and there's also an increase in holocaust denial that these crazy people out there say it just was made up, there really was no holocaust. 6 million jews were not murdered by the nazis. that has sadly intensified in recent years. we thought it was really important to take a tour of the u.s. holocaust memorial museum here in washington which was created, what, 30 plus years ago by the u.s. government to remember what happened during the holocaust, because if we don't remember, god forbid, it could be repeated. so i took a tour with sarah bloomfield, the long-time museum director, who's an amazing woman. indeed all of the people who work at the museum are really amazing. hard working, dedicated, devoted. all those who were involved in founding and creating the museum deserve a lot of our credit. millions of people have toured the holocaust museum in washington, it's so important. so i wanted to take our viewers

on a tour. so i walked around. watch this exchange i had with sarah bloomfield, the museum director. we're speaking about the shoes, the shoes that are on exhibit at the museum. watch this. >> these are shoes, old shoes. >> this is one of our most iconic exhibits. if you visit these killing centers today, you see thousands upon thousands of shoes like this. the shoes of the victims. the germans took their shoes because they were going to reuse them and recycle them, if you will. but of course the victims would be killed. but this is what is left of those lives. >> these shoes are 80, 90 years old and they're here. the only surviving elements for all those people who were exterminated. >> this is the trace of the people before they were gassed. >> i think of those shoes.

my four grandparents, we didn't have anything. nothing was found basically. it's just horrendous, horrendous situation. it's so important, so timely to remind people who don't know anything about it. >> and i think it's so important, i'm sure you'll agree, jim, that people who come to visit washington, go to the washington mall, 14th street, and take a tour of this museum. even those of us who have grown up children of holocaust survivors, we learn a lot every time we go there and it's so, so powerful, so important. >> i've been. i plan to go back. wolf blitzer, it's great to have you on. "never again, the united states holocaust memorial museum" airs tonight on cnn at 11:00 eastern time. the news continues, so let's hand it over. i called you the great laura coates. i'll call you the super great laura coats tonight and "cnn tonight." >> tomorrow maybe the super wonderful great, i don't know,

but nice to see you, jim. thank you so much. at 11:00 p.m. right after this, that documentary will show with wolf blitzer. i am laura coates and this is "cnn tonight." now, i know frankly you've already seen the big headline, the affidavit we've all been waiting for, it's here. i mean, yes, the search warrant affidavit to search donald trump's mar-a-lago estate is out and it says that 184 classified documents, including some that were top secret, were recovered from mar-a-lago in january. now, we've seen this headline and we've gone through parts of it. but tonight we're learning more and more of the why. why federal investigators believed that there was more. why they needed to search the place in that way. now, i'm not here to simply rehash a headline. frankly, i heard it nine hours ago. i want to go beyond it, and i want to really understand what's in that document and what is not in what we've been shown in these 38 pages.

and i also want to know who it matters to and for what reason. we keep hearing about this entire thing, and really this affidavit is some kind of an inkblot test. so we're going to approach it a little bit differently tonight. i'm going to look at this affidavit through different lenses, kind of like the inkblot. what are you seeing versus this person. i'm going to break it down collectively, methodically. first, we start with the facts as we always should, so everyone is on the same page and we know exactly what is here. i'll talk to three journalists who have been steeped in this since day one. we'll go and parse through the facts line by line, things like this line. just how top secret were these 184 documents, for example. you see this excerpt here? a lot of acronyms, i admit, in alphabet city washington, d.c. is, but it means the documents had indications that contained human source intelligence in them. national defense intelligence,

and more. we're going to dig into what that really means. and what does the justice department mean when it says there are, quote, a significant number of civilian witnesses? just what did they know and what does that number mean and what is the context and how did they help this investigation? the former president can't possibly be taking this well. people in his midst were talking to investigators? i'm going to get into that too. then after our journalists, i'm going to talk to our legal and investigative pros that are on this set right now and they have their copies of the affidavit. we'll see what they think and what goes through their minds and how to view it through their expert eyes and how they look at a line like this one. quote, there is also probable cause to believe that evidence of obstruction will be found at the premises. do they think there was enough probable cause? we're going to break it all down. and then of course there's this, and i want you to focus on at

some points the minutia. not just the 38 pages and all the words that are there, but let's focus on a single letter. the little "e" you see in parentheses there. that is a specific part of the espionage act and it's a detail we frankly didn't know about before, but what it could mean for trump and his allies. we'll delve after that. after that i'll talk politics and look at how all of this might come out in the wash. >> this is a political attack on our country, and it's a disgrace. and the people understand it. >> do they? how are the voters, a la the people, understanding it and viewing it? i've got three politics pros to break it down for us. but let's just admit, this so far is like the biggest puzzle piece that we've gotten so far into the search warrant. we've received a lot of information, but to date this is the biggest puzzle piece. and now i want to talk specifics

