to pick up and use. the minority, led by justice sotomayor, who warned today that, quote, the man in charge of enforcing laws can now just break them. ironic, isn't it? but for six in the majority, including the chief justice, the already highly controversial decision is meant to protect the presidency, writing that the framers always demanded an energetic, independent executive. we'll dig into the immediate fallout. plus, did today's legal bombshell effectively blow up jack smith's january 6th case against former president trump? what the decision said about the evidence smith can and can't use against the former president if the case gets to trial. it's not just d.c., could the cases in florida and georgia be wiped away, too? as the former president celebrates what he's calling a big win for democracy, a big decision awaits the current president. stay in the race or step aside after thursday's disastrous debate? i'll ask one of biden's top advisers what it's going to take to right the ship and save joe biden's campaign. so much to get to, but we start with the powers of the presidency, being reshaped for decades to come and with immediate benefit for donald trump. the supreme court's 6-3 ruling coming down just hours ago, attempting to draw a line between apt's official actions, which the court says are covered by absolute immunity and unofficial ones which aren't. in a stunningly brutal dissent, justice sotomayor argues this effective live creates a law-free zone around the president. what she wrote was chilling. the final line, with fear for our democracy, i dissent. then reading in aloud in the courtroom she went even further saying, with fear for our democracy i, along with the framers, dissent. i want to bring in nbc's ken dilanian outside the supreme court, jeffrey rosen is president and ceo of the national constitution center and a law professor at george washington law school, tim miller host of the bulwark podcast and msnbc political analyst. with me onset, chuck rosen berpg and former senior adviser to attorney general merrick garland, anthony coley. thank you for being here on this very consequential day. high drama, unlike to what we're used to seeing inside the highest court in the land. give us your thoughts on what prompted such a high-octane dissent? rockefeller i could see chief justice roberts say those dissents struck a note of chilling doom and is holy disproportionate to what this decision actually musters forth. the devil is in the details. what you have a decision that grants absolute immunity to presidential acts. if you listen back, you can see the zone of agreement. lawyer for the special counsel acknowledged there were some official acts under the president under article 2 that are immune for prosecution. president trump's lawyer included acts in the jaj smith indictment that could be prosecuted. the supreme court has carved a large amount of conduct that is immune and another group it says is presumed immune but prosecutors can go into court and try to rebut that premise. that's where this decision really will affect the jack smith indictment. there's only one category of conduct alleged in the indictment that this decision says is out of bounds right away. that's the section about how donald trump allege endly tried to co-op the justice department and get them to conduct bogus investigations of fraud and tell the states that there was fraud. this decision says that is out. that was clearly an official act. it also says that his conversations with mike pence, the vice president, about his role certifying the votes presiding over the senate on january 6th, that that is presumed an official act, but that prosecutors could go and argue before the judge that there's reason to think it wasn't, in part because he was president of the senate. lastly, it says donald trump's public statements, the public statements of a president are presumed to be official acts, but it says there are times when perhaps those statements were not official acts and prosecutors can come and argue about that. the bottom line, all of it gets sent back to the district court which will have to make detailed judgments about which of the conduct is private acts, official acts and that can be appealed. there's no chance this case can go to trial before the election, and it presents a complicated set of circumstances and a lot of litigation left to go and this question of whether donald trump can ever be held accountable based on this jack smith january 6th indictment. >> ken dilanian, thank you. anthony, justice sotomayor also wrote, the court gives former president trump all the immunity he asked for and more. is that what happened here? >> that's right. it's absolutely roadmap. i want to be clear about this case, chris. the right way to challenge elections in our country are through courts of law. >> and that happened. >> 60-plus times and each one of those times the court confirmed joe biden's victory. >> i think 63 out of 64 without even questioning it. >> and that should have been the end of it. what we saw is a president who ignored the facts, work around the law and engaged in the a campaign to overturn the will of the voters. i want to pick up on something that ken dilanian just said about any conversations, any actions that happened within the executive branch being taken out of this -- about this case. to put some meat on the bones, i'm going to give you an example. in december of 2020, donald trump had a conversation with his acting attorney general and his acting deputy attorney general. chris, he told them to just say that the election was corrupt, just say