tv Jose Diaz- Balart Reports MSNBC June 30, 2022 7:00am-8:00am PDT
two major supreme court decisions, including a ruling on the trump administration's remain in mexico policy and what could be a blockbuster decision on the epa. after those rulings are released, justice stephen breyer will officially retire from the high court after nearly three decades on the bench. and at noon eastern, his successor, ketanji brown jackson, will take the constitutional and judicial oaths, becoming the first black woman to serve as an associate justice of the u.s. supreme court. with us to start off our coverage this hour, paul butler, former federal prosecutor, now professor of law at georgetown university. neil, former u.s. solicitor general and joyce vance, former u.s. attorney in alabama, now professor of law at university of alabama. all three msnbc legal analysts. i thank you for being with us. both remain in mexico and the epa case focus on the power of
the executive branch. what could these decisions mean for this power? >> well, it could greatly limit the power of administrative agencies like the epa to control or try to limit climate change. the administrative state is a project or there's been a conservative project by the far right to try to limit what they call the administrative state, but these are really the government agencies that keep us safe. when you hear complaints about federal regulations and red tape, it's often republicans saying that the government puts too many burdens on businesses and they want to dismantle the power of these agencies. but this is the way the government protects the environment and forces human rights and protects us from unscrupulous corporations. these cases today are hugely significant. >> so, joyce, let's talk about
that. for example, the remain in mexico issue the supreme court will be announcing later today, it's almost a bureaucratic issue of whether the administration followed the guidelines and principles necessary to remove an executive order. is that kind of what this is all about? >> it is, jose. the law was seen as confusing, and at oral arguments the justices put on full display the notion that when it came to asylum seekers, there were laws that talked about keeping people in custody, laws that talked about returning people to the country that they came to the united states from, but there was also a permissive provision that permitted the federal government to release people while they were waiting for their hearings. the justice department suggested on behalf of the united states and the biden administration that they were entitled to craft
their own policy because the laws were permissive. instead, however, the states that challenged -- >> joyce? i'm sorry to interrupt you. let's go with pete williams. we have the first decision today from the supreme court. >> reporter: >> the first decision is a loss for the biden administration on the question of the clean air act and the ability to combat global warming. the supreme court by a 6-3 vote has ruled that the environmental protection agency does not have broad authority to try to set national energy policy by encouraging industries to switch to cleaner sources of power generation like wind and solar. this is a 6-3 ruling. the supreme court says that congress did not give the epa that broad authority. that the epa's authority is limited more to trying to restrict emissions from specific coal-burning power plants. now, this goes back to a tussle
between the obama and trump administrations. the obama administration had proposed a much broader clean air program for the epa that would encourage industries to switch to clean energy. the trump administration trimmed that back. the question is how broad is the epa's authority? the answer from the supreme court today is not broad at all. the court has gone on to say that this is what is called a major question. this has been a darling of conservatives. the idea that federal agencies when they rule on -- when they set regulations that would change policy in a broad way, that that that's a major question and that they can't do that unless they have authority from congress to act. so, this decision is not only something that will restrict the epa's authority going forward but also may have implications for other federal agencies who want to undergo regulatory
changes that the court feels are beyond what congress has allowed them to do. so we'll get the decision on remain in mexico program in about five minutes, jose. for now, this is a big setback for the biden administration for its efforts to undertake a program to restrict global warming. >> pete williams, thank you very much. we'll be coming right back to you as soon as that supreme court announcement is handed down. so, joy, and i apologize for interrupting you, but breaking news is breaking news, and pete williams is pete williams. let's focus in on west virginia versus epa. what are the repercussions of this and what does it mean? >> the repercussions are broader than just this ruling which restricts the epa's ability. we're talking about limits being imposed essentially on using coal and the shift to more
climate-friendly sources of power incentivized by the government. let me point out, jose, this was a case that the court did not have to decide. the biden administration had acknowledged that it did not intend to put back into use the provision that the states were challenging because market forces had already, in essence, put that provision into effect, pushing companies toward that shift that would benefit the environment. the court decided to hear the case, nonetheless. that's a good signal to how far its reach will be, because this is part of the conservative agenda of dismantling what they call the nanny state and limiting the ability of the federal government and executive branch agencies to work in meaningful work on behalf of the public. that means less work that can be undertaken in places like public health and the economy. this is a big loss for the biden administration, but also for the country. >> and let's talk about that. it has a lot to do with the
