and shark sightings are up. in miami, sam brock, nbc news. >> no thank you for that. sam brock, thank you so much. that will do it for me today. "deadline: white house" starts right now. ♪♪ hi there, everybody. it is 4:00 in new york, i'm in today for nicolle wallace. special counsel jack smith and his team of investigators as you might expect have so far move with relative secrecy. there are no daily press conference, no tweets or fan fair surrounding significant developments so it does take a few trained ears to the ground and the american public's attention to recognize how unrelentless the investigation has surged forward. that is as clear as ever this afternoon. the "wall street journal" is reporting smith's team has taken growing interest and issued

subpoenas for and asked questions of some of the lawyers associated with donald trump's efforts to over turn the results of the 2020 election. among the names, some of them you probably recognize. sidney powell, for example. so central sp spending baseless accusations of voter fraud. and then emily knewmon who worked with her and mike roman and we told you last week about rudy giuliani's conversation with investigators. the result of a so-called proffer agreement. we now know that meeting actually spanned eight hours. and of particular interest, that infamous white house meeting back in december of 2020. and heated clash in which sidney powell put forward a plan to have our country's military seize voting machines all in order to rerun the election. and thanks to the committee, there is an abundance of public testimony related to that

meeting. some of the participants in their own words. >> i was asked, are you claiming that the democrats are working with hugo chavez and whoever else and at one point general flynn took out a diagram that is supposedly showed all over the world. >> at times there were people shouting at each other. throwing insults at each other. >> -- and whoever the other gal was showed nothing but contempt and disdain of the president. >> the three of them were really forcefully attacking me, eric and we were pushing back and we asking one simple question. as a general matter. where is the evidence?

>> it is impossible to tell just how close jack smith is to bringing charges for trump's efforts to over turn the election. but if he is working his way up, talking to trump's lawyers, it may indicate that he is closer than we think. turning our conversation this hour, former u.s. attorney and former deputy assistant attorney general harry litman and claire mccaskill is with us and jackie aelmany and mar a gay. it is great to have you all of you with. and jackie, i'll start with you. and let's hone in on this period. we played the january 6 interviews an the participants of that meeting at white house. listen to how those witnesses described the tone and tenure of that meeting. >> i think that it got to the point where the screaming was completely -- completely out there. i mean you have people walking in and it was late at night and

it had been a long day and what they were proposing i though you the was nuts. >> i'm going to categorically describe it as you guys are not tough enough. or maybe i put it another way. you're a bunch of [ bleep ]. excuse the expression. but i'm almost certain the word was used. >> they screamed at me that i'm a quitter and kept standing up and turning around and screaming at me and at a certain point i had it with him and i yelled back. either come over or sit your f'ing ass back down. >> this is the legal team fighting itself. to what extent did trump listen to what has been described as team crazy, people like sidney powell, rudy giuliani and mike flynn and do we have any evidence that trump acted on any of their radical proposals at the time?

>> yeah. well during the january 6 congressional investigation, we did report that some of these proposals that sidney powell and people like rudy giuliani and former new york city commissioner bernard kerik were pitching to him did ultimately make it to the oval office. there were drafts of some of the ideas and including this pitch that sidney powell described to use the military to seize voting machines. but as our sources at time and now many witnesses have said publicly, according to the january 6 committee work, these proposals never actually went anywhere. of course, it would been we could assume that jack smith's team would want to assess the full scope and extent as to how far some of the draft proposals went. who else considered them, whose other desks they reached and just how close the former president might have gone himself to trying to implement

and get some of the proposals actually rolling. we know that smith is focused on not just this meeting and but also on the fundraising pitches that claimed election fraud and as well as planned for fake electors that would swing the election to the incumbent president. giuliani and mike roman and sidney powell, all of these people could also speak to these legal tracts as well which all pose their own legal potential peril for scrutiny and raise a lot of questions as have throughout this entire investigation about where the line is drawn between political activity and legal advocacy and criminal conspiracy. >> so that is a good int po. harry, when you look at because it didn't go anywhere, doesn't mean because it was for a lack of trying. legally speaking, to jackie's point, the line between political activity and versus conspiracy or intent to do something criminal, we know after that meeting, just after

midnight, trump issued his be there, wild -- will be wild, excuse me. from a legal perspective, what exactly would jack smith need with such a testimony? how would it contribute to potential prosecution? >> yeah, great question. because it is not a direct proof of the crimes that he looks like he's going to charge, say the false electors. but it is absolutely showing what trump was up to at the time. we've seen some of this from the january 6 committee. these are the kind of final guard who are telling him what he wants to say. really as against the grown-ups. so you're absolutely right, that this is after and after midnight is when he has the infamous quote and then before powell and mike flynn and others storm into the office and pat cipollone is stupefied and runs in and that is when the meeting starts. so this is the coterie and giuliani saying that they lacked

guts, that trying very hard to do really extreme things like seizing the voting machines and the like. it doesn't matter that trump doesn't seize the voting machines and in terms of overall painting him as considering fairly crazy ideas from lawyers that have been disciplined since then. it shows at the end of the day, he's ignoring any -- any kind of grown-up knowledge and embracing any of the more crazy stuff that is what he wants to hear. >> speaking of data points or perhaps examples of evidence, let me play you this sound bite from boris epstein who spoke to i believe a couple of weeks ago spoke to jack smith. this is what he told ari back in january. take a listen. >> there is also reporting about the attempt to seat fraudulent electors, is that something you worked on or would support in michigan. >> that is so funny.

it is not fraudulent, it is alternate electors to make sure they were when as we hope the challenges to the seated electors would be heard and be successful. part of the constitution and the electoral count act. >> i was part of the process to find alternate electors. he is not admitting to the false elector plot. he may want to call it alternate facts but what else does jack smith need here to advance that there was a plot to find alternate, as boris was saying, fraudulent electors? >> nothing. you're 100% right and that is funny and it is not alternate electors, it is fraudulent electors. they are saying my state, has head me an elector and i'm for trump when the opposite has happened. so epstein has been a figure here and a very kroefl controversial one. he's been responsible for a lot of lawyers abandoning ship.

but, yeah, it seems clear from the state level and now to the sort of circle around trump, that people were very earnest about having false electors, that is just a straightforward crime of defrauding the united states and probably a wire fraud as well. i agree, that is a very good statement for them to use if they call him to the stand. >> claire, "the new york times" is reporting that another related area of interest for jack smith is trump's fundraising vehicle, the save america pac and the money it raised off of the big lie. let me show you what the january 6 committee uncovered on that front. >> claims that the election was stolen were so successful, president trump an his allies raised $250 million. nearly $100 million in the first week after the election. on november 9th, 2020, president trump created a separate entity called the safe america pac.

most of the money went to this pac not to litigation. the select committee discovered that the save america pac made millions of dollars to contributions to protrump organizations including $1 million to trump chief of staff mark meadow's charitable foundation and $1 million to the american first policy institute and an conservative organization which employed several former trump administration officials. $204,857 to the trump hotel collection and $500 million to event strategies inc., the company that ran his january 6 rally on the ellipse. >> when you look at that and the numbers are just incredible, the times reports and the records relate to payments made by the pac. and you certainly know how serious campaign finance stuff is. certainly a lot more than i do. how much trouble could rudy giuliani be in here because of that? >> well, you know, it is always an important rule and in any prosecution to follow the money. and so jack smith is doing what

i would expect him to do. he's following the money. all of it. and if it is raised under fraudulent pretenses, then it is a crime. so that is one piece of this. but frankly the thing that i find really interesting over these developments is that giuliani is sitting down for a proffer. i think my friend harry will back me up here. if you're making a proffer, in the federal system, that is a precursor to an agreement to cooperate with the prosecution and turn into a witness against targeted individuals. this is a big deal. because giuliani was in the federal system. he knows what a proffer means. and if proffer means in this instance that giuliani is willing to say what really happened, and testify against donald trump, in order to save his save his own skin, this is a turn that trump should be very worried about. and i will beat this drum again.

