check that check that does it for the weekend this sunday morning, velshi starts right now. good morning, ali. >> you know, there's so eubh doom and gloom and concern and all of this. i need to switch it up second because you are all fashion plate, you are all fantastically dressed, reset is full of amazing colors. i've got a bit of an issue. i've got a vest on. and you see my vest? >> i saw the best. i'm glad we are discussing it. i like the pop of color. i like it. >> okay, because i'm not sure if it is the right thing. it is very hard to see and i wasn't really sure. >> honestly, you could do no jacket. just the best, very chic. >> it is giving papa smurfqm=cr i love it. >> anything can happen over the course of the next couple of hours. nice to see you all. i was going to say, have yourself a great weekend and a few days off but as we know, tomorrow is going to be ■ça consequential day in america so i suspect you are all going to be on the job. get the rest that you can today. have a good day. velshi starts now. good morning, it is sunday, june the 30th. we begin with breaking news on the continued fallout from the first presidential debate, which has caused many democratic insiders and voters to turn up the volume on concerns about the viability of joe biden's re-election bid. nbc news reporting that today, president biden will be meeting with members of his family at camp david to discuss the future of his presidential campaign. his presence on the debate stage thursday has led to calls to step aside and hope the democrats will replace him with a different nominee who might fire up the ■çbase and have day ahead of election day which is four months and five days away from now. as one house democrat told the local on friday, quote, the movement to convince biden to not run is real. but biden campaign isn't throwing in the towel just yet. the senior administration official tells nbc news that the main message going around within biden's inner circle is quote, we will weather the storm just like we always have. joining me is nbc news white house correspondent aaron gilchrest with the latest on the spear good morning. what do we know, regarding the biden family meeting today, and how the mood within the democratic party and the expression of concern from both voters and the chattering clash, since thursday night, is affecting the discussions. >> reporter: officially we knowç this time at camp david has been on the schedule for at least a week and white house official told a pool reporter traveling with the president last night that the bidens are there to take a family photo. at the same time, five people familiar with the matter told some reporters that president biden is expected to talk about the future of his re-election campaign with his family today. is source reached out last night to our team to stress the gathering is not a formal family meeting, that it is not quote, a formal determination or determinative discussion. this is coming after the president himself has described as a bad debate. the first lady shared an anecdote at a fundraiser on friday, she said the president told her, jill, i don't ■çknow what happened, i didn't feel that great. she responded or said she responded to him with look, joe, we are not going to let 90 minutes to find the four years you have been president. that is the messaging the democratic party has settled into at this point. we heard variations of that from staffers and surrogates and lawmakers, all publicly still behind joe biden as nominee for president, and they are still vigorously trying to communicate the threat they believe former president trump poses to democracy anti- freedoms in this country if he were to win the white house again. this morning the biden campaign said it raised $33 million since thursday, mostly from grassroots donations. the campaign pointing out polling of voters after the debate suggesting that their perceptions don't match the punditryxrxi, as you mentioned, the debate didn't actually change the race. >> here is a question, ■çand there's a lot of logic to don't let 90 minutes to find a presidency. the issue of course is undecided voters emma the issue is unmotivated voters, the issue is people who are going to sit on their hands, the issue is people who heard for four years that joe biden is too old. the issue is convincing marginal voters to vote for donald trump. is there a sense that the biden family and joe biden, understand that is the thing they need to convince people about, not that 90 minutes does not a presidency make? >> i think so, the campaign has been clear, that it needs to continue going forward. that this was not just a blip, it was a significant moment for the depressed -- for the president on the ■çdebate stage but there's more than 100 days left in the campaign season and the president wants to get out and show that he still a fighter and that he's fighting for the american people, that his thinking is consistently about what he can do to help people. they are trying to contrast that with what they believe is donald trump, who is a person that is in it for himself, so that is the messaging we are continuing to hear. and at this point it seems as though the campaign has no intention of pulling back. that it will ramp up, as the weeks go along, as the convention happens in august and the bulk of the traditional campaign season gets underway after that. >> excellent supporting -- reporting, thank you so much. nbc's aaron gilchrest at the ■ç white house. we are anticipating the courts opinion on donald trump's immunity claim to come down by this time tomorrow. for the fourth time since the late 1980s, the supreme court's term will extend past the end of the month of june, with the public awaiting a decision in one of the most consequential cases in a generation. a case that is likely already tipped the ballot in donald trump's favor ahead of november's critical election. 