you have kensington palace, buckingham palace and clarence house and it is damagingl and clarence houseto the royal family because it cheapens it. it is cheap, vulgar, tittle tattle, and nobody comes out of it particularly well. especially harry and meghan because they come out as a couple of spoiled brats who feel slighted at the slightest thing. but the queen is minting a dignified sunless but i should imagine she is probably cursing under her breath. and i think william and kate do appear to be trying to hit back but of course it is like anything. if you start engaging with the people who are telling tales, whether they are true or not, you are just fuelling the fire is within the best thing to do would be to completely ignore it. harry and meghan have gone away and eventually interest in them will presumably wane. because we all got more interesting things to think about, one would hope. the front page of the daily mail has what she has described. allegedly kate has said that we rolled up the red carpet for her so you must think you are taking the book seriously than if you are resp

that, iugh i resented had black clarence -- black friends who would come to my house. they would see my confederate stuff and they were offended, so i took it all out. i would go to their house and see plaques of malcolm x and black power and i would say i am offended by that. no they didn't remove theirs, i will rise above and be a better man. we should melt down the statues and make new statues of current history. we can do it together, black-and-white for a better cause. recycle them. that supportues peace. host: finish your thought. , most peopleof all call again today go to church like i'm getting ready to. let's remember jesus christ. we are all created equal. we will stand before the lord one day and give account. host: philip in jamestown, tennessee. thanks for watching before you go to church. those thingsne of the president talked about last week at the white house, protecting statues of confederates. here's a portion of that speech from wednesday. pres. trump: we are going to have a strong executive order. we have the monuments act. which means 10 years in j

that, iugh i resented had black clarence -- black friends who would come to my house.hey would see my confederate stuff and they were offended, so i took it all out. i would go to their house and see plaques of malcolm x and black power and i would say i am offended by that. no they didn't remove theirs, i will rise above and be a better man. we should melt down the statues and make new statues of current history. we can do it together, black-and-white for a better cause. recycle them. that supportues peace. host: finish your thought. , most peopleof all call again today go to church like i'm getting ready to. let's remember jesus christ. we are all created equal. we will stand before the lord one day and give account. host: philip in jamestown, tennessee. thanks for watching before you go to church. those thingsne of the president talked about last week at the white house, protecting statues of confederates. here's a portion of that speech from wednesday. pres. trump: we are going to have a strong executive order. we have the monuments act. which means 10 years in jai

joining with the liberals except for clarence thomas and samuel alito, they are dissenting, and pretty much the reasoning is the same, very similar here in this house case basically saying that the court below in deciding that these documents should be handed over to these congressional committees, that the courts as the court put it did not take adequate of the significant separation of powers concern implicated by these congressional subpoenas for president trump's information, so once again saying, that you know, maybe this request could go forward but not right now, and it's something that needs to be further considered at the lower courts. you know, there was an interesting part in this opinion, pope that said, you know, the way the house has approached this in asking for this wide array of documents which even justice kagan expressed some concern about at oral arguments saying that maybe this was just too broad of a request. >> mm-hmm. >> reporter: it said that the house approach would leave no limits on the congressional power to subpoena the president's personal records, so that being a real concern for the court here and saying let's go ba

inside of the white house that are around this president who are hoping at this point, knowing that it may not happen, but they are hoping that there might be a supreme court vacancy. clarence thomas, the justice since the early '90s, could decide to retire. and as this white house really looks to galvanize that base, they are quietly preparing for the possibility of a supreme court vacancy, looking like people, like the judge amutha parr, a favorite of majority leader mitch, amy coney barrett from indiana, another federal judge, and they're looking at the possibility of an opening. and they think that kind of opportunity for them politically, that kind of news flash would be a total culture war in the middle of a summer when they're trying to stoke that republican base. but in terms of the suburbs, joe, at this point, it's all a bet on reopening the economy and a lot of hope more than any kind of strategic outreach. >> all right. >>> still ahead on "morning joe," president trump is facing growing pressure to respond to the firestorm over possible russian bounties on u.s. troops. the white house is denying trump was briefed as early as 2019. >>> plus, facebook says it will

house democrats from the records they sought for now. what are the implications for president trump going forward? let's ask president of the judicial crisis network and former clerk to justice clarencehomas carrie severino. good morning, carrie, welcome. thanks for joining us. tell us about what this means for the president moving forward. >> well, the cases presented in slightly different ways for both of them what it means is the case is going to go back for the lower courts from these subpoenas from the house. they were claiming they were doing legislation they needed to president's tax records for that i think it's going to be hard for them to overcome the court's ruling the courts said go back if you want this, you have to show you need it and only way to get this information, et cetera. and so they are going back for the lower courts and hard to meet those standards. the manhattan district attorney's office technically they said sure, this subpoena can proceed. you can't -- don't get out of subpoenas all together because you are in the white house. but, it also went through a series of really important considerations that the president can bring up again now at the lower court

and camilla, the duchess of cornwall, opens the doors of clarence house to 5 live and describes how she'sng the hugs of her grandchildren during the lockdown. and coming up on bbc news: ex england international eni aluko has called for a target of 30% of people from black, asian and minority ethnic backgrounds at the top level of sport. good afternoon and welcome to the bbc news at one. was the prime minister simply careless with his words on care, or was it, as some suggest, a first attempt to shift the blame

clarence thomas, samuel alito. >> very interesting. both of president trump's appointees ended up ruling you could argue against the president. pete williams, thank you. let me move over to the white houseer alexander is standing. peter, i guess overall the white house feels as if the supreme court has not been good to them in any of their political hopes, but on this particular case how defiant do we expect the white house to be now that the rulings have gone against them? >> reporter: i think you'll hear frustration that the two court appointees sided against them, that's one thing that frustrates the president. an hour ago he was tweeting presidential harassment, that's the way the president viewed it. the benefit i suspect it is not likely we see the documents as pete noted before the election, which is crucial here. this president you'll note has repeatedly claimed to be the most transparent president ever, he refused to turn over taxes since a candidate in 2016, that would make him the only modern candidate and president not to turn over his financial information. the explanation is taxes were under audit, but that hadn't prevented past presidents from giving them. not sure if the