you can also just roe casey and dobbs. finally love reading commission reports or reports by special of congress. i know that sounds weird, but these reports are often of america in moments of enormous stress and trauma. think about it. the 911 commission report, the warren commission report on kennedy on the kennedy assassination, the kerner report in 68 on on the riots, the january six committee report and the assault on our capitol together they form an unofficial historical of america in its most broken moments. and they deserve scrutiny. they deserve to be read not just discussed. so i recently read the house's january six report, for example. it's almost journalistic in its style, unlike the very dry, sort of legalistic of, say, the mueller report, it's more than hundred pages in length. if you include the executive summary, which showed and it offers a very -- assessment of president trump's actions, not just on january six, but in the weeks leading up to it. but there's one particular passage that i just can't stop

so the decision that the court made in dobbs and the reasoning in dobbs is a real threat to the privacy rights that each and every american enjoys to make decisions about their own autonomy. we have reacted it around the country -- we have reacted around the country with some states stepping up to protect abortion rights, and other states enacting significant abortion restrictions. so what has happened with the court decision in dobbs is that we've created this immense division. for 50 years all the women in this country had a right to make their decision and respect the decision that another woman made. and that might be to terminate a pregnancy, it might be to take that pregnancy to term. but that was an individual decision that the individual woman had to make herself in consultation with whomever it is she chose to consult with. it created the opportunity for unity and for acceptance by respecting the individual nature of that decision and the individual right of that person affected to make that decision. not to have a decision made, as senator klobuchar mentioned, by politicians.

producer john fawcett had texted lou dobbs and asked if he had read powell's lawsuit and dobbs confirmed it was complete bs. and here's what happens three days after acknowledging receipt of something he describes as, quote, complete bs on his program. >> let me start by just saying this time is yours. right now this audience, most of america wants to know where are we in this fight for the white house? >> well, we are making great progress, lou. we have one case in the court in georgia that's getting ready to go to the 11th circuit. we're going to ask for emergency review of that where we sought to impound all the voting machines in georgia and we need frankly the stuff of the election that's supposed to happen in january because all the machines are infected with the software code that allows dominion to shave votes for one candidate and give them to another. >> so what lou dobbs thought of that lawsuit that she's there talking about, jeremy, is that it was, quote, complete b.s. that's where fox is right now. >> and what we know, as we've talked about before, nicole, is they have an e-

much of it has come up in relation to the dobbs decision. and the attacks and the violence there has increase from groups on the far left. it has not increased from pro life groups. and since the dobbs leak there have been 70 pro-life pregnancy centers that were targeted. only two of these activists have been indicted. there are 25 individuals that have been indicted under the face act in just five months. so you see the disparity there. i appreciate that you said that most of these attacks are carried out at night. and that the protests take place during the day. so you say it is easier to identify and go after people that are carrying out a peaceful protest during the day, rather than a firebombing at night, is that correct? a.g. garland: if i could just say, i wish that you would assure your constituents in all the counties that the justice department does not treat people in the way that it is described. >> ok. a.g. garland: we treat like alike. cases alike. >> ok. let's talk about the specific case in tennessee, the health hope clinic.

wade, you disagree with the dobbs decision. the department of justice, under this president, was perfectly happy to refuse to enforce the law and allow threats of violence. and as you know, those threats finally materialized with nicholas russki, a 26-year-old man from california who traveled across the country, was arrested outside the home of justice kavanaugh, armed with a handgun, a knife, in burglary tools. he said that he came there to kill justice kavanaugh because he was enraged by the leaked opinion. of course, you are prosecuting that individual for attempted murder. did you bring even a single case to enforce this law, or the department of justice decided, this law doesn't apply it if it is harassing justices right opinion that we don't like? >> when the dawn's draft was leaked, i did something no attorney general in the history of the department had ever done before. for the first time in history, i ordered united states marshals 24/7, to defend every resident -- >> general garland, as a judge you are asking council

