that. thank you, my friend. today has been a lesson how every accusation from the republican party these days is really actually a confession. >> are you weaponizing the house the same way you say the democrats were weaponizing the doj to get what they wanted? are you just doing it on a bigger platform from the entire house of representatives? >> no, there's a very clear distinction in what we're doing and what they are doing. what we're doing, neil, is the opposite. we're trying to adhere to the rule of law. >> that was republican speaker of the house mike johnson this afternoon saying the republican party is just trying to adhere to the rule of law. now, a few hours before that interview speaker johnson made a huge decision, which shows that is plainly not true. one of the most important things johnson does is decide who from his party sits on house committees. and among the most important committees for the rule of law in this country is the house intelligence committee. today speaker johnson appointed far-right congressman scott perry and far-right congressman ronny jackson to the two open on seats on that committee. and when i say this decision flies in the face of the rule of law it is not only because both perry and jackson are big time election deniers, they most certainly are. but there are also the individual actions these two particular congressmen have taken that demonstrate just how little respect they have for the rule of law and for the institution of democracy on whole. congressman scott perry had a very significant role in the attempt to overturn the 2020 election. he was the congressman who tried to get trump's chief of staff, mark meadows, to investigate the conspiracy theory that italian satellites were swapping out trump votes for biden votes. he was the congressman who met with mark meadows right before mark meadows literally set fire to papers in the white house office. he was the congressman who introduced an obscure justice department employee named jeffrey clark to president trump in an effort to get president trump to appoint the very malleable mr. clark as attorney general and to help steal the 2020 election. trump ultimately did appoint jeffrey clark to serve as attorney general for one hot second, by the way. we know that now. congressman perry was also one of the people president trump talked with about going to the capitol on january 6th. and he was one of the people who asked president trump for a preemptive pardon after january 6th. and then when the house january 6th committee subpoenaed congressman perry to ask him about all of the above, perry refused to comply. but, wait, there's more. then last year the fbi seized congressman perry's cellphone as part of the special counsel's investigation into the attempts to overturn the 2020 election. to this day congressman scott perry is in an ongoing lawsuit against the department of justice trying to keep the doj from using the information on his phone. but rule of law. rule of law here, folks. this guy, he's one of the guys speaker johnson believes should be overseeing the fbi. then there's the other guy, congressman ronny jackson. he was the white house physician under president trump. do you remember him? he was the one putting out those glowing statements about how healthy president trump was and how he just might live to be 200 years old. ronny jackson is far right from texas who pushes conspiracy theories and says fellow doctor anthony fauci belongs in jail. here was congressman jackson responding to trump's guilty verdict last week. >> president biden should be ready because on january 20th of next year when he's former president joe biden and what's good for the goose is good for gander, and i'm going to encourage all my colleagues and anybody i have any influence over as a member of congress to aggressively go after the president and his entire family. >> subtle. these are the guys -- these are the guys speaker johnson is giving a seat on the committee that oversees our nation's intelligence agencies. one congressman who is not only actively involved in a plot to overturn the 2020 election but is actively refusing to cooperate with law enforcement about all of it. and another congressman who last week out loud on television said that congress should be using its powers to go after president biden and his family. >> look, we're the rule of law team. i mean we believe in the rule of law. >> team rule of law. yesterday speaker johnson laid out plans to weaponize the house's oversight powers to gin up retaliatory investigations against democrats and president biden as sort of a republican response to trump's conviction by a jury of his peers in new york city. and you can bet a good chunk of those investigations will probably come out of the house's republican-led committee on the weaponization of the federal government. again, every republican allegation here is actually a confession. but what makes all of this so much worse is that these revenge fantasies aren't just coming from speaker johnson, this is where the whole party is. the gop is the party of vengeance. this is what florida senator marco rubio said after trump's conviction. it's time to fight fire emoji with fire emoji. >> i'm talking about tit for tat you just wait, and it won't be hunter biden the next time. it's going to be joe biden. it could potentially still be barack obama. it could still potentially be hillary clinton. >> you have to get in the game, republicans. is every house committee controlled by republicans using its subpoena power in every way it needs to? right now with republican d.a. starting every investigation they need to right now? >> we need some brave district attorneys in the united states to step forward and to take aggressive action. >> they need to be put on defense, the only way to put them on defense is to hit them with a blowtorch. >> it's a terrible precedent for our country. does that mean the next president does it to them? that's really the question. it's a terrible, terrible path they're leading us to, and it's very possible that it's going to have to happen to them. >> joining me now is massachusetts senator democrat elizabeth warren. senator warren, thank you so much for being here. i remember a time when marco rubio, your colleague in the senate had at least a residence on earth one where facts are facts and reality is reality. i have to get your thoughts on his statement, his tweet today saying our current president is a demented man prauched up by wicked and deranged people willing to destroy our country to remain in power. it's time to fight fire