>> jacqui. >> supreme court watch as we wait for the court to issue new rulings any moment with 19 cases from the current term still undecided. welcome to a brand new hour of "america's newsroom" i'm jacqui. >> and start this friday morning with you, it could be a busy hour, i'm sandra smith, the court issued opinions in four cases yesterday, none were the big ones we were watching for. what we are watching for includes former president trump's claim of presidential immunity. shielding him from prosecution for actions taken while in office. the use of an obstruction law against some of the january 6th rioters and the biden administration's influence over social media content. >> also on the docket, fisherman are fighting administrative powers of unregulated, whether federal law can override state abortion restrictions forcing hospitals to perform abortions if there is an emergency. our legal team is standing by, shannon bream, along with jonathan tourly, andy mccarthy, shannon outside the court. i hate to ask you to guess what you expect not to see today, but could you? >> reporter: we have 19 opinions we are waiting on. we know from inside, bill muir, there are three boxes, what that means in regular people terms that is a big day. one to two boxes, we have a giant decision that could be 200 or 300 pages long. or 60 pages long. so, it's a guessing game at this point. we're waiting for the first one. as you said immunity is at the top of the list. we have that january 6th case that applies to hundreds of january 6 defendants including president trump. if he wins that case he is not a direct party, if the defendant in that case wins it wipes out half of the federal case here in washington against president trump. so, there are a lot of things that could impact the trump campaign, 2024 campaign today, based on with we get from the court, now it is just a waiting and refreshing and refreshing and refreshing game. >> which is why you hear my computer clicking, clicking, clicking, because we are all looking at the same thing. >> exactly. >> so, shannon, as far as the immunity case is concerned, what will we be watching for there if not getting it today, we are going to get that soon in the timing of this is going to be everything in this presidential election year. >> and just so you know, we do have the first opinion of the day, it's not one of the ones on the watch list. one of the 19 we didn't have on high priority. the human inity case could go so many different ways. justice neil gorsuch, they got the weight of this, we are writing a rule for the ages. so, that's going to take time and there is going to be a lot of back and forth. i would guess if the chief justice is writing the opinion and that is our guesstimate, it doesn't mean he is for sure. he is the type that wants to pull together a coalition, as many people to sign on to whatever the majority opinion is. neither side is going to get everything they are asking for. i highly doubt. it was presidents can do whatever they want, there is no criminal liability for that, they have to be free to do their job. you can't have protection its on presidents for ages and centuries have done their job without trying to worry about being prosecuted criminally before they leave. during the argument there was a lot of conversation about what if this turns into the person who loses, immediately has to worry their opponent is going to try to put them in jail. i gotta think the court is going to find some kind of middle ground, there is some measure of immunity for official abilities and clearly define what are official acts of the all that means, if that happens, it goes back to the lower court which has been on pause here in washington for months while this has played out, depending on what they get from the court whether it's today or next week, they will then take up the pieces and decide how that case moves forward. it's been a significant delay, federal cases do not move at lightning speed, the way this got on to the docket, argued, by supreme court standards that's very quick. >> i want to bring in jonathan tourly, the one opinion that just came down or shannon mentioned is texas versus new mexico, it wasn't a high priority case that we were watching. does that tell you anything about the likelihood that we will see today one of those more highly watched cases like the immunity case? >> well, they do have to clear the decks a bit. they have a number of cases that they are going to go through. they are all important, of course. as ruth bader ginsburg says it's not a bad year to have a year of big cases. we are waiting for these block buster cases. i expect we are going to get a couple of these, we are waiting for a second amendment case, rahimi case that hunter biden may be counting on to assist him. we have the immunity case. we have a major case on agency authority. all these are still before the court. i think we'll get one or two of those today. >> there is a "new york times" guest essay on the trump immunity case as we do await anything else coming down here this morning. it reads something's rotten about the justices taking so long on trump's immunity case. what are your thoughts on that? >> i think it's just such slanted coverage, it's reminiscent what we heard before the dc circuit gave them a ruling that they liked and then suddenly all was forgiven and everything fine. i don't put much stock in it, what i would put more stock in frankly, is the questioning that went on at oral argument where justice garrett and justice kagan elicit