer the questions. i thought how would you be her best counsel in that event. perhaps she had a lot of not recalling and not remembering because if suzie wiles was to provide indicting information about donald trump, that has ripple effects for donald trump's entire 2024 campaign. the last piece about this is she started with trump in '16. she got loaned out to desantis in '18. desantis and his wife turned on her, just like they turned on so many. wiles ends up back with donald trump. not only is suzie wiles a veteran and a trusted voice to donald trump, she also has a

score to settle. and if this investigation divides trump and wiles, it is very big news. >> that political analysis is absolutely riveting. andrew weissman, i want to ask you about something david said. what does it mean she's been in multiple times? does it mean the sessions are going really well or really badly, or do we not know that? >> we don't know, but it's worth noting that that would not be unusual because there is a paragraph in the indictment that's clearly based on her interactions with the former president at bedminister. it is not at all unusual for somebody as thorough and seasoned as jack smith to have her come in multiple times. i would venture to guess and sort of an educated guess that she has been in the grand jury. if you have somebody who is that aligned with a perspective

defendant, you're going to watch her testimony under oath in a transcript that she cannot later wriggle out of by saying that the agents got her testimony wrong and it is not what she said. so i just don't find that unusual. what we don't know is whether she, you know, started by saying things and just sort of had a, as we used to say, come to jesus, or there is a long discussion of her needing to be candid. we don't know that particular piece of it. there is a transition from where she started to where she ended or whether she was just somebody who was very no nonsense and was like, i'm going to tell you whatever member because i'm not going to jail for this person, very much like a don mcgahn. >> because you called it a political earthquake, i'm going to share this reporting with you. again, when things come out, we

don't necessarily know if the dots are to be connected. they just become public at the same time. i share this reporting in that shirt. nbc news has not matched. according to sources familiar with the matter, the department of justice has made preparations to bring a superseding document, a set of charges against an already indicted defendant that could include more crimes against the ex-president in the southern district of florida. the team of federal prosecutors working under jack smith is currently prepared to add 30 to 45 charges in addition to the indictment brought on june 8th, either in a superseding indictment in the same florida court or in a different district. they would be doing so using evidence against the ex-president that has not yet been pubically acknowledged by the department, including other recordings prosecutors obtained. again, we don't know what that evidence is, but we are also

learning about this person who, from your description, is the beating heart of your operation. an ex-president is pretty much all he has. how do you think that is landing inside mar-a-lago or wherever the president is these days? >> i think it is telling donald trump that jack smith knows exactly what he's doing. suzie wiles has put donald trump in the limo as he was going to surrender himself on the federal charges. that's how close they are. so, look, what is happening in the continued investigation and the possibility that more charges will happen, perhaps, as michael and andrew discussed it is jack smith knows there is a defendant that will quickly expire some of the novel defenses, so they will have plenty of charges to bring after that. the other reality is donald trump keeps talking. he continues to provide them new

evidence. that's why i think this is so intriguing. i'm sure there are other people close to the president that jack smith and others are speaking to, just as they are wiles. but it does go to this question, if you are suzie wiles on the january 6th investigation, are you willing to go to jail for donald trump? what we are going to find out eventually with mark meadows is he decided to start singing to protect his own liberty. suzie is a steely veteran who, i'm sure, wants to protect her boss and her friends, but at the expense of going to jail, i just don't think so. >> it is amazing how often that becomes the dividing line. we covered people like steve bannon. and trump doesn't have the power to pardon anymore. he doesn't have that to dangle. while i have the three of you, i want to turn to a story we covered here with a live interview on our broadcast. fast forward to today, and "the new york times" is reporting that fox news agreed to pay $12

million to settle a hostile workplace suit with her. fox news has agreed to pay $12 million to abby grossberg, who accused fox of a hostile work environment. she said in a statement friday that she stood by her allegations but was, quote, heartened that fox has taken me and my legal claims seriously. you reported on this leadership and their mismanagement of the dominion case and its settlement. before that on the o'reilly settlements. your reaction to the $12 million settlement from fox news today? >> so it is a significant amount of money. and i actually went back and looked. and in 2017, when my colleague emily and i wrote a story about

