little bit differently. life is very valuable. >> edit anything special for yourself quickly i treated myself to a car. she is a fancy german lady. that likes to go fast. my mother always said, spend a little. enjoy your money, you will have mine someday. who knew that someday was going to be so soon? >> that's all for this edition of dateline, i am craig melvin, thank you for watching. this sund par the polls, but it's president biden who has the cash advantage in the 2024 campaign. >> we have to raise a lot of money. >> as his legal bills mount, trump wants campaign donors to help pay them.

>> we have a lot of cash and we have a great company, but they want to take it away. they'd like to take the cash away so i can't use it on the campaign. >> is that a winning strategy? i'll speak with ronna mcdaniel, the former chairwoman of the republican national committee. plus, supreme decisions. former supreme court justice stephen breyer speaks out about the decision to overturn roe v. wade. >> did you think that a compromise was possible before the week around 15 weeks? >> i usually hope for compromise. >> and his decision to step down from the court. >> how difficult was it for you to decide to retire? >> joining me for insight and analysis are, nbc news chief political analyst chuck todd. kimberly atkins stohr, senior opinion writer for "the boston globe," and stephen hayes, editor of ""the dispatch."" welcome to sunday. it's "meet the press."

>> announcer: from nbc news in washington, the longest running show in television history, this is "meet the press" with kristen welker. good sunday morning. former president donald trump's effort to overturn the 2020 election is putting an unprecedented stress test on american institutions ahead of the 2024 election. with the spraem court already deciding trump can remain on the ballot in colorado, now weighing whether he has total immunity and prosecution for his election subversion efforts, this week i spoke exclusively with former supreme court justice stephen breyer where i asked him about the weight a justice fields when considering these cases that have become central to the presidential election. >> can you describe the weight that you felt, that one feels as a justice when you are presented with a case of a presidential election? >> this is not just an election. i mean, the court -- imagine you were on the court that decided brown versus board of education.

imagine that you were on the court that had to decide, well, for example, whether president nixon was immune from giving -- didn't have to turn the tapes over to r.g. cox. imagine that. >> more of my interview with justice breyer is coming up, but first, i'll be joined by former rnc chair ronna mcdaniel in her first interview since stepping down as party chair. in full disclosure to our viewers, this interview was scheduled weeks before it was announced that mcdaniel had become a paid nbc news contributor. this will be a news interview, and i was not involved in her hiring. this week we learned just how much trump's grip on the republican party is impacting the gop's bottom line. it has more than double the cash of the trump campaign, while the president has sharpened his attacks with his predecessor over his mounting legal debts.

as those league debts are growing, trump has a new fund raiser with the republican national committee that will filter donations to both his campaign and the super pac paying his campaign before the rnc getting a cut. with michael whatley and his daughter-in-law lara trump, the parts is now fully formed in trump's image. >> we are going to determine the fate of not only the united states, but of the entire world and this body, the rnc, is going to be the vanguard of a movement that will work tirelessly every single day to elect our nominee donald j. trump. >> we are going to make sure that every single penny of every dollar raised goes towards one goal which is winning. >> joining me now is former rnc chair ronna mcdaniel. ronna, welcome back to "meet the press." thank you for being here. >> great to be here. thanks for having me.

>> let's dive right in to your decision to step down as rnc chair. take me behind the scenes a little bit. were you pushed out of your role? >> there's no question that as rnc chair we have to remain neutral and we had debates and there was tension and friction that started during that process. it was well played out in the media, and i knew at that point when i was doing that role and we were going to have debates that when the nominee came forward and it was likely to be president trump that they would want to switch, and that's his right as a nominee. >> so were you pushed out by him? >> he absolutely wanted me to move aside and wanted michael whatley and lara trump to come in. >> and you say you were neutral. you say you put out that statement effectively calling on nikki haley to step out of the race. can you say you were really neutral?

