>> good morning, it is saturday july 1st. i'm michael steele filling in for my good friend ali velshi. another supreme court term's come through close this week, the supreme court issued its final rulings of the session. including a trio of things that

could reshape murmur kansas city. in all three high profile games, they were split 63. for the highlighting the sharp ideological divide between the nine justices currently on the bench. yesterday, the court ruled in favor of lloyd smith, a wild designer from colorado who refused to work on projects related to same sex marriage, even though it is unclear if she was ever asked to do so in the first place. but, she sued on hypothetical grounds claiming that it would violate her first amendment right free speech rights and the courts six conservative members agreed. it is a major blow to members of the lgbtq community. and in her dissent, justice sonia sotomayor called the ruling quote, profoundly wrong, she explained further that quote, the act of discrimination has never constituted expression under the first amendment, also yesterday, the court struck down president biden's plan to

forgive student loans for millions of americans, the court's conservative majority ruled that the biden administration had overstepped its authority trying to implement its plan to a law known as the heroes act. president biden however is undeterred and vowed to find a new path forward. >> i believe the court's decision to strike down the relief program was a mistake, was wrong. i'm not gonna stop fighting to deliver borrowers what they need, particularly those at the bottom of the economics to gayle. so we need to find a new way and we are moving as fast as we can. we will use every tool in our disposal to get the student debt relief you need and reach or dreams. it is good for the economy, it is good for the country, is going to be good for you. >> this supreme court projection of the student loan forgiveness plan is a blow for people who are or were previously enrolled in higher education. a third ruling this week is certain to also have a major

impact on future generations of students. on thursday, the supreme court ruled that affirmative action is unconstitutional. in his majority pinion, chief justice john roberts called the mission program at harvard and university of north carolina, both of which were being challenged because they used race as a factor in admissions, were unlawful and quote cannot be reconciled with the guarantees of the core protection clause. following the ruling, president biden said that he disagreed with the court's decision, he said that the court, the current court is quote, not a normal court. which he explained to msnbc nicole wallace during a live interview on thursday. >> you said this court is not normal. what did you mean? >> what i meant by that is, starting -- basic rights and basic decisions in recent history. that is what i meant by not normal. it has gone out of its way to,

for example, take the overruling of roe v. wade, take the decision today, take a look at how it is ruled on a number of issues that have been precedent for 50, 60 years sometimes. that is what i meant by not normal. >> let's get into all of this, joining me now is judith brown, executive director of the advancement project, also with us, jeanne cigarettes, a professor at harvard law school and contributing writer for the new yorker. welcome to you both, jeanne, let's begin with you, you published a piece in the new yorker this week called after affirmative action ends and you wrote quote, colleges and universities will have to admit students using only methods that are race neutral. they will not be allowed to consciously consider any applicants race. but institutions that have long viewed soon bodies as essential to their missions will not change their belief, simply because of the court ruling nor

good court purports to mandate such a shift in values. so now that affirmative action is done, it is struck down, give us a sense of what this means for colleges and universities across the country and how this might look in practice. >> well, in colleges and universities, they can along consider race as a factor in admissions. but, there is a very important caveat in that the opinion made very clear, as unambiguous that colleges can still consider a person's race and the context of their story. for example if you write about your race being important to you, maybe it has inspired you, maybe it has allowed you to realize some things about yourself or about society, there are many ways in which people race ethnicity, and nationality come into their own conception of their story that they tell to the admissions offices.

that will still be allowed and colleges will still be able to consider that. some people might think, isn't that what affirmative action was supposed to be doing anyway, what kind of difference is this case going to make. well, it could be a subtle difference, but it could also be a major difference and i think that we will have to see how colleges manage to deal with the fact that they can consider race, that they can consider someone's story about the race. >> judith, i really want to drill down on this idea of race neutral. it comes up a lot in the supreme court's opinion. what does that term actually mean in the context of this ruling and is race neutral a proper remedy in this situation? >> you know, this decision is a historic and it is not based in reality.

