good to be with you. i'm katy tur. there are still questions left unanswered after a 20-year-old tried to assassinate a former president last month, including this big question, who is ultimately responsible for allowing the shooter to get so close. the director of the secret, kimberly cheatle has resigned under intense pressure, and many of the agents involved on that day have been placed on leave, but still, no definitive answers, which is why a bipartisan group of congressional lawmakers is investigating. they are visiting the scene of the crime today. that's donald trump's rally site in butler, pennsylvania. joining us now, justice

correspondent, ken dilanian, and nbc news capitol hill correspondent ryan nobles. we're starting with the story because the congressional group of bipartisan lawmakers are supposed to be holding a news conference. they scheduled it for 3:00, and we're waiting and will go there as soon as they begin. what are they looking for? >> some of the lawmakers are have visited the site, a butler native who represents the area and was at the rally when the shots were fired, but they wanted to go back as a group to get a visceral feel for the scene as they conduct this investigation and to speak to local officials in person. i was interested to hear the ranking democrat, jason crow tell you earlier today as an army combat veteran, there's no substitute for being on the ground looking at the site line and layout. this is one of a number of investigations into what happened, including a 45-day review by a group of experts appointed by dhs and two

separate probes by the dhs secretary general. they may have latitude to look systemically not only at what happened but why and who specifically is to blame. the secret service director has resigned and a number of agents have been placed on administrative duty. some critics say culpability for the security failures goes much deeper than that. >> one of the questions, if they were looking for a suspicious person, why was donald trump allowed on the stage. once there was a call for a guy on a roof, why was donald trump still on the stage, and one of the more basic things i have even after all of this time is how did the shooter get on to the roof. was there a ladder? was there another roof or another area that he climbed on top of to get to the roof? all of these things still feel very unclear even this much time after what happened? >> they have said he didn't use a ladder. they don't know, for example, why no one saw him with a gun. it had a collapsible stock, so it might have been in the

backpack. they haven't said why that was the case. from what we can tell, they still have found no substantial evidence of motive. they don't know why the shooter did it, essentially. and in terms of the security failure, there's an issue of why they were able to fly a drone, why the secret service had not deployed its counter drone technology, which it has. there's something about cell phone connectivity, and there are reports they were offered a local police drone but they didn't accept it. there's a whole issue of communications, why 40 seconds before the shots were fired, local police radioed, man with a gun on the roof. that was enough time for the secret service agents protecting mr. trump, to tackle him, get him to cover. they say they were not alerted until the shots were fired, and that's a fundamental issue of communication. they weren't on the same radio frequency, so a lot of questions to be answered there. >> it is shocking, and the other thing, ken, and andrea mitchell has brought this up a ton, when

you are protecting a president or a designee, you are supposed to make sure that they are below you, that you are covering them so that if there's any more fire, you take it. the duty is being in the line of fire for a president. and donald trump repeatedly was able to break free of them, address them, put his arm up, even when he was getting into the fire. are there questions about why the secret service wasn't more forceful with his body? >> absolutely. i wrote a piece about this for nbcnews.com. this is a thing that gets lost in the litany of failures that happened, but after the shots were fired, yes, the secret service agents beheavied heroically, but then they allowed donald trump to prevent them from taking him off the stage. whether he wants to move or not. and you can hear him on the video saying wait, wait, wait, and then he does his famous gesture to the crowd.

they had no idea at that moment that there wasn't a second shooter. that was fundamentally a flawed response, and no doubt that is going to be examined in this investigation. >> this is a bipartisan group of congressional lawmakers. what sort of authority are they wielding within the congress? >> they have quite a bit of authority, katy. the congress has oversight responsibility as it relates to the executive branch, the secret service which operates under the department of homeland security, falls underneath their purview. they have the ability and the right to subpoena documents, to call for interviews of the most high ranking officials that were involved in this process, as they're doing today. they have the ability to go to the site and take a look at the situation firsthand. our producer kyle stewart who's on the ground has seen members of congress on the roof where the shooter was perched. this is the kind of in-depth detail they're going to get as a result of this investigation, but there has been some level of

concern from particularly republicans involved in this investigation that they feel as though the administration is stone walling them a bit. that the secret service is not providing them all the details that they are asking for, and they have been insistent that they are not going to allow that to happen. they're going to continue to ask for these things. they're going to go to court if they have to to get some of this information. they have also made it clear that they're not going to allow the administration to stand behind some sort of a classified designation. there are many members of congress, republicans in particular that believe that the classification standards are over used by the executive branch, particularly as a way to prevent information from coming to this side of pennsylvania avenue. so they're going to get and request and demand as much information as they possibly can because not only as ken pointed out is there questions that revolve around the time line and the event and the incident itself, but they also want to break down these communication barriers to prevent something like this from happening in the