clean air act of 1963. what are, continuing with joyce's explanation, what are the real repercussions of this decision? >> it is incredibly major. so, it's an 89-page opinion, jose. i started to read it in the last six minutes. and i will say -- i'll say to you just everything i've read so far, and obviously we'll have to study it more, suggests a major, major loss for climate regulation. i don't think to think of it as a loss for biden. it's a loss for the federal government's ability to regulate climate change in a 6-3 fully-throated decision by the chief justice. just to give you a sense of how dangerous and scary the decision is, let me read to you the last words of justice kagan's dissent in the case. she says, quote, the subject matter of the regulation here makes the court's intervention all the more troubling. whatever else this court may know about, it does not have a clue about how to address climate change. and let's say the obvious, the
stakes here are high, yet the court prevents congressionally authorized action to curb carbon dioxide emissions. the court appoints itself rather than congress, the decision-maker on climate policy. i cannot think of many things more frightening. respectfully, i dissent. i think that tells us just how significant this decision is. not just in removing a power from the federal government, but removing a power over climate regulation, what the supreme court earlier, 15 years ago, described as one of the most pressing environmental issues of our time. this is, you know, in conjunction with the earlier decisions on abortion and guns, as extreme results from the u.s. supreme court as in our lifetimes, jose. and i repeat, i don't think it's right to think of it as a loss for the biden administration. it's a loss for america. it's a loss for the world. >> i want to bring in chief
scientist of nature con conservative. doctor, thank you for being with us. what's your reaction to this? >> well, the legalities of the case may be complex, but the harmful impact of this ruling is crystal clear. it makes it even more difficult to address the pollution and the climate crises at a time when we need to be doing all we can. the science is clear. we care about these issues because they affect us. fossil fuel air pollution is responsible for nearly 10 million premature deaths per year on average. with climate change, what's at risk is us, our economy, our industries, our lives, our health. if we don't fix climate change, it will fix us. >> when you say it's affecting our economy, in what way? >> climate change is already increasing the risk of incredibly expensive weather and climate disaster by loading the weather against us.
back in the 1980s the u.s. was experiencing 1 billion plus dollar climate disaster on average every four months. the last decade we've been having one every three weeks on average. that is just the tip of the iceberg in terms of how climate change is loading the dice against us. our entire economy and society is built on the assumption of a stable climate, but today climate driven by emissions of heat-trapping gases, primarily from burning fossil fuels s changing faster than any time in the history of human civilization. it's up to us to save ourselves. this ruling makes it much more difficult to do so. >> doctor, are you hopeful that things could in the future be fixed? >> well, i know that we need action from all of us. when i look at what cities are doing, when i look at what organizations are doing, when i look at what some corporations are doing, what churches are
doing, when i look at what people are doing, that does give me hope. but when i look at the direction the federal government is taking, when i look at the direction this country is taking right now, it is very difficult to find that hope. >> doctor, thank you for being with us this morning. paul butler, i want to continue with your thoughts. you were telling us what your perspective was before on announcing this decision. now that you see it, what's your reaction? >> this case was about the ability of the environmental protection agency to do its most important job, fighting climate change. and if that wasn't important enough, there are other seismic consequences to the court's ruling today. just like overturning roe versus wade was a carefully planned decades long effort of the far right, this case also comes out of a long-term project by conservatives to limit the power of government agencies. and, jose, the court could have
gone narrow and just ruled on the issue before it, about the power of the epa to regulate carbon emissions. or the court could have gone extreme, like it did with roe versus wade. and so in the next minutes and hours, what we lawyers will be doing is looking carefully at the words of the court to see whether they've gone extreme as, again, the brief reading i've done suggests they did, or whether they're more narrow in how they interpreted this provision. >> we have more breaking news. let's go right to pete williams. >> this is a win for the biden administration, jose. the supreme court says by a 5-4 vote that the biden administration did not violate the rules, went about it the right way when it tried to shut down the so-called remain in mexico or migrant protection protocol program that was launched during the trump administration. now, the question was, what do you do with people who come into
