live in new york, this is "reliable sources" where we examine the story behind the story and figure out what's reliable. we are standing by for news from the g7 summit where president biden is expected to speak at any moment. we will take you there live with jake tapper when it begins. first the never ending argument over abortion access. here are two "new york times" front pages side by side. 1973, supreme court rules abortion legal in the first three months. then 2022. the same ruling overturned. 49 years of fights and prayers and medical advances and societal changes and i am left

wondering what will the front pages say in another 49 years? will we be in the same conversation? one difference between 1973 and today is real time data. searches for abortion were especially high this week in areas like madison, wisconsin, kansas city, missouri, and salt lake city, utah. areas where the procedure is now banned. this weekend google searches for the question, can i get an abortion are over indexing in those states where it is now illegal. missouri, wisconsin, kentucky, arkansas, oklahoma all the top of the google trends data. axios reports that the top queries related to abortion right now include, is it illegal? abortion banned states, and abortion pill. searches for abortion pill are highest right now in red states including some that have already banned abortion and others likely to follow. so this data is important. it provides an insight into what people are searching for in the privacy of their own homes and it is buttressed by local

reporting showing impacts of the bans. it is critical to have reporters in states telling these stories. quote, the end of roe v. wade is one of the most important stories of our lifetime, veteran health care reporter recently wrote. at its center she wrote the story of abortion is about medical and what happens when it is denied. quote, it is attempting to focus on political battles but at heart it is about medical care and health equity. let's analyze the media coverage of the topic now with several great guests. kate smith, the senior director of news content at planned parenthood and a former cbs news reporter who covered reproductive rights. susan matthews is here, news director at slate and host of the podcast slowburn, roe v. wade. sarah longwell, republican strategist and director of the republican accountability project, publisher of the bulwark. thank you for coming on. susan, your podcast is about

1973, those decades ago. can you compare and contrast the media coverage back then with now amid the never ending argument? >> yeah. i want to start by saying something about the front pages you put up. the top headline on the day after row v. wade came down was lyndon b johnson had died and it took precedent over the roe v. wade decision. the justices knew it would be a big deal when they announced it but had no idea it was going to be the controversy it is now. they actually thought, the justice said, things are going to be unsettled but eventually states will adjust and we'll get back to just accepting the ruling. i think they would be very surprised to see the headlines we've seen this weekend. >> that we're back here right now. >> exactly. >> sarah, you've been doing focus groups including in the wake of the ruling by the supreme court. so can you give us a sense from your conversations how important

this news is or is not to the average american? >> yes, so i did a focus group with swing voting suburban women about a week after the leak. what was so interesting was we would ask people kind of an open ended question. what issues matter most to you? what is the most on your mind? very reliably the answer was the economy, health care. the economy health care. inflation, the economy, health care. and only a couple people mentioned reproductive rights or roe. this was right in the wake of the leak. when you drill down, when you ask these women directly, how do you feel about roe being repealed, a lot of them identified themselves as pro life themselves, they were very alarmed by what they saw as government overreach, an attempt to regulate their bodies. so what i took away from that is it is not sort of a top of mind issue for a lot of these voters unless you are able to make it a high issue, sort of prosecute this case. then people feel very strongly

about it. these women felt very, very strongly but it was not top of mind. >> kate, what is your reaction to that? you work on this issue full-time at planned parenthood. what do you do as news director? >> we have an exciting announcement soon, not yet, but basically trying to help our patients navigate through what is an incredibly chaotic time for public health. i don't think there has been a larger seismic shift of the way health care gets delivered in the wake of this supreme court decision. we'll be helping our patients navigate that, understand their rights. all of those google searches you showed. >> right. >> there's a lot of bad faith actors on the internet. i don't need to tell you that. we are trying to cut through that as well because we know on the ground, you know, this fight is far from over. right? it goes to the states. >> due feel you have competitors so to speak at christian pregnancy centers who do the same job you do encouraging people not to get abortions? >> absolutely. they have been doing this for

decades. let's level set here. since roe v. wade was decided in 1973 there has been an unrelenting 49-year battle for the news you saw on friday. we are a little bit on our back foot. a little bit. but we're coming out there and we are competing with those people. we have the upper hand, right? because doctors work at planned parenthood. they don't work at live action. >> susan, a big, broad question. do you think the media is slanted in its coverage of roe v. wade and the aftermath? here is kate, worked at cbs and now works for planned parenthood. is the media as an institution biased on thissish yao you? >> i think the media is a lot of different things but i think the main thing i would say about this issue in particular is support for abortion has been consistent basically since roe v. wade. and a majority of americans actually want access to abortion care. you get into a situation with the media where one side actually represents a majority view of what voters want, americans want, then you have a small minority of people who