about what it tells us and the overall picture that it now creates and most importantly what it means. let's go to our three top reporters, justice correspondent jessica schneider, kristin holmes and kyle cheney. i'm so glad to see you all here. we've been waiting for this information. although it's redacted, there is a lot there. kyle, let me begin with you here, because now we know the tally of classified info just in those january boxes, right? 184 classified documents, 67 confidential, 92 secret, 25 top secret and what's more, some of these docs had an alphabet soup of markings like hcs and si and orcon. what was so alarming to the investigators about this? >> well, that alphabet soup you just described really gave us the best sense of why the justice department took this as seriously as they did. hcs, that's human source

intelligence, people out there risking their lives to get intelligence to the united states are in this information sitting in an unsecured basement essentially. things like special intelligence, things that are gathered from foreign intercepts that, again, some of the most highly classified and protected secrets that the u.s. government has sitting in a box somewhere mixed in with other materials, personal items, things that have nothing to do with this kind of information. and so that's -- again, you just said that's the 15 boxes that were given back to the archives in january. that's not including what was discovered there subsequently when doj went to visit and then in the search. so they not only were alarmed by what they received voluntarily back in january, but then have discovered more information we have insight into, so presumably it's more alarming than that. >> that's a really important point we have to underscore. this is information in the affidavit before they executed the search warrant. this is what they were using to

justify the search that we heard about two weeks ago. jessica, to that point, a major point that was mostly redacted in the affidavit was on page 26. and it says there is probable cause to believe that documents contain classified ndi and presidential records remain at the premises. and of course they were right about it. they got a dozen more boxes on august 8th. and even though on june 3rd, the dates are in order, on june 3rd, christina bobb, trump's attorney, said all classified material had already been returned. so what does it signal about maybe potential charges knowing that timeline? >> it gives a lot more details as to what investigators were building on. remember, we saw in the search warrant application that was released recently that investigators there specifically focusing on three different criminal statutes that include willful retention of national defense information, concealment of government records, and obstruction. and what we're seeing now is the

unredacted parts of this affidavit really give us the glimpses of how investigators are building their case on all three of those. so we see how extensive the classified information was that they retrieved in january and how it did cover in fact national defense information, which is in this willful retention statute. you know, the affidavit, you mentioned it, laura, refers several times to obstruction, saying that these investigators believed in fact they would find evidence of obstruction at mar-a-lago when they served that search warrant. and then concealment of the records. you know, that's seen in the back-and-forth with the archives, trump's team, the fact that they weren't relinquishing this material. and then you mentioned june 3rd. that was when trump's lawyers signed that affidavit saying that there was no more information at mar-a-lago, which we obviously know was not true because of the search warrant and what was taken then, including 11 sets of classified documents. so the question is does that letter play any part in this obstruction or concealment criminal statute?

so a lot of questions here. but we're getting a bit more information as to the underlying information tonight in the affidavit. >> so important to think about. the idea of that certification saying there's nothing else here, and then having these boxes removed even after this search warrant. kristin, to you, the doj mentions it is trying to protect civilian witnesses. they have all these redactions. how do you think trump's people are seeing this, this idea of all of the redacted information, but it's covering up likely the names of people who have been instrumental in providing probable cause basis? >> well, laura, this idea and focus on witnesses and a potential mole or moles has been something that has been floating around trump world since the search. did somebody flip? did multiple people flip? how did the fbi know exactly where to go? and i cannot tell you the number of sources who called me and pointed the finger at someone else, saying it had to be this person. that just goes to show you the paranoia that happens when you

work for trump or around him. underneath that i want to point out one thing, which is that we have reported that federal investigators talked to a number of aides down at mar-a-lago, including molly michael, his executive assistant, who was the point of contact for the national archives among others who went down there. so there is somewhat of an understanding that those aides names are probably going to be in the document. there's a lot of questions about whether or not there was somebody or multiple people who flipped, who gave a lot of information specifics, or if this was some sort of culmination of these interviews with aides that we know happened at mar-a-lago. and the other thing that i wanted to point out here and kyle mentioned this, how there's a lot of discussion about the classified documents being found among just regular documents. it could be in completely unfoldered, unidentified in the midst of personal correspondence as well as photos and letters. and i spoke to a number of

