we moved out of the city so our little sophie could appreciate nature. but then he got us t-mobile home internet. i was just trying to improve our signal, so some of the trees had to go. i might've taken it a step too far. (chainsaw revs) (tree crashes) (chainsaw continues) (daughter screams) let's pretend for a second that you didn't let down your entire family. what would that reality look like? well i guess i would've gotten us xfinity... and we'd have a better view. do you need mulch? ♪ ♪ ♪ what, we have a ton of mulch.

>> good morning. it is sunday, july 2nd. i am michael steele filling in for my good friend ali velshi. donald trump's third presidential campaign is unlike any other presidential campaign in american history. as that twice indicted, twice impeached former president waits to see what other legal

troubles might be coming his way over the next few months, he's used his campaign rallies to air out his grievances, and rather than focus his efforts on his legal defense and actually trying to find a lawyer who is going to represent him, he's chosen to litigate his case on the campaign trail instead. yesterday, trump made a stop in pickens, south carolina, a small sleepy town near the blue ridge mountains that has a population of about 3000. he was supposedly there to campaign, but mainly, he was there to complain. a former president spent roughly 90 minutes on stage, spewing out disinformation about his legal predicament, and vowing to take revenge against those he considers his political enemies. >> when i get back in office, i will appoint a real special prosecutor to investigate every detail of the biden crime family of corruption. [applause] [crowd chanting] so incredible.

but once they do what they did to me and to you, by doing what they did, so corrupt, from that standpoint, what they've done is so horrible. so i would speak differently than i would have three weeks ago. because you never heard me use this kind of language. out of respect for our country, and for the office, we really have no chance. these people are sick. they are sick people. >> that's it. this is it. this has become the central reason of donald trump's third presidential bid. he doesn't hold campaign rallies to explain his policy positions or how he is going to make the lives of americans better. oh, no, no, no. he's just trying to convince his supporters that together, and they are facing political persecution, and that he's the only one who can rescue them from that imaginary threat he is trying to convince them actually exists. joining me now is nbc news correspondent, my man, bond hilliard, who was in south carolina yesterday for trump's

rally. vaughn, what was your take on that event? i always love your insights, my friend. >> michael, it is good to be with. you look, i think it's important that we set up a backdrop of where the event was. south carolina, the home of tim scott, nikki haley. when donald trump mentioned those two candidates from the stage, it's more like he mentioned the names of second cousins, because there was just muted response from the crowd, not sharing, not clapping, though, it's almost as if they were unfamiliar with those two names. the one individual that did get a heck of a response, michael, was south carolina senator lindsey graham, who i want to let everybody see a bit of a south on footage that i shot, because when lindsey graham, before donald trump took the stage, he was one of the key speakers. and for about 37 seconds, the crowd was booing. and then it kept going and going. and then i pulled out my phone. take a listen. >> welcome to pickens -- >> beau -- boo! >> thank you all for coming.

thank you very much. >> boo! >> thank you all -- [laughter] thank you all for coming. [inaudible] [bleep] >> boo! boo! >> michael, it literally went the entirety of lindsey graham's speech. i asked one gentleman in the crowd, why is everybody booing so much? because i got 12 reasons and more. what do you want to go with? look, that lindsey graham donald trump romance seems to not have an ending. this was the latest chapter. you go back to the night of january 6th, 2021, lindsey graham, if anybody forgot, his remarks on the senate floor that night, quote, trump and i, we had a hell of a journey. i hate to end it this way. oh, my god, i hate it.

he's been a consequential president. but today, i think you will see, all i can say is count me out. enough is enough. well, fast forward two and a half years, it took us to south carolina yesterday afternoon, and he was right there back up on stage endorsing donald trump, lindsey graham, and it despite doing whatever it takes to have the former president's back, south carolinians still don't quite have his. >> nbc's vaughn hillyard who's just put a shot in my morning coffee, thank you so much, my friend, appreciate you. with me now is jennifer or. she's the former republican party chair in new hampshire, a former rnc executive committee member, and host of a podcast, is it just me, or have you all lost our minds? also joining us is former u.s. attorney barbara mcquade. barb is a professor at the university of michigan law school, co-host of the sisters in law podcast and an msnbc legal analyst. welcome to you both. barb, i'm gonna start with you. trump's defense, rather, the