the only thing that bugs be about this proffer is it is occurring in june of 2023. everyone knew giuliani was at the center of this mess. way back in february and march of 2021. why did it take this long for doj to get to the heart of the matter and that is trying to turn giuliani as a witness. >> very important question. harry, just because you were name checked on that front, what do you think of claire's assessment on the proffer agreement there. >> 100%. he said oh, it was a volunteer agreement in the sense that he didn't have to. it wasn't on gunpoint. but this is him scurrying there, thinking i'm in real trouble now and i think that is the short answer. we don't know if there were overtures made before, but if there were he resisted them. and they might need him any more. they might say thanks but to thanks, we heard your evidence and we could get it from someone

else who decided to cooperate like the elections coordinator had. so he's going in saying please, but he may be too late to the table. >> mara, there is a correlation between how the former president reacted and names people and goes after them and insults them and ak thats family members to the heat that is being applied to him both criminally and perhaps even politically. and we saw that over the holiday weekend. the former president going after jack smith and posting on his social media site. the special counsel should be, quote, put out to rest. >> yeah, well one of the things that we don't yet know is the extent to which different people who are being interviewed in jack smith's investigation may be doing so to save their own skin. versus actually gaining information for donald trump. so it is interesting that donald trump hasn't actually gone after anyone in that circle this past weekend. rather going after jack smith instead. that to me suggested that he's

still holding out hope that someone like rudy giuliani might maintain some sense of loyalty to him. we'll see. and i this -- i think that rudy giuliani would save his own skin personally. but the other thing i think is that the more we learn about what was going on in these rooms where trump's team was kind of eating itself and fighting itself, and i'm not a lawyer, but as we look at the larger story of this conspiracy, it naturally begs the question to me to what extent is jack smith looking at donald trump's incitement of violence on january 6 as a means to execute this conspiracy. and that for me is one of the questions moving forward. and you have to wonder if the interviews of people who are closer and closer and closer to donald trump, if that is what we might be about to see. >> jack, micro man is a name we're learning more about.

somebody that jack smith is interested in. certainly in his investigation. we knew he repeatedly pleaded the fifth in front of the january 6 committee when asked about his conversations with rudy giuliani. what more could you tell us about that and about him? >> yeah. roman is someone who did speak with prosecutors under a similar agreement to rudy giuliani. a voluntary interview, which suggested that it was a proffer where a witness provides information, and in exchange for it not being used against them in a criminal proceeding unless jack smith's team determines that the witness was untruthful. but we do know that roman was a republican operative working with the trump campaign and was involved with the fake electors scheme. he was in touch with some of the people in the swing states, georgia, arizona, pennsylvania,

some of the states that were under contention where trump was trying to reverse president biden's victory and working to recruit these people who ultimately joined the fake slate of electors and the effort overall which i think further bolsters what we have previously reported which is that smith's team is very focused on at least one of the tracks which is this scheme of fake elector. please stay put. when we come back, new reporting from jackie. we'll get to it. it is about a phone call arizona governor doug ducey got while certifying the results of the 2020 election for joe biden. we'll tell you who was on the other line and why the special counsel could look to pick up the phone and call the governor, too. and plus the gop primary field showcasing how little they stand for. this time ron desantis believing the ome thing that matters is

who could out-maga each other. coming out with a blatantly homophobic ad where cruelty is the point. and after the supreme court closed out its year with unprecedented and sweeping changes to american life, there is any pressure on the white house to reform the court. all of those stories and more whether "deadline: white house" continues this wednesday afternoon. don't go anywhere. don't go anyw.

hi, i'm todd. i'm a veteran of 23 years. i served three overseas tours. i love to give back to the community. i offer what i can when i can. i started noticing my memory was slipping. i saw a prevagen commercial and i did some research on it. i started taking prevagen about three years ago. i feel clearer in my thoughts, my memory has improved and generally just more on point. prevagen. at stores everywhere without a prescription. we moved out of the city so our little sophie and generally just more on point. 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. when you're ready to go but static and wrinkles are like, nooooo! try bounce, it's the sheet.

less static. less wrinkles. more softness. more freshness. bounce. it's the sheet. so, look, all i wanted to do is this. i just wanted to find 11,780

votes, which is one more than we have. because we won the state and flipping the state is a great testam to our country. >> so it is the call that has become so familiar to all of us by now. that is the defeated outgoing president called georgia secretary of state brad raffensperger on january 2nd, 2021, demanding that he find 11,780 vote and change the tate's results of the 2020 election. but thanks to some new reporting from "the washington post," we're learning that trump's call to georgia may not have been the ome call that he made as he seeked to overturn his loss. according to the post, trump also tried to pressure then arizona governor doug ducey to overturn his state's election results in a phone call in late 2020. saying that if enough fraudulent votes could be found, it would overcome trump's narrow loss in arizona. according to three people familiar with that phone call. the reporting sheds new light on

the interactions between the two following the election, including this phone call, ducey ignored from the ex-president on november 30th, 2020, while he was actually in the middle of certifying president joe biden's win in the state. watch. i don't know if you caught it or not, but the ring tone there was "hail to the chief." and did he have to saved to let him know who was calling. "the washington post" also reported that trump had repeatedly asked mike pence to call ducey and ask him to find evidence of fraud. something ducey told donors earlier this year as he admitted he was surprised that special counsel jack smith's team had not inquired about his phone calls with trump and pence as

part of the justice department investigation into the former president's attempt to overturn the 2020 election. according to the donor. we are back with harry, claire, and jackie and mara. jackie, i'll start with you on this one. we knew that phone call had taken place but the efforts by trump to get him to stay in power, that has not been reported before. it is new to us. take us through more of this reporting. >> right. and it might actually be potentially new to jack smith as you just read in that graph there. this fantastic scoop from my colleagues, that ducey was surprised that smith's office had yet to contact him to ask him about the phone calls an the pressure he was feeling from former president trump about trying to reverse that shortfall of around 10,000 voters that trump lost to joe biden in arizona. but four people familiar with a call between trump and doug ducey said that trump specifically mentioned this shortfall of more than 10,000

votes and encouraged ducey to study this fraud unsubstantiated and in a range of false claims that trump would claim that he overwhelmingly won the election in the state. former vice president mike pence confirmed that some of these conversations happened over the weekend during a campaign appearance. we also have reported that trump had asked mike pence to call ducey himself and encourage him to find the evidence that he put pressure on pence to call ducey. pence did call ducey several times to discuss the election. and he did not follow trump's directions to pressure the governor, and while pence did confirm that these calls and exchanges did happen, he did -- he declined to characterize the actions as pressure. >> harry, how big is that that there was a second phone call by trump trying to influence the results of the election. i go back to our first segment when we were talking about the

data points or the examples of evidence and it is not hard to believe that he would have called arizona governor doug ducey in a same manner that he did georgia secretary of state brad raffensperger. >> and not at all. and i think it is cumulative and it goes to -- it is a little bit like raffensperger without the audio tape. but it is significant. i like to just make a few prosecutors points. first, it is significant because i think smith is definitely starting in the field in arizona and electors in nevada and tieing it to the oval office. and including, we think, proffering immunity to some of the people in the field. so it is not simply that he's going in the field with trump but that he's bringing it together. that is first. second, just to follow up on pence, i think pence and ducey really illustrates this practical challenges because trump still has a lot of sway in the republican party. pence said, oh, i didn't feel

that it was pressure. ducey didn't want to be out front and he wound up not running for the senate. there are some witnesses who are going to be -- try to be somewhat neutral. finally, just a very quick add on to jackie's point about roman and giuliani. that was preceded by roman's deputy carl michael brown coming in and testifying. that is the beautiful sort of prosecutorial dynamic people are talking about and they run in and say could i also. and that is just where smith wants them to about he. so it really speaks that he's gone to a point now where he's making the people who have been recalcitrant scared and wanting to show up. >> claire, we don't know yet or it is unclear whether the special council has spoken or contacted doug ducey, but we do know there is new reporting out of arizona that smith has subpoenaed the secretary as part of his investigation. connect the dots for us. why would that matter?

do you suspect that smith is reaching out to ducey? >> well, if he hasn't already, he will now. with this reporting. frankly, a lot of it, the jack smith investigation is really surfing off the january 6 investigation, the committee, the congressional committee which is different than normal. normally congressional committees go after federal law enforcement, not before. so, i do think he will reach out. the interesting thing to me about pence is, you know, i could sit here all day and call bill barr names when he deserved be did walk when trump started trying to steal the election. he did say i'm out of here. pence, on the other hand, this is such a reflection of his character, pence tried to humor trump. he didn't say, stop what you're doing. this is wrong. he went so far as to call dan quayle and say do you think i could overturn the election?

