now you can add the new xfinity streamsaver™ that includes netflix, peacock, and apple tv+. that's xfinity streamsaver™ for just $15 a month. all your favorites. all in one place. only from xfinity. for more watching and less spending... x marks the spot. do it all on the network made for streaming, and bring on the good stuff. monday, sign up for free visit otter.ai. >> ai or download the app the american west was hope was a dream to make a better life people aspire to be great in a american saga, read it, are good morning live in the cnn newsroom. i'm jim acosta in washington. we begin the hour with the fallout from former president donald trump's were turned to capitol hill with almost total capitulation from his few remaining critics inside the republican party. there was applause in the room. you can see it right there as gop senators whose lives were in danger on january 6, which the forefront president, a happy birthday, trump turns 78 today. also yesterday in a stunning sign of submission, senate majority leader minority leader, i should say, mitch mcconnell, who sharply criticized trump after the attack on the capitol, shook hands with the presumptive gop nominee that moment was blasted by former republican congresswoman liz cheney, who weren't in that quote, history will remember the shame, but mcconnell, a notoriously savvy political operator, was all smiles after the astonishing about face the mob was fed lies they were provoked by the president and other powerful people. there's no question. none president trump is practically and morally responsible for provoking the events of the day no question about it. >> did you talk to them directly? >> yeah question carly obsession mcconnell is colleagues in the house, also fond over the now convicted felon there was a pep rally environment for president trump? >> no, i didn't. since any dissension, but i didn't catch everybody's response either. >> well, i saw nothing but overwhelming support for president trump. he saw me in there and he was hello, marjorie. he's always so sweet and recognizes me. >> he said very complimentary things about all of us we had sustained applause. he said, i'm doing a very good job. >> but during his remarks to house republicans, trump also complemented the fictional serial killer hannibal lecter. he reportedly spoke of a great romance with nancy pelosi and another life wind about taylor swift and called milwaukee, which is hosting the republican national convention next month. a quote, horrible city a moment, milwaukee, his hometown newspaper prominently featured on its front page this morning, let's discuss now with one of the republicans who was in that meeting with the former president, republican congressman tim burchett of tennessee congressmen. thanks very much for being here. i did what i asked you. there have been these reports about trump calling milwaukee a horrible city. i know the trump campaign is said that that's not true. what did you hear? did you hear it what jame before i came on already called the burn units. >> i suspect one of us is go into it, but i heard what you said, but he mentioned several other cities in that point and that he was talking about the crime in those areas, such as we've had something like 17 shootings in memphis, tennessee over the past week so yeah, that's what he was talking about crime in those cities. and i think that's undeniable, even bye, y'all, is a complete fact that there's crime in these major cities and that's what he was alluding to congress. but i do want to point out and we do have a graphic to show our viewers that crime has actually down in milwaukee this year. it's down 22% in terms of homicides, rapes, night, 19% down robbery is up 1%, but aggravated assault down 12%. so crime in fact is down in milwaukee. >> i can share your point of those homicides as a member of your family. >> those are just statistics. and when you reclassify statistics is what we've seen the department of justice to do time and time again. and that's exactly what happens. >> so you're saying that the former president was referring to crime in the walkie, not the city itself. >> from what i understood. >> yeah. i was i was in there. i mean, i appreciate the media, but none of you were in there. it was just from folks like myself who would casually text you all. what was going on, but that's what that's honestly what i thought he was talking about. >> it. and i know during the meeting, you gave the former president some advice on his tone out on the campaign trail you would talk to him about perhaps offering more solutions than just talking about problems. >> what did you say? how did he receive that? >> yeah. well, i've talked about him. he was very good at pointing out the problems we've had $600 out of out of pocket for families down under his administer under biden's administration and president trump's administration he made a great comment about still in china and now he he had that working very well and he talked about how there wouldn't be russian ships down in cuba with nuclear capabilities as they are right now. and nobody seems to be covering that. and that's a pretty dangerous situation, 90 miles off the coast of the united states of america and i said to him, he's been covering this week we have to present, as i said, i said, mr. president, i said and you do a much better job of telling us how to fix those things, such as the border having a wall up, stopping illegal immigration, the flow of fentanyl, which you so was drastically reduced under his administration, which has increased numerically 14 million illegals have come over the border since since biden this he's taking the helm, and i stated i said mr. president, you do a great job of explaining those things and i would encourage you to continue to do to that because americans know they're hurting right now gym, they know things that are in a mess. they know you and i've talked about immigration before. i do want to point out that, you and i have discussed this, that there was a bipartisan effort to crack down on the border, and it was the former president who told republicans in the house of the senate to to kill it. >> well, if you look at maced records, i had tweeted about that weeks before that and i said this is a bad deal. that was a lawyer employment bill. all it said was when they get to the point of 5,000 people a day, jim, now, 4,999 illegals a day. if you have a bipartisan it wasn't a bipartisan effort. james certain way, but james lankford, very conservative senator from oklahoma, was a big part of that. as you are and he, and he's a good