you know, we understand number one, these affirmative action pieces have been in the midst for decades. this has been an orchestrated effort to undo the winds of the civil rights column. not just on affirmative action, but also on voting rights. roe v. wade dobbs didn't happen overnight, it was orchestrated effort. the orchestrated effort around affirmative action in particular was this idea of -- the constitution and the amendments were based in race. the 14th amendment is a reconstruction era amendment and so we cannot act like race was not part of it. i think what is happening is, this idea is supposed to be, if you think people are good, they intend that we all want to be colour-blind, well that is not reality. this court has political

motives in particular. they are turning back the clock on progress that we've made. >> i think that is part that i find the most appalling, this idea, especially from a court who has a sketchy history when it comes to the question of race and dealing with some of these cases, the fact that you have fergus-y referred to several times in opinions recently this week. jeanne, it kind of big's credulity around this idea that somehow all of this, this country is blind and neutral when it comes to questions around race. and one of the bluebacks of this particular decision is not just in the academic space, but also in the corporate space. you have seen the assault on corporate diversity initiatives by a lot of friends that i have on the right. for example, it's even

interesting now that you have republican presidential candidates targeting corporate diversity efforts in the wake of this decision. how does this decision affect those efforts longer term, you see corporate america something being told, i'm sorry, you can no longer use race in your hiring practices. >> it's not gonna happen overnight, it will have that i believe the supreme court will find eventually that if colour-blind this is the standard for equal protection and for title vi which is the statute that regulates any institution that receives government funding, if that is the theory of color blindness, then there really isn't a lot of reason to believe that the court is not going to extend that to a statute like title seven which regulates employment. i think that we are fewer years away, but we will see a challenge being set up to go to the supreme court that says, well, you can consider

someone's race in hiring for jobs or for promotion as in affirmative action will be challenged in the employment context pretty soon. >> judith, the other aspect of this affirmative action case which was not touched, i wonder why, because daddy just wrote a check for 1 million dollars on the building and couldn't other get into the school is now a freshman. meanwhile, the african american kid with a 4.5 gpa and student leadership awards and phenomenal kid, ever on campus is looking him like, how did he get here? this idea of legacy admissions, what is your take on that and how does that play out in the context of what we have seen in this ruling? >> we shouldn't call them we are informative action, actually there are a lot of people who use legacy

admissions and who are not qualified. four of action, you're still qualified. we know that there have been many people who have gone into institutions of higher learning because daddy went six generations of people went there, and that is protecting what people. it is white privilege, not affirmative action. this kind of goes under the radar with the supreme court. who cares about that. people in the supreme court for the most part are benefiting from it. and the right is benefiting from it, so i think this is an issue that schools need to deal with. the universities, that is the problem with this, this case, whether it is employment or higher education will be excuse for those who don't want to -- for those who don't want and exclude inclusive america. legacy admissions protects them from that, they can keep doing that, they will keep getting exclusionary universities. >> here's brown, sick around,

we will have our a lot more on this conversation after a quick break. this conversation after a quic break. breliberty 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. ♪

right now get a free footlong at subway. like the subway series menu. buy one footlong in the app, get one free. for freeee. that's what i'm talking about. order in the subway app today. my most important kitchen tool? my brain. so i choose neuriva plus. unlike some others, neuriva plus is a multitasker supporting 6 key indicators of brain health. to help keep me sharp. neuriva: think bigger. >> back with me to continue our

discussion about this week's supreme court decision, judith brown dianis, executor of the advancement project, and jimmy scarce, and a former prosecutor in manhattan and contributing writer for the new yorker. so jenny, both lawsuits against harvard and university of north carolina will fired by a group called students for fair emissions. what can you tell us about that group and who is behind it, what are they up to? >> the group was founded, the president of the group's edward bloom, he is a strategist who has orchestrated many important lawsuits, organized around the idea that society should be color blind and wray should not be a consideration for

governments and for entities to take into account in making decisions that affect people. that really is his principle and he has brought several voting rights cases and he has brought this case and i think that he will continue to challenge places in our society where government and important institutions are taking race into account. >> judith, this idea that jaime brings up again, this nature of this color blind institution that presumably exist somewhere in this country, it is really interesting for me, particularly given the courts announcements in this decision and what you tweeted, you said quote, i graduated from university of penn, undergrad in columbia law, both used from to action to ensure admissions included a black girl from