it, and let me and the gop congressmen take care of the rest. this is after bill barr left the department. you remember december 7th of 2000 he told the associated press that there was not enough fraud to change the outcome of the election. fast forward weeks later, trump is trying to put pressure on his own justice department to ignore those facts and to work around the law. that's what's really disturbing to me about this, that those type of conversations can now not be a part of this indictment. >> i have been listening to you all day, chuck. i get the sense that you think this is not the free pass some think it is. >> sorry you've had to listen to me all day, chris. >> my pleasure. >> nobody should be saddled with that. this is not a good decision for the prosecutors, but i don't think it's the end of the world. it makes sense to me that some core constitutional responsibilities of the president are off limits or are immune. it makes sense that purely private conduct of a president is within limits, not immune. that makes sense. the difficulty is that other category, that third bucket, that certain official acts might be immune or not immune, depending on what prosecutor -- >> what about the instance we just heard from anthony? >> i think that's a good point. i think that makes it tough. i would say in response -- and we did talk about this in the hallway. soliciting perjury, counseling someone to lie doesn't strike me as a core constitutional responsibility of a president. and so the devil is in the details, as ken dilanian said. this has to go back to the district court judge, and she has to make detailed findings. if i were the prosecutor on the case right now, i would be amassing my evidence and arguments to present to the district court judge why some of these official acts don't deserve immunity. i think we have to wait and see how that plays out before we can fully assess this opinion. >> jeffrey, we're going to have two hours to go into many of the details like that. i want to read a little more broadly part of sotomayor's dissent. she says under the majority opinion, if a president, quote, orders the navy's sael team 6 o to assassinate a political rival? immune. organizes a military coup to hold on to power? immune. takes a bribe in exchange for a pardon? immune, immune, immune. does this ruling change, expand presidential power as we know it? >> it does expand president power as we know it. the core of justice sotomayor's dissent is even if you have an unofficial act, like orderering the murder of your political rival, you can't prove it. say a president says i'm going to do anything possible to stop my opponent from passing a bill and then he orders him murdered, you couldn't introduce the overt evidence that he said he's murdering him because i want to stop him from passing a bill, because that's an official act. that's why the cordis agreement is section 3c of the opinion which has to do with evidence, can you use the official evidence to prove the unofficial evidence. justice barrett came up with a compromise position. she would have just asked does the statute cover the presidential conduct and does that unnecessarily intrude only a core executive function. if the core had held that, there would be far less disagreement between the two sides because justice barrett would allow the official acts to prove the unofficial acts. the majority unnecessarily embraced a sweepingly broadvision of presidential immunity that exacerbated the division between the majority and the dissent and unnecessarily polarized the country. >> so when you have a decision that, as you say, is this broad, how does a court determine what's an official act and what isn't? >> that's the crucial question. what makes this decision so hard to apply, it sends it back to the lower court and trumps all those hard questions. it says you have to sis aggregate the various encounters between president trump and first his vice president, second his attorney general, third the state election officials, fourth, his own tweets. in each case the lower court has to make a determination about whether that's an official or unofficial act, subject to being reversed by the supreme court. frankly, it's just not obvious in all of those categories how a court could hold because it's a mix of official and unofficial acts. take the example of the vice president. he's urging the vice president to commit an act that the vice president himself concluded was unconstitutional. how how is the court to conclude eight head of whether the conversation itself was official as opposed to an unofficial act. that's what makes the test so hard to apply and what creates this large swath of immunity even when the conduct in question is concededly illegal. >> anthony, you're nodding. >> i am nodding. what really bothers me, if i can step back about this case, is it looks like the supreme court is just putting their thumb on the scale for this president. i don't know if you agree with that or not, but if they really wanted this case to go to trial before this election, these pretrial motions could have been happening over the last three or four months. they allowed -- made the district court, put a stay on any type of proceedings. that's what bothers me. i think that's what you're hearing and seeing from some of your twitter mentions and others. folks are just -- they are frustrated because this supreme court doesn't look like they're calling balls and strikes. it looks like they had a predetermined outcome that they wanted to impose to allow this president to escape criminal accountability. that's what it looks like. >> does