legalize abortion rights across the nation, restoring the rights stripped away by the supreme court's dobbs decision. >>> good day, everyone. i'm andrea mitchell in washington. at a hearing today, senators in both parties are pressing norfolk southern's ceo to honor his company's commitments to the people of east palestine for months or years after the train derailment raising concerns over environmental safety. more breaking news, another train from their fleet derailing this morning in northeast alabama. no injuries or hazmat leaks, thankfully, have been reported. ryan nobles joins us now. ryan, this is not a good time for norfolk southern. take us through the highlights from the hearing. >> reporter: yeah, i think that norfolk southern was prepared for this. they knew their ceo was going to be grilled today by senators from both parties about the disaster that took place regarding the norfolk southern train that ended up derailing and causing a massive chemical and hazardous incident in east palestine, ohio. he clearly came to the hearing prepared to not make any excuses and promise that

you saw that in general at fox business with lou dobbs and others.y were deep in the tank on the underlying theory of these voter fraud allegations, and that's why, you know, a lot of the stuff on lou dobbs' show was so far over the edge, over the line of actuality. but you saw a taste in those texts of the very unusual way in which fox is both a news channel and opinion leader and a power center in the kbop and a source of talent for the gop. tucker carlson is always being talked about as a candidate for president, and they're often cycling in and out for people who are running for things and contributors and their own talent being on the line as potential candidates for stuff. really a complicated role the whole network plays in conservative politics. >> could not have gotten through this material without you. jeremy sticks around, a big show ahead of us today. we'll be joined by the lead investigator from the january 6th select committee and one of its members for a joint interview reacting to this lawsuit to fox, to tucker carlson, and the news t

sure so, um, before the dobbs decision came down, but after we learned about the leak from the supreme court about the draft that suggested the decision would be as bad as it has turned out to be, um, i reached out to leadership from the bar association of san francisco because we knew that if that decision came down there would be tens of thousands of patients around the country as well as providers whose legal situation would be in jeopardy. women doctors, nurses who could be subjected to lawsuits who could be arrested who could be prosecuted, particularly in red states? 26 states where rights are being rolled back or in the process or have already been rolled back because of the dobbs decision. so we put out a call to lawyers all over the bay and frankly, all over the country, and as of this moment there have been over 70 law firms that have answered our call to be part of the legal alliance for reproductive rights who have committed to reviewing cases and providing pro bono assistance to patients and providers who are at legal risk. we also are looking at potential cases that these

wade, you disagree with the dobbs decision.the department of justice, under this president, was perfectly happy to refuse to enforce the law and allow threats of violence. and as you know, those threats finally materialized with nicholas russki, a 26-year-old man from california who traveled across the country, was arrested outside the home of justice kavanaugh, armed with a handgun, a knife, in burglary tools. he said that he came there to kill justice kavanaugh because he was enraged by the leaked opinion. of course, you are prosecuting that individual for attempted murder. did you bring even a single case to enforce this law, or the department of justice decided, this law doesn't apply it if it is harassing justices right opinion that we don't like? >> when the dawn's draft was leaked, i did something no attorney general in the history of the department had ever done before. for the first time in history, i ordered united states marshals 24/7, to defend every resident -- >> general garland, as a judge you are asking council

valid legal warrants from local law enforcement on june 7, before the supreme court's decision in dobbs versus jackson and they say the warrants did not mention abortion at all, are meta and google legally obligated to úpr >> that's where things get into this nebulous and problematic area of request. law enforcement does have to provide a legal warrant and in most cases unless the challenge directly in court, facebook or meta or google have to provide the information that is requested, however, these requests might not necessarily in the course of the investigation be specifically listing details regarding abortion, for example in this case in nebraska the request was detailing information regarding the improper disposal of fetal remains, nothing regarding abortions was mentioned in the initial request and that said, google for example does have policy based on a california law that they will not provide information related to requests for information in abortion investigations because of a california law which prevents social media entities from doing so, but if the request doesn't eve