24 hours from now the supreme court is expected to issue its final batch of decisions for this term, which we are expecting will include the long- delayed rolling in donald trump's claim of absolute presidential immunity from criminal execution. in his federal election interference case. justices have been pushing off making a decision in this particular matter for more than six months. since the special counsel jack smith first asked ■çthe court t fast-track the issue, back in december of 2023. the justices refused to do so. they took another two months for the case to reach the supreme court again, and for the justices to decide to take up the case. those many months of inaction from the court have effectively meant the twice impeached, recently convicted ex-president has succeeded in delaying his federal election interference trial, probably until after the election and of course never, if he gets re-elected. the election is now four months and five days away. when the decision comes out tomorrow, if it comes out tomorrow, we will get a better sense of when, how and whether that case can proceed. this is going to be the supreme court second■ç january 6th related decision, this term. on friday the justices handed something of a win to january 6th defendants who have been charged with obstructing an official proceeding. the court limited how the government can use that charge against defendants and could affect the prosecution of more than 200 people. potentially including trump as well. but at this point, it is uncertain if it might also affect his federal interference -- election interference case, as one of the many outstanding questions that it needs to be resolved if and when the case does resume. the joining me to work through this are two of the finest legal minds i know, the former federal judge, j michael dudek and lawrence tribe, professor emeritus at harvard law school and author of many books including american constitutional law, and■ç to en a presidency, the power of impeachment. good morning to both of you gentlemen. it is a remarkably important day. tomorrow is likely to be a remarkably important day and viewers need to understand the consequences. professor tribe, met days let me start with you. supreme court watchers predicted that the justices would wait until, judge luttig predicted the same thing, that they would wait until the last day of the term to issue an opinion on trump's immunity claim. but it didn't have to be this way. what is your sense of the delay and what do you expect to happen, and what consequence you expect to follow regardless of what the supreme court's opinion may be? >> thanks for having me on. it is quite clear, that the court delay was deliberate. they could have resulted the case by simply ■çletting the extraordinarily comprehensive opinion of the d.c. circuit they unaffected. they could have agreed to leapfrog the case, the way they do under another set of circumstances. they could have decided this case as far back as last december. the argument was over 60 days ago, on april 25th. they have slow walked it. there's no reason too. because the claim that any person in this country, president or not, has absolute immunity when he tries to overturn an election and prevent the transition of power is absurd. i can't imagine that the supreme court will take that position. rather, what ■[s likely to do, is muddy the waters, by pointing out that just last week, in the fisher case, it put limits on the reach of the statute involving obstructing an official proceeding, which is one of the criminal statutes that the special counsel has invoked in his election interference indictments. it is not the only one, there are also statutes about defrauding the united states, and stealing people's votes. but the obstruction statute, as the majority opinion by chief justice roberts pointed out, is now, not quite /i as the language would suggest. justice barrett and her dissenting opinion ■çlast frida said the court had to do textual flips over and over again, acrobatics, in order to avoid reading the word otherwise, where it says otherwise obstructing a proceeding, to mean not otherwise, but by the same means. that is getting technical, but the bottom line is that there will be an open question after whatever the court decides tomorrow on the immunity issue. one open question that i think has been clear to the court ever since the day i heard argument in this case, which was the day after it heard argument in an important other case, the open question is, ■ç whether the manipulation of electoral ballots and the interference with those ballots , and the conspiracy to forge and alter electoral certificates is sufficiently like the evidence tampering that the court says is the heart of the obstruction statute. now analogies are always difficult. and i can imagine the d.c. circuit, or judge chuck can -- judge chutkan struggles with question of resemblance where as if justice barrett's position prevailed and she was joined by justices soto meyer and kagan, it would be an open and shut case that did involve obstruction of ■çan official proceeding. the other open question is going to be whether, whatever immunity court finds for former presidents, and there might be immunity for some core exercise of presidential power like the pardon power whatever immunity it finds, it is not going to cover 99% of what the president is charged with having done. and the task of separating the wheat from the chaff, identifying which things the president is charged with having done, avoid whatever immunity the court finds exists, that's task could lead to further seedings in the lower courts. further, clarifying the virtual impossibility of trying the case to verdict before ■çit election. but the silver lining, and i will keep this short, the silver lining is that if there is a hearing in the lower court, that's doesn't have to be a hearing that is held off for over 80 days, the way judge chutkan said the trial would have to be held off, even if she's given the green light. that hearing could occur next week. and if that hearing, which can continue through the election season, the evidence about what the president is charged with having done in the plot to overturn the election, will be laying before the american people, who have undoubtedly either not seen or have forgotten the evidence, gathered by the january 6th committee. and that would be the upside of it rather ■çlocated rolling. >> so this is good, because now we are getting into some meat, and judge luttig, who alerted me by the way to your article on this, thank you judge for doing that. this is the work of judges, and lawyers to figure out. matthew seligman, who co- authored the brief that professor tribe signed onto has written in it, no one disputes, wrote an opinion piece in which he said no one disputes the electoral count is an official proceeding, and no one could deny that electoral ■ç certificates are quote, records, documents, objects, or other things used, end quote in the electoral count. the only question is whether the defendant impaired the availability or integrity of the electoral certificates, for use in the electoral count. if the defendant is donald trump, and professor tribe