>> reporting for us, thank you very much. that is going to do it for me "deadline: white house" starts right now. hi there, everyone. it's 4:00 in the east. it is practically a statement of fact at this point that when it comes to donald trump, he tries to do exactly whatever it is he says he will do, that he will take any lever of power at his disposal to turn a threat or pledge made or twitter or on the stump into action. the latest example of this, new evidence showing that donald trump, while he was president pushed to get the irs to investigate fbi officials pete strzok and lisa page who were repeatedly and notoriously by the end targets of donald trump's wrath. from "the new york times" brand-new reporting on this evidence. john kelly who served as donald trump's second chief of white house staff said in a sworn

statement that trump had the irs and other federal agencies investigate two federal officials involved into the case of his campaign ties to russia. quote, president trump questioned whether investigations by the internal revenue service or other federal agencies should be undertaken into mr. strzok or ms. page. i do not know of mr. trump ordering such an investigation. it appeared, however, that he wanted to see mr. strzok and ms. page investigated. kelly's statement was filed thursday in connection with lawsuits, lawsuits we have covered on this program, brought by mr. strzok who was the lead russia investigation and lisa page against the justice department for violating their privacy rights. that's when the trump administration made public text messages between them. like so much of what we now know about the trump presidency, this revelation was found, where do

you think? in notes taken by one of his own staffers, likely sitting in front of the resolute desk, listening to him rant. "the times" reports this, quote, mr. kelly said his recollection of trump's comments to him was based on notes he had taken at the time in 2018. mr. kelly provided copies of his notes to lawyers for one of the fbi officials who made the sworn statement public in a court filing. the news also raises new and important questions about something that is potentially illegal. illegal conduct on the part of the ex-president that we're just learning about now. "the new york times" reports this, quote, in the aftermath of richard nixon's presidency, congress made it illegal for a president to, quote, directly or indirectly order an irs investigation or audit. evidence of the potential illegal pressure campaign by the former ex-president is where we begin today. "new york times" washington correspondent mike schmidt is here. the reporting we read from is his. joining us, former senator

claire mccaskill and former justice department prosecutor and former senior member robert mueller special counsel investigation andrew weissmann is with us. mike schmidt, take us through your new reporting. >> well, what our reporting shows is that john kelly was willing to go under oath to attest to what he saw, knew and learned about when he was trump's chief of staff. in november of last year kelly told us in an interview that he had witnessed trump talking about investigating comey, mccabe, strzok and page. this was significant because at the time we knew comey and mccabe had been the subjects of highly unusual and invasive audits. at the time, kelly was saying, look, this is something trump wanted to do. we were never able to connect

trump's desires to the fact that these were -- these audits and -- were conducted on comey mccabe, but what happened was is that strzok's lawyers saw what kelly had said and as part of their litigation were able to get him to sign a sworn statement in which he says, yes, trump did discuss this about strzok and page and i had contemporaneous notes to back up what i'm saying. one of these conversations happened in february of 2018. >> mike, take us through how it is that we're just learning about this today. >> well, we're learning about it because strzok and page are still fighting against the justice department in this lawsuit. they're trying to get the ability to depose donald trump under oath about what role he may have played in their firings, the firing of strzok or

the disclosure of their text messages. the judge in the case has said they can do that, but the justice department is still fighting that. this filing came out in the course of that. kelly says that he never acted on what trump wanted, but this was trump's desire. and it's just another example and sort of the -- this pile of stuff where trump was trying in any way possible to harness the powers of the federal government for his political ends and his political errands. this was him trying to use the law enforcement and investigative powers of the executive branch against his enemies. in the case of kelly, he's saying, look, trump certainly entertained this idea and it was something he wanted. >> and, mike, there's a difference between using the justice department against his enemies, which he also did with great relish, in the same pattern he would tweet something

and then we would find out doj moved pretty close to doing exactly what he wanted. the irs is different. it's actually illegal. is there any effort to refer potential illegalities or any potential investigation under way into trump's either -- it says directly or indirectly ordering investigation is illegal. >> the only thing we know about this is that after we reported last summer that comey and mccabe had been the subjects of these unusual and invasive audits that there was an inspector general's investigation that looked into how comey and mccabe were selected. and the inspector general, this is a random -- supposed to be a random selection said that they thought that the selection of them had been random. they were essentially able to recreate how they were picked. now, some democrats that were briefed on that inspector general's review were skeptical of it, but i don't know of anything else that the democrats

have done either in the house or the senate to look further into this. the inspector general's review looked into the narrow question of how these individuals were selected and sort of cleared the irs and raised some other questions. it was a very confusing report that came out, but it seemed to clear the agency of wrongdoing and how that was done. but we don't know what else anyone else looked at in regards to this. >> andrew weissmann, let me bring you in on this. let me actually ask you a two-part question because i know you shared with our producers that trump's efforts to weaponize the federal government against anyone that was investigating russia reached you. i mean, explain what happened with your background check. >> well, when i read in mike's reporting, i looked at the filing that was made in the lawsuit that is referenced, in other words, the lawsuit where

pete strzok and lisa page are suing for violations of the privacy act. there are sort of two ways in which there are improper uses of the justice department. there is the one that you talked about, which is this idea of sort of siccing the irs on political enemies, which is also a criminal offense, if can be proved. the other thing that is -- that was in the notes that john kelly had was this idea of pulling security clearances. this is something that got a lot of attention in the middle of 2018. john brennan was the victim of that. there was discussion of many other people, including lisa page and pete strzok and many others. that just struck me as incredibly close to home because while i was serving on director mueller's team and it was in the middle of august, the exact time that the news was breaking, i

was subjected to a really unusual re-up of my clearance. the way clearances work is they last for five years. at the end of five years, usually six or seven when the fbi gets around to it, there's a reup of your security clearance. well, in the middle of the mueller investigation, only two to three years into my clearance. and it's way before it was up, i was subjected to a re-examination by the fbi, which i remember at the time being incredibly suspicious. so, when i saw mike's reporting and those contemporaneous notes is seemed pretty clear how to connect those dots in terms of why i was subjected to that. i also want to make it clear that what i was subjected to, while it's indicative of exactly mike's reporting, it is by no means comparable in terms of the harm that pete and lisa suffered

and jim. so, i want to make sure people understand i'm not saying my situation is comparable in terms of harm. >> but i think it's important, we talk about these issues as if there's any open question. there is no open question. trump weaponized the government and he tweeted about it ahead of time during and after. he's a candidate now. we talk a lot about asymmetry. we are learning from notes collecting dust in general john kelly's -- wherever he kept his stuff in the white house for years. this is someone barrelling toward the republican tion. what are your concerns about how much we don't know about not just weaponization of the federal government but things that may have been illegal acts?