defenses that he's put out there regarding that classified documents, it keeps changing. to me, it kind of gives the feeling that he's trying to throw something to see what will stick. you know, when you look at what he said in that recording at bedminster, it's like, dude, it's your own take, right? he said, oh, it is just bravado, i wasn't really serious. this shifting of his defenses here, what do you make of that? and what does it mean potentially for the prosecutors, or the prosecution in this case? >> well, in some ways he seems to be crowd sourcing his defenses, michael. as you said throwing out some different ideas he wants ditched. but what is so damaging about it at the end of the day all of those defenses and all of the statements can be used against him in trial. it's the reasons that lawyers usually tell their clients to keep quiet while a case is spending so they can figure out what the best strategy is at the time of trial. so, all of these different defenses and evolving defenses can be used against donald trump at trial.

prosecutors call those shifting stories, consciousness of guilt. if what you are saying is true, then why did it take you three, four, five different versions to get their? so, i can imagine prosecutors are taking note of these defenses, gathering up those recordings, and play them for the jury in trial. >> jennifer, between the unsealed federal indictment of trump and that recently uncovered recordings from but minister of trump, showing classified documents, the people without the proper clearance in bedminster, there's a lot of that they're about trump's misconduct. do you see any of this moving the needle away from trump politically or is the more we, his base in particular finds out, the more they are, like this is my man? >> it's very much the latter, michael, the more they find out, the more they feel like, this is our guy. wow, look at what a hard person he is. look how tough, how strong he is. the most recent poll i saw just

in the last 24 hours show trump with over 50% of support from republican primary voters. that is an extraordinary under the circumstances. but that is what we are going to see. you know, i saw one of your tweets last night michael, about the language that trump uses with his supporters. they are coming after me so they can get to you. you know, they are indicting maybe cause, you know, it's the same way as indicting you. making his supporters believe that they are the target. he's protecting them by taking all the incoming, and somehow, donald trump is protecting all of these aggrieved victimized people and his audience. and you made the comment that, you know, it's total bs. it is bs, but it's very, very effective. and we see that in his numbers. and we see that in effect, people like kevin mccarthy, you know, as soon as even the softest criticism of donald trump has been hurt, they immediately turn around and

back down. trump, as far as winning the nomination, trump is right where he wants to be. >> barr, on that point, trump's former white house press secretary stephanie grisham was on with my colleague alex witt yesterday. and she had something interesting to say about how trump treated classified documents. >> you know donald trump, is it blob of trump was showing classified documents to people in private meetings? >> the answer is yes. i watch him show documents to people at mar-a-lago on the dining room patio. so, he has no respect for classified information, never did. i just want to say to your viewers, i don't think people understand how hard it is to get your classified permissions. i remember when i was going through it to get mine, i was held up because of a 13 dollar kinder care bill that i did not know about. so, i couldn't be --

>> what! >> they go through everything about it, and it's very difficult to get a security clearance. and i think people, you know, they missed that in the weeds obviously. but showing it to people who have gone through the extreme vetting to get a clearance is a disservice to the country but it also in dangerous people potentially. >> barr, having had a secular security clearance myself, i know what she's talking about, it is not an easy thing to get. what is your reaction to what she has to say there? >> i agree. i also had a security clearance as a federal prosecutor. not only is it difficult to get, michael, but the other thing about it is there is a reason for that. and when you get one you are trained repeatedly on how important it is to keep these things secret. you get annual training. you get briefings. you get reminders. you sign policies. you sign documents. you say, i understand it's a crime to disclose this material. and so, everyone who has access to classified material

understands how important it is to safeguard those secrets. and there's a reason for it. classified information is defined at the top secret level as information, the disclosure of which would cause extremely grave damage to the national security of the united states. you know, these are not the kinds of things for which people discuss overclassification, which is maybe a debate we can have about some things at the margins. but that sequence that are alleged in the trump indictment are things like nuclear programs, military capabilities, vulnerabilities of the united states and our allies and response plans. this is our playbook that risks damage to our ability to defend ourselves from foreign aggression. and, so the idea of just throwing this stuff around, storing it backstage in a bathroom is incredibly dangerous to our national security. is incredib>> jennifer horn ana mcquade, please stay with me. we have a lot more to discuss. coming up right after this quick commercial break. ak detergent alone. see?

this one looks brand new. saves me money? i'm starting to like downy. downy saves loads. hi, i'm tony hawk, and like many of you, i take a statin i'm sto reduce cholesterol, but statins can also deplete coq10 levels. that's why my doctor recommended qunol coq10. qunol has the number one cardiologist recommended form of coq10. qunol. the brand i trust.

