which presidential candidates kick their campaigns into full year. well, the start of this election year summer it s unlike anything wave seen before. in onewa week president biden a former president trump will face-off in the earliest election debate in modern history. the biden campaign made a deliberate choice to challenge trump to an early debate to force voters to reckon with the reality of the choice they re goingof have to make sooner ratr than later. today we got new details about how that debate is going to play out. independent candidate robert f. kennedy jr. officially failing to qualify. biden will be standing at the podium on the right of the television screen while trump will have the podium on the left, the same configuration as the two debates held four years ago. donald trump got to choose the order of thedo closing statemen. he chose to go last, giving him the final word. we also got new details how the two candidates plan to prepare for the debate. tonight
teaming up to launch a super pac focused on attracting disillusioned young voters. will it work in italics? ainsley: plus. [laughter] ainsley: gosh, my voice cracked. [laughter] ainsley: seasonal allergies, right, steve? plus, supermodel nomani campbell message for young women skipping motherhood over economic. it will change her mind. as a study finds more trump supporters than biden supporters say marriage and children should be a priority. steve: look at that speaking of parents. this sunday s is father s day. we have the top of the line ideas for kids. ainsley: what is that? steve: waterproof. lawrence: what a tease because we are all interested. the second hour of fox & friends starts right now. and remember, mornings are better with friends. brian: get dressed. lawrence: make sure you are already dressed. so president biden hosting an early juneteenth celebration at the white house yesterday as his support among black voters continues to go down.
and the last point is is it sets a dangerous precedent. in as much as are you going to look for officers around the country and charge them with inactivity? but, jimmy, somebody who was in law enforcement and understands this, that s the guy s job. yeah. is to go in and protect the kids. this is why we heroize first responders. i mean, you are one, but you guys do things that people like me and joey probably wouldn t do. yeah. and you are paid for it in this man s case. so what s your policy argument? joey makes a good argument and joey argue this has been settled in the courts. it s settled law. let me give you a couple of points here. first of all, if you want to quote the supreme court, 1989, graham v. connor, which was the objectionable reasonable standard for police in excessive use of force. if you take somebody into custody and rough somebody up, what should a reasonable officer in that instance do? that applies here, too. a reasonable officer would not have waited
points here. first of all, if you want to quote the supreme court, 1989, graham v. conner, which was the objectionable reasonable standard for police in excessive use of force. if you take somebody into custody and rough somebody up, what should a reasonable officer in that instance do? that applies here, too. a reasonable officer would not have waited outside for 45 minutes while young children were being gunned down. there is no reverse precedent. chris, i m with two lawyers, you are absolutely correct. it needs to be looked at. number two, cops are different from anyone else in the sense of courage. we do the same things. mark twain once said the famous line is courage is not the absence of fear, it s the mastery of it. 1.3 million of us in a country of 335 million are cops. i was scared every single time i banged in a door, every single time i went after an armed fugitive and every sickle time in a barricaded hostage situation. last point is this. we look at policing like we
they delayed for the second time the employer mandate. now, how are you going to pretend that that is a way to better implement the law? that s a way to not implement the law. i agree with that. it is a contradiction of this supposed excuse for why it is this is not an adjustment. this is not sort of a gradual entering into this thing. this is not a way to improve the employer mandate. this is a way to negate the employer mandate. i agree with that as well. and i don t like it either but they shouldn t have written it into the law. there is two things in play. change it you simply delete it and you amend the law. that s how you are supposed to do it. there are two things in play. number one, i think they have the legal authority to do. this and that contradicts a lot of republicans and conservatives who say they don t. on what basis? on the basis of the supreme court would allow a tweaking. this is not a tweaking.