former trump staffers, both from the white house and from mar-a-lago who said they were not at all surprised to hear this, because of trump's poor record keeping. that he was known to walk around the white house or mar-a-lago, pick up boxes, go through -- rifle through, move stuff from one box to another without any sort of reasoning behind it. he also was known to pick up important records and documents and write on them, even though aides told him not to. and i had one source point out to me that he was always showing off some of these presidential records, including those love letters with kim jong-un. essentially another example here of how there was no real system in place. nobody actually watching what was going on here. so, again, they were not surprised to see that. laura. >> kyle cheney, kristen holmes, thank you so much. jessica, i'll see you after the break. it's just astonishing to think about. it's one thing to talk about alphabet city and alphabet soup, but to think about all of this

being mixed together as if each thing does not mean something in terms of classification is truly stunning. we're just getting started. as we examine the impact of this affidavit, we're going to go through the paperwork with fbi, with doj veterans and examine the legal exposure for donald trump who one ally says, quote, really needs a competent defense attorney. that person's name, captain obvious. right back. that lets you shop over 17,000 cars frfrom home. creatingng a coast-to-coast network to deliver your car asas soon as tomorrow. recruiting an army of customer advocates to make your experience incredible. and putting you in control of the whole thing, with powerful technology. that's why we've become the nation's fastest growing retailer, because our customers love it. see for yourself at carvana.com joe biden and democrats in congress just passed a law to lower the cost of medicine. the inflation reduction act caps the cost of insulin at $35 a month for seniors.

that's more savings fous. lysol is donating 28 million wipes to schools in need, so they can kill 99.9% of viruses and bacteria. keeping kids together here,

at places like the lunch table. where they can share who they truly are. chicken nugget man. because when kids are together, they thrive. lysol. here for healthy schools.

new astepro allergy. now available without a prescription. astepro is the first and only 24-hour steroid free spray. while other allergy sprays take hours astepro starts working in 30 minutes. so you can... astepro and go. ♪ it wasn't me by shaggy ♪ you're never responsible for unauthorized purchases on your discover card.

so one thing the redacted yet revealing affidavit does not do is point the finger directly at donald trump and allege specifically that he committed a crime. it doesn't accuse frankly anyone of actually committing a crime. that's not really how affidavits work in probable cause findings. we do know that the former president and his legal team huddled earlier this week at his new jersey golf club an it wasn't necessarily to hit the links. some of his allies are telling us they're concerned about

what's in the affidavit. one of those allies says that trump, quote, really needs a competent defense attorney, even more so now. which suggests he maybe doesn't have one at the moment. talk about the potential legal fallout of all of this, jessica schneider is back with us. not only is she a reporter but she is also a lawyer, which is why we like her so much. we also have deputy assistant attorney general elliott williams and peter strzok. we like you too, anyone who's not a reporter. fyi, don't feel badly about it. look, first of all, peter, think about this. you have obviously overseen a number of investigations. you know how this looks. you know how there's been a lot of backlash. but then is this kind of indication that they were able to find things, the affidavit says, hey, here is what we're looking for. they didn't have a redacted memo for the entire thing. is this some form of vindication for those who have doubted why this took place? >> i don't know that i'd call it

so much vindication as just confirmation that doj and the fbi are doing things exactly right. they're doing things in accordance with the law and by the book. when you see what's here in front of us unredacted, that's a really disturbing tale. but keep in mind half of this, 18 pages easily are completely blacked out. so the things that investigators are looking at, the real critical items that show people trying to obstruct, that show why they think there's still classified information there, we don't know what's there because that's all still redacted. >> you know, the significant number of civilian witnesses, it's a line that's sort of nestled on the first page and they don't make a big deal about it. they referenced a number of witnesses on page five. it debunks this idea that, number one, they hadn't adequately or effectively planned or prepped or prepared for this before executing, they just swept in and did a raid on mar-a-lago. what this suggests is that this wasn't one disgruntled maid at mar-a-lago that picked up the

phone and called the fbi, but that the justice department and the fbi had spent a significant amount of time building witnesses, working evidence before they even got in the door of mar-a-lago. >> which makes sense, right? think about this, jessica, because there's significant -- you don't have a probable cause finding, the judge will say, oh, former president, you've got one witness? great, bring the person in. >> and not only to peter's point did doj do things by the book here, but they gave significant deference to trump's legal team. they tried to work with the legal team. it goes through this timeline even more in depth in this affidavit. the fact that the national archives referred this to the justice department in february, then it was sort of sat on until mid-may when the fbi was finally able to go through those boxes and see just how highly classified the material was inside. throughout this process, they're going back and forth with trump's lawyers, giving them the opportunity to cooperate and give this back. >> and that act -- all of this back and forth actually supports the idea of an obstruction of

justice charge because of the fact that the president and his team were put on notice that they had these documents and were asked multiple times both by the national archives and records administration and the justice department to turn them over. >> but it also supports this idea that what took so long? how much deference do you give? i know he is a former president, but there's that phrase no one above the law. i don't know the average civilian that gets to have a back and forth, back and forth, when i think you have what i want. >> i think it definitely takes time. just at the archives they needed to get it back. once they did, they had to look at it to figure out there was stuff they thought potentially was classified that they needed to refer to the fbi. there was back and forth about whether that information could be shared, whether they needed a subpoena. to elliot's point, what sticks in my mind as part of all this process, that june meeting at mar-a-lago between the department of justice and trump's attorneys where they tell him, look, you do not have a place at mar-a-lago that is certified and legally can be used to store classified information.