permission to dig in? granted. >> i'm back now is jennifer, breyers carbsmart is so rich, so creamy, it tastes totally off-limits. but with only 4 grams of net carbs in every delicious serving, you've got the green light. better starts with breyers.

former chair of the new hampshire republican party and a former rnc executive committee member. and barbara, former u.s. attorney in michigan and an msnbc legal analyst. so, jennifer, i had a great conversation yesterday with ruth about trump's rhetoric regarding, you know, federal law enforcement agencies. this is what she had to say. >> 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, the authoritarians, the purpose of being in power is not governing, it's to commit crimes with impunity, getting away with things. so, for years, he's been setting up the idea of the deep state. so, where the targets? all people or entities that can investigate him, the press, doj, fbi, they're all enemies now. >> jennifer, what is your

response to that and the fact that trump's rally yesterday, supporters seemed to cheer every negative thing he had to say about the fbi, doj, and institutions like that. >> well, first and most importantly, it's incredibly dangerous. and it really undermines democracy when you have that many americans, that large percentage of americans who are putting their support behind a candidate who is building his candidacy, disinformation and, you know, conspiracy theories, excuse me, and this effort to protect himself from prosecution for crimes that he has clearly committed. you know, we talk about the tape over and over again, there is no question that donald trump should have been indicted. so, you know, to have, you know, that 33% that is his on movable support, and now, beyond that, over 50% of the voters in a

major political party in this country put their support behind somebody who wants to demonize law and order, who wants to demonize the institutions that protect democracy in our country, and enforce the idea that no american is above the law. that's a very very dangerous. and, you know, to kind of extended beyond what she said, he hasn't just been spending, you know, several years, you know, trying to demonize the institutions and create this deep state narrative with his supporters, he has spent his entire life growing the experience of using this kind of language, this, you know, the idea that whatever something goes wrong, he's the perfect, one he's being targeted, he's, you know, he's been doing this his whole life. he is a very good at it. it is genuinely putting democracy and stability in

america at risk. >> you know, these agencies, you are a product, you have been a part of this community for a long time, you have served admirably and well with your colleagues. how do they hear this kind of rhetoric? how do they react to it? how does federal law enforcement agencies inside the room, away from the cameras, respond or maybe are responding to this type of hits that are coming from a former president? >> well, i think if you're an individual who is a federal prosecutor, an fbi agent, you take pride in having thick skin and not letting this stuff get to you. but i think they're also very wary of the kinds of threats this creates, after the mar-a-lago incident when donald trump accuse the fbi of planting evidence, one of those shifting defenses, we saw a man in cincinnati go to the local field office with an assault

weapon. he ended up being killed in a standoff with the fbi. all of these things demonizing nancy pelosi, it resulted in someone breaking into home with a hammer and seriously injuring her husband. we had the man who was the pipe bomber who said pipe bombs to democratic party leaders and members of the media. many people will hear these things and roll their eyes, other people will hear as part of a rallying cry about the deep state. but there are unhinged individuals out there who will target people in law enforcement as a result of this. i also fear, michael, that in addition to these high-profile incidents, it has a slow erosion on the trustworthiness of fbi agents when they testify in court, in ordinary cases, and when they knock on the door looking for witness to crimes. it is harming our national security and the rule of law. >> that last point is very very important. how these individuals go about doing their jobs, their everyday jobs. it matters. jennifer, i have about a minute

left, i want to put your gop party chair had on for a moment. we have the gop primary coming up, the bait coming up, this august, trump said, i'm not gonna do that, no need for these to participate. may actually hold a competing rally. what do you think of this move? the wisdom of a, the impact it could potentially have on the standing of the other candidates with trump not on the stage with them? >> well, you know, i'll kind of go beyond that question really quickly. it'll have no standing, it will have no impact on the standing of donald trump in the race. it will, not in any way, undermine or, you know, defeat his numbers in any way. i think it really, well, i think of hands of doing this, it will demean the other candidates on the stage, unfortunately. it will take attention away from the debate, the debate, you know, viewership will be lower than what it might otherwise be. somebody like governor christie

who has been so aggressive and so assertive in trying to expose donald trump and highlight just how dangerous and dishonest he is. it becomes a lot less impactful, a lot less effective when he's not able to speak directly to donald trump. of course, donald trump knows that. he understands that. that's why he saying this. now, on the flip side, being on the stage and really engaging these candidates, fighting with them, it could benefit donald trump. you know, and you can see his numbers go even higher than they are right now. i don't know what he'll actually do in the time comes, if he does hold this alternative and, it won't be because he doesn't want the attention of being onstage, it will be because he doesn't want to have to confront the questions that will come from the moderators or something like chris christie. the other candidates don't scare him? you know, whether they like their, not hate to be the want to say it, you know, tim scott, nikki haley, those candidates don't scare him at all. he doesn't want to have to go face to face with chris christie if he doesn't have to.