>> there is so much blame to go around here. one, i'm sure claire will talk about, you know, congress andle house and the irony of the house conducting weaponization hearings when, as you said, it's blatant what the former president did and what he's asking to do as soon as he regains the white house if he were to do so. by the same token there are people like john kelly who needed to come forward and many others who were witness to these horrific acts. it's way too little, way too late for people like him and bill barr and others who were witnesses at the time to both illegal and improper acts. and i guess the big picture is, even if there was not a criminal statute that said you cannot use selective prosecution in connection with the irs, this is where -- this is what it means

to be a subserve antd. the reason for the department of justice to be separate, even though you legally are part of the executive and the reason that you have a president now who understands restraint that is required to be in a democracy and you have someone running for office who is the former president who had a complete absence of restraint with the most dictatorial qualities. if that is someone we do not know, someone who is witness to that has to speak up now. it shouldn't require the bravery of lisa page, pete strzok to try to ferret this out through drips and drabs. >> claire, i say this with admiration and sympathy for all that the democrats have on their plate, but the house republicans have a fake weaponization of government committee. it is fake. it is meant to be like sand in

it the gears for everything that even house republicans for all their love of donald trump is coming down the way for donald down at mar-a-lago. the democrats control the senate. why isn't there a committee investigating -- yes, kelly has information, but who does he give it to if not subpoenaed to testify? what else is in his notes? why aren't there senate investigations into jared kushner's business deals when he left the white house? i imagine a lot of people have a lot of notes about things jared kushner said and did while he was in the white house. why isn't there an effort to haul out anyone who might have heard donald trump talk about using any branch of government against strzok, page, mccabe, comey? he is not just a candidate for president now, but he's someone who corrupted large swaths of the federal government and i'm not sure we've ever had a full accounting for all the damage he did. >> you know, it's hard for me to descend the senate in this

instance, but i do want to start my byte here by saying, i double dare kevin mccarthy to use the committee he set up to do what he actually said they were going to do. all kevin mccarthy has to do is subpoena or even ask to come and testify general kelly. listen, i know general kelly. i worked with general kelly when i was on the armed services committee. i worked with him the first two years in the trump administration when i was the ranking member on the homeland security committee and he ran homeland security. this is an honest man. clearly conflicted about the chain of command and loyalty to the man he worked for, that he felt like he had an obligation to show. i don't want to defend him either. i think he should have come fwarpd sooner. i think he still could. i think he could give all of his notes to the chairman of the homeland committee. that chairman should also call him as a witness.

there should be hearings. part of the problem in the senate is there is not a single oversight committee like there is in the house. they haven't formed a special committee in the senate like they have in the house. so, there has to be a meeting. there's a weekly meeting of the chairman of all the committee. and i would urge them at that breakfast this week, for them -- or that lunch this week to sit down and talk about what committees can do cooperatively to get to the bottom of not just what trump did to weaponize the irs and doj, but also all of the business dealings of the trump family. they cannot stand back and watch the house be this irresponsible without bringing the facts in front of the american people. >> claire, put the house aside for a moment. they are from the beginning, the middle and the end a clown car, but they do serve the purpose of muddying the waters on right-wing media. the senate and the democrats have actual facts. they have in kelly someone with

actual notes, an eyewitness who, i'll let mike disagree with me if i have wrong, but i have not seen any unwillingness to respond to subpoenas from his part. why don't an oversight committee formed yet? why wasn't it formed the day trump cleared out of washington? >> probably -- you know, it may even boil down to some mundane considerations that the current chairman think they should be allow to handle this. the problem is, no one is doing it in a comprehensive way. they sit back and let the j6 committee and the house do a lot of the heavy lifting here. but now it is time with the house firmly in control by the crazy caucus. you know, when you have the far fringes in control of one whole body of the legislature, the other body has to step up. and i -- there needs to be -- by senators why they are not working harder to get to the bottom of these facts that are

every day coming out of more and more -- i'd really like to know about the billions of dollars jared kushner got. i'd like to know that. i'd like to know. i'd like to know about munchin and what deals he got in saudi arabia especially when the guy is in position to be the republican nominee for president. >> mike schmidt, if subpoenaed, tell us a little bit about how general kelly came to part with these handwritten contemporaneous notes. is he someone who would respond to a subpoena if subpoenaed by senate democrats? >> so, i spent a fair amount of time trying to understand general kelly in the year or two after trump left office. i wrote this sort of mini biography of him that i added onto the paperback of my book. and in doing that, i came to

appreciate and understand sort of kelly's view of things. which is, look, if i was asked, my guess is he would respond to any lawful subpoena or any question. he's not someone that wants to go out there and write a book. he's not someone that wants a lot of attention. but if asked questions, would answer them and would answer them honestly. john kelly is the guy who wanted to go, when he was asked to am before mueller's investigation, told the white house counsel at the time that he didn't need a lawyer because he was just going to go in and tell the truth. he's just sort of matter of fact in that way and not really -- you know, not a political calculator like a lot of people in washington. i think the thing so interesting about the irs and trump is that in trump's four years there were -- you know, he tried to use the powers of the government. he tried to harness them in different ways. i saw them fall into two

different buckets. one is one we spent a lot of time on, was obstructive. that was trying to throw sand in the gears of investigations, trying to shield himself from investigations, make it more difficult, you know, make -- you know, put false information out there to hurt investigations. the other bucket i always found more insignificant, more insidious and harder to uncover was the proactive uses of the federal government against his enemies. was trying it use the power of government offensively. not defensively. offensively to go after other people. as a journalist, not a lawyer, i came to appreciate during the trump administration just the enormous powers of the federal government. and in seeing what trump said publicly and privately and what he discussed and what's in notes, he clearly wanted to use the power of the federal government against his enemies. he wanted to order at one point

jeff sessions to investigate hillary and comey. he had to be stopped from doing that by his white house counsel at the time. it's a harder thing to uncover. you know, it's more difficult to penetrate, but i've always thought it was more significant because it was trying to use these sacred powers, the ability to investigate, prosecute against the enemies. >> i mean, i think there's a large body of evidence by the end that he used the pardon power to excuse his political allies, that he had the durham probe investigating the investigator, some of the same people he sought to investigate and punish with the irs and doj. it's just amazing that a full picture hasn't emerged yet. all right. no one's going anywhere today. when we come back, we are expecting an important filing today in the other investigation, the classified document investigation and case against the twice-impeached,

twice-embedded ex-president. it involves when he and his codefendant will stand trial for the 38 criminal counts that have been filed against them. we're watching for both that and how the judge could respond as well. plus, there is another defamation lawsuit looming large for fox news today, with the lies on their air night after night after night, told to spin the deadly insurrection at the u.s. capitol on january 6th into something very different. we'll bring you those details. later in the broadcast, one republican senator's dangerous game with america's military readiness. all those stories and more when "deadline white house" continues after a quick break. "deadline white house" continues after a quick break.

it's not too late to show summer's who's boss. and wayfair's got just what you need. they have all the top grills and gear. with smoking fast shipping. and wayfair deals so epic... you'll feel like a big deal. yes! so get outdoorsy for way less at wayfair. ♪ wayfair, you've got just what i need ♪ there are currently more than 750,000 unfilled cybersecurity jobs in the u.s. the google cybersecurity certificate

was made to fill that gap and help grow the workforce that's keeping us all safe. fundamental freedoms are under attack in our country today and there is a national agenda at play by these extremist so-called leaders. it will be a national ban on abortion. it is the tradition of our country to fight for freedom, to fight for rights... to fight for the ability of all people to be who they are and make decisions about their own lives and their bodies. and we will fight for the ideals of our country. (vo) this is sadie, she's on verizon. and she's got the new myplan, and their bodies. so she gets exactly what she wants and only pays for what she needs. she picks her perks and saves on every one. make your move to myplan. act now and get it for $25 when you bring your phones. it's your verizon.