they follow that up with a letter two days later and the attorneys write back saying letter received. on the one hand you see doj being cautious. but what they're also doing is papering the record to show you can't do this, it's against the law, and we're telling you not once, not twice, but multiple times. >> and the lawyers in response, they were responding, right? to say what they had or did not have. at one point even saying nothing else is here. lo and behold, the receipt that came from that search on mar-a-lago indicated that they actually had more there. i want to go into a little of the minutia, elliot. hidden in the affidavit there is the lower case "e" hidden in the code. this tells you there are lawyers at the table. that's the focus here. it's 18 usc 793 e and relates to the espionage act. the code doesn't use the term classified information. does it mean mishandling classified docs could be a crime?

>> we've gotten on this classification and declassification train that somehow if the president had declassified these documents, therefore, there would have been no crime committed and that's simply not accurate. now look, there's a number of other problems and regulations when you mishandle sensitive classified information, but merely having certain documents in your possession is itself possibly a criminal offense and that's what they're getting at here. >> it's not just the idea, jessica, that they are just -- i know oftentimes the government is accused of overclassifying everything. prosecutors classified a mcdonald's wrapper, right? they go through a lot of different categories here and that's very shocking, just the breadth. >> it is. and some of the people who i've spoken with who routinely have or in the past have dealt with this type of information, they have been appalled when this came out today just how highly classified this information was that was sort of haphazardly thrown around in boxes at mar-a-lago. you're talking about information that implicates human sources

that are operating around the world. if that information gets out, they could be targeted, they could be jailed, they could be killed. yes, this is extremely sensitive information in many different realms. >> you've handled this information, peter. this is -- can you imagine a post-it note here, a calendar here, and then classified and this highly sensitive material there? >> no, not at all. when you start talking about top secret information and sensitive compartmented information, hcs, human control system, which is dealing with human sources at a level where you might not only know what they're reporting on but in the hands of the wrong person say in china, in russia, in cuba, they could figure out who is providing that information. go out, round them up, shoot them, imprisonment for life would be the worst case. but this is handled at the most restrictive levels in the united states government. and this idea that it's just floating around mar-a-lago is crazy. >> so a number of us around the table have had security clearances before.

it can't be said enough what even the words top secret mean. they weren't even the most sensitive documents. top secret means that if it were to be disclosed it could cause, quote, exceptionally grave harm to u.s. national security. that is a big deal. you're not talking about someone's social security number or background information, these are actually important national security documents. >> and to your point, everyone, i hope people realize the human in the human sourcing information and that this could be foreign assets as well. so you could think about what our global standing is at a time when just two years ago we were talking about trying to redeem ourselves in the eyes of the global intelligence community. stick around, everyone, jessica, peter, elliot, thank you so much. we're going to move to the political impact for trump and an investigation that he claims is entirely political. does the affidavit disprove that notion? that was rhetorical. that's next.

♪ ♪ it's electric... made extraordinary. ingenuity... in motion. it listens, learns, adapts and anticipates your every need. with intelligence... that feels anything but artificial. the eqs from mercedes-benz. it's the car electric has been waiting for. a is for awareness, because knowing that your chronic kidney disease in type 2 diabetes could progress to dialysis is important. b is for belief that there may be more you can do. just remember that k is for kidneys and kerendia. for adults living with ckd in type 2 diabetes, kerendia is proven to reduce the risk of kidney failure, which can lead to dialysis. kerendia is a once-daily tablet that treats ckd differently than type 2 diabetes medications

to help slow the progression of kidney damage and reduce the risk of cardiovascular events, such as heart attacks. do not take kerendia if you have problems with your adrenal glands or take certain medications called cyp3a4 inhibitors. kerendia can cause hyperkalemia, which is high potassium levels in your blood. ask your doctor before taking products containing potassium. kerendia can also cause low blood pressure and low sodium levels. so now that you know your abcs, remember, k is for kidneys, and if you need help slowing kidney damage, ask your doctor about kerendia.