>> i can't. we had a neutral primary and we had debates and the democrats didn't have debates and now they have rfk jr. as a third party. i think that's so important to our public discourse. so, yes, i was neutral, but as i said at that time, there was no math and no path, and that was true, and so we did need to consolidate behind the nominee, and that's what i did. >> you talk about the tensions around the debates. was there a breaking point with former president donald trump and you? >> it was a lot of tension with the campaign. he really did not feel like we should have debates. he said this publicly. i got a lot of phone calls. >> from him? phone calls from trump directly. >> from everybody in his campaign, and i did talk to him. also, you saw the supporters. don't give to the rnc. don't have debates. listen, there are a lot of people who support president trump in our party, but there are others who didn't and they needed to see that process to play out to say this was fair, my candidate was given an opportunity to speak to the

american people. the voters decided, and this is the nominee, and because we let that process play out, he is the nominee without a third party running against him, which is the opposite of what the democrats did. >> you were replaced by donald trump's hand picked allies including his daughter-in-law lara trump, and now there's a fund-raising agreement, which basically means the donations go to the super pac to pay for his legal bills before they go to the rnc. is it appropriate for donald trump to ask donors to pay for his legal bills? >> as long as the donors know that that's what they're doing. it is in the waterfall of it. it is save america before the rnc. what i also think that means is that the campaigns or the rnc is being truthful when they say they're not going to pay the legal bills, and it is going to run through the save america pact.

>> ultimately, these donations are going first to pay his legal bills. people who may be struggling in some cases to make ends meet, is there not an ethical challenge with that? >> if they feel strongly to support his legal bills, then they have every right to do so, and i think he's being very open that they're helping with his legal bills. >> you paid $2 million for his legal bills while he was still in office. do you have regrets of that? do you think it was appropriate? >> as a former president and someone who raised a lot of money into the rnc, we paid less than $2 million in legal bills, and we didn't once he became a nominee or candidate. we cut that off. it's different when you're a former president than when you're a candidate. >> one told politico you were a, quote, failed chair. another said we lost the house, the cincinnati, and the white house while she was chair. did you deserve to stay on with that track record, ronna? >> you know, i push back on that very hard. the fact that under my time as chair we've had more women in congress ever than in the history of our party, that we've had more minority growth in our party and that didn't just

happen. i had offices open in black, asian, hispanic communities that we had ignored as a party, and we have seen growth as a result, which, by the way, we're seeing in this election as well. and then i'm going to point out this. the rnc, we don't do the messaging and we don't pick the candidates. we're a turnout. if you look at 2022, just 2022, we turned out 4 million more republicans, and we would have won the electoral college based on that turnout. what i say to people is if we're building the road that all of the candidates drive on, and one candidate got to the finish line, the road isn't the problem. it's candidate to candidate. i view my rnc tenure as a success. >> let's talk about the election now. donald trump says one of his first acts if he is re-elected to a second term would be, quote, to free those charged and convicted of crimes related to january 6th. do you support that? >> i want to be very clear. the violence that happened on january 6th is unacceptable. it doesn't represent our country.

it certainly does not represent my party. we should not be attacking the capitol. we should not be having violence. i said it that day. i put a statement out that day that this is not acceptable. if you attacked our capitol and you have been convicted, then that should stay. >> so then to the question, though, do you disagree with trump saying he's going to free those who have been charged -- >> i do not think that people who committed violent acts on january 6th should be freed. >> so you disagree. he's been saying that for months. why not speak out earlier? why not speak out about that now? >> when you're the rnc chair, you take one for the whole team, right? now i can get to be more myself, right? this is what i believe. i don't think violence should be in our political discourse, republican or democrat, and i disagree with that. i agree with him on a whole host of other things. let's close the border.

let's make sure we have good incomes for people. let's make sure we do a lot of great things, but on that point, i don't think we should be freeing people who violently attacked capitol hill police officers and attacked the capitol. >> ronna, that is such a fundamental point. such a fundamental point to our democracy. you say you still support him and you will vote for him based on that. what do you say to those who hear that answer and feel it's hypocritical to them to vote for him? >> i think we have to make a choice, right? everybody is looking at their candidates and they may say i don't love everything about this, i disagree with this and i don't like when they say this. but for me, when i look at my state of michigan and i look at the cost of food, the cost of rent, the cost of insurance, that i feel less safe. crime is on the rise, that we're seeing fentanyl come across our border, that we're seeing open border. i don't think there's any choice but to vote for the republican.

even though you may have disagreements, it's him or biden, and that's the choice. >> just to be clear, crime shows it's going down in major cities and the fentanyl is coming over legal ports of entry. but let me get to this next question. mitch mcconnell said donald trump was practically and morally responsible for the attack on the capitol. would you agree with him? >> i don't think he wanted that attack on the capitol, but i will say that attack is a dark day in our history. there is nothing to be proud of about that day. there's nothing to look back at and say this is good. it's changed our whole country. so i condemn what happened on january 6th. do i think he wanted that to happen or pushed that to happen? i don't. >> now he seems to be very proud about it. he calls it a beautiful day. again, he talks about freeing those who were convicted. if you ask those convicted, they say they were there because he asked them to be there.