justice department's classified documents case to proceed today in a rather important way, specifically regarding the timing of the disgraced ex-president's trial. codefendant wault nauta to respond to special counsel jack smith's date for timing. the timing of the 2024 election in mind comes after a few delays and nauta's own arraignment, which actually happened thursday over failure to find local counsel. it sets up the first real junctures for trump-appointed judge aileen cannon on where she

comes down on this, and how to handle nauta and apparently trump pushing back on the first pretrial conference scheduled government is prepared to do and what you think is most likely in terms of response from trump and nauta. >> so, to -- to your point these are sort of critical moments in really assessing how the judge is going to be handling this, i think we're really going to know a lot more today, and as soon as she rules, on two separate issues. one, the big issue, which the trial date where the defense is supposed to put in their

position with respect to the government's request for a firm december trial date. if you remember, there was sort of a placeholder by the judge of august. everyone understood that's a placeholder. everyone said we would like a firm december date. the defense is supposed to respond today as to their position. this will be a real test of judge cannon as to what she's going to do. second, there's been this last-minute attempt by walt nauta to put off the first preliminary conference for this friday in a filings that i think were pretty thin in terms of merit. this will also be a test of judge cannon and how much of a backbone she has to get the case moving. this is a pretty standard hearing that was -- she ordered to have this friday, which is just to discuss how they're going to go about scheduling and handling classified information. so it's really a pro forma thing done in cases where there's classified information.

and there are lawyers on both sides who can be present. walt nauta is saying not both of his lawyers can be physically present. well, that's not required. the one who can't be physically there will apparently be able to call into the conference. so, again, it seems pretty thin as a reason to put this off, but it will be a real test and a sign for us as to whether judge cannon has really changed from the judge cannon who we saw in the investigative phase, who was overruled twice by the 11th circuit. >> claire, what are you watching for as we enter the phase where -- i guess the nonlegal term is, the you know what gets real? >> well, i think it was interesting that, i believe over the weekend there was polling that showed even republicans want this trial to be completed before the nominating process for president begins in earnest. and iowa just set its date.

its date is in january. the judge knows this. the judge knows that if this trial doesn't occur bit end of this calendar year that it is going to be right up in the grille of people deciding who the republican nominee for president should be. and right now, the definitive favorite is, in fact, the defendant in this case. so i think that there should be tremendous pressure on her to accept the date the government wants in order to get out of the way of what is going to occur during the silly season of these presidential primaries that will begin and be really over by march. so, she will either be trying the presumptive republican nominee in 2023 or she'll probably be trying the nominee for president in 2024. this is uncharted waters for american politics. this is bizarre stuff.

and it is still a head-scratcher why a criminal indictment has helped him and not hurt him. i don't get it. and we are talking about the republican primary electorate, which i think anyone that ran for office in 202 under the trumpian banner knows is not indicative of a general elector rat, even in a midterm year. i don't need to tell you or andrew, when we talk about a special counsel investigation, we talk about the tippy top of the iceberg that's visible to all of us. there is also this sort of variable of what we don't know jack smith is going to do either on the documents case or the january 6th investigations. what is your sense of what concern, if any, the trump side has about what they don't know about yet that may be coming for trump? >> i'm not sure. look, he's under an enormous amount of exposure. we still haven't seen the

resolution of what happens in georgia. we know the january 6th investigation is still tying up some loose ends, you know, phase. but just back to cannon for a second. we did this reporting just a couple of weeks ago about her lack of experience. she had less than half a dozen trials that she had overseen in her time on the bench. she's a fairly new judge. she's only been there for a couple of years. there is not a lot of trials in the federal system, but she now has an incredibly complicated trial. the once she did -- i don't think we found one that was more than a week long. now she has one that involves classified information, a whole special set of sort of procedures and guidelines and different ways of handling that information at a trial. she has -- there's going to be all these other questions raised by trump's side. so, it's going to be very interesting to watch how she

handles these things as they move forward. >> what could go wrong? mike schmidt, thank you for spending some time with us. claire and andrew, stick around with us a little bit longer. coming up, the fallout continues for the right-wing misinformation machine. why tucker carlson remains a very, very big and potentially very, very expensive headache for fox news. we'll explain that new reporting just ahead. don't go anywhere. don't go anywhere. in-wash scents keep your laundry smelling fresh waaaay longer than detergent alone. if you want laundry to smell fresh for weeks, make sure you have downy unstopables in-wash scent boosters. ♪ tourists tourists that turn into scientists. tourists photographing thousands of miles of remote coral reefs. that can be analyzed by ai in real time. ♪ so researchers can identify which areas are at risk.

and help life underwater flourish. 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. (vo) this is sadie, she's on verizon. and she's got the new myplan, so she gets exactly what she wants and only pays for what she needs. she picks her perks and saves on every one. make your move to myplan. act now and get it for $25 when you bring your phones. it's your verizon.

after settling with dominion voting systems for an unprecedented $787 million earlier this year, fox might soon face another big defamation lawsuit. this time from a man named ray epps. we've covered this story before. epps is an arizona man who voted twice for the disgraced ex-president donald trump. epps was present at the january 6th insurrection as well as the night before. according to "the new york times," quote, epps was captured on camera urging a crowd to march with him and enter the capitol. at other points he pleads for calm once it becomes clear the situation is turning violent. but that video of epps urging people to go inside the capitol put in motion the conspiracy theory, the conspiracy theory wheels started spinning at fox and was championed by since fired host tucker carlson. the times writes this, for about 18 months mr. carlson insisted that the lack of charges against mr. epps could only mean one

thing, that he was being protected because he was a secret government agent. >> so here's a guy telling trump supporters they need to break the law and go into the capitol. let's real video. they say no. then they accuse him of being an undercover federal agent. that's pretty interesting. so, who's ray epps, by the way, since you are a senator? he and this other guy are clearly encouraging the crowd to commit crimes. >> he's clearly urging the crowd to violate the law. when you see the crowd start chanting fed, fed, fed, for him to appear on the fbi's most wanted list and come off it certainly suggests he was working for the fbi. that's not conclusive but that's the obvious implication. >> clearly they're lying about ray epps, there's no question about that. what are they hiding? no one on the committee has explained whether ray epps was in skukz with any u.s. government agency. why won't they just tell us that? "the new york times" is mounting a propaganda campaign on behalf

of a self-described trump voter insurrectionist. this same paper is weeping for ray epps because people have been mean to him online? it's almost like they're trying to cover something up. >> and that's what conspiracy theorists sound like. so, after enduing public attacks and death threats that stem from that, from tucker carlson, from that guy and fox's coverage, "the times" reports this, quote, lawyers representing mr. epps and his wife are proceeding with plans to sue fox news for defamation. joining our conversation, political and investigaive reporter who led and reported out an extensive three-part series last year on tucker carlson's rise at fox news. claire and andrew are with us as well. nick, take us through what your colleagues are reporting about the epps case. >> well, look, he is now of the people in the wake of dominion, this is ray epps, they have are

due their day in court, those that have endured a barrage of coverage about their actions. they're is a guy, as you were saying, that was involved in the protests on january 6th, but who pulled back and when things turned violent, urged caution. on fox he became an object of fascination and focus, especially on tucker carlson's show. according to our reporting, over half of carlson's episodes in 2021 included a segment downplaying january 6th. he often framed it as a false flag operation. this was a central theme on carlson's show, that the attacker's january 6th were actually the victims and the people being attacked were the bad guys. it's a total reversal. it was a really important piece of content for trump supporters who wanted to feel that their side hadn't done anything wrong. that's what he provided.