discussed potentially procuring abortion pills online though the investigation had originated before the dobbs decision which overturned roe v. wade, the abortion charges were actually added after the overturning so this investigation was collecting information and additional charges related to abortion were added after they found potential evidence of that in chat logs provided by meta. >> in response to this incident, meta issued a statement saying we received vad legal warrants from local law enforcement on june 7, before the supreme court's decision in dobbs versus jackson and they say the warrants did not mention abortion at all, are meta and google legally obligated to úpr >> that's where things get into this nebulous and problematic area of request. law enforcement does have to provide a legal warrant and in most cases unless the challenge directly in court, facebook or meta or google have to provide the information that is requested, however, these requests might not necessarily in the cose of the investigation be specifically listing details regarding abortion, for example in this cas

is it dobbs, a catalytic event >> it's dobbs, kazmierczak they're choosing their moment. they think they have science on their side obviously they don't every single statistic they put forward is fall. less than a third of 1% of women who take it have serious complications. but they think this is their moment >> they're also making in the argument for standing, right, they're saying not only is it they're saying these are the complications clause, they're saying women who terminate effectively -- i'm paraphrasing here they say women who choose to end their pregnancies are denying the doctors effectively of a patient -- a client base if you will because they can't offer them pregnancy care. >> they're basically arguing there is this massive abortion industry, and when these medications are used to end a pregnancy it's denying the physicians the opportunity to do surgically, to do it procedurally, and again this plays into a lot of the rhetoric the pro-life movement has used for years. again, this idea there is an industry of abortion providers who are preying upon women wh

so, a lot of democrats somehow seem to be caught by surprise by dobbs, even though many people have been able to see this coming for a long time. a lot of the democratic party was kind of caught flat-footed, but in michigan, governor whitmer had already begun legal maneuverings in advance of dobbs, by several months, along with dana nessel, her attorney general. and the state legislature had already begun to work to toward repealing its 1931 law that could've gone into effect if roe fell. and so, the elected officials were also tied up with this and even in the weeks and months directly prior to the midterm elections, when a lot of people in the democratic party and in the political press were beginning to say, no, no, don't run so much on abortion, making false distinctions between abortion and economic issues. whitmer and that whole slate of democrats did not back down and continued to run on it, and to talk about it very freely, connecting it to so many other issues, including the economy. and other civil rights, and education, all kinds of issues that abortion is connected to. and th

garland: as soon as the dobbs draft leaked, i ordered the marshals to do something the u.s. marshals have never in history done before, which was protect the justices' homes, residences, and lives 24/7. no other attorney general has ordered that before. sen. lee:, which is terrific. a.g. garland: we sent more than 70 u.s. marshals for this purpose. those marshals' priorities are the protection of the lives of those justices and those families. their priority job is protection. that is why when someone did come to assault justice kavanaugh, he had to walk away from where they were because there were two marshals in front of the house. the marshals have been advised and they know, the marshals on the ground, they have full authority to arrest people under any federal statute, including that federal statute. but they have to make the determination on the ground whether they can do that in a manner that is safe and able to protect their main mission. there are also state and local entities which have similar authorities, and sit -- and which i understand the supreme court marsha

guest: i think the dobbs decision is a wake-up call for us all.y years when i was doing this work, the response to the question about abortion rights was always we already have abortion rights, we already have reproductive freedom in this country without an equal rights amendment. the e.r.a. is doctored to change a lot on that score. now we know what happened with that -- the e.r.a. is not going to change a lot on that score. now we know what happened with that. one of the reasons that happened is because the supreme court adopted a very limited reading of the constitution. whether the e.r.a. would have made a difference to the justices who wrote the opinion in dobbs or not, and i wish i could say it would have, i do not think it would have. whether it would have made a difference, what they wrote his they are going to interpret the constitution based only on its text. what that means is our constitution does not protect against discrimination on the basis of sex. it does not. that is what our current supreme court believes. i take that as an invi

