the joe biden we know, and the pattern is,no when you count hi out, is when he comes back stronger. we shall see.ro that does it for us for willie and me, and joe, and ana cabrera picks up the coverage right now. right now, on ana cabrera reports, another day of supreme court decisions and a supersized term that has been extended into next week. still on the docket, a picture of cases that could completely shift donald trump's legal exposure. we'll take you there live. plus, a brutal and bumpy presidential debate. >> i really don't know what he said at the endll of that sentence. i don't think he knows what he said either. >> every single thing he said is a lie. you have the moves of an alley cat. >> former president trump spouting aney assortment of fal claims throughout the night, but it's democrats who are in panic mode after president biden's lackluster performance. and coming up, what are pnt voters saying? well, wevo sat town with voters from a key bloc to see if the debate changed their thinking heading into november. ♪♪ it is 10:00 eastern, thank you for joining us on this friday. getting to debate game in a moment. but eb ifirst, to the supreme c with more decisions set to drop at any minute, eight cases remaining, including two massive oneslu tied to former president trump on presidential immunity, and some january 6th charges. let's go right to nbc's ryan riley outside the supreme court. get us up to speed on the status of this extended court term. >> reporter: the trump immunity case. two boxes of opinions, one opinion has been released, not the trump case, a case that involved whether it was illegal to sleephe outside, it's involv homeless people and whether that was illegal, d for them to com be sleeping outside. but we're stillle waiting on th decisions t for the trump immuny case and the joseph fisher case, a january 6th defendant who's challenging the obstruction of an official proceeding charge that's been hughesed against hundreds of january 6th defendants, the actual practical implications of that, a overturning of that obstruction statute, or a redefining of that obstruction statute would affect dozens of january 6thut cases, including couple dozen of people who are behind bars rightco now, and it would, of course, also impact the donald trump case. so, those two charges of obstruction are two of the four charges he's facing in that count,g in that case brought b jack smith in connection with his efforts to stop the peaceful transfer of power after his presidential election loss, ana. >> we'll keep an eye out for those two cases as this term winds down. this could be one of the final days, ryan reilly, stay close, keep us posted. af> it is the morning after, the biggest night of the political arena so far,ni donald trump an joe biden duking it out in this debate for the first time since 2020, debating earlier than usual in a setting unlike past debates and the candidates for the first time, two men who hav held the office of the presidency. and the performance will go down in historyd too. here's a sample of what was seen and heard across the country, and around the world. >> the only person on this stage that's a convicted felon is the man i'm looking at right now. >> my retribution is going to be success. he can be a convicted felon as soon as he gets out of office. joes could be a convicted felo with all of the things he's done. this man ise a criminal, this man, you're lucky, you're lucky, i i did nopg wrong. >> the right to seek retribution against any american because president is wrong. how many billions of dollars for molesting a woman in public, for doing a whole range of things, of having sex with a porn star on the night dpsh while your wife was pregnant. what are you talking about? you have the morals of an alley cat. >> i didn't have sex with a porn star. >> vaughn hillyard is live in atlanta, and also with us, senior cor upon the for the hill amy, bazle -- and del percio. what are we hearing from both candidates this morning how they'reom feeling? >> campaign sources arew telli our nbc news team that joe biden is not leaving this race, insisting that one debate performance is not going to dictate the g results of the november election, that there are still more than four months tomo go and plenty of time, and that it's ultimately donald trump's words that ultimately matter.thel i was talking to gavin newsom last night, the california governor, when i asked him whether he would urge the current president to step aside from this bid for a second term. and he said no. at least publicly, that is what other top w democrats are sayin. but, behind the scenes there is consternation within this democratic party about that 90-minute performance from president biden. on the other side you have donald trump and his campaign team, his advisers hanging out long after the debate's conclusion yesterday while joe biden's team quickly and promptly left the arena where the spin room was held there. his one campaign adviser chris telling me this was the worst thing t to happen to the biden administration since the afghanistan withdrawal, suggesting that they believe that they can expand the map, and that this is exactly what they needed. millions of americans to watch thes debate performance of the two men, standing toe to toe. i want to let you listen, though, to joe biden last night upon leaving the debate hall in which he made a quick stop just down the road, take a listen. >> mr. president, how did you feel you performed tonight? >> i think we did well. >> do you have any concerns about your performance? >> no, it's hard to debate a liar. >> and like newsom told me he urged folks to look at the message and the words that came out of the debate thatst there last night. donald trump, so much of what he said, the falsehoods, the lies, the misrepresentations, were clouded by a debate performance that disappointed a great many democrats or individuals, independents, lsrepublicans, reticent to another trump administration, ana. >> vaughn hillyard, thank you for bringing us the latest. amy, one publication framed it this liway, trump didn't win, b biden lost, and it seemed to start right out of the gate with this moment. >> making sure that we're able to make every single solitary person eligible with what i've been able to do with the covid -- excuse blme, dealing we everything we have to do with -- look, if we finally beat medicare. >> that was tough to watch. whatug are you hearing from you democratic sources this morning about that performance? >> i mean, my phone was blowing up last night, ana, in a way that i have never seen before, dating back to 2016 and the night that hillary clinton lost. democrats were in panic mode. this isn't