from trump's lawyering a lot of ground given stuff in jack smith's indictment that can't be or is in conceivably covered by immunity whatever the supreme court ends up deciding the scope of immunity is. those were major sessions. jack smith will still have a case no matter what the supreme court does. i focus more on that which is real than this other stuff about why it's taking a court a long time to decide something that's unprecedented and very complicated. >> and i want to go back to jonathan, jon than we got another opinion that came down, again, not one of the cases that we've been watching very closely, it's department of state versus -- to your point, jonathan, all of these cases are important, but of the ones that might shape the outcome of the election, which are in sort of your order, the top of your list? >> well, it's like animal farms, all animals are equal but some are more equal than others. we have major cases, the trump case has presidential immunity. rhimi, u.s. fisher which is on the scope of -- or the value obstruction charges that could have significant impact on the cases involving president -- former president trump. you have the loafer bright enterprise case which deals with a fishing company. but many people think it could put a spike through the heart of the chevron doctrine, giving federal agencies sweeping discretion when they create new rules, going against the federal government. the question is whether not necessarily where they should lose, chevron will survive it. you also have moody, which is a censorship case on the internet. you have moil which is dealing with abortion and state rights. you have murphy, murphy which is another censorship case on the internet. all of those have tremendous potentials for affecting the lives of american citizens. we are not going to get all of them today. the court often reserves some of the biggest cases for its final day. there is a sense of theater here. they tend to release at least one block buster case. i expect we are going to get that. maybe rahimi, that has been long on the vine. and so it may be ready now to be plucked by the chief justice. >> all right. so, shannon we are almost 9 minutes and counting past the top of the 10:00 hour. what point do we realize we are not getting some of these top cases or will that take time to see? >> so what happens with each case is they release them in reverse seniority. the person who authors the case. the first one was justice jackson, justice barrett. anybody else in seniority can be giving us one of the cases remaining. when we get the last three cases of the day, the three boxes are empty, they will tell us that's the last one of the day. what happens with a lot of these cases is when they are handed out, the justices are actually on the bench and they read a portion of their opinion and explain the holding of the case. now if somebody's really fired up i think is the best way to say it, they will ale reed their dissent, boom, the next one is released, we are still in that releasing phase. like i said, with the two most junior justices having gone, it could be anybody left on the court and bigger decisions are going to a justice much more senior as we wait. >> and shannon, you mentioned earlier that, you know, the supreme court has to clear its docket by the end of the month. you have the president of the united states hold up at camp david, preparing for a debate on the 27th which is a thursday. and then that friday is the last weekday of the month before you head into the weekend. so, if we were to see one of these big rulings come down, it's something like abortion or immunity that they would as a campaign likely want to season. i think we should note, too, that what they would have to do to get the president out there to give remarks is not as easy as it would be if he was at the white house, call the press in. and a couple of these i would imagine they are going to have strong reaction to. >> yeah, i mean, jacqui you know this better than anyone what it's like to get the president on camera, get access to the pool. i would imagine if there is something really big when he is on a lockdown, debate prep at camp david, we are going to get paper statements. something really crucial, they will find a way to include the press and get a statement out from him. what is interesting if one of the big decisions comes on the debate. they only added wednesday, the only day they added next week. we know they will add more, by my count we're down to 17, no way they are going to release all of those today on wednesday so, it's very possible that thursday is an opinion day, it could be the last day of the term. it could be the block buster, it could be immunity, that's all possible meaning that that is then the headline going into the debate, whatever the justices have decided. so, you have to imagine the debate prep going on, moderators are tightly watching what's happening with the supreme court because it's going to provide todayer for that first head to head for these two in the injuriest debate in recent history or memory that any of us have of presidential campaign. >> another case coming instill not one of the top ones that we are watching. we'll keep refreshing. jonathan, can i ask you about the hearings in the trump classified documents case beginning in florida out of fort pearce. we had a report out of there. set to begin 9:30 this morning. what are you watching and expecting there? >> you know, this is a very novel issue that is by no means frivolous. people have been