you know. what the h. this is not a profile in courage. pence is not a profile in courage. so i don't care what he's saying now, about the characterization of his call to ducey, the fact that he was making the call should disqualify him for any serious consideration for the presidency. >> i was going to say, i don't think he's demonstrating any courage now as he's running and trying to stand up and say i did the right thing at the right time. he can't even say that was a straight face because he hasn't distanced himself from donald trump completely. mara, with the new reporting comes out of arizona and things heating up, could we see what has happened in georgia with fani willis similarly take place in arizona? >> we absolutely could. but you know, on claire's point about the timing of this investigation, you know, there is no question that jack smith is an extremely respected prosecutor and at same time, as this wears on and on, we're talking about events that took

place over two years now, we have to ask ourselves the question, how aggressive have these investigations been, have they been aggressive enough? where are we just now finding out about this call to the arizona governor at the time when the governor is saying it is almost like, well nobody asked. so, you know, just as a layman, as a reader, as a journalist, you have to wonder is there anybody else who wants to speak. >> to come forward now. >> come forward now or speak your piece now is the time. >> there was reporting a couple of days ago to suggest that merrick garland was trying to be slow and cautious with anything to do with overturning the election just out of fear as it would seem as partisan or going after. >> exactly. >> thank you both for spending time with us. senator mccaskill and mara stick around. when we come back, politics, ron desantis trying to torpedo his own campaign yet again with a dark and bizarre new ad which people of both parties are

condemning as vile and homophobic and rightfully so. our panel is back right after this. don't go anywhere. help make trading feel effortless. and its customizable scans with social sentiment help you find and unlock opportunities in the market. e*trade from morgan stanley. with powerful, easy-to-use tools, power e*trade makes complex trading easier. react to fast-moving markets with dynamic charting and a futures ladder that lets you place, flatten, or reverse orders so you won't miss an opportunity. e*trade from morgan stanley

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. ♪

tourists tourists that turn into scientists. tourists taking photos that are analyzed by ai. so researchers can help life underwater flourish. ♪ i'm going to leave aside the strangeness of trying to prove your manhood by putting up a video that splices images of you in between oiled up shirtless body builders. and just get to the bigger issue that is on my mind, whenever i see this stuff and the policy space, which is, again, who are

you trying to help in who are you trying to make better off and what public policy problems do you get up in the morning thinking about how to solve. >> so that was transportation secretary pete buttigieg just one of the many voices on both sides quite frankly of the aisle slamming a new video released by ron desantis campaign on the last day of pride month. we should note, that has been condemned as homophobic. it is an attack ad that targeted donald trump for his support towards the lgbtq community. painting desantis as some kind of proud hero villain for the far right touting his record of stripping lgbtq rights and touting the widespread criticism he received for it with words like, dangerous, draconian, assault, proudly put on the screen. it is a ridiculous ad, not only for the music and the imagery meant to make the florida governor look more macho, but also because trump was certainly

by any stretch of the imagination, no ally to that community while he was in office. the immediate criticism desantis received from within his own party speaks for itself and that includes the log cabin republicans a prominent group representing lgbtq conservatives which called it divisive and desperate and said desantis' extreme rhetoric has just ventured into homophobic territory. claire and mara are still with us. tim, you wrote in the bulwark, the ads intented message is that unlike trump, desantis will not show any humanity to gays and will be more effective at targeting lgbtq americans by advancing the most extreme spate of anti-trans laws. he's shown us through actual legislation that he's serious

about it and the troubling thing for me, tim, is that he's trying to out right trump with his base by being more hateful, more spiteful than trump actually is. >> yeah, if you look at donald trump, you're like, man, my criticism is you've shown too much humanity to marginalized groups an that is pretty concerning about what we would think about that keep of candidate. and so, look, i agree with pete. there is some humor in this. you have the -- the i'm so tough on anti-gay, anti-trans law ad, is mixed with pictures of achilles. nobody in the desantis team has seen the song of achilles and the body builders which is an unusual combo. but the absurdity of it, to me, is really kind of overshadowed by just how disturbing it is. there is another quote that you didn't include on top of all of the other supposedly brags but as draconian laws would be

targeting the lgbtq community where he quotes a tv news reader, saying that his policies literally threaten trans existence. an this is a nod to something that some on far right have been arguing, that it is not enough to targ trans youth but that trans people shouldn't exist at all in our society and they should be targeted by laws. that is an extreme view and it is extremely dangerous and the fact that his campaign team would want to put that forward, you know, i think is extremely disquieting to me and i think for the absurdity of the ad and the fact that i don't think it is that good strategically, politically, we could talk about that too if you want, i think the most important thing is just how outside of the mainstream and how extreme that positions ron desantis as the second most likely nominee within the republican party. >> claire, you know the desantis campaign rapid response director tried to downplay the criticism by saying that opposing pride

month isn't homophobic because, and i quote, we wouldn't support a month to celebrate straight people for sexual orientation either. it is unnecessary and divisive pand orring and which is what we've heard from racists when you want to talk about celebrating black history month. we don't have a month to celebrate white history. what are these attempted to mask his homophobic really tell us about ron desantis? >> well, first of all, anybody who works toer desantis ought to be an authority on divisive pandering. you would think. and because this is what this ad tells me. there are two things that you need to become president of the united states. that are absolutely essential. you must have a burning desire to win. because it is really hard. and secondly, you must temper that with the judgment of a leader. now, the second part is where desantis is awol.

this is such bad judgment. first of all, clearly the only thing that he's trying to win is a one-on-one race against donald trump. which represents a small slice of the electorate. and in the process of trying to just grab away a few votes from donald trump, to win a primary, he's digging himself a hole so deep with the rest of america he will end up being just as unelectable as i believe donald trump is. i mean most of america loves someone who is gay, or trans, or lesbian. most of america has a loved one, they do not want these people marginalized and hated. wnd and put in ugly ads like this. nos not in step with america. this is way out of step with america. so, i think it shows what bad judgment he has. i think it is another nail in the coffin of his campaign. he is stutter started this thing

and he fails every time he tries to take a step forward. he takes two steps back. >> to claire's point, have you ever seen a campaign implode as quickly as possible by its own doing with no outside pressure. this is his own making. and to claire's point, okay, you do this, you win a few more extreme homophobic votes within your party. how in the world is that going to play out in the general election when you start winning or need to win just kind of mainstream american middle down the road voters who as claire said know one or love someone or have someone in the family that is a member of the community. >> it is hard to see. i think at the same time we have to approach this with the humility of understanding that many of us wouldn't have ever believed that someone like donald trump could get elected. so, the cynical move here, i think by desantis, is he's making a bet that there are actually more hateful people in america than we may think.

i believe he's wrong. i actually also believe that this is going to be the kind of thing that along with the scotus decisions we saw last week, actually motivated democrats and independences and some moderate republicans who is left in that party who are moderates to turn out against the republican candidate, be it donald trump or desantis. and tim's point is really important. it is so absurd, it is hateful, it is absurd, and men who are secure and confident in themselves and their own sexuality don't see equal rights of others as a threat to their own masculinity. i think it is pathetic. >> it is a very good point. everyone stick around. we have a lot plor to discuss. the party is more than just the cruelty of a ron desantis. danger rouse rhetoric coming out from not one, but the entire gop. gop.

i have moderate to severe plaque psoriasis. thanks to skyrizi, i'm on my way with clearer skin. 3 out of 4 people achieved 90% clearer skin at 4 months. 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. nothing on my skin means everything! ♪ nothing is everything ♪ ask your dermatologist about skyrizi. learn how abbvie could help you save. your record label is taking off. but so is your sound engineer. you need to hire. i need indeed. indeed you do.

indeed instant match instantly delivers quality candidates matching your job description. visit indeed.com/hire to a child, this is what conflict looks like. children in ukraine are caught in the crossfire of war, forced to flee their homes. a steady stream of refugees has been coming across all day. it's basically cold. lacking clean water and sanitation. exposed to injury, hunger. exhausted and shell shocked from what they've been through. every dollar you give can help bring a meal, a blanket, or simply hope to a child living in conflict. please call or go online to givenowtosave.org today with your gift of $10 a month, that's just $0.33 a day. we cannot forget the children in places like syria,

born in refugee camps, playing in refugee camps, thinking of the camps as home. please call or go online to givenowtosave.org today. with your gift of $10 a month, your gift can help children like ara in afghanistan, where nearly 20 years of conflict have forced the people into extreme poverty weakened and unable to hold herself up, ara was brought to a save the children's center, where she was diagnosed and treated for severe malnutrition. every dollar helps. please call or go online to givenowtosave.org today. with your gift of $10 a month, just $0.33 a day. and thanks to special government grants that are available now, every dollar you give can multiply up to ten times the impact. and when you use your credit card, you'll receive this special save the children tote bag to show you won't forget the children who are living their lives in conflict. every war is a war against children.