have really strong views on this issue and they've been doing so many things as you're saying, to make their views the dominant ones, to be top of google searches, influence the supreme court, and you have this back and forth. >> think about this in the coverage in the last couple days. i see all the split screen images. one person cheering, one person jeering. i see tears on one side and celebration on the other. that 50/50 split, isn't that misleading and distorting? >> absolutely. that is a complete disportion of the facts we know about how people feel about abortion access and specifically the leelt legality of abortion. we know #8 in 10 americans want abortion to be legal. when you put the split screen up of one person who loves it and one who hates it is completely ignoring the facts. >> which to be fair we are doing right now. >> well where is your news director? i'm kidding. >> it is all me. i choose the videos. i did this on purpose because i

think this is part of the issue. new cbs polling from your alma mater today, abortion in your state should be what? 9% of americans say illegal in all cases. the rest say either illegal in most cases, legal in most cases, or legal in all cases. only 9% of americans say it should be completely illegal in their state. >> yet we have states doing exactly that. before the roe ruling we saw oklahoma pass a ban on abortion at fertilization. how many americans agree with that? >> how does this sit with you as a republican strategist, someone maybe more tuned in to conservative media than the cater. how do you read this? >> i think one of the things i've seen, i've been a republican for a long time but ever since donald trump i have watched this republican party radicalize and become more extreme but right now there are a number of governors who are the republican party candidates in states like pennsylvania

where they believe in absolutely no exceptions in the case of rain, incest, life of the mother. i think the task for democrats is really sort of prosecuting that case broadly of extremism against these republicans because they are out of step with where sort of the average person is who does want some restrictions on abortions but doesn't want total restrictions on abortions. that is what i see in the focus groups from the swing voting women. the idea of a total restriction really sits poorly with them. >> three more notes of the media coverage. politico was right. that scoop, the scoop of the century getting that opinion, they were right. this is really interesting and a big debate inside of newsrooms. a lot of guidance went out saying, hey, journalists, be careful. don't take sides. don't put something on twitter you might regret. did that happen at slate for example? >> that certainly did not happen at slate. slate i think does not have that

point of view. which i am grateful for. >> what do you think of the newsrooms that do, "new york times" and others, hey, be very careful here to make sure we're objective in this coverage of this issue. >> as a journalist i understand the desire to be objective in the sense that makes you trust worthy. the other issue here is when you think about what is happening now and it has not happened since 1973, before roe v. wade newsrooms were basically run by men. the reporters were men. they didn't actually face the issue of how to deal with this. >> this just caused the problem. all the coverage of the topic, no one ever talks about sex or the men in this story. it drives me crazy. >> when the action was happening to liberalize abortion rights it was a time when women were becoming doctors, lawyers, and also journalists. i talked to a woman who worked for the women's section of the miami herald in 1971 and she

said her beat had been the four fs food, family, fashion, and she got a story where someone was being prosecuted for abortion and she was like i get to approach this as a real story. i understand. she went and talked to ob-gyns and did her reporting differently so i think is this objective is a question we still have to answer. >> i completely understand if you are the dedicated reporter covering this why you need objectivity both in and outside of the newsroom. >> did you? >> absolutely. i stand by that. >> you did. >> yeah. because look. you know how i feel about this. i think abortion should be legal. i tried extra hard to make sure i was doing a lot of both sides in my journalism. i'll be honest. i look back on some and i think i went too far in giving some of the antiabortion folks more air time and a little bit more faith than they deserved a lot of the time. but to go back to your question, if you're that reporter it is important. what if you're not? what if you're just a random

person in the newsroom? i think what newsrooms need to remember here is that 1 in 4 people, 1 in 4 women will have an abortion in their lifetime. when they are telling their reporters you can't talk about this, how many reporters are in the newsroom because of an abortion, because they were allowed to have control over their bodies? right? so i think it is, the newsrooms really need to think about this and how the economic impacts of abortion and how unfair it is they are telling their reporters, not for you. you can't talk about that. >> this the big inside the newsroom debate right now about what people can and cannot be saying online. one more note about the media. does the press have a giant blind spot about religion? so much of this topic is about religion. you know, it is about certain, not all religion, right? specifically christianity. and yet i don't hear as much about that in the television coverage as i think maybe we