your typical bedwetting, i should say, and people havebe stressed that to . i was hearing from people who normally are talking about up the talking points, they're saying biden is the best thing ever. they are really concerned this morning. this is not, you know, your typical, this is a nightmare for democrats story, this is a real nightmare for democrats. they feel it. there are conversations going on. biden, of course, and his allies will say publicly that he's not going to get out of the race. but, when you're talking to people, they're worried. and if things start to change, if poll numbers start to move, if donald trump gets, you know, moves the margin of error, and down ballot candidates start to suffer, you're going to see a lot of movement starting. >> bazle, can biden recover from this? how do you recover from this? >> well, listen, it wasn't a good performance, it was a bad performance. no sugar coating that. but i think the issue of why there's panic is because there's a real understanding of what's at stake. and the stakes that were in place 24 hours ago are still the stakes this morning. you know, i would say, and i have said that everything that joe biden says might have been good, but perhaps he's not the best messenger for it. so if i'm a democrat right now -- well, i am a democrat, but if i were advising, this is not the time to panic. all of the questions, if he doesn't want to leave getting him out is incredibly messy and that's not something the party can afford four months before an election. what do you do? you find better messengers for that message that democrats have been putting on the table for the last four or eight years. gavin newsom, who vaughn hillyard mentioned, governor of maryland wes moore, governor whitmer of michigan, there are democrats around the country that can actually deliver that message andy bring it home for the party, but also for that sliver of independent voters that need to be reminded that everything donald trump said on that stage was a bold-faced lie. >> let's talk about that, because that's right. not everything was all gravy for donald trump out there. one of the more jarring moments that he had was when he pretty much upended the truth of january 6th. take a look at this. >> and let me tell you about january 6th. on january 6th we had a great border, nobody coming through, very few, on january 6th we were energy independent. on january 6th . lowest taxes ever. we had the lowest regulations ever. on january 6th, we were respected all over the world, all over the world we were respected. and then he comes in, and we're now laughed at. we're like a bunch of stupid people. >> so then we know so much of what we heard there is not true, and yet time after time in answering questions he spouted falsehoods and mistruths, you could call them lies unchecked. i mean, what was your reaction to that? >> it was -- there was so many lost opportunities for president biden, and i actually think he was probably really well-prepared, but he was almost overprepared. he had too much information. >> president biden you're thinking? >> i'm sorry, i'm sorry, president biden, excuse me.t i think he was -- he just couldn't deliver the lines. and that goes to the underlying problem of his age, which he was supposed to show the american public last night that he could be ready for another four years, and lead this country. and what is very concerning going forward from this debate for president biden is that there's a narrative now built in. it started with his age, that builthi in. now, the narrative is going to be for i at least five or six days, should he step out of the race? >> but does trump just get a free pass for the lies? >> yes, you know what, trump is going to get a free pass for the lies for no other reason than the biden story is bigger. trump didn't blow up. he didn't set himself on fire. he lied. everyone knows he lied. so, for that small sliver, they're in a really hard spot rightha now, especially those independents who lean right. they really weren't thrilled with joe biden, to begin with, buteg they voted country over party. now, they're just freaked out about the status of their country. >> amie, you said this debate comes down toou biden's fitness versus trump's lies. where do you think that landed? >> let's notou forget, presiden biden, this was all his idea, to move it to june and not in the fall. i mean, let's start there. he really -- they needed this moment more than anyone to show that he was fit for office, to show that even though he'll be 86 years old at the end of a second term that he's all there, that he's in control, and last night showed that he is not in e control, and that is what's scaring democrats the most, they needed him to come out and show strength, and he didn't. he kind of fell flat on his face. and that's what's frightening them right now. >> which is unusual because he's usually game day player. i think about his speech in in philadelphia, or the state of the union. >> right. >> and where was that person, the statere of the union presidt biden with the fire and that energy. >> that's what we're talking about is that what voters want to know is, are you fighting for me? and a time when there's so much happening in this world, so much atin stake, are you fighting fo me? donald trump will go to a podium and say that because it sounds like the martyrdom he often talk abouts. for biden, there were so many opportunities he could turn and say, how are you going to do that from prison, donald trump, he's about to be sentenced next week. the rhetorical terms that may be second nature to another candidateto seemed really difficult for joe biden. >> even his humor, something he always uses. >> a soft voice, very obvious when he started to answer the first question andte later, his allies and team were telling us it was because he had a cold, that his voice wasn't so strong. but i just wonder, if that's the case, if he should have just come out there right off the bat and said so, and said hey, look, guys, i know my voice isn't up to 100% tonight, i am fighting a cold. i want to be here, this conversation's important, and i am a fighter, and i'm going to show that to you tonight by doing this, and let's get it on. >> the visual medium, television, and that slack jawed face that was basically frozen in place every time donald trump spoke, i would say that's the place where i'm really wondering what happened at debate prep because that was something he should have been really aware of and prepared for. again, the mouth agape, they won't cheap fake videos, they can actually use th videos frome cnn and do their thing. >> i do want to take a moment to play another clip from last night. this