>> yeah, i think that's the button on that one. jennifer horn and barbara mcquade, thank you both very much. coming, up a new bombshell report from the senate homeland security committee shows just how badly u.s. intelligence ignored warnings that an attack was heading for the capitol on january 6th. i'll speak with the senator who was the author of that report, democrat -- of michigan. of michigan. up at 2:00am again? tonight, try pure zzzs all night. unlike other sleep aids, our extended release melatonin helps you sleep longer. and longer. zzzquil pure zzzs all night. fall asleep. stay asleep.

♪ tourists tourists that turn into scientists. 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. >> a damning new report from and help life underwater flourish. ♪ senate democrats is giving us the new window into the case, the cascade of security and intelligence failures that set the stage for the deadly capitol riot on january 6th. the new report titled planned in plain sight details how the fbi, homeland security department, and other federal agencies ignored, downplayed, and failed to communicate crucial threats of violence in

the run up to the riot. the report points to specific threats of violence and clear plans for an attack, citing evidence like internal emails, documents, and post on social media and message boards, like this message posted on the social media platform on january 2nd, 2021, two days before the attack. quote, this is not a rally and it is no longer a protest. this is a final stand where we are drawing the red line at capitol hill, don't be surprised if we take the hashtag capitol. joining me now is the chair of the senate homeland security, homeland security committee, and author of this bombshell report, senator gary peters, the democrat of michigan, welcome, senators. so, as they say, what happened? i mean, it almost reminds you of the, you know, the classic movie scene where all these agencies, police agencies, federal agencies, they don't talk to each other, everyone has their territory. what was the breakdown from the

intelligence going on here? what was that about? how did that happen? how did the officials not see this coming? where they focusing on the wrong thing? what was happening here? >> well, you know, i think it's important to realize they actually had a lot of information, a lot of intelligence is coming in. probably the most striking thing. despite getting all that information in tips, the fbi, for example, based on our investigations, they showed they had a tipster that said the proud boys or intent to kill someone at that event. there were all sorts of tips coming in. yet, repeatedly, what we saw it was the fbi and homeland security rna department said, well, we don't know if these threats are credible. never rose to the level of the incredible. it was really a failure of imagination to realize this could really be an attack. so, they basically completely misjudged this threat and never put out and a kind of formal intelligence reports.

in fact, there were only two informal reports that were put out by the fbi. they did that the night before on january 5th, they also had a disclaimer saying this is run televisions, don't alter your plans and anyway. this could go badly. it was not a formal report, homeland security department put out no formal reports whatsoever despite getting this information. in fact, what was really striking to me was just looking, and we say, in plain sight, we have all this open media sources that show something was gonna go, on it wasn't gonna be a normal, peaceful type of protest. but even the emails we saw from homeland security, the rna analysis area, they were looking, at the same time that people were actually scaling the walls of the capitol, they were debating back and forth, should we classify this as a credible threat? it's unbelievable. >> yeah, the report points to a few different explanations, including claims that criticism

of federal surveillance tactics doing racial justice protests in 2020 could have contributed to this failure. quote, homeland security's office of intelligence and analysis mistakes during racial justice demonstrations in 2020, during which the agency was criticized for over collecting intelligence on american citizens, it resulted in a pendulum swing after which analysts wear than hesitant to report an open source intelligence, they were seeing in the lead up to january 6th. what is your take on that? talk to us more about that piece. >> well, that's what we heard, as the reasoning for, it they were just very very cautious. i think the expression, pendulum swing, this is a pretty extreme pendulum swing when you have all of this information coming in from open sources, you have tipsters reaching out to the fbi and others with some very concerning information about what's happening.