we talked about the legal fallout so far, so now to the political fallout from today's blacked-out bombshell. donald trump and his defenders are talking more about persecution than prosecution. they say the whole thing is political, which we've heard this trend before. even his spokesman tweeted, quote, the release of the heavily redacted overtly political affidavit only proves that the biden administration is desperate to cover up their

unprecedented, unnecessary, and unamerican raid against president donald j. trump, unquote. so is this how their argument will look as trump maybe ponders a 2024 run? let's talk about it now with former democratic senator doug jones, alice stewart who worked for gop senator ted cruz and manesh from the national review. this we've heard in many ways as yogi berra would say deja vu all over again. the idea that persecution, this is a political hit job, a witch hunt. a different iteration being used. it's a 38-page document. obviously the length doesn't dictate whether it's political or not. in going through it, it does not ring political. you've been a u.s. attorney. what is your thought? >> there's nothing in there that's political. not one sentence, not one word, not one period, comma, whatever. there's nothing in that document that is political. it is standard fare. it is setting forth some pretty

serious allegations. it gives the statutes, it gives the classifications, it really sets forth a document. there's nothing in that that would indicate political. and by the way, anybody that's ever done any federal criminal work or any state criminal work, that's ever been involved in a high-profile or even a low-level public official, the defense dejuor is that it's political, it's political, it's political, and some of them are. but if someone has committed a crime, it really needs to be prosecuted. >> we're not here with the prosecution you obviously know. but the talking point will be, fine, this is a self-fulfilling prophecy. you have 38 pages. you want to go after him, you're going to go after him. the reason you're targeting hem in the first place is that. is that what the talking point is? >> yes. look, me personally, i think donald trump should not have had these documents, he did not store them properly. when he was asked to return them he should have done so immediately and ignorance is not

a defense and there should be consequences. even karl rove who is a fan of trump has said he should not have these, it's in violation of the presidential records act. but there is the other facet of the republican party. many view him as the victim. they look at what the doj and the fbi has done has going after him as a prosecutorial witch hunt. they look at this 38-page document. about two-thirds of it is redacted. and while they do respect covering up for sources and methods, they say that a lot of this heavily redacted material is a way to avoid transparency and they say that the doj and fbi are doing bidding for the democratic party. many republicans who were ready to turn their back on trump and look to someone else in 2024 now view him as a victim or a martyr and they're ready to get on board and support him. >> what do you think ramesh. you mentioned ignorance, alalic if you're talking about a

narrative, you want to capitalize on what you don't know, what the electorate might not know. maybe he does declassify. president biden came out to talk about the idea of the notion that you can declassify in a blanket way. listen to this. >> that he declassified all these documents. could he have just declassified them all? >> i just want to know, i've declassified everything in the world, i'm president, i can do it all. come on. >> is it ever appropriate for a president to declassify documents? >> it depends on the document and depends how secure it is. >> ramesh, for him home is like upstairs, to be fair, not mar-a-lago. >> i don't disagree with what the president said. i'm not sure that it was wise for him to engage on this level to begin with. this is such a delicate question. even if the law does call for having done this search of a former president's home, i think

that it reasonably raises all sorts of questions and the president should keep as much of it as arm's length, the sitting president that is, as he can. on the other questions involved in this, you know, i think that it is going to become harder and harder to make any argument for trump on the possession of these documents. it just seems to me just a slam dunk case that that was government material. now, the question of whether he should be prosecuted for anything that is related to that, that's a different question. and that will affect the politics of this. what you're going to see a lot is a word that i haven't heard so far tonight on cnn, hillary clinton. >> that's two words, that's why. >> the arguments are going -- the arguments are going to be this is not an even-handed application of justice. sure, it was foolish for a trump spokesman to say it's overtly political. this affidavit is obviously not overtly political. but if some people, david

petraeus, hillary clinton, get pretty light slaps on the wrist for the mistreatment of classified material for the recklessness with national security, people who support trump or people who are just sympathetic to him or people who just think maybe he's not even a good guy, but -- >> you're nodding along. >> i don't disagree with that at all from a political side. that's the one thing with no disrespect to the media it's driving me crazy. everybody is making this about trump, trump, trump an it's really about documents, documents, documents and national security. and what we see from this document is that the fbi and the national archives spent a lot of time trying to get these documents back. clearly the fbi looked at the documents that were classified, saw that there was a problem. continued to work to try to get these documents back. but it's important point that hasn't been made. the fbi clearly looked at the documents that contained in those 15 boxes, saw that there was some serious issues that they had to work on and decided

to go after more. and we need to be talking about this in terms of -- there may not ever be a prosecution of this case. quite frankly, that would be fine if there was none. but getting these documents back was very serious and needed to be done. >> i read the affidavit and it's consistent with the prime thing is get these documents back. >> we're going to talk more about this. stick around. i'll get back to you as well. i want to talk about what the voters might think about this because that's part of what's happening in the court of public electoral opinion. a lot to think about in the next 74 days and even beyond donald trump's exact. coming up, how candidates are changing their message to try and meet the moment and that includes a republican senate hopeful scrubbing his website of strict views against abortion, next.

