along with judge jeanine pirro, kevin walling, johnny jones, and greg gutfeld. it's 5:00 in new york city, and this is "the five." apparently, joe biden is not going anywhere, even as we learn shocking new details about his mental decline. the president, huddling with his family over the weekend to do a photo shoot with annie leibowitz and hash out what to do about the avalanche -- calls to step aside. reportedly urged him to stay in the race, and wants staffers fired for overloading biden's brain before the debate. jill m hunter biden are set to be the strongest voices in support of staying the course. the first on wants america to see that his father is "scrappy and in command of the facts rather than stumbling aging president americans saw thursday night." so far, top democrats are willing to go to bat for him. >> it was a bad performance. i know when i see what i call preparation overload. i'm with joe biden. it is our assignment to make sure that he gets over the finish line, november. >> had a difficult debate, and yet, we still -- to win. one debate is not a career. >> it's always a bad bet to bet against joe biden. i think he is the only democrat who could be donald trump. >> forget about making it to november: can biden even do the job now? white house aides are telling axios that joe biden is engaged from 10:00 a.m.-4:00 p.m. every day, and after that he checks out. prone to absent-minded gaps and fatigue, but his campaign is doubling down in new ads. >> i know how to tell the truth. i would like americans to know -- when you get knocked down, you get back up. >> the first lady is defending her husband in a glam new vogue spread. she says the critics "will not let those at 90 minutes to find the four years that he has been president. we will continue to fight." first up, when your entire party is in meltdown mode, maybe you canceled the annie leibowitz family photo shoot. >> no, that is too important for these people. dependently engaged. does that mean he is wearing depends? i have no idea what that means. i worry about the terrorists watching right now. it would be very rude for you guys to somehow attack us when he is not dependably engaged. you call canada beforehand and we will -- leap something on our voice mail. i think it would be rude. you should refrain from attacking us when joe is not dependably engaged. remember, the media reacted over to joe's condition, not because they saw it: it's because we saw saw. i still think it's the worst scandal of political history. a party and compliant media protecting a sham government run by a collection of progressive interests. they prefer that to democracy. it is just easier this way. now, they are shifting it back to "trump lies, trump lies." there is no lie like this. it is not comparison. there is no comparison. it pisses me off hearing about these journalists talking about how they were hoodwinked. this is the most important job of your life: breaking a huge story. you let it go right past you. this is worse than watergate. cnn said that every day. here it is! they chose stormy daniels over this. how could anybody trust the news anymore? i mean, didn't trust it anyway, but now you know that their biases prevent them from basically lying, gaslighting 300 million people. look at all the damage that has been done under joe biden: open borders, crime waves, homelessness, open drug markets. this is all products of woke marxism. it's under the hood of biden's presidency. he was a hood ornament: shiny and useless, but meant to run cover for a radical agenda. that's why they are fighting so hard, because they'd rather have a headless president and still be in control. >> dana: the other thing about it in addition to that is the news that came out of the family media was that they were blaming the staff. they made it very clear, that someday called "the new york times" from camp david and said "we blame the people who did the prep." my favorite take away is that there was somebody in the family, one of the grandkids who wants to take on a more active role in the campaign, including working with social media influencers, like that's going to do it. >> jeanine: first of all, the idea that they would blame the staff. think about it: who else are they going to blame? they will not blame joe or jill. of course they blame the staff. i think it's interesting that jen psaki's response is if you are directing anger at the prep for the debate, the aides, you are not addressing the right thing. she has got her priorities right. the fact that all of those people that we heard from -- the senators -- and they are basically saying this guy is a great president. how can you promote a guy and be honest to your oath to the american people and the constitution, when you know that he is not engaged for more than six hours a day? you saw the debate we all saw. it is more than disingenuous: it is un-american. this man -- and dana, i go back to what you said -- this man has to be prepared at three in the morning to answer the question "what do we do now, sir?" he is not that man. he is not that man at 9:00 at night. we saw that, but you can't help but think that the family is so into this is it is a dysfunctional family. two of these kids are drug addicts. hunter biden ends up sleeping with his dead brother's wife and hooks are on drugs. nine of the bidens have tens of hundreds of thousands of dollars in their accounts because of the work joe and hunter did around the world. the politics is good business for these people. it's about them and not about us. jill is so enamored with being the first lady, and every day, you see her in these designer dresses, and -- vogue cover, $5,000 ralph lauren dress. she is so into that. she spoke to joe biden, and she is the one who i blame this on -- after that debate it was cringeworthy and embarrassing. "joe, you did a great job. you answered every question." it was like a kindergarten teacher with a bunch of 5-year-olds. the fact that they are all gaslighting us, i think, is horrible. joe biden, and i say this in the best way that i can he is a man who attained the top position in this country. the president of the united states deserves at this point -- he loves the beach? he should be at the beach with his family, with his grandkids, but they don't want that. don't let them tell you that it's about the country, because it's about them. my last question: who's going to call for the 25th amendment and who is running the country? >> dana: they were supposed to have a cabinet meeting but it got canceled. i can't imagine why. kevin co -- kevin, i can only ask you one question. "the wall street journal" had a piece where they have 35 sources, many of them were speaking anonymously, and maybe we all don't like it. would prefer it on the record but you can understand why they didn't. the reporter said "we stand by her story comical sweats and so to the editors. the white house and campaign trashed "the wall street journal" and these reporters. only a week later, to confirm to axios that everything -- and it was true -- to add that the president poster for us only dependently engaged from 10:00 a.m.