>> the rnc was not there on january 6th. >> what about trump? mitch mcconnell said donald trump was practically and morally responsible for the attack on the capitol. was he? >> i don't think he wanted the attack on the capitol. >> was he responsible though? he may not have foreseen that, but was he responsible? >> when i say that, i don't say he wanted that to happen, but i do think it was a terrible day and it's not something to be celebrated and it wasn't a beautiful day. the rnc was not there. we did not coordinate. we were not part of planning that day, but i also take it a different way, kristen. when my kids see this on the internet and they see all these flags and it looks like the republican party is part of this, it changes them. they say, mom, what is going on? it's frightening. this is a dark day in our history and we can never back away from the fact that we should all be condemning the events of january 6th. i want to turn now to your actions in the aftermath of the 2020 election. >> sure. >> on november 17th you and donald trump were recorded pushing two republican michigan

officials -- election officials not to certify the results of the election, and on the call you're recorded as saying, quote, if you can go home tonight, do not sign it, we will get you attorneys. do you have regrets about that phone call in your -- >> i am so glad you asked me about this because i've never had a chance to respond to this, and if you know the course of what happened that night, these two individuals went into a hearing. they voted no. they didn't vote not to certify. they said, you know, we want an audit. there were some problems in wayne county. they've been consistent and well documented over subsequent elections, and as canvassers they said, we think we should have an audit. that's all they asked for. once the public hearing opened, they were called such vicious names, such vile names, family members are being threatened that they changed their vote, and they left shaken, and i did

call them and said, nobody -- and i think we should agree on this as republicans and democrats -- nobody should be threaten order bullied or pushed to change a vote, and that's what happened to them. and i wantlet to finish by saying our call that night was to say are you okay? it was three and a half years ago. these are people i knew. i live in wayne county. are you okay? are you all right? vote your conscience, not pushing them to do anything and then let me add one other thing, she was threatened to such a degree, monica, that somebody's gone to jail. i'm not going to say the threats that she had, but we can't as parties say we shouldn't be attacking election workers. election workers need to be safe. and when it happened to republicans, ignore it, and only report it when it happens to democrats. someone went to jail for these attacks. >> i understand what you're saying about the concerns for her safety, but you got on the phone with her, with the then president of the united states. how can anyone -- >> saying you should not be bullied to change your vote. >> you said do not sign it.

if you can go home tonight, do not sign it. how can people say it's anything other than a pressure campaign? >> the pressure was put on them after the hours and hours of threats and abuse they were receiving that coerced them to change their vote, and they shouldn't have had to deal with that. >> but if they're on the phone with you and donald trump who was then the president of the united states -- >> i was not telling -- what i'm saying is i support you voting your conscience. >> do you regret making that phone call, ronna? >> i regret the fact that people are being threatened for doing their job in this country. i think it's wrong to say i want a simple audit. and to have your family be threatened, your daughter be threatened, your livelihood be threatened, being called racist, go look at the transcripts. and this is the one thing. we can't have one standard for democrats and not republican.

>> understood, understood. ronna, ultimately, there were 250 audits and they never found there was any corruption. did you not have a responsibility as rnc chair to say before january 6th the election is not rigged that donald trump lost given that there were audits and given that there were more than 60 court cases that occurred all across the country and that donald trump lost. >> the reality is joe biden won. he's the president. he's the legitimate president. i have always said, and i continue to say there were issues in 2020. i believe that both can be true. you can say massive laws were changed and they were changed through courts or through secretaries of state and not through the legislative process in the name of the pandemic that took away safeguards to the election. >> but you acknowledge those, what you're talking about, did not rise to the level in any way of overturning any election. >> in november, which, by the way, is when that call took place in november, the election happens in november.

we are getting so much incoming. we have a job to say this was done correctly, and i'll just finish about wayne county. >> yeah. >> there were precincts that didn't align. that's a fact. that's not propaganda. that's fact so why can't you say hey, listen, these precincts aren't aligning. let's take a look under the hood. >> let me just stop you because you just said joe biden is the legitimately reelected president, and this is the first time you have said that. >> it's not. i said it many times. >> this is what you said a year ago to chris wallace. i want to play you what you said. >> are you saying as the chair of the republican party that you still have questions as to whether or not joe biden was duly elected president in 2020? >> joe biden is president. >> no, i didn't ask you that. do you think he won the election? >> i think there were lots of problems with 2020. >> ultimately he won the election, but there were lots of problems with the 2020 election. >> and that's fair. >> i don't think he won it fair. i don't. i'm not going to say that. >> you didn't say he won it fair at that point. can you say that, did joe biden win the election, fair and square?