with fire. your thoughts, senator? >> you know, this revenge fantasy is truly alarming. i understand that these are people who have taken their oath of loyalty to donald trump, not to the constitution, not to the people of the united states of america but to this one man. and they suck up. they do whatever it is that he wants them to do, but the direction this has now gone -- we all understand using our court system for retribution is wrong. and there is absolutely zero evidence that the 34 felony convictions against donald trump had anything to do with political retribution, and yet the republicans in this fevered moment have decided that the only way they can explain that their candidate is a convicted felon, can i say that again? a convicted felon who has said he wants to be dictator on day one, that the only way they can explain that is to head off into they're planning to do retribution, and somehow they think that will spillbackwards into what happened in the courts in new york. none of this makes any sense. it doesn't add up except to say it's about tearing down our government. it's about tearing down our institutions. and i believe the reason they want to do that is they don't want a government that functions. we're trying to show we can actually make government work for people, we can actually make government be an instrument of roads and bridges and things that work better for the rest of america. we can cancel student loan debt and get $35 insulin, the kinds of things joe biden has been doing. what these republicans want is they just want to use government for power, for donald trump and for themselves, and that is truly a threat to our democracy. >> yeah. i'd love to follow up a little bit more an that because now scott perry and ronny jackson are going to by sitting on a house committee that oversees five agencies and has access to sensitive information. i mean as a democrat does that scare you? >> yeah, it really does. i am alarmed by every step they're taking and by the fact that people who are less and less attached to reality are moving into ever more powerful positions in the house of representatives. and i worry that we're getting some evidence that the senate on the republican side doesn't look like it's far behind. this is an alarming moment. five months from today we'll have an election. and when people say democracy is on the ballot, this is a big part of what we're talking about. do you believe in government? do you support government indo you make your loyalty to the constitution and the people of the united states, i or is it all about one man and however much you have to distort the facts, however much you have to lie, however much you have to engage in ugly and mean retribution fantasies, you'll do it if it satisfies that one man. that's the choice in front of us, and i've got to say i'm glad i'm on the democratic side. i'm with joe biden who's at heart a decent and good man who wants government to work for people. >> i have to ask you because as we talk about republican revenge fantasies, senator katie brit of alabama another colleague in the senate passed a bill to tank the right to contraception part of a partisan scare tactic. >> okay, so let's just be really clear what she's really saying is that if we talk about what the republicans are threatening to do we really would scare america, and i think that's right. because look at it this way, what have the republicans done so far? now, they told us 2 1/2 years ago no one was going to touch roe v. wade. and donald trump gets his extremist court in place, and the first chance they get they tank roe v. wade. they don't take a little bite out of it, don't say, yeah, on the other hand. they just throw the whole thing out, and while they're throwing it out clarence thomas says as long as we're throwing out roe, let's take a look at throwing out griswold, which ten years earlier had protected access to contraception. in addition to that the speaker of the house and a majority of republicans in the house of representatives are cosponsors on a bill about life begins at conception that would actually make illegal certain forms of contraception, iuds, plan b. in addition to that there are extremist groups out there that are aggressively lobbying to take away access to contraception, and then we've got donald trump himself who just two weeks ago said, yeah, he was going to take a look at putting restrictions on contraception. and then as if all that were not enough, understand that today in the united states senate all but two republicans when given a chance to vote on what about a federal law to protect access to contraception -- that's all the bill really said, only two republicans said, yeah, i'll support that. the rest of them either voted no or ran for the hills so that they wouldn't have to say in public how they feel about taking away access to contraception. you better believe that americans should be scared about what republicans want to do because they're coming after abortion everywhere in this country. they're coming after ivf in this country, and they're coming after contraception not just in red states but nationally, red states, blue states, purple states everywhere. it's an extremist agenda, and america should be alarmed. >> senator elizabeth warren, thank you for joining me this evening and offering your wisdom and perspective on all this. really appreciate your time. >> you bet, thank you. >> i want to turn now to jamelle buoy, an opinion columnist for "the new york times." we were talking to senator warren about these revenge fantasies, and i think part of the reason you've seen such a shocking response from the republican party is because they're legitimately shaken by the 34 felony counts. how do you interpret what is here to for just kind of an unprecedented spoken out loud plot to break the law in a partisan agenda? >> i think that's absolutely right. i think this roar we're seeing from republicans, this furious anger over the conviction is an expression of the fact that they're more than aware it's not good for our party's standard bearer to be a convicted felon. it's not good. and we should go through the polling released so far about american's attitude on convictions, not good. when consistently a majority of americans are saying, yeah, that seems about right. it seems about right donald trump is guilty of fraud and that the conviction was the right choice. there's very -- i mean honestly somewhat surprising little divisiveness among the public about the justice of this ruling. and i'll note you have not really seen republicans actually