Decision leading President Trump to then tweet out his decision. In the time since then at least three lower courts have said that it is unconstitutional not to allow transgender individuals to serve in the military. So they have stopped the pentagon from implementing President Trumps decision not to allow this. The Supreme Court today said its overturning those injunctions and saying that the pentagon, the u. S. Military can move forward with President Trumps decision, his policy decision not to allow transgender individuals to serve in the military. There a lot of questions. This is just breaking in the last several minutes here. The questions being, of course, how will the pentagon do this . Will they move forward with this immediately and what happens to the number of individuals who are serving openly and hon loray in the u. S. Military right now . Kourtney, stick around. I want to bring in paul on this to talk about the legal implications. There is and well get to this, sort of the human implications as kourtney is referencing here. But how does this move forward . How do you see it moving forward . What the court said is for now, for the moment that the transgender ban can be enforced. Temporarily. Its not making a decision on the marriage yet. But the reason thats interesting is first, three lower courts, federal courts of appeals had found that the ban is unconstitutional. And so typically wed expect the court to respect the rulings on this important issue. The other really interesting thing here is the lineup. Its a fivefour vote in favor of reinstating the ban temporarily. Its just what youd expect with a conservatives, President Trumps new appointees justice kavanaugh, and Justice Gorsuch being in favor of the ban. It seeps like its inconsistent with the precedent. This is where the absence of Justice Kennedy and the two new conservative justices will make a difference. Too early to say what the court will do on the merits. Ultimately down the road. But its important to understand that this is not a ban the pentagon asked for, wanted or thought was appropriate. Theres no evidence that hard working soldiers were transgendered who volunteered to serve their country have any detrimental effect. Theres no apparent legal reason for this discrimination. The secretary of the air force under president obama is joining us. Secretary, thank you for being with us. I want to get your reaction to the news developing this morning. Are you surprised . I am surprised, hallie. And i am disappointed is probably a better word to describe my reaction. I think its unusual based on what i understand to be the case that the Supreme Court would have stepped in at this point before the lower courts have fully litigated and decided this matter and the decision itself, i think, is regrettable. Can you talk through what this means as kourtney brought up who reports on the pentagon for us here at nbc news, what this means for people currently serving in the military openly. For transgender folks in the military now, what happens for them . Thats the first question i have. Ill tell you what i hope. I hope i certainly hope that the action taken in view of the Supreme Courts decision will not be to discharge those who are in uniform and who are serving honorably. That would be a terrible detriment of the armed forces and our country. I hope that those people will be allowed to continue certaining. Serving. I think there will be a halt to new enlistments and likely a halt to medical transition related care during this period where the matter is being further litigated. But to pick up on a point that was made earlier, this is such a shame. There is absolutely zero evidence that this is a harm thats that service of transgender is a harm to readiness. Theres zero credibility. Deborah, i appreciate you joining us on the phone to talk through that. Thank you very much. We are going to keep an eye on this story as it develops and the second we get any word from the pentagon well bring that to you live this hour. We also want to talk about the other three big stories this morning that are all happening, all connected to russia. Youve got first a russian judge denied bail to paul whelan accused of spying. His attorney said his client was misled when someone gave him a thumb drive. He thought it was full of holiday pictures, not classified information. You also have Rudy Giulianis russia reversal, trying to clean up the confusion. Hes telling the new yorker even if candidate trump was involved in the discussions in 2016, it wouldnt be a crime. And democrats in congress may have fresh ammunition after the report of lifting of sanctions of a putin connected oligarch. We have a lot to get into on this front. Let me bring in michael mcfall, joyce vance, Peter Alexander at the white house, and we remain with paul butler as well. Peter, let me start with you and on this cleanup from Rudy Giuliani at this point. Hes out this morning. I think you could categorize it as a confusing interview where hes trying to change what he said in comments over the last 72 hours or so. Where did it all land . Yeah. There has been little clarity but clenplenty of confusion wit Rudy Giuliani. Its a sort of rinse in repeat. Hours or days later, after a claim, theres a walkback. This latest one is relating to Rudy Giulianis comments over the weekend where he appeared to say pretty clearly the president and his team were involved in conversations as it related to the moscow tower project throughout the 2016 campaign. Here is the back and forth. Lets put this on the screen. First from the New York Times. Part of the reporting