>> fair and square. fair and square, he won. it's certified and done. >> why has it taken you until now to say that? why has it taken you until now to say that? >> i'm going to push back a little because i do think it's fair to say there were problems in 2020, and to say that does not mean he's not legitimate. >> it suggests that there was something wrong with the election and you know the election was the most heavily scrutinized and chris krebs said it was the most secure election in modern history. that suggests still that you're giving credence to these allegations. >> when you have states like pennsylvania go from 260,000 mail-in ballots to 2.6 million saying, you know what? when you get rid of i.d. for all mail-in ballots, that's a concern. we should all be concerned about the care, custody, integrity of every ballot, and that's all i'm saying, and this is a viewpoint

of a lot of republicans, and they think joe biden's the president, but they also think there were problems, and both can be true. >> even the supreme court, ronna, didn't take up concerns about the election results in pennsylvania and the slew of other states. let me just stick to, though, i want to continue to allow you to answer questions about your role. the rnc helps the trump campaign assemble electors in michigan and provide a platform for trump lawyers to hold the news conference with rudy giuliani alleging a global conspiracy to rig the election against trump, and you, yourself, called the election rigged multiple times. did you enable donald trump to spread election lies? >> let's go back to time. >> did you? >> initially in november of 2020 there were concerns everywhere. imagine you saw videos being put out. all types of things. you have to track that down. so where i was in 2020 and the quotes that are being taken from a very long time ago, three and a half years ago to where i am today, you've got to allow the process to play out, and i think it is fair to say there were concerns then, but, no, biden is

the president, and we need to move forward, and this is important for our country. >> ronna, i think what people struggle with is by the time january 6th happened, all of those court cases, more than 60 court cases had been litigated. donald trump had lost, and the supreme court said they're not going to take up concerns. as head of the rnc did you not have the responsibility to say joe biden won? >> i've said that. >> at the time. at the time before january 6th. and you're still saying that there were concerns this morning as you sit here. >> saying there are concerns about the election doesn't say he didn't win, and that's the only thing i'm going to say. listen, we are in 78 lawsuits right now at the rnc. i'll give you one example. one is in montana with democrats suing to say you should be allowed to be registered to vote in two states. why are they suing on that? why are you suing to allow voter i.d. to be removed in states? i disagree with that. >> ronna, do you -- to the

people who feel like you enabled donald trump and his lies about the election, do you owe people an apology? do you owe this country an apology? >> i think the fact that we looked at things is what democrats have done and republicans have done. we're allowed to look after elections and say, i want to make sure this was done in a transparent and fair way, and i certainly do not agree with violence or any attacks on our capitol, and i'm going to be very clear, that is something i condemn wholeheartedly. >> very quickly, ronna, before i let you go, you seem to be changing your tone as it relates particularly to joe biden being legitimately elected. why should viewers, why should people trust or believe what you're saying? >> i don't think i'm changing my tone at all. >> why should people trust what you're saying right now? >> one, i will say this, kristen, voters right now in this country are going to be making a choice in november and they don't care about 2020. >> a lot of people do.

a lot of people say it is fundamental to the country's democracy. >> i think they're thinking about inflation, the border, crime, their kids' schooling, and i think it's really important. i represent 50% of this country, whether you like it or not, to be able to have different viewpoints and say i disagree with that viewpoint, but it's important to hear it is important for the country. i am not changing my tune. this is where i have been, and right now we're heading into a pivotal election. >> speak to the people who hold you responsible for enabling donald trump and his mistruths, his lies about the election. why should they trust you when they say they don't? >> i think you should trust me. i mean, i can't -- i can't speak to people who don't trust a different voice. i think you should be able to hear from different voices, and i haven't been able to talk to you about the concerns i had going into the election, and i wish there was more of a dialogue from that, but let me be very clear.