and then, not to put out any kind of report, law enforcement prior to that, it defies explanation, in my mind. clearly, it was a big failure. the other thing that was certainly very evident in our investigation is that oftentimes these agencies all point the finger at each other, at the other agency. well, it wasn't as, it was them, they should've done this. there wasn't clear lines of authority as to who was responsible for reporting and assessing this massive amount of information that was coming in, either from open sources or from tipsters and other types of ways which our intelligence agencies collect information. so, i don't buy that explanation, that's what they give. but clearly this was a major failure. in fact, you know, what's troubling is a lot of what happened here is very similar to what we saw after 9/11 as well. agencies are pointing fingers, there wasn't coordination. we form the department of homeland security to deal with that.

clearly we have a lot more work to do. it hasn't fixed the problem. >> really appreciate that analysis and time he brought to us. michigan senator, gary peters, thank you very much. coming up, the supreme court dealt a major blow to lgbtq americans based on a purely hypothetical situation. more on this bizarre case and the dangerous precedent it sets. ent it sets ♪nothing is everything♪ i'm celebrating my clearer skin... my way. with skyrizi, 3 out of 4 people achieved 90% clearer skin at 4 months. in another study, most people had 90% clearer skin, even at 5 years. and skyrizi is just 4 doses a year, after 2 starter doses. 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. thanks to clearer skin with skyrizi -

this is my moment. there's nothing on my skin and that means everything! ♪nothing is everything♪ now's the time. ask your doctor about skyrizi, the #1 dermatologist-prescribed biologic in psoriasis. learn how abbvie could help you save.

♪ ♪ ♪♪ voltaren. the joy of movement. ♪♪ wayfair has nice prices so you can have thenice things.ment. hah! kelly clarkson, we have a kid... and harold. wayfair's got just what you need...

performance fabrics, stains don't stand a chance. no chance! -woo! dog friendly and wallet friendly... pug-proved. get nice things with nice prices at wayfair. ♪ wayfair, you've got just what i need ♪ >> we are following breaking news this morning out of baltimore where at least two people have been killed and 28 more injured overnight after a mass shooting at a holiday block party. an 18-year-old woman was pronounced dead at the scene, and shortly after, a 20 year old man was declared dead at a local hospital. three people are currently in critical condition and several others have been treated at local hospitals with varying degrees of injury from gunshot wounds. the shooting took place at a baltimore brooklyn holmes neighborhood, the gunman has not yet been apprehended by

police. this morning, my colleague, katie phang, spoke with the baltimore mayor, brendan scott, about the tragedy. he is now calling on the public to help get the shooter into custody. >> someone out there knows, we want everyone who is out there, someone knows who did, this i don't know if it is the parents, the brother, the wife, the girlfriend of those who are responsible, we need you to say something. we need you to treat this as if someone had taken the life of your son, your daughter, your father, your brother, we need you to do that, step up and do the right thing. to those who carried out the act, we will find you, we will bring you to justice. >> this is a developing story and will continue to bring you updates as we get them. we will be right back. l be right back.

(bobby) my store and my design business? we're exploding. but my old internet,

was not letting me run the show. so, we switched to verizon business internet. they have business grade internet, nationwide. (vo) make the switch. it's your business. it's your verizon. >> the supreme court closed out

its term this way, delivering three decisions that will change the course of american society. and in all three cases the court was split 6 to 3, further highlighting the intensity logical divide between the nine justices currently serving on the bench. one of those cases concerns a christian web designer named lori smith who was planning to one day maybe perhaps, i don't know, possibly open up her business to designing wedding websites. let's be clear, she had not done so yet. but when she someday makes those hypothetical wedding websites, she wants the right to refuse service to gay couples on religious grounds. in her case, to the supreme court, she cited one example of a potential client, a man named stewart, who is requesting a wedding site for himself and someone named mike. smith's lawyers allege stewards requests came just one day after she filed her initial suit back in 2016.