please give now. ♪ tourists tourists that turn into scientists. tourists taking photos that are analyzed by ai. so researchers can help life underwater flourish. ♪ i'm not comfortable are it and i'm not comfortable with the way both governor desantis and donald trump are moving our debate in this country. they're debate is trying to make this country smaller. they're trying to divide us further. and it is wrong. it is absolutely wrong. we have big, big issues to be talking about here. >> that was chris christie over the weekend joining the attacks within the party of fellow 2024 presidential candidate ron desantis over his new anti-lgbtq

video and the divisiveness of desantis and donald trump and what they have brought to our presidential politics. everyone is back with he many. tim, i have to say chris christie within the republican base is the out liar here. and he's serving a role in our politics right now and certainly within republican politics, but marjorie taylor green brought up pride month in south carolina and the folks there booed pride month. so you get a sense where the republican base is at this moment. >> you do. i mean, i think that the republican base certainly the most active republican base voters are either actively in favor of these attacks on the lgbtq community or sympathetic to it. that is not everyone in the republican party. that is important to understand. and what chris christie is trying to do is speak to a different group which i think is a minority group in the republican party. i don't expect him to win. but it is important to have somebody out there saying that and not let the entire republican party, 40, 45% of the

country go down into these hateful fever swamps because of the negative impact of having that. and i was -- i'm not a chris christie fan. talk about this last week on the show. but i have to give him props. he made the same point that you just made on the clip on fox. he went on fox and talked about in a party that is supposed to be for freedom, i don't know why governors like ron desantis and sarah huckabee-sanders should be telling parents, you know, how they should be able to raise their kids or telling -- directing teachers about what they should be able to teach in their classroom. that was hopefully a salient point for those in the republican party that still believe in freedom and don't want a authoritarian government. so i think what chris christie is saying is important and i think that for doe desantis, it is a big threat for chris christie. because for desantis to beat

trump, not only does he need to take from the maga voters but he needs to pick up the chris christie voters and if he goes so far off the deep end losing to chris christie in new hampshire, that is the end for him. and i think that is what pus him in such a perilous position in addition to the substance of his video being so heinous. >> claire, how do we get this toxicity oust of the republican party. how do we get this hate and homophobia out. because if you put this in the long list of things that happen, trump and desantis and trump said will cut money for those pushing transgender insanity, as he said. we've seen the supreme court decision last week rolling back rights for lgbtq and putting them in as second class citizens. there is a toxic culure and how does this end in the republican party. >> it is not just this issue. but if you look at what the supreme court has done, this is a huge issue for women.

but the supreme court has taken away freedom in this country. they upset the rule of precedent, in this country. with the -- with the affirmative action decision, that was 45 years of precedent. with the dobbs 50 years of prec around women's rights to control their own bodies. and this is the new republican party, and i got to tell you, i don't think the road to salvation runs through chris christie. i just don't think that's going to happen. maybe an off ramp in new jersey somewhere in a controversial town, but it really is a situation where he may be saying what needs to be said in the republican party. the problem is the republican party and the supreme court is not listening to him. >> that's a very important point. mara, final thought to you. what do democrats do? there's an argument that republicans want to drive the conversation to the cultural war issue.

they can't run on issues, they can't run on solutions, they can't run on policies. democrats have to make this choice, do they engage or do they focus on what americans care about? >> i think they have to do both. i think the democrats have for many cycles now run away from these culture war battles to their own detriment. there's nothing wrong with gaining afluency on being able to tell the american people, we proudly stand up for the rights of minorities. we are proud to be pro choice to support a woman's right to choose, and now let's talk about the issues facing you americans in your wallet with inflation in schools. and they have to be able to make that pivot, and i think republicans will continue to attack them if they can't be fluent on their own issues that they support. >> tim miller, claire mccaskill, mara gay, thank you all very much for joining us and spending

time with us this afternoon. appreciate it. up next, a somber reminder, there's more work to be done when it comes to protecting communities in america. much more after this. don't go anywhere. unities in ama much more after this don't go anywhere. wants 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.

as americans, there's one thing we can all agree on. the promise of our constitution and the hope that liberty and justice is for all people. but here's the truth. attacks on our constitutional rights, yours and mine are greater than they've ever been. the right for all to vote. reproductive rights. the rights of immigrant families. the right to equal justice for black, brown and lgbtq+ folks. the time to act to protect our rights is now. that's why i'm hoping you'll join me today in supporting the american civil liberties union. it's easy to make a difference.

just call or go online now and become an aclu guardian of liberty. all it takes is just $19 a month. only $0.63 a day. your monthly support will make you part of the movement to protect the rights of all people, including the fundamental right to vote. states are passing laws that would suppress the right to vote. we are going backwards. but the aclu can't do this important work without the support of people like you. you can help ensure liberty and justice for all and make sure that every vote is counted. so please call the aclu now or go to my aclu.org and join us. when you use your credit card, you'll receive this special we the people t-shirt and much more. to show you're a part of the movement to protect the rights guaranteed to all of us by the us constitution. we protect everyone's rights, the freedom of religion, the freedom of expression, racial justice, lgbtq rights, the rights of the disabled.

we are here for everyone. it is more important than ever to take a stand. so please join us today. because we the people means all the people, including you. so call now or go online to my aclu.org to become a guardian of liberty. 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. this country needs to re-examine its conscience and find out how to get guns out of dangerous people's hands. >> that was the mayor of philadelphia speaking after a mass shooting in his city on monday where five people were killed, two others were injured, according to the gun violence

archive. there were 17 mass shootings across the countr. baltimore, 3 people shot. shreveport, louisiana, four people fatally shot, seven injured and at least nine were injured in a drive-by shooting in the nation's capital, include two children. it comes as we mark the one-year anniversary of the fourth of july parade shooting in highland park, illinois. a new batch of neighborhoods, communities left to reckon with the scars and wounds of gun violence. we're going to continue following that story. but up next for us today, calls growing for reform of the supreme court. the next hour of "deadline white house" starts right after a quick break. don't go anywhere. s right after quick break. don't go anywhere.

you founded your kayak company because you love the ocean- not spreadsheets. you need to hire. i need indeed. indeed you do. indeed instant match instantly delivers quality candidates matching your job description. visit indeed.com/hire 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. when moderate to severe ulcerative colitis keeps flaring, put it in check with rinvoq, a once-daily pill. when uc got unpredictable, i got rapid symptom relief with rinvoq. and left bathroom urgency behind. check. when uc got in my way, i got lasting, steroid-free remission with rinvoq.

check. and when my gastro saw damage, rinvoq helped visibly repair the colon lining. check. rapid symptom relief. lasting, steroid-free remission. and a chance to visibly repair the colon lining. check. check. and check. rinvoq can lower your ability to fight infections, including tb. serious infections and blood clots, some fatal; cancers, including lymphoma and skin cancer; death, heart attack, stroke, and tears in the stomach or intestines occurred. people 50 and older with at least 1 heart disease risk factor have higher risks. don't take if allergic to rinvoq as serious reactions can occur. tell your doctor if you are or may become pregnant. put uc in check and keep it there, with rinvoq. ask your gastro about rinvoq. and learn how abbvie could help you save. sales tax. gas tax. californians pay some of the highest taxes in the nation. but now lawmakers are proposing a so-called “link tax” that would charge websites every time they link to a news article online. experts warn it could undermine the open internet,

punish local newspapers, while subsidizing hedge funds and big media corporations. so tell lawmakers: oppose ab886, because another new tax is the last thing we need. paid for by ccia.

there's more to unravel basic rights and basic decisions than any court in recent history , and that's what i meant by not normal. it's gone out of its way to, for example, take a look at overturning roe v. wade, take a look at the decision today. take a look at how it's ruled on a number of issues that have been present december for 50, 60 years sometimes. and that's what i meant by not normal. hi again, everyone. it is 5:00 in new york. i'm ayman mohyeldin in for nicolle wallace. when president biden sat down with nicolle on this program, he spoke bluntly about how the nation's highest court had become out of step with the american people.

he made those comments hours after the court struck down affirmative action in college admissions. and less than 24 hours after that, the court gave business owners license to discriminate and overturn biden's student loan relief program. it was decisions that undid precedent, and despite the abnormality of the court that biden speaks of, he's resisted embracing major reforms to it. a new piece in the "washington post" explores the renewed pressure being put on the president to do just that. in part it reads, quote, biden has harshly criticized the supreme court's sharp pivot to the right. he has stayed away from endorsing any of the broad array of reports including -- backed by core parts of his base. democrats in congress say the court is suffering a crisis of

legitimacy. in a statement, congressman don beyer said recent partisan decisions that destroyed historic protections for reproductive rights, voting rights and more have undermined public trust in the court, even as inappropriate financial relationships between justices and conservative donors raised new questions about its integrity. biden argued that pushing forward significant overhauls of the court could actually leave open the opportunity for more politicalization. listen to what he told nicolle. >> do you worry without court reform, this conservative majority is too young and too conservative, that they might do too much harm? >> i think they may do too much harm. but i think if we start the process of trying to expand the court, we're going to politicize it maybe forever. in a way that is not healthy. >> that you can't get back.