future. we are in the middle of an intention presidential campaign with a number of protectees. >> what about the heritage foundation with a hearing with their own questions about what happened the day donald trump was nearly assassinated? this was held with matt gaetz, chip roy, corey mills was there, and he's publicly said that he believes this was intentional, something shady was going on within the secret service. >> yeah, well, you know, katy, for the most part, we have seen a bipartisan reaction from members of congress in this assassination attempt. you have seen both republicans and democrats say very loud and vocally that this was a bad thing that happened, and it needs to not happen again, and whatever the government needs to do to prevent it from happening again, republicans and democrats are going to work to make that

happen. that's why you see a bipartisan task force on the ground in butler, pennsylvania. but there has been a subset of the most conservative republicans who just do not trust the federal government, and it's that group of members of congress who held what they called a hearing today that was conducted by the heritage foundation. it's not an official congressional hearing. any member of congress, any group of members of congress can get together and hold a public event and say that it's a hearing or put it under the banner of a hearing, but you definitely hear a much more conspiratorial tone of these members. all for the most part, members of the freedom caucus. they are suggesting that they are not getting straight answers from the administration, and they're also making it clear that they believe that negligence is not enough of an excuse, that they want to get to the bottom of this to definitively say this was not a purposeful act, there was not someone within the government who may have contributed to this happening willfully.

there is no evidence of that. no one has uncovered that. there's no suggestion of that. but this leads to that conspiratorial tone that we have heard from the separate group of members of congress who are conducting what they describe as their own investigation, and they have also said that they're going to independently attempt to get this information from the administration as well. >> all right. so we have been looking at the site of butler, pennsylvania, where the rally was, and we have seen some people taking pictures and looking at the building. now we see a parade of people in, you know, white collar work wear. shirts and khakis and button downs and whatnot. if this is the congressional delegation, as it looks like it is, they're going to approach the podium soonish, and we're going to take the news conference live to get a little bit more about what they're looking for, what they might have seen. we're going to watch this. in the meantime, i want to bring in msnbc national security analyst, and former fbi special agent, clint watts.

so as you're awaiting this news conference as we are, what are you listening for? >> i think the big take aways, katy, ken mentioned it, is the communications just across the board. why you would have multiple agencies at this location that couldn't communicate with each other is just a major break down. the 42nd warning that kim was talking about, how did this happen. why wasn't there a quicker reaction. the other thing that's interesting, the more i learn through reports is positioning of the snipers and who was able to see what and how. there were discussions of southern sniper team, having an obstructive view. the northern sniper team maybe not being able to, you know, fluidly communicate, one to the other. the response and coordination leading up to that day, and maybe there was communication offered to the secret service in coordinating, everything from

start to finish on this does not seem the way you would do it if it was a textbook operation. just the flaws and the gaps, and i think it's going to be quite remarkable when the facts come out. >> i was talking to a former official at dhs, and they were telling me that part of the issue could have been that there hasn't been an assassination attempt, anything that looks like this, even close to this in so long, and for much of the lives of many of the people who work in the agency, and that part of it could just be -- it hasn't happened before, there was a certain feeling like they were doing their job, making sure things like that don't happen and a certain lack of practice or lack of awareness because it didn't feel as immediate as it did, you know, in the '60s, '70s, early 1980s. >> it could be part of it, katy. part of it could be lackadaisical because it hasn't happened. the other part we may have overlooked is this happened right before the republican

national convention. that would probably be the single most important thing the secret service was working on at that time. just across the board, the capacity of the secret service to cover two campaigns, and during campaigns of a former president and current president, and the demands that have been requested of the secret service over the last decade, going all the way back to congressman giffords being shot in arizona, when you add all of that together, the strain on the agency as a whole to staff and prepare for that, for outdoor events, very complex, trying to secure all of those, i think you're right, there is complacency when you do it over and over again and don't have adequate threat intelligence. >> and now the crowd has gotten closer to the cameras. we can see it is congressman you, a number of others as well. this is a bipartisan group of

lawmakers going down to the site of the donald trump rally in butler, pennsylvania, where there was an attempted assassination just over a month ago, and they're there to get eyes on it, to see for themselves the situation, to see how somebody could have gotten on that roof, to try to understand the terrain itself where donald trump was and, again, how somebody, a 20 year old with a collapsible gun and a scope could get on that roof and fire multiple shots at a former president who had a high level of secret service protection. one that was so close that but for the slight tilt of his head at the exact right second could have very seriously harmed him, maybe killed him. just grazed his right here. yeah, his right ear. clint, the secret service agents that have been put on leave, what's the deal with that? >> reporter: it's hard to know, katy.

there's not much details about it. anytime there's an internal investigation like this, they often will put people on an administrative leave of one form or the other. doesn't necessarily mean there's any sort of guilt associated with him. it could be part of the investigation, they're just trying to conduct and make sure everything is clean and separate from the day-to-day operations of the agency. especially if the investigation is taking up so much of their time. just looking at this, i have seen this on a military end in law enforcement, whenever there's an investigation and you have the chain of command or participants that are highly distracted by it, it's not unusual to be put on administrative leave, pending the outcome of the investigation. we have some walking with purpose, it seems, towards the cameras here, and we're going to -- they're at the microphones. we're going to listen in. that is mike kelly, the chairman from this part of pennsylvania, and we're going to listen in to see what they have to say. >> i know there's been a great deal of question about so when is this task force going to

start its task. my answer is we started weeks ago. we actually have staff members who are working right now. now, if you're running for reelection, they have a little thing called the primaries in some cases, and the fact there's another election coming up. we're busy in our home districts from different parts of the country. different time zones, it's difficult to get together, other than conference calls. jason and i were together in normandy. he chose to jump out of an airplane. i chose to wish him luck. >> that was the smarter call. >> if you were to look at us and we just had a conversation, there's not one person on the conference identifying just as a republican or a democrat. we're identifying as members of congress on a task force with a task to restore the faith and trust in confidence the american people have to have in our system. so with that being said, jason crow, who has cochairing this with me, please, jason.