amy coney barrett's arguments, because she has a partial concurrence, right? does it strike you as a more even-handed, fairer potential outcome of this than the one that actually happened? >> i think so, yes. i think she takes a more thoughtful, more manageable, more workable position. i want to amend one thing -- i agree with ability 93% -- >> that's an a. i'll take it. >> make it 89%. i don't know that the court is putting its thumb on the scales for trump. i think they're putting their thumb on the scales for the executive. this court has always believed in a robust executive. >> look, if you read the opinion -- i'm not going to pretend i've read every word of it. there is a section that the chief justice tries to argue this is broader, this isn't about this specific chief executive. do you think people buy that? >> i can't speak for all people. democrats get to be president, too. so the holding of this case applies to all presidents and until and unless it is overturned, for all time. yeah, does it help mr. trump? absolutely. >> to backtrack, why did this court allow the pre trial proceedings to go on? >> i think that's a really good and important point. let me disaggregate how long it took from the holding of the case. it took too long. completely agree with that. jack smith asked back in december that the case be decided by the supreme court without going through the appellate courts, and i think that could have happened. is anyone really surprised that the supreme court would want to weigh in on the decision about presidential immunity? that's what supreme courts do. >> i'm not surprised by it. but i will note, i worked on the gore campaign. you covered the gore campaign. >> i did. >> and the decision by which the supreme court was -- i mean within days, from briefing to -- >> because they understood the import and why it needed to be decided quickly. >> 1964 nixon case was decided within three weeks. can the court move quickly? absolutely. am i disappointed it did not? absolutely. but i'm not all that surprised. >> tim, let's talk about the political part of this. how does the biden campaign message this to voters? it would seem to dovetail with their warnings about what trump might do if he is elected. >> absolutely. i know the biden campaign is having a conference call today with surrogates. i'd like to see the president himself out today talking about this, because it goes to the central threat of trump. why so many of us never trumpers to democrats to progressives are so panicked about the possibility of a second trump term, because of the nature of the pathooh kind of like the velociraptor in jurassic park learning to work the doors. than tox the plans of project 2025, thanks to the staffing plans they have to put in place, the changes for schedule f, he would go into a second term with a lot more leeway to enact some of his more extra-legal, authoritarian policy items. i think it's a grave concern and americans should be concerned about it. this court decision plays into that. >> i think that grave concern part is something never trumpers believe, most democrats believe, even some republicans believe. having said that, tim, what we keep hearing and what polls suggest is that that kind of thing, the things that donald trump says that he would do, it's baked in. when you talk to voters, a lot of them say, ah, he doesn't really mean it. how does that get messaged, oh, no, he means it. oh, no, there is a real and present danger? >> it's frustrating that that is true. it's a true statement, chris. it is frustrating that some people don't think he really means it. the capitol was stormed on january 6th because of his attempt to overturn the election. so we have the evidence with our eyes and ears. i think there needs to be a robust and vague yous campaign that maybe relates to a topic later in the hour, a robust and vigorous campaign to convince the american people who are convincible about the fact that he does really mean this, he really is planning mass deportations, he is really planning to enact vengeance against his enemies, something he said in the debate. he is really going to be a threat to people that want to speak out against a second trump administration. so i think it's important that that campaign be waged and that folks be reminded of this. i think there's kind of a conventional wisdom, people already know trump, trump is trump. well, they do, but sometimes people have to be reminded about the greatest dangers, and i think this is an opportunity to do that. >> let me in our last minute, jeffrey, ask you about one more thing that was written in the decision accusing the dissension of fear mongering on the basis of extreme hypotheticals about the future where the president feels empowered to violate federal criminal law. what do you think this decision and that particular statement says about this court and potentially its legacy going forward? >> well, it's a remarkable and significant statement. this is a decision that chief justice roberts would have wanted to be unanimous. the u.s. versus nixon case was unanimous, brown versus board of education -- decisions of this historic significance are not supposed to be divided by a 6-3 vote. the accusation of fearmongering is also one justice barrett issued against the liberal justices in the section three case in the case of whether to kick trump off the ballot. what's going on here, because it's in the face of a decision, is that unanimity failed. the liberals are seriously concerned and view this as a highly unjust find decision, and the majority is trying to dismiss their concerns. it's a