should. >> it is certainly a key to understanding. there is a sense women are kind of monolithic and would all be sort of pro choice because this is an issue that protects them. funny, in the focus groups, when i talked to women who voted for donald trump they were very conflicted about voting for donald trump. one of the number one reasons i heard about why they chose to do it is because they were a christian, pro life, conservative. and that was the kind of thing that kept them voting for republicans even when they were very uneasy about sort of all the other baggage that came with donald trump. so i think sometimes when you are not aware of how important that can be to somebody's identity you can miss why a woman you might assume would vote for a democrat actually wouldn't. >> religion is a big piece of the story. we have to make sure we show all of these pieces. to the panel, thank you very much. sarah, please stick around. more with you in a moment. important note from the los angeles times before we go to

break. rough treatment of protesters as well as journalists by the l.a. pd. pretty disturbing the way some of the reporters were treated when out covering the protests this weekend. after the break we'll have frank talk about political violence in the u.s., plus standing by for news from the g7 summit. president biden is expected to speak at any moment. age-related macular degeneration may lead to severe vision loss. and if you're taking a multivitamin alone, you may be misng a critical piece. preservisi. preservision areds 2 contains thonly clinically proven nutrientormula recommended by the national eye institute to help reduce the risk of moderate to advanced amd progression. "preservision is backed by 20 years of clinical studies" "and its from the eye experts at bausch and lomb" so, ask your doctor about adding preservision. and fill in a missing piece of your plan.

like i did with preservision" about two years ago i realized that jade was overweight. i wish i would have introduced the fresh food a lot sooner. after farmer's dog she's a much healthier weight. she's a lot more active. and she's able to join us on our adventures. get started at longlivedogs.com i have moderate to severe plaque psoriasis. now, there's skyrizi. ♪ things are getting clearer, i feel free ♪ ♪ to bare my skin ♪ ♪ yeah, that's all me ♪ ♪ nothing and me go hand in hand ♪

♪ nothing on my skin, that's my new plan ♪ ♪ nothing is everything ♪ achieve clearer with skyrizi. 3 out of 4 people achieved 90% clearer skin at 4 months. of those, nearly 9 out 10 sustained it through 1 year. and skyrizi is 4 doses a year, after 2 starter doses. ♪ i see nothing in a different way ♪ ♪ it's my moment so i just gotta say ♪ ♪ nothing is everything ♪ skyrizi may increase your risk of infections and lower your ability to fight them. before treatment, your doctor should check you for infections and tuberculosis. tell your doctor if you have an infection or symptoms such as fevers, sweats, chills, muscle aches or coughs, or if you plan to or recently received a vaccine. ♪ nothing is everything ♪ talk to your dermatologist about skyrizi. learn how abbvie could help you save.

there's a monster problem and our hero needs solutions. so she starts a miro to brainstorm. “shoot it?” suggests the scientists. so they shoot it. hmm... back to the miro board. dave says “feed it?” and dave feeds it. just then our hero has a breakthrough. "shoot it, camera, shoot a movie!" and so our humble team saves the day by working together. on miro.

some news happening now at the g7. president biden about to speak and announce a new global infrastructure investment initiative. for more let's go to cnn's jake tapper on the ground standing by for the president. jake? >> reporter: hey, brian. that's right. the g7 partners have a lot on their plate and obviously want to avoid global recession and figure out how to dissuade russia's muscle flexing and attacks on the ukrainian people. but right now the seven leaders

have come out to talk about a global infrastructure initiative. this is in no small part aimed at taking on and challenging what china is doing with the belt and roads initiative. china developing throughout the world infrastructure though the u.s. and g7 partners say this project which i think there is about #$200 billion in grants ad other forms of infrastructure investment, this project will not leave all the other countries in china's debt. so it is an attempt to make the case to these developing nations don't get into bed so to speak with china because they are just going to own you because of all the debt you'll accrue in the infrastructure they build in your country. we are here to help you out as a g7 partner, trying to look at the world more broadly and holistically as a way to have democracies engage in the developing world beyond the way that they're doing. so right now let's listen to president biden.