>> what's so interesting, andrew weissmann, is the defamation exposure that fox news faces is from all sides. fox news also faces a case that "the times" has reported on from someone who ran disinformation, was going to work on a disinformation campaign for the biden administration, is now suing fox for defamation. $2.7 billion defamation lawsuit looms as large as the epps case does. and something i've talked to jeremy peters about and nick and others that have covered fox is that what seems to be at the center of all of these optimistic lawsuits, i guess i'll put it in the sort of point of view of epps and others, is that the known falsity ruling by the judge in the dominion case. once it was clear fox knew they were broadcasting lies, they had a whole lot of legal exposure. how do you assess fox's legal

exposure in the epps case? >> first, i think that i'd widen the aperture to think about this in terms of what fox was doing but also remember, we have lawsuits by ruby freeman and her daughter, we have lawsuits with respect to many people who were injured on january 6th against people who participated and fomented those crimes. and you have to go back to our first segment, you have pete strzok and lisa page talking about what happened to them. so, there's a whole series of people who are bringing lawsuits that are civil in nature, but are really important as a means of deterring the kinds of speech that has real consequences people who, as you said, get

death threats, they have to move, they look over their shoulders. i mean, this is -- we're not talking about, you know, fun and games here. and it leads to actual violence. just ask nancy pelosi about her house. that's just one example. so, to me this is all part and parcel of sort of -- as it relates to fox, sort of irresponsible journalism. now, obviously, there is a line and it's going to be very important to -- if mr. epps does bring this lawsuit to separate journalism, even mistaken journalism, which would not be sufficient, but if you look at the clips that you just played, nicolle, it may have started out where they're raising questions, but it certainly didn't end that way. as nick pointed out, this became really important in terms of the

theme that they wanted ray epps to be the center of. that seems to me a really -- obviously, i don't know all of that. that seems like a really good kernel in which to ground a lawsuit. you certainly have the harm part. just again, i want to make sure people understand the first amendment does require a meeting of a very high standard of proof, but i think this is one where the videotapes may be particularly damning for mr. epps improving his case. >> nick, mr. epps went on "60 minutes" and said, they're obsessed with me. they certainly are. what do we know about epps' efforts to fact-check? it seemed to powerful in the dominion case that there were hundreds and hundreds of efforts to correct the record. are you aware of any such effort of epps part of going directly to fox? >> as our colleagues reported at "the times," epps' lawyer had

gone to fox, asked for a retraction and apology on air. did not get one. and only then proceeded to the lawsuit. look, i'm sure that the dominion case is part of the background here. i think that the dominion case made a market for fox lawsuits and that people who felt they had been mistreated saw, look, we have been admitting there's a problem. we have the evidence from that discovery that was made public that showed that they knew what they were putting on the air was a lie. that's the key ingredient, as andrew was saying. if you know it's a lie and still write it or report it. >> all right. there's much more on this story. no one's going anywhere. we'll pull claire into donald trump's role about spreading lies about mr. epps when we come back. lies about mr. epps when we come back

my late father-in-law lit up a room, but his vision dimmed with age. he had amd. i didn't know it then, but it can progress to ga, an advanced form of the disease. his struggle with vision loss from amd made me want to help you see warning signs of ga. like straight lines that seem wavy, blurry, or missing visual spots that make it hard to see faces like this one, or trouble with low light that makes driving at night a real challenge.

if you've been diagnosed with amd and notice vision changes, don't wait. ga is irreversible. it's important to catch it early. talk to your eye doctor about ga and learn more at gawontwait.com 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.

exactly how many of those present at the capitol complex in january 6th were fbi confidential informants, agents or otherwise working directory or indirectly with an agency of the united states government? people want to hear this. how about that one guy, go in, go in. get in there, everybody. get in there. go. go. go. nothing happens to him. what happened with him? >> we're back with nick, claire, and andrew. i think it's a high bar for me for playing trump but it's really important. trump never met a conspiracy

theory he didn't want to be a part of. there are two parts of this that are really important. trump's marrying the fbi and furthering a conspiracy theory about 1/6 being an inside job when he's under investigation. feels like that match in the powder keg that is all the animosity, all he feels toward federal law enforcement. >> yeah. wasn't it just a few weeks ago they arrested a man near barack obama's home in washington? weapons. here's the problem. from a legal standpoint. i'm just talking about a legal standpoint since we're talking about dominion lawsuits and the potential lawsuit against bots. trump has a way of communicating that he has been taught that is insidious and evil. it is people are saying or what about what i've heard.

he always counters everything. he gets the goods out there by couching it in someone said. or people are saying or you know, what about this. he never makes a definitive, declarative statement. which means for a public figure, it is next to impossible to hold him accountable. in terms of civil liability, or even criminal liability for inciting a riot. now, there's other things he did that may build a case and maybe his language could be added to that as relevant evidence in a cumulative sense, but he is not dumb about how he says really bad, evil things. >> andrew, claire said he's been taught. i think he just watched a lot of sopranos. tell me what that means for fox as discovery has allowed a whole

lot of visibility into who they thought won the election and exactly what they worried about into and out of january 6th. >> well, just to defend claire for a moment. i do think that this is somebody who's been sued so many times. and has brought lawsuits that he has really learned where the lines are and that's why in some ways, that's actually a very useful thing when you're bringing either a civil or criminal case because you get to see where he knows sort of what he can do and not do which helps with proving. in terms of the case against fox news, one of the thing ss whether they get to the discovery phase where there could be just as many damning internal communications as we

all were gob smacked with when we looked at the dominion case because even though we thought some might be going on, we thought a, they wouldn't put it in writing and b, i think i'm pretty cynical about them and i was shocked. at just how it was that they put the dollar over the truth. it just was remarkable that they would say things like we have to get rid of this person because they're suggesting that we say something that's truthful and it's going to lower our ratings. and so here, do they have enough to get to the discovery phase? you know, i think that the answer to that is probably true. given what's going on here. again, it's not so much the first part of what you played but very much towards the end it really seemed to cross the line in terms of definitive statements as claire was talking about. >> and ostensibly discovery

process if this proceeds would yield the kind of evidence that sank fox and the dominion case where they were putting these segments on and somebody was told they are not true. we'll keep watching. thank you so much for joining us. claire sticks around a little bit longer. up next for us, a former football coach turned senator has left the u.s. marine corp. without a confirmed leader for the first time in more than 160 years. why that's a very large problem for u.s. national security. don't go anywhere. national secy don't go anywhere. laundry could be worth as much as $300? really? and your clothes just keep getting more damaged the more times you wash them. downy protects fibers, doing more than detergent alone. see? this one looks brand new. saves me money? i'm starting to like downy. downy saves loads. 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.

this is spring semester at over 13,000 us school districts, which have become top targets for ransomware attacks. but there's never been a reported ransomware attack on a chromebook. which is why thousands of schools like the fairfield-suisun unified school district switched to google tools for education. so they can focus on teaching and 22,000 students can focus on learning, knowing that their data is secure. ( ♪♪ )

what are you working on? knowing that their data ia bomb.e. it's happening, isn't it? this is the most important thing to every happen in the history of the world!