sign of how the court is totally fractured. the two sides do not trust each other. it's an unfortunate failure for the leadership of chief justice job john roberts. we'll lay out what the massive decision means for the country. what about the three cases still on the table against the former president? our legal experts are standing by after this. our legal expertsg byft aer this. - so this is pickleball? - pickle! ah, these guys are intense. with e*trade from morgan stanley, we're ready for whatever gets served up. dude, you gotta work on your trash talk. i'd rather work on saving for retirement. or college, since you like to get schooled. that's a pretty good burn, right? liberty mutual customized my car insurance and i saved hundreds. with all the money i saved i thought i'd buy stilts. hi honey. ahhh...ooh. look, no line at the hot dog stand. yes! only pay for what you need. ♪liberty, liberty, liberty, liberty.♪ this summer. snacking. just. got. serious. introducing new $3 footlong dippers. the world might not be ready for them... ...but at $3 a pop? your wallet definitely is. (aaron) i own a lot of businesses... so my tech and my network need to keep up. ...but at $3 a pop? 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. the moment i met him i knew he was my soulmate. "soulmates." soulmate! [giggles] why do you need me? [laughs sarcastically] but then we switched to t-mobile 5g home internet. and now his attention is spent elsewhere. but i'm thinking of her the whole time. that's so much worse. why is that thing in bed with you? this is where it gets the best signal from the cell tower! i've tried everywhere else in the house! there's always a new excuse. well if we got xfinity you wouldn't have to mess around with the connection. therapy's tough, huh? -mmm. it's like a lot about me. [laughs] a home router should never be a home wrecker. oo this is a good book title. the consequences of the supreme court's immunity decision are potentially massive for special counsel jack smith. i means significant delays for smith's prosecution by pushing those questions about what evidence can and can't be used amend lauing further ap peoples. so it may be a long while before a jury can hear evidence over charges that president trump plotted to overturn the 2020 election, and if it is, what evidence will even be admitted? that's just one of three pending cases against donald trump. joining me former fulton county georgia deputy district attorney and msnbc legal analyst alyssa redman. former federal prosecutor and msnbc legal analyst kristy greenberg. msnbc legal correspondent lisa rubin is here. chuck rosenberg is also still with me. lisa, what does this mean for jack smith's ability to move the case forward? >> it's a very interesting question and a very open one. at the least we'll see hearings before judge chutkan in terms of at least three of the buckets of allegations here and whether or not they constitute official or unofficial conduct. but remember, one of the things that the court does at the very outset is to say he's certainly absolutely immune from one bucket of allegations, and that's with respect to his interactions with the department of justice. we know that for sure will be off the table, not only in terms of the charged conduct, but also in terms of what evidence can be considered at trial because that is a part of this ruling as well. the court saying anything that constitutes an official act for which the department does not overcome the presumption here, that also can't even by considered by the jury as evidence at trial, for example, of what the former president knew or what he intended to do. i think to your question, what does this mean for jashg smith's trial? it means a whole bunch of uncertainty and the only certainty is that there will be hearings ahead in terms of fact-finding for judge chutkan to differentiate. >> is it possible that case never sees the light of day? >> under the anything is possible answer foundation, yeah, it's possible. >> is it far more likely now -- >> i agree with lisa and her analysis for the difficulties ahead. there's no questions that there will be hearings below, they'll be contentious and likely be appeals from it. that said, can prosecutors fight their way through this? i think so. it's hard, but there will be some evidence remaining, whatever the court below does, there will be some evidence remaining that's purely private and, therefore, not immune. and there will be some evidence where the government can rebut the immunity. prosecutors have a decision to make. do we have enough? do we have the quantum of evidence we need to go to a jury and convince them with proof beyond a reasonable doubt. i don't know what that looks like. can it go forward? we'll know more after those hearings, i imagine they'll be left with not just something but enough. >> christy, let's talk about the mar-a-lago classified documents case. it's been indefinitely paused waiting for today's decision. how do you think this will impact that case? >> well, it's not quite clear exactly how it will. a lot of the conduct we're looking at in that case happened after donald trump was president, not conduct that was in office. in theory, it really shouldn't have much of an impact at all. but, of course, i -- given how judge cannon has approached that case generally, i'm sure, if anything, she will be even more emboldened by this decision to do her own analysis about the vay yous acts in that indictment and whether or not anything is official versus unofficial. again, based on this reading of the opinion, it's a very unworkable and unclear test or