they said the trump tower moscow discussions were going on from the day i announced to the day i won mr. Rudy giuliani quoted trump as saying with the New York Times. In a new interview as part of this extended media blitz Rudy Giuliani says i did not say that. The times misunderstood what i said. I started the conversation by saying the conversations didnt take place. He would say if there were conversations as you noted, it wouldnt be a crime. In an effort to try to clean this up, on monday Rudy Giuliani came out with an extensive statement. He writes my recent statements about discussions during the 2016 campaign between Michael Cohen and candidate trump about a potential project were hypothetical and not based on conversations i had with the president. My comments did not represent the actual timing or circumstances of any such discussions. The point is that the proposal was in the earliest stage and did not advance beyond a free nonbinding letter of intend. Well, last night we heard from the president s son donald trump junior who said simply they knew he said they didnt know anything about the project. Take a listen. The reality is this wasnt a deal you know, we dont know the developer. We dont know the site. We dont know the anything about it. Ultimately it was Michael Cohen essentially trying to get a deal done. He was there for a long time. He wasnt a deal guy. Didnt bring too many of the people. Thats the reality of what went on. The biggest take away here in the course of the back and forth thats confusing even as i read it to you is Rudy Giuliani after saying pointblank that these conversations lasted throughout the 2016 campaign is now distances himself from his own comments. That sums it up in a nutshell. The nut was pretty big to get to the shell. Thank you. Ill see you in a bit in the white house. What do we say about this at this point . Don junior is putting distance for himself and Rudy Giuliani saying hes afraid his gravestone will say he lied for trump. It will be there. I honestly, i tweeted this morning. I do not understand why anybody listens to Rudy Giuliani anymore. He has no credibility. Hes still the president s lawyer. He still represents the president of the United States of america. Right . He sort of is the pr lawyer. Hes the cable lawyer. Hes the interviews lawyer. Hes not doing the legal work for the president based on my conversations. I agree with you based on the sources ive talked to. Hes not in the throws on this front. How is this successful pr . He continues to make himself the story instead of the president. If that is the actual game theyre going after, then thats success. Otherwise, it is just completely seeming like he fumbles it every time. Somebody who is a friend of msnbc said listen sometimes when you dont have clarity, confusion is strategy. He walks thing back when he said that trump knew about the payments to Stormy Daniels and walked it back. It turned out to be true. What about this. Is it true that the president had these conversations about his russian business deals with folks in russia while on the campaign trail saying that he wasnt . Again, that may be true. In part because its consistent with other things we know about trump but in part because theres a rule of evidence that when people make statements against their own interests, the statements are more credible. This is not the only story related to russia popping up this morning. And joyce vance, i want to get you on some of those. Let me talk about whats happening with a guy, this american who has been imprisoned in moscow. Paul whelan, the Russian Foreign minister said this is somebody caught red handed. Whelans family said he was only in moscow to be able to go to a wedding. And ambassador mcfall, we saw the first images of whelan in a glass box in this courtroom. He was straining at points to try to hear what his own lawyer was saying. As you have what his family and others have described as a potential spy tit for tat between russia and the u. S. Whats the diplomatic fallout as we look at the images . Theres still so much thats not understood here. It sounds like a setup to me. Ive heard and seen these before. Word to the wise, dont take usb drives from russians. Even if you think theyre holiday pictures. It does feel like hes set up. It does feel like it is a tit for tat for miss butina who we have in jail today. In fact, his own lawyer hinted at that a couple weeks ago. So where does this go, ambassador . How does this person how does this man get back to the u. S. Freed . I dont think its going to be easy. Hes not a diplomat, so he doesnt have diplomatic immunity. By the way, thats another clue to me that suggests he was not working for the Intelligence Community, because usually they have their people under diplomatic cover when something sliek this happens they have immunity and can be shipped back home. I honestly dont know how this is going to be resolved. I think he could be in jail for a while. Were following that. We get new details on how tough the Trump Administration was on this big time oligarch connected to the kremlin. Heres the deal. I know you know the name deripaska. He was sanctions last year for interfering with the election and has a connection to paul manafort. Deripaska is punished. Sanctions on his companies. Its not good for him. Recently the Trump Administration announced theyre going to ease up on those sanctions, because they say deripaska agreed to cut back on his ownership stakes. Democrats and some republicans hated that. Mnuchin briefed lawmakers about it. Pelosi wasnt too happy. This stiff competition is one of the