front of the suffragettes statue in front of the capital, or visiting the world war ii memorial. we were doing in to save our country and save our brothers and uncles unanswered whoever was working, doing all that crappy work in a factory, so they could put their lives on the line, it was worth it, to have them come back. a group proud of all they accomplished in the war, and for women for years to come. andrea mitchell, nbc news, washington. some genuine all american heroes are taking us off the air tonight. and on that note, i wish you a very good night. it s great to be with my family last week. but i love being back here with you. from all of our colleagues across the networks of nbc news, thank you for staying up late. i will see you at the end of tomorrow. tonight, on all in. these scenarios existed david pecker and mr. trump long before i started working for him and 2007. the unnamed witness for the trump s grand jury is revealed, and the man who ran th
swore to support and defend the constitution and, quote, administer justice. all the members of the court, i m pleased to welcome justice jackson to the court and to our common calling. cnn supreme court reporter ariane devogue is with us now. good to see you. before the swearing in, we saw two big decisions from the court. now, let s start on the decision, curbing the epa s powers to fight climate change. what s the impact? right. this was a significant opinion. basically saying, curbing the epa s authority here when it comes to power plants. it was broken down along ideological lines. chief justice john roberts delivering this big blow to president biden, and it comes, of course, as scientists are raising alarms about global warming. what chief justice roberts did is he reversed a lower court that had given the epa broad authority to regulate in this area, so to regulate the entire grid instead of specific improvements at specific power plants, but roberts said, look,
Chris Hayes reports on some of the biggest news and political stories of the day with a commitment to in-depth reporting that seeks to hold the nation s.
throughout the hearings that we have witnessed so far, particularly two hearings ago, i believe it was, liz cheney s public frustration with the fact that he would not come forward. there clearly was a bit of a dance that was done to formally send him a subpoena to compel him to testify, we don t know the details yet, as you mentioned. the expectation is that once they finalize a deal, it would be a behind-closed-doors discussion that would be transcribed, tbd on whether there would be audio and video. i think they re still working that out. but the question of why is, he was the white house counsel. and the feeling among people in and around pat cipollone is that it s a precedent question. if a white house counsel, even for a president that he clearly disagreed with on a number of his decisions or almost decisions, comes forward
whether the justice roberts wing of the court is going to snatch certain level jaws of victory here. three justices pretty willing overoverrule roe v. wade and return it back to the states. three justices for whom this is a question. justice kavanaugh and amy coney barrett and justice garrett upholding the mississippi abortion law. the overruling of the planned parenthood of february sort of pairing back of when abortion is manned torely legal on a federal level from 21 weeks to 15 weeks or 14 weeks but not a complete overruling of roe. half loaf here or whole loaf. pete: new to guess, is it a courage question? is it auto constitutional question? is it a precedent question? what would hold back justices who many believe probably in their heart of hearts are pro-life? it s certainly not a