i love this country. i come from a state that's been overlooked. i don't see my state represented in a lot of news media. i don't go home as chairman ronna mcdaniel. i'm mom ronna mcdaniel. i go to the grocery store and do all these things, and i really feel like if our country's going to survive, we need to be able to have difficult conversations like this in a respectful way. we need more of that in our country, but we also can't go into our echo chambers and say i'll only listen to what democrats have to say and i'm only listen to what republicans have to say. listen to it and make your own opinion. >> ronna mcdaniel, thank you for being here this morning. >> thank you for having me. when we come back, donald trump's legal battles are testing the limits of his party and the courts. the panel joins me next. to duckduckgo on all your devie

duckduckgo comes with a built-n engine like google, but it's pi and doesn't spy on your searchs and duckduckgo lets you browse like chrome, but it blocks cooi and creepy ads that follow youa from google and other companie.

and there's no catch. it's fre. we make money from ads, but they don't follow you aroud join the millions of people taking back their privacy by downloading duckduckgo on all your devices today. welcome back. the panel is here. chuck todd, nbc news chief political analyst. kimberly atkins stohr from "the

"boston globe,"" and stephen hayes, ceo and editor of "the dispatch." let's dive right in. what are your takeaways? >> let me deal with the elephant in the room. i think our bosses owe you an apology for putting you in this situation. i don't know what to believe. she is a paid contributor by nbc news. i don't know that any answer she gave you is because she didn't want to mess up her contract. she wants us to believe that she was speaking for the rnc when the rnc was paying for it. she has credibility issues. is she speaking for herself? is she speaking on behalf of who is paying her? once at the rnc, she did say, hey, i'm speaking for the party. i get that. that's part of the job so what about here? i will say this. i think your interview did a good job of exposing i think many other contradictions, and look, there's a reason why there's a lot of journalists at nbc news uncomfortable with this because many of our professional dealings with the rnc over the last six years have been met

with gaslighting, have been met with character assassination. so it is, you know, that's where you begin here, and so when nbc made the decision to give her nbc news' credibility, you have to ask what does she bring to nbc news? and when we make deals like this -- and i've been at this company for a long time -- you do it for access. sometimes it's access to an audience. sometimes it's access to an individual. and we can have a journalist debate about that, and i'm willing to have that debate, and if you had told me we were hiring her as a technical adviser for the republican convention, thaw would be defensible. we're talking to her, but let's see what she does in interviews and maybe vet her with actual journalists and see if it's a two-way, what she can bring to

the network. so i do think, unfortunately, this interview is always going to be looked through the prism of who is she speaking for? i think you did everything you could do. you got put into an impossible situation, booking this interview, and then all of a sudden the rug was pulled out from under you and she's paid to show up. it is unfortunate for the program, and i'm glad you did the best you could, and that's why we are here to bolster. >> as a journalist and a lawyer, i think about credibility all the time. credibility of sources and witnesses, and for the reasons that you laid out and also the timing that she's only here after she got ousted from trump's rnc. >> there have been attempts to book her as rnc chair on this show for years. >> so her credibility is completely shot, so i have to do what maya angelou said. i believe what they do and not what they said, and i know that she habitually lied and ha bitzually joined trump in attacking members of the press,

including this network, in a way that put journalists at risk, in danger, and we do know that she carried water for donald trump, and we view that and knew that she did participate in efforts to keep votes in detroit, from my hometown, so i day this journalistically serious and personal to keep the votes from mostly black voters in detroit from being counted that night. >> that's part of that phone call. >> correct. part of that pressure campaign that donald trump now stands accused in the court of law of doing. so that's what i'm believing when it comes to ronna mcdaniel and not anything that she said today because of those credibility -- >> stephen, where do you fall on this? >> on the other hand if you read the criticism of nbc that has come since the announcement, it is clear that some of the critics don't want to be confronted with republican voices and conservative arguments, and that's bad.

we should have a robust exchange of people who believe different thing, but i agree with what's been said here. i mean, that's not what ronna mcdaniel is doing. that's not what she's been doing and she has huge credibility problems not because she's been a partisan spinner on behalf of the republican party because she not only presided, but directed and drove the qanonization of the republican party during her tenure, and it is the case that when you look at what she did with the fake electors specifically, she wasn't on that phone call because she felt bad about somebody. donald trump was on the call. he was telling them, she was saying, we'll get you lawyers because the entire six-week period after november 2020 election was about making case that the election had been stolen. she did a tremendous disservice to the country by making the argument that led to the erosion of faith. we have half of the republicans right now believe the election wasn't fair, and even today confronted with her past votes, she couldn't give you a straight answer until your fourth or fifth time.