dismissing this as just a hail mary throw by the trump team and they've been accusing this judge of entertaining a frivolous claim, it's not. there is a disconnect between the language of the constitution and how the special counsel cases are handled. if you want to be a u.s. attorney with the authority about of the u.s. attorney, you have to be nominated by the president, confirmed by the senate, you go through this long process. unless you are a special council, the attorney general could pick you off a corner in washington, d.c. and give you more power than a u.s. attorney. so, what these -- what the challengers are saying is how does that track -- i mean, how do we have this system if the attorney general can't effectively make his own appointments of these powerful legal figures? now, that doesn't mean that the biden administration is going to lose this case. the odds still favor the biden administration, previous cases have indicated that courts may not be entirely happy with this, but they can -- but they have allowed this to go forward. keep in mind that we had an independent counsel statute passed by congress, that was allowed to die. many people had had enough of independent counsel investigations. that left this weird gap as to, well, who are these people? how does the attorney general general get authority that is supposed to be shared between the president and the senate? that's what they are going to be debating today. >> we'll let you guys regroup as we furiously refresh our browsers and get to other news in the meantime shannon and jonathan and andy, thank you. >> manhattan da is refusing to crackdown on anti-israel protester that took over columbia, destroyed property and held staff hostage. alvin bragg dropping nearly all of their cases. >> president biden catch and release border crisis, horrific crimes are tied, just this week alone. >> he stopped the building of the wall. as far as i am concerned, the biden administration has the blood of rache in morin on their hands. citi's industry leading global payments solutions help their clients move money around the world seamlessly in over 180 countries... and help a partner like the world food programme as they provide more than food to people in need. together, citi and the world food programme empower families across the globe. ♪ ♪ innovation in health care means nothing if no one can afford it. ♪ at evernorth, we're helping to unlock barriers. ♪ using our 35 plus years of pharmacy benefits management experience to save businesses billions while boosting medication adherence. helping plan sponsors and their members be at their best. that's wonder made possible. evernorth health services. can it keep me warm when i'm cold? wait, no, i'm always hot. sleep number does that. shop our lowest prices of the season with free home delivery when you add an adjustable base. sleep number smart beds starting at $999. learn more at sleepnumber.com ♪ i'm gonna hold you forever... ♪ ♪ i'll be there... ♪ ♪ you don't... ♪ ♪ you don't have to worry... ♪ >> well, we are still awaiting what would be some bombshell rulings from the supreme court. we just haven't gotten them yet. some cases have come down, four of them. not the ones we are looking for. a focus on the cases on immunity, on abortion, guns, there is a lot that we're watching for. they are still coming in, so we're watching this. we have our legal team on stand by, andy, jonathan, sandra. as soon as we get more we'll bring that to you, jacqui. >> now this, manhattan district attorney's office has dropped criminal charges against dozens of anti-israel protesters who barricaded themselves in columbia university without even a slap on the wrist. now there is outrage over this move and it is growing fast. nate foy is live with the latest on this story for us, nate. >> reporter: hey, jacqui, cases of 31 columbia university students and staff member arrested are now dismissed. the anti-israel protesters barricaded the campus building and covered the security cameras inside. police arrested protesters on trespassing charges, prosecutors say there is in sufficient evidence to prove the defendants caused damage or nursed anybody. because of a lack of security camera footage and the fact that protesters wore face masks. now almost all of them have an opportunity to avoid criminal punish: on top of the dismissed cases, alvin bragg offered deals to 14 defendants, all but two of them are not affiliated with the school. their cases will also be dismissed if they complete a probation airy period successfully. prosecutors say, all dismissed charges including defendants without criminal histories, protesters said it's not enough. they are calling on prosecutors across the country to drop charges against protesters. >> four palestine action u.ss are facing over 30 years in prison for allegedly targeting a facility. we say, drop the charges. >> prosecutors also dismiss charges against ninan tie israel protesters at the city college of new york. another nine offered a dismissal after a successful probation airy period. six protesters at the city college of new york are still facing prosecution, five are accused of assaulting police officers, the sixth is facing an illegal weapons charge. >> nate foy for us, thank you, nate. >> reporter: you got it. >> my heart goes out to the families that lost this young girl and these animals that did this deserve to rot in hell. and right now there is blood on joe biden's hands because of the executive fiat he destroyed our southern border. american children are dying. this is absolutely absurd. this is absolutely unamerican. 