he just walked up. >> our nations and our world stand at a genuine inflection point in history. technology has made our world smaller, more immediate, and more connected. it's opened up incredible opportunities but also accelerated challenges that impact on all of us. managing global energy needs, taking on the climate crisis. dealing with the spread of diseases. and the choices we make now in my view are going to set a direction of our world for several generations to come. these challenges are hard for all of us. even nations with resources of the g7. but developing countries often lack the essential infrastructure to help navigate global shocks like a pandemic. so they feel the impact more acutely and they have a harder time recovering. and our deeply connected world, that is not just humanitarian concern. it's an economic and security

concern for all of us. that is why one year ago when this group of leaders met at c cornwall we made a commitment the democratic nations of the g7 would step up and provide financing for quality, high standard, sustainable infrastructure in developing and middle income countries. what we're doing is fundamentally different because it is grounded on our shared values of all those representing the countries and organizations behind me. it is built using the global best practices, transparency, partnership, protections for labor and the environment. we're offering better options for countries and for people around the world to invest in critical infrastructure that improves the lives, their lives, all of our lives and delivers

real gains for all of our people. not just the g7. all of our people. today we officially launched the partnership for global infrastructure and investment. we collectively have dozens of projects already under way around the globe. i'm proud to announce the united states will mobilize $200 billion in public and private capital over the next five years for that partnership. we're here today because we're making this commitment together as a g7 in koordation wnation with each other to maximize the work. collectively we aim to mobilize nearly $600 billion from the g7 by 2027. these strategic investments are areas of critical to sustainable development and to our shared global stability. health and health security, digital connectivity, gender equality and equity. climate and energy security.

let me give you some examples of the kinds of projects that are under way in each of these areas. first, health. two years ago covid-19 didn't need any reminders about how critical investments in health care systems were and health security is. both to fight the pandemic and to prepare for the next one because it will not be the last pandemic we have to deal with. that is why the united states together with the g7 partners and the world bank are investing in a new industrial scale vaccine manufacturing facility in senegal. when complete, we'll have the potential to produce hundreds of millions of doses of vaccine annually for covid-19 and other diseases. it is an investment that will enhance global vaccine supplies as well as improve access and equity for developing countries. second, the digital area.

our economy's future increasingly depends on people's ability to connect to secure information and communications technologies. we need to strengthen the use of trusted technologies so that our online information cannot be used by autocrats to consolidate their power or repress their people. that is why the digital invest program is mobilizing $335 million in private capital to supply secured network equipment in africa, asia, and latin america. the u.s. government also supported the successful bid by an american company sub com for a $600 million contract to build a global sub-c telecommunications cable. this cable will stretch from southeast asia through the middle east and the horn of africa to europe. this will be essential to meeting the growing demand for

reliable, security, high tech connectivity in three key regions of the world. third, gender. when women and girls have the ability and the opportunity to participate more fully in those societies and economies, we see positive impacts not only in their communities but around the -- across the board. we have to increase those opportunities for women and girls to thrive including practical steps to make child care more accessible and affordable as we continue the vital work to protect and advance women's fundamental rights. the united states is committing $50 million over five years to the world bank global child care incentive fund. this public/private partnership supported by several g7 partners will help countries build infrastructure that makes it easier for women to participate equally in the labor force. fourth, and very important, climate and energy. we're seeing just how critical

this is every day. the entire world is feeling the impact of russia's brutal war in ukraine and on our energy markets. we need worldwide effort to invest in transformative, clean energy projects, to ensure that critical infrastructure is resilient, to changing climate. critical materials are necessary for a clean energy transition including production of batteries need to be developed with high standards for labor and environment. fast and reliable transportation infrastructure, including railroads, ports, is essential to moving inputs for refining and processing and expanding access to clean energy technologies. for example, the u.s. government just facilitated a new partnership between two american firms and the government of angola to invest $2 billion in building a new solar project in angola. it is a partnership that will

help angola meet its climate goals and energy needs while creating new markets for american technologies and good jobs in angola and i suspect throughout africa. and in romania the american company new scale power will build the first of its kind small, modular reactor plant. this will help bring online zero emission nuclear energy to europe, faster, more cheaply, and more efficiently. the u.s. government is hoping to advance the development of this groundbreaking american technology, which will strengthen europe's energy security and create thousands of jobs in romania and the united states. these deals are just some of what is in store. we're ready to get to work together, all of us, to lead efforts, to lead u.s. efforts in my case, i appointed my special presidential coordinator to deal with the rest of our colleagues.