>> good afternoon, i'm jason crow from colorado, i want to thank mike kelly for inviting us to his home district. i want to thank the people of butler for welcoming us to the community. there has been a lot of attention and scrutiny on the community since july 13th, and they have been gracious and welcoming during our visit here. i want to thank the pennsylvania state police and the butler county sheriff's department for also hosting us and welcoming us and showing us around as well. you know, listen, something that doesn't happen very often happened in the house of representatives last month when we took the vote to establish this task force. and that is every single voting member of the house of representatives that day, all 416 members voted to create this task force and to empower this group to answer r questions for the american people. i think that sends a very strong

message that you don't have to be a democrat or a republican or an unaffiliated, to say that there's no room for political violence in america. you know, we have debates. we're going to have tough debates, and we're in the midst of an election cycle right now, and all of us are going to have those tough debates. in the united states of america, you do not get to attempt to assassinate elected official and candidates. it's unacceptable. we're standing in a bipartisan way, we won't tolerate it. we're going to get answers. the american people have a lot of questions. we have a lot of questions. what we hope to do here today is to help restore confidence in the american people that their elected officials and their candidates are secure. and we know there's a lot of americans sitting at home that don't have that confidence. that is our work. we're going to take it very seriously. we have limited amounts of time between now and december 14th. we're going to conduct a full, thorough, and robust investigation, and it's going to

be done in a bipartisan way. >> very good. thank you. so the members that are with me today, some of them have been here before. some have not. the first person i'm going to recognize is ms. laura lee from florida. please. >> thank you, chairman kelly, i'm laurel lee from florida. thank you to the people of butler for having us here today. it's important that the task force has the opportunity to do what we did, walk the grounds, see the area, get an understanding of the physical space and where this security shortcoming took place. and i'll tell you for many of us, it raises more questions than we came here with today because we can see, it's not a large place. we can get a sense of the area, and just how close these buildings were to that stage where president trump stood that day. so for all of us, having an opportunity to see and walk around and experience this was a really critical step in our investigative process. we go from here to have the opportunity to speak to many of the men and women from law

enforcement who were here on that day. and have information and facts that they can give to all of us. we have been working since the day this task force was formed. we have been working on getting answers for the american people. the members of this task force aren't just bipartisan. we come from all around america, and bring a background to this process that will help us get the answers the american people deserve. we have former military officers, intelligence officers, prosecutors and judges. and between us, we understand how to conduct an investigation and we are committed, all of us, to ensuring that we understand what happened on this day, and that the secret service and their law enforcement partners are providing that transparency so we can ensure that any protectee, both presidential candidates and any protect ee on the trail is kept safe. thank you. >> lou correa from california.

>> i want to thank the chairman and ranking member for putting this great team together. congressman correa from orange county, california. this was about democracy. american democracy. we have a campaign, an election for president, and for other elected offices throughout the country. we want our candidates to speak their minds, make their opinions, their thoughts, known to the american public, the voters. we don't want them to be afraid to speak their minds. we want to make sure we get to the bottom of this, make sure it does not repeat itself again, that our candidates are safe so that our democracy is safe. thank you very much. >> thanks. representative david joyce from ohio. >> chairman kelly, and ranking member crow, and all of my colleagues. i look forward to working with all of them to establish the

facts so we can make adjustments based upon those facts and delivered to the american people the answers that they deserve. thank you. >> congresswoman chrissy houlahan from pennsylvania. >> thank you, again, to the chairman and to the ranking member. my name is chrissy houlahan, i come from the other side of pennsylvania, philadelphia area, and where i serve and represent is roughly speaking 40% dem, 40% republican, and 20% independent. my community looks a lot like the commonwealth, looks a lot like the country, and my community wants to make sure that we can work together, that we can work together to get the answers that we deserve because there is no time when political violence is acceptable, and it certainly is not acceptable that anybody who is a candidate or seeking elected office should be vulnerable in this way and that the people gathered to hear that should be vulnerable in this way too. by my background, i'm a military

officer, air force, but also an engineer and an operator. i spent most of my life in operations. what i'm spending my time is understanding what happened in terms of procedures and protocols, and specifically, also, we'll be focusing on new technologies, such as the drone that was involved in this particular situation. i very much look forward to continuing to work with my colleagues, my dear friends, and all are my friendings, i look forward to serving the american people in this way. >> glenn ivy from maryland. >> thank you, congressman, my name is glenn ivy a congressman who represents a part of maryland, former federal prosecute. i had a chance to do these investigations as a staffer in the senate and house. i appreciate the bipartisan nature and approach that we have taken so far with this task force. as congressman crow stated, we had a 416-0 vote, and i thought