the united states across the southern border, seek asylum, but there's no place to detain them? a federal judge in texas had ruled, well, in that case you've got to send them back to mexico. something like 70,000 people were, in fact, returned to mexico under that program. the tent cities sprang up along the southern border. human rights said people there were subject to all sorts of crimes, kidnappings, rapes, badly mistreated while they were waiting. they couldn't get hooked up with lawyers and they considered the program to be a disaster. the biden administration tried to shut it down shortly after it came into office. two states, texas and mississippi, though, sued, saying, no, you didn't go about it the right way. today the supreme court said, yes, the administration did and can continue with its plans to try to shut the program down. it's been in effect because of the lower court decisions. it's been in effect at four of the border crossing places. this is an interesting lineup of
justices in this 5-4 ruling. it's chief justice john roberts along with brett kavanaugh and the court's three more liberal members. so the biden administration can proceed with the plans to shut the program down, jose. >> fascinating. thank you very much, pete williams. i want to go back to paul butler. your reaction to this. it's a very interesting group there that decided on this. >> first of all, the name of this case, you got to love it, it was called biden versus texas and biden won. so, president trump started this program requiring people who entered the united states from mexico seeking asylum to stay in mexico until their case is decided. and that could take months or years. and the conditions in mexico, as pete said, were horrid. the biden administration tried to reverse the trump program and that's when some conservative judges stepped in because -- that's when the supreme court stepped in after some conservative justices sided with
trump. the case really presented a number of difficult legal issues about the ability of a new president to set his or her own immigration policy and about what should happen if two different laws seem to be in tension with each other and about the relationship between domestic politics and foreign policy. >> yeah. and it also has a lot to do with executive orders and how they are carried out and how a new incoming president can remove, reject the former president's executive orders and put one -- a new one over that. i want to bring in alan orr, immigration attorney. good morning. what is your reaction to this decision? >> i'm excited for the decision. i haven't read all 58 pages yet but i think it landed in the right place. the court could have just decided to punt this and not make a decision, not giving jurisdiction to the courts because it's a federal issue and
also it would have given the executive branch a win in the future, meaning if there's another president trump, they could carry out these policies. they did something quite different here. i wonder why they reached this decision. there are two things facing migrants at the boarder, title 42, remove and remain in mexico does not address title 42, which is the on-ramp to get to the supreme court next. that's the next case we have to watch, looking at this decision. as we are sort of reeling about what's going on in texas, let's not forget about the migrants that expired there because of this hateful policy in the back of a truck. >> absolutely. we continue to talk about that. 53 people lost their lives here in the united states. just right off of san antonio. 53 men, women and children. and that situation continues. i'm just wondering, so what happens in washington, in the
supreme court, when are we going to see the effects of this decision on remain in mexico, the tens of thousands of people that have been living in camps. it's barely life at all. you know, paul was talking about -- and pete was talking about the conditions that these people have to live under, being subjected to violence and human trafficking and worse. what are the real-term implications of what happened what was announced minutes ago from the supreme court? and then what's happening there in places like the camps that we're seeing now? >> right. i think two things are clear. the biden administration should move as quick lz states moved on the dobbs ruling to sort of get rid of dispense these courts that were not courts at all. they were tent cities. people didn't have access to justice. they should end the program. the microprotection programs he started was rougher than the first program so he should
dispense with the program immediately as he promised under the campaign. these two cases go together because many of these migrants are environmental migrants are leaving countries that they leave their homeland. that's important to understand the connection between these two cases. immigration is only a federal issue. the real concern is, will what happened in texas, and this happened in spain as well, migrants across the world are suffering, doing nothing but looking for the opportunity to live. will we start to recognize our asylum laws and allow these people to process at ports of entry to see if their claims are valid in a legal way and stop feeding the undermarket of smugglers and rapists and putting people in harm's way and after it happened say, oh, so sorry that happened, when we're responsible in the flight of these individuals. >> and they haven't identified many of the 53 people that lost their lives in san antonio. neal, what's your reaction to this?