this is what the dobbs decision has wrought.lantic titled originalism is going to get women killed, medina danny writes, quote, originalist idea on ideology glorifies an area blatant oppression along racial, gender, in class lines. the consequences of chaining constitutional interpretation to a time when much of the country was much worse off and only a rarefied few held power is as foreseeable as it is deadly. joining us now, attorney and columnist, my diva danny, former counsel for the democracy program at the brennan center for justice. thank you very much for being here. what's the logic of originalism if our society has evolved so much since the constitution was written? >> well, thank you for having me, jonathan, first of all, secondly, if i am to try to put originalism in its best possible light and think about how they were defying its logic they would say that it's mutual inconsistent and that the meaning of the constitution doesn't change. you have one fixed discoverable idea because it relates back to the people who r

ever since the leak of the dobbs opinion and the issuance of the dobbs opinion by the supreme court last summer, we had protesters who have been showing up at the homes of supreme court justices, carrying signs, picketing, shouting, it is very clear that they're trying to influence in one way or another those serving on the united states supreme court. trying to influence jurisprudence. and yet not one person, to my knowledge, has been prosecuted for such things under 18 u.s. c section 807. some committee invited some officials from the department of justice to brief committee staff on protests at the justices homes and ask about any arrests that have been made or might be made for people engaged in that behavior. the briefers came to the briefing and informed staff that they hadn't read section 1507. i assume you read it, of course. just wondering why the department would schedule such a briefing on a statute without having read it and especially why no acts have been brought under section 1507 for these actions. i've got a lot to cover. can you answer that? >> i'll try to answer all th

those aren't the people who are protesting now, they appreciated the dobbs decision, frankly, somethingworking for for a long time. so we want to get all the facts for those issues and other things like what we talked about before with the twitter files. maria: tell me about the whistleblowers. how many whistleblowers are you interviewing? are they going to come public? >> we have talked -- three of them are. those are the ones who were willing to come public and sit down for a transcribed interview. there are actually a couple dozen others who haven't been willing to come public. they have met with our staff. our staff has interviewed them. if they're willing to come public, we'll do similar to a deposition which is urn oath, you ask them questions, you get the transcript and everything else. three of them have done that, and we've learned some very valuable information from those three like what we just described mr. to' boyle old us how that threat tag was used and was turned to go after to-life. maria: so what are you going to do if you're not getting the information that you're req

we see dobbs, june 24th, 2022, overturning roe v. wade an planned parenthood despite the fact that justic alito and justice kavanaugh in the concurring opinion said, there are guardrails in place. other areas of privacy will no be affected. this is an issue that is jus about the states what we see in this litigation is that it is not just about the states because what we hav our lead against that ar seeking this particular judg to issue a nationwide ban on the distribution of this particular drug and as you hav already noted, this is a ver safe drug and what they ar using is unfounded rhetoric. for example, that this was a rushed approval process throug the fda, when in fact it too over 54 months of fda review when by comparison, the year that this drug came to the market, other drugs were under review for about 15 months so there is a lot of sophistry here and a lot of strategy >> yeah. so, it's technically about wha they say is the rush process i think there's good reason to think that is pre-textural there's also deform shopping w

"fox business host, lou dobbs. "oh, yeah, dobbs he did it." [ light laughter ] "fox host, sean hannity? "ah, the wombat. yeah, i bet. sean 'the wombat' hannity. "all were in the document, correct? "yeah, they were." "about fox endorsing the narrative of a stolen election, correct? "some of our commentators, they were endorsing it. "about their endorsement of a stolen election? "yeah. [ light laughter ] yeah, they endorsed it." anyway, the point is, murdoch said, quote, "they endorsed. meaning fox hosts endorsed the lie that the election was stolen, knowing it was a lie in fact, that same court filing also revealed that hannity later changed his tune on trump after the january 6th insurrection although you'd never know it from watching hannity's show again, this is from sean hannity's boss, rupert murdoch according to the court filing, paul ryan, who is now a fox board member, had emailed murdoch. ryan believed that some high percentage of americans thought the election was stolen because they got a diet of information telling them the electio