guy, but, you know, good and well, it was catch and release. >> it was an lippo liquid. it would have done if justin employed more time el when they get a court date, two years out, that gamma they're not coming back to the court. zoom come on. this thing was that was a disaster waiting to happen and it was a terrible piece of legislation. it would not have done anything. but higher lawyers and they want to just to put it into the wall. sure. that we're going to allow 5,000 illegals a day over the border and that's what i've done. i did want to ask you about january 6, come up at the meeting if any? it might have. wow, was in the bathroom, but the honestly, the way i get elected, as you know, i'm knock on doors. i'm not i don't come from money like a lot of my colleagues do oh sides. nobody nobody challenge to the former president on his actions during absolutely not absolutely not. and a lot of work concern to the fact that innocent people constituents of mine, who came up and left before all the nonsense happened. and the fbi even went to their houses in knoxville can i tennessee to ask them what they were doing and that kind of intimidation needs to stop jams. well, already six once an awful thing that people that crossing over those borders, those barriers were breaking the law. no question. but you still have to ask yourself, why the riots that proceeded that during the summer from black lives matter? headers and all those other groups, there were no arrests, millions of dollars were taken. well, they're lost, and there were crossing and nothing was done about it. i was at the white house when they tear gas protesters outside of the white house. but anyway, let me ask you about something that's reason why i asked about him being confronted on january 6. is that earlier this week, his campaign put out a fundraising email and i don't know if we have that available to put up on screen to our viewers. and in that email it says there it is right there haul out the guillotine. now i know you were saying just a few moments ago was an awful day. what took place on january 6, shouldn't the trump campaign avoid putting out emails that say things like haul out the guillotine after all, there were people trying to hang might pens are chanting, hang mike pence on january 6, shouldn't they knock that off absolutely. >> i don't i don't go for that stuff. you know, i don't do that kind of garbage you have these people, they just going to push buttons and that's how they raise money. it's clickbait it's they're not, they get a cut off. everything that's done and they want to appeal to the lowest common denominator. and that is the lowest common denominator. i don't stand for that garbage so i know that. >> so that's why i'm wondering why aren't more members of your party's saying that the former president you really should cut this stuff out ratcheting up the violent rhetoric out on the campaign trail, doing it and campaign emails. there are some other emails from the campaign earlier this week and put those up on screen as well. they continue to do this over and over again. and i'm just wondering, where does it all lead? are you concerned that we could have another january 6 of this country i know. >> i'm not i think speaker pelosi and uracil understand the significance of that now and how they should have called out the national guard. and again, i don't ever say those things. i've never seen one of those those those pieces of mail. i have no way to verify that and so i don't know what's on them. and because honestly, i don't have the money to give away so i would ever be getting anything in the mail for him all right. congress or what we have a decision at the supreme court got to let you go, but thanks so much for your time. always enjoy the conversations. appreciate you coming on. thank you. so thank you. thank you, jim. and don't forget, you're always welcome into the merchant administration will be welcome back in the white house all right. i appreciate that. thanks, congressman. i want to go to paula reid. our chief legal affairs correspondent, the supreme court, apparently striking down a ban on bump stocks. do we have that correct. paula, give us the latest because that is exactly right, jim, this has been one of the most closely watched cases of the supreme court term. >> and it's another example of the high court siding with gun rights groups. now we're still going through this opinion, but here the supreme court has struck down a federal ban on bump stocks. now this was approved by former president trump, and again, it's the latest example. two of the court sort of limiting the power of federal agencies to act on their own. now this is one of a few different cases related to gun rights we are watching, we're still working our way through this. thomas opinion, but this was originally a challenge from a gun store owner to the classification of bump stocks as machine guns. and the supreme court, again, this is one of the biggest cases that they'd been examining adhere they have struck down this federal bands. we're still going through this opinion we'll have more in a few minutes. >> yeah. and paula, i mean, this is a pretty significant ruling, as i recall, when i was covering the trump administration. i know you were there as well, paula. this came during the trump administration and it was it was a disappointment to gun rights supporters back then. but it came in the aftermath of some major mass shootings in this country that takes exactly right. and specifically they came in 2017 after the mass shooting in las vegas, where a gunman, of course, opened fire with a semi-automatic rifle that had a bump stock device that helped him kill 58 people, hundreds, hundreds more people were of course, wounded. but again, here are the supreme court striking down this classification or and i believe we have elie honig standing by. >> paul. i'm gonna stay with you just a little bit longer. do we know the breakdown of this decision, how it broke down, who was on which side? >> we don't yet physically have the opinion when the supreme court releases opinions, are colleagues do they're working through it right now. i don't simply habit, but i'm told that tom has authored this opinion. but during oral arguments, we did get a sense of exactly where people were falling on this. it's not a shock that they have struck this down, but to the liberal justices year they appeared skeptical. not surprisingly about doing this. so it will be interesting to see the exact count in terms of how this split across the justices like i, said this is one of two major gun