11,000,000 people entering our country illegally under fentanyl entered our country, our children are dying, it is the federal government's job to keep our children safe. >> we are going to have more on that story coming up. it is still developing at this hour. meanwhile this alert to the supreme court as we have just gotten the ruling on the u.s. versus rahimi, live with that, shannon you heard professor turley whether or not this would impact hunter biden. from having access to their gun. in a decision that looks like it's probably 8 to 1 here. so, passing that out. individual when found by a court to pose a credible threat to the physical safety of another, that individual may be temporarily disarmed consistent with the second amendment, it sounds like, we'll dig into this, the court is saying there can be times when second amendment rights can be infringed, somebody under a domestic violence order. had he a record that was very troubling when it came to physical violence, allegations of that with partners with him. and it looks like, and i am getting the hard copy opinion because our folks are amazing and they run really fast and we get these. thank you. it looks like this is an 8 to 1. i will be able to tell you here. yes, it looks like justice tothomas, on numerous owe occasion, what it looks like the court is saying is in there are cases in which second amendment rights can be infringed, in this case where you potentially pose a threat to someone else and their safety, that is going to be a situation in what the court says. this can happen. they say essentially here, we conclude this, individual found by court to pose a credible threat to the physical safety can be disarmed. reversing, sent back down for further proceedings. to 8 to 1. that's the decision, as you know hunter biden has been, i know, just convicted on federal gun charges, in his case it was somebody the law says if you are addicted to an illegal substance and you lion a form, is that a reason to proceed with federal criminal charges. and losing opinion for justice thomas, like i said advocate here, 8 to 1 the court is saying that jurisdictions can keep people from their guns in situations where other people's safety is at threat. >> more reaction, shannon, if you could stand by with us as we do wait possible more rulings at this hour. jonathan turley taphouse on this. u.s. supreme court ruled in favor, the biden administration defending the federal gun ban for domestic abusers, how big is this and does this change things with the hunter biden case? >> it does. this is a drop hail mary throw for hunter biden. his defense was relying significantly on this case. they were hoping that the nra would prevail against his father's justice department. and to expand the second amendment rights so it might have had this blow back on his own case. i always question that by the way, because hunter biden was convicted for lying on a gun form. i doubt it seriously the supreme court would get to the point that said you could do that. but the court here in an almost unanimous decision said that, no, look second amendments are like other rights. they are not absolute. you can have reasonable limitations. i think the other group that's going to be disappointed besides the hunter biden team and obviously second amendment advocates are critics of the supreme court. the last few days we have seen arch interesting mix of decisions including unanimous and near unanimous cases on major issues. all those people that say that the supreme court is hopelessly aid i ideologicaly divided. these are 8 out of 9 justices saying we see room here for reasonable limitations. they are not this robotic ideologically divided court. they came out with a reasoned opinion. many will disagree with it but it shows that this court is much different than what you read about in the main stream press. >> i want to go back to shannon because shannon this was forecast to come down in this way. and it happens in this case to kind of be in line with the public opinion surrounding it, that's not always the case in the supreme court decision. but there is a dissent. what does the dissent say? >> justice thomas dissenting here. the most recent gun related jurisprudence from the court talks about the fact that you have to look at historical precedent for any kind of impingement on the second amend., the question is in this case, can strip the subjective to a protective order even if he has never been accused or convicted of a crime, it cannot -- it says the court of the government do not point to a single historical law revoking a citizen's second amendment right based on possible interpersonal violence. says the government hadn't bourne its burden. if you are subject to a protective order is not enough. this guy has been protected of a crime, under the second amendment this shouldn't survive. again, he is the lone voice here dissenting against the 8 to 1 feel like was the proper upholding of this statutory measure saying if you are subjecting someone else to harm. there can be a temporary, there can be a temporary impingement on your second amendment rights. and this is the last one of the day. >> andy we haven't heard from you yet. your thoughts on the implications of this ruling. >> well, it seems to me that the most interesting point is the one that shannon just made which is the temporary nature of the disability because there is two things that are going on in the second amendment challenges. one