queens, i had excellent grades, student leadership experience, and brought diversity. i added valuable schools. now i'm wondering if you could tell us a little bit about that experience, your experience in higher education and what do you think this ruling means for younger generations of students, if everybody is running around believing that we need to be colour-blind so you know, good luck. >> right, well i think most young people know that we are not color blind. that is again, the supreme court, i don't want to say they're not living in the rural world, they are but they are rejecting the real world. my experience was that, being like the only black person in a classroom at the university of pennsylvania, being the black person at columbia law school who brought a different perspective every day, i like that person, when i raise my hand in law school, everybody, all the right folks are like,

here she goes again, she's going to talk about race. and yes, i was. because we are in law school and a lot in this country was built upon racism, so that kind of diversity that i brought to the classroom, the kinds of conversations that i brought. and i know i was qualified to get in and i had to work hard to get out. and so i think affirmative action is something that is necessary for our country to move forward. if we don't have a former action, i am worried about how many black lawyers will be, have how many black doctors, how many black engineers who will be designing all of the kind of surveillance tools and a.i. and stuff. we really need to be committed to this. i think that just a sort of lawyer in the 303 creative decision actually said what needed to be said. we are not powerless. we can remain committed to the

values that are embedded in the constitution and the amendment. outside of what the court does. >> jeanne, the idea of powerlessness resonated again in another big ruling this weekend involving free speech rights and the lgbtq+ community, what are the implications you think of that case and the courts ruling particularly the fact that it was brought on hypothetical grounds, that's the part that i find the most stunning about this, this was all kind of ferryland made up, maybe in a future i may want to, maybe possibly. the court said, yeah, okay, let's go with it. >> this is an area of law where sometimes courts are going to say it is too hypothetical, you don't get to be a plaintive in this case. we see a lot of instances of that where the plaintiffs are asserting a right that maybe the court doesn't want to affirm.

oftentimes when the plaintiff is asserting the right that the court does want to affirm, they will say that it is okay, the doctrine the court uses does allow it to do that because the idea is that you are too scared to exercise your constitutional rights and you're asking the court to affirm that your constitutional rights will protect you if you do exercise them. you can understand that in some situations where say someone is trying to say, i want to speak about gay rights in teaching my class in florida, that i'm afraid to do that because the florida law that is being passed is going to stop me and i may be punished. and that kind of situation, you want to quote say yes, you can exercise your constitutional right. this is an issue that can go both ways. in a sense, they want to get from the right of this what designer to reject clients who

were having same weddings to design the websites. and the court went ahead and said, okay, you have a constitutional right not to speak. therefore, you can reject such claims. >> okay, we are going to have to digest this for a while, i know. judith brown, and jason garrison, thank you so much for -- next, former president trump's new rally cry has been pulled right from the authoritarian playbook. what he is telling his supporters and why it matters coming up next. supporters and why it matter coming up next coming up next family cookouts! [blowing] [dice roll] ♪ playing games! [party chatter] dancin in the par—! ♪

tourists tourists that turn into scientists. tourists taking photos that are analyzed by ai. so researchers can help life underwater flourish. ♪ after switching to the farmer's dog we noticed so many improvements in remi's health. his allergies were going away and he just had amazing energy. it looks like nutritious food, and it is. i'm investing in my dog's health and happiness. get started at longlivedogs.com

my most important kitchen tool? my brain. so i choose neuriva plus. unlike some others, neuriva plus is a multitasker supporting 6 key indicators of brain health. to help keep me sharp. neuriva: think bigger.