it's been more than a century since the u.s. marine corp. has operated without a senate confirmed commandant. leadership is central to the defense of the united states. and to the full strength of the most powerful fighting force in history. we have a sacred duty to do right by those who volunteer to wear the cloth of our nation. and i remain confident that all americans can come together to agree on the basic obligation to those who keep us safe. i am also confident that the united states senate will meet its responsibilities. >> hi, again, everyone. it is 5:00 in the east. today marks the beginning of a frightening new chapter for our nation and there's one guy to blame. going back 164 years through two

world wars, there has always, always, always been a senate confirmed commandant leaving the brave men and women of the u.s. marines. as of today, our streak is broken. general berger, the 38th commandant stepped down today. that follows a distinguished four-year term. of course, a big thank you and gratitude to general berger. in normal times, there would be a replacement ready and willing, except the position and lawmakers from both parties. but thanks to that one guy, alabama senator, tommy tuberville, and a month's long hissy fit, no such senate approved replacement exists today. here's where it gets alarming. over the next two months, the staff of the army, navy, air

force along with the chairman of the joint chiefs will see their terms come to the same end. it is a republican made problem that figures to get much, much worse, but today marked the fall of the first domino. more broadly, tuberville, was coaching the losing college football team in the 2014 military bowl, he has blocked 184 military promotions this year. not a one of them out of concern for any of their qualifications. but because of the hissy fit he disapproves of a pentagon policy that provides service members and paid stipends for abortion care or fertility treatments. now, he says the senate can just work around him if they want to. proving candidates who individual votes rather than the customary unanimous consent which in terms of timing and effort is a lot like a ticket agent for a canceled airline

flight suggesting you ride a bike from new york to l.a. instead of rebooking. now, the diminishing effect is obvious. so, too, is the reality that today's republican party whose front-runner has been indicted for leaving classified documents around his party like candy in a candy dish, can no longer lay any claim to being the party that stands with the u.s. military. remember the wisdom of maya angelou when someone tells you who they are over and over and over again. it's where we start the hour with our experts and friends. amy mcgraph is back. also, ben rhodes is here and former senator, claire mccaskill is back with us. amy, i feel like you flagged this issue for us many months ago and put his kmipgs in great

context. tell us where we are, where he is impacting our standing around the world. >> you laid it out pretty good. we don't have one going forward. we deserve and need a leader. the u.s. naval academy doesn't have a superintendent right now. there are numerous commands and units around the world who don't have a command. it's the impact on the troops below is significant. you can't say you support the troops then play political games that get in the way of their promotions and pay. and you know, when you say it's just one senator, yes, that's true. but look at all of the republican senators who are basically silent right now.

can you imagine if during the last administration elizabeth warren or bernie sanders were to hold up military pay and promotions because they were upset about a trump administration pentagon personnel policy? can you imagine the outrage? this is where we're at. so you know, the republicans are silent. the democrats need to get stronger. the republican party is no longer the party of national security. and this is just another example why. >> and explain what it is that he's freaking out about? it sounds like something that if you're oversea, has been going on for a long time, explain the policy he's having his meltdown over, amy. >> basically, remember that military members don't get to choose where they get stationed. they're ordered there. and so are their families. so you know, if a woman in the military needs reproductive healthcare and she is in a combat environment or deployed

to a third world country and has a problem and needs that healthcare, the military has a responsibility and is going fly her to a place where she can get that healthcare. so here we are, we have many southern states where a lot of bases are at where you know, women in military can't get the healthcare they deserve, frankly, and need. and what the pentagon policy is basically saying is that we believe in you. women in the military. we trust you. and we are going to help you get the reproductive healthcare you need by allowing you to take leave and pay for your travel to go to a state where you can get that care. that's all this policy's about and that's why senator tuberville is upset about it. >> you know, ben, sometimes over the last eight years, i come to these stories with why can't the republicans fix it? why can't mitch mcconnell do

something? it sometimes takes me longer than i care to admit that things are exactly as the republicans want them to be. attacking the military is central to the gop brand these days. we talked about tucker carlson the last hour. he's been smearing the military for years now. and if they wanted to do something to stand with the military to protect readiness, they would have by now. what is your sense of how and if the democrats can protect the military as a single party without the help of republicans? >> you're right because this has been a slow motion crisis for some time. senator tuberville has been saying this and you could see these vacancies coming down the pike. these are uniformed personnel who have earned these promotions and the military rit large deserves the certainty of knowing who's going to be in charge up and down the chain of command.

what we've seen is a complete failure to lean on tuberville. i'm sure the majority really wanted to problem solved. he could have solved it. but the thing is they don't care. they care more about the prosecution of their own culture war than the country's capacity to prepare for war and to try to keep the peace. that's where we're at. the culture war is more important to them than the united states military. they're more afraid of being yelled at as enabling a military than they are worried about whether or not united states marine corp. has a commandant. this has kind of been an inside the bubble d.c. story for a while. i think we need to go out into military communities and across the country. this has been a message that in the trump years resonated with a lot of veteran communities. that the attacks from donald trump on the military were the kind of thing that didn't sit

well even with people that might have agreed with trump on other things. the first step i think is just making this case vigorously and then really pressing this in the senate and speaking to the urgency of getting these vacancies filled. because that's not necessarily going to be something that -- >> claire, mitch mcconnell, i want to bring you in on this. he could be accused of a lot of things but he can read a poll and the republican position on abortion is out of the mainstream of the kinds of voters he knows he needs to win if he doesn't want to remain in the minority and the republican positions in attacking the military as ben just pointed out are very unpopular. not just with independent and swing voters but with a lot of republican voters. what is your sense of how this got to this point now for military readiness is very much impacted? >> got to take a deep breath. tuberville is a child.

throwing a fit and i've got two important points to make. the first is amy pointed out, there are many, many women at fort leonard wood today in missouri that have been ordered to be there and they must follow those orders. if one of those women were raped over the weekend and became impregnated from that rape, they would be forced, in my state, to give birth to that rapist's child. including all the consequences that would have on their military service. that's what tommy tuberville is throwing a fit about. that the military would have the nerve to allow that raped woman to travel outside of missouri where the government forces a woman to give birth after she's raped to get a termination of that pregnancy. that's what he's doing. now the other point i have to

make. this is really important. they voted on this. there is a thing called the national defense authorization bill that the armed services committee in the senate votes on every year. there were two votes on this bill that tuberville wanted to pass to keep them from protecting that woman. there was first a vote on the bill and it was sponsored by ernst and joe manchin amended it to put a study on it and the republicans all voted against it because they didn't want a study to be put on it then it was voted on again and it was defeated. tuberville is on that committee. he watched that provision go down by a vote. and he is now saying well that doesn't matter. that doesn't matter. i don't support the military. i'm too busy making a political point here. who cares about the military. they do not support the military in alabama according to tommy tuberville. and i guarantee you mitch mcconnell's not happy about

this. the question is does he have the you know what to change it. does he have the ability and he does, to put pressure on other republicans that know this is wrong. by the way, vance is doing a doj. josh hawley for every judicial appointment. there is a body here and they get to vote and decide and he knows he's stalling on these nominations. there's no way chuck schumer can call up 180 nominations. he knows that. he's doing this on purpose. shame on him and i dare him to ever say he supports the military again. >> i mean, amy, what is the opportunity to you know, put some money behind a message that reaches americans from coast to coast and helps them understand what all three of you have articulated? that mcconnell agrees with tuberville or doesn't have as claire said, you know whats to get rid of him.