is, is the nature of the restriction that is in federal law and has really been in federal law since 196, even though that's to the reflective of what the original understanding what the 2 2nd amendment was at the end of the 18th century. the question is are these restrictions constitutional. and the second thing is this concept of temporary disability. in other words, most of the restrictions in federal law are categorical. and for example, if you are hunter biden and decide you are in the box of drug user, then under the provision that he was convicted on, he is disabled permanently from possessing a weapon. what the chief justice is saying here in his opinion is that reading the -- reading the regulations of this kind of restriction which go back to the founding, there is a basis to say that there is a temporary baron a person's ability to possess a firearm which implies of course, that if you're not in the condition that causes the temporary bar they have to give you the gun back. i think what hunter biden wants to argue in his case is that unless they can show that he was under the influence of narcotics or disabled by narcotics at the time that he possessed the gun or at least at the time he purchased the gun and thereafter, that his infraction should be excused, that's the possession. i agree with jonathan that shouldn't have any impact at all on the false statement. you can't make a false statement regardless of what the second amendment says about possession. but i do think it gives him some cards to play on possession. >> jonathan, just responding to shannon and also andy there, does anything in that dissent in your opinion have any implications for states that might have red flag laws? is there anywhere else could go after this that we aren't looking at right now? >> that was the fear of the gun rights advocates that the court by allowing this type of deprivation, even a temporary deprivation to occur is going to greenlight even broader red flag laws, that there is going to be now a rush to try to create new bases for even temporarily denying someone their gun rights. i don't think this opinion lays that open as much as people feared. i think that the court here is saying that this seems reasonable. it's a temporary denial of gun rights. it doesn't say that you could be deprived for life. and they are trying to find an accommodation here. when you look at the earlier cases, including heller, the case that really set a new direction for second amendment cases, the court was careful to say this is not an absolute right. we don't have absolute rights in the constitution. but it is an individual right. and it is a robust right. and i think the court has been consistent with that since haller. we are looking for reasonable accommodations while protecting the core of this individual right. >> shannon, we'll finish up here with you from the majority of opinion by jesus tis roberts, "we can conclude this, to pose a credible threat from the physical safety another, may be temporarily disarmed consistent with the second amendment" we discussed the update, shannon, the next opinion day is wednesday, that means we are done here for the day? >> we are done for today. and as we were just talking about injustice thomas' dissent, he said that impingement on second amendment rights or gun laws have to show historical context for them. sounds like he is answering or trying to answer that claim. he says since the founding, our nation's firearm laws preventing individuals who threaten physical harm to others from misusing firearms, he is answering that dissent, i have to tell you there are so many different concurrences in there, everybody wanted to have a voice in writing on this. >> such a great point. thanks to our legal team forgetting on that very quickly for us. appreciate all of you, thank you. all right. next wednesday will be the day. let's bring in ben ferguson, podcast. ben, to you first on this ruling. i know it hits home and close to home for you. >> yeah. >> i'm the victim of a gun crime, i owned a gun store and gun range afterwards. i think what justice thomas was going to was a real big concern. if you are accused of something, how long can you lose that gun right and what does that slippery slope look like, can it be accused of something, okay, you did this, we think your threat is that indefinitely, do i lose my right forever, even if i wasn't convicted of a crime with a gun because they say well you're a threat, you get in a physical altercation for example, two different sides of that story but they decide you were the one that was the aggressor, how long can you no longer have a firearm. are you basically on a watch list? this is a watch list in essence. and i understand thomas' opinion here of him saying, no, no, there is way too much gray area where you can then because you're an activist judge take away someone's right to protect and defend themselves. if you are involved in a legal case and decide therefore you or someone think you shouldn't have a gun, do you lose your right to defend your family at home. if you have kids, if you lose your right to defend yourself or your family, this is different by the way and this is a big argument that's been, well, if you take away someone's permit to carry out in public, if i am in my house, do i lose my right to defend my family, my kids? because you haven't taken my kids away, wife away, grandparents away from me, do i lose my right, if she has an altercation or something happens physically with someone an altercation, do they