>> i think it's, first of all, a pretty expected decision. at oral argument the chief justice kept on saying to the challengers from texas, look, congress hasn't even appropriated the kind of money to keep these people, you know, and the lawyer for texas didn't really have quite an answer to that. justice kagan continued by saying, look, this is a really important foreign policy consequence. do you think congress would really force an administration to keep people abroad and against diplomatic efforts and the like? those two things together, i thought, made it pretty clear this decision would come out this way. there was some question whether justice kavanaugh would be siding with it, but he did, and that's what created the 5-4 decision today with the chief justice and justice kavanaugh siding with the more liberal justices on the court, breyer, kagan and sotomayor. this is important, as we're talking about whether or not
the -- the other case, the epa case, which looks so dangerous, you know, i think, yes, there's a small win for the biden administration with respect to remain in mexico, but the climate decision, jose, is such a dramatic thing. every minute that i read this gets worse and worse and stripping congress's ability to regulate greenhouse gas emissions. this is a very scary day. >> neal, if you would, continue reading that 80-plus decision, if you would, and let's have this conversation throughout the remainder of this hour on what exactly you're seeing there and some of the issues that you would like for us to focus on. i want to go to nbc news' national correspondent, gabe gutierrez, who has spent a lot of time covering the remain in mexico policy and its impact. gabe, i know that you have spoken to people that have actually been in these camps and continue to be in the camps,
more than 60,000 people that have been living in there. for them, remain in mexico has been remain in misery, remain in threat of death, remain in threat of exploitation. what are the folks telling you, gabe? >> yeah, jose, you've seen it firsthand yourself. but in the last few minutes i've spoken with two ngos down at the border. one of them in reynoso, mexico, the sidewalk school. this is an organization, jose, that has sprung up to try and help some of those migrant children. and i just got off the phone with her just seconds ago, the leader of this organization, and she told me, that is wonderful. just a sigh of relief. something she had been waiting for for quite a long time. as you mentioned, jose, the remain in mexico policy, this policy that has kept thousands of -- tens of thousands of migrants in border towns on the mexico side while they await their asylum proceedings, this organization -- the sidewalk school says that the situation has been deteriorating.
jose, we visited reynoso, mexico, last year. there was a tent city that had sprung up. at the time there were hundreds of people in that camp. it continued to grow larger over the last few months. and last month, on may 3rd, that camp in reynoso, mexico, was actually taken down. there have been other shelters that have sprung up in reynoso, mexico, to handle this unflux of migrants. we visited another migrant camp last winter in december in tijuana, mexico. and that camp, again, had been seeing this influx of migrants. i spoke with another organization a few minutes ago, jose, as pete was going through that ruling. this was team brownsville, another organization, ngo that helps migrants on the other side of the border. he said that this is very significant. he was also thrilled about this ruling. jose, as one of your previous guests just said, there is still the issue of title 42. and title 42 policy that was put in place during the pandemic.
also kept migrants out of the united states. some of the advocates i've been speaking with down there, the immigration advocates, say they're very curious to see what happens next with title 42. even if remain in mexico is lifted, as the biden administration wants to do, there is still some concerns from that community about whether those migrants will have to still remain in mexico because of title 42. so, that's immediate reaction from the border, jose. they're very pleased with this decision. >> and if you would, gabe, continue on the phone speaking with your sources. i want to continue this conversation as well. alan orr, for folks watching, so there was a policy in place that kept people from coming into the united states, asking for asylum, and coming in and waiting while their process is dealt with. is this now almost an immediate step of folks that have been
there, many of them for if not tens of months, for over a year, are those 60,000 or 100,000 or 160,000 people going to automatically be able to come into the united states and request asylum and wait here while their processes are being dealt with? >> no, unfortunately not because of the same exact structure that happened with the federal court taking action. the trump administration was built suspenders with it's racist policy at the southern border so they had two programs to make sure they were able to get rid of people, remain in mexico and title 42. they work in conjunction. they are two evil things that worked really hard. right now, and we know, people are being returned by title 42, which is why with have these high apprehension numbers at the southern border because people are still trying to come over. we need to open the borders and let people apply. >> i'm just wondering, you and i