is when trump was pressed specifically about the election lies and also looking ahead whether he would accept the results of the 2024 election. watch. >> the question was, will you accept the results of the election? regardless of who wins, yes or no, please. >> if it's a fair and legal and good election, absolutely. i would have much rather accepted these, but the fraud and everything else was ridiculous. if you want, we'll have a news conference on it in a week. we'll have another one of these in a week. but i will absolutely, there's nothing i'd rather do. >> basil, what does that moment reveal about the state of democracy, that question was even asked. >> well, i mean, it's everything. it's the fact that, you know, donald trump lied the entire night. he essentially still calls january 6th insurrectionists patriots, and we're spending a lot of time talking about joe biden. i mean, that's -- to your point, it's a visual medium, and unfortunately that is going to dominate a lot of the conversation. the fact that donald trump continues to spread these lies and lean into the big conspiracy, i always call it a big conspiracy because there's so many people involved in spreading the lie. the fact that he continues to do that, says that the entire world is watching what we're doing now. that's why i go back to my earlier point, that the stakes are higher, more than just joe biden's performance, this is about can kamala harris and the democrats pull this together in the time that's left and convince voters that it's not about joe biden, it's about the entire democratic agenda, small "d" mvp. leave it there right now. >> amie, susan, basil, thank you so much for that discussion. voters react to one of the most consequential debates in modern alhistory, could it chan the trajectory of this race. more on the rising concern within the democratic party, some democrats even calling on president biden to step aside. and we are still following breaking news at the supreme court this morning, justices issuing decisions with at least two critical cases yet to be decided. we're back in 90 seconds. with nurtec odt, i found relief. the only migraine medication that helps treat and prevent, all in one. to those with migraine, i see you. for the acute treatment of migraine with or without aura and the preventive treatment of episodic migraine in adults. don't take if allergic to nurtec odt. allergic reactions can occur, even days after using. most common side effects were nausea, indigestion, and stomach pain. it's time we all shine. talk to a healthcare provider about nurtec odt from pfizer. ♪♪ ♪♪ 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. ♪♪ in our family there was a passion for glass making that's passed down through the generations. we stood on some pretty broad shoulders to get to where we are at today. on ancestry i was able to actually put together our family tree. each person is a glass worker. that's why we do what we do. we can't help it. the glass blowing - that's a part of our dna. it's in my blood, it's in my history. it's my job to make sure that this shop makes it to the next generation. trump acted like trump, biden acted like biden, and that's why i'm frustrated with where we are today. >> how would you describe this, double what sfwh. >> double frustrated. >> double frustrated. how about you? >> double cringe. >> double frustrated, and double cringe. that was sound from gadi schwartz's talk about debate with a group of so-called double haters in phoenix, voters who aren't happy with either candidate and they didn't appear any happier after last night. meantime, nbc's shaquille brewster was at another debate watch party in philadelphia with black voters. and shaq, the black vote could be key to winning the white house. how did this debate go over with the voters you spoke with? >> reporter: well, ana, it's interesting, you mentioned the black vote could be key for biden winning the white house, it was key for him back in 2020 when he won 92% of the black vote. and while polls show him still winning that group overwhelmingly, it's a much more narrow margin than it was back then. so, we watched the debate with a group of black voters here in philly, black voters have been targeted by both campaigns in this city within the past month. i want you to listen to some of their reactions and what they told me after the debate. folks who all voted for joe biden in 2020, listen to the first reaction with someone who responded to that moment where it looked like president biden lost his train of thought. >> i thought he stumbled, you know, it happens. i thought trump was unhinged for 90 straight minutes. >> if the election were tomorrow, who would you vote for? >> me. no, i would vote for biden, for sure. >> would that have been your answer before the debate? >> no. >> there's no such thing as a black job. we're very diverse people. it's hard to relate to people who you have no relationship with. >> reporter: you heard jaron respond to that comment that president trump made when he referred to black jobs and talking about the economy, and when asked about black voters directly, i think some takeaways from the overall group is that, the economy is number one for many of them, that is why many of them came in to tonight's debate saying they were either undecided or -- last night's debate, saying they were either undecided or disappointed in president biden. but, after watching that debate, many of them told me despite their frustrations with the president, they felt like that was the only option that they had, the only way they could go. what will be interesting to see is, these are folks who were watching the debate clued in on every moment. it will be interesting to see those who weren't watching the debate, those relying on highlights or reporting from the debate, how they digest what we saw on stage last night, ana. >> it's always so enlightning to hear from the voters directly, shaq brewster, thank you for bringing us that conversation. and still ahead, the rising concern within the democratic party after the debate, could there be a change at the top of the ticket? but first, we are keeping an eye on the supreme court with more decisions expected this hour, a couple of biggest remaining in the term, stick around, we'll be right back. the all new godaddy . put your business online in minutes with the power of ai. we all need fiber for our digestive health, but less than 10% of us get enough each day. good thing metamucil gummies are an easy way to get prebiotic, plant-based fiber. with the same amount of fiber as 2 cups of broccoli. metamucil gummies. the easy way to get your daily fiber. you know what's brilliant? boring. think about it. boring