is correct, that this hearing on this matter, could go forward, what effect would that have on the totality of donald trump thing held responsible for trying to overturn an election? >> you are exactly correct, and as is professor tribe. on the larger point, the former president has corrupted america's democracy, constitution and rule of law, and now with the supreme court almost in terminal delay of the immunities decision, he's gotten away with it. america's democracy and the rule of law are the heart and ■ soul of the nation. america has been the beacon of freedom and liberty to the world for almost 250 years, now, because of its democracy. and the rule of law. and through his defiance of that democracy and rule of law, donald trump, i have said previously, unsold the nation. the only redemption for this unsettling of america at this point is that donald trump at least be held accountable for what he has done. but the supreme court, as you add professor tribe are saying, has already effectively given him what he asked for, absolute immunity for his ■çgrave offens. at this point, i have to doubt whether donald trump will ever be tried for his criminal offenses against the united states and the constitution. now tomorrow, we will know whether the supreme court even permits his trial for those offenses. but if it does, the court has already made a trial of the former president, practically impossible. at best, jack smith will have to decide whether to ask for the trial to begin one month before the 2024 election. it would be impossible, both tor begin and end■ç donald trump's trial before the november election. no prosecutor would want to straddle the election with the first trial of an american president in history. who himself is a candidate for the presidency in that election. the politics of the moment will all but demand that jack smith, for trial before the election, and until after the election. but i would urge jack smith, in the strongest possible terms today not to yield to that cynical partisan politics, and to bring this ■çcase on for tri even in september or october. in the name of, and for the sake of american democracy, the constitution and rule of law. >> judge, is there any chance of jack smith here's this and takes guidance on this that tanya chutkan will allow it happen? >> yes, there is every chance in the world that judge chutkan would allow that to happen, ali. >> professor tribe, what is your sense of a trial that does that? for people like us who want to see accountability and for whom justice is paramount, it is a wild inconvenience to have a trial ií çthe middle of an election but it might feel like more justice. what is your sense of having a trial that possibly straddles an election of the first president to ever face criminal interference, election interference charges? >> to put it mildly, it is not ideal, but i firmly agree with judge luttig and i said it myself publicly, jack smith should proceed to trial, just as soon as the united states supreme court and tanya chutkan permit him to do so. the policy of the justice department, not to initiate criminal investigations within two months of an election, has no role here. first, because this is not a matter of initiating an investigation, it is a matter of holding a trial that in gqct was originally scheduled to be held back in march and has been delayed for no good reason. second, this is not a standard situation in which convenience should make the slightest difference. as judge luttig said, american democracy and the rule of law and survival of our constitutional republic, are all on the line. this is a moment of existential significance. of course, i would urge jack smith to proceed with trial, absolutely as soon as he can. not to scratch his head and wonder whether it looks good or not, to have a trial straddling an election, in which the criminal defendant already convicted on 34 felonies, happens also ■çto be a candidat for president. to allow him to use his candidacy as a get out of jail free card, not only by assuring everyone that if he wins, he will find an attorney general who dismisses this case, but also by arranging ads, so that gosh, it is inconvenient to hold trial now, i'm in the middle of campaigning, would be a travesty. it would be the most outrageous example of justice delayed, being justice denied, and it is not just justice for one individual, it is justice for the american people. >> this is a moment of existential ■çsignificance, is important thing for us to consider. gentlemen, i appreciate your analysis, your time, the thought you have put into this and your strenuous defense of democracy. judge michael luttig , judge for the fourth circuit and lawrence tribe, professor emeritus of harvard law school and author of american constitutional law and to end a presidency, the power of impeachment. up next, is she sick enough? that is one of the. there is questions in an emergency situations. the decision to dismiss an idaho abortion case leaves medical professional struggling to make sense of which complications they can legally treat, and it is putting millions of lives in danger. sleep more deeply and wake up rejuvenated. purple mattresses exclusive gel flex grid draws away heat, relieves pressure and instantly adapts. sleep better. live purple. right now save up to $800 off mattress sets at purple. visit purple.com or a store near you today. this week, pregnant women in idaho facing serious complications to serve emergency stabilizing care tax instead of providing an answer, the majority punted the case back to the district court ruling that it had reached the bench, saying it reached the bench prematurely. the dismissal leaves and affect the district court's injunction against idaho's near-total abortion ban, temporarily allowing pregnant women in the state to access emergency care. by upholding the injunction, the court appeared to address the issue, permitting idaho doctors to perform emergency abortions. in reality, the court did nothing to address the merits of the case, having an impact on more than two dozen states with ■çsimilar draconian plans. the decision leaves the landscape unsettled, as medical professionals across the country struggle to make sense of which pregnancy complications they can legally treat under the narrow medical exceptions provided in their state abortion bans. at the heart of the case is whether a federal law requiring hospitals to provide emergency care pre-empts idaho's near- total abortion ban? before the injunction, pregnant women facing dangerous health conditions like pr