-4:00 p.m. i am curious the communication strategy. my other question for you is, it's like the biden campaign and the people in power, hakeem jeffries -- the people we saw there -- like they are completely disconnected from the rest of the democrats. even the left-leaning editorial boards like "the new york times" -- saying joe biden needs to get out. what say you? >> kevin: a few things. number one, i think the resident campaign -- almost as being a transitional figure in the democratic party. you talk about the next bench of democrats coming up -- josh shapiro, others -- and i think he views donald trump as an existential threat to this country. he believes that he is uniquely situated as the incumbent, the guy who defeated him three and a half years ago, as uniquely qualified to do it again. when you saw the initial impulse was may be step aside after four years and pass the torch. i don't know if donald trump wasn't the republican nominee and leading in the polls, if joe biden would be running for a second term, in all seriousness. >> dana: i don't believe that. anyway. >> kevin: number two, the campaign of the structure is built around joe biden. he has raised a record some of funds. a thousand field officials, 200 or so field offices opened in these battleground states. it's like a cruise ship that joey was just on. it's hard to change that midstream. dana, you raise the point on friday. if not joe biden, who? the alternative might not be in a better position than joe biden, november. >> couple of things that happens today. politico. the lead this morning. they had a story about governor gretchen whitmer calling the campaign to say "hey guys, i'm not the one promoting my name. i'm not trying to do that. by the way, the debate performance guarantees that he cannot win michigan." that was bidens only path to 270 is if he keeps michigan. in addition, we just got a poll a couple of hours ago that new hampshire, which biden won, now trump is up 44-42 which is consistent over the past few months. how are they thinking everything is fine and everyone will just move on and just let this carry on? >> johnny: i don't think they think it's fun. i like i said if not biden but who? a name that i might be overlooking, but gavin newsom i guess is a guy, he has a sex scandal of his own that is public and he's the governor of california. he loses on immigration economy. i don't see gavin newsom doing anything to hurt trump if trump has a lead. kamala? no. michelle does not want it. she is living a rock star lifestyle. why would they want to go back to the white house and be almost poor again? this person, i don't know. i know a lot of people in michigan. i don't know a lot of liberals in michigan. may be, jeffries, hakeem jeffries is a sleeper. it all comes down to this: joe biden is not going to impress voters enough to win -- to self-destruct and be the version of himself that he was in january 2020 that they felt they could run against. president trump showed up to the debate in a way -- took all that away. that's why they are scared. they are scared because president biden said "my son died in iraq." he's told a lie ten times. 2hell to the rest of us. if i get killed by a previous right now, i did not die in afghanistan. i didn't die because of work: i died because of something bad happen to me which is why his son died. i hate that for him, but when he tells lies like that, in a debate for his career, it means he's either not with it or completely thinks that the rest of us are stupid. he's not going to get elected that way. >> the terrorist threats announced against u.s.-baseds in europe. this comes a day after the white house on background, or may be campaign aides, tells a major news organization that he is only dependently engaged between 10:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m. >> i didn't have a chance to fact-check it. before that, somebody tweeted that the abbey gate bombing happens -- >> it was on "america's newsroom." >> the worst attack in the last two presidencies on our troops. maybe it should have happened a half an hour later and he would have been able to do something. that is what bothers me. can't get enough meds for him to get a decision. whoever the second and third shift president is, i hope you are watching and paying attention in case we are attacked. >> greg: dana, can i add to that? we are talking about joe's fitness, the election. that's five months away. he is unfit to be president now. >> dana: now! and they want us to moveo moveon.org. coming up, supreme shocker: the media is freaking out and donald trump is calling it a big win over the blockbuster ruling on presidential immunity. ♪ ♪ (bell ringing) someone needs to customize and save hundreds with liberty mutual! (inaudible sounds) (elevator doors opening) wait, there's an elevator? only pay for what you need. ♪ liberty, liberty, liberty, ♪ ♪ liberty. ♪ ♪ ♪ >> the supreme court dropping a blockbuster ruling that looks like it would make for donald trump. presence has substantial immunity from prosecution for official acts committed while in office but not for unofficial acts. the supreme also kicking the trump immunity case to a lower court, which is bad news for jack smith's case making trial before the election. the former president reacting to the ruling, calling it a "big win for our constitution and democracy." the press or going wild with all sorts of crazy theories. >> trump supreme court has decreed him a king. >> politically, it's like a license to -- -- >> if joe biden decided to seal team six to go after his political rivals, according to this case, he may be justified. >> somebody has to make the call as to whether the preposterous seal team six example falls under the -- of official acts. >> he says he could shoot someone in the middle of fifth avenue new york and get away with it. we hopefully will not see him test that theory. >> that's indeed a frightening scenario. >> congresswoman and scholarly, constitutional scholar aoc has her own left wing fantasy. printing to -- threatening to impeach supreme court