is the unsung catalyst for bold. what straps bold to a rocket and hurtles it into space? boring does. boring makes vacations happen, early retirements possible, and startups start up. because it's smart, dependable, and steady. all words you want from your bank. for nearly 160 years, pnc bank has been brilliantly boring so you can be happily fulfilled... which is pretty un-boring if you think about it. - [narrator] life with ear ringing sounded like a constant train whistle i couldn't escape. then i started taking lipo flavonoid. with 60 years of clinical experience, it's the number one doctor recommended brand for ear ringing. and now i'm finally free. take back control with lipo flavonoid. the supreme court still has not wrapped up this controversial and consequential term, the nation awaiting many rulings still, including the ones on donald trump's presidential immunity claim, and a case that will impact numerous january 6th rioters, as well as trump, more rulings still dropping today, and another on monday. will that be the day? let's discuss with our legal correspondent lisa rubin, and law professor leo litman. let's check back in with ryan reilly at the supreme court. where have we landed now? >> reporter: the big opinion is the one involving homelessness, an oregon law that banned vimgs from camping, encampments being set up on public property. and justice sotomayor has delivered a scathing dissent in this case saying sleep is a medical necessity, a biological necessity, something that people require and it shouldn't be constitutional in her view for individuals or for rather for laws to be passed that ban people from sleeping on public property. but, the conservative majority here ruled that while homelessness is a complex and complicated issue, that they should not get into the nature of outlawing individual cities from setting up bans on encampment on public properties. it's a highly disputed one, back dooring the obama era, that this was something that was being litigated with the justice department making, saying that homelessness should not be outlawed. that was an argument that the civil rights division was making way back in 2015 and now the supreme court ultimately ruling that individual cities are allowed to ban these homeless encampments. you can expect a lot of cities across the country, now that this has gotten the go ahead from the supreme court to -- if they have a large issue with homelessness, to be banning people from sleeping on public property. so this could have a really big impact, i think, across the united states, ana. >> ryan, thank you for bringing us the update on that particular case. neil, i understand we got a batch of decisions that have to do with chevron. what do we need to know about those cases? >> these, ana, are momentous, major decisions, the supreme court has done an extraordinary thing, an extraordinarily dangerous thing. they sound technical but here's what they're about. most government regulations in this country is not done by coming, done by administrative agency. food and drug regulation by the fda, you know, kind of economic issues by the sec, and other organizations, even how much our phone bill is, is by the federal communications commission. all of those regulations are interpreted against the backdrop of a decision in 1984 called chevron, which is agencies deference in determining just how much power they have and what they can do. what the supreme court did today by a 6-3 vote is overturn chevron. that is going to make it much more difficult to regulate businesses, to protect consumers, to protect the environment, to protect our health care. this is as momentous a decision as it comes. we're all focused on the trump immunity case, and there are many good reasons why, but in terms of influencing americans' daily lives, this decision, which sounds technical, is a major, major, big deal, and is going to change government as we know it. >> so grateful for you, laying that out for us. again, we went into today with eight decisions left, and now we have had at least a couple come down, also joining us to discuss is msnbc legal analyst melissa murray. we're still waiting on immunity and january 6th. why do you think we're still waiting on those cases specifically, melissa? >> well, the court was unlikely to issue the immunity or the january 6th decision in advance of the debate, who knows why they are waiting on it today? you know, who knows? this seems to be a situation where the court over the course of this term has struggled to find consensus, there have been a number of unanimous opinions but even amidst that unanimity, there are questions with concurrences and separate dissents. even though they're on the surface unanimous there are lots of -- not sure why they're waiting so long but they seem to be luxuriating in time. not like we have anything else to do here baa they seem to be writing a decision for the ages. >> as we await these decisions on the big cases related to the 2020 election trump was asked about his actions on january 6th last night. he dodged. and in this exchange biden confronted him for saying that he'd pardon the capitol attackers. >> do a damn thing, and these people should be in jail and they should be ones being held accountable and he wants to let them all out. now he says he loses again, such a whiner that he is, that it could be a blood bath. >> thank you, president biden, president trump. >> what they've done to some people that are so innocent, he ought to be ashamed of himself. >> so, trump expressed zero regret about what happened that day, defended the actions of the rioters. lisa, can comments like that be used against him in a court of law? >> it's an interesting question, ana. obviously, first we have to survive this challenge to the indictment in the first place on the grounds of presidential immunity. and then, depending on how the court's decision unfolds there may be a bunch more proceedings before we ever get to the question of whether president trump's comments at a debate could be admissible evidence. but there's certainly admissions of a party to the extent that he says what they have done to these people who are innocent. the way in which he describes the events of the 6th. i certainly, were i a prosecutor, i'd been listening to those and multiple other types of his statements. for example, his social media posts have been fair game and the trials i've attended to date, and i expect that they will continue to be at issue in trials to come. >> this court is leaving america hanging on cases that could impact their votes in the upcoming election, could impact the person who ends up being elected president. how problematic is it to keep us waiting? >> i