if you have to pre-rinse your dishes, you could be using the wrong detergent. and you're wasting up to 20 gallons of water every time. let's end this habit. skip the rinse... with finish quantum. its activelift technology has the power to tackle 24 hour dried on food stains- without pre-rinsing- for an unbeatable clean. together we can help save america 150 billion gallons of water in just one year. skip the rinse with finish to save our water. joe biden and democrats in congress just passed a law that lowers costs for healthcare,

medicine, and energy bills by making corporatns pay the taxes they owe me without raising taxesls on any of us making under $0,000 a year. so we need something super distinctive... dad's work, meet daughter's playtime. thankfully, meta portal auto pans and zooms to keep you in frame. and the meeting on track. meta portal. the smart video calling device that makes work from home work for you. it's beautiful out here. it sure is. and i earn 5% cash back on travel purchased through chase with chase freedom unlimited. that means that i earn 5% on our rental car, i earn 5% on our cabin. i mean, c'mon! hello cashback! hello, kevin hart! i'm scared. in a good way. i'm lying. let's get inside. earn big time with chase freedom unlimited with no annual fee. how do you cashback? chase. make more of what's yours.

we reduce homelessness, address mental health, provide spaces for addiction to be broken, create spaces of healing and restoration. for the first time ever, prop 27 will provide permanent funding for organizations like ours. saying yes to prop 27 means more people get the assistance that they nee they get someone to partner in such a way to see transformation come to them. yes on prop 27, because there's no place like home.

all right. the old pre-september shuffle. with 74 days left until the midterms, some candidates are trying to shift their message to appeal to a broader electorate outside the primary, like arizona republican senate candidate blake masters who is softening his position on abortion. the 36-year-old scrubbed his website of his supported of a federal personhood law and other strict anti-abortion positions. across the aisle, virginia congresswoman abigail span berger is leaning into abortion rights with a new ad. take a listen.

>> first, vega cheered the position. next he was caught on tape saying women can't get pregnant from rape. he is too extreme for virginia. >> back with me now doug jones and alice stewart joined by ashley allison. glad to have you all here. look, we're talking about in many respects the beg news of the affidavit and seeing all the information. the shadow of donald trump looms pretty big. but there is the midterm elections 70 something days away. i'm sure they want to talk about anything but trump. when you look at this, what is this messaging scrubbing really about? is this just prudent, disin disingenuous, what are your thoughts? >> first of all, trump is not on the ballot in november so that is a talking point that the democrats love to tout but he's not on the ballot. and democrats would love nothing more than to talk about anything but inflation, recession, high prices, rising crime and

inflationary factors across the board. they would certainly love that. but here's the thing. abortion when it has been on the ballot specifically in kansas and in new york 19, when that is the single issue and in the candidate in 19 made that the sole focus, it does galvanize people. they really got the women out, got voters out and abortion was a galvanizing issue. as we move to the next 74 days, republicans will look at the real issues that everyday americans across this country are concerned with and that is the pocketbook issues, the kitchen table issues, the economy and inflation. republicans are going to focus on that. focus on what we are currently seeing with inflation and a bad economy, but the more the democrats continue to spend like we just did with the inflation reduction act, as we've done with many climate change proposals, the more the democrats spend, it gives more fuel for republicans to go after. >> you say spend. you say spend but biden would say success. that's his "s" word. >> trump is not on the ballot,

but he definitely is looming in every election and endorsing candidates. his endorsement has actually helped a lot of election deniers move through primaries and will be on the ballot, which is dangerous in and of itself. but i would say that these candidates who are scrubbing their websites from what their stance on abortion, maya angelou says when somebody shows you who they are, believe it. we have to hold them to account. just because you took something off the internet doesn't mean it's not still real. you better believe that if masters gets in as a senator of arizona, he will push to try and make a federal ban on abortion. he said it before and he would do it again. and voters know that. i think they're running scared. republicans, they did a lot of work for the 50 years to ban roe and now they did an overreach. the court did an overreach and voters are going to come out. and it's not just women, it's not just young people, it's independent voters. and it is some republicans because this is an issue that we