>> i think there's a huge opportunity right now and ben talked about it a little bit earlier. the republican party has just disqualified itself over and over and over again when it comes to national security matters all the way to the point where their leading candidate is somebody who's indicted 37 times on the espionage act. not to mention the january 6th uprising. i mean, not just that, but what senator tuberville is doing, the fact marjorie taylor greene has been elevated. all of these things are disqualifying and they're really, we should look at these voters who are traditionally republican voters. they may be independent but some republicans who vote on national security. we say that national security is never the number one issue but it is an issue for a certain number of people and there is an opening right now to message to those folks and i think the democratic party needs to take

this and run with it. the democratic party needs to take the flag right now. and say hey, we are the party of national security. we are going to protect this country. we've got to do it right now. especially with the war in ukraine going on. and the republican party is just disqualifying itself. look at donald trump. look at senator tuberville. look at the fact that everybody is basically silent on these very important issues that affect our troops. >> i mean, ben, amy makes an important point about national security in the context of presidential general elections. isn't always a driver but it has traditionally been a disqualifier. if you're not fit to serve, a fit commander in chief, you can be easily knocked out of a republican primary and easily bested in a general election. i haven't seen a lot of republicans make an issue of this. in the primary because the presidential candidates don't really have anything to do with this. this is tuberville. but it does project an

incredible brand of weakness. weakness in the face of threats from abroad. weakness in the face of threats from i think tuberville's own brother has attacked him and disagreed with him. i mean, where do you sense sort of the power center is around issues and questions of supporting the military right now? >> well i think it's really important when we talk about national security in this context, you know, we're not just talking about an abstract foreign policy. we're talking about the treatment and readiness of the united states military. in my experience of political campaigns and the white house and i'm sure amy and claire have had similar experiences where those issues are sack row stakt to millions of americans. you're talking about their families. their military communities. veterans. these are people who care a lot about how active duty service members and their families are treated and the reality is

there's a long record sense donald trump really ascended to the height of the republican party of disrespect for uniform military officers, of attacks on the military itself. on efforts to put in this case, culture war issues above the health and readiness of the force and those military families. i think this is the kind of thing that really, really does resonate. you saw in the 2020 election even in some of these midterm elections in these veteran communities, these issues really hurt donald trump and republican party. it is a masked vulnerability and about defining national security and foreign policy, but also just on the basic respect for the men and women who carry out american and foreign defense policy. this should be a no brainer and i think it's a really important contrast for democrats to be drawing for the next year and a

half. >> so, claire, donald trump's own disdain for the men and women of the military is to me one of the most harrowing stains of his presidency left on the collective consciousness. it started with some reporting in the atlantic and confirmed in books by michael bender and others that donald trump never wanted to be seen with anyone wounded in service of our country. he didn't want to be seen with wounded veterans. he had a lot of disdain for anyone who had died. he called them suckers and losers. reporting was shocking. it was corroborated. it is in the public record. i have heard it myself from senior military leaders and i wonder what the contrast looks like in the context of an election and whether you think it's something that the president or this democratic party has the stomach to make in a sustained manner with the truth. donald trump's true views in his own words really get to voters who care about these issues.

>> i gasp in horror when he said the things he said about john mccain. we all understand what john mccain went through. we understood that john mccain stayed as a prisoner of war when he maybe could have gotten out because he wanted to stay in solidarity with his fellow military members and didn't want to use his father's rank as chip to get out of being a prisoner of war and how brave he was and the permanent injuries he suffered. then donald trump called him a loser. a loser. for that. and this is not a party that respects law enforcement or the military anymore. this is a party that worships around donald trump who thinks anybody who gives of themselves for the betterment of others is deficient because he doesn't know how to do that.

it is all about him. it's never about helping others. it's just about him. and so therefore, he doesn't understand people who want to serve in the military or law enforcement and if they're not crowing that they love him, then he immediately calls them, you know, he's called general kelly names. general mattis names. he has really denigrated the military. this isn't just tuberville that doesn't respect the military. it's the entire republican party. >> it's amazing. we'll stay on this story. amy, thanks to you. i think you're the first person who brought it to my attention. claire, thank you for doing double duty across both hours. ben sticks around a little longer. when we come back, there's new reporting in "the new york times" once again raising questions about clarence thomas in what has been a lifetime of benefits from powerful friends. red hot fire over the ethics or lack thereof of the most

conservative members of the highest court in the land. and why president joe biden doesn't support extending nato membership to ukraine. at least not yet. deadline white house continues after a quick break. don't go anywhere today. contins after a quick break. don't go anywhere today.

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 [city ambience sounds] [car screech] [car door slam]

[camera shutter sfx] introducing ned's plaque psoriasis. [camera shutter sfx] he thinks his flaky, red patches are all people see. otezla is the #1 prescribed pill to treat plaque psoriasis. [ned?] it can help you get clearer skin and reduce itching and flaking. with no routine blood tests required. doctors have been prescribing it for nearly a decade. otezla is also approved to treat psoriatic arthritis. don't use otezla if you're allergic to it. serious allergic reactions can happen. otezla may cause severe diarrhea, nausea, or vomiting. some people taking otezla had depression, suicidal thoughts, or weight loss. upper respiratory tract infection and headache may occur. [crowd gasp] ♪♪ with clearer skin, movie night is a groovy night. [ting] ♪♪ live in the moment. ask your doctor about otezla. ♪ jitterbug! ♪ [ giggles loudly ]

live in the moment. ♪ jitterbug! ♪ [ giggles loudly ] ♪ jitterbug! ♪ [ giggles loudly ] ♪ jitterbug! ♪ [ giggles loudly ] [ tapping ] ♪ you put the boom-boom into my heart ♪ intuitive sit-to-start in the all-electric id.4. it's the little things, it's a vw. ♪ tourists tourists that turn into scientists. tourists taking photos that are analyzed by ai. so researchers can help life underwater flourish. ♪

the smoke around conservative justices of the

supreme court continues to grow. "the new york times" reported on clarence thomas' relationship with the right wing association which provided him access to luxury and privilege in change for proximity to the influence of our nation's highest court. the times report this is, quote, over the years, his ksh friends have welcomed them at their vacation retreats, access to sporting events and invited him to their lavish parties. justice thomas has received benefit, many unreported, from a broader cohort of wealthy and powerful friends. they have included major donors to conservative causes with broad policy and political interests and much at stake in supreme court decisions even if they were not directly involved in the cases. these are just a few of the scandals thomas has faced this year alone including his failure to report hundreds of thousands of dollars of luxury travel and gifts from right wing activist donor harlan crow. his cloud of epic scandals comes

after a term in which the court rolled back key rights, energizing progressive activists and renewing calls for transparency. so late this afternoon, top democrats on the judiciary committee announced they will hold a vote on legislation next thursday. let's bring in brian from the progressive judicial advocacy group. ben is with us as well. brian, i wanted to talk to you about these issues. let's start with clarence thomas. the times reporting is so interesting. basically my sense of it and i want yours is the times says to this story as well, we're going to be looking at all these ethical questions and what the times points out is that it's a lot bigger than one donor and a couple of undisclosed gifts. it's the whole group of people he's rolled with. the times details a decades long

pattern for lack of better word, griftyness. >> if you've been to a picnic and noticed an ant on your blanket, it's usually a large colony close by. when the reporting came out it was hard to fathom that it was just one republican mega donor. so to some extent, it's not surprised what the times has unearthed which is that there's been a culture of corruption around thomas for as long as he's been on the court. thomas was disclosing certain gifts and trips until he started to get scrutinized for that then he pretty much declared

disclosure and transparency is for suckers and stopped putting these things on his forms. the other thing is the society to which he belongs holding its big event inside the walls of the actual supreme court building, previous reporting disclosed the supreme court historical society hosts events where they cultivate donors within the walls of the supreme court. it just sort of evokes that biblical scene of the mechants in the temple and here you have a temple so what is supposed to be the rule of law being a place where influence peddling is being conducted. republicans in the '90s had a problem with the lincoln bedroom being opened up to donors.