>> chuck, final ten seconds. >> look, it is always important for this network to have a wide aperture in covering voters that have dispair khalids and ideological diversity on this panel, and i pride myself in, you and i take plenty of grief when we have ideological and political diversity and all of us in mainstream media do a terrible job of geographic diversity and all of this stuff and i call into question and sometimes people think they understand the politics of this country when they're sort of in a very, very, very blue city. you know, this is a washington operative. i don't think it's going to bring the network what they think it wants to bring to the network. i understand the motivation, but this execution, i think, was poor. >> someone said last night we live in complicated times. thank you guys for being here. i appreciate it. when we come back, my

conversation with retired supreme court justice stephen breyer, his thought of overturning roe v. wade, the state of politics in this country, and his decision to retire. that's next. decision to retire that's next. weakened enamel. i recommend pronamel repair. with new pronamel repair mouthwash you can enhance that repair beyond brushing. they work great together.

shipstation saves us so much time it makes it really easy and seamless pick an order print everything you need slap the label on ito the box and it's ready to go our cost for shipping, were cut in half just like that go to shipstation/tv and get 2 months free i still love to surf, snowboard, just and, of course, skate. so, i take qunol magnesium to support my muscle and bone health. qunol's extra strength, high absorption magnesium helps me get the full benefits of magnesium. qunol, the brand i trust.

welcome back. he sat on the highest court in the country for almost 30 years. justice stephen breyer confirmed in 1994 helped shape the nation's laws through four presidential administrations and retired the same year of the dobbs decision, which overturned the landmark abortion rights case, roe v. wade. i sat down with justice breyer at harvard law school this week where we discussed the controversial dobbs decision and his new book, "reading the constitution," in which he urges the justices to look beyond the word as ox originally written in the constitution to the real-world consequences that

rulings may have. >> you told "the new york times" of the court today something important is going on. what did you mean about that? >> i meant really what i've been writing here that i don't -- i think the most important thing or characteristic to focus on is a change in the way that people are interpreting in general this document and the statutes towards what did people originally -- when this was written, what did they take these words to mean in general? it's very attractive. you see that textualism and think, just read this. it's got the answer. fabulous. you've got the answer. just read it, and it's simple, and it will stock the judges from doing, they'll be bound by the text. you see, it sounds good. sounds good, but it doesn't work very well, in my opinion, and

that's why i've spent a year and a half trying to explain why. >> let me ask you about the immunity case, if i could. in april the court is going to hear arguments about donald trump's claim to be immune from criminal prosecution for his efforts to overturn the 2020 election. why do you think the court took the case, and was it necessary for the court to take the case? >> that's another one. i'm sitting around the table. i've read the briefs, and that isn't being coy. it's true. my goodness, you can make mistakes just by saying what your initial opinion is, and my goodness, how often it really occurs. i'm not just trying to get out of the question because i can get out of the question by saying i'm not going to answer the question, but the point is there are so many times when you think, look, this is how decision making -- and i bet it's true for you and i bet it's true for the people who work with you and i bet it's true for business people and others and that's why it's genuinely important to understand as best you can the details that are relevant to an important

decision, and i think that's true of everyone who makes those decisions and it's certainly true of the justice of the court. >> let me try it this way. were you surprised that they took of the case, or were you expecting them to? >> i may have thought about that, but that's too close. too close. [ laughter ] >> let me ask it this way. you are a judge who knows what it's like to take up a critical case in the middle of a presidential election. >> that was "bush v. gore," you mean? >> yes. >> i do remember that, and in my opinion, i wrote, they shouldn't have taken it up. that's what i thought about bush v. gore. i wrote they shouldn't have taken up the opinion. i think they should decide it the way. that was my view. why? it was a view reached after a considerable amount of work. >> i know that you're not going to weigh in on the current cases before the court, but big picture, justice breyer, do you