i'll l i'll lead the whole of government approach to drive collaboration with g7 and countries around the world including multi sector and multi lateral development banks. i want to be clear this isn't aid or charity. it is an investment that will deliver returns for everyone including the american people and the people of all our nations. it'll boost all of our economies. it is a chance for us to share our positive vision for the future and let communities around the world see themselves and see for themselves the concrete benefits of partnering with democracies. because when democracies demonstrate what we can do, all that we have to offer, i have no doubt that we'll win the competition every time. thank you. now i invite president vanderline to the podium. >> reporter: you heard president joe biden standing with the g7 partners, the other six countries plus the european

commission talking about what is called at the summit a deliverable, in other words, they don't have these summits and nothing gets accomplished. usually in the months if not years leading up to it they arrange what is going to be announced at a summit such as this one. this is one of the primary deliverables, which is a $600 billion investment by the g7 partners, $200 billion of that from the united states, in investing in infrastructure around the world. you heard the president, president biden talking about solar investment, nuclear investment in countries such as angola. there is a lot more these leaders have to discuss of course, brian. they have as you heard a lot of russia and ukraine on their minds. russia of course being responsible in many ways for high energy prices around the world and, of course, there are fears of a global recession so they'll be talking about ways they can improve when it comes to the inflationary pressures, it comes to supply chain

pressures, and the like. but what we just saw is basically the number one deliverable for the day, which is $600 billion for the united states and the g7 countries to combat what china is doing in investing in infrastructure around the world. this would be the g7's way of countering that. >> jake, thank you so much. we will see you again on state of the union here at the top of the hour. the specter of political violence is now a daily story in the united states. every single day. political scientists who study this for a living say they see lots of warning signs it is getting worse, that the country is at risk of downward spiral. it is imperative for the news media to take these threats seriously. this month an extremist caught with riot gear near a pride parade in ohio. an unstable man arrested near justice kavanaugh's home and charged with attempted murder. so many other examples. thankfully they don't usually boil over to physical evidence

but look at this episode that easily could have. republican lawmaker dan crenshaw being harassed by far right guys who tried to pick a fight with him. violent imagery is the theme of this new campaign ad by disgraced former missouri governor eric gradens running for senate now and yielding a gun saying he is going hunting for fellow republicans who have disappointed him. it is that threat of violence that is so egregious. it can succeed in getting people to sit down and shut up. outside houston for example an iraq war vet and professional soccer player was going to be the grand marshal for a local 4th of july parade until conservative commentators on the parade attacked her support for gun control and comments in favor of transgender rights. she withdrew from the parade citing threats. here is another one from outside asheville, north carolina. restaurant owner faces threats after hosting grag show. the internet makes it all too easy to intimidate others, spread fear, and maybe cause some people to back away from the public arena all together. we heard about that at one of the most recent january 6th

hearings. how donald trump triggered harassment of poll workers. some of the lawmakers investigating trump's coup attempt have beefed up security because they are facing so many threats now. of course january 6th was a glaring example of political violence. people using force to try to get their way. the supreme court's ruling against abortion may be used as an excuse for even more unrest. right wing media outlets and stars have been stoking fears of left wing mass violence as this report notes. fox and news max warned leftists were planning a night of rage, these banners said things like the left is threatening violence against justices. thankfully, that has not materialized. protests have been almost entirely peaceful this weekend. on saturday, fox naturally highlighted, quote, anarchy by pro roe demonstrators in arizona. christian pregnancy centers, places that oppose abortion and encourage women to give birth, have been targeted by vandals in several states. right wing outlets say the rest of the media is not paying enough attention to that. conversely, there was the

democratic senate candidate allegedly hit in the face by her republican rival in rhode island on friday. and in iowa a driver of a truck who hit abortion rights protesters. political violence can never be treated as normal on any so-called side. but if each side only highlights criminality by the other side, where does the u.s. end up? in a downward spiral where violence begets more violence. where it becomes normalized. and where we all suffer. media outlets have to connect these dots. it is an essential story right now. so let's talk more about it with cnn's senior political analyst ron brownstein, republican strategist sarah longwell and, tom, all of this violence, these threats, these ads, what do you think is causing it? what is at the core of this? >> i think there's a complex relationship here between the internet, which lowers the cost of making threats, you know,

anyone sitting with their phone or in front of a desk top can simply dash off the most angry thing that flashes through their mind in a matter of seconds. i think that is part of it. i also think two other really disturbing things are happening. one is that there are people in positions of leadership like donald trump and others who have normalized this and made this kind of call to violence seem like a normal part of american life. you know, in an earlier time, this -- people calling for this kind of violence, doing these stupid ads like very menacing imagery, that would have been, would have generated a lot of public disapproval even within their own parties. >> right. they would be ashamed out of it. >> yeah. i mean shame, you know, serves a function in public life. and now we have become certainly