have spoken about this, there are planes being sent to port-au-prince, and they are not even allowed to ask for asylum, and sent back, and saying americans shouldn't visit because of the conditions there. people are sent back to cuba, a country with dictatorship. human rights are getting worse. and venezuela. what are the parameters and what are the clear defining laws that we as a country are being -- are instituted in the border? >> right. unfortunately congress hasn't stepped up and done its job so all of these problems we have coming from the supreme court fall back on congress. right now, it's just not clear because of the way of the trump
administration sort of structured this. we don't have this problem at any other ports. we're allowing people to come in. they apply for asylum by land or at the northern port. it's focused on one area, focused on a certain race and type of people and that's the problem. we had a number of haitians that died on their way to puerto rico, taking that dangerous route, and many have tried to come to miami on rafts who have also died. last year we had the highest number of people die on their way to the border, over 600 people. this year we're at 290 and we're not halfway -- we are halfway through the year. these are things we can't change. the real thing i need is the administration lead and a congressional action to make sure people know that asylum is the way to enter the country. states like texas is very dangerous. where people expired in texas, texas was also the state bussing migrants to d.c. and letting them go in the middle of nowhere. where d.c. stepped up and said, the humane of civil society can step up and a partnership
between private and public can help these individuals get to places they need to be. it's important as americans that all these people coming to the southern border are not immigrants. they're brothers, sisters, aunts, uncles of citizens of the united states and we can do better. >> i thank you all very much for being with us this mornin. i want to bring in senator from california, a member of the judiciary committee. on this day where there's been two major decisions from the supreme court. i want to start with these two decisions. the epa decision and the decision on remain in mexico. how do you see things? >> well, obviously, a lot of big news happening today, jose. good to be back with you. look, the decision on the remain in mexico program, unexpected, but we will take it and let it serve as a reminder as the panel was discussing, congress needs to act.
our immigration system remains broken. there's too much uncertainty. we recently celebrated the tenth anniversary of the daca program but hundreds of thousands of dreamers are still in limbo because of pending litigation. we have this case moving forward. we have the title 42 debate still happening. a lot of work that still needs to happen and congress needs to act in the interest of not just immigrant communities but in the interest of our economy. we're going to play such an important role in so many essential sectors as essential workers that this needs remain a priority and we need to act sooner rather than later. on the other decision coming from california, it's a big blow to our climate policy that, you know, congress needs to act because california is exhibit a in the climate crisis. >> senator, you know, you have been one of the few people who consistently and clearly mentions and discusses the issue
that there are two sides of a very important story. there is the immigration reform, or immigration situation. and then there's the humanitarian crisis on the border. people who are trying to come to this country to ask for asylum. it's a petition. not even being allowed to do that. and immigration reform. you're talking about daca and the 11 million people, many of whom have been here for decades, participating and contributing to our economy. so i always -- i'm very grateful that you are very clear in your definitions of things, but let's talk about mpp. there's an mpp 2.0 that alan over was talking about that the biden administration has instituted because of this situation in the supreme court. what should now be the policy on the border to deal with this humanitarian crisis center? >> the first, we've got to remind ourselves and everybody else around us, somebody coming
from any country to seek asylum in the united states is allowed not just under our federal laws, international law, it is not a crime to seek asylum. our system is broken. we need a border that is safe, orderly and a border that is humane. that is what was lacking under the prior administration. the supreme court ruling today and hopefully a similar conclusion to the title 42 debate, i think, can push this administration in that direction. that's the bottom line. >> senator, let's talk a little more broadly about this session overall. do you see a pattern in this particular court's decision-making? >> i think -- i'm very concerned. despite the decision on the remain in mexico program here this morning, we saw what the supreme court did years ago when it came to voting rights. just this session alone, the extreme wing of the conservative wing of the supreme court