think it's pretty problematic, especially when you consider the court's decisions in the recent abortion rulings to effectively punt on the issue of whether federal law requires hospitals to be able to provide emergency abortion care to pregnant patients in states that ban it. the court opted to dismiss that case as improvidently granted. therefore, it didn't have to resolve whether federal law requires hospitals to be able to provide emergency care. so it's both putting off the significant decisions it had agreed take up, and effectively delaying the decisions in the cases that they are ostensibly still deciding. i think both of those things are a huge disservice to the american public because on one hand they are an effort to reduce the salience of abortion in the upcoming election and on the other hand they are giving another benefit to the republican candidate donald trump by minimizing the prospect of a pre-election trial and verdict in the election interference case. >> you could argue, neal, in at least some of the consequential cases that have come down this term there have been some wins from the biden administration, rulings on abortion medication, the emergency abortion access in idaho, which continues for now, restrictions on domestic abusers owning guns. are you surprised? >> no. i mean, i think those cases like the gun restrictions for domestic violence abusers were easy cases, it was good to see the court doing what it did. but i do want to return to these decisions that have just come down on the last few minutes called relentless and -- those are the names of the cases, they are so massive. they eclipse, frankly, any of the biden victories in the supreme court this term. this is a massive game change to the way our government is going to operate, justice kagan's dissent at the very last lines say how dangerous this is, how this shows that this court has no respect for the role of precedent, she points out that the supreme court has relied on the principle of deference, over 70 times since 1984, lower courts have relied on it more than 18,000 times. and yet the court blew past all that and totally changed the law in a way that's going to impact you and me every single day of our lives. >> melissa, this court has had its share of controversies lately, right, regarding conservative justices alito and thomas, we've seen a steep decline in favorability and trust in the high court and it's been chipping away or taking a dive since the dobbs decision. has anything in this term served to reestablish public trust or confidence in the court? >> well, ana, i think we know that the court is watching that polling, i think they're trying to be responsive to it. i think it's why we've had so many unanimous or near unanimous decisions, even as there have been clear divisions within the court, and lots of separate opinions showing what those divisions are, but let me tack back to something you said, i'm not sure that there have been a lot of clear wins for the biden administration from this court this year. you're right that the court dismissed the mifepristone case for want of standing but that's a muted victory and it's not necessarily a victory for the biden administration. the court left the door open in both abortion cases to come back at a later time probably after this election to the critical questions of abortion care, and they will decide it any way they want to. in the aftermath of the 2024 election. what the court has actually done is given a victory to itself because it's been managing to stay out of the fray to present itself as moderate and consensus driven when, in fact, it is a court moving very steadily to the right. the decisions that neal just mentioned on the administrative state really make that clear. the court explicitly overruled a precedent from 1984, that clearly allows administrative agencies to interpret big statutes, and lower federal courts stopped with trump nominees who are skeptical of government regulations, this is not a win for the biden administration, it's a huge loss, and it's a huge loss for government as we know it. >> melissa, ryan, lisa, neal, and leah, stay close as we keep an eye on what's happening at the supreme court and we'll continue to bring everybody updates because those decisions are still coming down. up next on ana cabrera reports, the questions after last night's debate. could there be a change at the top of the democratic ticket. also ahead, the day after, biden and trump hitting the road in key states today. the post-debate message each will bring to voters. oooh! this is our night! shingles doesn't care. but shingrix protects. only shingrix is proven over 90% effective. shingrix is a vaccine used to prevent shingles in adults 50 years and older. shingrix does not protect everyone and is not for those with severe allergic reactions to its ingredients or to a previous dose. an increased risk of guillain-barré syndrome was observed after getting shingrix. fainting can also happen. the most common side effects are pain, redness, and swelling at the injection site, muscle pain, tiredness, headache, shivering, fever, and upset stomach. ask your doctor or pharmacist about shingrix today. (reporters) over here. kev! kev! (reporter 1)set stomach. any response to the trade rumors, we keep hearing about? (kev) we talkin' about moving? not the trade, not the trade, we talking about movin'. no thank you. (reporter 2) you could use opendoor. sell your house directly to them, it's easy. (kev) ... i guess we're movin'. (♪♪) ohhh crap, that's a really good gift. now we gotta get france something. wait! we could use etsy's gift mode! yes, what do the french like? ...anyone? cheese... they like cheese! brilliant. done. (♪♪) plateau de fromage! [cheering] oh la la! [cheering] don't panic. gift easy with gift mode, now on etsy. - it's apparent. not me. - yeah. nice going lou! nothing like a little confidence boost to help ease you back in to the dating scene. that includes having a smile you feel good about. fortunately, aspen dental specializes in dentures and implants made just for you. and with flexible financing, you don't need to sacrifice quality work for a price that fits your budget. at $0 down plus 0% interest if paid in full in 18 months. helping our patients put their best smile forward. it's one more way aspen dental is in your corner. ♪we can secure our world.♪ ♪watch out for offers too good to be true.♪ that's phishing! ♪someone's trying to take advantage of you.♪ learn more at cisa.gov/secureourworld ♪that's how we can secure our world!♪ ♪we can secure our world.♪ ♪don't just use a password alone.♪ ♪mfa sends a call, a text or a code to your phone.♪ learn more at cisa.gov/secureourworld ♪that's how we can secure our world!