(vo) this is sadie, she's on verizon.

the network she can count on. and now she's got myplan, the game-changing new plan that lets her pick exactly what she wants and save on every perk. sadie is getting her plan ready for a big trip. travel pass, on. nice iphone. cute couple. trips don't last forever, neither does summer love. so, sadie is moving on. apple music, check! introducing myplan. get exactly what you want, only pay for what you need. switch now and get iphone 14 pro max on us. offer ends july 5th. it's your verizon. >> in just a few hours, thousands of people are expected to converge on the town of picket, south carolina for a fourth of july event headlined by none other than donald trump. we don't know what is in store for the gathering crowd, but we do know that all week the republican front runner has been testing out a disturbing new slogan as part of a stream

of disinformation about his federal indictment. >> every time the radical left marxists, communists, and fascists indict me, i consider it a great badge of courage. i'm being indicted for you. essentially, i'm being indicted view. i'm being indicted for you and i believe that you is far more than 200 million people that love our country, not the 75 million people that we have. that's what they said we got. >> no, you are being indicted for you. i'm being indicted for you, that comes right out of the authoritarian playbook. it is rhetoric that my next guest says resembles the likes of former fascist dictator mussolini who built a following by cultivating a bond with followers based on personality rather than principles or party politics. trump has made it a staple of his platform to cast his

criminal indictments as a campaign of political persecution, being waged against all of his supporters. portraying himself as the only one who can rescue them and the country from their enemies. for more on this, i'm joined by a professor of history at and what you. she's an expert on authoritarianism across the globe. author of the lucid newsletter which follows threats to democracy and she's also the author of the important book, strong men, mussolini to the president. ruth, it's good to see you again. trump's savior reddick, it is in one sense not new but it is escalating and a new study of all this, why do you think that is? >> well, because he is in more more hot water, we believe and indictment is and i'm into his -- he is not a conventional politician so unlike other

strongmen of the past, he has to be not only the savior of the nation, but the victim, the person who takes the hits for the nation. what we have seen is, what is so disturbing about this, i'm being indicted for you, i'm just in the way, they really want you is something the builds on january 6th actually. it is not enough for him to be the victim because, as, he's got 37 counts against him, other legal problems, people can say, he just has too much baggage, let's go to somebody else. to avoid that, he has to make them the target, his followers have to feel that they are in danger, that there is an accidental threat against them, not him. that is what he does, he ropes them by saying the indictment, i'm taking it for you. that can leave people to commit violence on his behalf and we already saw this on january 6th

which was a leader called rescue operation. people converged, he cemented them to rescue him in his time of distress. >> help us understand, if people actually believe that donald trump has taken one for them? they didn't hide documents in their bathrooms, they weren't involved in all of the crazy stuff that don trump is in, so why do people actually stand there and believe that donald trump is doing something for them? like when he says, if you get trump, i'm gonna pay your legal bills. no, he's not. how does that work? what is the trigger that people actually get sucked into believing that? >> that is the question of the century, the last century to. this demagoguery is a very compelling and the most successful of these guys, from mussolini who was a journalist to scone who had a victim cult,

to erdogan in turkey who cries on camera, he feels his popularity is slipping. they know how to manipulate people but the other really important thing is trump has been setting this up for years by poisoning the public mind, by turning people against all of the entities that could prosecute him, we have to remember that with authoritarians, the purpose of being power is not governing, it is to commit crimes with impunity. getting away with things. for years, he has been setting up the idea of the deep state and so, who are the targets? all people or entities who can investigate him, the press, doj, fbi, they are all enemies now. these kinds of deep's date paranoia was already part of paranoid republican narratives before trump came in. so people have been primed for years to believe this and then trump comes in and he is so charismatic, he makes it all about himself. >> so you have got trump

already indicating that he is likely going to skip the first gop primary debate, i don't think it's going. there's no incentive for him to go. the fact that he doesn't feel it is necessary to participate in his own party's debate or -- it is really telling. but when his counter programming idea is to set up his own counter programming, and you have his own conversation with these voters, what does that tell us about him and the people that you've studied who behave this way, >> what we have seen actually, it is the story, how the gop, when we have two parties, we are different in other countries and they have rules and rituals, presidential debates are part of that. in comes trump who transforms the gop into his personal tool. he puts it under this authoritarian submission, we see how kevin mccarthy behaves