people like this and others just a shameless society in that regard. i think there are people now gravitating toward violence because they think it will give their lives meaning. because they want to be involved in the great drama of events. you saw this with the guy that was going after justice kavanaugh. he said, point blank, i was looking for meaning in my life. i think there are more of those folks out there than we might want to believe. you saw that with a lot of the january 6th people. you know, i wanted to be part of something important. i wanted to be at the center of major events. that makes people very vulnerable to calls for violence. >> very interesting. let's put up on screen data from the center of strategic international studies. they found in 2020 most attacks, political violence, related to demonstrations, were conducted by far right perpetrators. in 2021 most attacks were orchestrated by violent far left individuals. i imagine the situation, sarah, where it just gets worse and worse. the right sees what the left

does. the left sees what the right does. those partisan outlets only cover what the other side is accused of doing. and so we go down this downward spiral. does this come up with you in your focus groups of voters? does it come up in your coverage at "the bulwark?" >> all the time. one of the most sort of pernicious impacts of political tribalism is the inability to hold your own side accountable and to think the problem is always on the other side. >> right. >> whenever i ask republican focus groups about, you know, the violence on january 6th, the answer always inevitably is what about the black lives matter protests? you know, what about all the left wing violence, them showing up at judges' houses. they'll say something like, the one time it was republicans, you know, everybody focuses on it. and so there is really a sense of being able to sort of excuse your own side while saying the problem is really on the other

side. i think that as long as we do that as you note you are in this kind of vortex of backlash where people treat violence on their own side as a one off and violence on the other side as embedded in the culture of what that side is. >> exactly what i'm seeing happen in partisan media. ron, i think this happens to your most recent column for "the atlantic" titled "america is growing apart possibly for good." tell us, you published this a few hours before the supreme court decision. >> yes. >> then the supreme court decision reaffirmed it because now there is a big, glaring difference between blue states and red states that didn't exist as dramatically before. haven't you been writing these columns for decades, ron? >> yes. i have been writing about the widening gap between red and blue america certainly for 15, 20 years. for the last decade after the 2012 election i wrote about the

fundamentalal dividing line in our politics between those voters and places who welcome the way the country is changing and those who fear it and feel marginalized by it. and the big story, brian, is if you look at 20,000 feet for the middle decades of the 20th century at a broad level america was converging. the differences were narrowing between what we now think of as the red states and the blue states both in terms of the opportunities for their citizens and especially for the rights that everybody enjoyed. now we are clearly moving in the opposite direction. roe is the symbol of what i believe is a fundamentalal attempt by the axis of republicans controlling the red states, republican majority on the supreme court, and republicans wielding the filibuster in the senate to reverse a race, roll back the rights revolution of the 1960s, which, you know, started with the civil rights acts, voting rights act, the one man one vote

decision, griswold, on contraception, interracial marriage, abortion, later same sex relations and marriage. basically reducing the ability of states to constrict and roll back, restrict fundamental national rights. we are now clearly moving in the opposite direction toward an era of what i call the great divergence between red states and blue states but even that i think is a way station. i think the evidence is overwhelming this axis, their goal is to impose the red state program on the blue states as well and bring us to a point where these values drive national policy on abortion and civil rights and other issues. whether or not there is majority support for them. that is of course how it ties into trump's efforts to overturn the election. >> right. the divergence. this pulling apart. conservatives talk about a national divorce. that is the context for what we've gone through this week with the supreme court. sarah, i think i might lose your satellite feed in a couple minutes. i want to ask you a question before the break about a slightly different topic.

we've talked about your focus groups. you have a really interesting finding from one group about donald trump. tell us what you found about the 1-6 hearings and what those voters are paying attention to. >> yeah, look. going into the 1-6 hearings one of the big questions was would it matter? would it break through to voters? i found two things that i thought were really interesting in the two trump voting focus groups we did after the hearings began. the first one was that people knew the hearings were happening. that's not always the case. i remember when the kevin mccarthy tapes leaked and everybody in washington was talking about it and i went into the focus groups the next day and said what do you guys think about the kevin mccarthy tapes and everyone gave me blank stares. they had no idea what i was talking about. so everybody in these focus groups were aware of the hearings. some people watched part of the hearing. they mostly thought it was a dog and pony show, just an attempt to get donald trump. but the most interesting thing to me was, i have done dozens and dozens of focus groups since