bill o'reilly's settlement, we wrote about five settlements he had for $13 million. five women settled with fox for $13 million. later that year we learned of another settlement for $32 million. that gives you a seasons of how big this settlement is. it's not as big as this $32 million settlement that they had to settle with o'reilly for an accuser of o'reilly, but it is very significant when compared to others. and that is a fair amount of money. what i wonder and i would love to know from the folks inside of fox is how much did the amount of money that was paid in the dominion suit sort of change the market? we know that, obviously, inflation has gone up over time, but much did the dominion settlement at that huge number of $775 million or around that number, how much did that change sort of what people can expect

and what they can demand. and i think in one of the stories that we wrote about dominion, we wroted someone or was referring to some of the reporting about how different people were saying, well, they were going to settle with dominion. why not try and find other ways to hold them accountable through suits like this? so it is a significant amount of money. and, you know, i'm surprised that it settled so quickly. but fox has a lot of suits to clear out here and ones that have potential sticker prices on them for a figure in the $12 million. >> yeah, andrew. i think the case and the plaintiff who said that was the person that ran the biden office's disinformation office. she filed a lawsuit after or around the dominion settlement. i wonder if this is a new price tag for doing business the way fox seems intent on doing business. >> so, you know, one of the ways

that i look at this is to step back a little and think about this in context with the larger dominion case and also the criminal case. because all of those are about media organizations, mainstream media organizations, whether it is the "national enquirer" or fox who are completely in bed with the competition. so i think that, you know, for fox, i think that not having more dirty laundry aired is the reason you are seeing what i think is a very sizable amount of money, as mike said. and it can both be sort of bad behavior by people there, but it also can be just more and more evidence about direct complicity. and that's the thing that -- i mean, we all know that that is

what's going on. but there was something incredibly shocking about seeing it in black and white and being so overt that a major media organization didn't have any sort of checks and legal structures, rules and regulations that prevent that kind of coordination so the fourth estate is doing its job and is not an arm of the political organization. no one is going anywhere today. when we come back, a development to tell you about in jack smith's other investigation, the one into the ex-president's efforts to overturn his defeat in the election. a second trump campaign official is now cooperating with prosecutors. later in the show, the rides of the right wing group moms for

liberty. republican presidential candidates today are flocking to their gathering. the group is facing criticism for alleged ties to extremist groups, including the proud boys. "deadline white house" continues after a quick break. don't go anywhere. k break. don't go anywhere. tourists taking photos that are analyzed by ai. so researchers can help life underwater flourish. ♪

when nature and science get together... pretty sweet things can happen. like our senokot laxative gummies. to relieve occasional constipation, senokot starts with the natural senna plant that science transforms into a yummy gummy! sweet! senokot laxative gummies. to help prevent bleeding gums. try saying 'hello gumwash' with parodontax active gum health. it kills 99% plaque bacteria. and forms an antibacterial shield. try parodontax active gum health mouthwash.

we're learning new details today about jack smith's investigation into disgraced ex-president donald trump and his efforts to overturn his defeat in the 2020 election. micro man served the trump campaign as the director of election day operations. he is reportedly cooperaing with prosecutors from smith's

team. he was involved in the plot which states joe biden won in 2020, which sent a second slate of presidential electors that would falsely certify it was donald trump that won. it comes on the heels of last week's grand jury testimony from gary michael brown who served as roman's deputy on the trump campaign. we're back with mike, david and andrew. mike, what tea leaves are you and your colleagues reading about the significance of a cooperator from deep inside the fake elector's plot? >> the thing about mike roman that i don't expect anyone to know besides a few people, is that he held an unusual job in the white house counsel's office where he was a sort of researcher and didn't really have an explicit job title. people said that his job was basically to help vet candidates and sort of look into their

background, but they saw him as sort of a right hand man to don mcgahn, even though i don't believe that roman is a lawyer. and he worked in the counsel's office and not everyone could say what he really did there. he worked there in the early part of the administration. and he was someone that worked in conservative politics before and did the opo area. while there was a lot of vetting of judges that went on, it was curious to some people in the white house why you needed to have a non-lawyer in that position working in the counsel's office doing, you know, work that is normally done differently in previous counsel's offices. so this is someone that has been in trump's orbit for a very long time in sort of the parts of the job and certainly someone that could help the investigators, you know, gain a better