worst classified briefings weve received from the Trump Administration. The secretary barely testified. Now it turns out Speaker Pelosi may have more reason to get mad. The New York Times reviewed a confidential document and says the deal was not as tough as advertised. It contains revisions that free deripaska from hundreds of millions of dollars in debt while it leaves them with the most important company. The documents could lend ammunition that the Trump Administration either let him off easy or were outmaneuvered. The Treasury Department defends this saying deripaska still faces consequences but ambassador mcfall, i wonder in your opinion if this is going to give these republicans who did not vote with democrats on this sanction situation pause or a second thought. Well, i hope so. This was clear as day to me long ago when they lifted it. And i want to make two points. The metapoint is getting lost. Changing deripaskas behavior which is what the treasury says was their goal, is not a goal of u. S. Foreign policy. Who care what he does or his ownership of the companies. Sanctions are designed to change putins behavior. There was no change. Second, however, as the New York Times is now illustrating, this was a change without a difference. The Ownership Structure was restructuretured but he got debt off by giving shares to this bank, vtb. He made money in the initial transaction and makes more money as the stocks of these companies rise. Yes, he owns a smaller share, but theyre worth more. And then third, he still controls all of these companies. It is absurd to claim somehow that having 48 plus these parts that are controlled by his foundation and his good friend over at btb bank doesnt mean deripaska controls the companies. He does, and either somebody is being dishonest or they were hoodwinked. Joyce, let me pull back and look at the big picture. All the russia stories tied together, how do you frame this in your perspective . This is part of the counterintelligence investigation that weve talked about so much over the course of the last week. This is the reason that the fbi was initially looking at what happened with russian involvement in the election in 2016. 17 agencies, part of the United StatesIntelligence Community agreed that russia engaged in efforts to influence our election and Congress Actually passed sanctions in the summer of 2017 asking that russia have sanctions imposed in part to alter their behavior. The president , of course, missed the january 2018 deadline for imposing those sanctions. But the investigation, the counterintelligence work is ongoing to determine whether russia continues to be a threat. Its clear that sanctions havent really done their job. Joyce vance, ambassador michael mccall, paul butler, thank you for being here. We have more breaking news from the Supreme Court. Pete williams has run outside the court to fill us in on whats going on with daca. No action on daca. Thats a big deal. Heres why. The Trump Administration had asked the Supreme Court to put a hold on lower court orders that are allowing daca to proceed. The court took no action on that friday which we thought was a sign that probably nothing was going to happen on this for at least another year, and today no action on daca. That means that the earliest the Trump Administration could get this case before the Supreme Court is next term. If the Supreme Court even agrees to hear it. So that means that daca can continue at least another 10 or 12 months for certain. It looked that way friday. Now we know nothing is going to happen legally on daca. The court orders remain in place that say the government must continue to allow daca renewals. Not new signups but renewals. You have to renew it every two years. Thats about 700,000 young people whose parent brought them when they came into the country illegally. Thats the news on daca. A couple other quick points if i may. Two statements now out on the Supreme Courts action today allowing the military to go ahead with the Trump Administration plan to ban transgender military service. First of all the pentagon says this isnt a ban on transgender service, and technically that is correct, because the policy the pentagon wants to put in place allows transgendered people to serve as long as they serve in their biological kpe and dont six gender surgery. For more than 30 months transgender troops have served openly with valor and distinction. Now the rug has been ripped out from under them once again. It says theyll continue to try to fight it in court. Two other points from the Supreme Court. The court declined to take up the appeal. This case got a lot of attention, including from President Trump. The firing of a football coach in Washington State in bremmerton who was fired after he refused to stop leading prayers on the football field after games, despite the School District telling him he couldnt do that because that violates the policy on encouraging or discouraging religious actions. And second the court the said it will take the first gun rights case in more than a decade. Looking at the question of what right you have to have a gun outside the home. In new york city it says you cant take your gund ghandgun o the city limits. Youre plenty busy this morning. We should clone you. Thank you, sir. Lets be clear from my understanding from petes reporting on this decision, the Supreme Courts decision on daca, the dreamers, roughly 700,000 people brought here when they were younger will remain protected for it sounds like another year or so. President trump just included these dreamers in his deal to congress on the shutdown. Right.