january 6th happened. in every single focus group of trump voters at least half the group has always wanted to see donald trump run again in 2024. he still had that committed base. in these two groups since the january 6th hearing, zero people in either group wanted to see donald trump run again. so there is the question for me, is it's not that the hearings are convincing these people that they don't like donald trump because they're not really watching them. but the question is, it makes donald trump -- donald trump is a lot to defend. it sort of reminds people, a, he will not let this 2020 thing go which i think is becoming kind of boring and tiresome to some people and also they want to move past the conversation about january 6th. so i think for some voters that also means moving past trump. and it helps i think for republican voters. i've been pretty skeptical of this trump script, you know, slipping on the gop. but i think it helps there are other people, other candidates that these voters are excited about. they're really excited about ron

desantis. they like tim scott, kristy nome. that is also playing a role >> i think we might remember this conversation. let's find out. we'll let you go get brunch. more with tom and ron in a moment. later this hour, really important story, a followup to the death of the ukrainian photo journalist max levin. his partner is going to join us live with new information about his death. ♪ you've got a lovely day to do it in, that's true ♪ [ chucuckling ] ♪ and i hope whatever you've got to do ♪ ♪ is something that... ♪ [ music stops ] [ beeping ] cars built with safety in mind, even for those guys. the volkswagen atlas with standard front assist. ♪ ♪

moderate to severe eczema still disrupts my skin. despite treatment it disrupts my skin with itch. it disrupts my skin with rash. but now, i can disrupt eczema with rinvoq. rinvoq is not a steroid, topical, or injection. it's one pill, once a day, that's effective without topical steroids. many taking rinvoq saw clear or almost-clear skin while some saw up to 100% clear skin. plus, they felt fast itch relief some as early as 1 week. that's rinvoq relief. rinvoq can lower your ability to fight infections, including tb. serious infections and blood clots, some fatal, cancers including

lymphoma and skin cancer, death, heart attack, stroke, and tears in the stomach or intestines occurred. people 50 and older with at least one heart disease risk factor have higher risks. don't take if allergic to rinvoq, as serious reactions can occur. tell your doctor if you are or may become pregnant. disrupt the itch and rash of eczema. talk to your eczema specialist about rinvoq. learn how abbvie can help you save.

this month's january 6th hearings have wrapped. the proverbial show will continue in july. donald trump's media allies say

these are show trials and worse as there is all sorts of name calling but fox notably did show the daytime hearings live. of course throughout the rest of the media you've seen this hearing going viral, short clips on social media, the committee has tried to be very media savvy about the way it has rolled all of this out. but there is still a nagging question about how much has broken through. to the average american left, right, center or whatever. let me show you some fascinating ratings charts that tell the story about the state of the country and television viewership. this is june 16th. the red line is fox. you see the ratings decline when the hearings start to air. the ratings snap right next to normal when the hearing is over. on the other hand viewership for cnn and msnbc dramatically increased during the hearing. this is june 23rd. these are even more detailed minute by minute ratings. up and down, fox declines dramatically. the audience craters when the hearing is on but all the viewers come back at 5:00 p.m. for the talk show because fox went back to regular

programming. so that is the reality. fox's audience turns off the hearings. and yet as sarah longwell said earlier, the information does seem to be seeping through. her impression from focus groups of trump voters is that information from the committee's findings is reaching trump supporters. let's talk more about this with tom nichols contributing writer of "the atlantic" who recently wrote about trump's voices and, tom, your headline was, what are trump supporters so afraid of? tell me what you were trying to get at there. >> part of the problem and this links back to what we were talking about with political violence is cognitive dissidenc is a difficult thing to bear. they are afraid of being confronted with the reality of what happened, the reality of donald trump in his own words and trump officials in their own

words, basically affirming to them that they have been lied to, were conned, taken to the cleaners. this makes them really uncomfortable and they will turn off the television, shout down conversations, you know, just react with anger because that is kind of a normal human thing to do when you find out how wrong you've been. i think that is one thing they're afraid of in this whole period where cess esis just, instead of speechifying, congress is saying here's bill barr, ivanka trump, three of the top guys in the justice department. it is really hard for them to bear and i think it makes them deeply uncomfortable and provokes them to anger. >> interesting. well, ron, have you watched all these hearings, do you feel the committee did enough to convey this was a present tense and future story not just about one bad day in january but an