>> that you can't get back. and i think, look, i think maybe it's just the optimist in me. i think that some o. court are beginning to realize their legitimacy is being questioned in ways it hadn't been questioned in the past. >> instead, biden's plan is to come at the federal judiciary from other angles. more from the "washington post," quote, biden has had more judges confirmed to the courts than his past three predecessors. the president and his supporters often point out. they also say biden will continue to rally voters around the court's decision, pointing to the party's success in the 2022 midterms is evidence of how biden galvanized supporters. the executive director of fix the court, advocating for the openness of the court as an institution, and legal correspondent and senior editor for slate and host of the amicus

podcast ilya and basil smikle, a democratic strategist and director of the public policy program. great to have all of you with us. dahlia, i'll start with you. so much to unpack around the conversation of the supreme court and sweeping decisions that affect millions of americans and how their lives can go about. and before we get into the politics and certainly what the president was saying, let me get your thoughts on what stuck out to you the most. >> i think that we make a category error when we say that what happened last year with dobbs has no analog to this year. i think that those three rulings that happened in the last 48 hours of the term that you mentioned will e miz rate many people in many ways. last year was really bad. this year the court seems to have learned its lesson. the court is, you know, pumping,

pumping, pumping forward and getting no message including, i think, in that instance from the president that anyone has a plan to do anything about it. and so it seems to me that the fact that nobody on the court takes seriously or at least the super majority on the court takes seriously that there's anything to be done other than wring your hands slightly explains why this term in a lot of ways was as damaging as last turn. >> what do you make of the comments that biden said the court is not normal. the president saying it would politicize the court forever. i would argue the court is hyper politicized now with the decisions it is making, and secondly, as we read from the "washington post" piece, pointing to the fact that it mobilizes voters to the polls when they see this extreme court, and i make the point we had a midterm election in which democrats did fairly well as a

result of the dobbs decision , and we got three more extremes. they are not necessarily correlating between the voter turnout, into voting for democrats in congress and what supreme court does. >> i totally agree with you. i think like organize harder is only part of the solution here, and if you look at some of these seminole cases that came down in the last couple of days, you're looking at decades of organizing around student loan debt relief. you're looking at decades, if not centuries of organizing around affirmative action and trying to level the playing field. you're looking at significant, i mean, decades and decades of organizing and legislating to have clean water. and all of that with the stroke of the pen goes away, and so to say if folks just work harder, right, ohio just managed to get 700,000 signatures on the ballot to try to protect reproductive

freedom, but with the stroke of the pen, that can go away too. i think in some sense, it's not a solution to the problem to say if everybody works harder on the levers of democracy, the court becomes incidental. if there's any unifying theme, we have perfect supreme court supremacy. the justices have the power to decide anything and everything. >> gabe, your work is all about, you know, finding mixes to the court to make it more accountable. what do you think when you hear president biden make comments like he did, expanding the supreme court could lead to politicizing it. tell me a little bit more about where you see reforms that would not politicize it, but bring it more in line with where america is as a country, and certainly have more accountability over aspects of the court that are raising lots of questions about how these justices are behaving in their own spheres.

you know, ethically, financially, in the relationship between them and donors? >> yeah, i think you're making a good point there, which is they're almost two different strategies or two different camps on supreme court reform. one as dahlia mentioned, which is more structural, term limits, court expansion, mandatory retirement age, that sort of thing, but i think in the short term, you want to do things that can potentially get past invited congress or has the potential to move in 2025 when it's also going to be pretty divided, which are the basic rules following the supreme court to follow the same basic rules that members of congress and top executive branch officials follow. that's specific rules on gift acceptance and disclosure, personal hospitality, outside income, and to me it's almost like flexing a muscle. congress has this power under article one and article three to reign in all sorts of behavior

of the supreme court, strip jurisdiction, restructure it, but if they haven't been able to agree on requiring the justices to write an ethics code, which they haven't agreed to yet. at least the senate democrats will soon, then they're not going to be able to agree to sort of the larger structural reforms. personally i support term limits, others can support expansion. to me let's get the small bore stuff that brings the core in line with the other branches first, and we can build a case for more structural reforms because i think right now there's a big divide across the country as to which one makes more sense. term limits, i think, least from my perspective, would get some of the power away from the justices, which i think is in the benefit to all of us long term. >> let me get your thoughts about this, basil, politics plays a role. if it wasn't for politics, we would not have a super majority of conservatives.

the administration felt what happened to merrick garland was unjust, and they wanted to see opportunities to reform the court. they created a commission, and let me read you a little bit about the commission, which studied reform proposals, and this from the "washington post." caroline frederickson, a member of the commission and professor at georgetown law, the commission only interacted with the president once after submitting its report in december of 2022. its members were invited to the white house and met briefly with widen in the treaty room of the isaacson room. the meeting was largely an opportunity for the president to thank the members for their work, not to discuss the report or recommendations. with his history and the fact that he set up the commission in the first place, i think it indicates he's playing a bit of a longer game on the issue than people would like. we don't have a lot of time with people who are losing their rights. >> correct. >> to wait and play the long game. i'm not trying to be flippant. people ice's lives have changed

and will change day by day. hoping that 10, 15, 20 years down the line, the stars align again. >> that's true, and the point made earlier is a key one. he's saying he doesn't want to politicize the process and the court. i think we're well past that. it is a politicized court and you have been involved in politics at the state and local level, you know the pipeline, just becoming a local judge is one of the most political processes you can get into. it's also very opaque. part of what he could do is make the processes throughout the pipeline more transparent, and what was said earlier by fellow panelists, there were issues he could tackle in the short-term, if there was disagreement in the long terms. ethics support, there's enough in the short term to give the voters a sense that the needle is being moved, even if it's incrementally. i think it's important that

there's a signal for longer term, sweeping change. he's a bit of an institutionalist. if you listen to his language around the filibuster, it's not that different than what we talk about in terms of the supreme court. he's looking down the road at nondemocrats, you know, republicans taking office and what they can do going forward. he's trying to play in balance. the problem is the base is energized in terms of him doing something, so there's an eagerness. >> let me ask about it quickly. you can't legislate bad decisions from the supreme court. the supreme court gives you a bad decision, and as we saw when the democrats had the house and the senate and the white house, they still were not in. because you brought up the filibuster, they were not able to legislate protection for women's reproductive rights. >> it's an incredible challenge that he's trying to walk this balance, and it's become more and more difficult to do that. i just say this very quickly, i'm here because of affirmative action, but i'm also here

because there were many civil rights leaders and justices and lawyers in this country that believe that what was written a long time ago, what is old is knot necessarily sacrosanct, that we should be able to change, and should be able to reform, and that's what he has to show that the country, under his leadership, hopefully is moving forward. >> over the weekend, you wrote a piece about the supreme court's latest term, which you just alluded to there. the court had on balance remained largely loyal to the conservative legal product while delivering just enough compromises to quell any meaningful challenge to its power and legitimacy, that story is the one chief justice john roberts would probably like to have you tell. it is both descriptively accurate and superficial to the point of distortion. expand on that. i have been reading this postmortem analysis of the supreme court. a lot of people saying, it wasn't as bad as we thought. there were some wins for native americans. wins for the biden administration on immigration, but overall, it wasn't as