undoing 50 years of protection of roe v. wade, the decision on the conceal carry case out of new york, rolling back gun safety at the worst possible time in the wake of the uvalde tragedy, among others. and now this ruling that undermines the federal government's ability to tackle the climate crisis, which is real, existential. here today, clear and present danger. not something theoretic 15, 20 years from now. the supreme court has hurt itself in terms of people having confidence in it because of the justification of many of the rulings. look at the roe v. wade decision. the way they went about that calls into question rights and protections we've enjoyed for years. so, supreme court reform, i think, is very much on the table. and i will also mention this, jose, because there say bright spot peer. hoed is the day we will see the swearing in of justice ketanji
brown jackson. so, it doesn't tilt the numbers on the supreme court, but it certainly gives me hope. >> yeah. as a matter of fact, of course, we'll be mentioning that today. when you talk about supreme court reform is on the table, what did you mean by that, senator? >> well, look, i know there's a lot of ideas on the table about the supreme court. we've got to start with accountability. we have to start with ethics for -- just take one example that most people are -- should be familiar with. justice thomas' wife and her involvement with the january 6th insurrection of last year. justice thomas not recusing himself on cases that stem from that deadly insurrection. clearly, the supreme court and the justices on the supreme court are in need of more ethics and accountability. >> and, senator, i want to ask you about this tragedy in san antonio. 53 people dead. they were essentially burned to
death inside this tractor/trailer. no air, no water. they're still not able to identify all of them. what's your reaction to all of this? >> my heart's broken. 53, not just migrants, it's 53, a mother, a father, a brother, a sister, a son, a daughter. and why were they coming to the united states? so desperate for a better life and better opportunity that they're willing to risk their lives. in this case, gave their lives in pursuit of a dream. it's a tragic example of how broken our immigration systems are. two things i have to mention, jose. number one, anybody who has a problem with irregular migrations, we call it, then needs to commit to investing and fixing the immigration laws in the united states so that we have better robust and more
orderly legal migration. people are coming here to work, plain and simple. talk to any business and economist, they'll tell you there's a labor shortage in america today and it's leading to the inflation that we're all paying the price for. number one. number two, a lot of my colleagues say, we aren't going to address immigration because we have to punish the cartels. whether it's remain in mexico or force people to come to the united states under these deadly conditions. that is continuing to reward bad actors. let's fix our immigration system and improve our economy and, by god, be the humane united states of america that most people around the world respect us for, or have in the past. >> boy, i mean, senator, you want to talk about punishing the cartels. there are hundreds of millions of dollars being made by these human exploiters throughout the area, precisely because of the reality of the immigration reality in our country. they are making hundreds of
millions of dollars off the suffering and, yes, death of innocent people. senator alex padilla, i thank you for being with us, as always. >> thank you, jose. have a good day. next, we have breaking news concerning the january 6th investigation as the committee takes a rare step to get more information on trump's activities right before the attack on the capitol. you're watching "jose diaz-balart reports." you're watching "jose diaz-balart porerts.
my minions will save me. [ speaking minion ] unless they screw everything up. hello. 39 past the hour. breaking news out of the white house. president biden is planning to deliver a, quote, major speech on january 6th after the house panel finishes its investigation. meanwhile, the committee is taking new steps in its search for answers by issuing a subpoena to trump white house counsel pat cipollone. the subpoena came just one day after former white house aide cassidy hutchinson offered new details about cipollone's concern over president trump's january 6th plans.
this morning, abc's jonathan karl says the top republican on the panel told him the committee may make a criminal referral to the doj recommending anybody who try to influence testimony be prosecuted for witnessing tampering. >> so you think some of the testimony you received wasn't truthful because people were threatened? >> the way that i would put it is that it gives us a real insight into how people around the former president are operating into the extent to which they believe that they can affect the testimony of witnesses before the committee, and it's something we take very seriously. and it's something people should be aware of. it's a very serious issue. i would imagine the department of justice would be very interested in and would take that very seriously as well. >> joining us now is nbc news white house correspondent mike memoli.