as a kind of subaltern now. all of the mechanisms and rituals like debates, they don't work anymore if you are no longer part of the bipartisan democracy. what we are seeing with this, not wanting to be in the debates, it is part of this cracking up or fragmentation or disintegration of things that were built for democracy, not for and torturing cult leader. >> all, right ruth as always, thank you so much, appreciate it. right after the break, folks, protests have erupted after a -- we will have the very latest. we will have the very latest we will have the very latest

want a smarter way to mop? introducing the new swiffer powermop. an all-in-one cleaning tool with hundreds of scrubbing strips- that absorb and lock dirt away, for a mop and bucket clean in half the time. mop smarter with the new swiffer powermop. >> turning now to france where

a funeral is currently underway for a teenager who was shot and killed by police earlier this week. the incident has sparked massive unrest throughout france, particularly in the capital paris. on tuesday, police in a suburb of the city pulled over a 17 year old up north african descent. footage of the incident shows officers at the young driver's window shortly after this moment as the team starts to pull away. when the officers files into the car. the officer says that he fired his weapon because he thought the teen would run someone over. that officer is now being

charged with involuntary homicide. protests have rocked the country for the last four days. according to france's interior minister, so far some 1300 people have been arrested across the country. nbc's josh fetterman has been following this story from london. josh, give us some background on all of this and how it all unfolded and where things are standing out this morning. >> well michael, it's worth noting that this incident started the way so many of these incidents in the united states have started, with a traffic stop, with police saying according to the prosecutor that went 17 year old nail try to pull away from the police, he was abating there traffic stop, the police felt threatened. they were worried that his car could hit either them or someone else, essentially they shot him out of self-defense. that is not passing muster the prosecutor who has said that the legal requirements for the

police to discharge the weapon in a case like this were not met. that is why that police officer now facing felony trudges for voluntary homicide taking off the job as this investigation goes forward. but in the meantime, the country of france is really bracing for potentially more of violence tonight after multiple nights where they have been unable to quell these growing riots. 1300 people arrested last night, that was far more than the night before and there were nearly 80 police officers last night who were injured as part of this as well. the government, president macron is really scrambling to find ways to try to lower tensions to get people off of the streets. announcing just a few hours ago, that he is canceling a germany visit which is a big deal for him politically to try to stay in the country to deal with this escalating crisis michael. >> nbc's josh fetterman in london, thank you very, very much. we have to break, historically

third party candidates have never really panned out. a new group says they're hoping to break this cycle. next i will explain why this is a terrible idea in 2024. a terrible idea in 2024. everyone loves free stuff chuck. can we get peyton a footlong? get it before it's gone. on the subway app. i'm jonathan lawson ghere to tell you about. life insurance through the colonial penn program. if you're age 50 to 85, and looking to buy life insurance on a fixed budget, remember the three ps. what are the three ps? the three ps of life insurance on a fixed budget are price, price, and price. a price you can afford, a price that can't increase, and a price that fits your budget. i'm 54, what's my price? you can get coverage for $9.95 a month. i'm 65 and take medications. what's my price?

also $9.95 a month. i just turned 80, what's my price? $9.95 a month for you too. if you're age 50 to 85, call now about the #1 most popular whole life insurance plan available through the colonial penn program. it has an affordable rate starting at $9.95 a month. no medical exam, no health questions. your acceptance is guaranteed. and this plan has a guaranteed lifetime rate lock so your rate can never go up for any reason. so call now for free information and you'll also get this free beneficiary planner. and it's yours free just for calling. so call now for free information.

i brought in ensure max protein with 30g of protein. those who tried me felt more energy in just two weeks. uh... here i'll take that. -everyone: woo hoo! ensure max protein with 30 grams of protein, one gram of sugar. enter the nourishing moments giveaway for a chance to win $10,000. >> historically speaking, next

year's presidential election will be like any other. mainly because this is the first time the leading candidate is currently facing 71 felony charges. also because donald trump is on a very short list of former presidents who have run for not consecutive reelection bids after leaving office. we had grover cleveland who won the presidency in 1884, but lost when he ran for reelection in 1888. in 1892, he tried again and one. there was also theodore roosevelt who after leaving office of his own volition in 1908 came back to run as a third party candidate in 1912.