guiding principles, as you would say. we're not allowed to take into account whether or not -- what the defendant's motive is for engaging in certain acts to determine whether they're unofficial versus official. you can't even consider whether they would be illegal to determine whether they're unofficial or official. it's just whether or not there's any acts that would, you know, could not plausibly be within the executive authority. it's not a very workable or clear test whatsoever. but i expect judge cannon to take a look at it and see if it applies to any of the allegations in the indictment and whether anything needs to be struck. >> melissa, trump's rico case, georgia, that's been paused as the state's court decides about d.a. fani willis. what do you make of this decision and how it will impact things there? >> trump's georgia attorneys made similar arguments as far as president immunity in the georgia case. they filed that brief a couple months before the supreme court hearing. the state indicated it wanted to wait until the supreme court issued its decision and will be responding. we'll see a similar hearing that judge chutkan will have to have and judge mcafee having to parse through the acts alleged and decide which are professional and which were personal. trump did concede that the call to secretary of state antony blinken raffensperger would have been personal. so the case in georgia doesn't go away, but there would still have to be this decision of which acts will come in, which evidence will come in. of course, some of those conversations with the department of justice would no longer be allowed to be overt acts in u furtherance of a conspiracy. we are talking over 140 acts, i think 40 of them are tied specifically to donald trump. so the state will also have to go through their indictment, go through their evidence and see what they're left with and how to proceed with the prosecution of the case when it gets back to judge mcafee. it's another case we'll probably not see the light of day before the election. >> lisa, we call this a decision. clearly it is a decision. it's a weighty decision just in terms of the number of pages. but it makes an ultimate decision, meaning a trial and a guilty or not guilty verdict not just much further away, but so much more complicated. >> so much more complicated. when we had oral argument in this case, folks like me were asked to say what the impact would be of the various roads that they could go down. i remember at the time thinking, in terms of the viability of a trial prior to the election, the outcome that we saw today was the one that folks like me and chuck and andrew weissmann would have told you at the time and still would tell you had the greatest propensity to further delay the ultimate disposition of this case and to further delay the ultimate disposition of two of the other cases, the mar-a-lago records case and the georgia case. in the florida case, for example, donald trump is saying i'm presidentially immune and i was immune at the point in time where i took the records even though the charges against him, for example, have to do with unlawfully retaining the records. he will claim in that case that in taking the records to begin with, they were his, that was part of his exercise of a core constitutional province of the president. well, under this decision, he's absolutely immune for that. you don't even need to have further fact-finding whether it's official or unofficial. this tangles up not only the federal election interference case, but those two other cases in substantial ways, assuming, for example, the georgia case survives this appellate proceeding with respect to fani willis' ability to remain in control. >> for people, chuck, who say -- again, non-lawyers, normal people, i thought the supreme court's job was to clarify, was to make understandable what the laws of this country are and what they mean. do you understand if they throw their hands up and say, what? >> i do. i'm not sure that the courtesying its job always as to clarify. i think they often see their job as to pronounce. here they've pronounced, but that throws a great deal of uncertainty back to the district courts, not just in mrmg, not just before judge chutkan, not just in georgia, but for all -- think about the other decisions we saw from the supreme court in the last couple weeks. upsetting the chevron press denlt, which has a wlot to do with how strif agencies determine regulations and how much deference they're owed. that's gone. it's a pronouncement. now what happens? it's often left -- not always, but often left for the lower courts to sort out these pronouncements. i get why people would be confused, i get why some would be angry. often, not always but often it's a pronouncement and not a clarification. >> kristy, we've gone through the three cases that are still outstanding. i do want to go back with trump's hush money conviction in new york. while that case has already been decided and i'm assuming this decision doesn't change that, the jury has had its say, could it have any consequences for the appeal trump's team has talked about? >> i'm sure they'll try. they waived their ability to bring that argument. so it was not an argument that they made in a timely way that's been ruled upon by judge merchan. it should not affect his conviction in new york. absolutely on appeal they'll bring this up. most of that would be very surprising if it was deemed to be official conduct, even under this supreme court's test, making the hush money payments, even though he was in the oval office, writing the checks to michael cohen to