it was the right way to get started and sent the right message to the american people that we weren't going to let politics get in the middle of this. we were going to work together to get this done in a quick and expeditious way. it's so important as congressman said before to make sure everybody understands, whether they're candidates or voters alike that the democratic process will not be undermined by violence. we're going to make sure we protect all candidates and voters because we had someone who came to the rally who died that day, too, we need to make sure they're protected as well. i thank my colleagues here for the outstanding job we have been doing so far to get this thing started quickly, and the bipartisan approach we have taken so far. thank you. >> madeleine dean from pennsylvania. >> i represent suburban philadelphia, montgomery, and burks county. it's an honor to be serving with this task force. we are charged with a very clear mission, to get to the truth, to get to the facts to find the

gaps, and report that out. and we have a very short time frame to do it. you see here a number of people who are just serious about this in a nonpartisan way. so i'm honored to be a part of it. i want to thank chairman kelly for welcoming us here, and making sure we got to see what we can see here because as you can see, what's impressive to me is the proximity of everything here, particularly the position of the shooter and the position of the president. so glad to be here. i thank the ranking member crow. i got phone calls from both of you, and they both had the exact same idea of what we were to do, to get to the truth, to say there is no place for political violence, not just for candidates but for those who want to be civilically engaged. for those who came here excited to be part of something bigger themselves, they need to be free from violence. happy to be here with you. >> jared moskowitz from florida.

>> thank you, ranking member. thank you, mr. chairman. thank you for bringing us here today as democrats and republicans and as members of the task force and as americans. being here and seeing the proximity of the buildings, it reminds me quite frankly of how outrageous that the former director of secret service did not come here. as a former director of emergency management, i look forward to getting the facts of what failed that day. we were inches away from an american catastrophe, and then figuring out what steps we can take to make sure something like this never happens again. so thank you. >> so all the members have had a chance to speak, and i think the most important thing to recognize is we are u.s. representatives, not democrats, not republicans, but both searching for the answers, and reassuring the american people that we can work together, and we can get the right answers, so

this doesn't happen again. i think for jason and i, it was an easy thing to get on board with because we're more team members than quarterbacking things, but i got to tell you, we're glad to be here. and all of our colleagues that are with us, it's fantastic to have you here. the idea that they can come to the exact site to see what happened is incredibly important. i'm going to open it up for a few questions. we are on a busy schedule because we have a lot of other stuff we're going to be talking to, local law enforcement is waiting to talk to us. as quickly as we can, we'll take some questions. >> a clear line of sight when you were on the roof, how stunned were you? i'm told there were zero obstacles to the stage. can someone speak to that? >> only because i was here much earlier and i saw all of this go on, but i think when you talk to the members of the committee who actually have done military service, they look at it, and they look at the measuring of distances, and they said, how

could this not have been prevented and the burning question that's always going to be with me, there was knowledge ahead of time that there was a person of suspicion on that roof and armed. the key was get the former president of the united states off the podium, then there's nothing that has to take place. not only did we lose many compatore that day, the brooks family lost their son. >> before congress i was an army ranger, i served in iraq and afghanistan. the fundamental principle, you secure the high ground. or you have eyes on the high ground. i took note today that there were a lot of lines of sight that appear to have been unsecured that day, that didn't have eyes on or that weren't secured, and certainly at this point, a lot more questions than answers. >> can you share which federal agencies you-all have communicated with thus far, to some other lawmakers have also

been separate probes, accused the fbi and secret service of stone walling. can you say whether you all have experienced that thus far? >> we have asked for information, right, and we've got partial information back. the whole effort for this task force is to make sure we get all the answers to the questions we ask, and be able to go forward from there. i think we've got to be very careful because there's reports out by five members of the secret service have been put on leave. whatever the term is. the question comes up, what did we know that we didn't react to? i just think really, at this point, and i think whenever jason and i talked, the most important thing is not get it out quickly but get it out accurately so the american people can say, that makes sense. when you do day after day of a different opinion, that adds to the idea they're hiding something, stone walling, whatever, we have made requests. the staff in d.c., right, they are going through all of this, they're getting answers for us.