lose their right to protect their children in their home? this is the concern by many on the right -- on the second amendment advocates that this is one of those issues where now you have judges that are going to side very differently across the country on who has the right to have a gun and who doesn't have a right to have a gun in their home to protect and defend themselves. that is the concern here i think, i get the majority opinion i think what thomas was saying here is very clear, you should have the right to protect and defend yourself in your home, and you shouldn't have a suspension temporarily of your rights based on the opinion of a judge when it has nothing to do with you being able to have a gun in general, that's the problem. >> this is really important to get in, bill muirs is highlighting this from our supreme court team on justice thomas' lone dissent. reading directly from this highlighted portion, it reads, the court and government do not point to a single historical law revoking a citizen's second amendment right based on possible interpersonal violence. >> bingo. >> the government has not bourne its burden to prove that. and historical understanding. just a little bit further here. it reads, yet in the interest of ensuring the government can regulate one subset of society, today's decision puts at risk the second amendment rights of many more. i respectfully dissent, justice thomas. >> i think there is going to be a significant number of americans look at that, read that, saying that is a common sense approach here from the justice. and at the end of the day, i worry about and i go back to an example, january the 6 6th, if you were there and coming after you, and they say that you were a threat on january the 6th, could they then say you lose your right to have a gun while you're waiting on that trial and you can't defend and protect yourself? this is the concern that many americans have on when you give now this x factor, this pause here, we can take it away for a little while. how do i get it back? what's my argument to get it back? is it three months, six months, nine months, it is an arbitrary number decided, it is not going to be uniform with the law. it's going to be based on a judgment and every judge is going to be very different depending where they are, if they are a conservative or liberal judge. this is opening up a huge slippery slope and abused against gun rights against every american citizen. >> include potentially throwing out some of those janua january 6th charges. we will continue to watch the court as the calendar shrinks. >> ben is visiting with dad in new york city. happy birthday, dad. >> happy birthday. >> thanks, ben. >> thanks. >> well critical moment in the campaign president biden is coming off a week of bad headlines as the trump campaign catches up in fundraising. so, can the president right the ship? plus this. >> if you think girls and women easy quality matter, stand up. if girls and womens sports matter and you want your daughters to have the same opportunity you have, stand up. >> tiktok banning ads from womens sports ware company, how the founder is fighting back now. many were shocked to learn they've been paying 22% on their credit card balances. and if payments were late, as much as 30%. that's over three times the interest rate on a newday 100 va home loan. pay off high rate credit cards and other debt with a lower rate newday home loan. save hundreds a month, thousands a year. why choose a sleep number smart bed? i need help with her snoring. sleep number does that. thank you. shop our lowest prices of the season with free home delivery when you add an adjustable base. sleep number smart beds starting at $999. learn more at sleepnumber.com (♪) with wet amd, i worry i'm not only losing my sight, but my time to enjoy it. but now, i can open up my world with vabysmo. (♪) vabysmo is the first fda-approved treatment for people with wet amd that improves vision and delivers a chance for up to 4 months between treatments, so i can do more of what i love. (♪) (♪) vabysmo works differently, it's the only treatment designed to block 2 causes of wet amd. vabysmo is an eye injection. don't take it if you have an infection, active eye swelling, or are allergic to it. treatments like vabysmo can cause an eye infection or retinal detachment. vabysmo may cause a temporary increase in eye pressure after receiving the injection. there is an uncommon risk of heart attack or stroke associated with blood clots. severe swelling of blood vessels in the eye can occur. most common eye side effects were cataract and broken blood vessels. open up your world with vabysmo. a chance for up to 4 months between treatments with vabysmo. ask your doctor. (♪) imagine checking your own heart with medical precision from anywhere. introducing kardiamobile 6l, the fda-cleared ekg that provides six-times more heart data than any smartwatch. and it detects three of the most common arrhythmias in just 30 seconds, including atrial fibrillation, bradycardia and tachycardia. check your heart with the most advanced personal ekg outside the hospital. get yours at kardia.com or amazon. (♪) >> all right. fox news alert, a short time ago that we got a ruling from the supreme court upholding the federal law banning gun possession for those under domestic violence protection orders. it was an 8-1 majority that agreed with the biden administration that there was a history and tradition of keeping firearms from dangerous persons despite the lack of any specific ban that had