good to be with you, i'm alex witt in for katy tur. we're right now following breaking news out of washington where the justice department has just announced it will not prosecute attorney general merrick garland for contempt of congress saying in a letter that garland's refusal to hand over audio of president biden's interview with robert hur to gop lawmakers was not a crime. joining us now from capitol hill is correspondent julie tsirkin. so let's interpret what this all means. i guess the implication being this was a political maneuver by congress. >> reporter: first of all, alex, this was as expected. congress, even republicans here who pushed this contempt vote. remember that just happened a couple of days ago, they successfully voted on party lines pretty much, except for one republican, to hold merrick garland in contempt of congress because he did not turn over those tapes from biden's interview with special counsel hur, and the classified documents case, republicans expected the department of justice not to prosecute attorney general merrick garland, meaning this is case closed. i want to know that we reached out to speaker johnson's office to see if they have a response to this, nothing yet. it says, quote, consistent with the long standing position and uniform practice, the department of justice determined that the responses by attorney general garland to the subpoenas issued by the committees did not constitute a crime, and according to the department, accordingly, they would not bring the contempt citation before a grand jury or take any other action to prosecute the attorney general. so this is consistent, the doj is saying, with their past practices, including in other contempt votes to prosecute by congress attorneys general. i'm talking about eric holder under president obama, and bill barr under president trump. the doj, the attorney general of course oversees made the same qualification and assessment in those cases as we are seeing now. this means, again, that this case is closed, but we will bring you a response from speaker johnson and republicans who pushed this as soon as we have it. >> may i ask you a question, are there any ramifications for merrick garland for having been found in contempt of congress , but now the dodge not prosecuting. does there linger or merely an asterisk to a career. >> certainly you're going to see political statements. you're going to see republicans pushing back on this, saying the doj should have prosecuted merrick garland, of course we know republicans under the weaponization of government, that the government is weaponized, committees they have established. i expect them to continue to push this narrative out there, but effectively there is nothing else congress can do if the dodge has closed the case on this. remember what this is about, the white house, the biden administration asserted executive privilege over those tapes, and that is why at the end of the day, the attorney general, though he supported that move said he can't hand over the tapes. he is ham strung by that executive privilege coverage. >> julie tsirkin on capitol hill with the breaking news, thank you, julie for that. let's go now to our top story as right now in italy, president biden has wrapped his one on one meeting with pope francis. he became the first pontiff to attend and address leaders at the g7 summit, challenging them about the dangers of artificial intelligence. what we know about his closed door discussion with the president, and what other top priorities were discussed today. as biden and italy's georgia maloney agreed to hit russia with more costs over its war in ukraine one day after volodymyr zelenskyy restored a ten-year deal with the u.s., as well as a $50 billion loan from frozen russian assets. can pledges like this do enough and last long enough to guide ukraine to victory? because right now, peace still appears to be a million miles away. today, kyiv rejected a new proposal from vladimir putin where he promised to quote, immediately end the war only if ukrainian troops withdraw from occupied regions and if ukraine dropped its plan to join nato. both of those, of course, have been long standing, nonstarters for ukraine, since the war first broke out. what happens now? we've got a whole lot to cover. we're going to get right to the reporting for you. joining us now from italy, nbc news white house continue monica alba. contributor for the national catholic reporter, christopher white, and "politico's" coauthor, eli. remind us of the relationship between the pope and president biden and what we know about their private audience today? >> it's a deep bond that is shared between these two men, alex, and of course the president as a devout catholic actually his relationship with the pope dates back more than a decade because it was then vice president joe biden who was dispatched to rome to represent the u.s. at pope francis's inauguration in 2013, and then when the pope came to the u.s. in 2015, he spent some time then also with vice president biden and it was a couple of months after beau biden died of brain cancer that the pope held a private audience, not just with then vice president biden but some of his family members as well. that meant a lot to him at the time. since then after being elected president, he traveled to rome, to the vatican to meet with pope francis, where he has called him the most peaceful warrior that he has ever met, and the person who he believes can deliver that message of peace the most effectively. and actually, in his interview with special counsel robert hur last year, he brought up unprompted that he was still in regular contact and in touch with the pope through written communication. their meeting today carries extra significant because of what an emotional and intense week it has been for the president, and for the first family, given hunter biden's conviction on those felony gun charges. anytime that he is able to spend with the pontiff today is meaningful and of course deeply personal for him. and it's also historic for the pope himself, since he's the first pope to ever attend a g7 summit, alex. >> to address issues around artificial intelligence because that's newly cropped up. christopher, president biden last met the pope before the wars in ukraine and gaza. that was back in 2021 when he called him the most significant warrior for peace he's ever met. the pope has had called with biden, urging him to hour the temperature in the middle east. how much does their