we did have a phone conversation last night with the fbi. we're longing for the time that we can be together. set the different committees, what was it that you were doing that day, and let's follow up on that. i just think getting to the troop is a slow process, and for us, none of us are looking at it as we have to get a quick answer. we're looking at it we have to get the right answer. i just know with his background, everything they do is planned, as a special ops guy, everything is planned. it just doesn't happen. that's what we rely on. we've got really good people looking for the truth. so. >> thank you, chairman. our staff is in regular communication with the federal agencies involved. we have received federal briefings. one to the members just last week with the fbi including a staff level briefing from the secret service as well. we have sent one letter, the chairman and i sent one letter

sum assuming jurisdiction, according to the legislation that was passed last month, we are the sole task force of jurisdiction for the house of representatives for this investigation, and we are proceeding that way. and, you know, with respect to any other investigations, the fbi is conducting a criminal investigation, there are inspector general investigations that every agency conducts as a matter of course, and you know, we are aware of other members conducting reviews, but, again, this is the committee or the task force that the house of representatives has empowered with subpoena power, full investigative authority to conduct the review. >> congressman. >> and i'll just add to that. to this point, we have heard from a number of federal agencies, from secret service. we have been in contact with the fbi. we have had a briefing with the fbi, and more than that, we also have heard and have had an opportunity to interview many of the men and women from state and

local law enforcement who are a critical part of the security procedure on that day. we have also reached out to and will continue to hear from the men and women who attended the rally because their observations what they saw and heard and things that in some cases they recorded on their phones are all part of the developing the full fact picture of what happened that day. it is very, according to the note, because we are taking over the investigations that, of course, as soon as this happened, immediately congress sprang to action, a number of committees within congress that touched jurisdiction, started their own investigations. we consolidated into one place. >> we are going to dip out of this news conference because we have breaking news to bring you on the special counsel's classified documents case or what was of it. joining us now, msnbc legal correspondent, lisa rubin, so special counsel jack smith has filed an appeal to get this case back on track.

it's about 93 pages, 81 pages, excuse me, what is the argument. >> well, katy, the argument is what we expected it to be. essentially judge aileen cannon ignored precedent when she found that the four statutes that merrick garland invoked, did not comport with the constitution. in doing so, she then found that under article 1, section 2, both the appointments clause and the appropriations clause, there was not constitutional authority for the attorney general to appoint jack smith or any other special counsel because that person was operating sufficiently independently of the department of justice, that they should be senate confirmed. in this brief, the thing that i was really looking for was an argument that judge cannon should be removed or recused from the case. i don't see that yet in the 81 pages that you just mentioned, but of course we just got this a moment ago, and it will take i

and others some time to parse through it. >> i'll be watching my e-mail, because i know we have a number of people reading through it. i'm going to ask you to translate it from me. the other provisions, 28 usc, and 509 and 510, they grant the attorney general broad power, jack smith argues to operate the department of justice. they also authorize him to appoint the special counsel in this case. those provisions, first enacted as part of the law that created the department of justice authorized the attorney general to structure and staff the department in order to fulfill his law enforcement responsibilities. and attorneys general have long relied on sections 509 and 510 with congresses full knowledge and approval to create the justice department's institutional infrastructure and congress has long used similar provisions to authorize other department heads, such as the secretaries of defense, state,

treasury, and labor to appoint inferior officers to carry out critical work. >> the second part of what you mentioned, analogizing to other departments in the executive branch is a really interesting argument because essentially they're trying to say, if you undo this, and you don't allow merrick garland, for example, to appoint special counsels, there will be reverberations not only across the department of justice but the entire executive branch where secretaries rely on similarly worded statutes to appoint people who otherwise aren't senate confirmed or appointed by a president to do the important work of the national government, katy. >> why are they citing nixon here? >> nixon is the case that essentially says there is power through these statutes, section 509 and 510, and two more that invests power in the attorney general, to appoint the officers. their argument is that jack smith is such an inferior officer. judge cannon disagreed, saying

that that language from nixon is what legal scholars would call not central to the holding of the case but an ancillary side observation or remark that the court makes that doesn't have effect. nixon is binding on her and all other courts, it's the same reason the d.c. circuit, when asked to pass judgment on the propriety of the appointment, then special counsel mueller came to the office as conclusion, that judge cannon did. >> they're appealing to the 11th circuit? >> that's right. >> what's the expectation? >> finding the indictment, two decisions she made having to do with the appointment of a special master were not really appropriately grounded in law, and the second of the two decisions, finding that the special masters process was fully unlawful was a decision

joined by three republican-appointed judges, two of whom were trump appointees themselves. the 11th circuit has a history of being somewhat maverick where it comes to former president trump. we'll see if they continue that streak here, katy. >> without specifically asking for her to be removed, could the 11th circuit come to that conclusion independently? >> i believe that they do have that authority. i would have to check that. but i do believe they could come to the conclusion on their own. on the other hand, it would be a much easier conclusion for them to reach if it were an issue briefed by the special counsel's office. you and i have discussed before that this was really the first decision made by judge cannon that could amply support an allegation if the special counsel's office wishes to make it. >> do we have an idea how long this might take? >> we don't have an idea of how long this might take.