been in place when the constitution was enacted. so, that ruling just came down. the next time we will get rulings from the supreme court will be next wednesday. now this. >> this is the entire election as far as i am concerned. the entire world will be watching. if biden goes out there and messes up, it's game over. if he walks out of there and a week later lower in the polls, it's panic in the party. >> a bad week for president biden raising the stakes for next week's cnn presidential debate. right now the president's at camp david preparing for it. this as former president trump gets ready for a rally in philadelphia, one of president biden's favorite spots. kevin wong, campaign surrogate and bill fox news contributor, thank you both for being here. >> great to be here. >> i think that part of the pushback we've been seeing from the white house really trying to cast any video that we see that might portray the president in an unfavorable light shows they are most worried about this issue. >> optics are everything. the white house is aggressive in terms of batting down any of those videos calling into question some of these fake, doctored images that we've seen. listen. >> if they are fake and doctored. >> our own fox polling speaks for itself. the president made up 8 points since march now leads the former president for the first time in our own fox news polling since last october so, i question i think it's actually been a great week for the president. hunker down in camp david, he is going prepare and be ready to face the former president. >> the headlines are not reflecting it. axios, top dems, biden has a losing strategy, own headline fox, anti-trump figures, democrats questioning his mental fitness for office. trump raised so much last month he erased biden's cash advantage. >> yeah, i mean, he did do well in the polls better in the fox poll, better than he's done before. i think that was mostly independents and i think mostly because they feel the economy is a little better. but it's long season. i think the age issue overrides everything. i think the white house is compounding it. it's quite entertaining -- >> the age issue for biden. >> biden. quite entertaining for us to watch joe biden look lost, he doesn't know where he is and jean-pierre, saying he out works me, he can do more pushups. i don't know that they have a better option. but i think that kind of highlights the contrast between what people can see with their own eyes and what the white house claims. >> well, kevin, you brought up the fox poll. and in that fox poll it does show the basket and the biden and democrats have all their eggs in, democracy basket, is important to voters, under it is the economy. when you look at the polling that shows women, latino women care a lot about the economy, it's their most important issue, you are looking at swing states where abortion is not on the ballot. the economy is something that is. and is the president and his campaign doing enough to try to -- what can they say? what is their line? because trump has the amount to say, look, five years ago you were better off, your rent is higher today. >> you can say five years ago, four years ago, there is add cage in politics. >> you are asking voters to vote on an idea about the collective and not an issue that affects them as an individual when you are talking about democracy, is that a winning strategy? >> i sure hope so. i think to your point, and it's a really good, jacqui, i don't think democrats are taking anything for granted, we relaunched latinos for biden, radio to your point, lantinas across the country, important part of the winning coalition that won the white house for the president in 2020. but to bill's point i think he is spot on i think it is this trend we are seeing with independents moving away from the former president. he leads independents by 9 points in that same fox news polling. we have to bring it back to the basic issues, the economy is going to be critical, right under issues of democracy in that polling. we have to bring it home to those people in terms of cost to prescription drugs, insulin, $10,000 for people struggling to get into the housing market. i think that's -- >> talk about groceries. >> and groceries, too, that's what you are going to see president do on thursday. >> it's hard to talk about groceries, the prices haven't come down yet. >> we are working on it. >> gas prices. >> great to have you both. did you have a loud -- >> just saying, i don't think the issues are working for joe biden. >> got you. >> the prices and immigration, especially because he is betting the campaign is going to be won on trump's character. contrast. i don't think that it is. >> like it was in 20. you know, we saw -- >> in chem bent now, he doesn't seem willing to defend his record. >> we could go all day. >> this is a heartwrenching story of a young boy shot dead on the streets of chicago as the mayor faces calls to make fighting crime his top priority. s i'm in... my network and my tech need to keep up. thank you verizon business. (kevin) now our businesses get fast and reliable internet from the same network that powers our phones. (waitress) all with the security features we need. (aaron) because my businesses are my life. man, the fish tacos are blowing up! so whatever's next... we're cooking with fire. let's make it happen! (vo) switch to the partner businesses rely on. it's time to feed the dogs real food, not highly processed pellets. the farmer's dog is fresh food made with whole meat and veggies. it's not