knowledge of what was going on in that, you know, amongst the close people to trump in january 6th. and, you know, lastly, like it is clear that they're moving closer and closer to the people in that orbit. you just had rudy giuliani in to meet with -- you know, to testify and to answer questions from the prosecutors. so they continued to work that layer, that inner circle as they look to finish here. >> david jolly, it is the quintessential trump staffer story, right? a fake lawyer working on a fake elector's plot. i come to you with the same question. is this the kind of person that wants to go to jail for donald trump? >> i'm guessing now. but i find his cooperation as intriguing as i do this element of the fake elector's scheme because understand the decisions that prosecutors have to make. it is somewhat easy to make

charges. we have seen them for some of the individuals on january 6th, for attempting to interfere with a proceeding of congress. they could make that charge that somehow donald trump conspired in that. but the element is an intriguing one because there may be staffers who thought, using poor legal justification, that there was a reason to submit an alternative state of electors. the secretary of state for the governor's office, depending on the state in which they came. the trump thought they should have the alternatives ready. there is a possibility that there are lower level actors, whatever that might be. but what we do know is this is an element of a much broader conspiracy led by donald trump himself with knowledge that the fake elector's scheme would all come together in this. that's where the cooperation of someone like roman is very intriguing. is he taking, you know, the

offer from justice to provide everything he knows? because they think this will be a key element to a broader charge. we don't know. we'll find out. but it certainly looks like that. >> andrew weissman, a fake elector's plot featured trump as the direct salesman. it was the height of covid. it makes sense if the staffer was the link to that campaign effort. >> yeah. there is no question what jack is looking at is that the fake elector scheme was being done from top down. it is not like this came from a particular state and they on their own thought, oh, you know, there is a problem that's emanating from this state, so we really need to have an alternative slate just in case the court were to rule in our favor. and, instead, this was a top down scheme.

and that's the reason that you want to have roman's cooperation here. the one bit of cold water and just -- i would put a little bit of a break on this is that he may be cooperating, but the recording so far is he's gone in and added something called a proper agreement, which is called a queen for a day. that is not a cooperation agreement. it sometimes can be the precursor to a full cooperation agreement. but in my experience, you also have many people who come in with a proper agreement, and they don't give you anything or you think they're lying, but you can't prove it. in other words, there is a lot between the time someone comes in for a proper and there being a full-blown cooperator. this would be a huge development if he's cooperating and giving his story, particularly if he says that he knew that this was

a fake elector's scheme, not an alternative in case the court ruled in their favor. that would be huge. but we just don't know that yet. an important note of caution. mike smith fur yore great reporting. thank you both so much for spending time with us today. david jolly sticks around longer because straight ahead, the right wing group playing a big role in the presidential primary today. what we're learning about moms for liberty and their alleged ties to violent extremist groups like the proud boys. that's next. proud boys that's next.

- i'm lynette. this is my husband, arthur. - yeah, you wouldn't believe we're in our 70's, huh? (lynette and arthur laugh) - i have recommended consumer cellular to so many people. - she was the one to convince me to come over to her side. (arthur laughs) - that's right! - [announcer] come over to consumer cellular and start saving. get unlimited talk and text with a flexible data plan, starting at just $20 a month. - the coverage has been excellent. - you know, it gives us exactly what we want. - you should go with consumer cellular! - [announcer] switch today. call or go online.

in america, we value our freedoms. and ceos, they're free to negotiate their salaries and bonuses as they see fit. president biden just wants us to have those very same freedoms. the freedom to make a good living and have a good life. that's why he's lowering insulin prices, fighting for the child care tax credit and delivering more clean, renewable, american-made energy... protecting our freedom to thrive. ♪ tourists tourists that turn into scientists. tourists taking photos that are analyzed by ai. so researchers can help life underwater flourish. ♪