extreme as we thought it could have been. >> right. i keep characterizing this as not getting punched in the face isn't scored as a win, at least i don't score it as a win. by that metric, really the only win for progressives was allen versus milligan, section 2 of the voting rights act, preserved in an alabama gerrymander. the fact that the court decided not to do utterly dysfunctional and insane things without roots in the statute or the constitution, that was the independent state legislature doctrine, doing away with the indian child welfare act in tribal status. those aren't wins, those are status quo. to say it could have been so much worse feels like it's being spoken by someone who was abused and i think we need to reframe this question of why is the

supreme court reaching out and taking those, you know, catastrophe on wheels cases and in some instances batting them away, and we think that's a win. that's really truly the status quo while simultaneously taking away rights from lgbtq, and folks who carry massive amounts of crippling student debt. >> gabe, for people who watch the court closely, there's a tactic, which signals which kinds of case it wants to take on. he goes through a long list of decisions by the court from the ones decided last week to air and water protections to protecting labor rights and this is what he concludes by saying, making the choice for the legislature, that's exactly what this supreme court now does on a regular basis, on a range of key issues. it takes issues decided by the people's representatives and then redecides them in a manner

that pleases the conservative super majority on the bench. an elected democratic controlled congress, can write past a law, but unelected supreme court can rewrite it, confidently, brazenly, shamelessly. these are not neutral judges. these are politicians in robes. your thoughts on that. i think of how when the supreme court was considering gay rights, you know, not too long ago, clarence thomas said you should consider bringing case back perhaps under a free speech doctrine, and lo and behold, they went out, and 303 was shopped around, and you get a case about free speech that ultimately, you know, reduces rights for the lgbtq community. >> yeah, and that case itself has some pretty crazy facts. there may not have been a gay couple that wanted to have a web

site made. there's new reporting from the new republic in the "new york times," that case was pretty much made up. it still came out on the alliance defending freedom, which is the anti-lgbtq group. as all the panelists have said, you said, a dire situation where the court is taking cases where frankly, they shouldn't be taking. look, there are within the rules of the road, the ability for congress to rewrite laws or write parts of decisions. the ledbetter pay act is an example of a bad supreme court outcome that led to a rewriting of the law. we're not there yet. i really do think, and i hate to harp on this. i think the jurisdiction o. of the court is something that needs to be looked at seriously. they are supposed to be constituted as the least dangerous branch.

they're the most dangerous branch, and the idea that they can choose cases, takes four justices to choose a case, four justices can reach out from a state court, a lower court, sometimes a trial court, sometimes on the shadow docket and decide these issues that are public policy issues, right. they are public policy issues that elected representatives should be taking. i think that's something that frankly democrats, i mean, dahlia has been speaking about it obviously, now and in our columns, but democrats generally haven't been speaking enough about this idea that the supreme court should not be the be all and end all in our constitutional order. there is a role for reducing the types of cases they hear and for rehearing them and re-airing them in various ways. i think that's definitely a movement i would like to see pick up in the coming weeks and months. >> as some people have pointed out, the supreme court is the supreme authority in the country. please stick around, we've got a lot more to discuss.

something to tell you about, and a special bonus of the beat with ari melber, reads justice ketanji brown's dissent to the supreme court affirmative action ruling. you can listen to the powerful words. coming up next, a far reaching ruling by a trump appointed judge that bars the biden administration from contacting social media companies, believe it or not, even if officials are trying to fight dangerous disinformation. we're going to talk about that. plus, donald trump's alleged coconspirator, his valet, walt nauta is due in court tomorrow for his arraignment. we're going to look at the state of the classified documents case. and later in the program, stunning new details on the january 6th rioter arrested near the home of former president barack obama last week. how right wing conspiracy theories drew him to the nation's capital. "deadline white house" continues after a quick break. so don't go anywhere. e house" cs after a quick break. so don't go anywhere elly clarks, 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 ♪

- this is our premium platinum coverage map and this is consumer cellular's map. - i don't see the difference, do you? - well, that one's purple. - [announcer] get the exact same coverage as the nation's leading carrier. starting at $20. consumer cellular. hey all, so i just downloaded the experian app because i wanted to check my fico® score, but it does so much more. this thing shows you your fico® score, you can get your credit card recommendations, and it shows you ways to save money. do so much more than get your fico® score. download the experian app now.

hi, i'm lauren, i lost 67 pounds do so much more than get your fico® score. in 12 months on golo. golo and the release has been phenomenal in my life. it's all natural. it's not something that gives you the jitters. it makes you go through your days with energy, and you're not tired anymore, and your anxiety, everything is gone. it's definitely worth trying. it is an amazing product.

in a shocking decision issued over the july 4th holiday, a trump-appointed judge in louisiana barred the biden administration from contacting social media companies on a wide array of critical topics. the judge going so far as to call the administration's efforts to combat covid misinformation and other forms of misinformation online quote orwellian and accusing the government of engaging in a massive effort to suppress conservative speech. the doj saying it was evaluating its next steps, adding quote the administration has promoted responsible actions to protect public health, safety and

security, when confronted by challenges like a deadly pandemic and foreign attacks on our elections. our consistent view remains that social media platforms have a critical responsibility to take account of the effects their platforms are having on the american people, but make independent choices about the information they present. let's bring into the conversation "new york times" technology correspondent mike isaac, and former fbi counter intelligence agent, pete struk. basil is also still with us. >> it's a landmark ruling. as the white house notes, there's extensive communications with tech companies, and, you know, different presidential administrations over the years, and a lot of it is, you know, pretty routine, just in sort of sometimes the administration might reach out and say we're trying to get ahold on these accounts that are spreading

terrorist messages or we're trying to figure out something about accounts that have sort of involved in child sex trafficking or things like that. there have been a lot of communication and participation over the years. that said, i think there is agency in these tech companies, and they can decide to deny requests when the administration asks for a take down or something, so i think that ruling sort of overlooks a lot of the back and forth and not always sort of cooperation between the two sides, but if that is completely shut off. it changes the dynamic, frankly these companies can't keep their eye everywhere all the time, especially as they're laying off folks in silicon valley right now. >> mike brings up a good point, and that is about the national security consequences here. i'm curious to get your thoughts on it. could it hamstring the government if they're trying to have national security threats

posted on its platform. it's something i saw firsthand overseas as a foreign correspondent, how twitter was used and all kinds of other social media platforms were used in the radicalization of lone wolves here in the united states. >> that's a great question because, look, the order is interesting in a couple of ways. it carves out areas if there's criminal activity going on, foreign disinformation or a national security matter. those are sorts of things that the judge said the government may communicate with social media companies about. but at the same time, the judge went to great lengths, you know, went on and on in terms almost approaching conspiracy theories about the deep state. naming people within the fbi by name, who are involved in specifically foreign disinformation. naming people in dhs, naming people formally at the white house who were engaged in specifically, countering foreign disinformation. on the one hand saying this is a carve out to do this legitimately, at the same time, he's naming folks that really

are doing only those things that he has specified are okay to do. i think at the end of the day, there is a balancing test here, and on the one hand, none of us want the government dictating what social media companies may or may not allow users to post. at the same time, there are clear places where the government should be interacting with social media companies and others, as you point out, certainly in the national security arena. there are times when the government has information that they absolutely should be able to communicate to the social media companies. >> mike, here are some of the posts and communications flagged by the plaintiffs as being sensor. this is from the white house director of digital strategy to facebook. i will be the first to acknowledge that borderline content offers no easy solutions but we want to know that you are trying. we want to know how we can help. and we want to know that you're not playing a shell game with us when we ask you what is going on here. here's another one. this is a statement from surgeon

general vivek murthy on health information saying we expect more from our technology companies. we are asking them to cooperate or operate with greater transparency and accountability. we are asking them to monitor information more closely. we are asking them to consistently take action against misinformation super spreaders on their platforms. does that sound like coercion? >> no, i think, look, i think pete made a great point in that this is all a real balancing act for the tech companies and, you know, the government, i think, is probably going to take some asks over time that, you know, the tech companies have to essentially weigh if they're overreaching or not, and it's been a kind of dance and ongoing discussion for a long period of time, and sometimes, especially in the old days of twitter pre-elon, there would be a lot of pushback saying we think this is reasonable or it doesn't break our terms of service that