attorney general and senator ted cruz over the handling of protests that followed the leak of the dobbsision on abortion. >> when rioters descended at the homes of six supreme court justices night after night after night, you did nothing. did you bring even a single case to enforce this law or did the department of justice decide this law doesn't apply if it's harassing justices for an opinion we don't like? >> when the dobbs draft was leaked, i did something no attorney general in the history of the department had ever done before. for the first time in history, i ordered united states marshals 24/7 to defend every residence of every justice -- >> has the department of justice brought even a single case under the statute, it's a yes, no question. it's not a give a speech on the other things you did. >> the job of the united states marshals is to defend the lives of -- >> so the answer is no. >> is to defend the lives of the justices and that's their number one priority. >> are you unwilling to say no,st answer's no, you know it's no. i know it's no. everyone in this hearing room knows

so the only thing that appears to have changed is that the dobbs decision came down in june of 2022 anda little bit more comfortable in these more marginal cases where the fetus is farther along bringing the case against the woman herself in a self-managed abortion. >> as you know, there are all kinds of legal cases out there related to abortion, and now walgreen's says it will not dispense abortion pills in several states even where they remain legal after nearly two dozen republican attorneys general threaten the company with legal aeks. i wonder if you see more big companies going to feel like they have to make -- you know do things similar to this if they have to remove the possibility of any legal liability. >> yeah, so what kicked this all off was that back in january, the biden administration and its fda decided to change the rules with respect to who can -- who can dispense, who can dispense the drug that's used in self-medicated abortions, and so what they did was they said now pharmacies can actually dispense this drug with a prescription from a certified provider, but the pha

he does not like the dobbs decision. he supports roe v. wade.t a shocking sum who has been 24 years as a judge, he is perfectly willing to be complicit with the left-wing violent mob threatening the lives and families of the justices because he supports their political agenda. that is incredibly dangerous. >> let's take stock of who merrick garland has gone after and refused to go after. he is going after pro-life father of seven at his home, arrested him like a hardened criminal. he has gone after parents peacefully protesting at their children's school board meetings. he has had the fbi investigate traditional catholics as being domestic terrorists. and he won't use the department of justice to go after people who are harassing the children of supreme court justices? the guy is a disgrace. he needs to go. [applause] >> you just -- you are out there with the voters, talking to them. how concerned -- tell a little about your story. you are what i call a blue-collar conservative. you come in and run for this thing. how concerned are the american

on the the afternoon of january 6, then president trump dialed into lou dobbs show attempting to getes that decision. why? not because of a lack of newsworthiness. january 6 was an important event by any measure. president trump not only was the sitting president, he was the key figure that day. but fox refused to allow president trump on the air that evening because it would be irresponsible to put him on the air and it could impact a lot of people in a negative way. talk about that argument and whether it could be extended to the decision to do what fox news did last night. >> yeah, well, i think there is an interesting triangleation between fox viewership and trump that really has become centerpiece of this dominion suit. the sort of through line here is the -- the desire on the part of fox to woo trump supporters and to appease trump supporters and that same theme is happening now and may be haunting fox a little bit in some of the ways that we've just described. fox's lawyers have defending in this libel suit in large part on the grounds that fox had this healthy mix of journali

> it almost has echos of the way that democrats framed the argument of abortion as a result of the dobbsthink democrats look at that as a successful effort to take the overturning of roe v. wade so people understand why it happened and i think republican strategists believe it hurt republicans and a reason they didn't have more success and didn't win the senate. i think democrats are using the playbook here understanding a ruling adverse could energize the voters, independents and others who feel like abortion rights are at risk here. >> while democrats are seeing this as a galvanizing issue there is an accountability issue for the biden administration given the promises they made. >> absolutely. they have to answer to the voters >>> next, what is in the name? an answer isn't clear even among conservatives that regularly invoke i it. be e 100! why dodo i keep taking such good care of my- since we starteded working with empower, we're able to get all our financial questions answered, so we don't have to worry. so you never- no. never. join 17 million people and take control of your financ