♪ welcome back, last night's debate ended just after 10:30 p.m. eastern time and by 10:45 political analysts and hosts on news stations all across america were referencing the same break the glass option for the democratic party, should joe biden be replaced at the top of the ticket. this morning's web headlines echoing the same, analysts quoting texts and calling that they've been getting from party insiders all having similar conversations. >> some of those conversations include should we go to the white house and ask the president to step aside? others are -- other conversations are about should prominent democrats go public with that call? because they feel this debate was so terrible. >> i mean, just now, congressman -- staunch biden supporter when i asked if the president should remain top ticket, punted, didn't want to touch it one way or the other. >> tonight there are signs some elected officials in the party may be at least talking about going to the white house and the biden campaign saying he's got to rethink whether he should be the nominee. >> joining us now is nbc news senior national politics reporter jonathan allen, and chris salizza who authors a daily politics news letter. great to see both of you this morning. it was a late night. jonathan, you quote a democratic lawmakers who told you this was like a champion boxer who gets in the ring past his prime and needs his corner to throw in the towel. how widespread are those types of conversations? >> very, very widespread, ana. among those who aren't saying it to reporters, they're certainly having those conversations among themselves in terms of democratic elected official strategists, operatives, other people who are, you know, affiliated with the party or working for joe biden's election. everyone i spoke to said that they are having those conversations with their allies and our colleagues, we're not seeing a whole lot of public calls from elected officials, meaning with their name attached to it. i think that's an important moment for joe biden as the white house tries to tamp down the fear and the anxiety and some of these anonymous calls for him to leave, or some from outside that sort of elected official status. he's got a moment here where he may be able to hang on, but i think it's a window that will close fast. >> and so, chris, jonathan points outs, surrogates for president biden aren't talking about plan "b," least not publicly, listen to california governor gavin newsom moments after the debate. >> the opportunity to turn the page, the opportunity to put our heads down, we have the opportunity to universally have the back of this president who's had our back, you don't turn your back, you go home with the one who brought you to the dance, 100%, all in, i was very, very proud that he was able to articulate the work that he's done, and lay a foundation of understanding of the lies and the deceit that continue to come out of donald trump's mouth. >> chris, will that public spin change, do you think, if the next round of polls shows biden's support cratering? >> yes. look, this is a -- politics is a survival of the fittest game, the reality of the situation is, today joe biden is still the nominee. if it comes out that joe biden is down eight or ten points. not sure it will. we are a polarized country. i don't know that there's that much movement out there. if there is polling that shows not just joe biden losing but joe biden impacting down ballot. but remember, democrats control the senate right now. if joe biden is losing montana, let's say, by 15 or 25 points, it's a huge deal for jon tester. so i think what gavin newsom said is the only thing that gavin newsom could say. he's not going to say it's time to get rid of joe biden but you can guarantee per jonathan allen's reporting you can guarantee those conversations are happening. what they're trying to do is keep any major democratic figure from going public. right? you cannot have chuck schumer or hakeem jeffries or anyone like that coming out and saying yeah, i think it might be time to think about the conversation of having joe biden leaving, that opens the flood gates. >> you bring up a good point, chris, we don't know the impact of the debate and whether the takeaway from voters is as bad as it could be. and the polls that come down. >> that's right. >> we heard from some voters with our shaq brewster who was watching it with a group of black voters. and they actually were more inclined to vote for biden after the debate than they were going in. so you just never know how people were seeing it at home. but jonathan, i know there was another democratic lawmaker who told you that it is time to talk about an open convention, and a new democratic nominee. that conversation is out there this morning. i just wonder if that's even possible at this point, what would that require? >> it's a great question, ana, and let's be real here. i mean, the democratic delegates to the convention, the overwhelming majority of them, and when i say that, almost all of them, were elected to be delegates by promising to vote for joe biden at the convention. the idea that all of them are going to stand up and revolt against joe biden is, i think, it's very difficult to see that happen. if there were to be a sort of open convention or if there were to be another candidate, i think it's almost undoubtedly because joe biden would be choosing to step aside. if he wants this nomination it will be very difficult for anybody to deny it to him. so, you know, i think it's really in joe biden's hands. >> chris, you referenced an article on "x" that the "wall street journal" printed weeks ago, signs of biden slipping, speaking softly, relying on notes. if aides have been privately worried he's slipping why press for this debate? and if age is really a concern why didn't top-level democrats push for him to step aside earlier? >> my overwhelming thought this morning, ana, when i got up, and it's early here on the west coast. when i got up, was i cannot believe that his inner circle let this happen. if you knew that this was a possibility, right, but i'm sure they didn't think it would be this bad. if you knew it was a possibility that he would be as bad as he was last night, this late, i know we're talking about it's an early debate, but it's june, right, it's late june. we have a convention, in a couple weeks, the fact they let him go out there. if i was chuck schumer or hakeem jeffries, the democrat on the ballot, i would be furious that they did this. >> thank you so much, chris cilizza and jonathan allen, i appreciate you both. breaking news from the supreme court. my understanding is the decision on fischer versus the