think that the people of this country deserve to know a verdict in the election subversion case before november? as a legal matter. >> you're still going. you have a lot of good questions, but they're all aiming at the same place. >> big picture. >> yeah. all right, big pick. >> do the people of this country deserve to know? >> the big picture is i'm not going near a case like that. that's an even bigger picture. >> let me ask you this. >> what? >> can you tell me what you thought on january 6th as those events were unfolding? >> on january 6th? you know, the biggest picture is to me that i tell myself, don't go near these issues. i was -- >> was it a tough day for you? >> many, many, many, many advantages and privileges when i think that i was a member of the supreme court of the united

states, and there are a few disadvantages, and one of those disadvantages is don't sound off on things that relevant, might become cases, et cetera, particularly whether you're on the court or not. you were on the court. >> let's talk about dobbs. it would be two years since dobbs, as you know, ended the constitutional right to get an abortion. you dissented. what do you think the impact of dobbs has been? >> what i put in this book -- and i want to stick to that because dobbs is a recent case. i said, i haven't said anything in this book that i didn't write, so in that dissent the three of us wrote together, sotomayor, kagan, and myself, one of the things we said, what we feel, they think this will be

will leave it all up to the states. we don't think it will be simple and we think there are a lot more cases coming up. what's going to happen when a woman's life is at stake and she needs the abortion? do you think if a state forbids that, that that won't come to the courts? i don't know. we thought it probably would, and we thought there would be a lot of issues coming to the courts, coming out of the decision to overrule roe versus wade. that's what we said in the opinion. >> well, and you also said the majority's refusal to consider the life-altering consequences of reversing roe in cases is a stunning indictment of its decision. >> we felt strongly on that case, yes. >> well, and i guess the question is do -- is what you anticipated come to pass? >> i want to stay away from -- it's not that i don't have answers for these things in my mind, but i want to stay away publicly from -- i want to stick

as closely on a recent case as possible to what i said in this book, and i did my best to stick to as close as possible to what is already public. in other words, we have totally opposite interests there because my interest is not to make news. [ laughter ] >> i'm trying hard, justice breyer. >> i know. >> let me ask you, in texas there were estimated to be more than 26,000 rape-related pregnancies in the first 16 months after the state's near total abortion ban was in effect, and part of the dissent does talk about the concerns about a patchwork of laws. is that part -- was that part of your concern when you dissented to roe being overturned? >> i -- i thought roe should not be overturned. i thought casey should not be overturned. >> can you see a world, a possibility in which dobbs is overturned one day in another 15 years? >> i don't know.

>> is it possible? >> oh, it's possible, but who knows? >> how disruptive was the leak to the court and to the relationships that you describe? >> it was unfortunate. >> were you angry? >> you try to avoid getting angry where that -- you try in a job, you try to remain as calm, reasonable, and serious as possible. i think it was unfortunate. >> how much discussion was there about a potential compromise around 15 weeks? >> you know as much about that as i do. >> you probably know more. >> chief justice roberts wrote, and when you see what is written, the normal situation is before something is written in the conference, people in some

form or other will discuss what they're thinking of writing. not always and not identical, but there's usually some discussion. >> did you think that a compromise was possible before the leak around 15 weeks? i usually hope for compromise. >> so you were hopeful there could be a compromise. >> you want to put words in my mouth. i'm careful with what i say on this because i say our interests are different. i don't want to make news. i've written what i thought. if you think there's news in here or in the dissent, go right ahead, but i don't want to say something in addition. >> just to be clear then, did you -- did you think it's possible? >> i always think it's possible, usually up until the last minute.

>> were cow you surprised that the internal investigation didn't determine who was actually behind the leak? did you -- >> you want to ask that question, ask the people who do internal investigations like that. they're the people to ask, you know, and they occur all over the government. >> but did you feel betrayed by the leak? >> that's a stronger way of putting what you've already asked. i was disappointed. i was -- i'm sorry about the leak. >> and do you have a theory of the case? do you think that the leaker was someone who wanted to sound the alarm about roe being overturned or wanted the draft opinion to be locked in place? do you have your own theory? >> do i have my theory about it? yes. >> you're not going to share them with me. >> correct. [ laughter ] >> can you talk about it in the broader context though? do you have a sense of what the motive of the leaker was?