(jennifer) the reason why golo customers have such long term success is because we focus on real foods in the right balance so researchers can help life underwater flourish. so you get the results you want. when i tell people how easy it was for me to lose weight on golo, they don't believe me. they don't believe i can eat real food and lose this much weight. the release supplement makes losing weight easy. release sets you up for successful weight loss because it supports your blood sugar levels between meals so you aren't hungry or fatigued. after i started taking release, the weight just started falling off. since starting golo and taking release, i've gone from a size 12 to a 4. before golo, i was hungry all the time and constantly thinking about food. after taking release, that stopped. with release, i didn't feel that hunger that comes with dieting. which made the golo plan really easy to stick to. since starting golo and release, i have dropped seven pant sizes and i've kept it off. golo is real, our customers are real, and our success stories are real.

why not give it a try? over the last few years, the world has watched. and as a show, we have sought to cover instances in which far right wing groups around this country proudly embraced nazi symbols. from the white nationalists in protesters to those outside of disney earlier this month. indiana's chapter of the moms for liberty, whose primary goal has been to erase education about race, gender and lgbtq issues in schools quoted adolph hitler in it's newsletter. the quote was included at the top of the page, alongside the description of a successful campaign to remove books in the library. the group would go on to apologizing for using adolph

hitler's quote. it comes as no surprise that quote has become a darling of the republican presidential candidates who are hoping to show just how un-woke they all are to gain the support of this group. the disgraced ex-president, as well as ron desantis and nikki haley cleaned in to their anti-woke agendas in philadelphia. christopher goldsmith joining us. also joining us democratic pollster and the president of brilliant corners researcher, cornell belcher is here. chris, tell us what you know about this group. >> this group started two years ago. their filing says they started on january 1st, 2021. and within six months of their founding of this dark money

501c4 group, a neo-nazi group started copying them on line and pulled them into actual neo-nazi ideology. now, there is a thing about racists in this country is that you go around and you ask a prod boy if he's racist. no. he will probably say no. but the fact is that they don't understand that they're racist. they are getting presented these -- these apocalyptic scenarios about children learning about things like diversity and queer lifestyles and how people choose to live and how their brain chemistry drives them to live that way, right? this is a story of people who have been made to fear that their children are being targeted by some evil forces out there, right. and the worst of the worst in the darkest places of the

internet are basically sending out their tentacles into places like facebook, into the hundreds of facebook pages that moms for liberty maintains today to pull them into other social media places where they're going to get surrounded by nothing but disinformation and hate. and, you know, what pops out the other end, someone like nikki haley, who just a few years ago shared a story about how when she was a child she couldn't enter into a beauty contest because down in the south there was a white contest and there is a black beauty contest. and she is neither. she celebrated the fact that her daughter was able to go through that. well, what kind of sense does it make now that she is going and standing in front of a crowd of racists and pretending that racism doesn't exist and per pet -- perpetuating the racism that scarred her as a child?

>> this is a bigger and more profound conversation. does this say more about the republican party? or is this a story about moms for liberty? >> both. moms for liberty has become one of the most powerful constituencies inside today's primary republican contest for the presidency and arguably inside the party. just because they're powerful doesn't mean they're right. as chris is suggesting, most of what they stand for is antithetical to their very premise. most of what they stand for would seek to marginalize groups that have already been marginalized and withhold history, science and truth to our students. and then they are a group, as chris points out, that because of their youth and arguably inexperience, it is co-opted by some of the real alt right extremist groups. you have a perfect mix of hate

constituencies that sees moms for liberty as this constituency in the republican party. you have this white christian nationalist ethos of the party. and because of its youth, on the local level they elevate truly awful candidates. whack jobs would be a coloek wee y'all term for it. being elevated to the school board in local commissions not just because moms for liberty is a great organizing constituency, but because they are supported by ron desantis and others that see the power of the movement. moms for liberty will have a lot to say in the republican primary in 2024. >> right. it is this year's version of stand back and standby. to that end, let me read the tie between the proud boys and moms for liberty. links between numerous moms for

liberty chapters and extremist groups like the proud boys. three percenters, qanon, christian nationalists. and in one case the founder of the ak-47-worshipping rod of iron ministries church in pennsylvania. around the country, moms for liberty is joining forces with the parental rights group that protests at school board meetings and in turn pushing the far right organization toward even more extreme ideology. cornell belcher, it is a re-branded label with the same dark force that trump told to stand back and standby. >> it is. i mean, i don't know how clearer it can be when you have an organization that's trying to stop diversity, that's trying to strip away the history of black and brown people and marginalize citizens and also quoting