this is no less a scandal with thomas. >> let me read that to you, ben. the association has used access to the court ceremony and related events in the annual gathering to raise money for scholarships or programming. the court discourages using its facilities or the justices to help raise money. thomas really seemed to like the fact that everyone else enjoys being in the courtroom said a former events producer for the association among people of almost inexhaustible wealth. he could give them that and nobody else could. a crass sort of march of con venus here. >> just a totally absurd double standard in the sense that you and i both served in government. anybody in the u.s. government who's not a supreme court justice is bound to floel certain rules of financial

disclosure on an annual basis. about what kind of political activity is authorized and clearly what clarence thomas is projecting is how much he doesn't leave any of those rules should apply to him. he shouldn't have to make the most basic transparency disclosures. he doesn't have to abide by any ethics concerns even when it's with people who have matters pending before the court. recording to his wife, someone who's engaged in really intense far right movement politics. and he doesn't feel he needs to recuse himself from matters that might have a conflict with that political activity. this is just a basic question of fairness on whether the supreme court is bound by the same roles of other parts of the government. i think it's a common sense case

being put before the american people that it's not fair that those rules don't apply and if anything, there should be a higher standard to reduce influence peddling that is plummeting public confidence right now. >> they think that's because we've actually noticed all of this and that it's being written about by journalists. i need both of you to stick around longer. i want to turn on the other side of the break to what senate democrats seem to be doing in response to another crush in investigative reporting. a quick break for us. we'll be right back. ative repor. a quick break for us we'll be right back. for colon cancer.♪ ♪it's time to use my voice,♪ ♪i've got a choice, more than one answer.♪ ♪i sat down with my doc.♪ we had a talk. ♪knew just what to say.♪ ♪i asked for cologuard and did it my way.♪ cologuard is a one-of-a kind way to screen for colon cancer that's effective and non-invasive. it's for people 45 plus at average risk, not high risk. false positive and negative results may occur. ask your provider for cologuard. ♪i did it my way!♪

we've got one hope. ask your provider for cologuard. secret laboratory. in the middle of nowhere. our nations best scientists focused on one goal. end this war. our boys would come home. i can perform this miracle. robert, try not to blow up the world. ♪ 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. ♪

(christina) with verizon business unlimited, only pay for what you need. i get 5g, truly unlimited data, and unlimited hotspot data. so, no matter what, i'm running this kitchen. (vo) make the switch. it's your business. it's your verizon. hi, i'm tony hawk, and like many of you, i take a statin to reduce cholesterol, but statins can also deplete coq10 levels. that's why my doctor recommended qunol coq10. qunol has the number one cardiologist recommended form of coq10. qunol. the brand i trust.

choosing a treatment for your chronic migraine - 15 or more headache days a month, each lasting 4 hours or more - can be overwhelming. so, ask your doctor about botox®. botox® prevents headaches in adults with chronic migraine before they even start. it's the #1 prescribed branded chronic migraine treatment. so far, more than 5 million botox® treatments have been given to over eight hundred and fifty thousand chronic migraine patients. effects of botox® 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 can be signs of a life-threatening condition. side effects may include allergic reactions, neck and injection site pain, fatigue, and headache. don't receive botox® if there's a skin infection. tell your doctor your medical history, muscle or nerve conditions and medications, including botulinum toxins, as these may increase the risk of serious side effects. in a survey, 92% of current users said they wish they'd talked to their doctor and started botox® sooner. so, ask your doctor if botox® is right for you. learn how abbvie could help you save on botox®.

so, brian, we talk a lot about what the democrats can do. here is how senators whitehouse and durbin responded today. so to the supreme court, we say we wish you sunny days on your vacation but your refusal to meet the most basic ethical standards cast a shadow you cannot escape. that is why the senate judiciary committee will wrap up senator whitehouse's act on july 20th. since the court won't act, congress will. it seems to be fuelling some action but i wonder if you think it's enough. >> it's a good step right because durbin can't be accused

of rushing on this. he gave roberts ample opportunity to act on their own. the court's not going to act on their own. it's good that it's happening to ben's point before the break. these members of congress, they're used to the rules. if they want to make a call to an owner, they have to go across the street to the dnc building. they can't make a call to the capitol hill office. if they want to host a fund-raiser, they've got to go to one of the restaurants on pennsylvania avenue to ask for money. i think these latest reports have sort of forced democrats on the hill to act and i hope they take the ball and run with it because they'll be able to mark it up out of the committee and then will they be able to put the bill on the floor. i think schumer should do that. i think he'll see the political upside and putting republicans on the spot to make them vote for it on the senate floor. this is one of those issues i think it's not always been the

case, but this is something that i think especially democratic challengers in the house that are trying to flip the house, you know, they can run against republican incumbents sitting on their hands and not doing in the face of all these scandals involving supreme court justice s. >> the role of john roberts is confounding to those in both parties. glenda greenhouse draws the focus to him and his tenure. whatever you think of him, he has presided over the fastest and farthest plunge in public esteem and approval for the united states supreme court in the court's history. in the country's history. let me read what she writes. the past term this past term was in many respects the capstone of the 18-year tenure of john roberts. the supreme court doesn't stand alone. powerful, social, and political movement swirl around it

carefully cultivating cases to justices who were propelled to their positions by those movements. the supreme court now is the country's ultimate political prize. that may not be apparent on a day-to-day or term by term basis but from the perspective of 18 years, that conclusion is as unavoidable as it is frightening. it is also in my political life, i've never seen a greater inversion of tech tonic sort of political forces. the supreme court used to be a motivator on the right to achieve these things they thought they wanted. it's dobbs decision alone with one of the most sort of burdensome positions republicans have had to run with. in a generation. >> yeah. i'll just speak from my own experience, too. with john roberts, you can sense him at times trying to calibrate on certain decisions in a way

that makes the court feel more fair minded. and personally for instance, john roberts cast a deciding vote that helped save obama care in the obama years. however, the broader direction of this court is unmistakable and it is moved in an incredibly reactionary activist direction culminating in the last couple of years and i think what we've seen in the last midterm election is that did have a huge impact. there's just no way that you have a democratic senate and the result that we saw in the house razor thin results in that kind of election year without the mobilization people felt over dobbs. i think there's a bigger argument that brings together the outcome of those decisions with the fundamental court. it was corrupted when mcconnell wouldn't allow there to be a vote on merrick garland. by this money and influence peddling we see with clarence thomas and justice alito and

john roberts has done nothing to address those concerns about the integrity of the court. i think the democrats have to merge these concerns with the concerns about the decisions that are being made in a way that i believe the american people are very keen to and ready to understand. >> yeah. add to it a leak that they say is so grave it endangers their lives. yet they don't want anyone with experience investigating those things investigating it. it's a remarkable moment. brian, thank you so much. ben sticks around longer. ahead for us, president biden says he is not ready to fast track nato membership for ukraine. we'll get reaction from kyiv after a quick break. don't go anywhere. after a quick break. don't go anywhere. 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 ♪ tourists tourists that turn into scientists. tourists taking photos that are analyzed by ai. so researchers can help life underwater flourish. 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.

here's the deal. i spent as you know a great deal of time trying to hold nato together because i believed has had an overwhelming objective from the time it launched 185,000 troops into ukraine. that was to break nato. i was confident in my view, he's confident and can break nato. so holding nato together is really critical. i don't think there is u anymorety about whether or not to bring ukraine into the nato family now. at this moment. the middle of a war.