and on friday, the supreme court sided with smith. here's where the story takes a nod turn. this past week, as the supreme court was deciding the case, reporter, melissa jared grant with the new republic, gave seward a call to confirm his side of the story. it turns out militias call was the very first time stewart had heard of the case or lori smith. in fact, stewart is already married to a woman. stuart told melissa, quote, i wouldn't want anyone to make a wedding website, i'm married, i have a child, i am not really sure where that came from. somebody is using false information in the supreme court filing document. so, this case was based purely on the imagination of a would-be christian web designer. there was no injured party involved. the supreme court still ruled in favor of the web designer. now, colorado's

antidiscrimination law is toast, making it easier for religious conservatives to outwardly discriminate against gay people. joining me now is the reporter who broke the story for the new republic, melissa jared grant, also joining us is neil, the man of the week, former actor u.s. solicitor general, msnbc legal analyst, and this term, he argued and won the landmark -- before the supreme court. welcome to you both. melissa, i'm gonna start with you, i just want you to tell us more about what unfolded after you discovered that stewart, who is listed in the case, was not actually a gay man in this is search of a wedding website. a wild case. thank you for having me on to talk about it. i was actually anxious that after friday people would have moved on entirely. stuart hasn't moved on, we've been texting throughout the weekend. you know what i called him last week, i fully expected him to say, oh god, here's another

reporter coming to intrude into my life because of this inquiry that somebody fabricated. it didn't seem genuine. i wasn't sure. that's why i called him. even before i came across this inquiry and the court filings, the case, as you mentioned, was already built on affection. this was the issue that had never happened. this was a person who was offering a product or service. it seems to have been brought by lines of any freedom, which is the nationalist lgbtq law project. they seem to have brought this solely to advance the arguments they had made to create an opening for any antidiscrimination protections for queer and trans people to just be demolished. they were successful in doing that on affection. i just happened to find the most concrete evidence of affection. >> you also noted in your article the stewart, he allege needing a website designed for himself.

it is in fact a web designer. this is what he does. what other interesting details did you find out that makes the story feel so questionable from the very beginning? >> stuart was a really nice guy. i mean, i call a lot of strangers over the course of my job, he is by far one of the most pleasant wants to be called to given the severity of the information. just to give him credit for that, he may be and one of the strangest situations i think a person can find themselves in. you are now included in this landmark supreme court case that you didn't know about until three days ago. you know, he did say that he had heard of the case last december, not at all anything that was going to happen to him, but because he said what designer, it was in conversation. this is a pretty small community. they were sharing the case in the context of, wow, our industry is now being implicated in what could be an anti lgbtq decision. we need to think about how this

impacts us. he even voted, no one asked this woman to make a website. stewart wouldn't say, this but i'll say this. this woman's website don't really lead me to believe, her pass websites, that a web designer would hire her. you know? there was a certain level of a suspension of disbelief you'd have to believe in that it what designer in san francisco would hire what decided from colorado that's never make this product. stewart pointed this out to me as well. it doesn't stand up. why on earth would he even make this inquiry? if he were to make this, why would he include his own personal information? we spent a lot of time just puzzling this out on the phone. i'm grateful for him having such a, you know, good-natured response to the whole thing, to be honest. >> that's the key thing here for me in this case. no one asked her to design a website for a gay couple.

in fact, now we know the individual she's referring to is having approached her is not guy, is married. again, had not asked, or even if he weren't those other things, had not asked her to design a website for him, because he's a website designer. this case reeks of the thing that should be concerning to all of us, and that is the consequences of the case, of the supreme court taking hypothetical cases, and drawn constitutional law from it. what's your take? >> first of all, hats off to melissa formation reporting. this shoe level reporting is exactly what we need more of. really, it's an amazing story on the other hand, our founders an article three so you have to have an actual case or controversy in order to go to the united states supreme court and seek relief.

here, or it's a fake case according to the story. it never, there is no controversy. this person never wanted to be involved in this in any way shape or form. what i think this means is the attorney general should be going back to the united states supreme court now, it's a tragedy that they did by this information out before, but there is a procedure to seek re-here rain, and to get this decision struck in from the books. i think that's what should happen here. you know, the current chief justice and the controversy requirements. for the most important of reasons, otherwise, the u.s. supreme court can be drawn into any number of controversies that are illegal cases. you know, just imaginary fights between people. that's not what the courts about. >> a little secret, that's part of the plan. , melissa, thank you so much for being with us. you are not going anywhere. we've got more for you, coming

up. we're going to be right back after this quick break, with more conversation with neil. ation with neil. with skyrizi to treat my skin and joints, i'm getting into my groove. ♪(uplifting music)♪ along with significantly clearer skin... skyrizi helps me move with less joint pain, stiffness, swelling, and fatigue. and is just 4 doses a year, after 2 starter doses. skyrizi attaches to and reduces a source of excess inflammation that can lead to skin and joint symptoms. with skyrizi 90% clearer skin and less joint pain are possible. 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. thanks to skyrizi, there's nothing like clearer skin and better movement... and that means everything. ♪nothing is everything♪ now's the time to ask your doctor about skyrizi.

