something, tucker, i have never seen before or heard of, an electronic sniffing dog and they took all of the electronics from my house. new fallout this morning from revelation that is six republican lawmakers sought preemptive pardons from former president trump before and after the attack on the capitol. that is according to emails and testimony revealed by the january 6th committee. was representative gaetz requesting a pardon? i believe so. a pardon that he was discussing, requesting, was as broad as you could describe. mr. biggs did, mr. jordan talked about congressional pardons but he never asked me for one. mr. gohmert asked for one as well. mr. perry asked for a pardon, too. did marjory taylor green contact you? no, she didn t contact me about t i heard that she had asked white house office counsel for a pardon. so what were the roles of the pardon seekers in january 6? let s bring in tom foreman to walk us through that. tom? if you look at all sifolks
last five years literally call stop and frisk in new york, which was one of the key things to lower gun crime in new york the moral equivalent of fugitive slave laws, right. guns are evil, but you can t use police powers to actually take illegal guns, which are the source of most of these sorts of things, away from people. and, like, here s here s some common ground. we should be listening more to law enforcement and police officers and mayors when it comes to the issues. they re the closest to the ground. and the fact that we re not doing that, and opposing ideology and citing history and tradition, ignoring whole swaths of history and tradition related to local control and restricting firearms, even in the old west, that s what drives me crazy about this decision. john and jonah, you made my job very easy today. just sort of drop a hockey puck. that s why i m here at the end to wrap ite up. it was a good discussion.
people who have been reporting on this were surprised at how significant a decision it was. they re basically saying, all juul products, all the pod, they had taken off fruit flavors some time ago, but tobacco flavors, menthol, cartridges, everything, should be coming off the market. even going into retail stores and saying pull your products, don t sell this anymore. the concern, john, interestingly, was about safety, specifically saying there was concern that the pods, these juul pods could be leeching some toxic chemicals that could be harmful to human health. that s what the fda focused on. they said juul did not make the case strongly enough that that wasn t happening. so that s really what drove this decision. a big one, john. so, sanjay, there have been arguments and you ve been studying this issue for so long, arguments that e-cigarettes can be a tool to help smokers quit traditional cigarettes. has that been proven? i think that s still a bit of an open question. i mean, y
i think our job as citizens is to, you know, watch and wait and see how they call it, but as far as the considerations that drive that decision, you know, you re dealing according to doj guidelines, you re dealing with the seriousness of the offense as a major consideration. well that, i think, addresses itself when you think about what was this about? it was about destroying our democratic system. and a second major consideration is the importance of deterrents. well, we ve got active efforts to steal the 2024 election going on right now, deterrents is absolutely critical. and the third major leading consideration is the culpability of the person that you re looking at. here we re getting the evidence of extraordinary personal culpability by donald trump. so i think i think the considerations that weigh in favor of prosecution are being
justices striking don a new york law that places restrictions on carrying a concealed gun outside of the home, making it easier to carry firearms in public. joining me to discuss here is cnn s senior political analyst john avalon and cnn political commentator and editor and chief of the dispatch jonah goldberg. jonah, what did you think of the decision? i thought it was not great timing given where the conversation is on guns these days politically, but, you know, the supreme court is not supposed to think about those things. i think the decision is setting off a very predictable firestorm of reaction that i think is overdone within the four corners of the decision i think it s pretty reasonable. i m going to be nuanced to the point i m going to be a prairie fire of nuance here. i think the decision is utterly defensible on its own terms, all it s doing is basically saying that new york needs to be more like the 43 other states that do it differently and that i think clarence thoma