u.s. has just dropped, the case involving that january 6th rioter who was charged with obstruction of an official proceeding who is challenging that charge specifically. is ryan reilly ready to go on this? fill us to remind us of the details of this specific case as i know our teams are reading in on the decision. >> reporter: that's right, so this 6-3 decision is what we're looking at here. this involves obstruction of an official proceeding which is a charge that has been used against a number of january 6th defendants. it was essentially used, i think, to pressure some defendants into a plea deal because this was something that gave them more criminal exposure. the key thing to take away here, a lot of defendants are facing other charges, a narrow set of defendants this is the only felony charge they face. that's the spectrum of people we'll talk about being impacted. you're talking about in the neighborhood of 52 2 cases of individuals who that is the sole felony charge which they face which could have an implication. of that group, 27 individuals are still in prison today. you could see a situation where people are going to be potentially getting out of jail because they've already served over the amount of time that was the automatic mum amount of time they could have served for the misdemeanor this is one year, but had not yet served the full felony charge. this will have practical implications on the individual cases but not necessarily the sweeping impact some people feared about all these january 6th cases. it was used in hundreds of cases, in the most -- the majority of those cases you're talking about individuals who had another felony, often a violent crime. a case that comes to mind for this that was recently decided involved three californian -- rather, four californian men who were convicted of obstruction of an official proceeding, and two of them had that only charge that was only for the obstruction that was their only felony. they're also sentenced to a year for their misdemeanor charge. i remember seeing in that courtroom they were walked back, taken back after their sentence, and that sentence is basically going to be potentially shrunk down now to the top level, what they were sentenced to for the misdemeanor. and i would also say in a lot of january 6th cases i've been seeing recently, judges have sort of prepared for this. they've prepared for the fischer ruling and have told, said explicitly in the record during sentencing hearings they would have decided this sentence, and posed the same sentence, even if the supreme court ultimately overturned fischer. this is something that i think that prosecutors who have been handling these cases have been preparing for as well as judges who have been sentencing cases given they were sort of reading the tea leaves we saw earlier during the supreme court's oral arguments, ana. >> legal analysts are back with us, lisa, i know you're trying to dig into the decision. what can you tell us about what you've learned so far? >> well, ana, this is an interesting split of the court, you have justice jackson joining a number of the conservatives and majority of the opinion written by chief justice roberts and justice barrett in dissent. the holding here really narrows the meaning of this statute that penalizes obstruction of an official proceeding. and that statute has two sections. one that pertains to obstructing an official proceeding by use of records, or documents, or objects or other things used in a proceeding and then there is sort of what people would have described a catch-all provision afterwards that says, or otherwise impedes the functioning of an official proceeding. and others would have described as a catch all provision afterwards, or otherwise impedes the functioning of an official proceeding. what the court is deciding is that that section that has the catch all phrase otherwise obstructs, influences or impedes any official proceeding or attempts to do so, that must be construed in light of the first more specific phrase. that means that anybody who has been charged with obstructing an official proceeding by, for example, physically blocking congress from doing their job on january 6th, if they didn't, for example, block that official proceeding by use of a record, a document, an object or an other thing, used in the conduct of congress' session that day, this charge can no longer stand. we think about how many cases are affected here, it is my understanding that nearly 250 people of the more than 1400 cases that have been brought against participants in the january 6th event involve one of these charges. so -- >> absolutely right. >> the number of people facing charges only on this count is very limited. maybe a few dozen. the number of defendants who have been charged with section 1512-c of the u.s. code title 18 numbers over 200 and almost 250. with respect to former president trump, what does this mean? he has been charged with obstruction of an official proceeding and conspiracy to do so. but, remember, also, the allegations against him in the pending indictment cover things like the fake electors scheme, which one could describe as an attempt to obstruct congress from doing its job by interposing false records, will those charges then against him stand? i think that's a matter of interpretation and should the indictment against him survive the presidential immunity challenge, yet another issue for judge tanya chutkan and other courts to have to wade through as that litigation progresses. >> let's peel the onion back a little bit, layer by layer here. lisa, you were comprehensive in laying out a little bit what this case is telling us, and what it could mean for not only this case, but many others, hundreds of others potentially including donald trump's. and let me just remind everybody about fisher, and what his actions are alleged to have happened on january 6th. he was arrested and charged with assaulting police officers among other charges and then he was charged with his obstruction of an official proceeding, for the actions at the capitol. prosecutors say he urged rioters to charge in there, he himself is a former police officer, tried to appeal to police officers during all of this. but he was part of this mob, prosecutors say, that pushed the police, hence why he is charged with assaulting a police officer. so, neil, just what does this mean for, one, his case, and how do you see this impacting the other cases that have this specific charge, including donald trump's? >> so, ana, this is a long and technical decision. and from my first glances at it, we only had it for a couple of minutes, i'm not sure it is going to have any sort of dramatic impact. and the reason