deny the charges against trump. you haven't seen republicans try to speak to his good name and say donald trump could never have done what he's charged with. and that to me is a clear sign republicans know this is not an ideal situation. >> you have an opinion piece about the myth of trump. the myth of donald trump is he's immune to scandal, that there's nothing he could say or do to undermine his political prospects. yes, he's shameless. yes, he's surrounded by a cultive personality, but neither has made him invulnerable to the blows of political combat. and then that polling you were talking about jamelle, before the verdict this is the new york times siena college polling. before the verdict he was up by 3 points, after the verdict he's up by 1 point. i know that is not a sizable enough margin to assuage the concerns of a lot of folks, but the fact of the matter is we're a couple days out and it is however incrementally having an effect especially, jamelle in the most pronounced fashion among young white voters disengaged from the political process. how do you read that? >> i think we're still at this stage in the election when your typical voters aren't paying that much attention. but as we move through the summer and the fall and i expect we're going to hear a drum beat about the president being a convicted felon and his sentencing in july before the republican national convention, that will be a big moment for this story as well. i expect as more voters tune in and internalize what they think about trump and think seriously not just about their preference but their vote intention, this is the thing that might at the very least keep trump from consolidating voters he needs to actually win the election. i mean the way i've been thinking about it is if trump were acquitted we would all recognize this was a big victory for the former president, so him being convicted on 34 counts, which i was surprised it was all 34. him being convicted, it stands to reason it is an obstacle to his efforts to win a second term. >> it says something about the wurl in which we're living in we have to reiterate maybe getting convicted on 34 counts is not a boon. in one of the tightest senate races in the country tim shihi, and john tester he's trying to run on a senate race that could decide the upper chamber. everyone's looking at this differently thank you so much for being here, my friend. we have a lot this evening including revelations of a secret plan to influence democratic lawmakers like house democratic leader hakeem jeffreys. we're going to tell you what that plot is. plus the judge overseeing the criminal prosecution of trump in florida makes the latest in a long series of decisions that seem to be helping the guy who appointed her. that's next. that's next. craig here pays too much for verizon wireless. so he sublet half his real estate office... [ bird squawks loudly ] to a pet shop. meg's moving company uses t-mobile. so she scaled down her fleet to save money. and don's paying so much for at&t, he's been waiting to update his equipment! there's a smarter way to save. comcast business mobile. you could save up to 70% on your wireless bill. so you don't have to compromise. powering smarter savings. powering possibilities. . donald trump may have lost his new york city criminal case, but the delays in his criminal prosecutions in florida and georgia are dealing him a pretty winning hand. today in georgia the state's court of appeals put the election conspiracy prosecution against trump on hold until at least october when the court takes up trump's motion to disqualify fulton county d.a. fani willis. and down in florida in trump's federal prosecution of mishandling of classified documents, judge aileen cannon continue said to entertain a very long list of specious arguments to dismiss this case entirely. in the next hearing later this month trump's attorneys will argue that jack smith's appointment as special counsel was unconstitutional. judge cannon is not only taking valuable courtroom to hear a case already adjudicated in other carts, she's also taking the remarkable step by allowing lawyers who are not part of the case to come in and join in on oral arguments. joining me now to help understand what is happening here, my good friend joyce vance, former u.s. attorney for the northern district of alabama and co-host of the sisters in law podcast. joyce, she was on the show earlier and said she had never in her career seen what judge cannon is doing right now, effectively inviting guest conservative lawyers to sing their song. how unusual is this in your estimation? >> right, so mary and i talked about this earlier today, and we are hard-pressed to think of any situation where a district court judge, a trial court judge not only entertained these amick s briefs from wild parties but permitted them to come into court and argue their case. it's like inviting random folks off the street who don't have a stake in the case to come in and express their views. you extremely rarely will see this with a government entity. perhaps the justice department in a case between private litigants where the government has a stake in the issues. but this is just a little bit off-the-wall to put it politely. and this is a judge who has complained she can't set a trial date in this case because she has such a backlog of motions. here she's taking a day just to hear one issue in a motion that could have just as easily been decided after she read the briefs. trial judges only hear oral argument if there are outstanding issues that they have concerns about after reading the briefs. here all of the issues are adequately addressed in the briefs submitted by the parties. >> does it suggest to you she's looking for a way to dismiss the case? and i know this all seems far-fetched but everything she's done so far seems far-fetched. do you think this is her way out of this case? >> so i don't think the amicus give her ammunition she doesn't otherwise have. there's a district of columbia court of appeals decision from the mueller investigation era saying this form of appointing a counsel is constitutional, end of story. the court of appeals reached that decision unanimously. they didn't struggle in their opinion, but it's fair for judge cannon who's in a different circuit, the 11th circuit that hasn't decided that issue, to make her own independent decision. that doesn't require a couple of days of hearings that include this sort of unusual amicus proceeding in order to get there. and here's the reality, by the way. if she dismisses the case on this basis, jack smith will g