the special counsel's office has not come to the circuit and requested expedited oral argument or anything that would move this along. it appears they're acting the same way they're acting in the case before judge chutkan, not to rush things along before the november election but do everything they can to shore up what is remaining of these cases, neglecting or ignoring gt fact that there's an election in the background, just trying to do their jobs with blinders on to the impact on the election. >> you set the foundation for my next question. what is the latest on the judge chutkan case, the case regarding donald trump and the election? >> on friday of this week, the parties have a joint status report due to judge chutkan, where they are supposed to tell her each of their respective positions on how she should proceed with that case in the wake of the supreme court's presidential immunity decision. they were supposed to do that on august 9th, katy, as you will remember, and then the special counsel's office came forward on that day, and said you know what, we need more time to do

consultations through different components of the department of justice. i should note that in saying that, they're essentially undermining one of trump's best arguments here by saying, hey, we have to talk to everybody else at the department of justice. we have to talk to the dad's office, and maybe to the criminal division, to the olc and such. they're essentially saying, hey, we're part of the this whole department. we work well with others. we are part of the attorney general's structure, and that's what remains to be seen. what it is they need three weeks for, they have to find out on friday. >> if donald trump wins the election, it is expected he would dismiss or stop pursuing both of these cases against him, these federal cases. lisa rubin, thank you very much. >> thank you, katy. coming up next, will they or won't they? what is suddenly throwing the first debate between these two people, the first time, by the way, that kamala harris will ever be speaking face to face to donald trump ever, what's throwing it up in the air?

why it might not happen. don't go anywhere. appen. don't go anywhere. tlong in the app to $6.99. wait, subway did what?! $6.99 footlongs? yep! says right here. $6.99 for any footlong. get this deal in the subway app now before it's too late. did you know your skin barrier is more receptive to skincare at night? olay super serum night repair. delivers five benefits in one. visibly renewing surface skin cells while you sleep. you'll see visible results in 7 nights. olay. it's payback time. all these years, you've worked hard. you fixed it. you looked after it. in 7 nights. maybe it's time for your home to start taking care of you. we've invested in our home, we've worked on it, we had a whole lot of equity just sitting there, you paid down the mortgage, invested in your home. i guess, you could say, your home owes you. if you're 62 or older and own your home, learn how you

could access a portion of your home equity to give you cash. a reverse mortgage can put more money in your pocket by eliminating your monthly mortgage payments, paying off higher-interest credit cards, and covering medical costs. look, finance of america can show you how a reverse mortgage loan uses your built-up home equity to give you tax-free cash for almost anything you might need just eliminating the mortgage payment freed up a lot of cash for us i get to do what i want when i want finance of america customers talked about the counseling they got along the way so they know how a reverse mortgage works, and how their home could help pay them back when they need it the most. i have no more worries anymore the fact that we're still in this home, means so much. it's done everything for us that we hope it would do for us. call now to receive your free no-obligation info kit. the kit shows you how to get you the cash you need

using your home's equity with a reverse mortgage. find out how your home can start taking care of you. call this number. the worry every single month to make that payment was gone our customers' homes are taking care of them. maybe, your home could do the same for you. call finance of america, the country's #1 reverse mortgage lender and get your free info kit. call this number. (woman 1) all right, here we go. uggggh. (man 1) oh no, no, no, no, no, no! (man 2) what's my next step? oh! ugh. (girl) dad. (vo) you break it. we take it. (woman 2) we can take it. (vo) trade in any phone, in any condition at verizon for the new google pixel 9 with gemini. (man 2) give me a recipe with these ingredients. (girl) let's do that one.

(vo) only on verizon.

craig here pays too much for verizon wireless. so he sublet half his real estate office... [ bird squawks loudly ] to a pet shop. meg's moving company uses t-mobile. so she scaled down her fleet to save money. and don's paying so much for at&t, he's been waiting to update his equipment! there's a smarter way to save. comcast business mobile. you could save up to 70% on your wireless bill. so you don't have to compromise. powering smarter savings. powering possibilities. there's a lot of debate around the next presidential debate on september 10th, the first between donald trump and vp harris. harris wants the rules changed to keep the mics hot for the duration of the debate. he keeps signaling that he doesn't want to face off with her. >> do you still plan to

participate in the abc debate? >> i watched this weekend, it's the worst of all networks, george, the worst. >> turning now, nbc news who's encounter, mike memoli, shaquille brewster in detroit, michigan, where former president trump will be later today, and nbc news correspondent vaughn hillyard. so, mike, is the debate going to happen? >> reporter: i think so, katy, but i think, you know, this debate over debates tells you a few things about where we are in this campaign. it tells you about the difference at the top of the ticket on the democratic side. remember, it was the biden campaign that originally successfully dictated the terms of these two debates when they proposed them in may. first, having no audience, and second, having a mute button that the candidates wouldn't be speaking when the other candidate was talking. well, in retrospect, i think many biden advisers will tell you they would have preferred to have the free wheeling exchange, that the president's poor

performance may have been in part because he would have benefitted from having a more lively exchange with donald trump. kamala harris, the vice president, of course, her team thinks this is to their advantage. the more donald trump is heard from, the better it is for them. they think that he has the potential to step in it, perhaps, by continuing the insults that he has been waging in interviews and campaign events, before a much bigger national audience, including a lot of swing voters. brian fallon, a spokesperson for the harris campaign saying in a statement that donald trump shouldn't be hiding behind the mute button. we have seen in a tweet that based on trump's comments today, they think this is a done deal, that this is now set, trump indicating he would be open to not having the mute button anymore. the trump campaign for its part is accusing harris of imposing her own wishes for new rules, including to be seated, to have opening statements, part of a pattern of her not agreeing to take tough questions in