how radical is dobbs?appointed justices. the politicalization of the court is evident. >> as kim said, it threw a bomb into law about the second amendment and clarence thomas said you have to cite history in text and tradition, that caused these crazy gun laws where judges are like, banning guns in airports is unconstitutionally because there were no laws about that in the 18th and 19th. when there were no airports. the problem that comes home to roost is the problem of originalism. the idea that we have to cite historical precedent all the time. it's foolish in the sense that, you know, people citing things that didn't happen in the 19th century, also a clear wrong reading of the second amendment. you're an originalist, the first four words of the second amendment. a well regulated myly sha. to have a state militia. not to have ar-15s in living room. it's clear misreading of it. it's a fraud perpetrated on the american people. >> there's an untouchable nature that ties together these questions about no et

looe dobbs decision.court told us that was the very foundation of the dobbs decision and no shock to anybody. that's not what's being seen today. and here's what's going to ensue when the reckless decision in texas comes down. we know that providers are already being stretched very thin. they're harassed. they're the subject of vial threats. -- of vile threats. they're going to thrown into a landscape of confusion. over the last few months i have heard nonstop from these heroic medical professionals in my state. they worry there will be lines out the doors of women leading help. they worry about long wait times for the women who are fortunate enough to eventually receive in-person care. they worry about the women who will never make it to a doctor's office because they live in a rural county or lack the means to make the journey that will now be necessary to receive abortion care. they worry about what will happen next. when will another judge in another state that looks nothing like oregon make it so that these providers are not able to treat women seeking to exercise their privacy

sure so, um, before the dobbs decision came down, but after we learned about the leak from the supreme court about the draft that suggested the decision would be as bad as it has turned out to be, um, i reached out to leadership from the bar association of san francisco because we knew that if that decision came down there would be tens of thousands of patients around the country as well as providers whose legal situation would be in jeopardy. women doctors, nurses who could be subjected to lawsuits who could be arrested who could be prosecuted, particularly in red states? 26 states where rights are being rolled back or in the process or have already been rolled back because of the dobbs decision. so we put out a call to lawyers all over the bay and frankly, all over the country, and as of this moment there have been over 70 law firms that have answered our call to be part of the legal alliance for reproductive rights who have committed to reviewing cases and providing pro bono assistance to patients and providers who are at legal risk. we also are looking at potential cases that these

that's maria bartiromo and this guy, lou dobbs, who never no longer works there. -- she was responsible for giving credence to really crazy conspiracy theories about the dominion voting machines and their role in this plot, supposedly, to defraud trump. if there's one thing i'm sure, by now, many people have heard of this email from this woman who claimed that she spoke to the wind. so, this woman who claimed that she spoke to the wind was a source of sydney powell's. and sidney powell frequently went on maria bartiromo show. the producer who is now suing fox news was working for maria bartiromo at the time, saw this email, and has since testified in her deposition that she did not really consider it that big of a deal. it's not only that. but that she wasn't overly concerned that false information was being put on the air. so, i don't doubt for a second that the workplace environment that she describes in this lawsuit, working for tucker carlson, like, seriously concerned her. and a lot of what she describes is the kind of sexist and misogynists iken virus went and tucker carlson and h

murdoch, not fox, no, but maybe lou dobbs, maybe maria bartiromo as commentators.ney asked him about janine pirro. murdoch, i think so. lou dobbs. . a lot. . sean hannity. a bit. about their endorsement of a stolen election. murdoch, yes, they endorsed. you investigated the january 6 attack f months. how did fox news' coverage and the lies about election fraud in the weeks and months contribute to january 6? >> what the fox news hosts were repeating without foundation was part of a chorus of repeated bogus theories of election fraud. they came from the former president himself. they came in the form of social media posts repeated. victim in the form of fundraising materials sent out by the trump campaign that became the stop conceal -- stop the steal money machine. there were lots of places where the false narrative, no foundation in fact, was repeated and it had a lot to do with people getting really angry and going to the capitol and believing genuinely that.the election have been stolen speaker mccarthy is handing over footage, tens of thousands of hours, to tuc