reimburse him for paying hutch money to a porn star, it's hard to see any world in which that is deemed to be official conduct. so i think they would have a real uphill battle in trying to argue that. >> lisa, do you see any world in which that happens? >> i do, but not -- i agree with kristy's analysis that with respect to the actual charges, they did waive their defense of presidential immunity. however, right before the trial they asked the court to consider whether or not presidential immunity would be a bar to certain evidence in the case. now based on this ruling where you have the court saying that his official acts cannot even come into a case as evidence, that may be an issue for appeal because they wanted to exclude a number of tweets, for example, that former president trump issued while he was in the white house that had to do with michael cohen, for example, or stormy daniels. they thought that should be evidentiary off limits. they might have a limited appeal based on the admissibility of that as evidence, not the totality of the acts charged in that case, chris. >> lisa rubin, melissa redman, kristy greenberg, chuck rosenberg, thank you very much. two candidates fighting two different battles. while trump tries to stay out of jail, president biden is trying to show he should stay in the 2024 presidential race. a senior adviser will join me next. a senior adviser will join next looks like my to-do list grew. "paint the bathroom, give baxter a bath, get life insurance," hm. i have a few minutes. i can do that now. oh, that fast? remember that colonial penn ad? i called and i got information. they sent the simple form i need to apply. all i do is fill it out and send it back. well, that sounds too easy! (man) give a little information, check a few boxes, sign my name, done. they don't ask about your health? (man) no health questions. -physical exam? -don't need one. it's colonial penn guaranteed acceptance whole life insurance. if you're between the ages of 50 and 85, your acceptance is guaranteed in most states, even if you're not in the best health. options start at $9.95 a month, 35 cents a day. once insured, your rate will never increase. a lifetime rate lock guarantees it. keep in mind, this is lifetime protection. as long as you pay your premiums, it's yours to keep. call for more information and the simple form you need to apply today. there's no obligation, and you'll receive a free beneficiary planner just for calling. my name is brayden. i was five years old when i came to st. jude. i'll try and shorten down the story. so i've been having these headaches that wouldn't go away. my mom, she was just crying. what they said, your son has brain cancer. it was your worst fear coming to life. watching your child grow up is the dream of every parent. you can join the battle to save the lives of kids like brayden, by supporting st. jude children's research hospital . families never receive a bill from st. jude for treatment, travel, housing, or food, so they can focus on helping their child live . what they have done for me, my son, my family-- i'm sorry, yeah. life is a gift, especially for a child battling cancer. call or go online and help save another lives of children like brayden. now, i'm 11 years old. we were actually doing the checkup for my brain. and they saw something in my throat. it's thyroid cancer. it was heartbreaking to find out that he has cancer again. but we knew who we had behind us. it just gives me hope. you can make a difference. join with your credit or debit card for only $19 a month. and we'll send you this st. jude t-shirt. without st. jude or its donors, we would have been in a bad place. these kids, they've done nothing wrong in the world. finding a cure for childhood cancer, it means everything. help st. jude give kids with cancer a chance. [audio logo] while donald trump fights to stay out of court and out of prison, joe biden today is in a very different fight, for his political future. the president, his family and allies are aggressively working to convince skeptical democrats and voters that while his debate is a setback, it's not a fatal fiasco. while a weekend meeting of his family had the expected result, urging him to stay in the race, another really important data point may come in just a few hours when the campaign has a called with its national fund-raising committee. keisha lance bottoms is senior adviser to the biden/harris 2024 campaign. what's your reaction to the supreme court's immunity ruling and what does it mean for donald trump and the future of the presidency? >> this is something i have not seen before in my lifetime. again, this is something -- the same thing i said when i saw the roe ruling. this is not a supreme court that i recognize. i spent three years in law school, learning how to interpret the law. i've been a practicing attorney for the past 30 years, a judge for 6.5 years. just when you think it can't get any worse, this supreme court with these conservative-leaning justices appointed by donald trump seem to top every expectation that we have that it can't get any worse. it's disappointing. i immediately thought about the statement that donald trump made a few years ago that he could shoot someone in the middle of fifth avenue in new york and get away with it. and i think we hopefully will not see him test that theory, but the supreme court has certainly given him a lot of leeway to act on his worst impulses, and those impulses are pretty bad. >> so the campaign, your campaign has talked a lot about, for example, abortion, a key issue. can you and how do you use this immunity ruling and