mike, what can you tell us about the president's speech? >> reporter: what we've been seeing over the last few weeks as the select committee has been doing a series of very powerful public hearings is that the white house has been not necessarily reluctant to engage in the day-to-day commentary, but the practices of president trump is he's chising his moments carefully to speak powerfully about what the country saw on january 6th. we saw that when he spoke on the anniversary of january 6th. we're likely to see the president do it again once the committee is nearing the finish line with its investigation. potentially even before the midterm elections, based on where the committee stands. the president could give and address to the country, speaking about what the country has seen and what would be at risk if president trump, for instance, would return or his allies in congress were to regain power in the midterm elections. it's fitting that i'm here with ali and mariana, we all worked closely covering the 2020
campaign. this idea that biden framed the 2020 choice as a battle for the soul of the nation is exactly what the white house is thinking through as they're considering this potential speech as well. it's also, jose, in the context of how the white house is planning for the months ahead, using the midterm election campaign to set up a potential biden 2024 campaign. this is a president who is somewhat frustrated by the conversation in the party about whether or even if he should run for re-election, whether he should, and they're planning to use the fall midterm campaign as a chance for the president to show he has the stamina, even as the oldest president in american history to run for a second term, and also still has a message for the party, for the country, that could win. especially his view that he's the only democrat who could beat donald trump this in a potential rematch in 2024. >> meanwhile, what is the committee hoping to learn from cipollone? >> reporter: yeah, we've heard the committee repeatedly over the course of the last few weeks pleading publicly for cipollone
and, frankly, others to come forward and testify against with the committee. we know they subpoenaed him yesterday, of course, referencing the fact that they spoke with him already back in april but they have more questions and more things they would like him to shed some light on. it makes sense as to why. you listen to the hearing yesterday or two days ago from cassidy hutchinson, the hearing from inside the department of justice where those top former doj officials testified publicly. you start to see a pattern where pat cipollone, the white house counsel, was in many of these critical rooms and conversations that the committee is trying to illuminate further for the american public. we heard, for example, cassidy hutchinson testify to the effect that cipollone in conversations with the then chief of staff mark meadows referenced the fact that former president trump needed to do more speaking out against and condemning the violence that was happening here at the capitol, saying at one point to meadows, according to hutchinson, if they didn't do more, there would be blood on their hands. of course, he was inside those
rooms with top department of justice officials effectively arguing that many of the things trump was trying to do and these other plans to overturn or at least muddy the waters on election results would put them in serious legal trouble. that's a point that the committee has tried to make multiple times here. the fact that inside the white house there were multiple conversations happening that let the former president know that what he was doing on a whole myriad of fronts was illegal and, yet, he was doing it anyway. >> then there's the issue of witness tampering. how much of a focus will that be for the committee as it moves forward? >> you know, it's been interesting. at the end of every hearing you do see cheney or sometimes chairmanbennie thompson teasing what's to come and that was shocking after hearing from cassidy hutchinson, only to hear that they do have evidence of what they say is witness tampering, of intimidation, trying to tell theme people
going before the committee, it's better not to participate because trump will be watching. he will be hearing what you're saying. that is likely something they will continue to afford and look at. and likely ask people who are coming before the committee, do you have any text from the trump administration? who are these people who are trying to tamper down what you're trying to say? you know, it comes kind of full circle to the question of whether they're going to make any criminal recommendations to the doj after this. we've heard the chairman say that's likely not going to happen. we've heard cheney say it is a possible still to be discussed among members on the panel. it seems to be a point of contention as of right now, but it is something that i'm sure doj officials, even if they don't end up making these criminal recommendations in any way, kind of ignorant to think department of justice officials aren't already watching these hearings, listening, reading the headlines. they themselves could potentially make a step without
even the committee finishing up its work or making that recommendation at the end of the day. >> the all-star trio, i love it. thank you for being with us this morning. still ahead, president biden is on his way back from nato meetings after promising to stand by ukraine for as long as it takes. how long could it take? you're watching "jose diaz-balart reports." diaz-balart reports.
prepared to pay high gas prices? >> as long as it take if russia cannot, in fact, defeat ukraine and move into ukraine. >> shannon, what are you hearing about this? >> it worked as planned. they were hoping to come out of the summit and have a sense of unity among these 30 allies. there have been differences among these countries, differences about how far to go to punish russia, differences about oil embargoes and defense spending, how much countries should increase their defense spending. but at the end of the meeting,
these countries put their differences aside, or at least not on the surface, and announced help for ukraine. they announced an $800 million package from the u.s., including adding additional troops in europe. it was a moment for the president to focus on things overseas. of course, though, now, as you mentioned, he comes back to the u.s. where not only do you have abortions, but inflation that's going to continue to put pressure on him domestically. >> shannon pettypiece in madrid, thank you very much. joining us now, former undersecretary of state for public diplomacy and public affairs under president obama and msnbc political analyst. let's first go over ukraine. he announced first $800 million, and then there is the whole issue of sweden and finland.