until dobbs.we're reversing that, we're taking away freedoms that are guaranteed in the constitution that have precedence established by this court. so this is a dangerous path that this court is on. and it's horrible because it's a personal issue, it's an issue of faith, it's a kitchen table issue. it affects people in so many ways. i say that as a mother of five. and we respect that other people make their own choices about what they do. and we have no politician, no supreme court justice, anybody has the right to tell women and families how they should live their lives. this is a horrible decision. and, you know what, it really revealed itself in the election. they were going to win 40 seats, it was going to be a red tornado or whatever it was. and what did they get, five seats. >> one of my favorite things that you said is you have to learn how to take a punch and you have to learn how to throw a punch for the children in the arena. give advice to those who are frustrated by our politics now,

wade was even decided we were the first state to codify a woman's right t choose after the dobbs decisio stripped women of -- and americans have a constitutional, fundamenta freedom for the first time i american history since reconstruction now, we're seeing th aftermath. if this judge, who by the way, today, stephanie, was literall asking about 19th centur morality law about carryin morrow products from wednesday to another, as if that is th case with a chemical that wa approved by the fda 20 years ago and has been used by 5 million american >> new topic, a very serious one we have been covering on thi network, the medicatio abortion case in texas talk to us about how your stat of colorado would be effecte if abortion pills were banned? >> this is part of a nationa ban that the republican part is trying to put on this country, but my state was th first day to legalize abortion in america five years before roe v. wade was even decided we were the first state to codify a woman's right t choose after the dobbs decisio stripped women of -- and americans have a constitutional, fundamenta fre

dobbs i don't think that's necessarily just a midterm phenomenon. okay. so you also say that things will get better. i think you alluded to that a little in our conversation. but you say that things will get better because the changing racial and ethnic ethnic demographics and because millennials, gen z ers have grown up in and largely favor multicultural america. so isn't the older generations kicking the can down the road or telling the younger generations like we know we've things up a bit, but we're confident you can figure it out. i thought you were gonna say, isn't that the older generations kicking the bucket? because that's basically what has to happen right? that's going to get us all out of the way, right i mean, i used to blame the baby boomers. i realized that my my gen x is no better, literally. you know, i'm sorry for ted cruz. gosh, all they and all the rest of them. but right. so yeah, i mean, i am yes, it's a matter that the way you phrased it is a matter of kicking the can. but you know, my argument is that we have to do everything can n

if the dobbs decisiondren was happening out there is hundredse of churches in crisis pregnancy centersttacked for thet according to whistleblower that talk to us under oath, he said they were encouraging him to go look into pro-life leaders for goodness sake.e. that made no sense. that make no sense to me. the people protesting now.king they appreciated the dobbslong decision something they've been g for, for a long time. we want to get all the facts fo those issues and other thingtas like what we talked about before with the twitter files. w maria: telling about the whistleblowers but how manhiy g oiwhistleblowers are you interviewing? arthe they going to come public? >> three of them are those the ones are willing to come public and said never transcribed interview there are actually a couple dozen others who have no. been willing to come public wit different with our staff or staff is interviewedharvie them. if they're willing to comehich public will do a transcribed interview summer to a deposition which is under oath u.s. questioning of the transcript and everythingryth else. ver

wade -- i'm sorry, dobbs against jackson overturning roe v. wade returns at issue to the democratic forum. now we have to do our work there. but i think justice thomas is right -- this is very controversial to say. justice thomas, in his concurring opinion in dobbs -- and no one joined him in this -- but i believe he was right in saying that in exposing a salacious and rejecting the doctrine of substantive due process, which is the principal on which row -- roe was built, the court has also undermined the authority of its other substantive due process decisions, including the decision that redefined marriage for the entire nation. so there is an opening there. the other justices have been at pains to say that is not the issue, that's not what we are talking about here. but i think what justice thomas says is true as a logical manner -- logical matter. with roe gone and gone because substantive due process is a corruptive doctrine, exposed for the fallacy it is, there is no solid constitutional basis for some of these other decisions. that does