learn how abbvie could help you save. ♪ ♪ ♪♪

voltaren. the joy of movement. ♪♪ our heritage is ingrained in our skin. and even when we metamorphosize into our new evolved form, we carry that spirit with us. because you can take alfa romeo out of italy. but you best believe, you can't take the italy out of an alfa romeo. back with me now to continue

our discussion about the supreme court's busiest week. a former u.s. tech retiree general, also an msn legal analyst. he argued and won the landmark

case before the supreme court this term. so neil, i want to pick up on the point that you made before we went to break. i think it's an important one, and probably a little delicate as you know. this idea that not just supreme court, but any court akin and hearing a hypothetical case. how often is that done, and i guess if it has the kind of impact that this particular case had, is this something that the supreme court should review. how is that process play out? >> it's not supposed to ever be done. the supreme court has a procedure to seek we hear, rain so to say supreme court, hey, there's a new fact that submerged, and we need you to revisit your ruling, that's possible. the supreme court can also, on its, don't ask for a briefing on this question on whether this ace is made up. conservatives are defending the

decision saying that roe versus wade, roe wasn't made at the decision. and that's different. roe was pregnant at the time of the filing of the complaint. so she was having the exact problem that she was trying to remedy because she was pregnant. here, this web designer has never once done a web site for a lgbt couple. it's the exact opposite situation. is totally hypothetical. i think the colorado tornillo general should consider bringing every hearing petition for the u.s. supreme court. >> so nuance in that point, now that you have this president, precedent, that's been set in the supreme court has ruled on it, how likely are we to see the custom tailored cases making their way up to the justices? >> well i'm sure people will try, but you know, i think the u.s. supreme court polices islam because once you start going down the road of

imaginary cases, there is no logical stopping point. that's one of the reasons our founders insisted on such a strict acquirement of there being an actual case, an actual controversy before going to the u.s. supreme court. >> i want to shift to the other big issue that's before the court, ethics. it's propublica has broken some reporting about justice clarence thomas, and samuel alito, except in these luxury items, these big trips for real estate tycoons, and billionaires. why do you think the chief justice, john roberts, should be doing at this point? and the process of assessing that, does it look like he's lost control of his court on this issue? >> yeah. sorry, michael, i'm here to talk about the case. i can't get into that stuff. no, i'm not an ethicist, among other things. that's above and different than my pay grade. >> fair point.

i mean, i had to try. it's a fair point. the senate judiciary committee also released a statement before the recess saying that when the committee returns, they will markup supreme court legislation saying, quote, we hope that before that time, chief justice roberts will take the lead to bring supreme court ethics in line with all of the federal judges. but if the court won't act, then congress must. more given what you just said about the limits of how you will assess these things, broadly speaking, is this an area that congress should begin to take a greater interest in? >> yeah, again it's not something i can talk about. sorry. >> jordan sweet. no, i hear it. i hear you, brother. i appreciate that very much. here for the cases. let me ask you one more about the cases. then when you look at the array of cases, particularly for example, the affirmative action case. what signals does that say,

does that send, to those who are now trying to find a way to access these opportunities given the new limitations that have been put in place by the supreme court, by appealing a performative action. >> the affirmative action case, speaking personally, are really troubling to me. i think diversity is such an important thing. the supreme court had recognized it for literally 50 years, michael, starting with the greater case in 1978. now the u.s. supreme court is cut back on it. there is a silver lining about the chief justice's opinion that totally close the door on affirmative action in the last two paragraphs, saying that colleges and universities can consider an individual applicants essays, and if she or he says race matters, and here's how we're going to bring to the campus because of my race, that can be considered a proper affirmative action program. expect universities to move towards that.

i also expect them to use things like social economic disadvantage and look to that as a criteria. it won't be the same regime, certainly, as before, but i think universities do have some options available to them. i think the bigger question looming around the supreme court right now is our legal system is based on precedent. on the idea that there is a wisdom to what pass generations and jurist have decided the constitution means. this supreme court seems quite comfortable and throwing out some of the most major precedents, whether it's roe v. wade, whether it's, you know, the decisions that have upheld the voting rights act. you know, now, decisions about affirmative action which had signed on to by a number of justices including those appointed by republican presidents in the past. >> we're going to leave it there because we're out of time. i appreciate you, brothe