know that over 60% of americans support a woman's right to choose. and if this is on -- it might not literally be on the ballot, but it is a part of the everyday life. >> and, one, i think trump is on the ballot. his name is not on, but you look at everything. he is on the ballot. there is no question about it in most states, at least in the critical races. and i invite the american public to talk about the economy and to talk about things because the thing that the american public want is somebody working for them, doing something. they may not agree on everything, but they want to see action taken. they want to see people out there trying to talk about it. there is not a single republican candidate for the united states senate that has a plan, that has talked about how to reduce gas prices, which are coming down dramatically, which talks about how to add growth in our economy, which talks about the historic jobs and how they're going to match that if they get elected. at least this administration and the democrats are giving the american people something that they can sink their teeth into. they want to see people doing

some things and action, and you couple that with the contrast of republicans who want to ban books, who have adopted cancel culture, who have decided that women should not be able to choose, that a bunch of folks in state capitals can do that for them, i think that contrast -- >> i totally disagree with everything you said. >> one little thing, with all due respect to the fine senator, look, democrats are going to have a really difficult time when this inflation reduction act, which is anything but reducing inflation, doesn't follow through with that. why is it that joe manchin and other democrats that have been asked by reporters and the people, when are we going to see inflation reduced, no one has an answer. when people realize that, they're going to see they were sold a bill of goods. >> tell that to the seniors that have a $2,000 cap. tell that to medicare recipients who will see prices come down because they can negotiate. tell that to the young folks for the first time ever we are investing in climate with good-paying jobs that can do that. it is not going to have an

inflation reduction in the immediate future, but people want to see reactions, they want to see people acting and that's what i would say. >> i would also say the american people also understand that it's republicans that are preventing more from actually happening. >> absolutely. >> so not only are they saying we don't want a woman's right to choose but we don't want to help you. we don't want to cap insulin. we don't want gas prices to go down. we want to give corporations tax breaks and not middle america. when you put that contrast together that everyday american in my hometown of youngstown, ohio, know they might not agree with everything, but it's democrats thr going to fight for them and try to improve the quality of their life. >> republicans also didn't want to pay off student loan debt -- >> oh, that's another one. >> don't get me started. >> people that worked hard to have no college debt, now have college debt. >> some. but their idea of incrementalism will probably fit into all these conversations. it's the idea of old politics. have you done enough?

is it too little, is it too much? we'll see in november. doug, alice and ashley, thank you so much. look, a much different debate ahead. now, you know the miranda warning, you've watched every "law & order" marathon every new year's day and sunday too? anything you say may be used against you in a court of law. what about before someone gets arrested and what if those words are actually in rap lyrics. the legal battle against two star rappers part of the conversation tonight, next. time. it's life's most precious commodity,

especially when you have metastatic breast cancer. when your time is threatened, it's hard to invest in your future. until now. kisqali is helping women live longer than ever before when taken with an aromatase inhibitor or fulvestrant... in hr+, her2- metastatic breast cancer. kisqali is a pill that's proven to delay disease progression. kisqali can cause lung problems, or an abnormal heartbeat, which can lead to death. it can cause serious skin reactions, liver problems, and low white blood cell counts that may result in severe infections. tell your doctor right away if you have new or worsening symptoms, including breathing problems, cough, chest pain... a change in your heartbeat, dizziness, yellowing of the skin or eyes, dark urine, tiredness, loss of appetite, abdomen pain, bleeding, bruising, fever, chills, or other symptoms of an infection, a severe or worsening rash, are or plan to become pregnant, or breastfeeding. avoid grapefruit during treatment. your future is ahead of you, so it's time to make the most of it with kisqali. because when you invest in yourself, everyone gets the best of you. joe biden and democrats in congress

just passed the inflation reduction act to lower our costs. the plan lowers the cost of healthcare and medicine and lowers our energy bills by investingn clean energy. . i'm lindsey vonn, and ever since i retired from skiing, i've had trouble falling asleep and staying asleep. you know, insomnia. before i found quviviq, an fda-approved insomnia medication for adults. you would not believe the things i used to think about when i couldn't sleep. hey, linds. i need you to sign this business contract. all 114 pages. lindsey, lindsey!! hey, lindsey! it's workout time. hey, big man, we're in the middle of something here. yeah, it's called physical fitness. just a couple dozen more questions, lindsey. don't forget to pack your phone charger for tomorrow morning's flight. it's plugged in right over there. insomnia can impact both my days and my nights. that's why i take quviviq nightly. quviviq can help you fall asleep faster and stay asleep longer, and more sleep at night may mean

feeling less tired during the day. quviviq works differently than medication you may have taken in the past. quviviq is thought to target one of the biological causes of insomnia. overactive wake signals. do not take quviviq if you have narcolepsy. don't drink alcohol while taking quviviq or drive or operate heavy machinery until you feel fully alert. quviviq may cause temporary inability to move or talk or hallucinations while falling asleep or waking up. quviviq may cause sleepiness during the day. quviviq may lead to doing activities while not fully awake that you don't remember the next day, like walking, driving and making or eating food. worsening depression including suicidal thoughts may occur. the most common side effects are headaches and sleepiness. it's quviviq. ask your doctor if it's right for you.