dry food. it's not wet food. it's just real food. it's an idea whose time has come. - i got the cabin for three days. it's gonna be sweet! what? i'm 12 hours short. - have a fun weekend. - ♪ unnecessary action hero! unnecessary. ♪ - was that necessary? - no. neither is a blown weekend. with paycom, employees do their own payroll so you can fix problems before they become problems. - hmm! get paycom and make the unnecessary, unnecessary. - see you down the line. >> it's getting worse by the day, another american child has been murdered, suspects are illegal immigrants released into our country. >> plus new polls show former president trump is winning over president biden in six battleground states and biden has been overtake in when it comes to raising campaign cash. >> and anger, directed at manhattan district attorney alvin bragg for letting violent anti-israel protesters off the hook. rodney scott, rebecca rosewood land, jacqui deangeles. >> acts of violence must end. the weapons that are falling through the streets of chicago and around this country, we have to stop. and we have to hold people accountable. >> chicago's mayor speaking out after a boy was killed, highlighting the city's violent crime crisis. jenna caldwell, political analyst and sadly has personal connection to chicago crime himself. when you heard about this story, what was your first reaction? >> again, another young child murdered in the city of chicago yet again. just in 2021, up into january of 2022, we saw that over 276 children, 16 and under, had been shot in the city of chicago. this is absolutely unacceptable, outrageous what we continue to see in the city of chicago. and what's even more outrageous is the fact that people like mayor brandon johnson continues to endorse policies that has made chicago much more lawless. he's endorsed the safety act which eliminates cash bail in the city of chicago. he said, we can't demonize children when a lot of these children have been the ones pulling the trigger. these young people, no matter what their ages are, they are committing these crimes they have to be held accountable. and i think about as i approach the two year mark of the murder of my brother, this coming monday, my heart goes out to this family, having to deal with planning a funeral for a baby. this is something that i think no american should have to experience but especially not at the rapid rate that we see in the city of chicago and across the nation. i'm saddened for this. >> i want to read to you a line from the chicago tribune, the public will be far more reassured if city leaders acknowledge the obvious. this is a crisis, it's not getting better and pledge convincingly to change course. now you saw the mayor talk about the need to prosecute criminals and get them off the street. but you mentioned that, you know, this is not happening. and i just wonder, have they found a suspect in your brother's murder? and do you have anything that reassures you from these city leaders when you talk about something that would convince the public that is a change is ahead? >> well, i actually just spoke with the special agent in charge of the chicago field office yesterday who tells me they have leads in my brother's murder. of course it hadn't been solved yet. i'm praying for that solution and my family's own tragedy. i don't believe brandon johnson when he speaks because he doesn't seem as though he has the guts to be tough on crime. this is what it's going to take, you are going to have to throw the book at them. that's the only way this is going to happen. you can't deal with these folks with kid gloves that's what the city officials have been doing far too lodge. ford, he is a democrat, for years he has been calling for the national guard to come into chicago to help tackle some of this violent behavior that we see every summer, and even in the wintertime. this is outrageous, it's not safe, a safe place to be in. as i go to chicago tomorrow to be with my family and we mourn the loss, the two year mark loss of my brother, the families that are still dealing with their grief. i want to encourage those who are watching, please watch sean hannity, i will be announcing a major initiative i am taking on to tackle the violence going on across the country. >> you talk about -- when you talk about the fact this has been going on for years, you read about this story, 7-year-old boy killed by a stray bullet. you hear the superintendent at the police department saying we are losing our children, we need to think about gun violence going on in the city. we have to step it up and save our kids. then you read into this story and you see that gunfire at this apartment complex where this happened has been ongoing for 20 year and it's tough to your point to have any faith there is going to be a change ahead when you are looking at two decades of unsafety there. thank you very much for being here. your last thought. >> really quick, too. to that point, it used to be that you are at the wrong place at the wrong time, it can be you being a kid laying in your bed, it's unacceptable. >> thank you, appreciate it. >> always comes from the heart with gianno. coming up this afternoon, by the way, asia will be in for john, governor jeff landry, the first signing into law the 10 commandments having to be posted in the public school classrooms, the school choice law getting passed, universal school of choice, looking forward forward to that. >> we hosted yesterday afternoon together but jacqui great to work with you,. >> we begin with thi