justices. drugs, i don't know. maybe he thought it would come to you judge, maybe you thought i would come to you first. [laughter] this took me by surprise. i believe justice sotomayor road if trump orders them, seal team six two assessment eight political rival, immune. a military coup, immune. takes a bribe in exchange for a pardon, immune, immune, immune." to me that's like pitching a fit and rioting. >> she's wrong. this is a case that is based upon the constitution and federal statutes, where the court has said when the president is engaging in issues that only he or she at some point to and in, constitutional authority, federal statutory authority that he shares with no one, then it is per se beneficial acts, and he has absolute immunity from criminal prosecution. that does not mean everything the president does is an official act. they them are going to send this to a lower court to figure out what is official versus unofficial acts. let's assume there is unofficial act that the lower court interprets. what is the immunity level there? the presumption is when the president is engaging in unofficial act, which is probably most of the stuff he does during the day, the presumption is he has immunity from prosecution, which is a rebuttable presumption which the prosecution must rebut. if it's in unofficial act, there is no presumption of immunity. i think it's a brilliant decision. 6-3. the left will go crazy. the left is the left. we are not dealing with a normal country anymore. people are ready to impeach a supreme court justice because they don't align with their political ideology. the institutions in our country are being torn down day by day by people who are arguing to people that "this isn't right, this is in the law." they don't study the law. the most important part of all this is you got a prosecutor, jack smith, who has a terrible reputation in the supreme court. his cases have been reversed, unanimous decision i believe 8-0, the supreme court. goes after political prisoners. what he did with the governor of maryland. that case was reversed also. this court made it clear that the president enjoys no immunity for official acts. we had a president who sent drones over to the middle east and killed civilians, american civilians. let me just say that this also involves the court that has damped down the january 6th riot charges and that will benefit trump as well. >> greg, what does the libertarian in you worry about this? >> greg: oh, yeah, i was just thinking the other day "i hope the president doesn't hire seal team six to establish a coup." jade soto mayor is i would assume smart. coming up with these examples, it's like -- the president hired seal team six to kill an adversary. how does this work? "trump is on the phone. he wants us to take out rosie o'donnell. everybody in my truck, let's go." it's amazing how they cannot stop this hypothetical apocalyptic thinking. whether it's climate change, trump, or abortion, the supreme court. it's always "this will lead to death and destruction." back in reality, we are experiencing the results of progressivism in real-time with illegal immigration crime, inflation. they replaced reality with fantasies and doom. if they lived in the real world, instead of this fantasyland that they created around trump, would have been able to see the reality of joe biden sooner than we also, and they would've replaced him long ago instead of allowing this entire delusion to replace everything around them. they just "the better choice, and invalid, then a guy who tells fibs." that leads me to my eternal question: the democrats, the media, especially msnbc and cnn are saying that the selection is even more of an axis of the moment. trump with the supreme court -- even more of an excess dental moments. trump with the supreme court. it's the end of the world. khory reid says that they might completely undo the 20th century. that goes back to my question. why are you running joe? if you believe this could be the end of everybody's rights and the end of democracy, the start of a dictatorship, where you running the cadaver in chief? if it doesn't make sense, and it doesn't, then you don't believe the hoaxes you are selling. you don't. >> on the point, we saw that montage of media personalities, mostly politicians, literally crying that it's the end of the world and the supreme court is corrupt and purchase end. this week, and the last seven days we have had decisions where a judge appointed by trump sided with liberals, a judge appointed by biden sided with conservatives. this decision again split it even more in siding with the dissent on how it would work. >> in some ways, both sides do this when it comes to the decisions depending on what court it's coming from, it's a liberal judge and that will happen. but these guys on the democrat asked i don't even bother reading the opinions. they have a talking points before hand. it is not what you had to read walter scott's -- it's like a five-page decision. you got sheldon whitehouse, senator, and aoc. they were basically using talking points that have gone out beforehand. they don't bother reading it. do you remember when the colorado case came out? this was about the democrats tried to say that trump's name couldn't be on the ballot. the supreme court takes the c case. you had all those people on the left gunning for the colorado case. they were so excited for it, the supreme court rules and they say "trump's name -- you are not allowed to do that." they once nuts and said that these conservative justices are horrible. it was a 9-0 unanimous decision by the supreme court's. they are not thinking clearly. they also are thinking the best way to beat trump is in the courts. it's not working. the best way to beat trump would be on policy and on out campaigning him. right now if you ask americans where you rank trump versus biden on the issues you care about, economy, immigration, crime, even preserving democracy, trump is beating them by double digits on all of those points. >> there is an important question i want to ask. are you breathing a sigh of relief because it means present biden probably will not be convicted for opening the board and letting all those murderers and rapists in? >> i'm not. the vast majority of supreme court cases are 9-0. all the judges are together on that fact. and also to dana's point, i am more interested in donald trump at the ballot box. i don't want to be saved by alvin bragg. we have to beat him in november at the ballot box and not worry about these courts to intervene. >> i feel smarter. coming up, nancy pelosi is ridiculous -- a