so here's question you're probably not hearing. >> no, sir. could rapping about a crime ultimately get you convicted of that crime? fulton county, georgia, d.a. is thinking about it. her team is handling the criminal cases against atlanta rappers young thug and gun nah, both arrested in may on suspicion of gang activity, and she might just use lyric's from thug's ysl collective record label to help prosecute her case. now, this is a controversial practice that's been going on and used for decades, but is it fair? let's have the conversation now.

joining me is civil rights attorney and temple university professor timothy wellbeck. glad to have the conversation with you. >> thank you for having me and taking the time to have this conversation. >> you may have read the indictments, of course, out there, but i know you have, and the idea of thinking about that old phrase of anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law. they normally mean in the course of an interaction with a police officer after a crime is alleged to have occurred. but here, is this practice -- should the be fair? should the be used? does it violate a constitutional or civil rights notion? >> on its face, i generally discourage the practice. it leads to a first amendment violation potentially and also it has a potential chilling effect on artistic expression. you had a reference to the miranda rights and it deals with

direct interaction with law enforcement. but artistic expression that one has used as a means to convey their lived experience or just delving into the depths of their imagination is not something you should suffer criminal liability for. >> yet if you think about it, one could possibly say, look, i didn't confess to a crime. i wasn't rapping my confession, it was my artistry at play here. and it could be used as the rhetoric to be used to suggest you're just couching that in the language to avoid criminality and prosecution. but is it a practice in terms of what's being used -- these are public statements. why do you think finding d.a.s across the country -- why shouldn't they be able to to do so on the ocean of, hey, everyone is going to claim it's artistic expression when it very well may be a confession? >> so that's a good question. on its face, again, if an artist

is delving into various forms of creative expression, that should not impose some form of criminal line. we don't do this with any form of art. we don't parade stephen king into court and ask him about his films adapted from his novels. similarly speaking, we shouldn't do this with hip hop artists as well. it's one thing if their lyrics signal knowledge of a crime that only the person of committed it would have nope. that is a different set of circumstances, but just blanket statements people are making in the course and scope of their lyrics isn't something prosecutors should be using in court. >> we can't overlook the fact that we are talking about particular genre of music that has a history of being stigmatized as being violent and is something that's oftentimes used to fuel existing stereotypes and create new ones, even justifiably, of course. do you think the stigma surrounding or the way in which people have traditionally come to understand over the course of

these modern music history rap music that if the genre itself that at times is on trial? >> absolutely. and the genre has been on trial almost since its inception. at the point it entered the mainstream, people found ways to st stigmatize it and the paints narratives about young black men and women who are said to have a greater propensity towards committing crimes and violent acts. so hip hop as a culture and rap as one of the forms of music and art that it has inspired is on trial, so to speak, when we have various conversations like this, particularly when you look at the long protracted history of campaigns of people trying to not only sensor rap and stigmatize it, but look at further ways they can say this is a detrimental form of communication for the public. >> in fact, you know, interestingly enough, as part of

your work as a professor, you believe that infusing even lectures at times with different artistic expressions like rap et cetera can be a way for people to better understand a topic at issue. to me, it's a little bit striking about this notion, and that is, are we seeing this with other forms of music? are we seeing this used with -- you mentioned stephen king, but in other jurisdictions, it's legislation around protecting artists. are we going to see a bit of a blueprint created across this country? >> i certainly would hope so. i applaud the legislation in california and in new york that seek to limit the means in which we use rap lyrics to criminalize their subjects. particularly, it's requiring prosecutors to meet the constitutional burden. if these prosecutors are successful, they will deprive people of their life, liberty, and property . that requires due process according to the constitution. if you're just using rap lyrics

t evidence is insufficient. >> the brurd hurden has to be t. we call that unlawful propensity evidence. thank you professor, a fascinating conversation. >> thank you for having me. still ahead, an fbi affidavit that's both redacted and revealing.

age-related macular degeneration may lead to severe vision loss. and if you're taking a multivitamin alone, you may be missing a critical piece. preservision. preservision areds 2 contains the only clinically proven nutrient formula 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"

with xfinity internet, you get advanced security that helps protect you at home and on the go. you feel so safe, it's as if... i don't know... evander holyfield has your back. i wouldn't click on that. hey, thanks! we got a muffin for ed! all right! you don't need those calories. can we at least split it? nope. advanced security that helps protect your devices in and out of the home. i mean, can i have a bite? only from xfinity. nah. unbeatable internet. made to do anything so you can do anything.