approach to peace differ, and how important is their meeting at a crucial time. >> i think with the two men on a personal level, the bond is strong. politically they see the world quite differently. pope francis sees his call, his role in the world to be a peacemaker first and foremost. he doesn't get into the weeds, but he focuses on broad calls for cease fires. he has done that in ukraine and gaza. simply put, he's butt heads with the biden administration, we have seen that behind the scenes in rome. pope francis is doing what he can to bring an end to the war in ukraine. the biden administration said, you know, they're going to defend ukraine no matter what it takes. i think behind closed doors, we have not gotten a readout from this meeting today. behind closed doors, i think those tensions will be present, but i think they'll look at ways that they can partner together, and i think we'll see that primarily on this partnership between the u.s. and the vatican on the repatriation of the roughly 20,000 ukrainian children that have been abducted to russia since the war began. i think that's where they find common ground. >> okay. thanks for that. monica, putin's cease fire proposal, that is being slammed by ukrainian officials, they're calling it absurd. has the president offered any reaction to putin's deal? >> well, the white house and senior administration officials have reacted to it, similarly. really dismissing it, saying that it is not only unrealistic, but not productive to try to have a conversation about peace talks with stipulations that certainly would not be entertained here. and that's why the president really side by side with president zelenskyy yesterday said he wanted to send the broader message to president putin that if he thinks he can outlast the west or outlast the resolve of the u.s. and the international community in backing ukraine, that he would be sorely mistaken. today they're really trying to frame this in the context of if there's going to be serious consideration of peace talks, that should happen through channels like the event that's going to be taking place this weekend in switzerland, where president biden will not be going. instead, vice president harris is going to be representing the administration along with national security adviser jake sullivan, and they're going to take part in those conversations where of course the ukrainian president will be leading the way there. they certainly don't agree with what president putin laid out in terms of withdrawing from those critical territories or this question of ukraine joining nato is a little bit of a more interesting one for the u.s. because the president has said a little bit of different things on that specifically because he has not said that ukraine should definitely join nato, but at the same time, he says he stands by ukraine's right to defend itself and there could be conversations about that at some point potentially in the future, alex. >> monica, i know you have to take off. thank you for joining us to this point. eli, let's go to you. i know you have been following the relationship between president biden and georgia maloney, the newly elected leader of italy. the surprisingly close relationship, despite political differences in the approach, today's biden and maloney, they have both agreed to pursue all available options to impose further costs on russia. what does that mean? how do you interpret that? >> that has to do with the seizing of the russian assets, the ten-year defense pact the u.s. signed with ukraine yesterday in trying to inoculate ukraine against further political changes against the u.s. that would erode the government's support for ukraine biden is not reelected. biden and maloney, maloney came from the far right. there was a fear inside the white house about what that might mean for the g7. she has actually been to everyone's great surprise, a very steadfast and committed ally when it comes to the major things on ukraine, transatlantic security and tackling problems like migration, infrastructure in a constructive and pragmatic way. the g7 has a whole has been fairly cohesive. i think what's striking at the moment is this meeting coming a few days after eu elections. maloney's party did well in italy. the other leaders for somewhat, you know, varying degrees of setbacks in france and germany, especially, and joe biden obviously is on the ballot this november, and so there are a lot of questions ahead for the g7, efforts to, you know, put up a symbolic commitment to are one thing. there's nothing signing a document can do if biden is not reelected. if far right forces eventually are governing another g7 country france or somewhere else in europe. if that becomes the case, then there are real questions about how that will affect ukraine if the war goes on. the u.s., the g7 are continuing to send resources to ukraine, but there are still things that ukraine wants that the u.s. is reluctant to do. in brussels, the defense ministers are meeting, and the u.s. is under pressure to lift restrictions on ukraine's usage of american defense munitions to be able to sort of untie their hand behind their back, so to speak, and allow ukraine to use the weapons more offensively inside russian borders to defend themselves. we will see where this goes. a big red line for biden, as much as he has tried to be steadfast in support of ukraine has been not wanting to see this war escalate. but at some point, you mentioned the peace talks with the pope at the top. russia putting forth a peace plan that was rejected. at some point, this is either going to have to end in a peace settlement, some kind of resolution, and the u.s. and the other g7 allies are saying we are going to leave this up to ukraine to decide. we don't want to see ukraine cdc any territory. they are not giving ukraine everything at once to turn the tide of the actual conflict and put itself in a better position to negotiate an end to the conflict. >> a comprehensive answer to the question. thank you so much, and to you as well, christopher white. joining us right now, president emeritus at the council on foreign relations and author of "the bill of obligations," richard haass. good to see you. when it comes to ukraine. so much of this is about time, the ten-year security agreement. it doesn't have guaranteed aid, right? and it might last only as long as president biden is in office. are these pledges from international allies enough money-wise and time-wise for ukraine to win this war