there are not outright national security issues or things that are pretty clearly breaking either the law or the terms of service, and, you know, i think last year, over the last year when these twitter files sort of started getting dumped and elon musk had journalists come in and kind of selectively show communications that ended up in this court case, it probably made it look a little bit more nefarious and cooperative than i think it actually is, and over the past ten plus years of these communications going on between the private sector and the public sector, it's really a dance, and that dance is hard, and i think the tech companies have been -- gotten it right sometimes, and not right at other times. >> it's learning in the process. there's an irony here, basil, that you've got republicans who are kind of crying foul and saying that we're being censored and conservative voices are being censored and censorship is what social media giants are

doing, when in reality, you have republicans leading the crusade against banning books or to ban books, in our public school systems and trying to censure conversations in schools. >> you know what, it actually ties to something we discussed in an earlier segment because one of the things i learned in civics class rightly or wrongly is the judiciary is not proactive, it's reactive. it takes somebody to go to the judge, go to the court to get them to act, but it does seem they're being very intentional about the cases they choose and the language that they use to affect all of these very key aspects of our lives in a way that's very specific in terms of changing behavior, changing attitude, and making sure that certain voices or most voices on the left are not able to get into the conversation. and that's really challenging, particularly when you think about how this case was brought. it was about challenging the veracity of statements made

about vaccines. if there is no public health emergency where the government can lean in, if there's no threat to our democracy where the government can lean in, then what's really left? that's the existential challenge. >> i'm thinking about our election integrity, two years from now, somebody out there tweeting an election site has to shut down or shut down and people read it on twitter, you know what, that polling center is closed, i'm not going to the polls, and realize it's false information. >> and very quickly, the judge says the white house is being orwellian, is it more orwellian than january 6th rioters trying to overtake our government. >> mike isaac, basil smikle, thank you so much for standing time with us this afternoon. peter stick around, we're going to talk to you a little after the break. an incredible detail about a former aide's about the president's recklessness around classified information. that's next. s recklessness arou classified information that's next.

(pensive music) (footsteps crunching) (pensive music) (birds tweeting) (pensive music) (broom sweeping) - [narrator] one in five children worldwide are faced with the reality of living without food. no family dinners, no special treats, no full bellies. all around the world, parents are struggling to feed their children. toddlers are suffering from acute malnutrition, which stunts their growth. kids are forced to drop out of school so they can help support their families. covid, conflict, inflation and climate have ignited the worst famine in our lifetime. and we're fed up. fed up with the fact that hunger robs children

of their childhood. fed up with the lack of progress. fed up with the injustice. help us brighten the lives of children all over the world by visiting getfedupnow.org. for as little as $10 a month, you can join save the children as we support children and families in desperate need of our help. now is the time to get fed up and give back. when you join the cause, your $10 monthly donation can help communities in need of life-saving treatments and nutrients, prevent children from dropping out of school. support our work with communities and governments to help children go from short-term surviving to long-term thriving. and now thanks to special government grants, every dollar you give before december 31st can multiply up to 10 times the impact. that means more food, water, medicine and help for kids around the world. you'll also receive a free tote bag to share your support for children in need. childhood without food is unimaginable.

get fed up. call us now or visit getfedupnow.org today. - the will states that mr. marbles will receive everything he needs in perpetuity. thanks to autoship from chewy. - i always love that old man. - and he gets the summer house. - what? - [narrator] save more on what they love and never run out with autoship from chewy.

is it plausible trump was showing classified documents to people in private meetings? >> the short answer is yes. i watched him show documents to people at mar-a-lago on the dining room patio, so he has no respect for classified information, never did. to be showing it to people who haven't gone through the extreme vetting that you go through to get a clearance, it's, you know, a disservice to the country but it also puts people if danger potentially. >> that was stephanie gresham,

former press secretary in donald trump's white house. saying she personally witnessed him showing off classified documents at mar-a-lago. it is another detail in what is now a long record of trump flouting the norms around how our country's most sensitive national security information is and was handled. the ex-president has pleaded not guilty to 37 counts. while he was arraigned in federal court last month, walt nauta, the codefendant and personal aide to trump has yet to be arraigned. his arraignment was initially delayed because nauta had not been able to secure a lawyer, admitted to the federal florida district where he and trump were charged. as of last week, nauta did not have proper counsel. his next arraignment is set for tomorrow. joining us at the table, dave aaronberg. peter strzok is still with us.

talk about the comments here, how do they fit into the larger pattern of trump's carelessness with classified and sensitive information now that you have somebody who's coming out and saying what she saw? >> yeah, well, unfortunately it's not surprising. what we have in front of us is a pattern of behavior, of mishandling classified information. it goes all the way back to the beginning days of his presidency, whether it's what stephanie grisham described at the balcony at mar-a-lago, whether it's the meeting about trump disclosing highly classified investigation to sergey lavrov and russian ambassador kislyak in the same meeting where he bragged that he fired jim comey, tweeting satellite images of a failed iranian missile test, trump routinely mishandled classified information. as the president he had broad authority to handle it however recklessly he wanted to.

it was certainly damaging to national security when he did so. but what's clear is the moment he was no longer president, a, he no longer had authority to have that classified information, and, b, certainly didn't have the authority to share it with anyone. and in fact, if he did, that constituted a federal crime. what's important is we see this pattern of behavior of an absolute disrespect for the national security of the united states, for the national security professionals that gather intelligence on a day in, day out basis, and for all of those people around the world who literally put their lives in the hands of intelligence officers of the united states to provide this information. trump doesn't care. and this is yet another example of his absolute disregard of the law. >> disregard of the law, and disrespectful to our national security, but what does this mean for the special counsel to hear somebody like stephanie grisham come out and say she witnessed what she witnessed? >> peter made a good point. it matters if it involved documents after he left the

presidency. while he was president, i don't think the special counsel is going to mess around with that because he had broad authority to declassify documents. he didn't have a standing order, an mind track to declassify, but he would be able to explain it to a jury. jack smith and the special counsel, they don't want to mess around with gray area. they want to get it where they got the goods and that is after he left the white house, especially with that recording when he admits on the recording that he knew he could not declassify documents anymore, and the documents he had were not declassified. that's the power in that recording, and that's why he's being prosecuted. >> let's take about walt nauta, he's supposed to be arraigned tomorrow. what's the significance of the delay? is it unusual for him -- first of all, tell us why you need to have local counsel, and is it unusual not to be able to have local counsel in a high profile case like this? >> in federal court, you have to have a lawyer who's admitted into the local district in the southern district of florida.

it's easy to find, and the judge could even allow someone what's called pro, temporarily be his lawyer. walt nauta is going to delay it again. right now, 24 hours in advance of his hearing tomorrow, he still doesn't have a local lawyer. i think it's ridiculous, and i think the magistrate should put his feet to the fire, and say we're going to appoint you to a public defendant or you're going to represent yourself, or we're going to take your out of state lawyer, and allow him to enter your plea of not guilty right now. we're not going to push this further any longer. >> speaking of delay, when you put all of these issues together, because as i understand it, you know, tomorrow was supposed to be the day which trump would have to respond to the special counsel: his request to move the trial to december. so when you add all of these delays up, are we starting to see what many are worried about, this prolonging or delay? >> yeah, jack smith doesn't have the luxury of time.

it's a tight deadline. i'm skeptical if he's going to have the trial before the election. it's trump's interest to get it past the election, where he thinks he'll be president or another republican can pardon him or order the doj to drop it all. bod line is walt nauta could get a lawyer if he wanted to. he had time to buy cheese steaks with donald trump in philadelphia. he has time to go to the rallies and get a lawyer in new york. >> thank you so much for coming up to new york. always a pleasure. peter strzok, greatly appreciate you spending time with us this afternoon. after the break, a direct and serious threat to the public, federal prosecutors are sounding the alarm about a january 6th rioter who was arrested near the home of the obamas with 200 guns and 400 rounds of ammunition. stay with us. f ammunition stay with us

(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.

every shot is an opportunity. and success requires drive, resilience, - wow. - get it there. and sometimes luck. but what if luck had less to do with it? what if we had the tools to help us practice smarter, the insights to gain an edge, and the data to inform our strategy?