>> that was president joe biden in an interview that aired yesterday on cnn saying once again it might be, right now, premature for ukraine to become a member of nato as it continues to fight in a war against russia. the president's comments come as he landed just hours ago in lithuania as part of his summer european tour where he will attend a nato summit where the war in ukraine will surely be the main focus. in the last few minutes, we learned that president biden is expected to meet with president zelenskyy at the nato summit on wednesday. to figure out what will top that agenda, let's bring in our friend, former adviser to president zelenskyy. ben is also with us. igor, you do such a good job of keeping the plight of the people of ukraine and ukrainian military top of mind. i know that's a mission president zelenskyy is very much engaged in as well.

but i wonder what you think is top of mind for him as he prepares to meet with president biden on wednesday. >> well, there are a number of issues. first of all, this is a nato summit so the question nato session for ukraine is important. also on top of that is military support that we're after. we are currently in the middle of a counteroffensive and effectively where you know, we've launched it without any air support. it's somewhat of a risk taking suicidal mission sending tanks out and any air support. so i think that issue will be raised as well. and on top of that, there are a number of other priorities for the president. so i think he's got the work cut out. obviously, nobody's realistically expecting an invitation to join nato at the summit but at the same time. >> and igor, what do you think

the focus or maybe the private conversation will be about what's going on in russia? is there the perception that it's a moment of weakness that the mutiny or what do you think the assessment is of russia right now? >> well, i don't think the regime is as the regime is monolith as strong as it was a year ago. the economic sanctions, the economy isn't doing as great. judging from president erdogan's move, he is losing respect, even from the people he considered at least to be neutral if not his allies. prigozhin's mutiny was out of this world. you had the guy come marching on moscow shooting down planes and now moscow has to meet with him, has to accept some of his demands, fight his urge of

retribution. and prigozhin shot down helicopters and killed a lot of russian pilots yet everyone seems to have thought about it. so russia is definitely in trouble. i wouldn't say we're on the verge of collapse but definitely we're on the right track. >> ben rose, president biden has been so stalwart in his support of ukraine and getting president zelenskyy probably not as quickly as he wants but getting him most of what he needs. what do you think comes of this meeting on wednesday? >> well, i think there are immediate concerns and longer term nato issues. i think there is this question about what security guarantees for ukraine including potentially nato membership are a part of a plan to end the war, that what ukraine will want is a part of any settlement, whether that is one finalized on the

battlefield or one at the diplomatic table is going to have more concrete assurances around their security they've had in the past and nato membership is the only truly collective assurance that the united states will come to ukraine's assistance. how that fits into the picture diplomatically will be on the table. clearly there are going to be a series of requests from the ukrainians, obviously as igor said, air support and expedited delivery of f-16s and requests for longer range activities and things they could utilize in a counteroffensive. and a cushion of timelines, too. there were so many expectations put on this counteroffensive, which if even successful will take many months here. so to come to an agreement around expectation settings so

all the countries supporting ukraine have reasonable expectations about how tough this fight is. one reason biden and zelenskyy can make to nato about standing strong is that putin's argument is on his side. maybe it's the opposite. we're seeing in russia that russia is getting weaker. their risks inside russia such that you had somebody marching on moscow a few weeks ago. so holding the line together and buying time for ukraine on the battlefield will be something they'll both want to project out of that meeting. >> ben, president biden in the interview with cnn and in his interview with me is desperate to claim the credit he rightly deserves for not just keeping nato together but strengthening it and expanding it. i wonder how you see turkey dropping its objections to sweden. it certainly is in that same category of russia not only not breaking nato but nato getting

stronger. >> no, i mean, like it's an enormous development. i mean already with finland joining nato, you have the border between nato and russia doubling in size, something that is clearly a strategic defeat for vladimir putin. he was a highly capable partner nato over the years. bringing those capabilities and alliance would be an enormous boone. the fact that you have offenses and hard-won offenses around a generational war, these were not at all guarantees at the beginning of the war. obviously vladimir putin in his own aggression did a lot to bring nato together. but joe biden and his entire team have made this priority one, two and three for the last year and a half and they succeeded in holding the lines together, despite real differences of views among some of the member states about what to be be providing and on what

timeline. this is not over yet. so you get credit but obviously people recognize that ukraine still needs support. there's hard days to come here. but thus far i think this has gone about as as well as anybody could imagine in terms of keeping the alliance together. >> two of the smartest people on the planet to talk to me about these things. thank you both for spending time with us today. another break for us. we'll be right back. for us we'll be right back. still fresh. still fresh! get 6 times longer-lasting freshness, plus odor protection with downy unstopables. detect this: living with hiv, i learned i can stay undetectable with fewer medicines. that's why i switched to dovato. dovato is a complete hiv treatment for some adults. no other complete hiv pill uses fewer medicines to help keep you undetectable than dovato. detect this: most hiv pills contain 3 or 4 medicines. dovato is as effective with just 2.

if you have hepatitis b, don't stop dovato without talking to your doctor. don't take dovato if you're allergic to its ingredients or taking dofetilide. this can cause serious or life-threatening side effects. if you have a rash or allergic reaction symptoms, stop dovato and get medical help right away. serious or life-threatening lactic acid buildup and liver problems can occur. tell your doctor if you have kidney or liver problems, or if you are pregnant, breastfeeding, or considering pregnancy. dovato may harm an unborn baby. most common side effects are headache, nausea, diarrhea, trouble sleeping, tiredness, and anxiety. detect this: i stay undetectable with fewer medicines. ask your doctor about switching to dovato. (vo) crabfest is back at red lobster. i stay undetectable with fewer medicines. when you can choose your crab, and one of three new flavors like roasted garlic butter...

...this is not your grandpa's crabfest... ...unless grandpa's got flavor. dayumm! crabfest is here for a limited time. welcome to fun dining. what do we always say, son? liberty mutual customizes your car insurance... so you only pay for what you need. that's my boy. ♪ stay off the freeways! only pay for what you need. ♪ liberty. liberty. liberty. liberty. ♪ ♪ i have type 2 diabetes, ♪ ♪ but i manage it well. ♪ ♪ it's a little pill with a big story to tell. ♪ ♪ i take once-daily jardiance, ♪ ♪ at each day's staaart. ♪ ♪ as time went on it was easy to seee ♪ ♪ i'm lowering my a1c. ♪ jardiance works 24/7 in your body to flush out some sugar! and for adults with type 2 diabetes and known heart disease, jardiance can lower the risk of cardiovascular death, too. jardiance may cause serious side effects including ketoacidosis that may be fatal, dehydration, that can lead to sudden worsening of kidney function, and genital yeast or urinary tract infections.

a rare, life-threatening bacterial infection in the skin of the perineum could occur. stop taking jardiance and call your doctor right away if you have symptoms of this infection, ketoacidosis, or an allergic reaction, and don't take it if you're on dialysis. taking jardiance with a sulfonylurea or insulin may cause low blood sugar. ♪ jardiance is really swell, ♪ ♪ the little pill with a big story to tell. ♪

it has been a summer of extreme weather. we are today keeping an eye on severe rain storms that have brought historic flooding to parts of new york and new england. the worst of it has been in new york's hudson valley and vermont. one person was killed in new york as she tried to reach higher ground amid rising floodwaters and 12 others had to be evacuated. in vermont 20 people had to be rescued by boat from their homes as the waters advanced, washed out roads and damaged bridge have left officials scrambling to determine the extent of the devastation as the heavy rain continues. for our part, we want to thank you for letting us into your homes during these truly extraordinary times. we are grateful. "the beat" in for ari starts now. >> welcome to "the beat." i'm jason johnson in for ari melber. we start with jack smith's widening investigation into trump's plot to overturn the