that split the republican vote and effectively handed the presidency to woodrow wilson. if we have learned anything from history, this third party might be able to spread this message and rile of some voters. but those efforts have never been enough to win. it usually ends with him peeling off middle of the road voters from middle of the party candidates. this cheney says that she is hoping to avoid that in 2024. >> if you were to run, would it be as a third party candidate? >> well, i'm not going to do anything that helps donald trump and i think that -- [applause] i'll make a decision about what i do and what comes next later on this year. >> one group is going to give a tried by the possibility -- and no labels is that group.

it is a political group that -- it has plans for what it calls an independent unity ticket in 2024. no labels plans to back a third party candidate in the presidential race as currently trying to gain ballot access in all 50 states. the good things that it third party ticket will detract a sizeable share of independent voters who are looking for a candidate in the political middle. they just might. but would be enough for a win? what would likely backfire? no labels on polling shows a moderate third party candidate who will pull support from biden while boosting trump. joining me now is former republican congressman joe walsh of illinois who ran against trump for the nomination 2020. also with me is former republican congressman charlie dent, two guys that i admire. they have worked with in the past, welcome to you both. charlie, right off the bat, how much of a threat or a promise do you think a third party

candidate would be in this upcoming election? >> i think an independent movement or an independent candidate would have real challenges. that's it, i think the labels is doing the country's service by keeping this option open. in the event we have another trump biden race. i believe that because most voters, the democratic side for someone other than joe biden. i think we would prefer someone of the dumb donald trump. i think the marketplace of ideas demands that there be an alternative. if republicans nominate someone other than don trump, this whole movement goes away. but independents are right, they don't have a great track record. but so many people are just a few leading from the major political parties, there may be an opportunity for an independent to actually make a difference in this race. i'm not saying they can win, but i think we are in a different time right now. we saw what happened in france with macomb. he came up the middle and defy the conventional wisdom, i'm

not saying it'll work here but listed leaves have that option on the table. >> joe, what do you make of charlie's argument and the case for no labels? there's been a lot of suspicion about money and the politics. that is kind of inside washington stuff. but your guy with your finger on the pulse across the country, how does this setup do you think in light of what you see out there? >> michael, this is a complicated -- i agree with my friend charlie in this regard. this is a different time. come on now, donald trump try to end our democracy, donald trump and trumpism is the greatest single threat to our democracy. they must be defeated. anything, michael, that takes away from defeating trump in trumpism in 2024 is wrong. no labels is wrong, a third party is wrong.

a fourth party is wrong, anybody else running, trump needs to be defeated. the only way that gets done in 2024 is if all of us again why not behind joe biden or whoever the democratic nominee is. i have zero patience, michael, for all of these ego driven money driven people like no labels who want to put their faces and their candidates are here. they do not understand the unique threat our democracy is under right now. >> charlie, how do you respond to that argument? we do hear that quite a bit. that idea of it being a unique threats that don trump represents, why would we do anything or position the election in a way that could create a pathway oil laid porto taupe who actually win? >> i got joe to the extent that look, i don't want down trump

again. i voted for joe biden in 2020, but also want to say this, joe biden ran as a transitional candidate, he was going to be a transitional candidate for the next generation of democratic leadership. that is what i interpreted. i think you're too far to the left, i think we need someone more center. if either party can come up with a more centered platform, i think this is a reason to exist. i do think that republicans denominated some one other than don trump, if donald trump is not nominated, this labels moving goes away. >> i'll tell you, if you have a trump -- if there's gonna be a demand for an alternative, that's the marketplace. i get that you don't want on trump, we agree on that, let's or -- i will vote for biden again. i don't like to be told that i have to accept that.