>> that's part of the theory. >> and given -- fair to say how the fact that you're disappointed, you were not behind this in any way? >> i'm not even going to say that. i mean, i would be amazed if it was a judge. >> okay. >> there. but i don't know. you know, we never know. >> dobbs happened in part obviously because amy coney barrett replaced ginsburg who was still on the bench. do you think there should be age limits on the supreme court? >> i've said -- and i think it's true -- i don't think that's harmful. if you had long terms, for example, they'd have to be long. why long? because i don't think you want someone who is appointed to the supreme court to be thinking about his next job. and so a 20-year term, i don't

know, 18-year term, fine, fine, i don't think that would be harmful. i think it would have helped, in my case. it would have helped me case -- it would have avoided for me going through difficult decisions when you retire, what's the right time? and so that would be okay. >> how difficult was it for you to decide to retire? >> it's difficult. >> do you miss being on the supreme court? >> of course, but, yes -- you know, life -- human life is tough, and, moreover, you get older. and 85, which i am now, 83, i mean, you've been there for quite a while, and o'people also should have a chance at these jobs, and at some point, you're just not going to be able to do it, and i think i could do it, but nonetheless, there comes a time you have to figure out what's the right time.

there are lots of considerations. >> was the ideological balance on the court part of your conversation to retire when you did? >> there were a lot of things, therein, probably part. more of my conversation with the former justice airs next sunday. when we come back, a look back at how lawmakers felt about stephen breyer as he stood for confirmation. our "meet the press minute" is next.

hi, i'm kevin, and i've lost 152 pounds on golo. i had just left a checkup with my doctor, and i'd weighed in at 345 pounds. my doctor prescribed a weight loss drug,

but as soon as i stopped taking the drug, i gained all the weight back and then some. that's when i decided to give golo a try. taking the release supplement, i noticed a change within the first week, and each month the weight just kept coming off. with golo, you can keep the weight off. welcome back. trust in the supreme court is near an all-time low.

yet another sign of our hyperpartisan politics. the last four confirmations to the high court all mostly came down to party line votes, and, of course, president barack obama's nomination of merrick garland was never even brought to the floor, but it wasn't always this way. nominated by president bill clinton in 1994, justice breyer was confirmed by an 87 to 9 margin. here's how the senate leaders at the time talked about his confirmation process. >> let me ask you first about the supreme court, the nomination of stephen breyer. senator dole, your reaction? >> good choice. not a conservative, but i think not as liberal as blackman, a man of great intellect. he is respected by republicans or democrats, unless something unforeseen happens, it will be an easy confirmation. >> senator mitchell? >> i think he will be confirmed

easily. he has a solid record, good jurist. i don't think the labels conservative liberals mean much when applied to judges. history indicates that it's not particularly predictable as to the issues that would occur during his tenure or what the reaction would be. i think he's a very good judge of sound legal mind, good training, well experienced, and i think an excellent choice by the president. >> a very different time. more from the panel next. ent tie more from the panel next

after advil: let's dive in! but...what about your back? it's fineeeeeeee! [splash] before advil: advil dual action fights pain two ways. advil targets pain at the source, acetaminophen blocks pain signals. advil dual action.

the panel is back. kimberly, i'm going to start with you. as our lawyer at the table, what were your takeaways from justice breyer? >> first, it did not surprise me at all that he would not speak about anything about the supreme court. that say known tradition at the u.s. supreme court. but with respect to his book, which is about the reading of the constitution and the idea of the conservatives that you look at the text and somehow it magically tells you the answers

about what the founders intended and the book is there to lay that bare, and it's not just justices like breyer that talks about how not wise it is and how nonsensical it is because there are conflicts within the rights of the constitution. and other republicans have said the same thing, and anthony kennedy, david suitor. i wish that they would speak, too, about the misguided way that the conservatives are reading the constitution in the name of originalism. >> stephen, dobbs is at the center of the argument that he makes and there are real world consequences. >> there is a contextualism and there is an argument to be made for contextualism and if there were more time i would make it, but on dobbs, justice breyer talks about a potential compromise on dobbs. isn't it better to just adjudicate rather than compromises. >> let's remember why the court thinks it's politicized. the justices themselves have not wanted to do this. this has been brought upon our politics on that, what is broken

is the confirmation process, hopefully that process doesn't then destroy the judiciary, but it is on the u.s. senate to fix this, not the courts. >> and he talks about his concerns about the loss of public trust. thanks, you guys. that is all for today. thank you for watching. we'll be back next week because if it's sunday, it's "meet the press." they're trying to put my father out of business. this is new york state. this is what we're see. letitia james campaigned on this process, and now they're making him do something that's not