hitler. i don't know how much clearer it would be that they're not actually on the side of liberty and freedom. they are on the side of whites, of white supremacy. what is really troubling to me about this, nicole is, look, nikki, the governor knows better. she does. and at what price? at what price for power? and what's particularly problematic for me in this conversation is being someone who grew up in south carolina and whose family experienced racism and discrimination. for her to stand in front of these organizations right now and sanitize, really give cover for what is just racism and white supremacy is -- it's appalling. and i just don't understand at what price power. and at some point what she is, in fact, doing what candidates like her are doing is they're

giving cover to these racists and these white nationalists and helping them become mainstream. and i think that is doing the country a great disservice. >> right. and not for nothing. it comes at a moment where domestic and violent extremism is a threat to the homeland. there is a very real and a current bulletin to the department of homeland security, unless they found extremism. i need all of you to stick around through a quick break. i have much more to get to with all of you on the other side. we'll be right back. be right ba. okay everyone, our mission is complete balanced nutrition. together we provide nutrients to support immune,

muscle, bone, and heart health. everyone: woo hoo! ensure with 25 vitamins and minerals. enter the $10,000 nourishing moments giveaway. lila: before i was diagnosed, there was nothing really to worry about. and then when i was diagnosed, there was just such a big weight put on my shoulders. every night, i felt like maybe i won't wake up tomorrow. but there's no way that this is going to win. i'm winning. announcer: st jude children's research hospital works day after day to find cures and save the lives of children with cancer and other life-threatening diseases. beth stewart: there are treatments that were invented within the walls of this hospital that have continued to improve the cure rates for pediatric cancer, and st. jude's not going to stop until every single kid gets that chance to walk out of the doors of this hospital cancer free.

lila: if it weren't for st. jude, i wouldn't be sitting here today. peter: this place has really shown us the strength of what can happen when so many people work together as one. people want to be a part of the cure. announcer: thanks to generous donors like you, families never receive a bill from st. jude for treatment, travel, housing, or food so they can focus on helping their child live. for just $19 a month, you'll help us continue the life-saving research and treatment these kids need. join with your debit or credit card right now and we'll send you this st. jude t-shirt that you can proudly wear to show your support. christen: i think it's the most worthwhile place to put your money when it comes to childhood cancer. lachaka: because it takes a heart for somebody to say that i'm willing to give to st. jude so that they can help save more lives. that's huge. damon: our giving to st. jude is right up there

with our mortgage. that's the priority that we put on giving to st. jude. announcer: please call or go online right now. become a partner in hope today. more shopping? you should watch your spending honey. i'm saving with liberty mutual, mom. they customize your car insurance so you only pay for what you need. check it out, you could save $700 dollars just by switching. ooooh, i'll look into that. let me put a reminder on my phone. save $700 dollars. pick up dad from airport? ohhhhhh. only pay for what you need. ♪ liberty. liberty. liberty. liberty. ♪

everyone is back. i want to read you what the ex-president, donald trump, said to the moms for liberty. moms for liberty is no hate group. you are fierce, fierce patriots. you are not the threat to america. you are the best thing that's ever happened to america. biden and the communists are a threat to america. it's a campaign. it is a political speech. but it is political speech that absolutely perverts the reality. and i wonder what sort of twilight zone do you think we're heading into. >> well, i think we are in a pretty dark fly zone. but i do think this becomes a campaign

republicans are struggling with suburban women. this doesn't seem like something that is going to help. >> once you get into what the intent of republicans really is is on education, but does sound like you want to empower rtt to move families. we've had the same journey with republicans. i am taken by the fact that 20 years ago you saw the emergence of a jeb bush education policy that was largely centered on school choice. we want parents to be able to take their kids to achieve academic excellence at the school of their choosing. it was true liberty. republican education policy today is we want to rewrite curriculum and skip past what makes a curriculum a quality curriculum. we want to rewrite history and science truth so that we can