>> joe? >> i see you shaking your head. >> no, i say this all the time because i love charlie, i love serving with him. but no, look, we don't get to pick where the good lord places us on this earth. right now, we are here right now and we have this unique threatening donald trump. we all have to put our policy differences aside, i don't love joe biden a little bit too old for me and all the rest, none of that matters. this isn't about biden. this is similarly about stopping don trump the threat to our democracy. you need to do that is one-on-one. support the democratic nominee. that is it. >> go ahead charlie. as something won't play, but go ahead. >> but neither party should be afraid of competition. that is what this is about. they are afraid that somebody else will emerge. i don't know how this plays out, in 1992 many people on the

george w. bush campaign said that ross perot -- will actually, he heard both candidates in many respects. i think we have to be a little careful about how we assume the independent movement might affect the 2024 election. we simply don't know that right now. >> so charlie, and joe, we had a former speaker of the house paul ryan joining and -- he discussed putting forth a republican candidate that is not trump. so, take a listen to this. >> do you think you win if you nominate somebody? because you make everybody who is supporting trump a very mad. >> obviously, the 33% trump base doesn't like a person like me because i'm very clear, i don't think he is fit, i don't think he can win. but i believe strongly that if we nominate republican we win this white house. i really believe that. oh yes to do is do that. i think voters are gonna realize his baggage is so big, we are not going to win with him and there's all these other

republicans, they're fine with. >> so charlie, is that part of making your case there? >> yes, it is actually. i think some republican other than donald trump has a much better chance of beating joe biden. i wouldn't bank on it either. i don't think, we have to also be trump-ism. i think running as trump is not necessarily going to be the ticket for the republican party. also, i do think the abortion issue is also one that is a major liability for the republican party, we are going after moderate on that issue. i think paul is right, a non-trump republicans would have a much better chance of winning, but by no means is that a guarantee. >> joe, here's the problem as i see it, joe. i hear if we nominate somebody other than trump, if there is no indication, don trump is sitting at 52, 52% approval, desire among republicans. the next closest republican

challenger is at 21%. so, joe, someone who has been out there as i mentioned before, you know this party inside and out. you have been a part of it, you are now out of it. what have you learned about the people who are still there, still pushing the trump narrative. but also, those folks who are saying, if we only nominate someone else. >> paul ryan is living in law lot land, he is utterly out of touch with where the average republican voters right now. the average republican voter is with trump. this -- if someone else can be the nominee. donald trump is running away with this every time he has been indicted, his support only grows. he will be indicted another hot two times. look, the nomination is his, he's going to be the nominee and michael, if not trump, it is going to be the trumpiest

s.o.b. out there. not a guy like paul ryan, not a guy like tim scott. it's gonna be a jerk and a bully and and authoritarian because that is what the base was. and i know it sucks because i want my party back. but we don't live in that time right now. this is the party of trumpism, they are a threat to democracy, they need to be defeated. the only way you defeat them is through the democratic party right now. >> charlie, to that point, how do we get to a point where the party nominee somebody other than trump with a base who wants somebody who will be the retribution, who will be the person who is going to be on the industry fighting, throwing punches below the belt? does the sort of kumbaya morning in america coderre to filibuster --

still to a base that on somebody who's gonna go and break things and beat up people. >> not at the moment. however, i would say this, there are many republicans, i'm not saying the majority right now, but there are a lot of republicans who want somebody other than donald trump. when we say all republicans want trump, that is not true. maybe above 50% right now, but there's a lot who do not want him. my own view is that if the republican party wants to reform itself, they'll have become much more socially tolerant, the last two embrace three markets and engage on the national security and much more serious way that it has under donald trump. things it's going to have to do to attract that center-right, the center-left voter that is not winning right now, there are too many republicans defecting like me, like joe and others. the trump path will not work. now right now, he's in command, but if he wins a nomination in

2024, republicans lose the presidency again. at some points, people are gonna get tired of making -- and republicans are going to want to actually win. they did not, when jobs are to win elections, not to lose them. we've had nothing but feet since trump was elected. >> my man, charlie, joe walsh, you guys made this interesting, exciting, and fun. i appreciated the conversation very, very much. coming up, does the supreme court have an ethics problem? more and more americans seem to think so, we are taking a hard look at the high court after these getting new rulings this week. another hour of velshi starts right after this quick commercial break. don't go anywhere. uick commercial break don't go anywhere. don't go anywhere. s. tourists photographing thousands of miles of remote coral reefs. that can be analyzed by ai in real time. ♪ so researchers can identify which areas are at risk.

and help life underwater flourish. ♪