taking our games from that... to this. yes sir. kpmg performance insights are transforming the game for the entire lpga tour. a january 6th rioter who was arrested near the home of former president and first lady barack and michelle obama is a direct and serious threat to the public. a new 26 page court filing from the department of justice contains details about 37-year-old taylor taranto who was arrested last week in the obama's neighborhood, and who faces four misdemeanor charges related to his involvement in the january 6th insurrection. prosecutors noted that when police searched his vehicle, they found two guns, hundreds of rounds of ammunition, and a machete. according to the filing, quote, on june 29th, former president donald trump posted what he claimed was the address of former president barack obama on

the social media platform truth social. taranto used his truth social account to repost the address on telegram. taranto then stated we got these losers surrounded, see you in hell podestas and obamas. joining us is ryan reilly, dave aaronberg is still with us. tell us what the justice department is alleges about taranto, and how serious all of this is. >> what's sort of odd about this case is frankly he was identified two years ago almost in august of 2021 by online sleuths. the way this actually came about is online sleuths found a facial recognition hit that showed him on his county gop web site where he was the webmaster posing with a card board cutout of donald trump. he was sued by the widow of an officer who served on january 6th and died by suicide shortly thereafter. along with another defendant in the lawsuit, david wallace kaufman, who was charged, pleaded guilty and a couple of

weeks ago was sentenced. a couple of weeks ago in court, i saw taylor taranto walk into the back of the sentencing. he was on his phone. he got spoken to by the u.s. marshals there. you're not supposed to have your phone in court. he had a little confrontation with them, eventually left and walked off. he has been living this a van down by the d.c. jail for a long time, and that has been publicly available on social media posts. i have been following his social media as well as a lot of the online sleuths, and it's been clear he has been around here, and believes these crazy conspiracy things, and, in fact, was kicked out or, you know, distanced from the january 6th supporters who gathered by the jail because his ideas were so sort of out there. he tried to show a video of the death of ashli babbitt, he doesn't believe that ashley -- ashli babbitt died that day. right now, the hearing wrapped up and the federal magistrate is not going to issue a ruling

tonight on whether he'll detain this individual, but the problem is that they only charged him initially with the misdemeanors, so the standard for holding him in pretrial detention is a little bit higher than if he were charged with felonies. >> according to taranto's wife he came to d.c. in response to speaker of the house kevin mccarthy's offer to produce january 6th video. since that time, taranto has consistently appeared at a location near the d.c. jail that january 6th supporters call freedom corner, protested at various other locations, spoken and been interviewed about his participation on january 6th, and consistently live streamed and posted videos espousing numerous conspiracy theories. this sounds like someone who bought into a lot of the january 6th revisionism that we see. it's a lesson in that what happened on january 6th continues to affect our country in profound ways. >> words of consequences, this guy is one of trump's many foot soldiers. they believe they're carrying

out the orders of their boss. these folks are loners and losers, and lunatics. remember the body builder who lived in a van and sent pipe bombs to trump's enemies. the ironic thing is this, if he ever showed up at donald trump's door at mar-a-lago, trump would release the hounds. the loyalty here is a one-way street. >> that's a good point. >> the filing also says that taranto live streamed himself on you tube last month, projecting a january 6th film in a gymnasium piney branch, maryland and stated that he chose the elementary school due to its proximity to congressman raskin's home, and he is targeting raskin because he's one of the guys that hates january 6th people or more like trump supporters. what can you tell us about this episode, and just, i mean, what we know about it? >> yeah, there's been really disturbing material, including that live stream, and you know, like this post, he basically, you know, follows the instructions that he sees, and takes action that he believes is

warranted based on what he's seeing online. after donald trump, for example, posted that message on truth social that includes the obamas address, he went down a rabbit hole and posted a bunch of things and found something online because he believed there were tunnels connecting the to other homes in the area. it's whatever he sees he'll follow. it's one of those things where it's just someone who's following what he hears online and he's willing to believe some sort of crazy, out there things. i talked to the county gop. this was two years ago when i talked to the county gop guy who was in new toronto and said toronto had some issues with ptsd. this ongoing issue and sort of difficult for prosecutors to deal with. it is surprising to me it took this long for these charges and in fact, it took him showing up in the obama's home before charges were brought forward here. just given the fact he was so readily available and that he

continued to come to d.c. on this regular basis and show up on freedom corner and was flagged by anti fascist protestors. it should have been on their radar. >> ripe brought up an interesting point. when you're dealing with free speech versus public threat, how do you thread that needle? between a guy put out a lot of dangerous stuff going to homes of officials and not just talking about violence, but when you say we got these losers surrounded. how do you thread that needle. >> there's a statute that makes it a crime to threaten a former president. you have broad first amendment rights but you can't issue threats and here, he was already being looked at for other crimes. the four misdemeanors involving his participation in january 6th. i think to answer ryan's question the reason it took so long to arrest him, he didn't have a stable address.

he was essentially homeless. he could have flown under the radar at that point but he started to live stream himself making threats and that's when it got the scrutiny of federal officials and eventually, they arrested him. expect more charges to come. >> scary thought when you think of how close he was able to get to these homes. thank you so much. great to see you. ryan riley, thank you for your reporting. we'll be right back after this. your reporting. we'll be right back after this e that. i started cosentyx®. five years clear. real people with psoriasis look and feel better with cosentyx. don't use if you're allergic to cosentyx. before starting get checked for tuberculosis. an increased risk of infection, some serious and a lowered ability to fight them may occur. tell your doctor about an infection or symptoms or if you had a vaccine or plan to. tell your doctor if your crohn's disease symptoms develop or worsen. serious allergic reaction may occur. best move i've ever made. ask your dermatologist about cosentyx®.

my name is tonya, i am 42. as mother of nine kids, i think i waited this long to get botox® cosmetic because i take like no time for myself.

my kids are sports kids. we're always running from one activity to another. i'm still tonya, and i got botox® cosmetic, and this is like the first thing i've done for me in a really, really long time. my life is still crazy, it's just as full as it was before. just with less lines. botox® cosmetic is fda approved to temporarily make frown lines, crow's feet, and forehead lines look better. the effects of botox® cosmetic may spread hours to weeks after injection causing serious symptoms. alert your doctor right away, as difficulty swallowing, speaking, breathing, eye problems, or muscle weakness may be a sign of a life-threatening condition. do not receive botox® cosmetic if you have a skin infection. side effects may include allergic reactions, injection site pain, headache, eyebrow, eyelid drooping, and eyelid swelling. tell your doctor about your medical history. muscle or nerve conditions, and medications including botulinum toxins. as these may increase the risk of serious side effects. see for yourself at botoxcosmetic.com

efforts of home to bring home "the wall street journal" reporter who had been detained on what the u.s. has called bogus investigations of espionage. the kremlin saying they are open to a potential prisoner swap while insisting discussions should continue quote in total silence. earlier this week, he met with the u.s. ambassador to the russia for second time since the first time he was in prison. tomorrow will mark its 100th day in custody. a quick break. we'll be right back. ay in custody a quick break. we'll be right back. because it stinks. ♪have you tried downy rinse and refresh♪ it helps remove odors 3x better than detergent alone. it worked guys! ♪yeahhhh♪ downy rinse and refresh.

as someone living with type 2 diabetes, i want to keep it real and talk about some risks. with type 2 diabetes you have up to 4 times greater risk of stroke, heart attack, or death. even at your a1c goal, you're still at risk ...which if ignored could bring you here... ...may put you in one of those... ...or even worse. too much? that's the point. get real about your risks and do something about it. talk to your health care provider about ways to lower your risk of stroke, heart attack, or death. learn more at getrealaboutdiabetes.com

♪ limu 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. ♪ (inspirational music)

- [narrator] wounded warrior project helps post-9/11 veterans realize what's possible. with generous community support. - aaron, how you doing buddy? - [narrator] we bring warriors together and empower them to become stronger inside and out. - it's possible to begin healing - to get the help you need. - to find peace. - [narrator] and as each warrior's needs evolve, so do we. because these last 20 years are just the beginning. thank you for letting us

into your homes during these extraordinary times. the beat starts now. >> thanks a lot. welcome to the beat. we have a lot to get to here coming right out of the july fourth holidays. i hope you had a great one. jack smith is making news. it may be a holiday week but they're clearly working. new subpoenas in the coup plot probe. new developments as well in the sleeper documents case and i have a thought for you tonight about the supreme court and what it means to celebrate independence day and whether they helped or hurt our unity as we think about diversity and that affirmative action case. more on that by the end of the program tonight. we begin though with a moment that has what we call pathos, emotion, humiliation in politics. i don't say that because we want to focus on the tawdry or tabloid. if you watch this program, you may know it's not really what we focus on. but this is a moment where the