potential future supreme court appointments in the race against donald trump? do you think it's been ar gufd by democrats and by the campaign strongly enough in this campaign about the stakes for appointing future justices? >> we have to continue to remind people that it's not just about one race, one election. in this case it's about changing history. when you have the ability to appoint supreme court justices that literally can up end the law and are willing to do so, longstanding precedence -- that's something we should all pay attention to. a right for a woman to choose and make decisions about her own body, it's been thrown out the window by this supreme court. we now see that it's bleeding over into cases where women are undergoing fertility treatments, and where does it end? that's the question we don't have the answer to, but that's why it's important and we anticipate that whomever is elected president next may have the opportunity to make another appointment to the supreme court, and elections matter. they matter. when you have a president like joe biden in the white house who has the ability to make decisions about capping insulin at $35 for seniors, erasing student loan debt, to making sure that we are appointing people to the federal courts and to the supreme court who actually respect the constitution and respect the rule of law. >> let me ask you about another historic decision and one that only joe biden can make. your hometown paper, the "atlanta journal constitution" is among those saying it's time for president biden to pass the torch. the editorial board wrote, this wasn't a bad night. it was confirmation of the worst fears of some of biden's most ardent supporters. biden deserves a better exit in public life than the one he endured when he shuffled off the stage on thursday night. i wonder what your conversations have been with president biden since then and how does the president convince americans he can lead the country for another four years because some early polling suggests they don't think he can. >> let me just say i was very disappointed with the atlanta journal constitution. as we take about we're making sure we're protecting elections and making sure there's no undue influence, this was undue influence by the "atlanta journal constitution." i think voters should be able to make the decision the same way they did in primaries -- >> isn't that what editorial boards are supposed to do? >> editorial boards are supposed to honor fair elections. i don't think it's fair when an editorial board with ten people sitting in a room are trying to influence an election, especially in a state like georgia where there's already been discussing about influencing elections. speaking of which, i don't recall the editorial board asking for donald trump to step aside when he asked the secretary of state to find 11,000 votes. if you're going to ask a candidate to step aside, let's also look at donald trump's record and all of the reasons, including his indictment in fulton county, trying to influence the secretary of state, his convictions. let's put them side-by-side. i'll take a 90-minute bad night over the totality of donald trump's presidency any day of the week. >> so i think to be fair, we should say that ajc and its editorial board have been critical certainly of donald trump. look, we're seeing multiple reasons being put forward by joe biden's supporters and his campaign about why he should stay in the race. we hear them say trump is too dangerous for biden to drop out. trump lied every 90 seconds in the debate according to one calculation, but joe biden didn't answer them. we hear about the great accomplishments joe biden has had in his four years, but he was unable to clearly articulate his wins or make what some people say was the easiest argument on issues like abortion. then there's the argument i'm hearing that he was poorly served by his staff. even if that's true, doesn't the buck stop with the president of the united states? i guess the overarching question is, what is the argument for joe biden staying in this race and not passing the torch? >> well, the overriding argument is that he is the leader of our party, that he went through primaries in 50 states and he is our nominee, and the record that joe biden has does not compare to the chaos and the disruption that donald trump brought to this country as president. i served as mayor while donald trump was president. every day it was chaos. we couldn't look to the white house for resources. we couldn't look to the white house for sound leadership and guidance on the most important issue, a pandemic. our president couldn't be trusted with sound information. he was telling us that the solution was to inject bleach in your arms. now, that was the first term. what he's told us about the second term is that he is looking to up end the constitution. he's looking to get rid of the department of education. he is looking to exact revenge and retribution on his political enemies. this is what he's projecting, this is what he's telling us that he will do. so for all of us, i think we need to take a beat, take a deep breath and think about who is the person who has beat donald trump? that person is joe biden. >> are you suggesting there's no one else in the party, in the big party of the democrats who can beat donald trump? >> i'm suggesting that the democratic party has a very deep bench, and there will be an opportunity years from now after this election to examine who is on that bench, but joe biden is our nominee. joe biden is the person who can beat donald trump. joe biden is the person who has