reflect this white nationalism if you will that is indoctrinated into today's republican party, if our journey away from what traditional republican policy on education used to be. >> and are there struggles within, are some elements with the group totally comfortable being aligned with the malicious and a proud voice and the others? >> for the last couple of years that we have been talking about fights with school boards, you know, shutting down school board meetings, and we talk about how the proud boys are showing up and who is bringing the proud boys? it is the moms for liberty. they are friends and know each other. these are fascist groups that are aligned 100%. what is really going on right now with, you know, an organization that didn't exist two years ago is we have the proud voice stepping back and standing by while the moms with a friendly smaby face are smiling and

trying to rebrand what is fascism. we are talking about racism and persecuting the lgbtq community. these are the proud boys with a weekend lipstick. that is all that they are. and because of the words "mom's for liberty," not a lot of people are going to understand that, so folks watching this, you need to get out online and talk to your friends about what mom's for liberty isn't help them understand that they are a pipeline into the most radical of extremism in this country. >> thank you very much for spending time with us today. we are grateful to all of you. another break for us and we will be right back.

when nature and science get together... pretty sweet things can happen. like our senokot laxative gummies. to relieve occasional constipation, senokot starts with the natural senna plant that science transforms into a yummy gummy! sweet! senokot laxative gummies. ah, these bills are crazy. she has no idea she's sitting on a goldmine. well she doesn't know that if she owns a life insurance policy of $100,000 or more she can sell all or part of it to coventry for cash. even a term policy. even a term policy? even a term policy! find out if you're sitting on a goldmine. call coventry direct today at the number on your screen, or visit coventrydirect.com. (wheezing) asthma isn't pretty.

it's the moment when you realize that a good day... is about to become a bad one. but then, i remembered that the world is so much bigger than that, with trelegy. because one dose a day helps keep my asthma symptoms under control. and with 3 medicines in 1 inhaler, trelegy helps improve lung function so i can breathe easier for a full 24 hours. trelegy won't replace a rescue inhaler for sudden breathing problems. trelegy contains a medicine that increases risk of hospitalizations and death from asthma problems when used alone. when this medicine is used with an inhaled corticosteroid, like in trelegy, there is not a significant increased risk of these events. do not take trelegy more than prescribed. trelegy may increase risk of thrush and infections. get emergency care for serious allergic reactions. see your doctor if your asthma does not improve or gets worse. ♪ what a wonderful world. ♪ ask your doctor about once-daily trelegy for asthma - because breathing should be beautiful.

i have moderate to severe crohn's disease. ask your doctor about once-now, there's skyrizi.hma - ♪ things are looking up ♪ ♪ i've got symptom relief ♪ ♪ control of my crohn's means everything to me. ♪ ♪ ♪ control is everything to me. ♪ feel significant symptom relief with skyrizi, including less abdominal pain and fewer bowel movements at 4 weeks. skyrizi is the first and only il-23 inhibitor for crohn's that can deliver both clinical remission and endoscopic improvement. the majority of people on skyrizi achieved long lasting remission at 1 year. serious allergic reactions and an increased risk of infections or a lower ability to fight them may occur. tell your doctor if you have an infection or symptoms, had a vaccine or plan to. liver problems may occur in crohn's disease. ask your gastroenterologist how you can take control of your crohn's with skyrizi.

♪ ♪ control is everything to me. ♪ learn how abbvie could help you save. one more little nibble of news for you. it is an update on the health of democracy abroad. from it brazilian president bolsonaro has been barred from seeking public office for the next eight years by the country's electoral court. five of the seven judges ruled that he abused his power when he made baseless voter fraud claims. diplomats at the presidential palace just months before the election took place. sound familiar? viewers may remember those election fraud claims

culminated in bolsonaro's supporters descending on brazil's capital. he remains under criminal investigation for his involvement. that as well as a scheme to falsify his vaccine records. he is likely to appeal the ruling. he faces 15 other cases within the electoral court at any criminal conviction would make him an eligible for office. a quick break for us and we will be right back.

thank you so much for joining us for another week of shows. we are grateful. happy friday. >> happy friday, nicole. i think you earned your weekend. just my opinion. >> thank you, my friend.