rights cases that we are watching the supreme court the other one is a question about whether someone who has a restraining order related to domestic violence can own a gun. that is another one that we're watching and waiting for. it's unclear if this is our last opinion for the day or if you have anymore so far we've had to lesser known, more technical cases. says, but this so far this morning, the biggest headlines out of the court very big headline, paula reid. thank you. and just so our viewers don't mean this is going to be a disappointment to folks who would like to see more regulation, more law's cracking down on gun violence in this country bump stocks allow a shooter to convert a semi-automatic rifle into a weapon that can fire at a rate of hundreds of rounds. admit it some folks would say almost making it like an automatic weapon. let me go to andrew mccabe. he's standing by as well. andrew, you're your response to all this well, jim, i'm just walking through the opinion now, but it seems that the court has taken a very kind of textual approach to the underlying law that that makes it illegal to have a machine gun and with the atf did when they changed the rules essentially banning bumps stocks, they classified a semi-automatic rifle, which is not a machine gun, is lawfully owned in this country is semi-automatic rifle with a bump stock as a machine gun. >> and therefore essentially banned it as a machine gun the ruling states of the atf exceeded their statutory authority when they reclassified semiautomatic rifles with bump stocks as machine itself. it's well-known that the atf took that action in response to the law house vegas mass shooting in which the shooter used several weapons, equipped with bump stocks, thus rendering those semiautomatic weapons firing in a way very similar to machine gun. so the atf's reclassification was in response to a bloody massacre. and also had the effect of essentially to leave regulating how the rifle works, not how it's mechanically functions and how it's classified under the under the law, but rather like what is the effect of putting a bump stock on a semi-automatic weapon? this court has weighed in today to say that no, you can't do that. the law that congress passed asked very clearly defined a machine gun as a weapon that fires multiple rounds with one function of the trigger. that is not the same as a semi-automatic weapon equipped with a bump stock. therefore, atf exceeded the bounds of their legal authority. >> i think people on the gun safety regulation side of this issue we'll be reasonably very frustrated with what they perceived as a proactive effort by the atf to render these weapons semi-automatic weapons that have been essentially converted to fire like a machine gun illegal. >> those guns and the bump stocks that changed the way they the way they work will now be once again accessible to anyone in this country all right, andrew, stay with us. >> i want to go back to paula reid to see if she has more polar. what do you know what this point i do have more jam with importantly, i now have the opinion so we can see the count they. said before justice clarence thomas wrote the opinion, it was 6-3. the court's liberal wing led by justice sonia sotomayor dissented. now, in the opinion, justice thomas wrote a bump stock does not convert a semi-automatic rifle into a machine gun anymore. more than a shooter with a lightning fast trigger finger does even with a bump stock, a semi-automatic rifle will fire only one shot for every quote function of the trigger now, in this, what is described me as a skating dissent. sonia sotomayor joined her other liberal colleagues writing, quote, the jordi is ruling will have deadly consequences. now, this is not specifically a second, second amendment case, but it did once again put the debate about guns in front of the high court. and as i said earlier, this is one of two gun rights cases that we are watching very closely. this term, this is the last opinion for today, but we do expect to get more opinions next week on some of these big cases which could be another one of these questions about guns. the other question before them is whether somebody a domestic violence restraining order can own a gun. we just sort of looked at a similar issue in the trial of the president's son, hunter biden and wilmington where he was convicted for lying on a form about using seeing, or being addicted to illegal drugs. there are a lot of questions about the limitations you could put on gun ownership coming back before the supreme court. but here once again, siding with gun rights advocates in this decision about bump stocks absolutely are pollard. >> let us know if you have more. i want to bring in two people to talk about this further, jen, masha and stephen gutowski jen, let me go to you first. your response to all this you know this actually, it during their all or oral arguments, several of the court's conservative justices actually appeared sympathetic to this regulation but they did hint it some discomfort with the atf's rulemaking authority. >> it's really wasn't a second amendment case. the way we think of it, it really was the question of the atf's rulemaking authority. but in the end, the decision really revolved around the mechanics of this gun. much of the oral arguments focused on whether a bump stock facilitates the firing of a rifle with a single function of the trigger. there was a lot of discussion back-and-forth about how often a user must the thrust forward on the bump stock to keep the trigger firing. and it looks like that is what it came back to for the majority here the question is, will this ruling imperil the atf's ability to regulate other devices and weapons like machine gun conversion devices of other types many of the attempts, regulations rely on similar interpretations of federal law. so the question is, are all of these devices going to come back and the liberal justices were not thrilled about this outcome in the oral arguments justice jackson said congress in 1934, when banding machine guns, what's concerned with the rate of fire a lethal spray of fire that can hit 30 people at once. it seems strange that they would build in a loophole. >> so that's kind of where it broke down right along party lines very interesting and steven, i know i covered that las vegas shooting after it happened. >> i was there with then-president trump when he visited las vegas and that was an absolute bloodbath the shooter there was able to basically fire from the window of a hotel on the las vegas strip onto a country music concert and kill lots of peo