interviews. you saw fallon's statement, they think this is a go. >> the fallons on the team, obviously has a lot of experience with donald trump. he was part of hillary clinton's team in 2016. and it's interesting because kamala harris doesn't have all that much experience with donald trump. i read the only time she has been in the same room with him was during one of the state of the unions. vaughn hillyard, how does the campaign feel, the trump campaign feel about having the mics on? and i ask about that because donald trump seems to have a different feeling about than his campaign does. listen to what he told our embed, jake trailer. >> would you want the microphone muted in a debate whenever you're not speaking? >> we agreed to the same rules. i don't know. doesn't matter to me. would rather have it un, but the agreement is that it would be the same as it was last time. in that case, it was route muted. she wants to get out of it.

she's not a good debater. she's not a smart person. >> trump would say he's a master at debating. how does the campaign feel? >> he doesn't need to prepare much, he told jake here. he started off the morning suggesting that the harris campaign was wanting to change the rules from what was initially agreed upon by the two camps, and of course, usually when the presidential debate commission is the one overseeing this, there's not much room for back and forth here. for the trump campaign, it was the harris team trying to suggest susie wiles, scared to have their man mic'd up, not muted, saying statements like he did with hillary clinton that are off putting or frankly offensive. the question is could kamala harris more effectively than joe biden sort of poke donald trump because we know that he is reactive. his own team who worked at the white house with him, several former administration members

have talked about he's easily provoked and you're able to get him rattled. the question is would kamala harris use that to her advantage, and the trump team wants to keep the rules in place as they are. >> shaq, what are you expecting later today as donald trump heads to michigan? he has been focusing a lot lately on the whether he will debate with veterans. today he was at arlington national cemetery, honoring vets and the fallen from afghanistan. >> reporter: right. yeah, and earlier today, actually, katy, he wrapped up his remarks 45 minutes ago to continue that conversation you were just having. we did hear the former president address the debate quickly on stage, talking about an argument, suggesting he wouldn't make an argument because he wants to save it for the debate stage, and at least shine some light into that at least when he was on stage earlier today. you saw him struggle a little bit between trying to lean in and do his normal political speech in front of this

nonpartisan group, a group with many uniformed service members in the crowd, and also try to kind of take that more solemn tone and honor and acknowledge those 13 service members who were lost in afghanistan just three years ago. and you heard him do a little bit of both. to that last point, he not only used it as a line of attack against vice president harris and president biden saying that they just aren't strong enough as leaders, but he took it a little bit further and suggested that if he's president, there's some action he will take going back to that attack that we saw three years ago. just listen to a quick bite of that moment. >> we'll get the resignations of every single senior official who touched the afghanistan calamity to be on my desk at noon on inauguration day. you know, you have to fire people. you have to fire people when they do a bad job. we never fire anybody. you got to fire them, like on "the apprentice," you're fired. you did a lousy job.

>> reporter: there was also some policy points that were tucked into his speech. he proposed a space national guard. i have seen an expansion of the space force that he created as president. he also talked about wanting more from nato countries. instead of that 2% of spending in their military budgets, he says as president, he would push for 3%, katy. >> let's talk a little bit more about policy for one more beat, and this is j.d. vance trying to explain or go around, dance around what the trump policy will be on immigration. remember at the rnc, there were the mass deportation signs now, kristen welker on "meet the press" asked j.d. vance about whether that means the trump policy again will be family separations. let's play that. >> will families be separated under your mass deportation policy. >> >> i think that families are currently being separated nd you're certainly going to have to deport some people in this country. >> so that's a yes. >> you start with the most violent criminals in this

country. kamala harris' policies have led to thousands upon thousands of migrant children living with sex traffickers and drug cartels, that is the policies of her policies. >> but there is not a policy to separate families -- >> if you know that your policies will lead to family separation you don't get to claim -- kristen, this is important. kamala harris cannot claim she doesn't know that her policies are leading to family separation. they are. >> it's hard to be committal when you don't know whether your running mate wants family separation or not. donald trump has not said that he would not reimplement the zero tolerance family separation policy that he had during his first administration, which separated more than 5,500 children from their parents, just this april department of homeland security said that there are still more than 1,400 kids that have yet to be reunited with their parents. of course tom who willman the one time ice director for donald trump in that first administration and steven miller who was an adviser in the white house to donald trump they both remain close allies to home and would likely be key members of a

potential second trump cabinet. if you are calling for mass deportation let's be very clear. if local law enforcement is going and seeking to deport undocumented individuals who are detained, violent criminals or not, there would be in effect family separation understanding that a great many kids in this country have undocumented parents, but they are citizens themselves. >> jason miller -- steven miller had said that he wants a million immigrants, undocumented immigrants, deported every year. vaughn hillyard, shaq brewster, mike memoli, thank you very much. let's talk a little bit more about immigration. immigrants and their families a group of them today are pleading with a federal court to save the biden administration's parole in place program which let's undocumented spouses of u.s. citizens remain in the country while applying for permanent residency. last week texas and more than a dozen republican led states moved to block the program which one immigrant involved called devastating saying, quote, it's just absurd to me why texas