is this. this is a statute that was passed after enron and the accounting issues, sarbanes oxley is part of that legislation. and the way that certainly everyone agrees the kind of thing that they were most concerned about was destruction of -- destruction of documents and evidence that would be used in a trial. now, what the court today says is, well, you got to -- it has to focus on destroying those documents in some way, or undermining their use. and this is where i think judge ketanji brown jackson's concurrence is so important. she agreed with the majority and said, look, you know, this statute could be overly broadly read by the justice department, but even with respect to joseph fisher himself, she says, you know, he still could be charged because it is an official proceeding that plainly used certain records, documents or objects, including the documents relating to electoral votes themselves. that's a quote from her opinion. what that means in practice is that even fisher isn't necessarily going to get any relief from this decision, let alone any of the other hundreds of defendants and certainly i think not donald trump because this is a very narrow decision that doesn't say, you know, trump or fisher or anyone else is off the hook. >> ryan reilly, you just got some new information at the court. fill us in. >> that's right. so monday will be the final day of the term. so we now know when we will be getting that really critical decision on donald trump and whether or not he is subject to criminal prosecution or whether or not he has total immunity in the charges he's facing from special counsel jack smith. obviously that's going to affect all the four charges he has here, potentially even the classified documents case in florida as well. and that's really going to be the one that is the bigger impact, the fisher decision doesn't necessarily read initially from the official read, like the previous guest was saying in terms of impacting the actual -- the two charges of obstruction of official proceeding that were brought against donald trump. >> okay, ryan reilly, thank you very much for your reporting. leah, give me your reaction to this decision, fisher versus u.s. >> i think that the fisher decision is significant in part because of what it could portend about donald trump's case. everyone is right when they say it is possible the government could prove with some additional allegations and evidence that many of the defendants involved in january 6th violated the statute as a supreme court has interpreted that statute. but it is important to remember that the supreme court has delayed the prospect of donald trump's trial for election interference by its timeline in the immunity case. in fisher, by interpreting the statute to basically add an additional level of proof for the government, they have added on potentially another layer of proceedings to judge tanya chutkan's case assuming the court allowed that case to proceed in light of the immunity decision on monday. the only other point i would make about the fisher decision is that, you know, justice jackson's opinion is very consistent with her approach to interpreting statutes where she considers what was congress' purpose and what was it trying to solve in this statute. and as she notes, this statute was passed in the wake of the enron scandal in order to prevent companies and individuals from destroying documents. but for the majority, many of the justices in the majority who consider themselves textualists, it is a little odd to look to a statute purpose or what they call a context and design to narrow the reach of what the law actually says. and as justice barrett said -- >> melissa, if this is fairly narrow in the ruling itself, does it change anything in terms of the charges donald trump faces? >> oh, i thought we had melissa with us as well. forgive me. i'll take that to you, lisa. >> you know, i agree with leah that it could prolong the proceedings because even if it doesn't technically change the gravity of the charges against donald trump as they're now constituted, look to this decision to be an excuse for donald trump's lawyers. if the indictment survives the presidential immunity ruling, for them to go back to judge chutkan and pretrial proceedings and say we need further briefing on whether or not these allegations can support a charge under this particular statute, because now the court has held that what counts as obstruction has to be understood as acts that impair the integrity of evidence or records, and not things like fisher was alleged to do, like forced entry or breaking windows or assaulting members of the united states. and all of that is part and parcel of the indictment against donald trump. literally everything from inspiring the violence at the capitol that day and doing nothing as it went on to his campaign and his alleged involvement in the fake electors scheme is part of that indictment. i think that the allegations in the indictment as it is currently constituted could continue to support a charge under this statute as narrowed by the court. but that doesn't mean we won't be wrapped up in in lengthy briefing as donald trump's lawyers trial and make hay out of this decision in the case against him in washington. >> and so, neil, we know that the immunity case is going to come down now on monday, because they did announce today at the court that monday is their last day. and it doesn't appear like they have gotten through all of the other cases this term. so it will be immunity and at least a few others. what will you be watching for when that immunity case drops? >> yeah, i mean, i think it is a cardinal principle of our law that no person is above the law. i think that's what our american constitution is founded on. i think it will be a grave disservice to our constitutional democracy, the supreme court, to even chip away at that fundamental principle. i sure hope they don't, i expect they won't, but as leah has so effectively pointed out, you know, the delay that the court has taken and just rendering its decision here has given trump what he wants effectively, making it very difficult, if not impossible for him to be tried before the election and for the american public to see all the evidence that is against him. and i think it is important for everyone to remember that liz cheney, who was one of the people running the january 6th investigation on congress wrote a "new york times" op-ed that said, look, i didn't have access to a lot of the evidence. the committee didn't because trump hid it from us and we didn't have the power to enforce our subpoenas and the like, but jack smith does have this evidence and a ton of evidence that the american public has