ongoing threat? did that message come through? >> i think it came through about donald trump that donald trump is an ongoing threat to american democracy. i think the committee has not tied in what he was doing in the red states with the threateningly with the legislation enables more partisan manipulation and interference in the tabulation of votes. you know, it's interesting, this question of whether the committee is reaching enough republican voters. look, we know from polling very consistently over the two, really, the six years since trump emerged, roughly 75% of republicans are firmly in his camp. i mean, but there are 20 to 25% of republicans depending on the question who deny that the election, disagree that the election was stolen, who believe trump does bear a lot of culpability for the january 6th attack and say that he should be

prosecuted. those voters have enormous potential leverage in the republican party. i mean, the voters who do not support the direction, the anti-democratic direction that the trump faction is taking the party, if they basically said i am not willing to go down this road, there would be a lot more pressure on republican elected officials to not do so but the fact they're willing to give their votes to republican elected officials who enable and support and drive forward operationalize trump's big lie basically means that all the pressure in the party comes from one side, comes from the trump side and that is, you know, what sarah, i'm sure if she was here, she would say for republican voters who feel that trump is taking the party in a dangerous direction and anti-democratic direction, a racist direction, she would say, the democrats are a bigger problem so i have do vote for republican. rusty bowers to say he would vote for trump until those

voters who disagree with this direction, who disagree with the anti-de an anti-democratic direction take action, they'll continue to go in that direction. >> good to see you both. up next, a loved one pursuing the truth about her partner's death in ukraine, covering the news. on our hotel with kayak. i was afraid we wouldn't go.. with our divorce and.... great divorce guys.. yeah... search 100s of travel sites at once. kayak. seararch one and done. every once in a while, my heart can feel a little off. and even when it doesn't, i like to feel good about my heart health. that's why i have kardia mobile. kardia mobile is the only smart device in the world that is fda cleared to detect the three most common heart conditions in just 30 seconds. and having one in your pocket not only gives you peace of mind, the doctor will thank you now. kardia mobile is proven to detect atrial fibrillation, one of the leading causes of stroke. it also detects bradycardia,

tachycardia, and tells you when your heart rhythm is normal. you can use kardia mobile anywhere. it lets you put your health in your own hands. i didn't think anyone could be happier about that kind of independence than me. but my doctor is over the moon. thank you. feel good about your heart health with kardia mobile. order yours today at kardiamobile.com or amazon. ♪ ♪

i had been giving koli kibble. it never looked like real food. with the farmer's dog you can see the pieces of turkey. it smells like actual food. as he's aged, he's still quite energetic and youthful. i really attribute that to diet. get started at longlivedogs.com

one of the many journalists killed since russia's invasion of ukraine is max, the photojournalist for ukrainian news site when missing in march. found dead two weeks later with a soldier he was traveling with. a new report shedding light on the moments leading up to his death with disturbing details that paint a picture of the horrors that media outlets have faced while covering this war while civilians all across ukraine. here to discuss this is levin's partner, who participated in the new investigation at reporters without borders.

thank you for coming on. i'd love to see what viewers should know about max and document this war. >> max's documented war since 2014, he was always telling the people, the people around the world to know what is going on. no wonder when the invasion begun in the 24th of february, he was on the, i would say, the hardest place, where the biggest battle was going on. he really wanted to show people, right, that it's russia who invaded ukraine and that there's

russian soldiers and also, he wanted always to show that we only defend ourselves, that our soldiers, it's just the people who defend with families. >> the new report from reporters without borders who found he was executed in cold blood. cnn not independently verified this information, but this report coming out. i know the report in the production, how has this been for you to learn about these findings? >> it's hard. i don't know what else to say,

but it seems to feel like i really wanted to know what happened. it's like bothering me because at the time, it's 2nd of april when i got information that the body was found. the friends of ours, they showed me one picture. they didn't want me to see that. but still, in general, i think i saw that and i was, like, surprised why it looks like that. i mean, why his body looks like that, with the glasses as he read the report and with no bulletproof vests, it was really a lot of question about that.

it seems to know exactly what happened there, nothing, like, nothing really changed but it's still, like, for me personally. >> he sacrificed so that we could see the truth, and i hope that learning more about his death has given you some closure. thank you very much for coppmin on the program and talking with us. >> okay, thank you. >> we're out of time here on tv. we'll see you at reliablesources.com and be back here at this time next week. hello, i'm jake tapper live in germany at the site of the g7 global summit where joe biden called for the world's democracies to band together to face rising challenges. coming up, i'll speak exclusively with secretary