against russia? >> two things, one is as you suggest, they're not credible. president biden wasn't able to guarantee the delivery of aid, even while he was president because the house of representatives would not approve it. these pledges are nice words, but quite honestly, they carry no weight. if there is a president trump or future republican senate or house, they're going to do what they're going to do. second of all, you raise a much more complicated question. what do you mean by win when it comes to ukraine. what's the definition of victory the russian quote unquote peace proposal which isn't, puts that center stage. is the united states committed to ukraine trying to liberate all the lands that russia has gained first in 2014, and then since 2022. i believe that's impossible. it's not going to succeed militarily. what are we trying to accomplish here? and i do think there's a chance that we can promote a stalemate and that is possible. and if we loosen restraints on how ukraine can use the military arms to inflict pain on russia, i think sometime next year in 2005, it's possible we could set the stage for some kind of talks. a lot has to happen in order for that to happen. >> what is putin's strategy behind this peace proposal? does he only want those occupied regions? that's really what he wants. does he want ukraine not to join nato? what is it he wants? what's his strategy? >> he wanted to effectively eliminate ukraine. that's been his ambition from the get go. my guess is he thought he would accomplish it just over two years ago, and at minimum, potentially as a holding action, he wants to keep crimea, he wants to lock in what's going on in the east, and wants more than what he currently has. he wants to keep nato, ukraine out of nato because if ukraine goes into nato, that pretty much ends the possibility that ukraine would ever be eliminated as a sovereign country. every once in a while, it's useful to listen to what somebody like putin says. i think he wants the territory he has and then some, and he wants to keep open the possibility of ultimately getting rid of ukraine. >> can i ask you quickly your top take away from the g7 summit? >> almost all the political leaders there are weakened by either elections or polls. the next g7, they can have a very different set of faces. and the countries are not on the same page on big issues, beginning with the middle east. but also china policy. so it's the g7, but the g in some ways is pretty weak right now. >> okay. richard haass, always good to see you. thank you so much. >> thanks all. up next, what a supreme court decision to strike down a trump era ban on bump stocks could mean to other challenges on gun restrictions. senator richard blumenthal joins us with his reaction. and what the senate judiciary revealed about justice thomas and supreme court ethics. why women in states where abortion is banned still worry about being prosecuted for using it. we're back in 90 seconds. ds ses.. so my tech and my network need to keep up. thank you verizon business. (kevin) now our businesses get fast and reliable internet from the same network that powers our phones. (aaron) so whatever's next... we're cooking with fire. (vo) switch to the partner businesses rely on. ♪♪ ♪♪ 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. ♪♪ oh no! with chewy, get flea meds delivered before the itching begins or after. but before is definitely better. good job. save 20% on your first pharmacy order and get it delivered right on time. (man) every time i needed a new phone, save 20% on your first pharmacy order i had to switch carriers... (roommate) i told him...at verizon, everyone can get that iphone 15 on them. (man) now that i got a huge storage and battery upgrade... i'm officially done switching. (vo) new and existing customers get iphone 15 on us when they trade in any iphone. verizon the supreme court has ruled that a trump era federal ban on bump stocks, gun accessories that allow semiautomatic rifles to fire more quickly is unlawful. in a 6-3 ruling along ideological lines, the conservatives held that an almost 100-year-old law aimed at banning machine guns cannot be interpreted to include bump stocks. with justice clarence thomas writing for the majority that a firearm equipped with them with that accessory does not meet the definition of machine gun under federal law. the biden campaign is reacting in a statement saying, quote, weapons of war have no place on the streets of america but trump's justices have decided the gun lobby is more important than the safety of our kids and our communities. joining us right now senator richard blumenthal of connecticut. welcome, senator, your reaction overall to the news today? >> my reaction is that this decision is completely wrong headed, scandalously misguided in legalizing machine guns, which congress sought to prevent in that 1934 law. it's not a second amendment decision. it's a resolution of questions about a device that makes semiautomatics into automatics. in other words, machine guns, and what it shows is that this court puts its right wing political agenda above public safety. it will likely unfold and release the flood gates for countless other similar devices that turn semiautomatics into the kind of killer that enabled the las vegas shooter to kill 58 people, wound 500 with the single pull of a trigger. that's really a machine gun, and that's why this decision is so desperately wrong. >> well, and this ruling, as you know, prompted a vigorous dissent from liberal justice sonia sotomayor who wrote, when i see a bird that walks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck. i call that bird a duck. a bump stock equipped semiautomatic rifle fires more than one shot without manual reloading by a single function of the trigger because i like congress call that a machine gun, i respectfully dissent, and she, sir, even took the rare step of reading that summary of her dissent in the chamber. how unique was that? >> it is very rare for any justice to read, actually read an opinion from the bench. i have argued four cases in the united states supreme court. i follow its work pretty closely, and a justice reads an opinion from the court when she or he cares deeply and believes that the majority is so far wrong that it has to be corrected in that public way, and the only ones really happy here should be the criminals and the mass shooters because no self-respecting hunter or recreational shooter would use a machine gun to go hunting and, in fact, you