they're pretty significant changes. >> yes, jose. it's the most significant strengthening of nato since the end of the cold war. sweden and finland coming in is enormous. by the way, a thing that biden achieved was negotiating with president erdogan of turkey who was blocking sweden and finland from coming in. but putting 300,000 troops on high alert, permanently stationing the fifth army corps in poland, all of these things are the very things putin wanted to avoid, that putin said he was trying to end by invading ukraine. i think it was a real win for the u.s., a real win for nato and a real loss for putin. >> i'm just wondering, what do you think is the result of that conversation or negotiations, call it what you will, with erdogan in turkey. certainly the kurds were of
massive importance. was there too much given to turkey for this? >> you know, jose, that's a good question, but in the end it was finland and sweden that gave it to turkey, and they decided, okay, we're not going to recognize those kurdish forces which a lot of us regard as liberators and what putin regards as kurdish. i think that was the right call. >> president biden said he was willing to override the filibuster in order to go back to roe v. wade. >> we have to codify the law and make sure the filibuster doesn't get in the way of that.
we provide an exception to the filibuster. >> how promising do you think these comments were? >> i think it was a bombshell. he's a long-time believer in the rules, and for him to say he would overturn the filibuster to codify roe versus wade, that's the thing to do. you could even argue the supreme court decision overturning roe v. wade was, in a way, a kind of entry point for that. i think that's a very, very big deal and it's an especially big deal because it can lead to other things. do you then exempt the filibuster for the voting rights act? do you exempt it for expanding the supreme court? the filibuster has been a roadblock for all kinds of things in the biden administration, and the fact he would make an exception here means he might make an exception
for other things, too. >> i'm just wondering, rick, who and how would those exceptions be decided, right? >> the senate has to make that decision, and the senate would have to make a new rule saying the 60 votes necessary to pass legislation isn't necessary for codifying roe v. wade. it's not necessary for voting rights. in fact, lots and lots of folks were calling for the senate to do that around voting rights. i was one of them. i think, you know, once biden says this is fine with him, we are not barred. there are republican senators who also would like to codify roe v. wade into law. >> richard stengel, it was nice seeing you this morning. that's all for me. i'm jose diaz-balart.
we'll look at other big decisions today. thanks. t other big decisions today. thanks (woman) oh. oh! hi there. you're jonathan, right? the 995 plan! yes, from colonial penn. your 995 plan fits my budget just right. excuse me? aren't you jonathan from tv, that 995 plan? yes, from colonial penn. i love your lifetime rate lock. that's what sold me. she thinks you're jonathan, with the 995 plan. -are you? -yes, from colonial penn. we were concerned we couldn't get coverage, but it was easy with the 995 plan. -thank you. -you're welcome. i'm jonathan for colonial penn life insurance company.
this guaranteed acceptance whole life insurance plan is our #1 most popular plan. it's loaded with guarantees. if you're age 50 to 85, $9.95 a month buys whole life insurance with guaranteed acceptance. you cannot be turned down for any health reason. there are no health questions and no medical exam. and here's another guarantee you can count on: guaranteed lifetime coverage. your insurance can never be cancelled. just pay your premiums. guaranteed lifetime rate lock. your rate can never increase. pardon me, i'm curious. how can i learn more about this popular 995 plan? it's easy. just call the toll-free number for free information. (soft music) ♪
if anyone objects to this marriage... (emu squawks) kevin, no! not today. only pay for what you need. ♪ liberty. liberty. liberty. liberty. ♪ it's still the eat fresh® refresh at subway®, only pay for what you need. and now they're refreshing their classics... with a classic! refresh because their classic sweet onion sauce is getting refreshed on the new sweet onion steak teriyaki. you gotta refresh to... uh line? (♪ ♪) good morning, we start this hour with breaking news. all eyes on the supreme court officially concluding its most consequential session in a generation with two final significant rulings. one curbing the epa's authority to limit greenhouse gas emissions, and another one clearing the path for the biden administration t