would bring a lawsuit that would literally tear my family apart. joining us nbc news national correspondent david noriega. this flows in well from the answer we got from j.d. vance or the nonanswer we got from j.d. vance to kristen welker on "meet the press." tell me more about this fight to keep this parole in place program. >> yeah, katy. this is a program that is estimated to apply to about half a million undocumented immigrants who are married to u.s. citizens. a lot of them have u.s. citizen kids, that mixed status families you were just talking about. these are people who are embedded in their communities. i spoke to a guy who is one of the immigrants who is moving to intervene to help defend the program from texas and these other states. he came to the u.s. as a child from sierra leone when his family fled the civil war, he now works as a prosecutor in the office of district attorney. he is emblematic of the people

that this program seeks to protect. texas, 15 other republican states with steven miller and america first legal say that this program is unlawful, that it circumvents the constitution and will harm the united states and states generally. i asked the man moving to intervene what he thinks about that, what he thinks of the contention that the program is harmful and take a listen to what he said. >> i am just one of millions of spouses of u.s. citizens that actually are contributing to this country's economy. i've been here all my life and i'm an attorney here, my life -- i'm boarded to practice law in pennsylvania so does texas think i'm going to unroot my son who needs me, my wife who needs me, my community who needs me just because texas doesn't like the idea that families staying together and they want to target and rip families apart? >> texas filed this lawsuit in a district in eastern texas where it was guaranteed to land before a trump-appointed judge so it has. the question now is whether that judge will move immediately to

pause the program while the case works its way through the courts or whether the federal government will be able to continue processing applications such as foday's. that is what we're going to be looking for in the days and weeks ahead. >> david, thank you very much. in the battleground states of nevada, michigan and pennsylvania more than 12% of workers belong to a union that is higher than the national average so it's no surprise that both the trump and harris campaigns are courting the labor vote there, but labor issues are not the only vote driver. among union members. joining us nbc news senior business correspondent christine romans. all right. so you can't paint them all with a broad brush, they may be voted on union issues. >> they are talking about women's reproductive rights but also you have some traditional, you know, lunch bucket democrats, they used to be known, who are really concerned about law and order and immigration. there are other issues not just the traditional monolithic union vote at play here. you talked about some of those

battleground states, it's fascinating 12% union representation is about 10% nationwide. back in '83, 1983, it was more than 20%. so the near term you have a resurgent kind of labor movement but you go back to the '80s the union vote was a much bigger deal. >> what happened in the '80s to bust a lot of unions? >> wall, that's washington at work, right? i mean, there was a distinct effort to break down the unions and have less union, but more recently they were resurgent and clearly both candidates are really trying to woo that vote. >> led by ronald reagan. i wish we had more time but we got crunched at the top. thank you so much. that's going to do it for me today, "deadline: white house" starts after a very quick break. " starts after a very quick break. ♪ (man) yes! ♪ (vo) you've got your sunday obsession and we got you.

now with verizon, get nfl sunday ticket from youtube tv on us and get every out-of-market sunday game. plus $800 off samsung galaxy z fold6. only on verizon. (jalen hurt) see you sunday. here's to getting better with age. here's to beating these two every thursday. help fuel today with boost high protein, complete nutrition you need, and the flavor you love. so, here's to now... now available: boost max! ugh, when is my allergy spray going to kick in? -you need astepro. -astepro? it's faster, bro. 8x faster than flonase. it's faster, bro! it's faster, bro! it's faster, bro! it's mom to you. astepro starts working in 30 minutes. astepro and go!

we're trying to save the planet with nuggets. astepro starts working in 30 minutes. because we need the planet. and we also need nuggets. impossible. we're solving the meat problem with more meat. it's hard to explain what this feels like. moving piles of earth. towing up to 4,000 lbs. cutting millions of blades of grass. nothing compares to experiencing it for yourself. you just have to get in the seat. rsv can severely affect the lungs and lower airways. but i'm protected with arexvy. arexvy is a vaccine used to prevent lower respiratory disease from rsv in people 60 years and older. rsv can be serious for those over 60, including those with asthma, diabetes, copd and certain other conditions. but i'm protected. arexvy is proven to be over 82% effective in preventing lower respiratory disease from rsv

and over 94% effective in those with these health conditions. (♪♪) arexvy does not protect everyone and is not for those with severe allergic reactions to its ingredients. those with weakened immune systems may have a lower response to the vaccine. the most common side effects are injection site pain, fatigue, muscle pain, headache, and joint pain. arexvy is number one in rsv vaccine shots. rsv? make it arexvy. ♪ i'm gonna hold you forever... ♪ ♪ i'll be there... ♪ ♪ you don't... ♪ ♪ you don't have to worry... ♪

hey, everybody. it is 4:00 here in new york, i'm alicia melendez in