texas, again, there would be appeals, but has the ability to have another earthquake just like the dobbs decision. >> yeah, and right now, washington is out of the discussion, but it doesn't have to be. congress could intervene and create some laws that clarify access to abortion, clarify whatever limitations or medications or clarified the fda's role in that, but we know that there's gridlock in congress on this issue. we know that republicans in the house are likely to block any progress on this issue. now we're leaving it up to the courts. and again, as has been laid out right now, this particular lawsuit is on a trajectory that keeps it with a conservative bench. it means there's risk to access to abortion on a national level. >> the access question and the uncertainty is what makes the case so fascinating. everybody has their views on this issue. it's a polarizing issue. but the decisions after roe v. wade, we have seen the d disruptions. it's largely along the coast. and the middle of the country less and less so. the clinic director told us, if all clinic has to switch to doing pr

fox host lou dobbs? oh, a lot. question. fox host sean hannity? a bit. some of our commentators were endorsing it. question? about their endorsement of a stolen election? murdaugh. yes, they endorsed. that is rupert murdoch, not stupidly admitting the truth under oath. that is rupert murdoch being forced, very much against his will, to admit the truth under oath. fox as a general enterprise is in the business of lying. that is their core business. that is what the dominion a voting systems lawsuit against fox has already proved beyond a reasonable doubt. they have proved beyond the standard of proof necessary in a civil lawsuit that fox sells lies. donald trump also said today, quote, fox news wants to silence its anchors and reporters. no, rupert murdoch just needs them to stop lying about dominion voting systems during this lawsuit. rupert murdoch is perfectly happy to have them lie about anything else and everything else because fox has conditioned its audience on lies. and as shown in under oath testimony in the dominion lawsuit, rupert murdoch fears

been filed after protests outside the residence's supreme court justices in the wake of the leaked dobbs opinion to overturn roe v. wade. senator tom cotton appeared to question whether the doj was too preoccupied to take meaningful action. >> considering the efforts your department has put into tracking down everyone who was even on capitol grounds in 2021, you've dedicated millions of hours to study videotape, to go knock and do interviews. you can't allocate just a few agents to look at people's social media account to say they are present outside a justice's home, we're going to arrest them and charge them? >> our priority is violence and threats of violence and the protection of the lies of the justices, and that's what we're doing. >> joining us now is matt miller, former chief spokesman for the obama strus s department. matt, thank you for being here. just, wow, in terms of everything merrick garland has to deal with. in addition to grillings like that on the hill let's refresh everybody's memory on what this man is dealing with. the special counsel's investigation into trump's ha

>> kate, what we need is the federal government to step in, in light of the dobbs decision which strippedons for women that we have had for 50 years to access reproductive care and bodily autonomy and abortion and contraception, and the dobbs decision took that right away from us, and yes, it is leading to the chaotic situations, but we need company like walgreens that specialize in providing life saving care to step up to ensure that their customers are able to access that care to the full extent of the law, and we do not see them doing that right now. maybe they will more than change their tune, and they will make sure that they do provide this care where it is clearly legal, and that is more than, and that does not include the 21 states that they sent lerts letters sa that they would not sell this therapy. so we have work to do, but california is very clear about where we are, and let me say in this last election in our state, we amended our state constitution with almost 70% of the vote to enshrine a woman's right to choose and access abortion here in our state. >> and another story t

they have been going on constantly ever since dobbs. >> dana: if you were to make 1 or 2 arrests it wouldend a signal and end. the protests at the justices homes continue and disruptive to families and children. want to move to another topic. you have been dogged in your determination to try to make sure that lieutenant ridge, one of our own, there in jail in japan and you would like to see the white house do something more. here is what you said about him. listen up. >> we've waited long enough. rich has waited long enough and his wife britney has waited long enough. their children have waited long enough. all three of them. we're done waiting. >> dana: the "wall street journal" writes japan, u.s. and the lieutenant no doubt tokyo is fearful of a domestic -- he paid a steep price for the action. it is a political tinder boxed. do you have any indication from the white house or state department they are taking this seriously enough to understand it could have diplomatic consequences with one of our great allies? >> i certainly know the white house has been engaged and i appreciated that e