beat donald trump. joe biden's record has made a difference in the lives of americans. it wasn't a great night. we're not going to ignore that and try and sugarcoat that, but i will say a 90-minute bad night does not mean that joe biden should not be the one who goes head-to-head with donald trump again. >> keisha lance bottoms, you've been generous with your time. we appreciate it. thank you. >> thank you. coming up, another historic moment in the 2024 race today. what we're now hearing from trump world, what many are calling a big win for the former president. calling a big win forr president. [introspective music] recipes. recipes that are more than their ingredients. ♪ [smoke alarm] recipes written by hand and lost to time... can now be analyzed and restored using the power of dell ai. preserving memories and helping to write new ones. ♪ this is a day like no other in a presidential campaign like no other. today's immunity decision is another unprecedented moment in an already tumultuous presidential campaign. it's included the conviction of a former president, 54 outstanding indictments, another adviser to donald trump heading to prison today and continued calls for president biden to step aside after last week's disastrous debate. tim miller is back with us. that decision is being litigated as you know about whether or not joe biden should step away. you heard what keisha lance bottoms had to say. you can argue he had a great record. you can probably even argue that in general 90 minutes should not determine the length of a person's term of public service, but are you hearing a democratic argument clearly for why joe biden needs to stay in this race? >> a good argument why he needs to stay in this race? not really. what i'm hearing is a lot of media attacking, what mayor bottoms said there that i do agree with is that the threat of donald trump is very great on a wide variety of issues, joe biden and any democratic nominee are a much better choice, whether it's climate, immigration, rule of law, nato, our very democracy. it's crucial that we have somebody that can beat donald trump at the head of the democratic ticket, so then the question is can joe biden do it. if the answer is just that he did it before, i'm sorry, that's just not a good enough answer. right now, he's losing this campaign, and, chris, we talked about this before the debate. the biden campaign wanted the debate in june because they wanted to prove that he was up for it, and they wanted to focus the voters on the threat of donald trump. they failed at their own strategy, and so now we have a campaign where joe biden was losing before the debate. he had a bad debate. we'll see what the polls say. i expect he's still going to be losing. the question is can he turn this around. it's so great, i'm behind him, but where is he? joe biden was not out on the sunday shows, he's not out today. if the biden campaign says he can turn this around himself, i'm for that. he's got to show it. and one teleprompter speech is not good enough. he's got to show he can take this fight to donald trump because i think there are a lot of democrats that can take the fight to donald trump, including the vice president. >> tim miller, thank you for sticking around. we have much more to come about the historic immunity decision, including reaction from a former white house press secretary who testified before the january 6th committee, don't go anywhere. e,e n 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. smile! you found it. the feeling of finding psoriasis can't filter out the real you. so go ahead, live unfiltered with the one and only sotyktu, a once-daily pill for moderate to severe plaque psoriasis, and the chance at clear or almost clear skin. it's like the feeling of finding you're so ready for your close-up. or finding you don't have to hide your skin just your background. once-daily sotyktu was proven better, getting more people clearer skin than the leading pill. don't take if you're allergic to sotyktu; serious reactions can occur. sotyktu can lower your ability to fight infections, including tb. serious infections, cancers including lymphoma, muscle problems, and changes in certain labs have occurred. tell your doctor if you have an infection, liver or kidney problems, high triglycerides, or had a vaccine or plan to. sotyktu is a tyk2 inhibitor. tyk2 is part of the jak family. it's not known if sotyktu has the same risks as jak inhibitors. find what plaque psoriasis has been hiding. there's only one sotyktu, so ask for it by name. so clearly you. sotyktu. i'm jonathan lawson, here to tell you about life insurance so clearly you. through the colonial penn program. if you're age 50 to 85 and looking to buy life insurance on a fixed budget, remember the three p's. what are the three p's? the three p's of life insurance on a fixed budget are price, price, and price. a price you can afford, a price that can't increase, and a price that fits your budget. i'm 54. what's my price? you can get coverage for $9.95 a month. i'm 65 and take medications. what's my price? also $9.95 a month. i just turned 80. what's my price? $9.95 a month for you too. if you're age 50 to 85, call now about the #1 most popular whole life insurance plan available through the colonial penn program. options start at $9.95 a month. no medical exam, no health questions. your acceptance is guaranteed. and this plan has a guaranteed lifetime rate-lock, so your rate can never go upf. so call now for free information, and you'll also get this free beneficiary planner. and it's yours free just for calling, so call now for free information.